Symbols play an important role in our lives and psyches.
The symbol may be the ubiquitous golden arches that tell us almost anywhere we go in the world that, "Semi-edible fast food is to be had in this building." It might be the Nike swoosh. Flags are symbols, of course. As are crosses, crescents, and Stars of David.
People can become symbols, too. In fact, many politcians cultivate or expolit having themselves seen as symbols of one virtue or another. In the wake of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani came to be seen as such a symbol of leadership that even the most conservative of Republicans, who disagree with him on things like abortion and gay marriage, express a willingness to vote for him for President in 2008. President Bush was seen as a symbol of resolve after appearing at Ground Zero, megaphone in hand, alongside a New York firefighter.
I thought about all this today as I read this account of Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi once more visiting a shrine to Japanese veterans of the Second World War. The caretakers of the shrine claim that the Japanese undertook their brutal aggression in the 1930s and 1940s in order to liberate Asia from the West and that the United States actually lured Japan into war.
Particularly incensed by Koizumi's renewal of what has become an annual pilgrimage for him are China and Korea, which like America, are nations victimized by Imperial Japan's savagery.
So, why? Why does Koizumi go to this shrine and pray each year? Why does a seemingly intelligent man appear to give his assent to a blatantly false notion of history, an assent that inflames friends and foes alike?
The answer, I think, resides in the power of symbols.
Japan, along with the other vanquished powers of World War Two, Germany and Italy, were well-treated. Having learned the tragic lesson from World War One that brutalizing and humiliating beaten enemies only breeds resentment and sows the seeds for future war, the Allied powers, including the United States, assisted the three Axis powers in developing democratic institutions and opportunity economies.
But especially in Germany and in Japan, there remain pools of resentment toward the US. Nationalism is a powerful force, even in this age of globalization. In spite of the fact that probable majorities in both countries are allergic to anything like patriotism for fear of where it might lead, resentment against the US and the other nations that beat their countries in World War Two is still there.
Hence, some Germans and Japanese look for something to restore what they deem to be lost dignity. Some even cave into what I would describe as "Oliver Stone History," false constructions of past events that put their own 1930s-1940s military machines in white hats, fighting for virtue, truth, and beauty. For this small group of people, to acknowledge their nations' abilities to do the monstrous things that history convicts them of doing--along with other nations in other times and places, including our own--is unthinkable.
But why does Koizumi visit such a shrine? I believe that he's trying to split the difference, placating those who think that some sort of legitimate patriotism should gain asendancy in Japan, but not going so far as to flat-out endorse what Imperial Japan did. He added to the symbolism of his visit this year by not coming attired in formal wear, but dressed in a simple suit and tie.
For the Chinese and Koreans especially, the softening of the symbol is lost. All they see is a Japanese prime minister seeming to embrace the conquest, butchering, and torture of their countries.
Many in Japan are also upset with Koizumi for these trips. Again, the reason is the symbolic nature the prime minister's visits. A court has ruled that they are an unconstitutional violation of the separation between religion and government in that country. Koizumi, as the Times article indicates, splits the difference again, claiming that he only prays as a private citizen. (It's interesting to note though, that this visit comes after a campaign promise to visit the shrine again.)
Seemingly innocent gestures can be seen as offensive symbols by others. Dan Rather once violated a major Arabic taboo when he crossed his legs, allowing one-time Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, who he was interviewing, to see the bottom of his foot. In that part of the world, because the bottoms of feet are viewed as the filthiest portions of the body, it's seen as a grave insult to expose them to others. (This is why it came as such a shock to Jesus' disciples that He chose to wash their feet on the night of His betrayal and arrest. It's also why so many residents of Baghdad, in one of the most memorable televised images of the past decade, pounded on that toppled statue of Saddam after US forces had rolled into their city.)
Of course, in an era that features the dictates of various forms of political correctness, it's possible to be overly sensitive and overly concerned about offending the sensibilities of others through symbols and gestures.
Columnist Mark Steyn has recently documented Britain's absurd efforts to appease seemingly hyper-sensitive Muslims in that country. In Dudley, he says, the town council has outlawed all images of pigs in public places because one Muslim was offended by a picture showing Piglet with Winnie the Pooh. Burger King no longer sells ice cream in Britain because a design on its packaging looked too much like the Arabic spelling of "Allah" to some. Steyn goes on to show that Christians aren't "so coddled" in Britain. When Christians were outraged last year by a play portraying a gay Jesus in that country, they were basically told to not be so sensitive. Steyn concludes, "If Islam cannot co-exist with Pooh or the abstract swirl on a Burger King ice cream, how likely is it that it can co-exist with the more basic principles of a pluralist society?" (I believe that Islam can co-exist with a pluralistic society. That's another st0ry, though.) [Steyn's Daily Guardian article is summarized in the magazine, The Week.]
But Prime Minister Koizumi's pilgrimages to this shrine aren't innocent gestures. They're premeditated nods to the dark side of Japanese nationalism. But the prime minister must be careful. Placating the marginal in any society risks not only offending other nations, it can both embolden and legitimize false and misguided ideas within his own country as well.
[For more on the power of symbols, you might want to check out the following:
The Bushfish, Part 1: What the Fish Means for a Christian
The Bushfish, Part 2: First Objection
The Bushfish, Part 3: Second Objection
The Bushfish, Part 4: Third Objection]
No comments:
Post a Comment