[P2P-F] Fwd: [commoning] The Future After Fukushima > event + interview with Japan's leading social thinker

[Michel Bauwens]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Krystian Woznicki <kw at berlinergazette.de>
Date: Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:23 PM
Subject: [commoning] The Future After Fukushima > event + interview with
Japan's leading social thinker
To: commoning at lists.commons-institut.org


Hello commoners,

in the context of the TACIT FUTURES project the Berliner Gazette invites
you reflect once again the consequences of the Fukushima incident, that
shocked the world on March 11, 2011 – almost exactly five years ago.

Our Berlin event on March 19 presents the documentary film "Tell the
Prime Minister" by Japan's leading social thinker Eiji Oguma as a
starting point for discussion about common futures and the future as
commons. An interview with Eiji Oguma about those issues and the
politicization of Japan after 3/11 in particular was just published by
openDemocracy, a German version of the protocol is available on Berliner
Gazette. Scroll down to read all the info, or visit the websites now:

TACIT FUTURES event with Eiji Oguma:
http://bit.ly/21Zh2xc

TACIT FUTURES interview with Eiji Oguma:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/eiji-oguma-krystian-woznicki/japan-after-japan

Kind regards,

Krystian

--

Japan after Japan
Post-Fukushima social movements, the rebirth of history and tacit
futures. An interview by Krystian Woznicki with Eiji Oguma
openDemocracy.org, 9 March 2016 [1]

After 200 years of relentless growth and rampant acceleration
industrialized countries seem to have reached an end point. After living
under near constant mobilization with one foot in tomorrow land we are
sensing limits all over the place. From limited natural resources to our
limited capabilities in handling larger than life technologies (e.g.
nuclear power). Some call it "peak everything" (Heinberg). Others refer
to it as "after future" (Berrardi). In other words: 200 years after the
"futurist turn" (Sloterdijk) almost everything that was launched in the
name of gloomy progress reaches an ideological and operational deadend.

Take Japan as an example. Since the 1980s it has represented the future
like no other country on this planet. Now it is deeply burdened by all
projects, all movements and all the policies that created its futuristic
appeal: toxic waste, mountains of national debt, ideological shipwreck.
At this juncture a decision is needed: Could the future begin anew after
all the burdens are left behind? – although hardly anyone can imagine
when that will be. Or does the future begin in the here and now? – this
place and time, where we are potentially able to envision another place
and another time.

As the historian Eiji Oguma suggests, the most important insight of the
moment is: "We can't go back to the 1980s".  Naturally, people are still
struggling with what this implies. Looking at it from a global
perspective, two things seem clear. Firstly: a new tale of the future
cannot be implanted top down. Not again. It must emerge bottom-up.

Secondly: we should not abandon the future only because "it has failed
us" (Berrardi). We should not wait until the mess, which the production
of futures has created so far, has been cleaned up. As a political
vehicle, the future is way too important. In that sense the Berliner
Gazette project TACIT FUTURES [2] proposes: rather than having arrived
after the future, we are at a crucial turning point in the production of
futures.

On March 19 at the event "TACIT FUTURES: Japan after Japan" [3] Berliner
Gazette presents "Tell the Prime Minister" by Eiji Oguma as a starting
point for discussion about common futures and the future as commons. It
is a documentary film about post-Fukushima social movements in Japan and
depicts an unprecedented mobilization, which, lasting until today, the
film documents as a historical event in progress. The product of an
almost boundless collaboration, the film is composed of footage by
numerous independent and amateur filmmakers who granted Oguma access to
their footage. Footage that captures intimately and authentically a
multiplicity of dynamics and faces, actions and testimonials from within
the movement. It is a cinematic experiment that comes to terms with the
social experiment that is under way in Japan today. Further information
here. [4]

Krystian Woznicki (KW): How did the authorities and social systems in
Japan manage to suppress social movements and protest until the
post-3/11-uprisings? Could you explain the vacuum of a public political
sphere in Japan and the kind of governance that helped create that vacuum?

Eiji Oguma (EO): I read one blog by a participant in the anti-nuclear
movement after the Fukushima incident. He was an activist in the 1970’s
and had stopped until the incident occurred. He said in his blog, “Now
is the time we have to do demo. Japan was a country people did not need
to do demo from 1970s to 2011, when people could get good jobs without
any protest.” “To be honest, I was active until the early 1970s but it
was activity for self-satisfaction and self-liberation. We did not feel
any crisis in Japanese society for real.” I think it would explain your
question. Japan was the country where, “people do not need to protest”.

However, as a sociologist and historian, I know Japan was not “all
middle class society” even in the 1980s when “Japan as number one” was a
buzzword. Less than 20% of the work force in Japan in the 1980s worked
at middle or big sized corporations which were so well known in western
countries thanks to the power of Japanese exports. The Japanese
government supplied subsidies, public works (mainly construction), and
protection (mainly for agriculture) for the people who worked in
domestic industries in local areas in exchange for demanding their votes
for LDP, the conservative ruling party. The Japanese government
contained any social problems by deploying such a cycle: economic growth
through exports, increase of tax income, provision of subsidies and
public works for the weaker parts of Japan, tax reduction for city
businessmen and their families, an increase of consumption, and economic
growth.

In this situation, LDP managed to maintain power while containing social
movements. From the 1970’s to the 2000’s, social movements rose in Japan
mainly due to problems that emerged on the peripheries of society, for
example, amongst Korean minorities, Okinawans, or in segregated downtown
areas.

Japan enjoyed such stability and prosperity as only a developed country
in Asia’s “factory of the world” could expect, until the end of the Cold
War when China entered the world economy and started to take the place
of Japan. After that, the stagnation of the Japanese economy began. This
stagnation broke the cycle in the 1980s. The Japanese government tried
to prolong the cycle, but this led to a huge budget deficit. In 2000,
the government started cutting subsidies and public works. It had
already caused instability and anxiety in society long before the
Fukushima incident.

KW: How did the sudden outburst of post-3/11-uprisings find new,
unexpected and unscripted forms of social protest to fill the vacuum?
How were those new forms of protest perceived by the general public? How
did the authorities react?

EO: The Fukushima incident was only a trigger of the new social
movements. In these 20 years, Japan has experienced a stagnant economy,
a 15% reduction of the average annual income of employees, an increase
in precarious jobs which occupy 40% of total employment nowadays,
atomization and isolation caused by globalization and IT technology, the
huge budget deficit bequeathed by policy dysfunction, and lack of
transparency in political decision making. LDP lost power and was
defeated by DPJ in the elections of 2009. These factors all existed
before the Fukushima incident.

According to my research, many activists of the social movements after
the Fukushima incident are members of what can be described as the
“cognitive precariat”, who have been highly educated but are unable to
enjoy reasonable employment prospects. They are skilled in IT, design,
illustration, music, event organizing. They are totally different from
the traditional activists who used to report back to established trade
unions or leftist parties.

For example, my documentary recorded 8 interviewees. The four males
include the Prime Minister at that time, a hospital worker, a young
entrepreneur who is now CEO of a childcare goods trading company, an
artist/anarchist. The four females are a Fukushima refugee housewife who
lived at a 1.5km distance from the nuclear plant, a young shop clerk, a
Dutch woman who is working at a US-affiliated company, the leader of an
organizing group of the movement. Except for the housewife from
Fukushima, all of them represent diversity and the change of Japanese
society. The prime minister is a former civil movement activist in the
1970s who was affiliated to the DPJ.

The hospital worker has a Ph.D. but could not get academic jobs. The
young entrepreneur is independent from the big traditional corporations.
The anarchist is a part-time lecturer and contemporary artist who plays
music. The Dutch woman represents the effect of globalization, the shop
clerk graduated from art school, the woman activist was an illustrator.

You may imagine what kind of movement they would create between them.
The movements after Fukushima were full of illustration, music,
organizing, knowledge, skilled in IT-use. I think the character and
features of these movements were similar to contemporary global
democratic movements throughout the world.

At first, people in established sectors, especially the Japanese mass
media could not understand what was happening. Japanese mass media had
had no similar experience of having to cover huge social movements for
the previous 30 years. They had connections with labor unions and
leftist parties but no contacts or skills to help them report on these
new movements. At first they ignored the movements, then portrayed them
as strange outsiders or a cultural fad. Japanese mass media actually
failed to report on the movements at all until the activists finally met
up with the Prime Minister. They were too entrenched in the social
structure of the1980s and had no framework to understand the new
situation. However, and I hate to say it, reactions from the authorities
and the people in mainstream sectors, especially the more elderly among
them had the same reaction as the mass media at the time.

KW: What are the rules for protest in Japan? Why does the police try to
partition the mass of protesters into small packages and keeps them
lined up in a narrow row on the street as if making space for the cars
(although traffic is suspended)? Why do protesters willingly obey? Has
there been any modification to that practise since 3/11?

EO: I guess ‘the rules’ might seem strange to western European people.
However, demonstrations are actually prohibited in Singapore or
Malaysia, of course in North Korea. But the level of democratization in
Japan regarding permission for social movements is roughly average for
that in all East Asian countries.

Japanese police are strict in keeping social order, including traffic
control. Since the 1970’s they have focused on keeping “Japan a clean,
neat, safe society“ which many foreign tourists say they prefer. After
11 March, social movements tried to break “the rule” at first, but met
the heavy police response I describe in the film. The activists finally
noticed that such an effort might cause endanger the movements of
ordinary participants in a way that would be harmful to the movement.
They changed their approach to activities and succeeded in mobilising
200 thousand people to gather in front of the Prime Minister’s office in
the summer of 2012. I remember that the activists said, “We have to
proceed one step at a time.“ But I don’t think you can really
characterise the people struggling in that situation as “willingly
obedient“.

KW: Did the post-3/11-movements inspire new policies in Japan? Did they
have an impact on formal politics?

EO: The answer must be ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. Regarding my role in the meeting
with activists and the Prime Minister which is recorded in this film, I
was a mediator. I have been a participant in the movement since April
2011 as an ordinary activist who became one because I realized it held
the prospect of changing society. Although I attended the meetings of
organizers, I did not give any advice because I felt that was not my
role and that they were skilled in mobilizing people.

At the high point of the mobilisation, in July 2012 when 200 thousand
people gathered in front of the Prime Minister’s office, I told the
organizers I could introduce politicians to them, including Mr. Kan who
was the Prime Minister at the time of the disaster. Many of the
activists knew my face as a regular participant. But they did not know I
was a professor. However, they accepted my offer because they needed to
have good contacts and I have established a certain credibility among
them as a modest, but regular participant. The administration and
activists asked me to attend the meeting as a mediator, but I did not
speak in the meeting because I trusted these people to be the skilful
activists I knew they were.

After the meeting, DPJ administration declared an abolition of nuclear
energy until 2040. I know the decision was made not only because of
pressure from the movement, but also because it was a political opportunity.

The DPJ administration failed to cope with the nuclear disaster and lost
support at that point. And the election for party leader, as it
happened, was booked for September 2012. Although Mr. Kan had already
resigned from the role of prime minister at that time, he had changed
his opinion on nuclear energy as a result of his experience of nuclear
disaster. The DPJ and the prime minister desperately needed to improve
their popularity and votes from among Mr. Kan‘s faction in the party’s
leadership elections. That was because Mr. Kan and his faction, whom I
made a point of introducing to the activists, still had some influence
over the DPJ administration.

Most of the 54 nuclear reactors in Japan were built before the 1990s,
when GDP and electricity demand peaked. This means that most of the
nuclear reactors will have reached the end of their lives by 2040. In
May 2012, all of the nuclear reactors had stopped production, but there
was no shortage of electricity supply. I thought that political decision
by DPJ was a reasonable one.

To sum up, it was a combination of new movements and old politics that
contributed to the decision to abolish nuclear energy. I knew that the
meeting was only a kind of political ritual, but the ritual was a
mechanism for social progress. Myself, a professor,  ordinary
participant and mediator at one and the same time, might have been one
tiny factor in that process of change.

KW: For many observers the year 2011 marks a unique moment in history,
because around the globe various societies experienced breakthroughs –
from the revolution in Egypt to the post-3/11-uprisings in Japan. Alain
Badiou speaks of the "rebirth of history". What is the perception of the
international situation from the point of view of the protest movements
in Japan?

EO: Have a look at the woman who blows the horn in the demonstration
which was recorded in the later part of the film. She has graduated from
a university in the arts, and made her debut as a Manga writer. However,
the Manga industry is so exploitative that she gave up writing Manga.
Then she became a planning manager in the development department of a
big stationery company. But the hard work made her ill and after she
married her business colleague, she quitted her job. After the Fukushima
incident, she joined the anti-nuclear movement and took her place as a
designer of flags and placards. She divorced her husband when he opposed
her participation in the movement. Now she is working as a part-time
librarian in a university and continuing to be active in the post-2011
movements.

Her face in the film seems full of anger, liberation, anxiety, and
sadness. Anger against what? Liberation from what? Maybe nuclear
disaster could have brought a death and a reincarnation to her social
life. I think she represents all the instability and vitality of the
world’s global movements since 2011, and human being in a time of
historic change.

KW: The "rebirth of history" has created the potential for inventing new
narratives of the future. How did this incident give rise to future
narratives that are emerging bottom-up rather than top down? What kind
of new, bottom-up and democratic visions of the future have emerged?

EO: Specifically in Japan, "we can't go back to the 80s" means a
departure from stable, organized, wealthy society such as we had when
“Japan was number one“. However, the top-down form of politics does not
work any more, not only for social movements, but also in wider
politics. Regarding Japan, LDP which represents the established sectors
in Japan has lost over 80% of its party members since 1991 due to the
reduced budget for public construction works, economic stagnation, the
ageing and depopulating of local society, the decline of religions, and
the atomization of the people.

LDP seems to be trying to capture floating votes by appealing to
rightist-oriented slogans similar to the manoeuvres of many eastern
European administrations. But I think it shows that even LDP cannot live
without bottom-up support. It shows also that social movements could
have some impact on the political situation. I am not in the position to
predict future because I am not a fortune-teller. However, as a
sociologist and historian, the contemporary situation is on the move and
dependent on something not yet certain. In the world we live in now,
even dictatorship would not last long without some form of bottom-up
democracy.

The German version of this contribution is available under the title
"Wiedergeburt der Zukunft" [5].

--

The screening of “Tell the Prime Minister” is followed by a talk with
Eiji Oguma, who is one of the most important social thinkers and social
historians in Japan. He is a professor of Historical Sociology at Keio
University in Tokyo and the author of various books including “Democracy
and patriots: Postwar Japanese Nationalism and the Public” (2004),  “A
Genealogy of Self-images of ‘Japanese’” (2002) and “The Boundaries of
‘Japanese’” (2014). “Tell the Prime Minister” is his first film.

This project is a cooperation between Berliner Gazette [6],  SUPERMARKT
[7], and Takemura Juku [8] in the context of the “Tacit Futures” project
by Berliner Gazette.

The TACIT FUTURES project has been launched in collaboration with
transmediale with the program “Diving into Snowden Archives” at House of
World Cultures, February 4 and 5. The Berliner Gazette is now working on
a special section in its online newspaper. Around 40 reports, essays and
interviews will be published throughout the year. Creative types of all
sorts will get a chance to speak about the key questions relating to
TACIT FUTURES. All texts will be contributed on a voluntary basis and
published under a Creative Commons license. In parallel, the Berliner
Gazette will organize more than 20 meet-ups, serving as the project’s
cooperative platforms for dialogue about ideas and projects. Moreover,
the Berliner Gazette plans to organize various partner-events. The TACIT
FUTURES project will culminate in the international Berliner Gazette
conference scheduled for October 27-29, 2016 in Berlin.

Please spread the word about! We truly hope, that there will be a way to
wire our ambitions and to embark upon a fruitful exchange.

Links

1.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/eiji-oguma-krystian-woznicki/japan-after-japan

2. http://berlinergazette.de/feuilleton/jahresthemen/2016-tacit-futures/
3. http://bit.ly/21Zh2xc
4. http://www.uplink.co.jp/kanteimae/index_en.php
5. http://berlinergazette.de/wiedergeburt-der-zukunft-in-japan
6. http://berlinergazette.de
7. http://supermarkt-berlin.net
8. http://takemurajuku.com

--
-------------------------------------------------

TACIT FUTURES | BERLINER GAZETTE ANNUAL PROJECT 2016
VISIONS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF MOVEMENTS BY HUMANS AND BITS ALIKE

TACIT FUTURES: Essays and Interviews (in German)
http://berlinergazette.de/feuilleton/jahresthemen/2016-tacit-futures/

TACIT FUTURES: Diving into Snowden Archives | Panel + Workshops
transmediale, Berlin, 4.-5.2.2016
http://2016.transmediale.de/de/content/tacit-futures-diving-into-the-snowden-archives

TACIT FUTURES: Japan after Japan | Film screening + discussion
Supermarkt, Berlin, 19.3.2016
http://bit.ly/1QRcHub

TACIT FUTURES: BG annual conference | Workshops, Performances, Talks
Volksbühne am Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz, 27.-29.10.2016

TACIT FUTURES: Documents of BG's annual project
Photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinergazette/albums/72157662038932563
Videos: https://vimeo.com/album/3785772
Audios: https://soundcloud.com/berliner-gazette/sets/tacit-futures

-------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Commoning mailing list
Commons-Institut e.V. Germany
Commoning at lists.commons-institut.org
https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning



-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org


P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20160310/f6195697/attachment-0001.htm