It is a well-known fact that the sociological research of fishing community (village and town) is far behind compared with that of agricultural community (village and town) and city community. And the following three points can be assigned for the reason :
(1) A half agricultural and half fishing village (Buraku) has been regarded as a fishing village and treated as a similar type of a agricultural village.
(2) Therefore, the social stucture of a fishing village and that of a agricultural village have been thought nearly alike, and no profound research has ever been made about the character of pure fishing village (chisaki buraku or front village).
(3) No careful attention has ever been both for the “fishery group” (Yakubito system of okiage and okamawari), or the living groups peculiar to fishing village and for “emigrant fishers” of chief constituent members of those groups.
It may be said that the importance of the sociological research of fishing community has been hindred considerably by the above-mentioned sociological view point. I should like to advocate a theory that a fishing community as a village community (Sonraku community), has much common in character with a agricultural community, but it has still its own peculiarity.
(1) The difference between the character of the arable right (included, forming right) and that of the fishery right, which comes from the common ownership of arable land and fishery (sea-areas, fishing-areas).
(2) The characteristics of class-relations between a fisher's employer (Amimoto or Oyakata) and fishers, emigrant fishers (Amiko or Kokata) in fishery group (Teiti or drift-net fishing) and between a ship-owner and ship-fishers (Noriko) in engin-ship fishing and the problems of the blood (or consanguinity), regional (mother land relations in a each other) and occupational relations union of emigrant fishers and the problem of their local, occupational dissolution and mobility.
(3) The problems of compared with farmers, more blocked-minded (exclusive or conservative) and characterized with the deep-rootednees of a family union with a house. in its center and the feudality of social consciousness and the problems of power relations based on the kinship and unionship (included, guildship) in the generational consciousness of fishers who are, the strong of fixational natme (permanently dwelling) over the old generations.
The sociological characters of these fishing community constitute the fundamental areas of studying the “sociology of fishing community” as sociological problems or subjects. I have mentioned, as subjects of the sociology on fishing community.
(1) the sociological character of fishing community, (2) the sociological structure of fishing community, (C3) the group structure in fishing community, (4) the structure of sociological consciousness of fishers, but these problems (sociological character on fishing community) are, at the same time (broadly speaking), the character on fishing community as a village community, (5) the character on fishing community in comparison with a agricultural community and city community.
The most difficult problem in studying fishing community is that of “the types of fishing community.” No type of a fishing community has ever been made from the sociological point of view.
