Chapter 1: Statement of the Problem
It is generally said that the history of American sociology from the First World War to the mid-1930s, a period of about 20 years, can virtually be described as the history of the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago. According to Coser, during this period, the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago "directed the general trend of sociological research and published the only professional journal of sociology [= American Journal of Sociology]. In addition, most sociologists who left their mark on the Department of Sociology and became presidents of the American Sociological Association were educated here. The professors of the Department wrote the most influential monographs and textbooks" (Coser, 1978=1981, p. 91).
However, this so-called "golden age" of the Chicago School lasted only until the mid-1930s. As structural-functionalist sociology, centered on T. Parsons, came to occupy the position of the main paradigm in American sociology, the Chicago School rapidly declined and was gradually forgotten by the American sociological community (Yoshihara, 1994, pp. 53, 73).
After several decades of postwar hiatus, the Chicago School was once again in the spotlight. This trend was none other than what Faris called the "rediscovery of the intellectual legacy of the Chicago School" (Faris, 1967=1990, pp. 16, 17). According to Yoshihara, this trend deserves to be called the "Chicago Renaissance" in that it is "in line with one of the trends in post-Parsonian sociology, and in addition, it embraces the possibility of intersecting in various ways with the frontier areas of contemporary sociology" (Yoshihara, 1994, p. 53).
There are two streams in this "Chicago Renaissance." One is the "fourth generation" of the Chicago School, centered on M. Janowitz, which is said to have contributed to the revival of theoretical and empirical research in the field of urban sociology. The other stream is symbolic interactionism, represented by Herbert Blumer.
In contemporary sociology, which is said to be in a state of " contending warlords and a hundred schools of thought contending" (Aoi, 1993, p. 602), symbolic interactionism is positioned as "one of the major trends in contemporary sociology today" (Funatsu, 1993, p. 45). In particular, it is said to have continued to exert an explicit and implicit influence on "various schools and trends in sociology and social psychology, such as phenomenological sociology, ethnomethodology, interpretive sociology, role theory, labeling theory, and gender theory" (Goto, 1991, pp. 274-275).
According to Mamoru Funatsu, who is regarded as "the most precise and systematic discussant of the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism in Japan" (Ehara, 1986, p. 64), there are various types of symbolic interactionism. These include:
- The "Chicago School," which attempts to theoretically elucidate the subjective nature of human beings
- The "Iowa School," which is engaged in empirical and positivistic research on the self
- The "Illinois School," which aims to re-examine Mead's theory in relation to Watsonian behaviorism and develop its own social behaviorism
- The "dramaturgical school," which attempts to grasp human behavior and the nature of society as acting and drama and elucidate them in concrete interaction situations (Funatsu, 1995, p. 4)
Among these numerous symbolic interactionisms, the one that is regarded as "expressing the characteristics of contemporary symbolic interactionism to the fullest, surpassing others in comprehensiveness and systematicness, and being the great tree on which today's symbolic interactionism should rely" (Funatsu, 1976, p. 40) is none other than the symbolic interactionism of Herbert Blumer (Blumer, Herbert George, 1900-1987). It is also Blumer's symbolic interactionism that Denzin cites as constituting "traditional symbolic interactionist thought" (Denzin, 1989b=1992, viii).
It is well known that Herbert Blumer's symbolic interactionism criticized structural-functionalist sociology, centered on T. Parsons, and sociological positivism (operationalism), centered on G. A. Lundberg, and attempted to develop alternative analytical frameworks and research methods to replace them. With regard to its analytical framework in particular, its "dynamic society" perspective has been highly evaluated in previous research in Japan (Funatsu, 1976; 1989, pp. 211-247; 1993; 1995; 1998b). In other words, the view of society as a "fluid process" or a "dynamic" and "generative" one, formed and reformed by "subjective human beings" (Funatsu Mamoru), has been highly evaluated.
For example, Funatsu introduces the argument of Blumer's major work, Symbolic Interactionism (Blumer, 1969a), as follows:
".....According to Blumer, human beings, by having a self, can engage in 'self-interaction,' represent objects to themselves, and interpret them..... From this, human beings become subjective beings who actively act on objects, and society becomes a dynamic and processual entity that is constructed and changed by human beings..... From this point of view, Blumer criticizes functionalist sociology for treating human beings as passive organisms that merely react to the forces of social systems and social structures, and for treating society as fixed and static" (Funatsu, 1998b, p. 517).
変更点
- 全体的に、文章を短く、より読みやすく整理しました。
- 句読点の使用を調整し、文章の流れを改善しました。
- 一部の表現をより自然で正確なものに変更しました。（例: "virtually be described as" → "can virtually be described as"）
- 重複する情報を一部削除または統合しました。
- 引用部分の表記を統一しました。
