individual " in Japan

The keyword of the lectures I gave at the Collège de France in June 2014 is a notion that has haunted Japanese intellectuals since the ^{mid-nineteenth} century, and continues to haunt them today: that of theindividual. This choice seems to me all the more timely and necessary given that, on the one hand, Japanese society is in the process of shedding its obsession with the lack of individuals, and that, on the other hand, in the eyes of the constitutionalist that I am, the notion of the individual relates to the fate of democracy, understood not just as a way of deciding in the name of the demos, but above all as a civilization that must manage the res publica while respecting the value and dignity of the individual. The relationship between modernization and democracy defined in this way - what I would call constitutionalism - is one of the crucial issues of our time.

The issue is not confined to the archipelago of the Far East, as the belief in the individual, also linked to the universalist philosophy of the Enlightenment, seems largely outdated in Western intellectual circles, which tend to call for the end of modernity. That's why, when I took part in the World Congress marking the bicentenary of the French Revolution, I dared to subtitle my talk: "The profound significance of 1789 for the development of Western constitutionalism throughout the world". It was in this context that the great historian Maurice Agulhon replied, in his concluding remarks to the Congress: "Here is something worthy of encouraging the French, at least those who have remained friends of Law and Liberty...". But outside the West, the situation is not easy either, for it's not just those who accuse the West of cultural imperialism. Where did Japan fit in, and where does it fit in today, in this chase-and-cross scene? What is the geocultural position of the Far Eastern archipelago? This is the question I've tried to answer.

Indeed, there are too many cases of "modernization" taking place despite a lack of constitutionalism, or even because of an obvious lack of constitutionalism. Defining democracy as "the mode of political organization of an individualistic civilization", constitutionalist Bernard Chantebout identifies three types of reaction in non-Western civilizations to democracy in this sense. In addition to "refusal" and "failure", he describes the Japanese experience as a "synthesis of democracy and tradition". For my part, without falling into the trap of a certain patriotism, I can note the generally positive record of "post-war democracy" under the 1946 Constitution, proclaiming respect for the individual, as well as certain honourable achievements of "Taisho democracy", including under the Imperial Constitution of 1889. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves whether the term "synthesis" is appropriate here.

In briefly retracing our troubled modern history, I have referred to the positions taken by representative intellectuals, caught up in the ongoing rivalry between what is open to the universal and what is characterized by a certain "Japaneseness". Following a tragic adventure, and finally freed from the constraints of the military-theocratic power of 1935-45, young intellectuals tried to learn from their painful experiences.

Masao Maruyama (historian of political ideas, 1914-1996) distinguished between two kinds of freedom: freedom that simply liberates desire, and freedom that creates norms. He revealed a cruel deficit of the latter in Japan's cultural tradition, and warned that "post-war democracy" would be unviable without this kind of freedom taking root. The notion of basso ostinato he proposed helps us to understand the difficulty of rooting individualistic voluntarism as we have experienced it. The persistence of the voice in a low register, inherent to the climate of this culture, metamorphoses the dominant melody coming from outside. This can be one of the charms of Japanese culture (for example, Buddhism since the ^7th century). But there is also the risk of ending up crushed by the basso ostinato that has become resounding (constitutionalism in the 1930s). Shuichi Kato (writer and critic, 1919-2008), to whom Nobutaka Miura devoted the major part of his lecture at the Collège de France in March 2013, has launched the idea of a "métisse" or "hybrid" culture, to overcome the idea, false in his view, that modernization equals Westernization. For him, the challenge is necessary if we are never to repeat the terrible isolation of the intellectuals who, in the end, were unable to prevent the great catastrophe.

Can theindividual gain ground in this small corner of North-East Asia? Today, it's very difficult to give a precise answer.