From a historical and stractural point of view, we may safely say that modern society on its economic basis is characterized by capitalism. From another view-point it may be classed as mass society. Further, from a third aspect it may also be described as class society.
As for the modern capitalist structure, it has been thoroughly investigated chiefly in connection with its economic basis, by Max Weber (Wirtschaft und Ges-ellschaft, 1922), Werner Sombart (Der Moderne Kapitalisinus. 1902), and John A. Hobson (The Evolution of Modern Capitalism, 1894). As is described in their researches, it is obvious that mordern society is closely related with capitalism or, to be more precisely, the capitalist economic structure. It is a well-known fact that the capitalist structure was started with rapid increase in production through the Industrial Revolution in England in the latter half of the 18th century. Groham Wallas warned of the great difficulty of adaptation that the individual was destined to experience in the huge-scale society called into being by steam and electricity (The Great Society, 1914). In the enterprise structure supported by grand-scale mass production through machinery, man has set himself free from feudalistic structure under which he suffered for centuries, and reforming the mass structure on the principle of socio-economic freedom, has managed to build mass society. But on the other hand, modern society has established itself as a sort of class society with the fundamental relations between labour and capital as the nucleus. (Erich Fromm : The sane Society, 1955). In his book “Man and Society”, Karl Mannheim observer, “Every step in the concentration of the control of the material apparatus of society, as described by Karl Max and Max Weber--the concentration of the means of production, as well as that of political and military weapons is a growing threat to the dynamic principles of democratization and brings about the dominance of small minorities under capitalism as well as under communism.......in the latter the intellectual and executive function trend to become bureaucratic to the last degree.” 'By das eherne Gesetz der Origarchie'-the iron rule of oligarchy (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der Modernen Deinokratie, 1952), Robert Michels seems to mean the command-and obedience relations brought about as a result of the concentration of power among the upper small minorities. In other words, the result took the form of industrialization and urbanization through monopolistic capital in the economic fields, mass democracy in politics, and mass culture by means of mass communication in the field of civilization. The more highly capitalism advances the more intensified are the organization, rationalization, , and mechanization of social groups. The trend of massification breeds, among the masses, alienation, privatization or a phenomenon technically called anomie, bringing : about political apathy. In the huge modern capitalist society has modern bureaucracy made its first appearance as a mechanism of control over the structure. Max Weber and Robert Michels were the first to make clear the significance of bureaucracy.
While the latter chiefly treats of bureaucratization of political and executive organizations, the former, showing detailed historical evidences, describes it as a phenomenon peculiar to modern society. In his opinion, it is observed as a universal tendency not only in public offices but in the army and navy forces, and joint-stock companies as well (Max Weber : Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 1922).

抄録全体を表示

Karl Mannheim, der wohl als der wichtigste Vertreter der radikalen Richtung innerhalb der Wissenssoziologie und Kultursoziologie gelten darf, nimmt in der Problematik des Historismus auch die sehr wichtige Stellung ein.
Seine philosophische Position hängt dabei an einem bis zu den Konsequenzen durchgebildeten Historismus. Historismus war jedoch für ihn keine letzthinnige Einstellung. Ergeht weiter und bleibt nicht bei demselben. In dem Entfaltungs-prozeß des historischen Denkens bei Mannheim (von 1920 bis 1930) können wir eine sinteressante Doppelbewegung finden ; der Entstehungsprozeß des Historismus einerseits und sein Auflösungsprozeß anderseits. In seinem 1924 erschienenen Aufsatz “Historismus” bemerken wir schon den Wendepunkt vom Historismus als Weltanschauungsbegriff zum Historismus als Ideologienbegriff. Es besteht eine tiefe Kluft zwischen der weltanschaungslehre und der Ideologienlehre. Es handelt sich um die Feststellung dieser Verwandlungen und des Reflexionswinkels dieser Wendungen.
Ich gehe zunächst mit dieser geschichtlichen Forschungen aus, und dann frage, auf welchem Boden sich diese Wendungen vollzogen haben ? Worin liegt das Wesen dieser Wendungen ? Was ist im Grunde überhaupt Historismus ? Der konsequente Historismus hat aber seine Auszeichnung darin, daß er “mit Hilfe der Kategorie der Totalität die tiefere Einheit des Wandels zu erfassen” versucht. Ich versuche in meiner Abhandlung die Wendung des Mannheimschen Historismus auf der Grundlage einer solchen “Problematik der Totalität” zu erleuchten.
In diesem Zusammenhang haben wir zwei Aufgaben ; erstens die Erläuterung der immanenten Entwicklung des Mannheimschen Historismus, zweitens die transzendente Kritik zur Mannheimschen Wendung im Horizont der Geschichte des Historismus in allgemeinen. Welche Verwandlungen hat der Historismus des 20 Jahrhunderts durch Mannheim erfahren ? Das ist doch auch das Hauptthema dieser Abhandlung.

抄録全体を表示

I intend in this paper to study critically the structural analysis of “Herrschaft” Which Max Weber developed in his “Herrschaftssoziologie”, in connection with his methodology.
I According to his methodology of social science, since one neither can nor need cognize thoroughly all the aspects of historical reality which is immensely diverse and complex, so one must abstract from it one or some aspects which are worth knowing in relation to his own subjective value standards. His concept- “ideal type” concept is an idealization or “Gedankenbild” thus abstracted by observer (conceptual nominalism). His Herrschaftssoziologie is also developed in this principle. He has no intension to study all the phenomena of Herrschaft sociologically. He distinguishes between Herrschaft in wider sense and one in narrower sence. The former is called “force” Herrschaft and the latter “legitimate” Herrschaft. “Force (macht) is the chance that one actor in a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this chance rests. (Legitimate) Herrschaft is the chance that a command with a given content will be obeyed by a given group of persons.”
In this paper I will evaluate and criticize his structural analysis of Herrschaft, especially taking account of these two key concepts.
II Max Weber thinks : Force can not be the object of his Herrschaftssoziologie, since it is sociologically amorph. So I ask : What is meant by his saying that legitimate Herrsohaft is not sociologically amorph ? why he takes only the legitimate Herrschaft as the object of his Herrschaftssoziologie ?
He dose not always explicitly answer this question, but I think his answer is probably the following. 1. Legitimate Herrschaft can be approached by 'means of “verstehende Soziologie”. Three types of legitimacy correspond with four types of social action. 2. Institutionalized normative structure of any Herrschaftarder is interpretively understood from the point of view of the types of legitimacy which a group of persons hold in their minds, since their believes of legitimacy are prescribed by the order of Herrschaft actually. 3. This kind of structural analysis of Herrschaft makes possible the macroscopic and comparative sociological study of the world history, asking why we have the rational capitalism and the legal bureaucracy only in the modern Europe.
III While he tries to analyse this kind of Herrschaft exclusively, he says nothing about the other one, but that there are two polar types of Herrschaft-legitimate Herrschaft and the Hersschaft resulting from “constellation of interests (Interesse-nkonstellation)” pointing out that the latter is an example of force Herrschaft, that is, the Herrschaft in wider sence. Weber does not say clearly, but it : seems probable. that he thinks the followiug implicitly : since the Herrschaft resulting from the constellation of interests lacks “minimum will for obedience, ” it is needless to say that it has not the institutionalized normative structure, and in this sens it is sociologically amorph. Thus thinking that it is not worth knowing, he eliminates the force concept from his sociological study of Herreschaft. But I think
1. Even this kind of Herrschaft has a structure too. It is not normative. Even though a man is not conscious of such a force and does not regard it as legitimate, his action and the institutionalized normative structure of legitimate Herrschaft of the group itself in which he participates are actually defined and conditioned by this force structure. Therefore, this kind of Herrschaft is worth knowing for Max Weber himself. But generally speaking, his methodology neglects the fact that a historical reality is one functional unity.

抄録全体を表示

1. Necessity of Distinction Between Effect and Function :
Both function and effect of mass communication refer to the results (or influeuces) on audience which mass communication brings about. But two concepts are different in terms of dealing with the results. The “effect” is brought to discussion when we examine the results in terms of whether the intent of communicator is realized in audience's response or not. The concept “function, ” on the other, comes across our mind when the results is examined in the light of significance, which it has to the audience.
2. Methodological Problems of Effect Analysis :
Effect analysis, in its nature, takes the communicator's intent as a starting point, and analyses the mechanism of effect-making-process, focussing the factors which operate along with the communication process. Most analyses select one factor, and examine the operational mechanism of it, by controlling other factors equall. This method has some difficulties in the applicability to actual mass communication phenomena. For many factors are interwoven in real mass communication process.
3. Effect Analysis in terms of Audience's Response :
One of the methods to resolve such a difficulty is to approach the effect by taking audience's responce as a starting point. We can see an example of this method in R. K. Merton's “Mass Persuassion.” This, which tries to analyse the effect-making-process from the clue of audience's response, will provide not a little sugr gestion to the methodology to analyse the function of mass communication, which is distinguished conceptually from effect. For the “function” itself is recognized in terms of audience's responce.
4. Audience Research and Function Analysis :
Audience research now deals with not only demographic description of audience, but also their needs and expectations to mass communication. Such a trend clearly relates to function analysis. It is considered that analytical methodology of function on the individual decision will be resulted in this direction.
5. Analysis of Social Function of Mass Communication :
Social function is more complex and more difficult than individual function o be analised. But at least I can say that it is necessary to take a certain evaluative standpoint (for example, anomie is less desirable then equilibrium, or it is wrong that minority group satisfy their needs at the expense of majority, etc.). It is hoped that the positivistic method to analise the actual role of mass communication, is constructed in reference to this value standard.

抄録全体を表示

Social groups as basic family aggregation which are universally seen in Japanese village communities are the “dôzoku-dan” (the extended family system) and the “shinzoku-shûdan” (family association of the same kin of wife's side). Generally each families is placed on a knot of the network formed of these two kinds of family aggregation, or it belongs to the one of the two. In the study of the Japanese villages, therefore, it is inevitable to examine these basic social relationship which constitute of the inner structure of a village community. It is though that in the plot of analysis of village community heretofore much attention has been paid to make types of the form of being of the village community, and actually the remarkable achievements has been done in this direction. However, still remain the questions on the relative structure between the organizations of the extended families, on the relation of the dôzoku-dan with the shinzoku-shûdan, and on the, difference of their functions.
For the purpose of gripping the actual condition of fishing villages where the connection of the organizations of the extended families are becoming loose and their functions being enervated, I accordingly attempted the consideration from this point of view with the shinzoku-shûdan as the object of the study, focusing on its “matrimonial relationship.”
Date and Process of the Study.
1) Field : Hokkawa, Kito village, Kamo provience Shizuoka Prefecture.
2) Date : Family register and residence survey book of the village ; 1876-1957 (Meiji 5-Showa 32).
3) Process : a) Marital area.
b) Rate of Marital interrelations in Hokkawa.
c) shinzoku-shûdan.
The forms of connection of families.
Approarching the subjekt from the point of view mentioned above, the social relationship of the fishing village has been able to objectively be established. However, the elucidation, of the actual condition, I think, would become complete only when the analysis of the psychological aspects of the people in the many social relationship is performed as the means of analysis. At the same time, the control of the fishing ground in fishing villages, compared with the land-ownership in agricultural villages, and the form of fishing attendant upon it must be called to account ; that is, the questions on the productive mechanism, on labour system, and on market of labor in the village concerned. The answer for the problems for further study will be provided for with comparative study of such points as stated above.

抄録全体を表示