The Difference of Fragmental Thinking between Fujita Shozo and Tsurumi Shunsuke

Abstract

  This paper tries to compare fragmental thinkings of Fujita Shozo and Tsurumi Shunsuke, who were philosophers, historians, critics and activists in the postwar time Japan. They faced the crisis of the 20th century, and developed their understanding and practice to find conditions and potential for resistance against the predominant tendency of thought of their era. Along their recognition of the crisis, they both acquired fragmental thinkings and expressions to confront it. Interestingly, However, Fujita and Tsurumi got different ── correctly speaking, opposite ── visions about one important problem, because of their different backgrounds: namely, whether their society after the World War II could also be regarded as totalitarian or not. After the misery and suffering of totalitarianism in the 20th century, it has been an important style of criticism to regard some societies, organizations or individuals as totalitarian. Fujita regarded contemporary Japanese society as totalitarian, penetrating through their form of life. On the other hand, Tsurumi hesitated to identify his society as such, and criticized that such identification itself was close to totalitarian thinking. This paper describes that Fujita tried to entrust a potential of a resistance to fragmental forms in the totalitarian tendency, and on the other hand, Tsurumi aimed for fragmental thinking to avoid risks that his unstable society would get a totalitarian tendency.