JAPAN IN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
13
work on Japanese achievement training and motivation has assumed an
anthropological scope and cogency.
A special problem of disciplinary relationships exists with respect to the
work of Japanese scholars. Japanese sociologists (e.g., Sasaki 1969) claim
jurisdiction over kinship (dozoku) studies and the community study tradi-
tion (as represented by Fukutake and Suzuki, for example), while Americans
and some Japanese social anthropologists claim that these two fields of
research are anthropology. Thus it is impossible to discuss anthropological
work on Japan without referring to other disciplines. A Japanese social
anthropologist can study kinship abroad and have the work regarded as
anthropology, but if he does the same kind of research in a Japanese village
it will be sociology (see Sofue 1969). The reason for this situation is that
social anthropology is a postwar phenomenon in Japan; before World War
II, social anthropological studies were fostered by sociology.
Behavior Science and Institutional Social Science
In contrast with the recency of the effort in behavior science stands the
work of historians, economists, and political scientists. Three generations
of Westerners and their Japanese colleagues wrote on Japanese social,
political, and culture history; writings in economic history and development
have a duration of two generations. These fields thus have an impressive
scholarly backlog; problems have been patiently pursued and replicated for
many years, and whole bodies of interpretive thought about the nature of
Japanese society and polity have emerged. The work was carried on by
distinguished amateurs as well as professionals; the Transactions of the
Asiatic Society of Japan contain many examples. Some of the best scholar-
ship in the Transactions is anthropological in the sense of being the folk-
Ioristic study of customs and ideas (e.g., Casal 1940), a field no longer
especially popular in anthropology and already passe" by the late 1940’s.
Among contemporary Western scholars, Marvin Opler, Edward Norbeck,
and Douglas Haring have carried on the tradition; among the Japanese,
Eichiro Ishida (see references).
The question is whether or not the work of behavior scientists can, or
should, accumulate in the manner evident for other disciplines mentioned
above. The topics covered by behavior scientists are much more hetero-
geneous: they often exhibit a tendency to set forth into little-known by-ways,
and whole subjects are abandoned along the way. Will anyone further
explore the topic of leisure after Plath (1964)? Have DeVos and Mizushima
(1967) said all there is to say about gangs? Will a continuing study of migra-
tion differentials be made by sociologists and social anthropologists? Some
topics are being followed up: the buraku, kinship and descent, nepotism
and occupational opportunities, achievement orientations. However, such
topics are mostly within sociological or Sociopsychological frames of refer-