著者
田中 耕一
出版者
関西学院大学
雑誌
関西学院大学社会学部紀要 (ISSN:04529456)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.96, pp.121-136, 304, 2004-03-25

As has been argued before, social constructionistic studies are based on the erroneous assumption of representationalism (cognitivism). In this paper, I am concerned with the difference between conversation analysis (CA) and discourse analysis (DA). DA is closely related to social constructionism. I shall show the pitfall of cognitivism into which DA studies fall in spite of their efforts to keep away from it. In the first chapter, I shall examine the controversy between CA (E. Schegloff) and DA (M. Wetherell and M. Billig). Schegloff insists that conversation ("talk-in-interaction") should be endogenously analyzed "in terms of the relevance and the orientation" which the participants display in their interactional details. In chapter two, I shall show how Wetherell and Billig deny the possibility of Schegloff's analysis. They emphasize the importance of the elements which are neither oriented to by the participants nor relevant to them. They maintain that the elements which are not endogenous in their interaction ought to play a greater role in the analysis. In chapter three, in order to make clear what is meant by "in terms of the relevance and the orientation of the participants", we need attend to the studies of interaction in institutional settings: "conversation analysis in institutional settings". These studies show that the institutional contexts of interaction are not described and formulated as a topic of that interaction, but displayed in the forms of the speech-exchange system and other sequential organization; these forms are variously transformed from those of ordinary conversation. In the final chapter, I shall note that DA studies reject the existence of psychological cognition as an inner process, whereas they assume that every fact is socially constructed through the descriptions in discourse. They seem to try to substitute the social and discursive description for the psychological cognition. However, since both discursive description and psychological cognition assume only a representative (=cognitive) mode of human relation to the world of external and internal objects, the main issue then is not whether it is social description or psychological cognition, but whether it is cognition and description or display. Therefore, on the erroneous assumption of cognitivism, DA studies are forced to lose sight of the possibility of the analysis of contexts displaying and of the endogenous analysis of interaction and discourse.
著者
山路 勝彦
出版者
関西学院大学
雑誌
関西学院大学社会学部紀要 (ISSN:04529456)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.97, pp.25-40, 192, 2004-10-28

This paper is concerned with the Colonial Exposition in the early 20^<th> century in Tokyo and Osaka. The content is as follows: 1. The Colonial Exposition in 1912/13 The Takusyoku Hakurankai, held in Tokyo in 1912, was the first Colonial Exposition in Japan, the purpose of which was to display special products from colonies such as Hokkaido, Sakhalin, Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria. This exposition was aimed to provide an opportunity to demonstrate that the Japanese government had succeeded in ruling these colonies. 2. Anthropologists and the Display of Aborigines It is quite interesting that many physical anthropologists at Tokyo University, like Tsuboi Shogoro, worked together with the government staff, displaying aborigines from the colonies as if they were just exhibits. These anthropologists were delighted that they had an opportunity to measure the parts of the bodies of aborigines. The Tokyo Anthropological Association issued commemorative postcards entitled "Aborigines in Japanese colonies". 3. Aborigines in Expositions in the Syowa era Aborigines of the Colonial Exposition were just like a display in a museum, showing their costumes or their features for the Japanese people. However, the situation changed slightly in the Syowa era. In those days, aborigines joined in events of various expositions, performing their traditional music and dances on the stage planned by entertainers in a funny style. Aboriginal dancers were no longer silent objects of exhibition.
著者
難波 功士
出版者
関西学院大学
雑誌
関西学院大学社会学部紀要 (ISSN:04529456)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.95, pp.217-225, 2003-10-28

In British society, class culture still has not lost its significance, whereas matters of gender, ethnicity and generation are becoming relatively more important. In particular, working class culture has maintained its vitality and many people are proud of their sense of belonging to the culture, though heavy or mining industries have declined. In this note, I survey recent studies concerning working class culture and derive three points as follows. Firstly, now class is not only an issue of production but also one of consumption or taste. As a result, many people construct themselves at will as members of the working class, though in some cases they are white collars workers or students. Although some manual workers earn more money than office workers or teachers, they recognize themselves as working class. Secondly, the representations of working class cultures in films or TV dramas revitalize and reconstruct them. Lastly, now the barrier of gender becomes lower, even in working class culture, so lasses or 'laddette' culture has emerged as the counterpart of lads culture, which means masculine working-class men's culture. In conclusion, whereas the aspect of 'class in itself is decreasing now, the aspect of 'class for itself is increasing. So, in British society class cultures will be alive for a while.
著者
難波 功士
出版者
関西学院大学
雑誌
関西学院大学社会学部紀要 (ISSN:04529456)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.96, pp.163-178, 307, 2004-03-25

"Taiyo-zoku (The Sun Tribe)' was the first major youth subculture in postwar era Japan. It was named after a novel "Taiyo-no-kisetsu (The Season of the Sun)" written by Ishihara Shintaro in 1955 and made into a movie in 1956. The novel and movie depicted the lifestyle of bourgeois or middle class young people. In the same year, many Taiyo-zoku movies were released and Shintaro's younger brother, Ishihara Yujiro, became one of the most popular movie stars. Many young people were influenced by Yujiro's style. Later, in 1964, many male high teens gathered, chatted and tried to pick up girls around the Ginza Miyuki street corner in Tokyo. They were called the 'Miyuki-zoku'. Their clothes were a collage of Ivy Leaguers' fashion or European suit styles. Their fashion and behavior were boosted by "Heibon Punch", which was started as a young men's magazine, in particular for "The Dankai Generation" a. k. a. the Japanese baby boomers. None of these zokus were long-lived. But they were not peripheral phenomena, because they reflected some important points of Japanese society in those days. Firstly, they symbolized the transition of a major factor of youth subculture, from class to generation. Secondly, they suggested the change of a major role of youth subculture, from Tokyo-born young to Tokyo-goers. Finally, they reveal the change in fashion trend-setting, from trickle-down to bubble-up. The former means that fashion trends are spread from the upper class to lower class. The latter means that trends are born in the street and then the fashion industry picks them up. In spite of these changes, those two zoku were malecentered. Even among young people, a new view of gender did not appear until the late'60s.

4 0 0 0 OA 「若者論」論

著者
難波 功士
出版者
関西学院大学
雑誌
関西学院大学社会学部紀要 (ISSN:04529456)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.97, pp.141-148, 200, 2004-10-28

Before the 1960s, in Japanese society young people were usually called 'Seinen'. But, from the 1970s they have been usually called 'Wakamono'. In this paper, I intended to describe the changes of names for the young and think about why such changes happened. My findings include three points. 1) In the 1960s, Youth Culture (Wakamono-Bunka) spread all over the world and in Japan adolescent culture (Seinen-Bunka) was taken over by Wakamono-Bunka which was more anti-authoritarian and hedonistic. 2) In the 1970s, Youth Culture was diluted and diffused. It became more docile and consumption-oriented. As it were, Youth Culture as a unique noun was transformed into youth culture as a common noun. In Japan the youth who liked such youth culture were called 'Yangu' and their personalities were considered more realistic and privatismic. 3) In the 1980s, in Japan the youth had begun to be called 'Shin-Jinrui', which means 'new type of human being'. They were familiar with various media and didn't have the consciousness of belonging to the same age group or generation. They were fragmented into many cliques depending on their interest and taste. Through these processes, Seinen (-Bunka) became a dead word, and simultaneously Youth Culture (Wakamono-Bunka) lost its original ideas linked to a certain generation and period.