In this article, I examine and compare Smith, Marx, Spencer, and Durkheim's theories of division of labour, focusing on their analysis of its causes. With my other articles (Kohara 1997, 1998) , which focuses their analysis of its consequences, this is the first attempt of general comparison of Marx, Spencer, and Durkheim's theory of division of labour. Basically based on the results of former studies comparing Spencer and Durkheim or Marx and Durkheim's theories of division of labour, this article casts new light on the ever ignored aspects, such as the change of Durkheim's theory of division of labour, which is ignored by the former studies comparing Spencer and Durkheim, or the dynamic aspect of their theories, which is ignored by the former studies comparing Marx and Durkheim. The most important findings of this article are the shared characteristics of Marx, Spencer and Durkheim's theories of division of labour (comparing with Smith's one) such as 1) finding positive feedback between the causes and results of division of labour or 2) taking trichotomic scheme in understanding the relation of the society and individuals in their analysis of the positive feedback in the development of division of labour. These findings become possible only with the comparison of these four social scientists. Among these findings, the first one, which concerns positive feedback, is especially meaningful. It reconfirms the theoretical basis of Marx and Spencer's theory of social evolution, which is severely attacked by Parsons (1937). This finding demands us to adjust the direction of the development of sociology after Parsons.

抄録全体を表示

　Reflexivity is a concept which reflects oneself to others and determines oneself by the reflection of others. Giddens critiques empirical and functional methods of sociology, and suggests new rules of sociological methods by means of using the concept of reflexivity.
　Giddens also uses reflexivity to explain modern society. In modern society reflexivity works faster in the social system, and reliable certainty cannot be found anywhere. Giddens insists that post industrial society is not 'post-modernity' but 'high-modernity', a boundless working of reflexivity. In high-modernity, politics acts as an important role as rationality did in modernity.
　Giddens makes a close connection between sociological method and modern society by using 'reflexivity', which is the key word of both method of social thought and social theory of modernity.
　If reflexivity works more and more, we must doubt not only the foundation of social science but also that of logics and natural science. To pursue reflexivity more radically, we will see a more uncertain world than Giddens anticipates. In addition, we should pursue not simple modernization, which reflects Western rational modernization, but reflexive modernization, which reflects multiple cultures.
　When we understand that everything is reflected in our own culture, including our concepts, even the concept of 'reflexivity', and sympathize with other different cultures, we can subjectively and critically begin a new method of social thought. At the same time, we can reflexively construct a society for the future.

抄録全体を表示

　Enterprise union has been regarded as one of the "three tillers" of Japanese management, and as a major factor responsible for cooperative industrial relations in Japan. It seems reasonable to assume such correlation between enterprise union and cooperativeness of industrial relations when we compare Japanese labor unions with American counterparts which can be characterized by correlation between industrial union and hostile industrial relations.
　This hypothsis, however, is seriously challenged when we compare Japanese labor unions with Korean counterparts. In Korea enterprise union is a dominant form of labor unions. Yet industrial relations are generally conflictive rather than cooperative.
　I present an alternative explanation about cooperativeness of industrial relations in Japan drawing upon data obtained from comparative case studies of Hitachi Workers' Union in Japan and Hyundai Group General assembly of Labor Union in Korea with special focuses on: (l) the operation of labor-management consultation system and the topics of consultation; (2) The types of activities of labor unions; (3) the relationship of these unions with local communities.
　The following conclusions are derived thereof: The principle Hitachi Union formation is company-oriented style whereas that of Hyundai Group Union formation is worker-oriented style. The former type of labor union gives priority to the company.The latter type gives priority to the workers, which implies that industrial conflicts should not be avoided when they are necessary for the interests of the workers.Cooperativeness of industrial relations in Japan and conflictive nature of industrial relations in Korea derives from these differing principles of enterprise union formation.

抄録全体を表示

　This paper attempts to describe and sociologically consider historical developments of a social movement. Central themes in this paper are: (1) to explain how social and cultural patterns of the outside of a social movement affect it when it forms "we"; (2) to explain the developments where social and cultural patterns of the inside of the social movement which was formed produce their cultural codes against the dominant cultural codes, and, moreover, through producing such codes, it again is forming "we". The movement by TOYOTA-SHISEI-KENKYUKAI (a political study group on Toyota city politics; SHISEIKEN for short) is chosen as a case study.
　In reconsidering the problem, namely the city's name changed from "Koromo" to "Toyota", SHISEIKEN reformed their "we" by reidentifying the "tradition" in the region and the sense of the native inhabitants in place of their Marxism ideology which could be universalized. After that, to oppose the formation of "we" which took the form of "Toyota" by the administration of Toyota city and Toyota Motor Corporation, SHISEIKEN tried to resist by symbolizing the native and "traditional" in the region. But SHISEIKEN could not make new inhabitants who came to Toyota city as workers "we", and after all, SHISEIKEN came to "stop being active".
　I think what we learn from the developments of this movement is how we solve the dilemma, namely the question of whether a group which formed "we" through the native can form "we" in new meanings, keeping the existence of different nature which form "we" as it is.

抄録全体を表示