Toward a Legislated Racism
Just as Karl Marx argued that "the economic" constitutes the hidden or suppressed truth of past societies, now revealed to us by the workings of capitalist society,[91] one can make a case that racism reveals the quintessential operations of the ascription of any inherent inequalities, such as those that prevailed in a "society of orders" like Tokugawa Japan. Viewed from this perspective, which is not that of the logician, racism is not a particular variety of discrimination; rather, all forms of discrimination produce effects like those of racism. The Tokugawa history of today's burakumin points to practices and ideologies that betray racist sentiment developed from what was originally a status distinction.
We have seen how asymmetrical punishments meted out for kawata and peasants were following the 1843 Clog Thongs Riot. By the standards of late Tokugawa juridical practice, this was not unusual. In 1796 the bakufu's superintendent of finances, who had a seat at the Tribunal (Hyojosho[*] ), answered a query whether or not commissioners should conduct direct investigations of eta/hinin after preliminary interrogations by lower officials. The superintendent's answer was that there should be no distinctions in this regard between ordinary commoners (heijin ) and eta-hinin. But, he added, their sentences should be different.[92] In 1839 it was decided that when peasants and kawata filed joint suits in court, they should be treated differently (sabetsu , discrimination): peasants should squat on straw mats, kawata on the gravel, or three shaku (almost one meter) lower.[93] Clearly this could be construed as an official strategy to drive a status wedge into possible solidarities among commoner groups.
Differential punishments for samurai and commoners were routine throughout the Tokugawa period, but the singling out of kawata around the turn of the nineteenth century was something altogether new. The first Tokugawa segregation law for "eta, hinin, chasen , and
[91] Karl Marx, Grundrisse (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), 460. This thesis has been reformulated by Bourdieu, who argues for the pervasiveness of "interests" even in the symbolic realm; Foucault has substituted power for Marx's economic interests.
[92] Kobayashi, Kinsei horeishu[*] , 217.
[93] Ibid., 337.
the like" dates from 1778.[94] It expresses concern with the lawless behavior of eta, hinin, and chasen and with their "mingling incognito with peasants or townspeople at inns, eateries, drinking establishments, etc." This law was followed in 1804 by the first listing of special penalties for kawata and hinin.[95] The latter document refers to precedents going back to 1771, but not earlier.
Bakufu regulations before the end of the eighteenth century mentioned kawata but did not legislate discrimination and segregation in a comprehensive manner. In this the bakufu followed pre-Tokugawa practice. For example, a kawaramono who in 1518 assaulted a silk merchant did not receive particularly harsh punishment from the Muromachi bakufu court.[96] Where official prejudice existed, however, it was manifested in various ways. Teraki Nobuaki mentions a common practice dating from the early Tokugawa period, the cartographic custom of leaving out figures for road sections passing through kawata hamlets when computing distances between two points.[97] If maps are representations of the land and its occupants, this practice may have implied that the kawata did not belong in Japan. Similarly, a decree of 1763 required that hinin be removed from the road to Tokugawa Ieyasu's shrine in Nikko[*] when the Korean embassy passed through.[98] The image of Japan that was visible on maps (as seen through the eyes of officials) and from sedan chairs (through the eyes of foreign dignitaries) did not include kawata or hinin.
In reality, of course, kawata were far from being ignored by the authorities. The first reference to kawata in Tokugawa edicts dates from 1657. They were mentioned only in passing, though, in an addendum to the fourth article of a nine-point directire regarding the catching of thieves. Kawata figured in a list of socially undesirable elements "one should look out for," the list subsequently adopted in goningumi village
[94] Ibid., 151-52; TKKz 5:474-75 (no. 3434). In some domains, chasen (one of the many low occupational groups) were distinguished from kawata; they performed similar functions as guards or at funerals under the direction of kawata leaders (Teraki, Kinsei buraku , 48; KDJ 9:456).
[95] Watanabe, Mikaiho[*] buraku , 6, 155.
[96] KDJ 3:758, s.v. "kawaramono."
[97] Teraki, Kinsei buraku , 44. This cartographic practice was abolished by law on April 2, 1869 (Ninomiya, "Inquiry," 107).
[98] Kobayashi, Kinsei horeishu[*] , 136.
laws: "Buddhist monks, yamabushi (mountain ascetics), wandering ascetics, mendicant monks with flutes and bells, eta, hinin, etc."[99] Large cities conducted investigations and introduced reforms (aratame ) and passed administrative measures for hinin (Osaka, 1644; Kyoto, 1654; Edo, 1674) and kawata (Kyoto, 1715; Edo, 1719).[100] These were efforts to tighten control over the floating population of senmin, who were neither samurai nor peasants, craftsmen nor merchants.
By the end of the seventeenth century the prevailing practice was to list kawata separately from peasants, sometimes in completely different population rosters. In Matsumoto domain (Shinano) beginning in 1722 kawata and hinin were even listed under the separate heading jingai ("outside humans"), written with the same characters, in reverse order, as today's pejorative term gaijin (foreigners).[101] Starting with Danzaemon in 1719 and continuing into the 1730s, the genealogies of kawata were being checked in Kyoto, Edo, and a number of domains,[102] apparently to build a data base around the membership of these classes. In later years these data were used in so-called eta hunts (etagari ) in Edo, Osaka (1798, 1827, 1833), and Kyoto.[103] One such etagari conducted in Kyoto in 1831 yielded fifty-three kawata who were trying to "pass." In 1722 Danzaemon was established as a well-pedigreed "national" chief for the hinin and kawata in the eastern provinces (the eight Kanto provinces; Izu, Suruga, and Kai to the west of them; and the northeastern provinces).[104] In order to establish a clear hierarchy between hinin and kawata, the former were required to cut off their topknots and were forbidden to wear headgear.
The 1720s and 1730s constitute a watershed for segregation legislation aimed at kawata in many domains, perhaps prompted by the bakufu's retrenchment reforms collectively known as the Kyoho[*] Reforms.[105]
[99] Ibid., 102. See article 1 of the goningumi rules (1662) of Shimo-Sakurai, Kita-Saku district, in appendix 3; cf. articles z and 3 of the goningumi rules (1640) of the same village in appendix 2.
[100] Teraki, Kinsei buraku , 44, 46.
[101] Banba, "'Buraku' no seiritsu," 56.
[102] Watanabe, Mikaiho[*] buraku , 108, 138.
[103] Kobayashi Shigeru, "Buraku kaiho[*] toso[*] ," 91.
[104] For details of the national governance of the kawata/hinin, see Cornell, "Caste Patron," 56-70; and Ninomiya, "Inquiry," 99-100.
[105] For an excellent, detailed discussion of these reforms, and the only one available in English, see Kate Nakai, "Kyoho[*] Reforms," in the Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan 4:330-31.
This institutionalization of discriminatory practices against kawata and hinin gathered momentum with each subsequent reform (Kansei, 1780-1790s; Tenpo, 1830s), eventually culminating in the intra-race racism of the nineteenth century. Earlier some domains had issued status legislation for the kawata: Awa domain had decreed in 1699 that kawata should dress more coarsely than peasants, and Choshu[*] domain in 1813 had decreed that "eta, chasen, and the like" should not be extravagant in their clothing or home design and should not engage in occupations other than those authorized by the domain.[106] During the period of the Kyoho[*] Reforms a number of domains made a concerted effort to restrict social intercourse between kawata and other commoners. The domains of Matsumoto, Komoro, Iwamurata, and Okudono (Shinano, the latter three in Kita-Saku) all issued legislation for kawata in the year 1738.[107] In 1704 the Okudono domain (the location of the Bonboku Incident of 1771) acquired additional villages in Kita-Saku (around Tanoguchi) as a tobichi , or detached parcel. On that occasion the domain issued a comprehensive law comprising eighty articles, but none of them directly concerned the kawata. In 1738, however, the domain issued a seven-point directive aimed specifically at the kawata population. Reissued again in 1779 and 1809, this law constituted the domain's policy toward the kawata.
It is worth noting that in 1704 there were only eleven kawata households in the domain, spread over five (seven in 1738) of the twenty-five villages. By 1838 the kawata population, in ten villages, still numbered only 107 members. In 1765 in Komoro domain (15,000 koku), with a population of approximately the same size, the kawata population was 438 in ten villages, half of it concentrated in Kamasu, the largest kawata community in both Komoro domain and Shinano province.[108] How could such a minuscule "minority" population possibly represent a threat? What motivated domain officials to implement discriminatory and segregationist directives against the kawata in 1738? Judging from the regulations of that year and later, when they were reissued, the concerns seem to have been the following.[109]
[106] Teraki, Kinsei buraku , 45; another example is Toyoura domain in 1683 (Kobayashi, Kinsei horeishu[*] , 103-4).
[107] Ozaki, Shinshu[*] hisabetsu buraku , 17, 72-74, 243-44.
[108] Ibid., 52
[109] These rules, all from the Kita-Saku area, can be found in the following publications: for Okudono and Komoro in 1738, ibid., 75-74, 244-45; for Chiisagata district in 1819 and 1838, ibid., 232-26; and for Iwamurata in 1783, Banba, "'Buraku' no sui-i," pt. 2, Shinano 16, no. 9 (1964): 29.
Standards of segregation, which were perceived as breaking down, were the main concern: the kawata were behaving too much like ordinary peasants. Concretely this involved reinstituting status-marking practices and creating new ones. Practices signifying status were fairly consistent throughout the area and the country, with only a few local variations. Laws consistently stated and restated that kawata could wear only straw sandals; wooden clogs were forbidden, as was the use of umbrellas or parasols; and clothing with family crests and haori jackets were proscribed. Kawata could not build new-style houses and were forbidden to hang streamers (nobori ) from poles or roofs during village festivals.
These laws set kawata clearly apart from other peasants, although, as already mentioned, in certain places, such as Hozu village, titled peasants directed very similar taboos against other peasants. Social interaction was regulated and reduced to a minimum, usually only when official business was involved. As a rule, kawata were instructed always to be courteous and deferential toward peasants. Kawata could wear their short swords only when they were on official business, such as guard duty, and certainly could not parade about with them in other villages, posturing as officials. Even for one-day trips they needed permission from the village headman. At plays or entertainments they were to appear only in the line of duty, in accordance with instructions from the local headman, but not among the audience or as participants. Nor could they be seen at teahouses or drinking establishments. When going to the fields or mountains, they had to take back roads. They were forbidden to enter peasants' homes or even commoners' shops except on official business. Finally, they were not permitted to mingle with ordinary people (heijin), a regulation that led, as noted earlier, to a practical prohibition of mixed marriages. (For a translation of these and other regulations, see appendix 5.)
It was essential that these Japanese be identifiable as "other" at all times. While ultimately ancestry became the criterion for determining who were kawata, more visible signs were needed to differentiate them. In Tosa, persons of kawata status could not be in the streets after 4:00
P.M. (1780).[110] In Matsushiro domain, which had the largest kawata population in Shinano (380 households with a total population of 2,450 in 1869),[111] all kawata were required to carry a lantern so that they could be identified at night (1841).[112] As we saw in the Okayama uprising in 1856, they had to wear special clothing; elsewhere they had to wear pelts or pieces of animal fur.
Since kawata hamlets were set apart from society, fugitives sought refuge there. Others were lured to kawata hamlets by the opportunities of the sometimes lucrative leather trade.[113] That kawata hamlets were "hotbeds of criminals," as one Confucian scholar put it, is sheer derision. On the other hand, certain legal decisions criminalized the hinin and kawata population as a whole. In Osaka hinin status had become criminalized in 1680 by virtue of a decree stating that anyone buying clothes from hinin would be treated as a thief, the assumption being that hinin, already presumed to be criminals, peddled only stolen goods.[114] A new twist in the law regarding disinheritance (kando[*] , kyuri[*] ) had a similar effect with regard to the kawata. Disinheritance of an individual, it will be recalled, precluded the threat of punishment by vicarious guilt that made social groups (family, neighborhood, village) legally responsible and punishable for crimes committed by persons who had absconded. When a member fled the village, only after several active searches had failed to produce the fugitive could disinheritance be implemented. In the late eighteenth century numerous laws denied kawata communities any such protective clauses. If kawata absconded, a nagatazune ("long search") was ordered that did not end after a certain period, in other words, a search in perpetuity. Thus kawata communities were always responsible for crimes committed by their wayward members and held punishable for them.[115]
Popular views of pollution and its association with certain occupa-
[110] Teraki, Kinsei buraku , 45.
[111] Banba, "Mibunsei no teppai e," 41.
[112] Banba, "'Buraku' no sui-i," pt. z, 31.
[113] Hatanaka documents the concentration of wealth in some kawata communities and in-migration there by non-kawata ("'Kawata' mibun," 308-9, 328-35).
[114] Kobayashi, Kinsei horeishu[*] , 103.
[115] For such bakufu laws issued in 1781, 1792, and 1802, see ibid., 162, 189-90, 252-54; for the difference between kando[*] and kyuri[*] , see ibid., 312.
tions were officially sanctioned through legislation marking kawata as a visually identifiable class of people to be avoided. This led not only to perceptions of kawata as lawbreakers and their communities as "hotbeds of criminals" but also to racist views that naturalized the kawata as literally nonhuman. In Oshu[*] domain in Iyo (Shikoku) all male and female kawata over the age of seven were obliged to wear a piece of animal fur measuring fifteen square centimeters at all times; each kawata family also had to hang an animal pelt at the entrance to their home.[116] In Kaga in 1776, Matsumoto's term jingai was used in a notification stating that "since kawata are originally different from humans, they should not be in places where humans congregate."[117] As we shall see, a theory was developing that the kawata were indeed racially different from the Japanese. This view of the kawata as belonging to the realm of beasts was also adopted by intellectuals such as Kaiho Seiryo[*] (1755-1817), rationalist and mercantilist, who wrote that they "are like animals (kinju[*] dozen[*] ) ... there is no morality in their heart (kokoro ni zen'aku no naki )."[118] But before turning to the question of racist ideology, we shall take a look at the economic dimension of segregation.