Japanese Journal of Human Geography
Online ISSN : 1883-4086
Print ISSN : 0018-7216
ISSN-L : 0018-7216
Volume 38, Issue 6
Displaying 1-6 of 6 articles from this issue
  • A Case Study in Livingston, California
    Tadashi SUGIURA
    1986 Volume 38 Issue 6 Pages 483-506
    Published: December 28, 1986
    Released on J-STAGE: April 28, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    Although a considerable quantity of literature from various disciplines of the social sciences and humanities has focused on the role and characteristics of Japanese immigrant farmers in American agriculture and rural society, rather few studies have contributed to understanding of land occupance patterns of this ethnic group from the viewpoint of cultural or settlement geography. This paper is an inquiry into changing ethnicity shown in the land occupance patterns of Japanese immigrant farmers and their descendants based upon cultural geographic considerations, through a case study of a Japanese-American community in the Livingston area, California. The vicinity of Livingston, an incorporated town in the northern San Joaquin Valley, has long been an area of active Japanese colonization, known as the site of Yamato and Cressey Colonies, from the beginning of this century. The author made a field survey from February to May, 1984, observing farmhouse forms, farmstead layouts, field patterns, and entire spatial layouts including community buildings, roads, and canals, as well as interviewing farm operators and their family members.
    In this Japanese settled area, we can recognize four different stages of land occupance pattern development; I: pioneer era (1906-1914), II: first establishment and prosperity by the first generation (1915-1941), III: abrupt dislocation during wartime (1942-1945), IV: reestablishment and prosperity by the second generation (1946-present).
    The first stage was the period when the settlers had to adapt to the environment to survive; small and rough farmhouses, few farm buildings on the farmstead, emergency truck farming as the main source of income, and no community buildings. These situations corresponded to the unstable economy at the pioneering stage and the immature society, the majority of whose members were single men. Through this period community organizations had not been fully established, but were on their way to development under the ethnic background.
    During the second stage the community reached the first establishment and prosperity by the work of the first generation (Issei); the new colonial style farmhouses were built, a definite farmstead style with barn, tankhouse, and Japanese-style bathhouse was developed, vines and other fruit trees matured, community buildings such as the Colony Hall and church were constructed, and roads and canals were expanded. The society attained full growth by an increase in the number of members with families under the developed economy. Ethnic cooperation was highly developed through this period; social, religious, and cooperative agricultural associations were organized.
    The third stage was the wartime when settlers of Japanese ancestry were evacuated from the region and most of their farms were managed by a trustee organization.
    The fourth stage is the period when the community was rebuilt after World War II and reattained prosperity in the hands of the second generation (Nisei); houses were reconstructed or remodelled in modern styles, new farm buldings such as large equipment sheds or crop storage buildings constructed, farm size was enlarged and field units of individual farms were dispersed spatially and became larger in number. The church was rebuilt, large cooperative facilities such as packing sheds or crop storage buildings were newly constructed. Through this period the agricultural economy of the community has been enlarged and the Nisei family society has grown up. The community organizations have strengthened their economic character, and their ethnic background has been retreating gradually; an increasing number of non-Japanese members have come to live in the community and join the cooperative farmers' association.
    Through these four stages, the Japanese-Americans in the community have principally possessed strong ethnic affiliation on the basis of their residential propinquity in a small area.
    Download PDF (3856K)
  • with reference to sociology, anthropology and ecosystem theory
    Wataru NOJIRI
    1986 Volume 38 Issue 6 Pages 507-530
    Published: December 28, 1986
    Released on J-STAGE: April 28, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    Traditionally, many geographers have been interested in the relations between methodologies of human geography and ecology, but their standpoints have been divergent. The purpose of this review is to clarify the context and directions of the ecological approach with reference to the methodology of sociology, anthropology and ecosystem theory in the U.S.A. and the U.K.
    In the Chicago School of sociology, human ecology is defined as the study of community. Human ecologists make a distinction between community and society. Society is based upon the cultural consensus of the inhabitants, while community is based upon their biotic competition and symbiosis. But the biotic community concept has been severely criticized. In response to this criticism, human ecology has divided into two schools. The Neo-orthodox school mainly studies spatial structures of communities. And Socio-cultural school emphasizes the individuals' perception and image of the space.
    Anthropologists, traditionally, have been interested in the geographical area and historical change of cultures. Steward has proposed a theory of cultural ecology which concerns adaptation of culture to environment. In contrast to him, other anthropologists propose a more biological, ecological anthropology that is based upon ecosystem theory or Darwinism.
    In addition, some geographers have introduced community theory (Morgan, Moss) and ecosystem theory (Stoddart) from biology, especially ecology. These are theoretical frameworks that attempt to dissolve the distinctions between physical and human geography and between idiographic and nomothetic approaches, in order to defend the unity of geography. The Chicago School of sociology inspired the theory which investigates the morphology and function of urban areas, which has in turn influenced urban geography. Anthropology has inspired ecological methodology which investigates man's adaptation to environment from the viewpoint of activities for subsistence. Such movements have affected current cultural geography.
    In sociology, anthropology and human geography, the ecological approach commonly concerns the process in which social behaviors adapt to and interact with space and environment, as well as the values and perceptions of man, and energy flows in that process.
    In conclusion, the author would like to understand the ecological approach in the following currents:
    1. Both geography and ecology are studies based upon region and place.
    2. Both geography and ecology endeavor to comprehend nature and society integratively.
    3. The ecological approach is wholistic.
    4. The ecological approach studies historical changes.
    5. The ecological approach treats circulation and economic phenomena.
    6. The ecological approach investigates the relations between internals and externals of population, community and ecosystem.
    7. The ecological approach is functional.
    8. The ecological approach is systematic.
    Many geographers, however, have criticized ecological approach for the following reasons: (1) Ecological approach is not deductive and analytical. (2) Ecological approach is based upon biological analogy, and is destitute of socioeconomic scope about human society. Therefore, in attempts to solve problems of environmental pollution geographically, it may be necessary to add wider social framework to ecological approach.
    Download PDF (3303K)
  • Hiroyoshi NISHIDA
    1986 Volume 38 Issue 6 Pages 531-543
    Published: December 28, 1986
    Released on J-STAGE: April 28, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    Download PDF (1514K)
  • Toshiyuki SHIMAZU
    1986 Volume 38 Issue 6 Pages 544-560
    Published: December 28, 1986
    Released on J-STAGE: April 28, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    In der Siedlungsforschung in der Geographie Japans ist die Betrachtung der räumlichen Seite der die Ortschaft bildenden Sozialgruppen eins der Fächer, für die sich Forscher bisher interessiert haben. In diesem Bericht nennt der Verfasser die räumliche, hierarchische Anordnungsform der Sozialgruppen in der ganzen Ortschaft die räumliche Sozialstruktur der Ortschaft und macht sich die Erfassung der räumlichen Sozialstruktur und ihrer Verwandlung im Zenjoji-Dorf in der Kyoto-Präfektur zur Aufgabe.
    Anschaulich sind die kleine Ortschaft, das Dozokushudan (die Gruppe der Verwandtshaft), das Miyaza (die Gruppe mit einem Vorrecht für die Feier des Gottes) und das Kinringumi (die kleinste örtliche Gruppe) als die das Zenjoji-Dorf bildenden Sozialgruppen gefunden worden. Der Verfasser hat die Zeit von 1705 bis 1984 in vier Zeitabschnitte geteilt und die räumliche Sozialstruktur am Ende jeden Zeitabschnittes und ihren Verwandlungsprozeß geklärt (Abb. 8). Die Ergebnisse werden folgenderweise zusammengefaßt:
    (1) Der erste Zeitabschnitt (von 1705 bis 1845)
    Das Zenjoji-Dorf teilte sich in zwei kleine Ortschaften (Kamimura und Shimomura) und darin wurde ein Dualsystem entdeckt. Kamimura setzte sich aus etwa sechs Kinringumis (Goningumis) zusammen und Shimomura aus etwa acht Goningumis. Es gab je drei Miyazas in Kamimura und Shimomura, und in Kamimura wurden zwei Dozokushudans gefunden und in Shimomura vier Dozokushudans. Das Tempelchen des Sainokamis, das ein Grenzgott ist, lag am Punkt der Grenze zwischen Kamimura und Shimomura.
    (2) Der zweite Zeitabschnitt (nach 1845 bis vor 1906)
    Beide, Kamimura und Shimomura, verloren das Ujigami (der die Gemeinschaft vereinigende Gott), und jede von beiden Vereinigungen wurde schwach. Das Goningumi wurde neu ins Eiseigumi umgruppiert. Daher kam es, daß sich Kamimura aus vier Eiseigumi zusammensetzte und Shimomura aus sechs Eiseigumis. Die Vereinigung des Dozokushudans wurde schwach. Das Sainokami erlosch, und daher kam es, daß der Ort, an dem das Tempelchen lag, Sainokami genannt wird.
    (3) Der dritte Zeitabschnitt (von 1906 bis vor 1945)
    Kamimura und Shimomura als Sozialgruppen hörten auf zu existieren, und daher kam es, daß die beiden Räume, an denen Kamimura und Shimomura lagen, Kamide und Shimode genannt werden. Sainokami verlor die Funktion der Grenze, und neu war, daß der Seradani-Fluß als die Grenzlinie zwischen Kamide und Shimode erkannt wird. Das Dozokushudan erlosch. Das Eiseigumi wurde ins Tonarigumi umgruppiert, und daher kam es, daß je fünf Tonarigumis in Kamide und Shimode verteilt werden.
    (4) Der vierte Zeitabschnitt (von 1945 bis 1984)
    Das Miyaza verlor das Vorrecht für die Feier des Ujigamis, und seine Vereinigung wurde schwach. Dagegen verstärkte sich die Vereinigung des Tonarigumis. Darauf wurde die Vereinigung des Zenjoji-Dorfs relativ schwach.
    Download PDF (2119K)
  • 1986 Volume 38 Issue 6 Pages 561-566
    Published: December 28, 1986
    Released on J-STAGE: April 28, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    Download PDF (911K)
  • [in Japanese]
    1986 Volume 38 Issue 6 Pages 566-567
    Published: December 28, 1986
    Released on J-STAGE: April 28, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    Download PDF (290K)
feedback
Top