1. Introduction
My research aims to write a potted intellectual biography of the Japanese political theorist, Fujita Shōzō (1927–2003) through focusing on his political activities and his struggle with reality. With respect to the person of Fujita, there are already some excellent works that accurately depict both the man and his intellectual activities (e.g., Iida, Reference Iida2006a, Reference Iida2006b; Miyamura, Reference Miyamura2009; in particular, Iida's works describe Fujita's theoretical activities including his bibliography in great detail).Footnote 1 Unfortunately, however, there is no translation of Fujita's writings, nor any work focusing on Fujita in English, apart from Sakurai's book (Sakurai, Reference Sakurai2018).Footnote 2 His academic works have not yet been recognised by most non-Japanese researchers, even in relevant subject areas, due to the fact that they seem hidden behind the veil of his mentor, Maruyama Masao, who is often regarded as a founder of modern politics in Japan. It is certainly possible to discern Fujita's contributions within the disciplinary categories of the history of ideas (shisōshi) and intellectual history (seishinshi), but much more importantly it is also possible to discern his contributions in the intellectual tradition of Japanese political theory (seiji riron). In addition, it should be noted that they are of particular importance to the subject in the sense that he contributed especially to research into the spiritual basis of Japan's Tennō system (Tennōsei) and its high-speed economic growth (kōdo keizai seichō), both of which are profoundly associated with the core structure of politics in postwar Japan. For these reasons, his scholarly heritage is of great value, not only to the above two fields, familiar with his works, but also to the disciplines of contemporary political science and political theory.
In Japan, as noted above, he is generally known as a pupil of Maruyama and also as a scholar who contributed to the study of the Tennō system particularly from the standpoints of the history of ideas and intellectual history. Perhaps the reason why this image of Fujita exists is primarily due to the two following facts: first, that he began his academic career by publishing an article entitled ‘Tennōsei’ (The Tennō System) (1954),Footnote 3 which contains an interesting anecdote that this particularly important earliest work was written on behalf of his mentor Maruyama – this story has often been referred to when this writing is introduced (e.g., Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 254–255, 287, 351; Iida, Reference Iida2006b: 348–349); and second, that his representative early work is ‘Tennōsei kokka no shihai genri’ (The Principles of Rule of the Tennō System State) (1956) – abbreviated to ‘Shihai genri’ below. As regards this issue, it is important to remember that the theme of ‘Shihai genri’ addressed subsequent to the first essay was to ‘construct the adequate logic that blows a hole in the “Tennō system state” (Tennōsei kokka) in prewar and wartime Japan – and the Tennō system society (Tennōsei shakai)…by finding out the logical essence of the system and by objectifying the whole structure’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 255). From these perspectives, it is admitted that Fujita's early concerns gave rise to his image as a scholar of the Tennō system that has haunted him since.
To be sure, it seems true that the most popular image of Fujita noted above has so far confined his role to a historian of Japanese ideas who devoted himself primarily to analysing the Tennō system as a follower of Maruyama by laying great stress on the aforementioned facts. On this view, the Japanese sociologist Wada Yū, giving firm evidence, says: ‘in general, Fujita Shōzō, when referring to his thought, is categorised as part of Maruyama's genealogy, namely as a historian of Japanese ideas (Nihon shisōshi-ka) who “analysed and criticised, for example, the Tennō system and the principles of the system of the Meiji state (Meiji kokka) in his works such as ‘Shihai genri’ (1966) and ‘Ishin no seishin’ (The Spirit of the Meiji Restoration) (1967) by highlighting western modernist senses of value” (The Asahi Shimbun, 04.06.2003)’ (Wada, Reference Wada2004: 186).Footnote 4 In fact, the Japanese philosopher Kawamoto Takashi refers to himself as, ‘a university student who had had a secret longing for the discipline of the history of political thought (seiji shisōshi) knew the name of Fujita Shōzō as an extension of Maruyama Masao and Hashikawa Bunzō.Footnote 5 The first of Fujita's books I bought were Tennōsei kokka no shihai genri (Miraisha, 1966) [abbreviated to Shihai genri below] and Ishin no seishin (Misuzu Shobō, 1967)’ (Kawamoto, Reference Kawamoto2004: 231). This story provides enough evidence that we have labelled Fujita as a pupil of Maruyama, that is to say, his academic efforts have been seen exclusively as an extension of his great mentor's work, namely as a scholar of the ‘Maruyama School’ (Maruyama gakuha).
Despite these facts, on the other hand, it is also true that Fujita has another aspect of his career, apart from being a scholar of the school, which has been commented on. Indeed, it is acknowledged that it is not only this aspect, being under the shadow of Maruyama, but also another aspect characterising his post-‘“despair” period’ (zetsubō no jidai) (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 260),Footnote 6 that have been recognised (e.g., Higashi, Reference Higashi2004; Hondō, Reference Hondō2004; Taraba, Reference Taraba2004). Representative works written in the period undoubtedly include Seishinshiteki kōsatsu (Reflections on Intellectual History) (1982) – abbreviated to Kōsatsu below – which, as Iida Taizō (who has the same mentor as Fujita and was a colleague of Fujita's) puts it, is regarded as ‘the memorial writing signifying the birth of “the world of Fujita Shōzō” (Fujita Shōzō no sekai)’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 330). One of his masterworks, Zentaishugi no jidai keiken (The Experience of the Times of Totalitarianism) (1995), is also counted as his representative writing published after his ‘despair’. Roughly speaking, the concept constituting these two works is to restore the ‘substance of things’ (honraiteki na mono) on the basis of ‘experience’ (keiken) (Iida, Reference Fujita2006a: 336); nowadays these two notions have become important key terms for understanding the essence of the ‘later Fujita’ (kōki Fujita) that is provided primarily in the above two works.Footnote 7 For instance, all the three essays on Fujita noted above often refer at least to one of those two works – Hondō’s and Taraba's articles deal with both works. In these respects, it is admitted that these data support the fact that there exists a different aspect constituted primarily by the two books regarded as his representative later works, whose importance has sometimes been highlighted in addition to his early contributions.
However, it must be stressed that it is not accurate to consider Fujita only as an extension of a thinker and a historian of ideas in the shadow of Maruyama. It is possible, or rather, necessary, to discern him as a political theorist by focusing on his early work. The purpose of my research is to demonstrate this scholarly aspect of Fujita by identifying the meaning of the political in his early political and theoretical contributions. In this exploration, I will illustrate its importance, as seen in his early works, by describing the significance of his critique of the Tennō system and Japan's high-speed growth (kōdo seichō) in terms of his self-critical and self-reflective political thinking and acting, depicted by his optimistic psychological state of ‘hope’ (kibō) and his pessimistic psychological state of ‘despair’ (zetsubō).
2. Fujita's encounters with Maruyama and the Tennō system
Fujita Shōzō was born in Ehime in Shikoku, ‘the fourth largest island in Japan’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 252), on 17 September 1927. It is believed that, in the educational stage of the lower sixth form (kōkō ni-nen), Fujita already decided to go to the University of Tokyo (Tōkyō Daigaku) in order to study the ‘spiritual structure’ (seishin kōzō) of the Tennō system under Maruyama, on the grounds that he was particularly impressed by Maruyama's essay ‘Gunkoku shihaisha no seishin keitai’ (Thought and Behaviour Patterns of Japan's Wartime Leaders) (1949), which critically analysed the psychic disease of wartime Japan noted above (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 253; Iida, Reference Iida2006b: 346). It is possible to anticipate the later birth of the political theorist (seiji rironka) Fujita Shōzō by stressing this strong passion for studying politics on the basis of Maruyama's research method.Footnote 8
In 1950, Fujita actually started to study in the Faculty of Law at the University of Tokyo – in July of this year, the Korean War began. In 1952, as per his wishes, he was allowed to participate in Maruyama's seminar, and studied the method of the history of political thought with the use of the English text Ideology and Utopia (1936 [1929]) by Karl Mannheim. In 1953, Fujita graduated from the university and started to work in the Faculty of Law at Hosei University (Hōsei Daigaku Hōgakubu), where he lectured on the history of Japanese politics (Nihon seijishi). In the same year, as noted above, he wrote his first article ‘Tennōsei’ printed in The Lexicon of Politics (Seijigaku jiten) (1954) on behalf of Maruyama due to a relapse of his tuberculosis. Iida precisely depicts Fujita's research aim at this time – here Iida's sentences are cited again although they were already partly quoted above: ‘Fujita's subject of research in the postwar period designated as his starting point of forming his thought was…to construct the adequate logic that blows a hole in the “Tennō system state” in prewar and wartime Japan (and the Tennō system society), which led this country to destructive militarism and fascism on the grounds that the people got carried away (yarikirenai) with the specific mood of the whole nation, by finding out the logical essence of the system and by objectifying the whole structure’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 255). It is presumed that this theme became the fundamental basis of his study thereafter. In fact, the subject of his masterwork, ‘Shihai genri’ (1956), captures the essence of the Tennō system. It claims,
The absolutist Tennō system (Tennōsei zettaishugi) enabled the arbitrary and absolute manner of action to permeate every aspect of society, paradoxically, not by carrying absolutist power (kenryoku zettaishugi) throughout society; it thereby succeeded in laying the incomparable and solid foundations of an absolutist system (zettaishugi taikei) (Fujita, Reference Fujita1998a: 48).
3. The Anpo tōsō and kōdo seichō
The 1956 declaration that ‘it is no longer “postwar”’ (mohaya sengo de wa nai) by Keizai Hakusho (Economic White Paper of Japan), which aimed at ‘Japan's economic growth and modernisation’ (Nihon keizai no seichō to kindaika), and which meant the transition from the postwar period to the ‘high-speed growth’ (kōdo seichō) period,Footnote 9 signified the ‘departure from the “postwar”’ (sengo e no ketsubetsu) and the experience of ‘intellectual conversion (tenkō) stemming from the despair of radicalism in the postwar era’;Footnote 10 this denoted the necessity of reflecting upon ‘postwar’ (sengo) and ‘prewar’ (senzen) Japan, which gave rise to another essential reflection on ‘modern Japan’ (kindai Nihon) (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 256–257). As Iida puts it, ‘the period from 1956 to 1959 marked a huge turning point for intellectuals in postwar Japan (sengo chishiki-jin)’ (Reference Iida2006a: 256).
In 1960, Fujita, in conjunction with Maruyama and other Japanese intellectuals, was actively involved in the ‘the anti-Security Treaty struggle of 1960’ (Anpo tōsō) – the latter Japanese term will primarily be used below – which was organised on the grounds that Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke at the time concluded the ‘USA–Japan Security Treaty’ (1960 Anpo) on 19 January,Footnote 11 which was finally approved by the House of Representatives on 20 May of the same year. Through taking part in this political activity, Fujita contributed several writings on those political events such as: ‘Tokkenteki chishikijin e no yōsei: arata na kōdō no jihatsuteki soshiki wo’ (An Appeal to Japan's Privileged Intellectuals: Towards Establishing Voluntary Associations Aiming for New Politics) (1960) printed in The University of Tokyo Newspaper (Tōkyō Daigaku Shimbun), which encouraged students at the University of Tokyo to try to get rid of ‘Tōdai’ as a ‘school for bureaucrats’ (kanryō yōseijo) that cultivated a sense of perquisite and to transform the university into a ‘place of genuine and authentic scholarship’ (junsui na gakumon no fu) (Fujita, Reference Fujita1998b: 183); ‘6/15 jiken, ryūketsu no kachū kara: Kono me de mita keisatsu kenryoku no bōryoku’ (The Front Line of Defence against Violence and Bloodshed in the 6/15 Incident in Japan: The Truth of the Violence of Police Authority) (1960), which, as an actual document of the 6/15 Incident,Footnote 12 was contributed to Asahi Journal; and ‘Shaku-shaku daiji wo eien ni hakaran: Kikyō gakusei S-kun e no tegami’ (On the Basis of Common Sense: A Letter to Mr S, a Japanese Student in Favour of His Hometown) (1960) – abbreviated to ‘Shaku-shaku’ below – printed in the monthly journal Sekai, a speculative article that imitated a letter for ‘Japanese students in favour of their hometown’ (kikyō gakusei), and that aimed at discussing ‘jinmin-shugi’ – although this can be translated as ‘people-ism’ in which politics is based on the principles of Fujita's theory of the ‘sovereignty of the people’ (jinmin shuken),Footnote 13 the Japanese term will primarily be used below – with the students (Fujita, Reference Fujita1998b: 220). These facts elucidate the person of Fujita who did not always closet himself in his study but sometimes actually took part in political activity. In fact, he formulated his theory through these political practices. As Iida puts it, ‘Fujita's basic position at the time was to seek to find out the conditions (possibilities) for establishing the principles of “sovereignty of the people” – the conditions of “democratisation” (minshuka) – through reflecting upon and identifying a new political situation brought about on “19 May 1960”Footnote 14 – abbreviated to the ‘5/19’ below – with the past situation, in which an original individual freedom and a sense of “natural rights” (shizenken) came into existence from the “state of nature” (shizen jōtai) without a state (kokka izen) – a “tabula rasa” (hakushi) – under the conditions that the people had to live in the “burnt-out ruins and the black market” (yakeato yamiichi) since “V-J Day” in 1945 (the “postwar” in the narrow sense)’ (Reference Iida2006a: 259).
The above description clearly explains that Fujita was not a scholar who was simply satisfied with speculative, empirical and positive theories. Rather, his stance was characterised as the complete opposite of the habitual scholarly styles, and required observing practice, collecting experience, achieving ‘perspective upon [his] own society’ and ‘appraising the importance of what had been observed in the light of what was known’ (Wolin, Reference Wolin and Sills1968: 319; emphases added). In this respect, he is regarded exactly as a theorist in the original Greek sense. In fact, his theory of ‘primordial man’ (Urmensch, genjin),Footnote 15 whose standpoint was first provided in his interview ‘Zero kara no shuppatsu’ (Start from Scratch) (1960), was advanced through actually observing, experiencing and appraising the political movement, the Anpo tōsō, particularly through focusing on the 5/19. Fujita says:
I believe that in the spiritual dimension the Anpo tōsō was constituted by the social conditions of the black market, that is by the characteristics of the primordial man (genjin-sei) in postwar Japan. Almost all the people in Japan have been living through the market. This way of life has given them the prototype of the character features. There is the living spirit claiming the right to live outside the law represented as natural rights in them (Fujita et al., Reference Fujita2006a [1960]: 132).
As Iida clearly mentions, ‘after the Anpo tōsō, Fujita fell into “despair” (zetsubō) particularly after the 1960s, during the age of “Japan's high-speed economic growth” (kōdo keizai seichō)’ (Reference Iida2006a: 260). However, it is possible to believe that, in the early 1960s, he still retained his strong interest in actual politics. In fact, Fujita actively contributed some politically charged works that show that he was a political activist and theorist: for example, ‘Nihon ni okeru futatsu no kaigi’ (The Two Kinds of Discussions of Japan) (1960) – abbreviated to ‘Futatsu no kaigi’ below – which warned against the Japanese ‘gossip session model of existing primarily to meet and talk’ (hanashiai-shugi),Footnote 16 and, at the same time, which tried to design the ‘principles of genuine and authentic discussion’ (ikita kaigi); ‘Tōjisha yūi no genri: Terorizumu to shihaisha e no kōgi’ (Towards the Principles Based on Persons Concerned: A Protest against an Act of Terrorism and the Attitude of Japan's Rulers) (1961) – abbreviated to ‘Tōjisha’ below – which was ‘aimed at protesting against an act of terrorism, the “Shimanaka Incident” (Shimanaka jiken), and against the attitude of Japan's rulers and conservative thinkers towards it’ (1998b: 267), and at applying the ‘principles based on “persons concerned” (tōjisha)’; ‘Jiyū kara no tōbō hihan’ (A Criticism of Escape from Freedom) (1962) – abbreviated to ‘Tōbō hihan’ below – which criticised a compromise solution adopted by Shisō no Kagaku Kenkyūkai (Research Association for the Science of Thought) towards ‘Shisō no Kagaku Incident’ (Shisō no Kagaku jiken) provoked by Chūō Kōron-sha (Chūō Kōron Publishing Company), and which called for ‘civil liberties’ (shiminteki jiyū).
At this point, it is interesting to note that all the above three works published after the Anpo tōsō are more theoretical than his other writings previously published while taking a stronger position of ‘protest’ and ‘criticism’. Perhaps this is profoundly associated with Fujita's more sophisticated theoretical view of politics, which was taken particularly since ‘Shaku-shaku’, in which, as noted above, Fujita provided the essential framework of his theory of the ‘sovereignty of the people’. In fact, his article ‘‘5/19’ zenshi’ (The History of the Preceding Period of the 5/19) (1960), published just after ‘Shaku-shaku’, presented a more precise view of his conception of the people. As Fujita writes, ‘nations (kokumin) mean the people (jinmin) who are willing to be nations (kokumin) and those who formulate a theory for their nation (kuni)’ (Fujita, Reference Fujita1998b: 245). Significantly, this implies that Fujita recognised that the ‘autonomous subjects’ (jiritsuteki shutai) came into being in the 5/19.
For these reasons, it should be considered that all of the above three works, ‘Futatsu no kaigi’, ‘Tōjisha’ and ‘Tōbō hihan’, as well as the above two works, ‘Shaku-shaku’ and ‘‘5/19’ zenshi’, were intended particularly as a theoretical process of establishing his theory of the sovereignty of the people. For instance, ‘Tōjisha’ suggested the direction that postwar Japan should have taken in the light of the experience of Shimanaka Incident, entertaining Fujita's hopes of laying the foundations of the principles of sovereignty of the people:
There is still no sovereign spirit (shukensha no seishin) in most of the people (kokumin) of this county. In principle, however, it must be built, and they would be the people (Nihon kokumin) who accomplish this objective in the future, when necessary. It is believed that the Constitution requires that they should do so, and I hope that they will complete the task (1998b: 285–286).
Here it is possible to see an adequate image of a political theorist who sought to find out what politics ought to be through political practice. In this period, in addition, he published some significant writings such as ‘Atarashii seijiteki shutai no shutsugen’ (The Emergence of New Political Subjects in Japan) (1962), which also constructed his theory of the sovereignty of the people, and ‘Gendai ni okeru “risei” no kaifuku’ (The Restoration of Reason in Contemporary Times) (1962) – abbreviated to ‘“Risei” no kaifuku’ below – which provided his essential theoretical stance on the political situation in terms of philosophical thought.
It is noted, however, that there was a gradual change in Fujita's state of mind at this time. An opportunity of changing his mind was provided, as Iida says, by ‘the fact that Fujita's “disappointment at defeat in the Anpo tōsō” (anpo zukare) had a lasting effect on him’, that is to say, ‘the experience of the “defeat in Anpo” (haiboku) and “high-speed growth” (kōdo seichō), while society gradually underwent a radical transformation of culture and spirit…, crushed his “hopes” (kibō) based on the sole possibility of restoring society in postwar Japan, and it rather led him to start to seek a way of more radical “restoration” (saisei) by keeping himself within the “disappointment” (shitsubō)’ (Reference Iida2006a: 263). From this perspective, Fujita's masterworks, ‘Puroretaria minshushugi no genkei: Rēnin no shisō kōzō’ (The Principles of Proletarian Democracy: The Structure of Lenin's Thought) (1964), ‘Genshoteki jōken’ (The Primordial Conditions) (1964) and ‘Jinmin shuken no seishinteki ichi jōken’ (A Spiritual Condition of the Sovereignty of the People) (1964) – abbreviated to ‘Jinmin shuken’ below – all of which were published after his silence for 1½ years, are regarded precisely as ‘the declaration of his new start’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006b: 364).
4. The Vietnam War and Fujita's ‘15 August statement’
In the mid-1960s, just when Japan was in the midst of strong economic growth and the Vietnam War was heating up, Fujita's series of works ‘Ishin no seishin’ (The Spirit of the Meiji Restoration) (1965) began to be published. As Iida puts it, the work ‘aimed to see the driving force of reform by shining a light on the fact that an “unbiased and impartial style of argument, behaviour and solidarity” (ōgi, ōkō, ōketsu), signifying the new “spirit of the Meiji Restoration” (Ishin no seishin), came into existence from the old regime’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 263; cf. Fujita, Reference Fujita1997: 1–43). However, here I am intrigued primarily by Fujita's ‘15 August statement’, which was issued in 1965, while he was writing the article ‘Rondan ni okeru chiteki taihai’ (Intellectual Decay in Discourse in Japan) and preparing for the interview conducted by Sekai ‘Betonamu shinryaku hantai undō no hitotsu no jiko ninshiki’ (My Own View on the Anti-Vietnam War Movement), both of which raised the politically charged topic of US military intervention in Vietnam. I will first quote the statement, and then consider it briefly below – although it consists of relatively long sentences, its entirety is cited, so we can be aware that he consistently concerned himself with the same issue after his first work.
Declaration:
On 15 August 1945, the whole world brought an end to World War II, which produced tens of millions of casualties, and which left the basis for human life in ruins, defeating fascism and militarism. It was an epoch-making day in world history. For us, the people of Japan (Nihon kokumin), in particular, that revolutionary day, bringing about a considerable change in social values, marked a starting point for nation-wide reflection (kokuminteki hansei).
Today, going back to our first objective twenty years ago, we who are gathering together at Kudan Kaikan hall (Kudan Kaikan) appeal vigorously to the people (kokumin): first, that we resolve on making utmost efforts to realise the principles of fundamental human rights (kihonteki jinken) and unarmed neutrality (hibusō) under the Constitution; second, that in the global community we assign maximum value to equal rights for and independence of people in the world, and oppose all uses of military force endangering the dignity based on this first principle. On the basis of these principles, then, we appeal for the following necessity for the US and Japan concerning the present political situation: first, to leave the fate of resolving the political conflict over Vietnam in the hands of the Vietnamese people on the grounds that we protest against the US military intervention in the country; second, to resume diplomatic relations with China and to bring it into the fold of the international community; and third, to put an end to all of Japan's policies harmful to the unification of Korea.
It goes without saying that for twenty years the people of Japan have made a tireless effort to realise democracy (minshushugi) and to achieve lasting peace (heiwa) up until now. To be sure, therefore, we have yielded valuable results. At the same time, however, it is observed that we have constantly experienced political resistance to this attempt. We have a challenging task ahead of us. V-J Day is not yet over; it has been twenty years. We the People hereby pledge to continue unremittingly with our efforts to realise the universal value shared by all humanity (jinrui kyōtsū no mokuteki), represented by fundamental human rights and freedom of all the people in the world, together with them.
Tokyo, 15 August 1965
(1998c: 714–715)
We are well aware that this description captures the essence of the early Fujita. First of all, the above statement overlaps with the essential standpoint of the early Fujita: first, that it ‘construct[s] the adequate logic that blows a hole in the “Tennō system state” in prewar and wartime Japan (and the Tennō system society), which led this country to destructive militarism and fascism … by finding out the logical essence of the system and by objectifying the whole structure’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 255); and second, that it ‘seek[s] to find out the conditions (possibilities) for establishing the principles of “sovereignty of the people” – the conditions of “democratisation” (minshuka) – through reflecting upon and identifying a new political situation brought about on the “5/19” in 1960 with the past situation, in which an original individual freedom and a sense of “natural rights” came into existence from the “state of nature” without a state – a “tabula rasa” – under the conditions that the people had to live in the “burnt-out ruins and the black market” since “V-J Day” in 1945’ (Iida, Reference Iida2006a: 259). In addition, it is understood that his ‘tireless effort(s)’ (fudan no doryoku), regarded as the process of advancing his theory of the ‘sovereignty of the people’, faced ‘political resistance to [his] attempt’ (doryoku wo habami samatageru seijiteki dōkō), which presumably signifies, for example, the direction of Anpo and kōdo seichō determined exactly by politics. For Fujita, perhaps, the ‘first objective’ (shoshin) must also have meant his decision to study the method of ‘spiritual structure’. In sum, it can be argued that these attitudes to the ‘postwar’, namely his fundamental principles that had been consistently retained since his first objective, were methodologically applied to his position on actual politics represented by the Vietnam War. In particular, the three principles of ‘sovereignty of the people’ (kokumin shuken), ‘fundamental human rights’ (kihonteki jinken) and ‘pacifism’ (heiwashugi), which the ‘Constitution of Japan’ (Nihon-koku kenpō) requires, must have reminded him of his theory of the ‘sovereignty of the people’ based on the autonomy of the people and the ‘principles of universal value of human beings’Footnote 17 (fuhen ningenteki kihanshugi) on the basis of ‘fundamental rights’ (kihonken) guaranteed by ‘common sense’ (komon sensu).Footnote 18 For these reasons, it must be stressed that Fujita's 8/15 declaration is of huge significance for his early work.
Since the statement, Fujita went into his silence again after having issued ‘“Shingi” ni tsuite’ (On Decision-Making) (1965). As Iida puts it, ‘it is believed that at the time Fujita internally philosophised in a deep trough, as seeking for a new direction of his study as later suggested by “Itan-ron danshō” (The W ritings of Fujita Shōzō, vol. 10: P olitical F ragments of U northodoxy), which was to be written next spring (1967)’ (Reference Iida2006a: 266). Under this state of mind, he left for the UK for his study in 1967.
5. Conclusion
As can be seen in Fujita's early political and theoretical engagement, he is also counted as a political theorist in so far as the discipline of political theory, derived from ancient Greece, requires that its disciplinary work should establish a new theory, showing ‘public concern’ (Wolin, Reference Wolin1969: 1078–1079) and touching on ‘political practice’ (seijiteki jissen) (Maruyama, Reference Maruyama and Morris1969: 238; Reference Maruyama1995: 149); in other words, political theory essentially concerns itself with res publica (or ta politika) by engaging in theoretical, political activities, as Fujita demonstrated through seeking to define the political via his own involvement in them. In fact, Fujita formulated his political theory through taking a self-critical and self-reflective perspective of political thinking and acting, and through showing both his optimistic psychological state of kibō and his pessimistic psychological state of zetsubō, by means of criticising the Tennō system and kōdo seichō, both of which are profoundly associated with the core political structure of postwar Japan, thereby trying to find out what politics ought to be, namely the political.
From these perspectives, Fujita's political theory is characterised as normative theoretical attempts to identify what politics ought to be, as can be seen particularly in his theories of the ‘sovereignty of the people’ and ‘primordial man’. As we saw above, in his early work he is still under Maruyama's strong influence, in the sense of seeing politics in the dualism of theory and practice in terms of Western modernism. It is interesting to note, however, that in his early contributions, we can precisely recognise the idea of radical democracy that citizens are willing to establish their political power by themselves through their political participation, as exemplified by the fact that Fujita lays stress on their involvement in public decision-making, rather than on the functions of the parliamentary system; in this respect, it is believed that his political theory has its raison d’être in helping citizens to perform that task. Indeed it is possible to discern the Habermasian conceptions of public deliberation and consensus formation in Fujita's political theory, but much more importantly, it is also possible to discern the Arendtian conception of power particularly in his conception of the people, in the sense that this theoretical component is exactly characteristic of his political theory. With regard to the latter view, I emphasise his theory that primordial men with an ‘original individual freedom and a sense of natural rights’ (p. 6 above) come into being as the people who establish their own political power under the conditions of the burnt-out ruins and the black-market, regarded as the state of nature. To put it differently, in his view, their voluntary association gives rise to legitimate political power on the basis of a social contract.
It must be noted that, although Fujita's scholarly activities are not restricted to the subject area of political theory, it is undoubtedly true that as we saw in his early contributions, his way of showing his concern is typified particularly by being involved in ‘public life’ – or ‘political life’ – for example, by way of public decision making, with which the discipline is essentially associated (e.g., Grant, Reference Grant2002; Brown, Reference Brown2010; cf. Kaufman-Osborn, Reference Kaufman-Osborn2010). In this respect, it is possible to consider that his political theory seems to be in favour of the ‘detachment form of realism’ with respect to ongoing debates about realism in political theory (Baderin, Reference Baderin2014; cf. Gunnell, Reference Gunnell2010; Philp, Reference Philp2010). Most importantly, apart from these issues, Japanese scholars in the field of political theory aim to find theoretical implications of the academic discipline and formulate their own theories not in the Western context but in their own social context. In my view, Fujita's political theory is a good example with great potential to contribute to the intellectual tradition of the academic field in Japan, precisely because in his scholarly endeavours we can clearly recognise Japanese political theory (seiji riron), which is different from political thought (seiji shisō) that essentially devotes itself to understanding and illuminating thinkers’ texts and ideas. No doubt, the raison d’être and survival of the academic discipline of seiji riron depend heavily on whether Japanese researchers in relevant fields seek disciplinary ingredients of the subject within its Japanese intellectual tradition (e.g., Kakuta, Reference Kakuta2012; Ochi, Reference Ochi2016; Yamawaki, Reference Yamawaki2016). A key clue to dealing with the long-lasting, unresolved problem of the ‘sterility (funinsei) of Japanese political science’ lies exactly in this issue (Maruyama, Reference Maruyama and Morris1969: 227; Reference Maruyama1995: 136).
Takamichi Sakurai, PhD, completed his doctoral research on comparative political theory at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Recently he published a book entitled Political Theories of Narcissism: Towards Self-Reflection on Knowledge and Politics from the Psychoanalytic Perspectives of Erich Fromm and Fujita Shōzō (LIT Verlag, 2018). In 2011, he worked as a lecturer in Japanese social science at Heidelberg, and in 2014–2017 he was appointed to a sociological researcher at Keio University, Japan. Since 2017, he has researched on sociological autism as a visiting scholar in Heidelberg University's Department of General Psychiatry. This research is based on a biography of Fujita Shōzō in my PhD thesis, Appendix 3 (2014). The original dissertation can be found at the following link of heiDOK (The Heidelberg Document Repository): http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/20786. Special thanks to the Faculty of Philosophy at Heidelberg University.
