Urban Migrants and Hometown-Based Associations in Japan’s Urbanization
Manabu Ajisaka (Doshisha University Kyoto)
1. Introduction: Urban Migration and the Growing Urban Population
During the inter- and post-war periods of rapid economic growth in Japan, large
numbers of rural residents migrated to urban areas, mostly to metropolitan areas, cities
along the Pacific Belt Zone, or prefectural capitals.
Excluding the period during WWII, the Japanese population continuously increased
from the Meiji Restoration in 1868 to the early 21st century. In 1872, the population ofJapan was about 34.8 million (Hayami, 1992). According to the 2010 census report(Statistics Bureau, 2011), the population of Japan grew from approximately 56 million in1920 to approximately 128 million in 2010. This means that by 2010, the Japanese
population had more than doubled since 1920, the date of the first census, and nearlyquadrupled since 1872. The growth in total population was accompanied by a substantial
increase in the urban population. However, the rural population remained static, hoveringin the range of 45 million during the pre-war era, and around 30 million during the postwar era (see Table 1). 1

1Japan has a relatively low number of foreign residents compared with other countries. In
2012, there were approximately 530,000 Korean and 650,000 Chinese residents from among a
total of approximately 2.03 million foreign residents of Japan, which represents only about two
percent of the total population.
1

Table 1. Trends in resident population of urban and rural areas in Japan, 1920-2010 （Based on Census figures）
Population Distribution
Densely inhabited districts（DIDｓ）
Population
Total population
Urban area
ratio inYear
Towns and
Population Population Area ratio（thousands）
Citiesurban area ratio（％） （thousands）（％）
ratio（％）
villages
（％）

1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010

55,96359,73764,45069,254
73,114
71,998
84,11590,077
94,302
99,209104,665
111,940
117,060
121,049
123,611
125,570
126,926
127,768
128,057

10,097
12,897
15,444
22,666
27,57820,022
31,36650,532
59,67867,35675,42984,96789,18792,88995,64498,00999,865110,264
116,157

45,866
46,84049,006
46,58845,53751,97652,74939,544
34,62231,85329,237
26,972
27,87328,16027,96827,561
27,061
17,504
11,901

18.0
21.6
24.0
32.7
37.7
27.8
37.3
56.1
63.3
67.9
72.1
75.9
76.2
76.7
77.4
78.1
78.7
86.3
90.7

0.4
0.6
0.8
1.3
2.3
3.9
5.3
18.0
22.0
23.5
25.3
27.1
27.2
27.3
27.5
27.8
28.1
48.1
57.2

40,83047,261
55,997
63,82369,93573,34478,152
81,25582,81084,331
86,121

43.7
48.1
53.5
57.0
59.7
60.6
63.2
64.7
65.2
66.0
67.3

Urban migration from 1868 to early 21st century caused a substantial increase in theurban population of Japan. In addition to the natural growth of the urban population, large
numbers of rural residents from farming and fishing towns and villages, suburban areas,
and Japanese colonies on the Korean peninsula moved to metropolitan areas, provincial
capitals (such as prefectural capitals), newly developing urban centers such as port cities,
and industrial areas such as mining cities (Machimura, 1990). 2
Even after the beginning of Japanese modernization, relatively few foreigners,
including those in Japanese colonies, migrated to Japan. Even though the number of
migrants from Japanese colonies on the Korean peninsula had increased since1910, theforeign population in Japan was only approximately two million in 1945 (toward the endof WWII), which represented only about three percent of the total population in Japan.

2

Care should be taken in defining town and village areas (countryside) as “villages” and city
areas as “urban areas” because some rural regions were merged to form cities as a result of the
Act for the Promotion of Merger of Towns and Villages in 1953. Since 1960, the concept of adensely inhabited district (DID) has been used as a statistical measure. Moreover, the merging
of towns and villages into cities that began around 2000 started to make it more difficult for
urban areas to be referred to simply as “urban cities.”
2

1.0
1.2
1.7
2.2
2.7
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.4

Even if the number of migrants from Taiwan (under Japanese rule), mainland China, andWestern countries were included, the ratio of foreigners in Japan was less than three
percent. 3
Referring to census records between 1920 and 1970, Kuroda (1979) characterizedhistorical changes in internal migration in 13 regional blocks (See Table 2, Figure 1). As
shown in Table 2, only two regions—Minami-Kanto (Tokyo area) and Keihanshin (Osakaarea)—had a consistent increase in population. During the pre-war period from 1920 to
1940, the populations of Minami-Kanto and Keihanshin increased by 2.59 and 2.12
million residents, respectively, while during the post-war era from 1947 to 1970, theserespective populations increased by 6.23 and 3.21 million. In addition, the population of
the pre-war Tokai area (Nagoya area) began to increase after 1960. As shown in Table 2,with the exception of wartime, the rural population mostly decreased during this period.
During the period of modernization starting in 1868, the Japanese population wasconcentrated in Tokyo and Osaka, which created a polarizing pattern in urban migration.
After the war, population growth in the Tokyo area was almost double that of Osaka,making Tokyo area a demographic center of Japanese population.

3

Substantial numbers of residents migrated during the pre-war era. Before the pre-war era,most residents migrated to Hokkaido, followed by Hawaii, North America, South America, theKorean Peninsula, Taiwan, south Sakhalin, northeast China (formerly Manchuria), and other
Asian countries (Araragi, 2008). Care should therefore be taken not to limit migration tointernal migration from rural to urban areas.
3

4This post-war influx of population to metropolitan areas, however, decreased rapidly
after 1970 in the midst of rapid economic growth (See Figure 2). During the 1980s, only
the population of the Tokyo area increased, while that of Nagoya stagnated and that of
Osaka decreased. Furthermore, the number of urban migrants declined. This indicates
that, after the 1980s, migration from city to city and within the same urban area becamea major factor of the increase in the urban population. According to Namiki (1960),
Honda (1950), and Nojiri (1942), the majority of rural migrants who moved to urban areas
during the pre-war era were farmers. Approximately 8 million people left theirvillages and moved to urban areas between 1920 and 1940,
influx of about 400,000.

2. Urban Migrants and Hometown-Based Associations
5

farming

representing an annual

(1) Internal migration for the purpose of education and employment
Rural residents decided to move to urban areas for two major reasons: education andemployment. However, these choices were affected by socioeconomic class. For example,
during the pre-war era, a considerable number of the children of rural corporate managers,
self-employed business owners, and landowners in provincial towns migrated to Tokyo,
the Keihanshin area, or prefectural capitals in pursuit of better educational opportunities.
Then, after graduation, they used their improved educational backgrounds to become
white-collar workers in private firms, civil-service workers, bureaucrats or teachers inmetropolitan areas or prefectural capitals. The migrants who pursued higher education in
urban areas placed importance on the relationships they built as alumni of the sameschools to create social ties in the cities in which they now resided.
On the other hand, during the same period, many children (second sons, third sons,and daughters) of poor farmers (tenant farmers in particular) or those of small businessapprentices and laborers, moved out of their rural hometowns in pursuit of urban
employment. They migrated to the metropolitan areas and suburbs that had thriving
mining and manufacturing industries, where they were hired by small business owners or
self-employed business owners as apprentices or workers in back-alley tenements (a premodern type of employment relationship), or became miners or factory workers. Thesemigrants therefore transferred the socioeconomic status that they had had in their villages
directly to the cities.

(2) Formation of urban hometown-based associations/do-kyo-kai
During the pre-war era and soon after wartime, urban migrants sought employment
through agents who circulated around rural towns, or used the “connections” that they6

had acquired through kinship or relationships with others from the same hometown who
had already lived in urban areas. During the pre-war period, many urban migrants
regarded their urban lives as a temporary settlement, and therefore transferred theirhometown networks to urban areas.
The networks that they maintained from their hometowns became the foundation of
hometown-based associations. Migrants depended on the relationships that they had
cultivated in their hometowns to survive the labors and severe living conditions of thecities. When urban migration began, social welfare (the Homen-Iin/Minsei-Jido-Iin
system, 4 welfare system, etc.) and regional policies (such as the formation of health
unions or neighborhood associations through which neighbors could mutually support
one another) were still underdeveloped, and labor movements had yet to be established.
Therefore, it seems reasonable that these migrants sought to maintain their livelihoods byrelying on support from relatives and individuals from the same provincial towns. As aresult, hometown-based associations were founded in urban areas to create and maintainnetworks or ties among individuals from the same towns or in the same ethnic groups.
So-called “do-kyo-kai,” “kyoyukai,” or “kyotou” became the center of these networks,
with influential people who had migrated earlier as the core of these groups. These were
the ones who transferred local cultural characteristics, behavioral patterns, and groupformation patterns to the cities (Dore, 1962). Using such networks, they mutually assisted
one another to sustain their urban lives.

4“Homen-Iin” and “Minsei-Jido-Iin” are regional social welfare organizations that werecreated by Japanese government. “Homen-Iin” was created during the pre-war era, and “MinseiJido-Iin” was created in the post-war period. Influential residents of the region were appointed
to provide welfare services such as giving aid to the poor.
7(3) Early aspects of hometown-based associations and kenjinkai
From my perspective, most of the hometown-based associations (do-kyo-kai)organized before the late 1890s (Meiji 30s) were established by former samurai or
wealthy merchants who migrated to Tokyo or Osaka. Most of these members were
influential individuals who lived in former provinces or county areas. The majority ofthese individuals were alumni of “middle schools” that originated from old province
feudal schools. They formed associations in the metropolitan areas such as Tokyo, Osaka,
Kyoto or prefectural capitals, where they established contact with those from the same
hometown who had migrated to the cities to pursue higher education. In some cases, inaddition to regular acceptance procedures, associations accepted those who had returnedto their hometowns and those who had remained in neighboring cities. Whether they lived
in a metropolitan area or had returned to their hometown, these members made up a groupof local notables and “elites.” In some cases, these groups came together and became acore organization of each kenjinkai 5(Sofue, 1971).
Kenjinkai probably have a longer history than do-kyo-kai. It is estimated that kenjinkai
were first formed sometime during the early and mid-Meiji period. In most cases, local
elites were the central figures of these associations. Based on their love for the prefectureor old province in which they were raised, they provided a variety of resources tokenjinkai. The following events were held or organized at kenjinkai: social gatherings
such as general assemblies and end-of-year parties; publishing newsletters; preparing
food and local products for festivals and fairs; and cheering for hometown teams during
koshien (high school baseball tournaments) and national ekiden (marathon relay races).
At present, kenjinkai suffer from declining participation among young and middle-age
5Kenjinkai are the associations organized by the people from the same prefecture.
8

fellows. On the other hand, they have strengthened their relationships with prefectural
governments through the One Village One Product movement, and thereby provide
support for their home prefectures. In addition, each kenjinkai implemented support
activities in the prefectures affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 2011.
According to my research, no to/fu/kenjinkai were organized by those from themetropolitan areas such as Tokyo, Kanagawa, Aichi, Osaka, Kyoto, and Hyogo.
These kenjinkai cooperate with do-kyo-kai in a variety of ways. Some kenjinkai anddo-kyo-kai are formally grouped together as umbrella or wing organizations. Yet, there
are other do-kyo-kai that operate independently without any ties to kenjinkai. Even if dokyo-kai are associated with kenjinkai, they are seemingly involved with each other only
structurally or just for the record. In actuality, they maintain their own independent
operation procedures with a strong sense of attachment to particular hometown
municipalities. Above all, do-kyo-kai have smaller, much more complicated structuresthat consist of closely connected individuals, and have particularly active participation
among women, children, and elderly people. Do-kyo-kai are therefore based onsurrounding living and work environments, blood ties, and neighboring villages (mura).
Michiharu Matsumoto, the first to study hometown-based associations on a full scale,observed that do-kyo-kai or kyoyukai are formed by villagers as an archetype ofhometown-based associations (Matsumoto, 1994). 6(4) Hometown-based associations (do-kyo-kai=dokyodantai) after the formation ofmodern cities
6

In addition, elementary and middle school reunions (in the case of rural areas, high school
reunions) served as a part of the network among those from the same region, and their members
would overlap. In these reunions, there was no gender gap between women and men; women
would lead the conduct of general events, including class gatherings, while middle-aged orelderly men were more likely to become board members of the reunions of long-establishedhigh schools.
9 Activities of hometown-based associations
These hometown-based associations were primarily organized by influential people
who migrated earlier and settled in the cities. Do-kyo-kai served four major functions fornewcomers. First, they provided accommodations (rental rooms or referrals to rental
houses, etc.) for their fellow migrants from the same hometown. Second, they assisted infinding employment for their fellows. Third, they mutually supported each other by
providing living expenses and the wherewithal to start their own businesses by consultingwith each other about personal affairs or by matchmaking with potential partners. Fourth,they organized socials under the name of New Year’s parties, general assemblies, cherry
blossom viewings, or sports days. Do-kyo-kai ranged in size from more than a dozen to
over 1,000 members, but most comprised up to about 300 members, including spouses
and children.
As associations became more organized, some groups began to issue newsletters,commemorative journals, and mailing lists, plan small overnight bus/train tours, andorganize trips to visit their hometowns. Some groups made donations to their hometowns;
for instance, they would donate to Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines in theirhometowns, provide equipment to local assembly houses, or donate books and musicalinstruments (piano and brass band instruments) to local elementary and junior highschools. They therefore have become very reliable associations to provide for their homecities, towns, and villages.
 Categories of hometown-based associations
These hometown-based associations can be divided into four categories according to
the members’ residence status (whether they live collectively in a particular community
in the city, or dispersed throughout the city) and the types of members’ occupations10

(whether they work in specific industry or have various career types) as follows:i. Collective Living—Different Type of Occupations (This type was the majority at theearly stage of do-kyo-kai development)
ii. Collective Living—Specific Occupations (For example, industries related to Nishijin
Textiles in Kyoto city, and wholesale and retail kimono industries located in Nihonbashi,
Chuo-ku, Tokyo)
iii. Dispersed Living—Different Types of Occupations (More likely, this can be applied
to do-kyo-kai that have been established for 10–20 years)
iv. Dispersed Living—Specific Occupations (bathhouses, tofu producers and sellers, andmilk dealers in Osaka and Kyoto, and bathhouses and restaurants in Tokyo, etc.)

3. Previous Studies on Hometown-Based Associations(1) The discovery of the networks created by the people from the same hometown inurban city
During the pre-war era, Yanagita (1929 [1998]) referred to these associations as “kyoyu-kai”, while Aruga (1929 [1971]) referred to them as “kyo-to” and Miyamoto (1984) as“kyodojinkai.” Many scholars regarded hometown-based associations as uniquely
characteristic of urban formation in Japan. However, sociologists and social scientists had
not fully treated hometown-based associations as the subject of their research. It was only
after Kamishima (1961) pointed out the formation of fictional “second villages” during
the process of modernization in Japan that hometown-based associations became thesubject of attention in the social sciences. However, little empirical research was
conducted by social scientists, including Kamishima. Only Sofue (1971) included
empirical evidence on kenjinkai.
11

(2) Matsumoto’s field research on hometown-based associations and towns and villages
in JapanMichiharu Matsumoto, who conducted a sociological study on farming villages andregional communities, came to know “kyoto toga kyoyu-kai” while he was conducting
fieldwork in Nishijin, Kyoto city, during the 1960s. “Kyoto toga kyoyu-kai” was a dokyo-kai organized by twine makers 7 in Nishijin who came from Toga village in Toyama
Prefecture in the pre-war period. After relocating to Kyoto to work for the Nishijin
brocade industry, they mutually supported and encouraged each other, living in a remotearea far from their home village. For example, they built a common grave in Otani
Hombyo in 1933 (Showa 8) and held a joint memorial service (Photo 1). They formed“kyoto toga kyoyu-kai” in 1949, soon after the war ended, as a result of their activities
over those years. Several years later, their community network started to look like a virtual“village” in the urban city, as they built a community hall (named “Toga Kyoyu Kaikan”;
Photo 2) and issued newsletters. Furthermore, they maintained a close relationship withthe residents of their hometown and Toga village’s administration by occasionally visiting
Toyama as a group of natives from Toga village.

7

This is the industry in which twine is strung into certain thicknesses for use in woven goods.
12

Photo 1: Common grave in Otani Hombyo

Photo 2: Toga Kyoyu Kaikan in Nishijin Kyoto

13

Photo 3: Traditional dance in Toga Kyoyu Kaikan

In the early 1980s, under the direction of Matsumoto, “Toshi Iju Kenkyukai (TheStudy Group for Urban Migration)” was formed. The members of this group, including
myself, conducted field studies on groups of residents of Amagasaki, Hyogo, who had
migrated from the Kokishima Islands, Kagoshima Prefecture. We divided the subjects
into small units according to the settlements of their origin, and collected data on theirhome settlements in the Kokishima Islands in the East China Sea, and the government
office of the administrative village. Through this study, we discovered that the residents
of 14 settlements in the Kokishima Islands had formed hometown-based associations
according to their home settlements in metropolitan areas—Keihanshin and the Tokyo
area—to promote friendship within groups and offer mutual support for sustainable living
within those cities.
With this result in mind, in 1984, Matsumoto conducted a nationwide postal

14

questionnaire survey of 2,604 administrative governments of towns and villages toinquire about hometown-based associations (do-kyo-kai) formed by natives in the cities
they migrated to. Based on the results (response rate: 52.8%), he found that 43.9% of thelocal government offices acknowledged the existence of hometown-based associations,
whether they were based in settlements, in administrative towns or villages, or in othercommunities, created by migrants in the cities that they moved to. Through thisinvestigation, Matsumoto also identified 990 existing do-kyo-kai nationwide.
Matsumoto (1994) also conducted a questionnaire survey on do-kyo-kai board
members, receiving responses from 518 groups out of 990 groups.

4. Nationwide Survey on Hometown-based Associations(1) Research background
Following Matsumoto’s research on town and village administrations throughout
Japan, I performed a questionnaire survey on 3,250 administrative governments of thecities, wards, towns, and villages (including the wards of Tokyo) throughout Japan
starting in 1995. The objectives of this research were as follows:
1. By including city and ward offices as the targets of my research, I aimed to reveal
whether hometown-based associations exist in city areas that were formed by merging
surrounding villages into the city during the period between 1953 and 1955 as a result of
the Act for the Promotion of Merger of Towns and Villages.
2. To delineate the condition of do-kyo-kai after the end of the rapid economic growthfrom that of the bubble economy period, which saw a rapid decrease in the urban
migration and a decline in employment for urban migrants.
I received responses from more than 80% of the administrative governments
15

nationwide.

(2) Regional and spatial distributions of hometown-based associations
I conducted a nationwide postal questionnaire survey on 3,255 municipal
governments (every government, including the 23 special ward offices of Tokyo,
excluding northern territories) of cities, wards, towns and villages (hereafter nationwide
survey) from the summer of 1995 to the fall of 1997. 8 A total of 2,654 governments(response rate: 81.5%) responded. Based on an analysis of the results, 41.5% of municipal
offices (city area: 30.2%; town and village area: 44.6%) knew of the presence of
hometown-based associations from their area. This result indicates that, while themajority of migrants from towns and villages founded do-kyo-kai (44.6%), more than
30% of migrants from the city also formed do-kyo-kai in the metropolitan cities that theymigrated to. The reasons why those from the city established do-kyo-kai may be explainedby the fact that some former villages and towns were merged to form cities. Moreover, inthe case of provincial cities, it can be said that the natives of those cities nurtured strong
networks among the people from the same areas. A total of 1,924 do-kyo-kai wereidentified, only including the response from the cities, towns, and villages (excluding
wards). When investigated in greater detail, 25 do-kyo-kai were formed across multiple
regions (59 municipal offices had multiple answers). Since 34 of the same do-kyo-kai had
multiple offices, it can be suspected that 1,890 do-kyo-kai existed during the period of mysurvey.

8Here I referred to the most recent version of Zenkoku Shi Cho Son Yoran [Directory of Cities,
Towns, and Villages in Japan], which is published annually, every time I sent out questionnaires.
I have conducted this research for over 2 years, and during that time, some municipalities havemerged. Within these 2 years, the number of cities and towns increased by three, while thenumber of villages decreased by six.
16

There are regional tendencies for the formation of do-kyo-kai. According to this study,
natives from Hokkaido, Tohoku (except Aomori), Shinetsu, Hokuriku, and particularprefectures, including Shimane of Chugoku, Kochi of Shikoku, and multiple prefecturesof Minami-Kyushu have a high rate of establishing do-kyo-kai (See Figure 3 and Ajisaka,2009). Upon a close investigation of the population size of the municipalities, it is more
likely that regions designated as depopulated areas 9 have a higher percentage of do-kyokai. According to the survey, 62.7% of do-kyo-kai were formed by natives fromdesignated depopulated areas such as farming villages, while 29.9% were established bythose from non-designated areas. Nonetheless, it should be noted that about 30% of dokyo-kai were formed by natives of non-designated depopulated areas.

9

The national government characterizes depopulated areas as follows: 1) a significant decline
in the population; 2) the population of elderly citizens exceeds that of the youth; and 3) weakfinancial capabilities. These designated depopulated municipalities are able to receive
preferential financial treatment.
17

There seem to be a greater number of hometown-based associations than previously
expected throughout Japan, as suggested by the results from Matsumoto’s survey, mystudy on Niigata natives, Ishihara’s (1986) research on residents of Naha and the Yaeyama
region of Okinawa Prefecture, and the survey conducted by Sapporo Educational
Committee (Sapporo Kyoiku Iinkai Bunka Shiryo Shitsu, 1990). My postal questionnaire
survey was limited because there were some cases in which the respondents simply did
not acknowledge whether their former residents had founded a do-kyo-kai in the places
they migrated to.
While there are provincial differences among members, more do-kyo-kai are18

established in the Tokyo area, Keihanshin, and prefectural capitals (See Figure 4, Table3). My survey revealed that 1,890 do-kyo-kai currently exist throughout Japan, distributed
as follows: 944 in the Tokyo area; 326 in Keihanshin; and 67 in the Nagoya area.
Regarding rural cities, there are 131 in the Sapporo area, 34 in Hiroshima, 26 in Sendai,
23 in Kagoshima, and more than 10 each in the cities of Kochi, Fukuoka, Naha,
Takamatsu, Nagasaki, and Kumamoto. Furthermore, some do-kyo-kai were established insmall- and medium-size cities or towns, or even overseas, including the United States.

19

There are a number of cases in which the same natives from the same homemunicipalities organized associations across multiple metropolitan areas. As illustrated inTable 4, migrants from towns and villages in Hokkaido and those from cities, towns, andvillages in Tohoku, Koshinetsu mainly established do-kyo-kai in the Tokyo area andprefectural capitals. This shows that they have two main bases for associations. The
Nagoya area, which is included in “Other,” has the highest number of established do-kyokai in the Tokai region. The migrants from the city of Hokkaido; the cities, towns, andvillages of Hokuriku, Kinki, and Chugoku; the towns and villages of Shikoku; and thecities, towns, and villages of Kyushu, Okinawa, having three bases for their activities, aremore likely to form do-kyo-kai in the Tokyo area, Keihanshin area, and prefectural
capitals,. In addition, it is very interesting to note that the people from towns and villagesin Hokkaido, Tohoku, Koshinetsu, and Kyushu established do-kyo-kai in main suburbs as
opposed to those mentioned previously.

20

5. Conclusion
Based on the results of my survey, I have explained the circumstances surrounding
the establishment and existence of do-kyo-kai. According to my analysis, it can be said
that, for urban migrants from rural areas, particularly those who migrated in pursuit of
employment while maintaining networks from their hometowns, the do-kyo-kaifunctioned as their “incubator” and “rhizome” to enable them to survive and smoothly
settle into their urban lives. Using Matsumoto’s survey as a reference, the results of this21

study confirmed the universal existence of hometown-based associations. This survey
also confirmed that many associations were founded during the later period of rapid
economic growth in Japan, and that such groups were increasingly active during the 1970s
and 1980s. This finding indicates that, in some aspects, the networks between the people
from the same hometown were actually strengthened, not weakened, in urban settings. It
also seems that, in addition to participating in do-kyo-kai, these individuals had a variety
of other neighborly relationships in their cities of residence, such as workplace and local
community networks. It is therefore inferable that their experiences with do-kyo-kai or
kenjinkai had some impact on their activities or on the way they related to neighboring
communities and established occupational relationships.
As my later research shows, substantially more natives from rural areas have founded
hometown-based associations. Furthermore, it is clear that almost all of the prefectural
kenjinkai and their head offices are located in Tokyo and Osaka. However, it is also truethat an increasing number of hometown-based associations are becoming inactive. This
is not only because the number of migrants from rural areas has declined, but also becauseof the aging of the original members and the fewer numbers of second and third
generation migrants that participate in such associations.
In addition, due to the large number of towns and villages that were merged into cities
since 1999, the 3,255 cities, wards, towns, and villages that existed in April 1995 weremore than halved to 1,700 by March 2015. In particular, a rural exodus created anincreasing number of marginal villages (Ajisaka 2011, 2012), and, as a result of mergers,
the number of villages and towns that sent many urban migrants into the cities to form
hometown-based associations decreased substantially. Cities therefore became broad
municipalities that included large numbers of former villages, and many do-kyo-kai
22founded during the Showa era became detached from the settlements, villages, or townsof their origin. On the other hand, urban residents who are from the areas affected by theGreat East Japan Earthquakes actively gave assistance to their hometowns and villages.
This indicated that some do-kyo-kai networks still function and remain active, despite thedifficulties that they face.
In addition, a study on foreign residents and visitors in Japan (Ijichi, 2000) revealed
the presence of do-kyo-kai or so-shin-kai actively run by Korean residents in the Osaka
area, and that people of Chinese origin in Japan maintain similar networks led by elder
Chinese residents.
Furthermore, as Matsuda (1996), Tanada (1999), Onai (2009) and Ijichi (2000) haverevealed, new foreign immigrants, including Chinese, Korean, people of African descent,Japanese Brazilians, and Peruvians, for instance, also create networks and ethnic businessamong those from the same community. The study on hometown-based associations cantherefore be associated with ethnic studies, in addition to existing studies that describe
the relationships between migration and settlement and urban cities and ruralmunicipalities.
The presence of hometown-based association and the creation of networks among
these urban migrants can provide different perspectives regarding the process ofurbanization and the creation of a modern urban society. That is to say, the formation of
do-kyo-kai and the maintenance of strong networks of people from the same hometowns
in urban areas can provide new and complex perspectives to existing theories of urbanism
by Chicago school scholars such as Louis Wirth, who claims that urbanity and the urban
style of living only has a one-sided influence on rural areas, and that in the urban setting,secondary relationships substitute for primary relationships, leading to the breaking down23

of communities.
The formation of hometown-based associations and their maintenance of community
relationships are not unique in Japanese urban society. Similar networks are also found in
the United States. As Whyte (1943) pointed out, Little Italy in the Boston area continues
to hold traditional festivals in reference to their hometowns. As Gans (1962) illustrates,
residents of the Boston area who came from southern Italy also maintain networks basedon their place of origin. In addition, Hareven (1982) delineates the way people fromfarming villages of New England relied on those from the same hometown. They usedthe community to interact with people of the same origin, exchange knowledge forsurvival in the urban setting, and mutually assist each other in solving problems they
faced with their families and jobs as factory laborers. In his recent study, Levitt (2001)
referred to migrants who maintain their connection to their country of origin as“transnational villagers.” There are also many cases in Paris in which people from thesame hometown engage in the same business, such as restaurants and cafés, and form
associations similar to do-kyo-kai and kenjinkai (Girard, 1979).
In conclusion, by clarifying these situations, I seek to revise the Chicago School thesis
arguing that “lives in urban society are spatially cohesive but socially remote.” In contrast,
I argue that “lives in urban society are spatially cohesive but inclined to be remote.
However, in urban society, people also form new networks, including personal
relationships that migrants maintain from their hometowns, to survive the urban
environment.” That is to say, urban cities and rural villages are interrelated and mutuallyassimilate each other in the course of modern urbanization.

References
24

Ajisaka, Manabu. 2005, Toshi Dokyo Dantai no Kenkyu [A Study of Hometown-based
Association in Urban City], Kyoto: Horitsu Bunka Sha.
――――. 2009, Toshi Ijyu Sha no Syakaigaku teki Kenkyu [Sociological Study of Urban
Migrants] (Toshi Dokyo Dantai no Kenkyu, Zoho Kaidai [A Study ofHometown-based Association in Urban City, enlarged with the new title],
Kyoto: Horitsu Bunka Sha.
――――. 2011, “Toshi tono Tsunagari ga Nosangyoson wo Ikasu [The Relationship with
the Urban City Brings Advantages to Rural Villages],” Chiiki Syakai Gakkai
Nenpo 23: 35-52.
Araragi, Shinzo. 2008, Nihon Teikoku wo Meguru Jinko Ido no Kokusai Syakai Gaku
[Migration and Repatriation: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire], Tokyo:
Fuji Shuppan.
Dore, R. P. 1958 (1962), Toshi no Nihon Jin [City Life in Japan], Trans. Tetsundo
Tsukamoto and Kazuo Aoi. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Gans, H. J. 1962, The Urban Villagers, New York: The Free Press.
Girard, R. 1979, Quand les Auvergnats Partaient Conquerir Paris: Fayard.
Hareven, T. K. 1982, Family Time and Industrial Time, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hayami, Akira ed. 1992, Kokusei Chosa Izen Nihon Jinko Tokei Syusei [Corpus ofJapanese Population Statistics before the Census], Tokyo: Hara Shobo.
Ijichi, Noriko. 2000, Seikatsu Sekai no Sozo to Jissen—Kankoku Jeju To no Seikatsu Shi
Kara [Creation and Practice of Living World—through Living History of Jeju
Island, Korea] Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobo.
Ishihara, Masaie. 1986, Kyo-yu-kai Syakai—Toshi no Naka no Mura [Kyo-yu-kai
Society—Villages within Urban Society], Naha: Hirugi Sha.
Kamishima, Jiro. 1961, Kindai Nihon no Seishin Kozo [Mental Structure of Modern
Japan], Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kuroda, Toshio. 1979, Nihon Jinko no Tenkan Kozo (Zoho ban) [Japan’s Changing
Population Structure, (Enlarged ver.)], Tokyo: Kokon Shoin.
Levitt, P. 2001, The Transnational Villagers, Los Angeles, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Machimura, Takashi. 1990, “Kindai Nihon ni Okeru Toshi Hendo no Ruikei to Youin[Typology and Factors of Urban Change in Modern Japan]” In Gendai Toshi no
Syakai Kozo [Social Structure of Modern City] ed. Yuetsu Takahashi, Okayama:
Gakubun Sha.
Matsuda, Motoji. 1996, Toshi wo kainarasu—Afurika no toshijinruigaku [Taiming Cities:
25

Urban Anthropology of Africa], Tokyo: Kawade Shobo Shinsha.
Matsumoto, Michiharu. 1968, “Nishijin Kigyo no Chiiki Seikatsu—Toku ni Nishijin
Kigyo wo Kitei suru Chiiki Seikatsu no Tokushitsu ni tsuite [Community Lifeof Nishijin Industry—About Characteristics of Community Life that Defines
Nishijin Industry in Particular]” Jinbungaku 109: 1-31.
――――. 1970, “Toshi ni Okeru Gisei Son no Mondai—Sono Yobiteki Kosatsu[Problem about Fictional Village in Urban City—Preliminary Study],” Hyoron・
Syakaikagaku 1: 34-58.
――――. 1994, “Toshi Ijyu to Kessetsu [Urban Migration and Networks],” In Toshi Ijyu
no Syakai Gaku [Sociology of Urban Migration] eds. Matsumoto Michiharu
and Maruki Keisuke, Kyoto: Sekai Shiso Sha.
Miyamoto, Tsuneichi. 1984, Miyamoto Tsuneichi Chosaku Shu [Collection of Writings
by Tsuneichi Miyamoto], Vol. 30. Tokyo: Mirai Sha.
Namiki, Masayoshi. 1960, Noson ha Kawaru [Farming Villages are in Transformation],
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Nojiri, Shigeo. 1942 (1978), Noson Rison no Jissho teki Kenkyu [Empirical Study ofRural Exodus] Reprint. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Onai, Toru ed., 2009. Nikkei Burazilujin no Rodo to Seikatsu [Japanese Brazilian’s Laborand Life], Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobo.
Sapporo shi Kyoiku Iinkai Bunka Shiryo Shitsu ed. 1990, Sapporo Bunko 54 Kenjinkai
Monogatari [Sapporo library 54 Kenjinkai Story], Sapporo: Hokkaido Shinbun
Sha.
Sofue, Takao. 1971, Kenjinkai to Kenminsei [Kenjinkai and Kenminsei], Tokyo: Asahi
Shinbun Sha.
Statistics Bureau, 2011, Population Census 2010
Tanada, Hirofumi. 1999, Afurika no Toshishakai [Urban Society in Egypt], Tokyo:
Waseda Daigaku Syuppan Kai.
Whyte, W.F. 1943, Street Corner Society, University of Chicago Press.

26