Critique: Toward a Revision of the Concept of“Reconstruction”

Kōjirō Miyahara
Director, Institute of Disaster Area Revitalization, Regrowth and Governance,Professor, Department of Sociology,Kwansei Gakuin University

In the past few years, there has been a growing call to rethink the concept of “recovering”
from disasters. At the center of this effort is a search for a new view of “revitalization” that
corresponds to this social transformation, based on a head-on acceptance of the end of“growth societies” premised on expanding populations and economies. It is striking that theissue of the “dignified shrinkage” (Tomohide Atsumi and Katsuya Yamori) of aging anddepopulating communities was raised at the September conference of the Japan Society for
Disaster Recovery and Revitalization. It seems that the necessity of “shifting the axis ofaffluence,” an issue raised after the Chuetsu Earthquake (2004), is now widely and concretelyrecognized.
As one can sense from the blandness of the term “Reconstruction Olympics,” the word
“reconstruction” still clings tightly to a conventional growth-and-expansion orientation. The
focus has primarily been on infrastructure investment and urban and regional redevelopment
to support the illusion of regrowth and redevelopment in affected areas, with the rehabilitationof the lives of individual disaster victims remaining a secondary goal. Although the Great East
Japan Earthquake Reconstruction Basic Act (2012) includes some new perspectives, thecenter of gravity of reconstruction is “not merely disaster recovery, but the revitalization of a
© 2021 Institute of Disaster Area Revitalization, Regrowth and Governance, Kwansei Gakuin University

vibrant Japan.” The UN's Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction (2015) touts “Build BackBetter” as the catchphrase for reconstruction. It has been pointed out that such growth-andexpansion-oriented reconstruction has often brought disappointment due to its lack of realism
and has invited criticism and skepticism due to the inadequate rebuilding of the affected
people’s lives (e.g., “reconstruction disaster”).
With its declining and aging population and stagnant economic growth, modern Japan is
no longer a “growth society,” but it is not a “mature society” either. This is because “maturity”
for a society should mean not only the end of quantitative growth and expansion but also thebeginning of qualitative enrichment and deepening. The original meaning of the term maturesociety is “a world that gives up growth in population and material consumption but not in
quality of life, a society at a high level of material civilization, peaceful, and compatible withthe nature of humanity” (D. Gabor, The Mature Society). It is also a cultural welfare societythat does not grow and expand but instead moves toward the qualitative enrichment andspiritual richness of each individual’s life. Even though we are far from such a mature society
in the positive sense, we are certainly at least on the threshold of searching for it.
When we review the concept of reconstruction in light of the possibilities of such a maturesociety, our eyes are opened anew to the perspective of “human reconstruction,” which arose
as far back as a century ago, at the time of the Great Kanto Earthquake. “Humanreconstruction means the restoration of opportunities for survival that have been destroyedby catastrophe. ... Roads and buildings are merely instrumental in maintaining and defending
this milestone. Even if we reconstruct them, it will be for nothing if we do not restore the main
body of the economy and real opportunities for living” (Tokuzō Fukuda, The Principles andProblems of the Reconstruction Economy). In contrast to “imperial reconstruction,” theprimary goal here is to restore the lives and livelihoods of those affected by the disaster, andinfrastructure investment and urban redevelopment are positioned as “tools” for this purpose.
Fukuda's emphasis was on rebuilding the economic lives of the disaster victims, but thefundamentals of his thinking seem to be connected to what is today called the “right to thepursuit of happiness” and “human security.”
The re-examination of the concept of reconstruction for a mature society requires a deeper
and more expansive, contemporary concept of human reconstruction. For example, we will
deepen the meaning of “rebuilding the livelihoods” of disaster victims and extend it to therestoration and rehabilitation of their quality of life, which includes not only economic aspects
but also the social and cultural aspects of their lives. While taking into account the growing
importance of economic aspects in today’s society of increasing inequality, future disasterreconstruction should focus on rebuilding people’s lives in a broad sense, including not only
economic life but also social interaction, cultural creation, and the restoration of purpose and© 2021 Institute of Disaster Area Revitalization, Regrowth and Governance, Kwansei Gakuin University

dignity in life. It is also important to note that for this reconstruction, the qualitative andsubjective assessment of the affected people themselves regarding the reconstruction of theirlives will be more important than the objective indicators of population and GDP increases
or decreases in a region or city.
Natural disasters are also an opportunity to bring out the ingenuity of various people toparticipate in society and rebuild their lives (“a recovery springboard”). Grassroots social andcultural creativity can be carefully applied to enhance the quality of life that lies right beneathpeople’s feet, particularly in a mature society that is not oriented toward growth and expansion.
It is important to note that even in discussions about the reconstruction of aging anddepopulated areas, the emphasis is not on mere shrinkage but on its dignified nature.
November 2021

© 2021 Institute of Disaster Area Revitalization, Regrowth and Governance, Kwansei Gakuin University