Isomae Junichi Religion, secularity, and the articulation of the indigenous in modernizing Japan Post-colonial theories of religion Recent

debates about religion and secularity have focused increasingly on the principle of separating state and religion. Yasukuni hrine in !okyo and Islam are among the most typical topics in "uestion. #enerally speaking, the so-called critical intellectuals in Japan have fundamentally diverging reactions to these topics. In the case of the homage paid by Japanese prime ministers to the $ar dead at Yasukuni hrine, the separation of state and religion is almost inevitably put for$ard as the reason $hy they should refrain from doing so. %n the other hand, Japanese intellectuals "uestion the validity of the same principle in the case of Islam, since the separation of state and religion is seen as a product of &estern enlightenment, $hich applies only to a specific historical and regional conte't. (ere $e encounter t$o opposing attitudes regarding the "uestion ho$ a non-&estern society under &estern influence should cope $ith its o$n social problems) in the first case, &estern principles must be applied $ithout fail, $hile in the second case these principles are regarded as not entirely appropriate for the realities of non-&estern societies. !his behavioral t$ist may be best described in the $ords of social anthropologist !alal *sad, $ho stated that even people outside the &estern $orld live in a $orld in $hich the &est is hegemonic and $here the old opposition bet$een modernity and tradition no longer functions. Instead they find themselves in a convoluted state at once modern and traditional, both authentic and creative at the same time. +*sad ,--./ 0rom this point of vie$, even the Islamist claim for the unity of state and religion and the revival of Islam are fundamentally ne$ phenomena resulting from resistance against &estern secularization, and cannot be e'plained only by principles directly derived from pre-modern Islamic traditions. *s has been elo"uently described in recent studies on the relationship of colonialism and religion, non-&estern countries, in order to avoid colonization by &estern superpo$ers, have no other option than to promote &esternization if they $ant to have their autonomy

recognized. %n the other hand, a country that opens its doors defenselessly to$ards the &estern $orld may still end up in a state of colonization, culturally dominated and politically e'ploited by the &est. If $e consider the above-mentioned separation of state and religion under these suppositions, $e realize that the problem lies in the fact that non&estern societies are dra$n into the &estern concept of religion and its related systems. !hus, rather than to ask $hether or not the separation of state and religion should be enforced in Japanese society, it is necessary to concretely investigate $hen and ho$ this principle $as introduced into modern Japan and $hich functions it performed. In the Japanese post-$ar society, separation of state and religion has been seen as a universal principle of &estern enlightenment introduced to prevent the instrumentalization of religion by nationalist ideologies. Yet in &estern societies, separation of state and religion is rather the e'ception than the rule and even among those that are generally believed to have achieved its realization, i.e. the 1nited tates and 0rance, substantial differences still e'ist. *sad comments on these heterogeneous aspects $ithin &estern societies) 0or even in modern secular countries the place of religion varies. !hus although in 0rance both the highly centralized state and its citizens are secular, in 2ritain the state is linked to the 3stablished 4hurch and its inhabitants are largely nonreligious, and in *merica the population is largely religious but the federal state is secular. +*sad 5667, p. ./ &hile elite intellectuals of the 8ei9i period, like hima9i 8okurai 1 or Inoue :o$ashi,2

did not go as far as theorizing about the discrepancies bet$een political systems and social realities, they $ere $ell a$are of this diversity at the time the first 4onstitution of Imperial Japan $as drafted. !hey created labels like state-religion system for #reat 2ritain, supremacy of state over church for Prussia, system of publicly ackno$ledged religion for 0rance, or separation of state and religion for the 1 *, and finally opted for the

hima9i 8okurai +,;7;-,-,,/, hin 2uddhist monk, part-time member of the I$akura 8ission +,;<,<7/, and religious advisor of the 8ei9i government. ee also belo$, n. 3rror) Reference source not found. 5 Inoue :o$ashi +,;==--./, 8ei9i politician and co-drafter of the 8ei9i 4onstitution.
,

Prussian model of religious tolerance as stated in *rticle 5; of the Imperial 4onstitution, $hich reads) Japanese sub9ects shall, $ithin limits not pre9udicial to peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as sub9ects, en9oy freedom of religious belief + shinky no jiy /. In contrast to the present constitution, $hich clearly provides that the tate and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity +*rticle 56.7/, the Imperial 4onstitution consciously avoided issues pertaining directly to the separation of state and religion. !his $as readily accepted as soon as the 4onstitution $as drafted, $hile critical vie$s addressing its religious provisions got lost. *fter Japan s defeat at the end of &orld &ar II, $hich meant the end of this system, religious policies $ere reinstalled under the guidance of the 1nited tates. !his time, the separation of state and religion according to *merican la$ came to be regarded as the universal model. tarting from the above-mentioned issues, this essay aims at a ne$ look on ho$ the separation of state and religion in modern Japanese history $as related to tate hinto, and in $hich $ay the dichotomy of the religious and the secular articulated itself in modernizing Japan. I $ill conclude this topic $ith a discussion of the !enno system in modern Japanese society. !heories on tate hinto and the separation of state and religion * recent essay on tate hinto and hinto shrines as religious bodies in post-$ar Japan, published in 566> by the religion scholar himazono usumu , created a great stir in Japanese society. In this essay, $hich $as meant as a comment on the general interest in the Yasukuni "uestion, himazono argues that even in the post-$ar society tate hinto has not vanished. &hat is more, it has never been abolished. *ccording to himazono, the $ord tate hinto has been used in t$o $ays so far) in a narro$ sense used by hinto scholars such as akamoto :oremaru or *shizu 1bihiko it refers to hrine hinto that had been defined as non-religious and $as therefore e'cluded from the category of religion, $hile in a broader sense used for instance by the scholar of religion 8urakami higeyoshi it refers to a combination of hrine hinto, Imperial hinto, and the ?ational 2ody +kokutai / ideology. + himazono 566,, p. 75=-5>./ In

other $ords, tate hinto in the latter sense also includes the pre-$ar !enno system and its ideology of @?ational 8oralityA +kokumin dtoku / e'emplified by the veneration of the Imperial Rescript on 3ducation and the imperial portrait +goshinei /.7 himazono himself advocates a broader definition of @ tate hintoA that also includes the ritualistic aspects $hich hinto originally consisted of. !his @imperial ritualism or imperial hinto BCD is the core of tate hinto as it e'ists $ithin the present system of la$.A himazono further e'plains the nature of this imperial tate hinto in the follo$ing $ay) Imperial ritualism consists of rites performed by the !enno as a descendent of the #reat Eeity *materasu. 2y their reverence to$ards the !enno, $ho possesses the characteristics of a sacred king +saishi /, the Japanese people are connected to a system of state deities. + himazono 566>, p. =;=/ *ccording to this interpretation, even post-$ar imperial rituals are obviously hinto-like activities. ince any form of hinto is no$ regarded as a form of religion, and since the !enno is regarded as a symbol of the Japanese people, his ritual performing of rites for the native deities +kami/ must be interpreted as a breach of the post-$ar constitutionFs provision of separating state and religion. %n the other hand, constitutional 9urist (irano !akeshi , points out that @the $ord G tate hintoF +kokka shint/ $as not in common use before the $ar, but became $idely kno$n only after the so-called hinto Eirective.A +(irano ,--., pp. ,>7->=./ 2efore that time, i.e. from the 8ei9i period to ,-=., $hich according to post-$ar scholars $as the period of tate hinto, the term $as virtually non-e'istent in official or academic conte'ts. Post-$ar scholars therefore have not been able to find the term in pre-$ar society, even if they have claimed its e'istence. !herefore, tate hinto must not be regarded as a precondition that influenced all sorts of political decisions before the $ar, but as an analytical term for a

In the pre-$ar period, every school had to have a copy of the Imperial Rescript on 3ducation +Kyiku chokugo, drafted in ,;-6/ together $ith an imperial portrait. 2oth $ere the ob9ects of special ceremonies at important school events.
7

political process that took shape in an erratic succession of legal provisions. ince tate hinto is a terminus e' post, conclusions as to $hen it came into e'istence, or $hether or not it indeed e'isted, depend largely on its respective definition +Isomae 566<a/. In other $ords, $e cannot e'pect univocal agreement if $e pose the "uestion in the traditional substantialist $ay) @&hat is tate hintoHA Yet this does not mean that $e should discard the term altogether. Instead, $e should compare the meanings individual scholars have given to @ tate hintoA in order to come up $ith a most plausible interpretation of reality. &e should therefore put the "uestion on the terminological efficiency of the different concepts. !o this end, it seems necessary to recall the definition of tate hinto in the locus classicus of the term, the hinto Eirective= legal document) 5.a. !he purpose of this directive is to separate religion from the state B...D. 5.c. &ithin the meaning of this directive, the term tate hinto $ill refer to that branch of hinto + tate hinto or hrine hinto/ $hich by official acts of the Japanese #overnment has been differentiated from ect hinto + shha shint/ or Eoctrinal hinto +kyha shint/ B...D. 5.e.+5/ hrine hinto, after having been divorced from the state and divested of its militaristic and ultranationalistic elements, $ill be recognized as a religion if its adherents so desire B...D.. 2y using the term @ tate hinto,A the hinto Eirective contained t$o ne$ points of vie$ regarding the relation bet$een hrine hinto and the state, namely the conse"uent institutional separation of state and religion and the definition of hrine hinto as a religion.
Issued on ,. Eecember ,-=., by the full title) @8atters relating to the abolition of government protection, support, supervision and proliferation of tate hinto or hrine hinto.A 0or a complete translation into 3nglish, c.f. (ardacre ,-;-, pp. ,><-<6. . !his translation follo$s that of (elen (ardacre +,-;-, p. ,>-/, $ith slight modifications.
=

advanced by the #eneral (ead"uarters of the *llied

Po$ers +#(I in the follo$ing/. 0ollo$ing relevant statements can be e'tracted from this

*s already mentioned, in pre-$ar Japanese society it $as little "uestioned $hether or not the system of tate hinto $as in conflict $ith the separation of state and religion. 0reedom of faith $as interpreted in the sense that @the state should not intervene in personal matters of religious activityA +Jishi ,-->, p. 57>/, $hich is, according to a $idely accepted 9uridical interpretation, also possible under a system that does not provide separation of state and religion. &ithin these preconditions, the Japanese government did not opt for the religious system of any particular contemporary &estern nation, but applied a specific form of religious tolerance that abstained from enforcing a single belief in a state religion. 4ertainly, the !enno system, $ith hrine hinto as its main supporter, played the role of a state religion. Yet in order not to be dra$n into an ideological contest $ith religions like 4hristianity or 2uddhism, or to avoid criticism from &estern countries for adopting an anti4hristian state religion, the government assigned hrine hinto to the realm of @moralityA +dtoku / that defined the civic duties of @Japanese sub9ects.A !he distinction bet$een @moralityA and @religion,A ho$ever, al$ays remained ambiguous, since morality, $hich $as inseparably related to the po$er of the state, actually interfered in the realm of individual religion. !he result of this policy $as that any religious body could gain official recognition as long as it did not ob9ect to the !enno-centered nationalism spelled out in the form of @peopleFs moralityA +kokumin dtoku/. #eneral opinion holds that hrine hinto actively became a device of state ideology after the Russo-Japanese &ar +,-6=-6./. In principle, ho$ever, the system had already taken shape bet$een the abolition of the @national evangelistsA +kydshoku /> 4onstitution in ,;;-. !he fact that the religious policy of the 8ei9i government did not comply $ith the separation of state and religion can also be gathered from the @4ritical petition regarding the three teaching principlesA< issued in ,;<5 by the hin 2uddhist monk hima9i 8okurai. !his
!he translation @national evangelistsA for kydshoku, lit. @agents of the $ay of the teaching,A is borro$ed from (ardacre ,-;-. !he term $as used as a title for activists of the #reat !eaching Institute +!aikyK-in/, officially an autonomous religious body that $as meant to create a ne$ state religion after the abolition of the hinto 8inistry +Jingi-shK/ in ,;<5. B!ranslatorFs note.D < Sanj kysoku hihan kenhaku sho . !he three teaching principles referred to here $ere set up by
>

in ,;;= and the proclamation of the Imperial

>

petition is considered to be the first demand for the separation of state and religion ever put for$ard in Japan. Yet, $hile hima9i maintains that @state and religion are different and should never be mi'ed since ancient times,A he holds on the other hand that @it $as because of the interrelationship of state and religion that country became country and man became man for the first time.A 2ased on the dualism of absolute and mundane truth, he argues that religion must serve the government as soon as it has been separated from the state. 0or the sake of clarity, I $ould like to point out an inherent contradiction in hima9iFs claim for the separation of state and religion. (e $rites @that institutional conspiracy of state and church +religious institutions/ and institutional fusion of political and religious authority should be avoided, and their domains and respective fields of authority should be kept separate. 2oth should ackno$ledge the independence of their respective domains.A +Jnishi and 4hiba 566>, pp. ,6-,,./ !his assertion, ho$ever, does not fit $ell $ith $hat he calls the @interrelationship of state and religion.A 0rom these facts $e can detect, among other things, that pre-$ar Japan did not comply $ith a model of society $here @politics and religionA or @morality and religionA $ere clearly differentiated according to the principle of separating state and religion. ?evertheless, immediately after the $ar this principle $as installed by the #(I, taking the 4onstitution of the 1nited tates as its model. It $as a "uite common phenomenon also on an international level) at this point in time, the lacit de l'tat became constitutional in 0rance, and #ermany also carried out the separation of state and religion that had been present to some degree already in the &eimar 4onstitution. Yet there $ere certainly different approaches to this separation, ranging from the oviet 1nionFs hostility to$ards religion to the benevolent @non-concernA of the 1nited tates. In the case of Japan, one might have easily e'pected a hostile stance, since the separation of state and religion $as obviously motivated by the desire to abolish tate hinto. Yet, $hile the first paragraph of the hinto Eirective states
the government in ,;<5 as guidelines for the #reat !eaching Institute +c.f. note 3rror) Reference source not found/ and consisted of three simple phrases) @+,/ respect for the gods and love for the country, +5/ making clear the principles of (eaven and the &ay of 8an, +7/ reverence for the emperor and obedience to the $ill of the court.A +(ardacre ,-;-, p. =7./ hima9i, $ho $as instrumental in the hinto 8inistry being replaced by the 8inistry of Religion +:yKbu-shK/ in ,;<5, rightfully sensed an attempt to oust 2uddhists from the campaign for a national religion and thus opted for a more sophisticated model +see also ?itta 5666, pp. 5.=-.>/.

<

that @militarism and ultra-nationalism perverted hinto principles and beliefs,A hrine hinto itself $as ackno$ledged as a religious belief 9ust as 4hristianity or 2uddhism are. *s a result, shrines $ere regarded favorably even by the #(I but the ambivalence regarding their relationship to the !enno remained, leading to continuous discussions concerning their role in state ceremonies, discussions that continue to the present day. !his $as only partly in accord $ith the intentions of the #(IL to some e'tent it $ent against their e'pectations. Regarding the intentions of the #(I, the core principle of their occupation policies $as to rule and reform Japan by means of the !enno system. !o this end they denied the status of a living deity to the !enno but kept his relation to the people unchanged. Yet, $hile hrine hinto ought to be @divested of its militaristic and ultra-nationalistic elements,A the #(I did not "uestion the intimate relations bet$een the various shrines and the !enno system +as reflected in the fact that many shrines venerate kami related to the imperial family, or that the !enno serves the kami in various imperial rituals/. If only on a symbolic level, the !enno system thus still kept its religious characteristics. 1nder the prete't of freedom of religion, the !ennoFs performing of imperial rituals to his divine ancestors $as seen as @the !ennoFs personal matter,A not$ithstanding the fact that he $as publicly regarded as a symbol of the Japanese people. !his is the reason the "uestion of imperial ritualism has remained unsolved in the post-$ar period, as has been pointed out by himazono usumu. !his limited perception of the !enno system tells us at the same time ho$ the Japanese side regarded the problem) cholars of religion, hinto scholars, and bureaucrats $elcomed the #(IFs tolerance as a lucky turn of events. 3ven before the $ar, doubts had been raised time and again $hether enforced reverence of shrines $as in accord $ith the constitutional freedom of religion, but arguments that the !enno system itself might violate the constitution $ere virtually unheard of. !his can be easily criticized from todayFs point of vie$, but if $e consider that the !enno monarchy $as the very foundation of the modern Japanese nation state, this kind of perceptional limitation, namely the tacit approval of the !enno system as a kind of invisible entity beyond the la$, $as probably unavoidable. !he "uestion $e have to ask at this point is ho$ this a'iomatic approval of the !enno system

became possible. &e $ill have to re-evaluate the genealogy of its @e'tra-legalA status. !his $ill lead us to the introduction of the concept of religion in Japan and to the "uestion ho$ the !enno system, under the prete't of an @indigenous tradition,A $as seen as a blank space left out in the &estern conception. In this respect, I $ould like to raise another point included in the hinto Eirective, namely its definition of hrine hinto as a form of @religion.A 2y addressing the concretizations of @religionA and @secularityA in pre-$ar society, $hich included the !enno system, $e should arrive at a perspective different from the post-$ar discussions, $hich are based on the precondition of the separation of state and religion. !he concept of religion and its fluctuations &hen hrine hinto, $hich had hitherto been regarded as @ritualismA + saishi /, $as

redefined as @religionA +shky/ by the hinto Eirective, this led to tremendous changes regarding the status of hrine hinto in Japanese society. 2ased on the doctrine of the nonreligious nature of shrines, religion and ritualism had belonged to different categories in pre$ar society or $ere at least officially regarded as different. !he borderline bet$een religion and ritualism at that time is plainly illustrated in the follo$ing citation from a ne$spaper essay published in ,;-6 by the Tky nichinichi shinbun) &hen $e speak of ceremonies +matsuri/, $e refer to ritualism +saishi/ in the sense of paying homage to the graves of our ancestors or offering flo$ers and incense to their ancestor tablets at home BCD. 3very act of commemoration can be called a ceremony. !eaching +oshie/ on the other hand, bears the meaning of religion +shky/. It can refer to the !enno or to the 2uddha or to any other ob9ect of veneration to $hich $e turn in a$esome piety as our place of spiritual peace and refuge.; !he categories established here reflect the official hinto policies embodied in the doctrine
!he article $ith the title @%n the divisions of religionA +Shky bunri ron / by a certain (aanshi is "uoted from Yasumaru and 8iyachi ,-;;, p. 5<=.
;

of the non-religious nature of hinto shrines before the $ar. !his doctrine regarded religion as a matter of individual faith that everyone could chose freely, in contrast to ritualism, $hich $as a public activity and the duty of every loyal citizen. &orship at shrines $as defined as ritualism in order to e'tricate it from missionary competition $ith religions like 4hristianity or 2uddhism +c.f. Isomae 5666/. *s many contemporary intellectuals $ere $ell a$are, this $as fundamentally a distinction bet$een official and private, deriving from the political 9udgment that @if hinto should become the foundation of our ?ational 2ody &ithout this +kokutai/ it has to be promulgated by a proper governmental institution.A -

distinction bet$een official and private, ritualism and religion $ould immediately flo$ into one another, as the above-mentioned ne$spaper author observed) @ ince rituals + saishi/ are one part of any given religion, I $ould never say that religion has nothing to do $ith ritualism.A,6 In this $ay, the a$areness that hrine hinto could become a kind of religion as soon as it $as released from political considerations led to the constant fear on the part of hinto adherents that the veneration of shrines as a public duty might be in conflict $ith the right of religious freedom. Regarding the above-mentioned non-religious-shrine thesis, as $ell as the separation of religion and ritualism, (anada RyKun , a hin 2uddhist scholar, pointed to @the $idely kno$n fact that there e'ists no 9uridical statement on the "uestion $hether B$orship atD shrines is religion or not.A ,, !he 4onstitution and other 9udicial documents only granted freedom of faith @$ithin limits not pre9udicial to peace and order.A Iuestions such as $hether $orship at shrines $as religious or ritual, or ho$ such categories $ere to be defined $ere discussed much later in official pamphlets such as the Jinja hongi +@%riginal meaning of shrines,A published in ,-== by the Jingi-in/, yet their conclusions never reached legal authority and remained merely a possible opinion. 1nder such e'tra-9udicial conditions, or rather because they $ere never defined 9udicially, debates regarding the nature of hinto shrines $ere left unresolved time and again. 0reedom of
@Personal opinion on the separation of hinto priests from the ?ational 3vangelistsA + hinkan kyKdKshoku bunri ni tsuki ikensho , ,;;7/, "uoted from Yasumaru and 8iyachi ,-;;, p. ><. ,6 4.f. note 3rror) Reference source not found. Iuoted from Yasumaru and 8iyachi ,-;;, p. 5<=. ,, Iuoted from a report by the 4ommittee for the tudy of Religious *dministration + hMkyK seido chKsa iinkai
-

, ,-5> Bvol. ,D, p../. 4.f. note 3rror) Reference source not found.

,6

belief, therefore, could be $ider or narro$er depending on the official definition of shrines. 0or pre-$ar Japanese society this meant in practice that the amount of religious freedom varied from period to period.,5 1nder these conditions, the concept of @religionA became a matter of great concern for intellectuals of the time. Intimately related to ritualism, the respective definitions of religion determined not only the nature of shrines but also the e'tent of religious freedom. !he Japanese term shky came into common use as the standard translation of the 3nglish $ord @religionA around ,;<<. *t that time $e also see the beginnings of a tacit tolerance of 4hristianity and the competition among various religions for adherents among the common populace. In the ,;-6s, $hen governmental shrine policies had to be brought into line $ith the professed freedom of religion, $e observe an increasing demand for a @precise definitionA of religion. *cademic discourse on religion appeared for the first time in Japan in the form of 4omparative Religion introduced by Inoue !etsu9irK +,;..-,-==/ and others, or, some$hat later, of Religious tudies introduced by scholars such as *nesaki 8asaharu +,;<7-,-=-/ and :atK #enchi +,;<7-,->./ +c.f. Isomae 5667, chap. ,/. In Japan, definitions of religion can be arranged into t$o groups, both of $hich hark back to *nesaki 8asaharu, $ho took &estern Protestantism as the model for his image of religion. In his Shkygaku gairon +@#eneral Introduction to the cience of ReligionA/, published in ,-66, $hich laid the foundation for the discipline of Religious tudies in Japan, *nesaki advances the follo$ing definition) Religion is not simply the history of a single confession or sect, but a concept based on the understanding that all religions are realities of the history of human civilization, and are, as products of the human mind, part of the same process of production. +*nesaki ,-;5 B,,-66D, p. ,/ !his definition is based on a psychological vie$point that regards the relations bet$een
,5

0or a concrete e'ample, see also the article on the @Yasukuni incidentA by :ate &ildman ?akai in this volume.

,,

god+s/ and humans as @products of the human mind.A 0ocusing on the religious consciousness of the individual believer, *nesaki maintains that in spite of their differences, the various religions or confessions can be understood as variants of the same phenomenon of @religion.A Religion is therefore not part of a sacred realm or a transcendental sphere. ince everyone possesses some religious inclinations, it belongs to the mundane $orld and, moreover, is secularized in the sense of @privatization.A ?o longer e'cluded from the secular, the sacred can be found $ithin man himself, $hich in Japan parado'ically led to a ne$ mysticist search for the essence of religious e'perience. *nesaki, for instance, recounts his o$n religious e'periences in the follo$ing $ay) Nying alone on the sand at the seashore I enter the realm of the unconscious + mushin no sakai / BCD. 3ven if time passes and people change, there is al$ays the unchanging tune of @no$A in the flo$ of eons. Night, do you embrace meH &ave, do you invite meH 2ody, dissolve in the $ater, heart, melt a$ay $ith the lightO &hen I am in this $ay no longer myself, I cannot help being attracted by such reverberations inside my breast. +*nesaki ,-<6 B,,-67D, p. 5=;/ *nesakiFs emphasis on his individual e'perience clearly dra$s on the 4hristian stress on belie . 0rom this point of vie$, religious folk traditions reflect nothing other than @ailmentsA of religion in the form of superstition. In contrast, :atK #enchi, $ho had studied together $ith *nesaki under Inoue !etsu9irK, some$hat belatedly +,-7;/ came for$ard $ith another definition of religion, in $hich hinto is emphasized as an indigenous religion) !he field of Religious tudies made a huge progress $hen it no longer understood @religionA e'clusively as universal religions like 2uddhism, 4hristianity and Islam, but also included tribal beliefs of primitive societies ,7 or national creeds that prospered among common people since ancient times and regarded them $ith serious academic concern. +:atK 566= B,,-7;D, pp. 5-=--./

:atK uses the term shi!en min!oku here, $hich is obviously derived from the #erman "atur#olk +@people of natureA/. @Primitive societyA is probably the closest 3nglish e"uivalent in te'ts of the period, although it has slightly different connotations. B!ranslatorFs note.D
,7

,5

?eedless to say that from this point of vie$, BCD one arrives at the understanding that a national religion, as for instance state hinto +kokkateki shint /, even if it does not possess all aspects of a universal religion or a private religion, is of foremost importance among all religions.A +Ibid., p. 5-./ :atKFs understanding further led him to an affirmative recognition of hrine hinto as a form of religion. ?evertheless, :atK $as in full accord $ith his colleague *nesaki and their common teacher Inoue !etsu9irK that religious belief consciously held up by the individual devotee makes up the core of any concept of religion. In an attempt to overcome this limitation, Yanagita :unio +,;<.-,->5/, the founder of Japanese 0olklore tudies, put for$ard an interpretation of hinto that initiated yet another array of definitions of religion. In his @Personal vie$ of hinto,A first published in ,-,;, he $rote) @*ny conclusion that shrines serve no other purpose than to pay respect to our forefathers or to e'ceptional personalities is not based on firm ground, I believe.A +Yanagita 5666 B,,-,;D, p. 5=./ (e thereby criticized the vie$point of the %ffice of hrine *ffairs,= $hich interpreted all kami as men, based on the conceptions of @?ational hinto scholars $ho 8orality.A Nike$ise, he $as dissatisfied $ith the interpretations of

understood shrines as non-religious phenomena. Instead, he regarded @the thinking about the kami that $e actually find in rural villages BCD, $hich has neither a doctrine nor a founderA +ibid., p. 5=>/ $ith utmost esteem. YanagitaFs emphasis on communal practice rather than on individual belief influenced a ne$ generation of scholars, $ho from the ,-76s on$ard began to revise the ideas of *nesaki and :atK. In the form of Religious 0olklore tudies introduced by 1no 3nkM +,;;.-,-=-/ or Religious *nthropology established by 0uruno :iyoto +,;---,-<-/ and others, YanagitaFs vie$s gradually developed into the most
0ounded in ,-66 $ithin the (ome 8inistry, the %ffice of hrine *ffairs +Jin9a kyoku / $as solely responsible for the administration of shrines, $hile all other religious bodies including ect hinto $ere administered by the %ffice for Religious 8atters + hMkyK kyoku/. 2oth offices replaced the %ffice for !emple and hrines + ha9i kyoku/, $hich had been installed in ,;<<.
,=

,7

common approach to non-&estern religions. !his practice-oriented vie$ of religion also spread in the &est, as the contact $ith developing countries intensified through colonialism. &hile religious practices $ere initially placed at the lo$est level of an evolutionary scale that $as topped by 4hristian theology, they gradually came to be regarded as phenomena that deserve special considerations. ,. In present-day Japan, interpretations according to the Protestant model still prevail but practiceoriented understandings of religion have begun to erode the preeminent importance attached to religious belief. Shky +religion/ in the present sense of the $ord has therefore developed from multiple levels of meaning. *t the beginning of the t$entieth century, *nesaki and :atK, $ho $ere heavily influenced by a Protestant concept of religion, created the first standard interpretation. *t the same time, the obvious differences bet$een 4hristianity, $ith its fully developed theology, and Japanese hinto aroused a feeling of discomfort that found its verbal e'pression in the $ritings of Yanagita :unio and 1no 3nkM. *s the fierce debates $ithin the 4ommittee for the tudy of Religious *dministration ,> bet$een ,-5> and ,-5; indicate, serious doubts $ere raised concerning the official doctrine of the non-religious nature of hinto shrines. !he concept of religion, therefore, held conflicting implications that $ere never resolved one $ay or the other. !hese @fluctuations of the concept of religionA are still valid today, as himazono usumu e'plains)

!he above-mentioned social anthropologist !alal *sad, for instance, regards @the development of prescribed moral-religious capabilities, $hich involve the cultivation of certain bodily attitudes +including emotions/, the disciplined cultivation of habits, aspirations, desiresA as characteristics not only of Islam but also of medieval 4atholicism +*sad ,--./. %riginally, this kind of religious practice must not be seen as @an autogenetic impulse but as a mutually constituting relationship bet$een body sense and body learning.A It is a fatal error of modern &estern interpretations centered on belief, to do$nplay such practices as @obscure meaningsA or as @symbols to be interpreted.A +*sad ,--7, pp. << and >5./
,.

*s *sad further states, @BCD in contemporary Protestant 4hristianity +and other religions no$ modeled on it/, it is more important to have the right belie than to carry out specific prescribed practices. BC 2elieveD has no$ become a purely inner, private state of mind, a particular state of mind detached from everyday practices. BCD the system of statements about belief is no$ held to constitute the essence of Greligion,F a construction that makes it possible to compare and evaluate different Greligions.FA +*sad ,--./ ,> !he 4ommittee for the tudy of Religious *dministration + hMkyK seido chKsa kai / $as an advisory board installed by the government bet$een ,-5> and ,-5;. Its purpose $as to devise the legislative frame$ork for a religious policy that $ould treat the three religions 4hristianity, 2uddhism, and hinto as e"ual.

,=

!he $ord @religionA $as not simply introduced in its original meaning as soon as it began to be translated as shky. BCD In todayFs Japanese society, there is much confusion as to $hat shky actually means, especially $hen one asks $hat the main religion of Japan is BCD. In this sense, the &estern concept of @religionA has not yet neatly settled in Japan. Rather, it is $idely recognized that there is a certain perple'ity regarding the concept of @religion.A + himazono ,--;, p. >7/ imilarly fluctuating meanings can be also observed in the case of @ritualismA + saishi/, $hich served as the counterpart of religion in the non-religious-shrine doctrine. In the $ake of the 8ei9i Restoration, the slogan @unity of administration and ritualA +saisei itchi / $as put for$ard as one of the ma9or political tenets. !his idea deteriorated "uite rapidly, ho$ever, as can be gathered from the fact that state rituals $ere soon distributed to a number of "uite different institutions) ordinary shrine rituals $ere overseen by the %ffice for hrine 8atters of the (ome 8inistry, rites of the Imperial Palace by the 2ureau for 4eremonial 8atters + hikibu ryK /, and ceremonies at Yasukuni hrine by the *rmy 8inistry. tate rituals, therefore, $ere not performed according to a consistent, $ell-coordinated plan of the government. 4ertainly, these rituals had some obscure characteristics in common, since they $ere all directed to$ards Japanese kami and did not belong to a @religionA such as 4hristianity or ect hinto, but neither the government nor the general populace had an clear picture of the pantheon in $hich all these kami P ranging from imperial ancestors to imperial loyalists and heroic citizens P e'isted and ho$ they might be related to each other. !his lack of clarity, ho$ever, is not only a persistent feature of the !enno system, it is also a most natural conse"uence of the fact that hinto does not possess an e'plicit theology. !herefore, it should not be regarded as a fundamental defect. Rather it dra$s an important meaning from its function as a blank space for ritualism that is beyond logical criticism. !he fact that only shrine ritualism and its relation to religion became an issue $as probably due to its intimate connections $ith @?ational 3ducationA +kokumin kyka /, $hich $as al$ays in latent conflict $ith the peopleFs freedom of faith. 3specially at the time of the Russo-Japanese &ar, shrine ritualism became intert$ined $ith the ?ational 8orality

,.

discourse propagated by the 8inistry of 3ducation. In the $ords of :Kno hKzK,,< @ hinto makes up our ?ational 8orality, it is indeed the force behind the Imperial &ay.A +:Kno ,-77, p. ,5/ In this $ay, shrines $ere regarded as the arena of ?ational 8orality. !hus, the oppositions @ritualismQreligionA and @moralityQreligion,A $hich had been regarded as being different up to that time, became synonymous $ithin the non-religious-shrine discourse. 2y regarding the non-verbal physical practice of rituals as @moral behavior,A the non-religiousshrine doctrine $as e"ually dra$n into the secular realm of morality. 8orality, ho$ever, $as yet another term endo$ed $ith a number of meanings. &hile scholars in the tradition of &estern enlightenment, such as Inoue !etsu9irK and others, simply contrasted it $ith religion, adherents of hinto, as for instance :Kno hKzK, used it more or less as a synonym for @?ational 2odyA +kokutai / or the !enno system, $hich defied a precise definition. 3specially from the ,-56s on$ard, morality in the latter sense $as emphasized by hinto scholars and conservative circles. 8orality embodied a public space that subsumed also the private realm. In the same $ay, the indigenous ritualism at shrines transcended the distinction bet$een the @secularA and the @religious.A In both cases, the concepts of &estern enlightenment $ere increasingly re9ected. *t the same time, hrine hinto $as purged of folk religion elements that $ere rooted in everyday life. Ironically, this made the conservative plan to integrate hinto shrines into the curriculum of nationalistic propaganda a fruitless effort. ince Japanese society before the $ar did not separate religion from the state and did not dra$ a clear-cut 9uridical distinction bet$een @religion and politicsA or @religion and morality,A a definition of religion that allo$ed the non-religious nature of shrines and the possibility to alter the scope of religious freedom $as probably the only possible strategy. *s demonstrated above, both religion and morality $ere highly ambiguous terms that $ere related to each other) a change in the meaning of one term $as likely to bring about changes in the other termFs meaning as $ell. 2ased on this interrelatedness of religion and morality,

:Kno hKzK +,;;5-,->7/ $as a professor at !okyoFs hinto 1niversity :okugakuin Eaigaku, $hich he headed from ,-7. to ,-=>. * leading scholar of hinto, he $as also very actively engaged in the ideology of tate hinto.
,<

,>

even the borderline bet$een public and private became fluid. ?e$ interpretations of $here the one ended and the other began circulated one after the other. *ll in all, they pointed to the e'tremely difficult choice bet$een a collectivist or an individualistic conception of human life, and further, bet$een moral or religious norms of human behavior.,; *fter the $ar, the #(IFs policy of separating state and religion merely cemented the ambivalences found in the concept of religion and the non-religious-shrine doctrine in its background, by providing an institutional frame$ork for them. 4ertainly, the principle to separate state and religion had learned a lesson from the long history of conflicts bet$een religious and secular po$ers in &estern societies, but it cannot be regarded as fitting for all societies, as Islamic societies demonstrate. Regarding present debates about Yasukuni hrine, it is e"ually difficult to understand the relations of state and religion, or the role of ritualism, if one does not consider ho$ religious discourses originating in the &est $ere articulated under the above-mentioned peculiar circumstances of Japan. *t this point $e should pay special attention to himazonoFs remark that by $ay of imperial ritualism, religion leaks into the public sphere and may thus endanger the freedom of religion. If $e consider this continuation of tate hinto only from a religious perspective, ho$ever, our perception of reality becomes a problem. It becomes difficult to understand the historical process by $hich religious and non-religious discourses articulated themselves if $e attribute all these phenomena a priori to the category of religion. *s !alal *sad claims, @there cannot be a universal definition of religion.A Rather, a @definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.A !his pertains also to the terminology of present scholars, $hich cannot be treated as a trans-historical commodity +*sad ,--7, p. 5-/. 2eing the core of Japanese national identity, the !enno system assumed its multi-layered character through
,;

various

oppositions,

such

as

@religionQmorality,A

@religionQ hinto,A

and

!he follo$ing statement by JosR 4asanova, $ho criticizes the dualism of &estern enlightenment, may help us to understand the problem in the Japanese case) @BCD modern $alls of separation bet$een church and state keep developing all kinds of cracks through $hich both are able to penetrate each otherL BCD religion and politics keep forming all kinds of symbolic relations, to such an e'tent that is not easy to ascertain $hether one is $itnessing political movements $hich don religious garb or religious movements $hich assume political forms.A +4asanova ,--=, p. =,./

,<

@&esternQindigenous,A not only before but also after the $ar, and is therefore not simply a phenomenon of tate hinto or religion. !he !enno-centrism of the kokutai ideology can be found in the first article of the 8ei9i 4onstitution, $hich stipulated that @the empire of #reat Japan $ill be governed at all times by the !enno.A %n the other hand, *rticles = and .. provided that the !enno, as a constitutional monarch, should be controlled by the constitution, the parliament, and the government. In this regard, he $as confined @$ithinA the constitution as the highest organ of the state. BCD !he first article, ho$ever, clearly defined him as an absolute po$er @beyondA the constitution. 8oreover, his absoluteness of imperial po$er $as not 9ust founded on @divine rights,A as in the case of &estern absolutism, but rather on @sacred kingship by a kami.A !he @contradictionsA in these imperial conceptions could only be solved by presenting the !enno as a @living kamiA +arahitogami /. +:an 566,, pp. .;.-/ *s :an an9un indicates, the !enno in the modern !enno system $as at the same time a sacred king clad in the traditional aura of holiness and a constitutional monarch $ho embodied &estern civilization and enlightenment. !his status beyond the la$, $hich can be neither described as religious nor as secular, is the core of imperial authority in the !enno system. &e therefore have to ask ho$ the !enno system ever ac"uired such an e'tra-legal status and $hy it continues to hold it even no$. !he !enno system as an entity beyond the la$ *s $e have seen above, the non-religious shrine doctrine $as not shared univocally by the entire population in pre-$ar Japan. Rather, hrine hinto $as open to different interpretations depending on the respective definition of religion. In a 9udicial grey zone, $hich prescribed neither a state religion nor the separation of state and religion, several opinions, including those of the government, e'isted side by side. *s soon as these opinions $ent beyond shrine ritualism and "uestioned the imperial authority residing in its

,;

background, ho$ever, they $ere countered by immediate repression, even in times of comparative religious tolerance, as the scandal in ,;-6 caused by the 4hristian teacher 1chimura :anzK refusing to bo$ to the portrait of the emperor, ,or the critical hinto $ritings by :ume :unitake56 from ,;-5 sho$ us. ?either 1chimura nor :ume intended to re9ect the !enno system as such, but since they e'pressed an ob9ection against its authority in their speech and conduct, public punishment $as the only ans$er to be e'pected. 8oreover, this punishment $as not e'ecuted directly by organs of the government, but $as initiated in the name of the entire society by conservative scholars or right $ing political organizations. It $as therefore not a 9udicial matter, but a kind of self-censorship arising from $ithin the society, demonstrating ho$ deeply respect to$ards the !enno system $as rooted at that time. In this sense, $e must not regard the !enno system as being held up forcefully by stately po$ers, but rather as an entity beyond the la$ that in the eyes of the people could never become the ob9ect of criticism. :atK #enchi, for instance, $ho insisted in the religious nature of hrine hinto, did not point out the conflict $ith the freedom of faith inherent in such a conception, but $hile pushing hinto up to the status of a state religion tried to s"ueeze in religious freedom) 0ounded on the belief in the rule of our divine emperor, state hinto + kokkateki shint/, the national religion of Japan, e'ists in the mind of the Japanese people since times immemorial, long before *rticle 5; of the 4onstitution $as drafted. Ranking even higher than the 4onstitution, it has formed the essence of the 4onstitution. *ccording to my understanding, the idea of *rticle 5; is to allo$ missionary religions from abroad, such as 2uddhism or 4hristianity, as long as they accept state hinto as JapanFs national religion and do not get into conflict $ith it. +:atK 566= B,,-7;D, pp. 766-76,/

1chimura :anzK +,;>,-,-76/ founded a particular form of 4hristianity in Japan. (e $as forced to resign from his post as a high school teacher after his uncompromising refusal to bo$ to the portrait of the !enno during a public ceremony. 56 :ume :unitake +,;7--,-7,/ $as forced to resign as a professor at !okyo Imperial 1niversity after he published an article $ith the title @ hinto is an ancient custom of imperial $orshipA +Shint $a saiten no ko!oku /.
,-

,-

uch interpretations of hrine hinto as the state religion $ere not only held by hinto scholars like :atK, but also by opinion leaders like 8inobe !atsukichi +,;<7,-=;/, a representative of democratic liberalism in the !aishK era. &hether they belonged to the conservative or the liberal camp, they all took the position that shrines related to the !enno system should be e'empted from the scope of religious freedom, since this $ould e'pose them to competition $ith other religions. 3ven critical interpretations of hrine hinto stopped short of asking "uestions that might put them into conflict $ith the !enno system, dra$ing the line of their criticism here. !herefore, even scholars $ho opted for a different concept of religion than that of :atK eventually arrived at similar conclusions. *nesaki, for instance, $ho $rote about his o$n mystical e'periences, argued that @the GselfF is the center of everythingL it is the focal point reflecting the macrocosm.A till, @one of the centers that unites microcosm and macrocosm in vivid and harmonious communication BCD is the basis of all activities $e call Gstate.F !he center of every individual microcosm e'ists in harmony $ith the macrocosmic center of the state +or race/.A +*nesaki ,-6=, p. 5-/ !hus, *nesaki regarded the state as a fusion of individual consciousnesses in a kind of superego +c.f. Isomae 5665/. In a similar $ay, 1no and 0uruno, $ho applied a practice-oriented concept of religion, voiced sympathy for the idea of the @#reat 3ast *sian 4o-Prosperity phereA and came for$ard $ith studies in the ne$ Japanese colonies. ?o matter $hat concept of religion they opted for, they all found themselves united in their support of the !enno system, $hich they regarded as the essence of ancient Japanese cultural traditions. !hey imagined the !enno system in the form of the unchangeable @?ational 2odyA +kokutai/, an unfathomable outer sphere that $as meta-religious, meta-historical, and beyond any definite verbalization. 8atsuura (isateru has aptly e'plained kokutai in the follo$ing $ay) In contrast to the pompous ostentation of kokutai as an oversensitive signi iant, the signi i related to it is e'tremely feeble, almost ine'istent. It seems as if kokutai did not possess a concrete, e'plicit meaning but $as 9ust a prete't to trigger all kinds of statements concerning it. !he noise produced by all these statements seems to have served no other purpose than to enhance the symbolic value of kokutai. BCD In this case, if somebody asked $hat kokutai $as, such

56

@problematizationA $ould have been regarded as an unconceivable topic that ought to be suppressed. &hat $as protected by the taboo of any "uestions of this type $as probably the !enno system, $hich means that the !enno system can be identified $ith kokutai itself% +8atsuura 5666, pp. 7,>-,</ *s Yasumaru Yoshio e'plained some$hat earlier, $ithin Japanese society there $as a movement searching for the original traditions, $hich originated in resistance to JapanFs integration into the &estern $orld after the country $as opened to the &est in the late days of the !okuga$a shogunate. *t the same time, there $as a call for a historical authority $ithin the country that could replace the shogun. *ccording to Yasumaru, these are the reasons $hy the !enno system $as regarded as JapanFs e'istential foundation in modern Japan. +Yasumaru ,--5, chap. </ Yet its supreme authority $as not regarded as only the fundament of the Japanese nation state. It $as not merely a single cultural element articulated $ithin the sphere of historical contingency. Nike the 4hristian god in the eyes of his believers, it had to be imagined as the shining unfathomable @beyondA that $as unaffected by historical change. In Japanese society, $hich lacked the idea of a transcendental origin like monotheistic 4hristianity, a transcendent entity in the form of an unbroken line of living deities seemed suitable for replacing the 4hristian god as the founding principle for the nation state. 8oreover, the !enno $as both a constitutional monarch based on a &estern concept that claimed universal validity, and a sacred king embodying the particularities of Japanese culture, as pointed out by :an an9un. (e therefore transcended the opposition of @JapanA and the @&est,A or rather, he $as perceived as the invisible foundation from $hich the @secularQreligiousA dichotomy arose and as such, identical $ith the empty signifier kokutai, an e'traliminal e'istence and therefore beyond the scope of any rational criti"ue. %nly Protestants and 8ar'ists, $ho $ere rooted in &estern thought, possessed a means of ob9ectifying the !enno system and resisting it. 2oth relied on a specific $orld vie$ that re"uired utmost commitment and $hich therefore could provide a basis for their adherents to confront the !enno system. Yet in the end, monotheistic transcendence as preached by Protestantism could not take root in the $orld of critical Japanese intellectuals, and did not

5,

result in the re9ection of the !enno system as such. &hile differing from the official mainstream, most believers did not think that their convictions $ere entirely incompatible $ith it. !he situation finally changed $hen true 8ar'ism entered the intellectual $orld of Japan from the ,-56s on$ard, after a secular form of 4hristianity had prepared the ground in the form of Niberal !heology. People $ho believe in the doctrines of a specific religious group have al$ays been fe$ in Japan. !herefore, "uestions of religious freedom arising from the @religionQshrineA opposition never gained serious footing in the broad strata of society. (o$ever, $hen the e'ploitation of the people through state po$ers represented by the !enno $as raised as a ma9or topic P as for instance in a statement by the 4ommunist Party in ,-75 P this secular problem, $hich pertained to the common people, aroused interest among large numbers of intellectuals, regardless of $hether they $ere devotees of a particular religion or agnostics. 8ar'ism in Japan began $ith the analysis of the capitalist economy and as an anti-religious ideological movement. &hen 8ar'ists $ere confronted $ith the massive enforcement of !ennoism from ,-77 on$ard, ho$ever, in their opposition they had to address the historical origins of the kokutai ideology as $ell +Isomae 566<b, pp. ,,6->5/. *ccording to my e'amination of academic te'ts from this period, this $as the first time that modern Japanese intellectuals repudiated the e'istence of the !enno system directly. !he 8ar'ist criti"ue interpreted the !enno system as a secular phenomenon and unmasked the limitations of the allegedly unbroken e'istence of the !enno dynasty. It claimed that the origins of Japanese people reached back to much earlier times. 2y doing so, ho$ever, it based the national identity on the same logic of historical essentialism as did the !enno system. In the end, 8ar'ism $as not able to pinpoint the e'tra-legal status of the !enno system $ithin the realm of the secular, since the !enno system belongs not only to the sphere of secularity but to that of religion as $ell. *s $e have seen in the case of ?ational 8orality, it transcended the @secularQreligiousA dichotomy in a $ay that has not yet been ackno$ledged $ithin the discourse of (istorical tudies. Rather, academic disciplines such as (istory or Religious tudies, helped establish such oppositions as @secularity vs. religionA or @morality

55

vs. religion,A and these oppositions established the !enno system as an unfathomable entity. !hus, it $as e'tremely difficult for these disciplines to "uestion the !enno system, of $hich they themselves $ere part. In this perspective, the appropriate strategy for dealing $ith the e'tra-legal nature of the !enno system today is not 9ust to repeat the criticism based on historical essentialism or on the principle of the separation of state and religion. Rather $e should ask ho$ phenomena like the !enno system P $hich seem to to$er above historical contingency that belongs to the secular and the religious, and at the same time that transcends them P manifested themselves $ithin the historical conte't. &e should ob9ectify the process of this manifestation on the basis of an a-historical genealogy. It seems necessary not to be content $ith the respective discourses of (istory or Religious tudies, but to create ne$ forms of e'pression in order to characterize the e'tra-legal nature of the !enno system $ithin society. !he established discourses of Religious tudies and (istory presume universal validity for both the religious and historical conceptions of the !enno system, although these conceptions are only one e'pression of it in their respective fields. In order to ob9ectify $hat has been pro9ected as beyond history, $e must first deconstruct these presumptions. *bove all, $e should not forget that the e'tra-legal status of the !enno system is not a trans-historical fact, but a historical product resulting from the confrontation of modernizing Japan $ith the &estern &orld. It appears in the guise of an e'traliminal entity precisely because it occurred $ithin the frame$ork of &esternization. References *nesaki 8asaharu , ,-6=, @:okka no unmei to risK +aikokusha to yogensha/A + /. In Kokuun to shink , ! . In enuma higeki +S )eiji bungaku !ensh,

!okyo) :KdKkan , pp. 766-5.. ----, ,-<6 B,,-67D, @:iyomigata no hitonatsuA +ed./, Takayama &hgy' Sait "onohito' (nesaki &h ' Tobari &hiku sh vol. =6/. !okyo) 4hikuma hobK, pp. 5=,-.5. ----, ,-;5 B,,-66D, Shkygaku gairon +S (nesaki )asaharu chosakush "#$% , vol. >/. !okyo) :okusho :ankKkai.

57

*sad, !alal, ,--7, *enealogies o +eligion, -isci.line and +easons o /o$er in &hristianity and 0slam. 2altimore and Nondon) !he Johns (opkins 1niversity Press. ----, ,--., @8odern Po$er and the Reflection of Religious !raditions,A an intervie$ by aba 8ahmood. In Stan ord 1umanities +e#ie$ .Q,, $$$.stanford.eduQgroupQ (RQ ----, 5667, 2ormation o the Secular, &hristianity' 0slam' )odernity . 1niversity Press. 4asanova, JosR, ,--=, /ublic +eligions in the )odern 3orld. 4hicago and Nondon) !he 1niversity of 4hicago Press. (ardacre, (elen, ,-;-, Shint and the State' 456574855. Princeton) Princeton 1P. (irano !akeshi , ,--., Seiky bunri saiban to kokka shint &'() . !okyo) (Kritsu 2unka ha. Isomae JunFichi , 5666, @!anaka YoshitK and the 2eginnings of Shintogaku.A In John 2reen and 8ark !eeu$en +eds/, Shinto in 1istory, 3ays o the Kami . Richmond) 4urzon Press. ----, 5665, @!he Eiscursive Position of Religious tudies in Japan) 8asaharu *nesaki and the %rigins of Religious tudies.A In )ethod 9 Theory in the Study o +eligion ,=Q5, pp. 5,-=>. ----, 5667, Kindai Nihon no shky gensetsu to sono keifu shky, kokka, shint . !okyo) ----, 566<a, @ tate hinto, &esternisation, and the 4oncept of Religion in Japan.A In !imothy 0itzgerald +ed./, Religion and the Secular: Historical and Colonial Formations. London: Equinox Publishing, pp. 93-102. ----, 566<b, Sshitsu to nosutarujia : kindai "ihon no yohaku e * + , . / . !okyo) 8isuzu hobK. :an an9un , 566,, "ashonari!umu . !okyo) I$anami hoten. :atK #enchi , 566= B,,-7;D, Shint seigi 0 1 , vol. >/. !okyo) :uresu huppan. :Kno hKzK , ,-77, Kokumin dtoku to shint . Yokohama) Jkura eishinbunka :enkyM9o. 8atsuura (isateru , 5666, @:okutai-ron .A In :obayashi and 8atsuura - . (isateru +eds./, )edia' hysh no .orichikusu +S Kat *enchi sh tanford) tanford

5=

!okyo) !KkyK Eaigaku huppankai, pp. 76--7,. ?itta (itoshi, 5666, @ hinto as a non-religion) the origins and development of an idea.A In 2reen and !eeu$en 5666, pp. 5.5-<,. Jishi 8akoto , ,-->, Ken. to shky seido . !okyo) Yuhikaku. Jnishi ?aoki 2345 and 4hiba 8akoto , 566>, +ekishi no naka no seiky bunri P ;ibei ni okeru sono kigen to tenkai himazono . !okyo) hiryMsha. usumu , ,--;, @?ihon ni okeru GshMkyKF gainen no keisei P Inoue .A In Yamaori !etsuo PQCR

!etus9iro no kirisutokyK hihan o megutte +,6789:;<=>?@ P ABCDEFGHIJ)KLMNO and %sada !oshiki +eds/, "ihonjin $a kirisutoky o dono y ni juy

shita ka + , S T F G H I K U V W 6 X Y Z [ \ . !okyo) :okusai ?ihon 2unka :enkyM entT, pp. >,-<>. ----, 566,, @:okka shintK to kindai ?ihon no shMkyK kKzK ]*+,; .A In Shky kenky ;^_ <.Q5 +566,/, pp. .5.-.6. +ed./, "ihonjin no ----, 566>, @ engo no kokka shintK to shMkyK shMdan to shite no 9in9aA ;%`ZO . In !amamuro 0umio shky to shomin shink + , S ; a . !okyo) Yoshika$a Yanagita :unio , 5666 B,,-,;D, @ hintK shikan b .A In Yanagita :unio zenshM cdefg% , vol. 5.. !okyo) 4hikuma hobK, pp. 5=.-><. Yasumaru Yoshio , ,--5, Kindai tenn! no keisei ]*hi?@ . !okyo) , +eds/, ,-;;, Shky to kokka vol. ,=/. I$anami hoten. Yasumaru Yoshio and 8iyachi 8asato ; !okyo) I$anami hoten. +"ihon kindai shins taikei + , ] * j 2 k

5.