Western feminists often assume that feminism originated in the West; by this logic, all other feminisms must be the product of borrowing or imitation. Yet the Japanese case clearly illustrates that feminism is necessarily the product of local concerns, even as it finds inspiration in foreign models and develops according to a logic of transnational exchange and negotiation. In this chapter, I explore the development of postwar Japanese feminism in transnational frame, focusing on four major loci of discursive negotiation: the early postwar Cold War context, travel and study abroad, translation, and international organizations and frameworks.

Introduction

Western feminists have often assumed that feminism originated in the West. By this logic, all other feminisms must be the product of borrowing or imitation. In this chapter, I argue that the Japanese case provides clear evidence that feminism is necessarily the product of local concerns, even as it finds inspiration in foreign models and develops according to a logic of transnational exchange and negotiation. Here I take a capacious view of both halves of the term “transnational feminism.” I understand “transnational” to mean any activity that reaches beyond the boundaries of Japan as they are currently defined (territorial disputes notwithstanding), and “feminism” to mean any endeavor or discourse that seeks to improve women's status or broaden the range of possible forms of subjectivity available to them. In particular, I understand the latter term in a flexible sense because of the diversity of viewpoints that has historically characterized women who sought such improvement, and because the terminology that has denoted such activity in Japan has been equally diverse. It was only in the 1970s that Japanese women began to reclaim the term feminisuto (feminist) from its earlier usage to mean “ladies’ man.” Meanwhile, although terms as different as fujin mondai (the woman problem) and danjo dōken (lit. “same rights for men and women”) have been employed in Japanese feminist discourse, and every such term carries its own historical significance and baggage, we can nevertheless argue that women who engaged in such discourse can be said to have sought to improve the circumstances of women, though they may have defined such objectives very differently.