Edo Period Social Sanction Ruled Illegal

[Mulboyne]

[Mulboyne]

Asahi: Lawsuit against ostracism divides villagers

The centuries-old practice of murahachibu, or ostracizing a member of the community who broke the social code or order, was not only alive in this small village, but it was also fiercely contested in a court case. Although two court rulings were in favor of those who were ostracized in the village of Sekikawa, residents now say it is uncertain whether the cluster of households that live side by side will ever be able to return to their old ways. Households in this northern Niigata Prefecture community had customarily been close and people helped each other, such as shoveling snow off rooftops during winter in the mountainous region, where snowfall could be 1 meter deep. It is also not clear whether the defendants are able to pay the compensation ordered by the courts to the plaintiffs. Some residents lament that the court case has destroyed relationships here. "We were all close but now, people are like demons," a tearful senior citizen said. "I worry that this state could continue into my grandchildren's generation." Another villager said, "When a defendant and a plaintiff are neighbors, they aren't likely to shovel snow from the roof together."

The ostracism occurred in a hamlet of 36 households in the village of only 7,000 residents. Eleven households in 2004 filed a complaint against three leaders of the village, saying they were ostracized for refusing to take part in a local event. The Niigata District Court's Shibata Branch in February this year banned acts of ostracism and ordered the three leaders to pay a total of 2.2 million yen in compensation to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed the ruling, contending that they had not been part of such acts. Although the Tokyo High Court urged both parties to settle, some residents pushed for a court decision on grounds they had endured so much since filing the case. On Oct. 10, the high court upheld the district court ruling.

It all started with some residents deciding not to participate in an annual summer community event in 2004 for the Bon holiday. They complained that preparing for the mountain trout grabbing event and cleaning up afterward did not leave much time to spend at home during the Bon period. But the community's leaders at the time threatened to ostracize them if they did not participate. At a meeting of the hamlet residents, it was agreed that those going against the community's custom would be banned from using the waste collection depot and prohibited from gathering wild mushrooms and edible plants in the area. Community bulletins from the village administration, an agricultural cooperative and others were not to be passed around to their homes. Violations of these rules meant a fine of 30,000 yen.

In the trial, the three defendants contended that order must be maintained, stressing that the event in question is important for the community and that non-participation meant "selfish behavior that went against the community's management." But the plaintiffs said that all residents should be free to make decisions and that they wanted to use the trial to clear the air so that people are comfortable with voicing their opinions. The Oct. 10 ruling said the measures taken by the community leaders were "illegal" in that they deprived some of the residents of their rights and interests in daily life, "regardless of whether the acts were called murahachibu." An official with the Sekikawa municipal government said, "Hamlets have their own festivals and customs from years ago and we can't interfere." A senior official also said with a sigh, "Honestly, it's shameful that a conflict in such a rural area had to be decided in a courtroom in a big city."

Following the high court ruling, one of the defendants said since the bans were decided by a meeting of the hamlet's residents, the residents, excluding the plaintiffs, should pitch in for the compensation payment. By the same token, the 2 million yen or so in costs for the trial at the district court level came from the hamlet's communal coffers, for which each household paid 2,000 yen monthly. But the money has since been spent and the defendants paid about 1.5 million yen from their own pockets to cover the costs for the high court trial. They estimate that each household would have to cough up about 100,000 yen if the whole hamlet were to share compensation payments. While some accept the plan as a matter of course since the community meeting agreed on the actions, others say the amount is too high.

[Greji]

Asahi: Lawsuit against ostracism divides villagers

This still occurs in the sticks where I live and winning such a court case would probably double the amount of "murahachibu" one would recieve and it would also serve to better educate the perps on how and what to do that would not backfire!

[American Oyaji]

This case has already made it into the Japanese Wikipedia entry for murahachibu. I wonder whether the general reaction to this judgement in Japan would be happiness that such a practice has been deemed illegal, sadness that the courts got involved at all in the ways of the village or perhaps a feeling that this was a petty ostracism which deserved to be overturned. I suppose indifference is also a possibility.

I would say all of the above depending on who you ask. Perhaps it was selfish on the part of those who did not participate, but they did not go out of their way to hinder anyone else from joining the festivities. It was VERY petty and mean spirited for the community leaders to encourage the ostracism of those that did not participate.

I suspect that there is more to the story than has been told. Perhaps the pettiness on the part of the leaders may have first exhibited itself in the assignment of duties. Maybe one of the leaders assigned this and in this person's case, helping with the char would have taken them from one side of the village to the complete opposite side (with no car) and would have taken them so much time that they could not spend any quality time at home.

I'm not sure, but I do agree that the court had made the right decision, but Japanese can be so stiffnecked sometimes, that they cannot admit when they are wrong.

[Charles]

I would say all of the above depending on who you ask. Perhaps it was selfish on the part of those who did not participate, but they did not go out of their way to hinder anyone else from joining the festivities. It was VERY petty and mean spirited for the community leaders to encourage the ostracism of those that did not participate...

Oh you know how these situations work, there is a lot more cruelty running just underneath the surface. There were surely people who did not want to participate in the shunning, and they were also threatened and bullied into going along with it.

[L S]

Traditions related to obligation die hard in Japan, especially in the country side. I did notice that a small town I lived in years ago in Fukuoka-ken was undergoing changes in this regard. As the town grew and life became more complicated some residents started not participating in the "volunteer" days for cleaning the local temple or other such duties that years before would have been scandalous. I think people just accepted it little by little as outside forces brought new distractions and challenges to the town.

[Mike Oxlong]

In many ways, and on many levels, Japan is still very tribal. This case really highlights that.