In the recent trends of sociology, especially in the U. S., the concept of “Social system” is becoming one of the key-concepts upon which some sociologists tend to build their sociological theories. Znaniecki, Parsons, and Sorokin also in a sense, actively going on these line. Although they likewise use the term “social system”, they do not necessarily give the same meaning to it. When we examine the concept “social system” in their respective sociological view-points, we find there widly different in their interpretation from one another. We can explain this point from two different aspects ; first, in the approach method as containd in the term “system”; second, the content of “social system” itself in relation to their sociological theories.
1) By “system”, Parsons emphasizes the notion of equilibrium, in line with Pareto, and thus presents a simultaneous dynamic analysis of interdependence of several variables, i. e., the structural-functional analysis, beyond causal-effect analysis. In some points Znaniecki accepts Parsons' idea, but he mainly aims at discovering the “principle of structural dependence” and “law of historical development” of system by the method of causal analysis. Excluding the notion of “multitude causation, ” Sorokin emphasizes the causation in terms of main cause and supplementary factors.
We have no need to understand the concept of system as Parsons does. Unlike Parsons, we think that causal analysis of factors in system is not only totaly different from the concept of system, but is even necessary for the study of the structural and historical analysis of the system itself.
2) Social system as propounded by Znaniecki is one of a special, factual unit system (a limited system) in cultural system, which is to be dealt with by sociology exclusively. He says that sociology as a special cultural science must study social system only, if it is to be a science. But in the case of Parsons, the social system includes much larger contents than that of Znaniecki's, and it is a much larger object than that of sociology itself. Then, the theory of social system as a branch of theory of action is larger than the sociological theory and basic for it. It must be studied in cooperation with economics and political theory. According to his point of view, institutions (institutionalized parts of social system) constitute the logical focus of sociology. Unlike from Znaniecki and Parsons, Sorokin uses the term “social system” in the same conotation as institution, or organized group or their complex. There are many socio-cultural systems in society indeed, he thinks, but society as a whole is not necessarily a system, but contains many congeries, He also insists that general sociology must, for the field of study, have total society including congeries, even if its main study is directed at socio-cultural systems.
As summarized above, the conception social system has different meanings according to the sociologist's outlook on sociology. The term of social system could be used effectively, but the present uses of the term is not sufficient. There remains some room to be much more closely examined. Rich sociological harvest will be reaped. when this term is examined in the light of Maciver's “functional system” and Sorokin's some ideas.

View full abstract

It is a well-known fact that the sociological research of fishing community (village and town) is far behind compared with that of agricultural community (village and town) and city community. And the following three points can be assigned for the reason :
(1) A half agricultural and half fishing village (Buraku) has been regarded as a fishing village and treated as a similar type of a agricullural village.
(2) Therefore, the social structure of a fishing village and that of a agricultural village have been thought nearly alike, and no profound research has ever been made about the character of pure fishing village (chisaki buraku or front village).
(3) No careful attention has ever been both for the “fishery group” (Yakubito system of okiage and okamawari), or the living groups peculiar to fishing village and for “emigrant fishers” of chief constituent members of those groups.
It may be said that the importance of the sociological research of fishing community has been hindred considerably by the above-mentioned sociological view point. I should like to advocate a theory that a fishing community as a village community (Sonraku community), has much common in character with a agricultural community, but it has still its own peculiarity.
(1) The difference between the character of the arable right (included, forming right) and that of the fishery right, which comes from the common ownership of arable land and fishery (sea-areas, fishing-areas).
(2) The characteristics of class-relations between a fisher's employer (Amimoto or Oyakata) and fishers, emigrant fishers (Amiko or Kokata) in fishery group (Teiti or drift-net fishing) and between a ship-owner and ship-fishers (Noriko) in engin-ship fishing and the problems of the blood (or consanguinity), regional (mother land relations in a each other) and occupational relations union of emigrant fishers and the problem of their local, occupational dissolution and mobility.
(3) The problems of compared with farmers, more blocked-minded (exclusive or conservative) and characterized with the deep-rootedness of a family union with a house in its center and the feudality of scoial consciousness and the problems of power relations based on the kinship and unionship (included, guildship) in the generational consciousness of fishers who are, the strong of fixational natme (permanently dwelling) over the old generations.
The sociological characters of these fishing community constitute the fundamental areas of studying the “sociology of fishing community” as sociological problems or subjects. I have mentioned, as subjects of the sociology on fishing community.
(1) the sociological character of fishing community, (2) the sociological structure of fishing community, (3) the group structure in fishing community, (4) the structure of sociological consciousness of fishers, but these problems (sociological character on fishing community) are, at the same time (broadly speaking), the character on fishing community as a village community, (5) the character on fishing community in comparison with a agricultural community and city community.
The most difficult problem in studying fishing community is that of “the types of fishing community.” No type of a fishing community has ever been made from the sociological point of view, for example, even if a fishing community is classified from the point of the social structure (group structure), as “kinship village”, “union village” and “mixed village”, there will be many questions to be discussed ; or even if it is reganded as “a front village” (fishing village) and “a town village” (fishing town) or “a small harbor village” (Funairima Buraku) and “a fishing harbor yillage”, there will also remain much to say.

View full abstract

As a continuation from the previous issue, the second problem of last discussion will be studied in the illustrative cases of two village communities in the following :
Case I. In a village of Akita prefecture, to succeed or fail in the forest enterprise means even for “Honke” s that possess large land to expand or reduce their properties. The size of properties is a determinant of superiority or inferiority of the extended family system which has Honke as its center. In this prefecture a certain “So-Honke” or the largest Honke which expanded its properties has gradually added to its pyramidal structure of “Bunke” s under the same family name the Bunkes of other extended family systems through the landlord-tennant relationship established between them. When this community is viewed in the light of the extended family system as such, there can be seen a pattern of a central large extended family system. gradually gathering other smaller extended family systems around its pyramid to absorb them into its structure eventually. From the viewpoint of the relationship of the controller and the controlled, the largest Honke obtains absolete superiority in this community and Honkes of smaller extended family system which was deprived of their Bunkes by the largest Honke take some public offices but just nominally.
Case II. In a village of Nagano Prefecture, the landlords system was established with the. relations of genuine contractive lease arrangement made between landlords and tennants in the latter part of Meiji Era. It was impossible for landlords to control the community with their traditional influence. This, in consequence, furthered the relaxation of the extended family system, and the power of landlords was limited geographically in the area where the families of their own extended family system resided. The government of of the community had to be performed jointly by landlords. In the aspect of the relations among extended families, there was found in this community a pattern that no single extended family system possesses enough power to control other systems but they all existed in equality with no order of superiority set up, coupled with the weaker solidality within the system.
Based on the study of these two cases which have been reported for two consecutive issues, we like to call the attention of readers to the following few points of precaution for future study in this field, that is of the analysis of the relationship between rural community and the extended family system. We also maintain that we would for the time being keep from analyzing data to discuss the nature of unification of extended family systems, but try to grasp the extended family system per se in real situation of their making adjustment in the social structure of today.
The foci of problems are ; (1) think of land tenure as the basis for the controlling power of Honke over the extended family system ; (2) grasp the community through a study into the relative structures among extended families, and (3) the change within the extended family system can sometimes be the cause for the change of the structure of a community.

View full abstract

1. Purpose. The purpose of this survey was to investigate, by adopting the following method, what is the relation of the grievances concerning human relation, in their frequency and intensity, to the whole grievances in a worker's life of two large factories.
2. Interviewees. Out of the whole employees 2197 of M factory, and 2924 of N factory, 297 and 430 workers respectively were selected, excluding the officials of the higher positions, which contain a subsection, chief (kakari-cho). The selection was made according, and in proportion, to the working-status, and the age and sex groups.
3. Method. Neither the directive method of recording worker's grievances upon questionaires, nor the non-directive method in the sense of taking notes of the grievances given quite spontaneously by them, was adopted. We classified the grievances which may be expected from the workers into the following 10 major items ; job, working conditions. working hours, wages, human relations, training, welfare facilities, recreation, transportation, management policy and labour union. These items were recorded separately on so many cords, with subdivided items belonging to each of them, and the cards were presented to the interviewees. This method helped them in finding a clue to the statement of their grievances, and also helped us in coding the results and in acpuiring the basis for it. Thus, we tried to grasp the frequency of the grievance belonging to each major and subdivided item, and further the intensity of the grievance belonging to each major item by counting the points the interviewees gave to it, on the condition that the total 10 points should be given to the whole consciousness of the grievances each interviewee has.
4. Result. The result common to these two factories is that worker's grievance on human relations ranks high in intensity, although it ranks rather low in frequency.

View full abstract

Figures in this report are based on our Survey for Sasebo City on June 1, 1953. These data have been obtained from 10 % sampling ordinary households by the Resident Regulation Cards, and they are referred to the Household Cards in the City Office or in the Municipal Police Station, then some field surveys have been carried out when necessary.
Sampling households are 4, 736 (including 292 one person households), and their members are 21, 682 (4.58 per household). For the members per household by industry groups of heads, there are 5.96 in the 1st industry (11.2% to the whole heads), 4.55 in the 2nd industry (52.6%), 4.17 in the 3rd industry (15.6%) and 4.19 in the 4th group (not classifiable, not reported, unemployed or not in labor force) (19.8%).
91.7% of heads have their domiciles in the 7 prefectures in Kyusyu, yet 78.8% in the Nagasaki Prefecture (including 49.3% in this city). The natives of this city since their birthdays give 19.2% to the whole heads, while the migrants since the 2nd War, 45.9% and those since the Korean Riot, 21.9%. In the age groups of heads, the first group is 30-39 (28.2% to the whole), the next comes 40-49 (25.9%) and the third is 50-59 (18.3%).
There are 77.03 spouses (males ; 0.68), 206.14 children, 12.94 grand-children and 6.06 spouses of children per 100 heads. And 3.08 fathers, 11.59 mothers and 3.60 grandparents per 100 heads. For the lineal ascendants per 100 heads, this city has higher rate than those of the urban tabulation of the Census taken on 1920 and 1950. On the contrary, for the lineal descendants per 100 heads, the former is lower than the latter. For the spouses of the lineal descendants and other relatives, this city is in the middle of the above data.
Comparing the size of households with each other, the largest is 4 person household (17.0%), and the next comes 3 person household (16.7 %). On the size of families, the order is similar to the above. Comparing the number of family generations with each other, the largest is 2 generations (68.4%), and the next comes 1 generation (15.9%).
Nonrelatives are 0.24 per household, and most of them exist in the 3rd industry of head. For their age groups, this city shows higher rate in 20-29 years of age than the 6 largest cities in Japan.
Then Sasebo has both urban and rural character in the household construction. The 6 administrative districts in this city have some differences from each other. The city proper has the most remarkable urbanity, while Nakazato-Kaize or Ono has rather rural character.
These may well be due to the industrial construction and the increase of migrants in this city, since the Wor.

View full abstract