I was reading the bibliography of Shutting Out The Sun by Michael Zielenziger, when I came across a couple of books written by Robert N. Bellah, which I found extremely intriguing. I was familiar with him through a book he co-wrote with several other sociologists called habit of the heart that I read post-college that had a profound effect on me. I was bowled over that he was actually a Japanologist by training. I tracked down the two books, Imagining Japan and Tokugawa Religion. I have started reading Imagining Japan and it has been extremely informative and though provoking, so much so that I might devote several posts to the book of essays. In this post I will mostly discuss his illuminating introduction where he coalesces his many years of study and reflection into a single narrative on the evolution of Japan Society.
I found many of his ideas helpful in clarifying some of my own uniformed opinions. In particular he discusses the slippery question of the validity of nihonjinron (discourse about the Japanese-their uniqueness, exceptionalism, or particualrism). I have come across books that have had this label but seemed useful in their interpretations of Japanese society (for example Takei Doi’s two books The Anatomy of Dependence and Anatomy of Self). He states that many of these books have truths tot hem but lack a comparative perspective, which is why I suspect Zielenziger chose to compare Japan with Korea in Shutting Out the Sun. He also discusses the influence of German nationalism on nihonjinron that seems to borrow the concept of Gemeinschaft, which suggest that the countries are “relational” rather than “individualistic.” Thus Volksemeinschaft (national or folk community) was translated as kokumin kyoudoutai. It seems that the main consumers of nihonjinron tend to be businessmen and educators, who seem to have more dealings with foreigners than other professions and feel the need to understand one’s own uniqueness that can be helpful in explaining their culture with staples like “the Japanese are community-oriented than westerners,” “the Japanese are close to nature,” etc. He also notes the de-emphasis of the samurai and military tradition in postwar writing that has the farmer peasant as the historical ideal at the center.
I think he rightly focuses on the paradoxical ideas of tradition and modernity that coexist in Japan society today. He frames this debate with in the context of the loaded implications of both terms. Thus he cites the influence of Weber in defining what it is that makes modern societies different from those which preceded it and he draws the conclusion that ”modern capitalism” birth by the Protestant reformation is the main concept in which we can distinguish from the two. However, there was no protestant Reformation, however, there were equivalents like Buddhist, Confucian, Christian, and Marxist movements that never quite overtook the preaxial traditions in Japan, hence the remaining traditional traces of Japanese culture.
He pays particular attention to the role of religion on society. He discusses the role of Shinto in Meiji society and how there was a conscious effort to remove the Buddhist role from government and society that led to emperor worship, nationalism, and ultimately to the imperialistic actions that led to WWII. (I realize that I am doing no justice to his complex explanations and conclusions, but I found them thought provoking and ultimately accurate)
Bellah made an interesting observation about Natsumi Soseki’s preoccupation with individuality. He is the modern giant of Japanese literature and I have read the first volume of his seminal book I Am A Cat, however, his discussion of his intellectual concerns inspires me to seek out more of his literature. It seems that Soseki was interested in the role of individualism in relation to the nation and nationalism. It seems he felt that it was important to know when to the interests of the state and ahead of the individual.
Another apt observation by Bellah states that Japan is only understandable in relation to its neighbors. Thus, modern Japan was shaped by the outside influences of nationalism, capitalism, imperialism, fascism, and democracy. These external influences produced specific Japanese responses to these influences and shaped their path tot modernism.
In another section Bellah highlights the three major points
of development in Japanese history. The first major point was the seventh
century appropriation of Chinese culture.
The second major point was the Meiji appropriation of Western culture,
and the last was the American Occupation and the appropriation of liberal
democratic ideas. Therefore, these
three historical movements fascinate me, especially the last two since they
seems to show distinctly how Japanese culture has arrived where it is as the
current second world economic power.
Comments