I wish to thank Professor Michael Herriman and Professor Bruce Monk for reading the manuscript and makinghelpfulsuggestions. References… [616450]

Kokoro
andtheAgonyoftheIndividual
23
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Professor Michael Herriman and Professor Bruce Monk for reading the manuscript and
makinghelpfulsuggestions.
References
Aston,W.G.(1975).
AHistoryofJapaneseLiterature
.Tokyo:CharlesE.Tuttle.
DilworthD.A.andUmeyoHirano(1969).
FukuzawaYukichi’s“AnEncouragementofLearning”
.Tokyo.
Etô,J.(1970).AJapaneseMeijiIntellectual.AnEssayon
Kokoro
.In
EssaysonNatsumeSôseki’sWorks
.
Compiled by Japanese National Commission for UNESCO. Published by Japan Society for the
PromotionofScience,pp.49–65.
FukuzawaYukichizenshû
(1960).Tokyo.pp.26–62,70–77,85–95.
McClellan,E.(1969).
TwoJapaneseNovelists:SôsekiandT
ô
son
.Tokyo:CharlesE.Tuttle.
NatsumeSôseki(1985).
Kokoro
.TranslatedformtheJapaneseandwithaforewordbyEdwinMcClellan.
Tokyo:CharlesE.Tuttle.
Pollack,D.(1992).
ReadingAgainstCulture.IdeologyandNarrativeintheJapaneseNovel
.Ithaca:Cornell
UniversityPress.
Viglielmo,V.H.(1976).Sôseki’s
Kokoro
:ADescentintotheHeartofMan,in
ApproachestotheModern
JapaneseNovel
.(K.TsurutaandT.E.Swanneds.).Tokyo:SophiaUniversity.
Walker,J.A.(1979).
TheJapaneseNovelofthe MeijiPeriodandtheIdealof Individualism
. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Watt, I. (1957).
The Rise ofthe Novel:Studies in Defoe,Richardson, andFielding
. London:Chatto and
Windus.
Yanabu,A.(1978).
の
(
HonyakunoMondai
),in
の
)(
Nihongo
Bekkan:NihongoKenkyûnoShûhen
).IwanamiShoten.
Yanabu,A.(1995).

(
HonyakugoSeiritsuJijô
).IwanamiShinsho.

NiculinaNae
22
“Theyarebrazenenoughtothinktheyhavetherighttoliveidly.It’sacrimenottomakethe
bestuseofwhateverabilityonehas”).Also,thelackoffilialgratitudeisexpressedbythe
attitudeofthetwobrothers,whoarebusymakingplansforthetimeaftertheirfather’sdeath,
thoughheisstillalive:
「まだのななから
のだて

なりった
(Andso,whiletheirfatherwasstillalive,thetwobrotherstalkedofwhat
theywoulddoafterhisdeath).
TheabsenceorhelplessnessoffathersdominatestheworlddepictedinKokoro.The
individualisconstantlyleftalonebythedeathofhismaterial/spiritualfather.Thelackof
parental advice and authority obliges the individual to turn to more materialistic matters.
Senseigoesasfarassacrificingthelifeofhisbestfriendtowintheobjectofhisdesire.
ThedeathoftheMeijiEmperor,whowasalsoakindofspiritualfathertothepeople,
bringsaboutthedespairofWatakushi’sailingfather.Theoldmangivesupfightinghisdeath
asagestureofsubmissiontowardsthedefunctmonarch.Thisdeathisalsosymbolicforthe
wholetransformationofJapanesesociety,whosepeople,deprivedoftheirfatherlyemperor,
areobligedtotaketheirdestiniesintheirownhands.
Theseconddissolvedrelationshipisthatbetweenrulerandminister.Itissymbolically
depictedintherelationshipbetweentheMeijiEmperorandGeneralNogiwhoisdoomedto
livethirty-fiveyearsinshameasapunishmentforlosingaflagincombat.Itcanbesaidthat
thisimpositionofrealcharactersintothefictionalworldofthenovelismotivatedbytheneed
toexemplifythepaternalrelationship.
Thedissolutionoftherelationshipbetweenfriendswhich,accordingtoMencius,should
insteadbecharacterizedby“fidelity”,“faith”or“trust”,isbestillustratedinSensei’sbetrayal
ofK,hisbestfriend.Thebetrayalisbroughtaboutbytheyoungmen’sloveforOjôsan.K
confesseshislovetoSensei,whotakesadvantageofhisfriend’sweakframeofmindand
invokeshishighspiritualidealsinordertodiscouragehispossibleattemptsataskingfor
Ojôsan’s hand. Thus friendship here is no longer seen as selfless “association” based on
fidelity and trust, but as an encounter of two distinct individuals, who do not hesitate to
destroyoneanotherwhentheirinterestsareatstake.
ThuswecanseethattheeffortsoftheMeijiintellectualstobridgetheconceptualgap
betweenJapanandtheWesternworldarenotableinthattheyhelpedcontributetoabetter
understandingofforeignculturesandphilosophy.However,insteadofmediatingbetweenthe
language of the originalandthe target language, writers attempted to adapt the Japanese
languagetothenewlyintroducedconceptsbycreatingnewandsometimesawkwardwords
that were hardly equivalent to their denotation in the original language. Sôseki’s novel
reflects, through language and contents, the painful transformation of the individual who
attemptstobecome“amodernman”,butisconstantlyheldbackbyhisstillpowerfulbonds
toanoldandconservativeworldoftraditionandmoralobligations.AsPollackpointsout,
InKokorotheselfisunderstoodassomethingessentiallyparasitic,antisocial,andfrighteningly
destructiveofboththesocialfabricanditshumanhost.Strippedofitstraditionalsocialdefinitionit
clearlyresemblesMeijimaninthat,initsnewundefinedanddangerouslychaoticstate,ithaslostits
traditionalsenseofwhatitis,whereitisgoing,orwhatitspurposemaybe(1992:65).

Kokoro
andtheAgonyoftheIndividual
21
others,sensedthemismatchbetweenintentionsandreality.Hischaracters’petulantselves
serveasanepitome oftheepochandareeventuallyconsumedwiththestrugglebetween
idealsandduty.Thesamekindofstrugglemaybesaidtohavehappenedatthelinguistic
level.Withtheiridealsofmodernity,theMeijiintellectualscopiedtheformbutstruggledwith
conceptsandideaswhichwereessentiallyforeigntotheJapanesepeople,creatingnotonly
newterms,butalsobringingaboutasenseofdisruptionofthetraditionalvaluesystem.
Menciuslistedfivemainrelationshipsthatfixaperson’sexistenceinsociety.Theseare
father-child,ruler-minister,husband-wife,elderbrother-youngerbrother,andfriend-friend.
As can be seen, paramount importance is given not to the individual, but to the family,
followedbyauthority,relativesandfriends.Thereshouldbe“affection”or“love”between
parent and child; the relationship between ruler and minister should be characterized by
“righteousness” or “duty”; between husband and wife there should be “distinction” or
“attentiontoseparatefunctions”;“properorder”or“precedence”shouldbeobservedbetween
elder and younger brothers and “fidelity”, and “faith” and “trust” should characterize
friendship(Pollack,1992:59).Theemergenceofanewculture,thatofmoreindividualistic
andsuccess-orientedtownspeople,theso-called
chônin
(

),causedtheerosionofthese
traditional values, which are gradually replaced by more materialistic goals of personal
fulfillment.
Like Mishima Yukio, Sôseki blames the breakdown of human relationships on the
alienation ofthe individual from traditional values. His characters, while refutingthe old
worldasobsoleteandrestraining,arenotyetreadytofacethechallengesofsolitudeand
individualresponsibility,andlosetheirsenseofdirection.In
Kokoro
,Senseiconfessestohis
spiritualdisciplethathefeelslikeastrangecreature,asortofmummyamongsttheliving
「
のままのりれたのてか
(ShouldIgoon
livingasIdonow,likeamummyleftinthemidstoflivingbeings…).
Kokoro’sworldisonewherehumanrelationshipshavealreadybeenaltered.Thereis
little ifanyfilial affection between sons and parentsin Kokoro. Instead, Watakushi, the
narratorinthefirstpartofthenovel,feelsmoreattachedtoamanwithwhomheisnotrelated:
「のなかのがでるとっても
のなかのがれて
るとっても
のもでなよれて
(Indeed,itwould
nothaveseemedtomethenanexaggerationtosaythatSensei’sstrengthhadenteredmy
body,andthathisverylifewasflowinginmyveins)…
「がのでり

もなかのでるとなをとらの
ててめてなでもたかのおどた
(And when I
discoveredthatsuchweremytruefeelingstowardsthesetwomenIwasshocked.ForwasI
notofmyfather’sflesh?).Ontheotherhand,thestrangenessWatakushi’snewlyacquired
cosmopolitanairsdoesnotescapehisparents:
「のへのをむよ

(Assomeoneindaysgonebymighthaveputit,itwaslikeintroducingthesmellofa
ChristianintothehomeofaConfucianist).Watakushi’sbrother,abusinessmanlivingina
largecity,isnotquicktoleavehisbusinesstotendtohisdyingfather—businesscomesbefore
filialduties.Moreover,inthelatter’sopinion,Sensei,withhislackofinterestinmaterial
matters,isanegoist,becausehefailstobringhisowncontributiontosociety:
「もな
もてなれがをってるだ分のって
るをでるだかなっだ
(“That’sthetroublewithegoists,”hesaid

NiculinaNae
20
countryside:
「とってるからね
(“WearenotinTokyo,youknow,”
saidmyfather.“Countrypeopleareratherfussyandresentful”).However,hissondoesnot
feelobligedtopayhisrespectstothepeopleinthevillage
「のがだった
(I
hatedthekindofgueststhatcametoacountrydinnerparty).Inthenovel,thecountryside,


inaka
,iscontrastedtothebigcity

,

Tokyo
,
tokai
.Likewise,onemaynoticethat
the two worlds are divided along the semantic lines of

seken
, which nullifies the
individualasaprivatepersonandimposestheobligationofmaintainingafunctionalnetwork
of relations, and

shakai
, where one canlive, ifonechooses, withas littlesocial
intercourseaspossible.WatakushiremarksthatSenseilacksthesocialconnectionswhich
mighthaveenabledhimtofindagoodpositionforhisdisciple:
「のとて
るもまとながらのをた
(Besides,Ithoughttomyself,
evenifhewishedtohelpme,hecoulddoverylittle,sinceheledsuchasecludedlife).
The following passage from Fukuzawa Yukichi gives a clue to the new, individual
orientedtrend:
Everyhumanbeingis,byhisconstitution,aseparate,anddistinct,andcompletesystem,adaptedtoall
the purposes of self-government, andresponsible, separately, to God, for the manner in whichhis
powersareemployed.Thusevery
individual
possessesabody…(inYanabu,1995:32,hisemphasis,
mytranslation).
ThetraditionalJapaneseindividualwasbynomeansself-governedandresponsibletoGod.
Hewasrathergovernedbyhisleadersandresponsibletohissuperiors.However,Sôseki’s
SenseiisresponsibleneithertoGodnortootherpeopleforhisdeeds.Heisasolitaryman
whodoesnotseekthevalidationofsociety
「のとよりも
のたっ
たでらてるとったがなの
(As you know, my circle of
acquaintancesisverysmall.Indeed,itwouldbemorecorrecttosaythatIlivealoneinthis
world).HereSôsekiusestheterm

hitori
alongsideitsoppositeterms
の
yononaka
,
whichmeans“world,society”,and

kôsai
,whichtranslatesas“socialintercourse”.He
managestodepictinthissinglephrasetheessenceofthenewworld—theestrangementofthe
individualdespiteamoreorlessrichsociallife.Againthereisaparadoxinthatwhilehe
choosestodepicttheinnerlifeofhischaractersasindividuals(

hitori
,asitwere),he
ascribestotheterm

hitori
arathernegativeconnotation.Senseichoosestolivealone,
buthisaloofnesscomesasarejectionofaworldthathurthimandtowhomhe,inturn,gave
pain.Ontheotherhand,Watakushi’sfatheraskshiswifewhethersheisgoingtolivealone
(

hitori
)inthehouseafterhisdeath
「おれがだら
おどる
での
るか
(“WhatwillyoudowhenI’mdead?Doyouintendtoliveallaloneinthis
house?”)—whichmaysuggestthattheideaofleavinghiswifeallaloneinanemptyhouse
doesnotappealtohim.
TheDissolutionofOldValues
TheintellectualrevolutionoftheMeijiRestorationdidnotleaveitsmarksontheJapanese
language only. The intelligentsia eagerly adopted the Western ideals of progress and
civilization,superimposingthemonafundamentallyconservativeandtradition-boundvalue
system.Westernthingsandthoughtsbecamethefashion.However,Sôsekihimself,among

Kokoro
andtheAgonyoftheIndividual
19
In1872NakamuraTadanaopublishedhistranslationofJ.S.Mill’s
OnLiberty
,which
opposestwofundamentalconcepts:thatof
society
—whichshouldexerciseonlyalimited
authority over the individual—andthat of
individual
, who shouldenjoy sovereignty over
himself. However, as both the notions of
society
and
individual
in the European sense
appearedobscureanddifficulttounderstandforJapanesereaders,inhistranslation,entitled
JiyûnoRi
,Nakamurachosetoopposetwomorepalpablerealitiescontainedintheactual
hierarchyofJapanesefeudalsociety,namely

seifu
or

nakamakaisho
(the
government),and

ikkojinmin
(oneofthepeople)(Yanabu,1995:26).Thischoice
is the more interesting if one takes into account the fact that the concept of society, as
Westernersperceiveit,didnotexistinJapaneseculture.However,itwouldbeamistaketo
thinkthatattheendofthe19thcenturyJapanwasnotanorganizedsociety.Theword

seken
,aswellas

han
(clan,fief,domain)and

kazoku
(family)hadbeenusedforabout
athousandyearstoexpresstheconceptofhumanassociation.
Seken
reflectsaveryconcrete
aspectofthisrelationship,andalthough
seken
and
shakai
areoftenreciprocallydefined,the
formerisseldomusedasatranslationequivalentof“society”(Yanabu,1995:19).According
to

KadokawaSaishinKanwaJiten
(KadokawaKanjiDictionary,Second
edition,1983),

seken
isdefinedas:
1.
world,thisworld,society
;
2.
extentofone’sassociationwithothers;peoplearoundoneself
.
Ontheotherhand,Nelson’s
Japanese-EnglishCharacterDictionary
(Secondedition,1987)
defines
shakai
as “world, society, life, people, society, the public; rumor, gossip.” The
WesternimitationfrenzyoftheMeijiperiodimposedalargeruseof

shakai
,sinceits
abstractnessgaveitasenseofrefinement.Asaresult,undertheinfluenceoftheMeirokusha
intellectuals,theterm

shakai
startedtobeusednotonlyintranslations,butalsointhe
worksofsomeintellectuals.Inhis
のめ
GakumonnoSusume
(AnEncouragement
of Learning)(1876) Fukuzawa Yukichi uses theterm
の
shakaino eiyo
(social
honor), which can only be attained through learning as opposed to worldly honor, the
prerequisitesofwhicharenotnecessarilyknowledgeandvirtuousbehavior,butratherthe
validationof
seken
.
Fukuzawa Yukichi, who aimed at disseminating ideas of human equity, individual
freedomandsuccess,attemptedtocoinanewequivalentfor“society”,whichwouldspecify
more clearly the concept of
individual
interaction. In his 1868 translation of
Political
EconomyforUseinSchoolsandforPrivateInstruction
(authorandyearunknown),heused,
amongothers,theterm

ningenkôsai
asanequivalentfortheEnglish“society”.The
term

kôsai
,withitsvariant
の
sekennokôsai
hadbeeninuse,butitssense
was rather vague, and did not overtly imply individual participation. Other terms that
expressedtheideaofhumanassociationlike

han
(clan),

zoku
(family),and

kuni
(country),didnotspecificallypointtoaninteractionbetweenindividuals.Moreover,theword

kôsai
,whichmeans“intercourse,association”impliesanassociationbetweenpeopleas
independentindividuals,andnotasagroup.
Inhisnovel,Sôsekiusestheword

inaka
torefertothecountryside,withitsworldly
butyetunspoiledtraditions.Thistermhastheconnotationof

seken
ratherthanthestiff

shakai
.Watakushi’sfathercommentsonthestrictersocialobligationsthatgovernthe

NiculinaNae
18
Meiji period).
Shakai
appears in 1873 in Shibata Shôkichi’s English-Japanese dictionary,
where the meaning of “society”is expressedas

nakama
(meeting, assembly, party,
association,club),
み
kumiai
(association, guild, union),

renshu
(companion,
party),

kôsai
(intercourse, association, society, company),

icchi
(union,
combination, fusion, congruence),

shachû
(colleague). As can be seen, these terms
definesocietyasanassociation,eitherinafriendlymanner,orwiththepurposeofmutual
benefit.
LetusexaminetheWesterndefinitionof“society”.Accordingto
TheOxfordEnglish
Dictionary
(1994edition),thetermisdefinedas:
1. Associationwithone’sfellowmen,especiallyinafriendlymanner,companionshiporfellowship;
2. The stateorconditionoflivinginassociation,company,orintercoursewithothersofthesame
species;thesystemormodeoflifeadoptedbyabodyofindividualsforthepurposeofharmonious
co-existenceorformutualbenefit,defense,etc.
YanabunoticesthatasfarasMeijiJapanwasconcerned,onlythefirstpointofthisdefinition
was applicable. According to it, “society” is a human association, companionship or
fellowship,usuallybasedonfriendship.However,theideaofsocietyinpre-MeijiandMeiji
thinkingexcludesanynotionofassociationbetween
individuals
.Thepointisreinforcedin
the early English-Japanese and Dutch-Japanese dictionaries. Imamura’s 1796 Dutch-
Japanesedictionarygivestwoequivalentsfortheterm
genootschap
(society):averb—

る
majiwaru
(to associate, cross, intersect), and a noun—
まり
atsumari
(gathering,
meeting,gettogether).Lateron,inthefirstEnglish-Japanesedictionary(1814)


AngeriaGorinTaisei
,MotokiMasahidedefinestheterm“society”as

ryohan
(companionship) or

sôhan
(participation). A more comprehensive Japanese-Dutch
dictionarywascompletedin1855–58byKatsuragawaHoshuu,entitled
字
OrandaJii
(Dutch Vocabulary), where
genootschap
(society) is translated as

yoriai
(meeting,
assembly, party, get together) or

shûkai
(meeting,assembly).InHori Tatsunosuke’s
English-Japanesedictionary

EiwaTaiyakuShûchinJisho
(AnEnglish-
JapanesePocketDictionary,1862),
society
appearsas

nakama
,

icchi
(companion,
colleague,comrade,company,party,circle,set,fraternity).Therewerealsoothertermsgiven
asequivalents:
み
kumi
(class,group,team,set),

renchû
(party,company,clique),


shachû
(clique),etc.Unlike“society”,whichis,afterall,“
asystemormodeoflifeadopted
byabodyof
individuals
”(myemphasis),notoneofthesedefinitionstakestheindividualas
theminimalunitofhumanrelationships.AccordingtoTheMerriamWebsterDictionary,the
definitionsof
individual
are:
1. a:aparticularbeingorthingasdistinguishedfromaclass,species,orcollection:as(1):asingle
humanbeingascontrastedwithasocialgrouporinstitution:Ateacherwhoworkswithindividuals
(2):asingleorganismasdistinguishedfromagroup
b:aparticularperson:Areyouthe
individual
Ispokewithonthetelephone?
2. anindivisibleentity
3. thereferenceofanameorvariableofthelowestlogicaltypeinacalculus.
Underthisinterpretation,theindividualexistsbyvirtueofhisbeingdistinguishedfrom,or
contrastedwith,hisgroup/classorinstitution.Thedistinction(atleastthevisibleone)was
nullifiedinJapanesesocietybeforetheMeiji.Individualinterestsweresubordinatedtothose
ofthegrouponebelongedto.

Kokoro
andtheAgonyoftheIndividual
17
dominatedbythequestforanidentitytomatchtheWesternvalues.Meijiintellectualswere
lookingforan
analoguetotheWestern“self”,asthenecessaryprecursortothepolitical
conceptsof“liberty”,“freedom”,and“rights”,whicharefoundeduponit
(Pollack,1992:
55).However,sincetheoldcoexistedwiththenewtrend,amajorconflictbetweentradition
and innovation occurred, leading to the sense of confusion and despair which pervades
Sôseki’snovel.
DuringtheMeijiculturalenlightenment, Japanese intellectualsabandonedtraditional
principles and turned to Europe for guidance (Aston, 1975: 384). Translations of great
EuropeanthinkerslikeMill,Darwin,SpencerandKantbyFukuzawaYukichiorNakamura
MasanaohelpedindisseminatingWesternideasofindividuality,freedom,rights,equality,
progress,etc.TheabsorptionoftheseideaspromotedachangeintheJapaneseindividual’s
conception of self and his relationship to the world. Thus, a free and more materialistic
individualemergedinplaceofthepersonwhoguidedhimselfafterConfucianandBuddhist
doctrines of effacing the self, or always relating to and relying upon the group. In his
GakumonnoSusume
(
AnEncouragementofLearning
),FukuzawaYukichidealswiththe
concept ofindependence. The idealsof independenceandachievement inlife(

risshinshusse
)graduallystartedtoreplacethetraditionalsocialcohesion.
Fromthepointofviewofindividualemancipation,theMeijienlightenmentplayedin
JapanarolesimilartothatoftheRenaissanceinEurope,whereindividualismwas
asocial
systeminwhichtheindividualisideallyaloneinasecularizedworld,freedfromthebondsof
family and tradition
(Walker, 1979: 6). However, while in Europe ideas about society,
individuality or freedom took centuries to develop, Japanese intellectuals expected to
assimilatetheminaveryshortperiodoftime,andwithoutthehistorical,politicalandsocial
backgroundpresumednecessaryforthisassimilation.Oldconceptsgavewaytonewones,
whilenewconceptswerenaturalizedeventhoughtherealitytheyweresupposedtoreflectdid
notmatchtheJapanesestateofaffairs.Thisresultedinthedisseminationoftermswhose
sensewasunintelligibletothecommonreader,suchas

shakai
(society),

kojin/hito
(individual),

jiyû
(freedom),etc.
TheAvatarsoftheIndividual
As Tsuda Sôkichi points out, Japanese translators introduced new concepts by merely
changingtheirform,butnottheircontents.Thusaconceptwasexpressedinamultitudeof
forms,dependingonthetranslator’stalentandexperience.Theinitiative,althoughpositive,
notonlycreatedagreatdealofconfusionastowhichtermmightbethemostappropriate,but
wentdeeperintotheveryessenceofthesenewwords,whichcouldnotfindaperfectmatch
intherealitytheyweresupposedtoexpress.Itwasduringthistimesuchwordsas

kojin
and

shakai
werecreatedinordertofunctionastranslationequivalentsto“individual”
and “society”. Theyreplaced olderones, such as

hitori
and

seken
,which had
becomeobsoleteinasocietythataspiredtoWesternization.
Inhis 1995book

HonnyakugoSeiritsu Jijô
(
Considerationon the
Formation of Translation Equivalents
), Yanabu Akira discusses the problem of concept
import,pointingoutthat,likeotherwords,theterms

kojin
(individual)and

shakai
(society),startedtocirculateintoday’sformandsensefromaround1876(the10thyearofthe

NiculinaNae
16
society recognized the group as a unit of society, whereas theindividual was forcedinto
unconditionaldependenceuponandsubordinationtothecollectivity.
Meijiwritersweregraduallyattractedtotheinneruniverseoftheircharacters;however,
unlikeTaishôandShôwawriters,theystillseemedtiedtoanethicofself-constraint,andto
theconvictionthatindividualeffortsshouldbesubordinatedtotranscendentalvalues(Etô,
1970:49).LiteratureintheMeijiperiodreflectsthisoppositionbetweentheindividualego
andthecollectivisticsenseofmissionandsocialresponsibility,characteristicoftraditional
Japanesesociety.
TheriseofindividualisminitiatedduringtheMeijiRestorationwasmarkedbyaturn
towards Western values. It was also an attempt to integrate these values into the highly
conservativeandcollectivisticJapaneseculturalsystem.Forthefirsttime,writersconceived
of a new type of hero—the private individual, whose inner uniqueness and quality of
everydayexistenceweremoreinterestingthanhisheroicexploits(Walker,1979:1).
Theconflictbetweenthediscoveryoftheself,ontheonehand,andthedutytowards
societyontheothercreatedanirreconcilablecontradictionbetweentheconceptof
giri
,which
standsforindividual’spublicresponsibility,andthatof
ninjô
,thatisone’sowndesirefor
personalsatisfaction.Thisconflictwasthe sourceofdramaticthemesdepictedartfullyin
manyofChikamatsuMonzaemon’splays.ThetraditionalConfucianmoralsystemandthe
rigidhierarchyofJapanwereinimicaltosocialmobilityandindividualsatisfaction.Bythe
endofthe Tokugawa shogunate,anysuchaspirations werestrictlysanctionedbysociety.
Chikamatsu’sheroesandheroineswerelowerclasspeople,suchaslowlyrankedsamurai,
merchantsandsometimespeasants,wholackedmoralvalidationinthesocialsystem.These
heroesweredefinedintheofficialcultureasimmoral,sincetheirgoalswerenotacceptable
underthetraditionalsystem.
TheImportofWesternCultureanditsImplications.
InEurope,19thcenturywasdominatedbythestruggleofthemiddleclasstobreakthemoral
andpolitical canons imposed bythe upperclasses.Literature regardedlove, amongother
factors,as amoral force contributingtothe growthof the individual.AccordingtoWatt,
individualismandlovewereconsideredtobethetwodynamicforcesthatbroughtaboutthe
development ofthe Western bourgeois novel (1957: 135–138). Onthecontrary, Japanese
societyingeneralandsomeoftheMeijiwriters(includingSôseki),inparticular,tendedto
regardloveasthecauseofmoraldestruction.InSôseki’snovel,twoofthemaincharacters,
SenseiandhisfriendK,owetheirmoraland,ultimately,physicaldestructiontotheirlovefor
thegirl,Ojôsan.K,whoserigididealsofbecomingahermit,andtherebydenyinghishuman
nature,areconfusedbythecharmoftheyoungwoman,choosestodieratherthangiveinto
theyearningsoftheflesh.KleavesSenseiwiththeprize,butalsowiththeremorseofhaving
sacrificedhisfriend’slifeandhisownpeaceofmind.
Suchlackofself-affirmationcreatedabackgroundagainstwhichMeijiliteraryworks
dealing with the problems of the individual appeared and were widely disseminated,
mirroringafocalshiftfromthecollectivetotheindividual.However,asPollackpointsout,
evenbeforeauthorscouldtalkaboutindividuality,andaboutan“I”,theyhadfirsttoaska
morefundamentalquestion:What
is
anI?(1992:54,hisemphasis).Indeed,MeijiJapanis

NUCBJLCC,
4,2(2002),15–23
Kokoro
andtheAgonyoftheIndividual
N
ICULINA
N
AE
InthisarticleIexaminechangesintheconceptofidentityasaresultoftheupheavalin
relationshipsbroughtaboutbytheMeijiRestoration.Thesechangesareseenasreflectedin
Sôseki’snovel
Kokoro
.IdiscusstwoofthemostimportantconceptsofmodernJapanese,
thoseof
individual
(

kojin
)and
society
(

shakai
),bothofwhichwereintroduced
undertheinfluenceoftheMeijiintelligentsia’sattemptstocreateanewJapanfollowingthe
European model. These concepts, along with many others, reflect the tendency of Meiji
intellectualstodiscardthetraditionalJapanesevaluesystems,wherethegroup,andnotthe
individual,wastheminimalunitofsociety.Thepreoccupationwiththeindividualandhis
owninnerworldisreflectedinNatsumeSôseki’s
Kokoro
.Thenovelispervadedbyafeeling
ofconfusionbetweenloyaltytotheoldvaluesofadyingeraandlackofattachmenttowards
anewandmaterialisticworld.
Thenovel
Kokoro
appearedforthefirsttimeintheAsahiShimbunbetween20Apriland11
August1914.ItreflectsthematurationofSôseki’sartistictechnique,beinghislastcomplete
workofpurefiction(Viglielmo,1976:167).AsMcClellan(1969)pointedout,
Kokoro
isan
allegoryofitsera,anideasustainedalsobythelackofnamesforcharacters,whoaresimply
“Sensei”, “I”, “K”, etc. It depicts the torment of a man, Sensei, who has grown up in a
prosperousandartisticfamily,andwho,afterhisparents’death,findsoutthattherealworld
isdifferentfromhisownnaive,idealisticimage.Senseirealizesthathelivesinaworldwhere
materialinterestandappearancesaremoreimportantthanspiritualmattersandvirtue.His
friendandrivalisK,whoseasceticinclinationsandspiritualwaysearnhimtheresentmentof
K’sadoptiveparents.Againsthisownwill,Kfallsinlovewiththesamegirlashisfriend.
SenseiwinsherandK,tornbetweenhisspiritualidealsandmaterialbeing,commitssuicide,
anactofpossiblerevengeagainsthismorematerialisticfriend.Althoughawinner,Sensei
spendstherestofhislifeinself-reproachandtorment.Hefinallykillshimself,afterconfiding
hisinnermostthoughtsinalengthyletteraddressedtoayoungman,“Watakushi”,whoishis
spiritualdisciple.
TheEmergenceofaNewLiterature—AHistoricandCulturalBackground
TheMeijiRestorationbroughtaboutashiftoffocusfromcollectivismtoindividualism.The
complextransformationofahighlyconservativesocietyinfluencedtheindividual,whofeels
trapped between modern ideals of personal fulfillment and traditional values. Traditional