THE CONCEPT OF ETHNICITY IN POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Thesis for the Degree of M. A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MAKOTO TEZUKA 1977 _ ----- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 ' I! L [B I? A ’1 Y IV’EIIJIIIBL‘H. State University ABSTRACT THE CONCEPT OF ETHNICITY IN POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY BY Makoto Tezuka The problem of power structure had been relatively neglected in the ethnic studies before it became brought into focus in the context of "nation-building" in the "new nations." It is argued in this thesis that the explication of the relationship between power structure and ethnicity is a prerequisite to the construction of a unifying theory of ethnicity; and a plea is made for the constructive welding of the macro-level analysis of power structure and the conventional anthropological study of ethnicity at the micro-level. The analogy between "nationalism" and "ethnicism" (i.e., "ethnicity" as a macro-political ideology) is drawn to indicate a new dimension of ethnic politics in modern times. In order to substantiate this point, historical develOpment of power structure and its bearing upon "objective" and "subjective" aspects of ethnicity are dis— cussed. The impacts of the emergence of the "modern state" are examined in terms of "nationalization," or the processes Makoto Tezuka of sociocultural homogenization and integration of the population within the state boundaries for the sake of administrative efficiency, and of emergence of "sociologi- cal minorities" as a byproduct of these processes. A distinction between the dimensions of "quality" and "exten- sion" of ethnic boundaries is drawn in order to elucidate the ethnic dynamics not only in the contexts of "accultura- tion" and "assimilation," but also in the context of national politics. The presentation of the case study of Okinawa is intended to illustrate the theoretical perspective summarized above. Okinawa before and after its incorporation into the "modern state" is discussed in terms of the mode of relevance of "ethnicity" in its relationships to the power structure. THE CONCEPT OF ETHNICITY IN POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY BY Makoto Tezuka A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of AnthrOpology 1977 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 1 Chapter 1. THE CONCEPT OF ETHNICITY . . . . . . . 5 The "Ethnocentric" and the "Polycentric" . l3 Ethnos, Nation, and State . . . . . . 18 Ethnicity in the Modern State. . . . . 28 2. ETHNICITY IN OKINAWA . . . . . . . . 46 Ethnicity in Pre-Modern Okinawa . . . . 54 Okinawa's Incorporation into the Modern State 0 O O O O O I O O O O O 64 Ethnicity and Post-War Okinawa . . . . 73 3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 91 APPENDIX. 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O I O O 106 ii PREFACE One of the first sociologists who formulated a general theory of "race relations" was Park (1950). His theory has been criticized (particularly because of its unilineal, "assimilationist" biases) and reformulated by various subsequent scholars (e.g., Barth and Noel, 1972; Shibutani and Kwan, 1965; Yancey et al., 1976). Their theories, however, have been mainly focused upon ethnicity of immigrants in modern, industrial conditions because of their heavy reliance upon the American experience. Another source of recent develogment of ethnic theory is the study of ethnic relations in "new nations." Ethnic theories in these contexts are formulated under various rublics; i.e., nationalism, nation-building, national integration, tribalism, etc. One conspicuous difference between these two sources of ethnic studies is this: while ethnic studies in "old nations" take the state power structure for granted, one of the major themes of ethnic studies in "new nations" is the problem of state power structure itself. Although there are some attempts to bridge these two sources of ethnic studies (e.g., Bell and Freeman, 1974; Glazer and Moynihan, 1975; Enloe, 1973; Brass and van den Berghe, 1976), it seems that the construction of unifying theory of ethnicity requires, first of all, an explication of the relationships between power structure and ethnicity. In Spite of the crucial importance of the state power structure in modern social life, social scientists were rather indifferent to the problem of state. Nettle (1968:559) was able to write not so long ago that "the concept of state is not much in vogue in the social sciences right now." Since then, the situation has some- what changed due to the vogue of nation-building theories (e.g., Eisenstadt and Rokkan, 1973). Yet, there seems to be still a great deal of confusion regarding what "nation- building" really means. One of the sources of confusion seems to derive from the very concept "nation"; why "nation-building"? why not "state-building"? Some scholars (e.g., Rejai and Enloe, 1969; Francis, 1967) try to de- mystify the "nation" by revealing its "artificiality." From the vieWpoint of communication theory, some scholars (e.g., Deutsch, 1966) seem to imply that state-building is by and large identical to nation-building. Yet, as Conner (1972) points out, the development of communication and mobilization brings about not only "nation-building," but also the development of sub-national ethnic formation; hence, "nation-building or nation-destroying?” (see also Mowlana and Robinson, 1976; Hechter, 1975:25ff). Although main efforts oa anthrOpologists were directed toward the study of micro-level social phenomena, the emergence of "new-nations" made them conscious of the conflict between "primordial attachments" and "unfolding civil order" (Geertz, 1963). Some of them began to con- sider it necessary to link the micro-level analysis to the macro-level structure of society (e.g., Fallers, 1974; Weingrod, 1967). One of the indicative signs of this trend was the debate concerning "colonialism and anthr0pology" (e.g., Marquet, 1964; Asad, 1973; Lewis, 1973), in which some scholars accused anthropology of neglecting the analy- sis of the larger power structure and thereby supporting the perpetuation of colonial system. Although the accusation of "colonialism" has become largely a matter of historical interest (except "neocolonialism," "development of under- develogment," "internal colonialism," etc.), the relevance of macro-level analysis to the anthropological study seems to have become recognized by many anthropologists. Cohen ‘(1976:129), for example, remarks that "the anthrOpologists must deliberately formulate his problems in such a way as to make reference to the state as necessary part of his analysis." Our task in this paper consists in inquiring into the problem of ethnicity in its relationship to the power structure. The first part of this paper is devoted to the theoretical discussions of ethnicity in its various dimen- sions, in its historical development, and in its modes of existence in the modern state. In the second part, we would discuss "ethnicity" in Okinawa in historical perspec- tive. This discussion is intended to illustrate how "ethnicity" appears in various power structures which developed historically, and how its political relevance varies according to changing political circumstances. CHAPTER 1 THE CONCEPT OF ETHNICITY Like all social phenomena "ethnicity" can be con- ceived as a social product of an interplay of "objective" and "subjective" factors. Van den Berghe (1976:242), for example, defines an ethnic group as "one that shares a cultural tradition and has some degree of consciousness of being different from other such groups" (italics in orig- inal). But, is "a cultural tradition" an objective aspect of ethnicity? Is it not both objective and subjective? If so, what is the "objective" aspect of tradition? The myth of a social entity "that is a whole all by itself" (Redfield, l956:8) died hard. Anthropologists, as comparative sociologists, however, were obliged to pay attention to the units of their study, which were supposed to be comparable. Naroll (1964) remarks that arbitrariness and confusion of anthrOpological units used for comparative purposes result from our lack of agreement about the criteria which define the entities we describe. In order to delimit ”culture-bearing units," he discusses six criteria com- monly used to demarcate ethnic units; namely, trait distributions, territorial contiguity, political organi- zation, language, ecological adjustment, and local com- munity structure. Although Naroll himself is aware of specific shortcomings of each criterion, there are more general sorts of difficulty. Moerman (1965:1215) points out three major difficulties: Firstly, these criteria often do not correlate. Secondly, units delimited by certain combinations of these criteria are only occasionally "culture—bearing units." Thirdly, it is often difficult to discern discontinuities in terms of these criteria. It seems that the difficulty in delimiting "objec- tively" a cultural entity derives from a tacit assumption which might be called "cultural atomism"; the assumption that each culture has an indivisible ”hard core" that exists in itself. The main efforts of "traditional" anthr0po- logists were directed toward describing the functioning of intra-societal structures. Partly as a reaction to a narrow View of "functionalism," however, some of them began to feel that "it is necessary to view every social entity as but part of a larger system which includes its neighbours" (Moerman, 1965:1216). Leachis study of the Kachin (1954) illustrates this point. Barth (1969:11) remarks that the sharing of a common culture is "an implication or result, rather than a primary and definitional characteristic of ethnic group organi- zation." He prOposes to see ethnic groups as "a form of social organization" whose organizational principles are self-ascription and ascription by others (1969:13). Moerman (1965) also stresses the importance of self- identification. He maintains that a native name belongs to a dimension different from those six criteria Naroll lists as delimiters of ethnic units. The labels by which peOple identify themselves and are identified by others are sometimes the only means of determining ethnic units (Moerman, 1965:1219). Then, the problem becomes: how these native labels are related to other ethnographic facts and over-all organizational arrangements. Moerman (1965:1219, 1223-24, 1226) suggests that tribal divisions in Thai were political in origin. In the chronicles and oral histories of Northern Thai, all supra-village units are called myang, which also means the capital of such a unit. He points out that the names of such political units and ethnic entities exhibit parallel variation. This seems to suggest that there are certain relationships between power structure and ethnicity. (Similar interlocked relation- ships between power and cultural structures would be evident in the Great Tradition—-Little Tradition phenomena (Redfield, 1955).) But, ethnicity is not simply a political organi- zation. A general agreement seems to be that it has some- thing to do with "origin." (According to Isajiw (1974:117), among twenty-seven definitions of the term "ethnicity" he examined, "common national or geographic origin or common ancestors" is the attribute most frequently mentioned in the definitions. "Some culture or customs" comes next.) Some anthr0pologists (for example, Banton, 1976:145, Keyes, 1976:202-213) explicitly state that "ethnicity" refers to "a mode of descent." Unfortunately, anthropologists are not unanimous about the concept "descent" (Freeman, 1964, Fortes, 1969:276-310). Although some anthropologists argue that only the group which recruit its members by birth on the unilineal principle should be called a descent group, many "ethnic groups" do not seem to recruit its members on the strictly unilineal principle. In many cases, more- over, they do not appear to have any corporateness. In what sense, then, can "ethnic groups" be called "a mode of descent"? Keyes (1976:204) argues that what is "primordial" in human relations derives from "the fact of birth." Certain elements of "the fact of birth," such as biological features, place of birth, and "descent," provide people with "the basis for making distinction among their fellow humans since those believed to share features fixed by birth are held to be of the same 'kind'" (1976:205). He posits that, among the three elements mentioned above, "descent" is the more basic and essential to all ethnic groups, while other elements may reinforce the claim of common descent. But, ethnic "descent" may not be based on any genealogical connection since "members of an ethnic group may validate their claim to share descent by making certain attribute which they share (or believe they share) as signifying common descent" (1976:205). In this respect, shared cultural attributes play an important role. But, they are Operational indicia, rather than criteria of identity (Horowicz, 1975:119). Such "ethnic descent" is, however, quite different from "descent" which, according to Fortes (1959:207), ”refers to a relationship mediated by a parent between himself and an ancestor . . ." "Ethnic descent" may be mediated by "certain attributes," and not necessarily by a parent. (A paradigmatic statement would be this: ”If you knew me, you would know my father also.") It follows that membership in an ethnic group involves a problem of "pro- bability of relationship" (rather than simple presence/ absence of relationship), so that there is a wide range of manipulation in the recruitment of members. Another feature of ethnicity as a "mode of descent" concerns a problem of segmentation, of which Evans-Pritchard's study of the Nuer (1940) is most famous (see also M. G. Smith, 1956). As Banton (1976:145) puts it, "a descent line always breaks up into segments and peOple identify, in varying circumstances, with units of different scale." Although this phenomenon has been well known among the ‘anthr0pologists for a quite long time, social scientists who studied ethnic relations, mostly in American situations, have generally assumed mutual exclusivity of ethnic group affiliations. 10 However, those anthropologists who studied ethnic relations in non-Western contexts were well aware of the importance of nesting taxonomies of ethnicity, even where the peeple concerned were not organized into segmentary lineages (Berreman, 1962:295-299, Moerman, 1965, Foster, 1974). These segmentary structures, moreover, may be expressed in terms of place of birth. Skinner (1971) has documented this for traditional China. Although in many cases segmentary structures in terms of "descent" and place of birth coincide, Keyes (1976:207) maintains that an analytical distinction between them should be made. In some cases, however, various "ethnic" identities one assumes in different contexts do not seem to form a hierarchical or nesting taxonomy. The Chinese in Thai, for example, may be identified as "Chinese" for commercial purposes, while they may be recognized as "Thai" in other contexts, such as politics (Keyes, 1976:207). A more intriguing example of ambiguous ethnic identities has been documented by Nagata (1974), in which some individuals oscillate from one ethnic group to another rather freely. She argues that, among the Islam of Penang, Malaysia, ethnic groups are "special kinds of reference groups, the invocation of which may vary according to particular factors of the broader social situations, rather than a fixed anchorage to which the individual is unambiguously bound" (Nagata, 1974:333). Such an example warns us that, if ethnicity is "a mode of descent" at all, it must be a 11 very special sort of descent. Nagata's study, however, deals with intra-Islamic "ethnic" identity. The situations might be different at a higher level of ethnicity. As Nagata (1976:339) points out, "Islamic culture . . . in association with the 2923' has created striking uniformities across ethnic lines." It would be plausible that salient ethnic boundaries have shifted from one level to another, so that intra-Islamic "ethnic" boundaries in Malaysia have been losing their social relevance as "ethnic" boundaries; they have become some sort of symbolic categories manipu- lated mainly for "expressive" purposes without serious social consequences. In other words, Malaysian intra- Islamic ethnic categories appear to be only potentially "ethnic." This problem will be pursued later in the con— text of the dynamics of ethnic formation and dissolution. The similar ambiguities of "ethnicity" are evident in a case study in Urban India (Berreman, 1972). It seems that "ethnicity“ is, after all, a non-emic concept in most anthropological contexts. According to Berreman, his informants did not consistently separate caste and religious groups from regional, language, and class categories. Béteille (quoted in Berreman, 1972:582) refers to this point in his discussion of the term jéti: "The word 1&2; may thus be applied to units based on race, language and religion as well as to castes in the narrower sense of the term. How easily these different kinds of identity are confused can best be illustrated by a common remark I used 12 to hear in Bengal where I grew up. It would be said of a person: 'He is not a Bengali, he is a Muslim (or Christian).'" Although all these "social categories" used in a certain society could be organized into ”an inclusive or maximal terminology," it would still be impossible to find consensus on the relationship between categories, so that "only the contexts of use could show this relationship" (Berreman, 1972:571). Besides the problem of contexts, we might mention another dimension of ambiguity of ethnic identification; namely, self-identification, other-identification, and the interaction between the two (see, for instance, Horowitz, 1975:113, 131; Hannerz, 1976:433-434; Moerman, 1965:1223). This state of ambiguity, in its diachronic dimension, may be either "transitional" or "stable." Synchronically, there seems to exist a certain pattern: the dominant groups tend to lump their subordinate groups together, while the sub- ordinate groups are well aware of the divisions within the dominant groups (Berreman, 1972:572-573; Hannerz, 1976: 433-434). In terms of social dynamics, these ambiguities of identification would provide a very interesting field of study. As Berreman has demonstrated, various "social cate- gories" actually belong to different dimensions, such as castes, religions, regions, languages, classes, etc. These multi-dimensional phenomena are, however, molded by the people themselves into a one-dimensional model, whose l3 paradigmatic form is, in India, caste. This may not be unique to India. In Europe in the nineteenth century, for example, the concept "race" seems to have provided a similar paradigmatic model: linguistic, religious, and political categories were reduced into the dimension of racial classification (i.e., "French, race," "Aryan race," etc.). After all, Boas was one of those first anthropol— ogists who began to argue for the distinction between race, language, and culture (Stocking, 1968). The "Ethnocentric" and the "Polycentric" Levi-Strauss (1967) has demonstrated that the mode of classification of humans, whether collectively or indi- vidually, into a set of categories has to do with the classification of the "universe" itself, in which peOple find themselves. Although what Levi-Strauss has attempted to do is to abolish the concept "totemism" by universalizing it, it is still tempting to speculate, as totemists do, what analogies do or do not exist between "totemism," ethnicity, and other modes of classification of man. If "nationalism" is the doctrine which holds that "humanity is naturally divided into nations . . ." (Kedourie, l966:9), then "ethnicism" would be the doctrine which holds that humanity is naturally divided into ethnoses. Smith (1971) makes a distinction between "ethno- centric" nationalism and "polycentric" nationalism: 14 For an "ethnocentric" nationalist, both "power" and "value" inhere in his cultural group. Indeed, these dimensions are inseparable. . . . Whatever the factual distribution of power at a given time, real strength, being God-given, is not to the mighty of the earth, but to those who stand in a special relationhip with the divine. . . . In the Greek context, the hubris of a Xerxes, not Greek prowess, brings about the Great King's debacle. It is Zeus, who in Aeschylus' Persae over- throws Xerxex . . . "Polycentric" nationalism, by contrast, resembles the dialogue of many actors on a common stage. As the term implies, this kind of nationalism starts from the premise that there are many centers of real power. . . . "Polycentric" nationalism is of course no Iess concerned with the collective self: but it conceives its role in very different terms. It seeks to join the "family of nations," the international drama of status equals, to find its apprOpriate identity and part (Smith 1971: 158-159). The distinction between these two types of nationalism is, of course, purely analytical. According to Smith (1971: 160, 1971), however, "polycentric" nationalism was virtually non-existent before the French Revolution. An application of this distinction at the level of ethnicity seems relevant. "Ethnocentric" ethnicism would be the doctrine that both "power" and "value" inhere in one's group because of its special relationship with the devine. "Polycentric" ethnicism, on the other hand, would be the doctrine which admits that there are many centers of "real" power. We would further speculate that "poly- centric" ethnicism, like its counterpart in nationalism, is a historical type which emerged in modern times. Although Geertz (1963:54) remarks that "the integrative revolution does not do away with ethnocentrism; it merely modernizes it," we feel it necessary to make an analytical distinction 15 between "modernized ethnocentrism" which we call "poly- centric" ethnicism, and pre-modern ethnocentrism or "ethnocentric" ethnicism.. This is because we suspect that "mere modernity" of polycentric ethnicism involves a funda- mental change in the over-all worldview which differentiates it from "ethnocentric" ethnicism. This analytical distinction enables us to clarify certain confusion sometimes found in the definition of ethnicity. Aronson (1976), for example, attempts to define what is "ethnic" in terms of ideology. According to his definition: [E]thnicity is an ideology of and for value dissensus and disengagement from an inclusive socio- political arena, that is, for pursing major values deemed not shared by others in the arena (Aronson, 1976:14—15). We suSpect that this definition might be untenable in the light of numerous examples of multi-ethnic empires. Although there must have been "value dissensus" among various con- stituent units with an ancient multi-ethnic empire, it is doubtful whether ethnicity in such a context was always an ideology of and for "disengagement from an inclusive socio- political arena." In our terminology, "ethnocentric" ethnicism holds that real power and value inhere in one's own group regardless of factual distribution of power. Aronson (1976:15) himself points out that "this is not to say that ethnic ideologies do not entail strategies of behavioral involvement in a common political system, for they may direct that the system, as a set of means, be 16 played fully to capture resources sufficient for accomr plishing the desired ends. . . . To be involved at the level of behavior is not necessarily to be engaged in ideologi— cally." Different types of power structure, however, force ethnic groups to take various forms of "involvement in a common political system." Our distinction between "poly- centric" and "ethnocentric" requires to consider whether "behavioral involvement in a common political system" may not be conceived differently by "polycentric" and "ethno- centric" ethnicists. Insofar as we do not understand others, there is, subjectively, neither agreement nor dis- agreement. In order that "value dissensus" appears as a subjective reality at all, both one's value and the value of others have to be recognized: both of them are "value," although they may be incompatible. It follows that "value dissensus" becomes subjectively relevant only in the con- text of "polycentric" ethnicity. What is the connection between "value dissensus" and "disengagement from an inclusive sociopolitical arena"? Is there any necessary connection? There seems to exist a certain analogy between "ethnic ideology" and "divorce ideology." The "divorce ideology" is an "ideology of and for value dissensus and disengagement from an inclusive soci0political arena." Is it, however, not rhetoric of divorce, rather than a definition of it? A bad marriage, ipso facto, becomes, a result of "value dissensus": it seems to be our hindsight that produces "value dissensus." 17 We are afraid that Aronson's definition of ethnicity in terms of ideology might merely reify "ethnicity" which is, in fact, a human product. If "ethnicity" is a human product, then, what we have to do is to explicate the processes of the production of ethnicity. We have argued that "value dissensus" becomes sub- jectively relevant in the context of "polycentric" ethni- city. Why does it become relevant at all? We suggest that one of the crucial factors that make "value dissensus" subjectively relevant is the nature of the power structure; it is the nature of "an inclusive sociopolitical arena," rather than "value dissensus" itself, that brings about the "ideology of value dissensus." If, as Aronson suggests, "disengagement from an inclusive sociopolitical arena” is simply to pursue "major values deemed not shared by others in the arena," his definition of ethnicity would not fit many cases of contemporary ethnicity, where competitive tendencies are more dominant than leave-us-alone tendencies. In other words, contemporary ethnic politicians are playing the same game in which "value dissensus” is a means rather than a cause, (whereas "ethnocentric" ethnicists simply play different games). Our disagreement with Aronson is this: while he suggests that "a common political system" may be used as "a set of means" by ethnic groups, we argue that "ethnicity" may be used as a means in a common political system. We suspect that Aronson reifies "ethnicity" so that he assumes 18 that different "ethnic ideologies," which are given, are bound to disengage themselves from a common political arena. We, on the other hand, see "ethnicity" in its processes of formation within power structure. We argue that "ethnicity" as such is by no means an "ideology of and for disengagement"; it is rather a problem of power structure in which "ethnicity" appears in various forms. We pursue this problem of power structure and ethnicity in the following sections. Ethnos, Nation, and State Thus far, we have relied upon the anology between nationalism and "ethnicism." Yet, are they the same thing? We have been dealing with them in terms of ideology. Let us now turn to the objective and subjective conditions of "nationality" and "ethnicity." Brass (1976) formulated a continuum of ethnicity and nationality. Three critical points on this continuum are, (l) ethnic category, (2) ethnic community, and (3) nationality. "Ethnic category" is "any group of people dissimilar from other peOples in terms of objective cultural criteria" (1976:226), but whose members do not have any subjective solidarity. "Ethnic community" is a group of peOple objectively distinct from their neighbors and subjectively conscious of this fact. In the political arena, the ethnic community may function either as an interest group or as a group which demands "corporate l9 recognition for the group as a whole with a right to control the public systems" (1976:226). "Nationality" is an ethnic community which has succeeded in controlling some of the public systems. This continuum is totally a-historical. The power structure of modern state is taken for granted. Although he, willy-nilly, refers to "modernization," change in the objective basis of ethnicity is not adequately related to this continuum. The sole variable of this con- tinuum seems to be "subjective solidarity": "the infusion of subjective and symbolic meanings into merely objective divisions between peoples" (1976:227). In this scheme, "merely objective divisions between peOples" are treated as if they are static phenomena un- changed from time immemorial, ready to be activated whenver "subjective and symbolic meanings" are fused into them. This is because, in this scheme, the power structure of modern state is taken for granted so that the dynamic relationships between the power structure and the "merely objective divisions between peoples" do not appear to be relevant in his frame of reference. It seems necessary for us to inquire into the problem of power structure and its bearing upon ethnicity. Francis (1976) is very explicit in her rejection of the "ethnicist" conceptualization of "nation." She "eventually realized" that "'nation' was a political con- cept, which became intelligible only in its relationship to the nation-state" (1976:xvi); and that "the nation, 20 which the nation-state subsists, was a "historical type" in the sense of Max Weber, and a product of Europe, whence it has spread to the other parts of the world" (1976: xvi-xvii). Smith (1971:186-191), on the other hand attempts to define the term "nation," with reservations, "in the broad 'ethnicist' sense." He enumerates seven features of the nation: (1) cultural differentiae, (2) territorial contiguity with free mobility throughout, (3) a relatively large scale, (4) external political relations of conflict and alliance with similar groups, (5) considerable group sentiment and loyalty, (6) direct membership with equal citizenship rights, and (7) vertical economic integration around a common system of labour (1971:186). He points out that the first two features plus a common kinship network give a working definition of the "tribe," while the first five characteristics (minus the kinship basis) give the definition of the large politicised "ethnie" (1971:186-187). He rightly dismisses the definition in which group sentiment is taken to serve as the sole definiens of the nation because this cannot differentiate national sentiment from any other group feelings. He distinguishes "nation-state" and "state- nation" (1971:189). The former is a "nation" with d3 fagtg territorial sovereignty, while the latter is a "nation-state" without the features (1) and (5) mentioned above. It was only after the French Revolution 21 that the people, not just "the first and second estates," has become the "nation" (Smith, 1971:191; Francis, 1976:56, 72). But, what was the social environment in which this type of (people's) nation emerged? Because the emergence of "nation" is closely tied up with the advent of a parti- cular type of political structure, it would be necessary to turn briefly to the historical development of this type of power structure. Francis (1976:43-115) distinguishes two types of political power structure: that is, "the demotic type" and "the empire type." In the former type, people are linked directly to the supreme authority through a system of separate institutions. In the latter, groups of peOple are linked collectively to the supreme authority through the mediating elite. The modern states, including the pre- national modern states and the nation-states, belong to the former. Ancient and modern empires and feudal power structures belong to the latter. The significance of ethnicity varies in different types of power structure. The crucial point of the distinction between the demotic type and the empire type, in terms of its bearing on ethnicity, is that, in the empire-type, ethnic differences or similarities have no immediate political relevance because social integration of an empire depends on the mediating elite that shares a common "high culture." As far as the empire can manage to deal with conflicting 22 interests among the elite, "the internal conditions of its constituent units are of no immediate relevance to the maintenance of the imperial super-structure" (Francis, 1976:57). Within the empire, therefore, we find two distinctive layers of culture: "mutually exclusive homo- geneous societies with separate traditions and folk cultures" (1976:57), on the one hand, and a "high culture" of the elite of various ethnic composition, on the other. Latent ethnic divisions become politically relevant only when some regional groups within the elite seek greater autonomy vis-a-vis the central political authority. However, since the lower layers of the empire consist of multiplicity of mutually exclusive social units, the "nations" are first formed within the circle of elite. As the adOption of vernaculars (such as a regional £9153) within the elite circle illustrates (Francis, 1976:56), the "national" culture is essentially a deliberate creation of the regional elite. (It is interesting to note that the organization of European medieval universities are divided into "nations." "The University of Paris had four nations: 1'honorable nation de France, la fidéle nation de Picardie, la vénérable nation de Normandie, and la constante nation de Germaie" (Kedourie, 1966:13). The term "nationalism" seems to have first used in reference to factionalism among the Leipzig professors (Smith, 1971:167). The "modern state" is characterized by its direct and continuous exercise of power over the whole pOpulation 23 within its territorial boundaries. The early form of this type of power structure is represented by the European absolutist state (Francis, 1976:61-67). ‘In this form of power structure, considerations for rational statecraft ultimately leads to a direct interference with the lower layers of "traditional" social structures. This direct state interference with the whole pOpulation from t0p to bottom initiate the processes of "nationalization," or "processes of demotic integration" (1976:114). Smith (1971:230-236) presents two historical sequences of power structures that led to the emergence of first nation-states. In these two sequences, the key con- cept is the "scientific state," which immediately precedes the emergence of nation state, and which corresponds, by and large, to Francis' concept of the ”prenational modern state." The "scientific state" is "a polity which seeks to homogenize the population within its boundaries for administrative purposes by utilizing the latest scientific techniques and methods for the sake of 'efficiency'" (1971:231). The first scientific states emerged, histori— cally, from two types of power structure; that is, "empire" and "possessive state." Two elements of empires, which are later integrated into the structure of scientific state, are "conquest" segregation and "cosmopolitan" assimilation (1971:232). The third element integrated into scientific state derives from the possessive state: "a definite tendency to level down all intermediate structure between State and 24 individual and tie the influential elites to the State's bureaucratic structure" (1971:234). It was the possessive state of Western Eur0pe that first transformed itself into the scientific state. This technique of statecraft was later adopted by the empires outside Western Europe. In both cases, the above-mentioned three elements were com- bined in varying degrees. But, the new, fourth element, which differentiates the scientific state from its pre- decessors, was introduced; that is, "the attempt to apply the latest scientific methods and techniques to the problems of government" (1971:234). What are the effects of the emergence of "scienti— fic state" (or "prenational modern state") in terms of its bearing upon ethnicity? The application of universalistic principles in direct state administration sets in motion the processes of cultural homogenisation (or "nationaliza- tion"). This trend comes into a direct contradiction with the discriminatory principle ("conquest" segregation) inherited from previous phase. The processes of homogeniza- tion, at the same time, produce "sociological minorities." The novelty in their situations are not simply that they are culturally different from the core groups of the state, but that the new socio—political environment makes the difference more salient so that they are made conscious of the fact. The adoption of a standard language and other integration policies by the state works, more often than not, against these "sociological minorities." Their 25 exclusion from social Opportunities, which are supposed to open, according to the universalistic principles of the "scientific state," to the whole population, is felt intolerable "exactly because the usual legitimations for inequality are absent" (Smith, 1971:235) from the ideology of scientific state. The above discussions lead us to a conclusion: even though "ethnic groups" existed before the advent of modern state, "ethnic problems" in a modern sense did not exist. These "problems" have not so much to do with "ethnic groups" as such. They are "problems" of the social environment which the power structure of modern state has brought about. Before the emergence of modern state, the "cosmic image" and the society were coterminous. Even where some political power structure embraced heterogeneous constituent units, the flow of communication within the structure was such that the messages were molded, through the mediating agent, into terms of each respective constituent unit. (The mode of mediation, of course, varies. Bailey's study (1969:144ff) of various modes of ”encapsulation" would be relevant here. Related to this is the problem of "Center- Periphery" relations. See, for instance, Lerner (1966), Shils (1961), and Staniland (1970).) The modern state, however, tended to abolish the mediators; so that the direct power of state would prevail within its boundaries. Moreover, the exercise of state power, in its ideal typical form, was based on "scientific rationality." It was not 26 simply a confrontation of different "cosmic images" at the same level. Every "cosmic image" has a "center" (Eliade, 1958:367-387) but, there is, as it were, no "center" in scientific rationality: or it is like a "sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumpherence is nowhere." (One can, of course, read some "meaning" into scientific rationality, so that it would become "European." This, however, has nothing to do with scientific rationality itself.) The result was that the "traditional" cosmic image lost its protective barriers, and was no longer coterminous with the world that had come to be filled with "scientific rationality." Nettle (1968:588) remarks that "one fruitful way of defining politics is to characterize it as the one social area of normlessness--where the very process of action is concerned not with implementation of, or deviation from, established norms but with the business of establishing norms in the first place." It seems therefore that the emergence of modern state administration Opened up a large, new area of politics within the state boundaries. But, how can the boundaries of state themselves be justified if the state contains only a huge area of normlessness? If the state's sole function consists in the application of scientific rationality for the sake of administrative efficiency, what does it matter whether Englishmen govern America, or Americans govern the Phillipines? It seems that universalistic principles of state administration 27 contradict the existence of state boundaries itself. What is the raison d'etre of the state boundaries? What is the "content" of the state? Once the "frame" is established, one has to fill it with norms-~by means of "politics." So long as the king is alive, "L'état, c'est moi." But, once the king is guillotined, the "nation" takes his place. Although the process of cultural homogenization was, at first, carried out for the sake of administrative efficiency, the end product of this process, the "nation," in turn, came to be regarded as the source of "values" and "meaning" of the state: hence, the "nation-state." Once this pattern was established, later state- builders (especially, "ethnic nationalists“) followed this sequence upside-down; the national values were presumed to be given; they, then, tried to construct the state as a promoter—protector of the national values. One of the con- temporary witnesses of early ”ethnic" nationalism, Friedrich Nietzsche, who deSpised the movement, (for that matter, any collectivist movement) made a perceptive remark in 1873: To ascribe predicate to a people is always dangerous; in the end, everything is so mixed up that a unity develops only late, through the language--or an illusion of unity. Germans, German Reich--that is something. Those speaking German--that is something too. But those of German race! What is German as a quality of artistic style--that is yet to be found, just as among the Greeks the Greek style was found only late: an earlier unity did not exist, only a terrible mixture (quoted in Kaufman, 1954:41). The "ethnic nationalists" who strive to build modern states are, however, not "ethnocentric" nationalists in our 28 terminology: their barriers of closed cosmic image have already been broken down by the intrusion of the idea and/or the actual power of modern state. What they now try to do is to establish state barriers, which are supposed to be a protector-promoter of their actual or putative national values. They cannot but accept a set of universalistic principles upon which the functioning of modern state is based. Their particularistic national values could be real- ized only if they participate in universalistic principles. Their mode of behavior could be characterized as, in the words of Smith (1971:236-254), "dual legitimation." Ethnicity in the Modern State We shall now turn to the problem of ethnicity after the advent of modern state. Historically, as we have seen, the modern state first emerged in western Europe. Its "defusion" into other parts of the world took several differ- ent routes. But, we could safely say that the modern state, (in theory, if not in practice), has become accepted as the standard political power structure after decoloniali- zation virtually throughout the world. Francis (1976) distinguishes three categories of ethnicity: "primary ethnic groups," "secondary ethnic groups," and "ethnic categories.“ The primary ethnic group is "a viable corporate unit," which functions as "a closed subsociety able to satisfy the basic social needs of its members," whose participation in the larger society "tends 29 to be indirect in all dimensions" (1976:167-208, 397). The secondary ethnic group is a group in the larger society, whose members participate directly in the larger society, whose members participate directly in the larger society in some dimensions (1976:215-250, 396). The ethnic category is "a number of people who are identified with a particular ethnic unit other than the national core . . ." (1976:296). A key criterion of this classification seems to be the level of "participation." Francis (1976:396) distin- guishes three levels of participation: connubium (or, affinal kinship ties), commensalitas (or, convivial activities), and commercium (or, a purely functional, particularly economic, COOperation). Since these three "levels" can be seen as a continuum, the three categories of ethnicity would also be regarded as forming a continuum. In terms of formation of ethnic groups, "transfer" seems to be a key concept of Francis' ethnic theory. "Transfer" involves both endogenous and exogenous factors. A main endogenous factor is "nationalization," which is initiated by the emergence of modern state. In the process of "nationalization," the relationships of groups to their social environments are altered, so that some of them become "national minorities," while others become assimilated into the national core. Major exogenous factors are "change in political boundaries" (such as annexation) and "migration." 30 "Transfer" may be either collective or individual. Migrations, by and large, tend to be individual, while "endogenous transfer" and "change in political boundaries" result in collective transfer. Francis (1976:169-1970) remarks that collective transfer tends to bring about the formation of primary ethnic group, while individual transfer tends to result in the formation of secondary ethnic group. “Transfer" occurs either between "isomorphic" societies or between "heteromorphic" societies. Francis (1976:225) posits that "individual transfer" between "heteromorphic" societies tends to result in the formation of secondary ethnic groups, while "individual transfer" between "isomorphic" sOcieties does not result in any formation of ethnic group. Therefore, she maintains, "it is not the contents of a culture but its structural differ- ences that bring about the formation of secondary ethnic groups" (1976:241). As illustrations of this point, she presents examples of "quasi-ethnic groups" which are brought about as a result of transfer between "heteromor— phic" societies: they are "Okies" in the Grapes of wrath, "hillbillies" in northern cities, the German expellees after the Second World War, and the Poles in the Western Territories (1976:241-247). Although there are some exceptions such as the Mennonites in Manitoba and the Mormons at a certain point in history (1976:1972-189), the primary ethnic groups are 31 usually formed under preindustrial conditions, and culturally differentiated further in the process of "nationalization." They function "in a manner similar . . .Lto ethnic units in premodern society, notably in the empire" (1976:1971). It seems that Francis' theoretical framework is able to deal only with "acculturation" (or, in her own term, "transculturation") and "external assimilation," i.e., "assimilation" without subjective factors (for this latter concept, see Johnston, 1963). Although she seems to be aware of the difference between "acculturation" and "assimilation" (for the discussions on this subject, see Teske and Nelson, 1974; Parenti, 1967), she fails to deal with subjective aspects of assimilation. This is most evident in her treatment of what she calls "ethnic cate- gories," which are supposed to be a mode of existence of ethnicity between "ethnic group" and "absorption." In the end, she abandons the concept "assimilation" and shifts her emphasis to "integration," i.e., "the processes by which components of the social structure are assigned a status in such a way that no major social problems arise to threaten the social order" (1976:295). We could perhaps repeat the words she herself wrote with regard to the con- cept "nation": "integration" is "not a scientific but a political concept." Then, how can we deal with "subjective" aSpects of ethnicity? We will touch upon this problem in 32 the following discussions concerning ethnic dynamics in the modern state. Let us clarify what we understand by the words "ethnic change." First, there seems to be two modes of ethnic change; individual and collective. Individual ethnic change is relatively straightforward. If one crossed or "passed" ethnic boundaries, one would change his ethnicity. This, however, does not affect the ethnic boundaries themselves. Barth (1969:22-26) documents some cases in which, despite a constant flow of personnel across the ethnic boundaries, the boundaries themselves are maintained. In the classic study of the Nuer, Evans- Pritchard (1940:221ff) already described these phenomena in the context of the integration Of Dinkas into the Nuer. It is, however, logically possible that all the members of an ethnic group cross over to another ethnic group so that the ethnic boundaries disappear. Is it, however, possible for an ethnic group to change its ethnic identity collectively? (See Teske and Nelson (1974:361-363.) They are not sure about this possi- bility. Francis (1976:297-300) discusses only "collective integration" which may not involve change in ethnic identity.) Is it not self-contradictory to talk about a collectivity and the non-existence of its boundaries at the same time? This riddle seems to be concerned with some sort of "ontology of sociology." Do the ethnic boundaries really exist? Or, only members and non-members exist? 33 Yet, even if there was no member, the "boundaries" still might exist. Even if we killed all the flies, we still could not liquidate the idea of "fly." It seems necessary here to distinguish two dimensions of ethnic change. One dimension is change in ”quality" of ethnic boundaries. The other is change in "extension" of ethnic boundaries. The former has to do with Francis' three categories of ethnicity. It deals with the objective solidarity of ethnic group, the degree of which would be expressed in terms of individual participation in the larger society; as the degree of participation increases, the ethnic solidarity decreases. Change in "extension" of ethnic boundaries, however, appears to belong to another dimension. The "extension" of ethnic boundaries has to do with the dimension in which individuals are related to an "ethnic category" regardless of objective relationships of the individuals concerned. Horowitz (1975) presents some relevant empirical cases of the latter type of ethnic change, in which groups change their ethnic identities collectively. Perhaps what is crucial here is to clarify the relationship between "group" and "category." Francis (1976) often appears to regard "group" and "category" as mutually exclusive: if one is a member of a "primary ethnic group," one is not a member of an "ethnic category." But, this is a gross mistake. As Mair (1972:16) puts it, . . . to say someone must belong to either a group 95 a 34 category is like saying he must live either in London or Wednesday." Let us take a concrete example. "Italian American" is, first of all, an ethnic category. But, are the Italian Americans a "primary ethnic group," a "secondary ethnic group," an "ethnic category," and/or none of them? Yancey et a1. (1976:392) remark that "the monolithic treat- ment of ethnicity . . . has not paid attention to differences within an ethnic group." It seems that "an ethnic group" in the cited sentence above refers to an ethnic category in our terminology. It follows that we have to imagine the situations in which some members of the ethnic category "Italian Americans" live in "primary ethnic" groups, while others live in "secondary ethnic groups," and still others do not belong to any ethnic group. But, why do all these diverse members have to belong to the'same ethnic category? What is the relationship of formation and dissolution of "ethnic groups" to those of "ethnic categories"? Francis deals with the formation and dissolution of "ethnic groups" but fails to do so with regard to "ethnic categories." Are "ethnic categories" something irrelevant in the study of ethnicity? Are they some sort of, as Francis seems to imply, remnant of "ethnic groups"? Francis' key variable in her theory of ethnic formation and dissolution is, as we have pointed out, "external assimilation" which is not concerned with sub- jective factors of ethnic identity. In her theoretical scheme, such "assimilation" occurs at three levels; 35 connubium, commensalitas, and commercium. This would be useful to inquire into the degree of solidality of ethnic boundaries at a micro-level. Such inquiries, however, would only reveal that the members of the same ethnic category form different types of "ethnic groups" from one place to another with varying degrees of solidarity. It seems that the inquiry at this level of "ethnicity" cannot deal with the existence of "ethnic categories" itself. The fault of Francis' theory of ethnic formation and dissolution is that she tends to regard "ethnic group" and "ethnic category" as mutually exclusive and does not consider that they belong to different dimensions of ethnic phenomena. She seems to regard "ethnic categories" as a sort of remnant of "ethnic groups." We have, however, suggested that the formation and dissolution of "ethnic groups" have no necessary link to those of "ethnic cate- gories." It seems that "ethnic categories" are essentially a macro-level phenomenon which is not necessarily dependent upon micro-level ethnicity. While the relationship of an individual to an "ethnic group" has to be mediated by objective ties, he can be linked to an "ethnic category" without objective ties. The former occurs at the dimension of "quality" of ethnic boundaries, whereas the latter occurs at the dimension of "extension" of ethnic boundaries. In other words, an individual is linked to an "ethnic group" and to an "ethnic category" in different modes. 36 If, as we have suggested, "ethnic categories" are not simply a reflection of "ethnic groups," how are these "ethnic categories" formed in the first place? We have said that "ethnic categories" are a macro-level phenomenon, that is to say, a phenomenon which cannot be deduced from the lower levels of ethnic phenomena. We would suggest that "ethnic categories" are established at the macro-level of politics. The formation and dissolution of "ethnic categories" are, therefore, essentially a political problem. This is the point of view which Francis herself maintained with regard to the concept "nation": "a political concept does not serve to state facts but to express intentions" (1976:69). It seems that, in order to deal with "ethnicity," we have to be concerned not only with "factual reality" but also "political reality." Even if we denied the existence of "ethnic category" as an "illusion,” it would not do away with the "existence of illusion." (Or, as Mearns (quoted in Jacob, 1975:67) versifies it: As I was going up the stair / I met a man who wasn't there / He wasn‘t there today, / I wish, I wish he'd stay away.) We are now in the midst of nebulous labyrinth called politics. Before we discuss the problem of "ethnic politics," however, let us first turn to a brief discussion of the relationship of "names" and "things. " It is said, in logic, that the "Morning Star," the "Evening Star," the "Venus," and the "second planet from 37 the sun" have a different connotation, while they have the same denotation. But, this was not always so. It was only after the astronomers discovered that the "Morning Star" and the "Evening Star" were the "same thing," that they have come to have the same "denotation." If someone dis- covers another new planet between the sun and the Venus, then the "second planet from the sun" and the "Venus" will not have the same "denotation." Ethnic politics seems to be concerned with essen- tially these denotation/connotation relationships. Ethnic politicians try to establish that some individuals are the "same thing." But, individuals have a different "connota- tion." In its highest specificity of connotation, it is identical to the subject itself. In its highest generality, it would be identical to "humanity," the "living creature," or simply, the "being." Plax (1976:22-23) distinguishes two types of collectivity; noninstitutional collectivity and institutional collectivity. The noninstitutional collectivity is "a group not defined by the rules of the system." The institutional collectivity, on the other hand, implies the system of rules. Then, what are the criteria of this distinction at the level of behavior? Suppose the collectivity is A, and the collective behavior is A- behavior: In the case of the institutional group, A- behavior is that behavior which is manifested by (a, b, c, . . . n), i.e., the group members, together. A- behavior is what A, as a collectivity does; it is unified behavior. 38 Noninstitutional groups seem to have different characteristics. "A- behavior" in their case, means: "a- behavior,” ”b- behavior," . . . "n- behavior." This formulation refers not to a characteristic of a unitary group, not a group-oriented behavior, but to the behavior of specific individuals. A- behavior means "what it is that a, b, c, . . . n do as indi- viduals" (Plax, 1976:23). In other words, institutional group behavior is "denotative," while noninstitutional group behavior is "connotative." As Plax points out, ethnicity in modern state cannot be regarded as an institutional collectivity. But, if so, how can "ethnicity" be a relevant concept in sociology? Plax (1976:25) suggests that ethnicity can be defined as the "excluded": That which links ethnicity to politics is the View that focuses on the shred consciousness of ethnic group members on their heathenness. In other words, to the extent that ethnicity is relevant, it can be defined in terms whose content emphasizes exclusion. . . . Ethnicity functions to relate individual to the system, ironically, by reminding individuals of their unrelated- ness. Ethnicity, then, reinforces a particular role-- the role of the outsider (Plax, 1976:26). This gives ethnicity a character of quasi- institutional collectivity. However, it does not neces- sarily mean that the ethnic collectivity has positive rules of its own system. The consciousness of "exclusion" does not derive from ethnicity as such, it is primarily a function of the larger society, or, in the modern context, the state power structure. Yet, the consciousness of exclusion may not be that of "ethnicity": it may be based on other more "formal" or "contractual" relations. Why, then, does the consciousness 39 of exclusion take the form of ethnicity at all; the form which seems to be spreading throughout the world these days? One reason commonly suggested is the develOpment of world4wide communciation networks which has brought about the "diffusion" of this particular form of "consciousness of exclusion." But, why is it accepted at all by so many peOples in the world? One reason often suggested is psy- chological: the combination of an interest and affective tie, "primordial attachments,” "basic group identity," etc. Another reason we suggest here is the very vagueness of the "denotation" of ethnicity as a fertile field of politics. If one's role in the system is defined in terms of formal and contractual relations, the extension of a category to which one belongs would be unambiguous. Ethnicity in the modern state, on the other hand, lacks (in most of the cases) an over-all formal structure. Ethnic politics, therefore, exploits a "connotation" of individuals. Ethnic politics of connotation is based on an egocentric perception of one's place in the world; it links individuals to the "idea" of ethnicity without the medium of formal relations. Cohen (1976) posits that the anthropologist's task is to explicate the dialectial relation between "symbolic order" and "power order." The "power order" primarily con- sists of economic and political relations. The major a5pects of "symbolic order" anthrOpologists used to deal ‘with are "kinship" and "ritual.". Both kinship and ritual are "normative, governed by categorical imperatives . . . 40 that are rooted in the psychic structure ofmen in society through continuous socialization" (1976:23). He further argues that "social personality," as a collectivity of roles, can be segmented only to a limited degree (1976: 54-55). The oneness of selfhood is necessary if the indi- vidual could function normally in society. Such selfhood is achieved only in the contexts of those personal inter- actions which involve the totality of one's personality; such as the contexts of symbolic order (1976:55). But, in the modern state, the power order and the symbolic order do not usually coincide. It follows that there are some areas within the structure of modern state, where relations are only formal. Cohen (1976:66) argues that what constitutes the "bony structure of power" within the state is "interest group." Interest groups can be organized formally. But, when, "for some reason," the groups cannot organize them- selves on formal principles, they exploit "the perennial problems of man," i.e., the problem of selfhood: they organize themselves on informal principles which are based on "categorical imperatives," rather than contractual relations. His thesis on ethnicity (1976:91-98) is this: an ethnic group in the modern state is an interest group that exploits parts of traditional culture. He maintains that an ethnic group is an essentially new social form which the emergence of modern state has brought about. The study of 41 culture as such, therefore, has little relevance to the elucidation of ethnicity in modern society: . . . culture is not an independent system, but is a collection of diverse types of norms, values, beliefs, practices and symbols which, through affecting one another, are largely systematised, or structured, in social situations. Ethnicity therefore can be under- stood only when it is analysed within the contexts of new social situations (Cohen, 1976:96). From this point of view, ethnicity is a "funda- mentally political phenomenon“ (1976:97). It is an interest group that has become ethnic, rather than "primordial attachments" that have grown into an ethnic group. What, then, differentiates "ethnic interest group" from other types of interest group? Cohen (1976:97) answers to this question by saying that "an ethnic group has no explicitly stated aims and is not rationally and bureaucratically organized." It follows that, if an ethnic group has come to constitute part of the formal structure of the state, it is "no longer an ethnic group, but a province or a region” (1976:97). But, it should be noted that there is always a possibility of forming "informal interest group" even within a formally organized structure. Although Cohen sometimes seems to imply the existence of a certain normative system among all the members of an "ethnic group," it would be more correct to say that they constitute mobilizable individuals by appeal- ing to the "connotation" of their identities. When the generality of the connotation increases, the denotation becomes large in extension. In its maximum, therefore, its 42 psychological potency as a mobilizing power would be low. When, on the other hand, the specificity of the connotation increases, the denotation become small in extension. In its maximum, it coincides with an individual, losing its political relevance. We consider this formulation useful because ethni- city has so often been treated as if it is a closed cultural system. It is true that, in some contexts, ethnic con- flicts appear in such a way that their "ideologies" are incompatible. But we suspect that such formulations of "conflicting ideologies" reflect a horizontal and uni— dimensional View of the world divided into units each of which is filled with consensus. Such a view does not seem to fit many modern multi-ethnic situations. We tried to avoid visualizing "ethnic boundaries" as if they are geo- metric lines fixed on Space. This seems to be a necessary step to explicate the dynamics of ethnic politics. Let us summarize our discussions on the subject of ethnic dynamics. We have distinguished two dimensions of ethnic change: change in "quality" of ethnic boundaries and change in "extension" of ethnic boundaries. We have suggested that the two types of change may occur indepen— dently. This point was illustrated by the fact that an ethnic category in the modern state normally includes diverse members in the category whose individual partici- pation in the larger society varies widely in degree. Social relevance of the ethnic category to which these 43 diverse members belong, therefore, has to do with the macro-level social phenomena: change in "extension" of ethnic boundaries is concerned with this level. Individuals who are included within the extension may not be "objectively" circumscribed by the boundaries. The inclusion of indi- viduals in the extension may not necessarily be mediated by one's "objective" relations to Others. It is concerned with a question whether one is the "same thing" as the others who are supposed to belong to a certain ethnic cate- gory. But an ethnic category is an elusive thing. The villagers of a such-and-such village, for example, would be defined in terms of "objective" relationships. But, all we can say about "ethnicity" is that it has something to do with "origin," and that individuals are linked to it through the medium of "certain attributes." What are these "cer- tain attributes"? We have introduced two concepts; "connota- tion" and "denotation." We have pointed out that indi- viduals have a different "connotation," and that the question whether some of them have the same "denotation" or not is subject to the macro-level social dynamics. That the "Morning Star" and the "Evening Star" are the "same thing" depends on the "agreement of the wise men." In the case of astronomy, however, we could safely assume the "objective existence" of the Venus. Baboons, gorillas, and men have the same "denotation"; that is, "primate." There is, however, no "objective existence" of primate: "primate" is ideal. In the case of ethnicity, we cannot 44 assume the "objective existence" of ethnic category either. But, the establishment of an ethnic category calls for "certain attributes." The medium of "certain attributes" through which individuals are linked to an ethnic category may vary: one may be an Italian because of his "blood," or because of his general way of life, etc. Moreover, the level of "ethnic category itself would vary: it might be at the level of "primate," or at the level of "mammalian." (We have suggested this in our discussions of "segmentation of descent.") In the case of zoological systematics, however, we could establish certain "objective attributes" for each taxonomic unit; while, in the case of ethnic cate- gory, the level of abstraction of these "certain attri- butes" would remain unstable. All we could say would be this: the ethnic category is established at the macro-level of social dynamics regardless of its reference; and indi- vidual relationships to this category are only connotative. We have suggested "substructure" of ethnic dynamics. The "ethnic category" may be utilized as a principle of KL recruitment into an informal social organization where formal organizations have failed to accommodate certain segments of the populace within a modern state. As Cohen suggests, it might be an interest group. However, it would be wrong to suppose that all the members of an ethnic category somehow share the same interests. In this reSpect, Plax's suggestion that ethnicity is a quasi- institutional collectivity due to the consciousness of 45 exclusion would be relevant. This formulation of ethnicity’ A does not call for a closed system of ethnicity. CHAPTER 2 ETHNICITY IN OKINAWA We are going to discuss "ethnicity" in an empirical context; that is, Okinawan "ethnicity." However, it would be necessary first to review general ethnic situations in Japan. As Isaac (1975:185) has remarked, "by almost all the definitions, Japan is probably the truest 'nation' on earth and one of the few that can actually be called a 'nation- state.'" This seems to be a widely accepted view of Japan. But, how do the Japanese themselves think of "Japan"? For the Japanese, "Japan" is so "natural" a social entity that they can hardly think of what it really is. Is Japan a nation, or a state, or a geographical unit, or something else? "Is Japan a State?" was actually a title of a symposium held in 1969 (Nakamura, 1970). Before the end of the Second World War, it was said that Japan was unique among the nations because of her kokutai. Although the meaning of the kokutai was extremely obscure, it was supposed to signify some sort of "essence" of Japan. According to Anzu (quoted in Kitagawa, 1974:209): "If you regard a State as a form or container the contents that fill this form or container is the reality of a state, 46 47 that is the kokutai." But, how is the "Japanese nation" related to the kokutai? It is well known that, before the Meiji Restoration in 1868, there was a very weak conscious- ness of the Japanese as a "nation" (see, for example, Craig, 1968; Steiner, 1968). Man was, first of all, either a samurai or a commoner. A samurai was, in turn, a man of such and such a hag. Both vertically and horizontally, therefore, there was no unity of Japanese as a "nation." It seems that "nation" was a concept imported from the West. It was Fukzawa Yukichi, a westernizer of Meiji Japan, who remarked that there was only a government, but not a nation, in Meiji Japan. The "people" failed to appear as a carrier of "national values": it was the "emperor system" (Tenno-sei) that became the "content" of the Meiji State. (It should be noted that all such words as socity (shakai), nation (kokumin), race (jinshi), etc., were coined in the process of Japanese modernization after 1868. Even the term Tenno was finally fixed as the designation of the Japanese emperor well after the Meiji Restoration (Kamei, 1974).) In what sense, then, is Japan a nation? The formation of "Japanese nation" cannot be separated from the formation of "modern," Meiji state. Japan's entry into the "family of nations" was a traumatic experience. There were both "assimilationist" actions and "nativist" reactions. The ”assimilationist" tendency is most clearly represented by Fukuzawa. He wrote in 1866: 48 Buddhism is a cult. Confucianism is also a cult. . . . In Japan there is another cult called something like the spirit of Yamato. . . . But if we would be civilized gentlemen, we must first broaden our knowh ledge and familiarize ourselves with conditions in all the countries in the world. Let universal ethnical principles (sekai no dori) be determined by competitive bidding (nyusatsu); if that which the millions in the world say is true should be contrary to our cult, then we should resolutely change our religion and enter the gate of the cult called international law (quoted in Craig, 1968:104-105). However, the advocates of "assimilation," including Fukuzawa himself, gradually began to shift into "nationalist" ("polycentric nationalist" in our terminology) positions (Craig, 1968). Japanese scholars often distinguish two types of nationalism; Kokuminshugi and Kokkashugi (see, for instance, Havens, 1974:184ff; H. D. Smith, 1975:142ff). Kokuminshugi nationalism is populist, anti-bureaucratic, and decentral- ized, while Kokkashugi nationalism is bureaucratic and centralized. Kokuminshugi nationalism holds that the "essence" of nation exists at the grass-root level, so that "parochialism" does not contradict the idea of nation. Kokkashugi nationalism, on the other hand, holds that the orthodoxy of state has to replace parochial heterodoxies. The Kokutai ideology appears to be Kokkashugi nationalism, while Yanagida Kunio's "New National Learning" seems to be Kokuminshugi nationalism. We have mentioned the name of Yanagida because of the significant role which scholars of Japanese folk culture played with regard to the problem of Okinawan 49 "ethnicity." These scholars were "parochial" people, yet somehow they believed that all the heterogeneity of folk culture derived from one source called "Japan." Just like the "noble savages" appeared to the eyes of the Europeans of the Enlightenment as the humanity before the Fall, Okinawa appeared to these scholars as "pure" and "un- corrupted" Japan: Okinawa became the "mirror for the Japanese." The incorporation of Okinawa into the "modern state" of Meiji Japan was in parallel with Japan's entry into the "family of nations." For the Okinawans of the late nineteenth century, however, the "gate of the cult called international law" was narrow. When Okinawan con- sciousness was awakened, Japan had already begun to shift to "nationalist" phase. Okinawan "assimilation," there- fore, became not so much assimilation into the "inter- national law," as assimilation into the Meiji State and its nationalism. What is usually called "Okinawalogy" was a product of this process of Okinawan incorporation to Japan. Unlike Sinology or Japanology, Okinawalogy refers to the study of Okinawa originated by Okinawan scholars them- selves, such as Iha Fuyu, the "father of Okinawalogy," Majikina Anko, Higoanna Kanjun, Nakahara Zenchu, Higa Shuncho, and so forth. These scholars tried to establish that the Okinawans are "Japanese." This by no means implies that there was no conflict between Okinawa and Japan. ("Westernization" of Meiji Japan, after all, did 50 not mean the lack of conflicts between Japan and the West.) As we have suggested above, one mode of the conflicts between centralizing power of Meiji State and decentralizing power at the local level appeared as the conflict between Kokkashugi and Kokuminshugi. However, both Kokkashugi and Kokuminshugi were "nationalism." In order that the conflict took place at all, it was first necessary to establish that the Okinawans were "Japanese." (Iha's "Essays on the Ryukyan Race" was published in 1911, in which the author argued that the "Ryukynan race" was a branched-off segment of the "Japanese race." Recent studies in linguistics, archaeology, etc., support this thesis, although it is, of course, necessary to distinguish analytically "race," "language," "culture," etc. (Shinzato, 1970:82-128). But, what con- cerns us here is not "historical truth," but the modes in which "ethnicity" appears as a socially relevant phenomenon.) There are several themes which recurred again and again with reagrd to Okinawa—Japan relations: (1) whether or not the Okinawans are "Japanese," (2) whether or not "Japanization" of Okinawa is "good," (3) whether or not the incorporation of Okinawa into the Japanese state is "good," (4) why there is sabetsu (discrimination) against the Okinawans. We can see that all these themes are essenti— ally "political." Some historians today, for example, argue that the delay of the admission of Okinawa Prefecture to full political status and the policies of "preserving old customs and procedures," etc. were sabetsu. However, 51 such policies may not have been thought of as sabetsu by those who opposed the incorporation of Okinawa into the Meiji State. The same is true with regard to the problem of "whether the Okinawans are 'Japanese.'" Today, the "national consensus" that the Okinawans are "Japanese" is so firmly established (thanks to the mobilization during the Okinawan Reversion Movement) that any suggestion to the contrary has come to have a "revolutionary" political over- tone. (This political strategem is employed among some of the "New Radicals.") This suggests that such a statement as "the Okinawans are Japanese" has little significance outside the context of politics. The vocabulary of Japanese politics, however, does not include the word "ethnicity." First of all, there is no Japanese word for "ethnicity." (Mabuch and Ogawa (1971: 11) use the term "ethnic sub-groups" in their discussion of the Okinawan folk culture. The term is English in the original Japanese text. They translate it as "a-shuzoku." It sounds too technical to fit in with ordinary Japanese prose.) As far as one is living in Japan, "Japanese ethnicity" has only latent relevance. This does not mean that the "Japanese" are insensitive to the subnational divisions within Japan. On the contrary: For practically every district in Japan there is in Tokyo a Society of Men of . . . Prefecture (. . . kenjinkai) and still an almost inevitable question in the first few minutes of a new acquaintanceship in Tokyo is "Which is your province?" If the individual himself happens to be born in Tokyo he is as likely as not to answer by naming the district in which his 52 father or even his grandfather, was born (Dore, 1963: 219). "Kenjinkai" seems to be a Japanese counterpart of association d'originaires in Africa (Wallerstein, 1960:11). It is difficult to assess the political relevance of Kenjinkai in post-war Japan, and its significance seems to vary from one Prefecture to another (see, for example, Sofue, 1971). During the Meiji period, however, one's place of birth had decisive political relevance. The high posts of govern— ment were monOpolized by men from Satsuma and Choshu. Although the Japanese called it hanbatsu-seiji, Africanists may have simply called it "tribalism." (It should be noted that, in Japanese, Rug; signifies various politico- territorial units, so that "Japan" is a Euni, as well as a federation of several tens of 5321. For various politico- military confrontations between sub-national "ethnic" groups during the Meiji period, see Miwa, 1975.) Above discussions would have made it easier, I hope, to understand why the Okinawans could claim that they are "Japanese." The "Japanese" is a "super-tribe" that has been formed as a result of the emergence of a "modern state"; that is, the Meiji State. It was not only the Okinawans but also all the "Japanese" that became "Japanese" after the emergence of Meiji State. This does not mean that Okinawa has melted into Japan and disappeared. "Okinawa" is still socially and politically relevant. First of all, as far as the "Fourth Interglacial" period 53 continues, Okinawa remains to be a geographical unit, the only region with sub-tropical ecology "within Japan." Politically, it is one of forty-seven Japanese Prefectures. Political demands of Okinawa Prefecture, therefore, take the form of prefectural government-central government relationships. (This does not mean that the relationships between local and central governments are fixed and stable. For increasing tension between local and central govern- ment in Japan after 1960, see Muramatsu (1975). Okinawa Prefecture has adOpted various political strategies commonly used by other prefectural governments in order to put pressures upon the central government.) Then, how does the "Okinawan culture" fit the Japanese scheme of things? It is said that Okinawan culture is one of the two major branches of "Japanese" culture; that is, the Okinawan branch and the mainland Japanese branch. Generally speaking, the elements of continuity were emphasized before 1970, and the elements of discontinuity began to be emphasized after 1970. However, the conflict may not necessarily be expressed in terms of "Okinawan culture" vs. "mainland Japanese culture": it may also be formulated in terms of "grass- rooted folk culture" vs. "modernity." In terms of politi- cal potency, the latter formulation is much more powerful because the former could mobilize only the "peOple of Okinawa Prefecture," i.e., 1 percent of the total Japanese pOpulation, while the latter could mobilize a much larger portion of the Japanese pOpulation, including all the 54 Kokuminshugi nationalists. Of course, these two formula- tions could be combined in various degrees. Thus, Okinawa remains; and "Okinawa problems" continue to exist. Yet, they may or may not be "ethnic." Thus far, we have seen only one side of the coin: we have taken "Okinawa" for granted. Yet, "Okinawa," like "Japan," is a historically formed social entity. Let us now turn to the historical develOpment of "Okinawa" and its relationships to "Japan." Ethnicity in Pre-Modern Okinawa We have argued that "ethnicity" is essentially a political phenomenon that appears in various forms in different political power structures. We have further pointed out that, in the "empire type" structure, ethnicity as such has little political relevance to the functioning of macro-power structure. Let us first describe historical changes in the Okinawan power structure before it was incorporated into the "modern state." (Our historical descriptions of Okinawa are mainly based on Kerr (1958); Higa et a1. (1963); Shinzanto et a1. (1972).) Before the thirteenth century, in Ryukyu, there were local territorial leaders called the 321; (the toyomioya in Miyako, the kawara in Yaeyama). Some of them began to increase their power and, finally, in the early fourteenth century, there appeared three major centers of 55 power configurations on the Okinawa Island (i.e., the main- island of the Ryukyu archiperago). They were Hokuzan, Chuzan, and Nanzan. Since 1372, Chuzan began to send tributary missions to Ming China. The other two centers of power also followed this. From 1372 to 1395, Chuzan sent 25 missions, while Nanzan sent 13 and Hokuzan sent 8 missions. This reflected their relative statuses of socio- political strength and their future destinies. Chuzan conquered Hokuzan in 1416 and also conquered Nanzan in 1429. In 1429 Okinawa was unified; henceforth "Chuzan" meant all of Okinawa, but the old divisions were perpetuated in new administrative names and offices, and the terms "Kunigami," "Nakagami" and "Shimajiri" in the twentieth century preserve a lingering memory of the three ancient principalities (Kerr, 1958:86). However, the political configurations of the island still seemed fluid. There were still many anji whose loyalty to the king of Chuzan was suspected. The institu- tional centralization of power structure was not firmly established until the time of Sho Shin, who became the king of Chuzan in 1477. His centralization policies included: (1) all the anji of Okinawa were ordered to move into Shuri, the capital of Chuzan, to take up residence near the palace. All weapons were also brought into Shuri, (2) symbols of status and privilege in the court hierarchy were elaborated, (3) a religious hierarchy of the pogo cult was established. Hitherto independent noro priestesses were brought into the hierarchy, at the top of which was the Kikoe-O-Gimi, 56 the chief noro priestress who was usually a close female relative of the king. The socio-political conditions of the Outer Islands (Sakishima or Hanare) in the fifteenth century, however, were quite different from those of the Okinawa Island. A vivid account of these regional differences was given by three shipwrecked Koreans in the Yijo Sillok (or, Licho Jitsuroku in Japanese; see Tanaka, 1972). The three Koreans were rescued by the islanders of Yonaguni, where they stayed for about six months. They were then sent to Shuri, via Iriomote, Hateruma, Aragusuku, Kuroshima, Tarama, Irabu, Miyako. What they described was essentially the rural-urban continuum of the Ryukyu Kingdom of the fifteenth century, a continuum between "neolithic sympli- city" of Yonaguni and the "cosmOpolitan urban life" at Shuri. There are some documents which record "tributes" to Chuzan in 1390 from some of the major Hanare islands. It seems that these "tributary relations" were at first purely economic. After the unification of the Okinawa Island in 1428, however, these relations between Okinawa and the Hanare islands began to shift into political relations; the impact of the centralization policies began to be felt in these Hanare islands. (see, for example, Nishizato, 1970.) Among the Hanare islands, Miyako in- creased its strength and wealth, presumably due to its close contact with Shuri. Both the rebellion of Akahachi in 57 Yaeyama and that of Onitora in Yonaguni were suppressed by Nakasone toyomioya of Miyako. However, Nakasone himself was subordinated by Shuri and brought into the centralized system of the kingdom. (Nakasone was recognized as kashira of Miyako.) Gradually, resident officers from Shuri began to be placed in these Hanare islands. The amami Island in the north was one of the last Hanare islands which were incorporated into the Kingdom. What were impacts of these changes in power struc- ture upon "ethnicity." Was there any "Okinawan ethnicity"? The most salient social cleavage in Okinawa at this time seems to have been that which divided the urban center and the countryside. There existed almost "neolithic" life of Yonaguni, as well as "cosmopolitan" urban life of Shuri, within the ambience of power structure of the kingdom. This cleavage was further reinforced by the concentration of the anji at Shuri. As a result, the regional differ- ences came to coincide with the differences in political authority. (However, the anji still had some relationships with their native territories at this time.) The second salient soOial cleavage appeared between Jigg (the Okinawa main-island) and Hanare (the off-shore islands). This cleavage was further deepened by the fact that all the anji at Shuri came exclusively from various territories of £122! rather than Hanare. The local leaders of the Hanare islands remained on their home territories, and were incorporated into the power structure of the kingdom as a 58 mediator at the lower level of hierarchy. Moreover, as we have mentioned, the three divisions of the Okinawa main- island itself remained. Given the low level of spatial mobility at this time, these Spatial divisions could have been easily inter— preted in terms of "ethnicity." However, these major divisions were in turn divided into many sub-units within themselves, so that they would not have developed subjective and objective unity. One of the definite trends was the differentiation between the people of Shuri and the peOple of the countryside, as the Shuri people were losing their close ties with their native territories and were developing a new mode of life among themselves. Although there was also a counter-trend, a diffusion of urban culture to the countryside, communities in the countrysides remained closed and, as a rule, endogamous, so that they were not able to develOp multilateral relationships among them- selves. (See, for example, Higa, 1971:139.) Francis' characterization of the "empire type" fits the picture of Okinawa up to the end of the nineteenth century; that is, "mutually exclusive homogeneous societies with separate traditions and folk cultures," on the one hand, and a "high culture," on the other. We should mention here about the Kume village at Naha, near Shuri. The Kume village was a "Chinese" com- munity founded by the so-called "thirty-Six families of Bin" in 1393. The Kume villagers formed part of the 59 Okinawan elite class. As the China-Ryukyu trade (or tributary) relationships grew in importance, they began to form a sort of professional guild engaged in China affairs of the kingdom. In 1686, however, there remained only five families of the original thirty-six families (although it is doubtful whether there were originally thirty-six families (Kerr, l958:75)). There were, however, later Chinese immigrants who settled in the Kume village. Many Okinawans were also adOpted by the Kume villagers, and some Okinawans simply joined in the Kume community "in order to fill the vacancies of the Thirty-six Families" (see, Toguchi, 1975:446). Thus, the "Chinese community" of Kume, or Toei, was defined by Toguchi (1975:447) as a professional guild composed of those who were fluent in Chinese, and who had family registrations in Toei-shi, and were living in the Kume village. When the Manchus took over China and ordered Chinese to adopt the queue, the Kume villagers instead adOpted the Okinawan style of coiffure (Kerr, 1958: 178). Besides the Toei, there were two main factions within the Okinawan elite; Naha people and Shuri people. There grew certain administrative divisions of labor between Shuri people and Naha people (Toguchi, 1975:313-318). The cleavage between the ruling elite and the masses was, however, not necessarily unbridgeable. The adminis- trative offices of the kingdom were open to the whole pOpulace. The peOple of the countryside (i.e., the 60 peasantry) were able to hold offices at the local levels of administration and, in theory, could climb up the ladder of the hierarchy. In other words, the peasantry was not a hereditary social status. After the Satsuma invasion in 1609, however, status differentiation began to be institu- tionalized. Satsuma carried out land surveys on the islands in order to determine tax responsibilities. This required the clear differentiation of the peasantry (No) and the ruling elite I§EEI= those who were holding offices at the central government of the kingdom were recognized as the ooi, while the rest of the population, including adminis- trative officers at the local level, became the go (Toguchi, 1975:236). The ooi and the go became hereditary statuses which were independent of the official positions in the administration. The shumon aratame (or fuda- aratame, the population registration which was originally carried out in order to prove one's nonallegiance to Christianity (and the Shin sect of Buddhism in the case of Satsuma).) in 1636 and the prohibition of the migration of peasantry in 1651, further consolidated the status differ— entiation (Toguchi, 1975:250-251). As social privileges began to be regulated according to hereditary statuses, the authentication of one's hereditary status became necessary among the ruling elite. In 1670, the gentry of Shuri and adjacent areas were ordered to submit genealogical records. In 1689, the Shuri government established a genealogical bureau (Higa, 1964:34; Sakai, 1968:128). 61 The result was the division of the Okinawan pOpulation into the Keimochi (possessing genealogy) and the Mokoi (without genealogy). The establishment of the genealogical bureau was closely related to the subsequent development of the monchu ("lineage" or "descent group") (Toguchi, 1971a, 1971b). Those who were without official posts, but who were related to the familyl with a post, began to form a lineage organization in order to secure their E21 status. So far, we have reviewed "intra—Ryukyu ethnicity." We have argued that the most salient social cleavage in the kingdom was between the elite and the masses. This cleavage tended to be institutionalized in terms of "descent" and the place of residence. (The 321 had their legal registrations in Shuri, Naha, and Tomari.) The masses, on the other hand, were bound to their own com- munities: their migration was prohibited and their marriages were, as a rule, village-endogamous. Under these circum- stances, the supravillage "ethnic" identity would have been difficult to develop among the masses. Among the elite, on the other hand, their social identity would have been status-bound, rather than "national." The role of the "Chinese" community among the Ryukyuan elite illustrates this point. The "Chinese" seem to have derived their identity not so much from their "national" origin, as from their membership in the Tooi, the “professional guild." This was the reason why it could incorporate non-Chinese members, and why it could function 62 as a social unit even after the members adopted the culture of Okinawan elite. We have suggested that the "national" consciousness among the Ryukyan elite was rudimentary, and it was almost nonexistent among the masses. Then, what was the "rudi- mentary national consciousness?" The "rudimentary national consciousness" could be understood only in the "inter- national" context. First of all, the Ryukyu Kingdom was integrated into the Chinese World Order (Ch'en, 1968). For the Rykyuan elite, however, the Chinese culture was not "national" culture, but a universal cultural order. The Middle Kingdom was the model of high order for the Chuzan Kingdom (i.e., Middle Mountain, another name of Ryukyu Kingdom). The axis of the Middle Kingdom, as it were, went through the center of the Middle Mountain. The Ryukyu "nationality" was, therefore, not "polycentric" in our terminology. This neat world-view was disturbed by the Satsuma invasion which transformed the Ryukyu Kingdom into a de facto fief of Lord Shimazu of Satsuma (Sakai, 1964, 1968). But the symbolic order is one thing and the power order is another, at least for the time being. For politi— cal and economic reasons, Satsuma carefully preserved the "facade of the Ryukyu Kingdom." This resulted in the so- called "dual subordination" of the Ryukyu Kingdom. The actual relationship between Satsuma and Ryukyu was con- cealed from the Chinese eye. Satsuma ordered the king of 63 Ryukyu to continue to receive the investiture from China, so that Satsuma would profit from the China-Ryukyu trade. Although Satsuma integrated Ryukyu into its own power structure, it refused Ryukyu to be integrated into its own cultural ambience. For example, . . . the Shimazu authorities . . . proscribed the use of surnames that had "the flavour of Yamato (i.e., that were like Japanese names). Accordingly, Okinawans with surnames like those of Satsuma persons are said to have changed the Chinese characters used in writing their names . . . (Higa, 1964:34). But, it was also this time that some of the Okinawan elite became conscious of the cultural similarities between "Japan" and "Okinawa." Haneji Chosho (Sho Sho-ken), for example, wrote in 1673 that the Okinawans originally must have come from the Japanese mainland because the Okinawan language is similar to Japanese (Shinzato et al., 1972:88). What were the impacts of the Satsuma invasion upon the people of Okinawa? First of all, it should be noted that the Satsuma invasion was not a "total war," which was an invention of the nineteenth century. We would suspect that the invasion itself had little impact upon the majority of the peOple. It was not the war between "nations." It was the war between Lord Shimazu of Satsuma and the king of Ryukyu. Actually there were some "Japanese" who were serving the king of Ryukyu at the time of the invasion. (Those Japanese were of course not the retainers of Lord Shinazu.) 64 Although we have noted various social consequences in Okinawa that were brought about by such Satsuma policies as the land survey and the population registration, it seems that the "ideological" impact of the invasion was largely limited to the circle of the Okinawan elite. However, the essentially Sino-centric and Confucian world- view of the Okinawan elite (Which, after all, the Satsuma elite themselves shared), did not change very much. Satsuma did not see any necessity to change the ideologi- cal basis of the kingdom. The Satsuma invasion, however, might have encouraged the development of "rudimentary national culture" of Okinawa. The first sign of "rudimentary national culture" of Okinawa appeared in 1532 when the first collection of omooo poems were compiled (the poems were written in "Japanese" Kooo syllabaries). The second collection of omooo appeared in 1613, soon after the Satsuma invasion. Until 1623, there appeared 21 volumes of the Omorozoshi. The sc0pe of this "national culture," however, was limited: the Omorozoshi included poems from Okinawa and Amami islands, but not from Miyako and Yaeyama islands (Shinzato, 1970:91). Okinawa's Incorporation Into the Modern State The emergence of Japan as a "modern state" was a Sign of the beginning of the end of the Chinese world order. Japan began to follow the rules Of the game called "modern 65 international law." One of the first problems was the definition of territorial boundaries in which the sovereignty of the modern state was to be exercised. The boundaries of the northern frontier was settled in 1875 by negotiation with Russia. The sovereignty problem of the Bonins (Ogasawara) was also settled in this year when the United States and Great Britain agreed to abandon all claims. The definition of the southern boundaries of Japan was a different matter; it involved a direct confrontation with China who seemed to be sticking to the rules of a different game. The Meiji government abolished the fied (goo) in 1871, and established in their place new units of govern- ment, the prefecture (koo). Okinawa tentatively came under the administration of Kagoshima Ken, which had replaced Satsuma Han. It was this time that the "abnormal" status of Okinawa became a problem. The soécalled "dual subordi- nation" as such was not a problem at all until the emergence of Japan as a modern state. (The term "dual subordination" (Ryozoku) seems to have first been used by the Meiji government in 1871 (Kinjo, l970a:67). A similar problem occurred in the case of Lord So of Tsushima who had a "tributary relationship" with Korea.) It was, after all, Satsuma itself that deliberately develOped this scheme of things; and China, too, may not have been offended by this scheme: 66 In traditional East Asia, dual subordination was not so serious a problem as in modern times. . . . During the Sino-Japanese diSpute over Liu-chi'iu in the 18703 the biggest thorn was that Japan forbade Liu-ch'iu to send tribute to China. Had Liu-ch'iu continued the tributary relationship, Peking might have had no objection to her concurrent subordination to Japan. But the dual subordination of Liu-ch'iu was possible only when the East Asian world was isolated and while Japan remained in seclusion. By the later nineteenth century these conditions no longer existed (Che'n, 1968:164). In 1871, the mariners from Miyako were murdered by the natives of Taiwan. In the exchange of official views between China and Japan, the Miyako victims of the incident were referred to as "subjects of Japan" (Nihon-koku Zokumin). In 1872, Sho Tai, the king of Ryukyu, was raised to the new Japanese peerage (Kazoku) and designated as "king of the Ryukyu han" (Ryukyu Han O). The imperial decree read as follows: We have here succeeded to the Imperial Throne of a line unbroken for ages eternal, and now reign over all the land. Ryukyu, situated to the south, has the same race, habits and language, and has always been loyal to Satsuma. We appreciate this loyalty, here raise you to the peerage and appoint you King of Ryukyu Han. You, Sho Tai, take responsibility in the administration of the ban, and assist us eternally (quoted in Kerr, 1958:363). It is significant that the decree states that Ryukyu has "the same race, habits and language." This was the point which China did not (and could not) claim. It should be noted, however, that the claim of "the same race, habits and language" was not based on any "scientific" investi- gation: it was a merely political decision that was only afterwards given a scientific basis. 67 In 1879, Ryukyu han was abolished and in its place Okinawa Ken was established. This was the so-called Ryukyu-Shobun which was an Okinawan counterpart of the "hai-han—chi-ken" (1871) of Japan prOper. The most crucial point of this shobun was to end the Okinawan tributary relationship with China. China, however, tried by all ways and means to make the Okinawan issue alive. China feared that Japan's establishment of sovereignty over Okinawa and the end of Okinawan tributary relationship with China might erode the whole order of traditional East Asia. This fear is clearly stated in the letter from Ho Ju-Chang, the Chinese minister at Tokyo, to Viceroy Li Hung-Chan (see Kinjo, l970a:l38). (For all the intricate Sino-Japanese diplomacy in this period, see Hwa, 1975.) Within Okinawa itself, the resistance to the new Japanese order of the Meiji State was quite strong partic- ularly among the Okinawan elite. For the traditional Okinawan elite, Okinawa's incorporation into the modern state of Meiji Japan meant the loss of traditional privileges which they enjoyed under the system of "dual subordination." Their resistance continued until the Sino-Japanese war (1894-95) in which the defunct of the "Chinese world order" became decisive. Before the Sino-Japanese war, however, the Meiji government's attitudes toward the Okinawan elite were those of appeasement. The government's subsidies to the ex-privileged class (Shizoku) were more favorable in Okinawa than in Japan prOper. This period before the 68 Japanese war is sometimes called the "Do-Nothing" Era. The subsequent period was that of "assimilation." As Okinawan scholars often remark, the "assimilation" was another side of the coin of "discrimination." The formation of Okinawan "inferiority complex" during this period is one of the issues most intensely discussed among the Okinawan scholars (see, for example, Ota, 1969, 1976). Although there were strong sentiments among the Okinawan elite against the new order of Meiji Japan, they were not able to form a "national front" against Japan. One of the most crucial factors in their failure of forming a "national front" seems to have been the cleavage between elite and masses. As we have suggested, pre-modern Okinawa had formed not a "people's nation," but a "rudimentary nation" of the elite, so that the elite could not mobilize the masses against the new order of Meiji Japan. The Okinawan elite were, moreover, materially too frail to fight against the united power of the elite of the Meiji government. These conditions led them to rely upon the influence of China in order to counterbalance the aggressive policies of the Meiji government. The "enlightened" elements among the Okinawan elite who saw their future in the new order of Meiji Japan were a minority until the end of the Sino-Japanese War (Arakawa, 1973:66-96). However, these "enlightened" elements were bound to become politically dominant through the new school system established in 1880, the publication of the first 69 Okinawan newSpaper in 1893, etc. During the Meiji period, however, it was the newcomers from mainland Japan who virtually monOpolized the fields of economy, education, administration, etc. in Okinawa. The task of the "en- lightened" Okinawan elite was therefore to recover their socio—political hegemony in Okinawa. There were two possible means for them to achieve this goal; either through "secessionism" or COOperation with the Meiji government. Perhaps, the first, at the same time the last, attempt by the "enlightened" Okinawan elite aimed at a sort of "secessionism" was the Kodo-kai incident in 1896. A number of prominent men formed an organization called the Koko—kai. . . . In good faith the Kodo-kai proposed that Governor Narahara be recalled and that Marquis Sho Tai be sent down to take his place. . . . It was believed that if the king were granted to nominal title and honors of governorship, the most stubborn anti-Japanese elements in Okinawa would unite with the liberal advocates of modernization (Kerr, 1958:425). This was actually not secessionism in a strict sense because they intended to modernize (and "Japanize") Okinawa within the frame of Meiji order. The Meiji govern- ment, however, crushed this prOposal at once as mere anachronism. After this abortive incident, the "enlightened" Okinawan elite began to attempt to increase their power in close cooperation with Governor Narahara. In Okinawa at this time, (and in Japan as a whole), Kagoshima (Satsuma) men were dominant in almost all the social fields, (Governor Narahara himself was a Kagoshima man). In 1905, there were about 2,600 mainland Japanese in 7O Naha, engaged in various economic, administrative, and educational activities (Kerr, 1958:447). However, once Okinawa was granted participation in local as well as national politics (convocation of a prefectural assembly in 1909, and Okinawan representation in the national Diet in 1910), these mainland Japanese were bound gradually to lose their hegemony in Okinawa. To counterbalance this trend, the mainland Japanese businessmen in Okinawa had begun to publish a neWSpaper, the Okinawa Shinbun, in competition with the Ryukyu Shimpo which was sponsored by the Okinawan elite. But their decline as an exclusive interest group was most clearly symbolized by the discontinuance of the Okinawa Shinbun at the end of the Meiji period (Ota, 1976: 162-177). In the field of education, too, Okinawans began to re-lace the mainland Japanese after 1910. (The pre- fectural assembly cut down the salaries of the teachers so that the mainland Japanese were forced to leave their posts (see S. Higa, 1969:51). However, the recovery of the Okinawan hegemony seems to have been limited only to the local level. Their influence in the national politics was negligible. Since the prefectural governor was appointed by the central government, the weak Okinawan influence at the national level of politics greatly restricted the prefectural autonomy of Okinawa, and the leadership in the Okinawan prefectural administration remained in the hand of the mainland Japanese. The relatively easy recovery of Okinawan hegemony in certain social fields at the local 71 level, on the other hand, seems to be related to the fact that Okinawa was, after all, an economically insignificant region within Japan, particularly after Japan's acquisition of Taiwan from China. The relationship between Okinawans and mainland Japanese in terms of "ethnicity" at this time is difficult to assess. Perhaps, one of the effects of Okinawa's incorporation into the modern state of Meiji Japan was the emergence of "Okinawa" as a social entity with unambiguous boundaries. Although even today there still remain many regional cleavages (overlapped with status differentiation) within Okinawa (S. Higa, 1969:11-14), the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture seems to have contributed to the forma- tion of prefectural solidarity (see, for example, Kerr, 1958:447). The problem of the prejudice of mainland Japanese towards the Okinawans has been extensively dis- cussed by various peOple. Yet these discussions were, particularly during the Reversion Movement, politically motivated so that the "reality" of prejudice and discrimina- tion during the Meiji period is difficult to assess. It seems, however, that the discrimination against Okinawans was not a "national" problem during the Meiji period. (After all, many Japanese may not have known Okinawa at all at that time.) S. Higa (1969:23-25) recalls his first experience in 1906 when he was called Riki-jin during his military training program in Kumamoto, Kyushu. (Riki-jin was a term by which Kagoshima (Satsuma) people derogatively 72 called Ryukyu peOple when Satsuma was ruling Ryukyu.) A group of peOple from Kagoshima at the Kumamoto Garrison began to discriminate against Higa and his friends by calling them Rikijin. Although the mainland Japanese in Okinawa during the Meiji period behaved arrogantly, I had never encountered such plainly prejudiced attitudes in my personal relations. . . . However, antagonism was only between Kagoshima peOple and Okinawa peOple; peOple from other regions were neutral (S. Higa, 1969:24). It seems possible that the "prejudice towards Okinawans" during the Meiji period was by and large a local phenomenon which existed between Okinawa and Kagoshima, the former “colonial" ruler of Okinawa. Once Japan's ”nationaliza- tion" began after the Meiji Restoration, however, Okinawa, which lagged behind the "modernization" processes of Meiji Japan, became more conSpicuous in its local peculiarities. Okinawan migrants to mainland Japan would have also contri- buted to the diffusion of the notion that Okinawans were a "sociological minority" in Japan. In other words, as the "nationalization" of Japan proceeded, the nationalization of Okinawans as a sociological minority also proceeded. This process was aggravated by the fact that Okinawans began to internalize their "inferior" or "peripheral" status within Japan through a rapidly expanding primary education system in Okinawa, which was strongly biased in favor of mainland Japan. There is some evidence which suggests that some of what the Okinawans took as 73 "prejudiced" attitudes were not so much “prejudgment” as "ignorance," about or "indifference" to, Okinawa on the part of mainland Japanese (Oshiro, 1970:233-236). Although the economic backwardness of Okinawa must have been one of the factors which contributed to the formation of Okinawans as a "sociological minority," we have to be cautious of a simplistic economic determinism. Kagoshima (Satsuma), for example, was and is one of the most economically backward prefectures in Japan. Its local culture also shows strong provincial peculiarities. How— ever, the poverty of Kagoshima men is regarded as Spartan frugality (worthy of Japanese samurai) and their provincial peculiarities are considered lovable. This is understand- able when we consider the decisive role which Satsuma §amurai played in the construction of the Meiji State. (By contrast, negative attitudes of the Japanese towards the people of the Tohoku region (the north-eastern part of Japan) may not solely be based on their economic backward- ness. Tohoku was the last stronghold of the anti-Meiji power.) This suggests that not only economic, but also political factors play a crucial role in the formation of "sociological minorities." Ethnicity and Post-War Okinawa The battle of Okinawa in 1945 resulted in an utter chaos. Ninety-four thousand casualties were suffered by the Japanese military--including 28,000 Okinawan military 74 personnel. In addition, about 94,000 civilians also lost their lives. Americans suffered 12,000 dead (Shinzato et al., 1972:214). After the Japanese surrender, the American military continued to administer Okinawa directly, while the Japanese mainland was governed indirectly through the Japanese government (Watanabe, 1970:84). This "pater- nalistic differential treatment" of Okinawa by the American military seems to be related to the notion that the Okinawans are an ethnic minority exploited by the "Japanese," and are liberated by the American military. A leaflet which encouraged surrender of the Okinawan residents during the battle, for example, read: "Is this your war, or the war of the naichijin (mainland Japanese) who have ruled you for several decades?" (the leaflet is reproduced in Arasaki, 1969:18). However, this "liberation of the Oppressed ethnic minority" by the American military seems to have been carried out in a rather half-hearted manner. Higa Mikio (1963:415) remarks that "during the first four years after the war, no definite overall policy toward the island was discernible." Binnendijk (1973:12) also agrees with this, although he points out two specific objectives of the 0.3. military administration on Okinawa immediately after the war: "(1) the liquidation of political, social, and economic ties with the Japanese mainland, and (2) restoration of standards of living consistent with those existing prior to the war." 75 Fortunately or unfortunately, however, the late 19403 was a relatively "peaceful" period: Communist China did not complete its conquest of mainland China until 1949, and the Korean War did not happen until 1950. During this "peaceful" period, Okinawa became, in the words of James F. Auer, "a dumping ground for wartime supplies and a collec- tion Spot for American misfits" (quoted in Binnendijk, 1973:12. A similar, although more flamboyant, statement appears in Frank Gibney's article in Tioo Magazine, November 28, 1949). A dumping ground or not, the immediate concerns for most of the Okinawans at this time were food and shelter; and the American military seems to have given generally a favorable impression to the Okinawan residents. Some people, for example, suspect that if the Okinawans had a free choice at that time, they might have voted for American retention of the Ryukyus (see, for example, Emmerson, 1971:159; Bennendijk, 1973:12). One of the groups in Japan, which applauded the "liberation of Okinawa," was the Japan Communist Party (JCP). The Secretary-General of the JCP was Tokuda Kyuichi ("Tokkyu"), an Okinawan, who was "liberated" from the prison by the Occupation Anmy. In 1946, the JCP published "a Message congratulating the Independence of the Okinawan Nation" (the message is reprinted in Arasaki, 1969:40-41). Some of the "progressive" Okinawans in mainland Japan were also sympathetic to the Communist (or American) view of Okinawa. This was a rather embarrassing event in the 76 history of Okinawan reversion movement which was later strongly supported by the "progressive" elements (including the JCP) in Japan. Unlike some historical cases in which defeat stirred the flames of nationalism, the word "nationalism" became a taboo in Japanese politics immediately after the war (see, for example, Maruyama, 1969:131-156). Japanese leftists (including some opportunists) were full of optimism; they regarded the Occupation Army as the "army of libera- tion," and the world of "proletarian internationalism" was supposed to be around the corner. It was under these cir- cumstances that Foreign Minister Ashida Hitoshi in 1947 expressed his doubt whether the territorial provisions in the Potsdam Declaration were applied to Okinawa. He remarked that the national sentiment of Japan wished the return of Okinawa to Japan. His statement, however, met strong opposition from the leftist groups (Watanabe, 1970:23). The general attitudes of many Japanese politicians toward the problem of Okinawa were those of indifference. In any case, there was little room for Japan, now under occupation, to take the strong initiative on this problem. One of the few status of Okinawa was Nakayoshi Yoshimitsu, a pre-1945 mayor of Shuri. He left Okinawa for Tokyo in 1946 and devoted himself unswervingly to the cause of the return of Okinawa to Japan. By 1950, the international political and military situations had greatly changed. Okinawa now became the 77 "keystone of the Pacific." Japan's position in the international politics also changed. Japan became a country which the United States sought as a new ally in their struggle against the Communist bloc. Japanese Opinions over the problem of Okinawa began to take a more definite stance. When Dulles visited Tokyo in January-February of 1951 to discuss the problem of the Peace Treaty with Japanese leaders, he heard an almost unanimous expression of Opinion from the Japanese government as well as from representatives of various quarters of Japanese society irrespective of party affiliation, calling for the return of Japanese sovereignty over some pre-war terri- tories, including Okinawa (Watanabe, 1970:139). Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was signed in 1951, gave the United States the right to exercise de facto sovereign powers over the Ryukyu Islands and their inhabitants. Japan, on the other hand, was per- mitted to retain "residual sovereignty? over Okinawa, "A nebulous and unprecedented doctrine oot included in the treaty itself but enunciated by former Secretary of State Dulles at the 1951 San Francisco Peace Conference" (M. Higa, 1963:415). This diplomatic arrangement resulted in an ambiguous legal status of Okinawa: ". . . although rule by the United States was to be absolute and indefinite, it was not to be permanent" (Emmerson, 1971:153). Although there were some active individuals and small groups in Japan and Okinawa who were committed to the Okinawan reversion to Japan, the diplomatic arrangement in the Peace Treaty with regard to the political status of 78 Okinawa had little to do with the wishes of the Okinawan peOple themselves. It was at this time that the earliest sign of the "reversion movement," which was characterized by mass mobilization, appeared in Okinawa. The Association for the Promotion of Reversion to Japan, which had close ties with the Kiseikai, a reversion group in Japan under Nakayoshi, sponsored a signature-collecting campaign. Some 199,000 Signatures, representing 72 percent of the whole electorate of the Okinawa oooto, were forwarded to the San Francisco Peace Conference (Watanabe, 1970:13; Binnendijk, 1973:25). (OShiro (1970:284), however, feels that the figure 72 percent did not reflect the political reality of Okinawa at that time. He suspects that many Okinawans signed the petition because of otsukiai, that is, they were obliged to Sign because of some personal relationship to someone who was committed to the campaign.) It was only after 1955 that the Okinawanuproblem became really an important "national" issue. The problem originated in the requisition of Okinawan land for the United States Forces. After the Japanese Peace Treaty came into force in 1952, there were several unsuccessful attempts by the American military to come to terms with the dis- possessed landowners with regard to the length of lease and the amount of money to be paid. Finally, the United States tried to solve the problem by introducing "lump-sum pay- ments." This was met by strong Opposition from all quarters 79 of Okinawan society. The United States then sent a special committee led by Congressman Melvin Price to inSpect the problem in Okinawa. When his report was made public in June 1956, it aroused active Opposition not only in Okinawa but also in Japan (Watanabe, 1970:37-38; Hiyane and Gabe, 1975:27-46; M. Higa, 1965:122-148). Insofar as the issue remained within Okinawa, it was a local problem, the Shima-gurumi—tochi-toso (All-Island- Land-Struggle). After the Price report was made public, however, the level of the "struggle" was escalated. As an Okinawan put it, "this struggle is not merely a struggle of 800,000 Okinawans, but also that of 80,000,000 Japanese" (Hiyane and Gabe, 1975:33). Once the issue was lifted up to the "national" level, the "land" problem became a "territorial" problem (Watanabe, 1970:156). In 1956, for example, an Okinawan delegation to Tokyo stated that "we are struggling not only for our land, but also for Japanese territory" (Hiyane and Gabe, 1975:37). There were many ways to formulate the land problem of Okinawa. At the most "realistic” level, it was purely economic, that is, the problem of lease of land. At the most "idealistic" level, however, it was a problem of "human rights." Actually, one of the instrumental factors to escalate the Okinawan land problem to the "national" level came from America; it was a letter from Roger N. Baldwin, president of the American Civil Liberties Union and Chairman of the International League for the Rights of 80 Man, sent to the Japan Civil Liberties Union (JCLU), which requested further information on the Okinawan problem. The report of the JCLU received great publicity in Japan through the Asahi Shinbun (Watanabe, 1970:140). The problem of Okinawa itself, however, had little political relevance to the most Japanese politicians during the 19505; it was not a vote-raising issue. It became politically potent when the "Okinawan" problem was con- ceived as "our" problem. Yet, "our” problem, too, can be formulated in various ways. For the Japanese government and the ruling conservative party, the Okinawan problem was not a favorable political issue, because Okinawa was a very core of the U.S.-Japan alliance after 1951 and there was a great danger that the Okinawan problem might jeop- ardize Japan's weak international position at that time. For the Opposition, on the other hand, it was a great issue of which they could take advantage in order to attack the government. The government tried to deal with the Okinawa problem at a low, "realistic" level and within the existing framework of U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, whereas the Opposi- tion exploited the issue of Okinawa at a high, "idealistic" level, demanding a fundamental change in the existing power structure. In either case, however, Okinawa was no longer "a forgotten island" in the seas of national politics. The land problem itself was Settled in 1958. However, the political organizations emerged from the mass mobilization during the All-Island-Land-Struggle paved the 81 way to the "reversion movement" in the 19608. What was now left unresolved was the problem of “legitimacy" of the American administration on Okinawa. We have pointed out that the de facto sovereignty of the U.S. over Okinawa was based on a rather peculiar diplomatic arrangement provided by Article 3 of the Japanese Peace Treaty. Although the sole significance of Okinawa for the United States was its strategic value, the adminis- trative control was considered inseparable from the main- tenance of military bases (M. Higa, 1967:151-152; Emmerson, 1971:164). The task of the American administration on Okinawa was to maintain a "spirit of reasonable acquiescence" among Okinawans. The former high commissioner of the Ryukyu Islands, Paul Caraway (1961-64), admits in retro- spect, that "the United States had little to offer to Okinawans except economic expansion and eventual reversion" (quoted in Binnendijk, 1976:16). However, it was considered by the American administration well until the mid-19603 that the "reversion movement" was incompatible with the "Spirit of reasonable acquiescence." Prior to 1966, for example, travel restrictions were applied to those who actively advocated the reversion of Okinawa to Japan. Besides such "negative" policies as travel restrictions, censorship of media, etc., there were "positive" cultural policies to create "a separate Okinawan identity" (Binnendijk, 1973:50). We have pointed out that, immediately after the war, there were few signs that Okin-wans strongly identified 82 themselves with Japan. The American administration per- mitted and even encouraged the formation of a separate Okinawan identity. After some twenty years of the American administration, however, it had become all too clear that the Okinawan identification with Japan was by no means decreasing, if not increasing. From the mid-19608 to the ultimate reversion of Okinawa to Japan in 1972, the problem was not whether the reversion was desirable, but how it should be achieved. Higa Mikio (1975:16-24) distinguishes three phases of the reversion movement. The first phase (up to 1964) was characterized by the "nationalist" tendency, or the emphasis of the "Japanese" identity of the Okinawans. The second phase (1965-1967) was characterized by the emphasis of the Japanese Constitution ("Sovereignty rests in the peOple," pacifism, fundamental human rights, etc.). The movement toward the expansion of Okinawan autonomy and the movement protesting the military bases were concrete expressions of the reversion movement of this phase. The third phase (after the Sato-Johnson communiqué in 1967, in which agreement of a date for the return of the adminis- trative rights to Japan was said to be reached “within a few years") was characterized by the emphasis of elimination of sabetsu ("discrimination," "inequity," etc.). The most obvious sabetsu against the Okinawans was supposed to be the very status of the Okinawans under the American rule. It Should be noted, however, that the sabetsu against the 83 Okinawans was conceived not necessarily vis-a-vis the Americans, but vis-a-vis the Japanese: the sabetsu was supposed to exist not between Americans and Okinawans, but between Okinawans and Japanese. (Although it was known that some Americans did not treat Okinawans as equals, it did not become "political" problems. An American (Lammis, 1971:220-231), who discussed the problem of discrimination with members of the Okinawan labor union employed in the American military bases, was surprised when he found that they did not know the word "gook" in spite of the wide currency of the word among the American military on Okinawa.) The Okinawan consciousness of sabetsu was closely related to the American administration of Okinawa: While American policy condoned the colonial Status of Okinawa for 27 years, U.S. officials avoided blatant attempts to alter the political nature of Okinawan society. Their activities consisted of denying Okinawans certain rights within a political system parallel to that of Japan, thus highlighting the inade- quacies in the Okinawan system (Binnendijk, 1973:30). However, the anti-sabetsu movement was more than a simple demand for the reform of existing inadequacies in the Okinawan system; it involved all the history of the Okinawan people from the Satsuma invasion onward. Kyan Shinei, one of the most active leaders of the reversion movement, told at the 1969 Japanese-American Kyoto Conference that: The past 100 years have been a clear testimony to the fact that the Japanese government invariably chose to overlook, if not openly discriminate against, Okinawans, whenever it was convenient to do so. . . . For about 70 out of the 100 years of Japan's modernization, Okinawans were mercilessly discriminated against and merely tolerated at best, holding Japanese citizenship in name only (quoted in Kampf, 1976:128). 84 It seems that the anti-sabetsu movement introduced a "historical perspective" into the problem of "human rights" which was emphasized during the second phase of the reversion movement. This historical perspective pro- vided the Okinawans with a critical standpoint toward the reversion of Okinawa to Japan. Although a single-minded "nationalist" aspect of the reversion had already come to be questioned in the second phase of the movement, the uni- versalistic idea of "human rights" itself could not justify a particular movement in which the Okinawans were engaging: why Should the Okinawan demand for the human rights take the form of the return of Okinawa to Japan?--if only "human rights" were their objectives, it would not matter whether they live under the "American" administration or the "Japanese" administration. The anti-sabetsu movement was a middle-range political strategy: it combined uni- versalistic "human rights" with particular history of the Okinawan people. What was crucial in determining the Okinawan identity seems to have been the political arena that was available to the Okinawans. If Okinawa was completely closed, as it was immediately after the war, it would have been possible to develOp a separate Okinawan identity. If, moreover, the political arean in the United States was Open to the Okinawans, the movement of Okinawa reversion to Japan may not have become so powerful a movement. Okinawa was excluded both from Japan and from the United States. 85 Yet, Okinawa was linked to Japan through informal ties, while it was linked to the U.S. through formal ties. The political pressure the Okinawans could put upon the formal structure of the administration in Okinawa through formal channels was limited. This situation led them to exploit the available informal ties in the political arena in Japan. The Okinawans succeeded in presenting their issue in such a way that it became a "national" issue in Japan. As Oshiro (1970:22) remarked, Okinawa came to be more widely known in Japan when it became separated from Japan than it was within Japan. The Okinawans became, in the words of Edwin O. Reischauer, "the most unambiguously patriotic of all Japanese," because the political circumstances under which they found themselves made it relevant to exploit their "Japanese" identity. This was, however, not simply "anti- Americanism." An Opinion survey of the Ryukyu Shimpo in 1967, for example, shows that 53 percent of Okinawans gave "I am a Japanese citizen" as their main reason for favoring reversion, whereas only 9.7 percent gave "I dislike foreign control" as their reason (quoted in Binnendijk, 1973:81). "Anti- Americanism" was perhaps stronger in mainland Japan where the problem of Okinawa became more clearly linked to the criticism of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. It was rather Americans themselves who tended to equate the reversion movement with "anti-Americanism" (and "Communism") (see, for example, Binnendijk, 1973:45). It seems that it 86 was a bad conscience of the Americans that equated the reversion movement with "anti-Americanism." Objectively, the Okinawans are neither more nor less "Japanese" than they were before the war. There was even certain revival of local Okinawan culture after the war because of the removal of the coercive assimilation policy of the pre-war Japanese government and the encourage- ment of "a separate Okinawan identity" by the U.S. adminis- tration (see, for example, Oshiro, 1970:146-153). However, it would be too materialistic a way of thinking to expect that revival of folk dances or preservation of old monuments would result in the formation of "a separate identity." The Okinawans do and did have "a separate identity." This does not mean that the Okinawan identity necessarily con- tradicts or negates the Japanese identity. Does it mean, then, that the Okinawans are an "unmeltable ethnic group." The answer would be a yes and a no. First of all, the geographic boundaries of Okinawa will remain in the foreseeable future, so that as far as some peOple continue to live on the islands, there would remain "Okinawans." But, are they an "ethnic" group? We have distinguished two dimensions of ethnic boundaries. One is the "quality" of ethnic boundaries which has to do with the "objective" relationships of the individuals concerned. The other is the "extension" of ethnic boundaries which is concerned. The other is the "extension" of ethnic boun- daries which is concerned with the dimension in which 87 individuals are linked to a certain ethnic category. It is likely that we can always discern some relatively closed, in "objective" terms, societal units within the larger society, which might be able to be called "ethnic." How- ever, their "closedness" is only relative. Whether or not it becomes a socially relevant "ethnic category" cannot be deduced only from the fact of their closedness. We have pointed out that there is no one-to-one correlation between the two dimensions of ethnic boundaries, and we have suggested that the "discrepancy" may become greater at the macro-level of national politics. After all, it should be recalled that the category ("ethnic" or not) "Okinawa" did not mean much to the majority of the "Okinawans" until they were incorporated into the "modern," Meiji state, although Okinawa existed "objectively" before that time. Even today, some people of Naha say that the people of Itoman is a "different race," and some people of Itoman say that the people of Kyan is a "different race" (Ishida, 1968: 38-39. Itoman is several miles south of Naha, and Kyan is a few miles south of Itoman.) It is likely that before Okinawa's incorporation into the Meiji State, hundreds of these "races" were all-important social categories for the majority of the "Okinawans," (although they would not have used the word "race" in those days). The chance in the power structure of Okinawa after the Meiji Restoration, however, brought about an essentially new dimension in the Okinawan "ethnicity": the category "Okinawa" became 88 socially relevant at the macro-level national politics. Simultaneously, social changes, that followed this change in the power structure, in such fields as education, communication, administration, etc., made the category "Okinawa" subjectively relevant not only for a handful of the Okinawan elite, but also the majority of the Okinawans. It should be noted, however, that there was no "historical necessity" that the category should be established in the context of "Japanese" national politics: it could have also been established in other political contexts, such as "colonialization" by the Western power, "national integra- tion" by China, or "national independence" of Okinawa. It seems that there is no such thing as the inherent "content" of the category "Okinawa": what determines the "content" is the political circumstances in which Okinawa finds itself. Although the notion that the "Okinawans" are a branch of the "Japanese" is firmly established today, it would be wrong to regard this as the ultimate end-product of the "historical necessity of national unification." Just like a prosperous 23253 (”branch house") may eventually become a oooko_("main house") of its own, the relationship of a "branch" to its "original stock" is always relative and fluid. "We Japanese" may or may not embrace "Okinawans," depending on the political context: this is a problem of the "extension" of ethnic boundaries. There are many ways in which "Okinawans" and "Main- land Japanese" are contrasted: Okinawa Minzoku, Okinawa 89 Jin, Okinawa Ken Jin, Uchinan Chu, etc., vs. Yamato Minzoku, Naichi Jin, Hondo Jin, Tafuken Jin, Yamaton Chu, etc. However, contrasts between all these categories involve the same confusion and ambiguities as those Berreman (1972) pointed out in his study of Urban India. Although, at the micro—level, these confusion and ambiguities would per- sist, it is likely that, at the macro-level, more or less stable formulations, with varying degrees of "ethnicity" involved, of the Okinawan-mainland Japanese relations would emerge. At present, the most common terms used by the Okinawans to designate the "mainland Japanese" seem to be Hondo Jin, Tafuken Jin, and Yamaton Chu. Hondo Jin (peOple of the mainland) is geographical; Tafuken Jin (peOple of other prefectures) is administrative; and Yamaton Chu is an Okinawan term signifhing peOple of the mainland. The mainland Japanese, however, do not have a category which distinguishes themselves from the Okinawans; Hondo Jin might be an acceptable term (it would, however, exclude the people of Hokkaido), while Tafuken Jin is a term relative to the speaker, and Yamaton Chu is a specifi- cally Okinawan term. It seems to follow that, once the mainland Japanese accept that "the Okinawans are Japanese," the peOple of Okinawa tend to be contrasted not with the mainland Japanese as a whole, but with people of a specific Prefecture. There seems to exist a certain tendency in Japan that people are classified according to geographical and 9O administrative units, rather than "ethnic" units. This is particularly evident when a Japanese refers to third persons. He may prefer the term Okinawa no hito (person of Okinawa) to the term Okinawa Jin (Okinawan). This seems to be related to the organizational pattern which Nakane calls "frame." The term Okinawa no hito has little to do with individual attributes which are "Okinawan"; it means rather that the person is within the frame called Okinawa. This point of view permits the person of Okinawa automati- cally to become a person of Japan, once "Okinawa" is included in "Japan." This mode of conceptualization is logical and a-historical. There is, however, a time dimension in any ethnic classification of man which involves a problem of "origin." A-historical and historical aspects of ethnic classification are mutually dependent; change in one aspect would effect change in another. Those who were classified into a category might find their common "origin," whereas those who found a common ”origin" might organize themselves into a group. After all, most people today would agree that all the mankind are ultimately descended from a common origin. The common origin as such, therefore, has no relevance in classifying people. It is a tentative, precarious equilibrium between "history" and "present" that manifests itself as a configuration of ethnic classification on the surface of the earth. CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The main problem to which we have addressed our- selves in this paper was the relationship between power structure and ethnicity. We considered that the expli- cation of this relationship was a prerequisite to the construction of a unifying theory of ethnicity. As we have pointed out, ethnic studies in the industrialized societies, particularly those focused upon the American experience, tended to take the power structure of society for granted, whereas the problem of power structure was one of the major themes of the ethnic studies in the "new nations." In Chapter 1, we have first discussed the "dimen- sions of ethnicity." Our discussion made it clear that there is no Simple one-to—one correlation between "objective" and "subjective" bases of ethnicity. This might seem to be a truism if we realize that "ethnicity" is after all a social phenomenon, which is a human product of an interplay of "objective" and "subjective" factors. In order to illustrate certain idiosyncrasies of "ethnicity," however, we have compared "ethnicity" and "descent." We have 91 92 pointed out certain similarities between them, such as segmentation. At the same time, we have also found several factors which hinder "ethnicity" from being called "descent" in a strict sense. We have further argued that, in many ethnographic contexts, the distinction between "ethnic" and other social categories is often irrelevant in the subjective reality of the people concerned. These arguments led us to look into the problem of "ethnicity" at its macro-ideological dimension. Our analogy between "nationalism" and "ethnicism" has brought into focus political factors in the formation of "ethni- cist" ideology. The distinction between "polycentric" and "ethnocentric" ethnicism has, moreover, enabled us to introduce a historical perspective into our study of ethnicity. We have pointed out that, just like "polycen- tric nationalism" does not make much sense without refer- ence to the emergence of "nation-state," there is a close relationship between "polycentric ethnicism" and the emergence of a particular type of power structure. This historical perspective led us to see "ethni- city" and "power structure" in their dialectical relation- ships. We have tried to reconstruct the development of ”modern state" and its relationship to "ethnicity." We have argued that the emergence of "modern state" has brought about fundamental changes, both objectively and subjectively, in "ethnicity." Objectively, the impact of "modern state" upon ethnicity is most obvious in the 93 processes which we have called "nationalization," or the processes of socio-cultural homogenization initiated by the "modern state" for the sake of administrative effi- ciency. At the same time, the "modern state" also differs from its predecessors in terms of ideology, because the ideology of the "modern state" lacks any legitimation of the discrimination of certain segments of the population within its boundaries. The significance of socio-cultural heterogeneity in the "modern state" is, therefore, quite different from that of premodern state. Those segments of the pOpulation in the "modern state," whose socio-cultural distinctiveness has become more conspicuous as a result of "nationalization," and who have become disadvantaged in terms of social opportunities of the new "modern state," we have called "sociological minorities." In the last part of Chapter 1, we have examined the modes of existence of "ethnicity" in the "modern state." We have introduced the distinction between the "quality" and the "extension" of ethnic boundaries. In the context of our criticism of Francis' ethnic theory, we have argued that her three types of "ethnicity," whose key variable is the degree of individual participation in the larger society, can deal only with the "quality" of ethnic boundaries; and that her confusion of "group" and "cate- gory" has prevented her ethnic theory from recognizing another dimension of ethnicity, i.e., the "extension" of ethnic boundaries, in which individuals are linked to a 94 certain "ethnic category." Putting it into more concrete terms, the problem is this: why is a certain individual in the United States an "Italian American"?--why is he not a "Sicilian," a "Lombard," an “Italian Chicagoan," an ”Italian New Yorker," etc.? We have pointed out that, as far as we deal with "ethnicity," as Francis does, in terms only of "individual participation in the larger society,” the dimension of "extension" of ethnic boundaries cannot be explained. We have argued that there is no simple one-to- one correlation between the dimensions of "quality" and ”extension" of ethnic boundaries. Those who are included in the "extension” of "Italian American" may participate in the larger society with varying degrees; some of them might form "ethnic groups," while the others may not. Those "ethnic groups," moreover, may not necessarily be "Italian American ethnic groups"; some of them might be "Sicilian," "Lombard," "Southern Italian," "Italian Chicagoan," etc. Those arguments illustrate why we cannot deduce the "extension" of ethnic boundaries simply from the "quality" of ethnic boundaries. Then, what is the "extension" of ethnic boundaries? How is it formed? The "extension" of ethnic boundaries is not necessarily a "factual fact," but a "political fact" which also involves factors of human intension. If we agree that the "extension" of ethnic boundaries is a "political fact," it follows that it is inseparable from the political structure of the larger society, which is, 95 in the contemporary context, the "modern state" power structure. We have pointed out that the "modern state" brings about the processes of "nationalization" within the state boundaries, which, at the same time, produce "socio- logical minorities." Those "sociological minorities" are got what they used to be before the advent of "modern state." Firstly, their relationships to the larger society are altered. Secondly, there seems to exist, in parallel with "nationalization" of the majority of the pOpulation, the processes of nationalization of "sociological minori- ties" as sociological minorities, that is to say, the processes in which "sociological minorities" acquire a new dimension of relevance at the level of "national" politics in the newly emerging "modern state." Let us take a con- crete example to illustrate this point. Before the Meiji Restoration (1868), there'existed in Japan social groups which were regarded as "outcaste." Although certain policies of the Tokugawa government tended to provide these "outcaste" groups with a common legal basis throughout Japan, there actually existed a good deal of regional variety with regard to their legal status because of the "feudal power structure" of premodern Japan in which each goo maintained a certain degree of legal autonomy. In certain hog, the "outcaste" was virtually non-existent. The concept and definition of "outcaste," moreover, varied from one region to another, so that the "outcaste" groups did not form a cross-han, "national" minority group. It 96 was only after the abolition of the Japanese feudal power structure that the "outcaste" as a national minority began to emerge, (as a result, ironically, of the abolition of the outcaste status by the national government). The national sensus of 1871 included three categories of "out- caste, namely, Eta, Hinin, and "miscellaneous" (Wagatsuma and DeVos, 1966:115). Today, all these fine distinctions have disappeared. What is relevant in the national politics today is the Burakumin. But, who are Burakumin and who are not? Before the concept of "Burakumin" was nationally established, villagers of X village would have looked down upon villagers of Y village, calling them by the local term which connotated the "outcaste" status whose concept varied from one region to another. These "local outcaste groups" did not "naturally" grow up into the Burakumin; the Burakumin was an essentially new dimension of "outcaste ethnicity" which has been brought about by the emergence of "modern state." Norbeck (1966:183-199), for example, documents some cases of "little-known minority groups" in Japan. Their "outcaste" statuses might have a "local" relevance even today; however, they may or may not be included in the "extension" of the Burakumin, which has been newly established, by the political activities of the "Burakumin" themselves and "non-Burakumin" Japanese, at the level of "national" politics. This example of Burakumin illustrates how the "modern state" brings about an essenti- ally new dimension of "ethnicity" as a result of "nationali- zation." 97 In Chapter 2, we have attempted to apply our theoretical perspective in an empirical context, i.e., Okinawan "ethnicity." The Okinawan example illustrates our thesis that "ethnicity" exhibits a quite different significance in the "empire type" power structure and in the "modern state." We have pointed out that, before the emergence of Japan as a "modern state," both "Japanese ethnicity“ and "Okinawan ethnicity" were not immediately relevant to the functioning of the power structure because neither "Okinawans" nor "Japanese" did form a "nation," which, as we have argued in Chapter 1, is a product of "nationalization" initiated by the "modern state." We have described intra-Okinawan "ethnic" divisions. Since each local community of the masses and the privileged class tended to be defined in terms of "descent" and main- tained its own "culture" and "tradition," there was little possibility that supra-village and trans-class "ethnicity" could develop in premodern Okinawa. Those intra-Okinawan "ethnic" divisions, however, did not hinder the unity of Okinawan power structure. On the contrary, they were the very basis of the functioning of the "empire type" power structure of premodern Okinawa. We have also discussed premodern Okinawa in the "international" context. Our discussion has, however, made it clear that the "international" environment of premodern East Asia cannot be equated with the modern "international" environment in which "nation-states" are 98 political actors. In other wOrds, we could not find any significant Sign of "polycentric nationalism" in premodern Okinawa. Our discussions of Okinawa after the emergence of Japan as a "modern state" illustrate how "Okinawan ethni- city" has acquired a new dimension of political relevance in the arena of "national" politics in the "modern state." This is mainly the problem of the "extension" of ethnic boundaries, which cannot be explained in terms simply of change in the "quality" of ethnic boundaries. The political nature of the "extension" of ethnic boundaries is most clearly demonstrated in the Okinawan reversion movement after the Second World War. It should be noted, moreover, that there is no "inherent necessity” that the "Okinawans," which itself is a category that has become politically relevant in the context of “modern state," should become "Japanese." Our study has attempted to see "ethnicity" in its relation to power structure. It is certainly true that man has been essentially the "same thing" for the last several thousand years; he lo a "primordial being." We have, however, pointed out that what is essentially "new" in "ethnicity" of the modern world, and argued that this new dimension of "ethnicity" is intelligible only when we consider it in its relationship to power structure. Our distinction between the "quality" and "exten- sion“ of ethnic boundaries has enabled us to treat the 99 dynamics of "ethnicity" not only in the contexts of "acculturation" and "assimilation,” but also in the context of national politics. Our attempts to explore the political dimension of "ethnicity" is, however, only at the beginning stage. Many of the factors which are involved in this exploration have been only incidentally touched upon. For example, the "national politics" is inseparable from the context of "international politics." It is not fortuitous that many “ethnic" categories are actually those of "national origin" (or those of "nation-state"). Ethnic classification, therefore, has to do with the "world-order" (or the image of "international order") of the people concerned. But, the modern "international order" is that which has been historically formed. We have pointed out that the "world order" of premodern East Asia was something quite different, subjectively and objectively, from that of the modern world. It seems that many of the "ethnic problems" in the contemporary world have to do with the "problems" of the existing "world order." Because of our emphasis upon the "extension" of ethnic boundaries (which, we think, has been neglected, or confused with the "quality" of ethnic boundaries, in many ethnic studies), we have not adequately dealt with the relationship between the "extension" and the "quality" of ethnic boundaries. Although we have emphasized that the dimension of "extension" is relatively independent of that 100 of "quality," it would be wrong to assume that there is no relation between them. In the context of Okinawa, we have not adequately dealt with the processes of "acculturation" and actual assimilation policies of the Japanese government. It would be of interest to broaden our perspective on Okinawa by comparing it with Korea and Taiwan which were also, at one time, under the administration of Japan. Finally, it might be questioned whether our Okinawan case is an adequate example of "ethnicity." Is it not that Okinawa is a case which might be more adequately described by the terms other than "ethnicity," such as "localism," "regionalism," etc.? Why did we not take more "typical” cases of "ethnicity" in Japan, such as "Korean Japanese" and "Ainu Japanese"? We would respond to this question by answering that we believe that the very "un-typical-ness" of the Okinawan case of "ethnicity" could provide us with an insight into the elementary factors involved in the problem of "ethnicity." It is true that "color" and other "racial features" do not play a Significant role in the case of Okinawan "ethnicity" in Japan. Moroever, the majority of the Okinawans are not "migrants" but "natives." Yet, if we define "ethnicity" in terms not of "race," but of "culture" and "tradition," the Okinawan case could claim to be "more ethnic" than many other cases of "ethni- city." It is obvious, moreover, that "ethnicity" is not a monOpoly of immigrants. It could be said, however, that, although our Okinawan case may illuminate certain elementary 101 factors involved in the problem of "ethnicity," it cannot provide all the specific cases of "ethnicity" with funda- mental solutions. It is because we hold that "ethnicity" is more a "dependent," rather than an "independent," variable. It is not without a grain of truth to say that "ethnicity" is "essentially a problem of class," etc., since we consider that the relevance of "ethnicity" cannot be understood without reference to the power structure. Although our study did not attempt to reduce "ethnicity" into the terms of "substructure," it was because we were interested in the relevance of "ethnicity" in the context of "politics." This does not, of course, deny the close relationships between politics and the "substructure." The above remarks would make clear our theoretical scope and its limitation. We hope that our study is of some contribution to the Study of ethnicity. APPENDIX APPENDIX Some Clarification of the Terms used in the Paper A. Ethnicity and Ethnicism Ethnicity: For various definitions of the term, see Isajiw 71974). Plax (1976:25) points out two aspects of the term, each with its own etymological origin: "ethnik-os" which means "heathen" or "qoyf (in Hebrew) and "ethnos" which means "nation." We do not give any explicit definition for the term "ethnicity" because our main concern is to reveal "dimensions of ethnicity" in their relations to various types of power structure. Ethnicism: The term is intended to signify an ideological aspect of "ethnicity." The relationship of ”ethni- cism" to "ethnicity" is analogous to that of "nationalism" to "nationality." We hold that, just like "nationalism" often precedes the objective formation of "nationality," "ethnicism" may not necessarily depend upon the objective existence of "ethnicity." , Ethnocentric: A type of "ethnicism" which holds that one’s group has "real" power and value, regardless of "factual" distribution of power, because of its special relationship with the devine. The concept is used in contradistinction with "polycentric ethnicism." , Polycentric: A type of "ethnicism" which holds that there are many centers of "real" power. We hold that "value dissensus" becomes subjectively relevant only in the context of "polycentric ethnicism," and that it is inseparable from "factual" distri- bution of power. We agree with A. D. Smith (1971) in that the "polycentric" world-view emerged historically in the modern times. 102 B. 103 Types of Power Structure Demotic Type and Empire Typo: In the "demotic type" power structure, indiVi uals are directly linked to the central authority without mediation of subsocietal units, whereas the "empire type" is characterized by a dual structure of interlocking levels, that is, "mutually exclusive homogeneous societies with separate traditions and folk cultures," on the one hand, and "an ethnically heterogeneous mediating elite with a dynamic "national" civilization (or "high culture")," on the other (Francis, 1976:57). Modern State: "A modern state is characterized by the continuous exercise of power over the pOpulation of a contiguous territory by a central authority through a bureaucratic administration" (Francis, 1976:386). The formation of the "modern state" is divided into two phases; "prenational" and "national." The "prenational mOdern state" corre- sponds, by and large, with Smith's concept "scien- tific state" (q.v.), and initiates the processes of "nationalization" (q.v.). Possessive State: A type of state historically found in western EurOpe, which is typically regarded as the personal possession of the ruler. "Possessive states" are "generally based on secular law, divorced from any theoretic (sic, presumably "theocratic," M.T.) notion; tHEy are unified under a strong central government. . . . Their ultimate effect was to encroach upon and pare down the independence of local and occupational or religious institutions" (Smith, 1971:233). Scientific State: A type of state which first evolved from C. thetwpossessive state" (q.v.). The "scientific state" is "a P01itY which seeks to homogenise the population within its boundaries for administrative purposes by utilizing the latest scientific tech- niques and methods for the sake of 'efficiency'" (Smith, 1971:231). The process of homogenization initiated by the "scientific state" corresponds with "nationalization" (q.v.) in Francis' termino- logy. The Impacts of the Modern State Upon Ethnicity Nationalization: The processes of demotic integration initiated by the "prenational modern state" (see, "modern state") for the sake of rational statecraft. These processes, at the same time, produce national minorities, or "sociological minorities" (q.v.). 104 Sociological Minorities: The term refers to groups "with a distinct culture within a large political unit, who, as a result of (the) policies of integration (initiated by the "scientific state"), became per— manently Oppressed . . . the novelty in their situation is that they are made to become conscious of the fact. . . . Moreover, their exclusion en masse (from the privileges of the new "scientific state") . . . is the more intolerable . . . exactly because the usual legitimations for inequality are absent" (Smith, 1971:235). When we regard the policies of integration and homogenization of the "scientific state" as "nationalization" (q.v.), these "sociological minorities" are called "national minorities." D. Two Dimensions of Ethnic Boundaries iguality" of Ethnic Boundaries: The term refers to the objective ethnic solidality, the degree of which would be expressed in terms of individual partici- pation in the larger society; as the degree of participation increases, the ethnic solidarity decreases. We hold, however, that the "ethnic boundaries" in this sense is essentially a micro- level phenomenon, which should not be confused with the macro-level ethnic phenomena. It is able to deal only with "ethnic groups" (q.v.), members of which are objectively related. We hold that the dissolution of "ethnic groups" at the micro-level may not necessitate that of "ethnic categories" (q.v.), and that the political dynamics of "ethnic categories" belongs to a macro-level dimension of ethnicity. In our terminology, change in "exten- sion" of ethnic boundaries (q.v.) can be independent of change in "quality" of ethnic boundaries. "Extension" of Ethnic Boundaries: The term refers to the subjective dimension of ethnicity, or the dimension in which individuals are related to an "ethnic category" (q.v.), regardless of objective relation- ships of the individuals concerned. We hold that this dimension of ethnicity becomes more dominant in the modern state where "ethnic groups" tend to lose an over-all formal structure and individual ethnics tend to become a political actor. It should be noted that there is no one-to-one correlation between the dimensions of the "quality" of ethnic boundaries and the "extension" of ethnic bounardies. For example, an "ethnic group" of "Italian Ameri- cans" in Detroit and that in Chicago may form separate "ethnic groups," while they may Still belong to the same "extension" of ethnic boundaries, that is, "Italian Americans." 105 E. Ethnic Groups and Ethnic Categories Ethnic Group: By an "ethnic group," we understand a corporate body with a more or less permanent existence, members of which are recruited on recogniZed "ethnic" principles. We hold that the existence of "ethnic groups" has to do with the "quality" of ethnic boundaries (q.v.), and is discernible primarily in terms of objective relationships of the members. Ethnic Category: The term refers to any aggregate of persons, which is expressed in terms of ethnicity. We have criticized and rejected Francis' use of the term "ethnic category," because she tends to regard "ethnic category" and "ethnic group" as mutually exclusive. We hold that any "ethnic group" may also have a dimension of "ethnic category," although an "ethnic category" may or may not coin— cide with an "ethnic group." We further suggest that, in the modern state, the dimensions of "ethnic group" and "ethnic category" tend to become more discrepant, because of the tendency of dis— solution of "ethnic groups" at the micro-level as well as the acquisition of a new relevance of "ethnic categories" at the macro-level of politics in the modern state. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Arakawa, Akira. 1973. Izoku to Tenno no Kokka. Tokyo: Nigatsu—sha. Arasaki, Moriteru, Ed. 1969. Dokyumento Okinawa Toso. Tokyo: Aki-shob. Aronson, Dan R. 1976. Ethnicity as a Cultural System: An Intro- ductory Essay. lo Ethnicity in the Americas. Francis Henry, Ed. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Asad, Talal, Ed. 1973. AnthrOpology and the Colonial Encounter. New York: Humanities Press. Bailey, F. G. 1969. Strategems and Spoils: A Social AnthrOpology of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell. Banton, Michael. 1976. Choosing Our Relations. Times Literary Supplement, February 6, p. 145. Barth, Ernst A. T., and Donald L. Noel. 1972. Conceptual Frameworks for the Analysis of Race Relations: An Evaluation. Social Forces 50(3):333-348. Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Introduction. Io Ethnic Groups and Boun- daries. Fredric Barth, Ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Bell, Wendell, and Walter B. Freeman, Eds. 1974. Ethnicity and Nation-Building: Comparative, International, and Historical Per8pectives. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 106 107 Berreman, G. D. 1963. Hindus of the Himalayas. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press. 1972. Social Categories and Social Interaction in Urban India. American Anthropologist 74(3):567-586. Binnendijk, Johannes A. 1973. The Dynamics of Okinawa Reversion, 1945-69. lo Public Diplomacy and Political Change. Gregory Henderson, Ed. New York: Praeger Publishers. Brass, Paul R. 1976. Ethnicity and Nationality Formation. Ethnicity 3(3):225-24l. Brass, Paul R., and Pierre L. van den Berghe. 1976. Ethnicity and Nationalism in World Perspec- tive. Ethnicity 3(3):l97-201. Ch'en, Ta-tuan. 1968. Investiture of Liu-Ch'iu Kings in the Ch'ing Period. In The Chinese World Order. John Fairbank, Ed. CambEidge: Harvard University Press. Cohen, Abner. 1976. Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthro- pology of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Conner, Walker. 1972. Nationrbuilding or Nation-Destroying? World Politics 24(3):3l9-355. Craig, Albert M. 1968. Fukuzawa Yukichi: The Philosophical Founda- tions of Meiji Nationalism. lo Political DevelOp- ment in Modern Japan. Robert E. Ward, Ed. Prince- ton: Princeton University Press. Deutsch, Karl W. 1966. Nationalism and Social Communication. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press. Doornbos, Martin. 1972. Some Conceptual Problems Concerning Ethni- city in Integration Analysis. Civilisation 22(2): 263-283. Dore, R. P. 1963. City Life in Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. 108 Eisenstadt, S. N., and Stein Rokkan, Eds. 1973. Building States and Nations, 2 vols. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Eliade, Mircea. 1958. Pattern in Comparative Religion. London and New York: Sheed and Ward. Emmerson, John K. 1971. Arms, Yen and Power: The Japanese Dilemma. New York: Dunellen. Enloe, Cynthia. 1973. Ethnic Conflict and Political Development. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fallers, Lloyd A. 1974. The Social Anthropology of Nation State. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. Fortes, Meyer. 1959. Descent, Filiation and Affinity. Man 59: 193-197, 206-212. 1969. Kinship and the Social Order. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Francis, E. K. 1967. The Ethnic Factor in Nation-Building. Social Forces 46(1):338-346. 1976. Interethnic Relations: An Essay in Socio- logical Theory. New York: Elsevier. Foster, B. L. 1974. Ethnicity and Commerce. American Ethnolo- gist 1:437-448. Geertz, Cliford, Ed. 1963. Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa. New York: Free Press. Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1975. Introduction. In Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ' Gordon, Milton U. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press. 109 Hannerz , Ulf . 1976. Some Comments on the Anthropology of Ethni- city in the United States. In Ethnicity in the Americas. Frances Henry, Ed. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Havens, Thomas R. H. 1974. Farm and Nation in Modern Japan: Agrarian Nationalism 1870-1940. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press. Hechter, Michael. 1975. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1976. Ethnicity and Industrialization: On the Proliferation of the Cultural Division of Labor. Ethnicity 3(3):214-224. Higa, Mikio. 1963. Okinawa: Recent Political Development. Asian Survey 3(9):415-426. 1967. The Reversion Theme in Current Okinawan Politics. .Asian Survey 7(3):151-164. 1965. Okinawa: Seito to Seiji. Tokyo: Chuokoron- sha. 1975. Okinawa no Fukki Undo. In Okinawa Henkan Kosho no Seiji Katei. Nihon Kokusai Seiji Gakkai, Ed. Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Higa, Shuncho. 1964. On Okinawan Surnames. In Ryukyuan Names. Shunzo Sakamaki, Ed. Honolulu: East-West Center Press. 1969. Okinawa no Saigetsu. Tokyo: Chuokoron-sha. 1971. Okinawa no Sonraku Soshiki. In Okinawa Bunka Ronso, Vol. 3. Toichi Mabuchi and Toru Ogawa, Eds. Tokyo: Heibon-sha. Higa, Shuncho, et al. 1963. Okinawa. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Hiyane, Truo, and Masao Gabe. 1975. Tochi Toso no Igi. In Okinawa Henkan Kosho no Seiji Katei. Nihon Kokusai Seiji Gakkai, Ed. Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Horowitz, Donald L. 1975. Ethnic Identity. In Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. N. Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, Eds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 110 Hwa, Chow Jen. 1975. China and Japan. Singapore: Chopmen Enter- prises. Isaacs, Harold Robert. 1975. Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change. New York: Harper and Row. Isajiw, Wsevolod W. 1974. Definitions of Ethnicity. Ethnicity 1(2): 111-124. Ishida, Ikuo. 1968. Okinawa: Kono Genjitsu. Tokyo: San'ichi- shobo. Jacob, James E. 1975. The Basques of France: A Case of Peripheral Ethnonationalism in Europe. Political Anthropology l(l):67-87. Johnston, Ruth. 1963. A New Approach to the Meaning of Assimila- tion. Human Relations 16:295-298. Kamei, Takashi. 1974. Tenno-Sei no Gengogaku-teki Kosatsu. Chuokoron (August): 153-165. Kampf, Herbet A. 1976. Okinawan Attitudes Towards Japan: A Case Study in the Nationalist Feelings of a Disadvantaged Minority. Asian Profile 4(2):115-137. Kaufmann, Walter. 1954. The Portable Nietzsche. New York: Viking Press. Kedouri, Elie. 1966. Nationalism, 3rd ed. London: Hutchinson University Library. Kerr, George H. 1958. Okinawa: The History of an Island PeOple. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company. Keyes, Charles F. 1976. Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic Group. Ethnicity 3(3):202-213. 111 Kinjo, Seitoku. 1970a. Meiji Ishin to Okinawa. In Okinawa Ken Shi, Vol. 2. Ryukyu Seifu, Ed. Naha: Ryukyu Seifu. 1970b. Shoki Kensei. In Okinawa Ken Shi, Vol. 2. Ryukyu Seifu, Ed. Naha: Ryukyu Seifu. Kitagawa, Joseph M. 1974. The Japanese Kokutai (National Community): History and Myth. History of Religions 13(3): 209-226. Lammis, Douglas. 1971. Okinawa: Junen no Nochi. Chuokoron (January):220-231. Lerner, Daniel. 1966. Some Comments on Center-Periphery Relations. In Comparing Nations. Richard L. Merritt and Stein Rokkan, Eds. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Lewis, Diane. 1973. Anthropology and Colonialism. Current Anthropology 14(5):581-602. Levi-Strauss, C. 1967. Totemism. Boston: Beacon Press. Mabuchi, Toichi, and Toru Ogawa. 1971. Kaisetsu. In Okinawa Bunka Ronso, Vol. 3. Toichi Mabuchi and Toru Ogawa, Eds. Tokyo: Heibonsha. Mair, Lucy. 1972. An Introduction to Social Anthropology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Maquet, Jacques. 1964. Objectivity in AnthrOpology. Current AnthrOpology 5(1):47-55. Mendel, Douglas H., Jr. 1975. Okinawa Reversion in Retrospect. Pacific Affairs 48(3):398-412. Miwa, Kimitada. 1975. Chiho-shugi no Kenkyu. Tokyo: Nanso-sha. Moerman, Michael. 1965. Ethnic Identity in a Complex Civilization: Who Are the Lue? American AnthrOpologist 67(5): 1215-1230. 112 Mowlana, Hamid, and Ann Elizabeth Robinson. 1976. Ethnic Mobilization and Communication Theory. In Ethnicity in an International Context. Abdul Said and Luiz R. Simmons, Eds. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Muramatsu, Michio. 1975. The Impact of Economic Growth Policies on Local Politics in Japan. Asian Survey 15(9): Nagata, Judith A. 1974. What is a Malay? Situational Selection of Ethnic Identity in a Plural Society. American Ethnologist 1(2):331-350. Nakamura, Yujiro. 1970. Kokka Risei to Kokka Jonen. Chuokoron (May): 68-87. Narroll, R. 1964. Ethnic Unit Classification. Current Anthropo- logy 5(4):283-291, 306-312. Nettle, J. P. 1968. The State as a Conceptual Variable. World Politics 20(4):559-592. Nishizato, Kiko. 1970. Okinawa Kindaishi ni okeru Honto to Sakishima. In Kindai Okinawa no Rekishi to Minshu. Okinawa Rekishi Kenkyu Kai, Ed. Naha: Okinawa Rekishi Kenkyu Kai. Norbeck, Edward. 1966. Little-Known Minority Groups in Japan. In Japan's Invisible Race: Caste in Culture and Per- sonality. George DeVos and Hiroshi Wagatsuma, Eds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Oshiro, Tatsuhiro. 1970. Genchi kara no Hokoku: Okinawa. Tokyo: Gekkan Pen-Sha. Ota, Masahide. 1969. Minikui Nihonjin. Tokyo: Simul Press. 1976. Okinawa no Minshu Ishiki. Tokyo: Shinsen-sha. Parenti, Michael. 1967. Ethnic Politics and the Persistence of Ethnic Identification. American Political Science Review 61:717-726. 113 Park, Robert E. 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe: Free Press. Plax, Martin. 1976. Towards a Redefinition of Ethnic Politics. Ethnicity 3(1):l9-33. Redfield, Robert. 1955. The Social Organization of Tradition. The Far Eastern Quarterly 15(1): 1956. Peasant Society and Culture: University of Chicago Press. Rejai, Mostafa, and Cynthia Enloe. 1969. Nation-States and State-Nations. Inter- national Studies Quarterly 13(2):140-158. Sakai, R. K. 1964. The Satsuma-Ryukyu Trade and the Tokugawa Seclusion Policy. Journal of Asian Studies 23(3): 391-403. 1968. The Ryukyu Islands as a Fief of Satsuma. In The Chinese World Order. John Fairbank, Ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shibutani, Tamotsu, and Kian M. Kwan. 1965. Ethnic Stratification. New York: Macmillan Company. Shinzato, Keiji. 1970. Okinawa—shi o Kangaeru. Tokyo: Keiso-shobo. Shinzato, Keiji, et a1. 1972. Okinawa-ken no Rekishi. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppan. Shils, Edward. 1961. Center and Periphery. In The Logic of Per- sonal Knowledge: Essays Presented to Michael Polanyi. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Skinner, G. W. 1971. Chinese Peasants and Closed Community. Comparative Studies in Society and History 13: 270-281. Smith, Anthony D. 1971. Theories of Nationalism. London: Duckworth. Smith, Henry 0., II. 1975. Review of "Farm and Nation in Modern Japan" and "A Social Basis for Prewar Japanese Militarism. Journal of Japanese Studies 2(1):131-147. 114 smith, M. G. 1956. On Segmentary Lineage Systems. Journal of the Royal AnthrOpological Institute 86:39-80. Sofue, Takao. 1971. Kenmin—sei:Bunka-jinruigaku-teki Kosatsu. Tokyo: Chuokoron—sha. Steiner, Kurt. 1968. Popular Political Participation and Politi- cal Development in Japan: The Rural Level. In Political Development in Japan. Robert E. Ward, Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Staniland, Martin. 1970. The Rhetoric of Center-Periphery Relations. The Journal of Modern African Studies 8(4):617-636. Stocking, George W., Jr. 1968. Race, Culture, and Evolution. New York: Free Press. Tanaka, Toshio. 1972. Okinawa no Kodai Bunka to Okinawa Bunka no Kangae Kata. In Okinawa Bunka Ronso, Vol. 1. Keiji Shinzato, Ed. Tokyo: Heibon-sha. Teske, Raymond H. C., Jr., and Bardin H. Nelson. 1974. Acculturation and Assimilation: A Clarifi- cation. American Ethnologist 1(2):351-367. Toguchi, Masakiyo. 1971a. Monchu no Seiritsu. In Okinawa Bunka Ronso, Vol. 3. T. Mabuchi and T. Ogawa, Eds. Tokyo: Heibon-sha. 1971b. Keizu to Monchu. In Okinawa Bunka Ronso, Vol. 3. T. Mabuchi and T. Ogawa, Eds. Tokyo: Heibon—sha. 1975. Kinsei no Ryukyu. Tokyo: Hosei Daigaku Suppan Kyoku. Van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1976. Ethnic Pluralism in Industrial Societies: A Special Case? Ethnicity 3(3):242-255. Wallterstein, I. 1960. Ethnicity and National Integration in west Africa. Cahiers d'Etudes Africaienes 3:129-139. 115 Wagatsuma, Hiroshi, and George DeVos. 1966. The Ecology of Special Buraku. In_Japan's Invisible Race: Caste in Cluture and Personality. George DeVos and Hiroshi wagatsuma, Eds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Watanabe, Akio. 1970. The Okinawan Problem: A Chapter in Japan- U.S. Relations. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press. Weingrod, Alex. 1967. Political Sociology. Social AnthrOpology, and the Study of New Nations. British Journal of Sociology 18(2):121-l34. Yancey, William L., et a1. 1976. Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformula- tion. American Sociological Review 41(3):391-403. HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES III Ill 11 "III III" II! I ll 6 312931033 2731