April 1, 2004

In considering the gender issue in Japan, I think it pertinent to advance discussion by looking back on our country's history for an insight into original gender conditions and for a precise grasp on the subsequent changes in these conditions, even while keeping in mind the relevant parallels to be found with other countries.

It is the role of gender studies to purge societal discrimination between the sexes, as well as to encourage the reconsideration of the legal system as to make available for both men and women a certain standard of living. A common rebuttal to this call for legal reform is the line, 'This is the Japanese tradition.' Such claims, however, often stem from misguidedly interpreting as traditional a form that had been abruptly warped only after a particular point in time.

My colleagues at the Japan Gender Association and I held the 'Global Forum on Women's Culture・Kyoto 2001' to reflect upon Japan a thousand years ago and to contemplate its future. In commemoration of 400 years of kabuki last year, we similarly attempted to open up a debate pertaining to the turning point in gender policy surrounding the establishment of the shogunate regime. What became apparent through these endeavours was the following: What is thought of as 'traditional culture' in Japan most often involves not an age when women were active and creative participants of literature and drama, but rather the period after which opportunities for female input and expression had diminished considerably. By an interdictory decree in 1629 (6th year of the Kan-ei era), women came to be banned from taking part in all forms of stage performance, including those of mai(Japanese dance), kabuki, and joururi (dramatic narrative chanted to a samisen accompaniment). Since then, it has taken the passing of 300 years for Japan to finally witness, in the middle of the Meiji era, the re-emergence of female entertainers.

In the 20th-century, developed nations not only waged war but jostled for economic domination. In the case of Japan, it promoted the legal standardization of the family unit to provide the necessary social infrastructure for the effective implementation of national strategy. The Meiji government, intent on its policy of fukokukyouhei (increasing national wealth and military power), regulated how the family unit should function by introducing the family register and the system of patriarchy in order to facilitate draft. Once a sudden legal constraint has taken hold, Japan has the tendency to hang on to its distortions for a surprisingly long time.

That the two-name system for married couples is the original Japanese tradition should be evident without citing such examples as Minamoto no Yoritomo and Hojo Masako, Ashikaga no Yoshimasa and Hino Tomiko. Women retained their original family names. But since the middle of the Meiji era, provisions of the old civil law saw to it that marriage was equated with the absorption of the wife into the husband’s family. There seem to be some MPs who foolishly believe this to be the Japanese tradition and oppose the return to the two-name system. They should review their Japanese history.

It is, of course, natural to leave the final decision to the preferences of those concerned, and some couples may indeed choose to share the same surname. That is quite acceptable. The point that we should be aware of is that when changing one's surname denotes the assimilation of one party into the other's 'house', often the one who has revised his or her name experiences disagreeable encounters. I would like to think that the conjugal unit as community exists only upon the establishment of the 'individual'.

The writer is Director of Kyoto Institute for Lifelong Education and President of the Japan Society for Gender Studies.

2004年 4月 1日