Japanese Sociological Review

Der Ausgangspunkt der Gesellschaftlehre von Marx

Masumi Takeuchi

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 2-15
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: April 23, 2010

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_2

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Show abstractHide abstract

Junger Marx tat den ersten Schritt zu seiner gesellschaftslehre durch die kritische Untersuchung der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, und faßte diese Untersuchung in “Kritik der Hegelschen Staatsrecht” zusammen.
In seiner Rechtsphilosophie systematisierte Hegel die Struktur und Bewegung der modernen bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Darum mußte Marx der Hegelschen Betrachtung seine eigene Analyse über die moderne burgerliche Gesellschaft entgegensetzen.
Marx stellt fest, daß Hegel das Wesen der modernen bürgerlichen Gesellschaft nicht woll begreift, obgleich er sich ihm nähert, und daß nach der Hegelschen Auffasung die “Vormoderne Zeit” und die “Über-moderne Zeit” verwickelt bleiben. Daher weist er hin, man muß vor allem deutlich das Wesen der moderne Zeit als die Trennung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft vom politishen Staat begreifen Zwei danon abgeleitete Begriffe sind der “wirkliche Bürger” und “abstrakte Staatsbürger”. Die Trennung des Menschen in diesen beiden Begriff bildet die Bestandstruktur der modernen bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Weil Hegelsche Trennungslehre zwischen Bürger und Staatsbürger zu diesen Punkt nicht erreicht, konstituiert Hegel leicht den Ubergang von der burgerlichen Gesellschaft zum Staat. Die Bestandstruktur der modernen burgerlichen Gesellschaft hat doch gleich zeitig den grund ihrer Aufhebung. Marx entdeckt diesen Grund in der modernen Zeit, besonders in der Abgeordenetenkammer, und sieht ein den Prozeß, der neue “Sozietät” durch die “allgemeine Teilnahme” verwirklicht. Damit begreift Marx den aus der Trennung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft von dem politischen Staat entstehenden Wider spruch vom Standpunkt, der die “eigentumliche ogik des eigentumlichen Gegenstandes” faßt, und er konzipiert die Gesellschaftslehre, die die Einigung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft und des politishen Staates erklart.

View full abstract

Download PDF (1885K)
A Middle Range Theory of Organization Structure

Zentaro Sawada

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 16-35
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_16

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Show abstractHide abstract

The purpose of this paper is to construct a middle range theory of organization structure on the basis of generalized propositions derived from empirical researches on formal organizations. There are two, confronting views regarding the determinants of structural differentiation in organization. One, of which Blau & Schoenherr are representatives, focuses on the size of organization. The other view, whose main proponents are March & Simon, and recent contingency theorists as well, emphasizes the importance of environmental factors.
This paper presents an explanatory scheme of differentiation in organization, which includes the basic ideas of the two views. The scheme specifies the factors which determine minimum and maximum levels of the differentiation. The minimum level is explained by two independent variables, size and standardization of environment, and a parameter, “administrative capacity”. The maximum level is explained by three independent variables, standardization of environment, autonomy of units and inter-unit heterogeneity, and a parameter, capacity of organization which integrates various units, . Our conclusions are as follows.
1, If other conditions are constant, the more an organization standardizes its environment, the larger does its degree of freedom in differentiation become (and consequently, the more difficult to predict relationship between the degree of differentiation and standardization of the environment).
2, If other conditions are constant, the larger an organization is, the narrower does its degree of freedom in differentiation become and consequently, the easier to predict relationship between the degrees of differentiation and the size.

View full abstract

Download PDF (2090K)
Erratum to : A Note for Sociological Population Studies

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 35
Published: 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_35

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Download PDF (46K)
Theoretical Approaches to Family Violence

Fumie Kumagai

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 36-44
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_36

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Show abstractHide abstract

It was only during the decade of the 1970's that the prevalence and the seriousness of family violence in the American context was recognized as a social problem. The problem, however, has existed ever since the emergence of the institution of the family. The family should be regarded as one of the most violent social groups, and the home as one of the most violent social settings. Three significant historical trends in the 1960's contributed to the increase of public attention given to the problem of family violence. First, the 1960's was a decade of public or visible violence. Second, there was growing awareness of the women's liberation movement as well as the children's rights movement. Third, some American social scientists began to use a “conflict model” of human behavior rather than the long dominant “consensus-equilibrium model.”
The problem of family violence yet has not been successfully analyzed sociologically. However, attempts at the theoretical investigation of the problem have been made slowly but steadily. The existing sociological theories and conceptual frameworks which might be useful in analysis of family violence could be categorized into three types : intraindividual, socio-psychological, and sociocultural theories. An attempt to develop an integrated theory of family violence has been made by Gelles and Straus. The recent growth of theoretical and empirical research on intrafamily violence gives hope for the establishment of such theoretical integration in the foreseeable future. In addition, the present discussed some possible reasons for the fact that why violence exists not anywhere else but in the very family itself.
It is important that the social scientists who are seriously concerned about reduction of the level of intrafamily violence move away from the descriptions and explanations of relationships between variables towards theory construction and theory verification.

View full abstract

Download PDF (1257K)
[title in Japanese]

[in Japanese]

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 45-54
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_45

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Download PDF (1079K)
[title in Japanese]

[in Japanese]

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 55-60
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_55

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Download PDF (770K)
[title in Japanese]

[in Japanese]

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 60-62
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_60

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Download PDF (365K)
[title in Japanese]

[in Japanese]

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 63-66
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_63

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Download PDF (573K)
[title in Japanese]

1980 Volume 31 Issue 2 Pages 67-93
Published: September 30, 1980
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4057/jsr.31.2_67

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Download PDF (3834K)

Register with J-STAGE for free!