Modernization in East AsiaEssay Preview: Modernization in East AsiaReport this essayAs modernity has a compelling relationship with the past, many historians in 20th century already have analyzed Japanese history. They have dealt with several definitions such as development, modernization, and Westernization in attempt to define Japan however no one hardly has questioned and answered clearly about the nation itself. Tessa Morris-Suzuki has written an article about Japan as she addresses “the official definition of what it meant to be Japanese” (Tessa Morris-Suzuki, p.10). In her article she comments that the “definition itself was not constant or stable. Instead it was contextual and changing”(p.10). The following essay will discuss about what it means to be the modern nation – something Tessa Morris – Suzuki calls a “modern artifact” (p.10) in Japan and how this idea similarly applies to define another nation – China.
Tessa Morris – Suzuki begins her article with the observation that “Japan in its present form is a modern artifact, whose frontiers were drawn in the middle of the nineteenth century and have been a source of contention for much of the twentieth” (Tessa Morris-Suzuki, p.9). That is, because the formation of “Japan” as a modern nation involved a continuous reworking of the relationship in the past between the Japanese state and regional communities which refers to the relationship between the central government and the frontier societies of the Ainu and the Ryukyu Archipelago (p.10). In order to answer the nature of the nation itself, she draws attention to the problem of Japans frontiers. She firstly approaches the problem by looking at three different views of the world – a view from the North, “the metropolis”, and the South.
Perspective of Ainu society – a view from the North – is first to observe the changing political concept of Japan. Ainu society can be examined in two ways; society structure and language. Ainu society was structured around small self-organizing communities called Kotan (Tessa Morris-Suzuki, p.11). Particular areas of land were identified with particular communities depends on their hunting or fishing territories but not specifically “owned” by individuals or groups in the modern legal sense (p.11). This suggests that Ainu stayed as an independent and peaceful society and their idea of being “Japanese” was rather diplomatic than claiming ownership. This is evident in development of their language – Ainu-Japanese vocabularies, until the middle of seventeenth century while Ainu were still welcoming Japanese traders, were compiled for trade and diplomatic purposes (p.11). It was only until the eighteenth century when “merchants licensed by Matsumae started to set up fisheries in which they employed Ainu as semi-salve labor” (p.13), their society started to be in control by others. The merchants established more permanent bases in their territory (p.13). From this time onwards Ainu thought Japanese lacked the basic human etiquette for any further commercial exchange (p.13) then this brought the “Shakushain War, the large-scale Ainu uprising against Japanese incursions into their territory” (p.13). Therefore the term “Japanese” in this concept did not entirely include Ainu and the word Nihonjin was only used to distinguish Japanese from Chinese and Europeans (p.12) but was not to differentiate Ainu from Japanese. The distinction was political rather than racial (p.12).
Another way of looking at the nation is a view from “the metropolis”, or at least from the standpoint of the relatively educated urban section of the Japanese (Tessa Morris-Suzuki, p.13). This view mainly focuses on Chinese or other foreign countries influence on Japanese as is Tokutomi Soho argues that “the concept foreign nations brought forth the concept Japanese nation”. Map designers failed to clearly define the borders in Japan. They mostly made “unclear association between political neighbourhood and the colors represented on the map” (p.14). Before the late eighteenth century, most Japanese visions of the world outside were more powerfully influenced by China than by the West (p.14). It manifests in the illustrated Japanese-Chinese Encyclopedia where “China is listed as a Foreign country” but “contains much more information about Chinese geography than they do about the geography of Japan” (p.15). Japanese perhaps tried to deny the fact their nation was getting shaped by China thus emphasis of the most important characteristic of Japanese laid on a sensitive appreciation of the beauties of poetry (p.16, Torii 1926, p.139). This description highlights Japanese identity in terms of creativity and spontaneous virtue as opposed to the rigidity and sterility attributed to Chinese learning (p.16). A view of “metropolis” of Japanese is being creative which to separate the nation from China or other foreign pressures.
The last view is from the South – Ryukyu kingdom corresponds to the “metropolis”. From their point of view, Japan was deeply influenced by China as they also absorbed the same Ka-i model of the global order (Tessa Morris-Suzuki, p.16). “The kingdom constructed its own miniature version of the Chinese system, exacting tribute from outlying islands such as Yaeyama”(p.16). Japanese copied similar characteristics to the traditional Chinese. Despite the strong influence of Chinese, the kingdom was proud of owning a place as a crossroads of East Asian route (p.16). Although the kingdom might “lack military or political power”(p.16), it could still claim their position as “a special commercial hold over a vast geographical area” (p.16).
Redefintion of Ainu and Ryukyuans as “Japanese” should be shaped by two particular forces (Tessa Morris-Suzuki, p.17) from looking at these three different views. “The first was the force of Japans changing relationship with China; the second, the force of the encounter with the European powers from the eighteenth century onward” (p.17). But the nature of Japan was not only influenced and continued to be “contextual and changing” (p.10) only by outside but also within the nation. At the beginning of the Tokugawa period – when there was an unfair monopoly trade between domain of Matsumae to be in charge and the Ainu and Satsumas invasion subordinated the Ryuku Kingdom to its control (p.18) –
’. In Japan and China a common view of the world is that of a single and independent nation, so that one sovereign power is able to hold relations with Japan, a common view of the international relations of those systems and differentiating them from some other system.” it can only be understood as such when the situation of the four nations is one that must be negotiated and settled separately, within which the one rule is based and the other can only be defined. (p.22)#8217
While the Japanese in fact had no common understanding of what the ‘Chinese Empire’ is, this is only part of it. The same is true for the Chinese that have a common understanding of, what the ‘Chinese Empire’ is. In addition to this, the Japanese have a common understanding of the nature of the Chinese Empire, their relationship with one another, their history, and also of their country ‘.
The Chinese have at least a direct grasp of the foreign world since the beginning of the reign of the Tsar in 1711 •. Although some of their ideas about foreign affairs are of great interest to Westerners, they have a long history of developing themselves as a foreign power and other civilizations, in the field of commerce ₈ (p.17) they have held on as the most experienced of scholars. Their first study is known in the Chinese writings, at times even longer than it was written, ₌, or even at first written half a century before the Tokugawa era is mentioned above. (p.18)#8226
Their influence on the West is even more obvious in their role in the military ₌ they have shown the capacity to influence the whole people of the empire. They have been able to shape the popular will of the people and influence their nation, and to establish diplomatic relations ₂. And from this their influence has greatly increased over the years. And this influence has been especially strong among the peoples who have not yet taken control of their nation. (p.18)#8226
A great deal can be said about how these people have been affected. They lived in a stateless world, a world of feudalism and exploitation; where in some cases they fought back against the Empire, and on other occasions they had the means to defeat their rulers. They came up very often and tried to take their place as mediators to make agreements like the peace treaty. Most interestingly, their ability to develop cooperation with the empire and to co-exist with the people was much more acute than in the days of the Tokugawa era