Considering the modernization of developing countries, we should take a serious view to the fact that the modernization of these countries was brought not by the internal explosive energy of the nations, but by the external impacts from advanced countries in either capitalistic or socialistic system. As a result, the development stage in the modernization of them has been estimated by the existing measures of values of systems in advanced countries. But, in order to work out the modernization, the leaders in developing countries have been demanded to grapple with the problem of discovering new principle with which they can overcome the negative aspects both of backwardness in developing countries, and of “modernity” as they appear in advanced countries, because those negative aspects are now, irrespective of social system, exposed to the public eyes and the value of the “model of modernity” are undermined. Economic development of the developing countries in Southeast Asia especially, unless the modernization is taken up in relation to the latant energy of that nation, it is impossible to assure a developing country's political stability and economic progress. In this stage, the modernization of developing countries should not be estimated by the existing measure of value of systems in advanced countries.
However, we have not had the theory which leads the latent explosive energy of the nations out, and what is more, makes us able to analyze the various social structures in Asia, quite different from those of Western Europe. Therefore, when we construct that useful theory, the most important task is to take up the existing theories of social sciences based value of the West, and to clarity their effectiveness and limitedness. In this paper, the author took up two typical theories on developing countries in Southeast Asia. They are the theories of the modernization in underdeveloped countries formed by W.W. Rostow and that of plural society by J.H. Boeke, J.S. Furnivall and others. These theories were sele ted in considering their relation to the modernization in Malaysia, a typical country in Southeast Asia.
Generally, developing countries must give priority to make the preconditions for industrialization including establishing mechanisms for capital accumulation and training skilled engineers and labourers. In fact the Malaysian government is making all efforts to fulfill these requirements. But, the impediments to development in the Malaysian social structure are caused not only by weak preconditions of industrialization, but also by political and social traits of any plural society, which have asserted by J.S. Furnivall and J.H. Boeke. Modernization in Malaysia cannot be attained merely by the theory of W.W. Rostow's. In a country which contains rival societies, the mechanisms for economic development are needed, which include modern national education. And they cannot be perfected without conquering communalism firstly. In Malasia the bitter enemy between Malays and Chinese makes the execution of national policy more difficult than in countries which are made up of a single race. Communalism in Malasia clearly affects policies adopted by Malay leaders operating the interests of Chinese communities. In Malaysia without regarding to relations between the entangled communalist and class distinctions, no political or social analysis will be complete.
However, more than by social, economic, and cultural differences between two races, modern communalism in Southeast Asia is caused by political ambitions and activities of the ruling classes in each community who contrive to convert internal contradictions and conflicts of interests into an external, inter-communal confrontation.

抄録全体を表示

The rapid growth of population and over-urbanization in South Asia were completely different from Western urbanization caused by pulling labourers into cities from rural area under industrialization. The over-urbanization in South Asia was caused by pushing rural population into cities where the lives were easier and occupational chances much greater.
In this paper the author tried to analyse the motives of city migrants, their style for adapting in cities, and to interpret changes in their value-consciousness.
Hitherto, studies on city migrants were taken up only from the view points of population, their ecological residence style, economic, social, cultural sides of lives. So the author tried to make dynamic analysis out of these static interpretations. This paper is the preliminary trial to this purpose.
City migration in South Asia states is specified by its intensification to the primate city. With natural growth and migration, the population of the city was rapidly grown, but the economic basis for pulling population remained unchanged. This led to not urbanization, but ruralization of the city, and squatter and slum were formed.
Now the author analyse the so o-economic factors for city migration. The primary push factor is rural exodus motives formed by population pressure. But pull factors from city is also working. Kinships and friends living in cities cause one of pull factors.
City migrants are divided into three types. The first is called shattle pattern of migration. In societies where extended family is general pattern, migrants go and return from rural area to cities, and inversely. The second is lonely resident pattern. In this case an individual resigns his native village and lives uprooted in cities. The last type is group immigrants. A group of similiar racial, religious and regional background migrates into cities. But the author takes regard only of individual immigrants, then, shattle pattern, short-range lonely immigrants residence pattern and lonely resident immigrants are recognized. Among them, the most typical pattern is residence pattern. The author also tried to analyse their migration motives and their adaptation pattern to working places and the city culture. Value and style of action have changed from rural type at the first stage to urbanized pattern.

抄録全体を表示

Having the belief that we could find varieties of principle and structure in Asian rural societies, the Japanese rural sociologists have been analyzing only Japan. Through these tasks, some sociologists have been able to find the individual characteristics of the Japanese rural social structure, for instance ie (the Japanese family) and dozoku (the Japanese extended family system) and so on. However, such a method might loses sight of homogeneity which exists among Asian countries even though it emphasizes heterogeneity.
In this paper, I would like to take a point of view of seeking identity rather than variety, and homogeneity rather than heterogeneity. It is my viewpoint in this paper that the understanding of the Japanese rural society must come after understanding the other Asian countries.
I have adopted the principle of lineage of the family and kinship system which are thought to be the fundamental structure of the Asian rural societies as the criterion for finding identity between the societies. Then we can devide Asian rural societies into two areas A, an Area of Bilateral System, and B, an Area of Unilineal.System. Most countries in the south west islands belong to the A-Area, and the countries in the north east continent belong to B-Area. While Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia and so on would be included in the former area, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Pakistan, China and Korea and so on are the latter. This paper seeks to identity which area Japan belongs to.
The case studies are as follows.
A-Area : Some villages in Indonesia and Philippines have been considered as the case studies. In this area, the family type is that of nuclear family. It cannot be determined whether male or female lineage system are dominant. The way of living might indicate the superiority of the male (patrilocal). Marriages between cousins are more frequent. The kinship structure is the bilateral system. The nuclear group of the kinship system is the sibling group. We cannot decide whether the patrilineage or matrilineage is dominant. But in the modernized areas, patrilineage may be dominant.
B-Area : Some cases in India, Vietnam and Korea have been considered. The family type compared with A-Area has the characteristics of the extended family system. We will give attention to the compound family in India, the polygamy in Vietnam, and the clan in Korea. The kinship system is the unilineal system.
C-Area : The case of Japan. The established theory which has been dominant concerning family and kinship was that ie and dozoku were in the partiunilineal system. If it were true, Japan should be included in B-Area. However, when we study the Japanese rural society compared with other Asian societies we could find in Japan the factors of both A and B areas.
For testing this hypothesis, I have studied Kunimitsu village in Noto Peninsula, Ishikawa Prefecture.
The social nucleus of this village is the ie..Ie can be recognized as ie when it exists in both tsura institution, a kind of village community, and ikke organization, a kind of kinship system. The nucleus of this ie is oya (parents), in this case especially the father (the mother follows the father).
From the oya, with the father as the nucleus, the oya-ko relationships (the parents-children relationships) extend in the direction of both patrilineage and matrilineage. Thus I can define the kinship organization in this village as a parti-prior-bilateral system of kinship.

抄録全体を表示

China and India have formed two great culture area in Asia. Near locatedness to China, Japan belongs to Chinese culture area.
A hundred years ago, all three countries were at the stage of agricultural societies. But now, Japan became one of the richest nations of the capitalist system, but China and India remained pre-industrial nation. What has made Japan most prosperous nation? In order to answer this question, the author re-examine some studies on Asian society by W. Hegel, K. Marx, M. Weber and K.A. Wittfogel. Among these studies most useful for explanation of contemporary Asian society is M. Weber's. And from his works the author takes up some clues. Of these three countries, Japan only had a feudal system similiar to that of Europe's. Though it is necessary to study various characteristics between Japanese and European feudalism. For example, the city differed definitely.
Post-war China has experienced a Communist revolution. So the author thinks it necessary to re-examine Chinese culture area.The author reads “Konfuzianismus und Taoismus” by M. Weber, and tries to compare the Japanese dozoku with the Chinese clan. The author has reached the conclusion that the Japanese family system was far more modernized and made Japanese nation's loyalty from their family system toward nationalism.
The author also scrutinized studies on Chinese villages made by Tadashi Fukutake and Mao Tse Tung. This paper is the preliminary trial for comparative studies, and a few of important problems, for example, what has changed in the chinese villages after the communist revolution, have remained untouched.

抄録全体を表示