文献一覧: 00215414 (ISSN) - Ceek.jp Altmetrics

1 0 0 0 OA G. H. ミードの社会改革論

著者: 山下祐介
出版者: The Japan Sociological Society
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.45, no.2, pp.221-235, 1994-09-30 (Released:2009-10-13)
参考文献数: 33

本論文の主題は, 世紀の変わり目を生きたアメリカの哲学者G.H.ミードの遺した社会改革論を再構成することにある。ミードは, 人間社会を, 制度による社会的コントロールによって成り立っている社会とし, このコントロールが可能であるのは, 人間社会では諸個人が十分に社会化されているからだとする。それ故, 「制度を進化させていくこと」という意味での社会改革の成功は, 人々がそれに必要なくらい十分に社会化されるか否かにかかっているということになる。彼の社会改革論は, このような社会化を可能にするような社会理論の構築への要求, そしてその理論が現実となるまでの間に果たす制度の抑止的役割に向けられている。

2014-01-28 23:57:22
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 態度変容・思想改造における集団技法について

著者: 西山美瑳子
出版者: The Japan Sociological Society
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.18, no.4, pp.33-49,119, 1968-03-01 (Released:2009-11-11)

Many group techniques are used in attitude change, conversion, and thought reform. In attitude change, group discussion, organizational change, sensibility training group, role playing, psychodrama, sociodrama, and group psychotherapy used. As for conversion, we will take up as example the case of Sokagakkai, a sect of Buddism in Japan. The ardent believers combine in small groups on the first front line in the conversing campaign of the religious organization. In thought reform or “Culture Revolution” of the Red China, various forms of group techniques are found : such as learning movement, thought reform, rectification movement, etc. We can point out that these methods have affinities and differentials with each other. As for affinities on each side, small group method is used to bring up an attitude and behavior change. The mechanism of attitude change in group, which works on these fields, tends to enlarge ego-involvement of group members. Consequently, group members become to comformity to the norm, of the membership group, or the change of the norm of membership group accompany with the attitude and behavior change of group members. As for differentials, we will try to compare between the group techniques of the behavior sciences and those used in the Red China. The differentials may be summarised as follows : (1) The former aims at a partial change of an attitude or behavior, or one's modus operandi so to speak, whereas the latter is marked with the reform of ideology, or modus vivendi of one's whole existence. (2) Although both of them have orientation to the support of their social system, the former's direct interest is almost purely limited to the practice of democracy on group dimension, while the latter's ideal is the realization of democracy in the group for the revolution of the nation wide social dimension. (3) Accordingly, the former aims at “the making spontaneity and creativity” in the culture as a common donominator. In the latter, the cause of mistakes, (wrong deeds), done in the past should be abolished and people should be awakend by class consciousness, the people's real “independence making up.”(4) In the latter, the people takes a part of the propelling power and the source of energy of the revolution comes from the people of pre-lower socio-economic status, e.g., the poorer and lower middle class peasants, and proletarian workers. They expect the security of mind and the rise of their social status by the reform of the social consciousness and group organization. But in the former, the security of mind is only hoped for, and not immediately aimed at. (5) From the standpoint of the typology of groups, the groups in the former are generally temporary or functional ones. In the latter, the groups are the basic and primary units of the whole society, and are characterized by the production and daily life.

2014-01-28 10:53:54
1 + 2 Twitter

1 0 0 0 「ポスト構築主義」としての「プレ構築主義」:WeberとPopperの歴史方法論を中心に(<特集>差異/差別/起源/装置)

著者: 北田暁大
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.55, no.3, pp.281-297, 2004-12-31

「過去 (歴史) は記述者が内在する〈現在〉の観点から構築されている」という歴史的構築主義のテーゼは, 公文書の検討を通じて歴史命題の真偽を探究し続けてきた実証史学に, 少なからぬインパクトを与えた.「オーラル・ヒストリーをどう位置づけるか」「過去の記憶をめぐる言説はことごとく政治的なものなのではないか」「記述者の位置取り (positioning) が記述内容に及ぼす影響はどのようなものか」といった, 近年のカルチュラル・スタディーズやポストコロニアリズム, フェミニズム等で焦点化されている問題系は, 構築主義的な歴史観と密接なかかわりを持っている.もはや構築主義的パースペクティヴなくして歴史を描き出すことは不可能といえるだろう.<BR>しかしだからといって, 私たちは「理論的に素朴な実証史学が, より洗練された言語哲学・認識論を持つ構築主義的歴史学にとってかわられた」と考えてはならない.社会学/社会哲学の領域において, 構築主義が登場するはるか以前に, きわめて高度な歴史方法論が提示されていたことを想起すべきである.以下では, WeberとPopperという2人の知の巨人の議論 (プレ構築主義) に照準しつつ, 「因果性」「合理性」といった構築主義的な歴史論のなかであまり取り上げられることのない-しかしきわめて重要な-概念のアクチュアリティを再確認し, 「構築主義以降」の歴史社会学の課題を指し示していくこととしたい.

2014-01-27 11:06:47
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 立石裕二著『環境問題の科学社会学』

著者: 寺田良一
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.63, no.2, pp.319-320, 2012-09-30 (Released:2013-11-22)

2014-01-21 18:37:19
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA ホーマンズ社会学の構造

著者: 橋本茂
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.19, no.1, pp.69-82,118, 1968-07-01 (Released:2009-10-20)
参考文献数: 13

We must know “what is a theory” and “what is a strategy of reaching a theory” before we construct a sociological theory. But there are few sociologists who have met this condition. G.C. Homans is one of those who have constructed sociological theories after making these questions clear. The purpose of this paper is to examine Homans' sociological theory from the following aspects, (I) what is a theory? (II) what is the difference between his theory and the functional theory ? (III) what are the general propositions of his theory? (IV) where is his position in history of sociology? (I) A theory, according to Homans, must meet the following conditions. It consists, (i), of a set of concepts or conceptual scheme, and (ii), of a set of propositions and the propositions form a deductive system. (iii), some of the propositions of a scientific theory must be contingent, in the sense that experience is relevent to their truth or falsity or to that of propositions derived from them. (II) The functional theory consists of the general propositions about the conditions of social equilibrium. Has it met the requirements of theory? No. Because the general propositions are noncontingent and no definite conclusions can be drawn from them. A alternative theory is Homans' theory. It consists of the general propositions about the behavior of men. (III) The general propositions of his theory or exchange theory, which envisages social behavior as an exchange of rewarding or costly activity between men, are five. They are “stimulus generalization proposition”, “success proposition”, “value proposition”, “diminishing value proposition” and “justice proposition”. Homans explains social phenomena, showing how they follow as conclusions from these propositions in deductive systems. (IV) This Homans' approach is not Durkhaim's but Simmel's approach.

2014-01-15 18:55:58
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 社会学的機能主義と科学的説明

著者: 中野正大
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.21, no.3, pp.93-101, 1970-12-30 (Released:2010-02-19)
参考文献数: 7

In this paper, we shall begin with distinguishing the three major types within a great variety of functionalism and, then, reconsider the problems of “sociological functionalism”, which is one of the three types of functionalism, from the viewpoint of “scientific explanation”. Sociological functionalism explains the existence or occurrence of a item that is the object of “functional analysis”, by showing how it contributes toward survival or integration of a society (social system) as a whole by fulfilling functional prerequisites of it. Its characteristics are, therfore, to use the theory of functional prerequisites and the model of social system and, in a analytical point of view, “holistic” and “system centered” as many people have often pointed out. My concern is to clarify whether the explanation that is provided by this sociological functionalism can be scientific one. As Hempel points out, the scientific explanation, which is synonymous with “theory”, must satisfy both the requirement of explanatory relevance and that of testability. However, when we examine sociological functional explanation with such criteria, we can see the fact that it fails to meet the minimum requirement for scientific explanation. For its major problems consist in the key concepts in it : functional prerequisites, survival, integration (or stability, equilibrium, harmony, and structural continuity), adaptation or adjustment, and functional equivalents. But yet, it seems these problems are due to the model of social system (or society) because the model functionalists have in mind is usually biological organic analogy. Accordingly, if we try to improve sociological functional explanation toward scientific one, to it is essential to make the concept of social system, we use, clear. That is, to describe the components of it in detail and specify the internal and external (environment) condition in a system. And next, to clear the key concepts above in sociological functionalism, we must set up the “permissible state” of the system which is possible to survive or integrate (stabilize or equilibrate) as Hempel and Nagel suggest. It would be indicated by specifing the “range” of possible state of it. However when we think of these difficult problems above in formulating sociological functionalism, we had better abondon it at this stage. It might be rather advisable to attempt at constructing a small hypothesis (theory) by dealing with the fields of lower (micro) level in a society, for example a subsystem, and, then, go toward the study of higher level in it.

2014-01-15 13:30:07
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA Dysfunction をめぐる問題

著者: 菅野正
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.5, no.1, pp.98-102, 1954-10-20 (Released:2009-11-11)

2014-01-15 13:05:51
1 + 1 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 新明正道著社会学的機能主義

著者: 森好夫
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.19, no.2, pp.98-104, 1968 (Released:2009-10-20)

2014-01-15 12:54:27
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 構造機能分析の論理構造

著者: 原山保
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.22, no.4, pp.18-36,109, 1972-03-30 (Released:2009-11-11)
参考文献数: 12

2014-01-15 12:45:42
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 機能分析の理論と方法

著者: 小室直樹
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.20, no.1, pp.6-22,134, 1969-07-30 (Released:2009-11-11)
参考文献数: 2

The purposes of this papar are to clarify the theoretical structure and methodological meaning of the functional analysis and lay a foundation for a systematic reconstruction of key terms of this analysis.In this paper, the functional analysis is understood as a kind of system analysis (interaction analysis) which uses a teleological way of reasoning for the explanation of the working mechanism of interaction processes. Then our problems are two. (1) To construct a coherent theory of the system analysis (2) To find a scientific meaning in the teleological way of explanation which has been notorious for its theological characteristics.(1) The key concept of the interaction analysis is that of the “equilibrium”. This concept is first imported from physics into social sciences and mostly explored in economic theory. The equilibrium concept in sociology should be somewhat wider than that in economics. Our first task is, therefore, to discuss how in what sense it is wider than its counterpart in economics. We also discuss about the sociological meaning of the existence theorem and stability condition of the system analysis in sociology.(2) We replace the notorious concept of “teleology” by a cybernetical way of explanation. The functional analysis is a kind of cybernetics which set a assumption that the social structure is forced to change if functional requisites are not significantly satisfied.This interpretation of the functional analysis also pave a way to the theory of social change. Functional requisites are not supposed to be axiomatically satisfied and the dissatisfaction of some functional requisites will necessarily leads to a dissolution of the social structure. This is the essential way of thinking of social change in terms of the functional analysis. We also show a way to a functional theory of conflict using the cybernetical way of reasoning.

2014-01-15 12:41:32
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA デュルケームの儀礼論における集合力と象徴

著者: 飯田剛史
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.35, no.2, pp.178-192, 1984-09-30 (Released:2009-10-19)
参考文献数: 62

デュルケームの儀礼論を、サイバネティクスの観点より、「集合力-象徴モデル」を構成することによって、分析する。サイバネティクスとは、パーソンズによると「高情報・低エネルギーのシステムが、高エネルギー・低情報のシステムに有効な制御を行いうる諸条件に関わるもの」とされる。ここで、前項に宗教的信念体系を、後項に「集合力」を当てることによってモデル化を行う。集合力とは、人々のエネルギーが、社会的事実として客体化されたものである。またここで、象徴作用は、記号の媒介によって、集合力を喚起するはたらきと定義される (記号は、なんらかの物質的形式によって、イメージあるいは観念を、指示するはたらきと定義される) 。集合力は、象徴的制御のもとに、種々の社会機能に変換される。伝統社会の諸儀礼において、集合力は、宗教的象徴作用を介して、社会統合機能、集合表象維持機能に転換される。しかし、集合力は本来、無名のカオスの力であり、新たな象徴に方向づけられて、社会の変革・再統合の力にも転化しうるのである。

2014-01-15 12:37:58
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 組織分析の視角

著者: 本橋康子
出版者: 日本社会学会
雑誌: 社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.17, no.3, pp.55-72, 1967-01-30 (Released:2010-12-10)
参考文献数: 79

It is a comparatively new phenomenon that the problem of organization, which had been treated as a part of group theory in sociology, began to be presented as organization theory. And we can say that in this fact the problem which organization theory itself has is presented. The aim of this treatise is to get some outlook about the basic view of organization theory by finding a clue in the theory of A. W. Gouldner who tried a methodological approach by laying the problems of organization on the basis of sociology. When Gouldner made distinction between the two prescriptions Max Weber had given to bureaucracy —bureaucracy as a technical system and that as a ruling system based on the legal office— as two patterns of bureaucracy, and presented the two famous concepts, “representative bureaucracy” and “punishment-centered bureaucracy”, he intended to exclude a pessimistic view of organization such as the contradiction between bureaucratization and democracy, and to pursue the accomplishment of rationality in organization. But the empirical studies in industrial organizations showed that “representative bureaucracy” is merely one functional mode and that it is “punishment-centered bureaucracy” that appears in social structure in general. As the result of it, the concept of organizational analysis was displaced by more general concepts such as “rational model” and “natural-system model”, and the tension between organizations and a structural change are explained by the tensional relation between these two factors which are immanent in the organization itself. “Rational model” belongs to the theoretical tradition of Saint-Simon=Max Weber and grasps organization as a rational technical system, while “natural-system model”. which originated from Comte and in which Parsons is a theoretical representative today, puts emphasis on the abiogenetic order in social system and develops a norm-centered theory of organization. Gouldner's criticism was made mainly on the static balance theory of “natural-system model”, and he seeks the motive power of revolution in the accomplishment of rationality in organization. However, the concept of “functional autonomy”, which he presented in an explanatory model of an organizational change, or as what synthesizes the both models, is consequently set up at the point nearer to “natural-system model”. That is, the independency of parts, which is guaranteed by this concept, makes a high adaptation to the threat from outside a system possible, by this it guarantees the stability of a system, and accordingly it is merely within this stable sphere. This appears with a more concrete form in the proposal of “applied sociology” to make a rational plan and control of society effectively. Though it is a natural conclusion of the organization theory which gave up the concept of class, in connection with the occurence of the discussion on the character and the problematic sphere of marxist sociology it should be examined in an objective sense that an approach toward a vital analysis has begun to be made from functionalism theory, which restricted its theme within a static analysis, in a form of organization theory.