Two Notions of “Right to Live” in 1918 Rice Riots

Moral Economy and Citizenship

Abstract

　In 1918 the populace in Japan rose up in protest against soaring price of rice.

They condemned unscrupulous rice merchants and the government, demanding

for reasonable price of rice. The clamor of people for rice escalated into nationwide

riots, commonly called the rice riots.

　After the riots, popular movements, including the universal suffrage movement

and the labor movement, developed rapidly and it was said that 1918 rice riots

brought a new phase in the history of the popular movements for the citizen’s

rights.

　The advent of a new age after the riots, of course, did not emerge directly

from rioters’ clamor for rice. The question we should ask is what meanings were

attached to the riots.

　Intellectuals who advocated democracy in the press interpreted the significance

of the rice riots in line with their political campaigns. They argued that

the rioters tacitly demanded the rights to participate politics. Peoples’ outcry for

rice was interpreted as de facto quest for citizenship.

　The purpose of this paper is to investigate into the notions of “right to live” in

the discourse on the rice riots. For that purpose, this paper analyzes how the

intellectuals interpreted the riots. Two different notions of “right to live” can be

seen in the discourse on the rice riots: moral economy in early-modern Japan

and citizenship in modern Japan. In the discourse of intellectuals, the former

gave way to the latter. As it were, the way to the “right to live” of modern society

began with the rice riots, and concurrently the legitimacy of the “right to

live” of traditional community came to the termination.