Note: in this essay, the term “blessed” is to the understood in the Japanese secular sense, and not in the religious sense.

Introduction

Research attempting to understand Buraku discrimination in relation to eugenics may be possible. However, caution should be exercised in reducing Buraku discrimination directly to racism or biological eugenics. Certainly, in modern Japan, eugenics and social evolution have been used as part of the discourse explaining discriminated Buraku communities. However, observing actual discriminatory practices, particularly in the context of marriage discrimination, reveals that race and heredity are not necessarily the primary issues at stake. Conversely, the exclusion of Burakumin is seldom justified directly in terms of race or genetics. The issue is not that specific defects are attributed to Burakumin; rather, discrimination often operates in a diffuse and taken-for-granted manner. What non-Burakumin are concerned with is rather the relational and spatial position of “who they are,” “which region they belong to,” and “which ie lineage they are connected to.” In other words, it’s about being “Buraku.” In this short essay, I would like to re-examine Buraku discrimination not as a variant of biological racism, but as a mechanism for boundary management surrounding marriage and reproduction.

1. From Difference to Distinction

In contemporary thought, difference is not merely a matter of variation. Difference distinguishes objects, forms boundaries, and is a condition for establishing social order. However, not all differences existing in society transform into discrimination. Society selects certain differences from among countless others, transforms them into boundaries, and arranges them hierarchically. Here, it is important to distinguish between difference and distinction (social distinction). Difference itself is ubiquitous. However, through the intervention of institutional mechanisms such as the state, the ie system, education, medicine, religion, and regional communities, difference is transformed into social distinction.

Eugenics is positioned as a modern mechanism that justifies this transformation. In other words, eugenics is not about difference itself, but a technique for naturalizing and legitimizing social distinctions through the authority of science.

2. Buraku Discrimination and Eugenics

The concepts supporting Buraku discrimination have repeatedly included representations such as “inferiority,” “incest,” “laziness,” “crime,” and “impurity.” However, the “inferiority” discussed here is not necessarily biological. Rather, poverty, occupation, educational opportunities, and productivity are often cited as the basis for “inferiority.” In this respect, discussing Buraku discrimination as simply racial discrimination fails to grasp the distinctive logic of Buraku discrimination. Burakumin are not positioned outside the civic community. They belong to the regional community, yet are simultaneously excluded. In other words, the characteristic of Buraku discrimination lies in the inclusive exclusion of “internalized others.” Complete expulsion does not occur. However, clear boundaries are maintained in the areas of marriage and kinship formation.

3. Marriage Discrimination and “Blessed Marriages”

Various surveys have repeatedly confirmed responses indicating hesitation to marry someone of Buraku origin because they “want to be blessed by those around them if they marry.” The issue here is not simply prejudice. A “blessed marriage” signifies approval from family and relatives, inheritance of property, gifts, social credibility, and participation in the kinship network.
Even in love marriages, marriage does not exist solely as an extension of romance. Marriage is also a form of entry into a community of social reproduction. Therefore, Buraku discrimination can be understood not so much as “marriage to a Burakumin is problematic,” but rather as a structure in which the “eligibility to participate in socially sanctioned forms of kinship” is denied. The core of discrimination lies not (solely) in hatred of the individual, but in maintaining the boundaries of the community of social reproduction.

4. The Topology of Buraku Discrimination

In Buraku discrimination, the trigger for exclusion is not physical characteristics but positional affiliation. What is at issue is “where one lives,” “which region one belongs to,” and “which ie one is connected to.” In this context, surnames, place names, temples, kinship ties, and addresses function as mediators of discrimination.

In this sense, Buraku discrimination is better understood as spatialized discrimination rather than discrimination inscribed upon the body. What operates here is not a racial category but a topological distinction. The object of exclusion is not an abstract “inferior race,” but the very location designated by the demonstrative “that”: “that district,” “that lineage,” “that kinship network,” “those people.” What is excluded, in other words, is the socially marked position itself.

5. Analysis of a Case of Marriage Discrimination

In 2016, Man A from a discriminated-against buraku community and Woman B from a general area were planning to marry.
The woman’s parents initially approved of the marriage, but later inquired about the grandparents’ address and requested an investigation into his family background. As a result, when A’s origins were revealed, they opposed the marriage. What is noteworthy in this case is that the rejection did not occur from the beginning. If the issue had been race or physical characteristics, exclusion would have occurred at the time of the initial meeting. However, in reality, the boundaries only emerged when a family-background investigation was conducted.

What is at issue is not the person himself, but his social location.
The question is not “what kind of person you are,” but “where you are connected.”
Furthermore, while the woman stated that “it doesn’t matter whether he’s Buraku or not,” she also said, “I don’t have the courage to cut ties with my parents to get married.”
This reveals a clash between the community of romantic attachment and the reproductive community.

Even if a romantic relationship is established, the marriage often breaks down when the connection to the kinship order is refused.
This case demonstrates that Buraku discrimination manifests as a refusal of blessing.

Conclusion

Understanding Buraku discrimination requires more than just racism or eugenics.
What is important is to carefully observe and distinguish between the discourse that explains discrimination and the mechanisms by which discrimination is actually generated and maintained. What operates in the context of marriage discrimination is not so much a biological race theory, but rather boundary management surrounding family, ownership, gift-giving, inheritance, and regional communities.

Buraku discrimination is not discrimination that excludes outsiders from the community. Rather, it is a structure of inclusive exclusion that keeps people within the community while activating boundaries only in matters of marriage and lineage. Therefore, in Buraku discrimination research, a comprehensive analytical framework including marriage, reproduction, space, the ie system, and gift-giving relations is necessary, rather than discussing eugenics in isolation.