Love and Colonialism in Takamure Itsue's Feminism: A Postcolonial Critique

Author(s): Sonia Ryang

Source: Feminist Review, No. 60, Feminist Ethics and the Politics of Love (Autumn, 1998), pp.
1-32
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395545
Accessed: 17/12/2009 12:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Feminist
Review.

http://www.jstor.org
Love and Colonialism in
Takamure Itsue's Feminism:
A Postcolonial Critique

Sonia Ryang

Abstract <
Takamure Itsuehasmanyfacesfollowingdifferent phasesof herlife:poet,activist- z
writer,anarchist,ethnologistand historian.Throughout thesetransformations, x
Takamure maintained herfeminist position.
Thisarticle concentrateson herpoli- zm

tics of love, sex andmarriage,formulated and presentedin the pre-warperiod O

duringtheiimeof Japanese colonialempire.A specificfocusis placedon herposi- >
fieldof womenwhosenation *>
tionalityin the act of writingwithinthe discursive
was colonizingothers,notablyKoreans.Thecombination of positivisticcraving x
historyto substantiate
for 'scientific' the uxorilocaltraditionof Japanesematri- .s,
monyanduncritical acceptanceof 'motherhood'asa superior virtueledherto con- "
sequently embrace Japan'scolonialism. w
s

Keywords
Korea
feministhistory;Japan;colonialism;

Perhapsmorethananyotherearlyfeministsof pre-warJapan,whowrote
aboutwomen'sidentityandtheirnewformsof life,Takamure Itsuemade
explicitanendorsementof loveasa politicalaction,notasa personalaffair
thatcannotbe discussedin public.Perhapsmorethananyotherpost-war
feministof Japan,Takamuremadepowerfulconnectionsbetweenpast
historyandpresentpoliticswitha potentialto fundamentally subvertcon-
ventionalunderstandingsof genderrelationsin Japan.This articleis to
exploreher ideasof love and marriageembodiedin hermajorpolitical
workswrittenin thecolonialperiod,froma specifically postcolonialposi-
tion of analysis.
Reassessing pastscholarshipfromtoday'sfeministpointof view,or, for
thatmatter,a colonialpastfrompostcolonialperspective,doesnot always
haveto be condemningof shortcomings of the pastin a mannerwhich
assumesa linearhistoricalprogress.Furthermore, to considerhow the
instanceof thecolonialwasplacedwithinthestreamof feminismis of con-
temporarysignificance, ratherthan an anachronisticone. This is partly 1
, becausewe arestillfacedwithongoingproblemsthatpastfemiIlists strug-
gledwithandpartlybecauseourpositionsareoftenerodedandcompro-
', institutionsthat arebecomingmore
misedby the existingsocio-political
.s, andmoredeceptilrely accommodating bywayof privileging certaingroups
° of womenandillusorilypresenting theirachievements as theachievement
3, of womenat large.
uJ
ss:

Thisis also becausethe postcolonialreconsideration of colonialismand

colonialruleoftentakesthe nation-stateas its pointof departure,cham-
pioningthenational(andpatriarchal, forthatmatter),and,hence,trivial-
izes non-nationalinstancesincludingthe sexualand the personal.Such
trendsbecomeall themorerelevantto thecontextof today'sfeminismin
Japan;contemporary Japanesefeminismhas long been predominantly
'nation-focused' and ethnocentric,concernedmainly with Japanese
womenin Japanandnon-Japanese women,for exampleKoreanandTai-
wanesewomenwho livein Japanas a resultof Japan'spastcolonialrule,
areplacedoutsideits vision.Evenleadingcommentators shy awayfrom
criticallyengagingwiththerealityfacedbynon-Japanese womenin Japan;
therearethosewho areconcernedaboutthewartimeprostitution forced
by the armyon womenfrom the coloniesand about femalemigrant
labourers today,butsuchissuesarereservedforsomespecialistsandthere
has yet to arisean organicconnectionbetweenhistoricalissuesandthe
currentsituationforcedon womenof all ethnicbackgrounds in Japan
includingtheJapanesethemselves.

By not focusingproperlyon discriminations basedon 60th genderand

ethnicity Japanesefeminismhas effectivelycondonedthe dominant
Japaneseideologyof nationalhomogeneity.So, for example,whereas
women'slabourrightsin businesssectorsare hotly debated,Korean
womeIl'songoingmultiplesufferingon the groundof gender,ethnicity,
povertyand gerontocracy, is not a centralissuefor feministsin Japan.
This trendcontinuesto be largelyso eventodaywhen the term'post-
colonial'is beginningto be heardamongwomenwritersin Japan;there
still remainsmuch to be desiredto substantiatethis catchphrase,by
squarelydealingwithwomen'sandfeminists'relationto thecolonialpast
andpostcolonialpresentin Japanandits colonies.As we shallsee in this
article,the returnto TakamureItsueis not irrelevantto contemporary
politicalstrugglesfacedbyJapanesefeminists,notnecessarily becauseshe
was 'progressive' butbecauseheruniquecombinationof
or 'far-sighted',
strengthandweaknessis allusiveto strengthsandweaknessesof Japan-
esefeminismtoday,especiallyfromthepostcolonialpositionality withthe
hopethatwe critically overcome Takamure's in
limitations dealing with
colonialrelations.
As a feminist,Takamure is broad,spreading
Itsue'srepertoire acrossliter- ;
arygenresincluditlgpoetryandtheatre,politicalcommentsof widerange 3
and with seemingcontradictions, includinganarchismand nationalistic Itq
emperorworship,and academicwork in pluraldisciplines,including '
historyandanthropology. InJapanesefeministcirclesTakamure is widely m

regardedas a popularhistorian;althoughher work has caused some con- z

troversies,one of whichwill be dealtwith laterin the article,she never- ,=
thelessstill occupiesa positionof an importantthinkerin Japanese
women'shistory.UnlikeYamakawa KikueandIchikawaFusae,shedidnot
wholeheartedly jointhecauseof socialism; unlikeItoNoe, shewasnot an
anarchistfighter;unlikeHiratsuka Raicho,shewasnotexactlya bourgeois
feminist;unlikeKanekoFumiko,shewas not a nihilist.1Herswas a self- l
madefeminism,celebratedby her remarkable perseverance as a scholar l
andraregiftas a writerandyet at thesametimeplaguedby politicalcon-
formismwhenthe nationalinterestwas at stakeas we shallsee.
In whatis to follow,I shallconcentrate on herpoliticsof love, sex and
marriage, formulated andpresented in thepre-warperiod,coincidingwith
the Japanesecolonialempire.My focuswill be specifically on her posi-
fieldof womenwhose |
tiotlalityin the act of writingwithinthe discursive
nationwas colonizingothers- here,notablyKoreans;Takamure empa-
theticallycommentedon Koreaand Koreanswho were placedunder
Japaneserulefrom1910 to 1945. Themainsourceof inquiryfor this is
hermajortreatiseRenaisosei (Genesisof love). Thiswill be contrasted to
herearlierpoemsin whichshemadean explicitreference to Koreansand
the colonialsituation.I shallraisea questionas to why,as a poet,Taka-
murecouldidentifyherselfwiththeoppressedincludingKoreans,yetas a
'feminist'shecouldnot.

Lifeand work
Thetimespanthisarticledealswithregarding Takamure's workis about
halfa centuryfrom1894to 1945.Itwasa longperiodof turmoilinJapan's
modernhistory.In 1868 the two-and-a-half centuryrule of Tokugawa
Shogunate wasreplacedby imperialrule,headedbytheemperorof Meiji.
Inthefaceof westernencroachment in EastAsia,Japanexplicitlyadopted
methodsandtookTaiwanin thelatenineteenth
westernimperialist century
andthenKoreain the earlytwentiethcentury.Beforetheriseof theultra-
nationalistic
militarisminthe1930s,withwhichJapanwentintothesecond
Sino-JapaneseWar(1937onwards)andthePacificWar(1941-5),therehad
beena briefperiodof socialleniencywithregardto individuals' ideasand
formsof self-expression;this is usuallyreferredto as the Taishoperiod
(1912-25)andit wasthenthatTakamure Itsuemadeherdebutas a writer. 33
> Bornin 1894,theyearthefirstSino-Japanese Warstarted,Takamure Itsue
E grew up as a much adored daughterof a poor village teacherin
Kumamoto,south-western Japan.Fromchildhoodonwards,she read
,, widelyin ChineseandJapaneseclassicsandwroteprolificallyincluding
o l poetry,novelsandessays.Althoughshehadhopedto havestudiedat uni-
, versity,dueto herfamily'sfinancialsituation,shehadto takean alterna-
= tiverouteof learning- notablythroughteachers'college,the practiceof
z teachingitselfandthenwritingas a journalist.In particular, the total of
- twenty-fourdispatchesshewroteas a pilgrimin Shikokutravellingon foot
l for six monthsin 1918 visitingsacredsitescaughtpopularreadership's
impassioned support(Takamure, 1965:139-59;Nishikawa,1990:ch. 2).
Afiercomplicated personalnegotiationsinvolvingheartbreak,misunder-
standingsandmutualadoration,she got marriedto HashimotoKenzo,a
substituteteacherandthenlatereditorwho was to playthe key rolefor
Takamure's creativeandtheoreticalwritingby actingbothas intellectual
companionandas project-maker andpromotionmanager.Earlyin their
marriage, in 1920,theyheadedto TokyofromKumamoto. Tokyowas,in
theeyesof a ruralintellectual,
a monstrousspacewhereall sortsof temp-
tationsand corruptionmeltedtogether.Thereshe wrote an autobio-
graphicalepic Nichigetsuno xe ni (Above the days and months)
I (Takamure, 1921a),a radicalpoemHaroshano uta (Thesong of a trav-
eller)(Takamure, 1921b)andanotherepicTokyowa netsubyoni kakat-
teiru(Tokyohas caughta kver) (Takamure, 1925). Buildingon her
experienceof Shikokupilgrimagewhereshe sharedthe painfuljourney
with travellersand beggars,in her earlypoemsshe definedhervoiceas
that of the oppressedand marginalized. She identifiedherselfwith the
homeless,prostitutes,andothersin thelowestsocialstrata.In herpoems,
Koreansandtheurbanpoorgot expressiveandcompassionate treatment,
whileleisureclassandbourgeoisintellectuals wereaccusedandscorned.
In her1921 poem,Thesongof a traveller, we find:
'I dedicatethis song to my Koreancompatriots'

. . . @

Humblylove I
Yoursad cry for independence
And, all my compatriots
Shouldbe feelingas I

Worryfor you I
About the namefutei [malcontentment;
a politicalderogatory]
And, all my compatriots
4 Shouldbe feelingas I
 .... .... ..... . 3 I

Mycompatriots' loveforourcountry | i!
as burningflame
Is as passionate lx
Andyoulovealso X
Yourowncountryjustlikeourflame e

amI
Saddened =
love
Byyourdestructive
amI
Saddened
Bymycontradictorylove

But,remember
Lovecannottoleratecontradiction
Henceyourindignation
Andourpain

Andnow
If we wereto be awakenedintothegreatlove
Youcannotbe genuinelyangry I
Nor canwe be in pain

You,pleasedo not forceus to useourpainfulblade

Withyoursorrowfulaxe
You,pleasedo not forceus to suppressyou
Withyoursorrowfuljustice
* w w w

You,mybelovedfriends,
Pleasedo not confuse
Yourwiselifeandhonour
Withyourpastlifeandhonour

However,if youareright,
If youarewise
Do throwawayyourfalseimages
Do insiston yourcorrectrights
* I I I |

Pleasedo depart,you
destruction
Butneverinvitemeaningless
Withanyfruitlessconstruction
Thatwill be mygenuinepain

1966a:116-20)2
(Takamure,
vis-a-vis Koreans
self-positioning
AlthoughTakamure's andtheircry for
which
independence, had been manifested in 1919 by the anti-Japanese )5
massralliesin the peninsula,is not too clearin the above,the subject
mattershe chosehereshowsto whomshe was preparedto dedicateher
words.3Ambiguously, shewarnsthemforbeingtoo passionateabouttheir
independence, but nevertheless concludesthe poem by suggestingthat
Koreansdepartfor a new futureandshewouldbe supportingit. In par-
whichis a reminderof futeisenjin,
ticularthe use of futeiis interesting,
malcontentKoreans,the namewith whichpoliticallyconsciousKoreans
wereclassifiedby theJapanesepoliceandauthorities. Thisnameimplied,
unsound'and'subversive'
in the eyesof the generalpublic,'ideologically
and,hence,stigmatized. andcompas-
Byplacingherselfin a compatriotic
sionatepositionwith Koreans,she identifiesherselfwith Koreanrebels
and,here,the namefuteibecomeshersas well.

In the prefaceto her 1925 epicTokyowa . . . Takamure joinsPakYeol,

a Koreananarchistlaterto be convictedfor an attemptto assassinate the
emperor,by emphasizing that:'Aswe aimat theconstruction of commu-
nisticsociety. . . we musthavea legalsystemthat punishesracialdis-
crimination[againstKoreansand Japan'suntouchables]'(Takamure,
1966b:202). Herverseis powerfulin denunciation of the establishment
andsympathetic to socialistsand otherpersecuted individuals.Not only
in its themesbut also in its artisticform, the epic is highlyoriginal:
consistingof twenty-fivepoemsincludingdeadlysatiredirectedat bour-
geois writers,denunciationof the purgeof communistsin academia,
critiqueof socialistsfroman anarchistposition,criticismof ultra-right
nationalistsandreactionary politicians,celebrationof proletarianlitera-
ture,rldiculeof bourgeoisfeministsandconsolationforworkingwomen
includingprostitutes,it assaultsthe readerwithvividwordsandbreath-
takingexpressions,whichwereat the sametimethe voicesof the voice-
lessshetriedto represent. In thismonumental epic,sherefersto Koreans
again, this time more fragmentarily and along with other oppressed
people:

A group of women,
'Weare the victimof the familysystem
We are imprisonedin our red sleep
Whenwe finallywake up, that colour red will be our banner
Rise up! Hundredsand thousandsof Japan'spublicprostitutes.'

The third-classcar of the trainbound for Shimonoseki. . .

An old Koreanman.

AX7indowsare shining;while people are senselessin their desperation.

The Koreanman is Pak Shi-gyong,a loyal servantof the Yi royalty.
His son Pak Sang-jinis a leaderof the independenceparty.
 But Sang-jinwas executedunderthe false crimeof robberyand arson,The g
crimehe did not commit. 3>
Pak Shi-gyongis now a wanderertravellingfrom place to place. w

m
Our heavenis cloudedby the oppressiveauthorities -
And our blood fills the drain. E
The trainrunswith loud motion -
While the lies are safe behindthe brilliantdaylight.
This is the noontimeof Tokyo,the Imperialcapital.
(Takamure1966b: 217-18)
Thefirstverseis thesongof housewives who areforcedintolovelessmar-
riage,whichTakamure equateswithprostitution. Thecolourredis used
to symbolizebothprostitution andproletarian movement,alludingto the
possibilityof the unityof the oppressedfor the causeof liberationfrom |
sexualandeconomicexploitation.Thelaterverserefersto an old Korean
manin Tokyo'strainwho fell fromroyalattendantto wandererbecause
of his son'sinvolvement withthe independence movement.Themetropo- |
lis, whosemodernization andurbanization aresymbolizedby the move- l
mentof thetrain,is beingbuiltwithfalsehood,exploitation andignorance.
Thepoemis suggestiveof andlamentsthepopularindifference to Japan-
eseruleof Korea;as thezealformodernization tookoff, colonizationwas
not onlyobliterated butalsoin somesensejustified.
Farfrombeingsatisfiedwithherliteraryaccomplishments, Takamure con-
tinuedto moveon raisinghervoicemoredirectlyagainstthe authorities
andpower-holders as ananarchist-minded socialcritic.Publishedin 1926,
Genesisof love representssucha move(Takamure, 1926).(A comprehen-
sivecritiquefollowsin thenextsection.)Duringtheyears1930-1, shewas g
the editorof Woman'sfront, an anarchistjournalwith the slogans:'the l
negationof alltheoppressivepower','theextermination of themasculine',
and'thebirthof thenewwoman'(Takamure,1930a,1931b). Herpenwas
directedagainstmultidimensional powerrelations,not justa one-to-one
correspondence of the oppressedandthe oppressor. Hence,herrelentless g
criticismof socialistfeministsfor their overemphasis on class priority l
whicheffectivelyundermined the abilityto see the relationsof powerin
the area of genderrelations,and her sympathywith anarchismas an
expressionopposingpatriarchyand state interventionwith personal
emancipation (Takamure, 1930b,1930c,1931a).4Thejournalwas short-
livedandit was ominousthatthe yearof its termination, 1931, was the §
dawn of ultra-militarization of Japan,highlightedby its Manchurian l
aggression.

In the sameyear,havingsecuredthe financialassistanceof theirwealthy

friend,sheandherhusbandwithdrewfrompoliticalarticulation into'the 77
 I Our
Japanese
women
livethrough
familial
love................................. Our
sacred
waris called

> housein the forest',a housebuiltin the suburbof Tokyofor Takamure's

E Afterthreeyearsof Manchurian
research.5 conflictshewrote:
< Justliketheproletariat happensto beon thegoodsideof history,Japan'sinter-
° happensto bearthe missionto standon the sideof the
nationalposition..........
3 world'sgood.
u,. In otherwords,Japan'snationalspiritmuststandon lovefor othernationsin
=
vs
theworldandthenegationof theworld'sevil. . .
= (Takamure 1934:4)
LU

I DuringthePacificWarshewrote:

foragainstthosewhoblockouridealto maketheworldintoonefamily.There-
fore,thiswaris positivelyourJapanesewomen'stask.Wewomenencourage
ourson,ourhusband,ourolderbrotherandouryoungerbrotherto defeat[the
enemies].In thisgreatsacredwar,we haverisenup not 'despite'but'because'
* we arewomen.Letus remember thatwe Japanesewomenhavealwayshad
couragealongsidetenderness.
(NihonfujinNovember1944,quotedin Yamashita, 1988:277)
By this stage,it becomesclearto us thatTakamure's 'feminism'is of an
ethnocentricsort - a nativistfeminismadvocatingfemininelove for
* motherland. Thisappearsto be a greatshiftfromthe 'love'shewrotefor
Koreansin herearlierpoems.Is Takamure's transformation beyondour
comprehension? Or, is it predictablefromthe way she got involvedin
- feministpolitics?Washer sympathywith the poor and oppressedfalse?
After all, how are we to understandher compassionatedefenceof
Koreans?I hopeto considerthesequestionsby readinghertexts on the
issuesof loveandgender,withthe focuson Genesisof love.

Love, marriage, women, men

Genesisof love is a verylongtextwithno sectionaldivisions,constituting
a hybridmixtureof literary,philosophical and historicalcritique.Taka-
muremakesreference biology,phil-
to genresincludinghistory,literature,
osophy,folkloreand religionamongothers,and to authorsincluding
| Aristotle,Bacon,Bergson,Dante, Darwin,Descartes,Flaubert,Freud,
Hegel, Ibsen,Ellen Key, Marx, J.S. Mill, WilliamMorris,Rousseau,
GeorgesSand,Schopenhauer, G. BernardShaw,Spencer, Wollstonecraft,
I to cite onlya few.Whileit is consistentin someways,Genesisis contra-
l diction-ridden,crudelywrittenandveryroughin theorization. The way
matricesof gender,classandnationshiftin Genesisis highlyindicativein
understanding the limitationof Takamure's thoughts- her 'transform-
ation'fromanarchist andherultimateindifference
to nativisticimperialist
-s to colonialissues.
 There
is asaying
that
refers
to'arare
beauty
tobefound
inthecountryside'
........................................................3

Shedeliversa powerfulcritiquein theareaof aestheticsand,byextension, ;

modernity.Shecriticizesthe normativebeautyas acceptedin contempor- x
aryJapanesesocietyas a maleandurbanprojectionthatgoesfundamen- ^
tallyagainstnatureandwomen.Accordingto her: c
vs

Beautygrows only in leisurelyenvironmentsincludingcities, holiday resorts, Z

upperclass
Beauty is maintainedintentionally.Once a woman throws away her will to
beauty,she will be fallen. Beautyand naturethus, are mutuallyopposed.
(1967a: 20) I
Takamurechargesthe existentconceptionof femalebeautyas being I
fieldof powerrelations,where'therestof ordi-
derivedfroma particular
narywomen'are relegatedto the secondarypositiononly becausethey
refuseto conformto the aestheticnorm,or simplybecausetheycannot
affordtimeormoneyto comeupwiththeexpectedlevelof femalebeauty:
In existing romanceand art, the beautifulwoman is centrallyplaced and the
rest of women are left without any interpretation.
Just like a poor man or peasantplayinga supportiverole for aristocratsand
heroes,the rest of women alwaysplay a pitifulclown or shamefulrole.
Do they have to be treatedwith so much contempt?We have two eyes and a
nose. So what? Sometimesit is all rightto have threeeyes. All rightto have a
tail like a cat. One can be blackor yellow or short. So what?
(1967a:21)

Shedeclaresthat'aswe now knowthatpovertyis a crimecommittedby

the system,we knowalsothe secretof beauty'(1967a:21-2).6
Accordingto her,urbanbeautyis non-natural,genealogically deriving
frommalecontrolof beautywherefemalehumansareforcedto decorate
themselves,unlikethe cases of so manyother species.Therefore,this
beautydemandedof womenin the city is somethingthatwomenshould
be resisting,ratherthantakingit for the normto follow.However,Taka-
murepointsout,manycitygirlstodayarewillinglyconforming, victimiz-
ing themselves,to urban vogue fashions, thereby tacitly offering
themselvesto malecontroloverfemalesthroughthe conceptof beauty.
Thus,she arguesthatthe currentlyheldnotionof femalebeautyis a cre-
ationbythepowerfulincludingmenandupperclasses(Takamure, 1930d).
of Takamure's
The anti-urban,anti-artificiality view derivesfrom the
binaryoppositionof menandwomen,insistingon distinctionanddiffer-
encebetweenwomenandmenandnatureandartificiality. ForTakamure,
womenareby naturemadeto giveloveandacceptthosewho lovethem.
Sexualdesireis men'spropertyandlove is women's;it is women'slove-
while
not men'ssexualdrive- thatis directlyconnectedto reproduction, s
 zJ, men'sgreedfor sex and privatepropertycurtailshumanevolution.She
2 writes:
< Womenarethe mistresses betweenthe sexes.Womenhave
of the relationship
O a missionto advancethe evolutionof humansociety,by selectingthe partner
3 andtherebyimproving thefuturehumanrace.
,I Women'ssexualdesireandmen'saredifferent.Womenarethe will to repro-
= duction,whilemenjusthavesexualgreed
2 Menareoppressing women,themistressof nature,in orderto keeptheirsexual
- driveandgreedforprivateproperty.
| Thisclearlygoesagainstnature.Thisis blockinghumanprogress.
(1967a:121)
Takamure comparesmaleandfemalecultures,the formerbeingartificial
andthe latter,natural.
I Malecultureis forcingwomento havetheintellectof the samequalityas that
of men
whichhas to consistof resistanceand
[Inthis culture]women'sphilosophy,
negation,getsthrownawayor scorned.
So, thosecompetentwomenwho cancompete(notstruggle)withmenfall in
lovejustlikemendo, andnot as a woman.
(1967a:43)
Sincewomenandmenareso fundamentally different,sheresiststhemas-
culinizationof women.Accordingto her,womenshouldnot mimicmen
anddivisionof labounTakamure
in theirpoliticalparticipation suggests
agriculture andcattlefarmingforwomen'swork,'aswomenarebynature
. . . vaguecomparedto men,andtherefore,veryprimitiveworksuitsus'
(1967a: 103). She suggestsdeskworkand bureaucratic tasks as men's
labour,becausemalecultureis theculturein whichartificialitydominates.
I Femaleculture,on theotherhand,is basedon maternallove,nurturedby
theloveof theearth(1967a:104).But,dueto maledomination, women's
nature-orientedcultureis destroyedandwomennow sufferfromartificial
arrangements governingthe society,includingmarriage.
[Today]a womandoes not have her own world,her own child,her own
husband.
Sheno longerlikesthemaritallife,whichis boundbyimpureelementssuchas
marriagesystem,vanityandobligation.
Sheis hopingfor a maritalrelationshipthat lastswithouthavingto relyon
these.
Fromthis,sheproposestheabolitionof themarriage system.
(1967a:108)

Fromthe beliefthat womenare the mistressesof nature,referenceto

lo |
1 animal exampleswhere femalescan have more than one male for
 madeas if thesearethe originalformfor human ;
copulationis frequently
so too werethestate <
wasartificial,
life(e.g.1967a:137,152).7If marriage
andsociety.ForTakamure, societyandthestateapparatus areopposedto <
natureand,hence,go againstwomenandtheir freelove (1967a:27, 91): c
'Whenthe marriagesystemwas established, lovediedout' (1967a:40). |3
-

Whatunderpins hertext is naturesupremacism. Forexample,hernotion

of the superiorityof maternallove derivesfrom the premisethat it is
naturalandinstinctive(1967a:104),butthereis no furthertheoretical ado
as if sucha premiseitselfwouldsufficeto attaina universalvalidity.Her
Maternalloveandbosei,
notionof maternalinstinctis alsoproblematical.
motherhood, aretakenas women'sessentialattributes, whichwerenatu-
In herview,sincenatureis
constructed.
rallygiven,not socio-historically
superiorto cultureand society,the naturaleugenicsthat womensup-
posedlygovernis superiorto man-madesociallaw. Does this meanall
women'naturally' becomemothers?In otherwords,if a womanis not a
mother,is she not a woman?Wheredoesthe scopeof her 'nature'start
andend?How doesa womangetto likeandfallin lovewitha particular
man,not justwithanyman?Herreplyis againto resortto 'nature':
If a man and a woman lorreeachother the marriagesystemmeansnothing....
We do not need it. Those who say that without the system we would be left
with chaos, are the people who do not understandnaturalfidelity.Men and
womenall havenatural fidelity.No one would sell himselfor herselfto someone
for whom they do not feel lorre.
(1967a: 108; my emphases)

AlthoughTakamure declarativelysuggeststhatromancebetweenmenand
womenis naturaland,becauseof theirnaturallove,we cando awaywith
themarriage system,we stillarenottoldaboutpossibilities andlimitations
of such a love, let alone 'natural Is
fidelity'. it born and
extra-socially
supra-historically?To opposethe conservative marriagesystemcontem-
poraryto heris one thing.But,to assumeas a foundationof thisopposi-
tion,a natural,primordial andbiologicalessenceis quiteanother- anda
veryreactionary oneat that.For,if allmenandwomencanactupontheir
'instinct'and'naturalfidelity',whereis thelocaleforcriticaldebateon the
state, class and other forms of power hierarchyshe so vehemently
denouncedin herearlypoems?
Takamure maternallovefromlovebetweenthesexes.Inthe
differentiates
latter,sheassignswomento a 'passive'role,mento an'active'role(1967a:
153). Lovebetweenmenandwomenis unequalbetweenthe two parties
(1967a:153);a mother'slove is equalto all childrenandall-encompass-
ing (1967a:109).At the sametimeandquitecontradictorily, shesuggests
thatwomenhavethe initiativein love affairsbetweenthe sexes,because
11
 a of theirclosenessto nature(e.g. 1967a:121). Thus,womenwho arethe
X mistresses in love-making,
of natureareto takeinitiatiere butmustplaya
we couldreasonthis as Taka-
:,1 passiverolein loureitself.Sympathetically,
'D1 mure'ssuggestionof women'spassive,tacit control- behind-the-scene
o control- overloure-related matters.But,suchis not speltout and,also,
3U suchan approachcannotseemto be radicallyliberatingfor women.
:

z Similarly,she oscillatesbetweenreproduction as affirmativeandlove for

X reproduction as negative.The formeris biologicallyuniversal,whilethe
latteris meaningless, sinceit wouldrenderlove feelingsinstrumentalfor
purposesotherthan'purelove'.Thus,in Takamure, biologicalreproduc-
tion existsas a naturallaw,whilemarriagefor reproductive purposesis
violatingthe spiritof freelove.At thesametime,sheis againstreproduc-
tion withoutmarriage,sincethat would be to providemenwith more
| opportunities theirsexualgreed(1967a:106). Herlogicis cor-
to satisffy
nered:if a womanwishesto havea child,shehasto marrya man,butthe
marriagesystemis artificialand hencebad,all the whilereproduction is
saidto be a beautifuldeedof nature.
The problemseemsto derivefrom Takamure's one-dimensional view
about'reproduction': it is a biologicaltruthof humankindandshedoes
not see it frommultipleangles,includingchild-birthand pregnancy, as
womens bodilyexperienceand the mothershild corporealbond and
reproduction as socio-cultural experience.Inthepassagewhereshebriefly
refersto childbirth,all she does is to emphasizethat 'civilized'women's
childbirthis far more difficultthan that of Cprimitives', despitethe
advancedhygienicsystemandtechnology,suggestingthat'natural'birth
is superior(Takamure, 1967a:106). In a way,despiteherinsistenceon
'nature',becauseher conceptualization of reproductionis basicallya
mentalexercise,ratherthana concrete,bodilydiscourseon femininity,
sheironicallycomescloserto the'maleculture'sheherselfdepicts,in that
she prioritizesdeskworkand mental labour (see Takamure,1967a:
103-4)
It is truethatin hertextTakamure triesto restorewomen'slegitimacyin
historyandsociety,by tracinghow theyhavecometo be excludedfrom
man-madesocialnorms:she does so by relyingon the 'naturalness' of
women.But,this is not successfuldueto heressentialism andherimma-
terialconstructof the femininesubject.Women- nature:thisequationof
Takamure's envisionedandremainsin the realmof the
is not historically
abstract.Womanhereis the sgiven'with no socialpositionor embodied
history.And,as such,thematernalinstinctthatis supposedly embodiedin
womenby nature is pre-linguistic No subject,however,
or extra-linguistic.
12
l

can exist priorto societyand socialitysuchas discourseand language.

Sincethefemininesubjectalsocomesto existenceby wayof socialization, |;
women'sprimordialnaturalness,which is extra-sociallyconceivedby lK
Takamure, canneverbe realizedin society. <

With this weakness,however,thereare some very originaland path- m'

breakinginsightsin her text. For example,she is awarethat women's E

oppressionarisesnot simplybecauseof thepublic/private dichotomy(asa
given),but becauseof the systemicdenigratingof the domesticsphereas
women'ssphere.Sheshowshersensitivityto sacrificing the'personal'and
in the nameof the societalgood.Thesecontinueto be acute
'individual'
debatingpoints in today'sfeministanthropology(e.g. Rosaldo1974;
Strathern1981;Moore1994).Also,hersuggestion thatwomenaresuited
foragricultureandmenfor bureaucracy canbe understoodas a radically
subversiveproposition:shemakesus reflectcriticallyon ourownideology
whichis conditionedso muchby existingnorms.
andherlaterwork(historically),
In Genesis(intuitively) Takamure hypo-
of the feminineto historical
theticallyattributesthe denigration shifts-
frommatrilineage *om uxorilocalto virilocalmarriage
to patrilineage,
systems,*om matriarchy to patriarchyand she devotesthe last three
establishing
decadesof herlife to empirically this hypothesis(Takamure,
1938, 1953, 1963;see note5). Her hypothetical shiftis dual:first,*om
primordial femaledominationto modernmaledominationand,second,
*om primordialsuperiorityof Japanesegenderrelationsto western
hegemony. Thislatterviewwaspainfullyunreflexive andnarrowin scope,
as can be seenin theconclusionof Genesis:
Loveloses. . . Uapanese women]letmenhavewhattheywanted.So,Japanese
women'sloveis veryobjective. . .
In love,mother'slove to childrenand [all otherformsof love]the universal
modelof Japanese womencanbe found. . .
Japanese womenarenotbelligerent.Thebrevityof theAmazonsis beyondtheir
comprehension. Theyjustlamentoverthe bloodshedandcruelty.Thatis why
Japanese womenhaveacceptedtheirdefeat.
Theylosebecausetheylove;theylovewithoutindignation. Thismadeothers
thinkthatJapanese Thisis an error.
womenarespiritless.
womenis indeedthespiritof exemplary
. . . Thespiritof Japanese woman.This
spiritof Japanese womenpossessesthe instinctof rescuinghumanityfromold
promiscuity andguidingit to puremonogamy.
(1967a:198)
Bythispoint,hercall for a 'return'to 'nature'- a pointfromwhichone
originallydeparted- readsas a returnto a specificpointthatexistedin
ancienthistoricaltimein indigenousJapanesespace.Heracutelygender-
whennativismandethnocentrism
consciousviewis destabilized emergeon
the horizon. .13
 Race and nation
Takamure's naturesupremacism is not her uniqueproductin isolation
*om the intellectualtrendscontemporary to her.Sheinheritedtheseand
othernotionsfromHiratsukaRaicho(1886-1971).Beingclassifiablein
whatcan now be calledbourgeoisfeminism,Hiratsukatook freelove to
be the terrainfor femaleemancipation, while afterher own marriage,
childbirth andretreatintoa weakerarticulation of politics,sheturnedher
emphasisto motherhoodas a spiritualpropertywith whichwomenare
endowed(seeSasaki,1994-187-94).Althoughawareof the difference in
theirclasspositions- Hiratsukacoming*om a high-ranking government
officer'sfamilyin Tokyo,Takamure froma primaryschoolteacher's family
in a peripheral province- Takamure saw herselfto be an intellectualsuc-
cessorto Hiratsuka(Takamure, 1966d:712ff.,744-6). Whatis relevant
to us in the Takamure-Hiratsuka connectionis theirnotion of 'race',
which is burdenedwith highly ambiguousscope for interpretation:
dependingon how one seesit, their'race'can be understood to be either
restrictivelyreferringto 'Japaneseas a chosenrace' or more broadly
'humanities at large'.Toexplorethispointis important in assessingTaka-
mure'srelationto colonizedpeoplesincludingKoreans.
BothHiratsukaandTakamureobtainedthe term'race'fromEllenKey,
a Swedishfeminist(1849-1926), who was also influentialin western
Europeand the USA at that time. Drawingon social Darwinismand
eugenics,Keysaw unionbasedon loveas capableof eventuallyselecting
thefittestof thehumanrace.Thisdoesnot meanthatshewasegalitarian
in dealingwiththe 'humanrace'at large:'animals'and 'savages'as one
groupare on the lower side, and, on the higherside, 'civilizedcom-
munities'whichare subdividedbetweensupperclass'and 'lowerclass'
(Key,1911:224). WhileKeyembracesthenaturalness of love,shewarns
againstunionbetweenthe sexuallyimmatureor unioninvolvingthe dis-
easedandthedisabled,as thesewouldhinderhealthyreproduction of the
'race'(1911:chs 3 and 4). For Key,motherhoodis the 'highest moral
duty'forwomen,sinceit wasto 'bearandrearthenewrace'(1914:92).
As with her propositionfor monitoringthe 'fittest'marriage,Keysug-
gests a regimentededucationfor mothersin hygiene,psychologyand
trainingto recognizeabnormalitiesin children(1914:161-2). Although,
as HavelockEllis wrote, her positionon protectingmotherhoodby
societyand securingwomen'ssocialstatusas womenandnot simplyas
men'sequalsmayhavebeenan originalview (Ellis,1911:xiii-xv), and
althoughKeysympathized with socialism,lecturingeveryweek for 20
yearsamongworkersin Stockholm(Register,1982), all in all hertexts
areunderpinned by the combinednotionsof elitismandsocialDarwin-
14
1 iSms
Hiratsukasympathized with Keyandtranslatedhertextsin herjournal,
Seito (Blue stockings).8To take the term'race'as a naturalfact can be
dangerous, as we havewitnessedin the riseof racismin closeconnection
to variousforms of fascism(e.g. Eatwell,1996: 4-11). Furthermore,
althoughbiologycannotbetotallyignored,we knowtodaythat'race'is a
moresocio-historically formedconceptreflectingintra-societal and inter-
socialpowerrelations,colonialrelationsbeinga primefactorin them,and
is a verylimitedconceptin itsmeaningfulness(seeGilroy,1987:38-9).This
was not so in the contextof earlytnventieth-century discourse.In Key's
texts,'nation'and 'race'are indistinguishable,whichmakesherposition
ambiguousin termsof the historicalrelationof one nationdominating
anotheron thebasisof its being'biologically better'thantheotheLHirat-
sukawas also vulnerable in this respect.As SasakiAkirashowsus, she
assumeda nationalistic positionon the adventof Japan'smilitarization
in
the 1930s, identifyingthe Japanesenationas a spirituallyunique'race'
isolablefromthe rest of the world'snations(Sasaki,1994: 196-8). She
adoredtheimperialfamily(Hiratsuka, 1940)andregarded theemperoras
thelivinggoddescending fromthesungoddessof Japan'soriginmyth,and
his nationas a divinenation(quotedin Sasaki,1994:199-200).
JustlikeHiratsuka, Takamure uncritically
acceptedthe 'race'discourseas
usedby Key.In Genesis,Takamure usedthe termjinrui(humanity) and
slvuzoku (race) interchangeably. Just like Hiratsuka,Takamureis
immensely indebtedto Keyin formulating hertreatiseon love.Takamure's
view on love and marriageis in principleidenticalto Key's:love'snatu-
ralness,its capabilityof selectingthe optimalpartner,andthe importance
of motherhood, forexample.In the introduction to Genesis,shedeclared
her'newwoman-centrism' to bethesuccessorof Scandinavian feminism:9
- Woman-centrism standson the premiseof sexualindividuality.
Thisview,
therefore,
confrontssocietyandmakessuggestions to changethe systemfrom
women'spointof view.
* * * o

- Woman-centrism
wasbornin Scandinavia
andGermany. l
* * * o

- Thenew woman-centrismis indeedthe firstpropositionmadeby Japanese

women directedto the world. I can foreseewise activitiesof Japanese
women. . .
(Takamure1967a:9)
Takamure's interpretation of Key'sfeminism,however,is certainlynot
simplemimicry; it is verycomplexandmultiplyangled.UnlikeHiratsuka
who advocatedthestatewelfaresystemforprotectionof motherhood and
childcare,Takamure was in agreement
with Keywho expressedreserva-
tions about ideas for communalchild care and favouredinsteadthe 15
 educationof mothers(Key,1914:50; KovenandMichel,1993: 15-17).
But,shetooksucha positionfartherby opposingall formsof institutional
intervention in marriageandmotherhood. Fromthisposition,Takamure
criticizedKeyfor discriminating againstthe disabledandthe sick,whom
Keyexcludedfrom*ee lovein orderto monitorthe 'racial'improvement
(Takamure, 1967a:109; 1967b:308-9). In herview,Key'sinsistenceon
motherhood educationwouldturnmotherhood insteadof
into'enterprise'
preserving it as 'instinct'(1967a:79). Takamure's strongestdenunciation
is reservedforKey's'top downoppressive' (1967a:109)modeof theprin-
cipleof neSoa naranai (wemust. . .) (1967a:79). As againstKey'sposition
indicating'we mustabolishthe marriagesystem',Takamure suggeststhe
propositionthat:'we predictthatthe marriagesystemwill be abolished'
(1967a: 109). For Takamure,as we saw in the precedingsection,a
mother'slove is instinctand'a womaninstinctively wishesto givebirth'
(1967a:109) and,therefore,all thatis necessaryis to leavenatureas it is:
if onlylovewereto be leftto nature,withno artificialintervention,eugen-
ics wouldbe automatically achieved(1967a:94). Thisis a circularargu-
ment:dueto love'snaturalness, securinghuman
loveis capableof naturally
reproduction.
On otherpoints,Takamure's feminismis similarto today'sFrenchfemin-
ism;forexample,Irigaray andCixousexplorethesetof concernsto which
Takamure haddevotedherlifetimeresearch,includingmythological and
historicaloriginsof femalegenealogy(e.g. Irigaray,1994; see Grosz,
1989),andCixous'sresistance of thefemaleinthename
to masculinization
of equalityandherincessantinsistenceon thefeminine(e.g.Cixous,1986;
see Sellars,1994). However,Takamure neverpursuedthesethemessuf-
ficiently:for Cixous,for example,the femininecan be 'potentiallythe
provinceof bothsexes'(Sellars,1996:4), Takamure takesthefeminineas
a biologicalfact;Irigarayregardsreproduction in thisparadigmas com-
plyingwith 'phallocratic' modelsand, hence,suggeststhat a radically
differentposition'in relationto nature,matter,the body,language,and
desire'(Irigaray,1985:191)beassumed,Takamure is satisfiedwithequat-
ing women'sreproductivecapacityper se with women'snatureand
women'swill.
AlthoughTakamure's approachis not a simplepositivismas in applying
thescienceof biologyto questionsof loveandreproduction, herdiscourse
of biologicaldeterminism is supportedby a highlyidealisticandspiritual-
isticnotionof 'nature'- as 'thingsas theyare'.Butthe question'which
things,whosethings,when and where'becomesproblematic, sinceher
facade,derivedfroma concrete
visionof 'nature',despiteits universalistic
realityof Japanin the 1930s on the one handandherconceptualization
1 of Japanesehistoryon the other.Justlike the ambiguityinherentto the
term'race'andits reactionary thenotionof 'nature'as used
implications, ;
byTakamure mannerundermined
in an essentialist Takamure's sensitivity 3
to discriminationand hierarchicalrelationsof power,as we shall see mH
below.l° ''
vg

Lovefor Koreans . Z3
In earlierpoemswhereshetalkedaboutinequalityandinjustice,Koreans
werethe objectof sympathy.Shequotesin her autobiographythe diary
shewroteuponhearingof themassacreof Koreansin theaftermathof the
Kantoearthquake of 1923:1l
[thedayfollowingthequake]
2 September
* * - *

Neighbours areextremelynervousaboutKoreans.Thisis justlikemimicking

themadbehaviour of ourcountry. . . ThreeKoreans,
of themilitaryauthorities
I heard,wereslainin Sangenjaya [inTokyo].I reallyhatetheJapanese. . .
Ah,butwhatcanwe do) I myselfdo not knowwhat'sgoingto happento me
andmyhusband.
* * - .

ThisentireaffairaboutKoreansis unbearable.Evenif two hundredof them

wereto causea riot,couldnot we Japanesebe sympatheticwiththem)I am
by thenarrowxenophobia
astonished of myvillagecouncilmembers.
* - * @

They themselvesare nothingbut hikokumin[the anti-national: a political

derogatory termof pre-warandwartimeJapanreferring to nationaltraitors].
If theso-called'Koreans' againstI wouldsay
haveto beso muchdiscriminated
theyshouldwagethe'independence movement' I couldeven
moreenergetically.
be the 'agitator'of sucha movement.
* * * -

Anotherquake.Is it nota blowJapandeserves? Thoseegotistickokkashxgisha

corruptcircles!Do theynotrealizethatit is heaven's
[statists]andexclusionistic
punishment directedagainstthem)
(Takamure, 1965:203-4)
Whereasshe could maintainsuch a remarkablysympatheticattitude
towardKoreansamidsttheuncertainty only
sheherselfwas experiencing,
threeyearslaterin writingGenesis,whereshetalksaboutlove andmar-
riagewhich(Japanese) womenshouldexperience,she omitsthe concept
of colonization,a formof powerrelationin whichonecolonizestheother
includingmen colonizingwomenand a nationcolonizinganother.Any
mentionof Koreansor of a positioncorresponding to thatof Koreansof
the day is not to be foundin Genesis, as if Koreanswerenot placedas
possiblepartnersof the 'natural'love of Japanesewomenshe discusses.
So,forexample,whereasshecriticizesJapanesemen'semptyadorationof
'blondbeauty'andthelackof reciprocal adorationof Japanesewomenby 17
 I ,, westernmen(Takamure, 1967a:94),thecolonialrelationdoesnotemerge
z on her horizon. Although she definesherselfas a spokeswoman of the
cf
oppressedandunprivileged (in this case,women),she does not confront
O thecolonialrelationwherethecolonizedfemalewas placedin a situation
o thatwas evenmorecomplexwith its multiply-determined powernexus.
3 Thus whileshewas callingforwomen'sparticipation in the 'sacredwar'
< (seeabove),womenof boththemetropolisandthecolonieswerebrought
to the battlefrontas 'comfortwomen'or forcedto the ammunitions fac-
- toriesfor labourservice(e.g.Suzuki, 1991; Yun et al., 1992). Were such
whatshecalled'participation
'services' as women' in thewarfulfillingthe
motherlyroleof comforting Japanesesons?

WhereasTakamure couldclearlyidentifythe dominationof westerndis-

courseoverJapan,she did not see Japanas a dominatoragainstothers:
westernfeminismis a counterpart that deservedher seriousintellectual
attack,whilethe questionof Koreanwomenwas not worthmentioning -
a silencethat speaksfor itself. In her social Darwinisticthinking,the
I weaker, lessfitnations,suchasKorea,wouldhaveto benaturallyabsorbed
by the superiorones, such as Japan.Moreover,Takamure's nativist-
feministposition,in whichJapan,the mothernation,was 'natural'and
strippedoff its historyof emergenceby colonizingits neighbours,made
itself defencelessagainstthe reasoningthat colonialabsorptionwas a
Cmaternal care and 'familiallove'givento the weakerexistencefor the
improvement of thelatter'slot. It maynot betoo muchto saythatherdis-
- courseof love as deriving'naturally'fromthe motherearthor native
Japanesesoil was quitecompatiblewith Japan'simperialistexpansion
basedon discursive constructsof the EasternAsiaco-prosperity sphere-
Asia'sliberation fromthewestbynativeAsianswhowereledbythebenev-
olentruleof theJapaneseemperor.

On a personallevel,Takamure was sensitiveaboutherown underprivi-

legedposition. The sense of displacement,bewilderment and maladjust-
mentshefelt as a poorcountryintellectual) whoseprovincialtonguewas
differentfromthe Tokyoaccentand whoseappearance was unsophisti-
catedin the eyesof metropolitan fashion,for examplewereclearlycap-
| turedin herearlywritingsandpoems.But shewasnot criticallyawareof
thepossibility,whichwasbecomingincreasingly real,thatsheherselfcould
beanoppressor. Forexample,bywholeheartedly takingheterosexualityas
thebasis of love, Takamure excluded homosexuals and other'perversions'
fromGenesis.Her 'woman'is too coherent;the articulation of coherent
womanliness is highlyrevealingin termsof herlackof understanding of
moreseverelymarginalized sectionsof societyandthereflexiverelationof
18 herselfto suchsections.
Using the linguistic-philosophical conceptof the performative, Judith
Butlerproposesthat poweris exercisednot througha one-offact, but
throughrepetitionof the act of citation- citinga certainreference point
So, whena priestdeclaresin a weddingceremony'I pronounceyou man
and wife',this citationmakesreferenceto the law that presupposes the
heterosexual as a dominantnorm,theactof whichitselfis not
relationship
isolatedfromhistory,butis partof the 'citationallegacyby whicha con-
temporary ;'act"emergesin thecontextof a chainof bindingconventions'
(Butler,1993:225).12Takamure, bywritingfromthemajorityperspective
of heterosexual love, was quicklyincorporated into largersocialnorms
andformsof dominantarticulation. herreturnto ancientJapan-
Similarly,
esefemininity as a beautifulexemplary, whichwomenin Japanshouldtry
to recover,is not an isolatedact of an individualthinker;it fitswellwith
the nationalismandnativismthatunderpinned in one formor the other
thehegemonicideologyof JapaneversincetheMeijiRestoration of 1868.
It is itselfpartof a chainof reiterationof whatcan be regardedas his-
toricallyinvestedorthodoxy.

Whereas thestatewasregarded as anartificial

apparatusthatcurtailedthe
naturalimprovement of humans,thenationwas not criticallyconfronted
in Takamure's texts.In a way,it couldbe suggestedthatforTakamure the
statewas a maleproductwith its artificiality, whilethe nationas a pri-
mordialcongregation of nativeJapanesewas 'natural'and,hence,femi-
nine. If we read Takamure's diaryabovewith this in mind, we now
understand why she felt unreserved hatredtowardthosenarrow-minded
circleswhoonlywantedto defendthe 'state'- tokJeashugi - since,forher
versionof 'nationalism', Koreanswhom she calledearlierin her poem
'compatriots' werealreadypartof thecongregation of theJapanese. Inone
of hercommentsshe regardedtheJapaneseimperialideology,the Shinto
religion,as 'an idealfor the salvationof the humanrace,whichis fullof
love and wisdom' and any foreignerscould enter into compatriotic
relationsunderthe Shintorituals in ancienttimes(Takamure, 1931c).Just
as 'motherhoodand'maternal instinctwerenaturalforTakamure, so was
'motherland': in Takamure's eyes, femininelove for motherlandcould
includeKoreansin it, whilemasculinelovefor the statecouldnot.13It is
in parallelto what EtienneBalibarhas suggestedin termsof colonial
racism'sambiguouscombinationof exteriorityandinteriority. The 'dual
movementof assimilation andexclusion'of the colonizedpopulationcan
be explainedonly by takinginto accountthatnot only did colonialdis-
courseexploitthe'difference' of thecolonizersandthecolonized,butalso
colonialismbaseditself on the 'concretestructuresof administration,
forcedlabourandsexualoppression'of the colonizedpopulation,incor-
poratingthe latterinsidetheongoingspaceof colonialism(Balibar, 1991
 41-3). It can be arguedthat, althoughTakamurewas sympatheticto
I>
:; Koreans who lost theirindependenceat the handsof Japan,herposition
, did not amountto recoveringit for themas such,but to incorporating
oX thembetterintothe empire,in the nameof love.
o

¢, Sucha logicinherentto hernativistfeminismis not unreflected in Taka-

,= mure'sscholarlyresearch.Eversinceherretreatof 1931 andthroughher
devotionto the studyof a vastamountof data,amongwhichweremyths,
, geneaological recordsand ancientliterature,Takamuresuggestedthat,
- priorto thereformation of Taikain theseventhcentury,whichis regarded
as the beginning of imperialrulein Japan,therehadexistedthe systemof
freemarriage betweenindigenous Japanese, who followeduxorilocalresi-
dencecombinedwith matrilineage, and foreignconquerors(presumably
fromthe Asiancontinent),who broughtthe customof a virilocal,patri-
linealmarriagesystemwith them.However,the legacyof matrilineage
remainedforcenturiesin the formof a dualsystemof matrilineage in the
l localclansystemandpatrilineage in centralgenealogy; thecombi-
similarly,
nationof uxorilocalandvirilocalmarriages persisted.In so doing,rather
thanadvocating theconsanguinity of theJapanese nationderivingfromone
originalgenealogy,that is, the imperialfamily- the core of the kokutai
l (nationalbody)doctrineduringthewar- Takamure regardstheoriginsof
theJapanese as residingin theprinciple of a fictivekinshipsystembasedon
a hybridized matrimonial systemand,as a result,a unionof multi-ances-
tralclans(e.g.Takamure, 1963:40-3; seealsoTakamure, 1938, 1953;for
kokutai, see Gluck,1985).Althoughat a glanceherviewmayseemto be
an antithesisto Japan'sofficialtheoryof homogeneous nationalorigin,her
endorsement of Japaneseas a fictiveethnicity,in fact,logicallysubstanti-
atesthe Lnclusion of KoreansintotheJapanesethroughcolonialmerging.
OgumaEijiassessesthatTakamure Ceffectivelyachievedprobablythemost
excellentlevelof rationalization of assimilation of othernations'by the
Japanese empire,whileadmitting thatTakamure's intentionwasto improve
women'ssocialpositionby affirming theexistenceof originalmatrilineage
anddepictingthe Takamure caseas a historical'tragedy'of sympathetic
scholarsunderthemilitarist regime(Oguma,1995:202).
Giventhelackof colonialvisionin hertheoriesof love,thequestionto be
askedis not so muchChowis it possiblethatTakamure changesso much
thatsheleaveshercompassion withKoreansbehindandjoinstheimperial-
wasit possibleat allforTaka-
ist discoursein the1940s?',butrather,Chow
mureto havewrittensucha sympathetic poemfor Koreansin the first
place?'Accordingto Butler,sympathyCinvolves a substitutionof oneself
foranotherthatmaywellbe a colonization of theother'spositionasone's
own' (Butler,1993:118).In thissensethe cinjuriousname'(Butler,1993:
;20 123)- fHtei seniin - withwhichsheidentifiedherselfwithKoreansin her
earlypoem,in fact risks'colonization' of the painthat pertainedto the | g
Koreans,and not to herself.Her choiceof that namewas not basedon 13
impossibility (Butler,1993: 124). Futeisenjinwas, forKoreans,thename <
thatinjurestheirdignitywhenusedby theJapanesecolonialapparatuses, c
whileit alsohada potentialforthemto identifythemselves as subverting, lm
resistingsubjects,just like the name 'black'can be appropriated by z
African-Americans as theirpositiveself-definition.Koreanshadno other 3
optionbut to identifywith thatinjuriousname.Butpreciselybecauseof
this, we can identifythe reappropriation of that nameinto a positive
meaningby anarchists suchas PakYeolandhisJapanesepartnerKaneko
Fumiko,who organizedby themselves theanarchistgroupcalledFuteista
(Societyof malcontents) (seeHane,1988:ch. 4). Takamure's choicewas
not of the 'all-or-nothing'natureor basedon herownpredicament within
herown territoryof oppressedidentity.ForTakamure, futei senjinwas a
metaphorical andtemporary(onlytemporary) identity,whichshe could
affordto assume,andhenceremaineduniteratedafterherconsolidating
the identityof Japan-centric historianandscholanA feministposition,as
withall otherpositionsopposingtheoppression of theunderprivileged by
the privileged,shouldnot allowa 'playful'appropriation of others''in-
juriousname',sinceit wouldbe perhapsmoreinsultingthanthe face-to-
faceconfrontation withintolerable enemies.

'Japanese-stylefeminism'
Takamure's oeuares have beenreadin manyways in Japanesefeminist
intellectualmilieu(e.g. Kanoand Horiba,1977; Kono, 1977; Terada,
1983).Whereascriticstendto synthetically judgeTakamure by incorpo-
ratingherwork,life andpersonality, and,becauseof thismethod,many l
effectivelyand inevitablyjudgeTakamuremoralistically and politically, [
Yamashita Etsuko'sworkmay deserveparticularattentionhere;despite
someobscurityin argument, it closelyanalysesTakamure'stextandoffers
an originaland powerfulcritique.A leadingfeministof Japan,Ueno
Chizuko,commentedon Yamashita's work as a 'challengeto a taboo
againstcritically
discussing' Takamure Itsuewhohadbeenwidelyregarded
as a popularfeministhistorian(Ueno,1994: 139) and OgumaEijigives
creditto Yamashita as the firstcriticeverto drawourattentionto Taka-
mure'sendorsement of heterogeneous originsof theJapanesenationand
its implications(Oguma, 1995:422). Given the endorsementof
Yamashita's work by thesecommentators includingUeno, it would be
appropriate to closethisarticlewitha critiqueof herview.
Accordingto Yamashita,Takamureis a postmodernfeministwho had
transcended westerndualismby fosteringJapanese-style
feminism,nihon-
gata feminizumu(Yamashita, 1988:100), whichgraspsthe worldnot as ; 21
> realitybutas relations.Thisworldof relationsis theworldof 'naturalness
E . . . of self-differentiation, 1988:100;
whichis pre-linguistic' (Yamashita,
, my emphasis).Thepre-linguistic feministsubjectaboutwhichI criticized
o Takamure becomesan affirmativeattributein Yamashita'sview:
2
3 She[Takamure] attemptsto justifythelocalparadigm thatis in accordanceto
> particular communities suchas Japan;theWesthasits logic,whereastheEast
hasits ownandthesearecoexistent.Fromthis,Japanhasits ownfeminisma
E postmodern feminismwhichsuitsits own ideology.Takamure thoughtthatit
W is justifiedto proposeor introducethisuniquefeminismof Japan.Wedo not
harreto mimicthe West.If we followthe principleof jinen [naturalness, a
Buddhistterm] at any rate,Westernwomenwouldbe freedfromthe meta-
physicsof the subjectandwouldbe liberatedin theworldof onenesswithout
splitbetweensubjectandobject.Forthepreparation of the arrivalof suchan
end,thoseof us, intelligentandwiseJapanese womenwouldmaketheworld's
firstproposal.Thisis Takamure's point
Actuallyhalfa centurylater. . . JuliaKristevaproposedontologicalfeminism.
Kristeara'sthoughton the liberating worldwheresubjectand objectare not
dividedfitstheBuddhist thoughton Zinen. Beforewe praiseKristevawe must
firstrecognizethesuperiority of Takamure's ideology.
* (Yamashita, 1988:105)14

Yamashitaendorsesthe view held by Takamureherselfwho perceived

Japanesewomenas Cfar morevisionaryandcosmological' thanEuropean
womenandJapanesewomen'sspirituality as characterized by an unprob-
lematicconnectionbetweenobjectivity andsubjectivity (Takamure, 1930e:
68). Whileinsistingon overcoming westerndualism,however,Yamashita
herselfis speakingwith a binaryoppositionbetweenthe west andJapan
as herpremise.'Thewest'hereis moreor less takenas an unchanging
object.But,forexample,Cthe west'is notjust'Kristeva':to thesameextent
thatJuliaKristevasworkconstituteswesternfeminist discourse, herwork
also criticallyreflectson it, throughher intervention in and againstthe
west. No doubt Yamashita's ethnocentrism is at work here.15If, as
Yamashita says,Takamure's worldwas 'pre-linguistic',is it possibleat all
for Yamashita to eventalkaboutit by usinglanguage?Cananythought
including'Japanese-style feminism'bepre-linguistic? Is not ourstruggleto
find our way to subvert or disrupt patriarchy made so difficultprecisely
becausewe haveto workwithinthegivensystemof socialrelationsinclud-
ing the language?Fora moreviablefeministstrategy,do we not haveto
recognizethis constraining conditionto beginwith in orderto subvert
* effectivelythe existingsystem?Justto call it Cpre-linguistics is irresponsi-
ble bothintellectuallyandpolitically.
Elsewhere,by way of paraphrasingTakamure, proposesthat
Yamashita
22 I theJapaneseindigenouswritingsystem,
17iragana, whichwas regardedas
belongingto womenuntilthe MiddleAges,be regardedas the feminine g
whichis suprahistorically pertainingto Japaneseculture,supportingand 3
coexistingwith the masculinesystemwhich is a systemof Chinese- mH
importedcharacters, kanji.Implicitly,
Yamashitadistinguishes feminine= s
orality= 11iragana and masculine= literacy= kanjias the formerbeing m
truthand essenceand the latter,falsityand form(1988:206-12; Taka- z
mure,1966c:121-6). Thisis an interesting angle,especiallyin its reson- 3
ancewithecriture feminine, somuchdiscussedbytoday'sFrenchfeminism
(e.g. Cixous,1986). At the same time, however,it has a conservative
message:whereasecriture feminineis an attemptto identifywomenss
writingas subversiveand disruptiveof the patriarchal languagesystem,
Takamure's biragana imageis alwaysandalreadyexistentandaccommo-
datedwithinthe existinglanguagesystem.For,if the femininesystemhas
its own alternative totalityhand-in-hand withanother,orthodoxmascu-
linetotality,all we haveto do is to acceptandindulgein 'whatwe have'
and no subversionor disruptionof the dominantmasculinesystem
becomesnecessary.Logically,it contradictsher earliersuggestionthat
Japanesefeminismis inspiredpre-linguistically:if it is pre-linguistic,
the
referenceto the writingsystemshouldbe irrelevant.16
Yamashitais also sympathetic
to Takamure'scontrastbetweenChinese-
importedtraditionandindigeneousJapanesethoughts:
Theessenceof [Takamure's] ontologicalfeminismis tryingto transcend mod-
ernity,whichis basedon subjectbject dualism.It is alsotryingto get out of
thesystem,whichis coveredupwiththepseudo-Chinese tradition,
karagokoro,
andis rebellion- the explosionof naturalness, thejinenquality.Furthermore,
suchanactioncanbeconceived onlybythepersonwhounderstood theground-
lessnessof the ontologyof the self.In thissense,ontologicalfeminismis truly
postmodern.It is fundamentally differentfromthe vogue,modernfem.lib
theoriesthatarejustintoxicated withtalesof liberationandthatworkmerely
withinthe systemof modernity, by insistingon thenakedself.
(Yamashita, 1988:107)
In the lightof Yamashita's 'disdain'for the language,her hatredof any
'insistenceon the nakedself' can be understood: in herview,the articu-
lationof self,the statementof one'sown politicalpositionand,as a con-
sequence,the voice of the oppressedare all outsidepostmodernity and,
hence, not worth a recognition.In the world of Takamure's(or
Yamashita's?) 'ontologicalfeminism',thereis no spacefor classconflict,
ethnicdomination,or evensexualdiscrimination. In reality,onlythepre-
cious few,chosensupermenand superwomen can join sucha luxuryof
'understanding the groundlessnessof the self'.This elitism is not
Yamashita's invention.It is truethatTakamure herselfis vulnerable
in this
regard.On a numberof occasions,she exhibiteda particularlikingof 223
0X, talkingabouttensai, heavenlytalentorgenius,andoftenadmittedthatshe
zF was one who had it (Nishikawa,1990:89). Althoughthe translationof
',, tensai is not as simpleas justto replaceit with 'genius',andTakamure's
o useof the termis oftenindistinguishable from'nature'or 'naturaltalent'
° (e.g.Takamure, 1967a:141-2),it nonethelesspositsa problematic hurdle
, to justifyher textsas thevoiceof theoppressed. As I have suggestedin the
= earliersection,herborrowingof the injuriousnameof Koreanswas after
z, all a temporary optionanddid not derivefromfeministcommitment or
- politicalaction.
As with Takamureherself,Yamashita,despiteher strenuouseffortto
identifyTakamureas a 'postmodern
(unconvincingly) thinker'whomI
taketo meana personfor whomcommitment is not
to one nation-state
of Japaneseculture:
is deeplyrootedin thesuperioruniqueness
* important,
Todayafterdecadesof timeandspace,a postmodern thinkerTakamure Itsue
is aboutto be revived.... Takamure's discourse will be rebornlikea phoenix.
Why?Thisis becauseasJapanese we havethesamespiritualstructure as Taka-
mure. . . becausewe aregovernedby ourcommunallanguagegame.Thisis
veryimportant the subjectivity
in considering of theJapanese.
Takamure lookedfora Japanese'locale'. . . andwasa very'Japanese' thinker.
In thiscase,being'Japanese' meansthat,unlikewesternsubjectivity whichis
| supported bytheCartesian cogito,we can. . . havea subjectivity thatseeksfor
its identityin the localewhichhas overcomesubject/object dualismand the
worldof emotionandmotion,whichis botharchaicandfuturistic andfuturis-
tic andcontemporaneous.
(Yamashita,1988:7)
Asanothercontemporary Japanese feministOchiaiEmikopointsout,such
a celebrationof Japannessis connectedto a binaryapproach,choosing
* fromeither'thedivineNippon'or the Japaninferiorto the west- both
Japan'smodernthought(Ochiai,1989:278).
'spellbinding'
Yamashita'stext is underpinned throughoutby a teleologicalvaluehier-
archywith postmodernity at the apexof linearhistoricalprocess,while
Yamashitatriesto workbothtautologously fromthisprinciplebyshowing
thatTakamure, becauseof herhistoricalclairvoyance,was a postmodern
thinkerand,therefore,superior.(Sucha reference-makingto postmodern-
ismis perhapsveryun-postmodern.) Yetat thesame time,Yamashita does
not takepainsto explainto us whatkindof postmodernism she suggests
and how it is connectedto Takamure's feminism.If we follow Nancy
Fraserand LindaNicholsonin regardingpostmodern-feminist theoryto
beusingpluralistic basedon affirmation
categories Takamure's
of diversity,
Japanismand Yamashita'scomplicitywith it would appear anti-
postmodernin theirscopewithinthe narrowconfinesof Japan,which
24 excludesJapan-residingorJapan-colonized womenwhoarenon-Japanese.
The existenceof suchwork as Yamashita's is symptomatic of Japanese 1;
feministdiscoursewhere,despitesomeexceptions, postcolonial
visioncon- E
tinuesto blurthe colonialhorizon,whichis relegatedto the realmof <
amnesiabehinda homogeneous culturalunitycalled'Japanese women'. '

Acknowledgement 3

I am indebtedto Kyeong-HeeChoi,NormaField,VeraMackie,Gavan
McCormack,TessaMorris-Suzuki, Helene Bowen Raddeker,Kalpana
Ram,MarkSelden,KenWellsandPhilipTaylor,fortheircomments,help
and support.The ToyotaFoundationfundedmy researchfor archival
investigations
andacquiring sources.Withouttheirfunding,this
secondary
researchwould not have been possible.An abbreviated versionof the
articlewas deliveredat theJapaneseStudiesAssociationof Australiacon-
ferenceinJuly1997.Comments andquestionswereveryhelpful.Also,the
paperbenefittedfrom criticaldiscussionin Colonialismand the New
WomaninJapanandKoreaworkshopin Humanities ResearchCentre,the
AustralianNationalUniversityin July 1997. The HumanitiesResearch
Centreand ToyotaFoundationfundedthe workshop.Finally,I wish to
thanktwo anonymous readersforFeministlteview, whosecomments were
bothsupportive andenlightening.

Notes

SoniaRyangis assistantprofessorof anthropology at the JohnsHopkinsUni-

versity.Shewas a researchfellowat the ResearchSchoolof Pacificand Asian
Studies,theAustralian
NationalUniversity,whenshewrotethisarticle.Sheis the
authorof North Koreansin Japan:Language Ideology,and Identity(1997, West-
view Press)and articlespublishedin Critiqueof AntA?ropologyand Dialectical
amongothers.
AntA?ropology,
1 In thisarticle,I am not dealingcloselywithTakamure's personallife history.
Takamure's autobiography,Journalof a woman from the land of fire (Taka-
mure,1965),is a richsourceof understanding herownlife.Whileit is thebest
sourceinvolvingherownexploration of hersubjectivities,
it meansatthesame
timeheavilyengagingwiththeclaustrophobic monologueof Takamure's 'I'.A
briefstudyis availablein EnglishinTsurumi (1985).ForYamakawa, Ichikawa
andothersocialistwomen,seeMackie(inpress);forKanekoandIto,seeHane
(1988);forRaicho,Sasaki(1994).
2 All translationis mine and comesfrom the collectedvolume(Takamure,
1965-7) whichwas publishedposthumously with herhusbandas an editor.
Dueto hercrypticstyle,word-to-wordtranslation
wouldnot be appropriate.
I amsupplementing thewordswherenecessary. 25
 zJ 3 In 1919,Koreansin the peninsula wagedmonth-long massralliesdemanding
> therecovery of independence.Theincidentsinvolveda broadvarietyof people
= includingmen,women,young,old,Buddhists, Christiansandso forth.Reper-
<. cussionof the 1919 MarchFirstmovementwas similarto that of the May
O Fourthmovementof China,on which Rey Chow commentsas 'cultural
3 ferment'with a spate of referencesto 'new' phenomenaincludingnew
>1 literature,new cultureand new woman(Chow,1991: 34-S). SuzukiYuko
pointsout thatin Japanat thattime,despitethe riseof feminismin the form
> of thenewliterarymovement, Korea'sindependence demandswentunnoticed
- bythemajority for
except
of feminists some such
socialists asYamakawa Kikue
| (Suzuki,1994: 46-59).
4 Takamure's anarchismwas, however,not clear in its graspof theoretical
as she herselflateradmittedin herauto-
mattersor adequatein application:
shehadnotreadKropotkin,
biography, Bakunin andotheranarchist worksand
Marx,Leninor Engels(Takamure, 1965: 216,236).
5 ThereafterTakamure wasto concentrate on historicalresearch onJapan's mar-
riagesystem.She publishedher studyon matrilineage in 1938 (Takamure,
1938). Afterthewar,in 1953, shepublished anotherstudyon uxorilocalmar-
I riage(Takamure, l9S3), whichwasto befollowedbyHistoryof Japanesemat-
rimony (Takamure, 1963), publishedonly a yearbeforeher death.In these
works,Takamure painstakinglytracesandanalyses Japan'smarriage tradition,
wherea husbandcan havemorethan one wife, by visitingwomen,while
I womenalsohadcertainautonomyin love-making, andthelineageof children
wasnotnecessarily
therefore Itsancientforminpartresem-
tracedpatrilineally.
blestheNayarmarriage of theMalabarcoastin India,in thata husbandvisits
hiswife,whilethewiferesidesin herparentalhomeandbiologicalfatherhood
of thechildis ohenuncertain (Gough,1959).
Takamure's contribution to the historyof Japanesekinshipandmarriage has
notbeengivensufficient follow-up,dueto theconservative attitudeof existing
academia, wherethetheoryof patrilineage hasdominated eversinceYanagita
Kunio'sethnology(seeMurakami, 1977). To exploreher research in thisarea
is beyondthe scopeof thispaper.I intendto deal with it on a later occasion
withtheseriousattentionit deserves.
6 Takamure pointsout the ideologicaljudgement thatwas reflectedin the case
of the 'newwoman'debatein whichmalecommentators accusedHiratsuka
Raichoandothermembers of theearlyfeministmovement of beingunbearably
| thatwhichdoesnotfitintothe
ugly.Theuglinesshereis theout-of-place-ness,
| existingscopeof comprehension and,hence,disturbthe senseof balanceand
theorderof thegivenworld(Takamure, 1930d:19).
7 Thisdoesnot comefromEngels(1985)at thisstage,nordoesthismeanthat
basedherpropositionon historicalscrutiny.Seenote 4
she had sufficiently
above.
| 8 Hiratsuka excerptsfromEllenKey'stextsinherjournalSeita
Raichotranslated
2 t6 l SeeKey(Hiratsuka),1913a,1913b,1913c,1913e,1913f,1913g,1913h,1913i
 and 1914a.ItoNoe translated one issue(Key[Ito],1913d)andSeitocarried g
piecesin 1914.SeeKey(anonymous),
furthertranslated 1914b,1914c,1914d, =
1914eand1914f. w

feminism
9 ForScandinavian anditsrelationto thewelfaresystem,seeOhlander '
(1991)andBlom(1991). lg
10 NancyFraser'sand LindaNicholson'scommenton biologicaldeterminism 2=
reliedon by radicalfeministssuchas Shulamith Firestone(1970)is relevant
here,inthatTakamure's approach is underpinned bya monocausal explanation
of 'nature'beinga givenstateof affairs,withan unchanging essenceimmune
in timeandspace(FraserandNicholson,1990:27-9). Theircri-
to transition
tiqueof NancyChodorow's notionof 'motherhood' as an all-encompassing
genderidentitywithoutpayingsufficientattentionto differentculturaland
socialcontextsincludingclassandethnicityis alsorelevant(Chodorow, 1978; |
FraserandNicholson,1990:30-1).
11 Whenin 1923Tokyowasshakenby a large-scale Japanesecivil-
earthquake,
thatKoreans
iansinTokyogot agitated,believing wereplanningto assaultthe
Japaneseor Koreanswere responsible for the quake.Followingthe quake,
Koreans weremurdered in tensandhundreds SeeWeiner
byTokyo'sresidents.
(1987).
12 The notionof performative comesfromJ.L.Austin(1972).Austinhimself,
according to PierreBourdieu, writingfroma moresociological pointof view,
did not pay attentionto the structure
socio-historical in which certainstate-
mentscanberegarded as havingperformativeeffect
(Bourdieu,1991: 107-16).
Althoughwritingfroma philosophical notionof 'performa-
position,Butler's
tivity'in termsof reiteration pointsbecomesverycloseto Bour-
of reference
dieu'sproposition whenappliedto concretesocialinstances.
13 Inherscholarlycareer,Takamure nevertheorizedthestateapparatuses.When
the statewas merelydismissedas 'artificial' was
andits historicalemergence
notsquarely confronted, of thenationwouldmerelyofferthe
the'naturalness'
serviceto thestate'spoliciesandambitions.
14 As with other semi-academicbooks in Japan,Yamashitatakes a lenient
Becauseof this,it is not easyto deter-
approachto citationandreferencing.
minewhichworkof Kristeva sheis focusingon.
15 JuliaKristevais, as Yamashita suggests,nottotallyunlikeTakamure: Writing
aboutChinesewomen,Kristeva makesreference and
to theoriginalmatriarchy
matrilineage in pre-Confucian China,women'sinitiativein love-making, the
holinessof thematernal andthe'maternal' aspectsof Chineseideographs (e.g.
Kristeva, Kristeva's
1977:49, 56, 61). Spivakcriticizes 'macrologicalnostalgia
forthe pre-historyof the East'on the basisof Kristeva's on |
lackof reflexivity
her own positionality as well as the ungrounded andexoti- I
romanticization
cizationof the 'eastern'other(Spivak,1988:Ch.9).
16 Toregardhiraganaas oralityleavessomequestions,sincehiraganais afterall I
a writingsystem.Wrieenknowledge,no maKerhow phoneticthe writing l; 27
> system concerned may be, is fundamentally different from knowledge in non-
z literate societies (see Ong, 1982; Goody, 1987).

o
D

B References
> AUSTIN, J.L. (1972) How to Do Thingswith Words,Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
E BALIBAR, Eiienne (1991) 'Racism and nationalism' in Etienne BALIBAR and
X Immauel WALLERSTEIN (1991) Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities,
London: Verso.
BLOM, Ida (1991) 'Voluntary motherhood 1900-1930: theories and politics of a
Norwegian feminist in an international perspective' in Gisela BOCK and Pat
THANE (1991) editors, Maternityand GenderPolicies:Womenand the Rise of
the EuropeanWelfareStates, 1880s-1950s, London: Routledge.
BOURDEU, Pierre (1991) LanguageandSymbolicPower,Cambridge:Polity Press.
- BUTLER, Judith (1993) Bodies That Matter:On the DiscursiveLimits of 'Sex',
London: Routledge.
CHODOROW, Nancy (1978) The Reproductionof Mothering:Psychoanalysis
and the Sociologyof Gender,Berkeley: University of California Press.
CHOW, Rey (1991) Womenand Chinese Modernity:The Politics of Reading
Between Westand East, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
CIXOUS, Helene (1986) The Newly Born Woman,Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
EA'l'WE;LL,Roger (1996) Fascism:A History,London: Vintage.
ELLIS, Havelock (1911) 'Introduction' in Ellen KEY (1911) Love and Marriage,
New York: Putnam.
ENGELS, Friedrich (198S) [1884] The Originof the Family,PrivatePropertyand
the State,Harmondsworth: Penguin.
E7IRESTONE,Shulamith (1970) TheDialecticof Sex:The Casefor FeministRevol-
ution, New York: Quill/Tilliam Morrow.
FRASER, Nancy and NICHOLSON, Linda (1990) 'Social criticism without
philosophy: an encounter between feminism and postmodernism' in Linda
NICHOLSON (1990) editor, Feminism/Postmodernism, London: Routledge.
GILROY, Paul (1987) ThereAin'tNo Blackin the UnionJack:The CulturalPoli-
tics of Raceand Nation, London: Routledge.
GLUCK, Carol (198S) Japan'sModernMyths:Ideologyin the Late MeijiPeriod,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
GOODY, Jack (1987) The InterfaceBetween the Writtenand the Oral, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
GOUGH, E. Kathleen (19S9) 'The Nayars and the definiton of marriage' Journal
of Royal AnthropologicalInstitute,89: 23-34.
GROSZ;, Elizabeth (1989) Sexual Subversions:Three FrenchFeminists,Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
HANE, Mikiso (1988) Reflectionson the Wayto the Gallows,Berkeley: University
| of California Press through collaboration with Pantheon Books.

28
EtIRATSUKA,Raicho (1940) 'Nikkisho' (From the diary) Fujoshinbun,No. g
2107: 3.
IRIGARAY,Luce (1985) ThisSex WhichIs Not One,Ithaca:CornellUniversity w
Press.
(1994)Thinking ForA PeacefulRevolution,
theDifference: London:Athlone -
Press. <
KANO, Masanao and KIYOKO, Honba (1977) Takamure Itsue,Tokyo:Asahi ,V3
Shinbunsha.
KONO, Nobuko (1977) Hi no kunino onna,Takamure Itsue(Awomanfromthe
landof thefre: Takamure Itsue),Tokyo:ShinHyoron.
KEY,Ellen (1911) LoveandMarriage, New York:Putnam.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913a) 'Renaito kekkon'(Loveand marriage)Seito,
3(1): [furoku(supplement)]1-10.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913b) 'Renaito kekkon' (Loveand marriage)Seito,
3(2): [furoku(supplement)]23-7.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913c) 'Renaito kekkon'(Loveand marriage)Seito,
3(4): [furoku(supplement)]112-23.
(tr. Ito Noe) (1913d) 'Renai to dotoku' (Love and morality) Seito,3(5):
[furoku(supplement)]1-46.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913e) 'Renaito kekkon'(Loveand marriage)Seito,
3(6): [furoku(supplement)]83-93.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913f) 'Renaito kekkon'(Loveand marriage)Seito,
3(7): [furoku(supplement)]125-35.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913g) 'Seitekidotoku hattenno katei' (The course
of developmentof sexualmorality)Seito,3(8): 73-86.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913h) 'Renaino shinka'(Theevolutionof love) Seito,
3(9): [furoku(supplement)]16-26.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1913i) 'Renaito shinka'(Theevolutionof love) Seito,
3(10): [furoku(supplement)]126-33.
(tr.HiratsukaRaicho)(1914a) 'Boken'(Therightof motherhood)Seito,4(9):
7-22.
(tr. anonymous)(1914b) 'Danjo renai no sabetsu' (The differentiation
betweenmale love and femalelove), Seito,4(S): 1.
(tr.anonymous)(1914c) 'Renaino jiyu'(Love'sfreedom),Seito,4(6): 1-5.
(tr. anonymous)(1914d) 'Renai no jiyu' (Love's freedom), Seito, 4(7): |
80-90.
(tr.anonymous)(1914e) 'Renaino jiyu'(Love'sfreedom),Seito,4(8): 50-65.
(tr. anonymous)(1914f) 'Boken' (The right of motherhood),Seito,4(11):
61-76.
(1914) TheRenaissance of Motherhood, New York:Putnam. I
KOVEN, Seth and MICHEL,Sonya (1993) 'Introduction:"MotherWorlds"'in
Seth KOVEN and Sonya MICHEL(1993) editors, Mothersof a New World:
Maternalist PoliticsandtheOriginsof Welfare States,New York:Routledge.
KRISTEVA,Julia (1977)AboutChineseWomen,London:MaryonBoyers.
MACKIE,Vera (in press)Creating SocialistWomen:Gender, LabourandActivism
in Imperial Japan,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. I
29
 (1994) Feminizumu
to chosen (Feminismand Korea), Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

>| MOORE, Henrietta (1994) A Passionfor Difference:Essaysin Anthropologyand

2 Gender,Cambridge: Polity Press.
= MURAKAMI, Nobuhiko (1977) TakamureItsue to YanagitaKunio:Konsei no
<. mondaio chubin ni (TakamureItsueand YanagitaKunio:with thefocus on matri-
O monialsystem),Tokyo: Yamato Shoba
¢ NISHIKAWA, Yuko (1990) TakamureItsue:Morino ie no miko (TakamureItsue:
> a shamanof the house if the forest) Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha.
- OCHIAI, Emiko (1989) 'Fashizumu to posutomodan: Shohyo Yamashita Etsuko
- cho "Takamure Itsue ron" ' (Fascism and the postmodern: A review of 'Takamure
.

Itsue' by Yamashita Etsuko) in Emiko OCHIAI (1989) Kindai kazoku to femi-

nizumu(Modernfamilyand feminism),Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
OGUMA, Eiji (1995) Tanitsuminzokushinwa no kigen:'Nihonjin'no jigazono
keifu (The origins of the myth of the homogeneousnation: a genealogy of self-
portraitof the 'Japanese'),Tokyo: Shinyosha.
OHLANDER,Ann-Sofie(1991) 'The invisible child? the struggle for a social
democratic family policy in Sweden, 1900-1960s' in Gisela BOCK and Pat
1MANE (1991) editors, Maternityand GenderPolicies:Womenand the Rise of
the EuropeanWelfareStates, 1880s-1950s, London: Routledge.
ONG, Walter (1982) Orality and Literacy:The Technologizingof the Word,
London: Routledge.
REGISTER,Cheri (1982) 'Motherhood at center: Ellen Key's social vision'
Women'sStudiesInternationalForum,5(6): 599-610.
ROSALDO,Michelle(1974) 'Woman, culture, and society: a theoretical overview',
in MichelleROSALDOand LouiseLAMPHERE(1974) editors, Woman,Culture
and Society,Stanford: Stanford University Press.
SASAKI, Hideaki (1994) 'Atarashii onna no torai: Hiratsuka Raicho to
Soseki(The arrivalof the 'new woman':HiratsukaRaichoand Soseki),Nagoya:
Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai.
SFjJ.J.FjRS,Susan (1994) editor, The Helene Cixous Reader,London: Routledge.
(1996) Helene Cixous:Authorship,Autobiographyand Love, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
SPIVAK, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) In Other Worlds:Essays in CulturalPoli-
tics, London: Routledge.
STRATHERN, Marylin (1981) 'Culture in a netbag: the manufacture of a sub-
discipline in anthropology' Man (n.s.) 16: 665-88.
SUZUKI, Yfiko (1991) Chosenjinjugun ianfu (Korean army consols), Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.

TAKAMURE, Itsue (1921a) Nichigetsuno ue ni (Abo2we the days and months),

Tokyo: Sobunkaku.
(1921b) Horoshano uta (Thesong of a tra2weller), Tokyo: Shinchosha.
(1925) Tokyowa netsubyoni kakatteiru(Tokyohas caughta fever),Tokyo:
Banseikaku & Heibonsha.
(1926) Renaisosei (Genesisof love), Tokyo: Banseikaku.
(1930a) 'Fujin sensen ni tatsu' (Let us stand on woman's front) Fujinsensens
March: 8-16.
30
 (KachijiAyako)(1930b) 'Wagakuni marukusufujin no zuno haiken' s;
(Shallwe checkour country'sMarxistwomen'sbrain)Fujinsensen,March: =
20-5. m
(1930c)'Museifushigi no mokuhyoto senjutsu'(Theaimandstrategyof the c
anarchism) FuZin sensen,June:30-6. -
(1930d)'Bijinron:tokaihiteironno ichi'(Onbeauty:partone of thenega- =
tionof urbanity) Fujinsensen,October:14-21. -
(1930e)'Nihonjoseiron' (OnJapanesewomen)Fujoshinbun,No. 1561:
68-81.
(1931a)'Warerano fujinundo'(Ourwomen'smovement)F;u*in sensen,
January: 6-19.
(1931b)'Fujinsensenichinen,fujinshisoshi'(Oneyearof woman'sfront:
historyof feminism) Fujinsensen,March:4-20.
(1931c)'Shintoto jiyurenai'(TheShintoandfreelove)Fujoshinbun,No.
1643:6.
(1934)'Nihonseishinni tsuite'(OntheJapanesespirit)Fujoshinbun,No.
1783:4.
(1938)Bokeiseino kenkyu(Astudyof matrilineage), Tokyo:Koseikaku.
(1953) Sho6eikonno kenkyu(Astudy of uxorilocalmarriage),Tokyo:
Kodansha.
(1963)Nihonkoninshi(Historyof Japanesematrimony), Tokyo:Shibund
(1965)Hi no kunino onnano nikki(TheJournalof a womanof thelandof
fire),Takamure Itsuezenshu(Takamure Itsuecollectedworks),Vol. 10, Tokyo:
Rironsha.
(1966a) Horoshano uta(The song of a traveller),TakamureItsue
zenshu(Takamure Itsuecollectedworks),Vol.8, Tokyo:Rironsha.
(1966b) Tokyowa netsubyoni kakatteiru (Tokyohas caughta kver),
TakamureItsue zenshu (Takiamure Itsue collected works), Vol. 8, Tokyo:
Rironsha.
(1966c)Joseino rekishi1 (Historyof women1), Takamure Itsuezenshu
(Takamure Itsuecollectedworks),Vol.4, Tokyo:Rironsha.
(1966d)Josei no rekishi2 (Historyof women2), Takamure Itsuezenshu
(Takamure Itsuecollectedworks),Vol.5, Tokyo:Rironsha.
(1967a)Renaisosei(Genesisof love),Takamure Itsuezenshu(Takamure Itsue
collectedworks),Vol.7, Tokyo:Rironsha.
(1967b)Renairon(Theoryof love),Takamure Itsuezenshu(Takamure Itsue
collectedworks),Vol.6, Tokyo:Rironsha.
TERADA, So(1983)Tsuinaruerosu,Takamure Itsue:'Renairon'Renaisosei eno
kokoromi(Thetwin eros, Takamure Itsue:the attemptat sTteoryof love'and
sGenesis of love), Tokyo:Sunakoya Shoba
TSUItUMI,Patriaa(1985)'Feminism andanarchism in Japan:Takamure Itsue,
1894-1964'Bulletinof Concerned AsianScholars,17(2):2-19.
UENO,Chizuko(1994)Kindaikazokuno seiritsuto shuen(Theemergence and |
collapseof modernfamily),Tokyo:IwanamiShoten.
WEINER, Michael(1987)'Koreansin the aftermath of the Kantoearthquakeof
1923'Immigrants andMinorities, 2: 5-31.

31
 : YAMASHITA,Etsuko (1988) Takamure Itsueron:'Haha'no arukeoro1(Taka-
> mureItsue:thearchaeology of the 'mother'),
Tokyo:KawadeShoboShinsha.
= joseiga mita'jugunianfumondai':Asuo
YUN, Jong-ok, et al. (1992) Chosenjin
< tomonitsuturutameni('Thequestionof the armyprostitutesseen by Korean
O women:for themakingof thetomorrowtogether),Tokyo:SanichiShobo.
3
uJ
gs:

uJ

32