In part, the idea of Japanese identity was shaped by two important forces, namely language and political theory or ideology. In particular, these factors influenced many philosophers, political scientists, and linguists who attempted to single out the main distinctions of Japanese people and their society.
This paper is aimed showing how language and political theory were used for the construction of Japanese identity.
While discussing the role of the Japanese language, many intellectuals emphasize its distinguishing features, rather than similarities to other languages. It should be noted that Japan adopted and modified the Chinese writing system.
Moreover, before the eighth century, Chinese was the language spoken by educated people (Heisig, Kasulis, and Maraldo 1010). Later Japanese intellectuals attempted to minimize the impact of Chinese culture. This is why scholars tried to discover the Japanese language which existed before contacts with China and its cultural tradition (Heisig, Kasulis, and Maraldo 1011).
To some extent, this quest for the old language highlighted the idea that Japan was distinct from China or any other country. Certainly, this assumption might not be shared by every person living in the country, but it definitely influenced the rhetoric of intellectuals and scholars.
Additionally, the expression of emotions in this language was also discussed by people who thought about Japanese identity. For example, one can mention the use of te-ni-o-ha or postpositive particles. They do not only perform grammatical functions, but also help the speaker express his or her emotions, attitudes, and feelings about ideas, actions or people (Heisig, Kasulis, and Maraldo 1015).
This linguistic phenomenon gave rise to the belief that Japanese people tend to focus more on emotional aspects of communication, rather than logic and cognition. Judging from the peculiarities of the language, many people even assumed that Japanese people lacked the ability to think in an abstract way.
Certainly, it is possible to challenge this assumption because abstract thinking does not necessarily rely on verbal means of communication. Nevertheless, this argument was put forward by both philosophers and scientists (Heisig, Kasulis, and Maraldo 1015). These are some of the ways in which language influenced the idea of Japanese identity, especially the way in which discussed by prominent Japanese thinkers.
Another force which shaped the debates about Japanese identity was political life of the country, its form of government and the dominant ideology. These debates about political aspects of Japanese society began to emerge in the late nineteenth century, when the influence of Western-European countries became stronger (Heisig, Kasulis, and Maraldo 1086).
The Japanese intellectuals and scientists viewed technological progress and new modes of production very favorably, but one cannot say the same thing about political changes. For instance, Kita Ikki argued against the democratization of the society and said that it was in no way superior to other forms of government (Ikki as cited in Heisig, Kasulis, and Maraldo, 1022).
Moreover, emperor was viewed as the key figure in the political life of a country. Thus, this attachment to monarchy was viewed as a form of loyalty to the past. It is often seen as a part of Japanese identity.
This conflicting attitude toward the modernity gave rise to two several beliefs about Japanese people. In particular, according to widespread belief they had to possess such virtues as piety, loyalty, and respect for tradition.
However, political scientists and philosophers also stressed the idea that Japanese people were able to adopt, modify or perfect scientific achievements of the Western world. Thus, Japan and its people had to be loyal to their heritage, but at the same time open to new ideas. Only by reconciling these two needs, the country could retain its autonomy and political power in the word.
Such concept as Kokutai was also important for the formation of Japanese identity. It implied that an individual and a nation had a certain historical mission (Heisig, Kasulis, and Maraldo 1025). Hence, the task of an individual was to contribute to the achievement of this goal.
Although, the mission was never formulated accurately, but the concept implied that a person had to be loyal to the group. Again, this argument was applied to reinforce the belief that Japanese people were superior to other Asian nations.
Certainly, this political or cultural chauvinism is not included in the concept of Japanese identity. However, the notion of group loyalty does remain important for people who study or discuss Japanese identity.
Thus, one can argue that language and political theory gave rise to certain assumptions about Japan and its people. For instance, one can speak about the attention to emotions, rather cognitive aspects of speech. Moreover, one can mention such values as respect for tradition, openness toward new ideas, and group loyalty.
Although, these views are not always based on some empirical observations or statistical data, they are popular among scholars, philosophers and political scientists who examined the identity of Japanese people. In each case, the distinctions of Japan are emphasized, while less attention is paid to its similarities with other nations.
Works Cited
Heisig, James, T. Kasulis, & J. Maraldo. Japanese Philosophy: A Sourcebook, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2011. Print.