publisher colophon
  • Japanese Right-Wing Discourse in International Context:Minoda Muneki's Interwar Writings on Class and Nation

It is often taken for granted that ultranationalist ideologues of interwar Japan were anti-western, uncritical mouthpieces of state ideology. This article considers the case of Minoda Muneki (1894-1946) who led the purge of liberals and Marxists from imperial universities. In articulating his theory of nationalism and critique of Marxism, Minoda drew upon a global discourse of social theory. Furthermore, his rise to power was a product of a short-lived convergence of interests between his organization and government figures. I argue for a global historical approach to right-wing ideology that accounts for the relation between nationalist discourse and political power.


Japan, Right-wing, Interwar, Marxist, Global intellectual history, Nationalism

Of the numerous Japanese intellectuals of the early twentieth century associated with the repressive political climate of those years, there is perhaps no single person with as sordid a reputation as Minoda Muneki (1894–1946). An academic philosopher and founder of an ultranationalist organization of intellectuals called the Genri Nippon (Japan Principle) Society, Minoda was the leading spokesman for grassroots patriotic organizations that collaborated with conservative elements in the government to censor and persecute socialist and liberal academics in the 1930s and 1940s. His contemporary enemies privately called him a fanatic, a rabid hound, and a third-rate scholar, and a postwar biography penned in the 1950s dubbed him the Joseph McCarthy of wartime Japan.1 Under the banner of "Japanism," an ill-defined ideology advocating the superiority of Japanese ideas, practices, and culture, Minoda harangued his academic colleagues, whom he deemed to be naively enslaved to Western theories.

Minoda's frequent and unrelenting labeling of foes as traitors to the nation has at times led scholars to understand him as a xenophobe with an [End Page 635] aversion to Western culture. However, such an understanding of the so-called Japanist movement carries the risk of misidentifying right-wing intellectual currents of the interwar period as domestically insular and antithetical to the growing interconnectedness of ideas across the globe. Nationalist critics of leftist thought, Minoda included, were in fact strikingly cosmopolitan in their writing and were part of a global response that emerged in reaction to the ravages of the First World War and the October Revolution in Russia. This essay situates the ideas of one of the most notorious nationalist ideologues of wartime Japan in the international anti-Marxist discourse of the era. Historians of interwar Japan have often focused on liberal or leftist critics of the state to understand how these intellectuals attempted to resist oppressive government policies and oppose wars of imperial expansion.2 In the process, scholars have at times conflated the ideologies and motivations of right-wing intellectuals who advocated censorship of the left with those of the state. This essay joins a relatively smaller, but growing, body of work focused on the right.3 By closely examining the writings of Minoda, I hope to demonstrate that ethno-nationalist political discourse and its relationship to state power was far more complex than it has often been perceived.

Theories of nationalism traversed national boundaries, as did critiques of Marxist theories and internationalist revolutionary politics, which is to say that nationalist anti-Marxists like Minoda participated in an international discourse that unfolded in concert with transnational developments in Marxist theory. This means that as nationalist theorists labored to formulate their own conceptions of the ethnos as a counter-concept to the [End Page 636] Marxist notion of class, they and their Marxist counterparts often engaged with similar sets of theoretical issues. Nationalist theorists in Japan shared with their Marxist opponents a similar set of philosophical inspirations and historical circumstances, albeit with very different interpretations. As I will explain in more detail, interwar Japanists and Marxists shared a concern for a nondeterministic theory of historical change that accounted for the individual agency of human beings, a concern that arose as both sides sought to critique iterations of historical materialism from preceding generations of Marxists. As Japanese Marxists grappled with the task of articulating an understanding of class and capitalist modernity that merged theory with a concrete course of action that did not simply take the natural arrival of socialism for granted, Japanese nationalists sought to position the ethnos in the place of class as the chief engine behind historical change.

All of this is not to say that the Japanist intellectual tradition warrants reconsideration based on the substance of its ideas or that Japanist conceptions of history were more sophisticated than those of the left. Rather, this article is an attempt to take seriously currents of thought often dismissed as fanatical gibberish, and to develop ways to account for the relationship between Japanist ideas and political power. Thus, to understand how Minoda's ideas gained the ability to shape the academic discourse of the interwar period, the latter part of this article examines how bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education and conservative politicians came to appreciate his theoretical output during the mid-1920s.

The years between the two world wars were characterized by intense political suppression of leftists in Japan. Government agencies, including the Home, Justice, and Education Ministries carried out the surveillance, censorship, incarceration, and forced reeducation of Marxists and socialists.4 In articulating the reasons for their assault on leftists, these agencies relied in part on nationalist critiques of Marxism and socialism produced by intellectuals with only loose government affiliations. The production of an archive of anti-Marxist nationalist thought was crucial to training government personnel charged with the task of containing Marxists and socialists. Many politicians and bureaucrats shared with nationalist intellectuals the view that radical leftist thought posed a risk to the government and its nation-defining imperial institution. The fear that domestic leftists could be acting in accord with directions provided by Moscow and the Communist International raised the stakes of the project. [End Page 637]

What set Minoda's theories apart from other contemporaneous engagements with the question of historical agency was the fact that his became directly linked to the authority of the state, which unleashed its police powers by physically limiting the scope of arguments that could be made publicly, especially by leftist intellectuals. Though Minoda's theoretical positions had no lasting effect in terms of the substance of his ideas, they powerfully silenced opponents through the implied threat of violence. His studies and translations of European critiques of Marxism proved useful to bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education intent on eliminating socialism from its student population, and Minoda himself became one of the loudest voices lobbying for the censorship of what he perceived to be treacherous social theories. In this sense, Minoda's was an important voice in shaping the academic discourse on social theory in the interwar period.


During the mid-1920s when Minoda was composing his counter-arguments to Marxist theory, he was teaching at Keio University in Tokyo, the oldest private university in Japan. He graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1919 after studying German at the Fifth Higher School in his native Kumamoto prefecture—both prestigious institutions, though Minoda himself came from a humble socioeconomic background. While his ideas were far from mainstream, Minoda was a product of the best education that the empire had to offer. In late 1925, he founded the Genri Nippon Society, and the organization's monthly publication, Genri Nippon (1925–1944), became the main forum for his writing. By the mid-1930s, Genri Nippon was one of the most notorious political magazines in Japan; academics unfortunate enough to be targeted by Minoda and his allies on its pages had legitimate reason to fear for their jobs.5

Compared to its personally inflammatory and sensationalist contents of the 1930s, however, Genri Nippon between 1925 and 1928 was more abstract and, relatively speaking, more collegial in its tone. There was a legal reason for this difference. When Genri Nippon was originally launched [End Page 638] in November 1925, it was registered according to the guidelines of the Publishing Law (ShuppanhM), as was typical for scholarly magazines. In October 1928, Genri Nippon was relaunched under the Newspaper Law (ShinbunshihM), which allowed for contents related to current events.6 In the editor's notes for the final issue under the Publishing Law, Minoda writes that he had always meant Genri Nippon to be published under the Newspaper Law, but had not obtained permission until that year.7 It was during those early years of the magazine that Minoda solidified the theoretical basis for his attack on Marxist and liberal academics that he unleashed in subsequent years.

This "scholarly" era of Genri Nippon coincided with major organizational and theoretical changes in Japanese Marxism, which informed many of the debates in social theory in Japan at the time. Minoda's own theoretical interests were inevitably shaped by these developments, as he rose to prominence through his criticism of Marxism and communism. In other words, a study of Japanist intellectual trends must also be a study of developments in the intellectual history of Marxism.

Perhaps the most significant event in that history was the arrival of "Fukumoto-ism," a theory-driven reform movement within Japanese Marxist circles that sought to refine what had been until then a moralist argument for changing political economy into a scientifically rigorous theory—to replace economic determinism with historicism, and parliamentary solidarity with an intellectualist vanguard leadership. Soon, students all over Japan were organizing study groups, inspired by the movement's polemical instigator Fukumoto Kazuo, urging that intellectuals retheorize the methods of the revolution and the structure of capital from the historical standpoint of the proletariat. Fukumoto became the leading Marxist theoretician in Japan for a very short period until the Communist International denounced him in 1927 for his divisive methods and criticism of leading Russian theorists, much like it denounced Georg Lukács's History and Class Consciousness, the main inspiration for Fukumoto's theoretical interventions. Fukumoto had in fact studied with early shapers of Western Marxism such as Lukács and Karl Korsch, and he encouraged in Japan an orientation toward a philosophical Marxism in ways similar to how Lukács and Korsch influenced Western Marxism.8 [End Page 639]

Minoda's study and criticism of Marxist theory largely took place during this spectacular rise and fall of Fukumoto-ism, which prompted a reappraisal of what it meant for socialism to be "scientific" and to build an understanding of the proletariat grounded in history. Minoda harbored two misgivings about contemporary trends in Marxist and socialist discourse: its claims to the epistemological authority of "science" and its pretense of presenting a universal, transnational schema at the neglect of national particularity. For Minoda, Marxist theory was both wrong and dangerous. It was wrong because it misunderstood the methodological particularities of the various sciences, and it was dangerous because it threatened to poison Japan's future leaders at the imperial universities, where its theories seemed to be most popular. Thus, in critiquing Marxist theory, Minoda took the dual approach of theoretical engagement and practical measures by writing critiques to assist state authorities in their suppression of Marxists.


Like many intellectuals concerned with social issues in Japan during the 1920s, Minoda approached these problems through an interrogation of the theoretical methods applied to the examination of society. He was not alone in looking to Germany for inspiration. Japanese students interested in these epistemological questions flocked to Germany, where inquiries into the possibility of the "human sciences" had been developed by Wilhelm Dilthey late in the previous century, and were coming to a culmination of sorts through the works of the so-called neo-Kantian schools.9 Heinrich Rickert, inspired by the work of Dilthey and Wilhelm Windelband, attracted students like Miki Kiyoshi and Hani Gorō to Heidelberg, both of whom became important Japanese Marxist theorists.10 Historical and cultural particularity was indeed a point of interest for Japanese Marxists as well, as they sought a means to understand the range of possible political action within Japan's particular inflection of capitalist modernity. [End Page 640]

Though Minoda was sympathetic to the neo-Kantian effort to separate the methods of the science of culture from those of nature, he believed that Rickert's attempt to formulate concepts of cultural value was just as much of an abstraction from actual life as were the natural sciences.11 Instead of constructing a new metaphysic of culture, Minoda argued that social scientists should look to theorists who engaged the lived experience of humans and their specific contexts. The theorist he looked to for inspiration was Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920). Minoda argued that Wundt's insights into human psychology and explorations of the "folk" provided an analytical perspective far more grounded in actual experience than was the Marxist notion of "class."


It is noteworthy that Minoda countered Marxist diagnoses of economic issues in Japan on methodological grounds rather than on more personal grounds of loyalty to the nation, as he would tend to do later in his career. He was particularly interested in three aspects of Wundt's work: the taxonomy of sciences and the place of psychology within it; his principles of psychology; and Völkerpsychologie, or the psychology of the folk.

Minoda was not the only member of the Genri Nippon Society with interests in Wundt. He owed much of his understanding of Wundt to his mentor, and fellow founder of the Genri Nippon Society, the poet and critic Mitsui Kōshi (1883–1953).12 Mitsui first encountered Wundtian psychology at Tokyo Imperial University as a student in courses taught by Matsumoto Matatarō, who trained under Wundt at Leipzig. Life and Representation (Jinsei to hyōgen), a magazine Mitsui edited and a precursor to Genri Nippon, took its title from a line in Wundt's System der Philosophie, which declared that representation (Darstellung) through a creative process, not mere depiction (Abbildung), was the task of art.13 The passage neatly captured Mitsui's critical approach to Japanese naturalist literature. He extensively reviewed Wundt's Elemente der Völkerpsychologie (1912) [End Page 641] in the November 1913 issue of Life and Representation. Wundtian folk psychology would become an important touchstone in the Genri Nippon line of Japanism.14 Aside from Minoda's studies on scientific methodology, the early years of Genri Nippon featured translations from Wundt's System der Philosophie, Völkerpsychologie, and Logik prepared by other contributing members. Of the many European writers referenced in Genri Nippon during those years, we might say that Wundt was the most important.

Minoda's interest in Wundt stemmed from his belief that Wundt's conception of psychology as a form of science could serve as a foundation for debunking the claim made by Marxists that their theories constituted a science. Drawing from Wundt's taxonomy of the sciences, Minoda argued that the Marxists were wrong because their methods of inquiry were flawed.15 His argument was best laid out in a March 1926 article on the methods of the social sciences. While the essay was aimed at Morito Tatsuo and Lyama Ikuo, two social scientists associated with proletarian movements but not usually categorized as Marxists, Minoda's appropriation of Wundtian thought formed the basic blueprint for his critique of Marxism. There Minoda argues that psychology is the study of "immediate experience" that examines the elements and processes of consciousness. Psychology, according to Minoda, provides a foundation for the human sciences because it studies human reality as it is produced in consciousness. This is different from the study of "mediated experience," which "posits that these contents of consciousness exist in themselves independent of the aforementioned subjective cognition."16 These mediated approaches, most common in the natural sciences, are useful in examining society only to a certain extent, because societies are composed of "the communal life of feeling, willing, and acting humans," rather than "natural phenomena that do not possess consciousness."17

That social scientists often confused the methods of the human and natural sciences is a problem because they are governed by different principles of causality, according to Minoda. Referring again to Wundt, Minoda argues that observers of human societies must recognize the principles of creative synthesis, heterogeny of ends, and increasing contrasts (sōgōteki [End Page 642] sōzō, mokuteki bunka, taishō kyōka no shogenri).18 Minoda does not define these principles, only noting how they imply that "in psychic processes, cause and effect do not correspond in terms of quantity; not only is there a quantitative flux, but a qualitative change can occur spontaneously."19 Here he is referring to several of Wundt's laws of mental causality, which hold that the products of mental processes are qualitatively different than the sum of their parts; that the results of human actions are often products of differently imagined goals; and that contrasting experiences tend to intensify one another.20

For Minoda, these principles of human psychology undermined the efficacy of the Marxist idea that class encapsulated the motivations and desires of a large group of people. In the February 1927 issue of Genri Nippon, for example, Minoda accused leading Marxist theorist and Kyoto Imperial University professor Kawakami Hajime of "completely misunderstanding the differences between the natural sciences and social sciences."21 Kawakami had used the analogy of scientific and medical progress in arguing that his colleague Watsuji Tetsurō, an academic philosopher, had resorted to appealing to a conservative form of common sense by uncritically dismissing Marxist theory.22 Minoda repeated this criticism of Kawakami on several occasions over the course of the next two years, and also directed it toward the philosopher Miki Kiyoshi, who at the time was gaining attention for his synthesis of academic philosophy and Marxist theory.23 The common thread in these critiques was that Marxism's pretentions as a science took for granted the applicability of class and historical materialism to contexts far removed from those which determined Marx's own observations.

If the category of class seemed to reduce all human motivations to material concerns, social theory needed a more nuanced tool for understanding historical change. Wundt's idea of Völkerpsychologie, or folk psychology, supplied Minoda with a framework for critiquing the universalist [End Page 643] claims of historical materialism. Though developed as a complement to the psychological study of the individual, Wundt's psychology of groups of individuals took a completely different approach. Wundt's psychology divides the field into two major disciplines: physiological psychology, which examines the psyche of individuals through its relation to physiological sensations in a laboratory setting; and Völkerpsychologie, which studies the development of the psychology of groups of people through anthropological, historical, and linguistic approaches. Despite his ambitious, pioneering work, Wundt was skeptical of the precision and breadth that could be expected from experimental, physiological psychology, particularly in accounting for complex mental contents.24 In a laboratory setting, the psychologist was able to develop experiments that could measure simple mental phenomena such as reactions and sensations, but the more complex activities of the mind remained out of reach. In studying the more intricate processes of the human psyche, Wundt proposed that the psychologist would be better served by examining the products of the human psyche instead of attempting to reach into the psyche itself through external stimuli.

Minoda was particularly fond of citing the tenth and final volume of Wundt's Völkerpsychologie, which opens with an exploration of the relationship between agriculture (cultus agri) and worship (cultus deorum), through their Latin etymological root, colere.25 To Minoda, this provided a powerful argument against the Marxist notion that religion and art were mere byproducts of labor and historical modes of production.26 Agriculture, or labor, and religious worship were originally identical, Minoda argued, and served as the foundation for modern day national cultures. While "class" was nothing more than an abstraction developed by the German Marx observing the British economy and then applied to people all around the world, ethnos was a category that lent itself to a more nuanced understanding of societies.

It bears noting, however, that neither Minoda nor his colleagues at the Genri Nippon Society ever developed a coherent theory that defined the category of folk, or minzoku, as it was usually translated. They could not [End Page 644] rely on Wundt in this regard, as he was himself vague in his definitions.27 Critics of Wundt have called his Völkerpsychologie "armchair" scholarship that merely synthesized the more empirical studies of other researchers, at times quite uncritically. The same charges can be leveled at Minoda.28 He tended to recycle basic ideas from Wundt with which to critique a wide range of scholarship, albeit with very few citations. In this regard, we might say that Minoda's "folk" and "nation" were as much abstractions as the "class" invoked by the targets of his polemics.

While Minoda's adaptation of Wundtian psychology did not necessarily gain currency among intellectuals in Japan, the issues of historical determinism and national particularity were critical topics among academic philosophers and political theorists alike. Minoda's incorporation of Wundtian epistemology in critiquing Marxist theories of society and scientific methodology drew the attention of anti-socialist policy makers as well as civilian and military nationalist leaders, and it was among them that his scholarly work would find a more receptive audience.


In borrowing from Wundt's individual and folk psychology to critique Marxist theory for dismissing national particularity, Minoda was arguing that ethnos (minzoku) was a more historically grounded category than class. It goes without saying that contemporary Marxists disagreed with that assessment, though many would later be forced to reconsider nationalism under duress by the Japanese thought police.29 Perhaps the most relevant example is the aforementioned Fukumoto, who quickly rose to a leadership role in the Japanese Communist movement through his theorization of the proletariat precisely when Minoda was penning his critiques. Like Minoda, Fukumoto was acutely aware of the international context of these debates and drew extensively from his European contemporaries.

Fukumoto dismissed the dialectical materialism of his predecessors as [End Page 645] being nothing more than a simple moral prescription for political engagement rather than a true, scientific understanding of political economy. All but explicitly drawing from his former interlocutor Georg Lukács, Fukumoto argued that the complete knowledge of society necessary for the ultimate task of revolution could only be gained from the perspective of the proletariat, whose social position embodied the structure of social relations of production at the core of capitalist exploitation.30 Earlier theories of social formation, change, and revolution had fallen into the trap of teleological fatalism, which could only be overturned by returning to the "socialized human being" at the core of history.31

Fukumoto proposed a new understanding of the dialectical method. Proposing to go beyond the simplistic understanding of dialectics as a process of a synthesis emerging from the opposition of a thesis and antithesis, Fukumoto argued that dialectics was first and foremost a method for capturing the totality of the political economic situation in its formative process. Such a method takes reality to be the unification of subjective and objective knowledge. Thus the proletariat, which is conscious of its own historical significance, at once embodies subjective and objective knowledge, since it stands in relation to bourgeois society as the exploited class; from this position it obtains an objective view of its own place as a class within the totality of the capitalist system. For Fukumoto, this understanding of dialectical materialism needed to serve as both the basis of Japanese Marxist theory and to shape the strategy of the proletarian movement.

For our purposes, it is interesting to note Minoda's and Fukumoto's similar motivations. Both of their critiques were founded upon the distrust of an objective view of social reality in the natural scientific sense, and both called for a more historically situated understanding of society that accounted for the subjective experience of actual human beings. The crucial difference is that for Fukumoto dialectical knowledge of the totality of society (in capitalism) can only be apprehended through the experience of the proletariat, while for Minoda the primary factor that shapes the lived experience of humans is an ethnic "national" experience—one available as an analytic object in the form of language and cultural practices.

Interestingly, Minoda never directly referred to Fukumoto's dialectical materialism. The absence of criticism of the new, young leader of Japanese [End Page 646] Marxists could be because Fukumoto was not an Imperial University professor—like most of Minoda's targets—or perhaps because Minoda had difficulty developing a critique of this more sophisticated materialist dialectic. Though it is tempting to overestimate the parallels between these "left" and "right" critiques of the pseudo-scientific, determinist interpretation of historical materialism, the similarities are limited to a common call for the investigation of historically determined subjective agency.

Still, we can be fairly certain that Minoda was familiar with European iterations of this debate. In the fall of 1925, he had published an essay that introduced a critique of Lukács's reinterpretation of class consciousness by the German sociologist Werner Sombart.32 The essay quoted Lukács's piece on "What is Orthodox Marxism" from History and Class Consciousness at some length, and argued that Lukács's conception of the dialectical method was just as flawed by abstractions as was the so-called vulgar Marxism that Lukács criticized. Sombart argued that Lukács's ideas of "totality" and the "ultimate goal" of the proletariat were similar to the mechanistic "laws" of economic history that the latter dismissed. Since they were not grounded in reality, they could not provide the basis for an authentically scientific approach to political economy.33

Minoda's publications on Sombart and his criticism of "scientific socialism" were mostly translations or transliterations, and it is unclear whether Minoda in fact read Lukács. Even so, Sombart's criticism of Lukács's approach to socialism is consistent with Minoda's overall criticism against Marxism and its intellectual debt to German Idealist philosophy. Minoda never believed in the applicability of the conceptual dichotomy of capitalist/proletariat to the reality of Japanese society, and he was skeptical about the possibility of abstracting universal laws of economic change from reality, much less of deducing socialist "goals." For Minoda, these Marxist theories applied "mediated" methods like those of the natural sciences to the realm of humanity, which called for the "immediate" approach of psychology. While Minoda's criticism of the Japanese Marxist idea of the dialectic did not address Fukumoto's more nuanced account of the historical significance of the proletariat, we might infer from his discussion of Sombart that he would have found the former's concepts to be abstractions divorced from reality. This view would not have been [End Page 647] uncommon, since the Comintern had admonished Fukumoto for being overly theoretical. Historians of prewar Japanese Marxism also point to Fukumoto's emphasis on theory as a weakness.34


In contending that nationality served as a more accurate framework for understanding human historical agency than did class, Minoda found an ally in his Belgian contemporary Hendrik de Man. In contrast to Minoda, who never became a socialist, de Man was a member of the Second International prior to the outbreak of the First World War. The war, and the rise of nationalism among European workers, led de Man to question the feasibility of an internationalist proletarian project. These concerns became the topic of his 1926 tome The Psychology of Socialism, a work which made de Man "the most talked-about and controversial political writer of the decade," according to historian Zeev Sternhell.35 Sternhell argues that de Man was a key figure in the intellectual history of fascist ideology who attempted to go "beyond" Marxism by imbuing it with nationalism, a project which seemed to legitimate the politics of Benito Mussolini, an admirer of de Man.36 Mark Neocleous echoes these charges in his study of fascist thought, noting that de Man's psychology of instinct reformulated socialism's economic class struggle into a struggle between wills representing different sets of ethical values.37

Minoda's work in the late 1920s was in concert with de Man and his contemporaries who were developing a political ideology based upon conceptions of life, will, and the process of struggle as a means to critique what they perceived to be the positivist weaknesses of Enlightenment thought. His appropriation of de Man's work, however, had little to do with a desire to build a nationalist socialism; rather, it was in service to his project of discrediting Marxism as a flawed science. Minoda published translated excerpts from The Psychology of Socialism in three consecutive issues of [End Page 648] Genri Nippon beginning in October 1926, the year of the book's publication. The titles of the installments, "A Spiritual Autobiography of a Socialist: Escape from Marxism," "The Rationalism of Marxism," and "Marxism, the State, and Nationality," are illustrative of what Minoda found compelling about The Psychology of Socialism. In de Man, Minoda perceived a brilliant mind who arrived at nationalism following a personal struggle with the theory and politics of Marxism.

The October 1926 installment, "A Spiritual Autobiography of a Socialist: Escape from Marxism," presented excerpts from the introduction and first chapter of The Psychology of Socialism, in which de Man explained that his experience as a volunteer in the First World War catalyzed his skepticism toward Marxism. For de Man, the war was nothing short of traumatic. As soon as the conflict began, many German socialists voiced their support for their government's declaration of war: the workers' cry for international solidarity had been converted into a rallying cry for nationalism overnight. To add insult to injury, the very German workers who stood by him in the international socialist movement were now volunteering to invade Belgium, his homeland. De Man, by his own measure a pacifist and an internationalist, suddenly found himself in the trenches defending his own country. These personal experiences of the failure of international socialism led de Man to conduct a reappraisal of socialist theory.38 For Minoda, it was de Man's reasoned apostasy of Marxism that appealed to him most; more than any passage from de Man's writing, Minoda would later repeatedly refer to de Man's experiences in arguing that Marxism had grown obsolete.

There was also much in de Man's writing that resonated with Minoda's theoretical explorations of societies and their progression through history. In his November 1926 installment, "The Rationalism of Marxism," Minoda focused on de Man's critique of Marxist rationalism. It bears noting that de Man was educated in Leipzig under the guidance of Wilhelm Wundt.39 Like Wundt's enthusiasts in Japan, de Man argued that the Marxist theory of knowledge owed its foundation to the German Idealist tradition of metaphysics, and sought to reevaluate it from the standpoint of immediate experience. Echoing Oswald Spengler's declaration that the twentieth century was to be "the century of psychology," de Man argued that the new generation of intellectuals sought "a conception of the world [End Page 649] which, instead of being based upon the indirect experience of the conceptual universe, shall derive from the direct experience of the real universe of feeling and will."40

In a manner similar to Minoda's critique of Japanese Marxist theory, de Man suggested that the assumption that humans act according to the "knowledge of rationally conceived ends" was misleading.41 For de Man, the theoretical rigidity of Marxist theory prevented socialist organizers from predicting the collapse of a brittle international solidarity among workers that the war had provoked. Any new political program needed to be built upon the foundation of a new epistemology that accounted for the vital capacity of humans to confound the rational categories that theorists used in attempting to determine and predict their actions.

Minoda's final installment of translations from de Man, "Marxism, the State, and Nationality," focused on passages in which de Man argued that nationalism, rather than class, served as the new affective foundation for the politics of the masses. De Man observed that new social institutions such as "popular education, popular equality, the cheap press, the growth of communication, etc." as well as "discoveries of wireless and aviation" did more to strengthen national culture than to foster an internationalist spirit.42 These new institutions were the fruits of workers' struggles to achieve better lives. Much had changed in the conditions of the proletariat since Marx and Engels famously called the workers of the world to unite in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. In retrospect, the history of the worker in the twentieth century was largely a national one, where the working class in one country struggled over legal issues that bore the marks of their own local histories of business management and labor policy in a particular language with its own unique connotations linked to emotions and ideas.43 The hard-fought prizes of these struggles, the aforementioned "popular education, popular equality, the cheap press, the growth of communication, etc." were also conditioned by national circumstances, carrying "the stamp of a particular national culture, and [transmitting] this culture to the masses which participate in the evolution."44 De Man saw socialist movements as active participants in the construction of a hegemonic order of nationhood that paradoxically made the previous generation's international socialist [End Page 650] ideals increasingly difficult to realize. For socialists of this new era, the political imperative was no longer to transcend the hegemonic power of the nation, but to work within it to create a more peaceful, egalitarian world.

In de Man, Minoda found not only an intellectual who shared his enthusiasm for psychology as the basis for a new science for understanding the varieties of human experience, but also a veteran of the Second International who had abandoned internationalism.45 He frequently raised this latter point when arguing that figures such as de Man and Mussolini were proof that enlightened ex-socialists now understood how obsolete Marxist thought was.46 He was silent, however, on de Man's subsequent career as the leader of the Belgian Labour Party, and author of the controversial "Plan de Man," which Minoda most likely would have found to be a distasteful reformulation of a communist planned economy. In any case, Minoda's references to de Man cease after 1934, shortly after the plan was put into effect. Nevertheless, it was these studies of de Man and his European contemporaries which led to Minoda's emergence as a leading figure among Japanese anti-Marxists.


There was a crucial difference between the Japanism of Minoda Muneki and such earlier iterations as the Japanism of Takayama Chogyū (1871–1902) and Iwano Hōmei (1873–1920). Minoda and his Genri Nippon Society had a far greater impact than previous Japanists, due in part to the application of his ideology to the social engineering efforts of the Japanese government. The influence of figures like Chogyū and Hōmei was to a large extent limited to their own realms of literary magazines and novels. In that context, they can be seen as prototypes of the new Japanese nationalist intellectuals in the age of imperialism following the Sino-Japanese (1894–1895) and Russo-Japanese Wars (1904–1905). At the level of ideas, they provided early sketches of what Japanese nationalism might look like given the debts Japanese modernism owed to Western intellectual traditions. Minoda and his colleagues were inheritors of this tradition of Japanism. [End Page 651]

Events in 1928 served as the occasion for the affirmation of alliances between Japanist intellectuals and bureaucratic institutions of the Japanese government. On March 15 of that year, hundreds were arrested for suspicion of violating the Peace Preservation Law, a law passed in 1925 that in effect made socialism an illegal ideology by outlawing groups that sought to alter two foundations of the Meiji state: the kokutai, a term associated with the imperial institution, and the system of private property. The fact that a significant percentage of those detained under the law were students was reason enough for much of the blame to be directed toward the Ministry of Education. Even prior to the "3.15 Incident," students at Japan's most prestigious institutions of higher learning were linked to socialist movements and to persistent attempts to establish a Japanese Communist Party. By 1928, the consensus among those in various branches of the government was that the Ministry of Education needed to plan a course of action to prevent the nation's brightest from joining the ranks of those threatening the nation.

The most significant step taken by the ministry in approaching this problem was the establishment of the Student Division (Gakusei-ka) in its Bureau of Professional Education Affairs (Senmon gakumu kyoku), an office charged with the surveillance of university students. The Student Division monitored student activity through the placement of "student managers" (gakusei shuji) on campuses, which one critic pointedly called a form of "thought police."47 The ministry, on the other hand, chose to frame this as an educational program. This program, which came to be known as the "Thought Guidance" (shisō zendō) campaign, was designed to educate both students and society at large in ways that would dissuade them from what it called the "false" premises of materialist thought associated with communism. Its tactics also included promoting and soliciting intellectual and artistic creations that would help combat the spread of materialist thought through the establishment of scholarships, official commissions, and endorsements of especially effective texts.

The work of Minoda and colleagues critical of Marxist methodologies of social science and politics aligned with the goals of this project. As noted earlier, it was in 1928, the year of the mass arrests of socialists, that Genri Nippon reinvented itself as a political magazine under the Newspaper Law, by shifting away from the more academic content of its first three years. [End Page 652] This new direction for Genri Nippon coincided with the growing educational concerns of the Japanese government, and its content began to reflect this convergence.

The Ministry of Education had identified Minoda, early on, as an able critic of socialism and materialist theories. His activism as a student in the infamous campaign against Tokyo Imperial University professor Morito Tatsuo and his work on Kropotkin in 1920 likely helped to establish his reputation, but it was his prolific production of critical essays and translations that cemented it.48 He became an obvious choice as a speaker for the lecture events organized as part of the "Thought Guidance" campaign that brought Japanism to campuses. His 1927 translation of excerpts from Karl Muhs's Anti-Marx was promoted as providing answers to the "national crisis in thought" and went through several printings in its first few months, with the first printing of 2,000 copies selling out within three days. Minoda thanked, among others, Kimura Masayoshi, Accounting Section Chief of the Ministry of Education, for assisting in its dissemination.49 In 1928, Minoda transformed his lectures on Marxist theory into the monograph The Intellectual Culture of Germany and Russia and Marx-Leninism (Dokuro no shisō bunka to Marukusu–Leninshugi), which aimed to educate "well-meaning youth, students, and educators, military personnel, politicians and official leaders" who wished to know the true academic value of Marxism and Leninism.50 The work drew upon his study of European theorists like Wundt and de Man in arguing that Marxism was in fact obsolete.

The Ministry of Education consulted Minoda's translations of European critics of Marxism and materialism and published them internally as materials useful for the study and surveillance of subversive thought. Source Materials for the Investigation of Thought (Shisō chō sa shiryō) was published between 1928 and 1934 in thirty-three installments, each stamped with the cautionary character of "hi" to indicate its classified status. These volumes collected primary sources ranging from proletarian pamphlets and textbooks to critiques of Marxism, such as those translated by Minoda, to aid education bureaucrats in their campaign against the spread of communism. The Ministry sponsored scholarships promoting the production of materials useful for combating communism, and Minoda was a recipient of [End Page 653] such monies for his research on the human sciences on at least one occasion.51

These early collaborations between members of the Genri Nippon Society and the Ministry of Education were likely facilitated by the personal connections that existed between the two parties. A survey of Genri Nippon's issues between 1928 and the early 1930s reveals several instances of mutual praise between key bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education and members of the Society.52 Yet, it should be pointed out that these instances of alliance between members of the Genri Nippon Society and the Ministry of Education did not indicate any shared political visions, nor did they signal lasting channels of communication between the two. Whether or not these personal connections led to institutional collaboration, many of them were short-lived. Hashida Tōsei, who worked closely with Minoda during his tenure at the Thought Research Section of the ministry, left his government position shortly after meeting Minoda and passed away in 1930.53 Kimura, like many of his colleagues, was appointed to his position in the Ministry of Education through his connections at the Home Ministry, where he returned after a short stint as head of the Student Division.54 Furthermore, there is scant evidence of collaboration between Minoda and longtime education bureaucrat Awaya Ken, who had close ties with several members of the Genri Nippon Society and later became the director of the infamous government organ, the Institute for the Research of National Spiritual Culture (Kokumin Seishin Bunka Kenkyūjo). In fact, Minoda tended to express more in the way of disagreement than agreement when referring to Awaya. Finally, the Ministry of Education never included Minoda's books on its list of publicly recommended readings, which featured instead books penned by Imperial University professors such as Watsuji Tetsurō, Nishida Kitarō, and Tanabe Hajime who had been targets of the Genri Nippon Society. All of this is to caution against simply equating the ideological projects of the government and the so-called right.

The "student problem" (gakusei mondai) for the Ministry of Education was a battle about ideology, to be fought in the trenches of the universities. As such, most of its efforts were focused on the establishment of a reservoir of knowledge that could be deployed in debunking materialist and Marxist ideas of supranational ideologies, so that intellectual activities on [End Page 654] campuses could be redirected toward the education of loyal and productive members of Japan's empire. Thus, the convergence between the state's education bureaucrats and the Japanist activists was a very narrow one, occurring only among the Japanist intellectuals specializing in the type of cultural studies that claimed to disprove class analysis, particularly those occurring on campus. It was by no means the intention of the Ministry of Education to promote all types of Japanist and nationalist arguments as a more general attack against Marxist and materialist intellectual and political trends, but rather to develop a practical, tactical alliance.

Minoda's profile in the academy increased considerably over the course of the 1930s as his criticism of liberal and Marxist scholars made its way into the hands of bureaucrats and lawmakers in the Imperial Diet. The so-called Takigawa Incident of 1933 established Minoda's reputation as a Japanist ideologue of considerable influence. In February of that year, conservative lawmakers sought to blame Imperial University law professors for recent accusations that communists were working in the Ministry of Justice. In developing arguments for the ousting of liberal law professors from Tokyo and Kyoto Imperial Universities, representative Miyazawa Yutaka of Hiroshima, a close collaborator of Minoda, read from a script that borrowed liberally from Minoda's polemics.55 Miyazawa's father-in-law was the influential politician Ogawa Heikichi, who also owned the nationalist daily newspaper Nippon to which Minoda was a regular contributor. In May 1933, Education Minister Hatoyama Ichirō forced the removal of Professor Takigawa Yukitoki, one of the targets of Minoda and Miyazawa, from the law faculty at Kyoto for allegedly promoting seditious behavior in his works. The firing prompted protests among students and faculty alike, and culminated in the resignation of the law faculty en masse. This was not the first time that Minoda had clashed with Takigawa, and it is possible that Minoda had a personal grudge against him in addition to political and academic differences. Four years earlier, Minoda had lectured at Kyoto Imperial University in a series sponsored by Takigawa and the Ministry of Education. There he was ridiculed by students skeptical of his Japanist theories. This incident prompted Minoda to write a series of articles lambasting Takigawa and his fellow Imperial University law professors for producing leftist graduates who would infiltrate the government as bureaucrats.

Two years later, in 1935, Minoda emerged as one of the leaders of what became a massive campaign against Tokyo Imperial University professor [End Page 655] Minobe Tatsukichi, whose liberalist interpretation of the constitution became the basis for the expansion of parliamentary politics in Japan in the Taisho years (1912–1926). The so-called Campaign to Clarify the National Polity (Kokutai Meichō Undō) mobilized nationalist protestors by the thousands and eventually prompted the cabinet of Prime Minister Okada Keisuke to denounce Minobe's theories in public, thus marking a decisive end to the growth of democratic institutions in the interwar era.

As was the case for his relationship with the Ministry of Education, Minoda's sway over key officials did not tell the whole story about the relationship between Japanism and the government. While conservative politicians aligned themselves with him, branches of the police were becoming increasingly wary of Japanist activists as the number of murders of prominent figures in government and finance by patriotic assassins grew in the first half of the 1930s.56 Like the socialists in prior decades, many Japanists were the targets of surveillance by such branches of thought police as the Special Higher Police. In such contexts, Japanist ideologues like Minoda had to toe a delicate line between advocacy of national unity and a brand of fiery nationalism that accused even the government of abandoning its patriotic obligations. Delicacy, however, was not Minoda's forte. As war broke out with China and eventually with the United States, Minoda became increasingly hostile toward government leadership; in turn, he and his organization were marginalized to the extent that some of his allies were arrested for their active dissent.57


We can draw two important conclusions from the case of Minoda Muneki. First—his reputation as an ultranationalist fanatic notwithstanding—the epistemological basis of Minoda's nationalism was strikingly cosmopolitan, and self-consciously so. This suggests that a proper history of the illiberal politics and ideas of the interwar and wartime eras must necessarily be a global intellectual history, even if its protagonists appear to be antithetical to internationalism.

Second, Minoda's career demonstrates that even the most reviled advocates for policies of political surveillance had ambiguous relationships with [End Page 656] powerful branches of the government. Indeed, they, too, became targets of surveillance. While from the perspective of those persecuted it may well have seemed that Minoda and the government epitomized the same authoritarian ultranationalist ideology (an important fact, since many of them would go on to write the first intellectual histories of the interwar era after the Second World War), the relationship between forms of nationalism and the state was far more complex. From the perspective of the government, Minoda embodied the double-edged sword that was nationalism: a necessary basis for the organization of the population that also possessed the capacity to erupt into a populist movement for wresting the banner of patriotism from the hands of officials. A candid intellectual history of so-called fanatics like Minoda is crucial for understanding these important contradictions of nationalist ideologies.

John Person
University at Albany, State University of New York.


1. For example, see the private letters of Nishida Kitarō in Nishida Kitarō zenshū, vol. 19 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1966), 30 and Hosokawa Ryūgen, "'Nihon Makkāshii' shimatsuki," Bungei Shunjū 32, no. 9 (1954): 14–29.

2. Some examples include Germain A. Hoston, Marxism and the Crisis of Development in Prewar Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); Gail Lee Bernstein, Japanese Marxist: A Portrait of Kawakami Hajime 1879–1946 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Harry D. Harootunian, Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in Interwar Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000); Jung-Sun N. Han, An Imperial Path to Modernity: Yoshino Sakuzō and a New Liberal Order in East Asia, 1905–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2012); Ken C. Kawashima, Fabian Schäfer, and Robert Stolz, eds., Tosaka Jun: A Critical Reader (Ithaca, NY: East Asia Program, Cornell University, 2013).

3. See for example George M. Wilson, Radical Nationalists in Japan: Kita Ikki 1883–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969); Thomas R. H. Havens, Farm and Nation in Modern Japan: Agrarian Nationalism, 1870–1940 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974); Takeuchi Yō and Satō Takumi, eds., Nihonshugiteki kyōyō no jidai: daigaku hihan no kosō (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 2006); Konno Nobuyuki, Kindai Nihon no kokutairon: 'kōkokushikan' saikō (Tokyo: Perikansha, 2008); Walter Skya, Japan's Holy War: The Ideology of Radical Shinto Ultranationalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009); Fuke Takahiro, Senkan Nihon no shakai shisō: "chōkokka" e no furontia (Tokyo: Jinbun Shoin, 2010); Reto Hofmann, The Fascist Effect: Japan and Italy, 1915–1952 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015).

4. Richard H. Mitchell, Thought Control in Prewar Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976); Elise K. Tipton, The Japanese Police State: The Tokkō in Interwar Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990).

5. Andrew E. Barshay, State and Intellectual in Imperial Japan: The Public Man in Crisis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 36–39; Takeuchi Yō, Maruyama Masao no Jidai: Daigaku, Chishikijin, Jānarizumu (Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha, 2005); Uemura Kazuhide, 'Nihon' e no toi o meguru tMsM: Kyotogakuha to Genri Nipponsha (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 2007).

6. Satō Takumi, "Kaidai," in Minoda Muneki zenshū, vol. 7 (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 2004), 750–53.

7. Minoda Muneki, "Henshū shōsoku," Genri Nippon 4, no. 9 (1928): back page.

8. Katsuhiko Endo, The Science of Capital: The Uses and Abuses of the Social Sciences in Interwar Japan (PhD diss., New York University, 2004).

9. Charles R. Bambach, Heidegger, Dilthey, and the Crisis of Historicism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995).

10. Kevin M. Doak, "Under the Banner of the New Science: History, Science, and the Problem of Particularity in Early Twentieth-Century Japan," Philosophy East and West 48, no. 2 (1998): 232–56; Robert W. Adams, The Feasibility of the Philosophical in Taisho Japan: Nishida Kitarō and Tanabe Hajime (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1991); and Michiko Yusa, "Philosophy and Inflation: Miki Kiyoshi in Wiemar Germany, 1922–1924," Monumenta Nipponica 53, no. 1 (1998): 45–71.

11. Minoda, Gakujutsu Ishin (Tokyo: Genri Nipponsha, 1941), 49.

12. Katayama Morihide, "Shasei, zuijun, haishō: Mitsui Kōshi no shisōken," in Nihonshugiteki kyōyō no jidai: daigaku hihan no kosō (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō: 2006): 91–128.

13. Wilhelm Wundt, System der Philosophie (Leipzig: Verlag Von Wilhelm Engelmann, 1889), 664. See Yaku Masao, "'Jinsei to Hyōgen' sōkan zengo," Ajia Daigaku Kyōyōgakubu kiyō 6 (1971): 3.

14. Shiode Tamaki, "Genri Nipponsha no kenkyū: Kajin Mitsui Kōshi to Minoda Muneki" (PhD diss., Kobe University, 2003), 70–72.

15. On Wundt's system of science, see Martin Kusch, Psychologism: A Case Study in the Sociology of Philosophical Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1995), 125–34.

16. Minoda, "Shakai kagaku kenkyū hōhō [Methods of the Social Sciences]," in Minoda Muneki zenshū, vol. 1, 300.

17. Minoda, 300.

18. Minoda, 301.

19. Minoda, 301.

20. Kusch, Psychologism, 132; Wundt, Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, vol. 3, 5th ed., (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1903), 778–90.

21. Minoda, "Shakai kagakusha to tetsugakusha to no ronsō: Benshōteki yuibutsuron o chūshin to suru Kawakami, Watsuji ryōshi no ronsō o hyōsu," Genri Nippon 3. no. 2 (1927): 14.

22. See "Watsuji Tetsurō / Kawakami Hajime Exchange (1926)," trans. Christopher W. Oakes, in From Japan's Modernity: A Reader (Chicago: The Center for East Asian Studies, The University of Chicago, 2002): 91–123.

23. Minoda refers to these in "Mikishi no yuibutsushikan to gendai no ishiki o hyōsu," Sokoku (October 1928): 2.

24. Egbert Klautke, The Mind of the Nation: Völkerpsychologie in Germany, 1851–1955 (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2013), 58–59. Kusch, Psychological Knowledge: A Social History and Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2008), 99–100.

25. Wundt, Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte, Zehnter Band Kultur und Geschichte (Leipzig: Alfred Kroner Verlag, 1920), 3–15.

26. Minoda, "Markusushugi yuibutsuron no kongenteki bunseki: fu Lenin no Wunto hyō hihan," Genri Nippon 4, no. 1 (1928), 10–11.

27. Klautke, The Mind of the Nation, 69.

28. Klautke, 86–93.

29. Patricia G. Steinhoff, Tenkō: Ideology and Societal Integration in Prewar Japan (New York: Garland Publishing, 1991); Max Ward, "The Problem of 'Thought': Crisis, National Essence and the Interwar Japanese State" (PhD diss., New York University, 2011); and Takaaki Yoshimoto and Hisaaki Wake, "On Tenkō, or Ideological Conversion," Review of Japanese Culture and Society 20 (December 2008): 99–119.

30. Itō Akira, Tennōsei to shakaishugi (Tokyo: Impakuto Shuppankai, 2002), 200.

31. Itō, 201.

32. Minoda, "The Fundamental Assumptions of Socialism (Shakaishugi no kihonteki shokatei)," in Minoda Muneki zenshū, vol. 1, 230.

33. Werner Sombart, Der proletarische Sozialismus ("Marxismus") (Jena: G. Fischer, 1924), 301.

34. Itō, Tennōsei to shakaishugi, 304; Iwasaki Chikatsugu, Nihon Markusushugi tetsugakushi josetsu (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1971), 68–69.

35. Zeev Sternhell, Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 125.

36. Sternhell, 20–22.

37. Mark Neocleous, Fascism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 9–10.

38. Hendrik de Man, The Psychology of Socialism, trans. Eden Paul and Cedar Paul (New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1928), 12. Peter Dodge, Beyond Marxism: The Faith and Works of Hendrik De Man (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966), 39.

39. Dodge, Beyond Marxism, 22–24.

40. De Man, The Psychology of Socialism, 334. Minoda, "Marukishizumu no gōrisei," Genri Nippon 2, no. 10 (November 1926): 17.

41. De Man, The Psychology of Socialism, 316, 332.

42. De Man, The Psychology of Socialism, 315. See Genri Nippon 3, no. 1 (1927): 4.

43. De Man, The Psychology of Socialism, 313.

44. De Man, 313.

45. Minoda, "Dokuro no shisō bunka to Marukusu/Lenin-shugi" in Minoda Muneki zenshū, vol. 2, 113.

46. Minoda, "Sovieto Roshia no kyōsanshugi no kakumei o ronjite Nihon kokutai narabini Nihon rōdō rippō ni oyobu," Kōjō kenkyū (September 1930), 13, reprinted in Minoda Muneki zenshū, vol. 1, 568.

47. Ogino Fujio, Senzen Monbushō no chian kinō: "Shisō tōsei" kara "kyōgaku rensei" e (Tokyo: Azekura Shobō, 2007), 38–39.

48. Yaku Masao, "Ō ta Kōzō sensei to Kōkoku Dōshikai no hitobito," Ajia Daigaku Kyōyōbu kiyō 29 (1984): 107–18.

49. Genri Nippon 4, no. 1 (1929).

50. Minoda, Minoda Muneki zenshū, vol. 2, 7.

51. Monbushō Shisōkyoku, "Shisōkyoku yōkō," in Monbushō Shisōkyoku shisō chōsa shiryō, vol. 1 (Tokyo: Shisō chōsa shiryō shusei kankōkai, 1981), 87.

52. Genri Nippon 8, no. 2 (1932): 8.

53. Minoda wrote an obituary for Hashida in Genri Nippon 7, no. 1 (1931).

54. Ogino, Senzen monbushō no chian kinō, 119–20.

55. Matsuo Takayoshi, Takigawa Jiken (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2005), 83–92.

56. John Person, "Between Patriotism and Terrorism: The Policing of Nationalist Movements in 1930s Japan" Journal of Japanese Studies 43, no. 2 (2017): 289–318.

57. Inoue Yoshikazu, Nihonshugi to Tokyo Daigaku: Showaki gakusei shisō undō no keifu (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 2008).

Additional Information

Print ISSN
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.