Japan's Household Registration System and Citizenship

Koseki, Identification and Documentation

David Chapman, Karl Jakob Krogness, David Chapman, Karl Jakob Krogness

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781138678194
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134512980
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Estudios étnicos

Japan's Household Registration System (koseki seido) is an extremely powerful state instrument, and is socially entrenched with a long history of population governance, social control and the maintenance of social order. It provides identity whilst at the same time imposing identity upon everyone registered, and in turn, the state receives validity and legitimacy from the registration of its inhabitants. The study of the procedures and mechanisms for identifying and documenting people provides an important window into understanding statecraft, and by examining the koseki system, this book provides a keen insight into social and political change in Japan.

By looking through the lens of the koseki system, the book takes both an historical as well as a contemporary approach to understanding Japanese society. In doing so, it develops our understanding of contemporary Japan within the historical context of population management and social control; reveals the social effects and influence of the koseki system throughout its history; and presents new insights into citizenship, nationality and identity. Furthermore, this book develops our knowledge of state functions and indeed the nation state itself, through engaging critically with important issues relating to the koseki while at the same time providing a platform for further investigation. The contributors to this volume utilise a variety of disciplinary areas including history, gender studies, sociology, law and anthropology, and each chapter provides insights that bring us closer to a comprehensive grasp of the role, effects and historical background of what is a crucial and influential instrument of the Japanese state.

This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of Japanese history, Japanese culture and society, Japanese studies, Asian social policy and demography more generally.

Part I Early history

2 Early modern Osaka hinin and population registers

Takashi Tsukada

Osaka City University

Translation by Timothy Amos

DOI: 10.4324/9781315889757-2

Introduction

Early modern Japan was a feudal society established through the powers of bakufu and the lords of the domains. But from another perspective it can also be said to be Japan’s age of cities. In early modernity, great urban cities such as Edo, Osaka and Kyoto emerged, with populations ranging from several hundred thousand to a million people. The development of these large metropolises inevitably produced an impoverished urban underclass and at the very bottom of it lived beggars and paupers. In Japan’s early modern period, beggars and paupers were called hinin, and they formed status groups occupying a fixed position in society.

As urban Osaka formed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, hinin groups established four fraternities (kaito nakama) at Tennōji, Tobita, Dōtonbori and Tenma in early modern Osaka (see Figure 2.1). Each fraternity had one head official (chōri) and several vice-chiefs (kogashira) at their apex and they formed a fraternity leadership organization called the Honorable Brotherhood (onchū). Ordinary hut-owning hinin were called juniors (wakakimono) and there were apprentices (deshi) who were employed by such hinin.

New generations of beggars and paupers were referred to as “new hinin” or “wild hinin” and the four fraternities were entrusted with rule over and care for such people. In 1683–84 urban hinin were banished and relocated to the fraternities, which secured land called the “new enclaves” (shinkaito) to house them. In 1691 a hinin hut designed to accommodate more than 1200 new hinin was constructed at Takahara. This place later became the Takahara Hospice (an institution attached to the jailhouse) jointly managed by the four fraternities which housed the sick and young prisoners. Vice-chiefs (also known as “hinin hut leaders”) were placed among the hinin that had come to live in these new enclaves and the hospice, and they were distinguished from the original vice-chiefs by being given the position of “Thirteen Group Hinin Hut Leaders.”

The four fraternities included “fallen Christians” (korobi kirishitan) and their descendants, and they performed official duties pertaining to the “rule and relief” of new hinin, but they were also subjected to the strict rule of the City Magistrate in terms of these Christian prohibitions and duties. Because the four fraternities were located on peasant land around Osaka’s three counties (sangō)—Tennōji Village (Tennōji/Tobita), Nanba Village (Dōtonbori) and Kawasaki Village (Tenma)—they were governed by the leaders of those villages; and the Tennōji and Tobita fraternities also came under the rule of Shitennōji, working for them on official temple business. Moreover, the Tennōji fraternity attained a genealogy (yuisho) that stated they were the descendants of people who assisted with Prince Shōtoku’s relief work at Hidenin and they were called Hidenin in their relationship with Shitennōji.

Figure 2.1Adapted version of a map found in Tsukada (2001: 7)

Based on the above outline, in this chapter I address the following two issues. First, I examine the incident related to Shitennōji’s punitive powers over the Hidenin (Tennōji) and Tobita fraternities that occurred in the latter half of the eighteenth century. From that I extract several points of interest related to the question of hinin population registration (hinin no ninbetsu). And second, I examine the 1698 Hidenin fraternity population register (hidenin kaito ninbetsucho) (the only fraternity population register still known to be in existence), revealing through it an outline of the structure of the fraternity.

Hinin rule and population registration

From the sixth to the twelfth months of the fifth year of An’ei (1776), an incident occurred in which Shitennōji attempted to punish Chūji, a vice-chief in the Tennōji fraternity, and Magoshichi, a junior officer (Hidenin chōri monjo 2008: 210–35).¹ The basic outline of the case is as follows.

The initial incident occurred on the first day of the sixth month when Shitennōji officials tried to punish Chūji and Magoshichi—who were on official business as guards for the “summer festival” (kaishiki) at the Shōman’in (Aizendō)—with confinement for alleged impertinence. Shitennōji tried to get the Hidenin head official and vice-chiefs to consent to the punishment by ordering them to submit a writ of acknowledgment, but the head official Tadasuke along with the others refused to submit the document. The reason given was that since Chūji was a vice-chief, the consent of the City Magistrate was needed; as such an action might interfere with their performance of official duties for the authorities.

As indicated in Table 2.1, this incident developed over five subsequent stages. First, Hidenin officials tried to avoid submitting a writ of acknowledgment. Second, Shitennōji attempted to break the impasse from a different angle by approaching the Tobita fraternity head official and the Sunaba vice-chief. Third, Tennōji Village officials recommended the matter be settled privately. Fourth, officials from the City Magistrate’s Office of Robberies and Incendiaries, as well as other magistrate officials handling regional affairs, came forward and attempted to reason with Shitennōji. Finally, the City Magistrate permitted Shitennōji’s unmediated punishment thereupon settling the matter.

This case was handled in the City Magistrate’s east office by Tasaka Genzaemon (an official in the Office of Robberies and Incendiaries) and Nishida Kiemon (a City Magistrate regional official), and in the west office by two City Magistrate regional officials, Yasui Shinjūro and Tasaka Naoemon. It is thought that Hidenin first petitioned the Office of Robberies and Incendiaries, but it is clear from the specifics of the case that City Magistrate regional officials commanded a central position in the affair.

Table 2.1 Stages of the Chūji/Magoshichi punishment incident, 1776

Stages of the incident	Period
Hidenin officials tried to avoid submitting a writ of acknowledgment.	1^st day of the 6^th month to the early 8^th month
Shitennōji approached the Tobita fraternity head official and the Sunaba vice-chiefs to break the deadlock.	1^st day of the 8^th month to the middle of the 9^th month
Involvement of the Tennōji Village officials.	Middle to the end of the 9^th month
Officials from the City Magistrate’s Office of Robberies and Incendiaries and the Magistrate’s Regional Office participate directly.	Beginning of the 10^th month through to the early 11^th month
City Magistrate grants permission and the case is settled.	13^th day of the 11^th month through to the middle of the 12^th month

Within Shitennōji, moreover, were twelve subsidiary temples with groups called “acolytes” (shūto), and within these were positions called “first Śarīra” (ichishari) and “second Śarīra” (nishari) determined by the length of priestly service, as well as a “Keeper of the Year” (nenyo) whose job it was to assume duties for that year. Apart from the “acolytes,” the Akino priest family, which had rendered meritorious deeds during the reconstruction of Shitennōji from the late Sengoku (1467–1568) to the early Tokugawa periods, inherited the position of Official Administrator (kumonjo). Beneath the “Keeper of the Year” were lay officials, and the Akino priest family in the Official Administration Office also had officials beneath them. The alleged impertinence that triggered the above incident was Chūji and Magoshichi not properly greeting the Keeper of the Year official Tanaka Tsune’emon and the Official Administration official Iida Koemon. Both of these men became the officers in charge during the course of the incident in place of the actual Keeper of the Year and Official Administrator. And although many parts of the following narrative have the City Magistrate or Shitennōji as the subject, it was actually these men performing all the actions.

It is useful here to clarify the positions of each of the parties involved in this incident. The Tennōji fraternity, after the mid-seventeenth century, created a genealogy that had them as the descendants of people who helped with Prince Shotoku’s relief of the poor (“alms” in early modern parlance), and based on this pedigree they were permitted to construct a poor refuge at Shitennōji in 1670 (Tsukada 2000a). Shitennōji, on the other hand, mobilized both the Hidenin and Tobita fraternities for what was in reality temple business. Based on this relationship, Shitennōji emphasized their rule over both the Hidenin and Tobita fraternities, thinking that they had punitive rights over them. The fraternities, on the other hand, despite emphasizing their genealogy, never internalized Shitennōji’s governance over them. The City Magistrate supported the fraternities based on their official duties and began to show signs of coming into confrontation with Shitennōji. The City Magistrate instructed the officials in Tennōji Village to work towards a private settlement and what they were recollecting when they did so was the fact that the population register of the Tennōji fraternity was being submitted by the village officials to the shogunate’s local magistrate (and not Shitennōji). The origin of this disputed point was the City Magistrate but the Tennōji Village officials soon followed and took up the issue.

The incident was resolved when the City Magistrate recognized Shitennōji’s punitive powers, eventually having no choice but to permit them because Shitennōji refused to budge on their own claims and because of the glaring discrepancy in the social position of Shitennōji and people of hinin status. At that time, the punishment of confinement which was problematized in the incident was shown to have precedents and it was agreed that, while Shitennōji would be permitted to independently issue such punishments, it would first report to the “public authorities” (City Magistrate) before banishing fraternity members or enforcing new rules. As the details of this case can be found in another publication, I will now move on to an examination of points of concern pertaining to population registration (Tsukada 2013).

The issue pertaining to popular registration surfaced under the following circumstances. On the sixteenth day of the ninth month, the Tennōji Village officials were summoned by the City Magistrate’s Office of Robberies and Incendiaries and asked where they were submitting the population registers for the Tennōji and Tobita fraternities. This was the first such enquiry and it is clear that it was the Office of Robberies and Incendiaries that raised the issue. At this time the Office of Robberies and Incendiaries, insisting that the response of Shitennōji was a “mistaken evaluation,” asked the Tennōji Village officials to work towards a private settlement to the case. On the nineteenth day of the ninth month, the Tennōji...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table Of Contents
• Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• PART I Early history
• PART II Nation, empire and occupation
• PART III The present
• Contributor biographies
• Index