The Issue of Hierarchy in Japanese Social Structure

Classic Japanese Anthropology Special Issue Contemplating Ruth Benedict’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword Takeyoshi Kawashima, Hiroshi Minami, Kizaemon Ariga Tetsuro Watsuji, and Kunio Yanagita1 The Issue of Hierarchy in Japanese Social Structure Kizaemon Ariga2 Translated by James E. Roberson3 Kanazawa Seiryō University 1. Ruth Benedict’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword was for me a very interesting work. While there are points in the book which due to inadequate investigation of resources are mistaken or exaggerated, that important points regarding the “mentality”4 of the Japanese are touched upon is witness to Benedict’s personal excellence and to the high level of American cultural anthropology. When I read this book, my anticipatory interest was in how a cultural anthropologist who had been engaged in research on primitive peoples had conducted research about a highly cultured people having ancient historical records. I recalled that when Robert Redfield 1 This special issue was originally published in Minzokugaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of Ethnology), Volume 14, Number 4, 1950. 2 Editor’s note: The kanji (Chinese characters) used for the author’s surname are 有賀, pronounced a-ru-ga. In the English-speaking world, however, he is better known as a-ri-ga, and he in fact called himself that when he wrote an influential paper in English (“On the Japanese Family,” Marriage and Family Living 16(4): 362-368, 1954). This confusion once prompted certain American professors to ask the author, through his Japanese friend, which pronunciation was correct. Here is what the author in essence said: in his native place of Suwa, Nagano Prefecture, he is known as a-ru-ga, but in other regions his surname is ordinarily pronounced a-ri-ga. From this the author assumed that the former was a localism, which made him think that as a nationally known professor he should switch to the latter, but he eventually decided to “let the characters [有賀] stand alone to be pronounced as the reader saw fit” (Robert J. Smith, Japanese Society: Tradition, Self, and the Social Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Page 81). For these reasons, we have here decided to follow the common English usage. 3 Translator’s note: my thanks to Masaya Shijō and Takami Kuwayama for making corrections and amendments to this translation. 4 Translator’s note: Ariga consistently and repeatedly used the English term “mentality” without translating it into Japanese. Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology, vol. 16, 2015 22 Kizaemon Ariga visited Japan last year, he told the small gathering of Japanese ethnographers who greeted him that historical research was a weak point in American cultural anthropology. While what he said may have had various meanings, I am certain that they included an objection to calls to limit the objects of cultural anthropology or ethnography to primitive peoples. In The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, Benedict does not make any particular positive assertions regarding this point. However, as her research goal of portraying “cultural patterns” is not unrelated to history, I believe that we can wait hopefully for her views on this issue. Benedict deals with history primarily in Chapter 4 regarding the Meiji Restoration period, but wherever else necessary as well she endeavors to explain relevant historical interpretations. The historical materials that she employs include both those recorded by Westerners and those recorded in the research of Japanese scholars. For example, these include things such as Kan’ichi Asakawa’s The Documents of Iriki (入来院文書). However, as she explains, Benedict’s methodology in such cases is based on the observation of the everyday life of contemporary Japanese people – as such is the decisive methodology of cultural anthropologists who study primitive peoples – and even when utilizing older historical resources, these are used as reference materials in order to interpret the mentality of the Japanese as manifest in contemporary life. In other words, older materials as well are interpreted as among the foundations of contemporary Japanese mentality. This is strikingly different from the methods of most historians, and one may imagine that many historians will oppose such an interpretive methodology. This is because they believe that it is possible to extract history only from older historical resources and that the contemporary contains nothing prescribing the past. But is such a view correct? What must be noted regarding cultural anthropological methodology is that, in regards to research on all primitive peoples, while anthropology attempts to grasp the characteristic mentality of such people, and while anthropology includes diverse training so as to as much as possible understand the meanings or values of those people’s life phenomena from such a position, scientific research is not constituted solely by the interpretation of such primitive people’s lives from a position that is purely their own. For a cultural anthropologist to attempt to know the mentality of a primitive people, he must, in order to establish meaning(s) as scientific resources, avoid his personal researcher’s biases as much as is possible and make his interpretations from the scientific position with which he himself is currently affiliated. As regards historical interpretations of ancient periods as well, however much an historian might try to emphasize his correctness, such interpretation cannot be done only with things ancient. The historian’s contemporary rational sense must be part of his interpretations of the mentality of ancient peoples. The historian does so for all cases, even when he is not conscious of it. This is true of the interpretation of whatever period. That the interpretation of a people’s ancient history is difficult using only that history is indicated by the facts that, since historical resources regarding ancient things are insufficient, the employment of other materials has been extremely common, including resources from the ancient periods of other peoples and inferences drawn from the lives of contemporary Kizaemon Ariga The Issue of Hierarchy in Japanese Social Structure 23 visited Japan last year, he told the small gathering of Japanese ethnographers who greeted primitive peoples. If one is to understand ancient history, just as with the explanation of the him that historical research was a weak point in American cultural anthropology. While lives of primitive peoples, historical interpretation must utilize our contemporary what he said may have had various meanings, I am certain that they included an objection perceptions of rationality and history. The scientific establishment of views of history is to calls to limit the objects of cultural anthropology or ethnography to primitive peoples. In important, and in order to do this, it is fundamentally important to know the contemporary The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, Benedict does not make any particular positive assertions life of any given people. regarding this point. However, as her research goal of portraying “cultural patterns” is not Is it in fact correct to think that what are commonly referred to as contemporary studies unrelated to history, I believe that we can wait hopefully for her views on this issue. are without an historical perspective? Simply because the primitive peoples who are the Benedict deals with history primarily in Chapter 4 regarding the Meiji Restoration period, research objects of cultural anthropologists “have no written history,” it is impossible to but wherever else necessary as well she endeavors to explain relevant historical imagine that there exists absolutely no sense of history of or among them. Even if one interpretations. The historical materials that she employs include both those recorded by suggests that cultural anthropology is above all the study of the contemporary, since the Westerners and those recorded in the research of Japanese scholars. For example, these contemporary itself holds historical meaning, one must have an historical perspective for the include things such as Kan’ichi Asakawa’s The Documents of Iriki (入来院文書). However, as interpretation of the contemporary as well. The issues of “culture change” and “acculturation” she explains, Benedict’s methodology in such cases is based on the observation of the that American cultural anthropology is currently intently dealing with all have historical everyday life of contemporary Japanese people – as such is the decisive methodology of meaning. These are phenomena which all past peoples tirelessly repeated and that will no cultural anthropologists who study primitive peoples – and even when utilizing older doubt be tirelessly repeated by all peoples of the future as well. historical resources, these are used as reference materials in order to interpret the mentality That the problems of the present are connected to both the past and the future is of the Japanese as manifest in contemporary life. In other words, older materials as well are something of great historical meaning. In other words, since the contemporary is, if interpreted as among the foundations of contemporary Japanese mentality. rigorously viewed, but an instance, it is a mediator between the past and the future. This This is strikingly different from the methods of most historians, and one may imagine that shows that the contemporary is in relations of mutual definition with both past and future many historians will oppose such an interpretive methodology. This is because they believe and that

Load more