Opposing a Dichotomous Worldview

By Shintaro David Ichihara

In Japan right now, a national election is being held in the House of Councillors – or “Upper House,” referring to its role in our National Diet parliamentary system (the House of Representatives is known as the Lower House). The Liberal Democratic Party, which is the ruling party, has primarily used two slogans during the election campaign. One is “Thinking of this country, we create this country,” and the other is “Our theme is ‘Japan'.” On the day the campaign was officially launched, the largest opposition party – the Democratic Party – announced their theme would be: “With the nation's citizens, we create new politics and a new Japan.” It is clear that both parties are promoting “Japan” as their key concept or value. I don't think this is only because it is a national election.

[W]hen the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol because it did not meet their “national interest,” many Japanese people expressed their opposition to such language. . . Nowadays, Japanese people do not find it strange when a politician supports a policy only because the policy serves the “national interests” of Japan.

Another phrase has been very popular in Japan in recent years. It is “national interest,” or “national benefit.” This is not a new phrase, needless to say, but I sense that it is being used more frequently, especially in the arena of international politics. For example, when the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol [the international treaty on climate change] because it did not meet their “national interest,” many Japanese people expressed their opposition to such language. But since then, people seem to have gotten used to this phrase. Nowadays, Japanese people do not find it strange when a politician supports a policy only because the policy serves the “national interests” of Japan.

People have stopped thinking how policies affect people in other countries. It is clear that the “national interests” claim was used often in the discussion of the dispatch of the Japanese Self-Defense Force (SDF) to Iraq, rather than issues related to peace and justice.

I think that these two tendencies I have observed in Japanese society are a reflection of a global trend, which I would call “multi-nation nationalism.” Like traditional nationalism, this trend is also based on a simple dichotomy and clearly distinguishes “we/us” and “they/them.” The “we” pursue the benefits for themselves, so there is a comfortable union among the “we.” But once a person or a nation is categorized as “they,” the “we” attack the “them” mercilessly.

This week, we are going to hold a concert featuring members of Peaceful Tomorrows – on July 1, 2004 in Nagoya. As many people know, that group was founded by family members of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S., and actively works for peace, channeling their suffering into advocacy for nonviolent solutions to terrorism. The concert was triggered by the publication of their book Turning Our Grief into Action for Peace into Japanese. What the book tells us is that many people attacked them – calling on them to “leave America” or “shut their mouths” – when they lifted up their voices to oppose their family members' deaths being used as a reason for war. President Bush likes to say “Terrorists hate freedom,” but the freedom of speech of Peaceful Tomorrows members was clearly infringed. If what the U.S. president says is the definition of terrorism, then those who attacked “Peaceful Tomorrows” could be listed in the category of terrorists!

I see the same sentiment has been spreading in Japan. In April 2004, three Japanese who had been working in Iraq as humanitarian workers were kidnapped, and the kidnappers demanded the withdrawal of the SDF from Iraq. Fortunately, the kidnappers accepted a fatwa from the Association of Islam Clerics and the three people were released.

But many Japanese people reacted to this incident in a strange manner. They – both politicians and general citizens – claimed that the incident was the responsibility of the three individuals, and that their families should apologize for “causing” this situation. There were angry postings on the Internet and many ugly remarks. The addresses of the families were posted to an electric bulletin board; consequently, they received many anonymous poison-pen letters. The family members of the three were forced to express their apologies and appreciation for the government. When the three came back to Japan, they were required to cover some part of the costs of their rescue and transportation.

“Multi-nation nationalism” reflects the tendency of people to not think about issues from many perspectives because the only criterion they deem necessary is the distinction between “we” and “they.” The true global society is, however, far more complicated. Still, the picture is appealing to many people because of the concept's simplicity. Some people call such tendencies in Japanese society “petit nationalism”; petit nationalism does not sound like right-wing language, but the roots of the concept are absolutely the same as long as the concept is based on this dichotomy. Under such simplistic perspective, attacking people with different standards is valid and is recognized as good for justice in the society.

We are the only nation in history that has experienced the dropping of atomic bombs. For a long time, Japan's only view of that experience was of being a victim. Now, however, many people have recognized the necessity of another perspective – victimizer – to see the true fullness of history.

We are the only nation in history that has experienced the dropping of atomic bombs. For a long time, Japan's only view of that experience was of being a victim. Now, however, many people have recognized the necessity of another perspective – victimizer – to see the true fullness of history.

So it was not surprising that the hibakusha – the atomic bomb victims in Japan – and a member of Peaceful Tomorrows discovered a close bond when they met. They both offer an alternative perspective to simply being victims. Still, for many people this is a dichotomy and is problematic. We are often not prepared to apologize for our own faults for fear of what this could mean. We believe that we are either victim or victimizer, not both.

As a Christian, I feel it is necessary to create alternatives to these dichotomous relationships: we/us or they/them; victim or victimizer. Otherwise, we are trying to supplant God's will. I believe that respecting one another's lives is at the center of our faith. God redeemed our lives by the life of God's only child, and the work of Peaceful Tomorrows is indeed to redeem the deaths of their loved ones.

Moreover, we Christians are in the minority in Japanese society, so we need to work with people of other religions and beliefs. Respecting life is a simple yet powerful motive to work with many types of people. I hope people here in Japan will find this “simple” motive of life more powerful than “petit nationalism” – the dichotomous view of the world.

The Rev. Shintaro David Ichihara is a deacon in the Diocese of Chubu of the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (NSKK), who now works as a chaplain and a lecturer of Christianity at Ryujo Junior College in Nagoya. He and his wife Shoko are actively involved in justice and peace events in greater Nagoya. He may be reached by email at ichihara.chubu@nskk.org .