White and Murphy (eds. 2001) suggest that the national in each music culture should be approached as an individual case: methods of constructing and conveying it vary from one society, culture, time, and composer to another.
Naturally, this also applies to Japan. In the same sense that Dahlhaus (1989, 80) has noted that the concept of “national” in music changes in relation to
historical events, the notion of “Japanese” varies from one time, composer, and work to another. This is why the present study seeks to identify those qualities thought of as being Japanese and adopted intentionally by composers. Consequently, it is relevant to acknowledge what kinds of characteristics have been regarded as Japanese, not only in the general discussion, but also by the composers themselves. As put by Jarocinski (1981, 13): “The choice of procedures is not a valid criterion by which to judge or define the style of a work of art unless due account is taken of the artist’s aesthetic aims and of the general situation of music and other branches of culture at any given time in history.”
Japan is a peculiar case in the context of Western art music in that a Japanese quality has typically been expected from Japanese composers with
“What is Japanese about your music?” being a question often posed to them in the West (Wade 2005, 157–158). This implies that musical works by Japanese composers are assumed to contain an audibly Japanese quality, signifying that they still represent a perpetual Other for the West.80 This has been a trend as long as the Japanese have composed Western-style music. For example, Yamada was primarily regarded as a “Japanese composer”—rather than as a composer of Western-style music—during his first visit to the United States in 1918–1919 (see Pacun 2006).
For Japanese composers, however, the question of identifying a Japanese quality does not seem to be that self-evident. For example, when Yamada was asked by a Swiss composer why he did not compose Japanese-style music, he responded by asking why the Swiss did not write Swiss-style music (Yamada 2001, 755). Even so, there was a shift toward a more Japanese-like idiom in Yamada’s work after his visit to the United States (Galliano 2002, 36). This has been a typical change with Japanese composers, many of whom have begun to reflect their cultural background musically only after encountering a questioning of their work’s Japanese quality in the West (see Wade 2005, 158).
Many composers in the 1930s, as well, began to use Japanese elements after noticing that it was mostly these kinds of works that received awards in international competitions. The almost standardized assumption of a Japanese quality in music by Japanese composers in the West has, paradoxically, often eventually resulted in the utilization of concrete musical characteristics to associate the music with Japan.
Viewing a Japanese work of music solely in a “Japanese” context, however, easily results in misinterpretations of an unconscious Japanese nature or national style. This “primordial” (Smith 1998) approach implies the existence of Herder’s Volksgeist—or musical elements resulting inevitably from the composer’s nationality or cultural background. It ends up neglecting other
80 This also implies that music by Japanese composers is considered successful only if it carries a “Japanese” flavor. For example, virtually all works that won awards in music competitions with a Western jury in the 1930s contained an explicit Japanese element (Hanaoka 2007, 15). Pacun (2012) in particular has criticized this tendency of regarding only “Japanese-style” music as interesting or valuable in the West.
elements of music, and simplifies the question of Japanese qualities from the perspective of those who have intentionally adopted them as a compositional method to convey particular ideas.
The notion that primordial thought compels the inevitability of national qualities is a significant issue in studies on Japanese culture, not only because of Western expectations, but also resulting from the vast literary output on the topic of “Japaneseness,” or the nihonjinron discourse in the postwar period.81 Nihonjinron argues the idea of Japanese culture being altogether unique because of a “Japanese spirit” present in everything Japanese. The assertion of uniqueness is based on a stereotypical dichotomy of East and West, while neglecting comparison with other cultures (Mouer and Sugimoto 1986, 44). As a discourse, nihonjinron uses the concepts of nationality, ethnicity, and culture interchangeably, and thereby suggests that all Japanese share the same
“Japaneseness” and thus represent a single organism (e.g. Sugimoto 1999, 82).
While the idea of “Japaneseness” typically remains undefined, it is based on theories in traditional culture that are applied, for instance, to cultural phenomena of today, often having only a shallow connection with the original concept (e.g. Mouer and Sugimoto 1986). In this context, “Japaneseness” is regarded as an unchanging cultural category unaffected by the events of history or changes in the Japanese society.82
It is difficult to say when exactly the nihonjinron discourse emerged. Some very early examples of views similar to nihonjinron include the Edo-period writings by Motoori Norinaga (本居宣長, 1730–1801), but more discussion on the uniqueness of Japanese culture began to appear during the 1930s with the rise of nationalism (see examples in Mouer and Sugimoto 1986, 39–44). It was, however, during the postwar years that nihonjinron began to bloom, mostly due to the output being published from the 1960s to 1980s (Befu 2001, 14).
While the views represented in the discourse are largely—albeit still not entirely—questioned in academic studies today,83 it is important to recognize this discourse and its assertions, as nihonjinron has been an extensively applied discourse and comprises writings on various disciplines during the past decades. Music is no exception. For example, several studies during the past decades have argued that “Japaneseness” is a quality uniquely characterizing all Japanese music. In this context, it is important to recognize that the discussion on an eternal Japanese nature materializing in music, as argued by Kikkawa (1980) and Kojima (1981) among others, has emerged only in the postwar period with the tide of this kind of literature in general, and contains viewpoints not encountered, for example, in writings before the war.
81Nihonjinron literally means “theories about the Japanese,” but “theories of Japaneseness” is perhaps a more apt translation. It is also called Nihon bunkaron (theories of Japanese culture), Nihon shakairon (theories of Japanese society), or Nihonron (theories of Japan) (Befu 1993, 107).
82 Mouer and Sugimoto (1986); Befu (ed. 1993; 2001); Sugimoto (1999).
83 For example, Kelly (1996, 193) argued already in the 1990s that the discourse has been so extensively attacked against that it is difficult to see any true need for new academic criticism of it.
In this sense, rather than representing an objective and analytical category of
“Japaneseness,” these discussions mirror, above all, the thinking of their time.84 Consequently, the very rise of nihonjinron during the postwar decades ironically demonstrates how time-bound the conceptions of “Japaneseness”
actually are.
Not surprisingly, the essentialistic idea of an unchanging Japanese culture has been questioned after the heyday of nihonjinron. Fujitani (1993), for example, notes that many Japanese customs perceived as “age-old traditions”
have been invented only after the Meiji restoration of 1868. The paradigm shift of “nationality” first in the Meiji period and then during postwar years has been regarded by Oguma (1995; 2002) as the result of the dispersion of the multicultural Japanese empire after the war. With the fall of the empire, which was comprised of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, Oguma suggests that Japan required a uniform conception of culture in the postwar period, which resulted in the construction of a new, homogenous national identity.
This resembles the rise of nationalism as an ideology in the West, as well. As put by Gellner (1964, 169): “Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist.”
In the context of music analysis, these observations emphasize the importance of recognizing the versatility—instead of the homogeneity typically claimed in the postwar period—of the different concepts and aspects that are associable with Japan. For example, descriptions of all genres of traditional music with concepts met in traditional art forms of Japan is problematic, in that many of these concepts are applicable only to certain genres (Tokita and Hughes 2008, 26–27). As it is impossible to trace a single, consistent
“Japanese quality” even in traditional Japanese music, it can hardly be expected that it could be identified in works by later Japanese composers. The same applies to many of those aesthetic and other intangible qualities claimed to be uniquely Japanese. Many of them appear to have been invented only in the postwar period as a method of strengthening national homogeneity (Befu 1993). Following this train of thought, the time-bound notions of a uniform nation are inclined to surface in music and discourse on music, as well. In the context of this study, understanding these paradigm shifts is important for recognizing what was regarded as “Japanese” in the 1930s, and pointing out that the possibly better recognized discourses of the postwar period do not necessarily apply to Japan before the war—or even to Japan of today.
While the essentialistic idea of a Volksgeist in everything Japanese is questionable, distinctive Japanese cultural characteristics do exist. For example, several musical genres have originated in Japan and served a unique function in the Japanese society. These genres are, indeed, entirely “Japanese”
84 Naturally, the ideas are also important from this aspect—as expressions of postwar Japanese thought on nationality and nationalism. Nishikawa (1995) has even regarded it as a method of “decoratively” veiling nationalist ideologies. For more on nihonjinron and the issues it represents, see Mouer and Sugimoto (1986), Befu (ed. 1993; 2001), and Sugimoto (1999).
both in musical terms and in that they have managed to establish a social position. This also applies to those forms of Japanese culture originally derived from foreign countries. Court music gagaku, for example, was introduced from Korea and China, but has since the Nara period (710–794) been considered a genre of Japanese music and gone through musical changes peculiar to Japan. As Fukushima (1988, 130) notes, the originally foreign gagaku has managed to maintain its role in Japanese society and establish new meanings and musical characteristics during different times, which is why it should be considered Japanese music. In relation to cultural phenomena such as gagaku, it is of secondary importance that they are of foreign origin;
they have undergone an indigenization process and become Japanese culture.
The importance of contextualizing musical and cultural phenomena as representations of their time is further emphasized by the fact that even composers musically or ideologically close to each other present different views. This is exemplified also in Shinkō sakkyokuka renmei. Whereas Kiyose Yasuji (1936a, 13) regarded gagaku only as Chinese music adopted to Japan, Mitsukuri Shūkichi based the fundamentals of his theory of a Japanese harmony on the harmonic concepts of gagaku (see Chapter 4.1). Matsudaira Yoritsune (1954a, 10), on the other hand, used gagaku melodies as aesthetic inspiration without any ideological implications. As the views of even close composers are this contradictory to each other, purported Japanese elements and their meanings in music should ultimately be analyzed separately for each historical context and each composer—each work, even. This is why it is important to examine the composers’ views as well.