According to Lukes' suggestions, most of the conventional views of power like the pluralist and the reformist one, which have even taken power as relationship, presuppose a priori that one's consciousness of interests is built up by his autonomous choice. However this presupposition precludes the investigation which examines some kind of power effects by the powerful over the formation of the powerless' interest consciousness.
　Agreeing with Lukes, I deny the presupposition and try to make a conceptual apparatus which helps us understand the power over the interest consciousness. In order to typify the consciousness concerning with the power exercised by the powerful, two criteria are induced, which are not distinguished clearly in Lukes' theory. One is a criterion by which one's interest consciousness can be judged as either built up by his autonomous choice or imposed by the power of the kind. Another is a helpful criterion for us to make a distinction between the morally or normatively relevant consciousness of interests and irrelevant one. There can be four types of the consciousness made by these two criteria. ( 1 ) rational consciousness ; Interest consciousness which is made autonomously by the subject and is normatively relevant. ( 2 ) irrational consciousness ; Interest consciousness formed up autonomously, being normatively irrelevant. ( 3 ) pseudo-rational consciousness ; Interest consciousness which is canalized by the power exerted by other(s) and is in normative relevance. ( 4 ) absurd consciousness ; Interest consciousness canalized by the power, being normatively irrelevant.
　The kinds of the power which impose the powerless either the pseudo-rational consciousness or the absurd one are analyzed in the terms of the theory on the formation of interest consciousness and are named power of enlightenment and power of meaning deprivation respectively.

抄録全体を表示

　Georg Simmel hat seine soziologische Methodik und sein Schema zu der objektiven Form nicht verfeinert, so daß seine Schriften schwer zu verstehen geworden sind. Aber das Zentrum des Schema hat sich in der Tiefe seiner Schriften zu dem Motiv von »Kristallisierung« verdichtet. Ich gliedere dieses Motiv vorläufig in zwei Formen. »Die prinzipielle Kristallisierung« wird durch die Wechselbegrenzung zwischen Subjekt und Objekt, und auch durch die Ableitung »einer dritten Kategorie«, die Simmel oft soziologische Funktion als solche nannte, bezeichnet. Noch dazu diese Beziehungsmetamorphose enthält die unendliche Wechselbestimmung zwischen besagt Wechselbegrenzung und Kategorie. Die zweite »skalare Kristallisierung« ist einer Prozeß, in dem ein Bündel dritter Kategorien, die durch »prinzipielle Kristallisierung« entstehen, sich zu einer Metakategorie verdichten. In Simmels Schriften, verwandelt sich dieser Prozeß oft in eine Skala, individuell/sozial. In diesem Punkt, können wir Simmels Vorstellung von Gesellschaft als Multiniveaustruktur flüchtig blicken, da zwei Elemente einer Wechselwirkung durch »eine dritte Kategorie« zu einem gewiß Niveau geführt werden.
　Anderseits nach Simmels Ansicht, verkörpern mannigfaltige, soziale Gebilde »eine dritte Kategorie«, so daß soziale Gebilde auf ihre Schultern mannigfaltige Funktionen nehmen. Aber ich gliedere diese Funktionen in zwei Funktionsgruppen, »Niveaugründung« und »Wertaufspeicherung«. Zwischen der Stellung dieser Gebilde und Simmels Stellung als ein Soziolog, können wir die Gemeinsamkeit erblicken. Hier entsteht die Zirkulation zwischen seinem soziologischen Schema und seiner Methodik.

抄録全体を表示

　Before the Meiji-era, japanese rural communities generally owend their land and forest on common ownership of land. However, after the Meiji-era, the land and forest have been dissolved by state control; land-forest policy, local government system on modern ownership of land. And the land and forest were included in demesne of the state.
　In this case study，in spite of control，the rural community has substantially owned its land and forest by the autonomous counterplots. (In this case study, I will call rural community “mura”.)
　The aimes of this article are to examine the autonomous counterplots of “mura" in view of two points;
　(1) the reorganization process of group in“mura" against the change of local government system: the reorganization from “Jige” to “Kyogi-kai” in the Meiji-era，the reorganization from “Kyogi-kai” to “Chonai-kai” in 1954.
　(2) the claiming justice of landownership in the statute of group against the land-forest policy.
　On this reorganization process in Meiji-era，“the equipment of territorial integrity", what we could call, grew out in“mura" under“the social condition" that the administrative district coincides with “mura".
　This “equipment” made the administrative district like a “invisible cloak” to state control (land-forest policy). Though the administrative district legally owned the land and forest (demesne of the state)，“mura” reformed and avoided state control by this “equipment” behind the administrative district, had been able to substantially own its land and forest.
　However, in 1954, the administrative district was incorporated into Tobacity. And with the change of local government system, “the social condition” disappeared, at the same time, “mura” lost “the equipment” and had to face state control with only the claiming justice of landownership. In other words, “mura” have to expose themselves potential crisis of landownership. And, in 1987，finally this crisis appeared. That is “the problem of landownership” between Toba city and “mura”.
　Consequently, this case study indicates that the autonomous counterplots is the process of protecting the right of existence for “mura” deprived of public status and the protest against state control.

抄録全体を表示