Of late, the term “social pathology” becomes used very often, but its concept is ambiguous. Especially, we have had the term “social problem”, nevertheless, we use these two concepts without examining whether “social pathology” is necessitated as another term to “social problem” or not. In such a state, it brings only a chaos in this sphere, and nothing of contribution.
I attempts in this treatise to clarify the productive significance held in social pathology, the other hand, the limits of its approach.
“Social pathology” flows out of three fountains. The first is the theory of human being, represented by MacDougal, G. Wallas, S. Freud, which sets store by his irrational nature- “impulse”, “instinct”, is a reaction to that of Aufklählung. The second is the theory of crowd by S. Sigheles, Le Bon, T. Ortega y Gasset or T.G. Tarde in a sense, which perceives a destruction of or a threat to social order in some state of some social group. The third is that which criticizes the modern social order or social organization itself, its one specimen is K. Marx and other K. Mannheim.
It is not that these three fountains are brought in our age without any modification. They are more or less modified respectively, mingle with each other ; consequently, we have now their two types of descendants, one is held in the criticism of civilization and society, the other in the social pathology or the theory of social problem.
Now, what do they have in common with each other? Perhaps, it is something which may be called the theory of <<social situation>> adequately. We are able to find one of its model in mass society theory, and the other in M.A. Elliott, F.E. Merrill and H. Bloch, etc. whose theory is flowed out of “Social Change” by W.F. Ogburn ; the former is one of the social theory, the latter of social problem. But such difference between them is only superficial, they focus their attention in common on the interaction among the human being and society, or culture.
The model of this theoretical frame is three variables of personality-society-culture by R. Linton or K. Young, and four variables of human nature-unique experience of individual-social heritage-organic heritage by L.G. Brown.
Though this sphere of interaction, very important, has been overlooked, it had limit also. The frame of theory handles in juxtaposition that by which the society is intrincically constituted. In this frame, the theory of social structure withdrow, so the relation between social structure and human being is not questioned ; this the symbol of its limit. Society in the theory of <<social situation>> indicates the social relation or human relation in its psychology, and not the social structure which is the substance of psychological phenomena. As, from the first, the design of <<social situation>> is composed by human being, society as his psychic interaction, culture as its fixation, it is a matter of course that it becomes pluralism and interaction theory. From this, we may conclude that the theory of <<social situation>> is not the synthetic social theory, but only a side view of the society from the viewpoint of human being.
Social pathology, focusing a side view of the society, cannot be displaced for or oppose to the theory of “social problem” that is traditional in our country. The social pathology can catch only the negative effect in human being, social group, culture and their negative interplay that are finally ensued on the social problem, distortion of social structure. That is, it cannot be the theory of social problem independently, but clarify some fact of it.

View full abstract

The science of sociology has not yet developed a theoretical framework effective in analyzing such social pathological phenomena as crime or delinquency. The present article is intended to fill the gap by attempting to integrate the existing theories of anomie and of social disorganization in to comprehensive sociological hypothesis, on the basis of which a new conceptual framework for the analysis of social deviation is to be advanced.
First, we will interpret the theories of anomie and of social disorganization in terms of the social climate the main proponents of these theories found themselves in. As to the two outstanding teachers of the anomie theory, namely E. Durkheim and R. Merton, the former analyzed the anomie as a personality controlled by the conditions of laissez-faire capitalism and the corresponding social ethic of Protestantism, while the latter's conception of anomie was developed on the basis of capitalism now in its monopolistic stage and the spirit of Puritanism in the United States. Merton's main contribution lies in that he tries to see systematically the relationships between personal frustration and socio-cultural structure. When we turn to the social disorganization theory, the view points of the Chicago School especially of R. Park and L. Wirth, are conspicuous, Park stressed that in rapidly developing urban centers the social control of primary groups through folkways and mores is no longer effective as it was befoe. Wirth, on the other hand, grasped social disorganization as the consequence of the conflict between different value systems characteristic of immigrant groups with different national background. Those viewpoints of the Chicago School are to be understood against the background of social change occurring in the United States in the nineteen twenties, especially in its Mid-Western area. The social pathological phenomena can be approached on the basis of either of these theories, The anomie theory includes in its scope the frustration-deviation hypothesis, while the disorganization theory would explain deviant behavior in terms of the conflict among value systems. At present there is still a considerable distance between these two ways of explaining deviant behavior, and a good deal of difficulty is yet to be overcome before we are able to integrate them to arrive at a systematic theory of deviation.
If we, however, turn to compare the basic implications of these anomie and disorganization theories, we can't but be astonished to find how, for example, Durkheim and Park were alike in their way of presenting the problems as well as of constructing theoretical frameworks. Both of these men analyzed anomie and disorganization within the wider scope of comprehensive social change of rapid industrialzation and urbanization. Since there exisit these essential similarities, our next step must be to develop, on the basis of these theories, an integrative theory of the change of social structure. We will note that, in order to do this, it will be necessary to introduce first the theory of reference groups as to the social psychological aspect, and the consepts of legality and illegality with regard to the values, attitudes and techniques of the deviant.
Finally, we would like to emphasize that we, as Japanese sociologists, will have to build such an integrative framework against the background of the actual structure of Japanese society differing from that of the modern West, which has imprinted peculiarly Western character on the anomie and disorganization theories.

View full abstract

In order to study ultimogenitures and institiutions of the father setting up a brand family, we must study them quantitatively. It is not enough simply to illustrate them by a number of typical examples, but we must show how often these cases have occurred, and also how the inevidence has changed choronoligically.
But quantitative and historical study of such a our problem as the institution of inheritance and succession inevitably has its limitation to the inadequancy of date The aim of this article is to show statistically how the institution of the father setting up a branch family has actually been put into practice and how the institution has changed chronologically in the hamlet of Watase, Hongu-cho (formerly Yo-mura), Higashimuro-gun, Wakayama-ken.
In pursuing this aim, we relied chiefly on the census register-1872 through May, 1957, and also on the terrier and on our own field-work. To pursue our purpose we could not rely solely on the examination of the census register, as the census registration is so managed that it dose not contradict legally the institution of primogeniture.
First we tried a static approach. We grasped the families, past and present, of this hamlet at seven point of time when the law of census registration changed. The families are comparatively small numerically and rather simple genearogically. Untill towards the end of the Taisho era, the majority were the two generation families, composed of a married couple and their unwed children, and there were few leneal three generation families excepting the families having only sons, This fact suggests that branch families had been established rather extensively. So far as the census register is concerned, it is only towards the end of the Taisho era or at the biginning of the Showa-era that the repression of the folk usage by the state law became prominent.
Next we turned to the dynamic approach. From the time of the Jinshin census (the first census in Japan of 1872) to the present, the usage has continued to be current in this hamlet that the parents hand over their house and possesions to their eldest son and, moving to another house in the other children of theirs, set up a new family, although the census register tells us that the usage replaced by primigeniture at the beginning of the Showa era.
Speaking of the stability of the genealogical families they are generally short lived, especially in the cases of the eldest son's families. Branch families are able to be more long lived.
Collating the census register with the findings of our field-work, we come to the following conclusion : the substitution of primogeniture for the usage of father setting up a new family at the beginning of the showa-era is merely an apparent change, existing only in the text of census register, and actually that usage is still current in this hamlet.
It is our purpose in this article to analyse examples of the father establishing a branch family in Watase and through the analysis to suggest the continueting of the said usage is due to the particular economic conditions of the mountain village.

View full abstract

In my regard to the structure of villages observed Dozoku-shin (a tutelary deity of Dozoku) rite, I have paid special attention to some villages and their Dozoku system where we can no longer see Dozoku-shin rite but Yashiki-gami (a tutelary deity of family) rite.
So, my attention of field work was applied to Nagura, one of the village of the inner part of Mikawa. There are many groups of small Dozoku system in their village. Complicated a branching and many removals of families from one hamlet to others since Meiji period-these, with historical and economical conditions, have weakened Dozoku-ties and their function in Nagura. In this village, at the present, we have no Dozoku-shin rite, symbol of the union of Dozoku members, While each family-many of them are head families or branch families that appeared in Edo period, celebrates once or twice a year their own Yashiki-gami (whom villagers call Jino-kami).
Along with the tide of folk-faith in Edo periodo, I think, branch families in the days began to celebrate their own familie's tutelary deity, keeping their connection to head families, as their independence were established somewhat concretely
To deepen the inspection of this point, I tried an intensive research by taking up one hamlet. The research at Inosawa is this. I inspected historical transition of each geneology, land possesion of thirteen families of this hamlet in connection with Dozoku system, the foundation of this system in labour and daily life. Their close connection is limited those between newly branched families and their head families and between the present heads of family and members of this close kinship.
As to Yashiki-gami rite, though we can acknowledge some traits of a joints ritual by Dozoku members, it has been transformed to each family's ritual. The manner of its celebration has been directed to simple way.
If it is allowed to understand that the folkway of Dozoku-shin rite is a faith supported by joint consciousness of Dozoku members at a certain step of social developments, and at the same time, a spiritual reflection of their community life this research of Nagura may evidently prove that.

View full abstract

The concept of function has come to be understood now-a-days mostly in the sense used in the so-called functional-structural analysis in accordance with the ascendancy of that kind of approach in sociology. “Function” in this sense mean the correspondence between human activities and the needs of society. It was none other than Durkheim who defined function in this way and gave rise to its popularity among sociologists. However, the term “function” had originally another important meaning, as Durkheim himself pointed out. Function in this sense meant not the correspondence between human activities and the needs of society, but human activities themselves and what is to be noticed is that this usage has not only not been abandoned, but is still influential among sociologists who are also interested in the formation of general theory of society. Spencer who introduced the terms “structure” and “function” for the first time from biology into sociology used the term in the sense of activities, though he himself did not fail to take in to account their duties to society considered as an organism. This usage was exemlified more vividily in Schaeffie's work “Bau und Leben des sozialen Koerpers” where function was understood directly as life itself. How this usage has continued to be prevalent is reflected in the fact that we can find it also in the comparatively recent publications of sociologists such as Ginsberg, Sprott and Maclver.
Notwithstanding this it is true that this usage is now becoming to be regarded as outmoded or inadequate. However, we cannot leasily agree to this judgment as long as we can ascertain the fact that this usage is still cherished by not a small number of sociologists. To put it briefly, I think that this usage has its own reason to defended and this reason is not lost even at the present time. The term function, as activity is in itself useful for denoting dynamic aspect of society without having to do with its correspondence to society and is also able to be the starting point for building up new concepts such as functional correspondence, functional consequence and others, if function as activity comes to be investigated in its correspondence with social need or in its consequence. It cannot be denied that the concept of functional correspondence and functional consequence have scientific untilities. But the question is whether it is expendient to use the term “function” to mean correspondence or consequence, overlooking its simpler and original meaning of activity. No donbt the term function in mathematics has the meaning of correspondence and this circumstance contributed not a little to the wider acceptance of term “function” as correspondence among the sociologists. Nevertheless, it is clear that we have no reason to follow this example and restrict the meaning of the term function in sociology to that in mathematics, especially when we can find another usage established and utilized since the beginning of sociology. Presumably what is now requred is a reinvestigation of the term function as activity and possibly a consolidation of a new functional approach based on this concept of function in sociology which might well be compared to the approach once developed in psychology in the name of functional psychology.

View full abstract

Positive study on the German family was pioneered already in 1930's by A. Salomon, M. Baum, M. Horkheimer, E. Fromm and others. After the interruption of the study by Nazism was over, it was resumed by a number of sociologists with many successive findings. Outstanding of them are R. König, H. Thurwald, H. Schelsky, G. Baument, G. Wurzbacher and R. Myntz, Studies of Baument, Wurzbacher and König, in particular, are of special interest to us.
In the first place, their studies, though the setting of problem and the method of approach are different in a measure, can copewith these of a group of American sociologists, such as R. Cavan, F. Dotson, M. Sussman, S. Greer, M. Axelrod, W. Bell, M. Boat, E. Wilkenning, who are concerned with the structure of family relationships in America. Especially camparable are the studies of H. Ingelsoll. C. Stone, P. Landis, D. Heer, R. Blood and R. Amblin who focus on differential authority vested apon specific family members or the structure of such authority. From this point of view we can make a comparative study between German and American families.
Secondly, the new family code, based upon the Bonn Constitution, has been enacted recently after many hot discussions and difficulties. The code provides various prescriptions to set forth the principle of sex equality, but our concern is with how the principle is, apart from these prescriptions, acknowledged in everyday life of west German family who live in the capitalist society. Studies of Banmert, Wurzbacher and König would give us a clue to this point.
Thirdly, they are, as German sociologists studying German family, comparable with foreign, especially American sociologists who undertook the study on German family soon after the World War II. Moreover, their studies enable us to know the trend of the the sociology of family in West German.
Fourthly, since what has occurred to the German family is very similar to that of Japanese family, the study on German family will provide us reflections and suggestions to the study on the Japanese family.
From these views and ideas, the writer shall study in this note the structure of family relations in Germany, especially the authority structure in the relationship of husband and wife, by examining research findings of above mentioned German sociologist.

View full abstract