Bushido: An Antiquated Values System?
Call (720) 221-3665
A Critical Review of the Classic Samurai Text:
Bushido: The Soul of Japan by Inazo Nitobe

Part Seven: Honor (Meiyo)
Honor: The Product of Self-Respect

Article by Sean Hannon
First Name:
Last Name:
e-mail Address:
confirm e-mail:
Contact Phone:
Aikido Experience:
Martial Arts Experience:
How did you hear about us?:
Why do you want to train Aikido?:
What kind of Aikido class might you be interested in?
(optional)
Fill out this short form
to receive a coupon for a FREE Aikido class.
We continue to explore Bushido’s major principles, concepts, and values as articulated in the classic 1899 Japanese text, Bushido: The Soul of Japan, by Inazo Nitobe, and evaluate their applicability in today’s modern world.  Bushido: The Soul of Japan is one of the first major works on samurai ethics and Japanese culture.  It is considered by some to be the first collective statement of what is commonly referred to as the Seven Virtues of Bushido. 

Nitobe offers for consideration seven virtues of Bushido that attempt to illustrate the philosophical values of the samurai.  However, it should be recognized that there are not, in truth, seven virtues of Bushido.  This is only Nitobe’s subjective articulation of samurai culture and it is little more than an artificial construct.  Other academics like Nitobe or practitioners of Bushido could easily and perhaps in an equally comprehensively fashion offer four, ten, or even one-hundred virtues of Bushido.  Furthermore, the seven virtues presented here are concentric.  That is, each value overlaps with and is influenced by another.  No single virtue of Bushido exists or can exist by itself.  Remember, all systems, including Bushido, Aikido, or any other, are ultimately artificial.  The holistic nature of any system of values is unlikely to be comprehensively articulated in written language.  Some virtues transcend written word.  Nonetheless, we will attempt to explore each thoroughly.

Honor or  "MEIYO"

Honor is a concept that carries significant weight in any culture.  It is a concept that most people think they should value, but perhaps have never really explored its meaning, significance, or origins, and often take its use in everyday language for granted.  Many believe that it is important to “honor” parents, elders, and people of authority; and most of us appreciate being “honored” by others for an achievement such as a graduation, award, commitment, or contribution to society.  It seems clear that most people of any culture would agree that Honor is an important virtue.  However, when asked to define Honor, many people struggle.

How is Honor differentiated from respect, politeness, or deference?  Is there a difference between these concepts?  How do you know when you have achieved an honorable status?  Is Honor something that is bestowed upon you by others?  Just because you are honored by others, does that make you right, ethical, or moral?  Does Honor really matter at all?  People often think it is virtuous to fight for their Honor or the Honor of a loved one – in some cases willing to fight to the death.  As such, it has always seemed strange to me that cultures would so strongly value something that was so ill-defined.  How can something so prized by societies be so ambiguous?

Wikipedia defines Honor as “the evaluation of a person's social status as judged by that individual's community.”  I think many people, if not most, would, in general, agree with the crux of this definition.  However, this definition lacks any checks and balances of whether or not one should be honored.  For example, Adolf Hitler was honored by his community.  Did this kind of consensus by his peers and fellow citizens make him Honorable?  I think most would readily say, no.

Far too often, I have witnessed people who abuse the concept of Honor, unfairly labeling whomever they might adamantly disagree with as “dishonorable.”  Rather than simply be content to agree to disagree, the petulant child in them sometimes feels compelled to demonize and vilify a person who might simply share a different opinion or different set of values.  I have seen this occur repeatedly in martial arts communities where one person (usually a teacher) either claims to have been “disonored” by another teacher, peer, or even a student.  Or, a person (again, usually a teacher) points the finger at someone they disagree with and publicly campaigns against that person to be thought by their community as disHonorable and not acting in accordance with Bushido’s code of conduct.  More often than not, most of these accusers are actually just hiding behind their own misdirected and poorly developed sense of Honor, representing little more than a transparent effort to camouflage or ignore their own personal short comings and insecurities.  I call this effort “playing the Bushido card.”  It is essentially the equivalent of a church labeling anything they don’t understand or don’t agree with as “the work of the devil.”  Whatever its incarnation, it is an unacceptable human behavior that must be nipped in the bud.

Many people believe Honor carries with it additional meaning and responsibilities in a martial arts context (although I’m not certain this belief is true).  Martial arts students, for example, know that they are expected to always Honor their teachers.  But what exactly does this equate to?  And, where do we draw the line?  Most people in martial arts have also been superficially exposed to the role “Honor” played in historical samurai culture.  But, what does this mean today?  And, how far does it go?  Are there limits to this kind of Honor?

In light of these ambiguities, we shall carefully explore Nitobe’s work in hopes it could offer some direction in better understanding Honor.  Honor or MEIYO is the most enigmatic of the seven virtues of Bushido articulated by Nitobe and, therefore, is also the virtue most susceptible to misinterpretation and abuse.

What I found in this chapter of Nitobe’s treatise was largely what I feared I would find: that in all likelihood the historical samurai did not live up to the philosophical height and the near-mythological spirit assigned to them, which is often revered by those in the martial arts, the corporate business world, and other communities today.  I was not disappointment in Nitobe, but of what he reports the samurai’s practice of Honor was.  I very much value what Nitobe professes Honor should be.  However, he sadly reports that the actual practice of Honor – as it relates to historical Bushido – was, far too often, rare among the samurai class. 

While disappointed, I certainly wasn’t surprised by any means.  I had no illusions that samurai would be the one cultural icon that actually did live up to its lore.  I can think of no other way to most concisely describe what the samurai insisted Honor was other than egotism.  Thankfully, Nitobe successfully rehabilitates the reputation of the samurai and their so-called virtue of Honor from that of childish egotism to that of mature wisdom.
Once again, and in case you have not read the previously published articles in this series, I feel compelled to remind readers that Nitobe is only describing what he understands the samurai's sense of Honor to have been, and that he is not necessarily condoning their position.  In this chapter I was reassured by Nitobe's own personal interjections that redeem the majority of the chapter’s disappointing content and, for lack of a better word, scold the immature articulation of Honor that Bushido allegedly espoused.   Instead, Nitobe offers a far more evolved and wise interpretation of what the precept of Honor should be as an ideal rather than the way it was, no doubt, practiced and exercised in reality. 

Nitobe acknowledges that one of the greatest challenges surrounding a true understanding of the concept of Honor is that there is no clear definition of what Honor really is.  Such did not exist during the samurai’s reign, during the Meiji restoration, and, one could argue, not even now to a great extent.  "It was a great pity that nothing clear and general was expressed as to what constitutes Honor," Nitobe states.  However, Nitobe then offers a powerfully succinct definition: Honor is "a vivid consciousness of personal dignity.” This is a good starting point for discussion. 

First of all, “a vivid consciousness” implies one's own self-perception.  Notice that Nitobe did not say a vivid reputation, which would imply a collective perception of a person in the eyes of others.  Use of the word consciousness suggests that Honor is a self-ascribed determination, one that has absolutely nothing to do with outside influence or the opinions of others.  Therefore, Honor is what you think of yourself, though not necessarily what you show others in public.  And, more importantly, Honor is not what other people think of you.  In direct contradiction to Wikipedia’s definition, Honor is not your reputation.  Honor is something you carry inside of yourself, not something others assign to you.  However, if asked in a survey I’m certain a high percentage of respondents people would define some element of Honor as involving the collective impressions of one’s peers. 

Use of the adjective "vivid" I think was carefully chosen by Nitobe.  Vivid means clear, strong, and/or graphic.  Therefore, having a sense of Honor requires more than just a vague consciousness or awareness of oneself.  Honor requires a clear, strong, and graphic sense of self.  The vividness of Honor implies that the ultimate "source" of Honor lies within.  It is an immortal part of oneself.  Nitobe’s definition also includes the words "personal" and "dignity."  Use of the word “personal” further delineates the quality of independence inherent within the virtue of Honor, eliminating outside influence – the opinions, gossip, or actions of others.  Dignity has been defined as "the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect" and since we are talking about "personal dignity" we are, in fact, talking about personal respect or self-respect.  Perhaps then, I could offer my own even more concise definition suggesting that Honor is, in its simplest form, self-respect.  As such, it must be recognized before we proceed further that Honor is completely, one-hundred percent within the control of each individual.  Honor has absolutely nothing to do with what someone else says or thinks of you.

However, how many times in or pop-culture media have protagonists or antagonists claimed to have been disHonored by someone else?  How many hundreds of movies (either American or Japanese) are based on the idea of winning back one's Honor?  And, how often do people in these movies (and in real life) use the word "Honor" merely as a substitute for the more honest and often more embarrassing, truthful term of "ego"?  Use of Nitobe's excellent definition of Honor, of course, makes such a means to disHonor impossible since others cannot inflict or assign disHonor upon you. 

In an age of excessive political correctness, people often try to simply change one’s vocabulary instead of trying to change one’s behavior.  For example, rather than acknowledge to oneself that he is “fat,” a person often chooses to describe himself as “big-boned” or “husky.”  This is an effort to talk oneself out of having to change or take action.  It is far easier to simply change the word fat to husky than it is to change the behaviors that make one fat.  Similarly, rather than work on evolving one’s self-respect and/or humility, people today will often use the word “Honor” when, in reality, they are just referring to their ego.  Using the word “Honor” sounds much more mature and regal that acknowledging one’s ego has run amuck.  However, simply changing one’s words does not actually change a person in reality.  Nitobe offers a thoughtful, perceptive analysis of Honor that can assist someone truly wanting to transcend their shallow egotism to that of deep Honor.

An excellent and fairly contemporary pop-culture example of this common and juvenile misunderstanding of "Honor" is illustrated in the 1985 martial arts movie, The Karate Kid - Part 2.  In that story, a spoiled local boy from a prominent Okinawan family is inadvertently, but publicly, exposed and humiliated for cheating the townspeople out of the fair trade of goods by the movie's protagonist.  The disgraced young man subsequently blames the story’s hero for "disHonoring” him and predictably vows retribution.  Now, certainly, this story line is plainly transparent.  The young man wasn’t disHonored by the movie’s hero.  The young man disHonored himself by engaging in the dishonest behavior to begin with.  However, we see this theme repeated in hundreds of stories throughout recorded history.  Unfortunately, many people in real life don't learn the lesson no matter how many incarnations they are exposed to.  That lesson being: Only you can disHonor yourself.  Certainly, samurai (being ordinary human beings, not super-men) were as susceptible to this experience as any other.

Immediately after proposing his definition of Honor, Nitobe then offers a caveat of sorts that "any infringement upon (Honor’s) integrity was felt as shame" not just by samurai, but by all Japanese.  The Japanese seem to hold in esteem the value of shame.  This value seems to be a driving force behind Honor and other virtues such as respect and loyalty.  A sense of shame ("REN-CHI-SHIN") was (and still is) instilled in Japanese children at a very young age.  "Indeed, the sense of shame seems to me to be the earliest indication of the moral consciousness of our race," says Nitobe.  He further emphasizes this Japanese sentiment by citing Scottish satirical writer and controversial social commentator, Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), who says that "shame is the soil of all Virtue, of good manners and good morals." 

Thus far, I have no objection to Nitobe's monologue of shame and the relationship that shame bears to Honor.  However, it is at this point that I offer what I think is an important distinction that Nitobe hints at but fails to emphasize.  The source of shame and/or the source of Honor is critically important and I think here it is being glossed over.  It is the source of shame or Honor that differentiates the virtue of true Honor from that of simple egotism.

Based solely on Nitobe's work, the Japanese society that Nitobe speaks of seem to fail to make the distinction between what could be termed internally-catalyzed shame and externally-catalyzed shame;  internally-catalyzed Honor and externally-catalyzed Honor. 

In other words,

•No one can shame you, only you can shame you. 
•No one can dishonor you, only you can dishonor you.
•If you think of yourself as shamed by someone else's action (i.e. “He shamed me.”),           then you are being ruled by egotism.
•If you think of yourself as dishonored by someone else's action (i.e. “He dishonored            me.”), then you are again being ruled by egotism.

For example, let's say an adult first born son engages in a crime and is sentenced to jail.  One might be inclined, whether Japanese or not, to feel that the son has shamed the whole family.  However, I disagree.  The son has shamed himself, and has brought disHonor to himself, but to suggest that his action shames and disHonors the whole family is nothing more than cowardly narcissism.  Remember, Honor is a vivid consciousness of personal dignity.  A family is not in control of, and therefore, is not responsible for the actions of any grown member of that family.

As an example of Honor, Nitobe praises the historical reputation of Iyeyasu (‘ee’-‘eh’-‘ah’-‘soo’), the first shogun of the Tokugawa period of feudal Japan (circa 1600 - 1616 AD), as a man who practiced what he preached and exemplified the true, non-egotistical virtue of Honor and its inherent qualities contained therein of patience, forbearance, and countenance.  Nitobe's praise of Iyeyasu came in the form of citing an un-named contemporary of Iyeyasu who wrote of the Shogun in comparison to other past Japanese leaders of the Tokugawa period:

•to Nobunaga he attributed, "I will kill her, if the nightingale sings not in time;"
•to Hideyoshi he attributed, " I will force her to sing for me;" and
•to Iyeyasu he attributed, "I will wait till she opens her lips."

If this remembrance of Iyeyasu is historically accurate and fairly representative of his reign, then I think it is wonderful that Nitobe references Iyeyasu as one who truly exemplified Bushido's virtue of Honor.

Nitobe quotes "That samurai was right who refused to compromise his character by a slight humiliation in his youth... because disHonor is like a scar on a tree, which, instead of effacing, only helps to enlarge."  By mature, Western values, does this not sound like pure, unadulterated egotism?  What arrogance!  What vanity!  How incredibly juvenile!  Is this an example of the precept of Japanese knighthood that we are to follow?  If so, then I have no desire to follow so-called Bushido. 

Nitobe then continues his rehabilitation of this virtue by scolding an all too common occurrence within the samurai's so-called exercising of Bushido's Honor.  "In the name of Honor, deeds were perpetrated which can find no justification in the code of Bushido.  At the slightest, even imaginary insult, the quick-tempered braggart took offense, resorted to the use of the sword, and many an unnecessary strife was raised and many innocent lives lost."  I was relieved to read that Nitobe recognizes the confusion between Honor and ego.  Nitobe continues, "Honor (was) too often nothing higher than vain glory or worldly approval..." and "for the most part, an insult was quickly resented and repaid by death."  If this is true, it further suggests that many Bushi failed to exercise true Honor.

A true Bushi, a real follower of Bushido, would, of course, simply ignore a slight insult (or even a significant one, for that matter).  Unfortunately, I think far too many neophyte followers of Bushido today (even those who may hold high-ranking black belts in martial arts) fail to make this distinction and unconsciously perceive the terms Honor and ego as synonyms for each other.  Far too many in the martial arts communities take offense too quickly to miscommunications, demonstrate far too little a desire to be patient and prudent, to have respect for those who may have different opinions than others, to investigate one's motive and ask for clarification before taking offense and drawing their metaphoric sword.  

Indeed, it is my opinion that there should be an inverse relationship between one’s rank and one’s tendency to take offense.  That is to say, the higher one’s rank in martial arts is, the more difficult it should be to offend that person.  High ranking black belts should develop “thicker skin,” not become more psychologically fragile and entitlement privy.  However, this has not been my observation of many (though certainly not all) in some martial arts communities.

Nitobe describes the samurai's sense of Honor as "extreme sensitiveness" and "the delicate code of Honor."  Honor, a vivid consciousness of personal dignity, as Nitobe suggests, should be strong, stable, and relatively unshakable – not delicate, not fragile.  The mere assertion that the samurai's sense of Honor was "extremely sensitive" or "delicate" suggests to me that far too often samurai were insecure juveniles lacking any real understanding of Honor.  If they really possessed Honor, slight provocation and/or offense wouldn't lead to quick-tempered violence that Nitobe states was far too routine.  Again, I am saddened by how prevalent this destructive behavior remains in martial arts communities today.  I was pleased to see Nitobe's disapproval of such behavior: "To take offense at slight provocation was ridiculed as short-tempered.”

A person of real Bushido would never fatally strike down another for a slight humiliation or insult of any kind.  Instead, a true follower of Bushido would follow a precept of Chinese philosopher Mencius who said, "Though you bare yourself and insult me, what is that to me?  You cannot taint my soul by your outrage." This reminds me much of another famous saying from the late 20th century that I often reference: "What you think of me is none of my business."  This was the title and message of a 1979 book by Dr. Terry Cole-Whittaker (a female doctor of divinity).  Mencius also taught that "anger at a petty offense is unworthy of a superior man..."  Nitobe quickly follows this advice with the acknowledgement that "very few Bushi attained this sublime height of magnanimity, patience, and forgiveness."  This is the ideal response and behavior of a Bushi that Nitobe reluctantly acknowledges was rare.  In other words, the overwhelming majority of samurai did not live up to the precept of Honor.  Based on what I see in some martial arts communities today, not much has changed over the centuries except that instead of effectuating a samurai’s right to execute offenders on the spot, people are simply censured, ostracized, or excommunicated.  Of course, though, this is certainly progress!

To further demonstrate the abuse of this virtue and in this context of samurai culture, Nitobe states that fame, and not wealth or knowledge, was the goal toward which youths had to strive. Parents even seemed to endorse this effort.  Nitobe cites “many an ambitious mother refused to see her sons again unless they could return home… caparisoned in brocade [richly ornamented in success].”  Nitobe also states that “…samurai boys …knew that Honor won in youth grows with age.” To me, this is all very disappointing.  Perhaps I am disappointed because I am from a Western country and am of Western values.  I was raised to recognize that fame for the sake of fame was not virtuous.  After all, isn’t that how we ended up with socialite tabloid celebrities who appear to be famous for no apparent reason beyond their video-taped sexual escapades?  Almost by definition, the notion of fame itself is inherently wrapped up in one’s reputation being determined and sustained by what others think.  This would be the anti-thesis of Nitobe’s suggestion that Honor is a vivid consciousness of personal dignity. 

Furthermore, I think to myself, if I were a parent, would I encourage my children to strive for fame over wealth and knowledge?  Certainly, not.  In my opinion, this would be irresponsible of my fiduciary capacity as a parent.  Again, if this representation of Honor is that which I am required to abide by to be a practitioner of Bushido, then I, once again, would like no part of it.  I am, on the other hand, very interested in being a disciple of the virtue(s) that Nitobe endorses, which, in my opinion, is the true gravitational center of modern Bushido, not that of historical samurai folklore.

As I have concluded in all previous articles exploring Bushido’s virtues, Bushido is not antiquated, nor is its virtue of Honor.  Quite to the contrary, Honor is a keystone of Bushido’s infrastructure and is as important today as it ever was.  However, I’m afraid that a true understanding of Honor (that which Nitobe articulates) is not the colloquial understanding of Honor today.  Too many people, including some martial arts students and martial arts teachers, confuse the source of real Honor, that being a “vivid conscious of personal dignity,” and instead erroneously utilize the term Honor as a synonym for ego or reputation.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

In this chapter, Nitobe is conceding that Bushido was not a carefully followed system of values by the majority of samurai during their era.  Instead, Bushido is a conceptual philosophy, a near-mythological ideal that has been historically and artificially "rehabilitated" by those such as Nitobe (and others) in times since the official "decommissioning" of the samurai. 

Much like Jesus probably didn't actually walk on water and Moses probably didn’t actually part the Red Sea, the samurai as a collective class probably didn't actually live by this unwritten, ambiguous, and conveniently-malleable "code of conduct" the way we idolize them in Hollywood movies, cultural fables, and fictional novels of today.  However, that doesn't in any way diminish the value of Bushido as it is and should be understood and practiced today.

I left this chapter concluding in congruence with the impressions made upon me by earlier chapters and virtues that Nitobe, a Christian academic, was, at least intellectually, more samurai than those who actually were samurai.  Were it within my power to do so, I would bestow upon the memory of Nitobe an Honorary designation of samurai, for in this chapter Nitobe successfully rehabilitates the historical samurai to the ideal of modern Bushido.

Next month we will explore the 7th of these 7 virtues of Bushido: Loyalty.  This, too, I’m afraid may be another virtue marred by well-intentioned, but overly pop-culture-influenced Bushido enthusiasts – many of whom reside in the martial arts community.

Read Part Eight


Re-read Part One

Re-read Part Two

Re-read Part Three

Re-read Part Four

Re-read Part Five

Re-read Part Six

Castle Rock AIKIDO
Traditional Japanese Martial Arts Exclusively for Adults