When we try to assess Simmel's influence on Japanese thought, we must take into account not only his sociological, but also his philosophical ideas. However, his influence on Japanese thoght is far stronger in sociology than in philosophy, just as it is the case in the United States. Of course there are some difference between the two countries. In general, Japan has been more exposed to German thought than the United States has ; thus his influence on Japan is stronger not only in sociology but even in philosophy. Simmel's philosophy of life was introduced to Japan since after the World War I together with that of Dilthey and almost all of his philosophical works were translated in to Japanese. It is true that his philosophical thought aroused some interests among sholars and journalists. However, the influence of his philophy on Japanese thought must be said to have been weak in comparison with that of his sociology which gave rise to the appearance of a new current of sociology as a special science in Japan since about 1920. Yasuma Takada published in 1920 his “Principles of Sociology” a book of 1385 pages, in which he justified completely Simmel's attempt delimit the object of sociology and attempted to construct a system of sociology as a special science more substantially than Simmel. Since then the study of formal sociology with Simmel at its center was promoted for several years and came to full bloom in 1923, when Kentaro Komatsu's “Introduction to Sociology” and Teizo Toda's “Plan of Courses of Sociology I” appeared. This trend in favor of Simmel's conception was not without resistance. In 1927 Masamichi Shimmei criticized Simmel's and related views in his “On Formal Sociology” and in the following year Tetsuji Kada also opposed Simmel in his “Introduction to Sociology”. Notwithstanding this, Simmel's influence was not completely lost. Many sociologists followed his example in considering sociology as a special science. However it must be acknowledged that the trend against formal sociology had been more challenging since then and Simmel's influence on Japanese sociology declined steadily until he came to be remembered as a sociologist whose books were refered to but seldom read even by the sociologistss. Since the end of World War II a great change was brought into Japan and with the democratic reform of government and education, the study of sociology was greatly enhanced. However, as to its content, significant shift has been in the direction of the United States, away from the traditional orientation toward Germany. In this changed climate of spirit, it is no wonder that Simmel, along with German sociology in general, has lost influence, thought there are some exceptions. If we compare the present state of Japanese sociology with that of American sociology in regard to Simmel's influence, it becomes clear that there is a remarkable contrast. In spite of the fact that in the '20's, this influence was stronger in Japan than in the United States, today the opposite is true. Whereas Japanese sociology once was strongly influenced by Simmel and has lost interest in him, American sociologists have recently renewed an attention to him which had been long absent or dormant. Simmel's influence on American sociology may be said to have been more consistent, though perhaps not as strong as at times in Japan. Simmel's influence is not dead even now in Japan, but despite the fact that it was once great, Japanese sociologists, much to their disadvantage, have left his precious heritage relatively unexplored.
(The substance of this paper will appear in English under the title “Durkheim's Influence on Japanese Sociology” in Emile Durkheim, 1858-1917 : A Collection of Essays, with Translations and a Bibliography, ed. by Kurt H. Wolff, a commemorative volume to be published by The Ohio State University Press early in 1959.)
Problems of transferring the farm to one heir are old but new ones. Even in U. S. where equal inheritance has been practised since the abolition of primogeniture and entail by Jefferson, keeping the farm in the family has become more and more urgent, with farm capital requirement at high level and with farms larger and fewer. Under these changing situation, the philosophy of distributing the property equally among several heirs has brought about many undersirable effects, some of which are serious. Frequently the death of the owner is followed by the disintegration of the farm. The farm is sold to settle the estate or land is divided into uneconomical units, or the heir who buy out the others must mortgage the farm. Especially for the operating heir whose contribution to the farm and parent has been great, it is unbearable to reorganize the disintegrated farm into a well balanced one and to go in a debt to buy the others that is beyond his earning power of the farm in times inflated land prices, like the present. So it becomes imperative to maintain the farm within the family without disturbing the essential unity of the farm as a going concern. However, the transfer of the farm as a going concern within the family conflicts with the equality of division prescribed by the law of descent and the security of the aged parent. Because as most of farmers use their farm as their “saving bank” and possess only limited outside savings, keeping the farm in the family tends to be a closed shop to the heirs except the farm successor and the transfer of the farm to the son at his early age frequently arises to give up the old parent's independence he earned and now he deserves. Thus to facilitate the intrafamily succession with minimum problems, better practices, not the change in the principle of the inheritance law, are being worked out and new practices such as gifts, annuities, purchase contracts and others are being taken. The purpose of this report is to analyze these inheritance problems and suggest the measures to meet them, mainly through the comparative study of the two researches in the eastern and southwestern part of Visconsin States made by Parsons, K. H., Waples, O. E. and Salter, L. A. Jr. in 1941. At the outset, through the analysis of the agricultural ladder in both districts, it is shown that in the eastern district many farmers climb the ladder elevatorlikely without stepping the tenancy and hired hand stage, and acquire the home farm early in their life, while in the southwestern partthe tenancy plays a significant role in climbing the ladder, and farmers generally acquire the home farm late in their life. It is also made clear that this defference in the agricultural ladder is asclibed to the difference in the succession practice. Then focussing upon this difference, in the latter district where the operatdrship of the farm is passed to the son after the retirement of the parent, but the title to the farm is not yet followed and as a result the division of farm property to heirs according to the law of descent after the death of the parent is generally practiced, an attempt is made to show that the operating son who remains on the home farm is never sure of his future ownership and, coming to a disasterous end, still remains the tenant after the death of the parent. Along with this, it is also made clear that estate settlement saddles the heir operator with a heavy debt that is beyond his long-term earning power of the farm.
Most of sociologists in establishing social types applied chiefly the general scheme of social relations. For example, Tonnies' “Gemeinschaft” and “Gesellschaft, ” Durkheim's “solidalite mecanique” and “solidalite organique, ” Gierke's “Herrschaft” and “Genossenschaft” etc. Although on may find sociologists' tentatives done from the point of view of social structure, they seized only its partial structure and regarded it as its whale structure or its elemental structure dogmatically. Consequently, it is in urgent need for us to establish social types based on the concept of social structure made precise sociologically in the strict sense of the term. This paper is a contribution to make precise the concept of social structure in relation to social types. According to Radcliffe-Brown, the social structure is in the first place the network of social relations of person to person, and is in the second place the differentiation of individuals and of classes by their social role or the differential social positions. Definitions of Redfield, Linton and Parsons are nearly parallel to the definition of Radcliffe-Brown. In short, the concept of social structure by these Anglo-Saxson savants is presented as the double construction that puts the notion of position of role “made on the basis of an interest in ego as a composite of action units relavant to various collectivities” on the micro-structure notion of social relations made “on the basis of interest in ego as an action system per us.” However, I centered on the concept of role that is “the point of contact between the system of action of the individual actor and the social system, ” though the composite of micro-social elements enters in the explication of social structure concept. The concept of role explicates the social structure directly in relation to the microsociety. And then the role defined by these savants supposed the system and could not be explained withont relation to the cultural pattern on the institution. This fact led them to the emphasis on the stability of social structure. Of course, Radchiffe-Brown and Parsons paid attention ot its changing phase. Radchiffe-Brown set up “actual structure” in opposition to “structural form”, and parsons said if theory is good theory, there is no reason whatever to belive that it will not be equally applicable to problems of change and to those of process within a stabilized system. But neither of them could clarify the positive sense of social change. It was only Merton that succeeded to throw light upon the positive meaning of change in social structure, to a certain extent, by the application of notions of “dysfunction” and “latent function.” But, the social structure is dynamic in itself and is a perpetual movement of structuration and distructuration. If so, the social structure will have no need, says Gurvitch, of a special functional analysis, entia non sunt multiplicanda. Gurvitch's definition of social structure is presented in “Determinismes Sociaux et Liberte Humaine” and La Vocation Actuelle de la Sociologie (2ed.). Ultimately, he considers the social structure as the dialectic of act and its works. Such elemental terms by which we can explain the social structure as multiple hierarchies, equiliblium, collective consciousness, culturall armature and movement of structuration -distructuration- restructuration will be derived from above.
I will consider the Onto Service of Suwa-Taisha and the organization of “muras” (villages) which was called the Ontogo, in recent times, pointing at the relations between Konoma mura-Shinsha and its “shindens” in its “zinai”. (village's territory established in Keicho age-about 1600 AC) and I will study the elements which consisted in that organization, and its changes. Even if shinden-kaihatsu (to bring under cultivation and make new village) was carried out in any ways or under any conditions, it meant to reduce and limit the living basis of farmers in “Koson” (old villages). Therefore it is very important how the farmers in the “Shinden” (new village) established their living basis against the old and obtained approval at last through the lord's authority, and how the feudal lords controlled the old and new villages. And further, in the circumstances above-mentioned partnerships are given between the farmers in the old and new villages. That is villages-union-tax payment, exaction-charge, commons utilization, irrigations etc. I think it is important what sort of significance the said circumstances had in the relationship between the unions and villages as their elements or changes of them. I took up especially the Onto-Service and Ontogo (the villages-union organized for Onto-Service) by the following reason. At first, Suwa-Taisha has been as the uzigami of Shin-shi (Suwa-shi) as well as the “So-chinju” (general and highest rank shrine) of the people in Shin-shi's land. In recent times, the belebration was taken place by 15 villages-unions, Ontogo. Therefore the study of the “koson” and “Shinden” in religious service system is an aid to understand how they admitted each position and their alternation. I will tell briefly about the Onto-Service and the Ontogo of Suwa-Taisha. The Onto gas elected yearly by the “Kami-Uranai” and it joined all celebrations in that year to service to the Shrine by helping the “Shinshoku”. The religious service system of Suwa-Taisha mainly consisting of the Onto service was affected by the political and social conditions of each period, and so was connected with the social structure. In recent times, the religious service system was represented by the “Ontogo” organized by the daimyo, Suwa-shi. By the reason above-mentioned, I think when we consider the social relationship between the “mura” and “Shinden” throgh the religsous service system of “Sochinju” in the feudal clan's territory, we should study not only each relationship of “muras”, but also inner structure of a “mura”. In the concrete, we should remark in what position “murayakunins” (village-officers) joining in the Onto-Service, heads of some families, were and how it changed. Next, in Suwa district most “chinju” in “buraku” (village shrine) had the “Onbashira” celebration every seventh year like Suwa-Taisha, and most “Iezin” (a protecting deity of “maki” -so-called dozuku) had that celebration in smaller scale. That brings a following hypothesis. “These deities for worship of iezins and chinjus are not always same to that of Suwa-Taisha, ” Dr. Ariga said. Admitting the quotation above, we can make out a part of political system of the “maki”, the “mura”, and Suwa-shi (a daimyo and feudal clan), by considering each religious service system of “iezin”, “chinju”, and Suwa-Taisha, and relationship in each other. I will treat the said subject with that intention.
Our basic orientation is to consider the phenomenon of public opinion as a politico-social process. Hence power and value are our terms of reference for thinking about public opinion. It may be safely said that most of public opinion researches have been taken up either in terms of on opinion polling or a social-psychological theory of attitude. These two approaches have their own advantages and make for the theorybuilding of public opinion. On the other hand, it must be also admitted that these approaches fatally make little of the dynamic social process in which the phenomenon of public opinion occurs. Situated in the social process, public opinion will be advantageously analyzed by exploring its two dimensions, that is, a value-orientation and a power-orientation of public opinion. By a value-orientation we mean a goal-direction of public opinion as a social movement. We regard public opinion as “ideological” if its function in the process is to maintain the existing social structure ; as “utopian” if it is oriented to reorganize or transform the social order. Viewed in this light, it naturally follows that the value-orientation of public opinion is closely related to its power-orientation. Because if public opinion is intrinsically value-oriented it must seek the most effective means to realize the goal. It is a commonplace that the means to achieve social values are geared with the institutional system that decides their legitimacy. In other words, if public opinion seeks to become a social force it has to rely on the institutionalized procedures. In this context, we can speak of legitimate or illegitimate means of action. Public opinion will be referred to as taking legitimate means of action if it operates within the existing cultural and social structure. With a view to securing an intended value, if public opinion defies the institutionalized means and adopts the “technical or efficiency” means, it will be called illegitimate as far as its power-orientation is concerned. To sum up, we have suggested implicily four types of public opinion, based upon the phenomenon's relation to the basic value system of the society, and accordingly involving the access to legitimate channels of action. The four types are schematicaly set out below. We have been so far concerned with the conceptual framework within which the phenomenon of public opinion will be effectively analyzed. Since public opinion takes as a power phenomenon, it is of utmost importance to take notice of the group relations in the making of public opinion. It must be really said that public opinion cannot give an impact to the socalled decision-making group until it is politically organized by means of the interaction among competing groups. The nuclear group which plays its remarkable part in the formation of public opinion will be called a carrier group. The carrier group of public opinion will try to attain its own interests and for that purpose look for help to other groups which have somewhat a community of interest. Needless to say, in coaleseing among groups, those groups which politically occupy a vantage point tend to be a carrier group of public opinion. In consequence, the effective analysis of public opinion will first of all grapple with a carrier group of public opinion that emerges out of a controversial issue and then go on to clarify both value-orientation and power-orientation of the carrier group. In so doing, we can truly understand what “Public Opinion Makes History” means.