I can not support, in any scientific section, the tendency which is abandoning a theory started from questionaire and ends in a calculator-only runs to data. For to run to data, as to run to the theory, is nothing but the negation of the science itself. What results from sheer collection, measurement and classification of the crude data, however technically exact it may be, is no more than a mere gathering of the descriptive data and from which we can not acquire any scientific cognition. When they are waved into the inclusive meaning-connection as having a apt sense, these data gets a scientific meaning and they can acquire the faculty enriching and correcting the scientific cognition itself.
Therefore, it becomes, with positive process, a important factor which determines the correctness and the richness of the function that the science fulfils, whether this inclusive meaning-connection as setting the data in a frame, this systematization of the subjects is properly constructed or not.
Indeed, in regard to the problems whether the character of the question and the character of the problems in the science is correctly constructed or not, the already established scientific field is relatively stable and there is only little room to make a new problem in it. But in the social psychological field we can not but face the quite different circumstances from above. For here the subject-character itself is very unstable and is not yet got out of the chaos. Therefore the present circumstances of the social psychology is as following: the social psychologists, who faces the fact of culture, must start at first from defining the question itself, which we threw to the culture, before using the questionair and the calculator usually. For that purpofse, I will define what is a general character of the field-structure of the social psychology, and thereafter research the meaning of the culture as a special subject.
I want to characterize the field of the social psychology in the relations between its inside and its outside. As to the inner character of this field in the first place, its characteristic is determined by the boundary position which lies in the balance of the mutually pulling and pushing forces between psychological field proper and the fields of the social and cultural sciences. The psychology, the science of the bio-psychical function and the social and cultural sciences, namely the science of the objective meaning-system of conduct or behavior cannot but face the new subject, that of the human nature, through the fact that they change each other their results and tie up with each other in their boundary field. It is the reason that the bio-psychical human figure which is charged with the both social and cultural meaning constructs inevitably the subject-field of human nature. It is inevitable that the character of the boundary field itself invites the characterized subject of human nature.
Therefore the central subject in this field is the general theory of human nature. but so far as we stick to this central part, though a few research workers do so, it will lost the close connection with the adjoining sciences, and also its functions as the boundary science will be unable to be fulfiled. So we should construct the theory of human nature about personality-figures, social and cultural figures considering this general theory of human nature as a kernel in orientation to the adjancy of the regions such as psychology, social and cultural sciences. And we should make the historical figures at the boundary plane between anthropology and history. Further, the standpoints which would limit its field only in ones or a few of such problems as personality, social interaction, crowd, group institution culture, folkways, primitive culture civilized culture etc. and the branched designation basing on it have not their necessity because these boundary fields have a consistent character and moreover their inter-separation of
抄録全体を表示