Murahachibu ostracism

 

Murahachibu is well-known as self-governing sanctions imposed by village (mura in Japanese) communities during the Edo period (1603–1868). There were three levels of punishment in order of severity of the offense: fines, severing ties, and expulsion.^[1]

Generally, fines, the lightest penalty, were applied. On the other hand, social exclusion and expulsion denied the household's membership in the village and were very fierce sanctions.

Expulsion could mean complete removal from the village, sometimes even prohibiting the individual from residing in nearby areas. Often, however, expelled people were forced to the outskirts of the village, leading to solitary in an isolated house.^[1]

The rupture associated with murahachibu not only entailed severing social ties but also involved active persecutory actions, such as forcing the individuals to wear a red hood, attaching ropes to them, causing distress by ringing bells in an adjacent area, or tying their door with bamboo. Additionally, according to regions, various supplementary sanctions were imposed, such as prohibiting access to communal mountain lands and resources.^[1][2] Once subjected to murahachibu, access to communal resources such as firewood, compost from fallen leaves, and water was severely restricted. Consequently, life within the village became virtually impossible.

The main reasons for murahachibu were violations of the rules and customs of village cooperative life, such as misuse of water supply and common land, neglect of cooperative work, or daily behavior that provoked strong disapproval from other villagers. Offenses such as assault, theft, or arson fell under the jurisdiction of feudal lords and rarely resulted in murahachibu.

Since the Meiji period (1868–1912), even after the transition of feudal powers to state-imposed criminal law, murahachibu persisted as a customary punishment in villages. Nevertheless, village rules and orders—often far from legal, objective, or equitable—were tailored to serve the private interests of local plutocrats, retaining feudal and outdated characteristics from the Edo period. Such practices were thus recognized as violations of modern human rights and against the law, as confirmed in a 1909 Supreme court ruling that classified murahachibu as threats or defamation.

Murahachibu, a form of private sanction, has continued even after World War II and remains a repeated issue in recent years.

A notable post-war incident occurred in 1952 in Ueno Village (current Fujinomiya City), Fuji District, Shizuoka Prefecture. A high school girl who reported village-wide fraud in a House of Councilors by-election was subjected to murahachibu along with her family (the Ueno Village Murahachibu Incident).^[3]

Today, many broadcasting stations, including Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), have decided to refrain from the use of the term murahachibu.

A well-known (yet controversial) origin of the term murahachibu (literally, village 80%) suggests that out of ten jointly performed activities in community life, severance of all but two (i.e., 80%) was practiced. The two (20%) exceptions were funeral arrangements and firefighting, so vital for other villagers.

Funeral arrangements were exempted because leaving a corpse unattended could lead to foul odors and potential diseases. The belief that the deceased cannot be judged by the living is said to be reflected in this exemption.

Fire extinguishing was also exempted to prevent fires from spreading to neighboring houses.

The remaining eight (80%) activities were coming-of-age ceremonies, weddings, childbirth, looking after the sick, helping with new construction, providing help during floods, memorial rituals, and traveling.

From a civil affairs perspective, being subjected to murahachibu creates significant obstacles to social life and constitutes an illegal offense that infringes on civil rights, forming the basis for claims for injunctions, damages, and compensation for mental distress.

In the spring of 2004, some villagers of Numa Settlement of Sekikawa Village, Iwafune District, Niigata Prefecture expressed their intention to not participate in the char fish catching event during the Obon festival. They complained that the preparation and cleanup of the event prevented them from enjoying Obon leisurely.

Powerful settlement members threatened the eleven households that if they did not comply, they would face murahachibu and subsequently banned them from gathering wild vegetables or using the communal garbage collection bins.

In response, the eleven villagers filed a lawsuit against three powerful villagers in the Niigata District Court seeking to stop the murahachibu sanctions.

In the first trial at the Shibata Branch of the Niigata District Court, the defendants were ordered to cease their illegal actions and pay 2.2 million yen (~US$14,000) in damages.

The defendants appealed to the Tokyo High Court, but on 10 October 2007, the Court upheld the lower court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

In May 2011, a conflict arose over the installation of a mobile phone relay tower in Kasai City, Hyogo Prefecture. The superintendent of education, Takemi Nagata, sent four men a declaration of their ostracism, stating that they would not engage in any personal interactions unless relationships between the neighbors improved.

The case became a lawsuit seeking compensation, and on 26 March 2013, Judge Tomoyuki Shingu of the Yashiro Branch, Kobe District Court recognized the infringement of personal rights and ordered payment for damages. The ruling noted issues such as the unilateral cancellation of travel savings and the lack of notifications about neighborhood funerals and classified the actions as bullying or harassment beyond the bounds of what is socially acceptable.

On 30 August 2013 the Osaka High Court dismissed the appeal by the Superintendent of Education. The Court upheld the ruling of the Yashiro branch of the Kobe District Court, acknowledging that it constituted an act of murahachibu or a declaration of collective ostracism, which is an illegal infringement on personal rights.