| Project/Area Number |
11610175
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
社会学(含社会福祉関係)
|
|---|
| Research Institution | KYOTO UNIVERSITY |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
TOMINAGA Shigeki KYOTO UNIVERSITY Institute for Research in Humanities, Professor, 人文科学研究所, 教授 (30145213)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
SAKAGAMI Takashi KYOTO UNIVERSITY Institute for Research in Humanities, Professor, 人文科学研究所, 教授 (70047166)
北垣 徹 京都大学, 人文科学研究所, 助手 (50283669)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1999 – 2000
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2000)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,700,000)
Fiscal Year 2000: ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000)
Fiscal Year 1999: ¥2,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,600,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | human rights / French Revolution / civil society / suject |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This research project has been begun in order to understand how the notion of citizenship and its social conditions were envisaged in the society newly founded by the French Revolution, through an intensive reading of the numerous drafts for the Declaration of human rights and documents of debate in the National Assembly in the year 1789. As is shown by several drafts and expressed by the definite declaration, we can at first pick out a image of society of which elementary unit is a free and equal individual. However, in order to be affirmed and assured, this freedom needs a kind of authority and the autonomy of citizen had to be recognised in narrow relation with the dependance to other citizens. This antinomy is clarified especially when we remark the debate concerning the freedon of religion and that of thought. Drafts insisting the necessity of declaring duties as well as right show the same antinomy between aotonomy and dependance. In addition to the logical contradiction, the debate of the Assembly in August, influenced by the radicalisation of the revolutionary process and ever-growing conggflicts between the sects, was obliged to remain in the midst of hesitation and to define the articles successively as a result of promiss. At last the debate is brought to close suddenly without adoption of some important problems such as that of public support, and thus the declaration of right was left inachieved. The contradiction in logic and ambiguity in practice of the declaration will also suggest lots of problems concerning notion of citizen in the newly formed society.
|
