Who Rules Japan? Popular Participation in the Japanese Legal Process

"The dramatic growth of the Japanese economy in the postwar period, and its meltdown in the 1990s, has attracted sustained interest in the power dynamics underlying the management of Japan’s administrative state. Scholars and commentators have long debated over who wields power in Japan, asking the fundamental question: who really governs Japan? This important volume revisits this question by turning its attention to the regulation and design of the Japanese legal system. With essays covering the new lay-judge system in Japanese criminal trials, labour dispute resolution panels, prison policy, gendered justice, government lawyers, welfare administration and administrative transparency, this comprehensive book explores the players and processes in Japan’s administration of justice."--publisher website

Popular participation in labour law: The new labour dispute resolution tribunal

The Labour Tribunal Law (No. 45 of 2004) ushered in a new court-annexed dispute resolution system for industrial relations disputes in Japan (outlined generally in Sugeno, 2004). Similar to the lay judge system for criminal trials (Johnson and Shinomiya, Chapter 2), the new tribunal adopts an adjudicative model that blends professional and lay expertise with decisions heard by a tripartite panel comprising a professional judge and two lay judges recommended by management and labour unions respectively. The new tribunal system came into operation on 1 April 2006.

Studying change in popular culture: A "middle-range" approach

"This chapter reviews the capacity of the discipline field to account for the velocity and quality of digitally-driven transformations, while making a case for a "middle range" approach that steers between unbridled optimism ("all-change") and determined scepticism ("Continuity") about the potential of such change. The chapter focuses on online screen distribution as a case study, considering the evidence for, and significance of, change in industry structure and the main payers, how content is produced and by whom, the nature of content, and the degree to which online screen distribution has reached thresholds of mainstream popularity."

Intersex onscreen: An overview of recent fictional characters with intersex variations on television

Throughout history, people with intersex variations have been positioned somewhere between ‘prodigy literature and pornography, mythology and medical discourse’ (Gilbert 2000, 145). Indubitably, contemporary representations have changed in step with societal values, yet it could be argued there is still slippage, and, moreover, very little is seen or heard about intersex at all. Where once there was the awe and horror of the highly visible carnival sideshow or medical treatise, the intersex body is now rendered absent by medical intervention, which is invoked to fix the intersexed in both mind and body. This paper explores the fictional representation of people with intersex variations on screen – television and film in predominantly the genres of drama and comedy – arriving finally at characters originating from program-makers willing to work closely with the intersex community. Such texts disrupt unwarranted categorization and erasure by “owning” discursive practices, defying current medical interference and promoting ethical debates around the will-to-normalise what is considered to be aberrant, deviant and abject.

The popular mechanicals

In Shakespeare's play, A Midsummer Night's Dream, six workers aspire to present a play for the Royal Wedding. We see their efforts and their antics in the framework of the Royal Court and the supernatural fairy world. We love them for their simplicity, laugh at their homespun ways and forgive their stumbles as they perform their play in the royal presence. In the marvellous irreverence of The Popular Mechanicals, Keith Robinson and Tony Taylor have thrown Shakespeare to the mercy of Australian larrikin humour and placed the lowly workers centre stage. This is A Midsummer Night's Dream without the Royals. Shakespeare's mechanicals become the stars, the kings of their own world, where dreams can come true, if only for a moment. With the innocence of clowns they love life, feel joy, know fear, bear sadness. In the end it is we the audience who become the Royal presence, to judge them if we dare.

Threats and Promises: The Promotion of Artificial Lighting to Women Consumers in the United States, 1880s – 1960s

This article examines the development of a specific gendered discourse in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century that united key beliefs about feminine beauty, identity, and the domestic interior with particular electric lighting technologies and effects. Largely driven by the electrical industry’s marketing rhetoric, American women were encouraged to adopt electric lighting as a beauty aid and ally in a host of domestic tasks. Drawing evidence from a number of primary texts, including women’s magazines, lighting and electrical industry trade journals, manufacturer-generated marketing materials, and popular home decoration and beauty advice literature, this study shifts the focus away from lighting as a basic utility, demonstrating the ways in which modern electric illumination was culturally constructed as a desirable personal and environmental beautifier as well as a means of harmonizing the domestic interior.

Dominating search: Google before the law

For many, particularly in the Anglophone world and Western Europe, it may be obvious that Google has a monopoly over online search and advertising and that this is an undesirable state of affairs, due to Google's ability to mediate information flows online. The baffling question may be why governments and regulators are doing little to nothing about this situation, given the increasingly pivotal importance of the internet and free flowing communications in our lives. However, the law concerning monopolies, namely antitrust or competition law, works in what may be seen as a less intuitive way by the general public. Monopolies themselves are not illegal. Conduct that is unlawful, i.e. abuses of that market power, is defined by a complex set of rules and revolves principally around economic harm suffered due to anticompetitive behavior. However the effect of information monopolies over search, such as Google’s, is more than just economic, yet competition law does not address this. Furthermore, Google’s collection and analysis of user data and its portfolio of related services make it difficult for others to compete. Such a situation may also explain why Google’s established search rivals, Bing and Yahoo, have not managed to provide services that are as effective or popular as Google’s own (on this issue see also the texts by Dirk Lewandowski and Astrid Mager in this reader). Users, however, are not entirely powerless. Google's business model rests, at least partially, on them – especially the data collected about them. If they stop using Google, then Google is nothing.

The prankster’s passion: Using theatrical terms to unpack players motivations in popular social performance

Amongst social players, the prank, as a social performance form, holds a lot of potential to impact on personal, relational and social status within a group or between one group and another group. More than simply showing off, a prank in the strictest definition of the term, is a social performance in which one player, a prankster, deploys mischief, trickery or deceit, to cause a moment of anxiety, fear or anger about a happening for another spectator-become-collaborating-player, a prankee – to enhance social bonds, entertain, or comment on a social, cultural or political phenomenon. During a prank, the prankster’s ability to be creative, clever or culturally astute, and the prankee’s ability to be duped, be a good sport, play along, or even play/pay the prankster back, both become fodder for other spectators and society to scrutinize. In Australia, pranking traditions are popular with many social groups, from the community-building pranks of footballers, bucks parties and ‘drop bear’ tales told to tourists, to the more controversial pranks of radio shock jocks, activists and artists. In this paper, I consider whether theatrical terms – theoretical terms from the stage such as actor, acting, objective, arc, performance, audience and emotion, such as those offered by Joseph Roach – are useful in understanding the passion some social players show for pranksterism. Are theatrical terms such as Roach’s as useful as analysts of social self-performance such as Erving Goffman suggest they are? Do they assist in understanding the personal actions, reactions and emotions of prankster and prankee? Do they assist in understanding the power relations between prankster and prankee? Do they assist in understanding the relation between the prank – be it an everyday prank amongst families, friends and coworkers, an entertainment program prank of the sort seen on Prank Patrol, Punked or Scare Tactics, or an activist pranks perpetrated by a guerrilla artist, ‘jammers’ or ‘hackers’ intent on turning dominant social systems back on themselves – the social players, and the public sphere in which the prank takes place? I reflect on how reading pranks as performances, by players, for highly participatory audiences, helps understand why they are so prevalent, and so recurrent across times, cultures and contexts, and also so controversial when not performed well enough – or when performed too well – prompting outrage from the prankster, prankee or society as passionate as any debate about a performance by players in a theatre.