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 Eight: Honor (Chuugi)
Loyalty: Listening to One's Highest Self
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.
Loyalty or "CHUUGI"
At last we reach the final virtue of Bushido: Loyalty. Oh, how I’ve long waited to explore this virtue. I really expected this to be a prominent section in the book. However, surprisingly; Nitobe’s Loyalty monologue is the briefest of the seven virtues even though he purports “…it is only in the code of chivalrous honor that Loyalty assumes paramount importance.” This would certainly explain why Loyalty comes last in the discussion, but it doesn’t explain the brevity. Nitobe takes a somewhat disappointing “It is what it is” approach to explaining this virtue and this is the first virtue that he doesn’t challenge or attempt to rehabilitate. One is led to conclude that he finds nothing to object to. He doesn’t outright endorse the samurai perspective, but simultaneously, he doesn’t seem to feel offended or embarrassed by the notion as he clearly did with other virtues.
In stark contrast to the introduction of previous virtues, Nitobe offers no formal definition of Loyalty, but instead offers fleeting descriptors such as “(Paying) homage and fealty to a superior is a distinct feature of Bushido’s Loyalty.” He also offers that “Loyalty is the keystone of the feudal virtues making a symmetrical arch.”
faithfulness or devotion to a person, country, group, cause, or idea. I tend concur with philosophy professors John Ladd and Marcia Baron, of Brown University and Indiana University respectively, who both characterize Loyalty as relating solely to an inter-personal relationship. That is, you can be loyal only to another person, but not to an inanimate object, cause, or idea. “When we speak of causes (or ideals) we are more apt to say that people are committed to them or devoted to them than that they are loyal to them,” says Baron. Loyalty suggests people-to-people connections, not so much people-to-ideals. For sake of argument, our discussions in this article will be limited to this inter-personal definition of Loyalty and, at this time, will also only briefly mention any relationship Loyalty may have to patriotism.
Nitobe attempts to clarify and distinguish Bushido’s Loyalty from a Western audience’s sense of Loyalty by offering the following comparison. “In America where ‘everybody is as good as anybody, else,’ and, as the Irishman added, ‘better too,’ such exalted ideas of Loyatly as we (Japanese) feel for our sovereign may be deemed ‘excellent within certain bounds,’ but preposterous as encouraged among us (Japanese).” Also, he offers, “… Loyalty as we (Japanese) conceive it may find few admirers elsewhere, not because our conception is wrong, but because it is forgotten, and also because we carry it to a degree not reached in any other country.”
Nitobe then educates his readers to an earlier century sense of Japanese Loyalty with an appalling story about a set of parents who deliberately behead their own innocent child to save the life of a lord’s child. He attempts to compose the story’s atrocity by likening it to the Christian biblical story of Abraham’s intent to sacrifice his son, Isaac. However, a problem with this comparison is that both stories are equally disgusting. Nitobe states that “in both cases it was obedience to the call of duty, utter submission to the command of a higher voice.” I find this rationalization childish. The higher calling that both the parents of the young Japanese boy and Abraham should have listened to was their own higher-self calling, a voice of reason and rationality.
Nitobe further attempts to illustrate Japanese Loyalty in comparison to Western values by adding, “The individualism of the West, which recognizes separate interests for father and son, husband and wife, necessarily brings into strong relief the duties owed by one to the other; but Bushido held that the interest of the family and the members thereof is intact, - one and inseparable.” This is certainly a key cultural distinction that accounts for why Western audiences might pigeon hole the Japanese sense of Loyalty as excessive or extreme. Conversely, a Japanese audience might describe Western Loyalty as weak, relative, or conditional. Being of Western culture, I choose to reject the feudal Japanese sense of Loyalty because I was born and raised in a culture that promotes individualism as one of its highest values; whereas there exists a trend, at least historically, that Japanese culture de-emphasizes a sense of individualism and instead emphasizes a sense of conformity (My understanding is that this, too, is changing in Japan).
Nitobe then tells a quick narrative by Shigemori, “If I be loyal, my father must be undone; if I obey my father, my duty to my sovereign must go amiss.” Nitobe poses this dichotomy between clashing loyalties and suggests how a Japanese person would or should typically respond within a traditional, feudal context of Bushido. He states that many are “torn by the conflict between duty and affection.” Nitobe asserts “in such conflicts Bushido never wavered in its choice of Loyalty.” But, I do not see this dichotomy as a conflict between duty and affection. I see this as conflicting loyalties. In such a scenario, I must evaluate the situation and determine which party is right and which party is wrong (or perhaps, which party is most right and which is more wrong). The conflict can be resolved merely by objective evaluation and, if necessary, side with the party I conclude to be right, or most right.
According to Nitobe, “Women, too, encourage their offspring to sacrifice all for the sovereign… the samurai matron stood ready to give up her boys for the cause of Loyalty.” In America, we call this brainwashing and/or a social disorder. Parents who encourage this kind of behavior are often shunned and socially ostracized, if not, charged with child endangerment.
Nitobe argues that the notion of absolute Loyalty to one’s lord or the sovereign is an ethical outcome of the Confucian-based political theory that the state/country precedes the individual and, therefore, the individual is subordinate to and must willing to sacrifice one’s own life at a moment’s notice for the state/country. However, I think many in Western cultures would challenge this long-held Japanese assertion by instead offering for consideration that individuals make up a state/country and therefore actually precede the existence of the state. For there can be no state if there are no individuals. A state, in fact, is a product of individuals functioning collectively and the very purpose of creating a state/country is to protect the rights of individuals contained within. America, for example, was in many respects founded on this very notion. Therefore, I think the integrity of Nitobe’s substantiation for absolutely Loyalty to the sovereign or a lord fails when viewed from this perspective.
So, in a modern day martial arts context, must a student demonstrate this kind of extreme and absolute Loyalty to their martial arts school and/or teacher(s) in order to live congruently with the philosophy of Bushido? What of circumstances relating to misplaced loyalty and/or the existence of inappropriate, even illegal behaviors committed by one’s superiors? Should a student still offer unquestioned, absolute Loyalty to their school or instructors? Let’s discuss.
The reason why I propose that Nitobe’s articulation of feudal Loyalty is obsolete today has to do with the reason, motivation, and purpose behind martial arts training then and martial arts training today. In feudal Japan, people were trained to become samurai for the sole purpose of protecting a lord and/or acting in the service of a sovereign. However, that is not at all the reason why anyone from Western cultures or Japan (in all likelihood) engages in martial arts training today. In modern society, people engage in martial arts training overwhelmingly for selfish purposes. Many seek self-defense skills, but others want self-improvement. It could be improvement of one’s fitness, esteem, confidence, spirit or even just have fun while learning a cultural art. But the one thing all of these motivations have in common is the self. They are all selfish motivations of the person seeking martial arts training. In almost no circumstances do people who seek out martial arts training expect to lay down their life in the service of a superior lord or sovereign. I suppose one could argue that one might seek out martial arts training for purposes of becoming involved in law enforcement, the military, or other security-related services; however, people primarily do this for the exchange of money, and therefore, these individuals are acting more in the capacity of a mercenary than a loyal servant to a superior. Undoubtedly then, this fundamental change in motive will have substantial impacts on both the definition and application of Bushido’s Loyalty in modern society.
Loyalty, as it existed in feudal Japan, does not exist anymore; and, in my opinion, nor should it. Human beings of all cultures around the world have outgrown this antiquated and oppressive relationship dynamic. It could possibly be argued that the Japanese feudal system approximated in many respects equivalence to American slavery, which, of course, was an embarrassing and shameful period in American history. Therefore, as a natural and logical consequence of this obsolete system, this feudal incarnation of Loyalty no longer has any place in the precepts of modern day Bushido. But does this mean that the entire virtue of Loyalty is obsolete? Absolutely, not.
Over the years, I have had from time to time business partners, employers, and martial arts teachers take advantage of me, abusing the relationship that existed between us. And as such, any sense of duty or Loyalty I may have had to those individuals promptly dissolved. In the past, for example, I had been asked to ostracize a fellow martial arts student just because my martial arts teacher at the time didn’t have the courage or forthrightness to confront the student about a rift between the two of them. This behavior was unacceptable to me. I expressed my disappointment with the teacher then voluntarily left the dojo; and with my departure so, too, did any Loyalty or sense of duty that existed prior to the abusiveness.
Another former martial arts teacher I associated with expected me to operate the dojo in a capacity that would require me to break the law. This, too, was unacceptable and my Loyalty to and association with that teacher subsequently and immediately vanished. If I were to follow the precepts of feudal Bushido, I would have been expected to either engage in the unacceptable behavior or my only other option would be to kill myself. I would have been required to punish myself for someone else’s wrong-doing. Both of these options are, of course, unacceptable. This barbaric, non-sensical behavior from an extinct time would be utterly irresponsible to both me and my family in the 21st century. Furthermore, I couldn’t care less if I were thought of as disloyal by those whom I no longer have a responsibility or commitment toward. For a martial arts teacher, employer, or any other superior to expect such actions of unquestioned, absolute loyalty is, in my opinion, inappropriate and, well, just plain silly.
So then, of what definition and in what form should Loyalty be understood and exercised today? In similar fashion to other virtues I have discussed, I propose exhibiting an intra-personal dynamic or self-Loyalty – that is, one should have a duty and responsibility to be Loyal to oneself and one’s fundamental understanding of right and wrong. We, too, should submit to the command of a higher voice. However, the higher voice I refer to is not that of another person or community, but the higher voice within each of us. It is our highest self that tells us what to do (or not do) on a daily basis. We always know what the right thing to do is because it is almost always the harder of the two things we are deciding between. It is to this highest self that we must be most Loyal to.
John Cornvino, an associate professor of Philosophy at Wayne State University argues that “loyalty is only a virtue to the extent that the object of loyalty is good.” In other words, how tolerant should an employee be of an employer’s shortcomings? For example, a good friend of mine from college was working for a prominent environmental firm on the East Coast. After a few years, he discovered some illegal behaviors that the company was engaging in and my friend was being asked to be complicit in those behaviors. He was expected to be a “loyal” employee, support the company action and so on. However, this was not acceptable to him. He began documenting the illegal behavior and eventually became a whistle-blower for the industry. What he did was not Loyal to the company, but was Loyal to himself and to the larger community and environment. I doubt anyone would consider him a bad or weak person for not being a unquestioning, absolutely Loyal employee. In fact, many, including myself, think of him as a courageous hero.
With regard to my two martial arts experiences discussed earlier, I had an obligation to myself to do what I deemed right and just, not to do whatever someone told me to do. By the way, feudal Loyalty wouldn’t hold up in court now would it? “Your honor, I was just doing what my Sensei asked me to do.” I believe the response from the magistrate would fall along the lines of, “What are you a child!?” This also reminds me of a much repeated adage from my parents when I was five years-old, “If someone told you to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do that, too?”
The problem with romanticizing and caricaturizing obsolete and injurious conceptions such as unquestioned, absolute Loyalty and carrying them forth into today’s modern society is that it obscures clear thinking and the proper delineation between right and wrong. Furthermore, it inappropriately absolves all responsibility from the junior person in the relationship from having to make any difficult, mature, and adult-oriented decisions. Life is full of circumstances where people must make difficult decisions and adhering to unquestioned, absolute loyalty is one way to avoid having to act like an adult, particularly in the presence of inappropriate behaviors. This historical, culturally-reinforced behavior is simply unacceptable is the 21st century of any country. As such, Bushido’s interpretation and application of Loyalty must evolve.
In today’s Western society, priorities are different than they were back in feudal Japan. I, for example, have a very strong commitment to my martial arts training and I am very Loyal to my martial arts teachers. However, I am first Loyal to my own personal virtues, i.e. I have my priorities straight. Martial arts training is tertiary in importance in my life. My health comes first; my spouse and family come second; and martial arts training is a distant third or even fourth. If my spouse or children became severely ill, and such required me to step away from my training, that would be an easy and obvious decision for me. Similarly, if any of my teachers’ spouses or families had similar predicaments , I would expect no less from them. Does this mean I am not Loyal to my teachers? Does this mean they are not Loyal to their students? Of course, not. It just means we are all modern-day, Western-culture adults with our priorities straight. I’ve seen teachers throw students out of martial arts schools when circumstances like these happen in their students’ lives and I can think of nothing more selfish on the part of those teachers. This is shameful behavior.
Martial arts training is a wonderful system of education in today’s world, but let’s recognize that it certainly isn’t required for survival, at least not in Western societies like those that exist in the overwhelmingly majority of the United States. Does this mean that people from those Western cultures and values can’t be Loyal or follow the precepts of Bushido? Once again, absolutely, not.
One should remain steadfastly Loyal in a committed relationship (e.g. student-teacher, spouse-spouse, employee-employer) so long as both parties in that relationship acutely remember and abide by the nature and expectations of the relationship – as long as neither party takes for granted the relationship or pushes beyond the proper boundaries of the relationship. In other words, in today’s world, Loyalty is conditional; whereas Loyalty was unconditional in feudal Japan. It was unconditional because people had no choice save the kaing of their own life and in many cases they even required permission from their lord to do that! So, in all honesty (another virtue of Bushido), they truly had no choice or freedom to be loyal. This is the crucial element distinguishing Bushido’s feudal Loyalty from Bushido’s contemporary Loyalty. Personally, I think this is a positive evolution of this virtue.
Many of today’s scholars insist that choice without duress is a fundamental characteristic of Loyalty. Richard Mullin, professor of Philosophy at Wheeling Jesuit University, asserts that “loyalty is willing in that it is freely given, not coerced.” This characteristic would conflict with the Japanese feudal system that existed during the hey-day of Bushido. It is attributed to Mullin that “Loyalty is… chosen after personal consideration, not something that one is born into.” That is worth repeating: “after personal consideration.” This is another interesting characteristic of Loyalty that Mullin introduces and is conspicuously absent from Nitobe’s dissertation. In other, more concise language: Forced Loyalty is false loyalty.
When does this process of personal consideration end? Once you commit to someone? How about after the point of commitment? What if you discover the Loyalty you assigned to someone was inappropriate. Are you too late and stuck with being Loyal to this person for perpetuity? What if you subsequently discover after the fact that the person you assigned Loyalty to isn’t worthy of your Loyalty? Or, in my friend’s work experience described earlier, the senior person engages in inappropriate or illegal behavior? Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, addresses the notion of misplaced loyalty stating that “Misplaced loyalty is loyalty placed in other persons […] where that loyalty is not acknowledged or respected; is betrayed or taken advantage of.” None of these important attributes of Loyalty are even remotely addressed in Nitobe’s articulation of Loyalty. In fact, the more I explore the issue of Loyalty, the more convinced I become that Bushido’s virtue of Loyalty was more an artificial construct of Japan’s governing powers and their efforts at controlling the thoughts and behaviors of the samurai class, more so than the outlining of a virtuous, moral code of behavior for an individual.
It is attributed to Stephen Nathanson, professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University that “loyalty can be given to persons that are unworthy. Moreover, loyalty can lead patriots to support policies that are immoral and inhumane… Patriotic loyalty can sometimes rather be a vice than a virtue, when its consequences exceed the boundaries of what is otherwise morally desirable. Such loyalties are erroneously unlimited in their scope and fail to acknowledge boundaries of morality.” A perfect example of this would be Nazi Germany’s genocide campaign of WWII. These individuals were steadfastly loyal to their sovereign and their country, but obviously, they were behaving outside the boundaries of morality. Thus it is clear that contemporary Loyalty, unlike the Loyalty of feudal Bushido, is conditional and is only appropriate and acceptable when the actions and intentions of the sovereign, teacher, employer, or sempai are morally desirable and/or virtuous.
Wim Vandekerckhove, a senior lecturer at the University of Greenwich points out that “in the late 20th century there sprung forth the notion of bi-directional loyalty between employees and employer. Previous thinking had encompassed the idea that employees are [to be] loyal to an employer, but not that an employer need be loyal to employees.” This concept did not exist prior to the 20th century, but certainly should today. Since the feudal system no longer exists in Western cultures, relationships of senior-to-junior, or SEMPAI-KOHAI (as the Japanese refer to it), should recognize this dynamic and the bi-directional responsibilities contained therein. It is not one to be forgotten, taken for granted, or abused by either party.
For example, a past East Coast friend of mine, who owned a martial arts school, was venting to me one day about how some of his students aren’t loyal enough to him. “Where’s the respect?” he said. Even though he was 20 years my senior, and was even a sempai of mine, I reminded him that Loyalty and respect are things that are earned, not automatically given just because a person signs up for martial arts classes with a high-ranking black belt. Both students and teachers often forget that there are reciprocal responsibilities of both parties when people enter into an oral contract with one another. The responsibilities do not fall solely on the student. My well-intentioned friend had, to an extent, forgotten some of his responsibilities to his students, which was contributing to his predicament.
Martial arts teachers and students who insist upon practicing feudal Bushido in modern times greatly run the risk of exhibiting xenophobic tendencies – the fear of people who are different from one's self and/or the idea that “all loyalties bar one’s own are considered illegitimate.” This is a position not likely to reflect positively on the martial arts community and is the product of excessive efforts at conformism and homogeneity – the insistence that all of your students, peers, and associates be exactly like you. Unfortunately, I have already noticed that those teachers who practice this feudal incarnation of Bushido often find themselves self-quarantined from peers, students, and the community as a whole. If they do this for too long they will find themselves with just a handful of students, if any. Indeed, I have even witnessed martial arts schools collapse over embracement of this antiquated attitude.
I disagree with much of what Nitobe suggests Loyalty represents. However, there was one aspect of Loyalty he describes that I connect with very strongly. Nitobe makes a very strong distinction between being Loyal and, for lack of a better word, being a sycophant or kiss-ass to one’s lord. He strongly asserts that Bushido despised ass-kissing. “Bushido did not require us (Japanese) to make our conscience the slave of any lord or king.” And, “A man who sacrificed his own conscience to the capricious will or freak or fancy of a sovereign was accorded a low place in the estimate of the Precepts (of Bushido).”
It took me a while to finally grasp the subtle distinction Nitobe is making, which, once again, is a cultural one. What I think he was getting at was a distinction between a Loyal samurai’s actions and a samurai’s thoughts. Nitobe claims that while Loyalty is owed to one’s lord in action, Loyalty is not necessarily owed to one’s lord in thought or spirit. In other words, a lord may be able to force you to do something, but he cannot make you condone that action. This is congruent with a dynamic the Japanese refer to as TATEMAE and HONNE. This is where a person shows or expresses a superficial side of himself in public (TATEMAE) and his actual intentions or opinions to his close inner circle of friends, family, colleagues, and even his own private thoughts (HONNE). In Japanese culture this is considered normal, acceptable, even polite behavior. However, in the US we often call this kind of behavior two-faced, disingenuous, cowardly, or just “being a politician.”
To summarize, what I think Loyalty should be in today’s world is an acute and intra-personal awareness of one’s highest self and acting in accordance with that highest self. I call this self-Loyalty. As far as an inter-personal dynamic, Loyalty to another person is a conditional relationship based on the adherence to the inherent bidirectional responsibilities and expectations of that relationship… and it is one that never crosses the line to sychophantism.
In the next installment of this series, I will offer some summary thoughts on the seven virtues of Bushido collectively.
Re-read Part One
Re-read Part Two
Re-read Part Three
Re-read Part Four
Re-read Part Five
Re-read Part Six
Re-read Part Seven
Castle Rock AIKIDO
Traditional Japanese Martial Arts Exclusively for Adults
Nitobe assumes that his audience already understands the word and, instead spends most of this article discussing the differences in cultural application of Loyalty, comparing Japanese to Western values. I found this valuable, but also inadequate. I would argue that a lack of consensus about what Loyalty is contributes to the present day misuse and abuse of this virtue, particularly in the context of some martial arts communities.
Although today’s scholars greatly disagree with one another’s proposed definitions of Loyalty, Loyalty can be generically defined as
