中学2年図形領域の学習前後,生徒(172名)に対し質問紙調査を実施した結果,「」と「素朴な予定調和」の間の内的ゆらぎを有する者の割合が14.6ポイント(45.4%→30.8%)減少し,様相「に関して否定的,素朴な予定調和に関して肯定的」である者の割合が18.7ポイント増加した(45.3%→64.0%)。また,この様相に他から変化した者49名のうち,学習前に内的ゆらぎを有していたのは41名(83.7%)であった。

抄録全体を表示

Throughout the postwar period, realism has been the dominant school of thought in academic international relations (IR) communities in the United States and Europe. During the same period, in the IR community in Japan,there has been a group of scholars called genjitsushugi-sha, which literally translated means “realist(s)”. (Genjitsushugi literally means “realism,” and “sha” means “a person” or “people.”) Unlike realism in the Western IR communities, genjitushugi was not a dominant school of thought in Japan during the Cold War years. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Japanese IR community witnessed a harsh debate between genjitushugi-sha and risoushugi-sha (idealist[s]) over the role of military power in postwar international politics and the desirability of the “Japan-U.S. Security Treaty system” (i.e., the U.S.-Japan alliance) for Japan. In the Japanese society at that time, where strong pacifist orientation was widely shared, it was idealists, who denied the utility of military power in the contemporary international relations and insisted on the policy of unarmed neutrality for the security of Japan, who represented the mainstream view.
Although Japanese genjitsushugi-sha have significant resemblances to Western realists, such as the recognition of the struggle for power as a continuing nature of international politics and the acceptance of the utility of military power in the postwar world, substantial differences also exist between the two. The previous research done by the author shows that genjitsushugi-sha recognized the decreasing utility of military power in international politics as early as the early 1960s. They also noticed variations in the utility of power resources depending on issue areas by the early 1970s. In these senses, the genjitsushugi-sha’s view on power shows considerably liberal tendencies.
This article argues that their view on nationalism also has liberal, rather than realist, inclinations. While realism is a particularistic theory, liberalism is universalistic. Realist and liberal views on nationalism should reflect such natures of respective theories. The analysis in this article shows that Japanese genjitsushugi-sha’s view on nationalism shows strongly universalistic tendencies. In the face of the revival of nationalism among the Japanese citizens since the mid-sixties, genjitsushugi-sha argued: 1) that Japanese diplomacy should reduce the dependence on the U.S.; 2) but that Japan, as a trading country with a limited military power, could maintain its security and prosperity only with close cooperation with other countries,particularly the U.S., and increasingly so under the deepening interdependence in the postwar world; 3) that Japan, therefore, should not define its national interests in a narrow, egoistic sense, 4) and that the Japanese people should pursue nationalism that is internationalist in nature. Despite the conventional view that regards Japanese genjitsushugi-sha as (a subspecies of) realists in Western IR terms, this article argues that they were rather “realistic liberal” scholars.

抄録全体を表示

本研究では,実験・実測による命題の全称性の確立にかかわる子どもの認識における内的ゆらぎに着目し,質問紙調査を実施した。その結果,特に「」と「素朴な予定調和」の間にある内的ゆらぎの実相に少なくとも3つの特徴を有するものがあることがわかった。

抄録全体を表示

This essay deals with texts from 1928 until 1940 by Takiguchi Shuzo, a poet, art critic, and theoretical advocate of Japanese Surrealism. Through these texts, I would like to clarify how Takiguchi interpreted French Surrealism, and the extent to which these ideas were transplanted in Japan in the 1930s. His Surrealism was not a temporary form or style of art, but a system of thought with universal, eternal, and ultimate value. It was also an experiment to realize the liberation of the human spirit. In as much as it was ultimate, it could and must be perfectly applicable to any country. On the other hand, when Takiguchi faced this imperfect application and superficial understanding in Japanese Surrealism, he became aware of himself as Japanese, and developed his theory so as to connect Japanese originality in the absorption of Surrealism with the Japanese tradition of reverie. It has been often said that his nationalistic ideas, which connected avant-garde art to Japanese originality, were a reluctant "tactical retreat" intended to ensure the survival of the avant-garde. In this essay, I would like to propose a different viewpoint: that such his attempts reflected his internal requirements for the absorption of French Surrealism.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the methodologies of five key modern exponents of realism: E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, Raymond Aron, Kenneth Waltz and Stanley Hoffmann. I explore the significance of each author's version of realism, focusing on the problems of: (1) understanding of the intentions of the actors; (2) explanation of causal relations; and (3) ethical judgments of human action.
First, Morgenthau and Aron differ considerably on their definition of theory. While Morgenthau sees in the quest for power the essence of all politics, Aron starts with the specific features of international relations, the state of war. Moreover, while Morgenthau attempts to give meaning to the factual raw material of foreign policy by using rational elements, such as national interests, Aron seeks to show both the limits of our knowledge and the conditions of historical choice. Morgenthau states, “to search for the clue to foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesman is both futile and deceptive.” However, Aron attaches greater importance to understanding meaning, or the gap between actors' intentions and consequences.
This difference in approach is made clearer by second-generation realists like Waltz and Hoffmann. While Morgenthau illuminates the moral problems in statecraft, Waltz pays no attention to the actor's dilemma. While Aron views international relations as the interactions of symbolic individuals, the diplomat and the soldier, Hoffmann attempts to study also nonstate actors which behave as if they had autonomy. Paying little attention to the gap between the superpowers' intentions and their consequences, Waltz insists on the durability of the bipolar system. On the other hand, emphasizing the diffusion of power in the international landscape, Hoffmann advocates the “world order” as a public philosophy. His theory is also an encouraging message to citizens.
Second, on the relations between international systems and actors, Aron-Hoffmann and Waltz differ remarkably. Aron characterizes international systems by the configuration of the relations of forces and the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the states. Waltz, however, criticizes him for mingling elements at the unit level with elements at the system level. For Waltz, the states are fungible entities, comparable to Durkheim's individuals. International systems are forces whose origin is not the individual states but its collectivity, forces which are the real, and the determining causes of stability and war. Following Durkheim's rule of sociological method, Waltz believes that a single cause brings the same consequence. On the other hand, Aron's causal thinking is expressed in terms of probability or chance. In other words, what remains undetermined is what interests him most. Aron and Hoffmann believe that in human affairs necessity itself is of man's own making, although hisory may well be governed by forces beyond man's control.
Third, accepting the Weber's ethic of responsibility, each realist has different criteria for judging human action. As Michael Smith points out, the ethic of responsibility says nothing about how the leader weighs consequences, speaking only to his ability and willingness to face them. Carr and Morgenthau's concept of morality was proved inappropriate by reality. Carr's intuitionism, which was buttressed by his deterministic view of history, was to support the appeasement policy toward Hitler. Morgenthau's national interest was misunderstood by decision makers in Washington as a criteria which supported the resistance against the expansion of communism in all its forms.
It was Aron who correctly modified their criteria. He points out that realists fail to recognize the action of ideologies. According to Aron,

抄録全体を表示

「羅生門」(芥川龍之介)の空間の非日常性・密室性を前提として、その内部で展開する下人と老婆との対立のドラマを<永遠に超えんとするもの>と<永遠に守らんとするもの>(「西方の人」)即ち理想主義対の対立のドラマとみ、さらにそこに<秩序>対反<秩序>の対立という究極の主題をみる。

抄録全体を表示