Musings on Japanese and Ryukyu Budo
|
Categories |
Categories |
Musings on Japanese and Ryukyu Budo
|
Categories |
Categories |
Oct. 8, 2024 - The Anatomy of Modern Submission: Living Within the Framework of Institutional Power.10/8/2024 Henry David Thoreau’s dictum that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” is a proactive diagnosis of our present condition. However, in the current era, this diagnosis requires a more critical and sophisticated lens that reveals the mechanisms through which desperation is systematically produced and sustained. For this, we must turn to a Foucauldian analysis of power and a Bourdieuian understanding of social habitus, recognising that the structures of domination have evolved into complex networks of control, both visible and invisible. It is not merely a question of personal resignation but of a pervasive subjugation by the very apparatuses that claim to promote freedom and self-fulfilment. Today, the individual is entangled in a complex web of power relations that extend far beyond the traditional confines of state or corporate oversight. We are, in essence, economic subjects, disciplined by the imperatives of productivity, efficiency, and market valuation. It's easy to deceive ourselves, but we are constantly under surveillance, often under the guise of 'more is better '. Our bodies and minds are conditioned to conform to a standard that ultimately serves the interests of capital through education, professional development, and the subtle coercion of social norms. The expectation for teenagers in my classroom to seek permission to use the bathroom in a small, private school is a stark example of this. This is not power exerted through brute force but a more insidious and diffuse form of control—what Foucault termed biopower. It's a power that seeps into the very core of our being, shaping our identities, desires, and aspirations from within. Indeed, its influence leads to the disenfranchisement of individuals and the erosion of any genuine community. Within this framework, the notion of freedom is hollowed out and reduced to the superficial choices of consumerism and career advancement, perpetuating our dependency on systems of economic subjugation. The corporatist agenda, cloaked in the rhetoric of meritocracy and innovation, demands that we continuously produce, improve, and outperform. Yet, for anyone who believes in the myth of meritocracy - check the background of the limited social and educational circles from which the leaders in your country come.n But who determines these standards? Who benefits from this ceaseless striving? Bourdieu would argue that the answer lies in the reproduction of social hierarchies—an intricate game of distinction where the elite consolidate their cultural and economic capital. At the same time, the majority are left scrambling for recognition and validation within the constraints of a field already rigged against them. This is not the overt domination of past centuries but a subtler form of domination that appears as voluntary participation. We internalise these expectations, adopting them as our own, and in doing so, we contribute to the perpetuation of our oppression. The outcome is a self-policing society where conformity is achieved through the tacit agreement of its members. Indeed, most major religions (which differ from faiths) must be held to account for the subjugation of the minds, bodies and spirits of their members in the name of a God who may never have intended some of their so-called “rules” and indeed with a closer reading of their sacred text would appear to hold ideas which are the very antithesis of what these institutions called “doctrine”.Thus, we labour not only for survival but for approval, for a sense of self contingent on external recognition. This recognition is, ironically, dictated by those same structures of power that profit from our subjugation. And then there is the other form of domination—one that emerges through what Bourdieu called symbolic violence, perhaps most evident in the production and dissemination of cultural norms around beauty, success, and status. Through the lens of social media, Hollywood, and mass media, we are presented with an array of images and narratives that set impossible achievement standards. These narratives serve to naturalise a particular kind of social reality that privileges aesthetics, celebrity, and wealth over the more fundamental aspirations of human existence: to know and understand ourselves, connect deeply with others, and find meaning in our experiences. Indeed, the normalisation of the California worldview, as somewhat embodied in the more recent ideals of extreme “wokism”, n points to not only a loss of critical discourse but outright efforts to constrain discourse around some ideas whose complexity are anything but a slogan on a tee-shirt of a re-tweeted tweet with a bespoke hashtag (if that is what they are still called??) on X or Instagram. Here, power operates not through direct coercion but through the shaping of perception itself. We are taught to see the world and our place in it through the gaze of those who hold cultural power, and in doing so, we become complicit in our marginalisation. This is why social media is so effective as a disciplinary tool with its endless scroll of carefully curated images and constructed identities. It normalises a version of reality that is fundamentally exclusionary, privileging the few while rendering the aspirations of the many inherently insufficient. We are coaxed into believing that our value is contingent on external validation—being seen, followed, and liked. Again, there are multiple lies at play in recent times, many of which hide the fact that an upper, elite class often claim victimhood based upon the recent history of a far-off place which, by sleight of hand, they have claimed as their own, even though they never lived or existed in the historical place they reference. This sleight of hand is epidemic on national and international platforms - yet no one dares to call the emperor out! Yet, this visibility is a trap, for it entangles us in the constant need to conform to ever-shifting standards that serve no purpose other than maintaining the existing power dynamics. Churches were once lambasted for the guilt they imposed upon their followers - we now live in a world where people are called to be embarrassed by actions someone in their genetic soup may or may not have perpetuated during a selective time in history - such logic is emotionally and not found in a true discourse of reason or indeed fact. The question, then, is not merely one of resisting these forms of power, but of redefining the terms of resistance. To resist effectively, we must first acknowledge that the aspirations most deeply connected to the human condition—falling in love, the pursuit of impossible dreams, the acceptance of failure as a site of growth, and the simple act of helping others—are systematically devalued by a social order that privileges quantifiable achievement over qualitative experience. When pursued authentically, such aspirations disrupt the smooth functioning of power, for they cannot be easily co-opted or commodified. What if we realised that, for example, falling in love could be a liberation for so many regardless of the circumstances upon which it occurs - love can be a verb - but it demands great courage, for to love also means to exert respect, control and recognise the fundamental sacre4dness of the other - indeed such ideals are anathema to the vacuous, husks which the legal and corporate world sell and shape us with. The state, the corporation, and even the religious institution each impose a distinct mode of control, a litany of laws and moral codes designed to align individual behaviour with their strategic imperatives. However, the biases and symbolic hierarchies within these structures are more pernicious. They create a stratified field where the song of the human spirit is maligned, its rhythm distorted to fit the melody of a sanctioned ideal: that of the productive worker, the obedient citizen, the morally compliant subject. In each case, what is at stake is the sovereignty of the individual, the ability to engage with life on one’s terms, free from the constraints of institutional demands that seek to subsume the personal under the political or economic. To reclaim our humanity within this landscape of systemic power is not a matter of outright rebellion—an action that power structures anticipate and can readily absorb—but of subtle subversion - a revolution of the soul or spirit of what it means to be human. It is found in the refusal to accept the reduction of our lives to metrics of success dictated by others, in the quiet assertion of alternative values that do not fit neatly into the logic of market or state. It is in the decision to love despite the impossibilities, dream in the face of failure, and offer a hand to another not out of obligation but out of shared humanity. These acts resist categorisation and defy the quantifiable; in doing so, they assert a form of autonomy that power cannot entirely subsume. Yet the final, most potent site of resistance is the internal shift in our disposition—what might be termed the embrace of a life of quiet inspiration. While external forces seek to confine, shape, and restrict us, we retain one inalienable power: choosing how we engage with the world and responding to its impositions. To live a life of quiet inspiration is to deliberately and consciously decide to reframe the conditions of existence imposed upon us. It is to reject the narrative of perpetual striving and embrace a mode of being that honours life's fragility, beauty, and imperfection. This life of quiet inspiration becomes an act of liberation—a form of resistance that is not spectacular or loud but steadfast and profound. In choosing to live this way, we begin to dismantle the shackles that seek to bind our spirit. For it is in this choosing—this refusal to accept the narratives of desperation and inadequacy—that we reclaim our autonomy, and in doing so, we create a space for the true self to emerge. In the midst of quiet inspiration, it is here that the song of our spirit can finally be sung. 代社会における服従の構造:権力と社会的支配の枠組みの中で生きること ヘンリー・デイヴィッド・ソローの「大多数の人々は静かな絶望の中で生きている」という言葉は、現代社会の状況を的確に捉えています。しかし、現代においては、この診断をより批判的で洗練された視点から見つめる必要があります。それは、絶望がどのように体系的に生み出され、維持されているかというメカニズムを明らかにすることです。そのためには、フーコーの権力分析とブルデューの社会的ハビトゥスの理解を取り入れ、支配の構造が目に見える形と見えない形の両方で、どのように進化してきたかを探る必要があります。個人の諦めの問題に留まらず、自己実現を約束するはずの仕組みが、いかにして広範囲にわたる従属を生み出しているかを理解することが重要です。 今日、個人は、国家や企業の監視を超えて拡大した権力関係の網の中に絡み取られています。私たちは、効率性と市場価値の命令によって規律された経済的主体です。私たちの身体と精神は、教育や職業訓練、そして社会規範の微妙な強制を通じて、資本の利益に奉仕する基準に適応するよう訓練されています。これは、フーコーが「生権力(biopower)」と呼んだ、個人の存在そのものに浸透し、私たちのアイデンティティや欲望、志向を内側から形成する権力の形態です。 この枠組みの中で、自由という概念は中身を失い、消費主義やキャリアの成功といった表層的な選択に還元され、それが私たちの経済的従属を維持する仕組みとなっています。ブルデューの見解によれば、社会的階層の再生産は、文化的および経済的資本を蓄積するエリート層に有利に働き、大多数の人々が、すでに不利に設定されたフィールドの中で認知や評価を求めて奔走する結果を生み出します。 これらの支配は、以前の世紀のように露骨な形では行われず、むしろ自発的な参加という形を取ります。私たちはこの期待を内面化し、それを自分自身のものとして採用することによって、自らの抑圧の再生産に加担しているのです。社会はこうして、個々の成員の暗黙の合意によって達成される自己規律化された存在となります。したがって、私たちは単に生き延びるためではなく、承認されるため、外部からの評価によって規定される自己感覚を求めて労働するのです。しかし、その外部からの評価は、皮肉にも、私たちを従属させるこれらの権力構造によって決定されるのです。 それでは、いかにしてこれらの権力に抵抗すべきでしょうか?私たちが最も深く人間性に結びついている願望、例えば恋に落ちること、不可能な夢を追いかけること、失敗を成長の機会として受け入れること、そして純粋に他者を助けることといった価値が、社会秩序によって系統的に軽視されていることを認識することから始めるべきです。 究極的には、自己解放への道は内面的な転換にあります。それは「静かなインスピレーションに満ちた人生」を選択することです。外的な圧力が私たちを制限し、形作り、拘束しようとする中で、私たちには一つの不変の力が残されています。それは、世界との関わり方やその中での生き方を自ら選択する力です。静かなインスピレーションに満ちた人生を生きることは、意識的に存在の条件を再構築し、絶望と不足感の物語を拒否し、現代社会が私たちに押し付ける枠組みを超越する行為です。これこそが、自己の解放を成し遂げ、真の自己が現れるための選択であり、静かなインスピレーションに満ちた人生こそが、権力の鎖を断ち切り、私たちの精神がその歌を自由に歌うことを許す唯一の道なのです。
0 Comments
I have been reflecting deeply of late on the whole issue of a seemingly silent God and the apparent unwillingness to intervene when we suffer, even though none of us asked to be born. Nevertheless, in living a life we did not choose, we may not only suffer in this world but also face suffering in the next if we do not follow the will and expectations of that God—at least as traditionally understood in the Christian sense. This has led me to confront the perplexing paradox of an all-loving, omnipotent God who permits the existence of eternal damnation, and to grapple with the myriad theological questions arising from it. The coexistence of a God characterised as omnibenevolent with the notion of eternal damnation has long been a thorny issue within Christian theology. Suppose God's love is boundless and His nature inherently good. How could He permit humans of limited intellect and moral understanding—to suffer eternally for what are, ultimately, finite transgressions? The implications of this issue are far-reaching: why create beings with the capacity for moral failure at all? Does the value of free will justify the risk of eternal damnation? If human life is marked by suffering, confusion, and seemingly arbitrary moral choices, does it not seem unjust to impose eternal consequences for actions committed under such imperfect conditions? This essay critically engages with these questions, drawing on the theological reflections of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Barth, Alvin Plantinga, and others, to explore how Christian thought grapples with this dilemma. The Doctrine of Hell: A Loving God and Eternal Separation At the heart of the issue lies the traditional Christian doctrine of hell, which asserts that souls rejecting God are subject to eternal punishment or separation. One must ask: if God is love, as stated in 1 John 4:8, how can He create a realm of eternal suffering? Theologians such as Augustine attempt to reconcile this by arguing that hell is not so much a place of active punishment as it is a state of existence chosen by the soul itself. In City of God, Augustine writes that hell is a state of self-imposed separation from God, where the soul, having rejected divine grace, experiences the absence of God's love (Augustine, 426 AD). However, this explanation introduces a significant complication: what capacity do humans have to make such a monumental choice? Augustine posits that human beings are endowed with free will, a gift that permits them to love God or reject Him. However, Augustine also acknowledges that humanity's nature is "wounded" by original sin, impairing our ability to make entirely rational and moral decisions (Augustine, 397 AD). This tension between free will and impaired moral capacity suggests that human beings may not possess the requisite freedom or understanding to make an informed choice regarding their eternal destiny. If inherent limitations mar human freedom, how can such decisions bear the weight of eternal consequence? Thomas Aquinas: Human Rationality and Divine Justice Thomas Aquinas builds upon Augustine's view in his Summa Theologica. For Aquinas, the justice of hell is rooted in the soul's ability to apprehend moral truth through reason. He suggests that the rational soul can understand the basic precepts of good and evil, making a definitive choice for or against God (Aquinas, 1274). Aquinas contends that the severity of hell's punishment corresponds to the soul's culpability, which its rational faculties inform. Thus, eternal damnation is not imposed by God's wrath but is a direct result of the soul's informed choice to reject divine goodness. Nevertheless, Aquinas's argument assumes that humans can grasp the gravity of rejecting an infinite, all-loving God. Can a finite being truly comprehend the eternal implications of their actions, primarily when earthly life is characterised by suffering, confusion, and limited understanding? Consider, for example, a person born into extreme poverty exposed only to violence and moral corruption. Can such a person, with little access to education or moral formation, be expected to arrive at an understanding of God's love that would allow them to make an informed choice for or against Him? Aquinas's view, while emphasising the dignity and capacity of human reason, risks minimising the profound limitations imposed by circumstance, psychological makeup, and the inherent opacity of divine will. The Paradox of Free Will: Why Create Beings Capable of Self-Damnation? One of the most challenging aspects of this theological conundrum is why God, knowing the potential consequences of free will, chose to create human beings with it. If God is omniscient and fully aware of the suffering and eternal damnation that could result from the misuse of free will, why would He create beings with such a capacity in the first place? Moreover, none of us asked to be born. To be created without consent and then held accountable for one's actions—actions that may lead to eternal consequences—seems, at first glance, deeply unjust. Contemporary theologians and philosophers have discussed this issue extensively. Augustine provides a foundational argument, asserting that the gift of free will is indispensable for moral agency and genuine love. In his De Libero Arbitrio, Augustine argues that God did not create human beings as automatons incapable of choice because such a creation would undermine the very nature of love and goodness. For love to exist, it must be freely given and freely received; coercion negates love's essence (Augustine, 397 AD). Nevertheless, this explanation raises further ethical concerns: is it truly just or loving to create beings with the potential for eternal suffering when they did not choose to be created? If the stakes are so high, why would God not intervene more directly to guide humanity away from damnation? Karl Barth and the Sovereignty of Grace Karl Barth's critique of traditional doctrines of hell arises from a reappraisal of God's sovereignty and grace. In his Church Dogmatics, Barth argues that God's grace is irresistible and that no human soul can be eternally separated from Him. For Barth, God's sovereignty and love ensure that His will shall ultimately prevail, which means that eternal damnation is impossible in the final analysis (Barth, 1961). Hell, in this view, is a metaphor for the temporal estrangement and suffering that arise when a soul rejects God within the earthly realm. Barth's universalist inclinations present a radical departure from traditional conceptions of hell, reframing it as a temporary state of alienation rather than an eternal reality. Barth's approach introduces an important dimension: if God's love is truly boundless and His sovereignty absolute, it seems inconceivable that any human being could ultimately thwart His will. Why, then, should hell exist at all if it represents a contradiction to the will of a loving and omnipotent deity? Barth's view appears to preserve God's loving nature, but it raises further theological implications regarding the nature of human free will. If hell is ultimately empty, does this not render human moral choices meaningless? Alvin Plantinga and the Necessity of Hell Alvin Plantinga addresses this conundrum by asserting that hell's existence is necessary for a world with meaningful moral choices. In God, Freedom, and Evil, Plantinga argues that a world without the possibility of hell would be a world in which human freedom is curtailed (Plantinga, 1974). For Plantinga, the value of human autonomy and moral agency is such that God permits the risk of eternal damnation as a logical necessity. Without this risk, moral actions would lose significance and lack real consequences. Yet, this position invites a profound ethical question: does the value of human freedom truly justify the existence of eternal suffering? Consider, for instance, a parent allowing their child to engage in behaviour that will result in grave, irreversible harm to respect that child's freedom. Such a scenario would betray a lack of love and care. If God's love is analogous to parental love, then the idea of permitting eternal harm for the sake of freedom becomes deeply problematic. If the parent intervenes to prevent harm, how much more should an all-loving God intervene to prevent the eternal suffering of His children? The Problem of Knowledge and Moral Culpability Another dimension of this problem relates to the issue of epistemic access. Humans are finite and contingent, possessing limited knowledge and often finding themselves in circumstances that hinder their moral and spiritual development. This raises the question of whether human beings are ever in a position to make fully informed decisions about their eternal destiny. Suppose a person, for example, grows up in a cultural or religious context that has little exposure to Christian teachings. Is it to hold them to the same standard as someone with extensive theological reflection opportunities? Simone Weil's reflections in Gravity and Grace provide insight into this issue. Weil suggests that the human experience of divine absence—what she terms "decreation"—is a necessary aspect of spiritual growth, wherein the soul empties itself of ego and attachment to make room for divine grace (Weil, 1947). However, Weil acknowledges that this process is fraught with suffering and confusion, often making it difficult for the soul to discern the presence of God or understand divine commandments. Suppose human beings are so often subject to this kind of spiritual obscurity. In that case, demanding that they fully comprehend and respond to God's call with perfect knowledge and freedom seems unjust. Theological Reflections on the Purpose of Creation Perhaps the most perplexing question remains: why would an all-loving God create beings with the potential for eternal separation from Him at all? Is the purpose of creation ultimately to glorify God or to express divine love through a relationship with human beings? If the latter, then the creation of Hell appears contradictory to God's nature, as it introduces the possibility of eternal suffering and rupture of relationships. Augustine responds that God's creation, including the risk of hell, ultimately manifests His justice and goodness. Yet, this view risks portraying God as a cosmic autocrat, more concerned with the display of His attributes than with the welfare of His creatures. Closing Thoughts The paradox of a loving God and the existence of hell remains one of the most troubling and unresolved issues in Christian theology. The perspectives of Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, Plantinga, and Weil offer various insights into this dilemma, but none fully resolve the inherent tension between divine love and eternal damnation. Whether one views hell as a self-chosen state of separation, a temporary metaphor for earthly estrangement, or a necessary consequence of human freedom, the doctrine's ethical and philosophical problems are profound. Ultimately, the coexistence of a loving God and the doctrine of hell challenges our deepest assumptions about the nature of love, justice, and human agency. It may be that the full resolution of this paradox lies beyond human understanding, accessible only in the context of a divine wisdom that transcends our finite categories of thought. Yet, the struggle to comprehend this mystery remains crucial and compelling for theology, continually pushing the boundaries of human thought and faith. 最近、私は神が沈黙していることや、人々が望まずに生まれながらも苦しみ続け、さらには永遠の地獄に陥る可能性があるという問題について考えています。全知全能で慈愛に満ちた神が、なぜ永遠の罰を許すのかという矛盾に直面し、アウグスティヌスやトマス・アクィナス、カール・バルト、アルヴィン・プランティンガなどの神学者たちの議論を通じて、この問題を探求しています。 特に、神の愛と地獄の存在が矛盾する理由について考察し、人間が有限の存在であるにもかかわらず、どのようにして無限の罪を選択することができるのかという問いに焦点を当てています。最終的に、地獄の教義は神の愛と正義をどう両立させるかという永続的な神学的課題を提示しています。 General References:
Bibliographic Citation Moenig, U. (2019). The Japanese and Korean Martial Arts: In Search of a Philosophical Framework Compatible with History. The International Journal of the History of Sport. Vol. 36, No. 9–10, pp. 833–857. DOI: 10.1080/09523367.2019.1618277. Summary of Findings and Assertions Udo Moenig’s article, The Japanese and Korean Martial Arts: In Search of a Philosophical Framework Compatible with History, critically explores the philosophical and historical narratives that have shaped the development of Japanese and Korean martial arts. Moenig argues that modern interpretations and discourses surrounding these martial arts have often been influenced by romanticised and nationalistic narratives distorting their historical nature. The author traces the transformation of these practices from practical combat skills to modern forms that emphasise spirituality and self-cultivation, illustrating how political and social contexts have played a significant role in shaping these changes. A fundamental assertion of Moenig’s work is that the evolution of Japanese martial arts from bujutsu (combat techniques) to budō (martial ways) during the Meiji Restoration was not merely a philosophical shift but rather a deliberate state policy aimed at integrating martial arts into Japan’s broader national identity. Adopting the suffix “-dō” symbolised a move away from combat effectiveness towards moral development and self-discipline, aligning with the Meiji government’s goals of fostering a unified national identity and promoting state Shintoism. Similarly, the article discusses how Korean martial arts, heavily influenced by Japanese budō, have struggled to establish an independent identity that distinguishes them from Japanese and Chinese traditions. This struggle has resulted in a complex discourse that seeks to reconcile nationalistic pride with the historical realities of shared origins and influences. Situating the Article within the Field Moenig’s work is positioned within the broader fields of martial arts studies, East Asian cultural history, and political philosophy. His analysis contributes significantly to the academic discourse by challenging Western and Eastern scholars to reconsider the often romanticised and mystified views of Asian martial arts. Moenig’s argument builds on the foundational theories of Donn F. Draeger, who documented the evolution of bujutsu to budō. Yet, it offers a more nuanced critique of how nationalist motives and historical inaccuracies have influenced these transformations. The article also engages with scholarship on 'middleman minorities', a term used to describe ethnic groups that act as intermediaries in trade or cultural exchange, and 'Orientalism ', such as Edna Bonacich’s theories and Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism, to explore how the portrayal of martial arts has been used as a tool for cultural preservation, national identity, and political propaganda. Moenig’s critique of existing narratives provides a fresh perspective on the role of martial arts in socio-political contexts, enriching the discourse on how martial arts have been shaped by—and, in turn, have shaped—historical and cultural developments. Assessing its Contribution to the Field Moenig’s article significantly contributes to the study of Japanese and Korean martial arts by offering a detailed and critical reassessment of the historical and philosophical frameworks surrounding these practices. One of the key strengths of the work is its interdisciplinary approach, which combines history, philosophy, and sociology to deconstruct the myths and misconceptions that have shaped martial arts discourse. This approach not only enriches the academic discourse but also challenges scholars to reconsider their views, thereby stimulating intellectual curiosity. By examining the transformation of Japanese martial arts from bujutsu to budō, Moenig provides insights into how martial arts were repurposed to serve the nationalistic agendas of the Meiji State. The article’s exploration of how Korean martial arts, such as Taekwondo, have sought to distinguish themselves from their Japanese roots adds depth to the discussion of cultural exchange and appropriation. Moenig argues that while Japanese budō has been a primary influence on Korean martial arts, efforts to “Koreanise” these practices have been fraught with tensions over cultural ownership, identity, and authenticity. This discussion not only highlights the complexities of cultural adaptation but also engages the audience by presenting the ongoing struggle for cultural legitimacy within the martial arts community. Future Considerations Moenig’s analysis opens several avenues for future research. One potential area of further exploration is the comparative study of martial arts development in other East Asian contexts, such as China and Taiwan, to understand how different political and cultural shifts have influenced the evolution of martial arts traditions in these regions. Moreover, the role of martial arts in the globalisation of East Asian culture warrants closer scrutiny, particularly in how Western perceptions and interpretations have shaped the contemporary practice and teaching of these arts. Additionally, future research could delve into the philosophical distinctions between terms such as 'jutsu' (technique), 'gei' (art), and 'dō' (way), which are key concepts in martial arts. 'Jutsu' refers to the practical application of a technique, 'gei' refers to the artistic expression of a technique, and 'dō' refers to the philosophical or moral aspects of a technique. Examining how these concepts have been interpreted and adapted over time could provide valuable insights. Another area of interest would be to explore how younger generations of martial artists in Japan and Korea perceive and engage with these historical narratives, providing insight into the ongoing evolution of martial arts as both a cultural practice and a form of self-expression. Conclusion Overall, Moenig’s article, The Japanese and Korean Martial Arts: In Search of a Philosophical Framework Compatible with History, is valuable to studying martial arts and their role in shaping cultural and national identities. By critically examining the philosophical and historical narratives constructed around Japanese and Korean martial arts, Moenig offers a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between tradition, nationalism, and modernity. His emphasis on the need for a more objective and historically accurate discourse in martial arts studies not only sets the stage for future research but also inspires and motivates scholars to delve deeper beyond romanticised and politicised interpretations. 書誌情報Moenig, U. (2019). 「日本と韓国の武道:歴史に適合する哲学的枠組みの探求」 The International Journal of the History of Sport, 第36巻第9–10号, pp. 833–857. DOI: 10.1080/09523367.2019.1618277. 要旨ウド・モーニグの論文「日本と韓国の武道:歴史に適合する哲学的枠組みの探求」では、日本と韓国の武道の発展に影響を与えた哲学的および歴史的な物語を批判的に考察しています。モーニグは、これらの武道を取り巻く現代の解釈や議論が、しばしば理想化された国家主義的な物語に影響され、歴史的な事実を歪めていると主張しています。著者は、実戦的な戦闘技術から精神性と自己修養を重視する現代的な形態へと変容していく過程を辿り、政治的および社会的文脈がこれらの変化にどのように重要な役割を果たしてきたかを示しています。 モーニグの研究における主要な主張は、明治維新期における日本武術の「武術(bujutsu)」から「武道(budō)」への変容は、単なる哲学的な変化ではなく、武道を日本の国家的アイデンティティに統合することを目的とした国家政策であったという点です。「-道(dō)」という接尾辞の採用は、戦闘の実効性から道徳的発展や自己鍛錬への移行を象徴し、明治政府の国家統合と神道思想の促進という目的と一致しています。同様に、論文では、日本の武道から強い影響を受けた韓国の武道が、独自のアイデンティティを確立しようとする過程において、日本や中国の伝統と区別するために苦闘してきたことを論じています。この苦闘は、民族的な誇りと共有された起源や影響という歴史的現実を調和させる複雑な議論を生み出しています。 分野内での位置付けモーニグの研究は、武道研究、東アジア文化史、政治哲学の広範な分野に位置しており、しばしば理想化されたアジア武道の観点を再考するよう、学術界に挑戦しています。モーニグの議論は、武道の発展を記録したドン・F・ドレーガーの基礎理論を踏まえつつも、これらの変容がいかに国家主義的動機や歴史的な不正確さに影響されているかをより深く批判的に考察しています。 また、論文は「中間者マイノリティ」やエドワード・サイードのオリエンタリズムの概念を用い、武道が文化的保存、国家的アイデンティティ、政治的プロパガンダの道具としてどのように描かれてきたかを探っています。モーニグは既存の物語を批判することにより、武道が社会的・政治的文脈の中でどのように形作られ、そして歴史的・文化的発展にどのような影響を与えてきたかを理解するための新たな視点を提供しています。 研究分野への貢献モーニグの論文は、日本と韓国の武道に関する歴史的および哲学的な枠組みを詳細に再評価し、武道研究において重要な貢献を果たしています。この論文の大きな強みの一つは、歴史、哲学、社会学の要素を組み合わせ、武道にまつわる神話や誤解を解体する学際的なアプローチです。このアプローチは、学術的な議論を豊かにするだけでなく、学者たちに自らの見解を再考させ、知的好奇心を刺激するものです。 さらに、韓国の武道(例:テコンドー)が日本の影響からどのように独自性を確立しようとしたかについての議論は、文化的交流や文化の盗用に関する議論に深みを与えています。モーニグは、日本のbudōが韓国武道に与えた影響が大きい一方で、これらの実践を「韓国化」しようとする試みが、文化的所有権、アイデンティティ、そして文化的正統性の問題を巡って緊張を引き起こしていることを指摘しています。この議論は、文化適応の複雑さと武道コミュニティ内での文化的正当性を求める闘争の継続性を示しています。 今後の研究課題モーニグの分析は、今後の研究に向けたいくつかの方向性を示唆しています。一つの可能性として、他の東アジア地域(例:中国や台湾)における武道の発展を比較研究し、異なる政治的・文化的変遷がこれらの武道伝統の進化にどのように影響を与えてきたかを明らかにすることが挙げられます。また、東アジア文化のグローバル化における武道の役割を精査することも必要です。特に、西洋の認識と解釈が現代の武道の実践と指導にどのような形で影響を与えたかを探ることが重要です。 さらに、「術(jutsu)」「芸(gei)」「道(dō)」といった武道の重要な概念の間の哲学的な違いを掘り下げることも価値があります。「術」は技術の実践的応用を指し、「芸」は技術の芸術的表現を意味し、「道」は技術の哲学的または道徳的側面を表します。これらの概念がどのように解釈され、時代と共に適応されてきたかを探ることは、貴重な知見をもたらすでしょう。また、日本と韓国の若い世代の武道家がこれらの歴史的物語をどのように受け取り、関わっているのかを研究することも、武道が文化的実践および自己表現の一形態として進化し続けている現状を理解するのに役立ちます。 結論総じて、モーニグの論文「日本と韓国の武道:歴史に適合する哲学的枠組みの探求」は、武道とそれが文化的および国家的アイデンティティの形成に果たしてきた役割を研究する上で貴重な貢献をしています。日本と韓国の武道を取り巻く哲学的および歴史的な物語を批判的に考察することにより、モーニグは伝統、国家主義、そして近代性の複雑な相互作用について、より深い理解を提供しています。彼の強調する、より客観的かつ歴史的に正確な武道研究の必要性は、ロマン主義的で政治化された解釈を超えた新たな研究の舞台を整え、学者たちにさらなる探求を促すものです。 During a recent discussion with some non-Chrsistian friends we begun a conversation regarding divorce. Below I summarise, as best I can in a blog, the issue. The Christian perspective on marriage and divorce, deeply rooted in its Jewish origins, is a complex interplay of social, religious, and legal factors. In the Judaic context, marriage was primarily a social contract that could be dissolved under certain conditions. This understanding of marriage significantly influenced early Christian views, which underwent a substantial evolution. As Christianity forged its own identity and doctrine, it began to diverge from Jewish traditions, particularly in its understanding of marriage as a sacrament and in its stance on the permissibility of divorce. This comprehensive essay delves into the evolution of divorce from its Jewish legal context into a central doctrinal issue within Christianity, examining the nuanced interpretations of biblical texts and their implications for Christian practice. 1. Marriage and Divorce in the Jewish context In ancient Jewish law, marriage was viewed as a contractual agreement rather than a sacramental or purely religious institution. The Torah provided clear guidelines for the dissolution of marriage, permitting divorce under specific conditions. The critical biblical passage that addresses divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which states: "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeased with him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house…" The Hebrew phrase translated as "something indecent" is עֶרְוַת דָּבָר ("ervat davar), which means ""the nakedness of a thing."" This ambiguous phrasing has been the subject of much debate in rabbinic literature, with different interpretations emerging from various rabbinic schools.
2. Jesus' Teachings in the Context of Jewish Divorce Law Jesus' teachings on divorce, as recorded in the Gospels, are best understood as a response to the liberal interpretations of divorce law by the School of Hillel. His statements, such as those in Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12, appear to take a more restrictive stance, aligning more closely with the stricter view of the School of Shammai. However, Jesus' rationale went beyond legalism, appealing to the original divine intent for marriage as established in Genesis. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus refers to the creation narrative: "...at the beginning, the Creator "made them male and female"... and the two will become one flesh... Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." This appeal to Genesis indicates that Jesus viewed marriage as a permanent union ordained by God, not merely a contractual arrangement that could be dissolved at will. Jesus' apparent restriction of divorce to cases of porneia (πορνεία) reflects a desire to elevate the sanctity of marriage above the prevailing social norms. His teaching challenged the lenient divorce practices of the time and sought to protect the vulnerable—particularly women—from being unjustly abandoned. 3. The Transition from Jewish to Early Christian Understanding of Marriage Marriage was not initially viewed as a sacrament in the early Christian Church—the concept of marriage as a sacrament developed gradually over several centuries. In the earliest Christian communities, marriage retained many Jewish characteristics, primarily seen as a social institution with religious significance but not necessarily sacramental status.
4. Linguistic and Contextual Analysis of the Term Porneia (πορνεία) The Greek term porneia (πορνεία) used in the New Testament is pivotal to understanding the Christian perspective on divorce. Porneia is often translated as ""sexual immorality"" or ""fornication,"" but its exact meaning can vary depending on the context. The term is derived from the root porne, which originally referred to prostitution, and it evolved to denote a range of sexual behaviours deemed unacceptable by Jewish and early Christian moral standards.
5. Emotional and Physical Unavailability: Expanding Grounds for Dissolution The issue of emotional and physical unavailability within marriage has led to theological debates about whether such conditions should justify divorce or annulment. While the New Testament does not explicitly address emotional or physical unavailability, their impact on the integrity of the marital bond has led theologians to consider whether persistent emotional neglect or physical denial constitutes a breach of the marriage covenant.
6. Evolution of Christian Teachings on Divorce and Remarriage As Christianity developed distinct doctrinal positions, the interpretation of porneia and other biblical terms became more rigid in Catholicism and more flexible in Protestantism. The Catholic Church's stance on the indissolubility of marriage led to the view that remarriage after divorce, without an annulment, constitutes adultery. Protestantism, emphasising sola scriptura and covenantal theology, adopted a broader interpretation, allowing for divorce and remarriage under specific conditions. Pope Francis' recent writings in Amoris Laetitia indicate a shift towards a more compassionate approach to divorce and remarriage, suggesting that the Church may need to consider the individual circumstances of each case. This evolving view seeks to balance doctrinal fidelity with pastoral care, reflecting the ongoing complexity of applying ancient texts to contemporary issues. Closing Thoughts The evolution of Christian teachings on divorce is a testament to the dynamic interplay between scripture, tradition, and historical context. While early Christianity inherited a Jewish legal framework for marriage and divorce, it gradually developed its distinct doctrines, culminating in the sacramental view of marriage in Catholicism and the covenantal perspective in Protestantism. The interpretation of key terms such as porneia and moicheia has shaped these divergent views, highlighting the profound influence of linguistic nuances and cultural contexts on theological development. Understanding this history provides crucial insight into why the issue of divorce remains one of the most debated topics within Christianity today. キリスト教における離婚の歴史と教義の進化 キリスト教の結婚と離婚の考え方は、ユダヤ教の伝統に深く根ざしています。古代ユダヤ教では、結婚は主に社会的な契約とされ、特定の条件のもとで解消することが認められていました。この考え方は初期キリスト教における結婚観にも影響を与え、キリスト教が独自の教義を発展させる過程で、ユダヤ教の伝統から離れ、結婚を聖礼典(サクラメント)として捉えるようになりました。 1. ユダヤ教における結婚と離婚の文脈 旧約聖書の申命記(24:1-4)では、離婚の規定が示され、「何らかの不適切なこと」(עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, *'ervat davar*)が理由で離婚証書を与えることができるとされています。この表現は曖昧であり、ラビ派の間で解釈が分かれていました。 - **シャマイ学派**は、「不適切なこと」を重大な性的逸脱や不貞と解釈し、離婚をこれらの重大な道徳的失敗に限定しました。 - **ヒレル学派**は、より広範な解釈を採用し、離婚をほぼあらゆる理由で認め、妻が夫の食事を焦がしたというような些細な理由でも離婚を許可しました。 このような離婚の慣習は、特に男性に大きな自由を与えましたが、女性は離婚を求める権利が制限されていました。イエス・キリストの教えは、こうした当時の離婚慣習に対する批判として理解されるべきです。 2. イエスの教えとユダヤ教の離婚法の対比 イエスは、当時の離婚に関する自由な解釈に対して、より厳格な立場を取っており、「創世記」の創造物語に基づいて結婚の不解消性を強調しました(マタイ19:4-6)。彼は結婚を神聖かつ永続的なものと見なし、結婚の絆を軽視する当時の社会規範に挑戦しました。 3. ユダヤ教から初期キリスト教における結婚観の変遷 初期キリスト教においては、結婚はまだ聖礼典とは見なされておらず、徐々に発展していきました。アウグスティヌス(4世紀)は、結婚を「見えない恩恵の目に見えるしるし」とし、聖礼典としての結婚観の基礎を築きました。中世になると、第四ラテラン公会議(1215年)およびトリエント公会議(1545-1563年)を通じて、結婚はカトリック教会において7つの聖礼典の1つとして正式に認められました。 4. 「ポルネイア(πορνεία)」という用語の解釈と文脈 新約聖書で使われるギリシャ語の「ポルネイア(πορνεία)」は、離婚に関するキリスト教の見解を理解する上で重要な用語です。この語はしばしば「性的逸脱」や「淫行」と訳されますが、その意味は文脈によって異なります。広義には、不貞や売春、近親相姦、同性愛など、あらゆる結婚の神聖さを汚す行為を含むとされています。 5. 感情的および身体的な不可用性:離婚の拡張的解釈 キリスト教における離婚の解釈は、時代とともに変化しており、感情的および身体的な不可用性が結婚の本質的な破綻と見なされる場合があります。カトリック教会ではこれらの理由で離婚を認めることはありませんが、婚姻の無効を宣言する(婚姻の無効、アニュルメント)際の理由となり得ます。 一方、プロテスタント教会では、感情的な支えや身体的な親密さが結婚契約の一部と見なされ、これらが著しく欠如している場合には、離婚が正当化されることがあります。 6. 離婚と再婚に関するキリスト教教義の進化 カトリック教会は、離婚後の再婚を不倫と見なしますが、プロテスタント教会は「聖書のみ(*sola scriptura*)」と契約神学に基づき、離婚および再婚をより広く許容する傾向にあります。近年、フランシスコ教皇の『アモリス・ラエティティア』では、離婚と再婚に対してより慈悲深く柔軟な対応が求められ、教会の教義が変わりつつあることを示唆しています。 結論 キリスト教における離婚の教義の進化は、聖書、伝統、および歴史的背景の相互作用によるものであり、文化的および神学的発展の影響を強く受けています。この歴史を理解することは、離婚に対するキリスト教の立場がなぜ今日でも重要な議論の対象となっているのかを考える上で不可欠です。 Pope John Paul II's caution that "man works to live, not lives to work" strikes at the heart of an unsettling reality many of us face in today's globalised world. For those of us who live and work in international settings—myself included—this tension is particularly palpable. Born and raised in Ireland, a country with its historical emphasis on community, faith, and balance, I find myself increasingly dismayed at how modern work culture, mainly imported from America, has invaded the personal lives of people worldwide. Here in Japan, a nation known for its deeply rooted traditions of harmony and self-discipline, I see this corporatisation of human identity reaching its tentacles even further into the social fabric, creating dissonance where there once was equilibrium. The Disconnect: Leadership and the Identity of Work Modern leadership, often dominated by those who define themselves almost exclusively by their professional titles, has created a dangerous chasm between those at the top and the majority of their workers. For many leaders, the company becomes an extension of their identity, a vehicle through which they seek success and self-worth. This mindset is not just misguided; it is corrosive. It leads to an expectation that all employees should likewise live to work, find the same level of purpose and meaning in their jobs, and be willing to sacrifice personal and family life for the company's goals. Nevertheless, such a view is profoundly out of touch with the experiences and aspirations of most people. The average worker does not seek to find their entire identity. Instead, they work to support a life that exists outside of the office. They work to provide for their family, pursue hobbies, engage with community and faith, and cultivate a sense of self that is far more expensive than what is printed on their business card. Leadership teams, however, often need help to grasp this distinction. As a result, they enact policies and set expectations disregarding the fundamental humanity of those they employ. The recent push for 'always-on' availability—fuelled by technological advancements—exemplifies this disconnect. Leaders who see no issue in sending emails late at night or who expect workers to be responsive over the weekend are essentially demanding that employees prioritise the company's needs over their own lives. This expectation transforms the workplace into a domain of control, colonising the mental and emotional space that should be reserved for personal reflection and family connection. The View from Taoism and its Relevance in Japan In Taoism, the principle of *wu wei* (無為), often translated as 'non-action' or 'effortless action', warns against forcing things to be what they are not. It speaks to the idea that harmony is achieved not through control or force but through alignment with the natural flow of life. Applying this principle to the corporate world, we see how the relentless push to overwork and overproduce leads to imbalance and suffering. People are not machines; they have a natural rhythm, an ebb and flow that should be respected. Japan, with its concept of wa (和), or harmony, once embraced such balance in its work culture, where the team's well-being was prioritised alongside the individual's contribution. However, in recent decades, as Western corporate models have permeated the Japanese workplace, there has been a distressing erosion of this traditional equilibrium. The rise of karoshi (過労死)—death by overwork—is a tragic reminder of what happens when wa is lost, and work becomes a tyrant rather than a servant of human life. From the perspective of Taoism, the obsession with productivity and efficiency disturbs the natural balance, creating a form of internal chaos or "disharmony". This chaos is reflected in the individual worker's mental and physical health and the overall corporate culture, where burnout and disillusionment have become endemic. The leadership teams that demand ceaseless dedication fail to realise that they are fighting against nature. In Taoist terms, they are 'swimming against the current', expending enormous energy for little gain, ultimately leading to the degradation of both the individual and the organisation. A Multi-Religious Critique: Human Dignity vs. Corporate Control Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism all offer similar critiques of the over-identification with work. The Sabbath in both Christianity and Judaism insists on a complete disengagement from labour, reaffirming the idea that human dignity is not tied to continuous productivity. Islam's notion of halal and haram work practices establishes ethical boundaries that prevent work from becoming exploitative or dehumanising. Hinduism's karma yoga suggests that duty must be performed with detachment, highlighting the need to see work as a contribution rather than a defining factor of one being. From these perspectives, the expectation that one must constantly be "plugged in" to work is more than just inconvenient; it fundamentally disrespects human dignity. To ask someone to be perpetually available, to demand that they subsume their personal life to professional duties, is to disregard the sacredness of rest, reflection, and spiritual growth. It turns people into resources to be extracted rather than beings to be nurtured and respected. The Consequences of Modern Work Culture: Commodifying the Mind, Body, and Soul. The insidious reach of modern work culture extends beyond the office, transforming homes into secondary workspaces and reducing relationships to fleeting interactions squeezed between meetings. The mind, once a place for creativity and introspection, becomes fixated on key performance indicators (KPIs) and project deadlines. The body, which should be cared for and cherished, is often sacrificed for long hours at a desk, leading to a myriad of health issues. The soul, which seeks meaning beyond material accumulation, is starved of the nourishment that requires time, rest, and genuine connection. Leaders who cannot see beyond their professional identities become perpetrators of this commodification. They see people as "human capital," a term that itself is dehumanising, reducing rich, complex lives to units of economic value. This is not just a failure of leadership; it is a moral failure. A true leader understands that a company's success cannot come at the cost of its people's well-being. True leaders see their employees not as assets but as individuals with their dreams, struggles, and lives outside the office. Reclaiming Humanity: A Call to Action. As an Irishman working in Japan, I see this clash between different worldviews daily. I see leaders who impose an American-style work ethic on a society that once held deeply different values. I see workers who long for balance but feel powerless to resist the tide of corporatisation. Furthermore, I see, too often, the devastating impact this has on families, communities, and the spiritual well-being of people who have so much more to offer the world than what they do between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. We need to push back. We must reclaim our time, dignity, and right to exist as whole human beings. This resistance is not just for our own sake but for the sake of our children, who will inherit whatever culture we allow to take root. It is for the sake of our elders, who remind us that life is about so much more than the sum of our professional achievements. Moreover, for the sake of our souls, we wither when they are denied the chance to grow, reflect, and truly live. Ultimately, we must remember that work should support life, not consume it. In that remembering, we find the strength to resist the forces that seek to turn us into something less than human. This is not just a battle for better working conditions—it is a fight for our very humanity. こちらは、ポープ・ヨハネ・パウロ二世の「人は生きるために働くのであり、働くために生きるのではない」という言葉に基づいた、現代の職場環境に対する批判とその影響を多宗教の観点から考察した内容です。この言葉は、仕事と個人生活の境界があいまいになり、仕事が人間の存在を支配する危険性について警告しています。 現代社会では、特にアメリカからの企業文化が世界中に広まる中、職場環境が過剰に労働を求め、人々の心、体、魂の領域までも企業が支配しようとしています。特に、リーダー層が自らを職業や役職と同一視し、他者にも同様の姿勢を求めることにより、従業員との間に大きな隔たりが生じています。多くの人々は仕事にアイデンティティの全てを求めるのではなく、生活を支えるために働いています。しかし、現代のリーダーたちはこれを理解せず、仕事を人間の存在のすべてに変えてしまうような環境を作り出しています。 多くの宗教では、仕事と生活のバランスを尊重し、労働が人間の本質や尊厳を損なわないように説いています。キリスト教やユダヤ教では安息日が労働からの完全な離脱を求めており、イスラム教では倫理的な働き方を重視し、ヒンドゥー教では仕事は自己実現の一部であって全てではないとされています。道教では「無為(wu wei)」の原則を通じて、自然の流れに逆らわずに調和を保つことを説いており、労働が人間のリズムやバランスを乱すことを戒めています。 日本では、かつての和(調和)の価値観が優先されていた職場文化が、アメリカ流の企業モデルの影響を受け、過労死という悲劇を招くまでに労働が支配的になってしまいました。多くのリーダーは「常に接続されている」状態を当たり前とし、仕事と生活の境界を曖昧にしています。これにより、心がKPI(重要業績評価指標)やプロジェクトの締め切りに縛られ、身体は長時間労働で消耗し、魂は物質的な成功のみを求める環境において枯渇していきます。 筆者は、日本で働くアイルランド人として、異なる文化的価値観の衝突を目の当たりにしており、従業員が自らの時間と尊厳を取り戻す必要性を強く感じています。仕事は生活を支えるものであって、人生を支配するものではありません。この考えを守ることが、より良い労働環境を実現するだけでなく、人間らしさを取り戻すための闘いでもあるのです。私たちは人間としての尊厳を守り、仕事が全てを支配しない社会を再構築していく必要があります。 |
James M. HatchInternational Educator who happens to be passionate about Chito Ryu Karate. Born in Ireland, educated in Canada, matured in Japan Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|