All issues
Volume 37 (1986 - 198･･･
- Issue 4 Pages 392-
- Issue 3 Pages 272-
- Issue 2 Pages 134-
- Issue 1 Pages 2-
Volume 37, Issue 1
Displaying 1-13 of 13 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 2-3
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (356K) -
Sampei Koseki1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 4-12,131
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS“Philosophy is grey, but life is green, ” whispered Mephistopheles to Dr. Faust. Any “theory” cannot provide total understanding or detailed explanations for everyday life of each individual or for social chains of everyday life. Life is too complicated and too full of absurdite.
In spite of the fact that both sociology and the image of society are made up of fragments of human experience, they may finally be only illusions and may also be a kind of useful divertissement at the same time.
This paper consists of the following four parts :
I) The trialectic relations and differences found among personal experience, common-sense knowledge and general theory.
II) The multi-dimentional dynamism of everyday life.
III) The revival of “individuality” and “subjectivity” in recent “everyday life sociologies” and their limitations.
IV) The distance between the present state of sociology and the possibility of sociological contributions expected from my proposition of “everyday life anthropology” based on dynamism and social chains of daily behaviors.
My standpoint in undertaking the above arguments is basically critical of or even disapprovative of i) theoretical abstraction and generalization not based on concrete researches, ii) exaggeration of “social order” in micro-sociology and iii) lack of “dynamique sociale”.View full abstractDownload PDF (1485K) -
Hiroyuki Torigoe1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 13-23,131
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSHow valid is science to environmental problems? We, scientists, implicitly feel hatred towards those who place “science” and “validity” into the same category. Since science is one type of our knowledge, it should not necessarily have to benefit society. This kind of opinion is frequently heard among scientists.
However, when we see the destructions of the environment occuring in front of our own eyes, we desperately need to fill the gap between science and environ-mental problems. Our science is not fully efficient, though.
What makes things worse is that environmental problems do not fit with the method of science. For instance, in the field of sociology one can discover the method of re-organization of inhabitants in the regions where environment has destroyed. Also one can point out the characteristics of movements concerning ecology and even classify the movements. But you step forward wanting to “diagnose” the problem, you will find yourself soon holding up your hands in surrender. And then we, field reseachers, have intended to make a framework which is suitable to analize and even diagnose the environmental problems oc-curing in communities.
Our foci are as follows. We consider all social theories in the world are under some ideology or ism. And we call our ideology as a “life-environmentalism”. This is the naming to distinguish it from a natural-environmentalism which emphasizes ecological setting, and from a “modern techno-centrism” which put its emphasis on the modern techniques without doubt. We just stand the same position with the inhabitants who live everyday life in communities. We try to understand the meaning of the traditional knowledges and the logics having been fostered in everyday life, of organization they have made. In other words, our starting point to analize social problems are to try to understand what is the “facts” to the inhabitants but not to the scientists.View full abstractDownload PDF (1788K) -
-On E. Goffman's Dramaturgy-Keisuke Maruki1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 24-44,129
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSErving Goffman's “dramaturgy” provides a great stimulus to those who are concerned with studies of forms and implications of everyday human experience in relation to social situation. His dramaturgy is an approach using the theatrical metaphors to describe the subjective as well as the objective fact of social interaction. It assumes that one's “self” is an artificial product presented within the closed system of social situation, just as “a character” on the stage is the output of an existing script, completely detached from the wider world outside the theater.
This paper takes note of the forms which the actor may utilize to present his self in accordance with the rules of situational propriety and make his action significant to others. With proper attention to these forms, an attempt is made to explain why Goffman, for all his symbolic interactionist tendency that places stress on the creative subjectivity of the actor, intruded into his school's tabooed area of the objective aspects of situation through the influence of the Durkheimian bias that emphasizes the constraint of social fact. In answering the above question, we also discuss the structure, which, latent in every surface manifestation of experience, attaches meanings to the forms of experience.View full abstractDownload PDF (1613K) -
Yoshikazu Satoh1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 35-44,129
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSIt has recently become very popular in such a discipline as sociology, philosophy and linguistics that the matter of everyday experience, everyday knowledge and everyday life comes into reconsideration in all its aspects. In the sphere of sociology the problem of everyday life is discussed mainly in what is called “new” sociology, such as ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism and phenomenological sociology.
In this paper the matter will be discussed in three points as follows.
1. What is the impulse that makes sociologists turn their interests to the problem of everyday life? Why is the everyday experience-oriented sociology called “new” ? How and in any problem-context are the matter of everyday experience and system theory related with each other?
2. We will examine as a typical example of Parsons-Schutz dispute about the theory of social action the problem of “misplacedness” of the concrete reality of life world from the abstract reality of science, which is clarified in the section 1.
3. One can find that the same problem of the section 2 is also discussed in Niklas Luhmann's system theory from a different point of view, that is, one of the self-hypostatization of science. Luhmann insists that the self-hypostatization of science can only be solved by means of self-thematization of social system. We must critically examine the logic of Luhmann's thesis.View full abstractDownload PDF (1766K) -
Masao Nobe1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 45-63,129
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSAnalysis of the diffusion of innovations in the process of rural development in a northeastern area of Thailand reveals the following :
(1) Richer farmers seek information about agricultural innovations, and adopt such “divisible” changes as chemical fertilizer, new strains of rice and pesticides more positively than poorer farmers.
(2) Social networks among close relatives work effectively, not only as channels of information and influence, but also channels of financing and lending/giving of agricultural innovations. By using the networks, poorer farmers can avail them-selves of agricultural innovations, though they are late in adoption.
(3) Because the income of farmers is low and the market for farm products is unstable, richer farmers do not invest in additional land or in such “indivisible” large-scale innovations as farm machinery and irrigation. Rather, they spend money on the education of their children so that they can get other jobs. Therefore, the social differences do not widen.
(4) If these promotors of change pay greater attention to the opinion leader of social networks among close relatives-who are not always richer farmers, -they can diffuse divisible agricultural innovations more effectively (in the case of optional decisions). If they make the social networks among relatives the vehicle of adoption, they can also introduce more easily the indivisible large-scale agricultural innovations as well (in the case of group decision).
(5) If local officials and change agents mobilize the villagers by paying wages to establish the base for rural development, they will destory the traditional system of group work. Then, when farm innovations diffuse, the social networks among different relatives will not work effectively to prevent the social stratification from widening.View full abstractDownload PDF (2852K) -
Toward an Application of Population Ecological Perspective to a Model of Social ChangeTakenori Takase1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 64-78,128
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS -
Koichi Hiraoka1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 79-87,127
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (1351K) -
[in Japanese]1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 88-92
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (779K) -
[in Japanese]1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 93-95
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (470K) -
[in Japanese]1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 95-96
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (310K) -
[in Japanese]1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 97-99
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (419K) -
[in Japanese]1986 Volume 37 Issue 1 Pages 99-101
Published: June 30, 1986
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (409K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|