Abstract
Social movements studies of sociology have not adequately responded the points for the studies that Rokurou Hidaka had suggested forty years ago. These are two main points to consider. One is a border between a theoretical problem and a practical one. The other is non-historical approach of the studies. But there have not been achievements about the points Then this paper refers to an argument between Kamon Nitagai and Takashi Nakano. This argument is named of “an argument about the relationship between researcher and the object”. Although the argument is often mentioned in connection with research ethics these days, this study positions it within the context of social movements studies. While pursuing the above argument, Nitagai focused on “Soukatsu” of activists, which are reflective and objectivisation of experiences in activities. He thought that one important condition of establishing subjectivity as a researcher is to participate in collective action with activists by presenting his research monograph of the movement. We concider this part of Nitagai’s work as a response to Hidaka’s former point. Conversely, Nakano developed life history method after出t argument. Thus we can think of Nakano’s work as a response to Hidaka’s latter point. Nakano exceeds the original scope of the point when he values personal history over that of a group or organization. Nevertheless, a investigation of the works resulted in the problem, which obscures who a subject of research and activity is. In other words, the explicit separation of the relation between theory (researcher) and practice (activists) is stereotyped. This is also true for the relation between activists (central) and ordinary people (marginal). Furthermore current social movements studies increase the distance from reality in movements. This paper examines the studies within their proper historical context and critically reevaluates the argument and subsequent works.
