[Special Feature: On "On the Imperial Household"] Fukuzawa Yukichi and Shinzo Koizumi in the Postwar Intellectual Space: With Reference to "On the Imperial Household"

2019/05/07

Image: Fukuzawa Yukichi (left), Shinzo Koizumi (right)

After the war, one of the intellectual spaces where the symbolic Emperor has been discussed is the community of constitutional law. This is a space for the work of consistently explaining that the Emperor's various activities are those of a "symbol" (Article 1) as defined in the Constitution of Japan. Because this space involves the method of legal interpretation unique to jurisprudence, it was almost exclusively occupied by constitutional scholars. It could be said to be a discussion leaning more toward "technique" than "thought." Constitutional scholars tend to lean forward into issues of legal interpretation, and while there is an abstract consensus on the Emperor's non-political nature, the substantive part of "how the Emperor should face the people" was left to the "preferences" of individual commentators. In the confusion following the defeat, it became necessary to speak of an image of the Emperor as a non-political symbol different from the pre-war and wartime periods, and the perspective of the discussion was exclusively critical (negative). Partly because Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan stipulates that "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," commentators who wanted to think negatively about the existence of the Emperor itself criticized even so-called "messages" as acts that were constitutionally questionable.

The other is an intellectual space that, while starting from the Constitution of Japan, is not bound by the technical methods of legal interpretation, but speaks of the nature of the symbolic Emperor as a political and social (or historical and cultural) concern that more broadly questions the relationship between Japan, the Japanese people, and the Emperor and the Imperial Family. In this intellectual space, there are virtually no barriers to entry, and regardless of the genre to which the commentator belongs, the image of the Emperor they envision has been spoken of directly. This space includes Tetsuro Watsuji, who argued for the immutability of the national polity by deliberately focusing on the symbol and clashed fiercely with constitutional scholar Soichi Sasaki; Sokichi Tsuda, who argued for the consistency between the Emperor as a symbol and democracy; Shinzo Koizumi, who found the essence of the symbolic Emperor in the thought of Fukuzawa Yukichi; and Yukio Mishima, who resisted the Emperor as a symbol moving toward an "open Imperial Family."

Postwar Japan started from the negation of pre-war and wartime Japan, and the "Emperor (system)" was placed at the forefront of that. The concentration of political powers in the Emperor under the Meiji Constitution was negated and replaced by a non-political existence called a "symbol." The draft constitution (Matsumoto Draft) prepared under the direction of Minister of State Joji Matsumoto, Koizumi's brother-in-law, was not accepted by GHQ because it did not change the basic principle of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan that the Emperor combines in himself the rights of sovereignty. The condition for the further continuation of history that has been passed down continuously in Japanese history was the "Emperor as a symbol" included in the GHQ draft.

The fact that Marxists, who were thoroughly suppressed before the war as dangerous elements seeking to subvert the state system, flourished in postwar discourse is a major factor in the trend of negating the past system, but many intellectuals without a commitment to Marxism were also sympathetic to this trend. The Emperor system was understood in link with "past mistakes" that became objects of reflection triggered by the defeat. Masao Maruyama, the author of "The Logic and Psychology of Ultra-Nationalism," was a representative figure of this. The Emperor system, which was able to survive by being written as a "symbol" in the Constitution of Japan, appeared to many intellectuals only as an object of limitation and restraint.

The majority of constitutional law scholars held a similar stance, and their work became to interpret the provisions regarding the Emperor in the Constitution of Japan more strictly to prevent the Emperor, who had been stripped of political power, from regaining it, to understand the Emperor's activities restrainingly, and to watch whether related provisions or factual activities created inconsistencies with that non-political nature. Criticizing even the non-political aspects of the Emperor became a mannerism for gaining influence in discourse, and such mannerisms became the platform of this space.

Shinzo Koizumi, known as a leader in the critique of Marxism, was able to discuss the symbolic Emperor from a free standpoint in this suffocating intellectual space during the late 1940s and 1950s, without being bound by such platforms. In the postwar intellectual space where people could only think negatively about the existence and role of the Emperor as a reaction to the defeat, it was Shinzo Koizumi who expected a more important role in the spiritual aspect—facing Japan and the Japanese people head-on—precisely because the Emperor was positioned as a non-political existence called a "symbol." It is no exaggeration to say that he was able to stand on a firm philosophical foundation as a leading authority on Fukuzawa Yukichi research and as one who inherited that thought at Keio University. As in any discussion, Koizumi never "pandered to influential discourse."

After the Matsumoto Draft failed, GHQ created its own draft constitution and required the Japanese government to follow it. Douglas MacArthur issued a memorandum and ordered the Government Section of General Headquarters of the Allied Powers to draft the Constitution of Japan. This was in early February 1946, and the GHQ draft was created by the middle of the same month. MacArthur's presentation did not include the word "symbol," but stated, "The Emperor is at the head of the state. His succession shall be hereditary. His duties and powers shall be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and responsive to the basic will of the people as provided therein." However, it has been pointed out that from a confidential telegram sent by MacArthur at the time, the "Emperor as a symbol" was already in his mind at this point.

The ones in charge of the "Emperor" chapter in the Government Section were George Nelson and Richard Poole, who were junior officers. It is said that they were conscious of the British Crown. One source is said to be the preamble of the 1931 "Statute of Westminster," which established the British Commonwealth, and the other was the description regarding the existence of the King as a "symbol" in Walter Bagehot's "The English Constitution." Both express the Crown as a "symbol" or state that it is possible to exist as a "symbol." The former was directed toward the formation of a federation among independent states for Commonwealth integration, but the latter directly discusses the relationship between the King and the people.

In Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" published in 1882, the mention of Bagehot is limited to the section on "Imperial Household Finances," but it is easy to understand that Bagehot's description of the significance of the Crown runs through "On the Imperial Household." Fukuzawa brilliantly re-expressed Bagehot's assessment that the King provides guidance to the people of the country precisely outside of politics as his own theory of the Imperial Household.

"Though the government of the Diet may have two parties contending like fire and water, like midsummer and midwinter, the Imperial Household alone is an eternal spring, and when the people look up to it, they should feel a calm sense of harmony. Though the laws and ordinances promulgated by the government of the Diet may be as cold as water and as thin in emotion as paper, the benevolence of the Imperial Household is as sweet as candy, and when the people look up to it, their anger should be dissolved."

For Shinzo Koizumi, the provision of the symbolic Emperor by the Constitution of Japan—that is, the depoliticization of the Emperor—appeared as an ideal condition for the rebirth and reconstruction of Japan. Koizumi, who inherited the Fukuzawa philosophy of independence and self-respect, did not overlook the description at the beginning of Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household": "The Imperial Household is something outside of political society. Anyone who resides in Japan and speaks of politics or is involved in politics must not abuse the dignity and sanctity of the Imperial Household for their principles."

The defeat brought about a reversal of past discourse, and the Emperor became the center of that reflection. Since the Constitution of Japan realized the depoliticization of the Emperor and presented the possibility of leaving the system itself to the judgment of future democracy, the symbolic Emperor system was able to gain an abstract consensus agreeing to its existence in the intellectual space of the time. However, the formation of thought regarding what lies beyond that depoliticization hardly developed in that space. Because past reflection became the de facto standard due to the reversal of discourse, pursuing the positive significance of the "symbol" was largely outside the scope of the intellectual space at the time.

Constitutional scholars were given the difficult task of how to achieve consistency between the activities of the Emperor—whether defined or not defined in the Constitution of Japan—and the "symbol," using the keyword "symbol" which had no definition in the Constitution, and they struggled to find an answer to that problem. Although 80 years had already passed since the publication of Bagehot's "The English Constitution," perhaps because the word "symbol" was used only very sparingly, that discussion did not become a point of reference.

Or, though it is only speculation, many intellectuals may have deferred to the Marxists who flourished in the world of discourse and never even reached the starting point of the idea of finding a motif in Britain, which had won the imperialist war they condemned as state monopoly capitalism. Alternatively, they may have recognized that the British monarchy deviated from the image of a depoliticized King they envisioned. In the constitutional law community shortly after the war, the weight of consideration and discussion was placed on whether the Emperor, designated as a "symbol," could be called a "monarch" or a "head of state." In the intellectual space where discourse had reversed, perhaps that kind of formal conceptual theory was a line that commentators could not concede on whether postwar Japan was a constitutional monarchy or a republic.

However, Shinzo Koizumi's dimension of thought was different. He believed that the Emperor being "outside of political society" was the condition for true modernization for Japan, and that the key to Japan's rebirth and reconstruction lay there.

When the Constitution of Japan was being enacted, Emperor Showa asked Shigeru Yoshida about the "relationship between the Imperial Family and the people." When Yoshida, at a loss for an answer, asked Taro Takemi, a graduate of Keio University, Takemi replied that the answer lay in Fukuzawa Yukichi. Yoshida thought of entrusting the position of Minister of Education to someone from Keio University and approached Koizumi, but Koizumi reportedly declined. Koizumi held the position of President of Keio University until January 1947, but after the end of the war, his recovery from injuries sustained from incendiary bombs at the end of the war was insufficient, and Sei'ichiro Takahashi served as Acting President.

After stepping down as the head of Keio University, Koizumi became deeply involved with the Imperial Family. In 1949, he was appointed as a regular advisor for the education of the Crown Prince, becoming the Crown Prince's tutor and dedicating his life to supporting the Imperial Family. From 1948 to the following year, he gave several lectures to Emperor Showa. The themes were "Fukuzawa Yukichi," "Marx," and "Edward Grey." It is also well known that in preaching the symbolic Emperor to the Crown Prince, Koizumi used Harold Nicolson's "King George V" as a text in addition to Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household."

When discussing Fukuzawa Yukichi and Shinzo Koizumi in the postwar intellectual space, the existence of Masao Maruyama cannot be overlooked. Maruyama was a leading authority on Fukuzawa research alongside Koizumi, and academically, Maruyama is better known than Koizumi. However, Maruyama, known as a representative of the postwar liberal faction, had many conflicting views, such as fiercely criticizing the theory of a separate peace treaty supported by Koizumi during the peace treaty issue. Perhaps the divergence between Koizumi and Maruyama lies in the difference in the scope of Fukuzawa they discuss.

Maruyama's theory on Fukuzawa began with a short essay titled "Order and Man in Fukuzawa" published in the "Mita Shimbun" in 1942. Amid rising nationalism, Fukuzawa's individualism was facing a storm of criticism. In response, Maruyama argued that if national order is actively formed by active individuals, then individualism and nationalism can be consistent, and he concluded that Fukuzawa was "precisely a nationalist in being an individualist." The depiction of an active image of the individual gives a sense of the beginning of Maruyama's postwar thought, but unlike Koizumi in the early Showa era, the discussion did not reach pride in one's origins or identity while citing Fukuzawa's "Teichu Koron" or "On the Spirit of Stubborn Resistance."

Maruyama, who became a star player in the postwar intellectual space after publishing "The Logic and Psychology of Ultra-Nationalism," was elevated as a leader of pacifism as if riding the flow of reversed discourse. While there was a description and analysis of the (pre-war) Emperor as an object of criticism, there was no significant vision for the symbolic Emperor who would bear heavy responsibilities in postwar Japan. To simplify, unlike Koizumi, who positioned even the theory of patriotism and the theory of the Imperial Household within the circle of thought in a series of philosophies of independence and self-respect, Maruyama found in Fukuzawa a "well-behaved" liberal philosophy based on individualism within the postwar intellectual space of forming a democratic state (and was therefore intensely criticized by some commentators). Given his position in discourse (though Maruyama himself may not have positioned himself that way), one could not have expected a discussion like Koizumi's from Maruyama.

In the postwar intellectual space where Maruyama established the standard for Fukuzawa research, it might have been difficult for newcomers to reach Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household." At the point when the concept of "symbol" appeared in the Constitution of Japan, Koizumi was thoroughly familiar with every corner of Fukuzawa's writings from his experience as a leader of Keio University, had early on developed a sense of the problem in Fukuzawa's view of the state that could not be fully explained by individualism and liberalism, and was a figure of the older generation with the fortitude not to waver against the reversal of discourse; thus, he was able to preach Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" and make specific interpretive proposals for the concept of "symbol." This was not just treating Fukuzawa as a mere object of research, but because he was convinced that the spirit of independence and self-respect of Fukuzawa was truly required for postwar Japan which had lost its independence, he also became convinced of the importance of the existence of the Emperor as one who is "alone an eternal spring, and when the people look up to it, they feel a calm sense of harmony."

In the writings of Jiro Shirasu, there is a description regarding the symbolic Emperor in the Constitution of Japan. Shirasu, a Cambridge University graduate known for his active role as a close aide to Shigeru Yoshida during the occupation, was in charge of translating the GHQ draft and creating the Japanese government draft in February 1946.

"I don't remember much about the execution of this translation, but there is one thing. The original text said the Emperor is the symbol of the state. ... I looked up an English-Japanese dictionary nearby and said that this dictionary says 'shocho' (symbol), and that is the reason why the word 'shocho' is used in the current Constitution. As an aside, I must add that every time highly learned people later engaged in great battles of words over what a symbol is in the first place, I could not help but smile wryly." (From "Japan Without Principles")

In the intellectual space of the postwar generation, there was indeed an exchange of arguments that Shirasu would smile wryly at. In an intellectual space where discourse had reversed between before and after the defeat, it may have been an inevitable phenomenon. However, Koizumi saw a way forward for postwar Japan in being a "symbol." Koizumi set himself apart from the great battles of words that Shirasu smiled wryly at and preached the practice as a symbol inherited from Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household." His counterpart was the then Crown Prince Akihito.

After the war, it was of course Fukuzawa Yukichi who provided the essence of the symbolic Emperor that Koizumi preached, but it is the achievement of Shinzo Koizumi that he applied it to the postwar context, gave concrete form to its actual image while being conscious of British history, and brilliantly re-spun it. In the intellectual space of the time, where there was a strong trend to confine the Emperor to "form," the relay of thought from Fukuzawa to Koizumi regarding the "symbol" can be said to be one of the proud histories of Keio University.

What should be done for the rebirth and reconstruction of a defeated Japan where the land was devastated and people were overcome with sadness and disappointment? Just as Fukuzawa found a crisis of autonomy and independence in post-Restoration Japan and the Japanese people and preached the spirit of independence and self-respect, Koizumi found the same problem in postwar Japan. Unlike Fukuzawa's era when the country was about to lose its independence, Japan had lost its independence due to the defeat, and it was a start from there. Just as Fukuzawa found a role for the Imperial Household as a spiritual pillar for the Japanese people, Koizumi found an important role for the Emperor as a postwar "symbol" for the rebirth and reconstruction of Japan. It must have been a duty where "the responsibility is heavy and the road is long," as stated in the "Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War." What did Shirasu, who smiled wryly at the "great controversy," think of Koizumi, who preached the symbolic Emperor to the Crown Prince?

(Note)

As a supplement to this essay, please refer to Shigeki Kusunoki and Misako Kusunoki, "Shinzo Koizumi as a History of Showa Thought: Overcoming Democracy and Conservatism," Minerva Shobo (2017), and Shigeki Kusunoki, "Two Perspectives for a Theory of Shinzo Koizumi," Modern Japanese Studies, Vol. 33 (2018).