Ruffians, Yakuza, Nationalists: The Violent Politics of Modern Japan, 1860–1960

by Eiko Maruko Siniawer

Violence and democracy may seem fundamentally incompatible, but the two have often been intimately and inextricably linked. In Ruffians, Yakuza, Nationalists , Eiko Maruko Siniawer argues that violence has been embedded in the practice of modern Japanese politics from the very inception of the country's experiment with democracy. As soon as the parliament opened its doors in 1890, brawls, fistfights, vandalism, threats, and intimidation quickly became a fixture in Japanese politics, from campaigns and elections to legislative debates. Most of this physical force was wielded by what Siniawer calls "violence specialists": ruffians and yakuza. Their systemic and enduring political violence-in the streets, in the halls of parliament, during popular protests, and amid labor strife-ultimately compromised party politics in Japan and contributed to the rise of militarism in the 1930s. For the post-World War II years, Siniawer illustrates how the Japanese developed a preference for money over violence as a political tool of choice. This change in tactics signaled a political shift, but not necessarily an evolution, as corruption and bribery were in some ways more insidious, exclusionary, and undemocratic than violence. Siniawer demonstrates that the practice of politics in Japan has been dangerous, chaotic, and far more violent than previously thought. Additionally, crime has been more political. Throughout the book, Siniawer makes clear that certain yakuza groups were ideological in nature, contrary to the common understanding of organized crime as nonideological. Ruffians, Yakuza, Nationalists is essential reading for anyone wanting to comprehend the role of violence in the formation of modern nation-states and its place in both democratic and fascist movements.

Genres: Japan, History, Japanese History, Nonfiction

288 pages, Hardcover

Published October 30, 2008

Reviews

[Benemint · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's ok. Some information is interesting, but her framework is more limiting than necessary. She wants to argue that democracy and violence are intertwined, not at odds. This is not news at all. In fact, there is a huuuuge body of literature starting in the 1960s about how to secure structural stability in turbulent democracy - the premise is that democracy is of course violent. Because she did not do her homework to read this literature, her point about "violent democracy" remains shallow. There are many more things she could have talked about by using her research material.

[George · Rating 2 out of 5]

I barely touched this book. By no means did I not find her writing or her information uninteresting, quite the opposite in fact; she provided details about organized crime in Japan that I hardly knew. But when your Japanese history professor tells you a story about how he competed in the biggest aikido tournament of the 20th century, (where Steven Seagal also competed as a teenager) was victorious, and the title was given to him by one of the biggest gangsters in all of Japan? The novel obviously loses its appeal.