Читать книгу Japanese Culture - Roger J. Davies - Страница 11
ОглавлениеApproaches to Japanese Cultural History
INTRODUCTION
A number of conceptual models1 have been developed by scholars in order to explain the evolution of world civilizations. Perhaps the best known was put forward by the twentieth century historian, Arnold Toynbee, who applied the analogy of the living organism to the study of culture, suggesting that all civilizations go through a cycle of birth, life, and decay:
At the time of its birth each civilization . . . is faced with its own particular challenges. If the challenges are met and overcome, the civilization grows; if the responses are inadequate, the civilization dies. Response is determined by the inner energy and spirit of the civilization. Once established, a civilization appears to pass through certain stages of development: a time of growth . . .; a time of troubles; and then an attempted resurgence. . . . Thereafter the civilization declines. But it has been possible for old civilizations to give birth to new ones through the revitalizing spiritual force of new and more universal spiritual beliefs. (Hall & Beardsley, 1965, p. 125)
In East Asia, Toynbee concludes that there have been two major civilizations, both of which were centered in China. The first spanned almost two millennia, beginning in the Shang dynasty (c. 1500 BC) and reaching its height during the Han dynasty (202 BC–220 AD); the second occurred during the Sui and T’ang dynasties (589–907 AD) due to the spiritual force of Buddhism. He treats Japan as an offshoot of these civilizations, but with a semi-autonomous character because of the great challenge presented by the sea gap between Japan and the Asian continent. Toynbee’s ideas have never been applied to a full-scale history of Japan, but his model continues to have advocates among contemporary historians.
Karl Jaspers, the German philosopher and historian, provided another approach to the development of world civilization in which history itself is seen as a process of continuous growth encompassing clearly defined stages (ibid., p. 126):
(1) the primitive state: man existed in isolated social pockets
(2) the early regional civilizations, such as Greece, Egypt, and China
(3) the great cultures that developed through the unifying ideas of universal religions
(4) “one world” (yet to be achieved) through the spread of science
Jaspers was particularly fascinated by one period of human history, from the seventh to the fourth centuries BC, known as the Axial Age, when a number of great historical figures arose at approximately the same time in different cultures: Confucius and Lao-tzu in China, Gautama Buddha in India, Zarathustra in Persia, the prophets in Israel, and the philosophers in Greece (see Appendix B). At this time in world history, “man first became conscious of himself and his cosmic limitations [and] he experimented with and developed the categories of thought and reasoning that are still used today” (ibid.). For Jaspers, Japan remained in an undeveloped, prehistorical condition until it was brought under Chinese influence, at which time it entered the stream of world events.
The views of historians such as Toynbee and Jaspers have in common a belief that human society, whether East or West, can be explained by a uniform theory of development, regardless of the widely differing conceptions of what the essential moving forces of history might be. However, many writers have also insisted on the existence of certain fundamental differences between Eastern and Western ways of thinking. Typical of this approach is F.S.C. Northrop, who sees East and West as deeply divided by contrasting philosophical and religious approaches to life: “The West uses logic, analysis, categories . . .; the East uses intuition and direct apperception . . .” (ibid., pp. 127–128). Northrop places Japan among the nations of the East with its common heritage in Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, but draws a distinction between Japan and other Eastern nations because of the speed with which the country was able to industrialize after 1868, suggesting that modern Japan is a meeting place, or bridge, between East and West.
For those who wish to understand the complexities and contradictions of modern Japan, history is of primary importance. The present is mirrored in the past, and the past exists in the present in the unconscious cultural heritage of a people, in the structure of their social and political institutions, and in the value systems they have created. During the course of its long history, Japanese culture has appeared in a number of different manifestations, each characterized by certain distinct behavioral patterns and sets of belief. Each of these phases of historical development has contributed to the cumulative growth of Japanese culture and has given rise to traditions which continue to play an important role in contemporary Japanese life. However, “history as remembered or recorded is inevitably a selection out of the infinitude of the past” (ibid., p. 122), and history as it happened and history as it is written are not always the same. The cultural history of Japan, in particular, has been “set down in many different styles and from many different points of view,” and the wide variety of interpretations stem from underlying assumptions that need to be carefully examined. Such assumptions may be crude or sophisticated, they may be honest and objective or they may arise from certain ideologies or conscious biases. “They are not equally valid” (ibid., p. 123).
GEOGRAPHICAL DETERMINISM
One conceptual model for understanding Japanese cultural history is known as geographical (or environmental) determinism. In this way of thinking, there is said to be a direct relationship between a people’s natural and social environment and their patterns of life. In fact, a great many observers have seized on some feature or other of Japan’s natural environment as the key to understanding Japanese culture or the temperament of its people:
The ever-present threat of earthquakes, tidal waves, typhoons, and other natural dangers is supposed to make the Japanese fatalistic, violent, or poignantly aware of nature and its precarious beauty. The ever-visible mountains or fields are said to induce serenity; or else, depending on the theorizer, the small-scale . . . villages create . . . a sensitivity to social nuances. (ibid., pp. 3–4)
Traditional Rice Fields
Whether there is any truth to popular myths about the relationship between the geography of Japan and Japanese culture is open to debate, since the heterogeneity of the natural environment of the Japanese archipelago gives rise to a wide range of contradictory generalizations. In fact, the geographical determinism model turns out to be far too simplistic to serve as an effective conceptual framework for any comprehensive understanding of Japanese culture.
Bamboo Forest
Nihonjinron
Another conceptual model which has gained both popularity and notoriety in the post-war era is known as nihonjinron, or “the theory of Japanese uniqueness.” In essence, nihonjinron explains Japanese cultural history and behavior by claiming that the Japanese are somehow distinguished by special “racial characteristics.”2 The origin’s of Japan’s sense of uniqueness are to be found in a number of important factors, including . . .
. . . its long history of isolation, at first natural but later self-imposed, its distinctive culture, its unusual type of language, its unique and very difficult writing system, and its strong patterns of group organization. Above the close-knit family stood the local community, above it the feudal domain or modern company, and at the top the nation, which was geographically, linguistically, and culturally very distinct from all others. To the Japanese the world seemed quite obviously divided between Japan and the rest of the world. (Reischauer, 1988, p. 395)
The “unique” features possessed by the Japanese are said to include such characteristics as an unusual understanding of nature and an innate sense of beauty. A government textbook, Kokutai no hongi, expresses a nationalistic version of this belief, stating that “Japan possesses a unique national structure (the idea of kokutai) [which involves] a marked ability to absorb foreign cultural elements, to perfect these elements beyond the state in which they were received, and then to add them to the indigenous culture without losing the essence of Japan’s individuality” (ibid., pp. 150–151).
Beginning in the 1970s, but continuing up to the present day, numerous “pop culture” books and articles have also been written by Japanese intellectuals stressing the singularity of some aspect of Japan’s culture. The theory of the “uniqueness” of Japanese behavior, physiology, language, and culture includes such topics as the supposed homogeneity of the Japanese people (i.e., “racially pure”), the “island nation theory” (shima guni konjō), and the notion that nihongo is a wholly unique language for which the Japanese have developed “specialized left brain / right brain functions.” Many Japanese magazines still commonly carry articles on the “uniqueness” of the Japanese brain, nose, weather, geography, and so forth.
Of late, however, nihonjinron has come in for some sharp criticism and widespread condemnation. For example:
Some writers have employed wild generalizations and highly questionable methodology. The crudest examples argue that the Japanese have anatomically unique brains, or that they communicate telepathically. Collectively, such books constitute an ideology with clear racist and nationalistic overtones. (LaPenta, 1998, p. 15)
Most observers feel that nihonjinron writing is not only rather absurd, but also dangerous. Over the years, the Japanese have produced a culture that has many distinct features, and when uniqueness does exist it should be recognized. But prejudicial and xenophobic distinctions such as those mentioned above have no place in serious scholarship, nor in rational discussions on international culture or Japan’s place in the modern world. As the cultural anthropologist Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney points out, most of the Japanese features that are described as unique are not uniquely Japanese when taken separately. Like all other cultures in the world, “the uniqueness that distinguishes Japanese culture from other cultures emerges with a unique combination of factors which are not unique in themselves” (1984, p. 2). Historian Kenichi Matsumoto concurs: “What is perceived as Japanese uniqueness is fictional to a significant degree . . . yet it is deeply ingrained in the minds of the people” (Sasamoto, 1999, p. 7).
As both Ohnuki-Tierney and Matsumoto (ibid.) point out, it should be obvious that all peoples of the world have their own unique histories and cultures—the Japanese are not the only people who can hear the sounds of nature, nor is Japan the only country in the world with distinct seasons, and it is unnecessary to constantly call attention to one’s uniqueness as some Japanese intellectuals do. The Japanese are different to some extent, but then so is every ethnic group in the world. More importantly, however, the nihonjinron model is clearly inadequate in preparing Japanese people, especially the young, for understanding the rapid changes that are taking place in their country and the world today: “At present, many Japanese . . . are unsure about who they are and where their country is heading, although they may enjoy affluent lives. Politicians have failed to offer any ideas. But it seems to me that the Japanese have to answer these questions in this globalized world” (Matsumoto; as cited in Sasamoto, ibid.).
THE MULTILAYERED MODEL
In short, the two models outlined above both fall short in viewing Japanese national traits as being inborn and immutable, and fail to distinguish between individual and group characteristics. A third conceptual framework which avoids these shortcomings and which is far more useful in understanding Japanese cultural history is sometimes termed the multilayered model. In this way of thinking, Japanese culture is conceived as a structure composed of successive layers, in which new strata are superimposed upon the old. The layers themselves are thought to be the main formative elements of Japanese religious and philosophical thought—Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism—on top of which is overlaid the secular and technological influences of Western culture in modern times (see Appendix C).3
There is, however, a long history of scholarly debate about the nature of the religious and philosophical beliefs of the Japanese, especially in light of the fact that many people subscribe to more than one religion: “[T]he current controversy among scholars of Japanese culture [lies] over whether or not various religions (Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, and folk religions) constitute a multilayered structure or a single fused structure” (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1984, p. 9). Organizationally and ideologically, a number of religions have co-existed since ancient times, and they still remain separate and distinct systems. On the other hand, when viewed from the participation of the individual, a merger or combination of religious beliefs seems to occur. Two crucial points must be kept in mind in this controversy. First, there is a distinction in perspectives—whether one looks at these Japanese religions in terms of their institutional-organizational frameworks and their orthodox doctrinal practices, or in terms of the way people view and practice them. The second problem is related to lay perception, or whether these religions are seen and practiced as one cultural system, or as separate systems used in combination, by ordinary Japanese citizens. Most Japanese are at least nominally both Buddhist and Shintoist at the same time, but no one, no matter how indifferent they are toward religions, would confuse a buddha with a kami (i.e., a Shinto “god”).
Resolution of this issue is not our goal. In terms of the meaning and functions assigned to religions by ordinary people, “the scale tips towards the ‘fused’ end” (ibid., p. 149), but in terms of understanding and analysis, the “multilayered” perspective is more useful. In particular, for those trying to grasp Japanese cultural history, this multilayered model allows for the separation of a complex blend of difficult issues into distinct elements for examination and discussion. This will also lead to clear and logical explanations of many of the contradictions inherent in modern Japanese life.4
THE FOUNDATIONS OF JAPANESE CULTURE
Japan is often said to be a land of contrasts, a place where the new exists side by side with the old. Beneath Japan’s high-tech, modern veneer, an ageless core lives on, or as Ohnuki-Tierney (1984, p. 71) states, “industrialized and otherwise modernized Japan continues to exhibit many features characteristic of primitive worlds.” Perhaps more than in any other country today, Japan exemplifies “change within continuity” (Richie, 1995, p. 9). Matsumoto (op. cit., p. 7) describes this as follows:
What fascinates me about Japan is the diversity and multilayered aspects of its culture, as Tenshin Okakura (1862–1913) said: “Japan is the museum of Asia.” Japanese culture does not end with the tea ceremony, flower arranging or poetry. It is the product of a diverse ethnic and cultural amalgam.
Contemporary Japanese religious and philosophical thought can be characterized as multilayered, eclectic, and syncretic (i.e., discrete and often contradictory elements are often juxtaposed or harmonized without critical examination or logical unity). In Japan such diverse elements as animistic Shinto, Confucian ethics, religious Taoism, Buddhist sects, Christian denominations, and a variety of new religious cults exist side by side in relative harmony and without apparent contradiction—no one religious or philosophical tradition is dominant and each is affected by the others. The Japanese have long-held customs of plural belonging and commonly follow more than one belief system.5
The essence of contemporary Japanese religious and philosophical thought results from the interaction of two main kinds of belief system: a set of indigenous, animistic practices that originated with Shinto, and the great East Asian traditions introduced from outside Japan—Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism (though Taoism has had a more indirect effect through its impact on Zen). To this may be added the more recent influences of Western culture, which underlie many of the technological and scientific advances of Japan in the 20th century. Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and modern Western influences can thus be viewed as formative elements in the Japanese religious and philosophical belief system, constituting a dynamic and multilayered complex in which newer traditions are superimposed on older ones and the whole blended and modified to fit native Japanese tastes, preferences, and attitudes.6
NOTES
1. According to Enkvist (1987, pp. 27–28), a model is a simplified representation of reality. It is simplified because it aims at reproducing a selection of relevant elements of reality rather than all of reality at once. A theory, on the other hand, is a set of principles on which the model is built (though in actual practice, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably).
2. Nation, language, race, and culture are distinct categories for most people, but according to Reischauer (1988, p. 398), for the Japanese they are almost synonymous. Race, in particular, plays a large part in the self-image of the Japanese, who pride themselves on their “racial purity,” despite the obvious mixture that settled the Japanese archipelago (ibid.). Because they have merged their feelings about race, culture, and nation together, the sense of racial difference runs deep, and as a result, racial prejudice is a particular problem in modern Japan. It is very difficult for non-Japanese living in Japan to cross over the imaginary “racial line” and actual “culture line” into full membership in Japanese society (ibid., p. 399). The Japanese generally regard foreigners of any type as irrevocably on the other side of the dividing line between “us and them” (ibid.).
3. To study East Asian cultural history, “one must be prepared to study religions, for the Far East, especially Japan, never produced a strong branch of rationalist and secular philosophy such as flourished in the Occidental world from Greco-Roman times on” (Hall & Beardsley, 1965, p. 310). In addition, most Japanese follow more than one religion at once and place equal value on religions that are vastly different in terms of their philosophical elaboration. Moreover, the Japanese “do not particularly look on any of these religions as a main source of ethics” (ibid.):
Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and shamanism and various other folk religions have been the religions of Japan. Shintoism, the only religion of indigenous origin, and Buddhism have traditionally been regarded as the most important. It has often been pointed out that these religions have permeated the daily lives of the Japanese; they have become part of their customs without requiring any psychological commitment on the part of the individual. Most Japanese subscribe to more than one religion, often without consciously realizing it. (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1984, p. 145)
4. It should also be noted that one of the most vexing problems in understanding Japanese culture is to determine from which particular layer certain religious practices are derived (Sansom, 1976, p. ix). Perhaps the most contentious of these issues involves the custom of ancestor worship. Most mainstream scholars maintain that ancestor worship was an importation from China:
During the most vigorous period of the T’ang Dynasty, the impact of Chinese civilization upon Japan reached such a climax that it marks the turning point in the evolution of Japanese institutions. . . . China under the early T’ang rulers was one of the most highly civilized states in the world, as well as the most powerful, and in the Far East had no rivals for such a distinction. Throughout the seventh and eighth centuries the government in Yamato sent a succession of official embassies to the T’ang court [and] the result was a wholesale copying of Chinese techniques and ideas affecting almost every aspect of Japanese life and society. . . . The Chinese classics, especially the Confucian writings, were studied intently, since every well-bred person was expected to be familiar with them. . . . A new emphasis was placed upon family solidarity and filial devotion, including the duty of sacrificing to ancestral spirits [italics added]. (Burns & Ralph, 1964, p. 337)
On the other hand, as Burns and Ralph (ibid.) note, “[s]ome Japanese scholars deny that the custom of ancestor worship was an importation; but in any case it was intensified by contacts with the Chinese.”
5. For example, many Japanese homes contain both a miniature Shinto shrine and a Buddhist altar in their inner sanctums, and (Shintoist) ancestral mortuary tablets are placed beside the Buddhist altar during memorial observances. Most Japanese also choose Shinto ceremonies for their weddings, while Buddhist rites are reserved for funerals.
6. Only Shinto and some of the “New Religions” are indigenous to Japan; “the others have wider communities, and their origin, as well as their center of gravity is outside the country. Because of the prominence of religions of foreign origin and certain admixtures of doctrine and practice at the national level, the Japanese attitude toward religion is often described as eclectic and syncretic” (Hall & Beardsley, 1965, p. 312). However, these are highly complex issues and much depends on one’s viewpoint. Religions that have coexisted for centuries in Japan remain separate and distinct systems organizationally and ideologically (e.g., Shinto and Buddhism), but in the way ordinary people practice them, they exist as a single, “fused” cultural system. Furthermore, whatever religions have been imported from abroad have certainly been “reworked to suit the Japanese cultural context rather than remaining foreign bodies attached to Japanese life” (ibid., p. 313).
DISCUSSION ACTIVITIES
1. Do you agree with Northrop’s argument that modern Japan is “a bridge between East and West?”
2. Why is Japan’s cultural history so complex and difficult to understand?
3. What do you think of the viewpoint expressed in Kokutai no hongi that Japan has a “unique national structure?” Do you agree with the opinions of Ohnuki-Tierney and Matsumoto that “it is unnecessary to constantly call attention to Japan’s uniqueness as some Japanese intellectuals do?” Why, or why not?
4. Discuss the problem of racial prejudice and discrimination in modern Japan.
5. Comment on the statement by Matsumoto that “Japanese culture does not end with the tea ceremony, flower arranging or poetry. It is the product of a diverse ethnic and cultural amalgam.”
6. Discuss the role of ancestor worship in modern Japan. In your opinion, what are the origins of ancestor worship in Japanese culture?
7. Comment on the viewpoint that contemporary Japanese religious and philosophical thought can be characterized as “multilayered, eclectic, and syncretic.”
