•Œovercoming Modernityâ•Š in Asia?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 31-44 ĀOvercoming Modernity” in Asia? A Critical Review Jiang SUN School of Government & School of History Nanjing University 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China [email protected] Abstract: Discussing the issues of “Asia,” Takeuchi Yoshimi’s discourse of “Overcoming Modernity” (䘇ԙ䎻ށ) has received broad attention among the international community of scholars. Commentators try to identify the ideological elements of this discourse that, as they hope, could help to solve post-modern problems. After analysing Takeuchi’s understanding of the war and its context, this paper shows that his discourse of “overcoming modernity” has an anti-historical tendency, which stems from the ideological ambiguity of his attitude towards the question of who was responsible for the war. Keywords: Takeuchi Yoshimi, overcoming modernity, Asianism, understanding of the war When a new chapter of history began at the end of the last century and “Asia,” “East Asia” and “North-east Asia” suddenly became hot topics among scholars, this fervour covertly fuelled commentators’ hope that the Asian countries would quickly free themselves from the curse of history, transcend the barriers of the nation-state, and form a unified entity. However, in the summer of 2012, the tide turned back and serious conflicts arose between China and Japan, as well as between Korea and Japan, over their territorial claims to a few small islands. After more than ten years, we are facing the same old story once again: the so-called “Asian discourse” has become a mere game of words without specific meaning. The German historian Reinhart Koselleck, in his book Critique and Crisis, explained that the concepts of “critique” and “crisis” have the same Old Greek (krinein; to separate, decide and judge) and Latin (cernere; to sift, discern and decide) roots, which indicate “to discern, judge and decide.” (Koselleck, 1959, 1976: 196-198) If it is true that the emergence of the Asian discourse implied a “crisis” brought about by the age of globalization (the barriers of nation-states have been shaken or hardened?), an examination and critique (in the original sense of the word) of this discourse might allow us to draw some lessons from past historical experience for future possibilities. © 2019 Jiang SUN - https://doi.org/10.3726/CUL022019.0003 - The online edition of this publication is available open access. Except where otherwise noted, content can be used under the terms of the Creative 31 Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0). For details go to http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/ Jiang SUN / “Overcoming Modernity” in Asia? A Critical Review I. TAKEUCHI YOSHIMI’S DISCOURSE Takeuchi Yoshimi (1910-1977) has occupied the centre of the discussions surrounding the Asian discourse. As a graduate from Tokyo Imperial University in Chinese Studies, he was dissatisfied with Japanese sinologists’ divorce from social reality and in 1934, together with his friend Takeda Taijun, founded the “Chinese Literature Research Society” to promote the study of modern Chinese literature. Near the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War, in May 1944, Takeuchi was called up for the Sino-Japanese War and stayed in China, welcoming the surrender of Japan in Yueyang, Hunan Province. After the war he played an active role as a critic and a professor at Tokyo Metropolitan University; he resigned from his professorship in May 1960, however, in protest against the “Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security” signed between the United States and Japan. When the diplomatic relation of China and Japan was normalized in 1972, Takeuchi, out of his dissatisfaction with the all too easy political reconciliation between these two countries, announced that he would give up the study of China and disappeared from the public eye. Apart from researching and translating Lu Xun’s writings, Takeuchi Yoshimi did not have a strong academic standing in the world of Japan’s Chinese studies. Not even as a critic was he outstanding, as his judgements missed the reality of China, during the war as well as after it. Nonetheless, he received more attention than any other sinologists or critics of his time and was praised by commentators from all parts of the political spectrum. After Takeuchi died, the Japanese historian Ienaga Fukuzawa remembered how he had once received a letter from him supporting his lawsuit against the Japanese government in the “Textbook Incident” of 1965: “I admire your heroic resolve; you have the spirit of someone who upholds a crumbling building with a single hand.” (Ienaga, 1980) The right-wing critic Ashizu Uzuhiko, in his ambiguous arguments, approvingly called Takeuchi a “biased master”: “even though I think Takeuchi’s views are one-sided, he certainly has always had my respect.” (Ashizu, 1981) The liberal thinker Maruyama Masao said that Takeuchi’s merit was that he “never forced his views upon others,” which was especially rare in the Japanese society as it tended to impose unanimity by claiming that “we are all Japanese.” (Maruyama, 1996b: 358) Deliberating on these statements, which either express grief upon Takeuchi’s death or praise his particularity 32 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 16(2)/2019: 31-44 during his lifetime, one cannot help noticing that none of them have any direct relationship to his thinking. The most active time for Takeuchi Yoshimi as a critic was the early post-war period. He was mostly inspired by his experiences during the war, so his discourse on Asia developed within a binary framework of East- West, modernity-tradition, and controlling-being controlled. When the Pacific War broke out on December 8th, 1941, Takeuchi was excited, as were many other Japanese intellectuals confused over the invasion of China. In “The Greater East Asia War and Our Resolve,” he rejoiced over the feeling that “history is being made,” the war would unite “the love for the fatherland” and “the love for the neighbour,” and the “China Incident” was a part of the struggle against Europe and the United States for the liberation of Asia (Takeuchi, 1981: 294-298). After the war, when many intellectuals reconsidered and, one after another, “embraced defeat,” (Dower, 1999) Takeuchi Yoshimi firmly maintained his views. In November 1959 he published the long article “Overcoming Modernity,” in which he emphasized the dilemma of “aggression [against China]” and “solidarity [with China]”: “The overcoming of modernity has failed as a matter of fact, but as an idea it is still of significance.” (Takeuchi, 1980: 5) In his “The Japanese View on Asia” published in August 1963, Takeuchi on one hand recognized that Japan had destroyed Korea’s sovereignty and violated China’s; on the other hand, he still maintained that “the invasion was not good, but in it there existed a twisted sense of solidarity”: “no matter how one argues against it, the reality of the aggression [against China] in the Greater East Asian War cannot be denied; however, to deny, just because of the abhorrent aggression, that there was a feeling of solidarity which expressed itself in the invasion, makes one worry that the baby is thrown out with the bath water.” (Takeuchi, 1981a: 118-119) For Takeuchi, the “Greater East Asian War” resembled a Deus ex machina in a Greek tragedy, which would instantly solve Japan’s problem of the East- West and Tradition-Modernity dichotomies in the process of modernization. Almost 20 years after the war, given the condition of a “colonized” Japan under the “Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security,” Takeuchi was still haunted by the illogical absurdity of the war and tried to draw some conclusions from the twisted logic of modernization/westernization. The so-called “modernity” or “modern age” ( 䘇ԙ) refers to a knowledge of one’s own time, as the relatively near “past” is indicative of 33 Jiang SUN / “Overcoming Modernity” in Asia? A Critical Review “modernity” and the “modern age” exists in today’s “past.” The “Greater East Asian War” (the Pacific War) waged by Japan was euphemistically framed as a way of “overcoming modernity” ( 䘇ԙ䎻ށ). After experiencing the “knowledge shock” of being at war with the U.S. (the U.S. and Great Britain represented Western modernity), 13 scholars organized a symposium under the title of “Intellectual Collaboration Conference” on July 23rd and 24th, 1942. Their papers were published afterwards in the September and October issues of the journal Literary World (Bungakukai ᮽᆜ⮂ :KHQ.DZDNDPL7HW]XWDUŇ one of the most notable participants, explained the purpose of the symposium, he casually used the term “overcoming modernity,” which then became a figure of speech to glorify the war as a way to overcome the problems of the modern age. Takeuchi Yoshimi thought that there were three intellectual groups that eagerly adopted this term: those who were associated with Literary World, the so-called “Japanese Romanticists,” and the members of WKH ´.\ŇWR 6FKRROµ 7DNHXFKL ,I RQH ZDQWV WR SXW WKH discourse of “overcoming modernity” in the broader context of Japan’s modern history, it is not hard to find that it echoed the challenge to Japanese modernity posed by the ideology of the Imperial War; however, actually, it also implied a critique of the existing system, which attracted the attention of the famous Marxist philosopher Hiromatsu Wataru (Hiromatsu, 1989). The ideal of “overcoming modernity” needed the war to realize itself and thus constituted a mere “trick” of thinking; in the end, the theoretical questions brought about by the war only incurred a straight DQVZHU2QWKLVDFFRXQW.DUDWDQL.ŇMLQWXUQHG´RYHUFRPLQJPRGHUQLW\µ into an issue of “aesthetics” and thereby evaded interrogating it as a historical or theoretical phenomenon (Karatani, 1994: 96-122). More than twenty years after his death, Takeuchi Yoshimi suddenly became a celebrity for his discourse on Asia.