Nara Women's University
Gender and Welfare States in East Asia:
Confucianism or Gender Equality? Edited bySung & Gillian Pascall(London, Palgrave
Macmillan, 2014)
メタデータ

言語: English
出版者: アジア・ジェンダー文化学研究センター
公開日: 2021-07-30
キーワード (Ja):
キーワード (En): East Asia, Gendar Equality, Gender
作成者: 飯田,愛紀
メールアドレス:所属:

URL

http://hdl.handle.net/10935/5600

アジア・ジェンダー文化学研究【第 5 号】2021［書評］

Gender and Welfare States in East Asia:
Confucianism or Gender Equality?
Edited by Sung & Gillian Pascall（London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014）

Aki Iida（アジア・ジェンダー文化学研究センター協力研究員／ Corvinus University of Budapest）　　Gender and Welfare States have been discussed quite a lot, but most of the related
work has focused on Western society and has not addressed East Asia – or when East
Asia’s gender and welfare systems are analyzed, their character is typically ascribed tothe influence of Confucianism. However, “East Asia” is composed of several countries,
including Japan, Korea, and China, and it is thus inappropriate to explain andcollectively simplify the former as Confucian Welfare States. In reference to the Global
Gender Gap Report published by the World Economic Forum in 2020, Japan ranked
121st, South Korea ranked 108th, and China ranked 106th out of 153 countries（World
Economic Forum, 2020）. Although these regions may appear to be similar regarding
gender equality from a statistical perspective, it is an oversimplification to say thisis due to the influence of Confucianism. In the book I review here, the editors ShirinSung（Lecturer in Social Policy at Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom）and
Gillian Pascall（Professor Emeritus of Social Policy at the University of Nottingham）
invited nine authors to contribute to the nine chapters contained therein. The main
purpose of this book is to explore whether the East Asian Welfare model – in particular,
Confucianism’s influence on gender – is universal in East Asia. The chapters focus on
Korea, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and Japan regarding their societies and gender
environment. Although the topics included in each chapter are diverse, the linkage
between Confucianism and gender can be identified. This review mainly touches upon
Chapters 2 and 8.
　　In Chapter 2（“Work–Family Balance Issues and Policies in Korea: Towards an
Egalitarian Regime?”）, the author Shirin Sung, one of the editors, qualitatively analyzes
married working women’s experiences and changes in work-family balance policies.
As the labor market participation of Korean women increased after the end of the
1980s, work-family balance became a key issue in Korea. The cultural roles of men
and women also shifted somewhat, along with changes in the economy and politics– such as the equal opportunity legislation that was introduced in 1987, and the factthat “maternity leave for childrearing” was reclassified as “parental leave” in 1995 toemphasize the responsibility of fathers as well as mothers. Family law was reformed in

Gender and Culture in Asia Vol.5, 2021

97

アジア・ジェンダー文化学研究【第 5 号】2021

2008 to abolish Ho-ju（similar to Chinese Hukou）, thus official recognition of “the man
as head of the family” was downplayed. However, it remains questionable whether
the gender roles of men and women at home actually shifted from a traditional to amore egalitarian model – the author writes. For example, women’s participation in thelabor market by age follows a typical M-curve, indicating that women at the stageof early motherhood face difficulty working outside the home. The author presents
plentiful statistical data to show there is a gap between awareness and actual behavior;although many men and women think that housework should be shared equally, mosthousework is still done by the latter. The author conducted a semi-structured interview
with 60 married female workers between the ages of 19 and 60 to find out what Korean
women experience on a daily basis. It transpires, among other things, that womenthemselves think that childcaring is a woman’s job（and even if they do not, theirhusbands or mother-in-laws do）; the ideal is that the couple share tasks equally, but
the reality is that most responsibilities are taken on by the female partner. Additionally,some of the interviewees said their husbands have a “Confucian mindset.” Based onthese results, the author claims that husbands’ beliefs（that childcare is the mother’s
responsibility）influence working mothers to take on more tasks; if husbands’ beliefs
were actually more patriarchal, working mothers might have difficulty coping with paid
work and childcare at the same time.
　　Then, what about caring for parents-in-law? Most interviewees responded that theirparents’ old age should be taken care of at home, and that sons should be primarily
responsible for this, although in reality it is typically the wives of sons – daughterin-laws – who are in charge of care. The author writes that this result matches otherstatistical data she quotes. Since sons, especially eldest sons, are the family heirs, theeldest daughter-in-law typically takes care of family members, including the husband’sside of the family, but not always the her own side; this idea has primarily Confucianroots. It is traditionally considered a virtue for Korean women to live with their parentsin-law after marriage, although this does not mean that married women who do soare satisfied. Some interviewees reported to having conflicts with their parents-in-law
when they lived with them. The battle between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law has
long been a part of Korean society. One-third of interviewees replied that wives are
more responsible for their husbands’ parents than their own – and the reason for thisis Confucian tradition, as well as social customs. The author believes that Confucian
traditions appear to be entrenched in these respondents’ ideas. What is more, they do
not consider this to be unfair, but rather an obligation. The rest of the interviewees,on the other hand, perceived some inconsistency between their personal thoughts andtheir actual lives. They do not think it is appropriate to prioritize their parents-in-law
over their parents, but their husbands believe in Confucian ideas about gender roles,

98

Gender and Culture in Asia Vol.5, 2021

（書評）Gender and Welfare States in East Asia

leaving few options for wives after marriage.
　　All interviewees were working outside of home, and it was reported that being bothan employee and a wife is difficult. Interviewees think that the condition of working
women is getting better, although – for example – they know that they have the rightto take maternity leave for two months, but their boss will not allow it so they must
compromise by taking one month – some reported. Some argued that South Korea’s
work-family balance policy has not been highly effective, as women are under pressure
not to exercise their rights or risk losing their jobs. Furthermore, most of the interviewees
said that equal opportunity legislation has not yet been effective in reality. The author
states that this is not only because it is difficult to take full maternity leave, but also
because of the predominant ideology and male-dominated work culture. Although thesituation is better than in the past, the challenge is to encourage and promote couples
to share unpaid work more equally, and to recognize maternity, paternity, and parental
leave as parental rights, as these are still covered under the expression “maternal
protection” – the author states. She also concludes that an egalitarian regime does not
yet exist, and that traditional Confucian ideas still prevail in all areas regarding genderroles.
　　In Chapter 8（“Prime Ministers’ Discourse in Japan’s Reforms since the 1980s:
Traditionalization of Modernity rather than Confucianism”）, the authors Emiko Ochiai（a professor of sociology at the Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University）and
Ken’ichi Johshita（a research associate of political science at the Graduate School ofLaw, Kyoto University, and an adjunct instructor at Ritsumeikan University）, showhow, through the discourse analysis of prime ministers’ dialogue, Japan’s path is uniquein terms of modernity regarding gender roles and family policies. The authors state that
there is a common understanding that the penetration of Confucianism into traditionalsociety in Japan has been shallower than in other Asian countries. In ancient times,
Japanese women enjoyed relatively high status, as well as inheritance rights, in contrast
to the situation in other Asian countries. Following this, the ancient Chinese system（including Confucianism）was adopted in around the sixth and seventh centuries, but
its impact was limited, or it took centuries to take root. Above all, it was Buddhism
that had a religious influence on Japan, thus there was no room for Confucianism
to penetrate deeply. In the seventeenth century, however, Confucianism（or moreaccurately, the Cheng-Zhu school）spread to the Samurai class, where the familysystem was different from that of other classes during the Edo period. After the Meiji
Restoration in 1868, the government worked on policies of Westernization, but later– due to a return to East Asian traditions – leaders incorporated Confucian teachings
into a textbook for education in 1890: accordingly, together with the promulgationof the Meiji Civil Code in 1898, Confucian family values spread to the masses. The

Gender and Culture in Asia Vol.5, 2021

99

アジア・ジェンダー文化学研究【第 5 号】2021

situation should not be oversimplified, but while studying the West, several elements ofConfucianism were incorporated to create the ideology of modern Japan. Accordingly,
even though “Confucianism” is one designation for the system, the authors warnthat one must be sensitive to the use of this word because it has been imported andreshaped in different countries.
　　Given the above, the authors focus on the unique path of Japan since 1970 inthis chapter. According to the authors, Japanese society fostered gender policies after
1970, going beyond a desire to imitate Western society and to seek its own path.
Looking back on Japanese history, women’s labor participation rate has been always
high, but in the first half of the twentieth century – as was the case in other developed
countries – it fell and the “male breadwinner model” was adopted by the middle classin urban areas. After World War II, this model spread to all strata, and women’s labor
participation began to follow an M-shape; since then – as is well known – women’slabor participation rates have risen dramatically in many Western countries, but the life
course of Japanese women has not changed much, creating Japan’s unique situation.
　　Thus, what kinds of ideologies and policies have contributed to this uniqueness?
The authors analyzed the discourse of prime ministers’ speeches/remarks in the Diet
using the online database of the National Diet proceedings. In the speeches of 29
Prime Ministers – from Shigeru Yoshida（1948-1954）to Yoshihiko Noda（2011-2012）–,the authors counted how often the words “family” and “home” were used. If the target
word appeared many times in one speech, it was counted as one occurrence, and the
proportion of meetings/remarks that were made during one ministerial tenure was also
calculated. The finding is that since the incumbency of Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke（1957-1960）, the grandfather of Abe Shinzo, onwards, the frequency of references to“family” and “home” increased. Since the former’s time the context of using the words
family and home also changed, and became more of an obligation as the welfare of
the family was seen from the perspective of families as victims of the war. From themid-1990s onwards, the home/family became a political issue, and the term “women”
was used more often in the context of family/home. The authors also investigated
how often the 29 prime ministers used the terms “female,” “mother,” “wife,” and so on,
regarding women. Consequently, the authors found that two periods are identifiable inwhich the more frequent use of family/home and women-related words may be noted –during the Nakasone administration（1982-1987）, and the after mid-1990s.
　　The Nakasone administration was neo-liberal in terms of policy, in line with theThatcher and Reagan administrations, but its social welfare policy was a uniquefeature of the Japanese-style welfare system. Japan was experiencing rapid economic
growth as a result of the 1960s, while Japan’s unique culture and management stylebecame known worldwide, as highlighted by the book Japan as Number One,

100

Gender and Culture in Asia Vol.5, 2021

（書評）Gender and Welfare States in East Asia

Lessons for America by Ezra Vogel, published in 1979. Thus, Nakasone was perhaps
confident in claiming the unique nature of Japan’s own welfare system. The Nakasone
administration also made major changes, such as ratifying the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the enactment of theEqual Opportunity Act. However, it was also the Nakasone administration that createdthe “National Pension No. 3 Insured Persons System” in connection with housewives’
pensions. This was a well-developed pension incentive policy for married housewives（and those who earned less than 1.3 million JPY a year）, which decreased the incentive
for women to earn more than this amount. This law and the enactment of the Equal
Opportunity Law came into force at the same time in 1986, which resulted in a dilemma
for women regarding whether to pursue a career or focus on other areas such as family
life. The authors analyzed Nakasone’s speech, seeking to identify why he createdthese policies that divided women into two groups（career-minded vs. home-maker）.
Nakasone emphasized that the Japanese type of welfare was centered on the home,
and that the home is the provider of welfare（a different idea from the Western modelof a welfare state）, and that he was aiming for the construction of a society rich in“propriety” and “love”（propriety is a Confucian term; love is a modern Western value）.
Namely, he used Confucian concepts to apply a patina to the Japanese welfare modelthat resembled more closely the Western or modern type. Nakasone repeatedly said
that he supported the gender division of labor, but – as mentioned earlier – Japanesewomen have worked throughout history, and even had inheritance rights at an earlystage, so the claim that the “division of labor by gender role is Japanese culture” does
not correspond to Japanese traditions. However, what can be said is that the Nakasone
administration successfully associated the modern family “male breadwinner model”
with Japanese “tradition,” the authors state.
　　On the other hand, economic stagnation began in the mid-1990s – the collapse of
the bubble – and continues to the present day. Japan’s population distribution began
to change, with a declining birthrate and a growing proportion of elderly. Japan was
thus under pressure to make reforms. The Hashimoto administration（1994-1996）
went in almost the same direction as Western countries, and Hashimoto himself madestatements such as “…both men and women can lead a balanced work life and family
life.” However, his policy efforts, which lasted two years, were incomplete. After thiscame Koizumi, who served as prime minister in the 2000s and was Minister of Health,
Labor and Welfare in the Hashimoto Cabinet. During his term there was extremely little
mention of family/women. Shinzo Abe, prime minister from 2006-2007（2012-2020）,
was Koizumi’s successor, and the authors suggest that if someone adopted the ideaof Confucianism, it may be Shinzo. However, the latter rarely mentioned Confucian
principles and rather emphasized the importance and responsibility of the family in his

Gender and Culture in Asia Vol.5, 2021101

アジア・ジェンダー文化学研究【第 5 号】2021

dialogue. It can be said that his ideological position was similar to that of Nakasone’s,
but the social situation had changed by the 1980s, so he could not deliver the same
policy as Nakasone. Thus, Abe placed emphasized on having what he called “abeautiful country” instead. Though he mentioned “manners,” “culture,” “the Emperor”
and so on, he did not typically mention Confucianism, which originated in China.
　　In short, since the Nakasone administration Japan has sought to follow a different
path to the West, and has aimed to pursue “Japanese welfare style,” but in reality thisresembles modern society’s “male breadwinner model.” Although there may have beensome indirect influence of Confucianism, it is rare to encounter Confucian concepts.
In other words, the modern style, involving the “male breadwinner model,” has been
twisted and deemed a Japanese tradition since the time of the Nakasone administration;
the authors call this the “traditionalization of modernity.” This “male breadwinnermodel” as the “traditionalization of modernity” is not only attractive from an ideologicalperspective, but also attractive to those who work at large companies, while employees
and housewives enjoy policies like National Pension No. 3., as mentioned above.
Hence, the situation cannot be changed easily due to this electoral strategy of theruling party. The authors note that the Nakasone administration’s “traditionalization ofmodernity” ironically led to the “lost decades” of economic stagnation.
　　Throughout the book, each author discusses the impact of Confucianism on
societies and their own topics regarding the gender perspective. The book is thus
recommended to researchers whose specialty is gender studies, as well as those whoare interested in the East Asian area, as it provides a comprehensive understanding of
the relationship between East Asian gender and Confucianism. As can be seen fromthe cases of Japan and South Korea（as mentioned earlier）, it is clear that the meaningof “Confucianism” is not homogenous, although the direct and indirect influences ofConfucianism cannot be denied completely. If there is something common to East Asiansocieties, it is that welfare policy is biased towards the “family,” which means thatwomen are considered the primary caregivers. Government representatives use terms
such as “tradition” and “Confucianism,” but behind these expressions is the intention to
encourage family and relatives（in reality, typically women）to deal with family-related
responsibilities, such as child-rearing and elderly care.

102

Gender and Culture in Asia Vol.5, 2021