Until recently in Japan, theories of “domination” (shihai), “conflict” (toso), and “autonomy” (jichi) have been the most utilized conceptual tools in political science research. However, when one applies these theoretical constructs in an attempt to analyze actual political phenomena as they exist in society, there are inevitably things which cannot be adequately explained by these models. In the past, it was often convenient to claim that since we are dealing with a “backward country where cultural standards are lower, one has to expect a certain degree of irrationalism.” I do not believe this explanation is persuasive any longer; rather, the problem is that our conceptual tools are inadequate for understanding Japanese political culture fully.
Given this perspective, it is possible to observe from the outset that considerable theoretical confusion persists among these three conceptual tools listed above, and in some instances, extraneous factors have been included. For example, when autonomy is rendered not as self-determination, but as “self-government, ” this is because it has been transformed by the concept of domination. This suggests that it would be valuable not only to distinguish clearly among these three different theoretical constructs, but to abstract from existing reality whatever other tools or theories are necessary for enhancing our understanding. If we were to do this, the following types of theoretical approaches could be developed.
Let us list three major concepts: “involution” (kikyo), “assimilation” (doka) and “karma.” These represent three principles which are at the very roots of political culture in Japan, China and India. Since it is a relatively simple matter to identify the basic elements of a particular political culture, one might easily jump to the conclusion that all political cultures can be reduced to a single basic principle. However, this is not the case, and one would be well advised to consider that political cultures are rooted in a series of highly complex principles. Moreover, for each of these principles we can identify seven basic components: ultima ratio (kirifuda), structure, organization, movements, values, change and the social base, and this sheds light on the manner in which these complex elements are intertwined. If we apply these potentially very useful tools to the task of deciphering the reality we perceive around us, the range of our capacity to explain the various existing political and social phenomena which we encounter will be significantly expanded.
While political movements are often described as political processes, and political processes are often rendered as developing political conditions, I argue that the overall developmental process of political conditions can be seen as taking a definite form. I call the “place” (ba) in which political conditions develop a fixed “magnetic field” (jiba). We can distinguish three different types of magnetic fields: unipolar, bipolar and multipolar. Moreover, presumably there is some degree of correspondence, between these three types of magnetic fields and the six basic elements that make up society, and with the special characteristics emerging from the way these elements are combined. For example, we can hypothesize that the principles of “karma” and “involution” correspond to the unipolar field; “conflict” and “domination” correspond to the bipolar field; and “assimilation” and “autonomy” correspond to the multipolar field. These elements can be broken down further by distinguishing between the six basic ingredients depending on whether they are diffusive or cohesive, and dividing them into two categories accordingly. It is my hypothesis that if, among the six elements,
