Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

I take a gender perspective on the function of the state spectacle of death in modern Japan. By focusing on politicians’ widows in funerals from Meiji to Taishō, I explore how widows were portrayed politically as mibōjin, and became the models for military widows in wartime.

Paper long abstract:

Discussions of widows in modern Japan have focused till now on military widows in War World II. The Japanese word for widow, mibōjin means “a woman who should have died with her husband, but is still alive.” Thus defined, Japanese widows were required to remain single and raise their children in such a manner as not to bring shame on the dead, the family or even the country. I call this narrative manifestation of Japanese widows the “apotheosis of mibōjin,” and it merits an historical approach that locates its origins in peace time. Here I propose to analyze mibōjin over a longer time span from the Meiji to Taishō period, and to focus on the upper class.

In this presentation, I argue that politicians’ widows played an important role in such ritual performances as state funerals. Although posthumous peerages and state funerals may seem an appropriate way to commemorate the dead, the living are not always desirous of such honors. Regardless of their personal views, widows had to cooperate with the political party to which their husbands belonged, and respond to requests from the government. Moreover, it was more important for the state to narrate the widow as a mibōjin than to respect their real feelings. As the widows of upper-class men were narrated politically as mibōjin, they subsequently became the models for, and exerted an influence on, women of lower social classes.

I explore the fashioning of the state spectacle of death in modern Japan, and the struggle of the women whose fate it was to be apotheosized as mibōjin. It is indeed the case that the image of mibōjin was a by-product of widows’ relationships to men, to family, and to country. My concern here is to highlight the individuality of women as they encountered the deaths of their husbands. A study of widows as subjects will, I believe, deepen our understanding of the Japanese empire’s state funeral ceremonial. A gender perspective on this problem will render possible a comparison with other Asian countries (China and Korea), where the status and role of widows were similar to Japan.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This paper examines the concept of ministerial responsibility as described by the Meiji Constitution and set of regulation in force in pre-war Japan. It also aims to analyze the main points of contention argued by constitutional scholars during the interwar period (1918-1940).

Paper long abstract:

The ministers of pre-war Japan were acting as the central organ of executive power since the end of the 19th century. Nevertheless, their roles and powers were enacted by the Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Meiji Constitution) and other regulations in a quite ambiguous way. This research focuses on the issue of ministerial responsibility, which has been underestimated as a cause of political instability until now.

In the first half of this paper, we will quote the Article 55 of the Meiji Constitution: “(1) The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to the Emperor, and be responsible for it. (2) All Laws, Imperial Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that relate to the affairs of the State, require the countersignature of a Minister of State.” We will then mention the Ordinance on the organization of the Cabinet 内閣官制 promulgated in December 1889, which stated that the Cabinet was made up of Ministers of State, gave details on the use of the countersignature and on the Cabinet meetings, and specified that ministers without portfolio could also be members of the Cabinet.

Three decades after the promulgation of the Meiji Constitution, many constitutional scholars were still arguing on key points regarding the responsibility of ministers, and how it should be enforced. In the second half of this presentation, we will therefore regard the following main points of contention, and explain the different opinions of famous interwar Japanese scholars like Uesugi Shinkichi, Shimizu Tooru or Minobe Tatsukichi. First, the dichotomy between the status of ‘Minister of State’ 国務大臣 and ‘head of ministry’ 各省大臣. Second, the definitions and relations between the terms of ‘assistance to the Emperor’ 輔弼, ‘responsibility’ 責任, and ‘countersignature’ 副署. Third, the argument regarding which organ the ministers were responsible to. Finally, the divide between collective and individual responsibilities, and what it implied concerning the unity of the Cabinet as an organ. This demonstration will thereby shed light on the multiplicity of interpretations, which may have led to political confusion.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This paper considers the Medal of Honour Ordinance, the core of modern Japan’s state honours system for civilians. Through an examination of the system and a statistical analysis of the recipients, modern Japan’s state honour system is placed in the context of world history.

Paper long abstract:

Modern state honours started in Western Europe and spread around the world throughout the 19th-20th centuries. In Japan, a system was rapidly developed after the Meiji Restoration. As in Western countries, the recipients of the Orders were mainly the military personnel and civil servants. However, influenced by the system of early modern East Asia, state honours for civilians were rapidly institutionalised in the early Meiji Period. The core legislation is the Medals of Honour Ordinance (Hōshō Jōrei), which was promulgated in 1881 and continues to this day. This paper reveals the roles of modern Japan’s state honours system and places it in the context of world history.

First, the institutional evolution of the Medals of Honour Ordinance is introduced. Initially, there were three types of medals, the Medal with Red Ribbon, awarded to those who saved lives, the Medal with Green Ribbon, awarded to virtuous persons, and the Medal with Blue Ribbon, awarded to those who contributed to the public interest, each originating from the West, ancient China, and early modern Japan, respectively. Thereafter, in response to new national and social challenges, the types of medals and the subjects to which they were awarded changed constantly.

This paper presents a statistical analysis of the recipients. In line with institutional changes, the number of recipients doubled after WWI, with a further explosion from the 1940s onwards. In addition, while the majority of the recipients were initially leading figures in the local communities, from the 1920s onwards, as bureaucratic sectionalism progressed, outstanding people in individual fields such as education, health, social work, and academic inventions also became eligible.

The expansion of the honours system was also observed in 20th century Western Europe, but in the case of Japan, various contributions were viewed as manifestations of traditional ‘virtue’ and gradually became more strongly linked to the ideology of the Emperor System. Thus, while taking the form of Western-derived medals, the state honours for civilians in modern Japan had an East Asian context and were combined with the monarchy.