This article makes an effort to assess the validity and difficulty of the conceptual framework constitutive of today’s gender/sexuality studies, namely the sex-gender-sexuality triad. The theoretical assumptions which underlie current research on gender/sexuality, including feminism, gay/lesbian studies, and queer theory, is characterized by a social constructionist approach. In studies regarding sexuality, beginning in the 1970s, in part because of the publication of Michael Foucault’s influential work “The History of Sexuality” vol.1, social constructionists have argued that human sexuality should not be viewed as a natural fact but as something constructed in historically and culturally specific ways. This led to important theoretical developments, resulting in the analytical separation of gender and sexuality. Nevertheless, the very notion of sexuality remains ambiguous due to the obscure nature of the relationship between sex and sexuality.　After reviewing the achievements and problems of current research in this field, the latter part of this article provides a brief introduction to the psychoanalytic view of sexuality, which offers a radical reconceptualization of received notions of what is sexual. Freud’s psychoanalysis has been a major target of constructionist criticism, but an enlargement of the concept of sexuality in psychoanalysis can provide an alternative framework to constructionism in that it disentangles the inextricable knot between sexuality and genitality. Hitherto the fact that Freud defined the sexual without recourse to the genital, and proposed a completely new way of thinking about human sexuality, has received only scant attention. This is to say that psychoanalytic sexuality is defined in opposition to vital or organic functions such as feeding, excretion, respiration, and reproduction, and “sex” is rearticulated through this division of the sexual and non-sexual.

抄録全体を表示

従来，社会学と精神分析は対立関係にあると思われてきた．その理由の1つは，社会学が社会に関心をもつのに対して，精神分析は個人に関心をもつと思われてきたからである．だが，社会学と精神分析の本質的違いは，社会学がおもに構造の現状に関心をもつのに対して，精神分析は構造の始まりに関心をもつという違いにある．よって，社会学が構造の始まりに関心を向ける際に，精神分析の知見は役立つであろう．
今後，社会学と精神分析が協力できうる主題の一例が，自閉症をめぐる諸問題である．自閉症は個人の脳の機能障害なので，社会学とは無関係のように見える．しかし自閉症の中心的な障害の1つは社会性の障害であり，社会学と無縁ではない．ところが従来の社会学を用いて自閉症を論じることは難しい．そこで，役立つ可能性があるのがジャック・ラカンの精神分析である．
ラカン精神分析の基本用語の1つに「隠喩と換喩」がある．とくに隠喩は個人の社会性成立に深く関わる機能である．ラカン精神分析から見れば，自閉症とは隠喩の成立の不調である．じっさい，自閉症者は隠喩を用いるのが得意ではない．隠喩という視点を採用することによって，自閉症をラカン精神分析さらには社会学と結びつけることができる．このような試みは，今後，社会問題として自閉症を考えるうえで重要な役割を果たすであろう．

抄録全体を表示

We are facing the extinction of human beings. Modern education theory is based on human existence. So, if humans become extinct, education will also be extinct.

Governmentality, in Michel Foucault's study, is focused on subjectivity. Power works to shape subjects. But Antoinette Rouvroy said that algorithmic governmentality bypasses subjectivity because of its uncertainty. Representation is not reliable because data seems to be real by itself. Representatives do not represent people. Politics will lose its importance. This also applies to education. Nowadays, education is on the verge of this radical change. In this situation, it is no longer children who grow but AI.

Psychoanalysts say that great symbolic power started to decline after the execution of King Louis XVI. Jacques Lacan said that the symbolic makes us a subject by its authority. The law comes from the name of father who castrated us and makes us subjects. Because of this castration, our jouissance changed into plus-de-jouir. This comes from loss or exploitation. But if the symbolic authority does not work, we do not know that we have already been castrated.

These days, we avoid this loss thanks to capitalism with mass consumption. It is as if we do not lose because too many goods are being produced and delivered to us so fast. Digital capitalism or algorithmic governmentality can feed us without us losing ourselves with AI and Big Data.

When we lose loss, we lose conflict in ourselves. We do not understand why we have to take responsibility. When we face a duel, coordination by law is no longer important, because the symbolic authority has gone. The Other becomes a mere enemy.

Having got rid of loss, we will be comfortable instead of having a risk of depression. Depression is related to denial of loss. If we deny that we have already lost, we keep the fantasy that we are supporting the Other despite the fact that it is the Other who supports us. So, depression descends upon us if we cannot understand the fact that we have already lost. It is not a psychological but an ethical problem, because it is related to subjectivity. Christopher Nolan's movie“ Tenet” shows that the subject who denies loss is involved in the confusion of time structure.

Lacan said that love is giving what you do not have. In human relations, we are giving others what we do not have. It is not you but the Other who is giving love. If we could know everything possible about the effect of education, we would not be able to give children what we do not have. That would mean the end of love and the end of education by humans.

At this point, educational administration studies lose their main object, education. These studies misinterpret the contemporary circumstances surrounding humans because they lack a viewpoint of philosophy or sociology. Adopting new perspectives of research would make it possible to tackle issues concerning the human subject and education.

抄録全体を表示

現代社会はグローバル化や価値観の多様化により，さまざまな人と出会う可能性があると同時に，いつ問題が起こるかわからない不確実性も抱えている．こうした社会の統治を捉えるために有効なのが，ミシェル・フーコーの安全メカニズムである．しかし安全メカニズムに言及した研究は，安全メカニズムが，個体群という統治対象を，正常値とよばれる値にもとづいて統治しているという視点を見落としている．そこで本稿は，現代社会の統治をめぐる新たな視座の構築を目的として，フーコーの安全メカニズムを分析した．

分析の結果，以下の特徴が明らかになった．第1に，空間を開放し，自由な流通を促進することで，市場経済を活発化させる．第2に，それに伴うさまざまな危険の発生をあらかじめ阻止しようとはしない．第3に，人間をヒトという生物種として捉え，その集まりを指す個体群を，正常値にもとづいて統治する．

また安全メカニズムは，フーコーが自由主義的統治性とよぶ統治メカニズムとも深く関わっている．本稿ではこの観点からも安全メカニズムを分析することで，安全メカニズムが，規律などの他のメカニズムを利用して社会を統治していることを示した．そして安全メカニズムは，自由に伴う不確実性を前提とする統治メカニズムとして提示可能であり，価値観が多様化し，活発な流通が行われている現代社会を捉えるための視座を有することを明らかにした．

抄録全体を表示