In Japan, it is a long time since “regional sociology” has been proposed, but strictly speaking we have not reached a consensus on the definition of “regional society” yet. If we take a closer look into the terminology Japanese sociologists use, we notice that there are contrastive differences. Some argue that “regional society” is “total society” in itself, others argue that it is “partial society”, a constituent of the total society. In the present paper, we discuss how to understand “regional society” from two standpoints (that is to say, one which regards “regional society” as “total society”, the other as “partial society”), and make the differences between both groups clear. The main points are as follows; (1) A difference in recognition of regional society in actuality ; this derive from whether one recognize unity, globality and totality and so on within the society or not. (2) A difference in understanding of the bounds of regional society; the former presupposes more side ranged one in comparison with the latter. (3) A difference in perspective and methodology ; the former recognizes regional society as a place where interdependent relationship of human activity spreads and develops, and tries to clarify its bound empiricaly and positively. Whereas the latter puts regional society in the whole structure of Japanese capitalism, and tries to analize its mutual relevancy (“structual analysis”). In this way, there are distinct differences between both groups, however they have somethings is common in characterizing of “regional sociology”. (1) Practical character ; both claim that regional sociology should contribute to the society on a practical basis. (2) Synthetic character ; both find the originality and raison d'être of “regional sociology” in the possibility of sythetic (general) grasp of social life.