Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:38:10.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ruralist Paradigm: Social Work Bureaucrats in Colonial Korea and Japan's Assimilationism in the Interwar Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2016

Sayaka Chatani
Sayaka Chatani*
Affiliation:
FASS Postdoctoral Fellow, National University of Singapore
*
sc2049@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How did the Japanese Empire, while adamantly adhering to assimilationism, manage the politics of colonial difference in the interwar years? How should we situate the seemingly exceptional conduct of Japanese colonial rule from a comparative perspective? To examine these questions, this article analyzes the mindsets of mid-level colonial bureaucrats who specialized in social work. Social work became a major field of political contestation in the post-World War I period around the globe. Policies on social work tested colonial officials regarding their assumptions about state-society relationships and Japan's assimilationist goals. Their debates on social work reveal that by the end of the 1920s colonial officials in Korea had reached a tacit consensus to use a particular analytical lens and ideological goal that I call “ruralism.” In the ruralist paradigm, these officials viewed Korean society as consisting of “rural peasants” and understood Korean social problems as primarily “rural problems.” Ruralism was a product of many overlapping factors, including pressures to integrate colonial society into the imperial system, the empire-wide popularity of agrarian nationalism, global discourses that increasingly dichotomized the “rural” and the “industrial,” and the rivalry between the colonial government and the metropole. How social work officials re-conceptualized the colonial masses and attempted to engage with social problems under the rhetoric of assimilationism showed a similar dynamic to the “developmental colonialism” that prevailed in the French and British empires after World War II.

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 1004 - 1031
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the “Wilsonian Moment” in Korea, see Manela, Erez, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar, esp. 119–35.

2 Takashi, Hara, Hara Kei nikki, VIII (Kangensha, 1950–1955), 563Google Scholar, translated and quoted in Peattie, Mark, “Japanese Attitudes toward Colonialism, 1895–1945,” in Myers, Ramon and Peattie, Mark, eds., The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984),107 Google Scholar.

3 See Peattie, “Japanese Attitudes.”

4 See, for example, Caprio, Mark E., Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea, 1910–1945 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

5 For the genealogy of assimilationist policy see, for example, ibid.; Eiji, Oguma, “Nihonjin” no kyōkai: Okinawa, Ainu, Taiwan, Chōsen shokuminchi shihai kara fukki undō made (Tokyo: Shinyōsha, 1998)Google Scholar; and Takeshi, Komagome, Shokuminchi teikoku Nihon no bunka tōgō (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1996)Google Scholar. For the effects and politics of assimilationism in colonial Seoul, see Henry, Todd, Assimilating Seoul: Japanese Rule and the Politics of Public Space in Colonial Korea, 1910–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the wartime integration, see Fujitani, Takashi, Race for Empire: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as Americans during World War II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

6 Out of 48,808 officials, 17,047 (35 percent) were Korean-origin. Makiko, Okamoto, Shokuminchi kanryō no seijishi: Chōsen, Taiwan sōtokufu to teikoku Nippon (Tokyo: Sangensha, 2008), 60 Google Scholar.

7 This does not mean that Japanese settlers were passive subjects of GGK rule. Their agency as “brokers” in empire-building has been well documented by Uchida, Jun, in Brokers of Empire: Japanese Settler Colonialism in Korea 1876–1945 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

8 On the politics of social welfare developed during this period, see Pedersen, –Susan, Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914–1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar. See also Downs, Laura Lee, “‘And so we Transform a People’: Women's Social Action and the Reconfiguration of Politics on the Right in France, 1934–1947,” Past & Present 225, 1 (Oct. 2014): 187–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See Lewis, J. E., “Tropical East Ends’ and the Second World War: Some Contradictions in Colonial Office Welfare Initiatives,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 28, 2 (2000): 42–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 43.

10 I chose the term “ruralism” to subtly differentiate it from the widely-known “agrarianism” (nōhonshugi) in Japan. Agrarianism condemned urban culture and linked the agrarian ways of life and morals with national virtue. Although “ruralism” shared agrarian values as an underlying ideology, it was a paradigm within which officials understood the masses as almost all rural peasants.

11 Atkins, E. Taylor, Primitive Selves: Koreana in the Japanese Colonial Gaze, 1910–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press: 2010)Google Scholar, esp. 3, 52–101.

12 These led to the enactment of a series of Colonial Development Acts in Britain in 1929, for example. Midgley, James, “Imperialism, Colonialism, and Social Welfare,” in Midgley, James and Piachaud, David, eds., Colonialism and Welfare: Social Policy and the British Imperial Legacy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2011), 48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Lewis, “Tropical East Ends,” 42.

14 Cooper, Frederick, Decolonization and African Society: The Labor Question in French and British Africa (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Andreas Eckert argues that in Tanzania it was focused on “peasantization” rather than prolitarianization; “Regulating the Social: Social Security, Social Welfare, and the State in Late Colonial Tanzania,” Journal of African History 45 (2004): 467–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For discussion of the broader trends and individual cases see, for example, the entire volume of Midgley and Piachaud, Colonialism and Welfare; Lewis, “Tropical East Ends”; Midgley, James, “Colonialism and Welfare: A Post-Colonial Commentary,” Journal of Progressive Human Services 9, 2 (1998): 31–50 Google Scholar; Midgley, James, Professional Imperialism: Social Work in the Third World (London: Heinemann, 1981)Google Scholar.

16 See Peattie, “Japanese Attitudes.”

17 Much like in the metropole, the Japanese imperial household funded them. Masako, Ōtomo, Teikoku Nihon no shokuminchi shakai jigyō seisaku kenkyū: Taiwan, Chōsen (Tokyo: Minerva shobō, 2007), 97–126 Google Scholar.

18 Ōtomo, Teikoku Nihon, 97–126.

19 Ibid., 125.

20 Yŏng-hong, Sin, “Kaisetsu: Chōsen shakai jigyō kenkyūkai to Chōsen shakai jigyō kyōkai no setsuritsu,” in kankōkai, Kingendai shiryō, ed., Senzen senchūki Ajia kenkyū shiryō 4: Zasshi Chōsen shakai jigyō (Tokyo: Kingendai shiryō kankōkai, 2007)Google Scholar, app. 7.

21 On the associationist turn in the French Empire see, for example, Conklin, Alice L., A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa, 1895–1930 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), 174–211 Google Scholar; Thomas, Martin, The French Empire between the Wars: Imperialism, Politics, and Society (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), 54–89 Google Scholar; Gamble, Harry, “Peasants of the Empire: Rural Schools and the Colonial Imaginary in 1930s French West Africa,” Cahiers D’Études Africans 195 (Mar. 2009): 775–804 Google Scholar. On the ways French missionaries who provided social services to colonial society had to follow the associationist turn, see Foster, Elizabeth Ann, Faith in Empire: Religion, Politics, and Colonial Rule in French Senegal 1880–1940 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013), 141–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Ōtomo, Teikoku Nihon, 138–39.

23 Especially after the March First Movement, a larger number of officials were transferred from the Home Ministry of Japan to the GGK, and their approach to social work understandably resembled what they had learned in their homelands. See Okamoto, Shokuminchi kanryō, 560. They held a less “revolutionary” self-image than did progressive bureaucrats in Manchukuo (1932–1945), whom Louise Young describes. See her Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 291–303 Google Scholar.

24 Sōda Izō (Aisen), “Honkai no soshiki to enkaku,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Feb. 1928), 25.

25 Between 1935 and 1939, the name of the journal was Dōhōai. In 1940 it returned to Chōsen shakai jigyō, and in 1943 was renamed Chōsen kōsei jigyō.

26 Eisuke, Zenshō, “Chōsen ni okeru hinmin seikatsu,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Jan. 1929): 2–5 Google Scholar. See any issue of Chōsen shakai jigyō, Chōsen chihō gyōsei, or Bunkyō no Chōsen to sense the kinds and scopes of their reports. Puja, Kim, Shokuminchiki Chōsen no kyōiku to jendā (Tokyo: Seori shobō, 2005), 369 Google Scholar; Shin, Gi-wook, Peasant Protest and Social Change in Colonial Korea (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996), 56 Google Scholar. See also Man-gil, Kang, Ilche sidae pinmin saenghwalsa yǒn'gu (Seoul: Ch'angjaksa, 1987)Google Scholar.

27 “Chōsen ni oite shakai kyōkajō hayaku chakushu subeki jigyō, Chōsen no shakai jigyō o kaizen kōjō seshimuru hōsaku,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (July 1928): 28 Google Scholar.

28 “Naichi shakai jigyō no jōtai, honkai soshiki no kaizō o nozomu,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Feb. 1926):13–27 Google Scholar, for example.

29 Sin, “Kaisetsu,” 23–25.

30 According to Sin (“Kaisetsu,” 15), 63.7 percent of the members of the Korean Social Work Research Group held positions in the Government-General in Korea.

31 Ibid., 27.

32 Kyōka could be translated in different ways, including “moral reform,” “moral education,” and “enlightenment.” See Garon, Sheldon, Molding Japanese Minds: The State in Everyday Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 7 Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., 20.

34 Ibid., 40–49.

35 sōtokufu, Chōsen, Chōsen shisei nenpō 1931/2 (Keijō: Chōsen sōtokufu, 1933), 181–82Google Scholar.

36 Ibid.

37 “Shakai jigyō zadankai,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Oct./Nov. 1930): 25–41 Google Scholar.

38 The backgrounds of some of these figures can be found in colonial government employee records. The highest-ranking official among them, Kamiuchi Hikosaku, was born in Ōita Prefecture in 1890, graduated from the Imperial University of Tokyo in 1916, arrived in Korea in 1919 after working for a mining company in Japan, and had been serving in various offices of the GGK. Okuyama Senzō started his career in the GGK in 1913 and in 1929 published a Korean language textbook for Japanese readers (“Chōsengo taisei”). Satō Yoshiya came to Korea in 1920. Ǒm Ch'ang-sǒp was an elementary schoolteacher in Kyŏnggi Province as of 1921, and was working as the head of the Social Bureau of the Education Department in 1935. For their records, see Kuksa p'yǒngch'ang wiwǒnhoe, Han'guksa Teit'abeisǔ [The Korean history database], db.history.go.kr (accessed 15 Apr. 2015). In the past few decades, Yi Kak-chong has received political attention as one of the major “pro-Japanese” traitors. Born in 1888, Yi studied at Waseda University and began working for the colonial government in 1911. He became one of the powerful promoters of Japan's “imperialization” movement between 1937–1945 and, most famously, wrote the “Oath of the Imperial Subject,” which Korean children and youth were forced to recite at school. Chun-sǒng, Pak, “Yi Kak-chong: Hwangkuk sinminhwa undong e gisu,” in Panminjok munjae yǒn'gusǒ, ed., Ch'inIlp'a 99-in, (Seoul: Tolbegae, 1993), 44–50 Google Scholar. Both Ǒm and Yi were among the 3,090 “pro-Japanese traitors” listed by a governmental committee in 2005.

39 “Shakai jigyō zadankai,” 40.

40 Ibid., 35.

41 Okamoto, 491–563. She argues that the GGK's governing system was even more centralized than Japan's, and enjoyed closer connections between the central and local governments. The personnel usually flowed from Japan to Korea, except for a small number of political appointees who went back to Japan after several years. Mid-level bureaucrats normally remained in Korea for decades, as represented by the social work bureaucrats who participated in the 1930 roundtable. The stability in personnel created a basis for a meritocratic system.

42 See Masato, Namiki, “Shokuminchiki Chōsenjin no seiji sanka ni tsuite—Kaihōgoshi tono kanren ni oite,” Chōsenshi kenkyūkai ronbunshū, 81 (Oct. 1993): 40 Google Scholar; Yūko, Hamaguchi, Nihon tōchi to higashi Ajia shakai: Shokuminchiki Chōsen to Manshū no hikaku kenkyū (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1996), 28–29 Google Scholar.

43 “Shakai jigyō zadankai,” 25.

44 Ambaras, David R., “Social Knowledge, Cultural Capital, and the New Middle Class in Japan, 1895–1912,” Journal of Japanese Studies 24, 1 (1998): 1–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1.

45 See ibid., 1–9; Garon, Sheldon, “From Meiji to Heisei: The State and Civil Society in Japan,” in Schwarts, Frank and Pharr, Susan, eds., The State of Civil Society in Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46–50 Google Scholar.

46 See Ambaras, “Social Knowledge,” 8.

47 For example, Yi Kwang-su and Yun Ch'i-ho. Both promoted the integration of Korea into the Japanese Empire and were later labeled “pro-Japanese” collaborators, especially for their support of Japan's war effort.

48 “Shakai jigyō zadankai,” 34.

49 Ibid. 27–29.

50 See Moon, Yumi, Populist Collaborators: The Ilchinhoe and the Japanese Colonization of Korea, 1896–1910 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Uchida, Brokers of Empire, 103–11, 158–65.

52 Izō, Sōda, “Chōsen shakai jigyō o shinkō seyo,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Sept. 1925): 31 Google Scholar. For a perspective from Japanese business people, see shōten, Chōjiya, Chōjiya shōshi (Tokyo: Yumani shobō, 2002 [1936])Google Scholar.

53 Sayaka Chatani, “Nation-Empire: Rural Youth Mobilization in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea 1895–1945” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2014), 58–91.

54 Takeo, Matsuda, “Norisugi Yoshihisa no shakai kyōikuron no keisei to sono tokushitsu,” in Hideyuki, Shinkai, ed., Gendai Nihon shakai kyōikushiron (Tokyo: Gakujutsu shuppankai, 2002), 56–59 Google Scholar.

55 Yoshihisa, Norisugi, Shakai kyōiku no kenkyū, (Tokyō: Dōbunkan, 1923), 251 Google Scholar. He coined the term “shakai kyoiku” (social education) to juxtapose with “school education.”

56 Yoshihiro, Kobayashi, “Teikoku shakai kyōiku kanryō ni okeru ‘shakai’ no hakken to ‘shakai kyōiku,’” in shuppan, Shibunkaku, ed., Nihon kyōikushi ronsō (Kyoto: Shibunkaku shuppan, 1988), 47–54 Google Scholar.

57 Ōtomo shows that the populations of Seoul, Incheon, and Kaesong increased by thirty thousand people between 1932 and 1934, a figure five times greater than the natural increase of the population (Teikoku Nihon, 237). Of those domestic immigrants to the cities, 65 percent explained that they moved “owing to the poverty.” Also see Eisuke, Zenshō, “Chōsen ni okeru hinmin seikatsu,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Jan. 1929): 2–5 Google Scholar.

58 “Shakai jigyō zadankai,” 31.

59 Kak-chong, Yi, “Chōsen nōson no mondai,” Chōsen chihō gyōsei (Sept. 1928): 18–25 Google Scholar.

60 Waswo, Ann, “The Transformation of Rural Society 1900–1905,” in Duus, Peter, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 6: The Twentieth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 543 Google Scholar.

61 See Smethurst, Richard, A Social Basis for Prewar Japanese Militarism: The Army and the Rural Community (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

62 Tongnip undongsa p'yŏnch'an wiwŏnhoe, Tongnip undongsa che 3-kwŏn (Seoul: Tongnip yugongja saŏp ki'gŭm unyong wiwŏnhoe, 1971), 889 Google Scholar.

63 Eitarō, Ījima, “Nōson hōmen iin no secchi o teiansu,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Mar. 1931): 31 Google Scholar; Jingo, Ueno, “Nōson shakai jigyō no konponsaku o sagure,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Mar. 1931): 47 Google Scholar.

64 Most famously, Zenshō Eisuke, GGK's leading researcher of Korean affairs, compiled massive volumes on various rural associations (kye), hamlet organizations, social customs, and clan-based communities, as well as on the Korean economy and industry in the 1920s. His research results include Chōsen no kei (1926); Chōsen no jinkō genshō (1927); Chōsen no saigai (1928); Chōsen no hanzai to kankyō (1928); Chōsen no sei (1934); and three massive volumes of Chōsen no shūraku (1933–1935), all published as research material (chōsa shiryō) by Chōsen sōtokufu. His still serve as the most comprehensive studies of prewar Korean villages.

65 See Shin, Gi-Wook, “Agrarianism: A Critique of Colonial Modernity in Korea,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 41, 4 (1999): 784–804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Clark Sorensen puts it this way: “Among some intellectuals the Korean nation came to be identified primarily with the nongmin. The nongmin, in turn, came to be conceived in a distinctive way as inside history, because of their significance in schemes of evolutionary development, but as outside history, because of their significance of preserving an essentialized Korean ethnic identity.” “National Identity and the Construction of the Category ‘Peasant’ in Colonial Korea,” in Robinson, Michael and Shin, Gi-Wook, ed., Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 299–300 Google Scholar.

66 Kang, Young Hoon, “Personal Reminiscences of My Japanese School Days,” in Kim, Eugene et al. , eds., Korea's Response to Japan: The Colonial Period 1910–1945 (Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Press, 1974), 288 Google Scholar.

67 Chatani, “Nation-Empire,” 83–85; Sorensen, “National Identity,” 302–3.

68 Park, Albert L., Building a Heaven on Earth: Religion, Activism, and Protest in Japanese Occupied Korea (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

69 See Shin, Gi-Wook and Han, Do-Hyun, “Colonial Corporatism: The Rural Revitalization Campaign, 1932–1940,” in Robinson, Michael and Shin, Gi-Wook, eds., Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 82–83 Google Scholar.

70 Kang, “Personal Reminiscences,” 288.

71 “Shakai jigyō zadankai,” 26–27.

72 Various scholars have discussed Japanese agrarianism in more detail. See, for example, Havens, Thomas, Farm and Nation in Modern Japan: Agrarian Nationalism 1870–1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Vlastos, Stephen, “Agrarianism without Tradition: The Radical Critique of Prewar Japanese Modernity,” in Vlastos, Stephen, ed., Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 74–94 Google Scholar; Gluck, Carol, Japan's Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 178–204 Google Scholar; and Smith, Kerry, A Time of Crisis: Japan, the Great Depression, and Rural Revitalization (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 94–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Havens, Farm and Nation, 104; Gluck, Japan's Modern Myths, 180.

74 The politicization of rural problems in the 1920s reflected that Japanese politicians realized Meiji-style agricultural policies required major revisions to solve the new conflicts between landlords and tenants. Political parties used the issue of rural problems at times, but it was state officials who steadily extended semi-governmental networks into Japanese rural areas. On the politicization of rural problems between the 1890s and 1920s, see Ryūji, Miyazaki, “Taishō demokurashīki no nōson to seitō 1, 2, 3,” Kokka gakkai zasshi 7/8, 9/10, 11/12 (1980): 1–67 Google Scholar, 69–126, and 77–145, respectively; Masanao, Itō, Masakatsu, Ōkado, and Masayuki, Suzuki, Senkanki no Nihon nōson (Kyoto: Sekai shisōsha, 1988), 18–26 Google Scholar.

75 Weber, Eugen, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976)Google Scholar.

76 Seika, Mayama, Minamikoizumi-mura (Tokyo: Iwanami bunko, 1953), 6–7 Google Scholar.

77 sei, Go Chō, “Honken ni okeru shōgaku jidō no tokusei kanyō jō tokuni chūi subeki jikō narabini korega tekisetsu naru shisetsu hōhō ikan,” Miyagi-ken kyōikukai zasshi (Mar. 1913): 11–12 Google Scholar.

78 Butterfield, Kenyon L., “Christianity and Rural Civilization,” in The Jerusalem Meeting of the International Missionary Council, Volume 6: The Christian Mission in Relation to Rural Problems (New York: International Missionary Council, 1928), 7 Google Scholar, 9.

79 Park, Building a Heaven, 97–98, 131–32; de Shweinitz Brunner, Edmund, “Rural Korea: A Preliminary Survey of Economic, Social, and Religious Conditions,” in The Jerusalem Meeting of the International Missionary Council, Volume 6: The Christian Mission in Relation to Rural Problems (New York: International Missionary Council, 1928), 84–172 Google Scholar.

80 Midgley, “Imperialism, Colonialism, and Social Welfare,” 48.

81 Lewis, “Tropical East Ends,” 45.

82 For discussion of the development of agrarianism in the interwar period, see Lynch, Edouard, “Interwar France and the Rural Exodus: The National Myth in Peril,” Rural History 21, 2 (2010): 165–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jeans, D. N., “Planning and the Myth of the English Countryside, in the Interwar Period,” Rural History 1, 2 (2009): 249–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miyazaki, “Taishō demokurashīki”; and Itō, Ōkado, and Suzuki, Senkanki no Nihon nōson.

83 Norisugi, Shakai kyōiku, 22.

84 Ibid., 23.

85 Ibid., 114. The contemporary academic authority on film education, Umino Yukinori, in his studies emphasized the harmfulness of film rather than its benefits. See Kenji, Iwamoto, “Gentō kara eiga e: Meiji, Taishō-ki ni okeru shakai kyōka to minshū gorakuron,” Waseda daigaku daigakuin bungaku kenkyūka kiyō 3, 45 (1999): 82 Google Scholar.

86 Yasunosuke, Gonda, “Minshū goraku mondai” [1921], in Gonda Yasunosuke chosakushū, vol. 1 (Tokyo: Bunwa shobō, 1974), 16 Google Scholar, 48. He reversed this opinion in Kōsei undō dokuhon [1941], in Gonda Yasunosuke chosakushū, vol. 4.

87 Yasunosuke, Gonda, “Minshū gorakuron,” in Gonda Yasunosuke chosakushū, vol. 2 (Tokyo: Bunwa shobō, 1974), 352–71Google Scholar. Yamane Mikito, an expert and himself a producer of motion pictures, argued along these same lines; Shakai kyōka to katsudō shashin (Tokyo: Teikoku chihō gyōsei gakkai, 1923)Google Scholar.

88 Takahiro, Tachibana, “Yoron to shinbun to kyōka senden eiga,” Kagee no kuni (Tokyo: Shūhōkaku, 1925), 510 Google Scholar.

89 For instance, the Home, Treasury, Agriculture and Commerce, Education, and Communications and Transportation Ministries held a joint meeting in 1924 and agreed on a resolution to encourage the use of movies to promote a thrifty life. See Hwan-mok, Pok, “Chōsen sōtokufu ni yoru shakai kyōka ni okeru eiga riyō,” Eiga gaku 18 (2004): 2–14 Google Scholar.

90 Hajime, Hosoi, “Gojo sōai no taigi to Chōsen mondai,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Jan. 1926): 21 Google Scholar.

91 See the collections of opinions on Korean society and social work compiled in bullet points in Chōsen shakai jigyō (July 1926): 39; and Chōsen shakai jigyō (July 1928): 32, 34.

92 Kazushige, Ugaki, Ugaki nikki (Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1954), 82 Google Scholar.

93 Izō, Sōda (Aisen), “Nihon o sukui katsu shakai o heiwa ni michibiku michi (I),” Chōsen shakai jigyō (July 1927): 18 Google Scholar.

94 Jingo, Ueno, “Nōson shakai jigyō no konponsaku o sagure,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Mar. 1931): 47 Google Scholar.

95 During this period the use of documentary films became common in other empires. They were a popular tool to “make the fiction of the empire a reality” in the French Empire. Levine, Alison J. Murray, Framing the Nation: Documentary Film in Interwar France (New York: Continuum, 2010), 56–88 Google Scholar. The British also used documentaries for public health education in Africa. Burns, James, “Watching Africans Watch Films: Theories of Spectatorship in British Colonial Africa,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television 20, 2 (2000): 197–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Diawara, Manthia, “Sub-Saharan African Film Production: Technological Paternalism,” Jump Cut 32 (Apr. 1987): 61–65 Google Scholar.

96 Pok Hwan-mok, “Chōsen sōtokufu no shokuminchi tōchi ni okeru eiga riyō” (PhD diss., Waseda University, 2005), 132–34.

97 Some of these had English subtitles; ibid., 123.

98 Sennō, Okuyama, “Katsudō shashin ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu: kyōka shakai no tachiba yori mitaru,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Aug. 1931): 39 Google Scholar.

99 Ibid., 38.

100 “Eiga kyakuhon boshū,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Feb. 1931): 15 Google Scholar; “Kenshō boshū eiga kyakuhon no tōsen happyō,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Nov. 1931): 52 Google Scholar.

101 “Eiga kyakuhon boshū.”

102 Tōru, Ikeda, “Dakuryū o norikiru,” Chōsen shakai jigyō (Nov. 1931): 63–107 Google Scholar.

103 The Association had 1,838 members in 1930, but they were concentrated in Kyǒnggi-do, Kangwon-do, and North Kyǒngsang-do, with few residing in the other provinces. Sin, “Kaisetsu,” 27.

104 Gamble, “Peasants of the Empire.”

105 Levine, Framing the Nation, 88.

106 Gamble, “Peasants of the Empire.”