Mapping Japan Through the Koseki 自己と他者の配置−−戸籍を通して日本を見る

Geographies of Self and Other: Mapping Japan through the Koseki 自己と他者の配置−−戸籍を通して日本を見る

David Chapman

Geographies of Self and Other: population documentation (hukou)3 in China has Mapping Japan through the Koseki been based on the household as the fundamental social unit. As part of the Taika David Chapman reforms in the seventh century, along with many other governmental structures adopted Abstract: from China, Japan employed the same system of household registration koseki( seido) to This paper traces the social history of the enhance and centralise the powers of the household registration system (koseki seido) in Yamato imperial court. Once the inhabitants of Japan from its beginning to the present day. The the Yamato-controlled territories were identified paper argues that thekoseki has been an they could be conscripted, taxed and controlled. essential tool of social control used at various Population registration has been practised in stages in history to facilitate the political needs Japan ever since and although it has undergone and priorities of the ruling elite by constructing numerous changes and, in recent times, been and policing the boundaries of Japanese self. supplemented by other legislation, thekoseki This self has been mediated through the has endured the course of Japanese history principles of family as defined by the state and through to the present day and still maintains has created diverse marginalised and excluded primacy in identifying who has legal Japanese others. The study includes social unrest and status. agency of these others in furthering understanding of the role of thekoseki in In this paper I trace the social history of Japanese society. The paper also contributes household registration from the late Tokugawa understanding of nationality and citizenship in period and argue that the koseki has been an contemporary Japan in relation to the koseki. essential tool of social control used at various times to facilitate the political needs and Keywords: koseki, nation-state, family,priorities of the ruling elite. This has mostly household, nationality, citizenship, self, other, been achieved through the construction and identification, documentation, self, other, Japan policing of the boundaries of a ‘legible’ Japanese self as mediated through the family unit. I also Introduction aim to reveal more about thekoseki by examining the agency exercised by the diverse It was not until the sixteenth century that others created in constituting akoseki -defined ‘documents of origin and identity came to be self. Finally, this exercise is also meant to reveal demanded as a matter of course’ innew understanding of the workings of 1 Europe. The earnest documentation ofnationality and citizenship in contemporary populations in Asia however, began in China Japan. four thousand years ago during the Xia Dynasty.2 Unlike the west, where registration is Despite the koseki system’s fundamental role as based on the individual, since its inception a conduit between state and subject, it remains

1 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF peripheral or absent in many discussions of power can be exercised and realised. James Japanese society and English language research Scott10 argues that a central problem of on the topic is scarce. Existing research usually statecraft is making society ‘legible’. He focuses on a specific historical period proposesand that, provides only part of the overall picture.4 There are some studies that provide interpretations of [c]ertain forms of knowledge and control require legislation relating to the Householda narrowing of vision. The great advantage of Registration Law (kosekihō) and the closely such tunnel vision is that it brings into sharp related Nationality Law (kokusekihō).5 A recent focus certain limited aspects of an otherwise far study on law reform and family law,Japanese more complex and unwieldy reality. This very Family Law in Comparative Perspective6 has simplification, in turn, makes the phenomenon contributed new and important knowledge and at the centre of the field of vision more legible provided a long awaited update in this area. and hence more susceptible to careful 11 Other research has examined legislation that measurement and control. interacts with the Household Registration Law such as the Civil Code Minpō( ), Constitution In short, it is in the interest of state authorities (kenpō) and the Nationality Law thatto simplify and ‘know’ their population and to perpetuates a patriarchal and hetero-normative minimise complexity. Household registration family structure. The research in this area has and the process of identification and addressed the marginalization of women and documentation have been key in strategically homosexuals resulting from such legislation and governing the population as Japan moved from its interpretation.7 In the 1980s, Satōa feudal-like state and on to a modern nation Bunmei8 provided perhaps the most exhaustive and expanding empire. Moreover, it has been accounts of the history of Japan’s household one of the principal means of regulating and registration system. Sato argued thatdefining the relationship between various ruling historically the koseki was responsible for the authorities and the lowest levels of marginalization of many quarters of theorganisation. It has been the most enduring Japanese population. And, a recent book by social contract between the Japanese polity and Endō Masataka9 provides a detailed study of the the Japanese subject. The same fundamental koseki and nationality during Japan’ssystem has remained as the definitive colonization of Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria. mechanism for identification serving the various ruling authorities through until present-day Identification and Documentation Japan. Even after the official introduction of the western notion of ‘nationality’ as a category There are many reasons why governments within the Japanese legal system in 1899, as I identify and document a population. Forwill explain below, the koseki has remained the example, authorities require such organised ultimate bureaucratic identifier of status systems for tax collection, the management of (mibun) as Japanese. conscription, the tracking of subjects/citizens (surveillance) and the differentiation betweenIn the same way that other nations have those who belong and those who do not incorporated population registration, the koseki (citizens and non-citizens/nationals and non- system has been used strategically and nationals, residents and migrants). Moreover, efficiently to centralise power and control in internal systems of registration andJapan by variously codifying the population identification map out the space ofaccording the to the needs of the incumbent controlling authority and provide a network of authority. Throughout Japan’s recent history the social organisation and a means by which state koseki system provided mechanisms of

2 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF exclusion and inclusion creating numerous Tokugawa/Edo Period (1603-1868): others whilst defining the Japanese Surveillance,self. Division and Immobilisation Moreover, the mandatory recognition of legitimate citizenship through membership of a Political unification and centralised control registered household fixes the individual to an became a priority during the Tokugawa period entity defined, controlled and recorded directly and population registries were utilised as broad by the state and any relationship with the state tools of tax collection and social control. therefore is mediated through the family unit. In Unification required a compliant and cohesive modern times this seems to be in conflict with population and the Bakufu administration Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution that turned to population registries as the solution in states, ‘All of the people shall be respected as making the inhabitants ‘legible’ and individuals’. This approach has also established controllable. a system that contributes to the marginalisation of those outside of the heteronormative family There were four major forms of population structure.12 registration used during this period. They were the ninbetsuchō (Registry of Human In constituting a legally recognised Japanese Categories), shumon aratamechō (Religious self defined in familial terms, bureaucraticInquisition Registry), gonin gumichō (Five processes often come into direct conflict withHousehold Registry) and thekakochō (Death individuals and groups that identify themselves Registry). The first to appear were the differently to state-defined categories. Thisninbetsuchō, adapted from the registries15 kept paper also introduces the various ways in which by Hideyoshi.16 They were later adapted by the individuals and groups have attempted to Chōshū clan17 in southwestern Japan based on a exercise agency directed at the koseki system, Confucian patriarchal hierarchy similar to the in some instances seeking to undermine state original koseki household registries of the authority and disrupt control. The study of the Yamato period. In the mid-1600s, the Tokugawa tension and discord generated by thekoseki regime took control of the registry and recorded system at different points in history provideshouseholds based on social status (mibun) and further insight into Japanese society and the categorised them according to occupations such workings of systems of authority and power. as warrior, farmer, artisan and merchant shi-( The approach in this paper is twofold: to nō-kō-shō). The ninbetsuchō were indispensable examine the top-down impact as well as the in maintaining social order and the collection of contribution of bottom-up human agency in revenue through limiting the mobility of the influencing the historical course of Japanesepopulation. It was almost impossible for anyone self. Examining the influence of individuals and to change social status or geographical location groups opposed to thekoseki system is and marriage between social groups or outside essential in providing a complete picture of its of villages was only allowed in special 13 social context. As Caplan and Torpey argue, circumstances and only with the permission of “(h)uman agency remains a decisive factor in feudal lords. There were also numerous the genealogy of identification practices”. Ascommunities of the ‘underclass’ that were part of this agency, recognition of the dual placed on separate registers or were not nature of identification and documentation isregistered at all. also crucial. In other words, whilst identification can limit and delimit, it is important toDuring this period, religious affiliation also acknowledge that in order to be ‘counted’ one became a security concern because the has to be identified.14 Such recognition can lead Shogunate perceived Christianity to be a threat to empowerment and emancipation. to unification and in order to suppress it, urged

3 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF each temple to effect a religious investigationas kawata/chōri (other name foreta ), (shūshi aratame). In 1632 and 1633 the kawaramono (those living in dry riverbeds), submission of honmatsuchō (temple head and gōmune (street performers)21 and sarukai branch records) from all Buddhist headquarters (monkey handlers) were also used. By 1660 in was ordered and in 1635 the order for everyone Osaka there already existed a separate eta‘ in Japan to register with a local Buddhist temple register’ (eta shūmonchō).22 Also, in the late (teraukeshōmon) was promulgated.18 The 1600s in the Kanto district a hierarchical hinin process was formalised with the creation in administration had been forming. By the early 1640 of a Central Office for Religious Inquisition 1720s the hinin administration in Edo was (shūmon aratame yaku) (1640 until 1792) and clearly structured to follow the bakufu-decreed the later combination of the existinglaws.23 ninbetsuchō with the religious investigation (shūmon aratame) in 1670.19 The result was a The Bakufu used the termseta and hinin combined registry of religion and social status interchangeably during the Tokugawa period called the shūmon ninbetsuchō that was but there is also evidence of differential renewed every six years and lasted almost 200 identification. According to Groemer,24 the years until the beginning of the Meiji period and kawata/eta in Edo under the control of made religious affiliation a category in defining Danzaemon25 were small in number and well Japanese self. contained. Conversely, the hinin population was larger and made up of both registered and The kakochō was yet another recordkeeping unregistered individuals (see table below), device that monitored deaths and tiedthose that were unregistered were originally individuals and household units to Buddhist referred to as ‘new-hinin’ (shin-hinin) and later temples. It was also helpful in the surveillance as ‘wild-hinin’ (no-hinin or no-binin), many of of religious affiliation. And, as a fourth form of whom were without a fixed residence registry, the gonin gumichō contributed to the (mushuku).26 The unregisteredhinin were monitoring and control of the population by viewed by the Bakufu as troublesome and in the creating a system of neighbourhoodmid-eighteenth century policies were created surveillance with each family in a group of five and zealously enforced to identify and control that was responsible and accountable for the the ‘wild-hinin’ through registration and physical conduct of the others. A patriarchal head of markings such as haircuts, clothing and family monitored each of the households and an sometimes tattoo markings.27 elected leader of the group of patriarchs controlled the group of families. The Edo Hinin Population

Registered There were other registries created for those Year Other Hinin Total others not in theshi-nō-kō-shō status Hinin 1692 4,329 1,037 5,366 categories. The terms hinin and eta were used 1717 6,854 1,150 8,004 to identify those at the bottom of the social 1722 5,373 2,469 7,842 20 hierarchy in Tokugawa Japan. Those falling 1725 4,849 into these categories belonged to1744 11,563 heterogeneous communities of both registered 1745 7,091 3,057 10,148 and unregistered individuals. Depending on the 1749 6,836 606 7,442 1771 4,766 5,352 10,118 historical period, location, status and 1777 4,209 1,813 6,222 [sic] occupation, various other labels were used for 1786 3.785 6,975 10,760 sub-communities within these under classes. 1834 5,709 6,091 11,800 Apart from the terms eta and hinin, labels such 1835 5,587 6,913 12,500

4 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF

1837 5,505 7,761 13,266 loss of residence) and the state of non- 1841 5,632 registration were often synonymous, 1842 6,430 demonstrating the nexus between household 1843 5,643 1,157 6,800 1850 5,157 4,851 10,008 registration and a fixed locality. The status of 1865 5,460 4,833 10,293 hinin was also something that was variously acquired. For example, in many cases families or individuals affected by natural disaster, tax avoidance (tōsan), avoidance of detection Table 1. (tōbō) or those who had property confiscated for not paying taxes often became simultaneously Souce: Minami, 349, and Nakao 276 cited in homeless and unregistered falling into the Groemer, 2001: 283. category of hinin. In some cases their status as commoners was retrievable as long as they The process of differentiation betweeneta and were not hinin for longer than ten hinin in the 1800s is evident through the years.32 Further, registration as a form of control household register. An 1800 census records was resisted by somehinin . As 5,664 eta and 1,995 hinin households in the Groemer33 demonstrates, the Edo hinin resisted Kanto area controlled by Danzaemon and in Edo their position in society throughout this period itself the census lists 734 hinin and 232 eta through attempts to conceal their status households under his control.28 Further, identity with particularly strong resistance to highlighting not only a separation of these control and conformity towards the end of the groups but a hierarchy of the underclass, Tim Tokugawa era. Amos29 has discovered a ninbetsuchō registry from Saitama Prefecture that records eta and Also important is the use of theninbetsuchō hinin on the same registry but with allhinin registry in documenting the indigenous Ainu 30 households listed below eta households. Amos and Ryukyu populations during the latter stages 31 adds, this period. Some communities of Ainu were placed on the separate ninbetsuchō. This was [B]ased on the Suzuki-ke monjo, it appears that among assimilation measures and meant the the eta leader of Lower Wana stopped changing of names to Japanese. Many of these constructing a separate register forhinin communities opposed this action and some sometime between 1770 and 1778. From 1778, 34 instances of social unrest ensued. Recent the hinin village residents were always written research has also revealed that the Ryukyu at the very end of the register, after the name Islands were included in the religious inquisition of the final eta family. aimed at Christians and, demonstrating the extensive power and reach of the Tokugawa The context ofhinin in Tokugawa Japan regime, these records reveal the area as being presents us with a number of interesting surveyed thirty times between 1635 and 1866.35 insights into the role of registration in Japanese society at this time. Firstly, registration was The Tokugawa Period was thus a period in which used extensively for control byBakufu a complex mixture of political, economic, authorities. As mentioned above, those that religious and ideological beliefs created an were unregistered were depicted as ‘wild’ and unyielding social system of categorisation. This at various stages the necessity of registration in system was facilitated greatly by the various order to rein in the troublemakers is clearly population registries that systematically evident. Differential registration also meant that differentiated status and rigidly anchored self and other could be clearly separated and people to locality. Without going outside of the the other easily distanced. ‘Homelessness’ (or

5 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF registration system, migration between social mibun categories such as samurai were and geographical position was virtuallyabolished and the majority of the population, impossible because of the strict application of besides the royal family which was not identification. The extent of identification andregistered, were listed on registries as documentation over this time makes the Edo commoners (heimin). The Meiji government also period one of the most policed eras in Japanese decreed that the ninbetsuchō and the registries history. However, it was also a period when of former outcaste communities be merged. many resisted this tight structure producing a However, the new registries labelled the former growing diverse underclass of the marginalised outcaste households with the term ‘new and dispossessed. commoner’ or ‘original eta’ (shinheimin/motoeta) maintaining an Meiji Japan (1868-1912): Creating Nation, identifiable differentiated status. The indigenous Creating Subjects Ainu and Okinawa populations were also included on the new registries as commoners. The decentralisation of the Tokugawa order in As mentioned, the registering of Okinawans and Japan led to legislative changes that redefined some Ainu had already occurred during the the status of being Japanese in response to, but Tokugawa Period but began in earnest with the not necessarily in accordance with, western introduction of the jinshin koseki.37 notions of citizenship and nationality. The Meiji period heralded the emergence of Japan as a From 1873 gaining ‘status’ as Japanese was nation in the eyes of the west, necessitating the possible for foreigners and indeed a number of incorporation of new ways of thinking about individuals did become Japanese subjects during being Japanese. The creation of thejinshin this period through marriage to a Japanese koseki through the Household Registration Law spouse.38 Under the Insider/Outsider Marriage (koseki hō) (introduced in 1871 andProclamation of 1873 (103) (nai/gaijinmin kon’in implemented in 1872) played a critical role in jōki) the process of son-in-law adoption (mukō the formation of a modern state by identifying yōshi) by the spouse’s father was possible and and documenting the Japanese population in allowed for registration of foreign husbands on preparation for a unifying national identity that the koseki and the possibility of taking on the would later become a nationality register position of patriarchal head of family koshu( ). (kokuseki). For women marrying Japanese males, the process involved registration on the husband’s This period is thus characterised by the 39 koseki. This legislation provides some insight inclusion of the many communities both into how notions of being Japanese were registered and unregistered during the Edo considered in the years between the period under the administration of a national promulgation of the jinshin koseki (1872) and registry. The aim was to bring order to the the introduction of the Nationality Law (1899). previous era’s disorder.36 Through the jinshin According to the legislation, foreigners were koseki the Meiji government was able to bring able to gain standing as Japanese through together diverse groups, both registered and marriage and entry in a koseki, ‘nihonjin taru no unregistered/deregistered (datsusekisha), and bungen o eheshi’. This legislation did not confirm the reach of its newly forming national racialise the standing of being Japanese but and imperial borders both in terms of sovereign rather highlights the fact that legitimacy was territory and state subjects. Such uniformity in determined through entry on the koseki as a identification made the nation legible and member of a registered family. At this stage, controllable from the centre. without a Nationality Law, registration on the koseki was the sole means of determining legal Under revised legislation the Tokugawa era

6 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF status as Japanese. and prerequisite for Japanese nationality. Here, as further discussed below, the relationship The determination of Japan’s nationalbetween nationality, citizenship, family, gender boundaries meant dealing with geographical and genealogy is brought into particular focus margins and the populations residing in these through the lens of the koseki. areas. Between 1877 and 1882, foreigners from the Pacific Islands, America and Europe living on The Meiji Period 2: Expanding Empire and the colonised islands of Ogasawara (Bonin Internal Borders Islands) were required to register on the koseki and become Japanese subjects. Five Bonin During the Meiji period the boundaries of Islanders who naturalised in 1877 were the first Japanese sovereign control expanded with the foreign nationals40 to become Japanese subjects colonisation of Hokkaido, Okinawa, Micronesia, in the Meiji Period. The rest of this community, Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria. The colonisation initially reticent to register, were given until of Taiwan from 1895 and Korea from 1910, 1882 to become Japanese subjects or leave the followed by Manchuria in 1931, each brought islands. Most were naturalised as Japanese new challenges to population governance. Japan subjects. Despite becoming legally Japanese was simultaneously trying to deal with this population were referred to in official Meiji modernisation, expansion as a nation/empire government documents as ‘naturalisedand the conceptualisation and legislation of foreigners’ (kika gaikokujin).41 Japanese nationality. Important in this discussion is the role of the koseki in regard to Also salient during this period is thethe institutional and legislative division of Japan establishment of the ‘ie’ or household system as proper (nai’chi) and the outer or colonial part of the Meiji Civil Code in 1898meiji ( territories (gai’chi) of the Japanese empire. One minpō). The ‘ie’ system continued the practice of the better-known and more influential of Confucian ideals by giving the patriarchal contributions to the debates on the head absolute authority over family members conceptualisation of citizenship during this time and ensuring male lineage. This maintained a was that of Yamada Saburō,42 a jurist from line of power between the emperor as ruler of Tokyo University, who, contrary to the advice of the nation and the patriarchal head ofHenry W. Denison, suggested national household. Additionally, under the Nationality belonging could be separated from rights and Law, based on the Household Registration Law, responsibilities in the case of colonial Japanese nationality was passed on through the citizens.43 Yamada’s suggestions were father to a child. Making nationality patrilineal popular44 and were first adopted in the and preventing the passing on of Japanese colonisation of Taiwan. Once Taiwan was ceded nationality if a woman married a non-Japanese by China in 1895, similar to the Bonin Islanders, national or bore a child fathered by a non- the populace was given an ultimatum to Japanese national. Often referred to as the become Japanese subjects (within two years) or family nation (kazoku kokka), from the 1890s leave Taiwan. Although Taiwanese families Japan increasingly symbolised the emperor as presented problems for a Meiji government father of the nation-state in which the imperial trying to implement a household registration family and the Japanese people were indelibly system45 because of resentment towards its linked through blood. The introduction of the discriminatory nature46 there was little in the Nationality Law in 1899 defined Japanese status way of organised resistance.47 The Taiwan internationally in terms of western notions of toguchi kisoku (Regulations for Taiwan nationality. However, registration on the koseki households) was established in 1905 and was still maintained as a necessary condition administered by the police. This ordinance

7 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF provided for the separation of those from Japan taken.52 Increasing pressure to gain accurate proper and the Taiwanese. figures led to Japanese officials barging into people’s houses. The census taking likely In colonising Korea Japan took a differentoffended most Koreans because of the approach. Again Yamada contributed toinsensitive way in which it was conducted by discussions where he stressed the need for transgressing the sacredness of Korean legally distinguishing colonials (gai’chijin) from homes.53 colonisers (nai’chijin) in order to prevent Koreans from becomingnai’chijin . At the The koseki fit well with the institutionalisation of time48 there was concern expressed that pan-Asianism and the strategy of turning all Koreans could become mainlanders with the colonials into Japanese subjects. It played a same access to rights by simply moving to significant role in an assiduously enforced Japan proper. Yamada argued that to prevent Japanisation campaign (kōminka) starting in this it was necessary to expedite the1937 aimed at turning colonials into obedient introduction of thekoseki system into (junryō) imperial subjects54 through linguistic Korea.49 Yamada also strongly suggested and cultural assimilation. Thekoseki was legislation to prevent Koreans registering on the particularly useful in the colonial policy of soshi Japanese koseki. This was facilitated by the fact kaimei that attempted to eradicate the clan that the colonies and the mainland fell under system of names by forcing Koreans to adopt a two different jurisdictions with colonialJapanese-sounding name. This policy was governments autonomously controlling the implemented through enforced family registry external territories gai’chi( ). The Meiji reform. The idea was to eradicate cultural government used the Korean indigenous family identity entrenched in the clan name system. register in place since the Yi dynasty and However, many Koreans resisted the campaign maintained separate koseki laws between the successfully by organising for kinship ties to mainland and the colonies and in effect created remain intact through clans adopting the same an external (gai’chi koseki) and a domestic Japanese name.55 family registry (nai’chi koseki).50 This approach essentially created two types of Japanese Postwar Japan: Occupation and US subjects, colonials and mainlanders that could Administration be easily distinguished through the two registries. The two registries also allowed After the War and under the Potsdam mainlanders to move throughout the colonies Declaration signed in 1945 Japan agreed to limit whilst remaining bound to the nation asits sovereignty to its four main islands and some nai’chijin. Differential citizenship thus became surrounding islands as determined under the institutionalised and the boundary between declaration. Under occupation by the Allied colonials and mainlanders was maintained Forces and the management of SCAP the despite the mobility of individuals throughout administrative and governmental boundaries of the empire.51 Resistance was an unsurprising Japan were redefined. They no longer included outcome of such attempts at socialthe outlying areas of the empire including management. Nationalist movements on the Taiwan, Korea, Karafuto or most islands south of Korean peninsula in 1919 protested colonial rule 30 degrees latitude north and the Ryukyus, the and led to violent outbreaks of protest. Efforts latter two territories seized by the United 56 at early population censuses (1906-1908) were States. This led to numerous administrative hampered by Koreans hiding from Japanese and legislative changes in allocating status and officials when they visited households resulting how people within this redefined space were in inaccurate figures each time counts werethen to be identified and documented. Initially,

8 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF on 13 March 1946 a ministerial order was issued eventually succeeded with at least 80,000 to those living in Japan whose place of principle departing Japan.61 registration (honseki) was Korea, China, Taiwan, south of 30 degrees latitude north (alsoThe War also brought with it destruction of Kuchinoshima) and Okinawa prefecture to many koseki records. Okinawa and Chichijima register and declare their desire to(Ogasawara Islands) were two locations that return.57 Further, on 1 December 1946were the target of intense US attack leading to (promulgated 30 November 1946) the Osaka the destruction ofkoseki records in both Korean Registration OrdinanceŌsakafu ( locations. Postwar Okinawa and Ogasawara Chōsenjin tōroku jōrei) was enacted requiring both fell outside of Japan’s sovereign Koreans to be fingerprinted and to carryadministration a and under US occupation and registration card. This met with intensecontrol. The restoration of thekoseki records resistance and the registration process proved (koseki okoshi) occurred in both Okinawa and to be difficult and consequently was theonly Ogasawara Islands, but at different times. In partially completed.58 Moreover, on 11 June Okinawa, in the absence of official 1946 Imperial Ordinance 311, althoughdocumentation, the reconstruction of household ostensibly a measure to quell the upsurge in records that included the names of past trade union activity, was promulgated. Morris- relatives, spouses and offspring was a Suzuki argues that this ordinance was applied problematic undertaking. Okinawans around the retrospectively to any Korean resident who had world were contacted during the process for 62 re-entered Japan after the start of occupation on verification and authentication. In postwar 2 September 1945 and who was then deemed Ogasawara the koseki was not resurrected until an ‘illegal entrant’.59 after the return of the islands to Japanese administration in 1968. The period of US On 2 May 1947 the Alien Registration Order occupation (1945-1951) and then US (gaikokujin tōroku rei) was enforced and defined administration (1952-1968) meant that the anyone not holding Japanese nationalitydescendants of the original settlers living on (members of the Allied Forces and their families Chichijima, although under the protectorate of were excluded from this ruling) as an alien. In the US, were essentially de facto stateless for 1950 Nansei Islanders were restricted from those intervening years63 For some families of travel to the newly defined Japan and werethe descendants of original settlers, the treated as aliens under immigration orders. By restoration of the koseki meant they could the time Japan renounced any claim over Korea return their names to the original katakana with the signing of the San Francisco Peace readings or to a Japanese reading instead of the Treaty (signed 1951 and effected 1952)English a one they had under the US Navy.64 This majority of the former colonial subjects living in remains an exception in the history ofkoseki Japan had left but more than 600,000 still procedures. Until revision in 1987 Japanese remained, having been deprived of Japanese manuals on naturalisation recommended the citizenship. Around this time the Immigration use of Japanese names. It was only after this Control Law (shutsunyūkoku kanri hō) (1951) that foreign names in katakana became and the Alien Registration Lawgaikokujin ( possible for many.65 tōroku hō) (1952) were implemented. The controversial fingerprinting requirement did not Contemporary Japan begin until 1955 when a cabinet order and regulations for fingerprinting were issued.60 The The modern day household registry is based on Japanese government also tried to get Korean the Family Registration Law (promulgated in residents to repatriate to North Korea and 1871 and implemented in 1872). It

9 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF authenticates the status mibun( ) of an employment and social discrimination. Despite individual and details birth, marriage, death, action by these communities that eventually divorce, family lineage and adoption. As stated resulted in restricted public access to above, the Family Registry Law predates the records,70 the koseki still remains open to many Civil Code (1896), the Meiji Constitution (1889) professions such as lawyers, police and and the Nationality Law (1899) and in modern government officials. Given the accessibility of Japan these legislative structures interrelate to the koseki records, extensive traceability and constitute a regulatory regime of social control the sensitive nature of information contained in in determining an individual’s status within the records, it is unsurprising that thekoseki Japanese society.66 In the postwar period three has been exploited. The koseki not only reveals other Laws relating to population registration ancestral links to former outcaste communities were established to further supplementit also signals divorce through the use of an ‘X’ regulation and control; the Basic Resident next to the name of a former spouse on the Register Law (1967), the Resident Registration registry (this is where the colloquial term batsu Law (1951) and the Alien Registration Law ichi, meaning divorced, originates).71 Until the (1952). Despite this complex and intricate legal amendment to the Civil Code in network the Family Registration Law remains 199672 illegitimate births were also easily the foundation upon which other structures are identified on thekoseki because the Chinese based and still has primacy in defining legalcharacter for child (ko) was used instead of the status as a national of Japan. Indeed, as chronological descriptive for birth order and sex Sugimoto67 has described, the present koseki is (for example chōjo and jinan).73 Another issue “the cornerstone” of this elaborate system of that reflects the patriarchal nature of the koseki registration. As I have explained above, during is the ruling that Japanese married couples the Meiji period family registration predated cannot be legally married under different last nationality in legally authenticating status as names. This causes problems for women who Japanese. It was only after 1899 that a national wish to retain their non-married name especially register (kokuseki) was recognised. Japanese in professional contexts. The Civil Code was kokuseki however, in most cases, is not possible revised in 1947 allowing either the husband or without koseki registration.68 Thus, in the wife’s name to be used forkoseki contemporary Japan national registrationregistration but different names (fūfubessei) are remains secondary to household registration in illegal. However, increasingly women are using defining the Japanese self. their original non-married surname in socially and in the workplace. Contemporary problems relating to legislation based on the household registration system can The rigid adherence to family as the be classed under two general categories. The fundamental social unit of registration and the first category relates to issues of privacy andlimited principles of what constitutes a family public access69 and the second concerns the embedded in household and related legislation long history of family (as opposed to individuals) has led to inequality and prejudicial as the fundamental social unit of legaltreatment.74 Limitations in legislation are registration. Access to the koseki records has apparent in a wide array of contexts that fall meant that sensitive private information has outside of the heteronormative75 and nuclear been released publically. Particularly well known family structure. One area where legislative is the case of descendants of former outcaste limitations are obvious is that relating to birth (burakumin) communities identified throughregistration. Reflecting the principle jusof family lineage recorded on the koseki which led sanguinis, Japan’s Nationality Act only to the public distribution of lists followed by recognised patrilineal descent until 1985 when

10 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF an amendment was introduced recognising Nationality Law was amended resulting in a matrilineal descent. In many cases prior to 1985 revision to Article 3 (revised 12 December 2008 children born to a non-Japanese father and a and effected 1 January 2009). The amendment Japanese mother were renderedde facto stipulates that, providing fathers recognise stateless because of conflicting nationality laws. paternity, regardless of the timing, children This was particularly the case in Okinawa where born out of wedlock can obtain Japanese 90% of cases of statelessness prior to 1984 citizenship. This revision was the result of a long were children whose American father had history of appeals based on Japan’s Constitution deserted the marriage.76 Children in this (particularly Article 14-1) and international situation were living in Japan but were not conventions that Japan has ratified.81 Finally, a registered on thekoseki and in effect werecase brought forward by 10 Filipino women with without nationality. children born to Japanese fathers instigated the revision. Despite this revision however, the Japanese legislation, as well as reflecting theproblem of children becoming stateless principle of jus sanguinis, has favoured the (mukosekiji) because of inflexible legislation is principles of marriage and a woman’s chastity in still ongoing.82 marriage in determining a child’s right to acquire Japanese nationality. Article 772 of the Conclusion Civil Code stipulates that: 1. A child conceived by a wife during marriage shall be presumed to No administrative system is capable of be the child of her husband, 2. A child born after representing any existing social community 200 days from the formation or within 300 days except through a heroic and greatly of the day of the dissolution or rescission of schematized process of abstraction and marriage shall be presumed to have been simplification.83 conceived during marriage. According to Suzuki77 the Japanese state, has used its This paper is an introduction to the social Nationality Law, to determine the nationality of history of the koseki system and an initial children born out of wedlock78 and has exploration of its place and influence within “championed the marriage institution”.79 This, Japanese society. Although not comprehensive, he argues, is because paternity is more difficult this study traces the koseki from the Tokugawa to determine than maternity. Furthermore, Period through to the contemporary context to Suzuki notes that ‘foetus recognition’taiji ( further our understanding of how the processes ninchi), a standard condition for birthof identification and documentation have been registration and therefore entry on to the used by various ruling authorities for social father’s koseki registry, has been conditioned control and political gain. Fundamentally, the upon marriage by article 3-1 of the Nationality koseki has facilitated the functions of Law which stipulates that a child under 20 years government in rendering the inhabitants living of age may acquire Japanese nationality if the within Japan’s sovereign and territorial borders mother or father has married and acknowledges ‘knowable’. It has also been used to police 80 boundaries and borders both internally and maternity or paternity. externally to authenticate a state-defined notion Increasing numbers of alternate familyof Japanese self. Although the boundaries of self structures, non-nationals and irregular status have shifted over time, as far as the state is residents in Japan has exposed the limitations of concerned, status as Japanese has always been the legal matrix surrounding family law.determined upon membership of a household However, laws are changed and in a landmark defined by koseki legislation and attached to a case in the Supreme Court on 4 June 2008 the local entity within the jurisdiction of the ruling

11 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF polity. In essence the koseki has acted as a of minority communities in Japan. He is the historical map etching out the contours of the author of Zainichi Korean Identity and Ethnicity limits and delimits of a demographically defined published by Routledge. He is presently working Japanese self. Throughout this history the on two projects involving a social history of attempts at mapping a uniform, definable and identification in Japan and the life stories of first registrable Japanese self have led to the settler descendants on the Ogasawara Islands. exclusion and marginalisation of diverse others. It is through examining these others that we Recommended citation: David can gain further understanding of the koseki as Chapman, Geographies of Self and Other: an instrument of social control and the social Mapping Japan through the Koseki, The Asia- reality that confronted ruling elites. Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 29 No 2, July 18, 2011. It was during the Meiji Period that thekoseki was instrumental in not only controlling the Articles on related subjects: populace but also for nationalising it. It is only during this period that thekoseki was • Miyamoto Yuki, Ninomiya Shohei and Shin supplemented with other legislation to create a Kyon, The Family, Koseki, and the Individual: nationality registry (kokuseki) and the concept Japanese and Korean Experiences of a Japanese ‘national’ self emerged. It is also • Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Exodus to North Korea where the koseki became an important tool in Revisited: Japan, North Korea, and the ICRC in the processes of colonisation, being used to the “Repatriation” of Ethnic Koreans from Japan determine national and imperial boundaries and to maintain a distinction between the colonisers • Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Guarding the Borders of and the colonised through the registration of Japan: Occupation, Korean War and Frontier inhabitants as Japanese subjects of outer Controls territories. • Lawrence Repeta and Glenda S. Roberts, The integrity of family registration as the Immigrants or Temporary Workers? A Visionary primary legal definer of Japanese status hasCall for a “Japanese-style Immigration Nation” remained and created an indelible link between the Japanese state and the family. As explained • Gracia Liu-Farrer, Debt, Networks and here, in a rapidly changing contemporary Japan Reciprocity: Undocumented Migration from however, defining national belonging throughFujian to Japan the principles of family further creates various layers of marginalised others. Recent legislative • Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Migrants, Subjects, changes such as the 2008 revision to Article 3 Citizens: Comparative Perspectives on of the Nationality Law provide a glimpse of a Nationality in the Prewar Japanese Empire future in which the Japanese nation-state must continue to take steps towards recognising the • Arudou Debito & Higuchi Akira, Handbook for growing diversity of its society and theNewcomers, Migrants, and Immigrants to Japan inadequacy of laws that do not recognise and adapt to inevitable social change. • Glenda S. Roberts, Labor Migration to Japan: Comparative Perspectives on Demography and the Sense of Crisis

David Chapman is the convenor of Japanese • Sakanaka Hidenori, The Future of Japan’s studies at the University of South Australia. His Immigration Policy: a battle diary present research interests focus on the history

12 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF

• Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Invisible Immigrants: Chapman, David, ‘Inventing subjects and Undocumented Migration and Border Controls in sovereignty: Early history of the ﬁrst settlers of Early Postwar Japan the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands’, Japan Focus, June 15 2009, References www.japanfocus.org/-David-Chapman/3169.

Abe, Kohki, Overview of Statelessness: Cheng, Tiejun and Mark Selden, 1994. ‘City, International and Japanese Context, UNHCR, Countryside and the Dialectics of Control: The 2010. Origins of China’s Hukou system’,The China Quarterly, 139 644-68, 1994. Amino, Yoshihiko, Nihon shakai to tennōsei [Japanese Society and the Emperor System], Cornell, Laurel and Hayami, Akira, ‘The shūmon- Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1988. aratame-chō: Japan’s population registers’, Journal of Family History, 11:4, 311-28, 1986. Amos, T. Portrait of a Tokugawa outcaste community, East Asian History, no. 32/33, Emori, Susumu, Hokkaidō kinseishi no kenkyū: December 2006/ June 2007: 83-108. Bakuhan taisei to ezochi[Research on the Recent History of Hokkaido: The Feudal System Amstutz, Galen, Interpreting Amida: History and and the Land of Ezo]. Sapporo: Hokkaidō Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land Buddhism, Shuppan Kikaku Sentaa, 1997. New York: University of New York Press, 1997. Endō, Masataka, Kindai Nihon no shokuminchi Asakawa, Akihiro, Kindai Nihon to kika seido tōchi ni okeru kokuseki to koseki: Manshū, [Modern Japan and the Naturalization System], Chōsen, Taiwan [Nationality and Family Tokyo: Keisuisha, 2007. Registration within Modern Japan’s Colonial Territories: Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan], Asano, Toyotomi, ‘Nihon teikoku ni okeru Tokyo: Akashi Shoten, 2010. Taiwan hontōjin to shinkokujin no hazuma: kokuseki sentaku to Taiwan hōsei’ [Choice of Groebner, Valentin, ‘Describing the person, nationality and Taiwanese law: The differencereading the signs in late Medieval and between Taiwanese mainlanders and new renaissance Europe: identity papers, vested nationals in imperial Japan],Gendai Taiwan figures, and the limits of identification Kenkyū, 2000. 1400-1600’, in J. Caplan and J. Torpey, eds, Documenting Individual Identity: The Bitō, Masahide, ‘Thought and religion, Development of State Practices in the Modern 1550-1700’, in J. Hall and M. Jansen, eds,The World, Princeton: Princeton University Press, Cambridge History of Japan: Early Modern Japan 15-27, 2001. Volume 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 373-424, 1991. Groemer, Gerald, ‘The creation of the Edo outcaste order’, Journal of Japanese Studies, Bryant, Tamee, ‘For the sake of the country, for 27:2, 263-93, 2001. the sake of the family: The oppressive impact of family registration on women and minorities in Henry, Todd, ‘Sanitizing empire: Japanese Japan’, UCLA Law Review, 39:1, 109-68, 1991. articulations of Korean otherness and the construction of early colonial Seoul’, 1905-1919, Caplan, Jane and Torpey, John C, Documenting The Journal of Asian Studies, 64, 639-675, 2005. Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World, Princeton: Hirata, Kōji, ‘Heian jidai no koseki ni tsuite’ Princeton University Press, 2001.

13 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF

[Concerning the koseki of the Heian period] in 1895-1945: The vicissitudes of colonialism’ in Takeshi Toyoda, ed, Nihon Kodai Chūseishi no Rubenstein, M. ed, New York: M. E. Sharpe, Chihōteki Tenkai, Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1999. 59-96, 1973. Lunsing, Wim, Beyond Common Sense: Imperial Japanese Commission, Japan at the Sexuality and Gender in Contemporary Japan, Beginning of the 20th Century, Tokyo: Tokyo London: Kegan Paul International, 2001. Shoin, 1904. Mackie, Vera, ‘Family law and its others’ in Ishi, Ryōsuke, Ie to koseki no rekishi [The Scheiber, H. and Mayali, L, eds, Japanese Family History of Family and Household Registration], Law in Comparative Perspective, Berekeley: The Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1981. Robbins Collection, 139-64, 2009.

Iwasawa, Yuji, International Law, Human Rights, Mackie Vera, ‘Managing borders and managing and Japanese Law: The Impact of International bodies in contemporary Japan’, Journal of the Law on Japanese Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press, Asia Paciﬁc Economy, 15:1, 71-85, 2010. 1998. Mainichi Shinbunsha, Rikongo 300 nichi mondai: Kamoto, Itsuko, Kokusai Kekkon no Tanjō: Mukosekiji o suke! [The 300 Hundred Day After Bunmeikoku Nippon e no Michi [The Birth of the Divorce Problem: Save the Unregistered Child!], International Marriage: The Path to A Culturally Tokyo: Mainichi Shinbunsha Kaibu, 2008. Enlightened Japan], Tokyo: Shinyōsha, 2001. Maree, Clare, ‘Same-sex partnerships in Japan: Kang, Etsuko, ‘Kita Sadakichi (1871-1939) on Bypasses and other alternatives’,Women’s Korea: a Japanese ethno-historian and the Studies, 33, 541–549, 2004. annexation of Korea 1910’,Asian Studies Review, 21:1, 41-60, 1997. Matsumoto, Tami, ‘Sengo Okinawa no kazoku to hō’ [The law and family in postwar Okinawa], Kinjō, Zen, Meiji roku nen jūichi gatsu jūyokka Nihonhō Shakai Gakkai, 80-89, 1977. tsuke ‘koseki sōkeihyō’: Yaeyamatō, Ishigaki Magiri Ishigakimura no ‘Tōsūchō’ no bunseki o Ministry of Home Aﬀairs,Ogasawaratō Zaiseki toshite [Total statistics of the koseki on 14 Kikajin ni Kan suru Ken [Concerning the November 1873: An analysis of Yaeyama Island, Registered Kikajin of the Ogasawara Islands], Ishigaki village population directory],Naimusho, National Public Archives of Japan Unpublished Research, 2009. 2A-26-kō-3231, 1883.

Komagome, Takeshi, Shokuminchi teikoku Miyamoto Yuki, Ninomya Shohey, and Shin Nippon no bunka tōgō [Cultural Integration of Kyon, The family, koseki, and the individual: the Japanese Colonial Empire], Tokyo: Iwanami Japanese and Korean experiences,The Asia- Shoten, 1996. Paciﬁc Journal, Volume 9, Issue 23, No. 3, June 6, 2011. Kugai, Ryōjun, Wagatsuma, Sakae, Takanō, Yūichi, Hoshinō, Eiichi, Ikehara, Sueo, Miyawaki, Mizuno, Naoki. ed.,Seikatsu no naka no Yukihiko, and Ogawa, Ichirō, Okinawa no hōsei shokuminchi shugi [Colonialism in Everyday oyobi koseki tochi mondai nado no hensen, Life], Kyoto: Jinmon Shoin, 2004. Jurisuto, 457, 16-37, 1970. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, Exodus to North Korea: Lamley, Harry, ‘Taiwan under Japanese rule, Shadows from Japan’s Cold War, London: Rowman and Littleﬁeld Publishers.

14 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF

Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, ‘Migrants, subjects,Suzuki, Nobue, ‘Outlawed children: Japanese citizens: Comparative perspectives onFilipino children, legal defiance and ambivalent nationality in the prewar Japanese empire’, citizenships’, Pacific Affairs, 83:1, 31-50, 2010. Japan Focus, 28 August 2008, www.japanfocus.org/-Tessa-Morris_Suzuki/2862. Tsukida, Mizue, Nihon no mukokusekiji to kodomo no fukushi [Child Welfare and Stateless Children in Japan], Tokyo: Akashi Shoten, 2008. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, ‘Guarding the borders of Japan: Occupation, Korean War and frontier Wang, Fei-Ling, Organizing through Division and controls’, Japan Focus, 21 February 2011, Exclusion: China’s Hukou System, Stanford: www.japanfocus.org/-Tessa-Morris_Suzuki/3490 Stanford University Press, 2005.

Nakao, Kenji, ed, Danzaemon kankei shiryo shu Yamada, Saburō, Shin-ryochi ni kansuru hōritsu (Kyu-baku hikitsugi-sho) [Material Relating to kankei o ronzu [Debating Law Relating to new Danzaemon], 3 Volumes, Osaka: KaihōTerritories], Kokka Gakai Zasshi, Tokyo: Fuji Shuppansha, 1995. Shuppan, 1895.

Ninomiya, Shūhei, Koseki to jinken [Human Yang, Yong-hu, Ōsaka-fu Chōsenjin tōroku jōrei Rights and the Koseki], Osaka: Kaihōseitei: 1946 no tenmatsu ni tsuite [The Shuppansha, 2006. establishment of the Osaka prefecture Korean registration ordinance: Concerning the events of Okuyama, Kyōko, ‘Sengo Okinawa no hōtaisei to 1946], Zainichi Chōsenjinshi Kenkyū, 16, koseki no henkan (1)’ [Koseki reversion and the 104-26, 1986. structure of the law in Postwar Okinawa], Yokohama Kokusai Shakai Kenkyū, 11:3, Notes 350-67, 2006.

1 Satō, Bunmei, Koseki uragae shikō [Thinking Groebner, ‘Describing the person, reading the Differently About the History of the Koseki], signs in late Medieval and renaissance Europe: Tokyo: Gendai Shokan, 1988. identity papers, vested figures, and the limits of identification 1400-1600’, 16. Scheiber, Harry. and Mayali, Laurent, eds, Japanese Family Law in Comparative 2 Wang, Organizing through Division and Perspective, Berkley: Robbins Collection Exclusion: China’s Hukou System, 33. Publications, 2009.

Scott, James, Seeing Like a State: How Certain 3 The People’s Republic of China created a Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have hukou system that deﬁned the urban-rural Failed, Yale: Yale University Press, 1998. relationship and fundamentally shaped Siddle, Richard, ‘The limits to citizenship in contemporary state-society relations; see for Japan: Multiculturalism, indigenous rights and example, Cheng and Selden, ‘City, countryside the Ainu’, Citizenship Studies, 7:4, 447-62, and the dialectics of control: The origins of 2003. China’s hukou system’.

Sugimoto, Yoshio, An Introduction to Japanese 4 See for example, Cornell and Hayami, ‘The Society, London: Cambridge University Press, shūmon-aratame-chō: Japan’s population 2003. registers’, 311-28; Hirata, ‘Heian jidai no koseki

15 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF ni tsuite’, 59-96; Ishi, Ie to koseki no rekishi; 14 Ibid, 6. Matsumoto, ‘Sengo Okinawa no kazoku to hō’, 80-89; Okuyama, ‘Sengo Okinawa no hōtaisei to 15 koseki no henkan’, 350-67). During the sixteenth century the centralisation of control by Hideyoshi meant the creation of a national government and the 5 Homusho Homu Sogo Kenkyujo 1975-2004; uniﬁcation of Japan. As part of this process he Jurisuto. issued the Edict Restricting Change of Status and Residence (mibun tōseirei) in 1591 and conducted a land survey taikō( kenchi) from 6 Schieber and Mayali, Japanese Family Law in 1583 to 1598. Comparative Perspective.

16 Satō, Koseki uragae shikō, 33. 7 Bryant, ‘For the sake of the country, for the sake of the family: The oppressive impact of family registration on women and minorities in 17 Cornell and Hayami, ‘The shūmon-aratame- Japan’, 109-68; Maree, ‘Same-sex partnerships chō: Japan’s population registers’. in Japan: Bypasses and other alternatives’, 541–49; Lunsing, Beyond Common Sense: 18 Sexuality and Gender in Contemporary Japan; Amstutz, Interpreting Amida: History and Mackie, ‘Managing borders and managing Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land Buddhism, bodies in contemporary Japan’, 71-85. 22.

19 8 Satō, Koseki uragae shikō. Bitō, ‘Thought and religion 1550-1700’, 369-371.

9 Endō, Kindai Nihon no Shokuminchi Tōchini 20 okeru Kokuseki to koseki: Manshū, Chōsen, The term ‘Burakumin’ was not in use to Taiwan. describe these groups at this time.

21 10 Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Demonstrating some ﬂuidity in Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have categorization, Gōmune were considered hinin Failed, 2. only when engaged in this occupation (see Groemer, ‘The creation of the Edo outcaste order’, 281). 11 Ibid, 11.

22 Ōsaka-shi Kyōiku Kenkyūjō, cited in Groemer, 12 Mackie, ‘Managing borders and managing ‘The creation of the Edo outcaste order’, 269. bodies in contemporary Japan’. Moreover, the kawata continued to farm, pay taxes and, in some places, continued to participate in village aﬀairs, see Groemer, ‘The 13 Caplan and Torpey, Documenting Individual creation of the Edo outcaste order’, 269. Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World, 7. 23 Groemer, ‘The creation of the Edo outcaste

16 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF order’, 276. Beginning of the 20th Century, 49.

24 Ibid, 284. 37 Although perhaps not a procedure adopted nation-wide, Richard Siddle has recently revealed the labeling of some Ainu as former 25 Danzaemon was appointed the head of the natives (kyūdōjin) on their koseki registries; eta in eight Kanto prefectures; see Nakao, Siddle, ‘The limits to citizenship in Japan: Danzaemon kankei shiryo shu, 118-22. Multiculturalism, indigenous rights and the Ainu’, 451-52. Without access to records it is

26 diﬃcult to determine the extent of this practice Ibid, 284. and whether it was widespread or only present in isolated cases. 27 Nakao, Edo shaki to Danzaemon, cited in Groemer, ‘The creation of the Edo outcaste 38 Lafcadio Hearn (Koizumi Yakumo) in 1895 and order’, 285. Henry Black (Kairakutei Burakku) in 1893 were two notable male foreigners who became 28 Ibid, 272. Japanese citizens under this legislation.

39 29 Also see Amos, ‘Portrait of a Tokugawa For more detail on this legislation, see outcaste community’. Kamoto, Kokusai Kekkon no Tanjō: Bunmeikoku Nippon e no Michi.

30 Saitama Prefectural Archives, Suzuki-ke 40 monjo, record number 161. Ogasawaratō Zaiseki Kikajin ni Kan suru Ken. Not all the inhabitants of the Bonin Islanders had a recognized foreign nationality. Many from 31 Correspondence with Amos, 20 July 2010. the Paciﬁc region had no legally recognized nationality.

32 Minami, cited in Groemer, ‘The creation of the Edo outcaste order’, 283. 41 Ogasawaratō Zaiseki Kikajin ni Kan suru Ken.

33 Ibid, 291. 42 Yamada Saburō (1852-1919) was a graduate of international law and President of Seoul Imperial University from 1931 until 1936. 34 Emori, Hokkaidō Kinseishi no Kenkyū: Bakuhan Taisei to Ezochi. 43 Yamada, ‘Shin-ryochi ni kansuru hōritsu kankei o ronzu’. 35 Kinjō, Meiji roku nen jūichi gatsu jūyokka tsuke ‘koseki sōkeihyō’: Yaeyamatō, Ishigaki Magiri Ishigakimura no ‘Tōsūchō’ no bunseki o 44 Asano, ‘Nihon teikoku ni okeru Taiwan toshite. hontōjin to shinkokujin no hazuma: kokuseki sentaku to Taiwan hōsei’.

36 Imperial Japanese Commission, Japan at the

17 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF

45 Ibid. administration: “(a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Tako Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryūkyū 46 The system did not apply to Japanese (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude residents. (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all the other outlying Paciﬁc 47 Lamley, ‘Taiwan under Japanese rule, Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) 1895-1945: The vicissitudes of colonialism’. Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakano-tori) 48 The Ōtsuka Tsunesaburo Bunsho documents Islands], and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, are not dated but the Minsekihō (1909) and the the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group Korean Governor General decree number 75 of (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and 1911 (Shukuhaku oyobi Kyojū Kisoku) are Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Isalnd. A later mentioned in this discussion. directive includes Izu and the Nanpō Islands.”

57 49 Ōtsuka Tsunesaburo Bunsho. Justice Ministerial Order No. 1 1946.

58 50 Legislation was created that banned Yang, Ōsaka-fu Chōsenjin tōroku jōrei seitei: movement from onekoseki to the other. 1946 no tenmatsu ni tsuite.

59 51 Morris-Suzuki, ‘Migrants, subjects, citizens: Morris-Suzuki, ‘Guarding the borders of Japan: Comparative perspectives on nationality in the Occupation, Korean War and frontier controls. prewar Japanese empire’ refers to this as a ‘regional citizenship’. 60 A signature replaced ﬁngerprinting for special permanent residents in 1993 and in 2000 for 52 Henry, Sanitizing empire: Japaneselong-term (3 months or longer) foreign articulations of Korean otherness and the residents. construction of early colonial Seoul, 1905-1919’, 654-55. 61 Morris-Suzuki, Exodus to North Korea: Shadows from Japan’s Cold War. 53 Ibid, 655.

62 Kugai et al, ‘Okinawa no hōsei oyobi koseki 54 See Komagome, Shokuminchi Teikoku Nippon tochi mondai nado no hensen’. no Bunka Tōgō.

63 For more on the Ogasawara Islands and the 55 Mizuno, Seikatsu no naka no shokuminchi koseki see Chapman, Inventing subjects and shugi. sovereignty: Early history of the ﬁrst settlers of the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands.

56 SCAP-IN 677. The directive speciﬁes the 64 following as excluded from Japanese On April 14 1969 representatives of Tokyo

18 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF

Family Court went to Chichijima and collected 72 Despite this amendment illegitimate children details from thirty-two individuals wishing to are still treated diﬀerently from legitimate change their names. All sixteen requests for children in Japan. Illegitimate children only name changes from English to Japanese and receive half of the inheritance of legitimate sixteen for Japanese to English were granted. children upon a parent’s death. Adopted children receive the full duty of inheritance.

65 In 1982 the Kobe Family Court restored the name of a Japanese claimant of Vietnamese 73 It is worth noting that in Meiji Japan criminal origin and stated that because of the increasing oﬀences were also recorded on the koseki. mobility and internationalization of society the selection of one’s name in katakana should be 74 allowed, see Iwasawa, International Law, Human See Miyamoto, Ninomiya and Shin, The family, Rights, and Japanese Law: The Impact of koseki and the individual: Japanese and Korean International Law on Japanese Law, 140-41. experiences.

75 66 For a thorough explanation of the entwined Some interpretations highlight the fact the workings of these legislative structures and heteronormative family is enshrined in the their relationship to inclusion and exclusion of Japanese constitution, see Mackie, ‘Family law individuals from the nation-state see Mackie, and its others’, 142-143. ‘Family law and its others’. 76 Tsukida, Nihon no mukokusekiji to kodomo no 67 Sugimoto, An Introduction to Japanese fukushi, 108-109. Society, 146. 77 Suzuki, ‘Outlawed children: Japanese Filipino 68 In exceptional cases Japanese nationality is children, legal deﬁance and ambivalent granted to children who are deemed stateless. citizenships’, 36. However, this is rare and rates of success of applicants in this situation are very low, Okuda 78 Ibid, 36 in Overview of Statelessness: International and Japanese Context, 40. 79 Ibid, 37.

69 According to Ninomiya, Koseki to jinken, 25, the koseki allows unlimited public access to an 80 Ibid, 37. individual’s family relations and extensive access to changes in status and residence. 81 Ibid, 39-42.

70 Legislative reform was achieved in 1976. 82 For more discussion on this problem refer to Mainichi Shinbunsha, Rikongo 300 Nichi Mondai: 71 However, having one’s name transferred to Mukosekiji o Suke!. the original koseki after divorce will remove evidence of divorce. 83 Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain

19 9 | 29 | 2 APJ | JF

Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, 22.