The study of social pathology analysed various social problems utilizing an approach which adopted the concepts of social disorganization, deviant behavior, anomie, and dysfunction. These analyses, focusing respectively on personality system, family system, and community system, have used the methods of control-group research, participant observation, and questionnaire. They took a common basis in an objective and relativistic view-point, which gradually made clear such points as the following. (1) Standards and norms vary according to social classes. (2) In order to solve some problem, it is necessary to proceed with an analysis of the larger system to which object of analysis belongs. (3) Analysis of social disorganization and deviant behavior necessarily entails the study of non-conformity and social change. Social welfare workers regard the problems they face as objects for solution, rather than merely for analysis. Although sociological analysis of such problems is important and necessary, in most cases it does not go beyond the explanation of the past and present causes and processes involved in the problems. The social welfare approach, on the other hand, consists in the practice of choosing what behavior the individual should take in the “future”, and in. assisting him to do so. Hence it is necessary that the social welfare worker be a specialist and that he take on responsibility for guiding individual. The social welfare approach, therefore, becomes really effective only when it is based on information gained from cooperative research with an objective and relativistic social science such as sociology, and when in addition it is connected into a “specialized practice”, in which a matter considered apart from a standpoint as an outsider. In order for this increase in the effectiveness of the social welfare approach, to take place hereafter, evaluations of the results both of various problems related to social change and of operations involving planned changes in the functioning of the social system will be more and more necessary.
Since Floyd Hunter undertook the research about community power structure in 1953, many sociologists and political scientists have renewed their interests on community study. A great number of empirical studies about community power structure (CPS) have been cumurated since then. Behind this rapid increase of CPS study since 1953, I find the great change made in community life and the policy-oriented response of social scientists toward the changing community and its policy made by local government. 1) Some problems of CPS. Dealing with the problem of CPS, CPS students focused their view on community, especially political community. Their main interests was how to develop more effective research techniques to analyse the political community and political behaviour of local elites. The most important problem for them was to rebuild democracy in community with their policy-oriented ideology of community and technological theory of CPS. 2) Some approaches to CPS. Three dominant approaches to CPS can be distinguised ; reputational, decisional and organizational ones. The first two approaches and the CPS models which they presented about the political community and political behaviour of local elites were often discussed in the dispute about CPS between “elitists” and “pluralists”. The fourth approach was presented in 1960' supported by the strong demand of “policy science” research in community study. It was experimental approach. Those approaches to CPS are characterized with much empiricism and subjective idealism. 3) Some views on CPS All the views of CPS students except C.W. Mills didn't see the structural relationships between local and national society. They could not admit the decline of democracy. In addition, all the views of CPS students are characterized with elitism. They omitted the mass or ordinary citizens of community whose life structure made the basic ground of the power structure of community. In the future study about local politics my problem is how to grow democracy in the grass roots of our local politics. Dealing with this problem, I will take the view of non-elitism on local society which is structurally related with national politics and society. With this view to mass or citizens, I would like to develop the total approach to local politics which will enable to grasp the dynamic process of local politics as well as various problems of community life.
Many group techniques are used in attitude change, conversion, and thought reform. In attitude change, group discussion, organizational change, sensibility training group, role playing, psychodrama, sociodrama, and group psychotherapy used. As for conversion, we will take up as example the case of Sokagakkai, a sect of Buddism in Japan. The ardent believers combine in small groups on the first front line in the conversing campaign of the religious organization. In thought reform or “Culture Revolution” of the Red China, various forms of group techniques are found : such as learning movement, thought reform, rectification movement, etc. We can point out that these methods have affinities and differentials with each other. As for affinities on each side, small group method is used to bring up an attitude and behavior change. The mechanism of attitude change in group, which works on these fields, tends to enlarge ego-involvement of group members. Consequently, group members become to comformity to the norm, of the membership group, or the change of the norm of membership group accompany with the attitude and behavior change of group members. As for differentials, we will try to compare between the group techniques of the behavior sciences and those used in the Red China. The differentials may be summarised as follows : (1) The former aims at a partial change of an attitude or behavior, or one's modus operandi so to speak, whereas the latter is marked with the reform of ideology, or modus vivendi of one's whole existence. (2) Although both of them have orientation to the support of their social system, the former's direct interest is almost purely limited to the practice of democracy on group dimension, while the latter's ideal is the realization of democracy in the group for the revolution of the nation wide social dimension. (3) Accordingly, the former aims at “the making spontaneity and creativity” in the culture as a common donominator. In the latter, the cause of mistakes, (wrong deeds), done in the past should be abolished and people should be awakend by class consciousness, the people's real “independence making up.” (4) In the latter, the people takes a part of the propelling power and the source of energy of the revolution comes from the people of pre-lower socio-economic status, e.g., the poorer and lower middle class peasants, and proletarian workers. They expect the security of mind and the rise of their social status by the reform of the social consciousness and group organization. But in the former, the security of mind is only hoped for, and not immediately aimed at. (5) From the standpoint of the typology of groups, the groups in the former are generally temporary or functional ones. In the latter, the groups are the basic and primary units of the whole society, and are characterized by the production and daily life.
The lineage of class theory in post-war Japanese sociology has roughly three trends. The first is what is called sociological class theory, the second is Marxist class theory and the last lies between the two. This study especially focuses on the historical development of “sociological class theory”, which has its backgrounds in the theoretical development from cultural anthropological class theory to the structural-functional class theory in American sociology. Today, the work of Ken'ichi Tominaga shows the stage of sociological class theory in Japan. The essence of his theory is the denial of the antagonism of two large classes in capitalistic society and the denial of the possibility of the emancipation of the working class by class struggle. In his theory Tominaga gives a precise meaning to the concept “social structure” in order to explain the class structure as a system of inequality springs from the functional prerequisites of social structure. He finds that the theory of social stratification is more appropriate than Marxist class theory to industrial society. On the other hand, he denied that the class struggle is the driving force of historical progress by basing his analysis on the theory in social dynamics which seeks cause for such progress outside the society in which it occurs. Sociological class theory, such as that outlined above, has come to play an important role in our cotemporary society. By which I mean that the development of this theory corresponds with the development of post-war Japanese capitalism.
Among many contributions to sociology by Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, their works in the sociology of religion have aroused the most debate and critical evaluation. Different in their way of approach, both Durkheim and Weber were keenly interested in the sociological foundation of religion, and tried to delve into the structure of society through the study of religion. The purpose of my paper is to compare the ways in which Durkheim and Weber accounted for the place of religion in society through their works of The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life and The Ancient Judaism. The first part of this paper presents the basic conceptualization of society and human action. Durkheim gave a foundation to the sociologists and anthropologists known as the functionalists. Functionalism explains every living culture as a functioning and integrated whole, analogous to an organism, and that no part of a culture may be understood except in relation to the whole. Weber was suspicious of this functional analysis of society. First of all, he did not see society as an organic whole but an area where different groups were competing and struggling against one another. Secondly, the entire subjection of individuals to a collectivity was intolerable for him, since he saw the existence of subjective interpretation of social phenomena by each individual. However, Weber revealed the tendency toward duality of individualism and collectivity. It is my primary interest to see how close and on what level Durkheim and Weber approach each other in their theories of religion. The second part of my paper discusses different origins and roles of religion expressed by Durkheim and Weber. Durkheim argued that society was the only empirical reality which had moral ascendancy over the individual and thus was able to create the sacred. God was but a symbol for society. On the other hand, Weber felt that the specific nature of the religion was not a simple function of the social situation of the stratum, however, social influence, economically and politically determined, might have been upon a particular religious case. Finally, the historical as well as contemporary religions in Japan are examined in terms of theories developed by Durkheim and Weber. At a glance Durkheim's theory is quite applicable to Japanese society which is based on collectivity orientation. However, a closer analysis of religious history reveals the process of struggle among status groups such as politicians, priest, and general public, which can be better explained by Weber's theory.