Bamboo Forest
Nihonjinron
Another conceptual model which has gained both popularity and notoriety in the post-war era is known as nihonjinron, or “the theory of Japanese uniqueness.” In essence, nihonjinron explains Japanese cultural history and behavior by claiming that the Japanese are somehow distinguished by special “racial characteristics.”2 The origin’s of Japan’s sense of uniqueness are to be found in a number of important factors, including . . .
. . . its long history of isolation, at first natural but later self-imposed, its distinctive culture, its unusual type of language, its unique and very difficult writing system, and its strong patterns of group organization. Above the close-knit family stood the local community, above it the feudal domain or modern company, and at the top the nation, which was geographically, linguistically, and culturally very distinct from all others. To the Japanese the world seemed quite obviously divided between Japan and the rest of the world. (Reischauer, 1988, p. 395)
The “unique” features possessed by the Japanese are said to include such characteristics as an unusual understanding of nature and an innate sense of beauty. A government textbook, Kokutai no hongi, expresses a nationalistic version of this belief, stating that “Japan possesses a unique national structure (the idea of kokutai) [which involves] a marked ability to absorb foreign cultural elements, to perfect these elements beyond the state in which they were received, and then to add them to the indigenous culture without losing the essence of Japan’s individuality” (ibid., pp. 150–151).
Beginning in the 1970s, but continuing up to the present day, numerous “pop culture” books and articles have also been written by Japanese intellectuals stressing the singularity of some aspect of Japan’s culture. The theory of the “uniqueness” of Japanese behavior, physiology, language, and culture includes such topics as the supposed homogeneity of the Japanese people (i.e., “racially pure”), the “island nation theory” (shima guni konjō), and the notion that nihongo is a wholly unique language for which the Japanese have developed “specialized left brain / right brain functions.” Many Japanese magazines still commonly carry articles on the “uniqueness” of the Japanese brain, nose, weather, geography, and so forth.
Of late, however, nihonjinron has come in for some sharp criticism and widespread condemnation. For example:
Some writers have employed wild generalizations and highly questionable methodology. The crudest examples argue that the Japanese have anatomically unique brains, or that they communicate telepathically. Collectively, such books constitute an ideology with clear racist and nationalistic overtones. (LaPenta, 1998, p. 15)
Most observers feel that nihonjinron writing is not only rather absurd, but also dangerous. Over the years, the Japanese have produced a culture that has many distinct features, and when uniqueness does exist it should be recognized. But prejudicial and xenophobic distinctions such as those mentioned above have no place in serious scholarship, nor in rational discussions on international culture or Japan’s place in the modern world. As the cultural anthropologist Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney points out, most of the Japanese features that are described as unique are not uniquely Japanese when taken separately. Like all other cultures in the world, “the uniqueness that distinguishes Japanese culture from other cultures emerges with a unique combination of factors which are not unique in themselves” (1984, p. 2). Historian Kenichi Matsumoto concurs: “What is perceived as Japanese uniqueness is fictional to a significant degree . . . yet it is deeply ingrained in the minds of the people” (Sasamoto, 1999, p. 7).
As both Ohnuki-Tierney and Matsumoto (ibid.) point out, it should be obvious that all peoples of the world have their own unique histories and cultures—the Japanese are not the only people who can hear the sounds of nature, nor is Japan the only country in the world with distinct seasons, and it is unnecessary to constantly call attention to one’s uniqueness as some Japanese intellectuals do. The Japanese are different to some extent, but then so is every ethnic group in the world. More importantly, however, the nihonjinron model is clearly inadequate in preparing Japanese people, especially the young, for understanding the rapid changes that are taking place in their country and the world today: “At present, many Japanese . . . are unsure about who they are and where their country is heading, although they may enjoy affluent lives. Politicians have failed to offer any ideas. But it seems to me that the Japanese have to answer these questions in this globalized world” (Matsumoto; as cited in Sasamoto, ibid.).
THE MULTILAYERED MODEL
In short, the two models outlined above both fall short in viewing Japanese national traits as being inborn and immutable, and fail to distinguish between individual and group characteristics. A third conceptual framework which avoids these shortcomings and which is far more useful in understanding Japanese cultural history is sometimes termed the multilayered model. In this way of thinking, Japanese culture is conceived as a structure composed of successive layers, in which new strata are superimposed upon the old. The layers themselves are thought to be the main formative elements of Japanese religious and philosophical thought—Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism—on top of which is overlaid the secular and technological influences of Western culture in modern times (see Appendix C).3
There is, however, a long history of scholarly debate about the nature of the religious and philosophical beliefs of the Japanese, especially in light of the fact that many people subscribe to more than one religion: “[T]he current controversy among scholars of Japanese culture [lies] over whether or not various religions (Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, and folk religions) constitute a multilayered structure or a single fused structure” (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1984, p. 9). Organizationally and ideologically, a number of religions have co-existed since ancient times, and they still remain separate and distinct systems. On the other hand, when viewed from the participation of the individual, a merger or combination of religious beliefs seems to occur. Two crucial points must be kept in mind in this controversy. First, there is a distinction in perspectives—whether one looks at these Japanese religions in terms of their institutional-organizational frameworks and their orthodox doctrinal practices, or in terms of the way people view and practice them. The second problem is related to lay perception, or whether these religions are seen and practiced as one cultural system, or as separate systems used in combination, by ordinary Japanese citizens. Most Japanese are at least nominally both Buddhist and Shintoist at the same time, but no one, no matter how indifferent they are toward religions, would confuse a buddha with a kami (i.e., a Shinto “god”).
Resolution of this issue is not our goal. In terms of the meaning and functions assigned to religions by ordinary people, “the scale tips towards the ‘fused’ end” (ibid., p. 149), but in terms of understanding and analysis, the “multilayered” perspective is more useful. In particular, for those trying to grasp Japanese cultural history, this multilayered model allows for the separation of a complex blend of difficult issues into distinct elements for examination and discussion. This will also lead to clear and logical explanations of many of the contradictions inherent in modern Japanese life.4
THE FOUNDATIONS OF JAPANESE CULTURE
Japan is often said to be a land of contrasts, a place where the new exists side by side with the old. Beneath Japan’s high-tech, modern veneer, an ageless core lives on, or as Ohnuki-Tierney (1984, p. 71) states, “industrialized and otherwise modernized Japan continues to exhibit many features characteristic of primitive worlds.” Perhaps more than in any other country today, Japan exemplifies “change within continuity” (Richie, 1995, p. 9). Matsumoto (op. cit., p. 7) describes this as follows:
What fascinates me about Japan is the diversity and multilayered aspects of its culture, as Tenshin Okakura (1862–1913) said: “Japan is the museum of Asia.” Japanese culture does not end with the tea ceremony, flower arranging or poetry. It is the product of a diverse ethnic and cultural amalgam.
Contemporary Japanese religious and philosophical thought can be characterized as multilayered, eclectic, and syncretic (i.e., discrete and