IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/sscijp/v18y2015i2p146-161..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ontological Security and Japan’s Ideological Debate over Compensating Wartime ‘Comfort Women’

Author

Listed:
  • Naoko KUMAGAI

Abstract

This paper analyzes the absence of a constructive dialogue about the issue of comfort women in Japan between conservatives and liberals in spite of their respective clear concerns about the issue as part of Japan’s war responsibility. With the case of the Asian Women’s Fund’s atonement project for former comfort women, this paper suggests that both sides’ ontological insecurity controlled their interpretations of the issue and that both sides failed to understand a new notion of Japan, as proposed by the Asian Women’s Fund, in which both the Japanese government and Japanese people constitute a new public entity and act jointly to render atonement to the victims. Hardline conservatives, giving special attention to Japan’s honor, took umbrage at any atonement for former comfort women, arguing that many worked voluntarily, while anti-Fund liberals, as survivors’ representatives, guarded against any revisionist and patriarchal interpretation of the comfort women issue and persisted in pushing for truly official compensation only by the Japanese government. Hardline conservatives’ rhetoric significantly decreased the credibility of Japan’s attitude toward the issue in the eyes of the victims’ countries, while the anti-Fund liberals, by focusing their criticism against the Fund, failed to face their real rivals, hardline conservatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Naoko KUMAGAI, 2015. "Ontological Security and Japan’s Ideological Debate over Compensating Wartime ‘Comfort Women’," Social Science Japan Journal, University of Tokyo and Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 146-161.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:146-161.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ssjj/jyv009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:146-161.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ssjj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.