現代アジア研究における歴史的要因の分析的基礎

-ヴェーバー社会学から比較社会論へ-

抄録

Weber's sociology has been the most brilliant achievement of comparative studies and it contains the fruitful analyses of traditional Asian societies. Firstly, I consider the present-day significance of his comparative perspective. His basic concerns were the following. Why could only Western Europe fully rationalize herself ? Why could not Asian societies achieve rationalization and give no birth to modern capitalism? Weber investigated obstacle factors against rationalization in Asia. Asian societies began to rationalize themselves under impact from West. The impact took mostly the form of colonial rules and severe exploitation. Are Weber's studies not available for studies of social changes in modern Asia ? The pattern of response to the impact differs in each society. The direction, degree and speed of social changes are under the influence of traditional social conditions. Weber's comparative studies are suggestive for the analysis of traditional factors as the cause of these differences.
Secondly, I consider that types of traditional rules differentiate in the relationships with the formation of modern politics. This consideration makes clear the availability of Weber's sociology in modern Asian studies. However his framework could be explained by modern sociological terms. The re-formation of it into modern sociological framework should contribute to a general and comparative social theory. Eisenstadt's theory of modernization is useful for this re-formation. But two critical questions about his theory may be asked in spite of his contribution to comparative studies. One question is about the contents and directions of “transformation”. The other is about the relations between the stages of social change and the functions of traditional factors. The “transformative” functions of the same factor differ according to stages. My third consideration is about these questions and the generalization of Weber's framework.
Lastly, I consider a framework of comparative studies and so focus the contents and directions of “transformation” upon authoritarian politics. I consider especially traditional factors, relating to the strength of safeguards against such politics.