All issues
Volume 32 (1981 - 198･･･
- Issue 4 Pages 2-
- Issue 3 Pages 2-
- Issue 2 Pages 2-
- Issue 1 Pages 2-
Volume 32, Issue 2
Displaying 1-8 of 8 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
Hirosato Kimizuka1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 2-16
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: April 23, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSAmong the conventional theories of power structure, the predominant notion is that power-phenomena contain no longer the centralized unitary structure but the pural one which comprises polymorphous games of strategies adapting to each condition. But one of the recent trends in power-analyses tries to make clear the deep structure which underlies and determines the various phenomena of power-relations. In this type of analysis, however, some difficult problem will befall us. It is how to relate “subjectivity” to “structure”.
S. Lukes presumes power exercise as realization of “subjectivity” to the extent that he considers the room of discretion within structurally determined limits. S. Clegg, on the contrary, refuses the existence of “subjectivity” by regarding that the criterion of seemingly voluntary selection is determined by “form of life” which is beyond each individual and socially monolithic. It is M. Foucault's power-analysis that provides with one bridge to link these two opposite views. He implies the most fundamental principle of knowledge by the term “pouvoir pastorat” and then does not accept “subjectivity”. But at the same time, he takes a view of some resistances rejecting the “Pouvoir” itself. Such conflict situations indicate the plurality of the principle of knowledge.
This would mean that “subjectivity” exists not within the “structural” limits but in the relation of the conflicts about “structure” mentioned above.View full abstractDownload PDF (1917K) -
With Special Reference to M. Weber and A. SchutzKazuhisa Nishihara1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 17-36
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: April 23, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThere is a tendency in contemporary sociology to pay special attention to 'meaning'. This tendency is derived from some sources, particularly from Max Weber and Alfred Schutz.The meaning of 'meaning' is, however, ambiguously used by some students who are active in this current trend of thought. In the present paper I will discuss their differing treatments of 'meaning' or 'Sinn', principally those of Weber and Schutz.
I will first show the manifold meaning of 'Sinn' in Weber's “Verstehen des gemeinten Sinn” (so-called “understanding of motives”), after a brief examination of the meaning of 'meaning' in linguistics (or philosophy of language). Secondly, I will then show that the interpretations of “Verstehen des Sinns” by some students are questionable. Then from these discussions, I will make it clear that there is evidently a direction toward “das Verstehen von Mensch zu Mensch im Alltag unserer Lebenswelt” along with attention to “Sinngebung”.
Furthermore, Schutz's theory is also discussed here since he had similarly studied these issues. Schutz's approach to 'meaning' was made mainly from the following viewpoints ; (1) actor's subjective meaning of action ; (2) our understanding of 'meaning' in general (or “appresentational reference” in Schutz's terminology); and (3) the processes in which 'meaning' is produced in our consciousness.
Finally, after this investigation into the perspectives and direction of the sociology-of-'meaning' school, I will briefly comment on several issues to be considered when we take this school into account.View full abstractDownload PDF (2434K) -
Eiji Takagi1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 37-56
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: April 23, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThis paper presents a set of concepts and related propositions, in an attempt to explicate the processes of exchange, gift-making and distribution, which result in the (sometimes multi-way) transfer of goods. Social exchange theorists have viewed various forms of interaction as instances of exchange, and have diffused the exchange perspective. Their analytical tools, however, are not useful for the purpose of understanding the appropriate features of goods transfer, because of their excessive emphasis on exchange and their loose usage of the concept of “exchange”.
According to our definitions, each party engaging in the exchange gives his/her own goods and takes the other's by mutual agreement. Gift-making, which is a one-way transfer, and its subsequent return constitute reciprocal gift-making. Reciprocal gift-making, called “exchange” by some exchange theorists, should be distinguished from exchange by the lack of the agreement characteristic of exchange. In the case of distribution in the strict sense, each recipient receives a share of collectively-owned goods or goods none has yet owned. Distribution can be subdivided into three types : centralized distribution (i.e., each recipient receives the share the distributor has allotted to him), agreed distribution (i.e., each recipient receives his share by agreement with the other recipients), and unrestricted distribution (i.e., each recipient receives at his own discretion).
The processes of exchange, gift-making and distribution are examined from the perspective of a “Reward-Cost Postulate”, rather than Exchange Theory. On the basis of empirical findings is posited a set of propositions, some examples of which are as follows.
(1) The parties' accurate knowledge of each other's preference tends to shorten the negotiation period that precedes the exchange.
(2) A's liking for B facilitates the occurrence of gift-making from A to B.
(3) The outcome of centralized distribution tends to favor certain recipients, if (a) they are aware of how goods are distributed, and (b) they can exercise some control over the distributor's fate.
etc.View full abstractDownload PDF (2387K) -
Einige Probleme im Zusammenhang mit dem Problembewußtsein und dem analytischen Blickwinkel Max WebersShin Ogasawara1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 57-71
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSVon mehreren wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen, die einen Zusammenhang zwischen Japans Modernisierung (sprich : Kapitalisierung) und seinen traditionellen Religionen zu erforschen versuchen, behandelt die vorliegende kurze Abhandlung nur einige besondere Untersuchungen, die thematisch einen inneren Zusammenhang zwischen der Modernisierung Japans, und dem Jodo-shinshu-Buddhismus herzustellen versuchen.
Zunächst sollen die Versuche von Kanji Naitti und Robert N. Bellah kritisch in Betrachtung gezogen werden. Beide schatzen zwar den Zusammenhang des Jodo-shinshu-Buddhismus mit der Modernisierung hoch ein, aber wenn man ihre Forschungen mit der Arbeit Max Webers vergleicht, stellen sich folgende zwei Probleme : Erstens ihr nicht hinrechendes Überlegen des Unterschieds zwischen der japanischen und der europäischen Form der Geschichsentwicklung, und zweitens der Unterschied ihres Vergleiches, d.h. gegenüber Webers Untersuchung des Zusammenhangs zwischen Protestantismus und Industriekapital, betrachten sie den Zusammenhang des Jodo-shinshu-Buddhismus mit dem Handelskapial.
Im folgenden werden die Arbeiten von Max Weber selbst und Iichi Oguchi behandelt, die den Zusammenhang des Jodo-shishu-Buddhismus mit Japans Modernisierung als nicht so stark bewerten. Daraus ergeben sich folgende zwei Fragen, besonders wenn man auf dem von Max Weber angebahnten Weg weitergehen will : warum entstand in Japan anders als in Europa nicht der asketische Geist als eine persönliche innere Norm, und warum konnte trotzdem auch in Japan ein Arbeitsethos entstehen und die Kapitalisierung so intensiv vorangetrieben werden.
Schließlich kommt diese Abhandlung zu einer negativen Einschätzung gegen über der Auffassung, daß die Subjektivitätsbedingungen der japanischen Modernisierung in seinen Religionen (einschließlich des Fido-shinshußuddhismus) liegen, und daß man die Gründe dafür viel mehr in den Bedingungen der auBeren Norm der schicksalsverbundenen Gemeinschaftsmitglieder des “ie*” -System bzw. der “Nation” finden kann.View full abstractDownload PDF (2049K) -
A monographic study of “Tsugihashi” in Miyagi prefectureIchizo Goto1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 72-90
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThis article is presented with an intention of clarifying the transformation of the rural community after the World War II through a monographic study of the changes in life group (seikatsu gojo kankei) of the rural community.
In the concrete, the approach is mainly to be made as to what the internal reaction has been in the replacing process from 'keiyakuko' to 'kyodokai'.
In Tsugihashi the supreme prewar decisive organization used to be 'Tsugihashi keiyakuko'. In the new situations after the World War II, it had also a very important function by being deeply connected with 'Soshikai', which was newly formed as a group of the young generations or with 'Kayatanomoshiko' that consisted of 'Omodachiso'.
About forty of the Showa era, however, the separation of the groups was very vividly seen and the desicive function has been gradually replaced by 'Tsugihashi kyodokai'. In other words re-integration has been very stronglypromoted in order to meet the needs of the new circumstances. This re-integration has internally brought about the financial unity and one Role system played by one 'Ie' unit.View full abstractDownload PDF (1986K) -
[in Japanese]1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 89-96
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (898K) -
[in Japanese]1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 96-101
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (594K) -
1981 Volume 32 Issue 2 Pages 104-136
Published: September 30, 1981
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (3946K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|