Gender and Nation in Meiji Japan: Modernity, Loss, and the Doing of History

Notes

241 Notes prEfacE 1. Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (Cambridge , Mass.: The MIT Press, 1985), 231–233. Koselleck argues Neuzeit registered an historical awareness that the difference between all previous experience and expectation have diverged (276–288). 2. Though Christopher L. Hill (2008) discusses temporality in the writing of national history and political novels, and Stefan Tanaka (2004) has examined the transformation of time in areas ranging from geology, art history, architecture, and museums, among others, their sources are mostly intellectual accounts far removed from the experience of everyday life. The aim of this study is to examine popular texts— including political cartoons, speeches, adolescent fiction, newspapers, women’s magazines , and guidebooks—in order to evaluate how the expression ryūkō entered into everyday life and shaped popular attitudes toward novelty and change. 3. Yamamoto Akira, “Nihon ryūkō-shi ni ichidan men,” in Ryūkō no fūzokugaku, ed. Tada Michitarō, 305 (Tokyo: Sekai Shisō-sha, 1987). 4. Nakajima Jun’ichi, Media to ryūkō no shinri (Tokyo: Kaneko Shobō, 1998), 15–23. Nakajima argues that the word ryūkō encompasses the meaning of the English terms fashion, style, mode, craze, fad, and boom (39–40). 5. Peter Fritzsche, “How Nostalgia Narrates Modernity,” in The Work of Memory: New Directions in the Study of German Society and Culture, ed. Alon Confino and Peter Fritzsche, 62 (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2002). 6. Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 19. 7. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London: Verso Books, 1991), 24. 8. Ibid., 25. 9. Stefan Tanaka, New Times in Modern Japan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004), 2. 242 NotES to pagES 4–8 10. Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005 [1959]). 11. Though the “revolt” against Western culture among intellectuals in modern Japan has received considerable attention, little has been written on the role of popular culture in the dissemination of these ideas. To this end, the analysis herein seeks to define reception as a constructive dimension of the production of ideas in the historical context. Indeed, historians have tended to define discourse in terms of the production of canonical or intellectual texts while neglecting how the dissemination of these ideas were received and then recontextualized for popular consumption. See, for example, Harry D. Harootunian, Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in Interwar Japan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000); Kevin M. Doak, Dreams of Difference: The Japan Romantic School and the Crisis of Modernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); Leslie Pincus, Authenticating Culture in Imperial Japan: Kuki Shūzō and the Rise of National Aesthetics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); and Miriam Silverberg, Changing Song: The Marxist Manifestos of Nakano Shigeharu (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), among others. 12. See Marilyn Ivy, “Mourning the Japanese Thing,” in In Near Ruins: Cultural Theory at the End of the Century, ed. Nicholas B. Dirk, 93–118 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998). As Ivy notes, “the particular articulation of a unified Japanese ethnos with the ‘nation’ to produce ‘Japanese culture’ is entirely a modern configuration ” (93). 13. Andreas Huyssen, After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 48. 14. Rita Felski, The Gender of Modernity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995), 35–60. 15. Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1991), 16. INtroductIoN 1. E. Herbert Norman, Origins of the Modern Japanese State: Selected Writings of E. H. Norman, ed. John W. Dower (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975). Norman’s assertion echoes the perspective of the Kōza-ha or Lectures School of Marxists, who argued in the early 1930s that the Meiji Restoration was an incomplete revolution since semifeudal social relations of production (i.e., agrarian landownership) persisted in Japanese capitalism. 2. Carol Gluck, Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 9–10. 3. John W. Dower, “E. H. Norman, Japan and the Uses of History,” in Origins of the Modern Japanese State: Selected Writings of E. H. Norman, ed. John W. Dower, 31 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975). 4. For recent emperor system scholars who argue that the state formulated a monolithic ideology of effective state control, see Daikichi Irokawa, The Culture of the NotES to pagES 8–13 243...