Confronting Three Kinds of Reflexivity in Sociology in Japan:
Message to the World
Japan Association for the Study on the History of Sociology

１．Introduction
The Japan Association for the Study on the History of Sociology (JAHS, hereafter) wasestablished on October 20, 1960 by taking the opportunity of the annual meeting of the Japan
Sociological Society held in Rikkyo University, Tokyo, where the general assembly for its
establishment was called upon.
The attendants were as follows; SHINMEI Masamichi (Tohoku University), KURAUCHI
Kazuta (Kwansei Gakuin University), TAKEDA Ryozo (Waseda University), HAYASE Toshio(Yokohama City University), TOMITA Fujio (Kantogakuin University), SAKURAI Shotaro (Nara
Women’s University), AONUMA Yoshimatsu (Keio University), NISHIMURA Katsuhiko (Kobe
University), ATOJI Yoshio (Nagoya University), SUZUKI Koju (Tokyo Foreign University),
SAITO Shoji (Nihon University), AKUTAGAWA Shuichi (Senshu University), and BABA Akio
(Nihon University, who was supposed to be here but is actually absent due to sickness).
The names of its directors and secretaries are as follows; Representative Director: Shinmei,
Acting Director: Baba, Directors: Kurauchi, Takeda, Hayase, DAIDO Yasujiro (Kwansei Gakuin
University), Atoji, SUMIYA Etsuji (Doshisha University), Secretary：Saito, and SADAHIRA
Genshiro (Kwansei Gakuin University).
Universities from Tohoku, or the northeastern part of Japan, to Kansai, or the western part ofJapan, participated with a balance between state universities (at that time, six) and private
universities (seven). It could be said that the names appearing here are the main founding fathers of
the Association.
According to ATARASHI Mutsundo (Studies on the History of Sociology, Vol. 30, 2008, p.48),
the Association has its pre-history, so to speak, from the pre-war period, yet this report confines
itself to the Association established in 1960 which has led directly to this day.
The prospectus of the Association reads as follows;“Since more than 80 years have passed since Japanese sociology started with the introductionof Comte’s sociology by NISHI Amane in the first year of the Meiji regime, Japanese sociology has
currently established its firm status in the world of academics.
…In the year of the 100th anniversary of the Japan-Us Treaty of Amity, we ex integro became
keenly aware of the need for the integrative and systematic study of the history of Japanesesociology. We, the fellow scholars of the Study, now come together to establish the Japan
Association for the Study on the History of Sociology with the expectation being that it willachieve the aforementioned purpose.” (Studies on the History of Sociology, Vol.1, 1961, p.22)
The first president of JAHS was Shinmei. The secretary office was located at the Department
of Sociology, College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University with which Baba was305affiliated and this location is still its location to this day. The first Annual Meeting was held at theCollege of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University as well on June 17, 1961.
The names of the successive presidents of JAHS are as follows: Shinmei, SAITO Shoji,
YOKOYAMA Yasuo, AKIMOTO Ritsuro, Atarashi, TOMINAGA Ken’ichi, ONO Michikuni, andMIKAMI Takeshi.
There are currently 260 members of JAHS, and it holds annual meetings and regular
workshops a few times a year both in the Kanto as well as Kansai areas of Japan.
The Association issues the Studies on the History of Sociology as its official journal annually.
In 1961 Association Report No. 1 was issued whose main content was the news of the Association,
yet the volume was already named Studies on the History of Sociology; Association Report No. 1.
In the next year Association Report No. 2 was issued. “Twenty years after this in 1981 the journal
was issued as Revived Volume No. 3 in a format clearly defined as an official journal and taking thesame design, including the calligraphy, of the Association Report, which has continued to this day
as the back numbers of the journal” (Ono, Studies on the History of Sociology, 2008, p.4).
As of 2013, up to volume No. 35 of the Journal has been issued.
In 2008 this official journal included a special issue cerebrating the 30th anniversary and threeof the former presidents contributed articles. It can be said that these names are the main figures in
the Association who have succeeded the founding fathers as the second generation. These threefigures are Tominaga, Aatarashi, and Ono.
In this special issue for the 30th anniversary Ono described the trajectory of the Studies on the
History of Sociology in four stages. The first stage was the period from 1961-84, the second one
was from 1985-93, the third one was from 1994-99, and the fourth one was from 2000-2007. Ono
also suggested two points that constitute the basic trends in their content.
The first trend is the transformation from a tone of investigation into understanding sociology
by putting it in the past context of historical settings, which is genuinely a type of ‘history ofsociology’, to the underlying tone of a type of ‘sociological theory’ that evaluates sociology in thetheoretical settings of a contemporary context. The second trend is the tendency in which articles ofyoung researchers, especially those of graduate students, have increased (Ono, ibid., p.23).
Now, as it is clearly manifest in the Prospectus of the Association, at least in some parts, andwe can see as the foundation of the Association which deals with the history of sociology that there
are three kinds of reflexivity that prompted Japanese sociologists to establish the Association.
The first reflexivity is around the relation between Western sociology and Japanese sociology.
In the foundation and the development of Japanese sociology, it has been an intrinsic
problematique that the influence of Western sociology has taken the form of being built-in from the
beginning. There is a problem of import discipline on the one hand, but at the same time theimports still form the central parts of the body of Japanese sociology, and firmly constitute its
significant assets, on the other. It is this viewpoint that one should develop one’s own sociologicalinvestigation while being aware of and relativizing the relationship per se.
The second one relates to the way to set up the problematique of the history of sociology, theidea of the problematique itself. That is the mutual prescription of sociological investigation into306

history (in the past) and that of the current one, namely an awareness of the reflexivity of therelation between the two. It would be fair to say that the study of the history of sociology
fundamentally starts with an awareness of this sense.
The third one concerns an awareness of the reflexive relationship between the sociologicalinvestigation of the study on the history of sociology and research on the contemporary (the age inwhich the researchers currently live) society per se. Questions of the final reflexive relationship
ultimately continue to be consistently posed to sociologists.
In the following sections, this report will examine these three kinds of reflexivity by taking an
overview of the articles that appeared in the aforementioned first volume of the Studies on the
History of Sociology (1961) written by the founding fathers and the articles in the 30th anniversary
retrospective volume written by the main figures in the second generation.
2. Moon light sociology: Western sociology and Japanese sociology in reflexivity
The (prefatory) note by the editing committee of the Studies on the History of Sociology (1985,
version containing Vol.1-6 bound together) contains the following remarks;“The sociology of this country started first with the introduction of foreign sociologicaltheories. Accordingly, the area of the history of sociological theory occupied the central position in
the founding phase of sociology. Therefore, at that period of time, although there were not thatmany members, almost all of the representatives of the Japanese sociological society weremembers of it, including the late Shinmei” (Studies on the History of Sociology, 1985, no pages
indicated).
This expresses the recognition of the necessity of studying Western sociological theory forproviding a foundation in Japanese sociology, with this occupying a pivotal position at least in thestarting point of the Association. Next it immediately evokes the question of how should one think
about the problematique at the present moment of time, yet we shall keep it as the question we will
gradually and finally respond to it in the article as a whole.
For example, Shinmei argues as follows;“As we reflect upon the fact that Japanese sociology per se has been influenced by theadvanced Western sociology a great deal in the process of its historical development from its
starting point down to this day, in ensuring studies on the history of Japanese sociology it isobvious that we need to refer to Western sociology as well as doing research on its history” (Ibid.,p.1).
At the same time, however, he is also aware of the following point.
“Having said that, it is also obvious that the most interesting and the closest object for our
historical study on sociology is not foreign sociology, but Japanese sociology. As we live inJapanese society as Japanese and study sociology in it, it is rather a matter of course that we aresupposed to and have to devote our energy to the study of the history of sociology in Japan” (Ibid.,p.1).
We are ‘supposed’ to do that, but actually it is not the case. Accordingly, “I think that the firsttask to do for this Association shall be the fulfillment of this academic void” (Ibid., p.2).
307

For this problem the question of what happened with this task at the present moment of 2013
naturally arises once more. And it is again the point of discussion to which the article as a wholeshould respond and investigate.
Critical and self-conscious stances towards Japanese sociology as an imported discipline areexpressed best in the term “moon-light sociology” coined by Daido.
“Once I described the sociology of Japan as ‘moon-light sociology’ … This is what I liken to‘moon-light civilization’ coined by Oswald Spengler in Germany in his book The Decline of theWest as he described Japanese culture. The moon just reflects the sunlight without shining by itself.
It has no power to shine by itself and there is no subjectivity in the moon.
…We have to admit that there exists this aspect of moon-light sociology when we trace thetrajectory of the development of Japanese sociology. Yet Japanese sociology cannot be reconciled
to remain as moon-light sociology forever. Seeing Japanese sociology flourishing after World War
II, especially the energy in the sociology at the present moment, I have high hopes for Japanesesociology to rid itself of its nature of moon-light sociology and demonstrate its originality
affirmatively” (Ibid., p.15).
Yet there still remains the question: What kind of state does it mean by the words“demonstrate its originality affirmatively”? Is it by any chance some state of affairs we can achieve
by fulfilling the “void” of the “study of history of Japanese sociology’” as Shinmei put it?
First it should be clear enough that the configuration of the problematique is not one in which
there is a Western sociology to be imported on the one hand, and a Japanese sociology on the otherwhich exists somewhere apart from Western sociology and which has an original light shining on
its own. Rather, it may be the case that as we study Japanese sociology more in a historic
perspective we see the situation in which Japanese sociology is always and already intrinsicallyintertwined with Western sociology more. In that case how could we show “affirmatively” the“originality” of Japanese sociology? Instead, perhaps it is the case that the issue can be found in aconfiguration in which Western sociology is always and already at least a part of the body ofJapanese sociology per se, yet for Western sociology this Japanese sociology does not take such astand.
This is, of course, not simply an issue of the imbalance of import and export, and of the excessof importation. Rather, from a contemporary viewpoint this could be an issue of the globalizationof academics. One signification of the globalization of academics lies in the fact that certain
theories, viewpoints, and focal points are flowing through and developing in a global arena. As
George Herbert MEAD’s theory teaches us, this is a common scholarly consciousness which
mutually flows and develops in dialogue.
When Japanese sociologists give a talk in conferences or workshops in Korea for example, wehave to organize our talks by reflecting upon what Korean sociologists and audiences could bethinking of. We take the roles of the audiences of Korean people and a measure of our own
positions into such considerations, and on that basis we express our remarks. When the subject of
the talk touches upon issues like atomic power generation after the 3.11 disaster and even atomic
bombs, this process of taking the roles of the others becomes that of including subtle issues. Such308

scenes and situations occur everywhere around the world. This can also happen when Koreansociologists come to Japan, or when Swedish or Russian sociologists go to the USA as well, andvice versa. What G. H. Mead termed the “organization of (different) perspectives” through a
discourse in a global arena is not quite fictional or a pipe dream nowadays. Is it not the case then,that the original contribution in the global arena could be rather a matter of what we can add to thismulti-directional and global flow, or how we can have a chance to more or less redirect the flow?
This issue indicates the kind of problematique we are now facing, namely whether it is the
problematique constituted by a configuration of moon-light sociology or that of global sociology.
This is just one example, and in the Studies on the History of Sociology, Vol. 34, 2012, thejournal organized a special issue entitled “On Others; Solidarity and Exclusion” that was
profoundly inspired by the aftermath of 3.11. In the discussions centered around this issue in thejournal it is responding vis-à-vis the Great East Japan Earthquake that occurred in Japan in its
geographical sense, yet the discourses have been developed in the global arena in sociologicalterms such as solidarity, exclusion and the other. 3.11 is an event which poses a problem that
occurred in Japan yet also beyond Japan. The sociological discourse taking place in thatproblematique (universe of discourse) is one which is situated in an area that we cannot help torefer to as beyond Japan, where we have been involved and are able to change the direction of its
global flow of discourse.
3．Sociologist or “Sociology-logist”
Many thinkers have asserted as if with one voice the same wisdom that history is always theone that proceeds from the present.
Studying the history of sociology does not make sense if it ignores the significance andmeaning that this holds for present sociology. Needless to say, the most difficult thing is to strike abalance between studying the inherent value of (past) theories and their contemporary signification.
We (meaning most of the scholars of the study on the history of sociology) may not highly
evaluate standpoints that are radically inclined towards one pole of the two. Arguments that lackthe former stance and analyses on the detailed and inherent value of theories indicate that thearguments themselves are weak in their foundation or even lack grounds. Or it even can be said that
there could be cases in which some academic significance lies in the inherent analysis per se. On
the other hand, we would not be satisfied with just a detailed scholiastic exposition and would liketo argue “So what, after all”? It will be an argument which lacks the latter stance, as well as theimplications and/or signification for contemporary sociology.
Also we would perhaps neither esteem arguments which lack inherent academic grounds andjump to a hasty problem consciousness for present sociology. Vis-a-vis that kind of arguments wewould ask the meaning of it in grounding and developing the issues in connection to studies on thehistory of sociology.
This subject matter of the significance for contemporary sociology rightfully leads to the issueof what kind of meaning it has in connection with the analysis and understanding of contemporary309

society itself. Shinmei has already stated it as follows regarding these issues of the second and thethird type of reflexivity;“Researchers on the history of sociology, if things go badly, can easily become asociology-logist instead of a sociologist. If this is the case, then even if one goes to all the effort ofstudying the history of sociology this can only claim an antique-like value, and the expected
positive contribution to it will be brought to naught. It is a matter of course that the Association’s
main purpose is to study the history of sociology, yet at the same time we should connect the
purpose to the study of sociology, above all that of targeted contemporary society, by promoting thestudy of the history of sociology, we should simultaneously set our sites on promoting the study ofsociology per se.
It actually can be seen that the raison d’être of the Association is dependent upon the extent towhich we can achieve this aspiration” (Ibid., p.3).
Vis-à-vis this sort of argumentation, ONO in the 30th anniversary volume of the Studies on the
History of Sociology, put it in a different light as follows;“We should at the same time be mindful of the possibility of forgetting the historical andsocietal positioning of sociology per se (a “historicistic” study of the history of sociology), and of
reducing it to a ‘vacant knowledge’ that is removed from the reality (of the historical time), byleaning too much towards sociological theory or theoretical sociology (“present-time oriented”
study of the history of sociology)” (Op.cit., Vol. 30, 2008, p.24).
In fine, Ono here, referring to YOKOI Toshihide’s paper in the Studies on the History ofSociology, Vol. 10, terms the stance of seeking for the relevance with “contemporary significance”
as a “present-time oriented” study of the history of sociology and the sociological theory-oriented
tendencies, while the stance that stresses the importance of an inherent understanding of theories in
the past is defined as a “historicistic” study of the history of sociology.
Then, through a chronological analysis of the articles that appeared in the Studies on the
History of Sociology, he also found a shift from the latter tendency to the former one. On the basisof this analysis he also pointed out that if the tendency becomes too pronounced it may cause otherproblems, and so we should attend to this as well.
As a matter of fact, the study of the history of sociology is in the reflexive liaison between
inherent / historical research and the issue of what relevance it could have with contemporarysociology. Perhaps what is needed here is an awareness vis-à-vis this reflexivity andmethodological control based on this awareness. From the standpoint of the three problems ofreflexivity mentioned in the beginning of this article, in the issue of the Shinmei-Ono nexus there
actually lies two different kinds of reflexivity. The first one concerns the relation between themethodology of the history of the discipline, namely the historical study of theories in the past andsociology today, and the second one is about the relation between theoretical studies, including
historical studies of theories and societal reality per se. These are two problems with the reflexivity
here.
As a matter of methodological awareness on the study of the history of sociology in Japan, it
is perhaps required for us as our task to commit to studies with an awareness of the three problems
310

of reflexivity, including the one aforementioned (moon-light sociology or global sociology). It
could be the case that the way of setting up the problematique of the study of the (Japanese) historyof sociology per se inevitably is fated to be involved in the issues of those three kinds of reflexivity.
Sociology can be understood as an intellectual approach that maintains and renews itself byconstant interrogation of its own foundations (Turner, 1994). If so, the fields in sociology such as
the sociology of knowledge and social constructionism are actually not just fields in it but
expressions of the fundamental methodology of sociology per se that are consciously applied toitself. The field of the history of sociology is then actually an approach to apply the awareness andreflexivity to sociology itself, and thus it is the carrier of the intellectual activities that are so
deeply related to its very core.
As in the remarks of the founding fathers, this awareness had already been so sharply
conceived that one might understand it as a certain awareness that is inevitably involved inperforming sociology in the geopolitical and cultural space called Japan.
Lastly, on the issue of moon-light sociology or global sociology, as Atarashi so vividly
described it in the 30th anniversary volume of the Journal, already for the second generation
Western sociology has been no more solely a matter of literature but also a matter of face to face
human relationships with the persons and scholars who produced this literature. On present
showing, it is fair to say that the widening of such tendencies has been developing steadily.

References:
Atarashi, M., 2008, “Shakaigakushigakkai tono deai: Shinmei Masamichi sensei no kaiso wochusin ni (Encounter with The Japan Association for the Study on the History of Sociology:
Centering on the Retrospection of Dr. Shinmei Masamichi)”, Studies on the History ofSociology, Vol.30, pp. 39-57, 2008
Daido, Y., 1985, “Onko Chishin (Studying the Past to Learn New Things)”, Studies on the Historyof Sociology, Vol.1, pp. 13-16, 1961=1985
Ono, M., 2008, “Shakaigakushikenkyu 30 go no kiseki (Trajectory of the Thirty Volumes of theStudies on the History of Sociology)”, Studies on the History of Sociology, Vol. 30, pp. 3-24,
2008
Shinmei, M., 1985, “Nippon Shakaigakushigakkai no shuppatsu ni atatte (On the Occasion of the
Departure of The Japan Association for the Study on the History of Sociology)”, Studies on
the History of Sociology, Vol.1, pp. 1-6, 1961=1985
Turner, B. S., 1994, Orientalism, Postmodernism and Globalism, Routledge*The translations of the titles of the papers into English that appear in the References section are
tentative translations attempted by the author of this report and are not related to any kinds ofofficial translations.

311

Practical information:
Below is the homepage address and mailing address of the Japan Association for the Study on
the History of Sociology
http://www.jashs.jp/
mohri-y@chs.nihon-u.ac.jp
Post (snail mail) address is as follows;
The Office of the Japan Association for the Study on the History of Sociology
Department of Sociology, College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University
3-25-40 Sakurajosui, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 156-8550
Phone: +81 (0)3 5317 8978
Fax: +81 (0)3 5317 9423

312