All issues
Volume 39 (1988 - 198･･･
- Issue 4 Pages 374-
- Issue 3 Pages 230-
- Issue 2 Pages 102-
- Issue 1 Pages 2-
Volume 39, Issue 1
Displaying 1-9 of 9 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
“Neglected factors” in the resource mobilization perspectiveKozo Ukai1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 2-16
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThe resource mobilization approach has been introduced into studies of social movements since 1980. But in Japan the influence of Marxist theories is strong, and this approach is criticized on the point that it neglects factors such as class structure and ideology. Besides, students who stand for collective behavior or relative deprivation theories stress the significance of factors such as generalized belief, discontent or grievance in the formation of social movements.
Does the approach really make light of these factors ? Disputes between “Breakdown” and “Solidarity” theories tend to mislead this approach. We had better not identify it with the Solidarity theory such as Muncur Olson's Rational-Choice Model. The largest contribution of the Solidarity theories is not to doubt the effectiveness of the structual strain factor, but to have built theories from the viewpoint of movement participants. In this paper, I would like to discuss what the structural factor is and what the psychological factor is from the resource mobilization perspective.
In order to help understand this issue, Charles Tilly's historical studies of collective action and William Gamson's interaction models between authorities and potential challengers are very suggestive. I will adopt “cat-net” (category × network) [Tilly] as the key concept for a unit of interaction. The more intense the group's catness and the more extensive its netness are, the more mobilized potential challengers are.
In the processes of “encounters” with authorities, Catness is made intense by “reframing” acts [Gamson] which promote the collective adoption of the injustice frame. Interaction models suggest the significance of participants' mental processes such as perception and interpretation of their experiences in social movements.
Recent achievements of social history call our attention to the new image of “social structure” and “social change”. Ranges of political, economical, religious and neighborhood networks are different from one another. Netness will be made clear by analyses of the social distance from each challenger to other groups.View full abstractDownload PDF (2055K) -
Zur Prinzipen der soziologischen AutonomieYasuo Baba1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 17-31
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSMeine Behauptung lautet folgendermaßen : Luhmanns Theorie hat sich durch Einführung eines Begriffs (Selbstreferenz) ganz verändert, und auch jetzt verändert sie sich immer weiter.
Zunächst nehme ich Sinnbegriff als ein Beispiel und zeige daran auf, was aus der Einführung von “Selbstreferenz” herauskommt. Vor der Einführung war Sinn ein fester “Grundbegriff” für Soziologie. Jetzt wird Sinn begrifft als selbstreferentielle Operation, d.h. (1) als zunächst mit sich selbst knüpfend, folglich (2) als grundlos, (3) als von einer kontingenten Differenz (Interdependenzunterbrecher) abhängig (“Am Anfang steht also nicht Identität, sondern Differenz” Soziale Systeme, S. 112), und (4) als zirkulär sich verändernde Bewegung.
Das gilt auch für die Theorie selbst. Luhmanns Theorie nimmt sich selbst als ein Objekt. Die Theorie ist ein Objekt derselben Theorie. Und das bedeutet natürlich, daß sie selbstreferentiell funktioniert. Daraus folgt, daß die Theorie nie eine geschlossene Einheit sein kann. Luhmanns Theorie ist daher nicht ein geschlossenes, selbst-identisches “System” der Aussagen, sondern die zirkulär sich verändernde Bewegung.
Dies alles fordert radikale Modifikation der klassischen Wissenschafttheorien, einschlieβlich der sogenanten “Paradigma” -Lehre. Luhmanns “Paradigmawechsel” bietet nicht ein neues, geschlossenes Paradigma, sondern endlose Bewegung.Er fordert sozusagen einen Paradigmawechsel des Paradigmawechsels, oder einen “selbstreferentiellen” Paradigmawechsel.View full abstractDownload PDF (1766K) -
in re-evaluation of Marxian thinking as critiqueMasahiko Yamakoshi1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 32-44
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: May 07, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSWhat we have here started out as an attempt to characterize Marxain thinking as critique essentially deconstructing the post-modernism. As is generally acknowledged, the mode of thinking that took form in the aftermath of structuralism has enjoyed primacy undeservedly in journalistic terms, with the result that it found a way into the academic circles, seemingly overshadowing the Marxian legacy as critique, together with the ill-born Marxism that proved to misrepresent Marx at crucial point.
As it is, the post-structuralism in its ideologized form is to be found typical in its emphasis on difference as against identity and is seen as being caught again in the dualistically-oriented thinking, on a further plane, which it identified as typically modernistic and set out to overcome, ironically.
And it is here that Marxian thinking takes over and begins to deconstruct the very mode of thinking where difference and identity tend to form a static duality. And it goes on to deconstruct even the Hegelian premise of coherence that presupposes quite circularly antagonism between identity and difference, amounts at best to yet another form of metaphysics.
And it remains for us to see in the following thesis how Marxian thinking as critique holds valid in the present situation which has come to be referred to as post-modern.View full abstractDownload PDF (1591K) -
Self-Presentation and Self-TransformationKatsutoshi Kirita1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 45-58
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThe concept “self”, as G.H. Mead and E. Goffman showed, has dramatic implications. And the concept self as drama is represented by self-presentation and self-transformation.
The self-concept is situational. It can be understood in relation to the social situation in which an individual experiences and acts. A self is composed of “Me” and “I”. The self-concept as drama focuses on selves as multiple functions, too. Through its multiple functions an actor presents selves, which are transformed.
The presented self as an actor's official image can be transformed by it's actor as well as others. In generally, the actor will try to maintain his official image and to take distance from his official image that constrains him. For his sense of selfhood arises through taking distance from the constraints. In short, the actor will try to work out distance-taking transformations from his official image and to present distance-taking selves. Moreover, he is engaged in a number of invisible or untangible self-presentations and self-transformations behind some visible or tangible self-presentations and self-transformations.
This self-concept as drama shows that an individual presents selves under situational constraints, and is subject to transformation in relation to them, and that we must see both socially constrained aspects and human, subjective aspects.View full abstractDownload PDF (1643K) -
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 59-65
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (729K) -
[in Japanese]1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 66-67
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (340K) -
[in Japanese]1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 68-69
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (272K) -
[in Japanese]1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 69-71
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (362K) -
[in Japanese]1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 71-72
Published: June 30, 1988
Released on J-STAGE: November 11, 2009
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (264K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|