We find the paired terms-personal : impersonal-often used in the recent sociological literature. Like many other terms these have diverse meanings according to the context, in which they are used. So we should try to define them accaratary and systematically. For this purpose we fined the clue in parsons' “pattern variables of role expectation, ” especially those of Universalism, : particularism, specificity ; diffuseness and affective neutrality; affectivity, From them we derive two combinations, i.e. particularism-diffuseness-affectivity and universalism-specificity-affective neutrality and the formes as “personal” in contrast to the latter as “impersonal.” This problem can not adequately be analyzed, we believe, without a definite conception of man as “total human being.” In this sense the paper deals with the relation of organization and man in its modern phase.

抄録全体を表示

Parsons deals with the central subject matters of sociology on the structural-functional level on one side, and on the level of dimension and phase movement on the other. If sociological thought should be evolved with the action frame of reference of man as its core, and if Parsons is primarily interested in the making of the general theory of action, he should stand only on the level of dimension and phase movement. For the structural-functional level necesserily leads to the theories of middle range, and the making of the general theory would be possible only by standing the level of dimention and phase movement.
Now I'd like to prove my argument. The whole system of his theory is connected with the three concrete levels of the five pattern variables-personality level (personality system), group level (social system), and cultural level (cultural system). Those are understood to show the dimensional structure concerning the individual organism which contains the actor. They are analyzed in terms of the frame of reference of action space, and the frame of reference of action motivated effort, chein of ends and means, situation and norm-, as well as that of space G, E, A, and I dimensions-and that of time-G. I. A. and L pheses-are all to be understood in dimensional structure. And not only action, individual organism, space and time themselves can be understood in dimentional structure in a wider sense, but there exists a unified situation among them. Moreover, since action and time unfold themselves, what constitute dimensional structure at each of those stages are made dynamic, and are on the level of phase movement.
In the above treatment, of course, only the general and formal aspect of Parson's theory has been taken up, leaving the psychological aspect untouched, although it is equally important. A systematic analysis taking into account both of those aspects is, therefore, yet to be done.

抄録全体を表示

1. It would be a theoretical presumption to many sociologists and social psychologists that our societies are not formless but have certain organized pattern. But, on the other hand, there would be various possibilities from what theoretical framework those organized pattern should be abstracted. In this paper, let us think on this point that the societies are not formless because of some pattern uniformities, not randomness, in our interpersonal overt behaviors ; the interpersonal behaviors are observable manifest variables, so all constructive concepts of sociology and social psychology can be inferred from them.
2. On the external objective point of view, a concept that is inferred from the more or less consistent order is what we call the “social system.” Against this, on the internal subjective point of view of motivated individuals, a concept that is inferred from pattern uniformities is what we call the “attitude”. Both social system and attitude are the scientific construct inferred from observable manifest valiables of interpersonal behaviors, and they must be distinguished from each other in terms of object-subject criteria.
3. What is called a “system” is as follows : its two or more units or factors are mutually interdependent such that any change in state of one unit or factor xj is followed by change in state of others x₁, …, xi_-1, Xi₊₁, …, xn and the latter is followed again by change in the former and so on. Thus, when we apply this to behabioral units or factors we can speak of the social system that shows the relationship within social objects.
4. We find a series of sociological theories which adopt this concept. In the case of classical Pareto's theory, the social system was considered to be a state of dynamic equilibrium in cycles of interdependence of four factors : a. residues ; b. interests ; c. derivations ; d. social heterogeneity and circulation. Closely related to this theory we can find George C. Horman's theory. He defines the social system as composed of two analytical aspects (i.e., external system and internal system) and three composite factors (i.e., activities, interactions, and sentiments). Therefore, these two I shall name “Pareto-Homans model” of the social system. Pareto's is a priori model, but Homans' is, so to call it, ex post facto model for codification.
5. Tolcott Parsons' famous theory of the social system rests on the same basis, yet the main feature that characterizes his theory lies in the categorization in terms of combinations of five (or recently, chiefly four) “pattern variables”. This way of thinking is akin to that of Allen H. Bartons' “property space.” Combinations of pattern variables are not merely setting of typology but indicate the “phase movement” and the role-differentiation in action space. This Theory, putting its empirical. reference to Robert F. Bales' interaction process analysis, I call “Parsons-Bales model, ” which, as attempt to theorize more than is empirically known, can be termed speculative model.
6. Above two models will be both able to be characterized as a kind of model of dynamic equilbrium. This model always needs some a priori theoretical postulates : that is, automatic control mechanism or feedback system. Because of this postulate, if we are to make use of this model to our empirical reality, the problem of conceptual validity will arise. Strongly contrasted to this model would be the concept of “mass” society.

抄録全体を表示

In an attempt to study positively one aspect of the contemporary huge urban society, we have taken up the case of Kyoto City (with a populationn fooe million and one handred thousand) and tried to determine the marriage pattern of its inhabitants in terms of where they have found their marriage partners since 1901. After analysing 14, 886 marriage cases, we have arrived at the following conclusions.
1. In about 40%, of those cases, the marriage took place between the inhabitants of Kyoto City. The percentage of such cases, however, has been decreasing.
2. In about 30%, an inhabitant of Kyoto was married to a person coming from the distant area (from 50 to 800 kilometers from Kyoto). The percentage has been decreasing.
3. In other cases, the marriage was between an inhabitant of Kyoto and a person from the area within 50 kilometers from the city. The percentage of those cases has been rather constant
In short, in many cases, the marriage takes place between the two living not for apart from each other. On the other hand, if we look at the picture more dynamically, we notice the tendency that marriage of the two living comparatively for are representing a greater percentage over the period.
Finally, we have detected similar trends in the marriages statistics concerning rural communities.

抄録全体を表示