"We Can Speak for Bugs": An Attempt to Represent the Interests of Insects and Its Associated Difficulties in Japan during the 1970s

<p>The non-publicized political representation of the "voices" and "interests" of small, endangered species, which are currently facing the threat of the sixth mass extinction, is extremely important and should be integrated into the policy-making process. Some scholars opine that a lifestyle in which people pay careful attention to the well-being and preservation of small living creatures should be established to overcome the crises that have emerged during the Anthropocene. However, how can we cultivate attentiveness and motivation among people to speak for the interests of small, noncharismatic species?</p><p>To address the above problem, this paper examines an old debate known as the "insect collection debate," which was once widely discussed in Japan. During the 1970s, at a time when severe criticism was being directed against insect collection, which was commonly considered an ethically unacceptable practice albeit popular among men, a group of people promoting the interests of insects established a monthly magazine entitled Gekkan Mushi（Monthly Insects）to counter the criticism of insect collection. They continuously encouraged their readers to direct their passion for insect collection or research toward actively speaking for the inclusion of the generally ignored topic of insect conservation in the policy-making process during the era of rapid economic growth.</p><p>This paper argues that the main aim of the editors of Gekkan Mushi was to redefine the identity of the mushiya（insect fans）as the representatives of insects. They contended that mushiya were the only people who were attentive to the existence of insects and that they were attempting to accumulate knowledge so they could represent the interests of insects.</p><p>However, this effort neither gained extensive public support nor formed a major social movement. Although the new identity developed a sense of pride, it could not direct people representing the interests of insects toward political participation. This paper highlights the fact that the group was theoretically and practically limited in demonstrating how political action representing the interests of and saving insects could become "enjoyable," since they failed to reconstruct the joy of studying insects as part of their efforts to represent insects.</p>