Program

1. MC Opening Remarks

Joseph Hankins (PhD candidate, Chicago University)

2. Welcome

Tomonaga Kenzo (Director of BLHRRI)

3. Comprehensive Report on the Workshop

Hirasawa Yasumasa (Professor, Osaka University)

4. Panel Reports

1) The Social Mechanisms that Produce Minorities

John Davis, Jr. (Assistant Professor, Michigan State University)

2) Changing Identities of Minorities

Uchida Ryushi  (Researcher, BLHRRI)

3) The Role of the Minority Middle Class

Lee Kayoung  (Researcher, BLHRRI)

<Break>

5.  Q and A, Discussion

Hirasawa Yasumasa, Coordinator

6.  Summary

7.  MC Concluding Remarks

Kumamoto Risa (Lecturer, Kinki University)

Summary Report on the International Workshop on Present Day Buraku Issues

We have had very intensive discussions during the last two days on the theme ‘Buraku Issues Today.’ As the coordinator of the workshop, I would like to provide an overview of the workshop.

As Mr. Tomonaga, director-general of the BLHRRI, mentioned earlier, the BLHRRI has conducted academic research in the past 40 years for the solution of Buraku discrimination and made a number of important policy proposals. The topics covered in the past research include Buraku history, Dowa and human rights policy administration, community building, education and awareness-raising, among others.

In relation to this workshop, I would like to particularly point out that the BLHRRI took the initiative as early as in the late 1970’s to promote the ratification of the International Covenants on Human Rights by the Japanese government and to introduce significant achievements and action programs in international society with respect to international human rights standards, ideas about equity-based social development, human rights education and corporate social responsibility.

It is to be noted that the BLHRRI has pursued the solution of Buraku discrimination, which is often referred to as a unique form of discrimination only existing in Japan, from the perspective of international human rights. The BLHRRI began to issue its English Newsletter regularly in 1981 to inform overseas researchers of findings from various surveys on Buraku issues and outcomes of research studies in Japan. The Institute has also provided information and advice to researchers from overseas when they planned and conducted field research in Japan. Such consistent efforts have helped the gradual formation of international network among researchers on Buraku issues, resulting in the holding of this international workshop.

Now please allow me to speak about my personal experience briefly. In 1977 when the BLHRRI invited Dr. Mark SCHREIBER, former head of the UN human rights division, and asked him to give lectures on UN human rights initiatives in Japan, I was given the opportunity by the late Prof. MURAKOSHI Sueo (former director-general of the BLHRRI) to accompany Dr. Schreiber as an interpreter.  I had a chance to listen firsthand to the talks given by Dr. Schreiber and to observe the conversations between him and various leaders in Japan including corporate, government and human rights movement representatives.  As a student of Osaka University then, I was already interested in Buraku issues, but this experience convinced me that studies on Buraku issued could be developed further from an international perspective.

In the following year, in 1978, I became a teacher in a junior-high school in Osaka which was promoting Dowa education (educational initiatives to eliminate Buraku discrimination).  In 1981 I was fortunate enough to receive a Fulbright scholarship and enrolled in the Harvard Graduate School of Education as a master’s student majoring in minority and international education. My inspiring experience in 1977 gave me the motivation to apply for the scholarship and to study in the graduate program on minority education from a comparative perspective.

I came back to Japan in 1984, and since that time I have been trying to reconstruct the theories and practices of Dowa education from the perspectives of multicultural education, human rights education and citizenship education in the world in order to ‘universalize’ the strategies and methods of Dowa education.

Last summer when the BLHRRI board meeting discussed the possibility of organizing some international event to commemorate its 40^th anniversary, I proposed an idea of holding an international workshop on today’s Buraku issues to be participated by young researchers, which eventually became a reality this time.

Also, I would like to discuss the significance of this workshop from another perspective. As many of you already know, infamous incidents of misuse of Dowa policies (government policies for the solution of Buraku discrimination) in Osaka, Nara and Kyoto involving Buraku leaders caught the attention of mass media and made big news in Japan. The wrongdoers themselves should be criticized; however, the mass media reporting in this way created a situation where many people were led to believe that all the Buraku people were bad and that every effort made in the past for the solution of Buraku issues was almost meaningless. In other words, the newly emerged social atmosphere looked at the efforts made in the past half century for the solution of Buraku discrimination quite negatively.

Cautioned by such atmosphere, the Osaka Prefectural Council for the Solution of Dowa Issues, of which I have been a member, spent more than a year discussing the present situation of Buraku discrimination and future strategies of Dowa policy administration in Osaka.  On February 25, we handed our proposal to the newly elected governor of Osaka, Mr. Hashimoto, and requested him to take necessary actions.

Following the termination of the Special Measures Law on Dowa issues in March 2002, the ratio of poor people has increased in Buraku areas, Buraku children’s underachievement in schools has been left unsolved, and incidents of vicious Buraku discrimination have increased particularly on the internet.  In addition, the survey of Osaka Prefectural citizens conducted in 2005 indicated that the ratio of residents in Osaka who have negative images of Buraku have been on the increase recently.  These facts show that research studies on and concrete efforts for the solution of Buraku discrimination are still vitally needed.

A number of important research studies have been conducted by the BLHRRI in the past.  However, it seems to me that we also need to create a new approach now.  In other words, we should make deliberate efforts to develop research on Buraku issues from an international and/ or an interdisciplinary perspective.  It is very important, for instance, to examine the nature of Buraku discrimination issues today from an interdisciplinary perspective by combining insights from sociology, psychology, education, anthropology, political science, and so on. Also, we need to examine Buraku discrimination from a comparative, international perspective today.

I would like to emphasize that the idea of holding this international workshop was not born overnight but came out of a number of inevitable social circumstances as well as the past 40 years of efforts by the BLHRRI to develop international network of research on Buraku issues.

Now let me turn to the synopsis of discussions in each session.

Session 1 focused on the theme ‘Social Mechanisms that Produce Minorities." Buraku discrimination is unique to Japan.  However, as we look at the mechanisms that create Buraku people as a social minority, we notice that it is an attempt to justify the discrimination against people who have certain blood lineage and occupations and marginalize them in the society. This process is common to other mechanisms of discrimination which majorities utilize to justify their rule over social minorities based on the difference in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and so on.  These differences are not simply differences, but they are used as the excuse to justify discrimination in certain political and social contexts.

Buraku discrimination is indeed a unique form of discrimination. However, as we look at it as a mechanism justifying discrimination, we should be able to examine it from a universal perspective. Prof. KUROKAWA Midori, an expert scholar on Buraku history at Shizuoka University, discussed the specific mechanism of creating and justifying discrimination in modern Japan.

In India, as you know, caste-based discrimination has long been in existence. Mr. Motilal MAHAMALLIK, research fellow at the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, talked about the present situation of discrimination against outcaste populations and about how improvements have been achieved or not as a result of legislation and policy implementation.

Dr. John DAVIS, assistant professor of anthropology at Michigan State University, shared his analysis of how civil rights movement in the United States has improved the general level of human rights protection and how it can be compared with the case of Buraku liberation movement in Japan.

In Session 2 we dealt with the theme ‘Changing Identities of Minorities.’    Buraku discrimination is a discrimination against those people who have their origins in Buraku areas.  Because the majority society discriminates against them by categorizing them as ‘Burakumin,’ the discriminated-against people perceive themselves as ‘Burakumin.’  This process of identity formation has created various difficulties in life for Buraku people. However, it also created positive perception of Buraku identity when Buraku people faced squarely with discrimination and tried to cope with it in resilient ways.

The concept of identity can be defined in many ways.  Here I would like to define it simply as a perception of ‘Who I am?” which generates questions such as “What significance do I have in this world? Am I welcome or not? Is there value to my life?”  In this way, I believe it is quite meaningful to discuss, by focusing on the issue of Buraku identity, how middle-class and poor Buraku people have been created in the last three or four decades and how such changes have diversified the perception of Buraku identity among Buraku people themselves.

The Declaration of Suiheisha (Leveler’s Association) issued in 1922, when the Buraku liberation movement was born, concluded its message with the famous phrase ‘Let there be warmth in human society, let there be light in all human beings.’  A sense of pride as the discriminated-against and strong hope for human liberation underpinned this message. Here we can find one inspiring way of perceiving Buraku identity positively. On the other hand, however, as the Buraku liberation movement expanded, a general tendency emerged which treated Buraku people as a monolithic entity as those who had to fight discrimination by all means.  This tendency created various forms of difficulty among Buraku people at the same time.

In Session 2, Dr. UCHIDA Ryusuke, research fellow at the BLHRRI, discussed how Buraku youth perceive themselves today by showing findings from a recent survey of Buraku youth in Nara prefecture. Dr. Christopher BONDY, assistant professor of sociology at DePauw University, USA, described how Buraku high-school students experienced their identity transformation as they moved out of ‘cocoon’ (somewhat protective environment created in Buraku community and in the school as the result of Buraku liberation movement) based on his years of research in Kochi prefecture. Mr. TOMONAGA Yugo, PhD candidate at the Graduate School of Advanced Studies, Osaka, Japan, presented a co-authored paper entitled ‘What is our real name?’ emphasizing the diversity of identity perception among Buraku youth and discussed how agents of social change can be formed.

Session 3, which took place on the second day, had discussions on the theme ‘The Role of the Minority Middle Class.’  The Suiheisha (Leveler’s Association) was founded in 1922 by the initiative of young Buraku people in Nara.  They belonged to the middle class and had certain level of education. The Leveler’s Declaration contained world-class philosophies and ideas in those days that honored human equality such as Marxism, Christianity, Buddhism, the labor movement in the UK, and so on. This fact indicates that the founders were well-educated and had a great deal of knowledge about human rights in the world as well as the plight of Buraku people.

As we look back at the history of Buraku liberation movement, well-educated and middle-class Buraku people have played vital roles in improving the general conditions and the lives of Buraku people. On the other hand, however, a significant proportion of well-educated and middle-class Buraku people have increasingly moved out of Buraku communities recently seeking better residential and educational conditions available outside of Buraku areas. They do not necessarily play positive roles in advancing the Buraku liberation movement. The central question in Session 3 was how we can define the roles of middle-class Buraku people in overall endeavors toward the solution of Buraku discrimination issues. 

Dr. Martin Luther KING, who played a key role in the civil rights movement in the United States, had a wealthy economic background and high level of education. This enabled him to develop strategies to cope with the majority society and to play a leading role in the movement. On the other hand, well-educated and middle-class people tend to have certain weakness as well that lures them away from the movement once their interests are partially fulfilled.  The issue of how we can overcome such weakness is common to Japan and the United States in discussing the position of middle-class people in minority movements.

In Session 3, Dr. KIM Joong-Seop, professor of sociology at the Gyeongsang National University, Republic of Korea, argued that middle-class people played significant roles in the movement organization named Hyongpyonga which was founded in the 1920’s for the liberation of Paekjong people who were discriminated-against just like Buraku people in Japan.

Mr. LEE Kayoung, research fellow at the BLHRRI, examined in detail how well-educated and middle-class Buraku people played their roles in advancing and not advancing the liberation movement, referring to a concrete case in a Buraku community in Osaka.

Finally, in Session 4, the last session, we discussed the issue of intersectionality of discrimination by looking at the case of Buraku women and an approach to Buraku discrimination issues from the perspective of multiculturalism.  These topics were added as the workshop agenda through the dialogues among the participants after the above-mentioned three themes (Session 1 ~ Session3) were set up.  Among the papers prepared for the workshop, there were three papers focusing on Buraku women. Ms. KUMAMOTO Risa, lecturer at the Kinki University Human Rights Research Institute, discussed Buraku issues from the perspective of gender based on her interviews of hundreds of Buraku women.

Also, Dr. Nehema MISOLA, professor at Western Visayas College of Science & Technology, Philippines, shared the observations from her case studies of Buraku women and compared them with the situation of women in the Philippines.

The intersectionality of discrimination is a topic that has invited growing attention in recent years, and I felt keenly that we need to look at various forms of intersectionality of discrimination in our future research.

With regard to multiculturalism, Mr. Joseph HANKINS, PhD candidate in Anthropology, University of Chicago, informed the participants that, during the last decade, an increasing number of researchers who study Japan refer to Buraku discrimination in the context of how Japanese society creates and treats ‘otherness.’  This perspective has not been sufficiently developed in Japanese studies of Buraku issues, and I thought that we need to make deliberate efforts to examine Buraku issues in the framework of ‘otherness’ and multiculturalism.

Having made an overview of discussions for the past two days, I feel we have learned and shared so many things about Buraku issues but also that we have found a great deal of homework to do. At the same time, I have reconfirmed my observation that we can further deepen and expand our knowledge and understanding of Buraku issues by comparing insights from different academic disciplines and by looking at both commonalities and particularities among different human rights issues in the world in comparative ways.

In addition, we hope that in our future research and dialogue, we would like to focus on, for example, how national policies create possibilities and limitations for the solution of Buraku discrimination and other minority issues, and how we can advance a multisectoral approach by encouraging collaborations among different social sectors (business corporations, government institutions, academics, grass-roots movements, etc.) for the solution of Buraku and other minority issues.

In this way, the two-day workshop was a great success, and we hope that this kind of international collaboration will continue in the future.

Session 1: The Social Mechanisms that Produce Minorities

Presenter: John DAVIS, Jr.

I have the difficult task of reporting on what transpired during two panels of the workshop on present day Buraku issues held over the past couple of days. If one were to integrate the two panels into one theme, it would be “interrogating gender, multiculturalism, and the social mechanisms that produce minorities.”  In order to give a sense of how our discussion evolved, I would like to touch briefly on the problem raised by each presentation and attempt to synthesize some of the points that emerged from our collective deliberations. It should be noted that these deliberations continued outside of the formal workshop. Participants ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner together and this provided an opportunity to continue our dialogue as we grappled with the rapid transformations happening in many Buraku across the country, transformations we got to see firsthand during community visits to two Buraku in Osaka prior to the start of the workshop. The visits helped underscore the critical need for analytical and conceptual tools to allow us to better comprehend the rapidly changing reality on the ground. These were to goals towards which we worked collectively during our workshop sessions.

Professor Kurokawa Midori opened the first panel with a presentation that provided insightful analysis of the persistence of buraku discrimination. Rejecting the common tendency to interpret continuing discrimination as a vestige of the feudal period, she brought attention to how discrimination has been reconstituted along different lines in the present day. Specifically she used the case of discrimination in marriage to illustrate how Buraku residents are “racialized” by some members of the majority society as a categorically different sort of human being. This presentation sparked consideration of how minority communities can be reconstituted in different ways at various historical junctures. It became clear that there is a need to scrutinize contemporary practices and find ways to disrupt the sociological means through which minorities are marked in a negative way and subjected to unequal treatment which assaults their basic humanity.

Professor Kurokawa also contributed a second paper to the workshop which examined the role women played in the Suiheisha and considered some of the difficulties that confronted Buraku women as they sought to find the best way to address the combined challenges of Buraku discrimination and gender discrimination.

Session 2: The changing identity of minorities

There are many things that occur to me as I think about Buraku identity, and as I introduce myself, I would like to speak about several of them. The fact that I could present on Buraku identity at a venue like this one today, when only 10 years ago as a student at Osaka city university, I was deeply involved in activities and discussions around the Buraku issue, gives me pause. That is to say, since the time I was a student I have been involved in Buraku research, particularly in research having to do with identity. My BA thesis was entitled “Who are ‘Burakumin’” and my master’s thesis provided a comprehensive review of surveys of Buraku people and analyzed changes in Buraku identity. I finished my doctoral dissertation last year, and in it I conducted a survey of Buraku people, particularly young Buraku people, and wrote about what kind of identity young Buraku people possess, and how they evaluate that identity. Coming from this background, being able to continue the discussion within the forum of the international workshop on Buraku identity was a distinct pleasure.

When we consider the Buraku issues, it is impossible to make any headway without considering who “Burakumin” are. Arriving at a solution to the problem is difficult if we do not have a set definition. The Buraku liberation movement has also conducted discussions using the word “identity.” Those discussions were from the latter half of the 90s through 2000. This was a period anticipating the end of the special measure laws during which there was an effort to construct a new movement. It was a period during which several key questions were reexamined: where is the liberation movement going, what is the real subject of Buraku liberation, what is Buraku identity.

It seems natural for this period to be one in which identity is examined. It was a time in which an identity that had been thought self-evident began to shake and for the first time became problematic. However, one thing I was not satisfied with at the time was, despite the fact that identity was being discussed, it was always abstract; the majority of the discussion was not based on the experiences of Buraku people. It did not address what identity Buraku people themselves had or how they value that identity. My area of expertise is in sociology, and my job has been to use my skill in social survey techniques to grasp and display people’s lived reality. I have maintained a concrete approach to Buraku issues and identity. Within this session, we had three valuable presentations, all using a concrete approach.

I would like now to turn to the contents of the session. The first presentation, “Learning about an Identity: Schools and Buraku Youth,” was by Assistant Professor of Depaul University, Christopher Bondy. He conducted a detailed survey of the Takagawa neighborhood (pseudonym) in Kochi prefecture, taking junior high school students as his primary subject, and focused on the development of the identity of Buraku youth. He attended school with the youth, interviewed the students, and conducted a very thorough participant observation, a qualitative form of investigation. The Takagawa area is small, with a population of approximately 3,000 people, and the teachers in the schools proactively engage with the Buraku issue. In class and among the Buraku community, Buraku are treated as one part of Japanese history. The teachers want to teach not just the negative aspects of this history; they also endeavor to build a positive identity for these youth. At school, they have created an environment in which they can openly discuss discrimination and who is or is not from a Buraku. Bondy refers to this environment as a “cocoon.” Takagawa is a small area, all of it is a Buraku, and geographically all of it is a cocoon.

However, when the students move from Takagawa junior high on to high school, there is an abrupt change. In Takagawa, they have a support network in the neighborhood, at school, and with friends; however, when they go to high school, only one in three students are from a Buraku. In leaving their cocoon, they encounter difficulties in high school. That is to say, they enter into a space where it is difficult to say they are Burakumin. They begin to doubt, whether, even if they tell people their background, those others will share their experiences.

The second presentation was by Graduate University for Advanced Studies Ph.D. candidate Tomonaga Yugo, representing group work by himself, Mori Maya, and Yano Ryo, entitled, “What is our real name? Practice for Multiple thoughts on Buraku Discrimination.”

First Tomonaga Yugo provided a comparison of grassroots organizing between the Buraku liberation movement and the Australian aboriginal movement. He presented video capturing the reality of the Yorta Yorta movement to manage the natural resources of their own area.

Following Yano presented on the issues facing the C area as it navigated a period of transition accompanying the end of the Dowa Special Measures. Up to this point, there have been a variety of activities hosted in the human rights center for illiterate people; however, those activities have been disappearing. Yano gave examples of the current struggles of illiterate people as a way of giving light to the forth going activities of the neighborhood’s administration and local movement.

Finally, Mori presented on the environmental management of her home neighborhood, A. A is a rural district with less than 150 households. They are currently sharing practices for environmental management with the Yorta Yorta, who I just mentioned. A’s liberation movement cannot be told without considering the environmental management of rivers, forests, and soil. Mori presented on the rebuilding of rivers that are prone to flooding, the creation of a sewage system, the struggle for the liberation of forest and mountain land, and district educational practices. She stressed that the theory of research and the movement must progress by learning from these experiences, from the lived experiences of the Buraku liberation movement. In particular, she stressed that the empowerment of minority identity within the practice of the movement and in each district is most effective when we learn from lived experience.

Also, there is the question implied in the title of this presentation, “What is our real name?” I would like to revisit this expression of “Burakumin” that has universally been applied. We discussed what exactly is lost, what is gained when we use this term.

In the third presentation, I presented “The Identity and Social Relationships of Young Burakumin.” The Nara Buraku Liberation League youth group had wanted to conduct a survey of area youth to help with forthcoming movement activities, and I responded to assist and in 2005 helped conduct a survey of the identity of Buraku youth. I used a combination of placement and direct interviews, which I analyzed quantitatively. Though our methods are different, Bondy and I have many similarities in our research and have already been talking about potential collaborative projects.

To give you the essence of the presentation, the questions on the survey, designed to see how and if people thought of themselves as Buraku, were developed in discussion with the Nara youth. When I analyzed the resulting data, I discovered three patterns in the respondents: a general uneasiness with discrimination, a positive sense of Buraku identity, and a sense of commonality with other Buraku people, that they would share experiences even if their home Buraku were different. Also, those with the greatest apprehension about discrimination tended to have the greatest awareness of discrimination; some 70% felt that marriage discrimination was “frequent” or “occasional.” About 30% had either directly experienced discrimination or known someone who had. This type of awareness of discrimination issues is closely tied with “unease with discrimination.” What’s more, having family and friends in the immediate vicinity with whom one can discuss Buraku issues has a large bearing on whether a person feels linked to the liberation movement, their sense of identity, and their sense of positive identity. Three quarters of the respondents to the survey indicated that even if they themselves are not involved in the liberation movement, they tend to have a stronger positive identity if they have a friend involved in the movement.  These results indicate the importance of fostering the environment in which people, Buraku or not, can talk about Buraku issues.

Here I would like to end by summing up two issues that arose during the question and answer session. The first was what exactly is a “positive identity.” “Pride” and “courage” are words frequently used with respect to Buraku identity, but we discussed what exactly one has to have to have a positive identity. Some expressed the opinion that coming out should be obligatory, and I believe we still have much to discuss on this point. The second question was about the relationship between identity and stereotype. That is, if we only take one part of an identity, we run the risk of creating a new stereotype. In order for that not to happen, we need to think of identity not as something always solid but rather as a process of identification. If we do that, we potentially lower the risk of giving birth to overly simplified negative identities.

Finally, I would like to talk about why the study of identity if necessary. If we take identity as our keyword, there are several ways to approach the subject: what kind of meaning does a social identity created within groups have for a member of a minority and for group activity? How is the Buraku identity appraised by society, and how has it been? What relationship might that have with changes in the structure of Japanese society? Ethnicity, race, gender, and class were all discussion keywords in the workshop, and then add to that the study of Buraku identity, and we still have much to do. It would be a great pleasure if this presentation could serve toward opening new possibilities for future studies of the Buraku issue.

Session 3: The Role of the Minority Middle Class

Presenter: LEE Kayoung

I will present on “The Role of the Minority Middle Class.” I will be speaking about two presentations: Kim Joong-Seop’s and my own.

The raison d’etre of the Buraku liberation movement has been a recent subject of question and discussion. In order to advance these discussions, we need to examine and continue thinking about wider social changes, the situation of social movements, and the situation of Dowa areas that are organizing on their own. In that process, the middle class arguably occupies once again a very important position. The theme of our third session was extremely important, content-wise, for thinking about the leadership and organization of social movements, and particularly important for enriching the practice of today’s Buraku liberation movement.

There were two presentations in this session. Professor Kim Joong-Seop commented on the role of the middle class participating in the Hyongpyong movement or the Hyongpyongsa which fought for the liberation of the “Paekchong” people of Korea, who face a discrimination similar to that of the Buraku. I presented on the situation of the A branch, in which I work.

First, Professor Kim revisited the history of the Hyongpyong movement, introducing the role of the middle class in that movement. The Hyongpyongsa, which advanced the Hyongpyong movement, was founded in 1923, the year after the founding of Japan’s Suiheisha; at that time, as in Japan, there was strong caste-based discrimination against the Paekchong. The structure of Korean honorary language provides one example of unjust customs of the time. The elderly typically receive linguistic deference; however, even children addressed Paekchong elderly with non-deferential forms.

What is more, just like in Japan following the promulgation of the liberation edict, non-Paekchong companies and capital flowed into meat and leather related industries, which led to the impoverishment of the Paekchong. On the other hand, within the Paekchong, there were those who enjoyed economic success. The children of these Paekchong went to school, and due to the relatively high education they achieved, there was born an intellectual class. This situation gave rise to the founding of the Hyongpyongsa in 1923. Though they have only a short history of 13 years, it was a history full of accomplishment. It was the longest running social movement organization under Japanese control and resulted in the spread of the belief in equality, the abolition of discriminated-against classes, and worked hard for the social improvement of the Paekchong.

From the movement quickly spread throughout the country following the founding of the Hyongpyongsa. At the founding, there were only 80 branches. Within ten years that number had doubled, and within the organization there were youth groups, student groups, and a guard wing for activists. Geographically, numerically, and qualitatively, the organization grew, and Professor Kim provided four conditions that made this spread possible.

First of all, in 1923, the belief in equality was already becoming widespread. East Learning, which was a traditional part of Korean thinking provided a stronger basis for the idea of equality than did Confucianism. Additionally, there was the spread of western European notions of equality, in the form of Christianity. There was also the “3.1 independence movement,” which helped spread ideas of equality throughout Korea. As the movement spread throughout the country, it linked up with other social movements and spread the idea of equality. The rise of the Paekchong heralded this new ideological stance.

Second, there was some level of economic development. This gave birth to a relatively wealthier population within the Paekchong, who in turn gave rise to people who left Paekchong communities to work elsewhere. Their children then would go to school and procured higher levels of education. This higher educational level, given the more liberal climate of the time, provided the intellectual and economic conditions for reforming the Paekchong’s difficult situation.

Third, there was solidarity within communities. There are many potential reasons for this, one of which is blood relations. Under Korea’s caste system, marriage outside one’s group was harshly rebuked. As a result, blood relations were particularly strong. Occupational relations too can be cited here. Working in stigmatized industries, there were particularly strong connections among workers. Professor Kim cited these conditions of solidarity as the basis for Hyongpyongsa’s spread.

The fourth condition was the existence of leadership within communities. Professor Kim gave most credence to this condition. This leadership is divisible into three types. First, non-Paekchong people were extremely active in the Hyongpyong movement. The non-Paekchong decried the discrimination that Paekchong faced, resulting in a bridge across the divide between Paekchong and non-Paekchong. Naturally, there were Paekchong people also involved in the movement, and these are divisible into two types. First, those relatively economically well off, the middle class. Economically successful people felt the movement necessary to raise their social position and provided support to the Hyongpyong movement. The final type was those with higher levels of education. As I stated before, the idea of equality and enlightenment-based socialism had been widely well-received, and led to the activity of the movement. These three types of leadership advanced the Hyongpyong movement but at the same type these differences in background gave rise to tensions within the Hyongpyongsa’s movement strategies. However, at the same time, this diversity of backgrounds made a diversity of movement strategies possible. As a result, this situation made it possible for the Hyongpyong movement to add to the spread of the idea of equality, the abolition of discriminatory traditions, and the creation of solidarity across Korean society.

Professor Kim’s presentation provided us with a review of HyongPyong history, classified types of leadership within the anti-discrimination movement, and provided us with a theoretical framework to think about leadership.

Using this framework, we can potentially examine the role of the middle class in the Buraku liberation movement. In the second presentation, the history of the A community was used as grist to think about the role of the middle class in the Buraku liberation movement.

Professor Kim pointed out that there were two types of leadership: economically and intellectually well-off. These two types exist in exactly the same form when the A branch was established.

Five years prior to the founding of the branch, in 1954, a youth group (at that time “The A Youth Group”) was established. The actual activities of this youth group were primarily carried out by two young people: Oga and Kitai. At the time, there were both high school students, and later continued to college, and even while facing some economic hardship increased their level of education and became part of the intelligentsia. On the other hand, the ones who actually suggested starting the A youth group were members of the affluent classes. Immediately following the war in Osaka, Dowa measures were conducted, however so slight, and the primary active organization was the “City Dowa Group” (“The Group for the Advance of Dowa Measures in Osaka City”). This members of the A Branch of the City Dowa Group were from affluent backgrounds, and the Youth Group was started as part of this organization. In this Youth Group, Kitai and Oga took central roles and worked hard to provide educational support to alleviate the low educational and employment levels among the children of the area.

However, there were some slight differences between the approaches of these two actors. The economically well-off focused on structural improvements to the area but did not necessarily think that the social situation was the reason for Buraku discrimination and therefore did not think that that situation needed to be changed to eliminated Buraku discrimination. At that time, within the district, the “wake not the sleeping child” mindset was extremely strong with regard to discrimination issues, and people distanced themselves from the ideas of the intellectuals who felt it was necessary to fight for the elimination of Buraku discrimination.

However, the divide between these two groups grew narrower as the community joined together to fight against a number of discriminatory events. One such example is the resistance that another nearby community gave when the city administration pushed to change their name to be the same as A. That is to say, that this other community felt that if their name were changed to A, they might be confused for a Buraku and discriminated against. This example contrasts the belief that “if we work hard and raise our social standing we won’t face discrimination,” with the belief that “no matter how hard we struggle, as long as we live in a place called A, we will face discrimination.” In fighting this and other such discriminatory events, the gap between the two groups grew slimmer.

However, the A branch of the liberation league was founded in 1959, and the economically well off did not initially participate. We can see here the hesitation of the economic middle class. That is to say, the Buraku liberation movement is a movement for social change, with connections with socialist movements, and as a result the economically well-off were likely to distance themselves from the movement. The Dowa measures changed this situation. In sum, these measures put forth the industrial development of the Buraku at the same time they worked for the improvement of education, poverty, and environmental issues. In response, an industrial federation was formed in all Dowa districts. This provided the opportunity for the economically well-off to participate in the Buraku liberation movement. This is a very important point for the advance of the Buraku liberation movement as a whole-community effort.

The Dowa measures also gave birth to a new middle class of public employees and people with higher education. These people participated in the district’s Buraku liberation movement, became leaders, and became organizers of the community.

However, the Dowa measures had an unintended consequence. As people gained some level of economic stability due to the measures, they begin to leave the district. Comparatively younger people felt that the public housing was too small and started to leave. This added to the progressive aging of the area, as well as the reduction in number of people working in the movement.

We can also see a diversification of needs. For example, if we look at education, the A branch put a lot of its efforts into education. However, there quickly opened a gap between those very active and those not very active in these efforts. This gap gave rise to different sets of needs.

The questions then are: how to change this situation, how to increase the number of people supporting the Buraku liberation movement, and what the Buraku liberation movement needs to do in response. One truly critical issue is how to rebuild the movement. When we consider this issue, we should recognize that the role of the branch’s leadership, particularly the intellectual middle class, is increasingly important.

Session 4: Gender and Multiculturalism

Presenter: John DAVIS, Jr.

Risa Kumamoto of the Kinki University Human Rights Institute delivered an illuminating presentation which resonated with some of the issues raised by Professor Kurokawa and reminded us that the challenge of Buraku women balancing multiple forms of discrimination very much continues into the present. She raised awareness of some of the problems and gaps that can emerge in our analysis if we do not think more consciously about the role that gender plays in how we frame our analysis of Buraku issues. One point that emerged during the workshop which must be underscored here is that gender does not equal women. Analyses of gender look at both men and women. How can we disaggregate “the Buraku issue” to get a better grasp of issues and challenges confronting men and women of all ages (senior citizens, the middle-aged, young adults, juveniles, and youth)? Not only will we develop a better sense of challenges particular to various segments of the Buraku community, but for foreign researchers in particular, we will be able to provide more specific, more complex portraits of lives in the Buraku and help those in other parts of the world develop a more nuanced understanding of the Buraku issue.

One way of summarizing the discussion that ensued would be to simply state that if we think of Buraku as microcosms of the wider society, then it is only natural that we would find a host of human rights concerns within them (i.e. issues of gender and sexuality, needs of senior citizens, challenges confronting those with disabilities, etc.). How do we find ways to expand human rights initiatives and better integrate them so that we can carve out social spaces where all human rights are truly honored and protected? Of course the ultimate aim is to do this not just within Japan but all over the world. Practically speaking, however, we lack the conceptual tools and have not yet fully developed the educational, political, and social resources to allow us to achieve this. Kumamoto’s presentation identified the Buraku as a both a source of pride and hope because she has faith that it is possible to make the sorts of changes within Buraku to undermine the social mechanisms that produce minorities and enable everyone to live fully and freely. I too share this faith, and I must say that the workshop over the past two days has strengthened it. As we celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the founding of the BLHRRI and reflect on how the scope of its mission has expanded over the four decades, it is clear that the institute has embraced the theme of human rights out of its commitment to better understanding and finding ways to resolve all fundamental problems of human suffering. Clearly this is not something that can be done overnight by waving a magic wand. But with a vision, with determination, and with persistent effort, it can be achieved in time.

Professor Nehema Misola’s contribution to the workshop illustrated precisely why a long-term engagement is critically important. In her work with three generations of Buraku women she uncovered how the challenge to enable Buraku women to be able to fulfill their aspirations takes a more sustained effort that than what is needed to construct roads and buildings. While the SML ushered in a number of significant physical improvements to Buraku areas and put in place the building blocks for many to build a path leading to self-fulfillment, domestic obligations shouldered by some women can limit options available to them. Professor Misola reminds us that this is not limited to Buraku women but this sort of challenge presents itself to women in the wider society as well as in many countries across the world. How do we forge new tools to allow us to meet these common challenges in a way which promote cooperation and interaction across the boundaries of the Buraku? This is one way we can work to change negative images of Buraku residents while also promoting gender equality broadly across society. It should be noted that some Buraku have a clear history of engaging in collaborative projects with those from surrounding areas. This, however, often gets overlooked. Researchers can stimulate a bit more reflection on perceptions of Buraku areas by exercising better judgment in the words we choose to describe dowa districts. For example, while many improvements in Buraku may have been made possible by funds allocated through the SML, the specific plans that were devised depended on the ingenuity and innovation of local residents who assessed the needs of their community and determined how funds might best be used. The active role played by residents themselves can easily be overlooked if we reflexively describe all signs of progress products of government initiatives.

Joseph Hankins pointed out the tension inherent in terms like “multiculturalism” and “human rights.” On the one hand they are meant to lead to equal respect by recognizing the common humanity shared by all of us. But at the same time we often find ourselves calling attention to (and demanding respect for) aspects of our lives which make us different from one another. Race, ethnicity, gender, religion, caste, nationality, etc. are just some of the examples of how we sometimes organize ourselves (or articulate our political aims) in the struggle for equality. But how do we deal with this tension between demanding equal treatment based on certain types of differences? This is a tough question. Part of the answer, I believe, can be found in our human capacity to be imaginative. Through our imagination we have the power to be creative and thereby transformative. Let me provide one example here. Browsing through a local library I stumbled across a book with a provocative title. It was called “zainichi kansai jin.” On the one hand the first part of the title contains a nod to diversity by referencing Zainichi Koreans. What is creative and transformative is the last part of the title which seeks to strike a note of commonality and community with others living in the Kansai area. By presenting a way to imagine community along a separate dimension from nationality or ethnicity, this work makes the tension between similarity and difference a productive one which has the power to draw different segments of society closer together.

I would like to close with a confession. I took the liberty of interweaving some of the thoughts I presented at the workshop into my summary of the panels. In doing so, I probably have not done justice to the thoughts of my fellow workshop participants. Please pardon any distortions or mischaracterizations on my part.