{"id":1731,"date":"2025-11-16T22:41:03","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T22:41:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/?p=1731"},"modified":"2025-11-16T22:41:03","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T22:41:03","slug":"tanabe-hajimes-logic-of-species-contradiction-outward-rejection-and-inward-support-of-ethnic-nationalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/2025\/11\/tanabe-hajimes-logic-of-species-contradiction-outward-rejection-and-inward-support-of-ethnic-nationalism\/","title":{"rendered":"Tanabe Hajime’s Logic of Species Contradiction \u2013 Outward Rejection and Inward Support of Ethnic Nationalism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tanabe Hajime and imperial Japan utilized the Logic of Species argument to criticize and diminish the validity of ethnic nationalism, outwardly supporting individual freedom and the power to negate the nation, but inwardly promoted ethnic nationalism to support their expansionist ambitions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Modernity made two historically constructed classifications, the nation and ethnicity, appear natural. The \u2018territorial nation state\u2019 as the \u2018fundamental unit of the modern international world\u2019 conveniently sorted individuals into \u2018particular nationalities\u2019.1<\/a><\/sup> This classification of humanity by nationality thus comes across as the intuitive method to do so, yet Naoki Sakai argues that this \u2018vision\u2019 has only existed \u2018since the seventeenth century\u2019.2<\/a><\/sup> Moreover, individuals are defined primarily by the nation to which they belong, similar to the actual biological classification of humanity, which \u2018converge[s] in the topos of the logical algorithm of species and genus\u2019.3<\/a><\/sup> In other words, the classification also appeared natural as it mimicked the actual method of identifying and categorizing living organisms. These perceptions, especially during the 1930s and early 1940s, produced postwar myths and conceptions like <\/span>tan\u2019itsu minzoku<\/span><\/i>, which stated that \u2018Japanese society ha[d] been ethnically homogenous\u2019 since premodernity\u2014whereas the Japanese empire stated it was \u2018explicitly created against the principle of ethnic nationalism\u2019.4<\/a><\/sup> Therefore, the classification of individuals into nation-states is a modern concept, which Tanabe Hajime argued was unnatural.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Tanabe\u2019s Logic of Species, his ontology rejects ethnic essentialism, arguing that identity exists only through a dialectic of belonging and negation. In contrast to the natural assumption, Tanabe insisted that the \u2018individual\u2019s belonging to the nation\u2026must be \u201cmediated\u201d by <\/span>his or her freedom<\/span><\/i>\u2019.5<\/a><\/sup> In essence, \u2018immediately\u2019, individuals belong to no nation, and have the freedom to determine and mediate their nation.6<\/a><\/sup><\/span>\u00a0In addition, Tanabe contends that an individual must have their \u2018own self-awareness, or <\/span>jikaku<\/span><\/i>\u2019, prior to any social classification, as they can only be \u2018classified into a species\u2019 if they are \u2018<\/span>aware of belonging to<\/span><\/i>\u2019 the species.7<\/a><\/sup> He argues that the freedom to \u2018negate and disobey\u2019 the requirements \u2018imposed by\u2019 the \u2018totemic beliefs\u2019 of a species is the true essential prerequisite for having a part within the species; individuals must be able to join and critique the species to make it relevant.8<\/a><\/sup> Moreover, he holds that species (<\/span>shu<\/span><\/i>) is not biological and changeable thereby removing the view that it is natural and lifelasting.9<\/a><\/sup> Tanabe uses the notion of genus (<\/span>rui<\/span><\/i>), which is an \u2018essential moment in mediation between the individual and the species\u2019, allowing the individual to exist \u2018independent of the species\u2019.10<\/a><\/sup> If individuals can exist outside of the species through the mediating moment of the genus, then they are not inherently and immediately tied to a nation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Japanese imperial state appropriated Tanabe\u2019s philosophy to enforce ethnic nationalism even though the philosophy itself denies the natural basis of nationalism. In his lecture at Kyoto Imperial University on May 19, 1943, he used his philosophies to justify patriotic devotion and wartime mobilization, emphasizing that individuals must be \u2018committed to the state\u2019s mission\u2019 like himself.11<\/a><\/sup> However, the Logic of Species, which he references \u2018refute[s] and discredit[s]\u2026ethnic nationalism\u2019, and directly contrasts his statements, insisting that the individual must negate the nation.12<\/a><\/sup> Tanabe\u2019s arguments made ethnic nationalism impossible, yet they were still used to support Japanese nationalism during the war. As such, even though the Japanese imperial government publicly rejected ethnic nationalism, they still practiced it and had various officials supporting \u2018total erasure of ethnic differences within the Japanese nation\u2019 and \u2018insistence upon racial purity\u2019.13<\/a><\/sup> For minority populations, this private embrace of ethnic nationalism through the Logic of Species \u2018was nothing but an endorsement of colonial violence\u2019, forcing them to be in the nation, stripping them of the promised freedom of individual choice.14<\/a><\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Tanabe argued that no individual belonged to a nation immediately or naturally, and that belonging must be achieved through the exercise of one\u2019s freedom, to critique ethnic nationalism in support of Japanese imperialism. However, what imperial Japan required at the time for its military was the opposite: natural, fixed, and unquestionably loyal individuals, which, in contrast to Tanabe\u2019s argument, was ethnic nationalism. The Japanese government used Tanabe and this rhetoric to justify, through philosophical argument, patriotism, militarism, and expansionism, which Tanabe supported even though it contradicted his philosophies. <\/span><\/p>\n

  1. Naoki Sakai, \u2018Ethnicity and Species: On the Philosophy of the Multiethnic State and Japanese Imperialism\u2019, in Viren Murthy, Fabian Sch\u00e4fer, and Max Ward (eds), <\/span>Confronting Capital and Empire: Rethinking Kyoto School Philosophy<\/span><\/i> (Leiden, 2017), p. 146. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  2. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 144. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  3. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 147. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  4. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 148. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  5. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 154. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  6. Ibid<\/i>., p. 154. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  7. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 157. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  8. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 160. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  9. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 155. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  10. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., pp. 163-165. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  11. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 151. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  12. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 170. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  13. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., pp. 147-148. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  14. <\/span>Ibid<\/span><\/i>., p. 172. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li><\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Tanabe Hajime and imperial Japan utilized the Logic of Species argument to criticize and diminish the validity of ethnic nationalism, outwardly supporting individual freedom and the power to negate the nation, but inwardly promoted ethnic nationalism to support their expansionist ambitions. Modernity made two historically constructed classifications, the nation and ethnicity, appear natural. The \u2018territorial … Continue reading “Tanabe Hajime’s Logic of Species Contradiction \u2013 Outward Rejection and Inward Support of Ethnic Nationalism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[13,185,25,83,110],"class_list":["post-1731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-20th-century","tag-ethnic-nationalism","tag-japan","tag-kyoto-school","tag-tanabe-hajime"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1731","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1731"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1731\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1770,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1731\/revisions\/1770"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}