Introduction

One of the topics I was given to report on was the mechanism with which modern Japan created minorities, and I would like to present my thoughts by placing in the center the discriminated Buraku, which has been my major topic of research.

The so-called Emancipation Edict should have abolished the senmin class of the feudal class system. The class, therefore, including eta and hinin, should have disappeared institutionally in 1871. Yet the issue of Buraku has continued to exist to this day. This paper will try and face squarely the question why the issue has persisted.

There is the question of whether Buraku discrimination is a relic from the feudal period or a creation (or a reproduction) of the modern society. In the 140 years since the Meiji Restoration, the society has undergone major changes, and the explanation that the Buraku issue alone remains unchanged, as the vestige of feudal times is unconvincing. It is more natural to perceive the form and understanding of Buraku discrimination as having been transformed in the changes of the modern society. This paper will follow the transformation process and try to find what it was that supported the existence of Buraku discrimination in the modern society. But before examining the above issues, it must be confirmed that many of the discriminated Buraku existing today are the same villages of people placed in the senmin classes, mainly the eta class, during the Middle Ages to the Edo period. Of course, there are those, which were created later after the Meiji Restoration, and in many areas, the boundary lines are shifting, but it can be recognized that the senmin class of the Middle Ages to the Edo period are at the core of the group.

It is my belief that various new additional characteristics were attributed to the group in the modern age, through which the discrimination was sustained. Buraku discrimination, at least in the modern period, was created from outside of the Buraku, namely by the eyes of society. Some of these characteristics can be listed as, lack of hygiene and hotbed of disease, which arose from the poverty which became rampant in the 1880s, as well as racial difference. After the Rice Riots and the creation of the National Leveler’s Association (Suiheisha), new ones, such as rioters, cruel, and frightening (mostly from the denunciation strategy used by the National Leveler’s Association) were added.

The Buraku issue manifests itself in many aspects today, but there is no doubt that discrimination in marriage is the most persistent aspect of the Buraku issues. Why has Buraku discrimination continued so tenaciously in marriages? The anticipated conclusion would be, that the discriminating people have been drawing an innate line between themselves and the group of Buraku people. Once such innate characteristics are there, those who were exempted from such characteristics could be safe for the rest of their lives.

“Class” in the feudal times had a role of drawing innate lines, but it was abolished by the “Emancipation Edict” in 1871. Those who wanted to maintain discrimination searched for other innate characteristics to take place of the social class, and society came up with the “difference in race.” After the idea was academically repudiated, it was taken over by characteristics based on “birth”: “difference in bloodlines,” “the blood of the family will be tarnished,” or “the social standing is different.”

Marriage, however, is the only way to unsettle the innate characteristics. For example, what happens when a person of eta class and a non-eta class marry and a child is born? Of course, what is important is the sort of identity the child would have, or how the others would see the child, but simply put, the marriage would shift and enable them to overcome the boundaries. Some States in the United States banned inter-racial marriages until 1968 to maintain the superiority of whiteness, precisely because of it.

The reason why the Buraku people are excluded in marriages even today is because for those who want to maintain the “innate” line or boundaries, marriage itself has an important function.

In this paper, discrimination, which excludes people based on such innate characteristics, will be considered as racism. (Recent research on racism include Michel WIEVIORKA, “Le Racisme, une Introduction” La Docouverte, 1998.)

I would like to introduce a section here from the novel Hakai (The Broken Commandment) by Toson Shimazaki (1906), which took up the issue of Buraku. This is a work of fiction, but as it has been revealed in preceding research, there is a model for the character in the novel, and the work gives a realistic description of the social situation around the Buraku issue in the later Meiji period, when Toson wrote the novel. Toson’s awareness of the Buraku issue, as reflected in Hakai, encompasses various problems, as it has been discussed since the times of the National Leveler’s Association. Reserving judgment on these points, however, here I would like to raise some aspects of the form of the Buraku issue in those days through the novel. 

The main character, Ushimatsu Segawa, comes from a Buraku in Nagano Prefecture. Heeding his father’s commandment, he hides the fact that he is from a Buraku, and goes to a normal school to become a teacher in an elementary school. As events unfold, there is a rumour even among the faculty members of his school that Ushimatsu is from a Buraku. Ginnosuke Tsuchiya, who is Ushimatsu’s friend since they were in the normal school, does not believe that Ushimatsu is from a Buraku, and defends him. The following is the scene from the novel.

“They say the eta have a special smell, don’t they? Maybe we could take a sniff and see?” put in the first-year teacher, smiling.

“We needn’t go that far,” said Ginnosuke, smiling in turn. “I’ve seen plenty of eta. Their skin’s darker than ours – you can tell them at a glance, and being shut out from society has made them terribly warped inside too. There’s no chance of a solid, manly character developing out of such a background, and how could one of them possibly take any interest in learning and study? Isn’t it obvious from all this what the truth is about Segawa?”*

The perception of the Buraku issue that was prevalent in the society in that period is unintentionally revealed in that scene. Namely, there is a premise that a “racial” difference including biological difference exists. And because people believed that, “there is no possibility that solid, manly character developing out” from Buraku people, let alone excel in the area of academics, Ushimatsu, who broke the commandment to confess that he was of Buraku origin, had to give up his profession as a teacher.

Of course, the premise that there is a racial difference or that Buraku people can be distinguished by looking at them is completely wrong, and is nothing but discriminatory. But it is important that such characteristics were prevalent to a certain degree in the society.

Have these perceptions disappeared completely today? If we take the 2006 Report of the Human Rights Awareness Survey of Prefectural Residents published by Shizuoka Prefecture, for example, and look at the response on questions regarding the origins of Buraku, 17.3% of the respondents chose “people of different race (ethnicity) living together.” The percentage of people choosing this response is exceptionally high in Shizuoka, but even nationally, an average of around 10% of the people do so. It means that there are that many people who think the Buraku people are literally people of a “different race (ethnicity).”

Moreover, the words used by people who try to avoid marriage with Buraku people are, that the marriage “would tarnish the family blood,” “the bloodline is different,” or “the social status is different.” These are also “innate” characteristics, and as explained below, even after the perception of “racial difference” has been discredited academically, it has been taken over by such expressions and continues to function today. We must start any research into the Buraku issue by facing squarely at this fact.

Below, I will give an overview of the Buraku issue in the modern society and approach the issue from thereon.

1. Views of “racial difference”

The Meiji Government abolished the senmin class with the “Emancipation Edict” in 1871, based on the need to show “enlightenment” in dealing with the Western powers and on the ideal of all subjects being equal under one sovereign. With the Edict, the senmin class as an institution no longer existed, but the general public felt threatened by the rise in status of the people, who were ranked below them in absolute terms under the class system, to the same rank as they were in. They invoked the concept of “uncleanness” that was attributed to the eta class during the Middle Ages to the Edo period, to exclude these people from their every day lives. These people began to be called “Shin-heimin (new common people)” and other names to distinguish them from the non-Buraku people.

The general public looked for an absolute marker by which to discriminate, to take place of the feudal class system. But in the climate of “civilization and enlightenment,” there was an atmosphere in the society mostly among intellectuals arguing for enlightenment, emphasizing equality based on the idea of inherent human rights that was introduced from the West. During this period, Buraku discrimination was considered “customs of the past,” that should be replaced by “enlightenment,” namely, by equality, which it implicated. Under these circumstances, at this stage, there were no new markers for new discrimination against Buraku people, except the “uncleanness” brought back from the previous age. But even in those days, when there was a conflict between Buraku and non-Buraku people, those in power would almost always confirm the arguments of the non-Buraku people, and therefore the principle of the “Emancipation Edict” became nothing but empty words.

With the Matsukata deflation starting in 1881, the situation changed further. Namely, new markers such as “lack of hygiene” and “hotbed of diseases” were attributed to the Buraku people, from the phenomenal aspect of the Buraku as a result of the worsening economic difficulties, as well as the epidemic of cholera. The perceptions overlap with the view towards the lower levels of urban society, but for the Buraku people, a further marker of “racial difference” was added.

The theory, that the Buraku people originated from a different ethnic group, can be seen as early as the Middle Ages, but because it was put forward by the anthropologists, who came together in the beginning of modern Japanese anthropology, the theory was given anthropological “academic credentials” and the “racial difference” marker gradually began to spread in the society.

The interest of the academics, who came to the Society of Anthropology established in 1884 was directed towards discovering similarities and differences between “Japanese” and the peoples of Ainu and Okinawa, as it concentrated into disputes regarding the stone age. It was not only the people like those of Ainu and Ryukyu, who found themselves on the borderlines at the time the Japanese territory was being decided, that were targets of the line-drawing between “ourselves ” and “them,” but also the Buraku people, who should have been included within the “Japanese.”

As far as I know, the earliest Buraku surveys by anthropologists seem to be those of around 1886-7. Kansuke Fujii published an article titled, “Eta wa Takoku-jin naru beshi (Eta is a Foreigner)” in Tokyo Jinruigaku Zasshi (The Bulletin of the Tokyo Anthropological Society), presuming that the people who came from the Korean peninsula and have become naturalized were the ancestors of the race called eta in those days (Tokyo Jinruigaku Zasshi Vol. 10, February 1886).

As seen above, although it could only be based on assumptions upon assumptions and hardly substantial, why did people seek to find boundaries between the “Japanese” and the Buraku people? It was probably because it was necessary to have some reasons for excluding these people from the “nationals,” or treat them as second-class “nationals” in creating a nation-state. Of course, “assimilation” to “Japanese nationals” was promoted for peoples of Ainu and Okinawa, but by seeing the people of Buraku as being like these peoples and not “Japanese,” they could achieve the justification that allowed them to exclude them from the “Japanese nationals.” In other words, it enabled the non-Buraku public to recognize themselves as “normal Japanese,” or reaffirm their identity as “Japanese.”

After 10 or more years, a method of measuring bones was adopted, further consolidating the boundary line by giving it a scientific appearance.

Ryuzo Torii, a prominent anthropologist visited a Buraku in Harima County, Hyogo Prefecture and conducted a survey of 8 residents, including “detailed physical examination” and photographs of each one of them. As in surveys for categorizing “race,” that was popular in those days, measurements of skull and cheek bones were taken. According to the Hinode Shinbun newspaper, which reported on it, the survey concluded that the residents “most resembled the ‘Maleo-Polynesian’ race indigenous to the Malay archipelago and Polynesian islands, and not in the form of Mongoloid race” based on the four factors; protruding cheek bones, lack of Mongoloid folds, narrow width of the head, and handlebar moustache. The result is reported to have been “similar” to another survey also conducted by Torii in a Buraku in Myodo County, Tokushima Prefecture in the previous year, indicating that numerous similar surveys were conducted during this period.(“Eta no Jinruigaku Chosa (Anthropological Survey of Eta), Hinode Shinbun, February 1898). Incidentally, Torii believed that the Japanese consisted of Mongoloids and Malayans, and that the Buraku people were included in the latter, therefore, his intent was to included the Buraku people within the boundaries of the Japanese. But at least according to the Hinode Shinbun article, that premise was missing, and placing all the Buraku people among the Malay race, which was considered to be less civilized than the Mongoloids, was fraught with problems.  

Moreover, such perceptions were reported by the newspaper media, with the academic appearance of anthropology, and were spread among the broad public.

With this development, the society acquires a marker of “race,” which could function sufficiently in place of the feudal class system, to exclude the Buraku people and securing peace and security for the non-Buraku people. In 1898, the Meiji Civil Code was promulgated, and the ie (family) system gradually took root among the public. The people of the Buraku, who were seen as “racially different” and unclean, were excluded further from the “family line” through marriage exclusions. The above mentioned Hakai was written during these circumstances. 

2. Establishment and spread of racism

A further push to spread the perception of racial difference in the level of the general public was provided by the Buraku improvement policy initiated by the government after the Russo-Japanese War in its movement for community improvement. By advancing itself the theory of racial origins for Buraku people, the government gave official sanction to racism. Many advocates of the racial theory took the view that Buraku people originally were from Korea, and at the same time, the tokushu Buraku (special Buraku), a term used by the government, also began to take root. Being racially different, or “special” actually meant hotbed of crime, or emphasized difference in characteristics, such as being lazy, cruel, lacking in sense of hygiene, even at times indicating physiological difference such as in reproductive organs.

The earliest of such works was a pamphlet published by Mie Prefecture in 1907 titled Tokushu Buraku Kaizen no Kogai (Outline of the Improvement of the Special Buraku), which called the group of Buraku people “ethnic group,” and under the heading “ancestors,” listed the Korean origin theory among others. The pamphlet is notable as one of the examples in which the Prefectural authorities explicitly advanced the racial origin theory and the Tokushu (special) in the title of the report really means the difference in characteristics, customs and physiology that was supposed to arise based on “race.”

Following Mie Prefecture, which began its policy in 1905, the Buraku improvement policy initiated in different parts of the country mainly focused on the 4 points below. 

First, even before this period, the Buraku was seen as a hotbed for acute infectious diseases such as cholera and trachoma, and the unhygienic conditions as well as the moral corruption was considered problematic, therefore the policies aimed to improve the customs and practices in the daily lives. Second, because of the low economic status of the Buraku, there were many whose tax payments were in arrears, and improvement was needed in this aspect, also to emphasize the objective of the movement for community improvement, eliminating tax arrears. Third, in the demand for improvement in school attendance rate, the non-attendance and long-term absence from school prevalent in the Buraku due to economic difficulties and discrimination was seen as a problem. Fourth, the Buraku was seen as a hotbed of crime and therefore prevention was needed. Buraku improvement policies were first initiated in 1905 in Mie Prefecture under Governor Hideyoshi Arimatsu. Having held the post of director of security in the Ministry of Interior before becoming Governor, he had recognized the need for Buraku improvement initially for the purpose of crime prevention.

Similar to the movement for community improvement in general, the spiritualistic Buraku improvement policies that were implemented in the period may have seemed to have some effect, but could not provide a fundamental improvement, and it was inevitable that disparities with non-Buraku people remained in various aspects including economic levels and living standards. And for that reason, the Buraku was given a new status as an obstacle in the movement for community improvement, which promoted competition among municipalities. This added a new factor to exclude Buraku as something “special.” The Buraku improvement policies did expect “improvement” of the Buraku as the name suggested, but on the other hand, it created a perception that because the Buraku people were a “special” ethnic group, not much improvement could be expected. Buraku, therefore, presupposed exclusion, but was in a delicate position between integration and exclusion.

The perception of Buraku was formed with the “bloodline” at its core, surrounded by the actual conditions of customs, hygiene and practices, and the poor conditions were explained almost always with the “racial” characteristics. However, in Japan, not only genetics but also an environmental factor of “cultivation of the mind” can be found in “racial improvement” itself, and that is probably the reason why Buraku improvement policies were implemented, and the “cultivation of the mind” of the Buraku people called for. Nevertheless, as long as the “racial” characteristics” are seen as grounds for issues involved with Buraku, once improvement finds itself in an impasse, the prospects for “improvement” becomes immediately desperate. The Buraku would become a burden for the efforts by municipalities in the competition to show the results of the “improvement,” and the reintegration of the nation, which the government intended to achieve through the movement for community improvement, further consolidated the exclusion of the Buraku.

The discourse of “racial difference” was effective in providing cover for the inadequacies of the government policies, and shifting the problems involving Buraku onto the people of the Buraku themselves. For the government, at the stage when the situation was already regressing, the principle of equality included in the idea of “enlightenment” could be more advantageously used to consolidate the boundary lines than to promote equality for the Buraku people for the reasons given above, and that was probably how it was used.  Forcing the “assimilation” in the sense of creating a “nation” that could achieve the objectives raised by the movement for community improvement resulted instead to highlight the difference.

Conclusion – from the First World War to the present

In the 1910s, the people of the Buraku gradually began to raise their voices against the naming of tokushu Buraku and the perception of “racial difference” that was inseparable from it. Movements questioning the social perception developed in response from the non-Buraku people. Also, from a need to unify the Japanese Empire including the Taiwan and Korean colonies, the idea arose that the unification would not be possible if they could not even “reconcile” with the Buraku people who had existed within the Empire. This called for a revision of past attitudes on the society’s side, and the conspicuous arguments pointing out to biological differences with regard to Buraku people began to retreat. The trend was accelerated when the historian, Sadakichi Kita, who was influenced by the situation, clarified the error of the theory of racial origin of Buraku people through history.

But racism shifted its focus from biological to cultural differences, while, as mentioned above, the difference by “birth” changed to “bloodlines” and “social status” to survive, and continued to function to draw lines for exclusion. During the war, in particular, the unification of the Empire became the slogan for a “unified nation,” and increased importance in executing the war. In the discussions on Japanese ethnicity, the multi-ethnic theories in which the inclusion of the people of the Buraku as well as the colonies was possible, became more mainstream than the homogenous ethnicity theory,   

However, it is not necessary to wait for Etienne Balibar to point out the reciprocal relationship between racism and nationalism; the relation between the imperial system as a key factor of nationalism and Buraku discrimination has been pointed out a number of times. The imperial system is based on the idea of bloodlines, bansei-ikkei (single dynasty), which leads to the exclusion of the Buraku people. Jiichiro Matsumoto’s words, “where there is nobility, there is a low class” may seem out of date today, but they aptly describe the situation. And 60 years after the war, we still cannot overcome even that, and we face the risk of being caught in something more deeply nationalistic.