How and when do people participate in sustained collective action via the courts? Previous research highlights group identity or resources and political opportunities but overlooks civil procedural rules’ effects beyond the courtroom. This article explores how rules regarding privacy shape individuals’ decisions about sustained participation. Fears of exposing one’s identity deter participation, especially in the context of public trials. Yet, a paired comparison of litigation by victims of hepatitis C-tainted blood products in Japan and Korea reveals that court-supervised privacy protections, which were available in Japan but not in Korea, facilitate plaintiffs’ participation inside and outside the courtroom. They ease plaintiff recruitment and enhance claimants’ credibility. Counterintuitively, they also let claimants strategically shed pseudonymity to send a costly signal about their commitment to the cause. Theorizing “pseudonymous participation” as an understudied mode of activism between full exposure and anonymity demonstrates that seemingly technical aspects of law have significant political consequences.
AbregoL. (2008). Legitimacy, social identity, and the mobilization of law: The effects of assembly bill 540 on undocumented students in California. Law & Social Inquiry, 33, 709-734.
2.
AllenD. (2010). Anonymous: On silence and the public sphere. In SaratA. (Ed.), Speech and silence in American law (pp. 106-133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndersenE. A. (2006). Out of the closets and into the courts: Legal opportunity structure and gay rights litigation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
4.
ArringtonC. L. (2016). Accidental activists: Victim movements and government accountability in Japan and South Korea. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5.
ArringtonC. L. (2017). The access paradox: Media environment diversity and coverage of activist groups in Japan and Korea. Journal of East Asian Studies, 17(1), 1-25.
6.
BarnesJ. (2011). Dust-up: Asbestos litigation and the failure of commonsense policy reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
7.
BeachD.PedersenR. B. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
8.
BleichE.PekkanenR. (2013). How to report interview data. In MosleyL. (Ed.), Interview research in political science (pp. 84-105). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
9.
BursteinP. (1991). Legal mobilization as a social movement tactic: The struggle for equal employment opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1201-1225.
10.
CarpenterD. (2016). Recruitment by petition: American antislavery, French protestantism, and English suppression. Perspectives on Politics, 14, 700-723.
11.
CaseR. E.GivensT. E. (2010). Re-engineering legal opportunity structures in the European union? The starting line group and the politics of the racial equality directive. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48, 221-241.
12.
ChoK. (2007). Transitional justice in Korea: Legally coping with past wrongs after democratization. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 16, 579-612.
13.
ChoiD.-K.RokumotoK. (Eds.). (2007). Korea and Japan: Judicial system transformation in the globalizing world. Seoul, South Korea: Seoul National University Press.
14.
ChuaL. J. (2015). The vernacular mobilization of human rights in Myanmar’s sexual orientation and gender identity movement. Law & Society Review, 49, 299-332.
15.
CichowskiR. A.Stone SweetA. (2003). Participation, representative democracy and the courts. In CainB.DaltonR. J.ScarrowS. E. (Eds.), Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 192-220). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
Corrigall-BrownC. (2012). Patterns of protest: Trajectories of participation in social movements. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
CullinaneJ. (2007). The domestication of AIDS: Stigma, gender, and the body politic in Japan. Medical Anthropology, 26, 255-292.
18.
DasV.KleinmanA.RampheleM.ReynoldsP.et al (Eds.). (2000). Violence and subjectivity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 707-725.
20.
EngelD. M.MungerF. W. (2002). Rights of inclusion: Law and identity in the life stories of Americans with disabilities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
21.
EppC. R. (1998). The rights revolution: Lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
22.
FarhangS. (2010). The litigation state: Public regulation and private lawsuits in the U.S. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
FeldmanE. A. (2000). Blood justice: Courts, conflict, and compensation in Japan, France, and the United States. Law & Society Review, 34, 651-701.
24.
FeldmanE. A. (2009). Law, society, and medical malpractice litigation in Japan. In EngelD. M.McCannM. W. (Eds.), Fault lines: Tort law as cultural practice (pp. 211-232). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
FeldmanE. A.BayerR. (1999). Blood feuds: AIDS, blood, and the politics of medical disaster. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
FelstinerW. L. F.AbelR. L.SaratA. (1981). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, and claiming. Law & Society Review, 15, 631-654.
27.
FuD. (2017). Disguised collective action in China. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 499-527.
28.
GalanterM. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9, 95-160.
29.
GaronS. (1997). Molding Japanese minds: The state in everyday life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
GitlinT. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
31.
GoeddeP. (2008). How activist lawyers mobilized the law for social and political change in South Korea, 1988-2007 (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.
32.
GoffmanE. (1974). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Jason Aronson.
33.
Goldberg-HillerJ. (2002). The limits to union: Same-sex marriage and the politics of civil rights. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
34.
HaggardS.YouJ.-S. (2015). Freedom of expression in South Korea. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 45, 167-179.
35.
HaleyJ. O. (1978). The myth of the reluctant litigant. Journal of Japanese Studies, 4, 359-390.
36.
HandlerJ. F. (1978). Social movements and the legal system: Theory of law reform and social change. New York, NY: Academic Press.
37.
HilsonC. (2002). New social movements: The role of legal opportunity. Journal of European Public Policy, 9, 238-255.
38.
HirschlR. (2008). The judicialization of politics. In WhittingtonK.KelemenR. D.CaldeiraG. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law and politics (pp. 119-141). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
HIV Lawsuit Attorneys. (Ed.). (2002). Yakugai AIDS Saiban-Shi [The history of the drug-induced AIDS lawsuit]. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Hyōronsha.
HorowitzP. (2010). Comment on chapter 4: Anonymity, signaling, and silence as speech. In SaratA. (Ed.), Speech and silence in American law (pp. 172-189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IwasawaM. (2008). Yakugai C Gata Kanen Onnatachi no Tatakai [The battle of the women victims of drug-related hepatitis C]. Tokyo, Japan: Shogakukan.
46.
JasperJ. M.PoulsenJ. D. (1995). Recruiting strangers and friends: Moral shocks and social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests. Social Problems, 42, 493-512.
47.
JavelineD. (2003). The role of blame in collective action: Evidence from Russia. American Political Science Review, 97, 107-121.
48.
JavelineD.BairdV. (2007). Who sues government? Evidence from the Moscow theater hostage case. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 858-885.
49.
JenningsM. K.AndersenE. A. (2003). The importance of social and political context: The case of AIDS activism. Political Behavior, 25, 177-199.
50.
KapiszewskiD.SilversteinG.KaganR. A. (Eds.). (2013). Consequential courts: Judicial roles in global perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
KawarL. (2011). Legal mobilization on the terrain of the state: Creating a field of immigrant rights lawyering in France and the United States. Law & Social Inquiry, 36, 354-387.
52.
KawarL. (2015). Contesting immigration policy in court: Legal activism and its radiating effects in the United States and France. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
KidderR. L.MiyazawaS. (1993). Long-term strategies in Japanese environmental litigation. Law & Social Inquiry, 18, 605-628.
54.
KimS. (2009). Civic engagement and democracy in South Korea. Korea Observer, 40(1), 1-26.
55.
KitajimaN. (2012). The protection of reputation in Japan: A systematic analysis of defamation cases. Law & Social Inquiry, 37, 89-118.
56.
KlandermansB. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
57.
KlandermansB.StekelenburgJ. van. (2013). Social movements and the dynamics of collective action. In HuddyL.SearsD. O.LevyJ. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 774-811). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58.
KogaK. (2009). Shūdan Soshō, Jitsumu Manual [A practical manual for collective litigation]. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Hyōronsha.
59.
KuranT. (1997). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
LevitskyS. R. (2006). To lead with law: Reassessing the influence of legal advocacy organizations in social movements. In SaratA.ScheingoldS. A. (Eds.), Cause lawyers and social movements (pp. 145-163). Stanford, CA: Stanford Law and Politics.
61.
LovellG. I.McCannM.TaylorK. (2016). Covering legal mobilization: A bottom-up analysis of Wards Cove v. Atonio. Law & Social Inquiry, 41, 61-99.
62.
MarshallA.-M. (2006). Social movement strategies and the participatory potential of litigation. In SaratA.ScheingoldS. A. (Eds.), Cause lawyers and social movements (pp. 164-181). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
63.
MatherL. (1998). Theorizing about trial courts: Lawyers, policymaking, and tobacco litigation. Law & Social Inquiry, 23, 897-940.
64.
McAdamD. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64-90.
65.
McAdamD.TarrowS.TillyC. (Eds.). (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
66.
McCannM. (1994). Rights at work: Pay equity reform and the politics of legal mobilization. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
67.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
68.
McKeanM. A. (1981). Political socialization through citizens’ movements. In SteinerK.KraussE. S.FlanaganS. C. (Eds.), Political opposition in local politics in Japan (pp. 228-275). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
69.
MeiliS. (2006). Consumer cause lawyers in the United States: Lawyers for the movement or a movement unto themselves? In SaratA.ScheingoldS. A. (Eds.), cause lawyers and social movements (pp. 120-141). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
70.
MerryS. E. (2003). Rights talk and the experience of law: Implementing women’s human rights to protection from violence. Human Rights Quarterly, 25, 343-381.
71.
MeyerD. S.MinkoffD. C. (2004). Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces, 82, 1457-1492.
72.
MilnerN. (1987). The right to refuse treatment: Four case studies of legal mobilization. Law & Society Review, 21, 447-485.
73.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74.
OlsonS. M. (1984). Clients and lawyers: Securing the rights of disabled persons. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
75.
OrrenK. (1976). Standing to sue: Interest group conflict in the federal courts. American Political Science Review, 70, 723-741.
76.
OrsiniM. (2002). The politics of naming, blaming and claiming: HIV, Hepatitis C and the emergence of blood activism in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35, 475-498.
77.
OstromE. (2009). Collective action theory. In BoixC.StokesS. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics (pp. 186-208). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
78.
PassyF. (2001). Socializing, connecting, and the structural agency/gap: A specification of the impact of networks on participation in social movements. Mobilization, 6, 173-192.
79.
PekkanenR. (2006). Japan’s dual civil society: Members without advocates. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
80.
RastgoufardB. A. (2003). Pay attention to that green curtain: Anonymity and the courts. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 53, 1009-1040.
81.
ReichM. R. (1991). Toxic politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
82.
ResslerJ. S. (2004). Privacy, plaintiffs, and pseudonyms: The anonymous doe plaintiff in the information age. University of Kansas Law Review, 53, 195-256.
83.
RiceC. M. (1996). Meet John Doe: It is time for federal civil procedure to recognize John Doe parties. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 57, 883-958.
84.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America (1st ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
85.
ScheingoldS. A. (2004). The politics of rights: Lawyers, public policy, and social change (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
86.
SchussmanA.SouleS. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84, 1083-1108.
87.
ShapiroM. M. (1968). The supreme court and administrative agencies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
88.
SilversteinG. (2009). Law’s allure: How law shapes, constrains, saves, and kills politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89.
SilversteinH. (1996). Unleashing rights: Law, meaning, and the animal rights movement. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
90.
SobierajS. (2010). Reporting conventions: Journalists, activists, and the thorny struggle for political visibility. Social Problems, 57, 505-528.
91.
StarrD. (1998). Blood: An epic history of medicine and commerce. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
92.
StaszakS. (2015). No day in court: Access to justice and the politics of judicial retrenchment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
93.
SteinhoffP. G. (1989). Protest and democracy. In IshidaT.KraussE. S. (Eds.), Democracy in Japan (pp. 171-198). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
94.
SteinhoffP. G. (2006). Radical outcasts versus three kinds of police: Constructing limits in Japanese anti-emperor protests. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 387-408.
95.
SteinhoffP. G. (Ed.). (2014). Going to court to change Japan. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan.
96.
SteinmanJ. (1985). Public trial, pseudonymous parties: When should litigants be permitted to keep their identities confidential?Hastings Law Journal, 37, 1-89.
97.
TarrowS. (2010). The strategy of paired comparison: Toward a theory of practice. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 230-259.
98.
TateC. N.VallinderT. (1995). The global expansion of judicial power. New York: New York University Press.
99.
TillyC.WoodL. J. (2013). Social movements, 1768–2012 (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
100.
Tokyo HCV Supporter Group. (2012). Yakugai Kanen Soshō wo Shien Suru Kai (Tokyo) Kirokushū [Collected documents from the Tokyo association to support the iatrogenic hepatitis lawsuit]. Retrieved from http://www.gaiki.net/yakugai/hc/lib/12318yha.pdf
101.
UphamF. K. (1987). Law and social change in postwar Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
102.
VanhalaL. (2011). Making rights a reality? Disability rights activists and legal mobilization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
103.
VanhalaL. (2012). Legal opportunity structures and the paradox of legal mobilization by the environmental movement in the UK. Law & Society Review, 46, 523-556.
104.
VanhalaL. (2018a). Is legal mobilization for the birds? Legal opportunity structures and environmental nongovernmental organizations in the United Kingdom, France, Finland, and Italy. Comparative Political Studies, 51, 380-412.
105.
VanhalaL. (2018b). Shaping the structure of legal opportunities: Environmental NGOs bringing international environmental procedural rights back home. Law & Policy, 40, 110-127.
106.
VerbaS.NieN. H. (1972). Participation in America. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
107.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
108.
WilsonB. M.CorderoJ. C. R. (2006). Legal opportunity structures and social movements: The effects of institutional change on Costa Rican politics. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 325-351.
109.
WoutersR.WalgraveS. (2017). Demonstrating power: How protest persuades political representatives. American Sociological Review, 82, 361-383.
110.
YangK. (1989). Law and society studies in Korea: Beyond the Hahm theses. Law & Society Review, 23, 891-901.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
