It is necessary, I think, to discern two modes of transformation of modernity.The nature of modernity becomes to be transformed, on the one hand, under the impact of the evolution of society, and on the other hand, during the diffusion from western societies to non-western. The former temporal-historical transformation, which is realized typically in western, is to be called “post-modern”, and the latter spacial-geographic transformation, which can be recognized in a pure form in the Japanese modernizing process, is to be named “hybrid-modern”. Considering the modernity in Japan, postmodern phenomena are seemingly very analogious to hybrid modern, but we should not confuse one with another.

View full abstract

The Self is social in nature. It arises in “the process of social experience and activity” (Mead, G.H., Mind, Self and Society, 1934 : 135). It has become more complex as social differentiation, diversification and transformation go on.
Today, it changes itself from the autonomous, “individualistic self” to the dependent, “relational self”. The contemporary self consists of many small identities.
“The crisis of the self” means disappearance of images of the rational, autonomous and unific, “modern self”. Rather, it means the emergence of the relational, diverse and multiple self, the partial and fragmentary self, the emotional self and the mutable self.
On the other side, people try to resolve the role conflicts through “role selection”, “role coordination”, “role compartmentalization” or “role escape”. And they engage in “impression management” and “role distance”. But the resolution of the role conflicts needs “role making” to work upon, modify and reconstruct role expectations.
Human beings are able to perceive and give meaning to the social structure. They can do self-reflection and activate of innner communications.And they can develop the interpretative process.He will be able to construct subjective actions and bring on social changes.

View full abstract

The objective of this paper is to explore empirically the new dimensions of social stratification in an age of postmaterial society. Japanese society has been changing its main social concern since 1980s, from 'Having' (possession) to 'Being' (existence). In keeping with this trend, major dimensions of social stratification begin to change from traditional status variables such as occupational status, income, educational credential to those of lifestyles and ways of life. First, using the method of factor analysis, I extract two lifestyle variables as the ways of living which are composed of achieved status orientation and relational status orientation, and then clarify that these two are the independent variables not determined by the traditional status variables. Secondly, I analyze the effects of two lifestyle variables on status anxiety, status quo and postmaterial orientation, then verify that relational status orientation will become the new dimension of stratification system in postmaterial society. Finally, I propose life politics focusing on quality of life as the way of living instead of status politics. While status politics concerns the achieved status orientation, life politics concerns the relational status orientation.

View full abstract

The paper attempts to make the recent social changes theoretically clear, by analyzing the relation between modernity and global computer-mediated communication (CMC) network, especially the Internet.
Discussion groups on CMC network are often called virtual communities because they are based on non-face-to-face communication. But virtuality is essencial feature of modernity, as pointed out by Anderson. That is, modernity develops virtuality of societies.
Therefore the wide-spread Internet becomes of overriding importance in the various aspects of the world today. And the problems of virtual communities are partly considered as extensions of those of modernity. However, at the same time, they partly contradict to modernity.
We should realize this mechanism to apply CMC technology to society for the public welfare.

View full abstract

How can the “Öffentlichkeit” (“being public”) be possible in our postmodern complex society? The most popular concept of “being public” is that of J. Habermas's “Bürgerliche Öffentlichkeit” (Bourgeois Public Sphere), which is based on the “grand narrative” of the modern industrial society.
Now that such grand narratives are fading out under the influences of the information society as Lyotard points out, the concept of “being public” like a type of bourgeois public sphere cannnot but lose its theoretical and practical clearness.
So this essay tries to clarify the modern element of the concept of “being public”, and proposes a new rising type of “being public” and public space.
To accomplish this purpose, first in this paper, Habaerams'work is investigated, and next “new social movement” thesis of A. Melucci is examined. Through this survey, we can make it clear that their concepts of “being public” are showing some “modern” way of thinking. They are, as it were, restoring the falling narrative of Bürgerliche Öffentlichkeit.
Recognizing this tendency, we would like to search a new type of the concept of “being public” and public space, which is growing in some associational relations such as NPO and NGO.
To find a new adquate form of “being public”, we refer to N. Luhmann's system theory and “Risk Society” thesis of U. Beck. If the Habermas-Melucci type of the concept of “being public” is critically related to that of Luhmann and Beck type, we could obtain some suggestions, if vaguely, about a new form of “being public” in a postmodern age.

View full abstract