著者
阪本 俊生
出版者
一般社団法人 日本自殺予防学会
雑誌
自殺予防と危機介入 (ISSN:18836046)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.40, no.1, pp.84-96, 2020-03-31 (Released:2022-06-30)
参考文献数
10

デュルケムの『自殺論』は自殺研究の古典の1つとしてよく知られているが、その社会学的視角そのものが、今日の自殺研究に活用されているとは言いがたい。また個人化が進む現代では、この視角から自殺を考えることは困難なようにも見える。本論はこの課題に対して、C・ボードロとR・エスタブレの自殺社会学の研究を足がかりにしつつ、さらにE・ゴフマンの社会学の出会いとフェイス(体面)の視点を導入することで、デュルケム社会学を、現代の自殺研究に活用する新たな視角を紹介する。すなわち、連帯や人とのつながりを重視する社会関係資本論、あるいは社会的排除論や居場所論などとは異なる視角からの自殺研究の可能性を明らかにする。
著者
阪本 俊生
出版者
社会学研究会
雑誌
ソシオロジ (ISSN:05841380)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.33, no.2, pp.77-96,187, 1988-09-30 (Released:2017-02-15)

E.Goffman's argument undoubtedly owes a lot to G.Bateson. Above all, one of Goffman's main concepts 'frame' is obviously inherited from Bateson and used in accordance with his originally intended meaning. Therefore, it will be meaningful to consider Bateson in order to gain a clearer idea of Goffman's viewpoint. Bateson's introduction of the theory of "logical-types" in relation to the study of social communication, which can be considered to be the main point of his 'double-bind theory', is, of course, immediately concerned with 'frame'. And the dynamic property of Goffman's arguement in "Frame Analysis" can be considered in part a product of this Bateson's idea. This paper attempts to make a comparison between the sociology of E.Goffman and that of M.Buber from Bateson's unique point of view. In various aspects, Buber sociology is thought to be the opposite of Goffman's. It is the above mentioned insight of Bateson that can be used here to describe the contrast between these two antipodal scholars. Each of the directions they took is asserted to be correspondent to two principal 'ethoses' of Western society, that is to say, love and skepticism. By examining Buber's ethos of love and Goffman's ethos of skepticism, the significance of the angle that Goffman takes can be reconsidered.