Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This presentation focuses on the articulation of a uniquely Japanese philosophy of life through Kokutai Meichō (Clarification of the National Polity) and the construction of a distinctly Japanese worldview based on the ideology of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Paper long abstract

This presentation examines the intellectual discourses of wartime Japan by situating them within the broader search for a Japanese worldview and philosophy of life. It focuses on two major challenges confronted by Japanese intellectuals during this period: (A) the articulation of a uniquely Japanese philosophy of life through Kokutai Meichō (Clarification of the National Polity) and (B) the construction of a distinctly Japanese worldview based on the ideology of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Challenge (A) sought to cultivate a heightened awareness of “Japaneseness” among the Japanese people. Its ideological goal lay in the affirmation of national uniqueness, and its primary political effect was the strengthening of internal cohesion within the Japanese nation. By contrast, challenge (B) aimed at the realization of a new international order grounded in a Japanese worldview. While a philosophy of life and worldview cannot be rigidly separated, emphasizing cultural uniqueness may conflict with aspirations for international solidarity, whereas calls for international solidarity often presuppose a universalizable philosophy of life.

The presentation explores the connections and tensions between these two distinct yet intertwined intellectual challenges by examining three influential strands of wartime thought: the proposals of the Kyoto School philosophers, the concept of the East Asia League, and the jingoistic discourse promoted by certain intellectuals.

Despite their shared emphasis on absolute loyalty to the Emperor and their common critique of Western selfishness, these three positions were ultimately incompatible. The Kyoto School philosophers advanced a political vision of a new regional order under Japanese leadership, whereas the East Asia League advocated a more horizontal alliance among Asian nations. Both approaches, however, were sharply criticized for allegedly neglecting Japanese Shutaisei (agency, defined by the OECD as the capacity and willingness to actively shape one’s life and the surrounding world) or Shuken (sovereignty), respectively. Meanwhile, jingoist thinkers expressed strong confidence in the omnipotence of a Japanese philosophy of life yet failed to articulate a compelling vision for a better future for humanity or for the people of Asia.