運動の政治学

抄録

Movements in the field of politics have been studied, so far, as political or social movements. The analytical framework for studying movements, then, is fixed by their relationship to political, social or cultural changes. Therefore, almost by definition, movements are contrasted to “order, ” “institution, ” “rational behavior” or “normal daily lives.”
In the first two chapters, the present situation in political science concerning political and social movements is briefly reviewed. Theories of Marx and Smelser are analyzed and the effort of Shiobara, a leading Japanese sociologist in this field, to synthesize both of these theories is also examined. According to the author's conclusion, these theories which retain the traditional analytical framework for studying movements are inadequate for studying the emerging type of movements in participatory politics, and are insensitive to the organizational effects of an administrative society which degenerates movements into pre-emptive governing machines.
By contrast, the traditional Japanese framework of treating movements —“undo”—, is not necessarily united to mass movements. The word refers to any political action to move others without coercion or bargaining. It denotes the quality of action, and organized action which involves authoritative or oppressive relationships is not usually referred to as “undo.” Since the word is conterminous with sports or exercises, conceiving of political movements as “undo” often implies the idea of influencing others by exerting one's own body. The notion originally derived from Chinese, but the author finds that usage has developed in accordance with the historical and social traits of Japanese society where mass movements have nor succeeded in revolutionizing society and where people's main concern has been to influence authorities through “undo.” If properly developed, the author believes that this Japanese notion of movements might be helpful for studying newly emerging citizen activities in the direction of generating participatory politics.
In the following chapters, the author attempts to clarify the nature of the power to move others which movements (undo) actually have. Their power is not rooted in any influence base or tied to particular social values as Lasswell argues, but relies instead upon the human capacity to reach or move others in their hearts. Of primary importance is the ability to reduce others, influentials and officials, to naked human beings, to bring them out of their institutional and organizational contexts. Thus, they are removed from the arena of power and bargaining. Then follows the ability to penetrate into the minds and hearts of others.
This process is aided by refining insights and expressions. Bodily exertion, such as demonstrations or sit-ins, and other direct actions are viewed as means of expression in undo. Repetitive and group actions are used to intensify the overall influence.
The spiritual and emotional capacity which participants in movements demonstrate are of special interest to the author. He tries to define this capacity in terms of the notion of “subjecthood” in political science. Though sometimes led by irrational emotions, participants display independence coupled with a real ability to influence others without any obvious external means of coercion. In discussing this capacity and its role in politics, the author contrasts the approach of undo participants with traditional persuasion and discussion techniques in Western democracies, which are often given sole legitimacy as a means to influence others. The author stresses the importance of legitimatizing the power of undo in constructing communal politics in a contemporary democracy.