Samurai Status

Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historiographical Essay
Author(s): Douglas R. Howland

Source: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 60, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 353-380
Published by: Association for Asian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2659697 .
Accessed: 25/09/2013 07:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Asian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SamuraiStatus,Class,
and Bureaucracy:
A Historiographical
Essay
DOUGLAS R. HOWLAND
LIISTORICALLY, TOKUGAWA SAMURAI WERE A LEGAL creation thatgrewoutofthe

landed warriorsof the medievalage; they came to be definedby the Tokugawa
shogunatein termsof hereditary a rightto bear
status,a rightto hold public office,
arms,and a "culturalsuperiority" upheld througheducationalpreferment (Smith
1988, 134). With the prominentexceptionof Eiko Ikegami'srecentThe Tamingof
theSamurai(1995), littlehasbeenwrittenin Englishin thepasttwodecadesregarding
thesociopoliticalhistoryofthesamuraiin Tokugawaand Meiji Japan.E. H. Norman's
seminalwork,Japan's Emergenceas a Modern State,establishedtheparameters ofdebate
amongAmericanhistoriansofJapanfromthe 1950s throughthe 1970s. Drawingon
theMarxisthistoriography ofprewarJapan,Normaninterpreted theMeiji Restoration
in termsof class conflict:a modifiedbourgeoisrevolutiondirectedagainsta feudal
Tokugawaregime,led by a coalitionoflowersamuraiand merchants, and supported
bya peasantmilitia(Norman1194011975). SubsequentopponentsofNorman'swork
took issue with severalcomponentsof his analysis:Was the Tokugawa regimean
exampleof feudalism?Was therefragmentation among the samuraiclass? Did, in
fact,a "lower"class of samuraiexist,and weresamuraiat all motivatedby economic
considerations?Given the dominanttenorof modernizationtheoryand Parsonian
sociologyin the 1960s, Norman's opponentsstressedpolitical motivation,group
formation,the growthof participatory politics,and stylesof samuraileadership.
Subsequently,otherscholarshave reconfirmed and expanded upon key points in
supportofNorman'smonumentalinterpretation.'
Today,however,fewscholarswould supportthewholeofNorman'sanalysis.Few
ofus seekto discoverthedegreeto whichJapanconfirms a Europeanpattern,and the
Douglas R. Howland is Associate Professorin the Departmentof Historyat DePaul

University(Chicago).
Fundingforthe initialresearchand writingof this essaywas providedby DePaul Uni-
versity'sCollege of LiberalArts and Sciences.The InstituteforAdvancedStudygenerously
supportedtheworkofrevising.I am gratefulto former editorAnandYang and currenteditor
Ann Waltnerforarrangingsuch helpfulreaders'reports,and I thankKevin Doak, Elizabeth
Lillehoj,and David Tuckerfortheircommentsand encouragement.
1In general sympathywith Norman's desire to identifyclass phenomenaare Beasley
(1972); Hirschmeier(1964, 44-68); and Huber (1981). For counterargumentsthatclaim a
moreimportantroleforideas,theleadershipofindividuals,and powerpolitics,see Akamatsu
([19683 1972); Craig (1961); and Jansen(1961).
TheJournalofAsianStudies60, no. 2 (May 2001):353-380.
(? 2001 by the AssociationforAsian Studies,Inc.
353

354 DOUGLAS R. HOWLAND
bourgeoisrevolutionas a historicaltype now appearsoverlydeterministic and too

reductivein the faceof a varietyof nationaland sectarianrevoltsagainstaristocratic,
colonial,and other"premodern"states.But I am struckby two fundamental points
sharedby bothNorman'sopponentsand his supporters, which,I believe,are integral
to our descriptionsof humansocieties.First,nearlyeveryoneassumesthatJapanese
societyconsistsof groups describedas classes,in the most generalsense noted by
philosopherof historyR. G. Collingwoodor philosopherof languageW. V. Quine:
namely,theclassification ofa set ofpeople or thingsas a class,insofaras all members
of the set are said to sharesome measureof resemblance(Collingwood119421 n.d.,
130-31; Quine 1980, 72-74, 112-17). In thisregard,themain classesofTokugawa
societyare thesamurai,peasants,and townspeople.Second,nearlyall assumethatthe
samuraiare a rulingclass in the generalsense of political history.To borrowthe
language of E. P. Thompson(developed below), althoughsome have objected to
Norman'saccountof the samuraiclass as a heuristicor theoreticalcategory,most
proceedto accountforthe samuraiclass as a historicalcategory.But what does it
mean to call the samuraia rulingclass?And on whatgroundscan we describethem
as such?
Descriptionsof Tokugawa societytypicallyrelyon either"status" (mibun),as
primarily a legal conceptionin themannerofthe"fourordersofthepeople" theorized
in TokugawaNeo-Confucianism, as a "socialdivisionoflabor"in
or "class" (kaikyfi),
themannerof,again,the "fourorders."While thetheoretical developmentof"class"
has been largelytheworkofscholarsinterested in politicaleconomyand sympathetic
to Marxistanalysis,and "status" has been the focusof scholarsmore interestedin
legal and sociologicalquestions,the overlapbetweentheseusages begins with the
commonpoint of reference, the archaicexpressionshimin,whichrefersto the "four
orders"or "fourdivisionsofthepeople": thesamurai,peasants,artisans,andmerchants
(e.g., Bito 1981; Harootunian1970, 18-21; Henderson1968a, 394-95; Leupp 1999,
127; Nakane 1990, 213-16). Conceptualoverlapofstatusand class in contemporary
scholarshipis furtherencouragedby an inadvertentbut overlookedincommensur-
abilityof the concepts.Mibun(status),a termused by Tokugawa-period Japanese,is
a piece of the conceptualand social realityof Tokugawa history.Kaikyz7 (class), by
contrast,is a more recenttheoreticalconstruction thatwe use to our advantagein
analyzingsocietiespast and present.Statusand class thusreferto different but often
overlappingspheresof social activityand, althoughtheirusages are different, both
frequently and necessarilyappearin anygivendescriptionofTokugawasociety.
Rigorousconceptualclarityis rare.One primaryapproachhas been to analyze
systematically one or anotherof the fourdivisionsalone: wheresome scholarshave
repeatedlydesignateddifferent "classes"or "ranks"amongthe samuraiaccordingto
amountof stipend,othershave employedanalogouseconomiccriteria-thequantity
oflandownedorcultivated-to distinguish"classes"ofvillagepeasantry (Ooms 1996,
71-124; Vlastos, 1982, 171-73; Yamamura 1974, 128). HerbertBix and Herman
Ooms are perhapsunique in the Englishliteratureforcoordinatingclass and status;
bothreserve"class"as an economicdescription ofexploitativesocialrelations(echoing
key aspectsof Marx's definition)and "status" as a legal prescriptionand political
instrumentof samurai class domination.While Bix maintainsthat status was a
"fictitious" elementofpoliticalideologyfarlesssignificant thanclass,Ooms concludes
thatstatusand class are significant, complementary, and oftensubstitutableaspects
of Tokugawa society(Bix 1986, xv-xviii,218-19; Ooms 1996, 3, 126-32; see also
Tsuchiya1931). As I explainin thisessay,I am mostpersuadedby the formulation

SAMURAI STATUS, CLASS, AND BUREAUCRACY 355
ofMinegishiKentaro,whounderstands classas a summationofstatusand thedivision

of labor.
Aside fromevaluatingtheseanalyticalcategories,mymainpurposehereis rather
circumscribed: to reviewand clarifycurrentdescriptionsof the samuraiand to link
statusand class to anotherconcept,whichI hope provesusefulin understanding the
role of the samurai in Tokugawa Japan and their transitionto Meiji: their
administrative laborin government bureaucracy. What followsis a historiographical
essaythatexaminesthe conceptualbasis ofongoingdiscussionsofthe samurai,their
roleas a rulingclass,and theirbureaucraticlaborin TokugawaJapan.
Status
Mibunrefersto the circumstances of one's birth,one's family'srankamong the

noble or the common,and henceone's stationin life or positionin society;we do
well to translatemibunas social status.Firstused in China duringthe Song period
(960-1279), thetermgrewin importancein Japanduringthelate sixteenthcentury,
a period,like the Song, of great social change and mobilitybroughton by new
commercialopportunities and warfare,bothofwhichhavetendedthroughout human
historyto promotenew individualsand groupsto higherpositionsin society.In that
regard,mibunrepresents a conservative wish to reducesocial fluidityand to fixsocial
status.This pointhas beenestablishedfortheJapanesecase byTakikawaMasajiroin
his classicHistoryofLaw inJapan:alarmedat the ease withwhichruralinhabitants
of sixteenth-century Japan undertookboth farmingand fighting,the hegemon
ToyotomiHideyoshimovedto differentiate warriors(bushi)and farmers(hyakusho-)in
the interestsofpeace and stability-to definea man's statusas one or the other,and
thusto containbothgroupsbetter(Takikawa1959, 414; see also Asao 1991, 50-53;
Brown 1993, 14-24; Minegishi1989, 71-130).
Althoughrecentscholarshiphas questionedwhetheror not Hideyoshiintended
to segregatethe farmersfromthe warriorsin surveying Japanesesociety(discussed
below),scholarlyliteraturecontinuesto explainthisactofimposingstatusdistinctions
upon Japanesesocietyin the 1580s and its full elaborationunder the Tokugawa
shoguns as two relatedconstructions: a status hierarchydefines,first,a series of
occupationsserviceableto societyand, second, a moral systemof orderlysocial
relations.By the 1700s, both the occupationaland the moralapproachesto status
were explainedin termsof shimin,the "fourdivisions"of the people, a theoretical
constructbasedon ancientChineseand largelyConfucianpronouncements.2 Whether
translatedas the "fourpeoples,"the "fourclasses,"or the "fourorders,"the concept
of shiminclearlydefinesa division of labor-the officials(or samurai),peasants,
artisans,and merchants.As themid-Tokugawascholarand official OgyiuSorai(1666-
1728) explained,in what is likely the point of referencefor modernJapanese
scholarshipon the matterofshimin, the ancientsages createdthe "fourpeoples" as a
divisionof labor when theyseparatedthe human communityfromnature.At the
same time, the sages naturalizeda moral hierarchy, dividingthe people into their
properorder,fromhigh(jo) to low (ge)(Ogyiu[ca. 1716-281 1969, 11, 17, 24). This
occurs in the Shu jing (ClassicofHistory)5:20, but the original

2The earliestreference
datingofthistextremainsuncertain.For thedevelopmentofshimininJapan,see Asao (1992,
14-24) and Shimada(1971, 335-40). Accordingto Banba Masatomo,shimindid not become
commonplaceamongTokugawa Confuciansuntilthe 1720s; see Ooms (1996, 298).

overlapofa divisionoflaborand a moralhierarchy is implicitin thepointthatancient

Confucianphilosophersand their"legalist"rivalsshared:the naturaldistribution of
talentand abilityjustifiesthesocial divisionoflabor(see Hsiao 1979, 350-55; Creel
1974, 95-100). Or, as theConfucianMenciusput it, thereare "thosewho workwith
theirmuscles"and otherswho "workwiththeirmrinds" (Menciust4thc. BCJ 1970,
101). The keyto the moralsignificance of labor is its productivevalue: the officials
are morallyhighestbecausetheyassistthe sovereignin ruling;the peasantssecond,
because theyworkwith the earthto producethe foodthatsustainshumansociety;
the artisansthird,because theytransform the productsof earthinto tools usefulto
human society;and the merchantslast, because, unproductive,they merelytake
advantageof humanneed in movinggoods fromone marketto another.
This interrelation of occupationand moralityis implicitin the discussionsof
statusin both Sorai and modernscholarship(Bito 1981, 4; Honjo 1924, 194-98;
Maruyama119521 1974, 26-27, 199-200; Nakamura1947, 234-36). The perennial
problemforall who considerstatusfromthe perspectiveof shimin,however,is the
gap betweenthe theoretical and the real.Some scholars,aftera centuryofTokugawa
rule, realizedthat officialsin China, definedby theirlearningand expertise,were
markedlydifferent fromthesamuraiin Japan,definedbytheirmilitaryservice.3 Sorai
himselfpointedout thatin his dayJapanesetypicallyreferred to the fourordersas
three:samurai,peasants,and townspeople(chonin), whichincludedbothartisansand
merchants.To bridge the bookishnessof the model and the realityof Tokugawa
society,scholarshave takena numberof routes,each of which emphasizesa more
refinedmanifestation ofstatusand therebyservesto groundmibunmoreconcretely in
social life.On theone hand,somescholarsinvokespatialsegregationor specifications
of "service"to definemorefullythestatusdivisionsas a laborsystem.In theanalysis
ofHonjo Eijiro,forexample,thephysicalsegregationeffected bythedivisionoflabor
is understoodto creatematerialand interdependent needsmotivatingthe systemas
a whole:therespective domains"mastered"by each division-the farmer's fields,the
artisan'sproducts,the merchant'ssurplus-expressthe materialand moralworthof
each statusgroupin the social hierarchy (Honjo 1924, 197-98).4 Similarly,yaku,or
"service,"becauseit specifies theactualresponsibilities owedbymembersofone status
to those of another,concretizesthe relationsbetween status divisions. As Bito
Masahide has observed,samurai owed their lord gun'yaku(gun'eki),or "military
service,"justas peasantsowed thesamuraiand theirlord(s)buyaku, or "laborservice."
Thesewerefurther specified:in thecase ofpeasantslivingin coastalareas,forexample,
particularkindsand amountsof service,describedcollectivelyas yakudaka,included
the transportation of samuraiand theirgoods, crew serviceon boats, guard duty,
inspectionforsmugglingor shipwrecks, and so on (Bito 1981, 4-5; Kalland 1995,
212-31; Fukaya 1981; Howell 1998, 106; Takagi 1985, 49-53; Takemura 1997,
28-30).
On theotherhand,certainscholarsemploythecriteriaofken,or "privilege,"and
shokubun, "duty"or "work,"whichindividualizestatusin social practice.5Privilege
3Watanabe Hiroshireports thatKoreanobservers in 1719 rather remarked

slightingly
thatJapanhadno "scholar officials"
(shi)butonly"soldiers" (hei)(1985,61).
4Asa valuablepointofcontrast, JenniferRobertson has notedthatthereality ofoccu-
affords
pationalreciprocity a viewofstatuslessas a vertical
hierarchy andmoreas a horizontal
thefarming
compatibility; manualsshehasstudiedoffer evidence ofa parity
betweensamurai
andfarmers-albeit in thelateTokugawaperiod(1984).
5Inthecaseofthesamurai, somescholars collapseissuesofprivilege anddutyintodis-

individualizesthe statusof its possessor,with the resultthatclustersof individuals

withinstatusrankscan be distinguishedon the basis of theirprivilegesfromtheir
fellowsof ostensiblysharedstatus.The privilegeof requestinga personalaudience
withone'slord,forexample,singledout thehighestretainers fromamongtheirpeers.
In this regard,when further such refinements of statusare designatedwithineach
division,joge,or "high and low," becomesan apt metaphorforthe "fourdivisions."
In the workof NakamuraKichiji, Kozo Yamamura,and manyothers,forexample,
the samuraiorderis divided into the bakufu,the daimyo,the bannermen,and the
retainers:four prominent status ranks that more thoroughlyrepresentthe
intensificationofstatuswithinthesamuraiorder.Amongthedaimyo,bannermen, and
retainersin turn,a varietyof privilegedifferentials-suchas residencelocale and
construction, and seatingin Edo castle-furtherdistinguishedthe higherand lower
amongTokugawasamurai(Kasaya 1992, 207-16; Nakamura1947, 224-27; see also
Honjo 1935, 191-93; Nishiyama1997, 31; Ravina 1999, 12-13, 176-80; Sakai
1975, 10-11, 48-53; Takahashi1932, 4-14; Takikawa1959, 415; Yamamura1974,
9, 119-20, 128).6 Similarly,discussionsof shokubun link the statusgroup to the
individuals responsiblefor fulfillingthe required work, as with the samurai's
particularadministrative or militaryduties,or the merchant'sdutyto his houseand
his trade,as a point of honorbeforehis samuraisuperiors(Sonoda 1990; Takemura
1997, 25-27). In this last case, exemplifiedby the workof RobertBellah, "duty"
approachesthe conceptof privilegein thatit individualizesfamilyunitswithinthe
statusgroup-largelyforpurposesofhereditary familyheadship(Bellah 1195711970,
115,125,164).7 And therecentworkofYoshidaNobuyukion groupsin urbansociety
has begunto explainthecomplexand generative relationsamongstatus,service(yaku),
and obligatorywork(shokubun). For example,the serviceof maintainingpost horses
differentiatedruralfromurbanworkforthoseindividualsprovidingthatserviceand
grantedthem,in time,townsmenstatus(1998, 121-43), while otherworkers,such
as peddlersand daylaborers,althoughtechnically at timestownsmen, werenotalways
preciselyacknowledgedas such becausetheirvariedworkand group"structure" left
themoutsideof the guild system,withoutformalorganizationand hencewithout
collectivelegitimacy(1993, 251-56; 1998, 257-308). Yoshida has thus concluded
that status is best explainedby the combinationof service,obligatorywork,and
collectiveorganization(1998, 302; see also Tsukada 1997, 3-45).8
cussionsofkaku,or"rank."Kakuindicated a samurai's
functionwithinthearmy orhisposition
withina domainadministration; hencea correspondence was establishedbetweenmilitary
"rank"andadministrative "position." ButduringtheTokugawaperiod,kakuceasedto be a
signofan individual's militaryabilityas provenin combatand becameinsteada family's
standing oreligibility
foradministrative henceit wasintimately
position(kakaku); relatedto
samuraistatus.See Kasaya(1992); SumiyaandTaira(1979, 30); andTakagi(1985,71-73).
6EikoIkegamiconcludes thatsamuraistatuswascollectively indicatedbya man'shonor
ranking administrative
(koku), office
(shoku),andincome(horoku) (1995, 269).
7Inhiswell-known Weberian analysisofTokugawaideology, RobertBellahequatesshoku-
bunwiththeCalvinist notionof"calling,"to stressthesocialdutyinvolved in shokubun;but
it as one's"lot"in life,to pointoutthehumility
he alsotranslates andcontentment people
presumably feltwiththeirrespective "occupations."
8In hisrecentdescription ofmedieval Japanas an exampleoffeudalism (definedbyEu-
ropeanmodels),Nakamura KichijiarguedthattheTokugawaperiodcanbestbe described as
a shiftfromthemedieval"statussociety," in whichfixedstatusgroups- aredefined bytheir
community andpositionin a divisionoflabor,to an "occupational statussociety,"in which
the divisionof occupations(representing and capital) allows for
the inroadsof manufactures
greaterfluiditythanbefore(1984, 2:253-55).

For all of these approachesgroundedin the theoryof "fourdivisionsof the

people,"themechanismforthe creationofstatusis thesame:decreesoflaw establish
the social differencesof status.Hence a secondperspectiveforscholarlyanalysesof
statusis Tokugawalaw,which,like theusagesofservice,privilege,and dutydescribed
above, helps to concretizestatusas an actual divisionof Tokugawa society.For in
contrastto thetheoretical presentationof"fourdivisions,"legal descriptions ofstatus
specifythe morediversedivisionsof "the people," into whichlaw enforcement and
administration soughtto structuresocial interactions.The shoguns'laws described
roughlyeight legal statuses:fromhigh to low, these were the daimyo,the court
nobility,thesamurai,thepriests(withwhomareoftengroupeddoctorsand teachers),
peasants,townsmen,"outcastes"(the eta), and "non-persons"(hinin-prostitutes,
beggars,theostracized,and otheritinerants) (Beasley1972, 22-34; Henderson1965,
27, 87-92; Takikawa 1959, 415; Siebold 1841, 154-58). The peasantstatusin turn,
as ThomasC. Smithfirstdemonstrated, was dividedthroughvillagelaw intoseveral
morestatusranks,from"titledpeasant"(honbyakusho) to branchhouses,dependents,
tenants,co-residents, servants,and so on (Smith 1959, 6-11, 54-59; Ooms 1996,
25, 175-76).
In additionto this fullerdescriptionof statusdivisions,legal analystsof status
have proposedexplanationsforthe waysstatusdivisionsstructured social relations.
TakahashiKamekichionce observedthatTokugawalaw definedstatusrelationsafter
the Confucian model of quintessentialhierarchicalrelationships(parent-child,
husband-wife, and lord-servant).These prescriberightsoverthosebelow and duties
to thoseabove,are based on personaltrust,and are eliminatedby thedeathofone of
the parties(Takahashi 1932, 5; see also Ravina 1999, 36). Status relationscould
arguablybe construedas a legal and moralsystemin whichmoralrelationscould be
specifiedas legal dutiesand responsibilities
(Fukaya1981, 50-51; Sonoda 1990, 79-
80).9 Titled peasantvillagers,forexample,were collectivelyresponsibleforvillage
dutiesto overlords-tributericeand corvee-but theyalso exercisedlegal rightsover
theirfamilybranches,dependents,and tenantsbelow (Ooms 1996, 148-68). Recent
workon domainlawsand theshogun'slegal relationswiththecourtnobilityin Kyoto
has revealedthe degreeto which those close to the top of the statushierarchyin
Tokugawa Japan, the daimyo and nobility, managed to balance shogunate
requirements with longstandingprecedentsof theirown. As if to underlinetheir
preeminent but isolatedposition,theshogunsroutinely undertookkeymarriagesand
allianceswith the imperial,noble, and daimyofamiliesforthe prestigethat they
therebygarnered(Butler1994; Harafuji1978; Wakabayashi1991). Similarly,as the
period progressed,wealthytownspeoplepaid impoverishedsamuraito adopt their
sons, grantingtownsmeninroads to samurai status. The existenceof the legal
hierarchy, in otherwords,meantthatthesocial relationsdefinedby rightsand duties
could be bothanimatedand compromisedby the desireforstatusand prestige.
Thus, I hastento add, the existenceof this legal hierarchydoes not mean that
thoseofhigherlegal statusnecessarily had somemoralpoweroverthosestatusgroups
below them:it is not the case that the shogun'slegal structurewas actualizedas a
chainofcommand.Rather,as recentscholarshiphas notedin severalcontextsand for
severalgroups,legal and administrative distinctionsvariedconsiderablyfromplace
to place and wereincreasingly weakenedovertime.The legal basisforstatushas thus
9Hendersonaddsthatstatusrelations
weresanctioned
byNeo-Confucian
"principle"
(ri),
whichlenttothepositive
lawdecreesoftheshogunateanappearance law"(1968a,
of"natural
394).

been criticizedby scholarswho rejectthe staticimage of a legal hierarchy of status

groups in order to betterdescribethe changingexperienceof status as lived in
Tokugawasociety.10 One grouphas emphasizedtheoriginsofstatusoccupationsand
servicesin themilitarymobilizationofthe 1580s and '90s. Asao Naohiroand Yokota
Fuyuhikofocus on the creationof fixedcommunitiesto betterregisterpeasants,
workmen,and merchantsfor non-combatservice;with the establishmentof the
Tokugawa peace, thesewere commutedto tributerice,tax monies,and "national"
(shogunalor public) corvees.Yokota, in particular,has emphasizedthe household
registrationsystem(and the importantprecedentof templeregistration in the fight
againstChristianity)-notas an effortto segregatepeasantsand samurai,as earlier
scholarssuchas Takikawamaintained,but to segregatevillagesand to createregisters
forvillage service(1992). As Asao concludes,giventhatthe membersof each status
classhad to be registered
withintheirappropriate groupin orderto belong,theinitial
identityof the samuraifamily,thepeasantvillage,or the townsmanwardwas less a
matterof occupationand morea matterof residence(1992, 33-35; see also Honjo
1924, 197-98). Nonetheless,Yokota and Asao admit thatthesewereunsystematic
processeswhichexhibitwide local variation,a factthatencouragesan opponentlike
MinegishiKentaroto continueto advocatethe legal explanationforstatus.But one
can see in this new treatment of statusa bringingtogetherof earlierelements-the
stresson spatial segregation,service,and "work"(shokubun)-inorderto concretize
statusin social experience."
A secondgroupof scholars,engagedin what is perhapsthe mostdynamicnew
researchon status,has takeninsteadthe discrepancieswithinthe legal definition of
statusas theirpointofdeparture.In theirworkon groupstheoretically at thebottom
of Tokugawa society-the senmin("poor" or "base" persons), which includes
"outcastes" and "non-persons" -Tsukada Takashi and Hatanaka Toshiyukihave
focusedon (a) groups outside the legal descriptionof the status hierarchy, as in
Hatanaka's studies of kawata (primarilyleatherworkers)in the Osaka area; (b)
communities(or villages) that include multiplestatusgroups;and (c) groupsand
individualsthatcrossstatusboundariesas definedby law and administration.12Like
Yoshida Nobuyuki's work on urban communities,Tsukada's work on rural
communitieshas set the agenda for this new approach. In opposition to both
Minegishi's legal descriptionof status and Yokota or Asao's descriptionof
communitiesin space-which he findstoo rigida set of divisions-Tsukada avoids
the criteriaof obligatoryworkand serviceand insteadexaminesstatusin termsof
10Foralternativeandusefulreviewsofresearchonstatusbythoseinvolved intheresearch,
seeHatanaka(1990,282-362);Minegishi (1989,12-45);andTsukada(1992,241-308).The
oneworkin Englishis Howell(1998).
11LikeYoshidaNobuyuki, above,Asaodiscusses yakuandshokubunastheprinciplesaround
whichmibun intheeighteenth
solidified century(1992,39). SeealsoYokota(1992);Minegishi
(1989,163-232);therebuttal byTakagi(1987);andthesynthetic treatmentbyWakita(1991,
121-25).
12Aprominent issuein thisresearch,whichis outsidethegoals of thisessay,is the
identification
ofsenmin groupsand theirhistorical and divisionsintoarguably
coalescence
distinctgroups.Clearly,ourreceived
nomenclature ofetaandhininis overlysimpleandlikely
insufficient.
Fordiscussions,seeTsukada(1987,7, 12-13; 1992,208-38,290-95; 1997,87-
126); and Hatanaka(1990, 80-128; 1991; 1997, 33-51). One striking conclusion is that,
fromtheviewpoint ofruralsociety-incontrast to thatofOgyuSoraimentioned earlier-the
threemainstatusgroupsofTokugawasociety werethesamurai, thecommoners (peasantsand
townsmen),and the senmin, or "poor" (Hatanaka 1990, 119; Takikawa 1959, 415; Yokota
1992, 76).

communitiesas "functionalgroups."While suchterminology suggeststhebiological

model of equilibriumimplicitin a theoryof functionalism (and is compatiblewith
manyof thesescholars'interestsin describinga premodernsocial formthatevolves
towardJapan's modernity),Tsukada is more interestedin the fact of symbiotic
relationsamongcommunities.As he argues,the divisionof laborthatput hininand
etaat thebottomofTokugawasociety,on thebasisoftheirworkwithanimalcarcasses
and leather,preceded the legal statusdivisionsof the Tokugawa period.To Tsukada
and Hatanaka,eta statusgrantedrightsto certainkinds of workthatin some cases
produced commercialfortunes;thus we should think of such "outcastes"not as
outsidersor subordinates to therestofsociety,but as coexistingand interacting with
othersin society(Tsukada 1987, 8-17, 342-55). Tsukada's researchon senmin areas
ofEdo identifies thosecommunitiesin termsofworkplace(shokujo), forit was notthe
people but the workwithobjectssuch as animalskinsthatprovideda specificplace
forleatherworkersto engage in business-to the exclusionof commoners.In time,
this workplaceidentifiedtheir"status,"arguablymore so than "services"such as
making drum skins or trackingcriminals.Based on the particularityof senmin
workplaces,Tsukada argues that understandingsenminstatus must proceed with
analysisoftheeconomicand administrative interactionsamongsenmin and commoner
groupsand theirvillages(1987, 18-27, 170, 352; 1992, 180-82, 300-01). What
Tsukada offersis a series of studies that reveal, in specificcontextswithin the
developmentof a commercial society, the complex interactionsbetween the
constraints of statusand the exigenciesof economicrelations.
Similarly,Hatanaka Toshiyuki,in his extensivework on political,social, and
economicrelationsamongkawatavillages(in Osaka and Izumi domain)and thoseof
commoners, discusseshow kawatawerehistorically differentiated frompeasantsand
eta. With the commercialand lucrativeexpansionof footwareproductionin the
eighteenthcentury,kawata groups negotiated a varietyof administrativeand
commercialrelationshipswith their putative commonermasters and, through
marriageand the employmentof others, began to acquire land, wealth, and
population,and so to "exceed" theirstatus(1990, 11-41, 102-14, 244-67; 1997,
109-96). Perhapshis moststrikingconclusionis thatkawataidentityand statuswere
ultimatelyvague: becausekawatalived intermixedwithcommonersand townsmen,
habitationcould not be a markerof identity.Theycould be treatedas a statusgroup
in termsofan occupationsuchas leather-working or in termsofa dutysuchas local
policing,but suchstatuswas alwayspurelylocal and temporary (1997, 50-51). Thus
Hatanaka,morethananyone,providesevidencecontrary to thosewho wouldattempt
to make a case thatsabetsu, or "prejudicialdiscrimination," was the centralprinciple
of Tokugawa social organization.His work encouragesus to interpretsabetsuless
pejorativelyas a moreneutralformof "differentiation" (Hatanaka 1990, 82; 1991,
176; Howell 1998, 108, 128 n. 6; Tsukada 1987, 363; Yamamoto 1989).
In all of theseattemptsto bridgethegap betweenthe theoreticaland theactual
in analyzingstatus,theeffect ofstatusas an occupational,legal,moral,or socialorder
is thesame:thehierarchical seriesofideallythoroughdifferentiations prescribesstatus
as a habit of daily life.Thus a thirdand more sociologicalapproach,and the one
preferred by new scholarship,is to describestatusdifferences as lived in Tokugawa
society.For at its most concrete,statusattemptedto regulatedaily lifeto its basic
detailsin TokugawaJapan:social position,domicile,clothing,travel,housing,food,
marriage,social interactions,occupation,expenditures,consumption,rituals,the
employment ofothers,and variousprivileges,suchas possessinga surnameorwearing

swords(Takahashi 1932, 29-41).13 Accordingto Anne Walthall,this segmentation

of Tokugawa social life meant that status differencesbecame the basis of
"community";with societyorganizedas groups of equal status,each group-the
peasantvillage in her research-developedits own customarypracticesand rituals
that served to identifythe insiderswho maintainedtheir communityfromthe
intrusionsofoutsiders(1986, 112-15; see also Totman1986). In an analogousfashion,
samurairetainers soughtstrategicmarriagealliancesamongsamuraipeersin orderto
maintainfamilypositionand income,therebylinkingstatusto the familystructure
ofthesamuraiclass(Ito 1969, 105-08; Takahashi1968, 2:46-47). Becauseeachstatus
unit withinTokugawa societywas assignedthe task of generatingits own laws to
governits members(most notablythroughthegoningumi, or mutualsecuritygroup
rules among commoners),the statussystemcreatedself-regulating groupsthat,as
timewenton, fostered amongstatusgroupstheimpersonalrelationsofa bureaucratic
stateat the expenseof the personalbonds characteristic of the earliermedievalage
(Hall 1974, 44-49). As a sociologicaldescriptionofsocialposition,then,statusmarks
bothgroupmembershipand the slow dynamicsof social prestige.
But researchin Japan has reacheda criticalpoint with regardto status. As
attentionfocuseson marginalgroupsand collectivities (shz7dan)in Tokugawasociety,
fromtemporary and seasonalservantsto monkey-trainers (akin to the organgrinder
of VictorianEngland) and a varietyof beggars,the "group" is surprisingly under-
theorized-in spite of Hatanaka's challengea decade ago (1990, 349-50). Recent
workinvokesconceptsofpower,hegemony,and inventedtradition, withoutdrawing
conclusionsabout status,social groups,or societyas a whole(Tsukada,Yoshida,and
Wakita 1994; Kurushimaand Yoshida 1995; 1996). By contrast,David Howell's
discussionof "territoriality and collectiveidentity"is a noteworthy synthesisof
virtuallyall of the markersof statusdiscussedhere (1998). Apart fromTsukada's
promisingworkof coordinatingcircumstances of birth,social "networks,"and the
collectiveconcernsofworkplaceand enterprise (1997, 47-84), recentscholarship most
oftenturnsto Hatanaka's notion of "exceedingone's status." Kumagae Mitsuko's
accountof personsgrantedthe rightto bear swordsin Kyoto and Osaka returnsto
the fact of "privileges"granted in returnfor exceptionalservicesto domainal
authorities;sheconcludesthattownsmenand farmers grantedtherightto bearswords
figuredin thespacebetweenstatusranksand temporarily exceededtheirstatus(1994,
368-71, 381, 386-96). Likewise,SadakaneManabu's and Iwaki Takuji's workon
whichdemonstrates
villageofficials, theabilityofvillageauthoritiesto evadedomain
powersand thus to determinelocal politics,arguesforthe insertionof thosewith
ostensiblyfarmerstatusinto the samuraigroup. Accordingto KurushimaHiroshi,
suchassertionsof "socialpower"area temporary assumptionofsamuraistatuson the
partof village officials
(Sadakane 1996; Iwaki 1996; Kurushima1996, 284-85; see
also Murata 1999).
In spite of thesevariations,and because of the ideal systematicity with which
statuswas imposedon thepopulationofTokugawaJapan,manyscholarsofTokugawa
societycontinueto have recourseto the notionof a "statussystem"(mibunsei). But
theshortcomings ofsucha reificationshouldbe clear.In spiteofthelinkagesbetween
statusand socialchangementionedabove,statuscannotexplainwhatmosthistorians
"3Inthisregard,
David Howellreminds us ofthedualnatureofsumptuary lawsduring
theexpansion ofeconomicwealthand socialchange:as efforts bothto bringdailylifeinto
linewithstatusand to adjuststatusso as to fit reality
(1998, 114); see also Shively
(1964-
65).

considerto be the fundamentalimpetusforchange duringthe Tokugawa period,

namely,the economic developmentthat realignedstatus groups from the late
seventeenth centuryon. As a descriptionof an ideal and staticsystem,statusfailsto
takeintoaccountsystemicsocioeconomicchanges.A criticalexamplehereis thefact
that the lowestsamurai,by the 1800s, was oftenworseoffthan most commoners.
What had becomeofhis superiorstatus?Likewise,somemembersofthetheoretically
loweststatusgroup,the merchants, amassedgreatwealthin Osaka and Edo during
the 1700s, to the point that Osaka moneylenders increasinglymanaged the fiscal
affairsof the daimyo(Honja 1935, 195-229; Takikawa 1959, 416). Thus Tsukada
Takashi has invokedthe conceptof "conditions"(jotai) to explainchange;giventhe
Tokugawa administrative impulse to maintaina strictstatus hierarchy(especially
throughcensusregistration), social, economic,and politicalconditionsbecome the
site ofTsukada's explanationforhistoricalchange,bothamongmembersof a status
group and among statusgroups (1987, 35-37; 1992, 19-21; see also Kurushima
1996, 284).
A secondweaknessof "the statussystem"as a descriptionof societyis that it
beginsto look like a simplisticstandardin thefaceofwide variation.As I suggested
above,the exceptionwas the twinof the rule,in thatspecialprivilegescould always
be grantedto one or anotherindividual,raisinghis statusincrementally above that
ofhis fellows.The peasantwho had been grantedtheprivilegeofusinga surnameor
wearingswordsencroachedupon the samurai'sstatus,as did the merchantwho
receivedthe privilegeof raisinghis roofbeam to the heightof a domainalretainer.
Clearly,we mustheed FukayaKatsumi'scautionagainstreifying statusas a system
and rememberthatstatuschangedpersistently duringtheTokugawaperiod.Should
we not,he asks,considerstatusas the developmentofpowerrelationsinstead?14
In otherwords,to attemptto describeTokugawasocietyin termsofstatusalone
is to flounderin the same predicamentfaced by Tokugawa rulersfromthe late
seventeenth century on. Trade,commercialdevelopment, and expandingmanufactures
overwhelmed the agrarianeconomythathad originallyprovidedthe premiseforthe
ideallystaticsocietyof fourstatusgroups.Hence historiansmust have recourseto
some alternativeto status,in orderto bringinto the discussionofTokugawasociety
an accountof the economicforcesthatpropelledsystematicchangein social status
duringtheperiod.By and large,thatconceptis class(kaikyi7). The fewexceptionsare
borrowedmetaphorsthat providemore generaldescriptionsof ranksor levels in
society,includingkaisJ(fromfloorsin a building),kaitei(rungson a ladder),or,more
recently, theloanwordgurfipu ("group")(see Hatanaka1997, 24, 48; Minegishi1989,
4-17; Nakamura1947, 243-59; and Tsukada,Yoshida,and Wakita 1994, 17, 298,
312, 381). Yet eventhoughpeoplecan be rankedin termsofage, income,occupation,
education,or status,as belongingto one or another"floor"or "rung,"theseconcepts,
like mibun, do not encourageanalysisofthedynamicsofeconomicand socialchange.
Class
The overwhelmingmajorityof scholarstherefore employ the term "class" in
consideringTokugawa history.But class was introducedto Japanesehistoriography
14Ifanything,
Fukayaconcludes, statusprovidedtherulingclasswithan extra-economic
to
meansof coercion(1981, 51-52). Forexamplesof thesale of samuraistatusprivileges
see Ravina(1999, 60-61, 84-85); on theencroachment
bolsterdomainfinances, ofpeasants
into aspectsof samuraistatus,see Smith(1959, 177-79).

in the firstquarterof the twentiethcenturyas an elementof Marxisttheory,and in

thesamewaythatMarxand Engelsproposeda theoryofhistory, an economicanalysis,
and a politicalprogram,so too "class,"as applied in Japanesehistory,linkshistory,
socioeconomicanalysis,and politicalperspectivesin waysthatremaincontroversial.
At the risk of greatlysimplifyinga numberof positions,let me note in a few
paragraphsthatscholarlydiscussionsofclasshavebeen informed byJapaneseMarxist
argumentsovertwocentralissues:thenatureoftheMeiji "revolution"and thenature
oftheJapanesestate.The twogroupsmostoftenat theoretical odds overtheseissues,
the Koza, or "Lecture" group, and the Rana or "Farmer-Labor"group-not to
mentionoccasional"independents"like TakahashiKamekichi(a categoryitselfopen
to question)-evaluated the natureof the Meiji revolutiondirectlyin the contextof
leftistpoliticsin the 1920s and '30s. Because Marx and Engels had determined(1)
that social classes resultfromownershipof the means of production(or, as it is
sometimesphrased,classesare a functionofsocioeconomicstructure), (2) thatclasses
struggleoverthemeansofproduction, and (3) thatthesestrugglesresultin economic
and sociopoliticalrevolutionsthat change the courseof history,the questionwas:
what kind of revolutionwas the Meiji Restoration?If, as the Lecturegroupargued,
it was nota bourgeoisrevolution buta mereshiftofpoliticalcontrolfromonesegment
of the feudal samuraiclass to another,thenJapan should anticipatea bourgeois
revolutionto be followedeventuallybya socialistrevolution.(This was, in effect, the
positionof theJapanCommunistPartyand its sponsor,the Comintern,duringthe
1920s and '30s.) If,however,as theFarmer-Labor groupargued,theMeiji revolution
was a bourgeoisrevolution,thenJapaneseleftistscould devote theirenergiesto a
farmer-labor allianceon behalfofthesocialistrevolution(Dower 1975, 35-37; Hoston
1986, 62-63; Macpherson1987, 13-14, 26; Sumiyaand Taira 1979, 5-12, 269-70,
307-08).
A keyelementof thisdisputewas the correctidentification of the samuraiclass.
The Lecturegrouparguedthatthe samuraiwerea purelyfeudalclasswho controlled
both the agrarianmeans of productionand the peasantswho farmedthe land, and
thus the Meiji Restorationcould be seen as a disintegrative strugglewithin the
dominantclass, in which one factionof the feudal class mobilized the nascent
bourgeoisieonly to createa semi-feudalMeiji state.By contrast,the Farmer-Labor
group arguedthat elementsof the samuraihad shiftedclass positions:the poorest
amongthesamuraiworkedamongand hencehad joined theurbanproletariat, while
lowersamuraileadersoftheRestorationjoinedforceswiththebourgeoisieto produce
the bourgeoisMeiji revolution.In effect,the Farmer-Laborgroup proposed the
possibility(not unlikeMarx and Engels' self-description as "bourgeoisideologists")
that criticalrevolutionary social elementscould embodymultiple class positions
(Hoston 1986, 96-106, 112; 1991, 555-61, 570-73; Marxand Engelsf1848J1967,
91).
AnalogousargumentswereraisedregardingthenatureoftheJapanesestate.Two
prominentissues were, first,whetherthe state was relativelyautonomousof class
controlor whetherthe statewas the tool of the rulingfeudalor bourgeoisclass,and,
second,whethertheabsolutismoftheJapanesestate,in thetransition fromTokugawa
to Meiji, remainedbased in a purelyfeudalstructureor was of a "distorted"or
"hybrid"character.Membersof theLecturegrouparguedthatthepurefeudalismof
the Tokugawa statehad underminedthe creationof an industrialbourgeoisie;thus
thecontinueddominationofthesamuraigave theMeiji stateitssemi-feudal character,

definedbestby themilitaryand bureaucratic functions ofthesamurai.15

(Again,they
concluded that Japaneseleftistsshould work towarda bourgeoisrevolution.)By
contrast,the Farmer-Labor group judged the Meiji state a new form,a bourgeois
monarchythathad succeededthe feudalTokugawa state;althoughit was beset by
feudalremnantsin the militaryand bureaucracy, thesewerebeing integratedwithin
thestructure ofbourgeoispoliticalpower(Hattori[ 1947} 1980, 19-2 1; Hosten 1986,
180-92, 212-17; Sumiyaand Taira 1979, 56-61, 187-93, 200).
The conceptof class,then,in discussionsofJapanesehistory,was fromthe start
tied directlyto evaluationsof theMeiji Restoration-whichis whyE. H. Norman's
workof 1940 is key to understanding class in US historiographyofJapan.When
Marxisttheoreticalargumentsbegged the question of concretehistoricalanalysis,
however,historicalactualityprovedto workagainstrigidformsofMarxisttheory.By
the 1950s, the fact of commercialdevelopmentand expandingmanufactures was
indisputable,undoingboth the "purelyfeudal"characterof the Tokugawastateand
the characterization of the Meiji stateas a "feudalregime"(Sumiyaand Taira 1979,
93-96, 114-15, 130-35, 307-08). Accordingly,the usage of class as a historical
categoryhas divergedfromits basis in Marxisttheory.
Another major issue that animated prewar debate among Marxists, the
developmentofJapanesecapitalismin thecontextof"meremanufactures" as opposed
to capitalistindustry, was revivedafter1945 in such a way thatthe prewardivision
betweenLectureand Farmer-Labor Marxistswas erodedand classbecamea secondary
issue; instead,the natureof the divisionof labortookprecedence(Sumiyaand Taira
1979, 269-84, 288-92, 314-15, 324-27; Yasuba 1975). At the same time, the
conceptof class was put to use in analysesof class conflictand the developmentof
class consciousness,which,havingin partpromptedinterestin peasantrevoltsand a
"people'shistory," figures in thestillcurrentand vibrantsocialhistory
ofJapan(Gluck
1978; Scheiner1978; Sumiyaand Taira 1979, 154-68, 342-56). Thus Marx is now
invokedin waysunrelatedto the issuesdominatingthe 1920s and '30s; his youthful
analysesoftheformation ofbourgeoisor "civil"society,forexample,inform Tsukada's
workon statusas a basis oftheTokugawasocial collectivities thatarguablypreceded
the formation of bourgeoiscivil societyin modernJapan(1987, 7-9).
This is not to say thatclass has been or shouldbe abandoned.The commentsof
E. P. Thompsonare instructive at thisjuncture.As he oncepointedout, theconcept
of class has two commonusages:as an heuristiccategoryand as a historicalcategory
(1978). In thefirstcase,classis embeddedin a theoretical modellikeMarxism,which
posits certainfundamentalrelationsbetweengroups in society-the class struggle
betweenthe ownersofthemeansofproductionand thedirectproducers.It is in this
sensethatscholarssuch as Honjo, Norman,and HerbertP. Bix use the term"class"
(Bix 1986, xv-xviii,218-19; Honja 1924, 1-2, 14-15). But in thesecondcase,as a
historicalcategory,class is construedon the basis of our observationsof social
processes;as one considersthe partsof a societyin the past so as to understandthe
whole, class becomes a cognitivemarkerto help us identifyhuman regularities,
15Acontroversy thisdebatewasMarx'stheory
complicating ofthe"Asiaticmodeofpro-
duction,"which,tohim,accounted forthepeculiar oflong-standing
existence statestructures
in India,China,and,presumably,Japan.Marxarguedthatin Asiaticsocieties,
thedespotic
stateprecededtheformationofclassrule,withtheresultthatAsiaticsocieties
weremarked
byan absenceofclassconflict
andthereforelackedanydynamic ofsocioeconomicchange.This
was,in essence,Marx'srestatementof Hegel'sconviction
thatnon-Western societieswere
"without InJapan,members
history." ofboththeLecture andFarmer-Labor groupscritiqued
the"Asiaticmodeofproduction."SeeHoston(1986,133-34,176-77,180)andFogel(1988).

culture, and institutions in terms of specific social groups (Honjo 1924, 147-49).
Granted, Thompson is fracturingwhat was originallyunited in Marx's historicalwork:
Marx observed the rise of capitalist society in England and construed classes as
historical categories. But simultaneously, Marx and Engels constructed a theoretical
model that they and others applied in "orthodox" fashion(s) to all societies, and it is
with this second project-class as an heuristic category-that Thompson's remarks
take issue.
Similarly, when E. H. Norman's opponents criticized the interpretationof the
Meiji Restoration as a bourgeois revolution, they took issue with class as an heuristic
category. Here, however, I wish to examine what Thompson has called class as a
historical category. The particular issue at hand is the problematic analytical
relationship between status and class in the work of Japanese historians. As I stated
earlier,status ought to be taken into account, since it is part of a Tokugawa worldview;
at the same time, however, we have recourse to class in order to account forsystemic
social and economic changes during the Tokugawa period. The solution of scholars
sympatheticto Marxist uses of class (forexample Norman and Bix) is to ignore status
or to treat it as an illusory element of political ideology and to concentrate instead
on what they deem to be the trulysignificantfactor:class. By contrast,the dominant
solution in Japanese historiography has been to conflate the two. Some scholars
identifyTokugawa status groups as classes, minimizing formal distinctions between
status and class on the grounds that the English term "class" was modeled afterthe
French t&at ("estate") and German Stand ("order" or "status") (Ooms 1996, 126;
Sonoda 1990, 74). Takahashi Kamekichi admitted quite candidly that the conflation
of status and class in the social experienceofTokugawa Japan warrantedour conflating
the two in scholarly analysis; his solution, the perhaps awkward expression "a class-
like status system" (kaikyv-tekimibunseido),gives greaterweight to status (Takahashi
1968, 1:34-37). By farthe most typical approach taken by a wide range of scholars,
including H. D. Harootunian, Marius Jansen, Nakane Chie, and Thomas C. Smith,
has been to employ the term "class" as a historical categorywith referenceto the four
divisions indicated by the theoryof shimin-in other words, simply to treat the four
main status groups as classes, that is, functional or occupational groups defined by
productionland related economic processes.16
None of these approaches, I believe, offersan adequate solution. As Tsuchiya
Takao argued in 1931, status and class ought to be clearlydistinguished-the former
is a seriesof social differencesbased in law, the lattera set of socioeconomic differences.
16Infact,the nomenclature forsocial groupsin currentUS historiography ofJapanis so

undeterminedby ideological motivesas to seem arbitrary.For example,the editorsof the
excellentcollectionJapanin Transition,
Jansenand Rozman,acknowledgetheirdistancefrom
Marxistcategoriesbut nonethelessuse "class," "elite," "rank," and even "fixedhereditary
classes"whereothersmightspecify"status."Among the contributors to the volume,Albert
Craigsimplynamesgroupslike thesamurai,thelords,thepeople,and so on, and neverreifies
thesepeople(s)as classesor anyothersuchgroup,whileJansenemploys"class,""rank,""status
group,"and so on (Jansenand Rozman 1986; Jansen1986; Craig 1986). Similarly,in their
EconomicandDemographic ChangeinPreindustrialJapan,HanleyandYamamuraexpressprofound
disdain forMarxismand dismissmuchJapaneseeconomicscholarshipbecause it is tainted
with Marxisttheory,and yet discuss the peasantsas a class; Yamamura'sown workon the
samuraicomfortably discussesrankand class distinctions(Hanley and Yamamura 1977, 41,
45, 122-25, 232, 263; Yamamura 1974, 86-87, 120). Meanwhile,Japanesescholarshipin
translationcontinuesthispattern,mixingestate,status,and class (Murata1999, 244; Sumiya
and Taira 1979, 20, 56-58, 78, 95, 152). By way of comparison,seeJohnW. Hall's attempt
to definetermsforthe medievalperiod(1983, 15-16, 23, 28).

But thetwodo overlap.The highestsamuraihad bothstatusand economicstanding,

while,in time,thelowestsamuraihad onlystatus.Statusand classare,in otherwords,
two continua that come into play differently (Tsuchiya 1931; see also Sonoda,
Hamana, and Hirota 1995, 19-21). As Minegishi Kentaroputs the relationship,
statusconstructsa class-likeseriesof positions,based on the shogun'sschemeof a
divisionof laborimplicitin thegrantof land and its productivity on thepartof the
peasants.At the same time,class is "statusized"in thatthe socioeconomicpositions
of class are ideallydeterminedby public authorityand power.He expressesthis in
shorthandas "class= status+ the divisionof labor"(Minegishi1989, 20, 28-30). To
my mind, this strikingequation helps to explain the fate of the samuraias the
Tokugawa period ensued,foreverything that definedthe samuraiwas initiallyan
effectof status-their hereditaryrank, officialfunction,stipend, and social
privileges-but thelivelihoodofanygivensamuraidependedon securingworkwithin
thedivisionoflabor.In otherwords,whatis centralin theoverlapofstatusand class
in Tokugawa societyis the divisionof labor,whichwas neveras neat or as staticor
as fullofpositionsas thestatushierarchy imagined.The majorityofsamurai,like the
otherstatusgroups,weremarkedas a statusgroupin orderto provideservicesto the
rulers,and it is the divisionof labor in an economyincreasinglycommercialand
dominatedby merchantsthat,in its historicalmanifestation, begins to explainthe
class dynamicsthat distortedstatusdivisionsand eventuallyencouragedthe Meiji
Restoration.
In thespecificcase ofthesamurai,statusand thehistoricalcategoryofclassmost
overlapin thetheoretical and ideal roleofthesamuraias therulingclassin Tokugawa
society.It is likelyforthis reasonthat so manyhistorianscomfortably referto the
samuraias therulingclass,theadministrative class,thebureaucraticelite,theruling
elite,and so on (Bellah [19571 1970, 24-25; Bix 1986, xvi;Jansen1986; Jansenand
Rozman 1986; Leupp 1992, 7-16; Rubinger 1982, 5; Totman 1967, 1-7). As
RaymondArononceargued,ifwe examinetheissueofclassesfromtheparadigmatic
categoriesofstateand society,we mustadmit,first, thateverysocietyis ruledto some
degreeby an oligarchy,and, second,thatthisoligarchymanagesbotheconomicand
politicalforcesin society:the meansofproductionand the functions ofgovernment.
Key to understanding the natureand developmentof the rulingclass in a given
society,then,is the maintenanceof solidaritywithinthe rulingclass, which,for
analyticalpurposes,Arondistinguishesas the upperclass,who controlthe meansof
production,and thepoliticalclass,who exercisethepoliticalfunctions ofgovernment
(1966).17 In the case ofTokugawaJapan,the firstshogunsattemptedto establishan
ideal systemthatput controlofland in thehandsof the shogun,thedomainallords,
and theirsamuraiadministrators, which effectively
synthesizedthe economicand
politicalfunctions oftheupperand politicalclassesas a unitedrulingclass.With the
rise of a commercialeconomy,however,the solidarityof the ruling class was
challengedas theupperclassand thepoliticalclassdiverged,or,in otherwords,when
the division of labor and economic control began to underminestatus group
differences. The statusdifferencesthatunitedthesamuraias a social elite,gave them
theirsuperiorpositionin society,and differentiated themfromotherstatusgroups
were fracturedby class differences as the agrarianeconomywas transformed by
commerceand samurailaborwas displacedby the morelucrativemerchantlabor-
all of which encouragedsamuraiprogramsof reformand, ultimately,the Meiji
Austinmadethepointovera century
17John earlier,
arguingthatall politicalsocieties
aresomeform
ofaristocracy
([183211995, 184-86).SeealsoManin
(1997,132-60).

Restoration.To use Minegishi'slanguage,in a mannercompatiblewith the new

approachof Tsukada and Hatanaka,the effectsof the new divisionof labor on the
status systemserved to realign class relations.During the third quarterof the
nineteenth manysamuraicoped withtheirloss ofeconomicpowerand their
century,
threatenedloss of status by fiercelyattemptingto establishand maintaintheir
bureaucraticfunctionwithinthe new Meiji polity.Therefore, my concernhere-to
analyzethe samurairoleas a rulingclass-must examinethe bureaucratic formthat
integratedthe upper-classand political-classpositionsof
initiallyand theoretically
the samurai.
Bureaucratic
Labor
In establishingthe shogunaldynastyat the startof the seventeenthcentury,

TokugawaIeyasuand his immediatedescendantsunifiedpoliticalauthority fromthe
top down by assertingtheirdominationover the regionallords(daimyo),the court
aristocracy,and theirmany strategicallyplaced followers.Althoughscholarsstill
debatethedegreeto whichtheTokugawa"system,"orbakuhantaisei,wasa centralized
government, theirpurposes-to establishor to refutethe feudalor absolutistnature
of theTokugawastate-are not immediatelyrelevantto thegoals ofthisessay(Hall
1991, 156-61; Honjo 1924, 189-92; It6 1969, 4-11; Nakamura 1947, 223-34;
Takahashi1932, 1-3). Certainly,the shogunmaintainedcentralizedcontroloverhis
vast landholdingsthroughoutJapan, much of which was parceled out to his
bannermen(hatamoto), but in a structurally parallel manner,each daimyoalso had
absoluteauthority overhis domain-notably thepeople and all judicialand financial
affairs.Like the shogun at the "national" level, the daimyocreated regulations,
codifications,and commandstructures.This high degreeof local control,coupled
with local self-sufficiencyand inconvenientcommunicationsand transportation,
served,in some scholars'minds,to fosterthe rigidclass relationsmodeledon thatof
masterand servantand characteristic of the Tokugawa period(Bolitho 1991, 213-
17; Hall 1983; Nakamura 1947, 225-33; Takahashi 1932, 1-3, 19-23; Totman
1993, 117-25). For my purposes,the importantpoint in this set of issues is that
stressedbyMaruyamaMasao: theessentialgoal oftheTokugawasystemwas domestic
control(Maruyama[1952J 1974, 333; see also Sakai 1957).
thebasisoftheTokugawasystemwas samuraicontrolofland. Like
In particular,
so-calledfeudalismin Europe,this was a political,economic,and militarysystem.
Unlikefeudalism, however,controloflandwas notso much"property" rightsin land,
but the samuraiappropriation of agriculturalsurplusand hencethe exploitationof
the peasantclass. Generally,the basis of samuraicontrolof land was the systemof
the samuraiand his stipendratherthan any feudal fiefin land, althougha small
numberofdomainsdid continueto maintainsamuraifiefsin land (Brown1993, 90-
91; Ishii 1965, 18-27; Ito 1969, 6-7, 90, 102-07; Nakamura1947, 201, 244-46;
Ravina 1999,46-49).18 Unlikemembersofall otherstatusgroupsorclassesin society,
the samuraireceiveda stipendof riceand cash paymentforhis services.This stipend
was notguaranteed perse;rather,it was an indexofstatusand rank,whichdetermined
18Brownpointsout thatfief-holdingvassalsof theMaedain Kaga domainhad notso

muchcontrol in landas a "right"to taxthepeasants
ofprivateproperty on theland(1993,
120-24). W. G. Beasleyestimates
thatonesixthofdomainsretained fiefs
in 1691,a figure
greatly
reducedby 1868 (1972,21).

a man's eligibilityforpositionsin shogunateor domainmilitaryand administrative

hierarchies.Thus temporary employment was morecommon(Bolitho 1991, 219-20,
229-31; Nakamura1947, 245).
In additionto theirnominaleconomiccontroloverland, the primarymeansof
production,the samurai also maintaineda monopolyon political authorityand
administration, and, as we have seen, social preeminenceover prestigeand ritual
(Ooms 1996, 312-49; Takahashi 1932, 9). But if, as a ruling class, theirsocial
relationswiththecommonordersweretheoretically modeledon landlord-tenant and
master-servant relations,therewas alwaysa contradiction at the heartofthesamurai
statusand class: theyruledby virtueof theirsuperiorpoliticaland social statusand
throughoutrightcontrolof land, but at the same time,as individualstheylargely
lackedanysocioeconomicbase ofindependence(Ikegami 1995, 150-57, 184). As an
individual,a samuraiwas oftenon his own in securingan adequatelivelihood;Kozo
Yamamura's importantstudy of samurai income found that the stipend of a
"houseman"was alwaysbarelyadequate,giving him in the earlyTokugawa period
the livingstandardof a merchantor artisan.Yamamuraconcludedthatin termsof
livingstandardsand modes of life,the lowerranksof samuraiformeda continuum
withthenon-samurai (Yamamura1974, 119-23). Thus, in additionto the legal fact
ofstatus,therewas alwaysa majorideologicalcomponentto samuraisupremacy. The
samuraiacted as a ruling class based on its two servicefunctions-militaryand
administrative service-but theseruling-classfunctionswere justifiedin Confucian
parlanceas the maintenanceof "rightness"or "rectitude"(gi) withinthe socialorder
(Takikawa1959, 418). To thedegreethattheexpansionofsamuraiacademiesin the
eighteenthcenturyencouragedstudy of Confuciantexts and the formationof a
commoncultureof literacyand textualfamiliarity, the ideological componentof
samurairulewas strengthened.
Beforewe turnto thematterofeducation,it shouldbe notedthatthetwoservice
functionsof the samurai class were in tensionwith each otherfor much of the
Tokugawaperiod.To begin with,the samuraidevelopedout of the landed warriors
ofthemedievalage, and, undertheTokugawaregime,as a legal and hereditary status
grouptheymaintainedthetheoretically exclusiverightto beararms.But at thesame
time,a majorfacetof theTokugawadesirefordomesticcontrolwas to eliminatethe
endemicwarfareamong landed warriorsthat characterized the medievalage. Thus
Tokugawa Ieyasuand his descendantsworked,on one hand, to transform the skills
acquired in combat to a code of personaldisciplineand showmanshipacquired in
educationalsettingsand, on theotherhand,to assertcontroloverindividualsamurai
by subordinating themto one or anotherleader.To accomplishthis latterproject,
one tacticwas to coercesamuraito abandonthe land and to residewiththeirlordly
superiorsin castletowns-in effect, to forcesamuraito submitformally to one lord
or another(withprominentexceptionssuchas the "ruralsamurai"[gJshi I in Satsuma
and Tosa domains;see respectively Sakai [19571 and Jansen[1961, 27-301). The
othertactic was to organize samurai into unitsresponsibleto one or anothersuperior.
Takagi Shosaku has argued that the centralization
of samurairetainers, a widespread
the
policyduring Tokugawaperiod, evolved in two relatedpatternsthat can be traced
to the late sixteenthcentury:at the immediatelylocal level, house elders (karo)
organizedsubordinatesamuraiinto personaltroops,while on a moreregionallevel,
domainallordsabsorbedtheauthority ofthosehouseelderswhobecametheir"vassals"
or "chiefattendants"(shuttJnin) (Takagi 1985, 68-70). Scholarsdisagreeas to the
fundamental units of samurai organization; whereIto Tasaburo argues that most
samuraiin domains were organizedinto banor gumi(band) units, Asao Naohiro

maintainsthat samuraigroup structurecontinuedto be based on attachmentto a

familyor household(Ito 1969, 84; Asao 1992, 34-35). I suspectthatfutureresearch
will identifyregionalvariationsand provebothaccurate.
Accordingly,in spite of their origins as membersof a militaryclass, the
administrative functionof the samuraicame to predominateduringthe decades of
Tokugawa peace, most importantly because samuraibureaucraticofficemost fully
integrated Tokugawainstitutions ofrule.As a classthesamuraihad privilegedaccess
to bureaucratic servicein TokugawaJapan.Samurairetainers constituted
theranksof
administrative officials(in Tokugawa and daimyoheadquarters),as well as regional
and districtofficials,and the latterservedto integratethe samuraibureaucracies of
the shogun and domains with the neighborhoodofficialsin towns and villages
throughout Japan(Nakamura 1947, 244; Chambliss1965, 1-12). The intellectual
and administrative laborof the samuraiwas necessarilybound to the interestsofthe
state, so thatin effect,the bureaucracywas a segmentof the samuraiclass,muchas
militaryunitsand manypolice organizationsthroughout Japanwerealso segments
of the samurai class. (As describedearlier,some routinepolice functionswere
conductedby non-samuraior outcastes[Howell 1998, 1071.) In termsof the ideal
systemestablishedin the earlyseventeenthcentury,the samurai representedthe
interestsof the state,and theiradministrative and militarylaborwas an extensionof
the economicgoals ofthestate:to managethepeasantclass and to extractfromtheir
labor a portionof agriculturalproducewith which to maintainthe samuraiclass.
Althoughmembersof lowerclasses,or "commoners,"could becomemembersofthe
bureaucracy and hold local offices,
theyoftenunderwenta formal"ennoblement" that
raisedthemto a formof samuraistatus(Dore 1965, 224-26; Smith 1988, 139). At
the upper reachesof the shogun'ssystemwas a formalbureaucraticrankingof the
variouslords-fudai,or vassallords,and tozama,or outsidelords-which affected the
entire range of samurai status divisions mentionedearlier. Harold Bolitho has
suggestedthatmanyof the smallerdomainsin the vicinityof Edo (Tokyo)werein
fact"bureaucratic domains"createdin partas remuneration forthehighpostswithin
the shogun'sbureaucracy (1976, 146-49; see also Takahashi 1932, 6-7; Takikawa
1959, 415).19
This transformation ofsamuraifromwarriorto administrator was encouragedby
the celebratedOgyiuSorai,who imaginedthe samuraiservingthe social orderin a
mannertheorizedby Confucianphilosophersin ancientChina. On the one hand,the
samuraiwould be motivatedby thepersonalobligationof maintainingthe honorof
theirsuperiorstatusin thesocialhierarchy; theirgood examplewouldserveas a model
forthe commonorders,theirauthorityunderlinedby theirpracticeof militaryarts.
On the otherhand, educationwould fosterspecializationin administrative service,
whichwould simultaneously encouragethe developmentof individualtalent(Ogyiu
[ca. 1716-281 1969, 21-22, 57, 133).20 As JohnW. Hall once noted,thisConfucian
view of the samuraiboth justifiedtheirrule and naturalizedtheirstatus,as well as
thevocationaldivisionofsociety,althoughit did requirethatsuchsamuraiclassrule
be exercisedresponsibly and benevolently(Hall 1974, 48).2
'9.Forusefulillustrations
ofthestructure ofsamuraiand bureaucracy,
see Hall (1991,
166-67);Takahashi (1932, 10); andTotman(1967,41, 270-77).
20SeealsoMaruyama Masaoon samurai conservatism
([195211974,327-32) andJennifer
Robertson on thesuccessofpaternalism, as samuraisuppliedimitative
peasantswithgood
examples through thewriting offarmingmanuals(1984, 174-75).
21William W. Kellyreiterated theimportanceofofficial in localprotests
accountability
in hisstudyofSakai(1985, 3-4, 288-89).

It is this combinationof personalbehaviorand systematicgovernmentthat

underlinestwo prominentinterpretations of Tokugawa bureaucracy. Bita Masahide
sees personalbehavioras potentiallyarbitrary-"feudalism" at its worst-and thus
welcomes bureaucracyas the other,redeemingbasis of the Tokugawa system:a
combinationofservice,force,and law. By contrast, Eiko Ikegamivaluesbothpersonal
behaviorin herdiscussionofsamuraihonor-because it formsthebasis ofindividual
competition,a value conduciveto modernization-andthe collectivecollaboration
implicitin bureaucraticoffice.Where Bito sees an awkwardsystemthat at least
attemptedsome impartialityor justice, Ikegami sees a novel solution, "vassalic
bureaucracy," thatsuccessfully createda hierarchy ofhonorparalleledbybureaucratic
officeand standardsof behavior.Both scholars,in otherwords,shareMax Weber's
observationthat bureaucracy, as a mode of rational-legalauthority,improvesupon
patrimonialor traditionalauthority(Bito 1981, 5; Ikegami 1995, 267-77; Weber
[19561 1978, 217-23, 1006-07).
Confucianism, insofaras it grantedthe samuraiprivilegedaccess to education,
accordinglysupplied a theoreticaljustificationfor the exclusive eligibilityfor
bureaucraticserviceamong the samurai class. This was so, most fundamentally,
because in the absence of militarycombat,manysamurairequireda vocation.As
Ronald Dore and RichardRubingerhave demonstrated, the numberof schoolsfor
samuraiincreasedgraduallywithofficialpatronageand the growthof scholarshipin
the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies,experiencing a greatexpansionin the late
eighteenthcentury,at whichtimethe numberofprivateschoolsoffering instruction
in newer scholarship(such as Nativism and Dutch Learning)began to increase
dramatically (Dore 1965, 17-26; Rubinger1982, 1-8). But in lightofOgyiuSorai's
theoreticalconstruction, this overallgrowthof educationalinstitutionsin the final
centuryof Tokugawa rule masks two significantand contradictory trendsforthe
samuraias a rulingclass. In the firstplace, althougheducationwas indeedone ofthe
fewinstruments to administrative specializationand social mobilityforsamurai(and
in timecommoners),schoolstendedto reinforce statusdistinctions.While Dore has
argued that domainal schools reinforcedstatus distinctionsthrough marked
attentiveness to students'familybackgroundsthroughseating,promotion,and other
"ritual"observances,Okubo Toshiaki pointedout thatsuch concernforstatuswas
endemicin all educationalinstitutions, becausethesewereall largelylocal schoolsin
which status definedprivilegesand determinedthe employmentthat one might
receiveaftercompletionof education(Dore 1965, 74, 86, 118, 209; Okubo 1987,
463-66).22 In the secondplace, as Tetsuo Najita has most stronglyargued,by the
eighteenthcentury,a rangeofJapaneseintellectualshad discreditedsamuraiclaims
to possessionofthevirtuethatunderlaytheirexclusiverightto politicalruleand had
begun to educate commonersso as to bring them into bureaucraticoffice(Najita
1991, 656; Dore 1965, 220; see also Najita 1987). Thus,as mostscholarsacknowledge
todayand as contemporaries in the eighteenthcenturyobserved,theTokugawaplan
forthesamuraiwas comingundonein spiteoftheirsuperiorstatus,theirbureaucratic
and educational preferments, and the Confucian justificationsfor this set of
arrangements.
22OkuboarguedthatMeijieducational weredefined
institutions as both"independent"-
fromformer
feudalauthorities-and"national,"
thereby theinstitutional
eliminating reliance
on mibun
in theinterests
of ability;sinceemployment uponcompletion of educationwas
"freely"contracted,
Meiji representsa shiftfromstatustofreecontract.On therelationbetween
educationand social mobility,see Beasley(1972, 35) and Moore (1979).

This growingsubversionofthesamuraias a rulingclasscan be attributedto two

fundamentalprocesses: on the one hand, the rationalizationof society due to
bureaucraticformsof rule and, on the other hand, the economic changes that
encouragedmerchantentrepreneurs in particularto forgeahead in the commerce
productiveof class power.The samurai,as the class represented in the bureaucracy,
figuredprominentlyin two processes of rationalizationoccurringduring the
Tokugawa period. In the firstplace, as John W. Hall and othershave argued,
Tokugawa rule fosteredthe bureaucratization of sociopoliticalrelations.The bakifii
enforcedthesystematic segmentation ofeachstatusgroupintoself-regulating groups
characterizedby increasinglyimpersonalrelations.The samuraiband, the peasant
village, and the townsmanward came to be structuredless in termsof personal
loyaltiesthanin thehierarchical formofbureaucratic position.Bureaucratic relations
betweengroupsin thecapital(Edo) and thecastletownsspreadin timeto thevillages
in thecountryside, a processthatencouragedbotha less arbitrary and a morecoercive
enforcementof authority(Bito 1981, 1-6; Hall 1974, 45-47; Ooms 1996, 100_10).23
OgytuSorai observedthis processaffecting masterand servantrelationswithinthe
samuraiclass; wherehereditary servantshad once been the norm,theywere being
replaced by short-termcontract laborers, and Ogyui lamented the fact that
considerations of profitand loss were takingprecedenceover the warrior'scode of
ethics([ca. 1716-281 1969, 50-52, 70-71).
In the secondplace, to returnto the issue raisedabove regardingthe cultural
superiority of the samuraithrougheducationand ideology,the Tokugawa period
witnesseda growingrationalization ofthepoliticalroleofthesamurai.TetsuoNajita
has describedintellectualdevelopments oftheeighteenthand nineteenth centuriesas
constitutinga "Tokugawa bureaucraticlegacy": "a traditionof political discourse
about the natureof bureaucracy,the legitimacyof pragmaticaction withinfixed
structures,and thelimitsofbureaucratic perceptionand action"(1974, 17). To Najita,
this creationof bureaucraticideologyensued as a debate based in Confucianism
between"the normativeor fixedbasis of political and social structures"and "the
importanceof bureaucratic codes,or 'law,' in humansociety"(positionsrepresented
respectively by Yamazaki Ansai and OgytuSorai).In spiteofdisagreement about the
source of norms-outside of or within human history-theseTokugawa scholars
sharedwith theirMeiji-era successorsa commitmentto absolute or authoritative
normsand structures ofrule,lestpoliticsbe reducedto arbitrary relianceon physical
power(Najita 1974, 1-39, 81).24 That sucha debatewas possiblelies in thefactthat
the Tokugawa bureaucracywas defined in Chinese Confucian terms as an
administrative aid to thesovereignin exercisingauthority and as a moralclassserving
as paragonsforthe lowerclasses of the people. While theybelievedthatan educated
23Mark Ravinadescribes theeighteenth-centurydeclineofpersonal, in

feudalauthority
theinterests ofmoreabstract patrimonialauthority(1999, 195); andDan FennoHenderson
describesthestandardization ofbothdocumentation ofagreements and adjudication ofdis-
agreements amongruralvillagers, as wellas therationalization
oftheirstatusand claimsas
villagers
(1974),although hedoesnotaddress thequestionofwhenthesedevelopments began.
24Similar areavailablein Kim (1961) andTotman(1993, 160-83,283-
interpretations
91). In his "Prefaceto thePaperback Edition"of Politicsin theTokucgawa Conrad
Bakufui,
Totmancautionsagainstidentifying thisprocessas rationalization
andwouldstressinstead
thebehavioral premisesthatgavethegovernment itspredictabilityin itsrelations
withthe
generalpopulation (1988,ix);however,suchpredictabilitywasprecisely oneaspectofWeber's
discussionofrationalization
(f195611978, 1002).Dan FennoHenderson discusses
theregu-
larizationof law and normsin Henderson(1968b).

classhas tutelaryauthority and privilegesovertheuneducated,theirpreeminent moral

status,idealizedin termsofpersonalrelations,was increasingly in tensionwiththese
processesofpoliticalrationalization.
In addition to this gradual processof rationalizationunderwayin Tokugawa
society,themorealarmingprocessofsamuraiimpoverishment was noticeableby the
earlyeighteenthcentury-a problemthat informedthe recommendations of Ogytu
Sorai. The personaldependenceof the samuraion his lord fora livelihood,coupled
withhis removalfromthe land and thepossibilityofbootyseized in warfare, meant
thatwiththegrowthofa moneyeconomy,thesamuraiwereincreasingly-asa class-
both dependenton the merchantclass for exchangetransactions(convertingrice
stipendsto cash) and indebtedto the merchantswho grantedloans on futurerice
stipends.As Ogytuput thematter,"themilitaryclasslivesas ifat an inn"([ca. 1716-
281 1969, 35; see also Honjo 1924, 203-07; 1935, 213-29; Matsuyoshi1930, 181-
98; Takahashi 1968, 1:8-9, 196-236; Yamamura 1974, 119-33). Ogytuproposed
returning samuraito theland and theworkoffarming, a movethatmightbreakthe
financialpowerof themerchants and ally thesamuraiwiththepeasants.That sucha
changewas not attemptedmaybe due to the alleged rigidityofTokugawa rule,but
some scholarshaveargued-in the spiritofTetsuo Najita's observation above-that
because the samurai grew narrowlyconservative,presumptuousof their status,
indifferent to cultivatingtheirability,and contemptuousofthelowerorders,leaders
began to assign political responsibilitiesto merchantand peasant commoners,
investingthemwithprivilegesthatmappedsamuraistatusontotheirlowerstanding
(Chambliss1965, 40-41; Honjo 1935, 202-10; Smith1988, 36-41; Takahashi1968,
35, 43-44).25 This developmentonly exacerbatedthe samurai'sloss of statusand
ruling-classlabor,makingmoreapparentthe contradictions ofclass relationswithin
laterTokugawasociety(Honjo 1935, 127-35; Matsuyoshi1930, 196-97).
As I notedat thestartofthisessay,interpretations oftherevolutionary potential
of the lowersamuraihave been hotlycontested,but rareis the scholarwho does not
accept the impoverishment of the samuraias cause forchange in the nineteenth
century.26 In general,scholarshave identifiedtwo directionsthat reformhad taken
by the middleof the nineteenth century.One approach,describedby W. G. Beasley
and H. D. Harootunian,emphasizedtalentat the expenseof status.In the faceof
crisisand callsforreform, a numberoflower-and,especially,middle-ranking samurai
werepromotedbeyondtheirsuperiorson the basis ofindividualtalent.Such actions,
notewell,justifiedtheappointment oftalentedcommoners as well.A secondapproach
to reformwas the attempt-particularlyduringthe Perrycrisisof the 1850s-to
returnthe samuraito theirarguablypreeminentmilitarydutyand to redefine status
and stipendas a functionofmilitaryservice.As SonodaHidehirohasargued,however,
these attemptsto rescue the status and class standingof the samuraiwere also
compromisedby the principleof talent.For the effort to producean effective army
began to reconstructthe samurai class, as high- and low-rankingsamurai were
intermixed in the new forces,and to shiftsamuraiorganizationfromhouseholdunits
to troopsof individualsevaluatedon the basis of theirskills.Like the firstapproach
to reform,this valorizationof individual talent allowed for the introductionof
25Ravinarecounts
theinstructive
example ofM6naiGi6'sfailedattempt
toresettle
samurai
in Hirosakidomainbetween1784 and 1798 (1999, 128-41).
26CompareMoore(1979), who arguesthatlowersamuraiwerenot impoverished but
ofhigher-status
wantedtheprivileges samurai,withYamamura (1974),whoarguesthatlower
samuraiwerenota revolutionary in spiteoftheirincreased
force, poverty.

commonersinto the new militaryclass (Harootunian1966; Beasley 1972, 69-70;

Sonoda 1990, 99).
Thus, by the nineteenthcentury,the trajectory ofJapanesethoughton the role
ofthesamuraiclass had intersected witha perennialproblemin Confucianism, raised
but leftunresolvedby theancientChinesephilosopherMencius:was leadershipto be
rootedin hereditary statusor in merit,the rewardingof talent?Most positionsof
leadershipand responsibility
were,in practice,filledon a hereditary
basisand justified
in termsof "loyalty,"whichhad been so pointedlyerodedby the Tokugawasystem
itself.The "lower samurai,"who made up the majorityof bureaucraticclerksand
lowlyfunctionaries and who feltunjustlycut offfrompositionsofpowerand respect,
increasinglyvoicedtherationalizingopinionthatofficial appointments and positions
shouldbe basedon meritratherthanheredity.If,as severalscholarshavepointedout,
the structuralrigidityof the Tokugawa systemminimizedsuch calls forthe reward
ofmerit,in time,thelowersamurai-the warriorclassas opposedto "noble"samurai
ofsuperiorlineage-became thegroupmostwillingto riskthepresentin theinterests
offundamental politicalchange(see Dore 1965, 176-213; Harootunian1966; Smith
1988, 156-72). Thus alienatedfromthe Tokugawa state,motivatedby notionsof
reform,and discoveringalternativemodels, some youngersamurai-Fukuzawa
Yukichi,forexample-began to interpret thequestionofpoliticallegitimacyin new
terms,eventhoseofrepresentative and to replacerelationships
institutions, ofloyalty
withan identificationwithpersonaland nationalindependence(see Maruyama[19601
1992, 38-45; Scheiner1970, 193-208).
Conclusions
Both statusand class are essentialto our understanding of the social positionof
the samuraiin TokugawaJapan.Whetherstatusis understoodin termsof the "four
divisionsofthepeople" intooccupationaland moralranks,or a legal classification of
privileges,or a sociologicaldescriptionofcommunity patternsand privilegesin daily
life,it remainsa valid historiographical concept,especiallybecause it is an actual
componentof a Tokugawa worldview.At the same time, class-as a historical
category-is necessaryin explainingthe realityof the samuraias a rulingclass. The
administration of theTokugawasystemof centraland domaingovernments entailed
the formalizationof the samurai as a class committedboth ideologicallyto the
maintenanceofhonoror rectitudeand administratively to bureaucratic servicein the
interestsof the economicgoals of statestructures: particularlythe appropriation of
agriculturalsurplusfromthepeasantry.
These two markersofthesociopoliticalstandingofthesamurai,statusand class,
workjointlyto explainhistoricalchangesat workduringtheTokugawaperiod;future
researchmusttake both into account.My own inclinationis towardthe exampleof
MinegishiKentaro,whowould haveus defineclassrelationsin termsoftwochanging
factors:statusand the divisionof labor. For in the firstplace, samuraistatuswas
progressivelyunderminedbythetensionbetweenan expandingcommercialeconomy,
whichpromotedentrepreneurial profitsat theexpenseofascribedstatus,and samurai
dependenceon the surplusofagriculturalproduction,thevalue ofwhichdeclinedas
a portionof theJapaneseeconomy.In the secondplace, the rulingclass positionof
the samuraiwas challengedby the tensionbetweenrationalization of government,
which tended to promotethe pragmaticallyverifiablecriterionof ability,and the
hereditaryprincipleofstatus,whichpromotedascribedconditionsofhierarchy.

As somereadershavenoted,however,thereis a powerfully theoreticalcomponent

lingeringin our understandingof status and class, especiallywith regardto the
samurai.Where the statusand laborof the varietiesof townsmen,peasants,and the
lowlysenmin have been examinedby scholarssuch as Yoshida Nobuyuki,ThomasC.
Smith, Tsukada Takashi, and Hatanaka Toshiyuki,researchinto the samurai is
insufficient.
Kozo Yamamurapointed out twenty-five yearsago that the lowestof
samurairanks-the supervisors ofboatmen,thefootsoldiers,and samuraiservants-
werenot viewedas samuraiin all domains(1974, 119). Regionalvariationsdeserve
scholarlyattentionto betterinformour understanding ofhistoricaldevelopments.
Let me close witha commentregardingthe Meiji Restoration, which,forbetter
or worse,has figuredas a pretextformuchofthehistoricalanalysisofclassand status
in Tokugawa society.With the Meiji Restoration,samuraipersistedas a privileged
elite withinthe rulingclass,favoredforenlistmentinto the Meiji bureaucracy. The
year 1871 witnessed,first,the abolition of the Tokugawa domains and the
establishmentof modernprefectures to create the state structureof the modern
Japanesebureaucracy.To some scholars,this was the "coup d'etat" of the Meiji
oligarchy,servingto transfer powerand bureaucratic authorityto theirranksin the
new capitalofTokyo(Beasley 1972, 348-49; Ishii 1958, 97-99). Second,1871 also
saw thereassertion ofthesamuraias a privilegedgroupinJapanesesociety.Although
the Meiji Restorationeliminatedthe legallybindingstatusranksof the Tokugawa
system,the rulingoligarchyby 1871 deemeda measureofdistinctionand privilege
appropriateforthe formersamuraiin the new imperialstate. In accord with the
ancientprecedentof imperialcourtranks,formersamuraiwerereclassified as a pair
ofelitegroups-the shizokuand sotsuzoku, or "samurai"and "soldiers,"respectively-
to distinguishthemfromthe commonersbelow (Beasley 1972, 381-89; Ishii 1958,
91-108; Fukaya 1973, 21-34; and Kikkawa 1942, 10-13). Althoughthe sotsuzoku
designationwas eliminatedthe followingyear,the subsequentestablishmentof a
formal"samurairehabilitation program"in the mid-1870s and the expansionof the
centralgovernment bureaucracyto local administrationsby 1881 collectivelyserved
to place samuraiin a significant percentageof all bureaucraticpositions(estimates
range widely from40 percentto 75 percent,dependingon region and level of
bureaucratic post). Therewas, in otherwords,a greatdeal ofcontinuitybetweenthe
samuraibureaucraticclass duringthe Tokugawa and its reproduction as the Meiji
bureaucracy.27 But as SakamotoTakao has recentlyargued,we havebeen misleading
ourselvesfortoo long abouttheroleof"former samurai"in theformation oftheMeiji
state.The samuraiof the Tokugawaperiodwerenot exactlytheshizokuof the Meiji
period,and it is an unrigoroussleightof hand to simplyequate the two (Sakamoto
1999, 170-72; see also Sonoda,Hamana,and Hirota 1995, 45-141). Rethinkingthe
identityof the samuraiof the Tokugawaperiodpromisesto assistour rethinking of
the social,political,and economicforcesengenderingthe Meiji Restoration.
List of References
AKAMATSU, PAUL. [19681 1972. Meiji 1868: Revolution in

and Counter-Revolution
Japan.Translatedby MiriamKochan. New York: Harper& Row.
27Onthereconstructionofthebureaucracy,see Craig(1986, 52-58) and Silberman(1964;

1993, 159-200). On samuraienlistmentinto theMeiji bureaucracyand statisticalfigures,
see
Harootunian(1959) and Sonoda (1990, 102-07).

ARON, RAYMOND. 1966. "Social Class, Political Class, Ruling Class." In Class,
Status,and Power:SocialStratificationin Comparative Perspective,
2d ed., edited by
ReinhardBendixand SeymourMartinLipset.New York: FreePress.
ASAo NAOHIRO. 1991. "The Sixteenth-Century Unification." TranslatedbyBernard
Susser.In The Cambridge HistoryofJapan,vol. 4, EarlyModern Japan,edited by
JohnW. Hall. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
. 1992. "Kinsei no mibun to sono hen'yo."In Mibuntokakushiki, edited by
Asao Naohiro.Tokyo:Chuoikoronsha.
AUSTIN, JOHN. [18321 1995. The Province ofJurisprudence Determined.Edited by
WilfredE. Rumble. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
BEASLEY, W. G. 1972. TheMeiji Restoration. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
BELLAH, ROBERT. [19571 1970. Tokugawa Religion:TheValuesofPre-IndustrialJapan.
Boston:Beacon Press.
BITO MASAHIDE. 1981. "Societyand SocialThoughtin theTokugawaPeriod."Japan
Foundation Newsletter
9(2-3):1-9.
Bix, HERBERT P. 1986. PeasantProtestinJapan, 1590-1884. New Haven: Yale
UniversityPress.
BOLITHO, HAROLD. 1976. Treasures amongMen: The Fudai Daimyoin Tokugawa
Japan.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
. 1991. "The Han." In The Cambridge HistoryofJapan,vol. 4, EarlyModern
Japan,editedbyJohnW. Hall. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
BROWN, PHILIP C. 1993. CentralAuthority and Local Autonomy in theFormation of
EarlyModern Japan:TheCaseofKaga Domain.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
BUTLER, LEE A. 1994. "Tokugawa Ieyasu's Regulations for the Court: A
Reappraisal."HarvardJournal ofAsiaticStudies54(2):509-5 1.
CHAMBLISS, WILLIAM JONES. 1965. ChiaraijimaVillageLand Tenure, Taxation,and
Local Trade,1818-1884. Tucson: UniversityofArizonaPress.
COLLINGWOOD, R. G. [19421 n.d. TheNew Leviathan,orMan, Society, Civilization,
and Barbarism. New York: Thomas Crowell.
CRAIG, ALBERT M. 1961. ChJshi- in theMeiji Restoration,1853-1868. Cambridge:
HarvardUniversity Press.
.1986. "The CentralGovernment."InJapanin Transition: FromTokugawato
Meiji, edited by Marius B. Jansenand Gilbert Rozman. Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
CREEL, HERRLEE G. 1974. ShenPu-hai: A Chinese oftheFourth
PoliticalPhilosopher
Century B. C. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
DORE, R. P. 1965. Education in Tokugawa Japan.London:Athlone.
DOWER, JOHN W. 1975. "E. H. Norman,Japan,and theUses ofHistory."In Origins
oftheModern JapaneseState:SelectedWritingsofE. H. Norman,editedbyJohnW.
Dower. New York: Pantheon.
FOGEL, JOSHUA A. 1988. "The Debates over the Asiatic Mode of Productionin
SovietRussia,China,and Japan."American HistoricalReview93(1):56-79.
FUKAYA HAKUJI. 1973. Ka-shizokuchitsuroku shobunno kinkyv.Rev. ed. Tokyo:
Yoshikawakobunkan.
FUKAYA KATSUMI. 1981. "Kinseishikenkyfu to mibun."Rekishihyo-ron, no. 369:49-
54.
GLUCK, CAROL. 1978. "The People in History: Recent Trends in Japanese
Historiography."Journal ofAsianStudies38(1):25-50.
HALL, JOHN W. 1974. "Rule by Status in Tokugawa Japan."JournalofJapanese
Studies1(1):39-49.

. 1983. "Termsand Conceptsin JapaneseMedievalHistory:An Inquiryinto

the ProblemsofTranslation."JournalofJapanese
Studies9(1):1-32.
. 1991. "The BakuhanSystem."In TheCambridge
History ofJapan,
vol. 4, Early
MoadernJapan,editedbyJohnW. Hall. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
HANLEY, SUSAN B., and Kozo YAMAMURA. 1977. Economicand Demographic
Changein PreindustrialJapan,
1600-1868. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
HARAFUJI HIROSHI. 1978. "Han Laws in the Edo Period with Particular Emphasis
on Those of Kanazawa Han." ActaAsiatica,no. 35:46-71.
HAROOTIJNIAN, H. D. 1959. "The ProgressofJapanand theSamuraiClass, 1868-
1882." PacificHistorical
Review28:258-62.
. 1966. "Jinsei,Jinzei,and Jitsugaku:Social Values and Leadershipin Late
TokugawaThought."In Modern Japanese
Leadership:Transitionand Change,edited
by BernardSilbermanand H. D. Harootunian.Tucson: Universityof Arizona
Press.
. 1970. TowardRestoration: The GrowthofPoliticalConsciousness
in Tokugawa
Japan.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
HATANAKA TOSHIYUKI. 1990. Kinsei sonrakushakai no mibunkozo. Kyoto: Buraku
mondaikenkytujo.
. 1991. "Kinsei 'senmin'mibunronno kadai." In So-tenNihonnorekishi,
vol.
5, Kinseihen,edited by Aoki Michio and Hosaka Satoru.Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu
oraisha.
1997. 'Kawata' toheijin:kinseimibunshakairon.
Kyoto:Kamogawashuppan.
HATTORI SHISO. [19471 1980. "Absolutismand Historiographical Interpretation."
JapanInterpreter13(1):15-35.
HENDERSON, DAN FENNO. 1965. Conciliationand Japanese Law: Tokugawa and
Modern.Vol. 1. Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress;Tokyo: Universityof
Tokyo Press.
. 1968a. "Law and PoliticalModernizationin Japan."In PoliticalDevelopment
inModernJapan, editedbyRobertE. Ward. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
. 1968b. "The Evolutionof Tokugawa Law." In Studiesin theInstitutional
HistoryofEarlyModern Japan, edited by JohnW. Hall and Marius B. Jansen.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
1974. "Contractsin TokugawaVillages."Journal ofJapaneseStudies1(1):5 1-
81.
HIRSCHMEIER, JOHANNES. 1964. The Origins of Entrepreneurship
in Meiji Japan.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
HONJO EIJIRO. 1924. Nihon shakai shi. Tokyo: Kaizosha.
1935. ThgeSocial and Economic
HistoryofJapan. Kyoto: Nihon keizaishi
kenkyiujo.
HOSTON, GERMAINE A. 1986. Marxismand theCrisisofDevelopment inPrewarJapan.
. 1991. "ConceptualizingBourgeoisRevolution:The PrewarJapaneseLeft
and the Meiji Restoration."Comparative
Studiesin Society
and History33(3):539-
81.
and Collective Identityin Tokugawa
HOWELL, DAVID L. 1998. "Territoriality
Japan."Daedaluis127(3):105-32.
HSIAo KUNG-CH'UAN. 1979. A History ofChinese
PoliticalThought.
Vol. 1, Fromthe
to theSixth CenturyA. D. Translatedby F. W. Mote. Princeton:
Beginnings
Press.
PrincetonUniversity

HUBER, THOMAS M. 1981. The Revolutionary

Originsof ModernJapan. Stanford:
StanfordUniversityPress.
IKEGAMI, EIKO. 1995. The Tamingof theSamurai:Honorific
Individualism
and the
MakingofModern
Japan.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
ISHII RYOSUKE. 1958. Japanese
Legislation
in theMeiji Era. Translatedby WilliamJ.
Chambliss.Tokyo:Toyo Bunko.
* 1965. "JapaneseFeudalism."ActaAsiatica,no. 35:1-29.
ITO TASABURO. 1969. Bakuhantaisei.Tokyo: Kiyomizu kobundo shobo.
IWAKI TAKUJI. 1996. "Kinsei ryoshushihai to murayakunin, goshuku, kakyiu
yakunin."In Kinseinoshakai-teki kenryoku: ken'itohegemoni, editedby Kurushima
Hiroshiand Yoshida Nobuyuki.Tokyo:Yamakawashuppansha.
JANSEN, MARIUS B. 1961. SakamotoRyo-ma and theMeiji Restoration. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
. 1986. "The Ruling Class." InJapan in Transition: FromToklgaivatoMeiji,
editedbyMariusB. Jansenand GilbertRozman.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
JANSEN, MARIUS B., and GILBERT ROZMAN. 1986. "Overview." In Japan in
Transition:FromTokugawato Meiji, edited by Marius B. Jansenand Gilbert
Rozman. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
KALLAND, ARNE. 1995. FishingVillagesin Tokulgawa Japan. Honolulu: University
of Hawai'i Press.
KASAYA KAZUHIKO. 1992. "Bushi no mibun to kakushiki." In Mibuntokakushiki,
editedby Asao Naohiro.Tokyo:Chuiokoronsha.
KELLY, WILLIAM W. 1985. Deference and Defiancein Nineteenth-Century Japan.
KIKKAWA HIDEZO. 1942. Shizoku jusan nokenkyz7. Rev. ed. Tokyo: Ytuhikaku.
KIM, YOUNG-CHIN. 1961. "On Political Thought in Tokugawa Japan."Journal of
Politics23:127-45.
KUMAGAE MITSUKO. 1994. "Taitonin to Kinai machibugyo sho shihai." In Mibun-
tekishugen,edited by Tsukada Takashi,Yoshida Nobuyuki,and Wakita Osamu.
Kyoto:Burakumondaikenkytujo.
KURUSHIMA HIROSHI. 1996. "'Nakama shihai kik6' o 'shakai-teki kenryoku' ron
de yominaosu."In Kinseino shakai-tekikenryoku: ken'i to hegemoni,edited by
KurushimaHiroshiand Yoshida Nobuyuki.Tokyo:Yamakawashuppansha.
KURUSHIMA HIROSHI, and YOSHIDA NOBUYUKI, eds. 1995. Kinseino shakai
shNdan: Tokyo:Yamakawashuppansha.
yuishotogensetsu.
1996. Kinseino shakai-teki kenryoku: ken'ito hegemonf. Tokyo: Yamakawa
shuppansha.
LEUPP, GARY P. 1992. Servants, Shophands, and Laborersin theCitiesof Tokllgawa
Japan.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
. 1999. "The Five Men of Naniwa: Gang Violence and Popular Culturein
GenrokuOsaka." In Osaka: TheMerchants' Capital ofEarlyModern Japan,edited
byJamesL. McClain and Wakita Osamu. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
MACPHERSON, W. J. 1987. TheEconomic Development ofJapan, c.1868-1941. London:
Macmillan.
MANIN, BERNARD. 1997. The Principles of RepresentativeGovernment.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
MARUYAMA MASAO. [19521 1974. Studiesin theIntellectual Historyof Tokugawa
Japan.TranslatedbyMikisoHane. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press;Tokyo:
UniversityofTokyoPress.

. [19601 1992. "Chiuseito hangyaku."In Chziseitohangyaku: Nihonno

tenkeiki
seishinshitekiis-. Tokyo:Chikumashobo.
MARX, KARL, and FRIEDRICH ENGELS. [18481 1967. The Communist Manifesto.
Translatedby SamuelMoore.London:PenguinBooks.
MATSUYOSHISADAO. 1930. Tosa hankeizaishikenkyz7. Tokyo:Nihon kyoronsha.
MENCIUS. [4th c. BCJ 1970. Mencius.Translatedby D. C. Lau. London: Penguin
Books.
MINEGISHI KENTARO. 1989. Kinseimibunron.Tokyo:Azekurashobo.
MOORE, RAY A. 1979. "Samurai Discontent and Social Mobility in the Late
TokugawaPeriod."Monumenta Nipponica24(1-2):79-91.
MURATA MICHIHITO. 1999. "Osaka as a Center of Regional Governance."
TranslatedbyKikukoYamashita.In Osaka:TheMerchants' CapitalofEarlyModern
Japan,editedbyJamesL. McClainand Wakita Osamu. Ithaca:CornellUniversity
Press.
NAJITA, TETSUO . 1974.Japan:TheIntellectual FoundationsofModern
Japanese Politics.
Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
. 1987. VisionsofVirtuein TokugawaJapan. Chicago: Universityof Chicago
Press.
. 1991. "Historyand Naturein Eighteenth-Century TokugawaThought."In
The Cambridge HistoryofJapan,vol. 4, EarlyModern Japan,edited by JohnW.
Hall. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
NAKAMURA KIcHIJI. 1947. Nihon shakai shi gaisetsu.Tokyo: Usui shobo.
. 1984. Nihonhokensei Vol. 1, Uji to mura.Vol. 2, Mibuntohoken.
nogenryu-.
Tokyo:Tosui shobo.
NAKANE, CHIE. 1990. "Tokugawa Society."In TokugawaJapan: The Social and
Economic Antecedents of ModernJapan, edited by Chie Nakane and Shinzabur6
Oishi. Tokyo:UniversityofTokyo Press.
NISHIYAMA MATSUNOSUKE. 1997. Edo Culture:Daily Lifeand Diversions in Urban
Japan, 1600-1868. Translatedby Gerald Groemer.Honolulu: Universityof
Hawai'i Press.
NORMAN, E. H. [19401 1975. Japan'sEmergence as a ModernState.In Originsofthe
Modern Japanese State:Selected ofE. H. Norman,
Writings editedbyJohnW. Dower.
New York: Pantheon.
OGYU SORAI. [ca. 1716-281 1969. The PoliticalWritings ofOgyuzSorai. Translated
byJ. R. McEwan. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
OKUBO TOSHIAKI. 1987. Meiji ishintoky5iku. Tokyo:Yoshikawakobunkan.
OOMS, HERMAN.1996. TokugawaVillagePractice: Law. Berkeley:
Class,Status,Power,
University of CaliforniaPress.
QUINE, W. V. 1980. Froma LogicalPointofView:NineLogico-Philosophical Essays.2d
ed. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
RAVINA, MARK. 1999. Land and Lordship in EarlyModern Japan.Stanford: Stanford
UniversityPress.
ROBERTSON, JENNIFER. 1984. "Japanese Farm Manuals: A LiteratureofDiscovery."
PeasantStudies11(3):169-94.
RUBINGER, RICHARD. 1982. PrivateAcademiesin TokugawaJapan. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
SADAKANE MANABU. 1996. "Okayama han ni okeru murayakunin sennin o
megutte."In Kinseinoshakai-teki ken'itohegemon2,
kenryoku: editedby Kurushima
Hiroshiand Yoshida Nobuyuki.Tokyo:Yamakawashuppansha.

SAKAI, ROBERT K. 1957. "Feudal Societyand ModernLeadershipin Satsuma-han."

JournalofAsianStudies16(3):365-76.
.1975. "An Introductory " In TheStatusSystem
Analysis. andSocialOrganization
ofSatsuma: A Translation oftheShtumon Tefuda Aratame Jomoku, translatedby
Torao Haraguchi, et al. Honolulu: University Pressof Hawai'i.
SAKAMOTO TAKAO. 1999. Meiji kokka no kensetsu,1871-1890. Tokyo:
Chuiokoronsha.
SCHEINER, IRWIN. 1970. Christian Converts inMeijiJapan.Berkeley:
andSocialProtest
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
. 1978. "BenevolentLords and Honorable Peasants:Rebellion and Peasant
Consciousnessin TokugawaJapan."In JapaneseThought in theTokugawaPeriod,
1600-1868: Methods and Metaphors, editedby Tetsuo Najita and IrwinScheiner.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
SHIMADA ISAO. 1971. "Kindai no goi." In K5-za:kokugoshi, edited by Sakakura
Atsuyoshi,et al., vol. 3, Goi shi.Tokyo:Taishtukan.
SHIVELY, DONALD H. 1964-65. "SumptuaryRegulation and Status in Early
TokugawaJapan."HarvardJournalofAsiaticStudies25:123-64.
SIEBOLD, PHILIPP FRANZ VON. 1841. Mannersand Customs oftheJapanesein the
NineteenthCentury. New York: Harper& Bros.
SILBERMAN, BERNARD S. 1964. Ministers ofModernization:EliteMobilityin theMeiji
1868-1873. Tucson: UniversityofArizonaPress.
Restoration,
.1993. CagesofReason:TheRiseoftheRationalStatein France, Japan,theUnited
States,and GreatBritain.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
SMITH, THOMAS C. 1959. TheAgrarianOrigins ofModern Japan.Stanford:Stanford
UniversityPress.
1988. Native SourcesofJapaneseIndustrialization, 1750-1920. Berkeley:
Universityof California Press.
SONODA, HIDEHIRO. 1990. "The Decline of the JapaneseWarriorClass." Japan
Review1:73-111.
SONODA HIDEHIRO, HAMANA ATSUSHI, and HIROTA TERUYUKI. 1995. Shizoku
norekishi kenkyz7.
shakaigaku-teki Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku shuppankai.
SUMIYA, MIKIO, and KoJI TAIRA, eds. 1979. An Outline Economic
ofJapanese History,
1603-1940: MajorWorks andResearch Tokyo:University
Findings. ofTokyoPress.
TAKAGI SHOSAKU. 1985. " 'Hideyoshi'sPeace' and theTransformation oftheBushi
Class-The Dissolutionof the Autonomyof the MedievalBushi."ActaAsiatica,
no. 49:46-77.
.1987. "Kinsei Nihon ni okerumibun to yaku-Minegishi Kentaroshi no
hihanni kotaeru."Rekishihyo-ron, no. 446:90-108.
TAKAHASHI KAMEKICHI. 1932. Tokugawahoken keizainokenkyv.Tokyo: Senshinsha.
.1968. Nihonkindaikeizaikeiseishi.Tokyo:Toyo keizai shinposha.
TAKEMURA, Eiji. 1997. ThePerception ofWorkin Tokugawa Japan:A StudyofIshida
Baiganand Ninomiya Sontoku.Lanham, MD: University PressofAmerica.
TAKIKAWA MASAJIRo. 1959. Nihonh5seishi. Rev. ed. Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten.
THOMPSON, E. P. 1978. "Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle
withoutClass?" SocialHistory3(2):133-65.
TOTMAN, CONRAD. 1967. Politicsin theTokugawaBakufu,1600-1843. Cambridge:
HarvardUniversity Press.
. 1986. "Tokugawa Peasants:Win, Lose, or Draw?" Monumenta Nipponica
41(4):457-76.

. 1988. "Prefaceto the PaperbackEdition."Politicsin theTokugawaBakufu,

1600-1843. Rpt. ed. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
. 1993. EarlyModern Japan.Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
TSUCHIYA TAKAO. 1931. "Tokugawa jidai ni okerumibun to kaikytu." Shis5-,no.
114:1-15.
TSUKADA TAKASHI. 1987. KinseiNihonmibunsei no kenkyv. Kobe: Hyogo buraku
mondaikenkytujo.
. 1992. Mibunseishakaitoshiminshakai:kinseiNihonnoshakaito ho-.Tokyo:
Kashiwa shobo.
. 1997. Kinseimibunsei toshfien
shakai.Tokyo:TokyoDaigaku shuppankai.
TSUKADA TAKASHI, YOSHIDA NOBUYUKI, and WAKITA OSAMU, eds. 1994.
Mibun-tekishf7en.Kyoto:Burakumondaikenkytujo.
VLASTOS, STEPHEN. 1982. "Yonaoshiin Aizu." In Conflict in ModernJapanese History:
The Neglected Tradition,edited by Tetsuo Najita and J. Victor Koschmann.
WAKABAYASHI, BOB TADASHI. 1991. "In Name Only: ImperialSovereignty in
EarlyModernJapan."Journal ofJapanese
Studies17(1):25-57.
WAKITA, OSAMU. 1991. "TI'heSocial and EconomicConsequencesof Unification."
TranslatedbyJamesL. McClain. In TheCambridge History ofJapan,vol. 4, Early
Modern Japan,editedbyJohnWhitneyHall. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
WALTHALL, ANNE. 1986. Social Protest and PopularCulturein Eighteenth-Century
Japan.Tucson: UniversityofArizonaPress.
WATANABE HIROSHI. 1985. KinseiNihonshakaitos5gaku.Tokyo:Tokyo Daigaku
shuppankai.
WEBER, MAX. [19561 1978. Economy An OutlineofInterpretive
and Society: Sociology.
Edited by GuentherRoth and Claus Wittich.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia
Press.
YAMAMOTONAOTOMO. 1989. "Kinsei shakaito sono mibun." In Kinsei nominshu7
togeino-,
editedby Kyotoburakushikenkytujo. Kyoto:Aunsha.
YAMAMURA, Kozo. 1974. A Study of Samurai Incomeand Entrepreneurship.
Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.
YASUBA YASUKICHI. 1975. "Anatomyof the Debate on JapaneseCapitalism."
JournalofJapanese Studies2(1):63-82.
YOKOTA FUYUHIKO. 1992. "Kinsei-teki bunseido no seiritsu." In Mibunto
kakushiki,editedby Asao Naohiro.Tokyo:Chuiokoronsha.
YOSHIDA NOBUYUKI. 1993. "Kinsei zenkino machito chonin."In Toshitosho-nin,
geino-min: karakindaie,editedby Gomi Fumihikoand Yoshida Nobuyuki.
chfisei
Tokyo:Yamakawashuppansha.
. 1998. Kinseitoshishakainomibun kozo-.
Tokyo:TokyoDaigaku shuppankai.


Samurai Status

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samurai Status

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historiographical Essay

Author(s): Douglas R. Howland

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

LIISTORICALLY, TOKUGAWA SAMURAI WERE A LEGAL creation thatgrewoutofthe

Douglas R. Howland is Associate Professorin the Departmentof Historyat DePaul

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

bourgeoisrevolutionas a historicaltype now appearsoverlydeterministic and too

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

ofMinegishiKentaro,whounderstands classas a summationofstatusand thedivision

Mibunrefersto the circumstances of one's birth,one's family'srankamong the

occurs in the Shu jing (ClassicofHistory)5:20, but the original

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

overlapofa divisionoflaborand a moralhierarchy is implicitin thepointthatancient

3Watanabe Hiroshireports thatKoreanobservers in 1719 rather remarked

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

individualizesthe statusof its possessor,with the resultthatclustersof individuals

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

For all of these approachesgroundedin the theoryof "fourdivisionsof the

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

been criticizedby scholarswho rejectthe staticimage of a legal hierarchy of status

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

communitiesas "functionalgroups."While suchterminology suggeststhebiological

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

swords(Takahashi 1932, 29-41).13 Accordingto Anne Walthall,this segmentation

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

considerto be the fundamentalimpetusforchange duringthe Tokugawa period,

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

in the firstquarterof the twentiethcenturyas an elementof Marxisttheory,and in

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

definedbestby themilitaryand bureaucratic functions ofthesamurai.15

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

16Infact,the nomenclature forsocial groupsin currentUS historiography ofJapanis so

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

But thetwodo overlap.The highestsamuraihad bothstatusand economicstanding,

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

Restoration.To use Minegishi'slanguage,in a mannercompatiblewith the new

In establishingthe shogunaldynastyat the startof the seventeenthcentury,

18Brownpointsout thatfief-holdingvassalsof theMaedain Kaga domainhad notso

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

a man's eligibilityforpositionsin shogunateor domainmilitaryand administrative

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

maintainsthat samuraigroup structurecontinuedto be based on attachmentto a

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

It is this combinationof personalbehaviorand systematicgovernmentthat

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

This growingsubversionofthesamuraias a rulingclasscan be attributedto two

23Mark Ravinadescribes theeighteenth-centurydeclineofpersonal, in

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

classhas tutelaryauthority and privilegesovertheuneducated,theirpreeminent moral

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

commonersinto the new militaryclass (Harootunian1966; Beasley 1972, 69-70;

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

As somereadershavenoted,however,thereis a powerfully theoreticalcomponent

AKAMATSU, PAUL. [19681 1972. Meiji 1868: Revolution in

27Onthereconstructionofthebureaucracy,see Craig(1986, 52-58) and Silberman(1964;

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

. 1983. "Termsand Conceptsin JapaneseMedievalHistory:An Inquiryinto

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

HUBER, THOMAS M. 1981. The Revolutionary

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM

. [19601 1992. "Chiuseito hangyaku."In Chziseitohangyaku: Nihonno

This content downloaded from 134.124.28.17 on Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:10:41 AM