Module 06
Reading Institutional Positions
Analytical tools for interpreting heritage governance
Overview
- Institutional positions are primary evidence for understanding how contested heritage is governed
- This module provides analytical frameworks for reading what institutions say — and what they do
- You will practise these tools using the evidence collected in the Sources section
- These skills prepare you for Module 07, which applies them to the HashimaXR obstruction archive
Previous modules introduced the historical context (Module 01), theoretical frameworks (Module 02), and evidentiary base (Module 04) for understanding Hashima's contested heritage. This module asks: how do we read the positions that institutions take on such sites?
The Institutional Positions and Regional Perspectives pages document what governments, heritage bodies, and media organisations have publicly stated about Hashima. But reading these positions requires interpretive tools — the ability to distinguish diplomatic language from substantive commitment, to recognise procedural obstruction, and to map the relationships between stakeholders.
An Analytical Framework
When examining institutional positions on contested heritage, four questions structure productive analysis:
1. What is claimed?
What does the institution explicitly state? What commitments does it make? What language does it use to describe the contested history?
Example: Japan's 2015 statement acknowledged Koreans "brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions."
2. What is qualified?
What hedging, clarification, or limitation immediately follows? How are commitments constrained by scope, timeline, or definition?
Example: Within hours, Foreign Minister Kishida clarified that "forced to work" did not mean "forced labour" under international law.
3. What is done?
What observable actions follow the stated position? Does institutional practice align with stated commitment?
Example: The Industrial Heritage Information Center opened in 2020 without testimony from Korean or Chinese labourers.
4. What is absent?
What is not addressed? Whose perspectives are excluded? What evidence is not engaged?
Example: IHIC displays do not include evidence from the Ōhara Institute's Hayashi collection documenting coercive recruitment.
Worked Example: The 2015 UNESCO Statement
Let's apply this framework to the document that established the terms of Hashima's contested heritage governance. The full text is available at Institutional Positions: Japanese Government.
"Japan is prepared to take measures that allow an understanding that there were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions in the 1940s at some of the sites..."
What is claimed?
- Acknowledgment that Koreans were "brought against their will"
- Acknowledgment that they were "forced to work under harsh conditions"
- Commitment to "take measures that allow an understanding"
What is qualified?
- "in the 1940s" — limits the acknowledgment to wartime period, preserving the 1850s–1910 periodisation for the heritage narrative
- "at some of the sites" — allows site-by-site variation in interpretation
- "allow an understanding" — commits to possibility of understanding, not to active communication of that history
What followed?
Within hours, Foreign Minister Kishida stated to Japanese media that the phrase "forced to work" (働かされた, hatarakasareta) did not carry the same meaning as "forced labour" (強制労働, kyōsei rōdō) under ILO conventions. This immediate clarification established the interpretive framework Japan would apply: the acknowledgment was diplomatic, not legal.
Practice: Analyse an Institutional Position
Using the four-question framework, analyse one of the following positions documented in the Sources section:
UNESCO Monitoring Mission (2021)
How does the mission balance diplomatic language with critical assessment?
South Korean Government Response
How does Korea frame the same events differently? What evidence does it foreground?
Chinese State Media Coverage
How does coverage in People's Daily or Xinhua position Hashima within broader narratives?
📝 Download the Positions Analysis Worksheet to structure your reading.
"Balance" as a Governance Technique
A recurring term in institutional responses to contested heritage projects is the demand for "balance." This term requires critical examination.
The Politics of "Balance"
When institutions demanded that HashimaXR present "balanced" perspectives, they typically meant:
- Equal weight to Japanese and Korean/Chinese positions, regardless of evidentiary support
- Framing forced labour as "disputed" rather than documented
- Including "positive" aspects of the island's history to offset "negative" ones
- Avoiding content that might generate controversy or diplomatic friction
This version of "balance" is not neutral. It privileges the status quo by treating established historical facts as matters of opinion requiring "both sides" representation.
The demand for balance operates as a form of soft gatekeeping — a way to constrain critical interpretation without explicitly censoring it. Projects that accepted these constraints could proceed; projects that insisted on interpretive accountability faced withdrawal of support.
When is "Balance" Appropriate?
Not all calls for balance are inappropriate. Consider the difference between:
- Genuine complexity: When historical evidence is genuinely ambiguous, multiple interpretations may be warranted. Historians routinely disagree on causation, motivation, and significance.
- False equivalence: When one position is supported by extensive documentary evidence and scholarly consensus while another is not, presenting them as equally valid misrepresents the evidentiary situation.
The key question is whether the demand for "balance" emerges from genuine historiographical complexity or from political discomfort with well-documented conclusions.
In the Hashima case, the existence of forced labour is documented in Japanese government records, company archives, survivor testimony, and international assessments. The demand to treat this as "one perspective" among others reflects political preference, not historiographical uncertainty.
From Positions to Patterns
Analysing individual positions is valuable, but the real analytical work lies in identifying patterns across positions. When similar language appears across different institutions — demands for "balance," concerns about "controversy," appeals to "sensitivities" — this suggests coordinated messaging or shared institutional culture.
The patterns visible at the macro level (media framings, government positions, institutional responses) appeared in specific interactions with specific stakeholders during the HashimaXR project. The next module examines these interactions directly, treating the project's non-release as evidence of how heritage governance actually works.
Explore the evidence:
- Institutional Positions — Government statements, UNESCO documents, heritage body communications
- Regional Perspectives — How media in Japan, Korea, China frame the same events
- Scholarly Perspectives — Academic analysis of heritage governance patterns
Key Takeaways
- Four questions structure analysis: What is claimed? What is qualified? What is done? What is absent?
- The gap between statement and action is evidence. The 2015 UNESCO commitment and its non-implementation reveal how heritage governance operates.
- Linguistic distinctions serve political purposes. "Forced to work" versus "forced labour" is not semantic nitpicking — it's heritage governance in action.
- "Balance" often masks resistance. Demands for balance frequently function to re-dispute well-documented histories rather than to ensure genuine even-handedness.
- Patterns across institutions matter. Similar language appearing across different stakeholders suggests coordinated or culturally-shared responses to contested heritage.
📝 Cite This Module
Gerteis, Christopher. "Module 06: Reading Institutional Positions." HashimaXR Learning Resource. SOAS University of London, 2025–2026. https://hashimaxr.netlify.app/learn/module-06/.
For other formats, see How to Cite · Full Bibliography