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

Social Research, Spring, 2003 by Ian Neary

This debate also had a crucial influence on intellectual understanding of the American occupation of Japan between 1945 and 1952. Should the Americans and their reforms be welcomed since their land reform, democratization of the political structure, etc., effectively completed the task of eliminating feudalism? Or, should the focus instead be on the fact that the imperial institution was politically insignificant before 1945 and the level of development of Japanese capitalism high--a view that emphasizes continuity between the prewar and postwar periods? If the buraku groups were simply "feudal remnants" like the emperor but at the other extreme of the social structure, then they would decline in significance and ultimately disappear as the occupation's democratic reforms worked their way through the social, political, and economic structure. This also suggested that the class position of the burakumin was almost identical with that of the working class and from an organizational perspective there was no need for a separate movement. On the other hand, those working within the tradition articulated by the Japan Socialist Party (JSP) and associated with the BLL saw it as a status issue inside contemporary capitalism where there was (and is) a very clear need for an independent movement to oppose status discrimination and promote human rights awareness.

I do not intend to dwell on the movement's history or the debate on tactics and strategy. Instead, I want to outline some aspects of the development of ideas about buraku history since 1945. Within this, the debate about the nature of Japanese capitalism set the parameters for analysis at least until the 1970s; echoes of the debate can still be heard in contemporary discussions.

A great deal has been and continues to be written on the issue in Japan and although this might suggest less variety of opinion and approach than is the case, most can be regarded as coming from those associated either with the BLL or the JCP. This is a sensitive subject, one that is usually avoided by the mainstream media and indeed many academics. The only substantive criticism of the BLL comes from the JCP, and this includes apparently well-documented accusations of corrupt management of improvement projects to benefit financially individuals in the BLL, the BLL as an organization, or both (Terazono, 2002). There has also been more fundamental criticism of the intellectual approach taken by the BLL and those associated with it. The central section of this article will review some of the key themes in the writings of two authors whose recent work summarizes the current state of historical research in this area, one from each of these traditions: Okiura Kazuteru whose work has been produced by the BLL publishing house, and Hatanaka Toshiyuki, who is close to the JCP position.

Okiura Kazuteru and Buraku History

Okiura Kazuteru (b. 1927) entered university in the late 1940s when academic life was not only dominated by varieties of Marxist thought but also characterized by a series of polarizations: backward Japan/Asia was contrasted with advanced Europe/the "West"; community contrasted with civil society; and religious belief with scientific principle. In each of these pairs the latter was preferred. Japanese academics did not look to the experience of Asia to better understand Japanese phenomena; there was an expectation that civil society would emerge following the destruction of the emperor-centered community and that (Marxist) scientific principles could (and would) explain things better than, and without reference to, indigenous religious beliefs (Okiura, 2000: 14-5).