The Japanese family, particularly in rural areas, has been so far the stem family system whose specific characteristic lies in the continuity of a family group as an entity transcending that of each of successive generations. In order to guarantee the continuity, one of the children of a family is retained in the family as heir and kept living with parents after marriage, succeeding later to the position of the household head. The present writer's focus of inquiry is upon the process by which the status of the household head is transferred from father to son. His status is assumed to consist of a number of roles, but these roles may not be as a whole transferred at a time. The process of gradual transfer of these roles, if studied closely, will perhaps throw light upon the way the continuity of a family group is guaranteed. To examine this assumption, the writer conducted field research in a rural community in Kanagawa Prefecture and obtained the following results; (1) Transfer of household headship in the post-war period, compared to that in the preceeding period, is generally found to start, and also to finish, much later in the life of father and son. (2) The delayed transfer has been brought about, first of all, through the prolonged span of life of fathers. However, because of the smaller number of children, it has become possible for the household head to help all of his children make an independent living. While this is another reason for delay in transfer, it means also a redefinition of the status of the head. Since status transfer has been made in changing post-war circumstances, it implies also changes in the role obligation of father and household head. (3) A more important factor contributing to the change of transfer, seems to be the post-war decline of the social norm concerning the support of retired parents. (4) Also relevant are the new types of farming, especially dairy farming, adopted by middle and upper class form households, which tends to a division between farm management and household economy. Whereas the former is transferred to the son earlier, the latter remains in the hands of the father for a longer time, causing a prolonged period of transfer. (5) The observed tendency indicates that transfer is getting to be postponed later. Whereas the above tendency is derived from the growing number of young farmers abandoning farming to enter non-agricultural industries, it may indicate as its underlying significance the very possible shift of the stem family to the conjugal family in the future. The father may have difficulty finding an heir upon whom to transfer household headship.
This paper deals with the historical changes of the village ruling classes from the formative period of capitalism in Japan to its full scale established period of monopolistic capitalism in an advanced rural area called “Bisai” which is situated in the northwestern part of Aichi. In the field of rural sociology, the sociologists have been drawing up monographs for about the past twenty years. Now, we must arrange and analyze them by area groups for the purpose of achieving more effective results. Then, we will be able to reconcile the historical changes with the area structure theoretically. This paper is one such attempt. Considering the characteristics of rural communities from the standpoint of commodity production in village communities, we can understand “Bisai” area as one of the advanced central areas. From this point of view, we can consider that the effect of historical change on village ruling classes depended on commodity production in village communities. Therefore, the stages of their historical change were based on the stages of development of capitalism in Japan which regulated commodity production in village communities. In the following, I tried to analyze the historical changes of this area's ruling class at each stage. The first stage (1840's-1890's); the village ruling class in the formative period of capitalism in Japan was the Gono class. Since the late period of Tokugawa feudal times, they controlled the peasants in their village communities by dirt-cheap buying of rural commodity products. The second stage (1890's-1920's); the village ruling class in this stage was the parasitic landowner class. Gono classes were deprived of their productive means with the establishment of industrial capitalism in Japan, and they were established as a parasitic landowner class (semi-fendal landowner class). In this way, we make their establishing process clear. The third stage (1920's-1930's); this stage was a period when industrial capitalism in Japan was transformed to full scale monopolistic capitalism. The village ruling classes in this stage were the farming landowner class and the upper class of textile manufacturers who appeared with the decline of many parasitic landowners.
It seems to be valid that the dispute about community power structure will end in the opposition of the competing conceptual schema of power elite versus pluralism. At the present stage of the dispute, the pluralist approach is getting the main current of those denying the dominance of a single elite and the pyramidical power structure, and perhaps the basis of its method is behavioral science. In this paper, I critically examine this approach from the viewpoint of the class approach. The Pluralistic power theory consists mainly of the following elements: (1) the establishment of political community, (2) the distribution and use of political resources, (3) the concept of power considered through participant behavior in decision-making and (4) the creed of democracy. At the bottom of these elements, the community theory founded on pluralistic social theory lies, and from it, the element (1) and (2) follow. Another crucial theory is the power theory from which (3) follows, and (4) is the political ideology underlying all elements. But, several weak points are contained within this theory. Those are as follows: (1) the lack of consideration about relation between a community and the entire society, (2) the lack of structural analysis of community, (3) the preponderance of public agencies' power, (4) the non-conflict of power function etc. And those are basically result from the lack of class theory. To be exact political dominance in the pluralistic power theory is built on the illusion of voluntary concensus toward the common order among community membership. In view of historical development, there is rich soil today in America for the power-structure theory to be united with the class theory, and this is now developing. And yet, it is the question to be solved in the future.
It is a comparatively new phenomenon that the problem of organization, which had been treated as a part of group theory in sociology, began to be presented as organization theory. And we can say that in this fact the problem which organization theory itself has is presented. The aim of this treatise is to get some outlook about the basic view of organization theory by finding a clue in the theory of A. W. Gouldner who tried a methodological approach by laying the problems of organization on the basis of sociology. When Gouldner made distinction between the two prescriptions Max Weber had given to bureaucracy —bureaucracy as a technical system and that as a ruling system based on the legal office— as two patterns of bureaucracy, and presented the two famous concepts, “representative bureaucracy” and “punishment-centered bureaucracy”, he intended to exclude a pessimistic view of organization such as the contradiction between bureaucratization and democracy, and to pursue the accomplishment of rationality in organization. But the empirical studies in industrial organizations showed that “representative bureaucracy” is merely one functional mode and that it is “punishment-centered bureaucracy” that appears in social structure in general. As the result of it, the concept of organizational analysis was displaced by more general concepts such as “rational model” and “natural-system model”, and the tension between organizations and a structural change are explained by the tensional relation between these two factors which are immanent in the organization itself. “Rational model” belongs to the theoretical tradition of Saint-Simon=Max Weber and grasps organization as a rational technical system, while “natural-system model”. which originated from Comte and in which Parsons is a theoretical representative today, puts emphasis on the abiogenetic order in social system and develops a norm-centered theory of organization. Gouldner's criticism was made mainly on the static balance theory of “natural-system model”, and he seeks the motive power of revolution in the accomplishment of rationality in organization. However, the concept of “functional autonomy”, which he presented in an explanatory model of an organizational change, or as what synthesizes the both models, is consequently set up at the point nearer to “natural-system model”. That is, the independency of parts, which is guaranteed by this concept, makes a high adaptation to the threat from outside a system possible, by this it guarantees the stability of a system, and accordingly it is merely within this stable sphere. This appears with a more concrete form in the proposal of “applied sociology” to make a rational plan and control of society effectively. Though it is a natural conclusion of the organization theory which gave up the concept of class, in connection with the occurence of the discussion on the character and the problematic sphere of marxist sociology it should be examined in an objective sense that an approach toward a vital analysis has begun to be made from functionalism theory, which restricted its theme within a static analysis, in a form of organization theory.
What is meant by the Sociological Romanticism? (1) It means a kind of bias which may be intrinsic to the sociological thoughts and (2) this type of bias is best expressed in the nostalgia of Gemeinschaft. The Romanticism originally began as a reaction against the French Enlightment. The sociological thought has a romantic-conservative twist and may even be considered as critique of the traditional liberal ideal of individualism. Such a romantic-conservative twist, I believe, is not unrelated to current sociological researchs on the so-called “rediscovery of the primary group” in American sociology. In order to understand the Sociological Romanticism, we must first take note of a general trend in sociological research which has been called the rediscovery of the primary group. Most of these researches were carried on, during the middle 1930's and its powerful impetus came from the famous Hawthorne project. This essay is an attempt to explore main currents of American sociology since the 1930's from the standpoint of the sociology of knowledge and, applied to the idea of Sociological Romanticism, provides some guidance in considering the history of American sociological thoughts.
A man can't live with stability if he is isolated. Between himself and others, he has interactions, and through repetition of them he tries to be a member of a small group consisted of himself and others. When he finds himself in this group, he attains stability through the union of his true individual self with the group. With the stability of this base, he can face other new external objects in a positive way. In this sense, a small group is essential support to one's stability. It is the level of interactions between them that decides the degree of forming of a small group. One of the most primary interaction is, I think, the recognition and the perceptiveness between oneself and the others. There are four such levels: 1) Self-need centered level The main purpose is to satisfy one's own wants mutually. When one's wants have been satisfied, interactions are finished. The most important point in this level is the result of the others action. Recognition and perceptiveness to others are not necessary. At this level there are interactions, but the group is not yet formed. 2) Subjective level Through repetition of interactions, recognition and receptiveness are met. But, there is some subjective bias from which some confusion springs on the way to forming a group. This subjective bias results chiefly from the individuals self-defense and individuality synthesis. 3) Objective level Usually what is called the scientific method. It selects and catches from the others phenomena which can be reasonably applicable to a certain general standard. It is apt to neglect the synthetic function of the others as a whole. So they can't get sufficient recognition and receptiveness to others. As a result, forming a group is limited. 4) Emphathetic level This is the method by which we recognize and recieve the whole synthetic function as it is, understanding the others not as the objects but as the subjects. When an interaction is done by this method, it will get deeper and it becomes more reasonable to understand each other as a human. The common domain of the Recognition and Receptiveness shows the maximum expantion. Here, the small group becomes the most mature one. In the practical formations of small groups, these levels are partly overlapped by each other. But this classification will give an effective method for the analysis and appreciation of a group and to the educational and critical direction to make a group mature. It also suggests that in studies about human, human-relations, and a group, the subjective synthesis function should be put at the center.