This is the third article- “Inquiry in the origin of the theory of family, ” in the Japanese Sociological Review. No.6, 1951 and “The background of origin of the theory of family. ” in Memoirs of the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Education of Yamanashi Univ., No. 6, 1955 (both in Japanese) -which was written to criticize the well acknowledged theory which sets the origin of the theory of family in 1861. (I) In this article, I will begin with the problem about the origin of the theory itself. This was the theory which set the origin of the theory of family in Bachofen's Das Mutterrecht. written in 1861, though afterwards Marinowski and others complimented it by Maine's Ancient Law. of 1861. It is generally thought that Engels was the first advocater to set Bachofen's Das Mutterrecht, as its origin in the Vorwort of his Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Slaats. IV Aufl. (1891). But, it is noteworthy that the previous year 1890, there had been published a book, Tableau des origines et de l'révolution de la familie et de la propriété by Kovalevsky, the first chapter of which was very similar to that of Engels. Both assert decisively that there was not any theory of family but arguments under the influence of Pentateuch which they both affirm as “verbiage” or “nicht die Rede sein”. Both of them coincidently take their origin in Bachofen's theory, though Kovalevsky esteems the study of the primitive peoples which has survived by MacLennan's Primitive Marriage. 1865 along with the historical study of Bachofen. It seems to me doubtful that Engels formed his theory of the origin in 1861 only by himself, because Engels made a few supplements in his IV Aufl. referring them to this book of Kovalevsky. (II) I begin the problem by quoting Russell who say, “ The period of history which is commonly called” modern “has mental outlook which differs from that of the medieval period in many ways. Of these, two are the most important : the diminishing authority of the Church, and the increasing authority of science. ” “ The rejection of ecclesiastical authority which is the negative characteristic of the modern age, begins earlier than the positive charactristic, which is the acceptance of scientific authority. ” “ The first serious irruption of science was the publication of the Copernican theory in 1543 ”(History of western philosophy. 1946. p. 511-2). If so there is some probability of finding arguments on the family without bearing the Pentateuchal stamp very early. Of Trattato della famiglia. by L. B. Alberti (1404-72), W. Sombart (Der Bourgeois. 1913) and Y. Kaneko (Kindai-Humanism to Rinri. 1942) speak in high estimation of its modernistic character, in spite of the fact that M. Weber (Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. 1920) shows sceptism of it. Weber conceives that Alberti in stating the economy of family detached economics from religion, and by so doing he had influences upon “die Entwicklung der modernen Wirtschaftslehre (und auch : des modernen Wirtschaftspolitik)”.
The Most remarkable feature of modern urban society is said to be the daily movement of population from the urban fringe to the center of a city. This daily movement has divided the family life and the labor of urban people. The development of urban communication promotes this tendency and consequently the modern way of life in urban society divides itself into three parts. First, and of primary importance, is family life, secondly, occupational life, and finally recreational life. According to this functional differentiation of urban life the urban area also divides into three parts, the residential area, the business area, and the amusement zone. Professors Park and Burgess point out this phenomena in their well known theory of urban structure, the concentric or zonal theory ; However, they make only two distinctions, the primary or residential area and the secondary or professional area. They overlook the very important amusement area. The so called third area is described as mass-like society by Professor Svend Riemer in his book titled “Modern Cities”. This mass-like society characterizes not only the structure of the area but also the life of the people. His book criticizes first the common theory of urban area structure and then deals with the new theory of urban structure from the viewpoint of mass-like society. The characteristic of urban society is only depend upon this mass-like phenomena and it is absolutely necessarily to have the accurate idea about the situation of non-residential, anonymous, heterogeneous and non-organized structure of urban peoples in their mass-like tendency.
In the 16th century was found the family called “Domostroy” in Russia, “Domostroy” was the typical of patriarchal family. Toward the end of the 16th century serfage was established. In ancient times the rural population was completely free, but the right of migration was abolished by Tsar Boris Godunof. In the period of serfage also remained the old custom -patriarchal -, because the peasants were tied to the land, and they remained traditional. On the other hand, as the state was deficient in many functions, the family performed them for the state, and the head of the family was the leader. Therefore the head of the family had absolute power, for he was superior in many respects to any other family member. The deficience of police function of the state allowed him even to hold the power of life and death over his children. Besides the serfage was on despotism. In such a society every group had hierarchy, and the head of each group demanded absolute obedience of those lower in lank, as Tsar of people, superiors of inferiors and proprietors of serfs. Thus the family was under the influence of the principle of despotism, and the head of the family demanded absolute obedience of other family members. Now you must remember that Russia produced many great writers and their products in the 19th century. In fact, it can be said that the 19th century is the golden age of Russian literary history. The first half of the century was the period of serfage, and even after the emancipation, of course, a few traces of the first half could be found. Therefore it was natural that the literary products should describe such a society ; serfage and family. This essay intended to see the patriarchate through Russian literature.
It was early in the “Heian” period that tea was first introduced into Japan from China. At that time this practice of drinking tea was limited to the higher classes, as tea was regarded as a precious drink. In 894 the Japanese government stopped sending envoys to China in the Tung dynasty and this practice went out of fashion for a time with the rupture of diplomatic relations between the two countries. It however, came into vogue again after the “Kamakura” period so much so that a kind of game was often played among the lovers of tea for competing with one another in drinking some tea and then naming the place where it came from and prizes were presented to the winners. This Kind of game was usually followed by luxurious dinner parties but in the course of years, especially in the reign of Yoshimasa Ashikaga, people came to assume a critical attitude toward such a taste for luxury. Then came Shuko Murata, called “Father of Tea”, who introduced a variety of tea, which under the special patronage of the then Shogun Yoshimasa Ashikaga, spread widely among the lower classes and is called “Gege no Cha”, which means “Tea of the Masses”. Thus, favoured and loved both by the higher classes and by the common people, tea grew into the so-called “Tea Ceremony, ” an art peculiar to the feudal society in Japan. From this point of view, it may be possible to give some sociological consideration and explanation about “Tea-ceremony, ” which has been placed for so many years under the special influences of our feudal society.
Wenn man den religionssoziologischen Charakter der Japanischen dorfgemeinde verstehen will, so gibt uns die Theorie von Max Weber über die asiatische Gesellschaft verschiedene Hinweise, überhaupt erfasst er die dorfgemeinde als eine religiöse Gemeinschaft und den Zusammenhang der Religion mit der Struktur der Gemeinde. Dadurch erklärt er die wirklichen asiatischen sozialen Verhältnisse, d. h. die Erscheinung der mit der lebenden Heilands-religiosität zusammenhängenden erbcharismatischen Struktur der Gemeinde. In Indien und China herrschte der Patrimonialismus, In China erstrebten die Patrimonialherrn durch das Prüfungwesen u. s. w. die Gesellschaft zu rationalisieren, aber dieses Mittel zum zweek war dafür unvollkommen. Die Gründe dafür sind verschieden, Vor alleni ist einer der Gründe die erbcharismatische Macht der Sippe in der dorfgemeinde. In Indien verhält es sich auch so. Wenn die rationalen Religionen auch in beiden Staaten entstanden wären, daun würden sie durch die Massenreligiosität in die Heilandsreligiosität verdorben, und taoistischen erbcharismatischen Guru als lebende Heilande verehrt, Max Weber sah als den wichtigsten Grund dafür diesen religionssoziologischen Charakter an. Diese Behanptung von Max Weber gibt uns den Hinweis, die Japanische Dorfgemeinde anf Heiligenverehrung ; (人間崇拝); zu untersuchen. Wir wollen diese Probleme an anderer Stelle behandelu.