Coexistence without Principle: Reconsidering Multicultural Policies in Japan

Coexistence without Principle: ReconsideringMulticultural Policies in Japan*

Jun-Hyeok Kwak

Multicultural coexistence (tabunka kyose) in Japan is as complicated asits definition. On the one hand, it is regarded as a challenge to thecoherence of national identity that sustains the popular image of ethnichomogeneity in Japan; on the other hand, it has been considered aretrogressive force that destabilizes civic solidarity needed for thedevelopment of responsible citizens. After describing the multiculturalpolicies proposed by local governments in Japan that have facilitatedmulticultural coexistence, this article critically reviews the policies’relevance as a viable democratic practice for foreign residents andwarns against the dangers of exclusion and assimilation when multi-cultural policies are driven by local citizens without a regulativeprinciple. Then, this article presents “reciprocal nondomination” as aregulative principle that prevents the practice of multicultural coexist-ence from leading to regressive consequences and provides a ground fordemocratic deliberation on various ethnic differences.

Key words: multicultural coexistence, Kanakawa prefecture, Yamagataprefecture, reciprocal nondomination, regulative principle.

Introductionpafo_1021 161..186

Multicultural coexistence (tabunka kyose) in Japan is as complicated as itsdefinition. On the one hand, it is regarded as a challenge to the coherence ofnational identity which sustains the popular image of ethnic homogeneity inJapan. For some scholars whose primary interest resides in the disaggrega-tion of nation-states, it envisages a “multicultural” or “multinational” identitythat would ultimately dismantle the unitary model of citizenship based on asingle national territory. For others who study the growing number of foreignworkers and immigrant women in Japan, it indicates that Japan is finally

* This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Govern-ment (MEST) (KRF-2008-362-A00001).

Pacific Focus, Vol. XXIV, No. 2 (August 2009), 161–186.doi: 10.1111/j.1976-5118.2009.01021.x© 2009 Center for International Studies, Inha University

161

being forced to cope with sociopolitical changes in which rapid globalizationis bringing demands for political rights from foreign residents regarding dualcitizenship into national as well as municipal politics. On the other hand,multicultural coexistence has been considered a retrogressive force thatdestabilizes civic solidarity needed for the development of responsible citi-zenship. The hallmark of this latter perspective is the attempt to rehabilitatenational identity through the revival of patriotism. Interestingly, thisendeavor was formerly led by rightist conservatives, but now it involves thebroader population whose concerns are associated with political issues, suchas representation, redistribution, and civic trust.

Despite its complexity, multicultural coexistence in Japan has attractedscholarly attention, particularly in Western countries where Japan is viewedas a “historic state” composed of an ethnically homogeneous population.1

Many scholars are interested in foreigners’ rights, which have been dramati-cally extended at the local level since 1990. For example, foreigners’assemblies, though they function as advisory councils without judicialpower, are regarded as a new type of representation system that is graduallychanging the ways in which Japanese society deals not only with ethno-cultural problems but also with state–society relations.2 Certainly, there areconcerns about the political practicability of foreigners’ assemblies, becauseforeigners’ rights, while promoted through legal and administrative practicesat the local level, are not automatically acknowledged at the national level.3

But it is fair to say that the gradual spreading of foreigners’ assemblies inJapan provides an alternative in which a local government, rather than thecentral government, takes an initiative for administrating multicultural poli-tics relevant to the lives of foreign residents. By the same token, it has beensaid that foreigners’ assemblies enact a new scheme of multicultural coex-istence in the daily lives of the Japanese people that ultimately gives rise toa new image of democratic communality at the grassroots level.4

Second, the growing number of international marriages (kokusai kekkon),especially in rural provinces, is generating ethno-cultural change that is beingshaped by the existence of immigrant women in daily human practices.Actually, the number of international marriages is increasing dramaticallythese days. Figure 1 shows the growing number of foreigners entering Japanwith spouse visas. It stood at about 3,000 in the early 1980s, but increased toan average of 25,000 by the late 1990s.

Such a change in permanent migration levels in Japan is frequently asso-ciated with the Japanese version of “critical mass argument” that immigrants

1. The term “historic state” is imported from Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 66.2. For the illumination of the role of foreigners’ assemblies, see Yasuo Takao, “Foreigners’ Rights inJapan: Beneficiaries to Participants,” Asian Survey, 43-3 (May 2003), pp. 527–552.3. Schwartz indicates the limit of foreigners’ assemblies in this light. Frank Schwartz, Advice andConsent: The Politics of Consultation in Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).4. For example, Han concludes that input from the public played a critical role in the institutional-ization of foreigners’ assemblies, especially in Kawasaki. See Seung-Mi Han, “From theCommunitarian Ideal to the Public Sphere: The Making of Foreigners’ Assemblies in Kawasaki Cityand Kanagawa Prefecture,” Social Science Japan Journal, 7-1 (2004), pp. 41–60.

162 / Pacific Focus

© 2009 Center for International Studies, Inha University

to Japan will be potential agents for creating a multinational formation ofJapanese society.5 Recently, this critical mass argument is being countered byan anthropological argument that views international marriage as an agencythat ultimately threatens the traditional Japanese identity.6 At this juncture,feminist literature that portrays women who have immigrated to Japanbecause of marriage as victims of racial discrimination appears to be one-sided.7 This literature is seen as too pessimistic, ignoring the evidence that atleast a portion of these immigrants are able to shape a new way of life. Fromthis perspective, Japan presents a good model for ethno-cultural change froma homogeneous society to a multicultural one.

However, it is too hasty to conclude that these two interpretations encap-sulate the essence of multicultural coexistence in Japan. The existence offoreigners’ assemblies and the growing numbers of immigrant spouses may

5. Hirosho Komai, Foreign Migrants in Contemporary Japan (Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press, 2001);Kang Sangjoong, “Post-colonialism and Diasporic space in Japan,” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 2-1(2001), pp. 137–144; Tomoko Nakamatsu, “Faces of Asian Brides: Gender, Race, and Class in theRepresentation of Immigrant Women in Japan,” Women’s Studies International Forum, 28 (2005), pp.405–417; Katherine Tegtmeyer Pak, “Cities and Local Citizenship in Japan: Overcoming Nationality?”in Taekeyuki Tusda, ed., Local Citizenship in Recent Countries of Immigration, Japan in ComparativePerspective (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2006), pp. 65–95.6. Chris Burgess, “(Re)constructing Identities: International Marriage Migrants as Potential Agents ofSocial Change in a Globalising Japan,” Asian Studies Review, 28-3 (2004), pp. 223–242.7. For the status of immigrant spouses in Japan, see Nicola Piper, “Wife or Worker? Worker or Wife?Marriage and Cross-Border Migration in Contemporary Japan,” International Journal of PopulationGeography, 9 (2003), pp. 457–469.

Figure 1. Number of Foreigners Entering Japan with Spouse Visas,1982–2006

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

2.746 2.857 3.243 2.877 2.704 3.4425.448

7.847

13.543

22.820

25.552

20.583

18.15619.950

25.869

31.606

24.572

26.737

33.167

27.461

20.857

23.39823.083

24.026

26.087

Sources: The figures for 1982, 1983, and 1984 are cited from Fumiteru Nitta, “Kokusai Kekkon: Trends inIntercultural Marriage in Japan,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12 (1998), pp. 205–232; the figures for 1985 up to 1995 are from Ministry of Justice Judicial System and ResearchDepartment, ed., Annual Report of Statistics on Legal Migrants (Each Year); figures from 1996 on arefrom Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice of Japan, “Number of Foreigners entering Japan,”Immigration Bureau of Japan, Ministry of Justice (1996–2006) at <www.immi-moj.go.jp/toukei>(searched date: 2 June 2008).

Coexistence without Principle / 163


http://www.immi-moj.go.jp/toukei

serve to reshape Japan in various ways. But these examples of multiculturalcoexistence are not enough to convert Japanese society from a raciallyhomogenous society into a multicultural one. This skeptical viewpoint is notbased on pessimism that these grassroots practices will never bring about astructural change in the Japanese society. Rather this skepticism stems fromJapan’s peculiar mode of institutionalizing multicultural coexistence throughwhich multicultural policies are made by local citizens. In other words, sincemulticultural policies are being driven by sociopolitical demands that amajority of local citizens favor, there is always the possibility that a localdecision unfavorable for multicultural coexistence could be made using thesame procedures that have promoted multicultural coexistence. To ensurecontinued multicultural progress, we need a set of principles that protectminority interests so that multicultural policies not only reflect what localcitizens want but also what foreigners need. Otherwise, when we rely only ondemocratic procedures to develop multicultural policies, we have no basis toplace the goal of multicultural coexistence over sociopolitical integration,or the goal of ethnically diversified cultures over nationally assimilatedcultures.

The aim of this article is to assess the recent challenges to multiculturalismin general, to review the relative merits of local multicultural policies as analternative to national policies, and to suggest “reciprocal nondomination”as a regulative principle by which democratic procedures can be used toinstitutionalize multicultural coexistence without legitimizing repressivedemands for communal conformity. This article is composed of three mainparts. First, I examine three important challenges to multiculturalism fromtheir theoretical foci: solidarity, individuality, and redistribution. By doingso, I explain that the need for multicultural coexistence does not necessarilyhave to be associated with multiculturalism. Second, I analyze multiculturalpolicies in Kanagawa and Yamagata prefectures, which present good modelsfor local policies of multicultural coexistence. Specifically, I investigateforeigners’ assemblies in Kanagawa Prefecture as an urban model for mul-ticultural coexistence and the support policies and programs for immigrantspouses in Yamagata Prefecture as a rural model. Third, having pointed outthe danger that multicultural policies developed by local citizens couldregress and the failure to grant immigrant residents a condition on which theyshould not be subject to the arbitrary will of others, I put forward reciprocalnondomination as a principle through which a more practicable model formulticultural coexistence can be actualized. Here, I develop reciprocal non-domination into a regulative principle that could guide institutional changesto the democratic process, so that ethnic differences can be coordinated andprotected.

Theoretical Challenges to Multiculturalism

Various challenges to multiculturalism in the USA have been proposed byUS scholars. These challenges are based on two considerations. First, there isthe repeated claim that US society, despite its multiethnic composition,

164 / Pacific Focus


retains “American universalism”8 or an “American Creed”9 according towhich differences in race, ethnicity and class should be dissolved into themelting pot of US culture. In this sense, the USA may be compared to Japan,which also retains a strong sense of national identity and is proud of itshomogeneous national culture. Second, American society, though it appearsto understand the need for multicultural coexistence better than other soci-eties, tends to adopt a pessimistic view toward resolution of culturaldifferences through multiculturalism. This hesitation appears not only in thearguments of the nativists who argue that Anglo-Saxon traditions carry agenuine identity of America’s moral and cultural values, but also amongconservatives who are jittery about the collapse of the American Creed. Thishesitation is also observed among liberals who espouse cultural pluralism,the civic republicans who stress civic solidarity, and the social democratswho focus on economic redistribution rather than on cultural issues. In thiscontext, it is worth investigating the various challenges to multiculturalism inthe USA, since they present possible criticisms that may be raised in manycountries, ranging from ethnically homogeneous ones like Japan to multi-ethnic ones.

Generally speaking, the most recent challenges to multiculturalism arefocused in three distinctive areas: solidarity, individuality, and redistribution.The first coincides with the beginning of the era of globalization. Althoughthe current wave of globalization may have a historical parallel, the influenceof current transnational immigration increases anxiety over the possibledanger that multiculturalism might pose for ethnic conflicts by underminingsolidarity within a society, and consequently leading to the disintegration ofthe society. This apprehension emerges in discussions among the nativistsand the conservatives. The arguments of the former can be best representedby the writings of Peter Brimelow, a senior editor of Forbes, on immigrationpolicies. In contrasting post-1965 immigration policies with previous poli-cies, he argues that immigrants after the 1965 Immigration and National Acthave been beneficiaries of, rather than benefactors for, American society.10

Claiming that American national identity is now under threat because ofHispanic immigration from Mexico, Samuel Huntington criticizes recentmulticultural polices because they threaten to destroy American patriotismthrough a hodgepodge of multicultural practices, such as cultural relativism,identity politics, and cosmopolitanism.11 On this point, Huntington’s lamen-

8. The term “American universalism” is used by Huntington, Higham and others. See, among others,Samuel Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge: Belknap Press,1981); John Higham, “Multiculturalism and Universalism: A History and Critique,” American Quar-terly, 45-2 (1993), pp. 195–219.9. See Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (NewYork: Harper & Brothers, 1944); Rogers Smith, “The ‘American Creed’ and American Identity: TheLimits of Liberal Citizenship in the United States,” Western Political Quarterly, 41 (June 1988), pp.225–251.10. Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster (New York:Harper Perennial, 1995).11. For Huntington’s view, see Samuel Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’sNational Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), pp. 246–256; 295–335.



tation over the collapse of the American Creed is similar to that of Brimelow,even though his argument is made from a liberal democratic perspective.

Moreover, a wide range of scholars have joined the debate on the problemof solidarity; this includes some communitarian republicans and socialdemocrats who stress the need for active participation in politics and wide-spread civility, as well as moderates who are neither collectivists nornativists. These scholars have advanced a relatively sophisticated oppositionto multiculturalism that argues group differences may exacerbate socialconflicts and consequently erode societal solidarity. On the one hand, thereare civic republicans who once supported multiculturalism out of a desire topreserve a communal culture and who are now moving to the view thatimmigrants are unlikely to achieve civic virtue.12 On the other hand, there aresocial democrats who are dissatisfied with multicultural policies in the sensethat identity politics is so nonchalant in civic trust. They believe that multi-culturalism has a propensity for encouraging ethnic groups to serve only theirsectional interests.13

Also there are those who argue that in order not to aggravate conflictsamong ethnic groups, it is better to adopt liberal neutrality by “doing noth-ing,”14 as well as those who blame multiculturalism for politicizing the schoolcurricula.15 There are major challenges to multiculturalism from feministsand liberal egalitarians. The former is best represented by Susan Okin, whoobserves that multiculturalism, by requiring the recognition of inter-groupdifferences, is likely to result in the curtailment of women’s rights becauseit ignores in-group differences.16 By the same token, Brian Barry, a liberalegalitarian, stresses that the recognition of exceptional rights for certainminority groups would hinder the operation of common institutions.17

Another group opposing multiculturalism argues that it deepens socio-economic inequality by de-emphasizing the problems of economicredistribution. This challenge to multiculturalism is represented by JohnHigham, who argues for redistribution rather than recognition as a distinctiveperspective on social justice. Pointing out that multiculturalism ignoressocio-economic injustices, he proposes remedies based on those sought bytraditional class movements.18 There are two major refutations of this line ofcriticism. One is to highlight that multiculturalism has indeed paid attentionto the problem of economic redistribution. In this regard, Griffin and Tem-penis have empirically demonstrated that institutional recommendationsposed by advocates of multiculturalism have been associated with such other

12. See Michael Walzer, “In Response: Support for Modesty and Nation-State,” Responsive Commu-nity, 11-2 (2001), pp. 28–31.13. Eric Hobsbawm, “Identity Politics and the Left,” New Left Review, I-217 (1996), pp. 38–47.14. Chandran Kukathas, “Liberalism and Multiculturalism: The Politics of Indifference,” PoliticalTheory, 26-5 (1998), pp. 686–699.15. Diane Ravith, “Multiculturalism, E Pluribus Plures,” American Scholar, 60-2 (1991), pp. 337–354.16. Susan Okin, “Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions,” Ethics, 108 (1998), pp. 678–679.17. Brian Barry, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2001).18. John Higham, op. cit.

166 / Pacific Focus


issues as class, sex and so forth.19 The other refutation is to argue that thepolitics of cultural recognition can complement the politics of economicredistribution.20 In spite of these counterarguments, increasing poverty andincreasing numbers of immigrants have fueled the criticism of the redistribu-tive aspects of multiculturalism.

Multicultural Policies in Japan

Municipal-level multicultural policies in Japan offer an approach in whichmulticultural coexistence can be realized without reverting to a rigid nation-alism or projecting a utopian cosmopolitanism to achieve the sense of acommon society. In the next two sections, I analyze multicultural policies inJapan with a focus on Kanagawa and Yamagata prefectures. These policies,I argue, present good models to embrace ethno-cultural change, enabling atransition from a homogeneous society to a multicultural one. Foreigners’assemblies in Kanagawa Prefecture are regarded as an example of an urbanmodel, while the support programs for immigrant spouses in Yamagata is anexample of the rural model.

Foreigners’ Assemblies in Kanagawa Prefecture21

Multicultural policies in Kanagawa Prefecture developed from two his-torical trends. One was the introduction of “inbound internationalization”(uchinaru kokusaika) and “outbound internationalization” (sotonaru koku-saika) in the 1970s and 1980s. When the idea of “minsei gaiko” (people-to-people diplomacy) caught public attention, local governments weremotivated to shape a multicultural policy under which foreign residents wereencouraged to express their needs and interests. This shift to a multiculturalpolicy was not simply a response to the increase of immigration at that time.Actually, the inception of municipally-initiated internationalization was apolitical practice inspired by the intellectual and political advocacy ofpeople-to-people diplomacy. Even a decade later, at the onset of the crisis ofthe “bubble economy” in the early 1990s, municipally-initiated internation-alization continued as a multicultural policy, since its financial burden wastransferred to ordinary citizens under the pretext of fostering civil society.Since then, the practice of internationalization has played an important rolein realizing multicultural policies.22

The other trend was the practice of multicultural coexistence that was firstestablished in Kawasaki city, whose Representative Assembly passed aForeign Residents Act (Kawasaki shi gaikokujin shimin daihyousha kaigi

19. Larry Griffin and Maria Tempenis, “Class, Multiculturalism, and the American Quarterly,” Ameri-can Quarterly, 54-1 (2002), pp. 67–99.20. Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political–PhilosophicalExchange (New York: Verso, 2003), pp. 48–69.21. The research in Kanagawa Prefecture is based on the author’s field research conducted in June2005.22. Hirosho Komai, op. cit.



jorei) in 1996. After opening its doors to foreign labor, the Kanagawa Pre-fecture, part of the Keihin industrial area, faced a significant increase in thenumber of foreign residents. As shown in Table 1, the number of registeredforeigners in this region has gradually increased. In 2005, the number stoodat 157,947, up from 131,104 in 2001. Since the region’s total population was8,801,632 in 2005, the proportion of registered foreign nationals constituted1.79% of the population in that year, up from 1.58% in 2001.

In the face of this increase, Kawasaki, the second largest city in KanagawaPrefecture, pursued a complex multicultural policy designed to ensureforeign nationals were not subject to national or cultural discrimination. Thisresulted in the establishment of a foreigners’ assembly in 1996, which hasprovided opportunities for foreign nationals temporarily residing in Japan toparticipate in the decision-making process related to their own affairs. Thisinitiative was followed by the setting up of foreigners’ assemblies by otherlocal governments in Tokyo (1997), Kanagawa (1998), Hyogo (1999), Kyoto(1998), Hamamatsu (2000), and other cities.23

Municipal internationalization

As mentioned, the implementation of multicultural policies is closelyintertwined with municipally-initiated internationalization. It is usually pre-sented as “globalization,” which can be summarized as sekaini hirakaretachiikishakai no keise (formation of local society open to the world), sekaitokumiawaseta chiikishakai no keisei (formation of local society intertwinedwith the world), and sekai o butaito sita chiikishakai no keisei (formation oflocal society in the arena of the world).24 “Inbound internationalization”focuses on immigrants and their adjustment to Japanese culture and life, and“outbound internationalization” promotes internationalization by means ofmunicipally-initiated connections with foreign countries.

Let’s review “inbound internationalization” first. The policy of inboundinternationalization in the Kanagawa Prefecture was developed in responseto the influx of foreign workers into the Keihin industrial area. Since 1980,Kanagawa has experienced a gradual diversification of its ethnic compositiondue to a sharp decrease in the number of Koreans in the region combinedwith the influx of foreign workers from more than 140 countries, mainly fromChina, the Philippines, and Brazil.25 The proportion of registered foreignersin the region stood at 1.79% in 2005, which ranks the prefecture fourth in thepercentage of registered foreigners to total population after Tokyo, Osaka,

23. It is sometimes argued that Osaka was the first city to establish foreigners’ assemblies. However,the Osakashi gaikokuseki jumin shisaku yusikisha kaigií or Assemblies for Foreign Nationals in Osakawere not established as a result of a formal act, and therefore should not be considered the first case ofa foreigners’ assembly in Japan. Furthermore, it was composed of six foreign nationals and sevenJapanese citizens, which was quite different from the foreigners’ assembly in Kawasaki city, in whichall 26 participants were foreign nationals. See Hiroshi Nakao, “Zaiju Gaikokujinno Seiji SankatoGaikokuseiki Jumin Kaigi,” Yong Dal Seo, ed., 21 Seiki Kan Chosenjinno Kyosei Bijon; Chuo Ajia,Rosia, Nihonno Kan Chosenjin Mondai (Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha, 2003), pp. 236–237.24. These are based on an interview with the officials of Kanagawa Prefecture (conducted in June 2005).25. Kanagawa Prefecture, Report of Population Census in Kanagawa Prefecture (1995).

168 / Pacific Focus


Tabl

e1.

Ove

rvie

wof

Tota

lP

opul

atio

nan

dN

umbe

rof

For

eign

ers

(200

1–20

05)

Yea

r20

0120

0220

0320

0420

05

InJa

pan*

Tota

lPo

pula

tion

(a)

126,

919,

288

127,

290,

749

127,

619,

000

127,

687,

000

127,

756,

815

Reg

iste

red

Fore

igne

rs(b

)1,

778,

462

1,85

1,75

81,

915,

030

1,97

3,74

72,

011,

555

b/a

(%)

1.40

%1.

45%

1.50

%1.

55%

1.57

%In

Kan

agaw

aTo

tal

Popu

latio

n(a′

)†8,

575,

372

8,63

9,66

58,

697,

720

8,74

8,73

18,

801,

632

Reg

iste

red

Fore

igne

rs(b

′)‡13

5,10

414

1,31

414

9,01

215

2,27

315

7,94

7b′

/a′(

%)

1.58

%1.

64%

1.71

%1.

74%

1.79

%

Sour

ce:

*Im

mig

ratio

nB

urea

uof

the

Min

istr

yof

Just

ice,

Japa

n.†

Kan

agaw

aPr

efec

ture

,“St

atis

tical

Info

rmat

ion

onK

anag

awa

Pref

ectu

re”

at<h

ttp://

ww

w.p

ref.

kana

gaw

a.jp

/toke

i/tok

ei/2

04/a

ge/n

enre

i19.

htm

l>(s

earc

hed

date

:5

May

2008

).‡

Kan

agaw

aPr

efec

ture

,“N

umbe

rof

Reg

iste

red

Fore

igne

rs,”

at<h

ttp://

ww

w.p

ref.

kana

gaw

a.jp

/osi

rase

/kok

usai

/sei

saku

/dat

a2.h

tm>

(sea

rche

dda

te:

5M

ay20

08).



http://www.pref.kanagawa.jp/tokei/tokei/204/age/nenrei19.html











http://www.pref.kanagawa.jp/osirase/kokusai/seisaku/data2.htm










and Aichi. This percentage has gradually increased in the last decade asshown in Table 1. This might be one of the factors that enabled the region tofashion policies aimed at multicultural coexistence and internationalizationearlier than other local governments in Japan.

However, these demographic changes are not the only factors that gave riseto internationalization policies. The transformation of the domestic and inter-national political environment in 1970 also had an important effect. On theone hand, the active participation of citizens in the political process startedto increase when progressive politicians were elected as leaders of severalprefectures in the local elections in 1963. On the other hand, Japan had topursue a more independent foreign policy after the Nixon Doctrine, in 1969which requested allied nations to take responsibility of their own militarydefense. In this situation, civic diplomacy was presented as an alternativemethod of international cooperation.26 Kazuji Nagasu, who served as gover-nor of Kanagawa Prefecture between 1975 and 1995, advocated “inboundpeople-to-people diplomacy,” or “uchinaru minsei gaiko.” The gist of hisarguments was that local governments should pursue international coopera-tion independently of the central government and that citizens need to play anactive role in the decision-making process.27 The policy was an incorporationof “bottom-up reform” (sitakarano kaikaku), which involved making deci-sions through civic participation in “structural reform” (kouzo kaikaku)programs proposed by the Socialist Party, and “top-down reform” (uekaranokaikaku), which was initiated by the government.28

Nagasu put particular emphasis on the importance of civic diplomacytoward other Asian countries. He argued that Japan should make a contribu-tion to the modernization of underdeveloped Asian countries and to thestabilization of their civil societies.29 For this purpose, many institutions andfoundations were established during his governorship,30 such as the Kana-gawa International Foundation (Kanagawa kokusaikouryudan) founded in1976, Shonan Village founded in 1985, and Earth Plaza founded in 1998.31

26. The term “people-to-people relations,” as Yoshikazu Sakamoto put it, was probably the mostwell-known of this kind of argument. This argument has two aspects: one is that civic, rather thangovernmental, interactions are the most prevalent type of international cooperation among advancedcountries, and the other is that there is a need to establish peaceful coexistence beyond the borders ofnation-states. Yoshikazu Sakamoto, “Transforming Image of Peace (Tenkan Suru Heiwa Zou),” AsahiShimbun (daily newspaper) (1972).27. Kazuji Nagasu and Yoshikazu Sakamoto, International Relations of Local Governments (Kichitaino Kokusai Kouryu) (Tokyo: Gakuyo Shobo, 1983).28. Kazuji Nagasu, Ideas of Transitional Period (Henkaku no Shicho) (Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun sha,1969).29. Kazuji Nagasu, Japanese Capitalism Advancing Toward South (Nanshin Suru Nippon ShihonShugi) (Tokyo: Nainichi Shimbun, 1971).30. Maki Aoki-Okabe, Yoko Kawamura, and Toichi Makita, “The Study of International CulturalRelations of Postwar Japan,” Institute of Developing Economies Discussion Paper, 49 (2006) at<http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Dp/pdf/049.pdf> (searched date: 2 February 2009).31. Although these institutions share similar purposes, there are differences in their objectives andpractices. For example, the Kanagawa International Foundation assists the residents’ practice ofinternational communication, Shonan Village supports foreign scholars coming to Japan for academicpurposes, and Earth Plaza promotes multicultural and multiethnic education for teenagers. Researchon these institutions is based on the author’s field work conducted in Kanagawa in June 2005.

170 / Pacific Focus


http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Dp/pdf/049.pdf

Before 1990, these institutions were aimed at promoting Japan abroad andfocused on academic research and training; after 1990, they paid moreattention to coexistence with foreign nationals in the region. While ShonanVillage hosted, for example, several academic conferences involving foreignscholar participation, Earth Plaza concentrated on promoting global citizen-ship consciousness and supporting international activities. Although ShonanVillage also conducted activities targeting the local residents, such as inter-national academic exchanges for teenagers, its main task was not to servedomestic residents. Earth Plaza, on the other hand, conducted various pro-grams for foreign nationals residing in the region by focusing on culturalunderstanding and sharing of their cultural experiences.

Therefore, inbound internationalization uses education for the sake ofrealizing civic diplomacy and supporting the successful settlement of foreignnationals. Recently, as a response to the increasing need for governmentalaction, the Department of International Relations of Kanagawa Prefecture setout “coexistence with foreign nationals in the region (gaikoku kokusekikenmintono kyosei)” as a primary goal and supplemented institutional effortsto support the settlement of foreign nationals in the prefecture. For example,the department provides brokerage, consulting, and interpretation servicesfor foreign nationals who want to lease their house or apartment, and edu-cational services to help them settle in. Though these attempts are probablynot enough to raise the residents’ consciousness of internationalizationand multicultural coexistence to a sufficient level, they still represent goodmodels to show how local governments may conduct programs to changepublic consciousness and to help foreign nationals in settling in.

The policy of “outbound internationalization” is intended to promoteinternationalization through municipally-initiated connections with foreigncountries. Recognizing the need for internationalization earlier than otherJapanese municipalities, Kanagawa Prefecture conducted several outboundinternationalization projects through treaties of amity with various countries.For example, the prefecture introduced a joint industrial technical trainingprogram together with South Korea’s Kyeongki Province, as well as a widerange of programs for exchanging technical trainees, enhancing internationalcooperation, and training local officials with officials from the USA, China,Germany, and Australia. Specifically, it conducted an Overseas TrainingProgram (523 people from 48 countries between 1972 and 2004), Interna-tional Cooperation Promotion Projects (11 people traveled abroad and 22people from other countries traveled to Japan between 1999 and 2004), theKanagawa International Scholarship (135 people between 1992 and 2004),raising funds for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (67 events,¥74,331,000 between 1993 and January 2005), and so on.32 At first glance,one may think that the programs for outbound internationalization areintended to concentrate more on promoting Japan. However, the extensivesupport for international cooperation through NGOs reveals the most impor-

32. Kanagawa Prefecture, “kouiki renkeito kyodoni yoru heiwana tabunka kyoseishakaino jitsugenwomezasite (Aiming at the Realization of Peaceful Multicultural Co-existence by the Broad Connectionand Cooperation),” The Department of International Affairs in Kanagawa Prefecture Office (2004).



tant goals that the local government wanted to accomplish. Through theseprograms, the local government explicitly committed to building an interna-tional environment that had been neglected by the central government.

This outbound internalization program was actualized primarily throughGovernor Nagasu’s political vision to build a sound civil society in Japanthrough NGO activities promoting international cooperation. Deeplyimpressed by NGO activities on the Cambodian border, which providedassistance to Cambodian refugees, he expected that NGOs would bring forthan alternative type of social movement by replacing the hitherto dominantlabor unions. He was particularly focused on the activities of the JapanInternational Volunteer Center (JVC), whose members volunteered for workin Cambodia. He attributed these volunteer activities to the participants’ civicvirtue and offered his full support. Governor Nagasu urged NGOs, whichpreviously had focused only on charitable activities, to get involved in morepolitically contentious issues, such as democratization, human rights andhumanitarian intervention.33 Through this transformation as well as thebroadening of their range of activities, Japanese NGOs have caught up withWestern NGOs in terms of the quality of their activities within a relativelyshort period of time.34 Although the number of NGOs in Japan is relativelysmall and they are financially less independent than their Western counter-parts, the support they receive from local governments has paved the way forinternational cooperation.

Foreigners’ assemblies

The foreigners’ assembly, established initially in Kawasaki city, consti-tuted an alternative type of municipally-initiated multicultural coexistenceprogram that gave foreign nationals a limited range of political rights.35

While inbound and outbound internationalization promoted multiculturalcoexistence without providing foreign nationals with political rights, theforeigners’ assembly allowed them to participate in decision making on theirown affairs. The first article of the Kawasaki City Representative Assemblyfor Foreign Residents Act clearly reveals this purpose:

In order to provide foreign nationals, who are members of this community, with opportunities todeliberate on various affairs of their own, facilitate their participation on the civic affairs, pursue

33. In this sense, NGOs in Japan have undergone the process described by David Korten. Accordingto Korten, the first generation concentrated on international relief projects mainly conducted by suchpolitically neutral institutions as the Red Cross; the second generation focused on the development ofsuch marginalized regions as Cambodia and South Africa; and the third generation is now concernedwith politically delicate issues. See David C. Korten, “Third Generation NGO Strategies: A Key toPeople-centered Development,” World Development, 15-Supplement (1987), pp. 145–159.34. Ibid.35. The 7th term of the Representative Assembly for Foreign Residents was held over about eight daysin April 2008. The term of office for the 7th Assembly is two years, and anyone who is 18 years of ageor older, who completed foreign registration in Kawasaki City at least 1 year previously, and who isable to read (with hiragana readings over the kanji) and discuss matters in Japanese is eligible to applyto become a new member. See Kawasaki City website at <http://www.city.kawasaki.jp/25/25zinken/home/gaikoku/assembly/index.htm#shedule> (searched date: 13 January 2009).

172 / Pacific Focus


http://www.city.kawasaki.jp/25/25zinken/home/gaikoku/assembly/index.htm#shedule

http://www.city.kawasaki.jp/25/25zinken/home/gaikoku/assembly/index.htm#shedule

mutual understanding, and contribute to the formation of community of living together, we hereestablish the Kawasaki City Representative Assembly for Foreign Residents.

Unlike the internationalization programs, which focused on cooperationand understanding, the assembly puts multicultural coexistence (tabunkakyose) at its core value. As we can see above, the article articulates thatforeign nationals residing in the community are partners. Moreover, foreignnationals are considered to be capable of active participation in the decision-making process of the local government. This aspect gets clearer in thepolicies developed by the Department of International Relations of Kana-gawa Prefecture in 2000 and the guidelines issued by Kawasaki city in 2005,which point out that the local government should encourage the activeparticipation of foreign nationals in the decision-making process and incommunity life in order to build a local community in which Japanese andforeign residents peacefully coexist.36

The significance of the foreigners’ assembly may be trivialized because ofa lack of political power. In reality, however, the activities of the assemblyhave a meaningful influence on decision making through propositions. Whenthese propositions are presented to the relevant departments of the localgovernment, they are often adopted, depending on the significance of theproposition. Over the years, there have been a wide range of propositions,which have dealt with the education of children, discrimination in daily life,the establishment of a permanent information center, as well as supportinginbound internationalization (1997), pursuing multicultural understanding(1999), expanding public welfare service for senior foreign citizens (2000),supporting the children of multicultural families (2001), and maintaining anenvironment for encouraging multicultural coexistence (2003). Thus, in theforeigners’ assembly the voluntary participation of foreign nationals is com-bined with an active attempt by the local government to fulfill their requests.The foreigners’ assembly is different from internationalization policies inthat it incorporates the opinions of foreign nationals into public policies.While the inbound internationalization policies draw public attention to thestatus of foreign nationals, the foreigners’ assembly, by treating foreignnationals as partners in the political process, takes another step towardmulticultural coexistence.37

Certainly the foreigners’ assembly is not sufficient to work out difficulteconomic and legal problems that come up in foreign nationals’ daily lives.Furthermore, the foreigners’ assembly may be criticized for falling prey onoccasion to national politics. The traditional Japanese image of a homog-enous nation is still important in national politics, so that foreign nationals

36. Kashiwazaki Chikako, “Local Government and Resident Foreigners: A Changing Relationship,” inShun’ichi Furukawa and Toshihoro Menju, eds., Japan’s Road to Pluralism: Transforming LocalCommunities in the Global Era (Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2003), pp. 63–88;Kanagawa Prefecture 2000; Kawasaki city, kawasakishi tabunka kyosei shakai suishin sishin(gaiyohan)–tomoni ikiru chiikiwo mezasite (March 2005).37. Seung-Mi Han, “Multiculturalism, Japanese Style: The Cases from Kawasaki City and KanagawaPrefecture,” Korean Cultural Anthropology, 36-1 (2003), pp. 119–147.



often suffer from ethnic discrimination.38 In addition, it is not difficult to finda case in which the multicultural policies of the local governments are alteredby the central government. Nevertheless, the foreigners’ assembly representsa possible mechanism through which the solution for multicultural coexist-ence can be developed through local politics, where the need formulticultural coexistence is recognized in everyday life.

Policies for Immigrant Spouses in Yamagata Prefecture

While the foreigners’ assembly is an alternative urban model for multi-cultural coexistence, the policies for foreign spouses in Yamagata Prefectureis an alternative rural model. As a typical rural area with agriculture-basedeconomy, Yamagata Prefecture encountered a serious gender imbalance aswell as a labor shortage in the 1980s. Since the mid-1950s, the region hadexperienced a substantial migration of the population to other regions, asshown in Table 2. Between 1955 and 1975, more than 20% of the populationmoved to other regions.

This exodus was associated with growing gender imbalance, particularlyat the marriage age. Table 3 demonstrates this problem. In terms of themarriage-aged population, this region originally had more women than men.However, men began to outnumber women in the marriage-aged categories in1980. In response to this phenomenon, the local government of Yamagatastarted to actively encourage international marriages.39 The first case was inAsahi village in 1985 when it received marriage migrants from the Philip-pines, and became widely spread as Ookura village received 10 marriagemigrants, also from the Philippines, in 1986. The implementation of policiesfor international marriage was followed by discussion of how to institution-ally assist these immigrants in settling in.

One of the villages in which international marriages were common wasMogami village. As shown in Table 4, there was a sharp decline in theunmarried female population from 1985 to 1990, resulting in an imbalance inthe male/female unmarried population that continued throughout the 1990s.This imbalance led to an increase in marriages between female foreignnationals and Japanese men in Mogami village, which generated problems,

38. A series of opinion polls conducted by the Cabinet Office reveals that only slightly more than halfof Japanese people think that foreigners should be served equal by the government, set aside risingconcerns of the government’s attitude to treat human rights issues like a matter of optional opinion.When respondents were asked, “Should foreigners have the same human rights protections as Japa-nese?” the percentages of respondents who replied “yes” have gradually decreased since 1995 – 68.3%,65.5%, and 54%, in 1995, 1999, and 2003 respectively – even though the recent one in 2007 recordeda minor increase to 59.3%. For more information on this series of opinion polls, see The CabinetOffice, Government of Japan at <http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h19/h19-jinken/> (searched date: 2February 2009); for the concerns on the government’s unreserved, negligent attitude toward foreigners’human rights, see Debito Arudou, “Human Rights Survey Stinks,” The Japan Times (23 October 2007),at <http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20071023zg.html> (searched date: 2 February 2009).39. There might be other factors like the “backwardness” image of rural regions, as Nakamatsuindicates (2005, op. cit., p. 411). She claims that farming communities were portrayed negatively as“forgotten,” and having “feudalistic” household customs, which made Japanese women more reluctantto marry such men.

174 / Pacific Focus


http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h19/h19-jinken

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20071023zg.html

such as differences in language, religion, culture, and values as well asdomestic conflicts, pregnancy, delivery, and child care etc. Moreover, as thenumber of female foreign nationals in the village increased from 18 in 1989to 382 in 2002 and their nationalities grew more diverse, the need for supportto multicultural families arose as major issues for the local authorities.

The policies of Mogami village for immigrant spouses can be character-ized as support services.40 This includes Japanese language education andcomprehensive administrative services for visas, naturalization, Medicareetc. More specifically, the village opened 16 classes for training Japaneseteachers as well as holding lectures on the rights of multicultural families,publishing guidebooks in English, Korean, and Chinese, holding fora andsymposia for community building and internationalization, as well as holdingpublic hearings for early childhood education, offering services fordocumentation, and hosting social gatherings for representatives of eachnationality etc. Moreover, the community health clinic provided foreignnationals married to Japanese citizens with free medical diagnosis and trans-lations for medical services.41 As a consequence, immigrant spouses startedto organize their own social networks, such as meetings of spouses based onnationality.42

40. The research on Mogami village is largely based on the author’s field research conducted in June2005.41. See Mogami koiki Shichosonken Jimu Kumiai (Mogami Region Employees’ Union) (1992),Mogami Chiiki Kokusai Koryu Senta.42. See Mogami koiki Shichosonken Jimu Kumiai (Mogami Region Employees’ Union) (2003),Mogami Chiiki Kokusai Koryu Senta.

Table 2. Population Difference in Yamagata over 5 Year Terms

Population Annual differential

Male Female Male Female Social differential

1950 660,555 696,7921955 648,500 705,200 D 12,055 8,408 D 94,3481960 630,997 689,667 D 17,503 D 15,533 D 97,2611965 605,185 657,918 D 25,812 D 31,749 D 102,1111970 587,515 638,103 D 17,670 D 19,815 D 72,4711975 586,918 633,384 D 597 D 4,717 D 44,6391980 605,407 646,510 18,489 13,126 D 6,7361985 609,417 652,245 4,010 5,735 D 20,1961990 607,041 651,349 D 2,376 D 896 D 22,6291995 607,316 649,642 275 D 1,707 D 6,7552000 601,372 642,775 D 5,944 D 6,867 D 7,5572005 585,023 631,158 D 16,349 D 11,617 D 17,457

Source: Statistics Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, at <http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2005/kouhou/useful/index.htm> (searched date: 5 May 2008); Yamagata Prefecture, “Populationand number of households in Yamagata prefecture,” (2005) at <http://dww.pref.yamagata.jp/tokei/0202010000.html> (searched date: 7 May 2008).



http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2005/kouhou/useful/index.htm


http://dww.pref.yamagata.jp/tokei/0202010000.html


Tabl

e3.

Mal

e/fe

mal

eP

ropo

rtio

nsin

Yam

agat

aP

refe

ctur

e,5-

Year

Age

Term

s(A

vera

genu

mbe

rof

mal

ere

side

nts

per

ever

y10

0fe

mal

ere

side

nts)

Age

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

0–4

100.

010

5.0

106.

010

4.0

105.

010

5.3

104.

510

4.1

105.

110

3.7

5–9

106.

710

4.2

105.

310

5.3

103.

810

5.2

105.

010

4.2

103.

410

5.3

10–1

498

.110

3.8

104.

310

5.2

105.

510

3.8

105.

410

5.0

104.

110

3.9

15–1

985

.210

1.8

101.

110

2.7

104.

710

4.3

103.

410

5.8

105.

610

4.1

20–2

481

.281

.490

.692

.396

.096

.097

.710

3.6

108.

510

5.5

25–2

991

.189

.195

.910

4.4

102.

199

.398

.399

.910

3.8

106.

330

–34

88.7

92.9

93.0

100.

310

9.7

104.

310

0.9

100.

210

1.0

101.

535

–39

80.9

92.3

93.3

93.9

101.

310

9.2

104.

110

1.8

100.

099

.9(2

0–39

)(8

5.6)

(89.

2)(9

3.5)

(97.

8)(1

02.7

)(1

02.8

)(1

00.6

)(1

01.4

)(1

03.2

)(1

03.2

)40

–44

80.9

80.7

92.3

93.4

94.0

100.

610

8.9

104.

710

1.6

99.1

45–4

977

.883

.379

.590

.992

.592

.999

.610

9.5

104.

710

0.2

50–5

494

.487

.882

.279

.289

.891

.191

.798

.910

8.4

102.

955

–59

102.

089

.286

.481

.277

.787

.989

.190

.497

.410

6.3

60–6

410

4.0

89.1

84.7

83.4

79.6

75.7

85.4

87.3

88.6

95.0

65–6

973

.085

.382

.080

.079

.676

.773

.181

.984

.086

.370

–74

62.8

74.7

76.0

74.3

73.7

74.7

72.1

68.8

76.7

79.6

75–7

962

.861

.363

.265

.165

.165

.067

.165

.062

.969

.880

–84

60.0

44.9

51.7

53.0

56.5

54.5

55.7

57.3

55.9

53.8

abov

e85

29.4

33.4

36.8

39.4

40.7

43.6

42.2

40.8

42.6

40.8

Yam

agat

a91

.592

.092

.192

.793

.693

.493

.293

.593

.692

.7N

atio

n-w

ide

96.5

96.4

96.4

96.9

96.9

96.7

96.5

96.2

95.8

95.3

Sour

ces:

For

all

othe

rye

ars,

Stat

istic

sB

urea

u,M

inis

try

ofIn

tern

alA

ffai

rsan

dC

omm

unic

atio

ns,“

Popu

latio

nce

nsus

,”in

each

year

at<h

ttp://

ww

w.e

stat

.go.

jp/S

G1/

esta

t/L

ist.d

o?bi

d=00

0000

0900

04&

cyco

de=

0>(s

earc

hed

date

:25

May

2008

).Fo

rst

atis

tical

info

rmat

ion

onY

amag

ata

Pref

ectu

re,Y

amag

ata

Pref

ectu

re,“

Stat

istic

alIn

form

atio

non

Yam

agat

aPr

efec

ture

,”in

each

year

at<h

ttp://

dww

.pre

f.ya

mag

ata.

jp/to

kei/h

ome.

htm

l>(s

earc

hed

date

:25

July

2008

).

176 / Pacific Focus


http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000000090004&cycode=0













http://dww.pref.yamagata.jp/tokei/home.html








As the number of immigrant spouses increased, the support programswere crystallized into a movement called “making of a local community”(Machidsukuri), the purpose of which was to encourage mutual respect andmutual understanding beyond the differences in race, ethnicity, and culture,so as to establish a local community in which all the members of the societycould peacefully live together.43 This movement is significant because it wasa positive response of immigrant spouses to the social problems triggered bythe growing number of people of different races and cultures. For example,by 2002 there were 382 immigrant spouses and more than 200 children ofmulticultural families in Mogami village, which led to discontent amongnative Japanese residents. In this context, the “making of a local community”movement played a critical role in reducing friction between native Japaneseresidents and foreign residents as well as in improving mutual understandingof culture.

The making of a local community movement was a consequence of thevillage’s support policy that enabled foreign nationals to make their voicesheard. As a consequence, the foreign nationals could contribute to multicul-tural coexistence in the community by actively leading cultural interchanges.At this juncture, the support policy and making of a local community move-ment of the immigrant spouses in Yamagata Prefecture epitomizes a ruralmodel for multicultural coexistence, while the foreigners’ assembly epito-mizes an urban model. Certainly, the conditions for multicultural coexistencecannot be guaranteed only through these efforts. The requirements for animmigrant spouse to re-acquire resident status in case of divorce or spouse’sdeath, or to bring children from a previous marriage into Japan are difficultto fulfill and present an issue to be addressed.44 They also find them vulner-

43. Ibid.44. According to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act of Japan, an immigrantspouse should fulfil all the following requirements in order to bring her children from a previousmarriage to Japan as a permanent resident: (i) the mother is the spouse of a Japanese citizen; (ii) themother is currently residing in Japan as the spouse of a Japanese citizen; (iii) the child in question isa minor; (iv) the child is unmarried; (v) the child’s living is dependent on the mother; (vi) the child isthe mother’s child by blood. In the case of divorce or the Japanese spouse’s death, the migrant spousedoes not simultaneously fulfil the first and second conditions, and thus the child loses the status ofpermanent resident and must re-apply for permanent resident status. However, such status is rarelygiven unless the child fulfils other strict requirements, like sufficient capability to live independently,etc. See Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act at <http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/icrr-01.html> (searched date: 13 December 2008).

Table 4. Numbers of Unmarried Men and Women in Mogami Village

1985 1990 1995 2000

Male (a) 2,067 2,303 2,695 2,682Female (b) 1,247 675 756 908a/b 1.67 3.42 3.56 2.95

Source: Mogami Chiiki Kokusai Koryu Senta.



http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/icrr-01.html


able to potential domination by the Japanese spouse, as will be discussed inthe next section. Nevertheless, Yamagata Prefecture offers a viable model forpromoting multicultural coexistence.

Reciprocal Nondomination

Limits of Multicultural Policies in Japan

The foreigners’ assembly and the foreign spouse support programs at thelocal level could help compensate for neglect of foreigners’ concerns at thenational level. Actually, municipally-initiated multicultural policies havebecome a major force for change in Japan, which could lead to a dramaticchange in Japanese society. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conclude that thepolicies initiated by local authorities in Japan are sufficient to guaranteemulticultural coexistence. It is too hasty to assert that these policies areenough to transform the culturally and ethnically homogeneous Japanesesociety into a multicultural one. This skepticism is based on the followingtwo concerns: first, these policies, when implemented on a national basis,could have unexpected, or even retrogressive, consequences if the implemen-tation of institutional arrangements fails to be equipped with a guidingprinciple for multicultural coexistence; and second, the failure to grant immi-grant residents a condition where they could be relatively safe against thecapricious control of others could reduce their sense of freedom and dignity.45

The first concern arises from the fact that because multicultural policiesare being driven by sociopolitical demands that a majority of local citizensfavor, there is always the possibility that a local decision unfavorable formulticultural coexistence could be made through the same procedures thathave promoted multicultural coexistence. For example, the internationaliza-tion policies of Kanagawa Prefecture were largely propelled by the initiativeof one person, Governor Nagasu, and the foreigners’ assemblies are likely toamount to nothing more than a show-off unless their decisions are substan-tially empowered by certain institutional arrangement. The occurrence thatboth cases fall short of concomitant institutional support with a guidingprinciple may bring about unexpected, retrogressive outcomes when thepublic supports any decision unfavorable for multicultural coexistence. Like-wise, the making of a local community movement also failed to yield theintended outcomes. Public subsidiary programs for the children of multicul-tural families implemented at the local level are not institutionally supportedso as to preclude racial discrimination or friction resulting from culturaldifferences. Furthermore, local authorities cannot modify the conditions inwhich foreign nationals find themselves, if they are deprived of their civil

45. For various circumstances in which domination – which is subject to the arbitrary will of others –is involved, see Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1997), especially Chapter 2.

178 / Pacific Focus


rights due to divorce or the death of their spouse. The main focus of policiesof multicultural coexistence has been largely on cultural intersection yet haslittle to do with building up the societal foundation on which foreign nation-als could make a contribution to society as citizens. Thus multiculturalcoexistence calls for a procedure by which municipally-initiated multicul-tural policies can be reconsidered at the national and professional levels.

The second concern is somewhat interwoven with the first one, as it alsoputs the emphasis on the societal condition of immigrant residents, yet it issupported on a more direct, immediate reason. It becomes especially salientwhen we observe the immigrant spouses’ unsecured positions in which theymight lose their resident status in case of divorce or their spouse’s death, orthey might be demeaned by their vulnerability, being unable to secure them-selves against the domestic violence of a Japanese spouse. The legal status ofthe immigrant spouse seems to be guaranteed when the Nationality Act ofJapan holds that an alien who is the spouse of a Japanese national may benaturalized if he or she keeps the marriage for certain period of time.46 If animmigrant spouse is divorced or her Japanese spouse dies before she acquireseither Japanese Citizenship or Permanent Residency, however, she then losesher immigrant status as a spouse, and instead needs to acquire the status ofpermanent resident in order to stay in Japan.47 Things are getting worse if shesuffers from the domestic violence of her Japanese spouse. Considering theplausibility that a non-Japanese spouse may not be able to get a visa to stayand work in Japan after the divorce, and that she rarely gets child custody ina divorce, the Japanese spouse has so much power over the non-Japanesespouse, which makes her insecure to report even severe abuse due to the fearof deportation and losing access to a child.48 Even though many immigrantspouses are not suffering domestic violence in reality, and they are free to theextent that they are not interfered with in their action, this might be ascribedto the fact that their Japanese spouses happen to be nice or benign. Theirfreedom is subject to the Japanese spouses’ whimsical and arbitrary will and

46. According to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, an immigrant spouse isgranted with a Spouse Visa on her landing in Japan. If she keeps either residing in Japan for longer thanthree consecutive years and is presently domiciled in Japan or the marriage at least for three consecu-tive years and is domiciled in Japan for one consecutive year or more, she may be granted Japanesecitizenship. See Article 7 of the Nationality Act of Japan. An English version is found on the Ministryof Justice’s website at <www.mog.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/tnl-01.html> (searched date: 13January 2009).47. For more details, see Mogami koiki Shichosonken Jimu Kumiai (Mogami Region Employees’Union) (2003), Mogami Chiiki Kokusai Koryu Senta, or J. Sean Curtin, “International Marriages inJapan: Part One – Visa status of non-Japanese spouse in 2002,” Global Communications Platform at<http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20021112_trends_s16/index.html> (searcheddate: 10 January 2009). Even when an immigrant spouse is not legally divorced from her Japanesespouse, losing substantial basis of the marriage – cohabitation – may serve as a reason for theimmigration office to reject the renewal of the visa. See the first decision on the visa status of anon-Japanese spouse married to a Japanese citizen, the Supreme Court decision, 1999 (Gyo-Hi) No.46, made on 17 October 2002, at <http://www.courts.go.jp/english/judgments/text/2002.10.17-1999.-Gyo-Hi-.No.46.html> (searched date: 14 January 2009).48. See Japan’s Children’s Rights Network, “Bad Family Law Supports Domestic Violence by aJapanese Spouse against a Foreign Spouse,” at <http://www.crnjapan.com/issues/en/family_law_supports_abuse.html> (searched date: 13 January 2009).



http://www.mog.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/tnl-01.html

http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20021112_trends_s16/index.html

http://www.courts.go.jp/english/judgments/text/2002.10.17-1999.-Gyo-Hi-.No.46.html


http://www.crnjapan.com/issues/en/family_law_supports_abuse.html


they cannot be equal in relation to Japanese citizens. Therefore multiculturalpolicies of local government should be practiced simultaneously with legaland institutional reformation through which there would be no dominationover immigrant residents on the side of the Japanese people.

There is a clear need for a regulative principle that serves two roles. First,it would guide communication between different cultures about what justicerequires in particular cases. Although they appear uncontroversial at thismoment, multicultural policies must be equipped with a safety device thatsecures the democratic procedures for multicultural coexistence from creat-ing social conflicts or requiring the exclusive assimilation of foreigners intothe majority culture. In the long term, local integration policies responding tothe needs of the people, might cause further conflicts or inspire an effort atexclusive assimilation. Thus nondomination, a condition in which people canbe free from the arbitrary domination of others,49 should be considered as aprinciple of multicultural coexistence and as a norm for societal actions.

Second, a civic foundation on which the conflicts between Japanese andforeign residents can be resolved needs to be created. Deliberation betweengroups may sometimes increase antagonism by opening up irreconcilabledifferences that were previously cloaked. Certainly, deliberation betweendifferent cultures encourages people to understand each other’s point of view,to minimize their differences, and to find common ground. However, we canhardly expect that deliberation, even in a homogeneous society, will alwaysdefuse antagonism stemming from disagreements between people. Here,multicultural coexistence ought to work to replace the negative approachunder which local governments guarantee equal treatment to foreigners withthe positive approach under which foreign residents are empowered toparticipate in the political process. Otherwise, multicultural coexistence isunlikely to be effective, since nondominational conditions cannot be realizedif people are not free from the arbitrary domination by others or if minoritiesare not given the power to reciprocally check the majority. In other words,unless this nondominational condition is reciprocally fulfilled, multiculturalcoexistence will remain vulnerable to the dangers of exclusion andassimilation.

Reciprocal Nondomination as a Regulative Principle

The institutionalization of multicultural coexistence should be embodiedin the regulative principle of reciprocal nondomination. Reciprocal nondomi-nation must be a principle which is not the first principle from which the restof multicultural policy is derived; while it should be a regulative principle

49. The concept of liberty as nondomination has been developed by the so-called neo-Romantheorists, such as Quentin Skinner, Philip Pettit, Maurizio Viroli, and Jean-Fabien Spitz. UsingMachiavelli’s notion of libertà, they articulate liberty as, for example, “I am free to the degree that nohuman being has the arbitrary power to interfere with me even if I lack the will or the wisdom requiredfor achieving self-mastery.” See Philip Pettit, “Freedom as Antipower,” Ethics, 106 (1996), p. 578. Forcritical assessments to this line of thought, see Jun-Hyeok Kwak, “Nondomination and Contestability:Machiavelli contra Neo-Roman Republicanism,” Korean Political Science Review, 28-4 (2004), pp.219–239.

180 / Pacific Focus


that serves two roles. First, reciprocal nondomination as a regulative prin-ciple focuses not on free action but on the conditions under which free actionis possible. If action is focused, it is not in principle allowed to interfere withthe individual’s private sphere by way of legal sanction or public interferenceunless his or her free action is interfered with. If condition is focused, on theother hand, then such a legal sanction or public interference becomes legiti-mate when the individual in question is in a situation that prevents him frommaking a decision on his own will. In this context, reciprocal nondominationmay become a coherent ground which protects the individual from beingsubjected to another’s arbitrary will, legitimizes legal and institutional inter-ference, and sets up the limits of such interference.

Second, multicultural coexistence should be aimed at transforming nega-tive denizenship by which equal treatment is ensured into democraticdenizenship by which all residents are guaranteed the right to have sub-stantial political contestability against the arbitrary will of other people.Nondominational status cannot be realized if a person is not free from thearbitrary domination of others, or if there is an absence of sufficient powerto check the majority or the dominant social group. Thus, at the individuallevel, liberty is to be guaranteed as a condition under which each individualcan express his or her desires. At the social level, this condition should bereciprocally recognized by all members of the society, and all resistance toarbitrary domination should be legitimized. Here, reciprocal nondominationprovides us with a coherent political and moral principle that is applicableto the process of negotiations between individuals, groups, and the gov-ernment. In a society in which the condition of reciprocal nondomina-tion is not guaranteed, social integration is vulnerable to assimilation orexclusion.

Third, cultural identity, which is different from political identity, should beconsidered a matter of individual choice. By the same token, national orethnic identity should be recognized as a way of life in which one’s specificcultural dispositions and affection for people who share this way of lifeshould be respected. What is important here is that mutual respect should berealized through reciprocal nondomination at the legal and institutional level.Given that the very element requisite for the actualization of multiculturalcoexistence today is mutual respect, reciprocal nondomination may offer thebest possible complement to deliberation in defense of mutual respect as wellas interdependence between residents. In this way, the best way to supple-ment political deliberation between multicultural groups in conflict is not todisplace its core principle of deliberation as a democratic process of will-formation but to enact the condition of reciprocal nondomination. At thisjuncture, reciprocal nondomination as a regulative principle can replacesocial integration with multicultural coexistence, and thus form a groundfor democratic deliberation on which various ethnic differences can becoordinated.

Consequently, reciprocal nondomination provides us with a regulativeprinciple which resolves the tension between multicultural coexistence andsocial integration. The principle of reciprocal nondomination consists of thereciprocal power of nondomination at the individual level, the constitutional



provisions that keep in check any arbitrary domination at the state level, anddecency at the international level that helps mitigate conflict and promotea cosmopolitan ethos. Reciprocal nondomination can be the political andmoral ground that enables the enhancement of multicultural coexistence aswell as sociopolitical integration.

Conclusion

In this paper, I examined multicultural policies in Japan, with a focus onthe Kanagawa and Yamagata prefectures, in order to present policies formunicipally-initiated multicultural coexistence. I pointed out the limits ofthese policies, such as the absence of a coherent political, social, and philo-sophical principle to underpin them, and presented a model for municipally-initiated multicultural coexistence based on reciprocal nondomination. Threetasks were performed. The first was to emphasize the implausibility ofmulticulturalism as an alternative to multicultural coexistence by examiningvarious challenges to multiculturalism in terms of solidarity, individuality,and redistribution. The second was to analyze multicultural policies of localgovernments in Japan, identifying foreigners’ assemblies in KanagawaPrefecture as an urban model while suggesting the foreign spouse supportprograms and the subsequent “making of a local community” movement asa rural model for multicultural coexistence. The third was to demonstrate theskepticisms that these multicultural policies are not sufficient to transformhomogeneous Japanese society into a multicultural one based on two con-cerns: the danger of retrogression resulting from the absence of a regulativeprinciple and the failure to grant immigrant residents a condition where theycould not be dominated by the arbitrary will of others, and to present recip-rocal nondomination as a political, social, and moral principle on which amodel for multicultural coexistence could be based. Specifically, reciprocalnondomination was crystallized into a regulative principle guaranteeing theintegrity of political arrangements and securing the cultural rights of minoritygroups.

It is undeniable that the municipally-initiated multicultural policies inJapan can be a reasonable or viable model through which we could form analternative to the state-led model for multicultural coexistence. Unlike poli-cies set by central government, which may fail to respond dexterously to thevaried demands from local peoples, municipally-initiated multicultural poli-cies are more likely to be sensitive to the idiosyncratic needs of the localcommunities. However, these policies have failed to ensure immigrant resi-dents a legal guard against public domination. If they are to be supplementedwith a regulative principle, then they will be satisfied as a plausible model ofmulticultural coexistence which can reduce all those problems that exposeimmigrant residents to private domination. That danger can be evaded, atleast in some degree, when a regulative principle is given prominence in therealization of multicultural coexistence.

It is time to find a political, social, and moral principle on which multi-cultural coexistence may be firmly based, rather than merely attempt to

182 / Pacific Focus


convince society of the need for multicultural coexistence. Japanese societyhas already recognized the inevitability of multicultural coexistence in dailylife. As multiculturalism came under criticism in Anglo-American societies,so were the practices of multicultural coexistence criticized in Japan to theextent that they would produce certain sociopolitical problems. In this sense,we must find a concrete political principle upon which we may proposesolutions for the sociopolitical problems resulting from multicultural coex-istence, as well as furthering social integration through legal and institutionaldesigns, while protecting minority groups from both exclusion and assimi-lation. Reciprocal nondomination offers an alternative political framework inwhich multicultural coexistence and social integration can be coordinated,and democracy as well as peaceful coexistence of the society can be ensured.Reciprocal nondomination would create a firm ground of democratic delib-eration on which we could resolutely reject the temptations to revert tonationalism or other social solidarity in dealing with the sociopolitical prob-lems generated by multicultural coexistence.

References

Aoki-Okabe, Maki, Yoko Kawamura, and Toichi Makita, “The Study of Interna-tional Cultural Relations of Postwar Japan,” Institute of Developing EconomiesDiscussion Paper, 49 (2006) at <http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Dp/pdf/049.pdf> (searched date: 2 February 2009).

Arudou, Debito, “Human Rights Survey Stinks,” The Japan Times, at <http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20071023zg.html> (searched date: 2 February2009).

Barry, Brian, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Berry, J. W., R. Kalin, and D.M. Taylor, Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes inCanada (Ottawa: Ministry of State for Multiculturalism, 1977).

Brimelow, Peter, Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s ImmigrationDisaster (New York: Harper Perennial, 1995).

Burgess, Chris, “(Re)constructing Identities: International Marriage Migrants asPotential Agents of Social Change in a Globalising Japan,” Asian StudiesReview, 28-3 (2004), pp. 223–242.

Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, at <http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h19/h19-jinken/> (searched date: 2 February 2009).

Calhoun, Craig, Nations Matter: Culture, History, and the Cosmopolitan Dream(London: Routledge, 2007).

Chikako, Kashiwazaki, “Local Government and Resident Foreigners: A ChangingRelationship,” in Shun’ichi Furukawa and Toshihoro Menju, eds., Japan’sRoad to Pluralism: Transforming Local Communities in the Global Era(Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2003), pp. 63–88.

Curtin, J. Sean, “International Marriages in Japan: Part One–Visa status of non-Japanese Spouse in 2002,” Global Communications Platform, at <http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20021112_trends_s16/index.html> (searched date: 10 January 2009).












Fielder, Sergio, “Global or National? Between the Multitude and the People,” inJames Goodman and Paul James, eds., Nationalism and Global Solidarities(London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 56–70.

Fraser, Nancy, “Reframing Justice in a Globalizing World,” in James Goodman andPaul James, eds., Nationalism and Global Solidarities (London: Routledge,2007), pp.168–186.

Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange (New York: Verso, 2003).

Glazer, Nathan, We are All Multiculturals Now (Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1997).

Gleason, Philip, “American Identity and Americanization,” in Stephan Thernstrom,A Orlov, and O Hardin, eds., Harvard Encyclopedia of American EthnicGroups (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 31–58.

Griffin, Larry, and Maria Tempenis, “Class, Multiculturalism, and the AmericanQuarterly,” American Quarterly, 54-1 (2002), pp. 67–99.

Han, Seung-Mi, “Multiculturalism, Japanese Style: The Cases from Kawasaki Cityand Kanagawa Prefecture,” Korean Cultural Anthropology, 36-1 (2003), pp.119–147.

———, “From the Communitarian Ideal to the Public Sphere: The Making ofForeigners’ Assemblies in Kawasaki City and Kanagawa Prefecture,” SocialScience Japan Journal, 7-1 (2004), pp. 41–60.

Higham, John, “Multiculturalism and Universalism: A History and Critique,”American Quarterly, 45-2 (1993), pp. 195–219.

Hobsbawm, Eric, Nations and Nationalism since 1780 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1990).

———, “Identity Politics and the Left,” New Left Review, 1-217 (1996), pp. 38–47.

Huntington, Samuel, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004).

Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice of Japan, “Number of Foreigners enteringJapan,” Immigration Bureau of Japan, Ministry of Justice (1996–2006), at<www.immi-moj.go.jp/toukei> (searched date: 2 June 2008).

Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, at <http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/icrr-01.html> (searched date: 13 December 2008).

Japan’s Children’s Rights Network, “Bad Family Law Supports Domestic Violenceby a Japanese Spouse against a Foreign Spouse,” at <http://www.crnjapan.com/issues/en/family_law_supports_abuse.html> (searched date: 13 January 2009).

Kanagawa Prefecture, Report of Population Census in Kanagawa Prefecture(1995).

———, “Statistical Information on Kanagawa Prefecture,” at <http://www.pref.kanagawa.jp/tokei/tokei/204/age/nenrei19.html> (searched date: 5 May2008).

———, “Number of Registered Foreigners,” at <http://www.pref.kanagawa.jp/osirase/kokusai/seisaku/data2.htm> (searched date: 5 May 2008).

———, at <http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Dp/pdf/049.pdf>(searched date: 2 February 2009).

Kang, Sangjoong, “Post-Colonialism and Diasporic Space in Japan,” Inter-AsiaCultural Studies, 2-1 (2001), pp. 137–144.

184 / Pacific Focus


http://www.immi-moj.go.jp/toukei










Kawasaki City, Kawasakishi tabunka kyosei shakai suishin sishin (gaiyohan)–tomoni ikiru chiikiwo mezasite (March 2005).

Komai, Hirosho, Foreign Migrants in Contemporary Japan (Melbourne: TransPacific Press, 2001).

Korten, David C., “Third Generation NGO Strategies: A Key to People-centeredDevelopment,” World Development, 15-Supplement (1987), pp. 145–159.

Kukathas, Chandran, “Liberalism and Multiculturalism: The Politics of Indiffer-ence,” Political Theory, 26-5 (1998), pp. 686–699.

Kwak, Jun-Hyeok, “Nondomination and Contestability: Machiavelli contra Neo-Roman Republicanism,” Korean Political Science Review, 38-4 (2004), pp.219–239.

Laxer, Gordon, “Progressive Inter-Nationalist Nationalism,” in James Goodman andPaul James, eds., Nationalism and Global Solidarities (London: Routledge,2007), pp. 108–122.

Miller, David, Citizenship and National Identity (Cambridge: Polity, 2000).Ministry of Justice Judicial System and Research Department, ed., Annual Report of

Statistics on Legal Migrants (1985; 1986; 1987; 1988; 1989; 1990; 1991;1992; 1993; 1994; 1995).

Mogami koiki Shichosonken Jimu Kumiai (Mogami Region Employees’ Union)(1992; 2003) Mogami Chiiki Kokusai Koryu Senta.

Nagasu, Kazuji, Ideas of Transitional Period (Henkaku no Shicho) (Tokyo: AsahiShimbun sha, 1969).

———, Japanese Capitalism Advancing Toward South (Nanshin Suru NipponShihon Shugi) (Tokyo: Nainichi Shimbun, 1971).

Nagasu, Kazuji, and Yoshikazu Sakamoto, International Relations of Local Gov-ernments (Kichitai no Kokusai Kouryu) (Tokyo: Gakuyo Shobo, 1983).

Nakamatsu, Tomoko, “Faces of Asian brides: Gender, race, and class in the repre-sentation of immigrant women in Japan,” Women’s Studies InternationalForum, 28 (2005), pp. 405–417.

Nakao, Hiroshi, “Zaiju Gaikokujinno Seiji Sankato Gaikokuseiki Jumin Kaigi,” inYong Dal Seo, ed., 21 Seiki Kan Chosenjinno Kyosei Bijon: Chuo Ajia, Rosia,Nihonno Kan Chosenjin Mondai (Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha), 2003.

Nationality Act of Japan, at <www.mog.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/tnl-01.html>(searched date: 13 January 2009).

Nitta, Fumiteru, “Kokusai Kekkon: Trends in Intercultural Marriage in Japan,”International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12 (1988), pp. 205–232.

Okin, Susan, “Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions,” Ethics, 108 (1998),pp. 661–684.

———, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” in Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard,and Martha Nussbaum, eds., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women (Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).

Pak, Katherine Tegtmeyer, “Cities and Local Citizenship in Japan: OvercomingNationality?” in Taekeyuki Tusda, ed., Local Citizenship in Recent Countriesof Immigration, Japan in Comparative Perspective (Lanham: LexingtonBooks, 2006), pp. 65–95.

Pettit, Philip, “Freedom as Antipower,” Ethics, 106 (1996), pp. 576–604.———, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1997).



http://www.mog.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/tnl-01.html

Piper, Nicola, “Wife or Worker? Worker or Wife? Marriage and Cross-BorderMigration in Contemporary Japan,” International Journal of PopulationGeography, 9 (2003), pp. 457–469.

Ravith, Diane, “Multiculturalism, E Pluribus Plures,” American Scholar, 60-2(1991), pp. 337–354.

Sakamoto, Yoshikazu, “Transforming Image of Peace (Tenkan Suru Heiwa Zou),”Asahi Shimbun (daily newspaper).

Schlesinger, Arthur, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a MulticulturalSociety (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998).

Schwartz, Frank, Advice and Consent: The Politics of Consultation in Japan (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Smith, Rogers, “The ‘American Creed’ and American Identity: The Limits ofLiberal Citizenship in the United States,” Western Political Quarterly, 41(1988), pp. 225–251.

Statistics Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, at <http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2005/kouhou/useful/index.htm> (searched date:5 May 2008).

Supreme Court of Japan, The Supreme Courts decision, 1999 (Gyo-Hi) No. 46 (17October), at <http://www.courts.go.jp/english/judgments/text/2002.10.17-1999.-Gyo-Hi-.No.46.html> (searched date: 14 January 2009).

Takao, Yasuo, “Foreigner’s Rights in Japan: Beneficiaries to Participants,” AsianSurvey, 32-3 (2003), pp. 527–552.

Walzer, Michael, “In Response: Support for Modesty and Nation-State,” ResponsiveCommunity, 11-2 (2001), pp. 28–31.

Yamagata Prefecture, “Population and number of households in Yamagata prefec-ture,” at <http://dww.pref.yamagata.jp/tokei/0202010000.html> (searcheddate: 7 May 2008).

186 / Pacific Focus







Coexistence without Principle: Reconsidering Multicultural Policies in Japan

Documents

Transcript of Coexistence without Principle: Reconsidering Multicultural Policies in Japan