Alternative Modernity? Playing the Japanese
Game of Culture
Andrew Feenberg
If games both fashion and reflect culture, it stands to reason
that to a certain extent a whole civilization and, within that
civilization, an entire era can be characterized by its games.
— Roger Caillois, "Les jeux dans le monde moderne"
The writer's irony is a negative mysticism to be found in times
without a god.
—Lukács, The Theory of the Novel
Introduction: Games as Rational Systems
I
n 1938, the great J a p a n e s e novelist Yasunari Kawabata witnessed a t u r n i n g point in t h e history of the g a m e of Go. Kawabata was then a y o u n g r e p o r t e r covering the c h a m p i o n s h i p Go
match sponsored by his newspaper. H o n n i m b o Shusai, the "Invincible Master," who h a d r e i g n e d over the world of Go for a g e n e r a tion, was pitted against a y o u n g challenger. So p o p u l a r was Go that
® 1995 by Cultural Critique. Winter 1994-95. 0882-4371/95/$5.00.
107
108
Andrew Feenberg
Kawabata's n e w s p a p e r could offer the players substantial sums for
participating a n d pay all the expenses of t h e match. These were
considerable as the match lasted many m o n t h s .
Kawabata felt he had witnessed the e n d of an era at that Go
match in 1938. Many years later he b r o u g h t out his old newspaper
articles, a d d e d new fictional material, a n d published a novel called
The Master of Go [Meijin]. This novel is an elegy for the world the
J a p a n e s e lost as they m o d e r n i z e d . Kawabata's r a t h e r sentimental
traditionalism is not as simple as it a p p e a r s at first; nostalgia is a
m o m e n t in the structure of m o d e r n consciousness and, a fortiori,
novelistic form. This is why his story has m u c h to tell us about the
n a t u r e a n d possibilities of m o d e r n society.
It may seem strange that Kawabata's most sustained investigation of m o d e r n i t y should be the story of a b o a r d game, but in fact
games exemplify formally rational systems. Like markets, law, and
scientific a n d technical research, games break loose f r o m the cont i n u u m of social life to impose a rational o r d e r on a sector of experience. M o d e r n institutions too are characterized by explicit rules,
u n a m b i g u o u s measures, defined times a n d places of action, and
equalization of participants' positions. T h e i r game-like structure,
with its predictable procedures, absence of p r e d e t e r m i n e d content, a n d simple principles of equity a r e all contrasted favorably
in m o d e r n i z i n g ideology to irrational, dogmatic, a n d biased traditions.
We will see how Kawabata, t h r o u g h his narrative of the great
Go match, t u r n s the a r g u m e n t a r o u n d a n d develops an implicit
critique of the particularity a n d bias of f o r m a l rationality. He accomplishes this by the peculiar literary technique of u n f o l d i n g layer
after layer of m e a n i n g in the moves of the game. T h e apparently
neutral forms of play t u r n out to be loaded with social, cultural, and
historical content. T h e Go match can stand for the whole range of
m o d e r n institutions invading J a p a n , each of which delivers far more
in the way of social change than a p p e a r s on the surface.
In the concluding portion of this essay, I a t t e m p t to enlarge
the scope of these reflections in two directions. I will first compare
Kawabata's literary technique with Lukács' early theory of the
novel. Using different m e a n s derived f r o m his own culture, Kawabata achieved a f o r m based on the same sort of layering a n d double
m e a n i n g Lukács analyzes in terms of the category of irony. It is
Alternative Modernity?
109
this f o r m that enables Kawabata to carry t h r o u g h his critique of
Western modernity. Secondly, I will discuss the larger implications
of Kawabata's novel for t h e question of modernity. J a p a n ' s cultural
specificity is o f t e n m e n t i o n e d as a factor in its rise to industrial
power. Kawabata's novel suggests a new way of thinking about why
this might be so.
The Rules of the Game
Millions of J a p a n e s e play Go m u c h as Westerners play chess.
Kawabata's novel assumes a passing familiarity with the game, a n d ,
unfortunately, we will not be able to discuss it without at least that
degree of acquaintance. I must, t h e r e f o r e , ask the r e a d e r to bear
with me for a brief description of the rules of the game. 1
Go is said to be m o r e difficult t h a n chess. Although the rules
are simpler, the play is m o r e complicated if only because the b o a r d
is m o r e than f o u r times as "big" as a chess b o a r d . Black a n d white
stones are placed at the intersections of a grid 19 by 19 lines (Diagram 1). T h e n u m b e r of possible moves is the factorial of 361,
more than the n u m b e r of atoms in the galaxy.
T h e aim of play is to c a p t u r e territory a n d e n e m y pieces by
s u r r o u n d i n g t h e m with one's own pieces. O n c e placed on the
board, pieces c a n n o t be moved; they r e m a i n w h e r e they were
played until they a r e c a p t u r e d . Every piece covers the intersection
of two lines, which themselves intersect with o t h e r lines at f o u r
adjacent points. Each of these points counts as an "eye" or "breathing space." Adjacent pieces of the same color share "eyes." So long
as a piece or a g r o u p of pieces has at least o n e such "eye" uncovered by the o p p o n e n t , it is "alive." O n c e all its "eyes" have been
taken it is c a p t u r e d , a n d the space it occupied belongs to the o p p o nent's count (Diagram 2).
Because the b o a r d is so large, it is impossible to concentrate on
any one portion of it for long without losing the initiative to a m o r e
mobile adversary. T h u s , contests begin all over the b o a r d , a n d the
players periodically r e t u r n to o n e or a n o t h e r of them, advancing
battles toward an eventual conclusion a few moves at a time. Beginners are bewildered by t h e f r e q u e n t i n t e r r u p t i o n of these a p p a r ently inconclusive struggles, b u t this is t h e essence of the game.
110
Andrew Feenberg
Diagram 1. F r o m Goodell.
Diagram 2. From Goodell.
Alternative
Modernity?
111
Diagram 3. From Goodell.
T h e g a m e moves t h r o u g h roughly t h r e e phases. At first, territory is staked out by posting isolated pieces a r o u n d the b o a r d .
Gradually, battles e m e r g e a r o u n d conflicting claims, n o n e of which
are entirely secure in t h e early phase of the game. Finally, the
board is filled in, the last ambiguities r e m o v e d , a n d the c a p t u r e d
spaces a n d pieces c o u n t e d . Until the last phase, t h e r e are always
many incomplete conquests, b r o k e n lines, lost pieces left in place,
and so on. Although significant stakes ride on clearing t h e m up
properly, these h o u s e k e e p i n g tasks a r e generally left till the e n d
while t h e players c o n f r o n t m o r e significant challenges.
T h e rules of Go a r e a m o d e l of simplicity a n d clarity, b u t they
contain o n e logical flaw. An oscillating p a t t e r n can emerge in which
both players have a disproportionately large incentive to r e p e a t
their last move. This situation occurs w h e n the piece used to take
an e n e m y piece is itself e x p o s e d to i m m e d i a t e capture, r e p r o d u c ing the status q u o ante (Diagram 3). This situation is called a "kô,"
from the Sanskrit "kalpa," m e a n i n g an epoch or eternity. To p r e vent endless repetition, t h e second player is obliged to play away
from the "kô" for a t u r n , b r e a k i n g the p a t t e r n . T h e n the first
player can fill it in. (If white plays in the space on Diagram 3 indicated by the arrow after r e m o v i n g the black piece, the "kô" disappears.) We will have to r e t u r n later to this idea of "playing away."
The Way of Go: Autonomy and Reflection
Go was i n t r o d u c e d into J a p a n f r o m China 13 centuries ago.
In J a p a n , it gradually evolved into a discipline, a kind of sedentary
martial art. As such, Go c a m e to be seen as a "dô," or Way of self-
112
Andrew Feenberg
realization, a n d not primarily as a contest of strength, although
obviously the best player was h o n o r e d . Kawabata writes, "The Oriental g a m e has g o n e beyond g a m e a n d test of strength and become
a way of art. It has about it a certain Oriental mystique and nobility" (117). A n d he compares it to the Nô d r a m a a n d the tea ceremony as belonging to "a strange J a p a n e s e tradition" (118). 2 With
this b a c k g r o u n d in mind, o n e is less astonished to learn that the
c h a m p i o n of the leading school of Go took B u d d h i s t orders and
was called the " H o n n i m b ô . "
This characteristically J a p a n e s e concept of Way has a twotiered structure. On the o n e h a n d , for an activity to s u p p o r t a Way
it must be abstracted f r o m the contingencies of everyday life and
constructed as an a u t o n o m o u s "field" with its own logic. T h e n , this
field must become the locus of self-transformation for the agent
engaged in activity on it.
T h e autonomization of Go involves the following features that
it shares with o t h e r b o a r d games:
1. Every move in the g a m e must c o n f o r m to an explicitly formulated, u n a m b i g u o u s rule.
2. Moves are stripped of semantic content a n d reduced to
u n a m b i g u o u s acts that can be r e p r e s e n t e d diagramatically with
precision.
3. T h e p u r p o s e of each move a n d of the g a m e as a whole is
clearly d e f i n e d a n d i m m a n e n t in the rules.
4. T h e game discriminates between winners a n d losers by a
precise quantitative m e a s u r e leaving no r o o m for d o u b t about
the outcome.
5. Moves can always be clearly distinguished f r o m other
events in the social s u r r o u n d i n g s of the game, a n d can therefore
be assigned a specific "space" a n d "time" of play.
6. Insofar as the rules are c o n c e r n e d , players' positions in the
game are equivalent in every possible respect, the m a j o r and unavoidable exception being the first move.
7. T h e game is a collaborative p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r i n g various
forms of reciprocity, f r o m the simplest (alternating a n d mutually
responsive moves) to the most complex (attention to the competitor's state of m i n d or physical needs).
Two features of this list seem particularly significant. T h e y are
the evident care with which ambiguity has b e e n eliminated f r o m
Alternative Modernity?
113
the field of play t h r o u g h such m e a n s as explicit rules a n d q u a n t i t a tive m e a s u r e s , a n d t h e artificial equalization of t h e players who, in
everyday life, a r e s u r e to be subtly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in ways t h e g a m e
ignores. T h e s e f e a t u r e s of t h e g a m e indicate its r e m o t e n e s s f r o m
the s u r r o u n d i n g social w o r l d in which ambiguity a n d inequality
are the rule. A n d by this very t o k e n , these f e a t u r e s seem to e c h o
strangely o u r m o d e r n notions of scientific a n d political rationality.
We will r e t u r n to this s u r p r i s i n g coincidence.
A u t o n o m y is not an e n d in itself, b u t is linked to reflexivity.
Because t h e g a m e can be s e p a r a t e d f r o m its e n v i r o n m e n t , its c h a r acteristic situations can be endlessly retrieved a n d studied. Selfcriticism, repetition, a n d practice can r e f i n e specialized abilities.
P e r f o r m a n c e can b e j u d g e d , play can b e p e r f e c t e d , a n d d e g r e e s o f
competence m e a s u r e d in matches.
Reflection n o t only i m p r o v e s p e r f o r m a n c e b u t also situates
the a u t o n o m o u s g a m e in t h e player's life process. T h e act of play
is a practice of self-realization m o d i f y i n g t h e player t h r o u g h discipline. T h i s is t h e core of t h e n o t i o n of Way; in Western societies
the idea of "vocation" plays a similar role, describing t h e effect on
the subject of its own activity in a relatively a u t o n o m o u s d o m a i n .
T h e recontextualizing practice of t h e g a m e as a Way has t h e
paradoxical effect of r e i n f o r c i n g its a u t o n o m y . T h e g a m e is wholly
absorbed in a way of life t h a t is itself wholly a b s o r b e d in t h e g a m e .
As Kawabata says of t h e old Master, he was "a m a n so disciplined
in an art that he h a d lost t h e b e t t e r p a r t of reality" (32).
In effect, w h a t E r v i n g G o f f m a n calls "rules of irrelevance,"
which a n c h o r a t t e n t i o n on play a n d abstract it f r o m t h e social surround, have taken over his whole life (20). T h i s is a well-known
hazard of the g a m e . T h e r e is an ancient C h i n e s e tale of a woodcutter w h o comes u p o n two old m e n playing Go in t h e forest a n d
stops to watch. Eventually t h e g a m e e n d s a n d t h e players disappear into thin air. T h e a s t o n i s h e d w o o d c u t t e r discovers t h a t his
own hair has t u r n e d white d u r i n g t h e play, a n d t h e h a n d l e of his
axe has r o t t e d t h r o u g h . For Kawabata, t h e g a m e has a d e m o n i c
quality:
From the veranda outside the players' room, which was ruled
by a sort of diabolic tension, I glanced out into the garden,
beaten down by the powerful summer sun, and saw a girl of
114
Andrew Feenberg
the modern sort insouciantly feeding the carp. I felt as if I
were looking at some freak. I could scarcely believe that we
belonged to the same world. (27)
No-Mind:
The Structure of Conflict
T h e Way of t h e g a m e is n o t a b o u t victory b u t about selfrealization t h r o u g h discipline. Kawabata tells t h e story of two highr a n k i n g y o u n g players w h o ask t h e advice of a clairvoyant on how
to win. " T h e p r o p e r m e t h o d , said t h e m a n , was to lose all awareness of self while awaiting an adversary's play" (42).
O n e i m m e d i a t e l y recognizes h e r e t h e Zen concept of "nom i n d " as it a p p e a r s in J a p a n e s e martial arts. It describes the peculiar f o r m of self-forgetfulness involved in effective s p o r t or combat.
But this is surely an o d d application of B u d d h i s m , a religion of
ascetic d e t a c h m e n t f r o m t h e world. As S u z u k i explains it in Zen
and Japanese Culture, " n o n - a t t a c h m e n t " can be e x t e n d e d d o w n to
the level of attentive processes, f r e e i n g t h e actor f r o m inhibiting
c o n c e n t r a t i o n on e i t h e r self or other. T h i s l o o s e n i n g of focus banishes hesitation a n d fear a n d i m p r o v e s f i g h t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e .
' " F r o m this absolute emptiness,' states T a k u a n , 'comes the most
w o n d r o u s u n f o l d m e n t of d o i n g ' " ( H e r r i g e l 104). 3
T h i s is n o t t h e place to discuss t h e religious implications of
n o - m i n d . W h a t interests me m o r e , in a n y case, is t h e s t r u c t u r e of
the c o n c e p t t h a t is d e r i v e d , by a subtle t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , f r o m the
traditional H i n d u a n d B u d d h i s t n o t i o n o f nonduality. According
to t h e traditional notion, conflict is illusory, as in E m e r s o n ' s f a m o u s
poem, "Brahma":
If the red slayer think he slays,
Or if the slain think he is slain,
They know not well the subtle ways
I keep, and pass, and turn again.
(qtd. in Suzuki, Zen and Japanese Culture 207)
Borges's story " T h e T h e o l o g i a n s " r e a c h e s a similar conclusion. H e r e is t h e heavenly c o d a to this a c c o u n t of a metaphysical
d i s p u t e t h a t e n d s tragically with o n e of t h e d i s p u t a n t s b u r n e d at
t h e stake: " I n Paradise, Aurelian l e a r n e d that, f o r the u n f a t h o m -
Alternative Modernity?
115
able divinity, he a n d J o h n of P a n n o n i a (the o r t h o d o x believer a n d
the heretic, the a b h o r r e r a n d the a b h o r r e d , the accuser a n d the
accused) f o r m e d o n e single p e r s o n " (126).
T h e s e works a p p e a r to invite us to occupy a "third" position
above the fray: the "I" of B r a h m a or the theologians' God. Presumably, if the swordsmen and the theologians could occupy this position themselves, their strife would cease, a n d they would be reconciled in perfect u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
T h e doctrine of n o - m i n d agrees that a p p a r e n t dualities reveal
a m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l unity. But w h a t makes it so interesting is the
elimination of the third position. It is conflict itself which is shown
to be prior to the parties it joins, an u n d e r l y i n g unity of which
they are m e r e projections. T r u e nonduality, t h e r e f o r e , cannot be
achieved by observing the conflicts in which others are p l u n g e d ,
no matter how dialectically. Such an observer would still stand in
dualistic opposition to its object.
Rather, n o - m i n d is a particular way of living duality, an existential position within it, a n d n o t a modality of knowledge transcending it. Hence, the Zen master's reply to the i m p e r t i n e n t question of how t h e enlightened deal with h u n g e r a n d cold: "When
hungry, I eat, a n d w h e n cold I p u t on m o r e clothes" (Suzuki, Zen
Doctrine of No-Mind 75).
This reply indicates why Zen t u r n e d out to be peculiarly available to the martial arts a n d , ultimately, I will a r g u e below, to literature as well. For this doctrine, the goal is not to rise above conflict
in reconciliation b u t to achieve total identification with the context
of struggle in t h e very course of playing one's own conflictual role.
If conflict can be t r a n s c e n d e d , it m u s t be f r o m within, without setting up a third consciousness above the fight.
T h e same point can be m a d e in relation to Go. Insofar as the
players identify completely with t h e situation of the b o a r d , i.e.,
with the "whole," they can assume their role unreservedly a n d
carry it out a p a r t f r o m any concern with survival or victory. This
no-mind is not a mystical unconsciousness, b u t a consciousness that
has become o n e with the formal r e q u i r e m e n t s of the activity f r a m e
and that sees its role within that f r a m e as in some sense "logically"
entailed r a t h e r than personally motivated.
Good play thus has n o t h i n g to do with one-sided personal
aggression; at t h e height of the most intense competition, the play-
116
Andrew Feenberg
ers are j o i n e d in h a r m o n y in the construction of the board, much
as singers r e s p o n d to each o t h e r in a piece of complex choral
music. T h e i r unity, expressed in their mutually responsive moves
takes p r e c e d e n c e over their struggle. Ultimately, they "form one
single person."
The Pattern Disturbed
In J a p a n e s e culture, the p u r s u i t of self-realization t h r o u g h a
Way manifests itself aesthetically, in this instance as the beauty of
the b o a r d on which the dance of adversaries p r o d u c e s a magnificent a n d complex p a t t e r n . Of course, the aim of Go is to win; however, J a p a n e s e c o m m e n t a t o r s always note that this aim is transcended by a h i g h e r interest in the aesthetic achievement of
" h a r m o n y " a n d p a t t e r n . Go is the collaborative p r o d u c t i o n of aesthetic f o r m t h r o u g h competitive play. Both moments—collaboration a n d c o m p e t i t i o n — a r e equally i m p o r t a n t , for without struggle
t h e r e is no beauty. T h e weak player w h o offers no resistance is
incapable of collaborating in the p r o d u c t i o n of a satisfying board,
full of symmetry a n d surprise. T h e r e is thus a p r o m i s e of aesthetic
r e d e m p t i o n contained in the h a r d - f o u g h t game; Kawabata's novel
is the story of the betrayal of that p r o m i s e by the m o d e r n focus on
victory a n d defeat for its own sake. 4
T h a t new focus becomes a p p a r e n t in the climactic move of
the great match of 1938. After m a n y m o n t h s of difficult play, interr u p t e d by the illness of the Master, the g a m e seems perfectly
poised with no advantage to either side. A struggle breaks out in
the center of the b o a r d that promises to be decisive. As the day
comes to an e n d , the challenger, Otaké, seems u n s u r e of his course.
He writes his final play of the d a y — m o v e 121—on a card a n d seals
it in an envelope, to be o p e n e d by the referees t h e following m o r n ing, a n d with that the players retire (Diagram 4).
W h e n the seal is broken at the n e x t session, the move is not
in the central battlefield at all, b u t strikes at the Master far away
n e a r t h e top of t h e board. Yet it compels at least a brief response
of the h o u s e k e e p i n g sort; it resembles the move the disadvantaged
player makes away f r o m a "kô" to distract the adversary with a
s h a r p diversionary blow. Soon the players r e t u r n to the center of
Alternative Modernity?
117
Diagram 4.
the board w h e r e the Master plays poorly, m a k i n g the mistake that
costs him the game.
What is the m e a n i n g of this incident? T h e organizers of the
match granted each player 40 h o u r s to consider their moves. Sealing the final move of t h e day is s u p p o s e d to p r e v e n t the players
from a d d i n g the time between sessions to this already g e n e r o u s
total. But by tying the master up for a t u r n with his trivial sealed
play, Otake a p p e a r s to have f r o z e n the most i m p o r t a n t action so as
to have a leisurely look at it overnight. T h e Master is convinced
that Otake used the sealed play to gain time to reflect on the difficult position in the center of the b o a r d , time he desperately n e e d e d
as he was rapidly using up his allotment.
Despite the suspicious a p p e a r a n c e of move 121, it is not certain that the challenger actually used it to gain unfair advantage.
Although at o n e p o i n t the n a r r a t o r says that Otaké "would avert
118
Andrew Feenberg
d e f e a t even if in t h e process he m u s t chew t h e stones to bits," he
is n o t p o r t r a y e d unsympathetically (178). He is even described as
r e a d i n g t h e Lotus Sutra to calm himself b e f o r e playing. And the
n a r r a t o r , w h o is full of a d m i r a t i o n f o r t h e Master, also respects his
c h a l l e n g e r a n d , at o n e p o i n t , intervenes effectively to prevent him
f r o m forfeiting t h e m a t c h .
T h i s a m b i g u o u s situation crystallizes the action of the novel
A n d because t h e h u m a n significance of t h e climactic move is ambiguous, t h e specificity a n d t h e concreteness of t h e actual play persists even after t h e novel a p p e a r s to assign it a m e a n i n g . It remains,
in fact, a p e r m a n e n t s t u m b l i n g block to final i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , an amb i g u o u s intersection of t h e m u l t i p l e codes t h a t s t r u c t u r e t h e novel.
B u t w h e t h e r O t a k é m a d e g o o d use of t h e e x t r a h o u r s or not
is ultimately irrelevant since t h e Master is so u p s e t by the sealed
play t h a t h e can n o l o n g e r c o n c e n t r a t e p r o p e r l y o n t h e game. T h e
challenger's a p p a r e n t t h r u s t t o w a r d victory disturbs the pattern
a n d u n d e r m i n e s t h e spiritual significance of t h e game. It is as
t h o u g h t h e delicate work of p r o d u c i n g t h e b o a r d , which has as
its s e c o n d a r y c o n s e q u e n c e victory a n d d e f e a t f o r t h e players, was
i n t e r r u p t e d by a m e r e t u g of war in which participants have no
conscious relation at all to t h e c o m b i n e d effects of their labors and
n o p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n w i n n i n g . T h e i n c i d e n t b r i n g s o u t into the
o p e n t h e potential conflict b e t w e e n collaborative a n d competitive
d i m e n s i o n s of t h e g a m e a n d t h u s b e t w e e n its roles in s u p p o r t i n g
a Way a n d in discriminating b e t w e e n w i n n e r s a n d losers.
Because t h e Master is u p s e t , his feelings c o m e out m o m e n tarily in t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e r e p o r t e r . Kawabata writes,
T h e Master had put the match together as a work of art. It
was as if the work, likened to a painting, were smeared black
at the moment of highest tension. That play of black upon
white, white upon black, has the intent and takes the forms of
creative art. It has in it a flow of the spirit and a harmony as
of music. Everything is lost when suddenly a false note is
struck, or one party in a duet suddenly launches forth on an
eccentric flight of his own. A masterpiece of a game can be
ruined by insensitivity to the feelings of an adversary. (164)
L a t e r t h e Master has his d o u b t s or in a n y case is m o r e reticent. His p u b l i s h e d account of t h e g a m e , like t h a t of t h e new c h a m -
Alternative Modernity?
119
pion, contains no criticism of this decisive move, which, despite its
o d d timing, is perfectly o r d i n a r y in o t h e r respects. T h u s , t h e waves
quickly cover over t h e suspicions that r u i n e d the match; all rally
a r o u n d to protect t h e image of their art.
Meta-Rules:
Etiquette or Equity
Modernity does not i n t r o d u c e rationality into social life for
the first time. Every culture has d o m a i n s g o v e r n e d by f o r m a l rules.
These rules can be considered "rational" in the sociological sense
of the t e r m on two conditions: first, that they employ tests of e x p e rience or impose principles of equivalence, implication, or optimization on action, a n d second, that they do so with an u n u s u a l degree of precision. So it is, for e x a m p l e , with accounting rules
designed to insure the equality of income a n d outgo, or legal rules
that affix p u n i s h m e n t s to crimes, or t h e rules of Go that create a
domain in which t h e difference between better and worse play is
not o p e n to dispute.
Although the p r o d u c t i o n of such d o m a i n s is not characteristically m o d e r n b u t essentially h u m a n , m o d e r n i t y can nevertheless
be clearly distinguished f r o m every o t h e r type of society. In m o d ern societies certain of these formally rational activities a r e liberated f r o m recontextualizing strategies that reconcile t h e m with traditional rituals a n d social distinctions. In the case of a g a m e like
Go, potential conflicts between the r e q u i r e m e n t s of the o n e a n d
the other are resolved in advance by what I will call "meta-rules"
that regulate the social relations of t h e players c o n g r u e n t with the
requirements of play.
In the old J a p a n , etiquette inscribed agents' identity in all
their activities without exception. T h e constraints of etiquette were
perhaps m o r e strongly felt in this society t h a n o n e can imagine in
the West. T r u e or not, only in J a p a n could the story be told of the
feudal general w h o washed a n d p e r f u m e d his hair before battle in
case, in the event of defeat, his decapitated h e a d were to be p r e sented to the victor a n d the ladies of his court.
Etiquette recontextualizes formally rational activities to insure that they take a s u b o r d i n a t e place in a world o r d e r e d according to quite d i f f e r e n t principles, e.g., r a n k i n g by age, which
120
Andrew Feenberg
relates all h u m a n activity to the mortality of the agents a n d their
role in family life. Deference in this context n o t only expresses a
social p r e j u d i c e but contains the socially d a n g e r o u s equalizing potential of formal rationality. 5
This cultural f r a m e w o r k h a d completely enveloped Go in
complicated quasi-religious rituals until t h e match of 1938. That
match marks the b r e a k d o w n of an older vision of the g a m e as a
spiritual discipline a n d the e m e r g e n c e of a new o n e in which it is
essentially a test of strength. T h e processes of modernization that
h a d b e e n gnawing at traditional J a p a n e s e culture in every domain
since the Meiji Restoration finally reached this o d d h o l d o u t that
h a d been i g n o r e d until then.
T h e modalities of this shift are linked to what I will call the
textuality of Go as a board game. T h e decontextualized character
of the play, which suits it to be a Way, also makes it possible to
define the state of the g a m e at any m o m e n t by simply recounting
the sequence of moves. In fact, games resemble writing in that they
p r o d u c e an object that can be separated f r o m any particular material s u p p o r t , such as a piece of p a p e r or a b o a r d , a n d circulated as
a system of signs.
T h e quasi-textual n a t u r e of the g a m e suits it for dissemination t h r o u g h a newspaper. Like his earlier r e p o r t i n g , Kawabata's
novel dramatizes the Go match, the twists a n d t u r n s of which it
follows exactly despite the poetic license he took with many h u m a n
details. This exactitude is in itself significant: the n a r r a t o r is a reporter, like Kawabata, a n d the same kinds of charts that a p p e a r e d
in the n e w s p a p e r articles are r e p r o d u c e d t h r o u g h o u t the novel.
T h e involvement of a n e w s p a p e r in the c h a m p i o n s h i p match
results in a significant shift in emphasis. T h e g a m e , which used to
be a u n i q u e spiritual p e r f o r m a n c e , is r e d u c e d to a mechanically
retrievable spectacle, a "match." Of course, t h e r e was always an
element of show in it, b u t a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n occurs w h e n mediated
mass spectatorship replaces the b u r d e n s o m e ritual of personally
following the players to their m e e t i n g place a n d r e m a i n i n g silent
in their p r e s e n c e . N e w s p a p e r r e a d e r s are in immediate contact
only with the contextless c h a r t of the u n f o l d i n g game, the thrust
and p a r r y of successive moves, the final drive toward victory, all of
which can be p r i n t e d exactly as played. T h i s change, m a d e possible by the formal a u t o n o m y of the game, eliminates its "aura,"
Alternative Modernity?
121
a n d diminishes interest in it as a Way, which now becomes a kind of
folklore or o r n a m e n t of t h e r e c o r d in the press (Benjamin 224-25).
T h e n e w s p a p e r a n d its r e a d e r s are less interested in these traditional aspects of t h e g a m e than in its fairness, so new meta-rules
are i n t r o d u c e d designed to e n s u r e the victory of the better player.
" T h e m o d e r n way was to insist u p o n d o i n g battle u n d e r conditions
of abstract justice, even w h e n challenging the Master himself" (52).
T h e uniformity of the g a m e , in which n o t h i n g distinguishes the
players b u t the color of their stones, must be reflected in their roles
in play. T h e social institution that c o r r e s p o n d s to this notion of
equity is the contract, a n d the organization of the match is therefore settled contractually.
Several of these new rules are imitated f r o m Western chess,
such as time limits on play a n d sealed plays at the end of the day.
T h e players a r e even sequestered to p r e v e n t outsiders f r o m contributing advice. Of this code, with its cold rationalism, Kawabata
says, "It later c a m e to seem like a f o r e s h a d o w i n g of d e a t h " (58).
O n e could h a r d l y object to such conditions, especially not if,
as one of the players, he wished to receive t h e g e n e r o u s rewards
for playing the g a m e u n d e r conditions that would increase newsp a p e r sales. Yet these new rules r a n r o u g h s h o d over precious J a p a nese sensitivities in their exclusive concentration on the question
"Who is the best player?"
Traditional etiquette prescribed not an equal b u t an u n e q u a l
relationship between t h e older a n d the y o u n g e r player, the c h a m pion a n d his challenger. Accordingly, the Invincible Master h a d
the right to expect that his age a n d e m i n e n c e would be recognized
not merely t h r o u g h o u t w a r d signs of respect b u t t h r o u g h obedience to his decisions about the play, t h e length a n d timing of sessions, a n d related matters. T h e r e is a certain conflict of interest
implied in this a r r a n g e m e n t , b u t the Master's position is too visible
and his responsibility too heavy for h i m to abuse his power. Considerations of h o n o r limit the asymmetry between the players. Was
it not r u d e , then, to place t h e m both on an equal footing? Was it
not d e m e a n i n g to the art of Go to imply, by imposing these rules,
that the players a r e mainly interested in victory? Was f i n d i n g o u t
who plays best i m p o r t a n t e n o u g h to excuse these offenses?
In one sense, t h e answer is obvious. Kawabata's n a r r a t o r is a
good n e w s p a p e r m a n a n d knows all the dirt, even on the Old Mas-
122
Andrew Feenberg
ter. He does n o t h i d e f r o m us t h a t t h e Master a b u s e d his discretion
to avoid a m a t c h with his c h a l l e n g e r ' s teacher, Suzuki, who might
well h a v e b e a t e n h i m . O n e of his disciples is s u s p e c t e d of having
w h i s p e r e d t h e w i n n i n g m o v e to t h e Master in a previous match
A n d worst of all, he t r e a t e d his o w n position as "a commercial
asset" a n d "sold his last m a t c h to a n e w s p a p e r at a price without
p r e c e d e n t " (53). So m u c h f o r v i r t u o u s old J a p a n !
A n d yet t h e n a r r a t o r nevertheless describes t h e Master as
" f o r e v e r t r u e a n d clean," which he is by c o m p a r i s o n with slick
m o d e r n players (109). Kawabata e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e disappearance
of favoritism is n o t t h e i n n o c e n t g e s t u r e it a p p e a r s to be, for, "New
rules b r i n g new tactics" (165). A n d he notes,
When a law is made, the cunning that finds loopholes goes to
work. One cannot deny that there is a certain slyness among
younger players, a slyness which, when rules are written to
prevent slyness, makes use of the rules themselves. (54)
T h e sealed play c o n t a i n i n g m o v e 121 is an e x a m p l e .
Rules t h a t claim universality in t h e e q u a l t r e a t m e n t of all are
a p p l i e d in a world of particular circumstances. Far f r o m standing
above t h e struggle, they e n d u p b e i n g i n s t r u m e n t a l i z e d i n individual strategies as m e a n s to t h e e n d of victory. T h e s h r e w d grasp of
loopholes in t h e new rules replaces t h e h o n e s t subtlety of t h e really
insightful player. T h u s , t h e ideal of fairness as a quasi-mechanical
equality b e t w e e n players is n e v e r achieved. O n c e again, therefore,
o n e m u s t rely on t h e force of h o n o r to r e s t r a i n abuse. But now
h o n o r has b e e n w e a k e n e d by t h e alibi of c o n f o r m i t y to t h e letter
of t h e rules which takes its place in t h e m o d e r n m i n d .
T h e r e is a f u r t h e r u n f o r t u n a t e c o n s e q u e n c e of t h e i n t r o d u c tion of t h e new rules: the loss of aesthetic values. Etiquette is, of
course, extrinsic to t h e s t r u c t u r e of play itself a n d as such may
i n t e r f e r e with t h e logic of t h e g a m e . B u t , in fact, t h e novel is not
a b o u t t h e struggle b e t w e e n ascriptive values, such as age, a n d a
new a c h i e v e m e n t - o r i e n t e d ethos. Far f r o m e m p h a s i z i n g t h e unfairness a n d distortions d e f e r e n c e causes, t h e novel p r e s e n t s etiq u e t t e as a c o n t e x t of play u n i q u e l y suited to b r i n g i n g out t h e aesthetic a c h i e v e m e n t of a truly h e r o i c m a t c h . Meanwhile, it is the
o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d success t h a t is s h o w n to distort play t h r o u g h
Alternative Modernity?
123
i n t r o d u c i n g e x t r a n e o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t d e p e n d o n m e r e technicalites. T h e n a r r a t i o n t h u s d e c o n s t r u c t s t h e opposition o f ascription a n d a c h i e v e m e n t .
T h e novel lets u s u n d e r s t a n d that t h e m e r e establishment o f
the b u r e a u c r a t i c f r a m e w o r k already m a r k e d t h e Master f o r defeat.
It is not j u s t t h a t he is b o u n d to be less clever t h a n a y o u n g e r m a n
at m a n i p u l a t i n g t h e system. No, it is m o r e t h e distrust e m b o d i e d
in the very n a t u r e of t h e rules which was b o u n d at s o m e p o i n t to
demoralize a n d u p s e t h i m b e y o n d e n d u r a n c e . Against this backg r o u n d s o m e e v e n t was s u r e to cast d o u b t on t h e position a n d lead
to the collapse of t h e Master's spirit. Kawabata writes,
It may be said that the Master was plagued in his last match
by modern rationalism, to which fussy rules were everything,
from which all the grace and elegance of Go as art had disappeared, which quite dispensed with respect for elders and
attached no importance to mutual respect as human beings.
From the way of Go the beauty of Japan and the Orient had
fled. (52)
Because e t i q u e t t e privileges t h e collaborative over t h e competitive d i m e n s i o n of play, it o p e n s up a space within which t h e
aesthetic ideal of Way can flourish. But in t h e new J a p a n , t h e social
context of play is a m a t t e r of simple fairness, abstracted f r o m all
personal considerations. Fairness projects o t h e r aspects of t h e
game, such as equality a n d struggle, into t h e social e n v i r o n m e n t .
When social activity is t r e a t e d as a m e r e c o m p e t i t i o n , t h e s t r u c t u r e
of the g a m e , with its clear decision b e t w e e n w i n n e r s a n d losers,
reaches o u t to simplify life itself.
Layers
of Meaning
Such ideas w e r e accessible to m a n y J a p a n e s e writers a n d intellectuals, c a u g h t in t h e m i d s t of a m o d e r n i z i n g m o v e m e n t they
lived simultaneously as a r e s p o n s e to b o t h t h e Universal—scientific t r u t h — a n d t h e P a r t i c u l a r — W e s t e r n power. H o w d o e s Kawabata develop such a dialectic in his novel? The Master of Go is based
on multiplying codes in t e r m s of which to i n t e r p r e t an a p p a r e n t l y
simple m o v e in a g a m e . T h e o r d e r a n d c o n n e c t i o n of m e a n i n g s at
124
Andrew Feenberg
each level parallels that at the o t h e r levels. T h e same action can be
identified at all levels, u n c h a n g e d except in terms of its contextualization a n d significance. It is not possible to o r d e r these levels causally, to explain o n e level by a n o t h e r because each has its own
"logic." Such multi-layered entanglements are characteristic of
formalized fields. Double or triple meanings can always be constructed a r o u n d any act which has an apparently technical or formal motive in t e r m s of its involvement with its social environment. 6
T h e novel is an a t t e m p t to u n d e r s t a n d a n d encompass the
increasingly intrusive lower levels of the dialectic, privileged by
modernity, in a h i g h e r aesthetic form. T h e g a m e is a formalrational system that can be isolated from its practical context as a
set of spatial coordinates, a chart. Recontextualized as a performance, the abstract chart is a n i m a t e d by a practice of play; it becomes this particular g a m e played by these players in a definite
time a n d place. A completely self-sufficient account of the action is
possible at the level of the game, its rules, a n d the strategy of play,
a n d such an account is plausibly offered in official published descriptions of the game.
Of course, t h e r e is always m o r e going on t h a n is d e e m e d fit
for presentation in such publications. T h e novel takes us behind
the scenes by revealing the psychological m e a n i n g of the player's
actions. At this level, the g a m e a p p e a r s as a s t r u c t u r e of social relations, mixing respect, fairness, aggression, a n d anxiety in a surprisingly complicated narrative flow.
But even this description is incomplete; it abstracts f r o m a still
wider c o n t e x t — t h e social b a c k g r o u n d . T h e players, after all, are
not isolated beings but m e m b e r s of a society. T h e game is thus
f u r t h e r encompassed in the wider practical field of social, cultural,
a n d historical m e a n i n g s a n i m a t i n g the play. T h e s e meanings reflect the different meta-rules of etiquette a n d equity with their diff e r e n t emphases on Way a n d winning.
T h e conflict between the newspaper's rules a n d the old etiquette reflects a larger historical conflict dramatized in the match.
T h e H o n n i m b ô Shusai was not j u s t a Go c h a m p i o n , b u t the champion of a dying civilization, the old J a p a n , a world in which a certain kind of aristocratic idealism a n d aestheticism prevailed over
m o d e r n worries about success a n d money. For the Master, the
g a m e is the occasion for an aesthetic revelation b e y o n d any merely
Alternative Modernity?
125
personal contest. But in m o d e r n times there is no longer any " m a r gin for r e m e m b e r i n g t h e dignity a n d the f r a g r a n c e of Go as an
art," a n d the challenger plays simply to win (52). As Kawabata
writes, " T h e Master s e e m e d like a relic left b e h i n d by Meiji" (63).
In fact he died shortly after the finish of the match. His challenger,
however decent a m a n , was the a g e n t of the m o d e r n world. His
victory would m e a n the e n d of the old J a p a n a n d the e m e r g e n c e
of a new spirit, d o m i n a t e d by business a n d the media.
For Kawabata t h e 1938 c h a m p i o n s h i p match was thus emblematic of the m o d e r n i z a t i o n of J a p a n . He repeats the usual contrast between m o d e r n i t y a n d tradition familiar f r o m J a p a n e s e literature: the struggle between ideals and interests, feeling a n d
reason, beauty a n d power, etc. But despite the cliches, his n a r r a t o r
cannot entirely d i s a p p r o v e of the m o d e r n ; it will bring, he says,
"new vitality in t h e world of Go" (145).
If the n a r r a t o r is ambivalent, t h e novel as a whole tends, as
we have seen, to soften the epochal differences between its two
principle characters. No d o u b t we a r e i n t e n d e d to discount the
r u m o u r s about the Master a n d to believe the worst of his challenger. But the ambiguities indicate that the p r o b l e m of m o d e r n ization is not j u s t a b o u t psychology or ethics; the g a m e has different potentialities that a r e reflected in historically typical f o r m s of
personality. T h e personal level thus d e p e n d s on an u n d e r l y i n g
change in the place of t h e g a m e in social life. 7 A perfectly respectable move f r o m o n e s t a n d p o i n t is an o u t r a g e f r o m the other. T h e
players are in effect playing d i f f e r e n t games. T h e i r e n c o u n t e r must
lead to a p r o f o u n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a conflict of "doubles" in
which each participant operates according to a different code. 8
It is the j o u r n a l i s t n a r r a t o r w h o carries the b u r d e n of explaining these larger implications. He can do so because he embodies in his p e r s o n the very ambiguity of t h e match. On the o n e
hand, just as t h e Master reduces himself to n o t h i n g b e f o r e the
game, so the n a r r a t o r says, "I r e d u c e d myself to n o t h i n g as I gazed
at the Master" (115). On the o t h e r h a n d , his relation to Otaké is
characterized by egalitarian affection a n d esteem. His doubleness
reflects the doubleness of J a p a n itself (Pilarcik 16-17).
T h e p r o f o u n d ambiguity of t h e n a r r a t o r ' s identity o p e n s a
space that encompasses all the lower fields in a sort of literary nomind. In his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, Kawabata endorses
126
Andrew Feenberg
such a view of his writing. He q u o t e s t h e p o e t Saigyô: " C o n f r o n t e d
with all t h e varied f o r m s of n a t u r e , his eyes a n d his ears were filled
with emptiness. A n d w e r e n o t t h e w o r d s t h a t c a m e f o r t h true
w o r d s ? " A n d h e concludes, "My own w o r k s h a v e b e e n described
as works of e m p t i n e s s " ( J a p a n , the Beautiful and Myself 42, 43).
Aestheticism, East and West
The Master of Go r e p r e s e n t s a type of aesthetic critique in
which J a p a n e s e spirit survives outside of history, as a peculiar and
quite c o n t i n g e n t d o u b t h a u n t i n g t r i u m p h a n t m o d e r n i t y a n d r e vealing its limits. P e r h a p s this is t h e sort of t h i n g Tanizaki foresaw
already in 1933 w h e n he w r o t e his f a m o u s essay In Praise of Shadows. D e s p a i r i n g of t h e survival of t r a d i t i o n a l J a p a n e s e c u l t u r e und e r t h e b r i g h t n e s s of electric light, he writes,
I have thought that there might still be somewhere, possibly
in literature or the arts, where something could be saved. I
would call back at least for literature this world of shadows we
are losing. In the mansion called literature I would have the
eaves deep and the walls dark, I would push back into the
shadows the things that come forward too clearly, I would strip
away the useless decoration. I do not ask that this be done
everywhere, but perhaps we may be allowed at least one mansion where we can turn off the electric lights and see what it is
like without them. (42)
T h e aestheticism of these J a p a n e s e writers has interesting
similarities with t h e early Lukács' t h e o r y of novelistic irony as a
k i n d of "negative mysticism." 9 T h e c o i n c i d e n c e is i m p o r t a n t because it suggests a still wider c o n t e x t f o r Kawabata's critique of
m o d e r n i t y : t h e novelistic tradition. F u r t h e r m o r e , Lukács' t h e o r y
indicates a way of distinguishing Kawabata's novels, as aesthetic
f o r m s , f r o m m e r e s e n t i m e n t a l nostalgia f o r t h e past.
A c c o r d i n g to Lukács, the novel is t h e original a n d m o s t p r o f o u n d critique of modernity. T h a t critique, at least in t h e F r e n c h
a n d Russian novels Lukács took for typical, is aesthetic r a t h e r t h a n
m o r a l or political. T h e s e novels a r e t h e p r o d u c t of an i r o n y t h a t is
half within, half w i t h o u t t h e conflicts of t h e world. T h e novelist
Alternative Modernity?
127
neither stands in polemic opposition to m o d e r n society on the
g r o u n d of tradition or passion—usually exemplified in t h e h e r o —
nor justifies m o d e r n i z a t i o n a n d its costs with a " g r a n d narrative"
e n d i n g in the p r e s e n t or leading to a shining f u t u r e . I n d e e d , were
the writer to identify purely a n d simply with either t h e world or
the hero, t h e novel would lapse into the p a m p h l e t or the lyric.
Novelistic irony is thus peculiarly ambivalent. On the o n e
h a n d , it demystifies modernity's claim to universality by revealing
the contrast between the facade a n d the realities of economic, political, a n d legal institutions. O f t e n (in Dickens or Balzac, for example) this leads to a certain sentimentalizing of tradition. But,
on the o t h e r h a n d , the novel's ironic structure subverts any idea
of a r e t u r n to the past by showing how deeply tradition has b e e n
intertwined with modernity. I n d e e d , tradition, like o t h e r hopeless
ideals the h e r o e s o p p o s e to modernity, serves primarily as a
marker for an impossible transcendence which can only be indicated from within the tensions a n d oppositions of society. T h e novelist may seem to take sides, but his irony nevertheless situates him
in what Lukács calls a " t r a n s c e n d e n d e n t a l place" f r o m which alone
the whole is visible.
Formally, this ironic stance resembles the consciousness of
Way, the n o - m i n d that plays its role to the fullest while identifying
with the whole to which it contributes its conflictual share. J u s t so,
Kawabata's n a r r a t o r sides nostalgically with the old Master a n d yet
manages to depict the contradictions of J a p a n e s e tradition a n d
Western m o d e r n i t y in a way that avoids tendentious polemic. He
is a mysteriously n e u t r a l observer of the real struggle of the book,
which p r o d u c e s the aesthetic patterns suitable to literary r e p r e s e n tation, the graceful move a n d c o u n t e r m o v e in a conflict of cultures.
To depict this struggle in a "work of emptiness" is to transcend the
opposition of tradition a n d m o d e r n i t y aesthetically. Lukács' remarkable intuition of the novel's religious content is c o n f i r m e d by
this echo f r o m a n o t h e r culture. 1 0
T h e r e is, however, an i m p o r t a n t difference between Western
and non-Western forms of ironic consciousness of modernity. In
the West, o n e typical heroic type embodies ideals f r o m the past
that are d o o m e d by social advance. But t h e old Master, a similar
heroic type depicted in a non-Western setting, exemplifies not
merely the tragedy of historical lag, but a c o n t e m p o r a r y clash of
128
Andrew Feenberg
cultures. T h a t clash takes place in the context of Western cultural
imperialism in which J a p a n a p p e a r s d o o m e d to defeat, not so
m u c h because its time has c o m e as because it has met a superior
force that has acquired a c o r r e s p o n d i n g but p e r h a p s undeserved
prestige. T h e later d e v e l o p m e n t of J a p a n e s e society shows how imp o r t a n t it is not to overlook this difference.
Today, in a world in which J a p a n has b e c o m e a leading industrial power, we can ask w h e t h e r the continuing signs of the vitality
of J a p a n e s e culture do not r e f u t e the aestheticizing pessimism of
J a p a n e s e a u t h o r s such as Tanizaki a n d Kawabata. T h e i r position
belonged to the period of cultural t r a u m a that began with the Meiji
restoration and culminated in the Occupation.
T h e novel p r o s p e r e d as a literary f o r m d u r i n g this period. It
o p e n e d a space within which Western m o d e r n i t y could be exposed
in its particularity without regression to discredited theological or
ideological prejudices. Its s t r u c t u r e was thus m o d e r n even t h o u g h
the surface message was often traditionalist. But if the novel, an
i m p o r t e d f o r m after all, could achieve such critical distance from
its Western origins, why despair of the possibility that similar a d a p tations a n d amalgams might occur in other spheres, giving rise to
a specifically J a p a n e s e f o r m of m o d e r n society?
This speculation recalls a rich tradition of reflection on the
possibility of alternative modernities that has been invoked since
the 1930s to explain how J a p a n can preserve its cultural originality
inside the m o d e r n project r a t h e r than t h r o u g h reactionary retreat
(Nishida, " T h e Problem of J a p a n e s e Culture," a n d Ohashi). Despite Kawabata's despair over the a p p a r e n t defeat of this prospect,
it can find an a m b i g u o u s s u p p o r t in the u n d e r l y i n g structure of
his novel. It shows us that m o d e r n i t y too is a culture, or, as we
will see, several possible cultures c o n f r o n t i n g each o t h e r t h r o u g h
a process of generalized "contamination" (Vattimo 158).
Cultural
Genealogy
W h a t is m e a n t by the notion of an alternative modernity, and
is it really plausible? W h a t I will call the "content a p p r o a c h " to
alternative m o d e r n i t y emphasizes such e t h n i c a n d ideological differences as the kinds of food people eat, the role of family or reli-
Alternative Modernity?
129
gion, the legal forms of p r o p e r t y a n d administration, a n d so on.
T h e s e distinctions a r e weak bases for an alternative because m o d ernization, as we have l e a r n e d since Weber at least, consists p r e cisely in erasing or i n c o r p o r a t i n g such ethnic a n d ideological contents in a convergent m o d e l of civilization. T h e universalist view,
which uncritically c o n f o u n d s Westernization a n d modernization,
is still persuasive c o m p a r e d to this.
If there can be an alternative modernity, it must be based not
on such contents b u t on d e e p e r differences in cultural forms.
Nietzsche's "genealogical" m e t h o d suggests an a p p r o a c h because
it succeeds in following the progress of a way of life f r o m o n e historical period to the next. Judeo-Christianity, in this Nietzschean
sense, is not a particular religion b u t a way of being in the world
that can r e a p p e a r in different ideological a n d institutional guises
over thousands of years of history. Nietzsche would claim that this
form is still active in the West as capitalism, socialism, a n d democracy.
Inspired directly or indirectly by Nietzsche, o t h e r philosophers such as H e i d e g g e r a n d D e r r i d a have developed far-reaching
models of the most f u n d a m e n t a l metaphysical assumptions of
Western culture. T h e s e philosophers tend to assume tacitly that
m o d e r n institutions a n d technical rationality a r e essentially incompatible with o t h e r c u l t u r e s . " As "postmodernity" or "multiculturalism," this view leads to a revalorization of tradition a n d ethnic
particularity, a n d in t h e worst case collapses back into the content
approach Nietzsche should r a t h e r h e l p us to transcend.
The Master of Go practically invites such a traditionalist r e a d ing, at least to Westerners who t e n d to see in it a struggle between
Japanese particularity a n d the universality of m o d e r n culture.
On those terms, Kawabata would be arguing that etiquette, selfrealization, a n d aesthetics are substantive e n d s that m u s t be sacrificed for instrumental efficiency in a m o d e r n society.
This interpretation of the novel agrees with a c o m m o n p l a c e
universalist view of J a p a n e s e culture as different precisely insofar
as it is still essentially feudal. T h e s e survivals p r e s u m a b l y will dissipate as modernization proceeds (Morley 19). Of course, it is h a r d e r
to believe this today t h a n it was w h e n the theory was originally
proposed by Marxists in the 1930s. Now that J a p a n is the most
advanced capitalist country, it seems unlikely that feudalism could
130
Andrew Feenberg
be alive a n d well there, b u t the universalist view is still widely held
by many observers who find J a p a n e s e c u l t u r e oppressive and authoritarian.
Kawabata's novel a p p e a r s deceptively compatible with the
universalist f r a m e w o r k because the old J a p a n e s e values it endorses
share the p a t h o s a n d fragility of the Master whose defeat marks
the entry of J a p a n into modernity. But despite this, t h e novel is
incompatible with the Weberian f r a m e w o r k . Its J a p a n e s e elements
are not merely substantive "contents" sacrificed to f o r m a l rationality since they include a specific strategic practice of the game.
T h u s , the fateful necessity of the o u t c o m e does not flow smoothly
f r o m an E n l i g h t e n m e n t g r a n d narrative of progress, even in Weber's disillusioned f o r m .
In sum, it is not easy to fit Kawabata's novel into the currently
fashionable p a r a d i g m of ethnic protest against totalitarian rationality. I believe that Kawabata is not so m u c h a d e f e n d e r of particularity against universality as he is a critic of t h e pretensions of false
universality. In this too he is t r u e to t h e novelistic tradition as
Lukács d e f i n e d it.
T h e reorganization of Go a r o u n d Western notions of fairness
is not a move f r o m particular to universal b u t merely shifts the
balance of p o w e r in favor of a new type of player. As deference
falls, it carries d o w n with it the values of self-realization a n d aesthetics that flourish in the context of traditional etiquette. Henceforth, Go will be played m o r e as a business t h a n as a spiritual discipline. T h e best player, in the sense of the o n e who p r o d u c e s the
most perfect game, will be replaced by t h e player w h o is best at
w i n n i n g — n o t precisely the same thing as we have seen.
Reflection on Kawabata's novel thus shows the limits of the
identification of rationality with Western c u l t u r e a n d offers starting
points for a genealogy of non-Western cultural f o r m s investing the
process of m o d e r n i z a t i o n a n d altering its direction. From that
standpoint, the progress of J a p a n e s e m o d e r n i t y would roughly
parallel Western developments, which saw the e m e r g e n c e of new
secular expressions of basic cultural forms amidst t h e g r a d u a l decline of the feudal-Christian tradition that h a d once b e e n a vigorous expression of that same culture (Dore).
Admittedly, given the recentness of the o p e n i n g a n d m o d e r n ization of J a p a n , t h e r e inevitably hangs a certain ambiguity over
Alternative Modernity?
131
its situation. It is difficult to decide the relative i m p o r t a n c e of survivals as o p p o s e d to the m o r e basic cultural forms. T h a t ambiguity
emerges as a central t h e m e of Kawabata's novel. I want to t u r n
now to the task of u n r a v e l i n g it.
The Culture of Place
To this e n d , I will focus briefly on the category of "place"
which plays such an i m p o r t a n t role in J a p a n e s e philosophy a n d
social thought. 1 2 T h i s notion underlies the concept of n o - m i n d
which we have seen at work in Kawabata's novel. As a general cultural p h e n o m e n o n , it articulates an everyday e x p e r i e n c e available
to every m e m b e r of the society. This is the experience of seeking
one's "place" in t h e system of social relations in which o n e finds
oneself.
It would be easy to assimilate this category to the notion of
social status a n d to treat it as evidence of the persistence of hierarchy in J a p a n e s e culture. This is Chie Nakane's f a m o u s theory of
the tate shakai (vertical society) which is p r o p o s e d to explain J a p a n ' s
success in the m o d e r n world (Nakane). This theory has c o m e in
for much criticism because of its implicit appeal to culture to justify
submission to authority (Dale 44-45). It is t e m p t i n g to reject the
whole notion of place as an artifact of an ideologically contaminated cultural theory, a pseudo-traditionalism in the service of
r a m p a n t exploitation.
T h e ambiguities of Nakane's social theory a r e similar to those
we e n c o u n t e r e d in The Master of Go. In both cases a quasi-feudal
deference is j o i n e d to the rational manipulation of a f o r m a l system
(economics, Go). But, if anything, the novelist is a m o r e provocative observer than t h e social theorist. He enables us to see clearly
the u n i q u e formal rationality that is already p r e s e n t in traditional
Japanese culture. T h i s raises the question of w h e t h e r values a n d
practices linked to that rational dimension of the traditional culture might survive t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e of the old d e f e r e n c e a n d accommodate themselves to m o d e r n conditions.
This is not a question that occurs to Kawabata, b u t I would
like to consider w h e t h e r the logic of place may not be i n d e p e n d e n t
of traditional authoritarianism. It seems to be built into the struc-
132
Andrew Feenberg
t u r e of J a p a n e s e culture a n d language at a m u c h m o r e basic level
than differences in prestige or p o w e r a n d signifies a far wider
r a n g e of distinguishing attributes attached to the various "places"
occupied by the individuals. Perhaps, like Western individualism,
it is a cultural f o r m in the b r o a d genealogical sense capable of rep r o d u c i n g itself across epochal institutional changes, including
changes in the distribution a n d exercise of authority.
T h e r e is considerable evidence for this interpretation. For example, the J a p a n e s e language (like several o t h e r Asian languages)
requires o n e to choose p r o n o u n s , verb forms, a n d forms of address
which reflect differences in age, gender, a n d status that might be
signified only tacitly, for example, by dress in the West. T h e r e is a
clear e n o u g h distinction between the way in which m e n and
w o m e n s p e a k — o n e of the most i m p o r t a n t differences of place—
that some g r a m m a r books actually offer dialogues in both male
a n d female versions. Masculine a n d feminine speech no d o u b t reflect g e n d e r hierarchy, b u t they are e x p e r i e n c e d as exemplifying
the whole r a n g e of connotations of masculinity a n d feminity, not
merely an authority relation. A similar observation applies to formal language which persists despite the rapid softening of distinctions in social r a n k (Miller).
Linguistic coding a p p e a r s to a d d t r e m e n d o u s force to social
differences or p e r h a p s reflects an u n u s u a l force p r e s e n t in social
reality. T h e J a p a n e s e belong to a culture in which you have to
know y o u r place in the social setting in o r d e r to o p e n your m o u t h .
This can be quite inhibiting for t h e m when they first arrive in the
West a n d speak a language like French or English that does not
offer any obvious way of signifying place.
T h e notion of place does not imply u n q u e s t i o n i n g submission
to the authority of social superiors. In institutions such as c o m p a nies a n d g o v e r n m e n t agencies a good deal of attention is paid to
building consensus t h r o u g h g r o u p discussion. W h e n things go
smoothly, such consensus building is a two-way street that constrains the authorities as well as subordinates.
Naturally, things do not always go smoothly. Self-assertion is
necessary in m a n y situations, a n d while it is o f t e n m o r e restrained
t h a n it would be in the West, the J a p a n e s e certainly did not have
to await the arrival of Western individualism to discover it. It is
already p r e s e n t in their own culture, b u t qualified a n d concretized
Alternative Modernity?
133
by the d e m a n d s of place r a t h e r t h a n conceived, as typically it
would be in t h e West, in universal terms as role transcendence.
Place is thus not about w h e t h e r o n e plays one's own game, b u t
about who o n e is a n d how, accordingly, that g a m e must be played.
Place not only shapes everyday speech a n d social relations b u t
also religion a n d art. As we have seen, J a p a n e s e martial arts have
evolved into spiritual disciplines in p a r t u n d e r the impact of this
concept, r e i n t e r p r e t e d t h r o u g h the B u d d h i s t concept of n o - m i n d .
T h e combatants are t r a i n e d to concern themselves less with winning than with immediately a n d swiftly i n t e r p r e t i n g their place in
the system of moves so as perfectly to fulfill situational requirements. In aesthetic terms, each gesture of combat is p a r t of a pair,
the o t h e r p a r t of which m u s t be a n d can be supplied only by the
adversary. Every move in the g a m e is in some d e e p e r sense an
element of a larger p a t t e r n p r o d u c e d t h r o u g h the collaborative
competition of the players. In these artistic a n d religious applications of place, it is especially clear that traditional authority relations overlay a m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l cultural f o r m that could p e r h a p s
survive without them.
Place
and Alternative
Modernity
S o m e t h i n g like this martial a p p r o a c h to place is at work in
Kawabata's depiction of the traditional g a m e of Go, with its emphasis on t h e values of self-realization a n d aesthetics. He contrasts
a way of life, based on playing o u t one's position in a larger system,
with the Western focus on fairness a n d winning.
T h e difference between t h e two is not that one is traditionb o u n d while t h e o t h e r concentrates on the logic of play. Both are
totally involved in the logic of play; both are t h e r e f o r e "rational"
in the b r o a d sense, a l t h o u g h o n e emphasizes aspects of play most
relevant to a culture of place a n d t h e o t h e r emphasizes aspects that
complement an individualistic culture.
T h e novel shows us two alternative ways of playing Go constructed a r o u n d different f o r m a l dimensions of the game. Both
ways aim at victory b u t u n d e r d i f f e r e n t aspects. T h e Western emphasis on equality stems f r o m the equivalence of "sides" in the
game, which does i n d e e d conflict with traditional deference. But
134
Andrew Feenberg
the J a p a n e s e concern with aesthetics is not o p p o s e d to the formal
rationality of the game; it realizes a n o t h e r i m m a n e n t dimension of
it, the essential d e p e n d e n c e of the players exemplified in the
thrust a n d parry of struggle.
T h e aesthetic values that p r e d o m i n a t e in traditional Japanese
play are thus not extrinsic to the essence of the g a m e but rather
r e p r e s e n t dimensions of it that only a p p e a r clearly in a nonWestern context. N o r are these values merely particularistic. Aesthetics is usually u n d e r s t o o d as a matter of subjective taste, but
mathematical a n d technical systems have aesthetic qualities rooted
in objective rationality. A glance at any Go textbook immediately
shows this to be t r u e of games as well. T h e aesthetics of Go flow
f r o m the conditions of formally rational action j u s t as rigorously as
the values of the y o u n g challenger while fulfilling a very different
cultural agenda.
H e r e modernity defeats tradition not because it is m o r e rational, but because it is better at m a n i p u l a t i n g the new meta-rules set
up to institutionalize rationality a n d because it is m o r e ruthlessly
oriented toward winning at any price, even if it means sacrificing
the intrinsic rationality of the game, i.e., the p r o d u c t i o n of a
u n i q u e sequence of optimal moves in terms of the position of the
pieces on the board. Kawabata reestablishes the symmetry between
tradition a n d modernity by showing that success as such is no more
rational than deference. Both are external to the i n n e r logic of
play, differing primarily in which aspects of that logic they privilege.
In sum, certain traditional values possess at least as much
"universality" as the supposedly m o d e r n value of fairness. In a
sense, what the novel achieves, p e r h a p s without entirely intending
it, is to present two alternative types of rationality, each of which is
a candidate for modernity, although only o n e is t r i u m p h a n t , only
o n e actually organizes a m o d e r n society.
We have h e r e a model for thinking about alternative m o d e r nity. J a p a n is a good test case because it combines a very alien cult u r e a n d a very familiar technology a n d institutional framework.
As rational systems, technologies, markets, democratic voting, and
so on resemble the g a m e of Go: they too can be practiced differently in different cultural settings. In this context, J a p a n e s e cult u r e is not an irrational intrusion b u t r a t h e r differs by its emphasis
Alternative Modernity?
135
on different aspects of technical rationality which, as we have seen,
includes self-realization a n d aesthetics as well as the n a r r o w p u r suit of success ethnocentrically identified with it in the West. 13 So,
in Kawabata's match each move obeys the same rules but has a
different significance in the different systems that invest it. Differe n t cultures inhabit t h e b o a r d a n d influence its p a t t e r n of development.
Perhaps all m o d e r n institutions a n d m o d e r n technology itself
are similarly layered with cultural meanings. W h e r e a vigorous
culture, w h e t h e r it be old or new, m a n a g e s to take hold of m o d e r nity, it can influence t h e evolution of its rational systems. Alternative modernities may emerge, distinguished not j u s t by increasingly marginal features such as food, culture, style, or political
ideals but by t h e central institutions of technology a n d administration.
Perhaps Kawabata's elegy was p r e m a t u r e , a n d something like
this is already b e g i n n i n g to occur in J a p a n . A n u m b e r of experts
have a t t e m p t e d to show that the J a p a n e s e economy draws on
unique cultural resources to achieve extraordinarily high levels of
motivation a n d effectiveness (Dore). T h e y point to the i m p o r t a n c e
in J a p a n of ideals of belonging, service, quality, a n d vocation by
contrast with which the individualistic West a p p e a r s ethically
handicapped.
Unlike certain f o r m s of d e f e r e n c e which seem to be in the sort
of steep decline Kawabata d e p l o r e d , these ideals are not survivals
d o o m e d by the process of modernization; rather, they are the specific forms in which J a p a n e s e culture invests modernity. I n d e e d ,
the prevalence of these values may account for both the strengths
and weaknesses of t h e J a p a n e s e model. Industrial societies too can
use a m a x i m u m of vocational self-consciousness, attention to the
whole, a n d collaborative competition. But m o d e r n political systems function best w h e n they rid themselves of the conformism
and deference that still characterizes the essentially bureaucratic
ethos of the J a p a n e s e state. H e n c e the peculiar combination of effective economics a n d m e d i o c r e politics that characterizes this
model (Van Wolferen).
What r e m a i n s to be seen is how far the process of culturally
specific m o d e r n i z a t i o n will go a n d how m u c h transformation the
Western technical heritage will suffer as J a p a n liberates itself m o r e
136
Andrew Feenberg
a n d m o r e f r o m its original d e p e n d e n c y on t h e Western model of
modernity.
Notes
1. For more on Go, see Korschelt.
2. For Kawabata's relation to this tradition, see his Nobel Prize Acceptance
Speech (Japan, the Beautiful and Myself), and Petersen, 129-32.
3. The reader interested in the concept of no-mind should consult Suzuki
(The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind), the chapters on swordsmanship in Suzuki (Zen and
Japanese Culture), and Herrigel. See also Loy, especially p. 123, for the issue of the
"third" point of view discussed below.
4. It is important not to miss the specific emphasis on winning characteristic
of traditional play. Ritual is, of course, significant for it to a degree that differentiates it from modern play, but it would be wrong to describe it as formalistic in
opposition to a modern instrumental interest in victory. One would have the same
problem distinguishing formal from instrumental motives in evaluating bull
fighting. And the same confusion Kawabata describes would arise, but in a ridiculous form, if a new style were introduced that consisted in shooting the bull.
5. Other recontextualizations are, of course, possible. For example, in the
course of history, technical systems have frequently been incorporated into social
life through guilds. Socialism might be interpreted as the demand for a similar
recontextualization of modern technology in democratic forms. See Feenberg
(Critical Theory of Technology chap. 7).
6. Cf. Latour:
If you take any black box and make a freeze-frame of it, you may
consider the system of alliances it knits together in two different ways:
first, by looking at who it is designed to enroll; second, by considering
what it is tied to so as to make the enrollment inescapable. We may on
the one h a n d draw its sociogram, and on the other its technogram. (138)
"Black box" here refers to facts and artifacts produced by scientific and technological research and development. They have an inextricably intertwined social
and scientific-technical logic. (The equivalent in Go would be the results of a
match.) In my book, I called this a "double aspect" theory (Critical Theory 81-82).
7. Pilarcik offers a skillful analysis of the various ways in which characterization is used to express the epochal transition. See especially her description of
the players use of time (12-13) and their strategies (14-15). Cf. Thomas Swann
(105-06). But for a novel in which the same transition is treated as essentially a
matter of changing character, compare Endo.
8. The concept of doubles employed here derives from René Girard. For
more on his approach, and applications to the role of economics in the novel, see
Feenberg ("Fetishism and Form").
9. Lukács:
T h e writer's irony is a negative mysticism to be f o u n d in times without a god. It is an attitude of docta ignorantia towards meaning, a portrayal of the kindly and malicious workings of the demons, a refusal
to c o m p r e h e n d more than the m e r e fact of these workings; and in it
Alternative Modernity?
137
there is the d e e p certainty, expressible only by form-giving, that
through not-desiring-to-know and not-being-able-to-know he has
truly e n c o u n t e r e d , glimpsed and grasped the ultimate, t r u e substance, the present, non-existent God. This is why irony is the objectivity of the novel. (90)
For an extended discussion of this passage, see Bernstein (195 and ff.).
10. In the larger context of contemporary world literature, the novelistic turn
is reached by different peoples at times reflecting comparable levels of development and carried out with means supplied by their cultures. Thus, behind the
similarity of the Hungarian Lukács and the Japanese Kawabata, writing a generation apart, lies a deeper cause in the rhythms of modernization in different parts
of the world. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Iwakura Mission, which visited
Europe during 1871-1873 in search of insight into how to modernize Japan focused on the example of Hungary, a country that seemed to point the way. Their
report notes: "The various nations who today are delayed in their enlightenment
will be deeply impressed by studying the circumstances of Hungary" (Soviak 15).
The artistic and theoretical opening made possible by the novel corresponds to a
moment of critique in a process of development undergone by both countries.
11. For a useful evaluation of related issues, see Johann Arnason.
12. See Nishida ("The Problem of Japanese Culture" and An Inquiry into the
Good), Abe, Watsuji, and Berque.
13. For more on the different moments of technical rationality, see Feenberg
(Critical Theory chap. 8).
Works Cited
Abe, Maso. "Nishida's Philosophy of 'Place.'" International Philosophical Quarterly
28.4 (1991): 355-71.
Arnason, Johann. "Modernity, Postmodernity and the Japanese Experience." Unpublished essay, 1992.
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. Trans. Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken, 1969.
Bernstein, Jay. The Philosophy of the Novel: Lukács, Marxism and the Dialectics of Form.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984.
Berque, Augustin. Vivre l'Espace au Japon. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1986.
Borges, Jorge Luis. "The Theologians." Labyrinths. New York: New Directions,
1964. 119-26.
Caillois, Roger. "Les jeux dans le monde moderne." Profits 13 (1955): 26.
Dale, Peter. The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness. New York: St. Martin's, 1986.
Dore, Roland. Taking Japan Seriously: A Confucian Perspective on Leading Economic.
Issues. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1987.
Endo, Shusaku. When I Whistle. Trans. Van C. Gessel. New York: Taplinger, 1980.
Feenberg, Andrew. "Fetishism and Form: Erotic and Economic Disorder in Literature." Violence and Truth. Ed. Paul Dumouchel. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1988.
201-10.
. Critical Theory of Technology. New York: Oxford UP 1991.
Goffman, Erving. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. New York:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1961.
138
Andrew Feenberg
Goodell, J o h n D. The World of Ki. St. Paul: Riverside Research P, 1957.
Herrigel, Eugen. Zen in the Art of Archery. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. New York: Pantheon Books, 1960.
Kawabata, Yasunari. Japan, The Beautiful and Myself. Trans. Edward Seidensticker.
Tokyo/Palo Alto: Kodansha, 1969.
. The Master of Go. Trans. Edward Seidensticker. New York: Perigree, 1981.
Korschelt, Oscar. The Theory and Practice of Go. Trans. and ed. Samuel King and
George Leckie. Rutland: Tuttle, 1965.
Latour, Bruno. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1987.
Loy, David. Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. New Haven: Yale UP,
1988.
Lukacs, Georg. The Theory of the Novel. Trans. Anne Bostock. Cambridge: MIT
P, 1968.
Miller, Roy Andrew. "Levels of Speech (keigo) and the Japanese Linguistic Response to Modernization." Tradition and Modernization in Japanese Culture. Ed.
Donald Shively. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1971. 601-65.
Morley, James. "Introduction: Choice and Consequence." Dilemmas of Growth in
Prewar Japan. Ed. James Morley. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1971. 3-30.
Nakane, Chie. Japanese Society. Berkeley: U of California P, 1970.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage, 1969.
Nishida, Kitaro. "The Problem of Japanese Culture." Sources of the Japanese Tradition. Vol. 2. Ed. and trans. William T. de Bary. New York: Columbia UP, 1958.
350-65. 2 vols.
. An Inquiry into the Good. Trans. Masao Abe and Christopher Ives. New
Haven: Yale UP, 1990.
Ohashi, Ryosuke. Nihonteki na mono, Yoroppateki na mono [What is Japanese, What is
European?]. Tokyo: Shincho Sensho, 1992.
Pilarcik, Marlene. "Dialectics and Change in Kawabata's Master of Go." Modern
Language Studies 16.4 (1986): 9-21.
Petersen, Gwenn. The Moon in the Water: Understanding Tanizaki, Kawabata, and Mishima. Honolulu: U of Hawaii P, 1979.
Soviak, Eugene. 'Journal of the Iwakura Embassy." Tradition and Modernization in
Japanese Culture. Ed. Donald Shively. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1971. 7-34.
Suzuki, Daisetz. Zen and Japanese Culture. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1970.
. The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1973.
Swann, Thomas. "The Master of Go." Approaches to the Modern Japanese Novel. Ed.
K. Tsuruta and Thomas Swann. Tokyo: Sophia UP, 1976.
Tanizaki, J u n i c h i r o . In Praise of Shadows. Trans. Harper and E. Seidensticker.
New Haven: Leete's Island Books, 1977.
Vattimo, Gianni. The End of Modernity. Trans. John Snyder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1991.
Van Wolferen, Karel. The Enigma of Japanese Power. New York: Random, 1989.
Watsuji, Tetsuro. Climate and Culture: A Philosophical Study. Trans. Geoffrey Bownas. Westport: Greenwood P, 1987.