In 1874, the imperial government of Russia enacted the universal conscription law as a part of the general military reform. The legislation imposing military service on all adult male subjects was of much concern to the Russian Mennonites, who had been granted the privilege of exemption from military service since their settlement in Novorosiia. The government tried to persuade Mennonites to stay in the Russian Empire by allowing them to choose noncombatant services instead of those involving carrying the arms, but adhered to the principle of universal conscription. Disagreeing with this policy, seven thousand Russian Mennonites left for Manitoba, Canada, where military service was voluntary. The Canadian government welcomed their settlement by granting favorable conditions for their immigration. The provincial government of Manitoba, however, was not always friendly to the newcomers. In the 1890s, the secularization policy in public education perplexed Mennonites, although during this period the growing demand for the agrarian labor force alleviated xenophobia in the Canadian society. As the World War One approached, anti-German sentiment heightened in both Canada and Russia. The German-speaking Mennonites suffered from this hostile atmosphere in both countries. At times elected governments influenced by such ethnic prejudice were less active in protecting the minority groups than omnipotent governor-generals of the Imperial Russia. The historical overview of Mennonites in Russia and Canada shows that social and political conditions for a certain minority group in a country need to be discussed, first of all, based on the factual analysis of such factors as the country's ethnic composition and national consciousness, the stage of economic development, state-church relations, and politico-administrative system of sub-national regions and, secondly, on the comparative study of different combinations of those factors. That would help to attain a less biased approach to understanding of the governmental policies on the minority groups in a historical perspective.
This article uses cases of statelessness to examine the political dynamic of exclusion and inclusion involved in a system of nationality. Stateless person means a person with no nationality or one who is not legally a citizen of any nation state. Here, I will pay attention to two cases, one that of ethnic Koreans in Japan, and the other Japanese war orphans coming from China to live in Japan. These two cases are similar in some ways. Firstly, the migrations were forced by the socio-political environment. Secondly, transitions in international relations and the changing policies of nation states resulted in the alteration of their nationalities and even led them to become stateless. Issues of stateless persons have been neglected and seldom paid attention to. Here, by analyzing these two cases, especially concerning (1) historical background and clarification of how they became stateless, (2) the gap between identity card designations and real nationality, and (3) the mental effects of being stateless, this paper would like to stress the existence of stateless people by clarifying the political dynamic of nationality which has been excluding them. Also, this paper would like to suggest the importance of studying stateless people in this global era, a group of people with a unique identity free from nationalism and ethnicity.
The purposes of this article are to look at theoretical issues relating to inclusion of cultural minorities, and to consider their implication to normative theory of liberal democracy. We will look at debates on inclusion of two national minorities in Canada; French Canadians and indigenous peoples. First we will follow the history of minority policies since the foundation of British Colonies in North America. Next, we will look at current debates and examine what are at stake there. In Kymlicka's famous formulation, both of these groups are to be defined as ‘national minorities’. Their primary need is supposed to be the preservation of ‘societal culture’, whose core is their native ‘language’. What is at stake is that these groups are to have means of protecting their ‘societal culture’ and communal institutions from violent destruction. Although this has been important consideration, it will be argued, it makes up only limited part of today's debates. Foci of today's debates also include issues such as: recognition of nationhood, redifinition of their status in Canadian history, economic marginalization and poverty, and creation of a new idea of citizenship. It will be suggested that liberal political theories should be reformulated so that the richness of today's debate could be accommodated.
This article examines the different views of transboundary social construction of the European Union, most vocally defined as; (a) Europe as a market society, and (b) Fortress Europe. These two major aspects complement each other to build an individualist “free movement” society. Under Europeanization, however, there remain (c) national political cultures that preserve non-market norms such as alcohol prohibition, ban on abortion and xenophobic administration, on the one hand, and (d) unequal citizenship of the immigrants and their subaltern cultural activities, on the other hand. Such residual but active sub-political spheres reflect multi-dimensional structuring of the political cultures in Europe, where individualist, hierarchist, egalitarian and fatalist cultures mutually contest, coexist and interact. In urban Europe, metropolitan venues and institutions such as developed in Paris, Vienna, or Belgrad have provided habitats for both mainstream and subaltern arts/music. The latter, non-mainstream scenes represent enormous multicultural sub-politics, not only based on individualization (as Ulrich Beck observed), but also on mixed political cultures and even conscious isolation.
The gated communities risen in U.S.A. and similar excessively secured collective housings in Japan would inevitably cause the exclusion from outer communities, leaving them as “the closed space”, which have harshly been criticized. However, I wish to maintain their private government basing on the direct democracy with participatory and deliberation modes will certainly breed the excellent commonality among all the people there, which will easily be extended and elevated to the public. The commonality based on the democracy, thus, will go beyond “the closed space” to the city/town level, furthering even to the national level, which is the subject of my paper “the despatial democracy”.
In referring the arguments of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, this paper tries to explore some exclusive elements of the present social policies aiming at “Inclusion.” Rawls and Habermas find one of the major difficulties of the existing welfare state in the point that it reproduces the so called underclass. According to them, it lacks the principle of reciprocity or mutual recognition. If the least advantaged people would see themselves as being abandoned by the society they belong or being treated differently from other citizens, then the social integration should be deemed as failed. The first section of the paper outlines how Rawls and Habermas criticized the welfare-state capitalism or the existing social state. In their views, the existing welfare systems have been provided only social protections of life ex post and failed to give fair opportunities ex ante. The second section focuses on the more positive ideas of the social integration, especially on the idea of property-owning democracy shown by Rawls and of the promotion of both private and public freedoms argued by Habermas. Both of these are suggestive for the possible social integration without exclusion in that the former requires the improvement of life prospects of people in advance and the latter tries to avoid paternalistic interventions by the social state. In the concluding section, the paper argues that the principle of mutual recognition among citizens should include not only the mutual respect for autonomous ways of life but also the recognition of contingencies and vulnerabilities of our lives at its core. Otherwise, the social cooperation regulated by the principle of reciprocity would require the mutual contribution and exclude some people as useless.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the exclusive logic of inclusive theory of citizenship. Since the 1960's citizenship has constituted a theoretical problem and most political theorists have criticized the exclusive and discriminatory conceptions of citizenship. Theorists focusing on civic responsibility, especially civic virtue, support universal ideas because those universal ideas encourage people with incommensurable differences to come to terms with one another. Civic responsibility based on the universal rules, ironically, does not require the responsibility of each other but only the duty to the rules. It presupposes everyone is autonomous and self-reliant. In this sense, theory on civic responsibility excludes many people who need others' care and help. On the other hand, the ethic of care proposed by C. Gilligan shows the possibilities of “intimate relationship” to open to the otherness and to respond to others' voices. Instead of deontological responsibility of contract theory, R. Goodin poses the vulnerable model to show how the society and citizens take responsibility. Responsibilities come from relationship which one often gets involved with, not necessarily from voluntary contract. The paper intends to pay more attention to the relationship of caring and being cared and tries to constitute a new theory of social responsibility from this human condition of care.
In the postwar Japan, productivity-oriented Keynesian welfare state caused marginal people like Minamata sufferers pollution and social exclusion. Politics of neo-liberalism and globalization have not only aggravated social exclusion of marginal people, but brought about new social exclusion inside the civil society. “New Men” who rose up among Minamata sufferers have constructed Human Politics, differentiated from citizen's politics, as counter politics against social exclusion. The action-framework of Human Politics is compounded of survival politics, convivial politics and existence-oriented politics. It could be shared with the newly excluded poor.
This paper analyzes the Japanese police's “Zendo-shugi” policy to the Korean residents in the late Taisho period. It aimed to ease the discontent of the Korean residents except “Hutei(dangerous)” Koreans. It was influenced mainly by the new policy of the Government-General of Korea after the March First movement and also partly by the new policy of the Japanese police after the Rice Riot and the former colonial bureaucrats and their policy. In rivalry with the judiciaries, the police tried to understand the anti-Japanese sentiment of the Koreans and satisfy them. But it tended to provoke the Koreans' antipathy toward its interference and had a problem that “Zendo” raised the Korean nationalism. And it was difficult for the police to realize the policy because lower-ranking policemen couldn't understand the “Zendo-shugi”. And further, as some Korean immigrant workers the police hadn't seen dangerous sometimes resorted to violence, the police had trouble in distinguishing dangerous Koreans from good Koreans
This paper examines the implications of “the nation state” and “democracy” for modern Jews (and indirectly Palestinian Arabs) by focusing on the political thoughts and discourse of Louis D. Brandeis. Louis D. Brandeis was an assimilated American Jew, a progressive lawyer, and a leader of American Zionist Movement 1914-1941. Three issues are discussed here. First, I describe the reason and process of how Brandeis, an assimilated Jew, and People's Counsel, became a Zionist. Secondly, I analyze the implication of the Jewish State in Palestine for him. At last, I examine how he coped with the contradiction between democracy and the Jewish State in Palestine. Based on these arguments, I conclude that Brandeis considered the Jewish State giving American Jews the right as a sub-group under American nation. Finally, I describe the Palestinian problem as a product brought about when Western modern political ideas and frameworks (the nation state, democracy) were transpreted limitedly and applied to reality in Palestine.