Contesting Global Norms - Ricerca sull'intelligenza artificiale specializzata al MIT

Contesting Global Norms
Anders Blok

Contesting Global Norms:
Politics of Identity in Japanese
Pro-Whaling Countermobilization

•
Anders Blok*

Cut down the last redwood for chopsticks, harpoon the last blue whale for
sushi, and the additional mouths fed will nourish additional human brains,
which will soon invent ways to replace blubber with olestra and pine with
plastic.1

introduzione: The Anti-Anti-Whaling Campaign

On the face of it, international management of whales and whaling should be a
straightforward matter. Given the hegemony of science in global environmental
governance, the near-universal acceptance of sustainability norms, and the rela-
tive “countability” of whales, reaching some stable international agreement
would seem feasible. Why then is the world, or rather the global virtual commu-
nities of anti- and pro-whalers, engaged in an on-going, prolonged conºict over
whales dating back to the 1970s? One important, and amply documented, rea-
son is that anti-whaling campaigners have turned whales into rights-bearing
persons, sacred human-like creatures, whose killing is immoral and uncivi-
lized.2 Logically, the other major reason is that various groups and actors
around the world are actively contesting this “global” anti-whaling norm, con
its taboo on whaling and whale eating. The global locus of this contestation is
Japan, for reasons explained below. Tuttavia, this pro-whaling countermobili-
zation, or anti-anti-whaling campaign, has received far less academic attention
than its environmentalist twin.

In questo articolo, I take a closer look at pro-whaling countermobilization, its
protagonists, strategies and, particularly, its politics of identity, as this has been

* The author would like to acknowledge the generous contribution of the Japanese pro- and anti-
whaling protagonists, who enabled this research by participating in interviews. He also thanks
Hasegawa Koichi and Ishii Atsushi for vital support during his stay in Sendai, Japan, and three
anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

1. Huber 1999, 81.
2. See for example Kalland 1993; and Kalland 1994.

Global Environmental Politics 8:2, May 2008
© 2008 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

40 •

Contesting Global Norms

unfolding mainly in the Japanese context. The reasons for focusing on Japan
will be self-evident for connoisseurs of whaling debates. Following a global
moratorium decision, all commercial whaling has been prohibited according to
international resolutions since 1986. Whaling continues, Tuttavia, in three pri-
mary forms: so-called “aboriginal subsistence whaling” conducted by indige-
nous peoples; small-scale coastal-based commercial whaling in Norway; E
so-called “scientiªc whaling” conducted mainly under the auspices of the Japa-
nese government.3 While this scientiªc whaling is strongly criticized by “West-
ern” NGOs and governments alike, contrary to the Norwegian case, the Japanese
government is stubbornly justifying its whaling activities as legitimate in inter-
national arenas. In other words, the burden of constructing the moral case for a
pro-whaling campaign has fallen heavily on Japanese actors.

Unsurprisingly, given this international political constellation, contempo-
rary whaling conºicts are usually framed in cultural-political idioms, as a clash
between “the West” and “Japan.”4 Concomitantly, there is no shortage of at-
tempts by political scientists to explain why Japan, or more speciªcally the Japa-
nese government and the powerful Fisheries Agency, will not “give up whal-
ing.”5 While authors apply different emphases, a convergence suggests that per-
ceptions and interests of Fisheries Agency bureaucrats,6 marginalization of the
Japanese environmental ministry,7 limited domestic NGO pressure,8 and a cul-
tural worldview at odds with the anti-whaling norm,9 are important factors.

In what follows, I do not primarily attempt to challenge these established
claims about Japanese whaling policy or their underlying theoretical frame-
works. Tuttavia, based on dissatisfaction with the often static, “substantialist”
approach to state-internal structures and interests found in much existing litera-
ture, I seek to enrich the picture by adopting a more “relational,” processual,
and interactionist theoretical perspective. Inspired by recent innovations in so-
cial movement theory, the focus is thus redirected towards processes of collec-
tive identity construction in Japanese pro-whaling responses. This redirection,
importantly, entails a shift in explanatory focus, bracketing the why of Japanese
state behavior to explore in more detail how pro-whaling claims are framed
within contemporary Japan. Such exploration, I suggest, entails several advan-
tages, supplementing (without rendering obsolete) existing analytical frame-
works. Primo, it assists in conceptualizing how, far from reºecting some pre-exist-
ing national “interest” or “culture,” these notions in fact arise during the process
of contestation itself. Secondo, the social movement approach highlights how
pro-whaling countermobilization reaches beyond Japanese state actors, Di-
pending on a broader set of nonstate allies. Third, focusing on the how of pro-

3. Other nation-states, notably Iceland, have similarly been conducting whaling for scientiªc pur-

poses.

4. Cf. Catalinac and Chan 2005.
5. Danaher 2002.
6. See for example Miyaoka 2004.
7. See for example Wong 2001.
8. See for example Hirata 2005.
9. See for example Kalland 1998.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 41

whaling helps put questions of symbolism and identity, arguably at the core of
whaling controversies, into perspective.10 In particular, an interactionist ap-
proach to collective identity reminds us of the importance of international “out-
siders” in shaping domestic Japanese political responses.

More speciªcally, the main argument to be pursued here is that Japanese
(and by implication, global) pro-whaling mobilization has been constructed as
a comprehensive moral challenge to the identity claims espoused by the global
anti-whaling community. This challenge is essentially reactive, giving it the sem-
blance of a countermovement to the anti-whaling movement. Further, it is es-
sentially symbolic in character, standing in for a range of broader normative
clashes—just as anti-whaling has become symbolic of environmental protec-
tion in general.11 Notably, notions of scientiªc rationality, cultural authenticity,
national sovereignty, and ethical relativism are all mobilized as frames in a pro-
whaling identity struggle for “moral capital,” domestically and internationally.
Framing whaling in rigid identity terms, pro-whalers have constructed a com-
prehensive and uncompromising moral universe. Consequently, the whaling
case is now one of a stark “diseconomy of moral disagreement”,12 in which
conºicting parties demonize each other and recursively multiply the contrasting
symbolic stakes. By implication, what whaling conºicts are “really” about is an
essentially contested normative question. Throughout this article, I will seek to
distinguish three competing normative interpretations, embedding whaling
conºicts in a broader context of moral diseconomy around “global” environ-
mental norms.

In the next section, a brief introduction is provided to the current interna-
tional whale protection regime. Following from this, some theoretical remarks
are offered, clarifying the notions of countermobilization, politics of identity,
and moral diseconomy introduced above. The following section provides the
main analyses of Japanese pro-whaling discourses, based on ªeldwork, publica-
zioni, and qualitative interviews with central actors. The article ends by return-
ing to the theoretical framework and the normative questions around the poli-
tics of contesting “global” environmental norms-in-the-making.

The Whale Protection Regime: A Brief Background

As an environmental controversy, whales were scarcely a consideration before
the middle of the 1960s, when scientiªc reports warning of imminent risks of
species’ extinction started to emerge. Until this time, whaling was simply one in-
dustry amongst others, albeit one involving ªerce global competition, large-
scale investments, national prestige, and harsh working conditions.13 Since the
late 1960s, due in large part to the efforts of a growing number of nongovern-

10. Stoett 2005.
11. Kalland 1994.
12. Cf. Humphrey and Stears 2006.
13. Tönnesen and Johnsen (1982) remains the most comprehensive account of the history of mod-

ern whaling.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

42 •

Contesting Global Norms

mental whale protection organizations (NGOs), whales have been transformed
into the quintessential “endangered species.” Nowadays, few people in the
Euro-American world would question the conservation credentials of these ani-
mals. In brief, a strong anti-whaling norm has emerged and gained near-global
diffusion, although it is still rejected by certain states around the world. Japan,
in particular, has proved a difªcult context for the anti-whaling norm.14

In terms of legal-political regimes, the management of whales spans a
complex network of international and regional institutions. For instance, since
its inception in 1975, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) has been instrumental in enforcing restrictions on whale prod-
uct exports.15 The most important arena for global whale politics, Tuttavia, Rif-
mains the International Whaling Commission (IWC), an intergovernmental
body established in 1948 to regulate the then-thriving whaling industry. From
being a “whalers club” up until the early 1960s, IWC was gradually turned into
a “whale preservation club,” due to sustained political pressure from key states
such as the United States and environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace.16 The
institutionalization of the anti-whaling norm culminated in 1982, when a
three-fourths majority of IWC member states voted in favor of a ten-year mora-
torium on all commercial whaling, to take effect from 1986. While some species
and stocks of whales had no doubt been over-exploited to dangerously low lev-
els, the scientiªc justiªcation for this blanket ban was, and is, highly controver-
sial, including within the Scientiªc Committee of the IWC itself. By 1992, Nor-
way and Iceland led the way in forming the North Atlantic Marine Mammal
Commission (NAMMCO), a regional institution serving largely as a platform
for challenging the IWC-sponsored moratorium.17 Nevertheless, the morato-
rium remains in place today, well beyond its intended 10 years.

As arenas for intergovernmental debate and decision-making, the IWC
and other regional and global management institutions are bound by modern-
ist conventions on allowable terms of discourse.18 In the IWC, arguments
couched in the vocabulary of population management, whale biology and
treaty obligations dominate, while openly value-based, “political” or “emo-
tional” statements are discouraged. This state of affairs no doubt contributes to
the ritualistic and predictable character of confrontations within the IWC. Anti-
whaling environmentalists, however ethically motivated, are forced to pursue
their beliefs in formalistic ways. Così, while anti-whaling policy decisions such
as the 1994 establishment of a Southern Ocean sanctuary can be justiªed in le-
gal-scientiªc terms, openly opposing whaling for moral reasons will not work in
the IWC.19

14. Hirata 2004.
15. Andresen 2004, 44.
16. Andresen and Skodvin 2003.
17. Hoel 1993.
18. Martello 2004.
19. There are notable exceptions, where governments (such as the Australian) adopt ethically im-

bued animal welfare positions in IWC discussions.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 43

Public debates on whaling, on the other hand, including the public dis-
courses of anti-whaling NGOs, enjoy a much larger degree of discursive free-
dom. This freedom has meant a proliferation of strongly morally imbued anti-
whaling discourses. Importantly, a wide range of transnational whale protection
NGOs, with Greenpeace as the most publicly visible, has labored to create an
image of whales as near-sacrosanct creatures.20 In anthropomorphic style, these
groups have created what anthropologist Arne Kalland dubbed “the Super-
Whale myth:” an image of “the whale” as an endangered, friendly giant, an in-
telligent, curious, socially complex animal—even a good singer, with reference
to the famous humpback whale song.21 In the process, Kalland argues, impor-
tant distinctions between the 80-plus species of whales are blurred beyond rec-
ognition, as is the fact that attributing these characteristics to whales lacks scien-
tiªc justiªcation. Nevertheless, whale protection groups are often joined or
supported by conservation-minded biologists.

In their Super-Whale incarnation, whales come to have moral standing
and rights that are, if not equal to, then at least resembling that of humans.
While views on this issue differ in complex ways between groups and individu-
COME, general ideas about animal welfare and rights have been strongly inºuential
in shaping the anti-whaling norm. Amongst anti-whaling proponents, killing
whales has come to be viewed as uncivilized and barbaric, a cruel act committed
by morally dubious hunters.22 Concomitantly, a “trans-national food taboo”23
has been established around whale meat, depicting whale eating as vulgar, io sono-
moral, and sometimes even akin to cannibalism. In a few notable cases, come
identity discourses have combined with racial prejudice to create highly degrad-
ing public media depictions of Japanese whale-eating practices.24 Prejudiced or
non, the anti-whaling norm necessarily leads to much bad publicity for Japan in
Euro-American media.

In sum, the currently dominant anti-whaling norm, while certainly stron-
gest in the “Western” world, has gained a near-global diffusion, if not accep-
tance.25 In its legal-scientiªc shape, the norm is institutionalized in the IWC,
while in more public settings it takes on a distinctively moral shape, installing
taboos on whale hunting and eating. The two “faces” of the anti-whaling norm
generally reinforce each other. Tuttavia, the anti-whaling norm is being actively
challenged in certain parts of the world, not least in Japan, where a pro-whaling
countermobilization has been orchestrated by leading policy actors. The next

20. Kalland (1994) identiªes 74 whale conservation and research organisations in the United
States and Canada alone. Many of these are transnational and some have ofªces in Japan.
Greenpeace opened its Japanese branch in 1989.

21. Kalland 1993, 4.
22. Kalland and Sejersen 2005.
23. Lien 2004.
24. The most notorious example occurred in the British tabloid Daily Star on 11 May 1991, running

a front-page article titled “Sickest dinner ever served. Japs feast on whale.”

25. “Western” is a highly imperfect descriptive term, in that Canada, Norway, and Iceland blur the

geographical picture.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

44 •

Contesting Global Norms

section outlines a theoretical framework for understanding this pro-whaling
countermobilization.

Theoretical Framework: Countermobilization, Identity, and Moral
Diseconomy

One characteristic of current wildlife conservation debates, and of wider envi-
ronmental issues, is that strongly value-laden positions are lined up in ad-
versarial deadlock.26 This is particularly evident in debates involving the iconic
animals of nature-protectionist NGOs: whales, dolphins, elephants, tigers, pan-
das. In the literature on environmental values, the dominant antagonism is de-
scribed in terms of conservationists and preservationists. Put abstractly, while
conservationists highlight the instrumental value of nature and animals, COME
deªned by principles of sustainable utilization, preservationists highlight the
protection of individual animals as holders of intrinsic value and rights.27 Need-
less to say, Tuttavia, elements of both normative positions often get entangled
in speciªc debates, as is indeed the case with the anti-whaling norm. Così,
rather than abstract principles, these composite moral universes should be stud-
ied in empirical context.

Infatti, as a long-standing and politically salient conºict, the making of
the anti-whaling norm during the last 30–40 years has received considerable at-
tention. To say nothing of the natural science dimensions, analysts from across
the social science disciplines have approached the issues in characteristic ways.
Put brieºy, political scientists and jurists tend to focus on the legal-political as-
pects of the global IWC “governance regime”,28 while anthropologists have
mainly been analyzing (and defending) local “whaling cultures.”29 The various
organizational and discursive processes “in between” these global and local foci
have remained comparatively less studied. This uneven attention is also found
in the speciªcally Japanese context. While, as noted, a growing literature exists
on Japanese whaling policy and diplomacy, other societal actors have received
far less attention. By drawing on the political sociology of social movements,
this article attempts to start ªlling some of these gaps.

From a social movement perspective, anti-whaling protagonists, like other
environmental movements, are engaged in “moral entrepreneurial” activities,
aimed at the social construction of moral meanings.30 Through their endeavors,
the plight of endangered animal species, and entire ecosystems, has become a
central political concern worldwide, and previously acceptable activities, ad esempio
hunting and eating whales, have been rendered illegitimate. More often than
non, Tuttavia, these moral entrepreneurial activities have met with resistance,

26. Thompson 2002, 186.
27. Miyaoka 2004.
28. See for example Friedheim 2001.
29. Mullin 1999, 218.
30. Humphrey and Stears 2006, 417.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 45

leading to political struggles for public support and legitimacy—or “moral capi-
tal.” In some instances, resistance takes the shape of countermovements: net-
works of opposing institutions and vested interest groups, actively contesting
the policies and moral meanings espoused by environmentalists. In the United
States, for instance, “environmental skepticism” in the shape of anti-environ-
mentalist ideas and networks with overt ties to conservative think tanks has
been inºuential in shaping political (non)-responses to global climate change.31
Whaling controversies provide another good illustration of these oppositional
dynamics, this time centered on Japan as the locus of backlash against an
emerging “global” environmental norm.

As Meyer and Staggenborg have argued,32 countermovements are likely to
arise when three conditions are fulªlled in the structure of political opportuni-
ties: ªrst, movements show signs of success; second, movement goals threaten
vested interests; and third, political allies are available to the countermovement.
Evidently, these conditions are amply satisªed in this case, although it is neces-
sary to recast theoretically the structure-based notion of “vested interests” in a
more constructivist direction. Primo, the global institutionalization in the 1980s
of the anti-whaling norm represented a major success for the anti-whaling
movement. Secondo, this success in turn impinged directly on Japanese whaling
practices, in that sense constituting a clear threat to whaling interests. Exactly
what these “interests” are, Tuttavia, is much less obvious. Arguably, Materiale
economic interests have consistently played a relatively small role. Così, by the
time of the whaling moratorium the economic value of the Japanese whaling
industry had already declined signiªcantly, employing a mere 1,300 workers,
and popular demand for whale meat is now at an economically negligible level.
Overall, it seems clear that political and cultural-symbolic “interests” have been
more important. As demonstrated by the actions of the pro-whaling counter-
movement, whaling is clearly invested with strong moral signiªcation in Japan.
To understand this, Tuttavia, we need to look at how “interests” are shaped in
tandem with collective identity frames. I return to these issues below.

Third, as concerns the availability of political allies, Japanese pro-whaling
is best conceptualized as an “elite-driven countermovement.”33 In particular,
central bureaucratic actors associated with the powerful Fisheries Agency (FA)
have been performing in roles as both policy initiators and public educators on
whaling. Generally, as is well established in the literature on Japanese whaling
policy,34 FA bureaucrats are the chief actors in government policy-making and
thus central to understanding the emergence of pro-whaling countermobiliza-
tion since the early 1970s. These bureaucrats have shaped Japanese state re-
sponsorizzato, sometimes in competition with Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)

31. Jacques 2006.
32. Meyer and Staggenborg 1996.
33. Pichardo 1995. I am unaware of any previous attempts to apply this analytical concept to Japa-

nese social movements.

34. See for example Miyaoka 2004; Wong 2001; and Ishii and Okubo 2007.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

46 •

Contesting Global Norms

ofªcials more concerned with international reputation,35 and at the same time
served as initiators of wider nonstate pro-whaling networks. Following long-
standing Japanese practices, for instance, ex-FA ofªcials populate the leadership
of semi-governmental pro-whaling research and industry associations, ad esempio
the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), which is responsible for current
scientiªc whaling. Organizations such as the Japan Whaling Association (JWA)
and the Japan Small-Type Whaling Association (JSTWA) likewise receive govern-
ment subsidies and maintain close relations with government ofªcials.36 Finally,
the two largest political parties in Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), have both established pro-whaling
legislative groups. Whaling is not a major divisive political issue in Japan, how-
ever, and is usually left to the discretion of Fishery Agency ofªcials.

As an elite-driven countermovement, pro-whalers possess economic and
symbolic resources, in the shape of knowledge and social prestige, making them
a powerful force within the domestic political space. Generally, this direct access
to domestic political resources distinguishes elite from citizen-based move-
menti, particularly in a highly centralized political system such as the Japanese
one.37 It also partly explains why, unlike their mass-based transnational oppo-
nents, pro-whaling mobilization has remained much more focused on national
power structures. As such, there are clear similarities, but few direct links, In
how Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic elites have responded at the national
level to the threats of the anti-whaling movement.38 Meanwhile, recent years
have seen an increasing internationalization of pro-whaling countermobiliza-
zione, by Japanese and other actors. This internationalization is particularly
evident in the 1996 establishment of the World Council of Whalers. Here, IL
various whaling cultures around the globe are increasingly linking up via tech-
nological means such as the Internet, exchanging resources and strategies while
still emphasizing cultural diversity in their discourses.39 For instance, when the
US-based Makah tribe resumed whaling in the late 1990s amidst ªerce interna-
tional criticism, Japanese pro-whalers allegedly provided money, boats, and les-
sons on whale hunting as part of the international struggle against IWC restric-
tions.40 At the diplomatic level, the pro-whaling side has had some success lately
in mobilizing new Caribbean and African state allies to join the IWC, amidst
strong (and seemingly justiªed) allegations against the Japanese government
for using Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to buy voting support.41

Having introduced these aspects of the political opportunity structure of
Japanese pro-whaling, we turn now to the central question of this article:

35. For more on MOFA’s stance on the whaling issue, see Wong 2001.
36. Hirata 2004, 192.
37. See Reimann 2002.
38. Cf. Andresen 2004; and Brydon 2006.
39. Epstein 2003.
40. For a full analysis of the Makah case, see Martello 2004.
41. See Miller and Dolšak 2007.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 47

namely, how this elite-driven network attempts to accumulate moral capital.
Here, drawing on symbolic interactionist theories of social movement activity, IO
focus on the framing strategies of pro-whaling actors, and in particular their
strategic construction of a collective identity serving to distinguish “us” (pro-
whalers) from “them” (anti-whalers). As Benford and Show point out, “identity
constructions are an inherent feature of the framing process,” understood as the
generation and diffusion of “action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings.”42
In other words, collective action and the enactment of identity are inextricably
intertwined, serving to create a sense of internally shared community vis-à-vis
an identiªable opponent and providing the struggle with existential sig-
niªcance. Applying this theoretical assumption, I will argue that strong and
inºexible oppositional identity claims form an integral part of the whaling con-
troversy, helping to explain why this controversy has thus far continued for four
decades.

The main source of theoretical inspiration underlying this approach stems
from the sociological tradition of symbolic interactionism, embodied particu-
larly in the work of Erwin Goffman. The central concept of “framing” derives
from Goffman’s emphasis on frames as “schemata of interpretation,” serving to
negotiate shared meanings and thus guide processes of collective action.43 As
has been argued convincingly by extending this perspective to social movement
activities,44 the dynamics of movement-countermovement interactions are cen-
trally important in understanding the construction of activists’ collective identi-
ties. In the whaling controversy, for instance, anti-whaling movements have fre-
quently employed highly moralized frames portraying whaling as inhumane,
uncivilized, and against “world opinion.” These framings have occasionally
been explicitly anti-Japanese. There is little doubt that the persistence with
which Japanese elites have reacted against the anti-whaling entrepreneurs stems
in part from collectively shared feelings of humiliation and national pride
aroused by these anti-whaling framing strategies. Così, the divisive framing
strategies of the anti-whaling movements illustrate a more general dynamic in
which movements help spark their own opposition into being through pro-
cesses of contentious interaction.

In terms of the Japanese pro-whaling framing strategies analyzed in this
article, theirs has overwhelmingly been a politics of national identity, appealing
to wider nationally shared beliefs and values. As Calhoun points out,45 enact-
ments of nationalism can generally be considered a very large-scale instance of
the politics of identity, appealing to notions of an imagined national commu-
nity. One striking illustration of the intertwining of whaling and national senti-
ments is the ease with which both anti- and pro-whaling groups identity Japan
with the transnational discursive category of a “whaling nation,” alternatively a

42. Benford and Snow 2000, 614; 631ff.
43. Benford and Snow 2000, 614.
44. In particular Einwohner 2002.
45. Calhoun 1994.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

48 •

Contesting Global Norms

source of shame or pride.46 Still, the identity constructions of pro-whalers are
multi-layered, encompassing a variety of substantive claims situated within a
multiplicity of “master frames.” Importantly, these master frames are not con-
ªned to the national level, but rather seek to establish connections to globally
legitimate ideals and norms deemed threatened by the opponent. This align-
ment of whaling with larger cultural-political values may be taken as illustration
of a more general tendency for identity-based movements to multiply the sym-
bolic stakes of confrontation, thus making them insular and divisive rather than
compromise seeking. Strong politics of identity thus tends towards a “disecon-
omy of moral disagreement,” with in-built logics of spiraling confrontation.47 It
is my contention that whaling controversies are best analyzed as an instance of
such moral diseconomy.

Exactly what motivates actors in continuing this spiraling confrontational
logic is difªcult to ascertain, partly because the answer is inevitably embedded
in normative interpretations of what the conºict is “really” about. One corollary
of the symbolic interactionist framework, Tuttavia, is that whaling controversies
are no longer primarily about whales. To make sense of Japanese pro-whaling
countermobilization in the context of a broader politics of contesting “global”
environmental norms-in-the-making, I believe one can distinguish three com-
peting normative interpretations. Inspired by the language of political theorists,
I will refer to these as the “radical politics,” “simulation,” and “deliberation”
perspectives. Elements of each circulate widely in the literature on the whaling
controversy, but they are seldom made explicit as competing frameworks. More
importantly, they are seldom taken seriously as explanatory resources in ac-
counting for pro- and anti-whaling mobilizations. Without claiming that mate-
rial and political interests are irrelevant, my argument here is that these sym-
bolic-moral issues deserve closer attention.48 Here, I brieºy introduce the three
perspectives, before returning to them in the conclusion.

Primo, the “radical politics” perspective will claim that Japanese pro-whal-
ing countermobilization is basically a ªght against an unjustiªed Western cul-
tural imperialism, imposing foreign notions of animal protection on the Japa-
nese. This interpretation scheme relies primarily on anthropological discourses
on Japanese whaling culture to challenge the universality of the anti-whaling
norm,49 and as we shall see, it very much underlies the self-presentation of Japa-
nese elite pro-whaling actors. One implication of this framing is that pro-
whalers are driven by sincere convictions. Contrary to this, the second frame-
work of “simulation” basically suggests that we are dealing instead with a
“staged” or coordinated controversy. In essence, this interpretation suggests that
both sides of the controversy, anti- and pro-whalers, stand to gain materially

46. Brydon 2006, 232.
47. Cf. Humphrey and Stears 2006.
48. See Stoett 2005 for a similar argument.
49. See for example Kalland 1993; and Lien 2004.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 49

and symbolically from continuation of the moral dispute. For the anti-whalers,
framing Japan as the ultimate enemy eco-outlaw may assist in raising support
and bolstering ideological commitments,50 while for the pro-whaling bureau-
cratic elites, whaling may well serve as a relatively harmless outlet for a much
broader resentment towards “Westernization” and American dominance in Ja-
pan.51 Third, the “deliberative” framework suggests that both of these interpreta-
tions fail to account for the serious real-world problems embedded in the strong
politics of identity around whales. From this perspective, neither anti- nor pro-
whalers are seriously responding to very real concerns raised by other actors in
the debate, whether ecological, socio-economic, democratico, or cultural in char-
acter. The important point of the deliberative perspective is that, given the inter-
locking moral diseconomy, existing problems are unlikely to be addressed.

To sum up, these three normative frameworks for interpreting whaling
controversies are set out in order to embed Japanese pro-whaling countermobil-
ization in a broader, global context of moral diseconomy around emerging en-
vironmental norms. From the symbolic interactionist perspective advocated
here, these normative interpretations cannot be dismissed as mere epiphenom-
ena to underlying “real” interests, material or otherwise. Piuttosto, they are integral
to how pro- and anti-whaling actors construct and frame collective identities,
serving to confer symbolic signiªcation to continuing political confrontations.
In short, by emphasizing this interactionist logic, the theoretical framework out-
lined here sets the stage for understanding both how and why moral capital is
fought for by the Japanese pro-whaling countermovement vis-à-vis the institu-
tionalized anti-whaling norm. While the details of whaling disputes can be ex-
tremely complicated, employing this analytical framework serves to demon-
strate important regularities in confrontational patterns.

In what follows, I analyze the main pro-whaling politics of identity, distin-
guishing between different master frames employed to construct a positive self-
identity. In speciªc terms, my analysis points to four interrelated pro-whaling
master frames, pertaining variously to science, culture, animal ethics, and legal-
ism. For lack of space, Tuttavia, I concentrate on the former three, leaving issues
of international law, sovereignty and identity unexplored.52 Throughout, my
main empirical material consists of publications from pro-whaling organiza-
zioni, together with ªfteen qualitative interviews with Japanese pro- (and anti-)
whaling nonstate political actors. Supplementing this, ªeldwork has been con-
ducted in Japan, attending pro-whaling meetings and visiting traditional whal-
ing towns, museums, and exhibitions. Finalmente, I judge the public resonance of
pro-whaling framing strategies with reference to existing opinion polls on whal-
ing in Japan.

50. Cf. Kalland 1994.
51. Cf. Ishii and Okubo 2007.
52. For an analysis of legalism in Japanese whaling diplomacy, see Friedheim 1996.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

50 •

Contesting Global Norms

Legitimating Japanese Whaling: Empirical Explorations

On a sunny late-summer September Sunday in 2006, the Group to Preserve
Whale Dietary Culture (GPWDC)53 held a public symposium in Ishinomaki, UN
medium-sized city in Northern Honshu and traditionally an important port for
Japanese ªsheries and whaling activities. The purpose of the gathering, as local
public announcements made clear, was to introduce whales and food culture, O
geishokubunka, a well-recognized concern in Japanese whaling discussions.54 The
fourth consecutive annual meeting of its kind, this year’s saw a record 450 citi-
zens attending,55 seemingly bearing witness to the local prominence of whale
meat. The vast majority of attendants were in their 50s and 60s, members of the
generation of Japanese still remembering, some with nostalgia, the post-war
practice of serving whale meat in school lunches as a cheap source of protein.
People came because they were interested in whaling issues, to hear presenta-
tions by knowledgeable experts, and to obtain the free whale meat lunchbox.56
Overall, this was no-go territory for anti-whaling proponents: banners reading
“Delicious whale meat is a pride of Japan” set the tone of discussion.

Nongovernmental “citizen” organizations like GPWDC formed in Japan
during the 1980s and 1990s, with the purpose of actively supporting the gov-
ernment in enhancing public support for whaling. This type of cooperation is il-
lustrated well by the Ishinomaki meeting: it is organized by a non-proªt “citi-
zen” group but with the national Fisheries Agency and the local Ishinomaki city
administration featured as sponsors, evincing strong ties to political elites. In-
deed, one of the main speakers during the symposium was Mr. Morishita Joji,57
head of the Whaling Section of the Fisheries Agency and a high-ranking player
in Japanese whaling policy, clearly speaking from a position of high public au-
thority.

Overall, the pro-whaling countermovement has the character of a multi-
organizational network, crisscrossing state-industry-civil society boundaries and
with a certain division of rhetorical labor. Some groups, such as GPWDC, orga-
nize around a shared focus on “whale eating culture.” They are joined by JWA
and JSTWA, formally whaling industry organizations nowadays functioning
more as pro-whaling public relations coordinators. Still other groups pursue
broader marine-resource and sustainable-use agendas, including the Beneªci-
aries of the Sea Coalition (BSC) and Global Guardian Trust (GGT). Many pro-
whaling groups are active both domestically and internationally, organizing
events around Japan and participating as NGO observers at IWC meetings, pre-
senting themselves as voices for “ordinary Japanese.” Pro-whaling groups hardly

53. Kujira shokubunka wo mamoru kai, in Japanese. All translations from Japanese in this article are

by the author.
54. Cf. Hirata 2004.
55. According to local newspaper coverage.
56. Based on a survey conducted by the organizers, the results of which were kindly shared with the

author.

57. Japanese names are given in the Japanese form, with family names ªrst.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 51

correspond to standard notions of NGOs, Tuttavia. Most leading actors in the
nonstate networks are ex-bureaucrats, academics, journalists or writers, and thus
members of a cultural elite, or whale restaurant owners framing themselves as
spokespersons for Japanese food culture. Clearly, the interests and motivations
for joining pro-whaling mobilization vary among these actors. Often, Tuttavia,
groups combine economic, political, and cultural-symbolic concerns, as is the
case, for instance, with whale restaurant owners linking material interests with
the cultural-symbolic signiªcance of whale as food culture. Across this diversity
in discursive emphasis and interests, Tuttavia, all groups share certain basic pro-
whaling framings, serving to constitute a collective identity. In the following
analysis, I unravel the making of this strong pro-whaling identity.

Scienza, Numbers, and Emotion Management

A simple reality had become abundantly clear: a majority of IWC nations
were hell-bent on stopping commercial whaling regardless of whale popu-
lations. Science would not persuade them. Logic, fatto, data were to be ig-
nored.58

One trope running consistently through Japanese pro-whaling discourses since
the 1970s is the opposition between “science” and “emotions.” Ever since the
idea of a whaling moratorium was introduced to global environmental politics
in the early 1970s, Japanese pro-whaling actors have been arguing that it lacks
any “scientiªc basis,” being based instead on “pure emotionalism” or a “politi-
cally-driven ideology.”59 In other words, while science may once have assisted
the environmental movement in gaining support for the protection of endan-
gered whales, pro-whaling actors are now conªdently asserting that science is
among their strongest allies. This transformation in science discourses is notable
and carries important extra-discursive implications. Since 1987, the Japanese
government has spent around 900 million yen (app. 5.7 million Euro) yearly
on subsidizing the ICR-conducted whale research whose main purpose, accord-
ing to an ICR spokesman, is to “prove that commercial whaling is possible.”60
Japanese pro-whaling countermobilization has thus meant intensiªcation in
the politics of knowledge. More importantly from my perspective, Tuttavia,
framing whaling in scientiªc terms has clearly been a way for pro-whaling advo-
cates to construct an identity of rationality, appealing to the assumed universal
legitimacy of science.

There are several reasons why pro-whaling actors have been compelled to
enroll scientiªc justiªcations. Most immediately, it reºects the global institu-
tional setting of IWC governance, allowing pro-whaling states to (formally)
comply with international regulations while continuing so-called “research

58. Komatsu and Misaki 2001, 34.
59. Yonezawa 2001, 17.
60. Author’s interview with Murakami Mitsuyoshi (ICR), Tokyo, Giugno 2006.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

52 •

Contesting Global Norms

whaling” activities. Inoltre, IWC is statutorily a “science-based” institu-
zione, with its own Scientiªc Committee, meaning that scientists enjoy privileged
positions of cognitive authority in this regime.61 This privilege, Ovviamente, is not
unique to whaling: across a variety of environmental governance settings, sci-
ence is called on to determine levels of “sustainable use” of natural resources, UN
principle strongly emphasized by pro-whaling actors. Finalmente, as stated above,
science is clearly part of the wider politics of identity: being “scientiªc” means
to be rational, persuaded by fact and logic. Conversely, in its binary distinction
to “emotions,” it creates the image of sentimental anti-whaling opponents,
whose motivations and arguments are not only irrational but also unreason-
able.62 For instance, one high-proªle Japanese pro-whaling advocate suggested
during an interview that anti-whalers are “sort of outpatients from the mental
hospital.”63

The Japanese government launched its program of scientiªc whaling in
1987, in an effort to challenge the newly institutionalized anti-whaling hegem-
ony. Scientiªc whaling continues to date, despite ªerce international criticism.
Within the IWC, the anti-whaling political majority has continuously passed
resolutions condemning Japanese research whaling.64 Meanwhile, protracted
controversies between factions of the scientiªc community are played out on
the pages of prestigious natural-science journals such as Nature and Science, ar-
guing over the scientiªc necessity of lethal research on whales.65 Finally, in more
public criticisms, including those of many environmental NGOs, the alleged
“science” is simply dismissed as “commercial whaling in disguise.” As the leader
of the Australian Green Party asks rhetorically: “What is it after 20 years that
they’ve discovered? That whales go well with soy sauce?”66

From the perspective of the pro-whaling camp, Tuttavia, what scientiªc
whaling allows is, ªrst of all, to challenge the claim that all species of whales in
all ocean areas are endangered. While the label of “endangered-ness” has effec-
tively removed all large whales from hunting and trading, pro-whaling actors
are responding by creating “spaces of abundance” for particular whales.67 Thus,
almost all Japanese research whaling activity focuses on minke whales, seem-
ingly the most abundant of IWC-regulated large whale species, and on particu-
lar ocean areas, notably the Antarctic Ocean and the North-West Paciªc. An es-
sential component of the research effort is to calculate population-speciªc
abundance estimates based on sighting surveys, and the Japanese government
has been instrumental in providing vessels, crew, and researchers to these IWC-
coordinated activities. Already in the early 1990s, Poi, pro-whaling actors

61. Andresen and Skodvin 2003.
62. Cf. Brydon 2006, 229.
63. The identity of the interviewee is kept anonymous in this case for reasons of discretion.
64. Miyaoka 2004.
65. Gales et al. 2005.
66. Quoted in “Japan’s hunt for rare whale enrages Aussies,” Japan Times, 15 Giugno 2006, 14.
67. Cf. Thorne 1998.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 53

gained important momentum when the IWC Scientiªc Committee endorsed a
Southern Ocean abundance estimate of some 760,000 minke whales.68

The importance of this ªgure to pro-whaling countermobilization lies not
in its exactness, but simply in the fact that it is high. Clearly, a magnitude of
760,000 whales does not correspond to ideas of endangered-ness. Conse-
quently, this and similar (high) numbers appear continuously in the communi-
cation of pro-whaling actors. They appear in brochures and posters released in
Japanese and English by the ICR, visually illustrated by a world map featuring a
huge minke whale roaming the Antarctic Ocean with the number “760,000”
printed on it.69 They are circulated in the media, and they appear at important
interfaces with whale-interested members of the Japanese public. For instance,
text announcing that “nearly 1 million minke whales inhabit the world” is
printed on cans of whale meat widely encountered in Japanese supermarkets.
Here, the justiªcatory importance of scientiªc numbers is quite apparent: feel
free to eat this whale, the message implies.

In other words, scientiªc arguments play a fundamental role in pro-
whaling discourses, in part because they help establish an “imaginary” of whale
abundance. Public surveys suggest that this pro-whaling strategy is working: In
1992, Japanese (and Norwegian) citizens were less likely than Australians or
Germans to believe that “all large whale species are currently in danger of ex-
tinction.”70 Scientiªc justiªcations, Tuttavia, may also serve to detract attention
from other, potentially critical, issues. For instance, couching discussions in the
impersonal language of population management science is far from being a
neutral platform of discussion, and should rather be seen as integral to the iden-
tity construction. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the impersonal lan-
guage of ICR researchers: here, whales are “sampled” (killed), “analyzed” (cut
su), and rendered into “by-products” (whale meat).71 Clearly, such “non-
emotional” language is just as much part of a discursive emotion management
as when anti-whaling advocates frequently brand Japanese research as whale
“slaughter.”

To sum up, Japanese pro-whaling countermobilization has relied sig-
niªcantly on heavy investments in a scientiªc master frame, both discursively
and in material terms of money, equipment, and research personnel. Primarily,
the attempt has been to challenge whale endangered-ness, by assembling and
publicizing selected spaces of minke whale abundance. On the whole, the asser-
tiveness with which pro-whaling actors make claims to scientiªc rationality sug-
gests a level of perceived success, but scientiªc numbers nevertheless fail to pro-
vide strong and publicly convincing motivations for action. Put bluntly, while

68. It should be noted that this ªgure was withdrawn again in 2000, in the light of new survey data,
and that current population estimates are suggested to be only 39 percent of those from the
mid-1980s (cf. Branch 2006).

69. Institute of Cetacean Research 2004, 3.
70. Freeman and Kellert 1992.
71. Author’s interview with Murakami Mitsuyoshi (ICR), Tokyo, Giugno 2006.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

54 •

Contesting Global Norms

science may establish the possibility of whaling, it does not by itself compel you
to actually do so. Così, in the absence of obvious economic interests, pro-
whaling countermobilization has turned to supplementary framing strategies.

Culture, (Re)Invented Traditions, and the Public Mouth

Japan is proud of the tradition of whaling which she has built up over nine
thousand years and ªrmly believes in the sustainable use of whales as food
resource.72

If science is relatively weak as a motivational force for human action, culture is
arguably one of the stronger forces. Perhaps it comes as small surprise, Poi,
that discourses about Japan’s allegedly unique whaling and whale-eating cul-
ture have been central to Japanese pro-whaling countermobilization since the
early 1980s. What was once a relatively unremarkable post-war business, at
most arousing curiosity for its harsh work conditions, has become a hypersensi-
tive symbol of Japanese national identiªcation. While similar tendencies of em-
phasizing cultural “uniqueness” can be observed in both Iceland and Norway,
Japanese pro-whaling mobilization arguably stands out for the sheer intensity
of cultural discourses. No doubt, this partly has to do with the pattern of whale
eating, which is more widespread in Japan than anywhere else. More impor-
tantly, Tuttavia, framing whaling as tradition implies pitting Japan in cultural
conºict with “the anti-whaling West,” a them-and-us formula enjoying wide-
spread resonance in wider Japanese discourses on national identity.73

Along the lines of the radical politics framework introduced above, what
this cultural master frame suggests is that Japan is at the receiving end of West-
ern neo-imperialism in the whaling controversy. As with the scientiªc framing,
the global institutional context of IWC has provided strong incentives to pursue
such cultural discourses. In 1981, IWC recognized a distinction between “com-
mercial” and “aboriginal subsistence” whaling, thus legitimizing forms of whal-
ing based on cultural needs and tradition. While this crude distinction is empir-
ically untenable,74 and while its precise application is highly contested (come nel
Makah case), it nevertheless carries important political consequences, because it
has meant empowerment and public goodwill for groups of indigenous “subsis-
tence hunters” such as the Inuit in Alaska and Greenland. D'altra parte,
non-indigenous groups of small-scale whalers found in Japan and Norway have
not enjoyed these beneªts. Consequently, seeking international recognition of
cultural needs for whaling has been a consistent strategy of Japanese pro-
whaling mobilization, in what is essentially a “self-indigenizing” move.

Speciªcally, the pro-whaling network has constructed a third category of

72. Ohsumi 2003, 5.
73. As evidenced, for instance, in the well-known genre of nihonjinron, or “theories of being Japa-

nese.”

74. Cf. Moeran 1992.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 55

minke whaling, “small-type coastal whaling,” legitimated in cultural terms as
an “integral part of community identity and well-being.”75 While the current
number of affected people is small—approximately 100 people operating nine
whaling vessels based in the villages of Ayukawa, Taiji, Wada and Abashiri—
their plight has received considerable attention. In particular, the Japanese pro-
whalers have aligned themselves with and ªnanced an international group of
anthropologists, authorized experts on culture. Between 1986 E 1994, IL
Japanese government presented 33 papers to the IWC, written by 23 anthropol-
ogists and social scientists from eight countries, on the cultural aspects of its
coastal minke whaling operations.76 Clearly, these social-science specialists have
been enrolled to bolster cultural armaments in the dispute for moral capital.77

Beyond IWC political strategies, focusing on the culture of small-scale
coastal whalers allows pro-whalers to foster positive personiªcations of tradi-
tion-bearing whalers, challenging widespread anti-whaling identity frames on
this “barbaric” practice. Coastal whalers are presented as the present-day heirs
to a historical legacy of community-based whaling, found since the 1600s over
much of Japan. The features of this “whaling culture” are reiterated in media re-
ports, parliamentary debates, and pro-whaling brochures; and it is reºected in
“whale festivals” held in traditional whaling towns. Material artifacts from this
history, including ªfteenth century whale-meat recipes and nineteenth century
Buddhist tablets (kuyou tou), are frequently displayed in museum exhibitions
throughout Japan, drawing support from the Fisheries Agency and pro-whaling
NGOs. Così, a variety of activities purposefully serve to enhance the Japanese
public’s awareness of their “own” national whaling past.

While long traditions of whaling in Japan have no doubt given rise to dis-
tinctive socio-economic, dietary and religious practices,78 the coordination of
this multifaceted history into a uniªed (and gloriªed) “whaling culture” should
mostly be considered a feat of pro-whaling political mobilization.79 For in-
stance, prior to the late 1970s there were no mentions of “culture” (bunka) In
connection with whaling in either the Japanese Diet or the Asahi Shimbun, one
of the major Japanese newspapers.80 In this sense, whaling is a (Rif)-invented
tradition, whose symbolic importance has been growing exponentially in tan-
dem with its industrial decline. Nevertheless, the present socio-economic hard-
ships of the few remaining coastal minke whalers are real and visible, attracting
public sympathy in Japan.

Inoltre, this cultural framing of whaling plays into a global politics,
where “authentic” culture is increasingly perceived as intrinsically valuable.
Here, cultural justiªcations have become hard to criticize, not least in the Japa-

75. Japan Small-Type Whaling Association 1997.
76. Kalland 1998, 20.
77. For an illustration, see Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan n.d.
78. Kalland and Moeran 1992.
79. Cf. Watanabe 2006.
80. Ishii and Okubo 2007, 13.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

56 •

Contesting Global Norms

nese context where Western (or “Westernized”) critics can easily be accused of
ethnocentrism.81 Cultural framing strategies thus not only deªne a positive self-
identity, but also de-legitimize criticism as prejudiced “foreign interference”
(gaiatsu), something strongly felt by members of Japanese anti-whaling NGOs.
For instance, Greenpeace has come to serve as the core symbolic enemy in this
politics of identity, employing a logic expressed succinctly by one NGO repre-
sentative: “Greenpeace equals anti-whaling equals anti-Japanese equals terror-
ist.”82 Obviously, such framings are frequently contested in the Japanese public
sphere, by media commentators, critical scientists, and Japanese pro-conserva-
tion NGOs.83 In general, Tuttavia, critics’ access to Japanese media remains con-
strained.

Even from a pro-whaling perspective, Tuttavia, discourses on “whaling
culture” carry the limitation that few Japanese citizens share any direct connec-
tion to whaling as such, reducing the potential for civic mobilization. In this re-
gard, justiªcations referring to “whale dietary culture” (geishokubunka) carry
more promise. While whales have been consumed for centuries in coastal
Japan, mass consumption on a nationwide basis occurred only after the Second
World War. By around 1952, whale meat was ofªcially included in school
lunch-boxes nationwide, staying there for a couple of decades. Consequently,
older generations in present-day Japanese society widely share memories of eat-
ing whale-meat during childhood, and such habitual dispositions help explain
why discourses of whale dietary culture have gained resonance amongst Japa-
nese politicians and journalists. Nel frattempo, Japanese dietary habits have
changed drastically, with beef, pork and chicken taking over and whale-meat all
but disappearing: in un 2002 survey, only four percent would “sometimes” eat it,
nine percent ate it “infrequently,” and 86 percent had either stopped or never
tried.84

Like whaling practices themselves, Tuttavia, whale-meat eating has gained
in symbolic signiªcance in tandem with losing its basic dietary signiªcance. As
supply and availability of meat has decreased, whale has become a highly “se-
lect” food, usually enjoyed at special occasions or at specialty whale cuisine res-
taurants. Anti-whaling campaigns have helped turn whale meat into a symbol
of Japanese food culture, and eating the “totem animal” of sentimental West-
erners can serve to express one’s belonging to “the Japanese tribe.”85 Essentialist
identity discourses of pro-whalers suggest that whale meat suits the biological
DNA and blood of Japanese people.86 Further, in the context of an encroaching
global “food taboo,” practices of cooking and eating potentially become acts of

81. Cf. Ishii and Okubo 2007, 4.
82. Author’s interview with Kurasawa Nanami (IKAN) and Sakuma Junko (ex-Greenpeace), Tokyo,

Luglio 2006.

83. Cf. Kurasawa 2001.
84. Sakuma 2006, 4.
85. Kalland 1998, 23. Infatti, during and after interviews with pro-whaling actors, I was often
asked to “prove” my willingness to eat whale meat, as a proxy for my political inclinations.

86. Koizumi 2005, 84.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 57

political resistance. During the 1991 IWC meeting in Reykjavik, the owner of an
Osaka whale cuisine restaurant, Ohnishi Mutsuko, cooked and served a ªn
whale dinner, and according to her, even anti-whaling people joined in the eat-
ing.87

Nevertheless, the pro-whaling network worries about the small and dwin-
dling consumption of whale meat, not least amongst younger Japanese, and has
tried to come up with pro-active ways of enrolling the “public mouth.” The
practice of serving whale meat in school lunches has been partially resumed
since the 1990s, in selected areas throughout rural Japan. Allo stesso modo, the ICR runs
a program of school visits, including 50 A 100 schools a year, combining a basic
lecture on whale biology with eating opportunities.88 Worryingly for the pro-
whalers, Tuttavia, there are indications that most Japanese feel rather indifferent
towards whale meat.89

To sum up, a cultural master frame pertaining to whaling and whale-based
dietary habits has been strongly mobilized by the pro-whaling network, in un
politics of national identiªcation. Rather than reºecting some unbroken conti-
nuity, Tuttavia, these cultural discourses represent an active work of “cultural-
ization,” drawing on historical artifacts, anthropological expertise, and whale-
eating habitual dispositions to assemble a uniªed (and gloriªed) “whaling
culture.” In the process, globally legitimized notions of cultural diversity are en-
rolled for support. Infatti, the partial success of this pro-whaling culture-work
is strongly felt by an organization such as Greenpeace, and is reºected in Green-
peace Japan’s meager support base of 5,000 members.90

Whales-as-Fish, Food Security, and Ethical Relativity

In the minds of the majority of the Japanese people, whales are not so much
a symbol of intelligence as they are symbol of marine food resources.91

While currently widespread environmental discourses on biodiversity suggest
the equal value of all animals and organic life, the reality of human-animal rela-
tions is somewhat more differentiated. Clearly, most of the energy behind
biodiversity conservation campaigns ºows toward animal species approxi-
mately the size of, or bigger than, humans; E (blue) whales are after all the
largest animals on Earth. In the cynical language of (some) biologists, echoed
by Japanese pro-whaling advocates, whales, seals, and elephants are collectively
referred to as “charismatic megafauna.”92 Such language links directly to pro-
whaling discourse on science: anti-whaling NGOs, it suggests, relies on “media-
genic” whales to arouse public emotions, rather than depending on fact and ra-

87. Author’s interview with Ohnishi Mutsuko (Toku-ya restaurant), Tokyo, May 2006.
88. Author’s interview with Murakami Mitsuyoshi (ICR), Tokyo, Giugno 2006.
89. Cf. Sakuma 2006.
90. Author’s interview with Sato Junichi (Greenpeace Japan), Tokyo, settembre 2006.
91. Misaki 1993, 3.
92. Yonezawa 2001, 10.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

58 •

Contesting Global Norms

tionality. Nevertheless, hierarchies in animal popularity are themselves a social
fatto, and Japanese pro-whaling actors have evidently felt compelled to confront
this politics of animal popularity directly.

One unlikely consequence of this confrontation is the way in which the al-
leged intelligence of whales has become a matter of global political signiªcance.
While the science of whale intelligence and “culture” is complex and con-
tested,93 Japanese pro-whaling discourses squarely pronounce the non-intelli-
gence of whales. On the English-language webpage of JWA, for instance, one
reads “the proportion of a blue whale’s brain to its body weight is 0.007 per cento
on the average, as compared with 1.93 percent for human beings.”94 In a related
fashion, pro-whaling advocates make frequent claims to the effect that whales
are “perceived by the Japanese as a kind of ªsh.”95 Implicit in such claims, Di
course, is a reference to animal hierarchies. The claims gain some credibility
from institutionalized features of Japanese culture, notably the Japanese script
(kanji) character for whale (kujira), which includes a radical that means ªsh (uo-
ben).96 Nevertheless, it is hard to miss the element of “self-indigenization” at
stake. Contemporary Japanese are obviously aware of the basic fact that biologi-
cal knowledge classiªes whales as mammals, not ªsh.

Nevertheless, the “whales-as-ªsh” discourse is also institutionalized in
Japanese whaling policy, in that power is heavily concentrated in the Fisheries
Agency. This reºects the way in which, bureaucratically and scientiªcally, strong
attempts are made to situate whaling issues within larger questions of marine
food resources. Apart from the bureaucratic embedding, this linkage is con-
stantly reinforced in the discourses of pro-whaling advocates. For instance, In
the introduction to the purpose of ICR, a research institute focused solely on
whales, references are nonetheless made to restrictive measures being “imposed
internationally on ªsheries, including high-seas ªsheries.”97 Similarly, as one
pro-whaling advocate puts it, whaling “is a tip of a very huge iceberg,” referring
to Japanese ªsheries and other natural resources.98

In the discursive politics of pro-whalers, attempts are thus made to defend
a principle of sustainable use of marine resources. Undoubtedly, material and
symbolic interests in the lucrative (and environmentally problematic) Japanese
tuna ªshing industry lurk in the background of many pro-whaling discourses.99
More explicitly, situating whales in discourses of marine resources serves to link
whaling to issues of food security, traditionally a strong concern in Japanese

93. Cf. Rendell and Whitehead 2001.
94. See Japan Whaling Association n.d. È interessante notare, similar information does not occur on JWA’s
Japanese-language web page. Infatti, the Japanese and English web pages of JWA are generally
quite different.

95. Misaki 1996.
96. Hirata 2004, 188, note 17.
97. See Institute for Cetacean Research n.d.
98. Author’s interview with Yonezawa Kunio (GGT), Tokyo, Giugno 2006.
99. Infatti, there is an overlap of people, organisations, and discourses between the two issue areas

in Japan (cf. Barclay and Koh 2005).

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 59

politica. In a rather extreme twist of identity politics, some pro-whaling advo-
cates thus portray whaling as a conºict between Anglo-Saxon “meat-eaters”
whose “anti-ªshing movement” threatens Japanese (and Asian) “ªsh-eaters.”100
It is not difªcult to see how such framings tie in with previously mentioned dis-
courses of Western cultural imperialism. Così, Shiraishi Yuriko, the leader of
the Women’s Forum for Fish, a pro-whaling consumer NGO, argues for an alli-
ance of Asian “ªsh food cultures” against the West in what she terms the “ªsh
war” of the 21st century.101

In many strands of Japanese pro-whaling discourse, the attempt is gener-
ally to reduce the standing of whales in the hierarchy of animals—even to the
level of being a pest animal.102 One often-cited low point occurred in 2001,
when Fisheries Agency councilor Masayuki Komatsu referred to minke whales
as the “cockroaches of the sea.”103 Somewhat contradictorily, Tuttavia, Japanese
pro-whaling discourses also contain frames meant to denote a unique Japanese
sensibility toward whales. Buddhist notions of indebtedness to nature, shown
in memorial ceremonies (kuyou) traditionally performed for the souls of killed
whales, are thus invoked as signs of deep-seated respect for whales.104 Moreover,
pro-whaling actors make frequent comparisons between whales and other
highly esteemed animals considered eatable in particular places, notably dogs
in South Korea and kangaroos in Australia.105 Such comparisons imply that
whales belong to a “special” category of food, while justifying whaling on the
basis of the ethical relativism of cultural standards.

Even within pro-whaling discourses, contradictory perceptions of whales
are thus visible. Unsurprisingly, this variability increases manifold if one looks
at wider public perceptions of whales in Japan, inºuenced as they are by multi-
ple sources including anti-whaling frames. While analysis of public opinion is
beyond the scope of this article, a brief look at a recent survey result is instruc-
tive. Asked what terms they associate with the word “whale,” a majority of Japa-
nese respondents answered both “whale watching” (77%) and “whale dishes”
(62 per cento).106 As in other parts of the world, the popularity of whale watching
increased rapidly in Japan during the 1990s, and whale watching has even
formed part of a deliberate strategy on the part of Japanese anti-whaling advo-
cates, through a network known as geisharen (“whale people band”), to gradu-
ally change public perceptions.107 The survey result may be seen as indicative of

100. Shima 2002, 28.
101. Quoted in Barclay and Koh 2005, 24F.
102. Tellingly, since the late 1990s, ICR has attempted to cast whales as ªsh-eating predators, com-
peting with humans for scarce ªsh resources. E.g. Institute of Cetacean Research 2004.
103. “Fishery ofªcial defends description of minke whales as cockroaches of sea,” Japan Times, 20

Luglio 2001.

104. Komatsu and Misaki 2001, 98.
105. Author’s interview with Misaki Shigeko (JWA), Yokohama, May 2006.
106. Nippon Research 2006.
107. Author’s interview with Iwamoto Hisanori (geisharen), Tokyo, ottobre 2006.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

60 •

Contesting Global Norms

just such changes: amongst younger generations of Japanese, the vast majority is
now opposed to whaling in the high seas.

To sum up, Japanese pro-whaling actors have chosen to confront the pop-
ularity of the anti-whalers’ Super-Whale directly, by engaging in a discursive pol-
itics of animal ethics. In pro-whaling discourse, whales usually emerge as non-
intelligent ªsh or pest animals, to which no exemptions from principles of hu-
man exploitation are warranted. Clearly, what a whale is, and how we humans
ought to treat it, have become parameters around which an entire identity poli-
tics unfolds. In Japanese pro-whaling discourse, killing whales-as-ªsh has come
to symbolize an identity of scientiªc rationality, cultural integrity, legal righ-
teousness and marine food security. Opposing this killing has been branded as
the emotional and illegal cultural imperialism of the anti-ªsh-eating West, seek-
ing to protect a “mediagenic” phantom. As people have engaged in moral rea-
soning by means of nature, whales have thus come to symbolize starkly oppos-
ing collective identities.108

Conclusions: Identity Politics and Moral Economization?

This article has argued that, in order to understand why global conºict over
whales continues into its fourth decade, one must understand the politics of
identity undertaken by the pro-whaling countermovement in Japan. Applying
concepts from the political sociology of social movements, this pro-whaling
network is conceptualized as an elite-driven countermovement, encompassing
powerful actors and organizations from the bureaucratic, political, industrial
and cultural spheres. Using international (IWC) and domestic political plat-
forme, this pro-whaling network is actively working to enhance the acceptability
of whaling and whale eating, primarily to the domestic Japanese public. Nel
struggle for moral capital between anti- and pro-whaling communities, both
sides have relied on framing strategies entailing the construction of rigid and
mutually irreconcilable collective identities. Based on such identity claims, pro-
whaling actors have built a comprehensive moral universe, challenging the le-
gitimacy of the globally dominant anti-whaling network of states and NGOs.

Speciªcally, four master frames of the Japanese pro-whaling identity have
been singled out, relating variously to ideas of scientiªc rationality, cultural in-
tegrity, animal ethics, and legal sovereignty.109 Importantly, while each master
frame serves to create a positive self-identiªcation, it simultaneously serves to
shame and delegitimize the anti-whaling opponent. Anti-whaling is framed as
an emotional, irrational, and illegal attack on the historical legacies and cur-
rent-day integrity of Japanese whaling communities and national marine-based
food culture. Combined with the highly moralized taboo on killing and eating

108. Cf. Brydon 2006, 237.
109. As previously stated, discussion of the master frame of legalism was left out of the analysis for

reasons of space.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 61

whales espoused by the anti-whaling movement, and their occasional resort to
anti-Japanese identity framings, the stage is set for a spiraling moral confronta-
zione. In this situation, external criticism is likely to fuel internal pro-whaling
mobilization, as critics are taken to conªrm the negative identity constructs af-
forded to them. In this moral diseconomy of interlocking and confrontational
identity politics, dialogue has nearly disappeared.110

In the moral universe of pro-whalers, appeals are made to a variety of
broader ideals and norms, spanning a mixture of domestic and “global” sources
of moral capital. For instance, framing the conºict in terms of “science” and
“emotionalism” clearly draws on the assumed universal legitimacy of scientiªc
rationality. Nevertheless, the key to understanding the persistence with which
the Japanese pro-whaling network justiªes whaling may well be the way in
which this conºict is framed to resonate with a broader domestic politics of cul-
tural nationalism in Japan. In particular, framing whaling in the idiom of cul-
tural conºict between “Japan” and “the West” resonates with broader societal
discourses on Japanese distinctiveness.111 National sentiments of pride and hu-
miliation are clearly at stake for pro-whaling elites. Ancora, as has been pointed
fuori, this elite concern for Japanese “whaling culture” faces increasing indiffer-
ence, even opposition, amongst members of the Japanese public. As dietary
habits shift away from whale meat, as critics gain stronger media presence, E
as leisure activities such as whale watching pick up, mass support for pro-whal-
ing ideas seems increasingly fragile, particularly amongst younger generations
of Japanese.

Overall, apart from illustrating the general symbolic interactionist insight
that movements and countermovements feed off and motivate each other, IL
whaling case can be taken as a stark illustration of identity-based political mobi-
lization leading to “diseconomy of moral disagreement” on a global scale.112
Nowadays, each side of the controversy tend to demonize the other, multiplying
rather than containing the symbolic stakes. Infatti, as previously argued, whal-
ing conºicts are no longer primarily about whales at all, but rather symbolize
entire competing political philosophies of nature and society. This conclusion
returns us to the three competing normative interpretations—radical politics,
simulation, and deliberation—set out brieºy in the theoretical section of this ar-
ticle, in order to gauge the signiªcance of whaling controversies in the broader
context of contesting “global” environmental norms-in-the-making.

As should be clear from my analysis, Japanese pro-whaling counter-
mobilization thrives to a large extent on framing its ªght in the radical political
terms of Western cultural domination. This rhetoric self-consciously attempts to
link up with voices of the global South, casting CITES conºicts during the 1990s
over African elephants as an important precedent: a partly successful ªght

110. Epstein 2003.
111. Cf. Yoshino 1992.
112. Cf. Humphrey and Stears 2006.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

62 •

Contesting Global Norms

against Northern “green” imperialism. In tandem with vote buying through
ODA, these discursive alliances may help explain why African and Caribbean
states are currently joining Japanese pro-whaling efforts. Tuttavia, one should
be careful in scrutinizing this pro-whaling politics of identity and supplement it
with an understanding of whaling controversies as simulation. There is little
doubt that for Japanese bureaucratic and cultural elites, the moral confronta-
tions over whaling afford a rare, controlled, and low-cost outlet for strong anti-
Western assertions of cultural pride and independence. Further, the powerful
Fisheries Agency by now has clear political interests in continuing scientiªc
whaling and thus engaging in pro-whaling framing strategies.113 Most impor-
tantly, as has been argued in this article, rather than representing some unbro-
ken continuity, Japanese “whaling culture” should largely be viewed as a re-
invented tradition, the outcome of political mobilization by pro-whaling advo-
cates.

The symbolic interactionist perspective advocated in this article is broadly
congruent with much recent literature within international relations focusing
on transnational norm diffusion—although contrary to most existing case stud-
ies of how this process is inºuencing Japanese politics,114 whaling is obviously a
case of active and sustained norm deªance. In particular, as argued by Miyaoka,
an important key to understanding this rather exceptional resistance is the ille-
gitimacy of the anti-whaling norm in the collective eyes of Japanese political
elites.115 My analysis has traced the construction of this illegitimacy, adding that
it must be situated within strategic-symbolic processes of collective identity for-
mazione.

Needless to say, Tuttavia, arguing for the theoretical importance of sym-
bolic-moral framing does not compel the analyst to adopt the normative frame-
work of the actors. Così, to be clear about my own normative commitments, IO
want to end by stressing the deliberative approach as a neglected platform in
real-world whaling politics. In particular, given the interlocking logic of moral
diseconomy, neither pro- nor anti-whaling proponents are seriously responding
to a series of legitimate concerns around whales. These range from ecological
concerns with endangered species and climate change116 to socio-economic con-
cerns with hardships faced by small-scale coastal whalers in Japan and Nor-
way.117 Further, concerns should be raised with the democratic non-accountabil-
ity of Japanese pro-whaling policies,118 as well as with unwanted side effects in
terms of negative cultural stereotyping emerging from the very confrontational
politics of identity itself.

If one aims to resolve these interrelated problems, the analysis presented

113. Cf. Ishii and Okubo 2007.
114. Vedere, per esempio., Reimann 2002; Gurowitz 1999; and Miyaoka 2004.
115. Miyaoka 2004, 97.
116. Burns 2000.
117. Kalland and Moeran 1992.
Ishii and Okubo 2007.
118.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 63

here suggests that it would require actors on both sides of the controversy to
start practicing a certain “moral economization.” In other words, they would be
required to stop framing whaling within rigidly constructed and antagonistic
moral universes. Realistically, such moral economization is unlikely to come
from current elite participants in whaling controversies, who are mostly veter-
ans habitually attuned over 30 years to an antagonistic body language. Tuttavia,
one might wonder what would be the outcome if the global community were to
assemble a new “parliament of whales” alongside the IWC. For instance, mod-
eled on the notion of a consensus conference, citizens from various key pro-
and anti-whaling states with no prior socialization into the moral diseconomy
of whaling might be expected to reach entirely new outcomes. Reshufºing the
moral economy and politics of identity around whales along these lines might
lead past the current deadlock and into more reasonable ecological, cultural,
and political settlements.

Riferimenti

Andresen, Steinar. 2004. Whaling: Peace at Home, War Abroad. In International Regimes
and Norway’s Environmental Policy. Crossªre and Coherence, edited by J. B. Skjærseth,
41–65. London: Ashgate.

Andresen, Steinar, and Skodvin, Tora. 2003. Non-State Inºuence in the International
Whaling Commission, 1970–1990. Global Environmental Politics 3 (4): 61–87.
Barclay, Kate, and Sun-Hui Koh. 2005. Neoliberalism in Japan’s Tuna Fisheries? Interna-

tional and Development Economics Working Paper 05–2.

Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements:

An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 611–639.

Branch, T. UN. 2006. Abundance Estimates for Antarctic Minke Whales from Three Com-
pleted Circumpolar Sets of Surveys, 1978/79 A 2003/04. IWC SC paper SC/58/
IA18 (unpublished).

Brydon, Anne. 2006. The Predicament of Nature: Keiko the Whale and the Cultural Poli-

tics of Whaling in Iceland. Anthropological Quarterly 79 (2): 225–260.

Burns, William C. G. 2000. From the Harpoon to the Heat: Climate Change and the In-
ternational Whaling Commission in the 21st Century. Georgetown International En-
vironmental Law Review 13 (2): 335–359.

Calhoun, Craig. 1994. Nationalism and Civil Society: Democracy, Diversity and Self-
Determination. In Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, edited by C. Calhoun,
304–336. New York: Blackwell Publishing.

Catalinac, Amy L., and Gerald Chan. 2005. Japan, the West, and the Whaling Issue: E-

derstanding the Japanese Side. Japan Forum 17 (1): 133–163.

Danaher, Mike. 2002. Why Japan Will Not Give Up Whaling. Paciªca Review 14 (2): 105–

120.

Einwohner, R. l. 2002. Bringing the Outsiders In: Opponents’ Claims and the Construc-

tion of Animal Rights Activists’ Identity. Mobilization 7 (3): 253–268.

Epstein, Charlotte. 2003. WorldWideWhale. Globalisation/Dialogue of Cultures? Camera-

bridge Review of International Affairs 16 (2): 309–322.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

64 •

Contesting Global Norms

Freeman, Milton M. R., and Stephen R. Kellert. 1992. Public Attitudes to Whales: Results of

a Six-country Survey. Edminton, AB: Canadian Circumpolar Institute.

Friedheim, Robert L. 1996. Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice: Explaining Japan’s Fail-
ure in the International Whaling Negotiations. Ocean Development & Internazionale
Legge 27 (4): 349–378.

______. 2001. The IWC as a Contested Regime: introduzione. In Towards a Sustainable
Whaling Regime, edited by R. l. Friedheim, 3–48. Seattle, WA: University of Wash-
ington Press.

Gales, Nicholas J., Toshio Kasuya, Phillip J. Clapham, and Robert L. Brownell, Jr. 2005.

Japan’s Whaling Plan under Scrutiny. Nature 435 (7044): 883–884.

Gurowitz, Amy. 1999. Mobilizing International Norms: Domestic Actors, Immigrants,

and the Japanese State. World Politics 51 (3): 413–445.

Hirata, Keiko. 2004. Beached Whales: Examining Japan’s Rejection of an International

Norm. Social Science Japan Journal 7 (2): 177–197.

______. 2005. Why Japan Supports Whaling. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Pol-

icy 8 (2–3): 129–150.

Hoel, Alf Håkon. 1993. Regionalization of International Whale Management: The Case
of the North Atlantic Marine Mammals Commission. Arctic 46 (2): 116–123.
Huber, Peter. 1999. Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists. Nuovo

York: Basic Books.

Humphrey, Mathew, and Marc Stears. 2006. Animal Rights Protest and the Challenge of

Deliberative Democracy. Economy and Society 35 (3): 400–423.

Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR). 2004. Why Whale Research? Tokyo: Institute of Ceta-
cean Research. Available at http://www.icrwhale.org/04-B-jen.pdf, avuto accesso 22
Marzo 2007.

______. N.d. About ICR. Available at http://www.icrwhale.org/abouticr.htm, viewed 27

Gennaio 2008.

Ishii, Atsushi, and Ayako Okubu. 2007. An Alternative Explanation of Japan’s Whaling
Diplomacy in the Post-Moratorium Era. Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy 10 (1): 55–87.

Jacques, Peter. 2006. The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Strug-

gle of Citizenship. Global Environmental Politics 6 (1): 76–101.

Japan Small-Type Whaling Association (JSTWA). 1997. Anti-whaling Lobby Slanders
Community Whaler’s Traditional Human Needs. Brochure. Tokyo: JSTWA. Avail-
able at http://homepage2.nifty.com/jstwa/hp-eng/pdf/1997E.pdf, avuto accesso 22
Marzo 2007.

Japan Whaling Association. N.d. Questions and Answers. Available at http://www.

whaling.jp/english/qa.html, avuto accesso 27 Gennaio 2008.

Kalland, Arne. 1993. Whale Politics and Green Legitimacy: A Critique of the Anti-

Whaling Campaign. Anthropology Today 9 (6): 3–7.

______. 1994. Whose Whale Is That? Diverting the Commodity Path. In Elephants and
Whales: Resources for Whom? edited by M. M. R. Freeman and U. P. Kreuter, 159–
186. London: Gordon and Breach.

______. 1998. The Anti-Whaling Campaigns and Japanese Responses. In Japanese Position
on Whaling and the Anti-whaling Campaign, edited by Institute of Cetacean Re-
search, 11–26. Tokyo: ICR.

Kalland, Arne, and Brian Moeran. 1992. Japanese Whaling: End of an Era? London:

Curzon Press.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Anders Blok

• 65

Kalland, Arne, and Frank Sejersen. 2005. Marine Mammals and Northern Cultures.

Edminton, AB: Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press.

Komatsu, Masayuki, and Shigeko Misaki. 2001. The Truth Behind the Whaling Dispute. A-

kyo: Institute of Cetacean Research.

Koizumi, Takeo. 2005. Buying Up All the Whale Meat in Sendai. In Whaling for Food, ed-
ited by K. Happynook, 83–87. Brentwood Bay, BC: World Council of Whalers.
Kurasawa, Nanami. 2001. Gloomy Debate on Greedy Whaling: Is the Debate about
Whaling Really a Conºict of Interests between Japan and Western Countries? IL
Japan Observer 7 (7) Luglio.

Lien, Marianne E. 2004. Dogs, Whales and Kangaroos: Transnational Activism and Food
Taboos. In The Politics of Food, edited by M. E. Lien and B. Nerlich, 179–199. Ox-
ford: Berg.

Martello, Marybeth Long. 2004. Negotiating Global Nature and Local Culture: The Case
of Makah Whaling. In Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance,
edited by S. Jasanoff and M. l. Martello, 263–284. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Meyer, David S., and Suzanne Staggenborg. 1996. Movements, Countermovements, E
the Structure of Political Opportunity. American Journal of Sociology 101 (6): 1628–
1660.

Mugnaio, Andrew R., and Nives Dolšak. 2007. Issue Linkages in International Environmen-
tal Policy: The International Whaling Commission and Japanese Development
Aid. Global Environmental Politics 7 (1): 69–96.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. N.d. Japan and the Management of Whales. Avail-
able at http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/ªshery/whales/japan.html, ac-
cessed 27 Gennaio 2008.

Misaki, Shigeko. 1993. Japanese World-View on Whales and Whaling. In Whaling Issues

and Japan’s Whale Research, edited by Institute of Cetacean Research. Tokyo: ICR.

______. 1996. Responsible Management of Renewable Resources: Case for Whaling. In
Whaling for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Institute of Cetacean Research, 13–
26. Tokyo: ICR.

Miyaoka, Isao. 2004. Legitimacy in International Society: Japan’s Reaction to Global Wildlife

Preservation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Moeran, Brian. 1992. The Cultural Construction of Value: “Subsistence”, “Commercial”
and Other Terms in the Debate about Whaling. Maritime Anthropological Studies 5
(2): 1–15.

Mullin, Molly H. 1999. Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural Studies of Human-Animal

Relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology 28 (1): 201–224.

Nippon Research. 2006. Opinion Poll on Scientiªc Whaling: Internet Survey. Commis-
sioned by Greenpeace Japan. Available at http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/press/
reports/q_whaling_eng.pdf, avuto accesso 22 Marzo 2007.

Ohsumi, S. 2003. Traditional Whaling and the Pursuit of Sustainable Whaling. In Report
and Proceedings. The 1st Summit of Japanese Traditional Whaling Communities, edited
by ICR and JWA, 5. Tokyo: ICR and Nagato City.

Pichardo, Nelson A. 1995. The Power Elite and Elite-driven Countermovements: The As-
sociated Farmers of California During the 1930s. Sociological Forum 10 (1): 21–49.
Reimann, Kim D. 2002. Building Networks from the Outside In: Japanese NGOs and the
Kyoto Climate Change Conference. In Globalization and Resistance: Transnational
Dimensions of Social Movements, edited by J. Smith and H. Johnston, 173–187.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleªeld.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

66 •

Contesting Global Norms

Rendell, L., and H. Whitehead. 2001. Culture in Whales and Dolphins. Behavioural and

Brain Sciences 24 (2): 309–82.

Sakuma, Junko. 2006. Investigating the Sale of Whale Meat—The “Byproduct of Research
Whaling:” Supply, Price and Inventory. Report. Tokyo: Iruka & Kujira Action Net-
lavoro (IKAN).

Shima, Kazuo. 2002. Whaling and the Rational Use of Marine Living Resources. In
Whaling Controversy and the Rational Utilization of Marine Resources, edited by Insti-
tute of Cetacean Research, 19–34. Tokyo: ICR.

Stoett, Peter J. 2005. Of Whales and People: Normative Theory, Symbolism, and the In-
ternational Whaling Commission. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 8
(2 E 3): 151–175.

Thompson, Charis. 2002. When Elephants Stand for Competing Philosophies of Nature:
Amboseli National Park, Kenya. In Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Prac-
tices, edited by J. Law and A. Mol, 166–190. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Thorne, Lorraine. 1998. Kangaroos: The Non-Issue. Società & Animals 6 (2): 167–182.
Tönnesen, J. N., e A. O. Johnsen. 1982. The History of Modern Whaling. Berkeley, CA:

Stampa dell'Università della California.

Watanabe, Hiroyuki. 2006. Hogei mondai no rekishishakaigaku: Kingendai nihon ni okeru
kujira to ningen [The Historical Sociology of Whaling: Relationships between
Whales and Human Beings in Modern Japan]. Tokyo: Toshindo.

Wong, Anny. 2001. The Roots of Japan’s Environmental Policies. New York: Garland Pub-

lishing.

Yonezawa, Kunio. 2001. The IWC at the End of the Road: How Did it Get There? In A New

Focus for the International Whaling Commission, edited by ICR, 5–20. Tokyo: ICR.

Yoshino, Kosaku. 1992. Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan. London: Routledge.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

8
2
3
9
1
8
1
9
4
8
8
G
e
P
2
0
0
8
8
2
3
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Scarica il pdf