Historia
Scientiarum, The History of Science Society of Japan, vol.8, no.2, Dec.
1998, pp.187-201.
(It is slightly different from the original one.)
The Enactment of Japan’s Sterilization Laws in the 1940s: A Prelude to
Postwar Eugenic Policy.
Yôko MATSUBARA*
1. Introduction
In the last decade, there has been growing body of literature that has tried to
examine the history of eugenics and eugenics policy from a comparative perspective. １
Reviewing these recent works on eugenics in France, Latin Ameri ca, Scandinavian
countries, China, and other areas, Frank Dik ötter emphasizes that the emergence of
eugenics within specific cultures is dependent on the local construction of medical
knowledge, and that the strictly genetic determinism or the hard Mendeli an
discourse familiar from studies of Britain and Germany are not necessarily
prototypical of eugenics. He also calls our attention to eugenics after World War II,
under democracy and the welfare system, citing eugenic sterilization of people with
mental disorders in the Scandinavian welfare states. ２
As Dikötter suggests, further elaborating comparative perspectives, as well as
examining the legacy of eugenics in our society under contemporary biomedical
technology, is gaining in significance for the his torical study of eugenics. Historians
should highlight more non-Western eugenics and postwar eugenic policies.
This article is an attempt to sketch the outline of the Japan ’s sterilization law,
the Eugenic Protection Law [ Yûsei hogohô ] enacted in 1948, which served as the legal
foundation for enhancements to postwar eugenic policy. Under the Eugenic Protection
Law, legitimate eugenic sterilization, which did not require consent from the person
in question, had been performed on individuals allegedly su ffering from mental
retardation, mental illness, and hereditary diseases. The official statistical report
shows that the total number of such involuntary operations had reached over 16,500
by 1996. Even in the 1980s, 140 operations were performed as involu ntary cases. In
addition, approximately 1,500 patients with leprosy had been sterilized with consent
by 1996 under the Eugenic Protection Law, although the operations were actually of
a compulsory nature because the patients had been forcedly segregated in to
sanatoriums under the Leprosy Prevention Law [ Rai yobôhô ]. ３ In contrast to the
commonly accepted notion that eugenic policy was much more severe under the
totalitarianism and militarism of prewar Japan, Japan ’s eugenic sterilization policy
was reinforced under disarmament and democratization after its defeat in World War
II.
1
Although some historians have written on the prewar history of eugenics in Japan,
perspectives on postwar eugenic policy have hardly been explored within the context
of historical study. ４ The paradox of Japan’s postwar reinforcement of eugenic
sterilization policy is remarkable and worth exploring from a comparative perspective
and as an examination of the postwar welfare state.
To discuss this question as a whole is beyond the scope of a brief paper. Therefore,
I would restrict my attention to some aspects of the Eugenic Protection Law which
were directly concerned with the postwar enhancement of eugenic sterilization policy.
Before turning to a closer examination of the Eugenic Protection Law, it would be
beneficial to review the circumstances surrounding enactment of the National
Eugenics Law [ Kokumin yûseihô ] of 1940, Japan’s first sterilization law and
forerunner of the Eugenic Protection Law.
2. The National Eugenics Law of 1940
2.1 Enactment Movement for Eugenic Laws
Japanese
intellectuals
encountered
Social
Darwinism
through
Japanese
translations of Herbert Spencer’s books or through the works of Kato Hiroyuki since
the 1880s. Along with Social Darwinism, discussions on “improvement of the
Japanese race” [ nihon jinshu kairyô ] also became popular. Because the “struggle for
existence” [ seizon tôsô ] among states was regarded as being dependent on the
principle of “survival of the fittest” [ tekisha seizon ] among races, it was proposed
that Japan needed to make the “body of the Japanese race”, i.e., the Japanese nation,
strong enough to counter the West. The racial improvement movement targeted living
conditions, diffusion of hygiene thought, and even whom one should marry. To
Japanese race reforminists, the poor body of the nation was not the outcome of
civilization, as eugenicists in the West had claimed, but because Japan was still
uncivilized. Environmental improvement, or modernizing and sanitizing living
conditions, therefore, continued to be regarded as an indispensable task for many of
later Japanese eugenicists.
Sensitive to the eugenics movement emerging in Europe and the United States
around the turn of the century, some biologists and physicians began to relate
Japan’s racial improvement issues to new disciplines of eugenics and racial hygiene.
Works on eugenics by Umino Kôtoku, Nagai Hisomu, and Saito Shigesaburô and a
Japanese translation of Charles B. Davenport ’s book–a zoologist and a leading
American eugenicist–were published one after another in the second half of the
1910’s. ５
With growing interest in women’s questions, birth control, sex education, youth
education, and sanitation improvement intellectuals and social activists began to join
eugenic
discourse
in
the
1920s.
Specialized
journals
on
eugenics
were
also
established, such as Yûzenikkusu (Eugenics) in 1924, and Yûsei undô (the Eugenic
Movements) in 1926; and many articles related to eugenics appeared in newspapers
2
and various popular magazines. With the rapid development of print media and the
emergence of the new middle class, the chief audience of these publications, eugenic
discourse was expanded in terms of quality and quantity.
In this kind of eugenic discourse, social problems were, more or less, attributed to
“ iden ” (heredity). Special attention was paid to issues such as venereal disease,
alcoholism, tuberculosis, leprosy, mental illness, and mental retardation. These were
regarded as having serious influence on offspring, and being chiefly responsible for
racial degeneration. Marriage restriction, quarantine, sterilization, castration, and
birth control were proposed as countermeasures. Conditions like venereal disease,
tuberculosis, leprosy and alcoholism were said to be inheritable and pe ople and it was
proposed that persons with these conditions should be excluded from reproduction. At
the time, however, such conditions were already recognized as either infectious
diseases or toxicosis. For example, it was believed that a predisposition t o
tuberculosis or leprosy could be hereditarily transmitted. In addition, blastophoria
(detriment to germ cells), damage to a fetus, contagion within family, and even an
appearance of “inferior offspring” because of a lack of proper child rearing or an
undesirable influence from society were often discussed in terms of “ iden .” These
examples illustrate that at the time, the word “ iden ” conveyed a meaning which was
considerably deviant from its original biological definition which was premised on the
transmission of genes. With this change in definitions we find a neo -Lamarckian
notion of heredity. ６
Around the beginning of 1920s, the eugenic movement went beyond mere
discourse and came to take the form of an appeal to the Imperial Diet for legislation
of a eugenic law. It was embodied in a petition movement for a marriage restriction
law for persons with venereal disease in 1920 -21. The movement was carried out by
the New Women’s Association [ Shin Fujin Kyôkai ] which was headed by Hiratsuka
Raichô, one of Japan’s leading feminists. They considered marriage restriction for
persons with venereal disease as a mean of racial improvement furthering their
obligation to strengthen the nation. They drafted a petition, consulting overseas
eugenic marital restriction laws, including Norway’s, and submitted it to the
Imperial Diet through the representatives. Although the petition was not adopted
and
the
movement
was
discontinued,
the
marriage
restriction
movement
is
noteworthy in Japan’s history of eugenics. It drew at tention as Japan’s first eugenic
legislation movement. Some intellectuals openly professed support for Hiratsuka ’s
eugenic arguments in magazines and journal, and America ’s sterilization laws were
mentioned at a petition committee meeting of the Imperial Diet. ７
We should especially note that Chûma Okimaru and Arakawa Gorô, both of whom
were members of the Imperial Diet, endorsed the petition. Ch ûma, a physician,
introduced “The Proposal on Enactment of Marriage Restriction for Patients ”
[ Tai-kanja
kekkon
seigenhô
seitei
ni
kansuru
kengian ]
into
the
House
of
Representatives [ Shûgiin ] in 1930. The proposal urged the necessity of “performing
3
surgical operations on persons with venereal disease, tuberculosis, leprosy, mental
illness, and alcoholism in order to prevent them” from reproducing prior to marriage,
“following assertions of eugenics”. ８ The proposal was not brought up for discussion,
but it served as a precedent for the Racial Eugenics Protection Bill (Arakawa Plan)
which was introduced to the Imperial Diet by Arakawa Gorô in 1934 and 1935. The
bill proposed sterilizing persons with mental and physical hereditary diseases,
tuberculosis, leprosy and toxicosis, and brutal criminals who could transmit their
“bad traits,” as well as prohibiting persons infected with venereal disease from
getting married and requiring everyone to apply for a marriage license. ９
Referring to the eugenic laws at various countries such as Norway and the United
States, there was an attempt to enact eugenic laws in the Imperial Diet that did not
limit the target of eugenic regulation to people of hereditary diseases. These
proposals predate the German sterilization law (The Law on Preventing Hereditarily
Ill Progeny) at 1933 enacted by the Nazi government.
2.2 Establishment and Enforcement of the First Eugenic Law
In opposition to the preceding trend, which targeted a wide array of conditions,
the Japan Association of Racial Hygiene [ Nihon Minzoku Eisei Kyôkai ] originally
established in 1930, took a line of legislation to t he Imperial Diet for a sterilization
law which limited the targets of sterilization to patients with hereditary diseases. １ ０
Japan Association of Racial Hygiene was the first organization seriously devoted to
the eugenic movement in Japan. It was headed by N agai Hisomu, a physiologist and a
professor at Tokyo Imperial University, who served as a dean of the medical
department from 1934 to 1937. Nagai organized an expert group, consisting of Nagai
himself, other Japan Association of Racial Hygiene member who w ere medical
scientists and jurists, and Imperial Diet representatives. The group drafted “The
Sterilization Bill” in 1936, patterned largely after the German Sterilization Law of
1933. After being partly revised, the bill, renamed the Racial Eugenic Protec tion Bill,
was introduced to the Imperial Diet three times during 1937 -1938 by members of the
Imperial Diet including Yagi Itsur ô, who was in close contact with Japan Association
of Racial Hygiene. The revised bills were, however, never approved. The bill was a
sterilization law limiting the targets of sterilization to persons with the “hereditary
diseases” which was totally different from the Arakawa Bill. １ １
In an attempt to increase Japan’s population and better the “quality” of its
population, the Ministry of Health and Welfare was created as part of the war effort
in January 1938. Within the Ministry of Health and Welfare was the Eugenic Section
at the Protection Bureau. That was established by the government at the urging of
the Japan Association of Racial Hygiene activists. The Eugenic Section set up the
Research Association of Racial Hygiene [ Minzoku Eisei Kenkûkai ] and initiated a
project to formulate eugenic policy in November 1938. Chief members of the project
were from the group who drafted steri lization bill of the Japan Association of Racial
4
Hygiene. Based on the project, the officials of the Ministry of Health and Welfare
drew up the Outline of Racial Eugenic System [ Minzoku yûsei seidoan yôkô ] which
expanded the Racial Eugenic Protection Bill (Yagi Plan). The National Eugenic Bill
was introduced to the Imperial Diet by the government and passed in March 1940.
While allowance for the patriarchic household system [ ie seido ] defined in the Civil
Code and measures to increase the population –severe regulations on abortion–were
incorporated into the original plan, a principle limiting the targets of sterilization to
patients with hereditary diseases carried through from “The Sterilization Bill” of
Japan Association of Racial Hygiene to the National Eu genics Law. １ ２ Although de
facto legalization of sterilization for persons with leprosy (a non -hereditary disease)
had been accomplished in sanatoriums, legal sterilization remained a problem of
welfare administration at the time. Attempts to include this le gislation failed
because the Ministry of Health and Welfare seemingly bound by the principle upon
which it adopted the eugenic law. １ ３
While the National Eugenics Law was finally passed in the Imperial Diet, there
had been controversies over the enactment of a sterilization law among physicians,
scientists, Imperial Diet representatives, and activists in various other fields.
Although the media’s reporting on the issue was generally favorable, they also voiced
opinions critical at the pending bill.
Various
objections
were
leveled
against
the
proposed
enactment
of
the
sterilization law. For example, kokutai ronja (ideologues of national polity) criticized
sterilization for ruining the family-state ideology and pronatalism. Komai Taku, a
leading geneticist, emphasized that sterilization was totally worthless based on the
theory of population genetics. Famous psychiatrists, such as Uematsu Shichikur ô and
Kaneko Junji, objected to the enactment of the sterilization law insisting that it
would encourage prejudice against the mentally ill. They also argued that the study
of human genetics was not scientifically established enough to present sufficient
evidence for the validity of a sterilization policy. The controversies were brought to
the Imperial Diet and many objections were cited. For a time there was great fear
that the bill would fail to pass. １ ４
The government, therefore, was compelled to concede. Although the compulsory
sterilization clause (Article 6) was not deleted from the bill, the minister of the
Ministry of Health and Welfare promised not to enforce compulsory sterilization for
the time being. With the exception of Article 6, the National Eugenics Law was put
into effect in July 1991. １ ５
Indications for sterilization in the National Eugenics Law were “hereditary
mental
illness”
[ idensei
seisinbyô ],
“hereditary
mental
deficiency”
[ idensei
seisinhakujaku ], “intense and malignant hereditary morbid character” [ kyôdo katsu
akushitsunaru idensei byôteki seikaku ], “intense and malignant hereditary physic al
disease” [ kyôdo katsu akushitunaru idensei shintai shikkan ] and “intense hereditary
deformity” [ kyôdonaru idensei kikei ]. The Ministry of Health and Welfare regarded
5
the main targets of sterilization to be people with serious mental and physical
“hereditary diseases” who could not “fit into” society. Moreover, serious “hereditary
morbid character” even included “congenital criminals” [seiraisei hanzaisha] and
“impulsive
character”
[shôdôsei
seikaku].
１６
In
short,
“undesirable
features”
considered to be socially degrading were incorporated into the concept of “hereditary”
and were given priority in sterilization procedures.
The enactment of the law, however, did not have the effects one could imagine.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare estimated that t he number of sterilization
operations under the National Eugenics Law would reach 740 in 1941. In the fact, the
total was only 94. The total came to only 454 for the period 1941 to 1945,
approximately 90 operations per year.
There are several reasons for the less-than-expected results of the eugenic
sterilization policy. First, enforcement of compulsory sterilization was prevented
because
of
the
criticism
of
sterilization
in
the
Imperial
Diet.
Second,
the
government’s pronatalist policy connected with the family-state ideology and ie seido ,
which seriously valued propagation of descendants, was incorporated into the
National Eugenics Law, and the procedures of application for sterilization and
examination made the system cumbersome. Finally, the most rem arkable factor in
the failure of sterilization policy is that the mentally ill and the mentally retarded,
as the main targets of eugenic sterilization, were almost completely out of the
government’s and even psychiatrists’ control. Most of the patients were not
hospitalized because of a shortage of psychiatric beds and detention at the patient ’s
home was the ordinary measure. In short, while the National Eugenics Law was
enacted into prewar period, the basis for a eugenic sterilization policy was not truly
established in prewar Japan. １ ７
3 The Eugenic Protection Law of 1948
3.1 Revision of the Eugenic Law after World War II.
Japan’s defeat in World War II resulted in the collapse of the Greater Japanese
Empire and disarmament compelled by the Allied Power s. This was the first Japan’s
experience of being occupied by a foreign country. In the economic and industrial ruin,
people were extremely impoverished. The despair and suffering of the Japanese
population after the war lead Japanese leaders to believe th at " racial crisis" was much
more urgent than before. In an article in a leading medical journal, Nippon ijishinpô in
January 1946, for example, the Minister of the Ministry of Health and Welfare Ashida
Hitoshi, a member of the conservative Liberal Party, listed five problems confronting "
the Health and Welfare Administration in the New Age." The first issue of his list was "
the revival of race" [ minzoku fukkô ] which he believed had a "serious relation to the
practice of eugenics."
Ashida went on to say:
Although we have the eugenic law, the law does not help us improve the quality
6
of our nation, since it is very feudalistic and too mild, reflecting the atmosphere
of the time.
We have to achieve our ideal of racial revival and construct a
cultural and healthy state by broadening our perspectives and making a grand
program based on accurate scientific knowledge. １ ８
Ashida criticized the National Eugenics Law for being "feudalistic" and " too mild. ”
As
mentioned in previous section, by making allowances f or Japan’s ie system and
imperialistic pronatalist policies, the National Eugenics Law made the procedures for a
sterilization
application
extremely
cumbersome.
Moreover,
public
opposition
to
compulsory sterilization rendered Article 6 all but null and voi d. As such, eugenic
sterilization policy under the National Eugenics Law was a paper tiger. According to
Ashida, "it is obvious that we should make a dash for democratization under occupation
by the Allied Forces,” and in the New Age " the future of our nation and race will be
jeopardized if health and welfare administrate, a big project for racial improvement
through drastic improvement of the social standards , fails to achieve its goal." Eugenics
was, therefore, an integral part of the new health and wel fare policy for Ashida. He
advocated a powerful eugenic policy as a promising measure for Japan's reconstruction.
Reinforcement of a eugenic policy was supported not only by conservative advocates
like Ashida but also by the left. The Eugenic Protection Bill [ Yusei hogohôan ] introduced
to the Diet by a group within the Japan Socialist Party in August 1947 was a notable
example. Members of the House of Representatives and birth control activists such as
Fukuda
Masako,
Kato
Shizue
,
and
Ota
Tenrei –Fukuda
and
Ota
were
also
obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns)–drafted the bill mainly aiming at the promotion of
contraception and the legalization of abortion, but enforcement of eugenic policy was
also a pivotal point of the bill. As to the reason for the propos al, they claimed that "by
immediately abolishing the bad law (i.e., the National Eugenics Law) and setting up a
new eugenic law, we should protect mothers, prevent malignant heredity [ akushitsu
iden ] to descendants, and prevent the children of the inferior from getting worse in the
poor surroundings as well.” The bill was, however, shelved in the Welfare Committee of
the House of Representatives and failed to pass before the Diet session closed.
The bill was revised and reintroduced the following year by a group which consisted
of a coalition of the representatives from the conservative and socialist parties. This
time the main proponent was Taniguchi Yasaburo, a conservative Democratic Party
member in the House of Councilors ( Sangiin ) and an active obstetrician-gynecologist
supported by a powerful medical interest group, the Japan Medical Association [ Nihon
Ishi Kai ]. In the Welfare Committee of the House of Representatives and the House of
Councilors, the discussion centered on the clauses concerning ab ortion; the facets of the
bill concerning eugenic policy were never challenged. This reflects the fact that eugenic
policy did not conflict with morality and was much more approvable than loosening
abortion regulations in the "racial crisis" after Japan ’s defeat in World War II. The
Eugenic Protection Bill passed the Diet in June 1948 and the Eugenic Protection Law
7
was enforced in September of the same year. Eugenic policy was more reinforced in the
Eugenic Protection Law than in the National Eugenics Law, which I shall discuss in
detail in the next section. １ ９
Before turning to a closer examination of eugenic contents of the Eugenic Progection
Law, we must draw attention to a factor that led to the reinforcement of eugenic clauses
in the Eugenic Protection Law: a fear of "adverse selection" [ gyaku tôta ], that is,
dysgenic effect on the population under the diffusion of birth control.
Proceeding the Eugenic Protection Law, a concrete proposal for establishing a hard
eugenic policy already appeared in "Recommendation on the Principles of New
Population Policy" [ Shin jinkô seisaku kihonhôshin ni kansuru kengi ] (abbreviated here
after as "Recommendation") in November 1946. "Recommendation" was adopted by the
Population Policy Commission [ Jinkô seisaku i'inkai ] of the Foundation-Institute for
Research of Population Problems [ Zaidanhôjin jinkô mondai kenkyûkai ] of the Ministry
of Health and Wealfare. Its urgent task was to investigate the "overpopulation problem"
[ jinkô kajô mondai ] caused by a baby boom, the return of ex-soldiers, and the
repatriation of millions of civilians from Japan's former colonies, shich was accompanied
terribly depressed economy and industrial base that hardly seemed able to support the
rapidly growing population.
The Commission consisted of scholars, physicians–including ob-gyns, representatives
of the Diet, and officials whose careers were closely related to the population problem.
"Recommendation" was the first comprehensive proposal on population policy after the
war in which the measures for a solution to the overpopulation problem were stated. It
was composed of four chapters and eugenic measures were especially discussed in
Sections 2 and 4: the two of them: "Issues on Birth Control " and " Issues on Eugenic
Policy" respectively.
A fear of dysgenic effect because of the diffusion of birth control triggered proposals
for reinforcing eugenic policy in "Issues on Birth Control .”
Since the diffusion of birth control is often accompanied by adverse selection, we
should make every effort to prevent it and to improve the quality of our population: we
should discourage parents from producing offspring who would make no contribution
to society and rather pose a burden to society. We also ought to give incentive to
parents who could produce offspring of superior quality to bear more children. ２ ０
The idea of "adverse selection" was typical discourse for the “mainline eugenics”
based on the eugenic interpretation of differential fertility. ２ １ " Recommendation"
shared this view. Advocates of the "adverse selection" argument on the Commission still
believed that birth control would accelerate differential fertility and have a dysgenic
effect on the population. They had formerly promoted the prohibition of birth control as
preventive measure against racial degeneration until Japan’s defeat. After the war,
8
however, they reluctantly came to approve of birth control considering overpopulation
and democratization.
Having been forced to recognize a policy to which they had been opposed, the
conservative
eugenicists
only
one
option
for
avoiding
“adverse
selection”:
reinforcement of eugenic measures. In Section 4, " Issues on Eugenic Policy," they
claimed enforcement of compulsory sterilization and proposed that the National
Eugenics Law should be revised to incorporate the following items: legalization of
abortion for patients with hereditary diseases; simplification of the procedures for a
sterilization application; the adopting of a reporting system for patients with
hereditary diseases; approving X-rays applications as sterilization measures; and the
legalization of castration for sex criminals diagnosed with hereditary psychopathia.
The first and the second items were adopted in the Eugenic Protection Law, and for
the first time in the history of Japanese eugenic policy, compulsory sterilization came
into effect. ２ ２
3.2 Reinforcement of Sterilization Policy Under the Eugenic Protection Law
In the following paragraphs, some features of the Eugenic Protection Law of 1948
are examined with special attention to the reinforcement of eugenic policy as
compared to the National Eugenics Law of 1940. ２ ３
1) Enlargement of the Target of Eugenic Sterilization
Article 1 at the Eugenic Protection Law stipulates that “the object of this law is to
prevent birth of inferior descendants from the standpoint of eugenic protection and to
protect the life and health of the mother as well. ”
It should be noted that the
targets of eugenic measures were described as the “inferior descendants” [ furyôna
shison ]. That phrase, which originally came from the socialists’ Eugenic Protection
Bill of 1947, does not necessarily mean only the descendants of patients with
hereditary
diseases“.
As
indications
for
eugenic
sterilization,
“the
inferior
descendants” could actually include people with leprosy (Article 3) and “mental
illness or mental retardation except in hereditary cases ” (Article 12, introduced since
the 1952 amendment). Within Article 1 of the National Eugenics Law, “the persons
who have tendencies of malignant hereditary d iseases” [ akushitsu naru idensei
shikkan o motsu yûsuru mono ] correspond to the “inferior descendants” described in
the Eugenic Protection Law. The indications for eugenic sterilization were limited to
“malignant hereditary diseases ” (although some of the diseases listed in the National
Eugenics Law were medically questionable). Therefore, the target of eugenic
sterilization in the Eugenics Protection Law was broader than in the National
Eugenics Law.
This enlargement of the target population could be ex plained by ob-gyns’
initiative in the enactment of the Eugenic Protection Law. Their main motive for the
revision of the National Eugenics Law was legalization of abortion and establishment
9
of ob-gyns’ professional control over abortion services. Taniguchi and other ob-gyns,
who were engaged in the enactment of the new eugenic law, were mobilized for
maternity medical services in the context of the pronatalist and eugenic policy of the
Ministry of Health and Welfare during war time. They also shared aspirat ions for
racial improvement through eugenics. ２ ４
They continued to support eugenics after the war and they believed that
legalization of abortion need to accompany eugenic measures. They were, however,
not experts in eugenics and did not stick to strict g enetic determinism. It was
medical scientists of the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Japan Association of
Racial Hygiene who were well informed about eugenic theory that chiefly drafted the
National Eugenics Bill. In comparison, ob-gyns confused genetic and environmental
effect, and eugenic and social measures as well as did many other physicians, social
reformers, and intellectuals of the day. Consequently, the “inferior descendants” in
the Eugenic Protection Law implied the descendants not only of patients with
hereditary diseases,
but also with infectious disease, such as leprosy, and
non-hereditary mental disorders, in the name of “eugenic protection.”
2) Simplification of the Procedures for Voluntary Sterilization
The National Eugenics Law of 1940 prescribed voluntary sterilization accompanied
by the consent of the person in question and a spouse, as well as compulsory
sterilization. In the National Eugenics Law, every application
for voluntary
sterilization needed a governor’s decision based on the opinion of the Prefectural
Eugenic Commission. In comparison, the Eugenic Protection Law required neither
application nor examination by the Eugenic Commission. Doctors could perform
voluntary sterilization operations for eugenic reasons at their discr etion when the
person in question or the spouse had a “hereditary psychopathy,” “hereditary morbid
character,” “hereditary bodily disease,” “hereditary malformation,” or leprosy, as well
as in cases where the spouse had a “mental illness” or was “mentally retarded.”
Voluntary sterilization was also permitted if the person in question or the spouse had
a blood relative, within the forth degree [ yonshintô ], who had “hereditary metal
illness,” “hereditary mental retardation,” “hereditary psychopathy,” “hereditary
morbid character,” “hereditary physical disease or hereditary malformation, ” and
that was considered to be inherited by the descendant.
The procedure for getting consent was also made simpler under the Eugenic
Protection Law. In applying for volunta ry sterilization, the National Eugenics Law
required the person in question under age thirty get additional consent from his or
her parents as listed in the household registers [ kosek i]. The former Civil Code was,
however, revised in 1947 under the new dem ocratic Constitution of 1946, and the ie
system lost its legitimate authority.
As a result, only the consent of the person in
question and the spouse was required under the Eugenic Protection Law.
10
3) Enforcement of the Compulsory Sterilization
The compulsory sterilization clause in the National Eugenics Law (Article 6) had
never been enforced. But after the war, the Eugenic Protection Law again adopted
the compulsory sterilization clause (Article 4). It was put into effect with the other
clauses in September 1948. As mentioned before, there were few objections to eugenic
sterilization during the deliberations of the Eugenic Protection Bill in 1948. This is
remarkably different from the severe criticism prior to enactment of the National
Eugenics Law before the war. The number of applications for compulsory sterilization
operations under the Eugenic Protection Law ’s Article 4 reached over 7,600 during
the first decade (1949-1958) after its enactment. Article 4 prescribed as follows:
The physician shall apply to the Metropolitan, Hokkaido, or Prefectural Eugenic
Protection Commission for examination as to the propriety of exercising the eugenic
operation. If he finds that the eugenic operation is necessary for the sake of public
interests in order to prevent hereditary transmission of the disease, in a case where
the result of his examination evidently shows the disease enumerated in the annexed
list. ２ ５
In cases when the subject of compulsory sterilization mandated by the Prefectural
Eugenic Protection Commission does not consent to the decision, he or she may apply
to the Central Eugenic Protection Commission for re -examination (Article 6).
Moreover, when the person in question objects to the Central Eugenic Protection
Commission’s decision, he or she may institute a suit (Article 9). When the decision of
either commission has been settled without objection, or the court has given
judgement as to the commission ’s decision, the compulsory sterilization shall be
carried out (Article 10).
The provision which enabled the person in question to institute a suit when he or
she does not consent to the decision made by the upper commission (Article 9) was
absent in the draft of the Eugenic Protection Bill of 1948. GHQ/SCAP ’s Legal Section
and Public Health and Welfare Section’s officials raised some objections to the
clauses concerning compulsory sterilization in the draft. They never questioned the
validity of compulsory sterilization as a eugenic measure in and of itself, but claimed
to reconsider the procedure of examination. ２ ６ The drafters of the bill accepted
GHQ/SCAP’s proposal and added the provision. As a result, the procedure for
compulsory sterilization in the Eugenic Protection Law became a little more
complicated than that of the National Eugenics La w, in which the Minister of
Ministry of Health and Welfare advised by Central Eugenic Commission made the
final decision in cases where there was an objection against the Provincial Eugenic
Commission by the person in question (from Articles, 5 through 10).
11
4) Legalizing abortion for Patients with Hereditary Diseases
Article 14 of the National Eugenics Law had legitimized abortion for eugenic
reasons. This caluse made it possible to perform abortions on women who were to be
sterilized by legal procedure. Among the Imperial Diet’s representatives, there
existed strong objections against legally approving abortion, because the Penal Code
defined abortion as a crime and the family–state ideology respected shison han’ei
within ie . Moreover, because the government promoted a pronatalist policy which the
representatives also upheld, the National Eugenics Law actually restricted abortions
and doctors were required to report abortions in advance. In the end, the eugenic
abortion clause was deleted from the bill and eugenic abortion was not legitimated.
The Eugenic Protection Law, on the other hand , was enacted as not only a eugenic
law but also as an abortion law, and it relaxed restrictions on abortion. The Eugenic
Protection Law made it possible for doctors to perform abortions at their own
discretion when they were performed for the reasons of maternal protection and
eugenic protection (Article 12). Legitimate reasons for eugenic abortions were the
same as those for voluntary sterilization.
4. Conclusion
As a preliminary attempt to explore the paradox of Japan ’s postwar reinforcement
of eugenic sterilization policy, this article outlines some aspects of the Eugenic
Protection Law of 1948, and compares with the National Eugenics Law of 1940.
The Eugenic Protection Law enlarged the target of eugenic sterilization and
simplified the procedures for voluntary sterilization. The former aspect being mainly
attributable to neo-Lamarckian notions shared by the ob -gyns; the latter reflecting
abolishment of the ie system and new respect for a physican’s autonomy under
democratization. These modifications to the prewar sterilization law, or the National
Eugenics Law, and enhancement of compulsory sterilization were due to a fear of
“adverse
selection”
caused
by
the
diffusion
of
birth
control
and
national
impoverishment after Japan’s defeat in the World War II.
Further investigation into Japan’s postwar eugenic policy, including sterilization
policy, needs to be conducted concerning the following: eugenic aspects of family
planning movement promoted by the government and large companies; connections
between effect of the revised Eugenic Protection Law of 1952 and the Mental Hygiene
Law [Seishin eiseihô] of 1950 which accelerated the involuntary hospitalization of the
mentally ill; actual procedures of eugenic sterilization for the mentally handicapped
performed physicians, or as urged by welfare officials and family; and the promotion
of prenatal testing and screening for congenital anomalies by Ministry of Health and
Welfare. Explorations into these issues will illuminate how Japan ’s postwar eugenic
policy was formed as part of the medicalization of reproduction in the context of
12
democratization and the developing welfare system.
Notes
1. For example, see the following works: Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene:
Medicine under the Nazis , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988; Nicole
Hahn Rafter, White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies, 1877 -1919 , Boston:
Northeastern University Press, 1988; Paul Weindling , Health, Race, and German
Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870 -1945 , New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1989; William H. Schneider, Quality and Quantity: The Quest for
Biological Regeneration in Twentieth -Century France , New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1990; Mark B. Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in
Germany, France, Brazil and Russia , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990; Richard
A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in
Twentieth-Century Britain , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990;
Angus McLaren, Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945 , Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart, 1990; Nancy Leys Stepan, “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race,
Gender, and Nation in Latin America , Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991; Frank
Dikötter, The Discourse of Race in Modern China , London: Hurst & Company, 1992;
Pauline M.H. Mazumdar, Eugenics Human Genetics and Human Failings: The
Eugenics Society, Its Sources and Its Critics in Britain , London: Routledge, 1992;
Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in
Britain and the United States between the Two World Wars , Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992; Stefan Küle, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American
Racism, and German National Socialism , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994;
Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: “Euthanasia” in Germany c. 1900-1945 ,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Richard Cleminson, “Eugenics by
Name or Nature?: The Spanish Anarchist Sex Reform of the 1930s, ” History of
European Ideas 18: 729-40, 1994; Anne Carol, Histoire de l’eugénisme en France: Les
médecins et la procréation, XIXe-XXe siécle , Paris, 1995; Edward J. Larson, Sex,
Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1995; Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll -Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare
State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland , East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press,1996; Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane:
Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880 -1940 , Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1997; Michael Burleigh, Ethics and Extermination:
Reflections on Nazi Genocide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997;
Manfred Berg and Geoffery Cocks, eds., Medicine and Modernity: Public Health and
Medical Care in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Germany , Washington, D.C.:
Cambridge University Press, 1997; and Frank Dik ötter, Imperfect Conceptions:
Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China , New York: Columbia
University Press, 1998.
2. Frank Dikötter, “Race Culture: Perspectives on the History of Eugenics, ”
American Historical Review , (April 1998): 467-478.
3. For the statistics from 1947 to 1954, see Eisei nenpô (Annual Report of Public
Health), Tokyo: Kôseishô Daijin Kanbô Tôkei Chôsabu; for 1955 onwards, see
Kôseishô Daijin Kanbô Tôkei Jôhôbu ed., Yûsei hogo tôkei hôkoku (Statistical Report
of Eugenic Protection), Tokyo: Kôsei Tôkei Kyôkai, 1994. The total number of
sterilization operations for women was almost three times as many as that for men.
The Eugenic Protection Law was revised in 1996 and renamed the Maternal
Protection Law [ Botai hogohô ]. With this revision, eugenic clauses concerning
sterilization and abortion were thoroughly deleted from the law and the provisions on
13
sterilization and abortion for the purpose of protection of the mother ’s life and health
(actually including the purpose of birth control) remained. The govern ment, however,
has not officially admitted its failure to abolish the eugenic law, nor has it taken the
blame for compulsory sterilization and abortion on grounds of eugenics. Groups
representing the handicapped and feminist activists have severely critici zed the
government’s inaction from the standpoint of reproductive health and rights. See
Tiana Norgren, “Abortion before Birth Control: The Interest Group Politics behind
Postwar Japanese Reproductive Policy, ” Journal of Japanese Studies , 24: 72-78, 1998.
4. Works on the history of eugenics in Japan before 1945 are: Suzuki Zenji,
“Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement in Japan, ” Japanese Studies in the History
of Science , 14: 157-164, 1975; Suzuki Zenji, Nihon no yûseigaku (Eugenics in Japan),
Tokyo: Sankyô Shuppan, 1983; Fujino Yutaka, Nihon fashizumu to iryô (Fascism and
Medical Care), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993; Fujino Yutaka, Nihon fashizumu to
yûsei shisô (Fascism and Eugenic Ideas in Japan), Kyoto: Kamogawa Shuppan, 1998;
Oguma Eiji, Tan’itsu minzoku shinwa no kigen (The Myth of the Homogeneous
Nation), Tokyo: Shin’yôsha, 1995; Sabine Frühstück, Die Politik der
Sexualwissenschaft: Zur Produktion und Popularisierung sexologischen Wissens In
Japan 1908-1941 , Vienna: Institut für Japanologie Universität Wien, 1997; Fujime
Yuki, Sei no rekishigaku ( A Historical Study on the Control System of Sexuality and
Reproduction), Tokyo: Fuji Shuppan, 1997; Sumiko Ôtsubo Sitcawich, “Eugenics in
Imperial Japan: Some Ironies of Modernity, 1883-1945,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, 1998, Sumiko Ôstubo and James R.
Bartholomew, “Eugenics in Japan: Some Ironies of Modernity, 1883-1945,” Science in
Context, forthcoming; Matsubara Yôko, “Nihon ni okeru yûsei seisaku no keisei:
kokumin yûseihô to yûsei hogohô no seiritsukatei no kenkyû” (History of Japan’s
Eugenic Policy: A Study on Approving Processes of the National Eugenics Law and
Eugenic Protection Law), Ph.D. dissertation, Tokyo: Ochanomizu University, 1998.
Fujino (1998), Fujime and Ma tsubara also refer to postwar issues, especially on the
enactment of the Eugenic Protection Law of 1948. There are some articles concerning
Japan’s prewar eugenics movements or eugenic policies as well. See Suzuki Zenji,
Matsubara Yôko, and Sakano Tôru, “Yûseigaku-shi kenkyû no dôkô III: Amerika
oyobi Nihon no yûseigaku ni kansuru rekishi kenkyû” (A Bibliographical Review of
the History of Eugenics III: Eugenics and the Eugenics Movement in U.S.A. and
Japan), Kagakusi kenkyû, 34: 101-106, 1995.
5. See Suzuki, Nihon no yûseigaku , pp.1-41, et passim; Fujino, Nihon fashizumu to
yûsei shisô , pp.372-94; Unoura Hiroshi, “Kindai Nihon ni okeru shakai Dâwinizumu
no juyô to tenkai” (Reception and Development of Social Darwinism in the Modern
Japan), in Shibatani Atsuhiro, Nagano Kei, and Yôrô Takeshi eds., Kôza shinka 2:
shinka shisô to shakai ( Lectures on Evolution 2: The Evolutionary Ideas and the
Society), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1991, pp.119 -152; and Michael Weiner, “The
Invention of Identity: Race and Nation i n Pre-war Japan”, in Frank Dikötter ed., The
Construction of Racial Identities in China and Japan: Historical and Contemporary
Perspectives , London: Hurst & Company, 1997, pp.100 -110.
6. In Japan, “sterilization” [ danshu ] implies tubal ligation, tubal amputation, tubal
resection, vasectomy, or X-ray application to gonad and does not usually include
“castration” [kyosei], i.e., extraction of testes or ovaries. For example, see Yoshimasu
Shûfu, Yûseigaku no riron to jissai (Eugenics: its Theory and Practic e), Tokyo:
Nankôdô, 1940, pp.147-163. X-ray application was, however, not approved under the
National Eugenics Law or the Eugenic Protection Law.
7. The articles in Kakusei (The Purification) published by Kakuseikai , an
anti-official prostitution group, are notable examples of the eugenic discourse which
confused the effects of “nature” and “nurture.” See articles in “ Iden to kankyô gô ”
(Special Issues on Heredity and Environment), Kakusei 8 (9,10): 1-58, 1918.
14
Matsubara also refers to this kind of confu sion among physicians: Matsubara Y ôko,
“Chûzetsu kisei kanwa to yûsei seisaku kyôka” (Liberalization of Abortion and the
Reinforcement of Eugenic Policy), Shisô 886: 124-130, 1998. We can also find the
permeation of neo-Lamarckism in the eugenic movements of France, Russia, Brazil,
and China. See note 1 above.
8. See Sumiko Ôtsubo, “Engendering Eugenics: Japanese Feminists and Marriage
Restriction Legislation (1919-1922),” in Babara Molony and Kathleen S. Uno, eds.,
Gendering Modern Japanese History , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
forthcoming.
9. Tai-kanja kekkon seigenhô seitei ni kansuru kengian (The Proposal on
Enactment of Marriage Restriction for Patients ), in 57-58 Teikokugikai Shugiin Jôsô,
Kengi, Ketsugi, Dôgi, Shitsumon 1929-30 (57 t h and 58 t h sessions of the Imperial Diet
the House of Representatives: Reports to the Empire, Proposals, Resolutions, Motions,
and Questions), Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan (the National Diet Library), Tokyo.
10. Matsubara Yôko, “Minzoku yûsei hogohôan to Nihon no yûseihô no keifu”( Two
Types of Racial Eugenic Protection Bills of the 1930s), Kagakushi kenkyû 36: 42-46,
1996.
11. Nihon Minzoku Eisei Gakkai (The Japan Society of Racial Hygiene) was
founded in 1930. Nagai planned to re organize the society into a foundation [ zaidan
hôjin ] and, in 1935, changed its name to Nihon Minzoku Eisei Kokyôkai (Japan
Association of Racial Hygiene) after it was authorized as a foundation by the
government. See Suzuki, Nihon no Yûseigaku , p.146.
12. Matsubara, “Minzoku yûsei hogohôan,” pp.46-47.
13. Ie is traditional and patriarchy unit in Japan ’s society. See Fukutake Tadashi,
The Japanese Social Structure , trans. Ronald P. Dore, Tokyo: University of Tokyo
Press, 1982, pp.25-32.
14. The National Eugenics Law, as a sterilization law, is characterized further by
the following two points. First, it was applied not only to patients in mental hospitals
or asylums, but also the un-institutionalized. Second, targets of eugenic sterilization
were not only people alleged to be mentally ill or mentally retarded, but also patients
who suffered from hereditary physical diseases. These points were remarkably
different from many of the sterilization laws in U.S.A.
15. Patients with leprosy had been seg regated by force into the national
sanatoriums under an anti-leprosy law since 1909. Around 1915, a sterilization
operation was performed on a male patient as a precondition for approval of marriage
in a sanatorium. In this way, sterilization came to be cu stomary in sanatoriums
without legal grounds. For more on the sterilization of leprosy, see Fujino , Nihon
fashizumu to iryô , pp.27-38, 236-254, et passim.
16. Kokutai had been regarded as the Japan’s unique polity. It was closely
connected the family-state ideology in which Japan was defined as a family with a
father( the emperor) and his children (his subjects). See Carol Gluck, Japan’s Modern
Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period , Preinceton: Princeton University Press,
1985, pp.36-37, et passim.
17. Noma Shinji, “[Kenzen] naru Dai Nippon teikoku” (Health of the Greater
Japanese Empire), Hisutoria , 120: 51-60, 1988, Matsubara Yôko, “Senjika no
danshuhô ronsô: seishinkai no kokumin yûseihô hihan” (Controversy over the
Sterilization Law during the World War II: Psychiatrists’ Criticism of the National
15
Eugenics Law), Gendai shisô 26: 286-303, 1998.
18. Kokumin yûseihô no ichibu shikô kijitsu no ken (On a Date for Enforcement of
Part of the National Eugenics Law), chokurei (the Imperial edict) no. 6 80, 7 July
1941.
19. “Kokumin yûseihô shikô ni kansuru ken imei tsûchô” (An Official Note on
Enforcement of the National Eugenics Law), an official note from the Ministry of
Health and Welfare, no.69, 26 June 1941.
20. Matsubara Yôko, ”Senjiki Nihon no danshu seisaku,” (Japan’s Sterilization
Policy at the World War II Time) Kagaku-gijutsu-shakai 7: 100-103, 1998.
21. Ashida Hitoshi, “Shinjidai no kôsei gyôsei”(The Health and Welfare Policy in
the New Age), Nippon iji shinpô , 1175: 2, 1946.
22. Ôta Tenreim Datai kinshi to yûsei hogohô (Prohibition against Abortion and
the Eugenic Protection Law), Tokyo: Keieisha Kagakusha Ky ôkai, 1967, p.165.
23. Many historians have investigated the effects of the Eugenic Protection Law on
Japan’s postwar body politics, paying especially attention to the liberalization of
abortion. See Deborah J.H. Oakley, “The Development of Population Policy in
Japan, 1945-1952,” Ph.D. dissertation; Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1977;
Ogino Miho, “Abortion and Women’s Reproductive Rights: The State of Japanese
Women, 1945-1991, in Joyce Gelb and Marian Lief Palley, eds., Women of Japan and
Korea: Continuity and Change , Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994; Kozy K.
Amemiya, “Women’s Autonomy within the Community: The Contextual Argument of
Japanese Pro-choice Women,” American Asian Review 13: 97-142, 1995; and Tiana
Norgren, “Abortion before Birth Control,” 59-94.
24. Tachi Minoru, Nihon Jinkô no Shôrai , Tokyo: Sekai Keizai Chôsakai,1947,
p.148.
25. Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human
Heredity , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985, p.88.
26. Matsubara, “Chûzetsu kisei kanwa to yûsei seisaku kyôka,” pp.120-124.
27. For a closer examination and comparison of the National Eugenics Law and
Eugenic Protection Law, see Matsubara, “Nihon ni okeru yûsei seisaku no keisei,”
pp.44-55, 66-71, 87-107. Ishii’s comparative study on the National Eugenics Law and
the Eugneic Protection Law is a pioneering and informat ive work: Ishii Michiko,
“Yûsei hogohô niyoru datai gôhôka no mondaiten,” (Problems concerning Legalization
of Abortion by the Eugenic Protection Law), Shakai kagaku kenkyû , 34: 113-173,
1982.
28. For example, see Taniguchi Yasabur ô, “Jikyoku to jinkô mondai” (The Current
State of Affairs and Population Problems), Yûseigaku , 179: 17-23, 1939.
29. A clause for sterilizing people with “other than the hereditary ones” [ idensei no
mono igai no ] mental disorders–Article 12– was introduced since 1952 amendment of
the Eugenic Protection Law. Article 12 prescribes as follows: “In case there has been
obtained the consent of the person under obligation to protect another under 20
(where the guardian, the spouse, the person having parental power or the person
under obligation to sustain another has become the person to protect) or Article 21
(where the mayor of city or headman of town or village has become the person under
obligation to protect) of the Mental Health Law (Law No.123 of 1950), with respect to
16
a person suffering from mental illness or mental retardation other than the
hereditary ones enumerated in item 1 or 2 in the annexed list, the physician may
apply to the Metropolitan, Hokkaido or Prefectural Eugenic Protection Commission
for investigation of reasonableness in connection with the eugenic operation. ” “The
hereditary ones enumerated in item 1 or 2 in the annexed list ” imply “schizophrenia,”
“manic-depressive psychosis,” “ epilepsy,” and “hereditary mental retardation.” See
Institute of Population Problems, Eugenic Protection Law in Japan, Tokyo: Institute
of Population Problems, Ministry of Health and Welfare, English Pamphlet Series
no.52, 1960.
30. Cousins correspond to the forth degree.
31. The phrase in the text, “eugenic operation,” means sterilization operation.
32. For GHQ/SCAP’s comment on the Eugenic Protection Bill of 1948, see PHW1179,
Box 9322, File: Eugenics Protection Law, May 1948 -Nov.1949,
GHQ/SCAP Records, Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan, Tokyo.
33. Shison han’ei , literally “descendant prosperity,” is a term which encompasses
the idea that one has many children to insure a long line of descendants who will
bring prosperity for the family.
For example, see the following works: Robert N . Proctor, Racial Hygiene:
Medicine under the Nazis , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988; Nicole
Hahn Rafter, White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies, 1877 -1919 , Boston:
Northeastern University Press, 1988; Paul Weindling, Health, Race, and German
Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870 -1945 , New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1989; William H. Schneider, Quality and Quantity: The Quest for
Biological Regeneration in Twentieth -Century France , New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1990; Mark B. Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in
Germany, France, Brazil and Russia , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990; Richard
A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in
Twentieth-Century Britain , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990;
Angus McLaren, Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945 , Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart, 1990; Nancy Leys Stepan, “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race,
Gender, and Nation in Latin America , Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991; Frank
Dikötter, The Discourse of Race in Modern China , London: Hurst & Company, 1992;
Pauline M.H. Mazumdar, Eugenics Human Genetics and Human Failings: The
Eugenics Society, Its Sources and Its Critics in Britain , London: Routledge, 1992;
Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in
Britain and the United States between the Two World Wars , Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992; Stefan Küle, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American
Racism, and German National Socialism , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994;
Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: “Euthanasia” in Germany c. 1900-1945 ,
１
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Richard Cleminson, “Eugenics by
Name or Nature?: The Spanish Anarchist Sex Reform of the 1930s,” History of
European Ideas 18: 729-40, 1994; Anne Carol, Histoire de l’eugénisme en France: Les
médecins et la procréation, XIXe-XXe siécle , Paris, 1995; Edward J. Larson, Sex,
Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1995; Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll -Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare
State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland , East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press,1996; Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane:
Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880 -1940 , Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1997; Michael Burleigh, Ethics and Extermination:
Reflections on Nazi Genocide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997;
17
Manfred Berg and Geoffery Cocks, eds., Medicine and Modernity: Public Health and
Medical Care in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Germany , Washington, D.C.:
Cambridge University Press, 1997; and Frank Dik ötter, Imperfect Conceptions:
Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China , New York: Columbia
University Press, 1998.
２
Frank Dikötter, “Race Culture: Perspectives on the History of Eugenics, ”
American Historical Review , (April 1998): 467-478.
３
For the statistics from 1947 to 1954, see Eisei nenpô (Annual Report of Public
Health), Tokyo: Kôseishô Daijin Kanbô Tôkei Chôsabu; for 1955 onwards, see
Kôseishô Daijin Kanbô Tôkei Jôhôbu ed., Yûsei hogo tôkei hôkoku (Statistical Report
of Eugenic Protection), Tokyo: Kôsei Tôkei Kyôkai, 1994. The total number of
sterilization operations for women was almost three times as many as that for men.
The Eugenic Protection Law was revised in 1996 and renamed the Maternal
Protection Law ( Botai hogohô ). With this revision, eugenic clauses concerning
sterilization and abortion were thoroughly deleted from the law and the provisions on
sterilization and abortion for the purpose of protection of the mother ’s life and health
(actually including the purpose of birth control) remained. The government, however,
has not officially admitted its failure to abolish the eugenic law, nor has it taken the
blame for compulsory sterilization and abortion on grounds of eugenics. Groups
representing the handicapped and feminist activists have severely criticized the
government’s inaction from the standpoint of reproductive health and rights. See
Tiana Norgren, “Abortion before Birth Control: The Interest Group Politics behind
Postwar Japanese Reproductive Policy, ” Journal of Japanese Studies , 24: 72-78, 1998.
４
Works on the history of eugenics in Japan before 1945 are: Suzuki Zenji,
“Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement in Japan, ” Japanese Studies in the History
of Science , 14: 157-164, 1975; Suzuki Zenji, Nihon no yûseigaku (Eugenics in Japan),
Tokyo: Sankyo Shuppan, 1983; Fujino Yutaka, Nihon fashizumu to iryô (Fascism and
Medical Care), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993; Fujino Yutaka, Nihon fashizumu to
yûsei shisô (Fascism and Eugenic Ideas in Japan), Kyoto: Kamogawa Shuppan, 1998;
Oguma Eiji, Tan’itsu minzoku shinwa no kigen (The Myth of the Homogeneous
Nation), Tokyo: Shin’yôsha, 1995; Sabine Frühstück, Die Politik der
Sexualwissenschaft: Zur Produktion und Popularisierung sexologischen Wissens In
Japan 1908-1941 , Vienna: Institut für Japanologie Universität Wien, 1997; Fujime
Yuki, Sei no rekishigaku ( A Historical Study on the Control System of Sexuality and
Reproduction), Tokyo: Fuji Shuppan, 1997; Sumiko Ôtsubo Sitcawich, “Eugenics in
Imperial Japan: Some Ironies of Modernity, 1883-1945,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, 1998, Sumiko Ôstubo and James R.
Bartholomew, “Eugenics in Japan: Some Ironies of Modernity, 1883-1945,” Science in
Context, forthcoming; Matsubara Yôko, “Nihon ni okeru yûsei seisaku no keisei:
kokumin yûseihô to yûsei hogohô no seiritsukatei no kenkyû” (History of Japan’s
Eugenic Policy: A Study on Approving Processes of the National Eugenics Law and
Eugenic Protection Law), Ph.D. dissertation, Tokyo: Ochanomizu University, 1998.
Fujino (1998), Fujime and Matsubara also refer to postwar issu es, especially on the
enactment of the Eugenic Protection Law of 1948. There are some articles concerning
Japan’s prewar eugenics movements or eugenic policies as well. See Suzuki Zenji,
Matsubara Yôko, and Sakano Tôru, “Yûseigaku-shi kenkyû no dôkô III: Amerika
oyobi Nihon no yûseigaku ni kansuru rekishi kenkyû” (A Bibliographical Review of
the History of Eugenics III: Eugenics and the Eugenics Movement in U.S.A. and
Japan), Kagakusi kenkyû, 34: 101-106, 1995.
５
See Suzuki, Nihon no yûseigaku , pp.1-41, et passim; Fujino, Nihon fashizumu to
yûsei shisô , pp.372-94; Unoura Hiroshi, “Kindai Nihon ni okeru shakai Dâwinizumu
no juyô to tenkai” (Reception and Development of Social Darwinism in the Modern
Japan), in Shibatani Atsuhiro, Nagano Kei, and Y ôrô Takeshi eds., Kôza shinka 2:
shinka shisô to shakai ( Lectures on Evolution 2: The Evolutionary Ideas and the
Society), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1991, pp.119 -152; and Michael Weiner, “The
Invention of Identity: Race and Nation in Pre -war Japan”, in Frank Dikötter ed., The
18
Construction of Racial Identities in China and Japan: Historical and Contemporary
Perspectives , London: Hurst & Company, 1997, pp.100 -110.
６
The articles in Kakusei (The Purification) published by Kakuseikai , an
anti-official prostitution group, are notable examples of the eugenic discourse which
confused the effects of “nature” and “nurture.” See articles in “ Iden to kankyô gô ”
(Special Issues on Heredity and Environment), Kakusei 8 (9,10): 1-58, 1918.
Matsubara also refers to this kind of confusi on among physicians: Matsubara Y ôko,
“Chûzetsu kisei kanwa to yûsei seisaku kyôka” (Liberalization of Abortion and the
Reinforcement of Eugenic Policy), Shisô 886: 124-130, 1998. We can also find the
permeation of neo-Lamarckism in the eugenic movements of France, Russia, Brazil,
and China. See note 1 above.
７
See Sumiko Ôtsubo, “Engendering Eugenics: Japanese Feminists and Marriage
Restriction Legislation (1919-1922),” in Babara Molony and Kathleen S. Uno, eds.,
Gendering Modern Japanese History , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
forthcoming.
８
Tai-kanja kekkon seigenhô seitei ni kansuru kengian (The Proposal on Enactment
of Marriage Restriction for Patients), in 57-58 Teikokugikai Shugiin Jôsô, Kengi,
Ketsugi, Dôgi, Shitsumon 1929-30 (57 t h and 58 t h sessions of the Imperial Diet the
House of Representatives: Reports to the Empire, Proposals, Resolutions, Motions,
and Questions), Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan (the National Diet Library), Tokyo.
９
Matsubara Yôko, “Minzoku yûsei hogohôan to Nihon no yûseihô no keifu”( Two
Types of Racial Eugenic Protection Bills of the 1930s), Kagakushi kenkyû 36: 42-46,
1996.
１０
Nihon Minzoku Eisei Gakkai (The Japan Society of Racial Hygiene) was founded
in 1930. Nagai planned to reorganize the so ciety into a foundation [ zaidan hôjin ] and,
in 1935, changed its name to Nihon Minzoku Eisei Kokyôkai (Japan Association of
Racial Hygiene) after it was authorized as a foundation by the government. See
Suzuki, Nihon no Yûseigaku , p.146.
１１
Matsubara, “Minzoku yûsei hogohôan,” pp.46-47.
１２
The National Eugenics Law, as a sterilization law, is characterized further by
the following two points. First, it was applied not only to patients in mental hospitals
or asylums, but also the un-institutionalized. Second, targets of eugenic sterilization
were not only people alleged to be mentally ill or mentally retarded, but also patients
who suffered from hereditary physical diseases. These points were remarkably
different from many of the sterilization laws in U.S.A.
１３
Patients with leprosy had been segregated by force into the national
sanatoriums under an anti-leprosy law since 1909. Around 1915, a sterilization
operation was performed on a male patient as a precondition for approval of marriage
in a sanatorium. In this way, sterilization came to be customary in sanatoriums
without legal grounds. For more on the sterilization of leprosy, see Fujino, Nihon
fashizumu to iryô , pp.27-38, 236-254, et passim.
１４
Noma Shinji, “[Kenzen] naru Dai Nippon teikoku” (Health of the Greater
Japanese Empire), Hisutoria , 120: 51-60, 1988, Matsubara Yôko, “Senjika no
danshuhô ronsô: seishinkai no kokumin yûseihô hihan” (Controversy over the
Sterilization Law during the World War II: Psychiatrists ’ Criticism of the National
Eugenics Law ), Gendai shisô 26: 286-303, 1998.
１５
Kokumin yûseihô no ichibu shikôkijitsu no ken (On a Date for Enforcement of
Part of the National Eugenics Law), chokurei (the Imperial edict) no. 680, 7 July
1941.
１６
For the English translation of the names of the diseases listed in the Eugenic
Protection Law, see the following pamphlet: Institute of Population Problems,
Eugenic Protection Law in Japan , Tokyo: Institute of Population Problems, Ministry
of Health and Welfare, English Pamphlet Series no.52, 1960.
１７
Matsubara Yôko, ”Senjiki Nihon no danshu seisaku,” (Japan’s Sterilization
Policy at the World War II Time) Kagaku-gijutsu-shakai 7: 100-103, 1998.
１８
Ashida Hitoshi, “Shinjidai no kôsei gyôsei”(The Health and Welfare Policy in the
19
New Age), Nippon iji shinpo , 1175: 2, 1946.
１９
Many historians have investigated the effects of the Eugenic Protection Law on
Japan’s postwar body politics, paying especially attention to the liberalization of
abortion. See Deborah J.H. Oakley, “The Development of Population Policy i n Japan,
1945-1952,” Ph.D. dissertation; Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1977; Ogino
Miho, “Abortion and Women’s Reproductive Rights: The State of Japanese Women,
1945-1991, in Joyce Gelb and Marian Lief Palley, eds., Women of Japan and Korea:
Continuity and Change , Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994; Kozy K.
Amemiya, “Women’s Autonomy within the Community: The Contextual Argument of
Japanese Pro-choice Women,” American Asian Review 13: 97-142, 1995; and Tiana
Norgren, “Abortion before Birth Control,” 59-94.
２０
Tachi Minoru, Nihon Jinkô no Shôrai , Tokyo: Sekai Keizai Chôsakai,1947, p.148.
２１
Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human
Heredity , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985, p.88.
２２
Matsubara, “Chûzetsu kisei kanwa to yûsei seisaku kyôka,” pp.120-124.
２３
For a closer examination and comparison of the National Eugenics Law and
Eugenic Protection Law, see Matsubara, “Nihon ni okeru yûsei seisaku no keisei,”
pp.44-55, 66-71, 87-107. Ishii’s comparative study on the National Eugenics Law and
the Eugneic Protection Law is a pioneering and informative work: Ishii Michiko,
“Yûsei hogohô niyoru datai gôhôka no mondaiten,” (Problems concerning Legalization
of Abortion by the Eugenic Protection Law), Shakai kagaku kenkyû , 34: 113-173,
1982.
２４
For example, see Taniguchi Yasaburô, “Jikyoku to jinkô mondai” (The Current
State of Affairs and Population Problems), Yûseigaku , 179: 17-23, 1939.
２５
English translation of Art.4 was cited from Institute of Pop ulation Problems,
Eugenic Protection Law in Japan , 5.
２６
For GHQ/SCAP’s comment on the Eugenic Protection Bill of 1948, see PHW1179,
Box 9322, File: Eugenics Protection Law, May 1948 -Nov.1949, GHQ/SCAP Records,
Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan, Tokyo.
20