(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Tsukasa Kuwabara on SI from 1992/04/01 to 2012/03/31"




1 


"^. Repository 



























BEfc^A 



» KACOSHIMA UNFVERSITV 



ISSN 1347-085X 




Discussion Papers 
In Economics and Sociology 



No.0203 



r m 

2002.09.03 



THE ECONOMIC SOCIETY 

OF 
KAGOSHIMA UNIVERSITY 



No. 0203 



2002.09.03 



The Economic Society of Kagoshima University 
Korimoto 1-21-30, Kagoshima, 890-0062 
JAPAN 



-1 - 



££**¥&£¥» %m % 

Abstract 
The Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism (one trend of the "Chicago Renaissance") 
represented by the works of Herbert Blumer, has been seen to be major alternative to 
functionalism and social system theory in American Sociology. In addition, this approach also has 
been important in sociology as a critique of positivism. Furthermore, according to T. Shibutani, "it 
is too early for a final assessment of Blumer's work. That will have to wait until the twenty-first 
century, when future historians will be able to see what remains of current Sociology. It seems 
likely that many of his view will prevail." So far, We have done many reviewing about Blumer's 
Symbolic Interactionism. The results which could be gotten as the result are summarized in the 
following paper [Tsukasa Kuwabara, 2001, "Introduction to a sociological perspective of Symbolic 
Interactionism ( 3) ( The Summary of a doctoral dissertation, Tohoku University) ," 
KEIZAIGAKU-RONSHU- OF KAGOSHIMA UNIVERSITY (lSSN=0389-0104) :No.54, The 
Economic Society of Kagoshima University, pp.69-86] . In this article, we are trying to clarify the 
aspects which compose the reason why Blumer's Symbolic Interactionism is generally categorized 
as one trend of the "Chicago Renaissance". 



A— /I— h • va— is - ~3)\— *?— (Blumer, Herbert George), 19 0$I;5X-'J 

t>hMXf:4^n5. 19 22^1;, 5X-U:fc¥fcT, >bW¥fti#&£(03:Wl ! ?* 

-)IX- XJI/9? K(Elwood, Charles) ©!rf&©t<t, f£±-*t£Stf#U -^tf)^, 19 2 8 
t£\Zs v^rf^Kfe^T. XJl/7,7— X • 7 x 7 U 7. (Paris, Ellsworth) <£>*!# CO fe t, 
W ±Wi~X V#£>bW¥<Dj3mi ( Method in Social Psychology) £®MV, W±^ (£t£*) 
£SmT3„ ^tUJUfc, 1 9 8 7^IC^-TSST, i/t)3±¥1fm. t) ] )y*)l~7j:¥ 

^wi^xu^ i)„ ®<D&£:¥\ztt-?z>nmz£mzfrtcz>rf, m*t±£¥mz&^ 

T-mtOtiP'bAWtzZ Ltbfc$)%ktLT, r->>tf>J v ZteUftmmi (Symbolic 
Interactionism) ©^it-ft^tf Stl £. Ti/^ n'^^tt^^J (Chicago School of Sociology) 

2), r^:*- )),*?>*} 3), I'stm^ffinmmmon^&i 4), \%2&i<%^ 
x>#u y fffiK^mmifi. ^<DJ-%-7,^^7-^y'(DmmznvT. mm) ->*^#m 

Q£¥(D%l%Z&ft\zMmLT^Z>Z\t$:7FmVT^%. Hit. ^-7-<5-»# U y 



r^tasiflilj (social process) ©1 
-C, a- W • Z^-MZ^-oTffifttSft, %:<&&, R - E • /t— iCckoTtS&Mt;:*! 

5£;L7^\ Wm'stl^^mt^T^Z r&^ii©j (social process) ©SmtLTSI^^ 
life 6), Sfc^fsllftftT&SE • C • h;x-X©:>>#y y^BSfl^Blfiit&J&lil 



-2- 



©*t£j 8)tbT«t3fe{t$nS*>©T*ofc. 

AfattSS*®0#<*t^M-«3WI!ISU: r^j^j (adjust, fit) tSCft^T TOjft© 
g?Hj (defining one's situation; definition of the situation) fefl^ 9). W • I • h— IT^hW 

T&3-5t© rjgi*j (meanmg)#tt^Sn&*t£«-ttM?S&» rfr#j (world) £l#tf 

n, -?-©fltj£®*Wu *Ml/t rttW*T«U (physical object) rft^ftft&j (social object) 

r#l&«*j*J (abstract object) ©H^fcJWtf 6ft5#llh ^©#©--3 r#£tfj#^j 

t r<&#j tv^#^*J"&*n*. ArawSj&ss&j^Sbfc^fcabTftittfcnsi 

fflS^fflj ttt, -© "ffiS&fc" ©&g®££fcffi*T£-flH58E^fcV». 

Affltf#tr^>#Uy£&ffl:5f£JB0'5 , £, ^-Hfc&V^T r^^5Sv>^;Vj (significant 
symbol) tfifS I^6*IT V» § fe ©£ it IT, ^l*— T— tt C^s -f> 1- - 7£ ~>3 >J (joint 
action) in£A,Tv> 3 12). !";&£;?* -»#;kK r$? 3 -f>h -7^->3>J t^"5«tJfe« 
£&£, G • H • 3-F±9#fcMT**£i&:7;U-'?-te§5#Ttr>a 13). ya^ 

>b • 7£->3 >£«, g!l© rh^>7>7^->3>J (transaction) fb&\ttl, -t*l£jf 
LT:/;l>— ■*-»*» rAM©ffiSf^^©*3feMJBffilJ t©A/TV5**S 14 ), y^-v-A* 

ffrBJ fcttd©h7>^7i57->3>©c:t***L.TVi5. 

ftj (redefinition) £iIDT, $$ • fStftftSttS fc©itS*TV>5 15). ^Cfc^T r# 
•Sl©^fej te f{lk#©#^J (taking another person into account) IkZf r#|t©^^J (taking 
into account of taking into account)l6) £^ 5 J^Sflfc* £*:£&*. 1"ftt)'6. i^t^S 
flUB^^T </>■&<&£*: "6 tt "^*>fcS&££:fi"bfc#&fc©**'\ *fc-t"5 bfcffi^fc 
t*^^TS»tt "H^feaa^Sr^L&^F^Efcffi^&nTViS©^", *3 bfc¥ffi£. 
frab^fc^©*©*©** r ^*J r ^^^J tV^S^fci^T* r$^j (carve out) 17) , 
SHUTS 4^ h7>7.7^->3>m6^.T J e©®fiS:^^^^TfT< 18). 

rgBj (self)^©*@ 

±ffi© r«i5ltOflJ 14," AW**Nr"3 rgSffiStf^J (self-interaction) £fr 3 tl?Jfc J: 
-3T©2mJFhE£&*. gSfflSf^fflttt> AK^fr5 r@#-ilr<h©tS5f1^J (interaction 
with oneself) ©®S**#-rS«3l:T 19), 5-K© rr^ftj £ r*ftj t©fflS(PfflJ 
(interplay between the "I" and "Me") £ t > h fc^-^-tf^SWtbfcfcflT** 20). 

zvmmz-Jfr-*?-^ r-x&mv* @A^g^e#t*a5^^*ffoTv^iasj 21) 

T**£fr, rjBAtfg^S&CfcibTgbfrtt, -tLT-enc^bxRjsrs, iv>? 

3 5a^-ya>©-fiJ 22)T*5£^bTv*5. 
• TgSj (self)ttt> AWI*«-?-5bfcaSffiS^"*iT5&*©¥a:t&5 ! b©T*S. 

&*1"5&&tf» AMttae£*f*z:£fc«fcoT©*» SBMflUBSfrS ::£#-?# 

Si^KlfeS 23). d^T, C •H.'*-'J~*S-l*#» x^H^Wft^TCttKai* 
£nl;b £3bfcgE©tt£ffi*^bfc;ifcttJ:<*I&ttTV>5 24). J3l*]0«k3.fc£ 
-IJ-I4, rUlclftofceStJ (looking-glass-self) t vi -5 ^^©^ilC, iS#ti!L#£«|i 
U^Of^^nSCt^BJb^^b, S-Ftt^Wj (play)§tt&i ry-Aj (game)© 
&tK0til&<D ! b£lZ> gE#tt#fc£© r&flj&ftj (role taking) SiiibTil^tli) £ 

£fc935a>Kb£. C©-A©?raSl-^> rgE©ft#14j ti/^S^ttt^-7-l:*^ 



-3- 



T h &ffi £ laX ^ £ . tt^MtBOTffl (social interaction) 14- — 2TT h?>X7 2 : S3 >* 

£*!±}U ^7r?ABa©gB£^$T5. AP^©gr3te> £b£ff)*B3:^ffl£&V>T, %% 

(interpretative process) (=SStBS^ffll ^ffiCT, S^Sftfe OtflE^tlfc Ot^ J * 
6 7>--?— #» £ tB 1/ fc S S^JS»T* ? 1t 25) . 

Tg^Mif^J (naturalistic investigation) 

7°7^*vx^XA§#(c43ViTtt> Witt rAM©»S!l#*"5**^#«B£«E*.& 

■©tt^ftcJMfefcPMN&S&wlWttf©*^ WWfc^JiHWSttJUfCV^^** 
3l6ffiUfc©l& *$fc^©7*7^ r 7X'rXA^e-t?*^fcj 27). 

^m>hc* "ff^#3f&j5«H^WK:ff^Tvs*j:t*«fea[d-a-fct>©" 28) tie 

AWl\tmtft<0%t$ttZMl'"Z&ti>'tZ>l&tZ ?%}%} (perceiving) £fr 5. £©»]*:£ V> 5 
(conceiving) ©Mtf-tntAMt Sfcl>. CCffltUHlET, K#©*E&ttf9*A3*U 

ll#£2tt&&:fett«rfcft»»£*<. -© raftj • rastttj tv> 5 £*«&**££ 

&<&<. *©«i*TAnn3^^f^«t^fctt*^^KSitLT©tt«rS:^-&tttf*. AWtffli 
HSftfc&tlte r#jR6<)il^J (common-sense concept) t *&¥&&&} (scientific concept) 
©~O*«*0, gfOH^iBV^nS H&*J (science) <tV^#2>-£&^Ttt, S-^# 

&fcv>. 7>-V-^^<D3E^ !"->># iJy^ffiEflsEB&l (19 6 9^) Wglf T^ 
>#U y^fflSf^ffitfeO^^SfeWJSi^J T$gtf£ rg^Wl^J (naturalistic investigation) 
ftHLH TjfSt^Sj (exploration and inspection) t\t> -?"5 L-fc "HW JSKlK-SA 

snfcswcto&5&v> 30). 7*ji/-^-ae^w^*tv^fi***tt"c W9tmm 

Wfc^ffiSfE/Bj \Z&KT&#m (&£##) #«&*tfV>* "-e©JBW tlT7'^ 
-7-^Sit5©^ M^\<D r^gftt^J (sensitizing concept) ft X~$>Z> 32). 1"ftfc>"£, 
rClW&5£©J*&fc] M^^* : b^tt^M^Ma*« c T 1 fc*^J$:S*iAtrODT«^<, [ft 

flf©^t^&) ttJftA^aiKLT, W©8^ffl*©46a&li«^££S&tt*itffc 

fcfcl^J 33)£T3 "JBW £, 7^-V-ttMPlLTI/^. 

CfcfttffcUTV»©A**<*#t#«^KHR^S^d^fj:Sj WT^ofc 34). Kir© 



-4 - 



•ft J (social disorganization) ^P ^itl (assimilation) fcV>ofc$tt&Ti&oT^-b;fc 35) . -t 

^©fet, r^«W«E^J (definitive concept) ®£ffl£j&#, rggjft&j 0®/8£;£& 
nfrfc#©«j£j (standpoint of the actor) *> b<DT^U~^ &$'># 3*#^OX- 

tzW&Z} 37)o 

F • w • X^--X7+cd ra— Dy/xt7^U*lc*ltft#— 5>H*BU fr&^i££g 

tt, ^<D%m±*Mf&tt£ tm^ft<Wffilstc rt^--7>- F*3.*>M (human 
documents) ©«fflfc*®ga**f?T*^&©-^** 38) ° 

i->^)^it^©I- h^^S^- r7fr#fcattfktrtt#3*J (doing sociology) 39) && 

Hf-ai3itbfclK*^i:Vi-3T , b3fi«Ttt***Vi. 

ft 

0) &£#ftrtiu 200 3^7 ^l^fJ^^c^oXitt^SfiR^^wJSSfCftS. *1?IEA 

^T»cfc*>©T*o crfrfcti* 7>--7-©'>>* | J^^ffls^fflBft©->^^*^^e < ] 

1) Blumer, 1977=1992, p.153; fftft. 1 9 9 1^ 2 7 5-2 7 61, #iL 

2) *»» 2 001^, 3, 5H, #35. 

3) SIB, 19 94^, 5 3 



-5- 



4) Faris,1967=l 9 9 0^, 1 6I> 1 7 H- 

5) Fine, 1995. 

6) AJR* 200 0^, 

7) W)\U 1989^. 

8) Blumer, 1969, pp.78-89= 199 1^ 101-115 H. 

9) Blumer, 1977=1992, p.154 

10) Blumer, 1969, pp.ll7-126= 19 9 1^, 1 5 2 - 1 6 4 K; ffi&, 19 9 9^. 18 

, 2 41, #flg. • 

11) Blumer, 1969, pp.l0-ll= 199 1^. 1 3 H. 

12) Blumer, 1969, pp.9-10= 1 9 9 1 ¥• 1 1 - 1 2 H; Blumer, 1993, p.163, p.179. 

13) Blumer, 1969, p.8, p.70= 1 9 9 1 #, 10, 9 H. 

14) Blumer, 1969, p.H0= 1 9 9 1 ^ 14 2 H. 

15) Blumer, 1969, p.H0= 19 9 13?, 142-143 H. 

16) AM. 2 00 0^ 5 0M. ttWZs CO) r#it©#Jtj tV^fcULfcL Kfc/t 
— ^O&ttt&Xfc&VVTfczStftSttT^-S. Park.R.E., 1927, Human Nature and Collective 
Behavior, American Journal of Sociology :32, pp.733-741.&&, CI CD r%j§CD#J§j t^O 
)jaH' 3&fttt##£*5vsT, 7>-T-CD#.&£>-f> *0ffi0S8MbfcfcV>T ! feM& 
^ftT^S. T.nhmann.N..1984. Soziale Svsteme, Suhrkamp= 1 9 9 3^, &M MSaSR, f# 

#->^fAI» U:«*)J* USttff^lH ; 199 5^, tic® flkKR. ftt#yXri.I 

lil (T#)J> IlllftJP^IS; Maucorps, P.H., and Rene Bassoul, 1962, Jeux de mirroirs et 
sociologie de la connaissance d'autrui, Cahiers intemationaux de Sociologie :32, pp.43-60; Glaser, 
B.G., and Strauss,A.L., 1964, Awareness Contexts and Social Interaction, American Sociological 
Review:29, pp.669-679; Scheff,T.J. > 1967, Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus, American 
Socioloigical Review :32, pp.32-46; Laing, D.A., et al, 1966, Interpersonal Perception, London; 
Lefebvre, V.A., 1972, A Formal Method of Investigating Reflective Processes, General 
Systems:17, pp.181-188. 

17) Blumer, 1977=1992, p.154. 

18) Blumer, 1969, PP .108-110= 19 9 1^. 140-1431. 

19) Blumer, 1969, p.62= 199 1^, 7 91. 

20) Blumer, 1993, pp.184-186. 

21) Blumer, 1993, p.186. - 

22) Blumer, 1969, p,13= 199 1f, 1 7 M. 

23) Blumer,1969b, p.l2= 199 1^, 151. 

24) m&. 198 6^. 

25)' &V<\t. ABC, 20 02^Sr#BgSn^vi, 

26) Hammersley,1989,p.46. 

27) Hammersley,1989,p.44. 

28) Blumer,1980,pp.415-416. 

29) Blumer,H.G.,1931,Science Without Concepts, American Journal of Sociology :36, 
pp.515-533=Blumer,1969, p P .153-170= 199 1^ 200-223 H. 

30) Blumer, 1980, p.415. 

31) Blumer, 1977=1992, p.154. 

32) Blumer, 1969, p P .140-152= 199 1^. 182-19 91. 

33) Blumer, 1969, p.l49= 199 1^, 1 9 4 H. 

34) — *©9IJBttiSl»©$'#^ifi < 0— ifiiK r - 7 " /_x "** ^* J (Near North Side) 



-6- 



£-2v>T<DA— ££<fc-5f8i£T&S (Zorbaugh, 1929=19 9 7^, xiii-xiv). S*0© rift 

awKaittt^w^in^— stb&t^aj (zorbaugh, 1929= 1 9 9 7 ^ X v)t^e>, a-- 

(Blumer,l969, p.ll= 1 9 9 1^. 1 4H). 

35) Blumer, 1969, p.l50= 19 91^ 19 5 S. 

36) Blumer, 1969, pp,149-150= 1 9 9 1^, 19 41. 

37) Blumer, 1969, p.86= 1 9 9 1 ¥. 112 H. 

38) Blumer, 1939; Blumer, 1969, p.H9= 199 1^, 154-155 H. 

39) 8JH, 1995^, 133 Mo 

Blumer, H.G., 1969, Symbolic Interactionism:Perspective and Method , Prentice-Hall= 19 9 1 

, 1977,Comment on Lewis. Sociological Quarterly .18, pp.285-289=Hamilton, P.,(ed.), 

1992, George Herbert Mead critical assessments vol.2 section2: Mead and Symbolic 
Interactionism, Routledge, pp.151-157. 

, 1980, Mead and BlumenThe convergent methodological perspectives of social 

behaviorism and symbolic interactionism, American Sociological Review :45, pp.409-419. 

, 1993, Athens, H.L., (ed.), Blumer's Advanced Course on Social Psychology, 

Studies in Symbolic Interaction :14, pp.163-193. 

, 1939, Critiqu es of Research in the Social Sciences: An Appraisal of Thomas and 

Znaniecki's "The Polish Peasant in Europe and America" , Social Research Council. 

Faris.R.E.L..l967. Chicago Sociology 1920-1932, University of Chicago Press= 1 9 9 0^ 
ABB3&C* J£Ba*^K» f^fld ■ Vv-^Dv- : 1920-1932 J, A—-** htt. 

Fine, G.A., (ed.),l995, A Second Chicago School ? , University of Chicago Press. 

" mm Iff. 198 6^ rga®*t£ftu f^BBS-. #± &&. l^m^Vfyay 

tt^j, smmm^ 5-111. 

. 19993s, r7*y#aa*©£Wj. umtn^m. 

&m&2., 1991^, tMWt : a-a— i> • y;i— -7— ©a^^>a^j, gMMteg, 

r^>#U'y^fflS^ffi»J, »*»5J, 273-3141. 

Hammersley, M., 1989, The Dilemma of Qualitative Method :Herbert Blumer and the Chicago 
Tradition , Routledge. 

^Jg si, 199 6^ r/\— A— h • 7)lr-'*—n2'>#Vy9toK.fcMW&~- 

z.m^mzm7LT--i, rtt^^sj s&2 5#, *»#*£, 81-1011. 

, 1997^, rA~A— h ■ 7)P-7-0*»#'J y ^ffiI#ffilftl:*W5 

ft#3£||3S-j % rjtfbJ ^6 0i^3 • 4*, *^fcfc^X^^, 55-721. 

, 19 98^ rr%jt©#itJ fcUHI©K*t9l#--35a=^-S'a>^ 

1 4 9 - 1 6 6 He 

, 2000^ raAaa©aA*-TA— /t— k • 7>-T-©->>#uy 

(http://www.ipsu.bookpark.ne.jp/ipsu/) o 



-7- 



><D#.gmmm--u mm^waMz 52, ££»*#&##£, 1 6 5-2 1 ok. 

, 2000^ b, rs^tfUy^fflS^fflH/flft (2) — 35a-^r- S/3 

>©ft£^Sifii--.K r^^^H^j 53, HJ£&*^$f^£, 103-1371. 

, 2001^, r->>^u^^ffis^fflinfffia (3) --mit±^^2^^ 

WsX m±) ©IS— J> rg^#fi^j 54, &&&*¥&%¥£. 6 9-8 6K. 

£&S¥J, Jd&HiJK, 21-291, 



1 2 ^M^ 



lililMI, 19 89^ t#&m<Dtt£¥ — ti-Xj, it 

flmil-JU 1£#£«*k 5 7 - 8 4H. 
^PIE^Ii, 200 1^ rs/fc^ffl^ll&'&MW^JU ¥Stl 0^ 

tSJHIfcA, 199 5^, mmtn^^^.^r-^B>0y^u^y^~j, /h#-16fl 

¥, rff^ti^ftsftt©a^#j, tijaa, 1 2 7 - 1 6 7i„ 

Zorbaugh, H.W., 1929, The Gold Coast and the Slum, University of Chicago Press= 19 9 7 






-8- 




i/i -^— i; 

<mmu> 

2)rmj 
3)riEj 

2)rKorimoto 1-21-30, Kagoshima. 890-0062J 
3)r«orimoto 1-21-30, Kagoshima, 890-0065J 

1)r[Ti Bj|(se[f)-^<D5ig j(7)II 

^(interpretative process)C= SBffiSftfflteaCT, tlf^$tlf=y#FJE*tlfcy-r5J^b I 
3)rs2(7)MIi^bJ 

1)l"ai6j 

2)rMaLicorps, P.H., and Rene Bassoul, 1962. Jeux de mirroirs et sociolo gy de la connaissan^ 
d autrui, Cahiers intemationaux de Sociologie: 32. pp.43-60J 

3)rMaucorps, P.H.. and Rene Bassoul, 1962, Jeux de mirroirs et sociologie de la connaissance 
d autrui, Cahiers internationaux de Sociologig :32. pp.43-60j 

1)Hi16j 

2)rScheff,T.J.,1967, Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus, American Socioloigjcal 
Review:32j 

3)rScheff,T.J.,1967, Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus, Ameri can Sociological 
Review:32j 

Oteiej 

2)fGenera! Systems:1 7 J 
3)f General Svstems :1 7 J 

or;ii8j 

2)rBlumer. 1969, pp.J08-1 10=1 991^ 140-1 43M. J 
3)rBlumer, 1969, pp.1 08-1 10=1 991 ^, 140— 143H.J 

1>r&23j 

2)rBlumer.1969b, p.1 2=1*991^ 15M.J 
3)rBlumer,1969. p.12=1991=P, 15M.J 

2)rZorbaugh, H.W.. 1929, The Go ld Coast a nd the Slum . University of C hicago Press=1 997^ 
3)r2orbaugh, H.W.. 1 929, The Gold Coast and the Slum- University f Chicago Press=1 997^ * 



\ S*Sl 



kh 



A. 




http://ecowwwJeh.kagoshima-u.acjp/staff/kuwabara/error.htm 02/09/06