The History of Japanese Psychology: Global Perspectives, 1875–1950 9781474283083, 9781474283113, 9781474283106

Citation preview

The History of Japanese Psychology

SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan Series Editor: Christopher Gerteis, SOAS, University of London (UK) Series Editorial Board: Steve Dodd, SOAS, University of London (UK) Andrew Gerstle, SOAS, University of London (UK) Janet Hunter, London School of Economics and Political Science (UK) Helen Macnaughtan, SOAS, University of London (UK) Timon Screech, SOAS, University of London (UK) Naoko Shimazu, Yale-NUS College (Singapore) Published in association with the Japan Research Centre at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK. SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan features scholarly books on modern and contemporary Japan, showcasing new research monographs as well as translations of scholarship not previously available in English. Its goal is to ensure that current, high quality research on Japan, its history, politics and culture, is made available to an English speaking audience.

Published: Women and Democracy in Cold War Japan, Jan Bardsley Christianity and Imperialism in Modern Japan, Emily Anderson The China Problem in Postwar Japan, Robert Hoppens Media, Propaganda and Politics in 20th Century Japan, The Asahi Shimbun Company (translated by Barak Kushner) Contemporary Sino-Japanese Relations on Screen, Griseldis Kirsch Debating Otaku in Contemporary Japan, edited by Patrick W. Galbraith, Thiam Huat Kam and Björn-Ole Kamm Politics and Power in 20th-Century Japan, Mikuriya Takashi and Nakamura Takafusa (translated by Timothy S. George) Japanese Taiwan, edited by Andrew Morris Japan’s Postwar Military and Civil Society, Tomoyuki Sasaki Forthcoming: Postwar Emigration to South America from Japan and the Ryukyu Islands, Pedro Iacobelli Gathering for Tea in Modern Japan, Taka Oshikiri

The History of Japanese Psychology Global Perspectives, 1875–1950 Brian J. McVeigh

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2017 Paperback edition first published 2018 Copyright © Brian J. McVeigh, 2017 Brian J. McVeigh has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. Cover design: Sharon Mah Cover image © akg-images/Horizons/ton koene All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-8308-3 PB: 978-1-3500-7438-5 ePDF: 978-1-4742-8310-6 ePub: 978-1-4742-8309-0 Names: McVeigh, Brian J., author. Title: The history of Japanese psychology : global perspectives, 1875-1950 / Brian J. McVeigh. Description: London ; New York, NY : Bloomsbury Academic, 2017. | Series:SOAS studies in modern and contemporary Japan | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016029657 | ISBN 9781474283083 (hardback) | ISBN 9781474283090 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Psychology–Japan–History–19th century. | Psychology–Japan–History–20th century. Classification: LCC BF108.J3 M39 2017 | DDC 150.952–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016029657 Series: SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printed and bound in Great Britain To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents List of Figures A Preface by Way of Acknowledgments Notes to the Reader

vi vii ix

Prologue: Spiritual Physics—A Physics for the Soul

1

1

Places, Periods, and Peoples: Problematizing Psyche

7

2

Historical Context: Japanese Cosmology and Psychology as Secularized Theology

23

From Soul to Psyche: A Change of Mind in Late Nineteenth-Century Japan

37

4

Early Institutionalization: How Higher Education Disciplined the Psyche

55

5

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō: The Founders of Japanese Psychology

71

6

Intellectual Reactions: Spiritualizing the Psyche and Psychologizing Society

97

7

Organizational Institutionalization: Professionalization, Applications, and Measuring the Mind

117

8

Disciplinary Maturation: Specializations, Theories, and Psychotherapy

141

9

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology: State, Schooling, and Military Applications

159

10 Reconstruction and Expansion: Postimperial Japan as a Psychologized Society

173

Epilogue: In Retrospect: Trajectories, Alternative Routes, and the Contributions of Japanese Women Psychologists

179

3

Appendices Notes Bibliography Index

201

235 274 304

List of Figures 1

Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Ethics (Rinrigaku, 1893). By author.

194

2

Title Page of Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology of Our Day (Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913). By author.

195

Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Collection of Essays (Ronbun-shū, 1909). By author.

196

Title Page of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Lectures on Psychology (Shinrigaku Kōwa, 1924). By author.

197

Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Outline of Psychology (Shinrigaku Kōyō, 1907). By author.

198

Motora Yūjirō. From Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology of Our Day (Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913).

199

3 4 5 6

A Preface by Way of Acknowledgments We sometimes begin books deep within our minds a decade or two before we realize it. I probably began this book in the mid-1980s when, as a graduate student at Princeton University, I became acquainted with Julian Jaynes (1920–97) who offered advice about my project on spirit possession in a Japanese religious movement. To put it politely, the nuances of his ideas were lost on members of the faculty of Princeton University’s Anthropology Department. This made him persona non grata on my dissertation committee, so his advisory role was unofficial. A maverick Psychologist, Jaynes earned a certain notoriety with his theory that subjective conscious experience was a cultural adaptation to historical changes rather than a product of biological evolution. His salient concern with adopting a historical approach to key problems in Psychology (as well as with the history of Psychology itself) would educate me about larger issues that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Specifically, I learned that understanding the nineteenth-century maturation of Psychology involves not just a branch of intellectual history; rather, the appearance of Psychology on the historical stage says something significant about changes in the very mental processes it claims to be exploring. More than just a scientific analysis of the psyche, Psychology itself, like mathematics and technology, is part of a larger picture, one facet of humankind’s incessant need to reinvent and adapt itself. Some of us must first publish a number of books before we write one that combines what to others seem like scattered concerns in previous works. I have written about religion, nationalism, the bureaucratization of subjectivity, the Psychology of selfexpression and popular culture, education, gender roles, postmodern alienation and simulation theory. Not all these projects explicitly point to my general interest—the intersection of psychological processes and politics. Nevertheless, at some level they certainly concern how societal changes transform psyche and this is a central theme of this work. Scholars stand at confluences of intellectual streams, both geographically and temporally. It is an inspiring exercise to trace the currents of ideas that have shaped one’s thinking. My case is neither particularly unique nor special, but it is a humbling experience to know that I am only several handshakes away from Wilhelm Wundt (1829–1920), the man that many consider to be the father of modern research Psychology. He taught the eminent E. B. Titchener (1867–1927), who in turn taught the famous historian of Psychology Edwin G. Boring (1886–1968). The latter was close friends with Julian Jaynes who taught me at Princeton University. Jaynes wrote a long obituary on Boring’s passing in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences (April 1969). Boring trained Yokoyama Matsusaburō (1890–1966) at Clark University,

viii

A Preface by Way of Acknowledgments

thereby making me only a few handshakes away from this accomplished Japanese Psychologist as well as many other Japanese Psychologists with whom Boring was acquainted. A humble man, Julian Jaynes would have been embarrassed if I stated that, having been influenced by him, I stand on the shoulders of a giant. He would have been satisfied to hear me say that I just shook his hand. This project benefited from helpful discussions and useful advice from Andrew Barshay, Anzai Junko, Charles Muller, Chikako Ozawa-de Silva, David Schawlb, Michael Brescia, John Brine, Richard Gotti, Scott Greer, Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu, William Uttal, and William Woodward. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to those who answered questions about especially challenging concerns: Aihua Zheng, Hwansoo Kim, Ishimori Masanori, Nishikawa Yasuo, Ōyama Tadasu, Takasuna Miki, and Uchijima Sadao. I also received support and advice from Ishikawa Michiko, Marcel Kuijsten, Sugawa-Shimada Akiko, Toyama Haruko, Enno Giele, Reed Peterson, and Tim Vance. I would not have been able to complete this project without acquiring certain publications, so I owe a special thanks to a number of individuals who took the time to send me sources (some of which were particularly difficult to obtain): Nishikawa Yasuo, Ōyama Tadasu, Takasuna Miki, Satō Tatsuya, Uchijima Sadao, and Yoshinaga Shinichi. I want to also thank Kamada Hitoshi, librarian at the University of Arizona and James Stimpert of Sheridan Libraries at John Hopkins University. I should also express my gratitude to the extremely useful Kindai Digital Library (Digital Library from the Meiji Era) of the National Diet Library. Portions of this work were presented at the Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies (University of Arizona, October  23–24, 2009) and at the same conference held one year later at California State University, Northridge (October 22– 23, 2010). I want to thank the audiences for their questions and feedback (McVeigh 2009, 2010). As always, my wife, Lana, provided intellectual, moral, and emotional encouragement.

Notes to the Reader In this book, I distinguish between the academic discipline of Psychology (with a capitalized “P”) and the psychological (with a small “p”) or what since the late nineteenth century has been called mental, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive processes. This distinction is elaborated upon in the introduction.

Table 1 Periods of Japanese history Tokugawa

1603 to 1868

Meiji

1868 to 1912

Taishō

1912 to 1926

Shōwa

1926 to 1989

Heisei

1989 to present

Prologue: Spiritual Physics—A Physics for the Soul

Psychologizing the spirit Motora Yūjirō, recently returned from the United States, began teaching a course called seishin butsurigaku at the Imperial University in 1888.1 This phrase meant— along with several other terms—“Psychology.” More specifically and literally, it meant psychophysics. Gino K. Piovesana translates seishin butsurigaku as “spiritual physics” or “physics of the spirit.”2 This is arguably not a bad translation, but I introduce this book with a dissection of the linguo-conceptual components comprising seishin butsurigaku. This exercise sets the groundwork for a leitmotif of this work: How did seishin butsurigaku, like other psychological terminology, evolve from an earlier mentality? Let us begin with butsurigaku, which means physics, though a more literal translation is the study (gaku) of the principle (ri) of matter (butsu). Ri was a crucial Neo-Confucian concept and it now appears in the currently used Japanese word for Psychology—shinrigaku—as well as in some appellations for other sciences. And here we might note that in 1890 Motora’s seishin butsurigaku course was renamed shinrigaku (literally, “study of the principles of the heart–mind”). An etymological analysis of seishin reveals two points. First, the modern, scientific and secular definitions of seishin (mind or mental) is built upon its premodern, pre-scientific, and religious meanings (soul or spiritual). The second point concerns a universal process: bodily organs, external natural phenomena, or religious entities are metaphorically pressed into service to represent what we now call mental events.3 Consider seishin, which is composed of:

• sei

̉

• shin

̦

spirit, ghost, fairy, energy, vitality, purity, refined, polished, hidden, essence, quintessential nature god, deity, soul4

In Shintō terminology, shin denotes “divine” or “sacred,” and it appears in terms such as shinpi shugi (mysticism), shinkon (heart, soul), and shinkei, meaning “nerves” or “neuro” (literally, “shin passing through”), as in “neurology” (shinkeigaku). In modern Japanese, seishin is used in a host of expressions to mean “mental” or “psychological,”

2

The History of Japanese Psychology

for example, psychiatry (seishin igaku), psychopathology (seishin byōingaku), mental hospital (seishin ryōyō), psychosomatic medicine (seishin shintai igaku), schizophrenia (seishin bunretsushō; no longer used), and psychoanalysis (seishin bunsekigaku). It also appears in spiritualism (seishin shugi or seishinron) and telepathy (seishin kannō). What do the psychological and the spiritual have in common? The psychological and the religious have been closely associated the world over because both knowledge forms share something of the difficult-to-define, enigmatic, strange, and mysterious. This is why everywhere the same idiom used to describe the mental and the supernatural are etymologically related. Arguably, they both partake of something interior, hidden, not easily discernable, connected to another world that if not supernatural, is at least somehow quasi-spiritual. In this regard, note Japanese terms such as mental power (seishin ryoku), spiritual culture (seishin bunka), and mental science (seishin kagaku; German: Geisteswissenschaft). The religious and psychological also share a fundamental concern with morally and socially rectifying, improving and cultivating the inner self (though their respective idioms at times seem so very different).5 This is why, according to Harding, Japan’s modern indigenous psychotherapies of Naikan and Morita are not neatly categorized by the terms “psychotherapy” or “religious practice.”6 Indeed, in the modern world “healing” is not necessarily easily classified as either religious or psychotherapeutic and can be broadly understood to mean bodily, spiritual, or communal.7 Religion has tended to be reconfigured (rather than replaced by or absorbed into) other ideological realms such as the psy disciplines.8

What is spiritual physics? A narrow definition For my purposes, spiritual physics can be understood either in a broad or narrow sense. In the latter meaning, seishin butsurigaku should be translated as “psychophysics,” a word coined by the physicist, mathematician, and metaphysician Gustav Fechner (1801–87).9 Psychophysics would become a branch of Psychology rooted in the proto-experimental psychological research of the German tradition. The basic methods of Fechnerian psychophysics are employed to this day, which explore the relationship between physical stimuli and their perceptual correlates. In his course, Motora taught topics and methods that clearly fit the narrow definition of spiritual physics.

A broad definition The narrow definition of seishin butsurigaku is part and parcel of a broader, though implicit, major ideological shift, not just in Japan, but also at the global level, that would herald the psychological revolution. In the same way that alchemy and astrology gave birth to chemistry and astronomy, religious and philosophical concerns would engender Psychology.

Spiritual Physics

3

The broad definition of spiritual physics carries global significance and captures the tensions and instability evident in novel ways of thinking that marched onto the world stage in the mid-nineteenth century. These new forms of knowledge emerged to cope with the rush of techno-industrialization, secularization, scientific discoveries, and political upheaval that spread around the globe. As spiritual physics morphed into twentieth-century Psychology, not surprisingly, it took different trajectories shaped by local national cultures. Nevertheless and despite the multitude of semantic strands making up spiritual physics, crucial and common themes explain its appearance in different locales: as premodern, religiously inspired cosmologies collapsed, attempts to reconcile tensions between scientific–naturalistic and spiritualistic– numinous worldviews resulted in an early form of Psychology. The term “spiritual physics” is intended to point to such efforts at conciliation. Another related theme was the acknowledgment of the burgeoning role of the individual’s “inner life” in social relations, economic exchanges, political processes, and aesthetics in the late nineteenth century.

The spiritual roots of the psychological revolution Though the Enlightenment eroded religious traditions and ended up precluding certain questions from being asked, spiritual yearnings still motivated attempts to understand humanity’s place in the world and the nature of the soul. Some thinkers tried to balance rationalism with mysticism and despite remarkable progress in the sciences during the nineteenth century, a “science of the mind” did not seem promising. “Soul” and “mind” were used interchangeably. More than just a mere physics of the soul, many thinkers pursued a religiously therapeutic physics for the soul. Eventually, Fechner defined psychophysics as an “exact science of the functional relations or the relations of dependency between body and mind,” that is, it was an intellectual endeavor that sought to illuminate how the physical and the mental related to each other. Fechner would attempt to merge science and spirituality. Though a talented physicist, Fechner was not a materialist, at least not the kind becoming popular in the nineteenth century. He felt he was on a spiritual mission, believing that he was on the verge of discovering nature’s secrets. He went blind staring at the sun while conducting optical experiments, experienced a nervous breakdown and secluded himself in a darkened room for three years. After recovering from his blindness, he developed pantheist ideas and concluded that material world is infused with a psychic energy. Determined to prove his ideas, Fechner viewed his experiments as philosophical endeavors rather than modern psychological research, though ironically, his attempts would eventually bolster a materialist Psychology that discarded the immortal and immaterial soul. Fechner thought mind‒body dualism could be transcended.10 In order to sew up the cosmic fabric and shed light on the fundamental unity of the mental and the material, he came to the conclusion that they could be measured. Fechner espoused a view (as did others) that illustrates attempts to maintain the sacred in a world secularizing at a disturbing pace. Indeed, for Fechner, it must be

4

The History of Japanese Psychology

stressed, psychophysics was a mere by-product of his messianic philosophy detailed in a number of books, such as Zend-Avesta, oder über die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits (1851). This book’s title presents a translation challenge; a rough gloss might read Zend-Avesta: On the Things of Heaven and the Hereafter, though the sense of “revelation” is suggested.11 Eventually, Fechner developed the implications of psychophysics in his two-volume Elemente der Psychophysik (1860). In no small way he gave birth to the modern study of mind and started to reorient the investigations of psyche, from the philosophical aspirations of a psychological physiology to an experimentally guided physiological Psychology.12 Indeed, Fechner greatly inspired Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), conventionally regarded as the father of Psychology.13

Three key themes of this work Chapter  1 outlines the topics, organization, and arguments of this work, but here I briefly introduce three major themes to be covered, beginning with the broader, contextual issues and concluding with this book’s primary agenda.

Theme one: Historical changes—implications for understanding “modernity” This work will contribute to our understanding of the worldwide history of Psychology and the globalization of the social sciences. In this sense, my endeavors will not only be descriptive and empirical, that is, focusing on national context, cultural specifics, and biographical particulars. Rather, my exploration of the origins of Japanese Psychology possesses theoretical value in how it illustrates the meaning of modernity. This latter term is admittedly overused, but for my purposes I specifically view the psychological revolution of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a key component of modernity. The institutionalization of academic Psychology (along with other social sciences) was a response to modernity’s psychologizing of society.

Theme two: Psychological processes—how do society and psyche constitute each other? Framing my arguments is the premise that evolving political economic circumstances demand new forms of psychological adaptation, that is, increasingly complex political economic institutions structure psyche in certain ways. By tracing the trajectory of Japanese Psychology as a consequence of the psychological revolution, I attempt to shed light on not just the origins of an academic field, but also to trace the development of a “new visuality”—a psychological adaptation—rooted in science, secularism, and changing definitions of selfhood. At the heart of these intellectual transitions was the impulse to take the individual as the basic, self-contained unit of society and to “interiorize” the person.

Spiritual Physics

5

Theme three: Academic Psychology—what trajectory did spiritual physics take in Japan? I address this question by investigating how understandings of human nature transitioned from a premodern, religious, and moralistic view to a modern, secular, and scientific perspective beginning in Japan’s Meiji period (1868–1912). More broadly, I explore the history of the Japanese social sciences and highlight the contributions of Japanese Psychologists, thereby placing this society’s rich intellectual contribution in global context.

1

Places, Periods, and Peoples: Problematizing Psyche

Theme one: The individual, modernity, and a change of mind in the nineteenth century During the 1800s the individual acquired new significance: the independent citizen became a building block in national state construction; the worker, an interchangeable unit for economic production; and the consumer, an autonomous agent of economic liberalism. In the arts the individual was associated with an “inward turn” to a unique, privileged self of the protagonist and as the narrating agent in literature (e.g., the modern novel). The development of new forms of religiosity in which introspection became associated with spiritual self-discovery (as opposed to more communal forms of faith) can also be linked to the rise of the individual. Meanwhile, rapid industrialization broke society down into the isolated and alienated individuals, producing a darker side to the new individuality. These developments, centered on the detached and self-contained individual, were part and parcel of a growing faith in positivism, scientific knowledge, and new conceptual categories—labor, capitalist exchange, economics, “society,” and “progress”—that in the late nineteenth century were relatively new not just to Japan but also to other industrializing societies. In response to the rise of the individual, a new discipline developed—Psychology— that took the isolated “subject,” as well as “inner experience,” as the crucial unit of analysis. The mental realm was privileged. Psychology, which did not emerge until the late nineteenth century, was a scientific response to a period that truly marked a turning point in global intellectual developments: Our fascination with hedonistic ethics, with the possibility of shaping the world through the processes of reward and punishment, is linearly traceable to Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarian movement. Even our vaunted “humanistic” [P]sychologies, with their focus on “self-actualization,” personal growth and individual freedom, have never improved upon the original formulations by the German Romantics. Contemporary [P]sychology then is largely a footnote to the nineteenth century.1

8

The History of Japanese Psychology

Theme two: Co-constituting society and psyche This work takes the theme of globalization seriously, not just in the geographical sense (i.e., illustrating cross-cultural, transnational, and international connections), but also from a temporal perspective. It does this by contextualizing Japanese Psychology within longue durée processes operating at the worldwide level: socio-externalization and psycho-internalization. These two long-term historical processes have more to do with human civilization than any particular place, period, or people.2 Socio-externalization describes the social, political, and economic forces impacting an individual from the “outside,” while psycho-internalization accounts for “inside” the person. Socio-externalization is driven by a techno-economics that increases wealth (though wealth that is not necessarily evenly distributed). Increased resources and scientific advances expand populations, which in turn increase the size and number of social institutions. Consequently, political economic authorities come to see the need to integrate individuals into larger and larger groupings (e.g., occupational castes, corporations, state-defined territorial units, citizenhood). This integration can be visualized, to use a metaphor, as wrapping more “layers” around the individual in order to firmly position them in “person–property regimes.”3 The accretion of layers—more social roles, specialized expertise, formal education, regulations, disciplinary practices, Weberian rationalization, and so on—is not just an accumulation of more knowledge or social management.4 Sociopolitical wrapping impels psycho-internalization or the psychological adaptation to increasingly demanding historical vagaries and pressures. Driving the speed of socio-externalization/ psycho-internalization dynamics was the global dissemination of late modernity due to a shrinking world,5 that is, advances in communication, transportation, and new sources of power.6 Certain features of psycho-internalization and socio-externalization began to pick up pace after the early part of the sixteenth century, but by the mid-1800s they had dramatically accelerated. During the 1800s, techno-industrialization fueled the emergence of new socioeconomic strata (working class–proletariat, middle class–bourgeoisie, capitalists) and ideologies (class consciousness, left–right political spectrum) as power-driven machinery resulted in mechanized mass production. As the “machine replaced the hand and public opinion replaced both prince and prophet,” technicalization allowed the realization of eighteenth-century political and intellectual aspirations during the nineteenth century.7 Industrialization also led to unprecedented forms of exploitation (child labor, female labor, sweatshops, and workhouses) and new social problems (periodic unemployment, vagrancy, and slums). In order to respond to these challenges and stabilize person– property regimes, the bureau-administrative state acquired more responsibilities and grew into a larger, steeper and increasingly multifaceted pyramid that mobilized and disciplined unruly populations. For example, officialdom saw the need for welfare, labor polices, public utilities, and city planning, as well as dealing with health problems, especially those associated with urbanization and the working poor (prevention of epidemics, improved hygiene, public medical services). Meanwhile, territorial ambitions and neo-imperialism drove the engine of industrial-strength total war (conscript armies, home front mobilization, and monopolization of natural resources).

Places, Periods, and Peoples

9

To a large degree, the nineteenth-century perspective on reality was driven by the techno-science of the “second industrial revolution.” This led to new engineering materials and resources (the chemical industry’s production of synthetic materials— dyes, man-made fibers, plastics, reinforced concrete, aluminum, chromium alloys); new sources and producers of power (coal, steam, oil, electricity generators, petrol, internal combustion, diesel engine, steam turbine); rapid transportation (gas-powered engines, railways, automobile, bus, tractor, airplane); improved communications (telephone, typewriter, telegraph, radio). The sciences saw unparalleled advances: discovery of uranium and radium radioactivity by Becquerel and the Curies (1897– 99); Max Planck’s quantum theory of energy (1900); Rutherford’s revolutionary new model of the atom that overturned classical physics (1911); and Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity (1905 and 1916). Rising expectations and incomes led to mass consumption, new forms of entertainment, and a consumerist revolution: more advertising and mass media, for example, increased circulation of newspapers; the invention of the gramophone (1877); the Lumière brothers’ cinematography (1895); Marconi’s wireless telegraph (1895); the first radio wave transmission (1901); and the opening of the first movie theater (the Pittsburg Nickelodeon in 1905).

The cosmic worldview’s collapse: Giving birth to Psychology A “Psychology that inquires about Psychology itself ” must confront the history, the very foundations and the basic philosophy of the social sciences.8 Through longterm, complex historical processes, psyche has adapted to more and more socioexternalization and became increasingly psycho-internalized. Psycho-internalization enhances “conscious interiority,” a sharp focusing of psycho-internalization. By investigating these processes, the following sections lay the foundation for the theoretical themes of this work.

From a cosmic to a techno-scientific worldview The psychological revolution required centuries-long ideological groundwork and the origins of Psychology can be traced to the collapse of what we will call the cosmic worldview. Massive shifts in understandings of the very fabric of spatiotemporality and the workings of the human body had to first occur, as well as an increased social weight on the import of individual opinions and freedoms in the politico-economic realm. The premodern worldview can be described as monistic and isomorphic: the dynamics of the cosmos, human nature, and our place in the sociopolitical order were all inextricably linked, each aspect of existence pointing to and making sense of the others in an ideological house of mirrors. An animistic unifying force inhered in the universe, for example, a vitalistic energy substance called qi in Chinese (ki in Japanese), or the Great Chain of Being, as in the West. The erosion of the “mind-as-mirror” model of the cosmos would lead to a skeptical, secularizing ethos and the technoscopic world of science and modern instruments would not be decisively underway well into the 1800s. Chapter 2 explores Japan’s premodern Japanese cosmology as well as the meaning of “Psychology as secularized religion.”

10

The History of Japanese Psychology

For the sake of convenience, we can illustrate the breakdown of the cosmic worldview by highlighting four major interrelated intellectual transformations: (1) The Emergence of Modern Spatiality: Mathematically measurable and infinitized space dissolved sacred macro-microcosms, leaving no concrete connections to the spiritual and thereby encouraging individuals to interiorize linkages to the divine, that is, the inner self, rather than external ceremonies, sacred personages, communities, and so on, became the focus of spirituality. (2) The Emergence of Modern Temporality: “Progress” and the allied theme of sociopolitical engineering. (3) From a Moral-Cosmic to a Techno-Scopic Worldview: Technicalization and the application of accumulated knowledge and science in attempts to improve society. (4) From the Introcosmic to the Introscopic: Psychological interiorization and the development of an “introscopic” view of psyche premised on modern technologies.

The introscopic as a new visuality: Expanded horizons of the inward turn One aspect of interiority in particular—mental spatialization—deserves treatment. Throughout the centuries, humankind has had to learn to “see” in new ways in order to adapt to changing circumstances. For our purposes, such “seeing” can be understood literally and metaphorically, that is, “seeing with the mind’s eye.” To appreciate visualization (whether literal or metaphorical), spatiality must also be understood, since it delimits the boundaries of what is seen. Indeed, the “spatialization of psyche”—metaphorically positing a space within the person in which agency and decision-making transpire—is the most elementary feature of conscious interiority. Metaphoric linguistic expressions hollow out the body and its interiorization (internal organs, e.g., “heart” or “brain”) is assigned agency. Spatialization of psyche may be described as cavitating a place modeled after the perceptual, physical world. Within this psychoscape one can experience an introceptive, quasi-sensory world in which dwells an “I” (self as subject in control; analogous to one’s physical person) that can “observe” one’s “me” (self as object under control).9 In premodern times such interiorization generated an “introcosm” as a counterpart to both the person and the immediate environs (microcosm) and the far-flung physical world (macrocosm). Between the 1880s and the early 1900s, new understandings of time and space sharpened the focus of what we conventionally call the inner or mind’s eye.10 Increased attention to introspection during the latter half of the nineteenth century can be thought of as due to enhanced conscious interiority. Introspection, originally a mere phenomenon in and of itself, would become a means to an end for understanding the psychological. Introspection has played a strange, ironic role in the history of Psychology. On the one hand, it was central to the very birth of Psychology, as both a method and a target of investigation. However, some noted methodological problems with introspection, and as Psychology shifted from philosophical self-reflection to a

Places, Periods, and Peoples

11

more objective observation of others, some began to question its usefulness.11 Indeed, in the early part of the twentieth century, behaviorists would dismiss its significance altogether.

Focusing the mind’s eye: Conscious interiority Together with introspection was another new way of “seeing” the psychological. The natural sciences afforded equipment and techniques that researchers could utilize in new established laboratories, allowing them to measure and thereby visualize the “contents” of psyche (see Chapter 7’s treatment of laboratories). This newly discovered scientific visuality demonstrates how Psychology actually impacted psychological experiences. Instrumental measurement of the mind and introspection transfigured the premodern introcosm into the modern introscope. In addition to mental spatialization and “introception,” interiority highlighted other cognitive processes in the nineteenth century: self-narratization, individuation, self-reflexivity, self-autonomy, and self-authorization.12 An appreciation of these developments is crucial, since they acted as the fertile intellectual ground in which the eventual institutionalization of Psychology took root. What happens within a discipline, of course, relates to larger historical developments, or in the words of Mizoguchi Hajime, the “big picture” (kyodai na kōzu).13 Chapters 3 explores the “new mentality” of Meiji modernity. I comment here on the aforementioned aspects of interiority, linking them to larger social changes.

Self-narratization and progress The 1800s was the century when new conceptions of time, which had been developing since at least the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, began to have a real-world impact. For example, consider the history of history. As a discipline history made important strides. The past became something that was objectively recoverable and that extended far into a very distant long-ago that challenged the human imagination. The “origins” of all things, including humankind, were pursued. Time became not only linearized, but clearly partitioned: the past, present, and future. Significantly, as political ideologies promised social re-engineering, a new “place”—the future—was invented toward which the individual could aspire. In the sciences, transformation, change, and evolutionism became central explanatory concepts, which resonated with theories of advancement, “human progress,” and social Darwinism. Religious millenarianism transmuted into secular utopianism. Changes in notions of time impacted psychological processes by encouraging a hypothetical mind-set, thereby forming a linear temporality leading to future possibilities upon which one’s “I” could move as protagonist, viewing unrealized excerptions and mental sceneries. Once unmoored from the limitations of present circumstances, the “I” became able to introspect upon not just a panorama of past and present events, but an imaginary psychoscape of “could be’s.” More than any other period, the nineteenth century became the age of the “self-made man” (sic) who assertively serialized his own advancement.

12

The History of Japanese Psychology

Individuation and self-reflexivity It is difficult for people living in the late modern era to accept that in previous centuries individuals were not particularly interested in the “idiosyncratic inner life” of others.14 “Instead of connecting individuality with reflection, contemplation, or the inner world of feelings, it was rather identified with one’s effect on the community.”15 Note that, at least in England during the 1600s, one was most authentic and “real” when performing and wearing a mask in public—not when expressing or introspecting upon one’s self.16 Individual accomplishments and personal characteristics were certainly given attention in times past, but these were not directly connected to the psychological. However, linkages between personal individuality and the elements of interior life came to the fore during the nineteenth century. “Personality” was the concept eventually adopted to capture novel configurations of human nature that erupted on the historical stage. In the same way that the individual’s personal traits were highlighted and privileged vis-à-vis larger collectivities, the individual’s “I” was differentiated and set against the backdrop of interiorized excerptions (i.e., edited narratives of one’s life), thereby enhancing sentiments of personal uniqueness. Tightly associated with these processes of individuation is self-reflexivity. This is a difficult feature to describe. It occurs because the ability to excerpt, to “see” one’s self (“I”) in an interiorized place minus physical limitations and to narrating not-yet versions of our future selves, all generate an “I” that introspects upon a “me.” Such self-introspection causes a recursively regressive mirroring effect (self observing self), which leads to a keenly felt existentialist perspective of a highly individuated selfness that exists in opposition to others and the world.

Self-autonomy, self-authorization, and political economic liberties By the nineteenth century the dreams of classical liberalism (envisioned during the 1600s and 1700s) began to be realized, at least partially. A focus on and faith in the inner reason of the individual, regardless of social status, began to solidify. That the interior contents of the person were given attention is apparent in social mechanisms designed  to articulate such contents: civil self-expression (constitutionalism, basic human rights, and religious tolerance) and political self-representation (extension of the electorate, political parties, and the eventual political inclusion of women and minorities in the twentieth century). The psychological responded to these changes. The sense of immediate control experienced by the self—that is, of one’s own person (“I”) over one’s behavior (“me”)— was strengthened. This emphasis on self-authorization saw more intentionality and responsibility being attributed to the “I” (“inner person”) rather than divine powers, cosmological forces, or communities. Individual narratization would lead to a sense of power over one’s self and destiny—self-autonomy—that the political authorities were increasingly expected to accommodate. From an economic perspective, the intensification of interiority has afforded a uniquely personalized “space” in which a self dwells that expresses its own individuality by pursuing consumerist desires. This

Places, Periods, and Peoples

13

expanded sphere of personal subjectivity not only requires expression and exploration but is also filled with demands.

Theme three: The emergence of academic Psychology The psychological revolution The aforementioned ways of “seeing” and related developments can be attributed to a major shift in understandings of human nature. The shadowy, indistinct images seen only with the mind’s eye would come to constitute a parallel world, a psychoscape rich in colorful details. Focusing attention on the introcosm was not mere attending to one’s thoughts but a pensive introspection tinted by a nuanced self-conscious reflexivity. More than just an aspect of the bodily microcosm, by the early nineteenth century the introcosm became a privileged place implicated in a jealously guarded individuality, politically protected privacy and a highly personalized identity. And  eventually it would become a target of scientific scrutiny, though its age-old religious associations would strongly color even its scientific treatments until the late 1800s. Chapter  6 provides the historical context in which occultism, spiritualism, and cosmic energies developed in Japan. The effect of the psychological revolution can be measured in two ways: societal impact and the institutionalization of academic Psychology. The former is far broader and more difficult to delineate than the establishment of a scholarly field. Societal impact assesses how deep a psychologically interiorized view of human nature has taken root. By the twentieth century, crucial clues about the expansion of the “psychological society” can be found in the mass media, arts, popular culture, daily discourse, everyday assumptions about psyche, and implicit ideological influences in the realm of politics and economics.17 The psychological revolution involved not just significant shifts in subjective experiences but also the institutionalization of Psychology.18 I have already delineated, in rough historical terms, how major social tectonics (i.e., socio-externalization), drove psycho-internalization and led to reworkings of the psychological, which in turn gave birth to Psychology. Here I want to distinguish the psychological from Psychology in order to illustrate their interrelations.

Discipline versus subject matter It is often said that Psychology has a long past but a short history. We should rephrase this: psychological processes have always been around, but Psychology, the discipline, is relatively new. “Historical psychology” and the focus of my study, Japan’s “history of Psychology,” need to be distinguished. The former concerns the subject matter of what since the late nineteenth century has been called mind, emotion, perception, cognition, and so on; it is the history of changing psychological states. Historical Psychology can be subdivided into universal-invariant and cultural-variant processes. The former

14

The History of Japanese Psychology

concerns the foundational and relatively immutable aspects of psyche, such as basic cognitive and perceptual abilities of Homo sapiens that presumably place and period have not altered. The cultural-variant aspects, amenable to cultural psychological studies, concerns relatively mutable aspects of psyche, such as the degree to which an individual should turn inward in an attempt to understand and justify one’s own behavior and that of others (e.g., different features of interiority).19 The “history of Psychology” (note the capitalized “P”) explores the development of an academically organized and disciplined investigation of psychological subject matter.20 Sometime during the nineteenth century in the industrializing world (exactly where depends on local conditions), the “operations of the individual mind become a delimitable target of investigation.”21 Certainly, a type of philosophically informed experimental Psychology existed in the early 1800s. However, before a nonphilosophical experimental Psychology could emerge,22 religious, philosophical, and medical discourses had to be disentangled and a scientifically motivated “objectification of subjectivity” was required.23 Note that a crucial difference separates “Psychological philosophy” and “Psychological physiology” from “philosophical Psychology” and “physiological Psychology.” In the first two expressions, “Psychological” is an adjective while philosophy and physiology are nominals. In the latter two phrases, philosophical and physiological are adjectives, while Psychology is the primary subject. When Psychology is employed as a nominal, it indicates that it has come of age, that an imaginary but salient spatiality—interiority—has taken its place on the historical stage.24 Though psychological-like issues were “scattered across a whole range of textual genres,”25 no explicit, systematic, or institutionalized discipline of Psychology existed until the late 1800s.26 We should note, then, the differences among pre-psychological (psychological discourse before the establishment of Psychology), proto-psychological (ideas that anticipated Psychology), and the clearly psychological. More than any other field, Psychology refers both to a discipline and a subject matter.27 The problem of how Psychology, as an emergent product of the psychological, “actively constituted itself in the course” of the investigations of the mind is a complex problem indeed.28 After all, new psychological states and experiences would become the target of the psychological. Psychology was more than just an adaptation among intellectual pioneers to the pressures of modernity (increasing socio-externalization). It was also more than just an investigation of the mental along secular and scientific lines. Psychology, in how it revealed the workings of psyche, evidenced a transformation of the very psychological processes it claimed to be exploring. This change involved enhanced conscious interiority. We routinely and intensively self-reflect in ways that, except for a small circle of highly literate and the theologically minded, would have been considered an eccentric, if not downright mad, behavior several centuries ago. Compared to our predecessors, we have all become Psychologists now. In the same way that the birth of sociology was a scholarly attempt to come to terms with the new of fabric of society woven by the industrial revolution (i.e., the emergence of classes), Psychology was an attempt to understand a mentality adapted to new political economic structures.

Places, Periods, and Peoples

15

The intellectual background of academic Psychology Broadly speaking, certain circumstances cultivated the rise of Psychology. All interrelated, these can be categorized as five types of changes. The first concerns scientific discoveries. More specifically, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries witnessed three major intellectual shifts: (1) a “massive increase” in physiological knowledge; (2) the Darwinian evolutionary perspective; and (3) the development of Wundtian experimental psychophysics. The second change involved technological innovations that aided in envisioning and measuring the psychological. Indeed, inventions of the industrial age, for example, the steam engine and heavy industrial machinery, have provided a rich store of metaphors for the psychological, for example, electrifying, to be galvanized, go off the rails, to blow a gasket, full steam ahead. The third change is found in sociopolitical and economic developments, such as a deep concern with rationalized child-rearing, the concomitant need to educate skilled workers, to socialize loyal citizens, and to assess abilities for labor selection and training.29 The fourth change involved secularization: in the same way that religious prohibitions against dissecting the body were eventually discarded, the disinclination toward scrutinizing the soul as just another object was also disregarded. The final change, which is intimately bound up with the aforementioned developments, concerns transformations in understandings of the self (see above, “The Introscopic as a New Visuality: Expanded Horizons of the Inward Turn”).

The institutionalization of academic Psychology Specifically speaking, a number of preconditions encouraged the growth of Psychology: (1) a stable, prosperous, industrialized society that fostered the development of the various sciences; (2) an emphasis on individuality and the individual that made scientific analysis of personal experience and behavior legitimate and relevant; (3) a “diversity of lines of research” that favored the pursuit of various topics; (4) the relatively early organization of courses, laboratories, scientific associations and Psychology journals; (5) “helpful relations with other sciences”; (6) different applications of Psychology that led to increased societal interest in Psychology and the psychological; and (7) beneficial interactions among Psychologists from various countries.30 Disciplinary institutionality (a term less baroque than “disciplinization”) measures the degree of academic and professional solidification and evolution. For certain comparative purposes, disciplinary institutionality can be objectified and assessed within a national unit. Key measurements, more or less in order of typical chronological appearance, typically included: ● ● ● ● ●

First university courses dedicated to Psychology Societies and associations Professional journals Professorships or chairs Departments

16 ● ● ●

The History of Japanese Psychology Degrees Graduate programs Official recognition by a state agency or official credentialing organizations

It was only in the early twentieth century that Psychologists were able to confidently carve out a professional space of their own.31 This autonomy of Psychology as a body of disciplinary knowledge evidences the scientific acceptance of an introscopic interiority. No longer would its target of inquiry—invisible, inner happenings of the soul—be the handmaiden of philosophy, physiology, pedagogy, or physics. Individual experience and behavior became scientifically legitimate as a subject of investigation.32 Severing the connections between physiology, philosophy, and Psychology was not as easy as we might assume. For example, consider the career of William James: in 1876, he became assistant professor of physiology; in 1880, assistant professor of philosophy; in 1885, professor of philosophy; in 1889, professor of philosophy; in 1897, he became again a professor of philosophy. Tracing the emergence of modern research Psychology in Japan affords a window into how global shifts in definitions of human nature played out in one particular locale and how the development of the social sciences was part of larger late-nineteenth to early-twentieth-century global trends that interiorized the person and selected the individual as the basic unit of analysis. Chapters 3 explains how Japanese Psychology was intellectually and academically institutionalized (i.e., separated the modern “mind” out from the premodern “soul”), while Chapter  7 addresses how the new discipline was professionally and organizationally institutionalized (i.e., via societies and publications). Scientists and researchers define problems “in such a way as to establish themselves as an obligatory passage point in the network of relationships” they are building.33 This process of “problematization” poses issues in such a manner that institutionality becomes inevitable, that is, only certain types of specialists can solve the problems that they themselves have placed on the intellectual landscape.

Psychology: Tensions and types Two tensions—which both concern definitions of human nature—have characterized the development of Psychology: (1) individual-versus-collectivity; and (2) scientificversus-humanistic. The first raises the issue of whether the human psyche is better understood as an autonomous, isolated, independent entity or as a mere part of an aggregate whose nature is influenced by that larger grouping. Here we might note that in a sense, socio-externalization/psycho-internalization bifurcated the individual into two aspects: psychological and social. While Psychology dealt with the latter, the nineteenth century’s “discovery of society” became the purview of sociology.34 In Chapter 6, the relations between Japanese Psychology and sociology are investigated. The second tension raises fundamental methodological problems: Is the human psyche amenable to natural-scientific approaches of reductionism, measurement, and analysis (“breaking down”)? Or, is it more amenable to a humanistic perspective

Places, Periods, and Peoples

17

that stresses a holistic, philosophical, or even spiritual view of the human condition? Are we part of the animal world or ensouled beings that transcend physiology and physics? Another way to view Psychology is by considering its subspecializations. Like other social sciences, Psychology has fragmented into various branches, subspecialties, and types.35 Between 1870 and 1920, the distinct fields of personality, clinical Psychology, comparative Psychology, physiological Psychology, and developmental Psychology were established. Notably, to a remarkable degree, the methods and problems of nineteenth-century Psychology have survived and the “contemporary perspective is largely the one bequeathed by the scholars of that time.”36 For the sake of convenience, we can divide Psychology into (1) experimental– theoretical-basic and (2) applied-therapeutic-clinical (these are the focus of Chapter  8). The former is associated with the various “schools” of research Psychology (e.g., perceptual, physiological, Gestalt, behaviorism, comparative, cognitive, neurological, social, cross-cultural). The latter is associated with practical and medical applications of knowledge about the psyche (e.g., educational, developmental, intelligence testing, industrial, organizational, military, psychoanalysis, psychodynamics, counseling).

Applied Psychology and its societal impact: Bureaucratizing subjectivity via schooling Japanese Psychology, like other social sciences, was never limited to the ivory tower. Its impact was visible, as it still is, at the societal level. The earliest and most salient example of applied psychological knowledge was in education.37 The new spatiality of the individual introcosm was now a psychological resource that, in response to emerging political economic demands, needed to be made “visible” for assessment purposes and then, via pedagogical practices, shaped for political and economic agendas. As officialdom came to envision the individual as a target of increased socioexternalization in order to meet its own agendas, individual subjectivity became increasingly bureaucratized (i.e., internalized). This process was manifested through orderly, systematic, and methodical training within formal schooling. Indeed, around the world the emergence of modern schooling and Psychology cannot be easily disentangled. In Japan, the oligarchies of the Meiji Restoration (1868) from the start viewed education as an instrument of national policy. The utilitarian character of schooling, which was “clearly visualized and vigorously pursued,” had four primary goals: (1) national unification; (2) unquestioning loyalty; (3) acquisition of modern scientific and economic knowledge and techniques; and (4) the enhancement of national defense. It is essential to bear in mind that key educational administrative matters were not products of legislature process emanating from the Diet but were “imperial decrees without parliamentary debate.”38 Indeed, the Diet would not be founded until 1890, after the basics of the educational system had been formulated and implemented. Modern schooling and regimes of psycho-socialization were both products of and driving forces behind mental changes. A salient example of transformations of

18

The History of Japanese Psychology

the psychological, then, is educational structures. Chapters 4 and 9 investigate the important links between the state, nationalism, pedagogy, and Psychology, as well as between schooling structures and psychological processes.

Other applications of Psychology The individual had become a walking encapsulated world of complex dynamics. Psychology came to view the person as a container of drives, ideas, and invisible forces that could be meticulously and carefully measured and analyzed. The applications of Psychology are analyzed in Chapters 7 (e.g., cultivating the minds of youth and mental testing and industrial Psychology) and 9 (statist and military applications). Clinical and psychoanalytic applications are treated in Chapter 8.

Global exchanges versus national traditions This project attempts to strike a balance between Psychology-as-global and Psychologyas-national. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. A global perspective avoids the dangers of carelessly adopting the national state-as-container model, assuming cultural singularity, or that each national tradition followed its own highly peculiar isolated trajectory.39 After all, what does “Japanese” describe? Ethnocultural heritage? A polity? A place? A language with its own culturally nuanced expressions?

Global connections, comparisons, and commonalties Guiding this project’s explorations are questions of collaborations, comparisons, and commonalities in the history of Psychology. What is needed is “a history of connections and processes without retreating to a simple view of the diffusion outward of modernity from a dominant, ‘rational’ Euro–American center.”40 In the case of Japan, this issue is especially salient, since the common perception is that Japan passively “accepted” or “absorbed” foreign modern knowledge. Here I might note that though there has been some improvement, textbook histories of Psychology are usually histories of “American Psychology” (see Appendix 1).41 For the sake of argument, let us propose three metaphors in order to conceptualize the flow of ideas between Japan and what can conveniently but cautiously be called the “West.” The first is the “one-way street” perspective: Japan passively absorbs influences from the West. The second is the “two-way street” view that sees an exchange between Japan and the West: foreign and Japanese elements mutually influence each other. The  last perspective, or the “intersection” approach, is more subtle. The first two approaches are premised on the idea that Japan and other national states are self-contained, monolithic units. The last metaphor, though not ignoring the role of territorially defined political and cultural entities (i.e., national states),42 emphasizes historical period rather than particular places or peoples.43 While acknowledging important connections and contrasts, the third approach includes transnational

Places, Periods, and Peoples

19

commonalities. The appearance of Psychology, a crucial intellectual offspring of modernity, is better understood not as a matter of geographical origins, but rather as a temporal, chronological issue. In other words, once Psychology’s institutionalization was triggered in Japan by outside influences, we must address the question of why it readily took root, flourished, and thrived. The reason is found in a general global climate that interiorized and took the individual as the basic unit in politics, economics and the arts. Some point out that academic studies are either too local or too global and except for the national state, an intermediate level is missing. However, such concerns are premised on a spatio-geographical perspective. I suggest that temporality rather than spatiality is far more useful for explicating certain issues, that is, changing understandings of human nature. Rather than place, our focus should be temporally lengthy and thematic, thereby allowing us to escape the gravitational pull of spatial units such as national states or civilization-wide regions, if only to gain some global perspective on massive changes that transcend the local. At any rate, modern research Psychology did not begin much later in Japan than in Europe and North America. 44 This has more to do with how Japan’s political economic conditions demanded new forms of labor and loyalty than with how Japan passively accepted foreign knowledge. Note that Motora gave his first lecture on psychophysics at University of Tokyo in 1888 and established Japan’s first Psychology laboratory in 1903. The former was only nine and the latter twenty-four years after the construction of Wundt’s laboratory in 1879, which is conventionally regarded as the birth date of modern experimental Psychology. And the number of articles by Japanese appearing in well-known academic journals (1897–1945) indicates a scholarly presence far beyond Japan’s borders (see Appendix 2).45

What does it mean to be “Japanese”? Regardless of any focus on the global exchange of ideas, we must still take into consideration the role of the national state. A national state–oriented approach provides rich detail and particulars that a more bird’s-eye view misses. Consider how any state, as an actor that supports and advocates, or as the case may be, discourages and suppresses, the imperatives and tendencies of the psychologized society (educational, social welfare, etc.). Remember that intellectual developments, rather than transcending national boundaries in some mystical fashion, were conveyed via particular institutions that were often state defined. In addition to polity, “national” can also be understood as designating certain research emphases, scholarly styles, or the subtleties of linguo-concepts configured by local culture. These must be considered. For example, the Germanophone world, deeply rooted in a philosophical perspective, viewed the psychological as something active and holistic and saw language and culture as windows into the soul. British and French doctrines saw mind as more passive, reductionistic, and atomistic. In Britain we find a stress on evolutionism, as well as a strong hereditarian and “managerial component,” which were particularly clear in the use of statistics for “bureaucratic and economic administrative purposes” during the industrial revolution. Later in

20

The History of Japanese Psychology

the nineteenth century the French tradition would associate the psychological with madness, social deviance, and the abnormal. From these linkages would emerge the case-history approach that eventually configured a medicalized and clinical view of the psychological. A strong psychiatric tradition can be traced back to Philippe Pinel (1745–1826) and his successor J. E. D. Esquirol (1772–1840).46 A collectivist ethos also pervades much of French work, with its orientation toward crowd behavior, social aggregates, group dynamics, national traits, and “racial character.”47 For its part Japanese Psychology has had a tendency to focus on sensation and perceptual processes. A great number of individuals made significant contributions to the development of Japanese Psychology, but undoubtedly the endeavors of Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō stand out. They are the focus of Chapter 5, which also examines the psychophilosophy of Motora. The contributions of other individuals are dealt with in passim, but the Epilogue explores the contributions of Japanese women Psychologists.

Methodology and relevant literature No comprehensive history of Japanese Psychology exists in English,48 though articlelength treatments (with scattered references to Motora Yūjirō, Matsumoto Matatarō, and other key Japanese Psychologists) can certainly be found.49 Not surprisingly, a number of full-length histories exists in Japanese.50 Up-to-date and major booklength treatments include Nishikawa and Takasuna’s Shinrigaku-shi (The History of Psychology, 2008a); Osaka Naoyuki’s Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi (The Birth and Development of Experimental Psychology: Tracing the History of Japanese Psychology from Experimental Instruments and Materials, 2000a); Satō and Mizoguchi’s Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku (A History: Japanese Psychology, 1997); and Satō’s Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku no Jūyo to Tenkai (The Acceptance and Development of Psychology in Japan, 2002a).51 Despite these important contributions, as recently as 2005 Satō Tatsuya wrote that the history of Psychology is a “new specialty in Japan.”52 A sense that Japanese Psychology had a past was evident as early as 1897, when Tanimoto Tomeri wrote “Wagakuni ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu” (“The Development of Psychology in Our Country”). Four years later Tanimoto wrote a short history of Japanese Psychology which he divided into several periods influenced by: (1) “moral philosophers,” such as Joseph Haven and Francis Wayland; (2) British philosophers, such as Alexander Bain, Herbert Spencer, and James Sully; (3) a short period that saw the impact of George T. Ladd and Théodule Ribot; and finally (4) the German experimentalism of Wundt.53 In 1903, Takashima Heizaburō wrote an article with the same title as Tanimoto’s (above). Matsumoto Matatarō penned “Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu” (“The Development of Psychology in Japan,” 1931) and six years later wrote Shinrigaku-shi (The History of Psychology). Watanabe Tōru, somewhat controversially, discerned a pre-Meiji period “empirical” Psychologist in the person of Kamada Hō (1754–1821) in his 1940 Hompō Saisho no Keiken teki Shinrigaku-sha toshite no Kamada Hō no Kenkyū.

Places, Periods, and Peoples

21

I have relied on three types of sources: (1) primary sources in Japanese written by contemporary Japanese researchers who pioneered Psychology; (2) secondary sources in Japanese written by commentators about the pioneers and their work; and (3) sources in English.54 Admittedly, what distinguishes primary and secondary Japanese sources is not always clear-cut, since early pioneers sometimes commented on the work of their colleagues or offered histories of Japanese Psychology. Despite this reservation, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is usually valid. Also, my attempt to balance a detailed exposition of Japanese Psychology with a more general explanation of global psychological changes forces a certain selectivity, that is, given the large corpus of relevant works, I can only offer a partial treatment of the pertinent topics.

2

Historical Context: Japanese Cosmology and Psychology as Secularized Theology

Japan’s premodern cosmology This chapter investigates the meaning of Psychology as “secularized religion” by describing the subtle interlinkages between religion, science, philosophy, and Psychology in Japan. It then relates modern science’s subject–object dichotomy to the intensification of the introscopic. But first, some intellectual background is provided by exploring Japan’s premodern cosmology, “Japan’s first Psychologist” (Kamada Hō), Neo-Confucianism, and the proto-Psychology of “heart‒mind learning.”

Kamada Hō: Japan’s first proto-psychologist? As in the West, important predecessors in Japan explored what we would label the psychological. During the Tokugawa period, discourses dealing with child rearing and socialization qualify as psychological in nature (though they were not targets of psychological inquiry). Consider Kamada Hō (Ryūō or Ryūkō) (1754–1821): “one can say that with him our country’s [wagakuni, i.e., Japan] first Psychology began to sprout.” 1 Kamada was born in Kii province and studied shingaku (“learning of the heart‒mind”) under Ishida Baigan. He attempted to amalgamate the theories of shingaku with elements of Dutch Learning and Buddhism. Two of his relevant works are Kokoro no Kajistsu (Fruits of Heart–Mind, 1819) and Shingaku Gosoku (Five Axioms of Mental Discipline, 1813).2 He divided psyche into intellect, emotion, and desire and subdivided emotions into fourteen kinds. Arguably, Kamada’s approach was “empirical,” and in 1940 Watanabe Tōru wrote Kamada Hō as an Empirical Psychologist (Keikenteki Shinrigakusha toshite no Kamada Hō). However, Takasuna points out that Kamada was a “Psychologyoriented philosopher,” not a modern Psychologist,3 and no evidence exists that Kamada and his disciples were active in developing Psychology as we think of it. Kamada may have seen things from an “empirical” perspective, but he was not a “positivist.”4 In any case, no direct continuity between his thought and the later developments in Meiji era in regards to Psychology exists. Nevertheless, Kamada lived in a world in which the groundwork for an introscopic worldview was being formed.

24

The History of Japanese Psychology

Basic concepts: Laying the groundwork for the introscopic As elsewhere, premodern Neo-Confucianist Japanese thought (see below) trifurcated existence into the macro-, micro-, and introcosm. The three realms came together in an “anthropocosmic understanding.” As in other cosmological systems, an “interconnectedness” of reality—rooted in a timeless Supreme Ultimate (taikyoku)— manifested itself as shengsheng (literally, “life life”), or the “ongoing creativity and renewal of nature” and the fecundity of the universe. The three cosms reflected each other, together comprising a complex system of correspondences among the elements, seasons, directions, colors, and virtues.5 The fabric of the universe was woven from ri and ki (corresponding to the Chinese li and qi). The latter can be translated as the vital essence of the cosmos. It is a pneumatic or energetic substratum, an ether-like or ethereal, gaseous matter that links body with cosmos. This vital energy was conceived as a “unifying basis for the interaction of self, society and nature.”6 It can also be understood as psychophysical energy or a “psychophysiological power associated with blood and breath” (incidentally, as evidence of an earlier mind-set, modern Japanese contains about 11,500 expressions with ki).7 It is used in concepts associated with various natural processes, the atmosphere, the flavor or essence of something and for our purposes we should note, with the psychological (i.e., mind, cognition, feeling, sentiments). Ri, sometimes glossed as the defining pattern or principle of the cosmos, is the inherent order configuring all phenomena, providing the form of all things and events. Together, ri and ki accounted for the material, spiritual, and moral realms. Thinkers viewed the relationship ri and ki in different ways. Some took a more monistic approach and proposed a nondualistic integration of principle and vital material force. Zhang Zai (1020–77) identified qi (Japanese: ki) with the Great Vacuity (taixu)—the unmanifested aspect, while the Great Harmony was its manifested aspect. Others advanced a more dualistic relation, while many offered a qualified dualism. Another key concept that more obviously concerns the introcosm is kokoro. Though often translated as “heart” (indeed, it could mean the heart as organ), a better interpretation is “heart–mind” as it carried a broader sense that implicated the inner workings of the individual’s psyche. For some, kokoro was the seat of our intelligence and the most refined concentration of ki. Note that kokoro is the native Japanese reading (kun-yomi) of the Chinese character (kanji) for heart, while the Japanese reading of the original Chinese pronunciation (on-yomi) for the same kanji is shin, as in the modern term for Psychology (shinrigaku). Kyūri is another basic concept that can be traced back to Zhu Xi’s philosophy (Chinese: quiongli). This designates the “cumulative process of perceiving and comprehending” the ri that is accomplished by “exhaustively studying the characteristics (of entities)” in order to “grasp the ri” (jinsei kyūri) and by “investigating things to penetrate the ri” (kanbutsu kyūri).8 Originally, kyūri denoted an empirical inquiry whose goal was to appreciate all being by embracing “larger and larger functional systems.” It sought to synthesize knowledge, not analyze information; to take a comprehensive perspective, not a specialized methodology; it was an intuitive endeavor, not an objective, impartial effort; and its ultimate aim was to obtain an understanding of human nature. The point of kyūri was to demonstrate

Historical Context

25

how macrocosm, microcosm, and introcosm were isomorphically related, not to fragment existence into areas of expertise. Some equated kyūri with Western methods of investigation. However, not all would; for example, Nishikawa Joken (1648–1724) associated the “energetic and qualitative” ki with foreign science. In any case, ri is still seen in many scientific terms today, such as butsurigaku (physics), byōrigaku (pathology), seirigaku (physiology), rigaku (to denote a university faculty of natural science), and Psychology (shinrigaku).9

Japan’s Neo-Confucianism In response to perceived impractical and overly idealistic conventions and the philosophical sophistication of Buddhism and mysticism of Daoism, Chinese revitalized their traditional thought, creating what has become known as NeoConfucianism. This is associated with Zhou Dunyi (1017–73), Zhang Zai (1020–77), Cheng Ho (1032–85), Cheng Yi (1033–1107), and Zhu Xi (1130–1200). Many motivations were behind this renovation, but attempts to metaphysically justify Confucianism resulted from an increased interiorization. Thus, individuation, a key aspect of interiority, is apparent in the stress on “unique moral and spiritual cultivation of each person.”10 Neo-Confucianism would have a salient impact in Japan. The works of Zhu Xi, in the form of the Shushigaku (Zhu Xi School), were introduced in the Kamakura period (1185–1333). This became the orthodox teaching of the shogunate (military government). In 1790 the shogun made Zhu Xi’s philosophy the official ideology and banned other versions of Neo-Confucianism. Even after the 1868 Meiji Restoration it heavily influenced state policy. Neo-Confucianism organized all knowledge into three levels: the cosmos (nature), society (political economics), and human nature (a focus on moral cultivation). These do not completely correspond with the macro-, micro-, and introcosmic perspectives, but they do overlap. Significantly, however, these levels were to be understood intuitively, not in an objective, scopic sense. An important Neo-Confucianist who promoted Zhu Xi’s brand of NeoConfucianism was Hayashi Razan (1583–1657). Though he was also an ordained Zen monk, he was nevertheless critical of Buddhism. He also was opposed Christianity. Hayashi founded the Shinto–Confucian sect called Rito–Shinchi Shinto. Nakae Tōju (1608–48; called the “sage of Ōmi”) first studied Zhu Xi’s thought but later became associated with the Yōmeigaku or School of Wang Yangming (from NeoConfucianist Wang Yangming, 1472–1529). He was a prolific writer. Some of his more famous works include: Okina Mondō (Dialogue with an Old Man) and Kagami-gusa (Mirror for Women). For Nakae, as for other thinkers of the time, our virtues were grounded in humankind’s very nature. Cultivating them relates us to the cosmos. Knowing Heaven meant knowing one’s own nature. Self-cultivation and improvement was based on moral intuition more than intellect, and conscience was the “divine light of heaven.” Yamazaki Ansai (1618–82), a Buddhist monk, abandoned Buddhism and established a school called Kimon. He also founded a sect he called Suika Shintō, which was a precursor to Kokugaku (national learning). Kumazawa Banzan (1619–91), a student of Nakae Tōju, studied Wang Yangming (Japanese: Ō-Yōmei) and wrote on philosophy

26

The History of Japanese Psychology

and economics. Influenced to some degree by ancient learning (kogaku), he also wrote commentaries on the Confucian classics. Yamaga Sōkō (1622–85), a disciple of Hayashi Ranzan, studied Shintō and military sciences. He wrote Seikyō Yōroku (Basics of the Sacred Teachings) and Chūchō Jijutsu (1669), a historical work. Yamaga laid the foundations for bushidō (way of the warrior). Itō Jinsai (1627–1705) began by studying Zhu Xi but eventually switched to an investigation of Wang Yamgming. He established his own philosophy and school called Kogi-gaku (or Horikawa-gaku), which is a branch of the Kogakuha (School of Ancient Learning). He opened a school in Kyoto called Kogidō (Hall of the Ancient Learning) and founded a second school, Fukko-ha. Itō stressed makoto, “sincerity of the heart” and opposed study of nature and political economics. He wrote Treatise on the Ultimate (Taikyoku-ron), Seizen-ron (On the Natural Goodness of the Human Being), Shingaku Gen-ron (Principles of Spiritual Study), and Go Mōjigi (Commentaries on the Analects, 1683). He is important because he influenced a number of Neo-Confucian scholars, including Ogyū Sorai. Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728; sometimes called Butsu Sorai) studied medicine and Confuciansim and was an adviser to the shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune. He wrote Seidan and Bendō. He opposed Zhu Xi’s philosophy and his thinking was significant for the development of rationalism in Japan. A disciple of Ogyū Sorai, Dazai Shundai (1680–1747), wrote Keizairoku (Discussions on Economics, 1729) and Keizairokushū-i (Discussions on Economics, Part 2). Some Japanese intellectuals would carry out advanced philological research in order to verify what we might call historical processes, institutional changes, and phenomena in general. In general, Neo-Confucianist thought was conservative in its stance toward what we would call techno-scientific innovation. In contrast to such thinking, certain forms of thought eventually evolved a more practical outlook on the world. “Practical learning” (jitsugaku; Chinese: shixue) saw the value of Western science and technology, specifically medicine, botany, agriculture, geography, mathematics, calendrical astronomy, and military inventions, for improving political economic institutions. Miyazaki Yasusada (1623–97) would write about agricultural innovations. Related to practical learning was the notion of kaibutsu, or “revealing the nature of things” or “opening up of things” with the intention of making use of the natural world. However, in premodern Japan the closest concept to “nature,” shizen, conveyed a metaphysical sense as a self-existent entity or as the ground of all being. For example, Kaibara Ekiken, in an effort to find the inherent unity of the natural and moral worlds, searched for a universal principle to provide a basis for human morality. Nevertheless, a more practical approach to phenomena such thinking would be crucial for the eventual development of the natural sciences. Just as significant as developments in the sciences, novel ways of thought resulted in proto-conceptions of “society.” Here the latter term is to be understood in the sense of a constellation of institutions that were human-made and thus amenable to changed and even improvement. Ri was becoming regarded as not just as a cosmological principle but as “law,” or a set of applicable rules for the human condition. Satō Nobuhiro (1769– 1850) epitomized the new attitude toward social institutions. A student of Dutch, he attracted to the modern political institutions of the West and studied the latest works on

Historical Context

27

geography, history, and military tactics. A proto-nationalist, he advised the authorities on coastal defense (specifically against the Russians) and envisioned a new governing structure that would enrich and expand Japanese power. Many of these intellectual trends found expression in the samurai and NeoConfucian Kaibara Ekiken11 (or Ekken; 1630–1714) and in his Records of Great Doubts (Taigiroku). Ekiken argued against withdrawal from the world, quietism, or transcendental rationalism. He was interested in practical learning (jitsugaku), and he was interested in a careful, empirical investigation of nature. He himself was a herbalist and botanist and wrote a study of Japanese plants called Yamato Honzō or Flora of Japan. His philosophy might be called “vitalistic naturalism.”12 Ekiken attempted a synthesis between Confucianism and Shintoism (on which he wrote important histories) and made important contribution to reinterpret the Neo-Confucianist thought into an idiom suitable for ordinary Japanese. Kaibara Ekiken stated that tenchi (Heaven and Earth) has provided us with a kokoro and equipped us with meitoku or Five Virtues: human kindness, a sense of justice, knowledge of correct social conduct, wisdom, and trustworthiness. He wrote over one hundred works (though some may have been composed by his wife), including Precepts for Children (Wazuko Dōjikun) and Greater Learning for Women (Onna Daigaku, 1733). These can be viewed as “selfhelp” manuals for the moral cultivation of commoners.

The proto-psychology of “heart–mind learning” Japan’s socioeconomic system underwent dramatic changes in the later Tokugawa period. These changes included a burgeoning middle class that, since it began to pursue profits rather than status maintenance, threatened the stability of a caste system that positioned the merchants on the bottom of the political economic pyramid (i.e., warriors–peasants–artisans–merchants). At the same time, attempts were made to accommodate “men of talent” (jinzai) and competent administrators required to stabilize the impact of economic transformation. In addition to the “cultivation of talent” and fostering “human resources,” a recognition of increasing individuation and “desirous hearts” emerged. “Learning of the heart–mind” (shingaku) was an ideological effort to both understand and deal with new politico-psychological configurations.13 As in other parts of the world, an introscopic view of our innermost being was not yet in place. Nevertheless, in the same way that Locke and Descartes were giving more attention to the contents of interiority, early modern Japanese thinkers also viewed what we call psychological processes in a more explicit fashion. That they possessed a sense of individuated self-hood is apparent in how they developed sophisticated ideas of the heart–mind. 14 The term shingaku dates from Lu Chiu-Yuan (1139–93; also known as Lu HsiangShan), who advocated an “introspective and meditative approach to illumination.”15 In Japan shingaku became associated with Ishida Baigan (1685–1744) and his student Tejima Toan (1781–86). Shingaku was a premodern, moralistic philosophy of heart– mind cultivation, so we should be cautious in drawing any direct linkages between it and a modern, scientific Psychology. It was non-empirical and it certainly was

28

The History of Japanese Psychology

nonexperimental. Also, it must be stressed, shingaku was basically conservative. It did not see the value of radically questioning the individual’s role in social arrangements or pursuing rigorous methodological investigations. Nevertheless, to the degree that it was a response to changing socioeconomic conditions that focused on the psychological, shingaku was an early attempt to come to terms with the psyche. A farmer’s son who became an apprentice to a merchant house, Baigan began lecturing on shingaku in 1729 (he actually used seigaku or the “philosophy of nature cultivation”). Though basically Confucianist, his philosophy contained elements of Daoism, Buddhism, and Shintōism. Baigan seemed to acknowledge that each individual, even if from the lower strata, contained an introcosm that required thoughtful fostering. Thus, he explained moral education in simplified terms and popularized ethics among the common people. In 1739 he published Tohi Mondō (Questions and Answers between City and Countryside) and Seika-ron (1774), which argued for the linkage between patriarchy and good government. Eventually, Baigan’s disciples established eighty-one schools with the encouragement of the political authorities. In 1806, his followers published Ishida Sensei Goroku (Sayings of Master Ishida). For Tejima Toan, the idea was to recover and cultivate one’s original innate nature (sei). Toan used the term honshin (“original heart–mind”) instead of sei. Ideally, self-cultivation would lead to a fusion of sei (nature or innermost temperament) and sei (empathy or outermost temperament) (the latter “sei” is a different Chinese character than the former). One’s inner essence was originally good and pure, but it becomes corrupted and selfish. Purifying one’s inner being and recovering the honshin (“original heart”) lead to ware nashi (egolessness) and shian nashi (“nonratiocination”).16 Whatever the terminology, the motivation was to stabilize society by cultivating one’s introcosm.

Self-cultivating the introcosm Self-cultivation was premised on an essential unity between the cosmic order and the individual psyche. As a miniature version of the cosmos, the introcosm was a repository of moral virtues that were paired with their cosmic counterpart, for example, humanness (Chinese: ren) was “seen as the source of fecundity and growth in both the individual and the cosmos.” This is why Wang Yangming believed that principle (ri) existed within the heart a priori and is known intuitively. It was one’s duty to participate in the transformation of the universe and to understand the “workings of Heaven.” By “forming one body with all things” (banbutsu ittai) and by “practicing humanness, one could effect the transformation of things in oneself and in society and in the cosmos.”17 Interiorization had not reached the point of clearly distinguishing between inner and outer in a psychological sense. This is a very modern notion; in the cosmic world public action and private morality were not segregated, so that thinking and doing were not necessarily clearly differentiated. Personal desires from social obligations were thought to ideally coincide, so that one thought was the business of the authorities. The micro-, macro-, and introcosm were reflections of each other.

Historical Context

29

Ontology was equated with morality, cosmology with norms, and the universe with the individual. For example, Yamazaki Ansai gave the human condition a “mytho-metaphysical sacred character.” Human affairs were “talked about in creative or godly terms and divine matters and talked about in human categories.” The psyche was the dwelling place of the gods or divine forces; the physical body, psyche, society, and the realm of the gods were conflated.18 Ansai’s attempt to come to terms with interiorization took an interesting form and involved an objectifying of his self. This suggests an awareness of a clear subject/object distinction that is a key ingredient of modernity. Ansai instituted a cult to his self, which revolved around a shintai or sacred object (actually a small pillar). This object symbolized the heart–mind, the four norms (humankindness, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom), the five relationships (parent–child, lord–minister, husband–wife, elder–junior, friend–friend), and other virtues. The sacred object was thus “a composite of the physico-ethical normative coordinates that constitute man.” The cult was not to himself, but to his “self,”19 that is, the introcosmic aspect of ultimate being. Psychologically speaking, the cult highlighted a selfreflexivity, a key feature of interiorization. At the more explicitly political level, individuation was intensifying. As allegiances became more directed to one’s domain rather than one’s lord and relations became increasingly more abstract and less kinship oriented, more generalized concepts began to emerge; rather than filial piety (kō), an emphasis on loyalty (chū) began to appear. Eventually, movements, such as the Mito School, prepared the intellectual ground for a more state-centered loyalty to the emperor.

Scopic perspective and new spatialities in Japan Thanks to information from the Dutch, the Japanese obtained knowledge of world geography that was not very different from contemporary Europe. The first globe of the world was made by Shibukawa Shunkai (1639–1715) in 1690. Throughout the 1700s and 1800s, Western instruments were used to survey and map Japan, often with impressive accuracy. In 1792 the painter Shiba Kōkan (1747–1818) published a world map called Complete Map of the Earth (Chikyū Zenzu). In 1823, Yoshio Shunzō (Nankō) (1787–1843) published Ensai Kanshô Zusetsu (Map of Far Western Meteorological Observations), which was apparently based on earlier works by Martinus Martens and Johannes Florentius Martinet. Meanwhile, the introduction of new optical instruments transitioned Japanese society from a cosmic to a scopic worldview. Tokugawa Ieyasu was given a telescope by the English captain John Saris in 1614, only six years after its invention by Dutchman Hans Lippershey in 1608. Eventually the use of refracting telescopes spread throughout Japan. In 1831 Kunitomo Ikkansai (1778–1840), a former gun manufacturer, built Japan’s first reflecting telescope of the Gregorian type. It is not known when microscopes first entered Japan, though descriptions of these optical devices appear in the 1720 book Nagasaki Night Stories Written (Nagasaki Yawasō) and later in Saying of the Dutch (1787). While the scopic focus of the Europeans was microbes and cellular organisms, the Japanese used the microscope in order to

30

The History of Japanese Psychology

create detailed entomological illustrations (entomology was also extremely popular in premodern Japan). The Copernican heliocentric doctrine did not arrive in Japan until the late eighteenth century. The astronomer and physician Asada Gōryu (1734–99) in 1769 did note that foreigner astronomers did not believe the earth was the center of universe, but it would take some time before Copernican heliocentrism had an impact. Shizuki Tadao (1760–1886; also called Nakano Ryūho), a descendant of the Shizuki House of Nagasaki Dutch translators, introduced Newton’s heliocentric system into Japan in his Rekishō Shinsho (New Text on Transitive Effects, 1798). This was a translation of the Dutch edition of John Keil’s (1671–1721) Introductio ad Veram Physicam.

Psychology as secularized theology In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, proto- and early Psychology had an interesting role to perform in making clearer the boundary between “science” and “religion.” Here it should be noted that the assumption that science and religion are natural-born enemies is a twentieth-century bugbear. Through much of the nineteenth century, science was thought by not a few to be, like religion, an “uplifter of humanity, a rational life-enhancing force that would lead humanity away from superstition.” 20 Many scientific endeavors were not intended to be antireligious and the received notion that science developed independently of religious thought is “patently false.” Indeed, scientific positivism was successful precisely because early on it avoided direct conflict with religious doctrine. 21 The following sections rely on the framework of the introcosmic–introscopic transition. I first provide comparative perspective on the aforementioned intellectual linkages as they developed in the West. I do this by utilizing the problematic of “reason” and the nature of the soul became central concerns (not a few believed that the latter could be scientifically investigated). Then I examine how new categorizations of knowledge (i.e., religion, philosophy, and science) and the subject‒object issue were implicated in early Japanese Psychology.

The metaphysics of reason In premodern times the micro-, macro-, and introcosm were believed to somehow correspond. However, the major concern was on how the former two reflected each other. The introcosm certainly played a role, but it was not considered as salient. Modernity, of course, would change all this and this can be seen in how the introcosm was gradually transformed into an active, surveying “observation post” centered within the individual, detached from the both the microcosm and macrocosm. In the Western tradition, this ability would be thought of as “a rational faculty,” while in Tokugawa-period Neo-Confucianism, the heart–mind (kokoro) would perform a not dissimilar function.

Historical Context

31

Though the notion that an important aspect of one’s humanness could grasp abstract principles, universals, or general concepts can be found in classical times, it was probably not until the 1800s that “reason” firmly became the intellectual faculty by which individual could come to terms with the laws of nature. Besides being a guiding principle, reason was also the “principle of order or lawfulness within nature which the intellectual faculty apprehends.” The relation between our “thinking about reality and reality itself was thus regarded as a non-distorting relation of ‘correspondence.’”22 In the 1700s, many key figures in what is sometimes too hastily called the “history of Psychology” were primarily interested in epistemology, not the science of mind per se. For them the study of mental capacities and limitations formed the basis of philosophy, that is, the workings of mind, that is, reason, offered clues to philosophical problems. Despite the modern connotations of “reason,” it must be stressed that this concept was a “thoroughly metaphysical assumption”; and it had political implications: from “rational ethics” flowed rights of individuals. Reason was “not merely a methodological tool for reasoning or planning, but a normative concept and a guide to ultimate value.” The universe, after all, was not ethically indifferent. Reason, as a metaphysical component, colored science, so that it was not value-free for most of the nineteenth century, as evidenced in the works of Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill, Henry Thomas Buckle, Marx, Ludwig Büchner, Walter Bagehot, Herbert Spencer, and Hippolyte Taine. “Despite their scientific terminology, they remained speculative systems.”23 Science was not blind method, but a system to advance the “laws of progress” and society, and reason was primarily an abstract or logical procedure rather than as an event in the soul or mind; the psychological interiorization of reason would come later.24

Proto-psychology and the soul From the late eighteenth through the nineteenth centuries, various stances about the soul were propounded (the first and last are easily confused): “though the soul exists we cannot analyze it”; “the soul exists and we can scientifically analyze it”; and “the soul does not exist.” Consider French materialism and sensationism, which took important steps toward a less theological understanding of the soul. Such thinking became popular in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This line of thinking was greatly influenced by Lockean empiricism and English utilitarianism. For example, Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715–71) wrote De l’esprit (On Mind, 1758).25 He argued that all our mental processes can be regarded as physical sensation, even “faculties” such as thinking, memory, judgment. Locke’s empirical sensationism is most explicitly advocated by Étienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715–80) and is especially evident in his Essai sur l’origine des connaissances humaines (1746). His most important contribution was Traité des sensations (1754), in which he methodically describes, by using a statue, how an individual’s inner life results from external sensations and impressions. For the philosopher Maine de Biran (1766–1824), whose work foreshadowed psychoanalysis, psychopharmacology, educational Psychology, and phenomenology, the will was realized by an active introspection. However, he realized that physiological approaches

32

The History of Japanese Psychology

would have to accompany any investigation into our “inner senses.” Victor Cousin (1791–1867), a translator of classics, historian, philosopher, and educator, made important contributions to what would become French Psychology. He was heavily influenced by John Locke, Condillac, and German idealism (Hegel helped free him from a Berlin jail). For Cousin, spiritualisme or a type of Psychology could be based on a personnalité (inner awareness) that observes one’s self; for our purposes his attention to introspection is significant. The question of the study of the soul must be appreciated vis-à-vis the bifurcation between moral philosophy and natural philosophy (what we now might label “natural science” and “social science,” respectively). Most of the “major theorists in the early 1800s argued that mental and moral philosophy (Britain), psychologie (France), pneumatology (Scotland), or metaphysics (as this discipline was still often called throughout Europe) was different from natural philosophy (which came to be called natural science or physics only in the 1830s).”26 How moral and natural philosophy differed, of course, was the key and, for many, a troublesome issue when it came to the soul. “Traditional metaphysicians” wondered if a science of the soul could be scientific and though some did believe such an endeavor was indeed possible, they did not pursue such a project. “Natural metaphysicians,” the term Edward S. Reed uses to describe thinkers, for example, Johannes Müller, Gustav Fechner, Rudolf Hermann Lotze and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). These were transitional figures who stood between traditional metaphysics and Psychology conceived as a natural science.27 They attempted to “naturalize metaphysics,” to “study the soul scientifically,” and to “create a natural science of the soul.”28 The rise of positivism and the discovery of the conservation of energy would make natural metaphysics untenable. In any case, attention to natural metaphysics is warranted because it influenced the first generation of scientific Psychologists. Much of nineteenth-century psychological thought “emerged from religions apologists’ efforts to justify specific views of the deity or the soul.”29 In the early 1800s, the word “soul,” in the expression “science of the soul,” was not intended to be a colorful term standing in for the more modern sounding mind; rather, it meant a mysterious entity that just might be amenable to scientific scrutiny. What is now deemed psychological evolved from subjects that were taught in the first-half of the nineteenth century in America: intellectual philosophy, mental science, and mental philosophy.30 Meanwhile, at around the same time, a division was developing between the latter and “moral philosophy.”31 In the early and mid-nineteenth century, many thinkers used “Psychology” in a way that, while not very alien to our understanding, was still heavily informed by theo-philosophical and moralistic themes (though as an illustration of what was to come, in an 1862 address at Heidelberg, Hermann von Helmholtz recognized that a divorce had taken place between science and philosophy).32 Meanwhile, others were using “Psychology” in a manner that is more recognizable to the modern eye, for example, Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Psychology (1855). For many, then, the lines of scholarly pursuit that would converge in Psychology were attempts to reconcile science and religion.33 In particular, Liberal Protestant

Historical Context

33

thought was deeply implicated in proto-Psychology and the origins of Psychology, as well as in the diffusion of an increasingly psychologized society.34 Some clothed the introcosm in an emerging scientific idiom. Examples include Joseph Haven (1816–74), Francis Wayland (1796–1865), and Laurens Perseus Hickok (1798–1888). Others, however, took a more ambiguous attitude toward what were regarded as scientific encroachments into the sacred realm of the introcosm. Prior to works such as Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859) the introcosm was considered independent from the biological and physical realms.35 But the growing recognition of continuity between animal and human species challenged the privileged position of the human soul. The term “[P]sychology” gained “currency precisely at the time when [P] sychology was about to become anything but the ‘study of the soul.’”36 Nevertheless, framing moral issues in the psychological realm was desirable since principles and values were supposedly not part of the determinist world of matter in motion.37 Those who understood the psychological as intimately bound up with ethics, morality, and philosophy were uncomfortable with materialistic and positivistic tendencies, and Psychology was caught between science (physiology and medicine) and the humanities (literature and philosophy). No clear disciplinary boundary separated medicine, philosophy, and Psychology; indeed, these were often combined into a single department.38 As late as 1900, religious educational institutions in America preferred “moral philosophy” to Psychology and considered the latter a “dangerous secularization of the soul.”39 It is significant that many who taught Psychology also taught philosophy, education, or other specialties.40 Though Psychology departments had been founded by around 1900, at many higher education institutions only one or two Psychology courses were taught or an older vocabulary was used that had the flavor of the proto-Psychology period: “moral philosophy,” “mental philosophy,” “mental science,” “mental philosophy,” “intellectual philosophy,” or “ethics.”41

Religion, science, philosophy, and Psychology in Japan The worldwide emergence of modern science caused an intellectual earthquake, rearranging the landscape of knowledge forms. Consider religion. The “great religions staged a remarkable resurgence after 1815” that “reveals a pattern of causation invisible to national or regional specialists or specialists in one religious tradition.” 42 However, it might be more accurate to claim that religion, as an explicit category of thought distinct from political power and scientific investigation, emerged in the nineteenth century. As Japan modernized, a debate ensured about the differences among “philosophy,” “thought” (shisō; now often meaning “intellectual history”), and “religion.”43 Indeed, what we now label religion was, in premodern Japan, an aspect of governance, as evident in terms such as saisei ittō (“one road of ceremony and administration”) and seikyō itchi (“union of administration and instruction” or “uniting politics and religions”). During the first fifteen years of the Meiji era, religion was translated with “multiple combinations of Chinese characters referring to Buddhist sects, terms for worship or ceremony, for faith or belief, for religions or philosophical doctrines or schools and for religious or philosophical law or principles.”44 Religion was not yet

34

The History of Japanese Psychology

an abstract notion. Rather, what is now called shūkyō in Japan was expressed in more concrete terms, such as “sect law” (shūhō), “sect doctrine” (shūshi), or “school” or “lineage” (shū, kyō, ha shūmon). When it came to what we now call “philosophy,” some thinkers, such as Nakae Chōmin (1847–1901), contended that Japan lacked philosophy in the sense of logical, systematic knowledge. Nishi concurred, but argued that in the past the Japanese possessed inductive method and could relearn it.45 Some believed the task of a Japanese philosophy was to understand Western philosophies.46 Incidentally, for “philosophy” Nishi originally used hirosohi, a transliteration of “philosophia.” He would also use kyūrigaku from the premodern Confucian notion of kyūri (Chinese: quiongli; “getting to the root of the principle of things”); kikengaku; kitetsugaku; and by the early 1870s, tetsugaku (currently used), a simplified form of kitetsugaku.47 Note that these terms were invented by Nishi to distinguish Western philosophies from Chinese and Buddhist thought.

From “heart–mind learning” to Psychology Originally, Psychology “fell under philosophical, moral, ethical and religious studies. This is very different from what we now consider to be Psychology.”48 Gradually, however, a difference began to emerge between socially governing the psyche from a moral perspective and the science of understanding the operations of the psyche (Psychology). Satō and Takasuna argue that in pre-Meiji Japan attempts to academically delimit the psychological should be distinguished from what we now call Psychology because: (1) compared to Western philosophy there was no view of human nature independent of ethics and religion; and (2) present-day Psychology rests not merely on conceptual and empirical data but also on institutional and social practices.49 The second point is well taken, but as for the first, note that even in the Western tradition ethico-religious definitions of human nature among the educated were dominant, vis-à-vis a more secular-scientific perspective, until quite late in the nineteenth century. No direct institutional or intellectual lineage connects a premodern, moralistic shingaku (“learning of the heart–mind”) with a modern, scientific shinrigaku (Psychology). However, in the same way that a religiosity would inform certain latenineteenth-century Euro-American versions of Psychology, Confucian moralism colored the study of the psychological in Japan. This was apparent in the use of shingaku (“learning of the heart-mind”). The title of a work by the Confucian moralist modernizer, Nishimura Shigeki,50 illustrates this: the term shingaku is used in his Lectures on Heart–Mind Learning (Shingaku Kōgi, 1885). As in the Euro-American context in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the study of the mind would transition from “philosophical Psychology” (tetsugaku-teki shinrigaku) to a “scientific Psychology” (kagaku-teki shinrigaku). The former, with its emphasis on logic and how to think rather than thinking itself, possesses a more cosmic and moralistic flavor. The latter is associated with the “new” laboratory-oriented Psychology. Until around 1890, Psychology for the most part as taught in Japan was not modern, that is, not experimental. Rather, it was more similar to what was at

Historical Context

35

the time called mental philosophy and for some was categorized as a branch of the humanities (rather than the natural sciences).51 Another way to view the intellectual positioning of Psychology is to note that philosophy and the social sciences were split: the former included Psychology, psychophysics, logic, and ethics, while the latter included sociology, economics, and socialism (as a system of thought).52 The close association of Psychology with ethics (rinrigaku) and logic (ronrigaku) is indicated by how the latter three subjects would be combined into one chair at Tokyo Imperial University. Indeed, as late as the 1930s the curriculum of higher schools listed not shinrigaku, but “Psychology and Logic” (shinri oyobi ronri).53

The subject–object divide and the introscopic Objectivity, or observing a phenomenon from a detached, impartial, and ostensibly disinterested perspective, is a manner of thought to which we have become habituated. Objectivity is premised on a clear subject–object split, but in the cosmic worldview, the segregation between observer and observed was not so systematic, meticulous, or comprehensive. The modern natural sciences are premised on methodological efforts that cleanly split reality into observing experimenter (subject) and the scopically observed (object). This “weird artificiality that Westerners obsess about”54 had been due to increased interiorization, becoming more salient since at least the time of Locke and Descartes. The subjective‒objective dichotomy forms, in fact, the basis of modern scientific thought.55 Applied to the external world of nature, the objective approach to us now seems unquestionably commonsensical. Applied to our selves, the “I” (subject)-versus“me” (object) stance is a feature of interiorization and implicates the psychological processes of introception, self-narratization, individuation, self-reflexivity, selfautonomy, and self-authorization. In the social sciences, for example, Psychology, the subject‒object split is more problematic than in the natural sciences. Mind, because it is the reasoning, knowing entity, is “not an ‘object’ and, therefore, can never be known in the sense in which we know the natural world.”56 In the social sciences the object is also a subject, that is, it possesses personal agency. Moreover, the observing subject possesses an object, in the form of a given psychological process, which supposedly may interfere with experimental procedures and objectivity. The modernizer Nishi Amane recognized the significance of this distinction and coined their respective Japanese equivalents—kyakkan and shukan. In order to appreciate philosophy as an intellectual endeavor, Nishi felt he had to incorporate the subject‒object divide. This segregation, while certainly not completely absent from premodern thought, was somewhat alien to it. Indeed, one observer notes the premodern Japan’s “natural aversion to the subject‒object distinction.”57 After all, the cosmic vision sought a unifying monism, not a splitting of being into opposing realms. The premodern impulse was to overcome the subject‒object distinction and, by extension, any other dualism the latter distinction implied. However, this division would be indispensable for the eventual acceptance of the “new” experimental Psychology in Japan.58 In relation to all this, Nishi separated out shinri (literally, “heart–mind principle”) and butsuri (literally, “physical principle”).59

36

The History of Japanese Psychology

As an illustration of the subject‒object relation, consider a book by the Zen priest Hara Tanzan (1819–92). In 1873 he wrote Shinsei Jikken-roku, which might be translated as An Experimental Record on Shinsei.60 This latter term, literally “the nature of the heart–mind,” is not easy to translate, but its Buddhist connotations range from the mind–nature, self-existing fundamental pure mind, the All, the Buddha-mind, to the ultimate unity of mind and nature. It may also imply that “nature is the mind, mind is Buddha,” or when one is enlightened, mind and nature are the same, but different when we are ensnared in illusory thought. In other words, the separation of subject from object (whether these are conceptualized as mind, nature, or the Buddha) is not necessarily an undesirable state.

3

From Soul to Psyche: A Change of Mind in Late Nineteenth-Century Japan

The process of separating the modern “mind” out from the premodern “soul” was driven by massive political economic changes, as well as intellectual developments. This chapter explores the “new mentality” of Meiji modernity in order to set the stage for how Japanese Psychology was institutionalized. In keeping with the book’s conceptual framework, this is accomplished through the lens of the introcosmic– introscopic transition. This chapter also covers the pivotal contributions of Nishi Amane who introduced modern social scientific ideas into Japan as well as the ideas of other key intellectuals.

Transitioning from the introcosmic to the introscopic Japanese Psychology is not a direct intellectual descendant of the earlier traditions of seirigaku (“learning of the inherent principle linking cosmos to individual”) and shingaku (“learning of the heart–mind”).1 Nevertheless, crucial linkages indicating the change from an introcosmic and introscopic worldview are obvious.2 Consider language. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, pre-psychological concepts such as puneumateika (from puneumatica) and hishonomiya (probably from physiognomia) make an appearance in works translated from the West. By the mid-nineteenth century, proto-psychological terms began to appear in dictionaries in Japan. However, before shinrigaku became standardized, an array of terms was used to designate the psychological and Psychology. In 1835, Takano Chōei (1804–50) translated Psychology as seishingaku (shin = god) in his Seiyō Gakushi no Setsu (roughly, Theories of Western Philosophers).3 Buddhists and Confucianists used shinseigaku (learning of the mind–nature) or shingaku (learning of the heart‒mind). In his writings, the scholar of Dutch learning Hirose Genkyō (1821–70) used shiirukyunde (or zuiirukyunde; from the Dutch zielkunde for Psychology).4 In the first English–Japanese dictionary of 1862숯the Eiwa Taiyaku Shūchin Jisho5숯Psychology appears as seishin wo ron zuru gaku or the “study that theorizes about the mind/soul/heart/spirit/intention” (shin here is “heart,” not “god”).6 Before shinrigaku stabilized in usage, terms such as dōtoku tetsugaku (moral philosophy); seishin tetsugaku (mental philosophy), seishin kagaku (mental science),

38

The History of Japanese Psychology

keijijō-gaku (metaphysics; “what is above”), seishin-teki or shin-teki (“phrenics”), shinseigaku and seishingaku (study of the mental) were used.7 Nishimura Shigeki used shingaku and shinshōgaku or the “study of mental images,” an interesting term in how it obviously highlighted the scopic–visual aspect of interiority. Nishi Amane used seirigaku. However, because it was a homonym for physiology and associated with an older worldview, it did not gain traction as the appellation for Psychology. Shinrigaku appears in 1881 in the first philosophical dictionary (Tetsugaku Jii) compiled by Inoue Tetsujirō,8 though it would be some time before its usage stabilized.9 The appearance of other Psychology-related words deserves comment. “Consciousness” appeared as i wo mochiite mite (literally, “attempting to use ideas”) in 1862. Ishiki, the word now used to mean consciousness, appeared in 1877. Other related terms include “knowing oneself ” (jichi, 1869) and “perception” or “sensation” (chikaku, 1867). “Idea” appeared as kangae (1862), omoi (1867), i (1869), i no (1873), and kannen (1877).10

Psychology via translations By the late 1880s, a number of books on Psychology, mostly in the American–British tradition, had been translated or summarized into Japanese.11 Some historical context is in order. In the 1830s and 1840s “Psychology” was used in American textbooks. However, by the 1870s and 1880s, it acquired more legitimacy since it began to be used in course titles. The first book in the English language to have “Psychology” in the title appeared in 1840 in the United States. Called Psychology, or a View of the Human Soul including Anthropology, it was written by Frederick Augustus Rauch (1806–41), a theologian, classicist, and natural historian, who became president of Marshall College (now Franklin and Marshall College).12 In 1842, Samuel Schmuker published Psychology: Elements of a New System of Mental Philosophy or The Basis of Consciousness and Common Sense (see Appendix 3, which lists the different parts and versions of Nishi’s renditions). The first translation of a work on Psychology was by Nishi Amane, published in 1875 by the Ministry of Education: Joseph Haven’s 1857 Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (see below). Other translations by Inoue Tetsujirō (1882, 1883), Abo Tomoichirō and Ise Tsu (1886), Matsushima Tsuyoshi et al. (1886), Morimoto Kakuya and Tanimoto Tomeri (1887), and Yajima Kinzō (1886) introduced Alexander Bain’s ideas. Waku Masatatsu introduced the Psychology of James Sully (1887) and in 1889 Yajima Kinzō did the same for James M. Baldwin’s writings. Significantly, many of the translated Psychology works were education-related. In 1877, the curriculum for secondary-level normal schools (chūgaku shihan gakka) included Francis Wayland’s The Elements of Intellectual Philosophy and later Nishi’s translation of Haven’s book on Psychology (Heben-shi Shinrigaku). From 1885 at Tōkyō Eiwa Gakkō (later Aoyama Gakuin University), Haven’s ideas were taught and eventually texts by William B. Carpenter and Sully were adopted. Joshi Eigaku Juku (later Tsuda Juku University) used a translation of G. T. Ladd’s work. At Keiō Gijuku (later Keiō University) Bain’s Mind and Body (1872) was utilized in 1881 (see Appendix 4).13

From Soul to Psyche

Snapshot Alexander Bain Bain (1818–1903), a Scottish philosopher and a key figure in British Psychology during the nineteenth century, was an educationalist, grammarian, rhetorician, and held a chair of logic at Aberdeen. Bain was not a psychologist though his contributions substantially developed the discipline’s autonomy. His work spanned much of the nineteenth century and he “stands exactly at a corner in the development of Psychology, with philosophical Psychology stretching out behind and experimental physiological Psychology lying ahead in a new direction.”14 In 1876 he founded Mind, a philosophical journal that dealt with the psychological and wrote the two most influential Psychology texts to appear before the twentieth century.15 His The Senses and the Intellect (1855) and The Emotions and the Will (1859), which were repeatedly revised, remained standard British psychological texts until the early twentieth century. He also wrote The Study of Character (1861), Manual of Mental and Moral Science (1868), and Mind and Body (1872). He linked physiology to Psychology and investigated reflexes, instinct, and voluntary action. Though he never used “psychophysical parallelism,” this was the premise from which he viewed the mind–body problem.

Snapshot Mental Philosophers: Wayland, Carpenter, Sully Francis Wayland (1796–1865) was an American Baptist educator, professor of natural philosophy, and president of Brown University and educational reformer, who wrote Elements of Moral Science (1835; which was repeatedly revised and translated into foreign languages) and Elements of Intellectual Philosophy (1854). William B. Carpenter (1813–85) was an English physiologist and naturalist who did much to advance what might be called the “adaptive unconscious” (perception occurs outside of conscious interiority; the physiologist and physicist Hermann Helmholtz had made the same observation). The implications of nonconscious operations were not fully appreciated until the cognitive revolution of the late 1950s and 1960s. He wrote Nature and Man: Essays Scientific and Philosophical (1888). James Sully (1842–1923), an English Psychologist, advocated associationism. In addition to his education at Independent College, he studied at the University of Göttingen and Humboldt University. He taught philosophy of mind and logic at University College, London (1892–1903) and authored Sensation and Intuition (1874), Teacher’s Handbook of Psychology (1886), The Human Mind (1892), Studies of Childhood (1895), and Children’s Ways (1897).

39

40

The History of Japanese Psychology

Here we should note that a number of translated education-related Psychology works began appearing in the 1880s. For example, in 1886 Ariga Nagao 16 produced Kyōiku Tekiyō Shinrigaku Jō ( Psychology Applied to Education 1), a translated and edited version of James Sully’s 1884 Outlines of Psychology . Yumoto Takehiko introduced the work of Bernhard Maass in his 1888 Shogakkō Kyōshi Yō Shinrigaku Tekiyō ( Outline of Psychology for Elementary School Instructor Use ) and his 1889 Gakkō Jitsuyō Shinrigaku Dai-1 ( Psychology for Use in Schools ) . In 1885, Tanaka Tōsaku wrote Kyōiku Shinri Ronri–Jutsugo Shōkai ( Explanation of Educational Psychology and Logic Terminology ) . 17 In 1902, Tominaga Iwatarō wrote Kyōiku no Jissai ni Ōyō Shitaru Shinrigaku ( Psychology Applied to Practical Education).

Nishi, his translation of Haven, and shinrigaku Nishi is often credited with coining the Japanese word for Psychology ( shinrigaku ) . The truth is more complicated. He did in fact create the term shinrigaku , though he did not use it to mean Psychology. 18 Nishi used shinrigaku as an abbreviation for shinrijō no tetsugaku , which means “intellectual” or “mental philosophy,” 19 when he translated Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (translated in three parts, during 1875–76). 20 Shinri , then, originally meant not Psychology but “intellectual” (or perhaps more literally “principles of the heart–mind”). For Psychology Nishi actually preferred seirigaku , an older Neo-Confucian term, translatable as the “learning of the inherent principle uniting the cosmos and the individual” (or “learning of human nature and natural principles”). By investigating seirigaku , the rules of thinking and logic are revealed, allowing us to question tradition and authority and affording ourselves self-knowledge. Such an endeavor was necessary to achieve social—indeed, universal—harmony at the macro- and microcosmic levels. In other words, the introcosmic principles of the heart– mind must be in balance so as to ensure good government. For Nishi and his contemporary Japanese intellectual reformers, “morality itself was essential.” 21 Nishi’s views of the psychological, then, suggest an introcosmic worldview, though his faith in science did not completely rule out an introscopic perspective. Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities and Will was written in 1857 by Joseph Haven (1816–74). Mental Philosophy was an ethico-philosophical and moral work; it was not on experimental, research Psychology. Nevertheless, the translation of Haven’s book opened up a new way of viewing the psychological: Nishi noted that the “subdivisions” of the psyche in Haven’s work are “even finer than what the Confucian scholars in China teach.”22 Nishi wrote other works that investigated the psychological: On the Relation of Emotion to Intellection (Jōchi-kankeiron, 1871) and Notes on the Physical and the Spiritual (Seisei Tōki; begun in 1873 but never finished). Written in old Chinese style (kanbun), it was explicitly about the psychological and stressed the role of the will.23

From Soul to Psyche

41

Snapshot Joseph Haven A minister, theologian of Chicago Theological Seminary, and professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Amherst College, Haven (1816–74) was an intellectual successor of the Scottish faculty Psychology. He became well known for his Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (1857). His Moral Philosophy: Including Theoretical and Practical Ethics (1859) also affords a sense of his interests. This work, apparently influenced by Sir William Hamilton, discusses sensation, memory, imagination, instinct, sensibilities, and will.

The new mentality of Meiji modernity Historical background to Japan’s new Psychology Mid-nineteenth-century Japan was politically decentralized, divided into almost 300 han (domains) loosely held together by the shōgun.24 Though a strong tradition of Confucian bureaucracy configured political structures, a centralized state in the modern sense did not yet exist. Though what might be called “proto” nationality was evident among the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago, marked regional cultural differences played an important role. In the mid-nineteenth century, calls for political reform became increasingly strident. Commodore Perry’s arrival at Uraga on July 8, 1853, signaled the beginning of the new relationship that a cautious Japan was to have with the outside world. The  signing of the Treaty of Friendship between Japan and the United States on March 31, 1854, was followed four years later by the Commercial Treaty between Japan and the United States (July 29). This was followed by agreements with other countries. It was within this context that a self-selected group of ambitious Japanese patriots embarked on a determined enterprise of national state building in order to protect their homeland from the invasion and exploitation they witnessed in nearby nations. Their actions, along with other complex developments, would culminate in the Meiji Restoration of 1868, which initiated the period lasting until 1912 with the same name, which means “Enlightened Reign.” On February 13, 1867, Prince Mutsuhito, later to become the Meiji Emperor, was enthroned. On November  9 of the same year, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the last shōgun, returned power to the Emperor, ending bakufu (“tent government”) authority over Japan. On January 3, 1868, the new Emperor declared the Great Command of the Imperial Restoration (Ōsei Fukko no Daigōrei) and about three weeks later, the Emperor’s army, along with supporters from Satsuma and Chōshū, defeated the Tokugawa troops at Toba and Fushimi near Kyoto. About two and a half months later on April 6, the Imperial Oath of Five Articles (Gokajō no Goseimon) was declared, outlining the basic policies of the new political order. The Fifth principle stated that “Knowledge is to be obtained from the whole world and the foundation of the Empire is always to

42

The History of Japanese Psychology

be strengthened.” A little over two months later, the Form of State (Seitaisho) was issued and the Grand Council of State (Dajōkan) was established as the central state organ on June 17, 1868. As in other parts of the world, to be “Western was to be modern.” Associated with the modern West were objectiveness, scientific approaches and making all matters “manageable and controllable.”25 A general sentiment that society can be engineered to move forward was advanced by the “civilization and enlightenment” (bunmei kaika) movement, which by the 1870s impacted clothing, architecture, manners, science, political economics, and the military. But much of what occurred in Japan was indigenously decided; it was the Japanese themselves who selected, modified, and improvised forms of knowledge from abroad. Indeed, Japan’s elites sought to realize their ambitions by building on an older bureaucratic tradition in order to orchestrate a controlled “revolution from above.” This was accomplished not by promulgating a constitution, establishing a parliament, or forming political parties. These would come later. Rather, the first state structures set up by the new elite were the ministries charged with guiding Japan along the path of catch-up modernization (not Westernization). These state agencies were intended to be free from the push and pull of clannish political circles and particular interests. Also, the ministries were never intended as neutral policy-implementing organs but were placed firmly under the control of the elite in order to carry out their agenda. The elite realized that in order to accomplish their grand plan of guarding Japan against foreign incursions and maintaining their own power, the populace would have to follow along and this would require massive education and psycho-socialization projects. Though often framed within the context of maintaining some essentialist “cultural” identity, four-character sayings such as “Japanese spirit, Western technology” (wakon yōsai) and “honor the Emperor, expel the barbarians” (sonnō jōi) acted as intellectual guideposts which condensed powerful sentiments of constructing an independent and confident national state on par with Western imperialist powers. Other pithy slogans, such as “enrich the nation, strengthen the army” (fukoku kyōhei), “increase production, promote industry” (shokusan kōgyō), and “catch up and surpass the West” (oitsuki oikose) revealed where visions of nation consolidation, state-building, and economic empowerment intersected. These slogans may now sound like out-of-date clichés, but their spirit at least has been institutionalized in state core structures that in no small measure would shape policies, as well as psychological understandings, to this day. The Meiji Restoration, then, was the culmination of both external and internal pressures for political change, set in motion processes of nationalization (convincing the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago of how “Japanese” they were), bureaucratization (building state institutions), and rationalization (economic expansion through capitalism) that would set Japan on the course of modern development.

The political economics of psychological processes In the Tokugawa period, a “moral system of orderly social relations” was established by the authorities who attempted to stabilize society.26 This was done by fixing one’s position and collectivizing occupational identity within a “four-order” status system (samurai, peasants, artisans, or merchants). Japan’s modernization brought with it capitalist industrialization and constitutionalism, that at least ostensibly advocated

From Soul to Psyche

43

“equality among citizens” (shimin byōdō) that would replace the “four-order” system. The dismantling of the caste system saw peasants disengage from the land and townspeople released from guild associations. Such emancipatory developments would alter psychological processes by enhancing self-autonomy. By the late nineteenth century, translations of Western political economic works resonated with the view that the individual is the basic unit of society and German idealism, English empiricism, French rationalism, and American pragmatism were all being eagerly studied by Japanese intellectuals. The thinking of Jeremy Bentham,27 François Guizot,28 Ernst Haeckel,29 Thomas Henry Huxley,30 Charles Darwin,31 J.S. Mill,32 and Walter Bagehot33 all played their part.34 Katō Hiroyuki introduced Thomas Hobbes35 and Spencer,36 and the philosopher Nakae Chōmin (1847–1901), the “Rousseau of the East,” introduced the works of Montesquieu37 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.38

Economic individuation As Japan industrialized, economics became not just a productivist effort tied to one’s occupational status, but a consumerist endeavor, an exercise of autonomous individuals making choices. The translation endeavors of Japanese intellectuals acted to legitimate postfeudal, modernized economics. In Seiyō Jijō (Things Western, 2 vols., 1866 and 1870), Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835‒1901) discussed economic liberalism the “natural rights of man.” Property, under the direct control of the individualized unit (i.e., private ownership), was justified as “natural,” as were, by implication, profits, rent, and interest. He saw value in laissez-faire economic liberty (not necessarily political liberty); specifically, he proposed that the state should not interfere with agricultural, industrial, and commercial affairs. In 1867 the government official Kanda Kōhei (1830–98) put into Japanese William Ellis’ Outlines of Social Economy (1846).39 Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) was translated during 1884–88 and though David Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817) was known in the early Meiji era, it was not translated until 1921 by Hori Tsuneo (interestingly, the taxation sections were omitted; a complete translation appeared in 1927 and 1928, by Koizumi Shinzō and Hori, respectively). The diplomat and statesman Hayashi Tadasu (1850–1913), along with Suzuki Shigetaka, translated J.S. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy in 1874–84. J.B. Say’s Traité d’économie politique, ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses (1803) was partially translated by Murota Atsuyoshi in 1873 and a full translation was completed in 1926 by Masui Sachio. Thomas R. Malthus’ Essays on the Principle of Population (1798) was translated in 1877 by Ōshima Sadamasu (1854–1914),40 who also translated Friedrich List’s Das Nationale System der Politischen Okonomie (National System of Political Economy, 1841). In  addition to translations, a number of original works on economics were penned by Japanese. For example, the historian Taguchi Ukichi (1855–1905) wrote Nihon Keizai-ron (On the Japanese Economy, 1878) and in 1879 founded the Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi (Tokyo Economic Review), the Economic Discussion Group (Keizai Danwa-kai), and the Tokyo Economics Association (Tōkyō Keizaigaku Kyōkai). Taguchi was influenced by David Ricardo (1772–1823), John Stuart Mill, and the British manufacturer and free-trader Richard Cobden (1804–65). He opposed protectionism and argued for economic liberalism. The economist Amano Tameyuki

44

The History of Japanese Psychology

(1859–1938), who served as president of Waseda University, wrote Keizai Genron (Theory of Political Economy, 1886). In 1891 Amano translated Mill’s Principles of Political Economy (Kōtō Keizai Genron) as well as John Neville Keynes’ 1890 Scope and Method of Political Economy (Keizaigaku Kenkyūhō) in 1897.41 Amano founded the Oriental Economic Review (Tōkyō Keizai Shinpō) in 1890. The first American economist whose writings were introduced into Japan was Francis Wayland (1796–1865). A minister and president of Brown University, he authored Elements of Political Economy (1837) and advocated free trade in the classical liberalism tradition.42 Dwight Whitney Learned,43 who taught at Dōshisha College (now Dōshisha University), used materials from Manual of Political Economy (1863; published in Japanese in 1879), written by the English statesman Henry Fawcett.44 Learned compiled these materials into Survey of Economics (no Japanese title), which was eventually expanded into a book New Outline of Economics (Keizai Shinron) in 1886. The jurist Mitsukuri Rinshō (1846–97) partially translated Arthur Latham Perry’s45 Elements of Political Economy (1866; later called Political Economy) in 1869, 1871, and 1876.46 Perry, a professor at Williams College, advocated free trade.

Political individuation Ideas of constitutionalism, individual rights, and international law began to appear in Japan in the mid-nineteenth century and political changes would resonate with individuation: constitutional law, as least ostensibly, was premised on the autonomous political actor and rights were understood as powers inherently residing within the person. Nishi Amane and Tsuda Mamichi learned about international law and political economy under Simon Vissering at Leiden Univeristy. Vissering, who would became Holland’s Minister of Finance,47 was an advocate of free trade and classical liberalism who was influenced by John Stuart Mill, the French classical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801–50) and Henry C. Carey (1793–1879), an advocate of the “American System” of developmental and controlled capitalism. In 1868 Nishi wrote Bankoku Kōhō (Laws of the Nations), a translation of Vissering’s writings on international law (Volkenregt). He also translated Natuurregt (Natural Law). In 1858 Tsuda wrote Taisei Kokuhō-ron (Theory of Law in Western Countries), which was inspired by Vissering’s Staatsregt (State Law). In 1874 he also translated Vissering’s Staatistik (Hyōki Teikō; literally, “principles of tabular manifestation”). How Japan’s entered political modernity requires comment. In England’s Glorious Revolution and the French Revolution, the modern bourgeoisie played a leading role. However, in Japan’s case it was the “former samurai and the nobility” who engineered the 1868 Meiji Restoration. The “weaknesses of the bourgeoisie forces” simultaneously hindered the growth of the liberal movement and bolstered the conservatives.48 Thus, “Unlike its Western counterpart, the Japanese ‘enlightenment’ occurred after the political revolution and contributed no ideological justification for the new state” until after the Meiji state was well established. Late-nineteenth-century Japanese absorbed the civilization of late-nineteenth-century expansionist Europe, not eighteenth- or early-nineteenth-century revolutionary Europe. This explains why Fukuzawa took nineteenth-century England, not eighteenth-century France, as a model for Japan’s renovation.49 Populist aspirations for political liberties, as evident in the “people’s rights

From Soul to Psyche

45

and liberty movement” (jiyū minken undō), had to compete with more a pragmatic and elitist, “economic security for the masses.”50 More than Enlightenment thinking, it was the nineteenth-century ideologies of positivism and utilitarianism that attracted Japanese thinkers. The former ideology is a faith in verifiable natural phenomena and their knowable properties. However, the attitude of positivism was “one not of upheaval but of progress and order, which could help stabilize a nation undergoing revolutionary changes.” For Japanese thinkers, utilitarianism, or the ethical doctrine that regards the useful as good, became a “social, not an individual, philosophy,” and some even searched for precedents in Confucianism to support utilitarianism. Overall, many influential thinkers were more concerned with social progress and stability rather than the nature of the individual or change for its own sake.51 To summarize Japan’s political-economic transformation of the late 1800s so far: Economically, classical liberalism was influential and introduced a system of robust property rights. However, this system would eventually be heavily tempered by state guidance, a sort of collectivist capitalism. Politically, Japan would evolve into heavyhanded statism that justified an imperialist constitutional monarchy. Such developments were apparent in Japan’s German-authoritarianism-inspired Constitution of 1889. Specifically, the German conservative student of public administration Lorenz von Stein (1815–90) advised a Japanese delegation, headed by Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi (1841– 1909), to be wary of liberal party politics and to view the state as an agent of social reform.

The invention of “society” as the counterpart of individuation Interiorization and exteriorization, as responses to social complexity, are both abstracting processes. The former segregates the person from local communities and highlights personal traits, while the latter incorporates the person into wider and wider webs of identification. Both developments take the individual as the basic unit of the human condition. While exteriorization resulted in new super-collectivities and supracommunities that increasingly subsumed kinship networks, villages, and locales (e.g., “nation”)숯the complementary process of interiorization cavitated a psychological space within the person. Meanwhile, international law envisioned the state as a supraindividualized collectivity operating within a community of other nations. Industrial capitalism, political centralization, constitutional law, deliberative assemblies, emphasis on individual mobility rather than status, and the technoscientific wonders of the second industrial revolution would be linked to “civilization and enlightenment.” In 1870s and 1880s, these dizzying changes were understood within the Spencerian notion of the “progress of human societies.” A new idea was needed to conceptualize progress as it transpired at the collective level and to act as the counterpart of the individuated person. In the West it was called “society,” and in Japan shakai (coined by Inoue Tetsujirō). This was a “reified organic thing … amenable to the political praxis and scientific speculation that were spreading in the 1880s.” Society “enabled Japanese intellectuals to rethink Japanese society on a new scientific basis and to produce new interpretations of Japan’s past, present, and future. As an alternate to the concept of ‘the people,’ the idea of society facilitated new forms of human agency and authorized political proposals intent on guiding the course of social development.” Before 1880, no standard translation for “society” existed; “indeed, one

46

The History of Japanese Psychology

can insist that there was no such concept in Japanese.” Originally, terms designating small face-to-face, self-selected, concrete groups (gangs, clubs, and guilds) that denoted “associating” or “fraternizing” were employed. Kōsai (“interaction”)—as in “human society” (ningen kōsai or hitobito kōsai)—and setai (“the human world”) would also be used. In 1885 Tokyo Imperial University’s Department of Sociology changed its name from Seitaigaku to Shakaigaku.52 Some used kaisha, a term that now means company or corporation.

Snapshot Inoue Tetsujirō Inoue Tetsujirō (1855–1944) would study in Germany from 1884 to 1889 at University of Leipzig under Wundt and become a professor at Tokyo Imperial University. He also visited G.T. Fechner in 1886. He would decisively determine the character of modern Japanese philosophy and attempt to synthesize Confucianism, Buddhism, and Western philosophies and become well known for his strong opposition to Christianity and nationalism.

Evolutionism, “progress,” and self-realization As the nation progresses, so does the self. Such a sentiment was reflected in the popularity of Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help (Saigoku Risshi Hen), translated in 1871 by the writer and professor Nakamura Keiu (1832–91). The Japanese edition of Self Help sold a million copies and was still being republished in 1920.53 Meanwhile, Nakajima Rikizō (1858–1918), a professor of ethics and philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University, introduced the works of Thomas Hill Green,54 the English idealist philosopher and ethical theorist. Green’s advocacy of a progressive self-realization was widely accepted in Japan, signaling increased individuation.55 The key representative of the powerful leitmotif of evolutionary progress was Spencer, who was arguably the most influential thinker in Japan during the 1880s. Between 1877 and 1900, at least thirty-two translations and one critical study of Spencer’s works appeared. His ideas were used to justify both conservative and liberal agendas.56 Spencer, who believed in the progressive developmentalism of all facets of existence (physical, biological, social, psychological), was very popular among Japanese reformers and thinkers who were concerned with renovating Japan’s political and economic institutions so as to catch up with the Western powers.57 Whether Spencerian or Darwinian, evolution would play a central role in the intellectual transformations witnessed by the industrializing world. In Japan, the early sociologist Toyama Shōichi (Masakazu) (1842–1900) asked the American zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838–1925) to teach at the University of Tokyo (from 1877), where Morse introduced evolutionary theory. Ishikawa Chiyomatsu (1861– 1935), a Japanese zoologist who graduated from the Department of Science at University of Tokyo in 1882, translated Morse’s lectures (“Animal Evolutionary

From Soul to Psyche

47

Theory”) in 1883. Izawa Shūji (1851–1917), who became a principal of Tokyo Higher Normal School, also translated parts of Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1879). Takamine Hideo (1854–1910) and Kōzu Sensaburō (1852–97) were also involved in introducing evolutionary theory into Japan. The latter three studied biology in America and became either principals or teachers in normal schools in Japan.58 In 1882, Noritake Kōtarō (1860–1909) translated Spencer’s The Principles of Sociology (Shakaigaku no Genri; for which the early Japanese sociologist Toyama Shōichi wrote a preface)59 and Ernest Fenollosa (1853–1908) also introduced Spencerian thought. The Dutch scholar and political theorist Katō Hiroyuki (1836– 1916), who started out as an advocate of the liberal “freedom and people’s rights” movement, switched to a conservative nationalism deeply colored by Prussian statism and an extreme right-wing view of social Darwinian evolutionism. His views are expressed in his Kyōsha no Kenri no Kyosō (The Struggle for the Rights of the Stronger, 1893) and Dōtōku Hōritsu Shinka no Ri (The Theory of Evolution of Morals and Laws, 1900). Eventually, the model of progress shifted from a focus on “enlightenment” to a more explicit concern with the “scientific.”60 This change involved a new understanding of the psychological. For example, Inoue Tetsujirō, known for his strong nationalist sentiments, would begin to view the functioning of psyche underlying the technological achievements of the Western imperialist powers.61 Gradually, society became the target of state bureaucrats, reformers, and sundry experts—such as social psychologists—on human nature. They would postulate a host of “social problems” (shakai mondai) by the turn of the century that could be “quantified, charted and acted upon.”62

Snapshot Herbert Spencer In the ambitious scholarly hurricane that was Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) we find a confident propagandist for the dominant faith of nineteenth-century evolutionary progress. The certainty of science was replacing the comforts of religion and belief in a purposeful universe in which humankind had reached the pinnacle of cosmic development was very attractive. This undoubtedly explains the contemporary popularity, which cannot be underestimated, of Spencer’s ideas on biology, Psychology, sociology, and ethics. Though we do not now take his ideas on social evolution seriously (which are not the same as Darwinian natural evolution), for our purposes his Principles of Psychology (1855) is important. Influenced by associationism and phrenology, it investigated the physiological basis for psychological processes. For Spencer, an unfolding hierarchy from simple sensations to more complex states indicated an evolutionary associationism. In the United States alone, from approximately his first major publications until the late 1800s, Spencer’s thinking would greatly influence William James, John Dewey, G. S. Hall, and E. L. Thorndike.

48

The History of Japanese Psychology

The introcosmic–introscopic transition In Japan, the process of rationally accounting for the spiritual followed the same path we find in the Euro–American orbit. More broadly, this process can be understood as the introcosmic–introscopic transition. Below a number of key contributors to Japan’s intellectual modernization are used to illustrate this change.

Nishi Amane and the way of Heaven A singular figure in the introcosmic–introscopic transition was Nishi Amane (1829–97), who is considered one of the most important thinkers of Japan’s Meiji-era enlightenment. Among his many accomplishments, he was the director of the school system at the Ministry of Military Affairs, a member of the House of Peers, President of Tokyo Normal School, an administrator at the Ministry of Education, a founding member of the Tokyo Academy (established in 1879), and an active member of the Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society). He also gave lectures to the emperor. Well trained in the Confucian classics, Nishi was heavily influenced by Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728) and Zhu Xi, but his advocacy of Western studies and science earned him fame. He  “developed a new set of ideas” that represented a “synthesis of multiple sources of Chinese and Japanese inspiration with contemporary European ideas.”63 He wrote on logic, morality, law, and politics, but for our purposes it is his treatment of the psychological that concerns us. In 1862 the shogunate sent Nishi, along with Tsuda Shindō (Mamichi) (1829– 1903),64 to the Netherlands to study at the University of Leiden.65 There they studied under Professor Simon Vissering (1818–88), who taught political economy, statistics, and diplomatic history. At Leiden, Nishi also studied under Cornelis Willem Opzoomer (1821–82), a Dutch professor of philosophy greatly influenced by Comte, J.S. Mill, and Alexander Bain. From Opzoomer Nishi learned about the separation of religion and scientific study. This is significant: presumably Nishi would realize that modernization meant teasing scientific knowledge out from a cosmic worldview, thereby fragmenting the isomorphic, monistic perspective into separate realms of scopic inquiry. In 1865, Nishi would return to Japan from the Netherlands and contribute immensely to Japan’s modernization. He introduced utilitarianism, empiricism, and positivism, translating John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism (Rigaku) in 1877.66 In Hyakuichi Shinron, or A New Theory on the Hundred and One (composed in 1866–67 but published in 1874), Nishi outlined the major currents of Western thought. Though he was careful not to reject Japan’s heritage, Nishi contended that Confucianism was dated for a modernizing Japan. Confucianist thought remained “static and incapable of innovation,”67 while a new Japan required an outlook that incorporated notions of progress. Also, Nishi criticized Confucianism for merging politics and morality with the laws of nature. These had to be distinguished. He believed that the Western world had discovered the laws of nature. In Jinsei Sampo Setsu (Theory of the Three Human Treasures, 1875), he urged all Japanese to seek

From Soul to Psyche

49

the goals of health, knowledge, and wealth in place of Confucian subservience and frugality. Nishi was also primarily responsible for introducing Comte into Japan and he published the Hyakugaku Renkan (The Chain of a Hundred Schools; 1870–71), a sort of encyclopedia of Western knowledge (Table 3.1). This was patterned after Auguste Comte’s Cours de philosophie positive (1830–42). However, though Nishi’s categorization of knowledge was Comtean, it differed in certain important ways. For Nishi, knowledge was divided into “common sciences” (futsū gaku) and “particular sciences” (tokubetsu gaku). The former included history (the most important), geography, literature, philology, and mathematics. The particular sciences included “intellectual pursuits such as theology, logic”,68 ethics (rinrigaku), aesthetics, jurisprudence, political economy, and philosophy. Philosophy was divided into logic (chichigaku; now called ronrigaku; literally, discussions of principles) or the laws of thinking (as laid down by Aristotle). These laws have been made clearer by the Psychology (seirigaku; see below) of J.S. Mill. Psychology, subdivided into anthropology and physiology, concerns the “union of soul and body” (Gall’s phrenology is mentioned here). Nishi also discussed the “physical sciences” (butsurigaku): physics, astronomy, chemistry, and natural history. Table 3.1 Chapters and sections of Nishi’s Hyakugaku Renkan (The Chain of a Hundred Schools) Introduction (I) Common Science (Futsūgaku) 1. History 2. Geography 3. Literature 4. Mathematics (II) Particular Science (Tokubetsugaku) 1. Intellectual Science (Shinrijō-gaku) (1) Theology (Shinrigaku) (2) Philosophy (Tetsugaku) - Logic (Chichigaku) - Psychology (Seirigaku) (3) Politics, Science of Law (4) Political Economy (5) Statistics 2. Physical Science (Butsurijō-gaku) (1) Physics (2) Astronomy (3) Chemistry (4) Natural History Source: Nishikawa (2008c: 20).

50

The History of Japanese Psychology

We “may say that the Japanese lexicon acquired its modern shape in the first twenty years of the Meiji era.”69 Much of the credit goes to Nishi, who coined 787 terms, 332 of which entered common usage.70 Nishi removed expressions from their original, classical context and infused them with updated meanings. Key neologisms include idea (kannen), subject (shutai; in the sense of autonomous subjectivity), kansei (sensitivity), risei (reason), and tetsugaku (philosophy). Nishi helped justify the individual profit motive, the spirit of practicality and rational approaches to the study of both science and society. “None of these was an exclusive province of the West; all had authentic (although rudimentary) precedents in Edo period Japan. Together they did not add up to a morality to replace NeoConfucianism,” but each would play a crucial role in modernizing Japan.71 Despite his contributions to Japan’s intellectual modernity, Nishi’s thinking is redolent of an older worldview. It should be stressed that Nishi’s interest in the psychological was philosophical, not scientific or experimental. For him Psychology was a type of “intellectual science” (shinrijō no gaku, i.e., “studies of heart–mind principles”) and concerned the mental, moral, spiritual, or metaphysical (butsurigai no gaku, i.e., “studies of what is outside the physical”). Intellectual matters were contrasted with the “physical sciences” (butsurijō no gaku, i.e., “studies of the principles of physical things”). Further evidence for a lingering cosmic perspective is evident in Nishi’s thinking on Heaven, which possessed an “absolute, spiritual meaning” for Nishi;72 it was the place where “principles” are formed, though it is ultimately unknowable to humans.73 Heaven, since it lends itself to personification by some, might be called Lord on High,74 and Heaven plays a prominent role for Nishi as evident in the use of: Heaven’s calamity (ten-ō); commandments of Heaven (tenritsu); the logic of Heaven (ten no rihō); the mandate of Heaven (tenmei); will of Heaven (ten-i); Heaven’s order (tenchitsu); and Heaven’s Way (tentō). Significantly, for Nishi, Heaven’s principles (tenri) and mental principles (shinri) are inherently linked.75 The “nature of man” reflects the laws of nature. Note Nishi’s Seisei Hatsu-un (1873), which might be translated as The Principle of the Physical and the Spiritual.76 The first part is an historical outline of philosophy that ends with Comte’s positivism.

The monsterology of Inoue Enryō As societies modernized, the magical, fantastic, mysterious, and irrational were increasingly pushed to the margins of respectable ideological endeavors.77 This meant that what we now call religious thought and practices had to be somehow positioned in the emerging intellectual order of disciplines. The Enlightenment-inspired perspective that spirituality was an abstract realm of investigation just like other bodies of knowledge turned religion into an object of rational study. Some, committed to a strictly empirical approach, simply dismissed religion as mere superstition. However, some felt uncomfortable with discarding centuries of spiritual and cultural tradition and sought a more subtle, sophisticated approach. Some even saw religion, once shorn of its more odd and unusual features, in possession of profound truths. Psychology, in the same manner that it assisted in the rationalization of other types of knowledge, would be utilized by some thinkers to analyze the religious. Some believed that religion had psychological origins, or that it was in some way an expression of our psyche. A key figure in advocating a scientific approach to religion was Inoue Enryō (1858‒1919).78 An extremely influential Meiji-era thinker, he would publish on

From Soul to Psyche

51

philosophy, education, religion, and “monsters.” He attempted to reform Buddhism by searching for resonances with Western science and thought. As in the Euro‒American tradition, Inoue’s endeavors were attempts to reduce the “sphere of religious authority, where the universe has been bifurcated into an almost Cartesian duality with religion relegated to the metaphorical, immaterial, or at best psychological.”79 Inoue was ordained as a Buddhist priest in the Jōdo Shinshū sect (Ōtani branch), but eventually he would renounce his status as a priest. While a student at Tokyo Imperial University, he trained under Toyama Masakazu and focused on Western philosophy. In 1896 he received his doctorate. In 1882, he founded the Tetsugakkai (Philosophical Society), which would become the Tetsugakkan and then Tōyō University. Inoue became famous as “Dr. Ghost” or “Dr. Monster” (Yōkai Hakase) because he felt that in order to modernize Buddhism, a clear distinction had to be made between superstitions (meishin)—haunted houses, ghosts, possession by fox and snake spirits, and so on80—and religion (shūkyō), though certain aspects of the latter could be redeemed if viewed through a scientific lens. To do this, he developed what he called yōkaigaku or “superstition studies” (literally, yōkaigaku means “monsterology”).81 In 1886, he founded the Society for Research on the Mysterious (Fushigi Kenkyūkai). For our purposes, Inoue Enryō deserves attention because he wrote on shinrigaku. Indeed, before Psychology had even became institutionalized, he supervised a shinrigaku correspondence course from February to November in 1886; became the first director of applied Psychology (vis-à-vis superstitions) at the Tetsugakkan in 1887; was the first specialist in shinrigaku to become a professor at Tokyo Imperial University; and is “said to have probably been the number one person among [P]sychological circles in Japan.” Inoue saw Psychology as the sunlight that dispelled the fog of irrational ideas. He interiorized superstitious beliefs, believing them to be psychologically understandable “organic defects of the brain.”82 “False mystery” (kyokai) had to be distinguished from “real mystery” (jitsukai). In addition to his many writings on philosophy and Buddhism, Inoue wrote Tsūshin Kyōju Shinrigaku (Instruction by Correspondence: Psychology, 1886), Shinri Tekiyō (Psychology: An Outline, 1887), Shinri-ron (Theory of Psychology, 1887), and Shinri Ryōhō (Psychological Treatment, 1904). In addition to the Psychology of religion, he also published on memory—Kioku-jutsu (Mnemonics, 1894), Shin Kioku-jutsu (New Mnemonics, 1917), and Shitsunen-jutsu Kōgi (Lectures on the Art of Forgetting, 1895). A key concept in his superstition studies was shinkai or “true mystery,” which is analogous to the Buddhist notion of shinnyo (true or absolute reality). “True mystery” and “true reality” are the same, but reached via different approaches, and here we might note that Inoue was probably the first Japanese thinker to attempt to integrate Buddhism into the worldview and idiom of Western thought and developed what might be called “Buddhist Psychology.” Shinkai, which from an analytic point of view functioned as a sort of meta-discipline, “demarcated a transcendent realm, the existence of which one can apprehend or intuit through spiritual awareness, but not concretely comprehend through ratiocination.”83 In a 1902 article called “The Relation between Superstition Studies and Psychology” (“Yōkaigaku to Shinrigaku to no Kankei”), Inoue explained how shinrigaku was subsumed under kakai (“provisional mystery”), since it could be explained via the laws of nature (Table 3.2).

52

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 3.2 Two types of “mysteries” according to Inoue Enryō Yōkai ಫ٦ Superstition Studies Jitsukai 㵿٦ Real Mystery Shinkai Ŭ٦ True Mystery Fukashigi ăĻΥ‫ ڰ‬Wonder Fushigi ăΥ‫ ڰ‬Mystery

Kyokai ࡀ٦ False Mystery Kakai ぺ٦ Provisional Mystery Shizen no Hōsoku ĢƔ셉ʑ‫צ‬ Laws of Nature

Gikai ೼٦ Deceptive Mystery Koi тNj Intentional

Gokai ࡂ٦ Mistaken Mystery Ayamari Д셥 Error

Source: Mizoguchi (1997b: 128).

Modernizing religion: Hara Tanzan A Buddhist reformer concerned with portraying his faith in a modern and scientific light, Hara Tanzan (1819–92) would become the first professor of Buddhist studies at Tokyo Imperial University. Tellingly, his Shinsei Jikken-roku is subtitled Alternatively, An Explanation of Western Learning (Ichi Mei, Seigaku Benkai). Hara studied Chinese divination and Confucianism and was ordained a Sōtō Zen priest at Asakusa Sōsenji Temple. He also studied medicine and claimed to have received sacred teachings during a mystical experience in the mountains. In his book, which mixes traditional Chinese medicine, Buddhism, and modern anatomy, he contended that mental disturbances and physical illnesses share the same cause and offered a treatment. His argument, informed by his personal experience and “experiments,” is one of different types of flowing vitalistic energies and bodily fluids (a kind of mucus) and he saw the need for a “Psychological zen” (shinrigaku-teki zen). As Yoshinaga points out, Hara’s theories, when viewed from today’s perspective, were not experimental. Rather, the term that comes to mind is introspection (naishō).84 It is important to note, however, that in Europe and America at around the same time, introspective Psychology flourished (though different varieties of “introspective” Psychology existed85). If we note that James’ Principles of Psychology was published in 1891, Hara’s thinking (though parts of it may seem strange), was in many ways timely.86 In retrospect, as Harding points out, it is easy to dismiss Tanzan’s theories of mind as eccentric—a strange mishmash of Japanized Dutch anatomy, Daoism, and reformist Buddhism. But his work was an early attempt at “thinking through the possibilities and implications of a religion‒psy dialogue.”87

Other examples: Anezaki Masaharu, Kishimoto Nōbuta, and Nakamura Kokyō We should also mention Anezaki Masaharu (Chōfū) (1873–1949), who authored Shūkyōgaku Gairon (Outline of Religious Studies, 1900).88 Besides laying the foundations of modern religious studies in Japan at Tokyo Imperial University, he introduced the works of Schopenhauer and William James to Japan. He himself had a Buddhist background and studied in England, Germany, and India. Kishimoto Nōbuta

From Soul to Psyche

53

(1866–1928) was also instrumental in developing a scientific approach to religion. He  studied at Harvard Divinity School and founded the Hikaku Shūkyō Gakkai (Society of Comparative Religious Studies).89 Kishimoto, who also wrote on sociology, reacted to psychologism and pursued organicism in matters social. Meanwhile, others had very little sympathy for religion. For example, the Psychologist Nakamura Kokyō (1881–1954) wrote Ōmotokyō no Kaibō: Gakuri-teki Gensei Hihan (Ōmotokyō Analyzed: Scientific and Impartial Criticism, 1920). This study described the leaders of the religious organization Ōmotokyō as dangerously deluded.90

Snapshot William James An intellectual giant in his own right, James (1842–1910) was America’s answer to Germany’s Wilhelm Wundt. Trained as a medical doctor (though he never practiced), he did much to establish American Psychology. His output was voluminous and influential and dealt with education, religion, and mysticism (he founded the American Society for Psychical Research). In addition to teaching physiology and philosophy at Harvard, he taught the first experimental Psychology course in 1875–76. In 1889, he became a professor of Psychology. James was well acquainted with European developments (e.g., Hermann Helmholtz and Pierre Janet). A genuine cosmopolitan, he was fluent in French and German as well as competent in Italian. Though James established a laboratory at Harvard in 1875, he lacked any sustained interest in experimentation and felt comfortable with theoretical inconsistency. Through a more naturalistic observation, he searched for insights into the psychological aspects of religion, literature, and history, as well as everyday experiences. For James, it was dangerous to reduce the mind to physiology and viewed it functionalist terms and as inherently purposive. Such a stance resonates with his philosophical pragmatism. His Principles of Psychology (1890) became the most popular book ever written in Psychology and is still referred to for its wealth of insights and writing style (abridged in 1892 into Psychology: The Briefer Course). Fukurai Tomoichi and Magaki Keiai would translate and introduce William James into Japanese.

4

Early Institutionalization: How Higher Education Disciplined the Psyche

The state, nationalism, pedagogy, psychological processes, and Psychology are closely interlinked. The purpose of this chapter is to delineate these connections. Specifically, the role of Tokyo Imperial University in the disseminating Psychology and the role of Toyama Masakazu in introducing Psychology into the curriculum are investigated. Also, the nexuses among schooling, moral education and the body are viewed from the perspective of how the state employed pedagogy to discipline the body–mind for political purposes.

The role of Tokyo Imperial University in the dissemination of Psychology The rapidly modernizing Japanese national state required new roles—political (citizens/ imperial subjects) as well as economic (laborers). These social positionings required in turn an understanding and appropriate reworking of the psychological. Educational structures in particular evidence how political economic externalization encouraged psychological internalization; in other words, as state organizations expanded and elaborated the schooling system (externalization), individuals increasingly became targets of officialdom’s gaze.1 Nineteenth-century industrialization changed the definition of youth from economic assets (in agriculture) to the producers of wealth who needed to be trained for extended periods of time for a world of machines, factories and offices. In this sense, they were increasingly recruited by the state (i.e., formal schooling systems) to be mentally equipped for labor. Initially, Japan’s officialdom had little interest in the new-fangled field called Psychology and “it is apparent that after the Meiji Restoration the government and the Ministry of Education did not directly focus on Psychology.” The “fact that the state did not dispatch overseas officially-funded students” to study Psychology should also be noted. Nevertheless, if viewed from another angle, officialdom did play a key role, since “it is clear that Japan’s first Psychology courses and lectures were offered in state-operated schools and Psychology developed in places that were supported and promoted by the government and Ministry of Education.”2 Specifically, Psychology was viewed as a practical form of knowledge useful for pedagogy and teacher training and many educationalists (kyōikugaku-sha) (and philosophers) who studied overseas brought back psychological knowledge. For the most part, however, they specialized outside Psychology (Table 4.1).

56

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 4.1 Individuals studying Psychology and related fields abroad in the Meiji period Name

Period abroad

Country

University (mentor)

US

–Boston (B.P. Bowne); Johns Hopkins (G.S. Hall)

Individuals who focused on Psychology Motora Yūjirō

1883−88

Morita Kumato

1889−92

US

–Yale (G.T. Ladd)

Nakajiima Taizō

1891−94

US

–Colorado; Harvard (W. James)

“”

1906−9

US

–Harvard (H. Münsterberg); Cornell (E.B. Titchener)

Matsumoto Matatarō

1896−1900

US

–Yale (E.W. Scripture); Leipzig (W. Wundt)

Miyake Gaishirō

1896−1901

US

–Iowa; Yale (E.W. Scripture);

Kawai Teiichi

1899−1903

Germany

–Jena; Leipzig (W. Wundt)

Shitada Jirō

1899−1902

Germany

–Jena; Leipzig

Kaneko Umaji

1900−5

Germany

–Leipzig (W. Wundt)

Tsukahara Masatsugu

1901−3

Germany

–Leipzig (W. Wundt)

Kakise Hikozō

1907−11

US

–Clark (G.S. Hall)

Arai Tsuruko

1907−12

US

–Columbia (E.L. Thorndike)

Okabe Tamekichi

1907−11

US

–Cornell (E.B. Titchener)

Kuwata Yoshizō

1910−12

Germany

–Leipzig (W. Wundt)

Yokoyama Matsuzaburō

1907−21

US

–Primary, High School; Colorado, Harvard, Clark

Individuals who focused on education, philosophy, and associated fields Izawa Shūji

1875−78

US

–Bridgewater Normal School

Takamine Hideo

1875−78

US

–Oswego Normal School

Fukutomi Takasue

1886−88

England

–Studied under J. Sully

Nojiri Seiichi

1886−89

Germany

–Leipzig (W. Wundt)

Watanabe Ryūshō

1889−95

US

–Cornell (E.B. Titchener)

Ōse Jintarō

1893−97

Germany

–Berlin; Leipzig (W. Wundt)

Wada Rinkuma

1904−5

US

–Columbia

Yoshida Kumaji

1903−7

Germany, France

–Audited courses at Strasbourg, Berlin, Leipzig

Source: Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 100). With alterations; several individuals have been omitted.

The authorities saw psychological processes and their proper pedagogical cultivation as intimately related. Thus, throughout the Meiji period, many thinkers discerned an inherent link between psychological processes and education. Educational Psychology emerged as a response to these new demands and it can be considered the earliest field of applied Psychology in Japan. Eventually it would subspecialize in testing, classification, streaming, moral education, and the treatment of students with special needs.3

Early Institutionalization

57

Tokyo Imperial University At the level of educational structures, Psychology was primarily and initially institutionalized via Tokyo Imperial University, normal schools (shihan gakkō or teachers’ colleges), universities (daigaku), and other types of schools.4 Let us treat Tokyo Imperial University first, since in many ways it was the most influential educational site. In 1877, the Meiji state established University of Tokyo (Tōkyō Daigaku5) when it brought together older institutions of medicine and Western learning.6 In 1886, it was renamed the Imperial University (Teikoku Daigaku) and then Tokyo Imperial University (Tōkyō Teikoku Daigaku) in 1897, the same year that the Imperial University system was created.7 It was University of Tokyo, the highest-level educational entity at that time, which became the “soil in which the new Psychology [shin shinrigaku] took root.”8 Here it should be stressed that Tokyo (Imperial) University, more than any other educational site, became the preeminent producer of Psychologists and psychological knowledge and offered courses to those, though not intending to become professional Psychologists, saw a usefulness in the new topic.9 During the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the preeminence of University of Tokyo can hardly be exaggerated. And here a slight digression into the connection between elitism and this academic institution will illustrate its crucial role in early Japan. The sociopolitical role of Tokyo Imperial University is worth commenting on since concentrated in this one institution was an academic avant-garde. Characterized by youthfulness, upward mobility, and high prestige, this privileged group “constituted the core of the intellectual establishment” for the Meiji period (and well afterward). Successful academics chose young scholars in their own fields or other disciplines as husbands for their daughters, while sons often followed their fathers into a certain field. The impact of these individuals must be appreciated within the legacy of Japan’s Confucianist context: those who had acted as ritualists–moralists and ethical–cultural arbiters in premodern times were now scholars–educators and advisors–officials. Indeed, at the time protests would be heard that Tokyo Imperial University controlled the Education Ministry, rather than the other way around.10

Snapshot The Origins of the Ministry of Education and University of Tokyo On August 17, 1868, the Shōheizaka Gakumonjo was restored and renamed the Shōhei Gakkō. On July  23, 1869, the Grand School (Daigakkō) was established, organizing the Shōhei Gakkō, the Kaisei Gakkō (the former Kaiseijo, which had been the principal official institution for Western Learning and was restored in October 1868), and the Igakkō (Medical School; restored in October 1868) into one institution. Within this new organization, the Shōhei Gakkō became the Central College of the Grand School (Daigakkō Honkō), which was now considered the Japan’s highest institution of learning. On August  15 of that same year, this

58

The History of Japanese Psychology

institution was charged with additional responsibilities, becoming the state’s central organ for educational administration. On January 18, 1870, the Grand School was renamed the University (Daigaku), though it remained the highest educational institution as well as the state’s central organ for educational administration, so that before the establishment of the Department of Education in 1871, any educational administration that did exist was under the authority of the University. Also on January  18, 1870, the former Central College of the Grand School (Daigakkō Honkō) was turned into the Central College of the University (Daigaku Honkō), the Kaisei Gakkō became the Southern College of the University (Daigaku Nankō), and the Medical School became the Eastern College of the University (Daigaku Tōkō). Both these latter two institutions continued Western Learning, while the other unit taught Nativist Learning and Chinese studies. In March 1870 the state, impressed with Euro-American principles of academic organization, attempted to reform the University through the University Regulations (Daigaku Kisoku) which would have stipulated a curriculum of theology, morals, law, science, medicine, and literature. This plan met with successful opposition from the nativist-learning and Chinese-studies factions of the Central College of the University. Eventually, however, the state closed the latter entity, while maintaining its function as the central organ for educational administration and keeping the Western-oriented Southern and Eastern Colleges open.

Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University Courses that might circumspectly be called psychological (or at least touched upon the topic) were first offered in the Kaisei School (predecessor of University of Tokyo) in 1873. It is not clear who taught such courses between 1873 until 1877 (the first instructors may have been non-Japanese). But we can obtain an idea of what was taught by considering the texts that were used. This included works by Joseph Haven, Alexander Bain and lesser known authors, such as Laurens Perseus Hickok, Joseph Alden,11 and Adolphe Franck.12 From 1877, Toyama Masakazu (Shōichi) (1848–1900) began teaching shinrigaku and utilized works by Carpenter and Spencer. Rather than modern experimental investigation of the mind, “moral science” or “mental philosophy” better describes what was taught. Besides the word shinrigaku, these course titles typically included “moral education” (shūshingaku) or the name of the author whose text constituted the core of the course. Other instructors probably lectured on psychological-related themes. For example, between 1874 and 1879, Edward W. Syle (1817–90), an American Episcopalian clergyman, taught philosophy and shūshingaku (morals) at the Kaisei Gakkō, but it is unclear if he actually taught Psychology.13 But he did use Mark Hopkin’s14 An Outline Study of Man: or, the Body and Mind in One System (1873) and Haven’s Mental Philosophy.15 Though Toyama taught shinrigaku, in some years he lectured on logic, philosophy, history, and English would be included in the course title. In 1884 Tsuboi Kumezo (1858–1936), a historian with an interest in philosophy, taught Psychology, and in 1887 Sakaki Hajime (1857–97) offered a course on psychiatry (seishinbyō) and Ludwig Busse (1862–1907)16 lectured on philosophy and Psychology (and again in 1888).17

Early Institutionalization

59

Snapshot Laurens Perseus Hickok Laurens Hickok (1798–1888), an American philosopher, theologian, and minister, was vice-president of Union College and professor of mental and moral science. He wrote Empirical Psychology; or, The Human Mind as Given in Consciousness: For the Use of Colleges and Academies (1854); Rational Psychology; or The Subjective Idea and Objective Law of All Intelligence (1849); and System of Moral Science (1853). His other works include: Rational Cosmology (1858); Creator and Creation, or the Knowledge in the Reason of God and His Work (1872); Humanity Immortal (1872); and Logic of Reason (1874). Some of first lecturers on Psychology in Japan relied on works by Hickok, and in this manner he played a crucial role in the origins of Japanese Psychology.

The year 1888 was a significant one for the history of Japanese Psychology. This was when Toyama asked Motora, who had just returned from the United States, to teach experimental methods in a course that was called seishin butsurigaku (psychophysics) as a lecturer at Tokyo Imperial University. Motora, then, taught the first modern course in Psychology and introduced what might be described as the Wundtian approach. In 1893 the Japanese educational authorities, impressed by advances in German science and its vibrant universities, introduced their “chair system” (kōza) at Tokyo Imperial University. In this arrangement, power is concentrated in a senior professorship. This reform resulted in the establishment of the chair of Psychology−Ethics−Logic (shinrigaku−rinrigaku−ronrigaku).18 Now Psychology was taught as a part of a curriculum to train professional Psychologists rather than as a pedagogical subject (interestingly, at Kyoto Imperial University the chair in Psychology was independent, that is, it was not combined with ethics and logic19). The period from around 1903 to 1905 was crucial in the history of Japanese Psychology.20 In 1903, Motora, with assistance from Matsumoto Matatarō, established Japan’s first Psychology laboratory in a one-story wooden structure at Tokyo Imperial University. The following year Psychology became a two-year senshū (specialization or “course”) within the Department of Philosophy (Tetsu Gakka) in the Tokyo Imperial University. In 1906 Matsumoto Matatarō was appointed first professor of Psychology at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1919 the “Psychology specialization” or “course” (shinrigaku senshū) within the Department of Philosophy became its own Department of Psychology (Shinri Gakka) at Tokyo Imperial University. In 1905, the first group of seven students taught by Motora that specialized in Psychology graduated from the Department of Philosophy.21 Graduates who became Motora’s assistants included Hayami Hiroshi, Kakise Hikozō, Kuwata Yoshizō, Ōtsuki Kaison, and Gotō Rikusaburō.22 Before Motora passed away in 1912, forty-five graduates had specialized in Psychology. Significantly, many entered education.23 Table 4.2 provides an idea of what students researched.

60

The History of Japanese Psychology

Of course, not all Psychology researchers who made significant contributions came up through the educational ranks of Tokyo Imperial University.24 We should also note that they all studied overseas.25 For example, consider the career of Miyake Ishirō (1869–1931), who studied at Iowa University. Via an introduction from Matsumoto Matatarō, who was at Yale University, he moved to the latter school from where he would obtain his PhD in 1901 for his work on rhythm. After he returned to Japan he taught at Waseda University. In 1903, he taught Psychology and English at the Sixth Higher School and from 1923 he worked at the newly established Shizuoka Higher School. Morita Kumato (1858–99) studied at Yale University under G.T. Ladd and was one of the first Japanese to receive a doctorate in Psychology from an American university. However, he had difficulty pursuing experimental research since he taught at Dōshisha, a private institution that, unlike state schools, did not readily encourage the new science of the mind. Other important figures in this category include: Nakajima Taizō, Kawai Teiichi, Kanda Sakyō, Kaneko Umaji (Chikusui), Hori Baiten, Haraguchi Tsuruko, and Yokoyama Matsusaburō. Here we might comment on the career of Nakajima Taizō (1866–1919), a famous student of Motora who met him at a meeting of the Shinrigaku Danwa-kai in 1891. At his own expense he traveled to America and began to study philosophy at Colorado University from where he received his BA. He then studied experimental Psychology under William James at Harvard. After returning to Japan in 1895, he worked for Motora as an assistant. In 1896, he began lecturing at Tokyo Senmon Gakkō (the predecessor of Waseda University) and Gakushūin and Keiō Gijuku University.26 In 1898, he co-translated Wundt’s Outline of Psychology (Grundriss der Psychologie, 1896) with Motora and became involved in other translation projects and the Shinrigaku Danwa-kai (which later became the Shinri Gakkai). In 1904, he became a professor at Sapporo Agricultural School (Sapporo Nō Gakkō), where he taught English and logic. Two years later he resigned from this school and went to the United States to study under H. Munsterberg and received an MA for experimental work on emotions. He  then worked under Titchener and received his PhD from Cornell University in 1909. After he returned to Japan, he would be awarded a doctorate from Tokyo Imperial University and teach at Waseda University.27 Two other students of Motora might be mentioned. Kawai Teiichi (1870–1955) graduated from Keiō Gijuku in 1892. He was sent overseas by Keiō Gijuku to train as a teacher and for three years studied in Germany. He was the first Japanese to visit Wundt’s laboratory. After he returned to Japan he pursued studies in Volk Psychology at Keiō Gijuku. Kaneko Umaji (Chikusui) (1870–1937) was a member of the first graduating of Tokyo Senmon School. From 1900 to 1905 he studied in Germany. Though he attended Wundt’s lectures at University of Leipzig in 1903, he did not pursue experimental Psychology but became a philosopher. After he returned to Japan he became an administrator at Waseda University.

Early Institutionalization

61

Table 4.2 Examples of students specializing in Psychology and titles of their graduate theses at the Tokyo Imperial University (1905–6) 1905 Abe Ayao

“Mankind’s Instinct”

Kazami Kenjirō

“Volition”

Kuwata Yoshizō

“Facial Expression and Gesture”

Koga Sennen

“Aesthetic Feeling”

Seki Ryūsei

“Space Perception”

Fukushima Tokuhei

Unknown

Moriya Kōsaburō

“Feeling and Emotion”

1906 Kaison Ōtsuki

“Study of Memory Speech”

Kurahashi Sōzō

“Speech and Drawing of Children”

Sasamoto Kaijō

“Theory of Mind in Yuishiki-ron”

Suyama Ryōzen

Unknown

Matsuki Gorō

“Facial Expressions”

Kagetaka Nagao

“Mental Difference between Man and Woman”

Nogami Toshio

“On Comparative Psychology”

Source: Satō and Satō (2005: 59).

Toyama Masakazu: Recognizing Psychology Toyama was an important figure not just in the history of Japanese Psychology but also in Japanese social sciences in general. Born in Edo and from a samurai family, he studied at the Bansho Shirabesho and then in 1866 traveled to Great Britain with Nakamura Masanao28 as an overseas student. In 1870 he went to the United States as secretary to the first Japanese legation sent to Washington but decided to enroll in a Michigan high school and eventually entered the Department of Chemistry at the University of Michigan (for three years). He returned to Japan in 1876 and became a professor at the College of Liberal Arts at University of Tokyo. Eventually he would become dean of the College of Liberal Arts and in 1897 president of Tokyo Imperial University. He served as the Minister of Education under Itō Hirobumi’s cabinet in 1898 for two months.29 Toyama was a generalist in the study of the new Western sciences and helped spread Darwinist evolutionary theory in Japan. He is considered to be the first Japanese professor of philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University (early on philosophy was taught by non-Japanese). In 1893, just one year after the founding of the University of Chicago’s Department of Sociology and antedating the establishment of professorships of sociology in England, France, and Germany,30 he became the first occupant of the sociology chair at Tokyo Imperial University. He authored

62

The History of Japanese Psychology

several works on Japanese thought and ancient Japanese society as reflected in its myths. Though Toyama taught a course on Psychology and appreciated the significance of experimental Psychology, he himself was not trained in this discipline and did not carry out experiments. In his course on shinrigaku, he used texts by William B. Carpenter, Alexander Bain, and Herbert Spencer.31 In his lectures he discussed attention, the operations of emotions and thoughts on perception, emotions and habits, will, memory, imagination, mental mistakes, somnambulism, mesmerism, and spiritualism.32

Overseas training in Psychology In the early Meiji era, not many foreigners taught Psychology and for its part the Meiji state did not recognize the significance of Psychology. Many with an interest in Psychology went overseas without state support. This is somewhat different if compared to other disciplines. Note that the “grandfather” and “father” of Japanese Psychology, Motora and Matsumoto Matatarō, paid their own way to study overseas.33 “For thirty years, from the Meiji Restoration until 1898, officially-sanctioned study abroad, with Psychology its primary goal, was not achieved.”34 The lack of state support meant that early on Japanese Psychology did not develop in a “top-down” manner, but rather, due to the recognition that individual scholars gave to the value of this emerging field, it developed in a “top-up” process.35 It would not be until the Taishō period that those who went overseas to study Psychology made this discipline their primary specialty. Between 1868 and 1945, 118 individuals (including philosophers and psychiatrists) who had an interest in Psychology went abroad.36 Overseas study was either by “official selection” (kansen) or “private request” (shigan) and was regarded as necessary to obtain full professorship at a state (imperial) university. The most common destinations were the United States37 and Germany. Indeed, Japanese Psychology would be dominated by German and American Psychology,38 while the traditions of England and France, relatively speaking, would not be as influential.39 Those who visited or studied with Wundt during Meiji included: Inoue Tetsujirō (1885); Nojiri Seiichi (1888–89); Ōnishi Hajime (1898–99); Ōse Jintarō (1893); Matsumoto Matatarō (1898–1900); Shitada Jirō (1900–1); Kawai Teiichi (1900–3); Tanimoto Tomeri (1900–3); Kaneko Umaji (1900–5); Tsukahara Masatsugu (1902–3); Yoshida Kumaji (1906); Kuwata Yoshizō (1910–12); and Haraguchi Takejirō (1910–12).40 Four categories of overseas students are evident. The first were “pioneer” Psychologists (thirteen), who did not initially study Psychology in Japan, but did so overseas. The second were “academic” Psychologists (sixty-seven), who studied Psychology before traveling overseas and continued to do so after returning to Japan. The third were “secondary” Psychologists (thirty). These individuals did not begin by specializing in Psychology and made only minor contributions to Japanese Psychology. Finally, “transient” Psychologists (eight) studied Psychology before leaving Japan but, upon their return, left the field or made only minor contributions to Psychology.41

Early Institutionalization

63

Takasuna discerns two patterns in regards to those who studied Psychology overseas. The first can be described as staying longer in fewer places. Many of these ryūgaku (“overseas study”) students received academic degrees from foreign universities. Of  ryūgaku students at least twenty-three received PhDs from foreign universities and thirty-six published overseas.42 The second pattern can be called yūgaku or “traveling to study,” which has connotations of moving about from country to country to study at a number of different universities. Those who followed the second pattern usually received a special type of state support.43 Those who traveled overseas and had peripheral or indirect contact with but became acquainted with Psychology include: Izawa Shūji, Takamine Hideo, Nakajima Rikizō, Fukutomi Takasue, Inoue Tetsujirō, Ōnishi Hajime, Watanabe Ryūshō, Miyake Kōichi, Wada Rinkuma, Nojiri Seiichi, Ōse Jintarō, Tanimoto Tomeri, Yoshida Kumaji, Kure Shūzō, Katsumoto Kanzaburō, and Sakaki Yasusaburō. Here we should note that several scholars who did not study overseas nevertheless made crucial contributions to Psychology or allied fields during Meiji: Fukurai Tomokichi, Takashima Heizaburō, and Inoue Enryō.44

Bureaucratizing psyche: Schooling, moral education, and the body This section examines how educational structures, moral instruction, and the individual’s very corporeality were involved both in the establishment of Psychology and the emergence of new psychological processes. Schooling, morals, and the body saliently implicate externalization, so it behooves us to highlight concrete examples of how officialdom and societal pressures configured psyche and its study. Consider how modern education institutionalized individuation. Though now we take it for granted that students should be classified chronologically, it is worth noting that such grading is a recognition of individuation (a key feature of interiorization) which has various meanings, but for our present purposes concerns a focus on individual differences in acquired knowledge. Though full-blown applied Psychology begins during the Taishō period, it started during the 1870s and 1880s as Japan’s newly established schooling system sought ways to classify students.45 The state, in an example of externalization configuring internalization, mandated a multitiered learning structure supervised by the Ministry of Education. More specifically, within the Ministry it was the Teachers Division, renamed the Educational Affairs Division (Gakumu-ka) in 1871, that was charged with stratifying students. One year later this division would be upgraded to a bureau.46

Building the nation by disciplining the body–mind Bureaucratizing and rationalizing psychological processes are best done through the body, which after all, cannot be detached from the mind. This body–mind unity can be called the somapsyche. Everyday educational practices may not seem implicated in psychological processes, but individuals are most efficiently psycho-socialized

64

The History of Japanese Psychology

via bodily management. Foucault’s ruminations on the development of disciplinary institutions resonate profoundly with how individuals have been managed by socioeconomic interests in Japan’s modernization and national-state building. Such management cannot be understood without viewing the body as its primary target: “Discipline increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility) and diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience).”47 It was not long after the Meiji Restoration that state projects penetrated each educational site. Unlike pre-Meiji schools, in which “Arrival and departure times, texts and progress all differed from person to person” and the schools were not organized according to “a fixed, unified system,”48 the new schools followed set schedules, teaching materials were standardized, and progress was formalized. For instance, according to the Directions to Elementary School Students (issued by the Kanagawa Prefecture Educational Affairs Department in 1879), student bodies were arranged in patterns and more controlled: they were seated in rows, strictly monitored, and eventually uniformed. Students “should put away their shoes upon arriving at school, enter the waiting room and place their lunch boxes at their own seats, greet their friends, quietly enter the classroom at the teacher’s direction and bow to the teacher upon arriving at their seats.”49

Other examples of disciplining the national body During the Meiji period, the demands of building a “modern” society and economic national statism set in motion various processes—emanating from the state but also occurring in the societal sphere—which radically altered basic notions of time, space, and the body. As for the latter, modernity prescribed that it be “healthy, normal and clean” in ways that radically differed from the Tokugawa era. Another aspect of the official configuration of the psychological via ordering, patterning and rationalizing was the linking of the physical environment of schools to student health. The 1881 Instructions for Elementary School Teachers “made management of space a teacher’s duty as a part of health education: ‘Physical education includes not only athletics. Pay attention when cleaning school buildings to ensuring appropriate light, temperature and circulation of air.’” Also, an 1897 Ministry of Education directive, “How to Clean Schools,” provided detailed instructions for cleaning classrooms and dormitories.50 As for within the Ministry of Education itself, in May  1896 a School Hygiene Supervisor (Gakkō Eisei Shuji) was appointed, and from April 1900 to December 1903, the Minister’s Secretariat had a School Hygiene Division (Gakkō Eisei-ka) (it would reappear in May 1921). After 1903, a doctor was assigned on a part-time basis to give advice on school health matters. In June 1916, a School Hygiene Officer was appointed within the Ministry of Education, and in May 1922 the School Hygiene Investigation Committee (Gakkō Eisei Chōsa-kai) was established as an advisory organ to the Ministry of Education. Two years later, in October, the Research Center for Physical Education was established.51 According to Narusawa, three forces were at work to meet the objectives of modernity. The first was public health administration. Nagayo Sensai, the first head

Early Institutionalization

65

of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Hygiene Bureau, stated that “public health in a narrow sense means the health and welfare of individuals; in a broader sense it is the wealth and power of the state.”52 The “purpose of public health administration was less the health of residents than public peace and the wealth and power of the state.”53 Eventually, the Ministry of Health and Welfare would be formed in 1938 to take charge of the nationalized somapsyche. The second force was the need to build a strong army. Not surprisingly, it was the military, both its might as a massive ensemble and the strength of its individual soldiers, that was regarded as a measurement of the national state’s power and prestige. But just as significantly, the saying “a soldier is a model for society” would become popular: “More than the establishment of the military itself, the detailed regulation applied there to the human body spread beyond the military and was a revolutionary development in Japanese society.”54 The effect of this development was an ever-increasing disciplining of the body as it was implicated in more and more state projects and economic structures. Processes such as: (1) spatialization; (2) minute control of activity; (3) repetitive exercises; (4) detailed hierarchies; and (5) normalizing judgments55 were all deployed by power centers to regulate bodies and thereby psycho-socialize individuals. To illustrate the impact of this new ordering of individuals, remember that, at the instigation of Mori Arinori, normal schools were run like army camps, with an emphasis on military gymnastics. Teachers trained in this way brought military order to the schools as teachers. The excursions that were a regular school activity often assumed the form of military marches. The student body was divided into large and small units and “marched correctly at a proper pace.” At “sports days,” large banners reading “Peacetime Battles” were displayed and whatever their content, these events took on the trappings of military drills. Thus began the militarization of the schools.56

In 1881, a Department of Education (predecessor to the Ministry of Education) notice숯“Directions to Elementary School Teachers”숯counseled that teachers “should maintain proper mental and physical health by consuming proper daily food and drink and taking proper procedures to divert their minds and to exercise.”57 The third force was “related to the fact that Japanese seem to have had an inferiority complex vis-à-vis Westerners concerning their bodies.” Thus, many intellectuals “considered the improvement of the Japanese body an essential element of ‘civilization and enlightenment’”58 and made proposals for improving nutrition (i.e., “Westernizing” the Japanese diet) and other suggestions about bodily regulation, such as prohibiting nudity, which was now considered “uncivilized.”

Moral education: Recognizing and cultivating self-autonomy The Meiji modernizers, though concerned with practical knowledge from abroad that would aid in their national-state building projects, were equally interested in inculcating

66

The History of Japanese Psychology

the proper values and sentiments necessary for loyal citizens and efficient workers. Indeed, though the stress on morals (shūshin) was rooted in the pre-Meiji period, “it should be remembered that emphasis on morality and ethics was also an integral part of contemporary Western educational systems and was thus ‘modern.’”59 This is why in the early 1870s moral textbooks recommended by the Department of Education relied heavily on Western texts: the “most widely used was directly translated from the French and laid heavy emphasis on respect for the Christian God and the Second Republic.”60 Moral education, to the degree that it acknowledged self-autonomy, was another technique to augment the power of the national state by transforming the psyche. Though which moral principles should be taught was vigorously debated, very few argued that morals were unnecessary; even “Westernizers” such as Fukuzawa Yukichi and Nishi Amane advocated moral education. By the late 1870s and early 1880s, the state had begun an ideological consolidation of moral education. The 1879 Imperial Will on the Great Principles of Education stressed the importance of loyalty and filial piety and noted that Western technical knowledge had been embraced too quickly, thereby causing a loss of “traditional Japanese values.” Thus, it was the responsibility of the authorities to instill proper moral values. At the institutional level, the dissemination of moral education was evident within the establishment of the Editorial Bureau (absorbed into the Minister’s Secretariat on June 21, 1890) in the Department of Education in 1880, from which issued texts and guides with a decidedly ethical spin, such as Moral Education for Elementary Schools. Also, the 1880 Education Order stipulated that the study of morals be given precedence over other subjects and in that same year, the translation of some foreign books was prohibited. The increasing control by the state over the meaning of “morality” did not preclude debate about exactly what kind of morals to which people should accede. In a tract written in 1882 called What Way for Moral Education (Tokuiku Ikan), Fukuzawa Yukichi took an anti-Confucian stance and argued for the need for a set of moral principles appropriate to the age. Katō Hiroyuki contended in Debating the Direction for Moral Education (Tokuiku Hōhō-ron, 1887) that a moral system should be based on religion. In Debating the Stabilization of Moral Education (Tokuiku Chinteiron, 1890), Nose Sakae (1852–95) reasoned that moral education should be based on certain ethical theories. Mori Arinori rejected Confucianism and believed that morality should be based on ethics.61 But others viewed moral education as necessarily grounded in the Imperial House, the supercharged symbol of Japaneseness. For example, in Putting Forward the Fundamental Polity of the Nation (Kokutai Hakki), Naitō Chisō (1826–1902) explained why he believed the fundamentals of moral education should be determined by the Imperial House. In Theory of National Education (Kokkyō-ron), Motoda Nagazane developed his ideas expressed in his Imperial Will on the Great Principles of Education and argued that moral education should be based on ancient teachings. Nishimura Shigeki recommended that the Imperial House compile moral teachings and called for the establishment of an agency (Meirin-in) in the Ministry of the Imperial Household which would clarify the moral responsibility of ordinary Japanese. All these different opinions resulted in what has been termed the “confusion of moral education” that so exacerbated local educational authorities. At a conference

Early Institutionalization

67

of prefectural governors in February  1890, they demanded a clear and consistent policy statement from the central educational authorities. In response to this, the Emperor Meiji ordered Education Minister Enomoto Takeaki62 to compile a collection of proverbs which would be used as a moral canon. This task was continued by Education Minister Yoshikawa Akimasa.63 After the 1890 Imperial Rescript of Education—which set the tone for a nationalstatist morality—was issued, Inoue Tetsujirō was asked to provide a Commentary on the Imperial Rescript (Chokugo Engi, September 1891). This became the textbook for middle and normal schools and it greatly influenced official guidebooks and courses of study for elementary schools. The influence of the Imperial Rescript of Education is especially evident in moral textbooks which stressed the points of the Rescript in a state-sanctioned “philosophy of virtues.” Indeed, many textbooks were prefaced with the complete text of the Imperial Rescript of Education. Nevertheless, some foreign influence was also apparent in these textbooks. For example, many moral textbooks pursued the “philosophy of personages” approach inspired by Johann F. Herbart in which the virtues of model individuals were emulated. In 1900, the Ministry of Education established the Textbook for Morals Survey Committee (Shūshin Kyōkasho Chōsa I-inkai) whose task was to set standards for the state editing of elementary school moral textbooks. As recognition that Psychologists had a role to play in policymaking, Motora was put on this committee. Ten years later, morals courses were introduced in postelementary education. In 1911 the state core continued its construction of societal spheres suited to its needs when moral textbooks used in elementary schools were revised so as to stress patriotism and the family while downplaying individualism and internationalism. Revisions in 1918 continued this trend.64

The success of state education and the structuring of psyche The initial impact of state policies at the local level met with uneven success. Though perhaps difficult to imagine in today’s Japan, the initial educational projects of the state were often met with violent resistance, especially in rural and remote regions. In many local areas, school attendance was low and some parents refused to send their children (especially their daughters) to school. In some areas, the financial burden was too great, so that educational facilities deteriorated, attendance dropped, and schools closed. “That the Western-style schoolhouse was often the finest building in the village was also a reminder that is was often the most expensive. There were hundreds of instances in which the schoolhouse were damaged or even destroyed to make the point.”65

Promoting the psychological via schooling Nevertheless, in the late 1880s, there were three clearly discernible and significant shifts that would have profound implications for individual subjectivity: (1) from wide regional variation to greater standardization; (2) from officially sponsored

68

The History of Japanese Psychology

schools with sharp class distinctions to an integrated system that emphasized merit; and (3) from mostly private institutions with a loose configuration to a state-administered, clearly articulated, and compulsory system.66 Though setbacks, confusion, and ideological struggles characterized the first two decades of building Japan’s modern educational system, in retrospect the achievements of the educational elites are remarkable: By the late 1880s, educational professionals of the central bureaucracy in the [Ministry of Education] were making decisions that had formerly been in the hands of individual teachers. The [Ministry of Education] was determining curricula, selecting text materials, setting school hours and schedules, preparing examinations, deciding on teaching methods to be used and so on. Teachers, who had been the focus of educational institutions in the Tokugawa period, were now mere parts of a larger, national apparatus … private schools were no longer outside the system, but were appendages of it.67

To the degree that that the school system had become an effective instrument for implementing state policies and projects, it spread the psychological gospel. Indeed, under the Meiji Constitution of 1889, one of the three duties that people owed to the state was to receive an education. The others were to pay taxes and to serve in the military. But from the elite’s perspective education was a tool of the state and was best conceived as “practical learning” (jitsugaku), as something that could contribute to the  empire. Education that was regarded as indirectly tied to official projects was “empty learning” (kyogaku), or mere “learning for learning’s sake.” Thus, in a  “rigorously mobilized society like that of Meiji Japan, education can be used simply to involve every citizen in the governmental network, but not immediately in the decision-making process” (emphasis in original).68

Rationalizing subjectivity: Applying Psychology to pedagogy As societies became increasingly industrialized in the latter part of the nineteenth century, authorities recognized the need to foster a certain mentality among children suited to modern labor demands. Put differently, during the 1880s and 1890s the significance of the interior life of the child was recognized: the “child’s숯not the adult’s숯interest should be the driving force in teaching and that the child’s interest develops in stages.”69

Normalizing the Psychology of children It would be within the normal schools where the new idea that children had their own mental life that need to be cultivated along certain lines. In the United States during the 1860s, for example, “educational Psychology” was taught in places such as Oswego State Normal School, the Normal Department of Iowa University, and the University of Missouri. Appreciating the modern educational requirements

Early Institutionalization

69

demanded by the political economic system, in 1875 Japan’s Ministry of Education dispatched Izawa Shūji (1851–1917) and Takamine Hideo (1854–1910) to the United States to research normal schooling.70 Izawa visited the Bridgewater State Normal School in Massachusetts, while Takamine went to the Oswego State Normal School in New York. Izawa and Takamine, as it turned out, were present at the beginnings of American educational Psychology. Upon their return to Japan, they designed a curriculum for the Normal School (see below). Although Psychology was important in this curriculum, it was not of a scientific, experimental variety; rather, it was closer to “mental philosophy.”71 In any case, Izawa and Takamine were interested in “developmental education” (hattatsu kyōiku), not just the how of teaching; they wanted to investigate the psychological processes of learning themselves. Takamine, who had attended Aizu Domain’s Nisshinkan (established in 1803) and was educated in the traditional Confucian schooling system stressing rote memorization, was concerned with how the minds of children took in information and formed complex thoughts from more basic ones. He was also very interested in memory and how to cultivate it in children. He became a close acquaintance of the scientist, historian, and educator James Johonnot (1823–88), the author of Principles and Practice of Teaching (1878). In 1885, Takamine translated the latter’s book into Japanese as Kyōiku Shinron (The New Theory of Education), a work which would influence an entire generation of Japanese educators. Izawa would author Kyōikugaku (Education, 1882).72 In order to ensure that the most modern and appropriate pedagogical principles were being applied, Japan’s authorities initially established two prototypical teachers’ colleges in 1872 and 1875, respectively: the Normal School and Tokyo Women’s Normal School (Tōkyō Joshi Shihan Gakkō).73 The former, which would become a model for other normal schools, was put under the supervision of the American Marion M. Scott (1843–1922). It was renamed the Tokyo Normal School in July  1873 and reorganized into the Higher Normal School in April  1886.74 In 1902, because a second higher normal school had been founded in Hiroshima, it was renamed Tokyo Higher Normal School.75 In 1879, the central authorities mandated that all prefectures must establish one public normal school to train primary school teachers. This cloning of normal schooling around the country in no small way institutionalized Psychology, and beginning in 1887 it was formally taught at the Tokyo Normal School. Significantly, then, normal schools would, along with University of Tokyo, establish Psychology as a respectable discipline.76 Also significant is how students at the Higher Normal School conducted basic experiments on those who attended the attached elementary school (later a secondary school was also attached). Though Psychology was not necessarily offered at all normal schools, then, it was through these institutions that Psychology “spread throughout the entire nation,” thereby greatly aiding its institutionalization (the period from 1886 until 1902 can be described as an “era of shihan gakkō”). Keep in mind that this was a “period when Psychology itself was not well known,”77 so to a large degree this was a novel subject.

70

The History of Japanese Psychology

Other educational sites that bureaucratized subjectivity Besides Tokyo Imperial University, the other imperial daigaku—Kyōto, Kyūshū, Tōhoku, and, outside Japan proper, Keijō (Seoul) and Taihoku (Taipei)—were indispensable for spreading the worldview of Psychology, training as they did specialists in this new body of knowledge.78 In addition to the imperial daigaku, private daigaku (many of which had evolved from academies and what we might call vocational schools) would also play a vital role in spreading the new psychological knowledge. Great variety characterizes these institutions and an idea of what they were about can be seen in Nagai’s classification of private universities/colleges into three types: (1) “liberalism group” (jiyūshugi-ha), which operated under Christian influence and advocated “civilization and enlightenment”; (2) “traditional group” (dentōshugi-ha), founded by those with an eye toward Japan’s older intellectual legacy; and (3) “applied group” (tekiyō-ha), which taught “practical studies” such as law.79 Very early on Psychology flourished in the liberalism group, while it did not find much of a home in the applied group. In a good example in the “traditional group” was the Tetsugakkan or Philosophy Hall (now Tōyō University). This institute of Buddhist studies was founded in 1887 by Inoue Enryō, a philosopher who utilized modern shinrigaku in his thinking.80 After 1918, some private vocational schools (senmon gakkō) were upgraded to daigaku (universities/colleges). Indeed, a number of prestigious private universities had their roots in these institutions. For example, present-day Waseda University is an example of this promotion (originally called Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō). Though it is not clear who lectured during the early phases, later Watanabe Ryūshō (1865–1944) would use Motora and Nakashima Taizō’s 1900 translation of Wundt’s work (Shinrigaku Gairon), as well as Nakashima’s own books. Shinrigaku was taught there as early as 1882. Works by Bain, Haven, Spencer, and Carpenter were utilized. Kadono Ikunoshin taught shinrigaku at Keiō Gijuku (the precedent of Keiō University).81 Nakashima Taizō, Kawai Teiichi, Henry Mohr Landis,82 and George William Knox83 also taught shinrigaku at Keiō.84 Psychology, wedded to logic in the curriculum, was also taught in the elite “higher middle schools” or kōtō chūgakkō (from 1894 abbreviated to kōtō gakkō or “higher schools”).85 These institutions were intended as special preparatory schools for university-bound male students (ages 12–18). Instructors with training in Psychology were employed to teach preparatory courses attached to universities (daigaku yoka).86 In addition to being taught at the imperial universities and normal schools, Psychology courses would be added to the curricula of professional or vocational schools, medical schools (ika senmon gakkō), and “miscellaneous vocational schools” (kakushu gakkō).87 Note should also be made of academies for the police and various short training schools or institutes (kakushu kōshūkai) in which Psychology was taught with an applied spin.88

5

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō: The Founders of Japanese Psychology

As in other national traditions (i.e., Fechner and Wundt in Germany, and William James and G. S. Hall in America), Japan has its own founders of its Psychology: Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō. The purpose of this chapter is to survey their biographical details, intellectual influences, and contributions. The psycho-philosophy of Motora as well as his thoughts on the relation between religion and science are also treated.

The grandfather of Japanese Psychology: Motora Yūjirō The most crucial figure in the founding modern experimental Psychology in Japan was Motora Yūjirō.1 He would spend five years in the United States, first studying at Boston University and then transferring to Johns Hopkins University.2 In addition to his many scholarly contributions and pioneering work in educational studies, Motora institutionalized the training of Psychology students, assisted in networking among scholars in Japan, and kept up a constant exchange with overseas scholars. He was one of the most active thinkers of the late 1800s and early 1900s in Japan, commented on pressing issues of the day, and was involved in pivotal intellectual debates of the day.3 The most important contribution of Motora was his establishment of Japan’s first psychological laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University in 1903. Motora taught, trained, and influenced a large number of individuals who would have a lasting impact inside and outside of early Japanese social science. Before his death in 1912, forty-five students would graduate from the Department of Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University. His most famous and influential student, Matsumoto Matatarō (1865–1943), would attend Yale University to study experimental Psychology. Matsumoto eventually took over Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University, and, if Motora is the “grandfather” of Japanese Psychology, then Matsumoto should be considered its “father.” Other important students of Motora include Nakajima Taizō, Tsukahara Masatsugu, Kakise Hikozō, Kuwata Yoshizō, Okabe Tamekichi, and Mizawa Tadasu.4 Motora was extremely prolific. His first academic publication was in 1881, when he published an abridged translation of a work that dealt with bacteria (his earliest articles

72

The History of Japanese Psychology

appeared in 1876 and 1878). In addition to research Psychology, his corpus of articles, books, and newspaper articles dealt with an array of issues, such as the role religion, the place of women, moral concerns, and current events.5 Satō lists and categorizes books that were either authored by Motora (11) or to which he coauthored or made a partial contribution (6), and also his translations (3) and “others” (2). He also enumerates academic articles and lectures (38) appearing in journals and newspapers6 and the list of books (10) for which Motora wrote a preface (Table 5.1). In addition to the many students he cultivated, Motora either knew well or was acquainted with many of Japan’s luminaries of the day, which should not be surprising, given his elite training overseas and position at Tokyo Imperial University.7 While in the United States, Motora was photographed with Satō Shōsuke (1856–1939), who would become president of Hokkaidō University);8 Nagase Hōsuke (1865–1926), a famous educator; and Nitobe Inazō9 (1862–1933), who would become well known as an educator, public servant, agricultural economist, diplomat, and interpreter of Japanese culture (like Motora, he was also a Christian).10 Much of Motora’s work focused on psychophysics (especially attention), philosophical issues concerning the theory of the mind, and educational and clinical Psychology.11 He also had an interest in moral and religious themes, and in 1894, he visited a Zen at a monastery where he practiced meditation, viewing it as a scientific experiment and claiming he experienced “self without representation.”12 His experience with Zen informed his “philosophical turn” which marked his later career. His mentor G. S. Hall recounted how “his interest had gone over very largely into the field of a philosophy that seemed to focus upon religious subjects; and nearly all his conversations were upon a type of religion which should embody and unite the chief truths in the faiths of the Eastern and Western worlds.”13 Motora was the first Japanese Psychologist whose name appeared in a joint publication in English: in 1887 he coauthored with Hall “Dermal Sensitiveness to Gradual Pressure Changes” in the first volume of The American Journal of Psychology. This article, utilizing Weber’s law, investigated touch sensitivity.14 In 1890, he published

Table 5.1 Examples of books by Motora Japanese title

English title

Year

Shinrigaku

Psychology

1890

Rinrigaku

Ethics

1893

Shinrigaku Jū-kai Kōgi

Ten Lectures on Psychology

1897

Vunto-shi Shinrigaku Gairon

Introduction to Wundt’s Psychology (co-translated with Nakajima Taizō)

1900

Chūtō Kyōiku Rinri Kōwa

Lectures on Ethics in Secondary Education

1900

Shinrigaku Kōyō

Summary of Psychology

1907

Ronbun-shū

Collection of Articles

1909

Kyōiku Byōri oyobi Chiryōgaku

Educational Pathology and Therapeutics (co-authored with Sakaki Yasusaburō)

1912

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

73

Shinrigaku (Psychology), the first textbook on scientific Psychology by a Japanese that, besides being systematic and original, was not a translation; nor did it rely heavily on foreign works (Table 5.2). A number of other major works would follow. Motora helped inaugurate the journal Psychological Research in 1912 and in that same year, together with Inoue Tetsujirō and Nakamura Rikizō (1858–1918), composed the Ei-Doku-Futsu-Wa tetsugaku jii Tetsugaku jii (Dictionary of English, German, French and Japanese Philosophical Terms). Though the dictionary was riddled with mistakes, it was an invaluable source for those pursuing studies in the emerging fields of the social sciences and humanities. In 1915, Shinrigaku Gairon (Outline of Psychology), which outlined Motora’s theoretical system, was published posthumously.15

Table 5.2 Chapters of Motora’s Shinrigaku (Psychology, 1890) Sōron 扈΢

Introduction Sensation

Kankaku Ɨ漤 The Five Sensory Organs

Gokan ͅƗ

2

The Binding of the Senses

Kankaku no Ketsugō Ɨ漤ʨʸ

3

Nature of Consciousness

Ishiki no Seishitsu NjԹȡΘ

4

Recall of Ideas

Kannen no Saisei 潅Я셉Ǟŀ

5

Illusions

Genei ߥ̊

6

Concepts

Gainen કЯ

7

Imagination

Sōzō ĞɎ

8

The Ideal

Risō ȗĞ

9

Theory of Pleasure and Pain

Kuraku no Gakuri Х䯤셉Ɠȗ

10

Music

Ongaku ͡䯤

11

Painting

Kaiga 懑Ԡ

12

Theory of Beauty

Bi no Gakuri ſ셉Ɠȗ

13

“Rhythm”

“Rizumu” 솸솈솮

14

Laughter

Shō ȟ

15

Love

Aijō İŰ

16

Social Sense

Shakai-teki Kankaku ‫ף‬ěĀƗ漤

1

17

Attention

Chūi ͩNj

18

Habit and Instinct

Shūkan oyobi Honnō ϫ‫ڢ‬ӍǕĨ

19

Nature of Self-Consciousness

Jikaku no Seishitsu Ģ漤셉ȡΘ

20

Desire

Yokubō ࢍʫ

21

Expression

Hyōshutsu ȩś

22

Will

Ishi Njՠ

23

Ethical Sense

Rinri-teki Kankaku ৘ȗĀƗ漤

74

The History of Japanese Psychology

Snapshot Granville Stanley Hall G. S. Hall (1844–1924) was one of most influential and important American Psychologists. He also played a key role in training Japanese Psychologists숯 in particular, Motora숯and thereby helped shape the trajectory of Japanese Psychology (Table 5.3). Eleven Japanese wrote memorials for G. S. Hall in 1924.16 G. S. Hall received the world’s first PhD in Psychology in 1875 under the tutelage of William James and studied under Wundt, becoming his first American student. After returning from Leipzig, he became professor of Psychology and pedagogics at Johns Hopkins University (1893) and set up what many consider to be the first American Psychology laboratory. He then moved to Clark University, where he was president from 1899 to 1920. While there, he invited Freud and Carl Jung to lecture in 1909. His research focused on childhood development, education, adolescence, and evolutionary theory. It is no coincidence that two institutions associated with Hall, Johns Hopkins and Clark, were established as research universities (in 1876 and 1889, respectively) that emulated the German model to meet the demands of economic growth and techno-scientific advancement.17 He was the first president of the American Psychological Association (1892); founded the American Journal of Psychology (1887); and edited the Pedagogical Seminary (from 1892), the American Journal of Religious Psychology and Education (from 1904), and the Journal of Race Development (from 1910). His books include: Adolescence (1904), Youth: Its Education and Regimen (1906), Educational Problems (1911), and Aspects of Child Life and Education (1921).

Table 5.3 Japanese who studied under Hall at Clark University Name

Degree

Dissertation

Kuma Toshiyasu

PhD 1906

A Study of School Legislation in the United States

Misawa Tadasu

PhD 1908

Modern Educators and Their Ideals

Kakise Hikozō

PhD 1909

A Preliminary Experimental Study of the Conscious Concomitants of Understanding

Kanda Sakyō

MA 1909

–

Nakamura Yasuma

MA 1909

–

Ueda Tadaichi

MA 1910

–

Ueda Tadaichi

PhD 1912

The Psychology of Justice

Yamada Sōshichi

PhD 1913

Psychological Approach to Questionnaires

Kubo Yoshihide

PhD 1915

Some Aspects of a Recent Child Study

Hori Baiten

PhD 1916

A Study of the Behavior of Attention

Kurihara Shinichi

MA 1916

–

Kurihara Shinichi

PhD 1918

Theories of Attention

Yokoyama Matsusaburō

PhD 1921

An Experimental Study of Affective Tendency as Conditioned by Color and Form

Source: Nishikawa (2008f: 50).

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

75

Motora’s life Motora Yūjirō was born into a samurai family on November 1, 1858, in Settsu Province (kuni) in the Sanda Domain (han).18 He was the second son of Sugita Yutaka, a retainer (hanshi) of the Sanda Domain and a Confucian scholar who taught in a hankō (domain school). Yūjirō acquired the surname “Motora” when he married his wife and was adopted into her family.19 From seven years of age, he studied Confucianism and Western learning (yōgaku) at a hankō called Zōshikan. When he turned thirteen he entered Eiranjuku, a private academy (shijuku) for Western learning operated by Kawamoto Kōmin, a famous scholar of Dutch studies (rangaku).20 When Yūjirō’s father died in 1872, his older brother inherited the family estate.

Snapshot Kawamoto Kōmin Kawamoto (Yukitami) (1810–71) would introduce developments in nineteenthcentury science to Motora. A student of the physician Adachi Chōshun (1775– 1837) and the Dutch scholar Tsuboi Shindō (1795–1848), Kawamoto was a physician who studied physics and chemistry. He was appointed in 1859 to teach at the shogunate’s Bansho Shirabesho (Institute for the Study of Barbarian Books) and was counselor to the Shimazu Nariakira, the feudal lord of Satsuma. He authored a book on the mechanics of the steam engine entitled Strange Machines of the Far West (Ensei Kikijutsu; completed in 1845 but not published until 1854 due to the political climate) and a work on physics called Kikai Kanran Kōgi (1851– 56; Expanded Commentary on Kikai Kanran).21 He also worked on telegraphic instruments, daguerreotype, and collodion photographs. He coined “chemistry” (kagaku) (previously called seimigaku) and is credited with brewing Japan’s first beer. At the age of fifteen while he was visiting Arima Onsen, Yūjirō met Jerome D. Davis (1838–1910), an American missionary,22 who Yūjirō would live with in Kobe, where he learned English and studied the Bible. When he turned sixteen (1874), Yūjirō would be baptized by Davis into the Christian faith.

In 1875 Davis assisted Niijima Jō (1843–90),23 a Protestant convert and important educator, in establishing the Christian Dōshisa Eigakkō (Dōshisha English Academy) in Kyoto, where all textbooks were in English and instructors regularly taught in English. With themselves as the only two instructors, Davis and Niijima initially taught eight students, including Yūjirō. Though his experiences at Dōshisha were significant for the formation of his intellectual orientation (see below), he was apparently not satisfied with its intellectual offerings and so Yūjirō left Dōshisha in 1879.24 In that same year he went to Tokyo and taught math and English at Gakunōsha Nōgakkō (Gakunōsha School of Agriculture), whose president was the educator and agriculturalist Tsuda Sen (1837–1908).25 In September 1880 he entered Imperial University (later Tokyo Imperial University), where he studied physics and mathematics as a senkasei (special student) but the next year in January he left the university. Then he would teach and serve as principal at Kōkyō Gakusha,26 which would become part of Tōkyō Eigakkō (Tokyo

76

The History of Japanese Psychology

English School) in 1881. Yūjirō was involved in the establishment and management of the latter, where he also taught math.27 The year 1881 was very significant for Yūjirō. First, via an introduction from Tsuda Sen, he met and married Motora Yone (who was also a Christian) on June 7. Adopted by his wife’s family, he acquired a new surname. Second, his social status changed: Yūjirō was a descendent of samurai (shizoku), but now, marrying someone who was from a Tokyo merchant family, he became a commoner (heimin). Third, because of his marriage, he obtained a measure of financial stability. And finally, he changed his religion, from the Congregational Church (Kumiai-kyōkai) to the Methodist (Mesojisuto-ha), his wife’s faith. Motora, probably encouraged by Milton Smith Vail (1853–1928), who was the principal of Tōkyō Eigakkō,28 traveled to America in 1883 at his own expense and matriculated at Boston University to study moral philosophy and theology. Two years later, he left to take up graduate work at Johns Hopkins University to focus on Psychology and from where he would receive his doctorate in 1888. At Boston University Motora studied under the American Christian philosopher and theologian Borden Parker Bowne (1847–1910).29 Motora was probably familiar with Bowne’s Studies in Theism (1879) from his days at Dōshisha. Apparently, the relationship between the two did not work out, and in 1885, Motora transferred to Johns Hopkins University, where he would study Psychology under G. S. Hall.30 Altogether, he would spend five years in the United States. Motora’s pursuit of his interests demonstrates individual initiative, especially since at that time Psychology as an independent field was quite novel and in many universities did not yet exist. At the time, Psychology was a three-year program at Johns Hopkins. The first year covered “senses considered experimentally an anatomically”; the second year focused on “space, the time-sense, physiological time and the psycho-physic law” as well as “association, memory, habit, attention, the will, feelings successively and treated experimentally”; the last year investigated “instinct in animals, psychogenesis in children, the [P]sychological parts of anthropology and morbid [P]sychology.”31 In addition to Psychology, Motora also studied mathematics, pedagogy, and political science,32 and despite his professed interest in experimental Psychology, Motora’s dissertation, entitled “Exchange, Considered as the Principles of Social Life,” was not experimental based; nor was it about a specifically psychological topic.33 He incorporated concepts from sociology, physiology, biology, physicsmechanics, chemistry, philosophy, economics, and Psychology, and by “exchange” he meant a wide-ranging, comprehensive idea that covered all sorts of exchange: among friends, labor-capital, economic, communication, feelings.34 However, it was teleology (mokuteki-ron) that was stressed, a notion that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was influential in philosophy, biology, and physiology.35 The culmination of Motora’s graduate work was not strictly psychological but illustrated an open mind to what was considered at the time knowledge in general. His crossdisciplinary approach certainly aided him in his later efforts to establish Psychology in Japan. In June 1888 Motora was awarded his PhD from Johns Hopkins. In July of the same year he returned to Japan, and in September he became an instructor (kōshi) at the

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

77

College of Literature (Bunka Daigaku) at Imperial University. Toyama, who continued to teach Psychology (shinrigaku), put him in charge of the class on psychophysics (seishin butsurigaku), in which he taught what were all relatively new topics. Initially four students who took his class learned how to conduct psychological experiments; for example, measured the time needed for mental activity, auditory discrimination, the perception of gravity, vision, muscular sense, dermal sensitivity to pressure, and the relationship between stimuli and sensation. From September  1888, Motora also concurrently held a position at Tōkyō Eiwa Gakkō,36 where he lectured on Alexander Bain’s Psychology and Thomas Henry Huxley’s physiology, sociology, and the history of philosophy.37 In September  1889 Motora, along with Toyama and Kanda Naibu,38 also became involved in the establishment of the Seisoku Preparatory School (Seisiku Yobikō)39 and served as its principal. In October 1890 he was promoted to professor, and in 1891 he received his doctorate from Imperial University. In 1893, Motora was appointed the professor of the First Chair of Psychology–Ethics–Logic (Shinrigaku–Rinrigaku–Ronrigaku). As such, 1893 might be considered the date when Japan’s first professional Psychologist began teaching. In 1894 Motora was appointed professor (until 1900) at the Higher Normal School (Kōtō Shihan Gakkō) while he concurrently continued his professorship at Tokyo Imperial University. Evidence of Motora’s cosmopolitan and collaborative scholarship is apparent in his travels during 1904–5. He went to America, where he visited William James, Hugo Munsterberg, G. S. Hall, James Baldwin, G. T. Ladd, Edward Titchener, James McKeen Cattel, and Judd. In England, he saw William McDougall and in Germany, he spent time with Carl Stumpf, Georg E. Muller, Wundt, Emil Kraepelin, Ernst Mach, and Theodor Lipps. He also visited Italy, where he met with Cesare Lombroso.40 In 1905 Motora attended the 5th International Congress of Psychology in Rome and presented a paper entitled “Idea of Ego in the Eastern Philosophy,” which was based on his experiences of Zen meditation at a Buddhist temple.41 Motora, who suffered from caries, died on December 13, 1912. On the same day, he was awarded the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold and Silver Star. Kakise Hikozō informed The American Journal of Psychology that he had died and translated into English an address given by Professor Watase Shōsaburō at Motora’s funeral.42 Parts of this appeared in Titchener’s 1913 obituary for “Professor Yuzero Motora.”43

Motora the person Politically, Motora had an interest in socialism, which should not be surprising, given the close connection between this ideology and Christianity at the time. He probably acquired his views on socialism while overseas. However, he never developed radical leanings.44 In 1901 he left the Association for the Study of Socialism (Shakaishugi Kenkyū-kai) and wrote critical articles about socialism for the Nihonjin (The Japanese).45 Motora was also a member of the Dai Nihon Kyō-kai (Great Japan Society),46 which advocated Japanism (nihon-shugi) and the “Japanese national essence movement.” His motivations for joining such an organization are unclear,47 though he did not seem to be a strong supporter of Japanese militarist expansionism.

78

The History of Japanese Psychology

On a number of occasions, Motora stood his ground on issues of moral and scientific integrity. For example, he invited the zoologist Mitsukuri Kakichi (1857– 1909) to speak on evolutionism at Tōkyō Eiwa Gakkō. The latter’s criticism of the Old Testament did not sit well with the school’s directors, who attacked Motora since he was responsible for the lecture. Consequently, Motora resigned from this position in February 1889. Though he suffered from caries, he was always gracious and dedicated to his students. He refrained from alcohol and tobacco, and “moderate” and “modesty” are the words that sum up his character. The Psychologist Edmund C. Sanford described him as quiet and reserved though possessing a friendly manner. According to his mentor Hall, he was a “man of the most serious and earnest character, quiet and modest, apparently with no other interest whatever than his Psychological and philosophical studies, his zest for the latter probably being more pronounced than for the former.” As reported by Titchener, the Psychologist W. H. Burnham remembered Motora as a student of the best type, at once sane, temperate, industrious, enthusiastic; as a thinker, distinctly philosophical, bold, original, independent and vigorous; as a friend, pleasing, reliable, satisfying and with a large fund of good-fellowship; in character possessing all the sturdy virtues, dependable, trustworthy, dignified and helpful. He was thoroughgoing and original as a thinker and scholar.48

Major intellectual influences That Motora would eventually choose Psychology as an academic field perhaps should not be surprising, since from the mid-nineteenth century it was the nexus of moral, theological, philosophical, pedagogic, and scientific concerns. For Motora, Psychology was the basis for the “study of society” (shakai no gaku), or more specifically, the investigation of social problems, education, and ethics.49 Note that Motora’s earliest intellectual influences were: (1) an elite Confucian training; (2) Christianity; and (3) the latest scientific knowledge, especially physics. The latter, which initially came via Kawamoto Kōmin, was particularly important for Motora’s view of the nature of psyche and its relation to the world.50 Like other thinkers of the late nineteenth century, Motora attempted to integrate the study of nature and society.51 Inspired by the certainty of modern knowledge, Motora attempted to overcome the differences between psychical phenomena (seishin genshō) and physical phenomena (butsuri genshō) by unifying their respective laws. He believed that the “origin of mind is energy and because it is energy, it is controlled by physical laws.”52 In other words, “he attempted to explain psychical phenomena by physical laws.”53 At Dōshisha, Motora took courses in theology and what was called at the time “mental philosophy,” reading Thomas C. Upham’s54 Elements of Mental Philosophy: Embracing the Three Elements of the Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (1869) and Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy: Including the Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (1875). These works, though they provided a thorough and solid philosophical perspective then predominant, did not treat Psychology as an experimental science. It has to

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

79

be emphasized that even in the industrialized world at this time for the most part Psychology as an independent field did not exist. Motora was exposed to the American naturalist and missionary John Thomas Gulick (1832–1923), who lectured on evolutionism at Dōshisha (1878–79).55 He favored William B. Carpenter’s56 Principles of Mental Physiology (1874) and, like many Meiji-era Japanese intellectuals and men of ambition, Motora admired Samuel Smiles’57 Self-Help (1859).58 As Motora learned about the emerging field of Psychology, his views were shaped by key personages and the major currents of his day. These included Gustav T. Fechner59 (psychophysics), Wilhelm Wundt (experimental Psychology), William James (pragmatism), and G. S. Hall (educational Psychology, “genetic Psychology”숯 that is, the social and mental development of children숯and methodology, surveys, and observation techniques).60 In his later years, Motora’s philosophical perspective was greatly influenced by the chemist and Nobel Prize awardee Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald (1853–1932) and his ideas on “energetic monism.”

Motora’s contributions In addition to the emerging field of scientific Psychology, Motora pursued many interests. In fact, it is difficult to find a realm of intellectual inquiry of what we now call the social sciences that Motora did not either investigate or comment upon.61 For example, collaborating with physiologists, Motora conducted experiments on nerve transmission (he actually attempted to simulate neurotransmission based on a hydraulic model using rubber tubes).62 Though his thinking on neurotransmission was based on older understandings of how the nervous system functioned, his work in this area demonstrates his interest in physiological Psychology. Consider pedagogical Psychology. From very early on, Motora had an interest in education.63 Indeed, his first book was about pedagogy, called Kyōiku Shinron (New Theories on Education, 1884). His contributions to this field were far-ranging and can be characterized as both theoretical (research oriented) and practical. He was involved in the establishment and administration of several schools (e.g., Kōkyō Gakusha and Seisoku Junior High School), and in 1894 he also became an instructor at Higher Normal School. Motora was a member of the Education Ministry’s Moral Textbook Survey Committee64 (1901) and the National Language Committee65 (1902). He also wrote textbooks for secondary school students. Along with Toyama Masakazu, Kanda Naibu, and Takashima Heizaburō, he helped set up the Japan Education Research Association (Nihon Kyōiku Kenkyū-kai) in 1890. In 1902, Motora and his students organized the Association of Child Study (Nihon Jidō Kenkyū-kai); Motora became its first president. He was a member of the Great Japan Educational Society (Dai Nihon Kyōiku-kai; established in 1883 and later called the Teikoku Kyōiku-kai or the Imperial Society for Education).66 And in 1891, he distributed Japan’s first questionnaire on ethics to normal and elementary schools.67 Much of Motora’s work focused on problems that children might encounter in the classroom.68 Indeed, he “can be considered as one of the pioneer researchers” in cognitive Psychology and learning disabilities.69 Specifically, he researched word

80

The History of Japanese Psychology

association among children, the sense of morality among adolescents, and the readability of written Japanese. He was particularly interested in attention and believed that many children with poor school achievement were not necessarily mentally lacking but were suffering from a type of attention deficiency. Motora developed a device designed to train children to maintain concentration during class.70 And in 1911, in what is probably the first publication by a Japanese in clinical Psychology, he published “An Experiment on Training for Attention,” in which he discussed a method for increasing children’s school achievement.71 As a key Japanese thinker, Motora possesses an “appealing complexity,” and “it can be said that he reflected the complex circumstances of Psychology of the time.” However, “there is a strong sense that we have not reached the point of appreciating the full story of Motora’s activities.”72 Within the context of the global intellectual scene, his contributions can be understood as an attempt to move from a confessional, prescientific, cosmic worldview to a secular, scientific, scopic perspective. He was born the same year as the Buddhist philosopher and educator Inoue Enryō (1858–1919) and Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), the “father” of sociology. His ideas were responses to the jarring transition from a mentality that subsumed the person into moral collectivities to one that positioned a rights-bearing individual in the center of the political process. Like other great thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, he bridges two very different worlds: one based on a decaying feudalism and agriculture-based economy, and the other consisting of modern machinery, factories, and offices. Motora, like other researchers, whether he was aware of it or not, took his cue from an emerging industrialism and objectified, quantified, and precisely measured the human psyche. By the same token, the new mentality that emerged in response to these practical procedures should be viewed as a psychological adaptation to modernity.

The psycho-philosophy of Motora Yūjirō In his obituary for Motora,73 Titchener reported that Motora used a “wire helmet” to perform a “strange experiment” on Watase Shōsaburō, Nitobe Inazō, and Nagase Hōsuke when they lived together in Baltimore. “During our dreams there occur certain electrical changes [‘sleep brain waves’ or suimin nōha] in our brains, so if we transmit the electric current from one brain to another by means of the helmet, all of us may have the same dream at the same time.” Alas, after several nights of experiments, no persuasive results emerged, though they shared a good laugh at their attempt. According to Titchener, this experiment demonstrated that Motora “had a very deep interest … in mystic phenomena.”74 This account, though occurring when Motora was still young, portends a latter endeavor to experimentally reveal or explain psychological processes by linking them to a natural force (e.g., electricity) that arguably possessed associations with vitalism and cosmic energies. Like many others of his day, Motora stood in both the premodern and modern worlds, with one foot in a cosmic realm and another foot in a scopically scrutinized universe.

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

81

Motora’s Psychology Motora was instrumental in introducing to Japan the latest developments in overseas Psychology.75 In 1888 he wrote “The Present State of American Psychology” (“Beikoku Shinrigaku no Kinkyō”) for Rikugō Zasshi. He explained that Psychology had come from Europe and introduced the work of G. S. Hall (1844–1924), T. A. Ribot (1839–1916), B. P. Bowne (1847–1910), and J. McCosh (1811–94).76 He also introduced the Psychology of James Dewey. Motora posed the question: Does the new discipline of Psychology concern science (kagaku), philosophy (tetsugaku), or theology (shingaku)? He suggested that unlike philosophy, Psychology is scientific since it avoids introspection (naishō) and relies on observation and experimentation (Tables 5.4 and 5.5).

Table 5.4 Motora’s experimental psychological research Period

Research

Around 1886

Sleep brain waves

1887

Dermal sensitiveness to pressure to gradual pressure changes

1888

Attention (using metal folding screen)

Around 1889

Rhythm

Around 1890

Audio perception

1891

Optical illusion of artificial moon

1895

Vision of those with white cataracts

1896

Advantages and disadvantages of vertical and horizontal reading

1903

Neurotransmission

1904

Difficulty and ease of reading katakana and hiragana

1907

Children’s power of attention and its training

Source: Osaka R. (1998; cited in Satō 2002a: 121). For more on Motora’s experiments, see Osaka R. (2000a).

Table 5.5 Lectures given by Motora, September 1906–June 1907 Chapter

Topic

Introduction

Characteristics of Psychology or Psychology and other sciences

1

What is psychological phenomena?

2

Attention

3

Conscious experience and abstraction

4

Nerves and muscles

5

The senses and sensory organs

6

Expressions

7

Theories about character

82

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 5.5 Lectures given by Motora, September 1906–June 1907 (continued) Chapter

Topic

8

On the concept of the external world

9

Language and thought

10

The relation between humans and the external world

11

General remarks on motions

12

Expressive movement

13

Movement

14

Changes in psychological theories

15

Psychology as a science

16

About the basic concepts of Psychology

17

About mental development

18

Conclusion

Source: Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 89). In Satō Tatsuya’s personal library; originally from the notes of Fujimoto Seisuke (“Motora Hakase Jutsu Futsū Shinrigaku”).

From 1889 to 1891, Motora published a series of articles entitled “Psychophysics” in Tetsugakkai Zasshi (Journal of the Philosophical Society).77 These essays were apparently based on his lectures.78 In the eighth article of the series, he described his “span of attention of experiment” using a kymograph. This was “probably the first systematic psychological experiment in Japan.” In the ninth to twelfth articles, he “presented statistical studies on rhythms on Japanese classical poems and experiments on word associations in young men.”79 At the most basic level, Motora’s thinking was rooted in a natural science of physics, energies, and dynamics, or the natural-philosophical “view that nature is mechanical.”80 Documents preserved at Johns Hopkins University81 demonstrate his early interest in a positivist approach to Psychology. Such an interest is also evident in a letter explaining why he wanted to attend Johns Hopkins: he wrote that his aim was to “study farther [sic] in [P]sychology, especially in the line of phisiological [sic] [P]sychology and make experimental investigation on the same subject.”82 Here we might note that his student Fukurai Tomokichi listed three key traits of Motora’s Psychology: (1) mind is fundamentally dynamic and has the same status as a natural force, (2) the second law of the conservation of energy can explain the mind as a causeand-effect phenomenon, and (3) mental power (seishinryoku) and natural power (shizenryoku) mutually operate upon each other.83

From a cosmic to a scopic worldview: Widening the Great Split A “Great Split” between the macro–microcosm (“outer world” of physical reality) and the introcosm (“inner world” of the mind’s eye) has haunted thinkers for centuries. By around 1500, the Aristotlean and Ptomeliac cosmology began to erode,

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

83

mostly due to the Copernican–Galilean–Newtonian revolutions. During the 1600s and 1700s, scientific thinking and technological advances, particularly in terms of “measurement,” reconfigured an older cosmic worldview into a scopic perspective (i.e., macro–microscopic and introscopic). During the nineteenth century, this intellectual evolution transformed the soul into a mind that could be measured and objectively investigated, while the individual was increasingly interiorized, expanding the gap between the inner and outer realms. By the late nineteenth century, modern research experimental Psychology had emerged, which both greeted and encouraged the grand epistemological fissure (Table 5.6). Two key questions guide the next section. First, how could the great fissure be sewn up, especially as it concerned the widening gap between science and religion? Second, for thinkers such as Motora, did the introscopic (mind) still possess introcosmic features (soul-like attributes, religious associations, etc.)?

Table 5.6 Variations on the Great Split Macro–Microcosm or Macro–Microscopic

Introcosm or Introscopic

Discipline/Debate/ Discourse

Physics: butsurigaku

Physics: butsurigaku

Psychophysics: seishin butsurigaku

Object: kyakukan

Subject: shukan

Different perspectives

Physics: butsurigaku

Psychology: shinrigaku

Different disciplines

Matter: butsu

Mind: shin

Matter and mind: busshin

Natural world: shizenkai

Mental world: shinkai

Different “worlds”

Nature-centered system: shushizen keitō

Ego–self-centered system • Mind-centered system: shuga keitō • shushin keitō

Different “systems”

External world: gaikai

Internal world: naikai

Metaphors of spatiality

Body: shin

Mind: shin

Mind–body problem: shinshin mondai

Body: shintai

Heart–mind: kokoro

Different “parts” of human nature

Materialism: yuibutsu-ron

Idealism • Spiritualism: yuishin-ron

Also parallelism: heikō-ron

Body and mind: shinshin

Ego: jiga

Different “aspects” of human nature

Material world: busshitsu sekai

Mental world • Human world: seishin sekai • ningenkai

Different substances

Natural power: shizenryoku

Mental power: seishinryoku

Different energies

Action: kō

Knowledge: chi

“Unity of knowledge and action”: chikō gōitsu (NeoConfucian idea)

84

The History of Japanese Psychology

Spiritualized science During the late nineteenth century, Psychology became a refuge for many who respected the findings of science but were still spiritually, or more loosely, philosophically, minded. Motora, like William James, fits this bill, though it should be noted that in his later years Motora would put some distance between himself and Christianity. Motora was clearly interested not just in the workings of psyche but also in the relation between the mind and the greater outside world.84 Indeed, his own student, Fukurai Tomokichi, described him as a “philosopher who took the form of a Psychologist.” In addition to his more conventional research on psychophysics, then, Motora also had an interest in philosophical issues concerning the theory of the mind and the mind–body problem. More broadly, Motora was concerned with stitching together the great fissure that was becoming more salient in the nineteenth century. For him, energy had the role of mediating between mind and matter. Utilizing late-nineteenthcentury scientific and Buddhist concepts, Motora attempted to sew together the two realms of the Great Split. His philosophical thinking evolved through several stages: (1) psychologized energy, (2) psychical potential and psychical reality, (3) energetic monism, and (4) the “ultimate psychical ground/source.” But we must first frame these attempts within Motora’s crucial and formative experiences with Zen.

Zen and Psychology Motora’s first important attempt at uniting the outer and inner worlds is evident when in 1895 he spent one week at a Buddhist temple, Engaku-ji,85 of the Rinzai Sect.86 He viewed the practice of Zen a type of psychological experiment in which conditions are arranged to control stimuli.87 After all, Psychology was not just about the senses and perception; it also involved something deeper, a type of experience that stretched the bounds of conventional knowledge while maintaining a scientific ethos. Motora found this experience in the practice of Zen. For Motora, Zen was not mysticism; its practice allowed one to view the contents of mind, whose dynamical expressions we usually do not notice, though we can be trained to.88 Motora practiced under the supervision of the famous Zen master and abbot of Engaku-ji, Shaku Sōen (1859–1919),89 and he kept a diary.90 Given a kōan to ponder, he reportedly achieved “pure experience,” the condition of ego without representation,91 or as he put it, a “direct experience of energy.” He noted that “If I compare the [P]sychology which I had learned up to that time to a plane surface, that experience is like a third dimension.”92 Note that Motora believed that the main problem of modern Psychology is the relation between mind (subject) and body (object); this perspective would act as an intellectual prism for interpreting his Zen experiences. Indeed, Motora claimed that he was able to transcend the subject– object division.93 But here we should note that mind–body dualism was just one particular manifestation of the Great Split, which took other forms: matter and mind (busshin), material world (busshitsu sekai), mental world (seishin sekai or seishinkai), natural power (shizenryoku), and mental power (seishinryoku). Consciousness itself is

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

85

paradoxically dualistic: it divides itself into two parts, subject and object. At the same time, however, consciousness itself results from the interaction of subject and object.94 Motora, we should note, did acknowledge that Japanese Buddhists may not agree with his interpretation of the Zen experience. Also, Motora came to view the practice of Zen as pragmatism à la William James.95 Indeed, the title of a 1910 article is “Zen is Pragmatism.”96 Here we should note that basically, pragmatism is the argument that the truth value of a proposition is determined by its practical consequences. But more specifically for James, pragmatism was a way to evaluate truth claims not by judging their falsity or opposite (i.e., truth), but by assessing a proposition’s actual outcome. James also advocated a socially moral type of pragmatism: different beliefs were acceptable as long as outcomes could somehow be commonly agreed upon. Based on his experiences, Motora eventually proposed two “systems” (keitō): shuga (ego or self)97 and shushizen (nature centered). The latter is indirect experience and concerns observing the natural world and things outside oneself. But it is through the ego or self that we can obtain “direct experience.” Motora used the analogy of the solar system: the sun is the ego; that is, the mind is at the center of the universe,98 and therefore it is not a mere part of nature.99 Here we might note that rather than determinism, free will (jiyū ishi) accounts for human behavior. Moreover, will (which can be broken down into three constituents: desires, concepts, and the physiological mechanism of execution)100 is like electricity or heat; it is an entity that possesses power. Therefore, like these other energies, the will follows the laws of the natural world.101 Motora would devise a type of instrument called kenshingi to illustrate the relation between the universe and the individual.102 It was composed of three circles. The large ring represents the outside/physical world (gaikai), the middle one the individual (mind and body; shinshin), and the smaller one the ego (jiga).103

Psychologized energy Motora advocated a scientific, objective, and materialist approach and saw no need for religious concepts. Nevertheless, he believed that, since intentional activity (mokuteki katsudō) characterized human behavior, physical laws as presently understood could not explain all aspects of the human condition.104 More specifically, if the soul (reikon) did not exist, the “unifying function” (tōitsu sayō) of the mind required explanation. For Motora, the answer was to be found in the certainty of the law of conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics). This principle states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. Consequently, energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, energy can change form (e.g., from kinetic energy to thermal energy), and for Motora, this meant that it could become a mental energy. Some natural force or measurable energy must correspond to “pure subjectivity” or its “original state” before it has been sullied by experience. Thus, though the universe lacks intention or mind (ishi), a “psychologizing force” or “energy” (seishinka shita seiryoku or enerugī) can explain consciousness as a scientific phenomenon.105 Motora, then, used the concept of energy to bridge the gap between two very different worlds (i.e., subject and object) that had grown wider.106

86

The History of Japanese Psychology

Psychical potential and psychical reality Motora postulated “psychical potential” (shinteki senzai) and “psychical reality” (shinteki jitsuzai). He identified the former with shin-nyo (Sanskrit: tathata), which means truth, “suchness,” or “as-it-is-ness” and may be thought of as the eternal world-soul, unchanging existence, or absolute reality (for our purposes, it might be identified as the macrocosm). It is the changeless element in human nature. Psychical reality, for Motora, was the araya-shiki or “storehouse consciousness” (Sanskrit: alaya vijñāna), which may be understood as the changing element in human nature and is associated with the senses and the sense of self (for our purposes, it might be identified with the micro- and introcosm).107 “Psychical reality,” from which psychical processes emerge, includes various psychological activities, and for Motora it was a more comprehensive term than “consciousness.” Psychical reality is a concept that corresponds to the psychical potential and material reality (butsuteki jitsuzai).108 Before death shin-nyo may be directly experienced as psychical reality. The psychical potential, being hypothetical, requires physiological activity in order to manifest itself in the form psychical reality. The latter is the “water upon which various forms of waves, as knowledge, desire, purpose and the like, are produced.”109

Energetic monism In his later years, Motora was influenced by the views of the Baltic German chemist Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald (1853–1932), who is considered to be one of the modern founders of physical chemistry and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1909. In works such as Die energetische Grundlagen der Kulturwissenschaften (Energetic Principles as a Basis for the Cultural Sciences, 1909), Ostwald developed “energetism” (or “vitalist energetics” or “energetic monism”; Japanese: enerugī ichigen-ron).110 His ideas were influenced by the first and second laws of thermodynamics—the law of conservation of energy and the law of entropy. Energy is the substrate of all phenomena and changes are transformations of one kind of energy into another. His thinking had both physical as well as epistemological implications: we cannot perceive matter; rather, we only perceive energy since our own organisms interact with other energy sources. Critical of mechanistic explanations, he contended that cause and effect transpire due to the transformation of one form of energy into another (though the total amount of energy remains constant). Mind is a form of neural energy and obeys the same laws as other types of energy. For Motora, monism came to mean that psychical and physical energy are aspects of the same reality and are convertible. Energy is the substrate of all phenomena, and all observable changes can be understood as transformations of one kind of energy into another. The underlying idea is that time, space, quantity, and energy, which are natural entities, can be objectified, while sensation, idea, concept, and affection, which are ego-centered, should be the provenance of Psychology. However, through transformations of energy, these two systems can be changed into one or another.111 The Great Split had been bridged.

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

87

The ultimate psychical source Eventually, Motora coined the term shingen in his attempt to postulate a philosophical foundation for his belief in energetic monism and its relation to mind.112 Difficult to translate, I would suggest the “ultimate psychical ground,” “ultimate psychical source,” or “ground of all psychical experience” (shin indicates psychical in a cosmic sense while gen might be understood as “foundational energy”). Though he did not live to flesh out this notion and his explanation is somewhat unsatisfactory, one of his close students, Fukurai Tomokichi, listed some of its key characteristics. First, the concept possesses a decidedly Buddhist flavor. It lacks innate traits in the way a soul might possess them, though it is not completely a tabula rasa. Though “empty” in a Buddhist sense, it can be experienced. It is an impersonal natural force, uncreated, indestructible, constant, and unchanging. The human personality is formed by the combination of the body and shingen. It is the source of the individual mind (kokoro no minamoto).113 After death, both the personality and body perish, but the shingen, as the ground of all existence, continues.114 Shingen, then, though “psychical energy,” is similar to physical phenomena or natural forces, such as electricity, light, or gravitation.115

Motora on religion and science In a 1905 essay titled “Conflict of Religion and Science: From a Japanese Point of View,” Motora notes that in the past Japanese education, at the expense of scientific study, overly emphasized “ethics.” And though Japanese society had made impressive gains from a techno-scientific perspective, recently a disturbing “revival of the old spirit” was evident: “Young men of Japan are beginning to feel that science does not necessarily satisfy all their moral needs.” The “social soul” is becoming pathological and is “losing unification and gradually disintegrating.” This did not bode well for the “development of our national culture,” and a “universal propagation” of this scientific spirit among the Japanese was still needed, “and even more urgently than it was a few decades ago.”116 Motora contended that ethical culture and science do not “antagonize each other”; indeed, “though many mistakenly believe they contradict each other,” they actually cooperate with and complement each other. Therefore, we cannot make light of “ethical culture” and “character building.” People, after all, possess an “innate spiritual aspiration,” which “cannot be regarded as an abnormal pathological phenomenon of the soul, for a mystic element is surely to be found in our normal mental activities.” The sudden revival of “mystic romanticism,” then, cannot be unexpected, since science cannot satisfy all our emotional needs. Moreover, “we cannot say by reason of [natural] laws that there is no God.” For Motora, our souls have three distinct functions: thinking, feeling, and willing. The “foundation of the will” is the “nucleus of personality.” This nucleus requires nourishment, and it must have as its “constituent element” a comprehensive concept such as “Mencius’s Vast Energy (Hao jan chih chi’i),” Christian God, Buddhist Amitabha, or the ethicist’s humanity. At the same time, this universal concept should be coupled with a healthy and pure sentiment,

88

The History of Japanese Psychology

such as Confucian fellow-feeling (ren), Christian love, “Buddhist mercy (karuna),” or the ethicist’s philanthropy.117 What is the relation between science and “general” education? Motora noted how thinkers such as Helmholtz, Virchow, Huxley, and Tyndall had an interest in “general social education” and enthusiastically attempted to “propagate scientific knowledge among the masses.” This was important, since a mystic romanticism might fill a vacancy created by ignorance. Science had an important role to play in modern society, and it was necessary to “effect a coordination among isolated departmental sciences and to establish an organic relation between actual life and science.” Indeed, any “humanistic movement” must be founded upon scientific ideas. Moreover, since knowledge is needed in order to be “build character” and “moral discipline,” two forms of knowledge, scientific and religio-philosophical knowledge, are required.118

The father of Japanese Psychology: Matsumoto Matatarō Next to Motora, the one scholar who did the most to introduce and institutionalize the era of psychological experimentation in Japan was Matsumoto Matatarō. If Motora was the grandfather of Japanese Psychology, Matsumoto was its father,119 or perhaps, due to his great organizing and management skills and dedicated efforts at institutionalization, Japan’s “father of experimental [P]sychology.”120 Before proceeding, a brief sketch of the state of Japan’s Psychology in the first half of Meiji provides some historical bearings: Psychology was translated as one component of mental philosophy that included philosophy, ethics and works by Haven and Bain. Such works were used in educational institutions. During this period, the main influences were, whether direct or indirect, from England. In the second half of Meiji, however, scholarly works from continental Europe were soon being introduced and were on the rise (e.g., French social Psychology and German Psychology). These would begin the era of experimentation.121

Matsumoto Matatarō: Nature, literature, and human nature Matsumoto’s interests, like those of many other intellectual lights of the time, were quite varied, though according to Matsumoto himself, he had three main concerns: nature, literature, and human nature. He viewed Psychology as the discipline that researched the latter.122 In addition to experimental Psychology, he is also credited with making crucial contributions to applied, aesthetic, and developmental Psychology and Psychology’s history. He was the first Psychologist to receive a doctorate from a Japanese institution of higher education and had the fortune to meet and learn from some of the most important Psychologists in the world at the time. He was a prolific writer who authored 15 books (11 books on Psychology) and at least 100 articles (70 on Psychology) (Tables 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9).123

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

89

Table 5.7 Examples of books by Matsumoto Matatarō Japanese Title

English Title

Year

Jikken Shinrigaku Jū Kō

Ten Lectures on Experimental Psychology

1914

Seishin-teki Dōsa

Psychokinematics

1914

Gendai no Nihonga

Modern Japanese Painting

1915

Wataridori Nikkei

Diary of a Migratory Bird

1917

Jisseikatsu to Shinri

Practical Life and Psychology

1926

Kaiga Kanshō no Shinri

Psychology of the Appreciation of Paintings

1926

Soshitsu no Shinri

The Psychology of Character

1929

Chinō Shinrigaku

The Psychology of Intelligence

1929

Shominzoku no Geijutsu

The Art of Various Races

1930

Shinrigaku-shi

The History of Psychology

1937

Biographical and educational background Matsumoto Matatarō (né Iino) was born on September  15, 1865, in Takasaki, Kōzukunokuni (now in Gunma Prefecture). He was the second son of Iino Tasuku, a retainer of the Takasaki clan, who served as an accountant to the local lord.124 Matsumoto attended a private academy, where he studied English and learned calligraphy from a master. He also studied at the Yokohama School of English. Later, when a primary school opened in Takasaki, he returned to study there. In 1880, when he graduated from higher elementary school, he was adopted by Matsumoto Kanjūrō, who lived in Kuragano, a small town in the same locale. In September 1882 he attended Dōshisha English Academy, where he studied for one year and a half. Then he enrolled in Kyoto Prefectural Middle School125 and in 1886 became a student in Tokyo’s First Higher School.126 In 1890 Matsumoto entered Tokyo Imperial University, where he studied philosophy (under Inoue Tetsujirō and Busse), Buddhism, sociology (Toyama), ethics, biology, psychiatry, physiology, and Psychology (under Motora). He graduated in June 1893 and then became Motora’s graduate student. His graduation thesis was entitled “Hume’s Doctrine of Causation.” He read Mind, American Journal of Psychology, James’ Principles of Psychology, and Wundt’s Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie. He  took classes in anatomy, neurology, and medical chemistry and conducted experiments on acoustic space. In 1892, the Psychologist George Trumbull Ladd of Yale University visited Japan and the student Matsumoto attended his lectures and published his notes in Rikugo Zasshi. When Matsumoto saw Ladd off at the wharf for his journey back home, he informed him that he was interested in travelling overseas for study; Ladd is said to have responded “Well, come to Yale first of all!”127 In September  1896 Matsumoto followed Ladd’s advice and, with the latter’s assistance and relying on his own private funds, set off for Yale. While there, he learned laboratory techniques and was

90

The History of Japanese Psychology

supervised by E. W. Scripture, and from 1897 to 1898, he worked as an assistant. From these experiences he learned how to administer a laboratory and was trained in how to conduct experiments.128 He took advantage of his time in the United States by visiting other laboratories at Harvard, Clark, and Columbia Universities and was able to meet such luminaries as William James, I. Royce, G. S. Hall, Edmund C. Sanford, James McKeen Cattell, and E.L. Thorndike.129 Before leaving the United States, he submitted his dissertation (“Chō-teki Kūkan no Kenkyū”) to Tokyo Imperial University and in 1899 received a PhD from the latter institution as well as one from Yale (for his “Experimental Researches in Acoustic Space,” the English title of his Japanese dissertation).130

Snapshot George Trumbull Ladd Ladd (1842–1921) began his career as a preacher. He taught philosophy at Bowdoin (1879–81) and moral philosophy, metaphysics, and Psychology at Yale University (1881–1901). Influenced by Lotze (he translated his Outlines of Philosophy, 1877), he was interested in the relation between mental processes and the nervous system and founded Yale’s Psychology laboratory. Ladd visited Japan and Tokyo Imperial University (Ladd would visit Japan three times: 1892, 1899, and 1906–7131). Ladd, who received two awards from the Meiji state for his contributions to Japan, greatly influenced Psychology in that country. For instance, Nakajima Rikizō based his 1898 Shinri Satsuyō on Ladd’s 1898 Outlines of Descriptive Psychology, and Sasabe Akinobu (who studied overseas from 1909 to 1912) wrote Raddoshi Kijustu-teki Setsumei-teki Shinrigaku (A Descriptive Explanation of Ladd’s Psychology, 1901).132 In the main, though, his influence was organizational rather than theoretical. Some of his relevant works include: Elements of Physiological Psychology (1889, rewritten as Outlines of Physiological Psychology, 1890); Primer of Psychology (1894); Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory (1894); Philosophy of the Mind (1891); and Rare Days in Japan (1910).

Snapshot Edward Wheeler Scripture Scripture (1864–1945), who studied under Wundt, became a professor of experimental Psychology and director of the Psychological Laboratory at Yale University. His interests were in phonetics, acoustics, and speech. Due to institutional infighting (Scripture severely criticized Ladd’s nonexperimental approach), he resigned from Yale in 1903 and led a peripatetic existence, working at Columbia University, Carnegie Institution, University of Marburg, King’s College, and finally the University of Vienna. Two of his important works are Thinking, Feeling, Doing (1895) and The New Psychology (1897).

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

91

Snapshot James McKeen Cattell Cattell (1860–1944) studied under Rudolph Lotze (1817–81) and then with Wundt, who supervised his doctorate. At Cambridge he met Francis Galton, whose influence would shape his future research. Along with E. L. Thorndike, he built up at Columbia University what was probably the most successful Psychology laboratory in America for the time. He worked on reaction times, mental testing, and the measurement of individual differences. Cattell was the first person in the United States to hold the position of professor of the new discipline called Psychology (1898).

In June  1898, with official financial support, he was ordered by the Ministry of Education to head for University of Leipzig for two years. He travelled to Germany via England and the Netherlands. While at Leipzig, where he was a member (Mitglieder) of the Psychological Institute at Leipzig, he attended lectures by Wundt, Gustav Störring, and Otto Fischer and visited Ewald Hering’s physiological laboratory.133 He was also able to visit laboratories in Berlin, Zurich, Würzburg, and Gottingen and meet Oswald Külpe and Ernst Meumann. Matsumoto also visited the laboratory at Cambridge University.134 During these visits and meetings, which would prove indispensable for Matsumoto when he endeavored to develop a rigorous experimental Psychology in Japan, Matsumoto saw firsthand the state of art of the world’s Psychology laboratories.135

Snapshot Edward Bradford Titchener Titchener (1867–1927), a British researcher and graduate of Oxford University, studied under Wundt and taught at Cornell University. He investigated perception and strongly believed in the use of experimentation to enumerate the structure of consciousness (structuralism). In a process called “objective introspection,” he used a detailed log of a subject’s thoughts as well as biological responses to stimuli. Some of his works include: An Outline of Psychology (1896), Experimental Psychology (1901–5), Elementary Psychology of Feeling and Attention (1908), Experimental Psychology of the Thought Processes (1909), A Textbook of Psychology (1909–10), and Systematic Psychology: Prolegomena (1929).

Career and contributions Like Motora, Matsumoto supported and trained a number of students who would come to play crucial roles in the development of Japanese Psychology. About twenty students obtained doctorates in Psychology under him, and he taught Chiba Tanenari,

92

The History of Japanese Psychology

Tanaka Kanichi, Kuroda (né Arima) Genji, Narazaki Asatarō, Kuwata Yoshizō, Nogami Toshio, Imada Megumi, Ishigami Tokumon, and Ide Takashi (who later became professor of philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University).136 Matsumoto was an advocate of women’s education. He was also instrumental in the careers of Haraguchi (née Arai) Tsuruko, Kōra (née Wada) Tomi, and Hatano Isoko. In 1911 Matsumoto assisted in the establishment of Dōshisha Women’s University.137 Matsumoto assisted with the publications Shinri Kenkyū (Psychological Research), Shinri Sōsho (Psychological Series), and Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of Psychology; from Kyoto Imperial University) which became one of the predecessors of the Japanese Journal of Psychology (Shinrigaku Kenkyū; from Tokyo Imperial University). Under the leadership of Matsumoto, the Psychological Association (established in 1925) became the Japanese Psychological Association (JPA) in 1927.138 This marked a milestone in institutionalizing psychological knowledge in Japan. He became the first president of the JPA and led this organization until his death. In 1921 he became a member of the Imperial Academy in 1921. During his career, Matsumoto saw the need for applied Psychology and encouraged his students to work in industry, education, the military, aviation, criminal science, law, communications, and vocational guidance and thereby spread the tenets of Japan’s psychological revolution.139 Matsumoto, along with Motora, investigated writing and the differences reading Japanese monosyllabaries (katakana and hiragana). In 1926 he became director of the Child Research Institute at Japan Women’s University. In 1918 he carried out research for the Ministry of the Navy and in 1920 established the Aviation Research Institute at Tokyo Imperial University. Near the east gate of Takasaki Castle is a building in which the young Matsumoto was exposed to fine pieces of art, calligraphy, and armaments. These would apparently instill within him a love of art숯such as Chinese poetry and calligraphy숯that would lead to a lifelong interest in aesthetics and connoisseurship (later in his career he would become president of an art school). It would also lead him to write about aesthetics. Matsumoto, like a number of other researchers, had a great interest in the psychological aspects of aesthetics (note that Fechner, who is regarded as the founder of “experimental aesthetics,” wrote Vorschule der Aesthetik or Pre-School of Aesthetics, 1876),140 and between 1910 and 1913, Matsumoto, Nogami Toshio, and Chiba Tanenari published Psychology-related pieces in the magazine Geibun (Art and Literature).141 Matsumoto, who had effectively absorbed the practical know-how as well as the more theoretical knowledge required to build modern Psychology while overseas, was keenly aware that Japan had much ground to cover. When he returned to Japan in 1900, he set about with great enthusiasm to cultivate a scientific investigation of the mind. That same year he was appointed professor at the Tokyo Higher Normal School142 and began to lecture at Women’s Normal School143 on experimental Psychology (until 1906). In the following February he began to teach as an instructor at Tokyo Imperial University (until 1913). Meanwhile, in 1906 Matsumoto was appointed professor at Kyoto Imperial University (until 1913) and concurrently served as president of the Kyoto Metropolitan Arts and Crafts School.144 In 1908 (with Nogami Toshio) he established Japan’s second Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1913

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

93

he was appointed full professor at Tokyo Imperial University (from which he retired in 1926). In 1910 he also became president of the Kyōto Metropolitan School of Painting145 Altogether, he would spend five years as a lecturer at Tokyo Imperial University; seven years as a professor at Kyoto Imperial University; and thirteen years as a professor at Tokyo Imperial University. From 1926, he lectured at Nihon University, Nihon Joshi Daigakkō (later Nihon Joshi University),146 and Tokyo Bunrika University. He passed away on December 24, 1943.147 While overseas, Matsumoto became keenly aware of how far behind Japan was in terms of experimental Psychology and understood the role that laboratories would play in institutionalizing and developing Japanese Psychology. He brought back some apparatuses that would be kept at Tokyo Imperial University and, with encouragement and assistance from Motora, set up Japan’s full-fledged Psychology laboratory in 1903 (around this time a Psychology laboratory of 230 square meters was also set up at Tokyo Higher Normal School). In 1906 Matsumoto established Japan’s second Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University (357 square meters), though it was not completed until 1907. This laboratory consisted of a professor’s office, a seminar room, several rooms each devoted to specific experiments, a library, and a workshop. Eventually facilities for animals were set up. We should note that five out of eight laboratories set up during the 1920s were founded by students of Matsumoto.

Table 5.8 Table of contents of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Chinō Shinrigaku (The Psychology of Intelligence, 1929b) Chapter

Topic

1

The Trends of Modern Psychology

2

Qualitative Considerations of Intelligence Functions

3

Quantitative Considerations of Intelligence Functions

4

The Measurement of Specific Intelligence Abilities

5

The Method of Ranking in Psychology

6

The Measurement of General Intelligence

7

The Correlation of Horizontal Intelligence Functions

8

The Correlation of Vertical Intelligence Functions

9

The Improvement and Degeneration of Volk

10

The Course of Intelligence Work

11

The Elderly and Mental Activity

12

Crucial Moments in One’s Existence and Life

13

The Environment and Mental Functions

14

Psychological Research on Efficiency

15

Military Applications of Psychology

16

The World of Psychology in the East and West

94

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 5.9 Table of contents of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Shinrigaku Kōwa (Lectures on Psychology, 1924) Part

Chapter

Section

I.

(1) Two Major Currents of Psychology (2) Present-Day Psychology

a. Spiritual Psychology b. Empirical Psychology

The Development of Psychology

II. Mental Functions

III. Mental Temperament

(1) Three Approaches of Mental Functions (2) Cognition

a. b. c. d.

Introspective Psychology Physiological Psychology Behavioral Psychology Experimental and Gestalt Psychology

a. Sensation b. Stimulation of the Sense Organs c. The Relation of Perceptual Content and the Materials of Perception d. Concept (Presentation) e. Perception f. The Speed and Sharpness of Discrimination g. The Suitability of Perception h. The Accuracy of Memory i. The Combining of Complicated Mental j. Intelligence Tasks k. The Gestalt Perspective Related to Conscious Phenomena

(3) Emotions

a. Simple Emotions (Sensory Emotions) b. Emotions and Physiological Changes c. Compound Emotions (Conceptual Emotions) d. Feelings and Moods e. Sentiments f. Emotions and Daily Life

(4) Will

a. Operations of Internal Volition b. Movements of External Volition

(1) Variation in Temperament (2) Emotional and Volitional Temperament (3) Intelligence Temperament

a. The Conditions and Disposition of the Body b. Emotional Response and Disposition c. Volitional Temperament a. Types of Intelligence Predisposition b. Variations in Amounts of Intelligence Ability c. Problems Related to Intelligence Testing

Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō

95

Table 5.9 Table of contents of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Shinrigaku Kōwa (Lectures on Psychology, 1924) (continued) Part

IV. Social Mental Operations

V.

Applied Psychology

Chapter

Section

(4) Hereditary Intelligence

a. Intelligence Similarities of Parents and Children b. The Degree of Correlation of Intelligence of Siblings

(1) The Social Mind (2) Social Will

a. Impulsive Social Will b. Arbitrary Social Will c. Thoughtful Social Will

(3) Selectivity Activity of Social Will

a. b. c. d. e.

(4) The Relation between the Individual and Social Will

a. Selectivity and Weeding-Out b. Sensible Persons c. Those with Inferior Social Judgment d. Eccentrics e. Pioneers f. Sages and Saints g. The Subjective Opposition of the Individual and Social Will h. Total Consciousness that Newly Expresses Social Will i. The Development of Social Will

(1) Applied Psychology in the West

a. The Meaning of Applied Psychology b. Actual Applications of Psychology c. Overseas Applied Psychology d. Applied Psychology in the Military

(2) Applied Psychology in Japan

a. Applied Psychology in the Navy and Army b. Applied Psychology in Spinning Mills c. Applied Psychology in Communications and Legal Operations d. Vocational Guidance and Applied Psychology e. Applied Psychology in Education f. Applied Psychology in Aviation

Moral Social Consciousness Legal Social Consciousness Aesthetic Social Consciousness The Lineage of Values The Selectivity of the Social Mind f. A New Era of History

96

The History of Japanese Psychology

Theoretically, Matsumoto was inspired by Wundt, William James, and G. S. Hall, but in terms of concrete experimental methods, he derived his approach from E. W. Scripture and E. B. Titchener.148 He also borrowed methods from E. Kraepelin and testing techniques from G. M. Whipple, F. Galton, K. Pearson, and C. E. B. Spearman. Matsumoto is known for introducing Wundtian structuralism into Japan, which became the mainstream of experimental Psychology in Japan until the 1920s.149 His ideas on “psychokinematics” foreshadowed later developments in behaviorism.

The psychokinematics of Matsumoto Matatarō In the late nineteenth century, as interiorization highlighted the dualistic Great Split between the inner and outer worlds, some Psychologists attempted to explain the psychophysical divide. We have already seen Motora’s attempt. Matsumoto, who carried out chronometric studies of psychomotor activities, responded to this philosophical conundrum by developing what he called seishin dōsagaku or “mental– movement” (e.g., movements involving the eyes, vocal chords, and upper limbs). Seishin dōsagaku can be glossed as “psychokinematics,” which was the title of his 1914 book.150 Matsumoto, though influenced by Motora, who advocated mind–body monism (shinshin ichigen-ron) and the unity of consciousness and behavior, felt compelled to account for the mutual interaction between mind (consciousness) and body (activity).151 Though intuitively we all recognize that what is in psyche somehow becomes visible when we observe bodily movement, we still have not adequately theorized how psychological processes are manifested through physiology. In other words, though “subjective conscious phenomena” (shukan-teki ishiki genshō) occurs in the introscopic realm of introspection (naikan), we must be able to measure the “objective motions of the body” (shintai no kyakkan-teki dōsa).152 For Matsumoto, the aim of psychokinematics was to investigate the regularity of motions generated by mental powers under experimental conditions.153 Apparently, an experimental room (number 6) in the Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University was devoted to psychokinematic studies.154 Our direct experiences themselves do not constitute objects of science until they are generalized through references to certain relations. Matsumoto believed that three types of relations need to be acknowledged in order to bridge mental and bodily aspects while measuring the latter: (1) mental causality, (2) psychophysical causality, and (3) material causality. As a science, Psychology had to take into account consciousness proper, behavioral Psychology, and Psychology as a series of natural events. Though the basic premises of behaviorism had undoubtedly been circulating for some time, significantly Matsumoto’s thinking was a “harbinger of American behaviorism.”155

6

Intellectual Reactions: Spiritualizing the Psyche and Psychologizing Society

As in the Euro-American traditions, spiritualism and the search for cosmic energies that would unite scientific discoveries with the supernatural realm characterized Japan’s intellectual developments during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This topic is the focus of the chapter. Also explored are the “collectivized psyche” (i.e., crowds and mobs) and its relation to other social sciences (e.g., sociology, social Psychology), as well as how notions of Volk, the state, nation, psyche, and “Japaneseness” were interlinked.

Occultism, spiritualism, and cosmic energies Neo-vitalism and neo-animism The transformation of the cosmos from a realm teeming with vigorous life forces to a universe of mechanical laws illustrates the transition from a cosmic to a scopic worldview. Animating forces or vital principles have played a crucial role throughout the centuries in different cultures, but the emergence of a scientific worldview wrote the death certificate for vitalistic theories. Nevertheless, some thinkers would update this cosmological concept, in which animals, plants, people, and even things possessed an animating force or life-energy. This modern manifestation of vitalism, or the doctrine that living organisms possess a spiritual energy distinct from physicochemical or mechanist forces, has very ancient roots and has formed the basis of cosmologies, traditional healing practices, proto-scientific accounts, and currently, New Age pseudo-scientific theorizing (e.g., biofield and bioenergy therapies). Vitalism and similar notions, then, straddled the contradictory intellectual developments of the nineteenth century. Vitalism is actually implicated in a host of issues, but for our purposes we should note that it has a narrow and broad definition. The latter is the belief, opposed to mechanistic materialism,1 that the laws of physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life processes because living entities possess a nonphysical inner force or energy that gives them the property of life. The narrow definition concerns the idea that the functions of living organisms are due to a “vital principle” that is distinct from biochemical reactions. The vital principle might be conceived as a type of energy, vital energy, life force, life-giving “spark,” or soul that animated the realm of unseen, spiritual forces, and psychological abilities.

98

The History of Japanese Psychology

The vagaries of occultism and spiritualism are related to the decline of vitalism and animism as well as their rebirth via the application of a scientific patina during the nineteenth century. In this chapter I examine the “abnormal,” spiritualism, and hypnosis within the context of attempts to scientifically explain cosmic vitalizing and animating energies. Before exploring how these topics played out in Japan, some global and historical perspective is in order.

Vitalism and the development of Psychology Vitalism played a crucial role in proto-Psychology and psychological thinking. Some believed that the soul might in some way be related to the natural forces of heat, gravity, or electricity (cf. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein). Animal magnetism illustrates the naturalizing of what we call sociopsychological behavior and its relation to hypnosis. Franz Mesmer believed that he had discovered a new energy that was different from other natural forces, such as mineral magnetism, cosmic magnetism, and planetary magnetism. His magnétisme animal (animus comes from “breath”) only resided in animals and humans. As science made progress during the nineteenth century, vitalism lost its explanatory appeal. However, it would live on in subtle ways. For example, Reed notes that what was missing from a “traditional metaphysical” view of the soul was some force that could be understood along Newtonian lines. For some, such as FrançoisPierre-Gonthier Maine de Biran (1766–1824), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860), and Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841), this was the will. Reed labels those thinkers who theorized about what might be called neo-vitalism “natural metaphysicians,” or those who attempted to study the soul scientifically. This natural metaphysical worldview, though its time span was brief, influenced the first generation of scientific Psychologists. It was believed by some that perhaps “states of the soul might well be related to an as-yet-undiscovered physical force or form of force.” It was also theorized that “theorizing about such forces was inadequate to solve many of the important issues that would be raised.” Johannes Müller (1801–58) theorized about “nerve energies” and the universalist minister John Bovee Dods (1795–1872) spoke of “electrical [P]sychology.”2 Indeed, in his dissertation Motora uses “electricity” as a metaphor to explain “psychic forces.” As the nineteenth century wore on, conceiving the mind as a manifestation or collection of energies was reinforced by metaphors of power-generating machines borrowed from industrialization. However, we can wonder to what degree Freud, who used “psychic energy” (the energy by which the work of the personality is performed), was still thinking along vitalistic lines. Here we should mention the orgone (primordial cosmic energy) of the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich (1897–1957), and the philosopher and Psychologist Richard Müller-Freienfels (1882–1949) probably coined the term “Psychology of the life force.” In Japan, Sayings of the Dutch (1787) described a mechanism that absorbed sparks from the human body with curative effects. Later Udagawa Yōan (1798–1846) conducted medical experiments with the hope that electricity could treat maladies. Similar linkages were made between the spiritual and scientific,3 as evident in works such as Fukurai Tomokichi’s Seimei-shugi no Shinkō (The Faith of Vitalism, 1934) and Susukida Tsukasu’s Seimei Shinrigaku (Psychology of the Life Force, 1935).4

Intellectual Reactions

99

Snapshot Vitalism Vitalism or a belief in a vital energy can be understood broadly, or in more particular, concrete manifestations. Different cultures have their own versions: mana (Polynesian), prana (Indian), qi (Chinese), or ki (Japanese). In the Western tradition, the vitalistic principle has variously been associated with humours, spiritus, pneuma, aether (or ether), or quintessence. It was believed for centuries that each planet possessed its own “spirit” or “intelligence” (mens) which guided them through the heavens. Johannes Kepler’s Harmonie mundi (Harmony of the Universe, 1611) provided a brilliant arithmetical account of planetary motion but it also contained elements of mathematical mysticism. He used the term animae motrices (“moving spirits”), but he eventually replaced “soul” or “spirit” (anima) with “force” (vis). This was a step away from animism. Some form of vitalism is apparent in the foundations of chemistry, for example, the phlogiston theory of J. J. Becher (1635–82) and Georg Ernst Stahl (1660–1734): all flammable materials contain phlogiston, a substance released in burning. Even Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779–1848), a founder of modern chemistry who argued against the more mystical forms of vitalism, still saw a place for a regulative principle animating organisms. Vitalism also played a key role in early biology and medical thinking. Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1733–94) attempted to explain the development of the organism by the effects of a “vis essentialis.” The idea of an extra-physical vital force, even after its official death by the late nineteenth century at the hands of reductionist, materialist discoveries, still exerted a strong attraction, apparent in the an anti-mechanistic notion of élan vital (a creative force driving evolution) of the philosopher Henri Bergson (1859–1941).

The Psychology of the abnormal The more specialists, experts, and officialdom attempted to delineate what was psychologically “normal,” the more an entire array of odd and strange behaviors stood out. Even those with a strict rationalist, materialist, and empirical bent had to acknowledge that numerous psychological activities and events, despite their linkage by some to the supernatural, had to be scientifically confronted. Indeed, as early as 1890 Motora wrote on issues that fall under the rubric of abnormal Psychology,5 and in this context we might mention an influential student of Motora, Fukurai Tomokichi (1869–1952). He was interested in hypnosis and abnormal (ijō) and clinical (rinshō) Psychology. However, his enthusiastic pursuit of spiritualism would result in his loss of credibility among his colleagues and resignation from Tokyo Imperial University (see below). It needs to be stressed that for the most part, mainstream research Psychology focused on one mental state—waking consciousness. Nevertheless, some explorers of the psyche had an interest in the “pathological” and “transcendent.”6 For some, then, clinical Psychology was linked to anomalous phenomena such as “dissociation” (a term coined by William James to describe altered consciousness, multiple personality,

100

The History of Japanese Psychology

somnambulism, fugue states, trancing, and double consciousness). For others, an interest in clinical Psychology overlapped with the paranormal—clairvoyance, telepathy, mediums, ghosts and apparitions, dreams, visions, hallucinations, and particularly vivid, though otherwise normal, mental imagery (i.e., introceptive interiority). The Japanese term that indicated the extra- and out-of-the ordinary was hentai. This word can be translated as “abnormal,” but in actual usage it meant a state that was not normal in the sense of displaying variation (hensa) or anything out of the ordinary or unusual (ijō), whether negative (e.g., politically and morally questionable—riots, prostitution, juvenile delinquency) or positive (e.g., cases of genius or superior intelligence). It would also become associated with research on eugenics.7

Nakamura Kokyō and the abnormal An important theorist of the hentai was the doctor and writer Nakamura Kokyō (1881–1952).8 A graduate of Tokyo Imperial University, he attended Fukurai Tomokichi’s lectures on hypnotism and was acquainted with Kure Shūzō’s ideas on psychiatry. With a younger brother afflicted with mental illness, he had a personal stake in psychiatry and opened up a private psychiatric clinic. He was a vociferous critic of spiritualism and religious superstition. He established the semi-academic Nihon Seishin Igakkai (Japan Seishin Medical Society9) in 1902 and edited the semiacademic Hentai Shinri (Abnormal Psychology, established in 1917).10 He wrote about the first case of multiple personality (nijū jinkaku) in Japan in 1917, pursued an interest in hypnotism, and helped introduce psychoanalytic theory into Japan: for example, he translated Jung’s On Psychic Energy (Seimeiryoku no Hatten) in 1931 (see Table 6.1 for an idea of how he categorized abnormal psychological phenomena).11 Table 6.1 Various types of abnormal psychological phenomena according to Nakamura Kokyō Abnormal Psychological Phenomena Hentai Shinri Genshō 㧔ѐķȗƌղ Episodic Abnormal Phenomena Ichiji-teki Hentai Genshō ĂIJĀ㧔ѐķȗƌղ

Chronic Abnormal Phenomena Jizoku-teki Genshō ̯戌Ā㧔ѐķȗƌղ

Sleep and dreams Suimin oyobi Yume ǠߟӍ셎̿

Personality transformation Jinkaku Henkan ĉϜ㧒Җ

Optical illusions and hallucinations Sakkaku oyobi Genkaku ǹ漤Ӎ셎ߥ漤

Hysteria Hisuterī 솠솇솔솸쉯

Sound, color, and number synesthesia Shikichō oyobi Kazuzō ɡ⒣Ӎ셎̽Ɏ

Weak mindedness Seishin Hakujaku ̦̉‫ࠃށ‬

Hypnosis Saimin Genshō ௶ߟƌղ

Nervous exhaustion Shinkei Suijaku̦憞ෲࠃ

Automatisms Jidō Genshō Ģ㈿ƌղ

Epilepsy Seishin Tenkan ̦̉ዽ᪉

Spiritualism Kōshin Genshō̦ܰƌղ

Various mental disorders Shoshu no Seishinbyō-tō ดƝ셉̦̉ԇDž

Source: Satō (2002a: 521). See also Nakamura (1918).

Intellectual Reactions

101

A few words about the Japan Seishin Medical Society and its publication, Hentai Shinri, are in order. Membership in this society was not limited to doctors and Psychologists,12 and it attracted a variety of speakers, such as Morita Masatake, the founder of Morita Therapy.13 The journal attempted to take a “scientific” approach to psychotherapy and attacked “superstitions” and religious groups, particularly the new religion Ōmotokyō and its practice of spirit possession (chinkon kishin).14 Besides medical specialists and Psychologists, social critics and intellectuals also contributed to Hentai Shinri, which ran articles on criminal Psychology, psychopathology, sex crimes, sex education, and psychic phenomena.

Scientizing the soul In the techno-scientifically advancing world of the late nineteenth century, the discovery of new energies strongly suggested to some that psyche was but one manifestation of nature’s power. The idea that our minds are somehow related to the forces of the cosmos, of course, smacks of an introcosmic worldview and seems to be a type of mystical thinking to us (see below). But many believed that if science could “discover hitherto unknown forms for energy,” might it not “eventually find types of mental and spiritual energy even more subtle”?15 Consider electricity, which “occupied a space in the cultural imaginary that was once scientific, magic, entertaining and romantic, touted as a panacea for various diseases as the secret behind numerous inexplicable phenomena.”16 Motivating such thinking was the hope that beneath the manifold energies—whether physical or psychic—was an ultimate, unitary power that underlies all dualities. Here recall Motora’s shingen and note that Fukurai Tomokichi (see below) would theorize that ideas themselves (kannen) possess “life” (seimei).17 Psychology, with its roots in earlier religions traditions, not surprisingly became a “magnet for cultural anxieties about the hazy borderline between science and pseudoscience, between the natural and the supernatural.”18 For some, Psychology was a “secular theology.”19 The explosive popularity of spiritualism in Europe, America, and Japan illustrates this well. As it attempted to break free from the gravitational pull of physiology, physics, and pedagogy, Psychology also had to resist the pull of powerful religiously tainted speculations that found justification in mysterious powers. Interestingly, it is crucial to note that Psychology, metaphysics, paranormal, psychic, and psychophysics were often used interchangeably in the late nineteenth century. Indeed, Wundt probably changed his journal’s name, Psychologische Studien to Philosophische Studien, because of the aforementioned associations. Many embraced Psychology as the science that could analyze the mind in the same manner that physics, chemistry, astronomy, and physiology explored the natural realm. However, the mystical and mysterious still characterized interiorized conscious experience in a way that defied scientific naturalism. As Coon points out, between 1880 and 1920, Psychology battled the pseudo-scientific notions of spiritualism and other psychic phenomena.20 Nevertheless, a number of prominent personages, including Psychologists, believed that science could objectively answer questions about the afterlife and anomalous behavior. Spiritualist events, though they were deeply implicated in belief in God and

102

The History of Japanese Psychology

Christianity, also became a serious research target.21 In England, the Society for the Psychical Research (established in 1882) and its American branch (established in 1884) carried out studies on telepathy, clairvoyance, and spiritualistic phenomena. The British Psychological Review (established in 1883) was a “journal of spiritualism.” William James, G. S. Hall, James M. Baldwin, Henri Bergson,22 William McDougall,23 Christine Ladd-Franklin,24 George Fullerton,25 Alfred Russel Wallace,26 William Crookes,27 Oliver Joseph Lodge,28 Gustav Theodor Fechner, Simon Newcomb,29 and James H. Hyslop30 expressed varying degrees of interest in spiritualism. James helped found the American Society for Psychical Research in 1884. Though they themselves were skeptical, Joseph Jastrow,31 Münsterberg, and Titchener were spurred on by public interest to investigate mediums. However, Jastrow, along with G. S. Hall, vigorously opposed spiritualism, and Titchener was interested in the linkages between spiritualism and self-deception.32 Eventually, the majority of experimental Psychologists would distance themselves from what they regarded as superstition. A positive development from all the attention given to questionable “scientific research” were contributions that, like Jastrow’s work, investigated the difference between the real and easily imagined, such as Nogami Toshio’s Jojutsu to Meishin (Descriptions and Superstitions, 1912a).

Spiritualism in Japan Spiritualism (reikōjutsu) and occultism gained in popularity in the late nineteenth century and spread around the globe. Though beliefs centering on ghosts and shamanism had existed in Japan for centuries, such notions were reinforced at the turn of the twentieth century when foreign works on spiritualism began spreading among Japanese thinkers. Many attempted to wed the spiritual with the scientific. Indeed, A mixture of positivism and mysticism opened the curtains on the twentieth century. Spiritualism (shinreigaku), a science that tried to clarify and conduct experimentation on the phenomena of necromancy (kōreijutsu), clairvoyance (tōshi), spirit photography (nensha; literally “thought photography”) was attracting interest. For a while, it could be said that spiritualism was the science of the twentieth century.33

As in other parts of the world, well-regarded intellectuals and researchers were interested in the border area between science and the spiritual: for example, the Kyoto Imperial University psychiatrist Imamura Shinkichi (1874–1946) pursued studies in parapsychology. Yamakawa Kenjirō,34 who studied physics at Yale University and would become a well-known physicist in his own right as well as a historian, was intrigued by the possibility of psychic phenomena. Eventually, organizations such as Seishin Kenkyūkai (Society for the Study of the Spirit), Nihon Shinsōkai Japan (Society of the Mind), and Seishin Kagakusha (Spiritual Science Institute) were established. Meanwhile, works that relied heavily on American writings about spiritualism appeared, such as Hirai Kinzō’s Shinrei no Genshō (The Phenomenon of the Spiritual, 1909), Takahashi Gorō’s Shinrei Bannō-ron (The Theory of

Intellectual Reactions

103

the All-Powerful Spirit, 1910), and Hirata Motokichi’s Shinrei no Himitsu (The Mystery of Spiritualism, 1912).35 We should also mention Meiji University’s Oguma Toranosuke (1888–1978), who authored Shinrei Genshō no Mondai (Issues of Spiritual Phenomena, 1916) and Shinrei Genshō no Kagaku (The Science of Spiritual Phenomena, 1924). Many emerging religious movements of the time used the same idiom as science, and one word that illustrated the blurring of science, pseudo-science, and superstition was seishin, which can be translated, depending on the context, as mind, psyche, or spirit. As noted in the Prologue, seishin is used in a wide range of terms denoting the psychological, mental, medical, religious, or philosophical: for example, psychophysics (or spiritual physics), seishin butsurigaku; psychiatry, seishin byōgaku (literally, pathology of seishin);36 soul of the deceased (seirei); telepathy (seishin kannō); idealism (seishin shugi) and so on. As Yoshinaga points out, during the first several decades of the twentieth century the power of seishin to heal illness gave rise to a number of groups and movements, such as reikōjutsu (spirit communication), seishingaku (study of seishin), seishin chiryō (spiritual therapy), and seishin ryōhō (psychotherapy).37 A key figure in attempts to merge science with spirituality was the healer Kuwabara Toshirō (Tennen),38 who wrote Seishin Reidō (Spirit Movements, 1910) and founded Seishin Kenkyūkai (Society for the Study of the Spirit) in 1903. For him, seishin was a type of energy that lacked personality (similar, perhaps, to Motora’s shingen). Kuwabara believed that hypnotism could release the mind’s power and cure diseases. Another important figure was Asano Wasaburō.39 A graduate of Tokyo Imperial University and famous as a translator of Shakespeare, he authored Shinrei Kenkyū to Sono Kishu (Psychic Research and Its Direction, 1934). In 1922 he founded the Shinrei Kagaku Kenkyūkai (Society for Scientific Research on Psychic Phenomena). Here we might note that even Japanese navy officials employed Mizuno Yoshito (1936–45), who used the very questionable science of physiognomy to assess candidates for the naval aviation corps.

Spiritualizing the Psychological: Fukurai Tomokichi Originally from Gifu, Fukurai Tomokichi (1869–1952) graduated from Tokyo Imperial University’s Philosophy Department in 1899 and then studied under Motora as a graduate student (he did not study abroad).40 He received his doctorate from the same institution and wrote his dissertation on hypnotism. Fukurai played an important role in introducing William James into Japan41 and also wrote on education.42 From 1905 he began lecturing on abnormal Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University and three years later became an associate professor. Eventually, however, he turned his attention to spiritualism and related phenomena, particularly clairvoyance (tōshi, “seeing through,” or senrigan, “long-distance eye”). Imamura Shinkichi from Kyoto Imperial University worked together with Fukurai on these topics. Fukurai began working with the famous clairvoyant Mifune Chizuko,43 a woman he believed possessed special powers. In 1910, Fukurai performed a series of experiments with Mifune in front of a panel of distinguished scholars from different disciplines (Motora was absent). She appeared to be able to read messages written inside envelopes sealed in special lead containers.44 In 1911 more experiments were

104

The History of Japanese Psychology

held, though not all the experiments went well. The disappointing results apparently deeply troubled Mifune. The press took the involved academics to task for pursuing such questionable activities, and Mifune, apparently unable to deal with the negative publicity, committed suicide, as did Nagao Ikuko (1871‒1911), another clairvoyant with whom Fukurai had carried out experiments.45 Despite these tragedies and setbacks, Fukurai would later work with other clairvoyants, such as Takahashi Sadako and Mita Kōichi. Fukurai believed that Nagao could project the contents of her mind on a dry plate of photographic film. He described this as nensha or “thoughtography” (nen means sense or feeling and sha picture). In 1913 Furkurai published Tōshi to Nensha (Clairvoyance and Thoughtography, translated into English in 1931),46 which was heavily criticized due to its perceived lack of scientifically objective standards. Ten years later, Fukurai published Shinrei to Shimpi Sekai (Spirit and the Mysterious World, 1923). Many of Fukurai’s colleagues seriously doubted the existence of parapsychological phenomena and concluded that he was not practicing genuine science. Consequently, he was ordered to take a leave of absence in 1913 and was eventually forced to resign two years later. He became president of a woman’s school and then in 1926 took a position at Kōyasan University, a Buddhist institution. After his retirement in 1940, he continued to pursue his interest in the paranormal. Fukurai was the most famous Japanese researcher who specialized in abnormal Psychology. Given the prominent status of Tokyo Imperial University, Fukurai’s departure from this institution had grave consequences for the future development of Japan’s clinical and abnormal Psychology. His resignation left a vacuum, and with no one to replace him, Japan’s clinical and abnormal Psychology suffered a serious blow. The upshot was that before 1945 clinical Psychology in Japan became the purview of psychiatrists and nonacademic Psychologists.47

Hypnotism: Mystical phenomenon or healing practice? Researchers had a long menu of mysterious phenomena from which to choose: necromancy (kōshinjutsu), kokkuri (a form of divinization popular during the Meiji period),48 dream revelations and spirit dreams (reimu), fox possession,49 and parapsychology (chō-shinrigaku, e.g., extrasensory perception and psychokinesis).50 Not a few regarded these as events and experiences that could be objectively investigated. But one phenomenon, due to its ubiquity, stood out: hypnosis. What we today call hypnosis would over time follow two very different trajectories. The first can be characterized as spiritual and mystical. The second trajectory adopted a more scientific stance that recognized the therapeutic potential of briefly arresting interiority (currently many psychotherapeutic practices can be traced to hypnosis). As  elsewhere, the intellectual response to and treatment of hypnotism in Japan illustrates well how the “abnormal” was bifurcated between the supernatural and the clinical. In the first decade of the twentieth century, Japan experienced a “hypnosis boom,” suggesting that there too concerns about self-autonomy and self-

Intellectual Reactions

105

control were on the rise as the individual became increasingly interiorized. Numerous publications appeared about hypnotism (saiminjutsu), such as Fukurai Tomokichi’s Saimin Shinrigaku Gairon (Outline of the Psychology of Hypnotism, 1905) and Saimin Shinrigaku (The Psychology of Hypnotism, 1906). In 1904, Kokka Igaku Zasshi (National Journal of Medicine) published a special issue on hypnotism, with contributions by Kure Shizō. Relevant research groups were also established. These included the Teikoku Saimin Gakkai (Imperial Society for the Study of Hypnotism founded in 1902 by Yamaguchi Minosuke51), Nihon Saimin Tetsugakkai (Japanese Society for Hypnosis Philosophy), and the DaiNihon Saiminjutsu Kyōkai (Japanese Society for the Practice of Hypnotism). Additionally, numerous training academies were set up to teach hypnotic methods and therapies.52

Snapshot Hypnotism: Suspending Interiority Interest in this odd behavior during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries reflected new questions about self-autonomy and self-control. Physicians and mystics such as Van Helmont (1577–1683) and the Irishman Greatrakes (1629– 83) had associated faith healing, magic, and magnetism with hypnotism. However, it was greatly popularized as “animal magnetism” (and later as “mesmerism”) by the physician Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) and his disciple, Marquis de Puységur (1751–1825).53 During the nineteenth century, physicians such as John Elliotson (1791–1868) and James Esdaile (1808–59) had a great interest in mesmerism for therapeutic purposes. A more scientific approach to the topic was pursued by the coiner of “hypnotism,” James Braid (1795–1860). In France the most famous example was Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–93), who utilized hypnosis at the Salpêtrière in Paris in the early 1880s.54 This “Napoleon of the neuroses” gave demonstrations before his students in which he hypnotized hysterics. One of his observing students was Sigmund Freud. In America, Morton H. Prince (who was inspired by Charcot) used hypnotism and suggestion in his treatments of mental illness.

Crowds and mobs: The collectivized psyche Are social forces explained by psychological processes? Or are psychological processes explained by social forces? Is human nature best understood as something individualized or collectivized? Such fundamental questions have shaped the development of the social sciences, but just as crucially, they became implicated in nation-building projects and intellectual endeavors: To what degree could individuals be molded into loyal citizens? What were the most appropriate pedagogical procedures that ensured the production of patriotic sentiments? During the nineteenth century,

106

The History of Japanese Psychology

rapid industrialization, the formation of socioeconomic strata, class tensions, alienation, and rising nationalism motivated thinkers to conceptualize novel theories and utilize new idioms to both explain and justify economic, educational, and nationalizing undertakings.

The historical context In the following sections I sketch how the nascent social sciences in Japan theorized the pedagogical aspects of collectivity–individuality relations. The three fields of sociology, social Psychology, and Volk Psychology55 would each follow their own institutional trajectories, but they all focused on the collective facets of human nature. I begin with sociology and social Psychology and then examine Volk Psychology, but first, some historical context. As in other parts of the industrializing world, Japan witnessed economic dislocation resulting in massive rural-to-urban migration, strikes, and riots from the early days of the Meiji Restoration to the first several decades of the twentieth century. Added to this social instability were the increasing demands of individualism, socialism, feminism, and anarchism. These were often linked to a loss of tradition and what was special about Japan. From the elite perspective, the aforementioned “isms” were threatening movements that needed to be countered by officialdom. The response was an interlocking array of ideologies subsumed under an overarching national statism: identity (Volkisch nationalism), politics (obedience to government structures), and spirituality (a statized version of Shintōism that positioned the emperor at the head of the “family–nation”56).

Social Psychology and sociology in Japan Social Psychology As a term “social Psychology” is somewhat ambiguous since, depending on the context, it may mean the individual socio-collectivized, or the socio-collectivity individualized. In other words, for some society was in essence a psychological phenomenon, while for others the psychological inherently was a social phenomenon. In any case, as in other places Japan’s social Psychology (shakai shinrigaku) was rooted in Volk Psychology. Motora wrote on social Psychology as early as the mid1890s, though this work has a distinctive psychological feel; that is, Satō describes it as “Psychological social Psychology” (shinrigaku-teki shakaigaku shinrigaku).57 Important works of Japan’s social Psychology were Tokutani Toyonosuke’s Shakai Shinrigaku (Social Psychology, 1906), Higuchi Hideo’s Shakai Shinri no Kenkyū (Research on Social Psychology, 1908), and Ōmichi Waichi’s Shakai Shinrigaku (Social Psychology, 1913). Though his career mostly came after the war, it is worth mentioning Minami Hiroshi (1914–2001) because of his contributions to social Psychology. He graduated from Kyoto Imperial University in 1940 and then went to America and received his

Intellectual Reactions

107

doctorate from Cornell University in 1943. His dissertation was entitled “Systematical Social Psychology.”58 In 1947 he returned to Japan, and after teaching at Tokyo Shōka University and Japan Women’s University, he became a professor at Hitotsubashi University. After he retired from Hitotsubashi, he became a professor at Seijō University. Minami, besides making important contributions to social Psychology, also worked in physiological Psychology, depth Psychology, mass communications, and popular cultural studies.

Sociology Chronologically, sociology (shakaigaku) roughly followed the same trajectory as Psychology.59 The 1870s saw its incipient development숯shakaigaku was first used in the early 1870s숯and influence from intellectual crosscurrents.60 British works, especially those of Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill, were particularly significant during the early years and were frequently translated. German influences were also quite salient, while the impact of French and American thinkers less so. By the First World War, sociology was firmly institutionalized and in 1920 an independent Department of Sociology was established at Tokyo Imperial University (previously it was an appendage of the Department of Philosophy). Sociology took a step toward institutionality when the Shakai Gakkai (Society for Sociology) was set up in 1896. Two years later this organization became the Shakaigaku Kenkyūkai (Society for Sociological Studies; until 1904, but then revived in 1931). In 1913 Takabe Tongō founded the Nihon Shakai Gakuin (Japanese Institute of Sociology; until 1922), and in 1924, the Nihon Shakai Gakkai (Japan Sociological Society) was established, which is still in existence. The Japan Sociological Society’s first journal was the Shakaigaku Zasshi (Journal of Sociology; from 1924). This became Kikan Shakaigku (Quarterly Sociology) and Nenpō Shakaigaku (Annual Sociology). After the war, this was changed to Shakaigaku Kenkyū (Sociological Research), and after 1950 it was called Shakaigaku Hyōron (Sociological Review).61 Early on, Japanese sociologists, like their intellectual counterparts in the EuroAmerican orbit, were ideologically conservative and saw their task as maintaining social and political structures. For example, Toyama Masakazu and Ariga Nagao (1860–1921) introduced aspects of Spencer’s organic analogy of society. Indeed, organicism, which in its extreme version collectivized society so that it was endowed with a personality and consciousness, would inspire militarist nationalism in the early part of the twentieth century. Initially, early Japanese sociology was theoretically oriented and possessed a strong philosophical flavor. Criticized for being more European- rather than Japan-focused, it was also considered overly abstract, formal, and theoretical. Such a “pure” sociology ignored the concrete investigation of real-world problems. Eventually, however, certain researchers would turn their attention to practical topics and what might be called applied sociology, such as family structure, rural communities, and urban labor movements. After the First World War, German-inspired cultural sociology (Kultursoziologie) became popular as a reaction to formal sociology (formale

108

The History of Japanese Psychology

Soziologie). In an example of the power of word association, Japanese sociologists had to contend with negative associations linked to Japanese sociology (shakaigaku); that is, sounding similar, the latter was often confused with the anti-capitalist, revolutionary sentiments of socialism (shakai-shugi). After 1945, American influence became prominent and a more methodologically rigorous, empirically based type of sociology took center stage, while university courses and programs in sociology became popular.62

Key sociologists A number of individuals could be credited with institutionalizing sociology in Japan, but Toyama Masakazu, who occupied the first chair of sociology at Tokyo Imperial University from 1893, is often regarded as the father of Japanese sociology.63 Ernest Francisco Fenollosa (1853–1908) should also be cited. Invited to the Tokyo Imperial University by the American zoologist Edward S. Morse to teach political economy and philosophy, Fenollosa began to teach sociology from 1878. A Harvard graduate, Fenollosa became interested in Buddhism, studied ancient temples and shrines, and collected art treasures. He is credited with preserving Japanese art and would establish Tokyo Bijutsu Gakkō (The Art University of Tokyo). Ariga Nagao, a student of Fenollosa and Lorenz von Stein (1815–90), was a lawyer and legal adviser specializing in international law. He translated a number of foreign works and was the first Japanese to publish a systematic sociological treatise, called Shakaigaku (Sociology, 3 volumes; 1883). Influenced by Spencerian evolutionism, John Ferguson McLennan (1827–81), and Lewis H. Morgan (1818–81), his work justified Japanese statism and familism. Takebe Tongō (1871–1945), a pupil of Toyama whom he succeeded at Tokyo Imperial University, was the most influential sociologist in Japan from 1898 to 1922. He  combined Comte’s positivism and organicism with Confucian thought in an attempt to come up with an ideology suited to Japan. In 1913 Takebe founded the Japanese Institute of the Social Science (which was replaced by the Japan Sociological Society in 1924) and edited Sociological Miscellany (1906–12). He wrote Riron Futsū Shakaigaku (General Principles of Theoretical Sociology, 4 volumes; 1905–18). Yoneda Shōtarō (1873–1945), who studied under the sociologist Franklin Henry Giddings (1855–1931) at Columbia University and Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904), taught at Kyoto Imperial University. During the 1910s, Yoneda was responsible for introducing European sociological thought to Japan, through the works of, for example, Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) and Georg Simmel (1858–1918). Yoneda adopted a social psychological perspective and helped establish a German-inspired sociology until the end of the Second World War. A student of Yoneda, Takata Yasuma (1883–1972), has been called the “greatest sociologist Japan ever had.”64 In the opinion of Tominaga Kenichi, Takata’s impact would have been as great as Dukheim’s, Simmel’s, or Weber’s if his works had been translated into English. He supposedly authored over one hundred books and five hundred articles, but his best-known works were Shakaigaku Genri (Principles of Sociology, 1919) and Shakaigaku Gairon (Outline of Sociology, 1922). A graduate

Intellectual Reactions

109

of Kyoto Imperial University, he became an assistant professor of law at the same university in 1914. Eventually he would teach at Hiroshima Teachers College, Tokyo Commercial, and Kyūshū Imperial University. In 1929 he returned to Kyoto Imperial University as a professor of economics. In his later years he would teach at Osaka University (where he became head of the Economics Department), Osaka Prefecture and Ryūkoku University. Takata was influenced by Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936), and Robert Morrison MacIver (1882–1970). He found the “Psychologism” (what we would call social Psychology) of Tarde, Ribot, Simmel, and McDougall appealing, but eventually moved toward German formalism associated with Albert Vierkandt (1863–1953) and Leopold von Wiese (1876–1969). In addition to providing sociology with institutional autonomy, Takata also made considerable contributions to economic theory. Toda Teizō (1887–1955) studied at the University of Chicago, where he learned about survey methodologies being used in the United States at the time. He also spent time in Europe (1920–22). Toda would teach at the Tokyo Imperial University, where he adopted an empirical approach and analyzed statistics on the Japanese family structure and rural sociology, using census and other then-current and historical data. Important works by Toda include Kazoku no Kenkyū (Research on the Family, 1927) and Kazoku to Konin (Family and Marriage, 1934). Though he did not use “sociology” in the titles of his major works, Katō Hiroyuki (1836–1916) should be mentioned since he contributed to the development of Japanese social sciences in general. A specialist in European intellectual history, political theory, theory of the state, and law, he was originally attracted to French theories of the rights of man and natural law. However, his ideas took a decidedly authoritarian turn. He  advocated statist doctrines and used social Darwinism to justify Japan’s imperialistic nationalism and authored Kyōsha no kenri no Kyosō (The Struggle for the Rights of the Stronger, 1893) and Dōtōku Hōritsu Shinka no Ri (The Theory of Evolution of Morals and Laws, 1900).65 Katō played a crucial role in the formation of Japanese higher education, serving as president of Tokyo Imperial University and the Tokyo Academy. We should also mention Hozumi Nobushige (1856–1926), who studied in Great Britain and Germany (1876–81) and, after returning to Japan, taught German and comparative law at Tokyo Imperial University. In 1885 he helped found the English Law School (now Chūō University). He assisted in drafting Japan’s 1898 Civil Code and was the father of legal scholar Hozumi Shigetō (1883–1951) and brother to constitutional expert Hozumi Yatsuka (1860–1912). He authored Sosen Saishi to Nihon Hōritsu (Ancestor-Worship and Japanese Law, 1912) and The New Japanese Civil Code: As Material for the Study of Comparative Jurisprudence (1912).

Other sociologists Other sociologists that deserve mentioning include Kishimoto Nōbuta (1866–1928), who published Shakaigaku (Sociology, 1900), and Higuchi Ryūkyō (1875−1929), a sociologist who studied at Tokyo Imperial University and published a history of sociological theories (1911). Kobayashi Iku (1881–1933) wrote Shakai Shinrigaku

110

The History of Japanese Psychology

(Social Psychology, 1909), Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Studies in Social Psychology, 1910), and General Sociology (1923), a work on applied sociology. Matsumoto Junichirō (1893–1947) authored Shakaigaku Yōkō (Outlines of Sociology, 1934) and saw a need to synthesize formal and cultural sociology into what he would call “general sociology.” Aruga Kizaemon (1897–1979) worked in the area of rural sociology and kinship. He linked his findings with previous folklore studies and attempted to clarify the conditions of social strata in prewar Japan. Shimmei Masamichi (1898–1984) attempted to combine Matsumoto Junichirō’s thinking with that of Simmel and Karl Mannheim. In 1932 he wrote Chishiki Shakaigaku no Shosō (The Various Phases of the Sociology of Knowledge). He also introduced American sociological thought into Japan and in 1944 compiled Shakaigaku Jiten (Dictionary of Social Sciences). Seki Eikichi (1900–39) is associated with cultural sociology, which, given the Depression of the 1930s, became popular for its attention to economic problems of the day. He wrote Bunka Shakaigaku Gairon (Outline of Cultural Sociology, 1929).

Grounding the nationalist collectivity in the psyche Despite the conceptual differences among sociology, social Psychology, and Volk Psychology, they shared a focus on the collective. But significantly, in the case of Volk Psychology, a more explicit attempt was made to envision—as well as conceptualize for practical pedagogical purposes tied to statism—the collectivity as an organic whole, united by vague notions of spirit, custom, historical trajectory, or in some cases, “blood.” In the German-speaking areas, a key term that was pressed into service was Geist (“mind” or “spirit”). Strongly colored by German romanticism, this notion condensed into an indefinable essence the culture, historical heritage, and political ambitions of a Volk. It overlapped in meaning with Volksseele (“soul of a people”) and Gesammtgeist (“collective mind”).

The Psychology of the Volk An important philosopher and educator who would play a crucial role in linking the Volk, their unification, pedagogy, and Psychology in Japan was Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841).66 He conceived psychological processes as an array of competing mental entities (Vorstellungen).67 The latter term (singular: Vorstellung) is often translated as idea, but it denotes the imagery or introceptive aspect of interiorization, or as something presented to the mind. For Herbart, ideas possessed force (Kraft), denoting in this context intensity or clearness. Ideas could suppress the weaker ones, submerging them below the threshold of consciousness.68 Significantly for the development of a sociological understanding of the individual psyche, Herbart regarded these contending ideas as corresponding to competing social ideas. By disciplining the individual student’s mind or introcosm (especially its volitional aspects), the larger social functionings (marcocosm) could also be adjusted and ordered. Herbart would influence the work of Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal,69 who greatly contributed to the emergence of a collectivized Psychology or Völkerpsychologie

Intellectual Reactions

111

(the latter term might be translated as ethnocultural or ethnonational Psychology, but for our purposes, in order to maintain an earlier sense of the German Volk, I will gloss it as Volk Psychology). Lazarus and Steinthal are considered the founders of Völkerpsychologie (folk Psychology) that regarded the folk mind or spirit (Volksgeist) as a topic of inquiry. Geist was to be discovered in language, literature, poetry, songs, and folktales.70 The ideas of Lazarus and Steinthal found expression in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft (Journal for Cultural Psychology and Linguistic Science, 1860–90), whose articles constituted the “canonical texts.”71 Another important figure was Gustav A. Lindner,72 who was also influenced by Herbart. He  contended that individuality developed from the ethnocultural or national collectivity.

Snapshot Johann Friedrich Herbart J. F. Herbart (1776–1841), an educational theorist influenced by Leibniz, wrote Lehrbuch der Psychologie (1816; English translation: Textbook in Psychology, 1891) and Psychologie als Wissenschaft (Psychology as Science, 1824–25). Herbart attempted to define Psychology, but he did so in a very circumscribed manner. His “mechanics of the mind” held that ideas obeyed Newtonian laws and interact just as physical particles do. However, Psychology was only scientific as broadly understood at the time. It could be mathematical, but like Kant, he maintained that it could never be experimental in the modern scientific sense. Indeed, for Herbart metaphysics and Psychology were the same; that is, the fact that the qualities of interiority were difficult to grasp indicated that they were beyond complete human comprehension. Interestingly, given Herbart’s opinion that Psychology could never be experimental, he still exerted an influence and prepared the way for an empirical and experimental-based physiological Psychology. Indeed, as biology and medicine made progress during the 1800s, for some it seemed as if Psychology might develop into a branch of physiology.73 “Herbart represents, therefore, a transition from the pure speculation of Kant and Fichte and Hegel to the antimetaphysical experimentalism of Fechner and Wundt and Helmholtz.”74 What is important for our purposes is Herbart’s discussion of the threshold or “limen” of consciousness; that is, the qualities of conscious interiority were gradually coming into intellectual focus as thinkers realized what it was not, that is, nonconscious cognition.

Another important influence on Japanese thinkers was the collectivist ethos of French thought promoted by Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904), a social Psychologist who theorized that small interactions among individuals generated a “group mind” through the key processes of imitation and innovation (the French concern with the deviant is apparent in Tarde’s interest in criminology). The social Psychologist and amateur physicist Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931) continued Tarde’s work in “herd behavior” and crowd Psychology. Le Bon wrote about national traits and racial superiority and his ideas on “the soul of peoples” (l’âme des peuples) collectivized entire groups. He is best known for his La psychologie des foules (1895; English translation The Crowd: A Study of the

112

The History of Japanese Psychology

Popular Mind, 1896). His 1895 Lois Psychologique de l’évolution des peoples, which like similar works of the time are racist by the standards of today’s sensibilities, was translated into Japanese by Tsukahara Masatsugu75 (Rubon-shi Minzoku Shinrigaku; literally, Le Bon’s Volk Psychology, 1900) and Maeda Chōta (Minzoku Hatten no Shinri; literally, The Psychology of the Development of Peoples, 1910). The Kokumin Kyōiku Gakkai (Society for National Education) produced its own version in 1900: Kokumin Shinrigaku (National Psychology). Endō Ryūkichi (1874–1946) represents a new approach that began to exert an influence in Japanese sociology during the 1910s: a “psychological social Psychology” that saw society as a mere function of the innate psychic equipment of the individual. Originally influenced by organicism, Endō became interested in the theories of Giddings, Simmel, Durkheim, and Tarde. Called the “Japanese Tarde,” Endō attempted to explain society as a “willed association of human beings” or as a manifestation of “social mentality.” Influenced by theorists such as Linder, in his 1912 book Nihon Ga (The Japanese Self) Endō rooted and justified Japan’s ethnocultural identity in social psychological concepts. He also authored Kinsei Shakaigaku (Modern Sociology, 1907) and Nihon Shakai no Hattatsu oyobi Shisō no Hensen (The Development of Japanese Society and the Transformation of Its Social Thought, 1904). Another important researcher on Volk and social Psychology was Kuwata Yoshizō (1882–1967). He graduated in 1905 from Tokyo Imperial University, where he specialized in Psychology. His graduation thesis investigated facial expressions and gestures. Kuwata worked as an assistant at his alma mater and then, at his own expense, traveled to Leipzig, where for two years he worked under Wundt (1910–12). In 1921 he received his doctorate from Tokyo Imperial University. His dissertation examined belief in spirits and ancestor worship (he had already published a book on this topic in 1916—Reikon Shinkō to Sosen Sūhai). After Kuwata returned to Japan, he began teaching at Tokyo Imperial University and obtained full professorship in 1926. In 1941 he became first director of the Institute of Oriental Culture (Tōyō Kenkyūjo) at Tokyo Imperial University. After he retired from Tokyo Imperial University in 1943, he joined the faculty at Osaka University. Among some of his key publications are Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku (The Volk Psychology of Wundt, 1918), Shūkyō Shinri (The Psychology of Religion, 1924), and Shinrigaku (1927).

Snapshot Wundt’s Volk Psychology Besides being credited as founding modern Psychology, Wilhelm Wundt later in his career also wrote on what we might call ethnocultural or ethnonational Psychology. He considered language, myth, and custom fundamental constituents of the “mind of a people” (Volksseele). For Wundt, the “tools and triumphs of the laboratory are judged to be utterly irrelevant to a comprehensive understanding of human culture and its origins and purposes.”76 His massive Volk Psychology: An Investigation of the Developmental Laws of Language, Myth

Intellectual Reactions

113

and Customs (Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte, 1900–20) is divided into ten volumes: The first two volumes focus on language, three on the arts, four through six on myth and religion, seven and eight on social organization, nine on law, and ten on culture and history. Wundt listed “four ages” of humankind’s historical development: (1) “primitive man,” (2) the “totemic age,” (3) “gods and heroes,” and (4) the present age. Wundt investigated a stunning array of ethnographic and social psychological materials, believing that certain aspects of the human condition, such as “higher mental processes,” could not be studied through experimental methods. Like the social sciences in general, Wundt in the end was torn between viewing Psychology as a Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and a Geisteswissenschaft (science of the human spirit in all its complexity).77

Linking state, nation, and psyche In Japan, for purposes of national unification and ethnocultural identity-construction, Volksgeist took various incarnations: minzoku seishin, minzoku-shin (Volk spirit or mind), kokumin seishin, and Yamatogokoro (Japanese spirit). More impartial sociological concepts, such as shakai ishiki (social consciousness) and shakai shin-i (social mind),78 were cast in very particularistic, ethnocultural terms. Here we should note that the idea that the Japanese, like other peoples, possessed an essentialist Volk spirit (minzoku seishin) shaped the discourses of the social sciences, pedagogy, morality, politics, and the arts. For example, the literary critic Takayama Chogyū79 viewed minzoku seishin as part of his advocacy of nippon-shugi (Japanism).

The historical context of institutionalizing and instilling Japaneseness The late 1870s and early 1880s saw the beginning of a reaction against what was called “excess Westernization.” This “conservative indigenization”80 was a response to social developments that were considered somehow “too democratic” and “not Japanese enough.” Indeed, many officials were alarmed by the loss of central power when the Education System Order was abolished and disparagingly referred to the 1879 Education Order as the “Liberal Education Order.” It was decided that general guidance was to be left to the Department of Education, but operational responsibility was decentralized and left to local officials. But the perception was that local areas had been granted too much autonomy under this scheme, and some officials argued that American-style decentralization was not suited to Japanese conditions and advocated arrangements inspired by French and German models. The result was the Education Order, proclaimed on December  28, 1880. It emphasized state control and centralization over education, specifically by increasing the powers of the secretary of education and the prefectural governors. Local educational committeepersons were no longer elected, but rather chosen by the prefectural governor according to central regulations from among a group selected by the municipalities. As for curriculum, the study of an increasing

114

The History of Japanese Psychology

and decidedly Japanese-style moral education (shūshin) was stressed.81 Further regulations, such as the 1885 Education Order, the 1886 Elementary School Order, the 1886 Middle School Order, and the 1886 Imperial University Order, tightened central control, and in 1885, Mori Arinori would dismantle the local education committees in order to increase centralization. In 1878, the emperor went on an inspection tour and investigated local educational conditions. Motoda Nagazane (1818–91), a lecturer in Chinese classics attached to the Imperial House who would become a key actor in the nativist movement, was entrusted with summarizing the emperor’s views. He wrote the Imperial Will on the Great Principles of Education (Kyōgaku Seishi), which was divided into two parts: “General Observations on Education” (Kyōgaku Taishi) and “Two Provisions for the Conduct of Elementary Education” (Shōgaku Jōmoku Niken). The first part discussed the significance of loyalty and filial piety in the Japanese educational tradition and argued that the populace had accepted Western technical knowledge too readily, thereby eroding Japanese values and ethics. The second part stated that it was the responsibility of the authorities to instill the appropriate values as thoroughly as possible. The establishment of the Editorial Bureau in March 1880 indicates how serious the Department of Education viewed moral education, which became key to the entire state-ordained curriculum. This bureau published and distributed the Confucian-inspired “Moral Education for Elementary Schools” (Shōgaku Shūshin-kun) edited by Nishimura Shigeki (1828– 1902). The Department also began to publish “General Guidelines for the Course of Study for Middle Schools” (Chūgakkō Kyōsoku Taikō) (July  1881), “General Guidelines for the Course of Study for Normal Schools” (Shihangakkō Kyōsoku Taikō) (August 1881), “Ethical Guide for Elementary School Teachers” (June 1881), and “Regulations for Examining the Conduct of School Teachers” (July  1881). The latter two works reminded educators—who from 1876 were regarded as state officials and called “sacred teachers” (seishoku kyōshi)—of their crucial role in fostering a “spirit of reverence for the Emperor and love of the country” (sonnō aikoku). Additionally, Motoda edited “Essentials of Primary Instruction” (Yōgaku Kōyō), which was used as a sort of catechism for teaching moral principles in schools. These publications and policies eventually culminated in the “Imperial Rescript on Education” (Kyōiku ni Kan Suru Chokugo or Kyōiku Chokugo) of October 30, 1890.82 The point of this document is clear, with admonishments such as “should emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the State.” The fact that the “Imperial Rescript on Education” was modeled after the 1882 “Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors” attests to the elite’s view that students—that is, imperial subjects trained to work hard, keep public order, and respect authority— were as valuable to Japan’s defense as were its military personnel and required psycho-socialization. The Confucian moralism, traditionalism, and “loyalty to the Emperor and patriotism” (chūkun aikoku) were attempts to bury ethnonationalist and statist notions in deep psycho-ideological foundations. The state core was able to colonize and shape the societal sphere—the family (e.g., filial piety and gender distinctions), work (e.g., employer–employee hierarchies), and public displays of devotion

Intellectual Reactions

115

(e.g., State Shinto)—with its agendas. The state, by making itself ubiquitous and omnipresent, ensured that its projects grew in strength. As for classroom practices, the German Herbartian model would have a great impact. This was a “five-step process, which appealed to teachers seeking the most efficient means of teaching systematically a great deal of information and factual knowledge in the shortest possible time.”83

7

Organizational Institutionalization: Professionalization, Applications, and Measuring the Mind

The expansion of departments, scholarly associations, and journals is a solid metric of professional and organizational institutionalization. Also, laboratories and their equipment drove the objectification of psyche; this greatly propelled the transition from a moral-cosmic to a techno-scopic perspective. This is the focus of this chapter. The work of educational psychologists, and how they attempted to cultivate the minds of youth, is also detailed, as are attempts to measure and quantify the mind through mental testing. The development of industrial Psychology is also investigated.

Objectifying the psyche: The role of laboratories The official birth of laboratory-oriented Psychology Scientific, experimental Psychology is often said to have begun in 1879, the year in which Wundt’s very productive laboratory was inaugurated in Leipzig.1 This anniversary is misleading for different reasons. For one thing, Wundtian theories and experimental methods (and others in the decade following 1879) had been developed earlier by the associationists and natural metaphysicians. Nevertheless, the late 1870s marked two transitions—“lab and lectern”—for Psychology. The first was institutional. From around 1880s onward Psychology increasingly became part of the academic landscape. The second transition involved a narrowing of research interests, making Psychology more “scientific” by limiting methods to “matters of measurement.”2 Before exploring how laboratory-centered Psychology developed around the world and in Japan, I treat changes in how the world was “visualized” and measured. As in tracing the trajectory of other sciences, it is necessary to appreciate the role of the tools for knowledge production, that is, laboratory equipment.3 In order to measure and make visible invisible mental processes, various experiments would eventually be carried out: two-point limen tests;4 reaction time experiments; galvanic skin reaction (GSR); and electrodermal activity (EDR). In the early stages of Psychology, an array of tools was used in the practice of experimentation: Hipp’s chronoscope; Kymograph (which measures velocities of moving structures in an

118

The History of Japanese Psychology

image time series); tuning forks; pneumograph;5 Zwaardemaker olfactometer;6 and other chronometrical instruments (e.g., Hipp’s chronometer).7

From the introcosmic to the introscopic Changes in definitions of the macro- or microcosm led to reconfigurations of spatiality in both its literal (seeable) and imaginary (introspectable) senses. During the premodern cosmic period, the introcosm was not an autonomous realm but was intertwined in the macro–micro cosmology. The introcosm was often regarded as an epiphenomenon of a deeper reality and was not an order of reality in its own right. However it may have been conceived, the introcosm was certainly not something that could be measured, quantified and described in a scientific manner. One aspect of modernity, then, concerns how the introcosm has been clearly segregated from the micro- and the macrocosm. Many processes led to this separation (e.g., the subject–object divide), but it should be noted that in the same way that technological innovations transformed alchemy into chemistry and astrology into astronomy, the invention and refining of instruments assisted in no small way the development of Psychology.

From a moral-cosmic to a techno-scopic perspective Technological innovations, such as the telescope and microscope, transformed a cosmic vision into scopic perceptions. A fragmentation of knowledge resulted in the scholarly specialties with which we are familiar. The centripetal forces of such specialization would pull apart the prescientific cosmic fabric and specific knowledge forms would be applied to different realms. Techno-science and rapidly accumulated knowledge would increasingly be utilized in attempts to improve society. The scientific revolution would set in motion ideological processes that would gradually lead to a demoralization of the human condition and a mathematicalized, objective worldview. Specifically for our purposes, certain technological devices used for measurement would drive the transition from a premodern religio-philosophical introcosm to a modern scientific introscopic perspective. This is why the development of Psychology paralleled experimental physiology and physics: the same devices used in the assessment of natural processes would be applied to “see” psychological interiority.8

The new visuality of the inward turn In the first part of the 1800s, physicists, physiologists, and even philosophers conducted experiments, but not all of these exercises would necessarily be considered experimental by the strict standards of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, important scientific endeavors were carried out that laid important foundations: in 1820 the German astronomer Fredrich Bessel (1786–1846) investigated reaction time by comparing observations of the transits of stars with those of another astronomer;

Organizational Institutionalization

119

Johannes Müller researched the specific energies of nerves; E.H. Weber worked on “just noticeable differences” in stimulation; and G.T. Fechner did the first psychophysical experimentation, leading to the 1860 Weber–Fechner Law (the intensity of a sensation is proportional to the logarithm of the strength of the stimulus).

Psyche in the laboratory In 1875 Wundt set up a small room for experiments to demonstrate while lecturing during his seminar “Psychological Practicum” (Psychologishce Ubungen) at the University of Leipzig. Around the same time William James set up a room for the same purpose at Harvard University. In 1879 Wundt established the first psychological laboratory dedicated to original research. Conventional histories of Psychology assign an almost mythical meaning to 1879; the image of the laboratory acquired a special meaning, its use segregating Psychology from philosophy during the late nineteenth century.9 In this sense laboratories allowed the visualizing of psyche in a new way, thereby marking the birth of modern research Psychology. Before Wundt’s laboratory, those investigating psychological-related matters worked as solitary individuals; after 1879 they began to form a scholarly community. Those who studied in Wundt’s laboratory comprise a veritable who’s-who list of early Psychology: for example, G. Stanley Hall; James M. Cattell; Albert Michotte; Edward Pace; Oswald Külpe10; Edward B. Titchener; Emil Kraepelin; Lightner Witmer; Matsumoto Matatarō; Hugo Munsterberg; and Charles Spearman. By 1900, fortyone laboratories had been founded in the United States, many by individuals who had studied under either Wundt or Hall. By 1900 only about fifty laboratories existed worldwide, thereby making the United States the leader in psychological laboratory research (see Appendix 5).11

Snapshot Institutionalizing the introscopic by m easuring psyche In many ways the 1800s was the century of methodology. This had an impact on conceptions of psyche which was coming under increasing scrutiny as an entity that could be “seen” (i.e., measured) in new ways. For example, pioneers of the psyche increasingly relied on mathematics in proto-psychological and psychological research. Gustav Fechner used tables and Hermann Ebbinghaus12 and the educational psychologist Edward L. Thorndike13 utilized graphs (1860– 90 might be considered the “golden era of graphics”).14 Particularly in America, Psychology sought the status of a natural science and the relation between mind and brain became problematized as an issue of measurement. This would take different forms, ranging from Hall’s use of questionnaires and a biologistic emphasis in his thinking on evolution, to James M. Cattell’s positivistic

120

The History of Japanese Psychology

measurement using brass instruments, to Hugo Münsterberg’s experimentation mixed with social idealism.15 Related to the more scopic understanding of psyche was the use of mechanical “brass instruments” in the latter half of the nineteenth century. These were often clockwork-drive or electromagnetic devices. They could be, for that time, relatively sophisticated. For example, Edmund C. Sanford’s16 vernier chronoscope was accurate to 1/100th of a second and the Hipp chronoscope, an electromechanically controlled clockwork timer, was accurate to 1/1000th of a second. Such devices were largely German made, though by the late 1890s, some American firms, employing “mechanicians,” began to manufacture them. Associated with the “new Psychology,” these instruments were mostly derived from other experimental devices used in physiology and physics. However, they were put to different uses: to relate audition, touch, reaction time, and vision to interiority. Experimental instruments were employed not just for scientific research but also in classroom demonstrations and undergraduate instructional laboratories. Indeed, what constitutes a “laboratory” is problematic, since many “laboratories” were used for teaching students and demonstration purposes and were not necessarily well equipped. In 1884 Edmund C. Sanford taught a course in experimental Psychology at Clark University and laboratories were beginning to be used for teaching purposes (rather than just pure research). By around 1900, courses in experimental Psychology had become relatively common. Meanwhile, works that explicitly detailed methods for a scientific Psychology appeared, such as Titchener’s 1900 pamphlet “The Psychological Laboratory of Cornell University” and his four-volume Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Practice (1901–5), which was a standard text well into the 1930s.17 In 1890 Ladd published his Outlines of Physiological Psychology, an important textbook for experimental Psychology. Though Wundt’s Principles of Physiological Psychology (1874) might be considered the first textbook in experimental Psychology, the aforementioned works clearly recognized the import of the “new Psychology.”

Psychological experimentation in Japan By the middle of the Meiji period (1868–1912), “Psychological research methods could be divided into three types: speculation, observation and testing.” Omi points out that “speculation” (shiben) and “testing” (shiken)18 were similar in meaning to “introspection” (naishō) and “experimentation” (jikken), respectively.19 The term that would eventually be used for experiment was jikken, which had a broader meaning than today and meant “experience” or “observation,” and denoted actual observations or “real experience” (jittaiken).20 What is important for our purposes is how the “existence of mind (kokoro) became clarified as neither immaterial nor invisible. It was a physical ‘thing with form.’” Mind became a “scientific object,”21 an entity in and of itself requiring envisioning within the space of the laboratory.

Organizational Institutionalization

121

Japan’s first Psychology laboratory Though Motora was utilizing one or two rooms for experiments by 1890, it was not until 1903 that a psychological laboratory was formally established at Tokyo Imperial University (an old building used by researchers in pathology was renovated and converted into laboratory).22 Motora was greatly aided by his student Matsumoto Matatarō in these endeavors, whose learning experiences at Yale and Leipzig were indispensable for introducing concrete research methods and experimentation into Japan.23 Incidentally, in 1908 Matsumoto would establish Japan’s second psychological laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1910, the Tokyo Imperial University published the Illustrated Picture Book of Instrumentation in Experimental Psychology, which consisted of thirty-seven photos of psychological experiments.24 The new laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University had six experimental rooms (two chronometry rooms, dark room, vision room, audition room, and a sound-proof room). It also had an apparatus room, a lecture room, a workshop, a library, and a professor’s office.25 The laboratory was originally called a “psychophysical laboratory” (seishin butsurigaku jikkenshitsu), revealing the legacy of psychophysics (such as the Weber–Fechner law).26 Experiments investigated perception (the majority), attention, affection, fatigue, reading, writing, memory, and motor tasks.27 Emphasis appears to have been on experiments that concerned visuality.28 By 1912 forty-five students had finished Motora’s program of experimental training.29 Psychology, “possessed of its own energy, spontaneously self-expanded and disseminated from the inside out. At the same time, external social factors pressured the new Psychology to take the stage.”30 This development, covering roughly the first several decades of the twentieth century, is reflected in the number of psychological seminar rooms (kenkyūshitsu) and laboratories (jikkenshitsu)31 that increased dramatically throughout Japan.32 During the 1920s eight psychological laboratories were established: Kansei Gakuin (1922, Kobe); Tōhoku Imperial University (1923, Sendai); Nihon University (1923, Tokyo); Kyūshū Imperial University (1927, Fukuoka); Keio University (1926, Tokyo); Doshisha University (1927, Kyoto); Tokyo Bunrika University (1929; now Tsukuba University); and Hiroshima University (1929) (see Table  7.1). We should note that the founders of five out of eight were students of Matsumoto Matatarō. 33

Professionalization: Associations, journals, and societal impact Academic journals and scholarly societies The establishment of scholarly journals, publications, and bulletins, as well as professional associations and societies, is a key measure of disciplinary institutionalization. They act as conduits and conveyors of developments in the field, interlinking the producers

122

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 7.1 Psychology laboratories established in Japan: 1904−34 University

Year research room † established

Year experimental Founders laboratory ‡ established

Alma mater

Imperial Universities Tōkyō Imperial

1904

1903

Motora Yūjirō & Matsumoto Matatarō

Johns Hopkins Tōkyō Imperial

Kyōto Imperial

1906

1908

Matsumoto Matatarō & Nogami Toshio

Tōkyō Imperial Tōkyō Imperial

Tōhoku Imperial 1923

1926

Chiba Tanenari & Ōwaki Yoshikazu

Kyōto Imperial Kyōto Imperial

Kyūshū Imperial 1925

1927

Sakuma Kanae & Yatabe Tatsurō

Tōkyō Imperial Tōkyō Imperial

Keijō Imperial

1926

1927

Hayami Hiroshi & Kuroda Ryō+

Tōkyō Imperial Tōkyō Imperial

Taihoku Imperial 1928

1933

Rikimaru Jien & Iinuma Ryuen

Tōkyō Imperial Tōkyō Imperial

State-Established Universities Tōkyō Bunrika

1929

Before 1929

Tanaka Kanichi, Kyōto Imperial Narasaki Asatarō & Kyōto Imperial Takemasa Tarō Tōkyō Imperial

Hiroshima Bunrika

1920

1929

Kubo Yoshihide & Koga Yukiyoshi

Tōkyō Imperial Tōkyō Imperial

Private Universities Keiō Giku

1926

1926

Kawai Teiichi & Yokoyama Matsusaburō

Keiō Gijuku Colorado

Waseda

1932

1928

Kaneko Umaji & Akamatsu Pōro

Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō Waseda

Hōsei

1924

1927

Kido Mantarō

Tōkyō Imperial +

Nihon

1924

Before 1923

Watanabe Tōru

Dōshisha

1927

1927

Wada Rinkuma & Motomiya Yahē

Tōkyō Imperial Berlin

Rikkyō

1927

1932

Okabe Yatarō+ & Ushijima Yoshitomo+

Tōkyō Imperial Tōkyō Imperial

Kansei Gakuin

1934

1923

Imada Megumi

Tōkyō Imperial

Source: Suzuki and Takasuna (1997: 209) and Satō (2002a: 305, 330). With my modifications. †Jikkenshitsu. ‡Kenkyushitsu. +All researchers listed received training overseas, except those marked by a plus sign.

Tōkyō Imperial

Organizational Institutionalization

123

and consumers of new knowledge. Such organizations and their publications standardized scientific terminology, disseminated relevant knowledge, and facilitated communication, all indispensable for establishing scholarly credibility.

Japanese academic societies and associations Japan’s rapid development can to a large extent be explained by how, during the Meiji period, professional bodies of scientists and experts organized themselves. Many researchers viewed their commitment to endeavors as part of nation-building and loyalty that once was afforded to a feudal master and bolstered by the warrior ethic (bushidō). Now it was transmuted into a “notion of professional service to the national public.”34 The origins of Psychology societies can be traced to the informal meetings held at Tokyo’s Motora’s home beginning in 1891. In April 1901, the Shinri Gakkai (Psychology Society) was established (Table 7.2). Motora became its president, with Matsumoto Matatarō and Tsukahara Masatsugu assisting in its administration. Between 1901 and 1912, 117 talks were given by the Shinri Gakkai. In 1908 and 1927, other Shinri Gakkai were established in Kyoto and at Keijō Imperial University (in Seoul), respectively. Meanwhile, faculty members with similar interests began forming informal Psychology-related research groups at universities. Eventually, a number of important Psychology associations would be founded. In 1912, the Shinrigaku Kenkyū-kai (Association for Psychological Research), which published Shinri Kenkyū (Psychological Research), was founded, and eleven years later, the Nihon Shinri Gakkai (Japanese Psychological Association) was established.35 It was a Tokyo Imperial University endeavor and its organ was Nihon Shinrigaku Zasshi (Japan Psychological Magazine). The latter publication was combined with the Shinri Kenkyū in 1926 to form the Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Psychological Research). The Nihon Shinri Gakkai failed to attract enough supporters and in 1926 it was reorganized. One year later in April, the Zenkoku

Table 7.2 Meetings of the Psychology Society (Shinri Gakkai), 1901 Month

Lecture

February

The Contents of Ego

Kishimoto Nōbuta

March

Emotional Conciliation

Hayami Hiroshi

April

Revealed and Latent Parts of Mental Control

Fukurai Tomokichi

May

An Opinion Concerning Scientific Psychology

Motora Yūjirō

June

Functional Psychology

Tanaka Kiichi

October

The Goal and Conflict of Desire

Fukurai Tomokichi

November

Research on the Reaction Time in Comparing Weight

Nakashima Taizō

December

The Elements and Form of Poetry

Kuroyanagi Ikutairō

Source: Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 87).

Speaker

124

The History of Japanese Psychology

Taikai Kaisai Soshiki (All-Japan Psychological Organization) was set up, but the key conveners decided to rename this organization Nihon Shinri Gakkai. For the first time a Psychology-focused group at the national level was inaugurated. Matsumoto Matatarō was chosen as its first president,36 and its publication was called Shinrigaku Kenkyū. It would meet every two years.37 As Japanese society became increasingly authoritarian, academics, whether willingly or not, responded to the new demands of centralization. In July 1941, members of the Nihon Shinri Gakkai decided to rename their society the Shinri Gakkai (Psychological Society). This would absorb three other organizations: Applied Psychology Association, Kansai Applied Psychology Association, and the Society of Psychotechnics.38 The new organization, reflecting the requirements of the times, divided its research specialties into general, educational, industrial, law, clinical, and military Psychology. After the war, members changed it back to its original name, that is, Nihon Shinri Gakkai (Table 7.3).39

Japanese Psychology journals Early on during the Meiji period intellectuals (such as the political theorist Ukita Kazutami) and other writers contributed articles related to Psychology in publications such as Meiroku Zasshi,40 Tetsugaku Zasshi,41 Rikugō Zasshi, Gakugei Shirin, and Tōyō Gakugei Zasshi. Later on, Psychology-related journals, such as Shinkeigaku Zasshi and Jidō Kenkyū, would publish relevant writings.42 The first Psychology-focused publication was Shinri Kenkyū, but this was a semi-academic journal.43 Published since 1912, Motora would help launch it. Seven years later the Nihon Shinrigaku Zasshi (Japanese Psychological Magazine) began publication (until 1922) and was edited at Kyoto Imperial University. This was a purely scientific periodical.44 In January 1923, a publication with the same name as the latter journal began publication at Tokyo Imperial University. Three years later, the Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of

Table 7.3 Key Psychology-related Japanese academic associations and societies, 1927–50 Japanese Name

English Name

Year Established

Nihon Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Psychological Association

1927

Kansai Ōyō Shinri Gakkai

Kansai Applied Psychological Association

1927

Nihon Ōyō Shinri Gakkai

Japan Applied Psychology Association

1931*

Dōbutsu Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Society for Animal Psychology

1933

Nihon Gurūpu Dainamikkusu Gakkai

Japanese Association of Group Dynamics

1949

Rinshō Shinri Gakkai

Association of Clinical Psychology

1950†

*Reorganized in 1946. †Reorganized in 1964

Organizational Institutionalization

125

Psychology) was launched. This journal, which is still in existence and regarded as the major journal for Japanese Psychology, took over the publishing role of the Shinri Kenkyū and the two Japanese Psychological Magazines (which ceased publication).45 Matsumoto Matatarō, Hayami Hiroshi, Masuda Koreshige, and Kido Mantarō oversaw its publication. Eventually, an array of specialized Psychology-focused journals would appear. Typically, they would function as the organs of specialized research societies.46 In addition to societies and journals, mention should also be made of funding organizations. From 1913, Psychologists received funding from the Teikoku Gakushiin (established in 1906).47 The Ministry of Education, along with private organizations, would also support psychological research (see Appendix 6).48

Institutionalizing interiority at the societal level By the late nineteenth century, in the same way that Psychology had come into its own as a recognized independent discipline, interiority had come into its own as an autonomous experience of the human condition. Still confused with perception, thinking, reasoning, and anything associated with the especially fuzzy rubric of “consciousness,” interiority was at least acknowledged as sui generis. In addition to the academic institutionalization of Psychology, then, the impact of the psychological revolution can be measured in its societal manifestations—arts, mass media, and everyday language—and evidence of “pop” Psychology and its interiorized view of human nature are evident in the Meiji era. More and more people paid attention to the reconceptualizations of hypnosis, memory (especially for educational purposes), and mental illness.49 In the literary realm consider how novelists played a vital role via their psychologized writings (e.g., the shi-shōsetsu or “I novel”) in spreading new ways of conceiving human nature as something interiorized.50 Natsume Sōseki (1867– 1916), the most famous Japanese novelist of the Meiji era (who was influenced by T.A. Ribot, C.L. Morgan, E.W. Scripture, and William James),51 wrestled with the notion of the modern self. His novel Kokoro (1914) deals not only with the question of “who am I?” but also “what is an ‘I’?” Such an intellectual endeavor was undoubtedly related to the forces released by modernization. Arguably, Sōseki was searching for an “analog to the Western ‘self ’ as the necessary precursor of the political equivalents to ‘liberty’, ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ that are founded on it.” He understood from within the ideas of Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Hume. In a talk called “My Individualism,” Sōseki stated that “individualism is good because it is modern and necessary; it is bad because it is un-Japanese and destructive; one should be an individual, have a self, but one should not be egotistical, selfish.”52 The challenge, apparently, for someone like Sōseki was coming to terms with a modern notion of the self which was associated with “I” or watakushi. In Japanese the latter has negative associations: selfishness, illegitimate, irregular, misappropriated, unfair, ill-gotten, pretense, secret, and counterfeit. Watakushi was opposed to ōyake, which denotes public, communal, for the common good, out in the open, fair, self-evident, civil, and official.

126

The History of Japanese Psychology

While ivory-towerism and the highly technical explications of scholars closed off the new psychological knowledge from the public, outside university settings attempts were made to connect new forms of understanding human nature with the everyday life of average citizens, housewives, and elementary and secondary school teachers. Such endeavors resonated with the goals of “popular enlightenment” (ippan keimō) and, later, the “popular trends” (minshū-teki keikō) of the Taishō period.53 A good example of the popularizing of Psychology was the Shinrigaku Tsūzoku Kōwa-kai (Society for Popular Lectures on Psychology). Established in 1909 by Ueno Yōichi, Ōtsuki Kaison, Kurahashi Sōzō, and Sugawara Kyōzō,54 this was an association of Psychology lecturers who gave talks for the public.55 Motora, Matsumoto Matatarō, and Fukurai Tomokichi acted as advisors. Reportedly about 400 people attended the lectures held at Tokyo Imperial University. Similar meetings were convened in cities such as Nagano, Niigata, Sendai, and Yamagata where it was reported that more than a thousand attended each meeting.56 Such popularity indicates how the psychological revolution was spreading among the public. From 1909 until 1913 the Society published the Shinrigaku Tsūzoku Kōwa-kai and we should note that the semi-academic Shinri Kenkyū, which helped spread the new science via articles, translations, and commentaries, had a “Questions and Answers” column in which Psychology experts responded to questions from the readership. Another example of the dissemination among the public of an interiorized worldview concerns lectures on psychological topics given via the radio (rajio kōen). In 1933, mental tests were given via the radio (Table 7.4).57 In their analysis of the contents of newspaper articles and radio programs related to Psychology, Satō and Hoshino note that initially “investigations carried out by Psychologists were mostly based on empirical evidence. However, after 1940, not actual data but rather the rhetoric of ‘looking at things Psychologically’ would come to characterize the discourse.”58 Gradually, a highly Psychologized perspective became taken for granted.

Table 7.4 Radio lectures by psychologists Presenter

Topic

Date

Kirihara Shigemi

What Should Be Done to Employ Juveniles?

March 5, 1938

Matsumoto Kinju

Reading Materials for Boys and Girls

September 12, 1938

Yoda Arata

Friendship among Female Students

March 3, 1939

Hatano Kanji

How to Select and Provide Children’s Picture Books

October 13, 1940

Aoki Seishirō

Group Training for Children

January 31, 1941

Kirihara Shigemi

The Cultivation of Feelings

May 21, 1941

Source: Satō and Hoshino (1997: 314).

Organizational Institutionalization

127

Applying Psychology to the problems of modernity More than the rarefied ivory towers of academics, the institutionalization of Psychology was driven by practical problems spawned by a rapidly industrializing world. More concretely, Psychology was a response to industrialization and new political economic configurations. For its part, officialdom had a keen interest in the psychological sciences and new forms of “governmental rationality” came into existence that turned the “population of a particular national territory” into political subjects.59 Consequently, a “large-scale alliance” developed between governments and social researchers, who began to focus on “population varieties” rather than communities.60 Moreover, in the late nineteenth century “practical [P]sychology was a thoroughly interdisciplinary affair.” Practitioners were not necessarily formally trained Psychologists; most were sociologists, criminologists, psychiatrists, and pedagogues.61 For example, social welfare specialists drove the development of social Psychology in the late nineteenth century.62 By the early 1920s practical Psychology already overshadowed academic Psychology.63 Indeed, it is “applied fields that seem to be the mark” of Psychology’s long-term, societal impact.64 The founding of the American Association for Applied Psychology in 1936 demonstrates the direction in which the field had been moving for some time.

Applied Psychology in Japan In Japan practical uses of psychological know-how can be traced back to the early Meiji era, when Motora did early work on special education and language skills. His student Matsumoto Matatarō also made contributions to practical Psychology. Tanaka Kanichi, in his “Ōyō Shinrigaku Saikin no Hattatsu” (“The Most Recent Developments in Applied Psychology,” 1919), explained that applied Psychology was not concerned with theoretical issues but aimed to improve “real life” (jissai seikatsu). In a 1935 article “Wagakuni ni okeru Ōyō Shinrigaku-sho” (“Publications about Applied Psychology in Our Country”), Kishimoto Sōkichi noted that between 1884 and 1933, 744 works on practical uses of Psychology appeared. He divided them into thirteen categories (though his concept of what constitutes “applied” is somewhat broad).65 Hoshino notes that of the 1,300 Psychology-related articles published between 1874 and 1932, over 700 were on applied topics.66 Interest in the practical applications of psychological knowledge greatly expanded among academics and by the late 1920s, the Kansai Association of Applied Psychology, which held conferences twice a year, was established. The journal Ōyō Shinri (Applied Psychology) was issued in 1931 and then from 1932 to 1939 was called Ōyō Shinri Kenkyū.67 It was during the Taishō period (or the era of “Great Righteousness,” 1912–26) that applied Psychology really came into its own.68 Psychological expertise would become indispensable for the social-engineering attempts of wartime statism, bureaucratic authoritarianism, and technocratic elitism. Taishō is usually characterized as a time when “democracy,” “liberalism,” and “Westernization” began to make advances.

128

The History of Japanese Psychology

The Meiji-era “elder statesmen” (genrō) who had so boldly led Japan out of isolation and into modernity had either passed away or were in decline. In their place came sober bureaucrats, the Diet, and increasingly influential if dishonest party politicians. Urbanization and a growing middle class augmented a general sense of optimism and openness. During Taishō the modernization and rationalization of employment sectors (e.g., civil service, business, military) resulted in a steady demand for trained personnel. The  individual’s social position became increasingly tied to formal schooling and the roots of Japan’s present-day credentialism had been firmly planted. The business world and military, who had previously opposed extending the length of compulsory education since this would interfere with their efforts to recruit cheap labor and soldiers, saw the advantages of a better trained workforce. If the Meiji vision was “a massive elementary school base with only limited necessity for middle-level schooling and even smaller segments of society advancing to college,” the Taishō period “slowly gave ground to the pressures for greater opportunity at the secondary and even tertiary levels. There were calls for extending compulsory education to eight years or even longer.”69 Consequently, more psyches would be bureaucratized. We should also note that in the educational realm Taishō has been seen by many as a period of experimentation and innovation; that is, American influence was apparent with the introduction of the ideas of John Dewey and journalists and intellectuals wrote about the darker side of economic progress.

Cultivating the minds of children and youth As in other subspecialties of Psychology, Motora was instrumental in child studies.70 From 1902 he was president of the Nihon Jidō Kenkyū-kai (presently, the Nihon Jidō Gakkai). Beginning in 1898, this society published Jidō Kenkyū (Child Studies) which saw the involvement of Matsumoto Matatarō, Takashima Heizaburō, Shitada Jirō, Sakaki Yasusaburō, Matsumoto Kōjirō, Fukurai Tomokichi, Ōse Jintarō, Tsukahara Masatsugu, and Fujikawa Yū. It published articles on physiology, special education, school hygiene, and pedagogy and took a “scientific” approach to understanding children.71 It provided a venue in which parents exchanged views on a variety of childrelated concerns. A 1909 report appearing in The American Journal of Psychology related that 250 individuals attended the 1908 “Congress of the Japanese Society for Child Study” at Tokyo Imperial University. Besides Psychologists, attendees included schoolteachers, physicians, ministers, criminologists, and lawyers. Motora spoke on the “purpose of the society and of its past services.” Child care and child-related problems, as well as a concern with youth employment and juvenile delinquency developed during this time (Table  7.5). In 1917 the pediatrician and social worker Sandaya Hiraku (1882–1962), along with Kubo Yoshihide, established the Jidō Kyōyō Kenkyūjo (Child Educational Research Institute; later, the Jidō Kenkyūjo or the Child Studies Institute). They also edited the

Organizational Institutionalization

129

Table 7.5 Congress of the Japanese Society for Child Study, May 10–11, 1908 Sugawara K.

On the Aesthetic Feelings of School Girls for Cherry Blossoms

Dr. Warashina S.

On Hysteria in Infancy

Miabe I.

On Backward Children in the Common Schools

Sawaki S.

On Psychopathic Feeble-mindedness

Roseki G.

On the Mental States of School Children

Ohara Y.

On Vacation Colonies

Dr. Kurahashi S.

Children and Poetry

Sennichi A.

On the Hereditary of Myopia

Kishibe

The Crying of Children and Its Treatment

Dr. Yoshida K.

New View-points of Child Study in Germany

Mayeda F.

Mimetic Expressions of the Child

Dr. Ishiwara T.

Mental Development of the Child

Dr. Shimoda I.

Children in the City and in the Country

Miyamoto N.

Convulsions in Children

Dr. Takashima H.

On the Influence of Pedagogy upon the Mental States of Youth

Dr. Fujikawa Y.

On Nervousness in Infancy

Dr. Miyake A.

On Criminal Youth as Result of Disease

Dr. Asoh S.

Present Condition of the Higher Education of Women in Europe

Dr. Yamada T.

On the Question of Overtaxation

Dr. Fukurai T.

“Isolated” Psychical Functions

Dr. Motora Y.

On Mental Gymnastics

Dr. Miyake H.

Some Remarks on Child Study

Source: “Notes,” The American Journal of Psychology, 1909. Names have been changed to reflect the Japanese convention of surnames first; otherwise, all names are reproduced exactly as they appeared in “Notes.”

Jidō Kenkyūjo Kiyō (Research Bulletin of the Child Studies Institute). Sandaya wrote works such as Gakurei Jidō Chiryoku Kensa-hō (School-Age Mental Ability Testing Methods, 1915) and published the journal Haha to Ko (Mother and Child). In 1919 he became head of the Children’s Division in the Osaka Social Bureau (Ōsaka-shi Shakai-kyoku Jidō-ka). In the late 1920s he would open the Sandaya Chiryō Kyōikuin (Sandaya Therapeutic Educational Center) and the Nihon Haha no Kai (Japan Association of Mothers). Eventually he established the Midorigaoka Elementary School. By the 1920s, child counseling offices (jidō sōdanjo), youth employment counseling offices (shōnen shokugyō sōdanjo), day nurseries (takujisho), and infant centers (nyūji-in) would be established. In Tokyo and Osaka, aptitude tests (tekisei kensa) and employment advice were given in youth employment agencies (shōnen shokugyō kaishojo).72

130

The History of Japanese Psychology

An important figure in educational Psychology was Tsukahara Masatsugu (1872– 1946). He graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1890 and became a graduate student at the same school. Supported by government funding, in 1901 he traveled to America and Germany where he studied with Wundt at University of Leipzig A specialist in child Psychology, he would teach Psychology at Tokyo Higher Normal School and become president of Hiroshima Bunrika University. Tsukahara considered Psychology the basis for theorizing about pedagogy and believed that understanding psychological processes was the answer to effective schooling. He edited Kyōiku Shinrigaku (Educational Psychology, 1898), translated the works of G.T. Ladd (Raddoshi Shinrigaku Kōen, 1901), and wrote Seinen Shinri (Psychology of Youth, 1910) and Jidō no Shinri oyobi Kyōiku (Child Psychology and Education, 1926). Another important thinker in educational Psychology was Aoki Seishirō (1895– 1956). He was especially interested in child and adolescent Psychology and wrote Teinōji oyobi Rettōji no Shinri to Sono Kyōiku (The Psychology of Feebleminded and Inferior Children and Their Education, 1922a), Kyōiku-teki Jidō Shinrigaku (Educational Child Psychology, 1922b), and Jidō Shinrigaku Josetsu (Introduction to Child Psychology, 1924). Aoki received his BA in 1922 from Tokyo Imperial University where he majored in Psychology. His graduation thesis investigated problems of attention. He would become an associate professor at Tokyo Imperial University’s School of Agriculture, and from 1937 to 1944 he was a professor at Tokyo Nōgyō Kyōiku Senmon Gakkō (Tokyo Vocational School for Agricultural Education). In 1941 he became director at Nihon Seishōnen Kyōiku Kenkyū (Japan Adolescent Educational Institute). After the war he worked at the Ministry of Education and at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University; from 1950 until his death he was president at Tokyo Kasei Junior College.

Mobilizing the minds of youth The Ministry of Education, in order to achieve the goals of the “General Mobilization of the National Spirit,” promulgated the Youth Social Order on April 26, 1939,73 which made youth school education compulsory for boys between the ages of twelve and nineteen (except for those attending regular schools). Formed in 1935, Youth combined vocational supplementary schools with youth training centers. The authorities also used neighborhood associations to organize and inform citizens. The Ministry of Education also provided support and facilities for various kinds of “patriotic educational groups.” In order to unify these groupings and rationalize their activities (which reportedly carried on open disputes among themselves), in 1940 the Ministry of Education persuaded leaders of the following groups to combine their organizations into a massive national movement by January 1941: (1) the Greater Japan Youth Group (Dai Nippon Seinen-dan);74 (2) the Greater Japan Federation of Girls’ Youth Groups (Dai Nippon Rengō Joshi Seinen-dan); (3) the Greater Japan Federation of Boys’ Groups (Dai Nippon Shōnendan Renmei);75 and (4) the Imperial Association of Boys’ Groups (Teikoku Shōnendan Kyōkai). The new group was named the Greater Japan Youth and Child Group (Dai Nippon Seishōnen-dan). Under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, this group was involved in war production

Organizational Institutionalization

131

and various educational activities related to national defense. Its activities included worship at Shinto shrines, the promotion of savings, and assistance to families with members in the military service.

Important educational Psychologists It is worth briefly describing the careers and contributions of three important educational Psychologists: Narazaki Asatarō, Nogami Toshio, and Kido Mantarō. Narazaki Asatarō (1881–1974), a student of Matsumoto Matatarō, saw pedagogy as means to promote Japanese nationalism and wrote Sembatsu-hō Gairon (Introduction to Selection Methods, 1924). Narazaki graduated from Kyoto Imperial University’s Philosophy Department in 1910 and received his doctorate from the same university in 1923. He would work as an assistant at Kyoto Imperial University and as a professor at Tokyo Higher Normal School. In 1929 he was appointed professor at Tokyo Bunrika University while studying in Germany, and in 1944 he was invited to work in China as an educational specialist. After the war he worked at Kinki University. Nogami Toshio (1882–1963), besides making important contributions to educational Psychology, studied emotion, social Psychology, adolescent Psychology, and sexuality. He authored Jikken Shinirgaku (Experimental Psychology, 1909) and Kyōiku-teki Jikken Shinrigaku (Educational Experimental Psychology, 1912b). Nogami received his BA in 1906 from Tokyo Imperial University where he specialized in Psychology. He became an assistant to Matsumoto Matatarō after graduation, and in 1908 he was employed as an instructor at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1911 he became an associate professor at Kyoto Imperial University and several years later was awarded a doctorate from the same university. He studied under Wundt at University of Leipzig for one year (1913) and visited a number of universities in England where he met prominent scholars. He then went to Clark University where he studied under G.S. Hall (until 1916). When he returned to Japan he became a professor at his alma mater. In 1925 he traveled to Paris and attended the League of Nations. In 1942 he retired from Kyoto Imperial University and after the war became professor at Naniwa University76 and Kyoto Women’s University. Kido Mantarō (1893–1985) attempted to develop an “educational science” (kyōiku kagaku) and would become president of the Society for Educational Science Research (Kyōiku Kagaku Kenkyūkai). Besides an interest in educational Psychology, he contributed to the establishment of the Japanese Psychological Association and set up the psychological laboratory at Hōsei University. He authored works such as Yōji Kyōikuron (Theory of Early Childhood Education, 1939), Yōji Kyōiku (Early Childhood Education, 1968a), and Shinrigaku Mondai-shi (History of Problems in Psychology, 1968b).

Other applications of Psychology by officialdom In addition to educational Psychology, which is an illustration of applied Psychology par excellence, the state bureaucracies employed Psychologists for other reasons. The first state bureaucracy to employ Psychologists was the Ministry

132

The History of Japanese Psychology

of Communications (Teishin-shō). In 1914, its Telegram (Denshin-kyoku) and Telephone Bureaux (Denwa-kyoku) tested, for purposes of selection, potential operators. That same year this Ministry’s Savings Administration Bureau (Chōkin Kanri-kyoku) also administered psychologically informed tests.77 The 1938 National Mobilization Law (Kokka Sōdōin-hō) instituted a “national mobilization system” which attempted to organize workers and resources for the war effort. A number of Psychologists were inducted into these efforts. Working in the Ministry of Welfare (Kōsei-shō), psychological experts (shinri gijutsu-sha) were tasked with aiding in the categorization of occupations and, via aptitude tests (tekisei kensa), assessing individual workers.78 The Ministry classified the Psychologists it employed as either gishu (assistant specialists) or gishi (specialists).79 In 1937 the Ministry of Welfare asked Watanabe Tōru to offer advice on the war-wounded and their employment. Watanabe would help Matsui Shinjirō (1924–95), who lost his sight in the war and went on to make contributions to the blind in Japan.80 The Ministry of Home Affairs (Naimu-shō) also employed psychologically trained personnel (e.g., for disaster prevention).81 Psychology offered tools for social classification and treating problems resulting from rapid industrialization. In addition to adult working males, women, children, the elderly, criminals, juvenile delinquents, mental patients, and foreign peoples had to be categorized and controlled in order to maintain, in the eyes of the elites, sociopolitical order. For example, encouraged by Motora, Terada Seiichi (1884–1922) (who was originally interested in the Psychology of plants—shokubutsu shinri) became Japan’s first expert in criminal Psychology (hanzai shinrigaku), legal Psychology (hō shinrigaku), and the Psychology of testimony (shōgen shinrigaku). A graduate of Tokyo Imperial University, he recognized the need for surveys to reveal the social causes of crime (rather than merely describing the personal traits of criminals) and conducted research in Sugamo Prison. Terada translated the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso’s82 Theory of the Criminal (Hanzainin-ron, 1917a) and works by the Austrian criminal jurist and pioneer in criminalistics, Hans Gross.83 Terada also wrote Shūjin no Shinri (The Psychology of Prisoners, 1913), Jidō no Akuheki (The Vices of Children, 1917b), Hanzai Shinrigaku Kōwa (Lectures on Criminal Psychology, 1918), Hanzai Shinrigaku Kōgi (Lectures on Criminal Psychology, 1926), and Hanzai Shinrigaku (Criminal Psychology, 1927). In 1913 Terada founded the Japanese Society for Criminology (Nihon Hanzai Gakkai).84

Measuring the mind: Mental testing and industrial Psychology Quantifying the psyche The industrialization, urbanization, and a rising middle class of the Taishō drove the dissemination of political rights and economic opportunities. These in turn enhanced individuation (or an emphasis on personal differences and personality숯jinkaku) and created the need for new social categories that had to be measured, selected, and ranked through the scientific tools of psychological testing.85 Individuation was manifested through a concern with kosei (individuality) and kosei chōsa

Organizational Institutionalization

133

(investigations of individuality).86 Mental and aptitude tests—variously called seishin kensa, soshitsu kensa, mentaru tesuto, and chinō kensa—measured intelligence, while temperament or disposition tests (kishitsu kensa) and character or personality tests (seikaku kensa) assessed one’s “emotions and will” (jōi).87 Within the educational system, an objective selection mechanism to filter, rank, and shunt students, that is, entrance exams, was needed. The result of these processes were “exam hell” (shiken jigoku) and “entrance exam hell” (juken jigoku), consequences that would continue well into the post-imperial era. In addition to entrance exams and regular school tests, mental tests were also deployed by the educational authorities.88 Meanwhile, at the societal level, books on testing became increasingly popular toward the end of Taishō.89 Before discussing how mental testing developed in Japan, it is helpful to take a global perspective on the issue since in Japan’s case, tests were borrowed from France, Germany, and particularly America.90

Measuring the mental A key figure in the transition from an introcosmic to an introscopic view of mind was Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911). A half-cousin of Charles Darwin, Galton arguably possessed one of the most gifted minds of the nineteenth century. He made contributions to geography, anthropology, meteorology, criminology, statistics, and what would become genetics. He was also an explorer of Africa and an inventor. For our purposes, his significance is to be found in how he attempted to understand the psychological through statistical methods, questionnaires, and surveys. Broadly speaking, such endeavors involve viewing problems of psyche as a technical, rather than a theological or philosophical, issue. Through his research on psychometrics (the science of measuring mental faculties), he “visualized” the mind in an explicitly empirical and positivist manner. Specifically, he investigated human differences, the inheritance of intelligence, mental imagery, and sound and hearing. Two of his better known books are Hereditary Genius (1869) and Inquiries into Human Faculty (1883). Meanwhile in France the Psychologist Alfred Binet91 and pedagogue Théodore Simon92 developed the Binet–Simon Intelligence Test which was designed for educational purposes. Binet designed his first test at the request of French authorities and it was intended to be used for students who needed special attention (ironically, Binet himself did not believe that intelligence was fixed or measured). Later, J. M. Cattell,93 W. Stern,94 Lewis M. Terman,95 and D. Wechsler96 would work in the field of intelligence testing. Robert M. Yerkes97 would offer the US military, which had concerns about investing vast resources in training potentially untrainable soldiers, a system of mass testing.

Mental testing in Japan The Binet–Simon Intelligence Test was introduced into Japan by the psychiatrist Miyake Kōichi98 (from the Tokyo Imperial University’s Medical School) and Ikeda Takanori (the 1908 version). Three years later, Ueno Yōichi would utilize the Binet test and Ichikawa Genzō99 introduced the 1911 version. Some years later a group

134

The History of Japanese Psychology

of Psychologists would develop Japanese editions, relying on 1918, 1922, and 1930 versions. Kubo Yoshihide was the first to standardize the Binet test (Kobu–Binet Test), though Tanaka Kanichi’s100 version (Tanaka–Binet Test) would become more popular. Suzuki Harutarō101 would standardize the Stanford–Binet Test in 1925 (Suzuki–Binet Test). 102 Below I introduce several important Japanese figures in the Psychology of testing.

Tanaka Kanichi Tanaka Kanichi103 (1882–1962) specialized in Psychology under Matsumoto Matatarō and received his BA in 1913 from Kyoto Imperial University. His academic dissertation was on “mental work” (seishin sagyō). In 1919 he was awarded his doctorate from Tokyo Imperial University for his dissertation entitled “Shinteki Sadō ni Kansuru Jikkenteki Kenkyū” (“Experimental Research of Mental Behavior”). From 1922 to 1924 he traveled in Europe (including University of Oxford) as an overseas researcher for the Ministry of Education and studied in the United States where he examined intelligence and personality tests (1937–38). He established the psychological laboratory at Tokyo Bunrika University. In addition to his academic career (he taught at numerous institutions, such as Nihon University, Tokyo Higher Normal School, Tokyo Bunrika University, and Shiraume Gakuen Junior College), he worked in private industry. But for our purposes his significance is in his attempts to apply psychological principles outside academic settings. He made important contributions to intelligence testing and measurement (Tanaka B-Version Intelligence Scale and Tanaka–Binet Intelligence Scale), educational Psychology, mental fatigue, and the Psychology of work. From 1919 to 1945, he as an advisor to the Office of Experimental Psychological Research (Naval Technology Laboratory) did work for the Aviation Psychology Laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University (1920–33) and the Ministry of Communication (1921‒43); at the Ministry of Education, he was a member of the Occupation Census Commission (1931–37) and helped select textbooks (1942–44). In 1927 he established the Japan Occupational Guidance Association and became its president, and twenty years later he founded the Tanaka Educational Institute (Tanaka Kyōiku Kenkyūjo).

Kubo Yoshihide Kubo Yoshihide (1883–1942) specialized in Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University, where he studied under Motora. His graduation thesis investigated anger and revenge. In 1909 he became an assistant to Fukurai Tomokichi at Tokyo Imperial University and two years later became a school inspector for Tokyo. He wrote his dissertation on the Psychology and pedagogy of reading (Tokyo Imperial University, 1923). While at Tokyo Imperial University he pursued “experimental pedagogy” (jikken kyōikugaku) under the pedagogue Yoshida Kumaji (1874–1964). Kubo made important contributions to educational Psychology, child Psychology, and the standardization of intelligence testing. In 1918 he standardized a Japanese version of the Binet Intelligent Test. 104

Organizational Institutionalization

135

In 1913, under the auspices of Motora, he traveled to the United States to survey American education. That same year he entered Clark University, where he was employed as an instructor. In 1915 he received a PhD from Clark University, where he researched child studies with G.S. Hall. He would also travel to Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Sweden, and Russia to study their higher educational systems. He would eventually return to Japan and in 1917 became an instructor at Tokyo Imperial University. Later he would be a professor at Hiroshima Higher Normal School and Hiroshima Bunrika University, where he would found a psychological laboratory.

Uchida Yūzaburō Uchida Yūzaburō (1894–1966)105 is important for creating the Uchida–Kraepelin Psychodiagnostic Test (Uchida–Kureperin Seishin Kensa) in 1927. This is one of the most widely administered tests in Japan and is designed to induce and measure endurance. He also introduced the Rorschach test into Japan in 1925 (only four years after its development in Germany). He received his BA in 1921 from Tokyo Imperial University and his doctorate in 1962 from Osaka University. In 1922 he began work at the Industrial Efficiency Institute (Sangyō Nōritsu Kenkyūjo) and that same year was asked to conduct research on criminals by the Ministry of Justice. The next year, he worked on a part-time basis at Tokyo’s Matsuzawa Hospital where he aided in the establishment of a psychological laboratory and, under the supervision of Miyake Kōichi, attempted to create a psychodiagnostic test for mental patients. Later he would also carry out research at Maeda Hospital. He conducted research for the Ministry of Education and taught at Hōsei University (1928–33) and at Waseda University where he pursued his research interests. In 1947 he began work at the Japan PsychoTechnology Institute (Nihon Seishin Gijutsu Kenkyūjo). In his later years he lectured at Nihon and Saitama Universities and the Japan College of Social Work and became a supervisor at the Child Studies Institute (Jidō Kenkyūjo) at Japan Women’s University. Here we should also mention Watanabe Tōru, another student of Motora. Watanabe devised the first group test of intelligence in 1921 for the educational authorities of Tokyo. This test was intended for elementary students and modeled after the US National Intelligence Test.106

Okabe Yatarō Okabe Yatarō (1894–1967) contributed to testing and measurement, as well as educational Psychology. He was interested in the linkages between school reform, school counseling, personality types, and career choice. He wrote Kyōiku Sokutei (Educational Measurement, 1923), became the first president at Nihon Kyōiku Shinri Gakkai (Japan Educational Psychology Association) (1952–57), and was president of the Japan Applied Psychology Association. Okabe specialized in Psychology and received his BA from Tokyo Imperial University in 1919 where he pursued an interest in melody. In 1919 he became an assistant at Tokyo Imperial University’s educational laboratory. From 1925 to 1938 he worked part-time at the Tōkyō-fu Shōnen Shokugyō Sōdanjo (Tokyo Prefectural Bureau for Youth Employment). In 1935 he

136

The History of Japanese Psychology

became an associate professor at his alma mater and after the war was promoted to full professorship. From 1938 to 1946 he was director of the Aiiku Institute and in 1950 became head of the Department of Educational Psychology in Tokyo Imperial University’s School of Education. In his later years he taught at International Christian and Sophia Universities. Here we might note other assessments. Some were modeled after US Army tests, and during the 1920s, indicating the increasing import assigned to individuation, a number of personality inventories were developed: Morality Test (by Nakajima Shinichi); Emotional Stability Test and the Personality Adjustment Test (by Watanabe Tōru); Emotionality Inventory (by Awaji Enjirō and Okabe Yatarō); and ExtroversionIntroversion (by Awaji Enjirō).107 After the war, numerous other tests, under American influence, would be developed.

Individuating the psyche by disciplining the body As Japan entered the twentieth century, its state apparatus spread its net wider over different forms of bodily regulation, and eventually it would not only make efforts to mobilize minds for war, but it would also mobilize bodies, since bodily management was considered the most efficient way to psycho-socialize. In order to administer school health programs, the Local School Hygiene Personnel System Order was promulgated and enacted on June  10, 1924. Each prefecture was assigned a school hygiene technician (gakkō eisei gishi). Beginning in May  1928, the School Hygiene Division in the Education Minister’s Secretariat would become the Physical Education Division (Taiiku-ka), which was responsible for both school health matters and physical education. In November 1929, the Physical Education Council (Taiiku Undō Shingikai), which advised the Ministry of Education until 1938, was established. On August 8, 1930, the Local Physical Education Personnel System Order came into effect and most prefectures utilized “physical education leaders” (taiiku undō shuji). Both school hygiene technicians and physical education leaders were supported by prefectural funds. As the war period heated up, more state maneuvers were initiated to inspect, drill, and arrange bodies in an increasingly ordered manner. During the 1930s, school hygiene officers (gakkō eisei-kan) were appointed, but in March  1937, they were replaced by physical education officers (taiiku-kan). One year later, the Physical Strength Bureau for nonschool physical education programs was set up in the new Ministry of Health and Welfare. In order to further promote student hygiene and physical exercise, the National Physical Strength Law was promulgated on April  8, 1940, and the Physical Education and Sports Bureau was established on January  8, 1941 (composed of Physical Exercise, Drill, and Hygiene Divisions), built around the Division with the same name which had been a part of the Minister’s Secretariat. It is worth noting the divisional composition of this bureau, since it administered matters related to physical exercise, drilling, health, and labor, all linked to the body. Initially, this Bureau was composed of the Physical Education and Exercise (Taiiku Undō-ka), Training (Kunren-ka), and Hygiene (Eisei-ka) Divisions. One year later,

Organizational Institutionalization

137

it was composed of the General Affairs, Promotion, Hygiene, and Labor Divisions. On  November  1, 1942, the Labor Division (Kinrō-ka) would be added. By 1943, it was composed of Training, Student Mobilization, and Hygiene (Hoken-ka) Divisions. On  July  11, 1945, this Bureau became part of the Student Mobilization Bureau. It would re-emerge as a separate bureau at the end of the war on September 5, 1945, and be composed of Physical Education, Labor, and Hygiene Divisions.

The psyche as embodied: Eugenics as applied Psychology The 1800s were a century of intense rivalry. As older empires decayed, newly formed national states vied with each other for territory, wealth, and prestige. Industrialized capitalism drove economic nationalism and prickly honor motivated neo-imperialism, fomenting an international atmosphere of aggression that was mirrored within national states, where rapid industrialization resulted in a hypercompetitive ethos. While some saw all this as an unfair, ruthless struggle, others welcomed the survival-of-the-strongest ethos as a natural process that pruned from the social body the weaker and less desirable. Social Darwinism, a pseudo-scientific idea by today’s standards, was made into a virtue and used to justify “progress.” Inspired by such thinking was “eugenics,” a term coined by Francis Galton in 1883. This type of knowledge was intended to “scientifically” rank, sort, segregate, and shunt populations for the purposes of progress and it reflected the concerns of industrializing societies as they attempted to compete internationally and maintain social order at home. Eugenics became implicated in marriage, gender relations, birth control, immigration, and the general health of the national body.108 In Japanese, eugenics was translated as yūseigaku (science of superior birth) or jinshu kaizengaku (science of race betterment).109 Other associated terms were yūryō shuzokugaku (study of superior races), minzoku/jinshu kairyō (Volk/racial betterment), minzoku/jinshu eisei (Volk/racial hygiene), theories of blood-type (kishitsu-ron), and pure blood (junketsu)-versus-mixed blood (konketsu).110 Eugenic thinking played an important role, as evident in works such as Matsumoto Matatarō’s “Yūryō Shuzoku no Shōchō” (“Prosperity and Decay of Superior Races,” 1912) and Hayami Hiroshi’s “Shakai on Kairyō to Iden” (“Social Improvement and Hereditary,” 1914).111 Tōgō Minoru (1882–1950), a politician, diplomat, and theorist of colonialism who worked as an administrator in Taiwan, applied eugenic thinking in his Sekai Kaizō to Minzoku Shinri (Global Reconstruction and Volk Psychology, 1922) and Shokumin Seisaku to Minzoku Shinri (Colonial Strategy and Volk Psychology, 1925). Ikeda Shigenori, a journalist with an interest in Nazi medicine, popularized eugenics in his “Yūsei Nippon no Teisho” (“Manifesto for Eugenic Japan,” 1927) and his journal, Yūsei Undō (Eugenic Movement). Furuhata Tanemoto (1891–1975), a eugenicist, serologist, and professor of legal medicine at Kanazawa Medical College (who also had an interest in criminal identification), wrote articles such as “Ketsuekigata yori Mita Nihonjin” (“Japanese Seen from Blood-Types,” 1935). The most famous name associated with eugenics was Furukawa Takeji112 (1891– 1940). A graduate of Tokyo Imperial University (1916), he would become a professor at

138

The History of Japanese Psychology

Kōto Jogakkō (affiliated with Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School). While working as an educational administrator, Furukawa developed concerns about perceived unfairness in only measuring intelligence. Moreover, another element of unfairness was introduced during student interviews, since their personality (seikaku) was subjectively judged as “gloomy” or “cheerful.” He reached the conclusion that a more objective assessment was required and noticed temperamental differences between applicants and came to believe that blood-type and personality were somehow linked. He also came to believe that all individuals either possessed “blood-type A” or “bloodtype B.” The former were mild tempered and intellectual, while the latter had opposite traits. In works such as Ketsuekigata to Kishitsu (Blood-type and Temperament, 1932a) and Ketsuekigata to Minzokusei (Blood-type and Volk Traits, 1932b), Furukawa popularized his views (despite the lack of scientific evidence) which were widely accepted among the public. Though not well received, such thinking also spread to the industry, military, and medical establishment.

Industrial Psychology Outside officialdom, applied Psychology would be employed in the industrial, corporate, and commercial circles (to improve industrial productivity, worker efficiency, personnel selection, and advertising),113 Meanwhile, companies hired Psychologists to work in labor management and skill training. In 1913 F.W. Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management (1911) was translated into Japanese as Gakuri-teki Jigyō Kanri Hō by Hoshino Yukinori and during the 1910s and 1920s the efficiency movement caught the attention of industrialists and state bureaucrats interested in profits and policies that boosted production. Industrial efficiency (shōgyō nōritsu), the science of labor (rōdō kagaku),114 and aptitude tests (tekisei kensa) became the order of the day. In 1942 the two-volume Sangyō Shinrigaku (Industrial Psychology) was published by Awaji Enjirō115 and colleagues.

Ueno Yōichi The most important figure in Japan’s industrial Psychology was Ueno Yōichi (1883‒1957). He was not a scholar, bureaucrat, or businessman. Rather, he was an “independent writer,” management consultant, and educator and, significantly for our purposes, he was the “father of the efficiency movement” (nōritsu undō).116 Ueno, who was a student of Motora, specialized in Psychology and graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1908. He edited Shinri Kenkyū (Psychological Research) and introduced the works of Binet, Freud, and Münsterberg. Enthusiastic about the benefits of Psychology, Ueno was instrumental in administrating the “Popular Lectures on Psychology” (Shinrigaku Tsūzoku Kōwa-kai). The Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (Nōshōmu-shō) financially supported Ueno’s study of Euro-American industrialism. Ueno’s research was also supported by Kobayashi Shōten (currently the company called Raion). After the war he worked as a state official and in 1950 he would set up the Sangyō Nōritsu Tanki Daigaku (Industrial

Organizational Institutionalization

139

Efficiency Junior College).117 Ueno was a prolific writer and translator; some of his works include Kinsei Shinrgaku-shi (with Noda Nobuo, History of Modern Psychology, 1922), Hanbai Shinri (The Psychology of Selling, 1931), and Kōkoku-jutsu (The Art of Advertising, 1924). Ueno’s efforts were recognized by the semi-official think tank Kyōchō-kai (Cooperation and Harmony Society, established in 1919), which promoted “harmonious cooperation” in industrial relations. The hope was that Japan’s traditional values, imbued with a “harmonyism,” could, together with reforms in management (factory laws, health insurance, severance pay, strike mediation, etc.), put the brakes on social instability caused by lathered industrialization. With support from Sawayanagi Masatarō, he was dispatched to the United States (in 1921) and Europe where he met with leaders of the scientific management movement. After he returned to Japan, he organized and directed the Industrial Efficiency Institute and published Nōritsu Kenkyū (Efficiency Research), which was affiliated with the Kyōchōkai. Uchida Yūzaburō was a member. In 1924, Ueno established the Japan branch of the Taylor Society and three years later organized the Nihon Nōritsu Rengōkai (Japan Efficiency Federation) and was made head of the Japan School of Efficiency (Nihon Nōritsu Gakkō; set up in 1942). Though Ueno was heavily influenced by F.W. Taylor,118 Confucianism and Zen permeate his writings; indeed, for Ueno industrial rationalization centered on the “way of efficiency” (nōritsu-dō). His ideas on industrial management resonated with the mobilization drives of wartime Japan, specifically the New Order Movement (Shin Taisei Undō) and the “national defense state” that attempted to balance the interests of private society with those of officialdom.119 Kirihara Shigemi (1892–1968) specialized in Psychology at the Tokyo Imperial University and received his BA in 1919. He was awarded his doctorate in 1931 from the same institution for his research on the Psychology of work. In 1920 he became a researcher at the Kurashiki Institute for Science of Labor (Kurashiki Rōdō Kagaku Kenkyūjo120) and in 1933 traveled to the United States and Europe to study industrial Psychology. He became the director of the Welfare Department at the Imperial Rule Assistance Association121 in 1942 and later would be the director at the Institute for Science of Labor (Rōdō Kagaku Kenkūjo) (1951–61). From 1958 to 1965 he was the managing director at the Institute while also teaching at Japan Women’s University. Kirihara focused on working youth and industrial Psychology, though his interest was not in increasing efficiency but rather in how the environment impacted factory workers. He pursued labor reforms, such as maternity protections, the prohibition of women’s late-night work, and the regulation of the minimum age for employment. Among his most important publications were Shokugyō Shidō to Romū Hodō (Vocational Guidance and the Protective Guidance of Workers, 1938); “Sangyō Shōnenkō no Shomondai” (“Problems of Young Industrial Workers,” 1941); Senji Rōmu Kanri (Wartime Labor Management, 1942); Rōdō to Seinen (Labor and Youth, 1940); and Joshi Kinrō (Women’s Labor Service, 1944). Hori Baiten (1887–1973)122 made important contributions to social and industrial Psychology. He graduated from Keiō Gijuku University in 1911 and that same year

140

The History of Japanese Psychology

left for America to enter Clark University (in 1912). Two years later he received his MA for his thesis called “Theories of Attention” and in 1916 was awarded a PhD from Clark for his dissertation “A Study of the Behavior of Attention”. He then returned to Japan and began teaching at his alma mater. After the war he would work at Kassui Women’s Junior College in Nagasaki.123

8

Disciplinary Maturation: Specializations, Theories, and Psychotherapy

One important marker of a field’s intellectual maturity is how seriously it engages with contemporary movements, specializations, and theories. This chapter examines how Japanese Psychology became established by investigating its articulations in studies of perception, behaviorism, consciousness, emotions, personality, as well as Gestalt, animal, and cognitive Psychology. It also examines the history of proto-psychiatry in Japan, its modernization, and the rise of clinical Psychology and psychotherapy (see Appendix 7).

Perception studies: A Japanese strength In Japan perception became one of the most popular fields of research. Japanese Psychologists displayed “great originality” and their endeavors would influence later studies in Japan. The influence of Gestalt Psychology (see below) was strong, though Japanese researchers were typically very precise and stressed quantitative measurement. Akishige Yoshiharu and Ogasawara Jiei examined issues of size constancy; Ogasawara and Yūki Kinichi (né Hirose Kinichi), apparent movement in vision and audition; Abe Saburō and Abe Magoshirō, time–space interaction; Kuroda Ryō and Akishige, recovery from blindness; and Takagi Sadaji and Kuroda Ryō, animal perception. 1 Optical illusions have been a popular research topic in Japan, a subject Motora examined as early as 1890, though these phenomena were not systematically investigated until the 1930s.2 However, we should mention that Ishihara Shinobu (1879–1963), inspired by research done in Germany and the work of Ueno Yōchi, became interested in visual problems and illusions and in 1916 developed a colorblindness test (shikimō kensa). Others who worked on optical illusions include Obonai Torao (1899–1968). He experimented on the Oppel-Kundt (divided lines) and MüllerLyer and Delboeuf (concentric circle) illusions. Morinaga Shirō, a student of W. Metzger (at Frankfurt), also experimented on Delboeuf illusions.

142

The History of Japanese Psychology

Gestalt Psychology Gestalt Psychology (from the German word meaning “form” or “shape” and denoting wholeness) emerged as a reaction to the structuralism of earlier Psychology that assumed perception occurred when independent sensations were assembled in the mind. Gestalt Psychology3 sought to elucidate innate mental laws that determined the way in which objects were perceived (particularly visually) in a holistic, self-organizing manner. Though the idea of Gestalt has roots in earlier intellectual traditions, the Austrian philosopher Christian Freiherr von Ehrenfels4 is usually given credit for introducing the concept. Thinkers such as the Austrian philosopher of science and physicist Ernst Mach5 are also recognized for contributing to the notion. However, from a more narrow psychological perspective, the three theorists who developed Gestalt Psychology were Max Wertheimer6 (credited as the founder of the movement), Kurt Koffka,7 and Wolfgang Köhler.8 Both Koffka and Köhler were students of Carl Stumpf, 9 the German philosopher and Psychologist who studied under Franz Brentano and Rudolf Hermann Lotze. According to Takasuna, Gestalt Psychology can be divided into two lineages.10 The first, the “Graz school,” is associated with Graz University in Austria: Alexis Meinong (1853−1920) and his student C. von Ehrenfels (1859−1932), who were influenced by the “act” Psychology of Franz Brentano (1838−1917). Meinong and von Ehrenfels were reacting to what they considered an atomistic, elementalistic, and reductionistic Psychology. The second lineage, or the “Frankfurt/Berlin school” (associated with Frankfurt and Berlin Universities), was developed mainly by Wertheimer (1880−1943), Koffka (1886−1941), Köhler (1887−1967), and Kurt Lewin (1890−1947). The latter three studied under C. Stumpf (1848−1936) and Lewin, whose work influenced Japanese Psychology students, lectured at Tokyo and Kyūshū Imperial Universities in 1933. Due to the political climate of 1930s Germany, he would end up fleeing (along with Wertheimer) to the United States.11 In Japan, Gestalt Psychology would become especially influential in the two decades before the war.12 The first report on Gestalt Psychology in Japan was probably given by Takagi Sadaji (1893–1975) in 1921 at Tokyo Imperial University. A student of Matsumoto, Takagi had visited a number of European universities (1920‒21), but he also studied with E.B. Titchener at Cornell University (1919‒20) and it is from him that Takagi probably first heard about Gestalt Psychology. As Takasuna notes, during the first half of the twentieth century over fifty Japanese Psychologists visited Germany in the 1920s; notable examples include Onoshima Usao, Kidō Mantarō, Sakuma Kanae, and Chiba Tanenari (however, no Japanese Psychologist obtained a doctorate from a German university).13 Meanwhile, increasing international tensions and war would cut Japan off from developments in the United States. Other important Japanese Psychologists who were influenced by Gestalt notions include Sakuma Kanae (1888–1970).14 A student of Matsumoto Matatarō, he specialized in Psychology as an undergraduate and received his doctorate in 1923 from Tokyo Imperial University and wrote his dissertation on Japanese phonetics.15

Disciplinary Maturation

143

He was sent as a researcher by the Ministry of Education to France and to the University of Berlin (along the way he met Onoshima Usao). He was influenced by Köhler (he would translate the latter’s Gestalt Psychology) and also worked with Kurt Lewin. After returning to Japan, he taught Psychology at Kyūshū Imperial University. He founded the psychological laboratory (a two-storied building) at Kyūshū Imperial University as well as the Kyūshū Psychological Association. After the war he would become president of Tōyō University and teach at Komazawa University. Besides introducing Gestalt Psychology to Japan, Sakuma did groundbreaking research on Japanese phonetics and language comprehension.16 Another Japanese contributor to the development of Gestalt Psychology was Chiwa Hiroshi (1891–1978). He specialized in Psychology and received his BA in 1916 from Tokyo Imperial University and became an associate professor at Tokyo Imperial University in 1926. In 1933 he traveled to the University of Berlin and two years later returned to Japan, and in 1943 he was promoted to professor at Tokyo Imperial University. After the war he taught at Aoyama Gakuin University.17 Morinaga Shiro (1908‒64) studied at Tokyo Imperial University and was interested in visual illusions.18 From 1935 to 1939, he studied under Wolfgang Metzger in Frankfurt. In 1941 he took a position at Tokyo Imperial University and beginning that same year he worked at the Military Safeguard Institute at the Shimofusa Santorium for disabled veterans and researched cognitive neuropsychology. A student of Zen, Morinaga represents an enduring Japanese interest and strength in perception and optical illusions.19

Comparative and animal Psychology For centuries, cultures had anthropomorphized animals. However, as the internalization of the individual increased during the late nineteenth century, anthropomorphism took a turn toward the internalization of animals,20 that is, some thinkers began to posit mental capabilities within animals. Some even believed (as many of us still do) that animals possessed conscious interiority. Do nonhuman species have minds? How do animals learn? Significantly, the comparison of humans with animals and the use of the latter in research raise fundamental questions about “what type of discipline is Psychology.” 21 George John Romanes (1848‒94), an evolutionary biologist and physiologist and friend of Charles Darwin, searched for similar mental processes shared by humans and animals and is credited with establishing the foundations of comparative Psychology.22 Also important was Conwy Lloyd Morgan (1852‒1936), who was wary of anthropomorphizing tendencies and the anecdotal evidence of Romanes. Morgan, who relied on careful observation in natural settings, developed observational methods apparent in books such as Animal Life and Intelligence (1890), Introduction to Comparative Psychology (1894), and Animal Behavior (1890). In America, Edward Lee Thorndike (1874‒1949),23 an influential Psychologist of learning, would also make significant contributions.24

144

The History of Japanese Psychology

Comparative Psychology in Japan In Japan comparative Psychology got its start relatively early. In 1918 Yatsu Naohide25 and Takahashi Ken published Dōbutsu no Kokoro, a translation of Margaret Floy Washburn’s26 The Animal Mind: A Textbook of Comparative Psychology (1908). The  Dōbutsu Shinri Gakkai (Society for Animal Psychology) was established in 1933 and Dōbutsu Shinri (Animal Psychology) was published for several years from 1934 and revived in 1944 as the Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Nenpō (Annual of Animal Psychology).27 Takasuna28 points out that in the Euro–American intellectual traditions, research on animal cognition was driven by a deep religio-philosophical agenda intended to demonstrate the mental superiority of humans. This explains why evolutionary theory met with resistance in some quarters. In Japan, however, evolutionary theory was readily accepted since it was believed that all living things, animals and humans, possessed a soul; that is, humans are as much a part of the natural world as are animals. Two Japanese pioneers of comparative Psychology were Masuda Koreshige (1883– 1933) and Kuroda Ryō (1890–1947).29 Masuda, a student of Motora and Matsumoto Matatarō, specialized in Psychology and received his doctorate from Tokyo Imperial University. He wrote about the uses of quantitative research in Psychology in his 1933 dissertation. In 1915 he worked as an assistant at Tokyo Imperial University and from 1919 to 1921 studied experimental Psychology in America and Europe. When Masuda returned to Japan, he became a professor at his alma mater. Masuda also worked as a temporary employee at the Aviation Psychology Department of the Aviation Research Institute (Kōkū Kenkyūjo Kōkū Shinri-bu) at Tokyo Imperial University and made contributions to military Psychology. Masuda was interested in problem solving and discrimination learning and modeled his research on that of G.J. Romanes and E.L. Thorndike (he used goldfish and birds in his experiments). He had interests in a large array of topics, including will, emotion, learning, the senses, and behaviorism. His behaviorism was not as radical as Watson’s and he saw a place for consciousness—ishiki in Psychology. He also dealt with problems of research methodology and was involved in the founding of the Japanese Psychological Association. He also edited Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Psychological Research). In 1914 he translated Samuel J. Holmes’ The Evolution of Animal Intelligence (1911; Dōbutsu Shinrigaku: Chinō no Shinka). His Jikken Shinrigaku Josetsu (Introduction to Experimental Psychology, 1926) was an important contribution to the field. Kuroda Ryō (1890‒1947) also specialized in Psychology as an undergraduate at Tokyo Imperial University and his 1930 dissertation, granted from the same school, was on the comparative Psychology of sound. After teaching at the secondary school level for a number of years, he eventually secured a position at Keijō Imperial University in Seoul, where he was a professor from 1926 to 1942. For the next five years he devoted his energies to writing. Kuroda researched amphibious animals (fish and reptiles), but also made extensive contributions to

Disciplinary Maturation

145

the study of primate Psychology. He wrote one of the first textbooks on comparative Psychology Dōbutsu Shinrigaku (Animal Psychology, 1936) and later became keenly interested in Buddhism and “Eastern” (tōyō-teki) Psychology and wrote Shina Shinri Shisō-shi (History of Chinese Psychological Thought, 1948) and Yuishiki Shinrigaku (Consciousness-Only Psychology, 1944). He also wrote Kan no Kenkyū (Research on Kan, 1933).30 Compared to most Psychologists of his generation, Kuroda’s career trajectory was unusual because he never studied overseas. Nevertheless, he greatly contributed to the development of Japanese Psychology. He published Acta Psychologia Keijō in English in order to familiarize overseas readers with work being done in Japan and became an editor for Psychological Abstracts which helped introduce Japanese research to an international audience. Several other Japanese scholars who made contributions to comparative Psychology deserve mention. Kanda Sakyo (1874–1939), though he did not study at Tokyo Imperial University, apparently studied under Motora at the latter’s home and received his MA under G.S. Hall at Clark University in 1909. He was initially interested in “religious Psychology,” then tropism and primitive activities in lower species. In 1915 he received his PhD in physiology from the University of Minnesota and portions of his dissertation were published in 1915 in the American Journal of Psychology.31 Yoshioka Joseph (Gennosuke) (1893–unclear), though born in Japan, spent most of his life in the United States.32 He went to the United States in 1908 where he received three degrees from Berkeley (BA, 1922; MA, 1923; and PhD, 1926). He studied under George M. Stratton33 and Samuel Jackson Holmes.34 Edward Chase Tolman35 supervised his dissertation. After his graduate studies he moved to the University of Chicago, where Karl Spencer Lashley36 managed a lab in the Institute for Juvenile Research. He would also work with Robert M. Yerkes37 in Florida at the latter’s Laboratories of Primate Biology. In his later years Yoshioka would work for a number of US government agencies. We might also mention Takemasa Tarō and Takagi Sadaji, who continued Masuda’s research at Tokyo Imperial and applied Gestalt principles to animal Psychology.38

Behaviorism: Explaining away interiority A confluence of developments, both within and outside Psychology, would lead to a suspicion and eventually a rejection of what was for many, the essence of psychological research숯inner experience. It is only activity or behavior that is objective enough to warrant scientific investigation. Though more qualified and sophisticated versions of behaviorism would emerge that acknowledged the role of thinking and feeling as behaviors (“privately observable” versus “publicly observable”), in general behaviorism has been wary of introspective methods, “internal events” or “hypothetical constructs” such as “mind.” Therefore, activity should possess observational correlates. For our purposes, what is most significant about behaviorism is how it attempted to eliminate conscious interiority from

146

The History of Japanese Psychology

the research agenda of Psychology. Though behaviorism would decline after the “cognitive revolution” beginning in the late 1950s, its insistence on methodological rigor would greatly shape modern Psychology. The origins of behaviorism can be traced to “classical conditioning,” which is associated with the Russian physician, physiologist, Psychologist, and Nobel Prize awardee Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849–1936). Pavlov would greatly influence John Broadus Watson (1878–1958),39 usually regarded as the formal founder of behaviorism.40 Basing his ideas on his own research on animal behavior, he was the intellectual heir to a very strict type of empiricism and sought to restrict Psychology to experimental methods. In an assault on what he regarded as speculative and superstitious notions (“mind” and invisible, innate mental operations), Watson pursued a highly objective and descriptive research agenda.41 Throughout the latter part of the twentieth century, behaviorism would be associated with B.F. Skinner (1904–90), who conducted research on operant conditioning and is considered by some to be the most influential psychologist of the twentieth century. His “radical behaviorism” sought to analyze behavior as a function of reinforcing experiences and acknowledged a role for the operation of behavioral principles within the organism, though mentalistic or internal states were not considered causes of behavior.42 Behaviorism made an early appearance in Japan.43 In 1914 Ōtsuki Kaison discussed it at a conference in Japan with a talk entitled “Is Psychology the Study of Consciousness or Behavior?”44 Interestingly, though behaviorism had been introduced into Japan during the 1910s, the widespread reception of Pavlovian theory was delayed until the 1930s. However, in 1916 Kuroda Genji (1886–1957) wrote an essay about Pavlov’s ideas on the conditioned reflex. We should mention that from 1904 to 1933 three Japanese medical physiologists studied in Pavlov’s laboratory.45 Ishikawa Hidetsurumaru (1847–1947), from Kyoto Imperial University’s School of Medicine, wrote an article on Pavlov’s ideas in 1916. Satake Yasutarō (1884–1959), a graduate of Kyoto Imperial University and from Tōhoku Imperial University’s School of Medicine, conducted Pavlovian-inspired experiments on dogs but did not refer to Pavlov in his writings. Hayashi Takashi (1897–1969), who studied under Pavlov (1932–33), graduated from the School of Medicine at Keio Gijuku University in 1924. In 1937 he translated Pavlov’s work (On the Cerebral Hemispheres). It was Kuroda Genji, a student of Ishikawa, who wrote the first book on Pavlov in Japanese in 1924: Jōken Hansha Ron: Ishiki Seikatsu no Seirigaku-teki Kaishaku (The Theory of Conditioned Reflexive: Physiological Interpretation of Life Consciousness). In 1930 Itō Dōki (1900–94) translated Watson’s The Ways of Behaviorism숯in Japanese it was called Yuibutsu Shinrigaku or Materialist Psychology. Other researchers that deserve mention include Imada Megumi (1894–1970). A  student of Matsumoto Matatarō who specialized in American Psychology and William James (the topic of his dissertation), he was influenced by Watson’s behaviorism. The  Psychologist Kotake Yashō was a student of Imada and published on Pavlovian theory in 1943 and conducted conditioning experiments using humans. Umeoka Yoshitaka, a student of Takagi Sadaji, performed experiments on conditioned

Disciplinary Maturation

147

reflexes along lines established by the neo-behaviorist B.F. Skinner. In 1942, Nasu Kiyoshi (1916–), a student of Imada Megumi, translated Watson’s Behaviorism.46 Not long before the war’s end Masaki Masashi conducted research inspired by C.L. Hull (1884–1952) and E.C. Tolman (1886–1959).47 The physiologists Uramoto Seizaburō (1891–1965; from Kansei Gakuin) and Motokawa Kōichi (1903–71; from Tōhoku Imperial University) should be mentioned here.48 Such research laid the groundwork for the Japan’s postwar development of a behaviorism strongly influenced by American research.49

Consciousness: Acknowledging and exploring interiority Chiba Tanenari (1884–1972), influenced by Franz Brentano 50 and Wilhelm Dilthey, 51 was primarily interested in problems of consciousness. A student of Matsumoto Matatarō, he received his BA in 1909 after specializing in Psychology at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1922 he received his doctorate from the same university. He was an assistant at his alma mater, then taught at Rinzaishu and Otani Universities, as well as his alma mater. He went to Germany, where he studied under Wundt from 1920 to 1923 at University of Leipzig, and in 1923 he became the first professor of Psychology at Tōhoku Imperial University; three years later, together with Ōwaki Yoshikazu, 52 he founded the Psychology laboratory at the same school. In 1940 he retired from Tōhoku and became professor at Kenkoku University in China.53 From 1945 to 1949 he worked as a principal at a secondary school and then became the director of an educational research institute in Miyagi Prefecture. In 1949 he became a professor at Niigata University and in his later years would work at Nihon and Komazawa Universities. 54 Though Chiba did not publish much, beginning from 1933, his cultivation of Tōhoku Psychologia Folia, which published English, German, and French articles, ensured that overseas scholars were kept up-to-date on developments in Japanese Psychology. 55 One of Chiba’s key ideas was what he termed “proper consciousness” (koyū ishiki; German: Eigenbewusstsein). This describes the liminal state between consciousness and unconsciousness and he theorized that our natural mental state was unconsciousness (which encompassed both the center and field of consciousness). We become conscious when the unconscious is inhibited. Proper consciousness can be characterized as either “relative” (the individual’s psyche) or “absolute” (a sort of trans-individual psyche).56 Like Motora’s shingen, Chiba’s thinking on koyū ishiki is somewhat unclear. In addition to his theorizing on consciousness, Chiba is famous for bringing about 16,000 books and papers of Wundt to Tōhoku Imperial University. The collection, still at Tōhoku, is estimated to hold 60 percent of Wundt’s library. Obtaining the collection was no small feat, given the fact that he had to compete with American universities (including Yale and Harvard) and University of Leipzig, but with financial support from the Saitō family of Sendai, he was able to purchase this portion of Wundt’s library for 20,000 yen (equivalent to about US$70,000).57

148

The History of Japanese Psychology

Another researcher interested in consciousness was Yokoyama Matsusaburō (1890–1966), who was strongly influenced by E.B. Titchener’s work.58 Yokoyama sought to solve the problems regarding consciousness: its function, how elements relate to the whole, the relation between consciousness and unconsciousness, how consciousness adapts, and the meaning of behavior within the view of structural Psychology.

Snapshot The Würzburg School and interiority Eventually some of Wundt’s views on the mind would be challenged. For example, a former student, Oswald Külpe (1862–1917), reached the conclusion that, contra to Wundt, thought processes are not beyond experimental investigation. Using trained individuals who would introspectively self-observe, Külpe and his colleagues found that though subjects would report an introspective experience, it was void of imagery. To phrase it metaphorically, their interiorized space was empty of any mental furniture. At the time, this caused somewhat of an intellectual earthquake since it was assumed that all thought should be accompanied by images of some sort, that is, ideas were defined in imagistic terms. A new idiom was developed to delineate the subtleties of interiorized experience and what became known as “imageless thought” appeared. What other type of “content” could there be in the mind if mental imagery were absent? The Würzburg School, as Külpe and his disciples became known, used the term “conscious attitude” (Bewusstseinslagen) to describe obscure, indescribable, and unanalyzable contents숯“neither sensations nor ideas.” Similar to “conscious attitude” is Bewusstheit or “awareness,” a term used by Narziss Ach (1871–1946) to indicate a vague, not easily described “something there,” that is intangible and impalpable (and sans image or sensation).59 In an attempt to accurately delineate the different stages of a psychological act, Ach discussed the need for “systematic experimental introspection,” meaning that a careful scientific technique was required despite the fuzziness associated with interiorized experiences. Along with Henry J. Watt (1879–1925), Ach used the concepts of Aufgabe (“conscious task”; or an instruction given to a person) and “determining tendency” (or “mental set”), meaning the preparation—by nonconscious cognition—of the execution of a task. It became clear that the tasks given orchestrated the associations and skills into a purposeful orderly sequence of behaviors outside of awareness. The students and colleagues of the Würzburg School followed up on the implications of imageless thought. In deceptively simple experiments, Karl Marbe (1869–1953) would ask subjects to lift two weights and then judge which was the heavier. He found that, though a sense of introspection transpired and they assessed correctly which was heavier, an actual “judgment” was not mentally “seen” (introceived) by the subjects. Their assessments spontaneously appeared, though they could not describe the “conscious content” that accompanied such assessments. Judgment, considered the defining trait of the purposeful, rational, and conscious individual, occurred while the subjects were introspectively blank.

Disciplinary Maturation

149

Interiorized feelings: “Emotions” Arakawa points out that, traditionally, Japanese believed that we possessed “seven emotions” (shichi jō): happiness, anger, sadness, fear, love, hatred, and desire.60 But in premodern times, these were not topics of scientific scrutiny but morally charged stances or reactions to others. As internalization increased, research Psychology would come to view these as objects in their own right that demanded investigation. An important contributor to the study of emotions was Hayami Hiroshi (1876– 1943), who received his BA in 1900 from Tokyo Imperial University. His graduation thesis was called “Kanjō no kenkyū” (“Research on Emotion”). After his undergraduate studies, he became a research assistant and in 1921 was awarded his doctorate. While teaching at other institutions, he became an instructor at Tokyo Imperial University in 1912. Beginning in 1924, he spent almost two years in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States in order to gather information for establishing psychological courses and a laboratory at Keijō Imperial University. From 1926 he began teaching Psychology at Keijō and eventually would become its president (1936–40). Hayami believed that philosophy still had a role to play in Psychology, particularly in how it dealt with the moral aspects of human nature and that an objective Psychology could not necessarily come to terms with our introspective abilities. The Hayami Award of the Japanese Psychological Association was established in his name. Other Psychologists who pursued research on emotions and feelings include Yokoyama Matsusaburō and Chiba Tanenari (see the latter’s 1932 Kanjō no Mondai; English: The Problems of Emotions and Feelings).

Focusing on individuation: “Personality” A pioneer of “personality” or “character” (seikaku) Psychology was Watanabe Tōru (1883–1957). Watanabe, a student of Motora, specialized in Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University. His graduation thesis was called “Jinkakuron” (“Theory of Personality”) and at Tokyo Imperial University he became a graduate student. In 1957 he received an honorary doctorate from Nihon University. He would become a professor at Nihon University in 1920 and establish a Psychology laboratory there (1921). During and after the war, he helped rehabilitate those suffering from injuries. He also had an interest in “climate Psychology” and explored the history of Japanese Psychology by examining the works of the proto-Psychologist Kamata Hō.61 Watanabe, who devised the first group test of intelligence, was influenced by William Lewis Stern, the German Psychologist and philosopher and inventor of the “intelligent quotient” (IQ).62

Cognitive Psychology Here we should mention the work of Yatabe Tatsurō (1893–1958), who wrote prolifically on the Psychology of thinking or what we now more conventionally call cognition. Yatabe received his BA after specializing in Psychology at the Tokyo

150

The History of Japanese Psychology

Imperial University. Beginning in 1920 he studied overseas for four years in France (Sorbonne University) and Germany. He would become a professor at Kyūshū Imperial, Kyoto Imperial, and Waseda Universities. Though he did graduate work at Tokyo Imperial University, he received his doctorate from Kyūshū Imperial University in 1944. His dissertation was on the history of the Psychology of will. He also revised the J.P. Guilford test in 1953,63 which became the “Yatabe–Guilford Test” (Yatabe– Girufuyōdo Seikaku Kensa). Some of his important works include Ishi Shinrigakushi (The History of the Psychology of Will, 1942); Shikō Shinrigaku-shi (The History of the Psychology of Thinking, 1948a); Shikō Shinrigaku I: Gainen to Imi (Psychology of Thinking I: Concepts and Meaning, 1948b); Shikō Shinrigaku II: Kankei to Suiri (Psychology of Thinking II: Relations and Reasoning, 1949); and Shikō Shinrigaku III: Dōbutsu no Shikō (Psychology of Thinking III: Thinking in Animals, 1953).

Therapeutic and clinical Psychology Premodern treatment of mental disorders Psychiatry evolved as a science very much concerned with categorization and rooted in biological and neurological explanations. Despite early attempts at reform and institutionalization, it was not until the 1890s that the number of those in asylums in industrialized societies dramatically increased. Late nineteenth-century Germany saw major advances in psychiatric treatment, probably since asylums there were typically under the control of universities. Some historical background is in order. In England the physician William Battie (1703–76) wrote the Treatise on Madness (1758) which called for the humane treatment of the mentally ill within institutionalized settings. In the early 1790s the French physician Philippe Pinel (1745–1826) also called for the humane treatment of those suffering from mental disorders. Influenced by Pinel, William Tuke (1732–1822) opened the York Retreat, which became a model for other institutions and reform movements targeting treatment of the mentally ill (such as the privately funded Brattleboro and Hartford Retreat64 in the United States). A key figure in the development of psychiatry was Emil Kraepelin (1856–1926), who had studied under Wundt and taught at the University of Tartu (in what is now Estonia). He took what he called a “clinical” (as opposed to a “symptomatic”) approach to mental disorders. Influenced by the German psychiatrist Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum (1828–99), Kraeplin carefully classified mental illnesses by discerning common patterns of symptoms (i.e., syndromes), rather than by examining the major or obvious symptoms.

Proto-psychiatry in Japan65 As in the Western tradition, mental illness in Japan before the late nineteenth century was understood as either a supernatural (requiring shamanistic or religious handling) or a biological phenomenon. The idea that the psychological—something

Disciplinary Maturation

151

neither strictly spiritual nor physical—could account for mental problems was not as distinctly developed as today. “Until the early part of the Meiji period in Japan, the treatment of mental patients still relied on exorcism and folk cures and was brutal. Atrocities were committed without much thought. Compared to the West, which had previously treated the mentally ill as witches, therapy had not been systemized.”66 Despite the superstitious folk remedies we typically associate with the pre-scientific era, a cursory look at what might be called Japan’s “pre-modern” psychiatrists illustrates that even before the Meiji period a number of Japanese thinkers investigated mental disorders from a surprisingly “scientific” perspective. Several traits characterize premodern attempts to explain and treat mental illness (as well as psychological processes in general). First, a psychological realm, more or less clearly segregated from either our physicality or our divine natures, was weakly developed. In other words, the psyche was not as interiorized as it is today. What we refer to as psychological processes were highly somatized, conceived as concrete, almost visible events. Second, theories were premised on “literal metaphoricity,”67 that is, psychological activities were believed to materially transpire in the heart or other abdominal and thoracic organs (heart, liver, gall bladder, kidneys, etc.). Some believed the brain (nōzui) played a role.68 Another key term was ki, the vital energy pervading the cosmos as well as the human body, which linked the macro-, micro-, and introcosms. Ki had both material and immaterial aspects and still constitutes the most common metaphor for describing psychological activities and events in Japanese.69 Third, a preference for “unitary” explanations, in the sense that all psychiatric conditions arise from a single cause, was evident; for example, the “theory that poison, produced within the body, causes various diseases” (manbyō ichidoku-ron) or the “etiological principle that all diseases is caused by stagnant vital energy or ki” (ikki rutai-setsu). Fourth, an idiom developed that clearly shows that thinkers took an empirical, medicophysiological approach to mental illness (though some believed in fox possession and other superstitions): kan (mental disorders), ten (epilepsy), kyō (madness), kyo (fright disorder), shinshitsu (heart–mind disease), shinkibyō (hypochrondria), utsushū (melancholia), and chigai (mental retardation and dementia).70 Finally, despite its modern-sounding discourse, premodern thinking on mental illness was still rooted in a cosmic mentality, that is, note the use of spiritual fluid (rei-eiki), life spirit (sei-ki), divine spirit (shinki), and vital spirit (seiki). Common treatments included emetics, hydrotherapy, bloodletting, moxibustion, induced sleep, and herbal medicine in order to, in the therapy of Wada Tōkaku (1744‒1803), “move spirit, change vital energy” (isei henki). By the eighteenth century, three schools (ha), all of which were informed by indigenous folk treatments and kampō (literally, “Chinese way”),71 competed with each other: (1) Gosei-ha (based on Chinese natural philosophy and medieval medicine); (2) Kohō-ha (based on clinical observation and critical of speculative approaches, it advocated a return to classical Chinese medicine); and (3) Setchū-ha (the Eclectic School, which borrowed from the other two schools and included elements from Western medicine) (Table 8.1).

152

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 8.1 List of Japanese proto-psychiatrists and their works Name

Japanese title

English title

Kagawa Shūtoku (1683–1755)

Ippondō Gyōyo Igen

My Extra Medical Commentary, 1788

Tamura Gensen (1737–1809)

Ryōji Sadan

Small Talks on Treatment, 1808

Wada Tōkaku (1744–1803)

Shōsō Zatsuwa

Small Talks by a Window Facing a Japanese Banana Plant, 1818–30

Nakagami Kinkei (also called Seiseidō, 1744–1833)

Seiseidō Itan Seiseidō Chiken

Seiseidō’s Commentary on Medicine, 1795 Seiseidō’s Cases of Treatment, 1804

Komori Genryō (1781–1843)

Byōin Seigi

Treatise on the Cause of Disease, 1827

Imaizumi Genryū (1797–1874)

Ryōji Yawa

Night Talks on Treatment, 1860

Honma Sōken (1808–72)

Naika Hiroku

Memoir of Internal Medicine, 1864

Tsuchida Ken (dates unknown)

Tenkankyō Keiken-hen

Case Reports of Mental Illness, 1806

Kitamura Ryōtaku (dates unknown)

Tohō-ron

A Treatise on Emetic Treatment, 1817

Source: Borrowed from Hiruta and Beveridge (2002: 147).

Those suffering from mental disorders—socially classified along with the destitute or outcasts—were nevertheless often integrated into the community by being placed under temple supervision. Some were incarcerated. Home confinement of some sort was also practiced (this would eventually be formalized and legalized by 1900).72 As in other places, as Japan industrialized, officialdom increasingly instituted management of the mentally ill and the line between care and control was often difficult to discern.

Institutionalizing normalcy: The modernization of Japanese psychiatry In a fascinating incident that involved charges of forced confinement, bribery, slander, and murder, an ex-samurai named Nishigori Takekiyo complained to the authorities in 1883 that the son of his former lord of Nakamura domain, Soma Tomotane (1852– 92), was being locked up by his family so they could take control of his wealth. Their pretense was that he was mentally unstable. It would be another eleven years until the issue was resolved, but Nishigori’s charges implicated some important personages, including Sakaki Hajime (Japan’s first professor of psychiatry) and Nakai Tsunejirō, the director of Tokyo’s public asylum (Tōkyō-fu Tenkyō-in73), as well as Iwasa Jun, the personal physician to the Meiji Emperor. Significantly for our purposes, the “Soma Incident” acted as a lightning rod for public discussion in Japan’s nascent but lively mass media and the publishing industry about how the mentally ill should be treated. Legislation intended to socially manage the mentally ill must be understood within the context of the Soma Incident: the 1900 Mentally-Ill Patient Confinement

Disciplinary Maturation

153

and Protection Law (Seishinbyō-sha Kango Hō) and the 1919 Mental Illness Asylum Law (Seishinbyō-in Hō). By the early twentieth century, the mentally ill were either sent to psychiatric hospitals, private facilities, or home confinement in a locked room (zashiki-rō). Two individuals did much to modernize the treatment of Japan’s mentally ill: Sakaki Hajime and Kure Shūzō. Sakaki (1857–97), from Tokyo Imperial University, was dispatched by the Ministry of Education in 1883 to study psychiatry in Germany for four years. He became a student of the German neurologist Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1833–90). When he returned to Japan, he became the first chair of Psychiatry at Tokyo Imperial University’s School of Medicine (in 1887) and the director of the Tokyo Public Asylum.74 He accepted the idea that mental illness is biological in origin and hereditary (as did Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Henry Maudsley75). Kure Shūzō (1865–1932), called the “father of Japanese psychiatry” and the “Japanese Pinel,” studied overseas (1897–1901) under Kraepelin and Franz Nissl.76 Kure, who became a professor at Tokyo Imperial University’s School of Medicine, was also the director of Sugamo Hospital and instrumental in training a generation of Japanese mental health specialists. He established the Japan Neurological Society (Nihon Shinkei Gakkai77) along with the physician Miura Kinnosuke in 1902. He also founded the Charity and Cure Society for the Mentally Ill (Seishinbyō-in Jizen Kyūjikai). Together with Kashida Gorō, he researched the conditions of the mentally ill from 1910 to 1916. Their endeavors resulted in The Situation of Mental Patients Confined in Their Homes and Its Statistical Inspection (1918).78 In 1900 the state promulgated the Mental Patients’ Custody Act which allowed the confinement of mentally ill patients by a family at home. But Kure was stridently critical of officialdom’s attempts to burden families with the care of the mentally ill and argued that psychiatric problems were a public concern.79

Psychotherapy and clinical Psychology Though the history of psychotherapy can be understood as having roots in medicine, psychiatry, and neurophysiology, other developments would shape its trajectory. In  particular, it is within the historical context of nineteenth-century industrialism that the growth of psychotherapy, as broadly defined, must be understood. Arguably, as psychological processes adapted to modernity, some individual psyches, confronting novel political economic demands, buckled under the pressure and what was called hysteria, neurasthenia, and ambulatory psychoneuroses became noticeably common ailments and caught the attention of thinkers in various fields. Eventually, this attention to mental health and its treatment—that is, clinical Psychology—would spread and become implicated and institutionalized in psychiatric wards, social work, nursing, pastoral counseling, and school guidance.80 While much of research Psychology was institutionalized via the laboratory at universities (where reaction time, reflex action, association studies, introspection, etc., were the focus), clinical Psychology and psychotherapeutics took shape in nonacademic settings and, significantly, was rooted

154

The History of Japanese Psychology

in psychiatry, physiological Psychology, neurology, and paranormal studies (psychical research). Several decades before psychoanalysis became intimately associated with psychotherapy in America, a new field called “experimental psychopathology” developed at Harvard (William James) and Clark Universities (Alfred Meyer) by the 1890s. French ideas, in particular, the tradition of la clinque (“bedside teaching”), played a key role in shaping what has been called the “Boston school of abnormal Psychology.”81 Indeed, Taylor points out that it was not just the German laboratory model that played a role in redefinitions of the human condition and the nature of psyche—various strains of psychological inquiry—personality, abnormal, social, and clinical Psychology—have their roots in an “international psychotherapeutic alliance” very much informed by French neurophysiology. This alliance flourished for several decades until Freudian psychoanalysis became closely associated with clinical practices.82 Here we should mention Pierre Janet (1859–1947), who did groundbreaking research in hallucinations and hypnotism, as well as in abnormal Psychology (hysteria, dissociative disorders, and other pathologies). With the French doctor and psychologist Georges Dumas (1866–1946), he founded Journal de psychologie normal et pathologique (Journal of Normal and Pathological Psychology) in 1904. Born one year after Motora, he was a pupil of the neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–93) and in 1898 was appointed to teach experimental Psychology at the Sorbonne. He did not establish a “school,” and is one of the most overlooked and underestimated Psychologists of his generation. Arguably, he stands along with William James in American and Wilhelm Wundt in Germany as a founder of modern Psychology. Unfortunately, not all of his work has been translated, and what was translated is not representative of his major insights. Some of his major works include L’Automatisme psychologique (Psychological Automatism) (1892), Mental State of Hystericals (1901), Les Névroses (1905), The Major Symptoms of Hysteria (1907), Psychological Healing (1925), L’Évolution de la mémoire et de la notion du temps (The Evolution of Memory and the Notion of Time) (1929), and La médecine psychologique (Psychological Medicine) (1923). In America, James and Baldwin had a great interest in such abnormal Psychology and pursued what Binet described as “French experimental [P]sychology of the subconscious” in one of his books. Eventually, relevant ideas would be diffused through medicine, psychiatry, philosophy, Psychology, sociology, anthropology, and religion.83 Another key figure in abnormal Psychology was the physician and neurologist Morton H. Prince (1854–1929), who also made important contributions to psychopathology and clinical Psychology. Prince acknowledged the significance of the unconscious (but not of the Freudian variety) and became famous for his work in what is now called dissociative identity disorders (e.g., “multiple personality”). In The Dissociation of a Personality (1906) he described the case of Sally Beauchamp. He was instrumental in founding the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and set up the Harvard Psychological Clinic in 1927.

Disciplinary Maturation

155

Freudianism in Japan84 For all the serious problems—some theoretically fatal—associated with Freudianism, its popularity was explosive (especially in America). Here I will not attempt an explication, but suffice to say, Freud arguably humanized Psychology in a way no other thinker did by relating it to the everyday, religion, art, history, and that most important and immediate crucible for personal identity, family relations. As the psyche of individuals increasingly became interiorized, a rather poetic idiom (though one ostensibly grounded in a science of the human) seems to describe a soothing salve for our irrational, alienated, and inward-focused selves. The work of Freud, then, “can be seen in a context of widespread cultural change, as an effect rather than instigating force.”85 Freudianism never became as deeply rooted in Japan as it did in America or Europe. Some speculate that since matriarchy has played a more important role than patriarchy in Japan, the attention Freudianism gives father–child tensions, rather than mother–child dynamics, does not resonate among Japanese.86 In any case, an early reference to Freud’s ideas appears in an article by Sasaki Masanao (1903). Psychoanalysis entered Japanese intellectual circles via America. Kakise Hikozō (1874–1944), a student of Motora who graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1901, went to Clark University to study under G.S. Hall. While at Clark in 1909 he met Freud, Jung, and W. Stern (that year G.S. Hall invited Freud to Clark to give lectures).87 And in 1911 he published an article in Japanese that reported on new developments in American Psychology. Kubo Yoshihide, who learned about psychoanalytic thought from G.S. Hall while studying at Clark, wrote an entire book on the topic (1917a).88 We should also mention Ōtsuki Kaison, another student of Motora, who applied psychoanalytic ideas in his “Psychology of Forgetting” (“Monowasure no Shinri,” 1912). Other important figures include Kimura Kyūichi, who wrote a number of essays on psychoanalysis (1912a,b, 1913a,b); Ueno Yōichi, who wrote extensively on Freud (1914a,b,c,d, 1915), and Yasuda Tokutarō, who in 1926 translated some of Freud’s works in his Seishin Bunsekigaku Nyūmon (The Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis). The most influential advocates of Freudianism were Yabe Yaekichi (1875–1945), Ōtsuki Kenji (1891–1977), Marui Kiyoyasu (1886–1953), and Kosawa Heisaku (1897– 1968). Except for Ōtsuki, all spent time abroad and met Freud and underwent analysis. Ōtsuki, who would pursue his interests outside the hierarchies of academics, adopted a more humanistic view of psychoanalysis. Yabe and Ōtsuki were instrumental in founding the “lay analyst” movement that in many ways opposed a more professionalized and medicalized view of psychoanalysis. Together they founded the Tokyo Institute of Psychoanalysis (Tōkyō Seishin Bunsekigaku Kenkyūjo) in 1928 which published Seishin Bunseki (official English name: Tokyo Journal of Psychoanalysis) from 1933.89 Yabe studied Psychology at Berkeley in the early 1900s and in 1930 the Japan’s Ministry of Railway (Tetsudō-shō) would sponsor his three-month trip to Europe to study psychoanalysis. He would meet Freud in Berlin and in 1930 he traveled to England where he met Edward Glover90

156

The History of Japanese Psychology

and obtained permission from Ernest Jones91 to organize the Tokyo Psychoanalytic Association.92 Ōtsuki Kenji, who graduated from Waseda University, is credited with launching lay analysis in Japan.93 Ōtsuki, who suffered from anxiety as a child, was not a formally trained Psychologist or psychiatrist, but had specialized in literature while a student and was a prolific writer and brilliant linguist and translator. After the war he would develop an unorthodox psychoanalytic approach that he called “life analysis” (seimei bunsekigaku). The psychiatrist Marui Kiyoyasu was important for establishing Japanese psychoanalysis in Japan. From 1916 to 1919 he studied at Johns Hopkins University under the famous Swiss psychiatrist Adolf Meyer.94 When he returned to Japan, he taught psychoanalysis at Tōhoku Imperial University’s School of Medicine as well as in the Department of Psychology (from 1923). His classes may have been the first systematic lectures in Japan on psychoanalysis. At Tōhoku Imperial University he also published the Collection of Works in Psychoanalysis (Seishin Bunsekigaku Ronsō). In 1933 he traveled to Europe where he met Freud and after receiving permission from the father of psychoanalysis, Marui established the Sendai95 branch of the International Psychoanalytic Association.96 It is important to point out that being a psychiatrist, Marui viewed Freud’s ideas within the context of psychopathology and diagnostic categorization informed by German psychiatry (with which psychoanalytic theory disagreed).97 The most notable Japanization of Freud was accomplished by Kosawa Heisaku, a student of Marui who visited Freud in 1931 and underwent psychoanalysis in Vienna under R. Sterba.98 Marui would open his own clinic in the 1930s. Kosawa developed the “Ajase complex” (from the Buddhist myth of Prince Ajatasatru). Rather than the father (as in the theory of the Freudian Oedipus complex), the Ajase complex places the mother at the center of the child’s psychic life. This view of the mother–child dynamic is more appropriate in Japan, where supposedly ambivalent feelings develop between mothers and their children.99 If Freud’s impact was limited in Japan, Jung’s influence was even less so.100 The first to translate Jung’s works was Oguma Toranosuke (1888–1978), who had an interest in abnormal Psychology. He also made contributions to hypnosis and criminal Psychology and translated William James.101 After Kakise Hikozō returned to Japan he lectured on Jung’s “free association method” of uncovering unconscious thoughts and in a 1911 article that reported on recent developments in American Psychology, he described psychoanalysis.102 Despite the aforementioned efforts of intellectual pioneers, it is safe to say that Japanese have not been receptive to psychoanalysis.103 Generally, psychiatry has been a biological rather than a psychological endeavor in Japan.

Morita and Naikan therapy The best known psychotherapy indigenous to Japan is Morita therapy. This Zeninspired treatment was developed by Morita Masatake (Morita Shōma; 1874–1938), 104 a psychiatrist and graduate of Tokyo Imperial University (1902) who is also credited

Disciplinary Maturation

157

with recognizing the need for social psychiatry in Japan. Morita attended lectures given by Motora, Matsumoto Matatarō, and Fukurai Tomokichi and studied under Kure. He became an assistant at Tokyo Imperial University and then worked as a doctor at Sugamo Hospital. Morita would become a professor and chair at Jikei University’s School of Medicine and he also worked in Negishi Hospital. Eventually he started to treat those with shinkeishitsu (anxiety-based disorder) and published his ideas of “Morita Therapy.” Dr. Kōra Takehisa succeeded his chair and continued his work. Morita, who suffered from some type of neurosis symptoms from the age of sixteen, was interested in treating neurasthenia (shinkeishitsu), which was a popular term during Taishō. This was an illness that appeared when a civilized lifestyle made progress, that is, it can be understood as one type of a “disease of civilization.”105 Morita’s treatment was premised on the importance of arugamama (“taking things as they are”) and the Buddhist notion of mindfulness, that is, being fully aware of each moment in order to appreciate its positive potential. Such attitudes help one obtain self-insight by moving from a feeling-centered to a purpose-centered perspective, thereby harmonizing one’s approach toward life within the cosmos. Naikan was developed by Yoshimoto Ishin (1916–88), a follower of the Jōdo Shinshū Buddhist sect (True Sect of the Pure Land) who through ascetic practices realized the power of concentrated self-reflection. Naikan, which can be translated as “introspection” and literally means “looking inside,” is a method that acknowledges the therapeutic capabilities of a focused self-reflexivity, a key feature of interiority that has become more intense in modern times. Yoshimoto introduced his ideas to young criminals, but eventually Naikan spread to different settings. Naikan practice involves a series of self-probing questions in which the patient comes to realize how he or she is embedded in complex social relations, particularly those concerning one’s mother. It is now used in centers throughout Japan (and elsewhere). Naikan is employed in a variety of settings: mental health counseling, addiction treatment, prisoner rehabilitation, educational settings, and businesses.106

9

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology: State, Schooling, and Military Applications

This chapter continues an exploration of the links between the state, nationalism, pedagogy, and Psychology. Specifically, the role of the Ministry of Education and moral education is investigated and how they related, within educational settings, to Japan’s “total war” efforts and “national spirit.” Also examined are the military applications of Psychology, overseas imperial universities, and how Japan impacted the development of Chinese Psychology.

Psyche and the imperialist state Political economic institutions as “macroscopic” The “macroscopic” basically means how we see reality, but a more specific, political understanding of this term concerns how increasingly large, bureaucratized political economic institutions (ministries, corporations, civil society organizations, etc.) understood their mission as taking a bird’s-eye view of populations. Having a panoramic perspective over society allowed a surveying, charting, and mapping of the body social. Policymaking became conceived not as a reaction to social problems, but more a matter of proactive planning, strategy, and long-term supervision of the micro-level social interactions and the introscopic. In order to ensure that its fundamentalist nationalistic projects were implemented, the state cultivated and nurtured quasi-state and societal organizations. Some groups were closer to the state core than others (through funding, personnel linkages, or more direct control), but all operated under the authoritative umbrella of the state and sought to psycho-socialize individuals. In the following sections I delineate the externalization of educational structures— that is, the Ministry of Education and schools—and the concomitant internalization (e.g., moral education) at the psycho-ideological level.

The Ministry of Education and the mobilization of psyche The internal restructuring of the Ministry of Education reflected the ideological concerns of the state as it began to mobilize the Japanese populace for war and warrelated activities. The tightening of state controls was evident in the establishment

160

The History of Japanese Psychology

of the Student Affairs Department (Gakusei-bu) in July  1929. This unit, which absorbed elements from the Specialist Education Affairs Bureau, was intended to provide students “guidance,” monitor their thinking, and mobilize them for war. The Ministry of Education effected such psycho-socialization by mobilizing bodies. Thus, in April 1925, the Order on the Attachment of Military Officers to Schools stipulated that military officers should be attached to all state and local public middle and higher level schools (but not universities) in order to provide physical education and military drill. Other institutional developments within the Ministry were the establishment of the Research Department (Chōsa-bu) in November  1927 and the Social Education Bureau (Shakai kyōiku-kyoku) in July  1929 (formed from elements of the General Education Bureau). In June  1934, the Student Affairs Department was replaced by the Ideological Control Bureau (Shisō-kyoku). This bureau, which supervised “guidance” for students and investigated teachers, schools, and social education groups, became an external agency of the Ministry of Education (renamed the Nationalism Instruction Bureau; literally, Educational Affairs Bureau—Kyōgaku-kyoku). This bureau, which would eventually include a Guidance Department (Shidō-ka), focused on preserving the national body/polity (kokutai) and in order to accomplish its goals, dispatched “nationalism instructors” (kyōgaku-kan) and “deputy nationalism instructors” who organized “nationalism research groups” and other activities throughout the country. It also retrained teachers, examined published materials, kept a check on ideological developments, worked closely with the Special Police, and published and distributed various propaganda materials, such as The Essence of the National Polity (Kokutai no Hongi, 1937, two million copies), The Way of the Subjects (Shimmin no Michi, 1940), and The Outline of National History (Kokushi Gaisetsu, 1940). Here we should note that in September 1931 the Ministry of Education established the National Spirit and Culture Research Institute (Kokumin Seishin Bunka Kenkyūjo) to conduct research on “Japanese educational principles in order to oppose liberalism, progressivism and socialism.”1 This institute was combined with the National Training Center (Kokumin Renseisho; established in January 1942) to form the Nationalism Training Center (Kyōgaku Renseisho) in November 1943. This center, which functioned as a “center for nationalism research,” provided teachers with educational and cultural instruction. The state’s obsession with the mobilization of minds is evident in the fact that by November 1, 1942, two of the eight bureaus comprising the Ministry of Education— the Nationalism Instruction (composed of Planning, Thought, and Guidance Divisions) and the Moral Instruction Bureaus (Kyōka-kyoku)—were explicitly set up for ideological inculcation as their appellations indicate (the latter was given control over social education and religious affairs). Even the name of the unit in charge of ordinary formal schooling, the National Education Bureau (Kokumin Kyōiku-kyoku), declared the ultranationalist thrust of the state’s educating projects. Para-state organizations which socialized members via numerous activities and practices were employed to expand state core influence and accomplish nationalistic projects. The Ministry of Education encouraged and supervised the Central Federation for the General Mobilization of the National Spirit, the Greater Japan

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology

161

Youth and Child Group, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, the Greater Japan Women’s Association, and other “patriotic educational groups.”

Moral education: Configuring psyche for the state During the Taishō period state core officials encouraged the formation and coordination of “moral instruction groups” (kyōka dantai) in order to “spiritually guide the people's sentiments and elevate and improve public morals.”2 Though moral instruction was basically a Ministry of Home Affairs project, in 1925 the Ministry of Education oversaw the activities of seven to eight hundred moral instruction groups and supervised one of several “daily life improvement campaigns” (seikatsu kaizen undō). Such campaigns advocated thrift and also “introduced methods of bettering the quality of life by means of scientific budgeting, better nutrition and hygiene and avoiding wasteful spending on festivals, alcohol and tobacco.”3 These campaigns displayed a faith in positivism, science, and economism—deep ideological projects deployed for the sake of the empire. Though a fair amount of debate occurred during Taishō as to the meaning of moral education, its definition became increasingly restricted as fundamentalist nationalism strengthened its hold during the 1930s. Moral education became the ideological link between national–statist orthodoxy and personal conviction, which was reflected in the fervent discourse about “national studies” (kokuminka), “national morality” (kokumin dōtoku), “national education” (kokumin kyōiku), “national thought” (kokka shisō), “thought guidance” (shisō zendō), “self-denial and service” (messhi hōkō), and “heroism and service” (giyū hōkō). These notions linked associated nationalism with moral indoctrination.

Snapshot Challenging officialdom Not all Japanese wholeheartedly accepted the psycho-socializing mandates of officialdom. Individuals such as Shimonaka Yasaburō, who founded the Japan Teachers’ Union Enlightenment in 1919, organized and led counter-hegemonic groups. The first modern labor union had already been established in 1897 by Katayama Tetsu and in 1922, the Communist Party was established. Japan's first student movements became active following the First World War and in 1918 the New Man Society (Shinjinkai) was formed at Tokyo Imperial University (dissolved in 1929). This organization's influence spread to other universities and in 1922 the Federation of Students (Gakusei Rengōkai) was founded. This group was renamed the Student Federation of Social Science (Gakusei Shakaikagaku Rengōkai) and would eventually be called the All-Japan Student Federation of Social Science (Zen Nippon Gakusei Shakaikagaku Rengōkai). In the 1920s, wellknown professors at elite universities were politically active: Yoshino Sakuzō and Fukuda Tokuzō (both interested in combining Western-inspired liberalism with the Japanese monarchy), Morito Tatsuo and Ōuchi Hyōe (interested in

162

The History of Japanese Psychology

radical Western ideas), Ōyama Ikuo (reformer and writer), Abe Isoo (Christian socialist), and the Marxist-inspired Kawakami Hajime. Women leaders such as Itō Noe, editor of the leading feminist magazine Setō (Blue Stocking), Yamakawa Kikue, and Hiratsuka Raichō severely critiqued the patriarchic sociopolitical order. The  “New Education Movement” of the 1910s and 1920s, influenced by progressive pedagogical ideas from abroad, inspired Hani Motoko, who ran the Jiyū Gakuen (Freedom School) and Sawayanagi Masatarō, who founded the Seijō Elementary School.

Psycho-socializing the national spirit in schools The wartime period saw normal schools become centers of propaganda and indoctrination where an official insistence stressed that nationalist myths be taught more literally: “Indeed it reached the point where even primary school children are said to have sometimes expressed skepticism.”4 Slogans such as the “eight corners of the world under one roof ” (hakkō ichiū) were actively advocated and taught in schools. The militarization of education is evident in the role played by figures such as Baron General Araki Sadao (1877–1966). Araki advocated the “imperial way” (kōdō) and from 1931 to 1934 served as army minister and under Prime Minster Konoe Fumimarō, he became a Minister of Education (May 26, 1938–August 30, 1939). Japan's educational structure responded to the state’s drive for imperial conquest and ideological control of the domestic population.5 On November  18, 1935, the Education Renovation Council (Kyōgaku Sasshin Hyōgikai), which was comprised of ultra-conservative scholars, was set up to investigate curricula at all levels. This Council proposed the establishment of an advisory organ to carry out a long-term and extensive review of Japan’s educational system. The Education Renovation Council was dissolved on June  23, 1937, and on December  10 of that year, the Education Advisory Council (Kyōiku Shingikai), comprised of 65 members and several provisional members and under the direct supervision of the prime minister, continued the former's activities. In 1941, the Education Advisory Council recommended that elementary schools, in order to provide the appropriate training for “imperial subjects,” be renamed “national schools” (kokumin gakkō). On March  1, 1941, the National Schools Order (Kokumin Gakkō-rei) was implemented. “Its declared objective—‘The National Schools shall conduct primary education in accordance with the teachings of the Imperial Way and shall provide the fundamental training required for Imperial subjects’—left no room for confusion about the work of the schools.”6 As the state extended its tentacles into the societal level and the expression of everyday knowledge came under increasing scrutiny. The curriculum of the national schools was simplified into four main courses, consisting of: (1) national studies (kokumin-ka); (2) science and mathematics; (3) arts and vocational training; and (4) physical training. This simplification of the curriculum was extended to the middle schools and women's

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology

163

high and vocational schools were also reorganized so as to psycho-socialize imperial subjects.7

Totalism and the great controversy The notion that psychological processes operate according to holism or a “totality” of some sort would deeply resonate with the totalitarian impulse and imperialistic policies of prewar and wartime Japan.8 Indeed, the Japanese word for totalitarianism is zentai-shugi—literally, whole-ism and “totality” appeared frequently in the 1930s and 1940s in relation to education.9 This resonated with the official policy of the Cabinet, which in August 1937 drew up guidelines for the General Mobilization of the National Spirit. This was not “an unprecedented response to the needs of total war, but evolved from the peacetime moral suasion campaigns of the 1920s and early 1930s.”10 In October 1937 the Central Federation for the General Mobilization of the National Spirit was formed. Four years later, elementary schools were reorganized and designated as “national schools” (kokumin gakkō) and the overriding theme became “organization” or “system” (taisei). Educators became concerned with the “mental organization” (shin-teki taisei) of students.11 The order of the day was having learners fit into the zentaisei (totality) and “holistic teaching” (zentai-teki kyōju);12 their individuality was not a primary concern. An example of how an organic whole-ism impacted wartime Japan was the controversy that erupted over proposed educational reforms. In 1939 the Ministry of Education appointed a committee that included Psychologists that was tasked with revising the curriculum for higher schools (kōtō gakkō). Suggested revisions incorporated themes of Gestalt Psychology.13 At the center of the revisions was Onoshima Usao (1894–1941), a Psychologist who worked for the Ministry of Education. Onoshima specialized in Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University and received his BA in 1919. He was awarded his doctorate from the same university in 1930.14 In 1923 he was sent to Germany as an “overseas researcher” (zaigai kenkyūin) where he studied Gestalt Psychology at Berlin University until 1926.15 Before working for the Ministry of Education, he taught at Tokyo Higher Normal School and Tokyo Bunrika University.16 Onoshima made significant contributions to Japan’s Gestalt Psychology (geshutaruto shinrigaku). Some of his works include: Saikin Shinrigaku Jūni-kō (Twelve Lectures on Recent Psychology, 1930); Seikaku Shinrigaku to Jidō Kenkyū (Personality Psychology and Childhood Studies, 1933); Gendai Seikaku Shinrigaku (Modern Personality Psychology, 1946); Saikin Shinrigaku Gaisetsu (Summary of Recent Psychology, 1932); and Shinrigaku Yōsetsu (Outline of Psychology, 1937). As for the controversy surrounding the proposed reforms, a generational change was most likely in play; Onoshima represented a younger generation who had studied overseas, particularly in Germany. However, older Psychologists, more comfortable with earlier theories and ensconced in the higher educational system, did not look kindly on the new-fangled theories.17 In the end, the revisions were greeted with criticism and the Gestalt-inspired policies were dropped.18

164

The History of Japanese Psychology

Psychology curricula and the state Satō traces the changes in key terms in five Ministry of Education directives for Psychology syllabi used to teach in higher schools from 1928 to 1946. A comparison of directives from 1928 and 1939 (Tables 9.1 and 9.2) illustrate a curricular change to more state-centered, collectivist ethos. Relevant terms include: Volk characteristics (minzokusei), national character (kokuminsei), group mind (shūdanshin), group spirit (shūdan seishin), and individuality (kosei).19 Table 9.3 offers a look at what was taught within universities.

Table 9.1 Syllabus for Psychology per Ministry of Education Directive 4, March 31, 1928 (1)

The Objects of Psychological Study, Methods, Specialties

(2)

Physiological Basis of Mental Functions

(3)

Consciousness. Unconsciousness. Behavior

(4)

Sensation. Senses of Sight, Hearing, Taste, Smell, Touch, Organic Sense, Sense of Balance, Kinesthetic Sense. Relation between Perception and Stimulus. Weber’s Law

(5)

Perception. Spatial Perception, Temporal Perception. Optical Illusion. Hallucination

(6)

Attention

(7)

Presentation (Vorstellung). Association. Memory. Learning. Forgetting. Testimony

(8)

Imagination. Thinking. Concepts, Judgment, Inference. Relation between Thinking and Language

(9)

Feelings. Emotions. Sentiments. Expressions. James–Lange Theory

(10)

Instinct. Impulse. Will. Training. Fatigue

(11)

Personality. Ego. Individuality. Disposition

(12)

Relation between the Individual and Society

Source: From Kōtō Gakkō Kōtōka Chiri, Shinri oyobi Ronri Kyōju Yōmoku (Syllabus for Advanced Courses in Logic, Psychology and Geography at Higher Schools). Cited in Satō (2001c: 250–52).

Table 9.2 Syllabus for second-year students per Ministry of Education Directive 18, June 6, 1939 (1)

Definition of Psychology, Its Development, Specialization and Research Methods

(2)

Development of Mind: (a) Various Directions of Development—Biological, Individual, Society, Culture; (b) General Development

(3)

Humans and the Environment: (a) Self, Others, Environment; (b) Nature and Society as Environment

(4)

Behavior and Consciousness: (a) Specialization of Behavior—Its Physiological Basis; (b) Instinctive Behavior and Conscious Behavior; (c) Consciousness, Various Aspects of Experience; (d) Attention, Readiness

(5)

Feelings: (a) Happiness and Unhappiness; (b) Emotions; (c) Sentiments; (d) Feelings and Physical Changes

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology

165

Table 9.2 Syllabus for second-year students per Ministry of Education Directive 18, June 6, 1939 (continued) (6)

Perception (Part 1): (a) Space, Time, Motion; (b) Causes, Formation of Perception

(7)

Perception (Part 2): (a) Experiences of Visual and Auditory Sensation; (b) Principles Concerning Emotional Experiences

(8)

Memory: (a) Presentation (Vorstellung); (b) Association in Reproduction and Reproduction; (c) Contents of Memory

(9)

Imagination and Thinking: (a) Imagination; (b) Concepts, Judgment, Inference, Language; (c) Process of Solving Problems

(10)

Volition and Movement: (a) Experience of Volition; (b) Process of Volitional Movement; (c) Self-Control

(11)

Learning and Work: (a) Acquisition; (b) The Various Facts of Work; (c) The Process of Work

(12)

Intelligence: (a) Intelligence; (b) Differences in Intelligence

(13)

Personality: (a) Personality, Individuality; (b) Character, Typology

(14)

Group Psychology and National Characteristics: (a) Various of Forms of the Group— Crowds, Family, Nation; (b) National Characteristics, Volk Characteristics

(15)

Applications of Psychology: Education, Industry, Medicine, Police, Military

(16)

National Culture and Psychology

Source: From Kōtō Gakkō Kōtōka Shinri oyobi Ronri Kyōju Yōmoku Kaisei (Revisions to Syllabus for Advanced Courses in Psychology and Logic at Higher Schools). Cited in Satō (2001d: 239–49).

Table 9.3 Selected examples of Psychology-related curriculum taught at universities during the prewar period University

Courses and topics

Tokyo Imperial

• Child Psychology • Various Issues of Phenomenal Space • Koffka’s Principles of Gestalt Psychology • Seminar on Special Psychological Experimentation

Kyōto Imperial

• The Psychology of Heart–Mind Learning • Psychology of Religion, • Outline of Psychiatry • James’s Varieties of Religious Experience

Tōhoku Imperial

• Gestalt Psychology • Educational Psychology • General Methods and Its Demonstration of Psychological Observation • Brentano’s Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte

Kyūshū Imperial

• Seminar on Outline and Principles of Psychology • On Concepts • Seminar on Statistical Research Methods (for Psychology, Education, Sociology)

Keisei Imperial

• Research on Eastern Psychological Thought • History of Psychology • A. Messer’s Einführung in die Psychologie

Tokyo Bunrika

• Outline of Psychology (Wundt’s Grundriss der Psychologie) • Seminar on Juvenile Psychology (E. Spranger’s Psychologie des Jugendalters) • Seminar on Social Psychology (W. McDougall’s The Group Mind)

Hiroshima Bunrika

• Psychology of Learning • Intelligence and Intention • Psychology Seminar (Metzger’s Das Gesetz des Sehens) • Psychology Seminar (Buss’s Die Ganzheitspsychologie Felix Kruegers)

166

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 9.3 Selected examples of Psychology-related curriculum taught at universities during the prewar period (continued) University

Courses and topics

Hōsei

• Developmental Psychology • Seminar (Saupe’s Einführung in die neuer Psychologie) • Occupational Psychology • Re-education for War-wounded • Social Problems

Keiō Gijuku

• Volk Psychology • Readings (O. Tumlirz’s Jugendpsychologie des Jugendalters) • Readings (Beebe-Center’s Psychology of Pleasantness and Unpleasantness)

Waseda

• Volk Psychology • Experimental Psychology • Industrial Psychology

Rikkyō

• Psychology of Aesthetics • Seminar (Applied Psychology) • Seminar (Experimental Child Studies)

Kansei Gakuin

• Seminar (Car’s Introduction to Space Perception) •Readings (Bühler’s Abriss der geistigen Entwicklung des kindes) • Psychology of Religion • Experimental Seminar (Problems of Perception) • Psychological Research on Feelings

Dōshisha

• Psychological Research on Beauty • Social Psychology

Risshō

• Volk Psychology •Psychology Seminar • Psychological Experiments

Source: From Satō (2002a: 312–14) who also provides the names of instructors and more complete information. See also Satō (2008b: 171–73).

Politicizing Psychology In 1926, the Taishō ended and the Shōwa—the era of “Brightness and Harmony”— began: For the next two decades political economic elites would tighten their grip and concoct a deadly ideological mix of imperial belligerency, fundamentalist nationalism, and state-sanctioned jingoism. Like all authoritarian systems, the polity of wartime Japan offers lessons about psycho-political socialization. It can be argued that all educating/socializing is inculcation. But excessive inculcation, such as indoctrination (e.g., fundamentalist national statism), goes beyond the simple imparting of knowledge. Indoctrination occurs when those in positions of power demand total integration of all knowledge and do not tolerate divergence, deviation, or any disconnection from the sociopolitical orthodoxy. All knowledge forms must march to the beat of the same drum. Simply, the formation of cognitive “space” that is not somehow firmly linked to the elite agenda is not allowed. Thus, indoctrination is more than just a matter of what is imparted; it is a matter of how—that is, in a totalizing manner숯knowledge is delivered. The prewar Japanese state core, with its projects and policies that harnessed quasi- or para-state organizations and the societal level, ensured that knowledge was imparted in a totalizing manner. In this sense, Japanese militarism and fundamentalist national statism “did not represent a pathological breakdown of the educational system institutionalized by the Meiji statesmen in the 1880s and 1890s, but was its logical and necessary outcome.”20 Indeed, the Taishō era should not be idealized because any investigation of this period must recognize that the same national-statist ideology

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology

167

that drove Japan's imperialistic expansion also administered its edu-socializing bureaucracy.21 The war effort would substantially alter Psychology. Various Psychology societies were combined to form one association in order to pool their resources for the imperial good. It was divided into six divisions, five of which were applied: general, educational, industrial, legal, military, and war-wounded. Meanwhile, as practical Psychology expanded in scope, the more theoretical Psychology practiced in academic settings continued without major interruption.22

Snapshot Imperialism and fundamentalist national statism The 1930s witnessed the rising of supercharged national-statist sentiment and the expansion of Japanese imperialism. A brazen military carried out assassinations, such as the February  1932 murder of Prime Minster Inukai Tsuyoshi and the “2–26 Incident” (February 26) in 1936, in which 1,400 officers assassinated the Finance Minister, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, and the Inspector General of Military Education. Overseas, the Japanese army, alleging that Chinese forces had attacked the South Manchurian railway, retaliated on September 18–19, 1931, in what became known as the “Manchurian Incident” (the Chinese “attacks” were groundless fabrications of the Japanese army). Manchuria would be subjugated by 1933 and on March 1, 1934, it became the puppet state of Manchukuo. A  clash between Japanese and Chinese troops in Beijing on July 7, 1937, gave the Japanese army the excuse it needed to invade China, and starting on December 13, the bloody orgy that became known as the “Rape of Nanjing” occurred. On the international scene, Japan signed an antiComintern pact with Germany in 1934 and six years later formed a tripartite pact with Germany and Italy. Hungry for raw materials, the Japanese empire launched daring preemptive attacks against the United States on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor. British possessions in Asia also fell to lightning Japanese advances. Eventually, the Japanese would control the coastal regions of China, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaya, and the Netherlands East Indies as well as most of Burma. Though initially the Japanese achieved stunning military victories and conquests, a series of escalating reverses would in the end lead to utter defeat. At home, it would result in mass destruction, starvation, and occupation by a foreign power.

Military applications of Psychology In addition to nationalistic education and the eugenic movement, in the 1930s and early 1940s a number of Japanese Psychologists collaborated with officialdom in the war effort.23 While Psychologists did not participate at the level of national-policy formation and direction, some of them certainly aided martial projects.24 They gave

168

The History of Japanese Psychology

advice on and researched human–machine interactions, group management, the strains and stresses of combat, leadership methods, and propaganda Psychology. Surveys, personnel assessments, and aptitude tests were designed and administered by Psychologists for military needs.25 In 1941 Obonai Torao theorized about the military applications of psychological knowledge in “Kokubō Shinrigaku no Genkyō” (“The Present State of National-Defense Psychology”). The military applications of Psychology began relatively early. In 1918 the navy appointed Matsumoto Matatarō to be a consultant for the Naval Experimental Psychology Application Research Committee.26 Two years later he established the Aviation Psychology Unit (Kōkū Shinri-bu) in the Aviation Research Institute (Kōkū Kenkyūjo) at Tokyo Imperial University. Along with Tanaka Kanichi and Terazawa Izuo, he investigated issues such as the effects of low-pressure on thinking ability at the Aviation Research Institute. Other Psychologists who became involved in military Psychology included Masuda Koreshige, Awaji Enjirō, and Umezu Hachizō (Table 9.4).27 Applied Psychologists also worked in the Naval Torpedo School (Kaigun Suirai Gakkō). The Naval Technical Research Institute (Kaigun Gijutsu Kenkyūjo) had an Experimental Psychology Division (Jikken Shinri-bu). The Naval Aviation Psychology Research Institute (Kaigun Kōkū Shinri Kenkyūjo) was established in 1942 and by 1945 over one hundred Psychologists worked there.28 Military academies recognized the usefulness of Psychology early on and Nishizawa Raiō, who graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1916 and specialized in Psychology, studied combat Psychology, and how to educate military personnel. Tsuruta divides the development of naval Psychology into three major periods: (1) 1916–31, when military officials relied on Psychologists for research but did not regularly employ them; (2) 1932–41, when Psychologists were more formally employed by the military; and (3) 1942–45, when experimental laboratories were established by the military.29

Table 9.4 Research conducted in the Aviation Psychology Unit, Aviation Research Institute, Tokyo Imperial University, 1925 •

Psychological and Physiological Experiences of Pilots

•

Experiments on Retrobulbar Concussion

•

Experiment on Visuospatial Perception

•

Establishment of Standards for Physical and Somatopsychic Functions

•

Experimental Research on Aviation Reconnaissance

•

Evaluative Methods for the Flying Ability of Pilots

•

Standard Performance for Troops

Source: Satō (2002a: 609).

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology

169

Individuating versus collectivizing the psyche As an example of the impact of individuation (a key feature of interiority), consider kosei. Usually translated as “individuality,” this term was used in pedagogical writings in the last several decades of the nineteenth century. Originally it indicated differences among individuals in a neutral sense and concerned ability or aptitude. However, in the first decades of the twentieth century, its connotations would change and it became quite popular and acquired the meaning of personal uniqueness and was positively advocated by many educationalists. In 1915 Nakajima Taizō wrote Kosei Shinri oyobi Hikaku Shinri (Individual Psychology and Comparative Psychology). To illustrate the meaning of kosei, Table 9.5 lists the table of contents of a 1920 book Kosei Kyōiku-ron (Theories of Individuality Education). Kosei was entrusted with three tasks. First, it described the goal of education, which should not be for the state; rather, schooling should aim for the “full development of the individual” (kojin no kanzen hatattsu). Second, kosei was used to criticize education that ignored the child as an individual learner. This is apparent in Yuhara Table 9.5 Table of contents of Kosei Kyōiku-ron (1920) Ōse Jintarō

Educational Thought about Individuality

Inagaki Suematsu

Assumptions about Individuality Education

Kobayashi Sumie

Theories about Individuality Education

Tanimoto Tomeri

The Fundamentals of Individuality Education

Onishi Shigenao

Complete Individuality and Education

Abe Shigetaka

Individual Differences and the Education System

Takabatake Motoyuki

The Social System and Individuality Education

Kihira Tadayoshi

Looking at Individuality from a Philosophical Perspective

Kido Mantarō

Individuality as Personal Integration within Culture

Hayami Hiroshi

The Meaning of Individuality and Its Development

Narazaki Asatarō

The Variability of Superior Children and the Principles of Class Organization

Kubo Yoshihide

Individual Differences as Manifested in Intelligence Tests

Tanaka Kanichi

Individual Differences and Their Causes

Yamauchi Shigeo

Individuality and Education from a Biological Perspective

Nagai Hisomu

Individuality Education from a Biological Perspective

Fujikawa Yū

Theories of Individuality Education From a Medical Perspective

Mita Sadanori

Individual Differences of Human Blood

Takamine Hiroshi

The Classification of Children’s Individuality from a Mental Science Perspective

Shinohara Sukeichi

Individuality and Education

Source: Kyōiku Ronsō Henshū Buhen (1920).

170

The History of Japanese Psychology

Motoichi’s 1899 Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku (Educational Psychology) (Yuhara had studied under Wundt). Finally, kosei stressed the inherent personal distinctiveness of each individual and thereby acknowledged the limits of socialization. This is seen in the work of Tsukahara Masatsugu (1872–1946), who argued that hereditary, more than the environment, was salient in personal development.30

Collectivizing the psyche Though the Ministry of Education advocated “respect for individuality” during Taishō, in the 1930s educational authorities took a less sanguine view of kosei and political developments began to limit “individual-focused” (kosei jūshi) approaches. “In the era of national unity [kyokoku itchi], individuality was replaced by a stress on the concept of Volk characteristics [minzokusei].”31 With national consciousness (kokka ishiki) and Volk spirit (minzoku seishin) being emphasized, the view of applied Psychology (i.e., individuality and aptitude) was not taken as seriously and was unable to develop. In the era of national unity the concept of Volk identity was stressed rather than individuality. Mental testing would become a tool promoted for objectively comparing and grasping, not individuality, but Volk identity.32 In line with this emphasis shifted from research on individuality (kosei) to a Psychology of training (rensei) in educational thought. Three books, all published in 1943, illustrate this trend: Aoki Seishirō’s Aoshōnen Rensei no Kadai (Themes on the Training of Youth), Takemasa Tarō’s Kokumin Kyōiku no Shinri (Psychology of National Education), and Gotō Iwao’s Rensei Shinrigaku (Psychology of Training).33

Overseas imperial universities The Japanese state established two universities overseas that were intended to serve imperial interests: Keijō and Taihoku. The official policy of these “overseas universities” (gaichi no daigaku), which came under the administration of the colony’s governorgeneral (sōtoku), was to make loyal subjects in the colonial areas and to preclude the formation of an anti-Japanese elite leadership.34

Keijō Imperial University Japanese influence can be seen in the early stages of Korean Psychology. Though they lacked Psychology departments, American missionary schools did teach Psychology as early as 1917 (e.g., Ewha Women’s College). The first Korean Psychologists were educated in Japanese universities in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1924 the Japanese established a university in Korea, called Keijō (Seoul) Imperial University,35 and Hayami Hiroshi, Kuroda Ryō, Fukutomi Ichirō, and Amano Toshitake would teach Psychology and conduct research there. Keijō had a large psychological laboratory, reportedly one of the best in Asia and supposedly Kurt Lewin had a say in its design. The first to major in Psychology was Im Sok-Chae, who graduated from Keijō in 1930. When the University was closed in 1945, it had graduated seven Korean and eleven

Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology

171

Japanese Psychology majors.36 In 1946 a program in Psychology was instituted at Seoul National University and in the same year the Korean Psychological Association was established.

Taihoku Imperial University Though Chinese Psychology was established by the 1920s on the mainland, it had little direct impact on developments in colonial Taiwan. As in Korea, Japanese influence was conveyed through an educational arm of the empire, in this case via Taihoku Imperial University (now National Taiwan University) which was established in 1928.37 Taiwan’s Imperial University offered Psychology courses in the Faculty of Literature and after the war, four thousand books, five hundred volumes of journals, and fifty pieces of laboratory apparatus were left behind.38 Key personages—all students of Matsumoto Matatarō—who taught at Taihoku Imperial University included: Iinuma Ryūen (1888–1969); Rikimaru Jien (1890–1945); and Fujisawa Shigeru (1903–62).39 The latter utilized mental testing (1935–38) to study anger among Taiwan aboriginals in research believed useful for colonial policy.40

Japan and the roots of Chinese Psychology In 1905, 500–600 Japanese teachers were working in Chinese schools and universities and 7,000–8,000 Chinese students were in Japan. Not surprisingly, a number of Japanese introduced the new field of Psychology into China. Psychology was taught as an adjunct to education in teacher colleges and the Chinese based their models for practical pedagogical purposes and teaching training on Japanese thinkers.41 Eventually, functionalism, behaviorism, Gestalt Psychology, and psychoanalysis would all find advocates. As in Japan, Haven’s work played a key role. Yan Yongjing (1838– 98) translated Haven’s Mental Philosophy in 1889 from the Japanese version. This was probably first book in Chinese on Psychology. He called his translation Science of the Soul (Xinlingxue).42 The American missionary W. Martin’s Aspects of Human Nature (Xing Xue Ju Yu) was also translated in 1898. Hattori Unokichi (1867–1939), a Sinologist and the first Japanese to lecture on Psychology, taught at the Qing Dynasty’s Metropolitan University (forerunner of Beijing University). He composed Xinlixue Jiangyi (Lectures in Psychology, 1902) and used the same Chinese characters for Psychology (as the Japanese/Chinese: shinrigaku/xinrixue). Hattori relied on classical Chinese terminology and traditional sayings to introduce Western Psychology. Wang Guowei (1877–1927) translated Motora’s Psychology (Xinlixue, 1902a) and Ethics (Lunlixue, 1902b). He also translated Höffding’s Outlines of Psychology (1907; this was based on an 1891 English translation by Mary Lowndes). Other translations appeared: Kubota Sadanori’s Pedagogical Psychology (Xinli Jiaoyuxue, 1902); Inoue Enryō Psychology: An Outline (Shinri: Tekiyō, 1903); and Ōse Jintarō and Tachigara Noritoshi’s Textbook of Psychology (Xinli Jiaokeshu, 1903). Chen Huang, who had studied engineering in Japan, wrote Simplified Psychology (Xinli

172

The History of Japanese Psychology

Yijie). This was probably the first work on Psychology authored by a Chinese and it was originally published in Japan in 1905 and then again in 1906. Chen Daqi (1886– 1983), who had studied at Tokyo Imperial University, wrote Outlines of Psychology in 1918; this was the first Chinese university textbook and exerted great influence. Chen established the first Psychology laboratory in Peking (Beijing) University (1917). Cai Yuanpei (1868–1940), an educational reformer, traveled to Leipzig in 1907 and spent time with Wundt from 1908. He returned from Wundt’s laboratory in 1912 and became President of Peking University in 1917. Cai wrote Lectures in Hypnosis in 1906 and, using the pen name Kuan Ji Shan Ren, wrote a book on parapsychology that same year. Between 1922 and 1940, 370 books on Psychology were published, though 40 percent were translations.43 In 1922 the journal Psychology was established and in 1921 the Chinese Psychological Society was set up, which was soon followed by the Chinese Association for Psychological Testing (1931), Society of Psychoanalysis, and Society of Mental Hygiene. The first department in Psychology was established in 1920 in Southeastern University and in 1928 the Institute of Psychology was founded in the Chinese Academy of Sciences.44

10

Reconstruction and Expansion: Postimperial Japan as a Psychologized Society

Wartime total mobilization and defeat greatly impacted Japanese Psychology. This chapter explores the fallout as well as the institutional rebirth and expansion of Psychology in postimperial Japan. Also discussed is how postwar Japan has become a Psychologized society and what this implies: the centrality of the self and the “therapeutic society.” Finally, developments in Japan’s clinical and applied Psychology are examined.

The institutional culmination of total mobilization and defeat Major defeats inflicted on the Japanese by the Americans in 1943 tightened a strategic noose around Japan, while its cities and industries were subjected to massive bombing raids. As the war was brought closer to home, the state core increasingly appropriated and utilized educational sites for its war efforts. School buildings were used for military supply storage, evacuation hospitals, evacuation centers, and even munitions factories. In March 1944, middle and higher school students were mobilized all year round in order to carry out war-related duties. On April 1, 1945, it was decided that at all schools, with the exception of the first several years at elementary schools, instruction was to be discontinued for one year. On May  22, 1945, the Wartime Education Order stipulated that each school was to organize a “student brigade.” As if taking one last institutional gasp to stave off the deteriorating situation and revitalize psycho-socialization, the General Affairs and Physical Education Bureaux were combined to form the Student Mobilization Bureau (Gakuto Dōin-kyoku) on July 11, 1945. This bureau brought together thought supervision (Guidance and Mobilization Divisions) and bodily management (Drill and Health Divisions). Regardless of the tremendous suffering of the Japanese people, it took the horrific atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively) to finally convince the Japanese military elite to unconditionally surrender. On August 15, 1945, the Emperor broadcast the “Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War,” despite an abortive attempt by military hard-liners to prevent the surrender announcement. On September 2, 1945, the formal surrender ceremony took place in Tokyo Bay on board the USS Missouri.

174

The History of Japanese Psychology

Needless to say, Japanese Psychology, as both an intellectual endeavor and an array of institutional arrangements, suffered grave setbacks during the war period. Nevertheless, some important foundations숯individuals, associations, organizations, corpus of knowledge, and so on숯had been laid before 1945, upon which would be built postimperial Psychology.

The rebirth of Japanese Psychology During the occupation the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers implemented programs at universities under the auspices of the Institute for Educational Leaders (IFEL), which played a role in disseminating postwar Psychology. Financial support was given to a number of Japanese who were sent to the United States for training, for example, Itō Hiroshi (1919–2000) studied counseling at the University of Missouri and was awarded a Master’s degree in 1950. In 1947 Tomoda Fujio (1917–2005) learned about Carl Rogers’s1 “non-directive counseling” from Logan J. Fox (1922–), who was a student of Rogers and chief of the Counseling Center at the institution that would become Tsukuba University. In 1948 the developmental and educational Psychologist Arthur Thomas Jersild (1903–94) visited Japan and lectured on the ideas of Carl Rogers. In 1954 Yoshimoto Ishin (1916–88), who developed naikan (“introspective”) therapy, established the first Naikan center and Umezu Kōsaku (1928–99) would introduce behavior therapy in 1956. A significant milestone marking the renaissance of Japanese Psychology occurred in 1951 when Japan became a member of the Union of Scientific Psychology (now called the International Union of Psychological Science). And at the Kyoto Seminars in American Studies in 1952, Clarence Henry Graham of Columbia University gave lectures on developing trends in physiological, perceptual, and learning Psychology.2 Yatabe Tatsurō (1893–1958) of the University of Kyoto greatly contributed to the development of postwar Japanese Psychology by inviting about thirty Japanese Psychologists from all over Japan. Many of these young scholars would become key figures in the academic Psychology during the 1960s.3 American influence would soon prevail in postwar Japanese Psychology. By the 1960s, Gestalt approaches, though still a force, made room for the neo-behaviorism of Clark L. Hull (1884–1952) and B.F. Skinner (1904–90) which became mainstream by 1960.4 The “character of Psychology moved from the so-called German-style traditional Psychology to the American-style Psychology” (we should note that many Germans around the time of the war had moved to the United States).5 Increasingly, more and more Japanese students traveled to the United States for training.6 Another milestone came in 1972, when the 20th International Congress of Psychology was held in Tokyo.7

Postwar expansion Teacher education and the requirements of educational Psychology drove up the number of Psychology courses, graduate programs, and faculties.8 Specifically, legislation, such as the Law for Certification of Education Personnel and the Enforcement Rules on the

Reconstruction and Expansion

175

Law for Certification of Education Personnel (both passed in 1949), encouraged the acknowledgment of educational, adolescent, and child Psychology.9 Two “spurts” in the number of Psychologists can be discerned. The first occurred after 1952 when universities began to offer relevant courses and the second, after 1990, when the number of clinical Psychologists increased. Clinical Psychology was originally taught as a part of educational Psychology, but since 1990 graduate programs began to offer independent clinical Psychology courses.10 In 2000 Japan’s first “School of Psychology” (Shinrigaku-bu) was established at Chūkyō University.11 Currently, there are well over forty postwar psychological organizations in Japan. The three largest are the Japanese Psychological Association (JPA; established 1927), the Japanese Association of Educational Psychology (established 1952), and the Association of Japanese Clinical Psychology (established 1982).12 Here we might note that universities with regional names (e.g., Hokkaidō, Tōhoku, Fukushima, Tōkai, Kyūshū) began establishing their own journals (see Appendix 8).13

Postimperial Japan as a Psychologized society The “development of academic disciplines and professional institutions in the human sciences does not immediately seize the imagination as a turning-point in human self-discovery.”14 But they should. Specifically, for our purposes, the explosive growth of psychological knowledge, as a part of a broader psychological revolution has altered the way we look at the world in the same way the Copernican, Galilean, and Newtonian revolutions changed the way we position ourselves in the universe. Consider how personnel consultants, econometricians, demographers, voting analysis, psychotherapists, development economists, counselors, forensic psychologists, consultant anthropologists, social workers, and philosophers of medical ethics all engaged in a psychological discourse. What this means is that that “everyone in the twentieth century learned to be a [P]sychologist; everyone became her or his own [P]sychologist, able and willing to describe life in psychological terms.” Psychological knowledge has acquired a “taken-for-granted quality, altered everyone’s subjective world and recreated experience and expectations about what it is to be a person.”15 The number of societies that adopt the same models (economic, political, educational, etc.) is on the rise. Psychology is “one of the main cores of cultural globalization,” and significantly an increasing number of societies are using the same models in order “to establish the essence of modern actorhood.”16 At least in the “liberal West … the formulation of life’s problems in psychological terms cut across divisions that separate religious and secular belief.”17 But arguably, a psychologically interiorized view has resonated to varying degrees depending on cultural locale. Being oriented toward the individual, Psychology predictably resonates with liberal democracies, where “subjective authenticity, individualism and the search for happiness” seem central. Not surprisingly, in places where a strong reaction against secularization and church–state separation occurred, as in traditionally Catholic Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Latin America, the growth of Psychology encountered

176

The History of Japanese Psychology

more resistance. Indeed, the writer and philosopher Miguel de Unamuno (1864– 1936) warned against the “Japanization of Spain,” by which he expressed his concerns about how the Spanish national project would pursue “modernization at all costs.”18 Or consider the vagaries of Psychology in communist societies. In the Soviet Union, or where social and group rather than stressed individual differences were stressed, Western Psychology was labeled a “bourgeois pseudoscience” and criticized for ignoring the class nature of the human condition. Human behavior was given a physiological basis and understood through Pavlovian theory.19 In China it was all but suspended during the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), but was rehabilitated in the late 1970s.20

The centrality of the self A clear indication of the firm establishment of the psychological society has been the ubiquitous “self ” in the everyday discourse of both experts and the general public. Our identities are now “understood subjectively and confirmed objectively by others, as the self.”21 Though it is something of a cliché to claim that self acquired the same function as the soul, the former is decidedly concerned with the search for personal uniqueness, individuated differences, and individual variation.22 Illouz points out that the self has become the “prime site of the management of the contradictions of modernity,” and Psychology offers techniques to manage the consequent tensions. Illouz insightfully observes that Psychology is less about Foucaultian “surveillance” or “bio-power” than it is about containing and regulating the contradictions of modern selfhood. After all, the self now has to perform an increasing number of tasks, many of which are contradictory: becoming selfreliant, yet attuned to others’ needs; conducting relationships in a rational manner yet being highly focused on emotions; being a unique individual yet cooperating with others.23

The therapeutic society A key component of the psychological revolution has been the “therapeutizing” of society and selfhood. A number of commentators (e.g., Lionel Trilling, Philip Rieff, and Christopher Lasch) have interpreted the rise of the therapeutic worldview, which has become a “formidably powerful and quintessentially modern way to institutionalize the self.” This perspective has “crossed and blurred the compartmentalized spheres of modernity and has come to constitute one of the major codes with which to express shape and guide self-hood.”24 The therapeutic ethos appears linked to how new knowledge and technologies have encouraged more “exteriorization” (more interdependence, more networking more roles, more things with which to surround ourselves) during the past several centuries. All this has led to more interiorization (psychological processes required to realize all these extensions of self). It is longterm self-absorbed consumerism and propertization of self, then, that provide more opportunities for therapeutic self-absorption, which in turn provides more occasions for alienation.

Reconstruction and Expansion

177

The psychological revolution certainly has its negative side and critics, often associated with the rise of the “me” generation, the “privitization of the self,” and the “cult of narcissism” during the 1970s and 1980s. An overabundance of individualization, arguably caused by too much social management, leads to new types of alienation. Commenting on Richard Sennett’s landmark The Fall of Public Man (1977), Roger Smith notes how the latter charted the “concentration of representations of our existence in the psychological dimension” and the emergence of “personalities” has robbed the public realm of the emotional energy required to meaningfully engage with others.25

Developments in Japan’s clinical and applied Psychology Satō points out that the development of clinical Psychology in postwar Japan, relatively speaking, has been slow.26 Presently, challenges confront those dedicated to “socialservice oriented Psychology” (e.g., clinical and counseling).27 Currently, the licensing of clinical Psychologists in Japan is carried out by various organizations and remains fragmented (Table  10.1). Nevertheless, the explosive growth in associations and societies attest to how psychologized Japanese society has become. Furthermore, the usage of psychological knowledge by key institutions illustrates its centrality (Table 10.2).28

Table 10.1 Psychology-related qualifications authorized by organizations as of 2004 Qualification

Japanese term

Year initiated

Authorizing organization

Authorized Counselor

Nintei Kānserā

1986

Nihon Kānseringu Gakkai (Japan Counseling Society)

Clinical Psychologist

Rinshō Shinrishi

1988

Nihon Rinshō Shinrishi Shikaku Nintei Kyōkai (Japan Clinical Psychologist Qualification Authorizing Association)

Authorized Psychologist

Nintei Shinrishi

1990

Nihon Shinri Gakkai (The Japanese Psychological Association)

Industrial Counselor

Sangyō Kānserā

1991

Nihon Sangyō Kānserā Kyōkai (Japan Industrial Counseling Association)

School Psychologist

Gakkō Shinrishi

1997

Gakkō Shinrishi Nintei Unei Kikō (School Psychologist Authorizing Organization)

Clinical Developmental Psychologist

Rinshō Hattatsu Shinrishi

2002

Nihon Hattatsu Shinri Gakkai (Japan Society of Developmental Psychology)

Source: Takasuna (2008a: 244).

178

The History of Japanese Psychology

Table 10.2 Important Psychology-related institutions and ministries English name

Japanese name

National Hospital Organization Hizen Psychiatric Center

Kokuritsu Byōin Kikō Hizen Seishin Igaku Sentā

National Institute of Mental Health: National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry

Seishin Hoken Kenkyū-jo: Kokuritsu Seishin • Shinkei Iryō Kenkyū Sentā

National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities

Kokuritsu Shōgaisha Rihabiritēshon Sentā

National Institute of Special Needs Education

Kokuritsu Tokubetsu Shien Kyōiku Sōgō Kenkyū-jo

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare

Kōsei Rōdō-shō

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

Monbu Kagaku-shō

Japanese Certification Board for Clinical Psychologist

Nihon Rinshō Shinri-shi Shikaku Nintei Kyōkai

Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology

Tōkyō-to Seishin Rōjin Sōgō Kenkyū-jo

Tokyo Institute of Psychiatry

Tōkyō-to Seishin Igaku Sōgō Kenkyū-jo

Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Neuroscience

Tōkyō-to Shinkei Kagaku Sōgō Kenkyū-jo

In addition to clinical and educational concerns, Psychology is increasingly applied to new areas, such as environmental and traffic problems. And in other developments, psychological testing made new strides. For example, the Yatabe–Guilford Personality Test (after the Guilford–Martin Inventory) was developed in 1956. Japanese versions of the Maudsley Personality Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory were also designed. The Awaji Enjirō’s Extroversion-Introversion Test, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale were also introduced.29

Epilogue: In Retrospect: Trajectories, Alternative Routes, and the Contributions of Japanese Women Psychologists

Looking back over the evolution of a discipline certain developments may seem expected and inevitable. However, given the complex of vagaries and variables that shape a field, we should be open to just how contingent the directionality of intellectual history can be. In this Epilogue I want to provide a retrospective of sorts that alerts us to the alternative trajectories Japanese Psychology could have taken. I also want to conclude with some methodological concerns. The first relates to how the ghost of spiritual physics still shapes our inquiries into how we view the mind, regardless of place. The second concern relates to the value of longue durée perspective. Finally, I provide some commentary on the problematic of Japan’s “acceptance” of foreign knowledge. The reader will have by now realized the importance to the state-controlled higher education system (especially the University of Tokyo) in disseminating psychological knowledge. Nevertheless, the role of private schools and “unique researchers” who followed scholarly paths outside the system sanctioned by officialdom deserves attention. Also, as in other societies, the social sciences were dominated by men. However, the role played by women researchers cannot be ignored, and in order to highlight the import of their impact, I devote the last section to an overview of their contributions.

The persistence of spiritual physics Despite the stunning advances in neuro-imaging, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry, a number of questions still haunt inquiries about the nature of psyche: is the study of the mind a mental science or humanistic philosophy? Can the perennial enigma of the cosmic split—that is, dualism—ever be solved? As for the latter problem, note that ironically, strictly scientific approaches appear to reinforces the notion that two bifurcated realms exist—one observable, physical, and somehow outer; the other introspectable, psychological, and indescribably “inner.”1 In other words, the more we dissect, map, and analyze brain processes in a positivistic, reductionistic manner, the more we rely on a psychologically interiorized idiom to explain behavior and our very nature. This suggests an uncomfortable point about the limitations of human knowledge. In any case,

180

The History of Japanese Psychology

Psychology still stands as a “bridge science connecting the old questions raised by philosophical speculation.”2

The need for a longue durée perspective Delineating the trajectory of an academic discipline is one thing, but arguing that changes in psychological experiences have occurred is more of a challenge. In any case, a longue durée perspective affords a picture of changes in human mentality, as does taking into account democratization, techno-scientific innovation, capitalism, the bourgeois ethic, and global flows of knowledge, for example. These may be considered “common conceptual denominators” or “common temporal processes” that explain developments the world over. Assuming that these are indeed historical forces that can be pointed to as the motor behind global changes, to this list I would add interiorization. The psychological revolution indicates more than just changes in discourse; it points to a deeper shift in psycho-sociological processes.

The problem with Japan’s “acceptance” of foreign knowledge Discerning the global flow of ideas, ideologies, and intellectual traditions is more of a challenge than noticing the borrowing of organizational models. For example, the Japanese authorities borrowed institutional configurations from Britain (navy, 1869; telegraph system, 1869; postal system, 1972; postal savings system, 1875), France (army, 1869; primary school system, 1872; Tokyo police, 1874; judicial system, 1872; Kempeitai or military police, 1881), Germany (army, 1878), Belgium (Bank of Japan, 1882), and the United States (primary school, 1879; national bank system, 1872; Sapporo Agricultural College, 1879).3 Though arguably such organizations, in order to take root, required a certain ideological climate that must be appreciated, their inherent nature somehow makes them easier to discern. In the case of more intellectual, intangible influences, such as psychological knowledge, delineation is more difficult. Focusing on how the “outside” world impacted Japan during the late Tokugawa and Meiji period carries a danger, since the “opening of Japan” is usually claimed to have let in the forces of science, modernization, and foreign learning (i.e., “Westernization”). It is also important to note that the conventional “imitation-versus-innovation” and “copying-versus-inventing” dichotomies are unhelpful.4 In the case of Psychology (which for many Japanese represented an aspect of modernity), it must be stressed that it was not something that Japan passively absorbed or accepted. Rather, it was internal forces (as elaborated upon in this book), particularly the interiorization of the individual, that cultivated the growth of this discipline. And it was Japanese individuals who actively cultivated and reaped the practical benefits of the new field. This is why it is “best to think in terms of professional scientists emerging in linked and global networks, rather than of diffusion of science from the ‘West’ to the ‘East’ and the ‘South.’”5

In Retrospect

181

The challenges of conceptual translation I end by mentioning issues of conceptual translation. “If we recognize the creativity required to translate and convey an understanding of the foreign, we must regard the first generation of tetsugakusha [philosophers] as independent, innovative thinkers.”6 The same, of course, could be said of any first generation Japanese “translator” of sciences and knowledge forms from overseas. The point here is that translation is not passive, but an active, creative endeavor, especially if it concerns abstract and complicated ideas.7 Moreover, it raises an intriguing question: were Japan’s first Psychologists merely labeling invariant, universal psychological processes by borrowing concepts from elsewhere and simply coining a new descriptive idiom for the Japanese language? Or were they, by introducing new ideas, actually assisting in transforming variant, malleable psychological processes that were adapting to the new conditions of modernity? I only raise this issue for the sake of argument and will not directly address it since it would take us into matters too philosophical and abstruse.8

Looking back: The stages of Japanese Psychology Originally, I had intended this book’s table of contents and organization to reflect stages of Japanese Psychology. Due to many cross-currents that defied an easy chronology, this proved untenable (though this book’s contents very roughly follow an historical trajectory).9 In any event, I provide an overall historical sense by outlining the transition from a premodern–moralistic–spiritualistic–cosmic shingaku (learning of the heart–mind) to a modern–scientific–naturalistic–scopic shinrigaku (Psychology). I periodize the emergence of Japanese Psychology into five stages:

(1) Pre-institutionalization: 1875–8810 Beginning in the mid-1870s, translations of foreign Psychology-related books began. Psychology was introduced in missionary schools and taught in courses from 1873 at what would become Tokyo Imperial University. Let us take an overview of some major developments from the Meiji Restoration to mid-Meiji: First, in private schools, normal schools and University of Tokyo, from the early period “Psychology” was part of the curriculum. Next, Psychology was considered to be a field among philosophers and in general academic journals. A number of Psychology-related publications were printed. Many of these were translations and Psychology was understood as a link with new knowledge from overseas. In this period, though no one carried out new research that took Psychology as the main target, it can be stated that demands and expectations for Psychology were on the rise in various places.11

182

The History of Japanese Psychology

Still, we should note that the expansion of psychological programs in the academic structures was slow, so that the formal training of professional Psychologists would not occur until later.12 Moreover, in addition to highly specialized training, laboratories and concomitant equipment were required to produce Japanese scholars and “it is not easy to see the influence of foreign instructors during the early part of the Meiji period if compared to other fields.” 13

(2) Incipient institutionalization: 1888–190314 In 1888 Motora was appointed as a lecturer in psychophysics at Imperial University (Teikoku Daigaku; predecessor to Tokyo Imperial University). Meanwhile, Psychology became an important part of the curricula at normal schools. In 1903, with assistance from his student Matsumoto Matatarō, Motora established Japan’s first psychological laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University. One year later Psychology became a “specialization” (senshū) within the Department of Philosophy (Tetsu Gakka).

(3) Organizational institutionalization: 1903–26 The teaching of Psychology spread as a specialization and Psychology laboratories were established at various universities. Psychological knowledge begins to be applied to social problems and issues (military, educational, mental testing, social reform, personnel selection for companies, clinical, etc.). Various “schools” or approaches appear (e.g., behaviorism, Gestalt, Freudian psychoanalysis, social Psychology, perception, comparative, and animal). In 1906 Matsumoto Matatarō was appointed the first professor of Psychology at Kyoto Imperial University. Two years later he established Japan’s second Japanese Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1919 the Department of Psychology (Shinri Gakka) was established at the Tokyo Imperial University and that same year Nippon Shinrigaku Zasshi (Japanese Journal of Psychology) began publishing (until 1922).

(4) Application, specialization, and integration: 1926–4515 The practical application of Psychology intensifies, as does an increase in Psychology majors (senkō) at universities and the establishment of various academic societies and journals. If we consider Taishō (1912–26) as the era that laid the foundations for the independence of Japanese Psychology, then, according to Takasuna, early Shōwa can be called the period when its independence increased. During this era, three developments, understood as the background that welcomed this independence, can be given. First, the establishment of chairs in Psychology and Psychology laboratories at universities allowed the professionalization and training of Psychologists. This can be viewed as an extension of internal structural development within universities. Second, academic societies, where scholars and researchers could exchange ideas, disseminated new knowledge throughout Japan. And third, societal demands led to the practical application of psychological knowledge.16

In Retrospect

183

(5) Postimperial reconstruction and expansion: 1945–present After the war, educational reform and strong American influence led to a dramatic increase in number of universities and the teaching of Psychology. From around 2000, the establishment of Psychology departments and an increase in graduate-level clinical Psychology becomes salient.17

Other perspectives Others have suggested periodization schemes for Japanese Psychology. Watanabe Tōru proposed three stages. The first, beginning in 1868, represented by Nishi Amane and Inoue Tetsujirō, is one of “translation–introduction.” The second, from 1890, can be thought of as “systematic-organizational” and saw Nishimura Shigeki (1828–1902) and Motora play key roles. The third, from around 1913, was one of specialized research and is best represented by Matsumoto Matatarō.18 Incidentally, according to Watanabe, Psychology can be divided into two “schools”: seitō-ha (orthodox) and koyū-ha (characteristic). The former pursues a type of psychological knowledge imported from the West, while the latter, the focus of Watanabe’s interests, concerned the excavation of Japan’s indigenous and unique traditions (incidentally, it seems that concrete methodologies were accepted more readily by Japanese researchers than abstract and general theories).19 Satō employs a six fold division of periods: (1) from around 1860: “pre-historical”; (2) from around 1888: introductory; (3) from around 1903: specialization (senshū) and establishment of laboratories; (4) from around 1927: increase in Psychology majors (senkō) at universities and the establishment of academic societies; (5) from around 1945: increase in number of universities (educational Psychology); and (6) from around 2000: establishment of departments of Psychology at universities and the increase in graduate-level clinical Psychology.20 Hoshino proposes four periods: (1) 1878–1925: a period of “enlightenment” and the establishment of Psychology laboratories and the system of education for Psychology; (2) 1926–45: a period of experimental studies; (3) 1946–70: the scope of Psychology widens and its methodologies are sharpened; and (4) 1971–79: further progress is made.21 Arakawa divides the history of Japanese Psychology, as it concerns feelings and emotions, into five periods: (1) pre-1850, before Japan “opened up”; (2) late nineteenth century; (3) from 1903 to the beginning of the Second World War; (4) from the beginning of the Second World War to the 1960s; and (5) from the 1960s.22

External influences Takasuna very usefully describes how “Western” Psychology entered Japan via six “routes” which roughly follow a chronological order:23 (1) Translations. Best exemplified by the Meiji-Enlightenment thinker Nishi Amane who studied Western knowledge in the Netherlands (1862–67). He coined many

184

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

The History of Japanese Psychology terms that would become incorporated into the modern lexicon of Japanese. During the last two decades of the 1800s many translations of Euro–American Psychology-related works would appear. Christian missionary schools. Proselytizing activities had been prohibited during the Edo era (1603–1868), but after the removal of the ban in 1873, Christian schools were permitted in which English and foreign ideas were taught. One of the oldest was Doshisha Eigakkō (established in 1875) where works on “mental philosophy” by Joseph Haven and Thomas Upham were read. University curricula. In particular, the Psychology-related courses offered at University of Tokyo (latter Tokyo Imperial University). The key figure is Toyama Masakazu, who spent three years at the University of Michigan (1872–76). After returning to Japan, he became a key advocate of Darwinian evolutionism and Spencer’s thought, as well as other contemporary ideas that would inform Psychology. He would begin teaching a course called “Psychology” in 1877 at University of Tokyo. Normal schools and teacher education. Most notably, Izawa Shūji and Hideo Takamine traveled to the United States to learn about pedagogy (1875–78). Izawa would become the principal of Tokyo Higher Normal School and introduced Psychology in the curriculum for teachers in 1879. Japanese philosophers who studied overseas. The best example is Inoue Tetsujirō, who studied in Leipzig under the “father” of modern Psychology, Wilhelm Wundt. Motora Yūjirō and experimental Psychology. The most important avenue involved the introduction of experimental, rather than a speculative, philosophical-oriented Psychology. The key person in this regard is Motora, who studied at Boston and Johns Hopkins Universities. With G. Stanley Hall as his mentor, Motora was awarded a PhD in 1888. After he returned to Tokyo Imperial University, he introduced experimental Psychology to Japan, formalized the relevant curriculum, established Japan’s first psychological laboratory and trained many students.

Different trajectories: Private schools and “unique researchers” It is worth briefly introducing several key Psychologists who, though some were educated at Tokyo Imperial University, went on to spread and teach psychological knowledge at private institutions of higher education. To varying degrees, they were not part of the state-monitored higher educational structure (i.e., the imperial universities) and its associated academic cliques. Yokoyama Matsusaburō (1890–1966) researched feelings and emotions, the nature of consciousness and applied Psychology. He made great efforts to internationalize Japanese Psychology and from 1959 to 1961 he was president of the

In Retrospect

185

Japanese Psychological Association. His career followed a most unusual trajectory.24 At age seventeen he quit Mito Higher School in Ibaraki Prefecture and traveled to the United States, where he continued his pretertiary-level studies by entering an elementary school in Ogden, Utah. By grade skipping, he was able to enter a high school (1910) in Colorado and in 1913 was admitted into the University of Colorado. He earned his BA three years later and entered Harvard University, from where he obtained an MA in 1918. He was awarded his doctorate in 1921 by Clark University, where he studied under G.S. Hall and received guidance from Edwin Boring (1886–1968). His academic dissertation was called “An Experimental Study of Affective Tendency as Conditioned by Color and Form.” After he returned to Japan, he would teach at Keio Gijuku University, where he established a Psychology laboratory. Imada Megumi (1894–1960) entered Kansei Gakuin University in 1912 but would receive his BA in 1922 from Tokyo Imperial University. In addition to his work on behaviorism, functionalism, the Psychology of religion, and the relationship between thinking and linguistic symbols, he specialized in and translated the works of William James. In 1922 he became a professor at Kansei Gakuin University and founded the first Psychology laboratory in a private school (1923). He would eventually become president of Kansei Gakuin. Beginning in 1929 he studied at Columbia and Cambridge Universities.25 In the early 1950s he played an important role in introducing Japanese Psychology into India and Ceylon. He authored Shinrigaku-shi (The History of Psychology, 1962). Kido Mantarō (1893–1985) studied at Tokyo Imperial University, but he never earned his BA because he attended classes as elective courses. In 1916 he became an assistant to a Psychology class at Tokyo Imperial University. At his own expense, he entered the University of Leipzig (1922–24). He became a professor at Hōsei University in 1924 and he also worked as an instructor at Tokyo Imperial University. In 1936 he became director at Koganei Gakuen, an experimental school for children with mental challenges. In 1944 he was jailed for his political beliefs and forced to retire from Hōsei University. After the war he would hold positions at Kogakuin, Hokkaidō, Tōyō, Chūō, and Hokusei Gakuen Universities. In 1946 he became director at the National Institute of Educational Research and the following year became a professor at Tokyo Bunrika University.26 Satō points out that Kido Mantarō, Watanabe Tōru, and Imada Megumi all had interests in applied Psychology, specifically, developmental, and rehabilitation issues. Satō also notes that all three had interests in the history of Psychology and theory: Kido’s Shinrigaku Mondai-shi (Problems in the History of Psychology, 1969b); Imada Megumi’s Shinrigaku-shi (History of Psychology, 1962); and Watanabe’s Hompō Saisho no Keiken-teki Shinrigaku-sha toshite no Kamada Hō no Kenkyū (Our Country’s First Empirical Psychologist: The Research of Kamada Hō, 1940). Satō also notes that unlike in the private universities (particularly Nihon University), the practical applications of Psychology were not emphasized at the imperial universities. Interestingly, both

186

The History of Japanese Psychology

Tokyo Imperial University and private institutions of higher education did not develop clinical applications of Psychology.27 Satō also describes the careers and contributions of three “unique researchers” who in their own way challenged and defined the boundaries of Psychology. The first researcher was Inoue Enryō (1858–1919), who is remembered for his attempts to modernize Buddhism and strip it of what he believed were its superstitious accretions. His training was in philosophy and though his interest was in what we would call psychological processes, his methods were not strictly speaking psychological, that is, not experimental. For the most part Inoue’s contributions have not been acknowledged by or integrated into Psychology. Fukurai Tomokichi (1869–1952) was a trained Psychologist; he relied on psychological methods and his object of study was the psychological. However, due to his interest in spiritualism, in the end he was not acknowledged by mainstream Psychologists.28 Furukawa Takeji (1891–1940) was trained in pedagogy but utilized psychological methods to understand psyche. However, his ultimate goal was to put his findings into educational practice. His ideas were originally accepted by Psychologists but later rejected.

The contributions of Japanese women Psychologists During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the psyche of women, along with the Psychology of children, became a central focus of many researchers. This was a response to how industrialism altered the relation between the family unit and labor practices. Note that between 1880 and 1900, the number of employed adult women in the United States more than doubled, and by 1910, one out of every five women above fifteen years of age was a member of the work force.29 Concomitant with these demographic changes among women were growing economic independence, increased public visibility, and higher political consciousness. Nevertheless, sexism was the norm and women-oriented education, at least in the United States, was ideally for “republican motherhood” or the notion that better-educated women would make better wives and mothers (which, incidentally, paralleled Japan’s ideology of “good wives–wise mothers”; see below). More specifically, women were not welcomed in institutions of higher education. However, interestingly enough, Psychology was “among the most hospitable of the sciences in opening graduate study to women,”30 and though male Psychologists such as G.S. Hall, James McKeen Cattell, and William James possessed “androcentric” views, some did challenge the sex/gender status quo. Examples of American female Psychologists who made lasting contributions include: Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939), the first woman to be granted a PhD in Psychology (1894) and researcher of animal behavior. In 1921 she became president of the American Psychological Association and was the second woman to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences (in 1932). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1929), who was interested in memory and the self, was a philosopher as well as a Psychologist. She became president of the American Psychological Association in 1905 and then president of the American Philosophical Association in 1918. Helen Thompson Woolley (née Bradford

In Retrospect

187

Thompson; 1874–1947) studied early education, welfare, and sex differences. Leta Stetter Hollingworth (1886–1939), who studied under E.L. Thorndike, investigated the Psychology of women and exceptional children.31

Japanese women Psychologists A review of the careers of Japanese women Psychologists indicates four patterns. First, most of the Psychologists were associated with Japan’s private educational institutions, that is, outside of the male-dominated state system of higher education. Though women did receive a higher education of sorts at two women’s higher normal schools숯Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School32 and Nara Women’s Higher Normal School33숯they were typically not admitted to higher education. Moreover, the graduates of these teaching-training institutions were expected to seek employment at girls’ schools. Nevertheless, some institutions, not officially considered “universities” (daigaku) by the authorities, were dedicated to female learning at the advanced level (such schools, not officially recognized as universities until after the war, were suffixed with gakkō, which in this context is translated as “college,” for example, Japan Women’s College34). Given these institutional constraints (not to mention the restrictions in higher education), it is remarkable that a number of Japanese women were able to not only receive advanced training (some overseas) but also make significant contributions. Indeed, note that in his 2003 dictionary of Japanese Psychologists, Ōizumi lists 786 biographical entries. Remarkably, I was only able to find twenty-one women (2.67 percent).35 A second pattern concerns how most women Psychologists focused on child, developmental, and educational Psychology. This strongly suggests that women were encouraged, whether overtly or in an unsaid, implied manner, to pursue topics concerning nurturing or maternal sentiments that females supposedly appreciate more readily than males. A third pattern is apparent in how many female Japanese Psychologists began their student careers by learning about foreign languages rather than the natural sciences. A final pattern is that their overseas studies took place in the United States rather than Europe.

Snapshot Good wives–wise mothers Women, as “good wives–wise mothers” (ryōsai kenbo) came under the state's bureaucratic gaze and it is worth noting how, via organizations and policies, the Japanese state attempted to configure women’s Psychology. In prewar times, there were several nationwide women's organizations under different ministries. For example, the Women's Patriotic Association (Aikoku Fujin-kai), established by Okumura Ioko in 1901, was under the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Welfare. The Greater Japan Women's National Defense Association (Dai Nippon Kokubō Fujin-kai), established in 1932, was under the Ministries of the Army and

188

The History of Japanese Psychology

the Navy. The Greater Japan Federation of Women's Groups (Dai Nippon Rengō Fujin-kai; founded in 1930), was under the Ministry of Education’s jurisdiction, as was the Greater Japan Federation of Girls' Youth Groups. In June 1941, the Cabinet set out “Guidelines for Making a New Women's Organization to Meet the Critical Need for National Defense.” In February 1942 these groups merged to form the Greater Japan Women's Association (Dai Nippon Fujin-kai). This group concerned itself with teaching about the “national body” (kokutai), the importance of womanly virtues, national defense, family life, the disciplining of youth, savings, and home education. All adult women, through neighborhood and village associations, were mobilized by the Greater Japan Women's Association, which was affiliated with the Imperial Rule Assistance Association (Taisei Yokusan-kai).

Haraguchi Tsuruko: Pioneer and inspiration The first Japanese woman to earn a PhD (1912) was Haraguchi Tsuruko.36 Born Arai Tsuruko in Tomioka, Gunma Prefecture, on June 18, 1886,37 her short but productive life would be tragically cut short at age twenty-nine (September  26, 1915) when she was infected by tuberculosis. In 1902 she graduated from Gunma Prefectural Girls’ Higher School,38 and after studying English literature, Haraguchi graduated in 1906 from Nihon Joshi Daigakkō (the school that would become Japan Women’s University). While there she studied Psychology under Matsumoto Matatarō who, being supportive of female education, encouraged her to pursue studies overseas.39 At her own expense, Haraguchi left for New York in 1907 to enroll in Teachers College at Columbia University to study experimental pedagogic and experimental Psychology under Edward L. Thorndike.40 While at Columbia she also studied under Robert S. Woodworth41 and James M. Cattell. Five years after beginning her graduate studies, she completed her dissertation, which explored mental fatigue (especially as it related to higher intelligence) and was awarded a PhD. That same year she wedded Haraguchi Takejirō (1882–1951), a future Waseda University professor. Before returning to Japan in 1912, she traveled throughout Europe. In 1912 she returned to Japan and suggested that Japan Women’s University establish an experimental Psychology program and aided in the establishment of a Psychology laboratory at the same school. In addition to mental fatigue, Haraguchi was also interested in educational Psychology and measurements for mental tests. In 1914 she published Shin-teki Sagyō oyobi Hirō no Kenkyū (Research on Mental Work and Fatigue)42 and one year after her death her memoirs of her days at Columbia University were compiled in Tanoshiki Omoide (Happy Memories).

Mibai Sugi: American connections During her career Mibai Sugi would travel to the United States three times. She was born on April  9, 1891, in what was called at the time Tsushi Village, in Tsuna

In Retrospect

189

County, Hyōgo Prefecture.43 After graduating from Baika Women’s College44 (1910), she entered Kobe Women’s College45 where she studied English and completed her studies in 1915 and for one year taught at the latter institution. Then she traveled to the United States to study at Mills College in California from where she would obtain a BA in 1919. She came back to Kobe Women’s College to teach, but returned to the United States and obtained an MA (“Reading and Retention”) from the University of Michigan in 1921. Nine years later she would be awarded a PhD in experimental Psychology from the same university for her dissertation “An Experimental Study of Apparent Movement.” She then apprenticed in the field of mental health at Western Reserve University. In 1931 she became a professor at Kobe Women’s University, but in 1944 she resigned from her teaching position and worked briefly for the Sumitomo Aluminum Smelting Company. After the war she became an advisor for the Education Division in the military administration in Hyōgo Prefecture and in 1948 was elected to the education board of Hyōgo Prefecture (until 1952). In 1949 she became president of Baika Academy and in 1956 resigned this position to teach at the Academy’s junior college.46 She died on May 25, 1969.

Kubo Tsuyako: A woman of firsts Kubo Tsuyako was a woman of “firsts”: she was the first graduate of Psychology at Tōhoku Imperial University; she was the first woman to major in Psychology; and just as impressive, she was also the first female Psychologist to graduate from an imperial institution.47 She made many contributions to child and educational Psychology (Table E.1). Kubo Tsuyako (née Kurose Tsuya) was born on January  2, 1893 in Tokyo. After graduating from Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School, she worked at this institution’s attached kindergarten and edited Child Education (Yōji Kyōiku), the journal of the Japan Kindergarten Association.48 After Kubo received her BA in 1926 (her graduation thesis was “Research on Cognitive Functions in Infants from the Viewpoint of the Psychology of Thinking”49), she entered graduate school at Tōhoku Imperial University. In 1927 she became an assistant principal of Hokusei Girl’s School in Sapporo, Hokkaido Prefecture. She then

Table E.1 Major publications of Kubo Tsuyako Japanese title

English translation

Jidō no Sōzō to Sono Kyōiku

The Imagination of Children and Their Education, 1924 (under Kurose)

Wagako no Shinri―Iroiro no Seishitsu to Tadashii Shitsukekata

The Psychology of Our Children―Different Characteristics and the Correct Way to Raise Children, 1926 (under Kurose)

Yōnen Shōnen Aonen no Kokoro

The Mind of Children, Youth and Adolescents, 1935

Jidō Shinrigaku―Yōnen Jidai

Child Psychology―Childhood, 1949

Kyōyō ni tsuite

On Learning, 1951

190

The History of Japanese Psychology

became an instructor at Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School and taught at Miyagi Academy in Sendai. In 1941, she was employed as head of the curriculum department at Ōin Academy in Tokyo. Six years later she took a professorship at Tokyo Kasei Professional School,50 and then in 1950, began teaching at Tokyo Kasei Gakuin Junior College.51 Kubo died on May 3, 1969.52

Kōra Tomi: Social activist and internationalist The funeral for Haraguchi Tsuruko was held at Japan Women’s College (Nihon Joshi Daigakkō). A young female student, Wada Tomi, was in attendance. Deeply moved by Prof. Haraguchi’s premature death and impressed with her academic achievements, the student decided to follow in Haraguchi’s footsteps and would also be encouraged by Matsumoto Matatarō. The student would eventually travel to the United States and research the physiology of hunger, developmental Psychology and women’s education. But she also made important achievements outside the academy, for example, she took unpopular stands during the war; won a seat in the House of Councilors in the first election in which women were allowed to vote and run as candidates (1947); contributed to Sino–Japan economic relations; and was awarded the Order of the Sacred Treasure in 1977. Kōra (née Wada) Tomi was born on July 1, 1896, in Takaoka, Toyama Prefecture. She studied English literature at Japanese Women’s College and graduated in 1917. That same year she traveled to Columbia University to study educational Psychology. In 1920 she received her MA. Encouraged by Thorndike, she went to John Hopkins University in order to conduct experimental Psychology under J.B. Watson and C.P. Richter (1894–1988). In 1922 she received her doctorate (“An Experimental Study of Hunger in its Relation to Activity”) from Columbia University. When Kōra returned to Japan, she became an assistant in the clinical psychiatry laboratory at Kyūshū Imperial University’s Department of Medicine. Her promotion to associate professor met with resistance because she was unmarried (note that her students were all single men). Not one to brook such inequality, after consulting with Matsumoto Matatarō she resigned from the university in 1927 and returned to her alma mater that had been upgraded to a university (i.e., Japan Women’s University) where she was made professor. Two years later she married the psychiatrist Kōra Takehisa. From 1933 she also taught at Teikoku Women’s Medical and Pharmacy School.53 At the same school she concurrently was director of the Domestic Science Research Laboratory.54 In 1939 Kōra became an executive board member of the Japan Applied Psychology Association. In 1940 she became the women’s delegate to Provisional Central Cooperation Council55 of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association56 and would advocate the establishment of a women’s bureau for the latter organization. In 1942 she resigned from Japanese Women’s University because she disagreed with how workers were mobilized for the war effort. Kōra is well known for her contributions to world peace. In 1920 she attended the third meeting of the Women’s International Peace and Freedom Confederation57 and participated in an international economic conference in Moscow in 1952. The following

In Retrospect

191

year she helped negotiate the repatriation of Japanese residing in China and formed the Japanese Women’s Community Joint Association58 and served as its Vice President. That same year she became a director of the International Women’s Psychology Association59 and over the years would participate in numerous overseas peace conferences. Kōra passed away on January 17, 1993.60

Hatano Isoko: Organizer and welfare activist Hatano Isoko, a specialist in developmental and child Psychology, was an extremely prolific writer and would received many prizes and honors during the course of her productive career, including the 8th Mainichi Award for her 1954 book Yōji no Shinri (Child Psychology), Educational Performance Award (1972), Order of the Precious Crown (1976), and Child Welfare Work Performance Award (1977). Her 1950 Shōnenki (Childhood) was a bestseller (more than 300,000 were sold) and was made into a movie by director Kinoshita Keisuke in 1951.61 Hatano (née Hatakeyama) Isoko was born on March  31, 1906, in Tokyo.62 She would attend a high school attached to Japan Women’s College. In 1927 she graduated from the latter institution where she studied English and then became an English instructor at Women’s Economic Professional School.63 Influenced by Matsumoto Matatarō, she decided to study Psychology and from 1928 until 1937, she worked under the guidance of Onojima Usao at the Child Research Institute at Japan Women’s University. Meanwhile, she would marry Hatano Kanji in 1930, a specialist in child Psychology, Psychology of literature and audiovisual education. In 1936 she attended “elective courses” (senka) in the Psychology Department at Tokyo Bunrika University and the following year became an assistant researcher in Psychology and an educational counselor at the same university. In 1948 she became a graduate student at Nihon University and worked on the educational staff of the Aiiku Society.64 In 1953 she became an associate professor at Tōyō University and in 1956 received her doctorate from Nihon University. Her dissertation was called “The Development of Infants and Home Education” (“Yōji no Hattatsu to Katei Kyōiku”). In addition to her writing accomplishments, she was also a gifted organizer. In 1960 she established and headed the Japan Child Research Institute;65 meanwhile, until 1971, she was professor of Kunitachi College of Music. In 1963 she set up the Haha no Gakuen (Mothers’ Academy) and became its director.66 The following year she established and headed the Japan Family Welfare Association.67 Hatano passed away on September 15, 1978.

Kamiya Mieko: Searching for the meaning of life A clinical psychiatrist and talented linguist (she would teach French literature) known for her translations of philosophical works, Kamiya Mieko’s writings focused on existential questions inspired by her work with those suffering from leprosy. She would work at the (National) Nagashima Aiseien Sanatorium for leprosy patients

192

The History of Japanese Psychology

(where she contracted tuberculosis herself)68 and devoted herself to those suffering from Hansen’s disease and studied its psychological aspects. Among her many works is Ikigai ni tsuite (On What Makes Our Life Worth Living, 1966). Kamiya Mieko was born on January  12, 1914, in Okayama Prefecture. Due to the work of her father, Maeda Tamon,69 a politician and diplomat, she lived in Geneva until 1926. There she attended an elementary school headed by Jean Piaget. In 1935 she graduated from Tsuda English School.70 Three years late she enrolled in Columbia University in order to prepare for a medical career. In 1941 she transferred to Tokyo Women’s Medical Vocational School,71 from which she graduated three years later. From 1944 to 1949 she was a student of psychiatry at University of Tokyo, where she trained under Uchimura Yūshi. In 1946 she married Kamiya Noburō who taught at the University of Tokyo. In 1952 she accompanied her husband (who had been transferred) to the Kansai region and became a psychiatric researcher at Ōsaka University. Meanwhile, she became an associate professor of Kobe College in 1954 and five years later was promoted to associate professor. From 1957 to 1972 she worked at the Nagashima Aiseien Sanatorium and from 1965 to 1967, she was its director of psychiatry. In  1960 Osaka University awarded her a medical degree. Her academic dissertation was “Psychiatric research on Hansen’s Disease” (“Rai no Seishin Igaku-teki Kenkyū”). From 1959 she taught at Kobe College,72 and in 1963 worked as a professor at Tsuda College.73 Kamiya passed away on October 22, 1979.

Other Japanese women Psychologists It is worth briefly mentioning a few more Japanese female Psychologists born before 1950 (Table E.2). Kume Kyoko specialized in child and educational Psychology and contributed to developmental and cognitive Psychology. She was born on June 1, 1906, in Tokyo. After graduating from Japan Women’s College74 where she studied domestic science and pedagogy, she traveled to the United States and entered graduate school at the University of Chicago to study Psychology (until 1931). Then, after spending time as a researcher in Psychology at University of Tokyo, she became an instructor at what is now Japan Women’s University, where she was eventually promoted to professor.75 She was awarded her doctorate in 1962 from Tōhoku Imperial University for her dissertation on “Systematic Research on Size Homeostasis” (“Ōkisa no Kōjōsei Soshiki-teki Kenkyū”). She died on September 5, 1990. Kobayashi Sae contributed to educational and social Psychology.76 She was born on July 21, 1913, in Shizuoka Prefecture. In 1934 she graduated from Nara Women’s Higher Normal School where she studied literature.77 She entered Tokyo Bunrika University, where she majored in Psychology and received her BA in 1937 and then became an instructor숯and later a professor숯at Tokyo Women’s Normal School.78 In 1940 she became an assistant at Tokyo Bunrika University and majored in physiology at Tokyo Imperial University. Four years later she became a researcher in Psychology at the latter institution. In 1945 she took a part-time instructorship at Tokyo Women’s Medical Vocational School. Eventually she would become a professor at Jissen Women’s

In Retrospect

193

University. In 1984 she became president of the Japanese Psychological Association. She died on July 20, 2002. Oka Hiroko was interested in infant development and child Psychology and was particularly interested in expression and mother–child interaction. She helped establish the Department of Psychology at Seishin Women’s University. Oka was born on July 20, 1917, in Saga Prefecture. She graduated from Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School where she studied Japanese literature and in 1942 received her BA from Tokyo Bunrika University in education and Psychology. Seven years later she completed her graduate studies at the same institution. She then became an instructor at the Tokyo Metropolitan Higher Kindergarten Teacher Academy79 and in 1950 began to teach at Wayō Women’s University. By 1955 she was a professor at Seishin Women’s University. In 1970 she published Nyūji-ki no Hattatsu (Development in Early Childhood). In 1986 she was made president of the Japan Family Life Association80 and four years later became director of the University Seminar House Foundation.81 She passed away on April 29, 1998.

Table E.2 Japanese women Psychologists Name

Specialization in Psychology

Major University/College Affiliation

Akitani Tatsuko (1923–)

Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry

Juntendō

Akiyama Satoko (1923–92)

Writer, Depth Psychology

Ochanomizu Women’s, Komazawa, Tōyō

Asami Chizuko (1919–)

Developmental Psychology, Infant Behavior

Naruto University of Education, Seitoku

Hoashi Kiyoko (1920–)

Character and Developmental Psychology

Jōsai

Ikeda Yoshiko (1924–)

Child Psychiatry

Seitoku, Tōyō

Kashiwagi Keiko (1932–)

Developmental Psychology, Family

Tōkyō Women’s, Shirayuri

Marui Sumiko (1924–)

Personality, Clinical

Aichi, Gifu

Miyamoto Misako (1928–)

Developmental, Achievement Motivation

Nihon Women’s

Shinagawa Takako (1922–)

Child, Home Education

(Taiwa Gakuen) St. Cecilia Women’s Junior

Terada Hiroko (1946–77)

Early Childhood

(Kobe) Shinwa Women’s

Shirai Tsune (1910–99)

Developmental

Seishin Women’s

Yamakawa Noriko (1910–90)

Developmental

Kobe College, Seiwa Women’s

194

The History of Japanese Psychology

Figure 1 Title page of Motora Yūjirō’s Ethics (Rinrigaku, 1893). By author.

In Retrospect

Figure 2 Title page of Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology of Our Day (Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913). By author.

195

196

The History of Japanese Psychology

Figure 3 Title page of Motora Yūjirō’s Collection of Essays (Ronbun-shū, 1909). By author.

In Retrospect

197

Figure 4 Title page of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Lectures on Psychology (Shinrigaku Kōwa, 1924). By author.

198

The History of Japanese Psychology

Figure 5 Title page of Motora Yūjirō’s Outline of Psychology (Shinrigaku Kōyō, 1907). By author.

In Retrospect

199

Figure 6 Motora Yūjirō. From Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology of Our Day (Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913).

Appendix 1

The Flow of Global Knowledge: Japan at the Crossroads Going abroad to seek knowledge In the last days of the Tokugawa period, the authorities had already begun sending students abroad. Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835–1901), one of the greatest thinkers of the Meiji period who advocated Westernization and founded Keiōgijuku (later to become present-day Keiō University), accompanied the Japanese mission to the United States in 1860 and Europe in 1862. Through works such as Seiyō Jiyō (Western World, 1867), which presented basic descriptions of Western school systems, he exposed Japanese to what were then considered “modern” and “enlightened” thinking on education and other matters. In 1862, the Shogunate dispatched fifteen students to the Netherlands on first officially approved foreign study program. In 1865, six students were sent to Russia and in 1866 twelve went to England. Two more groups were sent to France in 1867. In  addition to these Shogunate-sanctioned missions, various domains also sent students abroad. Important examples include Itō Hirobumi (eventually to become one of the most important leaders of the Meiji period; 1841–1909), who was sent to England by the Chōshū Domain and Mori Arinori (another important Meiji leader and the first education minister), who had been sent to England and the United States by the Statsuma Domain.1 On February 11, 1871, the “Regulations Concerning Study Abroad” (“Kaigai Ryūgaku Kisoku”) was promulgated by the Grand Council. This order made the university responsible for overseas study, and the university’s Southern and Eastern Colleges sent many students abroad. While in Washington as the chargé d’affaires of the Japanese Legation, Mori Arinori sent letters, dated February 3, 1872, to presidents of all prominent educational institutions in the United States to gather their opinions: “What are the effects of education—(1) Upon the material prosperity of a country? (2) Upon its commerce? (3) Upon its agricultural and industrial interests? (4) Upon the social, moral and physical conditions of the people? (5) Upon the laws and government?”2 In addition to importing foreign knowledge and personnel into Japan, Japanese were sent overseas to collect useful information.3 This started even before the Meiji Restoration. The Bansho shirabesho (Office for Investigating Barbarian Documents), which was under the control of the Shogunate and translated foreign books, screened students for study in Holland (1862), Russia (1865), and Britain (1865). Many of the first to study abroad were young samurai, motivated by a “strong national consciousness.”4

202

Appendix 1

Itō Hirobumi, dispatched abroad by the domain of Chōshū Domain, said that “we were purchased as capital to become living weapons of war in the future.”5 As an indication of their strong national identity, one should note that among the students who studied overseas, the vast majority eventually returned to Japan.6 Though in the beginning many overseas students had a samurai background, eventually students dispatched abroad were drawn from all classes. In addition to the Shogunate, many domains sent students overseas, who were called ryūgakusei (those sent for shorter periods were called “observers” or shisatsu). In 1866, the Shogunate lifted its formal ban on overseas study.7 From 1868 to 1874, most overseas students journeyed to the United States (209). Others were dispatched to Great Britain (168), Germany (82), France (60), Russia, China, Austria, Belgium, Hong Kong, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. From 1875 to 1897, most of the 159 students sent abroad by the Department of Education/Monbushō went to Germany, Great Britain, France, and the United States.8 Gradually, the authorities tightened the administrative leash on overseas study. In  1869, in its first attempt to impose order, the state began to register overseas students and it sent students abroad under official auspices. The “Nine Rules of Conduct” explicitly stated that overseas study was for Japan and not for the individual’s sake. Future leaders Yamagata Aritomo (1838–1922; prime minister, modernizer of the army and local government) and Saigō Tsugumichi (1843–1902; secretary of education, May  24, 1878–December  24, 1878) were the first officially sponsored students. In 1870 an edict encouraged the nobility to study overseas in order to become “models for the people.” In January 1871, another edict made the overseas dispatch of students state policy and formalized the selection process, determined periods of stay, identified subjects to be studied, estimated expenses, and established a supervisory system. “According to the 1871 edict, before departure students were to pay a visit to a Shintō shrine in their native place, to consume a cup of sacred sake and to vow that they would never disgrace their country while they were abroad.”9 The authorities gave some administrative order to overseas study through the “Regulations Concerning Study Abroad” (February  11, 1871), and by 1875 the Department of Education began to award loan scholarships which continued until the  outbreak of the Second World War. In 1873, the authorities ordered state-supported  students home due to a perceived decline in quality, budgeting limitations,  and charges of favoritism toward powerful domains. In 1875, the  Department of Education issued additional regulations, which stipulated that loans were to be repaid by working for a number of years in designated employment.10 By 1940, the Ministry of Education had sent a total of 3,168 students abroad. In line with the growing nationalism of the early 1880s, there was a gradual indigenization of the state-authorized higher education system. In 1877, the year the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Science was founded, only four out of sixteen were occupied by Japanese (and one of these posts was not a regular position). By 1877, two foreigners held positions, and by 1893, there were no foreigners in the Faculty of Science. At Tokyo Imperial University in 1881, Japanese was made the official language of instruction, and in 1893 it was decided that only Japanese could receive the title

Appendix 1

203

of professor.11 Remarkably, Japan weaned itself from foreign dependence in only fifteen to twenty years and, increasingly, foreign advisers changed from performing “decision-making” to “decision-conditioning” tasks.12 By 1880 the “central role in the modernization of governmental, technological and academic affairs had been transferred to the hands of Japanese.” As Japanese students began to return to Japan, many foreign instructors were dismissed from their teaching positions.13 As additional evidence of the indigenization of Japanese education, as early as the late 1880s the international community began to recognize the scholarly achievements of Kitao Jirō (meteorology), Nagaoka Hantarō (physics), and Kitazato Shibasaburō (bacteriology).

Importing foreign knowledge: “Honorable foreign menial hirelings” Even before the Meiji Restoration, Japanese were making use of foreign expertise. From 1854 until April  1868, there were about 200 foreigners teaching various technical, medical, and language studies, chiefly for the Shogunate. The attitude toward these foreigners was in no small measure utilitarian. In 1862, a Japanese charged with purchasing machinery from abroad commented that “not a dead machine but a live machine is what I am thinking of.” Some years later, Francis Piggot (in Japan 1887– 91), an adviser to Itō Hirobumi on constitutional law, described foreign employees of the Japanese state as “living books of reference.” The employment of foreigners (and the introduction of foreign capital) was not particularly desired by the Meiji leaders. The Japanese “wanted foreign technology without the foreigner.”14 But given their eagerness to modernize, they found the employment of foreign advisers expedient and the Japanese state took the utilization of foreigners seriously—the Department of Foreign Affairs issued “Instructions for Hiring Foreigners”15 in 1870—and devoted a considerable amount of its scarce resources to their employment. In 1873, the Department of Education was spending about 21 percent of its entire budget on foreign instructors (it devoted 19 percent of its budget to Japanese sent abroad).16 From July 1876 to June 1877, expenditures for foreign advisers and instructors accounted for 2.3 percent of the ordinary state budget. Foreign employees were referred to as oyatoi gaikokujin (honorable foreign menial or hireling), many of whom worked in an official capacity. Shi yatoi were those who were privately hired and oyatoi kyōshi (hired teacher).17 In any given year of the Meiji period, there were approximately 8,000 foreigner employees, half of whom were Chinese day laborers, though no more than 3,000 (if not less) were in the service of the state.18 As for the latter, “it is important to realize that a Japanese official held each of the administrative positions at the same time and the foreign employee of every rank worked under a Japanese supervisor who held the ultimate power of decision.”19 Foreign employees of the state were treated commensurate with the top three levels of Japanese officials. Most were given treatment corresponding to the lowest rank, a few to the middle rank, and only one, Horace Capron (1867–71), to the highest level.20 However, to maintain the Japanese/non-Japanese distinction, official rank was not actually conferred on foreigners. From 1868 to 1900 the Department of Education/Monbushō employed 367 foreign employees, mostly from the United States (105), Germany (93),

204

Appendix 1

Great Britain (86), France (39), and Holland (12),21 making it the second largest state organ employer of foreigners (the Department of Industry [Kōbushō] employed the most [825]).22 The foreign employees were an assorted lot. In the sphere of education, there were “instant professors,” “those who happened to be in the right place at the right time” (even today, many unqualified foreigners, especially in language instruction, can become professors at some Japanese universities). When Guido F. Verbeck (see below) came to work in what would evolve into the University of Tokyo in 1869, “he began an immediate housecleaning by ridding the rolls of ex-butchers, drunk and sober sailors, braumeisters and other ‘honorable frauds’ drawn from the open port. The school had been referred to by other foreign residents as a ‘camp of vagrants.’”23 In addition to well-known “old Japan hands” such as Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850– 1935; in Japan 1873–1911), Ernest F. Fenollosa (1853–1908; in Japan 1878–90, 1896), and Lafcadio Hearn (Koizumi Yakumo; 1850–1904), there were many other lesserknown but just as historically significant figures who devoted themselves to helping Japan modernize.24 William Elliot Griffis was an American teacher from Rutgers University who lived in Japan from 1870 to 1874. He worked in the Fukui Domain academy (Meishinkan), taught physics and chemistry at the Nankō (forerunner of the University of Tokyo), advised Meiji leaders, and wrote numerous books on Japan and its history. He also described in colorful detail the lives of oyatoi gaikokujin.25 David Murray (1830–1905; in Japan 1873–79), appointed the superintendent of educational affairs, submitted his suggestions for educational administration in “A Superintendent’s Draft Revision of the Japanese Code of Education” (“Gakkan Kōan Nihon Kyōiku-hō,” 1877), which was used as a reference by Tanaka Fujimarō, an important Department of Education official. He also helped prepare An Outline History of Education in Japan, the first official Japanese history of education.26 Guido F. Verbeck (1830–98), an American missionary born in Holland, taught in a school in Nagasaki from 1864 to 1869 and was made principal of the Daigaku Nankō. He was also asked to help reorganize what would become the University of Tokyo. He was an adviser to the Meiji leaders and assisted in sending off the Iwakura Mission of 1871. He also helped write “Regulations for Contracts for the Employment of Teachers” (“Kyōshi Yatoire Jōyaku Kisokusho”) (for foreigners). Many other foreign experts helped the Japanese set up their exhibitions at world fairs; for example, Paris (1867), Philadelphia (1876), New Orleans (1885), Chicago (1893), and St. Louis (1904).27 Other foreign employees made important contribution in the field of law, and some were made “special advisers” (komon). Erastus Peshine Smith (in Japan 1871– 76) was the first adviser on international law. Georges Bousquet (in Japan 1872–76), Emile Gustave Boissonade (in Japan 1873–95), and Albert Mosse (in Japan 1886–90) also were key figures. Hermann Roesler (1834–94; in Japan 1878–93) helped in the preparations of the new constitution. The American Henry Willard Denison (1846– 1914; in Japan 1860–1914) worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is noted for efforts in the revision of the unequal treaties. Denison also advised the Japanese on the peace conference after the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95) and was consulted during the Russo–Japanese War (1904–5). His contributions were greatly appreciated and he was the only oyatoi gaikokujin to receive the Order of the Rising Sun, First

Appendix 1

205

Class (with Paulownia Flowers). Horace Capron (in Japan 1867–71) was an American adviser to Japan’s Hokkaidō colonization commission. William Smith Clark (in Japan 1876–77), from the University of Massachusetts, was a technical adviser, educator, missionary, and president of a new college in Hokkaidō. His legacy is still honored today. The Americans Edward Sylvester Morse (in Japan 1877–79, 1882) introduced modern biology, Darwinism, anthropology, and archaeology into Japan, and G. B. Williams (in Japan 1871–75) and Samuel Bryan (in Japan 1881–87) devoted their energies to currency issues and the postal system. From Great Britain came Richard Henry Brunton (in Japan 1868–78) for public works and lighthouses, Archibald Lucius Douglas (in Japan 1873–79) for naval affairs, Thomas William Kinder (in Japan 1870–75) for minting, and William W. Cargill for railways. Other oyatoi gaikokujin include Erwin Knipping (in Japan 1871–91), who helped open the field of weather observation; William Ayrton (in Japan 1873–78), who introduced electricity to Japan; and John Milne, who did seismological research in Japan from 1876 to 1885. The Prussians Theodor Hoffman and Leopold Müller taught at the Medical School (Daigaku Tōkō) (to become part of the University of Tokyo). Müller would become head teacher of the Medical School.

App e ndix 2

The Importation of Techno-Scientific Modernity into Japan

The impact of science and technology defines modernity. “Science became more than simply an accumulation of ordered information. It became an engine of human perfectibility, a force of history,” and governments “called on science to legitimate themselves as often as they called on God.”1 Though popular perceptions view the development of science and technology as inherently teleological (as if they evolved in the same manner as organisms), their progress resulted from social, not natural, factors. Political ambitions, economic interests, cultural tendencies, religious aspirations, and other human factors all play their part in the development of science and technology. Late-nineteenth-century Japan illustrates this.2 The recognition by the Japanese elite in the mid-nineteenth century that much of Western political and economic might rested upon science and technology was a key factor in initiating the Meiji Restoration and played a salient role in their attempts at nation-state building. This is indicated in the Fifth Article of the Charter of Oath Five Articles (March 14, 1868): “Knowledge shall be sought from the whole world and the foundation of the Empire is always to be strengthened.”3 Indeed, it can be stated that “Higher education in the Meiji period was virtually synonymous with westernization or internationalization.”4 But despite the politicized nature of science and its pursuit, it is worth noting that “By the end of the nineteenth century, Japanese scientists were making original, world-class contributions to the sciences.”5 The calculated, deliberate, and systematic importation of foreign technologies and ideas for the nation-state’s benefit, what may be termed “import internationalization,”6 became deeply implicated in the principal projects of the Meiji state: modernization, progressivist thinking, “civilization and enlightenment” (bunmei kaika), elite didacticism, “building up the country through technology” (gijutsu rikkoku), and the propagation of “statefulness” throughout society. “Import internationalization” was not (and is not) a simple case of introduction of things from abroad. Burks notes it involved a plethora of processes—contact, permeation, selective influence, imitation, acceptance, alteration, modification, rejection, cultural change—which characterized the impact and importation of foreign scientific and cultural influences.7 Or, more simply, there was a purposeful “Japanization” of imports.8 The current Science and International Affairs Bureau is notable in how it brings together and places under one jurisdiction science and international affairs, presumably because science (i.e.,

Appendix 2

207

technology) has traditionally been associated with things foreign and has come from overseas. The linking of technology with the importation of knowledge resonates with Samuels’ view of Japan’s “technonationalism” and “nation-building through technological development” (gijutsu rikkoku).9 From the very beginning, the authorities adopted a remarkably practical, indeed, almost mercantilist, attitude toward the uses of science. Knowledge from abroad was regarded as something to be merely translated and then applied to the nationalist project of building a strong Japan.10 Erwin Baelz, who taught physiology at the University of Tokyo (1876–77), stated as follows: The Japanese people regard science as a kind of machine which yearly performs a prescribed amount of work and can easily be transferred to any place to have it kept working there. This is a mistake. The western scientific world is not a machine at all, but it is an organism, for the growth of which a certain climate and atmosphere are necessary as is true with the case of all other organisms.11

In order to push forward Japan’s crash course in national–state building, practical and scientific knowledge was to be gathered from abroad on how to “catch up with the West.” This was done in two ways: by sending Japanese students on study missions overseas to other societies and by inviting non-Japanese mentors to teach in Japan. Beginning in the Meiji period, slogans such as “Japanese spirit, Western skills” (wakon yosai) and “Eastern morality, Western technology” (tōyō dōtoku, seiyō gijutsu) have reflected a mentality in which overseas technology was imported for nation-state building and, presumably, securing the position of domestic elites. Much of the introduction and development of technology was directed by the Department of Industry. This state organ established the Engineering Grand School (Kōbu Daigakkō) in 1877, which was involved in iron manufacturing, shipbuilding, and military technology. In 1885 the Department of Industry was dismantled and its Engineering Grand School was placed under the authority of the Ministry of Education, and then one year later it was incorporated into the University of Tokyo (later the Imperial University). Other state agencies concerned with science and technology were the Hydrography Department (1874), Tokyo Institute of Hygienic Sciences (1875), Tokyo Meteorological Observatory (1875), Geological Survey Institute (1878), Board of Statistics (1884), Land Survey Department (1884), Tokyo Astronomical Observatory (1888), the Geodesy Committee (with linkages to the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory) (1898), the Electric Laboratory (1891), and the Tokyo Academy, later called the Imperial Academy (1879). The promulgation of the Tokyo Academy Order (Tōkyō Gakushikaiin kitei) in October 1890 enlarged this institution.

App e ndix 3

Key Japanese Translations, Interpretations, and Summaries of Psychology-Related Works: 1875–1950

Year

Translator

Japanese Translation (English Title)*

Original Work or Source/ Notes

1875

Nishi Amane

Shinrigaku 1 (Psychology 1) Shinrigaku 2 (Psychology 2)

Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will (1857)

1876

Nishi Amane

Shinrigaku 3 (Psychology 3)

Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will (1857)

1877

Nishi Amane

Rigaku (Utilitarianism)

John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism (1863)

1878

Nishi Amane

Josēfu—Heben-cho Shinrigaku-jō (Psychology of Joseph Haven’s Psychology 1)

Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will (1857)/Popular name: Heben-shi Shinrigaku

1879

Nishi Amane

Josēfu—Heben-cho Shinrigaku-ka (Psychology of Joseph Haven’s Psychology 2)

Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will (1857)

1882

Inoue Tetsujirō

Bein Shinri Shinsetsu (Explanation of Bain’s New Theory of Psychology)

Probably Alexander Bain’s Mental Science (1868)/Abridged translation

1883

Inoue Tetsujirō (reviser) and Asō Shigeo (editor)

Bein-shi Shinri Shinsetsu Shakugi (Commentary on New Theory of Bain’s Psychology) Shinka Genron (Principles of Evolution)

Probably Alexander Bain’s Mental Science (1868)

Shinri Yōryaku (Outline of Psychology)

Selections from Nishi Amane’s translation

Isawa Shūji 1884

Tsuboi Senjirō

Thomas Henry Huxley

Appendix 3

209

Year

Translator

Japanese Translation (English Title)*

Original Work or Source/ Notes

1886

Matsushima Tsuyoshi, Tanaka Tōsaku, Satō Kisei, and Hashimoto Takeshi Yajima Kinzō

Bein Shinri Zensho (Bain’s Psychology: Complete Set)

Alexander Bain’s Mental and Moral Science (1884)

Bein-shi cho Shinrigaku (Bain’s Psychology) Shinri Kōyō (Outline of Psychology)

Alexander Bain’s Mental and Moral Science (1884) Alexander Bain’s Mental Science (1868)/Used by normal school students

Abo Tomoichirō (editor) and Ise Tsu 1887

Morimoto Kakuya and Tanimoto Tomeri

Shintai Sōkan no Ri

Alexander Bain’s Mind and Body: The Theories of Their Relation (1874)

1888

Waku Masatatsu

Sa-shi Ōyō shinrigaku (The Applied Psychology of Sully)

James Sully’s Teachers Handbook of Psychology on the Basis of the Outlines of Psychology (1886)

1889

Yajima Kinzō

Futsū Shinrigaku (Popular Psychology)

From James M. Baldwin

1894

Tanaka Jiroku

Shinrigaku-shi (History of Psychology)

From Théodule-Armand Ribot

1897

Kamiya Shirō

Shinrigaku (Psychology)

From Johann Friedrich Herbart

1900

Motora Yūjirō and Nakajima Taizō

1901

Vunto-shi Shinrigaku Gairon (Introduction to Wundt’s Psychology) Tsukahara Ru Bon-shi Minzoku Masatsugu Shinrigaku (Folk Psychology (commentary) of Le Bon) Fukurai Tomoichi Zēmusu-shi Shinrigaku (The Psychology of James) Ichikawa Genzō Ribō-shi Kanjō no Shinri oyobi chūi no Shinri (Ribot’s Psychology of Feelings and Attention) Sugiyama Tomitsuchi Morugan-shi Hikaku Shinrigaku Joron (Introduction to Morgan’s Comparative Psychology) Teichienā-shi Shinrigaku Matsumoto Kōjirō Kōyō (Outline of Titchener’s Psychology)

From Wilhelm Wundt

Tsukahara Masatsugu Raddo-shi Shinrigaku Kōen (Lectures on the Psychology of Ladd) Magaki Keiai Kyōju-teki Shinrigaku (Instructional Psychology) Sasabe Akinobu Raddo-shi Kijutsu-teki Setsumei-teki Shinrigaku (A Descriptive Explanation of Ladd’s Psychology)

From George Trumbull Ladd/ Selections

From Gustav Le Bon

From William James From Théodule-Armand Ribot

From C. Lloyd Morgan

From Edward Bradford Titchener

From William James/Selections George Trumbull Ladd’s Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory (1899)

210

Appendix 3

Year

Translator

Japanese Translation (English Title)*

Original Work or Source/ Notes

1902

Fukurai Tomoichi

Shinrigaku Seigi (Explanation of Psychology)

From William James/Selections

1910

Maeda Chōta

Motora Yūjirō and Nakajima Rikizō

Minzoku Hattatsu Shinri (The Psychology of the Development of Peoples) Gunshū Shinri (The Group Mind) Seinenkino Kenkyū (Research on Adolescence)

Gustav Le Bon’s Les Lois psychologiques de l’évolution des peuples (1894) Gustav Le Bon’s La psychologie des foules (1895) Granville Stanley Hall’s Adolescence (1904)

1911

Ōse Jintarō and Yamamoto Gennojō

Hassei Shinrigaku (Genetic Psychology)

Charles Hubbard Judd’s Genetic Psychology for Teachers (1903)

1913

Hoshino Yukinori

Gakuri-teki Jigyō Kanri Hō

Honjō Seiji

Shakai Shinrigaku Nyūmon

Yoneda Shōtarō

Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku to Yohai no Shakaigaku (Wundt’s Folk Psychology and Our Sociology)

Frederick Winslow Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management (1911) William McDougall’s Introduction to Social Psychology (1908) From Wilhelm Wundt

Watanabe Tōru

Fūdo Shinrigaku (Psychology of Climate)

Sudō Shinkichi

Vunto no Shinrigaku (Wundt’s Psychology)

1917

Terada Seiichi

Hanzainin-ron (Theory of the Criminal)

From Cesare Lombroso

1918

Kuwada Yoshizō

Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku (Wundt’s Folk Psychology)

From Wilhelm Wundt

1926

Yasuda Tokutarō

Seishin Bunsekigaku Nyūmon

From Sigmund Freud

1927

Katagami Jun

Musansha Shinrigaku

Jameson

1931

Watanabe Tōru

Jinkakugaku Gairon

From Wilhelm Louis Stern

1938

Miya Kōichi

Ruijinen no Chie Shiken

Wolfgang Köhler’s The Mentality of Apes (1925)

1943

Mochizuki Mamoru

Kokubō Shinrigaku Josetsu Yōron

Max Simoneit’s Wehrpsychologie: ein Abriß ihrer Probleme und praktischen Folgerungen (1943)

1944

Saitō Ryōzō

Honkaku to Seikaku

Ernst Kretschmer’s Physique and Character (1931)

1950

Imada Megumi

Shinrigaku Jō, Ka (Psychology 1, 2)

From William James

Ōyama Ikuo

1915

Willy Hugo Hellpach’s Die geopsychischen Erscheinungen (1911) From Wilhelm Wundt

Source: Borrowed from Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 559–82) and Ōta (1997: 30–31) with my modifications. Note that works related to education are listed in Appendix 4. * My translation.

App e ndix 4

Key Educational and Child Psychology-Related Works: 1885–1910

Year

Author

Work

Title in English

1885

Tanaka Tōsaku

Kyōiku Shinri Ronri—Jutsugo Shōkai

Explanation of Educational Psychology and Logic Terminology

1886

Ariga Nagao

Kyōiku Tekiyō Shinrigaku Jō

Psychology Applied to Education 1

Based on James Sully’s Outlines of Psychology (1884); selections from Ariga’s lecture

1888

Yumoto Takehiko

Shogakkō Kyōshi Yō Shinrigaku Tekiyō

Outline of Psychology for Elementary School Instructor Use

From Bernhard Maass

1890

Motora Yūjirō and Takashima Heisaburō

Jidōgaku Kōyō

Outline of Child Studies

1891

Shibue Tamotsu

Shotō Kyōiku Shō Booklet for the Psychology Shinri-sho of Elementary Education

1891

Yumoto Takehiko

Gakkō Jitsuyō Shinrigaku

Psychology for Use in Schools

1892

Makise Goichirō

Shinpen Shinrigaku Kōgi—Kyōiku Ōyō Jidō Shinrigaku

New Edition Psychology Lectures—Educational Applications

1893

Mine Koresaburō

Ōyō Shinrigaku— Chūtō Kyōiku Kyōiku Ōyō—Kon-shi Shinrigaku

Applied Psychology— Secondary Education

Kyōiku Ōyō Shinrigaku

Educational Applied Psychology

Honjō Taichirō

Nose Sakai

1896

Hayashi Goichi

Translation Source/Notes

Bernhard Maass’s Die Psychologie in ihrer Anwendung auf die Schulpraxis (1887)

Childhood Psychology

Educational Applications— Compayré’s Psychology

Based on Gabriel Compayré’s writings

212

Appendix 4

Year

Author

Work

Title in English

1898

Tsukahara Masatsugu (editor) Matsumoto Kōjirō

Kyōiku Shinrigaku

Educational Psychology

Jidō Shinrigaku Kōwa

Lectures on Child Psychology

Yuhara Motoichi (editor)

Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku

Educational Psychology

Matsumoto Kōjirō and Takashima Heisaburō

Jidō Shinrigaku

The Psychology of Childhood

1900

Takashima Heisaburō

Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku

Educational Psychology

1902

Tominaga Iwatarō

Kyōiku no Jissai ni Ōyō Shitaru Shinrigaku

Psychology Applied to Practical Education

1903

Matsumoto Kōjirō Tsuda Motonori

Futsū Jidō Shinrigaku Yōji Shinrigaku

Popular Child Psychology

1904

Koizumi Mataichi

Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku

Educational Psychology

1907

Mishima Michiyoshi

“Gakkō Seito Seishin Jōtai Kensa no Hitsuyō”

“The Need for Investigating the Mental Conditions of School Students” (Jidō Kenkyū)

1908

Endō Ryūkichi

Shakai Shinrigaku to Kyōiku Chūi no Shinri to Teinōji Kyōiku Kyōiku Shinrigaku Kōgi

Social Psychology and Education

Jidō Shinri Kōwa

Lectures on Child Psychology Advances in Experimental Pedagogy

1899

Wakita Ryōkichi Fukurai Tomoichi 1909

Takashima Heisaburō Yoshida Kumaji

Jikken Kyōikugaku no Shinpo

Translation Source/Notes

Based on C. Lloyd Morgan’s Psychology for Teachers (1898) and W. O. Krohn’s Practical Lessons in Psychology (1895) Frederick Tracy’s The Psychology of Childhood (1893)

Infant Psychology

The Psychology of Attention and Feebleminded Children Lectures on Educational Psychology

Based on William James’ writings

Appendix 4

Year

Author

Work

Title in English

1910

Endō Ryūkichi and Ichikawa Genzō Miyake Kōichi

Danjo Seinen no Shinri

The Psychology of Young Men and Women

“Binē-shi Gakurei Jidō no Chiriki hatsuiku ni Kansuru Gyōseki” Seinen Shinri

“Achievements Concerning Binet and the Intellectual Development of School Age Children” (Kyōiku-kai)

Tsukahara Masatsugu

213

Translation Source/Notes

Psychology of Youth

1912

Motora Yūjirō and Sakaki Yasusaburō

Kyōiku Byōri oyobi Jiryōgaku

Educational Pathology and Therapeutics

1916

Miura Kanzō

Hanzai to Iden— Kosei no Kyōiku

Crime and Heredity—The Education of the Individual

Source: Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 559–82) with my modifications.

Based on Cesare Lombroso

App e ndix 5

Founding of Psychological Laboratories Worldwide: 1875–1900

Location

Date Founded

Founder

University of Leipzig *

1875

Wilhelm Wundt

Harvard University *

1875

William James

University of Leipzig

1879

Wilhelm Wundt

Johns Hopkins University

1883

G. S. Hall

Copenhagen University

1886

A. Lehmann

Göttingen University

1887

Georg Elias Müller

Indiana University

1887

William Lowe Bryan

University of Pennsylvania

1887

James McKeen Cattell

University of Wisconsin-Madison

1888

Joseph Jastrow

Clark University

1889

Edmund Clark Sanford

McLean Asylum, Massachusetts

1889

William Noyes

Rome

1889

G. Sergi

Sorbonne

1889

H. Beaunis

University of Nebraska

1889

Harry Kirke Wolfe

University of Toronto

1890

J. M. Baldwin

University of Michigan

1890

James Hayden Tufts

Rennes

1890

B. Bourdon

University of Iowa

1890

G. T. W. Patrick

Columbia University

1890

Frank Angell

Geneva

1891

Th. Flournoy

Cambridge University

1891

J. Ward

Cornell University

1891

Frank Angell

Wellesley College

1891

Mary Whiton Calkins

Yale University

1892

Edward Wheeler Scripture

University of Chicago

1893

Charles A. Strong

Stanford University

1893

Frank Angell

Appendix 5

215

Location

Date Founded

Founder

Graz

1894

A. Meinong

Moscow

1895

A. Tokarsky

University of California

1896

George Malcolm Stratton

Bryn Mawr College

1898

James Henry Leuba

Northwestern University

1900

Walter Dill Scott

New York University

1900

Charles Hubbard Judd

Source: Partly borrowed from Benjamin (2000) and Harper (1950: 160). * For classroom demonstrations; not original research.

App e ndix 6

Key Psychology-Related Japanese Academic Journals

Publication

Translated Name

Years Published

Rikugō Zasshi

The Universe

1880–1921

Tetsugakukai Zasshi

Journal of the Philosophical Society

1887–92

Tetsugaku Zasshi

Philosophy Journal

1892–current

Notes Became Tetsugaku Zasshi

Jidō Kenkyū

Child Studies

1898–44

Resumed in 1946–current

Shinkeigaku Zasshi

Neurologia

1902–35

Became Seishin Shinkeigkau Zasshi in 1935

Seishin Shinkeigkaku Zasshi

Psychiatria et Neurologia Japonica

1935–current

Shinri Kenkyū

Psychological Research

1912–25

Nihon Shinrigaku Zasshi

Japanese Journal of Psychology

1919–23

Published at Kyōto Imperial University; became Nihon Shinrigaku Zasshi (Tōkyō Imperial University) in 1923

Nihon Shinrigaku Zasshi

Japanese Journal of Psychology

1923–25

Published at Tōkyō Imperial University; became Shinrigaku Kenkyū in 1926

Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Psychology

1926–44

Resumed in 1948–current

Hentai Shinri

Abnormal Psychology

1917–40

Jidō Kenkyūjo Kiyō

Bulletin of Child Research Institute

1918–37

Rōdō Kagaku Kenkyū

Journal of Science of Labor

1924–40

Kyōiku Shinri Kenkyū

Studies in Educational Psychology

1926–40

Shinrigaku Ronbunshū

Journal of Psychology

1928–38

Keijō Shinrigaku Ihō

Acta Psychologica Keijō

1930–39

Appendix 6

217

Publication

Translated Name

Years Published

Ōyō Shinri Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology

1932–39

Ōyō Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology

1937–41

Became Ningen Kagaku in 1946

Ningen Kagaku

Human Science

1946–49; 1978– current

Resumed in 1962, then intermittently published

Dōbutsu Shinri

Animal Psychology

1933; discontinued before 1940

Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Nenpō

Annual Report of Animal Psychology

1944–90

Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology

1990–current

Tōhoku Psychologia Folia

Notes

Became Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Kenkyū in 1990

1933–current

Seishin Bunseki

Tokyo Journal of Psychoanalysis

1933–78

Jikken Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Experimental Psychology

1933–41

Gurūpu Dainamikusu Journal of Group no Kenkyū Dynamics

1951–62

Published irregularly

Kyōiku • Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Journal of Education • Social Psychology

1960–71

Became Jikken Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū in 1971

Kyōiku Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology

1953–current 1954–current

Japanese Psychological Research Shinrigaku Hyōron

Japanese Psychological Review

Psychologia

1957–current 1957–current

Nenpō Shakai Shinrigaku

Annual Report: Social Psychology

1960–85

Kyōiku Shinrigaku Nenpō

Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan

1961–current

Hanzai Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Criminal Pathology

1963–current

Rinshō Shinri

Clinical Psychology

1952–about 1960

Became Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū in 1985

Organ of Rinshō Shinri Kenkyūkai (Clinical Psychology Association)

218

Appendix 6

Publication

Translated Name

Years Published

Notes

Rinshō Shinri

Clinical Psychology

1962–66

Organ of Rinshō Shinri Gakusha Kyōkai (Society for Scholars of Clinical Psychology); became Rinshō Shinrigaku Kenkyū in 1966

Rinshō Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Clinical Psychology

1966–current

Jikken Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

1971–current

Shinri Kagaku

Japanese Journal of Psychological Science

1977–current

Shinri Rinshōgaku Kenkyū

Journal of Japanese Clinical Psychology

1983–current

Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū

Research in Social Psychology

1985–current

Source: Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 586–87). This list is not exhaustive and does not include a number of postwar publications.

App e ndix 7

Key Psychology-Related Works by Japanese: 1875–1912

Year

Author

Japanese Title

Title in English*

1871

Nishi Amane

Hyakugaku Renkan

Links of All Sciences

1873

Hara Tanzan

Shinsei Jikken-roku

Record of Experiments on the Mind

1879

Mochizuki Makoto

Kioku Kakujū-ron

Expansion of Memory

1881

Inoue Tetsujirō

Testugaku Jii

Glossary of Philosophy

1885

Nishimura Shigeki

Shingaku Kōgi

Lectures on Heart–Mind Learning

Kira Kōyō

Tōyō Shinri Shoho

Eastern Psychology Primer

Inoue Enryō

Tsūshin Kyōju Shinrigaku

Abo Tomoichirō, editor

Shinri Kōyō

Instruction by Correspondence: Psychology Summary of Psychology

1887

Inoue Enryō

Shinri Tekiyō

Psychology: An Outline

Used in Psychology course in Seiritsu Gakusha Joshi Bu (Seiritsu Gakusha Women’s Section)

1888

Motora Yūjirō

“Beikoku Shinrigaku no Kinkyō”

“The Current State of American Psychology”

Appeared in Meiroku Zasshi

1886

Notes

Manuscript used for lectures in Nippon Kōdōkai (Japan Society for Expansion of the Way); revised and expanded in 1886

220

Appendix 7

Year

Author

Japanese Title

Title in English*

Notes

1889

Motora Yūjirō

“Shinrigaku to Shakai no Kankei”

“The Relation between Psychology and Society”

Appeared in Tetsugakkai Zasshi

1890

Motora Yūjirō

Shinrigaku

Psychology

1890

Sawayanagi Masatarō

Shinrigaku

Psychology

1892

Nishimura Shigeki Kōdera Shinsaku

Shingaku Kōgi

Lectures on Heart–Mind Learning (2 volumes) Applied Psychology (2 volumes)

Kusakabe Sannosuke

Shinrigaku Hyakumon Hyakutō

Psychology: Many Questions, Many Answers

Sawayanagi Masatarō

Shinrigaku

Psychology

Yumoto Takehiko Inoue Enryō Sawayanagi Masatarō and Mitsuishi Shizuo

Ōyō Shinrigaku

Lectures on Monsterology

Yōkaigaku Kōgiroku Futsū Shinrigaku

Popular Psychology

Motora Yūjirō

Shinrigaku Jūkai Kōgi

Ten Lectures on Psychology

Matsumoto Bunzaburō Nakajima Taizō

Shinrigaku

Psychology Lectures on Psychology

Tanimoto Tomeri

Futsū Shinrigaku Kōgi Futsū Shinrigaku Shūsei—Jōken

1898

Nakajima Taizō Nakajima Rikizō Matsumoto Kōjirō

Shinrigaku Kōyō Shinrigaku Satsuyō Futsū Shinrigaku Kōgi

Outline of Psychology Outline of Psychology Lectures on Popular Psychology

1899

Yumoto Takehiko

Shinrigaku Shinron

A New Theory of Psychology

1902

Hayami Hiroshi

Shinrigaku

Psychology

1903

Tokutani Toyonosuke

Shinrigaku Mondō

Psychology—Questions and Answers

1904

Totoki Wataru

Shinrigaku Kōyō

Outline of Psychology

1905

Fukurai Tomoichi Motora Yūjirō

Saimin Shinrigaku Gairon “Tōyō ni okeru Jiga no Gainen”

Outline of the Psychology of Hypnosis “The Concept of Ego in the East” (Tetsugaku Zasshi)

1893

1894

1897

Jitsuyō Shinrigaku

Collection: Popular Psychology—Volume 1

Appendix 7

Year

Author

Japanese Title

Title in English*

1906

Fukurai Tomoichi Tokutani Toyonosuke Higuchi Kanjirō and Tominaga Iwatarō

Saimin Shinrigaku Shakai Shinrigaku

The Psychology of Hypnosis Social Psychology

Shakai-teki Shinrigaku Kōgi

Lectures on Social Psychology

1907

Motora Yūjirō Takashima Heisaburō

Shinrigaku Kōyō “Honnō ni Kansuru Kenkyū”

Outline of Psychology “Research on Instinct” (Jinsei)

1908

Miyake Kōichi and Ikeda Takanori Tanimoto Tomeri Higuchi Hideo

“Bine no tesuto wo Shōkai” Gunshū Shinri no Shinkenkyū

“Introducing the Binet Test” (Igaku Chūō Zasshi) New Research on the Psychology of Crowds

Shakai Shinri no Kenkyū

Research on Social Psychology

1909

Kobayashi Iku Hirai Kinzō

Shakai Shinrigaku Shinrei no Genshō

Social Psychology The Phenomenon of the Spiritual

1910

Takahashi Gorō

Shinrei Bannō-ron

Kobayashi Iku

Shakai Shinrigaku no Kenkyū

The Theory of the AllPowerful Spirit Research on Social Psychology

1911

Ichikawa Genzō

Chinō Sokutei oyobi kosei no Kansatsu

Intellectual Measurement and the Observation of Individuals

1912

Hirata Motokichi Matsumoto Matatarō

Shinrei no Himitsu

The Mystery of Spiritualism “Psychokinetics” (Jinsei)

“Seishin Dōsagaku”

221

Notes

Source: Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 559–82) with my modifications. Note that works related to education are listed in Appendix 4. *My translation.

App e ndix 8

Postwar Psychology-Related Societies and Associations

English Name

Japanese Name

Association of Japanese Clinical Psychology

Nihon Shinri Rinshō Gakkai

Japan Academy for Health Behavioral Science

Nihon Hoken Iryō Kōdō-ka Gakkai

Japan Association of Group Psychotherapy

Nihon Shūdan Seishin Ryōhō Gakkai

Japan Association of Psychoanalysis

Nippon Seishin Bunseki Kyōkai

Japan Clinical Psychologist Qualification Authorizing Association

Nihon Rinshō Shinrishi Shikaku Nintei Kyōkai

Japan Industrial Counseling Association

Nihon Sangyō Kānserā Kyōkai

Japan Psychoanalytic Association

Nippon Seishin Bunseki Gakkai

Japan Psychoanalytic Society

Nippon Seishin Bunseki Kyōkai

Japan Society of Developmental Psychology

Nihon Hattatsu Shinri Gakkai

Japan Society of Stress Management

Nihon Sutoresumanejimento Gakkai

Japan Society of Vocational Rehabilitation

Nihon Shokugyō Rehabiritēshon Gakkai

Japanese Academy of Learning Disabilities

Nihon LD Gakkai

Japanese Association for Behavior Analysis

Nihon Kōdō Bunseki Gakkai

Japanese Association for Cognitive Therapy

Nihon Ninchi Ryōhō Gakkai

Japanese Association for Humanistic Psychology

Nihon Ningensei Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Association of Applied Psychology

Nihon Ōyō Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Association of Behavior Therapy

Nihon Kōdō Ryōhō Gakkai

Japanese Association of Behavioral Science

Nihon Kōdō Kagaku Gakkai

Japanese Association of Counseling Science

Nihon Kānseringu Gakkai

Japanese Association of Criminal Psychology

Nihon Hanzai Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Association of Educational Psychology

Nihon Kyōiku Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Association of Health Psychology

Nihon Kenkō Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Association of Occupational Therapists

Nihon Sagyō Ryōhōshi Kyōkai

Japanese Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation

Nihon Seishin Shōgaisha Rehabiritēshon Gakkai

Japanese Association of Psychiatric Social Workers

Nihon Seishin Hoken Fuku-shi Kyōkai

Appendix 8

English Name

Japanese Name

Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Psychology

Nihon Rehabiritēshon Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Association of Social Psychology Association

Nihon Shakai Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Association of Social Skills Training

SST Fukyū Kyōkai

Japanese Association of Special Education

Nihon Tokushu Kyōiku Gakkai

Japanese Association of Stress Science

Nihon Sutoresu Gakkai

Japanese Association of Theoretical Psychology

Nihon Riron Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Industrial and Organizational Psychology Association

Nihon Sangyō Sōshiki Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Psychological Association

Nihon Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Psychonomic Society

Nihon Kiso Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Nihon Jidō Seinen Seishin Igaku-kai

Japanese Society for Cognitive Psychology

Nihon Ninchi Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Society for Parapsychology

Nihon Chōshin Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Society for Physiological Psychology and Psychophysiology

Nihon Seirei Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Society of Animal Psychology

Nihon Dōbutsu Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Society of Autogenic Therapy

Nihon Jiritsu Kunren Gakkai

Japanese Society of Behavioral Medicine

Nihon Kōdō Igakkai

Japanese Society of Hypnosis

Nihon Saimin Igaku Shinri Gakkai

Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology

Nihon Seishin Shinkei Gakkai

Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry

Nihon Shika Shinshin Igakkai

Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Internal Medicine

Nihon Shinryō Naika Gakkai

Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Medicine

Nihon Shinshin Igakkai

Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Pediatrics

Nihon Shōni Shinshin Igakkai

Japanese Society of Transactional Analysis

Nihon Kōryū Bunseki Gakkai

Japanese Union of Associations for Psychomedical Therapy

Nihon Shinri Iryō Sho-Gakkai Rengō

Japanese Union of Psychological Associations

Nihon Shinri Gakusha Gakkai Rengō

223

App e ndix 9

English‒Japanese Glossary of Terms

Abnormal Psychology

Ijō shinrigaku ࡉ˩ķȗƓ

Act Psychology

Sayō ǟůķȗƓ

Animal Psychology

Dōbutsu shinrigaku ƘˀķȗƓ

Applied Psychology

Ōyō shinrigaku 䊤ůķȗƓ

Aviation Psychology

Kōkū shinrigaku ࣚˬķȗƓ

Behaviorism

Kōdō-shugi DŽƘǂ‫ץ‬

Character

Seikaku ȡϜ

Child Psychology

Jidō shinrigaku ㋎‫ٿ‬ķȗƓ

Clinical Psychology

Rinji shinrigaku ࡣռķȗƓ

Cognition

Chishiki ƢԹ

Comparative Psychology

Hikaku shinrigaku ȣֈķȗƓ

Consciousness

Ishiki NjԹ

Criminal Psychology

Hanzai shinrigaku ߱ূķȗƓ

Crowd, mob, or mass Psychology

Gunshū shinrigaku ‫מ׻‬ķȗƓ

Developmental Psychology

Hattatsu shinrigaku 娉РķȗƓ

Educational Psychology

Kyōiku shinrigaku ͵‫ء‬ķȗƓ

Experimental Psychology

Jikken shinrigaku 㵽翜ķȗƓ

Folk Psychology

Minzoku shinrigaku ΦࢮķȗƓ

Functionalism

Kinō shugi ƭĨǂ‫ץ‬

Gestalt Psychology

Keitai shinrigaku֜ѐķȗƓ; or geshutaruto shinrigaku 솀솅솳속솹솖ķȗƓ

Heart–mind

Kokoro ķ

Hypnosis

Saiminjutsu ௶ߟ‫׵‬

Individuality, personality

Kosei Ċȡ

Industrial–organizational Psychology

Sangyō–soshiki shinrigaku 墅ˠs‫࢛ر‬ķȗƓ

Intellectual Science

Shinrijō-gaku ķȗĘƓ

Intelligence

Chinō ƢĨ

Appendix 9

225

Intelligence test

Chinō kensa ƢĨ쫴쫫

Introspection

Naikan ʭ潅

Kenshingi

Kenshingi 縤ķ౮; instrument designed by Motora Yūjirō to model ego’s relation to the ultimate psychical source

Learning of the heart–mind

Shingaku ķƓ

Learning of the mind–nature

Shinseigaku ķȡƓ

Learning of the principle uniting cosmos and individual

Seirigaku ȡȗƓ

Logic

Chichigaku ٍƢƓ; early term

Mental philosophy

Seishin tetsugaku ̦̉࿐Ɠ

Mental philosophy (Nishi Amane’s term)

Shinrijō no tetsugaku ķȗĘ셉࿐Ɠ

Mental, spiritual, phrenics

Seishin tekỉ̦Ā

Metaphysics

Keijijôgaku֜ƦĘƓ

Military Psychology

Gunji shinrigakuѓƂķȗƓ

Mind, spirit

Seishin̦̉

Ministry of Education

MonbushōNJˌ‫ޟ‬

Moral philosophy

Dōtoku tetsugakuƅ䉾࿐Ɠ

National Defense Psychology

KokubōŚ֑ķȗƓ

National spirit

Kokumin seishinŚΦ̦̉

Nerves

Shinkei̦憞

Neurology

Shinkeigaku̦憞Ɠ

New Psychology

Shin shinrigakuĤķȗƓ

Normal school

Shihan gakkō̃ंƓҁ

Perception

ChikakuƢ漤

Personality

JinkakuĉϜ

Personality Psychology

Seikaku shinrigakuȡϜķȗƓ

Philosophical Psychology

Tetsugaku teki shinrigaku࿐ƓĀķȗƓ

Philosophy

Tetsugaku࿐Ɠ

Physiology

SeirigakuŀȗƓ

Psychiatry

Seishin byōgakủ̦ԇƓSeishin igakủֵ̦Ɠ

Psychoanalysis

Seishin bunsekigakủ̦ŒୖƓ

Psychokinematics

Seishin dōsakugaku ̦̉ƘǟƓ

Psychology

ShinrigakuķȗƓ

Psychology

Seishingaku ̦̉Ɠ; early term

Psychology

Xinlingxueķ粚Ɠ; early term in Chinese

Psychology

ShinshôgakuķղƓ; early term; literally “study of mental images”

226

Appendix 9

Psychology

Seirigaku ȡȗƓ early term, originally a NeoConfucian notion; used by Nishi Amane

Psychophysics

Seishin butsurigaku ̦̉ˀȗƓ

Scientific Psychology

Kagaku teki shinrigaku‫ؘ‬ƓĀķȗƓ

Sensation

KankakuƗ漤

Social Psychology

Shakai shinrigaku‫ף‬ěķȗƓ

Sociology

Shakaigaku‫ף‬ěƓ

Soul, spirit

Tamashii੼

Spiritualism

Shinregakuiķ粚Ɠ

Structuralism

Kōzō shugiઔҜǂ‫ץ‬/Kōsei shugiઔŪǂ‫ץ‬

Theology

Shinrigaku̦ȗƓ; early term

Tokyo Imperial University

Tōkyō Teikoku Daigaku ʀҷੈŚęƓ

App e ndix 10

English‒Japanese Glossary of Persons

Abe Magosiro ‫ˌث‬௲Ɓඣ (1907–84) Abe Saburō ȫˌƁඣ (1898–1974) Abe Shigetaka ‫ˌث‬ȶᆘ (1890–1939) Akamatsu Pōro ࿁‫( ࠸̝؟‬1891–1980) Akishige Yoshiharu Ήȶ‫( ܬץ‬1904–79) Akitani Tatsuko Ήୌ섺섿Ŕ (1923–) Akiyama Satoko Ήͪ섰셃Ŕ (1923–92) Amano Toshitake Đ࢝ϙ‫( ݱ‬1904–80) Anezaki Masaharu 㪱ᙫȢ‫( ܬ‬pen name Chōfū ᄗɣ) (1873–1949) Aoki Seishirō н҂ࡅ˗ඣ (1894–1956) Ariga Nagao Ĉหǣॽ (1860–1921) Aruga Kizaemon ĈหǛ‫ێڽ‬ɟ (1897–1979) Asami Chizuko ়ȑԮ诹Ŕ (1919–) Asano Wasaburō ়࢝ŠƁඣ (1874–1937) Awaji Enjirō Ԣɢ㋵‫ܬ‬ඣ (1895–1979) Chiba Tanenari Ԯ࣫⅍Ū (1884–1972) Chiwa Hiroshi Ԯ‫ڿ‬Ⴍ (1891–1978) Endō Ryūkichi ˮᇛฅ઱ (1874–1946) Enomoto Takeaki ⱽǕ‫ݱ‬ર (1836–1908) Fujikawa Yū ֲՂਊɯ (1865–1940) Fujisawa Shigeru ᇛੱ枣 (1903–62) Fukurai Tomokichi˟ĎƤ઱ (1869–1952) Fukutomi Ichirō ˟ֲĂඣ (1891–1946) Fukutomi Takasue ˟ֲᆘՅ (1857–91) Furuhata Tanemoto ֿ⮜Ɲ‫( ׼‬1891–1975) Furukawa Takeji ֿਊໜȕ (1891–1940) Gotō Iwao ŷᇛྰȵ (1904–49)

228

Appendix 10

Gotō Rikusaburō ͅ҉‫ݾ‬Ɓඣ (1876–1923) Hagino Genichi 梂࢝۷Ă (1913–96) Haraguchi (née Arai) Tsuruko ʅˍ (Ĥຜ) ᐣŔ (1886–1915) Haraguchi Takejirō ʅˍໜơඣ (1882–1951) Hatano (née Hatakeyama) Isoko ࡌĠ࢝ (墺ͪ) வŔ (1905–78) Hatano Kanji ࡌĠ࢝ȥ‫( ܬ‬1905–2001) Hayami Hiroshi эnj兩 (1876–1943) Higuchi Hideo (Ryūkyō) 䲙ˍলॽ (‫؁‬႔) (1875–1929) Hirai Kinzō ːຜ̇Ɓ (1859–1916) Hirata Motokichi ːॵʻ઱ (1874–1942) Hoashi Kiyoko ้ӖǛȇŔ (1920–) Honma Sōken ǕǍຘ༷ (1808–72) Hori Baiten ⡠೶Đ (1887–1973) Hozumi Nobushige 常ϕृȶ (1856–1926) Ide Takashi śฅ (1892–1990) Iinuma Ryūen ώᤚ‫؁‬ˮ (1888–1969) Ikeda Shigenori౸ॵ‫ڄ‬౮ (1892–1966) Ikeda Yoshiko ౸ॵύŔ (1924–) Imada Megumi Ǝॵ쪾 (1894–1970) Imaizumi Genryū Ǝ୐Ꭰ⡌ (1797–1874) Imamura Shinkichi ƎࣅĤ઱ (1874–1946) Inoue Enryō ຜĘ㋵ą (1858–1919) Inoue Tetsujirō ຜĘ࿐ơඣ (1858–1919) Ishigami Tokumon ‫̦܉‬䓏䉾ɟ (unclear) Ishihara Shinobu ‫܉‬ʅ֧ (1879–1963) Ishikawa Hidetsurumaru ‫܉‬ਊūśᐣဪ (1878–1947) Itō Dōki ಛᇛƅƭ (1900–94) Ito Hiroshi ಛʀű (1919–2000) Iwasa Jun ྰᗤ‫( ښ‬1836–1912) Izawa Shūji ಛ佪զȕ (1851–1917) Kadono Ikunoshin ɟ࢝ǵƥɖ (1856–1938) Kagawa Shūtoku Вਊզ䉾 (1683–1755) Kakise Hikozō ᬧ勸ᢒ槎 (1874–1944) Kakizaki Sukeichi ံᙫ⡌Ă (1915–94) Kamada Ho (Ryūō) 私ॵ፨ (1854–21) Kamiya Mieko ̦ୌſ쪾Ŕ (1914–79) Kanda Naibu ̦ॵၑ‫( ݱ‬1857–1923)

Appendix 10

Kanda Sakyō ̦ॵ‫ڽ‬ҷ (1874–1939) Kaneko Chikusui (Umaji) ̇Ŕ౨nj (҇‫( )ܬ‬1870–1937) Kashida Gorō 䲿ॵͅඣ (1883–1938) Kashiwagi Keiko ყ҂쪾Ŕ (1932–) Katō Hiroyuki Ȁᇛᜣƥ (1836–1916) Katsumoto Kanzaburō ‫ۥ‬ǕᭌƁඣ (1868–1923) Kawai Hayao ‫ޖ‬ʸ⚨ॽ (1928–2007) Kawai Teiichi ਊʸᑰĂ (1870–1955) Kawamoto Kōmin ਊǕ ˵Φ (1810–71) Kido Mantarō Ν䓏᪦Ɩඣ (1893–1985) Kihira Tadayoshi ݂ːȢſ (1874–1949) Kimura Kyūichi ҂ࣅ΅Ă(1883–unclear) Kirihara Shigemi ᕌʅᰥȑ (1892–1968) Kishimoto Nōbuta లǕĨ‫ݱ‬Ɩ (1866–1928) Kishimoto Sōkichi లǕ䍼઱ (unclear–1938) Kitamura Ryōtaku Ǜॵࣅ‫ݘ‬௮ (unclear) Kobayashi Iku Ň‫ڄ‬섰ࢶ (1881–1933) Kobayashi Sae Ň‫ڄ‬섰섣 (1913–2002) Kobayashi Sumie Ň‫ڄ‬ᆡॉ (1886–1971) Kōdera Shinsaku ŚࡺᅅĤǟ (1855–unclear) Koga Yukiyoshi ֿหDŽ‫( ץ‬1892–1979) Komori Genryō Ň౻Ꭰ‫( ݘ‬1781–1843) Kōra (née Wada) Tomi Ƭ‫( ݘ‬Šॵ) 셃셚 (1896–1993) Kōra Takehisa Ƭ‫( ΅ݱݘ‬1899–1996) Kosawa Heisaku ֿ佪ːǟ (1896–1968) Kotake Yashō ֿ‫ݱ‬๶Ȣ (1912–97) Kubo (né Hara Yoshimaru) Yoshihide ΅̝ (۷) ‫ݘ‬Ӆ (1883–1942) Kubo (née Kurose) Tsuyako ΅̝ (蔎勸) 朋Ŕ (1893–1969) Kuma Toshiyasu ΅пႵक़ (1875–unclear) Kume Kyōko ΅МҷŔ (1906–90) Kurahashi Sōzō ๦ৱ䍼Ɓ (1882–1955) Kure Shūzō 㕖লƁ (1865–1932) Kurihara Shinichi ቀʅƱĂ (1889–1947) Kuroda (né Arima) Genji 蔎ॵ(Ĉ҇)۷ơ (1886–1957) Kuroda Ryō 蔎ॵа (1890–1949) Kuwabara Tennen (Toshirō) ธʅĐƔ (Ⴕඣ) (1873–1906) Kuwata Yoshizō ธॵญ槎 (1882–1967)

229

230

Appendix 10

Maeda Chōta ǡॵǣƖ (1867–1939) Maeda Tamon ǡॵĠɟ (1884–1962) Marui Kiyoyasu ဪຜʓक़ (1886–1953) Marui Sumiko ဪຜᆡŔ (1924–) Masaki Masashi Ȣ҂Ȣ (1905–59) Masuda Kōichi 㥞ॵ˵Ă (1898–1982) Masuda Koreshige 㥞ॵᐔአ (1883–1933) Matsumoto Junichirô ‫؟‬Ǖ਑Ăඣ (1893–1947) Matsumoto Kōjirō ‫؟‬Ǖᆘơඣ (1869–1932) Matsumoto Matatarō ‫؟‬Ǖ਩Ɩඣ (né Iino ώ࢝) (1865–1943) Mibai Sugi Ǯŀ섴섩 (1891–1969) Mifue Chizuko ႾৈԮᐣŔ (1886–1911) Minami Hiroshi ϒű (1914–2001) Misawa Tadasu Ɓੱघ (1878–1942) Mita Sadanori Ɓॵǭ‫( צ‬1876–1950) Miura Kinnosuke Ɓ࿆ྏƥՎ (1864–1950) Miya Kōichi ీᆘĂ (1908–80) Miyagi Otoya ీΝ͡๶ (1908–2005) Miyake Ishirō Ɓ௮ᬣ˗ඣ (1869–1931) Miyake Kōichi Ɓ௮碀Ă (1876–1954) Miyamoto Misako ీǕſ‫ޝ‬Ŕ (1928–) Mizuno Tsunekichi nj࢝˩઱ (1880–1964) Mochizuki Mamoru ʫʃ‫( ێ‬1910–93) Mochizuki Mamoru ʫʃ‫( ێ‬1910–93) Morinaga Shirō ঍к˗ඣ (1908–64) Morita Kumato ౻ॵ΅пĉ (1858–99) Morita Masatake (Shōma) ౻ॵȢ҇ (1874–1938) Motoda Nagazane ʻॵкᱷ (1818–91) Motokawa Kōichi ǕਊᜣĂ (1903–71) Motomiya Yahē Ǖీ๶঑‫( ێ‬1886–1957) Motora Yūjirō ʻ‫ߕݘ‬ơඣ (né Sugita) (1858–1912) Nagai Hisomuкຜದ (1876–1957) Nagami Hirsohi кȑᔐ (1840–1902) Nagase Hōsuke ǣ勸஥჻ (1865–1926) Nakagami Kinkei ġ̦ඁ傞 (1744–1833) Nakai Tsunejirōġຜ˩ơඣ (1851–1914) Nakajima Rikizō ġ҉ƺҜ (1858–1918)

Appendix 10

Nakajima Shinichi ġ҉ƱĂ (1935–) Nakajima Taizō ġ҉क़槎 (1867–1919) Nakamura Keiu (Masanao) ġࣅ੡ு (Ȣˢ) (1832–91) Nakamura Kokyō ġࣅֿႣ (1881–1954) Nakamura Yasuma ġࣅ̝҇ (unclear) Narazaki Asatarō 䯅ᙫ়Ɩඣ (1881–1974) Naruse Jinzō Ū勸മ槎 (1858–1919) Nasu Kiyoshi Ŧ‫ݯ‬૕ (1916–) Natsume Sōseki ‫ـ‬ϝᑪ‫( ܉‬1867–1916) Nījima Jō Ĥ҉᝭ (1843–90) Ninami Hiroshi ϒű (1914–2001) Nishi Amane ɞ̠ (1829–97) Nishida Kitarō ɞॵǵĠඣ (1870–1945) Nishigori Takekiyo ๴࢛Ǔʓ (unclear) Nishimura Shigeki ɞࣅአ࠳ (1828–1902) Nishizawa Raiō ɞ佪縄䊤 (1889–unclear) Nitobe Inazō Ĥ࿮䓏帣Ҝ (1862–1933) Noda Nobuo ࢝ॵƱ‫( ܌‬1893–1993) Nogami Toshio ࢝ĘႵ‫( ܌‬1882–1963) Nojiri Seiichi ࢝ⓒ̉Ă (1860–1932) Noritake Kōtarō ୹ໜᆘƖඣ (1860–1909) Nunokawa Magoichi Ҙਊ௲̤ (1870–1944) Obonai Torao Ň̝ʭথ‫( ܌‬1899–1968) Ogasawara Jiei Ň⁉ʅཱྀὯ (1901–97) Ogawa Takashi Ňਊฅ (1915–97) Oguma Toranosuke Ň੝থƥՎ (1888–1978) Oka Hiroko ᛂႥŔ (1917–98) Okabe Tamekichi ᛂˌĦ઱ (1874–1922) Okabe Yatarō ᛂˌ๶Ɩඣ (1894–1967) Ōmichi Waichi ęƅŠĂ (1875–unclear) Onojima Usao Ň࢝҉‫( ॽڽޣ‬1894–1941) Ōse Jintarō ę勸৯Ɩඣ (1865–1944) Ōtsuki Kaison ę䲇Ũऒ(1880–1936) Ōtsuki Kenji ę䲇ᚚȕ (1891–1977) Ōwaki Yoshikazu ę整‫ץ‬Ă (1897–1976) Rikimaru Jienƺဪཱྀ㋵ (1890–1945) Sagara Moriji Ƞ‫ࡳݘ‬ơ (1903–86)

231

232

Appendix 10

Saitō Ryōzō 䟰ᇛ‫ݘ‬ղ (1889–unclear) Sakaki Hajime 䯮ㅋ (1857–97) Sakaki Yasusaburō 䯮̝Ɓඣ (1870–1929) Sakuma Kanae ᗤ΅Ǎၺ (1888–1970) Sandaya Hiraku Ɓॵୌৄ (1882–1962) Sasabe Akinobu ბˌ縤ࢎ (1871–1938) Sasaki Masanao ᗤ뺱҂؈ˢ (unclear) Satake Yasutarō ᗤ‫ݱ‬ȫƖඣ (1884–1959) Satō Koji ᗤᇛ˵‫( ܬ‬1905–71) Satō Shōsuke ᗤᇛຩॏ (1856–1939) Sawayanagi Masatarō 佪ၘ؈Ɩඣ (1865–1927) Seki Eikichi 筫쫭઱ (1900–39) Shinagawa Takako ȞਊᆘŔ (1922–) Shinmei Masamichi Ĥdž Ȣƅ (1898–1984) Shinohara Sukeichi 怅ʅՎ̤ (1876–1957) Shirai Tsune Ƀຜ˩ (1910–99) Shitada Jirō Īॵơඣ (1872–1937) Soma Tomotane Ƞ҇ࡅ⅍ (1852–99) Sugawara Kyōzō ↟ʅ͵Ҝ (1881–1967) Susukita Tsukasu ‫ॵށ‬ѣ (1907–96) Suzuki Harutarō ྡ҂‫ܬ‬Ɩඣ (1875–1966) Takabatake Motoyuki Ƭ墺ًƥ (1826–1928) Takagi Sadaji Ƭ҂ᑰȕ (1893–1975) Takahashi Gorō Ƭৱͅඣ (1856–1935) Takamine Hideo Ƭᇕল‫( ܌‬1854–1910) Takamine HiroshiƬ૑ű (1876–1950) Takashima Heizaburō Ƭ҉ːƁඣ (1865–1946) Takata Yasuma Ƭॵ̝҇ (1883–1972) Takebe Tongo Ӛˌ瘳༬ (1871–1944) Takemasa Tarō ‫ݱ‬؈Ɩඣ (1887–1965) Tamura Gensen ॵࣅᎠచ (1737–1809) Tanabe Hajime ॵ疀ʻ (1885–1962) Tanaka Hideo ॵġলॽ (1905–64) Tanaka Kanichi ॵġ㷓Ă (1882–1962) Tanaka Kiichi ॵġǛĂ (1867–1932) Tanimoto Tomeri ୌǕֲ (1867–1946) Terada Hiroko ᅅॵ셍셨Ŕ (1946–77)

Appendix 10

Terada Seiichi ᅅॵ̉Ă (1884–1922) Terasawa Izuo ᅅ佪䁓ȵ (1880–1970) Toda Teizō 䓏ॵᑰƁ (1887–1955) Togawa Yukio 䓏ਊDŽȵ (1903–92) Tōgō Minoru ʀ皹㵽 (1881–1959) Tokutomi Iichirō 䉾ֲ‫ސ‬Ăඣ (pen name Sohō ह૑) (1863–1957) Tokuya Toyonosuke 䉾ୌ牉ƥՎ (unclear–1945) Tominaga Iwatarō ֲкྰƖඣ (1866–1908) Tomoda Fujio Ƥॵăȕȵ (1917–) Toyama Masakazu ʋͪȢĂ (1848–1900) Tsuboi Kumezo ᑮຜ‫҇ص‬Ɓ (1858–1936) Tsubouchi Shōyō (Yūzō) ᑮʭሩ୨(ॽ槎)(1859–1935) Tsuchida Ken ‫ॵע‬ଢ (unclear) Tsuda Sen ౜ॵచ (1837–1908) Tsuji Sōichi 쮓枺Ă (1895–1987) Tsukahara Masatsugu ⌂ʅ؈ơ (1872–1946) Uchida Yūzaburō ʭॵߕƁඣ (1894–1966) Uchimura Yūshi ʭࣅ⡌ƥ (1897–1980) Ueda Tadaichi ĘॵŮĂ (1884–unclear) Ueno Yōichi Ę࢝їĂ (1883–1957) Ukita Kazutami ਂॵŠΦ (1859–1946) Umeoka Yoshitaka ೶ᛂ‫( ۤץ‬1920–) Umezu Hachizō ೶౜ԖƁ (1906–91) Umezu Kōsaku ೶౜઎ǟ (1928–99) Uramoto Seizaburō ࿆ǕȢƁඣ (1891–1965) Ushijima Yoshitomo Л҉‫ץ‬Ƥ (1906–99) Wada Rinkuma Šॵᅩ੝ (1870–1944) Wada Tōkaku Šॵʀᄊ (1744–1803) Watanabe Ryūshō ࿮疀‫؁‬૕ (1865–1944) Watanabe Tōru ࿮疀ો (1883–1957) Watase Shōsaburō ࿮勸ଆƁඣ (1862–1929) Yabe Yaekichi ᥫˌԖȶ઱ (1875–1945) Yagi Ben Ԗ҂៹ (1915–86) Yamada Sōshichi ͪॵ䍼ւ (1879–1971) Yamaguchi Minosuke ͪˍƁƥՎ (unclear) Yamakawa Kenjirō ͪਊԾơඣ (1854–1931) Yamakawa Noriko ͪਊंŔ (1910–90)

233

234

Appendix 10

Yamashita Kiyoshi ͪĪʓ (1922–71) Yamashita Toshio ͪĪႵඣ (1903–82) Yamauchi Shigeo ͪʭ୑ॽ (unclear) Yan Yongjing 縢кҷ (1838–98) Yasuda Tokutarō ȫॵ䉾Ɩඣ (1898–1983) Yatabe Tatsurō ᥫॵˌРඣ (1893–1958) Yatsu Naohide ୌ౜ˢল (1877–1947) Yoda Arata ֘ॵĤ (1905–87) Yokoyama Matsusaburō ષͪ‫؟‬Ɓඣ (1890–1966) Yoneda Shōtarō МॵଆƖඣ (1873–1945) Yoshida Kumaji ઱ॵ੝ơ (1874–1964) Yoshimoto Ishin ઱ǕಛƱ (1916–88) Yoshioka Gennosuke ઱ᛂ۷ƥа (Joseph G.) (1889–unclear) Yuhara Motoichi ࡽʅʻĂ (1863–1931) Yūki Kinichi ʨΝ๴Ă (né Hirose Kinichi 䄄勸๴Ă) (1901–97)

Notes Prologue 1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

The course was taught in the Department of Philosophy (Tetsugakka), College of Liberal Arts (Bunka Daigaku). Imperial University (Teikoku Daigaku) was later renamed Tokyo Imperial University (Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku). Piovesana (1997: 27, 48). Psychophysics has also appeared as shin-butsurigaku, literally meaning “heart–mind physics.” For the use of tropes in Japanese psychological terminology and a literature review of the claim that modern mental vocabularies are built upon metaphors, see McVeigh (1996). Another example of the metaphoricity of mind-words: in Japanese “heart” (shin or kokoro) is used to refer to any emotional or cognitive process (not the same shin in seishin, which means god). Shin prefixes well over 200 words that range in meaning from spirit, motive, idea, mentality, feeling, sincerity, sympathy, attention, interest, will, to mood. Also pronounced jin or kami. See Harding, Iwata, and Yoshinaga’s edited volume for an extremely informative collection of works delineating the complex relation between religion and psychotherapy in Japan (2015a). Harding (2015a: 8). Cf. Shimazono’s term “psycho-religious composite movement” (2015). Harding (2015b: 44). Harding (2015a: 2). On Fechner, see Heidelberger (2004). Fechner cannot be described as a psychophysical parallelist because he pursued the “identity hypothesis”: mind is body. From Zand-i-Avesta, meaning “interpretation of the Avesta” (Zoroastrianism’s primary collection of sacred texts). Boring (1929: 265). Thinkers such as David Hartley (1705–57), Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841) and, later, Rudolph Hermann Lotze (1817–81) and Alexander Bain (1818–1903), speculated about a physiological Psychology from a primarily philosophical perspective. Johannes Müller (1801–58) and Ernst Heinrich Weber (1795–1878) pursued a Psychologized physiology.

Chapter 1 1 2

Robinson (1995: 327). As longue durée processes, socio-externalization and psycho-internalization resonate with notions such as Norbert Elias’ “civilizing process” (1978, 1982).

236 3 4

5

6

7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15

Notes The details of these processes, which are explained elsewhere with more nuance and in detail, need not concern us here. See McVeigh (2015). Jansz notes that two socio-historical trends were behind the emergence of Psychology. The first was “individualization” (individuation), or a shift of focus from the collective to the individual, which is concomitant with an interest in personal differences and a focus on the inner world of feelings. The second was “social management” or “efforts to monitor and control the behavior of individuals and groups” (Jansz 2003: 12). Actually, rather than viewing individuation as a cause in itself, it is more accurate to argue that, as an aspect of psycho-internalization, it was a consequence of social management (socio-externalization). The political and economic control of the individual demanded a science of behavior, or bodies of knowledge that focused on how to mold other selves (Tweney and Budzynski 2000: 1015). Applied Psychology provided the answers. For my purposes, modernity designates a half-millennium period beginning about 1500. Elsewhere I have subdivided modernity into three approximate periods: (1) early modernity: 1500 to 1800; (2) high modernity: 1800–1880; and (3) late modernity: 1800 until the present. The reasons for this temporal specificity are explained elsewhere but need not concern us here. See McVeigh (2015). The focus of my study is on what might be called late modernity, or the period beginning during the last two or three decades of the nineteenth century. Note that these terms are relative, that is, by today’s standards, the socioexternalization/psycho-internalization of the early 1800s appears weak, though the socio-externalization/psycho-internalization of the latter era seems dramatic if compared with the same processes of the early 1600s. Robinson (1982: 2, 3). Nishikawa (2008a: 5). Such processes are called introception (in contrast to perception), though a more prosaic expression might be introspection. Strictly speaking, introspection (“seeing within”) is restricted to the “mind’s eye,” while introception encompasses all quasiperception. Kern (2003). Fuchs (2000: 494). Two other concepts might be mentioned: conciliation and excerption. The latter two concepts are perhaps somewhat technical for our purposes, but since they are briefly mentioned in the text, I define them here. Conciliation concerns how a “slightly ambiguous perceived object is made to conform to some previously learned schema.” Consilience (or compatibilization or assimilation) is “doing in mind-space what narratization does in our mind-time or spatialized time. It brings things together as conscious objects just as narratization brings things together as a story.” Excerption involves how the inner “I” abstracting from the “collection of possible attentions to a thing which comprises our knowledge of it … Actually we are never conscious of things in their true nature, only of the excerpts we make of them.” This feature is “distinct from memory. An excerpt of a thing is in consciousness the representative of the thing or event to which memories adhere and by which we can retrieve memories.” Reminiscence “is a succession of excerptions” (Jaynes 1976: 64–65, 61–62). Interiority is the “instance of selection that picks and chooses among the many options” that the psyche provides for us (Nørretranders 1998: 243). See Mizoguchi (1997a: i). Also see Cunningham and Williams (1993). Lyons (1978: 70). Jansz (2003: 16).

Notes

237

16 Richards (1992: 53). 17 Note Nishikawa’s distinction between daigaku shinrigaku (“university” or “academic Psychology”) and daily (nichijō), common sense (jōshiki), or popular (tsūzoku) Psychology (2008b: 80). 18 Impressively, between 1898 and 1903, Psychology ranked fourth among the sciences in the production of doctorates in the United States. Milar (2000: 616). 19 Questions of how universal and cultural Psychology relate to each other opens a Pandora Box of theoretical challenges that need not concern us here. It is worth mentioning, however, that, as in other social sciences, the tendency to stake out opposing sides on issues points to the sundering of the universal from the particular, nature from nurture and physis from nomos. 20 I borrow this convention from Richards (1992). 21 Richards (1992: 373). 22 Rose notes that the “object of a science” (in this case, the psychological) can appear ahistorical and asocial, and it is assumed that it has “always existed in the same form,” as if “thinkers of the past have circled around a reality which has remained the same. Thus, they can be ordered into a narrative, arranged along a chronological dimension which corresponds to a progress towards the object,” disciplinary histories establish the modernity of their science. They both ratify the present through its respectable tradition and demarcate it from those aspects of the past which might disturb it. They effect a division between sanctioned and lapsed texts and authors, between those theories and arguments which are of a piece with the current self-image of the discipline and those which are marginal and eccentric. They police the boundaries of the discipline by their criteria of inclusion and exclusion. (Rose 1988: 179, 180) 23 Cf. Takasuna (2007a: 85). 24 Different approaches to interiority, of course, would assign different roles to private mental states, for example, psychoanalysis, Gestalt Psychology, and behaviorism (the latter, in a fit of scientism, would simply deny the significance of private psychological processes) (Murray, Kilgour, and Wasylkiw 2000: 422). 25 Richards (1992: 232–33). 26 Concomitant with problems defining “Psychology” is classifying individuals as “Psychologists.” One study on “Individuals Eminent in Psychology” listed 538 individuals (between 1600 and 1967) selected by a panel of nine Psychologist judges from four countries, but 42 percent clearly classified as “Psychologists,” with 17 percent philosophers, 10 percent physiologists, and 6 percent psychiatrists; the rest were from a plethora of fields (Watson and Merrifield 1973). 27 Castro and Lafuente point out that the construction of Psychology’s subject (here meaning the individual as research target) occurred within the context of “Western liberal democracies” with subjects possessed of an “inner space” who were “able to define his own individuality and authenticity, aspirations of freedom and choice between different life options” (Castro and Lafuente 2007: 107). However, readily accepting this understanding of the subject glosses over cultural differences. I contend that a belief in the inherent value of interiority swept across many parts of the globe during the closing decades of the nineteenth and the first several decades of the twentieth centuries. The most obvious illustration of this was the institutionalization of modern research Psychology itself.

238

Notes

28 Richards (1992: 21, 246, 396). 29 The ideas in this paragraph are borrowed from Richards (1992: 241, 373, 393, 397). 30 This list is borrowed from Rosenzweig (1994: 753) with my revisions. Though it is meant to apply to American Psychology, it arguably has general relevancy. 31 Jansz (2003: 35). 32 Rosenzweig (1994: 741). 33 Callon (1986: 204). 34 As did anthropology, ethnography, economics, and political science. 35 Cf. Azuma and Imada for the different “orientations” of Psychology (1994: 708). 36 Robinson (1995: 326, 260). 37 See Misumi and Ōyama (1989) for postwar developments in Japanese applied Psychology. 38 Kayashima (1993: 21, 28). 39 Watson and Merrifield (1973), in their study of famous Psychologists, noted the problems with classifying the background and nationality of individuals, since many studied overseas for extended lengths of time, immigrated to other countries, and researched, taught, and published in languages other than their native tongue. 40 Bayly (2004: 4). 41 Brock (2006: 11). 42 Indeed, Richards writes that despite “considerable cross-traffic between countries,” the “routes taken towards Psychology appear to be more largely determined by their respective cultural traditions and climates than by international within-discipline dynamics” (Richards 1992: 289). 43 Thus, any distinction between “Psychology-importing” (Japan, Spain, Italy, Latin American countries) and “Psychology-exporting” (Germany, America, and England) countries must be approached with extreme caution. Cf. Castro and Lafuente (2007: 106). 44 Azuma and Imada (1994: 708). 45 Takasuna (1997a: 225–26, 252–53). See also Takasuana (2001a) for a list of 94 articles published by Japanese Psychologists in foreign journals before 1945. Forty-seven authors are believed to be Japanese, although seven of these could not be definitely identified. Eighty percent of the articles were published in the United States. 46 Esquirol most likely gave the word “hallucination” its modern meaning. 47 See Richards (1992: 372, 329, 375). For what it might be worth, Kido notes that in general Japanese Psychologists have been interested in finding facts from experimentation, rather than formulating theoretical systems (Kido 1961: 7). 48 Article-length English treatments by Japanese include: Azuma (1984); Azuma and Imada (1994); Misumi and Peterson (1990; for a review of postwar research); Nishikawa (2005); Ōyama (2008); Takasuna (2005, 2007a,b). Also relevant are Hoshino (1979); Hoshino and Umemoto (1987); and Satō and Graham (1954). 49 For example, Satō and Satō (2005: 52). 50 Though some Japanese do lament a perceived dearth of historical treatments: “The present author greatly regrets the fact that with exception of a handful of scholars, few in the world of Japanese [P]sychology are interested in its history. The excuse is that historical investigations should be left to old people who can no longer do experimental research!” (Nishikawa 2005: 68). 51 For a survey of how the history of Japanese Psychology has been treated (including Japanese who wrote texts about the history of Psychology), see Satō (1997a: 539–56). For a list of translations by Japanese of non-Japanese works on the history of

Notes

239

Psychology from 1894 to 1990, see Satō (1997a: 544). See also Nishikawa (2001a, 2006a,b,c), as well as Osaka R. (2000a: 29–33). For more specific methodological and historiographical issues, see Mizoguchi (2001a: 155–64), Nishikawa (2001b), and Satō (2005a,c). See also Tsuji (2001) and (2006). Oizumi’s Nihon Shinrigaku-sha Jiten (Dictionary of Japanese Psychologists, 2003) is a useful reference source. Note that the Japanese Psychology Association added a history of psychology section in 2001. See also Kaneko (1987). 52 Satō (2005a: 47). 53 Tanimoto (1897a) and (1901). 54 On the importance of preserving records and the impact of war and earthquakes on attempts to reconstruct Psychology’s history, see Osaka N. (2000b).

Chapter 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

See Satō (1997a: 6). Kido (1961: 3). Takasuna (2007a: 86). See Satō (1997a: 6) and Satō (2002a: 23). Tucker (2007: 61, 60, 58). Tucker (2007: 4). Chan (1963: 784). Sugimoto and Swain (1989: 303). Sugimoto and Swain (1989: 303–4, 306). Tucker (2007: 11). Formal name: Kaibara Atsunobu. Tucker (2007: 4). See Bellah (1957) and Robertson (1979) for treatment of shingaku. See Yasumaru (1974). Sugimoto and Swain (1989: 241). Robertson (1979: 314, 320). Tucker (2007: 11). Ooms (1985: 250, 219). Ooms (1985: 231–32). Tweney et al. (2000: 1015). Reed (1997: 12, 99). Aiken (1962: 15). Iggers (1965: 3, 5). Smith (1997: 584). Helvétius was forced to issue several retractions because of his work’s atheism and egalitarianism. Reed (1997: 82). Reed (1997: 85). Cf. Abrams’ idea of “natural supernaturalism” in Romantic literature (1973). Reed (1997: 82, emphasis in original). Reed (1997: 3). Rosenzweig (1994: 741). Fuchs (2000). Robinson (2000: 1018).

240 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Notes Reed (1997: 144). See, for example, F.M. Turner (1974). Cf. Reed (1997: 5). Robinson (1982). Lapointe (1970: 645). Robinson (2000: 1018). Pate (2000: 1139). Rice (2000: 491). Fuchs (2000). Dewsbury has called thinkers such as G. Trumbull Ladd, Josiah Royce (1855–1916), John Dewey (1859–1952), and James Mark Baldwin (1861–1934) “psychologist–philosophers” (2000a: 256). Rice (2000: 488). Bayly (2004: 332, 330). For a useful treatment of the religion–science confrontation and how Comte was critically received in America, see Cashdollar (1978). Godart (2008). Howland (2001: 176). Maraldo (2004: 225). Piovesana (1955: 182). Nishi apparently borrowed kitetsugaku from Tsuda Mamichi, who used the term as early as 1861. The terms kikengaku and kitetsugaku originated in a Chinese work by the Confucian scholar Zhou Dunyi (1017–73; also known as Zhou Maoshu) called Xiqiu Xianzhe (Seeking Sagehood; Japanese: Kikyū Kentetsu). Nishikawa (2008c: 24). Satō (2002a: 33–35) and Takasuna (2007a: 86). 1828–1902; a member of the Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society), he established the Tōkyō Shūshin Gakusha (Tokyo Morality School; later renamed the Nippon Kōdōkai or the Japan Society for Expansion of the Way). Azuma and Imada (1994: 710). Satō (2002a: 115). Satō (2002a: 448–70). Charles (2007: 96). See Datson and Galison’s Objectivity (2007), an important work that traces the trajectory of “objectivity” in the nineteenth century. Robinson (1995: 281). Charles (2007: 94). Takasuna (2007a: 84, 85). Satō (1997a: 7). See also Satō (2005d). Also pronounced shinsho.

Chapter 3 1 2

Satō (2002a: 22–23). See Satō (2002a: 21–22) on the question if Psychology existed in pre-Meiji times. For example, Janine Anderson Sawada’s work on the nineteenth-century religions, Misogi-kyô and Maruyama-kyô (rich amalgams of Buddhism, Shintoist, NeoConfucianism, and folk traditions), reveals how self-cultivation involved the “common moral values” (tsūzoku dōtoku) of the time: honesty, frugality, filial piety, loyalty, diligence, and harmony (Sawada 1998: 109). These were “moral” concerns, related to the pursuit of communal well-being, but they implicated the discipline

Notes

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

241

of the heart–mind and the attainment of the Buddha-mind (or “no-mind” or the “original mind”). In a certain sense, practitioners were interested in “mind” (if loosely understood), but it was still an introcosmic entity, ultimately inseparable from the micro–macrocosm. See also Sawada (2004). Piovesana (1972: 92). Satō (1997b: 9). English translation: A Pocket Dictionary of the English and Japanese Language. Satō (1997a: 9). Ōta (1997: 39–40). See Satō (2002a: 24–26) for a discussion of proto-psychological terms. Tetsugaku Jii. Davis (1976). Saitō (1977: 61). For a comparative but somewhat later look at the role of Psychology textbooks in America, see Fuchs (2000). Born and trained in Germany, Rauch emigrated to America in 1831. Takasuna (1997b: 49, 61–2, 60). Boring (1929: 231). Robinson (1995: 274). A student of Lorenz von Stein, Ariga (1860–1921) was a lawyer and expert in international law and a translator of European works. The usage of foreign education-related works to improve Japan’s nascent schooling system predates the 1880s. Uchida Masao translated Dutch Educational System (Oranda Gakusei, 1869) and Obata Jinzaburō’s rendered Western School Standards into Seiyō Gakkō Kihan (1870), which provided ideas on how to structure Japan’s schooling system. The Department of Education (predecessor to the Ministry of Education) authorized the collection and translation of documents on Western schooling. The Department had particular interest in Kawazu Sukeyuki and Sazawa Tarō’s translation of The French Educational System (Fukkoku Gakusei). See Nishikawa (1998, 2001c) and Uchijima (1996). See also Ōta (1997: 39). Takasuna (2007a: 85). Nishi’s other editions would follow in 1878 and 1879, but these were entitled Hebanshi Shinrigaku or Haven’s Psychology. See Satō (2002a: 37) for a breakdown of Nishi’s Shinrigaku into parts, chapters, and sections. Havens (1968: 224). Cf. Terasaki (2006). Cited in Lippert (2001). Piovesana (1997: 18). “Commander”; from seii tai shōgun, meaning “great barbarian-subduing general.” Guo (2005: 10). Howland (2002: 155). 1738–1832. 1787–1874. 1834–1919. 1825–95. 1809–82. 1806–73. 1826–77.

242

Notes

34 For general references, see Piovesana, Main Trends of Contemporary Japanese Philosophy (1955) and Riepe, Selected Chronology of Recent Japanese Philosophy, 1868–1963 (1965). 35 1588–1679. 36 1820–1903. 37 1689–1755. 38 1712–78. 39 1800–81. 40 However, it was glossed not from the original, but from George R. Drysdale’s The Elements of Social Science; or Physical, Sexual and Natural Religion (1871). 41 Bell (1960/1961: 276–78). 42 Bell (1960/1961: 283, 280, 281). 43 1848–1943. 44 1833–84. 45 1830–1905. 46 Kawamoto Kiyoichi translated the entire book in 1876 (Bell 1960/1961: 281–82). 47 See Bell (1960/1961: 270). 48 Nagai (1954: 56, 60). See Quo on Japanese liberalism (1966). 49 Havens (1968: 218, 217). 50 Nagai (1954: 57). 51 Havens (1968: 223, 224). 52 Howland (2002: 68, 78, 160, 172). 53 Bayly (2004: 319). 54 1836–82. 55 Hirai (1979). 56 Nagai (1954: 55, 64). 57 One specific example: he influenced the thinking of journalist and historian Tokutomi Sohō (Iichirō), 1863–1957. 58 Takasuna (2007a). 59 Nagai (1954: 61). 60 Howland (2000: 68). 61 Azuma and Imada (1994: 708). 62 Howland (2000: 81). 63 Saitō (2006: 18). 64 A scholar of Western law, Tsuda worked for the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of War, and was a member of the Diet. 65 Both Nishi and Tsuda taught at the Bansho Shirabe-sho. 66 On Nishi Amane and his translations, see Satō (2002a: 28–36). 67 Saitō (2006: 4). 68 In 1884 he wrote Ronri Shinron (New Theory on Logic) and his Chichi Keimō (1874; literally, Great Wisdom and Enlightenment) was the first manual of logic written by a Japanese. 69 Lippert (2001: 64). The Chinese imported “Western ideas whose Chinese equivalents had been created or invented by the Japanese using Chinese characters,” that is, many neologisms flowed back into the Chinese language from which they had originated: the “import of Japanese-made words provided a linguistic key for China to the discursive door of modernization” (Guo 2005: 12, 14). 70 Some 242 of the latter number have a source in classical Chinese (Lippert 2001: 62).

Notes

243

71 Havens (1968: 228). 72 Saitō (2006: 2). 73 For Nishi’s understanding of ri (principles) and how society and nature differ, see Satō (2002a: 27). 74 Saitō (2006: 2, 16). 75 Minear (1973: 171). 76 Other possible glosses might be: Manifestation of the Nature of Man and the Universe, Finding the Physical and the Spiritual, or The Relation of the Physical and the Spiritual. The title is based on a phrase from Mencius. 77 See Figal (1999). 78 Mizoguchi (1997b: 126–29). See also Satō (2008a: 221–23). 79 Josephson (2006: 158). 80 Many of these beliefs and practices live on in ritual practices of Japan’s shin shūkyō, or new religions and “new” new religions. 81 Yōkaigaku Kōgi (Lectures on Monsterology, 1894). 82 Figal (1999: 49, 51). 83 Figal (1999: 49, 43). 84 Yoshinaga (2015) provides an excellent explanation of Tanzan’s theories. 85 See Danziger (1980). 86 Yoshinaga (2006: 9). See also Kido (1961). 87 Harding (2015a: 14). 88 Sometimes written as Anesaki. 89 See Suzuki (1970). 90 Satō (2002a: 520–26).

Chapter 4 1

2 3 4

The sense of being observed operates at both the immediate and indirect as well as an intimate and direct manner. As an example of the latter, the state, in order to ensure that local sites would adhere to official policies and projects, institutionalized its officious gaze in the First University District Inspectors Bureau (Dai-ichi Daigakuku Tokugaku-kyoku) which was established as an external agency on October 13, 1872. The following year on July 3, this bureau was changed into the temporary University District Joint District Inspectors Bureau (Kaku Daigakuku Gōhei Tokugaku-kyoku), which then became the Inspectors Bureau (Tokugaku-kyoku) on April 12, 1874. Other units involved in the exercise of official visuality included the Inspectors Affairs Office (Tokumu-tsumesho), which was set up as an external organ on January 15, 1874. On September 15 of the same year, this office became the Inspectors Affairs Bureau (Tokumu-kyoku) which was eventually absorbed into the Inspectors Bureau on September 30, 1874. The Inspectors Bureau was discontinued on January 12, 1877, the same date the Superintendent’s Office (Gakkan Jimusho) was founded, though it was abolished one year later on December 28. Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 112, 113). For treatments of Japan’s development of educational system and the role of Psychology, see Satō (2002a: 40–46, 303–35) and Takasuna (1997b: 41–47). Satō and Satō (2005: 53).

244 5

6

7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Notes See Nishikawa’s useful chart on the development of University of Tokyo (2008c: 29) and Ōta’s more detailed explanation (1997: 33). See also Satō (2002a: 304–8) and Takasuna (1997b: 41–47). Initially, in 1877 the university was organized into four units along Western lines: Law, Science, Medicine, and Literature. The latter had two courses: (1) History, Philosophy and Political Economy; and (2) Japanese and Chinese Literature. After the war its original name was brought back. In 1949 University of Tokyo absorbed the former First Higher School (currently Komaba Campus) and the former Tokyo Higher School, now tasked with teaching first- and second-year undergraduates, while the faculties on Hongo Campus take care of juniors and seniors. Nishikawa (2008d: 251). Satō provides a very useful chart, “The Production and Training of Talent in the Imperial Universities until the Taishō Period,” which details the institutional lineages and connections among the universities and schools. Key students of Motora and where they ended up are listed (1997c: 584–85). Nishikawa provides a very useful chart (covering the period from 1880 to 1924) that partially lists important individuals who studied Psychology at Tokyo (Imperial) University. It categorizes students by specialization and gakka (department) and indicates those who majored in Psychology from 1921 (2008b: 87–88). Also, for the contributions and careers of Psychology students at Tokyo Imperial University during the early period, see Satō (2002a: 364–82). Also, see Satō and Satō’s chart of the professions those who specialized in Psychology (at Tokyo Imperial University) entered (2005: 59). Marshall (1977: 75, 77, 80). American academic and Presbyterian pastor, 1807–85. French philosopher, 1809–93. Later to become part the University of Tokyo. American theologian and educator, 1802–87. Nishikawa (2008c: 20) and Piovesana (1955: 171). Influenced by Kant and Rudolph H. Lotze, he stressed the importance of the history of philosophy. From 1887 to 1892 Busse held a chair of philosophy at Imperial University of Tokyo. For a treatment of what was taught at University of Tokyo’s curriculum from 1873 to 1888, see Ōta (1997: 36–37). Takasuna (1997b: 62). Umemoto (2000: 268). Satō and Satō (2005: 52). Nishikawa (2008b: 87–88) and Satō and Satō (2005: 52). See also Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 70) and Satō (2002a) for more details. Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 88–89). Satō and Satō (2005: 58). Haraguchi Tsuruko (1886–1915), the first female Japanese Psychologist to obtain a PhD, is included in this list. Satō (2002a: 256–59). See also Nishikawa (2008e: 157–61). For a treatment of individuals who worked at private universities (Imada, Watanabe, Kido), see Satō (2008b: 167–84).

Notes

245

26 Until 1920, institutions such as Keio Gijuku and Waseda were not recognized as universities by the Ministry of Education, so in some places I describe them as daigaku. If the period under discussion predates 1920, then I use “university.” For a list of private vocational schools that became universities in 1920, see Nishikawa (2001c: 463). 27 Nishikawa (2008e: 154–55). 28 1832–91. Translator of Samuel Smiles’s Self-Help (1871) and a convert to Christianity, he was an important educator during the Meiji period. He founded a school called Dōjinsha and headed what eventually became Ochanomizu University. 29 Nishikawa (2008c: 31–32). See also Becker (1936). Toyama was also a poet and spearheaded a movement to replace kanji (Chinese characters) with a Romanized alphabet and founded the Rōmaji-kai for this purpose. 30 Steiner (1936: 709). 31 Ōyama, Satō and Suzuki (2001: 396, 398). 32 Ōta (1997: 38). 33 Though Matsumoto would receive state funding for the latter part of his overseas studies. 34 Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 65). 35 Satō (2002a: 254). 36 See Satō for a chart of those who went overseas to study Psychology or related fields (2002a: 254–56). For those who went overseas mainly to study Psychology, see Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 99–103). For those who went overseas to study Psychology but had their main interests outside Psychology, see Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 103–6). See also Satō (2002a: 330–35) for a treatment of overseas exchanges. 37 See Hoshino and Umemoto (1987: 187). 38 Because of Germany’s defeat, from the late 1910s to the mid-1920s Japanese Psychology was more influenced by American developments. 39 Takasuna (2008a: 242). 40 For a list of those who studied at Clark University, see Satō (2002a: 264). 41 Takasuna (2008a). 42 See Takasuna and colleagues’ list of twenty-three Japanese who received degrees (from 1888 to 1943), the awarding institutions, and dissertation titles (2001: 229). 43 Takasuna et al. (2001: 227). 44 Satō (2002a: 259–65, 265–67). 45 Satō (1997d: 173–74). 46 Also in 1871, the Personnel Division became the Officials Division (Shokumu-ka), which was responsible for the oversight and regulation of teachers who, as agents of state projects, played key roles in shaping the psyches of young students. 47 Foucault (1979: 138, emphasis in original). 48 Narusawa (1997: 200). 49 Cited in Narusawa (1997: 231). 50 Narusawa (1997: 209). 51 In addition to the more practical and economically productive practices that directly implicated the body, the Meiji period also witnessed the introduction of leisure activities. Dr. George A. Leland taught the Amherst College system of calisthenics and trained the first Japanese instructors in physical education and in 1913, Swedish gymnastics became standard in all schools. Horace Wilson and E. H. Mudget introduced baseball to the students of Kaisei School in 1875. Japan’s first organized

246

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Notes team, the Shimbashi Club, competed with an American team from Yokohama (on which Henry W. Denison was the star) (Burks 1985a: 364). In later years, the Greater Japan Amateur Sports Association would be founded (August 8, 1927). Cited in Narusawa (1997: 226). Narusawa (1997: 209). Narusawa (1997: 197). Foucault (1979: 141–56) Narusawa (1997: 199). Cited in Narusawa (1997: 231). Narusawa (1997: 227). Marshall (1994: 31). See also See Fridell (1970) and Tsurumi (1974) for treatments of moral education during the Meiji period. Marshall (1994: 31). In addition to his official duties, Mori Arinori had helped found the Meiji Six Society (Meirokusha) in 1873 and established the Commercial Law Institute (Shōhō Kōshūjo; the predecessor of Hitotsubashi University) in 1875. Highly talented and prescient, his life was cut short by assassination. Mori is known for introducing military exercises into elementary and middle schools and military style education into the normal schools, decades before most aspects of Japanese society had become militarized for war-making purposes. He clearly linked the state with education: Education in the Japanese State is not intended to create people accomplished in the techniques of the arts and sciences, but rather to manufacture the persons required by the State. Rather than proceeding in accord with Western principles and methods, we should carefully follow the rules developed in the schools for training army officers … In short, education must be approached in basic conformity with the spirit of chūkun aikoku (loyalty and patriotism). (cited in Horio 1988: 100)

See Hall (1973) for a detailed biography. Tenure: March 22, 1889–May 17, 1890. Tenure: May 17, 1890–June 1, 1891. Marshall (1994: 107). Marshall (1994: 49). Rubinger (1986: 195). Rubinger (1986: 229–30). Burks (1985b: 256, emphasis in original). Smith (1997: 589). Kōzu Senzaburō (1852–97) accompanied Takamine to Oswego and Albany State Normal School. 71 Satō and Satō (2005). 72 We might also mention Wakabayashi Torasaburō who, influenced by Pestalozzi, Froebel, Agassiz, Spencer, and Bain, recognized the importance of Psychology for education. An opponent of rote memorization, he saw the need to stimulate “mental development” (shinsei kaihatsu). See Lincicome (1995: 81–83). Together with Shirai Kowashi he produced the Kaisei Kyōju-jutsu (The Refined Art of Teaching, 1883), a well known teaching manual. 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Notes

247

73 In 1890 this school became the Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School (Tōkyō Joshi Kōtō Shihan Gakkō). Eventually, this normal school would evolve into Ochanomizu University. 74 At first, normal schools divided into jinjō shihan gakkō (regular normal schools) and kōtō shihan gakkō (higher normal schools), but then in 1886 the Tōkyō Shihan Gakkō became the only “higher” normal school. See Takasuna (1997b: 15). 75 Predecessor of Tsukuba University that was established in 1973. 76 For a list of Psychology books authorized by the Ministry of Education and used by examinees (from 1907 to 1917) who sought teaching qualification outside the normal school system, see Satō (2002a: 318–19). 77 Takasuna (1997b: 51). 78 Nishikawa (2008b: 81–82). See Satō (2002a: 386–420) for the development of Psychology at Tōhoku (Imperial) University and Satō (2002a: 304–8) for other imperial universities. See Nishikawa’s chart on the institutionalization of Psychology in imperial daigaku, 1888–1943 (2008b: 85). Ōizumi offers very useful charts comparing the development of Psychology in state and private universities (2003: 1228–31). 79 Nagai (1965). 80 Satō (2008b: 181). 81 Takasuna (1997b: 59–63, 60). 82 Missionary; 1857–1921. 83 Missionary and professor of philosophy; 1853–1912. 84 Takasuna (1997b: 60). 85 Under the guidance of Education Minister Mori Arinori, new regulations established these schools in 1886. 86 Takasuna (1997b: 62). For the role of Psychology in higher schools, see Suzuki and Takasuna (1997: 205–7) and Satō (2002a: 320–22). 87 Takasuna (1997b: 62). 88 Satō (2002a: 323).

Chapter 5 1

2 3 4 5

6

For works about deal Motora, see Imatani (1967); Ko-Motora Hakase Tsuikai-roku (1913); Ōyama (1998, 2002); Ōyama and Satō (2001); Satō (2001a, 2008c); Uchijima (1994); and Watanabe (1981). See also Satō (2002a: 51–299), who devotes almost 250 pages to his life and contributions. Satō (2002a: 69–81) details Motora’s biographical details before he went to the United States. See Satō (2002a: 61) for a list of articles (31) about Motora appearing in the Yomiuri Newspaper. Satō (2002a: 254–56). For a treatment of Motora’s publications, see Satō (2002a: 58–62, 272–99). Especially see the extensive list of articles and essays compiled by Satō, which number 591, pp. 279–99. See Satō (2002a: 59, 60, 62). Note that his earliest works were under his birth name “Sugita.”

248 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23

24 25 26 27

28 29

30 31 32 33

Notes For example: Tokutomi Iichirō (1863–1957; pen name: Sohō), a prolific journalist, historian, critic, and founder of Minyūsha, an influential publishing house, and Tsuda Sen (1837–1908), politician, agriculturalist, and writer who accompanied Fukuzawa Yukichi to the United States. Nishikawa (2008f: 54–55). Famous for this best-selling Bushidō: The Soul of Japan (1905). Satō (2002a: 107–8) and Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 79). Arguably, he did research on what we now call cognitive Psychology. See Ōyama (1998). Satō and Satō (2005: 56). Titchener (1913: 442). The American Journal of Psychology (1(1): 72–98). It was cited by Wundt in a later edition of his Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, 1902‒3) (Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki 2001: 398). Oyama, Sato, and Suzuki (2001: 399) and Satō (2002a: 119). See also Satō (2008c: 63). Nishikawa (2001c: 463). Coon and Sprenger (2000). Now Arima County in Hyōgo Prefecture. For general biographical details on Motora, see Satō (2002a: 54–79). Satō (2002a: 58–62). Kikai Kanran, or Overall View of the Atmosphere, was written by Aochi Rinsō (1775–1833) in 1826. Much of it is translated from the Dutch Textbook in Natural Philosophy. See John Merle’s 1916 biography of Davis. Also known as Joseph Hardy Neesima. He studied at Amherst and in 1870 entered Andover Theological Seminary. Mori Arinori sent him as an interpreter for the Iwakura Mission to the United States. Satō (2002a: 56). Tsuda Sen accompanied Furukawa Yukichi to the United States in 1867. He was the father of the female educator Tsuda Umeko (1865–1929). A boys’ elementary school established in 1878 by the missionary Julius Soper. In 1882 Tōkyō Eigakkō merged with Mikai Shingakkō (Mikai Theological Institute, a Methodist mission seminary established in 1879) and a girls’ elementary school (established in 1874), becoming Tōkyō Eiwa Gakkō (Tokyo Anglo-Japanese School). In 1894 the latter evolved into Aoyama Gakuin, which in 1949 became Aoyama Gakuin University. Vail was the son of one of the founders of Boston University. Bowne, a student of the philosopher and logician Rudolf Hermann Lotze (1817–81), is best known for his Metaphysics (1882). He was a critic of positivism and naturalism and became known for his personalism, a form of liberal theology that stresses the centrality of freedom of self and personality. For a treatment of Motora’s time at Boston and Johns Hopkins Universities, see Satō (2002a: 82–113). Satō and Satō (2005: 54). See Satō and Satō (2005: 55) for the subjects Motora registered for at Johns Hopkins University. See McVeigh, “Motora’s ‘Exchange, Considered as the Principle of Social Life’: The Intellectual Roots of Japan’s First Psychologist” (n.d.). See Suzuki and Kodama’s project on digitizing Motora’s dissertation (2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b).

Notes 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

249

Suzuki (2006). See Suzuki and Kodama (2001). See also Satō (2002a: 107). Tokyo Anglo-Japanese School; later Aoyama Gakuin. Satō (2002a: 115). English literature scholar, 1857–1923. Now Seisoku High School (Seisoku Kōtō Gakkō). Satō provides a list of those he met on his overseas trip (2002a: 197). See Motora (1905a–d). Watase knew Motora from time spent at Johns Hopkins University. Titchener (1913). Satō (2002a: 122). Magazine founded in 1888 by Miyake Setsurei and Shiga Shigetaka. Its antiWesternism caused the authorities to shut it down several times. It ceased publication in 1923. Established in 1897. Satō (2002a: 124). Cited in Titchener (1913: 443, 442). Uchijima (1994: 78). Satō (2002a: 70–71). Uchijima (1994). Satō (2002a: 57). Satō (2002a: 57). 1799‒1872. He taught in Japan from 1875 to 1899. 1813–85. 1812–1904. Uchijima (1994: 73). 1807–87. For a treatment of how Hall influenced Motora, see Satō (2002a: 139–41) and Satō (2008c: 68). For Motora’s early research activities and interests, see Satō (2002a: 141–46). Takasuana (2001b: 233–37). See Motora (1903a,b). The Psychologist C.E. Price summarized Motora’s work on nerurotransmission (1904). Satō (2002a: 138–39). Shūshin Kyōkasho Chōsa I-inkai. Kokugo Chōsa I-inkai. Satō (2002a: 148). Satō (2002a: 119). Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 82–84). Satō (2002a: 155–59) and Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398). Osaka R. (2000a: 42–44). See also Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398). He also researched cataracts. See Satō (2002a: 152–55). “Ein Experiment zur Einübung von Aufmerksamkeit”; Motora (1911). Satō (2002a: 167). The information in the obituary was provided by Watase Shōsaburō. Cited in Titchener (1913: 442). See also Osaka R. (2000a: 44–45). On the introduction of psychophysics to Japan, particularly in relation to Motora’s role, see Ōyama (2002) and Osaka R. (2000a: 33). Satō (2002a: 115).

250

Notes

77 The Tetsugaku-kai Zasshi, launched in 1887, was the journal of the Testugaku-kai (Philosophical Society; established in 1884). 78 Motora (1889 to 1891). 79 Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398). See also Ōyama (2008). See Satō (2002a: 134) for the list of contents of Motora’s “Psychophysics” as they were published serially in Tetsugakkai Zasshi. 80 Suzuki (1997a: 154). 81 Milton S. Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. 82 Satō (2002a: 94). 83 Cited in Satō (2002a: 217); originally from Fukurai (1913a). 84 He noted three approaches one could adopt for understanding the relation between the psyche and reality: (1) idealism (yuishin-ron, sometimes translated as spiritualism); (2) parallelism (heikō-ron); and (3) materialism (yuibutsu-ron), which is the most scientific. 85 Also called Enkaku-ji; founded in Kamakura by Hōjō Tokimune in 1282. 86 The Rinzai Sect, founded by Eisai (Rinzen Zenshi) in 1191, based on the ideas of the Chan Linji (or Huanglong) sect, which was established by the monk Linji (Yixuan; who died ca. 867) in China. 87 For a detailed treatment of Motora’s interest in Zen, see Satō (2002a: 166–88, 2008c: 67–68). 88 Some of Motora’s descriptions of mind (e.g., “calm but dynamical”) are somewhat vague and difficult to grasp. For example, mind is “neither merely conscious being, nor merely one of activity, but conscious activity accompanied by more or less of feeling-tone” (quoted in Horne 1905: 495). He also stated that mind does not concentrate on one point, but is distributed in every direction and it is in a static, not a kinetic state. 89 Originally from Wakasa province, he traveled in India, Ceylon, and the United States. D.T. Suzuki was one his disciples. 90 Motora (1895a). Sanzen Nikki. For a list of Motora’s publications on Zen, see Satō (2002a: 191). In addition to Motora’s own writings, a rich literature in Japanese about the relationship between Psychology and Zen can be traced back to the late 1800s. See Katō (2005). In 1957, Sato Kōji (1905–71), who had interest in Zen Buddhism, established Bushikorogia: Tōyō Kokusai Shinri Gakushi (Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient). See Katō (2002) for an extensive bibliography on Zen and Psychology. 91 Or transforming the mind into a subject without an array of objects. 92 Quoted in Horne (1905: 495). In 1905 H.H. Horne reviewed Motora’s 32-page An Essay on Eastern Philosophy. It is useful for our purposes since Horne characterizes it as substantially about Motora’s own thinking on Psychology, or “is better described as an essay by an eastern philosopher on the psychological interpretation of Buddhism.” It shows the “influence of western training on an eastern mind” and is about “Eastern philosophy” (i.e., India, China and Japan). Zen, a type of “subjective” “Eastern thought,” acknowledges the mind as subject (unlike “objective” “Western thought,” which focuses on the object). Horne characterizes the essay as written in “halting English” and with “abundant typographical errors.” More seriously, it fails “to distinguish scientific from philosophical thinking.” Horne himself suggests that Zen experience is a case of “dispersed attention,” or perhaps self-hypnotism. Also Théodule Ribot reviewed Motora’s work on “Eastern philosophy” and the ego presented at the Fifth International Congress of Psychology (1905). See Satō (2001b).

Notes 93 94 95 96 97

98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

107

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

251

This is not an experience of a subliminal self or a “secondary personality.” Motora’s explanation, cited in Horne (1905: 496). Pragmatism also resonated with the Neo-Confucian idea of “unity of knowledge and action” (chikō gōitsu). See Motora (1910a, 1910b). Jiko or ga meant ego (jiko can also mean “self ”or “auto”) and jiga can also mean ego. In current Japanese, “self-consciousness” is jiko-ishiki, but in the past a term borrowed from Buddhism that meant to “attain enlightenment,” jikaku, was used (jiko-ishiki can also mean “subjective”). See Suzuki (2005: 115), who believes that “ego” has a specific meaning in Japan and therefore “should not be uncritically accepted,” since it is wellknown that the “psychological make-up of Westerners differs considerably from that of the Japanese”. Also see Suzuki (2005) for how ego (jiga) relates to Motora’s thinking in his dissertation as well as Ladd’s psychological theory. Though the universe itself lacks intention or ishi. Motora (1907b). See Satō (2002a: 229–30). Cited in Horne (1905: 496). Satō (2002a: 230). He designed a 1905 and 1909 version. The term means something like “model to manifest psyche/psychical world.” Satō (2002a: 221–22). Satō (2002a: 226–27). Motora (1904). Seishin, like “mental” in English, can in certain situations denote the mystical, spiritual, and “life force,” and appears in Japan’s traditions of alternative healing. See Yoshinaga (2007: 9). Shiki (Sanskrit: vijñāna) is the faculty of consciousness that distinguishes, perceives, and judges and is dependent on the six senses (touch, sight, hearing, taste, smell, and thought). Satō (2002a: 227). Motora cited in Horne (1905: 496). See Motora (1909b,c,d). Kido (1961: 5). Motora (1909d). Cf. the Buddhist term shingen, meaning the “thought-welling fountain,” or mind as the source and origin of all things. Fukurai (1913a). See Satō for a discussion of shingen (2002a: 222, 230–31, 234, 236, 240). Motora (1905e: 399, 401, 399). Motora (1905e: 400, 399, 400–1, 407). Motora (1905e: 401, 402). Azuma and Imada (1994: 709). Hoshino (1979: 1). Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 70). Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 92). Okamoto (1976); see Ōizumi for a complete list (2003: 1021–23). Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 91–99). See also Okamoto (1976). Kyōto-furitsu Chūgakkō. Dai-ichi Kōtō Gakkō, which was to become the First National Junior College. Okamoto (1976: 32).

252 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

137 138

139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154

155

Notes Osaka R. (2000a: 50–54). See also Hidano (2000: 86–95). Okamoto (1976: 33). Apparently Matsumoto was the first to use a sound cage in the study of auditory space perception. Suzuki (2005: 121). Suzuki (2001: 257–70). See also Suzuki (1997b: 93–94). During this time, P. Mentz, W. Wirth, F. Kreuger, and O. Klemm were working with Wundt. Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 95). See also Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 95). Hidano (2000: 88). See Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 97) for a chart that lists students and their research topics under Matsumoto’s purview. Satō also lists the key students of Matsumoto and the educational institutions at which they ended up working (1997c: 584–85). Connected to the Dōshisha Jogakkō Senmon-bu (Special Division of Doshisha Women’s School). Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 98–99). Azuma and Imada (1994: 709). For information on Matsumoto, see Nishikawa (2008b); Ōyama (1998); Ōyama, Suzuki, and Satō (2001); Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 91–99); Satō (2002a: 246–53); Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 91–114); and Takasuna (2008). Osaka R. (2000a: 60–61). For our purposes this development deserves passing mention because a researcher recognized how conscious interiority shapes aesthetic judgments and preferences. For the list, see Osaka N. (2000c: 280). Tōkyō Kōtō Shihan Gakkō—the same normal school modernized by Takamine and Izawa. Joshi Shihan Gakkō. Kyōto Shiritsu Bijustsu Kōgei Gakkō, which is now called Kyōto Shiritsu Geijutsu Daigaku. Kyōto Shiritsu Kaiga Senmon Gakkō. Takasuna (1997b: 2). Azuma and Imada (1994: 709). Azuma and Imada (1994: 709). Tanaka (1966: 234). Some write the word in English as “psychocinematics” or “psychocynematics.” Osaka R. (2000a: 56). Osaka N. (2006a: 84). See also Osaka R. (2000a: 60–61). Kido (1961). Osaka R. (2000b: 18). See Osaka N. (2006a), who discusses Chiba Tanenari’s notes about the experimental investigation on writing and association reaction time, which was the “first scientific report” inspired by psychokinematics. Okamoto (1976: 34).

Chapter 6 1 2 3

Or that life somehow emerges from a complex combination of organic matter. Reed (1997: 84, 83–85, 1). Mizoguchi (1997b: 134‒36).

Notes 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

253

The philosopher Tanabe Hajime (1885–1962) wrote on vitalism. Satō (2002a: 522–24). Taylor (2000: 1030). Satō (2002a: 520). See also Satō (2008d) and Satō (1997d: 194). On the “rise and fall” of abnormal (hentai) Psychology, see Satō (2002a: 520–45). Satō (2002a: 521) and Satō (2008d: 120–24). See also Oda et al. (2001). Seishin igaku can mean “psychiatry.” However, in actual usage a measure of ambiguity surrounded seishin, and it could be associated with hypnotism, the unconsciousness, or spiritualism. Thus, in order to maintain these connotations, I translated Seishin Igaku as “Seishin Medicine.” On the journal Hentai Shinri, see Oda et al. (2001) and Satō (2002a: 526–30). Among his works was Hentai Shinrigaku (Abnormal Psychology, 1919). See Satō (2002a: 528) for a list of founding members of Nihon Seishi Igakkai. Satō (1997d: 192‒93). Hyōdō (2005). Coon (2000: 144). Foster (2006: 263). See Fukurai (1914). Coon (2000: 143). Reed (1997: 5). Coon (2000). In the American case, the origins of spiritualism (communication with the dead) are often traced to strange noises heard by the Fox sisters in upstate New York, Hydesville, in 1848 (though probably similar events in other communities fed into the movement). 1859–1941. 1871–1938. 1847–1930; a Psychologist, logician, and mathematician. 1839–1925. 1823–1913; explorer, geographer, anthropologist, and biologist who, independently of Darwin, developed the theory of evolution. 1832–1919; chemist and physicist. 1851–1940; physicist. 1835–1909; writer, astronomer, mathematician, and economist. Coon (2000: 144). 1854–1920; a philosopher at Columbia University. 1863–1944. Jastrow, in particular, wrote much on the topic and spawned the field of the Psychology of deception and belief. Coon (2000: 144). Mizoguchi (1997b: 124). 1854–1931; he later became presidents of Tokyo, Kyūshū, and Kyoto Imperial Universities. See Hardacre’s treatment of Japanese spiritualism in early-twentieth-century Japan (1998). Before the 1940s, seishin igaku was used (literally, “medicine of mind”). Yoshinaga (2007). 1873–1906; see Yoshinanga (2007: 12–13). 1874–1937. Satō (2008a: 224–30). See also Hagio (2001). Zēmusu-shi Shinrigaku (1900) and Shinrigaku Seigi (1902).

254

Notes

42 See his Kyōiku Shinrigaku Kōgi (Lectures on the Educational Psychology, 1908). 43 1886–1911. 44 Suzuki provides an account (1997a: 140–53) and a list of who attended the experiment. See also Satō (2002a: 530–35) and Satō (2002a: 346–48). See also Satō and Satō (2005), and Satō (2007: 136), Matsuyama (1993: 156–67), and Yokota (1995: 27–32). 45 Nagai’s husband would also kill himself. 46 Fukurai (1913b). 47 Satō (2002a: 310–11). 48 See Foster (2006). 49 Note that the German physician and physiologist Erwin von Bälz (1849–1913) treated hysterics with therapies of suggestion at the Tokyo Imperial University’s School of Medicine. 50 Satō and Satō (2005: 52). 51 Details on Yamaguchi are unclear, though he did study at Yale University under Scripture. 52 See Ichiyanagi’s Saiminjutsu no Nihon Kindai (Hypnotism’s Japanese Modernity, 1997). 53 Hypnotism can be explained as the temporarily willed suspension of interiority (in particular, self-autonomy and introceptive capabilities). Despite attempts to use the persuasive metaphor of “sleep” to explain and describe it in the 1800s, it is unrelated to this neurophysiological state (note that Mesmer’s imagery of “animal magnetism” relied on a completely different trope). During hypnosis, one voluntarily abdicates one’s belief about self-control and suspends belief in the metaphoric interiority encased within the head (trancing). This suspension evaporates the elements of introspectable mind-space, in particular beliefs about how an “I” (active agent) controls a “me” (passive recipient). The locus of agency temporarily shifts from internal to external control, so that one’s “I” is replaced by an outside controller (hypnotist). That beliefs about self-control can be so easily arrested suggests the following: (1) psychic diversity; (2) psychic malleability, that is, how easily selfauthorization (decision-making) can be altered; and (3) how decision-making may be thought of as an interiorized version of social interaction between an agent and a recipient. 54 Other important thinkers on hypnotism include Ambrose Liebeault (Sleep and Analogous States, 1888); Alfred Binet and Charles Féré (Animal Magnetism, 1887); and Hippolyte Bernheim (Suggestive Therapeutics: A Treatise on the Nature and Uses of Hypnotism, 1899). 55 In Japanese, minzoku shinrigaku; a more up-to-date translation might be ethnocultural or ethnonational Psychology. 56 In June 1868, immediately following the Meiji Restoration, the Jingikan (Council of Shintō Affairs) was established within the Grand Council with support from advocates of nativist studies. “Missionaries” (senkyōshi) were charged with instilling a Shinto-inspired nationalism through spreading the Great Doctrine (Taikyō). In February 1870, the Imperial Rescript for the Propagation of the Great Doctrine (Taikyō Senpu no Mikotonori) was issued. In September 1871, the Council of Shinto was downgraded to a department and then replaced in April of the following year by the Department of Doctrinal Instruction (Kyōbushō). In May 1872, “instructors” (kyōdōshoku) were appointed, drawn from the ranks of both Shintōist and Buddhist clergy and trained at sites headed by the Grand Institute of Instruction (Taikyōin).

Notes

57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66

67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

82 83

255

The principles of doctrinal instruction included the inculcation of patriotism, acknowledgment of morality, and the veneration of the emperor. Though within a few years the propagation of the Great Doctrine would soon fizzle out since it could not compete with the novelty of Western learning and imported ideas, it laid the foundations for the virulent imperialist nationalism that would poison Japanese society during the war period. See Motora (1895b,c, 1897b,c) and Satō (2002a: 129). He was also awarded a doctorate from Kyoto University in 1962. For the interrelationships between sociology and Psychology, see Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 71–73). For works in English on the development of Japanese sociology, see Babe (1962); Barshay (2007); Becker (1936); Chee (1959); Halmos (1962); Koyano (1976); Nagai (1954); Odaka (1950); Srubar and Shimada (2005); Steiner (1936); Tamano (2007); and Tominaga (1975). For a treatment of major trends in postwar Japan (until 1969), see Wagatsuma (1969). After 1945, a strong American influence would characterize Japanese social Psychology. See Hotta and Strickland (1991). A mere one year after the founding of the Sociology Department at the University of Chicago. Tominaga (1975: 31). Incidentally, evolutionary theory was accepted sans the controversy that accompanied its reception in the Euro-American intellectual orbit. See Takasuna (2005: 89). Herbart, though he developed a sort of mechanics of the soul, still has an introcosmic, metaphysical view of the psychological; that is, he did not believe that Psychology could be experimental. In Japanese, kannen or hyōshō. Herbart’s thinking was still very much rooted in an introcosmic worldview, since he believed that while Vorstellungen were somehow rooted in the soul, the soul itself was beyond human comprehension. 1823–99. This tradition, of course, harks back to J. G. Herder. Richards (1992: 320). 1828–87; he taught Psychology, pedagogy, and ethics at the University of Prague. Jansz (2003: 30). Boring (1929: 250). 1872–1946. Robinson (2000: 1020). See also Wundt’s An Introduction to Psychology (1973 [1912]), Outlines of Psychology (1969 [1897]), and Elements of Folk-Psychology (1916). Shin-i or seishin was used in translations of Geist. 1871‒1902. Kayashima (1993: 20). This call for a lessening of American-style local control seems to have encouraged the departure of American advisers to the Department of Education; Luther W. Mason left Japan in 1882, Marion Scott in 1881, and David Murray in 1879. For a careful analysis of the Imperial Rescript of Education, see Shiro (1991: 346–50). Duke (1973: 14).

256

Notes

Chapter 7 1

2

3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Incidentally, in an interesting connection, many books, journals, and reprints that once belonged to Wundt have ended up in Tōhoku Imperial University in Sendai, Japan (Takasuna 2001a). Reed (1997: 144). Here we might note that from 1930s, statistics became a “hallmark of the scientific psychologist.” Starting in 1930s, the “discipline appeared to be defined by its methodological preoccupations and the training required to master them rather than by its subject matter” (Smith 1997: 587). Note that the Psychologist John E. Coover (1872–1938) was the first to advocate comparison of experimental and control groups as methodologically necessary (Dehue 2000). On the introduction of statistics into Japan, see Omi (1997). For detailed treatment of equipment, see Satō (2002a: 348–58). See also Osaka N. (2000d), Nishikawa (1999), and Ōyama (1998, 2004a). For equipment used in Tokyo Imperial University, see Ōyama and Satō (2000). For Kyoto Imperial University, see Osaka R. (2000c) and Osaka N. (2006b). Also, note that historical psychological instruments from the old Taihoku Imperial University are persevered in National Taiwan University. See Ōyama et al. (2006) and Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001). Also see Arakawa (2006). For a general view of the role of instruments in psychological research, see Sturm and Ash (2005). Measures tactile sensitivity. Records the velocity and force of chest movements during respiration. Determines olfactory thresholds. See Nishikawa (1999: 318). Evans (2000: 322). See Omi and Komata (2005) for a treatment of how data analysis in Japanese Psychology developed. Benjamin (2000: 318). A psychologist and philosopher, who wrote on aesthetics, ethics, and medicine, Külpe founded the Würzburg School of Experimental Psychology. Some of his better known works include Grundriss Der Psychologie (Outlines of Psychology, 1893), Einleitung in Die Philosophie (Introduction to Philosophy, 1895), and Vorlesungen über Psychologie (Lectures on Psychology, 1922). Benjamin (2000: 319). 1850–1909; also known for his important work on memory. 1874–79. See Smith et al. (2000). Tweney et al. (2000: 1015); see also Rosenzweig (1994). 1859–1924. Evans (2000: 323, 322). Shiken now means test or examination. Omi (1997: 445). See Satō (2002a: 340–41) for a discussion of the evolution of the notion of “experiment” in Japan. See also Osaka R. (2000a: 27–28). Nishikawa (1999: 318). Forty-three experiments have been recorded in a photographic album. Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 108–112). See Takasuna (2007a: 88) and Osaka N. (2000e), who provide detailed descriptions of the photos.

Notes

257

25 See Satō (2002a: 338–60) of a treatment of the establishment of the Psychology laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University. See Osaka R. (2000a) for Motora’s experiments. See also Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398). 26 According to Ohse and Noritoshi (1903). 27 Osaka (1998) and Takasuna (2007a: 88). 28 Ōyama and Satō (1999: 295). See Ōyama and Satō (1999: 293–310) for an analysis of the old instrument registry book for equipment in Tokyo Imperial University’s Psychology laboratory. They divide equipment usage in the Tokyo Imperial University’s Psychology laboratory into five periods: (1) Motora’s first period—1889–1900; (2) Motora’s second period—1901–12; (3) Matsumoto Matatarō—1913–26; (4) Kuwada Yoshizō’s first period—1927–34; and (5) Kuwada Yoshizō’s second period—1935–42. We should note that some equipment was registered with Motora before the founding of the first psychological laboratory in 1903. 29 For a treatment of Psychology laboratories outside university settings (e.g., in higher schools (kōtō gakkō), see Hidano (2000: 95–104). 30 Nishikawa (2008e: 164). 31 Kenkyūshitsu and jikkenshitsu are sometimes used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, the latter is a room with experimental equipment, while the former means a room for research (or perhaps more broadly, it indicates a program of study or even an institute). I am grateful to Takasuna Miki for explaining the usage of these terms. 32 Nishikawa (2008e: 163). See Nishikawa (2008e: 165) for a list of Psychology laboratories established in Japan between 1906 and 1933. See also Osaka N. (2000f ), Azuma and Imada (1994), and Ōyama (1998). 33 For the establishment of Psychology kenkyūshitsu in state-operated (kanritsu daigaku) and private universities, see Satō (2002a: 308–10). See also Suzuki and Takasuna (1997: 208–19). For development at Kyūshū University’s Psychology laboratory, see Sakuma (2000). Satō compares the contributions of three notable scholars who, after graduating from Tokyo Imperial University, established psychological laboratories in private universities: Kido Mantarō (Hōsei), Watanabe Tōru (Nihon), and Imada Megumi (Kansei Gakuin) (2008b: 183–84). 34 Bayly (2004: 319). Examples of professional and scholarly societies include: Tokyo Mathematical Association (1877); Japanese Engineering Society (1879); Tokyo Earthquake Study Society (1880); and Tokyo Biological Society (1882) (Ishizuki 1985: 178). Academic organizations were also founded in fields such as chemistry (1878); earth science (1879); seismology (1880); pharmaceutics (1881); botany (1882); meteorology (1882); anthropology (1884); agriculture (1887); medicine (1887); and electrical engineering (1888). Infectious disease institute (1892) was transformed into a state agency in 1899. Also, the first scientific journals appeared around this time, in areas such as meteorology (1875); mathematics (1877); zoology (1877–79); general science (1879); and seismology (1880) (Burks 1985a). 35 See Azuma and Imada (1994) for a brief description of the key role of this organization. For a treatment of the early stages of the institutionalization of Psychology-related journals and societies, see Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 64–74) and Satō (2002a: 323–330). For the sake of comparison, note that the American Psychological Association was founded in 1892 with 31 members; by 1900 it had 126. Membership in the latter organization overlapped with the American Philosophical Association (established in 1900), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (established in 1848; publisher of Science), and numerous local and regional

258

36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43

Notes organizations (Pate 2000). It is worth noting that before the First World War the number of psychological societies was relatively small and most organizations were formed after 1950. Pawlik and Rosenzweig (1994: 665). See Nishikawa (2005). For a list of speakers and topics for the first conference, see Nihon Shinri Gakkai Henshū I-inkai (2002: 15–17). In Japanese: Ōyō Shinri Gakkai, Kansai Ōyō Shinri Gakkai, and the Seishin Gijutsu Kyōkai. See Takasuna (1997a: 238–49), Nishikawa and Takasuna (2006), and Nishikawa (2008b: 90–2, 2008g). The Meiroku Zasshi was published by the Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society; active from 1873 to around 1900), an influential intellectual society that examined education, religion, politics, language reform, and other challenges facing a rapidly modernizing Japan. Mori Arinori (who became Japan’s first Minister of Education) founded the society. Prominent members included Nishimura Shigeki, Katō Hiroyuki, Nishi Amane, Tsuda Sen, Maejima Hisoka, Mitsukuri Rinshō, and Fukuzawa Yukichi. See Braisted (1976) and Huish (1972). Originally called Tetsugakkai Zasshi. Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 65–68). See also Suzuki (1997c: 161). For an idea of titles and topics in Geibun and Tetsugaku Kenkyū, see Osaka N. (2000c: 281, 283–85). For the sake of comparison, consider the development of Psychology journals in the United States. Key figures such as G.S. Hall, James M. Cattell, and James M. Baldwin aided Psychology’s institutionalization with privately owned and managed journals. Hall established American Journal of Psychology (in 1887; the only Psychology journal in the United States at the time) and Pedagogical Seminary (in 1891). These functioned like house organs for Cornell and Clark Universities and while at the latter, Hall’s publications served as an outlet for faculty and graduate students. Baldwin and Cattell established Psychological Review (in 1894; purchased by the American Psychological Association in 1925) and Psychological Monographs (in 1895; eventually affiliated with the American Psychological Association). In 1903 and 1904, Baldwin acquired Psychological Review and Psychological Bulletin. More focused on education and applied Psychology, Hall’s journals were appealed to a broader, more public-friendly readership. Cattell and Baldwin’s journals were more academic and experimental (and less pieces on applied topics) and had a larger, more international audience. In 1921, Cattell established the for-profit Psychological Corporation, which injected more into its research products. Journals gradually became more specialized and by 1917, about ten journals were spreading the word of Psychology into different intellectual realms. Examples include: American Journal of Religious Psychology and Education (established 1904); Morton Prince’s Journal of Abnormal Psychology (established 1905; renamed Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology); Journal of Applied Psychology (established 1917); W.C. Bagely, J.C. Bell, C.E. Seashore, and G.M. Whipple’s Journal of Educational Psychology (established 1910); Robert M. Yerkes’s Journal of Animal Behavior (established 1911); W.A. White and S.E. Jelliffe’s Psychoanalytic Review (established 1913); and J.B. Watson’s Journal of Experimental Psychology (established 1916). Evidence of the fragmentation of scholarly fields is apparent in how the Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods abandoned its mission to synthesize science and philosophy and was renamed the Journal of Philosophy in 1921. In 1900, 2,100

Notes

44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

259

Psychology articles appeared (mostly non-English); by 1998, 43,500 articles were listed in PsycINFO. See Johnson (2000: 1144, 1147). For an idea of titles and topics from 1919 to 1922, see Osaka (2000c: 287–88). For a treatment of psychological journals, see Takasuna (1997a: 238–49); Satō and Fukutome (1997: 413); and Suzuki (1997c: 165–72). For a discussion of Shinri Kenkyū, see Suzuki (1997c: 160–65). For a treatment of Acta Psychologica Keijō (or Keijō Shinrigaku Ihō), see Satō (2002a: 430–431). For a listing of article titles for Jikken Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of Experimental Psychology) (1934–41), see Osaka N. (2000c: 290–91). See also Satō (2008e). Ōizumi offers a very useful treatment of the history of Psychology journals and related publications (2003: 1234–91). Originally called the Tōkyō Gakushi-in, it came under the Ministry of Education in 1879. It was renamed Nihon Gakushi-in after the war. See Fumino (1997a: 463–64). See Fumino for a list of psychological researchers (and their projects) who received funding between 1927 and 1938 (1997a: 465). See also Mizoguchi (2006). Satō et al. (1997: 498). Satō et al. (1997: 498). Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 107). Pollack (1988: 419, 426, emphasis in original). Suzuki (1997c: 156–60). Satō (2008f: 113). The Society was dissolved in 1927. Hoshino and Umemoto (1987: 186–87). Satō and Hoshino (1997: 310–16, 311). Satō and Hoshino (1997: 316). Rose (1988: 182). Dehue (2000: 265). Jansz (2003: 32). Morawski (2000: 427). Jansz (2003: 1). Castro and Lafuente (2007: 111). Satō (2002a: 483). Hoshino and Umemoto (1987: 187). Satō (2002a: 481). Satō (2002a: 476–86). Marshall (1994: 93). Meanwhile, in America Lightner Witmer (1867–1956) was pursuing his interests in children’s academic and behavioral problems and what we call special education. Uchijima (1991). Satō (2002a: 499–500, 479–80). Which superseded the 1935 Youth Social Order. Formerly, the Greater Japan Federation of Youth Groups (Dai Nippon Rengō Seinendan). Formerly, the Japanese Association of Boy Scouts (Shōnendan Nippon Renmei). Now Osaka City University. Satō (2002a: 478–79). Satō (2002a: 479–80). See Satō for a list of Psychologists who worked in the Ministry of Welfare in 1938 (2002a: 479–80). See also Takasuna (1997c: 295–96).

260 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

111

112 113 114 115 116

Notes Satō (2008b: 174). Satō (2002a: 610–11). For a list of Psychologists who worked for the Ministry of Home Affairs, see Takasuna (1997c: 295–96). 1836–1909. 1847–1915. Satō (1997d: 195–97) and Satō (2002a: 507–509). Hoshino, Satō, and Mizoguchi (1997: 290). Satō (2002a: 489–97). Satō (1997d: 182). Satō (2008f: 101, 112–13). Satō (1997d: 181–82). Satō (1997d: 182). 1857–1911. 1873–1961. 1860–1944. 1871–1938. Stern is credited with coining the term “intelligence quotient” (IQ): mental age score divided by chronological age. 1877–1956. 1896–1981. 1876–1956. 1876–1954. 1874–1940. 1882–1962. 1875–1966. An inspector in Osaka, he would receive his doctorate from Kyoto University in 1950. Satō (2008f: 99–114) and Satō (1997d: 177). See also Azuma and Imada (1994: 709). Currently, the Suzuki–Binet and Tanaka–Binet (2004, fifth version) are used. Satō (2008f: 99–114). Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 399), Satō (2008f: 108, 111), and Suzuki (1997c: 177–78). Satō (2008f: 127–29). Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 399). Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 400). Robertson uses the term “ethnic national endogamy” (2002: 330). Originally called yuzenikkusu. Mizoguchi (1997b: 132–34). See also Satō (2002a: 568–91, 595–602) and Satō (2002b). See Frühstück’s (2003) treatment of eugenics in the context of Japanese sexology. Here it should be noted that in the late 1800s and early 1900s the nurture-versusnature distinction was not as clearly drawn as it is now; cultivating one meant bettering the other. This is why in Japan, though some did distinguish between culture and biology, the two terms minzoku (Volk or ethnonation) and jinshu (race) were at times used interchangeably, thereby conflating and confusing socialization and physicality. Hoshino, Satō, and Mizoguchi (1997: 274–90), and Satō (2008a: 231–36). Satō (1997d: 187–90). Satō (2002a: 500–503). 1895–1979. Tsutsui (2009: 443).

Notes 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

261

Now called Sangyō Nōritsu Daigaku (Industrial Efficiency University). 1865–1915. Tsutsui (2009: 466). See also Satō (2008f: 113–14) and Suzuki (1997c: 168–69). Presently Nihon Rōdō Kagaku Kenkyūjo. Taisei Yokusankai. For information on Hori Baiten, see also Nishikawa (2001d: 36–42). Nishikawa (2008e: 157–61).

Chapter 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19

20

Ōyama, Torii, and Mochizuki (2005: 83). Ōyama and Goto (2007). In Japanese, geshyutaruto. 1859–1932; a student of Brentano and Alexius Meinong (1853–1920). 1838–1916; proponent of logical positivism. His research on optical illusions had great relevance for perceptual Psychology. 1880–1943. 1886–1947. 1887–1967. 1848–1936. Takasuna (2008c: 140–41). They were part of the movement of Jewish intellectuals fleeing Germany in the 1930s. For treatments of Gestalt Psychology in Japan, see Sakuma (2000), Suzuki and Takasuna (1997: 242–45), and Takuma (2001). Takasuna and Satō (2008: 49). See Takasuna (2008c: 145–46) for a treatment of Sakuma Kanae and Onoshima Usao. See Takasuna (2008c: 143–44). “Kokugo no Onsei-teki Kenkyū.” His works include: Kokugo no Hatsuon to Akusento (Pronunciation and Accent in the National Language, 1919); Gendai Nihongo no Hyōgen to Gohō (Expressions and Diction in Modern Japanese, 1936); Geshitaruto Shinrigaku no Tachiba (The Standpoint of Gestalt Psychology, 1932); Gendai Nihongo-hō no Kenkyū (Research on the Rules of Modern Japanese, 1940); Nihongo no Gengo Riron (Linguistic Theory of Japanese, 1959). See Takasuna (2001c) who reproduces his notes on Gestalt Psychology. Specifically, parallelism (Ebenbreite) and “system of reference” (Bezugssystem). For Morinaga, see Shiina and Ōyama (2008). We might also mention Takemasa Tarō (1887‒1965). He studied with David Katz (1884‒1953) at the University of Rostock (1931‒33) and would teach at Tokyo Higher Normal School. See Takasuna (2006a). A key question among comparative Psychologists has been the purpose of research on animal behavior: Should it been carried out for its own sake, or should we discern how it sheds light on human Psychology? Also, are our minds end points in the evolutionary process, or only a stage in the development of what will eventually become a type of mind that is superior to ours as ours are to animals? See Dewsbury (2000b: 750).

262

Notes

21 Takasuna (2008d: 138–39). 22 See his Animal Intelligence (1882). 23 See his Animal Intelligence (1911). Thorndike, a student of William James and James McKeen Cattell, was also well known for his work in educational Psychology and mental testing. 24 Numerous early Psychologists, such as Wundt and William James, made contributions to comparative Psychologists. Other important names in this regard are the English biologist, archaeologist, and politician Sir John Lubbock (1834‒1913), the English biologist Douglas Alexander Spalding (1841‒77), and the American ethologist and primatologist Robert Mearns Yerkes (1876‒1956). 25 1877–1947; a graduate of Tokyo Imperial University who studied experimental embryology at Columbia University. He would later teach at Tokyo Imperial and then Keiō Universities. 26 1871–1939; a student of E.B. Titchener and the first woman to be granted a PhD in Psychology, she is considered one of the most important American Psychologist of the twentieth century and developed many lines of research, such as “motor theory” (1916). 27 In 1990 it was renamed the Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology). 28 Takasuna (2005). 29 See Takasuna (2008d). 30 Kan might be translated as perception, intuition, or even “sixth sense.” 31 Takasuna (2005). 32 See Takasuna (2006a: 119‒25). According to Takasuna, the contributions of Kanda and Yoshioka have been overlooked in Japan. Takasuna (2005). 33 1865‒1957; American Psychologist. 34 1868‒1964; American zoologist and eugenicist. 35 1886‒1959; American psychologist who developed a behavioristic-influenced theory of learning. 36 1890‒1958; influential American neuropsychologist; some consider him, along with J.B. Watson, the co-founder of behaviorism. 37 1876‒1956. 38 See Takasuna (2006a: 125‒28). 39 Other experimental physiologists that shaped Watson’s thinking were Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov (1829–1905) and Vladimir Bekhterev (1857–1927). 40 See his 1913 article, “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It”; often referred to as the “The Behaviorist Manifesto”). 41 Watson would also become a popular writer on education, child-rearing practices (e.g., Psychological Care of Infant and Child, 1928), and the advertising industry. 42 Skinner was also a prolific author, social reformer, and poet. 43 See Iwahara and Fujita (1963). 44 “Shinrigaku wa Ishiki no Gaku ka, Kōdō no Gaku ka.” 45 Mizoguchi critiques and rectifies earlier understandings of how Pavlovian theories were received in Japan. He provides a very convenient table chronicling the reception of Pavlov’s theories in Japan (2005: 101–2). 46 Entitled Ningen wa ika ni Kōdō Suru ka (How Do People Behave?). 47 See Satō et al. (1997: 521–23). 48 Mizoguchi (2005). 49 Ōyama (2004b).

Notes

263

50 1838–1917. 51 1833–1911. 52 1897–1976; a graduate of Kyoto Imperial University, he studied at Gottingen University, 1929–31. 53 Established by the Japanese Imperial Army in the puppet state of Manshūkoku. 54 Takasuna (2008b: 71–78), Maruyama (2000: 151–75) and Osaka (2006a: 83–88). 55 Takasuna (2008b: 76–78). 56 See his Muishiki no Shinrigaku (Psychology of the Unconsciousness, 1956) and Ishiki– Muishiki no Mondai (The Problem of Consciousness and the Unconscious, 1935). 57 For a recounting of how Chiba acquired portions of Wundt’s library, see Suzuki and Takasuna (1997: 219–20). See also Takasuna (2001c). 58 Here we might also mention Karl Bühler (1869–1963), who researched the varieties of subjective experience, such as doubt, surprise, and the “consciousness of consciousness” (i.e., interiorized feelings). 59 Boring (1929: 396). 60 Arakawa (2005). 61 Satō (2008b: 174–75). 62 1871–1938; born Wilhelm Louis Stern. Stern was an advocate of personalism. 63 Joy Paul Guilford (1897–1987) was an American Psychologist who studied under E.B. Titchener. He is known for his psychometric study of human intelligence. 64 Now called the Institute of Living. 65 Much of this section is borrowed from Hiruta and Beveridge (2002). 66 Satō (1997d: 192). In the early 1870s legislation would outlaw exorcism. 67 As opposed to “figurative metaphoricity.” In other words, we moderns do not actually believe mental activities take place in our viscera, though we regularly employ figures of speech to describe emotional, intellectual, and volitional acts. See McVeigh (1996). 68 Note that while many of us believe that the brain is the seat of the psychological, strictly speaking, mental operations do not spatially occur “in” our heads, that is, our neurological system is associated with, but does not contain, the psychological. 69 McVeigh (1996). 70 Hiruta and Beveridge provide a useful chart comparing the terminology of protopsychiatrists with the modern idiom for mental illness (2002: 147). 71 A collection of therapies that dates back to the Han dynasty. 72 See Hashimoto (2015). 73 Now Tokyo Metropolitan Matsuzawa Hospital. 74 Tōkyō-fu Tenkyōin. Originally called the Yōiku-in, it was set up in 1873 to house the poor, elderly, mentally ill, and orphans. In 1879 the mentally ill were placed in a different institution. 75 1835–1918. 76 1860‒1919. 77 For a brief treatment of how “nerve fibers” were conceived in late-nineteenth century Japanese Psychology, see Takasuna (2001c: 196–97). 78 Seishinbyō-sha Shitaku Kanchi no Jikkyō oyobi Sono Tōkei-teki Kansatsu. 79 See Satō (1997d: 192–93). 80 Lightner Witmer (1867–1956) is often credited with initiating training in clinical Psychology (1896 at the University of Pennsylvania), though apparently he had little faith in pscyhotherapeutics. Taylor (2000: 1029).

264 81 82 83 84

85 86 87 88 89 90 91

92 93 94

95 96 97 98 99 100

101 102 103 104

105 106

Notes Also called the “Boston school of psychotherapy” or “Boston school of psychopathology” (Taylor 2000). Taylor (2000: 1029). Taylor (2000). On the development of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Japan, see Satō (1997d: 199–201); Satō (2002a: 509–10); Satō (2002a: 549–65); and Satō (2008d: 126–27). For developments after the war, see Satō (2002a: 563–64). See also Blowers and Yang (1997). Gordon and Nair (2003). See Miyamoto (1973). Kanda Sakyō (a physiologist) also attended Freud’s lectures at Clark in 1909. Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 399). See also Kubo (1917b). For a discussion of “Seishin Bunseki,” see Satō (2008e). 1888–1972; British physician and psychoanalyst. 1879–1958; Welsh neurologist, psychoanalyst, and Sigmund Freud’s official biographer. At the time, Jones was president of the International Psychoanalytic Association. Satō (2008d: 126–27). Blowers and Yang (2001). 1866–1950; one of the most influential psychiatrist of the early period of the twentieth century. Though initially interested in psychoanalysis, he would later challenge some of Freud’s ideas. The city where Tōhoku Imperial University is located. Kokusai Seishin Bunseki Gakkai Sendai Shibu. Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 401). Satō (2008d: 127). See Iwata (2015) for a treatment of Kosawa. Here we might mention Kawai Hayao (1928–2007), a professor of Kyoto University and director of the International Center for Japanese Studies. He was Japan’s first Jungian analyst and received an analytic license from the C. G. Jung Institute in Zurich. See Tarutani (2015). See Satō (2002a: 562–63) and Kitanaka (2003). Satō and Satō (2005: 52). See Kitanaka (2003). Satō (1997d: 197–99), Satō (2002a: 510–13), and Satō (2008d: 124–26). Numerous works, in both Japanese and English, treat Morita and his therapy. For a recent work in English, see Ozawa-de Silva (2006). See also Kondo and Kitanishi (2015). Satō (2008d: 125). See Shimazono (2015) and Terao (2015) for a recent treatment of Naikan in English.

Chapter 9 1 2 3

Kayashima (1993: 14). Cited in Garon (1997: 11). Garon (1997: 11).

Notes 4 5

6 7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21

265

Marshall (1994: 136). For the relation between education and Psychology during the war, see Satō (2002a: 611–12). Also, Terasaki and Senjika Kyōiku Kenkūkai (1987) provide a useful analysis of how the state mobilized education. Cited in Horio (1988: 78). Efforts to meet military demands were also visible at the tertiary level. Institutions of higher education de-emphasized courses in the humanities and stressed science enrollments; intensive courses were instituted so students could complete their studies more quickly and then join working units for war production. Eventually, the draft deferment for students was suspended (October 1943) and their enlistment started on December 1, 1945. Related to Gestalt Psychology but in some respects different is Ganzheitspsychologie or “holistic Psychology,” a term associated with Felix Krueger (1874‒1948) who succeeded Wundt at University of Leipzig. The meaning of Ganzheit—whole, entirety, totality—resonates with Gestalt. Ōwaki Yoshikazu (1897–1976), who studied in Göttingen at Narziss Ach’s Institute of Psychology from 1929 to 1931, described Ganzheitspsychologie in Japanese after the war. See Takasuna and Satō (2004, 2008). Takasuna and Satō (2008: 47, 53). Garon (1997: 13). Takasuna and Satō (2008: 54–55). German: Ganzheitlicher Unterricht. Sometimes geshitaruto shinrigaku, keitai shinrigaku, or seitai shinrigaku (German: Gestaltpsychologie). His academic dissertation was “Über Richtungs-und Angleichungskontrast in einen Verband von zwei Tonschritten.” Now Humboldt University. Also working at the Ministry of Education was Masuda Kōichi (1898‒1982), a 1923 graduate of Tokyo Imperial University. He linked children’s education to Ganzheit– inspired Psychological thinking. See Takasuna and Satō (2008: 55). Takasuna and Satō (2008: 54). See Satō (2001d) and (2002a: 448–70). Satō (2001c: 250–52). Horio (1988: 64). Note that before the Taishō era had even begun, Japan had already exercised its imperialist muscles by defeating China in the Sino‒Japanese War (August 1, 1894– April 17, 1895); annexing Taiwan on May 8, 1895; ending extraterritoriality on July 17, 1899; humiliating a Western imperialist power in the Russo–Japanese War (February 10, 1904–September 5, 1905); and annexing Korea in 1910. Regardless of any appearance of the “loosening of bureaucratic control” during Taishō, the state core had already permeated society and constructed solid “substructures” from which it would extract excessive demands from the populace as Japan entered the 1930s. Much of this construction was done via state para-institutions and capitalist interests. Moreover, in 1904, the Ministry of Home Affairs set up a special unit to deal with “subversive ideas”; from April 1, 1904, the Ministry of Education began formal editing of elementary school textbooks; the Special Police exercised surveillance over schools; and radical nationalists such as Kita Ikki and rightist student groups attracted adherents; State Shinto was promoted; military training became compulsory in Japan’s public schools in 1925; and in response to student activities and other

266

22 23

24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42

Notes social movements, the state passed the infamous Peace Preservation Law on April 22, 1925 and a para-state student countermovement was launched, the nationalistic Japan Federation of Students (Nihon Gakusei Rengōkai). Indeed, the eventual “suppression of thought and the undermining of education were not, as some like to argue, excessive abnormalities arising during the period of Japan’s militaristic authoritarianism. They were not signs of the pathological breakdown of the Imperial State; they were the very principles by means of which it sustained itself ” (Horio 1988: 73). Takasuna (1997c: 295–96). The Nazis had nothing against Psychology as long as it was not “Jewish.” They pursued “hereditary environment Psychology” (Erbe-Umwelt-Psychologie) and “race Psychology” (Rassenpsychologie). Applications included enhancing military efficiency, educational guidance, and the National Socialist Public Welfare System (Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt). A relevant figure in Germany was Kurt Gottschadt (1902–91), director of the Division of Genetic Psychology at Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics. See Satō for a discussion of Psychology during wartime (2002a: 595–617). For examples of the specifics of military psychological research, see Satō (2002a: 602–11). Such as Kuwata Yoshizō. See Hoshino (1979). Kaigun Jikken Shinrigaku Ōyō Chōsa-kai Komon. Takasuna (1997c: 292–93). See also Hidano (2000: 79–82). Satō (2002a: 478–79) and Takasuna (1997c: 295–96). Satō enumerates key issues related to naval technical research from 1918 to 1945 and provides a list of projects that involved Psychologists from 1916 to 1945 (2002a: 604–6). Tsuruta (1980). Hoshino, Satō, and Mizoguchi (1997: 259). Satō (2002a: 515). Satō (1997d: 203). Hoshino, Satō, and Mizoguchi (1997: 260). Satō (2002a: 445). For the development of Psychology at Keijō Imperial University, see Satō (2002a: 420–47). For Psychology in Korea, see Cha (1987). See Hsu (1987: 128). In 1949, at the suggestion of Tong-mei Fong, the head of the Philosophy Department, Hsiang-yu Su established a Psychology Department in the Faculty of Science at National Taiwan University. The Chinese Association for Psychological Testing, which was founded on the mainland in 1931, was revived in Taiwan in 1951. Two years later the Chinese Psychological Association was set up. Satō (2002a: 307–8). Arakawa (2006). Blowers (2000). See Kodama (2001: 131) for an interesting table comparing how Nishi Amane and Yan Yongjing translated terms from Haven’s Mental Philosophy. Note that the Chinese characters originally used to translate “Psychology”—xinlingxue or literally “heart–mind spirit study”—were the same for spiritualism or occultism (in Japanese: shinreigaku). The intellectual Yan Fu, famous for introducing Darwin’s ideas into China, translated Psychology as xinli (Guo 2005: 8).

Notes

267

43 Lee (1987: 106). 44 See Blowers (2000); Jing and Fu (2001); Murphy and Murphy (1968); and Wang (1993).

Chapter 10 1 2

3 4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Rogers would visit Japan in 1961. See Sato and Graham (1954). See Nishikawa (2008g: 198) for a list of participants. For a discussion of historical materials, see Nishikawa (2001b). For a brief treatment of the Kyoto seminar, as well as some notes on the professional life of Nishikawa Yasuo, see (2006b: 50–54). See also Mizoguchi (2006: 100–1) and also Azuma and Imada (1994: 710). Azuma and Imada (1994: 710). Azuma and Imada (1994: 710). Nishikawa (2008g: 187). Though dated, see Tanaka and England (1972) for a review of what directions postwar Japanese Psychology has taken. For progress made in the history of Japanese Psychology, see Suzuki (1995), Misumi and Peterson (1990), and Iwahara (1976). For other postwar developments at the societal level, see Satō et al. (1997). Mizoguchi (1997c: 399–405). By law, each prefecture must have at least one teacher-training program. For postwar developments in university Psychology programs, see Fukutome (1997) and Fumino (1997b). Fumino (2005). Sato (2007: 134). Nevertheless, compared to the United States, fewer opportunities exist in Japan for professionally trained Psychologists. See Nakano et al. (1990). See also Azuma and Imada (1994: 712) and Mizoguchi (1997d: 324–38). Takasuna (2008a: 243). For information on postwar psychological organizations, including local-level societies, see Satō and Fukutome (1997: 409) and Fumino (2005). See also Satō (1997e: 482–85). See Satō’s treatment of articles that received awards from the major Psychology societies from 1951 to 1984 (1997: 481). Satō also deals with how submissions are evaluated (1997e: 473–79). See also Satō (1997e: 486–87). Satō (1997e: 473–96). Smith (1997: 575). Smith (1997: 576, 577, 575). Illouz (2008: 217). Smith (1997: 578). Castro and Lafuente (2007: 107, 109, 112). Jing (1994: 670, 671–72). See also Jing, Q.C. (Ching, C.C.) (1984). See Jing and Fu (2001) and Lee and Petzold (1987). Smith (1997: 579). Smith (1997: 599–600). Illouz (2008: 243). Illouz (2008: 6). Smith (1997: 578). Satō (2007: 134).

268

Notes

27 Azuma and Imada (1994: 711). 28 See Takasuna (2008a: 244). 29 Ōyama, Satō and Suzuki (2001: 399).

Epilogue 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

For example, though Fechner’s belief that everything possesses features of mind is alien to many of us, we all engage in a limited panpsychism when we anthropomorphize our pets, attributing to them features of human conscious interiority. Castro and Lafuente (2007: 110). Westney (1987: 13). See also Pyle (1996). Westney (1987: 6). Bayly (2004: 320). Maraldo (2004: 236). An important problem deserves at least a mention. In addition to exploring the global migration of ideas, a project such as this by its very nature concerns issues of conceptual translation. In relation to this, Douglas Howland brings up the tension between “authenticity” and “accessibility,” noting that an “interpretive text” may be “imaginably more suited to target readers and thereby make the original more accessible to the target reader…” However, it risks “being less exacting a version of the original” (Howland 2002: 67). See Quo (1966: 491–92) for problems of “adoption” versus “adaptation.” For the sake of comparison, consider Sprung and Sprung’s detailing of German Psychology. They treat three “methodological stages of development.” In basic ways these parallel what transpired in Japan. During the first or “transfer stage,” theories and approaches of the natural sciences were borrowed and applied to psychological problems. This was followed by the “dissent stage” during which the formation of schools or lines of theoretical investigation developed. Finally came the “consensus stage,” which witnessed the establishment of more institutions, research agendas, areas of instruction, and professional societies and journals. Major “schools” were further strengthened and new areas of practice emerged (counseling, therapy, and educational offerings). Eventually, Psychology and its various applications were recognized and certified by the state. More specifically, Sprung and Sprung have enumerated “six primary trends” of German Psychology: (1) the constitution of subject matter and experimental methods of modern Psychology during the first two thirds of the nineteenth century; (2) institutionalization (seminars, laboratories, institutes, etc.) within the university system and the emergence of alternative and complementary lines of development during the last third of the nineteenth century; (3) the continuation of institutionalization into the twentieth century leading to the formation of a “pluralistic system” of Psychology. Paralleling this was the appearance of temporary divisions among the major schools; (4) the “rise and fall of the major schools” between 1880 and 1950; the pluralistic system differentiates but is eventually integrated into an overall system of Psychology from around 1880 to 1950. This stage also saw the development of applied Psychology; (5) the emergence and institutionalization of applied Psychology as a profession around the beginning of the twentieth century; (6) the elaboration of the pluralistic system and the development,

Notes

10

11 12 13 14

269

professionalization and institutionalization of modern Psychology as a service profession after the Second World War (Sprung and Sprung 2001: 366–67). Also, for the sake of comparison, note Rice’s division of the development of American Psychology into five stages: (1) in the late nineteenth century courses related to Psychology make an appearance; (2) one or more Psychology courses are offered; (3) laboratories are established; in 1900 there were 39 in North America (note that after 1900, American Psychology saw a rapid specialization and a “newly expanded role” in academia (Tweney and Budzynski 2000: 10150; see also Rosenzweig 1994); (4) doctorates in Psychology are granted; (5) independent Psychology departments are set up (Rice 2000: 491). Cf. Azuma’s “pioneer period”: “Intellectual pioneers, native or foreign, realize the potential relevance of [P]sychology and introduce it at the textbook level (e.g., Amane Nishi and Inoue Tetsujirō)” (Azuma 1984: 54–55). Also, cf. Azuma’s “introductory period”: “Psychology is recognized by a number of people as an important field of study. Foreign experts and members of the intellectual elite trained overseas introduce technical knowledge (e.g., Matsumoto Matatarō in the prewar period and postwar seminars)” (Azuma 1984: 54–55). See also Nishikawa (2001c). Satō (2002a: 51). Azuma and Imada (1994: 709). Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 112). Cf. Azuma’s “translation and modeling period”: Psychology becomes widely known and the number of students and researchers increases. The majority of concepts and theories are translations of those from “developed” countries. Research is conducted but modeled after that of “developed” countries. Scattered, isolated attempts at indigenous [P]sychology begin to appear. Application is feasible only at a technical level for problems that are relatively culture-free (e.g., early aviation [P]sychology, tests of manual skills). (Azuma 1984: 54–55)

15 Cf. Azuma’s “integration period”: Psychology “gets freed, to a certain extent, from the rigid but otherwise unnoticed mold of traditionally Western concepts and logic. Psychology subsumes thoughts and concepts of non-Western origin, deepening and generalizing the understanding of human nature and thus becomes capable of dealing with non-Western phenomena without imposing a Western mold” (Azuma 1984: 54–55). Also, cf. Azuma’s “indigenization period”: “New concepts and theories appropriate to culture-bound phenomena are advanced by [P]sychologists who know both native and ‘developed’ foreign cultures. New concepts of indigenous origin are advanced that relate well to other concepts in the same culture. The application of [P]sychology to culture-bound phenomena becomes more effective” (Azuma  1984: 54–55). 16 Takasuna (1997a: 257). 17 Satō (2005b: 16). 18 Watanabe (1954: 3–22). 19 Satō (2008b: 175). 20 Satō (2005b: 16). 21 Hoshino (1979). 22 Arakawa (2005: 106). See Mizoguchi (2001b) for problems of periodization. See also Azuma’s stages (1984). Azuma notes (somewhat oddly in my view) that if

270

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Notes “many steps are skipped, however, the imported [P]sychology may fail to develop a full appreciation of the traditional culture and may be applied prematurely with disturbing rather than beneficial consequences and the indigenous [P]sychology that might have contributed to the development of mainstream [P]sychology may remain parochial and prescientific” (1984: 53–54). Takasuna (2006b). Nishikawa (2008e: 161–62). See also Nishikawa (1995: 5–8). Satō (2008b: 176–78). Satō (2008b: 178–80). Satō (2008b: 183–84). Satō (2008a: 219–37). See especially p. 236. Minton (2000: 613). Milar (2000: 616). Minton (2000: 613). For an important treatment of early American women Psychologists, see Scarborough and Furumoto (1987). Established in 1874 as Women’s Normal School. Established in 1908. Established in 1901. This section relies on Ōizumi (2003) for biographical details. We should note, however, that Okami Kyoko earned an M.D. from Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania in 1889. See a full-length biography of Haraguchi, see Ogino, Haraguchi Tsuruko: Josei Shinrigakusha no Senku (1983). See also Takasuna (2008e: 212–14). Gunma Kenritsu Kōtō Jogakkō; to become Takasaki Girls’ High School. On Haraguchi’s chance meeting Matsumoto, see Ogino (1983: 42–47). 1874–1949. Thorndike referenced her research on mental fatigue in Educational Psychology (1913–14). 1869–1962. For an assessment of her work, especially on mental fatigue, see Ogino (1983: 221–29). Takasuna (2008e: 217–18). Baika Jogakkō. Kobe Jogakuin. Now called Kobe Jogakuin University. Baika Gakuen. Tohoku was the first university which accepted women. Nihon Yōchien Kyōkai. “Shi’i Shinrigaku no Kenchi ni okeru Jidō no Shikō Sayō no Kenkyū.” Tōkyō Kasei Senmon Gakkō. Tōkyō Kasei Gakuin Tanki Daigaku. Takasuna (2008e: 217–18). Teikoku Joshi Igaku Yakugaku Senmon Gakkō. Katei Kagaku Kenkyūjo. Rinji Chūō Kyōryoku Kaigi. Taisei Yokusankai. Fuji Kokusai Heiwa Jiyū Renmei. Nihon Fujin Dantai Rengō Kaigi. Kokusai Fuji Shinri Gakkai. Takasuna (2008e: 214–17). 1912–98.

Notes 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

271

Takasuna (2008e: 217–18). Joshi Keizai Senmon Gakkō. Of the Onshi Foundation. Nihon Jidō Kenkyūjo. Later renamed the Hatano Fuamirīsukūru (Hatano Family School) in 1966. Full name: Shakai Fukushi Hōjin Nihon Katei Fukushi Kyōkai. Established in 1930 and located on an island off Okayama Prefecture. A convert to Christianity, Maeda was director of New York City’s Japanese Cultural Center (1938–41) and Minster of Education (1945–46). Tsuda Eigo Juku. Tōkyō Joshi Igaku Senmon Gakkō. Kobe Jo Gakuin Daigaku. Tsuda Juku Daigaku. Nihon Joshi Daigakkō. Nihon Joshi Daigaku. Pen name: Kobayashi Saeko. Nara Joshi Kōtō Shihan Gakkō. Tōkyō Joshi Shihan Gakkō. Tōykō-toritsu Kōtō Hobo Gakuin. Nihon Fuamirīraifu Kyōkai. Daigaku Semināhōsu.

Appendix 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

For an English biography on Mori, see Hall (1973). Kaneko (1985: 302–3). See Burks (1985c), “Japan’s Outreach: The Ryūgakusei.” See also Ishizuki (1985), “Overseas Study by Japanese in the Early Meiji Period.” Ishizuki (1985: 164). Or at least, according to Burks, an “inchoate nationalism” (1985c: 154), given the embryonic stages of nationalist identity of the time. Ishizuki (1985: 163). Burks (1985c: 150). Burks (1985c: 149–50). Ishizuki (1985: 169, 163). See Ishizuki (1985: 172–75) for examples of overseas students. Burks (1985c: 149–50, 150). Ishizuki (1985: 169–70, 176). Kobayashi (1979: 168–9). Burks (1985d: 193–4). Ishizuki (1985: 178). Jones (1985: 225, 250, 222). Schwantes (1985: 209). Burks (1985c: 158). Schwantes gives the lower figure of 14 percent for the same year (1985: 214–15). The “o” is an honorific prefix and yatoi means “menial.” Burks (1985d: 194). See Burks (1985a,b,c,d,e) and Schwantes (1985) for treatment of foreign employees.

272

Notes

19 20 21 22 23 24

Jones (1985: 249). Burks (1985d: 195). Jones (1985: 241, 226). The Department of Industry was abolished in 1885. Burks (1985d: 192–93). Ernest Fenollosa taught philosophy and political economics in Japan, but he was also made commissioner of fine arts for the empire. He was told by Emperor Meiji that “you have taught my people to know their own art” (Burks 1985a: 367). 25 See Umetani (1985), Jones (1985), and Motoyama (1985). 26 See Kaneko (1985). 27 Burks (1985a: 365).

Appendix 2 1 2

3

4 5

Bayly (2004: 315). Before the Meiji Restoration (1868), scientific knowledge did find its way into Japan. Note that towards the end of the Tokugawa period (1603–1867), interest in “Western Learning” (yōgaku) and “Dutch Learning” (rangaku) increased and scholars became particularly interested in medicine, physical sciences, art, navigation, surveying, shipbuilding, gunnery, and national defense. Eventually, scholars would turn their attention to English, French, and German. It was through such studies that knowledge of world affairs entered Japan. An examination of educational institutions of the late Tokugawa period reveals that, from early modern times, the Japanese authorities regarded learning as a decidedly practical matter intimately tied to self-defense. And during the closing days of the Shogunate, officials encouraged and strengthened research in Western knowledge. For example, the Tenmongata (Bureau of Astronomy), which had been founded in 1684 for astronomical and calendrical research, would eventually conduct surveying, cartography, and translation of Western languages and became an important official site for Western learning. Within this Bureau was the Translation Office (Bansho Wage Goyō), which in March 1856, was turned into the Bansho Shirabesho (Office for Investigating Barbarian Documents) under the control of the Shogunate. This institute became the Yōsho Shirabesho (Office for Investigating Foreign Documents) in 1862 and one year later, the Kaiseijo and given its purpose and curriculum, is “best rendered Center for Western Learning” (Sugimoto and Swain 1989: 396). However, its name literally means “Center of Development”—with “nation” understood as what needed to be developed—suggesting an early connection (at least for the authorities) between Japan’s interests, strategic schooling and knowledge from abroad. After the Shogun’s fall, this institution was abolished, but would be resurrected to eventually become part of the University of Tokyo. Other institutes that indicated a close association between strategic interests, Japan’s defense, and foreign know-how were the Naval Training Institute (Kaigun Denshūjo) in Nagasaki (which lasted from 1855 to 1859), where navigation, shipbuilding, and gunnery were taught, and the Warship Navigation Institute (Gunkan Sōrenjo), founded in 1857 by the Shogunate within the Military Training Center (Kōbusho) in Edo. Kobayashi (1979: 167) Bayly (2004: 319).

Notes 6 7

273

Kobayashi (1979: 168, 182) Burks (1985e: 410). See Motoyama (1985) for an example of the impact of Western influence in one domain. 8 Burks (1985d: 201). 9 Samuels (1994: 42). 10 Cf. Burks, who calls the early Meiji period an “age of translation” (1985c: 148). 11 Cited in Watanabe (1985: 386–87). Over a century later, the following comment from Baelz resonates with the oft-heard criticism that Japan's education system suffers from a weakness in basic research: “The Japanese people are content only with receiving the most recent developments and do not care to learn the basic spirit which has yielded these results” (cited in Watanabe 1985: 387).

Bibliography Abo, Tomoichirō and Ise Tsu (1886), Shinri Kōyō, Tokyo: Bunkadō. Abrams, Meyer Howard (1973), Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature, New York: W. W. Norton. Aiken, Henry D. (1962), The 19th Century Philosophers: The Age of Ideology, New York: Mentor Books. Anezaki, Masaharu (1900), Shūkyōgaku Gairon, Tokyo: Tōkyō Senmongakkō. Aoki, Seishirō (1922a), Kyōiku-teki Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kokon Shoin. Aoki, Seishirō (1922b), Teinōji oyobi Reittōji no Shinri to Sono Kyōiku, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten. Aoki, Seishirō (1924), Jidō Shinrigaku Josetsu, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten. Aoki, Seishirō (1943), Aoshōnen Rensei no Kadai, Tokyo: Asakura Shoten. Arakawa, Ayumu (2005), “Psychology of Feelings and Emotions: Its History in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 106–14. Arakawa, Ayumu (2006), “Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku Kenkyūshitsu no Tokushō: Kōgi Daimoku to Sotsugyō Ronbun kara,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 223–33, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Ariga, Nagao (1883), Shakaigaku (3 vols), Tokyo: Tōyōkan Shoten. Ariga, Nagao (1886), Kyōiku Tekiyō-Shinrigaku Jō, Tokyo: Makino Shobō. Asano, Wasaburō (1934), Shinrei Kenkyū to Sono Kishu, Tokyo: Shinrei Kagaku Kenkyūkai. Awaji, Enjirō et al. (1942), Sangyō Shinrigaku (Industrial Psychology, 2 vols), Tokyo: Kawade Shobō. Azuma, Hiroshi (1984), “Psychology in a Non-Western Country,” International Journal of Psychology, 19: 45–55. Azuma, Hiroshi and Hiroshi Imada (1994), “Origins and Development of Psychology in Japan: The Interaction between Western Science and the Japanese Cultural Heritage,” Special Issue: The Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National and Regional Perspectives, International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 707–16. Babe, Akio (1962), “The History of Sociology in Japan,” in Paul Halmos (ed.), Japanese Sociological Studies (The Sociological Review Monograph Series), No. 10: 7–13, Keele: University of Keele. Bain, Alexander (1874), The Senses and the Intellect, New York: Appleton and Company. Bain, Alexander (1880), The Emotions and the Will, London: Longmans, Green, and Company. Baldwin, J. M. (1897), Social and Ethical Interpretations in Mental Development: A Study in Social Psychology, New York: Macmillan. Barshay, Andrews (2007), The Social Sciences in Modern Japan: The Marxian and Modernist Traditions, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bayly, C. A. (2004), The Birth of the Modern World: 1780–1914, Oxford: Blackwell.

Bibliography

275

Becker, Howard (1936), “Sociology in Japan,” American Sociological Review, 1(3): 455–71. Begum, Hamida Akhtar (1987), “Psychology in Bangladesh,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 65–70, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bellah, Robert (1957), Tokugawa Religion: The Values of Pre-Industrial Japan, New York: Free Press. Benjamin, Ludy T. (2000), “The Psychology Laboratory at the Turn of the Century,” American Psychologist, 55(3): 318–21. Bernheim, Hippolyte (1899), Suggestive Therapeutics: A Treatise on the Nature and Uses of Hypnotism, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Bhanthumavin, Duangduen (1987), “Social History of Psychology in Thailand,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 71–89, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Binet, Alfred (1890), On Double Consciousness: Experimental Psycholgoical Studies, Chicago, IL: Openn Court Publishing. Binet, Alfred and Charles Féré (1887), Animal Magnetism, London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co. Blowers, Geoffrey H. (1987a), “Appendix: Notes on Psychology in the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 101–03, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Blowers, Geoffrey H. (1987b), “To Know the Heart: Psychology in Hong Kong,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 39–62, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Blowers, Geoffrey H. (1987c), “Appendix: Notes on Psychology in Macau,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 197–200, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Blowers, Geoffrey H. (2000), “Learning from Others: Japan’s Role in Bringing Psychology to China,” American Psychologist, 55(12): 1433–36. Blowers, Geoffrey H. and Alison M. Turtle, eds (1987), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Blowers, Geoffrey H. and S. H. Yang (1997), “Freud’s Deshi: The Coming of Psychoanalysis to Japan,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 33: 115–26. Blowers, Geoffrey H. and S. H. Yang (2001), “Ōtsuki Kenji and the Beginnings of Lay Analysis in Japan,” International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 82: 27–42. Boorstin, Daniel J. (1985), The Discovers, New York: Vintage Books. Boring, E. G. (1929), A History of Experimental Psychology, New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Bowne, Borden Parker (1879), Studies in Theism, New York: Phillips and Hunt. Bowne, Borden Parker (1882), Metaphyscis, New York: Harper and Brothers. Braisted, W. R. (1976), Meiroku Zasshi: Journal of the Japanese Enlightenment, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Brock, Adrian C. (2006), Internationalizing the History of Psychology, New York: New York University Press. Brožek, Josef M. (1999), “From ‘Psichiologia’ to ‘Psychologia’: A Graphically Documented Archival Study across Three Centuries,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 35(2): 177–80.

276

Bibliography

Burks, Ardath W. (1985a), “The Legacy: Products and By-Products of Cultural Exchange,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 359–68, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Burks, Ardath W. (1985b), “The Role of Education in Modernization,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 254–64, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Burks, Ardath W. (1985c), “Japan’s Outreach: The Ryūgakusei,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 145–60, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Burks, Ardath W. (1985d), “The West’s Inreach: The Oyatoi Gaikokujin,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 187–206, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Burks, Ardath W. (1985e), “Conclusions,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 409–14, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Callon, Michael (1986), “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay,” in John Law (ed.), Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, 196–233, Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Campbell, Colin (1987), The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Carpenter, William Benjamin (1875), Principles of Mental Physiology (2nd edition), London: Henry S. King. Cashdollar, Charles D. (1978), “Auguste Comte and the American Reformed Theologians,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 39(1): 61–79. Castro, Jorge and Enrique Lafuente (2007), “Westernalization in the Mirror: On the Cultural Reception of Western Psychology,” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 41 (1): 106–13. Cha, Jae-Eo (1987), “Psychology in Korea,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 163–82, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chan, Wing-tsit (1963), “Appendix: On Translating Certain Chinese Philosophical Terms,” in Wing-tsit Chan (trans. and comp.), A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chandra, Subhas (1987), “Psychology in Fiji: The Pioneering Stages,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 345–58, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Charles, Eric P. (2007), “Missed Opportunities: Speculation on What Japanese Psychology Could Have Been,” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41: 39–96. Chee, Changbo (1959), “Development of Sociology in Japan: A Study of Adaptation of Western Sociological Orientation into the Japanese Social Structure,” unpublished dissertation, Duke University. Chiba, Tanenari (1932), Kanjō no Mondai, Tokyo: Iwanami-Shoten. Chiba, Tanenari (1935), Ishiki–Muishiki no Mondai, Tokyo: Tōen Shobō. Chiba, Tanenari (1956), Muishiki no Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kawade Shobō. Congress of the Japanese Society for Child Study (1909), Notes: The American Journal of Psychology, 20(1): 156.

Bibliography

277

Coon, Deborah J. (2000), “Testing the Limits of Sense and Science: American Experimental Psychologist Combat Spiritualism, 1880–1920,” American Psychologist, 47(2): 143–51. Coon, Deborah J. and Heather Allard Sprenger (2000), “Psychologists in Service to Science: The American Psychological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,” American Psychologist, 53(12): 1253–69. Cooter, Roger (1984), The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organization of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cunningham, Andrew and Perry Williams (1993), “De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science,” The British Journal for the History of Science, 26(4): 407–32. Danziger, K. (1990), Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danziger, K. (1997), Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language, London: Sage. Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: J. Murray. Datson, Lorraine and Peter Galison (2007), Objectivity, New York: Zone Books. Davis, Winston (1976), “The Civil Theology of Inoue Tetsujirō,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 3(1): 5–40. Dehue, Trudy (2000), “From Deception Trials to Control Reagents: The Introduction of the Control Group about a Century Ago,” American Psychologist, 55(2): 264–68. Dewsbury, Donald A. (2000a), “Introduction: Snapshots of Psychology Circa 1900,” American Psychologist, 55(2): 255–58. Dewsbury, Donald A. (2000b), “Issues in Comparative Psychology at the Dawn of the 20th Century,” American Psychologist, 55(7): 750–53. Doi, Takeo (1966), “Amae” no “Kōzō,” Tokyo: Kōbundō. Duke, Benjamin C. (1973), Japan’s Militant Teachers: A History of the Left-Wing Teachers’ Movement, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University Press of Hawai’i. Elias, Norbert (1978a), The Civilizing Process, Vol. 1: The History of Manners, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Elias, Norbert (1978b), What is Sociology? (trans. Stephen Mennell and Grace Morrissey), London: Hutchinson. Elias, Norbert (1982), The Civilizing Process, Vol. 2: State Formation and Civilization, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Endō, Ryūkichi (1904), Nihon Shakai no Hattatsu oyobi Shisō no Hensen, Tokyo: Sōen Gakusha Shuppan-bu. Endō, Ryūkichi (1907), Kinsei Shakaigaku, Tokyo: Seibiō. Endō, Ryūkichi (1908), Shakai Shinrigaku to Kyōiku, Tokyo: Sebidō. Endō, Ryūkichi (1912), Nihon Ga, Tokyo: Sōen Gakusha Shuppan-bu. Endō, Ryūkichi and Ichikawa Genzō (1910), Danjo Seinen no Shinri, Tokyo: Keibunkan. Enriques, Virgilio G. (1987), “Decolonizing the Filipino Psyche: Impetus for the Development of Psychology in the Philippines,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 265–87, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Evans, B. Rand (2000), “Psychological Instruments at the Turn of the Century,” American Psychologist, 55(3): 322–25. Fechner, Gustav (1876), Vorschule der Aesthetik, Leipzig: Breitkopf.

278

Bibliography

Figal, Gerald (1999), Civilization and Monsters: Spirits of Modernity in Meiji Japan, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Foster, Michael Dylan (2006), “Strange Games and Enchanted Science: The Mystery of Kokkuri,” Journal of Asian Studies, 65(2): 251–75. Foucault, Michel (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York, NY: Vintage Books Fridell, Wilbur M. (1970), “Government Ethics Textbooks in Late Meiji Japan,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 29(4): 823–33. Frühstück, Sabine (2003), Colonizing Sex: Sexology and Social Control in Modern Japan, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Fuchs, Alfred H. (2000), “Teaching the Introductory Course in Psychology Circa 1900,” American Psychologist, 55(5): 492–95. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1900), Zēmusu-shi Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Ikuseikai. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1902), Shinrigaku Seigi, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1905), Saimin Shinrigaku Gairon, Tokyo: Seibidō. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1906), Saimin Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Seibidō. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1908), Kyōiku Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Kyūdōkan. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1913a), “Motora Sensei no Shinrigaku Kenkyū ni okeru Ippan-teki Ikō to son no Kekka,” in Ko-Motora Hakase Tsuikai Gakujutsu Kōenkai (ed.), Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 173–215, Tokyo: Kōdōkan. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1913b), Tōshi to Nensha, Tokyo: Hōbunkan. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1914), “Kannen wa Seibutsu Nari,” Hentai Shinri, 1: 159–79, 247–63. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1923), Shinrei to Shimpi Sekai, Tokyo: Hachiman Shoten. Fukurai, Tomokichi (1934), Seimei-shugi no Shinkō, Tokyo: Nihon Shinrei Gakkai. Fukutome, Akiko (1997), “Tanka Gakkai no Seiritsu to Senmon Bunka,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 366–98, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Fumino, Yō (1997a), “Kenkyūhi • Kenkyūhi Hojokin,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 462–72, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Fumino, Yō (1997b), “Shinsei Daigaku no Setchi to Ryō-teki Kakudai no Kiban,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 339–65, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Fumino, Yoh (2005), “Establishment of New Universities and the Growth of Psychology in Postwar Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 144–50. Furuhata, Tanemoto (1935), “Ketsuekigata yori Mita Nihonjin,” in Tōkyō Jinrui Gakkai (ed.), Nihon Minzoku, 85–101, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Furukawa, Takeji (1932a), Ketsuekigata to Kishitsu, Tokyo: Sanseidō. Furukawa, Takeji (1932b), Ketsuekigata to Minzokusei, Tokyo: Sanseidō. Garon, Sheldon (1994), “Rethinking Modernization and Modernity in Japanese History: A Focus on State-Society Relations,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 52(2): 346–66. Garon, Sheldon (1997), Molding Japanese Minds: The State in Everyday Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Godart, Gerard Clinton (2008), “‘Philosophy’ or ‘Religion’? The Confrontation with Foreign Categories in Late Nineteenth-Century Japan,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 69: 71–91. Gordon, Eleanor and Gwenyth Nair (2003), Public Lives: Women, Family and Society in Victorian Britain, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gotō, Iwao (1943), Rensei Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Teikoku Shuppan Kyōkai. Guo, Yangsheng (2005), “China at the Turn of the 20th Century: Translating Modernity through Japanese,” NUCBJLCC, 7(2): 1–15.

Bibliography

279

Hac, Pham Minh (1987), “Some Observations on the Historical Development of Psychology in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 89–100, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hagio, Shigeki, ed. (2001), “Kenkyū Tōron-kai: Fukurai Tomoichi no Gyōseki wo Megutte (panel discussion),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 166–85, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Hall, G. Stanley (1901), “The New Psychology,” Harper’s Magazine, 103: 727–32. Hall, G. Stanley (1904), Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relation to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, New York: Appleton. Hall, G. Stanley (1906), Youth: Its Education and Regimen, New York: Appleton. Hall, G. Stanley (1911), Educational Problems, New York: Appleton. Hall, G. Stanley (1921), Aspects of Child Life and Education, New York: Appleton. Hall, G. Stanley and Yūjirō Motora (1887), “Dermal Sensitiveness to Gradual Pressure Changes,” American Journal of Psychology, 1: 72–98. Hall, Ivan Parker (1973), Mori Arinori, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Halmos, Paul, ed. (1962), Japanese Sociological Studies, The Sociological Review, Monograph No. 10, Keele: University of Keele. Hara, Tanzan (1873), Shinsei Jikken-roku: Ichi mei, seigaku benkai, Tokyo: Gakuyō Shakurahan. Haraguchi, Tsuruko (1914), Shin-teki Sagyō oyobi Hirō no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Hokubunkan. Haraguchi, Tsuruko (1915), Tanoshiki Omoide, Tokyo: Shunjū-sha Shoten. Hardacre, Helen (1998), “Asano Wasaburō and Japanese Spiritualism in Early TwentiethCentury Japan,” in Sharon A. Minichiello and Gail Bernstein (eds), Japan’s Competing Modernities: Issues in Culture and Democracy, 1900–1930, 113–53, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press. Harding, Christopher (2015a), “Introduction,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 1‒24, London: Routledge. Harding, Christopher (2015b), “Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan: A FourPhase View,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 25‒50, London: Routledge. Harding, Christopher, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi, eds (2015), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, London: Routledge. Harper, Robert S. (1950), “The First Psychological Laboratory,” Isis, 41(2): 158–61. Hashimoto, Akira (2015), “Psychiatry and Religion in Modern Japan: Traditional Temple and Shrine Therapies,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 51‒75, London: Routledge. Hatano, Isoko (1950), Shōnenki, Tokyo: Kōbunsha. Hatano, Isoko (1954), Yōji no Shinri, Tokyo: Kōbunsha. Hattori, Unokichi (1902), Xinlixue Jiangyi, Shanghai: Shangyu Yingshuguan. Haven, Joseph (1857), Mental Philosophy: Including the Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will, Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln. Havens, Thomas R. H. (1968), “Comte, Mill, and the Thought of Nishi Amane in Meiji Japan,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 27(2): 217–28. Hayami, Hiroshi (1902), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Hokubunkan. Hayami, Hiroshi (1914), “Shakai on Kairyō to Iden,” Shinri Kenkyū, 26, 27. Hayashi, Goichi (1896), Kyōiku Ōyō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.

280

Bibliography

Hayashi, Takashi (1937), Jōken Hanshagaku숯Dainō-ryō Hankyū no Hataraki ni tsuite no Kōgi, Tokyo: Sanseidō. Heidelberger, Michael (2004), Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and His Psychophysical Worldview (trans. Cynthia Klohr), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hickok, Laurens Perseus (1849), Rational Psychology; or the Subjective Idea and Objective Law of All Intelligence, Auburn, NY: Derby, Miller, and Company. Hickok, Laurens Perseus (1853), System of Moral Science (3rd edition), New York: Ivison and Phinney. Hickok, Laurens Perseus (1854), Empirical Psychology; or, the Human Mind as Given in Consciousness, Schenectady, NY: G. Y. Van Debogert. Hidano, Tadashi (2000), “Wagakuni Shinrigaku Jikkenshitsu to Jikken Enshū: Meiji Chūki kara Shōwa Shoki made,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 65–107, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Higuchi, Hideo (1908), Shakai Shinri no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Shakaigaku Kenkyūjo. Higuchi, Kanjirō and Tominaga Iwataru (1906), Shakai-teki Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Hirada, Motoyoshi (1911), Shinrei no Himitsu, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Hirai, Atsuko (1979), “Self-Realization and Common Good: T. H. Green in Meiji Ethical Thought,” Journal of Japanese Studies, 5(1): 107–36. Hirai, Kinzō (1909), Shinrei no Genshō, Tokyo: Keimei-sha. Hirata, Motokichi (1912), Shinrei no Himitsu, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Hiruta, Genshiro and Allan Beveridge (2002), “Japanese Psychiatry in the Edo Period (1600–1868),” History of Psychiatry, 13: 131–51. Hobbes, Thomas (1994 [1651]), Leviathan (ed. R. Tuck), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, S. J. (1911), The Evolution of Animal Intelligence, New York: Henry Holt. Honjō, Seiji (1909), Ishi no Shinri to Sono Kyōiku-hō, Tokyo: Meguro Shoten. Honjō, Taichirō (1892), Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Hakubunkan. Hopkin, Mark (1873), An Outline Study of Man: Or, the Body and Mind in One System, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Horio, Teruhisa (1988), Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan: State Authority and Intellectual Freedom (trans. and ed. Steven Platzer), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Horne, H. H. (1905), “Review of An Essay on Eastern Philosophy (Y. Motora),” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Method, 2(18): 494–96. Hoshino, Akira (1979), “Current Major Trends in Psychology in Japan,” Psychologia, 22: 1–20. Hoshino, Akira and Takeo Umemoto (1987), “Japanese Psychology: Historical Review and Recent Trends,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 183–96, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hoshino, Mayumi, Tatsuya Satō, and Hajime Mizoguchi (1997), “Shinrigaku no Kyōiku • Shakai e no Eikyō,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 258–90, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Hoshino, Yukinori (1913), Gakuri-teki Jigyō Kanri Hō, Tokyo: Sūbunkan Shoten. Hotta, Miho and Lloyd H. Strickland (1991), “Social Psychology in Japan,” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 32(4): 596–605. Howland, Douglas (2000), “Society Reified: Herbert Spencer and Political Theory in Early Meiji Japan,” Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, 42: 67–86.

Bibliography

281

Howland, Douglas (2001), “Translating Liberty in Nineteenth-Century Japan,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 62(1): 161–81. Howland, Douglas R. (2002), Translating the West: Language and Political Reason in Nineteenth-Century Japan, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press. Hsu, Joseph S. Z. (1987), “The History of Psychology in Taiwan,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 127–38, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Huish, D. J. (1972), “The Meirokusha: Some Grounds for Reassessment,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 32: 208–29. Hyōdō, Akiko (2005), “Taishō-ki no ‘Seishin’ Gainen: Ōmotokyō to Hentai Shinri no Sōkoku wo Tsūshite,” Shūkyō Kenkyū, 79(1): 97–120. Ichikawa, Genzō (1900), Ribō-shi Kanjō no Shinri oyobi chūi no Shinri, Tokyo: Ikuseikai. Ichikawa, Genzō (1911), Chinō Sokutei oyobi kosei no Kansatsu, Tokyo: Kōfūkan. Ichiyanagi, Hirotaka (1997), Saiminjutsu no Nihon Kindai, Tokyo: Seikyūsha. Iggers, Georg G. (1965), “The Idea of Progress: A Critical Reassessment,” The American Historical Review, 71(1): 1–17. Ikeda, Shigenori (1927), “Yūsei Nippon no Teisho,” Yūsei Undō, 2(1): 2–3. Illouz, Eva (2008), Saving the Modern Soul: Therapy, Emotions and the Culture of Self-Help, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Imada, Megumi (1962), Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Imatani, Itsunosuke (1967), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku to Tetsugaku," Kirisuto-kyō Shakai Mondai Kenkyū, 11: 197–216. Inoue, Enryō (1886), Tsūshin Kyōju Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Tsūshin Kyōjuikai. Inoue, Enryō (1887a), Shinri Tekiyō, Tokyo: Tetsugaku Shoin. Inoue, Enryō (1887b), Shinri-ron, Tokyo: Tetsugaku Shoin. Inoue, Enryō (1894a), Kioku-jutsu, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan. Inoue, Enryō (1894b), Yōkaigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan. Inoue, Enryō (1895), Shitsunen-jutsu Kōgi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan. Inoue, Enryō (1898), Bukkyō Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan. Inoue, Enryō (1904), Shinri Ryōhō, Tokyo: Nan’e. Inoue, Enryō (1917), Shin Kioku-jutsu, Tokyo: Bunshōdō. Inoue, Tetsujirō (1881), Testugaku Jii, Tokyo: Tōyōkan. Inoue, Tetsujirō (1882), Bein Shinri Shinsetsu, Tokyo: Dōmiesha. Inoue, Tetsujirō and Asō Shigeo, eds (1883), Bein-shi Shinri Shinsetsu Shakugi, Tokyo: Dōmiesha. Isawa, Shūji (1882–83), Kyōikugaku, Tokyo: Hakubai Shoya. Isawa, Shūji (1883), Shinka Genron, Tokyo: Maruzen. Ishizuki, Minoru (1985), “Overseas Study by Japanese in the Early Meiji Period,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 161–86, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Itō, Dōki (1930), Yuibutsu Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Shakai Shisō Kenkyūjo. Iwahara, S. (1976), “Japan,” in Virginia Sexton and Henry Misiak (eds), Psychology from around the World, 242–58, Montgomery, CA: Brooks/Cole. Iwahara, Shinkurō and Osamu Fujita (1963), “Behaviorism in Japan,” Psychologia, 6: 59–65. Iwata, Fumiaki (2015), “ The Dawning of Japanese Psychoanalysis: Kosawa Heisaku’s Therapy and Faith,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 120‒36, London: Routledge.

282

Bibliography

Janet, Pierre (1901), Mental State of Hystericals (trans. Caroline Rollin Corson), New York: Putnam’s and Sons. Jansz, Jeroen (2003), A Social History of Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Jaynes, Julian (1976), The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Jing, Q. and Xiaolan Fu (2001), “Modern Chinese Psychology: Its Indigenous Roots and International Influences,” Special Issue: Origin and Development of Scientific Psychology in Different Parts of the World: Retrospect and Prospect at the Turn of the Century, International Journal of Psychology, 36(6): 408–18. Jing, Q. C. (Ching, C. C.) (1984), “Psychology and the Four Modernizations in China,” International Journal of Psychology, 19: 57–63. Jing, Qicheng (1994), “Development of Psychology in China,” Special Issue: The Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National and Regional Perspectives, International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 667–75. Johnson, Deborah F. (2000), “Cultivating the Field of Psychology: Psychological Journals at the Turn of the Century and Beyond” American Psychologist, 55(10): 1144–47. Jones, Hazel J. (1985), “The Griffis Thesis and Meiji Policy toward Hired Foreigners,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 219–53, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Josephson, Jason Ānanda (2006), “When Buddhism Became a ‘Religion’: Religion and Superstition in the Writings of Inoue Enryō” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 33(1): 143–68. Kakise, Hikozō (1911), “Beikoku ni okeru Saikin Shinrigaku-teki Daimoku no Ni-San,” Tetsugaku, 26: 495–507. Kamiya, Mieko (1966), Ikigai ni tsuite, Tokyo: Misuzu Shobō. Kamiya, Shirō (1897), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Bungakusha. Kaneko, Tadashi (1985), “Contributions of David Murray to the Modernization of School Administration in Japan,” in Ardath W. Burk, (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 301‒22, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kaneko, Tadashi (1987), “Japan,” in A. R. Gilgen and C. K. Gilgen (eds), International Handbook of Psychology, 274–96, New York: Greenwood Press. Katō, Hiroki (2002), “20 Seiki Izen no Zen-Shinrigaku Bunken-shū,” Komazawa Daigaku Shinrigaku Ronshū, 4: 23–43. Katō, Hiroki (2005), “Zen and Psychology,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 125–36. Katō, Hiroyuki (1893), Kyōsha no Kenri no Kyōsō, Tokyo: Tetsugaku Shoin. Katō, Hiroyuki (1900), Dōtōku Hōritsu Shinka no Ri, Tokyo: Hakubunkan. Kawai, Hayao (1982), Mukashibanashi to Nihon no Kokoro, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kayashima, Atsushi (1993), American Democracy on Trial in Japan, Tokyo: Ōtori Shobo. Kern, Stephen (2003), The Culture of Time and Space: 1880–1918, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kido, Mantarō (1939), Yōji Kyōiku-ron, Tokyo: Kenbunsha. Kido, Mantarō (1961), “Origin of Japanese Psychology and Its Development,” Psychologia, 4: 1–10. Kido, Mantarō (1968a), Yōji Kyōiku, Tokyo: Fukumura Shuppan. Kido, Mantarō (1968b), Shinrigaku Mondai-shi, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kimura, Kyūichi (1912a), “Seishin Bunseki-hō no Hanashi,” Shinri Kenkyū, 2(2): 52–57. Kimura, Kyūichi (1912b), “Himitsu Kanpa-hō to Yokuatsu Kannen Tansaku–hō,” Shinri Kenkyū, 2(3): 10–26. Kimura, Kyūichi (1913a), “Fukai Bōkyaku,” Shinri Kenkyū, 4(2): 1–13.

Bibliography

283

Kimura, Kyūichi (1913b), “Seishin Ryōhō no Hanashi,” Shinri Kenkyū, 3(1): 44–73. Kira, Kōyō (1885), Tōyō Shinri Shoho, Tokyo: Maruzen Shoten. Kirihara, Shigemi (1938), Shokugyō Shidō to Romū Hodō, Tokyo: Chikura Shobō. Kirihara, Shigemi (1940), Rōdō to Seinen, Tokyo: Kagakushugi Kōgyōsha. Kirihara, Shigemi (1941), “Sangyō Shōnenkō no Shomondai,” Shōnen Hogo, 6(12): 65–73. Kirihara, Shigemi (1942), Senji Rōmu Kanri, Tokyo: Tōyō Shokan. Kirihara, Shigemi (1944), Joshi Kinrō, Tokyo: Tōyō Shokan. Kishimoto, Nōbuta (1900), Shakaigaku, Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho. Kishimoto, Sōkichi (1935), “Wagakuni ni okeru Ōyō Shinrigaku-sho,” Ōyō Shinri Kenkyū, 3: 328–66. Kitanaka, Junko (2003), “Jungians and the Rise of Psychotherapy in Japan: A Brief Historical Note,” Transcultural Psychiatry, 40(2): 239–47. Kobayashi, Iku (1909), Shakai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Hakubunkan. Kobayashi, Iku (1910), Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū, Tokyo: Ikueisha. Kobayashi, Tetsuya (1979), “The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education,” in William K. Cummings, Ikuo Amano, and Kazuyuki Kitamura (eds), Changes in the Japanese University: A Comparative Perspective, 166–84, New York: Praeger. Kodama, Seiji (2001), “Yan Yongjing to Kanyaku Shinrigaku Yōgo ni tsuite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 125–34, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Kōdera, Shinsaku (1892), Jitsuyō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Seibidō. Koizumi, Mataichi (1904), Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Tosha. Kokumin, Kyōiku Gakkai (1900), Kokumin Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinshōdō. Komatsu, Y. (1961), “The Study of Economic History in Japan,” The Economic History Review, 14(1): 115–21. Ko-Motora, Hakase Tsuikai-roku (1913), “Chosaku Mokuroku,” Shinri Kenkyū, 3: 340–41. Kondo, Kyoichi and Kitanishi Kenji (2015), “The Mind and Healing in Morita Therapy,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 103–19, London: Routledge. Koyano, Shōgo (1976), “Sociological Studies in Japan: Prewar, Postwar and Contemporary Stages,” Current Sociology, 24(7): 7–79. Krstic, K. (1964), “Marko—The Author of the Term ‘Psychology.’” Acta Instituti Psychologici Universitatis Zagrabiensis, 36: 7–13. Kubo, Tsuyako (1935), Yōnen Shōnen Aonen no Kokoro, Tokyo: Shinseisha. Kubo, Tsuyako (1949), Jidō Shinrigaku―Yōnen Jidai, Tokyo: Bunkyo Shoin. Kubo, Tsuyako (1951), Kyōyō ni tsuite, Tokyo: Fuzanbō. Kubo, Yoshihide (1917a), Seishin Bunseki–Kinsei Shinrigaku Bunko, Tokyo: Shinrigaku Kenkyū-kai Shuppanbu. Kubo, Yoshihide (1917b), “Furoido Seishin Bunseki-hō no Kigen,” Hentai Shinri, 1, 1. Kubota, Sadanori (1902), Xinli Jiaoyuxue (trans. unknown), Shanghai: Shanghai Guangzhi Bookstore. Külpe, Oswlad (1893), Grundriss Der Psychologie auf experimenteller Grundlage dargestellt, Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Külpe, Oswlad (1895), Einleitung in Die Philosophie, Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Külpe, Oswlad (1922), Vorlesungen über Psychologie, Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Kuroda, Genji (1916), “Pavurofu no Jōken Hansha Kenkyūhō ni tsuite,” Shinri Kenkyū, 10: 33–19.

284

Bibliography

Kuroda, Genji (1924), Jōken Hansha Ron: Ishiki Seikatsu no Seirigaku-teki Kaishaku, Kyoto: Ikuta Shoten. Kuroda, Ryō (1933), Kan no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kuroda, Ryō (1936), Dōbutsu Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Sanseidō. Kuroda, Ryō (1944), Yuishiki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Koyama Shoten. Kuroda, Ryō (1948), Shina Shinri Shisō-shi, Tokyo: Koyama Shoten. Kurose, Tsuyako (1924), Jidō no Sōzō to Sono Kyōiku, Tokyo: Chūbunkan. Kurose, Tsuyako (1926), Wagako no Shinri―Iroiro no Seishitsu to Tadashii Shitsukekata, Tokyo: Keiseisha Shoten. Kusakabe, Sannosuke (1893), Shinrigaku Hyakumon Hyakutō, Tokyo: Nagashima Bunshōdō. Kuwabara, Toshirō (1910), Seishin Reidō, Tokyo: Kaihatsu-sha. Kuwata, Yoshizō (1916), Reikon Shinkō to Sosen Sūhai, Tokyo: Shinrigaku Kenkyūkai Shuppansha. Kuwata, Yoshizō (1918), Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Bunmei Shoin. Kuwata, Yoshizō (1924), Shūkyō Shinri, Tokyo: Nihon Seinen-kan. Kuwata, Yoshizō (1927), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Bunshinsha. Kyōiku Ronsō, Henshū Buhen (1920), Kosei Kyōiku-ron, Tokyo: Bunkyō Shoin. Ladd, George Trumbull (1889), Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory (4th edition), New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Ladd, George Trumbull (1890), Elements of Physiological Psychology, New York: Scribner. Ladd, George Trumbull (1898), Outlines of Descriptive Psychology, New York: Scribner. Lapointe, F. H. (1970), “Origin and Evolution of the Term ‘Psychology,’” American Psychologist, 25: 640–46. Le Bon, Gustave (1895), Lois Psychologiques de l’évolution des Peoples, Paris: Felix Alcan. Leary, David E. (1978), “ The Philosophical Development of the Conception of Psychology in Germany, 1780–1850,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14: 113–21. Lee, H. Wing and Matthias Petzold (1987), “Psychology in the People’s Republic of China,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 105–26, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lincicome, Mark E. (1995), Principle, Praxis, and the Politics of Educational Reform in Meiji Japan, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press. Lippert, Wolfgang (2001), “Language in the Modernization Process: The Integration of Western Concepts and Terms into Chinese and Japanese in the Nineteenth Century,” in Michael Lackner, Iwo Amelung, and Joachim Kurtz (eds), New Terms for New Ideas: Western Knowledge and Lexical Change in Late Imperial China, 57–66, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. Long, F. Y. (1987), “Psychology in Singapore: Its Roots, Context and Growth,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 223–48, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lutz, Catherine A. (1988), Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lyons, J. O. (1978), The Invention of the Self, New York: Feffer and Simmons. Maeda, Chōta (1910), Minzoku Hatten no Shinri, Tokyo: Dai Nihon Bunmei Kyōkai. Magaki, Keiai (1901), Kyōju-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Maine, Henry Sumner (1861), Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society, and Its Relation to Modern Ideas, London: John Murray. Makise, Goichirō (1892), Shinpen Shinrigaku Kōgi—Kyōiku Ōyō, Tokyo: Miki Shoten.

Bibliography

285

Maraldo, John C. (2004), “Defining Philosophy in the Making,” in James W. Heisig (ed.), Japanese Philosophy Abroad, 220–45, Nagoya: Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture. Marshall, Byron K. (1977), “Professors and Politics: The Meiji Academic Elite,” Journal of Japanese Studies, 3(1): 71–97. Marshall, Byron K. (1994), Learning to Be Modern: Japanese Political Discourse on Education, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Maruyama, Kinya (2000), “Seiritsuki no Tōhoku Daigaku Bungaku-bu Shinrigaku Kenkyūshitsu,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 151–75, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Masuda, Koreshige (1926), Jikken Shinrigaku Josetsu, Tokyo: Shibundō. Masuda, Koreshige (1914), Dōbutsu shinrigaku: Chinō no Shinka, Tokyo: Furokaku. Matthews, Gareth (2000), “Internalist Reasoning in Augustine for Mind–Body Dualism,” in John P. Wright and Paul Potter (eds), Psyche and Soma, 133–46, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Matsumoto, Bunzaburō (1897), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Keigyōsha. Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1898a), Futsū Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Okazaki Yashoten. Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1898b), Jidō Shinrigaku Kōwa, Tokyo: Hakubunkan. Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1900), Teichienā-shi Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō Shuppan-bu. Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1903), Futsū Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Seibidō. Matsumoto, Kōjirō and Takashima Heisaburō (1899), Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Fukyū-sha. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1912), “Yūryō Shuzoku no Shōchō,” Shinri Kenkyū, 1, 1. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1914a), Jikken Shinrigaku Jū Kō, Tokyo: Kōdōkan. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1914b), Seishin-teki Dōsa, Tokyo: Rokugōkan. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1915), Gendai no Nihonga, Tokyo: Hokubunkan. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1917), Wataridori Nikkei, Tokyo: Jitsugyō no Nipponsha. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1924), Shinrigaku Kōwa, Tokyo: Kaizōsha. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1926a), Jisseikatsu to Shinri, Tokyo: Jitsugyō no Nipponsha. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1926b), Kaiga Kanshō no Shinri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1929a), Soshitsu no Shinri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1929b), Chinō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kaizōsha. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1930), Shominzoku no Geijutsu, Tokyo: Kaizōsha. Matsumoto, Matatarō (1937), Shinrigaku-sh, Tokyo: Kaizōsha. Matsushima, Tsuyoshi, Tanaka Tōsaku, Satō Kisei, and Hashimoto Takeshi (1886), Bein Shinri Zensho, Tokyo: Fukyūsha. Matsuyama, Iwao (1993), Uwasa no Enkinhō, Tokyo: Seidōsha. McHoul, Alec and Wendy Grace (1995), A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject, New York: New York University Press. McVeigh, Brian (n.d.), “Motora’s ‘Exchange, Considered as the Principle of Social Life’: The Intellectual Roots of Japan’s First Psychologist” (unpublished monograph). McVeigh, Brian J. (1996), “Standing Stomachs, Clamoring Chests and Cooling Livers: Metaphors in the Psychological Lexicon of Japanese,” Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 25–50. McVeigh, Brian J. (2009), “Globalizing Spiritual Physics: Motora Yūjirō and the Origins of Japanese Psychology,” presented at the Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies. University of Arizona, October 23–24. McVeigh, Brian J. (2010), “Globalizing Spiritual Physics: Motora Yūjirō and the Origins of Japanese Psychology,” presented at the Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies. California State University, Northridge, October 22–23.

286

Bibliography

McVeigh, Brian J. (2015), The Propertied Self: The Psychology of Economic History, Piscataway, NJ: Nova Publishers. Merle, John (1916), Davis, Soldier Missionary: A Biography of Rev. Jerome D. Davis, D.D., Lieut-Colonel of Volunteers and for Thirty-Nine Years a Missionary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in Japan, Boston, MA: Pilgrim Press. Milar, Katharine S. (2000), “The Generation of Women Psychologist and the Psychology of Women,” American Psychologis, 55(6): 616–19. Mill, John Stuart (1843), A System of Logic, London: John W. Parker, West Strand. Mill, John Stuart (1848 [1891]), Principles of Political Economy, New York: Appleton and Company. Mill, John Stuart (1873), The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, New York: Henry Holt and Company. Mine, Koresaburō (1893), Ōyō Shinrigaku—Chūtō Kyōiku, Tokyo: Hakubunkan. Minear, Richard H. (1973), “Nishi Amane and the Reception of Western Law in Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica, 28(2): 151–75. Minton, Henry L. (2000), “Psychology and Gender at the Turn of the Century,” American Psychologist, 55(6): 613–15. Misumi, Jūji. (1978), Rīdāshippu Kōdō no Gakka, Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Misumi, J. and T. Ōyama, eds (1989), “Special Issue: Applied Psychology in Japan,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38: 307–451. Misumi, Jyuji and Mark F. Peterson (1990), “Psychology in Japan,” Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 213–41. Miura, Kanzō (1916), Hanzai to Iden—Kosei no Kyōiku, Tokyo: Ryūbunkantosho. Miyamoto, Tadao (1973), “The Japanese and Psychoanalysis,” The Japan Interpreter, 8(3): 387–89. Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997a), “Hajime,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, i–iii, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997b), “Shinreishugi, Seimeishugi to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 124–36, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997c), “Dai 20-kai Kokusai Shinrigaku Kaigi,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 399–405, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997d), “Sengo Gakujutsu Taisei no Saikō,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 324–38, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Mizoguchi, Hajime (2001a), “Shirigaku-shi no Hisutoriogurafuī: Akuron Daigaku Shinrigaku-shi Shiryōshitsu Zōsho wo Tsūjite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 155–64, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Mizoguchi, Hajime (2001b), “‘Kindai Shinrigaku’ ka ‘Gendai Shinrigaku’ ka: Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku Kenkyū Taisei no Rūtsu Mondai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 186–90, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Mizoguchi, Hajime (2006), “Nichibei Kenkyū Josei Zaidan to Shinrigaku: Kānegī Zaidan, Rokkufuerā Zaidan, Saitō Hō-onkai no Baai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 83–114, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Mizoguchi, Hazime (2005), “Reception of Pavlov’s Theory in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 95–105.

Bibliography

287

Mochizuki, Makoto (1879), Kioku Kakujū-ron, Tokyo: Shiseidō. Moglni, S. M. (1987), “Development of Modern Psychology in Pakistan,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 23–38, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Morawski, Jill G. (2000), “Social Psychology a Century Ago,” American Psychologist, 55(4): 427–30. Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1898), Psychology for Teachers, New York: Scribner. Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1890), Animal Life and Intelligence, Boston, MA: Ginn and Company. Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1894), An Introduction to Comparative Psychology, London: Walter Scott. Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1900), Animal Behavior, London: Edward Arnold. Morimoto, Kakuya and Tomeri Tanimoto (1887), Shintai Sōkan no Ri, Tokyo: Ōkura Shoten. Moscovici, Serge (1981), “Forward,” in Andrew Lock and Paul Heelas (eds), Indigenous Psychologies: The Anthropology of Self, vii–xi, New York: Academic Press. Motora, Yūjirō (1881), “Bakuteriya” Baikin no ishhu no Setsu,” Rikugō Zasshi, 4(1): 231–32. Motora, Yūjirō (1884), Kyōiku Shinron, Tokyo: Chūkindō. Motora, Yūjirō (1889–91), “Seishin Butsurigaku,” Tetsugakkai Zasshi, 3: 63–77, 197–208, 256–70, 309–22, 433–46, 571–81; 4: 1–12, 63–79, 249–70, 330–43, 497–516; 5: 837–48. Motora, Yūjirō (1890), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Motora, Yūjirō (1893), Rinrigaku, Tokyo: Fuzanbō. Motora, Yūjirō (1895a), “Sanzen Nikki,” Nihon Shūkyō, 1(2): 91–94. Motora, Yūjirō (1895b), “Shakai Shinrigaku,” Ryūmon Zasshi, 83: 11–17. Motora, Yūjirō (1895c), “Shakai Shinrigaku,” Ryūmon Zasshi, 84: 13–18. Motora, Yūjirō (1897a), Shinrigaku Jū-kai Kōgi, Tokyo: Fuzanbō. Motora, Yūjirō (1897b), “Shakai Shinrigaku (Dai-ichi Shō Jinkaku-ron),” Shūkyō, 12: 25–32. Motora, Yūjirō (1897c), “Shakai Shinrigaku (Dai-ni Shō Shakaigaku to Shinrigaku no Kankei),” Shūkyō, 13: 85–93. Motora, Yūjirō (1900a), Vunto-shi Shinrigaku Gairon (co-translated with Nakajima Taizō), Tokyo: Dōbunka. Motora, Yūjirō (1900b), Chūtō Kyōiku Rinri Kōwa, Tokyo: Dōbunka. Motora, Yūjirō (1903a), “A Study on the Conductivity of the Nervous System,” American Journal of Psychology, 14: 329–50. Motora, Yūjirō (1903b), “Shinkei no Dentatsu Sayō ni Kansuru Kenkyū,” Shinkei-gaku Zasshi, 2(1): 6–44. Motora, Yūjirō (1904), “Seishin-chū no Tōitsu Sayō ni tsuite,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 19: 239–56. Motora, Yūjirō (1905a), “The Idea of Ego in Oriental Philosophy,” Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di psicologia, 365–66. Motora, Yūjirō (1905b), “Tōyō Testugaku ni okeru Jiga no Kannen,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 20: 1–14. Motora, Yūjirō (1905c), “Tōyō Testugaku ni okeru Jiga no Kannen,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 20: 15–29. Motora, Yūjirō (1905d), “Tōyō Testugaku ni okeru Jiga no Kannen,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 20: 31–40. Motora, Yūjirō (1905e), “Conflict of Religion and Science: From a Japanese Point of View,” Monist, 15: 398–408.

288

Bibliography

Motora, Yūjirō (1907a), Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Kōdōkan. Motora, Yūjirō (1907b), “Shizenkai ni okeru Jinrui no Kinō ni tsukite,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 22: 879–917. Motora, Yūjirō (1909a), Ronbun-shū, Tokyo: Kōdōkan. Motora, Yūjirō (1909b), “Kokoro to wa Nani zoya,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 24: 227–38. Motora, Yūjirō (1909c), “Kokoro to wa Nani zoya,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 24: 327–35. Motora, Yūjirō (1909d), “Kokoro to wa Nani zoya,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 24: 421–39. Motora, Yūjirō (1910a), “Puragumachizumu ni tsuite,” Kyōiku Jikken-kai, 25: 17–19. Motora, Yūjirō (1910b), “Zen wa Puragumachizumu,” Kokumin Kyōiku, 1: 29. Motora, Yūjirō (1911), “Ein Experiment zur Einubung von Aufmerksamkeit,” Zeilschrift für Kinderforschung, 16: 214–25. Motora, Yūjirō (1912), Kyōiku Byōri oyobi Chiryōgaku (co-authored with Sakaki Yasusaburō), Tokyo: Fuzanbō. Motora, Yuzero [Yūjirō] (1888), ‘Exchange, Considered as the Principles of Social Life’, Unpublished dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. Motoyama, Yukiko (1985), “The Education Policy of Fukui and William Elliot Griffis,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 265–300, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Mumford, Lewis (1934), Technics and Civilization, Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace and Company. Munandar, S. C. Utami and A. S. Munandar (1987), “Psychology in Indonesia: Its Past, Present and Future,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 249–64, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Murphy, Gardner and Lois B. Murphy, eds (1968), Asian Psychology, New York, NY: Basic Books. Murray, David J., Andrea R. Kilgour, and Louise Wasylkiw (2000), “Conflicts and Missed Signals in Psychoanalysis, Behaviorism, and Gestalt Psychology,” American Psychologist, 55(4): 422–26. Nagai, Michio (1965), Nihon no Daigaku, Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha. Nagai, Michio (1954), “Herbert Spencer in Early Meiji Japan,” The Far Eastern Quarterly, 14(1): 55–64. Nakajima, Rikizō (1898), Shinrigaku Satsuyō, Tokyo: Fukyūsha. Nakajima, Taizō (1897), Futsū Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Fukushima-ken Shiritsu NishiShirakawa Kyōikukai Kyōiku Bukai. Nakajima, Taizō (1898), Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Kaihatsusha. Nakajima, Taizō (1915), Kosei Shinri oyobi Hikaku Shinri, Tokyo: Fuzanbō. Nakamura, Kokyō (1917), “Nijū Jinkaku no Shōnen,” Hentai Shinri, 1: 65–69. Nakamura, Kokyō (1918), Hentai Shinrigaku Kōwa-shū, Tokyo: Nihon Seishin Igakkai. Nakamura, Kokyō (1919), Hentai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Nakamura, Kokyō (1920), Ōmotokyō no Kaibō: Gakuri-teki Gensei Hihan, Tokyo: Nihon Seishin Igakkai. Nakamura, Kokyō (1931), Seimeiryoku no Hatten, Tokyo: Shunjunsha. Nakano, Yoshie, Marjorie H. Richey, Rhonda A. Bohs, James E. Koch, Mary E. Mannion, and Robert W. Warbin (1990), “Undergraduate Psychology in Japan and the United States,” Teaching of Psychology, 17(3): 152–58. Narazaki, Asatarō (1924), Sembatsu-hō Gairon, Tokyo: Chūbunkan. Narusawa, Akira (1997), “The Social Order of Modern Japan,” in Banno Junji (ed.), The Political Economy of Japanese Society: Volume 1: The State or the Market? 193–236, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bibliography

289

Nasu, Kiyoshi (1942), Ningen wa ika ni Kōdō Suru ka, Tokyo: Sōgensha. Nelson, Victoria (2001), The Secret Life of Puppets, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nihon Shinri, Gakkai Henshū I-inkai (2002), Nihon Shinri Gakkai 75 Nenshi, Tokyo: Shadan Hōjin Nihon Shinri Gakkai (publication venue not given). Nishi, Amane (1875a), Shinrigaku 1, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō. Nishi, Amane (1875b), Shinrigaku 2, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō. Nishi, Amane (1876), Shinrigaku 3, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō. Nishi, Amane (1878a), Rigaku, Tokyo: Shimura Rijo. Nishi, Amane (1878b), Shinrigaku-jō, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō. Nishi, Amane (1879), Shinrigaku-ka, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō. Nishi, Amane (1966), Seisei Hatsu-un, in Nishi Amane Zenshū, Ōkubo Riken (ed.), Tokyo: Munetaka Shobō. Nishikawa, Yasuo (1995), “‘Daigaku Shinrigaku’ wo motarashita Futari no Nihonjin,” Jōchi Daigaku Shinrigaku Nenpō, 19: 1–8. Nishikawa, Yasuo (1998), “‘Shinrigaku’ to iu Gakumei no Kigen: Mentaru • Fuirosofuī ka Saikorojīka,” Kagaku Kisoron Kenkyū, 26(1): 17–22. Nishikawa, Yasuo (1999), “Jikken Shinrigaku ni okeru Rekishi-teki Shinrigaku Jikken Kiki wo Megutte,” Japanese Psychological Review, 42(3): 313–25. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001a), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshiteki Kentō, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001b), “Akuron Daigaku Amerika Shinrigaku-shi Shiryōkan (AHAP) Saihō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 43–51, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001c), “Wagakuni e no Shinrigaku no Juyō to Teichaku Katei wo Ninatta Sendatsu-tachi,” Shinrigaku Hyōron, 44(4): 441–65. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001d), “Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō: Meiji • Taishō-ki ni Ryūgaku shita Sendatsu, Jirei Kenshō ‘Hori Baiten’ no Baai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 36–42, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Nishikawa, Yasuo (2005), “An Overview of the History of Psychology in Japan and the Background to the Development of the Japanese Psychological Association,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 63–72. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2006a), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Nishikawa, Yasuo (2006b), “Personal Background as a Psychologist,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 50–54, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Nishikawa, Yasuo (2006c), “Poster Presentation,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 40–41, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008a), “Maegaki,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 3–7, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008b), “Nihon no Shinrigaku no Hirogari,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 80–98, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008c), “Nihon no ‘Shinrigaku-shi’ e no Dōnyū,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 16–34, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008d), “Atogaki,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 251–55, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.

290

Bibliography

Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008e), “Nakajima Taizō, Hori Baiten, Yokoyama Matsusaburō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 149–66, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008f ), “‘Shin Shinrigaku-shi’ no Michibikite to Wagakuni e no inyū to teichaku wo ninatta sendatsu-tachi,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 35–57, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008g), “Nihon Shinrigaku Kai no Hensen wo Tsūjite Mita Shinrigaku no Ichi,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 186–207, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Nishikawa, Yasuo and Miki Takasuna (2006), “The History of the Japanese Psychological Association (JPA) (poster presentation),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 44–46, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Nishikawa, Yasuo and Miki Takasuna, eds (2008), Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Nishimura, Shigeki (1885), Shingaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Nippon Kōdō-kai. Nishimura, Shigeki (1892), Shingaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Kakkōken Insatsusha Yoshikawa Hanshichi. Nørretranders, Tor (1998), The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size, New York: Penguin Books Nogami, Toshio (1909), Jikken Shinirgaku, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Nogami, Toshio (1912a), Jojutsu to Meishin, Tokyo: Kōdōkan. Nogami, Toshio (1912b), Kyōiku-teki Jikken Shinrigaku, Kyoto: Kyōto-fu Kyōikukai. Nose, Sakae (1893), Kyōiku Ōyō숯Kon-shi Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Obonai, Torao (1941), “Kokubō Shinrigaku no Genkyō,” in Kokubō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kawade Shobō. Oda, Susumu et al. (2001), “Hentai Shinri” to Nakamura Kokyō: Taishō Bunka e no Shinshikaku, Tōkyō: Fuji Shuppan. Odaka, Kunio (1950), “Japanese Sociology: Past and Present,” Social Forces, 28(4): 400–09. Ogino, Izumi (1983), Haraguchi Tsuruko: Josei Shinrigakusha no Senku, Nagano: Ginga Shobō. Oguma, Toranosuke (1916), Shinrei Genshō no Mondai, Tokyo: Shinrigaku Kenkyū-kai Shuppansha. Oguma, Toranosuke (1924), Shinrei Genshō no Kagaku, Tokyo: Shinkōsha. Ōizumi, Hiroshi (2003), Nihon Shinrigaku-sha Jiten, Tokyo: Kress Shuppan. Oka, Hiroko (1970), Nyūji-ki no Hattatsu, Tokyo: Shinyōsha. Okabe, Yatarō (1923), Kyōiku Sokutei, Tokyo: Kyōiku Kenkyū-kai. Okamoto, S. (1976), “Dr. Matatarō Matsumoto: His Career and Achievements,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 12(1): 31–38. Omi, Yasuhiro (1997), “Kenkyū-hō no Hensen,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 444–61, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Omi, Yasuhiro and Seiji Komata (2005), “The Evolution of Data Analyses in Japanese Psychology,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 137–43. Ōmichi, Waichi (1913), Shakai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Omura, A. (1990), “Japan,” in G. Schouksmith and E. Schouksmith (eds), Psychology in Asia and Pacfic: Status Reports on Teaching and Research in Eleven Countries, 207–37, Bangkok: UNESCO. Onoshima, Usao (1930), Saikin Shinrigaku Jūni-kō, Tokyo: Baifukan. Onoshima, Usao (1932), Saikin Shinrigaku Gaisetsu, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten. Onoshima, Usao (1933), Seikaku Shinrigaku to Jidō Kenkyū, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten.

Bibliography

291

Onoshima, Usao (1937), Shinrigaku Yōsetsu, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten. Onoshima, Usao (1946), Gendai Seikaku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Utatane Bunsho. Ooms, Herman (1985), Tokugawa Ideology, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Osaka, Naoyuki, ed. (2000a), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Naoyuki (2000b), “Maegaki,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, i–ii, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Naoyuki (2000c), “Jikken Shinrigaku no Seiritsu • Hattenki ni okeru Gakujutsu-shi no Kiyo: Kyōto Daigaku no Baai,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 279–302, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Naoyuki (2000d), “Shinrigaku Kenkyūshitsu ni okeru Koten Kiki,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 327–45, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Naoyuki (2000e), “‘Jikken Shinrigaku Shashinchō’ ni Miru Meijiki no Shinrigaku Jikken to Koten-teki Jikken Kiki,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 112–50, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Naoyuki (2000f ), “Jikken Shinrigaku Seiritsu no Haikei,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 304–26, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Naoyuki (2006a), “‘Seishin Dōsagaku (Psychocinematics)’ no Tanjō to Sono Tenkai: Chiba Tanenari ‘Shoki Nōryoku oyobi Rensō Hannō Jikan ni Kansuru Jikken’ (1908) wo Tsūshite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 83–88, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Osaka, Naoyuki (2006b), “Kyōtō Daigaku Shozō no Vunto-shiki Kuronogufu no Rekishiteki Igi ni tsuite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 77–81, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Osaka, Ryōji (1998), “Meiji kara Shōwa Shoki ni itaru Jikken Shinrigaku no Keisei Katei,” Shinrigaku Hyōron, 41: 333–58. Osaka, Ryōji (2000a), “Meiji kara Shōwa Shoki ni okeru Jikken Shinrigaku no Keisei Katei: Motora Yūjirō to Matsumoto Matatarō wo Chūshin toshite,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 25–63, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Ryōji (2000b), “Wagakuni Shoki no Shinrigaku Jikkenshitsu,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 5–23, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Osaka, Ryōji (2000c), “Shinrigaku ni okeru Rekishi-teki Jikken Kiki ni tsuite: Kyōto Daigaku no Baai,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 245–64, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Ōse, Jintarō and Tachigara Noritoshi (1903), Xinli jiaokeshu (Textbook of Psychology) (trans. Zhang Yungke and Li Jinglian), Beijing: Zhuli Xuexiao Pian Yichu. Ōse, Jintarō and Yamamoto Gennojō (1911), Hassei Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Tosho. Ostwald, Friedrich Wilhelm (1909), Die energetische Grundlagen der Kulturwissenschaften, Leipzig: W. Klinkhardt.

292

Bibliography

Ōta, Keiko (1997), “‘Shinrigaku’ to ‘Psychology,’” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 17–40, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Ōtsuki, Kaison (1912), “Monowasure no Shinri,” Shinri Kenkyū, 1(4): 1–40. Ōtsuki, Kaison (1915), “Bōkyaku to Yokuatsu Sayō,” Shinri Kenkyū, 7(1): 124–40. Ōyama, Ikuo (1910), Gunshū Shinri, Tokyo: Da-Nippon Bunmei Kyōkai. Ōyama, Tadasu (1998), “Wagakuni ni okeru Jikken Shinrigaku no Seiritsu ni taisuru Motora • Matsumoto Ryō Kyōju no Idai na Kōken숯Osaka • Hidano Ryō Bunron wo Yonde,” Shinrigaku Hyōron, 41: 359–64. Ōyama, Tadasu (2002), “Wagakuni ni okeru Seishin Butsurigaku no dDōnyū숯Motora Yūjirō ni okeru Seishin Butsurigaku no Dōnyū,” Shinrigaku Hyōron, 44(4): 422–32. Ōyama, Tadasu (2004a), “20 Seiki Shotō ni Yunyū sareta Hipu no Kuronosukōpu wo Megutte,” Shinrigaku-shi—Shinrigaku-ron: nukizuri, December, 45–47. Ōyama, Tadasu (2004b), “Wagakuni ni okeru Kōdō Kenkyū no Genryū,” Japanese Psychological Review, 47(4): 501–11. Ōyama, Tadasu (2008), “Development of Psychophysics in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 50(4): 183–92. Ōyama, Tadasu and Goto Takuo (2007), “Editorial: Studies on Optical Illusions in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 49(1): 1–6. Ōyama, Tadasu, Shuko Torii, and Toshihiko Mochizuki (2005), “Pioneering Studies in the 1930s on Perception: An Historical Background of Experimental Psychology in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 73–87. Ōyama, Tadasu and Tatsuya Satō (1999), “Tōkyō Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku Koten Jikken Kiki ni tsuite: Bihin Daichō wo Tegakari toshite,” Japanese Psychological Review, 42(3): 289–312. Ōyama, Tadasu and Tatsuya Satō (2000), “Tōkyō Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku Koten Jikken Kiki ni tsuite: Bihin Daichō wo Tegakari toshite,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 77–213, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Ōyama, Tadasu and Tatsuya Satō (2001), “‘Kindai’ Shinrigaku ka ‘Gendai’ Shinrigaku ka: Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku Shijō no Ichizuke숯Nishikawa (1999), Mizoguchi (2000) Ryō Ronbun ni Kotoeru,” Shinrigaku-shi • Shinrigaku-ron, 3: 21–28. Ōyama, Tadasu, Tatsuya Satō, and Y. Suzuki (2001), “Shaping of Scientific Psychology in Japan,” Special Issue: Origin and Development of Scientific Psychology in Different Parts of the World: Retrospect and Prospect at the Turn of the Century, International Journal of Psychology International Journal of Psychology, 36(6): 396–406. Ōyama, Tadasu, Yasuo Nishikawa, Naoyuki Osaki, and Ayumu Arakawa (2006), “Kokuritsu Taiwan Daigaku Shozō no Kyū Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku Rekishi-teki Shinrigaku Kiki nit suite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 211–22, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Ozawa-de Silva, Chikako (2006), Psychotherapy and Religion in Japan: The Japanese Introspection Practice of Naikan, London: Routledge. Pate, James L. (2000), “Psychological Organizations in the United States,” American Psychologist, 55(10): 1139–43. Pawlik, Kurt and Mark R. Rosenzweig (1994), “Editorial Preface,” Special Issue: The Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National and Regional Perspectives, International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 665–66. Piovesana, Gino K. (1955), “Main Trends of Contemporary Japanese Philosophy,” Monumenta Nipponica, 11(2): 17–184.

Bibliography

293

Piovesana, Gino K. (1997), Recent Japanese Philosophical Thought, 1862–1996, Surrey, UK: Japan Library. Pollack, David (1988), “Framing the Self: The Philosophical Dimensions of Human Nature in Kokoro,” Monumenta Nipponica, 43(4): 417–27. Price, C. E. (1904), “Psychological Literature,” Psychological Bulletin, 1: 349–50. Prince, Morton (1906), The Dissociation of a Personality, New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. Pyle, Kenneth (1996), The Making of Japan, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath Quo, Fang-quei (1966), “Jiyushugi: Japanese Liberalism,” The Review of Politics, 28(4): 477–92. Reed, Edward S. (1997), From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Regmi, M. P. (1987), “Historical Development of Psychology in Nepal,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 53–64, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Ribot, Théodule (1905), “An Essay on Eastern Philosophy par Motora, Leipzig: Voigtlander,” Revue Philosophique, 60: 643–45. Rice, Charles E. (2000), “Uncertain Genesis: The Academic Institutionalization of American Psychology in 1900,” American Psychologist, 55(5): 488–91. Richards, Graham (1992), Mental Machinery, Part 1: The Origins and Consequences of Psychological Ideas from 1600 to 1850, London: Athlone Press. Richardson, Barry (1987), “Psychology in Papua New Guinea: A Brief Overview,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 289–303, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Riepe, Dale (1965), “Selected Chronology of Recent Japanese Philosophy (1868–1963),” Philosophy East and West, 15(3/4): 259–84. Robertson, Jennifer (1979), “Rooting the Pine: Shingaku Methods of Organization,” Monumenta Nipponica, 34(3): 311–32. Robertson, Jennifer (2002), “Blood Talks: Eugenic Modernity and the Creation of New Japanese,” History and Anthropology, 13(3): 191–216. Robinson, Daniel N. (1982), Toward a Science of Human Nature: Essays on the Psychologies of Mill, Hegel, Wundt, and James, New York: Columbia University Press. Robinson, Daniel N. (1995), An Intellectual History of Psychology (3rd edition), Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Robinson, Daniel N. (2000), “Philosophy of Psychology at the Turn of the Century,” American Psychologist, 55(9): 1018–21. Romanes, G. J. (1882), Animal Intelligence, London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Company. Rose, Nikolas (1988), “Calculable Minds and Manageable Individuals,” History of the Human Sciences, 1(2): 179–200. Rosenzweig, Mark R. (1994), “The Diverse Origins and the Development of Psychology in the USA,” Special Issue: The Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National and Regional Perspectives, International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 739–56. Rubinger, Richard (1986), “Education: From One Room to One System,” in Marius B. Jansen and Gilbert Rozman (eds), Japan in Transition: From Tokugawa to Meiji, 195–230, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sahlins, Marshall (1976), Culture and Practical Reason, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Saitō, Takako (2006), “The Meaning of Heaven According to Nishi Amane,” Essays in Japanese Philosophy, 1: 1–21.

294

Bibliography

Saitō, Tsuyoshi (1977), Meiji no Kotoba: Higashi kara Nishi e no Kakebashi, Tokyo: Kodansha. Sakuma, Akira (2000), “Seiritsuki no Kyūshū Daigaku Shinrigaku Kenkyūshitsu: Geshitaruto Shinrigaku wo Chūshin ni,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 216–43, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Sakuma, Kanae (1919), Kokugo no Hatsuon to Akusento, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Sakuma, Kanae (1932), Geshitaruto Shinrigaku no Tachiba, Tokyo: Uchitarōtsuruhata. Sakuma, Kanae (1936), Gendai Nihongo no Hyōgen to Gohō, Tokyo: Uchitarōtsuruhata Sakuma, Kanae (1940), Gendai Nihongo-hō no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Kōseikaku. Sakuma, Kanae (1959), Nihongo no Gengo Riron, Tokyo: Kōseisha Kōseikaku. Samuels, Richard (1994), “Rich Nation, Strong Army”: National Security and the Technological Transformation of Japan, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sandaya, Hiraku (1915), Gakurei Jidō Chiryoku Kensa-hō, Tokyo: Jidō Shoin. Sasabe, Akinobu (1901), Raddo-shi Kijutsu-teki Setsumei-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Ikuseikai. Sasaki, Masanao (1903), “Sutēringu-shi no Shinrigaku ni Kansuru Seishinbyō Rigaku,” Tetsugaku, 18: 27–29. Satō, Kōji and C. H. Graham (1954), “Psychology in Japan,” Psychological Bulletin, 51(5): 443–64. Satō, Tatsuya (1997a), “Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi Kenkyū,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 539–56, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya (1997b), “Nihon no Shinrigaku: Zenshi,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 2–16, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya (1997c), “Taikoku ni okeru Taishō Jidai made no Jinzai no Ikusei to Haishutsu,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 584–85, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya (1997d), “Jissai-teki Kenkyū no Kiun: Genba to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 173–203, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya (1997e), “Hyōka to Hōshō,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 473–96, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya (2001a), “Kaigai Ryugaku izen no Motora Yūjirō,” Seigai Gakushū Kyōiku Kenkyū Sentā, Fukushima Daigaku, 6: 25–32. Satō, Tatsuya (2001b), “Furansu no ‘Tetsugaku Hyōron’ no Keisai sareta Ribō ni yoru Motora Ronbun no Shōkai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 253–56, Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Satō, Tatsuya (2001c), “Monbushō ‘Kōtō Gakkō Shinri Kyōju Yōmoku’ (1923 (Shōwa 3) Nen~1946 (Shōwa 21) Nen),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 250–52, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Satō, Tatsuya (2001d), “1939 (Shōwa 14) Nen no Monbushō ‘Kōtō Gakkō Shinri Kyōju Yōmoku’ Kaiteiji ni okeru Geshiyutaruto Shinrigaku-ka wo Meguru Arasoi,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 239–49, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Satō, Tatsuya (2002a), Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku no Juyō to Tenkai, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shuppan.

Bibliography

295

Satō, Tatsuya (2002b), “Senzenki-senjiki taisei to nihon no shinrigaku: YūseigakuGunji-Kyōiku to no kawari wo chūshin ni (Psychology in Japan and Its Prewar and Wartime System: Focus on the Relation between Eugenics, Military, and Education),” Ritsumeikan Ningen Kagaku Kenkyū, 4: 1–19. Satō, Tatsuya (2005a), “The History of Psychology in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 47–51. Satō, Tatsuya (2005b), “Shinrigaku-shi no Sōzōryoku, Shinrigaku no Tenkairyoku,” in Tatsuya Satō (ed.), Shinrigaku-shi no Atarashii Katachi, 3–18, Tokyo: Seishin Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya (2005c), “Shinrigaku no Tenkairyoku—Shinrigaku-shi kara,” in Tatsuya Satō (ed.), Shinrigaku-shi no Atarashii Katachi, 209–19, Tokyo: Seishin Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya (2005d), “Nishi Amane ni okeru ‘Psychology’ to ‘Shinrigaku’ no Aida,” in Shimane Kenritsu Daigaku Nishi Amane Kenkyūkai (ed.), Nishi Amane to Nihon no Kindai, 217–51, Tokyo: Perikansha. Satō, Tatsuya (2007), “Rises and Falls of Clinical Psychology in Japan: A Perspective on the Status of Japanese Clinical Psychology,” Ritsumeikan Ningen Kagaku Kenkyū, 13: 133–44. Satō, Tatsuya (2008a), “Nihon no Shinrigaku no Kyōkai Kakutei Sagyō—Sorezore ni yunīku na Kenkyūsha: Inoue • Fukurai • Furukawa no Katsudō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 219–37, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Satō, Tatsuya (2008b), “Kido Mantarō, Watanabe Tōru, Imada Megumi—Kyūsei Shiritsu Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku no Tenkai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 167–84, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Satō, Tatsuya (2008c), “Motora Yūjirō: Wagakuni Saisho no Shinrigakusha,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 58–70, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Satō, Tatsuya (2008d), “Morita Masatake, Nakamura Kokyō, Terada Seiichi, Uchida Yūzaburō—Ijō, Hentai, Hanzai e no Torikumi—” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 115–29, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Satō, Tatsuya (2008e), “Zasshi ‘Seishin Bunseki’ ni okeru shinsei bunseki no Tenkai,” Seishin Bunseki—Senzen-hen, 21–40. Satō, Tatsuya (2008f ), “Kubo Yoshihide, Tanaka Kenichi, Suzuki Harutarō—Chinō Kensa to Hattatsu Shinrigaku no Shinten,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 99–114, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Satō, Tatsuya and Fukutome Akiko (1997), “Shinri Gakkai no Genjō,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 406–41, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya and Hajime Mizoguchi, eds (1997), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya and Hoshino Mayumi (1997), “Masumedeia to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 305–22, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya and Takao Satō (2005), “The Early 20th Century: Shaping the Discipline of Psychology in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 52–62. Satō, Tatsuya, Hajime Mizoguchi, Miki Takasuna, and Yō Fumino (1997), “Poppu to Akademikku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 497–538, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Satō, Tatsuya, Miki Takasuna, and Ōta Keiko (1997), “Shinrigaku Kenkyū no Jiritsu: Gakkai • Ryūgaku • Jikken,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 64–122, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Sawada, Janine Anderson (1998), “Mind and Morality in Nineteenth-Century Japanese Religions: Misogi-kyō and Maruyama-kyō,” Philosophy East & West, 48(1): 108–41.

296

Bibliography

Sawada, Janine Tasca (2004), Practical Pursuits: Religion, Politics, and Personal Cultivation in Nineteenth-Century Japan, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press. Sawayanagi, Masatarō (1893), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō. Sawayanagi, Masatarō and Mitsuishi Shizuo (1894), Futsū Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Fuzanbō. Scarborough, E. and L. Furumoto (1987), Untold Lives: The First Generation of American Women Psychologists, New York: Columbia University Press. Schwantes, Robert S. (1985), “Foreign Employees in the Development of Japan,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 207–18, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sennett, Richard (1977), The Fall of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Shibue, Tamotsu (1891), Shotō Kyōiku Shō Shinri-sho, Tokyo: Hakubunkan. Shiina, Ken and Ōyama Tadasu (2008), “Remembering Shiro Morinaga,” Gestalt Theory, 30(1): 6–10. Shimazono, Susumu (2015), “From Salvation to Healing: Yoshimoto Naikan Therapy and Its Religious Origins,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 150–64, London: Routledge. Shiro, Amioka (1991), “Changes in Educational Ideals and Objectives (From Selected Documents, Tokugawa Era to the Meiji Period),” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 323–57, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Shweder, Richard A. (1990), “Cultural Psychology: What Is It?” in James W. Stigler, Richard A. Shweder, and Gilbert Herdt (eds), Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development, 1–43, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sinha, Durganand (1987), “Psychology in India: A Historical Perspective,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 39–52, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Smiles, Samuel (1859), Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct, London: John Murray. Smith, Laurence D., Lisa A. Best, Virginia A. Cylke, and D. Alan Stubbs (2000), “Psychology without p Values: Data Analysis at the Turn of the 19th Century,” American Psychologist, 55(2): 260–63. Smith, Roger (1997), Norton History of the Human Sciences, New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Sprung, L. and H. Sprung (2001), “History of Modern Psychology in Germany in 19thand 20th-Century Thought and Society,” Special Issue: Origin and Development of Scientific Psychology in Different Parts of the World: Retrospect and Prospect at the Turn of the Century, International Journal of Psychology, 36(6): 364–77. Srubar, Ilja and Shingo Shimada (2005), Development of Sociology in Japan, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften. St. George, Ross (1987), “Psychology in New Zealand: A History and Commentary,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 325–44, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Steiner, Jesse Frederick (1936), “The Development and Present Status of Sociology in Japanese Universities,” The American Journal of Sociology, 41(6): 707–22. Sturm, T. and M. G. Ash (2005), “Roles of Instruments in Psychological Research,” History of Psychology, 8: 3–34. Sudō, Shinkichi (1915), Vunto no Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Uchitarōtsuruhata.

Bibliography

297

Sugimoto, Masayoshi and David L. Swain (1989), Science and Culture in Traditional Japan, Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle. Sugiyama, Tomitsuchi (1900), Morugan-shi Hikaku Shinrigaku Joron, Tokyo: Ikuseikai. Sukemune, S. (1987), “Psychology in Japan,” in S. R. Perls (ed.), Psychology: An International Perspective, 62–80, Albuquerque, NM: Professional Seminar Consultants. Sun, Lung-Kee (1992), “Social Psychology in the Late Qing Period,” Modern China, 18(3): 235–62. Susukida, Tsukasu (1935), Seimei Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Tōen Shobō. Suzuki, Norihisa (1970), “Nobuta Kishimoto and the Beginnings of the Scientific Study of Religion in Modern Japan,” Contemporary Religions in Japan, 11: 155–80. Suzuki, Yūko (1995), “The Current Status and Significance of Research in the History of Psychology in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Review, 38(3): 396–423. Suzuki, Yūko (1997a), “Shinrigaku Kibo no Meikakuka,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 137–55, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Suzuki, Yūko (1997b), “Raddo no Rainichi,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 93–94, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Suzuki, Yūko (1997c), “Shinrigaku Tsūzoku Kōwa to Senmon-shi no Sōkan,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 156–72, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Suzuki, Yūko (2001), “Nihon ni okeru Raddo no Shinrigaku: 3 Do no Rainichi wo Majiete Kangaeru,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 57–70, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Suzuki, Yūko (2005), “An Historical Examination of the Concept of Jiga (Ego) in Japanese Psychology, Particularly as Employed in a Dissertation by Yujiro Motora and Ladd’s Psychological Theory,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 115–24. Suzuki, Yūko (2006), “Motora Yūjirō no Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ to Kikokugo no Chosakugun no Tenkai: ‘Shakai’ e no Shisen,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 169–76, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Suzuki, Yūko and Miki Takasuna (1997), “Kenkyūshitsu no Kaisetsu to Kenkyū no Kokusaika,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 204–36, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2001), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no Hōga,” Tōhoku Joshi Daigaku • Tōhoku Joshi Tanki Daigaku Kiyō, 40: 73–84. Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2004), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no Hōga: Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongo-yaku Sagyō (Dai 3 Hō),” Tōhoku Joshi Daigaku • Tōhoku Joshi Tanki Daigaku Kiyō, 43: 25–34. Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2005), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no Hōga: Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongo-yaku Sagyō (Dai 4 Hō),” Tōhoku Joshi Daigaku • Tōhoku Joshi Tanki Daigaku Kiyō, 44: 42–51. Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2006a), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no Hōga: Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongoyaku Sagyō (Dai 3-hō),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 179–88, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2006b), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no Hōga: Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongoyaku Sagyō

298

Bibliography

(Dai 4-hō),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 191–200, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Takada, Yasuma (1919), Shakaigaku Genri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Takada, Yasuma (1922), Shakaigaku Gairon, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Takahashi, Gorō (1910), Shinrei Bannō-ron, Tokyo: Maekawa Buneiraku. Takano, Chōei (1972), “Seiyō Gakushi no Setsu: The Theories of Western Philosophers” (trans. Gino K. Piovesana), Monumenta Nipponica, 27(1): 85–92. Takashima, Heisaburō (1900), Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Yūbunkan. Takashima, Heisaburō (1903), “Wagakuni ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu,” Jidō Kenkyū, 6, 4. Takashima, Heisaburō (1909), Jidō Shinri Kōwa, Tokyo: Kōbundō. Takasuana, Miki (2001a), “1945-nen made ni Kaigai no Senmonshi ni Keisai sareta Nihonjin Shinrigaku-sha no Ronbun,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 210–14, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Takasuana, Miki (2001b), “Shinkei Dentatsu Riron ni Miru Motora Yūjirō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 230–38, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Takasuna, Miki (1997a), “Nihon Shinri Gakkai no Seiritsu to Kokusai Kōryū no Honkakuka,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 238–57, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Takasuna, Miki (1997b), “Kyōiku Seido to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 41–63, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Takasuna, Miki (1997c), “Sensō to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 291–304, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō. Takasuna, Miki (2001a), “The Wundt Collection in Japan,” in R. W. Rieber and D. K. Robinson (eds), Wilhelm Wundt in History: The Making of a Scientific Psychology, 251–60, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing. Takasuana, Miki (2001b), “Chiwa Hiroshi no Ōshū Taizai Memo: 1933-nen 11 Gatsu kara 1934-nen 1 Gatsu,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 215–25, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Takasuna, Miki (2001c), “Shinrigaku ni okeru Shinkei Seni—Baiosaikorojī-shi,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 192–99, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Takasuna, Miki (2005), “Six Researchers’ Contributions to Comparative Psychology in Japan: 1900–1945,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 88–94. Takasuna, Miki (2006a), “Senzen no Nihonjin Ryūgakusha to Sono Eikyō: Yoshioka Gennosuke to Takemasa Tarō no Baai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 115–31, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Takasuna, Miki (2006b), “The Origins of Scientific Psychology in Japan,” Physis; rivista internazionale di storia della scienza, 43(1–2): 319–31. Takasuna, Miki (2007a), “Proliferation of Western Methodological Thought in Psychology in Japan: Ways of Objectification,” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41: 83–92.

Bibliography

299

Takasuna, Miki (2007b), “What Was Not Discussed: Reply to Comments,” Integrative Psychological Behavioral Sciences, 41: 114–19. Takasuna, Miki (2008a), “Shinrigaku-shi kara no Matometo Kadai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 240–50, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Takasuna, Miki (2008b), “Matsumoto Matatarō to Chiba Tanenari—Shinrigaku no Teichaku to Hirogari,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 71–78, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Takasuna, Miki (2008c), “Sakuma Kanae, Onoshima Usao,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 140–48, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Takasuna, Miki (2008d), “Masuda Koreshige, Kuroda Ryō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 130–39, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Takasuna, Miki (2008e), “Nihon no Josei no Shinrigakusha,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 210–18, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku. Takasuna, Miki and Tatsuyo Satō (2004), “Felix Krueger and Ganzheitspsychologie in Japanese Psychology,” From Past to Future, 5: 17–23. Takasuna, Miki and Tatsuyo Satō (2008), “Felix Kruger and Ganzheitspsychologie: History of Psychology in Japan and during World War II,” in Rainer Diriwächter and Joan Valsiner (eds), Striving for the Whole: Creating Theoretical Syntheses, 47–58, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Takasuna, Miki, Tatsuya Satō, Hajime Mizoguchi, and Yasuo Nishikawa (2001), “Studying Abroad in Europe and the United States: Influences on Japanese Psychology 1868– 1945,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 226–29, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Takemasa, Tarō (1943), Kokumin Kyōiku no Shinri, Tokyo: Asakura Shoten. Takuma, Taketoshi (2001), “Kurt Gottschaldt no Kenkyū ni tsuite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshiteki Kentō, 59–78, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Tamano, Kazushi (2007), “Social Survey Research in Japanese Sociology,” International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 16: 1–9. Tanaka, Jiroku (1894), Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan. Tanaka, Kanichi (1919), “Ōyō Shinrigaku Saikin no Hattatsu,” in Saikin Shinrigaku no Shinpo, Tokyo: Dainippon Gakujustu Kyōkai. Tanaka, Tōsaku (1885), Kyōiku Shinri Ronri—Jutsugo Shōkai, Tokyo: Fukyū-sha. Tanaka, Yoshihisa (1966), “Status of Japanese Experimental Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 17: 233–72. Tanaka, Yoshihisa and George W. England (1972), “Psychology in Japan,” Annual Review of Psychology, 23: 695–732. Tanimoto, Tomeri (1897a), “Wagakuni ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu,” Kyōikudan, 2: 1–24. Tanimoto, Tomeri (1897b), Futsū Shinrigaku Shūsei—Jōken, Tokyo: Rokumeikan. Tanimoto, Tomeri (1901), “Notice historique de la psychologie au Japon,” in Félix Alcan (ed.), IVe Congrès International de Psychologie: Compte rendu des Séances et texte des mémoires, 60, Paris: Ancienne Librairie Germer Bailliere and Co. Tanimoto, Tomeri (1908), Gunshū Shinri no Shinkenkyū, Tokyo: Rokumeikan. Tarutani, Shigero (2015), “Kawai Hayao’s Transnatioanl Identity and Japanese Spirit,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 181–203, London: Routledge.

300

Bibliography

Taylor, Eugene (2000), “Psychotherapeutics and the Problematic Origins of Clinical Psychology in America,” American Psychologist, 55(9): 318–21. Taylor, F. W. (1911), Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Harper. Terada, Seiichi (1913), Shūjin no Shinri, Tokyo: Ganshōdō Shoten. Terada, Seiichi (1917a), Hanzainin-ron, Tokyo: Ganshōdō Shoten. Terada, Seiichi (1917b), Jidō no Akuheki, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten. Terada, Seiichi (1918), Hanzai Shinrigaku Kōwa, Tokyo: Nihon Seishin Igakkai. Terada, Seiichi (1926), Hanzai Shinri Kōgi, Tokyo: Nihon Seishini Gakkai. Terada, Seiichi (1927), Hanzai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Terao, Kazuyoshi (2015), “Naikan and Mourning: A Catholic Attempt at Naikan Meditation,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 165–80, London: Routledge. Terasaki, Hiroaki (2006), “Hajimari no ‘Shinrigaku’ to Nishi Amane: ‘Shinrigaku’ wo risetto suru,” Yamanashi Daigaku Kyōiku Ningenka Gakubu Kiyō, 8: 278–87. Terasaki, Masao and Senjika Kyōiku Kenkūkai, eds (1987), Sōryokusen taisei to kyōiku: Kōkokumin “rensei” no rinen to jissen, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Tester, Keith (1992), Civil Society, London: Taylor and Francis. Thorndike, Edward Lee (1911), Animal Intelligence, New York: Macmillan. Titchener, E. B. (1913), “Professor Yuzero Motora,” The American Journal of Psychology, 24(3): 441–43. Toda, Teizō (1937), Kazoku Kōzō, Tokyo: Kobundo. Tōgō, Minoru (1922), Sekai Kaizō to Minzoku Shinri, Taipei: Taihoku Dōjin. Tōgō, Minoru (1925), Shokumin Seisaku to Minzoku Shinri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Tokutani, Toyonosuke (1903), Shinrigaku Mondō, Tokyo: Hakubunkan. Tokutani, Toyonosuke (1906), Shakai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Makotonoto. Tōkyō Teikoku Daigaku, Bunka Daigaku Shinrigaku Kyōshitsu, ed. (1910), Jikken Shinrigaku Shashinchō, Tokyo: Kōdōkan. Tominaga, Iwatarō (1902), Kyōiku no Jissai ni Ōyō Shitaru Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Satō Seijirō. Tominaga, Ken’ichi (1975), “Yasuma Takada: An Unknown Giant of Sociology,” Sociological Inquiry, 45(1): 31–44. Totoki, Wataru (1904), Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Tosho. Tsuboi, Senjirō (1884), Shinri Yōryaku, Tokyo: Gifu Seigadō. Tsuda, Motonori (1903), Yōji Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Tsuji, Keiichirō (2001), “Shinrigaku ni okeru Gakushi Kenkyū no Shomondai: Jitchi Chōsa wo Tsūjite Kangaeta Koto to,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 147–54, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Tsuji, Keiichirō (2006), “Shinrigaku-shi no Kenkyū • Kyōiku ni Mirareru Henka: Naihatsu-teki Yōin to Gaihatsu-teki Yōin,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 65–75, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given). Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1900), Ru Bon-shi Minzoku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Ikuseikai. Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1901), Raddo-shi Shinrigaku Kōen, Tokyo: Fuzanbo. Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1910), Seinen Shinri, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1926), Jidō no Shinri oyobi Kyōiku, Tokyo: Meiji Tosho. Tsukahara, Masatsugu, ed. (1898), Kyōiku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Tsurumi, E. Patricia (1974), “Meiji Primary School Language and Ethics Textbooks: Old Values for a New Society?” Modern Asian Studies, 8(2): 247–61.

Bibliography

301

Tsuruta, Shōichi (1980), “Kaigun ni okeru Shinrigaku-teki Kenkyū,” Ōyō Shinrigaku Kenkyū, 5: 27–33. Tsutsui, William M. (2009), “The Way of Efficiency: Ueno Yōichi and Scientific Management in Twentieth-Century Japan,” Modern Asian Studies, 35(2): 441–67. Tucker, Mary Evelyn (2007), The Philosophy of Qi: The Record of Great Doubts by Kaibara Ekken, New York: Columbia University Press. Turner, F. M. (1974), Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Turtle, Alison M. (1987a), “Psychology in the Australian Context,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 305–24, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Turtle, Alison M. (1987b), “Introduction: A Silk Road for Psychology,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 1–21, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tweney, Ryan D. and Cheri A. Budzynski (2000), “The Scientific Status of American Psychology in 1900,” American Psychologist, 55(9): 1014–17. Tytler, G. (1982), Physiognomy in the European Novel: Faces and Fortunes, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Uchijima, Sadao (1991), “Kindai Nihon ni okeru Hatattsu-ron Kentō no Shiten—Kodomo Kenkyū no Shisō to ‘Kagaku’,” Kyōiku to Shakai Kenkyū, 41–45. Uchijima, Sadao (1994), “Motora Yūjirō ni yoru Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku no Kakuritsu,” Hokkaidō Dōkyōiku Daigaku Kiyō, 44(2): 73–83. Uchijima, Sadao (1996), “Nishi Amane no Ningen Hattatsu-ron to Sono Hōsoku-teki no Haaku Tameshi,” Hokkaidō Dōkyōiku Daigaku Kiyō, 46(2): 11–18. Ueno, Yōchi (1914a), “Yume to Seiyoku to Kodomo,” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(2): 41–57. Ueno, Yōchi (1914b), “Furoido no Yume no Setsu (1),” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(3): 3–20. Ueno, Yōchi (1914c), “Furoido no Yume no Setsu (2),” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(4): 54–71. Ueno, Yōchi (1914d), “Seishin Bunseki-hō no Kigen,” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(4): 97–106. Ueno, Yōchi (1915), “Seishin Bunseki-sha no Kantaru Kyōiku,” Shinri Kenkyū, 8(1): 77–89. Ueno, Yōchi (1924), Kōkoku-jutsu, Tokyo: Sanseidō. Ueno, Yōchi (1931), Hanbai Shinri, Tokyo: Chikura Shobō. Ueno, Yōchi and Noda Nobuo (1922), Kinsei Shinrgaku-shi, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Umemoto, Akio (2000), “Kyōto Daigaku Bungaku-bu Tetsugaku-ka Shinrigaku Kyōshitsu Enkaku-shi,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 267–77, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. Umetani, Noboru (1985), “William Elliot Griffis’ Studies in Japanese History and Their Significance,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 393–408, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Upham, Thomas Cogswell (1869), Elements of Mental Philosophy: Embracing the Three Elements of the Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will, New York: Harper and Brothers. Vidal, Fernando (1993), “Psychology in the 18th Century: A View from Encyclopaedias,” History of the Human Sciences, 6(1): 89–119. Wagatsuma, Hiroshi (1969), “Major Trends in Social Psychology in Japan,” American Behavioral Scientist, 12: 36–45. Wakabayashi, Torasaburō and Shirai Kowashi (1883), Kaisei Kyō-jutsu, Tokyo: Fukyūsha. Wakita, Ryōkichi (1908), Chūi no Shinri to Teinōji Kyōiku, Osaka: Yashima Seishindō. Waku, Masatatsu (1888), Sa-shi Ōyō shinrigaku, Tokyo: Makino Shobō. Wang, Guowei, trans. (1902a), Xinlixue (by Motora Yūjirō), Shanghai: Jiaoyu Shijie Chubanshe.

302

Bibliography

Wang, Guowei, trans. (1902b), Lunlixue (by Motora Yūjirō), Shanghai: Jiaoyu Shijie Chubanshe. Wang, Zhong-Ming (1993), “Psychology in China: A Review Dedicated to Li Chen,” Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 87–116. Ward, Colleen (1987), “The Historical Development and Current Status of Psychology in Malaysia,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 201–22, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Washburn, M. F. (1908), The Animal Mind: A Textbook of Comparative Psychology, New York: Macmillan. Washburn, M. F. (1916), Movement and Mental Imagery: Outlines of a Motor Theory of the Complexer Mental Processes, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Watanabe, Kazuyasu (1981), “Motora Yūjirō ni okeru Shizen to Ningen,” Aichi Kyōiku Daigaku Kenkyū Hōkoku, 30: 139–56. Watanabe, Masao (1985), “Science across the Pacific: American–Japanese Scientific and Cultural Contacts in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 369–92, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Watanabe, Tōru (1915), Fūdo Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Bunmei Kyōkai Jimusho. Watanabe, Tōru (1940), Hompō Saisho no Keiken-teki Shinrigaku-sha toshite no Kamada Hō no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Chūkōkan. Watanabe, Tōru (1954), “Hompō Shinrigaku no Ayumi,” Shinrigaku Kōza: Daichi 1 Gendai Shinrigaku (Nihon Ōyō Shinri Gakkai-hen), Tokyo: Nakayama Shoten. Watson, John Broadus (1913), “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It,” Psychological Review, 20: 158–77. Watson, John Broadus (1924), Behaviorism, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Watson, John Broadus (1928), Psychological Care of Infant and Child, New York: W. W. Norton Company. Watson, Robert I. and Marilyn Merrifield (1973), “Characteristics of Individuals Eminent in Psychology in Temporal Perspective: Part I,” Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences, 9(4): 339–59. Wayland, Frederick Winslow (1855), The Elements of Intellectual Philosophy, Boston, MA: Philips, Sampson and Co. Wertheim, Margaret (1999), Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, New York: W. W. Norton. Westney, Eleanor D. (1987), Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer of Western Organizational Patterns to Meiji Japan, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wundt, Wilhelm (1863), Vorlesungen über die Menschen-und Tierseele, 2 vols, Leipzig: Leopold Voss. Wundt, Wilhelm (1874), Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, Leipzig: W. Engelmann. Wundt, Wilhelm (1896), Grundriss der Psychologie, Leipzig: W. Engelmann. Wundt, Wilhelm M. (1900–1920), Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte (EthnoCultural Psychology: An Investigation of the Developmental Laws of Language, Myth, and Customs), Leipzig: Kröner. Yajima, Kinzō (1886), Bein-shi cho Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Chūai-sha. Yajima, Kinzō (1889), Futsū Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Fuji Shobō. Yasuda, Tokutarō (1926), Seishin Bunsekigaku Nyūmon, Tokyo: Arusu. Yasumaru, Yoshio (1974), Nihon no kindaika to minshū shisō, Tokyo: Aoki Shoten.

Bibliography

303

Yatabe, Tatsurō (1942), Ishi Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Baifukan. Yatabe, Tatsurō (1948a), Shikō Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Baifukan. Yatabe, Tatsurō (1948b), Shikō Shinrigaku I: Gainen to Imi, Tokyo: Baifukan. Yatabe, Tatsurō (1949), Shikō Shinrigaku II: Kankei to Suiri, Tokyo: Baifukan. Yatabe, Tatsurō (1953), Shikō Shinrigaku III: Dōbutsu no Shikō, Tokyo: Baifukan. Yatsu, Naohide and Takahashi Ken (1918), Dōbutsu no Kokoro, Tokyo: Hanabusa Shobō. Yokota, Junya (1995), Meiji Fukashigi Dō, Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō. Yoneda, Shōtarō (1913), Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku to Yohai no Shakaigaku, Shinri Kenkyū 3(1–2). Yoshida, Kumaji (1909), Jikken Kyōikugaku no Shinpo, Tokyo: Dōbunkan. Yoshiie, Sadao (1998), Nihon Koku Gakkan Deibiddo Marei: Sono Shōgai to Gyōseki, Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppan-bu. Yoshinaga, Shinichi (2006), “Hara Tanzan no Shinrigaku-teki Zen: Sono Shisō to Rekishiteki Eikyō,” Jintai Kagaku, 15(2): 5–13. Yoshinaga, Shinichi (2007), “Seishin no Chikara—Minkan Seishin Ryōhō no Shisō,” Jintai Kagaku, 16(1): 9–21. Yoshinaga, Shin’ichi (2015), “The Birth of Japanese Mind Cure Methods,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 76–102, London: Routledge. Young, Robert M. (1970), Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Yuhara, Motoichi, ed. (1899), Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Yuki, K. (1965), “Experimental Psychology,” Science in Japan (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 335–73. Yumoto, Takehiko (1888), Shogakkō Kyōshi Yō Shinrigaku Tekiyō, Tokyo: Hakubunka. Yumoto, Takehiko (1891), Gakkō Jitsuyō Shinrigaku Dai-1, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Yumoto, Takehiko (1894), Ōyō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō. Yumoto, Takehiko (1899), Shinrigaku Shinron, Tokyo: Fukyū-sha.

Index Abe Ayao 61 Abe Isoo 162 Abe Magoshirō 141 Abe Saburō 141, 227 Abe Shigetaka 169, 227 Abo Tomoichirō 38, 209, 219 academic associations 13, 15, 43, 83, 101, 117, 121, 123, 124, 167, 174, 177 (see also academic societies; individual associations) academic societies 123, 182, 183 Japanese 123–4 (see also academic associations; individual societies) Adachi Chōshun 75 aesthetics 3, 49, 92, 166 Akamatsu Pōro 122, 227 Akishige Yoshiharu 141, 227 Akitani Tatsuko 193, 227 Akiyama Satoko 193, 227 Alden, Joseph 58 All-Japan Student Federation of Social Science 161 Amano Tameyuki 44 Amano Toshitake 170, 227 American Association for Applied Psychology 127 American Psychological Association 74, 186, 257, 258 American Psychology 18, 53, 62, 74, 81, 146, 155, 156, 184, 219 anarchism 106 Anezaki Masaharu (Chōfū) 52, 227 animal magnetism 98, 105, 254 anthropology 38, 49, 76, 133, 154, 205 Aoki Seishirō 126, 130, 170, 227 apparitions 100 Araki Sadao 162 Ariga Nagao 40, 107, 108, 211, 227 Aruga Kizaemon 110, 227

Asada Gōryu 30 Asami Chizuko 193, 227 Asano Wasaburō 103, 227 Association for Psychological Research 123 Association for the Study of Socialism 77 Association of Clinical Psychology 124 Association of Japanese Clinical Psychology 175, 222 associationism 39, 47 Austria 132, 142, 202 authorized counselor 177 authorized Psychologist 177 Aviation Psychology Laboratory 134 Aviation Research Institute 92, 144, 168 Awaji Enjirō 136, 138, 168, 178, 227 Baelz, Erwin 207 Bagehot, Walter 31, 43 Bain, Alexander 20, 38, 39, 48, 58, 62, 70, 77, 88, 208, 209 Baldwin, James M. 38, 77, 102, 154, 209, 214 Bank of Japan 180 Bansho Shirabesho (Institute for the Study of Barbarian Books) 61, 75, 201 Bastiat, Frédéric 44 Battie, William 150 Beauchamp, Sally 154 behaviorism 11, 17, 96, 141, 144, 145–7, 171, 174, 182, 185, 234 Belgium 180, 202 Bentham, Jeremy 7, 43 Bergson, Henri 99, 102 Berzelius, Jöns Jakob 99 Bessel, Fredrich 118 Binet, Alfred 61, 133, 134, 138, 154, 163, 188, 113, 221 Binet–Simon Intelligence Test 133

Index body–mind 55 disciplining of 63–4 Boissonade, Emile Gustave 204 Boring, Edwin G. vii, vii, 185 Boston University 71, 76 Bowne, Borden Parker 56, 76, 81 Braid, James 105 Brentano, Franz 142, 147, 165 Brunton, Richard Henry 205 Bryan, Samuel 205 Bryan, William L. 214 Büchner, Ludwig 31 Buckle, Henry Thomas 31 Buddhism 23, 25, 28, 33, 34, 36, 37, 46, 51, 52, 70, 77, 80, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 104, 108, 145, 156, 157, 186 (see also religion) Burnham, W. H. 78 Cai Yuanpei 172 Calkins, Mary Whiton 186, 214 Cambridge University 91, 185, 214 capitalism 7, 8, 42, 43, 44, 45, 108, 137, 180 Capron, Horace 203, 204 Carey, Henry C. 44 Cargill, William W. 205 Cattell, James McKeen 90, 91, 119, 133, 186, 188, 214 Chamberlain, Basil Hall 204 Charcot, Jean-Martin 105, 154 Charity and Cure Society for the Mentally Ill 153 Chen Daqi 172 Chen Huang 171 Cheng Ho 25 Cheng Yi 25 Chiba Tanenari 91, 92, 122, 142, 147, 149, 227 child counseling offices 129 Child Educational Research Institute 128 Child Research Institute 92, 191, 216 Child Studies Institute 128, 129, 135 children 27, 39, 61, 67, 76, 79, 80, 81, 95, 126, 128, 129, 130, 132, 156, 162, 169, 178, 185, 186, 187, 189, 212, 213 psychology of 68–9 China 40, 131, 147, 167, 171, 176, 191, 202, 242 Chinese Academy of Sciences 172

305

Chinese Psychology 159, 171, 172, 225 Chiwa Hiroshi 143, 227 Christianity 25, 46, 66, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 84, 87, 88, 102, 136, 142, 162, 184 (see also religion) citizens 7, 8, 15, 3, 55, 66, 68, 105, 126, 130 civilization and enlightenment 42, 45, 65, 70, 206 clairvoyance 100, 102, 103, 104 Clark University 56, 74, 90, 120, 131, 135, 140, 145, 154, 155, 174, 185, 205, 214 class 8, 14, 68, 106, 176, 202 middle 27, 128, 132 clinical developmental Psychologists 177 clinical Psychologists 165, 177, 178, 222 Cobden, Richard 44 Columbia University 90, 91, 108, 174, 188, 190, 192, 214 Comte, Auguste 31, 48, 49, 50, 108 Condillac, É. B. de 32, 33 Confucianism 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 37, 41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 66, 69, 75, 78, 88, 108, 114 (see also NeoConfucianism; religion) conscious interiority 9, 10, 11, 14, 39, 111, 143, 145 (see also consciousness; interiority; interiorization) consciousness 8, 38, 59, 73, 84, 85, 86, 91, 95, 96, 99, 100, 107, 110, 111, 113, 125, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 164, 170, 185, 186, 201, 224 (see also conscious interiority, interiority, interiorization) consumerism 7, 9, 12, 43, 123, 176 Cooperation and Harmony Society 139 Cornell University 60, 91, 107, 120, 142, 214 cosmic energies 13, 80, 97, 98 (see also ki; life-energy) cosmic worldview 35, 40, 48, 80, 83, 101 collapse 9–10 cosmology 29, 59, 118 Japanese 9, 23 Ptomeliac 82 counseling 17, 129, 135, 153, 157, 174, 177, 222 Cousin, Victor 32 criminology 111, 127, 128, 132, 133

306 Crookes, William 102 cultural sociology (Kultursoziologie) 107, 110 daily life improvement campaigns 161 Daoism 25, 28, 30, 52, 162 (see also religion) Darwin, Charles 43, 47, 133 Darwinism 15, 46, 47, 184, 205 Davis, Jerome D. 75 day nurseries 129 Dazai Shundai 26 de Biran, François-Pierre-Gonthier Maine 31, 98 de Puységur, Marquis 105 de Saint-Simon, Henri 31 de Unamuno, Miguel 176 democracy 113, 127, 175 democratization 180 Denison, Henry Willard 204 Department of Education 58, 65, 66, 113, 114, 136, 202, 203, 204 (see also Ministry of Education) Department of Psychology (Tokyo Imperial University) 59, 71, 182 Descartes, Rene 27, 35 developmental education 69 Dewey, John 47, 8, 128 Dilthey, Wilhelm 147 Dods, John Bovee 98 Dōshisa Eigakkō (Dōshisha English Academy) 75 Douglas, Archibald Lucius 205 dreams 80, 100, 104 Dumas, George 154 Durkheim, Émile 80, 108, 112 Eastern morality, Western technology 207 Ebbinghaus, Hermann 119 economic liberalism 7, 43, 44 Education Orders 1879 113 1880 66 1885 114 1945 173 efficiency movement 138 electricity as type of cosmic energy 80, 85, 87 as mental/spiritual energy 98, 101

Index Elliotson, John 105 Ellis, William 43 emotions 13, 23, 39, 40, 60, 61, 62, 87, 94, 123, 131, 133, 136, 141, 144, 149, 164, 165, 176, 177, 183, 185 Endō Ryūkichi 112, 212, 213, 227 energetic monism 79, 84, 86, 87 Enlightenment 3, 45 Japanese 44, 48, 40, 65, 70, 183, 206 Esquirol, J. E. D. 20 ethics 5, 7, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 49, 57, 59, 66, 72, 77, 78, 79, 87, 88, 89, 114, 123, 171, 174, 180, 194 eugenics 100, 137–8, 167 Europe 19, 29, 42, 44, 48, 52, 53, 81, 88, 101, 107, 108, 109, 129, 134, 139, 142, 144, 155, 156, 187, 188 evolution(ism) 11, 15, 46, 47, 61, 74, 78, 78, 83, 99, 109, 112, 119, 143, 144, 154, 180, 184, 208, 210 Exchange, Considered as the Principles of Social Life (Motora Yūjirō’s dissertation) 76 exorcism 151 (see also fox possession) Fechner, Gustav 2, 3, 4, 32, 46, 71, 79, 92, 102, 119, 121 feminism 106, 162 Fenollosa, Ernest Francisco 47, 108 Fischer, Otto 91 foreign employees 203, 204 foreign knowledge 19, 179 acceptance of 180 fox possession 104, 151 (see also exorcism) Fox, Logan J. 174 France 32, 44, 56, 61, 62, 105, 133, 145, 143, 149, 150, 180, 201, 202, 204 Franck, Adolphe 58 French Psychology 32 Freud, Sigmund 74, 98, 105, 138, 155, 156, 210 Freudianism 154, 182 in Japan 155–6 Fujikawa Yū 128, 169, 227 Fujisawa Shigeru 171, 227 Fukuda Tokuzō 161 Fukurai Tomokichi 63, 82, 84, 87, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 123, 126, 128, 134, 157, 186, 195, 199, 227

Index Fukushima Tokuhei 61 Fukutomi Ichirō 170 Fukutomi Takasue 56, 63, 227 Fukuzawa Yukichi 43, 66, 201 Fullerton, George 102 Fukuzawa Yukichi 171 functionalism 171, 185, 224 Furuhata Tanemoto 137, 227 Furukawa Takeji 137–8, 186, 227 Galton, Sir Francis 91, 96, 133, 137 Geist 110, 111 Geisteswissenschaft (science of the human spirit) 2, 113 General Mobilization of the National Spirit 130, 160, 163 German Psychology 88 Germany 46, 52, 53, 56, 60, 61, 62, 71, 77, 91, 109, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 141, 142, 147, 149, 150, 153, 154, 163, 167, 180, 202, 203 Gesammtgeist (collective mind) 110 Gestalt (shape, form, “global whole”) 102, 142, 145, 163, 174, 182 (see also Gestalt Psychology) Gestalt Psychology 17, 94, 141, 142, 143, 163, 165, 171, 224 (see also Gestalt) ghosts 1, 51, 100, 102 Giddings, Franklin Henry 108, 112 global knowledge 201 (see also globalization) globalization 4, 8, 175 (see also global knowledge) Glover, Edward 155 good wives–wise mothers 186, 187 Gotō Rikusaburō 59, 228 Graham, Clarence Henry 174 Great Britain 61, 109, 135, 149, 202, 204, 205 Great Chain of Being 9 Great Japan Society 77 Great Split 82, 83, 84, 86, 96 (see also mind‒body dualism) Great Vacuity 24 Greater Japan Federation of Boys’ Groups 130 Greater Japan Federation of Girls’ Youth Groups 130 Greater Japan Federation of Women's Groups 188

307

Greater Japan Women’s Association 161 Greater Japan Youth and Child Group 130 Greater Japan Youth Group 130 Green, Thomas Hill 46 Griffis, William Eliot 204 Gross, Hans 132 Guizot, François 43 Gulick, John Thomas 79 Haeckel, Ernst 43 Hall, G. S. 47, 56, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 90, 96, 102, 119, 131, 135, 145, 155, 184, 185, 186, 210 hallucinations 100, 154, 164 Hani Motoko 162 Hara Tanzan 36, 52 Haraguchi Takejirō 62, 228 Haraguchi Tsuruko 60, 92, 188, 190, 228 harmonyism 139 Harvard University 53, 56, 60, 90, 119, 147, 154, 185, 214 Hatano Isoko 92, 191, 228 Hatano Kanji 126, 228 Hattori Unokichi 171 Haven, Joseph 20, 33, 38, 40, 41, 58, 70, 78, 88, 171, 184, 208 Hayami Hiroshi 59, 122, 123, 125, 137, 149, 169, 170, 220, 228 Hayashi Razan 25 Hayashi Tadasu 43 Hearn, Lafcadio 204 heart–mind 1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 40, 83, 151, 165, 219, 220, 224, 225 learning of 1, 27, 34, 37, 50, 181 Hegel, G. W. F. 32, 111 Helmholt, Hermann von 32, 39, 53, 88, 111 Helvétius, Claude Adrien 31 Herbart, Johann F. 67, 98, 110, 111, 115, 209 Hering, Ewald 91 Hickok, Laurens Perseus 33, 58, 69 Higher Normal School 56, 69, 77, 79, 92, 93, 130, 131, 134, 135, 138, 163, 184, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193 Higuchi Hideo 106, 221, 228 Higuchi Ryūkyō 109 Hirata Motokichi 103, 221, 228 Hiratsuka Raichō 162 Hirose Genkyō 37, 141, 234

308

Index

Hitotsubashi University 107 Hoashi Kiyoko 193, 228 Hobbes, Thomas 43, 125 Hoffman, Theodor 205 Holland 45, 201, 204 (see also Netherlands) Hollingworth, Leta Stetter 187 Holmes, Samuel J. 144, 145 home confinement of mentally ill 152, 163 Hong Kong 202 Honma Sōken 152, 228 Hopkin, Mark 58 Hori Baiten 60, 74, 139, 228 Hori Tsuneo 43 Hōsei University 131, 135, 185 Hoshino Yukinori 138, 210 Hozumi Nobushige 109, 228 Hozumi Shigetō 109 Hozumi Yatsuka 109 Hull, Clark L. 147, 174 Hume, David 89, 125 Huxley, Thomas Henry 43, 77, 88, 208 hypnosis 98, 109, 100, 104, 105, 125, 156, 172, 220, 221, 223, 224 Hyslop, James H. 102 “I” 10, 11, 12, 35, 125 (see also “me”) Ichikawa Genzō 133, 209, 212, 221 Ide Takashi 92, 228 Ideological Control Bureau 160 Iinuma Ryuen 122, 171, 228 Ikeda Shigenori 137, 228 Ikeda Takanori 133, 221 Im Sok-Chae 170 Imada Megumi 92, 122, 146, 147, 185, 210, 228 imageless thought 148 Imaizumi Genryū 152, 228 Imamura Shinkichi 102, 103, 228 Imperial Association of Boys’ Groups 130 Imperial Rescript of Education 67, 114 Imperial Rule Assistance Association 139, 161, 188, 190 Imperial Society for the Study of Hypnotism 105 imperial subjects 55, 114, 162, 163 imperial universities 70, 122, 142, 159, 170, 184, 185 overseas 170–1 (see also individual universities)

Imperial University 1, 57, 182, 207 (see also Tokyo Imperial University) imperialism 167 (see also neoimperialism) Japanese 167 imperialist powers Western 42, 47 Inagaki Suematsu 169 individual 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 50, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 83, 85, 87, 91, 105, 106, 110, 112, 119, 125, 128, 148, 155, 164, 175, 176, 180, 202, 221, 213, 225 as basic unit of society 4, 19 inner life of 3 internalization of 143 and modernity 7–20 individualism 67, 106, 125, 175 individuality 7, 12, 13, 15, 106, 111, 132, 133, 163, 164, 165, 169, 170, 224 individuation 11, 12, 25, 27, 29, 35, 43, 45, 46, 63, 132, 136, 149, 169 industrial counselor 177 industrial revolution 9, 14, 19, 45 second 9 infant centers 129 Inoue Enryō 50–3, 70, 80, 171, 186, 219, 220, 228 Inoue Tetsujirō 38, 45, 46, 47, 62, 63, 67, 73, 89, 183, 184, 208, 219, 228 Institute for Educational Leader 174 Institute of Oriental Culture 112 intellectual philosophy 32, 33, 38, 39 (see also mental philosophy; mental science) intelligence testing 17, 94, 133, 134 interiority 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 25, 27, 28, 100, 105, 111, 118, 120, 125, 145, 147, 148, 157, 169 (see also conscious interiority; consciousness; interiorization) interiorization 10, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 45, 63, 96, 110, 176, 180 (see also conscious interiority; consciousness; interiority) International Christian University 136 International Union of Psychological Science 174 introception 11, 35 (see also interiority; interiorization)

Index introcosmic 10, 11, 13, 17, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 33, 37, 40, 48, 82, 83, 86, 101, 110, 118, 133, 151 (see also introscopic) introscopic 10, 11, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 35, 37, 40, 48, 83, 96, 101, 118, 119, 133, 159 (see also introcosmic) introspection 7, 10, 11, 31, 32, 52, 81, 91, 96, 120, 148, 153, 157, 225 (see also interiority; interiorization) inward turn 7, 10, 15, 128–9 (see also interiority; interiorization) Iowa University 60, 68 Ise Tsu 38, 209 Ishida Baigan 23, 27, 28 Ishigami Tokumon 92, 228 Ishihara Shinobu 141, 228 Ishikawa Hidetsurumaru 146 Ishimori Masanori viii Italy 77, 167, 175, 202 Itō Dōki 146, 228 Itō Hirobumi 45, 61, 201, 202, 203 Itō Hiroshi 174, 228 Itō Noe 162 Iwakura Mission 204 Izawa Shūji 47, 56, 63, 69, 184, 228 James, William 16, 47, 52, 53, 56, 60, 71, 74, 77, 79, 84, 85, 89, 90, 96, 99, 102, 103, 11, 125, 146, 154, 156, 164, 165, 185, 186, 209, 210, 212 Janet, Pierre 53, 98, 154 Japan Adolescent Educational Institute 130 Japan Applied Psychology Association 124, 135, 190 Japan Child Research Institute 191 Japan Educational Psychology Association 135 Japan Family Welfare Association 191 Japan Neurological Society 153 Japan Occupational Guidance Association 134 Japan Psychotechnology Institute 135 Japan Seishin Medical Society 100, 101 Japan Sociological Society 107, 108 Japan Women’s College 187, 190, 191, 192 Japan Women’s University 92, 107, 135, 139, 188, 190, 191, 192

309

Japanese Association of Educational Psychology 175, 222 Japanese Association of Group Dynamics 124 Japanese Certification Board for Clinical Psychologist 178 Japanese Institute of Sociology 107 Japanese, defining 19–20 Japanese Psychological Association 92, 123–24, 131, 144, 149, 175, 177, 185, 192, 223 Japanese Psychology 16, 17, 20, 21, 37, 59, 61, 62, 71, 74, 88, 91, 93, 124, 125, 141, 142, 145, 147, 149, 171, 173, 179, 181, 182, 183, 185 rebirth of 174 role of private schools 184–5 stages of 181–3 Japanese Society for Animal Psychology 124 Japanese Society for Criminology 132 Japanese Society for Hypnosis Philosophy 105 Japanese spirit, Western skills 207 Japanese women Psychologists 179, 186–93 (see also individuals) Japanism 77, 113 Japanization 156, 176, 196 Jastrow, Joseph 102, 214 Jaynes, Julian vii, viii Johns Hopkins University 56, 71, 74, 76, 82, 122, 156, 184, 190, 214 Johonnot, James 69 journals 15, 19, 72, 117, 121, 124, 125, 175, 181, 182, 206–08 Japanese 124–5 Kadono Ikunoshin 70, 228 Kagawa Shūtoku 152, 228 Kagetaka Nagao 61 Kahlbaum, Karl Ludwig 150 Kaibara Ekiken 26, 27 Kaison Ōtsuki 61 Kakise Hikozō 56, 59, 71, 74, 77, 155, 166, 228 Kamada Hō 20, 23, 185, 228 Kamiya Mieko 191–2, 228 Kamiya Noburō 192 Kamiya Shirō 209 Kanda Naibu 77, 79, 238

310 Kanda Sakyō 60, 74, 145, 229 Kaneko Umaji (Chikusui) 56, 60, 62, 122 Kansai Applied Psychological Association 124 Kansei Gakuin University 121, 122, 147, 166, 185 Kant, Immanuel 111 Kashida Gorō 153, 229 Kashiwagi Keiko 193, 229 Katō Hiroyuki 43, 47, 66, 109, 229 Katsumoto Kanzaburō 63, 229 Kawai Teiichi 56, 60, 62, 70, 122, 229 Kawakami Hajime 162 Kawamoto Kōmin 75, 78, 229 Kazami Kenjirō 61 Keijō Imperial University 122, 123, 144, 149, 170 Keil, John 30 Keiō University 38, 70, 121, 201 Kepler, Johannes 99 ki (cosmic vital energy) 151 Kido Mantarō 122, 125, 131, 142, 169, 185, 229 Kihira Tadayoshi 169, 229 Kirihara Shigemi 126, 139, 229 Kishimoto Nōbuta 52, 53, 109, 123, 229 Kishimoto Sōkichi 127, 229 Kitamura Ryōtaku 152, 229 Kitao Jirō 203 Kitazato Shibasaburō 203 Knox, George William 70 Kobayashi Iku 109, 221, 229 Kobayashi Sae 192–3, 229 Kobayashi Sumie 169, 229 Kobe Women’s University 189 Koffka, Kurt 142, 165 Koga Sennen 61 Koga Yukiyoshi 122, 229 Köhler, Wolfgang 142, 143, 210 Koizumi Shinzō 43 Komazawa University 142 Komori Genryō 152, 229 Kōra Takehisa 157, 190, 229 Kōra Tomi 92, 157, 190–1, 229 Korean Psychology 170–1 Kosawa Heisaku 155, 156, 229 Kotake Yashō 146, 229 Kōzu Sensaburō 47

Index Kraepelin, Emil 77, 96, 119, 135, 150, 153 Kuan Ji Shan Ren 172 Kubo Tsuyako 189–90 Kubo Yoshihide 74, 122, 128, 134, 155, 169, 229 Kubota Sadanori 171 Külpe, Oswald 91, 119, 148 Kuma Toshiyasu 74, 229 Kumazawa Banzan 25 Kume Kyoko 192, 229 Kunitomo Ikkansai 29 Kurahashi Sōzō 61, 126, 129, 229 Kure Shūzō 63, 100, 105, 129, 135, 153, 157, 123, 229 Kurihara Shinichi 74, 229 Kuroda Genji 92, 146, 229 Kuroda Ryō 122, 141, 144, 145, 146, 170, 229 Kuroyanagi Ikutairō 123 Kuwabara Toshirō (Tennen) 103 Kuwata Yoshizō 56, 59, 61, 62, 71, 92, 112, 229 Kyoto Imperial University 59, 92, 93, 96, 102, 103, 106, 108, 109, 121, 124, 131, 134, 146, 147, 182, 216 Kyūshū Imperial University 70, 109, 121, 122, 142, 143, 150, 165, 190 laboratories 11, 15, 19, 34, 53, 60, 71, 74, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 112, 113, 117, 119–22, 131, 134, 135, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 153, 154, 168, 170, 171, 172, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 190, 207, 214 objectifying psyche 117–8 (see also laboratory-oriented Psychology) laboratory-oriented Psychology 34, 117–8 (see also laboratories) Ladd, George T. 20, 38, 38, 56, 60, 77, 89, 90, 102, 120, 130, 151, 209 Ladd-Franklin, Christine 102 Landis, Henry Mohr 70 Lasch, Christopher 176 Lashley, Karl Spencer 145 Lazarus, Moritz 110–11 Le Bon, Gustave 111, 112, 209, 210 Learned, Dwight Whitney 44 learning disabilities 79, 222

Index Lewin, Kurt 142, 143, 170 liberalism 10, 12, 44, 45, 127, 160, 161 economic 7, 43, 44 life-energy 97 (see also cosmic energies; ki) Lindner, Gustav A. 111 Lippershey, Hans 29 Lipps, Thomas 77 Locke, John 27, 31, 32, 35, 125, 152, 153 Lodge, Joseph 102 Lombroso, Cesare 77, 132, 210, 232 Lotze, Rudolf Hermann 32, 90, 91, 142 Lowndes, Mary 171 Lu Chiu-Yuan (Lu Hsiang-Shan) 27 Maass, Bernhard 40, 211 Mach, Ernst 77, 142 MacIver, Robert Morrison 109 macrocosm 10, 25, 30, 86, 118 (see also macroscopic) macroscopic 159 political economic institutions as 159–60 (see also macrocosm) Maeda Chōta 112, 210, 230 Mannheim, Karl 110 Marx, Karl 31 Martens, Martinus 29 Martinet, Johannes Florentius 29 Marui Kiyoyasu 155 156, 230 Marui Sumiko 193, 230 Masaki Masashi 147, 230 Masuda Koreshige 125, 144, 168, 230 materialism 3, 31, 33, 83, 85, 97, 99, 146 Matsui Shinjirō 132 Matsuki Gorō 61 Matsumoto Junichirō 110, 230 Matsumoto Kinju 126 Matsumoto Kōjirō 128, 209, 212, 220, 230 Matsumoto Matatarō 20, 56, 59, 60, 62, 71, 88–110, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 134, 137, 142, 144, 146, 147, 157, 168, 171, 182, 193, 188, 190, 191, 197, 209, 212, 220, 221, 230 contributions 91–6 educational background 89–1 Matsushima Tsuyoshi 38, 209 Maudsley, Henry 153 McDougall, William 77, 102, 109, 165, 210

311

McLennan, John Ferguson 108 “me” 10, 12, 35 (see also “I”) “me” generation 177 medical schools 57, 58, 70, 133, 205 mediums 100, 102 Meiji Constitution 68 Meiji period 5, 20, 56, 57, 64, 66, 104, 120, 123, 124, 151, 180, 182, 201, 203, 206, 207 Meiji Restoration 17, 25, 41, 42, 44, 55, 62, 64, 106, 181, 201, 203, 206 Meiji University 103 Meinong, Alexis 142, 215 Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society) 48 mental disorder 100, 150, 151, 152 Mental Illness Asylum Law 153 mental imagery 100, 133, 148 (see also interiority; introception) Mental Patients’ Custody Act 153 mental philosophy 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 58, 69, 78, 88, 171, 184, 208, 225 (see also intellectual philosophy; mental science) mental science 2, 32, 33, 37, 78, 88, 169, 179, 208, 209 (see also intellectual philosophy; mental philosophy) mental state 99, 129, 147, 154 (see also consciousness; subjectivity) mental testing 18, 91, 117, 132–3, 170, 171, 182 in Japan 133–4 Mentally-Ill Patient Confinement and Protection Law 152–3 Mesmer, Franz A. 98, 105 mesmerism 62, 105 Metzger, W. 141, 143, 165 Meumann, Ernst 91 Meyer, Alfred 154, 156 Mibai Sugi 188–9, 230 Michotte, Albert 119 microcosm 10, 13, 25, 30, 40, 82, 83, 118 (see also microscopic) microscopic 83 (see also microcosm) Mifune Chizuko 103 Mill, J. S. 31, 43, 44, 48, 49, 107, 125, 208 Minami Hiroshi 106, 230 mind‒body dualism 2 (see also Great Split) Ministry of Communication 134

312

Index

Ministry of Education 38, 48, 55, 57, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 91, 125, 130, 134, 135, 136, 143, 149, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 170, 178, 188, 202, 207, 225 (see also Department of Education) Ministry of Health and Welfare 65, 136 Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare 178 Ministry of Home Affairs 65, 132, 161, 187 Ministry of Railway 155 Ministry of Welfare 132, 187 Misawa Tadasu 74, 230 Mita Sadanori 169, 230 Mitsukuri Rinshō 44 Miura Kinnosuke 153, 230 Miyake Gaishirō 56 Miyake Ishirō 60, 230 Miyake Kōichi 63, 133, 135, 213, 221, 230 Miyamoto Misako 193, 230 Miyazaki Yasusada 26 Mizoguchi Hajime 11 Mobilization of the National Spirit 163 modernity 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 19, 29, 30, 37, 41, 44, 50, 64, 80, 118, 127, 128, 153, 176, 180, 181, 206 (see also modernization) modernization 42, 43, 48, 64, 125, 128, 141, 152, 176, 180, 180, 203, 206 (see also modernity) moral education 28, 55, 56, 58, 63, 65, 66, 55, 114, 159, 161 (see also morals) moral-cosmic perspective/worldview 10, 117, 118 morals (shūshin) 66 (see also moral education) Morgan, Conwy L. 125, 143, 209, 212 Morgan, Lewis H. 108 Mori Arinori 65, 66, 114, 201 Morimoto Kakuya 38, 209 Morinaga Shirō 141, 143, 230 Morita Kumato 56, 60, 230 Morita Masatake (Shōma) 101, 156, 230 Morita Therapy 2, 101, 156–7 Morito Tatsuo 161 Moriya Kōsaburō 61 Morse, Edward S. 46, 109, 205 Mosse, Albert 204 Motoda Nagazane 66, 114, 230

Motokawa Kōichi 147, 230 Motomiya Yahē 122, 230 Motora Yone 76 Motora Yūjirō 1, 2, 19, 20, 56, 59, 60, 62, 67, 70, 71–89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96 98, 99, 101, 103,106, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 132, 134, 135, 138, 141, 144, 145, 147 148, 149, 154, 155, 157, 171, 182, 183, 184 biography 75–7 contributions of 79–80 and Great Split 82–3 intellectual influences 78–9 psychology of 81–82 psycho-philosophy of 80 Muller, Georg E. 77, 214 Müller, Johannes 32, 98, 109 Müller, Leopold 205 Müller-Freienfels, Richard 98 multiple personality 99, 100, 154 Munsterberg, H. 56, 60, 77, 102, 119, 120, 138 Murray, David 204 Nagai Hisomu 169, 230 Nagao Ikuko 104 Nagaoka Hantarō 203 Nagase Hōsuke 72, 80, 230 Naika Hiroku 152 Naikan Therapy 2, 156–7, 174 Naitō Chisō 66 Nakae Chōmin 34, 43 Nakae Tōju 25 Nakagami Kinkei 152 Nakajiima Taizō 56 Nakajima Rikizō 46, 63, 90, 210, 220, 230 Nakajima Shinichi 136, 231 Nakamura Keiu 46, 231 Nakamura Kokyō 52, 53, 100, 231 Nakamura Masanao 61 Nakamura Rikizō 73 Nakamura Yasuma 74, 231 Nakano Ryūho 30 Nara Women’s Higher Normal School 187, 192 Narasaki Asatarō 122 Narziss, Ach 148 Nasu Kiyoshi 147, 231 national body (kokutai) 64, 137, 160, 188

Index national education 66, 112, 160, 161, 170 National Education Bureau 160 National Hospital Organization Hizen Psychiatric Center 178 National Institute of Mental Health: National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry 178 National Institute of Special Needs Education 178 National Mobilization Law 132 national morality 161 (see also moral education) National Physical Strength Law 136 National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities 178 national spirit 130, 159, 160, 162, 163, 225 national state 7, 18, 19, 41, 42, 55, 65, 66, 137 fundamentalist 166, 167 (see also state) national studies 161, 162 National Taiwan University 171 national thought 161 National-Defense Psychology 168 Nationalism Instruction Bureau 160 nationalism fundamentalist 159, 161 Volkisch 106 nationalist collectivity, psyche and 110–113 nationalist myths 162 natural metaphysicians 32, 98, 117 Naturwissenschaft (natural science) 113 Naval Aviation Psychology Research Institute 168 necromancy 102, 104 neo-animism 97 (see also vitalism) Neo-Confucianism 1, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 40 (see also Confucianism; religion) neo-imperialism 8, 137 (see also imperialism) neo-vitalism 97, 98 (see also animism) Netherlands 48, 91, 167, 183, 201, 202 (see also Holland) neurology 1, 89, 154, 178, 223, 225 New Man Society 161 Newcomb, Simon 102 Newton, Isaac 30, 83, 98, 111, 175

313

Nihon University 93, 121, 134, 149, 185, 191 Nihonjin (The Japanese) 77 Niijima Jō 75 Nishi Amane 34, 35, 36, 38, 44, 48, 66, 183, 208, 219, 225, 226, 231 Nishigori Takekiyo 152, 231 Nishikawa Joken 25 Nishikawa Yasuo viii Nishimura Shigeki 34, 38, 66, 114, 183, 219, 220, 231 Nishizawa Raiō 168, 231 Nissl, Franz 153 Nitobe Inazō 72, 80, 231 Noda Nobuo 139, 231 Nogami Toshio 61, 92, 102, 122, 131, 231 Nojiri Seiichi 56, 62, 63, 231 Noritake Kōtarō 47, 231 normal schools 38, 47, 57, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 162, 181, 182, 187, 209 North America 19 novel 7, 125 Obonai Torao 141, 168, 231 occultism 13, 97, 98, 102 Ogasawara Jiei 141, 231 Oguma Toranosuke 103, 156, 231 Ogyū Sorai 26, 48 Oka Hiroko 193, 231 Okabe Tamekichi 56, 71, 231 Okumura Ioko 187 Ōnishi Hajime 62, 63 Onishi Shigenao 169 Onoshima Usao 142, 143, 163 Opzoomer, Cornelis Willem 48 Osaka University 109, 112, 135, 192 Ōse Jintarō 63, 128, 169, 171 Ostwald, Friedrich Wilhelm 79, 86 Oswego State Normal School 68, 69 Ōtsuki Kaison 59, 126, 146, 155, 231 Ōtsuki Kenji 155, 156, 231 Ōuchi Hyōe 161 overseas training 55, 60, 61, 62, 71, 72, 92, 93, 95, 122, 134, 145, 147, 150, 153, 159, 163, 184, 187, 188, 201, 202, 238 Ōwaki Yoshikazu 122, 147, 231

314

Index

Ōyama Ikuo 162, 210 Ōyama Tadasu viii Pace, Edward 119 paranormal 100, 101, 104, 154 para-state 160, 166 (see also state; state core; state projects; statefulness; statism) patriotic educational groups 130, 161 Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich 146 Pearson, K. 96 perception studies 141 Perry, Commodore Matthew C. 41 personality 12, 17, 87, 98, 99, 100 103, 107, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 149, 154, 163, 164, 165, 178, 193, 224, 225 (see also self) philosophy 4, 9, 14, 16, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 69, 60, 61, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 88, 89, 90, 92, 103, 105, 107, 108, 119, 131, 149, 151, 171, 178, 182, 186, 216, 219 physical education 64, 136, 137, 160, 173 Physical Education and Sports Bureau 136 Piaget, Jean 192 Piggot, Francis 203 Pinel, Philippe 20, 150, 153 positivism 7, 23, 30, 32, 33, 45, 48, 49, 50, 82, 100, 102, 108, 119, 133, 157, 161, 169, 179 postimperial Japan 183 as Psychologized society 173, 175–6 as therapeutic society 173, 176–7 practical learning (jitsugaku) 26, 27, 68 pragmatism 43, 53, 79, 85 Prince, Morton H. 105, 154 progress 7, 10, 11, 31, 45, 46, 47, 64, 137 proto-psychiatry 141, 150, 162 proto-psychological 14, 23, 27, 31, 33, 37, 98, 149 psyche 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 28, 29, 34, 37, 40, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 63, 65, 66, 67, 78, 80, 84, 96, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 110, 113, 117, 119, 120, 128, 132, 133, 136, 137, 147, 151, 153, 154, 155, 159, 161, 170, 179, 186

bureaucratizing 63 collectivizing 169 individuating 169 measuring 117 objectifying 117 psychiatry 2, 58, 89, 100, 103, 141, 150, 15, 153, 154, 156, 165, 178, 190, 192, 193, 223, 225 psychic phenomena 101, 102, 103 psychoanalysis 2, 15 psycho-internalization 8, 9, 13, 16 (see also socio-externalization) psychokinematics 89, 96, 225 psychological processes 4, 11, 13, 14, 18, 27, 35, 42, 43, 47, 55, 56, 63, 69, 80, 96, 105, 110, 130, 151, 153, 163, 176, 181, 186 invariant/universal 181 variant/malleable 181 psychological revolution 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 92, 125, 126, 175, 176, 177, 180 spiritual roots of 3–4 psychological society 13, 124, 172, 176 (see also therapeutic society) Psychological Zen 52 Psychology abnormal 99–100, 103, 104, 154, 156, 216, 224 academic 4, 5, 13, 15, 62, 104, 127, 174 animal 124, 143–5, 217, 223, 224 applied 17, 46, 63, 92, 95, 124, 127, 131, 134, 137, 138, 156, 170, 173, 177, 185, 190, 209, 211, 217, 220, 222, 224, 236, 238, 256 child 130, 134, 165, 175, 189, 191, 193, 211, 212, 224 climate 149 clinical 17, 72, 80, 99, 100, 104, 124, 141, 150, 153–4, 175, 177, 183, 193, 217, 218, 222, 224 cognitive 79, 141, 149–50, 192, 223 comparative 17, 61, 143–5, 169, 209, 224 developmental 17, 88, 166, 177, 190, 193, 222, 224 educational 31, 40, 56, 68, 69, 79, 117, 119, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 165, 170, 174, 175, 183, 187, 188, 189, 190, 211, 212, 216, 217, 222, 224

Index ethnonational 111, 112 experimental 14 19, 20, 35, 53, 60, 62, 71, 76, 79, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 117, 120, 121, 131, 144, 154, 166, 168, 184, 188, 189, 190, 217, 224 industrial 18, 117, 132–3, 138, 139, 166 institutionalization of 13 military 124, 144, 167–8, 225 nationalist‒imperialist 159 philosophical 14 physiological Psychology 4, 14, 17, 39, 79, 90, 94, 107, 111, 120, 154, 223 propaganda 168 scientific 34 as secularized religion 9, 23 types of 16–17 Psychology Society 123 psychophysics 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 19, 35, 59, 72, 77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 101, 103, 121, 182, 226 psychotherapy 2, 101, 103, 104, 141, 153–4, 156, 175, 222 race 74, 89, 137 rationalization 8, 42, 50, 128, 139 Rauch, Frederick Augustus 38 Reich, Wilhelm 98 religion 30, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 66, 71, 72, 74, 76, 83, 85, 87, 88, 100, 101, 103, 112, 113, 118, 144, 145, 150, 154, 155, 160, 166, 175, 185, 206 and roots of Psychology 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 32, 33, 34 (see also Buddhism; Christianity; Confucianism; Neo-Confucianism; Daoism; Shintōism; spiritual physics) revolution 42, 44, 83, 92, 108, 176 consumerist 9 (see also industrial revolution; psychological revolution) Ribot, Théodule A. 20, 81, 109, 125, 209 Ricardo, David 43 Richter, C. P. 190 Rieff, Philip 176 Rikimaru Jien 122, 171, 231 Roesler, Hermann 204 Rogers, Carl 174

315

Romanes, George John 143, 144 romanticism 87, 88 German 110 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 43 Russia 27, 135, 146, 201, 202, 204, 205 Ryōji Yawa 152 Saigō Tsugumichi 202 Sakaki Hajime 58, 152, 153, 232 Sakaki Yasusaburō 63, 72, 128, 213, 232 Sakuma Kanae 122, 142, 232 Sandaya Hiraku 128, 232 Sanford, Edmund C. 78, 90, 120, 214 Sapporo Agricultural College 60, 180 Saris, John 29 Sasaki Masanao 155, 232 Sasamoto Kaijō 61 Satake Yasutarō 146, 232 Satō Nobuhiro 26 Satō Tatsuya viii, 20, 26, 34, 82 Sawayanagi Masatarō 139, 162, 220, 232 Say, J. B. 43 Schmuker, Samuel 38 school Psychologist 177 schooling 55, 69, 128, 130 169 and body 63 and psychological processes 67 and Psychology 17, 18 and military 159, 160 and moral education 63 Schopenhauer, Arthur 32, 52, 98 Scott, Marion M. 69 Scripture, E. W. 56, 90, 96, 125, 214 seishin 1, 2, 37, 38, 58, 59, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 89, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 113, 121, 133, 134, 135, 153, 155, 156, 160, 164, 170, 178, 192, 193, 210, 121, 216, 217, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226 Seki Eikichi 110, 232 Seki Ryūsei 61 self 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 56, 72, 83, 85, 86, 112, 125, 164, 173, 176 centrality of 176 privatization of 177 (see also personality) self-authorization 11, 12, 35 self-autonomy 11, 12, 43, 65, 66, 104, 105

316 self-help manuals 27, 79 self-narratization 11, 35 progress and 11 self-reflexivity 11, 12, 35, 157 Shiba Kōkan 29 Shibukawa Shunkai 29 Shimmei Masamichi 110 Shimonaka Yasaburō 161 Shinagawa Takako 193, 232 Shinohara Sukeichi 169, 232 Shintōism 1, 25, 26, 27, 28, 106, 115, 131, 202 (see also religion) Shirai Tsune 193, 232 Shitada Jirō 56, 62, 128, 232 Shizuki Tadao 30 Shogunate 25, 48, 75, 201, 202, 203 Simmel, Georg 108, 109, 110, 112 Skinner, B. F. 146, 147, 174 Smiles, Samuel 46, 79 Smith, Adam 42 social Darwinism 11, 109, 137 social problems 8, 47, 78, 159, 166, 182 social Psychology 88, 106–107, 109, 110, 112, 127, 131, 165, 166, 182, 192, 210, 212, 217, 218, 221, 223, 226 socialism 35, 77, 106, 108, 160 societies and associations (Psychological) 15, 121–2, 222 Japanese 123–4 society discovery of 16 invention of 26, 45–7 psychologizing of 14, 19, 33, 106, 112, 173, 175, 176 therapeutic 173, 176 Society for National Education 112 Society for Popular Lectures on Psychology 126 Society for Scientific Research on Psychic Phenomena 103 Society for Sociology 107 Society for the Study of the Spirit 102, 103 Society of the Mind 102 socio-externalization 8, 13, 14, 16 (see also psycho-internalization) sociology 14, 16, 35, 46, 47, 53, 61, 76, 77, 80, 89, 97, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 154, 165, 210, 226

Index Soma Incident 152–3 Soma Tomotane 152, 232 Sophia University 136 soul 1, 3, 15, 16, 17, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 49, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 99, 101, 103, 110, 111, 144, 171, 176, 226 scientizing of 101–02 Soviet Union 176 spatiality 10, 14, 17, 19, 83, 118 imaginary 14 modern 10 (see also introcosmic; macrocosm; microcosm) Spearman, C. E. B. 96, 119 special education 127, 128, 223 Spencer, Herbert 20, 31, 32, 43, 45, 46, 47, 58, 62, 70, 107, 108, 145, 184 spiritual culture 2 spiritual physics 1, 2, 3, 5, 103, 179 definition 2–3 Spiritual Science Institute 102 spiritualism 2, 13, 32, 62, 83, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 186, 221, 226 Stahl, Georg Ernst 99 state 8, 16, 18, 19, 25, 29, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 97, 109, 114, 115, 122, 131, 136, 137, 138, 153, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 179, 184, 187, 203, 204, 206, 207 (see also national state; para-state; state core; state projects; statefulness; statism) state core 4, 67, 114, 159, 160, 161, 166, 173 (see also para-state; state; state projects; statefulness; statism) statefulness 206 (see also para-state; state; state core; state projects; statism) state projects 64, 65 (see also para-state; state core; state; statefulness; statism) State Shinto 115 statism 45, 47, 64, 106, 108, 110, 127, 166, 167 (see also para-state; state; state core; statefulness; state projects) Stein, Lorenz von 45 Steinthal, Heymann 110, 111 Stern, William 133, 149 Störring, Gustav 91

Index Stratton, George M. 145, 205 Student Federation of Social Science 161 Stumpf, Carl 77, 142 subjectivity 13, 14, 17, 50, 67, 68, 70, 85 objectification of 14 (see also consciousness; mental state) subject–object dichotomy/divide 23, 35, 84, 118 Sugawara Kyōzō 126, 232 Sully, James 20, 38, 39, 40, 56, 209, 211 superstition studies 51, 52 Supreme Ultimate 24 Suyama Ryōzen 61 Switzerland 135, 202 Syle, Edward W. 58 Tachigara Noritoshi 171 Taihoku Imperial University 70, 171 Taine, Hippolyte 31 Taishō period 42, 62, 63, 126, 127, 128, 142, 133, 157, 161, 156, 170, 182 Taiwan 137, 171 Takabatake Motoyuki 169, 232 Takabe Tongō 107, 109 Takagi Sadaji 141, 142, 145, 146, 232 Takahashi Gorō 102, 221, 232 Takahashi Ken 144 Takamine Hideo 47, 56, 63, 69, 232 Takamine Hiroshi 169, 232 Takano Chōe 37 Takashima Heizaburō 63, 79, 128 Takasuna Miki viii, 20, 23, 34, 63 Takata Yasuma 109, 232 Takayama Chogyū 113 Takemasa Tarō 145, 170, 232 Tamura Gensen 152, 232 Tanaka Educational Institute 134 Tanaka Kanichi 92, 122, 127, 134, 168, 169, 232 Tanaka Kiichi 123, 232 Tanaka–Binet Test 134 Tanimoto Tomeri 20, 38, 62, 63, 169, 209, 220, 221, 232 Tarde, Gabriel 108, 109, 111, 112 Taylor, F.W. 138, 139, 154, 210 techno-science 9, 10, 26, 74, 87, 101, 117, 118, 180, 106 and innovation 180 techno-scientific worldview 9–10

317

techno-scopic perspective/worldview 10, 117, 118 Tejima Toan 27, 38 telepathy 2, 100, 102, 103 temporality 9, 11, 19 modern 10 Terada Hiroko 193, 232 Terada Seiichi 132, 210, 233 Terazawa Izuo 168 Terman, Lewis M. 133 Tetsugakkan (Philosophy Hall) 51, 70 therapeutic society 173, 176–7 (see also psychological society) Thorndike, E. I. 47, 56, 90, 91, 119, 143, 144, 187, 188, 190 thought guidance 161 thoughtography 104 Titchener, E. B. vii, 56, 60, 77, 78, 80, 91, 96, 102, 119, 120, 142, 148 Toda Teizō 109, 233 Tōhoku University 70, 121, 147, 156, 189, 192 Tokugawa Ieyasu 29 Tokugawa period 23, 27, 30, 42, 64, 68, 180, 201 Tokugawa Yoshimune 26 Tokugawa Yoshinobu 41 Tokyo Academy 48, 109, 207 Tokyo Higher Normal School 47, 69, 92, 93, 130, 131, 134, 163, 184 Tokyo Institute of Psychiatry 178 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology 178 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Neuroscience 178 Tokyo Imperial University 35, 46, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 75, 77, 89, 90, 92, 93, 100, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 112, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 13, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 150, 153, 155, 156, 157, 161, 163, 168, 172, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 192, 202, 216, 226 (see also University of Tokyo) Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School 138, 187, 189, 190, 193 Tokyo Women’s Normal School 69, 192 Tolman, Edward Chase 145, 147

318 Tominaga Iwatarō 40, 212, 213, 234 Tominaga Kenichi 108 Tomoda Fujio 174, 233 Tönnies, Ferdinand 109 totalism 163 totalitarianism 163 Toyama Shōichi (Masakazu) 46, 47 translation, challenges of 181 Trilling, Lionel 176 Tsuboi Shindō 75 Tsuchida Ken 152, 233 Tsuda College 192 Tsuda Mamichi 44 Tsuda Sen 75, 76, 233 Tsukahara Masatsugu 56, 62, 71, 112, 123, 128, 130, 170, 209, 213, 233 Tuke, William 150 Uchida Yūzaburō 135, 139, 233 Uchida–Kraepelin Psychodiagnostic Test 135 Uchijima Sadao viii Uchimura Yūshi 192, 233 Udagawa Yōan 98 Ueda Tadaichi 74, 233 Ueno Yōichi 126, 133, 138–9, 155, 233 Umeoka Yoshitaka 146, 233 Umezu Hachizō 168, 233 University of Chicago 61, 109, 145, 192, 214 University of Colorado 185 University of Leipzig 46, 56, 60, 74, 91, 112, 117, 119, 121, 130, 131, 147, 172, 184, 214 University of Massachusetts 205 University of Michigan 61, 184, 189, 214 University of Missouri 68, 174 University of Tokyo 46, 57, 58, 61, 69, 108, 179, 202, 204, 205, 207 (see also Tokyo Imperial University) Upham, Thomas C. 78, 184 Uramoto Seizaburō 147, 233 Ushijima Yoshitomo 122, 233 Vail, Milton Smith 76 Verbeck, Guido F. 204 Vierkandt, Albert 109 visions 100

Index Vissering, Simon 44, 48 visuality new 4, 10, 128 scientific 11 vitalism 80, 97, 98, 99 (see also animism) vocational schools 70, 163 Volk 60, 93, 97, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 137, 138, 164, 165, 166, 170 Volk identity 170 Volk Psychology 60, 106, 110, 111, 112, 137, 166 Völkerpsychologie 110, 111, 113 Volksgeist (folk mind or spirit) 111, 113 Volksseele (soul of a people) 110, 112 von Ehrenfels, Christian Freiherr 142 von Krafft-Ebing, Richard 153 von Wiese, Leopold 109 Wada Rinkuma 56, 63, 122, 233 Wada Tōkaku 151, 152, 233 Waku Masatatsu 38, 209 Wang Guowei 171 Wang Yangming 25, 28 Waseda University 44, 60, 70, 135, 156, 188 Washburn, Margaret Floy 144, 186 Watanabe Ryūshō 56, 63, 70, 233 Watanabe Tōru 20, 23, 122, 132, 135, 136, 149, 183, 185, 210, 233 Watase Shōsaburō 77, 80, 233 Watson, John Broadus 144, 146, 147, 190 Watt, Henry J. 148 Wayland, Francis 20, 33, 38, 39, 44 Wazuko Dōjikun 27 Weber, E. H. 72, 119, 121, 164 Weber, Max 8, 108, 109 Weber–Fechner Law 119, 121 Wechsler, D. 133, 178 welfare 8, 19, 65, 127, 139, 187, 191 Wertheimer, Max 142 Western learning 52, 57, 58, 75 Westernization 42, 113, 127, 180, 201, 206 (see also modernization) Westphal, Karl Friedrich Otto 153 Whipple, G. M. 96 Williams, G. B. 205 Witmer, Lightner 119 Wolff, Caspar Friedrich 99

Index Women’s Patriotic Association 187–8 Woolley, Helen Thompson 186 Wundt, Wilhelm vii, 4, 15, 19, 30, 46, 53, 56, 59, 60, 62, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, 89, 90, 91, 96, 101, 102, 112, 113, 119, 120, 130, 131, 147, 148, 150, 154, 165, 170, 172, 184 Würzburg School 148 Yabe Yaekichi 155, 233 Yale University 60, 71, 89, 90, 102, 214 Yamada Sōshichi 74, 129, 233 Yamaga Sōkō 26 Yamagata Aritomo 202 Yamakawa Kenjirō 102, 233 Yamakawa Kikue 162 Yamakawa Noriko 193, 233 Yamauchi Shigeo 169, 234 Yamazaki Ansai 25, 29 Yan Yongjing 171, 234 Yasuda Tokutarō 155, 210, 234 Yatabe Tatsurō 122, 149, 174, 234 Yatabe–Guilford Personality Test 178

319

Yatsu Naohide 144, 234 Yerkes, Robert M. 133, 145 Yoda Arata 126, 234 Yokoyama Matsusaburō vii, 60, 74, 122, 148, 149, 185, 234 Yoneda Shōtarō 108, 210, 234 Yoshida Kumaji 56, 62, 63, 134, 212, 234 Yoshimoto Ishin 157, 174, 234 Yoshinaga Shinichi viii, 52, 103 Yoshio Shunzō (Nankō) 29 Yoshioka Joseph (Gennosuke) 145, 234 Youth and Child Group 130, 161 youth employment counseling offices 129 Yuhara Motoichi 169–70, 212, 234 Yumoto Takehiko 40, 211, 220 Zen 25, 36, 52, 72, 77, 84, 85, 139, 143, 156, 161 (see also Psychological Zen) Zhang Zai 24, 25 Zhou Dunyi 25 Zhu Xi 24, 25, 26, 48