1. Comparing sociology in postwar Japan with that in prewar Japan, the following remarkable differences can be found:
(1) The decline of the grand theory which was modeled after German Formal sociology, and the appearance of Parsonian ideas which resulted from the introduction of American functional theory.
(2) A gradual decrease in groups carrying out actual reseach on the family and villages, and diversification of research into such themes as industry, city, stratification, labor, social pathology, mass communication etc., the utilization of the results of research and increasing preciseness in research method.
(3) A revival of criticism of sociology by Marxists, backed up by more actual proof.
2. From the standpoint of the main current of world sociological history, however, it can be said that the methodology of Formale=Verstehende Soziologie since Simmel=Weber is fundamentally confirmed both in America and in Japan. But to those who study modern Japanese society, as well as to Weber, the main problem about methodology exists in comparing the methodology of twentieth century sociology with that of the Marxists and applying properly each of them to the analysis of the present situation to find out “Principia media” (K. Mannheim) of Japanese society.
3. In order to find out useful ways of applying both methodologies, it is necessary to provide precise concepts of each, especially to analyze the concept, “the situational prescription” (W. Thomas), and to deal with the personality element properly. At the same time we should carefully examine the interrelation between the economic theory of Uno, a Japanese Marxian economist, and sociological studies. Recently the strong tendency to revalue the religious Sociology of Weber has appeared and this shows the necessity of this.

View full abstract

One of the most important facts in the world of postwar Japanese sociology is that the influence of Marxism has strengthened and the “fixation” of marxists, though in small numbers, was seen for the first time. This current became conspicuous before and after 1960 and has appeared as a methodological and ideological criticism of epigonen of American sociology.
But the fixation of Marxists in the world of sociology does not necessarily mean the fixation of “Marxist sociology” Or rather Marxists themselves are negative in arguing the problem of “Marxist sociology”. Needless to say there are various circumstances, and to treat this problem much prudence is required. And yet the new characteristics of modern (monopolistic capitalist) society and the practical theme of the structural revolution accompanying it urge us to examine throughout whether the formation of a “Marxist sociology” is possible or not. Therefore the current of Japanese sociology will be mostly determined (between the latter half of the 1960's and 1970's) by fixed Marxists: whether they will follow the direction of “development” or “stagnation”.

View full abstract

In this article I will summarize the basic points of view appearing in postwar sociology into the following three forms, and by using them as a framework I will attempt to summarize and view postwar sociology.
1. A pure positive view which puts stress on empirical and individual facts themselves—empirical sociology.
2. A historical, positive view which puts stress on the systematic structure of the whole society and its change that is the background of empirical facts—historical sociology.
3. A pure theoretical, analytical view which puts stress on meaning-relations (rules) of empirical facts—theoretical sociology.
Prewar Japanese sociology mainly took the third view, but in the postwar period the first one appeared under the influence of American sociology, taking the form of criticism of the earlier view, and influenced Japanese sociology greatly (1949-1966). In its turn the third one came to the front in a different form from that of the prewar one (1955-1966), and the second one intends to be the core of Japanese sociology ranking with the others (1960-66). In this trend the mutual relationship of the three has been, roughly speaking, either one of repulsion, apposition or easy concession and compromise. I expect the development of future Japanese sociology in two points: (1) recognition of their uniqueness and interdependence, (2) establishment of the division system in sociology by them, and at the same. I insist once more on sociology as an actual science.

View full abstract

By the defeat “Nipponshugi shakaigaku” (Japanese national sociology) which had been dominaht under the absolute Tenno system, practically lost its power, and in its place empirical and positive sociology, influenced by American sociology, prospered. Notwithstanding that this positive sociology and Marxism thory fundamentally are hostile to each other, criticism from the Marxist side of sociology was not sufficiently made in those days, and sociology akin to Marxism only dealt with the confrontation of the non-scientific Tenno system's ideology.
About 1950 the theory of “structural=functional analysis” of American sociologists such as Parsons and Merton began to be introduced, and after 1955 the apposition between sociology and Marxism became clear as the theory of “mass society” lost ground. At this stage there appeared those who stood for the “critical absorption” of Marxism within sociology. They were discontented with the non-historical and super-class theory of American sociology and psychology, so they intended to develop positive sociology accepting Marxism as a grand framework. But they eventually couldn't deduce more than the protection of the past sociological method and the denial of Marxism.
If we call these people “arbitrationists”, those who “absorb critically” the empirical thory of sociology from a Marxist view and intend to develop Marxism “creatively” can be called “revisionism”. It was after 1960 that this standpoint became clear as one current, and it has been greatly influenced by the revival of sociology in the sociolist states of East Europe and the U. S. S. R. and the opinion of Marxist sociology which is distinguished from a materialistic conception of history. Lately by introducing theories of “industrialized society” and “modernization” into the field of sociology, an attempt to confront Marxist theory extensively has been made.
When I make a future observation from the above current, it is presumed that in so far as the attack on or revision of Marxism is made in the name of sociology, apposition between sociology and Marxism will strengthen thier hostile relation as an ideological apposition in Japan, too. In this trend Marxist sociology will make its revisionistic character clearer. And the ideological conflict between them will be continued unabel sociology as the bourgeois ideology is completely extinguished by the ruin of the bourgeoisie.

View full abstract

Because “efficiency” is a quantitive concept, when we refer to efficiency or inefficiency of something, it is necessary to compare it with others. When we accuse the inefficiency of the administrative bureaucracy, it is compared with that of the private enterprise bureaucracy. Why is the work in the city office or the post office less efficient and kindly than in the bank or the department store? This is our question.
Viewing from this standpoint, R. K. Merton's dysfunction theory of the bureaucracy is insufficient. For, he thinks the rigorous discipline in the bureaucracy causes overconformity to the official rules and, therefore, the inefficiency of the bureaucracy. The rigorous discipline may be seen in the private enterprise bureaucrcy as well as the administrative bureaucracy. Recently it may be more rigorous in the former than in the latter.
To discover true causes of the inefficiency of the administrative bureaucracy, it is necessary to compare it with private enterprise bureaucracy. In this article, the author tries to compare, especially about the differences of the organization purpose, the power structure, the meanig of the works and the rules, and the motivations of the workers. And as the conclusion, contrary to P. M. Blau's theory, the author thinks it necessary to strengthen disciplines in the administrative bureaucracy to resume its efficiency.

View full abstract

I have introduced laboratory experiments in the course of social research methods since 1959. Wording experiment is one of the most important among laboratory works in the course. I have imposed the students to make questions feasible to search (1) influence of stereotyped word, (2) difference between impersonalized and personalized questions, (3) inadequacy of double-barreled questions, (4) carry-over effect, (5) difference between multiple choice and free answer questions, (6) influence of difficult word to understand, and (8) yes-tendency. They have to interview around fifty other students, tabulate answers, and analyze them. I reanalyzed the data thirty nine working groups of students offered in the course in this paper.
Experimental wordings the students constructed within limitted hours, were not enough to detect the eight consequences mentioned above. Double-barreled question showed statistically significant effects most frequently, and impersonalized vs. personalized questions, multiple choice vs. free answer methods, ambiguous word, difficult word to understand, stereotyped word, and carry-over effect are less frequently in this order. The students failed in yes-tendency experiment most. Although such results partly depend upon the difficulty in constructing the artificial wordings, the order may suggest at the same time that there seldom happen yes-tendency, carry-over effect, and stereotyped word's influence, and you should pay attention most to double-barreled question, which can ofen occur.
Doble-barreled question has two types. The first type of the question A is like this: “do you agree to B 1 and B 2?” It should be divided into two separate questions: “do you agree to B 1?” and “do you agree to B 2?” Whether responses of the question A would be influenced more by B 1 or B 2, does not depend upon the order of B 1 and B 2 in the question, but upon the contents of B 1 and B 2. The second type of double-barreled question A' is like this: “do you agree to M because it is N?” It consists of a principal clause B 2 of “do you agree to M ?” and a subordinate clause B 1 of “is it N (in your opinion)?” Responses to the double-barreled question A' are influenced by B 2 more often than B 1, and there are adverse cases too. The content of B 1 and B 2 also affects the response of the question A', as in the case of the first type of double-barreled question A.
Difference between multiple choice and free answer questions results from two causes. The one is that alternatives in the former are often inexhaustive. Secondly, a particular answer may be incapable of being recalled in the free answer method without the alternative indicated. Consequently, the multiple choice question can be said superior to free answer method, if the former shows an exhaustive list of possible alternatives.

View full abstract

Am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts entwickelte sich das neue Verhältnis zwischen “Staat und Wirtschaft” besonders auf Anlaß vom ersten Weltkrieg. Diese Bewegung bedeutete das Ende des Laissez-faire und das Kommen einen neuen Zeit.
Wir haben zwei hervorragende Denker, die alien voran nach dieser neuen Frage forschten: W. I. Lenin und Max Weber. Jener, der größte Führer des Proletariats, erfaßte das neue Verhältnis des Staats zur Wirtschaft als “staatsmonopolistischen Kaprtalismus”, und behauptete, das sei die Übergangserscheinung vom Kapitalismus zum ‘Sozialismus. Dieser, ’ der erstklassige Intllekt in der Bourgeoisie, betrachtete diese Bewegung der Zeit als “universelle Bürokratisierung.”
Das Hauptthema dieses Aufsatzes liegt darin, diese gegenwärtige Bedeutung von Max Webers Soziologie der Bürokratie, die als die bourgeoise Erkenntnis vom staatsmonopolistischen Kapitalimus zu erfassen ist, zu erklären.

View full abstract

What is the sociology of industrial organization? The object of this social science lies in the social context of the industrial organization. To put it concretely, we are interested in the types of management power, the general attitude of the citizen toward it, and the congruency between them. Thus the sociology of industrial organization is the theoretical analysis of the legitimacy (authority) of management power.
But the policy for total commitment in the industrial organization seems to go by the name of the sociology of industrial organization. And this tendency is considerably under the influence of Human Relations thinking. For example we have two important works; “Management in Japan” by prof. Kunio Odaka, and “Deutsche Betriebssoziologie” (in Japanese) by Prof. Kiichi Ichihara. The former written by a student of sociology has the one fault of ambiguity of the object of study, and the latter written by a student of business management has the other fault of misunderstanding the method of study. But both deviate from the proper sociological approach.
We should remain firmly at the point of view above mentioned, and refrain from taking a policy. What is worse still, the gemeinschaftlich type of management is not a typical example of a producing organization, though it is a possible case. It must be pointed out that producing organizations in general, unlike communities and societies, are segmental associations, which require and recruit only limited commitments of actors and in which, therefore, internal democracy (the policy for the total organization) is neither possible nor called for.
In conclusion, our approach depends upon the organization theory of A. Etzioni. In co-operation with him, we must criticize the lack of theoretical arrangement in this applied field of sociology.

View full abstract