BUSHIDO’S ROLE IN THE GROWTH OF

PRE-WORLD WAR II JAPANESE NATIONALISM

by William R. Patterson, M.A.

Originally published in the

Journal of Asian Martial Arts • Volume 17 Number 3 • 2008

Digital Edition © 2010

All Rights Reserved

by Via Media Publishing Company

No part of this file may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written per-
mission form the publisher, except by writers who may quote brief passages to be print-
ed for review or reference. Kindly write to the publisher concerning requests to make
use of any of the materials published in this files, or contact the authors directly.

Via Media Publishing • 941 Calle Mejia #822, Santa Fe, NM 87501 USA
www.journalofasianmartialarts.com
 SAMURAI COMMITTING SEPPUKU
OVER A JAPANESE FLAG.
BY CHRIS PARK ©2008
WWW.CHRISDPARK.COM
CHRISPARK@GMAIL.COM

Abstract
Though some attention has been given to the role that Bushido (the ethical system of the samurai) may
have played in the development of nationalism in post-Meiji Japan, the martial arts themselves have
largely been absolved of any complicity. I argue in this article that the martial arts did in fact play a role
in the rise of Japanese nationalism and therefore share some of the blame for the events that took place
leading up to and during the Second World War. The article demonstrates how the martial arts were used
to popularize the precepts of Bushido and how these precepts in turn lead to the growth of expansionist
nationalism. It also shows how the martial arts were used in the educational system and the military to
inculcate the Bushido notions of honor and loyalty in the general public.

8 Bushido’s Role ◊ William Patterson

BUSHIDO’S ROLE
IN THEGROWTH OF PRE-WORLD
WAR II JAPANESE NATIONALISM
WILLIAM R. PATTERSON, M.A. t
Introduction
Prior to 1858 and the arrival of Commodore Matthew Perry to the shores of Japan, the
Japanese had maintained a policy of strict isolation from foreign influences. Since the
beginning of the Tokugawa period in the early 17th century the Japanese had been
involved in no foreign wars and had experienced relative internal peace. Though osten-
sibly ruled by the shogun* and the figurehead of the emperor, Japan was divided into
numerous provinces governed by feudal lords, called daimyo. This system served to loose-
ly centralize the country but most Japanese, from the peasant to the samurai, swore loy-
alty to their own local daimyo rather than to the national figure of the shogun. Under
this localized system, a sense of Japanese nationalism was never strongly developed.
Commodore Perry’s arrival, however, changed all of that. The shogun was forced
to rescind his policy of isolation and to allow trade and other influences from the West.
This was a clear demonstration of weakness. The inability of the government to prevent
foreign intervention was seen by many as proof that the shogun was feeble, incompetent
and no longer capable of safeguarding Japanese sovereignty. Many believed that a rever-
sion to the Imperial system of old, in which the divine emperor wielded the real power,
was the answer to these modern challenges. The twin slogans of “honor the emperor”
and “expel the barbarians” were heard shouted throughout the country.
It was in this environment that the Tokugawa Shogunate was toppled and the
emperor re-empowered during the Meiji Restoration of 1868. It was also in this envi-
ronment, faced with external dangers and internal instability, that the Japanese govern-
ment became more centralized and the importance of nationalism and patriotism was
stressed to the people. Loyalty was transferred from the daimyo and the shogun to the
emperor—though the emperor largely remained a figurehead and the real machinations * The shogun was the top
of government were being run by an oligarchy of powerful politicians. military general of Japan and
The ultra-nationalism that the leaders of the new Japanese government was to was technically subservient to
engender would reach its ultimate conclusion in the Second World War and the the emperor. At the beginning
destruction that it wrought. Many factors are pointed to in explanation of this rapid of the 17th century, however,
and dangerous development of Japanese nationalism. Militarization and the propagan- with the rise to power of the
distic nature of the educational system are often singled out, and these were indeed Tokugawa Shogunate, it was
important factors. Also commonly referenced is the Bushido Code—the Way of the the shogun who wielded true
Warrior. This was a system of ethics that was supposedly rigidly adhered to by the samu- power, while the Emperor
rai warrior class of Tokugawa era Japan. It has been argued that this martial ethic was relegated to a position
spread from the samurai class to the Japanese population as a whole and lead to its rad- as a mere figurehead.
icalization and expansionist zeal.

Journal of Asian Martial Arts ◊ Volume 17 Number 3 - 2008 9

 It is surprising, therefore, that the martial arts themselves have received relatively
little blame for their role in the rise of nationalism in pre-war Japan. The claim made,
for example, by anthropologist and kendo practitioner John Donohue that “the excesses
of Japanese expansionism could in no way be attributed to budo itself” (Donohue, 1999:
28) is quite common. In reality the modern martial arts, those commonly classified as
budo (martial way), did play a significant role in the development of Japanese national-
ism. The ethical system of Bushido was intertwined with the practice of the physical mar-
tial arts developed by the samurai and could not have been transmitted beyond that elite
class without a simultaneous expansion of those arts. The martial arts served as a vector
by which the government could deliver its ultranationalist message (embodied in the
semi-mythical Bushido Code) through both the military and the educational system.
This article will demonstrate the extent to which the martial arts were used to instill
nationalist ethics in the Japanese population, primarily by helping to spread Bushido
beyond the samurai class to the people at large.

The Meiji Restoration, the Growth of Nationalism, & the Budoshido Code
The Meiji Restoration took place in the year 1868 largely in response to the failure of
the Tokugawa Shogunate to successfully counter foreign pressures. Many Japanese
believed that by returning to their ethical and political roots the Japanese spirit could be
revived and the foreign influences expelled. Though the Restoration claimed to have
restored power to the emperor, the day-to-day operations of the government were being
directed by an oligarchy of former daimyo from the Satsuma and Choshu provinces that
had been instrumental in affecting the Restoration.
These leaders, despite having successfully ousted the Tokugawa shogun, were
still faced with the problem of foreign intervention. They realized that they had no
more power to expel the technologically superior foreigners than had the shogun
whom they formerly criticized for his weakness. They decided that centralization was
necessary in order to build up the strength needed to assure Japanese sovereignty—
Japan must come together as one country rather than remain a nation of divided
provinces. As Marius Jansen put it, “it was clear to Japan's leaders that the threats
posed by foreign expansion, foreign trade, and diffusion of foreign culture could not be
countered without centralization” (2000: 343).
In the Meiji era centralization became a primary objective of the state and the
emperor was held up as the unifying and centralizing force in Japanese society. This cen-
tralization also allowed for the awakening of nationalism, a force that would further
shore up centralization. Thereby a loop was created in which greater centralization
allowed for greater nationalism and greater nationalism allowed for ever stronger cen-
tralization. Historian Hilary Conroy notes that, “Meiji government leaders organized the
inculcation of loyalty on the mass level for the emperor and for state Shinto, in short the
symbols of the regime they created and which they controlled. To promote this they soon
had not only a centralized police system, a bureaucracy trained in and loyal to their pre-
cepts, a set of hand-picked successors to themselves, a Genro-in to maintain their indi-
vidual influence over the course of state affairs long after they ceased active participa-
tion, but also they had such modern media as a universal education system, conscription,
telecommunications, and railroads to draw the nation together, and a powerful press.
These insured the penetration of ‘loyalty’ to every corner of Japan” (Conroy, 1955: 823).
To further encourage Japanese patriotism and national loyalty, the Meiji govern-
ment also introduced all of the trappings of Western nation-states. The ‘rising sun flag’

10 Bushido’s Role ◊ William Patterson

was adopted as the official state flag in 1870. Japan later adopted a Western style nation-
al anthem. The government also declared several national holidays revolving around the
emperor, such as his birthday (Duus, 1998: 89).
Adopting Western ideas, symbolisms and technologies, however, could only go so
far in developing nationalism. In order to develop a deep and abiding sense of national-
ism it was necessary to stress what was uniquely Japanese. According to Conroy (1955:
828), “the program was to be ‘national renovation,’ purification of the national polity, a
return to the traditional Eastern morality.” By reviving traditional Japanese ethics the
Meiji government could bring the people together under a set of commonly shared val-
ues that were unique to the Japanese. This would help create a national consciousness
which is a necessary component of nationalism.
This moral revival largely focused on stressing traditional Shinto and Confucian
ethical precepts. There was another source of ethical values, however, one which cen-
tered around the values of loyalty, honor and courage—just the values that the Meiji
leaders wanted to instill. This source was Bushido, the Code of the Warrior, an ethical
system adhered to by the samurai class since the beginning of the Tokugawa era. Jansen
points out that the “samurai served as ideal ethical types, theoretically committed to ser-
vice and indifferent to personal danger and gain” (2000: 101). These were precisely the
values that the Meiji leadership wanted to instill in the population; the samurai and their
Bushido Code provided the exact ethical model that they were after.
Wilbur Fridell notes that “by the end of the Tokugawa period, samurai loyalists
had focused supreme allegiance to the emperor. Now government ideologues under-
took to universalize this elite ethic, in a somewhat modified form, so that it would
serve as the norm for the whole mass of the Japanese population” (1970: 824). A major
contributor to the popularization of Bushido was the 1899 publication of the book
Bushido, The Soul of Japan by Nitobe Inazo. This work was unique in that it brought
the moral concepts of Bushido (or at least Nitobe’s interpretation of those concepts)
to the larger public rather than addressing itself only to those of the samurai class.
Nitobe wrote that “Bushido encompassed a system of moral principles. Those instruct-
ed in the code were expected to discipline themselves according to it. The maxims
were handed down by word of mouth and by example. One studied with the master and
copied him” (Nitobe, 1979: 11).
Nitobe’s book consists of an examination of seven virtues or principles that have
been handed down from the times of the samurai and finally codified. Based on
Confucian and Neo-Confucian teachings, the seven principles are:

1) rectitude or justice 3) benevolence 5) veracity 7) loyalty.

2) courage 4) politeness 6) honor, and

Of these seven, the last two (loyalty and honor) were considered the most important.
About honor Nitobe writes, “the sense of honor, implying a vivid consciousness of per-
sonal dignity and worth, could not fail to characterize the samurai, born and bred to
value the duties and privileges of their profession.... Life itself was thought cheap if honor
and fame could be purchased therewith: hence, whenever a cause presented itself which
was considered dearer than life, with utmost serenity and speed life was laid down”
(1979: 50-53).
Even honor, however, took second place to loyalty, which was, according to
Nitobe, “the key-stone making feudal virtues a symmetrical arch” (Nitobe, 1979: 56).

Journal of Asian Martial Arts ◊ Volume 17 Number 3 - 2008 11

 The dedication to loyalty was what made the Bushido Code so unique in comparison to
any other such code. “Other virtues feudal morality shares in common with other systems
of ethics, with other classes of people, but this virtue—homage and fealty to a superior—
is its distinctive feature” (Nitobe, 1979: 56).
Nitobe believed that the virtues promoted by the Bushido Code had percolated
down from the samurai class to the Japanese populace as a whole. “In manifold ways,” he
argued, “has Bushido filtered down from the social class where it originated, and acted as
leaven among the masses, furnishing a moral standard for the whole people” (Nitobe,
1979: 99). This transmission of Bushido from the samurai class to the rest of society,
which this paper will argue was aided by the popularization of budo, was pointed to by
later historians as a primary cause for the militarization of Japan and the atrocities that
the Japanese committed during World War II.
In the case of prisoner abuse, for example, Lord Russell of Liverpool wrote in his
book The Knights of Bushido that “the youth of Japan had been brought up in accordance
with this Bushido precept, to consider that the greatest honour was to die for their
Emperor and that it was ignominious to surrender to the enemy. It was because it
appeared to the Japanese to run counter to this view of military conduct that the Geneva
Prisoner of War Convention of 1929 was never ratified by Japan” (Lord Russell, 1958:
55). Similarly, Christopher Ross notes that “from the viewpoint of Japanese martial cul-
ture, to have submitted to capture demonstrated low self-worth and a lack of honor wor-
thy of abject contempt” (2006: 53).
Some more recent historians, such as G. Cameron Hurst III and Karl Friday, have
argued that Nitobe’s version of Bushido, though based on moral concepts that the samu-
rai would indeed have recognized, was heavily mythologized. Hurst points out that
before Nitobe wrote his book, there was no such thing as a formal Bushido Code that
all samurai were initiated into. He argues that, “... it would be a mistake to assume that
there was one school called ‘Bushido’ with a capital B which saw itself distinct from the
orthodox Neo-Confucian School, the Wang Yangming School, and so forth. A
Tokugawa samurai did not make a conscious choice to enter an academy whose title was
something like ‘Hall of Bushido Study,’ and when he was asked in casual conversation
what set of beliefs he espoused, he would not have immediately replied ‘Why, Bushido
of course’ (1990: 515).
Yet despite this criticism, Hurst acknowledges that the virtues listed by Nitobe
(especially loyalty, duty, and courage), while not necessarily codified into a specific
doctrine, were indeed important ethical values to many samurai.
Hurst also argues that while loyalty was a primary virtue amongst samurai, this
was only an ideal; in reality many samurai failed to live up to this standard. “One of
the most troubling problems of the premodern era,” he says, “is the apparent discrep-
ancy between the numerous house laws and codes exhorting the samurai to practice
loyalty and the all-too-common incidents of disloyalty which racked medieval
Japanese warrior life” (Hurst, 1990: 517). Yet isn’t a disconnect between the ideal and
the reality a common occurrence with any ethical system? Few moral codes are adhered
to with anything approaching one-hundred percent fealty by the people actually prac-
ticing them.
Historian Karl Friday echoes many of the complaints voiced by Hurst. He too
points out that there was no such thing as a unified Bushido Code followed by the samu-
rai and also points to the actual disloyal behavior of many samurai. He also argues that
the specific virtues listed in the Code are too vague to be useful in actually directing

12 Bushido’s Role ◊ William Patterson

behavior, that the ethical values that the samurai did have were restricted to that elite
class and could not be translated to the common man, and that whatever loyalty the
samurai did express was to their daimyo and not to the emperor (Friday, 1994: 340-343).
There is little doubt that the actual adherence of the samurai to these values was
significantly exaggerated by Nitobe and others and that the Code itself was given an
almost mythological aura during the Meiji era. The fact remains, however, that the indi-
vidual virtues listed in Nitobe’s book, and which he grouped together and called the
Bushido Code, were valued by the samurai class and were a part of their training. The
values held by the samurai were taken by Nitobe and others of the Meiji era and wrapped
into a cohesive, self-glorifying, and partly mythological code.
This exaggeration of the virtues of the samurai heritage served to intensify the self-
image of the Japanese as a virtuous and warrior race. This, in turn, helped to spur the
growth of nationalism. Stephen van Evera notes that “the effects of nationalism depends
heavily on the beliefs of nationalist movements, especially their self-images.” He also
argues that “chauvinist mythmaking is a hallmark of nationalism” and that “self-glorify-
ing myths encourage citizens to contribute to the national community—to pay taxes,
join the army, and fight for the nation’s defense” (van Evera, 1994: 26-27, 30).
The Bushido Code as described by Nitobe offered the Japanese people a unique
system of ethics around which they could unify and lay claim to a glorified past.
Simultaneously it instilled in them a newfound sense of loyalty to the state and the
emperor. This would eventually transform into an aggressive form of ultra-nationalism
and expansionism that would have disastrous results for the Japanese in World War II.
We have yet to explore, however, how the ethics of the Bushido Code came to be so wide
spread. Originally intended for only the small minority of the elite samurai population,
it is important to understand how it was spread so quickly and effectively to the rest of
the population. This question, and the role that budo played in it, will be the focus of
the subsequent three sections.

The Arts of Modern Budo

“The Meiji Restoration and I were born in the same year, 1868” (Funakoshi, 1975: 1). It
is with these words that Gichin Funakoshi, considered the father of modern Karate-Do,
opens his autobiography. Jigoro Kano, the founder of Judo, was born just a few years ear-
lier in 1860. These are indeed significant facts given that it was during this era that the
martial arts were first beginning to be widely practiced. During the Tokugawa era the
teaching of the martial arts had been restricted solely to the samurai class. According to
Peter Duus, “in early nineteenth century Japan the most basic social division was between
commoners and samurai, the warrior elite ruling class… The common people were dis-
armed; the right to carry weapons was restricted to the samurai; and the commoners, most
of whom were peasants, were forbidden to leave their fields for military or other adven-
ture” (Duus, 1998). The samurai class had a monopoly on the use of violence and teach-
ing martial arts to the common classes would have undermined this authority.
As a part of Japanese modernization, however, the class structure of feudal Japan
was eliminated during the Meiji era. Conscription was instituted and national defense
became a common duty. Yet the methods of warfare were also modernizing and the mar-
tial techniques of the old samurai order seemed anachronistic and useless in an age of the
rapid-fire machine gun. For a short time, therefore, it seemed that the traditional mar-
tial arts would die out altogether. But some individuals argued that the value of the tra-
ditional martial arts lied not so much in their martial utility but in their ethical precepts.

Journal of Asian Martial Arts ◊ Volume 17 Number 3 - 2008 13

 Gordon Warner and Donn Draeger (1993: 90) contend that:

... the revival of classical martial culture in Meiji, if indeed that culture ever did almost die,
is perhaps due more to the appearance of influential persons who realized the value of
retaining this portion of their cultural heritage in the identification and support of a nation-
al Japanese spirit (Nihon-gokoro). There were already in Meiji, strong overtones of nation-
alism, ultranationalism, and militarism, from which the classical martial arts (bujutsu), for
all their anachronistic technology have never been convincingly divorced. The significance
of the practice of classical martial arts in Meiji Japan, however, lies not so much in a
Japanese belief that these arts would be of direct practical combative use in any subsequent
conflicts with other nations as in the feeling that they would be valuable in educational
roles with which to unify the spirit, thoughts, and actions of the citizens of a country bent
on becoming fukoku kyohei—that is, a prosperous nation with strong armed forces.

The martial arts were seen as a way not to maintain ancient martial techniques but
instead to preserve a traditional value system, Bushido, that could be used to nurture
national spirit. In the midst of modernization the Japanese were struggling to hold onto
some traditions that were uniquely Japanese and that could unify them as countrymen.
Jigoro Kano, for example, argued that “because judo developed based on the martial arts
of the past, if the martial arts practitioners of the past had things that are of value, those
who practice judo should pass all those things on. Among these, the samurai spirit should
be celebrated even in today's society” (Kano, 2005: 126).
Post-Tokugawa era martial arts were modified to emphasize the ‘samurai spirit’ over
the ‘samurai technique’ and though there was formerly no major distinction made between
‘jutsu’ and ‘do,’ these suffixes began to take on different meanings in the Meiji period
(Friday & Humitake, 1997: 8). According to historian Shun Inoue the term budo as
applied to the martial arts is a modern invention dating to the late 19th century. Although
the term had previously existed, it was used synonymously with the word Bushido, “signi-
fying the code of conduct and ethos of the samurai class” (Inoue, 1998: 163).
The use of the term budo in its modern form began with the founding of judo in
1882 by Jigoro Kano. Inoue points to several reasons that Kano chose to use the term judo
rather than jujutsu. “First,” he says, “... there were practical considerations behind the new
name. When Kano founded the Kodokan, the traditional martial arts were in decline and
the popular image of jujutsu was rather unsavory. Therefore, he thought that ‘at least the
name should be new in order to draw in pupils.’ Second, since the word jutsu denotes
practical application, he substituted do (way), which signifies underlying principle, there-
by implying that Kodokan judo embodied the fundamental way while jujutsu was merely
one application” (Inoue, 1998: 169).
Kano’s third reason for choosing to use the term judo was its connection with
tradition. Some older schools of jujutsu, including the Kito school which Kano studied,
had occasionaly been called judo and the term was used on his diploma of rank (Inoue,
1998: 169).
Also of major concern to Kano was the need to revitalize the martial virtues of
integrity and honor and he argued that these values could be transmitted through the
teaching of judo. “In general,” he said, “the samurai of the past went to great lengths
to act selflessly and in the interests of the wider society, whereas today it seems that
concepts like honor and integrity have been pushed into the background as people
have become overly self-centered” (Kano, 2005: 129). Like other budo arts, judo was

14 Bushido’s Role ◊ William Patterson

noted for placeing significant emphasis on ethical development rather than merely on
combat effectiveness.
This final aspect of budo, its ethical element, was seized upon by Japanese nation-
alists. According to Inoue, “Kano’s conception of budo was neither narrowly nationalis-
tic nor socially conservative. Kano both promoted the development of Western sports in
Japan and sent one of his star students to introduce judo to America. He also opened the
Kodokan to women who wished to study judo. As time passed, however, budo was appro-
priated by strident nationalists, who propagated an essentialist conception of Japan's
martial arts” (Inoue, 1998:171).
These nationalists used budo to hold up the loyal samurai of the feudal past (or at
least a mythologized vision of the samurai) as ethical paragons to be emulated as role-
models by all modern Japanese.
Many other martial arts masters followed the path struck out by Kano and began
adopting the do terminology. Karate-do was introduced to the Japanese mainland on a
large scale during a demonstration performed by Gichin Funakoshi, considered the
founder of modern karate, in 1915. Karate was not an indigenous Japanese martial sys-
tem, however, as it was developed in Okinawa which had only been annexed by Japan
in 1872. In order to popularize the art, Funakoshi had to make it more Japanese. Michael
Rosenbaum explains that “... before Okinawan karate-jutsu was fully accepted into the
Japanese society, it had to be made Japanese, and one of the first changes to be made was
its name. Gichin Funakoshi is the man who gets the most credit for changing the name
Karate-jutsu to karate-do… Another part of the molding process involved in making
karate a Japanese system was when the Japanese instilled their own martial ethics into
the newly formed karate-do systems, ones that were, in part, drawn from traditional
forms of the samurai along with the Bushido code. This was done to inject what could
be considered more of a Japanese spirit into karate-do” (Rosenbaum, 2002: 14).
Aspects of the Bushido Code, then, were consciously appended to the purely phys-
ical elements of the traditional fighting art of karate-jutsu to make it seem more Japanese
and to lend to it a sense of moral profundity. Funakoshi himself was influenced by samu-
rai thought and had had many of their values instilled in him from an early age. He
believed that the transmission of these values was an important task of karate-do. He
claimed that, “... those who follow karate-do will develop courage and fortitude. These
qualities do not have to do with strong actions or with the development of strong tech-
niques as such. Emphasis is placed on development of the mind rather than on tech-
niques. In a time of grave public crisis, one must have the courage, if required for the sake
of justice, to face a million and one opponents. For the karate-do student, the most
shameful trait is indecisiveness” (Funakoshi, 1973: 6).
Perhaps even more focused on the samurai tradition than judo and karate-do,
however, were the sword arts of kendo and iai-do. The sword was the symbol of the samu-
rai and as such the very act of carrying one, and even more so the practice of actually
using one, represented an indelible connection with the samurai. Warner and Draeger
contend that iai-do, the art of drawing and using the Japanese sword, “is a reflection of
the morals of the classical warrior. To train properly is to release such morality among
modern men” (1993: 100). Similarly, about kendo (Japanese fencing, literally “The Way
of the Sword”) John Donohue says that “the Way of the Sword is the contemporary heir
of a broad spectrum of Japanese cultural influences that were embedded in martial tradi-
tions of feudal warriors” (Donohue, 1999: 103). Kendo is most strongly linked to these
traditions “not in substance, but in spirit” (Donohue, 1999: 2)—the Bushido spirit.

Journal of Asian Martial Arts ◊ Volume 17 Number 3 - 2008 15

 In the Meiji era, the modern arts of budo began to take on overtly spiritual and
ethical goals. Whereas the fighting techniques of the traditional Japanese martial arts
had lost much of their utility on the field of combat, the ethical system behind the tech-
niques could perform an important service by strengthening Japanese nationalism and by
spreading the warrior ethos throughout the common classes. Jack Levy argues that
nationalism “create[s] the sense of a common interest in the nation, a concept of the
national interest as the highest value, and an intense commitment to the well-being of
the state. This commitment is strengthened by national myths regarding the omni-
science and omnipotence of the nation and the congruence of one's national morality
with a supranational ethic” (Levy, 1988: 665).
For the Japanese, the Bushido Code was their mythological system of national
morality. This system was able to survive and expand beyond its elitist confines in part
due to its enshrinement in the various forms of budo. In turn, these budo grew and pro-
liferated through their inclusion in the Japanese military and the Japanese educational
system. How this was done is explored in the next two sections.

Budo and the Japanese Educational System

The Japanese educational system from 1890, the year the Imperial Rescript on
Education was promulgated, to 1945, when the Japanese surrendered to the United
States and ended World War II, was systematically geared towards generating loyalty
to the emperor and to the Japanese state. Kenneth Kurihara argues that from 1890 on
“patriotism and loyalty became the central theme of Japanese education” (Kurihara,
1944: 35). So much so in fact, that the educational system became merely a state tool
for spreading propaganda to the population and for fomenting nationalism. “The
Japanese school exist[ed] for the state, and not for the people” (Kurihara, 1944: 37).
Wilbur Fridell, by examining school textbooks of the time, comes to similar con-
clusions. “The Japanese schools,” he writes, “served as important agencies for the prop-
agation of national-imperial values, and in the total school curriculum ethics training
played a key ideological role” (Fridell, 1970: 823). Devotion to the state and to the
emperor were primary values in the ethical system transmitted by the Japanese public
educational system. A typical example of this comes from a fourth year elementary
school text. It reads: “Remembering our deep obligation to the Emperor for his favors,
we should strive to become good Japanese by devoting ourselves to ruler-loyalty and
patriotism, mrevering the Imperial Family, respecting the law, honoring the flag, and
bearing in mind the origin of festival days” (quoted in Fridell, 1970: 832).
The use of the educational system as a means of developing nationalism was done
very consciously and began with the Imperial Rescript on Education. Charles Spinks
describes the Rescript as a “ceremonious but brief document which proclaims that the
guiding principles of Japanese education must be found in kokutai, the national polity
or the 'fundamental character of the Empire’” (Spinks, 1944: 59). Education became the
primary means by which the Japanese government converted the country from one con-
sisting of a disparate system of provinces, in which the citizenry owed their primary alle-
giance to their individual daimyo, to a centralized system of governance, in which the
citizens owed their loyalty to the emperor (and, by extension, to the oligarchs who con-
trolled him).
The arts of budo quickly became an important part of this patriotic educational
system. It is interesting to note that both Kano and Funakoshi were educators by pro-

16 Bushido’s Role ◊ William Patterson

fession. Kano was the principal of the Fifth Higher School in Kumamoto in 1891,
moved on to become the principal of the First Higher School in Tokyo and finally, in
1893, became the principal of the Tokyo Higher Normal School. Funakoshi began his
teaching career at the age of 21 as an assistant instructor at a primary school. He would
remain an educator for the next thirty years. About his teaching experience, Funakoshi
wrote “I felt that I, as a teacher, had an obligation to help our younger generation,
which would one day forge the destiny of our nation, to bridge the wide gaps that
yawned between the old Japan and the new” (Funakoshi, 1975: 5).
Kano felt similar obligations. He too wanted to bridge the gap between the new
and the old and to make sure that the younger generation honored the traditions of the
past. He believed that the martial arts, since they embodied the samurai spirit of old,
were particularly valuable for passing on these lessons and values. He argued that, “...
the patriotism people feel for their country is greatly affected by whether or not they
love what their country has done thus far, and whether or not that person shares the
same sentiments as his forefathers. So if we want the future people of Japan to value
their country, and if we want to strengthen the people’s love of their country, we must
impart the spirit of the martial arts to the young people of today, even if only a little”
(Kano, 2005: 111).
Many people in the educational system soon came to agree that the martial arts
had much to offer in the way of education and could do much to intensify the patrio-
tism that was the primary goal of Japanese education. Judo and kendo benefited the
most from incorporation into the educational system. Donohue writes that “the partic-
ular qualities of courage, loyalty, and discipline that were believed to be encouraged by
training in arts such as kendo were considered vitally important by officials of the Meiji
government. As a result, beginning in 1871, traditionalists urged the Japanese Ministry
of Education to make kendo compulsory in all public and private schools in Japan”
(Donohue, 1999: 27). This push was successful and a law was passed in 1908 making
instruction in either kendo or judo mandatory in all Japanese middle schools.
In addition to middle schools and high schools, budo training started to become
very popular in universities throughout the country. In his autobiography, Funakoshi
explains that “karate study groups were…being established at a number of institutes of
higher learning. One was formed at that Nikaido College of Physical Education, and I
was invited to give instruction in karate at both the military and naval academies”
(Funakoshi, 1975: 75). Judo and kendo clubs also began springing up in universities all
over Japan. As university study at that time was most often reserved for students of high
social standing, many of the students exposed to budo training during their college years
would go on to play important roles in the government and in the military.
In an amazingly short period of time (1868-1908) the martial tactics embodied in
the bujutsu training restricted to an elite class of warriors had been transformed into a
variety of budo systems which stressed the ethical and moral precepts of Bushido and
became compulsory for every Japanese student. This allowed the martial arts to become
an extremely powerful vector by which a glorified and mythologized vision of tradi-
tional samurai ethics (the Bushido Code) could be transferred to a wide segment of the
population. The Japanese Ministry of Education was a primary organ of the govern-
ment's propaganda machine and budo became complicit in bringing to fruition its
nationalistic goals. The educational system, however, was not the only place that the
martial arts played a significant role in those efforts. They also contributed to the devel-
opment of a nationalistic conscripted military force.

Journal of Asian Martial Arts ◊ Volume 17 Number 3 - 2008 17

 Budo and the Japanese Military
The military is a setting in which one would expect the martial arts to flourish,
and they did during the Meiji era and beyond. The martial arts were integrated into mil-
itary training not because of their utility on the battlefield but because of their ability to
turn common conscripts into 'modern day samurai' who were loyal and ultra-patriotic
and, most importantly, willing to lay down their lives for the emperor and for Japan.
Creating such a dedicated military was not an easy task, however, as both history and the
social structure were working against it.
In the Tokugawa era, the samurai were an elite class of warriors. They held many
privileges not permitted to those lower on the social ladder and also had greater duties.
Military duty was held exclusively by the samurai. They enjoyed a total monopoly on
violence and the rest of the citizenry was disarmed. Warfare was considered a noble activ-
ity and was not to be engaged in by commoners. Samurai were also given the responsi-
bility of maintaining public order and could act with impunity against the lower classes
to do so.
It was an enormous change then, when the Meiji government turned this social
system upside down. The new leaders of Japan had come to the inevitable conclusion
that the old samurai system was no longer effective in a modern technological world. A
small elite class of warriors had no place in the world of modern warfare with massive
armies and even more massive firepower. In 1873 it was decided that not only could com-
moners serve in the military, but that they must. The conscription law of that year
required “every young male regardless of social rank to spend three years on active sevice
followed by four in the reserves (Duus, 1998: 91). As Mark Ravina put it, “the new gov-
ernment in Tokyo had abolished the samurai monopoly on military service and govern-
ment offices. It had challenged one of the principal precepts of the old order: the idea
that samurai alone had the courage to serve as warriors and the moral fiber to serve as
government officials” (Ravina, 2004: 366).
This law was popular neither with the samurai nor with the commoners. The samu-
rai were indignant that they were being stripped of a responsibility that their families had
carried out for centuries. They recognized it as undermining their privileged position with-
in Japanese society and were therefore resentful. The commoners, on the other hand, were
engaged in the everyday tasks of farming and running businesses. Families could ill afford
to have their children sent off to the military. Additionally, the senior officers in the mil-
itary were still largely former samurai and commoners did not want to serve under them.
E. Herbert Norman points out that “the common people of Japan never asked to be con-
scripted; they were simply compelled to enroll in the new conscript army under officers
who were mostly men descended from the samurai or daimyo who had for generations
despised and debased the lower classes of the country” (Norman, 1943: 164).
Class antagonism was a major problem for the new Japanese military. In order to
overcome this antagonism it was necessary to create a situation in which the samurai
could respect the new conscripts and in which the new conscripts could take pride in
their service and surmount their traditional repugnance for their samurai-descended
superiors. One way to achieve this was through budo By exposing military members to
the martial arts, and the ethical precepts of Bushido that went along with them, they
could be drawn together under a common moral code and with a common national pur-
pose. This would have the dual effect of creating solidarity within the military and of
developing dedication and patriotism throughout it.
Proactive steps were taken by the military and governmental leadership to increase

18 Bushido’s Role ◊ William Patterson

the exposure to the martial arts that soldiers experienced. Martial arts masters, such as
Funakoshi, were hired to provide instruction at military academies (1975: 75). A num-
ber of societies were also developed in order to spread martial arts practice throughout
the military. Spinks notes that, “... as early as 1895 the famous Butoku Kai (Military
Virtue Society) was established in Kyoto under the presidency of an Imperial Prince for
the express purpose of promoting the martial spirit. Succeeding presidents have all been
retired militarists with pronounced nationalistic views, like the late General Sanjuro
Hayachi. The Society maintains a special training hall, known as the Butoku Den, for
the practice of kendo, judo, archery and other martial sports, and branches of the Society
have been established throughout Japan” (Spinks, 1944: 62-63).
These efforts met with a good deal of success. Jansen points out that “in barrack
and officer academy the theme constantly invoked was that of loyalty to the emperor.
The Imperial Army and Navy were the emperor’s….Values that had become the core of
samurai bushido were prescribed for the commoner recruit” (Jansen, 2000: 398-399).
The military leadership, comprised of former samurai, began to gain a new respect for the
conscripts and to accept them as true soldiers. As Ratti and Westbrook put it, “the lead-
ers of the military class gradually acknowledged that every Japanese subject was heir to
the tradition they had considered their own for so many centuries, and began to exhort
their fellow countrymen to think of Japan as a nation of warriors” (1973: 34).
What is perhaps even more surprising is that the conscripts actually bought into
it. Edwin Reischauer makes the point well when he marvels at the fact that “the descen-
dants of peasants, who for almost three centuries had been denied swords and other arms
and had been exploited by a military caste above them” had been convinced “that they
too were members of a warrior race” (1970: 185).
Once the various budo arts were initially introduced to the armed forces their
popularity sky-rocketed. With so many capable conscripts, the Japanese could engage
in more and more foreign wars—and with more wars, more conscripts became inter-
ested in the martial arts and became attracted to the ideals espoused in the Bushido
Code. Without exception the martial arts experienced massive increased enrollment
immediately before, during, and after armed conflicts. John Stevens notes that “it
was…in 1894 that the Sino-Japanese war broke out. The subsequent war fever—which
Kano did nothing to encourage—made the practice of judo more popular” (1995: 31).
While Kano was no warmonger and Stevens is certainly correct to point out that Kano
did not consciously encourage the ‘war fever’, the fact that military personnel were
flocking to martial arts such as judo—which emphasized patriotism, honor, and other
Bushido precepts—demonstrates that there was a relationship between those arts and
growing militarism.
The Sino-Japanese War was also a boon to iai-do. Warner and Draeger point to
the fact that “on the outbreak of hostilities with China in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-
95), followed by those of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5), the art of sword drawing
took on a startling new image as a popular discipline for a wide segment of the Japanese
population” (1993: 90). Funakoshi experienced a similar increase in eager disciples as the
conflict in China grew and the Second World War loomed nearer. “As the Manchurian
Incident began to broaden in scope,” he writes in his autobiography, “Japan embarked
upon preparations for a full-scale war. Now the number of students coming to my dojo
grew even greater; and after the actual outbreak of hostilities with China, which was
soon to be followed by the great Pacific War, my dojo could no longer contain the num-
ber of young men who desired to train” (Funakoshi, 1975: 88).

Journal of Asian Martial Arts ◊ Volume 17 Number 3 - 2008 19

 There was quite clearly a strong connection between budo and the military. Budo
played a role in either directly causing, or at least bolstering, the widespread acceptance of
Bushido ethical precepts throughout the Japanese military. By practicing budo, conscripts
could envision themselves as becoming a part of the samurai tradition and could adopt the
Bushido Code as their rightful ethical heritage. At the same time the upper class leader-
ship of the military could more easily accept their lower class subordinates as true warriors
once they had embraced the values of the samurai. All elements of the Japanese military,
whether from the lower or upper classes, found greater purpose in their military careers and
became more dedicated to both the military and the country as their indoctrination in
BushidÂo ethics became more complete. A militaristic version of ultra-nationalism was
thereby developed which would lead to devastating outcomes in Japan's future.

Conclusion
The development of ultra-nationalism is often rightly pointed to as a major cause
of the militaristic course that Japanese history took between the years of the Meiji
Restoration and the Second World War. Part of this growth in nationalism was due to
the widespread acceptance of the Bushido Code by members of the military and by many
ordinary Japanese. The pressures placed on the Japanese by Western influences led them
to cling to and exaggerate traditional values in an attempt to maintain their unique
Japanese identity. This ultimately warped into an unthinking patriotic fervor which led
the Japanese down an aggressive, and ultimately self-destructive, path.
The role that the martial arts played in these developments is today generally
overlooked. Because the founders of modern budo, people like Kano and Funakoshi, were
admirable and generally peaceful people, the martial arts that they developed and popu-
larized are considered to have been equally as innocuous. However unintended by their
founders though, the martial arts did play a significant role in spreading the influence of
Bushido ethical ideals and therefore in the growth of nationalism in Japan.
The martial arts became especially influential once they became mandatory sub-
jects in middle schools and high schools and also gained widespread acceptance in
Japanese universities. This insured that a very large proportion of the Japanese popula-
tion would be educated in the 'spirit of the samurai' and also served to break down class
barriers. Bushido became a moral code for all Japanese, not just the elite samurai class.
Budo also played a significant role in breaking down class barriers in the military.
Conscripts who practiced budo felt that they were participating in the samurai tradition
and could lay claim to the ethical duties and responsibilities of Bushido that had once
been applied to only a very small and elite segment of the population. They were no
longer simply farmers and peasants but ‘modern samurai’ who owed fealty to the emperor
and had an obligation to fight for their country. The ability of the Japanese government
to create a centralized national military comprised of patriotic and willing conscripts was
directly impacted by the development and teaching of budo.
Though the martial arts were certainly not the only influence that led to the devel-
opment of ultra-nationalism and militarism in post-Meiji Japan, they did play a significant
and often under-estimated role in that development. Since the wars that Japan engaged
in and the atrocities that the Japanese committed during those wars are often seen as
direct outcomes of the growth of unfettered nationalism and militarism, the modern mar-
tial arts are therefore at least partially culpable for that aggression. The causes of nation-
alism can end up being the causes of war and the role that the martial arts played in the
growth of Japanese nationalism should not be forgotten by present and future generations.

20 Bushido’s Role ◊ William Patterson

 REFERENCES
CONROY, H. (July, 1955). Japanese nationalism and expansionism. The American
Historical Review, 60(4): 818-829.
DONOHUE, J. (1999). Complete kendo. Boston: Tuttle Publishing.
DUSS, P. (1998). Modern Japan. 2nd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
FRIDAY, K. (May, 1994). Bushido or bull? A medieval historian’s perspective on the Imper-
ial Army and the Japanese warrior tradition. The History Teacher, 27(3): 339-349.
FRIDAY, K. WITH H. SEKI (1997). Legacies of the sword: The Kashima-Shinryu and samurai
martial culture. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
FRIDELL, W. (August, 1970). Government ethics textbooks in Late Meiji Japan. The
Journal of Asian Studies, 29(4): 823-833.
FUNAKOSHI, G. (1975). Karate-do: My way of life. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
FUNAKOSHI, G. (1973). Karate-do Kyohan: The master text. Tokyo: Kodansha Interna-
tional.
HURST, G. (Oct., 1990). Death, honor, and loyalty: The bushido ideal. Philosophy East
and West, 40(4): 511-527.
INOUE, S. (1998). “The invention of the martial arts: Kano Jigoro and Kodokan Judo,”
In S. Vlastos (Ed.), Mirror of modernity: Invented traditions of modern Japan (pp.
163-173). Berkeley: University of California Press.
JANSEN, M. (2000). The making of modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
KANO, J. (2005). Mind over muscle: Writings from the founder of judo. Tokyo: Kodansha
International.
KURIHARA, K. (Feb. 23, 1944). Japan’s educational system. Far Eastern Survey, 13(4): 35-38.
LEVY, J. (Spring 1988). Domestic politics and war. Journal of Interdisciplinary History,
18(4): 653-673.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL, (1958). The knights of bushido. London: Corgi Books.
NITOBE, I. (1979). Bushido: The warrior’s code. Burbank, CA: Ohara Publications.
NORMAN, H. (Jun., 1943). Soldier and peasant in Japan: The origins of conscription
(Part II). Pacific Affairs, 16(2): 149-165.
RATTI, O. & WESTBROOK, A. (1973). Secrets of the samurai: A survey of the martial arts of
feudal Japan. Edison, NJ: Castle Books.
RAVINA, M. (2004). The last samurai: The life and battles of Saigo Takamori. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
REISCHAUER, E. (1970). Japan: The story of a nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
ROSENBAUM, M. (2002). The fighting arts: Their evolution from secret societies to modern
times. Boston: YMAA Publication Center.
ROSS, C. (2006). Mishima’s sword: Travels in search of a samurai legend. Cambridge, MA:
Da Capo Press.
SPINKS, C. (March, 1944). Indoctrination and re-education of Japan’s youth, Pacific
Affairs, 17(1): 56-70.
STEVENS, J. (1995). Three budo masters: Jigoro Kano (judo), Gichin Funakoshi (karate),
Morihei Ueshiba (aikido). Tokyo: Kodansha International.
VAN EVERA, S. (Spring, 1994). Hypotheses on nationalism and war. International Security,
18(4): 5-39.
WARNER, G. & DRAEGER, D. (1993). Japanese swordsmanship: Technique and practice. New
York: Weatherhill.

Journal of Asian Martial Arts ◊ Volume 17 Number 3 - 2008 21