How did civil society in postwar Japan acquire the form it did? Why did certain ideas about the shimin (citizens) take hold? Making Japanese Citizens recounts the story of how postwar Japanese intellectuals shaped the ideas of the shimin and, in turn, how movement intellectuals took these ideational elements in their praxis. Using three core concepts from social movement theory – framing, collective action frames, and movement intellectuals – this historical analysis traces how ideas surrounding the shimin affected civic activism and what those ideas meant for movement intellectuals and activists.

Avenell argues that postwar Japan saw the development of six phases of civic activism with their corresponding identities of the shimin and movements: (1) nascent period (1945–55), with the shimin idea focused on the people, manifested in, for example, the cultural circle activism; (2) formative phase (1958–60), with two streams of civic activism (conscientious dissent and pragmatic activism) embodied in the Anpo struggle; (3) elaborative phase (1965–74), with the concept of shimin focused on Japanese and Asians, manifested in the Beheiren movement; (4) another elaborative phase (1964–1975), where shimin meant local residents, manifested in the antipollution and antidevelopment movements; (5) and a third elaborative phase (1963–1975), where shimin equaled kokumin (Japanese nationals), manifested in the movement for citizen participation; and finally (6) the transformative phase (1975–1989), where shimin was transformed into seikatsusha (inhabitants of daily life), involved in various new civic movements (p. 241).

This is a meticulously researched book on one of the foundational concepts of postwar Japan. Its quality lies not only in the author's attention to details (in delineating the nuanced ideas concerning the shimin by numerous intellectuals and the changes over time as embodied in various movements), but also in refusing, at the outset, to succumb to two predominant modes of theorizing civil society: shimin versus establishment (p. 5) and ‘one-dimensional progressive master narratives typical in new social movement approaches (2)’.

A couple of questions remain. Why mythology? Except in the title and introduction, the bulk of the text does not elaborate on the idea of shimin as mythology. How do the changing ideas of the shimin constitute mythology? Does the author mean myth as a fictitious thing, an invented concept, or some kind of false collective belief? Judging from the enormous amount of intellectual and movement energy spent, the idea of the shimin certainly does not come across as fictitious, invented, or false. Perhaps a discussion on the relationship between shimin as ideology and shimin as mythology could shed light on this aspect of the research question. Another question pertains to some form of implicit methodological nationalism. Despite references on pan-Asianism as well as influence of the Black liberation movement in the US, the author seems to have unnecessarily restricted himself to the study of the concept of shimin in Japan through local civic activism. To see the transformative phase from the 1970s on only through the lens of seikatsusha would have missed a spectrum of movements that bring forth yet a new dimension of the concept of the shimin: the human, endowed with universal rights, and the activists as global citizens. These new movements – of women, refugees, indigenous peoples, and various caste, ethnic, and racial minority groups – were also connected to daily life, albeit in a different way from the seikatsusha or local residents. This transnational human rights aspect of shimin undô would subsequently become a defining characteristic of Japanese civil society in the 1990s and beyond. Finally, the author's concluding remarks about the most recent phase of shimin as shin-shimin (new citizens) in the post 1990s era of state-led volunteerism point to the constant danger of falling back on a predominant mode of civil society theorizing, pitting shimin versus establishment. Despite the new conservative citizen politics, we must ask the critical question: what kinds of intellectual analyses do justice to the complex and evolving ideas of the shimin and shimin undô as ‘critical sites of conflict (254)?’

In light of the recent flurry of scholarship as well as policy attention on Japanese civil society, this book is a much welcome addition, one that forces us to recognize the centrality of historical ideas. It is a must-read for all who want to understand contemporary Japanese society and politics.