Weber's sociology has been the most brilliant achievement of comparative studies and it contains the fruitful analyses of traditional Asian societies. Firstly, I consider the present-day significance of his comparative perspective. His basic concerns were the following. Why could only Western Europe fully rationalize herself ? Why could not Asian societies achieve rationalization and give no birth to modern capitalism? Weber investigated obstacle factors against rationalization in Asia. Asian societies began to rationalize themselves under impact from West. The impact took mostly the form of colonial rules and severe exploitation. Are Weber's studies not available for studies of social changes in modern Asia ? The pattern of response to the impact differs in each society. The direction, degree and speed of social changes are under the influence of traditional social conditions. Weber's comparative studies are suggestive for the analysis of traditional factors as the cause of these differences. Secondly, I consider that types of traditional rules differentiate in the relationships with the formation of modern politics. This consideration makes clear the availability of Weber's sociology in modern Asian studies. However his framework could be explained by modern sociological terms. The re-formation of it into modern sociological framework should contribute to a general and comparative social theory. Eisenstadt's theory of modernization is useful for this re-formation. But two critical questions about his theory may be asked in spite of his contribution to comparative studies. One question is about the contents and directions of “transformation”. The other is about the relations between the stages of social change and the functions of traditional factors. The “transformative” functions of the same factor differ according to stages. My third consideration is about these questions and the generalization of Weber's framework. Lastly, I consider a framework of comparative studies and so focus the contents and directions of “transformation” upon authoritarian politics. I consider especially traditional factors, relating to the strength of safeguards against such politics.
1. “okonomische Gesellschaftsformation” is the basic concept in Marx's social theory. It seems to me, however, that the concrete contents of this concept have not been fully investigated, and that the past disputes about it had some faults. One of them is the lack of the viewpoint of “social production”, which concerns largely “prozessierende Struktur” in reproducing relationship of individuals itself. From this viewpoint Marx could recognize materialistically the society to be the relations of production in their totality. According to Marx's idea, the relations of production are “die gesellschaftliche Zusammenwirkensbeziehung” determined by “Aneignungsverhaltnis der Arbeit”, and this “Zusammenwirkensbeziehung” shows the definite form of society. Therefore, we can regard the society as “okonomische Gesellschaftsformation”, making clear “dynamics” of this “Zusammenwirkensbeziehung” or “prozessierende Struktur” of “social production”. 2. When we analyze logically the formation principle of the modern society from the above viewpoint, the following would be claimed generally : the economic movement of society not only reproduces the relations of production themeselves, but also produces directly the definite forms of social conciousness and economic power. This economic power exists actually as various kinds of powers. Therefore, we have an anarchical society with competition and opposition among them. And these powers are transformed by the economically ruling class into a “transcendental”, public power that summarizes them, mediates their competition and opposition, and reigns over them. At the same time, the ruling ideology is composed of the forms of social conciousness, and becomes relatively independent of the forms themselves. Thus, the society constituted economically is reorganized by this public power and ideology. Accordingly, we can conclude, a certain “okonomische Gesellschaftsformation”, in its own real logic of movement, produces the definite “politische and ideologische Gesellschaftsformation”, which corresponds to it. Comprehending fully Marx's logic of “okonomische Gesellschaftsformation”, we can investigate the mediate unity between so-called “Basis” and “Uberbau” in its actuality.
This article intends to analyze a formation process of an educational policy with a view to inquire how the politics cope with the educational problems. The object case of this study is the formation process of an educational policy in the ministerial party, namely, the Liberal-Democratic Party (L.D.P.), and the structural-functional aspects of the policy machinery and the Dietman in change of an educational policy were especially investigated by the author. In L.D.P. the expert group in charge of the educational policy has been formed. This special group is composed of the Dietmen, who belong to the Sectional Council for a cultural-educational policy called “Bunkyo Bukai” (B.B.) or the Muestigation Committee of a Cultural-educational system called “Bunkyo Seido Chosakai” (B.S.C.). There two organs perform different functions respectively in the policy formation process, that is to say, B.B. is deal with the urgent problems, for example, the formulation of the budget and the legislation, on the other hand, B.S.C., is to grapple, with basic problems on the educational policy, to research and clarify fundamental lines of the educational policy. M.B.B. the young Dietmen who were graduated from non-government university have taken leadership, on the other side, in B.S.C. the veteran Dietmen from high classed bureaucrat hold an important position. The party organs for the educational policy and the Ministry of Education stand by each other, and there is closely interdependent relation between the expert Dietmen of education and bureaucrats of the Ministry of Education. According to some marks observed in the formation process of an educational process, we can point out the distinguishing tendency of bureaucratization and functional specialization. It seems that this tendency has been promoted by increasing demands about education from various social spheres to politics.
This paper argues on following problems. 1. Is human ecology able to be dealt with as if it were an study concerning only with pollusion problems (Kogai) ? No, it is not. An orthodox human ecology is a study established by Park and Burgess. Owing to the following human ecologists, this study has completed itself to be a “general theory of environments”. The general study involves special study of environments such as “Kogai” problems, but “Kogai” study cannot cover all the fields of human ecology as a general study. 2. “Kogai” study is of cours a special but important branch of human ecology. But, to our regret, considerable parts of “Kogai” study are not so satisfactory at the sociological consideration. How insatisfactory their explanations are is easily pointed out when we examine their conclusions on the adaptation of “modified in-put out-put analysis”. 3. Recent technologists and geographers make habitual use of “analog method”, but even half century ago, Burgess already adopted this methodology ; that is, he analyzed metropolitan regional structure on the analogy with ecological succession process of bio-community. Analog method is a very useful methodology, but it has a danger of leading “noises”. So, analogical explanations on urban societies are often misleading. It is effective to avoid the adoption of analog method as far as possible. For Burgess, there were not any other methodology left without adopting analog method, because the population growth of metropolis were unknown a phenomenon at the days. Today, we have much scientific date with this concern left by proceeding students. We can make a -research for the urban sociology without using analogs or without so called “ecological” method. And it is also possible that human ecology today ceases to be a mere analog method of urban sociology, and intends to become itself a concrete science. 4. Earlier human ecologists, owing to their adoption of analog method, introduced theoretical misunderstandings into their work seen in “Introduction to the Science of Sociology”. For example, they confused human competition or highly economical human relationships with biological “struggle for existence”. So, to modify their theoretical structure of sociology is among the purposes of this paper. 5. The relation between a man and his environment is essentially an interation process. But, viewed from the human being, this process means his activity process ; an activity for the creation of his own better environment. To clear out the interaction between a man and his environment is to clear out a process of human behaviour. Human ecology, a general study of environment, is in other words a general study of human behaviour. So, it is natural that the recently built “science of behaviour” has particular similarity with human ecology. Human ecologists must work in concert with students of behavioural science. 5. Needless to say, human ecology is in intimate relation with students of all the fields of sociology. But the general study of environments necessarily has much concern with many sciences developed outside the scope of sociology, such as, geograph, psycology, pedagogy, and so on. If it were so, a question should arise ; “is it possible to classify human ecology as a sociological field of sciences ?” From certain points of view the answer is in the affirmative, and from other standpoints it is not. Not only the sociological elements but also the sociological part of human ecology itself constitute human ecology as a whole, so that it is possible from the point of view of sociology to classify human ecology as a proper field of sociology. Human ecology as a proper sociology is, according to R. Takeda, a very important study for the adequate understanding of another fields of sociology.