著者

川北 稔

出版者

社会経済史学会

雑誌

社会経済史学 (ISSN:00380113)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.59, no.1, pp.49-70,200-201, 1993-05-25 (Released:2017-07-01)

---

For over a decade, social history has been enjoying a vogue in both Britain and Japan. In Japan in particular, it has penetrated almost every corner of historical research. There seems to be no other category of history which appeals to younger historians. The background to the popularity of social history in each country has been different. This may be the reason behind the different attitudes of British and Japanese historians to the boom: unreserved enthusiasm in the one and a degree of circumspection in the other. In Britain, befor World War II, socio-economic history was regarded primarily as a tool of social policy. For that reason, much signiflcance was attached to the history of everday life. After the war, socio-economic history entered its golden age. The latter half of the present century saw the introduction of the quantitative approach to socio-economic history. In other words, socio-economic history became polarized into quantitative economic history and the 'new' social history. Thus in Britain, even the 'new' social history can be regarded as part of the established tradition of socio-economic history. In Japan, socio-iconomic history also experienced a golden age, which lasted until about 1960. Based mainly on Marxist and Weberian theories, it enjoyed overwhelming influence and popularity. That was one of the reasons why Japanese academics did not initially accept the quantitative approach to economic history and the 'new' social history. Still dreaming of the paradise of post-war socio-economic history, they were oblibious to the structural changes in society and altered historical circumstances. Then, in the 1980s, they suddenly woke up. Instead of Marxist and Weberian interpretaions of history, 'new' social history became all the rage. A clear distinction was made between the 'new' social history and more traditional types of history. It is this difference in pre-conditions which has led to the differing attitudes of British and Japanese historians to the 'new' social history. Unfortunately, the claims of the 'new' social history to be self-sufficient cannot be substantiated. It is therefore crucial for historians in Japan to bridge the gap separating it from more traditional categories of history.