Pathway to Japanese Literature

I

Let me begin by explaining the meaning of the term "culture."

Originally, this term was not particularly old as a Japanese word; like many academic terms, it was formed by translating Western words and began to be used around the late Meiji period.
However, since the era name *Bunka* also existed prior to this, upon examining the origins of this compound word, it cannot be said to be entirely newly coined.
However, the term “culture” as commonly used today does not appear to be related to that.

The original terms—Kultuur in German, Culture in French, and Culture in English—are all words derived from the same Latin lineage, but such etymological analysis does not seem necessary at present. However, while the concept expressed through language was indeed imported from the West, we must make it clear here that its essence is by no means something that exists solely in the West and not in Japan. In other words, just as the West possesses its own "culture"—where even when broadly termed "Western culture," there exist elements unique to each country alongside some shared commonalities—so too within the Orient does Japan particularly possess its own distinct "culture." The sole difference lies in Japan's historical practice: unlike the West, we did not from antiquity employ a fixed linguistic expression to codify this concept as a singular, specialized notion.

Such examples existed in abundance elsewhere.

Now then, how ought we to interpret this term "culture"?
Now, if we also investigated the Western original terms for reference, this derived from Latin words meaning “to till” or “to cultivate”—in other words, it referred to the process of likening human life to soil and applying all manner of inventive efforts to elevate it from its primitive state to an ideal form.

Now, this ideal form of human life fundamentally differs in its essence between the West and the Orient.
In particular, our Japan has maintained a grand national ideal firmly established since its founding.
All citizens must strive toward this grand ideal by dedicating their entire being and way of life.
Therein lies an ideal of existence that far surpasses individual aspirations—what we call Universal Brotherhood Under One Roof.
Japanese culture takes root precisely in this spirit, vitalizes it, and further extends it through the collective conviction, passion, and wisdom of our entire nation.

On the other hand, modern Western culture swept across the world under a different name: "civilization." This term "civilization," in terms of meaning, possesses slightly more concreteness than "culture" and refers to the opposite of words like barbarism and savagery; however, in reality, as a result of being accompanied by extreme scientific development, it should literally be termed a "machine civilization." Moreover, it could be said that this "civilization" aimed principally at streamlining social life based on individual happiness—yet such an ideal contained inherent contradictions, ultimately plunging the world into turmoil under the banner of free competition. Through both humanity's boundless desires and the fact that lives appearing convenient and pleasant on the surface revealed—when scrutinized—unbearably ugly and pitiful scenes beneath, it became evident to all eyes that far from progressing, mankind had rather fallen into a state of enslavement to material things.

Fundamentally, “civilization” was never meant to be such a thing.
When we speak of a civilized nation, it must at minimum possess all the qualifications of an advanced state—a nation whose morals, laws, and customs are rooted in universal standards of high human value.
True civilization could be described as the technical manifestation of “culture,” but as I have just stated, Western civilization up to this day has done nothing more than rush to perfect its form while leaving its spirit neglected.
This is because its spirit was not built upon a firm national history; while ostensibly caught up in lofty slogans like “humanity’s ideals” or “progress” floating in abstraction, it was in truth preoccupied solely with satisfying individual desires.

In our country as well, since the Meiji Restoration, we decided to abandon our long-standing policy of national isolation and eagerly adopt foreign cultural artifacts; this, it must be said reverently, was the concerted effort of both government and public—guided by Emperor Meiji’s august will—to broadly seek knowledge from the world.
At that time, the term “Civilization and Enlightenment” became popular as a banner against old evils and obstinacy.
Of course, Japan was neither a barbaric nor uncivilized nation to begin with; however, since the aim was to adopt the strengths of Western civilization and rapidly reform systems and customs, an extreme tendency inevitably arose where everything new was deemed good and everything old was to be discarded—resulting in anything even superficially Western being branded with the label of “Civilization and Enlightenment.”
Moreover, imitation tends to be conducted under insufficient understanding.
Consequently, while the intellectuals of that time came to realize the inevitability of Western civilization, they still derided their compatriots’ shallow worship of the West as the “monkey show of Civilization and Enlightenment.”

The philosophical term "culture" came into use in Japan considerably later than other terms.
To clarify its meaning once more here, "culture" by no means simply abbreviates the four-character phrase "Civilization and Enlightenment" discussed earlier; indeed in Germany and elsewhere, there even exists an interpretation that culture fundamentally constitutes "spiritual culture," standing opposed to "material civilization."
However, this remains merely one German scholar's theory rather than a universally accepted view.
In France and similar nations, people employ the term "civilization" (civilisation) instead of "culture" to such an extent that it becomes standard usage.

Now, regarding the definition of "culture," when considered philosophically, one must employ various complex expressions; however, using as plain language as possible, it may be stated as "the development of all human spiritual powers and their harmonious growth," or alternatively phrased as "all expressions of life through inventive efforts made in pursuit of human ideals."
The above constitutes "culture" in its broad sense, encompassing politics, economy, military affairs, diplomacy, education, religion, and all other aspects of daily life.
When we speak of "culture" in its narrow sense, it refers to technical "activities" and "endeavors" wherein human spiritual power finds its purest and highest expression—generally encompassing four domains: academics, arts, morality, and religion. The essence of culture lies not in these existing as separate entities but in their unified formation of a singular value; this is how it may be perceived.

Having set aside academic explanations of this extent, if we simplify the meaning of “culture” as a term used most commonly, it is “the mindset and methods for the entirety of life that we continually build more richly upon tradition to achieve our nation’s ideals.”

The "life" referred to here is, of course, life encompassing both material and spiritual aspects.
If clothing, food, and shelter constitute the material aspects of life, then the functions of intellect, emotion, and will represent the spiritual aspects.
Thinking, learning, believing, loving, fighting, suffering, revering, and perceiving beauty—these "spiritual aspects of life" are indeed the manifestation of what is most human about humanity, and within them also lies concealed humanity’s most precious power.
Science, art, morality, and religion all exist to enrich, empower, and purify this “spiritual life”; conversely, it is from a rich, powerful, and pure spiritual life that deep scholarship, excellent art, high morality, and renewed religion emerge.

Furthermore, it is precisely this “spiritual life” that becomes the driving force of “material life,” imparting to it both order and dignity.
For even if we take eating as an example, humans do not merely devour what is given to them.
Therein lies the necessity for mental activity and “technique” in selecting ingredients and cooking based on nutritional standards—this already falls within the domain of spiritual activity.
In addition, they must cultivate habits such as thorough chewing and stopping at eighty percent fullness; next come the table manners when sitting down to a meal—within which should reside gratitude for being sufficiently provided with food.

When we consider this, even dietary life alone can by no means be said to be conducted separately from spiritual life.

If one travels to foreign countries and observes the various ways people eat, it would be no exaggeration to say that from this alone, one can judge one aspect of that nation’s “culture.”
Setting aside first the matter of whether the cuisine is delicious or not, I shall also disregard the number of dishes determined by degrees of wealth or poverty.
However, through the concepts surrounding meals, the variety of tableware, the skillfulness of menus, and the atmosphere of those dining together, how clearly the cultural level or characteristics of those people are revealed—this is something I myself have often experienced.

II

At this juncture, I shall address the issue of "spirit and technology."
The term "spirit" has been employed extensively since antiquity; however, it is sometimes utilized merely in the vague sense of "heart/mind," while also being frequently applied in more constrained meanings such as "morality," "will," "intellect," or "thought."
Furthermore, instances exist where the term "spirit" substitutes for expressions like "sentiment," "practical judgment," or "fortitude."

At one time, the term “National Spiritual Mobilization” was publicly employed, but this seems to have primarily carried an ethical meaning.
I advocated for what I termed the “spiritual mobilization” of our people in contrast—asserting that this must mobilize all capacities of the Japanese heart (encompassing intellect, emotion, and will) across not merely ethical but also scientific and artistic domains. This amounts to what may be called “total cultural mobilization.”

That said, I fear phrases such as “When spirit reaches its utmost, what cannot be achieved?” may risk being interpreted as equating “spirit” with mere “will.”

At one time, the term “spiritualism” became popular again.
In the past, there was a term similar to what was called “spiritualists”—it might be considered a word of that ilk—which carried a nuance containing a kind of mockery; in contrast to this, one could cite utilitarianism and technological omnipotence-ism.
If spiritualism is the approach that dismisses material and formal aspects, attempting to resolve everything through spirit alone, then being ensnared by reality and obsessively pursuing immediate gains can only be described as extreme non-spiritualism.

Here arises the problem of spirit and technology.
Although these two are by nature not qualities that should stand opposed, in reality there frequently emerge phenomena across various spheres where spirit exists unaccompanied by technology, or technology alone is revered while spirit lies forgotten.
In this context, what we term *spirit*—to speak plainly—is *soul*. In the material world, while possessing no inherent power of its own, without it all becomes hollow; this constitutes something both exquisitely subtle and profoundly solemn.

Every single human action and every single word derives its value from the manner in which this “soul” is infused. Politics, economy, diplomacy, military affairs, and education—all are specialized technologies concerning a nation’s rise and fall. Yet these too, like literature, art, or even religion, will never attain true power no matter how polished their form may be, unless a noble soul is instilled within them.

Before me sits a table lamp. The location doesn’t matter—it’s one of those poorly made imported imitations born of amateurish taste. I do not mean to single this out and speak ill of it, but unfortunately, what I am trying to say is precisely exemplified here. From a technical standpoint, it is quite elaborately crafted. “The period-style candlestick holder may be acceptable, but where does this cheapness originate?” Mass production has its place depending on the product, but this cheapness stems from the arrogance of those who crafted it—an arrogance born of not knowing their proper station. It arises from the crude behavior of attempting to create things that resemble artworks without possessing a soul that creates beauty.

The reason Japan’s national strength had traditionally been particularly outstanding in military affairs compared to other sectors was that those building the national army never for a moment forgot the importance of spirit during its construction. However, today it has become necessary to devote even greater attention to technology corresponding to this spirit—that is, the mechanization of military strength.

The nation’s strength was now being compelled to develop into new dimensions.

Next, the term “technology” was also used across an exceedingly broad range. There existed engineering technologies derived from physics and chemistry applications; research techniques within humanities disciplines; and indeed everything from legal administration and business management methods to grand matters of national governance and trivial tasks like ledger organization—there was nothing that could not be termed technology.

Furthermore, there are techniques such as writing novels, painting pictures, driving automobiles, and playing shogi.
At the same time, there are even such things as the technique of raising children, the technique of cooking rice well, and the technique of repelling debt collectors.

In short, while we may define technology as the most rationally devised means of achieving objectives through human knowledge and experience, this technology does not fully attain its purpose solely through such knowledge and experience.
As I have stated before, depending on how one instills soul—that is, spirit—the technology may be said to come alive or perish.

The Japanese people had long understood how crucial it was to imbue technology with soul. Yet when confronting all forms of technique, they proved inept at intellectualizing them purely as knowledge, instead striving to intuitively fathom their profound depths through experiential foundations alone. Consequently, technology remained perpetually an individual’s discovery—a jealously guarded secret beyond imagining for dissemination. From this arose a populace that regarded technical arts merely as heirlooms to preserve intact, never daring to augment them with personal ingenuity. Though refined and deepened through generations, these techniques never achieved abundance nor grand scale.

Some people refer to Western culture as technological culture and assert that since the Meiji era, Japan has imported this type of culture from the West. Indeed, in this sense, it is true that Westerners taught the Japanese various “new technologies” and initiated us into modern civilization for the first time; however, was Japanese technology truly inferior to that of the West?

This comparison is exceedingly difficult; however, we must by all means conduct it tentatively.
For there even exists the phrase “culture is life technology,” making this a matter concerning the superiority of Japanese culture.

First, wherever technology emerges, there necessarily exists a relationship with nature.
Second, wherever technology advances, human living conditions inevitably become bound to it.
The Japanese view of nature drives their technology to approximate natural forms with utmost fidelity, whereas Western technology persistently inverts natural laws to subjugate nature.
To this must be added that Japan's geographical conditions and political circumstances spared our people from excessive agonizing over the question "What is a human being?"
A nation that never attained confidence in humanity's inherent nature and capabilities enabling any manner of life reforms—such a nation remains truly perplexing.

Japanese technology is therefore something infused with soul—that is, spirit—but unlike that of the West, there are few things as redolent of humanity; rather, there are many that seem detached from human concerns.
This is the reason the realm of austere simplicity arises.

Language, too, is a form of technology; yet when one compares Western languages and Japanese, their very manners of development differ entirely.
There is no language as deliberately structured to avoid direct expression of thoughts and emotions as Japanese.
A language devoid of rawness yet rich in resonance—precisely for this reason, it is one easily prone to misunderstanding when used carelessly.
The high quality of Japanese language is certainly not inferior to that of French, but regrettably, it is far too difficult.
In its current state, it lacks transnationality.
As a language used in a special era and under special circumstances, it is an extremely sophisticated one.

In this way, even when considering the problem of "spirit and technology," it could be said that the "height of culture" was determined by how these two were connected.
Whether termed "spiritual culture" or "technological culture," these merely represented different angles of study; the essential value of culture could never be accurately measured unless one first examined the substance from both perspectives and then paid sufficient attention to how these two aspects were interconnected.

III

With this, I had generally exhausted the interpretation of the term “culture.”

Lately, this term was being used somewhat haphazardly here and there; unless one paid considerable attention, there were cases where one could not understand what it referred to.

Let me gather some of these instances here and provide explanations where possible.

First, recently, the term “New Order” had come to be discussed.
It was not merely discussed.
This was being steadily realized—a process involving new reforms across all state institutions deemed necessary for national defense and consequently for permanently securing our homeland and national life. By examining this through three aspects—politics, economy, and culture—we were constructing frameworks for the New Order in each domain.

Thus, regarding the structures of politics and economics: in politics, political parties dissolved and a new single political association called the Yokuseikai formed; administrative agencies underwent reorganization or abolition; while in the economic sphere itself, various movements emerged such as establishing control councils for key industries and addressing conversion issues among small and medium-sized commerce and industry.

And while their scope remained fairly clear, when it came to cultural institutions, the scope turned nebulous and proved quite difficult to systematize.

Roughly speaking, these would be occupational domains related to academics, arts, morality, and religion—the components of “culture” I listed earlier—but even these failed to concretely encompass all that constituted cultural domains.

Therefore, tentatively approaching from the perspective of occupational domains or professional functions, we enumerated what might be considered cultural departments as follows.

Academic Department

Natural scientists, humanities scholars

Art Department

Literary artists, artists, musicians, dancers, theater professionals, film-related personnel, practitioners of traditional arts

Education Department

University and college teachers, secondary school teachers, National School teachers, special technical school teachers, special school teachers (schools for the deaf and mute, etc.), vocational technology teachers, nursery nurses, and other social education personnel

Public Discourse Department

Critics (thought, art, society, etc.)

Religious Department

Shinto priests, Buddhist monks, pastors

Public Service and Legal Affairs

Government officials, public officials, army and navy personnel, public organization employees, legal affairs practitioners.

Publishing and Media Department

Publishers, newspaper reporters, editors, broadcasting station staff

Welfare Department

Welfare workers, labor managers, physicians, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists, other medical personnel (midwives, nurses, etc.), martial arts instructors, physical education personnel.

Technology Department

Agriculture/Forestry and Fisheries Technicians, Mining Technicians, Industrial Technicians, Transportation Technicians, Communications Technicians, Information and Propaganda Technicians, Commercial Technicians, Finance and Insurance Technicians, Daily Life Support Technicians (cooks, barbers, beauticians, etc.), Other ノ Technicians

Entertainment Department

Film and theater professionals, popular entertainers, indoor sports/games professionals

The above list did not undergo rigorous investigation, and some entries could not be called purely cultural domains—that is, there were those spanning economic sectors like commerce and industry. However, professions that either did not deal with "objects" or, even when handling "objects," related more significantly to cultural aspects of national life than economic ones in their treatment of such "objects"—these I tentatively listed here.

For instance, barbering is classified as commerce and has been incorporated into a new organization called the Commercial Patriotic Association; however, this occupation fundamentally does not involve the buying and selling of “goods,” nor does it produce them. If one were to consider it as “processing” hair—since this constitutes part of the human body—the work approaches that of a plastic surgeon.
Since doctors properly belong to the cultural occupational domain, barbering—which exists both out of hygienic necessity and for grooming purposes—is not at all incongruous when viewed accordingly.

To clarify what constitutes the Cultural New Order: it meant having all those across every occupational domain reform their mindset to pursue not merely their own interests but work styles most suited to national objectives; establishing complete organizations capable of such work; and advancing one step further to prepare postures wherein each position exerted full effort toward elevating the "culture" of the entire populace.

IV

When viewing national life as a manifestation of "culture"—premised upon its foundation in the nation's ideals and its deep-rooted embodiment of authentic traditional spirit—I maintain we must still examine it through three lenses:
First: Is "Efficiency" being elevated?
Second: Is "Health" preserved in both mind and body?
Third: Is "Dignity" being upheld?

To enhance Efficiency, the lives of individuals or groups—work included—must first become rigorously disciplined.
Their methods of work and living must demonstrate skillful execution.
This demands technical ingenuity and refinement.
They must eliminate wastefulness, employ labor and time with systematic planning, and strictly adhere to proper sequences.
They must also obtain adequate rest.
Sustaining a bright mental disposition proves equally essential.

Physical health must not be neglected even in peacetime; however, as a nation at war, it must by all means be preserved at the utmost level.

For that purpose, beyond hygiene precautions to avoid illness, they must take in proper nutrition and engage in moderate training.
First, we Japanese must develop a clearer awareness of “the joy of health.”
No one would wish for an unsound body, yet how many people truly feel deeply in their bones that “health” is a joyful blessing and desire ever greater health?
This is proof that the people’s “concept of health” has not been firmly established; under these circumstances, we cannot sufficiently enhance the populace’s physical strength.

Traditionally, a vulgar notion had spread widely in society—that physical health did not necessarily correlate with mental ability, to the extent that there was even a saying that “the talented are often sickly.” This was ultimately because there had been a prolonged era that lost sight of how “culture” ought to manifest.

However, on the other hand, just as there exists the teaching that a healthy mind dwells within a healthy body, robust mental power—particularly the harmonious development of intellect, will, and emotion, along with their vigorous activity—must absolutely be conditioned upon physical health.

That being said, while one could roughly gauge their own level of physical health—improving their constitution and strengthening their muscles and bones by following a doctor’s diagnosis or under a competent instructor’s guidance—when it came to mental health, not only did individuals inherently struggle to make accurate self-assessments, but perspectives also varied widely among observers.

For present-day Japan, I believed the most crucial task lay in recovering the people’s “spiritual health.”

If any obstacle existed to achieving true national unity and total mobilization through Japan’s domestic circumstances, it was none other than the catastrophic loss of that wholesome way of thinking, that manner of perception, and that vigorous willpower which the ancient Japanese people had possessed in greater measure than any other nation on earth.

Regarding this point, there will be an opportunity to discuss it in detail in a later chapter.

Now, thirdly, there is the matter of maintaining Dignity—this constitutes an extremely grave issue concerning national prestige, particularly as a manifestation of “culture.”

Fundamentally, human dignity—or what might also be called grace—is composed of complex and subtle elements that cannot be fully captured in a single phrase.
If one were to force a description, it would be that somewhere within such a person lies a noble aura, and within their natural demeanor, one senses an indomitable strength coupled with approachability.
To be noble does not necessarily refer to high social status or abundant academic knowledge.
It can also be found in the pure form of a more unadorned spirit. For example, if we speak of someone as being “god-like” in their honesty, that person’s honesty alone has already made others sense something remarkably “noble” within them—a dignity that has become ingrained in their very being.
While the term “god” may at times be carelessly invoked in certain contexts, what I have described here is the confession of a sentiment—a sense of reverent trust—that arises toward those who command involuntary respect; individuals who leave others thinking, “However they may appear outwardly, one cannot dismiss them as fools.” Such individuals can impart this impression regardless of their outward appearance, social standing, or level of education precisely because they possess, even unconsciously, something upon which they themselves rely—thereby demonstrating what may be called innate dignity.
If such a person were flaunting their honesty or even slightly exploiting it as a selling point, the description “god-like” would never be applied.
Even if we can initially admire honesty for what it is, should there be anything contrived or petty about it, that will not serve to elevate their dignity.
This is the nature of that ineffable quality we call dignity.

The distinction between true “culture” and “pseudo-culture” is determined by the presence or absence of this “dignity,” no matter what example one takes. However, if each and every citizen had truly internalized genuine culture, it would naturally permeate their words, actions, and demeanor.
We Japanese, who assume the role of the leading race in Greater East Asia, must increasingly demonstrate this “Dignity”—which has been esteemed since ancient times even in martial arts—through all aspects of societal activity; unless we do so, we shall absolutely be unable to win the trust of other ethnic groups in the future.

In this sense, it may be said that Japanese dignity depends first and foremost on whether they can possess pride in being Japanese not merely in words or superficial posturing, but from the very depths of their hearts.

Furthermore, human dignity—as I have previously stated—resides within the pure form of an unadorned spirit, while at the same time being demonstrated through truly refined conduct and mastered techniques.

The form of tea ceremony proved this, and one could also understand it by observing the demeanor of those called masters and experts. However, more than that, in the tense yet composed and satisfied appearance of utterly ordinary people around us when they immersed themselves in work they were somewhat skilled at, we might sometimes discover a kind of dignified glimmer not seen in their usual selves.
It was an unwavering, harmonious, crystal-clear, and beautiful form.

I have often sensed what might be termed "Dignity" more profoundly among those living rural lives—lives rooted in ancestral customs, steadfastly grounded yet unassuming—than in urban existences flaunting technical artifice and ostentation, or among those who pursue such metropolitan lifestyles.
At any rate, it remains irrefutable that "Dignity" constitutes no mere veneer of pretense.

V

Now, I find myself compelled to address what most gravely undermines Dignity—the matter of Vulgarity.

“Vulgarity,” as its characters indicate through their very form—base and vulgar—stands fundamentally irreconcilable with what we call “nobility.” Such vulgarity cannot coexist with spiritual nobility.
Yet even when speaking of nobility itself—given its gradations and diverse manifestations—establishing universal standards proves profoundly difficult.
Nevertheless,I maintain there exists an essential Dignity that all humans must preserve without exception.Should one detect within another’s unconscious words or deeds a tone that mars this Dignity—a tone provoking disdain among discerning observers—and should its bearer paradoxically appear gratified by such conduct;this undeniably signals their unwitting entrapment by vulgar tastes or corruption through vulgar
spirit.This constitutes irrefutable evidence of spiritual erosion.

“Vulgarity” does not necessarily coincide with “Crudeness.”
Therefore, within technical expressions that appear exquisitely crafted at first glance, there are often instances where “Vulgarity” is exemplified to the utmost.
This can be understood from the numerous examples found in urban customs and various works that bear the name of art.

“Vulgarity” may also at times be displayed with a triumphant tone within leading discourse that presumes its own loftiness.
There, a common poverty of thought can be recognized; however, the main cause of this tendency lies in utilitarianism and expediency—marked by hasty calculation and pursuit of facile effects—that lack the capacity to envision true ideals.

Consequently, even in matters of morality that ought to be dignified, there are times when a great contradiction—that the very spirit which advocates and promotes such morality contains despicable “Vulgarity”—is nonchalantly accepted.
This “Vulgarity” arises not merely from utilitarianism and expediency; more often than not, it is accompanied by blatant exaggeration or unwitting self-deception, characterized by a low-key moral perspective and an inflated sense of self that oversteps one’s proper station.

To be sure, within the stance of ostensibly respecting “morality,” there may be no denying that this could be termed “moral.” However, herein lies a significant problem: even in what is called sacrificial behavior—though one may genuinely believe it to be so—if it were revealed that on another level, the act secretly anticipated some form of reward, Morality itself would hesitate to even name this a “sacrificial act.” Conversely, those who insistently regard such acts as sacrificial and at least deliberately tout them as “beautiful tales” must be considered to possess an exceedingly low moral consciousness, even if they cannot be called outright “immoral.”

All actions and enterprises guided by such moral perspectives and consciousness invariably exude the most “vulgar” stench through their vacuous expressions and hackneyed sentimentalism.
They scatter this stench about them.
However, such a stench spreads easily through society, and many people grow accustomed to it until they finally come to believe it is “the smell of morality.”
Profit-seeking aligns itself with “morality” solely by exploiting this emptiness.

At first glance, politics too may appear to have frequently utilized this kind of “vulgarity” as a convenient method for guiding the masses; however, in truth, the traditional tendency has been that the “vulgarity” into which politics itself had fallen inadvertently ended up having no choice but to target solely the “common populace.”

In my view, this “Vulgarity” demonstrates not merely a moral deficiency but, without exception, a dullness and paucity of “cultural sensibility” in a comprehensive sense; and across all phenomena, the primary cause of “Vulgarity” likely lies in the immaturity, impoverishment, or erosion of this very “cultural sensibility.”

Now, this “cultural sensibility”—curiously enough—in modern Japan had no relation whatsoever to one’s level of education or social standing.
An uneducated rural youth living in a crude mountain hut listened to an eminent personage’s lecture: he fully grasped its intent and had no objections whatsoever, yet found that very tone and choice of words strangely unsettling, tilting his head in puzzlement.
He even said that listening made him feel ashamed.
If one were to ask why, he could not give a precise answer.
However, if they were going to say such things, he felt they should say them differently.
This was already an exemplary “cultural sensibility.”
In other words, there was an intuitive ability to accurately assess the lecturer’s “cultural cultivation.”
He likely detected a kind of “Vulgarity” in the clichéd oratorical tone and ostentatious expressions born of verbal excess, and must have found this unexpected.

Moral baseness differs slightly from being non-moral or lacking morality altogether.
This too must be discussed in detail, but since the issue diverges slightly from our main focus, I will refrain from addressing it here. Furthermore, alongside moral baseness, there exists artistic baseness as another cause of Vulgarity.
Strictly speaking, this too differs from being non-artistic or lacking art; while it contains artistic elements, it refers to their low degree.
In other words, it is aiming for beauty yet settling comfortably in its lowest stratum—the negative realm.
A clear example is unnecessary decoration—one such instance.
Furthermore, ugly craftsmanship is another such example.
Society appears to welcome this more than one might expect, and it would be no exaggeration to say that the majority of products fall into this category.
Slightly elaborate residences, inns, restaurants, and such places have quite a number of these examples, and it would be fair to say that most women’s clothing is like that as well.
Even in the works of specialists who are called artists, there are, of course, occasionally ersatz art pieces aimed at selling.

This represents “Vulgarity” stemming from deficient aesthetic sensibility—it manifests as the rampant spread of customs—and similarly,“Vulgarity” arising from “scientific” immaturity can also be considered as habits.Superstition exemplifies this phenomenon.

However,I examined Vulgarity’s essence through three angles—morality，art,and science—though I must clarify this division was neither essential nor entirely rational;it merely attempted analytical accessibility through compartmentalization.
Therefore，with this framework alone,I still cannot apprehend Vulgarity’s fundamental nature.

“Vulgarity,” as the very term proclaims, is something that ought to be despised; yet precisely because it has become commonplace in society, we must first undertake a fundamental examination of its very essence.

There exist terms such as “secular world” and “common society.”
To equate society with “the common” recognizes that this term originally referred to ordinary people as “laypersons” in contrast to those who had undergone monastic renunciation; it later shifted to signify “mediocrity,” and ultimately came to denote what is base and lacking refinement.
When it comes specifically to “Vulgarity” and “commonness,” these now refer to “the common of the common.”
If we then ask where this “commonness” in society originates—if I may say—I believe it ultimately stems from prolonged politics devoid of ideals and utilitarian education.
I will refrain from citing examples one by one, but in reality, I secretly worry that today, projects frequently carried out in the public name—and even their publicity—convey something vulgar.
For I believe the form of Japan must never be allowed to become such a thing.

The danger of Vulgarity lies precisely in the fact that society at large overlooks it as something ordinary and natural.
On the other hand, from the tendency to deem what is not "vulgar" as "noble," it becomes an inaccessible realm reserved for special individuals or societies—and there appears to prevail a common-sense notion these days that such things are utterly useless in practical work with society at large.
Consequently, notions such as "noble" or "refined" have come to be regarded as mere decorations somewhat removed from substance, even evoking a kind of pretentiously comical expression representative of aristocratic tastes in the pejorative sense.

Even with a compound term like *the elegant and the common*, if we speak of “commonness” in contrast to “elegance,” I believe that in itself does not necessarily imply “baseness.”
For as long as elegance itself prides on delicate ostentation, it should never be respected.
However, when it comes to “Vulgarity” in contrast to “Nobility,” there we see a clear opposition of values.
For I believe that the essence of “majestic and refined nobility” symbolizes the ideal form of Japan’s national character.

Returning once more to the issue of “vulgarity,” we must indeed identify the true nature of this “Vulgarity” pervading society within politics devoid of ideals and utilitarian education (encompassing schools, society, and families)—as previously discussed—but when viewed from the perspective of social psychology, this clearly stems from individuals’ instinct for self-preservation in seeking to conform to the prevailing trends of the time.
It stems from an instinct for self-preservation and, to delve a step further, I believe it also arises from the paralysis of belief observed in that crowd psychology which declares, “If people permit it, they will do anything.”
In short, I conclude that this manifests the lazy and greedy nature of humans who have lost their spiritual pride—those perpetually attempting to “take the easiest path.”

Now, if the youth firmly hold the conviction that this “commonness” is “base” and persistently battle society’s unreflective trends, then even if the currently rampant “vulgar” phenomena are not entirely eradicated, they will at least cease to brazenly spread in public view—this I firmly believe.

For this, the courage to single-mindedly advance the yearning for “the lofty,” the love for “the beautiful,” and the devotion to “the true” that the pure souls of youth inherently possess was absolutely necessary; but at the same time, one had to not neglect honing a sharp and rich “cultural sensibility” capable of rigorously distinguishing between “the lofty, the beautiful, the true” and their counterfeits.

The reverence for our uniquely radiant National Polity had to be demonstrated through both the earnest desire of a subject—dreaming of Japan’s current, world-preeminent ideal form as we lived on—and the unwavering will to achieve this desire across generations.

If the enemies obstructing the manifestation of Japan’s ideals are externally America and Britain, then internally it is the “vulgar spirit”—this I dare assert.

VI

In summary, these three—Efficiency, Health, and Dignity—must be firmly implanted into our current national life as manifestations of “Culture.”

Moreover, these three exist in a relationship of mutual dependence.
That is: to enhance Efficiency requires safeguarding physical and mental health; to preserve Health demands maintaining an efficient lifestyle; while life’s Dignity finds its foundation in spiritual health—thus these three points must perpetually be contemplated in unison.

And finally, I wish you to firmly keep in mind that “cultivation” in its true sense refers to mastering these three conditions as complete powers.
The commonly accepted expression today that “to possess superior Culture is to acquire correct Cultivation” becomes unmistakably valid here for the first time.
“Cultivation and Culture are, so to speak, akin to means and ends; to possess deep Cultivation means not only embodying elevated Culture oneself but also means having a role in representing and guiding a nation’s Culture.”

Until now, the peculiar term “cultured person” had been in use.
It differed in meaning from terms like “intellectuals” or “the intellectual class,” generally referring primarily to philosophically inclined scholars; writers including literary figures; artists; and others engaged in what was termed mental labor—though there also existed a practice of calling even those in other professions “cultured persons” if they were particularly avid readers, appreciated hobbies considered somewhat refined, or especially if they were enthusiasts of literature and art.

What particularly warranted attention was that there had existed a vague sense that to be called a “cultured person,” one needed to possess at least some Western-influenced aspect.
In other words, Western cultivation and “modern culture” had been inseparable.

The above stood as evidence that the term “Culture” had been considered in an exceedingly narrow and distorted manner; moreover, it constituted a grave illusion arising from a mistaken notion that “Culture” itself must inherently be something Western due to this term being a translation from Western languages.

The same kind of linguistic abuse and half-baked thinking could be found everywhere.
The so-called "culture house" was one such example.

Fundamentally, housing must above all respect the climate and customs of its country, and its architecture should, from every perspective, exemplify the distinctive features of national life and faithfully manifest the nation’s culture as it adapts to the changes of the era. Therefore, strictly speaking, the term “culture house” is meaningless, but if we concede for argument’s sake that it refers to housing architecture at the forefront of “Culture,” then above all, it must symbolize the spirit and ideals of our nation’s prosperity.

However, in reality, what was called a “culture house” typically had its foundation in a greedy-looking blending of Japanese and Western elements through simplistic pragmatism and a colonial-style hedonistic mood epitomized by red tiles and blue paint.

Admittedly, the designers of “culture houses” might have claimed that these structures satisfied both rational and aesthetic demands to the fullest extent permitted by economic conditions.
The trends of the times were a frightening thing indeed, for what was deemed rational prioritized mere convenience above all else, while what was considered aesthetic amounted to abandoning tradition in pursuit of sensory stimulation.

VII

Here, I wish to say a few words regarding the measure by which to gauge the standard of Culture.
As previously discussed, Efficiency, Health, and Dignity were objectives for establishing the proper structure of national life itself; now, however, the problem lies in where to set the benchmark for broadly measuring the value standards of “Culture.”
I believe this principle applies equally to each individual human being as well as to every single object.
It is an exceedingly rough, commonsensical approach, but first and foremost, this standard asks: Does its morality—whether pertaining to a person or object—show due reverence to the National Polity? Is it aligned with humanity? Is it free from corruption? Does it lack impious defiance of the gods? Is it free from hypocrisy? In short, it is a standard judged morally.
Next comes what might be termed scientific quality—a standard assessed intellectually.
Whether it conforms to logical principles, whether its way of conceptualizing things is precise, whether the mind remains unbiased, whether it scrutinizes matters down to their profound depths—this constitutes one standard.
The third standard is whether it is beautiful or ugly—in other words, whether its artistic quality is high or low.
There are various kinds of beauty, but truly beautiful things are rare except in nature.
While the beauty of human compassion may be termed moral, there often exists within the form and workings of the human spirit a beauty that transcends morality—a beauty that cannot be governed by morality.
The eye to discern this is, of course, necessary.
Could we call it an artistic eye?
The beauty of things also appears in various ways depending on the height of one’s aesthetic discernment, and to consider what is not particularly beautiful as exceedingly so would be indicative of an immature sensibility.
Conversely, that one can recognize elements of superior beauty within things others fail to notice is because the window of their heart is widely open toward “beauty.”
However, beauty conveyed through senses and emotions—with rare exceptions—resonates with all people, and its degree should be considered one standard of Culture.

The fact that these three attributes—Morality, Scientific Quality, and Artistry—constitute the primary components shaping Culture becomes readily comprehensible when considering that human activities fundamentally derive from the three faculties of intellect, emotion, and will. Furthermore, the truth, goodness, and beauty that humanity perpetually pursues as ideals precisely align with these three aspects of "Culture."

However, these three elements must unfalteringly exist in an inseparable yet distinct relationship. That any single element alone could be fully realized is not only factually impossible—even the mere semblance of such a condition would represent a distortion of Culture and manifest an unsound state of affairs.

For instance, even an individual formally certified as morally upright may frequently demonstrate narrowness in perspective, lack both discernment and substance in their thinking, exhibit rash decision-making, and invite doubts about their basic common sense—from the standpoint of Culture, such a person must unequivocally be considered deficient.
Similarly, though being artists or those deeply engaged with artistic pursuits, if they display moral waywardness, scorn intellectual inquiry, or harbor disproportionate antagonism toward science—this too merits no praise.

When considering objects, one must of course first account for their utility value; however, becoming overly preoccupied with practicality alone and entirely neglecting cultural value results in what is termed bleakness. Bleakness should be endured when it must be endured. However, for this to become the norm is ultimately human degeneration and corruption. If that is so, then in what form does the cultural value of objects manifest? As I stated earlier, it generally appears through three forms: morality, scientific quality, and artistry. The morality of objects is somewhat difficult to explain, but the clearest way to understand it is whether they are shams—in other words, whether they possess what is commonly called a “fraudulent nature.” There exists the term *chiyachana*, which, while possessing a moral dimension, more precisely denotes things that are scientifically deficient, technically immature, or crude—thereby demonstrating their lack of viability even from a utilitarian perspective. Furthermore, *chiyachana* items would receive failing marks in terms of beauty. The beauty of an object—if it serves a purpose—is surely proportionate to its craftsmanship; if it is easy to use, durable, and long-lasting, then in both form and luster it will undoubtedly exhibit flawless beauty. It is because the heart of a talented craftsman is infused within it. And such objects possess an air of dignity, a sense of weight, and an imposing presence. Therein a “moral” value in harmony with “beauty” is born.

The excellence of the Japanese sword lay not merely in qualities like sharpness alone, but in three elements: the supremely advanced technique in forging iron—unrivaled in the world; the most refined aesthetic form as a blade; and the ethical solemnity befitting its epithet as "the soul of the samurai," all concealed within the gleam of its three-foot blade. These three elements fused into an inseparable whole, creating a treasured archetype of weaponry that surpassed Western imagination.
"The essence of Culture must indeed be such as this."

VIII

Recently, there had been a marked increase in names like “such-and-such Culture Association” or “such-and-such Group Culture Department” appearing in the titles of various organizations and institutions.
This trend might, from one perspective, indicate heightened public interest in “culture”; yet considering another angle, one might secretly fear that the misuse of this term could hinder proper understanding of it and ultimately lead to confusion and decline of “culture” itself.

"I believe that by now you can sufficiently comprehend through prior explanations that the term 'culture' possesses both broad and narrow meanings; however, it is my view that today's phenomena have arisen precisely from mixing these meanings in usage or misinterpreting their intended applications."

First and foremost, a Cultural Facilities Section was established within the Ministry of Education's Education Bureau.
Since this concerns government offices, I assume they conducted thorough deliberations over the name.
Despite this, the jurisdiction of this Cultural Facilities Section was limited to theater, film, museums, libraries, and similar areas, while other cultural facilities fell under the purview of different departments.

Furthermore, within the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, there exists a Culture Department.
This department was previously under the Organization Bureau, but when the Organization Bureau was renamed the Practice Bureau, a new Welfare Department was established within it, resulting in part of its former responsibilities being transferred there.
Moreover, a separate Ideology Department was created within the Training Bureau, transferring matters related to "ideology" from the Culture Department.
Thus, what remained within the Culture Department would be limited to academic pursuits, literature, the arts; sectoral domains encompassing publishing and broadcasting; cultural institutions such as libraries and museums; and issues pertaining to the cultural aspects of national life—cultivation, entertainment, customs, and habits.
Even so, if one were to call this scope broad, it was indeed broad; however, "Culture" and "Ideology" could not be separated, and since "Welfare" constituted measures to enrich and fortify national life, this too had to be approached from the perspective of "Culture" to achieve comprehensive effectiveness.
Taking population issues as an example: while this Healthy Citizens Movement was being advanced as a collaborative effort between government and civilians, its administrative affairs fell under the Welfare Department’s jurisdiction within the Imperial Rule Assistance Association; however, the movement’s substance lay most crucially in mobilizing domains related to the Culture Department. It was in this manner that we should view the work of the "Culture Department."

Then, organizations such as the Publishing Culture Association, Music Culture Association, Youth National Culture Association, and Propaganda Culture Association were newly formed.

That the consolidated publishing organization was deliberately named the Publishing Culture Association carried purely temporal significance; needless to say, until then, the publishing industry—whether willing or not—had been dominated to varying degrees by profit-seeking mentalities, speculative tendencies, and a propaganda-first approach while riding the wave of liberalist economics, thereby facing circumstances where a small number of quality books risked being driven out by numerous inferior ones.
However, what the state desired was by no means such; the publishing industry was required to have as its purpose providing the people with the most wholesome and abundant spiritual nourishment while ensuring the smooth publication of the most valuable works across specialized fields. It was precisely this awareness—that this constituted a duty sharing in the vital function of elevating and developing a nation’s “Culture”—that had manifested in this name.
Recently, this organization underwent strengthened state control and changed its name to Nippon Shuppankai, operating purely as a control association.

The name “Music Culture” also contained this same significance—music must never be permitted to descend into social isolation through being merely personally crafted as art and appreciated solely by a limited few. From the comprehensive standpoint of “Culture,” this organization’s ethos resided in musicians fundamentally reforming their mindset to pursue the creation of music authentically embodying the Japanese spirit—music profoundly responsive to its era’s demands with vigorous vitality—while deeming it their mission to cultivate a movement making such music the possession of the entire nation.

Regarding the Youth National Culture Association, I wish to briefly recount the circumstances of its formation.

Originally, among those conducting specialized research on children’s reading materials, picture books, toys, *kamishibai*, theatrical films, and such—or those engaged in their production—discussions had progressed regarding forming organizations uniting experts in each respective field, with some already having been realized; however, each domain regrettably lacked a clear guiding philosophy.
The question of what should now be given to children as successors of the nation must, above all else, be rectified by first addressing the prevailing view of children—the mistaken liberalistic “lens through which we view children”—and for this, I earnestly desire that a firm national policy be established.

Therefore, at the Imperial Rule Assistance Association’s Culture Department, it was decided to first request the attendance of principal officers from each ministry engaged in child-related cultural administration and, through joint consultations with experts deeply versed in childhood education, to eliminate the longstanding flaw of inconsistent governmental guidance across ministries, as well as to establish an organization facilitating close liaison between private-sector experts and related industries.

For reference, I must note that currently, the supervision and censorship of children’s reading materials fall under the Home Ministry; picture book guidance under the Ministry of Education; theater and kamishibai under the Metropolitan Police Department; films primarily under the Home Ministry; toys under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry; and infant nursing equipment under the Ministry of Health and Welfare—thus demonstrating excessive specialization without any ministry conducting comprehensive guidance. This constitutes an impermissible defect in properly nurturing Japan’s “Culture.”

Therefore, to organize and vigorously promote "cultural" institutions related to children outside of school education as part of the national movement, the Youth National Culture Association came into being.

Through this association’s activities—taking toys as an example—the true "Culture" value of toys would be considered from a national standpoint, with splendid toys most suited for nurturing youth nationals being planned for production and distribution from moral, scientific, and artistic perspectives.

As national organizations, these regional and occupational groups that had recently been forming—the Industrial Patriotic Association, Commercial Patriotic Association, Youth Corps, Japan Women’s Association, Imperial Rule Assistance Young Men’s Corps, and others—all maintained cultural departments or equivalent internal structures; however, among them existed those that construed “Culture” in an oppressively narrow sense or treated it with conspicuous levity.
Within municipal administrative organs too emerged a tendency to create departments or sections labeled “Culture”; yet here as well were frequently observed instances where name and reality appeared decidedly mismatched.

In extreme cases, one might even suspect that “Culture” was being equated with “entertainment,” yet the absurdity of subsuming matters pertaining to “performing arts” under the designation of “Culture” persisted unchallenged as commonplace.

IX

Over the past decade or so, what are termed “local culture movements” have emerged throughout all regions of the nation.
This too constitutes a new national movement responding to the advocacy of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association’s Culture Department—one aiming for the idealization of hometowns—and reflects this era’s demand to develop what is called “local culture” as our nation’s traditional foundation through robust, abundant, and rapid growth.
Consequently, this should be recognized as a wartime movement to strengthen national life—extending across every sphere of local existence to enhance strengths, remedy weaknesses, and expand the spirit of hometown devotion into service for the nation. To realize this, both cultural professionals residing in specific local districts and those fervently committed to cultural issues must collaborate through unified efforts to plan and implement the movement from an integrative perspective.
Should individuals obstinately cling to specialized positions—fostering tendencies of self-righteous division—or needlessly restrict “culture’s” meaning while assuming airs of superiority, this would amount to nothing less than a grievous inversion of priorities.

“Culture is, above all else, constituted by the splendid combination of spirit and spirit.”
Conflict, too, must be conflict for the sake of harmony.
Under wartime conditions, each citizen must realize our nation’s grave mission, discard minor differences, and resolve to commit to the greater common cause so that no one’s efforts are wasted; they must reflect that the enemy always lurks within their own hearts and engrave in their minds that it is precisely futile conflicts and frictions between people that weaken national strength and destroy Culture.
It is out of an old woman’s anxious solicitude—thinking that those who profess to devote themselves to cultural movements must strictly guard against the very “non-cultural” actions they are prone to fall into—that I am compelled to speak thus.

X

"The proliferation of the term 'Culture' is truly vexing, but there is nothing to be done about this."

In short, had the restraint of absolutely refraining from using words whose meaning one does not fully understand been generally maintained, such a result would not have occurred.
This too constitutes a lamentable modern phenomenon of our nation—a transitory symptom that will likely only be remediable through the elevation of Culture.

As for the meaning of a word like “Culture,” in reality, even if not understood by all citizens, we must accept that state of affairs as permissible. For this belongs somewhat to the realm of specialized terminology—as an ordinary everyday term, it remains both semantically complex and rather unwieldy. Unless employed with precision among those whose cognitive faculties have been honed through rigorous training, it becomes a word verging on affectation.