名古屋外国語大学論集

第7号

2020年7月

ArticleHafu (ハーフ) Group Identity: Reification Not Liberation
Nicholas BRADLEY

Abstract
This paper will argue that hafu is a social label that lacks a clear definition andforces an identity on individuals that may not be of their choosing. Though laudable attempts to ‘reclaim’ the label and ‘inform’ the public about hafu have been
made by organizations of people identified or identifying as hafu, by considering
the discourse of Nihonjinron and the concept of social-essentialism we can seethat the ultimate result of such attempts is the reification of both the term itself
and the assumptions about those within it.

Introduction
Originating from the English word “half”, the social label of “hafu” or “ha-fu”,
denotes a person that is seen as being half-Japanese and half non-Japanese.
Many of those who fall under this label have been subjected to various forms of
discrimination over time and one only needs to view representations of hafu in
the Japanese media today to see the ambivalence with which Japanese society
as a whole seems to have for people identified or identifying as hafu (Saberi,
2015; Shoji, 2013). Due to these experiences, several people who identify as hafu
109

have attempted to reclaim the term by profiling “hafus” and telling their stories
through interviews and photography. Perhaps most prominent among these are
The Hafu Project started by Marcia Yumi Lise and Natalie Maya Willer and
Hafu2Hafu. The Hafu Project began as an exhibition of portrait photography
alongside in-depth interviews of people with one Japanese parent and later
inspired a documentary, (Hafu), by filmmakers Lara Perez Takagi and Megumi
Nishikura who noticed “the lack of media attention on hafus and [felt] exhausted
by the superficial adoration of hafu celebrities on television” (Hafu, 2020).
Hafu2Hafu, started by Tetsuro Miyazaki, is perhaps the most recent incarnationof the desire to identify and document people with a Japanese parent. In addition
to photographs and interviews seeking to inform the public in a similar way to
the Hafu Project, Miyazaki highlights that “His ultimate question was anotherquestion: what would they want to ask each other” (Hafu2Hafu, 2020).
Ultimately, The Hafu Project, Hafu film, Hafu2Hafu and other smaller projects
like them aim to educate the wider public to the realities of being hafu. Yet, thecreation of such realities both requires, and results in, to a certain degree, theessentializing of the label and the members contained within. Reading about
hafu, you quickly see a pattern in the way hafu are contextualized – a growing
minority in a homogeneous nation, a minority that often experiences negative
discrimination as much as it receives positive discrimination, and a group thatis in limbo between two cultural homes. Though discussions often focus on the
problems of being hafu, little attention is given to why the term exists and thewider discussion / beliefs that not only give it life, but popularize it to the extent
that it eventually becomes an avowed identity by many of the people to who it
is ascribed.
Though the goals of the Hafu Project and Hafu2Hafu may be viewed as laudable
and an attempt at liberation, consideration of this alongside the wider discus110

Hafu（ハーフ）Group Identity: Reification Not Liberation ■sion on national identity in Japan, often termed Nihonjinron, and the conceptof social-essentialism may suggest that, rather than liberating those who fallunder the label, attempts to reduce discrimination by “occupying the label” mayactually be counterproductive.

The Term Hafu
Examination of the term “hafu” in discussions reveals the breadth of the term.
The Hafu2Hafu project (Hafu2Hafu, 2020), which looks to raise awarenessconcerning hafu, for example, defines hafu simply as “people with one Japaneseparent”, a definition shared by the Hafu Project (Hafu Project, 2020). In thisregard, Hafu can be understood in cultural, racial and national terms in thesame way that “Japanese” is understood in such ways. From an examination ofmedia, we can see that race is perhaps the most salient of this trinity of meaning
within the idea of hafu. This is easily viewed in the famous example of Ariana
Miyamoto, who won the title of Miss Japan in 2015. For Miyamoto, who wasraised almost exclusively in Japan alone with her Japanese mother, her status ashafu is exclusively based on racial aspects derived from her African-American
father. As Miyamoto herself says “My appearance isn’t Asian...[but] I think I’mvery much Japanese on the inside” (Saberi, 2015). The cultural and national partsof the hafu definition have little applicability to Miyamoto as simply looking
different takes precedence. Indeed, this racial aspect of hafu is viewed as been
dominant in understandings of the term among the wider public (MurpeyShigematsu, 2001). The primacy of the racial definition can also be seen in thedominance of people identified as hafu in the media. Famous celebrities (such as
Becki and Joy) and stories of hafu in the media (such as Miyamoto or Priyanka
Yoshikawa) typically focus on hafu that appear to be racially mixed or typically
non-Asian looking.
Despite a popular fixation on the racial element of the definition, using the111

(Nippon.com, 2015)
definition of having one Japanese parent means that most hafu are such by virtueof the nationality of a parent rather than their race. As shown in Figure 1 below,
Koreans are the largest national group for foreign husbands in Japan, and Chinese
are the largest group for foreign wives. With children possessing two East Asianparents, being hafu, in terms of numbers, would actually seem to mostly comefrom the nationality, rather than race, of the parent and the implicit assumptionthat this would result in some cultural difference being present in the child.
This assumption of cultural difference is problematic, firstly for that fact that
it is indeed an assumption. Though people depicted in the Hafu Project and
Hafu2Hafu eloquently describe being in cultural limbo between two nations,
it does not mean that this applies to all within the category. For every person
discussing a feeling of cultural displacement or not belonging, there may wellbe hundreds enjoying cultural fulfilment and a feeling of being of a place despite
having a non-Japanese parent, something very much implied in the quote from
Ariana Miyamoto above. Frequently referring to such feelings of cultural
displacement and claiming them to be a consequence and characteristic of the112

Hafu（ハーフ）Group Identity: Reification Not Liberation ■category, as with Hafu2Hafu, has the potential for one to apply a condition topeople that fall under that umbrella even though it may not reflect their actual
reality and, most importantly, is not of their choosing. Indeed, research suggeststhat many people who fall under the definition of hafu in Japan prefer to be
identified as Japanese (Almonte-Acosta, 2008; Murphy-Shigematsu, 2011).
A second problem with the assumption of the cultural difference of hafu is thatthe idea of being pulled between two cultural polar opposites is not somethingthat is exclusively a result of biology and having a parent of a particular nationality. Long term residents of Japan and children of non-Japanese parents living inJapan may also experience similar feelings. On a personal level, I have several
Japanese acquaintances who have a profound integrative desire for a particularcountry or area overseas than has fostered in them a certain listlessness with life
in Japanese society. Conversely, as mentioned above, children with a Japaneseparent and non-Japanese parent may never experience such feelings, rendering
the label of hafu as inapplicable to them. Additionally, all children who havemore than one parent / guardian with whom they have considerable contact, will
possibly experience some feeling of being between the two positions represented
by these influences. For example, a child with one Muslim and one Christian parent, or one parent from a privileged upper class background and the other froman impoverished working class environment. The scope for the parents to haveextremely different world views, experiences and fundamental beliefs is broadand not exclusively a consequence of the nation of birth of parents; all children
are hafu in this sense. Yet whether or not one parent is Japanese, is suggested
here to be primary above all other things.

Nihonjinron
To develop this point further, it is necessary to consider Nihonjinron. Nihonjinron(theories of the Japanese or Japaneseness) is described as the discursive mani113

festation of cultural nationalism (Befu, 2001) and a ‘self-orientalising’ discourse(Iwabuchi, 1994) in which concepts of nationality, race and culture are usedinterchangeably in its attempt to describe the Japanese (Sugimoto, 1999). It is an
ongoing discussion that attempts to define who the Japanese are by highlighting
characteristics that all Japanese are seen as possessing, and frequently offering
explanations as to why they are in possession of them. The characteristics
identified as being possessed by Japanese are those typically highlighted throughcomparisons with other national cultures. The national cultures most frequently
used in Nihonjinron was those of Western countries (Bradley, 2013), such as
the U.S. because, as Kubota (1999, p.298) points out “The notion of Japaneseuniqueness often lacks legitimacy when Japan is compared to non-Western counterparts such as other Asian cultures” – a point that is certainly consistent withthe dominance of the racial and cultural definitions of hafu mentioned above.
A belief at the very core of Nihonjinron is that Japanese is an ethnic-national
identity and that the Japanese represent a unique and homogeneous group culturally and, as often is the case, racially. From this assumption spring a multitude
of notions of “the Japanese” and “we Japanese” that assume an unchanging
Japaneseness that is in stark contrast to other peoples. The uniqueness, collectivism and interconnectedness of Japanese culture, nationality and ethnicity
are assumptions that rest at the heart of Nihonjinron (Ishiahara & Morita, 1989;
Lebra, 1976; Nakane, 1970; Pritchard, 1995; Van Wolferen, 1989). Thougha discussion on national identity is ongoing in all countries to some degree,
Nihonjinron has been called a “national sport” (Sugimoto, 1999, p.81) as
thousands of texts discussing the uniqueness of Japanese have been written,
with many selling millions of copies (Befu & Manabe, 1991). This has led to theclaim that “it would be difficult to exaggerate the extent to which Nihonjinron
beliefs are held in Japan.” (Goodman, 1990, p.59), a view supported by researchattempting to quantify such belief (Bradley, 2013).
114

Hafu（ハーフ）Group Identity: Reification Not Liberation ■When considering the label of hafu, we can see that it is a reflection of fundamental beliefs found within the discourse of Nihonjinron, namely that aJapanese ethno-national culture dominates or supersedes other layers or parts of
one’s cultural identity, and that this national culture is especially unique whencompared to other national cultures, perhaps to the point of being irreconcilable
or incompatible. By defining Japanese and Japaneseness in terms that intertwine
the ethnic, national and cultural dimensions, anyone who lacks (or is seen as
lacking) one of these is pushed to the periphery. This should be worrying to thosesuch as the Hafu Project and Hafu2Hafu because the very label they use as an
attempt at liberation, awareness raising, or defining an identity, is one that mirrors a discourse that arbitrarily divides society and pushes people to the margins.

Social-essentialism
Continued use of the label of hafu, regardless of the context, is not only problematic because of its connection to Nihonjnron, it is problematic because it reifies
and legitimizes the term, and embeds it in common use and understandingsof people; it becomes a socially-essentialized group label. Social essentialism “entails the belief that certain social categories (e.g., gender, race) markfundamentally distinct kinds of people” (Rhodes et al., 2012, p.13526). Socialessentialism results in attributing specific characteristics to all members withina particular group or category, attributing these specific characteristics to thecategory itself thus naturalizing and reifying what has been socially constructed,
and ultimately creates a collective which is presumed to be a homogenous block(Frankenberg, 1993; No et al., 2008; Phillips, 2010: Pedwell, 2010; Tador etal., 2013). In this regard, social-essentialism creates a homogeneous groupfrom “heterogeneous people whose values, interests, ways of life, and moral
and political commitments are internally and plural and divergent” (Narayan,
1998, cited in Pedwell, 2010, p.5). This process has led many to identify socialessentialism as the conceptual foundation upon which stereotyping and discrimi115

nation develop and occur (Gutierrez, 2002; Holliday, 2013; Tador et al., 201).
Social essentialism is present in all contexts (Kumaravadivelu, 2008; Pedwell,2010) though research suggests that the categories and groups that are essentialized differ depending on the particular situation within the context. For example,
research suggests that children in politically conservative rural communities in
the U.S. were more likely to essentialize racial categories than children in more
liberal urban environments. Likewise, children in Israel were found to be more
likely to essentialize religious categories and children in upper-caste Indiansociety were more likely to essentialize class than their lower-class counter
parts. Although social-essentialism itself may not create the arbitrary divisions
within the social world, it does constitute a belief that the categories that emerge
and which divide people in a particular society are accurate and exist in reality.
However, Spivak (1988) suggested that labels can be essentialized deliberately
for a specific purpose. This process, termed strategic essentialism, typicallysees people identify under a certain label and then stereotype themselves andthe label in order to stake a political claim that ensures the continued existenceof the label. Historically this has tended to occur among certain minority groups
that feel a particular way of life is under threat from larger encroaching culturalforces. The term of hafu would appear to be both a label initially constructed andessentialized as a consequence of the pervasive nature of Nihonjinron, and later
one reified and strategically essentialized by groups such as the Hafu Projectand Hafu2Hafu.

Generic Language
The belief in the label not only comes from the presence and strength of discussion within a particular society, it also comes from the form of the language used.
Rhodes et al. (2012), found that parents and children that heard generic language
about a group (such as “Japanese are polite”) were more likely to express
116Hafu（ハーフ）Group Identity: Reification Not Liberation ■essentialist beliefs, such as assuming that all members would share certain traits.
Additionally, those subjected to generic language were more likely to produce
generic language themselves and were more likely to have a negative evaluationof the group being described. When non-generic language was used (such as“This Japanese person is polite”), the reverse was true (Rhodes et al., 2012).
The heavy use of generic language in Nihonjinron and the repeated use of terms
such as “The Japanese” or “We Japanese” as seen in texts by authors such as
De Mente (1961), Doi (1986) and Lebra (1976) is replicated to some degree
in discussions of hafu. Indeed, the very question at the heart of the Hafu film,“What does it mean to be hafu?” (Hafu, 2020) or Hafu2Hafu’s goal of trying to“present a complete image of being hafu” (Hafu2Hafu, 2020) contain the implicit
assumption that hafu is a real group with shared experiences and characteristics.
This language and the assumptions contained within it reaches wider audiences
through the media that report on the activities of such groups and results inheadlines such as “The whole story on being 'hafu'” (Krieger, 2010) or “Thehafu experience” (James, 2014). This repeated use of language that suggests
the reality of the label would, according to the concept of social-essentialism,
lead people to see it as truth and lay the foundation for the stereotyping of thosewithin the label.

Conclusion
Before discussing this further, I would like to highlight that I wish in no way
to minimize the feelings of people in the Hafu Project or Hafu2Hafu. The difficulties experienced by many people are real and the feelings of cultural limbo
and discrimination described by individuals interviewed in the Hafu Project or
Hafu2Hafu certainly resonate strongly with me in many ways. This is indeed mypoint. The issues that arise in the interviews in the Hafu Project and Hafu2Hafu
are those felt by people who occupy a space where divergent ways of life or117cultural realities meet and have manifest consequences. Yet, having a parent of
a different nationality does not automatically place a person at such a point nor
does having parents of the same nationality exclude a person from the possibilityof being there. Despite this, the unquestioning acceptance of a label born of theassumptions within a cultural-nationalistic discussion does both of these. It also
guarantees the very things that well-intention projects such as the Hafu Projectand Hafu2Hafu set out to combat – that people with one Japanese parent are
misunderstood and stereotyped.
I have, throughout this paper, attempted to avoid the generic use of hafu. Whether
one parent is French, South American, a brain surgeon, working class or plays
rugby should only be relevant when it is found to be relevant, and relevance inone situation does not necessarily mean similarity with another. Enthusiasticallyadopting the label of hafu, even with laudable goals of liberation and understanding in mind, will inevitably lead to the label becoming real in many people’s
minds and increase the likelihood of people who fall under the label as being
thought of and explained in such terms rather than as individuals. All of this is not
to say that having a Japanese parent is not of great influence in the lives of many
people, it can be profound and defining for many. But, then, so too do manyother factors. Yet, these are factors that do not mirror the culturally-nationalist
discourse in Japanese society and, therefore, have not been assigned a label.
The absence of the label results in people not being, or being less likely to be
stereotyped and pigeonholed. Having one non-Japanese parent should be likethese and not attach a label to people that inevitably encourages the stereotypingof those given it. Doing so, as with the case of hafu, gives an ascribed identity
to many when, ideally, identity should be avowed in that it is emergent andself-selected/defined due to the idiosyncrasies of one’s own existence.
The continued use of hafu in Nihonjinron discussion, either explicitly or118

Hafu（ハーフ）Group Identity: Reification Not Liberation ■implicitly, and by well-meaning groups guarantees that the label will always be
discussed apart from, or to the side of Japanese identity and perpetuate the ideathat children with one non-Japanese parent possess some fundamental difference to those with two. Rather than operate within such a framework as thesegroups do, it would be beneficial to breakdown the term. A child that was bornand raised exclusively in France should not be placed within a label alongsidea child that was born and raised in Japan simply because they both happen tohave one Japanese parent. Not only does this make all manner of assumptions
regarding, culture and race, as mentioned earlier when discussing Nihonjinron,
it is also damaging to the goal of developing a more inclusive and multiculturalidea of Japan and Japanese as it lumps together children whose only known
connection is that they both have a parent who holds a Japanese passport. Sucha label will perpetuate the idea that children in Japan with one Japanese parent
are foreign and guarantee that they continued to be assigned an alternative spacefor discussion outside of the boundaries of Japanese identity; an alternative space
under the label of “hafu”.

References
Almonte-Acosta, S. A. (2008). Ethnic identity: The case of Filipino-Japanese children in Japan. AsiaPacific Social Science Review, 8(2), 17–33.
Befu, H, & Manabe, K. (1991). Nihonjinron: The discursive manifestation of cultural nationalism.
Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies. 40, 101–116.
Befu, H. (2001). Hegemony of Homogeneity: An Anthropological Analysis of Nihonjinron. Melbourne:
Trans Pacific Press.
Bradley, N. P. (2013). International posture and cultural nationalism among Japanese university
students. TESOL International Journal. 8(1), 70–98.
De Mente, B. (1961). Japanese manners and ethics in business. Tokyo: East Asia Publishing Co.
Doi, T. (1986). Amae: A key concept for understanding Japanese personality structure. In T. Lebra& W. Lebra (Eds.). Japanese culture and behaviour: Selected readings. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press.
Frankenberg, F. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Goodman, R. (1990). Japan’s ‘international youth’: The emergence of a new class of schoolchildren.

119

Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Gutierrez, R. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics toLatino/a students. American Educational Research Journal. 39(4), 1047–1088.
Hafu (2020) Hafu the film: Background. Hafu the film. Retrieved from http://hafufilm.com/en/about/background/Hafu2Hafu (2020) About Hafu2Hafu. Hafu2Hafu. Retrieved from. https://hafu2hafu.org/about/
Holliday, A. (2013). Understanding Intercultural Communication: Negotiating a Grammar of Culture.
London: Routledge.
Ishihara, S., & Morita, A. (1991). The Japan that can say no. Tokyo: Simon, & Schuster.
Iwabuchi, K. (1994). Complicit exoticism: Japan and its other. Continuum: The Australian Journalof Media and Culture. Retrieved from www. mcc. murdoch. edu. au/readingroom/8. 2/iwabuchi.
Html
James, M. (2014). The hafu experience. Honi Soit. Retrieved from http://honisoit.com/ 2014/10/
the-hafu-experience/
Krieger, D. (2010, Nov 29) The whole story on being hafu. CNN Online. Retrieved from http://travel.
cnn.com/explorations/life/whole-story-being-hafu-722376/
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics
research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly. 33(1), 9–35.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven: University
of Yale Press.
Lebra, T. (1976). Japanese patterns of behaviour. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.
Murphy-Shigematsu, S. (2001) Multiethnic lives and monoethnic myths: American-JapaneseAmerasians in Japan. In T.K. Williams-Leon, and C.L. Nakashima (eds.), The sum of our parts:
Mixed heritage Asian Americans. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp. 207–218
Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. London: Weidenfeld, & Nicolson.
Nippon.com (2015) International Marriage in Japan. Nippon Online. Retrieved from https://www.
nippon.com/en/features/h00096/a-look-at-international-marriage-in-japan.html
No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects andmoderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology. 95(4), 991–1004.
Pedwell, C. (2010). Feminism, Culture and Embodied Practice: The rhetorics of comparison.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Phillips, A. (2010). What’s wrong with essentialism? Distinktion: Scandinavian journal of social
theory. 11(1), 47–60.
Pritchard, R. M. O (1995). Amae and the Japanese learner of English: An action research study.
Language, Culture and Curriculum. 8(3), 249–264.
Rhodes, M., Leslie, S., & Tworek, C. M. (2012). Cultural transmission of social essentialism.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109(34), 13526–13531.
Saberi, R. (2015) Being ‘hafu’ in Japan: Mixed-race people face ridicule, rejection. Al Jazeera.
Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/9/hafu-in-japan-mixed-race.html

120Hafu（ハーフ）Group Identity: Reification Not Liberation ■Shoji, K. (2013) Double the trouble, twice the joy for Japan’s hafu. Japan Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2013/10/03/films/double-the-trouble-twice-the-joy-forjapans-hfu/
Seiger, F. (2019). ‘Mixed’ Japanese-Filipino identities under Japanese multiculturalism, Social
Identities, 25:3, 392–407
Spivak, G. C. (1987). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics. New York: Methuen.
Sugimoto, Y. (1999). Making sense of Nihonjinron. Thesis Eleven, 57, 81–96
Tador, C. T., Chao, M. M., Hong, Y. Y., & Polzer, J. T. (2013). Not just for stereotyping anymore:
Racial essentialism reduces domain-general creativity. Psychological Science. 24(1), 99–105.
Van Wolferen, K. (1989). The enigma of Japanese power: People and politics in a stateless nation.
New York, Vintage.

121