このクラスも期末レポートは成績の５０％占めてました。
中国語で修士は１万字、博士は２万字。
授業で自分がプレゼンした理論をつかえということでした。
時間がないので、
先生に頼んで英語で書かせていただきました。
すいません＞＜
でも、出す事が先決なのです。。。
中国語で書いたら１０ページが１万字だけど、
それに相当する英語は5000字程度だと
思われます。
Industrialization of Japan and its Social Structure Changes
I. Introduction
Industrialization is the process by which an economy shifts from an agricultural to a manufacturing base during a period of sustained change and growth, eventually creating a higher standard of living (Indergaard, 2007)[1]. While England went through the Industrial Revolution in the beginning of 19th century, Japanese feudalism regime, Tokugawa administration was under threat of colonization by Western society and started to prepared for joining a strong military nation. Both two nations experienced not only economical changes but also social structure changes during and after the industrialization.
This article contributes to investigate social structure changes in Japan by comparing pre-industrial and industrialized Japan with that of England cases beads on Bradley Harriet social structure theory. Bradley is a England female scholar and who is conversant with the study of class and gender. Accordingly this paper will clarify those class and gender changes in Japan that those changes in the country did not have remarkable changes that of England due to differences in how the central authority involved the industrialization.
I would like to take this opportunity to appreciate this Seminar on National Development Theory course that this class draws my interests successfully to find proper materials for one nation’s development in all social, economical, cultural, political aspects. Things we have leant in this course will definitely help students in the future.
II. Harriet Bradley’s Interpretation of Social Structure
Studies of social structure attempt to explain such matters as integration and trends in inequality (Britannica, 2010a)[2]. In her work, “Changing Social Structure: Class and Gender” in Formations of Modernity (1992), Harriet Bradley concerns with social division and the inequalities which class and gender generate. Toward the end of pre-industrial societies, Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim, these three thinkers were all saw the decline of feudal or traditional societies, the emergence of capitalist industrial societies, and greater scope for individual creativity (Bradley, 1992a: 191).
Three Major Social Structure Theories
In particular, Karl Marx used a method of mode of production for constructing a social typology. This is the relationship among groups of people who combine to produce goods and services (ibid.). A group of people who control the surplus, which indicates left over of goods and wealth after minimum needs go to labors, become the dominant group of society (ibid., 188). Thus, according to Marx, the basic structure of society is economic, or material, and this structure influences the rest of social life, which is defined as nonmaterial, spiritual, or ideological (Britannica, 2010a).
Max Weber was interested in characterizing lines between agrarian and industrial societies. As Bradley (1992a) describes that he studies traditional and rational motivations, in so doing, traditional one mean resistant to change work habits, accumulation and reinvestment of earnings. Meanwhile rational motivation, which represents the accumulation of profit, is supported by Protestantism. It encourages hard work to the people than seeking leisure, unnecessary consumption, or devotion to unrealistic spiritual acts (ibid., 190).
As for Emile Durkheim, he provided the idea of mechanical and organic solidarity to distinguish societies. While a mechanical solidarity indicates a very low division of labor and a fashion of most people follow the same occupation, organic solidarity occurs in societies with a highly developed division of labor (ibid.). He informs us that a society transforms from the one, which people share common experiences and beliefs, to the other one, which people are aware of they cannot survive without the specialized and skilled contributions of others. Durkheim believed that individual human behaviors is shaped by external forces (Britannica, 2010a).
Gender
To understand gender in both pre-industrial and industrialized England, Bradley (1992a) referred Peter Laslett’s The World We Have Lost (1965). She regards that a key feature of the pre-industrial household is patriarchy. Usually at the household level, the allocation of resources is determined through power and control in the hands of men, particularly denoting fathers, as the heads of households (Rothchild, 2007)[3]. She agrees to a gender concept explained by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deidre English (See Table 1) that pre-industrial England had both patriarchal and gynocentric elements which mean women’s traditional skills were the pivot of family life and the society as a whole. After industrialization, however, the break down of male control within the family caused a situation that as women gained independence through wage labor, the family became less important as an economic institution, and ultimately women’s value declined (Bradley, 1992a: 185). She criticizes other writers such as Clark and Shorter that they collect data for illustrating their arguments and committed a particular views of history (ibid.).
Table 1.Major Interpretations of Gender Changes in England
| Scholars | Pre-industrial England | Industrialized England |
| Alice Clark Edward Shorter Ehrenreich&English | -egalitarisn: marriage as partnership, women’s economic contribution gave them comparable status to men -very patriarchal family with clear sexual division of labor -gynocentric: women’s traditional skills were vital to the survival of families and the whole society | -decline in women’s status and economic power, forcing them into dependence on men -patriarchy weakened: women went out to work and this provided independence from father and husbands -male control declined, women gained independence through wage labor, family became less important as economic institution so women’s value decreased |
Source: Bradley, H. (1992a). “Changing social structure: class and gender,” in Formations of Modernity. Stuart, H. & Bram, G. (ed). pp.183-186.Cambridge: Open University.
Bradley (1992b)[4] observes appearance of several new gender theories in postwar era. Since women’s labor force gained in importance after the world wards, England agreed to the fact that the society had reached the age of equality of the sexes from 1950s and in the early 1960. Furthermore feminists started claiming social inequality between men and women in the late 1960s. Neo-Marxist attempts to explain a female role with a location in different social classes, Neo-Weberian applies the economic development to explain women as a non-privileged group and as isolated ones from the labor market vice versa. Interestingly Marxist-feminist utilizes patriarchy and capitalism to stress division of sex within the labor market.
Class
Despite the fact Bradley agrees to that classes are produced by the economic arrangements within society, she defines class as next following contexts;
a classis a group whose members share a common economic position, often involving a common lifestyle, and which is differentiated from other groups in terms of power and status, and the chances its members have of succeeding or bettering themselves in material terms (Bradley, 1992a: 187).
Correspondingly she examines three major classes, which include landowners, craftsmen and tradesmen, and labors, respectively occupy the upper, middle, and lower classes. This scheme had been in existence from the mediaeval period until the end of seventeenth century (ibid., 187). The situation had a change in before the Industrial Revolution, the time when proto-industry became fashionable and a new class of businessmen emerged. The industry is also known as the ‘putting-out system’ that entrepreneurs provide raw materials and tools to families, therefore family members work at home and those entrepreneurs specified types of works and sell the finished goods (ibid.).
As for the new classes of industrial society, one can observe the appearance of proletariat and bourgeoisie which proposed by Marx. Suitably Weber considers social stratification within new middle classes that there are more divisions in that category. Sociologists have called Weber’s idea, which is the divisive role of the market result in more divisions within the working class, as fragmentation of classes and they believe status and party are other sources of social division (ibid., 197). Reflecting these two kind of arguments, Table 2 shows Neo-Marxist and Neo-Weberian approaches to theorizing class.
Table 2. Neo-Marxist and Neo-Weberian Positions over Class
| | Neo-Marxist | Neo-Weberian |
| Causes of class divisions Class definition Class position View for middle classes Origin of class alert Class struggle Stress points | -relations of production especially by the mechanism of exploitation -unifying effect of exploitation emphasized -existence of fractions and conflicts within classes is famous but conflicts between proletariat and bourgeoisie is more important -seen as linked to one of the two major classes or as structurally ambiguous -awareness arises from relations of production -dominant ideology accounts for the failure of the working class to develop a critical class consciousness -revolutionary potential of the working class remains | -the operation of the market -subject to growing processes of fragmentation -divisions and conflicts within classes seen significant as conflicts between classes -seen as an autonomous group and socially significant as the propertied and working classes -awareness has many different sources -fragmentation, social mobility and growth of democratic political structures limit growth of class consciousness -class revolution is questionable |
Source: Bradley, H. (1992a). “Changing social divisions: class, gender and race,” Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity. Bocock, R & Thompson, K (ed). pp. 15. Cambridge: Open University.
III. Social Structure in Pre-Industrial Japan
In pre-industrial England, Bradly (1992a) mentions while class hierarchy reflected a degree of one’s possession of land or other properties, gender was determined by patriarchy which existed both in household and the society. The stream for allocation of resources was fixed because the center of economic was only agriculture products and so household remained as a unit for making a joint resource.
Class
Approaching to class in pre-industrial Japan, one could notice that the final period of traditional Japan, a time of internal peace, political stability, and economic growth under the military dictatorship (shogunate: 将軍) founded by Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川家康) which is called Tokugawa period (1603-1867) (Britannica, 2010a)[5]. The center of the economy was rice production with a closed economy, thereby the regime and the people both sought to increase an amount of harvests in limited lands (Kimura, 1981: 2)[6]. It seems like limited production resources regulated activities of accumulation of profits and more investments in the rice industry.
Tokugawa regime took feudalistic ideas and systems to govern the entire country. The general had approximately 300 feudal lords in each place and let those lords have territorial lands (ibid.)[7]. The social order, which was lower in rank starting from warriors (highest place), farmers, artisans, and merchants, was officially frozen and any mobility among the four classes was prohibited (Britannica, 2010b)[8]. Peasants who made up 80 percent of the population, were not allowed to engage in non-agricultural activities due to the social order (ibid.). On the other hand, the government required district feudal lords to reside in the Tokugawa administrative capital of Edo (modern Tokyo) for several months in once in every two year (ibid.)[9]. The central authority literally exploited profits made by district lords.
Gender
When it comes to a situation for household, Tomobe (2002)[10] explains that first 120 years in Tokugawa period marks rapid population growth because of successful establishment of farming households and beginning of a stem family. During the Tokugawa period, feudal lords began to let single men, who were with low social status, live within their residence. These single men were gradually embedded into agriculture management in their lords’ lands (Tomobe, 2002: 4). In time these men took a local woman to his wife, lords allowed them to separate from the residence and to have a house, and then the couple formed nuclear family (ibid.).
Kimura (1987) informs that traditional Japan society, especially until the nation went into the world wars, patriarchal ruling prevailed both in the society and households. The public was brainwashed to believe serving the upper class as same as serving the emperor thereby servants would obtain sense of affection from the God. The relationship between the emperor and the people means the absolute rulers and subjects, as a consequence, commitment should be completed as if a relation between the lord and the people, besides, one should behave an action in a way to feel a certain sentiment just like between father and son (Kimura, 1987: 21)[11]. In household, legally paternal rights was highlighted and other family members were valued only when they obeyed and served to fathers and husbands, inevitably, obedience and service measured the degree of virtue (ibid.).
Perhaps it may be no exaggeration to say that women were expected to be a contributor for increasing agriculture production. The central authority demanded peasants to submit tribute rice to each lords, for that reason, villages equally shared the burden (Ohishi, 2005: 6)[12]. The Japanese people placed little value on individualistic self realization in either the spiritual or the material realm. Basically Buddhism emphasized the loss of self and Confucianist ideology colored the people focus on define oneself in the context of his or her family roles, obligations, and expectations (DeVos, 1965: 586)[13].
Ohishi (2005) identifies important economic changes in the nineteenth century that are the development of market-oriented economy. Landlords began manufacture activities by distributing materials to households, which was very similar to putting-out system in pre-industrial England. During 1820 to 1830, entrepreneurs, who left production process, started to establish manufactures especially in cotton and silk production areas (Ohishi, 2005: 8). Those manufacture runners became comparable in social class with landlords and merchants (ibid.).
Table 3. Social Structure Comparison between Pre-Industrial England and Japan
| Social Strucuture | Pre-Industrial England | Pre-Industrial Japan |
| center of economy Class Gender | -agriculture production -top: landowener (ranked by possession of land) -middle: craftmen&tradesmen (18th century, proto-industry brought new class) -bottom: labor (no real wealth/ dependent on the rich/ given limited resources) -women to make a joint resource -power and control in the hands of men, very patriarchic, but women were valued -gynocentric: women’s traditional skills were vital to the survival | -rice production -top: warriors -top 2nd: farmers -middle: artisans -bottom: merchants -slave classes: eta, hininn (えた、非人) -women to make a joint resource for heavy community burden of tribute rice -power and control in the hands of men, very patriarchic, women valued when they served to men in family -little value on individuals |
Sources: pre-industrial England, (Bradley, 1992a).
IV. Industrialization of Japan and its Social Structure Changes
From Meiji Era to World War II (1867-1945)
Class
In spite of the fact that Karl Marx asserted proletariat and bourgeoisie would be the social class result of industrialization, new Japanese government distributed authorities for certain people along with patriarchy. The country aimed at realizing strong military power, as a result, Japanese capitalists and labor were merely against each other.
Table 4. New Hierarchy in Meiji Era
| Society | Family |
| Emperor (top) Government Prefecture Ward mayor Head of village Head of family (fathers and husbands) | Head of family (top) First-born son Mother Other sons Daughters wife |
Source: 申連花「日本の家父長的家制度について」『地域政策研究第8巻第4号』99－104頁、高崎経済大学地域政策学会、2006年、100－101頁。
Although Japan had adopted closed-door policy (1633-1639/1639-1853) due to protect the nation from the threat of Christianity expansion and also to regulate trading, the Meiji Restoration opened the country. At the same time, the government started top-down industrialization drastically with the central government money as a new capital. The nation was compelled to break off the isolation policy because the threat of Western military power let the people believe they also had to have a strong military strength (Kimura, 1981:10).
The Meiji Restoration took place in 1867, the last Tokugawa Shogun returned political power to the emperor Meiji. As expressed in the Charter Oath of 1868, the first goal of the new government, relocated to Tokyo, was the knock down of the old feudal regime (Britannica, 2010c)[14]. Since 1854, beginning from Japan-US the Treaty of Peace and Amity, until 1855 Japan concluded the same type of treaty with Britain, Russia, and Dutch, and the nation was forced to conduct free trades with these countries under the threat of force of arms (Ohishi, 2005: 10). Appropriately with the slogan “wealthy country and strong arms (fukoku-kyohei: 富国強兵),” the leaders of the restoration, mostly young samurai(warrior) from feudal domains historically hostile to Tokugawa authority, were motivated to call an end for the old regime (Britannica, 2010c).
Ohishi (2005) points out that dismantlement of feudal lord’s lands (秩禄処分), land-tax reform (地租改正), encouragement of new industry (殖産興業), and establishment of new currency (通貨信用制度) pave a road for Japanese capitalism. Former two reforms had an impact on previous relationship between feudal lords and peasants. The new system, which was more tax burden for larger lands, hit a descendant of the samurai class by the economic downturn, hence, the incident later formed movement for freedom and rights (jiyu minken undo: 自由民権運動) to let the government know their demands (Ohishi, 2005: 22). Peasants had to start to submit tax with hard currency not previous actual goods so that land-tax not only elevated hierarchical decomposition among peasants but also built a momentum for generating landlord-tenant system (ibid., 26).
Gender
Table 5. Gender Changes in Industrialized England and Japan
| | Industrialized England | Industrialized Japan |
| Family patriarchy women’s value | -break up of family as economic institution -male control declined -wage earners obtained more values | - break up of family as economic institution -1898 family system law divested women’s rights to inheritance/ reinforce patriarch -little respects/ ideal women to be dutiful wife and devoted mother to create more military power |
Sources: Industrialized England, (Bradley, 1992a).
The government brought in industrial machines and skills from Western countries and made progresses with latter economic reforms. Correspondingly many young women in lower status became a prominent workforce. Industrialization was the primary goal of the government, which directed the development of strategic industries, transportation, and communications such as making railroad, telegraph, ships (Britannica, 2010c). Succeeding to state operation of government enterprise, Japan developed military industry and lastly private industry. The government retained the emphasis on protecting private industry with tax duty free and aid fund (Ohishi, 2005: 31).
Remarkably cotton-spinning companies achieved most rapid economic growth (ibid., 55). Ohishi (2005) lists four key features for the development. First, centralization of capital occurred by merchants in cities. Secondly the country successfully imported special machinery from England. Third, they also imported cotton from India with cheap price as a function of banks and marine transportation business grow. Finally companies obtained cheap young female labor from farming villages. To employ them longer, they not only improved the facility of the dormitory and welfare facilities but also set premium system. Female cheap labor force was also crucial to other industries including silk and textile weaving manufactures.
In 1872, agriculture employed population were 14.7 million and the number was almost the same with the year of 1920 (Toubata at el, 1959: 141)[15]. However, Toubata and Uno (1959) reported that during 1872 to 1920, every year 1.7 million people started work in non-agriculture workplaces, what’s more, 2.5 million people joined industry jobs every year between 1920 to 1930, so does 3 million people joined there between 1930 to 1940.
Unfortunately the immediate result of a new type of society often bring misery and confusion (Bradley, 1992: 191). The new Poor Law of 1834 demonstrates that the growth of the towns in a cheap housing place caused a serious poverty due to the isolation from village communities without the traditional forms of support for the poor, sick, etc. In industrialized Japan, an equivalent law (jyukkyu kisoku: 恤救規則) was introduced in 1874 before setting the first social insurance of 1922 and the pension system for workers of 1941(MOFA, 2010)[16]. The equivalent law of 1874, in the age of increasing wealth and military power, made money receiver a sense of shame. That was because they did not have families or relatives to dependent on but causing trouble to the government which was closed to the emperor (Takano, 2005: 13)[17].
It was Protestantism to promote England Industrial development and the similar role took place in Japan by Neo-Confucianism (shushigaku: 朱子学). It gives an explanation of mankind fate that people are born with a certain task and his task will be accomplished by his occupation, which is decided by the destiny (Nakajima, 2008: 10)[18]. The Neo-Confucianism was introduced by Tokugawa regime and children attended lessons at a ‘temple school’(terakoya: 寺子屋) with the financial aids from the central authority. The government promoted the religion in order to retaining the relationship between the lord and the people so that farmers and ordinary people also received education from the warriors (Arakawa, 2004: 3)[19].
Post-war Class and Gender
After the defeat in world wars, Japan made an unconditional surrender and the Allied Powers promoted democratization of the country. Japanese government has conducted SSM survey (Social Stratification and Social Mobility: 社会階層と社会移動全国調査) every once in ten year since 1955. Just like England transformed into a welfare state and set education system in postwar era (Bradley, 1992b), Japan went through amendments of constitution, dissolution of industrial conglomerate (zaibatsu: 財閥), and land reforms and then also aimed at building a welfare state. According to SSM survey, rapid economic growth from 1955 to 1973 generated a situation that many people in primary industry moved into the third industry, hence types of reproduction of labor changed such as one’s parents are farmers but he himself is in third industry (SSM survery Tohoku, 2010).
Many Japanese themselves had been thinking the nation created massive middle class and government policies was hard to bring inequality within this class. Nonetheless inequality among social classes is becoming larger through the bubble economy in 1980s and 1990s, changes in employment pattern in 2000s to legally permit irregular workers such as contracted and dispatched employee as well.
Regarding feminism movements in Japan, similar to postwar England feminism, it came into begin being aware of inequalities between men and women. As Miyasaka (1999) conveys steadily women have been expected to join the labor market as well as keep taking responsibility on childcare along with 1980s[20]. On the top of that, the people start to think that men are also better to join childrearing since around 1990s.
Table 6. Gender Image Changes in Modern Japan
| Period | Stereotypes for sexes | Study remarks |
| Tokugawa feudalism Meiji era to world wars Postwar rapid economic growth age 1970s 1980s 1990s | -father should educate children -new image appeared: mother educate children -image of grade-conscious mother became popular -emphasize what motherhood is -fathers were isolated from the family -feminists demanded women to take both childcare and job -roles of fathers were highlighted -the idea of equal share of burden between men and women appeared | -western ways of childcare had an impact -psychology, sociology, pedagogy which studies motherhood were highlighted -women’s study was established -men’s study was established |
Source: 宮坂靖子「ジェンダー研究と親イメージの変容」『家族社会学研究No.11』37－47頁、日本家族社会学会1999年、43頁。
V. Conclusions
In this article, we analyzed social structure changes in pre-industrial and industrialized Japan with comparison of England case. Japanese industrialization was initiated by top-down policies to realize a strong military nation. Although household and feudal social class system went to break down with the Meiji Restoration, most of Japanese people had a hard time to create protests movements toward the capitalists because new hierarchy beginning with the emperor and traditional existing morals restricted behaviors and minds of those people. Unlike industrialized England, Japanese women had a hard time to obtain a value due to manufactures were all for modernizing military strength and patriarchy was reinforced to maintain the military scheme. Bradley (1992a) illustrates that capitalists gained more authority on exploit labor force surplus in industrial England because manpower resources were consumed in factories not in agricultural lands, and at the same time towns and new commercial occupations appeared that supported further economic development. Without a doubt, industrialization changes social structure including class and gender, yet in the future, it is expected to investigate more in how the different initiate and policy on industrialization bring a different social structure.
VI. References
English
Bradley, H. (1992). “Changing social structure: class and gender,” Formations of Modernity. Stuart, H. & Bram, G. (ed). pp.177-228.Cambridge: Open University.
Bradley, H. (1992). “Changing social divisions: class, gender and race,” Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity. Bocock, R & Thompson, K (ed). pp. 15. Cambridge: Open University.
DeVos, G. (1965). “Achievement orientation, social self-identity, and Japanese economic growth,” Asian Survey, Vol. 5, No. 12, pp. 575-589. CA: University of California Press.
Indergaard, M. (2007). “Industrialization,” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Society. George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online: http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433115_ss1-36
Meiji Restoration. (2010). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/373305/Meiji-Restoration
Rothchild, J. (2007). “Gender bias,” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online: http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433113_ss1-11
Social structure. (2010). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551478/social-structure
Tokugawa period. (2010). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/598326/Tokugawa-period
Social Security in Japan. (2010). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA). MOFA Online: http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/socsec/maruo/maruo_5.html
Japanese
(Arakawa, 2004) 荒川紘「儒教教育の日本的展開」『人文論集55』1－31頁、静岡大学人文学部、2004年。
(Kimura, 1987) 木村時夫「日本歴史の基礎構造」『早稲田人文自然科学研究31』1－38頁、早稲田大学社会科学部学会、1987年。
(Kimura, 1981) 木村時夫「明治維新の功罪」『早稲田人文自然科学研究２０』1－18頁、早稲田大学社会科学部学会、1981年。
(Nakajima, 2008) 中島哲也「渋沢栄一の職分思想－日本資本主義創設期のエートス－」『法政大学大学院紀要60』121－139頁、法政大学大学院、2008年。
(Miyasaka, 1999) 宮坂靖子「ジェンダー研究と親イメージの変容」『家族社会学研究No.11』37－47頁、日本家族社会学会1999年。
(Ohishi, 2005) 大石嘉一郎『日本資本主義百年のあゆみ』東京大学出版会、2005年。
(Shen, 2006) 申連花「日本の家父長的家制度について」『地域政策研究第8巻第4号』99－104頁、高崎経済大学地域政策学会、2006年。
(SSM survey Tohoku, 2010) 「本研究の歴史」2005年社会階層と社会移動全国調査研究会東北事務所、2010年。http://www.sal.tohoku.ac.jp/21coe/ssm/history_more.html
(Takano, 2005) 鷹野吉章「地方分権の動向と地域福祉推進上の課題」『文京学院大学研究紀要7』121－138頁、文京学院大学、2005年。
(Tomobe, 2002) 友部謙一「前工業化期日本農業における市場経済と家族経済：経済学と人類学的思考の接点から」『暦象オーサリング・ツールによる危機管理研究』Working Paper Series No.02-004、2002年12月
(Toubata at el, 1959) 東畑精一、宇野弘蔵『日本資本主義と農業』岩波出版、1959年。
[1] Indergaard, M. (2007). “Industrialization,” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Society.
[2] Social structure. (2010). In Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[3] Rothchild, J. (2007). “Gender bias,” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
[4] Bradley, H. (1992b). “Changing social divisions: class, gender and race,” Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity. Bocock, R & Thompson, K (ed). pp. 11-67. Cambridge: Open University.
[5] Tokugawa period. (2010). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Tokugawa period is also referred as Edo period in Japanese which Japanese character denotes江戸時代.
[6]木村時夫「明治維新の功罪」『早稲田人文自然科学研究２０』1－18頁、早稲田大学社会科学部学会、1981年。
[7] See also木村時夫、1981年。
[8] The social order was called Shinoukousho (士農工商). See also Tokugawa period. (2010). In Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[9] This system of alternate attendance is called Sankinkoutai (参勤交代).
[10] 友部謙一「前工業化期日本農業における市場経済と家族経済：経済学と人類学的思考の接点から」『暦象オーサリング・ツールによる危機管理研究』Working Paper Series No.02-004、2002年12月、４頁。
[11] 木村時夫「日本歴史の基礎構造」『早稲田人文自然科学研究31』1－38頁、早稲田大学社会科学部学会、1987年。
[12]大石嘉一郎『日本資本主義百年のあゆみ』東京大学出版会、2005年。
[13] DeVos, G. (1965). “Achievement orientation, social self-identity, and Japanese economic growth,” Asian Survey, Vol. 5, No. 12, pp. 575-589. CA: University of California Press.
[14] Meiji Restoration. (2010). In Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[15] 東畑精一、宇野弘蔵『日本資本主義と農業』岩波出版、1959年。
[16] Social Security in Japan. (2010). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA).
[17] 鷹野吉章「地方分権の動向と地域福祉推進上の課題」『文京学院大学研究紀要7』121－138頁、文京学院大学、2005年。
[18] 中島哲也「渋沢栄一の職分思想－日本資本主義創設期のエートス－」『法政大学大学院紀要60』121－139頁、法政大学大学院、2008年。
[19]荒川紘「儒教教育の日本的展開」『人文論集55』1－31頁、静岡大学人文学部、2004年。
[20] 宮坂靖子「ジェンダー研究と親イメージの変容」『家族社会学研究No.11』37－47頁、日本家族社会学会1999年。
沒有留言:
張貼留言