Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Review
Author(s): Peter Duus
Review by: Peter Duus
Source: The Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 539-543
Published by: Society for Japanese Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/132836
Accessed: 10-11-2015 16:34 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for Japanese Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Japanese
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 140.247.0.135 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:34:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Section
539
StanfordUniversity
Two narrativesunfold in this book. The first concerns the "political role
that working men and women have played in twentieth century Japan"
(p. 3); it deals with the politics of the workplace-the struggle of working
men and women to press their demandsto employers. The second attempts
to connect "the story of labor to a reinterpretationof the broaderdynamics
of Japanesepolitical history from 1905 to 1940" (p. 5); it deals with politics at the nationalcenter, where, accordingto the author, "social conflict
and workingclass action were centralcauses of change in modernJapanese
history" (p. 108). The first narrativeis successful, the second is not.
The firstnarrativeis a continuationof Gordon'simportantearlierwork,
The Evolution of Labor Relations in Japan: Heavy Industry, 1853-1955
(HarvardUniversity Press, 1985). Indeed, Gordonoften cites that work in
his footnotes-and in some places recapitulatesit. In both books Gordon
has demonstratedhimself a remarkablycapable, thorough, and dogged
researcher,relentless in his search for archival material. One hopes that
other young scholarswill be inspiredto delve deeperinto this new subfield,
exploring not only political history but also the social history of "the
workers themselves, their communities, and the day-to-day occurrences
that shaped their outlook."'
In the early sections of the book, Gordon uses the term "working
class" or "workingpersons" ratherbroadly to include everyone from geishas and rickshaw drivers to lathe operatorsand locomotive engineers. At
times, the category seems to overlap with "urban poor." The reason, I
think, is that Gordon seeks to find a close link between the "popularpolitical awakening" representedby the urbanriots of the late Meiji period
and the emergence of politicized working people in the post-1918 period.
Unfortunatelythis linkage is not very convincingly demonstrated.Gordon
provides little or no concrete evidence that those participatingin the working organizationsof the 1920s were directly influenced by the urbanriots
of the late Meiji period. A better case might be made for a link between
the rice riots of 1918 and subsequent labor unrest2but Gordon tends to
give this event short shrift.
1. See HerbertGutman, "Workers'Search for Power," in Ira Berlin, ed., Power and
Culture:Essays on the American WorkingClass (New York:PantheonBooks, 1987).
2. See Michael Lewis, Riots and Citizens: Mass Protest in Imperial Japan (Berkeley:
University of CaliforniaPress, 1990). Gordon makes no reference to this importantwork in
his footnotes.
This content downloaded from 140.247.0.135 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:34:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
540
This content downloaded from 140.247.0.135 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:34:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Section
541
Gordon also provides a close account of the "proletarianparty" movement in the Nankatsudistrict, suggesting that it took time for these organizations to learn electoral tactics. Ratherthan stressing the "failures" or
"weaknesses" of these parties, he places them in a cross-national comparativeperspective, pointing out thattheirelectoralgains were respectable
for a fledging movement. Indeed, his treatmentof both the worker organizations and proletarianparties during the 1930s is rathermore positive
than most other accounts in English. For example, he underlinesthe continuing growth of the working class organizations(in absolute numbers if
not relative size), the increasingscale and durationof strikes, and the continuing electoral gains of the Social Masses Party. And he also makes the
importantpoint that while working-classorganizations"no longer viewed
the bureaucracyor even the military with comparable suspicion," they
were still willing to confrontemployerswith their demandseven in the late
1930s (pp. 309-10).
Unfortunately,Gordon'ssecond narrative,which attemptsto "offer a
fresh perspectiveon the broadsweep of twentiethcenturyhistory" (p. xvi)
and to "place social contention, broadly conceived, at the center of twentieth century political history" (p. 331), keeps interruptinghis fine monograph on the working people of Nankatsu. The "new" periodization he
offers-"imperial bureaucracy"up to 1918, "imperial democracy" from
1918 to 1932 (or maybe 1936?), and "imperial fascism" after that-is
fairly conventional. The labels are new but the bottles are old, and so is
the wine. The stress on "turningpoints," moreover, runs counter to the
effort of some historiansto find more underlyingcontinuitythan discontinuity in post-1905 history.5No matter.Some things change, and others do
not; some change is rapid, and some change is slow; and historiansusually
choose to stress one alternativeor the other. Indeed, at the very end of the
book, Gordon hedges his earlier emphasis on discontinuity and suggests
that politics in the last two periods were "neither 'purely' democraticnor
'purely' fascist" (p. 333).
More of a problem is Gordon's failure to make very clear what
changed: at times he seems to suggest that it was the elites that changed,
at times the "state structure"or "structureof rule" (whatever that might
be), and at times ideology-or sometimes all of the above. The result is
often confusion. For example, Gordon initially makes a distinction between a "democraticmovement," which he seems to equate more or less
with the pre-1918 political parties in the Diet, and "imperialdemocracy,"
which emerged with the establishmentof party cabinets after 1918. "Imperial democracy," he says, involved "increasedprominenceof representative institutions," the "emergence of democratic intellectual voices,"
5. E.g., Kano Masanao, Taish6 demokurashiino teiryu: "dozoku"-tekiseishin e no
kaiki (Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Ky6kai, 1973).
This content downloaded from 140.247.0.135 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:34:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
542
This content downloaded from 140.247.0.135 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:34:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Section
543
This content downloaded from 140.247.0.135 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:34:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions