Abstract
Incidents of Buraku discrimination are diverse. Some are verbal, while others are non-verbal. In certain cases, the discrimination directly demeans an individual as the party from a Buraku. In other instances, it manifests as an abstract form of discrimination that undermines the existence of the Burakumin as a whole. Burakumin respond to discrimination with various ideas and techniques. Generally, discriminatory language targets the Burakumin as concrete objects of discrimination. Discriminatory remarks and acts have often resulted in direct harm to the affected parties.
However, some recent ‘incidents’ are different. No Burakumin are present in the spaces where these incidents occur, and the incidents unfold without the use of language typically recognized as discriminatory. Instead, non-Burakumin accuse others based on imagined instances of Buraku discrimination. In a way, these events unfold through an interaction—or a semantic exchange—between audiovisual images and the concept evoked by the word ‘Buraku.’
This phenomenon seems like a new configuration of Buraku discrimination. However, it is not a novel type. Accusations by non-Burakumin do not introduce a new phase of discriminatory incidents. Rather, they reveal the supplemental role of the term ‘Buraku’ as a signifier. This phenomenon exposes the latent forces embedded in the constructed term ‘Buraku.’ We now recognize that the word ‘Buraku’ carries a silent, yet often brutal, underlying power. Moreover, we are forced to confront the emptiness of concepts such as Relational Theory and the theory of the ‘discriminated citizen.’
Keywords: discriminatory incident, absence of the party, ‘Buraku’ as a signifier
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between the term ‘Buraku’ and incidents caused by Buraku discrimination that have occurred in recent years. The focus is on incidents where the Burakumin is not present at the center, the discriminatory term is not used, and the accusation is made by a non-Burakumin. For comparison, ‘normal’ discrimination cases will also be analyzed. The author is motivated by the following research situation.
Since the mid-1990s, a discourse has been circulating as if Buraku discrimination is on the obvious way to resolution. The Theory of National Integration is at the center of this idea, but it is not alone. The argument of ‘ryōgawa kara koeru (overstep from both sides)’ and the so-called Relational Theory, which tries to understand Burakumin identity as a categorical concept, are also based on the recognition that the current phase of Buraku discrimination is shrinking. These theorists recognize that the small changes that have occurred since the 1960s have gradually accumulated in the Buraku and resulted in structural changes. In addition, they state that in order to understand the changes, the conventional framework of categorical arguments, namely the ‘Triple Elements Theory,’ by Kiyoshi Inoue, the ‘Three Propositions Theory,’ formulated through the all-Romance Struggle, and the theory of the ‘stability of life and improvement of status’ based on the ‘Report of the Council for Dowa Measures’ should be dismantled [Noguchi, 2000]. Noguchi analyzes that the number of marriages between Burakumin and non- Burakumin has increased, making it difficult to define the term ‘Buraku’ and presenting a paradigm for understanding the problem [Noguchi, 2000]. He insists that it is better to use a new expression, such as “discriminated citizens” instead of Burakumin [Noguchi, 2000]. However, the reality of the economy1) and the discriminatory attitudes of citizens against Burakumin known to the author is far more complex and robust than Noguchi acknowledges.
This paper argues the interaction and semantic function of audiovisual images constructed in the symbolic character of the word “Buraku,” but it does not directly discuss semiology. It is only intended to contribute to the reconstruction of strategies for the struggle against denouncing discrimination. Nor is it simply to say that the discriminatory phenomena addressed by this paper are manifestations of the Buraku issue. “But all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided [Marx,1894].” In other words, in the discussion of this essay, the vulgar interpretation of the “Essence must appear” is excluded.
As mentioned, this paper does not directly discuss semiology, but draws on the sociolinguistics of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin for the relationship between language, signs and ideology. It also takes from Jacques Derrida’s theory of supplement.
Although the scope of discrimination incidents is vast, I could not find any previous studies to refer to for the argument of “the interaction and semantic function of audiovisual images constructed in the symbolic character of the word Buraku,” which is the focus of this paper. Of course, this may be due to the author’s negligence.
How discrimination incidents are categorized depends on the purpose of the analysis. This paper categorizes them arising in the present day into two main types. The first type targets the parties, and the site in which they reside. The second type is discriminatory incidents in which the Burakumin is not present there. Certainly, the discriminator recognizes the Burakumin as targets of attack.
The first type is first understood with specific examples. The discriminator shows contempt for the Burakumin and the Buraku by using words, language, discourse or non-verbal expressions2) or acts out that amplified Buraku discrimination. The discriminator causes an unspecified number of people to imagine the Burakumin in a negative light or expands their intention to actively exclude them. They may say things such as: ‘The area XX is a Buraku. Be careful,’ ‘He is the eta. We should not marry a person from that area’. They also inform third parties about the origins of certain Burakumin and ask them to actively exclude the Burakumin. Even if Burakumin as parties are not present in the space where the word, language, or discourse is used, beyond that space, the specific Buraku and the Burakumin exist as entities. In this case, it does not matter whether the words, language, or discourse is direct or metaphorical. Let us start with the case of marriage discrimination. The second type will be discussed from ‘III, Discrimination incidents in the absence of the Burakumin’ onwards.
A marriage discrimination incident that the author learned about recently was little bit complex one. It took place in 2022, in western Okayama Prefecture. The two youths in the incident were from different towns in the same city. Accidentally, both youths graduated from the same prestigious university, worked for the same company, started dating, and wanted to marry smoothly. Their fathers were both corporate executives of equal financial wealth, which made it easier for them to obtain family approval for the marriage. The two families to occupy the same habitus.
Around the time the engagement was becoming official, the woman’s father asked the man for his consent to a background check. The man agreed without hesitation because he did not know his own background. A few days later, her father, who had been particularly supportive of the marriage, turned vehemently against it because of the birth place of his daughter’s fiancé. He was from a Buraku. Her father abhorred the idea of sharing “the same ‘blood’ and status” through marriage. The woman resisted. However, following extensive debate, marriage was established through an irrational procedure whereby a Buraku man was once adopted into the ie (lineage) of non-Buraku origin. At least, it can be said the ‘blood’ issue is a simple and irrational illusion. This matter did not become a discrimination incident because the two were finally married, and because of their distance from the BLM. The author heard this story from a male relative who was angry at the way the woman’s family had treated him.
Eiji Okada, chairman of the Hiroshima Prefectural Federation of the Buraku Liberation League, tells another incident of a marriage discrimination: It was in 2016. Mr. K, a man from Buraku, and a woman, Miss. T, from the general public started dating when they were both enrolled in medical school at a national university: They later became doctors and planned to get married in the summer of 2018: T’s father initially agreed, but later said, “When it comes to our daughter’s marriage, our family has to know more information about you. I want to do a lot of research, and I need to know where your grandparents live.” K, fearing expose, told T about his origins. Her parents refused the marriage. T told K that she loved him; she did not care that he was Burakumin; but that she would never be able to persuade her parents. Despite his own heartbreak, K gave up on the marriage and said goodbye because he did not want to cause T pain. BLL never made this event into a denunciation struggle out of concern for K’s feelings.
These two cases were between people whose economic, cultural and educational capital matched. Expect for the Buraku issue, there was habitus equality. However, the marriage was opposed by non-Buraku parents. The reasons why the events did not become marriage discrimination incidents are as having stated. Discrimination outweighed reason.
There is a discrimination incident that has been fought for the last half century: the ‘Buraku Chimei Sōkan’ case, which came to light in 1975. A report of Zenkoku Buraku Chosa (National Survey of Buraku), first published in 1936 by the Central Reconciliation Association Projects, was found to be secretly, distributed to major corporations. It covered more than 5,300 Buraku throughout the country, describing their locations, unique appellations, number of households, population, main occupations, and economic status. The BLL found at least 220 companies across the country had purchased the book. Some hold the view3) that the original compilation and 1936 publication were not undertaken with discriminatory intent. The purpose of the reprinting and distribution, however, was clearly to exclude Burakumin from the labor market intermarriage with them. The victims, or potential victims, are at least those who live in the list4) of Buraku throughout the country. In other words, it is a discriminatory act against the entire ‘6,000 Buraku and 3 million Burakumin.’ In 2016, a small publisher, Jigensha, re-released the book on Amazon. At the same time, the digital data is on many websites. Therefore, a denunciation struggle is being developed unceasingly. The two gentlemen behind Jigensha (for example) are clearly exploitative victimizer, but they do not exist alone. They are like the producers of child pornography. All those who consume and support their endeavor, or knowingly allow it, share their shame.
In 2022, in Onomichi City, a threatening letter was sent to a public facility in a Buraku, implying the murder of the Burakumin. The abusive language, which began with the words “Bakatare-domo (Idiot Burakumin!),” was not an individual-specific threat, but could be said to have been directed at all people living in that Buraku. The sender of this letter was not identified.
In 2024, two employees of Osaka City Port Authority Facilities Department made dozens of discriminatory remarks in their official car while on duty, naming another colleague over a period of three days from 18 March onwards. Everything was caught on the recorder in the car. One shout “I hate do-etta very much”75 times. “I love discriminating. Because that’s the way I was brought up.” They know that their comments are so malicious that they will ‘have to undergo human rights training’ if they come to salkt, and yet they talk with such glee. This is raw, unbridled discrimination at its purest. The supervisor who was on board did not correct them, but rather made discriminatory remarks that encouraged them. [Kaihō Shinbun, 20047] [Hirono, 2024].
They repeatedly made discriminatory remarks in a narrow, closed room where the referenced party was absent. However, at the end of their conversation, a specific Burakumin as a target existed. It was not only the act of discriminating against that person, but also against the Burakumin, as an entity of that social category. Even if their actions were not recorded on a recorder, their behaviors were real. It is imaginable that structural violence, in the form of discrimination, exists where one Burakumin is directly subjected to “a first violence to be named.” [Derrida,1967]
These discrimination incidents show how sterile is the ‘theory’ invented by Keiichi Fujita of ‘ryōgawa kara koeru’ (transcending from both sides). And it reaffirms the invalidity of the argument of Michihiko Noguchi, Kōsuke Yagi, Kōkichirō Miura and others that the Buraku are understood as a ‘relational category’ because they exist in human relations. Let me say it again. At the end of their conversation of discriminatory remarks in a narrow, closed room where the specific party was absent, the Burakumin are there, as an entity of that social category.
As this paper has already given notice, there is a second category of discrimination incidents. From this point on, the author will introduce and question the meanings of discrimination incidents classified in it. This paper considers that both categories as poles are not to occur dichotomously. However, setting out the two poles makes the discussion of discrimination incidents easier to understand.
The second type is that non-Burakumin are demeaned as the Burakumin. This includes the false labeling place as Buraku. There were incidents in which general discriminatory words, language or discourses that directly demean the Burakumin were used, and cases where those were not used. Even if direct or metaphorical terms representing the Buraku and the Burakumin were used, the real Buraku and Burakumin do not exist in incidents belonging to the second category. Despite this, the discrimination of the Burakumin and the Burakumin continues to be reproduced actually.
This incident took place at M Junior High School, located on the edge of F City. That school has been operating under its current name since 1962, when it merged with T Junior High School, located nearby. In May 2019, in the facilities of that school, two types of leaflets with a student’s real name, and her father’s name, were found. In addition, the real name of the company where the father worked5) was written down. Some were affixed on the wall; others were scattered and just over 50 were recovered.
The first leaflet had with the following text and two photographs of what appeared to be some kind of scattered garbage. The text was very short and was quoted in full.
YF (daughter, NF, M Junior High School), a rubbish collector who works for the founding company of SM, does not separate his own rubbish despite being a member of a Buraku of untouchables. If you are a professional rubbish collector, you should separate your rubbish on the rubbish collection day. This shows that you are not proud of your work. It is unacceptable that an arrogant person is living by money from tax we paid through the city. Please observe the minimum rules.
The second leaflet adds that Mr. YF cheats on his income, lives in public housing, is a “man of dissipating tax,” live on loans from multiple lenders, and “takes advantage of their weakness and uses violence to stamp it out.”
A column posted on a social networking service, the bakusai is attached to the bottom of the leaflet. It says that SM company’s employees are bad looking, suitable to their job, the younger workers look like “the intellectually disabled,” modern-day eta and hinin guys! and YF and SM are Buraku, “eta and hinin” and “untouchables,” so they work as waste collectors. The leaflet accused them of deviating from professional ethics and the social norms of waste segregation. It then requests “readers” to “please help us to prevent further victims.” Using the student’s real name and naming the father as a man of Buraku may have been an attempt to inflict more psychological damage.
The results of the BLL’s investigation showed that the YF named as the Burakumin had no connection with the Buraku. It was the same conclusion by the investigation of the Human Rights and Lifelong Learning Section of F City. Regarding the owner of SM company, I happened to know that he was not from any Buraku. Of course, it has already been mentioned that it cannot be established as a dichotomous issue of “being a Burakumin” or “not being a Burakumin.”
Mr. YF indicated his intention to report the incident as a violation of human rights to the F West Police Office. But nobody knows whether he did it. It is not clear who the perpetrator of this incident was.
This paper should lay out the background to this incident6). The Agricultural Mutual Aid Association is a mutual aid scheme that promote business reconstruction mainly by providing financial compensation to farmers affected by disasters. Farmers become members and accumulate premiums as communal property. The cooperatives are organized nationally and autonomously on a prefecture-by-prefecture basis. This organization is commonly known as NOSAI. In a prefecture-based NOSAI, general delegates elected from different regions for a three-year term vote on the projects to be implemented at the general assembly. The incident discussed in this paper occurred over the election of delegates for a NOSAI in the East Central region of Hiroshima Prefecture. The confusion that arose when the number of delegates was drastically reduced from 35 to 14 is thought to be the main cause of the incident.
At the time, the NOSAI in the northern district of F City prepared an election for two general delegates. It was the election of the minimum unit of NOSAI. Mr. N.O. had been raised as a candidate for this position. There were also those who favored Mr. K.T. Among them, a small conflict existed. On 23 April 2013, Mr. B.K. of the chairman of the Agricultural Committee in F City, visited the home of a person named US., and asked to recommend Mr. K.T. for the general delegate instead of Mr. N.O. At that time, Mr. B.K. gave three reasons to avoid Mr. N.O. 1) Mr. N.O. is “a person who has strange ideas and lacks cooperation;”2) is “of a different school;”3) is a man “lacking something,” or “lacking a part.” Mr. NO. heard all of this from Mr. T.I, who heard it from Mr. U.S. Mr. N.O. met and condemned Mr. BK about the conversation. Mr. B.K. said that the statements were not true. N.O. protested, saying that he would consult a lawyer, and accuse human rights violations and the matter with a human rights organization. Mr. N.O. said that he would consult with a lower, and file an accusation of human rights violations with BLL. Mr. N.O. took a recording of the conversation to city hall and had it officially transcribed. In the ensuing investigation. Mr. U.S. confirmed that Mr. B.K. had said, “of a different school.” Mr. B.K. utterly denied having said, “lacking something,” or “lacking a part.”
Mr. N.O. took the matter to the chairperson of the F city charter of the BLL on 28 April. He insisted that the comment “lacking a part” referred to the four-fingered gesture of Buraku discrimination. The BLL arranged a hearing of the F City Human Rights Department involving Messrs. N.O., B.K., U.S., and T.I. Mr. T.I. testified that Mr. U.S. had repeated all three discriminatory statements of Mr. B.K. Mr. B.K. and Mr. U.S. admitted to the first statement, but categorically denied the second and third.
It is perfectly clear that each person in this story is long acquainted with every other person, being neighbors in the same village, and none of them is actually Burakumin. They all have open access to each other’s district affiliation, lineage, and educational records. They know each other’s families and habits. The incident report affirms that they had close relationships, visiting each other’s houses both before and “after the incident.” I can personally confirm that, inthis district, for generations, it has been well established precisely who is and is not Burakumin. I can say so because I am a resident of the village and the neighbor of these gentlemen.
A hearing by the F City Human Rights Promotion Department revealed that some NOSAI members wanted Mr. B.K. removed. There is insufficient evidence to draw a connection to the alleged discriminatory statements, however.
The final report from F City concluded that “it is objectively certain that someone among Messrs. B.K., U.S., and T.I. made some statement, at some point, regardless of intent.” If indeed Mr. B.K. made the “lacking something” statement, it is possible that it was a defamatory slur of Burakumin identity. This remains unknown. Mr. B.K. has explicitly stated that he knows that Mr. N.O. is not a Burakumin. Above all, everyone knows that no one involved in this incident is a Burakumin, and, in the end, the BLL did not register it as an incident of discrimination.
On 9 March 2024, the K City had a sightseeing event, ‘Historical Exploration Walk: A Stroll around G Town.’ That was a one-hour and 45-minute course with a volunteer tourist guide. On that day, the tourist guide was Ms. T.S. When the tourist group came to the Enzaki Sumiyoshi Shrine, she related something that her parents had told her. Their people never got marriage with the ‘scary’ and ‘rough’ folk across the road. A participant of the event, Ms. S.K., decided Ms. T.S. made discriminatory remarks, and emailed the K City Tourism Promotion Section, saying that she hoped K City would take action to ensure that this would no longer happen in the future. She discussed this with city officials several times by email. However, Ms. S.K. said that city officials had an indecisiveness attitude, and finally, did not agree with her insistence.
Ms. S.K., dissatisfied with the responses from K City, posted a summary of the incident using the essay submission form of the Hiroshima Buraku Liberation Institute’s website. The administrator of this website was this author. For Ms. S.K., the worst behavior of the K City was to inform her that Ms. T.S. felt into ‘very depressed.’ Ms. SK complained that Ms. T.S.’s statement was subjective to her parents, and it meant a stigma against the folk in that community. She understood that the City of K’s response was not to criticize Ms. T.S. for stigmatizing the area but, on the contrary, in the context of defending her because she was depressed. In other words, she considered that K City ignored the folk in the area who had been insulted.
There is something to confirm here. That is, the area in which Ms. T.S. guided was not a Buraku. Nor is it an area that includes any Buraku. The author investigated the Buraku in K City for a long time, and is familiar with where the Buraku exist or used to exist. In addition, it is possible to reveal the disappeared Buraku. K City is still a military city, and an industrial city involved in shipbuilding and steel. After all, labor class habitus is dominant. So, the town is reminiscent of the Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class written by Paul Willis. Besides, many yakuza films7) set in K City were made in the 1970s and were big hits. Fictions created and amplified the image of K City as if it were dominated by yakuza and the urban underclass by means of location filming using real urban spaces. The area Ms. T.S. introduced was one of the places where actual shops were used for a shooting scene.
There are three former ‘commoners’ in the imperial family. Rumors that they came from Buraku have spread secretly but loudly on social networking sites8). For example, when they miss official affairs blamed on illnesses, they are fulminated for being lazy because they are Burakumin. Or when behaviors of the three are noticeable in a way that is off-putting to the ‘common sense’ of the ‘public,’ accusations that they come from Buraku are repeated. One of their fathers, a university professor (retired) must be Burakumin because he once did research (undemonstrated) on the Buraku issue. Another woman’s relative was once in the matted rice business, an occupation supposedly unique to Burakumin (a discourse that has no existence outside of this chat board). One woman’s parents allegedly held stock in Chisso Corporation, the company behind the Minamata disease; (Minamata disease was caused by the involvement of Burakumin in the management of Chisso Corp.) Most alarming is the rumor that the BLL arranged these marraiges into the imperial family. Of course, it is understood that Burakumin are a covert cabal and the real power behind the throne.
Those who are demeaning female members of the Imperial Family of civilian origin in the language of ‘Buraku’ are ardent supporters of the Imperial Family. In no way do they want to see the Imperial Family fall. The emperor is their symbol, and a sign that represents the mono-ethnic Japanese. For them, the imperial line should be a pure blood inheritance. Discriminatory labels such as Burakumin do not merely establish a selfish sense of justice that they ‘deserve to be excluded’ Therefore, their imperial family bashing and discriminatory discourse on social networking sites can be read as a reflection of a deeper social structure rather than mere personal ignorance or emotional backlash. The attacks on female members of the imperial family from civilian backgrounds are in suspension between the ‘legitimate inside’ and the ‘alien outside’, what Aganben [1995] calls “homo sacer (sacred man), who may be killed and yet not sacrificed,” neither within nor outside the law, but in suspension. This is possible because they can be likened to Burakumin who belong to the community but are not included in it and are in suspension. When these women are demeaned as lower beings, the image of the ‘true Burakumin’ is reproduced as more socially subordinate.
From Foucault’s perspective, this structure can be understood as emanations of the ‘disciplinary power’ of society rather than only a prejudice that existed between individuals. In other words, when the speaker, even if unwillingly, makes a dichotomic determination of who is ‘normal’ or who is ‘deviant’, there is already a power at work from the bottom that divides and manages people according to a social framework. The discourse on social networking sites that defines female members of the imperial family and people of certain origins as ‘objects to be criticized’ is a reproduction of such discipline. It is part of what Foucault called ‘bio-politics’ - the politics of distinguishing between those lives that deserve to live and those that do not.
Especially today, such power does not emanate unilaterally from the centre of the state and institutions, but is internalized in the words and deeds of each and every ‘citizen’ and functions in a decentralized manner. Discrimination is not explicitly ordered, but spontaneously committed in the name of empathy, anger and ‘justice’. It is then visualized and amplified by the algorithms of social networking sites, which make certain people ‘homo sacer (sacred man), who may be killed and yet not sacrificed.’ In this sense, contemporary discrimination has entered a more sophisticated and institutionalized ‘new phase.’ As Foucault showed, power is not oppression, but the power to manage life and make it conform to norms. The phenomenon of people of imperial or Buraku origin being targeted online is proof that people as a whole are embedded in this circuit of power.
In the cases from 2.1 to 2. 4., there are no Burakumin victims. The targets of the discriminatory leaflets used in junior high school were not Burakumin. The phenomenon that occurred in the NOSAI general election also did not have any members of Buraku in it. The area identified by the K-city tourist information volunteers is not Buraku. There are no Burakumin among the three women of the Imperial Family.
So, should those who are named as Burakumin be convinced that ‘those who are regarded and discriminated against are Burakumin’ [Noguchi, 2000]? Or are they the “discriminated citizens” who are fighting against discrimination, which Noguchi newly suggested should be categorized? Certainly, they are ‘discriminated against’ in the broadest sense. Indeed, they were not treated ‘normally.’ However, it is self-evident that the description of them as discriminated citizen who have come to fight against discrimination is too far off the mark. None of the three imperial family women has ever been a “discriminated citizen.” They are not even simple ‘citizens.’
This author invited Ms. S.K. to a study meeting of human rights, but was categorically rejected. The reason was that the resumé of the planned discussion had a term about ‘the radical party.’ The language of ‘Buraku’ clearly does not function as Noguchi claims.
Now, gravity of malice must be questioned, comparing cases in which Buraku-related terms have been used with non-Burakumin, and those in which Burakumin are targeted directly. How can the above discriminatory events be interpreted in the absence of the parties concerned? What nature do these events have? Can we reduce the penalty for discrimination by one degree if no direct victim is caused? Although generally imaginable, this paper considers it possible to determine the degree of guilt of the discriminator in the incidents shown so far by referring to behavior towards race presented by Robert Merton [1949]. There are four typologies, as shown in Table 1. Merton describes each type as follows. This can be a criticism of Noguchi’s view that there is ‘no difference in the severity’ of discrimination. It should be understood, of course, that discriminators cannot be lumped together
| Attitude Dimension: * Prejudice and Non-prejudice | Behavior Dimension: * Discrimination and Non-discrimination | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Type Ⅰ | Unprejudiced non-discriminator | ＋ | ＋ |
| Type Ⅱ | Unprejudiced discriminator | ＋ | − |
| Type Ⅲ | Prejudiced non-discriminator | − | ＋ |
| Type Ⅳ | Prejudiced discriminator | − | − |
This type is racial and ethnic liberals who adhere to their beliefs in both faith and practice. They do not have any discriminatory ideology or take any discriminatory action. Only they can provide a positive social environment for other types of people who no longer find it expedient or rewarding to hold prejudice and discriminatory practices.
Fair-Weather Liberals who themselves are not prejudiced, but are hesitant to speak out against discrimination for fear of being accused by their prejudiced peers. Alternatively, they may seek to exploit advantages in social and economic competition that derive solely from the ethnic status of their competitors. Employers who are neither anti-Semitic nor black-phobic refuse to employ Jewish or black workers because it is ‘bad for business.’
This is the prejudiced employer who discriminates against a racial or ethnic group until the Fair Employment Practices Commission gives him the fear of legal punishment. This is the businessman who abandons his prejudices when he sees a lucrative market among those he hates, fears and despises. He is the cowardly bigot who refuses to express his prejudices in the presence of powerful and effective advocates of the American creed.
This type is the confirmed illiberal, the bigot pure and unashamed, the man of prejudice. He is found everywhere in the land. He derives large social and psychological gains from doing discrimination. He considers differential treatment of Negro and white not as “discrimination,” in the sense of unfair treatment, but as “discriminating,” in the sense of showing acute discernment.
When this classification is compared to Buraku discrimination, the manager of Jigen-sha is unquestionably classified in the Type IV. If, hypothetically, the person did not have any prejudice against the Buraku, did not understand the meaning of the Buraku Chimei Sokan and decided to sell it simply because it would be an expensive product, it would be Type II. If there are examples of people who bought it simply and folksily, they may also be Type II. Even if this were the case, the liability would remain the same, as with Type IV. If the discriminators in the first two marriage discrimination cases discussed in this paper are classified according to this typology, they fall into Type III or Type IV because of their prejudice against the Burakumin and their discriminatory background checks.
The person who scattered discriminatory leaflets at M Secondary School has no accurate knowledge of the Buraku issue. That person is typical of prejudice. He or she fabricated a relationship between occupation and the Buraku, named a certain person as a Burakumin and forcefully constructed other. Perhaps the person imagined the damage that branding as ‘Buraku’ could do and behaved negatively. Whatever the motivating reason, he or she practiced discriminatory behavior in secret, knowing that if his or her behavior came to light, he/she would be subject to social censure and, in some cases, legal penalties. It can therefore be described as Type IV.
Slanderers against the female members of the royal family are also classified as Type IV. Because they fabricate ‘facts’ about the Burakumin and promote prejudice. They apply it in a very arbitrary way and with the aim of benefiting from it, i.e. rationalizing their own values. Although there are no direct victims of Burakumin, they amplify the image of Burakumin as mean and immoral.
Mr. B.K., who was alleged to have taken discriminatory behavior in the election of NOSAI officers is not amenable to this classification. The author could not reach the conclusion that he had engaged in Buraku discrimination. Of course, this does not mean that he is completely free from it, but for the time being he is not guilty in this case.
It is true that Ms. T.S., the tourist guide in K city, spoke of prejudice existing against a certain area. The prejudice was mainly inherited from her parents, but in the context of Ms. S.K.’s complaint to the author, it cannot be considered to have been against the Buraku. Therefore, she is not guilty of discrimination against the Buraku. In this paper, Merton’s theory is to be applied only to Buraku discrimination, so there is no further judgment to be made. Of course, it is also impossible to judge that Ms. T.S. has no discriminatory attitudes towards the Buraku.
Buraku discrimination incidents usually come to light through accusations by Burakumin who have suffered discrimination. Incidents in the absence of Burakumin rarely come to light9). In this sense, the events in the election of officers of F City NOSAI, and the events involving the tourist guides of K-city are valuable. However, such an assessment can only be made if the event is Buraku discrimination and the accuser has a reasonable understanding of Buraku issues. In other words, if someone accuses a phenomenon that is not Buraku discrimination of being Buraku discrimination, there is another problem. If they use Buraku discrimination for their own interests, that is also serious Buraku discrimination. Understanding the process and meaning that led to the accusation therefore brings us closer to the complexity of actual Buraku discrimination. The accusers may be, subjectively, persons of conscience; but are they objectively persons of justice?
It should be noted that the person who reported the discriminatory leaflets at M Secondary School was a businessperson who deals with this school. There is no record of anyone else contacting the head of the school because he was surprised to find the pupil’s personal details listed on the leaflet. In addition, regarding abuses on the internet concerning female members of the emperor’s family, the author uncovered these by his own research. Hence, the author refrains from analyzing these.
Mr. N.O. complained the BLL that one of Mr. B.K.’s statements in the NOSAI board election was Buraku discrimination. Of Mr. B.K.’s statements in the investigation report, 1) and 2) have nothing to do with the Buraku issue at all; it was the character of Mr. N.O. or a “factional” issue between the neighborhoods to which they belonged.
The problem is the statement of 3) a man “lacking something,” or a man “lacking a part.” These expressions are usually used to mean ‘someone who cannot think things through’ or ‘someone who is a bit dumb.’ Of course, both can be interpreted differently in different contexts and can certainly be discriminatory or insulting. More importantly, Mr. B.K.’s statement, which Mr. N.O. claims to have heard from Mr. U.S., does not hear what was “lacking”, as Mr. U.S. strongly stated during the investigation on 14 May 2013 (p 14). The reason was probably not important in the context of the conversation.
However, Mr. N.O. assumed, even before confirming the content of Mr. B.K.’s statement, that he was “lacking a part,” rather than “lacking something,” and he acted. Showing four fingers, he said two times to Mr. B.K., that ‘you said that I was a man of “lacking a part,” didn’t you? That means you did Buraku discrimination.’ At this time, “lacking a part” became “four fingers.” In doing so, Mr. N.O. sought to retaliate against the damage done to his dignity by Mr. B.K. using the audiovisual images (e.g. authoritative and scary) that the word ‘Buraku’ conjures up. This meant that Mr. N.O. himself was a prisoner of the negative audiovisual image (prejudice and bias) imagined by the word ‘Buraku’; even though the position of the NOSAI officer was unpaid, there were issues of honor and social status at stake.
Suppose that Mr. N.O.’s assessment the Mr. B.K.’s statement as Buraku discrimination was correc. It was not explained at all in the F City report. He simply stated that it was ‘Buraku discrimination’ and declared that he would take legal action for his own honor and benefit. It is believed that he filed a complaint with the BLL for this purpose. One day in 2024, this author received a visit from Mr. N.O. He stressed that he himself had suffered Buraku discrimination. He, however, did not speak about Buraku discrimination itself. If being designated as a Burakumin is damaging to his honor and interests, Mr. N.O. has no choice but to seek legal redress. However, Mr. N.O. almost unconsciously, criticized that when the investigation became objective, ‘the former fact-finding (of BLL) was not gentle like this, and I think that (BLL’s) power had deteriorated (5 June).’ Unconsciousness is ever present, working in the background. It is something that exists after the fact and is ‘read and understood’ as having been there. Regardless of his subjectivity, his argument can be said to have been constructed a posteriori, away from its initial context. The purpose of his visit was unclear.
The memory of Ms. T.S., the tourist guide, can be understood by Edward Said’s [1994] argument that the essentialist taxonomy is the same as the subordinate race taxonomy that racism and racism have fabricated, and that they were ‘fabricated’ and ‘false’. It can be said that the yakuza film that reproduces falsehoods has the same function. As this paper has already mentioned, the reproduced memory of Ms. T.S. does not link the subject area to the Buraku. It is in the brain of the accuser, Ms. S.K. that this memory is linked to the Buraku and the yakuza. The essentialist memories of the region formed by the images produced by yakuza films and other, which unconsciously transcended Ms. T.S.’s intentions, and were linked images of Buraku a posteriori. Ms. S.K.’s memory of the Buraku as such and such was evoked after the fact. That is why she intended to find the BLL through an internet search. Such a posteriori thoughts and actions led to the request, ‘I would be grateful if the BLL could do something to help me.’ As result, she contacted to the Hiroshima Buraku Liberation Research Institute.
From the above, it can be said that the two “accusers” are actually not accusers, but should be classified in the four categories defined by Merton above. Even if we can imagine that their actions emanated from their conscience, they are stubbornly trapped in a negative image of Burakumin. If Ms. S.K. had read discriminatory intent into Ms. T.S.’s utterances, Ms. S.K. should have protested to Ms. T.S., on the spot about the remarks. Ultimately, however, Ms. S.K. imagined the Burakumin in the absence of the Burakumin, based on Ms. T.S.’s statements. As already mentioned regarding Mr. N.O.’s interests embedded behind her. It is not clear whether interests are embedded behind Ms. S.K.’s actions. Hence, it can be said that both of them, at least in intention, are less than Type III malignant.
When considered in this way, it will be noticed that the word Buraku functions as a separate signifier from the specific meaning that refers to a Buraku. This author will illustrate this with reference to Mikhailovich Bakhtin [1986]. Namely, that today the word of ‘Buraku’ is invariably present in the conscious acts of people’s involvement in Buraku discrimination and is involved in the traffic and communication of everyday life. It can be said to be in the customary language system common to the conversational (listening and speaking) practices of people belonging to a community (e.g. seken) in which mutual dialogue takes place. In other words, the act of writing and pronouncing the word ‘buraku’ or ‘bu/ra/ku’ binds in the inner lives of the people dealt with in this article an ‘image’ of the Buraku or Burakumin as ‘rough, scary, unmarried, mutsushii, different school, one short’ or as being ‘immoral, lazy, gangsters.’ ‘Buraku’ is used as an internal word (internal signifier) of individuals, such as Mr. N. O., Ms. S.K. and so on. In other words, the ideological content of the word ‘Buraku’ is reproduced by this [Bakhtin,1986].
The word of ‘Buraku’ does not simply refer to things and names, but presents people with concepts and aural images as an ideology relating to the Burakumin. From this, it can be said that the word of ‘Buraku’, as in the case of the events related to NOSAI, the K-city guide and the issue of female members of the Imperial Family, is complementary to symbolic concepts, visualised ideas and images that also target non-Burakumin.
Its ‘concepts and auditory images’ have been constructed since the modern era. Alternatively, it may also include the ‘concepts and aural images’ created by networks of power functioning from below. The fact that an entity called ‘Buraku’ is called ‘bu/ra/ku’ does not really have anything to do with the properties or characteristics possessed by that Buraku.’ There is no definitive answer to the question of why there is a necessity to pronounce ‘Buraku’ as ‘bu/ra/ku.’ Nevertheless, the ‘concept and aural image’ as a joint imagination, going in reverse from there, is directly connected to the actuality of the Burakumin and the Buraku itself. The word of Buraku is originally this way.
It is impossible to replace ‘Buraku’ with any other word. First, the reason why the Buraku are called ‘Buraku’ is because someone has arbitrarily made it customary to call them ‘bu/ra/ku’. Who that someone is has already been demonstrated. It was the local administrative power [Kurokawa, 2003]. It has been stubbornly constituted by the ideology of capital and the state, and sometimes by the ideology of political parties, mainly in the 20th century and even in the present day. As such, the word cannot be replaced in the present situation and is not left to the free choice of the speech subject [Saussure,1916]. In this sense, too, the name ‘Buraku’ is arbitrary.
Secondly, the existence of the Buraku does not determine the Buraku, but the existence of the non-Buraku world determines the Buraku. The term ‘buraku’ refers to the general units of the general village. The term ‘Buraku’ was established when a Tokushu (special thing or different) was, so to speak, processed and added to the word before it. In this sense, the difference was emphasized by adding the very special thing to the word. In other words, the special thing was added as an imagined difference from the general poor and needy of the early 1900s.
Tracing back the process by which these ‘concepts and auditory images’ were formed, it is easy to see that the images attached to the ‘Buraku’ can be directly adapted to the non-Buraku. In K city, despite the rapid population growth, the human defecation issue was completely neglected, and no public latrines were installed. For this reason, people, men and women were openly pouring their waste all over the city, even in broad daylight. Rain turned the city into a bag, and the sun dried the waste into dust that blew everywhere and got into everything. This environment caused frequent epidemics in K city, where the conditions were harsher than in the Buraku as marginalized communities [Kobayakawa, 2023]. The discussion of trachoma morbidity by Noboru Mitsui [2001:121-30] is interesting: the genuine morbidity rate for families with monthly incomes of less than 29 yen for Shimonoseki primary school children in 1913 was 24%, eight times higher than the rate for families with incomes of 100 yen or more. It is not surprising that the morbidity rate is higher in the Buraku, where the poverty rate was high, but this is not characteristic of only the Buraku. In Aomori Prefecture, where there is only one Buraku with 37 households and 187 people, the morbidity rate is 51.0%. This implies that the concept of non-sanitation can be adapted to other than non-Buraku. However, ‘non-sanitation’ fulfils one ideological function in conjunction with the word of ‘Buraku’. The metonymy that Aomori = non-sanitary and K-city = epidemic has never been established. The Buraku has underwritten the negative discourse.
What is the most fundamental condition for a ‘Buraku’ to exist as a ‘Buraku’? It is the existence of an entity that is not the ‘Buraku’. The ‘Buraku’ was created by and still exists in the context of the recognition of non-Buraku as ‘normal’. The phenomenon of poverty is universal and ubiquitous in capitalist societies. The social conditions that create the image held by Mr. N.O., and Ms. S.K. are also universal. Nevertheless, as in the events covered in this paper, there has come to exist a mutual complementarity of semantic action between language and image, that is, between the ‘Buraku’ and the image of ‘concept and auditory image’ expressed by the word ‘Buraku.’ Hence, even on the side of non-participants who accuse their own experiences as discrimination, a function is generated to imagine the word ‘Buraku’ from the image of the experienced facts. There is no room for arguments about whether that imagining is intentional or not. Moreover, the case studies in this paper show that the relationship between language and image, which involves semantic action, is never abstract. There is always a structural violence10) lurking somewhere, in which Buraku discrimination is reproduced.
When then, did the symbolic relationship over Buraku discrimination come into existence? Buraku discrimination is recognized as a response to discrimination of the Burakumin by the non-Burakumin. In this perception of the existence of the Buraku and non-Buraku as binary oppositions of entities, the relationship would be considered relatively new. However, it is not.
Jacques Derrida [1967] says. ‘This substitution always has the form of the sign. The scandal is that the sign, the image or the representer, become focuses and make “the world move.”’ Supplement becomes a destructive force, functioning as an interaction or semantic action that entrenches an imagined image of the dispossessed or dispossessed as if it were a ‘real image’ or as a ‘real image.’ Even if the ‘Burakumin’ does not exist here and now, the very act of writing ‘Buraku’ and pronouncing ‘bu/ra/ku’ acts as if it were a Burakumin that does not exist there and now. The ‘concept and auditory image’ of the language Buraku compensates for the absence of the Buraku in the present space of the moment. People of conscience, even if it was an unintended consequence, have performed the potentiality of the word Buraku as the actuality.
1) Income inequality is one of the data from which employment discrimination can be deduced. Disadvantage in employment invariably produces disadvantage in income, which in turn magnifies and reproduces discrimination. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the differences between the Buraku and Burakumin of Hiroshima Prefecture and the low-income groups in Hiroshima Prefecture as a whole.
| Less than 1 million yen | Less than 2 million yen | Less than 3 million yen | Less than 5 million yen | Less than 7 million yen | Less than 10 million yen | Less than 15million yen | More than 15 million yen | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Households of Buraku | 80 | 174 | 142 | 148 | 70 | 50 | 26 | 7 | 704 |
| 11.4% | 24.7% | 20.2% | 21.1% | 9.9% | 8.1% | 3.7% | 1.0% | 100.0% | |
| 広島県 | 2.4% | 6.0% | 13.6% | 30.2% | 21.3% | 16.8% | 7.4% | 2.2% | 100.0% |
| Less than 1 million yen | Less than 2 million yen | Less than 3 million yen | Less than 4 million yen | Less than 5 million yen | Less than 7million yen | Less than 15 million yen | More than 15 million yen | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population of Buraku | 453 | 232 | 196 | 94 | 76 | 40 | 6 | 1 | 1,098 |
| 41.3% | 21.2% | 17.9% | 8.5% | 7.0% | 3.6% | 0.6% | 0.1% | 100.0% | |
| All the pref. | 18.9% | 18.4% | 19.1% | 25.4% | 11.0% | 6.1% | 1.6% | 0.5% | 100.0% |
2) In this paper, words, language and discourse are briefly described as follows. Language: the expression of thoughts and ideas in people's minds. Wards: a systematized set of rules and structures when communicating to others in the language spoken by a community. Discourse: a linguistic expression, a way of saying things.’ In turn, ‘discourse’ is used today to refer to the cultural and social context of a certain ‘way of speaking’. Non-verbal expressions are those that are expressed by gestures, which are considered to make sense in relation to words, language and discourses.
3) On 29 May 2014, the Director of the General Affairs Division of the Kure Branch of the People's Hiroshima Legal Affairs Bureau spoke at a workshop for Human Rights Protection Commissioners and stated that simply distributing the Buraku Chimei Soken does not constitute a violation of human rights.
4) he original material from the Central Association for Reconciliation Projects, which is the original source for the Buraku Chimei Soken, is not guaranteed to be accurate. Some Buraku are missing from the list. It is also unclear what the lifestyle data is based on.
5) The material on this case, which is untitled and unorganized, was viewed with the kind permission of the Buraku Liberation League F City Council.
6) Similarly to 5), the material on this case was also borrowed from the Buraku Liberation League F City Council. The author would like to thank that organization.
7) Many people say that the film Jingi-naki Tatakai (Battles Without Honor and Humanity,) which the volunteer tourist guide is said to have been influenced by, was behind the discourse that K and H Cities have an affinity with the yakuza. Although this was half a century ago, many people still think so. The peculiar verbal conversations and ‘culture’ in the films are a creation of the film world and would be at great variance with the language, conversation and culture of the lives of the people living in the two cities. In addition, the affinities between the yakuza and the Burakumin which should not be there, are constructed as real in themselves and function as a discourse. The Mark Ramseyer papers, for example, which have been invalidated in terms of ideology, methodology, etc., would represent this. The tourist guide did not link it to the Buraku.
8) See the following URL.
http://www.asyura2.com/18/reki3/msg/116.html
https://blog.goo.ne.jp/akatsukida/e/01758c8d827d4f2c71282f8565477aef
https://blog.goo.ne.jp/f-hirohide/e/86bab58eab2a11dbc3ffd1f9cccc0b02
9) People speak their thoughts in torrents, lacking any imagination that the parties involved might be present in the situation. The more negative the topic, the vividly they talk about it. This distant. phenomenon known as distancing, whereby the topic is treated entirely as. The author has experienced this many times.
10) Friedrich Engels denounced the violence of the concept of ‘social murder’ as a crime of omission that no one can prevent, in which the deaths of victims caused by modern industry seem natural, and in which the murderers are all and no one. This view suggests that violence is not only the prorogation of the state, but that there is structural violence embedded in every corner of society. More recently, Johan Galtung defined poverty, oppression and discrimination as structural violence that deprives people of a peaceful life and future.
Aganben Giorgio,1995, Himos Acer li porere sovrano ela nuda vira. Giulio Einaudi Edirore S.p. A.
Bakhtin Mikhailovich, 1986, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Harvard University Press. Cambridge.
Derrida Jacques, 1967, De la Grammatologie, es Éditions de Minuit, Paris.
Hirono, Masashi, 2024, ‘Sealed Osaka City official's “Buraku Discriminatory Remark”’, Shukan Post, 16 Jul. Shogakukan. Shogakukan. pp31-33.
Kaiho Shinbun, 2024, ‘Osaka City Official Makes Discriminatory Remarks’, Liberation Newspaper, 3108. pp7.
Kobayakawa Akira, 2023, Relational Theory and Essentialism in Buraku Studies: A Critique against Violence of Scientific Episteme. Matsuyama University Retropositive.
Kurokawa, Midori, 2003, The Buraku Problem in Regional History: The Case of Modern Mie. Kaiho Shuppan-sha
Marx, Karl, 1894, “Das Kapital : Kritik der politischen Oekonomie” Band III.
Merton, Robert. Edited by R. M. MacIver 1949. “Discrimination and the American Creed”, Social Ambivalence and Other. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. pp.109-216.
Mitsui, Noboru, 2001, ‘The State of Trahome of School-Age Children in the 1910s and the Problems of School Doctor's Treatment’, Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hokkaido University, No. 83. Hokkaido University. pp.117-57.
Noguchi, Michihiko, 2000, The Paradigm Shift of the Buraku Issue. Akashi Shoten.
Said Edward, 1994, Representation of the Intellectual: The Reith Lectures , The Wylie Agency Limited London.
Saussure Ferdinand de, 1916, Cours de Lnguistique Générale, McGraw-Hill, Geneva.
Young Jock 1999,The Exclusive Society : Social Exclusion and Difference in Late Modernity. Sage Publication of London.