HIEA115 Medium Post #1
To provide some background, the Japanese government implemented new laws that transformed the family system. These laws were adopted from the Meiji Civil Code, which defined personhood, family, and succession among others. But today we will focus on how the Meiji Civil Code outlined the rights of women and how widows found a loophole in the system. To begin with, widows used the new system to their advantage but unfortunately, “[their] victories had their limitations. Since strengthened widow rights were an accouterment of strengthened household-head rights, widows’ rights still were vulnerable once a male heir was secured through adoption” (31). Although the Meiji Civil Code had its limitations, it still gave women the opportunity to gain equal rights. Do you know that saying “two steps forward, one step back”? Women gained more rights, but in the grand scheme of things, still had a long way to go.
Japan implemented the colonial legal system in Taiwan and Korea. In Taiwan, practices were preserved depending on whether or not they violated “public order and good morals.” For example, the Taiwanese had a practice called “sim-pua”, or the “trafficking or wives and daughters”, in which poor families gave their daughters to another family, who raised them to become their future daughter-in-law. Both families benefited from this practice: the former ensured that their daughter was taken care of and the ladder maintained their family bloodline. The colonial authorities, however, likened “sim-pua” to slavery and thought it was an archaic and barbaric practice.
On the other hand, the colonial legal system affected contention over inheritance rights and lineage groups in Korea. This further complicated what widows were legally allowed to inherit. Furthermore, women from wealthier families had an advantage if their inheritance rights were contested. The lawsuit filing fee was around 3.5 won and the fee to hire a scribe was around 5–6 won, totaling around 10 won which the average female worker could not afford. (Female factory workers earned about 10 won/month.)
Due to the changes in the colonial legal system in Taiwan and Korea, local elites began to either change their view about women’s rights or see women as a threat to the old order. Taiwanese and Korean local elites probably did not like the new system at first because it was different and difficult to adjust to. It is also important to realize, however, that Japan took over both countries through military force, and as a result, the citizens of both countries were likely not happy with any changes regardless of their nature. With that said, although the changes to the colonial legal system were unwelcome by local elites, they did advance women’s rights. This however poses the question of what the main driver for modernization is. Is modernization as we know it worthwhile if it is at the expense of others?
I agree with the argument that changes that favored women vis-a-vis patriarchal households were only advanced because they were profitable to the interest of Japanese capital. In other words, women only gained more household rights because, or rather as a result of Japanese capitalism and colonialism. According to “Widowed Household Heads and the New Boundary of the Family” by Sungyun Lim, it states that “Women who were household heads literally embodied the boundary between the new colonial household and the lineage and thus often found themselves in a crossfire between the interest of the lineage and the interests of the colonial state” (36). More specifically, women served as a boundary between the lineage and the new colonial household. Although women were still part of the family bloodline and had to abide by its system of inheritance, the new colonial legal system created a loophole in which widows were legally allowed to inherit their deceased husband’s property. Moreover, “colonial laws had a complex influence on women’s status and legal rights under the colonial legal system: at the very least, the new colonial legal system breached the old system just enough so that some women were able to utilize it to their gain in unexpected ways” (36). The Japanese government did not expect widows to benefit as they did from the colonial legal system. They had originally implemented the system in their colonies in order to make them more Japanese and modern.
I think it has been really interesting to see how historical change takes place in different places. This past week, we talked about the transformation of the family system in Japan, using two of its colonies as an example. Japan created the Meiji Civil Codes, or Mimpo, in order to modernize as a nation. In 1896, the Japanese Civil Code was created after World War II and still remains in effect. The code was a result of the Meiji Restoration (Britannica). Today, Japan has six codes that still remain in effect: The Civil Code (1896), The Commercial Code (1899), The Criminal Code (1907), The Constitution of Japan (1946), The Code of Criminal Procedure (1948), and The Code of Civil Procedure (1996).
It seems like, at least in the case of Taiwan and Korea, the main driver of historical change and transformation of the family system was imperialism. According to Oxford Languages, imperialism is “a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” Japan practiced imperialism because it wanted to establish its racial superiority and expand its sphere of influence. It is through forced military takeovers of countries in the Greater East Asian (Facing History and Ourselves). Japan continued to expand its empire until its defeat in World War II.
