- Kato Hidetoshi's Data Base -
Qualitative Sociology in Japan
Publication Date:199203
Book title: MEDIA, CULTURE, AND EDUCATION IN JAPAN [A COLLECTION OF PAPERS]
Publisher : National Institute of Multimedia Education
Sociology as a discipline,is relatively new in Japan. It was introduced after the Meiji Revolution (1868) through visiting scholars from Europe and the United States, and as a reflection of the age, the first sociological thought brought into Japan was that of Herbert Spencer. According to historical research, it was taught by Errest Fenollosa, a visiting American scholar, to Japanese students of Tokyo University as a part of sociology, though Fenollosa quoted Spencer as a "sociologist." Like most of the countries of the late 19th century, the "departmentalization" of universities in Japan was mobile but still arbitrary, and as a result, "sociology" was given its position as a subdivision of philosophy, and not until the early 1950s, before postwar education reform took place, organizationally speaking, the faculty of sociology at Tokyo University and other major institutions were a part of the philosophy division of the Department of Literature, which also included history, foreign literature and language, psychology, and other disciplines of the humanities. Thus, sociology used to be a weak sub-subdivision of the Department of Literature until the end of World War II.
Such positioning of sociology in Japanese academia had two major implications. In the first place, the discipline lacked relative "independence" for obvious reasons. Though a small group of sociologists enjoyed their autonomy, it was covered under the umbrella of philosophy and as often happened elsewhere in university politics, the faculty of sociology was to a certain degree obliged to interact with philosophers. In the second place because of such academic arrangements, sociology in Japan tended to be close to philosophy. In other words, philosophically-oriented sociology turned out to be the mainstream, if not the orthodoxy, of Japanese sociology. In this connection it was rather natural that Japanese sociology, until recent years, accepted the works of German scholars, especially Georg Simmel and other formal sociologists. Empirical or quantitative methodology was regarded as peripheral. The "dislocation" of sociology made its relationship with other branches of social sciences remote. For instance such disciplines as economics and political science were established as independent departments from the beginning of modern Japanese universities. In other words, sociology in Japan has been counted as a minor part of humanities rather than social sciences. Even today the tradition still exists, in the sense that only about a dozen of pioneering universities out of 600 finally decided to make sociology an independent department. Tokyo University, the leading academic institution in Japan still has its sociology department within its Department of Literature.
However, this tradition has positive aspects too. Since sociology has been treated as a part of humanities, Japanese sociologists could have the liberty of not being disturbed by quantitative and statistical data. They were permitted to mobilized more imaginative and sometimes intuitive insights into social relations and social organizations. As a matter of fact, it was after the 1950s that Japanese sociologists started to show their interest in quantitative methodology under the influence of the general tendency towards American sociology. Statistical social survey was introduced,and Japanese sociology, generally speaking,shifted from the German method to the American. Although there is no evidence, there could have been administrative guidance from General Headquarters of American occupation forces to the major Japanese academic institutions to absorb more from contemporary American sociology. At least, younger Japanese sociologists were encouraged to study at American institutions, and various scholarships were provided. However, it is worthwhile to note here that, along with quantitative sociology, many Japanese sociologists showed keen interest in qualitative sociology along with sociologists from the United States. For example, american sociologists whose works have been highly appreciated and widely read by Japanese counterparts were David Riesman, Erich Fromm, William Whyte, Wright Mills, and other qualitative scholars. Also, among classics George Herbert Mead and Thorstein Veblen were reevaluated highly.
To summarize, the postwar Japanese sociology, in spite of the "discovery" of quantitative sociology-inclusive of public opinion poll, content analysis by means of space measurement-many Japanese sociologists looked into qualitative sociological traditions of the United States, partly because the qualitative approach provided a sense of continuity with a century-old Japanese sociology which had been influenced by European descriptive, and sometimes contemplative, sociology until contemporary quantitative American sociology was introduced, and partly because sophisticated quantitative computation was relatively unfamiliar and difficult to cope with. Therefore, it is safe to say that "qualitative sociology" in Japan has been the major trend and still is.
Indeed, representative works of eminent Japanese sociologists in the past such as the rural sociology of Eitaro Suzuki, and the family sociology of Teizo Toda and Kizaemon Aruga, were essentially qualitative in the sense that their methodology was empirical case studies, without much generalization. Therefore it was natural that Japanese sociologists in general agreed with MacIver's statements which criticized overwhelming quantitative method as "testmania" or "quantophrenia."
Another factor which encouraged qualitative sociology in Japan was that the discipline had to confront with Marxism. From the 1920s, Marxism penetrated among Japanese social scientists, and either implicitly or explicitly, Japanese sociology was obliged to justify its nature and function vis-a-vis Marxism which claimed "sociology" as "bourgeois science." As a matter of fact the term "social science (s)"has been sometimes interpreted with heavy Marxist tone in Japan. The theoretical controversy between sociology and Marxian social interpretation had been one of the major issues among Japanese social scientists until the 1970s when Marxism started to show relative decline. And since Marxism is essentially philosophical, sociology also tended to confront it on a philosophical level. Thus Japanese sociology tended to be qualitative rather than quantitative. In that sense, Japanese sociology shared similar experiences with its counterparts in Europe, especially Germany.
These are the institutional and ideological backgrounds which may explain why Japanese sociology inclined to be qualitative both in methodology and achievements.
Apart from academia, it should be emphasized here that there were a group of scholars who were interested in empirical research in contemporary Japanese society. The representative person of this group is Kunio Yanagita, whose exhaustive works are compiled in 36 volumes. Yanagita started his career as a government official at the Ministry of Agriculture, investigating old records of Japanese villages. He was shocked to find a rich oral tradition, annual rites, and folk belief systems. He conducted his own field survey in the villages of various parts of Japan, collecting and observing the facts of such communities, mostly by interviewing. He called his work "a study of common people," and asked his European friends what his kind of research was called in English. The answer was "folklore," and he translated that term as "Minzokugaku." However, in the opinion of a group of social scientists including the author of this article, the European response as well as Yanagita's translation were not precise in the sense that both its background and its contents were completely different from what is known as "folklore," as typically demonstrated by James Frazer. As a matter of fact, Yanagita's works were an intensive and extensive study of what Graham Sumnner called "folkways," and in a society like Japan, with long and rich historical heritage, "Minzokugaku" could be regarded as sociological inquiries which became quite appropriate to define as a school of Japanese sociology. "Minzokugaku" school claimed its position as "Kokugaku" or "Japanese Studies," and it fits to a certain degree the American concept of "area studies."
Yanagita himself was invited ad an honorary guest lecturer in the major universities, and in over ten universities today he has a professors' chair in "Minzokugaku," and under those arrangements, "minzokugaku" scholars usually work with sociologists and anthropologists. To footnote at this point, anthropology in Japan also had its own unique history, in the sense that the discipline used to be a part of the Department of Natural Science because "anthropology"in Japan had been limited to physical anthropology until cultural (and social) anthropology was introduced after World War II. And in this connection, newly emerged cultural anthropologists (mostly trained in American institutions) felt familiar with the traditions of "Minzokugaku" as an ethno-science. As a matter of fact, there have been exchanges between the "Minzokugaku" school and cultural anthropologists, both in terms of personnel placements and research findings.
Among the "Minzokugaku" school, Tsuneichi Miyamoto most enthusiastically contributed by collecting cultural material from various parts of Japan, as well as interviewing the "common man," especially in rural and fishing communities. His works were compiled in 25 volumes. And, from a sociologist's viewpoint, the "Minzokugaku" tradition in Japan may be, or should be counted as a precious contribution to rural sociology.
The methodology of "Minzokugaku" is essentially qualitative. As a matter of fact some of Yanagita's works, in spite of their academic content, are regarded as literary writings and included in high school textbooks or collections of modern Japanese literature. At the same time, the "Minzokugaku" school paid extraordinary interest and attention to history. For instance, in comparing oral traditions or annual rituals, "Minzokugaku" scholars carefully looked into their historical backgrounds and presented their hypothesis in cultural diffusion processes within Japan from the ancient period. And by doing so, they have furnished basic sociological data for comparative studies. Though their basic philosophy was a "common man" approach, as far as historical documentation was concerned, Yanagita and others never neglected literature in a related field.
Since "Minzokugaku" scholars started their own unique history, the problems they dealt with were diverse, ranging from changes in food habit to an analysis of Shinto doctrine, from folk medicine to the diffusion of cotton products in 19th century. Only a very few sociologists in Japan today would disagree to call "Minzokugaku" achievements of the past and present "an encyclopedia of Japanese society."
It is obvious from the above statements that "Minzokugaku" as a peculiar and indigenous discipline of Japan, has been descriptive and qualitative in nature. They introduced cases and typologies, but they consciously avoided a quantitative method with the belief that all social observations had to be direct and that each locale and individual is unique. Their method was to introduce an episode or an observed fact, and then try to find the social and historical implications of such social occurrences. They did not explicitly refer to quantitative method, but they seemed to be "indifferent" to quantitative sociology. These trends were another factor which made Japanese sociology essentially qualitative, even a nonfiction literature. For these reasons, among the works of American anthropologists it is no wonder that the writings of Oscar Lewis attracted many sociologists in Japan.
Sociology in Japan, as briefly described at the outset, is a new imported discipline, though there had been a good tradition of "Minzokugaku." As a result, in academic institutions it was rather customary for the instructors of sociology to deliver a series of lectures to introduce diversified schools of sociology from Europe and the United States. The sociology lectures, as well as the text books at college level, were an exhaustive warehouse of major works from Western sociologists, starting from August Comte to Talcott Parsons. The students of sociology, therefore, tended to memorize the names and ideas of Durkheim, Weber, von Wiese, Toennies, MacIver, etc., without looking into the actual social issues and realities of Japan. Indeed, a quick investigation of graduation theses of sociology students before the 1960s will reveal that each student was busy organizing a paper to summarize the methodology or major findings of his/her favorite (or instructed) Western sociologist. Furthermore, they often tried to adapt alien theories and models to Japanese society, mostly in vain.
In reaction, a new trend if not a movement to establish "Japanese Sociology" came onto the scene. As already mentioned, Suzuki, Aruga, and others had already worked on Japanese kinship relations and rural social organizations as early as the 1920s, and that tradition was revived and encouraged. In the postwar period, sociologists in Japan generally became aware of the fact that the discipline had to be empirical rather than contemplative, and the pragmatic methodology of American sociology helped to accelerate that new direction. Moreover, the introduction of cultural anthropology and social psychology made Japanese sociology widen its scope and methodology, and the necessity of interdisciplinary efforts was strongly felt by sociologists. In the past two decades Japanese sociologists have been very much interested in cultural and social anthropology because anthropology in essentially descriptive and concentrates on intensive case studies. These attributes make it similar to traditional sociology and to "Minzokugaku" heritage. It is impossible to determine to what degree "qualitative" sociology is appreciated among Japanese sociologists. Some sociologists, specializing in sophisticated quantitative methods, criticize qualitative methods as "impressionistic" or "subjective." In return, those who use qualitative methods usually retort that "quantitative" sociologists cherish figures and statistics which cannot incorporate the most essential nature of man and society. This familiar antagonism between qualitative and quantitative people is not specific to Japan.
However, in comparison with some other countries, such antagonism seems to be less visible on the Japanese scene. Rather, here both Parties pay mutual respect and attempt to utilize each other's resources. For instance, a qualitative sociologist who engages in a case study of a small village may rely on nation-wide survey figures of rice production for background data, and a statistically-minded sociologist may quote a paragraph from an episode written by a qualitative sociologist. Because Japanese sociologists do not see a sharp dichotomy between "qualitative" and "quantitative" research, it may be safe to say that Japanese sociology is, with very few and minor exceptions, either "quali-quantitative" or "quanti-qualitative." Indeed, the term "qualitative sociology" itself may sound somewhat strange to most Japanese sociologists seeing that they are not used to perceiving a dichotomy in sociological methods.
Since sociology as an independent discipline is relatively new in Japanese intellectual circles, it has been interpreted very broadly to include social criticism, social welfare, casual observation of social affairs, and even journalistic treatment of social trends. As a result, there was a danger, if not a trend, for sociology to become a hodge-podge of liberal arts. The disadvantages are obvious. Scholars have often said that sociology is that branch of academic inquiry into which issues with well-defined disciplines that could not be dealt with were dumped. For this reason, it is not surprising that until recently graduates who majored in sociology took jobs in the mass media industry, especially newspapers, because they were thought to be knowledgeable in current social affairs. The advantages of the hodge-podge nature of Japanese sociology should not be underestimated. In the first place, Japanese sociologists were able to mix with other experts such as historians, philosophers, and artists, to mention a few. As a result, Japanese sociologists (both qualitative and quantitative) could integrate knowledge and insights from other disciplines. For example, an urban sociologist could have easy access to his/her colleagues in the engineering school where there were many architects interested in the human aspect of architecture, and vice-versa. For rural sociologists in Japan, contacts with local historians were essential. In that sense, Japanese sociology as a whole has been interdisciplinary from the beginning and not defensive.
Sociology in Japan, of course, included serious students of Max Weber, for example, but at the same time, it could give generous space for a scholar who was interested in down-to-earth social observation. One good example was a series of studies of everyday life records by Wajiro Kon. Kon was originally trained as a graphic designer, but his interest inclined to keeping visual records of the man on the street in the literal sense of the word. He went to visit downtown slum sections and drew sketches of the lives of poor people with his extensive comments. Or he sat in a coffee shop in the busiest street of Tokyo and observed the color and style of clothes of pedestrians so that he could establish his own typology of urban dwellers. He called his method "modernology" as contrasted to "archeology." The works of Kon attracted the eyes of certain sociologists as an example of excellent survey data, and only a few sociologists would disagree with the opinion that Kon's works were a great contribution to urban sociology in Japan.
In other words, Japanese sociology, especially qualitative sociology, has a liberal tradition of interacting with other disciplines and creating new perspectives on the interpretation of Japanese society. It is interesting to see that a group of younger sociologists in Japan today are brilliant and courageous enough to challenge various aspects of Japanese society with their imaginative approach. For instance, N. Ikei's "Sociology of Bonsai," S. Inoue's "A Social History of the Funeral car," M. Matsudaira's "Sociology of the Black Market," K. Takata's "Sociology of Drinking Places," and others are good ethno-based (not ethnocentric) works. They are not recognized as the mainstream of postwar sociology, especially in light of the fact that examination of major Western sociological theories is still the orthodoxy. However, these ambitious trials are not criticized either.
These sociological works attracted both professionals and the general public. In contrast to many other countries where sociological writings are intended purely for sociologists, in Japan the works of sociologists are often read by a popular audience. The titles mentioned in the preceding paragraph, for instance, were reviewed favorably in the book review sections of major newspapers. And some of the books sold tens of thousands of copies. (Japanese publishers usually make at least 10,000 copies for the first printing.)
Because of the Japanese reading public's intellectual curiosity and the hodge-podge nature of sociology in Japan, sociology is an accepted nonfiction category in bookstores. Younger sociologists interested in contemporary Japanese society are particularly well accepted. They are much less contemplative and "bookish" than the previous generation which was busy introducing new theories and the findings of Euro-American sociology. At the same time, their personal histories are extremely interesting in the sense that many of them majored in other areas as undergraduates. It had been customary until the 1960s that those who wished to be sociologists majored in sociology both as undergraduates and as graduate students. But in recent years, those who finished undergraduate studies in biology, architecture, agricultural economics, and other fields decided to study sociology in graduate school. Thus, among the postwar generation of sociologists, an interdisciplinary approach was almost natural. These sociologists, then, are not only quantitative but also multidisciplinary. My only regret is that their works are available only in Japanese.
Kato Hidetoshi's Data Base
Document ID Number: