Environmental Sociology in Japan:
An Overview of the Japanese Experience in the Aftermath of “3/11”
The Japanese Association for Environmental Sociology

Introduction
Japanese environmental sociology has roots that go back to the early 1960s, when it mainly
focused its attention on the analysis of social mechanisms that produced pollution victims. This canbe attributed mainly to the fact that Japan suffered from severe environmental disruptions (kôgai) in
the 1960s and 1970s. A few examples of the disruptions are Minamata and Itai-Itai diseases, but thelist continues endlessly. Researchers, therefore, conducted case studies occasionally accompanied byin-depth interviews with the intent of understanding the subjective reactions of victims as well as
their protest activities and to uncover the mechanisms of societal and environmental disruption in
local communities.
In 1992, the Japanese Association for Environmental Sociology (JAES) was founded with theparticipation of 53 researchers, and the late IIJIMA Nobuko (1938-2001),1 a pioneer in Japaneseenvironmental sociology, became its first president. Now with 600 members (as of March 2013),
JAES has become the largest environmental sociology association around the globe. JAES members
come from a wide range of backgrounds: researchers, teachers, students, and practitioners in many
fields. The Association holds semiannual seminars each spring and autumn and publishes the
Journal of Environmental Sociology, the world’ s first journal devoted especially to environmentalsociology.
What Has Been Discussed in Environmental Sociology in Japan2
1. What Questions has “3/11” Raised?
The massive earthquake that struck Japan on March 11, 2011, now referred to as “3/11,” was adisaster composed of multiple calamities: the huge earthquake and the huge tsunami that followed it,
the chain of severe nuclear power plant accidents, and then the existence of a large area
contaminated with radiation, as well as large numbers of evacuees. This severe compound disasterhas raised a huge number of issues and questions, which can all be summed up in one: “Was thesystem we had until 3/11 a good one?” The question tells us that we must inquire into at a1

Japanese names are given in the Japanese order: family name first, followed by the given name.
The following is a translated and slightly modified version of an article by HORIKAWA Saburô(“Visualizing the Unseen, Voicing the Unheard: The Contributions of Japanese Environmental Sociology
in the ‘Post-3/11’ Era,” Journal of Environmental Sociology, Vol. 18, pp.5-26; in Japanese). A part of theoriginal article was translated into English, and adapted in its current form, by the Japanese Association
for Environmental Sociology. The Association wishes to thank Prof. Horikawa for his generous permission,
but responsibility for this English text (with any remaining errors) rests entirely upon the Association.

2

293

fundamental and deep level is the policy-making and planning processes themselves, not just the
specific contents of policies and plans. Metaphorically speaking, the question may be not whether aparticular nuclear power plant should be restarted, but in fact whether or not to “restart” the “3/11
System”.
How can environmental sociology respond to this question? The strategy that is proposed in thisarticle is to reinterpret the question “Was the system we had until 3/11 a good one?” as “What does
‘suffering’ mean for environmental sociology?” Our accumulated works on environmental
disruptions indicate to us that the understanding of harm and suffering is our most urgent task, and it
leads us into an investigation of the first question.
2. Environmental Sociology and the Concept of Suffering
The development of Japanese environmental sociology has obviously been driven by thefollowing question: “What is the aggregate suffering caused by environmental destruction?”
Stated thus, you may be surprised by the simplicity of the question driving Japaneseenvironmental sociology. You may be inclined to say, “If there is environmental destruction,
naturally there will be suffering; it is all very clear. What is more important here is to be able tooutline the related issues of compensation, preventive measures, and recovery plans; for otherwise,
would it not be meaningless?”
However, the case is quite the opposite, and suffering is never clear-cut and subdivided. If welisten to the voices of the victims themselves and consider, for example, how medicine, law, andeconomics have defined the suffering involved in Minamata disease, we would immediately
understand that the plurality of answers to the question “What constitutes suffering?” has been afundamental source of social conflict, with each academic field over the years stressing the validityof its own concept of suffering. Or to put it another way, the various answers to the question, “Whatdetermines the nature of suffering?” have distinguished one academic field from another, and at thesame time defined the content of the respective academic fields. Thus, the substance and manner ofour response to this question will reveal the true nature of environmental sociology.
3. What Has Been Discussed
How has environmental sociology described suffering? Will we be able to find similarities ortrends in the answers to this question? As a number of papers have already provided an overview ofthe history of our subject, I will leave the details to these papers, and offer a concise description of
the arguments advanced by major theoretical standpoints.
(1) The Spectrum of Suffering: Theory of the Social Structures of SufferingThough it is difficult to pinpoint the day when environmental sociology first began to takeshape in Japan, if one were asked to specify its initial theoretical stage, the answer would be thetheory of the social structures of suffering that appeared in the 1970s.
Iijima, the first president of JAES, was long concerned with pollution and health issues such as
Minamata disease, as well as occupational accidents. She revealed through empirical research that294

suffering is not merely a personal problem affecting individuals, but experienced also by the families
and local communities surrounding the affected individuals. It was Iijima’s theory of the social
structures of suffering that enabled us to understand that suffering should not be understood merely
in terms of individuality, but as a multilayered spectrum that begins with the individual but extends
throughout the local community. In other words, the objective of Iijima’s argument was to oppose
the general tendency to understand suffering as if it were confined solely to a person’s body.
Conceiving Iijima’s concept of suffering as suffering in the broad sense, encompassing more thanmerely the bodily suffering of an individual, recent research has paid close attention to the process ofthe suffering experience, focusing on the neglect of suffering, and generating a theory of offence andsuffering that understands both suffering and offence in the broad sense envisioned by Iijima.
In addition to these contributions, the theory of the social structures of suffering focuses on
one’s consciousness as the primary determinant of suffering. While the expression “fake patients”
used by offenders against sufferers is indeed a problem, Iijima’s claim that “in some way, what ismore problematic is the sufferers’ unawareness of their own suffering” (Iijima, 1984, emphasis
added) draws attention to the fact that suffering caused by pollution, for example, cannot be
determined solely through medical diagnosis, but has a subjective component as well, and depends
further on an awareness of what the sufferer’s society conceives as illness. This viewpoint, whichenables us to see that depending on the group to which the sufferer belongs, the sufferer may notrecognize his/her suffering, may help us uncover suffering in company towns, for example, or
suffering that tends to be overlooked due to socially accepted notions. Thus, its theoreticalcontribution is considerable.
How then has the theory of the social structures of suffering described suffering? In addition to
the foregoing, I would draw readers’ attention to Iijima’s words: suffering that cannot be seen byothers and thus is not able to be understood by others, is yet in itself suffering. The underlying
reasons for Iijima’s claim that suffering spreads from individuals to the local community inoverlapping layers may be seen to lie in her conviction that the gradual destruction of the sufferer’s
existing relationships, due to his/her bodily suffering, is the most essential characteristic of thesuffering sustained by the sufferer. And by now it should be obvious that while this suffering may beunrelated to medical diagnosis or the seriousness of the symptoms, it has a decisive meaning for thesufferer him/herself.
(2) Distribution of Suffering: Benefit and Victimized Zones Theory
The theory of benefit (jyu-eki) and victimized (jyu-ku) zones suggests that the manner in whichsuffering due to pollution, for example, is distributed determines the construction of the problem,
related decision making, and even the style of communication among the concerned parties.
Consider the pollution caused by the Shinkansen (“bullet train”) as an example. In contrast to
the victimized zone of the Shinkansen, which is highly focused and limited to the area alongside its
tracks, the benefit zone, those enjoying only its advantages, is shallowly but widely distributed
across the entire country of Japan (far reaching benefit zone vs. narrowly focused victimized zone).
This situation immediately presents us with the question, “Is it just to have a highly limited area295

experience serious suffering, so that the nation as a whole can enjoy the benefits?” The point here isthat when those in the benefit zone and the victimized zone are detached, a shared recognition of the
problem itself is difficult to achieve, making any resolution of the problem even more difficult.
Regardless of how much effort is made by the victims of Shinkansen noise pollution in joining
forces, launching a campaign, and demanding a resolution of their problems, their actions produce ashallow effect, leaving their suffering largely unacknowledged. In addition, decision-making at the
local government level ultimately leaves the people in the victimized zone fixed in a structurally
disadvantaged position as a minority, because such governmental jurisdictions and the distribution of
the suffering rarely overlap. The theory of benefit and victimized zones thus offers a subtle means tounderstand the difficulties in solving problems through the democratic decision-making systemdescribed above. As such it offers a tool which, on the one hand, allows us to recognize that
depending on the manner in which suffering is distributed, the very existence of a problem may be
hidden from those in the benefit zone, and the conditions for resolving the problem may be altered.
While on the other hand, this may itself provide us with the means for resolving the problem.
These characteristics of the theory draw our attention to the respective distributions of thebenefit and the victimized zones, and to the way in which they are distributed, but may obscure theactual factors involved in the suffering itself.

However, the theory makes clear that, in the case of

the Shinkansen, for example, the noise and vibration that disrupts or halts the watching of atelevision program or an ongoing conversation is itself the cause of significant suffering, more than
the actual decibel level of the noise. The description of suffering presented by the theory of benefit
and victimized zones thus offers an alternative viewpoint to that of the decibel supremacist; however,it must be acknowledged that its main interest lies in spatial and temporal configurations, and theconnection between benefit and victimization, rather than in describing the realities of suffering
itself.
(3) Uncovering the Logic Underlying Our Way of Life: Life Environmentalism
Life environmentalism, conceived of as a reference point for addressing environmental issues,
was formed by sociologists studying confrontations between governments and residents over public
works. The reference point implicit in life environmentalism is the entire horizon of the empiricalworld that is at the basis of ordinary people’s forms of life, and this enables us to perform analyses
based on the logic that preserves people’s way of life. Life environmentalism indicates not merely
the standpoint of the approach, but its methods as well.
At the site of an environmental problem, where there is a general tendency for the viewpoints of
the involved person and his/her society to be neglected, this logical structure aids in determining thevalidity and legitimacy of a given position of the ordinary person who has control over theenvironment. The two counter-positions addressed by the argument were natural environmentalism,
which claims that humans should have no impact on the natural environment, and modern
technicism, which holds that environmental problems will eventually be resolved throughtechnological means. When we look back on the modernization of Japan, in which public works
provided by central government offices had an enormous impact on local communities, it would296

appear that life environmentalism has been successful in exposing the reasons why residents and/or
ordinary people were able to oppose or support such public works, and had the right to voice theiropinions.
How then has life environmentalism described the actualities of suffering? As evidenced by the
careful and sustained fieldwork conducted in the area around Lake Biwa, the primary interest of life
environmentalism has been to uncover the methods devised and employed by ordinary people inorder to coexist with the environment. The strength of the approach appears to reside in recording
the local physical techniques employed in order to live and cope well given the local environmental
carrying capacity, more than in exploring the suffering hidden in the midst of real environmental
problems that involve serious bodily suffering. In other words, life environmentalism has attempted
to view developmental initiatives, such as public projects, from a relative perspective based on
ordinary peoples’ everyday lives.
(4) Dilemma as a Mechanism of Environmental Destruction: Social Dilemma Theory
Social dilemma theory approaches complex situations involving rational contradictions. In
terms of environmental problems, such rational contradictions are the mechanisms that cause thedegradation of the environment as each individual chooses the most rational course of action basedon his/her own self-interest. The origin of the argument lies in what Garrett HARDIN called “thetragedy of the commons.” What one thinks best for oneself, ultimately degrades one’s environment.
Whereas if one puts a priority on the environment, one may well end up looking like a fool. This is
the underlying dilemma in question. Although Hardin’s argument has been criticized, the social
dilemma theory based upon it is valuable in demonstrating that rational calculations and reasonable
judgments do not necessarily lead to behavior beneficial to the environment. Social dilemma theoryis important because it illuminates the structure of such a problem, which cannot be properly
understood or dealt with solely according to individuals’ moral judgment. For ordinary citizens therange of choice is limited, and they are often caught up in this environmental degradation
mechanism regardless of their intent.
Social dilemma theory has been developed and applied in a detailed empirical study on
consumer behavior, which proposed a new dilemma model called the offensive social dilemma
model that expands the concept of dilemma by borrowing ideas from the theory of benefit andvictimized zones, and refines the mathematical sociological model.
What has all this sophistication offered to social dilemma theory in terms of describing
suffering? Social dilemma theory has been developed to understand the mechanism that causes suchsuffering, rather than the suffering itself, and does so by presupposing the existence of a stable andunderstood concept of empirical suffering.
(5) Untangling the Task Sharing System: Commons Theory
Most would agree that the commons theory has recently been gaining support, as it elucidates
the task sharing system by which local residents cooperatively maintain and manage their naturalenvironment.

297

The root of “commons” lies in the historic land utilization structure in England. Included in thisconcept is both the traditional system of cooperative land management and utilization, and thenatural environment itself, which is utilized in the system. It may be said that the primary interest ofcommons theory is to study this cooperative task sharing system and to reveal how one can thereby
protect the natural environment. In this light, we may see that commons theory views the natural
world through the lens of ownership and management. In its descriptions of numerous actual
examples of local residents cooperatively managing land in various parts of the world, it explores thevarying concepts of ownership and the relationship between people and the land, emphasizing thatthe modern right of ownership is merely one such variation.
However, such a task sharing system does not appear out of nowhere or in accordance withsome pre-established harmony. It is achieved through often painstaking debate involving theweighing of values and consideration of whose rights are to be valued more than others. It alsocomes about after resolving difficult questions regarding publicness and legitimacy, questions
regarding what people deem to be the appropriate manner for the exercise of rights. For this reason,
it is easy to understand the expansion of commons theory into theories of publicness, legitimacy, andpolicy.
These characteristics of commons theory suggest also the manner in which the theory
approaches suffering. Its emphasis on the structure of task-sharing rather than suffering, and onunderstanding the nature of ownership rather than offence, defines both the theory and its
contributions. In terms of the classic distinction between the sociology of environmental problems
and the sociology of environmental coexistence, the commons theory is typically adopted more
frequently in the latter field.
(6) Restoring the Integrity of the Relationship: Social Linkages Theory
Social linkages theory, an important contribution of environmental ethics to environmentalsociology, must also be included in this list not only because of the theory’s theoretical contribution
to environmental sociology, but because in a sense it is a successor to life environmentalism.
To summarize, social linkages theory is a theoretical standpoint defined by the following
question: How can the integrity of the relationship between human society and the naturalenvironment be restored or renewed?
KITÔ Shûichi describes the relationship between mankind and nature using the concepts ofnama-mi and kiri-mi, which might be translated as an embodied and connected relationship(nama-mi), in contrast with a relationship that is fragmented, disconnected, and alienated or remotefrom nature (kiri-mi). Needless to say, the former implies integrity in the relationship. The latterdescribes the situation in which the network comprised of humankind’s societal and economic
linkages and cultural and religious linkages to nature is “fragmented and remote,” leaving humans
connected only to a small portion of nature, in a fundamentally incomplete relationship. Kitô, whofinds the partialness of and weakness in the relationships to be a source of environmental crises,
introduces a relational concept, the concept of the outsider. How might the disconnected andalienated body be restored through the mediation of an outsider? The concept of the outsider offers a298

viable viewpoint for examining issues concerning the preservation of nature.
As is evident in its idealized concepts of a nama-mi and kiri-mi, and in the way its argument is
so constructed as to fuse these concepts once again, the social linkages theory seems to say nothing
in regard to suffering itself. Yet, we should not be quick to perceive this as a shortcoming.
What Has Not Been Discussed
The theoretical standpoints and concepts incorporated into environmental sociology are notlimited to those described above3, but let us proceed nonetheless.
Our initial question was, “How has environmental sociology described suffering?” Thesummary of environmental sociology has provided us with a general picture permitting us to pose afurther question: What aspects of suffering have not been described by environmental sociology? Or,
what has been overlooked by environment sociology?
At the outset, it should be noted that there are few theoretical standpoints that directly question
what suffering actually is. Certainly, the theory of the social structures of suffering has questioned
what suffering is, by strongly contrasting environmental sociology with other academic fields. The
theory has undoubtedly suggested that much broader and more serious suffering exists, in fact, thanhas been indicated by medical diagnosis and the compensation system. Yet, such arguments as those
put forth by life environmentalism and the social dilemma theory seem more interested in exposing
the kinds of social relationships and structures that increase suffering, or make it difficult to be
alleviated—assuming the existence of a stable and understood concept of suffering—than in
examining actual suffering. This of course is a reflection of an inherent characteristic of sociology as
a study of social issues.
When we consider the realities of the period following the catastrophic earthquake in March2011 with an eye to the next probable disaster, we are confronted with the question, “Should we nothave pursued means that would allow us to discuss suffering itself much more vigorously?”
Let us first, for example, consider the problem of the sufferer’s unawareness of their own
suffering pointed out by Iijima (1984) and introduced above. What she tried to suggest was that amore important problem facing those who would unite and take action as sufferers is whether or not
such individuals consider themselves as sufferers; or in other words, whether or not they deem
themselves to belong to the victimized zone. If so, then who will determine whether a given region iswithin the victimized zone? Is this the responsibility of researchers, of the individuals themselves, orare there guidelines that can define it objectively? As we can see, when we rephrase the question andask who will determine whether or not a given region is within a beneficiary or victimized zone, thetheoretical difficulties latent in the model become apparent. This is a major point that must be
addressed if the otherwise lucid and cogent arguments of the benefit and victimized zones theory are
to be further refined. In addition, we are still waiting for explicit measures supporting a direct
investigation of suffering. Such measures may include the articulation of new concepts or new
3

Research on environmental movements and environmental justice, and the knowledge generated bysuch research, should not be omitted, but cannot be introduced here due to space limitations.

299

combinations of existing standpoints; the precise direction of such work is yet unknown, but the
obstacles before us are very clear.
Second, let us consider whether the theory of the social structures of suffering has been fully
developed. As noted earlier, the theory is typically evaluated as the first theoretical framework
proposed in Japanese environmental sociology, and is deemed a fully developed theory. But is it so?
Or, on the contrary, has it simply been left largely unchallenged and incompletely examined. Iijima
constructed her model using a compilation of case studies from the 1960s and 1970s, but these werebased on food poisoning, occupational accidents, and pollution problems. Later on, Iijima herself
attempted to adapt the concept of suffering to accommodate global environmental issues. However,possibly owing in part to her untimely death, it seems that the model has been largely left as it was,neither fully developed nor revised.
The work by IWASAKI Nobuhiko et al. (1999) is, for example, a valuable study produced after
the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster of 1995; but has environmental sociology truly
absorbed, learned from, and expanded on this study? Although we are witnessing new movements
arising, if we incorporate natural disasters such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as well as
incidents such as terrorist acts into the basis of the concept of suffering, what effect would this haveon the shape of the theory of the social structures of suffering? In addition, long-term study of theprocess of recovery from disasters is undoubtedly indispensable. Having endured the events andaftermath of 3/11, perhaps it is time for us to undertake a theoretical reexamination and renovation of
the theory of the social structures of suffering based on wide-ranging empirical knowledge gleaned
from different time periods. Environmental sociology has successfully developed a number of means
to describe suffering. However, even at such a time following the unprecedented suffering due to thetsunami and the catastrophic nuclear power accident it seems we still lack a truly adequate
understanding of suffering.
Third, we must consider whether we are still right to employ the offender - sufferer structure as
an underlying basis of environmental sociology. As discussed earlier, environmental sociology has
traditionally appealed to this model as a fundamental framework for inquiry. However, in the case ofsome environmental problems (e.g., noise pollution) the offender-sufferer relationship itself becomesthe focal point of debate. A damage claim stating that the sound of a piano is noise may well not be
understood at face value, but instead would most often lead to an endless and meaningless dispute.
What we see here is a dispute concerning whether or not an offender-sufferer relationship has been
established due to sound, and a serious conflict situation occurs even before reaching the stage ofdescribing the relevant realities of suffering. In short, what may be needed, more than analysis basedon some presupposed offender-sufferer relationship, is a viewpoint that allows us to reexamine thevery presumption of the offender-sufferer relationship itself. In this respect, it may be said thattheoretical standpoints such as those of life environmentalism and the social linkages theory haveconsiderable potential to describe phenomena that are poorly understood in terms of theoffender-sufferer relationship. If this is the case, then the relationship between these various theories
and the theory of the social structures of suffering should itself become the focus of more discussion.
Furthermore, the differences and similarities between such approaches and those that have not300

employed the term “suffering,” such as the sociology of historic environment preservation, should
also be examined.
Fourth, we must ask whether we, as environmental sociologists, have been sufficiently involvedin the issue of nuclear power and renewable energy. With regard to renewable energy and energy
policy, we have seen special feature articles published in Volume 8 of the Journal of Environmental
Sociology (2002), and have made efforts to deepen our discussion of these topics, as well as pursuing
dialogue with other academic fields. Studies have also been done on the issue of nuclear energy.
These are undoubtedly among the first studies that should be consulted when examining the 3/11
system and envisaging the future after 3/11.
Yet we seem unable to refrain from asking whether all this has been enough. Even with thewarnings emerging from the diligent academic efforts of these researchers, the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant accident could not be prevented. In this respect, it seems that the only means
for us to envisage what lies ahead after 3/11 is for us to become aware of our collective
responsibility for possessing more than 50 nuclear power plants in this country of Japan, which wasitself the first victim of nuclear bombings.

Contact Information
Office of the JAES
C/o University Coop Support Center
Attn: Mr. IDE Fujio
3-30-22 Wada, Suginami-ku, Tokyo, 166-8532, Japan
Telephone: +81 3 5307 1175
Facsimile: +81 3 5307 1196
Website: http://www.jaes.jp/jaes_en/
E-mails: office@jaes.jp (Office)irc@jaes.jp (International Relations Committee)

301