Yoshimi Takeuchi

Takeuchi felt guilty about the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. At that time, Tokyo called China as not "Shina" but "Chugoku" for directing friendship between Japan and the Wang Jingwei regime. In Japanese, "Shina" is a discriminatory word for China. Takeuchi attempted to culturally resist such a manner in a period of a total war.

However, as he knew the Greater East Asia War was also to some extent intended and characterized as a war to liberate East and Southeast Asian nations, Takeuchi pathetically declared his resolve (1942) for what he saw as a war of justice, which is generally interpreted as his cooperation with the war effort. After defeat in 1945, however, he knew that the declared aims of the war were deceptive and he tried to explain its aporias of both the liberation of colonies and anti-imperialism.

"Overcoming modernity" was one of the catchwords that took hold of Japanese intellectuals during the war. Or perhaps it was one of the magic words. "Overcoming modernity" served as a symbol that was associated with the "Greater East Asian War".[5]

In denouncing the intelligentsia for their wartime collaboration, it is common to lump these two symposiums[6] together.[7]

Rather my task is to distinguish among the symbolization of the symposiums, its ideas, and those who exploited these ideas.[8]

It is difficult if not virtually impossible to strip the ideology from ideas, or to extract the ideas from ideology. But we must recognize the relative independence of ideas from the systems or institutions that exploit them, we must risk the difficulty of distinguishing the actual ideas. Otherwise it would be impossible to draw forth the energy buried within them. In other words, it would be impossible to form tradition.[9]

After the defeat of 1945, Japanese journalism was full of discussion surrounding the issue of war responsibility, particularly that intellectuals and a famous wartime symposium entitled "Overcoming Modernity" which involved literary critic, Kobayashi Hideo and Kyoto-school philosopher, Nishida Kitaro. Wartime intellectuals were classified into three groups: Literary World, the "Japanese Romantics" (such as Yasuda Yojiro) and the Kyoto School. The "Overcoming Modernity" symposium was held in wartime Japan in (1942) and sought to interpret Japanese imperialism’s Asian mission in a positive historical light, as not any kind of simple fawning on Fascism, but rather ultimately, a step in the proper direction of Japan's destiny as an integral part of Asia. This was only a step, however, as, according to Takeuchi, while highlighting the aporias of modernity, the "Overcoming Modernity" debates failed to make those aporias themselves the subject of thought.

Critic Odagiri Hideo criticized the symposium as an "ideological campaign consisting in the defense and theorization of the militaristic tennō state and the submission to its war system". His view was accepted widely in post-war Japan. However, Takeuchi strongly opposed this easy pseudo-leftist formula.

The Pacific War's dual aspects of colonial invasion and anti-imperialism were united, and it was by this time impossible to separate these aspects.[10]

For the Kyoto School, it was dogma that was important; they were indifferent to reality. I don't even think that they represented a "defense of the fait accompli that might makes right." These philosophers disregarded the facts.[11]

Yasuda was at one and the same time a "born demagogue" and a "spiritual treasure"; he could not have been a spiritual treasure were he not also a demagogue. This is the Japanese spirit itself. Yasuda represents something illimitable, he is an extreme type of Japanese universalist from which there is no escape. ... The intellectual role played by Yasuda was that of eradicating thought through the destruction of all categories. ... This[12] may be the voice of heaven or earth, but it is not human language. It must be a revelation of the "souls of our Imperial ancestors." There is not even any usage of the "imperial we." This is a medium. And the role that everyone had "eagerly anticipated" was that of the medium itself, who appears at the end as the "lead actor in a great farce." Yasuda played this role brilliantly. By destroying all values and categories of thought, he relieved the thinking subject of all responsibility.[13]

Kobayashi Hideo was able to divest all meaning from facts, but he could not go beyond this. Literary World could only wait for the "medium" that was Yasuda to come and announce the disarmament of ideas.[14]

In sum, the "Overcoming Modernity" symposium marked the final attempt at forming thought, an attempt that, however, failed. Such formation of thought would at least take as its point of departure the aim of transforming the logic of total war. It failed in that it ended in the destruction of thought.[15]

In wartime 1942, Takeuchi declared a resolve on the war without fanatical chauvinism. In the postwar, Takeuchi's discussion was centred on the dual aspects of the Greater East Asia War. He attempted to resist war characteristics by using his own logic. However, for him, the wartime symposiums failed in the end. "Overcoming Modernity" resulted in scholastic chaos. Kobayashi Hideo of Literary World, who beat "World-Historical Standpoint" of the Kyoto School, was unworthy at this time. On behalf of such Kobayashi, Yasuda Yojuro of the Japanese Romantics showed only contempt.

During 1951 to 1953, Takeuchi argued with literary critic, Sei Itō over the nature of a national literature (cf. Treaty of San Francisco). In 1954, Takeuchi published Kokumin Bungaku-ron [Theory of a national literature]. He criticized Japanese modernism for avoiding the problem of the "nation". Takeuchi envisaged national literature as needing to address the aporia of the nation as a cultural practice.

In 1960, the Japanese government rammed a revised version of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security through the House of Representatives. Takeuchi saw it undemocratic and he decided to resign as professor of Tokyo Metropolitan University. Takeuchi attempted to generalize war experiences of the Japanese people to establish Japanese democratic subjectivity. As a result, he failed to accomplish his goal. Takeuchi said, "Now, I think the Japanese nation will die out. Maybe, there is a possibility to be restored to life in the future. However, Japan is stateless in the present."

"According to Takeuchi, the core part of Lu Xun 'is awareness of the literature which was acquired through a confrontation with politics'. Literature in itself is directly powerless. However, as a result, literature could be involved in politics by devoting literature to literature. A writer could be powerful if he would dig down mental "darkness" and realize self-denial and self-innovation without dependence. Lu Xun was aware of this, so Takeuchi calls it "reform" ('eshin').[16]

For Takeuchi, Japanese society was authoritarian and discriminatory. Takeuchi criticized Japanese modernists and modernization theorists who adopted a stopgap measure and recognized Japan as superior to Asia aiming at though revolutions. Takeuchi argued that Chinese modernity qualitatively surpassed the Japanese model. However, those modernists looked down on Asia and concluded Japan was not Asian. Generally speaking, the Japanese Meiji modernists had a tendency to interpret Asia as backward.

For Takeuchi, Japan and his greatest "darkness" were nothing but the issue of war responsibility. In What is modernity? (1948), Takeuchi stated:

"Ultranationalism and Japanism were once fashionable. These were to have banished Europe; they were not to have banished the slave structure that accommodates Europe. Now modernism is fashionable as a reaction against these ideologies, but the structure that accommodates modernity is still not problematized. Japan, in other words, attempts to replace the master; it does not seek independence. This is equivalent to treating Tojo Hideki as a backward student, so that other honor students remain in power in order to preserve the honor student culture itself.  It is impossible to negate Tojo by opposing him: one must go beyond him. To accomplish this, however, one must even utilize him."[17]

"<Class-A war criminals> and <Non-class-A war criminals> are supplement relations.[18] It is meaningless to declare 'Japanism' to oppose with the West. Likewise, it is meaningless to declare Western modernism to oppose with 'Japanism'. In order to deny <Tojo>, you must not oppose with <Tojo> and must surpass <Tojo> by facing up to your image of <Tojo>. And it was equal to war-time Takeuchi himself who adopted <December 8> and criticized the Greater East Asia Writers' Congress.[19][20]

Takeuchi admitted modern Japanese Asianism ended with an empty official slogan "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and Japanese defeat of 1945 after all. In post-war Japan, the Greater East Asia War thoroughly denied at all. Takeuchi questioned Japanese pacifism which led to lose the attitudes and responsibilities towards Asia as an Asian nation. Takeuchi depressed such a situation. He set to reviewing Japanese modern history through Asianism.

Takeuchi edited an anthology of Asianism in which he commented that Asianism is not an ideology but a trend and that it is impossible to distinguish between "invasion" and "solidarity" in Japanese Asianism. He explained that "Asianism" originated from Tokichi Tarui and Yukichi Fukuzawa in the 1880s. The former Tarui argued for unionizing Japan and Korea equally to strengthen Greater East Asian security. Takeuchi appreciated Tarui's work as an unprecedented masterpiece. The latter Fukuzawa argued for Japan casting off Asia who was barbarian and vulgar company.[21] Takeuchi appreciated Fukuzawa's article as a stronger appeal to the public than Tarui's. The victories of the First Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War made Japanese solidarity with Asia further and further. After the victories of the above wars, Japan inclined to build a "new order" in East Asia. Japan could not be a hope of Asia. Takeuchi indicated Japanese structural defect derived from wrong honours. He interpreted Japanese Asianism as Ko-A (raising Asia) taken over Datsu-A (casting off Asia).

For Takeuchi, Asia is not a geographical concept but a concept against "modern Europe", and so, Japan is non-Asian. When the Japanese accomplish to overcome modernity, they can be Asian. By "modern Europe", it is feudal class society full of discrimination and authoritarianism. "Asia" could be liberation from imperialism, which cut off a relationship between dominant and subject. Perhaps, his views were non-realist and progressive in a sense.

Takeuchi wished Japan to be Asianized. The concept of Asia is nothing but an ideal for him. He said: "In a political dimension, post-war Bandung conference made an idea of Asianness in history". Referring to Rabindranath Tagore and Lu Xun, Takeuchi addressed:

Rather the Orient must re-embrace the West, it must change the West itself in order to realize the latter's outstanding cultural values on a greater scale. Such a rollback of culture or values would create universality. The Orient must change the West in order to further elevate those universal values that the West itself produced. This is the main problem facing East-West relations today, and it is at once a political and cultural issue.[22]

After 1945, Takeuchi has called upon the normalization between China and Japan. In 1972, the Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China was concluded. Takeuchi criticized the Japanese attitudes towards the past. The issues of history have been a big concern in the Sino-Japanese relations.