A Study of the Analytical Method on the Social Structure of Japanese Village

Abstract

Social structure of Japanese village in post-war era has been changing with the economic growth of Japanese Capitalism, particularly since 1955. So we must start from the viewpoint that social structure of village is always changing with the progress of total society. Pre-war orthodox Japanese rural sociology explained Japanese village statically as “Shizenson” (Natural village), but post-war studies on Japanese village seem to have leaned towards the economic history of village, and to lack the sociological viewpoints. Therefore, we persist that the relation of total society to a village must be understood from following point of view ; In post-war era, the fundamental element of Japanese rural community is “Noji Jikko-Kumiai” (agricultural performance association). This group is a substructure of agricultural co-operation and it is usually called “Buraku” «village» and this is reasonable. To explain that we must distinguish the external element from the internal element of village structure. The external element regulates the framework of social relation of village from outside, social relations of the peasants are not only face-to-face human relations, but they include material relations and informational relations. These material and informational relations are combined these face-to-face groups with total society through “tuberous organizations” (eg. agricultural co-operation, village office, store, farmer's association etc.) and these tuberous organization are too changing with progress of Japanese Capitalism. Today, monopoly capital which gripps a heart of total society regulates externaly production base of peasants through material relations (because of the economic law of capitalism). Thus production base of many peasants declines below border-line of reproduction, consequently, they want the government subsidies or finance of argicultural co-operation. On this occasion, “Agricultural perfomance association” functions as “a safety valve” for these financier. Like this, the framework of village as a small group is formed externaly by the material relation between the peasants and total society. The internal system of village is defined by the ways of perticular response of peasants to these external regulations. When we study this internal system, we must use formal-informal analysis. In addition, we can't agree to such analysis as formal=Gesellschaft, informal=Gemeinshaft. Then we find the informal relations have instrumental function, for in any organization we can find a shadow leader except a formal leader, and when a formal leader is impotent to solve the problem, informal group selects an informal leader among them. In fact some formal leader who established his status in the past can't adapt themselves to the changes of total society. On this oceasion new leaders who have an adaptability appear in informal groups. And these new leaders receive their leadership form the domination of the information given by the total society. When we explain the changing process of village structure, we are sure, we must use above-mentioned two-sided approach-- the external framwork of village and the internal system of village corresponding to that.