| Bibliographies and reviews | |||||
| Grading | Nationality | Population registers | Race | Minorities | Suicide |
Chapman, Krogness, et al. on status laws in Japan
A "critical" academic failure to understand history and law
First posted 20 May 2014
Last updated 20 May 2014
General review
Chapman and Korgness 2014a
|
Editors and contributors
|
Translators and translations
|
Purpose and scope
|
Quality and value
Topics and issues
Nationality
|
Citizenship
|
Territoriality
|
Civil status
|
Family law
|
Social control
|
Vital records
Chapter reviews
Introduction
1. Chapman and Korgness on The koseki
Part I: Early history
2. Tsukada on Early modern Osaka hinin and population registers
3. Amos on Household registration and the dismantling of Edo outcaste cultures
4. Mori on The development of the modern koseki
Part II: Nation, empire and occupation
5. Kamoto on Creating spatial hierarchies The koseki, early international marriage and intermarriage
6. Chapman on Managing "strangers" and "undecidables" Population registration in Meiji Japan
7. Kim on Sub-nationality in the Japanese empire A social history of the koseki in colonial Korea 1910-45
8. Tong and Asano on Blood and country Chūgoku zanryū koji, nationality and the koseki
9. Krogness on Jus koseki Household registration and Japanese citizenship
Part III: The present
10. Ninomiya on The koseki and legal gender change
11. Maree on Sexual citizenship at the intersection of patriarchy and heteronormativity Same-sex partnerships and the koseki
12. Mackie on Birth registration and the right to have rights The changing family and the unchanging koseki
13. Chen (Lara) on Officially invisible The stateless (mukokusekisha) and the unregistered (mukosekisha)
14. White on Challenging the heternormative family in the koseki Surname, legitimacy and unmarried mothers
| David Chapman and Karl Jakob Krogness | |
| 2014 |
Japan's household registration system and citizenship |
Editors and contributorsThe book appears to be the brainchild of its two editors -- David Chapman, best known for a book on Koreans in Japan, the topic of his doctoral dissertation, and for several articles in which he criticizes Japan's population register systems -- and Karl Jakob Krogness, who devoted his masters thesis and doctoral disseration to critical studies of the family register system. David Chapman, born in 1961, has an MA in applied linguistics from Macquarie University and a PhD based on studies of Koreans in Japan from Curtin University of Technology, has done some postdoctoral work at Waseda University, and is currently a lecturer at the University of South Australia. He is the author of Zainichi Korean Ethnicity and Identity (Routledge, 2008), and has published many articles on minorities in Japan, most focusing on Koreans or Ogasawarans, and all touching on status issues related to household registers, alien registration, and nationality. In the "Minorities" section of the "Bibliography" feature of this website, I have collectively reviewed three of his artciles as Chapman 2004, Chapman 2006a, and Chapman 2006b, and his book as Chapman 2008a. And in the "Registers" section, I have reviewed another of his articles as Chapman 2008b. Karl Jakob Krogness received a PhD in Japanese Studies in 2008 from the Department of Cross Cultural and Regional Studies at the University of Copenhagen, based on a disseration titled The Koseki System and "Koseki Consciousness". In 2004, he received an MA in the same field, from the same department and university, based on a thesis titled We are family: Chūgoku kikokusha, koseki, and the Japanese population control system. He is currently an affiliated researcher at the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies at the University of Copenhagen. The co-editors co-author the 1st of the book's 14 chapters, which introduces the other 13 chapters. The 14 chapters, two of them co-authored, were written by 14 contributors, including the editors, as follows, in order of their appearance. 6 of the articles, one of them co-authored, were translated from Japanese. With the exception a figure showing a representation of a family register in Japanese, there are no kanji or kana in the book. The [bracketed characters] following the names of the 7 authors whose contributions were translated are mine.
Translators and translationsSix of the 13 chapters following the introductory chapter, one of them co-authored, appear in the book as translations from Japanese. The translations are attribted to the editors (Chapman and/or Krogness), or to another contributor (Amos), as follows. Krogness had a hand in 4 of the 6 translations, Chapman in 3, and Amos in 1, as follows.
The co-editors (especially Korgness) -- directly account for the linguistic quality of at least 8 chapters, including the 3 chapters they wrote in English, and the 5 they translated into English from contributions in Japanese. The translated chapters are not attributed to previously published book or journal articles, or to conference papers or the like -- presumably because they were written specifically for the book. Lacking samples of the original texts, it is impossible to evaluate the overall quality of the translations. However, occasional parenthetic glosses showing the romanizations of expressions being translated -- or, as in the introduction, glossed remarks about koseki followed by two figures, the first showing a koseki in Japanese script, the second showing its English translation -- provide a means of estimating the quality of the translation of specific terms. Honseki and mibunTake, for example, the terms "honseki" (本籍) and "mibun" (身分), two of the most important concepts in Japanese household registration law. Figures 1.1 (Koseki) and 1.2 (Koseki (translation)" respectively show representions of a household register in Japanese and an English translation. In these figures, 本籍 (honseki) is translated "Legal Domicile" and 身分事項 (mibun jikō) is rendered "Identity matters" (pages 3-4). The first paragraph under "State and family" on the page preceding the figures describes koseki like this (page 2, my highlighting and underscoring, and my (parenthetic) in-line representation of superscripted end notes in received text).
This reveals a lot about the qualify of writing and editing throughout much of the book. RESUMEThe editors have been "Legal Domicile" is a particularly inappropriate translation of "honseki" it actually refers to the territory with which one is primarily affiliated as a matter of nationality. On Japanese official forms, Japanese write the part of their address which specifies the locality within Japan with which they are considered territorially affiliated for purposes of nationality. Aliens with a nationality write their country of nationality, such as "China" (中国) or "USA" (米国) or whatever. Stateless aliens will usually write "statless" (無国籍) 中国, and stateless aliens write "stateless". Japanese do not write "Japan" (日本) in a "honseki" box. Rather they write the "honsekichi" (本籍地) or address of the register in which they are permanently recorded as Japanese nationals, until which time (1) change their honseki address, (2) migrate to a honseki at another address, (3) die, or (4) renounce or otherwise lose their Japanese status. Rather they write the register address, mostly fully stated as nesting from larger to smaller territory, beginning with the prefecture (都道府県 todōfuken), followed by the municipality (区市町村 kushichōson), then -- typically -- the name of the neighborhood (町 Chō), and usually the numbers of two successively smaller divisions with the negiborhood, called "ch&ōme" (丁目) and "ban" (番) or "banchi" (番地). Building or house numbers, and apartment numbers within a sub-divided building, generally are not shown. Depending on the form, only the prefecture is written, or the prefecture is omitted and only the municipal address is shown. My koseki shows Ａ県Ｂ市ＣＸ丁目Ｙ番. My house number Ｚ is not shown. When applying for a service within prefecture or municipality, using a form with honseki box, one usually omits the Ａ県. Most forms will also have lines for writing ones address, meaning the address where one is domiciled, as opposed to ones honseki address. Since I live in a home at an address that includes my honseki address, my domicile (residential) address will be Ａ県Ｂ市ＣＸ丁目Ｙ番Ｚ号 most formally, but usually just Ａ県Ｂ市ＣＸ-Ｙ-Ｚ, and this may be preceded by 7 digit postal code. My photo-ID residence card, as a citizen of the city in which I reside, does not show the prefecture, but only the city Ｘ市 at the top of the card followed by the date until which the card is valid, then my name ウェザロール ウィリアム (Uezarooru Uiriamu > Wezarooru Wiriamu > Wetherall William), next my neighborhood address ＣＸ-Ｙ-Ｚ, and finally the phone number of the citizen section (市民課) at the municipal hall. 号requwrite which is sharedOn formal documents, such as court records, however, the full honsekichi will be written. and their graphic surface it means "original" or "principal" registerFor example, Purpose and scopeI've been reading, and have begun a review, of the Chapman-Krogness book on household registration and citizenship. A few of the contributions are decent, but it is not a good book. A few of the contributions are good. Many of the chapters are translations from Japanese research pieces, and a couple of them are A or B work. Krogness did more of the translation than Chapman, and they collaborated on a couple of the translations. About have of the articles are original English pieces. One chapter, by Michael Kim, will particularly interest you. He's an historian, but I get the impression that he has stepped a bit too deeply into a territory -- Korea under Japanese rule -- that he doesn't really know that well. He does a good job in shedding light on the early development of household registration administration between the Interior and Chosen (both, of course, my terms). But he clearly shows that he has no understanding of laws -- and both editors seem to have been asleep when they edited his article. The third most important contributor, after Krogness and Chapman, is Timothy Amos, who also translated a chapter related to his own area of expertise, which is is "hinin" and "burakumin". I say "after Krogness and Chapman" because it seems that Krogness did a lot more work on the book than Chapman. Perhaps Chapman's name comes first because the book was his idea -- or possibly because he is the "sempai". The Introduction is appropriately attributed to "Chapman and Krogness" and shows all the signs of Chapman's characteristic careless writing. Krogness's chapter suggests that he may be the better writer. The slant of the book is clearly toward the "victims" of "marginalization" that the book blames on the "household registration system" -- the work of "elites" with ulterior motives regarding social control. There's a "critical" tone throughout. Chapman is of course the "zainichi" and "citizenship" man. Krogness has been mainly interested in displaced Japanese who returned to Japan as Chinese. Other contributors deal with international marriages and families, sex-changers, homosexuals, illegitimacy and name issues and the like. From a legal history point of view, the book is a shambles. Very little in the book is about how household registers actually work in tandem with family law. And there is practically nothing about "citizenship" -- though the word is conspicuous part of the title, and "citizens" is practically a synonym for Japanese throughout history. There is no discussion whatever about how status laws (concerning nationality, residence, and family) work in other states -- how other states (or, as in territorially complex states, states within states) deal with population registration and status issues related to rights and duties of denizenship (my term) and citizenship (in the narrower political-participation sense of the word). Ironically, most of the problems raised in the book would exist even there were no family registers as such -- for the simple reason that family law, and social discrimination, would still exist. The overall editing is mediocre. The indexing is poor. There is no systematic examination of the workings of family registers and related laws. There is no comparative examination of population registration and management in other countries. Like most books today, it is packaged to look as though it might be good. But it turns out to be another polemic in the guise of "scholarship" that, at the end of the day, will misinform and mislead readers who are not prepared to recognize its shortcomings and flaws.Quality and valueNationalityLaw has been an important means of social organization and control in Japan for the better part of millennium and a half. Population registration has been the most effective way of shepherding local populations as part of the aggregate national population. Registration before nationality Registration comes before nationality in two senses. First, Japan's first Nationality Law, which evolved during the Meiji period and came into effect from 1899, rests on a foundation of centuries of household registration practices and family law. Second, no one acquires Japanese nationality without registration in a family register affiliated with a municipality that is part of Japan's sovereign dominion. And loss of nationality means removal from such a register. The second point is particuarly important, for Japanese nationality is never automatically acquired. One becomes a national of Japan, at time of birth through rules based on lineage or place of birth, or later in life through legitimation or naturalization, only upon timely registration. In other words, nationality in Japan is all about family registration. And this article, and those grouped under it, are placed before the articles on nationality, precisely because an understanding of the long gestation and birth of Japan's Family Register Law is essential to an understanding of the meaning of nationality in Japan -- which was not truly a nation until 1868, and did not legally define its nationality until 1899. Understanding the territorial character of household registers in Japanese law is also essential to understanding why Taiwanese, Karafutoans, and Koreans as Chosenese gained and lost Japanese nationality. The territoriality of national affiliation also explains why Ryukyuans became Japanese during the Meiji period, and why they were not Japanese during the period the government of Okinawa was under the administration of the United States. Top Headcount imperatives The collective imperatives of the human condition are seen in all manner of groupings, from couples and families, to villages, clans, nations, and even multinational coalitions. While somewhat differently motivated, parents, village heads, and sovereigns share the need to know how many heads they need to feed or tax. Demographic records of various kinds have existed for as long as there have been systems of writing. According to one of Japan's earlist historical chronicles, registers existed from no later than the middle of the 6th century for at least some households, including those made up of Hata, Aya, and other migrants from the peninsula who came to Yamato and were settled in various provinces. Household registration for the purpose of allocating land for cultivation and levying taxes became more systematic by the middle of the 7th century. And by the start of the 8th century, such record keeping had become a matter of statute law. Over the next several centuries, registers evolved into more comprehensive records of vital events, including birth, death, marriage, and divorce, maintained by household. From the 17th century, such records came to be kept at local temples, partly to ascertain that no family had become Christian. The present Family Register Law dates from 1872, when household registration was consolidated under secular local governments nationwide. Since register matters generally followed customary family law, articles related to family law in the Civil Code, which was not enacted until the 1890s, were essentially codifications of the standards of family registration practices. The Nationality Law of 1899, too, not only rests on foundations of family law, but depends on the Family Register Law, since family registers also serve as national registers. In other words, one cannot be a national of Japan unless one is duly registered in a family register affilated with a municipality that is part of Japan's sovereign dominion. Consquently, registration is the only legal proof of nationality. And counting Japanese heads in a census is merely a matter of counting persons who are members of family registers. Top Affiliation as allegiance The overarching purpose of the earliest household registers -- other than to facilitate headcounts by household for purposes of keeping track of family relationships, and to determine field allocations and taxation, if not also at times corvee labor -- was to establish a person's status in terms of the locality to which a person belonged by virtue of being a member of a household register affiliated with the locality. A person's allegiance was then due whoever ruled or governed the locality. A person domiciled in a certain village would be regarded as affiliated first with a household in the village, then with the village, and then with the increasing larger territories within which the village itself was nested. The hierarchy of territories defined the jurisdictions of a hierarchy of authorities, from the head of household to the head of the village and the governor of the district in which the village was located, to the lord of the domain or province within which the household, village, and district were nested, and finally to the sovereign of Yamato or Japan, who claimed the domain or province as part of the court's dominion. In this sense affiliation meant, first and foremost, allegiance -- a sense of duty and responsibility toward someone higher in the chain of authority -- from the head of the family to the sovereign of the country -- in return, of course, for the protection and benevolence that were regarded as the fruits of loyalty. This is an essentially universal definition of allegiance, whether to a political authority or to a deity. Top Registers as territory While it may seem obvious that affiliation based on the locality of a household register is territorial, it is important to recognize that the register itself is part and parcel of the locality. That is, as the locality goes, so goes the registers. s are themselves regarded as part and parcel of the locality which territorial -- and, in fact, represent demographic territory. status based on affiliation is also territorial. While Since allegiance based on territorial affiliation, Since affiliationa matter of territorial affiliation, and affiliation dictated allegiance as affiliation and allegiance the territoriality of affiliation, hence of allegiance -- the manner in which the source of one's allegiance is taken to be the locality of registration. If the past, when the locality with jursidiction over a household became part of another locality, district, or even province, then the members of the household were expected to redirect their loyalties to the new hierarchy of authority. In Japan today, too, legal status, for Japanese and aliens alike, is essentially territorial, and begins with local affiliation. The centering of affiliation on the locality of registration has its roots in the earliest chapters of Yamato history. It also happens to conform with present-day international private law. In other words, Japanese law today rests on a foundation of Yamato practices that defined allegiance as affiliation with the local territory in which one is settled and registered. The territoriality of personal affiliation, hence allegiance, is clearly seen when entire localities, or even national territories, change their territorial affiliations. Prefectures and municipalities In the past, when a village changed hands in terms of who was considered the ruler of the region, the villagers were expected to be as loyal to the new ruler as to the old. Since the start of the Meiji period, numerous localities have found themselves affiliated with one prefecture one day and another prefecture the next. The prefectural flags of municipal halls and schools would change. While today's prefectural borders are stable, the borders of municipalities remain subject to radical redefinition as villages and towns are annexed by existing cities or merge into new cities. Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chosen Japan's gain and loss of Taiwan, Karafuto, and Korea as Chosen represent even more striking examples of the territoriality of affiliation and how changes of territorial affiliation affect subjecthood and expected allegiance. Japanese subjecthood and nationality was gained and lost by people considered domiciled in Taiwan, Karafuto, or Chosen through the agency of changes in the national affiliation of these territories. When affiliated with Japan's sovereign territory, people primarily domiciled in Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chosen were Japanese. All such people lost their Japanese nationality when these territories formally ceased being part of Japan on 28 April 1952. Okinawa Okinawa represents a case of temporary change of territorial affiliation. The fact that the United States administered Okinawa under a UN mandate, which recognized Japan's residual sovereignty over the territory, does not change the fact that, during its American years, Okinawa was not part of Japan, and Okinawans were not Japanese. However, the moment Okinawa reverted to Japan in 1972, it again became a prefecture of Japan, and all inhabitants with Okinawan family registers became Japanese nationals. Okinawans were suddenly subjects of Japanese law, as were aliens on the islands -- and their heads were counted as such in Japan's 1975 national census. Moreover, the government and people of Okinawa were suddenly obliged to recognize the authority of Japanese law, and to otherwise accommodate themselves to their new status. Such are the effects of the territoriality of affiliation on allegience. Top The territoriality of nationality The origin of Japan's family register system goes back to the need to count heads, mainly for purposes of land allocation and taxation. The unit for headcounts was taken to be the "mouth" (口) through which a head was fed, and the "door" (戸) or household in which the mouth of the head got fed. Being recorded as a "mouth" affiliated with a certain "door" in a certain village made one a member of the village population. One's status within the household -- defined by sex, age, and relations based on descent including sibling order or on alliances or marriage or adoption -- also determined the set of duties and privileges that came with membership in the household. When, entering the Meiji period, Japan found it necessary to define its nation by nationality, the easiest and arguably most logical legal criterion was to equate nationality with affiliation based on membership in a family register in a municipality that was part of Japan's sovereign dominion. Such an equation of nationality with territorial affiliation also favorably comported with practices in most other countries. Thus it came to be that Japanese nationality, while typically acquired through a Japanese parent at time of birth, is essentially a mark of affiliation with a territory that is part of Japan's sovereign dominion. The primary proof of membership in Japan's nation is not descent, but possession of a household register affiliated with a village, town, or city that is part of Japan's sovereign dominion. In other words, one becomes a national of Japan through registration as someone who is principally domiciled in a municipality of Japan. Come census time, people residing in Japan are counted or not as part of Japan's nation according to whether they have a principle domicile register in Japan. All others are regarded as aliens.CitizenshipTerritorialityCivil statusFamily lawSocial controlVital records | |
| 2014b |
David Chapman and Karl Jakob Korgness |
| 2014 |
Takashi Tsukada |
|
Tsukada Takashi (塚田孝 b 1954), a professor of history at Ōsaka University City University, specializes in "recent-era" (近世) ["early-modern"] urban history, particularly in Ōsaka, and especially concerning so-called "hinin" (非人) or "non-people" in relation to the contemporary local "status system" (身分制 mibunsei). The translated article is not attributed to a particular publication or manuscript, but is probably based the later of Tsukada's most recent of many publications on Japan as a "status-system society" (身分制社会 mibunsei shakai).
塚田孝
塚田孝 I have consulted the most recent volume in the course of trying to decipher Amos's generally clear but sometimes odd English characterizations of Tsukada's precise terminology. RESUME which, judging from the preceding chapter by Tsukada Takashi, as translated by Amos, concerned "hinin" variously defined by semi-automomous (my term) settlements in Osaka of "beggars and paupers" (pags 21) or simply "beggars (poor people)" (page 35) which, from the middle of the 17th century, came to include some "former Christians" (page 22) or "fallen Christians" (pages 22) and their descendants -- and which, by the end of the 17th century, "had established a faternity-based internalized system of marriage [seemingly fixed and] closed off to the outside" (page 35) -- but which were infact never "fully fixed or closed" (page 41). |
| 2014 |
Timothy Amos |
|
Timothy David Amos, educated in Australia and Japan, is now an associate professor in the Department of Japanese Studies at the National University of Singapore. He received a PhD in East Asian History from the Australian National University in 2006, on the basis of a dissertation titled Ambiguous Bodies: Writings on the Japanese Outcaste . Previous to Australian doctorate, Amos completed an MA program at Akita University in 1997 with a thesis on 日本身分制の研究 [Nihon mibunsei no kenkyū [Studies of Japan's status systems], and in 2000 he finished a PhD program at Tōhoku University with a dissertation on 被差別民史の研究 (Hisabetsu-min shi no kenkyū [Studies of the history of discriminated-people]), according to his NUS curriculum vitae. Amos, in the article under review, makes occasional reference to his own book -- as Amos 2011 -- which I too will occassionaly cite in this review. The book
Timothy D. Amos He culls most of his data on Meiji era legal measures related to population registration from the following monograph, which I have not been able to obtain, but which I would guess is based on the author's doctoral dissertation.
横山百合子 Yokoyama (b1956) received a PhD from the University of Tokyo, where she specialized in Japanese history, focusing on the late Edo and early Meiji periods. She has written mainly about status laws and how changes in such laws after the Meiji Restoration in 1868 affected the fates of all manner of people from samurai of various classes to townsmen, outcastes, and women. Many of her articles examine the role that family registers played in implementing status the status system of the day. The title of Amos's article is directly inspired by the title of Yokoyama's monograph, his first and most often cited source. 内容紹介 幕末維新期の人別・戸籍政策の展開(天保人別政令と町人地社会/明治初年の東京府における戸籍政策/東京府戸籍編製法と町人地社会)/近世身分制の解体と武士社会(明治初年の士族触頭制と下級武士社会/武士身分と士籍法/近世身分制の解体と戸籍法)/幕末維新期における町人地社会の構造(江戸町人の構造と床商人地代上納運動/近世後期江戸における町人の家とジェンダー)/明治維新と近世身分の解体 著者略歴 (「BOOK著者紹介情報」より) 横山/百合子 1956年に生まれる。1979年、東京大学文学部国史学科卒業。2003年、東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科博士課程単位取得退学、博士(文学、東京大学)。現在、東京都公文書館史料編纂係(非常勤)、山梨県立女子短期大学講師(非常勤)(本データはこの書籍が刊行された当時に掲載されていたものです) 内容紹介 幕末維新期の人別・戸籍政策の展開(天保人別政令と町人地社会/明治初年の東京府における戸籍政策/東京府戸籍編製法と町人地社会)/近世身分制の解体と武士社会(明治初年の士族触頭制と下級武士社会/武士身分と士籍法/近世身分制の解体と戸籍法)/幕末維新期における町人地社会の構造(江戸町人の構造と床商人地代上納運動/近世後期江戸における町人の家とジェンダー)/明治維新と近世身分の解体 著者略歴 (「BOOK著者紹介情報」より) 横山/百合子 1956年に生まれる。1979年、東京大学文学部国史学科卒業。2003年、東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科博士課程単位取得退学、博士(文学、東京大学)。現在、東京都公文書館史料編纂係(非常勤)、山梨県立女子短期大学講師(非常勤)(本データはこの書籍が刊行された当時に掲載されていたものです) ISBN： 978-4-634-52342-5 著者： 横山百合子＝著 刊行： 2005年10月 仕様： A5判 ・ 352頁 もくじ： 序章 幕末維新期の戸籍政策と都市社会 － 身分とジェンダーの視座から 1 研究史の整理 2 本研究の課題と構成 第一部 幕末維新期の人別・戸籍政策の展開 第一章 天保人別改令と町人地社会 － 都市住民構造の視点から はじめに 1 人別帳登録の条件 2 本人別にみる戸と家族 3 家族に属さない者の登録 4 人別帳の作成と管理 5 天保人別改令以後の人別帳の虚構性 おわりに 第二章 明治初年の東京府における戸籍政策 － 東京府戸籍編製法・戸籍所法の制定・ 施行をめぐって はじめに 1 明治元年一二月｢人別書上方｣ 2 ｢脱籍｣取締政策と｢戸籍改正｣ 3 明治二年三月無籍処分方達 4 明治二年三月の｢現在人別調｣と編製法・書法の制定・施行時期 おわりに 第三章 東京府戸籍編製法と町人地社会 － 人別帳・戸籍簿の類型をふまえて はじめに 1 東京府戸籍編製法・戸籍所法における｢店｣と戸 2 幕末維新期の人別帳・戸籍簿の三類型 3 東京府戸籍編製法と町人地社会 － 町・家守・女性 おわりに 第二部 近世身分制の解体と武士社会 第四章 明治初年の士族触頭制と下級武士社会 － 元代官手附本多元治｢身分留｣を素材に はじめに 1 士族触頭制の構造 2 士族触頭制における附・卒の実態 おわりに 第五章 武士身分と士籍法 はじめに 1 戸籍編成と土地の身分的性格 2 戸籍政策の担当機関と武士地管轄機関 3 東京府内士籍法の構造と東京府の武士地一円支配 4 東京府内士籍法と府兵制 おわりに 第六章 近世身分制の解体と戸籍法 はじめに 1 寄留人調査と鑑札交付 2 身分的周縁と戸籍法 3 戸籍法制定の意義 － 民部省と京都府の論争を素材として おわりに 補論 丹羽邦男氏の『地租改正の起源 － 開明完了の形成』について 第三部 幕末維新期における町人地社会の構造 第七章 江戸町人地社会の構造と床商人地代上納運動 － 神田柳原床店地の事例から はじめに 1 明治二年柳原土手通り床店地域の構造 2 床商人地代上納運動の展開 おわりに 第八章 近世後期江戸における町人の家とジェンダー － 土地所持と家業経営の視点から はじめに 1 近世後期江戸における女性の土地所持の実態 2 金沢家における｢奥｣と表 3 町人身分とジェンダー おわりに 結論 明治維新と近世身分制の解体 あとがき 初出一覧 付録 － 索引In their introduction to Japan's Household Registration System and Citizenship, Chapman and Krogness state that Timothy Amos, in Chapter 3, "neatly contextualizes the historical background on how registration practices worked in the early modern population and continues by discussing the establishment of the 1871 Household Registration Law (koseki hō) and how it hastened the dismantling of the Edo outcaste order to create legislation which disempowered outcastes in irreversible ways" (page 7). What Amos most "neatly" does, however, is to avoid any serious "contextualization" of status issues in Japan, in a bid to focus on historical developments most directly related to the topic of his book -- the "burakumin" he claims to exist in present-day Japan in part because of the way the outcaste order was dismantled in the Meiji period. Victims of changeAmos sets out to (1) "offer a brief background on early modern population registration practices and the distinctive political cultures of early modern eastern Japanese outcastes", (2) "discuss early Meiji attemps to reform registration practices and the establishment and enactment of the 1871 Household Registration Law", (3) "show how this law hastened the dismantling of the Edo outcaste order, prompting the creation of other related pieces of legislation, and disempowering outcastes in seemingly intractable ways", and in conclusion (4) "[make] some observations about the implications of this research study for future work on registration practices in Japan" (page 43). The 2nd paragraph of 4 in his Conclusion cuts to the chase of Amos's approach to outcaste history (pages 55-56). It is difficult to dispute the claims of these modern outcaste historians that early Meiji oligarchs and bureaucrats certain had mixed, and sometimes even possibly ulterior, motives when promoting, passing and implementing important pieces of legislation such as the Household Registration Law and [eta hinin] Emancipation Edict (sic) [both of 1871]. That said, however, as can be seen above, this kind of explanation [which stresses how such measures, rather than liberate such groups, "legally inscribed social differences that were assumed to exist between outcaste settlements and the commoner population] is not without problems. It tends to assume a uniformity and consistency among the motives of the early AMeiji elites which the historian is actually hard-pressed to find. Perhaps more importantly though, the explanation tends to obscure what is probably the real significance of the legislation: the eradication of unique early modern political cultures developed by people of marginal status that had long ensured their livelihoods and prevented full exposure to localized forms of discrimination annd exploitation. Amos goes on his conclusion to essentially critize what he characterizes as contemporary "revisionist" understandings of outcastes as having for years benefited from living under conditions that isolated them from the need to engage in fixed, productive labor, and now it was time for them to get proper jobs and become commoners like everyone else (page 55). He characterizes some of the difficulties of liberated outcastes like this (page 56). The Household Registration Law required all status groups to register as households with local government authorities in the same geographical locality [in which they lived]. This required outcastes in eastern Japan formally to sever their status-based political ties with their former leader [in Edo/Tokyo] and to conform to the new organizational logic of household maintenance solely within the local political context, a difficult feat for people like former hinin who were often unregistered single males without residential property who made their living policing people like their former selves. As a result, Amos concludes (page 56), . . . . . . Former outcastes, shed of the protection offered under the status arrangements of the previous regime, were forced to devise new strategies to protect themselves and their livelihoods in the new sociopolitical order. Amos all but concludes that former outcastes were exceptionally victimized because the rules of the larger political game they had been playing on the field of Tokugawa society suddenly changed, and left them struggling to follow new social rules designed to protect new political interests that didn't include their welfare -- the interests of an upstart state trying to cast off the shackles of a feudalesque order of local domains and clannish loyalties, and replace them with those of a nation of commoners loyal to the monarch, and to a government run mostly by people who had come from the defunct samurai ruling caste. What's missing from this pictureRESUMETellingly, the Buraku Liberation League (BLL), which represents (though rather weak and ineffective) poltiical on the whole not very powerful) , that ruled in his name. society and weld its state I would add that this was exactly what many other people, who lost the protections of their former statuses, including"Population registration and Edo outcaste culture"Amos begins his "history" of registration in Japan like this (pges 43-44). Population registration in Japan based on the ko or "household" is rooted in an older East Asian model originating in China (Yokoyma 2005; 3). First adopted in Japan in the sixth century, registers were intitially used to record the inflow of foreigners, but were soon extended beyond the capital to other secionts of the population (Brown 1993: 156-57). During the period that followed the Great Reforms of 646, population registration became an important national apparatus for establishing social control and calculating tax revenues. . . . The editor, in their introduction, allege that Amos "neatly contextualizes the historical background on how registration practices worked in the early modern population" (page 7). But nowhere in the chapter -- nowhere in the book, in fact -- is there a neat, general discussion of registration practices in early or early modern. What we get instead is the following allegation, which is repeated in various ways throughout the book, and appears to be its central "critical" mantra (page 44). [Population registers of various kinds] superimposed a uniform and utopic vision of bureaucratic organization onto the lives of early modern subjects, forcing them to associate themselves and their kin with households." The book never clarifies why the registration of people in terms of their families -- which in practically all cases meant people actually residing together under the same roof or two as members of the same household -- clarifying each individuals biological or adoptive or other relationship with other individuals, whether in the register at hand or another register -- "forced" anyone to think of themselves in terms of being a "houshold" or "family". Wasn't that essentially what they were? Collectivities of one, two, three, at times more generations of the same family, defined mainly by marriage and co-residence? What are the odds that an anthropologist would find a society in which there is no fairly clear, and fairly rigid, shared understanding -- possibly codified only through oral traditions -- of where each individuals falls in his or her familial order, and where each individual and family falls in the larger order of the collective population? But Amos, evading the need to explore the implications of his "critical" observation, immediately invites the reader to consider an "intriguing example" of how groups generally comprised of "people of the same status who lived in the same location" but who also "built associations that bound them across time and space" -- in the form of a certain "fraternity" in the "Edo outcaste order". Amos then speaks of the emergence during the 17th century of a "professional beggar (hinin) fraternity or guild" in Edo. Without further elaboration, he states that "By the third quarter of the seventeenth century, the eta leader Danzaemon living in Asakusa, Edo, in an area cordoned off from the rest of the population, appeared to ahve developed a working relationship with the hinin. Edo hinin may, he says, have originatd from a population of "impoverished drifters who had arrived in Edo in an earlier wave". Danzaemon -- "Perhaps a descendant of an independent leather-making family from the medieval period" -- "became the official supplier of leather to the shogunate, bringing all regional tanners under his control (Amos 2011; 43)" (page 45). Amos goes on to say that "Little more is known about the early relationship between Danzaemon and the hinin fraternities/guilds", but when hinin protested Danzaemon's treatment of their guilds own "private property", the Edo magistrate ruled in favor of Danzaemon. A hinin rebellion against Danzaemon failed, and "most eta and hinin in the eight eastern provinces of Japan essentially came under Danzaemon's governance" (page 45). in the register, so s in the register, recording each individuals parental, child, sibling status typically based on blood ties but including adoptive ties -- fairly universal kinship termskinship indroduction promisted that Chapter 3 wouldTimothy Amos sets out to describe the "dismantling of Edo outcaste cultures" |
| 2014 |
Kenji Mori |
| 2014 |
Itsuko Kamoto |
| 2014 |
David Chapman |
| 国籍法外四件ヲ樺太ニ施行スルノ件(大正13年勅令第88号) Imperial Ordinance (勅令 chokurei) No. 88 of 1924, Sealed on 16 April 1924, sanctioned the promulgation of the Nationality Law and 4 other laws. The ordinance, as published in the 18 April 1924 issue of Kanpō, stated that the laws cited to the left were to be enforced in Karafuto from 1 August 1924, and listed major 3 laws by their name and 2 minor laws by their year of promulgation and number, as follows (Tashiro 1974: 851). Note that the version of Law No. 88 of 1924 published by Tashiro erringly gives 1 August of "Taishō 12" (1923) rather than "Taishō 13" (1924) as the date of enforcement. 国籍法 Nationality Law = 1899 law, replaced in 1951 by new law effective that year 戸籍法 Household [Family] Register Law = 1915 law, replaced in 1947 by law effective from 1948 寄留法 Temporary Residence [Registration] Law = 1912 law, replaced by ZZZZ law effective from ZZZZ 明治三十一年法律第二十一号 Law No. 21 of 1898 = Civil Code Enforcement Law, still in effect but often revised 明治三十二年法律第九十四号 Law No. 94 of 1899 = Commercial Code, still in effect but often revised Cabinet Order No. 5 of 1924, "Concerning renunciation of nationality of those who possess a principle register in Karafuto" -- (樺太ニ本籍ヲ有スル者ノ国籍ヲ離脱ニ関スル (大正十三年閣令第五号) -- provided criteria and procedural rules for Karafutoans to renounce their Japanese status under the 2nd provision of Article 20 of the Nationality Law, which specifically governed the renunciation of "Japanese who by reason of having been born in a foreign country designated by imperial ordinance have acquired the nationality of that country" (see further details on my website). The Nationality Law was revised in 1916 to provide for renunciation. However, it was again revised, in 1924, to provide for cases in which an individual born in a designated right-of-soil state, beginning with the United States of America, who acquired both the nationality of that state, and the nationality of Japan as a result of a Japanese parent registering their birth and reserving their nationality at a Japanese consulate. INVESTIGATE 寄留法 REMOVE REGISTRATION PAGES FROM INTERNET 徴兵令ヲ樺太ニ施行スルノ件(大正13年勅令第125号) |
| 2014 |
Michael Kim |
|
Michael Kim (김마이클), a graduate of Dartmoth College (AB in History, 1990), and of Harvard University (AM in Regional Studies Asia, 1992, annd PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilization, 2004), now an Associate Professor of Korean Studies at Yonsei University, comes closest of all the contributors to this book to being both an historian and an expert on the operations of registration laws in the Korea when it was part of the Empire of Japan. And much of what he reveals about the legal measures Japan took then to solve the problems of overseeing the multiple legal jurisdictions of its sovereign and legal territories are both interesting and generally accurate. Yet some of Kim's remarks, including his characterization of Japan's Nationality Law, reveal his "legal innocence" so to speak. |
| 2014 |
Yan Tong and Shinichi Asano |
| 2014 |
Karl Jakob Krogness |
| 2014 |
Shūhei Ninomiya |
| 2014 |
Claire Maree |
| 2014 |
Vera Mackie |
| 2014 |
Tien-shi Chen (Lara) |
| 2014 |
Linda E. White |