The Transformation of Wa

Part 1/3. 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.