The Japanese are quite a captivating conundrum. They have fascinated the world throughout time, be it with their quaint culture, rapid advancement, wartime cruelty, or economic triumphs. However, what fascinates the most is the fact that the Japanese always been a strongly united bloc, banded together against anything that would disturb the continuity of the Japanese way, whatever it might metamorphose into in any given period. In addition, the unrest released by the legalization of something as simple as national symbols, the Hinomaru (the Japanese flag) and the Kimigayo (the Japanese national anthem) adds an unexpected mix into the pot. The interrelation of these factors in my mind brings up the question of Japanese nationalism. Therefore, in an initial attempt to unravel this nebulous area, the endeavor was made to elicit the response from the source, the Japanese. I propose that Japanese nationalism first exists, and its unique nature is composed of many an intertwining factor, and cannot be simply defined to the realm of extremists and fanatical saber rattling.

A swift glance at Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary will reveal the meaning of nationalism to be "loyalty and devotion to a nation; esp: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on the promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups". Naturally, this reflects the attitudes of fairly every country in the world, including Japan. What makes Japan's case special however is the simple fact that it is taken to greater proportions, minus all of the usual trappings one would expect from nationalistic fervor. For instance, little breaks in the facade like comment made by Tokyo's governor Shintaro Ishihara make it painfully clear that the Japanese have pride within themselves and the way of life that they have fashioned. What is so fascinating about Japanese nationalism is that it doesn't require parades down national roads in heavily armored tanks. It is just about whether one is a member of Japanese society or not (Reischauer and Jansen 395). This of course leads to the ultimate line being drawn, which is between the Japanese as a whole and the rest of the world.

Interestingly, trends prominently displayed in my research seem to reflect this Japanese nationalism. It was quite amazing to see very similar answers among the Japanese public. I believe that it is a testament to the strong group forces working to form a consensus of what Japan actually is, and what it should be thought of. Before venturing to Japan, I created a survey that was meant to evoke genuine thought on the subject of Japanese nationalism. This survey can be viewed in Appendix A of this report. Pictures of the Japan landscape were included to add interest and possibly make the survey more attractive to the populace. In addition, the entirety of the survey was printed in Japanese for the ultimate ease of answering and acceptance of the difficult questions my subjects were being asked to provide answers for. In an effort to broaden the spectrum of Japanese who could answer my survey, I provided a near identical online version on my web site. The only omissions were the pictures due to time and technical constraints.

The survey that I created was distributed in a variety of means. Besides the basic means of passing out surveys myself, a few of my friends here in Japan kindly distributed some of them to their acquaintances. I also included a mention of my survey and the web address to the online version on my business cards, which I heartily distributed to all that I happened to come across. Unfortunately, as with any survey, there are problems that arise. I will point out the discovered shortcomings in my study in an effort to properly balance and put all of the data in perspective. One of them was that the majority of Japanese found the very thought of probing their deepest thoughts on their own nationalism, which some felt not to even exist, a daunting task. Perhaps the exclusion of nationalism in the title in a future study will remove some of the anxiety of answering such a survey. In addition, the first question of the survey was generally thought to be to broad and usually yielded simple or poor answers. In the future I would hope to implement a field test of the survey in a Japanese environment to fully hone the questions to pinpoint accuracy in eliciting deep answers. Finally, the small sample size rendered some of my demographic questions useless, and the omission of the gender demographic was an oversight.

To be sure, despite these problems, my first research effort brought to the forefront of my mind some interesting aspects of the Japanese and their brand of nationalism. As the focus now shifts to the actual data, I hope to impart what I have discovered about what the Japanese people are thinking, according to answers written by their own hand. The following are general demographics which will assist with the understanding of the respondent data that will follow. For other demographics of interest, please see Appendix B. The completed surveys that I have received back number to about thirty-four, with about eleven of them, or 32.4%, being panned from the online version. Due to time and language constraints, I have utilized only nineteen of the surveys returned, which is about 55.8% of the total surveys I received. It is from these surveys that the data will be culled from.

As has been stated, the questions in the survey were crafted in such a way to elicit an introspective response. Some of them clearly had better success than others, but each one at least yielded a couple of interesting responses. To start with, question one asked the Japanese what they thought of Japan. For the most part, the majority of the respondents (63%) simply stated that Japan is the land of their birth, their homeland, a connection that cannot be severed, and so on. Drawing from the fact that most of the respondents were young and students, one might infer that they are mainly involved in their day to day affairs, and have not taken the time to deeply consider their place in the big picture. About two of the respondents (10.5%) replied simply that Japan meant safety to them. Interestingly, both of these respondents matched in the fact that they were relatively the same age and are both students. Where they differed however was in experience abroad. One of them has been abroad about ten times, while the other has only ventured to Australia. The discrepancy in actual experience in abroad and the opinion that Japan is safe leads to the conclusion that Japanese safety compared to that of the world is indeed rooted in some fact and not blind national pride, even if it is taken for granted by some. A respondent with a little longer response noted that nature was part of his concept of Japan. It should be taken into account that this person is residing in Tottori Prefecture, which is largely rural. But, the most interesting and thought provoking response for this question was by thirty-three year-old, married university employee. In his answer to this question, he stated that Japan, to him, is a bit oppressive. This is in amazing contrast to the neutral to positive sounding answers that were handed in. Perhaps this could be a criticism of the intense cohesiveness that the Japanese have between themselves. Also, as Reischauer and Jansen expressed in The Japanese Today, "…greater Japanese tendency to emphasize the group at the expense of the individual" (128) is a potential stress point.

The next question on the survey asked the subjects to detail their opinions on if Japan was a good or a bad country. This question generated some really magnificent responses, precisely the ones that I intended for it to obtain. The popular sentiment of Japan seems to be mostly good, with the a good number of respondents (57.9%) citing public order, safety, and so forth as the things that makes Japan a good country. Some other interesting good parts of Japan mentioned by this group of respondents and others were its customs, economics, medical prowess, ease of life, nature, etc. However, 31.6% of the surveys that called Japan a good country also said it was bad in ways as well, and 21.1% of the surveys had just purely bad commentary on Japan. One respondent replied that Japan is somewhere in the middle. It is worth mentioning that there is a greater variety of unfavorable things plaguing Japan than favorable in the answers of the respondents. A number of these bad parts depended on where the current subject was in life. For instance, a student cited that academic prejudice was a reason that Japan was in some ways not a very good country. A married, twenty-four year-old university officer stated his lack of confidence in the political, social, and educational systems of Japan. Other opinions consisted of such things as suicides, bullying, materialism, crowding, a sluggish government, crime, and the loss of morals among the populace.

An involved question in which I also posed to the Japanese was what, to them, was their most important value, or virtue. What a better way to coax out nationalistic feelings than through a probe into what people thought was the best part of their society. For the most parts, answers in this section were fairly cut and dry. Fairly all of them (78.9%) had to do with person to person relations, which I find intriguing. These results seemed to match Reishchauer and Jansen's findings that Japanese value harmony (136). Since 78.9% of the respondents thought to mention that their most important value is in person to person relations, it clearly shows that it makes up a large part of what it means to live in Japanese society. Oddly, one respondent replied that it was not possible to pinpoint a specific virtue in Japanese society, and even suggested that there isn't one. The respondent who said this is twenty-four years old, married, and a university worker. It seems that something has affected this person's life in such a way that the belief in the goodness of society is not there anymore. But, the concern that most likely underlies this statement keeps this response from being an anti-Japanese one. The positive responses that had to do with interpersonal relations (73.7%) had such answers as the kindness of the Japanese, observance of rules, politeness, manners, humility, respect for the aged, keep out of others' business, work ethic, civility, and consideration of others. These answers lead one to believe in the great faith that the Japanese have in themselves. Also, by stating what they think is good about themselves, can't the very same answer be taken as a criticism of other people who they feel lack these traits? If the Japanese felt that everyone had the exact same positive aspects, they would not have answered so confidently about the good qualities they see in themselves. Clearly, this is nationalism, if there was ever any doubt that the Japanese had no detectable nationalism. As a final note on this question, one of the more interesting answers that I received was that Japanese should not engage in marital affairs!

When questioned on what part of Japan they would most like to change, the respondents gave quite a nice spectrum of answers. One that I thought was fabulous was a respondent who replied that because many famous people in Japan are being arrested, more proper role models for Japan are needed. This is a great answer, which works for the advancement of Japanese society, and reveals a caring populace for the welfare of the people. A quite different response came from a seventeen-year-old student who felt that the most important Japanese virtue that she stated in the previous question to be something that requires change. This respondent felt hampered by having to hide feelings for the good of the whole. Perhaps this person was not so much attacking humility, but the extent of loss of self required to exist in a group society (Smith 41). In support of this, some of the other respondents came up with things they wanted to change, such as: the way everyone follows the same fads and excludes those who don't, the way everyone thinks everyone is the same, the way that people cannot freely say yes or no, and the fact that Japan is a country that places obsessive interest on education. As for the education aspect, this complaint was not limited to students. An office worker and a university work both raised this issue as well. Other well thought out answers included a person who wanted to change everything in Japan, a request to build more homes for the elderly, someone who wanted to stop the littering in Japan, someone who desired to reduce the number of crimes, a person who wanted a speeding up of the sluggish government, and so on. However, I would like to go back to the attacks on the group structure of Japanese society made by some of the recipients. Of course, as I have stated, a negative response of course can be taken as a plea to improve society applies here. Interestingly, these statements go against what the respondents put in for the previous question and a few of the following. It seems that the social structure in Japan might be heading for some sort of change. Meyer concurs in his statement that, "With every generation came more questioning of authority and relaxation of social mores"(Meyer 242). Without a doubt, this trend will continue on not only in Japan, but also throughout the rest of the societies of the world. There are still strong nationalistic feelings for Japan and Japanese society, but nowadays for a Japan and Japanese society that place more emphasis on the individual's effort into the group, as opposed to the group's emphasis and effect on its members. Japanese nationalism is interesting in that it can adjust with these changes.

Another perfect question for drawing out pride in a people was the question of what do the Japanese like most about themselves. Not suprisingly, these answers in ways mirrored answers given in the important Japanese virtue category. Therefore, a range of answers that were received, such as: Japanese are kind, Japanese are considerate of others, Japanese do their best to keep relationships going, Japanese are unobtrusive, and Japanese are friendly. But some truly interesting answers that I received were things like Japanese are familiar with each other so conversation is easily made, everyone is Japanese so it is easy to understand what everyone is thinking, and together we can work together and accomplish things piece by piece. If there was ever a doubt about the group nature of Japanese society, I believe that this data will promptly dispel it. In addition, this is nationalism in prime form. These answers make the Japanese sound like some sort of collective, though we mustn't go that far(Reischuaer and Jansen 140-141). It does surely show how bonded together all of the Japanese are. If the Japanese are confident that they think enough alike and can accomplish anything together (Reischauer and Jansen 169), this nationalism will hold them together against any foreign threat, or foreign attempt to integrate.

Naturally, the inverse of the previous question must be asked, so a question about what the Japanese most dislike about themselves was included. The most interesting trend in these responses was one that has been seen before. It seems that this generation of Japanese is trying to remove some of the crushing power (or influence) of the group that has long been in Japanese society. Perhaps because of foreign influences, the recession, etc. they are reevaluating commonly held principles. In any case, several respondents (52.6%) cited things that they disliked about their society to be how Japanese always mind others, can't say their opinions, don't regard the individual highly, everyone seems to be the same, hide their true feelings, and are subject to the all powerful tradition. In addition, there were some other interesting responses to this question that are worth mentioning. The respondent who had been the harshest in the criticism of the Japanese education system stated that how Japanese judge each other by academic background as the most dislikeable part about Japanese. One person responded that Japanese buy too many name brand goods. A student who throughout the survey had a strong environmentalist lean replied that how the growth of cities destroyed nature as the number one bad part about the Japanese. Lastly, a respondent answered that Japan's strictly hierarchical structure was a bad point. From the majority of these responses, I would like to point out that they would work for the retention of nationalism, especially that of the negative kind. If you felt that you couldn't speak out, had to blend, and follow orders, it would not too much to help you fight the tide and bring about a change in the status quo. It is interesting to note that this danger also lingers with the healthier kind of nationalism that the Japanese engage in.

As for the next question, I intended for it to bring out a bit of anger, disgust, disbelief, or an "us vs. them" attitude as a test for a current of nationalism, and to understand its nature. I believe I got some of these emotions from the question of what the Japanese thought foreigners were thinking of them. I received answers such as foreigners are aware only of old Japanese culture, that they feel Japanese don't speak clear, that they think that the Japanese are not assertive, are hard workers, thin, eat odd food, are prosperous, isolated, and generally thinking poorly of the Japanese. In particular, the last answer, given by two respondents, shows an "us vs. them" attitude that I hoped the question would elicit. Naturally, a country with nationalism would recoil into this position if they felt themselves being criticized. Also of interest is the fact that many of the complaints the Japanese say that foreigners have they also have about themselves. This shows that perhaps foreign influence is breaking through into Japanese consciousness, again causing a reevaluation of principles. However, if any of these influences are seen as a threat, or if the idea is so new that the majority of the populace is against it, Japanese nationalism will most likely drown it out. But, the apparent flexibility in Japanese nationalism to accept things for the common good of the whole is astonishing.

The next question of the survey really comes out and asks about full-blown nationalism in its most symbolic form. In this question, I queried what the Japanese thought of their now national symbols, the Hinomaru and the Kimigayo. Some of the responses for this question were quite intriguing. Of course, there were respondents (52.6%) who were apathetic about the symbols and didn't particularly mind. There was also a faction (26.3%) who clearly did not like the melody of the Kimigayo. The melody was too somber and depressing for them. At this point, I think that it is important to take a look at some of the more in-depth or interesting answers. First, the biggest example of apathy was by a nineteen year-old student who has been abroad ten times. This person's response was that there is no connection between the symbols and this person. This data clearly contradicts with some of the other profound comments made on this person's survey, so I believe it is just due to tiring of the survey or something along this vein. Another respondent answered that although the Kimigayo is gloomy, the Hinomaru is really likeable. This answer stands out in that it shows a strong like for the Hinomaru, which wasn't especially true in any of the other people’s responses. A nice answer was given by another subject who stated that the national symbols are important to him. This clearly contradicts the patch of apathy that was encountered in some of the other surveys. One response detailed an opinion in which the Kimigayo and Hinomaru should be national symbols, just not enshrined in law. This is interesting because it reveals that perhaps the current national symbols of Japan aren't what make the Japanese feel nationalistically about themselves. If they are too ashamed to have it put into law, perhaps new symbols that could capture the essence of Japan would be better. Or, perhaps this shows that this isn't where Japanese pride lies. Still another respondent said that the symbols shouldn't be in ceremonies, etc. as long as foreigners are present in Japan. Perhaps my favorite response is one in which it was said that the Kimigayo would be better if it was easier to get accustomed to, but it is good because it keeps the memory of the war alive. What a great way to keep country nationalism from going fanatical by having constant firm but not harsh reminders of pas atrocities and hardships. This would keep the current nationalism in its present state, and keep it from turning into the fanatical state it was during the World War II years. Lastly, a respondent totally disowned both symbols as the cause of the death of many people. I believe it has been fairly clearly established that the Japanese do indeed have a sort of nationalism, but these answers seem to reveal that they are largely ashamed or undecided about the traditional symbols that go with nationalism, as I briefly introduced a little earlier. It looks as if the Japanese do not need such symbols to have nationalism, and the introduction of such is most likely to create discord. For the Japanese, the symbol of there civilization is simply the Japanese race.

The final thinking question of the nationalism survey was the inclusion of a question that asked whether a new flag or national anthem would be better than the current ones. Interestingly, quite a few respondents (57.9%) opted not to open a Pandora's Box and felt that the current symbols were fine as is. For the people who wanted change (31.6%), the ranged from the scrapping of the national anthem for another to the total change of both symbols. The rest of the respondents neglected to respond to this question at all. An interesting response that pressed for the keeping of the status quo revealed again that by doing this, the Japanese will not forget the war. Again, it is probably better and more mentally healthy to have a symbol created by yourself to remind you of past misdeeds than of someone else's making. Another strong response, this time for the changing of the national anthem, asked why the emperor should be worshipped. Pulling from the idea that the national symbols in themselves are not necessarily needed for Japanese nationalism, these responses make sense. In addition, these symbols are not necessarily associated with many good deeds or triumphs, like the American flag and anthem, because of World War II so such apathy or dislike is most likely justified.

Thus, Japanese nationalism is clearly present today and is not one drenched in violence or threats, but various factors that have kept the Japanese together. After an in-depth analysis of the data, I feel confident that I have proven not only that the Japanese have nationalism, but that it is a kind unique to them. The very arrangement of their society is a rich soil for nationalism to thrive and grow strong in. As we have seen in history, if unquestioned, or isolated, this nationalism can grow to epic proportions. But through it all, the Japanese keep a sort of healthy nationalism to keep their society moving like clockwork and to keep it as concentrated as possible. Unfortunately, this nationalism still has the side effect of excluding Japan from the world community (quote), as well as keeping foreigners from fully integrating into Japanese society. If this is not fixed, (quote), it will definitely be a problem for the Japanese in the future. On the other hand, as we have seen through the data however, this change is already taking place. The next generation is already questioning the values and concepts of the older generation, and attempting to modify Japan and augment it with the tools necessary to survive the onslaught once more, to keep the Japanese people going as strong as ever. If they succeed, and keep the older generation from molding them into simple copies of the past, they will be able to fine tune Japanese nationalism into a healthy force that can catapult Japan into more successful times and prosperity. The entire world is eagerly watching and waiting.