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 4
Displaying 1-11 of 11 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
Ryüzo Uchida1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 2-19
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: April 23, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSD. Bell, A. Touraine ou J. Habermas et les auteurs de la même génération ont abordé le problème de l'industrialisme du point de vue du conflit social, de l'aliénation, et de la crise d'intégration sociale qui s'inscrivent dans le développement du technologisme. Les critiques qui lui sont adressées sont basées sur des criteres tels que l'homme-sujet et la rationalité du système. Mais en fait, la société de high-mass-consumption générée par ce développement de l'industrialisme entraîne aussi la transformation des critères et des lieux mêmes du discours sur la dite crise de légitimisation et sur la dite société post-industrielle.
Déjà, W. W. Rostow s'est demandé ce qui se passerait«quand, l'industrialismetoujours accru, la diminution de l'utilité marginale relative du revenu réel commencerait à se faire sentir au niveau de la masse». Le problème paradoxal intrinsègue que soulève l'industrialisme consiste justement en ce que cet industrialisme n'est pas un objet égal à lui-même, mais sujet à des transformations d'ordre topologique par lesquelles la logique de production=utilité qui l'animait et la totalité des ethos s'y rapportant basculent dans une logique nouvelle.
Si la logique de l'industrialisme articule une nouvelle topologie parallèlement à la dissolution par action réciproque de l'espace d'utilité, les concepts et les critiques de l'industrialisme axés sur la notion ambigüe d'utilité perdent leur cohérence.
J. Baudrillard, se plaçant hors de la logique d'utilité, a déjà tenté le déchiffrement sémiologique de la société de high-mass-consumption, produit de l'industrialisme. Partant pour la dépasser de l'analyse de Baudrillard, cet article veut examiner l'industrialisme tel qu'il se présente aujourd'hui sous son aspect de consommation, er repartant à la découverte d'un nouveau référent du système industriel : «l'homoconsmans» et de l'expérience humaine dans la société de high-mass-consumption.View full abstractDownload PDF (2296K) -
A methodological analysis of “The Typology of the Cities”Tazuko Ouchi1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 20-34
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSAlthough lots of scholars have been so far writing many theses on the works of Max Weber, we do not find any thesis which contains a methodological argument about Max Weber's study of cities (“Typologie der Städte”).
Reading the Note appended to the end of his essay by the title of “The Agrarian Institutions of Antiquity” in an encyclopedia (“Agralverhaltnissen in Alterturn”), I raised a methodological problem concerning his study of cities.
Moreover, Max Weber wrote a letter, dated of 21 st June, 1914, to G. von Below, which tells us a new methodological trial of the study of cities.
Putting my interpretation on these contents stated above, I think the study of cities would be connected methodologically with the problem of the causal explanation of history (in Weber's terminology, “objektive Möglichkeit and adäquate Verursachung in der historischen Kausalbetrachtung”).
It seems to me that the complicated form of “The City” (“Typologie der Städte”) was caused by his interim process of the study, in which, I think, he was trying to apply a new methodological way to the comparative study of cities on the basis of the logic of the causal explanation of history.
From this viewpoint, I scrutinized methodologically his study of cities, and at the same time, reconsidered his statements of the logic in his dispute with Miyer (“Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre”).
As the result of these examinations, I built up these hypotheses as follows ;
1. The works of Weber's study of cities are situated at his methodological turning point, from where he started to replace his historical approach by his original sociological approach.
2. In connection with the logical base of its situation mentioned above, I understand that the logical relation between the theory and history is explained by the thought schemata of “the objective possibility and the adequate judgment in the historic causal observation”. And that the character of the theory concerning the social science is suggested in this thought schemata.View full abstractDownload PDF (2025K) -
Masao Nobe1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 35-52
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSGovernment officials adapted the theory advanced by E. M. Rogers in his Diffusion of Innovations (1962) to development in rural developing countries, but have been unable to achieve the goals they expected. Therefore, they have doubts regarding the validity of this theory, which appears to have a limited applicability. The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the Rogers theory, and to investigate steps for constructing a new theory in its place. A case study and examination of the alternative theories has revealed the following ;
(a) The distribution of the results of diffusion of innovation is greatly influenced not only by possession of social resources by each member of a social system, but also by the distribution of social resources in the system.
(b) The efficiency of diffusion and the equal distribution of the results thereof are competing values to be traded off ; the Rogers theory is established from the former point of view.
(c) The Rogers theory, which attaches importance to the factor of communication, holds true in a social system where all members have almost equal social resources, sufficient to adopt innovations.
(d) In social systems in which the members have unequal social resources, if the officials adapt the theory to the development carelessly, there will be undesired and unexpected consequences to diffusion, such as the unequal distribution of the results. Therefore, the officials must diffuse innovations according to the theory which takes into account not only the social-psychological but sociological factors as well.View full abstractDownload PDF (2226K) -
Shunichi Mukasa1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 53-67
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThis article analyses the K. Aruga's dozoku theory by comparison with that of S. Kitano. Between these two scholars there existed a great disagreement in notion of the rural sociology in Japan.
Aruga, one of the most important forerunners in the Japanese rural sociology, investigated the social structure of villages in Japan in terms of the conjunction of households. As a result, he insisted the existence of the same structural principles between village communities and the rest of Japanese society.
It was S. Kitano who proposed one of the most important critiques on Aruga's theory. According to Kitano, Aruga could not distinguish between dozozoku and oyakata-kokata relation, and eventually his theory shows theoretical and methodological deficiencies.
Here it may be important to re-examine the Kitano's deizoku theory in view of the availability for doing empirical research. In the analysis on this line, the focus would be on rethinking the notion of 'kezfu' the relationship between a stem household and a branch household in a dozoku group.View full abstractDownload PDF (1812K) -
[in Japanese]1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 68-72
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (645K) -
[in Japanese]1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 73-75
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (345K) -
[in Japanese]1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 76-78
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (467K) -
[in Japanese]1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 79-82
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (455K) -
[in Japanese]1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 82-85
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (480K) -
[in Japanese]1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 86-89
Published: March 31, 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (474K) -
1982 Volume 32 Issue 4 Pages 107
Published: 1982
Released on J-STAGE: October 19, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (92K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|