The Kantoh Sociological Society: Its History and Perspectives
The Kantoh Sociological Society
1. Introduction
The Kantoh Sociological Society is a geographically-based academic society in the Kantoh
area that caters to sociologists and scholars in sociology-related disciplines. The Kantoh area iscomprised of the seven prefectures that make up the capital region around Tokyo. This region ishome to over 30% of Japan’s population, including the urban centers of Yokohama, Kawasaki,
Saitama, and Chiba. Moreover, it houses approximately 140 universities, many of which offer
courses in sociology, and this is reflected in our Society’s strength of approximately 950 members.
This number is equivalent to that of the Kansai Sociological Society.
In Section 2, written and edited by the Directors’ Board of the Kantoh Sociological Society,we present some aspects of Japanese sociology by introducing a brief history of our Society since
its establishment, trends in research activities, and our internationalization initiatives by presenting
our path as one of Japan’s regionally based academic societies. In Section 3, our former
Chairperson, MIYAJIMA Takashi (Professor Emeritus, Ochanomizu University), a driving force of
our Society for many years, raises a number of issues on Japanese sociology. We present this as amessage from our Society to the world.
2. Challenges for the Kantoh Sociological Society: A Brief History
The Background of Our Society’s Establishment
The Kantoh Sociological Society was first proposed at the Japan Sociological SocietyIntercollegiate Council in March 1952. At the April meeting, a Preparatory Committee for
Establishment was organized and discussed how the Kantoh Sociological Society would maximize
the debate on concentrated themes. In contrast to the Japan Sociological Society, whereindependent presentations predominated, our Society aims for interactive debate through forums
such as symposia and themed panels. The Kantoh Sociological Society’s Inaugural Meeting washeld at Nihon University on September 27, 1952, and approximately 500 individuals participated.
Two professors addressed the first session of the meeting, “Part 1: Public Lectures”—Professor
UEHARA Senroku of Hitotsubashi University on “The Sociality of Historicism” and Professor
SHINMEI Masamichi on “Realistic Recognition in Sociology.” In “Part 2: Inaugural General
Meeting” Professor BABA Akio of Nihon University was elected council chairperson. It wasdetermined that council members should be elected from the following institutes: University ofTokyo, Keio University, Tokyo University of Education, Chuo University, Tokyo Metropolitan
University, Nihon University, Waseda University, Rikkyo University, Rissho University, Toyo
University, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Yokohama National University, University of
Yamanashi, Tokyo Gakugei University, and Kanto Gakuin University. Therefore, our Society’s
establishment is unique in terms of its intercollegiate network of sociological researchers (members95

of the Japan Sociological Association) based in the Kantoh area.
The first and second Regular Research Meetings were held in November and December 1952,
the former dealt with “The Status Quo in Amerikamura,” presented by FUKUTAKE Tadashi andOTA Takashi, while the latter dealt with “A Journey to Istanbul: The International Sociological
Congress,” presented by Professor USUI Jisho from Kyoto University. The first issue of thesociety’s newsletter, Kantō shakai gakkai nyūsu (Kantoh Sociological Society News), was publishedon April 20, 1953, and the first annual conference took place at Yokohama City University on June
5–6, 1953. On the first day of the conference, 30 research presentations were given in six panels,
and in the afternoon on the second day, a symposium was held on “Crime in the City” (presented
by Fukutake with presentations by HAYASE Toshio, NASU Soichi, and IWAI Hiroaki).
Shift to a New System
After an ambitious start, the ongoing publication of newsletters, and annual conferences, by
the 1970s the Society had entered into a period of stagnation. From its inception, the Society had
arranged for the automatic enrollment of Japan Sociological Society members based in the Kantoh
area free of charge. However, by 1979, the sense of belonging among Society members had greatly
diminished. Only 60 out of approximately 1,000 members participated actively in the annual
conference. Therefore, in 1979, the Society began to collect registration fees and membership dues.
This resulted in a low registration count of only 90 people—less than a tenth of the membership.
Therefore, in 1980, the Society’s Council investigated measures to address this situation by, forexample, stimulating research activities such as new policies targeted at young researchers, andforming an association of core members and groups.
After this investigation, in 1982 the society decided to gain autonomy from the Japan
Sociological Society through an amendment to the Society’s constitution. The Society moved
toward a new system, governed by an elected council. At this time, the following organizing
principles were confirmed: to establish the Society as an autonomous group rather than as the
Kantoh branch of the Japan Sociological Society, with its own board of directors and independent
finances; to cease traditional operations that had been evenly split between research presentations
and social functions; to fully invest in the organization of independent presentations by researchcommittees and themed panels; and to encourage the voluntary contribution of presentations fromyoung researchers. These organizing principles were adopted amid the emerging principles ofvoluntary organization that sparked conflicts at a number of universities and calls by young
researchers for the dismantling of the lecture system. This trend has been linked with the critique of
Talcott PARSONS and critical theory; moreover, phenomenological sociology was often selected as
the subject of subsequent conferences, which attracted 150–200 participants, mainly young
researchers.
Later the Society’s research activities were enthusiastically promoted as themed panels at
conferences, symposia, independent presentation panels, and other study groups. However, this did
not result in any journal publications. Beginning in 1987, the possibility of an organizational
journal was studied by the society’s executives, including Chairperson AOI Kazuo (Ryutsu Keizai

96University). Their efforts resulted in the publication of the inaugural issue of Nenpō shakaigaku
ronshū (Annual Sociology Journal) at the 36th annual conference in June 1988 (at Japan Women's
University), featuring 12 submitted articles. Thus, as with the dawn of the 1990s, the Society had
been reorganized into its present structure.
Research Activities in the 1990s
In terms of membership, the Kantoh Sociological Society witnessed significant expansion
during the 1990s. As compared to approximately 300 members in 1987, its membership strengthrose to approximately 500 by 1993, 650 by 1997, and 800 by 1999. Let us examine research
activities during this period by briefly outlining the themes at the conferences around which theSociety came to be organized.
The first half of the 1990s witnessed themed panels that were relatively clear in terms of theirdivision into separate domains. The first domain dealt with panels organized on the axis of “theory.”
These panels included a debate between sociological theory and topics such as environmental
issues, eugenics, and feminism under “Rethinking Modernity: From Reality to Theory” (1990);
moreover, YOSHIDA Tamito’s theory of “self-organization” was discussed in the panel on“Revisiting Self-Organization” (1991). Examinations of the fabrication of identity and theemergence of sociality from debates with anthropologists and philosophers, respectively, featured
in panels such as “Questioning the ‘Self’ Once More” (1992), “Communicating with the Other”(1993). Discussions on “power” from the perspectives of Michel FOUCAULT and Niklas
LUHMANN, as well as from ethnomethodology were featured in “The Actuality of the Theory ofPower” (1994) and “The Actuality of Power, Part 2” (1995).
The second domain dealt with “gender” and “inequality.” In “Gender and Social Participation”(1990, 1991), the participation of women in society in child-rearing, lifestyle clubs, andcooperatives (Seikatsu Kurabu Seikyo), and political and administrative movements were discussed.
Although gender was not raised as an independent theme at the 1992 conference, panels focused onsocial classes and education, such as “Cultural Approaches to the Study of Inequality: Can
Bourdieu Save the Stratification and Social Mobility (SSM) Survey?” (1992) and “Educational
Background and Inequality” (1993).
The third domain dealt with “area studies” and “ethnicity.” At a panel on “Japanese Society
and International Marriage” (1990), papers were presented on the arrival of brides from Asia. The
following question was investigated in “A Sociological Approach to Issues Facing Foreign
Residents” (1991): “What are the Issues Facing Foreign Residents?” Case studies dealing with thecontemporary state of European studies and development studies in Japan were presented in “AreaStudies” in 1992, and cases from Middle Eastern, Asian, Japanese, and French studies in“International Labor Flows in an Area Studies Perspective” were presented in 1993. These topics
were followed with “Internationalization and Cultural Exchange” (1994) and “Japan and the Worldsof Southeast Asia” (1995). Although panels on “Transformations in Eastern Europe andContemporary Socialism: Poland and Hungary in Perspective” and “Social Change and
Democratization in Eastern Europe: The Import of Reform for Consumers and Workers” were97

presented in 1990 and 1991, respectively, after the close of the Cold War no panels dealt with
Eastern European themes.
The fourth and final domain dealt with research on “the environment.” This continued for four
years after being first presented in 1992; presentations were made on renewable energy, organic
farming, and Mutsu-Ogawara Industrial Development in “Contemporary Environmental Issues:
Seeking Perspectives from Environmental Sociology.” In 1993, “Seeking an Identity for
Environmental Sociology” examined the relationship of environmental sociology with cities,
farming communities, and social movements. In 1994, “Challenges for Environmental Sociology:
The Effectiveness of Dynamic Theory for Solving Environmental Problems,” focused on the social
movements; however, in 1995, the perspective shifted toward disasters in “Seeking Points ofContact between Sociology and Disaster Research” in the wake of the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake of earlier that year.
“The body” appeared as a new approach in 1994. That year, “The Sociology of Death andDying: Medical, Religious, and Family Perspectives” took up the “transformations of death” fromthe perspective of terminal care, funereal freedom, and the intersection of families, graves, andfuneral rituals. In 1995, “The Regeneration of Life: The Sociology of Reproduction” sought toexplore the subject of birth through new reproductive technologies such as infertility treatments andin-vitro fertilization.
Hence, in the early 1990s the themed panels focused on “theory,” “gender and inequality,”“area studies and ethnicity,” “the environment,” and “the body.” In the late 1990s, this clarity began
to blur, demonstrating a more mixed aspect.
Two themed panels of the late 1990s were of particular importance: “The Body and Society”
and “The Ordinary and the Extraordinary.”“The Body and Society” in 1996 dealt with domestic
violence, eating disorders, and corporeal risk management. In 1997, “Casting a Sociological Lighton ‘Aging’” explored the possibility of aging. Panels on “The Ordinary and the Extraordinary”
expanded sociological approaches to “the extraordinary” at the intersection of life and death, withpresentations on the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in“Religion and Society in the Aum Phenomenon” (1996) and case studies on music, Disneyland, andbackpackers in “Cultural Apparatuses that Produce the Extraordinary” (1997).
In contrast, the theme of “area studies and ethnicity” was considered in “The Comprehensive
and the Regional.” Examples of Okinawan identity and the relationship between tourism andindigenous Hawaiians were discussed in “Global and Local Entanglements: Post-national Identities
and the Pacific World” in 1996. In 1997, “Migration, State, and Ethnicity” dealt with the problemsof “Japanese” identity, migration, and virtual communities. In addition, “theory”-related subjects
were succeeded by panels on “Action and Cognition,” resulting in “Why Do Sociologists Theorize?”in 1996, and “Contemporary Basis for Sociological Theory: Questioning Order and Systems” in
1997.
Although four of the panels in 1998 and 1999 were well defined, the continuity with previous
topics was less prevalent. Characteristic of this shift is the disappearance of the discussion on“theory” and the emergence of “qualitative survey methods,” with debates over discourse analysis

98in 1998 in terms of “certainty” in qualitative survey research in 1999. In addition, “gender”-related
subjects were revived in panels in terms of “Gender and Nationalism” (1998) and “Gender andSexuality” (1999). Two other panel themes focused on the welfare state—“Gender and the WelfareState” (1998) and “Justice, Publicness, and Citizenship” (1999)—and on “information andnetworks,” the latter taking up the “Internet” (1998) and “Computer Mediated Communication”(1999).
Research Activities in the Twenty-First Century
For the Society, the first decade of the twenty-first century represents a heightened period of
activity, in terms of membership and the number of presentations. Membership reached 1,010 in2007, although a downward trend has begun ever since. Similarly, conference participation has
begun to decline after peaking at 350 members in 2006, at the 54th annual meeting at Keio
University. Moreover, the number of independent research papers has also declined after peaking at
61 in 2007, at the 55th annual meeting at Tsukuba University. We examine the characteristics of thethemed panels during this period.
The largest agenda during the early 2000s was “globalization.” This subject was repeatedly
discussed in the wake of “Area Studies and Ethnicity” and “The Comprehensive and the Regional.”
In 2000, “Globalization and Nationality” and “Ethnic Resources/Movements/Strategies” werediscussed. A third panel on “Employment, Gender, and the Household” was held; however, it
mainly focused on family policies in Sweden and America. In 2001, two panels were organized on
globalization, “Globalization and Civil Society” and “Ethnicity and Changing Social Structures.”
Subsequent panels were organized on topics such as “Globalization and the Reorganization of the
Urban Base” (2003) and “Class and Hierarchy in the Midst of Globalization” (2005). In otherwords, the concept “globalization” was viewed as a contextual premise to understand cities andsocial classes.
The early 2000s also witnessed a number of new themes such as “care.” Following the 1990s
theme of “the body,” in 2002, discussions on “care” focused on the developmentally challenged,
the elderly, and the physically disabled. “Care” and “family-related” was the theme for 2003.
Another theme was “culture.” Panels on cultural topics were held over a period of four years,
beginning with “The Potential of Culture for Sociology” (2002), developing into discussions of therelationship between culture, capitalism, and Americanism (2003); postcolonial theory (2004); andstudies of “Cultural Strategies” in light of Bourdieu’s theories of reproduction. In 2004, gender andinequality were discussed in “The Multifaceted Nature of Gender Inequality.” In 2004 and 2005,“theory” was again the central concern in “Sociological Practice and Theory” and “The Identity ofSociology.”
Thus, while “globalization” was the leading panel theme in 2000–2005, perspectives werebroadened to include the additional themes of “care” and “culture.” From 2006 onward, the numberof organized panels per annual meeting dropped to two; however, more than having organized
themes, the panels focused on experimental attempts to realize a certain standard ofproblematization.

99

The themes for 2006 and 2007 focused on “youth” and “conservatism,” respectively. On the
one hand, the panel “Communication among Youth Today” (2006) focused on the social network
among youth. On the other hand, the panel on “Pluralism in Youth Cultures” (2007) focused on
historical, generational, and regional differences in youth culture in an attempt to understand youth
as an issue. Panels on “Ascertaining ‘Growing Conservatism’” (2006) and “Contemporary‘Conservatives’: What’s New?” (2007) sought to portray contemporary Japanese society under the
subject of “growing conservatism.”
Themed panels in 2008 and 2009 were set against the actual problems of contemporary
Japanese society in “Community Building in an Age of Demographic Decline” (2008) and “TheSociology of an Age of Demographic Decline” (2009). Issues included were intrinsic to academia
in terms of “Significance of and Methods for the Use of Historical Materials in Sociology” (2008)
and “Sociological Approaches to ‘Lived History’” (2009). This division of labor continued in 2010
and 2011, with panels on “The Sociology of Risk and Exclusion” (2010) and “Anti-Risk andAnti-Exclusion Social Movements” (2011) dealing with the themes of risk and exclusion andresistance movements against them in contemporary society, and other panels on “theory” seeking
to reexamine basic concepts such as “Re-examining the ‘Action-Order’ Relationship” (2010) and“Aspects of Publicness in Sociology” (2011).
Annual meeting panels in 2012 and 2013 were organized with consideration given to the Great
East Japan Earthquake Disaster in March 2011. These dealt with the twin themes of “Social
Movements and Social Policies” and “Social Theory and Social Initiatives.” Of these, the formersought to understand the possibilities inherent in the divisive conditions and resistance movements
surrounding “the socially vulnerable” in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor
incident, and the latter attempted to find a theoretical framework to grasp Japanese society as basedin the risk society and individualization theories of Ulrich BECK.
Our Society’s themed panels have thus treated new topics reflecting an acute sensitivity to thecontemporary situation of Japanese society. We believe that our ability to incorporate these themes
attests to our Society’s merits. However, our Society has an integral limitation in that we do notshare the problems being focused on as a Society. Amid downward trends in membership andannual meeting participation, we take the responsibility to seek new directions to strengthen our
relevance as a regional academic society.
Internationalization Initiatives
As opposed to specializing in certain areas of expertise, our Society has promoted the work ofsociologists in the Kantoh area, particularly young researchers. As an organization, however, no
initiative toward internationalization has been taken just yet. Nevertheless, a number of factors,
such as convenient overseas access to the capital region where annual meetings are held and the
preponderance of universities with specializations in sociology in the Kantoh region, show great
potential for future research exchanges with overseas institutions.
In September and October 2012, a large number of our members participated in a series ofinvited lectures and symposium featuring Professor Robert N. BELLAH (University of California,

100Berkeley), co-hosted with Rikkyo University. In light of this experience, a plan was initiated for an“Invitation Themed Session” at the 61st annual meeting in June 2013 (at Hitotsubashi University).
This entailed planning a session on the basis of invited foreign researchers from members’ affiliateduniversities to coincide with the annual meeting and the Society providing support in the form ofhonoraria. The program for the 2013 annual meeting included a themed session and public lecturefeaturing Professor Alejandro PORTES (Princeton University) at the joint invitation of Hitotsubashi
University and Rikkyo University.
Thus, by incorporating research exchanges by our individual members and universities into
our Society’s annual conferences, the Society can envision a more organized research exchangewith overseas institutions. We expect these initiatives to expand even further, on account of ourSociety’s geographical situation, the stable foundation on which its operations are based, and thewealth of human potential among our young members. In spite of the recent onset of theinternationalization of our Society, we are hopeful that our members’ strengths will move us in thisnew direction, and thereby change international initiatives from being the exception to being thenorm.
3. Challenges towards the Contemporary World: Some Perspectives
From a Regional to a Globalized World
Today, as society continues to reorganize itself according to globalization, the interests ofmany sociologists have become oriented toward international and global issues. However,according to a Japanese proverb, “It is darkest at the base of a lighthouse.” This proverb cautions us
against locking our sights solely into the distance. It is important to retain an overall global
perspective, focus on local problems, and interpret the trends and significance of globalization
through local problems. Is it not an attitude cognizant of the implications of this neologism of“glocal” that is the desideratum of the sociologist?
In Japan, Kantoh is often associated with the Tokyo metropolitan area. The central
municipalities of Tokyo and Yokohama are large international cities (cf. MACHIMURA Takashi,
Toshi sekai Tōkyō no kōzō tenkan [Structural Changes of the Urban World Tokyo], 1994). After
including surrounding cities, such as Kawasaki, Yokosuka, Chiba, and Saitama, they can bereferred to as a giant “compact mega-city,” housing more than 20 million inhabitants, world-classoffice districts, numerous commercial centers, as well as one of the world’s finest Chinatowns in
the Yokohama Chukagai District. We also have the Korea Towns of Tokyo’s Okubo district and
Kawasaki. However, the social lives of the inhabitants of those places also touch upon the shadows
cast by the light of an era of globalization.
One such reality is the collapse of the traditional community. The momentum of Japan’s
industrialization from the end of the 19th century did not result in the rapid fragmentation of small
producers and the agricultural sector as in Western societies. It is notable, rather, that such sectors
were present even in 1955 on the eve of the high economic growth period, when marginally lessthan 40% of the working population were farmers and 55% were self-employed including them.

101This allowed for the survival of ties among families and relatives and local communities, and also
provided for the maintenance of urban communities of friendship and mutual assistance, as withneighborhood associations (chonaikai). In the past three decades, however, these ties have
weakened and collapsed with shocking rapidity. Professor Beck takes the “precarious freedoms” ofindividualism as one of the realities of life in our global society. In Japan, however, there has been
an increase in the number of households of the elderly and young living in isolation, and someentertain a pessimistic outlook on the arrival of a “society without ties (muen shakai)” that has lostthe relationships of territoriality and kinship.
With the advent of societies centered on the service economy, there has been a significant
increase in the labor market participation of women. The enrollment of women to higher education
surpasses that of men, with this figure in the Kantoh metropolitan area surpassing 60%. However,in social terms of gender equality, deep-rooted systems and values (norms) still present obstacles toequality. The gender-based wage gap is large, with further disparities in rates of promotion in firms,
and inadequate fluidity in the gendered division of domestic labor. The globalizing economy
continues to enhance disparities between regular and non-regular employment, and the majority ofwomen workers may be viewed as victims of such disparities. How might we move toward therealization of a society of gender equality?
Now globalization can be noticed as the emergence of multiculturalism in the local context. In
addition to the third- and fourth-generation descendants from Japan’s former colonies, Japan’s labormarket since the 1990s witnessed a large surge of workers from China and the nations of SouthAmerica and East Asia. The trend toward long-term settlement is taking hold. In particular, agrowing number of foreigners and immigrants are settling in the large cities of the Kantoh region.
Moreover, rates of marital migration are at a 20-year high, and the rate of mixed marriages between
Japanese and foreigners currently stands at 4%. In the midst of such progress, how will it bepossible for the Japanese, as a people with a relatively strong consciousness of being a“homogeneous nation,” to successfully build a harmonious coexistence?
Redefinition of the Affluent Life: Some Issues with Japanese and Asian Modes ofDevelopment
Japan, and by extension, Asia, may be “semi-peripheral” in terms of world economic andsocial development. Nevertheless, Asia is an economically dynamic area with a large population,accounting for over a quarter of the world’s GDP. However, in addition to Asia’s remarkably
unbalanced internal development, there have been a number of limitations in its attaining a certain
quality of life. By observing the workers living in the Tokyo metropolitan area, we can conclude
that they spend long working hours, with extremely meager vacation allowances compared with
Western countries. There is material affluence, but many citizens feel disquiet about their old age.
The reality of this disquiet with regard to social security is expressed in phenomena such as thedeclining birth rate. These anxieties persist, even though the demographic indicators, such as thetotal fertility rate, do not differ substantially from those in Western countries.
Considering these facts, we now suppose what a true and sustainable affluent life might be.

102

Being in possession of and effectively using a hard-working labor force with a relatively high levelof education will result in high output in terms of production. This has been an Asian feature.
However, no matter how large the flow (cash income) of these individuals becomes, there will bedisparities and individuals’ assets are not invested in improving the “quality of life” as a whole.
Since the state’s mechanisms for impartial redistribution are inadequate, the institutionalization of
welfare, social security in particular, is not progressing. In Japan’s past, the period of higheconomic growth in the 1960s resulted in health hazards and environmental destruction throughvarious instances of industrial pollution. In the Kantoh region many health problems resulted fromair pollution in the Keihin Industrial Zone. Although these pollution problems have been overcome
through technical measures and civil anti-pollution movements, development is currently fasterelsewhere in Asia and more than a few countries are now suffering from environmental destruction
because of production-related increases. It would seem to be a good idea for Japan to make its
advanced pollution prevention technologies available to these other nations. However, sinceinadequate consensus still exists within these countries over policy efforts concerning theredistribution of income, the majority of countries still remain far from the welfare state as
described above. Only since the 1960s have the majority of citizens received medical and pension
coverage under the social insurance system, even in Japan.
Although Asia’s economic growth continues to draw attention, each country needs to bear inmind the just redistribution of capital flows. Major challenges remain in the establishment of public
policies oriented towards valid spending on education, welfare, health, and basic infrastructure.
Despite the need for more time, there is no room for delays.
Sociological Reflections on Technological Supremacy
On March 11, 2011, Japan experienced a huge crisis of an unprecedented scale since its
wartime defeat in 1945. The enormous loss of life due to the violent earthquake and subsequenttsunami along the Tohoku coastline and the additional accidents and destruction at the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant had a major impact, raising concerns not only in Japan but also inneighboring countries. Sociological researchers were affected since the Kantoh area is within a 50
km to 200 km zone from the nuclear power plant. Although it is still not possible to assess orconduct surveys on the destroyed nuclear reactor or the vast area that was abandoned soon after,
this catastrophe has prompted reflections among many natural and social scientists (for a criticalconsideration by a sociologist, cf. HASEGAWA Kōichi’s Datsu genshiryoku shakai e[Toward A
Post-Nuclear-Power Society] 2011).
As is well known, Japan is the only country to have suffered the atomic bomb. Japan has
drawn on its exemplary misery and suffering to appeal continuously to the world in favor of nuclear
disarmament. However, we should reflect on the fact that it has not looked so unforgivingly at theconstruction of nuclear reactors for the “peaceful use” of nuclear power. It is true that its use of
nuclear power resulted from Japan’s recognition of itself as a resource-poor country forced to rely
on foreign countries for oil. But one might ask whether it was a surfeit of confidence in theprinciple of economic growth and technology that led to a deepening reliance on nuclear power in103

full knowledge of unresolved problems beyond anyone’s control with nuclear energy (including thedisposal of nuclear waste). Nevertheless, having pushed ahead with technological innovations andthe pride of having achieved results in several huge developments (e.g. the construction ofindustrial complexes, the Shinkansen high-speed rail, and an undersea tunnel), Japan began to
subconsciously think that any difficult problem could be resolved through the power of technology.
Notwithstanding that overconfidence in technological development had once led to industrial
pollution that eventually caused severe public health problems, it may be that confidence inresolving problems through preventative technologies that permitted the horrors of the past to beforgotten.
The experience of Fukushima taught citizens, as well as many scientists and researchers, that
nuclear power is a source of energy that cannot be completely controlled. Should its control valve
fail just once, when that energy makes its fury known the damage will be serious to a degree
beyond the possibility of response or compensation. What sociological lesson can we draw fromthis? To make people's lives safer and achieve affluence that brings balance to the spiritual andmaterial aspects of our lives, what sort of energy and technology is necessary? How should they becontrolled? In the words of Professor Anthony GIDDENS, the manner of “reflexive modernity” tobe achieved must be conceived alongside careful sociological investigation, especially into thetechnologies involved. Many citizens intend to “move away from nuclear power,” and sociology
must contribute by specifically identifying paths to accomplish this goal.
Towards New Sociological Thinking
Today’s reality is that social problems no longer have national borders. Western sociologicalresearch is also of interest to sociologists in Japan. Such situations definitely prevail in other Asian
countries as well, including the transformation of the family, aging, inequality and hierarchy,
reproduction and education, gender, sexuality, immigration and cultural change, and minority
cultures. Traditionally, social self-perception among Japanese people has been marked by anundercurrent of Japanese exceptionalism, i.e., Japanese culture possessing a peculiarity that othercultures lack. This mindset was implicit in works such as DOI Takeo’s Amae no Kozo (Anatomy ofDependence) and NAKANE Chie’s Tate-shakai no ningen kankei (Human Relations in a Top-Down
Society), in turn inspired by Ruth BENEDICT’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. However,Japanese sociologists today, particularly in the post-economic growth generation, have been criticalof the view that there is any consistent cultural pattern unique to Japan. Beyond such a priori“culturalism,” in addition to a stronger sense of sharing characteristics with other countries in social
development, a common perspective has developed on the emergence of shared sociologicalproblems. As international sociological exchanges have prospered, such views have further
strengthened. These views are also suggested by the fact that the themes discussed earlier, which
would have been peripheral to the interests of Japanese sociologists 30 years ago, have begun todraw interest today.
Currently, it seems a matter of course that researchers with specific themes propelinternational research. Since social issues have taken on a transnational quality, or else because

104research problems have come to be held in common, Japanese sociologists now travel to countries
in Asia, Europe, and North and South America. To offer two or three examples, the rise in foreign
workers in Japan from South America and Southeast Asia led to Japanese researchers traveling toconduct social background studies in the immigrant-sending countries of Brazil and the Philippines.
In addition, many family and welfare researchers have turned their interests to Northern European
countries that have achieved a high standard of welfare leading to the development of new family
lifestyles. Furthermore, environmental sociology researchers are actively engaging in exchanges
with researchers in China and South Asia. Thus, being in possession of a sufficiently comparativegaze, researchers have comparatively learned to assess the manifestation of social issues in Japan,
rather than from a culturalist position.
After the great crisis of March 11th, 2011, it is essential to pursue a theory of sustainable, just,and controllable human social development. Many sociological researchers who have visited thedisaster sites have suggested various concrete challenges for disaster response and reconstruction
from the wreckage. Some investigators have also proposed the maintenance of ties among
Fukushima's scattered inhabitants, forced to evacuate to escape the radiation damage. However, wesuspect that an even broader consensus is gradually taking shape among them. This does notassume high economic growth centered on material things, but rather the need for a concept ofsociety that chooses technologies which do not disturb the harmony between life and theenvironment and that emphasizes the just redistribution of income, or in other words, welfare.
Perhaps “sustainability” provides us with a keyword that includes the various senses of safety,
justice, environmental protection, and guaranteed satisfaction of needs. The building andtransmission of a sustainable society by Japan’s scientists, including its sociologists, is something
we believe we will bring one step closer to fruition in the future.
Contact Information
Official Site, Kantoh Sociological Society
http://kantohsociologicalsociety.jp/en-profile.html
Office, Kantoh Sociological Society
E-mail: kss-post@bunken.co.jp

105