Steering Clear of the Misunderstanding and Sophistry Surrounding Prime Minister Abe's Visit to the Yasukuni Shrine
ONO Goro / Professor Emeritus, Saitama University
January 21, 2014
Japan's Prime Minister Abe Shinzo paid a visit to the Yasukuni Shrine that caused frictions with neighboring countries and invited criticism even from Europe and the United States. Whatever his excuses, the very act of a Prime Minister paying respects at a Shinto shrine that honors war criminals among its war dead is certainly cause enough for others to condemn the Japanese for their seeming lack of repentance for the events of World War II. However, if we continue to treat the Yasukuni visits primarily as a diplomatic dispute, we would run the risk of misplacing the substance of the issue altogether.
Let me explain in concrete terms. Advocates insist that showing respect to the spirits of the war dead who served their country is only natural and a universally accepted custom practiced throughout the world, that Japan has an ancient cultural tradition of giving a generous burial to both the good and the bad once they are dead, and that other countries should not meddle in matters concerning Japan's spiritual and cultural independence. Critics meanwhile find it objectionable that Class A war criminals are enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine and claim the visits aggravate tensions with foreign countries, particularly our neighbors such as China and the Koreas. We come away with the impression that either side seems to have a point, which is why the futile debate has continued to this day. Yet, all of these opinions are based on an unwillingness to see eye to eye with the truth.
Taken at face value, the importance of "respecting the spirits of the war dead" and "Japan's cultural independence" certainly rings true, while we also feel a sense of outrage upon hearing about the "enshrinement of Class A war criminals" or "growing tensions with neighboring countries."
However, Yasukuni is not part of the ancient lineage of Japanese Shinto shrines to begin with. As Japan entered the Meiji era, the Emperor was transformed from a symbol of authority to be placed on the seat of actual power, which culminated with his taking command of the armed forces as Grand Marshall. And it was Emperor Meiji who ordered the construction of Yasukuni as a shrine dedicated to "state-sanctioned Shinto" and placed it under the Home Ministry. Thus we cannot escape criticism that the "venerable war dead" enshrined there had been individuals who gave their lives to serve the ruling powers at the time.
Furthermore, in the postwar era a powerful bond has developed between the Yasukuni Shrine and the Japan War-Bereaved Association, which has consistently lobbied for military pensions and support for the war wounded on the strength of its membership of a million households, and visits to the Yasukuni Shrine by politicians have become heavily tinged with their intentions of catering to this lobby. In other words, even if it were valid to claim that "Japan has an ancient cultural tradition of giving a generous burial to both the good and the bad once they are dead" and that "other countries should not meddle in matters of Japan's spiritual and cultural independence," it does not automatically justify the shrine's significance or the visits paid by the Prime Minister.
Let me also explain the distinction between traditional Japanese Shinto and state-sanctioned Shinto in simple terms. Traditionally, Shinto combines the polytheist beliefs in worshipping spirits indigenous to the land (animism) and worshipping ancestral spirits – the ujigami, or guardian gods of each clan, and shrines are dedicated to the local spirits, the ancestral spirits of a clan or to individual deities. In contrast, state-sanctioned Shinto represents a quasi-monotheist system under the Home Ministry, in which the shrine is dedicated to the living god that is the embodiment of national polity – in other words the Emperor, who is the direct descendant of the goddess Amaterasu. And that is where the war dead have been jointly enshrined. In that sense, it may seem only proper to enshrine those individuals who "perished in their service to the state" within the context of the latter Shinto. However, in view of the inclusive nature that has marked traditional Japanese Shinto since ancient times, it may also be entirely acceptable to enshrine them together in a facility with no religious connotations.
I should also mention that during the years preceding World War II, the Japanese sought to destroy indigenous religions along with the spiritual and cultural foundations of the local communities in colonies controlled by Japan, and in the process constructed state Shinto shrines as an alternative to which the local people were coerced into paying respects. Thus it is impermissible for Japan to take the lopsided attitude of rejecting criticism by others on the grounds that it threatens our "spiritual and cultural independence" without first reflecting on our own past deeds.
Yet, having duly recognized the above, I feel the need to make one further point about the behavior of certain victor nations of World War II that have persisted to this day in adopting words and deeds based on a "winners write history" doctrine that has no legitimacy under international law. This is plainly demonstrated in the way they seek to justify the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or massacres such as the Great Tokyo Air Raids, and likewise in their hysterical reaction to the fact that Yasukuni enshrines Class A war criminals – including some who are thought to have been falsely accused. Such behavior only builds up resentment within Japan, ultimately to the point of diminishing any sense of repentance that is so crucial to this issue, and could lead to a further escalation of an endless cycle of mutual antagonism.
Goro Ono is Professor Emeritus at Saitama University.
Let me explain in concrete terms. Advocates insist that showing respect to the spirits of the war dead who served their country is only natural and a universally accepted custom practiced throughout the world, that Japan has an ancient cultural tradition of giving a generous burial to both the good and the bad once they are dead, and that other countries should not meddle in matters concerning Japan's spiritual and cultural independence. Critics meanwhile find it objectionable that Class A war criminals are enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine and claim the visits aggravate tensions with foreign countries, particularly our neighbors such as China and the Koreas. We come away with the impression that either side seems to have a point, which is why the futile debate has continued to this day. Yet, all of these opinions are based on an unwillingness to see eye to eye with the truth.
Taken at face value, the importance of "respecting the spirits of the war dead" and "Japan's cultural independence" certainly rings true, while we also feel a sense of outrage upon hearing about the "enshrinement of Class A war criminals" or "growing tensions with neighboring countries."
However, Yasukuni is not part of the ancient lineage of Japanese Shinto shrines to begin with. As Japan entered the Meiji era, the Emperor was transformed from a symbol of authority to be placed on the seat of actual power, which culminated with his taking command of the armed forces as Grand Marshall. And it was Emperor Meiji who ordered the construction of Yasukuni as a shrine dedicated to "state-sanctioned Shinto" and placed it under the Home Ministry. Thus we cannot escape criticism that the "venerable war dead" enshrined there had been individuals who gave their lives to serve the ruling powers at the time.
Furthermore, in the postwar era a powerful bond has developed between the Yasukuni Shrine and the Japan War-Bereaved Association, which has consistently lobbied for military pensions and support for the war wounded on the strength of its membership of a million households, and visits to the Yasukuni Shrine by politicians have become heavily tinged with their intentions of catering to this lobby. In other words, even if it were valid to claim that "Japan has an ancient cultural tradition of giving a generous burial to both the good and the bad once they are dead" and that "other countries should not meddle in matters of Japan's spiritual and cultural independence," it does not automatically justify the shrine's significance or the visits paid by the Prime Minister.
Let me also explain the distinction between traditional Japanese Shinto and state-sanctioned Shinto in simple terms. Traditionally, Shinto combines the polytheist beliefs in worshipping spirits indigenous to the land (animism) and worshipping ancestral spirits – the ujigami, or guardian gods of each clan, and shrines are dedicated to the local spirits, the ancestral spirits of a clan or to individual deities. In contrast, state-sanctioned Shinto represents a quasi-monotheist system under the Home Ministry, in which the shrine is dedicated to the living god that is the embodiment of national polity – in other words the Emperor, who is the direct descendant of the goddess Amaterasu. And that is where the war dead have been jointly enshrined. In that sense, it may seem only proper to enshrine those individuals who "perished in their service to the state" within the context of the latter Shinto. However, in view of the inclusive nature that has marked traditional Japanese Shinto since ancient times, it may also be entirely acceptable to enshrine them together in a facility with no religious connotations.
I should also mention that during the years preceding World War II, the Japanese sought to destroy indigenous religions along with the spiritual and cultural foundations of the local communities in colonies controlled by Japan, and in the process constructed state Shinto shrines as an alternative to which the local people were coerced into paying respects. Thus it is impermissible for Japan to take the lopsided attitude of rejecting criticism by others on the grounds that it threatens our "spiritual and cultural independence" without first reflecting on our own past deeds.
Yet, having duly recognized the above, I feel the need to make one further point about the behavior of certain victor nations of World War II that have persisted to this day in adopting words and deeds based on a "winners write history" doctrine that has no legitimacy under international law. This is plainly demonstrated in the way they seek to justify the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or massacres such as the Great Tokyo Air Raids, and likewise in their hysterical reaction to the fact that Yasukuni enshrines Class A war criminals – including some who are thought to have been falsely accused. Such behavior only builds up resentment within Japan, ultimately to the point of diminishing any sense of repentance that is so crucial to this issue, and could lead to a further escalation of an endless cycle of mutual antagonism.
Goro Ono is Professor Emeritus at Saitama University.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
総理靖国参拝への誤解と詭弁に惑わされるな
小野 五郎 / 埼玉大学名誉教授
2014年 1月 21日
安倍総理の靖国神社参拝が周辺各国との軋轢さらには欧米からも批判を招いている。たしかに戦犯を合祀している神社に総理が参拝するということは、総理自身が如何ように説明しようとも日本人の先の大戦に対する反省が不十分だという非難を受けるに十分な根拠と映る。だが、靖国参拝問題をこのように外交問題としてばかり取り上げることは、問題の本質を見誤ることになる。
具体的に説明すると、参拝擁護論者側の「国家のために自らの命を捧げた英霊に対して敬意を表するのは当然であり、世界中どこの国でも普遍的に認められることである」「日本には昔から死ねば善人も悪人も区別なく手厚く葬るという文化・伝統がある」「日本の精神的・文化的独立性は他国から干渉されるべきものではない」という主張にしても、批判論者側の「Ａ級戦犯を合祀している」「海外、特に中韓等の近隣諸国との関係を悪化させる」という主張にしても、何とはなく一理ありそうに見え、それゆえにいつまでも不毛な議論が続いている訳だが、その実、これらはいずれも真実から目を背けたものである。
なるほど表面的に見る限り、「英霊への敬意」とか「日本文化の独立性」などは尤もらしく響くし、「Ａ級戦犯合祀」とか「近隣諸国との軋轢」と聞けばけしからんと感じられる。
だが、そもそも靖国というのは日本古来の日本神道の神社ではなく、明治に入ってそれまでの「権威」の象徴から「権力」の座に据えられ大元帥として軍を統帥するに至った明治天皇が建てさせ内務省の下に置いた「国家神道」の神社であり、ゆえにそこに祀られた「英霊」も時の権力者に殉じた人たちということでの批判を招くことは防ぎえない。また、戦後靖国と強固に結びついている日本遺族会は、軍人恩給、戦傷病者援護を掲げ100万世帯を背景としたロビー活動を続けてきており、政治家の参拝活動もそれに顔を向けた色彩が濃くなっている。逆から言えば、「日本には昔から死ねば善人も悪人も区別なく手厚く葬るという文化・伝統がある」「日本の精神的・文化的独立性は他国から干渉されるべきものではない」としても、それが直ちに靖国の存在意義さらには総理の参拝を正当化するものではない。
なお、日本神道と国家神道の差異を分かりやすく説明すると、前者は多神教として土地土地に棲む精霊への信仰(アニミズム)と祖霊(氏神)信仰との複合物であり、したがって土地ごと、氏族単位あるいは個々人を神として祀るのに対して、後者は疑似一神教(氏神の最高神たる天照)として内務省の管轄下、国体＝現人神(天照の直系子孫たる天皇)が祀られ、そこに英霊等が合祀されるという形態となる。したがって、「国家に殉じた英霊を合祀する」のは、あくまで後者でなければならないようにも見えるが、古来何でも受け入れてきた日本神道の風土からすれば、今日如何なる宗教・信仰とも関わりなく合祀する施設を設けることも容認されよう。
付言すると、戦前の日本植民地では、日本人が現地の土着宗教ないし精神的・文化的構造を破壊する過程で、その代わりになるものとして国家神道の神社を建立し現地人に対して実質的強制をもって参拝させていた。したがって、自らはその点の反省することもなく、一方的に対日批判を「日本の精神的・文化的独立性を脅かす」として拒否するなど許されることではない。
ただし、以上を認めた上で、あえて今一つ付言しておきたい。それは、いまだに当時の戦勝国が「勝てば官軍」という国際法上は認められない法理に基づいた言動に走っているという事実である。端的に言えば、それは広島・長崎への原爆投下から東京大空襲等の大虐殺の正当化とか冤罪者をも含むとされるＡ級戦犯を単に合祀しているというだけでヒステリックに反応するなどに現われていよう。が、そうしたことでは、日本国内において、それに対する反発が積もり積もって、結果として肝心な反省心が失われることともなり、相互反感のループがいっそうエスカレートしかねないのである。
（筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授。）
具体的に説明すると、参拝擁護論者側の「国家のために自らの命を捧げた英霊に対して敬意を表するのは当然であり、世界中どこの国でも普遍的に認められることである」「日本には昔から死ねば善人も悪人も区別なく手厚く葬るという文化・伝統がある」「日本の精神的・文化的独立性は他国から干渉されるべきものではない」という主張にしても、批判論者側の「Ａ級戦犯を合祀している」「海外、特に中韓等の近隣諸国との関係を悪化させる」という主張にしても、何とはなく一理ありそうに見え、それゆえにいつまでも不毛な議論が続いている訳だが、その実、これらはいずれも真実から目を背けたものである。
なるほど表面的に見る限り、「英霊への敬意」とか「日本文化の独立性」などは尤もらしく響くし、「Ａ級戦犯合祀」とか「近隣諸国との軋轢」と聞けばけしからんと感じられる。
だが、そもそも靖国というのは日本古来の日本神道の神社ではなく、明治に入ってそれまでの「権威」の象徴から「権力」の座に据えられ大元帥として軍を統帥するに至った明治天皇が建てさせ内務省の下に置いた「国家神道」の神社であり、ゆえにそこに祀られた「英霊」も時の権力者に殉じた人たちということでの批判を招くことは防ぎえない。また、戦後靖国と強固に結びついている日本遺族会は、軍人恩給、戦傷病者援護を掲げ100万世帯を背景としたロビー活動を続けてきており、政治家の参拝活動もそれに顔を向けた色彩が濃くなっている。逆から言えば、「日本には昔から死ねば善人も悪人も区別なく手厚く葬るという文化・伝統がある」「日本の精神的・文化的独立性は他国から干渉されるべきものではない」としても、それが直ちに靖国の存在意義さらには総理の参拝を正当化するものではない。
なお、日本神道と国家神道の差異を分かりやすく説明すると、前者は多神教として土地土地に棲む精霊への信仰(アニミズム)と祖霊(氏神)信仰との複合物であり、したがって土地ごと、氏族単位あるいは個々人を神として祀るのに対して、後者は疑似一神教(氏神の最高神たる天照)として内務省の管轄下、国体＝現人神(天照の直系子孫たる天皇)が祀られ、そこに英霊等が合祀されるという形態となる。したがって、「国家に殉じた英霊を合祀する」のは、あくまで後者でなければならないようにも見えるが、古来何でも受け入れてきた日本神道の風土からすれば、今日如何なる宗教・信仰とも関わりなく合祀する施設を設けることも容認されよう。
付言すると、戦前の日本植民地では、日本人が現地の土着宗教ないし精神的・文化的構造を破壊する過程で、その代わりになるものとして国家神道の神社を建立し現地人に対して実質的強制をもって参拝させていた。したがって、自らはその点の反省することもなく、一方的に対日批判を「日本の精神的・文化的独立性を脅かす」として拒否するなど許されることではない。
ただし、以上を認めた上で、あえて今一つ付言しておきたい。それは、いまだに当時の戦勝国が「勝てば官軍」という国際法上は認められない法理に基づいた言動に走っているという事実である。端的に言えば、それは広島・長崎への原爆投下から東京大空襲等の大虐殺の正当化とか冤罪者をも含むとされるＡ級戦犯を単に合祀しているというだけでヒステリックに反応するなどに現われていよう。が、そうしたことでは、日本国内において、それに対する反発が積もり積もって、結果として肝心な反省心が失われることともなり、相互反感のループがいっそうエスカレートしかねないのである。
（筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟