In his short paper on ASR, 1936, Merton listed extensively various factors to cause unanticipated consequences in purposive social action, and showed a few cases in which certain patterns can be identified among anticipation, action and consequences. This topic was later developed into a Chapter in his Social Theory and Social Structure (1957) as “The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy”.
Merton's original paper is important at least in the following senses : Unanticipated consequences are already emerging in anticipation before execution of action, and in some cases, certain patterns among anticipation, action and consequences can be traced.
In order to further develop this topic, which had been suggested by Merton in such extensive scopes, it should be necessary to coordinate the problems from certain view point. The writer of this paper tries to do so, firstly, by reviewing them in terms of role differentiation into “prophet”, “actor” and “observer” for anticipation, action and consequences respectively. Then, he focusses those cases enumerated by Merton on the uncertain nature of expectation of actor in anticipating consequences, and points out the peculiar characteristics in the “prophecies” and “basic value” cases as definition of the situation by others. This is the process for the actor to overcome the uncertainty in his expectation of the consquences of the contemplated action. Another possibility to overcome this uncertainty is suggested. It is called “auxiliary means” to strengthen those means already in hand with the uncertain expectation of consequences kept uncertain. With this “auxiliary means” corresponds “auxiliary purpose”, which shall be instrumental in producing unanticipated consequences for actor not only in the new “Auxiliary value area” but also in the “original value area” as both are necessarily interrelated. Two propositions are made at the end : First for actor's tendency to depend on the definition of situation provided by others, and Second for actor's tendency to rely on the “auxiliary means” in his uncertain anticipation.

View full abstract

Defined here as the specifically historical category, “industrial relations” (Lohnarbeit u. Kapital Beziehung), whose historical phase was clearly marked by the “Manifest der kommunistischen Partei” (1848), was born in the establishing process of the productive relations of the modern capitalism. But now, it may be, in a certain sense, thrembling from its whole base. (its concrete discussions are beyond the present analysis.) Despite of it, we are committing ourselves to the “genetische Begriffsbildung” and endeavour to make clear of the fundamental lines of its developments.
Keeping the perspective of the comparative history of “industrial relations”, this paper deals with the U.S. iron and steel industry ; Since, the first, this industry was, as in the developed capitalistic countries, the motive power of the American monopolistic capitalism. The second, The Amalgamated Association of the Iron and Steel Workers, which had been reorganized in 1876 (compromising the principles of the craft unionism), played an important role as the president union in the creation of A.F.L. And the third, following the analysis of Mr. Ken Kurita, it is possible to say that, “the mechanism of labour market in the representative or fundamental industry (in this case, the U.S. iron and steel industry) has shown the typical one at that time.”
Using the U.S. Senate's Reports or “Pittsburgh Survey”, we analyze “the monopolistic and paternalistic industrial relations” in detail from the point of (subjective and objective) strain-chances analysis, especially emphasize the “Trager” and new “Idee” (the industrial unionism). It must be remembered that, the unskilled or semiskilled labourers different from the skilled workers by the structure of the labour market (the promotion spstem) and so on, which emerged at this period significantly, were filled with the immigrants from the eastern-southern Europe whose previous occupations were overwhelmingly the agricultural ones and the this “soziale Schichtung” (especially oriented to “Americanization” -which implies “Democracy in Industry”), with the semiskilled natives, was preconcerted to be ' the breaker-through ' of the established pattern of the industrial relations.

View full abstract

In Japan trade unions tended to insist that their objective was to challange the management and to aid making socialist society.
But recently, as it is often point out, trade unions had a growing tendency to form co-operative relationship with the manegement, and they seem to have lost a desire for the solidarity of the laboring classes.
Why did traide unions' function change ?
In this paper, my point of view is that the key of this problem is on the shop stewards' function (workshop officers' function). Since they are key men who have a role and status to connect the supervisions, full time officers of the trade union and trade union members. Their behavior will make a type of them “Triad” system.
The writer chose H. Trade Union (a principal trade union of the electric industry) and two of into workshop groups A and B as models of his study.
In workshop A the post of stewards is held by supervisions. Though they are trade union officers, they act as the men of management, and they make the trade union function co-operate with the management function. Management requires them to do so. If they don't obey, they lose their status as supervisions.
In workshop A the trade unioh is easier to become active, because a manager supports shop stewards, than in workshop B, where shop stewards oppose the manager.
Workshop A tends to be a main group and it leads other groups.
As a result, this trade union fosters the tendency to co-operative relationship.
Our case study in H. Trade Union verified for the validity of our assumption. Finally several assumptions are shown for further research.

View full abstract

What the present writer aims to do in this monograph is, first, to reconsider the meaning of ryodo (territory) as a materialistic basis of the rural community, and, second, by clarifying the dual aspect of mura (that is, mura as a spontaneously-developed community and also as an administrative unit), to investigate its process of differentiation through manzo (the total expenses for working and maintaining mura). Figures and all the other data used here are depending on the investigation of the three villages in Toyama city (two of which are remarkably urbanized, while one is not yet under the influence of urbanization).
So far, the rural community in Japan has consisted of small farmers. In the farmers' household, life and production are not differentiated from one another, so that any changes in conditions of their life brings about the corresponding changes in their procuction, and vice versa. Changes both in life and production causes differentiation of life from production, and consequently, gives some influence on mura unit. As life comes to differentiate from production, that is, as life becomes independent of production, mura unit turns into a production unit. If life is so much urbanized, and if production develops so much as to establish itself as an industry and as to feel no necessity of having mura unit, we may even expect that mura unit will break down.
It is a question, however, whether the above-mentioned hypothesis can be applicable to the real rural community. There are three questions at least to be asked before we accept such a hypothesis of collapse of mura unit. First, can life be clearly and completely differentiated from production in the village life ? Secondly, will mura unit be entirely unnecessary if life becomes urbanized and if production gets industrialized ? The third question is this : if farmers cannot afford a great deal of capital which is necessary for industrializing production, and therefore must financially depend on administration, the aspect of mura as an administrative unit (which is a convenient unit for the government in order to grasp farmers) will be emphasized, and so mura unit will be strengthened.
The present monograph intends to deal with these three questions, with a special emphasis on the third question. Here ryodo is presented as a materialistic basis of mura unit. The writer's future study plan is to make a further analysis of the meaning of ryodo, for he believes that it will really contribute to understanding the essential character of rural community.

View full abstract

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.

View full abstract

M. Weber's “R. Stammlers >> Überwindung << der materialistishen Geschichtsaffassung” (1907) and “Nachtrag” to the same essay (posthumous work) hold a very important position in the formation process of his sociology. We give attention to that Weber took the methodological standpoint of a rigid distinction between dogmatical and empirical consideration in the course of his debate with Stammler about regularity or regulatedness of social lives of men. For this standpoint summariges his precceding methodological works in a sense and moreover provides a direct presuppose to the formation of his sociology as well.
Therefore, in the first place, we try to arrange into three items what the dogmatics implies for Weber, as a clue to understand this methodological standpoint. Namely, (1) valuativeness (2) telelogical concepts formulation (3) dogmatical abstraction. Through them we understand what way of thinking in social theory the intermixing of dogmatical and empirical consideration, which Weber criticised, implies. According to our understanding, it relates to how to deal with collective concepts. In dogmatical consideration, collective concepts are dealt with as autonomous regulation-bases which are independent from individual subjects and endowed with the normative character. On the other hand, it is a mistake, into which collective concepts using empirical sciences often fall, to identify such collective concepts immediately with really existing collectivity. Here is the principal reason why Weber emphasized a distinction between dogmatical and empirical consideration.
In the next place, in order to clarify how this standpoint participates in the formation of Weber's sociology, we comment upon two fundamental thoughts in his sociolgy, i.e. “methodologischer Individulismus” and “sociologische Regeln”. The former is a methodological assertion to reduce dogmatical collective concepts into “Maximen” of individual actions and whereby to exclude careless intermixing of dogmatics and empirical sciences. Founding on this assertion, the latter serves as a principle of concepts formulation to establish more positively the sociology of Weber himself.

View full abstract