Introduction
The Constitution of the Empire ofJapan (Meiji Constitution, 1889) Chapter I. The Emperor Article I. The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal. Article III. The Emperor is sacred and inviolable. Article IV. The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, and el The Constitution ofjapan (Postwar Constitution, 1946) Chapter I. The Emperor Article I. The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people, de riving his position &om the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power. Article III. The advice and approval of the Cabinet shall be required for all acts of the Emperor in matters of state, and the Cabinet shall be responsible therefor. Article IV. The Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government. FEw INSTITUTIONS ARE as well suited as the monarchy to provide a win dow on Japan. For the first five decades following the end of World War II, this national symbol of Japan experienced momentous change. Throughout the modern period (I868-present), Japanese supporters as well as opponents of the throne have employed it to define themselves and their nation. The monarchy, which is also a family, has been significant both as a political and as a cultural institution. Indeed, an examination of the monarchy requires that we abandon a strict division of the political from the cultural and of the symbolic from the political. The emperor has embodied the modern Japa nese nation-state, 1 and nationalism is a phenomenon that belies the com partmentalization of politics, culture, and symbols. 2 INTRODUCTION Japan's defeat in 1945 represented a critical turning point not only in the history of the nation but also in the history of the monarchy. The Meiji Constitution led to a particular form of emperorship, which was reformed after 1945· The monarch of the Meiji Constitution enjoyed imperial sover eignty; the Postwar Constitution, which is premised on popular sovereignty, redefined the emperor as a symbol with no "powers related to government." In many critical respects, the postwar emperorship differs from the prewar version. At the same time, however, the prewar form has continued to struc ture postwar expectations of the monarchy and the nature of the Japanese "polity,'' a term that can mean simply the form of government but in a broader sense includes fundamental values as well. But although this study highlights continuities between the pre- and postwar eras, 1945 was enough of a disjuncture in imperial history to justify examining the postwar era as a distinct period. The monarchy remains a delicate subject, as evidenced by the controversy that followed then-prime minister Mori Yoshiro's (1937- ) clumsy remark 2 in May 2000 that Japan was a "divine nation centered on the emperor," the debates that preceded the passage of a bill making Kimigayo, with its celebra tion of the imperial line, the national anthem in 1999/ and, most of all, by the violence and terrorism that have sporadically been part of the contest over this national symbol. One example of such violence was the Motoshima Incident. In December 1988, as Emperor Hirohito (1901-89; r. 1926-89) was dying, Mayor Motoshima Hitoshi (1922- ) of Nagasaki publicly remarked, "I think that the emperor bears responsibility for the war." Motoshima's in terpretation ofHirohito's wartime role wa~ neither new nor extreme, yet the mayor was ostracized by the political establishment and threatened by vio lent right-wing groups. In January 1990, a member of one such group shot Motoshima for his statement made at a time of national "self-restraint" in voked to show respect for the emperor.4 Motoshima survived and even went on to win re-election in 1991, but his experience is a reminder of how emo tional the topic of the emperor remains. For conservative Japanese, the monarchy is the symbol ofJapan's timeless culture, the embodiment of "traditional" customs and beliefs. Immediately after the war, three scholars argued that the "symbolic" monarchy repre sented a return to the tradition of emperors who served ceremonial, cultural roles and remained above politics. The interpretation that the postwar mon archy is a return to premodern tradition, though not fanciful in broad terms,