The Angle of Analysis in the Social Pathology

Abstract

Of late, the term “social pathology” becomes used very often, but its concept is ambiguous. Especially, we have had the term “social problem”, nevertheless, we use these two concepts without examining whether “social pathology” is necessitated as another term to “social problem” or not. In such a state, it brings only a chaos in this sphere, and nothing of contribution.I attempts in this treatise to clarify the productive significance held in social pathology, the other hand, the limits of its approach.“Social pathology” flows out of three fountains. The first is the theory of human being, represented by MacDougal, G. Wallas, S. Freud, which sets store by his irrational nature- “impulse”, “instinct”, is a reaction to that of Aufklählung. The second is the theory of crowd by S. Sigheles, Le Bon, T. Ortega y Gasset or T.G. Tarde in a sense, which perceives a destruction of or a threat to social order in some state of some social group. The third is that which criticizes the modern social order or social organization itself, its one specimen is K. Marx and other K. Mannheim.It is not that these three fountains are brought in our age without any modification. They are more or less modified respectively, mingle with each other ; consequently, we have now their two types of descendants, one is held in the criticism of civilization and society, the other in the social pathology or the theory of social problem.Now, what do they have in common with each other? Perhaps, it is something which may be called the theory of <<social situation>> adequately. We are able to find one of its model in mass society theory, and the other in M.A. Elliott, F.E. Merrill and H. Bloch, etc. whose theory is flowed out of “Social Change” by W.F. Ogburn ; the former is one of the social theory, the latter of social problem. But such difference between them is only superficial, they focus their attention in common on the interaction among the human being and society, or culture.The model of this theoretical frame is three variables of personality-society-culture by R. Linton or K. Young, and four variables of human nature-unique experience of individual-social heritage-organic heritage by L.G. Brown.Though this sphere of interaction, very important, has been overlooked, it had limit also. The frame of theory handles in juxtaposition that by which the society is intrincically constituted. In this frame, the theory of social structure withdrow, so the relation between social structure and human being is not questioned ; this the symbol of its limit. Society in the theory of <<social situation>> indicates the social relation or human relation in its psychology, and not the social structure which is the substance of psychological phenomena. As, from the first, the design of <<social situation>> is composed by human being, society as his psychic interaction, culture as its fixation, it is a matter of course that it becomes pluralism and interaction theory. From this, we may conclude that the theory of <<social situation>> is not the synthetic social theory, but only a side view of the society from the viewpoint of human being. Social pathology, focusing a side view of the society, cannot be displaced for or oppose to the theory of “social problem” that is traditional in our country. The social pathology can catch only the negative effect in human being, social group, culture and their negative interplay that are finally ensued on the social problem, distortion of social structure. That is, it cannot be the theory of social problem independently, but clarify some fact of it.