今野 晃

本稿の目的は，19 世紀の歴史を振り返りつつ，社会学が自明の前提としているものを再考することにある．現代の社会学は，工業化や資本主義化を自明な所与として考えている．しかし歴史学の研究によれば，産業革命は，我々が考えるほどには激動期でなかったことが知られている．工業化や資本主義の発展も，歴史的な必然ではなく，偶然的要素が大きく関わってきた．こうした歴史を踏まえるなら，社会学の分析対象たる現代社会も，自明な所与や必然的な歴史の帰結でないことが明らかになる．19 世紀に形成され始めた社会集団についても同様で，階級等の社会集団は，産業の発展の中で自然発生的に生まれたものではなく，様々な弾圧や紆余曲折の下，民衆の絶え間ない活動の帰結として，形成・維持されてきたのである．現代では個人化の問題が深刻化し，新しい社会関係の構築が求められているが，これは社会集団や社会関係が人間の努力によって形成されたことを看過し，それを自然的なもののように自明視してきたことに原因があるのではないか．こう考えるならば，この問題の解決には，19 世紀という時代において，当時の新しい社会状況下で，それに対応した新しい社会関係を構築した人々の努力から学ぶことが多いはずである．以上のような視点から，本稿では，19 世紀の歴史を検討することで，社会学の「自明の前提」を再考し，現代の問題に対処する為の教訓を引き出したい．This paper questions some presuppositions in sociology from a historical viewpoint by surveying developments in the 19th century through which the conditions of modern society were generated. Today's sociologists tend to regard the growth of capitalism and industrialization in the 19th century as historical givens. However, research has shown that the period of the industrial revolution was not a time of great upheaval, as is often assumed. According to Hobsbawm, the rise of capitalism was not an inevitable or natural course of history, but a consequence of specific contingent historical events. This leads us to re-examine the genesis of modern society, the main focus of sociological inquiry.The same is true for social groups, another basic concept of sociology. While sociologists now often assume that social groups appeared spontaneously in the 19th century, in fact, people made great efforts to organize themselves at a time when their governments tried to oppress the working class, mutual aid societies, and other popular associations.The conscious effort of these people seems to have been largely forgotten in today's sociology, which may explain, in part, why the problem of individualization seems so intractable to us. Without the human activities that have created and sustained various social ties, social groups might not have existed.If we are to overcome the problem of individualization, or other major concerns of contemporary society, we should draw a lesson from history. By focusing on the efforts with which people of the 19th century struggled to renew their social relationships against the shifting background of the time, we may derive insights with which to address our own problems.

本稿の目的は，1968 年にフランスで起きた五月革命をフランスの社会学が，いかに分析しているかをレビューすることにある．近年，日本と同様フランスでも，1968 年に起きた学生達の叛乱に関する研究が盛んになりつつある．本稿では，そこで展開されている議論を概観しつつ，この学生達の運動がなぜ起きたのか，またそれが提起したもの，さらにはそれがもたらした影響について考察することにある．しかし，本稿の目論見は，フランスにおける議論の単純な紹介にあるのではない．そうではなく，それを踏まえた上で，日本における同様の議論において欠落しているものを，両者の比較で明らかにする．というのも，とりわけゴビルの分析が明らかにしているのは，学生達の叛乱は個人個人の自然発生的な意識から引き起こされ，そしてその運動もそれを原理として展開された．しかし，この個人の意識に根拠を置いた運動は，そうであるが故に，それを支える社会基盤の問題を看過してしまった．そしてこの「社会的基盤の問題の看過」こそが，日本の学生達の運動と，それを分析する日本の社会学にも当てはまるのである．フランスでの六八年研究はこれまでの蓄積があるが，これに対して日本の研究は始まったばかりである．フランスにおけるこの議論を参照することで，日本におけるこの研究をさらに発展させることができるだろう．In May 1968, students and workers in France united in the largest strike and massmovement in French history. The events, known collectively as "May '68", have since been afocus of discussion by both members of the French general public and French social scientists.This paper reviews the extant analyses of "May '68" and its historical consequences.This paper also compares French analyses of these events with similar analysesperformed in Japan about the Japanese student movements in the 1960s. This comparisonreveals certain flaws in the Japanese studies.Gobille's analysis of student organizations and their claims elucidates the fact thatFrench students neglected issues related to social conditions, despite the fact that theseissues were inextricably linked with their ultimate goals. Indeed, they aimed for the liberationof humanity but never considered the social base that would be needed to sustain suchfreedom.Moreover, contemporary Japanese sociologists studying the Japanese studentmovement of the 1960s commit the same error of omission. Our review and comparisonalso revealed that Japanese sociologists do not recognize their lack of attention to this importantpoint.We hope that this paper will contribute to advances in Japanese sociological researchin this domain by examining the more sophisticated approach of French sociologists.

本稿の目的は,コントとは異なる社会学の起源を探ることにある.社会学の世界では,sociologie という言葉は,オーギュスト・コントが作り,1838 年に初めて発表されたとされている.しかし,近年のギロームの研究によると,フランス革命に多大な影響を及ぼしたシエイエスが,1780 年代の遺稿の中で,sociologie という造語を使っていたことがわかっている.シエイエスは,彼の時代に顕在化していた社会諸関係の問題を検討するために,多くの造語を作っていた.実際,現在の日本語で用いる社会という語の原語,society やsociété という語は,18世紀に現在とほぼ近い意味で用いられ始めた.この言葉がこの時期に使われ始めた理由は,君主や神に頼ることなく,人々が自らの関係を構築しようと考えたためである.ルソーの『社会契約論』もこうした中で書かれた著作である.こうした状況の中で,シエイエスは,新しい社会関係のあり方を考察し,そのために考え出したのが,socialismeやsociodicée 等の造語である.sociologie という言葉も,こうした造語の一つとして作られた.この事実が意味するのは,社会学の起源は,コント個人に求められるものではなく,むしろ18 世紀を通じて社会的social なものを作り出してきた歴史的背景全体にこそ求められるべきものだろう.社会学の起源を探るためには,こうした背景に注目していくべきだろう.この検討によって,我々は,社会概念と,そして社会を研究する科学が必要とされた理由を理解することができるだろう.This essay considers why and how we had to create sociology.It is generally accepted that Auguste Comte invented the term "sociology", which appeared for the first time in 1838, in his The Course in Positive Philosophy. Nevertheless, according to Guilhaumou, the French essayist Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès had used the term "sociology" in unpublished manuscripts written in the 1780s. He invented this new term to examine the problem of social relationships in his era.Beginning in the 18th century, the concept of sociology spread and authors such as Rousseau attempted to use this concept to construct the relationships of citizens who did not depend on a monarch. In this context, Sieyès struggled to begin his investigations and created new words such as socialism and sociodicée using the prefix "socio", based on Latin. Sociology was another of those terms.Therefore, sociology did not originate solely from the genius of Comte, but in the context in which the concept - "social" - was invented in the 18th century. Therefore, we should focus on this when considering the origin of sociology.This examination will help us to understand why we need social concepts and a science that studies society.

This essay aims to examine a problem concerning the concept "social", by analyzing The Social Contract of Rousseau. For this, I will refer to Althusser's work "On the social contract", where he develops a substantial analysis of the social contract. The concept of the term "social" is taken today immediately understandable. But it was invented in 18th century, when Rousseau wrote The Social Contract. Indeed, Rousseau is one of the pioneers who, by addressing the social relationship, tackled a new theme and a new concept. However, we can question whether Rousseau was able to treat it adequately. Because "social" was such an "avant-garde" concept. This means that Rousseau was not responsible of his failure, because it derived from the newness of the concept. To investigate this problem, I will focus on the discrepancies of the social contract which Althusser brings to light. With this examination, we will see that these discrepancies reflect the problem of social relationship. With this examination, we can understand why we needed to invent this concept in his era. And it will help us to reconsider the concept "social" in our time.論文Papers