Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008, Page 37
distressed, not only by the ―aliens‖ who appeared suddenly in their midst, but also by the
media who besieged their homes, city offices, and schools in search of live coverage. In
spite of that, Fujioka City and Ryugasaki City campaigned against Aum only for a limited
period of time. Chitose-Karasuyama in Setagaya Ward, conversely, has kept up its anti-Aum
activities for the past five years. Although they organized their movement by founding a
prevention council and continue to publish newsletters on a regular basis, they have not
proven adept at promoting themselves to the general public and utilizing the media
effectively. Therefore, with the exception of those directly involved and local residents,
people in general know the realities of the anti-cult movement only from books written by
supporters of human rights (Tezuka, Aiichiro Matsui, Takeshi Yamagiwa, Eizo and
Fukami, Fumi. 2001).
Since 2002 I have regularly interviewed the condominium residents and municipality
officials in Karasuyama who oppose the residency of Aleph members. I also visited Fujioka
and Ryugasaki in 2004. Based on government data and survey findings, I have striven to
identify the realities of the anti-cult movement and how it differed by region. Apart from the
regional differences in each movement, the typical image of anti-cult movements has been
characterized by outside sources in a monolithic, stereotypical manner as residents who
stubbornly oppose religious cults such as Aleph.
A typical example is the argument of Iwamoto (2001) and Mori (2002), who criticized the
Japanese attitude of moral alarmism toward Aum/Aleph, pointing out that Aleph members
and local residents, supposedly locked in conflict, have actually been reconciling. Miyadai
and Ohsawa, both well-known sociologists and social critics, have suggested the future
possibility of harmonious coexistence between residents and Aleph members in Japan
(Miyadai, 2002:259 Ohsawa, 2005:213). However, it is fallacious to generalize the one
example reported by Iwamoto and Mori to other cases. In point of fact, their contention
rested solely upon the exchange of farewell greetings by several residents and two Aleph
members in the last phase of a four-month conflict in Fujioka City, as will be described later.
At that time, residents did not worry about Aleph, since the Maebashi District Court had
ordered Aleph members to vacate the property they were renting, whose owner was
bankrupt and whose residence was sealed.
Another common argument was that of Asano (1999) and Tezuka (1999), who asserted that
the resident movement was a government-sponsored movement that the Public Security
Investigation Agency and police set up so that new anti-Aum laws could be passed. The
mainstream media have not officially picked up this contention of a human-rights activist.
Let us examine the theory of the resident movement as a government-sponsored
movement.
Asano and Tezuka belong to the Liaison Committee on Human Rights and Mass Media
Conduct (JIMPOREN). They did not join forces simply to protect the rights of Aleph-related
persons and members, for they have long handled human-rights cases in which they believe
the constitution, democracy, and freedom were threatened. They perceive the spread of the
anti-cult movement as a sign that conservative political forces, while calling for the
restoration of social risk management and social order, took advantage of the Aum problem
in an attempt to assert control over civil society. Thus, they criticize the Public Security
Investigation Agency‘s excessive interference with the Aum cult and the media‘s biased
―Aum-bashing‖ reporting.
Looking at the anti-Aum movements by local residents from the establishment viewpoint,
Asano and Tezuka claim that it is not a coincidence that those movements simultaneously
emerged in 1999 in several locations, including areas where Aum members had already
resided. Tezuka cites the following locations as suspect areas:
distressed, not only by the ―aliens‖ who appeared suddenly in their midst, but also by the
media who besieged their homes, city offices, and schools in search of live coverage. In
spite of that, Fujioka City and Ryugasaki City campaigned against Aum only for a limited
period of time. Chitose-Karasuyama in Setagaya Ward, conversely, has kept up its anti-Aum
activities for the past five years. Although they organized their movement by founding a
prevention council and continue to publish newsletters on a regular basis, they have not
proven adept at promoting themselves to the general public and utilizing the media
effectively. Therefore, with the exception of those directly involved and local residents,
people in general know the realities of the anti-cult movement only from books written by
supporters of human rights (Tezuka, Aiichiro Matsui, Takeshi Yamagiwa, Eizo and
Fukami, Fumi. 2001).
Since 2002 I have regularly interviewed the condominium residents and municipality
officials in Karasuyama who oppose the residency of Aleph members. I also visited Fujioka
and Ryugasaki in 2004. Based on government data and survey findings, I have striven to
identify the realities of the anti-cult movement and how it differed by region. Apart from the
regional differences in each movement, the typical image of anti-cult movements has been
characterized by outside sources in a monolithic, stereotypical manner as residents who
stubbornly oppose religious cults such as Aleph.
A typical example is the argument of Iwamoto (2001) and Mori (2002), who criticized the
Japanese attitude of moral alarmism toward Aum/Aleph, pointing out that Aleph members
and local residents, supposedly locked in conflict, have actually been reconciling. Miyadai
and Ohsawa, both well-known sociologists and social critics, have suggested the future
possibility of harmonious coexistence between residents and Aleph members in Japan
(Miyadai, 2002:259 Ohsawa, 2005:213). However, it is fallacious to generalize the one
example reported by Iwamoto and Mori to other cases. In point of fact, their contention
rested solely upon the exchange of farewell greetings by several residents and two Aleph
members in the last phase of a four-month conflict in Fujioka City, as will be described later.
At that time, residents did not worry about Aleph, since the Maebashi District Court had
ordered Aleph members to vacate the property they were renting, whose owner was
bankrupt and whose residence was sealed.
Another common argument was that of Asano (1999) and Tezuka (1999), who asserted that
the resident movement was a government-sponsored movement that the Public Security
Investigation Agency and police set up so that new anti-Aum laws could be passed. The
mainstream media have not officially picked up this contention of a human-rights activist.
Let us examine the theory of the resident movement as a government-sponsored
movement.
Asano and Tezuka belong to the Liaison Committee on Human Rights and Mass Media
Conduct (JIMPOREN). They did not join forces simply to protect the rights of Aleph-related
persons and members, for they have long handled human-rights cases in which they believe
the constitution, democracy, and freedom were threatened. They perceive the spread of the
anti-cult movement as a sign that conservative political forces, while calling for the
restoration of social risk management and social order, took advantage of the Aum problem
in an attempt to assert control over civil society. Thus, they criticize the Public Security
Investigation Agency‘s excessive interference with the Aum cult and the media‘s biased
―Aum-bashing‖ reporting.
Looking at the anti-Aum movements by local residents from the establishment viewpoint,
Asano and Tezuka claim that it is not a coincidence that those movements simultaneously
emerged in 1999 in several locations, including areas where Aum members had already
resided. Tezuka cites the following locations as suspect areas:
