将他人理解为他人：丸山真男与竹内好观点对话及当代阐释

建部良平 东京大学

The difficult yet glorious task of the present-day“liberal”is，I believe，not to avoid this dilemma，but standing on the brink between complete commitment and complete“irresponsibility，”to strive for a perspective that will go through and beyond the inside.It is not a question of the particular historical ideology called“liberalism”；it means that forwhateverbelief one stands and fights，he serves it by using his intelligence.And the function of intelligence consists inanyage of understanding others—to use Hegel’s terminology—as others（in ihrem Anderssein）.1Maruyama Masao，Thought and Behaviour in Modern Japanese Politics（Oxford：Oxford University Press，1969），348.

These words appear in the last paragraph of“Politics and Man in the Contemporary World”（1961）by Maruyama Masao（1914-1996）.According to Matsumoto Reiji，Maruyama never published work directly discussing real-world politics after writing this，except for speeches or essays.2（日）松本礼二：《知識人の時代と丸山眞男：比較20世紀思想史の試ttf》東京：岩波書店，2019年，243~244頁。［Matsumoto Reiji，Chishikijin no jidai to Maruyama Masao：Hikaku 20-seiki shisōshi no kokoromi（TheAge of Intellectuals and Maruyama Masao：An Attempt at a Comparative Twentieth-Century Intellectual History），Tokyo：Iwanami Shoten，2019，243-44.］My reading is also deeply informed by Karube Tadashi，Maruyama Masao and the Fate of Liberalism in Twentieth-Century Japan（Tokyo：International House of Japan，2008）.In my opinion，this essay and these words can be seen as a highlight of Maruyama’s political scholarship that began with the publication of the widely read and provocative“Theory and Psychology of Ultra-Nationalism”（1946）.3Maruyama，op.cit.，1-24.Before and during World War II，he profoundly realized the severe problems that“politics”lead to，having experienced many forms of irrationality during this era.For Maruyama and a large number of Japanese people，August 15，1945，marked a liberation，and from that day，Maruyama started to publish his political views，beginning with his reflections on Japanese fascism.In other words，he had tried to expand his activity without the influence of the so-called logic of ultranationalism.However，he still faced many problems that continue to this day：What should politics do and how should we engage with it？Why did Maruyama write these words？How should we think about politics and political engagement？In this paper，I wouldlike to takeMaruyama’s words seriously and consider their significance.

In the first three parts，I analyze the trajectory of Maruyama’s thought up to the quotation with which I began.The focal points are his arguments about the possibility of dialogue between people living in，respectively，the“outside”and“inside”worlds，and his expectations or anguish about the fundamental problem of politics.In the fourth and fifth sections，I deal with the thought of his contemporary，Takeuchi Yoshimi（1910-1977）.Maruyama and Takeuchi had a close relationship and their thought was not so different；but they were politically opposed and，in my view，Takeuchi’s argument can be read as an alternative to or criticism of Maruyama’s.Therefore，by detouring through Takeuchi’s arguments，we can gain a more accurate understanding of Maruyama，and at the same time，by re-critiquing Takeuchi，we can find a way to read Maruyama in today’s context.For the last part，I take up Takeuchi’s argument to discuss the possibility of politics based on what I call the“gentle subject，”rather than the“powerful subject”pursued by Maruyama.As seen in the title of this paper，Maruyama thought that we should“understand others as others.”In my opinion，thinking about a“gentle subject”is a necessary process for expanding his thought to its full potential.So，after initially analyzing Maruyama’s text and then engaging in a dialogue with Takeuchi，I would liketoexpressmyownviews.

A Dialogue with the“Outside”World

“Politics and Man in the Contemporary World”was an important achievement in Maruyama’s study of fascism.The most critical point in this text discusses how we can communicate or make dialogue with people who live in the“outside”or“inside”worlds.Here，the dichotomy of“outside”and“inside”implies the existence of discourse based on different political perspectives.For his analysis，Maruyama focused on the emotions or feelings of the German people under the Nazi regime.How did these people live through oppression，violence，and surveillance？Maruyama describes a phenomenon whereby there were two or more“worlds”in Germany at that time，drawing from testimonies in Milton Mayer’sThey Thought They Were Freeand the reminiscence of Carl Schmitt.As we know，the Nazi regime gradually strengthened its control，and because it was a gradual process，citizens could not clearly recognize that the situation was getting worse unless they suffered some kind of harm directly.Everyone notices if state control of their lives suddenly becomes stricter in the course of one day，whereas gradual change keeps the people“inside”unaware of the situation.The people in Germany who could notice the change were those who lived in the“outside”world—more precisely，the people who had been expelled from the“inside”world.However，the voices from“outside”could not reach the“inside.”For non-Communists，the persecution of Communists was not their problem；they could still live in the“inside”world.Communists were in a totally different world；their situations and arguments were not understandable to people living in the“inside”world.Here，we can see an important way in which state power worked atthattime，by hindering dialogue between people“inside”and“outside.”

As stated above，Maruyama，based on the situation of the German people under Nazi control，described the difficulty of dialogue among people living in different contexts. Of course，this kindof problem was not unique to Germany atthattime.As he questioned：

Yet are we in the 1960s really recapturing our common sense in the political community？Even in England，generally considered the fountainhead of political maturity，does the distinction between sanity and insanity have such a firm foundation？4Maruyama，op.cit.，324.

Moreover，

in America，Claude Eatherly，who was involved in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima，was treated as a lunatic by the authorities for his anti-nuclear weapons activities which sprung from a sense of guilt；he was placed in an insane asylum by the testimony of a psychiatrist.5Ibid.，325.

Hindered communication between“inside”and“outside”may appear in any country or regime，due to mass media manipulation，indifference to others，and shutting oneself up in the“inside”world.Namely，it is a situation in which parallel worlds coexist in the same society.This is related to Maruyama’s“Political Indifference，”written forThe Dictionary of Political Sciencein 1954.6（日）丸山眞男：《政治学事典執筆項目：政治》，《丸山眞男集》第6巻，東京：岩波書店，1995年，92~99頁。［Maruyama Masao，“Seijigaku jiten shippitsu kōmoku：Seiji”（Politics：The Entry of The Dictionary of the Political Science），in Maruyama Masao-shū（Works of Maruyama Masao），vol.6，Tokyo：Iwanami Shoten，1995，92-99.］In it，he articulated three reasons why more and more people became indifferent to politics：1）the complication and global expansion of political structures；2）the formation of a precise hierarchy of each organization in society；3）people’s increasing interest in nonpolitical issues or subjects due to the development of consumerism.In other words，for Maruyama，modernity is an era when people recognize incidents in other worlds as someone else’s affairs，remain buried in their own world，and reject dialogue with others.

Expectations and Anguish for Politics

We now have the first clue for understanding Maruyama’s idea that was quoted at the top ofthis paper.In this section，I would like to illustrate his ambivalence toward politics.

As is well known，Maruyama wrote major works on the intellectual history of Japan.Studies in Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan7Maruyama Masao，Studies in Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan（Princeton：Princeton University Press，1974）.is an especially important text for approaching his thought.It comprises three papers published in theJournal of the Association of Staatswissenschaften（Kokka Gakkai Zasshi）：“The Sorai School：Its Role in the Disintegration of Tokugawa Confucianism and Its Impact on National Learning”（1940），“Nature and Invention in Tokugawa Political Thought：Contrasting Institutional Views”（1941-1942），and“The Premodern Formation of Nationalism”（1944）.The idea penetrating these papers was to find the inkling of the political subject in the Edo-period movement to dissolve“the Chu Hsi mode of thought.”For Maruyama，“the Chu Hsi mode of thought”means an order based on naturalistic viewpoints，which recognizes interpersonal relationships or social criteria as inherent ideas that，like the natural environment，were al ready there before a person was born.

What Maruyama tried to argue was the difficulty of generating a political subject when an absolute value or naturalistic order controls people’s behavior and thought，and we can here find why he focused on OgyūSorai（1666-1728）.For Maruyama，Sorai was a thinker who emphasized the role of the sages as the creators of the sociopolitical system described in ConfucianClassics，and who had tried to give the contemporary monarch the power to change and improve that system.Maruyama’s criticism of“the Chu Hsi mode of thought”was actually a criticism of the Japanese government，which then exerted great control over people’s freedom of speech and thought.From this point of view，we can also understand the concept argued in his studies of Fukuzawa Yukichi：Maruyama wanted to recognize Fukuzawa as the first thinker in Japan to take up Sorai’s discussion and argue that everyone can be a political subject.8For example：（日）丸山眞男：《福沢におけtf「実学」の転回：福沢諭吉の哲学研究序説》，《丸山眞男集》第3巻，東京：岩波書店，1995年，107~131頁［Maruyama Masao，“Fukuzawa ni okeru‘jitsu gaku’no tenkai：FukuzawaYukichi no tetsugaku kenkyūjosetsu”（Revolution of“Practical Learning”in Fukuzawa：Introduction to Studying Fukuzawa Yukichi’s Philosophy），in Maruyama Masao-shū（Works of Maruyama Masao），vol.3，Tokyo：Iwanami Shoten，1995，107-31］，and（日）丸山眞男：《福沢諭吉の哲学：とffkにThの時事批判との関係》，同上，163~204頁［Maruyama Masao，“FukuzawaYukichi no tetsugaku：Tokuni sono jiji hihan tono kankei”（The Philosophy of FukuzawaYukichi：On the Criticism of CurrentAffairs），ibid.，163-204］.

In this respect，Maruyama’s interest in the history of Japanese politics was deeply influenced by his hopes for the political subject，and his main concern that the political subject in Japan was linked to the Edo period.It can be said that his arguments came from his experience of premodern customs during World War II.For him，the end of the war meant emancipation from censorship and control of speech，and also a great opportunity to think about the politics and political subject in Japan.However，thingswerenotsosimple.

In“Manand Politics”（1948），heremarksontheintrusion of politicsinlife：

今や個人の外部的物質的tí生活だけでtíffk、内面的精神的領域のすttfずttfまで政治が入り込んでffktf。fflジオをfkけtfと、fflジオで一つの政治的イデオロギーを吹ffi込まれtf。新聞を見tfと、新聞がやttりThういう政治的tíイデオロギーによって書fkれていtf。政治tt今やこのようにして、ffらttitf手段を駆使して人間の政治の鋳型にttめこもうとすtfのでfftf。しfkもこれtt決していわttitf全体主義国家だけの現象でtttíい。デモクfflシー国家でも日々Thうtíって行ffk。9（日）丸山眞男：《人間と政治》，同上，218頁。［Maruyama Masao，“Ningen to seiji”（Man and Politics），ibid.，218.］

Politics is now intruding not only into the individual external material life，but also everywhere in the inner spiritual realm.When you turn on the radio，you are infused with political ideology.When you read newspapers，it is also written with such political ideology.As such，politics now tries to push citizens into the mold of politics by all means possible.Moreover，this was not just a phenomenon of the so-called totalitarian regime；even in a democratic nation，things proceed like that day by day.

Similarly，in“Political Decision”（1958），in the context of analyzing the political way of thinking，he argued that no matter what kind of political regime we live under，we must pay attention to the in trusion of politics：

もちろん、一般的に申しますと、デモクfflチックでtíい社会、非民主的tí社会よりも、民主的tí社会の方がThういう思考法が必要にtíってffktf。tíぜfkというと、つまり政治的tí選択と判断を要すtf人の層がふえ、同時にThのチャンスがふえtffkらです。（中略）現在においてttこういう思考法がわれわれすべてに要求fhれていtfようtí状況にfftf。つまり現代社会が、ftとえば民主的tí体制でffっても、現代社会ttわれわれの生活のすttffkらすttfまで政治によって占領fhれていtf世界でffります。10（日）丸山眞男：《政治的決断》，《丸山眞男集》第7巻，東京：岩波書店，1996，315頁。［Maruyama Masao，“Seijiteki ketsudan”（Political Decision），in Maruyama Masao-shū（Works of Maruyama Masao），vol.7，Tokyo：Iwanami Shoten，1996，315.］

Of course，generally speaking，democratic societies need such a way of thinking more than non-democratic or undemocratic societies.It is because there are more people and chances that require political choices and determination...We are now in a situation that requires this way of thinking.In other words，modern society is a world occupied by politics in every corner of our lives，even in democratic systems.

If politics intrudes into each part of our lives，it means all of our behavior becomes political behavior.What Maruyama criticized as premodern was the determination of people’s thought and behavior by grand narratives，but as seen above，politics is something that intrudes in people’s minds，and with the development of information technology，this can also happen in democratic societies.These political conundrums remained even after the end of fascism.

Now，recall the argument in the last section that，referring to discourse under the Nazi re gime，everyone becomes shut up in their own world by the government’s restrictions.The possibili ties for dialogue with others disappeared not only in Germany，Italy，and Japan during World War II，but also in democratic regimes or countries after the war.At first，Maruyama wanted to find the roots of the political subject in the intellectual history of Japan，but as he studied fascism and observed the situation of the postwar world，his fears grew about the power that politics intrinsically has.Here，we can detect his anguish.The problem facing him was the contradiction whereby he had to doubt the essence of politics on the one hand，and on the other，he had to think about the futureof politics.

Standing on the Border

People remain shut up in their own worlds，rejecting dialogue with anyone in the“outside”world. Politics now has even more power to intrude in people’s minds than in premodern times.These were the two political problems that concerned Maruyama. What answer did he discern？That is the statement that I quoted at the beginning of this paper，emphasizing the task of intellectu als standing on the border of each person’s world.

There are two ways to solve this division often seen in history：1）the residents of the“outside”world condemn the people on the“inside”world and expand the influence of their ideas as an orthodoxy；2）theresidentsof the“inside”world expand theirinfluenceonthe“outside，”alsoasanorthodoxy.Needless to say，these are not good solutions and ultimately just increase the differences among territories or members.In Maruyama’s words，it is just“a complacent sense of self-righteousness or the old stereotyped concept of good and evil.”11Maruyama，Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics，347.The anti-mainstream and anti-establishment side shares，after all，the same logic as the establishment；the problems of division are impossible to solve just by accentuating the dichotomy.Therefore，the role of intellectuals，Maruyamaclaimed，wastostand ontheborderbetweenworldsandquestionsuchasituation.

To live in one world while standing on the border and constantly communicating with other worlds，intellectuals must hear the voices of the“outside”and always question the fixed image existing on the“inside，”based on their self-awareness that they are possibly living in an abnormal world.This is not an easy task.From the viewpoint of the“inside，”a person who tries to challenge their ideas is seen as an threat to their order.On the other hand，for the“outside”people who have been excluded，such a person is deserving of censure，because they are a member of the“inside”and participating in its logic.At the same time，it is too naïve to criticize the“inside”on the behalf of the“outside，”since they will ultimately become entangled in the dichotomy.Intellectuals must recognize and understand others as other people，rather than assimilate themselves with others on the“outside.”Maruyama’s idea of“understanding others as others”was a conclusion made from his variousexperiencesand studies，and atheoryof praxisthatspoketoallintellectuals.

As mentioned above，Maruyama proposed one conclusion in“Politics and Man in the Contemporary World，”generalizing from his studies of Japanese political thought during and after the war.Needless to say，there are many texts that deserve further analysis in this regard，but in this paper，Iwillregardhiswordsasaconclusionand consider how wecantakeitup intoday’scontext.

Pursuing the“Inside”：TakeuchiYoshimi’s Resistance

Maruyama argued that we should be open to others rather than shut up in our own worlds.Making dialogue with others was his strategy and an important point to consider when reading him，and themain topicforusishow to takeup hisargument.Iwould now liketo considertheopposite strategy of focusing on the“inside”world，a strategy to find a clue for understanding others by pursuing a deeper understanding of ourselves.Here，we deal with another important thinker，TakeuchiYoshimi（1910-1977），acontemporaryof Maruyama.

Maruyama and Takeuchi had exchanges and shared their goals in terms of the future of Japan.In“Conversation about Mr.Hao”（1966）12（日）丸山眞男：《好fhんについての談話》，《丸山眞男集》第9巻，東京：岩波書店，1996年，337~340頁。［Maruyama Masao，“Hao-san ni tsuiteno danwa”（Conversation about Mr.Hao），Maruyama Masao-shū（Works of Maruyama Masao），vol.9，Tokyo：Iwanami Shoten，1996，337-40.］and“Reading Takeuchi’s Diary”（1982），13（日）丸山眞男：《竹内日記を読む》，《丸山眞男集》第12巻，東京：岩波書店，1996年，25~39頁。［Maruyama Masao，“Takeuchi nikki o yomu”（Reading Takeuchi’s Diary），Maruyama Masao-shū（Works of Maruyama Masao），vol.12，Tokyo：Iwanami Shoten，1996，25-39.］Maruyama emphasized their mutual affinity，and other contemporary intellectuals also tended to find similarities between them.When the special feature“Representative Essays that Created Postwar Japan”appeared in the October 1964 issue ofChūōKōron，both Maruyama’s“Theory and Psychology of Ultranationalism”and Takeuchi’s“What is Modernity？（The Case of Japan and China）”（1948）were mentioned.According to a questionnaire survey of sixty-three people，thirty-five people cited Maruyama’s treatises，followed by seventeen people who cited Takeuchi’s.14（日）伊東光晴tifk：《戦後日本を作っft代表論文》，《中央公論》第79巻10号，東京：中央公論社，1964年，188頁。［Ito Mitsuharu et al.，“Sengo Nihon wo tsukutta daihyōronbun”（Representative Essays that Created Postwar Japan），ChūōKōron（The Central and Public Review）79，no.10，Tokyo：ChūōKōron Sha，1964，188.］However，as is seen in the following discussion，Maruyama and Takeuchi had opposite approaches to politics.That is to say，we can read Takeuchi’s idea or strategy as a criticism of Maruyama’s，and precisely because Takeuchi had also experienced the extreme situation of Japanese society during World War II，his criticism is quite valid.Therefore，to read Maruyama in today’s context，we have to reference Takeuchi and go beyond his argument.Here，I would like to analyze and identify problems in Takeuchi’s discussions，using“What is Modernity？（The Case of Japan and China）”as a startingpoint.

The purpose of this article was to evaluate the Chinese style of modernity as represented by the mind of Lu Xun，on the basic assumption that China and Japan have different styles of modernity.Takeuchi quoted from“The Wise Man，the Fool，and the Slave”in Lu Xun’sWild Grass（1927），and argued for two types of“conversion”：in Japan，tenkō（転向）；and in China，kaishin（回心）.The former means an attitude of trying actively to change your mind by introducing new things one after the other，while the latter means to turn the old into the new by stubbornly maintaining traditions under any circumstances.Takeuchi held the Chinese type in high esteem and his devotion to Lu Xunwasstrongly reflectedinthefollowingwords：

Such aslaverejects being himself at the same time that he rejects being anything else.This is the meaning of despair found in Lu Xun；it is what makes Lu Xun possible.Despair emerges in the resistance of following a path when there is no path，while resistance emerges as the activation of despair.As a state this can be seen as despair，whereas as a movement it is resistance.15TakeuchiYoshimi，WhatisModernity？：Writingsof TakeuchiYoshimi（New York：ColumbiaUniversity Press，2005），71.

For Takeuchi，Lu Xun was a man of letters who had tried to pursue his inner nature or consciousness no matter how unstable the situation.The time of Lu Xun was，as we know，a time of drastic change，including interventions from Western powers and Japan，the Xinhai Revolution，the stratocracy，and the Chinese Civil War.There existed many different political ideologies and Lu Xun was unsurprisingly not immune to their effects.However，he continued to write literature，and this waswhy Takeuchipaid attentiontohisattitudetowardpolitics.

Five years prior to“What is Modernity？（The Case of Japan and China），”in 1943，right before his conscription，Takeuchi finished his bookLu Xun，in which，especially in the chapter“Politics and Literature，”he argued that Lu Xun’s literature was born from the political situation of his time.His underlying question was：how much power does literature have to interfere in politics？For Takeuchi，if atextbolsterstheintentionof thegovernmentordirectlyshowsoppositiontopoliticalissues，itisnotliteraturebutaslogan：

政治に遊離しftものtt、文学でtíい。政治において自己の影を見、Thの影を破却すtfことによって、云いfkえれば無力を自覚すtfことによって、文学tt文学とtítfのでfftf。…文学を生ttf出すものtt政治でfftf。しfkし文学tt、政治の中fkら自己を選び出すのでfftf。16（日）竹内好：《魯迅》，《竹内好全集》第1巻，東京：筑摩書房，1980年，143頁。［TakeuchiYoshimi，Lu Xun，in TakeuchiYoshimi Zenshū（CompleteWorks of TakeuchiYoshimi），vol.1，Tokyo：Chikuma Shobō，1980，143.］

It is not literature if separated from politics.Literature becomes literature by seeing and breaking the shadow of one’s own self in politics；in other words，by being aware of one’s own powerlessness...What generates literature is politics.But literature takes itself out of politics.

In his view，literature emerged from the entanglement of political issues，but a text that is intended to support or oppose politics is not literature.The background to this argument was Lu Xun’s speech“Literature in theAge of Revolution”inEryi Ji（1927），which argued for the need for literature by revolutionaries，not for revolutionaries.In other words，creators of literature are ineluctably connected to real politics，but must remain true to themselves and continue writing rather than lose themselves in the political situation.Although we can further debate the extent to which Lu Xun really believed this and his ideas about literature，for Takeuchi，literature comes about in a position，attitude，or behavior that is not totally distant from real politics but partly participates in it；and as seen in“What is Modernity？（The Case of Japan and China），”that is precisely the point where we can find a political subject，which is independent from external situations and emerges in theprocessof pursuingourinnernature.

On this point，Sakai Naoki has accurately put Takeuchi’s issue of the political subject into the contextof resistance，especially theresistancetopolitics：

Hence，resistance has to be likened to negativity，as distinct from negation，which continues to disturb a putative stasis in which the subject is made to be adequate to itself.17Sakai Naoki，Translation and Subjectivity：On“Japan”and Cultural Nationalism（Minneapolis：University of Minnesota Press，1997），174.

Politics is always trying to do something to people，and if it prefers to be oppressive，it will push people into the relationships that it desires.If you oppose it，you are，in a sense，involved in its story.Resistance does not mean opposition；it means to deny the politics itself by inserting oneself with clear self-consciousness.Even if a person is represented as a slave，he or she clearly recognizes their status as a slave in their heart and does not ask anyone for help，but just continues to be a slave.By continuing to walk this seemingly endless path，a true subject is established，and although the old keeps being old，it is also recognized as new，like the case of Lu Xun and his attitude toward modern China.For Takeuchi，Lu Xun was a literary figure alienated from politics in various political situations，and Takeuchi found“hope”in how Lu Xun had tried to find himself by pursuing deepening his inner consciousness.Here，we should pay attention to what the word“hope”meantfor Takeuchi.Itwasintimately relatedtohisuseof thewords“despair”or“darkness.”When discussing Lu Xun，Takeuchi preferred to use the words“darkness”and“despair”：

魯迅の見ftものtt暗黒でfftf。だが、彼tt、満腔の熱情をもって暗黒を見ft。Thして絶望しft。絶望だけが、彼にとって真実でffっft。しfkし、やがて絶望も真実でtíffktíっft。絶望も虚妄でfftf。「絶望の虚妄títfことtt正に希望と相同じい。」絶望も虚妄tíらば、人tt何をすればよいfk。絶望に絶望しft人tt、文学者にtítfより仕方tíい。何者にも頼らず、何物も自己の支えとしtíいことによって、すべてを我がものにしtíければtíらぬ。私が彼の回心と呼び、文学的正覚と呼ぶものが、影が光を生ttf出すようにして生ttf出fhれtfのでfftf。18（日）竹内好：《魯迅》，《竹内好全集》第1巻，東京：筑摩書房，1980年，113頁。［TakeuchiYoshimi，Lu Xun，in TakeuchiYoshimi Zenshū（CompleteWorks of TakeuchiYoshimi），vol.1，Tokyo：Chikuma Shobō，1980，113.］

What Lu Xun saw was darkness.But he saw the darkness with wholehearted passion，and he felt despair.Only despair was a truth for him.But for a while，despair was not a truth anymore.Despair was also a vanity.“Despair，like hope，is but vanity.”What does a person do，if despair is vanity？If a person feels despair for despair，there is nothing but to become literary，and the person has to get everything without any support.What I called his conversion［kaishin］，or literary awakening，would be generated as shadow generates light.

“Darkness”means the“despair”in our minds，an emotion caused by an external situation.It seems a truth，but it is ultimately just vanity.When we live without relying on anyone in the extreme situation that everything is not true，we can finally reach“conversion”（kaishin）and become a true subject.As is seen here，Takeuchi’s concern was not others but the self.Pursuing our inner consciousness，we recognize the“despair”as vanity，and when we reach the bottom of our minds，we can finally openup apathtoothers.IntheprefacetoLuXun，hewrites：

十月十九日未明、彼tt死んだが、死の瞬間においても彼tt文壇の少数派でffっft。彼tt死ぬまで頑強に自己を守っftのでfftf。この時の彼と多数派との対立tt、彼の死によって無意味化fhれft、と云うよりもむしろ、彼の死がThの無意味tí対立を救い、Thのことによって、生前啓蒙主義者としての彼の何よりも欲しftでffろう、fkつ文学者としての気質がThれに背いftでffろう文壇の統一が、彼の死後に実現を見ft。19Ibid.，3.

Before dawn on October 19，he died，and even at that moment，he was still a minor figure in literary circles.That means he had stubbornly protected himself until his death.The conflicts between himself and the mainstream were demeaned by his death at this time—or more precisely，his death saved him from meaningless conflict，and by that，the integration of the literary world，which he wanted more than anything as an enlightenment thinker，and which was opposed by his temperament as a man of letters，was fulfilled after his death.

Lu Xun’s death had major significance for Takeuchi.Lu Xun’s funeral was a grand affair，which was attended even by literary figures who had opposed him，and in Takeuchi’s analysis，Lu Xun’s death empowered the integration of the literary world.That is to say，only when Lu Xun finished his lifelong confrontation―that means the end of his tough life―with his“despair”or“darkness”which was at the bottom of his inner consciousness，did he finally succeed in communicating with others and exerting a significant influence on real-world politics.In this sense，Takeuchi believed thatthe path to others and politics could be found only after self-consciousness was thoroughly pursued.And hefound itsextremeforminthedeathof Lu Xun.

The Trap of Pursuing the“Internal”

By considering Takeuchi’s writings from around World War II，we know that he argued for the necessity of pursuing what is inherent in ourselves.From this point of view，Maruyama’s strategy of trying to think of others in order to bridge the divided“inside”and“outside”worlds was just an accommodation of others.For Takeuchi，thoroughly pursuing our“inside”world was the only way to reach others.Here，we can see how these two contemporaries adopted opposing arguments.Takeuchi emphasized the existence of the subject，based on the premise that we can pursue our inner consciousness.As in the contemporary word“self-analysis，”the way we pursue our inner consciousness can be considered a more effective method than facing others who do not understand well.Only by getting to know ourselves first can we face others well.In this sense，Takeuchi，who，like Maruyama，had experienced the extreme situation that is war，developed a different argument from his contemporary.How do we take up Takeuchi’s argument？In this section，I would like to pointouttheproblemsinhisdiscussion.

Is there anything inherent in the self？It is obvious that our thoughts and ideas change with age or experience.The way we think during childhood，adolescence，middle age，and old age cannot be in complete agreement with each other.Even though our thoughts are changing constantly，we always think that we can reach the one idea lying deep at the back of our mind，ensnaring us in a bottomless swamp.Of course，it is possible that Takeuchi understood this point and his argument could still cover that problem，but nevertheless a certain“trap”seems to exist.To grasp the“trap，”I would like to refer to Sun Ge，a scholar who was influenced by Takeuchi and tried to develop his arguments.It is widely known that Takeuchi had argued about the East as well asAsia，and Sun Ge attemptedtocarryonwhatTakeuchibeganinthatrespect.

Sun Ge tries to consider the“principle”of Asia that differs from that of Europe，based on Takeuchi’s famous treatise“Asia as Method”（1960），especially his discussion of universality：“The Orient must change the West in order to further elevate those universal values that the West itself produced.”20Takeuchi，op.cit.，165.Inresponsetothis，Sun Gedescribesuniversality and theattempttofindatrueuniversality inAsia：

真正的普遍性精神，需要伴随着对于多种个殊性的平等尊重，而不是利用霸权思维与抽象程序把它们硬性地塞进一个原本个别的价值框架。21孙歌：《寻找亚洲原理》，见张志强主编：《亚洲现代思想第1辑：重新讲述元蒙史》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2016年，第233页。［SUN Ge，“Xunzhao Yazhou yuanli”（Looking for the Principle of Asia），in Chongxin jiangshu Mengyuan shi（Retelling the History of theYuan Dynasty），ed.ZHANG Zhiqiang，Beijing：SDX Joint Publishing Company，2016，233.］

The true universal spirit has to involve equal respect for various singular aspects；it does not use hegemonic thought and abstract programs to push them forcibly into a value structure that originally was a particular structure.

Her attempts should be respected，but there is a problem in her logic.In the same text，she refers to Matteo Ricci，amissionary whovisited Chinaattheendof theMingdynasty：

在融入中国社会这一点上，利玛窦可算是高度敬业的典范；然而即使利玛窦身着中华服饰，使用流利的汉语，最后长眠于中国，他也依然无法理解中国历史的内在逻辑。22同上，第216页。［Ibid.，216.］

In terms of fitting into Chinese society，Matteo Ricci was a model deserving of respect.However，even though Matteo Ricci wore Chinese clothes，spoke fluent Chinese，and finished his life in China，he still didn’t have a way to understand the inherent logic of Chinese history.

This means that the inherent logic of China is impossible for others to understand.At the same time，she also refers to Watsuji Tetsurō’sClimate and Culture：A Philosophical Studyto support her logic that climate is a decisive factor for culture and human beings，and because of this we can argueforthepeculiaritiesof eachregion.

The new universality that Sun Ge advocates stands on the premise that we equally respect the various inherent logics in each part of Asia.It is a different universality from that of modern Europe，whose intent was to elevate particular cases into universal values and impose those on other regions.Needless to say，we must criticize the Orientalist view of Asia seen in the military and cultural expansion of Europe.However，at the same time，precisely because we emphasize and advocate an inherent logic，we not only easily fall into the relativism that each region or culture is formed by its own inherent logic，but also forcibly homogenize the multiple scripts or styles of communication that each regionoriginallyhas.To confront Europe，we must investigate the inherent logic in Asia or the East.If you look at the object in this way，you will be able to forcibly find at least some inherent logic.However，since it is merely a delusion that we have a Japanese，Chinese，or Asian essence or nature，investigating that inherent logic so forcibly detected will evolve into an advocation for exclusive ideologies，in the same way that Matteo Ricci was declared unable to understand Chinese history，despite his great efforts.If we return to the discussion of the self and others，the strategy of finding a logic or idea to understand others by pursuing our consciousness turns into a filter with a double meaning：projecting something inherent within ourselves（that isn’t there）ontoothers，and thinkingof othersbased onthisprojection.Althoughitisanattractivestrategy to find the true self and true subject by trying to find something inherent in us，there is the danger of fallingintoa“trap.”

However，even though Takeuchi’s argument has the potential to fall into such a“trap，”it still has points we have to consider.As Sakai Naoki explains，asTakeuchi’s resistance“disturbs the possible representational relationship between the self and its image，”23Sakai，op.cit.，175.we can also find an opportunity to constantly deny the self-recognition that has been influenced by political regulation.In my argument，although I pointed out the danger of assuming that there is an inherent self that can and should be pursued，Takeuchi also regarded the negation of self-recognition that was regulated by politics or the self as the premise for his argument.That is to say，the self in Takeuchi’s view was open to the“outside”world，and because it is easily affected by every situation，can be seen as an extremely complicated object to regulate.Conversely，Maruyama’s idea of the self was clear and powerful.In order to make Maruyama’s strategy more feasible，it is necessary to deconstruct his image of the“powerful”self.Therefore，in the next section，I would like to consider the image of“powerfulness”seen in Maruyama’s writings，the possibility of establishing the self or subject in a differentway，andpoliticsbasedonsuchaself or subject.

Politics Based on the“Gentle Subject”

Theimagethatcomestomind in Maruyama’svariouspoliticaldiscussionsisakindof“powerfulness.”When he discusses Fukuzawa Yukichi in“The Philosophy of Fukuzawa Yukichi：On the Criticism of CurrentAffairs”（1947），he emphasizes that Fukuzawa had a“powerful and independent mind（強靭tí主体的精神），”24（日）丸山眞男：《福沢諭吉の哲学：とffkにThの時事批判との関係》，《丸山眞男集》第3巻，117頁。［Maruyama Masao，“Fukuzawa Yukichi no tetsugaku：Tokuni sono jiji hihan tono kankei”（The Philosophy of Fukuzawa Yukichi：On the Criticism of CurrentAffairs），in Maruyama Masao-shū（Works of Maruyama Masao），vol.3，117.］which is the mind of someone who can decide their own political thought and behavior by their own intelligence，and argues that this is the most important element of being a subject.What’s more，Maruyama also points out the importance of political decisions，25These kinds of arguments are often found in his writings.For example，in“Nature and Invention in Tokugawa Political Thought：Contrasting Institutional Views，”he writes：“In other words，if，after its invention by the sages，the Way is cut off from the inventing agent and justified in itself as an objectified Idea，this means after all a return to the concept of natural order.But this approach could not provide any political decisions capable”（Maruyama，Studies in Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan，218）.and in“Politics and Man in the Contemporary World，”which was mentioned in the first section of this paper，he writes of“the painful self-realization that only by changing ourselves can we change others.”26Maruyama，Thought and Behaviour in Modern Japanese Politics，347.From these words，Maruyama is suggesting that politics needs“powerfulness.”Of course，he makes this assertion because he himself experienced the repressiveness of fascism，and if we consider postwar democracy，emphasizing the“powerfulness”of the subject was a strategy to ensure we would not be subsumed by politics.However，a politics based on“powerfulness”might naturally becomeyetanotherkind of repression，resultingincoercivepolitics.Atthesametime，asserting the“powerfulness”of the subject in terms of political participation may erect a sense of distance from politics.Here，I think it is necessary to consider a politics based on the“gentle subject，”ratherthan Maruyama’s“powerfulsubject.”

“Gentleness”places value on changing.In a politics based on“powerfulness，”one person goes to the political arena with their own opinion and expresses it or uses it to persuade others.Expression comes with responsibility；if someone is without an opinion，they have to leave or follow someone who does have an opinion.Maruyama was not adhering to a single point of view but emphasized flexibility that does not hesitate to change opinions if need be and retains the possibility for change.However，by describing it in terms of“powerful”or“political decisions，”the argument all too easily conjures up a powerful or aggressive subject，weakening the idea of changeability.On the contrary，the point of pursuing politics based on a“gentle subject”is to respect our changeability to the utmost.Namely，we can change ourselves by participating in political discussions，on the presumptionthatthepoliticalsphereisaplaceof possibilityandof enjoyingourtransformation.

The opportunity to think about the“gentle subject”in this sense can also be found in Fukuzawa’s writings.In the final section of Maruyama’s“The Philosophy of Fukuzawa Yukichi：On the Criticism of Current Affairs，”he analyzes the word“play”（or“game”）in Fukuzawa’s late workOne Hundred Discourses of Fukuzawa（1897）.In this text，Fukuzawa wrote of a method of bringing peace to our minds and life.He said that even though human beings are essentially maggots within the vastness of the universe，they have pride as the most superior creature in the animal kingdom and live seriously with the resolve they should have.It does not mean just to live seriously，but the important point is“playing”seriously，and Fukuzawa said that precisely because we know it is merely a“play，”wefeelpeaceof mind.Maruyamaemphasizeswhat Fukuzawasayshere：

浮世を軽ffk認めて人間万事を一時の戯と視做し、其戯を本気に勤めて怠らず、啻に怠らざtfのttffk、真実熱心の極に達しtíがら、扨万一の時に臨んでtt本来唯是れ浮世の戯tíりと悟り、熱心忽ち冷却して方向を一転し、更らに第二の戯を戯tf可し。之を人生大自在の安心法と称す。27（日）福沢諭吉：《福翁百話》，《福沢諭吉全集》第6巻，東京：岩波書店，1959年，275~276頁。［Fukuzawa Yukichi，Fukuō hyakuwa（One Hundred Discourses of Fukuzawa），in Fukuzawa Yukichi Zenshū（Complete Works of Fukuzawa Yukichi），vol.6，1959，275-76.］

Feel free about the floating world（ukiyo）and see human affairs as temporary play，then endeavor to play that game not to neglect it but，rather，to achieve the extreme of diligence.Yet on the other hand，if in the worst case scenario，you should comprehend that everything is intrinsically a game played in the floating world，calm the roused heart immediately，change direction，and play the second game.This is calledjinsei daijizai no anshinhō，a method of making our mind and life peaceful，free，and safe.

These words are found in the chapter“Women’s Remarriage”inOne Hundred Discourses of Fukuza⁃wa.The point is to live seriously，even though the world and life is“play，”but faced with something unexpected and unwilling，we can change direction as we wish because the world and life is ultimately a form of play.At the same time，as we might expect from the chapter title，these words are discussed in the context of marriage，and go on to say that a wife who has lost her husband has a right to marry another man，just as a husband who has lost his wife can marry another woman.It is interestingthathiscritiqueof therighttoremarry wasbased onhisstandpointthatlifeis“play.”

MaruyamainterpretsFukuzawa’sargumentasfollows：

福沢の驚ffkべffk強靭tí人間主義tt、宇宙におけtf人間存在の矮小性という現実fkら面を背けず、之を真正面fkら受け止めtíがら、逆にこの無力感をば、精神の主体性をより強化fhせtf契機にまで展開fhせftのでfftf。28（日）丸山眞男：《福沢諭吉の哲学：とffkにThの時事批判との関係》，《丸山眞男集》第3巻，198~199頁。［Maruyama Masao，“Fukuzawa Yukichi no tetsugaku：Tokuni sono jiji hihan tono kankei”（The Philosophy of Fukuzawa Yukichi：On the Criticism of Current Affairs），in Maruyama Masao-shū（Works of Maruyama Masao），vol.3，198-99.］

Fukuzawa’s surprising powerful humanism lies in not turning his back on the smallness of human beings within the universe but accepting that premise seriously，and on the contrary，developing this feeling of powerlessness as an opportunity to strengthen the independent mind.

In this regard，I would like to point out his misreading.As we have seen so far，Fukuzawa did not try to argue for a powerful mindset by his use of the word“play.”On the contrary，he asserts that we should regard life as something light，even if we have to live seriously in some respects.This attitude wasnotone of“powerfulness，”asMaruyama said，butan argumentfora“gentleness”thatemphasizesandacceptsconstanttransformation.Obviously，Fukuzawawasthefirstintellectualin Japan to advocate independence and self-respect，so not all of his ideas are valid for the model of the“gentle subject”this paper suggests.However，it is still possible to find a“gentleness，”rather than“powerfulness.”Hence，in my view，we can constitute a politics accepting the transformation or variety of theself and others，preciselyonthefoundationthatpoliticsisapartof our“playful”life.

In addition，a politics based on the“gentle subject”is more similar to participation in premodern rituals，rather than the relationship between subject and politics in the modern sense.Maruyamaoncediscussed Sorai’snotionof“ritesand music”（reigaku礼楽）：

Second，Sorai asserted that the Way（the normative system）was independent of human nature，and he confined the concept solely to external，objective systems—that is，to rites and music：“There is no Way apart from rites，music，law enforcement，and political administration，”he said inBendō.Needless to say，Sorai did not regard rites and music as abstractions，unlike the Sung scholars，who held them to be“literary expressions for the Principle of Heaven and the laws of human affairs.”Nor was he concerned，like Hsun Tzu，with the reform of man’s inner nature.By making them means of political control，he placed them completely outside human nature.29Maruyama，Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan，210.

Here，Maruyama argued for Sorai’s notion of“rites and music”as unrelated to people’s inner nature，and rather as means for political control that determine behavior.However，this point of view is not without problems.For Sorai，“rites and music，”on the one hand，are concentrated on the external in terms of interpersonal relationships or clothes，as seen in classical texts like theRites of Zhou，Book of Rites，andBook of Etiquette and Ceremonial.But on the other hand，they cannot simply be divided into binaries of interior and exterior；we are internally changed by the practice of“rites and music.”Takayama Daiki，who has made a great contribution recently to studies of Sorai as well as Tokugawa intellectual history，has analyzed the style of interpersonal relationships represented by thewordsetsujin（接人）andliterarytermshūji（修辞），withafocusondevelopmentsafter Sorai.In this，he acknowledges the influence of Maruyama，but on the issue of“rites and music，”Takayama expands Maruyama’s critique：“Arguing for‘rites’in studies of Sorai as an external order not related to the internal is an evident fallacy.‘Rites’penetrate deeply inside people（徂徠学におけtf「礼」tt、外面的tí秩序で、内面に関わりがtíいといっft説tt明白tí誤謬でfftf。「礼」tt人々の内奥に深ffk浸透すtf）.”30（日）高山大毅：《近世日本の「礼楽」と「修辞」：荻生徂徠の「接人」の制度構想》，東京：東京大学出版会，2016年，37頁。［Takayama Daiki，Kinsei Nihon no“reigaku”to“syūji”：Ogyu Sorai yigo no“setsujin”no seido kōsō（Rite and Rhetoric after Sorai：An Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan），Tokyo：University of Tokyo Press，2016，37.］Indeed，rites or rituals do not prescribe externally，but by their repeated practice transform people internally.Namely，people can change by the practice of rites or rituals.Further analysis of Sorai’s notion of“rites and music”is not possible here，but it is a practice to accept and stimulate transformation，and it could well form a theoretical support for a politics basedonthe“gentlesubject.”

Conclusion

This paper started with an analysis of Maruyama Masao’s“Politics and Man in the Contemporary World”and，after considering his expectations and anguish for politics，attempted to develop a further reading through a dialogue between Maruyama and Takeuchi.I have argued for a politics based on the“gentle subject，”taking up Maruyama’s ideas and Takeuchi’s critique.At the foundation of these discussions is the issue of the transformation of the self and others by politics，and for thatpurpose，itis criticalto have an awareness of others rather than oneself up in one’s own“inside”world，as Maruyama argued.In this regard，Takeuchi’s pursuit of the inner self leads to a“trap.”But on the other hand，Takeuchi recognized that the self is defenseless and complex.Even though he directed his focus toward our“inside，”his argument steered closer to the notion of“gentleness”rather than“powerfulness”by suggesting that our inner“darkness”and“despair”were just vanity.In this way，I have proposed the possibility of reading Maruyama’s political writings in today’s context.As a side note，the premodern ritual discussed in the last section is one of the most interesting areas to pursue further.Robert Bellah was a scholar who befriended Maruyama and expanded our consideration of ritual and religion.When he visited Japan in his later years，he had a discussion with some scholars in Japan that was published asReligion and Civil Society in the Global Age：A Collection of Late Lectures by Robert Bellah.This work was not discussed in this paper，but it has many issuesthatshould bestudied.

How can we take up Maruyama’s vast intellectual heritage？This paper has attempted to discusshisargumentswiththeintentionof thinkingaboutthefutureof politics，ratherthanjustanalyzing his theory.I now await criticism of its propriety.In particular，my proposal for a“gentle subject”is also a kind of postmodern claim，and if Maruyama were to read this paper，he would likely ask：If we have yet to reach modernity，how can we talk of what comes after the modern？In addition，thereistheseriousproblemof how wecanconfronttherepressivepowerthatcertainly stillexists in our world if we adopt a politics based on“gentleness”or a“gentle subject.”Moreover，although I drew on Takeuchi’s reading of Lu Xun，the question of how to read Lu Xun after accepting Takeuchi’s interpretation is naturally yet another problem.There are still many such issues to consider，but Iwould liketoconcludethispapernow and leavethoseforfuturestudies.