Toward the end of the twentieth century, reproduction surfaced on the public agenda in Japan—yet again. As it had half a century earlier, the reasoning of policy makers followed utilitarian lines: reproduction at replacement rates was essential to the thriving state. This time, however, the aim was not military victory or imperialist expansion but overcoming the dwindling birthrate and the so-called super-aging society. The framework, too, was different. Osamu Kawagoe, one of the editors of the book under review, Seimei to iu risuku: nijisseiki shakai no saiseisan senryaku, claims that Japan's quandaries about reproduction “derive from attempts to solve problems... in a ‘risk society’ using systems and methods now conventional to ‘industrial society’” (12). Drawing on concepts proposed by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck in his seminal monograph, Risikogesellschaft (Risk Society), the editors define their project as a “historical analysis of the politics of reproduction” (12) which they approach by “clarifying the historical starting point of problems surrounding life today” (12) and “illuminating the historical processes responsible for the emergence and development of twentieth-century society” (1). Essays in the collection focus on moments when Japan or Germany was grappling with decisions about reproduction and child care, dilemmas born of the tension between traditional mores and modern medicine. The editors propose a new term, “life risk” (seimei risuku 生命リスク), which they set at the center of their analytical framework. Life risk is, according to the book, “a working and hypothetical notion... that seizes those groups of issues around the body that surface over the course of life, moments such as infancy, toddlerhood, pregnancy and childbirth, illness and aging, all of which destabilize one's life” (1).
