Name Change Policy (Sōshi-kaimei)

Name Change Policy (Sōshi-kaimei)
Name	Name Change Policy (Sōshi-kaimei)
Date	1910–1945 (principal period 1939–1940)
Location	Korea under Japanese rule, Taiwan under Japanese rule
Type	Administrative policy

Name Change Policy (Sōshi-kaimei)

The Name Change Policy (Sōshi-kaimei) was an administrative measure enacted during the period of Korea under Japanese rule and applied in parts of Empire of Japan's territories that encouraged and later coerced subject populations to adopt Japanese-style surnames and given names. Initially presented as a modernizing reform linked to policies of Meiji Restoration-era legal assimilation, it became closely associated with late imperial assimilation campaigns and wartime mobilization under figures such as Emperor Shōwa and administrations like the cabinets of Fumimaro Konoe and Hideki Tōjō.

Background and Origins

The policy evolved from earlier legal transforms in the Meiji period and administrative precedents set by the Governor-General of Korea offices and colonial authorities in Taihoku Prefecture and Joseon administration structures. Influences included the Family Register reform trends traced to Kōno Togama-era bureaucratic models, the Imperial Rescript on Education climate, and comparative measures in Hokkaidō and Ryukyu Kingdom integration. Debates in the Diet of Japan and memos by bureaucrats in the Home Ministry (Japan) and Colonial Ministry (Japan) framed the measure as part of broader efforts linking Population registration (koseki) standardization, land surveys used since the Land Tax Reform (1873), and identity consolidation driven by pressures from conflicts such as the Second Sino-Japanese War and the broader Pacific War.

Implementation and Legal Framework

Implementation relied on administrative instruments like revisions to the Koseki system, orders issued by the Government-General of Korea (1910–1945), and directives modeled on ordinances used in Taiwan under Japanese rule. Legal rationales cited precedents from the Civil Code (Japan, 1896) and imperial ordinances promulgated under the authority of Emperor Meiji and later Emperor Shōwa. Colonial governors and officials in Seoul and Taipei coordinated with ministries such as the Ministry of Colonies (Japanese Empire) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (Japan) to issue procedural rules, while Tokyo cabinets debated statutory versus administrative routes in the Imperial Diet and among bureaucratic factions aligned with Genrō-era advisors and wartime cabinets.

Administration and Procedures

Local administration of the policy passed through municipal offices, Police of Korea (Keishichō), and registry clerks using family register (koseki) protocols; implementation involved officials in Seodaemun and regional prefectural seats. Procedures included application forms, approval processes, and issuance of new identity records recorded in offices influenced by practices from Yamagata Prefecture and registry systems tested in Karafuto. Colonial officials coordinated with business elites in locations like Busan and Incheon to register names among merchant families, while schools under boards influenced by the Ministry of Education (Japan) adjusted textbooks referencing Kokutai principles. The policy's administrative roll-out used circulars, guidelines from the Governor-General of Korea (1910–1945), and often local implementation determined by district magistrates or officials influenced by bureaucrats from Home Ministry (Japan).

Social and Cultural Impact

Adoption of Japanese-style surnames and given names intersected with identity claims among communities in Seoul, Pyongyang, and Taegu, affecting elites, artisans, and religious figures including leaders of Cheondogyo, Catholic Church in Korea, and Korean Protestantism. It altered naming practices among families connected to lineages such as the Yi (Korean dynasty) descendants and merchant clans active in Wonsan and Sinuiju. Cultural institutions—universities modeled after Keijō Imperial University, newspapers like the Chosun Ilbo and colonial press organs—debated implications for heritage, while artists and writers responding to pressures included figures circulating in literary circles influenced by the Modern Korean literature movement and intellectuals who had studied in Tokyo Imperial University or Kyoto University.

Controversies and Criticism

The policy provoked disputes involving nationalist activists associated with movements tracing roots to figures celebrated in March 1st Movement commemorations and labor organizers with ties to unions and clandestine groups influenced by Korean Provisional Government exiles in Shanghai. Critics in intellectual salons and religious communities invoked precedents from international law debates at forums where delegations had met representatives influenced by the League of Nations era diplomacy. Legal scholars trained under curricula tied to Tokyo Imperial University and jurists who later served in postwar tribunals argued about coercion, citing records from municipal offices and petitions lodged with authorities in Seoul and sympathetic Japanese lawmakers in the Imperial Diet. Opposition also emerged in cultural spheres, including poets and historians who referenced genealogical records kept in private archives and family registries.

Legacy and Postwar Developments

After Japan–Korea relations were reconfigured by the end of the Pacific War and the Korean Peninsula's division, postwar administrations in Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea addressed legal restoration of names, restitution of records, and rehabilitation of affected families. Debates in postwar legislatures, courts, and cultural institutions such as newly established universities revisited registry practices influenced by earlier Civil Code (Japan, 1896). Transitional arrangements involved cooperation with international bodies and were discussed in contexts that included broader reckonings with colonial policies enforced under wartime cabinets like those of Hideki Tōjō and prewar bureaucratic elites. The policy's legacy continues to shape scholarly inquiry in fields examining colonial administration, memory politics, and identity, with researchers referencing archives in Seoul National University Library, National Archives of Korea, and collections once held by the Government-General of Korea (1910–1945).

Category:Korean history Category:Japanese colonialism