Lost in translation: Problematizing the localization of transnational activism
| Author | Daisuke Minami |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066118794836 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118794836
European Journal of
International Relations
2019, Vol. 25(2) 511 –537
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066118794836
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
Lost in translation:
Problematizing the
localization of transnational
activism
Daisuke Minami
The George Washington University, USA
Abstract
Existing studies on human rights change posit that activists use transnational networks
to organize global and local movements against governments. However, this explanation
assumes that international rights claims gain local support and underestimates how
difficult it could be for activists to translate global movements into local movements.
I address this issue by proposing three mechanisms through which activists face such
difficulties and fail to pressure governments. First, misrepresentation occurs when
international organizations accept and support activists who do not represent local
voices and cannot get local support for their rights claims. Second, misperception happens
when activists introduce global norms into local debates but local audiences, unfamiliar
with these “foreign” concepts, misperceive them and thus do not support international
rights claims. Third, mismatch occurs when pre-existing local movements mistakenly use
international rights claims for their own goals, lead local discussions, and overshadow
transnational activism. Due to these problems of misrepresentation, misperception, and
mismatch, activists may fail to localize their transnational activism. This, in turn, makes
it difficult to realize their claims at home. I demonstrate my argument by analyzing the
indigenous peoples’ movements in Japan, tracing the success and failure of Ainu and
Okinawan activists to domesticate the global indigenous peoples’ movement.
Keywords
Human rights, indigenous peoples, Japan, norms, social movements, transnational civil
society
Corresponding author:
Daisuke Minami, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University, 2115 G Street NW,
Washington, DC, 20052, USA.
Email: dminami@gwu.edu
794836EJT0010.1177/1354066118794836European Journal of International RelationsMinami
research-article2018
Article
512 European Journal of International Relations 25(2)
Introduction
How do activists promote human rights norms? The conventional explanations of trans-
national activism networks (TANs) draw on the “spiral model” (Keck and Sikkink, 1998;
Risse et al., 1999, 2013), arguing that local activists form global networks that apply
normative pressures on governments. Using these networks, activists strengthen local
movements and create domestic pressures, forcing governments to change their
behavior.
However, this advocacy strategy has produced mixed results for indigenous peoples
in Japan, namely, the Ainu and the Okinawans, who have long participated in the global
indigenous peoples’ movement (IPM) to protect their rights. While both have gained
United Nations (UN) recognition of their indigeneity, only the Ainu have mobilized a
strong local movement and gained Japan’s official recognition. As for the Okinawans, as
one activist said:
Our suit seeking recognition of … Okinawans as indigenous peoples … has been recognized by
the UN. But sadly, the Japanese government has used the excuse that “while we recognize that
some people assert this, this is not the opinion of the majority of the Okinawan residents” in
order to refute our claims. (Yokota, 2015: 62, emphasis added)
Another activist lamented, “Our claims that ‘we are indigenous’ don’t gain support
because people misunderstand them.”1 According to one Okinawan journalist, “People
have no idea what these international rights claims mean. Scholars like you need to
translate them for us.”2 In short, the Okinawans have found that transnational move-
ments do not easily translate into local movements. Their claims seem to have been “lost
in translation.”
How do such translation problems affect the connection between transnational and
local movements? Why do transnational activists like the Ainu succeed in inspiring local
activism while others like the Okinawans fail? The spiral model does not directly address
these questions because it assumes that international rights claims gain local support.
While it does not necessarily predict linear progress of human rights change, it still
underestimates how difficult it could be for transnational activists to translate global
movements into local movements. Recently, scholars have started to address this issue,
exploring why the introduction of global norms and movements into local politics suc-
ceeds or fails (see, for instance, Jetschke and Liese, 2013; Nuñez-Mietz and Iommi,
2017; Zwingel, 2012).
In this article, I join this emerging scholarship and examine what problems activists
face in localizing transnational movements, that is, using global activism to strengthen
local activism.3 I propose three new mechanisms through which such problems arise and
disrupt the spiral dynamic. First, misrepresentation occurs when international organiza-
tions accept and support activists who appoint themselves, instead of being elected, to
make rights claims on behalf of the local community. Such self-appointed activists may
not represent local voices, and local constituents may not rally behind the rights claims
even if these claims benefit them. Second, misperception happens when activists intro-
duce global norms into local debates but local audiences misperceive them and thus do
not support international rights claims. Third, mismatch occurs when pre-existing local
To continue reading
Request your trial