著者

河村 望

出版者

The Japan Sociological Society

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.17, no.2, pp.34-43, 1966-12-10 (Released:2010-12-10)

---

By the defeat “Nipponshugi shakaigaku” (Japanese national sociology) which had been dominaht under the absolute Tenno system, practically lost its power, and in its place empirical and positive sociology, influenced by American sociology, prospered. Notwithstanding that this positive sociology and Marxism thory fundamentally are hostile to each other, criticism from the Marxist side of sociology was not sufficiently made in those days, and sociology akin to Marxism only dealt with the confrontation of the non-scientific Tenno system's ideology.About 1950 the theory of “structural=functional analysis” of American sociologists such as Parsons and Merton began to be introduced, and after 1955 the apposition between sociology and Marxism became clear as the theory of “mass society” lost ground. At this stage there appeared those who stood for the “critical absorption” of Marxism within sociology. They were discontented with the non-historical and super-class theory of American sociology and psychology, so they intended to develop positive sociology accepting Marxism as a grand framework. But they eventually couldn't deduce more than the protection of the past sociological method and the denial of Marxism.If we call these people “arbitrationists”, those who “absorb critically” the empirical thory of sociology from a Marxist view and intend to develop Marxism “creatively” can be called “revisionism”. It was after 1960 that this standpoint became clear as one current, and it has been greatly influenced by the revival of sociology in the sociolist states of East Europe and the U. S. S. R. and the opinion of Marxist sociology which is distinguished from a materialistic conception of history. Lately by introducing theories of “industrialized society” and “modernization” into the field of sociology, an attempt to confront Marxist theory extensively has been made.When I make a future observation from the above current, it is presumed that in so far as the attack on or revision of Marxism is made in the name of sociology, apposition between sociology and Marxism will strengthen thier hostile relation as an ideological apposition in Japan, too. In this trend Marxist sociology will make its revisionistic character clearer. And the ideological conflict between them will be continued unabel sociology as the bourgeois ideology is completely extinguished by the ruin of the bourgeoisie.