The Theoretical Intrastructure of Takada's Sociology

Abstract

In the recent academic mood of reevaluation of Takada's sociology, I would like to examine his theory with his own words in my mind on Spencer, “However old it is, I would like to learn what should be learned”. For this purpose, we must first ask within what methodological contexts and from what standpoints we will learn from him.
My reference here will be to the following two points.
1. Modern sociology has been requiring keenly the “normative science” or the “policy science”.
2. To what extent is Takada's sociology, that had formulated its theoretical core in the so-called democratic period of the Taisho Era, regarded as a real “civil science” in the midst of a modern Japanese society as a deviant type of capitalistic society ?
I will investigate the theoretical infrastructure of Takada's sociology, paying special attention to his theory of conceptualization in the context of the methodology of science and to the structure of interrelationships between “theory”, “history” and “policy” in his sociology.
In conclusion, the following two points should be clarified.
1. Takada, who regards the search for “generalized” orientation of perception of science and the construction of nomological science as core scientific activities, proposed to think that sociological concepts, which were “ideal types” of “intuitive” understanding of “the essence of society”, should be freed from “the historical character”, because they were regarded to have super-time generality.
2. Concerning the interrelationship between “theory”, “history” and “policy”, in spite of its formal conceptualization, he, in fact, always put focus on “theory” as an analytical foundation. He immediately as well as one-sidedly judged “history” and deduced “policy” from this standpoint. It requires us to examine the contents of the general theory of Takada, itself.
In addition to this, the two points mentioned above should be investigated thoroughly. I believe that “theory” cannot get out of “history” and “policy” and that it cannot, conversely, get into them. The same assumption will be applied to “history” and “policy”. The future “normative science” will have to be constructed at the point where we will have overcome an overemphasis upon “theory” which was an eminent characteristic of Takada's sociology.