Sōshi-kaimei

Sōshi-kaimei was a policy enacted in the Empire of Japan colonial administration in Korea under Japanese rule that compelled or encouraged Korean elites and commoners to adopt Japanese-style family names and personal names; it intersected with colonial policies from the Governor-General of Korea and the Ministry of Home Affairs (Japan), and it affected interactions with institutions such as the Japanese peerage and the House of Peers. The initiative drew on precedents from Meiji Japan reforms and linked to broader imperial projects involving the South Manchurian Railway Company, the Imperial Japanese Army, and the Imperial Japanese Navy, provoking responses from figures in the Korean independence movement, the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea, and international observers including representatives of the League of Nations and the United States Department of State. The measure had legal roots in ordinances issued by the Governor-General of Korea and administrative practice in Taiwan under Japanese rule, with implications for later postwar developments involving the United Nations, the Republic of Korea, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Background and Legal Framework

The policy emerged amid policy debates in Imperial Japan between bureaucrats in the Home Ministry (Japan), legal scholars at Tokyo Imperial University, and colonial administrators in the Government-General of Korea who referenced models from Taiwan under Japanese rule and reforms associated with Ōkuma Shigenobu and Itō Hirobumi; contemporaneous legislation included ordinances promulgated under the Public Order and Police Law and other directives influenced by imperial precedent. Colonial authorities invoked precedents from administrative law in Hokkaidō Development Commission projects and referenced registration systems used by the koseki office in Tokyo and the Ministry of Justice (Japan), framing the initiative as modernization comparable to reforms under Emperor Meiji, Emperor Taishō, and later Emperor Shōwa. The legal instruments were promulgated via the Governor-General of Korea's office and implemented alongside measures from the Ministry of Colonial Affairs (Japan) and the Home Ministry (Japan), intersecting with wartime mobilization policies championed by officials linked to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Implementation and Procedures

Implementation involved administrative procedures administered through Family Registers (koseki), local offices of the Governor-General of Korea, and municipal bureaus in cities such as Seoul, Pyongyang, and Busan, using forms and directives drafted in coordination with personnel from Tokyo Imperial University and officials seconded from the Home Ministry (Japan). The process required Koreans to submit name-change applications, which were reviewed by officials influenced by precedent cases involving nobles in the Japanese peerage and by bureaucrats who had worked in Taiwan under Japanese rule and on Hokkaidō settlement projects; the measures were enforced via administrative instruments similar to those used for tax collection by the Ministry of Finance (Japan) and labor conscription overseen by the Imperial Japanese Army. Records were integrated with population registers used by the Police Agency (Japan) and intelligence compiled by colonial police with ties to the Tokkō and to local collaborators associated with organizations like the Iljinhoe and later wartime associations.

Social and Cultural Impact

The policy reshaped naming practices among Koreans in urban centers such as Seoul, Incheon, Daegu, and Gwangju and rural counties formerly under magistrates from the Joseon dynasty; it influenced family identity, genealogical records maintained by Confucian clans tied to institutions like the Munhwa elite, and the social status of families interacting with institutions such as the Japanese-owned zaibatsu and colonial enterprises tied to the South Manchurian Railway Company. Cultural responses engaged intellectuals from Ewha Womans University, Yonsei University, and Keijō Imperial University alumni, authors publishing in periodicals like Choson Ilbo and Dong-A Ilbo, and artists exhibiting in salons associated with the Joseon Art Exhibition; these groups debated continuity with traditions upheld by clans tracing lineage to figures like Yi Sun-sin and King Sejong. The shifts affected Korean clergy linked to Korean Christianity and Confucian scholars and intersected with debates in Korean literature and works by writers such as Yi Kwang-su and Kim Tongin.

Resistance and Compliance

Responses ranged from legal challenges mounted by Korean lawyers educated at Keijō Imperial University and Waseda University to passive resistance by rural clans invoking precedents from the Joseon dynasty yangban landed gentry and active opposition by members of the Korean independence movement including activists associated with the March 1st Movement, the Korean Provisional Government, and armed groups linked to leaders like Kim Koo and Ahn Changho. Some elites sought accommodation through registration with the Japanese peerage or collaboration with colonial administrations and business networks tied to Mitsubishi and Mitsui, while others fled to areas under Republic of China control or to émigré communities in Manchukuo, Shanghai, and the Russian Far East. Enforcement provoked interventions by legal advisers from the Ministry of Justice (Japan) and policing operations by units modeled on the Kenpei and Keishichō.

Repeal and Postwar Legacy

After World War II, Allied occupation policies and the restoration of Korean governance under authorities aligned with the United States Army Military Government in Korea and later the Government of the Republic of Korea led to revocations of colonial ordinances and the reestablishment of family registration systems in line with legislation drafted by Korean lawmakers influenced by legal scholars from Seoul National University and Yonsei University; debates over restitution involved tribunals influenced by precedents from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and policy inputs from the United Nations. Postwar memory of the policy informed political discourse during administrations such as those of Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, and later democratic governments, and it shaped genealogical research by scholars at institutions like Korea University and archival projects at the National Archives of Korea and museums preserving materials related to colonial rule and resistance, including exhibits referencing activists such as Yu Gwan-sun and intellectuals like Rhee Syngman. The legacy continues to appear in scholarship published by historians at Harvard University, Columbia University, Seoul National University, and in comparative studies of colonialism involving Taiwan and Manchuria.

Category:Korean history