Abstract
This article is a critique Mr. K. Morioka's article “The Extended Family Group of the Honganji Temple of the Shinshu Sect at the End of Mediaeval Period” which appeared in No. 9 and 10 of this review. His article has value in that it raises fresh problems concerning unexplored areas of religious organization.
However, his method is insufficient for the analysis of a special group such as a religious body which has its 'unique doctrines, rituals and history. While he correctly regards the “ikkeshu” group as a combination of religious authority and blood relationship, he gives no explanation of its establishment. In other words, he merely analogizes it to the extended family organization of the mediaeval age. From his point of view, “ikkeshu” is simply regarded as one type of extended family organization.
In the religious organization of “Shinshu” sect, however, a combination of religious authority and blood relationship existed at the doctrinal level prior to the establishment of “ikkeshu”. And “ikkeshu” was organized on the basis of this ideal pattern. Therefore, for the full understanding of “ikkeshu”, it must be considered from the point of the conditions and historical processes which had supported this ideal pattern.
This problem is important not only for the understanding of “ikkeshu”, but to the understanding of the groups as historically constituted. To analogize one group to another by arbitrarily restricting it in the analysis to that from which it had at one particular historical epoch and then analogizing it upon that basis to another form of organization which existed in that epoch may had to “la méthode monographique” which was criticized by Durkheim and Cuvilier.
Extended family organization in the religious sect is not a simple extension or “one type” of family, but a unique structured group which has absorbed blood relationship into the religious authority. Understanding of this structure must proceed from a consideration of its inner conditions and historical processes. Thus, Mr. Morioka's methodology may be deficient if it is not strengthened by “la méthode comparative historique” which unites “la methode comparative” and history.
