We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 August 2010
During the 1920s, liberal intellectuals in Japan took up their pens to express concerns about the proliferation of violence in political life. Political violence, they feared, was eroding Japanese civilization and culture, degrading constitutional government, and fomenting disorder and instability. Such anxieties encouraged ‘statism’ in their thinking, as a number of liberals called upon the state to provide order and security, without considering who was to police the state. This paper argues that Liberalism was undermined by this trust and authority endowed to the state and was undone, not just by state oppression, but by liberals themselves at the level of democratic practice.
1 Sakuzō, Yoshino, ‘“Kokka” no hoka “chikara” no shiyō o yurusazu’, Chūō kōron 38, 1 (January 1923): 201Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōryokuteki dantai no sonzai o mokunin suru tōkyoku no taiman o kyūdan suru’.
2 The term ‘bōryokudan’ had a derisive connotation, used by those (from labour unionists to the Home Ministry) who opposed the organizations’ violent methods, anti-liberal ideologies, and political influence. ‘Bōryokudan’ could also suggest connections to, or behaviour like, yakuza (Japanese mafiosi). The word would be resurrected in the immediate post-World War II period to refer to similar violent groups, and would be taken up by the state as a label for yakuza syndicates.
3 Andrew Barshay identifies similar ideas—‘freedom of speech and association, of conscience, of scholarly inquiry’—as the ‘cultural values’ of liberalism, or liberalism as a ‘moral category’, as distinct from political and economic liberalism. Barshay, Andrew, State and Intellectual in Imperial Japan: The Public Man in Crisis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), p. 126Google Scholar. Sharon Nolte, who also points out the difficulties of defining liberalism in prewar Japan, adds several more qualities in her characterization of liberals. She notes their commitment to: ‘the dignity of the individual, freedom of expression, the equality of the sexes, the legitimacy of popular participation in cultural creation and in politics, progressive social engineering, and decolonization’. Nolte, Sharon H., Liberalism in Modern Japan: Ishibashi Tanzan and His Teachers, 1905–1960 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. viiGoogle Scholar.
Matsuzawa Hiroaki is careful to distinguish liberalism from democracy, and suggests that the relationship between liberalism and democracy in Japan has been understudied. He also notes that by the public debates on liberalism in the early 1930s, the ‘liberal’ (jiyūshugisha) label was most commonly applied from without, by those who disparaged democratic advocates as going against the national polity (kokutai). Shrinking back from such criticism, Matsuzawa argues, many liberals did not make themselves known as such. Hiroaki, Matsuzawa, ‘Jiyūshugi ron’, in Iwanami kōza: Nihon tsūshi, vol. 18, ed. Naohiro, Asao et al. (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1994), pp. 241–242Google Scholar.
4 Hoston, Germaine A., ‘The State, Modernity, and the Fate of Liberalism in Prewar Japan’, Journal of Asian Studies 51, 2 (May 1992): 291, 309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Nolte, Liberalism in Modern Japan, pp. viii, 334. On the pragmatism of liberal party politicians, see Berger, Gordon Mark, Parties Out of Power in Japan, 1931–1941 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977)Google Scholar.
6 Berlin, Isaiah, Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), pp. 16–19Google Scholar. Tomoko Akami also discusses Berlin, see Akami, Tomoko, ‘Nation, State, Empire and War: Problems of Liberalism in Modern Japanese History and Beyond’, Japanese Studies 25, 2 (September 2005): 120–123Google Scholar.
7 Akami, ‘Nation, State, Empire and War’, p. 123.
8 Misao, Nagatsuma, Kōkyōsei no ētosu: Miyake Setsurei to zaiya seishin no kindai (Kyoto: Sekai shisōsha, 2002), pp. 117–118, 136Google Scholar.
9 Doak, Kevin M., ‘Ethnic Nationalism and Romanticism in Early Twentieth-Century Japan’, Journal of Japanese Studies 22, 1 (winter 1996): 82Google Scholar. On the relationship between Miyake Setsurei's cultural nationalism and German philosophical thought, see Burtscher, Michael, ‘Facing “the West” on Philosophical Grounds: A View from the Pavilion of Subjectivity on Meiji Japan’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 26, 3 (2006): 169–172Google Scholar.
10 Barshay, State and Intellectual, pp. 127, 165–169, 181. For a consideration of Hasegawa Nyozekan alongside Fukuzawa Yukichi and Maruyama Masao, see Hiroshi, Tanaka, Nihon riberarizumu no keifu: Fukuzawa Yukichi, Hasegawa Nyozekan, Maruyama Masao (Tokyo: Asahi shinbunsha, 2000), pp. 146–241Google Scholar.
11 Akami, ‘Nation, State, Empire and War’, p. 130. On different conceptions of individualism (statist, privatist, and liberal), see Nolte, Sharon Hamilton, ‘Individualism in Taishō Japan’, Journal of Asian Studies 43, 4 (August 1984): 667–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 I intentionally do not provide a definition of violence here, because what is of central importance is how liberal thinkers at the time viewed and constructed violence. Generally speaking, violence was understood as physical coercion of the body. (There were exceptions. Economist and Tokyo Imperial University Professor Hijikata Seibi, for example, considered the possibility that violence did not have to be physical. See Seibi, Hijikata, ‘Bōryoku’, Kaizō 9, 1 (January 1927): 86–88.Google Scholar)
13 Although individual acts of violence, such as assassination, were also condemned, there seems to have been a greater sense of concern about group violence. In 1921, socialist and Christian humanist, Abe Isoo, could assert that assassinations (understood as individual acts of violence) should not be considered a barometer for society as a whole. Regarding group violence, political scientist and sociologist Sugimori Kōjirō was particularly concerned about the numbers of people who would be drawn into the fray as strife became more ‘group oriented’ (shūdanteki). Isoo, Abe, ‘Hiretsu naru ansatsu kōi o hai su’, Chūō kōron 36, 13 (December 1921): 110–111Google Scholar; Kōjirō, Sugimori, “Bōryoku to bunka,” Chūō kōron 36, 13 (December 1921): 98Google Scholar. Both were part of the series, ‘Tōsō kibun no kyōbōka’.
14 There is, for example, Max Weber's well-known characterization of a state as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. (I find this particular definition problematic because of the ambiguous conception of what constitutes a monopoly, and because it mistakenly suggests that all state violence is legitimate.) See Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Vol. 1, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus, trans. Fischoff, Ephraim et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 54Google Scholar.
15 Note that I refer to these organizations as ‘nationalist’, rather than ‘ultranationalist’, because of the unclear distinction between these two categories. I am not convinced that the willingness to use violence automatically qualifies a group as ultranationalist, or that the ideology of these groups was that much more extreme than the widespread popular support for nation and empire.
16 Naimushō keihokyoku, Bōryokudan zokushutsu bakko no jōkyō (n.d.), pp. 1–4; Mainichi shinbun, 1 April 1923, in Shiryō: Taishō shakai undōshi, ge-kan, ed. Tanaka Sōgorō (Tokyo: San'ichi shobō, 1970), p. 671; iinkai, Osaka-fu keisatsushi henshū, Osaka-fu keisatsushi, Vol. 2 (Osaka: Osaka-fu keisatsu honbu, 1972), pp. 280–281Google Scholar.
17 Barshay, State and Intellectual, p. 153; Osaka-fu keisatsushi henshū iinkai, Osaka-fu keisatsushi, p. 281.
18 Garon, Sheldon, The State and Labor in Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 42, 71Google Scholar; Gordon, Andrew, Labor and Imperial Democracy in Prewar Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 144–148Google Scholar.
19 Hironori, Mizuno, ‘Isshi dōjin tare’, Chūō kōron 38, 9 (August 1923): 93Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōkō, kyōhaku kyōsei nado ni tai suru tōkyoku no torishimari no kantai o katanzu’. For more of Mizuno's writings on pacifism, see Nihon heiwaron taikei, Vol. 7 (Tokyo: Nihon tosho sentā, 1993), pp. 14–74.
20 Kimio, Hayashi, ‘Shisōteki rantō jidai no hito genshō’, Chūō kōron 38, 9 (August 1923): 88–89Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōkō, kyōhaku kyōsei nado ni tai suru tōkyoku no torishimari no kantai o katanzu’.
21 A sum of all branch members yields a more modest total membership of 41,000 people. It could be that the figure of 200,000 members includes those who did not belong to a regional branch. Naimushō keihokyoku hoanka, Shakai undō dantai gensei chō, June 1932, p. 31. By 1934, the number of branches had decreased slightly from 92 to 87, with the size of the largest local organizations shrinking as well. Total membership also declined to around 36,500. Naimushō keihokyoku hoanka, Shakai undō dantai gensei chō, June 1934, p. 39.
22 On the Yahata Ironworks strike, see Tadahide, Hirokawa, ‘Yahata Seitetsujo ni okeru 1920-nen no sutoraiki’, Jinbun kenkyū 24, 10 (1972): 59–92Google Scholar; Yahata Seitetsujo rōdō undōshi (Fukuoka: Yahata seitetsu kabushikigaisha, Yahata seitetsujo, 1953). On the Singer Sewing Machine strike, Kamei Nobuyuki, ‘Shingā Mishin Gaisha bunten heisa oyobi bunten shunin kaiko mondai ni kan suru ken’, in Kyōchōkai shiryō, Reel 80, 17 December 1925, p. 502. On the Noda Shōyu strike, Eizaburō, Morinaga, ‘Noda Shōyu rōdō sōgi jiken: Nihyaku jūnana nichi no chōki, saidai no suto, I’, Hōgaku seminā 202 (October 1972): 104–106Google Scholar; Eizaburō, Morinaga, ‘Noda Shōyu rōdō sōgi jiken: Nihyaku jūnana nichi no chōki, saidai no suto, II’, Hōgaku seminā 203 (November 1972): 88–91Google Scholar; rōdōka, Kyōchōkai, ed., Noda rōdō sōgi no tenmatsu (Kyōchōkai rōdōka, 1928)Google Scholar.
23 Tetsuzō, Watanabe, ‘Taishō shishi ron’, Chūō kōron 38, 12 (November 1923): 83Google Scholar; chōsaka, Shihōshō, Shihō kenkyū 8 (December 1928): 509–510Google Scholar. For the number of participants in the Kokusuikai-Suiheisha Incident, ‘Suiheisha tai Kokusuikai sōjō jiken’, in Tanemura-shi keisatsu sankō shiryō (n.d.), pp. 44–46.
24 See Chinzei kokusuikai, ‘Chinzei Kokusuikai kaisoku’, in Kyōchōkai shiryō, Reel 52, pp. 16–18; ‘Dai Nihon Kokusuikai Ōita-ken honbu kaisoku’, in Kyōchōkai shiryō, Reel 52, pp. 12–13; ‘Dai Nihon Kokusuikai Ōita-ken honbu setsuritsu shuisho’, in Kyōchōkai shiryō, Reel 52, pp. 14–15; ‘Dai Nihon Kokusuikai Tanabe shibu sōritsu shuisho’, in Naimushō materials at the National Diet Library, 9.5–7: 2334; ‘Dai Nihon Kokusuikai Yahata shibu kiyaku’, in Kyōchōkai shiryō, Reel 52, pp. 21–22.
25 One of the proposed names for the organization in its early stages was the ‘Construction Industry Council’ (‘Dobokugyō Gikai’); ‘Dai Nihon Kokusuikai’ was adopted by the end of October 1919, though it is unclear who made this suggestion. Osaka mainichi shinbun, 9 October 1919, and Tokyo asahi shinbun, 15 November 1919, in Taishō nyūsu jiten, Vol. 4, ed. Edamatsu Shigeyuki et al. (Tokyo: Mainichi komyunikēshonzu, 1987), pp. 378–380.
26 Takabatake Motoyuki (first a socialist adherent of Kōtoku Shūsui's anarchism, here a Marxist, and later a national socialist) also described the kyōkaku refrain of ‘helping the weak and crushing the strong’ as an ‘empty slogan’. Motoyuki, Takabatake, ‘Handō dantai o sendō su’, Kaizō 15, 5 (May 1928): 65Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Kokusui dantai no hihan’. For more on Takabatake, see Hoston, Germaine A., ‘Marxism and National Socialism in Taishō Japan: The Thought of Takabatake Motoyuki’, Journal of Asian Studies 44, 1 (November 1984): 43–64Google Scholar.
27 Setsurei, Miyake, ‘Kokusuikai ni nozomu’, Chūō kōron 38, 1 (January 1923): 213–214Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōryokuteki dantai no sonzai o mokunin suru tōkyoku no taiman o kyūdan suru.”
28 Hironori, Mizuno, “Bōryoku mokunin to kokka hinin’, Chūō kōron 38, 1 (January 1923): 207–208Google Scholar.
29 Tokyo asahi shinbun, 10 and 14 October 1919; Osaka mainichi shinbun, 9 October 1919, in Taishō nyūsu jiten, Vol. 4, ed. Edamatsu Shigeyuki et al. (Tokyo: Mainichi komyunikēshonzu, 1987), pp. 378–379.
30 Kan, Kikuchi, ‘Bōryoku ni tayorazushite oote no koto o shorishitashi’, Chūō kōron 38, 9 (August 1923): 95Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōkō, kyōhaku kyōsei nado ni tai suru tōkyoku no torishimari no kantai o katanzu’.
31 Kinji, Inoue, ‘Gunshū shinri ni tsūgyō seyo’, Chūō kōron 38, 9 (August 1923): 102Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōkō, kyōhaku kyōsei nado ni tai suru tōkyoku no torishimari no kantai o katanzu’. Abe Isoo also argued along these general lines, suggesting that the government's use of violent groups was publicity for violence. Isoo, Abe, ‘Hōchikoku ni bōryoku o yurusu to wa nanigoto ka’, Chūō kōron 38, 1 (January 1923): 220Google Scholar; Isoo, Abe, ‘Bōryoku ni tai suru kokumin no futetteiteki taido’, Kaizō 6, 5 (May 1924): 94Google Scholar.
32 Kanemitsu, Hososako, ‘Bōryokudan no ōkō to sono taisaku’, Kaizō 10, 5 (May 1928): 67–68Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Kokusui dantai no hihan’.
33 Mizuno did concede that violence could be condoned in situations where there was no other outlet for expression. Mizuno, ‘Isshi dōjin tare’, p. 95.
34 Abe, ‘Bōryoku ni tai suru kokumin no futetteiteki taido’, pp. 88, 93.
35 Kikuchi, ‘Bōryoku ni tayorazushite oote no koto o shorishitashi’, p. 96. Some might suspect that government censorship coerced writers to be more critical of the left than they might have beem inclined, particularly in journals such as Kaizō and Chūō kōron. There may have been some degree of self-censorship, but in these articles from the 1920s, there were few if any fuseji (marks such as ‘x’-es or circles that stood in for inflammatory words). This suggests that the government was not yet censoring these pieces very strictly, and that writers likely did not feel compelled to use fuseji themselves as a way to avoid wholesale rejection of an article. Perhaps more importantly, these liberals did freely criticize bōryokudan and the government, and the tone of their disparagement of all violence was likely more vociferous than it needed to be to satisfy censors. On prewar censorship, see Mitchell, Richard H., Censorship in Imperial Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.
36 The Tokyo nichinichi shinbun and the Home Ministry tended to exaggerate the influence of gamblers (bakuto) in the violent incidents (gekka jiken) of the Freedom and People's Rights Movement, for example. See Tokyo nichinichi shinbun, 17 November 1884, in Chichibu jiken shiryō shūsei, Vol. 6, ed. Inoue Kōji et al. (Tokyo: Nigensha, 1989), p. 506; Naimushō, ‘Bōto tantei no genjō’, 21 November 1884, in Jiyū minken kimitsu tantei shiryōshū: Kokuritsu kōbunshokan zō, ed. Ide Magoroku et al. (Tokyo: San'ichi shobō, 1981), p. 761. For criticisms of sōshi, see Kokumin no tomo, 15 August, 1887; Chōya shinbun, 10 September, 1887, 31 March, 1889, 25 February, 1890, and 28 February, 1890.
37 Kōjirō, Sugimori, ‘Bōryoku no ronrisei’, Chūō kōron 49, 6 (June 1934): 40–41, 43–44Google Scholar; Sugimori, ‘Bōryoku to bunka’, p. 99.
38 Abe, ‘Hōchikoku ni bōryoku o yurusu to wa nanigoto ka’, pp. 216, 219.
39 Hatsunosuke, Hirabayashi, ‘Gendai bōryoku ron’, Chūō kōron 44, 5 (May 1929): 41–43Google Scholar. For a discussion of Hirabayashi's reflections on culture and politics, see Harootunian, Harry, Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in Interwar Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), pp. 109–115Google Scholar.
40 On opposition to the Peace Preservation Law, see Katsuya, Oguri, ‘Chian iji hō hantai ron no shosō’, Hōgaku kenkyū 68, 1 (January 1995): 509–537Google Scholar; Jun'ichirō, Kisaka, ‘Chian iji hō hantai undō, jō’, Nihonshi kenkyū 117 (March 1971): 1–23Google Scholar; Jun'ichirō, Kisaka, ‘Chian iji hō hantai undō, ge’, Nihonshi kenkyū 119 (May 1971): 1–21Google Scholar. It should be noted that Abe, along with Yoshino Sakuzō, Miyake Setsurei, and others, did testify in 1920 on behalf of Professor Morito Tatsuo when he was tried on charges that he had violated Article 42 of the Newspaper Law. Mitchell, Richard H., ‘Japan's Peace Preservation Law of 1925: Its Origins and Significance’, Monumenta Nipponica 28, 3 (Autumn 1973): 326Google Scholar.
41 For a discussion of the concept of ‘kokumin’, see Doak, Kevin M., A History of Nationalism in Modern Japan: Placing the People (Boston: Brill, 2007), pp. 164–215Google Scholar.
42 Doak, Kevin, ‘What Is a Nation and Who Belongs? National Narratives and Ethnic Imagination in Twentieth-Century Japan’, American Historical Review 102, 2 (April 1997): 287Google Scholar. Also on a popular, and oppositional, nationalism, see Karlin, Jason G., ‘The Gender of Nationalism: Competing Masculinities in Meiji Japan’, Journal of Japanese Studies 28, 1 (winter 2002): 55–58Google Scholar. On kokumin nationalists, also cited by Doak, see Pyle, Kenneth B., The New Generation in Meiji Japan: Problems of Cultural Identity, 1885–1895 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Gluck, Carol, Japan's Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985)Google Scholar. See also Sannosuke, Matsumoto, Meiji shisōshi: Kindai kokka no sōsetsu kara ko no kakusei made (Tokyo: Shinyōsha, 1999), pp. 123–139Google Scholar. For a related critique of how Japanese intellectuals (including Yoshino Sakuzō) have tended to equate state with society, see Sannosuke, Matsumoto, ‘Society and the State in the Thought of Kuga Katsunan’, Journal of Pacific Asia 1 (1994): 143–158Google Scholar.
43 Mizuno, ‘Bōryoku mokunin to kokka hinin’, pp. 205, 207, 210.
44 Abe, ‘Bōryoku ni tai suru kokumin no futetteiteki taido’, p. 95.
45 Nyozekan, Hasegawa, ‘Bōryoku no ryūkō to shakai byōri’, Chūō kōron 38, 9 (August 1923): 68–71Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōkō, kyōhaku kyōsei nado ni tai suru tōkyoku no torishimari no kantai o katanzu’. There are moments when Nyozekan almost unintentionally revealed a darker dimension of contemporary violence—he acknowledged the possibility that violence and coercion may be necessary to maintain capitalist organizations. Yet ultimately, he was fairly optimistic that violence would disappear because he believed that capitalist power would collapse and that a peaceful world could emerge from a change in capitalist institutions. Hasegawa, ‘Bōryoku no ryūkō to shakai byōri’, pp. 70–71, 73.
46 Setsurei, Miyake, ‘“Chikara” o tanomu no hei’, Chūō kōron 38, 9 (August 1923): 80–82Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōkō kyōhaku kyōsei nado ni tai suru tōkyoku no torishimari no kantai o katanzu’.
47 Kiichi, Horie, ‘Bōryokuteki dantai no sonzai o mokunin suru ka’, Chūō kōron 38, 1 (January 1923): 212Google Scholar.
48 Miyake, ‘“Chikara” o tanomu no hei’, pp. 81, 83.
49 Kyōson, Tsuchida, ‘Yoron to bōryoku’, Chūō kōron 44, 5 (May 1929): 25Google Scholar. For Tsuchida's sociology of social and everyday life, see Harootunian, Overcome by Modernity, pp. 118–119.
50 Kikuchi, ‘Bōryoku ni tayorazushite oote no koto o shorishitashi’, p. 96.
51 Inoue, ‘Gunshū shinri ni tsūgyō seyo’, p. 99.
52 Shinmei Masamichi is most often written about in English for his thoughts on race and ethnicity. See Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, ‘Debating Racial Science in Wartime Japan’, Osiris 13 (1998): 354–375Google Scholar; Doak, Kevin M., ‘Building National Identity through Ethnicity: Ethnology in Wartime Japan and After’, Journal of Japanese Studies 27, 1 (Winter 2001): 1–39Google Scholar.
53 Masamichi, Shinmei, ‘Bōryoku no ronrisei’, Chūō kōron 50 (August 1935): 29–37Google Scholar.
54 Abe, ‘Bōryoku ni tai suru kokumin no futetteiteki taido’, p. 95; Isoo, Abe, ‘Kokkateki “chikara” no hatsugen o kōhei nara shimeyo’, Chūō kōron 38, 9 (August 1923): 75–76Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōkō, kyōhaku kyōsei nado ni tai suru tōkyoku no torishimari no kantai o katanzu’.
55 Kimio, Hayashi, ‘Bōryokuteki dantai to kokka oyobi shakai’, Chūō kōron 38, 1 (January 1923): 224–225Google Scholar. Part of the series, ‘Bōryokuteki dantai no sonzai o mokunin suru tōkyoku no taiman o kyūdan suru’.
56 Yoshino, ‘“Kokka” no hoka “chikara” no shiyō o yurusazu’, p. 201.
57 Inoue, ‘Gunshū shinri ni tsūgyō seyo’, pp. 100, 104.
58 Mizuno, ‘Bōryoku mokunin to kokka hinin’, pp. 207–208.
59 Takayanagi, ‘Shisō ni tai shite wa kandai nare bōryoku ni tai shite wa genkaku nare’, pp. 91–92.
60 Horie, ‘Bōryokuteki dantai no sonzai o mokunin suru ka’, p. 210.
61 Yoshino, ‘“Kokka” no hoka “chikara” no shiyō o yurusazu’, pp. 201–202, 204.
62 Abe, ‘Hōchikoku ni bōryoku o yurusu to wa nanigoto ka’, pp. 219–220.
63 Abe, ‘Kokkateki “chikara” no hatsugen o kōhei nara shimeyo’, pp. 74, 76–77.
64 Abe, ‘Bōryoku ni tai suru kokumin no futetteiteki taido’, pp. 89–90, 95.
65 Abe, ‘Kokkateki “chikara” no hatsugen o kōhei nara shimeyo’, p. 75.
66 Inoue, ‘Gunshū shinri ni tsūgyō seyo’, p. 104.
67 Mizuno, ‘Isshi dōjin tare’, p. 95.
68 Mizuno, ‘Bōryoku mokunin to kokka hinin’, p. 207.
69 Abe, ‘Bōryoku ni tai suru kokumin no futetteiteki taido’, p. 91.
70 For trends of socialist thought, see Crump, John, The Origins of Socialist Thought in Japan (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Mackie, Vera, Creating Socialist Women in Japan: Gender, Labour and Activism, 1900–1937 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Notehelfer, F. G., Kōtoku Shūsui: Portrait of a Japanese Radical (London, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.
71 Hasegawa, ‘Bōryoku no ryūkō to shakai byōri’, pp. 72–73.
72 Abe, ‘Kokkateki “chikara” no hatsugen o kōhei nara shimeyo’, p. 79.
73 Yukio, Ozaki, The Autobiography of Ozaki Yukio: The Struggle for Constitutional Government in Japan, trans. Fujiko, Hara (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 313Google Scholar. See also Yukio, Ozaki, Gakudō jiden, in Ozaki Yukio gakudō zenshū, Vol. 11, ed. iinkai, Ozaki gakudō zenshū hensan (Tokyo: Kōronsha, 1955), p. 563Google Scholar.
74 Abe, ‘Bōryoku ni tai suru kokumin no futetteiteki taido’, p. 95.
75 Tsuchida, ‘Yoron to bōryoku’, pp. 27, 29.
76 Inoue, ‘Gunshū shinri ni tsūgyō seyo’, p. 102.
77 Roan, Uchida, ‘Bōryoku shugi no ōkō’, Taiyō 28, 4 (1 April 1922): 79Google Scholar.
78 ‘Shūgiin ni matashitemo rantō’, Nagasaki nichinichi shinbun, 26 March, 1926, in Kensei o kiki ni michibiku Seiyūkai no bōkō jiken (Tokyo: Jiyū bundansha, 1927), p. 36; ‘Innai no bōryoku kōi’, Kyūshū shinbun, 26 March, 1926, in Kensei o kiki ni michibiku Seiyūkai no bōkō jiken, p. 40; Jiji shinpō, 25 March, 1926, in Kensei o kiki ni michibiku Seiyūkai no bōkō jiken, p. 49.
79 ‘Innai no bōryoku kōi’, pp. 40–42; ‘Seiyūkai wa tenka ni chinsha seyo: Bōryoku no zenin wa danjite yurusenu’, Osaka mainichi shinbun, 26 March, 1926, in Kensei o kiki ni michibiku Seiyūkai no bōkō jiken, p. 29; ‘Shūshi shūtai no gojūni gikai’, Nippōchi shinbun, 26 March, 1926, in Kensei o kiki ni michibiku Seiyūkai no bōkō jiken, p. 24; ‘Shūgiin ni matashitemo rantō’, p. 37; ‘Bōryoku seiji no jitsugen’, Tokushima mainichi shinbun, 27 March, 1926, in Kensei o kiki ni michibiku Seiyūkai no bōkō jiken, p. 43.
80 (In a somewhat ironic move, the Seiyūkai sent 67 political ruffians to this meeting disguised as journalists, complete with business cards giving their occupation as newspaper reporters.) ‘Bōkō giin kyūdan no tame genronkai tsui ni kekki su: Bōkōsha kuchiku no ketsugi happyō saru: Seiyūkai no sōshi o kisha ni shitatete giji o bōgai su’, Seiji keizai tsūshin, 7 April, 1926, in Kensei o kiki ni michibiku Seiyūkai no bōkō jiken, pp. 61–64.
81 Setsurei, Miyake, ‘Seiyūkai ron’, Kaizō 7, 5 (May 1925): 230–234Google Scholar.
82 Mizuno, ‘Bōryoku mokunin to kokka hinin’, p. 210.
83 On Miyake Setsurei's ‘nationalist fervour’ after the Russo-Japanese War, see Hanneman, Mary L., ‘Dissent from Within: Hasegawa Nyozekan, Liberal Critic of Fascism’, Monumenta Nipponica 52, 1 (spring 1997): 38Google Scholar. Setsurei's autobiographical works around this time seem to have been fairly quiet on the war. See Setsurei, Miyake, Miyake Setsurei: Jiden, jibun o kataru (Tokyo: Nihon tosho sentā, 1997)Google Scholar.
84 Reiko, Hirose, ‘Abe Isoo no sensō kyōryoku’, in Abe Isoo no kenkyū (Tokyo: Waseda daigaku shakai kagaku kenkyūjo, 1990), pp. 286–289Google Scholar.
85 Barshay, State and Intellectual, pp. 214–215, 218.
86 Akami makes a similar point in Akami, ‘Nation, State, Empire and War’, p. 137.
87 On the phenomenon of tenkō, see Fletcher, Williams Miles III, The Search for a New Order: Intellectuals and Fascism in Prewar Japan (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Hoston, Germaine A., ‘Tenkō: Marxism & the National Question in Prewar Japan’, Polity 16, 1 (autumn 1983): 96–118Google Scholar; Steinhoff, Patricia G., Tenkō: Ideology and Societal Integration in Prewar Japan (New York: Garland Publishing, 1991)Google Scholar.
88 For an argument about the continuities in Hasegawa Nyozekan's thought, see Hanneman, ‘Dissent from Within’, pp. 56–58.
89 Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Toward a Radical Democratic Politics, trans. Moore, Winston and Cammack, Paul (London: Verso, 1985), pp. 58, 65–71, 134–145Google Scholar.
