Burakumin at the end of history - history of social class in Japan

Social Research, Spring, 2003 by Ian Neary

1) The character of the buraku issue changed between pre- and postwar Japan because the postwar reforms swept aside the absolutist emperor system and semifeudal relations; this eradicated the foundation for buraku discrimination in post war society.

2) The realization that discrimination is in the process of disappearing.

3) The resolution of the buraku issue is now in sight as the democratization of Japan continues (Hatanaka, 1998: 176-7, quoting Mahara, 1992).

This is very close to Hatanaka's position as summarized earlier. Hatanaka's discussion of the "end of buraku history" thus has three dimensions:

1) There is no meaningful sense in which buraku history existed before the mid-nineteenth century because the buraku did not exist. There were, of course, deprived social groups, pariah groups even, that faced institutional discrimination, but the social context was quite different.

2) To explain and understand the issues and problems that face burakumin today, the earliest we need to go back is the 1960s, just possibly 1945; there is nothing to learn from earlier history.

3) Buraku history is now almost over. There is no reason why the status or group should continue to exist and we should beware of creating structures that, while intended to help eradicate, in fact sustain the problem.

Toward a Solution?

What would a solution to the buraku problem look like? We can summarize the rival views in table 1.

These views are not radically divergent. In a sense the differences are just a question of emphasis. Neither side would argue that these conditions have been achieved, although each side would disagree about how close they are and what is necessary to create this state of affairs. Okiura and those in his camp argue that discrimination continues to exist--perhaps not as explicitly as before but nevertheless still deeply affecting the life prospects of many, if not most burakumin. Meanwhile, Hatanaka and his supporters assert vigorously that buraku discrimination is no longer a serious issue and that where buraku individuals do encounter social problems, not all of the differences between buraku and non-buraku families or communities can be explained by discrimination. For example, there may be low expectations for educational performance in buraku families but they are shared by all families where there have been generations earning low incomes, not all of whom will be buraku. To cite a different example: some have expressed concerns that a "digital divide" may be emerging as evidence accumulates that there are fewer PCs in buraku than in non-buraku households, but this may simply be related to the average age of household members, which tends to be higher in buraku communities (Terazono, 2002: 210).

The Deliberative Council for Buraku Assimilation produced an influential report in 1965, which described a vicious circle of discrimination that restricted life chances; this resulted in people living in impoverished conditions whose images reinforced the prejudices that justified discrimination (Prime Minister's Office, 1965). A massive investment program that began in 1969 aimed to interrupt and where possible reverse this cycle of despair. Is there any evidence of success?