Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

MODERNIZATION RECONSIDERED—with Special Reference to Industrialization—

1965; Wiley; Volume: 3; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1746-1049.1965.tb00765.x

1746-1049

Ōtsuka Hisao,

Japanese History and Culture

The Developing EconomiesVolume 3, Issue 4 p. 387-403 Free Access MODERNIZATION RECONSIDERED—with Special Reference to Industrialization— Ōtsuka Hisao, Ōtsuka HisaoSearch for more papers by this author Ōtsuka Hisao, Ōtsuka HisaoSearch for more papers by this author First published: December 1965 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1965.tb00765.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References 1 The concept of traditional society is certainly indispensable for the purposes of indicating comprehensively the special characteristics of the societies which preceded modernization, but because it is all too comprehensive it alone is not sufficient to allow us to deal with the problem in hand. All manner of stages of development and types are to be found in the societies which may be called ‘traditional societies,’ and it would appear to be very important for historical studies, as well as in relation to the question of the underdeveloped countries, to lay down in advance in terms of theory these various stages and types—provisionally of course. Among the works which may be considered to be usefulf aids to this purpose we will mention only Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, IV Aufl., 2 Teil, Kapitel IX, 4--5. 2 Thomas C. Smith, The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan, Stanford , Calif. , Stanford University Press, 1959, especially Pt. I, 4 (Small Holdings) and Pt. II, 7 (Agricultural Technology), is useful in connexion with this point in providing an impression from the facts. To Japanese eyes, some parts of this excellent book appear to be a little one-sided, and in other respects, too, it may be open to question at some points, but as a work in which the facts are accurately grasped by the eye of a western European the narrative will be found to be extremely interesting in connection with the problems which we are concerned here—although the author does not consciously develop any treatment of these problems. From among the literature in Japanese on this aspect, I would mention Kawashima Takeyoshi Nihon Shakai no Kazokuteki KŌsei (The Familial Structure of Japanese Society), Tokyo, NihonyŌron-sha, 1948. 1 Connected with these is the further question of the marked differences in geographical conditions and cultural traditions between Japan and western Europe. We cannot for one moment accept that this sort of question is not important, and indeed we believe that there is all the more need to stress their importance. In this paper, however, we have confined the points discussed principally to problems in the field of socio-economic history with the intention of making our argument clearer. The reader is asked to note this. 2 I have touched on this question before. For example, see H. Ōtsuka, Kindai Ōshū Keizai-shi Josetsu ( An Introduction to the Economic History of Modern Europe), 2nd ed., Vol. 1, Tokyo , KŌbundŌ , 1947, pp. 142– 159. (1st ed., JichŌsha, 1944.). 3 In Japan this question, in the slightly different form of ‘the relation between modernization and commercialization’ had already become an important subject of study in the field of economic history by about 1930, from the point of view of elucidating the modernization process in Japan after the Meiji Restoration. For a very simple account, see H. Ōtsuka, “ The Market Structure of Rural Industry in the Early Stages of the Development of Modern Capitalism,” in The Second International Conference of Economic History at Aix-en-Provence, Vol. II, Paris, Mouton, 1965, p. 458 ff. 4 A concise indication of these problems is the purpose of this paper. 5 In connexion with this point see Note 1 on p. 391. 1 There is wide variation in the basic form of the pre-modern community which forms the foundations for ‘traditional society,’ depending on the form of the social system in the ‘traditional society.’ In some cases these comunities are tribes or clans, in other cases cities, and in other cases villages etc., and the matter is extremely complicated, but we are probably justified in saying that it is usual in all cases for some type of land tenure of a pre-modern character to form the economic framework. For a detailed treatment of this question see H. Ōtsuka, Kyödötai no Kiso Riron (The Basic Theory of the Pre-modern Community), Tokyo, Iwanami-shoten, 1955. The subject is also touched on in Bert F. Hoselitz and Wilbert E. Moore, Industrialisation and Society, UNESCO-Mouton, 1963, Chap. I (by Hoselitz). 1 There is also the view that ‘industrialization’ means a break-away from traditional society. However, if in this instance we interpret, a ‘break-away’ from traditional society as meaning the dissolution of that social system, ‘industrialization’ comes to have exactly the same meaning as ‘modernization’ as we have defined it above, and so my presentation of these problems in this paper becomes meaningless. But if we interpret the ‘break-away’ from traditional society as meaning something like the situation in which the social system is maintained but a partial break-away is carried out by means of the transformation of certain parts of the industrial sector into profitmaking enterprises or ‘businesses’ (the so-called ‘dual economy’!), it will be an entirely different story. Further, it would seem that ‘industrialization’ is fairly frequently used in such a sense as this. Again, it is undoubtedly true that the concept of the industrial output per capita is a very useful tool in calculating the degree of industrialization, but the problems which I propose to raise in this paper do not proceed from this concept. 2 The meaning of this will become clearer below. 1 Compare Note 3 on p. 389. 2 As regards the process of industrialization in Japan after the Meiji Restoration, we will not undertake a complete survey but will confine ourselves to a brief glance at the special characteristics which appear to be of importance for our present purposes. For this reason we will omit any reference to the vast literature on this subject or the various views held in regard to it. 1 As to the question of whether or not the Japanese traditional society preceding the Meiji Restoration may be called a ‘feudal society’ in the mediaeval western European sense—I personally answer this question in the affirmative—we will not discuss it here because it has no direct connection with the problems with which we are dealing. But see Note 1 on p. 388. 2 H. Ōtsuka, “ The Market Structure of Rural Industry in the Early Stages of the Development of Modern Capitalism,” pp. 461– 66. 3 We may note in passing that, while the Meiji Restoration is clearly the starting-point of industrialization in Japan, this fact is one of the reasons why there has been controversy as to whether the Restoration is to be regarded as historically comparable to the establishment of monarchical absolutism in western Europe, or to the so-called ‘bourgeois revolutions.’ I favour the former of these two views, and one of the reasons for doing so is the fact that, while it is impossible for there to be an exact correspondence between the circumstances of the process of industrialization in Japan after the Meiji Restoration and the circumstances of the process of industrialization in western Europe in the period of monarchical absolutism—not in the period following the so-called bourgeois revolution—the relations between modernization and industrialization would seem to display the same characteristics. I shall say more on this point below. 1 Published in 1934, by Iwanami-shoten, Tokyo. 2 As we mention below, these views of Yamada's were subjected to fairly severe attacks from certain quarters. In these attacks, the points which would seem to be of the greatest importance are connected precisely with a difference of view between the two sides on the relation between modernization and industrialization. This difference may be expressed in our terminology as follows. While the critics held what may be called the optimistic view that industrialization must always call modernization into being sooner or later, Yamada would appear to have believed that, although industrialization certainly does call modernization into being, it is possible for industrialization to combine with traditional forces and stand in th way of the thorough dissolution of traditional society and for industrialization in turn to come to a halt within the limits thus prescribed, depending on the structure of the social system of the country in question and its position in world history. We may perhaps say that at some points Yamada's conception of the ambivalence of industrialization was defective, but even so, the correctness of this view was shown after the Second World War by the results of the Land Reform, the dissolution of monopolies, the negation of the traditional family system, etc. Only after this change in the social system, a change which clearly pointed in the direction of modernization, had been carried out, was a beginning made to industrialization on a nation-wide scale, including the agricultural village and the medium and smaller enterprises in the cities. This is shown by the economic conditions in Japan during the period of the so-called ‘higher economic growth.’. 1 In connection with this, see also the interesting paper on the social origins of Japanese industrialists by T. C. Smith, “ Landlord's Sons in the Business Elite,” in Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. IX, No. 1, Pt. 2 (October, 1960). In Japanese see the paper “Kindai Shihonshugi Hattatsu-shi ni okeru ShŌgyŌ no Chii ” in H. Ōtsuka, Kindai Shihonshugi no Keifu (The Genealogy of Modern Capitalism), Tokyo, KŌbundŌ , 1947. 2 In these so-called ‘dual structure theories’ it sometimes happens that the problems treated diverge somewhat from the problems with which we are concerned here, and among those who take a ‘dual structure theory’ view of Japanese socio-economic organization there are some who hold the ‘optimistic’ view mentioned in note 2 on p. 394. However, the views expressed in the text are not confined to myself, nor does there seem much reason to doubt their correctness. 1 I have already mentioned the fact that similar developments took place in Japan, albeit with differences of degree, towards the end of the Tokugawa period. For a general survey of the history of rural industries in the countries of western Europe, see, with reference to the problems dealt with in this paper, Hermann Kellenbenz, “ Ländliches Gewerbe und bäuerliches Unternehmertum in West-Europa vom Spätmittelalter bis ins XVIII Jahrhundert,” in The Second International Conference of Economic History at Aix-en-Provence, Vol. II, Paris, Mouton, 1965, especially pp. 382– 418. 1 On this point some hold the view that the process of industrialization in Holland is an exception, but at least in the light of such studies as Z-W. Sneller, “La naissance de l'industrie rurale dans les Pays-Bas aux XVII et XVIII siècles,” Annales d'histoire économique et sociales, Vol. I, No. 2, (1929), this would not appear to be the case at all. 2 John U. Nef, Industry and Government in France and England, 1540--1640, Great Seal Books, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1957. As an excellent study of earlier date I would add Hermann Levy, Monopole, Kartelle und Trusts in der Geschichte und Gegenwart der englischen Industrie, II Aufl., Jena, Gustav Fischer, 1927, Erster Abschnitt. 1 In conformity with this, as is well known, the men who undertook these industrial enterprises belonged to that stratum of society which had access to the enjoyment of the privileges of traditional society. For example, see J. U. Nef, pp. 141– 148. In connextion with this point see also T. C. Smith, “ Landlord's Sons in the Business Elite,” in which it is argued that the central figures in the industrialization of Japan after the Meiji Restoration originated among the landlords, the traditional privileged stratum of society. 1 M. Weber, “ Die protestantische Ethik und der ‘Geist’ des Kapitalismus,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Bd. I, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebek), 1923, p. 202. Besides the above see also his Staatssoziologie, hrsg. J. Von Winckelmann, Berlin, Duncker und Humblot , 1965, pp. 24– 26. 2 Besides H. Levy's above-cited work, see the interesting elucidation in his Der Wirtschaftsliberalismus in England, Jena, Gustav Fischer, 1928, and Paul Mantoux, The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century, trans. by Vernon, London, Jonathan Cape, 1928, Introduction to the 1st edition. 3 I wish to repeat my assertion that the above is altogether too brief and inadequate an account when considered with reference to historical facts, the history of the study of this subject, or my explanation of my total vision of these problems. However, an adequate account of these matters would require a great deal of space, in addition to which, as I explained at the beginning of the paper, such a thing is completely absent from the aims, or at least the immediate aims, of this paper. 1 I believe that besides the socio-economic circumstances it is necessary also to bring fully within one's field of vision at least the political, cultural (especially religious), and racial circumstances. 2 See p. 391. 3 E. A. Kosminsky, “Services and Money Rents in the Thirteenth Century,”The Economic History Review, Vol. V, No. 2 (1935). Also in connexion with this point see M. M. Postan, “The Fifteenth Century,” The Economic History Review, Vol. IX, No. 2 (1939). 1 For example, the significance of proposals for land reform or the nurturing of an industrial middle class, which are frequently made in connection with the economic development of countries which are on the road to development, will be made clear by them. 2 See M. Weber, Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Abriss der universalen Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, aus den nachelassenen Volesungen, hrsg. von S. Hellmann und M. Palyi, München u. Leipzig, Duncker und Humblot, 1923, especially pp. 90 ff., 115– 127, 174 ff. 1 For example, he conceives the growth of the Indian caste system, which embodies the attributes of conservatism to an incomparable degree, as consisting in an inter-tribal division of labour (die interethnische Arbeitsteilung), in which the element of conservatism was doubled by means of racial discrimination and the Hindu religion. This view is worthy of note. See M. Weber, “ Hinduismus und Budddhismus,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1923, pp. 122– 133. 2 If this view is correct we should be able to say the following. When industrialization is undertaken in countries which possess a traditional society, if this industrialization is carried forward in the form of a money economy of the kind which develops on the foundation of an inter-regional division of labour, the many problems which will arise in traditional society will remain basically unsolved, and by a reverse process will be aggravated, leading inevitably to the frustration of the industrialization process itself. Citing Literature Volume3, Issue4December 1965Pages 387-403 ReferencesRelatedInformation