Section 7 | History, Politics and International Relations | Session 8B, Panel
Chair: Wolfgang Schwentker (Ôsaka University)
The reestablishment of February 11th as national day, in December 1966, by the Satô Eisaku's government was the first official success of a political movement for the rehabilitation of the pre-war national symbols. Satô and his cabinet met a strong opposition, particularly from leftists, who gave the few works about the main support of Satô, the parliamentary group called Sôshinkai. The conservative thinker Yasuoka Masahiro ideologically leaded this group, largely present in Satô's cabinets. In spite of their importance in political measures of Satô Eisaku, Sôshinkai and Yasuoka are very bad known, and only described as anti-co mmunists, "irrationals" and "reactionaries", issued from the pre-war politicians' ranks.
In reality, the Sôshinkai was composed of the main politicians of Liberal-democratic party. Yasuoka was a Confucian thinker influent among bureaucrats and Kyôchokai before the war, and still influent among conservative politicians after 1945. Yasuoka and Sôshinkai's members formed a solid group even before the creation of Sôshinkai. But we cannot define them just as a marginalized fanatic group, nostalgic of war period: they were the main actors in the formation of Liberal Democratic Party in 1955. If some of them involved in official posts during war period, Yasuoka himself was a closed ally of Hatoyama Ichirô and Anti-Tôjô group, and joined the making of August 15 th declaration. His political thought preceded largely the symbolization of the emperor of 1947 constitution.
It is true that anti-co mmunism played a role in their motivation, but it is more exact to say they wanted to follow the line decided by Yoshida Shigeru or Hatoyama Ichirô, who wanted to revise the constitution, to create Self-defense forces and promote patriotism, in order to realize fully independence of Japan. The respect of the tradition, through February 11 th was also a tool to mobilize Japanese nation for economic development and modernization of everyday life. That's why Yasuoka and Sôshinkai received support from the great part of businessmen.Noriko Berlinguez-Kôno (Université Charles de Gaulle, Lille)
This paper aims to shed some light on the process of "making and controlling of history" by conducting an empirical research on the creation of collective memory with regard to Saigô Takamori and his so-called "Seikanron", position in favor of military intervention in Korea. By what kind of process have been memorized, up to the present, the image of Saigô Takamori as well as the discourse "Seikanron" which is supposed to be developed by those who left the government in 1873? Why did many ultra-nationalists
As to collective memory, Pierre Nora mentions that history is written under the pressure of collective memory which seeks to compensate for the historical uprooting of social issues and the fear of future, with the appreciation of the past. With this concept of memory in mind, first, the descriptions concerning "Seikanron" in history textbooks will be examined in order to grasp the impact of collective memory on the writing of historical sciences. Secondly, several interpretations about Saigô's opinion of Korea will be presented. Some of the recent studies contradict the stereotyped description of "Seikanron" and prefer to speak of "Kenkanron". And last but not least, we will retrace the evolution of the usage of the term "Seikanron" from 1873 to 1910. In the light of the contributions of Maurice Halbwachs in particular, we would like to analyze Japanese approaches to memory through this empirical study.
Judith Fröhlich (University of Zurich)
The written corpus of premodern Japan suggests that especially one aspect of the past was deemed important enough to be textualised, the story of land. The story of land acquisition and possession was told in deeds of conveyance and transference, bills of sale and the settlements of land disputes. Furthermore, it was the stuff of myths and legends. In the fourteenth century, warrior families adopted toponymics to highlight the ties to their lands. Land was symbolic capital, instrumental to demonstrate wealth and social status. Moreover, it was the means - often the only means - by which a group reflected upon itself in a historical perspective. No wonder then that the memory related to land was upheld for centuries. This paper analyses the memory related to land by focussing on the "Goshuin engi" of Kôyasan, a legend about the founding of the monastery and the lands granted to its founder Kûkai. First quoted in a litigation of 1004, the "Goshuin engi" retained an essential role in the argumentation of Kôyasan's head temple, Kongôbuji, in land disputes until the early fourteenth century. The record that created a link between the past of Kongôbuji's lands and the temple's present claims was fundamental to the temple's self-identity and representation. The "Goshuin engi" thus shows in an impressive way the preservation and performance of the memory of land in premodern Japan.