Kurasawa, Masanori. Translated by Kelly Malone. "Is Polytheism Really Tolerant?" (多神教は本当に寛容であるのか) Japan Evangelical Association Theological Commission Pamphlet 6 (May 2006): 49-59.
Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]
II. THE EXCLUSIVISM OF JAPAN'S POLYTHEISTIC WORLD
Let's try a little more to verify aspects of “religion and society” in the situation of polytheistic Japan. Japan's intellectuals and politicians who put an end to the mono-religious warlike world which brought about the genocide and war, recognized the gods believed by other people, did not raise the sword of one correct meaning, and became open to different value systems. They theorized the development of a “multi-cultural society tolerant of polytheism” which would be tolerant of pluralism and would point to the world of the 21st century based on Japan's ancient polytheistic religious view and the value of cultural fusion filled with the enterprising character of Japanese society (Umehara 1990: 11, Yamaori 1995: 4). Because of this, has Japanese society, which values cultural fusion filled with Japan's polytheistic view of religion and temperament, really built a “tolerant multi-cultural society”? Or, has it strengthened the idea of “harmony (wa)” which unifies the group through exclusivism within the group?
II.A.The Idea of “Harmony” and Groupism
The special characteristic of the idea of “harmony”, in the “17 Provisions” stated by Shotoku Taishi (Nakamura 1970: 407-415), is a cooperative principle which strengthens the emperor-centered ritualistic solidarity. This principle makes oneself nothing for the benefit of others, and is considered the basis of the “public” way (moral sense of government history) to national (imperial) unification (Watanabe 1980: 32, Watsuji 1962: 82). The function of “harmony” is the emotional fusion of group members for “the unity of everyone.” In rice production in ancient clan society, cooperative labor and cooperative irrigation were essential, and “festivals” related to a supernatural being recognized by the cooperative group beyond the individual (Kamishima 1961: 25, 94). Eventually the ancient person's sense of the divine and “festival” led to a national structure with an emperor-centered centralization of power. The psychology of “harmony,” which promoted emotional unity within the framework of the idea of one ruler for all the people, expanded to the level of the central government, the community and the household. “To disturb harmony” is to disturb the unity of each group, and means to harm the self-indulgent authority relationship.
II.B. Are the Gods of Japan Really Selfless and Abounding in Compassion?
What is the substance of the polytheistic religious view and value of cultural fusion in Japan until now? The mythological gods shown in Japanese participate in emperor veneration and ritualistic festivals are said to have the special characteristics of the “feeling of harmony and the love of solitude” (Watsuji 1962: 85-90). This means the gods do not show anger, opposition or revenge, but intentionally set aside self-will and abound in compassion. As a result, emperor-centered ritualistic leadership is benevolent rule based on affection, and the emperor's deity also is said to include love and respect that is filled with “the feeling of harmony and the love of solitude.” This selfless affection enlivens the participants of every cooperative group, producing concord and justice (public righteousness). Because selfless affection is social justice, the gods revealed in mythology are affectionate gods, unlike the vengeful gods of monotheistic religion. Therefore, Amaterasu Omikami, instead of punishing blasphemers, retreated to Iwayado and decided to entrust the penalty for blasphemy to a meeting of 8 million gods. In this way, she is an affectionate god who, instead of punishing by herself, punishes by means of a public meeting. This emphasizes the god who sets aside “self” and stands in the “public” position. Watsuji concludes that the god of “absolute monarchy” who claims absolutism and monism and who excludes other gods is a god who tries to rule the world as the “I”, and cannot be a god of true justice (1962: 89).
This conclusion seems to have in mind the monotheism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This tradition uses “public” rule rather than “self” rule to explain the road to the realization of divine justice. But the form of this “public” accountability is unclear. Social group responsibility makes the subject of responsibility vague, and subsequently the route to reform remains indefinite. Also, how the god who “withdraws” to put aside “self” is to be comprehended in the “subject of responsibility” is unclear. As for the judgment of sin being entrusted to the public assembly rather judging for oneself, at first glance polytheism really seems to show tolerant justice. But in this case, in which the relationship between personal and public responsibility is not evident, at what point does the danger of irresponsibility in which no one takes responsibility occur? Rather, isn't the Christian God, “the god who punishes himself instead of the blasphemer”, the self taking responsibility for the great sin of the blasphemer? Isn't the Trinitarian God of Christianity the affectionate god who, along with the justice of judging the great sin, does not leave the great sinner unforgiven? The mythological gods are thought cleverly to put justice and affection to proper use in the “public” meeting. In contrast, Christ's cross for sin atonement reconciles “righteousness and love.” Didn't Christ, without regard that He was God's Son, deny “self” and entrust himself to the Jewish council and the Roman authority, submitting himself to their judgment, to become the means of atonement for sin?
II.C. The “Harmony” of Group Consciousness and the Avoidance of the “Individual”
This sense of “harmony” is developed in the household group which nurtures the Japanese people's group consciousness, in village society, and in the family-nation mindset. In the former pre-war civil law, when the household was the seat of ancestor veneration and the center of orderly authority centered on the head of the household, “harmony” was understood to result from each member of the household doing their “part.” A person who disturbed this “harmony” exposed the strength of exclusiveness. The exclusiveness and assimilation of the household group was a positive and negative effect of “harmony”. This exclusiveness was diverted both in village society and in the nation, as “ostracism” in the former and as the “non-citizen” (alien) was the object of exclusion in the latter.
Even now, 60 years after the war, the culturally fluid Japan society which has a polytheistic view of religion is not necessarily tolerant towards various faiths and beliefs. The psychology of “harmony” nurtured in history even now lives. Certainly, Japanese society has become an environment in which the “autonomous individual” is respected, but even now “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” Koguma Eiji, who distinguishes the relationship of the “group” and the “individual,” says first the group exists, and then the “individual” is extracted as a result of estrangement. Therefore, it is only when there is a disturbance of “harmony” and order within the group that the “individual” comes to be sensed. Today, the information overload of mass communication provides a notable example. When a single person who has excelled appears, simultaneously every station praises that person. But when the person fails or makes a mistake, like a slap in the face, simultaneously the same person is bashed. “When everyone is among the waves there is no fear” is a present-day expression of Japanese “harmony” which brings together assimilation and exclusivism.
Publications
