Author: l24

Kuki Shūzō was a philosopher on the fringes of the Kyoto School in 20th century Japan. He pursued a uniquely Japanese aesthetic identity amidst the assimilation of Japanese culture to Western modernization, combining Western philosophical frameworks and Japanese sensibilities in his construction of iki–an identity made up of pride and restraint calling back to Edo-period lifestyles. Kuki’s philosophy negotiates contingency in defining Japanese identity, and his use of contingent aesthetics–particularly in his exploration of iki–can be both a source of cultural insight and critique.

Kuki’s major philosophical writings celebrated difference and individuality, defining the concept of contingency as the gap between analysis and experience which is generally opposed to universal judgments.¹ Though this particular discussion is heavily metaphysical, it is useful in understanding Kuki Shūzō’s contributions to identity during the interwar era. Iki was seen as possessing unstable qualities of being, which centered the role of tradition while moving into the future. Because every contingency is unlabeled, its existence is fragile and faces an inevitable realization of destruction.² This abstract concept relates to Kuki’s engagement with iki as a necessary but fluid development of Japanese culture and, in a contradictory manner, as a source of stability during the rapid development of the 20th century.

Kuki’s exploration of contingency allows his construction of Japanese identity to remain fluid and free from the essentialist constraints seen in Western identity frameworks.³ Kuki understood iki as contingent on historical and social factors, highlighting the inherent fluidity of the non-essential characteristics which shape Japanese cultural identity. From this perspective, iki became a tool to signify a unique sense of Japaneseness against the encroaching influence of Western universalism, yet Kuki relied on the frameworks of Western aesthetic to explore and justify it.⁴ Pincus further problematizes iki’s cross-cultural contingent foundations by arguing that Kuki’s exploration of the subject was built off of ‘Western desire’. She elaborates that Japan had spent a significant period assimilating to the West, which forced them to “delineate Japaneseness against, and within, Western discursive modes”⁵ Kuki reached for iki as an aesthetic style which preceded direct Western engagement with Japan, elevating it as the last distinctive signifier of Japanese culture.⁶ This makes iki contingent upon the West even as it reaches to establish itself as wholly Japanese, further complicating the role of contingent identity in establishing a cultural standard.

This is additionally explored by Koshiro, who critiques how the iki aesthetic could be used within Japanese nationalist ideologies by attempting to fix a contingent identity as a pure authentic ideal. As one example, Kuki has been criticized for his aristocratic worship of the emperor and his portrayal of it as an integral part of Japanese tradition in iki.⁷ The implications of using unstable aesthetics to define identity draws into question whether Kuki’s construction of iki has the potential to serve Japan’s authoritarian ends by masking contingency as pure authenticity, interacting with nationalist endeavors and Japan’s imperial identity. Thus, the role of contingency in Kuki’s work is both an intellectual asset and an obstacle, whose analysis offers insights into the complexities of building a stable cultural identity in a globalized world.

1. John C. Maraldo, ‘Kuki Shūzō’ in James W. Heisig, Thomas P. Kasulis, and John C. Maraldo (eds) Japanese Philosophy: A Sourcebook (Honolulu, 2011) pp. 829, 834. [↩]
2. Ibid., p. 846-847. [↩]
3. Leslie Pincus, ‘In a Labyrinth of Western Desire: Kuki Shuzo and the Discovery of Japanese Being’, Boundary 2 18: 3 (1991), p. 147. [↩]
4. Ibid., p. 148. [↩]
5. Ibid., p. 144. [↩]
6. Ibid. [↩]
7. Yukiko Koshiro, ‘Fascism and Aesthetics’ Review of Leslie Pincus, The Review of Politics, 59: 3 (1997), p. 607. [↩]

Deguchi Onisaburō’s Oomoto-kyo religion embodied the tensions of nationalism and internationalism in 20th century Japan, blending Japan’s traditional beliefs with a vision of universal harmony to adapt to the fluctuating circumstances and trends of his time. Onisaburō’s teachings expressed a unique fusion of nativist pride and internationalist ideals, illuminating his complex vision for both Japan, as a spiritual beacon, and the world, to collectively unite in peace. Oomoto-kyo emerged as an unrecognized sect of Shinto from a wave of ‘new religions’ in early 20th century Japan, imbued with nativist beliefs in Japanese spiritual superiority and the people’s call for a proper reform of the Meiji government.¹ It was from this environment that Onisaburō shaped Oomoto-kyo into a version of Neo-Nativism that retained utopian characteristics of earlier teachings whilst placing Japan in a global context.²

A key part of this process was his interpretation of saisei itchi–the unity of religion and governance, particularly in the upholding of the divine laws found in the classics–which clashed with Japan’s utilization of Shinto for strictly nationalistic purposes. Onisaburō saw Oomoto-kyo’s role as leading a moral transformation that could benefit all of humanity, yet the teachings themselves aligned directly with the elevation of the Japanese self as superior.³ This is further exemplified by his redefinition of yamato damashii–the ‘Japanese spirit’ or Japaneseness–which usually denoted the racial superiority of Japaneseness but was redirected to align with spiritual values of activism and humanitarianism.⁴ Onisaburō reshaped existing nationalist terms and mythology to align with internationalist ambitions within his religious teachings, exposing the complex web of influence on Oomoto-kyo philosophy and the ambiguous position it held in political discourse during a time of modernization and contact with imperial powers.

The spirit world within Oomoto-kyo’s ideological frameworks occupied a noteworthy place in this dialogue, resituating traditionalist beliefs in modern contexts and threatening the political order in its authority over spiritual truths and even undermining Japan’s divine imperial heritage. Onisaburō claimed that Oomoto-kyo provided the authority to speak for the gods primarily through spiritual possession and the practice of chinkon kishin⁵ Chinkon invited a spirit into a person as a receptacle for their knowledge, enabling kishin for the communication with the deities.⁶ This promotion of traditionally modeled spiritual practices appealed to the Japanese population which was faced with global contact and influence, providing a wholly Japanese practice that reconnected them with a national culture.⁷ It seems counterintuitive, then, that these practices and frameworks could be utilized in an internationalist mission to emphasize universal equality and advocate for peace.

Onisaburō’s ‘Mongolian expedition’, however, outlines exactly how the contradictory national and nativist religious beliefs fit into his movement for international appeal. This was done primarily through a combination of universalist and spiritually imperialistic orientations of Oomoto-kyo. Onisaburō could foster world peace and happiness, yet it would be situated in an expansionist spiritual framework which was specifically pioneered by Japan and connected to Japaneseness.⁸ Onisaburō wanted to bring spiritual relief to the Mongolians, yet he also wanted to reform them, highlighting the superiority of Oomoto-kyo’s belief structure and the inferiority of the Mongolians while claiming to provide them with an ideology that would permit universal equality and happiness.

In this sense, Onisaburō shaped the Oomoto-kyo religion to adapt to his own personal mission as well as the climate he operated within. With Japan’s increasingly imperial military activity, Onisaburō employed his universalist yet national religious structure to justify their expansion in the 20th century. He went so far as to claim that “Japan had received a mission from heaven to guide the development of Manchuria and Mongolia”, clearly embracing Japan’s superior status stemming from Nativism and identified through his own traditionalist spiritual practices.⁹ Because Onisaburō developed Oomoto during a time of political change, international contact and conflict, Oomoto reflected the shifting needs of the Japanese population and Onisaburō’s own universalist ideals. This climate resulted in a constant fluctuating tension between universalism and nationalism, tying directly to Nativist roots in Oomoto’s philosophy and Onisaburō’s desire for spiritual equality and peace.

1. Nancy K. Stalker, Prophet Motive: Deguchi Onisaburō, Oomoto, and the Rise of New Religions in Imperial Japan (Honolulu, 2008), p. 48. [↩]
2. Ibid. [↩]
3. Ibid., p. 70. [↩]
4. Ibid., p. 71. [↩]
5. Ibid., p. 60. [↩]
6. Ibid., p. 88. [↩]
7. Ibid., p. 105. [↩]
8. Ibid., p. 149. [↩]
9. Ibid., p. 174. [↩]

Religion and socialism have not historically integrated into a coherent ideology. In the case of Korea in the 20th century, one Buddhist monk in particular attempted to merge Buddhist reform with socialist ideals to advocate both for the modern value of Buddhism and the national struggle for independence, blatantly disagreeing with the socialist summation of religion as unnecessary and distracting from the path to political freedom.

Han Yongun was a Korean Buddhist monk, poet, and political activist who advocated for Buddhist reform in the late 19th and early 20th century amidst Japan’s increasing involvement in the Korean government. Buddhism during this time was perceived as being against Korean nationalism and especially susceptible to Japanese collaboration, characterizing itself as an individual and disconnected religion which had no place in nationalist struggles or the pursuit of modernization. Han Yongun took it upon himself to adapt Buddhist principles and structures to better suit the modern challenges facing the Korean community, simultaneously re-integrating Buddhism into the national conversation and furthering his anti-colonial mission by utilizing socialist structures for the improvement of the nation. Ultimately, Han’s Buddhist reform efforts reflected specifically socialist principles, aiming for a socially engaged Buddhism which would respond to the needs of the oppressed.

One of the most important changes he made was to the idea that Buddhism was about individual salvation which left it disconnected from the civilian community. Han’s proposed reforms shifted Buddhism’s central tenets to reflect the social activism necessary for strengthening the population and cultivating a coherent identity, highlighting the importance of Buddhism in achieving the utopian ‘great unity’ of the world.¹ Key to this reform was the concept of absolute equality and universal compassion–displaying that Buddhists should be simultaneously devoting themselves to internal development and contributing to the welfare of others.² His treatise ‘On the Reformation of Korean Buddhism’ emphasized compassionate action and social responsibility, urging monks to engage with the suffering of the people based on the Mahayana ideal of the universal Buddha-nature–linking it specifically to equality which was recognized as a sign of modernity.³ Additionally, he aimed to make Buddhism as accessible as possible to the masses, specifically through the translation of Buddhist works into Korean.

From this point, it becomes clear how Han Yongun’s reforms aligned with socialism, particularly in addressing inequality and critiquing the oppressive systems which threatened Korea during this time. The influence of Liang Qichao–and through his works, key Western concepts of Social Darwinism–Han Yongun’s concepts of reform functioned within the Darwinian survival struggle on a global scale which led him to an engagement with socialist concepts. Han specifically displays this socialist influence in his advocacy for the redistribution of resources within the sangha, encouraging monasteries to support the poor and vulnerable. Han Yongun’s minjung Buddhism (Buddhism for the masses) addressed the concerns of Buddhism’s alignment with Japanese intervention by proposing self-government of the religious community, while also reaching out to those in need.⁴

He saw these two goals integrated through the restructuring and centralization of Buddhist institutions, establishing the sangha (Buddhist community) as independent from government regulation while providing for the lay community. In addressing the increasingly modernized environment of Korea, Han’s ‘Record on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism’ suggested “that Buddhism should be involved in making secure the lives of the minjung”, supporting the poor by generating income by running factories through the invested funds of Buddhist.⁵ By addressing the concerns of the Korean people, Han hoped to make Buddhism relevant to the national struggle, reshaping both socialist ideals and Buddhist concepts to modernize Buddhism as a philosophy and religion.

1. Tikhonov, Vladimir and Miller, Owen, Selected Writings of Han Yongun: From Social Darwinism to Socialism with a Buddhist Face (Folkestone, 2008), p. 7, 9. [↩]
2. Park, Pori, ‘A Korean Buddhist Response to Modernity: Manhae Han Yongun’s Doctrinal Reinterpretation for His Reformist Thought’ in Jin Y. Park (ed.) Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism (New York, 2010), p. 51. [↩]
3. Tikhonov and Miller, Selected Writings of Han Yongun, p. 7. [↩]
4. Park, ‘A Korean Buddhist Response to Modernity’, p. 49-50. [↩]
5. Ibid., p. 48. [↩]