In Japan, the social pressure under which children were induced to go to school was growing during the post-war period. In 1960, this pressure resulted in the first peak in non-attendance at school and the second peak in juvenile delinquency. Despite this, however, non-attendance at school and juvenile delinquency did not increase until the period from the middle of the 1960s to the middle of the 1970s. This period is well known to coincide with the height of the "student movement" in Japan. This paper will attempt to demonstrate the influence of the student movement on the problems of juvenile delinquency. In the Meiji Era, the modern school system was not accepted by common people such as merchants or peasants. For them, school was just a "play" in Gadamer's sense, which was not at all relative to daily employment and made children reluctant to do it. In the 1960s, however, the industrial system changed radically and many young people began to gain employment. This made school the only means to social promotion and resulted in an increasing pressure to attend school. The first peak of non-attendance at school and the second peak of juvenile delinquency constituted the reaction to these changes, as shown in the author's previous paper. However, Japanese students, who were school elites themselves, rejected the authority of schools during the student movement. This emancipated many young people under immense pressure to attend school and curbed the increase in nonattendance and juvenile delinquency. This is evinced in the fact that the problems observed among the youth, such as non-attendance, delinquency, or apathy, increased rapidly after the end of the student movement in the beginning of the 1970s.

抄録全体を表示

1. Medical Philosophy, Ethics and Problems of Homosexuality. The various concepts of sexuality were invented by psychopathology in the late 19th Century. In the DSM-III-R of 1987, homosexuality suddenly became normal from abnormal. However transgender remains an illness, as it was before. It is only a political problem. Another important problem is about AIDS. In Japan, there is discrimination between AIDS caused by medicine and AIDS caused by other factors. 2. Homosexuality as Thought : Situation of modern French Thought. In France, The "May Revolution" of 1968 caused the foundation of a new university : Paris 8th (Vancennes). One of its founders, Rene Scherer began his first lecture on sexuality in the faculty of Philosophy. His partner, Guy Hocquenghem, founded FHAR. Recently, Red and Black-Homosexuals in France after 1968 by F.Martel was published. However, Prof. Scherer has told me it is a defective book. 3. Thought of G. Hocquenghem : concerning homosexual desire. The originality of Hocquenghem's thought seems to lie in his idea of forming "a group of subjects" through the anus. The creation of relations among others by anality stands against ideas of couples. Being homosexual is not a means to attain self-identification, but a means to be out of self, to become a foreigner. It is also an escape to an infinite drifting from a stiff identity. 4. The Voice of M. Foucault : Homosexuality as a form of existence. Foucault's thought about homosexuality summarizes two points. First, to be homosexual is not correct ; to become homosexual is correct. He takes "gay" to create a new form of existence. Therefore, he does not think coming-out to be inevitable. Secondly, his problem is to begin to love among individuals. It means that "I" is more essential than sexuality. Here there seems to be fascination for passivity. 5. Conclusion : In Japan, they say "gay" is already out of fashion : now "queer" replaces it. However, such nomenclature is only a matter of fashion. To my regret, regular studies on gayness or queerness are not carried out in Japan. Now, it is necessary to study homosexuality as thought. That means to meet various thoughts not only to introduce and imitate them but to get involved in them : to have a mind of "hospitality". That is a critically needed task in Japan.

抄録全体を表示

In the spring of 1968, historian Richard Hofstadter (1916-70), sociologist Daniel Bell (1919-2011), and sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (1930-) faced the “Crisis at Columbia University.” The “crisis” started with the student occupation of several buildings and ended with the violent evacuation of them by officers of the New York City Police Department. The majority of faculty supported the student’s claims regarding institutional racism and ougoing dissatisflcation with the Vietnam War, but not many could easily accept the student’s militant tactics because they wondered if the student actions represented the anti-intellectualism in American life.

The Ad-Hoc Faculty Group, organized during the strike, played a significant role in the crisis. Consisting of mostly of younger faculty members, it became “the third force” to intervene in the negotiations between the students and the university. The group also placed itself within the confrontations between protesting students and counterdemonstrators as well as between the students and the police. Yet the group’s independent actions were accused of confusing and delaying the negotiation process by the university administration.

Richard Hofstadter believed that the university was a “special community for inquiry” and feared student’s violent actions on campus as “anti-intellectualism within the wall.” Hofstadter had been consistent with his “non-ideological” liberal stance toward the black liberation movement and the anti-Vietnam war cause during the sixties. When the movement came onto the campus, however, he was forced to make tough decisions: he was eager to understand student claims, but he eventually accepted the administration’s request to support the introduction of the police force onto the campus to restore the “special communitity.”

Daniel Bell and Immanuel Wallerstein showed contrasting reactions as sociologists. Both of them were members of the Ad-hoc Faculty Group, but neo-conservative Bell was very critical of the leaders at Columbia Students for a Democratic Society for their antiauthoritarian confrontational politics. In his writing, Bell ridiculed the stndents for leadirg “a revolution in a doll house” by imitating Mao in the post-industrial American society. He later argued that anti-authoritarianism of 1968 led to the anti-intellectualism in the Regan era. In contrast, Wallerstein was very sympathetic of the movements, especially of the African-American students, which he observed very closely during the strike. He believed that a certain tension between university and society was necessary because a university no longer existed as an isolated ivory tower in the society. Then he theorized the “antisystematic movements” in modern society, in which 1968 was “a rehearsal” for another wave of social change.

The intellectuals who faced the student strike at Columbia University in 1968 saw the change of relationship between university and society and the demise of the Cold War liberalism. However, their reactions were different because their beliefs in what should be conserved in the university and what should be challenged in the socieff did not coincide. In this sense, American universities in the late 1960s functioned as a contested ground for new social knowledge.

抄録全体を表示