本家の同族統制と村落構造 (下)

二つの村の調査事例にもとづく分析

抄録

As a continuation from the previous issue, the second problem of last discussion will be studied in the illustrative cases of two village communities in the following :
Case I. In a village of Akita prefecture, to succeed or fail in the forest enterprise means even for “Honke” s that possess large land to expand or reduce their properties. The size of properties is a determinant of superiority or inferiority of the extended family system which has Honke as its center. In this prefecture a certain “So-Honke” or the largest Honke which expanded its properties has gradually added to its pyramidal structure of “Bunke” s under the same family name the Bunkes of other extended family systems through the landlord-tennant relationship established between them. When this community is viewed in the light of the extended family system as such, there can be seen a pattern of a central large extended family system. gradually gathering other smaller extended family systems around its pyramid to absorb them into its structure eventually. From the viewpoint of the relationship of the controller and the controlled, the largest Honke obtains absolete superiority in this community and Honkes of smaller extended family system which was deprived of their Bunkes by the largest Honke take some public offices but just nominally.
Case II. In a village of Nagano Prefecture, the landlords system was established with the. relations of genuine contractive lease arrangement made between landlords and tennants in the latter part of Meiji Era. It was impossible for landlords to control the community with their traditional influence. This, in consequence, furthered the relaxation of the extended family system, and the power of landlords was limited geographically in the area where the families of their own extended family system resided. The government of of the community had to be performed jointly by landlords. In the aspect of the relations among extended families, there was found in this community a pattern that no single extended family system possesses enough power to control other systems but they all existed in equality with no order of superiority set up, coupled with the weaker solidality within the system.
Based on the study of these two cases which have been reported for two consecutive issues, we like to call the attention of readers to the following few points of precaution for future study in this field, that is of the analysis of the relationship between rural community and the extended family system. We also maintain that we would for the time being keep from analyzing data to discuss the nature of unification of extended family systems, but try to grasp the extended family system per se in real situation of their making adjustment in the social structure of today.
The foci of problems are ; (1) think of land tenure as the basis for the controlling power of Honke over the extended family system ; (2) grasp the community through a study into the relative structures among extended families, and (3) the change within the extended family system can sometimes be the cause for the change of the structure of a community.