Sociology from 1.17 to 3.11: Tension between Theory and Reality
Kansai Sociological Association
The Kansai Sociological Association was founded over 60 years ago, principally bysociologists in the Kansai region of Japan. Today, with over 900 members it is one of Japan’s top
active multidisciplinary academic societies.
History
The first meeting of the Kansai Sociological Association was held at Kyoto University on
Sunday, June 11, 1950. Two sociologists were the main contributors to the formation of theassociation: USUI Jisho of Kyoto University, and KURAUCHI Kazuta of Osaka University.
Professor Usui was the association’s first representative (later called “Chairperson”), and Professor
Kurauchi was its second.
The association’s Bylaws were set out and put into effect on May 26, 1956. The rules for board
selection were set out and put into effect on October 26, 1957. Initially, the rules for board selection
stipulated that the board consist of: one Chairperson (currently called “President”); two members ofa managing committee (these are currently called “managing directors”); 18 committee members(currently called “directors”); and two Auditors. From 1974 to 2000, the maximum size of the board
was 22 directors. From 2000 until recently, the number was 20 (19 elected directors and one
secretary for administrative affairs). As of May 24, 2012, however, the maximum size of the board
is 19 members (15 elected directors, and four commissioned directors). In 2011, administrative
affairs were contracted to an outside party. The association started in 1956 with 297 members (ofwhom 76 attended the association’s first meeting). By 1974, this number had grown to 388
members, to 835 by 2000, and to over 900 (921) by 2004—a number which has been maintained tothe present day.
The association’s research activities have grown over the years. The second meeting of the
Kansai Sociological Association (held at Doshisha University in 1951) only lasted for one day, andconsisted of four sessions and 25 presentations, but the 25th meeting (held at Kagawa University in1974) lasted for two days, and consisted of six sessions, one symposium, one key session, and 34
presentations. The 50th meeting of the association (held at Kansai University in 1999) lasted for twodays and consisted of 14 sessions, one general symposium, four mini-symposia, and 79
presentations. Currently, the 63rd meeting (held at Kogakkan University in 2012) lasted for twodays, and consisted of 19 sessions (including two planning sessions for young sociologists), one
symposium, and 73 presentations (the symposium format was adopted at the association’s tenthmeeting, held at Aichi University in 1959). To improve the objectivity of the association’s research,
it began publication of Foramu Gendaishakaigaku (the Kansai Sociological Review) in 2002. The
review’s 12th issue was published in 2013.
The nature of the association’s research has also changed over time. In the 1950s, the79association’s theoretical research focused on community theory, social control theory, masscommunication theory, theories of Robert M. MacIVER, Max WEBER, George H. MEAD, andTalcott PARSONS, while experience-based research and surveys focused on such topics as ruralcommunities (farming, fishing, and mountain villages), families (the Ie), the city, andhisabetsu-buraku (discriminated-communities). The topics of the association’s first two symposia(held in 1959) were “Community” and “Quantification of Social Phenomena.” In the 1960s and1970s, the focuses of the association’s symposia and key sessions were as follows. Theoreticalresearch focused on sociology and adjacent disciplines (geography and anthropology), Weberiansociology, and developments in sociological theory, while the focuses of experience andevidence-based research included social stratification, the modern family, industrialization andchanges in local communities, changes in labor, social change and social movements, social
pathology, urbanization and social issues, and modern society and religion. The focuses of theassociation’s general presentations during these decades were as follows. Theoretical research
focused on such topics as Ralf DAHRENDORF, Alvin GOULDNER, Georges GURVITCH,
Alfred SCHUTZ, Alain TOURAINE, functionalism, structuralism, social exchange theory, theories
of deviance, and symbols, meaning, and information, while experience-based research focused onsuch topics as theories of the family (including the traditional family). One unique area ofexperience-based research is the Sen’yukai (a private association of ex-soldiers of the Imperial
Japanese Army and Navy).
In the 1980s and 1990s the theoretical topics focused on at the symposia and key sessions
included the themes of “Thinking about Sociology” (1984-86) and “Modernity in History”(1993-95), which were each dealt with for three consecutive years, as well as social structure
concepts, sociology of literature, sociology of knowledge, sociology of time, sociology of life anddeath, the body and society, sociological propositions, and points of contention in sociologicaltheories. Experience-based topics include industrialization and families/local communities, theconcept of regional spheres, sociology of cities, social change in contemporary Japan, ethnicity,
information, and youth problems. In particular, reports were vigorously issued about the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake that occurred on January 17, 1995, including at a symposium (1996), a
key session (1998) and at two ordinary sessions (1996). Moreover, in commemoration of theassociation’s 50th meeting (1999) a general symposium entitled “The Applicability of Sociology”
was held, as were four mini-symposia [on experiential research on crime, discipline, clinicalsociology, and“modernology (study of modern social phenomena)”of knowledge]. General reports
have dealt with theories and doctrines by and on Weber, Emile DURKHEIM, Georg SIMMEL,
Marcel MAUSS, Georges BATAILLE, Parsons, Schütz, Erving GOFFMAN, Pierre BOURDIEU,
Niklas LUHMANN, Jurgen HABERMAS, Michel FOUCAULT, postmodernism, Norbert ELIAS,
interaction, labeling theory, and ethnomethodology. Experiences and research that have been dealt
with include Toyota surveys, quantitative analyses, social history, religion, family, gender, feminism,
the elderly, and bullying.
In the 2000s, theory-based symposia and roundtables have been held on such themes as the
Chicago School, clinical sociology, the role of sociology, deductive sociology, contemporary80

capitalism, symposia on “Teaching Sociology” that were held for three years in a row, andconstructionism. Experience-based themes have included social research, ethnicity, crime, modern
families, youth culture, urban culture (Osaka), generational theories, the frontlines of medical care,
Japan as a part of Asia, oral history, the meaning of “Being A-bombed”, enviromedia, inclusion andexclusion (ethnic identity), violence, and discrimination in labor. Social researchers’ forums werealso held two times (2006 and 2007). For the theories and doctrines in the general reports, issues thathave been taken up include Weber, Simmel, Karl MARX, Mauss, Bataille, José ORTEGA yGASSET, Walter BENJAMIN, NAKAI Masakazu, Parsons, Habermas, Luhmann, Anthony
GIDDENS, Bourdieu, Goffman, Jeffrey ALEXANDER, Foucault, Zygmunt BAUMAN,
Emmanuel LEVINAS, self theory, sociology of the body, body technique, risk society,ethnomethodology, and reflexivity. Issues taken up for experiences and research include social
research methods, class, industry and management, cities (earthquake reconstruction), the family(married couples, childcare, foster parents, etc.), social pathology, welfare, the elderly,
discrimination, gender, NEETs and freeters, media and communication, the Internet, culture(traditional performing arts, festivals, manga, rock music, ballet, music, film, etc.), religion,
historical sociology, and comparative sociology.
Present (Major Concerns)
1. Focus of the Association’s Meetings
The symposia, key sessions, theme sessions, and round tables held over the past 60-some years
have been held on 92 themes, of which the most common of these have been related to thediscipline of sociology and its applicability (24 themes). Such themes include “Sociology and
Adjacent Disciplines: Geology and Anthropology” from the 1960s, three consecutive themes under“Thinking about Sociology” from the 1980s (“Measurement, Observation, and Interpretation ofSocial Phenomena,” “Everyday Experience and Theory,” and “Proposals for Actual Problems”),
and “The Applicability of Sociology: What Can Sociology Do?” and “Sociology as Discipline: Its
Identity and Capacity” from the 1990s. Then in the 2000s there was “Crises in Contemporary
Society and the Role of Sociology: From a Perspective of Simple Sociologism” and a three-yearseries on “Teaching Sociology,” which namely included the themes of “On Sociology Textbooks,”“On Methods for the Education of Sociology,” and “Imaging Sociology: Its Future.” Theassociation continuously carries out doctrinal and theoretical immanent debates regarding theacademic (disciplinary) nature of sociology as well as expansive debates at the social and practicallevels over sociology’s applications, meaning, roles, and education to put sociology’s possibilities
into perspective.
Second, it has focused attention on themes related to community (11 themes). These include
the conceptual debate entitled “About Community” from the 1950s; “Urbanization and Social
Problems,” “Water and Villages,” and “Transformations of Local Communities” from the 1970s,“The Idea of Regional Spheres and Sociology: Case of the Tokai District” from the 1980s, and“Possibilities of Urban Culture: Osaka as Seen from Cultural Sociology” in the 2000s, among others.
81Such studies have been oriented towards attempting to take up the changes and cultures of urban
and rural areas in a straightforward manner in regions that are related to the association, such as
Shikoku, Kansai, and Tokai.
Third are the themes on industrialization (seven themes). The dynamic relationships between
industrialization and workers, families, and local communities have been taken up as issues throughthemes like “Traditional Industry” in the 1960s, “Workers’ Attitudes and Behaviors Accompanying
Changes to the Industrial Structure” and “The Task of Industrial Sociology” in the 1970s, and“Family Pathology and Family Social Welfare Accompanying Industrialization: From International
Comparisons” and “Industry and Local Community” in the 1980s.
Fourth are the themes pertaining to ethnicity, family, and kinship (four to five themes). These
include themes from three years in a row under “Japanese Society and Ethnicity” in the 1990s(“Rethinking Japan in the Borderless Age” from the second year and “Toward a Sociology ofEthnicity in Japan” from the third year); “Sociology of Ethnicity” in the 2000s; “Contemporary
Japanese Family Trends,” “Family Problems and Family Sociology,” and “The Dozoku Village in
Korea: Case of Naegok-ri Gyeongsangnam-do” in the 1960s-70s, as well as “Fluctuations in theModern Family and Parent-Child Relationships” in the 2000s. Through these the association has
analyzed the social, economic, and cultural circumstances of foreign workers, Koreans in Japan,
nikkei Brazilians (Brazilians of Japanese descent), and other groups within Japanese society. It has
also debated such topics as family problems, the transformation of families, parent-childrelationships, reproductive techniques, and children’s human rights.
And finally, of course, there is the theme of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. “TheGreat Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake: The Real Image Seen by Sociologists” (1996), “TheHanshin-Awaji Earthquake” I and II (general reports; 1996), and “The Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake
III: What Was Seen after Three Years” (1998), and other themes were intensively debated (refer to“Initiatives since 3.11” below).
Kansai Sociological Association
2. The Accreditation System for Social Researchers and the Kansai Sociological Association
Social researcher is a qualification bestowed by the Japanese Association for Social Research.
It is given to people who are acknowledged as having both research and analytical capabilities
related to qualitative and quantitative social research, as well as the ability to accurately point out
problems with existing research and propose measures for improving upon these.
This section will clearly delineate the significant role played by the Kansai Sociological
Association and the universities with which its members are affiliated in the establishment of theJapanese Certification Board for Social Researcher, which was the predecessor to the Japanese
Association for Social Research that currently turns out social researchers in large numbers. In fact,
the Kansai Sociological Association and the universities with which its members are affiliatedplayed a leading role in the history leading up to the establishment of the qualification program forsocial researchers in Japan. It would not be going too far to say that the idea for social researcher
qualifications originated from Kansai.
At the Kansai Sociological Association’s Board of Directors’ Meeting held on May 27, 2000 a82

report entitled “Review Report on Social Researcher Programs (1)” was submitted by the committee
to review programs for social researchers and credit transfer system. To begin with, the report
pointed out that starting from around the middle of the 1990s the universities with which membersof the Kansai Sociological Association were associated had begun establishing social researcher
programs one after the other. The first ones to institute these in FY1995 were the School ofSociology at Kwansei Gakuin University and the Faculty of Sociology at Nara University. Spurred
on by these pioneering attempts, the next year in FY1996 the Faculty of Sociology at St. Andrew’s
University, the Faculty of Sociology at Shikoku Gakuin University, and the School of Human
Sciences at Osaka University launched researcher programs. Afterwards, by FY2000 such programs
had been launched one after another by the College of Social Sciences at Ritsumeikan University,
the Faculty of Sociology at Ryukoku University, and the School of Humanities and Social Sciences
at Nagoya City University.
Next, the report introduced the accreditation procedures at these universities. Though somedegree of discrepancies was observed with these depending on the university, these demonstrated
the commonalities in their underlying frameworks in the sense that they combined lectures withpractice related to both quantitative and qualitative research and had the researchers prepare research
papers. It clearly specified that this formed the foundation for the social researcher program of today.
As this demonstrates, the universities with which the members of the Kansai Sociological
Association are affiliated devised and implemented researcher programs that were unique to eachindividual university, with the Kansai Sociological Association serving as the stage from which theirexperiences were mutually shared as improvements were repeatedly made to these. The Japan
Sociological Society also held debates on numerous occasions with a view toward launching such a
program, but Kansai was quick to put this idea into practice and amassed invaluable experience.
This in turn contributed enormously to the reviews by the special committee of the Japan
Sociological Society that were carried out starting from 2001.
In addition, this report also mentions the response to these programs from the Japan
Sociological Society from back then as well as the Kansai Sociological Association’s position in
response to this. According to the report, even though there had been an emerging awareness of theneed for such a program in the Japan Sociological Society back then in 2000, it reveals that there
was little in the way of proactive approval for this at the time, and in fact there were even dissenting
opinions against it. For this reason, two courses of action that the Kansai Sociological Association
could potentially take were laid out. Based on a determination that the situation regarding the review
by the Japan Sociological Society was fluid, the Kansai Sociological Association considered plans
for two scenarios: one in which the Japan Sociological Society responded quickly and one in which
it responded slowly. In other words, if the Japan Sociological Society had moved to launch an
accreditation program for social researchers with urgency then the association would have abided bythis program, but the Kansai Sociological Association indicated its resolve to take the lead inlaunching its own program should the society not move on this. This hints at the association’s ardentdesire to strive to provide accreditation so as to ensure that this program did not just end with its
separate implementation at the universities with which the society members were affiliated, but that83

it be elevated to the level where it would gain recognition throughout society. In actuality a synopsis
of the Kansai Sociological Association accreditation program for social researchers was reported in
specific terms with regard to the curriculum, accreditation methods and the procedures required inorder to establish the program.
As this indicates, the Kansai Sociological Association showed exceptionally proactive efforts
towards the establishment of an accreditation program for social researchers. The feeling is that thisultimately served as one of the factors that prompted the Japan Sociological Society to rapidly move
forward with a review starting from the latter half of the year 2000. What is more, because they had
experience with these sorts of pioneering trial runs, the sociology faculties and sociology
departments at the universities in Kansai did not hesitate when it came time to launch a nationwide
program, but rather were able to merge their own programs in with this.
Messages to the WorldIn this section the Kansai Sociological Association would like to present the messages that haveoriginated through its activities in conjunction with the themes of its recent symposia. One of theseis a disciplinary message that pertains to elucidating theoretical issues with sociology and refining
methods of sociological research, which can be seen in its themes of “‘Restitution’ of Deductive
Sociology” (2009) and “Survey Research and Data Archives” (2011).
Other serious, global messages that it attempts to convey relate to overall systems, cultural
conditions, the actual state of labor and employment, as well as experience, the body, and emotions.
Examples of these messages include “A New Sociological Perspective for Understanding
Capitalism Today: In Search of another Economy and Society” (2011), “The Aporia of Inclusion andExclusion: Ethnic Identities in Multicultural Society” (2009), “Discrimination and Exclusion in the
Field of Employment,” “How should We Think about ‘Being A-bombed’ Now?: From the
Perspective of the Sociology of War-Experience”(2008), “ Violence and Human Beings”(2010),
and others.
How should we think about the unique characteristics of sociology as a discipline? This is adifficult question. However, the association has presented the issue in the form of a “deductive
sociology.” Sociology does not consist merely of simple descriptions of social phenomena, butrather it is an endeavor to analyze and explain phenomena based upon postulated presuppositions of
one form or another. It does not make a show of offering commentary in a smart (intriguing) manner
for the myriad topics that come welling up one after another through the use of ad hoc notions. As
Durkheim once said, sociology can only derive its authority as a discipline once it has been refined
through strict methodologies, conceptual equipment, and logical procedures, rather than being
extravagantly praised by the masses. Simply put, whether sociology is causal, functional, or
structural, it must provide “explanations.” As opposed to the assertions made by this deductive
sociology, there is also a form of sociology that emphasizes “interpretations” of its practitioners’
subjective meanings, the intentions of those involved, and historical and cultural meanings at themacro social level. Some also take the stance that it is sociology’s straightforward task to offer
84

“thick description,” so to speak, which thoroughly explores social phenomena, even going so far as
to delve in-depth into their underlying contexts. The message that the Kansai Sociological
Association would like to convey is that reflection on the tension and opposition between“explanation” and “interpretation,” and between the “autonomous development of logic” and the“continuous observation and description of facts” is what prompts sociology’s dynamic evolution.
Therefore, in this case there are high expectations being placed on both of these stances when it
comes to enhancing systems for collecting, storing, publicizing, and utilizing basic data. The KansaiSociological Association was ahead of its time in conveying this fact (refer to the “accreditation
program for social researchers” mentioned above).
Sociology must not only be deeply involved in theoretical sculpting and polishing, but mustalso be channeled towards analyzing and resolving practical challenges related to changes in society
and its various aspects. We have transitioned from modern-day industrial capitalism to a
post-industrial capitalism (or financial capitalism), and as such labor, consumption and employment
have turned more into sociological concepts than economic ones. The risks contingent upon financeand consumption have permeated out to every aspect of our daily lives, with instability inemployment also emerging. Solutions are being pursued particularly to issues like the exclusion ofand discrimination against the working poor and temporary workers in the workplace as urgent
sociological problems that must be addressed.
Furthermore, sociologists are being called upon to solve the so-called concrete, physical,
experiential, as well as cultural and semantic problem. This includes inclusion and exclusion
between ethnic groups in multicultural circumstances, the experiences of the hibakusha (A-bomb
survivors), violence at various different levels and in different spheres and circumstances, such as
interpersonal violence, family and group violence, and also wars and riots. The Kansai Sociological
Association has actively faced up to these sorts of actual challenges and is coming to grips withthem head-on.
The Kansai Sociological Association’s Initiatives since 3.11
The Great East Japan Earthquake not only featured damage at an extensive scale over awide-ranging stricken region but also caused a nuclear disaster, on top of which prospects forrecovering from the disaster have still not come clearly into focus. This has raised questions about
whether there is anything that sociology can do under such circumstances.
In fact, similar questions had already been raised by the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake that
occurred in 1995. This incident prompted a fundamental re-think of Japanese post-war society itself
through the current state of restoration and reconstruction following the earthquake. What is more,
new problem areas in sociology came to be recognized through the experience of the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake.
“Hanshin” refers to an area interposed between the two major cities of Osaka and Kobe, whichcontains numerous universities such as Kobe University, Kwansei Gakuin University, and Konan
University. Accordingly, a large number of teaching faculty and graduate school students and the85like from universities that were damaged by the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake are found among
the members of the Kansai Sociological Association. Because university students and teachingfaculty members had fallen victim to the earthquake, these stricken universities threw themselves
into earthquake research wholeheartedly. In response to this, the Kansai Sociological Association
held three rounds of symposia related to the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake over three years
beginning in 1996. The themes of these respective symposia were “The Real Image Seen by
Sociologists,” “How Were People Evacuated and Rescued?” and “What Was Seen After Three Years(Since the Earthquake)”. Furthermore, while this is not directly related to the association’s activities,
a total of three volumes of Hanshin-Awaji Daishinsai no Shakaigaku (Sociology of the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, Showado 1999) were published based on the results of these.
New perspectives in sociology were produced out of these sorts of activities, on the basis ofwhich research subjects were also constructed.
To begin with, new volunteer undertakings are receiving attention and people have started
exploring ways of structuring new forms of social solidarity in contemporary societies, while thephrase “multicultural coexistence” has come to be used as a keyword that guides and shapes thisnew solidarity. Furthermore, since the disaster destroyed spaces and the environment, it gave rise todebates concerning how best to go about regenerating public spaces. As such, it has illuminated theissue of how earthquakes should be remembered.
The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake also provided an opportunity to firmly entrench the term“risk” within sociology. Solidarity that fears of risk produce conceals fundamental, underlying
disparities. The very development that has been promoted in Japan in the post-war era has inherently
been a process of restructuring disparities between regions and classes, and the nuclear accident at
the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Reactor can be thought of as a consequence of this. This
demonstrates the fact that solidarity in and of itself is difficult in modern societies. Moreover, it hints
at the danger of having disaster reconstruction serve as a process for newly validating regional
disparities through the state’s leadership.
In 2012 the association held a symposium entitled “Sociology of ‘Prior to March 11’: From theGreat Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake to the Great Tohoku Earthquake” based upon the Great East Japan
Earthquake that occurred in 2011. The reason why the association ventured to title it “Prior to March11” and not “After March 11” derives from an awareness of issues that posits that knowledge forreading closely into the period “After March 11” exists among the sociological research from “Prior
to March 11.” To be specific, the symposium reaffirmed the new problem areas that were clearlyrecognized at the time of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. Based upon this, it then attempted topose sociological questions regarding the relationship between disasters and contemporary society
from the two issues of the transformation of social systems in Japan and new research subjects andtheoretical ideas in sociology.
The report from the symposium was published in Volume 12 of the Kansai Sociological
Review (2013), the debate from which can be summarized in the two points below.
1. Transformation of social systems in Japan: As social systems change, so too do modalities
for reconstruction when disasters occur. The transformation of social systems and its relationship86with disasters will be taken up along both macro and micro dimensions.
On the micro dimension, as there were no “socio-cultural devices” to reference with regard to
the tsunami, how the affected areas were responding was taken up. Next, on the macro dimension,
there have been clear qualitative changes in the problems caused by a disaster, from the perspectivethat by 2000, Japan had formed a society based on sophisticated systems that operate over wide
areas.
2. New topics of research and conceptualization of theory in sociology: Changes in Japan’ssocial systems have created awareness of new topics of study for sociology. There is also an urgent
need to build new theories in order to recognize reality.
The loss of communities gives rise countless “lost souls.” In place of religious rituals, there has
been a construction rush for memorial facilities. There have been advances in research that takes thisup as a field called “Sociology of Memory.” The preservation of disaster wreckage, from the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake to the Great East Japan Earthquake, has been taken up from theperspective of Sociology of Memory.
There has been recent debate on the concept of risk, and the concept of a “safe and securesociety” as used in government and other quarters. These concepts have hidden the collapse ofmodern society and hindered building a theoretical framework for analyzing social change.
Researchers have observed how disasters have been incorporated into sociological theory byfocusing not on the “symbolic,” which creates solidarity, but rather on the “diabolic,” which
promotes division.
The road to recovery in the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake will be long anddifficult. New questions are arising about how sociology should approach this. The KansaiSociological Association remains deeply committed to finding answers to these questions.
As described above, the Kansai Sociological Association has built upon its history to develop
new fields of research through its academic conferences, and act as a driving force in the creation of
the accreditation system for social researchers. The Kansai Sociological Association will build upon
the foundation of its achievements, communicating forward-looking messages on sociologicaltheory and practice, and identifying the challenges in the post-3/11 world from the sociologicalexperiences of 1/17.
References
Kansai Sociological Association, 1975, Kansaishakaigakkai no Ayumi: Soritsu 25 Shunen wo Kinen
shite (The Development of Kansai Sociological Association: The 25th Anniversary of theFoundation).
Kansai Sociological Association, 2000, Kansaishakaigakkai no Ayumi: Soritsu 50 Shunen wo Kinen
shite (The Development of Kansai Sociological Association: The 50th Anniversary of theFoundation).
Kansai Sociological Association, 2002-2013, Foramu Gendaishakaigaku (Kansai Sociological
Review), Vols. 1-12.

87

Committee on Messages
ONO Michikuni
MIYAMOTO Koji
KATAGIRI Shinji
OGINO Masahiro
Contact Information
Official Site, Kansai Sociological Association
http://www.ksac.jp/
Office, Kansai Sociological Association
E-mail: KanshaOffice@gmail.com

88