Ethnic Community Studies in Japan: Current Topics and a Conceptual Framework
Yasuo Hirota

This paper aims to shed light on the emergence of a new problematic phase of living together
as a contemporary topic within the study of ethnic communities. It also presents a current
methodology for this topic. The paper reveals that this new phase of living together, which is associatedwith the emergence of a new type of identity, originates from immigrants and not with the receiving
community. Thus, the concerns of immigrants in Japan have reached a new developmental stage.
In the first section of the paper, I review the brief history of ethnic community studies in Japan.
I identify early characteristic themes in this field and assess its current status. In the second section,
I develop a conceptual framework for contemporary research on ethnic communities. In this section, I
elucidate the significance of a transnational community perspective and the concept of place-making.
In the third section, I present two case studies. The first focuses on the movement to live together,
initiated in Oizumi Town, Gunma Prefecture in Japan. I examine the role of returnees in thismovement and the emergence of a new generational identity related to nativism. The second casestudy is of Koreatown in Okubo District, which is located in Tokyo’s Shinjuku Ward. Here, I examine
processes of place-making among newcomers and their efforts to live together. Lastly, I discuss the
new type of identity that is evolving and concerns raised by the current phase of living together.

1. Introduction: Changing Topics in Ethnic Community Studies in Japan
1.1. The Beginnings of Ethnic Community Studies in Japan
Following the amendment of the Immigration Control Law in 1990, the Japanese government began
inviting individuals of Japanese descent residing in foreign countries to come to Japan as part-time workers.
These workers were issued “settlement visas,” making them the first foreign workers to be given this legal
status. But since that time, the Japanese government has not specified reception conditions for immigrants.
In addition to these part-time workers of Japanese descent (called Nikkeizin), a flow of newcomers from China

and other Asian countries, issued trainee or tourist visas, began to enter Japan. In addition to establishedresidents of Korean and Chinese origin living in Japan, the number of foreign nationals rapidly grew to overtwo million. Around this time, economists, sociologists, journalists, and local government officials began to pay
attention to this issue. This period marked the beginning of ethnic studies as an academic field in Japan. For
example, economists and sociologists began to examine theories pertaining to migrant workers, focusing on
international labor turnover (Kajita 1988; Momose and Ogura 1992; Kajita and Iyotani 1993). With evolving
co-ethnic or multi-ethnic networks and communities formed by these newcomers within many Japanesedistricts (e.g., the new Chinatown in Ikebukuro in Toshima Ward and Koreatown in Okubo District in Tokyo’s
Shinjuku Ward), and in many other Japanese prefectures, urban and regional sociologists began to study the
problems that foreign residents encounter within these communities. In particular, Okuda and Tajima’s study1

on communities in the city of Ikebukuro and in Okubo District are widely known (Okuda and Tajima 1991,
1993). Although their research focused on newcomers as foreign residents, it unfolded following theestablishment of ethnic community studies.
In fact, the research conducted by Okuda and Tajima prompted several studies of ethnic communities
within urban regional studies. Examples of these studies include the formation of the Japanese Brazilian
ethnic network, everyday practices relating to the problem of living together in Ushioda District in Yokohama’s
Turumi Ward, and problems that immigrant children encounter in Oizumi and other Districts (Hirota 1997,
2003; Fujiwara 1998). Other examples include a study on issues relating to Japanese and Japanese Brazilian
residents of the Homi housing complex in Aichi Prefecture (Tsuzuki 1998), and a study on the system ofincorporating immigrants in Aichi Prefecture (Yamamoto and Matsumiya 2006). In addition to these studies,
I would like to highlight the research of Tani and colleagues on ethnic relations in Osaka (Tani 2002;2015：
Nikaido 2007). These studies are noteworthy examples of research on ethnic relations in Japan.
During its early development, ethnic community studies shared a common “living together” perspective.
This research was conducted from the standpoint of the receiving people or the receiving community. For
example, Okuda (1993) considered Okubo District as a node of global migration. Consequently, efforts havefocused on determining the Japanese system of living together in the community. For example, Tsuzuki (1998)
attempted to elucidate the communication system of Japanese residents in the Homi housing complex. Here,I focus on the “everyday practices” of Japanese Brazilians aimed at overcoming their difficulties, and elucidate
their ethnic networks. These networks were formed through nodal points, for example, ethnic restaurants,
schools, tourist companies, and employment agencies, as well as remittances sending companies andJapanese-language schools. By visiting these nodal points and conducting interviews, I was able to follow theireveryday practices for living in the different society (Hirota 1997. 2003). Applying these research methods, I
identified their communality as well as the characteristics of these modes of living together. Simultaneously,
I was able to specify their new adaptation style, which was not assimilation but adjusting themselves to thedifferent society (Hirota, 1997, 2003).
1.2. The Second Stage: Integration Tendency
The environment of ethnic community studies has changed gradually since the start of the 2000s.
Briefly, migrants were perceived no longer in a positive light, but negatively. Thus, migrants, associated witha new ethnicity that symbolized anti-globalization, were viewed as the subjects responsible for bringing aboutpublic unease and imposing the burden of integration (Kajita 2005).
Simultaneously, structural analyses of migration systems and the processes of integrating ethnicity
expanded. For example, Kajita et al. (2005) analyzed the structure of a market-based migration system. They
defined the immigrant community as a social space composed of institutions meeting the economic needs andpolitical rights of migrants. Their study aimed to identify an integration system in terms of a nation state.
Kajita et al. (2005) defined integration as a situation in which “different ethnic groups can sustain their socialand cultural originality and their boundaries, and they can enjoy their political and economic power equally.”
At the same time, community studies began to focus on residents’ living together and integration system. For
example, Onai and Sakai attempted to separate the community into an institutional phase and an everyday
2

labor and life phase (Onai and Sakai 2001; Onai 2009). In addition to these studies, there have been recent
studies of immigration policies in Japan (Kajita 2005; Watado 2005; Koid 2008).
1.3. Current Stage: Searching for a New System for Living Together in the Integration and Nativism of Japan
In light of the changing nature of ethnic studies in Japan, what then is the issue that we should address?
My first point is that current research on the Japanese system of living together needs to address the key
issues of stricter integration and the nativism movement. This is because when the issues of integration andnativism become more serious, conflict between migrants and receiving communities is exacerbated, as
migrants’ place-making movements become increasingly powerful, especially in Japanese “nodes” or“magnetic fields” of migration. Thus, to understand the nature of the problem during this phase, we need torethink the meaning of the living together system in the new context of ethnic community studies.
I would now like to briefly take up an actual case concerning the town of Oizumi as an example. In spiteof the nativism movement, the place-making behavior of Japanese Brazilian migrants has begun to be linked
with the issue of the town’s revitalization. Recently, with the formation of the new town government in 2001,
the government has begun to promote a policy of “living together in order,” which is discussed in Section 3.
Japanese Brazilians were shocked when this policy was implemented, even though it aimed to reduce uneasein the town and its economic decline. Prior to its implementation, some returnees from Brazil launched amovement relating to identity politics. They started a nonprofit organization for educating non-Japanese
ethnic children. Also in the background of this movement were some key Japanese Brazilians becoming
members of the Oizumi Tourism Association and starting project to develop a multicultural town (Hirota 2011).
A second case that I will discuss here is that of Koreatown in Okubo District in Shinjuku Ward of Tokyo,
where serious conflicts have arisen associated with processes of “succession” within a zone in transition. I
specifically use the word “transition” to connote a process whereby previously established residents weredeprived of their place because of the influx of newcomers resulting from the city’s development. With theconstruction of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building, redevelopment (or gentrification) accelerated
and Okubo became a zone in transition, with large numbers of migrants flowing into this area. As thenewcomers became accustomed to living in this place, they began to create their own facilities and institutions
for maintaining their way of life. These institutions and facilities centered on their religious, communal,
economic, and familial daily living needs or on societal incorporation. However, the places of their activities
were the same as those of the institutions forged by previously established residents. Thus, a clash of meanings
and ways of living occurred. At this point, new issues relating to living together surfaced.
We can now analyze this problem from a different perspective and apply an alternative methodology
instead of the “integration perspective.” This entails rethinking the meaning of the system of living together
in the new context of ethnic community studies.

2. A Conceptual Framework for Ethnic Community Studies: Rethinking Transnationalism from Below and
the Concept of Place-Making3

I will begin by proposing a definition of “place” to clarify the conceptual framework of ethnic community
studies. According to M. P. Smith and L. Guarnizo, who endorse the transnationalism from below theory, many
field workers and theorists have critiqued the grand narrative entailed in globalization theory. For example,
while conducting research in the Antilles, Glick-Schiller (1994) posed a question regarding the discourse of a“binary opposition” between the global and local. She anticipated that migrants brought about change in local
institutions such as the electric system. She anticipated the possibility of marginal migrants contributing to achange in national/global systems of institutions and values. Smith and other theorists have attempted torestore ‘place’ and ‘local’ to the global (Smith 2001).
Smith (2001) argues that Harvey (1989) and Castells (1983, 1997) suppose that capital is the author ofsocial change and consider global to be superior to local. Smith critiqued their hypotheses as follows:
Both represent the local as a cultural space of communal understandings, a space where meaning is
produced entirely outside the global flows of money, power, and information. People in these narrow socialworlds make sense of their world and form their political identities in a culturally bounded micro-territory,
the locality. These local cultural meanings, in truth, are represented as generating identities inherently
oppositional to the global restructuring of society and space. For both, ‘place’ is understood as the site ofcohesive community formations existing outside the logic of globalization (Smith 2001:106).
Citing the definition of ‘place’ by Massey (1993), Smith further noted the following:
Places do not possess singular but multiple and contested identities. Place-making is shaped by conflict,difference, and social negotiation among differently situated and at times antagonistically related social
actors, some of whose networks are locally bound, others whose social relations and understandings spanentire regions and transcend national boundaries (Smith 2001:107).
Thus, we should define “place” as being open and not closed to expose the differences in power, culture,and hegemony. Moreover, we need to attend to the concept of place-making. Gupta and Ferguson suggest thefollowing:
In place of the question how is the local linked to the global or the regional, we prefer to start with anotherquestion that enables a quite different perspective on the topic: How are understandings of locality,community, and region formed and lived? To answer this question, we must turn away from thecommonsense idea that such things as locality and community are simply given or natural and turntoward a focus on social and political processes of place making…conceived less as a matter of ‘ideas’
than of embodied practices that shape identities and enable resistances. (Gupta and Ferguson 1997: 6)
Perspectives and concepts such as place-making, advocated by Gupta and Ferguson, are important forcommunity studies, because they avoid the natural inclination to relegate this research to class-conflict theory,
focusing instead on multiple place-making processes achieved through memories and meaning-making
processes. They enable us to discover the characteristics of a new system of living together, along with place4

making processes in everyday life.
In addition to these considerations, we must pay attention to the problem of the emergence of the newnativism, a growing movement advocating integration or nativism, in opposition to the advance of
globalization. This social climate is also evident in Japan and has brought in its wake a lot of hate speech in
the “node.” Ethnic community studies are thus being conducted in this atmosphere. My fieldwork experiences,too, revealed this problem. We must, therefore, recognize the positioning of our current research on ethnic
communities.
From these epistemologies, I will discuss a current conceptual framework for contemporary ethnic
community studies that is based on the transnational community perspective and ethnographic studies suchas those of the early Chicago School of Sociology.
The conceptual framework for researching the new system of living together can be summarized asfollows. First, we should avoid the concept of a closed community, focusing instead on the ethnic community
as a site of a grassroots migration node which is a transnational social space. Second, we should avoid thedichotomy entailed in globalization theory, focusing instead on place-making processes. Third, in contrast to
globalization theory, we need to attend to agents who are looking to establish communal relationships withothers. Fourth, avoiding dichotomies entailed in structural and ethnographic studies, we should consider how
a structure or institution is maintained through the application of ethno-methods that originate in everyday
life.
The transnational community perspective is a theory of migration (Levitt and Khagram 2003). In
contrast to globalization theory, with its focus on the economic structure of the migration process, atransnational community perspective, and especially transnationalism from below, which focuses on
individual experiences and the process of forming transnational communities (i.e., a transnational social
space), contrasts with the emphasis on the economic structure of the migration process in globalization theory(Smith and Guarnizo 1999). Practices of migration between the origin and destination countries lead to theformation of transnational communities in the receiving society. In spite of difficult conditions, migrants try to
overcome various obstacles and form their own place from where to make a living. The behavior entailed inovercoming these obstacles can be described as “everyday practices” (Certeau 1980) in studies oftransnationalism from below.
Within receiving communities, on the other hand, these place-making practices have resulted in thecreation of ethnic communities, or in some cases, multicultural communities. Such communities are open
rather than closed. While the effects of place-making within these communities are limited in some cases, inothers, spontaneous actions create their own “ethnic spot.” However, because various customs and way of
doing things have already been established in these places by old timer migrants or receiving residents, theseplace-making practices generate conflicts between the newcomers and established residents, and between
new and existing institutions. These conflicts sometimes also generate new institutions and a new identity inrelation to living together. Perspectives on transnational communities attend to the characteristics of theseformation processes (Gupta and Ferguson 1997). According to Gupta and Ferguson, place-making theory
focuses on the memories and traditional institutions of migrants. The concept of place-making focuses onhegemonic processes that unfold in their everyday life. Consequently, I favor the epistemology and5methodology of transnational studies.
Furthermore, to engage in ethnic community studies we need to conduct intensive case studies on theeveryday practices and place-making processes of these communities. I elicited useful insights from themethodology developed by the early Chicago School for carrying out these case studies. As I have previously
mentioned, and as is commonly known, the early Chicago School of Sociology is the origin of urban sociology,
and especially ethnic community studies. Ethnographic studies were developed within this School.
The characteristics of an epistemology of urban ethnography entail a supposition that societal meanings
can be derived from only one case study. Applying this epistemology and methodology, a large body of research
was built up by scholars working within the early Chicago School. This provides us with ample material for
describing and analyzing the meanings of place-making practices and related issues.
Processes of competition, conflict adaptation, and assimilation of immigrants have been described as
constituting an “ethnic cycle” within the scholarship of the Chicago School of Sociology. While the theory of
ethnic cycles has been criticized for its supposed harmony. I believe that there is some truth to this theory.
Moreover, it provides some specific insights for analyzing place-making processes. Thus, the theory has
relevance for current discussions of migration research (Persons 1987).

3. Case Studies of Place-making Processes in Relation to Integration and Nativism: Koreatown andBrazilian Town
I will now present a case study of the town of Oizumi located in Gunma Prefecture and Okubo Districtin Tokyo’s Shinjuku Ward. In doing so, I focus on the creation of a new practice of living together and of a new
identity forged by migrants themselves in conjunction with place-making processes that have unfolded. My
explanation is aimed at brief clarifying related points.
3.1. Place-making in Relation to the Integration Movement: A Case Study of the Creation of Brazilian Town
in Oizumi
3.1.1.

A Brief History of Brazil Town in Oizumi

I will begin by describing the characteristics of Oizumi and the underlying reason for the invitation
extended to Japanese Brazilians to come there as migrant workers.
Oizumi is located 2 hours away from Tokyo by train. The town’s population is around 40,000 people.
During World War II, Oizumi’s social structure is composed of older residents engaged in agriculture andengineers, foreign workers, and others associated with the Nakajima Aircraft Company, a company that
produced aircraft for the Japanese Navy in World War II. After the war, this company became the motor carcompany Fuji Heavy Industries. The population of Oizumi consisted of engineers and blue-collar workers at
Fuji Heavy Industries and the Sanyo Electric Company. During the war, the old Nakajima Aircraft Company
employed a number of foreign workers from China and Taiwan. Consequently, some of the town’s residents
had grown accustomed to the presence of foreigners. Even though the town is a rural regional community, this6

history makes the residents unique in that they sought new ideas and improvement of their community.
The reason why Japanese Brazilians were invited to move to Oizumi was that the town faced a labor
shortage crisis in the 1980s. Mayor M (in office from 1973–1993) and Mr. Y―the late leader of small andmedium-sized factories’ association in Oizumi (called the “Tomo Stabilization and Development of
Employment Association”)—sought to invite Japanese Brazilians to Oizumi in the 1990s.
There are three groups of Japanese Brazilians in Oizumi. The first group consists of people who came tothe town around 1990. There are many returnees in this group. Many of them are able to understandJapanese culture and are conversant in the Japanese language. The talented individuals within this groupbecame key persons who played a mediating role between the newcomers and the receiving community. The
second group is composed of the people who came to the town around 1995. Many of them could not speak
Japanese. The third group consists of people who belong to the 1.5 and second generations who were born inthis town.
Many Japanese Brazilians formed communities along Route 354 and around West Koizumi station of
the Koizumi Line. The current population of this community is around 6,000.
The late Mayor M and the late Mr. Y made special efforts to create a living together system―for example,
housing and health insurance. Some of the first members who immigrated to Oizumi leased a bankrupt
department building where they create a base for commerce. As a result of their efforts, about 120 ethnic
businesses were flourishing in the town. (Hirota 2003)
3.1.2 The Policy of “Living Together in Order” and “Nativism”
By the turn of the century, just at the time when Mayor H took office (2001–2008), the living together
system began to change. Along with changes in the employment system in Japan, the direct employment
system of immigrant workers in Oizumi began to collapse. Perceived as people causing unease and bringing
down land prices, Japanese Brazilians began to have a declined status. Around that time, a policy on “living
together in order” replaced the liberal policy of the late Mayor M. This “living together in order” policy
promoted the town’s integration movement (Hirota 2006b). The ‘liberal’ living together system in Oizumi got
worse. A committee within the town government was formed to discuss the situation surrounding JapaneseBrazilians. In fact, this movement was an expression of nativism (Hirota 2010).
3.1.3. The Place-making Movement of Japanese Brazilians and Its Characteristics
Under these circumstances, some key individuals were, nevertheless, able to create their “place” and a
new identity. For example, Ms. T is a Japanese national and a returnee who lived in Brazil for 35 years. She
founded and runs a Japanese-language school called Nippaku Gakuen. In spite of the prevailing integration
movement, she took up the office of director of the Oizumi Tourism Association and worked on creating the‘International Town’ (Brazilian Town) along with other key persons (Hirota 2010). She has played a mediatingrole between immigrants and the receiving community. There was, in fact, a group of “resonant” people,
whereby “resonant” denotes those who were sympathetic toward people of a different culture (see Hirota 1997,
2003). In this case, the Oizumi Tourism Association and its members, especially the president, were examples
7

of such people. Other like-minded people were the late Mayor M and members of the Tomo Stabilization andDevelopment of Employment Association.
Here, I should draw attention to one more point. Despite of her Japanese nationality, Ms. T played therole of a mediator, taking the side of Japanese Brazilians. As a mediator, she worked on behalf of the cultureof Japanese Brazilians. Consequently, she was involved in the place-making and living together movements.
Finally, I should add that another kind of identity has begun to emerge among Japanese Brazilians. A“between identity,” shared by Ms. T and many other Japanese Brazilians who were key persons, was behind
their efforts to lead the movement. However, a new identity has begun to emerge within the second generation,in conjunction with the creation of “Brazilian Town” that reflects different cultures. I will refer to this as a“featuring identity.” While conducting interviews with Japanese Brazilians in Oizumi in 2015, one respondent,
a second-generation Japanese Brazilian who was born in Japan and who was a university student with achild, stated:
This district was called an “international” district, but… the main culture is Brazilian. In the past, there
was a Brazilian Plaza along Route 354, and this building had many Japanese Brazilian tenants. It was a
symbolic facility for Japanese Brazilian migrants. After the Brazilian Plaza went bankrupt, this area was
replaced. The current identity of Japanese Brazilians is beginning to change. We are not “in between.” We
have an identity that ‘features different cultures.’ (see Hirota 2016)
This type of identity is presumed to be the same as the identity of a second-generation individual who
has emigrated abroad. I will come back to this problem later. Here, I will note that this constitutes a model forthe current mode of living together and for a new identity.

3.2. Place-making in the Transitional Area and the Nativism Movement in Koreatown3.2.1 A Brief Historical Background on the Emergence of Okubo District as a Transitional Area
I will discuss one more case, namely, Koreatown in Okubo District in Shinjuku Ward of the Tokyo
metropolis. To explain the formation process of Koreatown, I will first discuss how a ‘zone in transition’ was formed in this area.

According to The History of Shinjuku Ward (edited by Shinjuku Ward in 1998), the construction of the
Shinjuku sub-center of the metropolis began in 1991. This record notes that redevelopment accelerated withthe construction of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building. Although around 20 skyscrapers were built
in this area between 1971 and 1991, the building’s construction resulted in this area becoming a sub-center ofthe metropolis. Furthermore, the redevelopment process caused a restructuring of the commercial center ofShinjuku. This reduced its function as a residential area. The History of Shinjuku Ward describes conditions

during this period as follows.
…as land prices rose, the municipal tax on real estate also went up. A rise in the municipal tax on realestate influenced apartment rental fees. Residents who could not afford to pay the high rent moved to other8

districts. Following the exodus, the buildings and apartments were converted into offices. (Shinjuku Warded. 1998:160)
As redevelopment (or gentrification) advanced, the neighboring area of Okubo became ‘a zone intransition,’ and large numbers of migrants flowed into this area. According to The History of Shinjuku Ward,along with this redevelopment, the population of foreigners increased from about 10,000 in 1985 to 19,213 in1993 (Shinjuku Ward ed. 1998:163).
The concept of a ‘zone in transition’ was developed by sociologists of the early Chicago School during theperiod from 1910 to 1920. They paid special attention to the process of city growth. The word “transition” inthis concept denotes the succession of place, whereby established residents were deprived of their place as aresult of the inflow of newcomers with the city’s development. This transitional area was characterized bycheap rental accommodations and convenient access to the central commercial district.
However, we must not assume that all of the foreigners belonged to the lower classes. Okuda and Tajima,
who conducted research in this area during the first half of 1990, wrote the following.
When we did [the] Ikebukuro research, we tried to conduct interviews [with newcomers] in old anddecaying houses and apartments. But we [did] not succeed with this style of research as in the case of[the] Shinjuku research. Instead of conducting interviews in old and decaying apartments, we[conducted them] in middle class apartments…Because there was no trouble with foreigners, many of
the real estate agents tended to rent apartments to foreigners (Okuda and Tajima 1998:296–297)
Although newcomers initially lived in cheap apartments, they began to create their own special facilities
and “place” for establishing homes and businesses in this transitional area. These were constructed inaccordance with their religious, communal, economic, and family needs. Examples of facilities and institutions,to which newcomers attached cultural meanings in the process of place-making, include restaurants, media,
schools, churches, travel agencies, companies for remitting money back home, and banks. However, they
developed their facilities and institutions in a place that was already occupied by institutions established byexisting residents. Thus, a clash of meanings inevitably occurred and conflicts around place-making erupted.
In place of the integration perspective, we will now apply another perspective and methodology toanalyze these issues. To understand these activities, we explore some discourses.
3.2.2. The Formation of Koreatown: Focusing on the Place-Making Process
Yoshiko Inaba, who conducted her research in Okubo, mentioned that most residents of Koreatown in
the 1980s were long-time Taiwanese residents and Korean Japanese. The central street was popularly called
Shokuan Dori because there was an employment agency and Okubo Dori (Inaba 2008:90). However, in thelate 1990s, along with increasing back and forth movement of Korean migrants, there was an expansion invarious businesses established by these migrants, for example, CD shops, Korean groceries, tourism agencies,
hotels, real estate agencies, restaurants, and banks (Inaba 2008:98). According to Inaba, small and medium9

sized ethnic businesses were started in Shokuan Dori during the first stage of the development of Koreatownin the late 1980s. During the second stage in the 1990s, many ethnic businesses were flourishing in Okubo
Dori. The third stage occurred from 2000 to the 2010s. Restaurants and cosmetic shops flourished in numerous
narrow backstreets near Okubo Dori. Along with these ethnic businesses, many co-ethnic associations wereactive (Inaba 2008:79–102).
In line with our conceptual framework, I will briefly introduce the migrants’ discourse regarding themeanings they attached to this place from my field notes. The key point relates to the simultaneity of “nonplace” and a strong relationship to “place.” The following discussion is based on interviews conducted in 2012–2013 as a part of my fieldwork class held at Senshu University (Hirota 2013, 2014).
A woman operating a boutique in a narrow backstreet near Okubo Dori explained her association with
Koreatown. This woman (in her fifties) was married and had a daughter. Her brother operated some boutiques
in Seoul. She had graduated from a well-known women’s university in Korea. Her discourse revealed thecharacteristics of place-making and of a transnational social space.
When I decided to start this business, I did not talk with my brother. Although he was running the samebusiness in Seoul, I did not talk with him…I supposed there was no Korean trade association on thisstreet. Many Korean shop owners began their businesses one after another, and had no acquaintancewith other Korean shop owners (Hirota 2013)
I will introduce one more case of a woman in her twenties, who was employed at a cosmetic shop locatedon this narrow street. She was a graduate student from Seoul.
I am from South Korea. I am a graduate student of a university. I don’t want to live in Japan. This place
is just a work place…Because there are many Koreans in Okubo, I sometimes feel I am in Korea not
Japan. (Hirota 2013)
The following extract is from an interview conducted in an area located along Bunka Dori Street near
the Shin-Okubo station that is commonly referred to as “Islam Spot.” It includes a mosque, halal food shops,
restaurants and a company engaged in overseas money transfers. About 200 Muslims from countries such as
India, Pakistan, and Indonesia gather at this place to pray on Fridays. However, Bunka Dori is also an oldand favored Japanese locale. There are Japanese style confectionery stores, tea ceremony gatherings, and afamous theater in this area. The contrasting meanings attached to the street by Japanese residents of long
duration and by Muslims have become a source of conflict. Here I would like to discuss the associateddiscourses.
Mr. N (aged in his sixties and of Indian nationality) operates a couple of Halal food shops in this area
and in Gunma Prefecture. He also manages a mosque located within an old building.
About 500 members come to this mosque. There is a special room for women. About 30 to 40 members
belong to this mosque. Most of the women are wives of Muslims from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
(Hirota 2013)10

I am not a leader in common life but a mediator in [the] religious world. I am just the manager of thismosque. But I have to be prepared to talk with old timers. (Hirota 2013)
What kind of place is Bunka Dori for newcomers?
I operate my business in Gunma Prefecture and in this place. This place is for business, but because I
created this mosque, this is a special place for us. (Hirota 2013)
In contrast to the new meanings attached by Muslims to this place, Mr. G (aged in his seventies), who isa leader of the shopping arcade association, stated the following.
We are looking for opportunities to approach them, but we can’t find any cue. Although we asked them
to belong to our association for this shopping arcade, they refused. They do not have any relations withneighborhood associations. The people gathering in the mosque are supposed to be a good-natured. If
there was some contact with them, and any chance for them to melt into the community, we would feeleasy. (Hirota 2013)
Contrary to the opinion that “Islam Spot” seems to make our shopping arcade flourish, I don’t think so.
Actually, since the mosque has opened, Muslims have [started to] come to this shopping arcade. But,
this was not a chance for these shops. (Hirota 2013)
These areas of conflict and misunderstanding are spreading in the Korean district. Mr. U, the vicepresident of the neighborhood association of this district, admitted that the traditional way of living together
with long-time residents receiving newcomers, does not work well in reality. He stated the following:This district seems to have become a Koreatown. Anyway, it is difficult for Japanese to live in this district.
Japanese residents have begun to move to other districts one by one. For the newcomers, Shinjuku has
become a better place to operate their businesses. The more Koreans increased, the more Japanese
decreased. (Hirota 2013)
3.2.3. The Development of Nativism and the New Living Together Movement
The anti-Korean movement and other right wing groups began their radical movement entailing hatespeech and demonstrations in 2012 (Han Sara 2012). However, along with these movements, a new living
together movement began to evolve. In this section, I want to provide an overview based on my review ofnewspaper articles.

According to Han Sara, the first demonstration of the Association of Citizens against the Special

Privileges of the Zainichi (zaitoku-kai in Japanese) was held in Ginza. At the same time, according to an article

in the Chosun, Korean shopkeepers and Japanese supporters held a social gathering in Okubo district
11

(Chosun, September 12, 2012).

However, in 2013, this group held successive demonstrations on January 7, 9, 11, and 17 (One Korea

Daily News, February 20, 2013). According to this newspaper, the level of violence in their hate speeches
escalated. On March 17, 2013, there was another hate speech and demonstration following a particularly
virulent demonstration on March 7 when anti-Koreans dragged the Korean national flag behind their car andshouted hate speech. The co-ethnic association could not respond to this demonstration (One Korea Daily

News, February 20, 2013).

However, in contrast to these movements, Korean shopkeepers and Japanese residents tried to holdmeetings to help Koreatown. For example, according to an article published in Chosun, shopkeepers andJapanese residents held a social gathering at a hall in Shin-Okubo to promote the revitalization of Koreatown.

This event was planned with the intention of overcoming the anti-Korean demonstrations (Chosun December
11, 2012). To counteract the anti-Korean demonstration held on February 17, some of the residents of
Koreatown held their own anti-discrimination demonstration. According to One Korea Daily News, the people

who participated in this demonstration were recruited through the Internet (One Korea Daily News February
20, 2013). Another type of anti-discrimination activity has also occurred. One Korea Daily News reported thaton March 20, 2013, a signature collection campaign succeeded in gathering 4,000 signatures (One Korea Daily

News March 27, 2013. This opposition between hate demonstrations and anti-hate speech campaigns

continued throughout 2013 and finished in 2014.
I would now like to discuss living together practices based on the data I recorded in my field notes in 2012.
Mr. U, the vice president of the residents’ association of Okubo Dori, is one of the individuals who transformed
these conditions into his own opportunity to promote living together by lending his apartment to newcomers.
He views regarding immigrants’ living together practices are as follows.
About two or three years ago, the Secretary-General of The Federation of Korean Associations, Japan(Kanjin-kai) talked to us about new Koreans’ way of life in this community. We held a meeting with them,and they said to us, ‘if you have anything to solve, let us know.’ (Hirota ed. 2013)
As a final example, I will discuss one more case of a business operated by a Korean migrant that relates
to the living together movement. Mr. S (aged in his forties at the time of my interview) is the president of The
Union of Korean Agro-foods in Japan. This organization was founded in 2005 by about 20 companies
importing agricultural and processed foods from Korea and selling them wholesale to retailers. The firstpresident was Mr. K, the director of the Korean Plaza supermarket. Mr. K is a well-known model of success.
He owns a couple of buildings located along Shokuan Dori. This case highlights the necessity ofcomprehending the practices of immigrants themselves.
The Union of Korean Agro-foods in Japan became a corporation at that time that Korean business andcommerce began in this district. There are 376 Korean restaurants and 500 stores in total. These
Korean restaurants and 500 stores and other Japanese stores are the customers. It is Okubo that is
the gathering place of these stores. (Hirota 2013)12

Although there is a “Korea Way” in Manhattan, NY, the different point with Koreatown in Okubo isbusiness. In Koreatown, customers of Korean stores are almost all Japanese (Hirota 2006). In the caseof Manhattan’s Korea Way, many customers are Koreans. Our business targets Japanese customers.
(Hirota 2013; see Min 2001)

3.3 Discussion
In this paper, I have reflected on the beginnings of ethnic community studies in Japan, attempting
through case studies to shed light on the new phase of living together. Accordingly, my premise was thatcurrent topics relating to living together have developed in relation to the transnational community.
Consequently, my analytical focus has been on topics relating to place-making processes (Hirota 2006).
From the stand point of transnational community studies, conditions associated with living together
and processes of place-making have become increasingly intensified. Place-making processes are in fact
progressing from an invisible phase to a visible phase. Thematically, dimensions of living together havechanged from how the receiving community can integrate different cultures to how migrants can further
develop place-making processes. These processes of place-making and of living together are becoming
increasingly interlinked. Symbolically, this is reflected in the construction of Brazil Town in Oizumi, theKorean anti-discrimination movement, and Japanese practices of receiving immigrants, and conflicts between
place-making practices of Muslims and receiving Japanese residents.
Another point for consideration is that the identity of those who are currently involved in processes ofplace-making and living together should be conceived as a “featuring identity” and not as a “between identity.”
The communities discussed in this paper are not monotonous multicultural communities. Rather, they arecommunities that positively feature economic and sociocultural differences. Immigrants and receiving
residents attempt to create their “place” with people who have a different culture and different business styles.
These efforts generate different directions within the creating community. I would like to describe suchpeople’s identity as a “featuring identity.” This is to be distinguished from a “between identity,” which means
an identity that wavers between old and new identities.
Here, I would like to provide a specific example from my research. I visited Manhattan’s East Village inAugust 2015 to conduct interviews with Japanese immigrants. This research trip was undertaken as acomponent of my research supported by a grant-in-aid for scientific research from Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science. I met some residents of a Japanese community in the East Village during this trip. It is
common knowledge that up to the late 1960s, the East Village had large Ukrainian and Jewish populations.
However, during the late 1960s, as artists moved into this area, it became a multicultural area. During thelate 1970s, the number of Japanese residents in this area increased, resulting in the creation of a “Japan Town.”
Mr. B.Y. (aged in his sixties) is an entrepreneur and the owner of 13 Japanese restaurants. Having traveledfrom city to city in the US, he finally arrived in the East Village in the 1970s. Responding to a strong demand,
he set up a vegetable store and launched Japanese restaurants one after another in the East Village’s Japan
Town. His daughter is currently a vice president within his restaurant business. She is a second-generation
immigrant (female, aged in her thirties). Having grown up in this place, although she is second generation,
she has worked hard to become American. She studied English at Middlebury College. However, after a
distressing experience, she chose to live in Japan Town and Japanese culture strongly resonated with her. But
13

her identity is not discord between the two cultures; she combines their strong points. I would like to call her
identity a “featuring identity,” which is different from that of the first generation.
However, I acknowledge that the system of living together, entailing individuals with “featuring identities”
offers the community inadequate protection from ethnic conflicts (e.g., the refugee problem). This kind ofcommunity can be considered as a “porous community” (Derrida and Caputo 1997, 2004). While there aremany risks associated with this period of transnational migration, we must overcome these risks instead ofclosing our society. This is the precise reason why we must create ‘porous communities’ and Japanesemulticultural communities.
4. Conclusion: Exploring Ways of Remaking the Japanese System of Living Together
Because of space limitations, I have only provided an outline discussion here. The concept of featuring
identities is not so curious in relation to the Japanese way of life. It entails a kind of “planning identity.” I
firmly believe that further intensive research on the Japanese way of living together is essential. I havealready attempted to explain this from the perspective of “early transnationalism” in another paper (Hirota2012). My future research will focus on identifying the type of identity and community that this entails.
Acknowledgment: The case studies presented in this section were conducted with support from a Grant-inAid for Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Japan.
[References]
Asano, M.,2011, “Populism and immigrant problem in Japan” in Kawahara, Y ,Shimada, Y and Tamada,Y(eds.) Immigrants and Politics, Showa-do.

Bash,L Glick Schiller,N and Szanton, C(eds.) Nations Unbound, Australia, Canada and so on : Gordon andBreach Science Publiations.

Castell,M,1983,The City and Grassroots, Berkely and Los angels ,Universiyt of California Press.

Castell, M, 1997, The Power of Identity, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers./

Certeau, M.,1980, Art DE Faire. Paris :Union Generale d’Edition(=translated by Toru Takahashi, Haruyuki
Kuroda, Masaaki Kinugasa and Takeshi Koya, Kokubunsha, 1987)
Chosun.,2012, “Article” of September 12.
Chosun.,2012, “ Article” of December 11

Derrida, J and Caputo,J.D.,1997,Deconstruction in a Nutshell, New York: Fordham University Press.=A
Conversation with Jacques Derrida.,2004(translation by Takahashi, T, Kuroda,H, Kinugasa, M and Koya,
Y by Hosei University Press,2004.

Gupta, A and Ferguson, J.,1997, Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, Durham andLondon :Duke University .Press.

Fujiwara,N.,1998, “The Way of Life of Transcending borders and Mutual aid in Community” ,The Annals ofJapan Association of Urban Sociology 16.
Harvey, D,1989, The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Hirota,Y.,1997,Ethnicity and City(old edition), Yushindo.
14

Hirota,Y.,2003,Ethnicity and City(new edition).Yushindo.
Hirota,Y,,2006a,”A Research Trend in Migration Research”, Japanese Sociological Review.57(3)651.Japan
Association for Sociology.
Hirota,Y.,2006b, “Introduction to the Study of Living together in an Assimilation policy” Okuda,M and
K.Mastumoto (eds.).Frontier Conceptual Frame Work of Urban Sociology, Harvest.

Hirota,Y,2008,”Why did the Urban Sociology take up the ethnic studies”. The Annals of Japan Association for

Urban Sociology .Japan Association for Urban Sociology.

Hirota,Y.,2010,”Transnationalism and the Politics of Place ”in Senshu Ningen-Kagaku Ronshu,in Senshu
University.

Hirota,Y.,2012,”Transnational urban social world and the place-making ” in Senshu Ningen-Kagaku Ronshu,
Senshu University.
Humanities Monthly Bulletin,No.255.

Hirota,Y,,2013,”Hypotheses of Transnational Community Perspective ”. in Journal of Humanity inSenshuUniversity.Vol.3,No.3.
Hirota,Y (ed.),2013, The Report of Fieldwork Shinjuku,Okubo and Hyakunin-cho as a Transnational
Community, Senshu University(“not for sale”).
Hirota,Y and Fujiwara, N.,2016, Transnational Community :the Urban Sociology of Place-making and
Identity, Harvest Publishing co.
Inaba,Y.,2008,Okubo the power of City, Gakugei-sha.
Kajita, T and Iyotani, T (ed.) ,1993, Theory of Migrant Workers. Kobundo.
Kajita, T.,1988, Ethnicity and Social Change. Yusindo.

Kajita, T.,2005,”Minority problem in terms of Majority perspective :the reverse of the position of ethnicity”
Nira Polocdy Research,5.

Kajita,T, Tanno,K, and Higuchi N(eds.).,2005, Invisible Resident, Nagoya University Press.
Kajita,T.(ed.),2005,Theory of International Society(new edition), Nagoya University Press.

Koid, A(ed.).,2008,International Comparison of Migration Policies. Akashi shoten.

Massey, D.,1993, “Power-geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place” in Jon Bird(et all eds.)Mapping the

Future. New York and London: Routledge.

Min, P.G ,2001,”Koreatowns:An Institutionally Complete Community”, in Foner, N (ed.), New Immigrants in

New York. Columbia University Press.
Momose, H and Ogura,M.,1992, Modern State and Migration Workers, Yusindo.

Nikaido,Y.,2007,Urban Sociology of Ethnic Relations and Community Welfare. Sekaisisousha.
Okuda, M and Tajima,J.,1991, Asian Foreign Residents in Ikebukuro. Mecon.

Okuda,M and Tajima,J.,1993, Asian residents in Shinjuku. Mecon.

Okuda, M.,2004, The Magnetic Place of Urban Community. Tokyo University Press.

Onai,T, and Sakai, E.,2001,The Settlement of Japanese Brazilian and Community. Ochanomizu-shobo.

Onai,T(ed.),2009,Transnational Migration and settlement 1 Labor and the Life, Ochanomizu Shobo.
One Korea Daily News.,2013, “Article” of Febuluary 20
One Korea Daily News.,2013, “Article” of March 27

Persons,S.,1987,Ethnic Studies at Chicago 1905-45,Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press.
15

Shinjuku Ward (ed.),1998, The History of Shinjuku Ward. Shinjuku, Tokyo.

Smith, M P, 2001, Transnational Urbanism. Blackwell.

Smith, M P and L.Guarnizo (eds.). 1999, Transnationalism from Bellow. Trans Action Publishers.

Tuzuki,K.,1998, “The formation of ethnic communities and the problem of living together” The Annals ofJapan Association of Urban Sociology 16,
Tani,T., 2002, The Combination and Separation in Ethnic Relations. Minerva.

Tani,T.,2015, Urban Sociology of Ethnic Relations. Minerva.,

16