Political Sociology of Japanese Pacifism

Yukiko Nishikawa

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351672955
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

While Japanese pacifism is usually seen as a national policy or an ideology rooted in the provision of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, it cannot be adequately understood without grasping Japanese social discourses on peace, war and justice. The perspective of political sociology provides a more in-depth understanding of Japanese pacifism and helps us to find the reasons for the critical changes that have occurred in Japan's policies since the mid-2000s. These changes include sending its self-defense force to Iraq and Afghanistan outside UN missions and the enactment of new security legislation in 2015. Nishikawa explores Japanese pacifism in a changing domestic and regional context, from the perspective of political sociology. Getting to grips with the social bases of politics, she examines whether Japan is likely to remain a pacifist country or retain its pacifist image in changing regional and global context.

This book comprehensively examines Japanese pacifism by fully examining the social forces in action. Employing a multidisciplinary approach, the book contributes to theoretical debates on political sociology as well as Japanese and Asian studies. Japan is in an important transitional period and Japanese pacifism is being brought into question in changing national and international contexts.

1 Pacifism and political sociology

Few existing studies have explored pacifism from the perspective of political sociology. Conventionally, pacifism is studied either by political scientists for the purpose of grasping a state’s policy and diplomacy or by sociologists seeking to interpret popular perspectives. A political sociology perspective enables us to bridge the gap between these two groups of conventional studies on pacifism. By intertwining political and sociological reasons for action, we can see how formal political processes are a function of social factors but also affect those factors. Indeed, Sartori and Lipset believed that ‘social factors are revealed as effects of political action and political action is revealed as a function of social factors’ (Lipset 1969; Sartori 1969).

Political sociology goes beyond concern for the social background and implications of formal political processes (Drake 2010: 12). In political science, scholars may consider the question of how we can and should live. This necessitates understanding the social forces behind political action. Although some overlap naturally exists between political sociology and political science, the focus of political sociology is less on the mechanisms of the political system and more on the underlying social forces that shape the political system and influence political systems (Newman 2005: 5–6). The prime usefulness of political sociology as an analytical framework by which to study Japanese pacifism resides precisely in this emphasis.

This chapter provides a frame of analysis for studying pacifism. It first elaborates the development and the meaning of pacifism, as the term is used in this book, since there are diverse concepts of pacifism. Although Japanese pacifism may not be identical with pacifism as understood in early twentieth-century Europe, it shares some of the same fundamental essence. The chapter then explores how political sociologists view and analyse power, politics and society in changing national and international contexts. The purpose here is to introduce and illustrate the approach of political sociology. After that, special attention is paid to the standpoint and perspective from which political sociologists understand power, politics and society.

Development of pacifist thought

From ancient time, ideas similar to pacifism have existed together with war thinking in human society. It is well recognized that Buddhism in India that emphasizes mercy, Christian teaching that includes Isaiah’s prophecies, such as ‘Love your enemies’ and God comes to establish lasting peace, Greek philosophy of peace, early Christianity in Rome that includes practices of love, and Confucian, Taoist and Mozi philosophy of peace in China were, respectively, unique pacifist thought and teaching in ancient time. However, even Christian pacifism in the Middle Ages might not have been a pacifist thought in an absolute sense, as the Roman Empire in the secular context and the Pope in the religious context ruled the world and held absolute power through conquest, plunder, law and preach. In this context, the priority was to achieve Roman peace (peace and stability across the Roman Empire and people in the Empire) or Pax Romana and as a result, it conquered the world with a sword.

In order to break such a rule by force, a Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) laid the foundation of international law to define the idea of one society of states governed not by force or warfare but by actual laws and mutual agreement. French Henri VI and others also claimed peace from Christian ethics. French Charles-Irénée Castel, abbé de Saint Pierre (1658–1743), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and German philosopher Kant (1724–1804) proposed an international organization to maintain peace.

Kant, in particular, in his renowned work Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795) established the philosophy of peace by an ethical and highest order based on the idea that war as mass human killing is sinful. Kant argued that peace can be built on the republicanization of state, which has a representative government and in which the legislature is separated from the executive. Further, he stated that threat of war, if not open hostility, is the natural state of human society. Thus, only in a civil state can agree to treat each other peacefully.

German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) critically endorsed Kant’s philosophy of peace, although he did not appreciate Kant’s argument for the existence of noumena, of ‘things in themselves’, the suprasensible reality beyond the categories of human reason. He made the radical suggestion that we should throw out the notion of the noumenal world (Fichte 1987). As we can observe in these ideas, it is undeniable that the mainstream peace thought or pacifist thinking in Europe was founded on Christian thinking. In the Russian Empire, the idea of Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) who advocated non-resistance and emphasized pacifism was also based on Christian humanitarianism.

US Quakers and Mennonites are well known for their anti-warism and practices. Others including legal pacifism by Gustav Radbruch (1878–1949), peace theories by Norman Angell, and peace theories and anti-war activism by Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) were active in the later modern era. The term pacifism is said to have been introduced around this period by French lawyer and notary Emilie Arnaud at the Universal Peace Congress held in Glasgow in 1901.¹ Although the idea of peace in these periods did not result in great success, they defined a direction from international relations and international law that approved wars to those that deny wars. In fact, many anti-war pacts were concluded, including the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations. There were other attempts to achieve peace in world history departing from war history, such as the creation of the League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations (UN) in 1945, and avoidance of war in Switzerland and Austria as permanently neutral states that enhanced pacifist movements. The fact that the Constitution of Japan came to have included the war renunciation clause is also one of such tendencies to transform world history from war to peace.

Pacifism: its roots and nature

Few scholarly works on pacifism in general feature Japan, despite the country’s pacifist image. The main reason is that Japanese pacifism is widely considered a recent, post-World War II phenomenon. Our image and understanding of Japanese pacifism are closely linked with the post-World War II context, even though some scholars have pointed out that pacifist thought in Japan did not begin in 1947 and that post-war pacifism cannot be properly understood without considering its earlier precursors (Banba & Howes 1978: x).

Beyond that, exploring pacifism in any country requires understanding its deeper roots or inspirations and its effects on society. Martin Ceadel, who undertook a thorough study of pacifism in Britain in the era of the two world wars, emphasized the importance of distinguishing the inspiration or basis of pacifism from its orientation or attitude towards society (Ceadel 1980: 11). This section thus explores pacifism and its various definitions, inspirations and orientation in reference to the ethical and moral philosophies developed in Europe and North America. The purpose of this exploration is to help us more precisely grasp pacifism in other social and cultural contexts, providing a foundational framework to use when investigating Japanese pacifism in the subsequent chapters.

Variations of pacifism

Whilst we recognize the existence of pacifist thinking from the ancient time around the world, the precise meaning of such thoughts is unclear: whether or not they can be considered as pacifism. No precise distinction might have existed among such expressions as pacifism, peace thoughts and the philosophy of peace even after the term pacifism was introduced.

One of the major obstacles when analysing pacifism in any country is the imprecise definition of its scope. In fact, there are many views of what pacifism means.² Apparently, there is no agreed-upon categorization of the various forms of pacifism. Daniel Hucker (2007: 437) states that ‘Pacifism is simply a single term used to describe multifarious attitudes’. Even historically pacifism was ‘not intended to cut such fine distinctions as scholars of the peace movement today struggle to do’ (Clinton 2001: 3). Thus, from its inception, the meaning and usage of pacifism or pacifist have never remained static. Even within Europe, where abundant literature on pacifism exists, there are various categorizations and terminologies that explain certain types of pacifism. For example, pacifism in Britain is said to be quite distinctive from continental peace activists.³

Despite ambiguities in its definition and usage, there were attempts to categorize or identify varies positions of pacifism. For example, Cady (2010: 313–316) raised five forms of pacifism, including absolute, collectivist, fallibility, technological and pragmatic one. Brock (1972: 471–473) also categorized distinctive positions of pacifism, such as vocational, soteriological, eschatological, separational and integrational pacifism. There are many other terms and expressions employed to explain distinctive positions of pacifism. Although terms or expressions may not necessarily identical, there are some common points among some forms of pacifism. The following part of this section shows several categories of pacifism in order to explain varying positions and views existing in the literature.

The most extreme form of pacifism (expressed in various terms, such as absolute, integrational or maximal pacifism) entails a universal and maximal rejection of war and violence, declaring that war and violence can never be morally justified in any circumstance. Absolute pacifism holds that war and violence are always wrong. Its moral principles are absolute, eternal and unchanging, acknowledging no exceptions. This pacifism applies to those Christians who refuse to participate in war or war-making activity, such as the historic peace churches of Quakers.⁴ Brock (1972: 475) explains that integrational pacifism represents the most characteristic expression of the twentieth century, although it developed fairly late in the history of pacifism. Even so, absolute pacifism was not inevitably dominant in Europe. In France, for example, the number of absolute pacifists was always relatively small (Hucker 2007: 438). One obvious dilemma among absolute pacifists is that for them, ‘even military action aimed at protecting people against acute and systematic human-rights violations cannot be justified’ (Fox 2014: 126).

Unlike absolute pacifism, forms of contingent pacifism admit some extent of violence, certain means of violence, or war and violence under certain conditions.⁵ Contingent pacifists appeal to moral principles, such as the principle against killing the innocent, but the application of the principle is contingent on certain facts being true (May 2014: 11). Some who consider themselves pacifists do not categorically deny the legitimacy of taking lives or using force, and they may thus endorse police enforcement actions and support the death penalty. Whereas absolute pacifism allows no exceptions to its prohibition of war and violence, contingent pacifism permits war in some circumstances or may accept a particular military system. For example, some people supported the war against Nazi Germany, even though they considered themselves pacifists.

Pacifism in France in the early twentieth century also exhibits certain contingent elements. French pacifists believed that the Quaker and absolute religious position against having arms was adversative to the interests of their movement and to France (Cooper 1991a: 381). Siegel (2011: 227) called this attitude ‘patriotic pacifism’ as it encapsulates a disdain for war without undermining loyalty to the state (Republic). In France in the early twentieth century, pacifists willingly participated in the national war effort against the central power (Clinton 2001: 14). According to Cooper (1991a: 381), ‘pacifist belief in the equality of all persons before the law included military service’ in France. Cooper states that the pacifists in Europe normally qualified his or her anti-war and pro-peace position with numerous exceptions for self- and national defence (1991b: 10).

In Europe, continental peace activists developed specific versions of pacifism, but ‘none of them usually pleased British and American absolute religious pacifists nor, for that matter Leo Tolstoy, who had developed his anarchist and absolutist Christian pacifist position…’ (Cooper 1991b: 10). David S. Patterson (2014) indeed argues that in the history of Europe, the peace advocates on the continent mostly came from middle-class backgrounds, but they could not avoid authoritarian traditions of political supremacy and war they had inherited.

As is illustrated pacifism in Europe, there are variations regarding those who are against war and aspire for peace. Numerous variations of contingent pacifism can be distinguished when we precisely examine diverse positions on the use and means of violence, the acceptable justifications for war and conceptions of peace. Clinton (2001) identified variations of pacifism even within France in the early twentieth century, such as patriotic pacifism, juridical pacifism and integral pacifism.⁶ Juridical pacifism is distinguished from the absolute pacifism or integral pacifism and expressed the agenda of peace through justice. Broadly both patriotic and juridical pacifism can be considered a contingent type of pacifism as both of them allow violence or war under certain conditions. Integral pacifism is similar to absolute pacifism and came to be called so in the 1920s (Clinton 2001: 16).⁷

Even in the contemporary world, perhaps contingent pacifism is more commonly observed than absolute pacifism in reality. Larry May, for example, argues that the UN Charter is a contingent pacifist document, or nearly so, as it embodies the idea that wars should not be fought by states (Article 2–4) except when sanctioned by the UN or in emergencies that require self-defense (Article 51) (May 2014: 13). Many pacifists generally hold the position that waging war is morally wrong, which is often called anti-warism. In this view, limited violence, such as self-defense or the defence of loved ones, is accepted.

As Kant argued, pacifism and realization of peace would be guaranteed through the mechanism of human liability. The human liability exists in both our sense of belligerence and, more than that, that of war-wariness. When thinking about peace and pacifism, although variations exist in terms of meaning and the scope, the most important issue would be war-wariness and anti-war thinking. However, the history of pacifism in Europe illustrates that the line that distinguishes pacifism from, for example, anti-warism or war anxiety is not clear-cut as many French, according to Hucker, desired to avoid war but such attitudes derived from war anxiety rather than pacifism as many people considered that in 1939 to avoid war, it is necessary to fight (Hucker 2007: 449).

Pacifism in moral philosophy

Various forms of pacifism can be partially explained in reference to distinctive positions in moral philosophy developed in Europe and North America. The core pacifist values of opposition to war and non-violence are convictions pertaining to moral philosophy, as each position relating to pacifism is based on one’s judgement of right and wrong concerning war and violence. Duane L. Cady (2010: 315) argues, ‘Pacifism (peacemaking) is a complex and diverse range of moral convictions opposing war and violence generally, and committed to cooperative social order and nonviolent struggle to address conflict.’ Thus, variations of pacifism are partly explained in terms of how pacifists consider the nature of moral values and how they make judgements about other people’s conduct.

There are three broad views of the nature of moral values. First, deontologists believe that all human beings stand in an ethical relationship to one another, on the basis of their s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures and tables
• List of abbreviations
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1 Pacifism and political sociology
• 2 Article 9 and the Constitution of Japan: the structural condition of Japan’s polity
• 3 The Japan–US alliance: the underside of the structural condition of Japan’s polity
• 4 Roots and nature of Japanese pacifism
• 5 Political sociology of Japanese pacifism
• 6 Japan’s Contested pacifism
• Conclusion
• Appendix I: The Constitution of Japan
• Appendix II: Security Treaty between Japan and the United States of America
• Appendix III: Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America
• Bibliography
• Index