The Denationalized Have No Class: the Banishment of Japan's Korean Minority-- a POLEMIC

Volume 6 | Issue 6 | Article ID 2776 | Jun 01, 2008 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus The Denationalized Have No Class: The Banishment of Japan's Korean Minority-- A POLEMIC Sonia Ryang The Denationalized Have No Class: The compounded. Banishment of Japan’s Korean Minority-- A POLEMIC Sonia Ryang 1. In a recent article by Bumsoo Kim entitled “Bringing class back in: the changing basis of inequality and the Korean minority in Japan,” I read: “[…] this study shows that the Young Koreans in Japan celebrate legal/institutional and socioeconomic wedding in traditional Korean style. structural changes in Japan for the past few decades, by decreasing Nevertheless, what the above passage made me ethnic inequality between Koreans wonder—and what I found to be odd in it—was and Japanese while increasing class this: Koreans in Japan have always had inequality among Koreans, have made incorporated class stratification: throughout class more significant than ethnicity the colonial period, during the US occupation in understanding the inequalityand the entire post-war period, and to this day. problematic of zainichi Koreans [i.e. The question is why, then, do some researchers Koreans in Japan].”[1] think that class (and here, I take that they mean, through conflation, class consciousness Perhaps it is logical that an oppressed and and class differentiation) was not previously marginalized ethnic minority, once it begins to relevant to Koreans in Japan or, more precisely, receive the benefits of the affluence of the host when we think about Koreans in Japan. When society, albeit belatedly, would shed itsdid class disappear from the rhetoric and markings of ethnicity and begin to take on the understanding of and about Koreans in Japan to markings of class. Perhaps it is also logical to the extent that now someone has to “bring think that in such a situation class, rather than class back in”? ethnicity, would become more relevant to forging identity. Unequivocally, however, I These questions led me to think not so much remain unconvinced by the argument that a about class as about being human—notably, particular category becomes “more significant” about when a human is not a human in Japan. I than certain others, since the marking of the find that focusing on class (including class oppressed is always necessarily multiply consciousness and class differentiation) or, 1 6 | 6 | 0 APJ | JF more precisely, the absence thereof, can for Japanese and Koreans? In other words, is provide a useful perspective when thinking the mode of attrition of this concept from about Japan as a nation-state in which non- public consciousness the same for Japanese nationals are not deemed human. and Koreans in Japan, the former being members of the Japanese national polity, and the latter being outsiders in relation to it? In 2. line with this, my further proposition is that class stratification, including membership of a It is no news to Japan scholars that the concept certain class, should be understood as being of class does not always serve as a useful premised upon national membership. More guide. Having said this, class is not a unified category. Following the Neo-Marxistcrudely put, if one is not a member of a intervention in academe, especially in the work national polity, one is not a class member: that of Louis Althusser and Pierre Bourdieu, no is to say, the denationalized have no class. To a serious social scientist has been content with a great extent, this is a truism, as many cases, definition of class limited to economicglobally speaking, confirm this position. But the relationships. Rather, cultural capital and case of Koreans in Japan presents a particularly ideological mechanisms as we understand them clear instance of the phenomenon, as I shall today carry as much importance as socio- show below. economic relations and income or wages.[2] I shall argue that there is an important But there is also the problem of cross-cultural mechanism at work here, involving legal, and cross-national compatibility of categories. philosophical, and cultural elements, such that For example, the category of middle class Koreans do not qualify to be included when one captures a much broader population in the US talks about class formation in Japan. Such than in Britain. While in the latter, at least in exclusion of Koreans is not new. Throughout popular and lay discourses of the everyday, the the postwar era, Korean residents in Japan middle class stands in clear distinction from the have not been recognized as a sociological working class (the histories of which have been category, either in the context of censuses and written; for example[3]), in the former, the surveys in Japan or from within the middle class seems to encompasspositionality of Koreans themselves. heterogeneous income groups with vague nomenclatures, often including professionals, The systematic exclusion of Koreans from blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, small Japan’s quantitative data, such as the national business owners, and so on. Furthermore, in census, however, has not been matched by a both the US and Britain, poverty lines have similar practice in the area of qualitative often followed racial (in addition to ethnic and studies, particularly in the case of the literary colonial) lines of division. While racialized print market. Koreans in Japan have been economic borders have long divided the Korean studied from multiple angles, and their cases minority from the Japanese majority, the vast have been used to test many concepts that majority of Koreans and Japanese would today populate the margins of Japanese society, classify themselves as middle class—if asked, including poverty and domestic violence. that is. In other words, terms such as class are Strangely, however, these studies have failed to passé in popular discourse in Japan, just as touch upon the concept of class. poverty deceptively appears to have vanished in the eyes of many.[4] I do not attempt to fill this gap in the study of class among Koreans in Japan, but use this But did class disappear equally and identically omission to highlight an intellectual challenge. 2 6 | 6 | 0 APJ | JF I do so by paying close attention to the limbo- not propose to conceptualize Koreans as like ontology of Koreans in Japan in relation to holding a transnational or supranational Japan and Korea. This concept has been existence or, worse still, “cultural explored by other writers, generally carrying citizenship”— labels that in no way capture the the implication of a moral inferiority, or more fundamental reality of Koreans in Japan.[5] I precisely, an inferior or lesser belonging in one shall show that the reason why Koreans in terrain, presumably, Japan’s national entity. Japan continue to be viewed as irrelevant to, or Instead, I shall take banishment, or exile, as an not conforming with, class divisions within important conceptual pillar in this exercise. Japanese society is that they are merely and This position separates me from existing nakedly human and not members of a national studies of Koreans in Japan that presuppose an polity. As I shall demonstrate below, this is an inferior, incomplete form of belonging of example of what Giorgio Agamben calls bare Koreans in relation to Japanese society: what I life, a form of existence that Hannah Arendt am saying is that there is no such form of claims as the most perilous and precarious in belonging—complete exclusion or banishment the modern world.[6] is all that exists for Koreans in Japan. The banishment of Koreans from Japanese society is 3. as much a reality as a useful conceptual tool in clarifying why Koreans have not been studied It should not take too much to persuade the from the perspective of class stratification in reader that, for a long time in postwar Japan, Japan. This, I shall argue, is a result of both Korean residents were poor—poorer than their internal and external perceptions; by the Japanese contemporaries, and poorer than Japanese government and researchers on the Koreans in Japan are today. With a certain one hand, and by Koreans themselves on the audacity, I might even claim that, for a other. substantial period, Koreans in Japan had only two cultural assets—a culture of nationalism It will be necessary to start from the postwar and a culture of poverty. Koreans were poor, process according to which emerging Korean known to be poor, and expected to behave like expatriate movements effectively segregated poor people. This meant that, in the scheme of Koreans from the Japanese mainstream,Japanese stereotyping of Koreans, they were rendering them invisible in the context of associated with an array of damnable, beastly, Japan’s domestic statistics. This needs to be and barbaric characteristics including a understood in tandem with the legal exclusion benighted querulousness, lack of education and of Koreans from the Japanese nation by a intelligence, crude and slow wits, an easily concerted effort of the US Occupationexcitable nature, opportunism, dishonesty, and authorities in the immediate postwar years and deceptiveness. These were distinctly colonial the Japanese authorities thereafter. I shall then characterizations of Koreans in Japan by the introduce a survey, possibly the only existing Japanese media and authorities.[7] But sociological survey available in English, carried ironically, in the postcolonial self- out using quantitatively appropriate methods understanding of Koreans in Japan, poverty and among Korean males in Japan by Kimviolence

Load more