第２回研究会の報告 The Report of 2nd Meeting

第2回関西アナーキズム研究会の報告

日時と場所：2013年3月24日（日）12:30～16:00頃まで、心斎橋英國屋パーティールームにて。出席者8名


関口寛氏による報告「創立期の全国水平社とアナキズム」の要旨：

１ 従来の研究の問題点
　戦後、水平運動史研究は、左派（マルクス主義）中心史観に基づいて研究が開始された。その後、融和運動や右派水平運動などに焦点を当てる研究が現れ、多様な部落解放運動の実態が明らかにされてきた。アナ派の研究もこうした左派中心史観を相対化する研究潮流の中から登場し、1975年に宮崎晃によって発表された研究がその嚆矢であった。その後、1990年代に三原容子はアナ派の活動が戦前期を通じて継続されていたことを明らかにした。また、従来知られていなかった経済基盤としての「掠」、共同生活、任侠的気風など、アナ派独自の特徴があったことも指摘している。こうした水平運動のアナ派に焦点を当てた研究の中では、ボル派が無産政党および無産労働運動に部落解放運動を解消させる路線を推進したのに対して、アナ派は部落解放運動の固有性を主張した、という評価がなされてきた。ただし、左派を中心とする立場からは、アナ派が暴力革命、差別糾弾に見られる直接行動主義、閉鎖的な部落解放運動を推進した、などとする否定的な評価が与えられ、ボル派はこういった特質を克服することに貢献した、という見解が示されている。しかしながら、ボル派からコミンテルンに当てて提出された報告を分析すると、ボル派も成立当初は暴力革命を目指していたことが明らかである。また、アナ派が労働運動などと共闘していたという事実を無視している。むしろ、アナ派とボル派との違いとして指摘できるのは、ボル派が被差別部落民を封建制の下で形成された身分で、資本制社会においては階級であると見なしていたのに対し、アナ派は、固有の文化と歴史を持つ民族集団である、という見解を示していた、という点だといえよう。

２ 水平社宣言に見られるアナーキズムの影響　
　従来の研究の中で、あまり注目されていないが、きわめて興味深い指摘がなされている。それは、歴史教科書にも引用されるほど有名な水平社宣言に関してロシア文学研究者の松岡保が1980年代に発表したものである。松岡は、水平社宣言に見られる自身に対する「同情」や「いたわり」を拒絶する語り、自らの人間としての尊厳を主張する語りが、相馬御風の著書『ゴーリキイ』（1915年）の言説に由来することを明らかにした。御風は、ゴーリキーが小説「どん底」などに登場する底辺社会の浮浪者や前科者などを通じて、人間の価値と尊厳を力強く描いたことを高く評価しており、水平社創立宣言にはその人間を肯定する文学論と表現が取り入れられた。さらに松岡は、この御風による評価が、ピョートル・クロポトキン『ロシア文学の理想と現実』のロシア文学とゴーリキーに対する理解を引き写したものであることを説得的に論証している。つまり、水平社宣言には、相馬御風を介してアナーキズム的な思想・言説が選択的に受容されたわけである。水平社宣言が発表される1920年代、日本では、ヨーロッパの遺伝学や犯罪人類学などの人種科学が受容され、貧民、浮浪者、犯罪者、障害者、被差別部落民を「劣等」な人間と規定する考え方が蔓延していた。水平社宣言が、社会に「同情」や「いたわり」を乞うのではなく、高い自尊心を持って生きることを説いたのは、人間の生と闘争に絶対的価値を見いだすアナーキズム的思想に、人種主義に対抗しうる魅力を見いだしていたからではないだろうか。

３ 今後の検討課題
　あらゆる人間を等しく尊厳ある人間と見なす考え方は、大杉栄などに見られる「大正生命主義」と呼ばれる一連の思想と関わりがあるのか。三原が指摘したアナ派の運動の特徴、および、創立当初から見られた人間の尊厳を全面的に肯定する思想の特徴は、その後、現代に至るまで部落解放運動のなかで引き継がれている側面があるようにも感じられる。人類史におけるアナキズム思想の意義と可能性、という観点からさらなる考察が必要であろう。

Report of our Second Regular Meeting

Our Second Meeting was held in the "Party Room" of Cafe Eikokuya, Shinsaibashi-Ten from 12:30 to 16 pm, on March 24, 2013. Eight people attended.

Summary of Sekiguchi's Report　"Zenkoku Suiheisha in the　Founding Period and Anarchism":

1. Some problems of previous studies on Suiheisha  

 Zenkoku Suiheisha (National Horizontal Association) was established in 1922 for the equality of the pariah cast people (“Burakumin”= “Fallen Cast People”) and their communities (“Hisabetsu Buraku”). (For more information see below: the English translation of “The Suiheisha Declaration”, 1922).

http://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2002/03/declaration-of-human-rights-in-japan.html

 http://blhrri.org/blhrri_e/blhrri/ebooks001.htm

 After the Second World War, historical studies on the Suiheisha movement started. At the beginning almost all studies were based on a Marxist approach. After the initial period other studies appeared focusing on the movement of realists: “Yuwa Undo” (that accepted government policies for the Burakumin people and their communities very positively), as well as studies on the history of nationalistic right wing Suiheisha movement.

  These studies uncovered the diversity of the Suiheisha movements before WWII. The historical studies on anarchists in the Suiheisha movement immerged from this wave of studies which were a contrast to the leftist/Marxist studies on the Suiheisha movement.
  “Discrimination and Anarchism: The History of Suiheisha Movement and the Struggle between the Anarchists and Bolshivists” (1975) by Akira Miyazaki was the pioneering study on the anarchists’ current in the Suiheisha movement.
 In the 1990s’ historian Yoko Mihara criticized former studies which stated that the anarchists disappeared before the 1930’s. On the contrary Mihara demonstrated that anarchists never left the Suiheisha movement until the outbreak of the pacific war in 1941. She also pointed out that, as was unknown previously, the movement had its economic basis in the action of “snatch” (“Ryaku”) from the Capitalists or rich people. Other specific aspects of anarchism in the movement were expressed by their practice of communal living, and in their strong spirit of solidarity. (spirit of “Ninkyo”).
  Miyazaki and Mihara also emphasized that the anarchists thought of the Suiheisha movement as having a distinguished character, very different from other movements, while on the contrary the Bolshivists saw the movement as a part of the proletarian movement and actually promoted dissolving the movement into that of the proletariat.
 However, the Marxist scholars criticized the anarchists for promoting violent revolution, and for the violent direct action of denouncing individuals or organizations who discriminated against the “Buraku”. Marxist scholars also insisted that the anarchists made the Suiheisha movement very closed to other movements.
  But when I analyzed the reports which were sent from the Japanese Communist Party to the Communist International (Comitern) of Moscow, the following points became very clear: 1) The Japanese communists in the Suiheisha movement also promoted violent revolution from the beginning, as well as the anarchists. 2) The anarchists also collaborated with the labor movement and were very open towards other movements. From this analysis of the historical material, I can point out the differences between the anarchists and communists in the Suiheisha movement: the Bolshivists saw the “Burakumin” as a “cast” which was formed under feudal society, and that this “cast” is a “class” in capitalist society. In contrast to them the anarchists thought of the “Burakumin” as an ethnic group with their own specific culture and history. 

2. The Influences of anarchism on the “Suiheisha Declaration” 

 The Suiheisha Declaration has become so famous in Japan that it is cited in many school textbooks. But we know very little about the actual construction process of this text. In his articles published in the 1980’s, Tamotsu Matsuoka, a scholar of Russian literature, pointed out that the author of the Declaration views “compassion” very negatively. Instead the author emphasizes the importance of “promoting respect for human dignity”. We can find very similar texts in the book by writer Ghyofu Soma (1883 – 1950) about Russian writer and novelist “Gorky” (1905). Soma appraised Gorky’s novels especially “The Lower Depth” (1902), because Gorky showed his readers the importance of human dignity very clearly by describing underclass peoples such as vagabonds and ex-convicts. Matsuoka demonstrates that Gyofu Soma acquired such interpretations of Gorky’s novels from the book “Russian Literature: Ideal and Reality” (1915) By Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropoktin.
  With Matsuoka’s findings it became very clear that through Soma, the declaration was indirectly influenced by Kropoktin’s anarchistic ideas and discourse. In the 1920’s, European “racial sciences”, such as genetics and criminal anthropology were very widely accepted in Japan. Many people began to think that poor people, vagabonds, criminals, disabled people and Burakumin people were “inferior” human beings. This view was seen as “scientifically” correct. I believe that the appeal of anti racist sentiments and the absolute valuing of human life and struggles in anarchism is what lead to the Declaration asking not for “compassion” from society, but for the ability to live with dignity and self respect. 

3. For further research 
  1) Is there any connection between the thought "Taisho-Seimei-Shugi" (the idea regarding the "life" as the most fundamental factor of human social activity,　which become very popular in Taisho era　from 1912 to 1926) and the idea of Shuiheisha which recognizes all human being as equal and respectable?
  2) Are some characteristics of anarchist current in Suiheisha, which Mihara pointed out, and the specific feature of thought of Suiheisha that fully affirm the dignity of human being, which was seen from the beginning of Suiheisha, are taken over by Buraku emancipation movement of today?
  Considering on the potential and significance of anarchism in whole human history, we need further research on anarchistic current in the history of Suiheisha movement.