The aim of this paper is to examine Erving Goffman's basic view of "context" in his analysis of face-to-face interaction. The arguments are as follows.
(l)According to Goffman, people in "social situation" take up "alignments"each other, which constitute various modes of access to them. Here is his basic view of "context", that is, modes of mutual alignments.
(2)In the case of "encounters", mutual alignments are basically taken up in accordance with officially accredited "frames." An official frame has four chief functions in this respect ;
　l.The exclusive function or the function as a "rule of irrelevance."
　2. The function as a "schema of expression and interpretation."
　3. The transformative function or the function as a "transformation rule."
　4. The organization of "involvement."
(3)The basic modes of mutual alignments in accordance with official frames can be changed and differentiated in at least four ways ;
　a)Allocation of involvement in relation to multiple channels of an encounter.
　b) "Downkeying" and "upkeying."
　c) "Fabrication. "
　d) "Flooding out" in relation to "interation tension."
(4)The relationship between an encounter and the social structure can be considered as follows. First, the official frame determines which social-structural factors are officially qualified to guide the encounter. Second, officially excluded social-structural factors "typically" influence the modes of involvement of participants. Hence, social-structural factors influence the stability and vulnerability of an official frame. Here is one of the links between local contexts of interaction and the social structure.

抄録全体を表示

　A series of attacks on Homeless people in Yokohama (1983) was a phenomina which enlightened many people about the social problems of attacks on the Homeless. Not only in Yokohama, but also in Tokyo and Osaka, it was discovered that many attacks on the Homeless have been caused by young people and students since 1975. At present, incidents of attacks on the Homeless happen frequently.
　This paper aims to show that attacks on the homeless are problems related to "Yoseba" discrimination and will discuss the structure of "Yoseba" discrimination in modern Japanese society. The data used supplementarily here were gathered from participant observation in the Osaka Kamagasaki area.
　The Homeless consist of the "Yoseba"-laborers, the socialy deprived men , and illegal professionals. Many of the Homeless are the "Yoseba"-laborers or the onetime "Yoseba"-laborers. Both of these groups are called "Furosha" or "Romusha" and face discrimination. They are labeled with many various stigmas. Their stigmas can be characterized in the following six categories ; (0 lowly character in process of life, (2) insecurity as regards employment, (3) vagrancy, (4) idle character as regards employment, (5) arbitrariness in process of life, (6) inferiority in humanity and personality. There is a fixed structure with these various stigmas interrelated. By discussing the structure of "Yoseba" discrimination, I hope to make clear that it is unreasonable and based on prejudice and discrimination.

抄録全体を表示

　Many researchers point out that after the World War II，Japanese voting behavior has changed from collective and particularistic social relationship (especially Buraku Suisen system) to individual and universal one. This view is a common interpretation in sociology and political science. But it is not yet sufficiently verified by the scientific and objective methods in both sciences. There fore in this article, I will' take the case of a village in Tottori prefecture and verify the changing processes of the Buraku Suisen system in voting behavior, based on a data of candidates 'poll and presumptive voters' number. And it will then be testified in the Buraku (neighborhood community) and the district of the primary school how far the voters support thier (Buraku's) candidate.
　My findings are as follows. After the war, in the Buraku level, having a candidate or not, all voters persistently tend to follw the Buraku Suisen system, and in the district of the primary school level, the voters don't support any candidates beyond their districts. In short, the Burakus don't tend to lose its political autonomy, and the district of the primary school is constantly autonomous in voting behavior.

抄録全体を表示

　The sociology of crime has provided a number of explanations about motives for crime up to this day. As the basis of these theories, there is the background-hypothesis which assumes that the individual is motivated to crime previous to concrete offences as a result of the internalization of unfavorable social environments. But this background-hypothesis doesn't notice the view that the reality of motives is constructed through the social interaction process where actors request explanations of behaviour. This particular view is a result of advancements of the sociology of knowledge, especially as promoted by C. W. Mills early work and his followers'. The motives for crime cannot be exceptions to this result, because the reality of crime is also socially constructed.
　The labelling theory is the most appropriate of all theories to approach the study of the motives for crime from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge. This is so because it succeeded in introducing the conception of relativity into the definition of crime and made it quite clear that a definition of crime is constructed through the prosesses of interaction where actors demand categories of deviance. Of couese, in relation to the motives forcrime, the current labelling theory shares the above background-hypothesis with other theories of crime , which is evident in the problem which treats the increasing motives for crime as a never ending vicious circle. It is an extension of the cultural learning theory. However, it is possible for the motives of crime to be removed from the realms of this background-hypothesis by virtue of the labelling theory, if implications in the concept of a definition of crime are put into the perspective of motives for crime.
　Accordingly, it is very fruitful to examine the possibility of studying motives for crime from the perspective of 'a definition of crime' as it occurs in the labelling theory. Such examination leads to a study of motives for crime as seen from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge, because it enables us to step back and reinterpret our attitudes in relation to the motives for crime in daily life. In short, labelling of criminal acts involves the construction of mitives for crime and the imputation of them to the actors. Therefore, it is possible to say that the motives for crime reveal themselves, not before concrete criminal acts, but after them. And they must be treated not as mental facts but as social facts, because we construct the motives for crime within the paradigms of the interpretation of acts in daily life, based on a common perception of the meaning of human behaviour.

抄録全体を表示

　E.Goffman's argument undoubtedly owes a lot to G.Bateson. Above all, one of Goffman's main concepts 'frame' is obviously inherited from Bateson and used in accordance with his originally intended meaning. Therefore, it will be meaningful to consider Bateson in order to gain a clearer idea of Goffman's viewpoint.
　Bateson's introduction of the theory of "logical-types" in relation to the study of social communication, which can be considered to be the main point of his 'double-bind theory', is, of course, immediately concerned with 'frame'. And the dynamic property of Goffman's arguement in "Frame Analysis" can be considered in part a product of this Bateson's idea.
　This paper attempts to make a comparison between the sociology of E.Goffman and that of M.Buber from Bateson's unique point of view. In various aspects, Buber sociology is thought to be the opposite of Goffman's. It is the above mentioned insight of Bateson that can be used here to describe the contrast between these two antipodal scholars.
　Each of the directions they took is asserted to be correspondent to two principal 'ethoses' of Western society, that is to say, love and skepticism. By examining Buber's ethos of love and Goffman's ethos of skepticism, the significance of the angle that Goffman takes can be reconsidered.

抄録全体を表示