Although today is said to be the era of transnationalism, it is called so because, in reality, there are strictly national boundaries. In this context, creating and emphasizing the cultural differences between the Burkaumin and the non-Burakumin is tantamount to setting new boundaries among people. Despite this, as ever, the trend has not ceased. The invention of traditions and the discovery of differences, which at first glance appear to be legitimate demands for ‘appreciating differences’, result in placing the relationship between the Buraku and the non-Buraku in a cultural dichotomy. And, at worst, it leads to the acceptance of discrimination again.

In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx depicted the working class as oppresse under the capitalist, yet oppressing itself and therefore others. The concept of the Burakumin does not imply class, but according to this Marxian theory, to acknowledge and take part in created traditions and cultural differences is to further oppress the self. In addition, emphasizing the difference from the culture of the non-Burakumin would be to masquerade oneself as Japanese who are different from the Japanese, and to prevent one's own liberation movement from correctly positioning itself in world history, tolerating an era of unaware colonialism in which one is oppressed and oppresses others.

The invention of tradition and the discovery of difference also make non-Burakumin commit the transgressions of cultural essentialism under multiculturalism. Jock Young discussed the mechanisms by which cultural essentialism demonizes minorities in late modernity in The Exclusionary Society: Crime, Employment and Difference in Late Modernity. Not only does cultural essentialism use cultural difference as a pretext to make people believe that they are innately superior, but at the same time it portrays other people as inherently evil, stupid and criminal, in other words, as demons. Young's analysis focuses on minorities in the USA, but the demonization of minorities has long existed in Japan. In the past, I have revealed the process by which crisis anxiety is commodified by employees of security companies, who, in order to commodify security, turn the Buraku into objects of public safety.

Michel Foucault saw sovereign authority as essentially relational, in the everyday routines that human beings engage in. He stated that the sovereign authority, i.e. the state and its policies, exist only in these relations. He also stated that it is of interest what effect ‘episteme’ has. In short, culture and power are easily connected and the sovereign authority shows its face there.

What are the consequences of the study of the Buraku culture in the area of cultural semantic prescriptions and ‘episteme’? The question continues. I believe that when ‘episteme’ creates a fiction of the ‘culture’ of the Buraku and propagates it as the truth, it becomes violence against the Burakumin.