石神調査をめぐる土屋・布施論争について

Abstract

This paper explains the dispute over the research at Isigami hamlet, referring to both published and unpublished documents, and tries to make some suggestions to rural studies. Isigami hamlet was a study site of the monograph of Aruga Kizaemon, who is said to have established Japanese rural sociology examining this hamlet. This dispute was between an economic historian at University of Tokyo Tutiya Takao, who was also Aruga’s co-researcher, and Huse Tatuzi, who was a human rights lawyer. We came to conclude that Tutiya’s positivist attitude trying to grasp the ‘nago（serf）’ system using his survey data can be highly evaluated, although he had a rather strong tendency for hypothetical thoughts. Furthermore, his careful use of concept is worth a mention. It also became clear that Huse had made important arguments （for example about the forest commons and the conception of poverty）although his use of concept was ambiguous. These arguments are surely appropriate and helpful for people who wants to learn about the research by Tutiya and Aruga. In addition, the amethodology of survey and the epistemology discussed by Huse include pioneering points of view that are worth being referred to in rural studies. Both Tutiya and Huse had argued in a serious manner based on their own data and experiences, without labeling each other. Despite their efforts, their different standpoints lead to different interpretations of the facts. Tutiya tried to consider the theoretical problems raised by the ‘controversy over Japanese capitalism,’ that is, ‘whether feudalism is still existed or not.’ Huse participated in liberation movement of peasants as a lawyer, rather than as a researcher who was concerned with theoretical dimension. In this way, they were trying to see their different aspects of the ‘nago（serf）’system and peasants’ life. In other words, the different interpretations of the facts were caused due to their different viewpoints.