社会学における「動機」概念の変容:ウェーパーの動機理解と「動機の語彙」論の動機付与 [in Japanese] The Change of the Concept 'Motive' in Sociology:Weber's 'Verstehen des Motivs' and the 'Imputation of Motives' in the "Vocabulary of Motives" Theory [in Japanese]
Access this Article
Search this Article
The idea of a "Vocabulary of Motives" was introduced into sociology by C. Wright Mills in 1940, and was rediscovered and reevaluated by the Everydaylife School of sociology during the latter part of the 1960's. Their subject, the 'imputation of motives' is contrasted with 'Verstehen des Motivs'. However, they have put emphasis on the similarity of their concept of the motive and that of M. Weber.<br> In this position, we can see both consistencies and inconsistencies. W e are able to arrange these by dividing the statements of imputation of motives into two phases and using the following criteria. ① the relation of the sociologist, the observer who imputes motives, and the actor, ② where motives are imputed, and ③ how motives are decided.<br> In the case of Verstehende Soziologie, ① a sociologist is the observer, ②Kulturwissenschaft demands Verstehen des Motivs of individual actors, and ③ motives must be logisch adäquat. In phase A where motives are successfully imputed, ① the observer isn't a sociologist. People in interactions observe each other, ② in micro 'motive-talk' situations, and ③ situationally adequate motives are imputed so that the order is reconstructed. On the other hand, in phase B where imputation of motives fails, ① the sociologist analyzes observers by means of sociology of knowledge, ② in macro conflicting situations, and ③ motives are situationally determinated, but social conflicts disturb the imputation of unquestioned motives.<br> As Mills tried to adapt G. H. Mead's social-psychology to Mannheim's sociology of knowledge, he kept sight of both phases. But Everydaylife-sociology, which has an interest in a continuous reconstruction of the order of the everyday life, do not discuss phase B. Their statements, together with those of Weber, assume that adequate motives are imputed. But the man that Everydaylife-sociology supposes is different from that voluntary actor whom Weber described.
SOSHIOROJI 36(1), 63-79,178, 1991