We can distinguish three theoretical antecedents of social movement in American sociology; the theory of mass society; the psychological theory of movement, and the theory of collective behavior. The theory of mass society uniformly presumes a particular socio-political situation called mass society or state of the mass, and sorts out a specific form of social movement. Then it relates them causally, with the concept of the collapse of pluralistic structure as an explaining principle. We can find two shortcomings in this movement theory. First, as pointed out by Mr. Gusfield, it considers only the connection between the mass situation and extremist movement. It neglects another possible combination, that is, the functional aspect which mass society situations may assume. In the second place, the underlying belief of its movement theory which traces an ultimate cause of the rise of totalitarian movements to the collapse of intermediate social organization, is that the pluralistic structure is the necessary and sufficient condition for the stability of democratic society. This optimistic belief not onyl makes the theorists of mass society misconceive the present situation in the U. S. A., but also averts their attention from the fact that there are some factors within pluralistic structure which make for extremist mass movements. The movement theory of social psychological lienage generally gives priority to investigating the psychological mechanism of participating behavior, and depends on functionalism as a method. Then it applies the concept of frustration as an explaining principle. Inquiring participation from the functional point of view leads to presupposing the existence of movement or, at least, its core group as an operating agent. So the participants are reduced to the place of the manipulated. The tendency to seek in “frustration” a final motive results in conceiving the participant's behaviour as always irrational. For it has become common sense in psychology since the 1930s to think that frustration is apt to produce some irrational behaviour like aggression or regression. What this theoretical approach shows us is the subordinate behaviour and passive mechanism of people who are dominated, curbed, and driven away. It overlooks the positive behaviour and mechanism of autonomous people who participate voluntarily, take an active part, restrain leaders, and influence the direction of movement. There are three characteristics in the theoretical apprach of collective behavior. (a) It attaches importance to explaining the character and type of each kind of collective behaviour, and throwing light on the relationship between them. Therefore, in this case, the theory of social movement forms only part of a more inclusive theoretical system which equals collective behaviour theory. This fact, together with the abstractness of the theory itself, makes its contents comparatively superficial. (b) It treats the relationship between social movement and other kinds of collective behaviour not as the constructive or causal relation, but as the relation of difference in the degree of organization or institutionalization, and then conceives such a grading order as follows; elementary collective behaviour: social movements: institutional behaviour. This tends to avert the eyes of the writers from the important roles of organizational agents like trade unions or political parties which often become integrating core groups in movements. (c) The movement theory of this lineage is the general theory, the content of which consists of definition, construction of ideal types, and explanation in terms of diagrams. Although he did not direct his criticism to those American theorists we have dealt with, Mr. Shigeru Yamate who criticized several writers in this country who had developed general theories of this kind. He said that the orientation of general theory was necessarily contradictory to practical orientation,
Needless to say, it is sure that all sociological theories presuppose substantially some conception of the nature of man, which fundamentally orients the development of man. So for in sociology, however, attempts to make such conception explicit has generally tended to be avoided. But as A. Inkels indicated, for example, even Durkheim that denied any psychological explanation, could not help presupposing implicitly a kind of personality model in his practical researches. Indeed, it is natural to say that the explication of such presuppositions was neither necessary nor appropriate in social sciences, above all in sociology of those days, for it was required to obtain its own “citizenship” as an independent special discipline. But the present circumstances are the reverse to the past. When we think of it, we can never close our eyes to the fact that the significance of the theory of personality in modern sociology grows greater and greter in its relation to the theory of action. In this respect, it seems somewhat useful for the first being to pursue critically the development of T. Parsons' theories in order to find a clue to the model-building in this new front of sociology. Thus it is by reason of this that his series of theories are brought to focus of the critical investigation in my present paper.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the difference of the internal structure between two family patterns, one is composed of the “working wife”, and the other is composed of the “non-working wife”. The development of industry causes the gradual separation between the place of production and that of consumption. In general, housewives of urban family are ordained to function, out off from the place of production, only in the place of consumption. These prescriptions have some influence on fixing the status of housewives in the family study, so that it is imagined that housewives should devote themselves to the domestic affairs and nursing. This fact is apparent from the example that T. Parsons and others, including some Japanese scholars, point out the “working wife” as “the deviant”. But I take a serious view of the differences between these theories and actual conditions. In Japan, the rate of “working wife” is 52.4 percent of all working women in 1960. Since the war, that percentage is continually increasing. As far as these facts are concerned, at least, I think that T. Parsons and other's schemata don't reflect the actual conditions of Japan. I want to make an approach to the family especially to the internal structure of the family that reflects these reality. And in this note, the internal structure analysis focuces on the decision making process and the devision of labour in the family. Because, there are three fundamental differences between the “working wife” and the “non-working wife” as a social existence. Those are differences of having or not having income, of how to use the time in living and of action areas. And I think these three differences must infuence the decision making process and the devision of labour in the family. Standing on these viewpoints, I undertook intensive interviewing-research about 60 families of primary school teachers in Sapporo, Hokkaido. Summary:— (1) According to the trend which the actual materials show, the decision making process and the division of labour can be typed into next three patterns. * I=Participant in decision making process-Ia= Final decision maker-Ib= Follower II=Non-Participant in decision making process And these three patterns differ in each of the five parts of family affairs—the management of household economy, the management of general domestic food, clothing and habitation, nursing, the education of children, and the social intercourse. (2) The first distinctive feature that the difference of the “working wife” and the “non-working wife” influences the internal structure of each family appears to be the difference of management of general domestic affairs and nursing. In these parts, the “non-working wife” reigns over the family as an expert. And the division of labour is as following; a husband takes the role of earning a living, a wife takes the role of domestic affairs and nursing. On the other hand, in the case of the family of the “working-wife”, there is a tendency that these family affairs are done in cooperation with some members of the family. Or a part of these functions seems to be transfered to society. I think that the difference of these parts is based upon the difference of how to use the time in living. (3) But, secondly, these non-working wives, being expert of routine household work are more dependent on husbands than the working wives, in the case of large domestic economy. Eventually, a husband of the “non-workingwife” has more chances to become a leader than the “working wife's” one. And these differences are prescribed by the difference of having or not having income. (4) The third distinctive feature is the influence which the difference of the structure of consiousness of housewives has upon the internal structure of each family. The differ
The study of the village in the field of sociology in Japan has been concerned mainly with agricultural village and has had remarkable results. However, in the case of the fishing village the results are not always satisfactory. The difference between the fishing village and the agricutural one centers in their means of production: the fishing ground and the farm ground. Therefore this article is intended to refer to the fishing ground and the fishing co-operative association which is the controlling organization of the fishing ground. By doing so we hope to throw light upon the sociological structure of the fishing village. The fishing co-operative association, different from other co-operative associations, was, at the early stage of the its formation (in 1903), a conventional controlling body of fishing rights rather than an economic entity. This is the reason why the fishing co-opeaative association and the village are inseparably related and have become a part of the same structure. It is for this reason that the character of “Dorf-Gemeind” of the co-operative association is often discussed, and furthermore, it is said that the fishing co-operative association has dual functions. Therefore, in studying those dual characteristics of the fishing co-operative association, we also study the social structure of the fishing village. It is often said that the coastal fishing village has shown slight advancement in the capitalistic system of our country. Meanwhile, pearl-culture which is distinctly capitalistic has come into the coastal fishing village, and has brought with it its own system. How the village has adopted the change of the production system and how the village has changed itself through the adoption of that system are the main subjects of this article. On these subjects, rasearch was made in the three representative fishing villages of Shima District: Hamazima, Tategami and Hunakoshi. Such external forces as the permeation of the cultivated pearl industry into the village, the technological changes in the pearl-culture, and the change within the system brought about by the democratization of the village produced various contradictory elements within the village. To resolve these contradictions, the village and the co-operative associations were compelled to change their structure. In the process of the change, these villages or co-operative associations were not forced into the same type of change, nor made a stereotyped change themselves, but each has gradually changed itself in its own way, according to its conventional characteristics at its own convenience. The self-government of the fishing co-operative association is the main characteristic which came about the reformation of the systm after the World War II. In these three villages of Hamazima, Tategami and Hunakoshi, the self-goverment of the pearl culture industry is carried on. It is noteworthy that the self-government of the fishing co-oprative association is a proper means for the fishing village to go well with the democratic reform within the village without losing its conventional characteristics of “Dorf-Gemeind”.