The French Revolution finally disorganized the "corps intermediaires" of the former society which had subsisted since the medieval age. As the result, there was born a social system consisting of the "civil society and the modern state". Many of the pre-marxist socialists and the sociologists in 19th century France considered this situation as a "disorganization of society" or a "crisis of human beings". Then they built the new social theories, which aimed the "reorganization or the reestablishment of society". The common characteristic of these theories is that they focussed on the intermediate social groups. It is the school of F. Le Play (1806-1882) that developed the most systematic and comprehensive group-theory in those social thinkers. Le Play systematized for the first time his theory of groups in one of his principal writings: The Social Reform in France (1864). But before that, he had to carry out about 300 monographs of workers' famillies in various districts in Europe, which resulted in the work entitled The European Workers (1855). This is the monumental writing in the history of social researches. In this repport, I will confirm first the signification of the latter in the history of social sciences. Next, I will make clear the feature of the theory cencerning the private groups and the public groups in The Social Reform in France. And finally, I will examine the social theories of Le Play's followers, i.e. the "Social Science" group and the "Social Reform" group. In short, Le Play and his followers, in search of the strategic strongpoint for the social reorganization, widened their perspective from families to the communities and made the foundation of regionalism in France.

View full abstract

The prose ss of formalisation of British industrial relations during the 19th: century has been theorised from 'collectivist' point of view, which put stress on the historical tendency towards legal institutionalisation of trade union and collective bargaining and the rather organic re-formation of the society through social and industrial bodies. This kind of argument is basically for 'astringentist'. National and historical peculiarities share only a minor portion of importance. This article will pay a proper attention on these point in terms of the British legislative policy for organising industrial relations. The following two points the article tries to demonstrate. First, the logical basement of such legislative policy throughout the 19th century was 'market individualism' which treated every British subjects as an independent and self-respectable 'citizen', and assumed industrial relations as a mere assemblage of numerous atomic employment relationships. Secondly, a series of legislations on trade union may be seen as a process of cultivating working population individually as well prepared 'citizen'. The theoretical implications of this analetical article should be: first, the strong heritage of British individualism has denned the patern of British 'industrial democracy' and formed British peculiarity in this policy field, and secondly, because of this, the strategical target of collective formalisation of work and production process had been largely omitted from British legislative policy.

View full abstract

In the modern German history, emphasis is used to be laid on "state intervention" and "organisations". As is well known, there arised cartels or interest groups in the early stage of industrialisation, and state with its bureaucratic apparatuses had great influence upon the course of the modern German; history. Among the various types of the intermediate organisations, organisations under public law played an eminent role, which is a notable point compared with other european nations, and there also existed, not a few theories of the Corporative State in Germany. In this paper, the relationships "state-intermediate organisation-social class" are examined with regard to the handicraft organisations under public law-Innungen and Handwerkskammern. Innungen gained a public status by the Amendment of Gewerbeordung in 1881, and Handwerks-kammern were established by the Amendment in 1897. In both cases, the apprenticeship problem, was very important. Because no sucsessful vocational training could be achieved without handicraft apprenticeship in those days, handicraft organisations were able to attain a public status as supervising; organisations for the apprenticeship. Handicraft legislations in Imperial Germany cannot be characterised as a "state-led" "protectionistic policy" so superficially as is advocated by the German Sozialgeshichte school. On the one hand, the decisive factors in handicraft legislations were not the state but the artisan movement itself and the parliament, and on the other hand, it is very dubious that the handicraft legislations could "protect" artisans, for a slow but steady growth of handicraft economy regardless of the handicraft legislationscan be found as a basic trend. The "reestablishment" of public handicraft organisations in Imperial Germany cannot surely be explained without their strong traditionsi since Middle Ages, but we must pay more attention to thechanging function of these organisations. For example, the Befahigungsnachweis, one of the strongest requirements of the traditionalist artisan movement, should be regarded not as a restraining mean but one which makes apprenticeship more effective, if the practical operations by the handicraft organisations are closely examined. In sum, the public handicraft organisations bore a character of modern pressure groups, and by the activities of these organisations, the category of statistics and economic policy, "Handwerk", is established in Germany in the 20th century.

View full abstract