Shinto is the most ancient and pervasive religious influence in Japan and is the name given to the indigenous elements of Japanese religion which can be traced back to pre-historic times. Though much of Shinto may have been imported, it is Shinto that is associated with the mythology of Japan’s creation and the supernatural ancestors of Japan’s imperial line (Hendry 1995: 117). It is also Shinto that is said to be the foundation of Japan’s identity as a nation (Hendry 1995: 117). Modern-day Shinto has been described as ‘a variant of simple and primitive shamanistic animism common among rice farmers of monsoon Asia, with a characteristic belief in ubiquitous spirits and ancestor worship’ (Fukui 1992: 203).
During the Meiji Restoration (1868-1912), Shinto became Japan’s state religion. It was elevated above Confucianism, but the core Confucian doctrines (discussed in
2.1.3) were retained in order to continue harnessing nationalism to mobilise support for tasks set by the state (Fukui 1992: 204). In 1906, approximately 190,000 shrines around the country were consolidated so that, as a rule, every village had one shrine (Fukui 1992: 203). During the years leading up to and including the Second World War, Shinto doctrine developed and was propagated by a specially created state Shinto office, which sought to inspire Japanese people with nationalistic fervour. The promotion of Shinto helped combat and quash the radical, often Marxist-inspired, labour and peasant movements that arose in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5). State Shinto was eventually dismantled by the Allied Occupation, it being deemed responsible for much of Japan’s pre-war and wartime aggression (Hendry 1995: 117).
In Buddhist doctrine one talks about ‘Buddha-nature’ in all entities, while in Shinto (literally meaning the Way of the Kami [or Spiritual Forces]), which in reality is an ethnic mixture of tribal religions, one talks about kami, a supernatural power or spirit that can reside in anything and that gives a person feelings of awe (Kalland 2002). To understand Shinto one must understand the concept of kami and disregard the preconceptions evoked by the word god, which is often used to translate kami. In Shinto, monotheism, the concept of one absolute god who is the creator of both nature and human beings, does not exist (Shinto Online Network Association 2005).
Some Japanese now view Shinto as superstition, however manifestations of Shinto are evident all over Japan in the form of shrines that are frequently the focal point within individual residences or townships. Shrines and the buildings that house them are maintained by local people, who in turn come under the protection of the particular kami who is remembered there. In general, Shinto is concerned with
notions of pollution and purity, evident in the rituals undertaken when visiting a shrine (these involve the washing of the mouth and hands). The washing rituals purifies a person from the pollution of the outside world.
In Shinto mythology, the kami pair, Izanagi and Izanami, are said to have created the archipelagic Japanese islands and all the elements within them (such as rivers, mountains, animals, flowers, and trees, as well as elemental forces such as fire). The pair also procreated Amaterasu no mikoto, the Sun Goddess, and her brother,
Susanoo no mikoto, the impetuous god of storms47
An interesting aspect of religious beliefs in Japan is the way in which Japanese people use them interchangeably, depending on the situation. For example, ‘Shinto is divorced entirely from dealing with the dead, because at this time families turn to the other major religion, namely Buddhism’ (Hendry 1995: 119). Generally speaking,
. The rivalry between the two gods is well documented in Japanese mythology. When Susanoo was ordered to leave heaven by Izanagi, he visited his sister to say goodbye. The visit turned into a furious argument during which the storm god, Susanoo, destroyed his sister’s rice fields and hurled a flayed pony (an animal sacred to Amaterasu) at her loom, killing one of her attendants. It can thus be postulated that, because Amaterasu, a benevolent kami, and
Susanoo, a mischievous if not malevolent one, are deemed divine beings, many Japanese do not brand acts defiling the natural world as necessarily wrong: ‘Shinto myths relate that Susanoo wreaked havoc in his sister’s rice fields, implying that similar actions contrary to the general good of the world of nature might still have some divine sanction via Susanoo’s example’ (Selin 1997: 299).
47
A basic tenet of Shinto is that Amaterasu and Susanoo parented the imperial line and were the ancestral stock of all its human subjects.
Shinto ‘is associated with celebrations of life and its development, with the harvest [of natural resources] and fertility, and with house-building and the community’ (Hendry 1995: 119).
Although Shinto may not overtly promote the same level of peaceful, harmonious living between humans and their natural world as Buddhism, Shinto philosophy is still considered to be, at least in the eyes of westerners, an Oriental spirituality that is less invasive than many Occidental religions. In response to the question asked earlier: why is it that Japan, a nation predominantly practising Shinto, Buddhism or both48, has witnessed many anthropogenic environmental disasters49
An additional characteristic of Shinto that is notable when discussing environmentally-relevant behaviour of the Japanese people is the performing of
and, more specifically, continues to promote the killing of whales, Tucker (2003: 165) suggests that the Japanese ‘have tolerated egregious abuses’ of the natural world because Shinto mythology describes the destructive actions of kami such as Susanoo’s on the rice fields as part of Japanese life. In Japanese society the material and spiritual worlds are not separated. All objects exist in the spiritual realm, so if destructive actions are performed by kami (such as flooding), then, by rights, they can also be performed by Japanese people without fear of personal retribution. What this suggests is that the Japanese have tailored certain religious traditions to coincide with moral and practical convenience.
48
Shinto is a non-exclusive religious tradition, and many Japanese practise both Buddhism and Shinto.
49
There are many examples of pre-modern environmental degradation in Asia. In Japan, forests were depleted during the period 600-850 and again in 1570-1670, which were periods characterised by extensive building activities (Totman 1989: 3). Japan is the single largest buyer of tropical hardwood in the world and Southeast Asia is by far its largest supplier (Wong 1998: 132).
ceremonial rites and rituals. Shinto kami are neither good nor bad per se but can manifest as benign or harmful depending on the treatment they receive (Blacker 1975: 41). Thus, there exists a kind of contractual relationship between people and supernatural beings (see Davis 1992: 241). The kami need affection and nourishment from human beings and, as long as the proper rites are performed and offerings given, the deities will bring health and happiness to the worshippers, protect them against the wrath of nature and provide them with, for example, bumper catches of fish and harvests of various natural products in return (Kalland 1995b: 243-257). Thus, memorial stones have been present at Japanese whaling ports dating back to the seventeenth century; and memorial stones at Japanese slaughterhouses, marine product markets, and even animal testing facilities have been erected in the twentieth century. The Japanese ceremonies for animals that have been killed are referred to as
ireisai and kanshasai, which roughly translates as ‘comforting of the soul’ and ‘giving of thanks’ respectively (Asquith 1983). Thus, deep gratitude is felt towards the slaughtered whales, which are deemed as ‘giving up their lives to save the lives of Japanese people’ (Ohsumi 2004: 88). Any wastage is deemed ‘grievous’, in keeping with a culture of utilising all the animal, and Japanese pro-whaling authors and whalers criticise western-style whaling for its high level of wastage. Finally, the psychological benefits of being able to attribute a poor catch to religious factors rather than a fisherman’s own deficient skills are considerable. It means that there exists an avenue for ‘saving face’, a concept that is central to Japanese society and one that will be examined in greater detail in Chapter Five.
It could be suggested, therefore, that due to the religious philosophies of Shinto (and Buddhism as discussed later), the observances of various rites (asking deities for
protection from hostile environmental forces) and the conduct of ceremonies (asking deities to provide bountiful harvests), Japan could be seen as having a close spiritual ‘connectedness’ to the natural world; however, this close association with nature does not necessarily imply that Asians have an ecocentric perspective of nature that stands in contrast to a western anthropocentric perspective (Kalland and Persoon 1998: 5). Likewise, the notion that Asians live in ‘harmony’ with nature does not necessarily mean that nature is protected, as ‘harmony’ does not also imply environmental stasis. Broch (1998: 212) argues that as long as good and evil forces are in equilibrium (much like the East Asian balance of yin and yang), and whilst this cosmic balance is not upset, people are free to alter the composition of flora and fauna in innovative ways. Kalland and Persoon (1998: 6) conclude, then, that there is nothing in Asian religions that conduces to environmentally friendly behaviour any more than elsewhere; other commentators even note that there is no such thing as an Asian perception of nature (Callicott and Ames 1989: 1-21; Bruun and Kalland 1995: 1-24). Indeed, the environmental track record of Japan does not demonstrate an overriding reverence for nature, with widespread environmental abuses in evidence and an apparent indifference toward sound resource conservation and management practises (Sun 1989; Broadbent 1998: 4-12, 361-367), such that Japan’s history of environmentally damaging practises has led one commentator to label them ‘environmental terrorists’ (Sneider 1989).