The disabled movement I started to introduce in section １
of Disability
Movement / Studies in Japan was mainly driven forth by people who did
not (or, rather, due to their disabilities, could not) attend school.
For example, YOKOZUKA Koichi
(1935〜1978), who was one of the leading members of Aoi Shiba no
Kai and
participated in the establishment of the National Alliance of Disabled
People Liberation Movement (Zenshoren) only got as far as the second
year of junior high school; YOKOTA
Hiroshi (1933- ), who succeeded
in Yokozuka's footsteps after the
latter died of cancer at young age and has been active in Kanagawa
prefecture, did not go to school at all; TAKAHASHI Osamu
(1948〜
1999), who was active mainly in Tokyo in the 1980s to 1990s didn't go
to school either. Japan has thus also seen times when some
well-educated (through self-education) people did not (could not)
attend school, and this generation - setting the later generation which
"decided not to be educated" aside - might have been the last of its
kind.★01 Very few people with disabilities, especially those with
severe disabilities, went to "normal" schools and universities at that
time, and the number has not increased significantly since. The
disabled movement in Japan thus began quite differently from for
example the American Independent Living Movement, which is said to have
originated in the University of California, Berkeley. It is also
different from the situation in South Korea, where again university
students with polio (a relatively minor disability compared to cerebral
palsy) learned the know-how of the movement from the non-disabled
students engaged in the general student movement of the time, and then
started and gradually built a movement of their own.★02
Another difference is that compared to other countries, in Japan much
more people with relatively severe disabilities - though the degree of
disability naturally varied among people - stood at the front line of
the movement. In other countries and regions the main actors of such
movements were often people who have at least free command of the upper
part of the body and have no impediments in terms of communication. The
same had previously been true about Japan, but during this period the
situation changed. This fact is a little strange, since it would seem
to be more convenient for people with minor disabilities to engage in
the activities of the movement and voice their opinions. One reason for
this tendency might have been the fact that people with severe
disabilities required others’ support more and in order to
improve their situation needed to take action more that the others.
Another is that students and workers who provided care to people with
disabilities played a supporting role for the movement led by the
people with disabilities. Such was the situation here in Japan, and it
might have been
yet another of its unique features.
There was also a feeling that the real truth is to be heard from
those whose situation was the hardest, those who had to face
difficulties the most, and that for that reason people should
listen to them. There was also an idea that many people whose
disabilities are less severe, if given various opportunities and
support to compensate for their disabilities, could become "able" -
which, in itself, is a good thing - but this way some people whose
disabilities are at the most severe end of the continuum would still
remain disabled, and therefore, in considering the matter, one should
use
their needs as the starting point of the discussion. Japanese people
with disabilities, when visiting the US or Europe for study tours or to
attend events related to the movement, often commented that they did
not see people with cerebral palsy, whereas in Japan people with severe
language impediments caused by CP often led the movement. I believe
that there was a hint of pride there - pride of people who participated
in the movement even though their disability was severe or took action
together with those with severe disabilities, people who felt that the
matter should be considered from the point of view of those, whose
disability is the most severe, those who strived to avoid the
division of people into those with severe and light disabilities
altogether.
There are many people among the actors of the disabled movement in
Japan who have written texts and published books. These books are not
“academic” in form, but rather are simple
descriptions of
people’s lives. As far as I know, a large number of
nonfiction
and autobiographical books related to people with disabilities or
diseases was and is published in other countries also, but probably in
Japan a much larger number of books written by people
with disabilities themselves or by people who have been involved in the
disabled
movement, people who are not particularly famous or well-known, has
been published.★03 These books could see the light of day partly due to
the fact that there were people who saw their significance and thus
decided to provide support. Two important magazines were also
founded in the 1970s.★04
The movement by
people with
disabilities in
Japan described in section [1] was both influenced by social movement
of the period and at the same time strived to maintain its own color.
In
fact, some people involved in social activism actually supported the
movement by people with disabilities.
Japanese social activism of that time, at least in principle,
embraced the slogan of "revolution" and the aim was "to change the
political system". In terms of the aims, it, however, failed. The
movement waned, those who were students at the time eventually ended up
working regular jobs at companies and most of the society went back to
its "normal life". Still, there were some who kept supporting
lives of people with disabilities or supporting the disabled movement
itself as
they continued their social activities or even after they drifted away
from the movement, some engaging in common kinds of work at the same
time and some not working regularly. Some researchers stood for or
supported people with disabilities from just such a position close to
people with disabilities or to the disabled movement. However, some of
them lost hope in continuing discussion in academic or political
circles and those people rarely made their voices heard.★05
■
The Disabled Movement and the
Struggle among the Leftist Students
Some people who drifted away from leftist social movements supported
the activities of people with disabilities, and at the same time
activists of the
social movements themselves built relationships with those engaged in
the movement led by people with disabilities and influenced the ideas
regarding people with disabilities generally held in the society.
Leftist movements in each country have their own peculiar features.
The main force of the leftist movement in Japan was the now defunct
Socialist Party of Japan, but the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) also
played an important role. I will not go into details here, but in
addition to these two parties a new force of the so-called "New Left"
appeared in the 1960s and gained certain influence among students. New
leftists criticized both of the parties and especially the JCP, which
claimed to be the legitimate major force of the revolution. The leftist
movement slows down a little in the middle of the 1960s but sees its
revival in social activities during the period from the end of the
1960s to the beginning of the 1970s, when students of the New Left
attempted to develop a movement of their own.
At the same time the movement of that period incorporated many people
who did not belong to any particular political party, those who
followed different political doctrines from those around them and those
who with no particular doctrines at all. It is often said that the
activities of "Zenkyoto" (short for "Zenkyotoundo", United Protest
Movement) has been led by "non-sectarians (radicals)" of just this
kind, but the reality was not so simple. The structure was truly
complicated with people belonging to certain parties mixing with those
proclaiming not to be affiliated with any, but one confrontation
appeared very clearly, and that was the confrontation between the JCP
and all of the rest. In terms of national scale, as the JCP was and is
but a small force, this confrontation might not seem to be of much
importance, but in the context of the time it was truly significant.
The two groups of Zenkyoto and the New Left were the ones who began
the struggles and disputes and made the conflict escalate. On the other
hand, the JCP and the student organizations that worked together with
it, advocating reforms of universities and education in general, tried
to "normalize" the state of confusion in universities of that time, for
example attempting to restore the cancelled entrance examinations. At
the same time there were also various struggles among fractions of the
movement regarding leadership and other issues.
What were they fighting about? I shall not discuss the differences in
views regarding the global political situation or strategy to be
employed in the movement. But one point that is worth stressing though
is that during that time the universities and the science in general
advocated what they called "reform" much stronger than they do today.
For example, Marxian economics, which seem to have all but disappeared
today, were still strong at the time as a viable theory standing firm
next to modern economics. Also, the JCP and organizations related to it
at least at that time had quite strong connections in such areas as
welfare, medicine, and (special) education. Many people among school
teachers and staff at welfare facilities chose their occupations
motivated by anger they felt towards social injustice or sympathy they
held for the "weak". Another point also worth stressing is that mainly
it was none other than the government that supplied the expenses.
Therefore, some activists tried to establish and maintain relationships
with political parties which were close to the axis of power. Some, on
the other hand, criticized lack of beneficial policies and
insufficiency of the governmental budget spent, and chose to join the
opponents of the government, building ties with labor unions and
reformist parties. Some of these latter organizations, also due to the
fact that the JCP put a lot of effort into this area, were
organizations related to the communist forces. Also, during the period
when the movement led by parents of people with disabilities was still
representing
the demands of people with disabilities, these organizations of parents
built ties with those groups. They have also had significant influence
on aspects of research and education related to social security and
welfare.★06
Having described the general framework above, I shall now add a few
more points about the social movement of that period. The major part of
the activities was naturally revolving around the Vietnam War.
However, problems of pollution such as the Minamata
Disease surfaced
and became important issues at the same time. Accusations regarding
pollution and criticism of scientists who were involved (in cover-ups)
of pollution or drug-induced damages started to appear, leading to
skepticism and criticism toward science and technology in general.
Mental health became a particularly important issue in the areas of
medicine and disability policies of the time. In the 1950s, in North
European and North American countries there was a surge of criticism
against the confinement of people with learning and mental disabilities
in large scale institutions, which eventually grew into the movement of
"normalization" (refer to Tateiwa［2002a］for a brief description of this
issue). This trend was dictated by criticism and rejection of the
process of confinement of people with disabilities in large scale
mental health
institutions, the process which had developed starting from the 19th
century and the beginning of the 20th century, ending by completion of
confinement of a large number of people in such institutions. In case
of Japan, although mental hospitals were built from a relatively early
stage, institutions for people with physical disabilities were
established much later in the 1970s, and thus, since the object of
criticism came to exit only then, and since the establishment of such
institutions itself had certain aspects that improved the situation of
those with disabilities, it did not receive much criticism. Still,
documentaries exposing the situation inside mental hospitals appeared
in the 1970s, drawing public’s attention to such issues as
confinement in institutions itself, as well as the way patients and
people with disabilities were treated there.★07 The first organization
led by people with mental disabilities themselves was established in
1974.★08
In the first half of the 1970s, reformist movement started in
academic societies of such fields as psychiatry and psychological
counseling, for example in the Japanese Association of Clinical
Psychology (Japanese page)
or the Japanese
Society of Psychiatry and Neurology.
The movement was led not by
the societies en masse, but rather by certain members who had at a
certain point of time influential voice in the societies, and in the
1970s felt remorse for what they had done.★09
The movements did not necessarily criticize the conservative forces.
Rather, their criticism was directed against the forces demanding the
use of technology and medicine for the benefit of the society and
expansion of services to be provided by social welfare. Criticism of
these forces at the same time was criticism of the JCP and of the
organizations and academics related to it. It was symbolic that one of
the major student revolts started in the Faculty of Medicine at the
University of Tokyo, stemming from a punishment of students studying at
the Faculty of Medicine, and the confrontation mentioned above
reappeared here also. Those who were criticized and who gave counter
arguments trying to defend themselves were the very same professors and
research fellows who later in the early 1980s introduced to Japanese
public in affirmative light the Independent Living Movement and other
American movements of people with disabilities.
Many people acknowledge the fact that science and technology caused
many evils, agreeing that scientists must reflect on and regret the
mistakes thus made. However, many people including those who are
criticized believe that the damages were caused by abusive use of
science and technology, and that all we need to do is to use it
properly. The new critics of that time, though, were different from the
conventional leftists who approved of science in
general (for the sake of
the people) and
of those who shouldered such science. The new critics, on the other
hand, stressed the need to reconsider the very fundamentals of science
and technology to expose their problematic nature. They stressed that
we should start our questions from such fundamental issues as the acts
of "curing", "development (in both transitive and intransitive sense)",
and "being able to do / becoming able to do".
Those who were thus criticized argued back that the criticism is no
less then a complete denial of medicine and rehabilitation practice,
and an irrational argument to boot. I do not think that the arguments
were made based on solid understanding of the opponents' points of
view. And I also think that it is an unnecessary self-abuse when
experts turn skeptical towards their own expert knowledge and start
denying it. And, in fact, most of them continue their work nonetheless.
In addition, the arguments of this kind and the movement to uphold them
are often said to have been mainly done by health care professionals,
and to some extend they were.
As often is the case with political conflicts, a large part of this
conflict eventually exhausted itself and disappeared. But, as far as I
see it, the fact that this conflict did happen was beneficial after all
in the sense that arguments regarding some issues were made - though in
radical ways which for some might seem nonsensical - and that the
issues were thus presented as something the society should
reconsider.★10
Relationships of solidarity and unity in the struggle were built
among people participating in the movements led by people with
disabilities
described in [1] and people mentioned above. In academic societies of
psychiatry and psychological therapy the idea that people with mental
disabilities should also be given a chance to participate in the
discussion and voice their opinions grew stronger, and some people with
mental disabilities actually joined such societies. They started to
state their opinions in meetings and academic conventions and
contributed their texts to academic journals published by such
societies.
In this context it is perhaps understandable that both the JCP and
the Liberal Democratic Party , which had already been holding the power
for a long time, voted for making special education compulsory. This
law had two aspects to it. On one hand it aimed for "full development"
of the potential for every individual, saying that we need to develop
those abilities that can be developed, and affirming the necessity for
special education to provide educational environment best suited for
this purpose. On the other hand, it stipulated that this environment is
to be created by segregation, saying that the disabled should be
grouped together with no distinctions made regarding the level of
ability, and that we need such places of confinement to divide them
from everyone else. At the time when those who were influenced by
political parties and those who rejected such influence participated in
the student movement, a big issue for the student council was to
support children with disabilities who were trying to attend normal
schools or classes instead of schools or classes of special education.
This was also one of the points of dispute in the struggle for
leadership between "Minsei" (Democratic Youth League of Japan), which
is a JCP's organization for young people on the one hand, and everyone
else opposing them on the other.★11
This conflict eventually exhausted itself, but it was effective in
the sense that it "purified" arguments and ideas. The new leftists
tried to defend a very radical idea that "those who are not able, do
not have to be". But is it truly possible? And, even if it is, in what
terms can one defend this statement? These issues were left unsolved.
The movement at the time did not result in any academic achievements
or establishment of any new policies. Although there were people in the
movement who felt that thinking about such social issues is important,
there were some who held the idea that they need to lead the movement
at the front rather than support one issue only, and these people spent
their time dealing with one problem after another as problems appeared
without adhering to any particular social issues. Most of the texts
written did not fall in the “academic” category .
However,
it does not mean that the issues discussed or points raised in the
texts written by the activists were not suitable as subjects of
"academic" examination. And also a number of scientific work was also
published at the same time.★12
My generation (of those born in the 1960s) was a decade or two late
to witness these activities, and we have not directly experienced the
first half of the movement. We have learned about it by reading,
listening to the stories of the participants, and then later have
experienced some activities of the movement that happened after the
1980s, while some of us have actually been involved to some extend with
later activities that could be called social movement. Some people
after entering universities learned about the movement that supported
people with disabilities who wanted to attend ordinary schools or
classes, some
were involved in it, and others did not. We have been learning about
these movements and thinking about the issues they raised through
connections, which one could not easily apply the label of "academic"
to. Some people have been involved in "care". As for me, I got to know
some people who participated in the movement of the time after I had
began my research, by reading or hearing about them, by being invited
to their meetings, and thuis way learned about their organizations and
people who participated in them.★13 I shall write about the connection
between these people and the Disability Studies in Japan. I have always
intended to write about the issues raised by the movement and believe
that these issues have not yet fully received the attention they
deserve.★14 And I shall write about them later, too.
