Research Paper Draft JS4225

Okay I thought of doing this:

"How does religion shape Japanese identity?"

There are two ways: I also want to argue that perception is important when it comes to addressing issues of identity. So I might split this into two - identity from without (by people who are other than Japanese) and from within (people who are Japanese).

There are going to be lots of limitations, firstly I am going by mainstream identity. I mean, we work on the assumption that most Japanese identify themselves as Japanese. So my question is does religion, or a lack of it, contribute to a common identity?

I think maybe the perception thing will be repetitive here....or maybe not. we will see how. because from outside ppl might identify J'ese with Shinto while it might not be the case today, especially as young people might not think of themselves as Shinto anymore. or it might be slightly different, like just that Japan is the birth place of Shinto etc.

I want to use this because religion is rarely brought into the discussion when looking at Japanese identity or nationalism like what makes me japanese kinda thing, because it's just not a popular thing, but i think that it might contribute in some ways, maybe even negatively, and explain stuff like why Islam and Christianity or Hinduism is not popular in Japan because it is not associated with Japan.

Okay something like that.

My alternative is i want to study naturalised people - people who have come to work in japan and end up naturalising as Japanese citizens like Milton! hurhurhurhur. But I don' tknow what to investigate. What I'm curious is they will never be Japanese by blood, which is something that cannot be ignored because we can see that being Japanese by blood is something that a lot of Japanese feel is important (kanako-san!) and personally I feel that it is a race thing also. A blood thing la. So.....it's like there's a difference between being Japanese and being called japanese only by name, by the state. So how do they feel?

But basically that's all I am wondering. I don't really know what other issues I would examine.

maybe i should read the newsweek article first.

Why I Choose Watching Over Me by Iced Earth

Point No. One: The FEELING

The story that the song narrates is actually quite different. The song is about a guy who lost his best friend or dunoe what and then he grieves for his friend. But yet I chose this song because the story is filled with emotion like this song is. Furthermore as a Noh play, it is classified as a ninjou mono or a human feeling play. Just as the emotions are felt very strongly in the play, the lyrics of the song "I feel it once again/It's overwhelming me" also emphasis on the strength of emotions felt by the...singer?

And the general tone of the song is a very depressed, dark song, so I think it matches the mood of the story quite well although the stories of the play/story and the song isn't that similar.

Point No. Two: The MEANING

The song is quite positive-ish, about the friend dying and him feeling like the friend is watching over him like an angel. At the very least the darkest part is feeling guilt over his friend's guilt. But I feel that there is some sort of a parallel although in a kind of contrasting way, because in the story there is some semblance of spirits watching, but evil spirits watching over or possessing the pregnant empress.

Point No. Three: The similar feelings
In both, the main figures Shunkan and the survivor of the song are lamenting over their fates ("Why did he have to die?" and '"How can this have happened?" He....wept and lamented..') and they also feel regret (Shunkan at leaving his daughter behind, regretting not seeing his son longer in the story, "We lived reckless, he paid the price.."). They also have a sort of a reflection/repentance over their feelings, as the singer wonders if he is selfish "Am I selfish for feeling this way" and Shunkan finally just succumbing to death and praying until he died.

Point No. Four: The Death thing

Death is looming in the song, and so it looms in all plays, as either Shunkan dies (in the story) or we know he WILL die anyway (the plays). And we know that after he dies, his spirit will still be there in the context of the Japanese beliefs of the dead that the spirit still hangs around possessing people if it's not at peace, so.....yeah, the continued existence of the spirit after death is similar to what the singer feels.

Lyrics to Watching Over Me by Iced Earth

I had a friend many years ago
One tragic night he died
The saddest time of my life
For weeks and weeks I cried

Through the anger and through the tears
I've felt his spirit through the years
I'd swear, He's watching me
Guiding me through hard times

[chorus]I feel it once again
It's overwhelming me
His spirit's like the wind
The angel guarding me
Oh, I know, oh, I know
He's watching over me
Oh, I know, oh, I know
He's watching over me

We shared dreams like all best friends
Blood brothers at the age of ten
We lived reckless, he paid the price
But why? Why did he have to die?

It still hurts me to this day
Am I selfish for feeling this way?
I know he's an angel now
Together we'll be someday

I feel it once again
It's overwhelming me
His spirit's like the wind
The angel guarding me
Oh, I know, oh, I know
He's watching over me
Oh, I know, oh, I know
He's watching over me

Shunkan, Noh play version

I just want to record down this poem by Hitomaro, who is like my ALL TIME FAVOURITE LOVE POET.

By Kumano Bay
Thrive the double sand flowers
No less manifold
Are my heart's piled up longings
But I can never meet you

-Poem 496, Man'yoshu

Nationalism and Pan-Asianism in Sources of Japanese Tradition by ???

A very confusing paragraph by Tokutomi Souho:


"Peace was the servant of wealth; wealth progressed, indeed, made extraordinary progress. This wealth, however, was all outside the compass of the feudal warrior class. Peace not only contributed to the "production of wealth," it brought the "joys of wealth". And not these alone, but also the "worship of wealth." Therefore, the social structure, which was centered on the feudal samurai, could not but tend to focus on the attainment of wealth....Conditions of society being like this, even without the irruption of the problems of foreign affairs, revolution could not have been avoided."

in Shourai no Nihon; Kousaka, ed., and Abosch, trans., Japanese Thought in the Meiji Era, p. 204

Okay, so what I get from the first two lines is that wealth was becoming very important in that time, but because a warrior was a warrior, it was beyond his reach? This is pretty much a common fact...so no probs there, if I haven't made a mistake in interpretation.

Then there's the whole peace thing, which can be kind of common sense, sort of like if you're rich and fed you're generally peaceful and happy man. Therefore, because the social structure was all about the samurai, who couldn't happily concentrate on wealth (only the merchants can do that) so ....why does that mean a focus on the attainment of wealth? Am I missing something implied here? Okay, let's assume that the focus on the attainment of wealth is just common sense and has nothing to do with the samurai class - although I might be able to twist it a bit and say maybe he meant it had to do with the WHOLE class structure and not just the warrior class - so yeah, okay, in a way people concentrated more and more on wealth - and then why suddenly conditions of society being like this, revolution could not have been avoided?

what, because of the poor getting poorer kinda thing, like peasants starving and everything? and needing to pay taxes although they were dirt poor to samurais who weren't doing a thing, and blablablabla? Because everyone started to think about money and obviously if you weren't a merchant you were on the losing side? Okay, then maybe I guess the guy's point is that if people are starving and money is important because money can feed you, then even without Perry's black ships starving people would have ...revolted? rebelled? anyway.

The Coming of Nationalism - Ross Poole

okay i have MAJOR PROBLEMS.

So Poole says:

"A second problem in Gellner's account...is to take sufficient note of the tension between nationalism and other characteristically modern modes of thought."

He says that the way Gellner describes the 'spirit of modernity' would automatically mean that there would be no place for nationalism. Because Gellner says:

"...modern rationality imposes a 'universal conceptual currency'" because "modern rationality...assumes that there is 'one coherent world' which is the final arbiter of truth and it investigates this world in causal and analytical terms..."

But YET, for nationalism, "each nation is its own world, and each natioanl language provides its own specific and unique mode of access to that world...." so according to Poole, "Gellner does not show how the modern world generates and sustains meanings of this kind..."

But then again, I think that this can be solved. I mean, sure Gellner was a bit overenthusiastic with his universal conceptual currency for the WHOLE WORLD thing. But I think Gellner actually has a valid point IF he limits his universal thing to the nation which is meant to think that they are all sharing the same image of the nation, as Poole says is needed. Like if everyone thinks the same, if they think that they're sharing the same conceptual currency, then yeah, okay. fine, we've got our everyone-thinking-they're-thinking-the-same-thing thing that Poole says we need, and that Gellner and Poole won't be at odds with each other. It seems that the mistake Gellner REALLY made is not distinguish WHO is looking at WHAT at WHAT TIME. Like if we limit the currency thing to within the nation, and not looking at THE WHOLE WORLD AND ALL ITS NATIONS, then I think it is possible to draw links between the 'spirit of rationality' and nationalism.

But he made the mistake of extending it to the whole world, so obviously that's not going to work because we obviously have different nations in the whole world so immediately Poole shoots him down for it, which you can't really blame Poole. So I think what we need to do is try to remember that there are different points-of-views which are important if you want to keep this discourse clear in your mind without going insane. IE you can either see it from the point of view of within the nation, or outside, ....or there are probably some more possible POVs. The funny thing is that, Poole doesn't try to suss out that MAYBE this might be what Gellner wanted to say, except that he maybe got a bit overenthusiastic. At least that's what I think, because when I read what Gellner argued it sounded plausible FROM WITHIN the nation's view, but yet Poole shot it down from WITHOUT. And Gellner's over-enthusiasm doesn't help either.

okay. I think that's about it for now.