character of their migration and their non-ethnic integration to the Japanese society â ... dangerous, demanding) jobs which are more and more avoided and shunned by home .... belonging is not sufficient for forming a community and this offers also a plausible ..... similar to those of Brazilians, Chinese or other nationalities.
Individual migration, non-ethnic integration and challenges for the integration policies1 in Japan Milos Debnar Kyoto University In the “age of migration” (Castles, Miller 2009), international migration became an issue also in Japan. On one hand, with less than 2% of foreigners Japan is still one of countries with the fewest migrant population among the OECD countries. On the other hand, despite its relatively closed and selective immigration policy officially denying low-skilled labor migrants, number of foreigners living in Japan has more than doubled in last 20 years and in 2005 their number has reached mark of 2 million. Although it would be at least misleading to refer to this situation as unprecedented, we can claim that this is for the first time in the modern history of Japanese state (except the period of colonization before and during WWII), when Japan has to face so many foreigners not mentioning their growing diversity. Especially when we consider very strong myth of homogeneity of Japanese nation which was essential for the nation-building and is still present on the various levels of society, issue of the growing number of foreigners and the problem of “coping with them” poses many new challenges to Japanese society and its policy makers. In this paper, first of all I will summarize the findings of my research on Czechs and Slovaks in Japan which I have already presented in detail on different occasion2. Two main aspects of this migration – the non-economic and non-systematic character of their migration and their non-ethnic integration to the Japanese society – are going to be used to show the black spots in the existing research on foreigners in Japan and their migration. In other words, the aim of this paper is to contribute to more holistic understanding of migration and post-migration situations of foreigners in Japan by focusing on above mentioned dimensions of diversity (i.e. patterns of migration and integration). However, the aim is not only to describe and identify the degree and nature of diversity but also and most importantly to elaborate on the challenges that this changing conditions of Japan‟s foreign population pose on the policies regarding them. Foreigners in Japan The growth of foreigners in Japan is usually ascribed to new patterns of labor migrants using back-doors to enter Japan. Although official immigration policy denies acceptance of low-skilled migrant labor, in the face of socio-demographic changes the
need to “import” foreign labor became an issue since the end of 1980‟s. Since the official acceptance of all kinds of workers would probably be publically opposed and might have caused even higher influx of foreigners with more social problems, Japanese government officially accepts and even welcome high-skilled labor and “made” (deliberately or not) few back-doors for those who are needed in so called 3D (dirty, dangerous, demanding) jobs which are more and more avoided and shunned by home population. These back-doors policies include legalization of stay for 2nd and 3rd generation of Japanese descendants by the amendment of immigration law in 1991, “misuse” of the entertainer type of visa and the changes in trainee program since 1990ties. The case of growing low-skilled foreign labor and problems they face in Japanese society is quite extensively covered by domestic (Kajita 1994, Komai 1999 etc.) and international (e.g. Douglass, Roberts 2003, Tsuda 2003) researchers. However, it is important to note that in many cases the problematic of foreigners and their growing number tends to be simplified within the realm of labor market. This reflects the quite common view in research and policy that “The rise in immigration is a function of market forces (demand-pull and supply-push) and kinship networks, which reduce the transaction costs of moving from one society to another. These economic and sociological forces are the necessary conditions for migration to occur” (Hollifield 2004:885). Another presupposition is that migration is “a collective action” and “hardly ever a simple individual action” (Castles, Miller 2009:20). Consequently, majority of research in this field is ad-hoc describing and explaining systematically channeled migration of one type (particularly labor) between two countries (i.e. Brazilians or Philippines coming to Japan). These general tendencies and approach in research has naturally its consequences for immigration and integration policies, since it shape the understanding of the problem of migration in general or foreigners in Japan in our case. Nevertheless, recent trends in migration shows that continuing diversification of migration cause not only “the shift from international migration patterns involving many migrants moving from and to relatively few locations, to patterns characterized by relatively few migrants moving from and to many places” (Vertovec 2010) but also so called “super-diversification” (Vertovec 2007). It means, that it is not only more foreign workers coming from more countries through new channels, but to name just few dimensions of diversification it also means people coming for different reasons, with different patterns of stay and also people integrating to the host society in different forms. Some of these topics are addressed by recently popular research on „transnationalism‟ and in the case of Japan there is also some research on different forms of migration. For example, there is some research on foreign students (e.g.
Liu-Farrer 2009) who are one of the target groups of Japanese government policies or emerging research of much praised but vastly underrepresented and understudied high-skilled workers (e.g. Tsukasaki 2008). There is also some research on international marriages which are fast growing and one of the socially most visible groups of foreigners in Japan, however a lot of this research is done again with the economic and systematic connotation as for example in the case of systematic migration of economically driven “Asian brides” coming (or being “imported”) to depopulated rural areas. To sum it up, we can say that although the majority of research on foreigners in Japan is done on low-skilled foreign workers and changing conditions of historical Korean diasporas, there are also new trends which partially exhibit degree of diversification of foreigners. However, it is important to note, that the problem of foreigners in Japan became from the problem of one historical minority (i.e. Koreans) to a problem of few minorities3. Czechs and Slovaks in Japan The case of Czechs and Slovaks living in Japan shows major challenges on the existing presuppositions in migration studies as described above. The results presented here are based on the analysis of official statistics and data from my own research – small-scale questionnaire survey, 12 in-depth interviews and 3 years of fieldwork in Japan. Czechs and Slovaks in Japan - counting less than 500 - despite being super-minority have grown ten times in last two decades and in many aspects represent changing conditions of migration. Almost half of them poses visa based on their status (45%)4 and as the results of my research shows, almost all of those are (or were) married to Japanese citizen. Second group are so called “academics”, consisting of some university professors (5%), researchers (4%) but mainly college students (17%) representing around one fourth of total number. Among the other types of visas, only dependants (8%) represent more than 5% of total population. Regarding their migration patterns in general, first of all, their growth cannot be ascribed to the simple “push-pull” economic reasons or be explained sufficiently by focusing on economical aspects of their motivations. Also, there could not be seen any traits of formation of migration channel, which could possibly explain the growth in the number of migrants from the perspective of migration systems or network theory 5. On the other hand, from the interviews and fieldwork are visible very individual patterns of migration – regarding motives, routes of migration but also gathering of necessary information or organization of travel and stay.
As a more plausible explanation for their migration seem to be more focus on the workings of globalization in terms of creating more opportunities or contingencies together with the effect of individualization of societies in terms of its working against “retain”6 force. In general, migration patterns observed among Czechs and Slovaks in Japan can be seen more as individual action then collective one and they can be explained not by economical or systematical approaches but by focus on social changes connected with the shift to second or „liquid‟ modernity. These individualized migration patterns seem to have effect also on their integration patterns into the host society. First of all, Czechs and Slovaks do not form their own ethnic community either they do not tend to integrate into Japanese society as a member of community with a more general ethnicity (or super-ethnicity) 7. On the personal level, they rather pursue a strategy which can be called cosmopolitanization or in the language of ethnic boundary approach something that can be named as
relativization of boundaries. In other words, in their everyday practice they do not use ethnicity as the base for choosing a partner for any type of interaction (e.g. help with employment, advice, going out). One can look for reasons for not forming the ethnic community and rather integrating as an individual in their low number or insufficient social capital (i.e. missing leader etc.) or when we talk about cosmopolitanization, one can look for explanation in their high level of education8. However diverse migration patterns mentioned before seem to lead to a lack of common interest where ethnic belonging is not sufficient for forming a community and this offers also a plausible explanation. Although common interest might be found in the later stage of their migration (but still does not have to)9, the most important is the fact that there is another option to forming an ethnic community or assimilating, namely a pattern when migrants integrate as individuals without denying or hiding their ethnicity. New forms of migration and challenges for policies In the light of these findings, I will elaborate more on the challenges for immigration and integration policies posed by existence of migration and integration patterns as described above. Since we are dealing what one can call super-minority here, it is necessary to emphasize, that the following discussion does not concern only this particular case. This case study only shows different types of migration and integration which are usually overlooked and/or understudied and most probably can be find among many other groups. Reasons for this may be find in the major approach stressing the numbers or majority groups among minorities together with the tacit need to victimize
the subject which can be traced to what Zygmunt Bauman recently called the “modern zeal (of sociology) of improvement of society”10. However, most societies in the global age face growing individualization - at least to some degree - and among other changes brings a shift in the subject (e.g. of policies) from category (e.g. family) to individual which is partially an answer to a growing diversification. Nevertheless, although diversification is an issue in migration studies as for instance Castles and Miller also stress, the same authors see it still as “a collective action” of categories of determinable people and the diversification is usually characterized as in the case of Japan – as a shift from one minority to few minorities. As I will argue bellow, this is consequently reflected also in the understanding of foreigners within the policies and this does not reflect and answer the needs of changing conditions of migration characterized by multidimensional diversification. IMMIGRATION CONTROL When it comes to immigration policies reasoning that Japanese population is already shrinking and ageing rapidly what will cause labor shortage in future is usually used in favor of acceptance of more foreigner workers. Since 10 years ago, United Nation in its report on replacement migration projected that without accepting few hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year from 2005, Japan will not be able to sustain its working-age population (United Nations 2001). Later these findings were partially reflected by Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic Organizations and Employers) who has been calling for more foreign labor, but changes are coming very slowly and growth in the number is far from numbers projected by UN. However, still very rigid immigration policies limit not only those coming as officially denied low-skilled labor, but also those whose primary reason is different and their value for Japanese society (not only in economic terms) might by more easily to justify. I will show on following 2 examples some of the limits of immigration control. First case is Ivan who pursues kyogen in Japan for last 8 years. First 6 years, he has stayed as “College student” but since he has finished his PhD, he is struggling to get his visa. Obviously, there is no legal category for people like him, who are pursuing some art or sport and need to work for living besides performing the particular art or sport. He was able to get the “Specialist in Humanities” visa for first year but struggled to get it renewed because of insufficient income11 from his employer. Instead, he was offered to apply for business visa where he would have to pay social and health insurance above his limits12. He was allegedly even asked to give false statements during his application
by immigration officer in order to be fitted properly in one of the categories. At the time of writing of this paper his issue was still not resolved but his chances of being granted permission to stay were limited. As he claims, he can earn his own living legally if allowed to work and he can support his reason for staying by official statement from his teacher who was designated as Japan‟s living national treasure – all he needs is a permission to stay. This case reflects very low level of flexibility when it comes to special cases, or in other words, cases which do not fit the designed categories for 100%. Another “special case” is Paul. He met his Japanese girlfriend during their stay in Australia. After more than one year, they have decided to go to Japan for a while. He has planned to find a job and acquire visa so they can stay for some time in Japan. However, he could not obtain visa as an English teacher although he has found a job and after reentering Japan on tourist visa twice he was refused further stay. Later, both of them have stayed in Europe for more than one year and now plan to go to Australia again. Of course there was always an option to marry and get visa as spouse of Japanese national what some of my other informants eventually did. However, as marriage patterns change in recent years not all couples are willing or ready to get married especially when being relatively young and without relatively secure and clear vision for future as in this case. Irony in the whole story is that young Japan – Slovak couple can live without marrying in Europe (Netherlands and later Germany) or countries like Australia easier than in Japan regarding their legal status. By this Japan not only fails to attract young couples which can contribute later to Japanese population, economy and thus also society, but is also losing some of its citizens at the same time. It is not my aim to call for opening of Japan‟s doors wide and allowing stay to any foreigner who is interested. Still, there are two issues which need attention. First of all, as both cases show, existing categories for legal stay of foreigners in Japan are not sufficient even if we limit those foreigners to those who do not fit the officially inadmissible low-skilled labor. Moreover, as the second case shows new forms of partnership needs to be also considered when considering visa categories. As an example of steps towards acceptance of various partnership forms can be given visas for PACS13 in France or UK‟s Unmarried Partner14 visa. The second issue is one of flexibility. Obviously, it would be very difficult to encompass all the possible combinations when constituting legal categories in the times of continuous diversification. The question here is whether immigration officers in cases like those described above have to adhere strictly to guidelines or they should be given more flexibility when appreciating special cases like this. This flexibility can be achieved by more liberal requirements for specific categories or by giving more power
for officers when appreciating applications. To sum it up, reconsideration of existing categories also outside the framework of low-high skilled labor dichotomy and more flexibility in appreciation of particular cases can help to lower the number of those foreigners who were discouraged to stay in Japan or even attract more foreigners who might be beneficial for society in variety of ways. INTEGRATION POLICIES Regarding the integration policies, Japan proposes its own version of multiculturalism called multicultural coexistence (or tabunka kyosei). These policies became known under this name by the end of last century and are usually practiced by local governments and various NPOs or NGOs. However, rather than elaborating on particular policies or their comparison to some form of multiculturalism in different country I would like to focus here on general theoretical background and challenges to it. Multiculturalism in general and multicultural coexistence in particular are designed as an opposition to assimilation which demanded one way adaptation of migrants to the usually vaguely defined (or even undefined) “major culture”. In contrary to this, idea of multicultural coexistence in Japan is that “people of different nationalities or ethnicities recognize each other‟s cultural difference and live together in local society while attempting
to
build
equal
relationship”
(Ministry
of
Internal
Affairs
and
Communication 2006). Despite the fact that multicultural theory in general has still strong supporters (e.g. Kymlicka 2007), recently there is a lot of criticism coming not only from scholars calling for some kind of “leading culture” (Zizek 2010), proposing new assimilation theory (Joppke, Morawska 2003, Brubaker 2004 etc.) or cosmoplitanization theory (Beck 2006, Beck, & Grande 2007) but also among politicians in many countries which has adopted policies based on multiculturalism. Decline of these policies is also shown in recent academic works (Joppke 2004), but most famous is probably very recent statement of German Chancellor Angela Merkel that multiculturalism has utterly failed. There is much to say against her speech and recent tendencies and public moods regarding migrants in European countries too, but here I will focus on some major issues regarding weak points of multiculturalism theory in the light of my findings and the context of Japan‟s vision of multicultural coexistence. First of all, in the center of multicultural theories is a presumption that there are “ethnic groups, each of which is endowed with its own culture and naturally inclined to in-group solidarity” (Wimmer 2009:249). However, my results show that inclination to
in-group solidarity is not natural but conditional and as also suggested before one can think of many possibilities when these conditions are not fulfilled – i.e. when ethnic groups are not formed as communities. Besides its theoretical implications, these findings have also consequences for policies based on presumptions of multiculturalism. It is because in this settings, only those who share cultural identities and practice identity politics in the sense of participating in a “social movement which is seeking for social right of representation as a group” (Yoneyama 1998:47) can be represented in the society. In other words, those who participate in host society as individuals and not organized into groups or communities have very limited options for representation unless granted rights as individuals. Nevertheless, as shows the quotation from the Ministry‟s of Internal Affairs and Communication report, goal of Japanese government‟s policies is not to endow foreigners with equal individual rights but to support building of equal relationships what is however not subject to state policies but endeavor of parties interested. To put it in different words, government shows good will to accept existence of different cultures within its territory and is even willing to help to sustain the existence of these cultures (in terms of language education etc.) but says nothing about foreigners as equal members of Japanese society. Moreover this logic, which is in many respects close to cultural essentialism, among other things also facilitates reproduction of the division between foreigners and natives. Strong binary opposition between foreigners and Japanese is actually the core problem that Japan is facing in the advent of more diverse society as has already stressed also some other authors (Takezawa 2009). It is not only problem of dealing with four generations of Koreans and at the same time also Brazilians or Filipinos but most importantly problem of dealing with foreigners as category of “others” in general. As general discourse (also in the academic works) shows, the main problem associated with foreigners is the “acceptance of foreigners” (gaikokujin no ukeire) and there is relatively little discussion regarding their integration as full members of society. However, after leaving four generations of Koreans in legally and socially ambivalent and unequal position and ignoring its historical minorities (i.e. Ainu or Burakumin) for the most of the time, Japan should start to face the problematic of “it‟s others” and should start from the core. This means not trying to see it as a problem of communities of foreign cultures which should be celebrated in popular “food, fashion, festival” (or 3F) manner and by doing so actually justifying unequal treatment of them15. Instead, there should be more focus on the problem of their equal participation in the society, or in other words integration as full members of society.
Conclusions In the light of the findings on Czechs and Slovaks living in Japan, I have tried to show the meaning of changing conditions of migration and consequent integration patterns for the policies regarding foreigners of Japan. First of all, I stressed that accelerating diversification of migration means also that it should not be understood only in the terms of labor market and there should be also more attention put on its individual side. For the immigration policies it means call for reconsideration of existing categories which are not sufficient and are ineffective even when considering its preference for high-skilled labor as showed also by Tsukasaki (2008). Moreover, more flexibility when appreciating applications should also be enforced in order to not discourage potential residents (or even Japanese residents) from staying in Japan and contributing to its society in various forms which are not limited to that of low-skilled labor. Regarding integration policies or the idea of multicultural coexistence, first of all it is needed to reconsider some of its basic presumptions. Different forms of integration can be found among growing number of foreign residents and as in the case of Czechs and Slovaks, they are not limited to the constitution of ethnic communities. This contradiction to the multiculturalist theory means also that there should be put more focus on individual rights rather than creating spaces for different cultures. In order to guarantee rights to individuals and not only groups which are big and powerful enough to negotiate some of their rights, it is necessary to bolster wider discussion on voting rights for foreign residents (local but also general), possibility of multiple nationalities, simplification of naturalization law and by this also reconsideration of Japan‟s strict adherence to the jus sanguinis principle. This should be the first step to overcome the huge gap between Japanese and foreigners which is, as I argued, the fundamental problem when dealing with the problematic of foreign residents in Japan. There is also need for more research on international immigration to Japan and its foreign residents. Immigration is much needed for Japanese ageing society, but research and discussion regarding it should not be limited to the labor market as already suggested. Moreover, there are many groups of foreigners who are overlooked and understudied despite their relatively high numbers on the basis of a tacit presumption of their non-problematic existence like many Europeans or North Americans16. Even if this presumption is right, focus on these groups can bring more precise understanding of “successful integration” or/and it can reveal different problems 17 and thus contribute to a more holistic understanding of the changing situation of foreigners in Japan. It is necessary their problems and circumstances of
their migration and stay because “discovering and acknowledging the nature and extent of diversity is a crucial first step in the development of adequate policies” (Vertovec 2007b:1050).
Although Japan (so as many other countries) does not have clearly identified integration policies, in this paper by this I refer to the idea of so called tabunka kyosei or “multicultural coexistence” and laws (or part of laws) regarding their integration into the Japanese society (i.e. naturalization law etc.) 2 Results regarding their migration patterns were presented at the opening conference of Bauman Institute in Leeds on September 7th, 2010. Results regarding their integration into the Japanese society were presented at the 83rd annual conference of Japanese Sociological Society in Nagoya on November 7th, 2010. 3 For example, as Takezawa points out, when it comes to the problem of services for foreigners “in the case of Japan, it is not unusual to see that a line is drawn after the first 6 or 7 most populous foreign populations” (Takezawa 2009) 4 Numbers in parenthesis refers to number of holders in 2009 according to “Statistics on residing foreigners”(Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication 2009). Visa based on status consist of following categories: “Spouse or Child of Japanese National” (19%), “Permanent Resident” (22%), “Long-term Resident” (3%), “Spouse or Child of Permanent Resident” (0.5%) and “Special Resident” (0.5%). 5 For instance, as in the case of Brazilians migration as explained by Higuchi (2002, 2003) 6 According to Arango, in order to understand migration process, we have to focus not only on the workings of centrifugal forces of “push” and “pull”, but also on the centripetal forces of “retain” and “repel” (2000) 7 As for example as Europeans, Westerners or Whites. 8 More than half of the respondents of survey had college degree or more. 9 For example, since a significant number of Czechs and Slovaks consist of international marriage they may find a common interest during the child-raising. 10 Zygmunt Bauman in his speech “Sociology: Whence and Whither” at the opening conference of Bauman Institute “Rethinking global society” in Leeds on September 7th 2010. 11 One of the conditions for this type of visa is salary equal to or higher than would be of Japanese citizen in the same position. 12 For the “Investor / Business Management” type of visa, investment of at least 5 million yen is required. However, in Ivan‟s case it would be enough if he pays insurances from 5 million yen a year salary. 13 PACS (Pacte Civil de Solidarite) is a form of civil union between partners with lesser obligations and rights than in regular marriage. Foreigners who had formed this union are eligible for long stay visa. 14 Officially De Facto Visa is often referred to as Unmarried Partner visa. Those who were granted this visa are able to stay and work in UK without further restrictions. 15 On the relationship between inequality justification and culturalism see for example Bauman 2001. 16 For example, Americans (USA) counting more than 50,000 are still 6th largest foreign group but there is more research and discussion on les numerous Vietnamese or Thais. 17 For instance, as I have showed in my presentation at the 61 st annual conference of Kansai Sociological Society (30th of May, 2010, Nagoya), principles of discrimination of foreigners in the labor market in the case of North Americans and Europeans are very 1
similar to those of Brazilians, Chinese or other nationalities.
References Arango, J. 2000, "Explaining migration: a critical view", International social science
journal, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 283. Bauman, Z. 2001, Community, Polity, Cambridge. Beck, U. & Cronin, C. 2006, The cosmopolitan vision, Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K. Beck, U., Grande, E. & Cronin, C. 2007, Cosmopolitan Europe, Polity, Cambridge. Brubaker, W.R. 2004, Ethnicity without groups, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Castles, S. & Miller, M.J. 2009, The age of migration, 4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Douglass, M. & Roberts, G.S. 2003, Japan and global migration, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Higuchi, N. 2003, "Migration Process of Nikkei Brazilians" in Emigracion
Latinoamericana: Comparacion Interregional entre America del Norte, Europa y Japon, ed. M. Yamada, Japan Center for Area Studies, Osaka, pp. 379-406. Higuchi, N. 2002, "Kokusai imin no soshikiteki kiso: iju shisutemuron no igi to kadai" (The systamatic base of international migration: The meaning and subject of migration system theory ), Soshioroji, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 55-71. Hollifield, J.F. 2004, "The emerging migration state", The International migration
review, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 885-912. Joppke, C. 2004, "The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy",
The British journal of sociology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 237-257. Joppke, C. & Morawska, E.T. 2003, Toward assimilation and citizenship, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Kajita, T. 1994, Gaikokujin Rodosha to Nihon (Foreign workers and Japan), Nihon hoso shuppankyokai, Tokyo.
Komai, H. 1999, Nihon no gaikokujin imin (Foreign migrants in Japan), Akaishi shoten, Tokyo Kymlicka, W. 2007, Multicultural odysseys, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Liu-Farrer, G. 2009, "Educationally Channeled International Labor Mobility: Contemporary Student Migration from China to Japan", The International
migration review, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 178-204. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication 2006, Tabunkakyosei no suishin ni
kansuru kenkyukai no hokokusho (The report of study group on promotion of multicultural coexistence). Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, Immigration Bureau 2009, Zairyu
gaikokujin tokei (Statistics of residing foreigners), Okurasho insatukyoku, Tokyo. Takezawa, Y. 2009, "Jo: Tabunka kyosei no genjo to kadai" (Introduction: Reality and themes of cultural coexistence), Bunkajinruigaku, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 86-95. Tsuda, T. 2003, Strangers in the ethnic homeland, Columbia University Press, New York. Tsukasaki, Y. 2008, Gaikokujin senomn/gijutu shoku no koyo mondai (Problems of
employment of foreign skilled labor), Akaishi shoten, Tokyo. United Nations 2001, Replacement migration, United Nations, New York. Vertovec, S. 2007, "Super-diversity and its implications", Ethnic and racial studies, vol. 30 no. 6, 1024-1054. Vertovec, S. 2010, The Diversification of Postwar Migration. Available: http://www.mmg.mpg.de/english/Research_projects/all_Projects/Postwar_Migratio n_en/index.html [2010, 06/23] . Vertovec, S. 2007, "Super-diversity and its implications", Ethnic and racial studies, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1024-1054. Wimmer, A. 2009, "Herder's Heritage and the Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies", Sociological theory, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 244-270.
Yoneyama, R. 1998, "Bunka to iu tsumi: "Tabunkashugi" to jinruigakuteki chi" (A sin called culture: The problem of "multiculturalism" and anthropological knowledge), in Kajiwara & Aoki eds., Bunka to iu kadai, Iwanami shoten, p.41-66. Zizek, S. 2010, 2010/10/18-last update, Far Right and Anti-Immigrant Politicians on the
Rise in Europe [Homepage of Democracy Now!], [Online]. Available: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/18/slavoj_zizek_far_right_and_anti [2010, 10/23] .
