和の変容 1：聖徳太子から水戸学へThe Transformation of Wa: From Shotoku Taishi to the Mito School
This week I want to revisit "The Transformation of Wa" released about a year ago to a strong response, from the deepened perspective I now hold. Japan has recently split in two over the question of constitutional revision, and an increasing number of voices argue that an unsettling atmosphere has begun to drift through the country once again. It is a fact that the cry that Japan "has returned to the 1930s" when militarism accelerated has begun to be raised from many directions. Yet this argument does not quite settle in me. My own view is rather that the present situation is "far worse" than that of the 1930s.
Given the unilateral runaway behavior of the United States today, it is a rational survival choice for every country including Europe that has long been protected by American military power to reexamine its postwar history. Japan too is steadily moving toward rearmament, nuclear armament (likely as a lease from the United States), and the restoration of conscription under American intent. Slowly the rights and interests in Japan that the United States once held are being transferred to China. The United States likely wishes to retain a degree of influence in East Asia while delegating actual operation to China for reasons of cost, but this movement suggests a future in which the suzerain of postwar Japan shifts from the United States to China as the new suzerain.
Because this movement is being steadily sensed by the population, the LDP leadership and the pro-revision camp very much want to make China the imagined enemy. Through the mass media they scatter crude anti-China news day after day while pushing for constitutional revision. The self-destruction of the United States therefore works to the advantage of the pro-revision camp and to the disadvantage of the constitution protection camp.
Now that the population has at last begun to face the obvious fact that "America will not protect us," the option that clearly gains voice is to arm the country with its own hands. At present the constitution protection camp holds the majority in public opinion, but the Japanese government invariably ignores public opinion, so such data is of limited use as a reference. My own view is that the very fact that the debate over constitutional revision has fallen into the binary of "revise" or "protect" is the real problem. Neither side differs greatly in terms of a future complicit in war. They are accomplices. The meaning of this will become apparent in Japan some twenty years from now.
In practice, international interest in the direction of Japan is rising. To present a path forward, I want to look at a certain characteristic of Japan that is extraordinarily difficult to read. That characteristic is “Wa”. I will set out what kind of future Japan is heading toward through the perspective of Wa.
If I were to put the current "unsettling atmosphere" into language, the word that emerges is Wa. Yet without an understanding of the essence of Wa, considering Japan's direction is impossible. From this piece I am beginning "the transformation history of Wa." My current plan is for this piece to serve as the axis covering the Asuka through Edo periods, the next to cover the modern and contemporary periods, and the last to read Wa from an ancient perspective and present the next world beyond both revision and protection of the constitution. It will likely become a trilogy. Please deepen your understanding of Wa as the most difficult element to grasp and yet one with an extraordinarily Japanese character. Since the work is to read the transformation of Wa, all articles will be released as long form essays.
I have come to regard the modern concept of [和] (Wa) as equivalent to "Japanese totalitarianism" within the contemporary context, and I have been exploring how it has been used as a regime philosophy for governing the populace. The conventional historical view holds that with the 1945 defeat in the Second World War, the "old system" collapsed and Japan welcomed a "new system" under GHQ leadership which is then beautified as having led to prosperity. This new system is described as "a future as a Western style democratic state." But history does not move according to the textbook. What every commentator has overlooked here is the fact that Wa transformed itself in order to survive. Systems may be old or new, but the spirit that generates a system does not bend to such categories.
The point is that the postwar Japanese government and GHQ did not transform Wa. Wa itself transformed in order to survive. This perspective is essential. As I have written several times in Shitsurae, Japanese has no grammatical subject and no copula, and the modern conception of the subject does not exist within it. To put it as plainly as possible, Wa transforms as a subject of its own.
The problem lies in the history of Wa. Because the origins of Wa go far back in history, I consider "the history of Wa" almost equivalent to "the history of Japan." If the surface of history is Japan, the underside is Wa, and the two are virtually identical. Following this context, Wa has been considered "the virtue of Japan" from antiquity, and this is something every Japanese person is taught. I want to begin from the question of whether this is actually true. Discourse that praises and beautifies Wa has not ceased even today, but it is impossible to believe that those who champion it understand the reality of Wa. Of course the critics do not understand it either.
Let us start from the basics. The earliest textual origin of the concept of Wa is the first article of the Seventeen Article Constitution established by Shotoku Taishi (574–622). According to the Nihon Shoki completed in 720, Japan's first constitution promulgated in 604 records [和を以て貴しと為す]. To break the meaning down, this is the teaching that "harmony without conflict is the most precious thing." This reading would shift its meaning across each era through the transformation history of Wa. Why did Shotoku Taishi offer this kind of proposition in a constitution?
Worshipped as the greatest figure of ancient history, Shotoku Taishi was once even printed on the ten thousand yen note and is a deeply familiar figure to the Japanese, yet his actual nature is shrouded in mystery. This is a very strange situation. What should be asked here is the source of the reasoning behind venerating a person of unclear identity from 1400 years ago. To state the reason simply, Shotoku Taishi was treated as the architect of "a state centered on the emperor." But it is critical to note that Shotoku Taishi himself did not propose this. It was later generations who came to see him this way. The origin of this beautification severed from the actual Shotoku Taishi lies with the de facto ideologue of the Nihon Shoki compilation project Fujiwara no Fuhito (659–720).
What is fascinating is that the beautified image of Shotoku Taishi has begun to collapse rapidly. The extreme view even claims that "Shotoku Taishi did not exist," and that voice has been growing. At present his existence remains established, and the question has moved to the credibility of the deeds transmitted in his name. What deserves attention is that the debate over Shotoku Taishi's existence began with a single book proposed in 1999 by the Chubu University historian Oyama Seiichi. Through the history that runs until the end of the twentieth century, there is no trace of the deeds of Shotoku Taishi having been questioned. What does this mean?
Oyama argued that the image of the superhuman politician and thinker known as "Shotoku Taishi" did not exist. His point converges on the claim that the imperial prince called Umayado given the title "Shotoku Taishi" did exist, but he was merely one of several influential figures of the time and not the superhuman person spoken of today. Oyama further indicated that the de facto leader who selected this Umayado and deified him as "Shotoku Taishi" within the Nihon Shoki compilation was Fujiwara no Fuhito.
Why does the question of Shotoku Taishi's deification relate directly to the structure of Japan? Because this era is regarded as the foundation of the first state formation in Japan. To shape the modern image of a state centered on the emperor, this era's veneration is indispensable. Personally I agree with Oyama's argument while interpreting it more from the standpoint of communal illusion. Shotoku Taishi was not a substantive person but the alienated realization of various deeds carried out by the court at the time, configured as communal illusion. The various court led enterprises called the foundations of Japanese state formation were consolidated under the powerful figure of the Nihon Shoki compilation period Fujiwara no Fuhito, and the image known as Shotoku Taishi was formed within the realm of illusion. This is difficult, but the transformation of Wa is occurring here.
In short, Umayado existed but Shotoku Taishi is a creation. Yet this is not a problem that can be dismissed as simple fabrication. By creating Shotoku Taishi, a step toward the establishment of a unified state called "Japan" within the dimension of illusion was born. Shotoku Taishi is an illusion that consolidates the deeds of the court around the seventh century and alienates them in the early eighth century. However, in Japan this illusion carries substance.
Seen from this perspective, the reason Shotoku Taishi has been the most beautified figure in Japanese history becomes visible. Because he was not a real person but a communal illusion, the room to beautify him has always remained. Various spirits and thoughts can flow into Shotoku Taishi, and he carries the capacity to transform with each era. The records concerning Shotoku Taishi are extremely sparse. According to the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki, he was the imperial son of the 31st Emperor Yomei (r. 585–587), and both parents belonged to the bloodline of the 29th Emperor Kinmei (r. 539–571). The fact that Emperor Kinmei was the emperor at the time Buddhism arrived from Baekje must not be overlooked. Shotoku Taishi was a member of the imperial family but merely one of several influential candidates with rights of imperial succession. The title of "emperor" did not exist in Japan at the time, so the era in which Shotoku Taishi lived precedes the existence of emperors. The title of emperor began around the time of the 40th Emperor Tenmu (r. 673–686) and the 41st Empress Jito (r. 690–697).
To organize Shotoku Taishi's deeds based on the Nihon Shoki account, the list runs as follows.
574: Born as an imperial son of Emperor Yomei.
593: Becomes regent upon the accession of his aunt Empress Suiko and leads national governance as the de facto political leader on equal footing with Soga no Umako.
603: Establishes the Twelve Cap Ranks.
604: Promulgates the Seventeen Article Constitution.
607: Dispatches Ono no Imoko as envoy to Sui and sends a state letter to Emperor Yang. Devoutly protects Buddhism and builds Shitennoji and Horyuji.
622: Dies at the age of forty nine.
This is the Shotoku Taishi generally understood by the Japanese, and within the swirl of these deeds, the concept of Wa was elevated together with the illusion of Shotoku Taishi. Reading [和を以て貴しと為す] simply as "harmony without conflict is the most precious thing," it cannot have been unrelated to the era when fierce conflict over the reception of Buddhism was occurring. In this era the triangle of pro-Buddhist leadership composed of Soga no Umako, Empress Suiko, and Shotoku Taishi was established, and Buddhism penetrated rapidly. The one who praised this era's policy of making Buddhism a state religion and judged it politically useful was the later Fujiwara no Fuhito. One more person was involved. That was the monk Doji (?–744).
Doji's life is shrouded in mystery. He went to Tang as an envoy in 702 to study Buddhism, returned in 718, and is said to have been the leading figure involved in the activity of Daianji. He sharply criticized the Japanese Buddhist world's tendency to discuss Buddhism in independent and arbitrary terms unlike the Tang Buddhism that followed scripture. He left traces of active work, including the proposal to invite monks from Tang to raise the quality of the Japanese priesthood. There is also the view that he was involved in the Nihon Shoki compilation project, but the actual situation is unknown. What can be said is that he likely participated in the beautification of Shotoku Taishi together with Fujiwara no Fuhito.
Famous temples such as Shitennoji in Osaka and Horyuji in Nara are said to have been built by Shotoku Taishi, and he has been spoken of as a substantive political leader. Yet the power structure at the time was not simple. The visible political leader was Shotoku Taishi, the real authority over ritual lay with Empress Suiko, and the hegemonic power behind the scenes was held by Soga no Umako. Soga no Umako was the leader of the pro-Buddhist camp at the time and was the de facto leader who united the naturalized immigrants flowing in from the continent and the peninsula and formed an overwhelming force in Yamato (the south central area of present day Nara Prefecture). The Asuka period began with the accession of Empress Suiko, and the triangular structure of the Asuka period can be positioned as the first era in which Japan displayed a totalitarian tendency. The foundation on which ancient Wa began to transform lay in the Asuka period. Of course it could not extend as totalitarianism across the entirety of Japan. It was only within the small sphere of Yamato.
This alone makes the claim that Shotoku Taishi's deeds were fabricated by later generations persuasive. At the same time, the question becomes what the present collapse of the image of the proponent of Wa in antiquity brought about through the reexamination of Shotoku Taishi suggests for the near future of Japan. As I noted, since I view this movement as a problem of communal illusion, it cannot be settled simply by saying that Shotoku Taishi's deeds were lies. The advance of the reexamination of Shotoku Taishi necessarily accompanies the transformation of communal illusion itself. Let us read this carefully.
What should be attended to here is that the history of Shotoku Taishi's beautification was linked to the structural turning point from the Edo to the Meiji period. Before the Edo period, Shotoku Taishi tended to be received affirmatively as "the patriarch of Buddhist flourishing" and "the embodiment of the virtue of Wa." Behind this lay the influence of Taishi Shinko (faith in Shotoku Taishi) which had spread vigorously since the medieval period regardless of Buddhist sect. The medieval period was when the illusion of Shotoku Taishi began to move as a communal illusion transcending Buddhist sects. Because it was an illusion to begin with, faith in Shotoku Taishi was received. Shitennoji and Horyuji which he is said to have been involved in building became sacred sites of religious authority, and he himself was spoken of as "the father of Japanese Buddhism." Up to this point things proceeded according to the intent of Fujiwara no Fuhito who created Shotoku Taishi.
But entering the Edo period, the evaluation of Shotoku Taishi transformed greatly. The reason is clear. The influence of Buddhism that had lasted a thousand years was completely lost, and Confucianism and Kokugaku both critical of Buddhism rose to prominence. Leading the charge were the Kokugaku scholars Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801) and Hirata Atsutane (1776–1843). Because they clearly raised the aim of restoring the indigenous spirit of Japan, they thoroughly criticized figures who worshipped foreign Buddhism like Shotoku Taishi and those who brought systems modeled on China into Japan.
Motoori Norinaga used the term [漢意] (Karagokoro) as a broad designation for "things Chinese" and developed his own argument. Karagokoro carries the nuance of all foreign elements, not just Chinese. They saw Shotoku Taishi not as a figure to be praised but as the very person who distorted Japan. A common misunderstanding is that the Kokugaku scholars demanded extreme rejection of Buddhism. They acknowledged its reception as faith on the condition of an understanding of Japan itself. This is obvious. Even today many people praise foreign cultures without understanding their own, and few acts are as foolish.
In the Kokugaku that followed Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane there was also a movement to reread Shotoku Taishi as "the figure who mediated between Shinto and Buddhism." In a sense, Shotoku Taishi is read in proportion to the political influence of Buddhism. The most complex manifestation of this era by era transforming illusion of Shotoku Taishi appeared in the Mito school. The Mito school is the axis of this article. The unique scholarship born among the people of Mito Domain (present-day Ibaraki) was a singular thought integrating Shinto and Confucianism through the lens of Edo period warrior spirit. It was formed through a single enterprise. That enterprise was the compilation of the Dai Nihon Shi.
The enterprise traces back to the second lord of Mito Domain, Tokugawa Mitsukuni (1628–1700). When the eighteen year old Mitsukuni was reading the legend surrounding "Boyi" in Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian of China, he was deeply moved and resolved that Japan should compile a similar historical work. He created a scholarly institution in Edo that would later be called the Shokokan. The Mito school that begins here has two broad periods. The Early Mito School, flourishing primarily at the Mito residence in Edo from the late seventeenth into the early eighteenth century, came first. The Late Mito School, flourishing in the castle town of Mito from the nineteenth century, came later.
In this enterprise Mitsukuni chose the "Kidentai [紀伝体]” biographical form that had become standard in Chinese historiography after Sima Qian's Records. Japanese historical works valued up to that point, such as the Nihon Shoki, were composed in “Hennentai [編年体]” chronological form arranging events by year and month. When Mitsukuni sought a different form, history acquired spirit and began to move. The historical view consolidated under Fujiwara no Fuhito since the Asuka period gained an opportunity to transform under the will of a Mito Domain lord. The Kidentai form follows Chinese practice and consists of “Hongi (biographies of emperors)," “Retsuden (biographies of people)," “Shi (institutional history)," and “Hyo (chronological tables)." It is the standard form of orthodox Chinese histories since Sima Qian. Mitsukuni held the consciousness of writing Japanese history as a civilized nation on equal footing with China. To put it simply, the project was to transform the dull "dead history" of mere chronology into "living history."
In 1657, Mitsukuni established the prototype of the Shokokan as the headquarters of the Mito school and dispatched scholars across the country to collect primary sources held by temples, shrines, court nobles, and warrior houses. As one domain began to refine its scholarship under Mitsukuni's leadership, by chance he heard about "a certain Confucian" who had fled the Ming. This was Zhu Shunshui (1600–1682). Driven from his homeland by the upheaval on the Chinese side, Zhu Shunshui had taken refuge in Nagasaki. By the time he had at last settled he was already past sixty. Yet because he was a person of extraordinary character, Japanese people in his place of exile in Nagasaki became devoted to him one after another, and rumor reached Mitsukuni. Mitsukuni instinctively sensed that Zhu Shunshui was the person to guide the next generation of scholarship at the Shokokan, immediately dispatched envoys to invite him, and appointed him director of the Shokokan in July 1665.
That a Ming Confucian intervened here is essential to seeing the intellectual base layer of the Mito school. What flowed into the Mito school through Zhu Shunshui in particular was a syncretic thought of Zhu Xi Confucianism and Wang Yangming thought. Japan at the time was given over entirely to Zhu Xi Confucianism, and Wang Yangming thought had not yet been seriously known. It must have appeared as an extremely unique thought. When Wang Yangming thought flowed into the Mito school, carrying practice along with knowledge rather than stagnating in the knowledge centered approach of Zhu Xi Confucianism, the future in which Mito Domain would carry the theoretical backbone of later revolutionary movements began. Through the compilation of the Dai Nihon Shi as the spiritual backbone of the Mito school, a major event in which Wa took concrete form occurred. Because the editorial policy of the Dai Nihon Shi did not follow the conventional historical understanding but carried through a perspective that thoroughly revised it.
What ran through its basic spirit was the Zhu Xi historical view of "rectifying names and duties." Stated simply, judgments such as who was the legitimate emperor and who fulfilled loyalty as a vassal were made clear through historical narration, and this was used to educate the domain's warriors. This patient work became the matrix from which an enormous movement was born in the late Edo period. Through the compilation, individuals carried out introspection, were moved by historical figures, raged at them, and deepened their understanding and insight regarding Japan. In the Japan of the time, only Mito Domain was engaged in this kind of work.
In the late Edo period, people across the country who held resentment against the corrupt shogunal system began to appear, and they all came to study at Mito Domain where the cutting edge Mito school was taught. The Mito school was not mere scholarship. It was regarded as the indispensable wellspring of thought for creating the next era. Through the Mito school, the source of pro-emperor thought asserting anti-shogunal opposition was formed on a nationwide scale. The Mito school was the spiritual backbone connecting the Edo and Meiji periods. Without the Mito school, the Meiji Restoration that is called the modernization of Japan would have easily failed.
The compilation of the Dai Nihon Shi was not completed in Mitsukuni's lifetime. The enterprise continued as a project of Mito Domain for approximately 250 years. Basic completion is dated to 1715, but many portions remained unfinished, and people of the Late Mito School from the late eighteenth into the nineteenth century pressed forward to fulfill the long cherished goal. The leader of that era was the ninth domain lord Tokugawa Nariaki. Driven by his determination to complete the enterprise begun by his ancestor Mitsukuni, Nariaki poured the domain's budget into scholarship and significantly updated the project.
The central figures involved in the Late Mito School's compilation of the Dai Nihon Shi were the cutting edge thinkers Fujita Yukoku (1774–1836), Fujita Toko (1806–1855), and Aizawa Seishisai (1782–1863). To learn from those who built the Late Mito School, large numbers of young people from across the country traveled to Mito Domain. The young Yoshida Shoin who would become the spiritual backbone of the revolutionary movement in Choshu Domain (present day Yamaguchi) and the young Saigo Takamori who would become the leader of the revolutionary movement in Satsuma Domain (present day Kagoshima) both traveled the long road to Mito Domain to meet them. Choshu and Satsuma were the leading forces of the Meiji Restoration, and the source of revolutionary thought in both lies with the Mito school.
The thought of the Early Mito School and the thought of the Late Mito School differ fundamentally. The era of the Late Mito School was one in which the Western powers repeatedly engaged in provocations in the waters around Japan, and opinion within the country split in two over whether to repel the Western powers. The thought of rejecting the West is called “Joi." In the midst of this debate over Joi, the body supplying the most cutting edge thought was the Late Mito School thinkers. Their base was in Mito in Ibaraki close to Edo, facing the Pacific, where they daily witnessed Western provocations.
The Mito Domain volunteers who raged at the mounting Western pressure on Japan integrated two previously unrelated currents of thought. What was born was the thought of “Sonno Joi," revering the emperor and expelling the foreigner. Sonno Joi is the thought of creating a state system with the emperor at the apex instead of the Tokugawa shogunal house, uniting the people under the emperor in unity, and repelling the West with the combined force of the whole. The 250 year enterprise of compiling the Dai Nihon Shi underwent transformation through the flow of the era, and the greatest turning point toward modernity was born. This kind of movement did not exist in the Early Mito School which was unrelated to Western provocation. History teaches that the Japanese archipelago surrounded by sea becomes radicalized through foreign provocation.
The Dai Nihon Shi born of the Mito school has three principal characteristics. First, it extracted the tradition of evidential historiography from Zhu Xi Confucianism and exerted enormous influence on subsequent historical thinking. Next, it overturned the conventional theory concerning the historical question of imperial legitimacy (which I will discuss later). Finally, it became the matrix of the modern emperor system ideology. The Mito school reorganized Japan as "a state governed by the emperor" and thoroughly theorized the legitimacy of the imperial house. The figure who underwent great transformation in this flow was Shotoku Taishi.
The Mito school presented a new perspective evaluating Shotoku Taishi as "the faithful embodiment of the duty between sovereign and subject" and "the embodiment of the imperial line." The shadow of Buddhism is entirely erased from Shotoku Taishi, and you will notice that Shotoku Taishi was updated in an extremely Mito school spirit. Under the influence of Kokugaku, the Mito school thoroughly criticized Shotoku Taishi as a defender of Buddhism. Their argument rested on the claim that foreign influence distorts the indigenous spirit of Japan. This was not only the intellectual intent of Kokugaku in criticizing foreign influence. It was the elevated result of a logic unique to Mito Domain which raged at Western provocation in daily life. The Mito school also adopted Wang Yangming thought and carried through the principle of the unity of knowledge and action, and Joi came to be seen as a theoretically sound judgment as well.
This is important enough to repeat. Mitsukuni's era posed no problem, but in the era of the Late Mito School the object of "foreign" had changed from "China" to "the West." The Late Mito School therefore discarded the conventional perspective that beautified the foreign character remaining in the illusion of Shotoku Taishi. They redefined the conventional view of him as the father of Japanese Buddhism as the first step toward the destruction of the Japanese spirit. As the logical consequence, the Mito school thoroughly argued for repelling the Western provocations against Japan and sending the Westerners back to their home countries. Because the spirit of Japan had been distorted as a result of the past inflow of Buddhism, the intervention of the West would further distort the spirit of Japan. Looking back now, their sense of crisis was entirely sound.
The reason I have looked at the intellectual currents of the Edo period in this article is that this movement relates directly to the transformation of Wa. Let us return to [和を以て貴しと為す] which has been recounted as one of Shotoku Taishi's deeds in the Seventeen Article Constitution. The influence of Confucianism is clearly visible. The Analects contains the passage [禮之用 和爲貴] which is read in Japan as "in the use of ritual, Wa is precious." The expression [和を以て貴しと為す] put forward by Shotoku Taishi is clearly based on the Analects. At the same time, a fundamental difference between China and Japan emerges.
Strictly speaking [和を以て貴しと為す] is recorded as [以和爲貴 無忤爲宗], and its meaning largely follows the expression of the Analects. Here Wa is read as concord, while the article that follows reads [上和下睦 諧於論事]. Reading the thinking of the time is difficult, but rather than the meaning of simple concord, please understand Wa as positioned as a principle of discussion and consensus formation. The concept of Wa on the Chinese side itself cannot be read as a single unified meaning.
Seen this way, a strange sensation arises. No one can explain why the figure praised as the father of Japanese Buddhism was using Confucianism. According to the Nihon Shoki, the Analects arrived via Baekje at the end of the third century. Looking through the history from the end of the third century to the compilation of the Nihon Shoki, repeated book burnings and losses occurred, and how the Analects was transmitted up to the time of Shotoku Taishi is entirely unclear. At least it is said that the Analects was a text known to some intellectuals during Shotoku Taishi's lifetime. There is the possibility that those involved in compiling the Nihon Shoki added color under the influence of the Analects, but this cannot now be determined.
What deserves attention here is that even if the authorship by Shotoku Taishi is uncertain, Confucian thought was applied to Japan's first constitution. In an era in which the clear intent of accelerating the spread of Buddhism was at work, Confucian spirit intervened in the creation of the foundation of the state. This must not be overlooked. What intervened at the early stage of ancient state formation was not Shinto or Buddhism but Confucianism. The history this suggests transforms the existing historical view at a stroke. Beyond historical perspective, however, the intellectual question runs deeper.
What makes the history of this period difficult to read is that at the time Shotoku Taishi was establishing the constitution via the Analects, the Zhu Xi Confucianism known as the Neo Confucianism of the Song dynasty had not yet been born on the Chinese side. Zhu Xi was a thirteenth century figure separated from Shotoku Taishi by some 600 years and unrelated to the Nihon Shoki compilation period. What the Tokugawa shogunate adopted as its regime philosophy in the Edo period was Zhu Xi Confucianism, with Wang Yangming thought of Ming China drawing some attention in the late period. The time of Shotoku Taishi lies far before this. The constitution of Shotoku Taishi and the Nihon Shoki are influenced by Confucianism but not by Zhu Xi Confucianism. The reading of Confucius must have been entirely different. In a sense, the reading of Confucius must be fundamentalist, but this is impossible in the present, and so this aspect of history never becomes clear.
To assist in understanding this article, I will present my own reading as an example. Indispensable to this understanding is the Confucian concept of [忠] (Chu). The chu taught by Confucius was reinterpreted from Zhu Xi onward as "absolute loyalty to those above," but I see it differently. Confucius taught faithfulness to oneself and then facing others on that ground. I cannot agree with Zhu Xi's view. In the Zhu Xi reading, one must not defy elders or those of higher standing, and pledging loyalty regardless of circumstance is treated as a virtue. This becomes critical when reading the Japanese Wa. In the context of Edo Confucianism, the warriors' loyalty to the system with the Tokugawa shogunate at its apex was developed through this reading. Yet Confucius said no such thing.
Holding this Chu in mind, let us look at the problem of Wa. They share the same root problem. Reading [和を以て貴しと為す] from the Zhu Xi perspective, the meaning of "harmony without conflict is the most precious thing" becomes the following.
"Not disturbing the community is the highest virtue."
In simple terms, the taboo is against making waves. At the level of the village community, the taboo is against disturbing the norm. The fundamental thought of absolute loyalty to those above intervenes here under Zhu Xi Confucianism, so the meaning shifts considerably. The thought transforms into thorough loyalty to parents, siblings, and those of high social standing, and devotion of oneself to maintaining the community. The Zhu Xi Chu transfers to the virtue that prioritizes the interests of others and the community over one's own life, and in the lofty cause of not disturbing Wa, even sacrificing oneself becomes necessary. This means that Wa does not represent the actual visible community of a village but suggests an invisible communal norm. Because it has no substance, it transforms with each era. This is the foundation of understanding Wa.
Holding Confucius's Chu in mind, a form entirely different from the Zhu Xi interpretation of Wa becomes visible. The Chu of Confucius teaches faithfulness to oneself and then engaging with others and the community with the same sincerity. Before the community, one introspects, faces oneself with an honest heart, and engages with others on the same footing. The rich thought emerges that if individuals engage with others on the basis of introspection, the community will naturally become tranquil and rich. This is the Wa in the Confucian reading as I understand it. The two are entirely different. Note that what is convenient for rulers seeking power in every era is the Zhu Xi reading. For this reason many rulers have prized Zhu Xi Confucianism, and it continues to wield enormous influence in present day Japan.
Considering the difference in understanding through Confucius and Zhu Xi, the way of thinking about community through Wa differs at the root. Personally I believe the Analects used in the Asuka period far before the appearance of Zhu Xi likely held an essence close to the Confucian reading. The constitution of Shotoku Taishi must not be read through Zhu Xi Confucianism. It must be read by returning thoroughly to Confucius. Yet no one can do this. Reading Shotoku Taishi's Wa from Zhu Xi Confucianism has never even been questioned. As a result, [和を以て貴しと為す] in the modern era transformed into a weapon for governing the populace within the current of militarism opposing the Western powers and became the cause of catastrophe. Please hold this structural turning point in mind. It will be very important in the next article dealing with the modern and contemporary periods.
The Sonno Joi movement that passed through the Mito school ultimately connected to the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Here the real power of the Tokugawa shogunal house collapsed, and rulership shifted to the warriors of Choshu and Satsuma Domains who carried the axis of the revolution. The two domains had long been hostile, and they had been forced into alliance to overthrow the Tokugawa shogunate. They naturally split after the success of the revolution. With the establishment of the Meiji government, interests clashed, and the 1877 Satsuma Rebellion ultimately broke out. With the death of the Satsuma leader Saigo Takamori, the era of the Choshu based rulers began. The era of Choshu based rulership formed at that moment has not yet ended. It continues today. The question is how Wa transformed in this process. The key is held by a work left behind by the fourteenth century court noble Kitabatake Chikafusa called Jinno Shotoki.
I noted earlier that the Mito school overturned the conventional theory on the historical question of imperial legitimacy. The existence of Kitabatake Chikafusa is directly involved in this problem. The era was called the Nanbokucho period, when Japan fell into the strange situation of having two reigning emperors who waged fierce war over their legitimacy. Because the Northern Court ultimately won, legitimacy was historically narrated through the Northern Court, yet after detailed inquiry the Mito school argued that the Southern Court was legitimate. The de facto leader of this Southern Court was Kitabatake Chikafusa. He is therefore one of the most important figures for the Mito school, and his Jinno Shotoki is positioned at the core. The question of which court between Southern and Northern was legitimate developed into a major debate even in the early twentieth century under Meiji and exerted influence severe enough to overturn the government of the time.
The core of Jinno Shotoki is the argument that the integration of sovereign and subject is the foundation of state order. The term used here to indicate integration is [和合] (Wago). Read from the Japanese side, this term means "integrating different forms of Wa." This is extraordinarily important. Wa is not one.
Because Wa is not one, the multiple Wa dispersed in plurality must be integrated. This was Kitabatake Chikafusa's argument that the imperial house split between Southern and Northern must once again be integrated under the Southern Court. This exerted immense influence on later Japanese history. The source of the modern theories of unified state Japan and single ethnicity Japanese was already beginning to surface. The Late Mito School's reference to Kitabatake Chikafusa was no coincidence.
As noted, the Mito school did not depend on any single school. It held a distinctive character integrating Shinto, the various Confucian schools, and Kokugaku. The transformation of Wa in their hands involved the interlacing of multiple spirits. The leading Zhu Xi Confucian throughout the Edo period Hayashi Razan (1583–1657) read Wa as harmony within the order of social status. Within the Edo shogunal system, preserving one's place in the status order was Wa. Hayashi Razan was favored by the Tokugawa shogunate founder Ieyasu and was granted authority over the regime philosophy, so this perspective was carried through in Edo politics.
There were many movements that rejected Hayashi Razan's Zhu Xi interpretation, and the reading varied depending on the Confucian school. The Kokugaku reading of Wa was different as well. In Kokugaku, Wa was thought of as the activity and working that preceded conceptualization through Chinese influence, and they called this “Yamatogokoro.” Wa was positioned not as a Confucian principle of order or a Buddhist principle but as the natural emotional resonance with the landscape and gods of the archipelago. The Kokugaku scholars wrote it in characters as [大和心] (Yamatogokoro). Motoori Norinaga placed Yamatogokoro on the axis opposing [漢意] (Karagokoro) as the Chinese influence. By the time of Hirata Atsutane in the next generation, Yamatogokoro gradually began to transform into the Wa of modern state theory.
I cannot discuss every aspect, but the single concept of Wa was formed by the confluence of these complex tributaries. The Late Mito School which incorporated Kitabatake Chikafusa's conception of Wa carried out a decisive reorganization. To repeat, it must always be considered that this state theory was developed in the midst of the foreign crisis with the West. Wa having been influenced by various eras finally reached its peak. Shinron published in 1825 by the Late Mito School leader Aizawa Seishisai symbolically expresses this. Applying Kitabatake Chikafusa's conception of Wago and skillfully blending the Shinto, Confucian, and Kokugaku character of the Mito school, he arrived at the proposal of a system of unified ritual and government centered on the emperor [祭政一致].
This was the thought that ended the Edo period. What supported the thought of Aizawa Seishisai and Fujita Toko was unmistakably Wago. They carried through the intellectual strategy of integrating one different thing after another more thoroughly than anyone. This thought is incompatible with Zhu Xi Confucianism on the Confucian side, while it resonates with Wang Yangming thought which unifies knowledge and action. The young people influenced by their thought came to the judgment that revolution was inevitable and went on to bring about the Meiji Restoration.
Under their hands Shinto and Confucianism were integrated as “Shin-Ju Goitsu [神儒合一],” and great reorganization occurred. The system of unified ritual and government centered on the emperor as conceived by Aizawa Seishisai was the same. The Edo period situation in which ritual authority and political authority were separated would be integrated under the emperor, and the entire populace would become one in absolute loyalty to the emperor. Of course in his lifetime the populace did not exist as a concept, but the proposition of Wa formed by the syncretism of various thoughts and ideologies exerted immense influence after the Meiji period. Wa simplified means “One." This is what makes it difficult to understand.
The meaning of “One" transforms with each era. In modern state formation the state and the people are integrated as “One" within a vast sphere, but such thinking is unimaginable before modernity. Whenever the sphere of “One" is set, groups that must be excluded inevitably emerge. The present world attempts to understand these phenomena through a modern framework in Western terms. In the case of Japan, this structure involves Wa as "an invisible communal norm." Wa is one, and this connects directly to "being the same as everyone." The reason Japan did not produce individualism despite undergoing modernity and came to be internationally understood as totalitarianism lies here. It is not that the Japanese are an ethnic group with a problem in personal assertion. The horizon cannot be seen except by reading from the transformation of Wa.
The decision making of the Japanese involves not the will of the individual subject but the non-subjective will of Wa. The problem of "individualism versus totalitarianism" that nearly all Japanese speak of completely misses this point. Without seeing this, every argument inverts.
The "invisible communal norm" identical to Wa also carries various other names. Helpful in this understanding is the principal deity of Izumo Taisha Okuninushi. This god is called by various names in mythology, including Onamuchi, Ashiharanoshikoo, Yachihoko, Utsushikunitama, Okunitama, Kushimikamanomikoto, and Amenoshitatsukurashishiokami. Even though it is the same god, the name changed according to the place and era of worship. This is precisely the essence of Japanese Wa. Wa can never be discussed definitively. It must be read through the perspective of communal illusion.
The other names of this "invisible communal norm" derive from Zhu Xi Confucianism which became the regime philosophy in the Edo period. The Edo principle of governance was secretly adopted even after the establishment of the Meiji government which overthrew the shogunal regime as anti-shogunal. Because this is not visible, the transformation of Wa is mistakenly seen as having been broken. At the structural turning point from Edo to Meiji, the Zhu Xi Confucianism wielded by the Tokugawa shogunate proved extraordinarily effective, and the Meiji government used Zhu Xi Confucianism in its modern system of governing the populace. Yet if they had used the regime philosophy of the former rulers Zhu Xi Confucianism openly, the position of those who overthrew the shogunate in revolution would have become a problem. So they secretly incorporated Zhu Xi Confucianism into the modern system, and the substantive theoretical backbone remains Zhu Xi Confucianism even today. The Edo and Meiji periods are substantively unchanged. Only the rulers were replaced. This is a large scale lie disguised as revolution.
Who led this cunning regime transition?
It was Yamagata Aritomo of Choshu Domain. From here the transformation of Wa enters the modern era and reaches the period in which it would be abused as the spirit of the Empire of Japan. In the next article I will look at the transformation of Wa from the modern through the contemporary period. At that time the existence of another Edo period figure I did not discuss this time will become important.
Please look forward to the next article.