The Age of Visions and Arguments: Parliamentarianism and the National Public Sphere in Early Meiji Japan (review)

This book attempts to examine a period of history spanning from bakumatsu to the opening of the first national Diet. It mainly examines political writing of the 1880s, the decade usually associated with the rise of the jiyū minken movement. The book’s aim appears to be an analysis of the history of ideas of “parliamentarianism” as seen in these sources. Yet, in this reviewer’s opinion, it is difficult to classify this book as a “history of ideas” because the author, Kyu Hyun Kim, shows little interest in looking beyond the textual surface to the complex web of intentions behind the political writings he deals with.

The phrase “for the first time in the English language” is found throughout Kyu Hyun Kim’s book. Kim appears proud of a number of achievements of his work which he regards as firsts in modern Japanese historiography. In the introduction, for example, Kim claims that “the present study reformulates the state-society relationship in Meiji Japan by adapting for the first time in the English language the notion of ‘civil society’ and ‘public sphere’ to the historical context of late nineteenth-century Japan” (p. 5). I am a bit dubious about this claim. To begin with, what Kim means by “civil society” and “public sphere” in the context of the topic he is writing about is never made sufficiently clear. Quoting Charles Taylor, Kim defines “civil society” as “a web of autonomous associations of people.” However, he never really discusses whether the minken associations, political parties, and journalism in the period and place he is looking at were truly “autonomous.” It is widely known that most minken associations, political parties, and journalists were “in a web of” state control and money.¹ Other definitional problems include the author’s use of the phrase “national public sphere” without ever explaining the difference between (or equivalence of) “national” and “public.” His use of this phrase, seemingly to commend the nature of political discussion in early Meiji times, opens up other questions. For instance, some readers might wonder why a “national” public sphere must necessarily be better than a “local” or “universal” one.

According to the introduction, the aim of Kim’s study is to point out that the Meiji state compromised with civil society’s visions of “parliamentarianism.” Even though the Meiji constitution was drafted by a closed group of bureaucrats and politicians in a hidden chamber, the Meiji state was sensitive to currents of public opinion. Of course, there is nothing new in this point. If this review had been written in Japanese and published in a Japanese journal, most readers would stop reading it here because the idea of this book sounds too conventional.

So are there any new discoveries in this book? Kim would claim yes. According to Kim, the first generation of postwar Japanese studies “in the English language” was strongly influenced by the Japanese Marxist school, which focused mainly on issues of class struggle and revolutionary consciousness in the jiyū minken movement. Therefore, less attention was paid to the diversity of visions on the constitution and parliament within the Meiji government or on the jiyū minken side. In contrast, the next generation learned from Japanese scholars who had a critical position on or distance from Marxism, such as Itō Takashi and Banno Junji. Consequently, the second generation had more interest in the power games of competition between political interests and among actors in the political process, whether they were in the government or in the broader political world of the media and political parties.

Kim argues that he is not content with either the Marxist or political process approaches because both neglected to pay sufficient attention to visions of political form as important motives of political commitment. His book is an attempt to bring these visions back into the...