All issues
Volume 36 (1985 - 198･･･
- Issue 4 Pages 406-
- Issue 3 Pages 286-
- Issue 2 Pages 148-
- Issue 1 Pages 2-
Volume 36, Issue 2
Displaying 1-12 of 12 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
Yoshisuke Ikeda1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 148-158,283
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSIn this paper I would like to discuss the basic concepts of “synthetic sociology” developed and established by Dr. Shinmei and its problems which contribute to the development of the field in the following two points summarily.
1. Methodological problem : The problem of “total interrelation” of the areas constituting the “society in the wider meaning” as the strategic point, or frame of reference, synthetization in synthetic sociology.
2. Problems concerning substantial and realistic developmets of synthetic sociology ;
a. Problem in conceiving the “society in the wider meaning” as the modern or contemporary nation society.
b. Problem of areas as the constituting elements of the “society in the wider meaning”.
c. Problem of the two phases of integration and opposition (separation) concerning “total interrelation”.
In effect, I would like to point, at least in our time, that synthetic sociology develops in a substantial form as various kinds of special sociology in terms of synthetic sociology.View full abstractDownload PDF (1629K) -
Washio Kurata1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 158-173,282
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSProfessor Masamichi Shinmei developed a theory of synthetic sociology in which action theory plays a central role. His main object in the use of the concept of “action” has to do with the dynamic process of social phenomena, and it involves the meaning of individuality of actors, and also it involves the concept of form and content of social phenomena.
After the Second World War, in the United States, many sociologists took the action approach. The main scholar of this approach was Talcott Parsons. This trend in American sociology affected Japanese sociologist, especially professor Shinmei who thought that the action approach in the U.S. was similar to his own action theory, and so he had a strong interest in it. He studied the action approach in the U.S. and criticized it. The main focus of his criticism turned on T. Parsons.
Professor Shinmei's main criticism was as follows.
First of all, the action approach required people who should have actor's individuality and creativity, but Parsons' theory denied these characteristics.
Secondly, the original functional approach was formed to oppose the theory of social organism and this approach took a serious view of “function”, but not “structure”. But it seemed to Professor Shinmei that Parsons' functional theory went back to the old theory of social organism.
Thirdly, Parsons said in his book that he could synthesize Weber's theory and Durkheim theory. But Professor Shinmei thought these two theories were quite different and impossible to be synthesized.View full abstractDownload PDF (2290K) -
Yasuo Yokoyama1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 173-182,282
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: February 19, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSMasamichi Shimmei was the first one in Japan who wrote the outstanding 'History of Sociology', and it was well worthy of his wide erudition. His sociological history took a general view of the world sociological development from his original basic theory (Handlungszusammenhang) constructed in the early stage of his academic life. His method of sociological history is to understand the sociological theory and social thought in their mutual relations, and this idea was gradually consolidated in his later years. This very method of Shimmei's is one which is very alike to the concept of the 'Sociological Thought' or 'Sociology of Sociology' - the object of recent attentions in Europe and the United States of America. Yet one cannot say this method is realized successfully in his sociological history. And when he takes the standpoint of sociological thought, it is inevitably contradictory to his other arguments, especially his critique to the medium concept of Karl Mannheim's 'geistige Schichten', which he enthusially insisted in his early works. Thinking of his long academic life, it is no wonder that there is some inconsistency of his position, but I believe it is very important to clarify those points in order to understand the relation between Shimmei's position in 'sociology of knowledge' and his systematic theory, as well as his attitude to the Marxism.View full abstractDownload PDF (1705K) -
Nozomu Kawamura1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 183-194,281
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThis article does not aim to explore the whole aspects of Shinmei sociology. It rather focuses mainly on the wartime activities of Shinmei. I received a letter from Professor E.H. Kinmonth in which he had presented a fundamental doubts about my evaluation of Shinmei sociology. According to him, Shinmei was a blatant proposer for fascism and an active supporter of the fascist movement and one could not describe Shinmei as surrendering to fascism. Also he asked me that I gave more attention to Yasuma Takada because he was dead by the time I wrote my book Nihon Shakaigakushi Kenkyu (Studies on the History of Japanese Sociclogy), while Shinmei was still living.
Even after Shinmei's death, I still support my former position and do not admit any amendment of my fundamental viewpoints. However, at the same time, now I recognize that submission to fascism is not a suitable word for someone who ground out dozens of articles in support of the New Order and managed to get involved in a wide range of related activities despite the geographical disadvantage of being a professor at Tohoku University.
Thus I admit two different images about Shinmei. One is a critic of fascism and a member in good conscience of the materialist study group, and the other is a critic of liberalism and Marxism and fanatic supporter of fascism. I define the former image as essential and the latter as appurtenant. However I must integrate these two images, which is left for my further studies.
The problem how to evaluate Shinmei as anti-fascist sociologist is a matter of great concern requiring further discussion. Just before his death, Shinmei wrote an article 'Sociology of “Sociology of Sociology.”' In this context, I should say that 'Sociology of Shinmei Sociology' has just started, and it needs more time to discuss “Sociology of “Sociology of Shinmei Sociogy.””View full abstractDownload PDF (1794K) -
Otoyori Tahara1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 195-203,281
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDr. Masamichi Shimmei (1898-1984) is celebrated by his continuous endeavor to systematize the general theory of sociology. However, his empirical sociology is also very important. In the collected works consisted of ten volumes which were edited by himself before his death, Dr. Shimmei devoted just half of the works to these special sociologies which contained empirical researches, the remain half being assigned to his general theory of sociology. The importance he attached to his special sociology is unexpected, for he has been regarded in general as a general theorist.
While his general sociology is based on a theory of action (Köi-kanren), empirical researches are treated in his framework of special sociology, in his system of synthetic sociology (Sogo-shakaigaku). In his sociological theory, the theory of action was conceived as the theory of “Köi-kanren” which contained “content” as well as “form” of social action. From this concept of “Köi-kanren”, the empirical research on various aspects of contents of social action became possible.
His studies in domain of special sociology contain such as sociology of knowledge, political sociology and sociology of nations, crowd and regional society, which consist of volumes from No. 6 to No. 10 in his collected works. Because in these works, except the sociology of knowledge, he analyzed concrete and contemporary problems of society such as european ideologies of facism, nations and races, the masses and regions, it was necessary for him to treat empirical data.
So far, this article tried to elucidate the place and significance of his empirical researches in his synthetic sociology. It should be insisted that the newer generation of sociologist after him should inherit his sociology to develop more broad and new aspects of empirical resarch.View full abstractDownload PDF (1588K) -
-Einige Anmerkungen über die Rationalisierungsproblematik bei Max Weber-Katsuhiko Yoshime1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 204-216,280
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSEs zieht neulich insbesondere im Kreise von europäischen Weber-Forschern die Aufmerksamkeit auf sick, daß Rationalisierunsproblematik im Zusammenhang mit dem Gesamtverständnis des Werkes Max Webers von großer Bedeutung ist. Dabei sind aber das Verhältnis des Begriffs Rationalisierung zum Begriff Rationalität sowie auch die Vieldeutigkeit des logischen Sinngehalts des Begriffs Rationalität nicht genugend in Betracht gezogen.
Im vorliegenden Aufsatz werden die bisherigen hauptsächlichen Interpretationen vom logischen Sinngehalt des Begriffs Rationalität unter dem Gesichtspunkt der “Rationalität als Attributs einer Sache” überprüft, and nach einen Weg zum einheitlichen eindeutigen Verständnis des Begriff s Rationalitat gesucht. Und die Folgenden werden erklärt :
1. Es ist die allgemeine Interpretation, daß sich Rationalität entweder als Systemmäßigkeit oder als empirische Gesetzmäßigkeit oder als Konseqenz verstehen läßt.
2. Die Sinngehalte dieser spezifischen elementaren Variänten des Begriffs Rationalität können z.B. als Verstaädlichkeit oder Kommunikabilität generalisiert and zusammengefaBt werden.
3. Wenn man den logischen Sinngehalt des Begriffs Rationalität erklären will, so muB man letztlich das Problem der logischen Struktur des “Verstehens des Sinnes” einer Sache behandeln.View full abstractDownload PDF (2092K) -
-Social Practice and Social Psychology-Hajime Yasukawa1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 217-231,279
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: February 19, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSAs often as not Mead's “social psychology” has been argued as the theory of the subjective world of the creative individual. And the concept of the self, or especially of “I” and “me”, has been concerned as the central one in Mead's theory. But, to what degree does this acceptance reflect the orientation involved in his own social theory?
Mead's theory is not the theory of the self. It is the criticism of social institution in terms of his view of the progress, and an attempt to reconstruct the larger society-namely, the theory of social reform. How can we harmonize the highly complicated universalization process in the society with the individuation process of individuals? To deal with the ever appearing novel problems, how can we overcome the conflicts among the social groups or nations, and recostruct the larger society? These are Mead's own questions. That is, his task is the theoretical study of the mutually relational reconstruction process of the common perspective shared in society and the individual perspectives of the individuals.
However, Mead's argumentation is not sufficiently successful. He insists on an application of the scientific method to the social process. But it does not seem to be a mature theoretical answer to the above questions. On the contrary, it is thought that his description illuminates the cult institutions in the modern society, the actual conflicts among the social groups, and the social psychological processes of the vicious circle of narrowing perspectives, because of the “sociality” of human being. Paradoxically, it shows the multiple-divided social world and the social psychologically compartmentalized life of the individual in it.
Then, Mead's theory is rather on social processes and social groups, and it looks rather tough-minded. From such a social theory, what implications should we take up ?View full abstractDownload PDF (2096K) -
[in Japanese]1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 236-237
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (194K) -
[in Japanese]1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 238-239
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (265K) -
[in Japanese]1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 239-241
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (445K) -
[in Japanese]1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 241-243
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (364K) -
1985 Volume 36 Issue 2 Pages 277
Published: September 30, 1985
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (5262K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|