This paper aims to examine whether the discussion about the definition of early modern village (近世村), oaza (大字) and rural community (農業集落) is useful for improvement of the autonomous village theory, reviewing Japanese rural history from a long-term perspective. In 1987 Hitoshi Saitoh set up a theory that existence of early modern villages, which improved the ability of autonomy through negotiating with rulers, caused the great success of the Japanese cooperative movement. This theory was named the autonomous village theory. It is not only applied by scholars who are interested in foreign countries, including Vietnam or Uzbekistan, but also opposed by many Japanese historians, whose major is Modern Japan. The opposition leaders focus on one of Saitoh’s arguments that the unit of cooperative movement at the beginning should be the early modern village and it was an oaza and rural community, too. Trying to take advantage of this “weak point”, the opposition leaders insist that Saitoh’s other arguments are also wrong, showing statistical analyses of the relationships among the early modern village, oaza and rural community, ignoring the historical contents of these three kinds of units. A review of historical studies of Japanese rural history suggests that not only administrative units but also agricultural production units had been formed dynamically from ancient times until modern times, repeatedly splitting and integrating. So the relationships among the early modern village, oaza and rural community are never historically consistent. In conclusion, the criticism based on statistical analyses is not fatal to the most important original arguments of the autonomous village theory and is limited to partial discussion.
View full abstract