Dr. Shôtaro Yoneda (18731945) was appointed lecturer in the College of Literature, Kyoto Imperial University in 1907 when the university opened its sociology course. In 1920, he became a professor of the university and resigned in 1925. Dr. Yoneda, though he was not a graduate of the Academy, had read extensively in English, American, French, German, and Italian with great keenness and perseverance. He also issued many works based on his extensive reading. With this background, he developed a very broad outlook in Sociology in Japan. In spite of his encyclopedic knowledge, it should be noted that in his works he formed methodically the idea of “Pure Sociology”.
After his graduation from Nara Eiwa Gakko in 1891, he went to the United States and laid the foundation of his knowledge of sociology at Columbia University under the guidance of Professor Giddings. Under the influence of Prof. Giddings' lectures and works, he studied the province, objects, and study method of sociology and its position in the field of social sciences. He concentrated his interest particularly on the subject of the nature of “the most primary and elementary social facts”, noted by Dr. Giddings. Dr. Yoneda thought thought that this was closely related to “Les lois de l'imitation” by Gabriel Tarde, professor of Collège de France. To develop this subject further, he left Columbia University and went to Paris to study under Prof. Tarde. There he devoted himself to the study of Prof. Tarde's sociology. Throughout his life, he had a great respect for Prof. Tarde, as well as Prof. Giddings, as his honoured teachers. Dr. Yoneda, however, did not simply absorb the ideas of his teachers without reflection. He formed the idea of “Pure sociology” by reorganizing the fundamental sociological ideas of his teachers, making them logically consistent, and extracting the good points of many other sociologists' studies. Dr. Yoneda, while he had been with Kyoto Imperial University, gave new lectures, every year, on various subjects to the students who were studying sociology, and at the same time took up “Pure Sociology” as an ordinary lecture to the students.
The theory of Pure Sociology is the most fundamental part in his sociology system. The theory was originated by Giddings as mentioned above and was also based on Tarde's idea of sociology. According to Tarde, imitation is the fact “purement social”, that is the most essential social fact. From this point of view, his Les lois de l'imitation (1890) is the focus of his sociology. He called it “Sociologie pure” or “sociologie générale”. It is, however, substantially different from Ward's “Pure Sociology” and Small's “General Sociology” in its logically systematic structure. Dr. Yoneda was influenced by Giddings' and Tarde's sociology and further influenced, at a later date, by Georg Simmel's theory. He attempted to establish his theory of “Pure Sociology” after a methodological scrutiny of these studies. He had lectured for many years on Pure Sociology, but this lecture had not been published as a special work before he died. His theory of sociology was presented in Annals of the Institute of Social Science of Japan, Vol. I, (19131914), under the title On Sociology, and was stated systematically in his book Modern Sociological Theories (1948). We can also see something of his ideas in Sociological Theories of Today, published in 1906.
It has been said so far that formal sociology was given its basis by Georg Simmel, but I think we can see it first in Tarde's sociology.

抄録全体を表示

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.

抄録全体を表示

It is commonly accepted that sociology of labour and industry in Japan had begun by Kunio Odaka on his study about professional sociology (1941).
But sociology of labour and industry has been grown with the development of capitalism, and sprouted through the solution of social problems. From such a point of view, some surveys of Gennosuke Yokoyama which had done at the period of industrial revolution in Japan, have been renewed understanding recently. And it is more remarkable that after Yokoyama some interesting surveys had done. First, we must refer to the social surveys of labour problems by Osaka City at 1919-1926. Next, “San Gyo Rodo Chosajyo” attempted surveys from stand point of Marxism at 1929-1933. These surveys made clear the conditions of labourer at the period of monopolistic capitalism in Japan. We can find out positive basis of sociology of labour in them.
In the same time, Keizo Fujibayashi constructed the method of labour surveys as a psychology of labourer. Emphasizing necessity of social surveys to inquire into the psychology of labourer, he insisted on the sociology of labour in quality. He could not make practical survey, but he would consistently criticize the capitalistic rationalization of industry. Comparing with him, Odaka's conception is less important, because his professional sociology is too moralistic to analyze the whole process of living about labourer. We must notice that Shizuo Matsushima, he had been led the sociology of labour and industry in post-war Japan, was influenced by Fujibayashi than Odaka.

抄録全体を表示