“A Rectification of Names”: Response to Simon Avenell

Simon Avenell’s article “From the ‘People’ to the ‘Citizen’ ” plots a trajectory of citizens’ movements from the 1960s in terms of activism to a “mythologizing” of the nature of that activism to a debunking of that mythology by refocusing on a more culturally rooted understanding of these movements’ motivations. This framework is, however, less significant than the possibilities that his article opens up for broader debate in at least three related areas extending beyond Japan.

First of all, while I find problematic the dichotomy he asserts between “a deracinated and universalized democracy” that was mythologized by Japanese citizens’ movements and a particularist ethnonationalism as the ground for those movements, Avenell’s article can prompt a return to debates regarding the nature of democracy and how it is understood in Asia. Since citizens’ movements in Asia have developed under different social and political conditions and have displayed a variety of motivations and styles, it seems to me that we need to reexamine how those movements understand democracy within their own contexts. This discussion would also necessitate dealing with the issue of translation — that is, how have non-Asian countries interpreted the actions of social and political movements in Asia? What might be lost in trying to convey the significance of those movements outside of the context in which they arise? How do Asian movements present themselves both inside and outside their own country?

Second, Avenell’s article suggests the need for more analysis and debate regarding the connections with and differences between prewar and postwar citizens’ movements. (Tsurumi’s wartime and immediate postwar writings certainly suggest the need to explore this territory.) Michael Lewis’s 1990 book Rioters and Citizens: Mass Protest in Imperial Japan, for example, uses the term citizen quite deliberately, and he has called for more profound comparative work on the relationship of citizens and their movements between the prewar and postwar periods.¹ In this light, it is also worthwhile to consider further long-term implications of Andrew Gordon’s terminology of “imperial democracy” in the construction of prewar citizen and subject, perhaps this time in comparison to the construction of subjects and citizens in Japan’s colonial sphere. Research into the links between colonialperiod movements in Korea and Taiwan, in particular, but also in China and Southeast Asia and postwar citizens’ movements may bring critical new insights.²

Avenell’s article can also be an occasion for deeper discussion of how the nature of civil societies in various Asian countries has an impact on the condition of democracy there. As numerous works on civil society have shown, it is not at all clear that, for instance, the recent growth in the number of Japanese NPOs (nonprofit organizations) means that the country has a healthier democracy.³ Restrictions on the scope of activities, the rules for qualifying for tax deductions, and the relationships to political parties are factors that would favor certain types of groups over others in gaining NPO status from the state. And often social movements fear being co-opted by the state in trying to get NPO recognition and so refuse to apply for the designation. In any case, the debate over the relationship between the shape of civil society in Japan and its relative degree of democracy needs to go beyond its current parameters, especially through comparisons with other Asian countries. As Bruce Cumings has argued, the differences between civil society in Korea and the United States or Japan cannot be taken to mean that Korea lacks a tradition of democracy or is weaker in democracy than other countries. Moreover, given those differences in the composition of its civil society, neither America or Japan can be a model for Korea’s democracy.⁴

With regard to certain problematic aspects of Avenell’s piece, I would like to start with Avenell’s claim that the “spontaneous” origins of citizen movements in the 1960s were mythologized to promote an ideology of “universalist” democracy. This is largely a straw man, in my opinion. Many citizen groups that participated in the Anpo struggle had formed prior to 1960...