Western Imperialism In Japan
Since opening its “doors” in 1852, Western ideals began to influence the way Japanese people saw themselves. Many did not believe a nation-state could be consolidated under the Tokugawa regime, and should therefore reform the government and the nation according to Western ideology. This is perhaps best exemplified in the Meiji Restoration, which began as a way to not only reform the old Tokugawa way of life, but to also transform Japan into a nation that could stand on equal grounds with the West. Thus, following in their footsteps, Japan began its efforts in creating a national identity while imitating Western imperialism and modernity. Despite the efforts to consolidate a Japanese modern nation-state, different positions on the inclusion
…show more content…
and exclusion of certain groups of people were nevertheless prevalent in intellectual writing, the efforts of Japanese imperialism, and the national role of commoners and women. By understanding the conflicting views in defining the “Japanese subject,” it becomes evident that not only was the task of consolidating a singular Japanese identity wrought with contradictions, but that also many groups of people did not simply accept their social conditions. In the creation of a national identity, intellectuals held different ideas of Japan’s place in an international context. Two popular interpretations of this come from Fukuzawa Yukichi’s writing titled “On de-Asianization,” and Okakura Tenshin’s idea of “pan-Asianism.” Fukuzawa argues that Japan needs to break off from the other Asian countries because “they [China and Korea] do not know how to go about reforming and making progress, whether individually or as a country.” In other words, while Japan was partaking in the process of modernization, they needed to cut ties with these seemingly “backward” countries in order for the West to acknowledge their advances. Fukuzawa says “our country cannot afford to wait for the enlightenment of our neighbours and to co-operate in building Asia up. Rather, we should leave their ranks to join the camp on the civilized countries of the West.” Okakura, on the other hand, believed that “Asia is one” based on a long history of constant interaction and the sharing of cultural and religious ideals. Therefore, the countries of Asia needed to unite against Western imperialism. Under Okakura’s concept, Islamic sympathizers advocated to include the Muslim world as part of Japan’s identity in Asia because while although they did not share a religious history, they both retained a similar goal of defending against Western empires. Similarily, Satakata Takahashi proclaimed that Japan was the leader of the “darker races.” Ultimately, Japan’s inclusion or exclusion of the rest of Asia, as well as their position in relation to the West were two main points of contention between Fukuzawa, Okakura, and other pan-Asianists. Moreover, even between the opinions of the pan-Asianists, there was still debate over who would be included under the scope of Japanese leadership in the East. By examining the wholly different ideas between “de-Asianization” and “pan-Asianism,” it becomes evident that Japan’s national identity in relation to its neighbours was not so easy to establish.
As one part of national identity was based off of Western Imperialism, the nationalism created under the 1868 Meiji Constitution put into question the position of colonies.
Although the creation of a Constitution not only centralized the country at least on paper, but was also a step in Japan’s modernization, difficulties still existed in defining the Japanese “subjects” under its articles, and essential “who” the “Emperor” had power over. Nationalism through imitating Western imperialism was not so simple, as the state still needed a way to incorporate the people outside the mainland into their efforts of nationalism. Indeed, as loyalty to the emperor and the nation were stressed in the Constitution, anyone who was perceived to be outside the realm of Japanese civilization was excluded. In regards to the Ainu, because Hokkaido was often referred to as a “no-man’s land” they were “excluded” to the point that they were literally “written out” of Japanese society and history. On the other hand, even though the creation of the Hokkaido Former Natives Protection Law undoubtedly acknowledged the presence of people on Hokkaido, these laws were nevertheless undermining the lifestyle of the Ainu, and were used as an attempt to assimilate their traditional way of life. To the mainlanders, the Ainu were still “destined to extinction…concealed and erased from historical memory” and therefore inferior to the mainlanders. Other cases of this appear in the Japanese adaptations of Othello, and in the story of Officer Ukuma. Especially in the later adaptations, Osero, the Japanese version of the Shakespearian play, embodied many themes of racial exclusion. The Taiwanese were perceived to be “savages,” while the main character, Washiro, was labeled a “New Commoner” who had “bad blood.” Officer Ukuma, as well, was a story depicting the difficulties of social mobility for someone from “an impure background” – in this case, the island of Okinawa. Although Ukuma Hyaaku was
finally able to become an officer, he was still treated as an inferior in comparison to his fellow officers. These texts reveal that although the Ainu, Okinawans, and other subaltern groups of Japan’s colonies were finally being officially acknowledged by the state through constitutions and through the physical inclusion of their land in the archipelago, these “subaltern” groups were nevertheless “excluded” from Japanese society in popular thinking and social order. Because they were once perceived to be savages, many Japanese still believe that these minorities are inferior to the mainlanders. In a further attempt to “include” these groups into Japanese society, their lifestyle became assimilated. Indeed, the positions of the colonies nevertheless reveal the difficulties of creating a national identity while trying to imitate Western imperialism. At the same time, the discrepancies between official and popular thinking in the inclusion and exclusion of subaltern groups is also revealed.
Much like the inclusion and exclusion of the colonies in national thinking, similar debates existed over the position of commoners in national identity. Part of national unification, the Meiji government sought to create ways in which every “Japanese subject” identified themselves with the nation. Under the Tokugawa regime, almost every person felt “as if they were different.” Therefore, the abolishment of the han system and the introduction of koseki were meant to make everyone feel as if they were all part of the same society. Under the han system, there was no way to achieve collectivization because these domains were loosely connected. On the other hand, the koseki system created by the introduction of conscription created a more personal society because the state was seemingly connected to every individual under these household censuses. However, there were many instances in which commoners were being excluded from the nation. One of these opinions came from Fukuzawa Yukichi who had wanted to “get rid of poor people” living in front of the Imperial Palace, as they were thought to be tainting the prestige of Japan’s imperial family. Furthermore, grassroots-level reforms, which influenced the creation of the Meiji Constitution, had grown out of resentment regarding the political system because it excluded the commoners during the establishment of the new government. Because the commoners did not feel as if they were “included” in the political decisions of the country, many individuals and groups mobilized themselves in order to obtain such representation. For example, Sakurai Shizuka’s petition to establish a representative government received more than one hundred thousand signatures by March 1880. The Kokkai Kisei Domen (League for the Establishment of a National Assembly) demanded for the creation of a parliamentary form of government. Other groups like the Itsukaichi Learning and Debating Society were established to focus on the studying of constitutionalism, and ultimately produced a draft constitution on their own called the Nihon Teikoku Kenpo. Undoubtedly, the numerous amount of grassroots-level movements shows the fact that commoners did not feel as if they were included in the transformation of the nation, despite the states’ efforts of creating a more personal atmosphere.
On a similar note, varying opinions also existed in regards to not only the political rights of women but also their duties in promoting the modern nation-state. Most obviously, women were excluded from the state in terms of legal rights: they did not have the right to vote until 1946. In 1890, the Law on Associations and Meetings had barred women from attending political meetings and joining political organizations. Like the commoners before the creation of the Meiji Restoration, women were completely excluded from politics and representation. In popular thinking as well, women, especially those in the colonies, were viewed as part of the subaltern. Kamaru, officer Ukuma’s lover, was an Okinawan escort that was wholly detached from the already-inferior women of the mainland. Despite this, women were technically “included” in the identity of the country under the ideology of ryosai kenbo: “good wife, wise mother,” as well as under the Meiji Civil Code of 1898. As the symbol of the “nuclear family” became an indicator of modernization, it is evident that women were being used to promote Japan’s national identity. Another way women were included into the nation was through the promotion of the moga (“modern girl”) vis-à-vis forms of media. Miriam Silverberg’s conclusion that the Modern Girl was a “highly commodified cultural construct” demonstrates the use of women in creating Japan’s identity as a modern nation-state. In the case of women, their exclusion from the political sphere, yet inclusion for the purpose of nationalism exemplifies the existing difficulties in defining the “subjects” and their role in the nation-state.
Indeed, national consolidation was often met with contending interpretations regarding which countries Japan should associate with, and who were the Japanese “subjects” were themselves. Intellectuals and other thinkers in the early Meiji state held vastly different views on the position of Japan in relation to the West and the rest of Asia. The circumstances of those in Japan’s colonies was also unclear, as some became assimilated while others were sometimes written out of Japanese society altogether. By examining the reforms from groups of commoners and women who were politically excluded from the state, the way people fought to change attitudes towards inclusion and exclusion is also revealed. In the end, however, despite the debates over the inclusion and exclusion of certain groups of people in this period it was certain that the idea of a modern Japanese nation-state was imbedded into every “subject.”
and exclusion of certain groups of people were nevertheless prevalent in intellectual writing, the efforts of Japanese imperialism, and the national role of commoners and women. By understanding the conflicting views in defining the “Japanese subject,” it becomes evident that not only was the task of consolidating a singular Japanese identity wrought with contradictions, but that also many groups of people did not simply accept their social conditions. In the creation of a national identity, intellectuals held different ideas of Japan’s place in an international context. Two popular interpretations of this come from Fukuzawa Yukichi’s writing titled “On de-Asianization,” and Okakura Tenshin’s idea of “pan-Asianism.” Fukuzawa argues that Japan needs to break off from the other Asian countries because “they [China and Korea] do not know how to go about reforming and making progress, whether individually or as a country.” In other words, while Japan was partaking in the process of modernization, they needed to cut ties with these seemingly “backward” countries in order for the West to acknowledge their advances. Fukuzawa says “our country cannot afford to wait for the enlightenment of our neighbours and to co-operate in building Asia up. Rather, we should leave their ranks to join the camp on the civilized countries of the West.” Okakura, on the other hand, believed that “Asia is one” based on a long history of constant interaction and the sharing of cultural and religious ideals. Therefore, the countries of Asia needed to unite against Western imperialism. Under Okakura’s concept, Islamic sympathizers advocated to include the Muslim world as part of Japan’s identity in Asia because while although they did not share a religious history, they both retained a similar goal of defending against Western empires. Similarily, Satakata Takahashi proclaimed that Japan was the leader of the “darker races.” Ultimately, Japan’s inclusion or exclusion of the rest of Asia, as well as their position in relation to the West were two main points of contention between Fukuzawa, Okakura, and other pan-Asianists. Moreover, even between the opinions of the pan-Asianists, there was still debate over who would be included under the scope of Japanese leadership in the East. By examining the wholly different ideas between “de-Asianization” and “pan-Asianism,” it becomes evident that Japan’s national identity in relation to its neighbours was not so easy to establish.
As one part of national identity was based off of Western Imperialism, the nationalism created under the 1868 Meiji Constitution put into question the position of colonies.
Although the creation of a Constitution not only centralized the country at least on paper, but was also a step in Japan’s modernization, difficulties still existed in defining the Japanese “subjects” under its articles, and essential “who” the “Emperor” had power over. Nationalism through imitating Western imperialism was not so simple, as the state still needed a way to incorporate the people outside the mainland into their efforts of nationalism. Indeed, as loyalty to the emperor and the nation were stressed in the Constitution, anyone who was perceived to be outside the realm of Japanese civilization was excluded. In regards to the Ainu, because Hokkaido was often referred to as a “no-man’s land” they were “excluded” to the point that they were literally “written out” of Japanese society and history. On the other hand, even though the creation of the Hokkaido Former Natives Protection Law undoubtedly acknowledged the presence of people on Hokkaido, these laws were nevertheless undermining the lifestyle of the Ainu, and were used as an attempt to assimilate their traditional way of life. To the mainlanders, the Ainu were still “destined to extinction…concealed and erased from historical memory” and therefore inferior to the mainlanders. Other cases of this appear in the Japanese adaptations of Othello, and in the story of Officer Ukuma. Especially in the later adaptations, Osero, the Japanese version of the Shakespearian play, embodied many themes of racial exclusion. The Taiwanese were perceived to be “savages,” while the main character, Washiro, was labeled a “New Commoner” who had “bad blood.” Officer Ukuma, as well, was a story depicting the difficulties of social mobility for someone from “an impure background” – in this case, the island of Okinawa. Although Ukuma Hyaaku was
finally able to become an officer, he was still treated as an inferior in comparison to his fellow officers. These texts reveal that although the Ainu, Okinawans, and other subaltern groups of Japan’s colonies were finally being officially acknowledged by the state through constitutions and through the physical inclusion of their land in the archipelago, these “subaltern” groups were nevertheless “excluded” from Japanese society in popular thinking and social order. Because they were once perceived to be savages, many Japanese still believe that these minorities are inferior to the mainlanders. In a further attempt to “include” these groups into Japanese society, their lifestyle became assimilated. Indeed, the positions of the colonies nevertheless reveal the difficulties of creating a national identity while trying to imitate Western imperialism. At the same time, the discrepancies between official and popular thinking in the inclusion and exclusion of subaltern groups is also revealed.
Much like the inclusion and exclusion of the colonies in national thinking, similar debates existed over the position of commoners in national identity. Part of national unification, the Meiji government sought to create ways in which every “Japanese subject” identified themselves with the nation. Under the Tokugawa regime, almost every person felt “as if they were different.” Therefore, the abolishment of the han system and the introduction of koseki were meant to make everyone feel as if they were all part of the same society. Under the han system, there was no way to achieve collectivization because these domains were loosely connected. On the other hand, the koseki system created by the introduction of conscription created a more personal society because the state was seemingly connected to every individual under these household censuses. However, there were many instances in which commoners were being excluded from the nation. One of these opinions came from Fukuzawa Yukichi who had wanted to “get rid of poor people” living in front of the Imperial Palace, as they were thought to be tainting the prestige of Japan’s imperial family. Furthermore, grassroots-level reforms, which influenced the creation of the Meiji Constitution, had grown out of resentment regarding the political system because it excluded the commoners during the establishment of the new government. Because the commoners did not feel as if they were “included” in the political decisions of the country, many individuals and groups mobilized themselves in order to obtain such representation. For example, Sakurai Shizuka’s petition to establish a representative government received more than one hundred thousand signatures by March 1880. The Kokkai Kisei Domen (League for the Establishment of a National Assembly) demanded for the creation of a parliamentary form of government. Other groups like the Itsukaichi Learning and Debating Society were established to focus on the studying of constitutionalism, and ultimately produced a draft constitution on their own called the Nihon Teikoku Kenpo. Undoubtedly, the numerous amount of grassroots-level movements shows the fact that commoners did not feel as if they were included in the transformation of the nation, despite the states’ efforts of creating a more personal atmosphere.
On a similar note, varying opinions also existed in regards to not only the political rights of women but also their duties in promoting the modern nation-state. Most obviously, women were excluded from the state in terms of legal rights: they did not have the right to vote until 1946. In 1890, the Law on Associations and Meetings had barred women from attending political meetings and joining political organizations. Like the commoners before the creation of the Meiji Restoration, women were completely excluded from politics and representation. In popular thinking as well, women, especially those in the colonies, were viewed as part of the subaltern. Kamaru, officer Ukuma’s lover, was an Okinawan escort that was wholly detached from the already-inferior women of the mainland. Despite this, women were technically “included” in the identity of the country under the ideology of ryosai kenbo: “good wife, wise mother,” as well as under the Meiji Civil Code of 1898. As the symbol of the “nuclear family” became an indicator of modernization, it is evident that women were being used to promote Japan’s national identity. Another way women were included into the nation was through the promotion of the moga (“modern girl”) vis-à-vis forms of media. Miriam Silverberg’s conclusion that the Modern Girl was a “highly commodified cultural construct” demonstrates the use of women in creating Japan’s identity as a modern nation-state. In the case of women, their exclusion from the political sphere, yet inclusion for the purpose of nationalism exemplifies the existing difficulties in defining the “subjects” and their role in the nation-state.
Indeed, national consolidation was often met with contending interpretations regarding which countries Japan should associate with, and who were the Japanese “subjects” were themselves. Intellectuals and other thinkers in the early Meiji state held vastly different views on the position of Japan in relation to the West and the rest of Asia. The circumstances of those in Japan’s colonies was also unclear, as some became assimilated while others were sometimes written out of Japanese society altogether. By examining the reforms from groups of commoners and women who were politically excluded from the state, the way people fought to change attitudes towards inclusion and exclusion is also revealed. In the end, however, despite the debates over the inclusion and exclusion of certain groups of people in this period it was certain that the idea of a modern Japanese nation-state was imbedded into every “subject.”