Accidental Activists: Victim Movements and Government Accountability in Japan and South Korea. By Celeste L. Arrington. New York: Cornell University Press, 2016. pp. 248, $39.95 (ISBN 978–0–8014‐5376‐2)

This volume discusses victim redress movements, which are becoming increasingly common around the world. It presents a comparative study of three cases involving South Korea and Japan that focuses on the processes by which these movements became involved as a third party and investigates what kinds of compensation were paid out. The three cases concern Hansenʼs disease survivors (Chapter 3), patients infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood products (Chapter 4), and the families of North Korean abduction victims (Chapter 5). Each case also sheds light on the two governmentsʼ responses to social movements and the differences between the strategies of the various movements. I introduce the characteristics of this volume by utilizing social movement theory and the medical sociology perspective. Moreover, I comment on the future international comparative study of victim redress movements planned by the author.

I summarized the characteristics of this volume with three key points. The first key point is the depiction of the “conflict expansion” process, whereby weak victim redress movements gain external support. To achieve redress legislation in the absence of campaign resources, the redress movements absolutely need the cooperation of others rather than the directly affected parties (tojisha). This volume asks when and how to make contact with key decision‐makers and lawmakers as well as when and how to obtain public support and understanding. It contrasts two approaches: the “bottom‐up” type, where priority is given to obtaining societal support; and the “top‐down” type, where support from political elites is the first goal. The Japanese victim redress movements are classified as bottom‐up types, where support is obtained after mobilizing grassroots campaigns to create a situation where the political elites can no longer ignore the problem. By contrast, in the case of Korea, where it is easier to gain access to politicians and the media compared to Japan, the redress movements approached their elite allies from an early stage. However, compensations and apologies were limited and there was no progress in building medical systems or implementing drastic institutional reforms. The author speculates that the degree to which comprehensive redress is achieved and is decided by such differences is through conflict expansion. The study shows that, since the primary source of their compensation is tax money, there is a limit to how much you can depend on the minority of politicians who are positively inclined to the movement. This is even more of an issue if you are unable to mobilize the understanding and righteous indignation of the public.

The second key point of this volume is the role of lawyers in redress movements. In the case of Japan, the above‐mentioned conflict expansion developed through the effective use of lawsuits from victim redress movements that employed this as a strategy to bring societyʼs attention to these issues. They built on the experiences of movements against environmental pollution (kogai). Because of this, lawyers are greatly involved in the expansion of the conflict, and this volume emphasizes their role in it. This is especially prominent in the hepatitis C lawsuit, and we must not ignore how much it was affected by previous pollution lawsuit movements as well as movements that filed legal actions regarding harmful drug‐induced sufferings (yakugai) with regard to subacute myelo‐optic‐neuropathy (SMON), thalidomide, and human immune‐deficiency virus (HIV). The volume states that the victims are “‘accidental activists’ without prior activism experience or political ambitions.” It is also interesting that it focuses on the leading role of lawyers, especially those who are proficient in and have taught strategies relevant to redress movements concerning health hazards. This is because the very concept of “victim” is often portrayed as a passive and helpless entity, and therefore victims are not strong agents in the movements, despite being the directly affected parties. For example, the quarantine policy for Hansenʼs disease was still maintained for many years even after the establishment of medical treatment, which left the directly affected parties aging and still deprived of agency. In the case of the hepatitis C lawsuit in Japan, hemophiliac patients infected with HIV from tainted blood products were not plaintiffs. Since the blood products used by them were indispensable for hemostasis along with the alternative drugs for hemostasis during childbirth, they differed in the sense that it was possible to argue that they could have avoided using blood products. In other words, there was a “selection” of plaintiffs for the sake of winning the case.

Finally, litigation, publicity‐oriented tactics, and lobbying are mentioned in this volume as campaign strategies. But at that time, it points out the importance of the process of “shaming” a government in addition to the naming, blaming, and claiming. On the one hand, this implies a dichotomy of identifying yourselves as victims, while on the other, assuming the existence of perpetrators who have disparaged you. Particularly in the shaming process, the mistakes of the national government are highlighted and there is a need for the image of innocent victims. Therefore, in the case of movements whose aim is to prevent a recurrence, the directly affected parties will not be able to relinquish their identity as victims once they have assumed it, even after receiving compensation. The harm‐damage schema promotes the bottom‐up type of conflict expansion, but it also has the reverse function of keeping victims as victims.

The volume ends with some examination comparing the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, the 2014 sinking of the Sewol, and a blood scandal concerning about HIV and hepatitis C in France. In short, even if we say victim redress movements, it is a very wide subject matter for research and study. From the standpoint of someone like myself who specializes in discussions focusing on health hazards, having finished reading this volume, I felt the necessity of examining the process of “becoming victims.” Furthermore, there is also a need for the study of perspectives such as changes in the drugs and medical treatment systems that caused the incidents and “biological citizenship,” which have been increasingly discussed in recent years and are also referred to in this volume. I sincerely hope to see the kind of international comparative study of victim redress movements that the author is proposing, going beyond the comparisons between Japan and Korea.

意外活动家：日本和韩国的受害者运动与政府责任。由Celeste L. Arrington。纽约：康奈尔大学出版社，2016年。第248页，39.95美元（ISBN 978–0–8014‐5376‐2）

本书讨论了受害者的救济运动，这些运动在世界范围内越来越普遍。它提供了对涉及韩国和日本的三个案例的比较研究，重点研究了这些运动作为第三方参与的过程，并调查了支付了哪些赔偿。这三起案件涉及汉森氏病幸存者（第3章），受污染血液制品感染丙型肝炎的患者（第4章）以及朝鲜绑架受害者的家属（第5章）。每个案例还阐明了两国政府对社会运动的反应以及各种运动策略之间的差异。我将利用社会运动理论和医学社会学的角度介绍该书的特点。而且，

我用三个要点总结了本卷的特点。第一个关键点是对“冲突扩大”进程的描述，弱势的受害者赔偿运动获得了外部支持。为了在缺乏竞选资源的情况下实现赔偿立法，赔偿运动绝对需要其他方面的合作，而不是直接受影响的各方的合作（tojisha）。本卷询问何时以及如何与主要决策者和立法者建立联系，以及何时以及如何获得公众的支持和理解。它与两种方法形成对比：“自下而上”类型，其中优先考虑获得社会支持；还有“自上而下”的类型，其中政治精英的支持是首要目标。日本受害者的救济运动被归类为自下而上的运动，在动员基层组织制造政治精英无法再忽视这一问题的情况后，获得了支持。相比之下，就韩国而言，与日本相比，政治人物和媒体更容易获得接触，因此，赔偿运动从一开始就接触了其精英盟友。然而，赔偿和道歉受到限制，在建立医疗系统或进行激烈的机构改革方面没有任何进展。作者推测，实现全面补救并由这种差异决定的程度是通过冲突扩大来实现的。研究表明，由于补偿的主要来源是税款，因此可以依靠多少积极支持这一运动的少数政治家是有限的。如果您无法动员公众的理解和正义的愤慨，那就更成问题了。由于他们补偿的主要来源是税款，因此可以依靠多少积极支持这一运动的少数政治家是有限的。如果您无法动员公众的理解和正义的愤慨，那就更成问题了。由于他们的补偿金的主要来源是税款，因此您可以依靠多少积极参与这一运动的少数政治家是有限的。如果您无法动员公众的理解和正义的愤慨，那就更成问题了。

本卷的第二个关键点是律师在赔偿运动中的作用。以日本为例，上述冲突的扩大是通过有效利用受害者赔偿运动提起的诉讼而发展起来的，该诉讼将其作为一种使社会关注这些问题的战略。他们以反对环境污染运动的经验为基础。因此，律师极大地参与了冲突的扩大，这一卷着重强调了他们在冲突中的作用。这在丙型肝炎诉讼中尤为突出，我们绝不能忽略它曾受到先前的污染诉讼运动以及针对有害药物引起的痛苦提起法律诉讼的运动的影响（yakugai）有关亚急性脊髓性神经病（SMON），沙利度胺和人类免疫缺陷病毒（HIV）的信息。该卷指出，受害者是“没有事先激进主义经历或政治野心的'偶然激进主义者'。” 有趣的是，它侧重于律师的领导作用，尤其是那些精通律师并讲授与健康危害相关的补救措施相关策略的律师。这是因为“受害者”这个概念经常被描绘成一个被动和无助的实体，因此，尽管受害人是直接受影响的当事方，但他们并不是该运动的强有力推动者。例如，即使在建立医疗之后，汉森氏病的检疫政策仍维持了很多年，这使直接受影响的各方老龄化，仍然缺乏代理权。在日本发生的丙型肝炎诉讼中，血红​​蛋白感染艾滋病毒的血友病患者不是原告。由于他们使用的血液制品和分娩期间止血的替代药物是止血必不可少的，因此它们的不同之处在于，有可能争论说他们可以避免使用血液制品。换句话说，为了胜诉，对原告进行了“选择”。

最后，本卷将诉讼，宣传策略和游说作为竞选策略。但是那时，它指出了除了命名，责备和要求外，“羞辱”政府的过程的重要性。一方面，这意味着将自己标识为受害者，但另一方面，假设存在贬低您的犯罪者。特别是在羞辱过程中，突出了国家政府的错误，因此需要无辜受害者的形象。因此，在以防止再次发生为目的的运动中，直接受影响的当事方即使承担了赔偿，也无法放弃其作为受害者的身份。

本书的最后部分内容是对2011年东北地震，2014年西月岛沉没事件以及有关法国艾滋病毒和丙型肝炎的血案进行了比较。简而言之，即使我们说受害者采取补救行动，这也是研究和研究的一个非常广泛的主题。从像我这样专注于健康危害的讨论的专家的角度看完本书后，我觉得有必要研究“成为受害者”的过程。此外，还需要研究各种观点，例如引起事件的药物和医疗系统的变化以及“生物公民身份”，近年来已对此进行了越来越多的讨论，并且在本卷中也对此进行了介绍。