Chapter 13

History, Postmodern Discourse, and

the Japanese Textbook Controversy
Over "Comfort Women"
Yoshiko Nozald
INTRODUCTION
Postwar Japan has been the setting of a hard-fought struggle over national
narratives, especially concerning the official history of World War II as rep-
resented in school textbooks (see Nozaki & Inokuchi, 2000). In particular,
the issue of "comfort women" ushered in a new phase of chat struggle in
the 1990s. While there has been little dispute over the fact that so-called
"comfort women" (ianfu) existed during the Asia-Pacific War (1931- 1945).
a considerable controversy has arisen over how to interpret and teach about
this. In the old interpretation, it was an episode of "love/sex affairs" by
Japanese men in service, who were "comforted" by che women. Alchough
the episode never had a place in the official history of the war, it was cold
and retold privately, and used as a side story in memoirs and novels.
Feminise movements inside and outside of Japan, not co mencion the vic-
tims who broke silence and began co speak out, have challenged the old
interprecacion and delivered a new one-an incerprecacion chac portrays
che women as enslaved by che scare and ics milicary and subjected to forced
proscicmion and syscematic rape.
1
This chapter examines some Japanese scholarly debates on the issue of
comfort women and ics inclusion in sclhool cexcbooks.
2
The Japanese con-
troversy over comfort women has involved charged debates among incel-
leccuals of different disciplinary and ideological backgrounds: Progressive
and feminise historians have advanced empirical research; right-wing
nationalise critics have launched a series of attacks upon the new, critical
understandings of the historical facts; "poststrucruralist" feminist theories
have been brought into the dispute; and some right-wing scholars have
employed postmodern discourses co promote their agenda. An examination
217
Yoshiko No'laki 219
and called for historical research and education aimed at remembering the
incident Kono.'s sraremenr provided a foundarion upon which the issue of
comfort women could be addressed in education, so that by 1997, almost
all school history textbooks and those in related subject areas included a
reference to comfort women (for further discussion, see Nozaki, 200 I).
Right-wing nationalises objected :strongly co both the government's
admission of scare involvement in che matter of comfort women and the
inclusion of the comfort women issue in school textbooks. They began to
attack nor only rhe politicians who supported rhe government' s apologies,
bur the hisrorians' findings about, and :school textbook references to, com-
fort women by disseminating misleading information. Countering the
nationalist offe:nsive, some progressive and feminist historians have made
concerted efforts to advance empirical studies on the issue of comfort
women, while other feminists have raised epistemological questions for
such historical .inquiry and education. Interestingly, the nationalise strate-
gies have also included che use of postmodern discourses, which aim at dis-
crediting hiscouical research and argue for a national history chat serves
"national" interests.
EMPIRICAL DEBATES BETWEEN THE NATIONALISTS AND
THE PROGRESSIVE ANO FEMI NIST HISTORIANS
Making and keeping the issue of comfort women controversial has been
one of the most effective strategies taken up by right-wing nationalists.
Namely, they have focused on the minor derails of the "faces" presented by
historical research, poinring out errors and the impossibility of verification
of such events (though, due to their lack of expert knowledge, their points
have sometimes turned out to be their errors). The progressive a nd feminise
hiscorians have countered the nationalists by responding to and refuting
their arguments one by one with empirical srudies. However, the narional-
isrs have continued ro make the same arguments, even in cases where they
have been completely refured. Unforrunacely, as a result, the dispute has
become confusing for the public, and for many educacors.
4
For example, in the early 1990s, some textbooks usedl che terms
teishin-tai (volunteer corps) and jttgun-ianfi1 (war comfort women) co refer
to the women, because these were the most popular terms circulating at
the time. The nationalists have argued th at the use of teishin-tai co designate
the women is i ncorrecr and char j11gim-ianfi1 is not the "historical term"
(meaning rhac ic is noc che exacr rerm rhac was used during the war).
Therefore, rhey have argued, chese terms should be removed from school
cexcbooks. There is a fraction of cruth co the nationalist claim: research so
far has found only a few cases in which che teishi11-tai women were forced
220 HISTORY, POSTMODERN DISCOURSE, AND IBE jArANESE TEXTBOOK CoNTROVERSY
co become com fore women, even chough women of various ages who were
mobilized under the name of teishin-tai during the war assumed various
occupations and professions, including factory work and war nursing. Also,
the term j11gzm-ianf11 was created during the posrwar years. During the war,
rhe women were often simply placed into categories such as sh11gyofi1 (women
of indecent occupation) and ianfu (comfort women), which included both
the women forced to work in the facilities set up by the military and those
in private brothels.
Beyond that arguably legitimate semantic issue, however, right-wing
nationalist efforts to undermine the history of the comfort women and
erase it from school textbooks seem manipulative at best. They argue, for
example, that rhe term jugzm, as pare of a compound noun (e.g., jttgzm-
kishn, the term for war correspondents; and j11g1m-kangofi1, the term for
war nurses}, indicates rhe srarus of gz111zok11. or "civilian war worker" (those
officially on the payroll of the army and/or navy). The comfort women, chey
insist, were not in rhar category. Historians such as Yoshimi have refuted
rhis argument as follows: rhe term jugim lirerally means "going to rhe from
with rhe military," and was nor used in exaccly rhe same way as g11nzok11.
Most war correspondents, for example, were nor employed by rhe Japanese
milicary (only che army had its own correspondents, and only after 1942).
Also, while rhe term j11gim-ka11gofi1 has been commonplace, the official
name for war nurses (of the Japanese Red Cross} was kyugo-kangofi1 (relief
nurses), and rhey bec:ame milicary employees only :after 1939. In addition,
Yoshimi and ochers have poinred out rhar terms used in historical research
(and education} are often not the exact terms used during the period under
study. In their view, using rhe term j11g1m-ia11fi1 in school textbooks poses
litcle problem; rather, che real problem is that iris euphemistic-"comforc"
(ian) is hardly an adequate term for a situation that was, in fucr, enslavement
(Yoshimi & Kawada, 1997, pp. 9-10).
Anorher poinr of dispure has been over rhe rypes, agenrs, and exrenr of
coercion. Right-wing nationalists have taken issue with the term kyosei-
renko (taken by force). They have defined the term somewhat narrowly as
"taken by force by ch.e military and/or government authorities" and argue
char no such cases have been found. Therefore, chey assert, school texc-
books should not use the term when referring to comfort women. More
specifically, nationalises argue rhat the grounds for rheir objeccions lie in
the testimonies of former comfort women, which, they insist, conrain errors
and exaggerations; the nationalists also contend that no Uapanese) official
documents have been found showing che use of direct force, military or
otherwise, in the recruitment of che women. Moreover, chey argue, the offi-
cial documenrs found so far indicace char che milicary and police instructed
craffickers to follow che law and regulations in their recruitment of com-
fort women (trading women for prostirurion was legal, but regulated).
Yoshiko Nozaki 221
They also insist chac che cescimony of Yoshida Seiji, the only person who
publicly admitred co che violent means he and his coworkers used co round
up and send Korean women to comfort facilities, lacks credibility in sev-
eral key issues such as daces and places.
5
While nationalist arguments may sound coherent on the surface, they
are misleading in many ways. First, no school rexcbooks co dace have used
rhe exact term kyosei-renko (taken by force) in cheir description of comfort
women. The cerm has often been used co describe che way in which many
Korean and Chinese men were gathered and sent into forced labor i n
places such as coal mines. While references co comfort women usually
appear in sections of rhe texts where the major topic is the forced labor of
Korean and Chinese men, it is somewhat inaccurate to charge chat these
textbooks describe comfort women as kyosei-renko (in its narrow national-
ist definition).
Second, Yoshimi and others have argued that iris a basic logical error
to argue that the absence of official documents ordering the kyosei-renko
proves chat no direct state force was used in the recruitment of the women.
While admitting that no official documents have been found ordering the
use of military and police force in the recruitment of women-in particular,
in colonized regions such as Korea and Taiwan-they have pointed our that
many wartime official records were destroyed at Japan's surrender. Besides,
it is questionable whether any government would give such an order-
"use force to round up women and send them to comfort facilities"-so
direccly and explicicly.
More importancly, progressive and feminist historians argue chat such
an absence of official documents does not mean chat the military and gov-
ernment authorities were not involved. There has been other evidence
showing that the State and military were complicit in many ways, includ-
ing knowing about, bur nor stopping che traffickers' use of violence
and deceptive tactics in the recruitmen r of comfort women. Such inaction
de facto meant giving cacir approval co such acrivicies. Moreover, some
Japanese laws and regulations conscrruning chc rccruirmcnr of comfort
women were not applied co che colonies, such as Korea and Taiwan, and
evidence shows chat colonial authorities saw no problem with the face that
very young girls were traded, even though the same act would have been
illegal in Japan. In addition, the testimonies given by former comfort
women demonstrate chat there were cases in occupied territories, such as
China and Southeast Asia, where governmenr and military authorities
themselves took women by force. Furthermore, the use of force was com-
mon not only in che recruirmenc of women, bur also in making chem sray
and work in the comfort facilities (Yoshimi & Kawada, 1997, pp. 20- 31 ).
Yosh.imi and ochers suggest char the nationalist focus on the phrase "taken
by force" is, in face, a scraregy being used to digress from the main issue
222 HISTORY, POSTMODERN D1scouRSE, AND THE JAPANESE TmnBOOK Co1nROVERSY
concerning the coercive nacure of the entire operation of the milicary com-
forc women system.
As maccers stand, progressive and feminise hiscorians are winning the
empirical debate. Nevertheless, chey face several problems: Even though
the nationalises have lose baccles chroughouc che debate, they are not wich-
drawing their arguments; they continue to circulate their discourse noc
only through chat part of the media chat is exclusively right wing, bur also
through the mass media, which has a more general readership. Because of
the television coverage (as well as coverage in ocher media outlets), the con-
troversy has attracted a greater audience than one could have ever predicted.
The nationalist strategy of making and keeping the issue controversial
seems co have been effective, if not by gercing the wider audience co agree
with chem, then by allowing the public co feel thac the argurncncs of the
ocher side (progressives and feminists) are only as good (or bad) as those of
che right-wing nationalises. In addition, because of the nationalist focus on
minor details, teaching about comfort women now seems co require more
technical knowledge than many teachers would prefer.
A "PosTSTRUCTURALIST" FEMINIST CRITIQUE OF
"POSITIVISM" IN HISTORY
Some critics have begun co suggest chat new, postmodern approaches ought
to replace the current empirical approaches. In a provocative essay, Ueno
Chizuko ( 1997), a noted Japanese feminise sociologist, criticizes as "positivist"
(jissho-shugz) the arguments of both the nationalises and the progressive/
feminise historians involved in the debate.
6
She cites "postscructuralist"
theories-though whether her argument is truly (or consistently) post-
struccuralist is anocher matter- and maintains chat the issue of comfort
women links up with the fundamental question concerning the methods
and mechodology of hiscorical scudies. As she pms it,
[I)s a historical "fact" such a simple thing chat it looks the same
whoever looks at it? . .. Any social science with "a linguiscic cum"
begins with a serious epistemological question of what "objective
face" is. The study of hiscory is no exception. (Ueno, I 997, p. 159)
According to Ueno, while righc-wing nationalises and progressive and
feminise historians have argued againsc each ocher, boch have made cheir
argumencs within che positivist paradigm ofhiscory. The posicivisc approach,
Ueno argues, regards written hiscorical material as che firsc and only source
for che study of history (b1mshoshiryo shijo-shugi), and has allowed rhe
nacionalisrs co discredit rhe rescimonies of former com fore women on rhe