Tolstoy and the Structures of Agrarian-Buddhist Utopianism in Taishō Japan

12 Pages·2017·2.18 MB·English

by  James Mark Shields

religions
Article
Future Perfect: Tolstoy and the Structures of
Agrarian-Buddhist Utopianism in Taisho¯ Japan
JamesMarkShields ID
ComparativeHumanitiesProgram,BucknellUniversity,Lewisburg,PA17837,USA;[email protected]
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received:22April2018;Accepted:13May2018;Published:16May2018
Abstract:ThisstudyfocusesontheroleplayedbytheworkofLeoTolstoy(1828–1910)inshaping
socialismandagrarian-BuddhistutopianisminJapan.AsJapanesetranslationsofTolstoy’sfictionand
philosophy,andaccountsofhislifebecamemoreavailableattheendofthe19thcentury,hisideason
theindividual,religion,society,andpoliticshadatremendousimpactonthegenerationcomingof
ageinthe1900sandhispopularitygrewamongyoungintellectuals. OneimportantlegacyofTolstoy
inJapanishisparticularconcernwiththepeasantryandagriculturalreform. Amongthoseinspired
byTolstoyandthenarodnikilifestyle,threeindividuals,TokutomiRoka,EtoTekirei,andMushako¯ji
Saneatsuillustratehowprominentwritersandthinkersadoptedthemaster’slifestyleandattempted
to put his ideas into practice. In the spirit of the New Buddhists of late Meiji, they envisioned a
comprehensivelifestylestructure.AsEtoTekireimovedtothevillageofTakaidowiththeassistanceof
TokutomiRoka,hecalledhisnewhomeHyakusho¯ Aido¯jo¯ (literally,FarmersLoveTrainingGround).
HeandhisfamilyendeavoredtofollowaTolstoyanlife,whichincludedlabor,philosophy,art,religion,
society,andpolitics,agrandprojectthathesawasa“non-religiousreligion.”Assuch,Tekirei’sutopian
visionmightbeconceivedasanexperimentin“alter-modernity.”
Keywords: violence; nonviolence; Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910); utopianism; Japanese Buddhism;
TokutomiRoka(1868–1927);EtoTekirei(1880–1944);Mushako¯jiSaneatsu(1885–1976);nonresistance;
agrarianwayoflife
1. Introduction
TheprimaryforeigninfluenceonearlyJapanesesocialism—includingthetwomainformsof
religioussocialism,ChristianandBuddhist—wastheworkofLeoTolstoy(1828–1910),Russianessayist,
pacifist,Christiansocialistand,ofcourse,authorofsomeofthemostsignificantworksof19thcentury
worldliterature.1 AlthoughportionsofWarandPeacehadbeenpublishedinJapanasearlyas1886,
itwasin1889and1890—coincidingwiththeproclamationofboththeImperialConstitutionandthe
RescriptonEducation—thatJapanesetranslationsofTolstoy’sfictionandphilosophy,andaccountsof
hislife,begantoappearinjournalssuchasKokuminnotomo,Shinri,Tetsugakuzasshi,andRikugo¯zasshi.
Theyear1890alsosawthepublicationinNihonhyo¯ronofareportonTolstoyanhumanismbythe
ChristiantheologianandcriticUemuraMasahisa(1857–1925). Overthenextdecade,manyofTolstoy’s
shorter works became available in Japan, including The Cossacks (1893) and Kreutzer Sonata (1894),
bothofwhichhadasignificantinfluence. (SeeNobori1981,pp. 34–37;Shifman1966,pp. 59–64).
NodoubtpartoftheattractionofTolstoyasawriteroffictionwashisblendofnaturalismand
humanism,twosignificantliterarytrendsthatwerejustemerginginlateMeijiandearlyTaisho¯ Japan.
1 Several sections of this article have been adapted, with modifications and elisions, from (Shields 2017); see esp.
pp.170–72;183–88.
Religions2018,9,161;doi:10.3390/rel9050161 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions2018,9,161 2of12
(SeeSibley1968,p. 162,n.15). Tolstoy’sideasontheindividual,religion,society,andpoliticswere
ofimmenseinfluenceonthe“youngmenofMeiji,”thegenerationcomingofageinthelastdecade
of the Meiji period.2 As the historian Steven Marks puts it: “His writings encapsulated in highly
readableformtheRussianphilosophicalstressontheillusorynatureofWesternprogress,andthe
virtuesofeitherbackwardnessordelayingtheonsetofWesternmodernization,ideasthatreverberated
throughoutthenon-Westernworld.”(Marks2003,p. 123). Thisresonancewasparticularlystrongin
Japan,anationstrugglingwithmanyofthesameissuesregardingmodernization,industrialization,
anditsrelationshiptotheWestasTolstoy’sRussia.
Tolstoy held a deep respect and appreciation for Asian culture, dabbled in Buddhism,
and denounced Western imperialism and colonialism, urging non-Western peoples to resist
(nonviolently)becomingslavesorpuppetstotheWestanditsideals.3 Hisoutspokenoppositiontothe
Russo-JapaneseWar(1904–1905)wonhimmanyadherentsamongstudents,progressiveintellectuals,
andtheJapaneseleft(includingmanyChristiansandBuddhists),whilerenderinghimapernicious
influenceintheeyesofthelate-Meijiandearly-Taisho¯ administrations. Prominentleftistssuchas
AbeIso’o(1865–1949),Ko¯tokuShu¯sui(1871–1911),KitamuraTokoku(1868–1894),andO¯sugiSakae
(1885–1923) acknowledged Tolstoy as an influence and inspiration. As a result, combined with a
moregeneralfearofthegrowthofradicalthoughtamongtheyoung, inthedecadebetween1905
and1915Tolstoywasamongthoseauthorswhoseworksweretargetedasbeingdetrimentaltopublic
morals. To the chagrin of government officials and associated ideologues, however, the Russian
writer’s influence continued to grow throughout the Taisho¯ era, so much so that a new term was
coined—Torusutoishugi—todescribethepopularphenomenonofadoptinga“Tolstoyanlifestyle.”
One important legacy of Tolstoy in Japan is his particular concern with the peasantry and
agriculturalreform. Theso-called“rediscovery”oftheJapanesecountrysideinlateMeijiissometimes
attributedtohisinfluence. Manyifnotmostagrarianreformmovementsoftheearlycenturywere
directly inspired by Tolstoy’s work, often mixed with the writings of the Russian anarchist Peter
Kropotkin (1842–1921). That is not to say that there were no indigenous roots to this turn to the
countryside: Zen Buddhism (influenced by the primitivist stream within Chinese Daoism) has
long held to the ideal of a simple, rustic existence, while the practices of folk Shinto are rooted
invisitstoruralshrines. YetthecontrastonefindsinTolstoy—filteredthroughRousseauandthe
Europeanromantics—betweenthe“countryside”asthelocusfortruehumanityandthe“city”as
theemblemofstrife, unease, andsuffering, wasnewtoJapan, thoughitgraftedreadilyonto19th
centurynativistappealstoagriculturalproductivityandpeasantlifeasasolutiontoJapan’sproblems.
(SeeHarootunian1988,pp. 49–50,251;Tamamoi1998;Konishi2013,p. 23).
Tolstoy and his followers have frequently been labeled “antimodern,” based on a simplistic
conflationofmodernityandurbanculture. Indeed,whileJapaneseleftists(andsomerightists)were
attractedtoTolstoy’sagrarianromanticismasaresponsetoWestern(bourgeois,urban)civilization,
hisworkcontainselementsthataredistinctly“modern(ist),”includinghisrationalistinterpretationof
religionandproto-existentialistfocusontheindividual. Anddespiteofficialdisapproval,bytheearly
Taisho¯ therewasafeelingthatJapan’sadoptionofTolstoy(alongwiththemoreobviouslymodernist
HenrikIbsen)wasasuresignthatthecountryhademergedintothe“modernworld”andtheearly
Meijiimpulsehadpaidoff(Marks2003,p. 125).
2. TheNarodniki: Farmer’sInstitutesandNewVillages
Inshort,theimpactofTolstoyamongyoungintellectualsinlateMeijiandTaisho¯ Japancanhardly
beoverstated. YetTolstoywasnotsimplyareligiousreformerorsocialcritic;hewasalsorecognized
2 ForacomprehensivestudyofTolstoy’simpactinbothJapanandChina,see(Shifman1966).
3 Indeed,asMarksnotes,JapanesereadersofTolstoytendedtoseehimasfamiliarratherthanexoticormystical—thewayhe
wasusuallyseenintheWest—andforvariousreasonstreatedhimas“oneoftheirown”(ibid.,p.124).
Religions2018,9,161 3of12
asonethegreatwritersofthelate19thcentury—andassuch,hisinfluenceextendedtotheworldof
letters. AmongtheearliestJapanesewritersinfluencedbyTolstoy,severalofthemostprominentwere
TokutomiRoka(1868–1927),EtoTekirei(1880–1944),andMushako¯jiSaneatsu(1885–1976). Allthree
menidentifiedstronglywithTolstoy,notonlyaswritersandthinkersbutalsointermsofadopting
themaster’slifestyleandattemptingtoputhisideasintopractice. Inparticular,theywereattracted
towhatAkamatsuKatsumaro(1894–1955)called“thepracticaleffectivenessofTolstoy’sdoctrinesof
love,labor,nonresistance,andreverencefortheagrarianwayoflife.”(Akamatsu1981,p. 98).
On the way back from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, Roka—younger brother of the well-known
historianandcriticTokutomiSoho¯ (1863–1957)—visitedTolstoy’svillainYasnayaPolyanain1906,
andsoonbegantoinjecthisliteraryworkswithTolstoyanqualitiesofintrospectionandaresistanceto
authoritarianism.4 In1908,asleftistactivismgrewinthewakeoftheRusso-JapaneseWar,hegave
a controversial address to the Debating Society of the First Higher School of Tokyo entitled “The
SadnessofVictory,”inwhichheevokedtheemptinessfeltbyeventhegreatestgeneralsupontheir
so-calledvictoriesinbattle,concluding,inwordsthatevoketheBuddhistconversionofthelegendary
KingAshoka(304–232BCE)afterthebattleofKalinga: “Ofwhatvalueisman’svictory? Thepeople
searchafter‘success’or‘distinction,’offeringtheirverylivesinpayment. Butwhatissuccess,whatis
distinction? Thesearenothingmorethanprettyreflectionsshiningforthfromthedreamofman’s
aspirations” (cited in Akamatsu 1981, p. 99). Apparently, this speech hit a chord with a number
of students in the audience, some of who promptly quit school to return to their native village as
narodniki.5 RokahimselfwouldspendhisfinaltwodecadesensconcedwithhiswifeinaMusashino
forestretreatcalledKo¯shun-en,livingthelifeofa“naturalman”(shizenjin).
Eto Tekirei was another budding intellectual and writer who got caught up in the Tolstoyan
currents of the early 20th century. Around 1906, inspired by Tolstoy and the narodniki lifestyle,
heabandonedhisstudiesatTokyoImperialUniversityandtookupthelifeofafarmer. Yeteventhis
wasnotenough,soin1910,withtheassistanceofTokutomiRoka,Tekireitookupresidenceinthe
villageofTakaidointheMusashinoareajustoutsideofTokyo.6 Givinghisnewhomethegrandiose
titleHyakusho¯ Aido¯jo¯ (literally,FarmersLoveTrainingGround),heandhisfamilyattemptedtofollow
aTolstoyanlifetothefullest,whileincorporating—likesomanyotherJapanesenarodniki—Buddhist
andChristianelementsintohisthought,includingtheworkofChristiansocialistUchimuraKanzo¯
(1861–1930). Aneclecticthinker,TekireialsoborrowedheavilyfromtheworkofRussiananarchist
Kropotkin, whose Fields, Factories, and Workshops “really taught [him] how to live a life of labor,”
(Akamatsu 1981, p. 100; see also Eto 1925; Nishimura 1992, p. 170; Nakao 1996, p. 174). He was
amongthefirstJapanesescholarsto“rediscover”theworkofAndo¯ Sho¯eki(1703–1762),theEdo-period
agrarianthinkerandproto-communistvisionary.7 In1922,TekireipublishedhisAruhyakusho¯ noie
(Thehouseholdofacertainfarmer),which,togetherwithTsuchitokokorootagayashitsutsu(Tillingthe
soilandtheheart,1924),servesasbothmemoirandjustificationforhisagrariansocio-religiousvision.
Eto’sagrarian-Buddhistvisionisencapsulatedinhis“wheelofhouseholdgrainfarming”(Figure1).
4 SeeShizentojinsei(Natureandhumanlife,1900)forRoka’sreflectionsonnature,andMimizunotawagoto(Gibberishofan
earthworm,1913)forhisadoptionoftheTolstoyanpeasantlifestyle.See(Shifman1966,pp.68–76),forthecorrespondence
betweenRokaandTolstoy.
5 Ibid.;seealsoMoiwa1981.TheRussianwordnarodnikireferstoapersonassociatedwithalooselydefinedprogressive
socialmovementthatfirstaroseinRussiainthe1860sand1870s,inresponsetothepovertyandsocialproblemsunleashed
byofTsarAlexanderII’s“emancipation”oftheserfs. Theideologydevelopedandpromotedbythenarodnikiwasa
formofpopulism,focusedespeciallyonaddressingthegrievancesofruralpeasants—stillthevastmajorityofordinary
Russians—ratherthanurbanworkers.FormoreontheRussiannarodniki,see(Kołakowski2008,pp.609–12).
6 MusashinowouldbecomethecenteroftheJapanesenarodnikimovement,withTokutomiRoka,IkedaTaneo(1897–1974),
andO¯nishiGoichi(1898–1992)allspendingsometimeintheKamitakaidoareaduringtheTaisho¯period.See(Nishimura
1992,p.151).
7 See(Nishimura1992,pp.173–74).TekireireferredtohisutopianexperimentasTenshinkei,whichisborrowedfromSho¯eki’s
tropeofthenaturalorderas“movement,”“truthfulness,”and“reverence”;see(Tetsuo2002,“Ando¯Sho¯eki,”pp.75–76).
Religions2018,9,161 4of12
Figure1.EtoTekirei’s“Wheelofhouseholdgrainfarming”(Wada2012,p.78).
CitingMaruyamaMasao’sremarksonthetendencytowardsideologicalpolarizationduringthis
period,NishimuraShun’ichiarguesthatthistendencyextendedtolateMeijiandTaisho¯ denenshugi
(agrarianism)aswell,suchthatthereemergeda“rightwing”factionofthinkersdedicatedtono¯honshugi
(literally,agriculture-essence-ism)anda“leftwing”orprogressivefactionespousingno¯minjichishugi
(farmer-autonomy-ism)(Nishimura1992,p. 88;alsoseeNakao1996). NishimuraplacesTekireiinthe
lattergroup,alongwithIshikawaSanshiro¯ (1876–1956),ShimonakaYasaburo¯ (1878–1961),andO¯nishi
Goichi(1898–1992),asopposedto“rightists”suchasGondo¯ Seikyo¯ (1868–1937),TachibanaKo¯zaburo¯
(1893–1974),YamazakiNobuyoshi(1873–1954),andKato¯ Kanji(1884–1967).8 GivenTekirei’sprimary
inspirations—Tolstoy, Kropotkin, and Sho¯eki—his radically “horizontal” focus and concomitant
rejectionofhierarchy,thisisnotadifficultcasetomake. Andyetitisworthasking: justhowreliant
wasTekireionBuddhistideasandprinciplesforhisprogressive,naturalistvision?
Afterafewyearsoflifeasafarmer,TekireibegantohaveseriousdoubtsaboutTolstoy’sidealized
viewsofpeasantlife,andresolvedtoestablishanewsystemforlivingwithnature,whichhecalled
kashokuno¯jo¯(Wheelofhouseholdgrainfarming). Infact,thefirsthalfofthisfour-characterset,kashoku,
is borrowed directly—and effectively set in ironic contrast to—the traditional term shashoku, used
torefertothestateasatutelarydeityofgrain. Here,inTekirei’sreformulation,itisthehousehold
(ie)that becomesthelocusof livelihood, rather thanthestate. In addition, thefinalcharacter jo¯ is
clearlyborrowedfromBuddhisttradition,whereitreferstoaparticular“vehicle”orbranchofthe
Dharma, one that leads effectively to nirvana—as in the Great Vehicle (Mahayana; Daijo¯). Tekirei
goesontodividethisgeneralconceptintoeightcategories: (1)agrarianmethods(no¯ho¯);(2)agrarian
organization(no¯sei),(3)agrarianassociation(no¯so),(4)agrarian“path,”includingsocialandeconomic
standpoints(no¯do¯),(5)agrarianthought,includingphilosophyandart(no¯so¯),(6)agrariandoctrine,
8 (Nishimura1992,pp.88–89);forananalysisofthelifeandworkofKato¯Kanjivis-à-vistheemergenceofno¯honshugi,see
(Havens1970).
Religions2018,9,161 5of12
includingculture(no¯kyo¯),(7)agrarianspirit,includingspiritualityandreligion(no¯kon),(8)agrarian
practice(no¯gyo¯)(Nishimura1992,p. 171).
Clearly,inthespiritoftheNewBuddhistsoflateMeiji,Tekireiisaimingforacomprehensive
lifestylestructure—onethatstretches(orbetter,softens)theboundariesbetweenlabor,philosophy,art,
religion,society,andpolitics. Indeed,duetoitsapplicationtoallfacetsofordinarylife,hewouldgo
ontocallhisvisiona“non-religiousreligion”(mushu¯kyo¯noshu¯kyo¯).9 Moreover,Tekireiseemstohave
followedSho¯eki’sunderstandingoftheintrinsicrelationofnature,labor,andknowledge.Whilenature
cannotbeknowninitsentirety,itcan(andshould)be“practiced”throughagriculturallabor. Labor
alsobringsknowledge—includingknowledgeofthelimitsofpracticeitself,andoutofthisemerges“a
naturalcommunity[resting]... onoverflowingsurplusenergiesandinteractivenaturalpractices.”10
We find a remarkably similar vision in the following declaration of principles in the journal
Aozora(Bluesky),foundedin1925byO¯nishiGoichiandIkedaTaneo(1897–1974):
1 Aschildrenbornwiththegreatearthasourmotherandthevastskyasourfather,webelievethat
wemustfindthefoundationforourdailylivesinthespiritofthepurefarmer,andthatmoreover
thisistheveryrootofhumanexistence.
2 Werepudiatetheurban-basedcivilization,whichcontinuestooppressandtrampledownthe
peoplebothspirituallyandeconomically,andpledgeinsteadtoestablishanagriculturallybased
civilizationthatconformstotheland.
3 This creed is not meant to give birth to yet another fixed doctrine; rather, we simply look to
reconnectwithourinnatedispositiontotillthegreatearthandleadthenaturallifeofthefarmer.11
Whilethesoil-peasantfixationisstrongerherethanwiththemainlyurbanNewBuddhistsoflate
Meiji,therearepalpableaffinitiestosomeearlierBuddhistprogressiveswithregardtotheemphasison
reachingbeyond“civilization”towardsomedeeperfoundationforhumanexistenceandthedesireto
be“nonpartisan”and“post-ideological”—withouttherebylosingthecapacitytoengageinforthright
criticism.Andwhilewemightfindparallelswithright-leaningevocationsofa“returntothesoil”inthe
workofKato¯Kanjiandotheradvocatesofno¯honshugi,here—aswiththeNewBuddhistFellowship(Shin
Bukkyo¯ Do¯shikai)—thereisanoticeablelackofmentionofthestateorkokutai(nationalpolity). Inshort,
atissueistheindividual’srelationswith(a)nature,(b)themselves,and(c)theirsocietyorcommunity.
Insimilarfashion,EtoTekireiwasfiercelyresistanttothenotion—promotedby,forinstance,no¯honshugi
activistYamazakiNobuyoshi(1873–1954),that“goingbacktotheland”mustbecomecodifiedasa
matterof“nationalpolicy”(seeNishimura1992,p. 171).
TekireialsoborrowedheavilyfromtheworkofDo¯gen(1200–1253),takingparticularnoteofthe
SotoZenmaster’semphasisonthebodilybasisofawakening. AsWadaKo¯sakuexplains,thisbecame
thebasisofTekirei’sideaof“practice”(gyo¯)(Wada2012,pp. 12–14). Elsewherehewritesthatwhilehe
neverpracticedshikantazainameditationhall,hedidsointhe“heavenandearthmeditationhall”
(tenchizendo¯)—whileengagedinthe“practice”offarming(seeSaito¯ etal.2001,p. 232). Andwith
regardtothematterofworkandnature,herelieduponthefollowingpassagefromtheDevadatta
chapteroftheLotusSutra,describingtheBuddha’sreminiscencesofhispastlifeasakingwhohas
renounced his throne to follow a teacher of the “wonderful law”: “Picking fruit, drawing water,
gatheringfirewood,andpreparingfood,evenofferingmyownbodyasacouchforhim,feelingno
wearinessinbodyormind. Iservedhimforathousandyears,forthesakeoftheDharma,diligently
waitinguponhimsohelackednothing.”12
9 TekireiwritesaboutthisinhiscorrespondencewithAkegarasuHayaintheBuddhistjournalChugaiNippo¯(March–April
1916);see(Wada2012,pp.293–94).
10 (Tetsuo2002,p.70).FormoreonTekirei’suseofShoeki,see(Kinji1974).
11 Citedin(Nishimura1992,p.150);mytranslation.
12 Citedin(Wada2012,p.20);LotusSutra,chap.12“Devadatta.”
Religions2018,9,161 6of12
Whilethetropeofthe“suffering”or“self-sacrificial”servantwasalsoputtogoodusebykokutai
ideologues,Tekireiresistedtheself-denyingemphasisofno¯honshugiinfavorofwhatcanonlybecalled
an “individualist” quest for existential truth. In this respect, his critique of Marx is worth noting,
in that—again like his New Buddhist predecessors—he accepts the basic premises of the Marxist
(aswellastheDarwinian)critiqueoftraditional“idealist”philosophiesandreligionswhileresisting
theharder-edgedimplicationsofakindofmaterialism(anddeterminism)thattreatshumanbeings
simplyas“matter”oras“animals”(seeWada2012,pp. 59–64). Inmanyrespects,Tekirei’seclectic
philosophyisrootedinprinciplessimilartotheseishinshugiofKiyozawaManshi(1863–1903),soit
comesasnosurprisetolearnthatinearly1902theyoungTekireivisitedtheKo¯ko¯do¯ tohearKiyozawa
lectureonShinran(1173–1263)andwasfavorablyimpressedbytheolderman. Twodecadeslater
hewouldwritethatitwasduetoKiyozawa(inparticularhisreadingofShinran),thatTekireifirst
trulydiscoveredthe“self”(shi).13 HewouldlaterhavecontactwithtwoofKiyozawa’schiefstudents:
AkegarasuHaya(1877–1954)andChikazumiJo¯kan(1870–1941).
Finally,weturntothethirdandmostinfluentialofourTolstoyannarodniki: Mushako¯jiSaneatsu.
As the son of a viscount descended from the highest ranks of nobility (kuge), Mushako¯ji received
an elite—and cosmopolitan—education at Gakushu¯in (Peers’ School) in Tokyo, coming into early
contactwiththeworkofTolstoyaswellastheBible.14 Fromhisschoolyears,hewouldlaterrecount,
his“utmostdesirewastobecomeachampionofhumanitarianism,agreatmanoflettersandagreat
thinker... ajustman,andtoleadalifesoholythathemightpassforaparagonofvirtueintheeyes
ofGod... ”15ThoughinitiallyenrolledintheDepartmentofPhilosophyatTokyoImperialUniversity,
hisinterestssoonturnedtowardliterature,and,likeEtoTekirei,hedroppedoutpriortograduation.
Bythistime, Mushako¯jihadcomeintocontactwithanumberoftalentedandlike-mindedyoung
writers,withwhomhewouldfoundtheShirakaba-ha(WhiteBirchSchool)in1910(seeMortimer2000,
pp. ix–x).
AlongwiththeothermembersoftheWhiteBirchSchool,throughthepagesoftheirpublication
Shirakaba,Mushako¯jipromotedaformofidealisthumanismthatwentagainstthepopularliterarytrend
ofnaturalism,whichtendedtowardafatalisticandpessimisticviewofhumanlifecaughtupinforces
beyonditscontrol. Incontrast,Mushako¯jiandtheotherwritersoftheWhiteBirchSchoolembracedan
optimisticviewofhumanpotential,inwhichtheindividualwaslargelyincontrolofhisowndestiny
viathepowerofthewill.16 YetMushako¯ji—likeTolstoyandthenarodnikidiscussedabove—wasnot
contenttobesimplyawriter;helongedtoputhisideasintopractice,anopportunitythatpresented
itselfin1918,withthefoundingoftheutopiancommunityAtarashikimura(NewVillage)atKijo¯mura,
anisolatedspotinthemountainsofMiyazakiprefecture,Kyushu. Despitetheinevitabletroubles
(bothfinancialandpersonal),Atarashikimuraseemstohaveflourishedforitsfirstdecade—reachinga
peakaround1929. Thesitewascondemnedin1938toallowfortheconstructionofanelectricalpower
plant. AsecondNewVillagewasthenestablishedinSaitamaprefecture,andseveralbranchesarose
elsewhere,afewofwhichcontinuetothisday.
To some extent, Musahako¯ji struggled with the same problem as the New Buddhists and the
othernarodniki: howtoreconcileself-discoveryandindividualfreedomwithsocialresponsibilitiesand
politicalobligations(see,e.g.,Epp1996,p.17).IntheimmediateaftermathoftheHighTreasonIncident
(Taigyakujiken)of1910–11,andwithmorefocusonthe“self”inTaisho¯ intellectualandliterarycircles,
theproblemhadbecomeevenmoreacute—andsignificantlymorepoliticallysensitive. Giventhis
13 Ibid.,pp.285–86.
14 AttendingGakushu¯inthroughvirtuallytheentirefourthdecadeofMeiji(1898–1906),Mushako¯jiandhisShirakabapeers
wereexposedtoanimpressivearrayoflecturers,includingNatsumeSo¯seki(1867–1916),UchimuraKanzo¯,MiyakeSetsurei
(1860–1945),ShimazakiTo¯son(1872–1943),andTokutomiRoka.
15 FromMushako¯ji’sautobiographicalnovelAruotoko(1921–1923);translatedin(Mortimer2000,p.19).
16 ThisrelentlessoptimismcanbeseeninthetitlesofanumberofMushako¯ji’sworksfromthisperiod:thenovelsKo¯fukumono
(Ahappyman,1919)andYu¯jo¯(Friendship,1920),andtheplayNingenbanzai(Threecheersformankind,1922);alsoseehis
autobiographicalnovelAruotoko(Acertainman,1923).
Religions2018,9,161 7of12
context,itishardlysurprisingthat,takenasawhole,whatwemightcallTaisho¯ “humanism”—whether
fortuitouslyorasaformofself-censorshipinthewakeoftheHighTreasonIncident—wasnotoverly
concernedwithsocialproblems. Indeed,ithasbecomesomethingofascholarlyconsensusthatTaisho¯
literature,inparticular,representsan“inwardturning”awayfromthesocialconsciousnessexpressed
intheworksoflateMeiji“naturalism(see,e.g.,Kohl1990,p. 9). “[I]fonecharacteristicofthisearly
phaseoftheTaisho¯ discoveryoftheselfliesinconfession,anotherseemstobeablockingoutofsocial
concern,atleastinananalyticsense”(Rimer1990,p. 35;Mortimer2000,p. 146).
In this regard, the Shirakaba writers—and Mushako¯ji in particular—appear to have a mixed
record. MayaMortimerarguesthat,despitetheir“reverenceforTolstoy”—whichwouldseemtogain
themacertainprogressivecredibility—the“Shirakabaconcernforthevisualarts... andtheemphasis,
throughMushanoko¯ji,onself-fulfillment,seemeddesignedtoreassuretheauthoritiesthatthegroup
hadeffectivelywithdrawnfromthepoliticalarena,”andthateventhefoundingofAtarashikimurain
1918wasnota“returntopolitics”butratheraformofescapism: “basedonpastoralnostalgiaand
exploitingtheethicalandquietistaspectsofTolstoyanismasadefenseagainstthosewhoreproached
thegroup’slackofpoliticalinvolvement.”17Ontheotherhand,StephenKohlcontraststheworkof
Mushako¯jiandfellowShirakabamemberArishimaTakeo(1878–1923)withthatofAbeJiro¯ (1883–1959),
authorofthehugelypopularSantaro¯ nonikki(DiaryofSantaro¯,1914): “WhenMushanoko¯jispokeof
theself,hewascallingfortheimprovementofboththeselfandsocietyatlarge. Abe’sconcernfor
theselfissoinward-lookingthathisvisionrarelygoesbeyondtheidentificationandedificationof
theindividualself”(Kohl1990,p. 9). IfweassumethatKohliscorrecttoemphasizea“social”aspect
toMushako¯ji’sfocusontheself—distinctfrommanyTaisho¯ “humanists”—thenwhat,ifanything,
precludesthisfrombeing“political”?
The founding of Atarashikimura in the summer and fall of 1918 was the culmination of
Mushako¯ji’slong-standingutopiandream—andrepresentstheconcreteembodimentofhisdeepest
personalvaluesandideals. Thecommunewasborninthemidstoftwoeventsofbothglobaland
localresonance: theRussianRevolutionofOctober1917andtheendoftheGreatWarthefollowing
autumn. Asurgeinsocialunrestwithinthecountry—exemplifiedbytheRiceRiotsinTokyo,Osaka,
andKobe—compoundedthefearsoftheTaisho¯ administration,showingthattheMeijiexperiments
with nation building and the attempt to create a harmonious social order had not yet achieved
resolution (see Smith 1970, p. 91; Ohnuki-Tierney 1994, pp. 38–39). Very much in the Tolstoyan
anti-authoritarianspirit,Mushako¯ji’sintentionalcommunitypledgeditselftoanidealof“harmony
withouthierarchy.”18 Yearsearlier,Mushako¯jihadwrittenofanidealfuturesociety,inwhich: “no
temptationwhatsoeverwilldisturbthepeace,andpeoplewillloveoneanotheruntroubledbyanger,
deceit,rivalry,coercion,moralobligations,orcensorship. Sincerity,joy,andsolidaritywillsufficeto
dispelallanxietyaboutclothing,food,andshelter.”19 Inwhatsoundsironicbutisinfactaserious
attempttobringaboutsuchanidealcommunity,thefirstandonly“commandment”inAtarashikimura
isaprohibitionagainstmakingorfollowing“commandments”: Hitonimeireisurunakare;matahito
nimeireisarerunakare(citedinMortimer2000, p. 29). Indeed, thestatutesofthecommunitywere
remarkably“liberal”inemphasis:individuallibertyoverauthority,personalinitiativeovercompulsion,
and“work”asanatural,pleasurableactivityratherthananobligation(thesefeaturesalsoalignwith
some anarchist and syndicalist visions of the ideal society). In short, the village was more of a
“co-operative”thana“commune.”
17 (Mortimer2000,pp.x–xi).Admittedly,itisunclearwhetherthesepointsrepresentMortimer’sownscholarlyopinionorare
meanttoreflectthe“standardreading”oftheShirakabawritersbypostwar(Marxist-inclined)criticssuchasHondaShu¯go.
WhileatGakushu¯in,Mushako¯jinotesthatheandhispeerswereexposedtotheearlywritingsofKotokuShu¯suiandSakai
Toshihiko(1871–1933),andthathehimselffeltaparticularaffinitytoShu¯sui’sideas,“nevermiss[ing]asingleissueofthe
HeiminShimbun”(MSZ).
18 InAruotoko,Mushako¯jinoteshisdistrustofcharismaticrevolutionaryleaderssuchasLeninandTrotsky,whohadbecome
“cult-figures”and“idols”(MSZ).
19 Mushako¯ji,“Gendainobunmei”;citedandtranslatedin(Mortimer2000,p.29).
Religions2018,9,161 8of12
Ofallthenarodnikiandutopiansdiscussedinthischapter,Mushako¯jiappearstobetheoneleast
influenced by Buddhist ideas or practices. In this passage of his autobiographical novel Aru otoko
(Acertainman,1923)herecountsthedreamsofhisearlyschoolyears:
Whynotbecomeabonze?—heevenwentsofartothink;butthen,topicturehimselfbusy
at chanting sutras was just too ridiculous. A beggar, then? But he did not believe that a
beggar’sjobwouldhelptorevivehisselfhood. Whateverhechosetodo,hewouldnever
settleforhalf-waysolutions. Hehadtobecomeafullymatureindependentmanofnothing
atall. Butagain,evenifhesucceededinbringingtolifeonesideoftheself,hethoughthe
wouldnotbeabletorevivethewhole. (citedinandtranslatedinMortimer2000,p. 20)
Thesereminiscencesareinterestinginseveralrespects. First,thoughMushako¯jiisreflectingfromthe
ageoffortybackuponaperiodthirtyyearsprevious(aroundthetimeoftheRusso-JapaneseWar),
thesedreamsanddoubtswouldstaywithhimthroughouthislife. Second,whileheclearlyrejects
thetraditional,stereotypicallifeoftheBuddhist“bonze,”hisaspirationsforan“independent”and
comprehensive“revival”oftheselfcoincidesperfectlywithseveralstreamsofBuddhistmodernism
emerging in late Meiji, including New Buddhism and, perhaps even more so, the seishinshugi of
KiyozawaManshi. Moreover,thereareZeninflectionstoMushako¯ji’sconvictionthat: “Oneendeavors
toworknotsimplytogainalivelihood,butasawayofenrichingone’slife”(Shigotonihagemuno
wa,seikatsunotamedakedenaku,jibunnojinseiju¯jitsusurukotodesu)(citedinMatsubara1994,p. 58).
Indeed,morethanonescholarhasnotedthe“DaoistZen”aspectsofhispoetry.20
Finally,evenwhileMushako¯ji’syouthfulardorforChristianity—stokedbyreadingTolstoyand
hearinglecturesbyChristiansocialistsUchimuraKanzo¯ andKinoshitaNaoe(1869–1937)—wouldcool
undertheinfluenceofBelgianplaywrightMauriceMaeterlinck(1862–1949),hewouldconfessin1911
thatheretainedsomethinglikea“religiousvocation.”Indeed,thispassagefromhisessay“Jikono
tamenogeijutsu”(Artfortheself)bearsquotinginfull,asitpointstoaconceptionofselfandsociety
thatwaswidespreadamongTaisho¯ intellectuals,especiallythoseunderTolstoy’sinfluence:
IfIhappenedtobecarriedawaybymysocialinstinct,Imightevenbereadytodieformy
society. ButifIamnotandampushedbysocietytoexposemyselfagainstmywill,Iwill
hatetodosorightaway. BeforeIknowwhetheritisgoodorbadtofollowmysocialinstinct,
Imustfirstlistentomyindividual,human,animal,terrestrial,DinganSichandallother
instinctswithinme(Ialsoperceiveinmyselfsomethinglikeareligiousvocation;Tolstoy
callsit“reason,”butIthinkitcorrespondstosomethingdeeperthanthat).21
Inthisrespect,itisusefultobrieflyexamineMushako¯ji’sLifeofShakyamuniBuddha,a1934publication
that,duetopositivecriticalreceptionandbrisksales,helpedhimtorecoverfromtheseriousfinancial
straitstowhichhehadfallenbythelate1920s. Inanafterwordinwhichheexplainshisreasonsfor
writing this work, Mushakoji notes that, while not intending to bring forth a “new Shakyamuni,”
hewantstoemphasizethe“human”Sakyamuni,anidealfigurelaudedforhiscombinationofinsight
andcompassion,yetonewhopossessedanaturalinnocence: “theheartofachild”(akagonokokoro).
Inshort,likeChrist—also“amanwithapure,pureheart”22—SakyamuniBuddharepresentsone
ofthegreatsagesofthepast;thatis,hisstoryisusefulasareferenceforidealhumanbehavior,butbereft
ofanytranscendentalormysticalgloss(seeMortimer2000,p. 93,n. 4). Aswithmanyprogressive
BuddhistsfromlateMeiji,includingtheNewBuddhistFellowship,Mushako¯jicreatedapantheonof
20 See,e.g.,(Epp1996,pp.18–22).AccordingtoEpp,“TaoistequanimityliesattheheartofMushako¯ji’spoetic”(18).
21 “Jikonotamenogeijutsu,”Shirakaba1911(MSZ);translatedinMortimer2000,91.MortimernotestheKantianandespecially
Freudianringofthese“instincts”(honno¯).
22 MSZ.InhisKofukumono(1919),publishedsoonafterthebirthofAtarashikimura,Mushako¯jiwouldemploytheterm
magokoro—literally,pure,openmind/heart—torefertothischaracteristicsharedbyalltrue“masters.”Mortimer2000,
p.180,184,connectsmagokorotoaconceptof“divinenakedness,”aswellastoan“immanentistandpantheistic”energy
thatexistswithinnature.
Religions2018,9,161 9of12
“masters,”includingreligiousfigures,philosophers,andwriters(andevenliterarycharacters),who
serveasmodelsofhuman“liberation.”23Thus“theBuddha”functionsasarepresentativeofacomplex
ofhumanistideals,includingareligiousunderstandingrootedincommonsenseandcompatiblewith
modernscience,onethatrejectssocialdiscriminationandinstitutionalhypocrisy,andlookstonature
itselfasasourceforliberation.24 InhismuchearlierplayWashimoshiranai(Idon’tknow,either,1910),
Mushako¯jipresentsaconversationbetweenGod,Jesus,andSakyamuniinwhichtheyalladmittheir
inability to save mankind—indicating, once again, a modernist perspective on spiritual liberation
rootedintheindividualaswellasnature,butnot“thegods.”25
3. IdeologyandUtopiaintheTaisho¯ Period
In order to theorize further about the various Tolstoyan-Buddhistic utopias described in this
chapter,Iturnnowtoabriefdiscussionofthedistinctionbetween“ideology”and“utopia”inthework
of20thcenturyGermansocialtheoristKarlMannheim(1893–1947). Inhisclassic1929work,Ideologie
undUtopia(Ideologyandutopia),Mannheimfirstdelineatesthe“utopianmentality”asthatwhichis
alwaysincongruentwiththeworld—thatis,“orientedtowardobjectswhichdonotexistintheactual
situation.”Hethenproceedstodistinguishutopianincongruityfromideologicalincongruity. Whereas
thelattermayalso“departfromreality”inthought,itdoesnotgosofarastoeffectchangeonsociety;
rather,ideologiesareeventuallyadoptedorassimilatedinsupportofthestatusquo. Thus,“[o]nly
thoseorientationstranscendingrealitywillbereferredtobyusasutopianwhich,whentheypass
over into conduct, tend to shatter, either partially or wholly, the order of things prevailing at the
time”(Mannheim1936,p. 192)Inshort,forMannheim,trueutopiasarealwayscriticalinthemost
fundamentalsenseoftheterm.
Mannheimgoesontocontrastchiliasticformsofutopia—andtheassociated“mentality”—with
liberal-humanitarianones,whicharerootedlessin“ecstatic-orgiasticenergies”thanin“ideas.”Inthe
liberalconception,a“formalgoalprojectedintotheinfinitefuture”functionsasa“regulativedevicein
mundaneaffairs.”Inotherwords,utopiaisquiteliterallyanidealized“otherrealm”thatinspiresus
byworkingonortransformingourmoralconscience. Thisgeneralunderstandingunderliesmuchof
whatwenowcall“modernphilosophy,”andassuch,wasdeeplyintertwinedwiththepoliticalideas
ofaparticularclass: thebourgeoisie,whoconsciouslyemployeditagainstthe“clerical-theological”
view of the world.26 “This outlook, in accordance with the structural relationship of the groups
representingit,pursuedadynamicmiddlecoursebetweenthevitality,ecstasy,andvindictivenessof
oppressedstrata,andtheimmediateconcretenessofafeudalrulingclasswhoseaspirationswerein
completecongruencewiththethenexistingreality.”27
Significantly,however,thisliberal-bourgeoisdrivetowardthe“middleway”ispursuedthrough
a privileging of ideas above the vulgar materiality of “existing reality.” As a result, according to
Mannheim: “Elevated and detached, and at the same time sublime, it lost all sense for material
things, as well as every real relationship with nature.”28 In short, however utopian, a “moderate”
path that ultimately privileges ideas over material reality contains a real danger of falling into a
formofidealismthatconformsto,ratherthanchallenges,thematerial—andthusideological—status
quo. Again,astrongcasecouldbemadethatmodernBuddhism,alongwithmostmajorreligious
traditions,hasgenerallytakenthispath,eitherbydesignor,Iwouldsuggest,outofcertainideological
23 FortheShirakabawriters,theseincludedChrist,S´a¯kyamuniBuddha,Confucius,St.Francis,Rousseau,Carlyle,Whitman,
andWilliamJames;see(Mortimer2000,p.119).
24 Seeibid.,p. 120. MortimerarguesthatbecausetheShirakaba“master”ultimatelyrejectsall“isms,”themethodofthe
masterinvolvesa(Zen?)“wayofunlearning.”
25 HereagainweseeaparallelwithAndo¯ Sho¯eki’sradically“horizontal”perspectiveonliberation;i.e.,onethatrejects
“authority”inanyverticalform,relyingratheronthe“movement”oftheindividualwithinnatureandcommunity.
26 Ibid.,p.221.
27 Ibid.,myemphasis.
28 Ibid.,p.222.
Religions2018,9,161 10of12
tendenciesinherentininterpretationsofspecificBuddhistteachings. Infact,thisispreciselythecentral
argumentoftheCriticalBuddhist(hihanbukkyo¯)movementofthe1990sledbyHakayamaNoriakiand
MatsumotoShiro¯,scholarsaffiliatedwithSotoZen,thoughtheCriticalBuddhistsdidnotextendtheir
critiquetoapervasive“liberal”mentalityrootedinadiscourseofmodernity.29
As we have seen in the above discussion of various utopian experiments in the late Meiji
and Taisho¯ period, despite real differences, they are tied together by an overwhelming focus on
self-discoveryorself-awakening—understoodlessinrelationtotheroleoftheindividualinsociety
andpoliticsthanwithrespecttoabroaderand“aesthetic”conceptofculture. Thisisnottosaythat
all of these figures did not, to some degree, struggle with the “problem” of the self in relation to
othersandthelargercommunity—indeed,theattempttocreatesustainableintentionalcommunities
implies some degree of social concern. And yet, ultimately, resistance to the dangers of “vulgar
materialism”—no doubt enhanced by legitimate fear of reprisal from authorities in the wake of
the High Treason Incident—led to the search for, in Mushako¯ji’s phrase, “safe havens” (nigeba) in
art, literature, and utopian communities, from the storms of politics and social conflict. Indeed,
forMushako¯ji,atleast,theselfbecomesasortofnigeba;asheexplainsin“Jikonotamenogeijitsu”
(Artfortheself,1911):
Our present generation can no longer be satisfied with what is called “objectivism” in
naturalistideology. Wearetooindividualisticforthat... Ihave,therefore,taughtmyself
toplaceentiretrustintheSelf. Tome,nothinghasmoreauthoritythantheSelf. Ifathing
appearswhitetome,whiteitis.IfonedayIseeitasblack,blackiswhatitwillbe.Ifsomeone
triestoconvincemethatwhatIseeaswhiteisblack,Iwilljustthinkthatpersoniswrong.
Accordingly,ifthe“self”iswhitetome,nobodywillmakemesayitisblack.30
Granted, Mushako¯ji is here expressing an extreme standpoint, a hyper-subjectivism that has
no regard whatsoever for “objective truth”—or even, for that matter, reasoned discussion or
debate. Andyet,itspeakstoamoregeneralissueorproblemwithTaisho¯ “progressivism,”andis
preciselythereasonthat, afterhisinitialexcitement, progressivewriterandeconomistKawakami
Hajime(1879–1946)leftIto¯ Sho¯shin’s(1876–1963)utopianMuga-en(GardenofSelflessness)in1906.
AlthoughneitherSho¯shinnorNishidaTenko¯ (1872–1968)wereartistsorliteraryfigures,bothoftheir
Tolstoyan-inspiredintentionalcommunities,Muga-enandItto¯en,canbeclassifiedas“liberal-humanist”
inMannheim’sschema. Extendingthistocontemporarycriticism,thebulkoftheseTaisho¯ progressive
canbejustlyaccusedasrelyingonwhatKaratani(2005)Ko¯jincallsan“aesthetic”perspective,inwhich
“actual contradictions” are surmounted and unified “at an imaginary level.” In Karatani’s sense,
aestheticsismuchmorethansimplyawayofspeakingaboutartandbeauty;itisamodeofdiscourse
that seeks to establish a reformed existence or “sensibility”—an understanding that dates back to
RomanticwriterssuchasSchiller,andfindsexpressionwithinGermanIdealismfollowingHegel.31
For Karatani, the attempt by Japanese thinkers and utopians to “overcome modernity” inevitably
endedinfailure,sinceitisimpossibletoovercomethelarge-scalesocialcontradictionsandtensionsof
modernitybyappealingtoanabstractidealof“culture.”Withthehindsightofhistory,itbecomesless
surprisingtonotethatmanyofthese“progressive”experimentswereeasilyco-optedbytheemerging
ultra-nationalismoftheSho¯waperiod. The“resistance”thatMannheimseesascrucialtotrueutopian
thoughtandpracticethusslidesinto“ideology”—ajustificationandperpetuationofthestatusquo.
29 ForanextendedtreatmentofCriticalBuddhism,see(Shields2011).
30 Shirakaba,July1911(MSZ).
31 ThisisnottosaythatKaratani’sdefinitionisequivalenttothatofSchillerorHegel,butratherthat,liketheirs,itlookstothe
originalmeaningoftheGreekrootaisthesis(aisthe¯sis),i.e.,“perception.”See(Calichman2005,p.27).