Theories on social welfare are differentiated along an ideological line. On one

side, there is the so-called neo-liberalism. According to this ideology, which is

based on the market fundamentalism, the governmental spending on social welfare

should be as minimal as possible. On the oppositional extreme side, there

is a set of theories that, while emphasizing the social importance of welfare values,

deny the necessity of considering the feasibility conditions. The theories of

this type may be characterized by the term “welfare absolutism.” The reason for

the negligence of feasibility conditions seems that to give any consideration on

restrictions imposed by resource limitation is, for those who stand on this side,

a serious deviation from “the ideal of welfare society.” This is a kind of welfare

fundamentalism. Of course actual arguments which would emphasize the ideal

of welfare society are not so simple. But among them there is a tendency that

any workfare-like policies are tend to be criticized as “coercion of self-support,”

or that the ideal called “post-productivism” is commended. Those theories

which would deliberately neglect the resource condition may be called “manna-

type welfare theory.” Both the neo-liberalism and the welfare absolutism are

ideological and not appropriate for a theory of social welfare. There are two axes

which differentiate these ideologies. The one is whether or not a theory attaches

the importance to the communal value of civil society, which resides in

the core of the ideal of welfare society. Another axis is whether or not a theory

takes a consideration on the resource conditions and the institutional arrangements.

Those theories which would attach the importance to the communal value

of civil society and, at the same time, take a serious consideration on the reabstract

source conditions may be called “commons-type welfare theory,” and this is the

one expected for theories of social welfare.

　This article examines the relationship between social normativeness and the

organizational forms of the third sector as documented in the third sector literature.

The third sector organization in the third sector literature is strongly associated

with normativeness because third sector organizations such as NPOs,

co-operatives, and social enterprises pursue normative goals, thus gaining the

sympathy of researchers. Moreover, researchers tend to assume that normativeness

in the third sector is non-market and non-state one and is consider to be

unidimensional like “solidarity.”

　However, such assumptions are questionable considering the blurring boundaries

between the third sector and other sectors（ e.g., the market and state sectors）

and the increasing diversity within the third sector. Therefore, we must

re-examine the framework to analyze the relationship between the third sector

and social normativeness.

　In this article, I recommend a new framework to analyze this relationship in a

more nuanced manner. I divide the relationship between normativeness and the

third sector’s organizational forms into three modes. In the first mode, I consider

researchers who assume that the organizational forms of the third sector represent

a single non-market, non-state normativeness, which I call “essentialism

of the third sector.” In the second mode, I consider researchers who assume

that the third sector is an “intermediary space of principles,” which primarily

include redistribution, market, and reciprocity. In the third mode, I consider researchers

who focus on an “institutional logic model,” which enables them to

decouple social normativeness and the organizational forms of the third sector.

Thus, I examine the potential and significance of the institutional logic model.

The institutional logic model contributes to sociology and social policy in the

age of welfare states reform.

　The market is often considered to be spontaneous and self-regulating, and the

welfare system is, by contrast, thought to be normative and not spontaneous.

However, opinions in support of the free market themselves presuppose strong

norms, and the demand for a welfare system is, in fact, spontaneous―occurring

without regulatory intervention. For this reason, the social citizenship of the

welfare state tends to be called into question. Karl Polanyi held that labor, land,

and money cannot be commodities and that the self-regulating market is a fiction.

Polanyi also stated that the welfare state was another myth that supported

the self-regulating market in the 20th century. Labor, land, and money have

been partly de-commodified, but globalization has made the welfare state fluid,

and the hegemony of neoliberalism has divided society. Social inclusion and deliberative

democracy are often proposed as an alternative, but Chantal Mouffe

has shown that agonistic democracy is essential for “the political.” Agonistic democracy

requires a common lifestyle; thus it is necessary to build a new community

that includes foreigners. For example, a neighborhood self-governing

body including various citizens could create an appropriate adversarial relationship

and form a new entity in agonistic democracy. Richard Sennett, as a pragmatist,

insisted that the art of democracy may be given sophistication as the

self-governing practice of common people, and such craftsmanship may be an

alternative to traditional statesmanship or the statecraft of specialists.

　The purpose of this study is to get a suggestion about a universal characteristic

of the care work through the discussion about the paid/unpaid care work in

the independent living movement by the people with disability. The movement

extended the number of care workers by using a function of the money effectively,

and enabled stability and continuation of the life. This changed the care

worker from the family to professional worker and transferred the style of care

work from unpaid work to paid work.

　However, when we read the discussion about the paid/unpaid care work in

the independent living movement very carefully, we notice that they have the

negative opinions about paid care, and they refuse the care which depends on

money. In other words, they brought about stability of the care by using money,

but inquired into the way of the care that is not subordinate to money.

　The care work has universal characteristic to secure human personality and

life, so, in the other hands, the care work is needed enough money that makes

the employment environment of the workers and it brings care stability and fertility,

and the other hands the care work should not depend on money.

　This paper aims to clarify why the “mutual” action of disabled and able-bodied

people in disability movements was possible by focusing on the movement

of Wappa-no-kai（ Wappa） in the 1970s.

　The studies of Japanese disability movements have predominantly focused on

the movements acted since the 1970s by disabled people. The story in these

movements was that they achieved liberation by themselves. However, the studies

do not focus on how disabled and able-bodied people build relationships

and overlook other movements acted by both mutually as stakeholders. This article

focuses on one of the movements of Wappa that started in 1971. Both the

disabled and able-bodied members of Wappa try co-living and co-working with

a sense of fellowship.

　The results show that Friends International Work Camp （FIWC） effects Wappa’s

way of action. Wappa was started by members of FIWC, which was one of

the volunteer groups of students. Its characteristic is that members stay in the

place and help for some period; during this period, they communicate with the

people living there and understand social problems with real feeling. Members

of Wappa also felt “moral shock” by joining FIWC in a nursing home for disabled

people. They established Wappa by initiating the effort of co-living and

later co-working. It took over the way of FIWC, investigated social problems,

and tried to change the relationship with disabled people reflexively through

their efforts. Their efforts of co-living and co-working were more than usual volunteer

work because the members devoted all their life to it. It gave them the

confidence to be stakeholders regardless of whether they had a disability or not,

and accordingly, makes Wappa’s way of action “mutual”.

　The paradigm of independent living consists of “self-determination by individuals

with disabilities” and “community life”. There were many studies about self-determination but few studies about community were published. The purpose

of this research is to clarify concept of community for independent living and examine the interaction between the paradigm of independent living and

community human relations by analyzing the process of birth and development of disability movement in Setagaya Ward, Tokyo from 1974 to 1990 through

document investigation.

　The main results show: 1） Disability movement in Setagaya had it origin in needs of barrier-free a station. Two disability movements have developed after

original movement. One was independent living movement aimed to live on their own receiving personal assistance by person outside the family and establish

personal assistance security system. The other was community development movement participated in by individuals with disabilities and local residents on

even ground. The community development aimed not only to barrier-free but to promote understanding of individuals with disabilities. 2） Both disability movements

made the concept of community not as a region but as a space for communication between individuals with disabilities and local residents, and as a

space shaping through participation and learning by individuals with disabilities and residents. This community was a space allowed individuals with disabilities

to live on their own receiving personal assistance by person outside the family and to participate in on even ground with local residents. 3） This concept of

community had an actual limitation in responding to life problems for individuals with disabilities such as personal assistance, thus the support organization

based by welfare system was needed.

　This paper aims to explicate how Konishi Takako formed ‘professionalism’ of

psychiatrist who was engaged in crime victim support. To explicate it, this paper

focuses on jurisdiction of psychic injury and inequality in care.

　Primarily, Konishi claimed that ‘professions’ who worked together had to understand

psychic injury, for preventing victims from secondary victimization.

And Konishi formed ‘professionalism’ by determining psychic injury which was

lost in legal frame. Secondly, Konishi formed ‘professionalism’ by sophisticating

effectiveness of medical method. This medical method enabled psychiatrists to

prevent victims from secondary victimization. This secondary victimization

came up by becoming inequality in relationship between psychiatrist and client

obvious.

　Above two ‘professionalisms’ were different level in following two points.

That is to say, who was intended to these ‘proffesionalisms’, and whether the

assailantness of psychiatrists were problematized or not. But ‘proffesionalism’ of

psychiatrists was formed by fitting above two ‘professionalisms’ together. These

psychiatrists engaged in actual practices of counseling, and demanded enactment

of law.

　Focusing above two ‘professionalisms’, this paper explicated how the act of

psychiatrist who made a base of crime victim support was enabled. And this paper

explicated the historical process of practical base of crime victim care. This

process was not analyzed adequately in previous studies.