Untitled

The History of Japanese Psychology
SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan
Series Editor: Christopher Gerteis, SOAS, University of London (UK)
Series Editorial Board:

Steve Dodd, SOAS, University of London (UK)
Andrew Gerstle, SOAS, University of London (UK)
Janet Hunter, London School of Economics and Political Science (UK)
Helen Macnaughtan, SOAS, University of London (UK)
Timon Screech, SOAS, University of London (UK)
Naoko Shimazu, Yale-NUS College (Singapore)
Published in association with the Japan Research Centre at the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, UK.
SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan features scholarly books on

modern and contemporary Japan, showcasing new research monographs as well as
translations of scholarship not previously available in English. Its goal is to ensure
that current, high quality research on Japan, its history, politics and culture, is made
available to an English speaking audience.
Published:
Women and Democracy in Cold War Japan, Jan Bardsley
Christianity and Imperialism in Modern Japan, Emily Anderson
The China Problem in Postwar Japan, Robert Hoppens
Media, Propaganda and Politics in 20th Century Japan, The Asahi Shimbun Company
(translated by Barak Kushner)
Contemporary Sino-Japanese Relations on Screen, Griseldis Kirsch
Debating Otaku in Contemporary Japan, edited by Patrick W. Galbraith,
Thiam Huat Kam and Björn-Ole Kamm
Politics and Power in 20th-Century Japan, Mikuriya Takashi and
Nakamura Takafusa (translated by Timothy S. George)
Japanese Taiwan, edited by Andrew Morris
Japan’s Postwar Military and Civil Society, Tomoyuki Sasaki
Forthcoming:
Postwar Emigration to South America from Japan and the Ryukyu Islands,
Pedro Iacobelli
Gathering for Tea in Modern Japan, Taka Oshikiri
The History of Japanese Psychology
Global Perspectives, 1875–1950
Brian J. McVeigh
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published 2017
© Brian J. McVeigh, 2017
Brian J. McVeigh has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without
prior permission in writing from the publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on

or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be
accepted by Bloomsbury or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-8308-3

ePDF: 978-1-4742-8310-6
ePub: 978-1-4742-8309-0
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: McVeigh, Brian J., author.
Title: The history of Japanese psychology : global perspectives, 1875-1950 /
Brian J. McVeigh.
Description: London ; New York, NY : Bloomsbury Academic, 2017. |
Series:SOAS studies in modern and contemporary Japan |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016029657 | ISBN 9781474283083 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781474283090 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Psychology–Japan–History–19th century. |
Psychology–Japan–History–20th century.
Classification: LCC BF108.J3 M39 2017 | DDC 150.952–dc23 LC record available at
https://lccn.loc.gov/2016029657
Series: SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan
Cover design: Sharon Mah

Cover image © akg-images/Horizons/ton koene
Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

Contents
List of Figures vi
A Preface by Way of Acknowledgments vii
Notes to the Reader ix
Prologue: Spiritual Physics—A Physics for the Soul 1

1 Places, Periods, and Peoples: Problematizing Psyche 7
2 Historical Context: Japanese Cosmology and Psychology as
Secularized Theology 23
3 From Soul to Psyche: A Change of Mind in Late
Nineteenth-Century Japan37
4 Early Institutionalization: How Higher Education Disciplined the Psyche 55
5 Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō: The Founders of Japanese
Psychology 71
6 Intellectual Reactions: Spiritualizing the Psyche and Psychologizing Society 97
7 Organizational Institutionalization: Professionalization, Applications,
and Measuring the Mind117
8 Disciplinary Maturation: Specializations, Theories, and Psychotherapy 141
9 Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology: State, Schooling, and Military
Applications 159
10 Reconstruction and Expansion: Postimperial Japan as a Psychologized
Society 173
Epilogue: In Retrospect: Trajectories, Alternative Routes, and the
Contributions of Japanese Women Psychologists 179
Appendices 201
Notes235
Bibliography274
Index 304
List of Figures
1 Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Ethics (Rinrigaku, 1893). By author. 194

2 Title Page of Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology of Our
Day (Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913). By author. 195
3 Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Collection of Essays
(Ronbun-shū, 1909). By author. 196
4 Title Page of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Lectures on Psychology
(Shinrigaku Kōwa, 1924). By author. 197
5 Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Outline of Psychology (Shinrigaku Kōyō,
1907). By author. 198
6 Motora Yūjirō. From Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology
of Our Day (Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913). 199
A Preface by Way of Acknowledgments
We sometimes begin books deep within our minds a decade or two before we realize
it. I probably began this book in the mid-1980s when, as a graduate student at
Princeton University, I became acquainted with Julian Jaynes (1920–97) who offered
advice about my project on spirit possession in a Japanese religious movement. To put
it politely, the nuances of his ideas were lost on members of the faculty of Princeton
University’s Anthropology Department. This made him persona non grata on my
dissertation committee, so his advisory role was unofficial. A maverick Psychologist,
Jaynes earned a certain notoriety with his theory that subjective conscious experience
was a cultural adaptation to historical changes rather than a product of biological
evolution. His salient concern with adopting a historical approach to key problems
in Psychology (as well as with the history of Psychology itself) would educate me
about larger issues that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Specifically, I learned that
understanding the nineteenth-century maturation of Psychology involves not just a
branch of intellectual history; rather, the appearance of Psychology on the historical
stage says something significant about changes in the very mental processes it claims
to be exploring. More than just a scientific analysis of the psyche, Psychology itself,
like mathematics and technology, is part of a larger picture, one facet of humankind’s
incessant need to reinvent and adapt itself.
Some of us must first publish a number of books before we write one that combines
what to others seem like scattered concerns in previous works. I have written about
religion, nationalism, the bureaucratization of subjectivity, the Psychology of self-
expression and popular culture, education, gender roles, postmodern alienation and
simulation theory. Not all these projects explicitly point to my general interest—the
intersection of psychological processes and politics. Nevertheless, at some level they
certainly concern how societal changes transform psyche and this is a central theme
of this work.
Scholars stand at confluences of intellectual streams, both geographically and
temporally. It is an inspiring exercise to trace the currents of ideas that have shaped
one’s thinking. My case is neither particularly unique nor special, but it is a humbling
experience to know that I am only several handshakes away from Wilhelm Wundt
(1829–1920), the man that many consider to be the father of modern research
Psychology. He taught the eminent E. B. Titchener (1867–1927), who in turn taught
the famous historian of Psychology Edwin G. Boring (1886–1968). The latter was close
friends with Julian Jaynes who taught me at Princeton University. Jaynes wrote a long
obituary on Boring’s passing in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences
(April 1969). Boring trained Yokoyama Matsusaburō (1890–1966) at Clark University,
viii A Preface by Way of Acknowledgments
thereby making me only a few handshakes away from this accomplished Japanese
Psychologist as well as many other Japanese Psychologists with whom Boring was
acquainted. A humble man, Julian Jaynes would have been embarrassed if I stated that,
having been influenced by him, I stand on the shoulders of a giant. He would have been
satisfied to hear me say that I just shook his hand.
This project benefited from helpful discussions and useful advice from Andrew
Barshay, Anzai Junko, Charles Muller, Chikako Ozawa-de Silva, David Schawlb,
Michael Brescia, John Brine, Richard Gotti, Scott Greer, Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu,
William Uttal, and William Woodward. In particular, I would like to express my
gratitude to those who answered questions about especially challenging concerns:
Aihua Zheng, Hwansoo Kim, Ishimori Masanori, Nishikawa Yasuo, Ōyama Tadasu,
Takasuna Miki, and Uchijima Sadao. I also received support and advice from Ishikawa
Michiko, Marcel Kuijsten, Sugawa-Shimada Akiko, Toyama Haruko, Enno Giele, Reed
Peterson, and Tim Vance.
I would not have been able to complete this project without acquiring certain
publications, so I owe a special thanks to a number of individuals who took the time
to send me sources (some of which were particularly difficult to obtain): Nishikawa
Yasuo, Ōyama Tadasu, Takasuna Miki, Satō Tatsuya, Uchijima Sadao, and Yoshinaga
Shinichi. I want to also thank Kamada Hitoshi, librarian at the University of Arizona
and James Stimpert of Sheridan Libraries at John Hopkins University. I should also
express my gratitude to the extremely useful Kindai Digital Library (Digital Library
from the Meiji Era) of the National Diet Library.
Portions of this work were presented at the Western Conference of the Association
for Asian Studies (University of Arizona, October 23–24, 2009) and at the same
conference held one year later at California State University, Northridge (October 22–
23, 2010). I want to thank the audiences for their questions and feedback (McVeigh
2009, 2010).
As always, my wife, Lana, provided intellectual, moral, and emotional
encouragement.
Notes to the Reader
In this book, I distinguish between the academic discipline of Psychology (with a

capitalized “P”) and the psychological (with a small “p”) or what since the late nineteenth
century has been called mental, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive processes. This
distinction is elaborated upon in the introduction.
Table 1 Periods of Japanese history

Tokugawa 1603 to 1868
Meiji 1868 to 1912
Taishō 1912 to 1926
Shōwa 1926 to 1989
Heisei 1989 to present
Prologue: Spiritual Physics—A Physics
for the Soul
Psychologizing the spirit
Motora Yūjirō, recently returned from the United States, began teaching a course
called seishin butsurigaku at the Imperial University in 1888.1 This phrase meant—
along with several other terms—“Psychology.” More specifically and literally, it meant
psychophysics. Gino K. Piovesana translates seishin butsurigaku as “spiritual physics”
or “physics of the spirit.”2 This is arguably not a bad translation, but I introduce this
book with a dissection of the linguo-conceptual components comprising seishin
butsurigaku. This exercise sets the groundwork for a leitmotif of this work: How
did seishin butsurigaku, like other psychological terminology, evolve from an earlier
mentality?
Let us begin with butsurigaku, which means physics, though a more literal
translation is the study (gaku) of the principle (ri) of matter (butsu). Ri was a crucial
Neo-Confucian concept and it now appears in the currently used Japanese word for
Psychology—shinrigaku—as well as in some appellations for other sciences. And here
we might note that in 1890 Motora’s seishin butsurigaku course was renamed shinrigaku
(literally, “study of the principles of the heart–mind”). An etymological analysis of
seishin reveals two points. First, the modern, scientific and secular definitions of
seishin (mind or mental) is built upon its premodern, pre-scientific, and religious
meanings (soul or spiritual). The second point concerns a universal process: bodily
organs, external natural phenomena, or religious entities are metaphorically pressed
into service to represent what we now call mental events.3 Consider seishin, which is
composed of:
• sei 精 spirit, ghost, fairy, energy, vitality, purity, refined, polished, hidden,
essence, quintessential nature
• shin 神 god, deity, soul4
In Shintō terminology, shin denotes “divine” or “sacred,” and it appears in terms

such as shinpi shugi (mysticism), shinkon (heart, soul), and shinkei, meaning “nerves” or
“neuro” (literally, “shin passing through”), as in “neurology” (shinkeigaku). In modern
Japanese, seishin is used in a host of expressions to mean “mental” or “psychological,”
2 The History of Japanese Psychology
for example, psychiatry (seishin igaku), psychopathology (seishin byōingaku), mental

hospital (seishin ryōyō), psychosomatic medicine (seishin shintai igaku), schizophrenia
(seishin bunretsushō; no longer used), and psychoanalysis (seishin bunsekigaku). It also
appears in spiritualism (seishin shugi or seishinron) and telepathy (seishin kannō).
What do the psychological and the spiritual have in common? The psychological
and the religious have been closely associated the world over because both
knowledge forms share something of the difficult-to-define, enigmatic, strange, and
mysterious. This is why everywhere the same idiom used to describe the mental
and the supernatural are etymologically related. Arguably, they both partake of
something interior, hidden, not easily discernable, connected to another world that
if not supernatural, is at least somehow quasi-spiritual. In this regard, note Japanese
terms such as mental power (seishin ryoku), spiritual culture (seishin bunka),
and mental science (seishin kagaku; German: Geisteswissenschaft). The religious
and psychological also share a fundamental concern with morally and socially
rectifying, improving and cultivating the inner self (though their respective idioms
at times seem so very different).5 This is why, according to Harding, Japan’s modern
indigenous psychotherapies of Naikan and Morita are not neatly categorized by
the terms “psychotherapy” or “religious practice.”6 Indeed, in the modern world
“healing” is not necessarily easily classified as either religious or psychotherapeutic
and can be broadly understood to mean bodily, spiritual, or communal.7 Religion
has tended to be reconfigured (rather than replaced by or absorbed into) other
ideological realms such as the psy disciplines.8
What is spiritual physics?
A narrow definition
For my purposes, spiritual physics can be understood either in a broad or
narrow sense. In the latter meaning, seishin butsurigaku should be translated as
“psychophysics,” a word coined by the physicist, mathematician, and metaphysician
Gustav Fechner (1801–87).9 Psychophysics would become a branch of Psychology
rooted in the proto-experimental psychological research of the German tradition.
The basic methods of Fechnerian psychophysics are employed to this day, which
explore the relationship between physical stimuli and their perceptual correlates. In
his course, Motora taught topics and methods that clearly fit the narrow definition
of spiritual physics.
A broad definition
The narrow definition of seishin butsurigaku is part and parcel of a broader, though
implicit, major ideological shift, not just in Japan, but also at the global level, that
would herald the psychological revolution. In the same way that alchemy and astrology
gave birth to chemistry and astronomy, religious and philosophical concerns would
engender Psychology.
Spiritual Physics 3
The broad definition of spiritual physics carries global significance and captures
the tensions and instability evident in novel ways of thinking that marched onto the
world stage in the mid-nineteenth century. These new forms of knowledge emerged to
cope with the rush of techno-industrialization, secularization, scientific discoveries,
and political upheaval that spread around the globe. As spiritual physics morphed into
twentieth-century Psychology, not surprisingly, it took different trajectories shaped
by local national cultures. Nevertheless and despite the multitude of semantic strands
making up spiritual physics, crucial and common themes explain its appearance
in different locales: as premodern, religiously inspired cosmologies collapsed,
attempts to reconcile tensions between scientific–naturalistic and spiritualistic–
numinous worldviews resulted in an early form of Psychology. The term “spiritual
physics” is intended to point to such efforts at conciliation. Another related theme
was the acknowledgment of the burgeoning role of the individual’s “inner life” in
social relations, economic exchanges, political processes, and aesthetics in the late
nineteenth century.
The spiritual roots of the psychological revolution
Though the Enlightenment eroded religious traditions and ended up precluding

certain questions from being asked, spiritual yearnings still motivated attempts to
understand humanity’s place in the world and the nature of the soul. Some thinkers
tried to balance rationalism with mysticism and despite remarkable progress in
the sciences during the nineteenth century, a “science of the mind” did not seem
promising. “Soul” and “mind” were used interchangeably. More than just a mere
physics of the soul, many thinkers pursued a religiously therapeutic physics for the
soul. Eventually, Fechner defined psychophysics as an “exact science of the functional
relations or the relations of dependency between body and mind,” that is, it was
an intellectual endeavor that sought to illuminate how the physical and the mental
related to each other. Fechner would attempt to merge science and spirituality.
Though a talented physicist, Fechner was not a materialist, at least not the kind
becoming popular in the nineteenth century. He felt he was on a spiritual mission,
believing that he was on the verge of discovering nature’s secrets. He went blind
staring at the sun while conducting optical experiments, experienced a nervous
breakdown and secluded himself in a darkened room for three years. After recovering
from his blindness, he developed pantheist ideas and concluded that material world
is infused with a psychic energy.
Determined to prove his ideas, Fechner viewed his experiments as philosophical
endeavors rather than modern psychological research, though ironically, his attempts
would eventually bolster a materialist Psychology that discarded the immortal and
immaterial soul. Fechner thought mind‒body dualism could be transcended.10 In
order to sew up the cosmic fabric and shed light on the fundamental unity of the
mental and the material, he came to the conclusion that they could be measured.
Fechner espoused a view (as did others) that illustrates attempts to maintain the
sacred in a world secularizing at a disturbing pace. Indeed, for Fechner, it must be
stressed, psychophysics was a mere by-product of his messianic philosophy detailed

in a number of books, such as Zend-Avesta, oder über die Dinge des Himmels und des
Jenseits (1851). This book’s title presents a translation challenge; a rough gloss might
read Zend-Avesta: On the Things of Heaven and the Hereafter, though the sense of
“revelation” is suggested.11
Eventually, Fechner developed the implications of psychophysics in his two-volume
Elemente der Psychophysik (1860). In no small way he gave birth to the modern study
of mind and started to reorient the investigations of psyche, from the philosophical
aspirations of a psychological physiology to an experimentally guided physiological
Psychology.12 Indeed, Fechner greatly inspired Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920),
conventionally regarded as the father of Psychology.13
Three key themes of this work
Chapter 1 outlines the topics, organization, and arguments of this work, but here I
briefly introduce three major themes to be covered, beginning with the broader,
contextual issues and concluding with this book’s primary agenda.
Theme one: Historical changes—implications for understanding “modernity”

This work will contribute to our understanding of the worldwide history of
Psychology and the globalization of the social sciences. In this sense, my endeavors
will not only be descriptive and empirical, that is, focusing on national context,
cultural specifics, and biographical particulars. Rather, my exploration of the
origins of Japanese Psychology possesses theoretical value in how it illustrates the
meaning of modernity. This latter term is admittedly overused, but for my purposes
I specifically view the psychological revolution of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries as a key component of modernity. The institutionalization
of academic Psychology (along with other social sciences) was a response to
modernity’s psychologizing of society.
Theme two: Psychological processes—how do society and psyche constitute

each other?
Framing my arguments is the premise that evolving political economic circumstances
demand new forms of psychological adaptation, that is, increasingly complex
political economic institutions structure psyche in certain ways. By tracing the
trajectory of Japanese Psychology as a consequence of the psychological revolution, I
attempt to shed light on not just the origins of an academic field, but also to trace the
development of a “new visuality”—a psychological adaptation—rooted in science,
secularism, and changing definitions of selfhood. At the heart of these intellectual
transitions was the impulse to take the individual as the basic, self-contained unit of
society and to “interiorize” the person.
Spiritual Physics 5
Theme three: Academic Psychology—what trajectory did spiritual physics

take in Japan?
I address this question by investigating how understandings of human nature
transitioned from a premodern, religious, and moralistic view to a modern, secular,
and scientific perspective beginning in Japan’s Meiji period (1868–1912). More
broadly, I explore the history of the Japanese social sciences and highlight the
contributions of Japanese Psychologists, thereby placing this society’s rich intellectual
contribution in global context.
1
Places, Periods, and Peoples:

Problematizing Psyche
Theme one: The individual, modernity, and a change

of mind in the nineteenth century
During the 1800s the individual acquired new significance: the independent
citizen became a building block in national state construction; the worker, an
interchangeable unit for economic production; and the consumer, an autonomous
agent of economic liberalism. In the arts the individual was associated with an
“inward turn” to a unique, privileged self of the protagonist and as the narrating
agent in literature (e.g., the modern novel). The development of new forms of
religiosity in which introspection became associated with spiritual self-discovery
(as opposed to more communal forms of faith) can also be linked to the rise
of the individual. Meanwhile, rapid industrialization broke society down into
the isolated and alienated individuals, producing a darker side to the new
individuality.
These developments, centered on the detached and self-contained individual,
were part and parcel of a growing faith in positivism, scientific knowledge, and
new conceptual categories—labor, capitalist exchange, economics, “society,” and
“progress”—that in the late nineteenth century were relatively new not just to Japan
but also to other industrializing societies.
In response to the rise of the individual, a new discipline developed—Psychology—
that took the isolated “subject,” as well as “inner experience,” as the crucial unit of
analysis. The mental realm was privileged. Psychology, which did not emerge until
the late nineteenth century, was a scientific response to a period that truly marked a
turning point in global intellectual developments:
Our fascination with hedonistic ethics, with the possibility of shaping the
world through the processes of reward and punishment, is linearly traceable to
Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarian movement. Even our vaunted “humanistic”
[P]sychologies, with their focus on “self-actualization,” personal growth and
individual freedom, have never improved upon the original formulations by the
German Romantics. Contemporary [P]sychology then is largely a footnote to the
nineteenth century.1
Theme two: Co-constituting society and psyche
This work takes the theme of globalization seriously, not just in the geographical sense
(i.e., illustrating cross-cultural, transnational, and international connections), but
also from a temporal perspective. It does this by contextualizing Japanese Psychology
within longue durée processes operating at the worldwide level: socio-externalization
and psycho-internalization. These two long-term historical processes have more to do
with human civilization than any particular place, period, or people.2
Socio-externalization describes the social, political, and economic forces impacting
an individual from the “outside,” while psycho-internalization accounts for “inside” the
person. Socio-externalization is driven by a techno-economics that increases wealth
(though wealth that is not necessarily evenly distributed). Increased resources and
scientific advances expand populations, which in turn increase the size and number
of social institutions. Consequently, political economic authorities come to see the
need to integrate individuals into larger and larger groupings (e.g., occupational
castes, corporations, state-defined territorial units, citizenhood). This integration can
be visualized, to use a metaphor, as wrapping more “layers” around the individual in
order to firmly position them in “person–property regimes.”3
The accretion of layers—more social roles, specialized expertise, formal education,
regulations, disciplinary practices, Weberian rationalization, and so on—is not just
an accumulation of more knowledge or social management.4 Sociopolitical wrapping
impels psycho-internalization or the psychological adaptation to increasingly
demanding historical vagaries and pressures. Driving the speed of socio-externalization/
psycho-internalization dynamics was the global dissemination of late modernity due
to a shrinking world,5 that is, advances in communication, transportation, and new
sources of power.6 Certain features of psycho-internalization and socio-externalization
began to pick up pace after the early part of the sixteenth century, but by the mid-1800s
they had dramatically accelerated.
During the 1800s, techno-industrialization fueled the emergence of new socioeconomic
strata (working class–proletariat, middle class–bourgeoisie, capitalists) and ideologies
(class consciousness, left–right political spectrum) as power-driven machinery resulted
in mechanized mass production. As the “machine replaced the hand and public
opinion replaced both prince and prophet,” technicalization allowed the realization of
eighteenth-century political and intellectual aspirations during the nineteenth century.7
Industrialization also led to unprecedented forms of exploitation (child labor, female
labor, sweatshops, and workhouses) and new social problems (periodic unemployment,
vagrancy, and slums). In order to respond to these challenges and stabilize person–
property regimes, the bureau-administrative state acquired more responsibilities and
grew into a larger, steeper and increasingly multifaceted pyramid that mobilized and
disciplined unruly populations. For example, officialdom saw the need for welfare,
labor polices, public utilities, and city planning, as well as dealing with health problems,
especially those associated with urbanization and the working poor (prevention of
epidemics, improved hygiene, public medical services). Meanwhile, territorial ambitions
and neo-imperialism drove the engine of industrial-strength total war (conscript armies,
home front mobilization, and monopolization of natural resources).
Places, Periods, and Peoples 9
To a large degree, the nineteenth-century perspective on reality was driven by

the techno-science of the “second industrial revolution.” This led to new engineering
materials and resources (the chemical industry’s production of synthetic materials—
dyes, man-made fibers, plastics, reinforced concrete, aluminum, chromium alloys);
new sources and producers of power (coal, steam, oil, electricity generators, petrol,
internal combustion, diesel engine, steam turbine); rapid transportation (gas-powered
engines, railways, automobile, bus, tractor, airplane); improved communications
(telephone, typewriter, telegraph, radio). The sciences saw unparalleled advances:
discovery of uranium and radium radioactivity by Becquerel and the Curies (1897–
99); Max Planck’s quantum theory of energy (1900); Rutherford’s revolutionary new
model of the atom that overturned classical physics (1911); and Einstein’s special and
general theories of relativity (1905 and 1916). Rising expectations and incomes led to
mass consumption, new forms of entertainment, and a consumerist revolution: more
advertising and mass media, for example, increased circulation of newspapers; the
invention of the gramophone (1877); the Lumière brothers’ cinematography (1895);
Marconi’s wireless telegraph (1895); the first radio wave transmission (1901); and the
opening of the first movie theater (the Pittsburg Nickelodeon in 1905).
The cosmic worldview’s collapse: Giving birth to Psychology

A “Psychology that inquires about Psychology itself ” must confront the history, the
very foundations and the basic philosophy of the social sciences.8 Through long-
term, complex historical processes, psyche has adapted to more and more socio-
externalization and became increasingly psycho-internalized. Psycho-internalization
enhances “conscious interiority,” a sharp focusing of psycho-internalization. By
investigating these processes, the following sections lay the foundation for the
theoretical themes of this work.
From a cosmic to a techno-scientific worldview

The psychological revolution required centuries-long ideological groundwork and the
origins of Psychology can be traced to the collapse of what we will call the cosmic
worldview. Massive shifts in understandings of the very fabric of spatiotemporality
and the workings of the human body had to first occur, as well as an increased social
weight on the import of individual opinions and freedoms in the politico-economic
realm. The premodern worldview can be described as monistic and isomorphic: the
dynamics of the cosmos, human nature, and our place in the sociopolitical order were
all inextricably linked, each aspect of existence pointing to and making sense of the
others in an ideological house of mirrors. An animistic unifying force inhered in the
universe, for example, a vitalistic energy substance called qi in Chinese (ki in Japanese),
or the Great Chain of Being, as in the West. The erosion of the “mind-as-mirror”
model of the cosmos would lead to a skeptical, secularizing ethos and the techno-
scopic world of science and modern instruments would not be decisively underway
well into the 1800s. Chapter 2 explores Japan’s premodern Japanese cosmology as well
as the meaning of “Psychology as secularized religion.”
For the sake of convenience, we can illustrate the breakdown of the cosmic
worldview by highlighting four major interrelated intellectual transformations:
(1) The Emergence of Modern Spatiality: Mathematically measurable and infinitized

space dissolved sacred macro-microcosms, leaving no concrete connections to
the spiritual and thereby encouraging individuals to interiorize linkages to the
divine, that is, the inner self, rather than external ceremonies, sacred personages,
communities, and so on, became the focus of spirituality.
(2) The Emergence of Modern Temporality: “Progress” and the allied theme of
sociopolitical engineering.
(3) From a Moral-Cosmic to a Techno-Scopic Worldview: Technicalization and the
application of accumulated knowledge and science in attempts to improve
society.
(4) From the Introcosmic to the Introscopic: Psychological interiorization and
the development of an “introscopic” view of psyche premised on modern
technologies.
The introscopic as a new visuality: Expanded horizons of the inward turn

One aspect of interiority in particular—mental spatialization—deserves treatment.
Throughout the centuries, humankind has had to learn to “see” in new ways in
order to adapt to changing circumstances. For our purposes, such “seeing” can
be understood literally and metaphorically, that is, “seeing with the mind’s eye.”
To appreciate visualization (whether literal or metaphorical), spatiality must
also be understood, since it delimits the boundaries of what is seen. Indeed, the
“spatialization of psyche”—metaphorically positing a space within the person in
which agency and decision-making transpire—is the most elementary feature of
conscious interiority. Metaphoric linguistic expressions hollow out the body and
its interiorization (internal organs, e.g., “heart” or “brain”) is assigned agency.
Spatialization of psyche may be described as cavitating a place modeled after
the perceptual, physical world. Within this psychoscape one can experience an
introceptive, quasi-sensory world in which dwells an “I” (self as subject in control;
analogous to one’s physical person) that can “observe” one’s “me” (self as object
under control).9 In premodern times such interiorization generated an “introcosm”
as a counterpart to both the person and the immediate environs (microcosm) and
the far-flung physical world (macrocosm).
Between the 1880s and the early 1900s, new understandings of time and space
sharpened the focus of what we conventionally call the inner or mind’s eye.10 Increased
attention to introspection during the latter half of the nineteenth century can be
thought of as due to enhanced conscious interiority. Introspection, originally a mere
phenomenon in and of itself, would become a means to an end for understanding
the psychological. Introspection has played a strange, ironic role in the history of
Psychology. On the one hand, it was central to the very birth of Psychology, as both a
method and a target of investigation. However, some noted methodological problems
with introspection, and as Psychology shifted from philosophical self-reflection to a
more objective observation of others, some began to question its usefulness.11 Indeed,
in the early part of the twentieth century, behaviorists would dismiss its significance
altogether.
Focusing the mind’s eye: Conscious interiority

Together with introspection was another new way of “seeing” the psychological.
The natural sciences afforded equipment and techniques that researchers could utilize
in new established laboratories, allowing them to measure and thereby visualize the
“contents” of psyche (see Chapter 7’s treatment of laboratories). This newly discovered
scientific visuality demonstrates how Psychology actually impacted psychological
experiences. Instrumental measurement of the mind and introspection transfigured
the premodern introcosm into the modern introscope.
In addition to mental spatialization and “introception,” interiority highlighted
other cognitive processes in the nineteenth century: self-narratization, individuation,
self-reflexivity, self-autonomy, and self-authorization.12 An appreciation of these
developments is crucial, since they acted as the fertile intellectual ground in which
the eventual institutionalization of Psychology took root. What happens within
a discipline, of course, relates to larger historical developments, or in the words of
Mizoguchi Hajime, the “big picture” (kyodai na kōzu).13 Chapters 3 explores the “new
mentality” of Meiji modernity. I comment here on the aforementioned aspects of
interiority, linking them to larger social changes.
Self-narratization and progress

The 1800s was the century when new conceptions of time, which had been developing
since at least the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, began to have a real-world
impact. For example, consider the history of history. As a discipline history made
important strides. The past became something that was objectively recoverable and
that extended far into a very distant long-ago that challenged the human imagination.
The “origins” of all things, including humankind, were pursued. Time became not
only linearized, but clearly partitioned: the past, present, and future. Significantly, as
political ideologies promised social re-engineering, a new “place”—the future—was
invented toward which the individual could aspire. In the sciences, transformation,
change, and evolutionism became central explanatory concepts, which resonated
with theories of advancement, “human progress,” and social Darwinism. Religious
millenarianism transmuted into secular utopianism.
Changes in notions of time impacted psychological processes by encouraging
a hypothetical mind-set, thereby forming a linear temporality leading to future
possibilities upon which one’s “I” could move as protagonist, viewing unrealized
excerptions and mental sceneries. Once unmoored from the limitations of present
circumstances, the “I” became able to introspect upon not just a panorama of past
and present events, but an imaginary psychoscape of “could be’s.” More than any
other period, the nineteenth century became the age of the “self-made man” (sic) who
assertively serialized his own advancement.
Individuation and self-reflexivity

It is difficult for people living in the late modern era to accept that in previous centuries
individuals were not particularly interested in the “idiosyncratic inner life” of others.14
“Instead of connecting individuality with reflection, contemplation, or the inner
world of feelings, it was rather identified with one’s effect on the community.”15 Note
that, at least in England during the 1600s, one was most authentic and “real” when
performing and wearing a mask in public—not when expressing or introspecting
upon one’s self.16 Individual accomplishments and personal characteristics were
certainly given attention in times past, but these were not directly connected to the
psychological. However, linkages between personal individuality and the elements of
interior life came to the fore during the nineteenth century. “Personality” was the
concept eventually adopted to capture novel configurations of human nature that
erupted on the historical stage.
In the same way that the individual’s personal traits were highlighted and
privileged vis-à-vis larger collectivities, the individual’s “I” was differentiated and set
against the backdrop of interiorized excerptions (i.e., edited narratives of one’s life),
thereby enhancing sentiments of personal uniqueness. Tightly associated with these
processes of individuation is self-reflexivity. This is a difficult feature to describe. It
occurs because the ability to excerpt, to “see” one’s self (“I”) in an interiorized place
minus physical limitations and to narrating not-yet versions of our future selves,
all generate an “I” that introspects upon a “me.” Such self-introspection causes a
recursively regressive mirroring effect (self observing self), which leads to a keenly felt
existentialist perspective of a highly individuated selfness that exists in opposition to
others and the world.
Self-autonomy, self-authorization, and political economic liberties

By the nineteenth century the dreams of classical liberalism (envisioned during the
1600s and 1700s) began to be realized, at least partially. A focus on and faith in the inner
reason of the individual, regardless of social status, began to solidify. That the interior
contents of the person were given attention is apparent in social mechanisms
designed to articulate such contents: civil self-expression (constitutionalism,
basic human rights, and religious tolerance) and political self-representation (extension
of the electorate, political parties, and the eventual political inclusion of women and
minorities in the twentieth century).
The psychological responded to these changes. The sense of immediate control
experienced by the self—that is, of one’s own person (“I”) over one’s behavior (“me”)—
was strengthened. This emphasis on self-authorization saw more intentionality and
responsibility being attributed to the “I” (“inner person”) rather than divine powers,
cosmological forces, or communities. Individual narratization would lead to a sense
of power over one’s self and destiny—self-autonomy—that the political authorities
were increasingly expected to accommodate. From an economic perspective, the
intensification of interiority has afforded a uniquely personalized “space” in which a
self dwells that expresses its own individuality by pursuing consumerist desires. This
expanded sphere of personal subjectivity not only requires expression and exploration
but is also filled with demands.
Theme three: The emergence of academic Psychology
The psychological revolution

The aforementioned ways of “seeing” and related developments can be attributed to a
major shift in understandings of human nature. The shadowy, indistinct images seen
only with the mind’s eye would come to constitute a parallel world, a psychoscape rich
in colorful details. Focusing attention on the introcosm was not mere attending to one’s
thoughts but a pensive introspection tinted by a nuanced self-conscious reflexivity.
More than just an aspect of the bodily microcosm, by the early nineteenth century the
introcosm became a privileged place implicated in a jealously guarded individuality,
politically protected privacy and a highly personalized identity. And eventually it
would become a target of scientific scrutiny, though its age-old religious associations
would strongly color even its scientific treatments until the late 1800s. Chapter 6
provides the historical context in which occultism, spiritualism, and cosmic energies
developed in Japan.
The effect of the psychological revolution can be measured in two ways: societal
impact and the institutionalization of academic Psychology. The former is far broader
and more difficult to delineate than the establishment of a scholarly field. Societal
impact assesses how deep a psychologically interiorized view of human nature
has taken root. By the twentieth century, crucial clues about the expansion of the
“psychological society” can be found in the mass media, arts, popular culture, daily
discourse, everyday assumptions about psyche, and implicit ideological influences in
the realm of politics and economics.17
The psychological revolution involved not just significant shifts in subjective
experiences but also the institutionalization of Psychology.18 I have already delineated,
in rough historical terms, how major social tectonics (i.e., socio-externalization),
drove psycho-internalization and led to reworkings of the psychological, which in
turn gave birth to Psychology. Here I want to distinguish the psychological from
Psychology in order to illustrate their interrelations.
Discipline versus subject matter

It is often said that Psychology has a long past but a short history. We should rephrase
this: psychological processes have always been around, but Psychology, the discipline,
is relatively new. “Historical psychology” and the focus of my study, Japan’s “history of
Psychology,” need to be distinguished. The former concerns the subject matter of what
since the late nineteenth century has been called mind, emotion, perception, cognition,
and so on; it is the history of changing psychological states. Historical Psychology can
be subdivided into universal-invariant and cultural-variant processes. The former
concerns the foundational and relatively immutable aspects of psyche, such as basic
cognitive and perceptual abilities of Homo sapiens that presumably place and period
have not altered. The cultural-variant aspects, amenable to cultural psychological
studies, concerns relatively mutable aspects of psyche, such as the degree to which
an individual should turn inward in an attempt to understand and justify one’s own
behavior and that of others (e.g., different features of interiority).19
The “history of Psychology” (note the capitalized “P”) explores the development
of an academically organized and disciplined investigation of psychological subject
matter.20 Sometime during the nineteenth century in the industrializing world
(exactly where depends on local conditions), the “operations of the individual mind
become a delimitable target of investigation.”21 Certainly, a type of philosophically
informed experimental Psychology existed in the early 1800s. However, before a non-
philosophical experimental Psychology could emerge,22 religious, philosophical, and
medical discourses had to be disentangled and a scientifically motivated “objectification
of subjectivity” was required.23
Note that a crucial difference separates “Psychological philosophy” and
“Psychological physiology” from “philosophical Psychology” and “physiological
Psychology.” In the first two expressions, “Psychological” is an adjective while
philosophy and physiology are nominals. In the latter two phrases, philosophical and
physiological are adjectives, while Psychology is the primary subject. When Psychology
is employed as a nominal, it indicates that it has come of age, that an imaginary but
salient spatiality—interiority—has taken its place on the historical stage.24 Though
psychological-like issues were “scattered across a whole range of textual genres,”25 no
explicit, systematic, or institutionalized discipline of Psychology existed until the late
1800s.26 We should note, then, the differences among pre-psychological (psychological
discourse before the establishment of Psychology), proto-psychological (ideas that
anticipated Psychology), and the clearly psychological.
More than any other field, Psychology refers both to a discipline and a subject
matter.27 The problem of how Psychology, as an emergent product of the psychological,
“actively constituted itself in the course” of the investigations of the mind is a complex
problem indeed.28 After all, new psychological states and experiences would become
the target of the psychological. Psychology was more than just an adaptation among
intellectual pioneers to the pressures of modernity (increasing socio-externalization). It
was also more than just an investigation of the mental along secular and scientific lines.
Psychology, in how it revealed the workings of psyche, evidenced a transformation
of the very psychological processes it claimed to be exploring. This change involved
enhanced conscious interiority. We routinely and intensively self-reflect in ways that,
except for a small circle of highly literate and the theologically minded, would have
been considered an eccentric, if not downright mad, behavior several centuries ago.
Compared to our predecessors, we have all become Psychologists now. In the same
way that the birth of sociology was a scholarly attempt to come to terms with the
new of fabric of society woven by the industrial revolution (i.e., the emergence of
classes), Psychology was an attempt to understand a mentality adapted to new political
economic structures.
The intellectual background of academic Psychology

Broadly speaking, certain circumstances cultivated the rise of Psychology. All
interrelated, these can be categorized as five types of changes. The first concerns
scientific discoveries. More specifically, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
witnessed three major intellectual shifts: (1) a “massive increase” in physiological
knowledge; (2) the Darwinian evolutionary perspective; and (3) the development of
Wundtian experimental psychophysics.
The second change involved technological innovations that aided in envisioning
and measuring the psychological. Indeed, inventions of the industrial age, for example,
the steam engine and heavy industrial machinery, have provided a rich store of
metaphors for the psychological, for example, electrifying, to be galvanized, go off the
rails, to blow a gasket, full steam ahead. The third change is found in sociopolitical and
economic developments, such as a deep concern with rationalized child-rearing, the
concomitant need to educate skilled workers, to socialize loyal citizens, and to assess
abilities for labor selection and training.29 The fourth change involved secularization:
in the same way that religious prohibitions against dissecting the body were eventually
discarded, the disinclination toward scrutinizing the soul as just another object was also
disregarded. The final change, which is intimately bound up with the aforementioned
developments, concerns transformations in understandings of the self (see above, “The
Introscopic as a New Visuality: Expanded Horizons of the Inward Turn”).
The institutionalization of academic Psychology
Specifically speaking, a number of preconditions encouraged the growth of Psychology:

(1) a stable, prosperous, industrialized society that fostered the development of the
various sciences; (2) an emphasis on individuality and the individual that made scientific
analysis of personal experience and behavior legitimate and relevant; (3) a “diversity
of lines of research” that favored the pursuit of various topics; (4) the relatively early
organization of courses, laboratories, scientific associations and Psychology journals;
(5) “helpful relations with other sciences”; (6) different applications of Psychology
that led to increased societal interest in Psychology and the psychological; and (7)
beneficial interactions among Psychologists from various countries.30
Disciplinary institutionality (a term less baroque than “disciplinization”) measures
the degree of academic and professional solidification and evolution. For certain
comparative purposes, disciplinary institutionality can be objectified and assessed
within a national unit. Key measurements, more or less in order of typical chronological
appearance, typically included:
●● First university courses dedicated to Psychology

●● Societies and associations
●● Professional journals
●● Professorships or chairs
●● Departments
●● Degrees
●● Graduate programs
●● Official recognition by a state agency or official credentialing organizations
It was only in the early twentieth century that Psychologists were able to confidently
carve out a professional space of their own.31 This autonomy of Psychology as a body of
disciplinary knowledge evidences the scientific acceptance of an introscopic interiority.
No longer would its target of inquiry—invisible, inner happenings of the soul—be the
handmaiden of philosophy, physiology, pedagogy, or physics. Individual experience
and behavior became scientifically legitimate as a subject of investigation.32 Severing
the connections between physiology, philosophy, and Psychology was not as easy as we
might assume. For example, consider the career of William James: in 1876, he became
assistant professor of physiology; in 1880, assistant professor of philosophy; in 1885,
professor of philosophy; in 1889, professor of philosophy; in 1897, he became again a
professor of philosophy.
Tracing the emergence of modern research Psychology in Japan affords a window
into how global shifts in definitions of human nature played out in one particular locale
and how the development of the social sciences was part of larger late-nineteenth to
early-twentieth-century global trends that interiorized the person and selected the
individual as the basic unit of analysis. Chapters 3 explains how Japanese Psychology
was intellectually and academically institutionalized (i.e., separated the modern
“mind” out from the premodern “soul”), while Chapter 7 addresses how the new
discipline was professionally and organizationally institutionalized (i.e., via societies
and publications). Scientists and researchers define problems “in such a way as to
establish themselves as an obligatory passage point in the network of relationships”
they are building.33 This process of “problematization” poses issues in such a manner
that institutionality becomes inevitable, that is, only certain types of specialists can
solve the problems that they themselves have placed on the intellectual landscape.
Psychology: Tensions and types

Two tensions—which both concern definitions of human nature—have characterized
the development of Psychology: (1) individual-versus-collectivity; and (2) scientific-
versus-humanistic. The first raises the issue of whether the human psyche is better
understood as an autonomous, isolated, independent entity or as a mere part of
an aggregate whose nature is influenced by that larger grouping. Here we might
note that in a sense, socio-externalization/psycho-internalization bifurcated the
individual into two aspects: psychological and social. While Psychology dealt with
the latter, the nineteenth century’s “discovery of society” became the purview of
sociology.34 In Chapter 6, the relations between Japanese Psychology and sociology
are investigated.
The second tension raises fundamental methodological problems: Is the human
psyche amenable to natural-scientific approaches of reductionism, measurement,
and analysis (“breaking down”)? Or, is it more amenable to a humanistic perspective
that stresses a holistic, philosophical, or even spiritual view of the human condition?
Are we part of the animal world or ensouled beings that transcend physiology and
physics?
Another way to view Psychology is by considering its subspecializations. Like other
social sciences, Psychology has fragmented into various branches, subspecialties, and
types.35 Between 1870 and 1920, the distinct fields of personality, clinical Psychology,
comparative Psychology, physiological Psychology, and developmental Psychology
were established. Notably, to a remarkable degree, the methods and problems of
nineteenth-century Psychology have survived and the “contemporary perspective is
largely the one bequeathed by the scholars of that time.”36
For the sake of convenience, we can divide Psychology into (1) experimental–
theoretical-basic and (2) applied-therapeutic-clinical (these are the focus
of Chapter 8). The former is associated with the various “schools” of research
Psychology (e.g., perceptual, physiological, Gestalt, behaviorism, comparative,
cognitive, neurological, social, cross-cultural). The latter is associated with
practical and medical applications of knowledge about the psyche (e.g.,
educational, developmental, intelligence testing, industrial, organizational, military,
psychoanalysis, psychodynamics, counseling).
Applied Psychology and its societal impact: Bureaucratizing subjectivity

via schooling
Japanese Psychology, like other social sciences, was never limited to the ivory tower.
Its impact was visible, as it still is, at the societal level. The earliest and most salient
example of applied psychological knowledge was in education.37 The new spatiality
of the individual introcosm was now a psychological resource that, in response to
emerging political economic demands, needed to be made “visible” for assessment
purposes and then, via pedagogical practices, shaped for political and economic
agendas. As officialdom came to envision the individual as a target of increased socio-
externalization in order to meet its own agendas, individual subjectivity became
increasingly bureaucratized (i.e., internalized). This process was manifested through
orderly, systematic, and methodical training within formal schooling. Indeed, around
the world the emergence of modern schooling and Psychology cannot be easily
disentangled.
In Japan, the oligarchies of the Meiji Restoration (1868) from the start viewed
education as an instrument of national policy. The utilitarian character of schooling,
which was “clearly visualized and vigorously pursued,” had four primary goals: (1)
national unification; (2) unquestioning loyalty; (3) acquisition of modern scientific
and economic knowledge and techniques; and (4) the enhancement of national
defense. It is essential to bear in mind that key educational administrative matters
were not products of legislature process emanating from the Diet but were “imperial
decrees without parliamentary debate.”38 Indeed, the Diet would not be founded until
1890, after the basics of the educational system had been formulated and implemented.
Modern schooling and regimes of psycho-socialization were both products of and
driving forces behind mental changes. A salient example of transformations of
the psychological, then, is educational structures. Chapters 4 and 9 investigate the

important links between the state, nationalism, pedagogy, and Psychology, as well as
between schooling structures and psychological processes.
Other applications of Psychology

The individual had become a walking encapsulated world of complex dynamics.
Psychology came to view the person as a container of drives, ideas, and invisible forces
that could be meticulously and carefully measured and analyzed. The applications of
Psychology are analyzed in Chapters 7 (e.g., cultivating the minds of youth and mental
testing and industrial Psychology) and 9 (statist and military applications). Clinical
and psychoanalytic applications are treated in Chapter 8.
Global exchanges versus national traditions
This project attempts to strike a balance between Psychology-as-global and Psychology-

as-national. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. A global
perspective avoids the dangers of carelessly adopting the national state-as-container
model, assuming cultural singularity, or that each national tradition followed its
own highly peculiar isolated trajectory.39 After all, what does “Japanese” describe?
Ethnocultural heritage? A polity? A place? A language with its own culturally nuanced
expressions?
Global connections, comparisons, and commonalties

Guiding this project’s explorations are questions of collaborations, comparisons, and
commonalities in the history of Psychology. What is needed is “a history of connections
and processes without retreating to a simple view of the diffusion outward of modernity
from a dominant, ‘rational’ Euro–American center.”40 In the case of Japan, this issue
is especially salient, since the common perception is that Japan passively “accepted”
or “absorbed” foreign modern knowledge. Here I might note that though there has
been some improvement, textbook histories of Psychology are usually histories of
“American Psychology” (see Appendix 1).41
For the sake of argument, let us propose three metaphors in order to conceptualize
the flow of ideas between Japan and what can conveniently but cautiously be called the
“West.” The first is the “one-way street” perspective: Japan passively absorbs influences
from the West. The second is the “two-way street” view that sees an exchange
between Japan and the West: foreign and Japanese elements mutually influence each
other. The last perspective, or the “intersection” approach, is more subtle. The first
two approaches are premised on the idea that Japan and other national states are
self-contained, monolithic units. The last metaphor, though not ignoring the role of
territorially defined political and cultural entities (i.e., national states),42 emphasizes
historical period rather than particular places or peoples.43 While acknowledging
important connections and contrasts, the third approach includes transnational
commonalities. The appearance of Psychology, a crucial intellectual offspring of

modernity, is better understood not as a matter of geographical origins, but rather as
a temporal, chronological issue. In other words, once Psychology’s institutionalization
was triggered in Japan by outside influences, we must address the question of why
it readily took root, flourished, and thrived. The reason is found in a general global
climate that interiorized and took the individual as the basic unit in politics, economics
and the arts.
Some point out that academic studies are either too local or too global and except
for the national state, an intermediate level is missing. However, such concerns are
premised on a spatio-geographical perspective. I suggest that temporality rather
than spatiality is far more useful for explicating certain issues, that is, changing
understandings of human nature. Rather than place, our focus should be temporally
lengthy and thematic, thereby allowing us to escape the gravitational pull of spatial
units such as national states or civilization-wide regions, if only to gain some global
perspective on massive changes that transcend the local.
At any rate, modern research Psychology did not begin much later in Japan than in
Europe and North America. 44 This has more to do with how Japan’s political economic
conditions demanded new forms of labor and loyalty than with how Japan passively
accepted foreign knowledge. Note that Motora gave his first lecture on psychophysics
at University of Tokyo in 1888 and established Japan’s first Psychology laboratory in
1903. The former was only nine and the latter twenty-four years after the construction
of Wundt’s laboratory in 1879, which is conventionally regarded as the birth date of
modern experimental Psychology. And the number of articles by Japanese appearing
in well-known academic journals (1897–1945) indicates a scholarly presence far
beyond Japan’s borders (see Appendix 2).45
What does it mean to be “Japanese”?

Regardless of any focus on the global exchange of ideas, we must still take into
consideration the role of the national state. A national state–oriented approach
provides rich detail and particulars that a more bird’s-eye view misses. Consider how
any state, as an actor that supports and advocates, or as the case may be, discourages
and suppresses, the imperatives and tendencies of the psychologized society
(educational, social welfare, etc.). Remember that intellectual developments, rather
than transcending national boundaries in some mystical fashion, were conveyed via
particular institutions that were often state defined.
In addition to polity, “national” can also be understood as designating certain
research emphases, scholarly styles, or the subtleties of linguo-concepts configured
by local culture. These must be considered. For example, the Germanophone world,
deeply rooted in a philosophical perspective, viewed the psychological as something
active and holistic and saw language and culture as windows into the soul. British and
French doctrines saw mind as more passive, reductionistic, and atomistic. In Britain
we find a stress on evolutionism, as well as a strong hereditarian and “managerial
component,” which were particularly clear in the use of statistics for “bureaucratic
and economic administrative purposes” during the industrial revolution. Later in
the nineteenth century the French tradition would associate the psychological with
madness, social deviance, and the abnormal. From these linkages would emerge the
case-history approach that eventually configured a medicalized and clinical view of
the psychological. A strong psychiatric tradition can be traced back to Philippe Pinel
(1745–1826) and his successor J. E. D. Esquirol (1772–1840).46 A collectivist ethos
also pervades much of French work, with its orientation toward crowd behavior,
social aggregates, group dynamics, national traits, and “racial character.”47 For its
part Japanese Psychology has had a tendency to focus on sensation and perceptual
processes.
A great number of individuals made significant contributions to the development of
Japanese Psychology, but undoubtedly the endeavors of Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto
Matatarō stand out. They are the focus of Chapter 5, which also examines the psycho-
philosophy of Motora. The contributions of other individuals are dealt with in passim,
but the Epilogue explores the contributions of Japanese women Psychologists.
Methodology and relevant literature
No comprehensive history of Japanese Psychology exists in English,48 though article-

length treatments (with scattered references to Motora Yūjirō, Matsumoto Matatarō,
and other key Japanese Psychologists) can certainly be found.49 Not surprisingly,
a number of full-length histories exists in Japanese.50 Up-to-date and major book-
length treatments include Nishikawa and Takasuna’s Shinrigaku-shi (The History of
Psychology, 2008a); Osaka Naoyuki’s Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to
Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi (The Birth and Development of Experimental
Psychology: Tracing the History of Japanese Psychology from Experimental Instruments
and Materials, 2000a); Satō and Mizoguchi’s Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku (A History:
Japanese Psychology, 1997); and Satō’s Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku no Jūyo to Tenkai (The
Acceptance and Development of Psychology in Japan, 2002a).51 Despite these important
contributions, as recently as 2005 Satō Tatsuya wrote that the history of Psychology is
a “new specialty in Japan.”52
A sense that Japanese Psychology had a past was evident as early as 1897, when
Tanimoto Tomeri wrote “Wagakuni ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu” (“The
Development of Psychology in Our Country”). Four years later Tanimoto wrote a
short history of Japanese Psychology which he divided into several periods influenced
by: (1) “moral philosophers,” such as Joseph Haven and Francis Wayland; (2) British
philosophers, such as Alexander Bain, Herbert Spencer, and James Sully; (3) a short
period that saw the impact of George T. Ladd and Théodule Ribot; and finally (4)
the German experimentalism of Wundt.53 In 1903, Takashima Heizaburō wrote an
article with the same title as Tanimoto’s (above). Matsumoto Matatarō penned “Nihon
ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu” (“The Development of Psychology in Japan,” 1931)
and six years later wrote Shinrigaku-shi (The History of Psychology). Watanabe Tōru,
somewhat controversially, discerned a pre-Meiji period “empirical” Psychologist
in the person of Kamada Hō (1754–1821) in his 1940 Hompō Saisho no Keiken teki
Shinrigaku-sha toshite no Kamada Hō no Kenkyū.
I have relied on three types of sources: (1) primary sources in Japanese written
by contemporary Japanese researchers who pioneered Psychology; (2) secondary
sources in Japanese written by commentators about the pioneers and their work;
and (3) sources in English.54 Admittedly, what distinguishes primary and secondary
Japanese sources is not always clear-cut, since early pioneers sometimes commented
on the work of their colleagues or offered histories of Japanese Psychology. Despite this
reservation, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is usually valid.
Also, my attempt to balance a detailed exposition of Japanese Psychology with a more
general explanation of global psychological changes forces a certain selectivity, that
is, given the large corpus of relevant works, I can only offer a partial treatment of the
pertinent topics.
2
Historical Context: Japanese Cosmology

and Psychology as Secularized Theology
Japan’s premodern cosmology
This chapter investigates the meaning of Psychology as “secularized religion” by

describing the subtle interlinkages between religion, science, philosophy, and
Psychology in Japan. It then relates modern science’s subject–object dichotomy to the
intensification of the introscopic. But first, some intellectual background is provided
by exploring Japan’s premodern cosmology, “Japan’s first Psychologist” (Kamada Hō),
Neo-Confucianism, and the proto-Psychology of “heart‒mind learning.”
Kamada Hō: Japan’s first proto-psychologist?

As in the West, important predecessors in Japan explored what we would label the
psychological. During the Tokugawa period, discourses dealing with child rearing
and socialization qualify as psychological in nature (though they were not targets
of psychological inquiry). Consider Kamada Hō (Ryūō or Ryūkō) (1754–1821):
“one can say that with him our country’s [wagakuni, i.e., Japan] first Psychology
began to sprout.” 1 Kamada was born in Kii province and studied shingaku
(“learning of the heart‒mind”) under Ishida Baigan. He attempted to amalgamate
the theories of shingaku with elements of Dutch Learning and Buddhism. Two
of his relevant works are Kokoro no Kajistsu (Fruits of Heart–Mind, 1819) and
Shingaku Gosoku (Five Axioms of Mental Discipline, 1813).2 He divided psyche
into intellect, emotion, and desire and subdivided emotions into fourteen kinds.
Arguably, Kamada’s approach was “empirical,” and in 1940 Watanabe Tōru wrote
Kamada Hō as an Empirical Psychologist (Keikenteki Shinrigakusha toshite no
Kamada Hō). However, Takasuna points out that Kamada was a “Psychology-
oriented philosopher,” not a modern Psychologist,3 and no evidence exists that
Kamada and his disciples were active in developing Psychology as we think of it.
Kamada may have seen things from an “empirical” perspective, but he was not a
“positivist.”4 In any case, no direct continuity between his thought and the later
developments in Meiji era in regards to Psychology exists. Nevertheless, Kamada
lived in a world in which the groundwork for an introscopic worldview was being
formed.
Basic concepts: Laying the groundwork for the introscopic

As elsewhere, premodern Neo-Confucianist Japanese thought (see below) trifurcated
existence into the macro-, micro-, and introcosm. The three realms came together
in an “anthropocosmic understanding.” As in other cosmological systems, an
“interconnectedness” of reality—rooted in a timeless Supreme Ultimate (taikyoku)—
manifested itself as shengsheng (literally, “life life”), or the “ongoing creativity and
renewal of nature” and the fecundity of the universe. The three cosms reflected each
other, together comprising a complex system of correspondences among the elements,
seasons, directions, colors, and virtues.5
The fabric of the universe was woven from ri and ki (corresponding to the
Chinese li and qi). The latter can be translated as the vital essence of the cosmos. It
is a pneumatic or energetic substratum, an ether-like or ethereal, gaseous matter that
links body with cosmos. This vital energy was conceived as a “unifying basis for the
interaction of self, society and nature.”6 It can also be understood as psychophysical
energy or a “psychophysiological power associated with blood and breath”
(incidentally, as evidence of an earlier mind-set, modern Japanese contains about
11,500 expressions with ki).7 It is used in concepts associated with various natural
processes, the atmosphere, the flavor or essence of something and for our purposes
we should note, with the psychological (i.e., mind, cognition, feeling, sentiments).
Ri, sometimes glossed as the defining pattern or principle of the cosmos, is the
inherent order configuring all phenomena, providing the form of all things and events.
Together, ri and ki accounted for the material, spiritual, and moral realms. Thinkers
viewed the relationship ri and ki in different ways. Some took a more monistic
approach and proposed a nondualistic integration of principle and vital material force.
Zhang Zai (1020–77) identified qi (Japanese: ki) with the Great Vacuity (taixu)—the
unmanifested aspect, while the Great Harmony was its manifested aspect. Others
advanced a more dualistic relation, while many offered a qualified dualism.
Another key concept that more obviously concerns the introcosm is kokoro.
Though often translated as “heart” (indeed, it could mean the heart as organ), a better
interpretation is “heart–mind” as it carried a broader sense that implicated the inner
workings of the individual’s psyche. For some, kokoro was the seat of our intelligence
and the most refined concentration of ki. Note that kokoro is the native Japanese
reading (kun-yomi) of the Chinese character (kanji) for heart, while the Japanese
reading of the original Chinese pronunciation (on-yomi) for the same kanji is shin, as
in the modern term for Psychology (shinrigaku).
Kyūri is another basic concept that can be traced back to Zhu Xi’s philosophy
(Chinese: quiongli). This designates the “cumulative process of perceiving
and comprehending” the ri that is accomplished by “exhaustively studying
the characteristics (of entities)” in order to “grasp the ri” (jinsei kyūri) and by
“investigating things to penetrate the ri” (kanbutsu kyūri).8 Originally, kyūri denoted
an empirical inquiry whose goal was to appreciate all being by embracing “larger
and larger functional systems.” It sought to synthesize knowledge, not analyze
information; to take a comprehensive perspective, not a specialized methodology; it
was an intuitive endeavor, not an objective, impartial effort; and its ultimate aim was
to obtain an understanding of human nature. The point of kyūri was to demonstrate
Historical Context 25
how macrocosm, microcosm, and introcosm were isomorphically related, not to

fragment existence into areas of expertise. Some equated kyūri with Western methods
of investigation. However, not all would; for example, Nishikawa Joken (1648–1724)
associated the “energetic and qualitative” ki with foreign science. In any case, ri is
still seen in many scientific terms today, such as butsurigaku (physics), byōrigaku
(pathology), seirigaku (physiology), rigaku (to denote a university faculty of natural
science), and Psychology (shinrigaku).9
Japan’s Neo-Confucianism
In response to perceived impractical and overly idealistic conventions and the
philosophical sophistication of Buddhism and mysticism of Daoism, Chinese
revitalized their traditional thought, creating what has become known as Neo-
Confucianism. This is associated with Zhou Dunyi (1017–73), Zhang Zai (1020–77),
Cheng Ho (1032–85), Cheng Yi (1033–1107), and Zhu Xi (1130–1200). Many
motivations were behind this renovation, but attempts to metaphysically justify
Confucianism resulted from an increased interiorization. Thus, individuation, a key
aspect of interiority, is apparent in the stress on “unique moral and spiritual cultivation
of each person.”10
Neo-Confucianism would have a salient impact in Japan. The works of Zhu Xi,
in the form of the Shushigaku (Zhu Xi School), were introduced in the Kamakura
period (1185–1333). This became the orthodox teaching of the shogunate (military
government). In 1790 the shogun made Zhu Xi’s philosophy the official ideology and
banned other versions of Neo-Confucianism. Even after the 1868 Meiji Restoration it
heavily influenced state policy. Neo-Confucianism organized all knowledge into three
levels: the cosmos (nature), society (political economics), and human nature (a focus
on moral cultivation). These do not completely correspond with the macro-, micro-,
and introcosmic perspectives, but they do overlap. Significantly, however, these levels
were to be understood intuitively, not in an objective, scopic sense.
An important Neo-Confucianist who promoted Zhu Xi’s brand of Neo-
Confucianism was Hayashi Razan (1583–1657). Though he was also an ordained Zen
monk, he was nevertheless critical of Buddhism. He also was opposed Christianity.
Hayashi founded the Shinto–Confucian sect called Rito–Shinchi Shinto.
Nakae Tōju (1608–48; called the “sage of Ōmi”) first studied Zhu Xi’s thought but
later became associated with the Yōmeigaku or School of Wang Yangming (from Neo-
Confucianist Wang Yangming, 1472–1529). He was a prolific writer. Some of his more
famous works include: Okina Mondō (Dialogue with an Old Man) and Kagami-gusa
(Mirror for Women). For Nakae, as for other thinkers of the time, our virtues were
grounded in humankind’s very nature. Cultivating them relates us to the cosmos.
Knowing Heaven meant knowing one’s own nature. Self-cultivation and improvement
was based on moral intuition more than intellect, and conscience was the “divine light
of heaven.”
Yamazaki Ansai (1618–82), a Buddhist monk, abandoned Buddhism and established
a school called Kimon. He also founded a sect he called Suika Shintō, which was a
precursor to Kokugaku (national learning). Kumazawa Banzan (1619–91), a student
of Nakae Tōju, studied Wang Yangming (Japanese: Ō-Yōmei) and wrote on philosophy
and economics. Influenced to some degree by ancient learning (kogaku), he also wrote
commentaries on the Confucian classics.
Yamaga Sōkō (1622–85), a disciple of Hayashi Ranzan, studied Shintō and
military sciences. He wrote Seikyō Yōroku (Basics of the Sacred Teachings) and
Chūchō Jijutsu (1669), a historical work. Yamaga laid the foundations for bushidō
(way of the warrior). Itō Jinsai (1627–1705) began by studying Zhu Xi but eventually
switched to an investigation of Wang Yamgming. He established his own philosophy
and school called Kogi-gaku (or Horikawa-gaku), which is a branch of the Kogaku-
ha (School of Ancient Learning). He opened a school in Kyoto called Kogidō (Hall of
the Ancient Learning) and founded a second school, Fukko-ha. Itō stressed makoto,
“sincerity of the heart” and opposed study of nature and political economics. He
wrote Treatise on the Ultimate (Taikyoku-ron), Seizen-ron (On the Natural Goodness
of the Human Being), Shingaku Gen-ron (Principles of Spiritual Study), and Go Mōjigi
(Commentaries on the Analects, 1683). He is important because he influenced a
number of Neo-Confucian scholars, including Ogyū Sorai.
Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728; sometimes called Butsu Sorai) studied medicine and
Confuciansim and was an adviser to the shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune. He wrote
Seidan and Bendō. He opposed Zhu Xi’s philosophy and his thinking was significant
for the development of rationalism in Japan. A disciple of Ogyū Sorai, Dazai Shundai
(1680–1747), wrote Keizairoku (Discussions on Economics, 1729) and Keizairokushū-i
(Discussions on Economics, Part 2).
Some Japanese intellectuals would carry out advanced philological research in
order to verify what we might call historical processes, institutional changes, and
phenomena in general. In general, Neo-Confucianist thought was conservative in its
stance toward what we would call techno-scientific innovation. In contrast to such
thinking, certain forms of thought eventually evolved a more practical outlook on
the world. “Practical learning” (jitsugaku; Chinese: shixue) saw the value of Western
science and technology, specifically medicine, botany, agriculture, geography,
mathematics, calendrical astronomy, and military inventions, for improving political
economic institutions. Miyazaki Yasusada (1623–97) would write about agricultural
innovations. Related to practical learning was the notion of kaibutsu, or “revealing
the nature of things” or “opening up of things” with the intention of making use of the
natural world. However, in premodern Japan the closest concept to “nature,” shizen,
conveyed a metaphysical sense as a self-existent entity or as the ground of all being.
For example, Kaibara Ekiken, in an effort to find the inherent unity of the natural
and moral worlds, searched for a universal principle to provide a basis for human
morality. Nevertheless, a more practical approach to phenomena such thinking
would be crucial for the eventual development of the natural sciences.
Just as significant as developments in the sciences, novel ways of thought resulted in
proto-conceptions of “society.” Here the latter term is to be understood in the sense of a
constellation of institutions that were human-made and thus amenable to changed and
even improvement. Ri was becoming regarded as not just as a cosmological principle
but as “law,” or a set of applicable rules for the human condition. Satō Nobuhiro (1769–
1850) epitomized the new attitude toward social institutions. A student of Dutch, he
attracted to the modern political institutions of the West and studied the latest works on
geography, history, and military tactics. A proto-nationalist, he advised the authorities

on coastal defense (specifically against the Russians) and envisioned a new governing
structure that would enrich and expand Japanese power.
Many of these intellectual trends found expression in the samurai and Neo-
Confucian Kaibara Ekiken11 (or Ekken; 1630–1714) and in his Records of Great
Doubts (Taigiroku). Ekiken argued against withdrawal from the world, quietism, or
transcendental rationalism. He was interested in practical learning (jitsugaku), and he
was interested in a careful, empirical investigation of nature. He himself was a herbalist
and botanist and wrote a study of Japanese plants called Yamato Honzō or Flora of
Japan. His philosophy might be called “vitalistic naturalism.”12 Ekiken attempted
a synthesis between Confucianism and Shintoism (on which he wrote important
histories) and made important contribution to reinterpret the Neo-Confucianist
thought into an idiom suitable for ordinary Japanese. Kaibara Ekiken stated that tenchi
(Heaven and Earth) has provided us with a kokoro and equipped us with meitoku or
Five Virtues: human kindness, a sense of justice, knowledge of correct social conduct,
wisdom, and trustworthiness. He wrote over one hundred works (though some may
have been composed by his wife), including Precepts for Children (Wazuko Dōjikun)
and Greater Learning for Women (Onna Daigaku, 1733). These can be viewed as “self-
help” manuals for the moral cultivation of commoners.
The proto-psychology of “heart–mind learning”

Japan’s socioeconomic system underwent dramatic changes in the later Tokugawa
period. These changes included a burgeoning middle class that, since it began to
pursue profits rather than status maintenance, threatened the stability of a caste system
that positioned the merchants on the bottom of the political economic pyramid (i.e.,
warriors–peasants–artisans–merchants). At the same time, attempts were made to
accommodate “men of talent” (jinzai) and competent administrators required to
stabilize the impact of economic transformation. In addition to the “cultivation of
talent” and fostering “human resources,” a recognition of increasing individuation
and “desirous hearts” emerged. “Learning of the heart–mind” (shingaku) was an
ideological effort to both understand and deal with new politico-psychological
configurations.13
As in other parts of the world, an introscopic view of our innermost being was not
yet in place. Nevertheless, in the same way that Locke and Descartes were giving more
attention to the contents of interiority, early modern Japanese thinkers also viewed
what we call psychological processes in a more explicit fashion. That they possessed a
sense of individuated self-hood is apparent in how they developed sophisticated ideas
of the heart–mind. 14
The term shingaku dates from Lu Chiu-Yuan (1139–93; also known as Lu Hsiang-
Shan), who advocated an “introspective and meditative approach to illumination.”15
In Japan shingaku became associated with Ishida Baigan (1685–1744) and his student
Tejima Toan (1781–86). Shingaku was a premodern, moralistic philosophy of heart–
mind cultivation, so we should be cautious in drawing any direct linkages between
it and a modern, scientific Psychology. It was non-empirical and it certainly was
nonexperimental. Also, it must be stressed, shingaku was basically conservative. It did

not see the value of radically questioning the individual’s role in social arrangements
or pursuing rigorous methodological investigations. Nevertheless, to the degree
that it was a response to changing socioeconomic conditions that focused on the
psychological, shingaku was an early attempt to come to terms with the psyche.
A farmer’s son who became an apprentice to a merchant house, Baigan began
lecturing on shingaku in 1729 (he actually used seigaku or the “philosophy of nature
cultivation”). Though basically Confucianist, his philosophy contained elements
of Daoism, Buddhism, and Shintōism. Baigan seemed to acknowledge that each
individual, even if from the lower strata, contained an introcosm that required
thoughtful fostering. Thus, he explained moral education in simplified terms and
popularized ethics among the common people. In 1739 he published Tohi Mondō
(Questions and Answers between City and Countryside) and Seika-ron (1774), which
argued for the linkage between patriarchy and good government. Eventually, Baigan’s
disciples established eighty-one schools with the encouragement of the political
authorities. In 1806, his followers published Ishida Sensei Goroku (Sayings of Master
Ishida).
For Tejima Toan, the idea was to recover and cultivate one’s original innate nature
(sei). Toan used the term honshin (“original heart–mind”) instead of sei. Ideally,
self-cultivation would lead to a fusion of sei (nature or innermost temperament)
and sei (empathy or outermost temperament) (the latter “sei” is a different Chinese
character than the former). One’s inner essence was originally good and pure, but
it becomes corrupted and selfish. Purifying one’s inner being and recovering the
honshin (“original heart”) lead to ware nashi (egolessness) and shian nashi (“non-
ratiocination”).16 Whatever the terminology, the motivation was to stabilize society
by cultivating one’s introcosm.
Self-cultivating the introcosm

Self-cultivation was premised on an essential unity between the cosmic order and
the individual psyche. As a miniature version of the cosmos, the introcosm was a
repository of moral virtues that were paired with their cosmic counterpart, for example,
humanness (Chinese: ren) was “seen as the source of fecundity and growth in both
the individual and the cosmos.” This is why Wang Yangming believed that principle
(ri) existed within the heart a priori and is known intuitively. It was one’s duty to
participate in the transformation of the universe and to understand the “workings of
Heaven.” By “forming one body with all things” (banbutsu ittai) and by “practicing
humanness, one could effect the transformation of things in oneself and in society and
in the cosmos.”17
Interiorization had not reached the point of clearly distinguishing between inner
and outer in a psychological sense. This is a very modern notion; in the cosmic
world public action and private morality were not segregated, so that thinking
and doing were not necessarily clearly differentiated. Personal desires from social
obligations were thought to ideally coincide, so that one thought was the business
of the authorities. The micro-, macro-, and introcosm were reflections of each other.
Ontology was equated with morality, cosmology with norms, and the universe with
the individual.
For example, Yamazaki Ansai gave the human condition a “mytho-metaphysical
sacred character.” Human affairs were “talked about in creative or godly terms and
divine matters and talked about in human categories.” The psyche was the dwelling
place of the gods or divine forces; the physical body, psyche, society, and the realm of
the gods were conflated.18 Ansai’s attempt to come to terms with interiorization took
an interesting form and involved an objectifying of his self. This suggests an awareness
of a clear subject/object distinction that is a key ingredient of modernity. Ansai
instituted a cult to his self, which revolved around a shintai or sacred object (actually
a small pillar). This object symbolized the heart–mind, the four norms (human-
kindness, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom), the five relationships (parent–child,
lord–minister, husband–wife, elder–junior, friend–friend), and other virtues. The
sacred object was thus “a composite of the physico-ethical normative coordinates that
constitute man.” The cult was not to himself, but to his “self,”19 that is, the introcosmic
aspect of ultimate being. Psychologically speaking, the cult highlighted a self-
reflexivity, a key feature of interiorization.
At the more explicitly political level, individuation was intensifying. As allegiances
became more directed to one’s domain rather than one’s lord and relations became
increasingly more abstract and less kinship oriented, more generalized concepts began
to emerge; rather than filial piety (kō), an emphasis on loyalty (chū) began to appear.
Eventually, movements, such as the Mito School, prepared the intellectual ground for
a more state-centered loyalty to the emperor.
Scopic perspective and new spatialities in Japan

Thanks to information from the Dutch, the Japanese obtained knowledge of world
geography that was not very different from contemporary Europe. The first globe of
the world was made by Shibukawa Shunkai (1639–1715) in 1690. Throughout the
1700s and 1800s, Western instruments were used to survey and map Japan, often with
impressive accuracy. In 1792 the painter Shiba Kōkan (1747–1818) published a world
map called Complete Map of the Earth (Chikyū Zenzu). In 1823, Yoshio Shunzō (Nankō)
(1787–1843) published Ensai Kanshô Zusetsu (Map of Far Western Meteorological
Observations), which was apparently based on earlier works by Martinus Martens and
Johannes Florentius Martinet.
Meanwhile, the introduction of new optical instruments transitioned Japanese
society from a cosmic to a scopic worldview. Tokugawa Ieyasu was given a telescope
by the English captain John Saris in 1614, only six years after its invention by
Dutchman Hans Lippershey in 1608. Eventually the use of refracting telescopes
spread throughout Japan. In 1831 Kunitomo Ikkansai (1778–1840), a former gun
manufacturer, built Japan’s first reflecting telescope of the Gregorian type. It is not
known when microscopes first entered Japan, though descriptions of these optical
devices appear in the 1720 book Nagasaki Night Stories Written (Nagasaki Yawasō)
and later in Saying of the Dutch (1787). While the scopic focus of the Europeans
was microbes and cellular organisms, the Japanese used the microscope in order to
create detailed entomological illustrations (entomology was also extremely popular

in premodern Japan).
The Copernican heliocentric doctrine did not arrive in Japan until the late
eighteenth century. The astronomer and physician Asada Gōryu (1734–99) in
1769 did note that foreigner astronomers did not believe the earth was the center
of universe, but it would take some time before Copernican heliocentrism had an
impact. Shizuki Tadao (1760–1886; also called Nakano Ryūho), a descendant of
the Shizuki House of Nagasaki Dutch translators, introduced Newton’s heliocentric
system into Japan in his Rekishō Shinsho (New Text on Transitive Effects, 1798). This
was a translation of the Dutch edition of John Keil’s (1671–1721) Introductio ad
Veram Physicam.
Psychology as secularized theology
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, proto- and early Psychology
had an interesting role to perform in making clearer the boundary between
“science” and “religion.” Here it should be noted that the assumption that
science and religion are natural-born enemies is a twentieth-century bugbear.
Through much of the nineteenth century, science was thought by not a few to
be, like religion, an “uplifter of humanity, a rational life-enhancing force that
would lead humanity away from superstition.” 20 Many scientific endeavors were
not intended to be antireligious and the received notion that science developed
independently of religious thought is “patently false.” Indeed, scientific
positivism was successful precisely because early on it avoided direct conflict
with religious doctrine. 21
The following sections rely on the framework of the introcosmic–introscopic
transition. I first provide comparative perspective on the aforementioned intellectual
linkages as they developed in the West. I do this by utilizing the problematic of
“reason” and the nature of the soul became central concerns (not a few believed that
the latter could be scientifically investigated). Then I examine how new categorizations
of knowledge (i.e., religion, philosophy, and science) and the subject‒object issue were
implicated in early Japanese Psychology.
The metaphysics of reason

In premodern times the micro-, macro-, and introcosm were believed to somehow
correspond. However, the major concern was on how the former two reflected each
other. The introcosm certainly played a role, but it was not considered as salient.
Modernity, of course, would change all this and this can be seen in how the introcosm
was gradually transformed into an active, surveying “observation post” centered
within the individual, detached from the both the microcosm and macrocosm. In the
Western tradition, this ability would be thought of as “a rational faculty,” while in
Tokugawa-period Neo-Confucianism, the heart–mind (kokoro) would perform a not
dissimilar function.
Though the notion that an important aspect of one’s humanness could grasp
abstract principles, universals, or general concepts can be found in classical times, it
was probably not until the 1800s that “reason” firmly became the intellectual faculty by
which individual could come to terms with the laws of nature. Besides being a guiding
principle, reason was also the “principle of order or lawfulness within nature which
the intellectual faculty apprehends.” The relation between our “thinking about reality
and reality itself was thus regarded as a non-distorting relation of ‘correspondence.’”22
In the 1700s, many key figures in what is sometimes too hastily called the “history
of Psychology” were primarily interested in epistemology, not the science of mind
per se. For them the study of mental capacities and limitations formed the basis of
philosophy, that is, the workings of mind, that is, reason, offered clues to philosophical
problems.
Despite the modern connotations of “reason,” it must be stressed that this concept
was a “thoroughly metaphysical assumption”; and it had political implications:
from “rational ethics” flowed rights of individuals. Reason was “not merely a
methodological tool for reasoning or planning, but a normative concept and a guide
to ultimate value.” The universe, after all, was not ethically indifferent. Reason, as a
metaphysical component, colored science, so that it was not value-free for most of
the nineteenth century, as evidenced in the works of Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste
Comte, John Stuart Mill, Henry Thomas Buckle, Marx, Ludwig Büchner, Walter
Bagehot, Herbert Spencer, and Hippolyte Taine. “Despite their scientific terminology,
they remained speculative systems.”23 Science was not blind method, but a system
to advance the “laws of progress” and society, and reason was primarily an abstract
or logical procedure rather than as an event in the soul or mind; the psychological
interiorization of reason would come later.24
Proto-psychology and the soul

From the late eighteenth through the nineteenth centuries, various stances about the
soul were propounded (the first and last are easily confused): “though the soul exists
we cannot analyze it”; “the soul exists and we can scientifically analyze it”; and “the soul
does not exist.” Consider French materialism and sensationism, which took important
steps toward a less theological understanding of the soul. Such thinking became
popular in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This line of thinking was
greatly influenced by Lockean empiricism and English utilitarianism. For example,
Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715–71) wrote De l’esprit (On Mind, 1758).25 He argued
that all our mental processes can be regarded as physical sensation, even “faculties”
such as thinking, memory, judgment. Locke’s empirical sensationism is most explicitly
advocated by Étienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715–80) and is especially evident in his
Essai sur l’origine des connaissances humaines (1746). His most important contribution
was Traité des sensations (1754), in which he methodically describes, by using a statue,
how an individual’s inner life results from external sensations and impressions. For the
philosopher Maine de Biran (1766–1824), whose work foreshadowed psychoanalysis,
psychopharmacology, educational Psychology, and phenomenology, the will was
realized by an active introspection. However, he realized that physiological approaches
would have to accompany any investigation into our “inner senses.” Victor Cousin
(1791–1867), a translator of classics, historian, philosopher, and educator, made
important contributions to what would become French Psychology. He was heavily
influenced by John Locke, Condillac, and German idealism (Hegel helped free him
from a Berlin jail). For Cousin, spiritualisme or a type of Psychology could be based on
a personnalité (inner awareness) that observes one’s self; for our purposes his attention
to introspection is significant.
The question of the study of the soul must be appreciated vis-à-vis the bifurcation
between moral philosophy and natural philosophy (what we now might label “natural
science” and “social science,” respectively). Most of the “major theorists in the early
1800s argued that mental and moral philosophy (Britain), psychologie (France),
pneumatology (Scotland), or metaphysics (as this discipline was still often called
throughout Europe) was different from natural philosophy (which came to be called
natural science or physics only in the 1830s).”26 How moral and natural philosophy
differed, of course, was the key and, for many, a troublesome issue when it came to
the soul.
“Traditional metaphysicians” wondered if a science of the soul could be scientific
and though some did believe such an endeavor was indeed possible, they did not
pursue such a project. “Natural metaphysicians,” the term Edward S. Reed uses to
describe thinkers, for example, Johannes Müller, Gustav Fechner, Rudolf Hermann
Lotze and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). These were transitional figures
who stood between traditional metaphysics and Psychology conceived as a natural
science.27 They attempted to “naturalize metaphysics,” to “study the soul scientifically,”
and to “create a natural science of the soul.”28 The rise of positivism and the discovery
of the conservation of energy would make natural metaphysics untenable. In any case,
attention to natural metaphysics is warranted because it influenced the first generation
of scientific Psychologists.
Much of nineteenth-century psychological thought “emerged from religions
apologists’ efforts to justify specific views of the deity or the soul.”29 In the early
1800s, the word “soul,” in the expression “science of the soul,” was not intended to
be a colorful term standing in for the more modern sounding mind; rather, it meant
a mysterious entity that just might be amenable to scientific scrutiny. What is now
deemed psychological evolved from subjects that were taught in the first-half of the
nineteenth century in America: intellectual philosophy, mental science, and mental
philosophy.30 Meanwhile, at around the same time, a division was developing between
the latter and “moral philosophy.”31 In the early and mid-nineteenth century, many
thinkers used “Psychology” in a way that, while not very alien to our understanding,
was still heavily informed by theo-philosophical and moralistic themes (though as
an illustration of what was to come, in an 1862 address at Heidelberg, Hermann
von Helmholtz recognized that a divorce had taken place between science and
philosophy).32 Meanwhile, others were using “Psychology” in a manner that is
more recognizable to the modern eye, for example, Herbert Spencer’s Principles of
Psychology (1855).
For many, then, the lines of scholarly pursuit that would converge in Psychology
were attempts to reconcile science and religion.33 In particular, Liberal Protestant
thought was deeply implicated in proto-Psychology and the origins of Psychology, as

well as in the diffusion of an increasingly psychologized society.34 Some clothed the
introcosm in an emerging scientific idiom. Examples include Joseph Haven (1816–74),
Francis Wayland (1796–1865), and Laurens Perseus Hickok (1798–1888).
Others, however, took a more ambiguous attitude toward what were regarded as
scientific encroachments into the sacred realm of the introcosm. Prior to works such
as Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859) the introcosm was considered independent
from the biological and physical realms.35 But the growing recognition of continuity
between animal and human species challenged the privileged position of the human
soul. The term “[P]sychology” gained “currency precisely at the time when [P]
sychology was about to become anything but the ‘study of the soul.’”36 Nevertheless,
framing moral issues in the psychological realm was desirable since principles and
values were supposedly not part of the determinist world of matter in motion.37 Those
who understood the psychological as intimately bound up with ethics, morality,
and philosophy were uncomfortable with materialistic and positivistic tendencies,
and Psychology was caught between science (physiology and medicine) and the
humanities (literature and philosophy). No clear disciplinary boundary separated
medicine, philosophy, and Psychology; indeed, these were often combined into a
single department.38 As late as 1900, religious educational institutions in America
preferred “moral philosophy” to Psychology and considered the latter a “dangerous
secularization of the soul.”39 It is significant that many who taught Psychology also
taught philosophy, education, or other specialties.40 Though Psychology departments
had been founded by around 1900, at many higher education institutions only one
or two Psychology courses were taught or an older vocabulary was used that had
the flavor of the proto-Psychology period: “moral philosophy,” “mental philosophy,”
“mental science,” “mental philosophy,” “intellectual philosophy,” or “ethics.”41
Religion, science, philosophy, and Psychology in Japan

The worldwide emergence of modern science caused an intellectual earthquake,
rearranging the landscape of knowledge forms. Consider religion. The “great religions
staged a remarkable resurgence after 1815” that “reveals a pattern of causation invisible
to national or regional specialists or specialists in one religious tradition.” 42 However,
it might be more accurate to claim that religion, as an explicit category of thought
distinct from political power and scientific investigation, emerged in the nineteenth
century.
As Japan modernized, a debate ensured about the differences among “philosophy,”
“thought” (shisō; now often meaning “intellectual history”), and “religion.”43 Indeed,
what we now label religion was, in premodern Japan, an aspect of governance, as
evident in terms such as saisei ittō (“one road of ceremony and administration”)
and seikyō itchi (“union of administration and instruction” or “uniting politics and
religions”). During the first fifteen years of the Meiji era, religion was translated with
“multiple combinations of Chinese characters referring to Buddhist sects, terms for
worship or ceremony, for faith or belief, for religions or philosophical doctrines or
schools and for religious or philosophical law or principles.”44 Religion was not yet
an abstract notion. Rather, what is now called shūkyō in Japan was expressed in more
concrete terms, such as “sect law” (shūhō), “sect doctrine” (shūshi), or “school” or
“lineage” (shū, kyō, ha shūmon).
When it came to what we now call “philosophy,” some thinkers, such as Nakae
Chōmin (1847–1901), contended that Japan lacked philosophy in the sense of
logical, systematic knowledge. Nishi concurred, but argued that in the past the
Japanese possessed inductive method and could relearn it.45 Some believed the task
of a Japanese philosophy was to understand Western philosophies.46 Incidentally,
for “philosophy” Nishi originally used hirosohi, a transliteration of “philosophia.” He
would also use kyūrigaku from the premodern Confucian notion of kyūri (Chinese:
quiongli; “getting to the root of the principle of things”); kikengaku; kitetsugaku; and
by the early 1870s, tetsugaku (currently used), a simplified form of kitetsugaku.47 Note
that these terms were invented by Nishi to distinguish Western philosophies from
Chinese and Buddhist thought.
From “heart–mind learning” to Psychology

Originally, Psychology “fell under philosophical, moral, ethical and religious studies.
This is very different from what we now consider to be Psychology.”48 Gradually,
however, a difference began to emerge between socially governing the psyche
from a moral perspective and the science of understanding the operations of the
psyche (Psychology). Satō and Takasuna argue that in pre-Meiji Japan attempts to
academically delimit the psychological should be distinguished from what we now
call Psychology because: (1) compared to Western philosophy there was no view of
human nature independent of ethics and religion; and (2) present-day Psychology
rests not merely on conceptual and empirical data but also on institutional and social
practices.49 The second point is well taken, but as for the first, note that even in the
Western tradition ethico-religious definitions of human nature among the educated
were dominant, vis-à-vis a more secular-scientific perspective, until quite late in the
nineteenth century.
No direct institutional or intellectual lineage connects a premodern, moralistic
shingaku (“learning of the heart–mind”) with a modern, scientific shinrigaku
(Psychology). However, in the same way that a religiosity would inform certain late-
nineteenth-century Euro-American versions of Psychology, Confucian moralism
colored the study of the psychological in Japan. This was apparent in the use of
shingaku (“learning of the heart-mind”). The title of a work by the Confucian moralist
modernizer, Nishimura Shigeki,50 illustrates this: the term shingaku is used in his
Lectures on Heart–Mind Learning (Shingaku Kōgi, 1885).
As in the Euro-American context in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the
study of the mind would transition from “philosophical Psychology” (tetsugaku-teki
shinrigaku) to a “scientific Psychology” (kagaku-teki shinrigaku). The former, with its
emphasis on logic and how to think rather than thinking itself, possesses a more cosmic
and moralistic flavor. The latter is associated with the “new” laboratory-oriented
Psychology. Until around 1890, Psychology for the most part as taught in Japan was
not modern, that is, not experimental. Rather, it was more similar to what was at
the time called mental philosophy and for some was categorized as a branch of the
humanities (rather than the natural sciences).51 Another way to view the intellectual
positioning of Psychology is to note that philosophy and the social sciences were split:
the former included Psychology, psychophysics, logic, and ethics, while the latter
included sociology, economics, and socialism (as a system of thought).52 The close
association of Psychology with ethics (rinrigaku) and logic (ronrigaku) is indicated
by how the latter three subjects would be combined into one chair at Tokyo Imperial
University. Indeed, as late as the 1930s the curriculum of higher schools listed not
shinrigaku, but “Psychology and Logic” (shinri oyobi ronri).53
The subject–object divide and the introscopic

Objectivity, or observing a phenomenon from a detached, impartial, and ostensibly
disinterested perspective, is a manner of thought to which we have become habituated.
Objectivity is premised on a clear subject–object split, but in the cosmic worldview,
the segregation between observer and observed was not so systematic, meticulous, or
comprehensive. The modern natural sciences are premised on methodological efforts
that cleanly split reality into observing experimenter (subject) and the scopically
observed (object). This “weird artificiality that Westerners obsess about”54 had been
due to increased interiorization, becoming more salient since at least the time of
Locke and Descartes. The subjective‒objective dichotomy forms, in fact, the basis of
modern scientific thought.55
Applied to the external world of nature, the objective approach to us now seems
unquestionably commonsensical. Applied to our selves, the “I” (subject)-versus-
“me” (object) stance is a feature of interiorization and implicates the psychological
processes of introception, self-narratization, individuation, self-reflexivity, self-
autonomy, and self-authorization. In the social sciences, for example, Psychology, the
subject‒object split is more problematic than in the natural sciences. Mind, because it
is the reasoning, knowing entity, is “not an ‘object’ and, therefore, can never be known
in the sense in which we know the natural world.”56 In the social sciences the object
is also a subject, that is, it possesses personal agency. Moreover, the observing subject
possesses an object, in the form of a given psychological process, which supposedly
may interfere with experimental procedures and objectivity.
The modernizer Nishi Amane recognized the significance of this distinction
and coined their respective Japanese equivalents—kyakkan and shukan. In order to
appreciate philosophy as an intellectual endeavor, Nishi felt he had to incorporate
the subject‒object divide. This segregation, while certainly not completely absent
from premodern thought, was somewhat alien to it. Indeed, one observer notes the
premodern Japan’s “natural aversion to the subject‒object distinction.”57 After all,
the cosmic vision sought a unifying monism, not a splitting of being into opposing
realms. The premodern impulse was to overcome the subject‒object distinction and,
by extension, any other dualism the latter distinction implied. However, this division
would be indispensable for the eventual acceptance of the “new” experimental
Psychology in Japan.58 In relation to all this, Nishi separated out shinri (literally,
“heart–mind principle”) and butsuri (literally, “physical principle”).59
As an illustration of the subject‒object relation, consider a book by the Zen

priest Hara Tanzan (1819–92). In 1873 he wrote Shinsei Jikken-roku, which might be
translated as An Experimental Record on Shinsei.60 This latter term, literally “the nature
of the heart–mind,” is not easy to translate, but its Buddhist connotations range from
the mind–nature, self-existing fundamental pure mind, the All, the Buddha-mind, to
the ultimate unity of mind and nature. It may also imply that “nature is the mind, mind
is Buddha,” or when one is enlightened, mind and nature are the same, but different
when we are ensnared in illusory thought. In other words, the separation of subject
from object (whether these are conceptualized as mind, nature, or the Buddha) is not
necessarily an undesirable state.
3
From Soul to Psyche: A Change of Mind

in Late Nineteenth-Century Japan
The process of separating the modern “mind” out from the premodern “soul” was
driven by massive political economic changes, as well as intellectual developments.
This chapter explores the “new mentality” of Meiji modernity in order to set the
stage for how Japanese Psychology was institutionalized. In keeping with the book’s
conceptual framework, this is accomplished through the lens of the introcosmic–
introscopic transition. This chapter also covers the pivotal contributions of Nishi
Amane who introduced modern social scientific ideas into Japan as well as the ideas
of other key intellectuals.
Transitioning from the introcosmic to the introscopic
Japanese Psychology is not a direct intellectual descendant of the earlier traditions

of seirigaku (“learning of the inherent principle linking cosmos to individual”) and
shingaku (“learning of the heart–mind”).1 Nevertheless, crucial linkages indicating
the change from an introcosmic and introscopic worldview are obvious.2 Consider
language.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, pre-psychological concepts such
as puneumateika (from puneumatica) and hishonomiya (probably from physiognomia)
make an appearance in works translated from the West. By the mid-nineteenth
century, proto-psychological terms began to appear in dictionaries in Japan. However,
before shinrigaku became standardized, an array of terms was used to designate the
psychological and Psychology.
In 1835, Takano Chōei (1804–50) translated Psychology as seishingaku (shin = god)
in his Seiyō Gakushi no Setsu (roughly, Theories of Western Philosophers).3 Buddhists
and Confucianists used shinseigaku (learning of the mind–nature) or shingaku
(learning of the heart‒mind). In his writings, the scholar of Dutch learning Hirose
Genkyō (1821–70) used shiirukyunde (or zuiirukyunde; from the Dutch zielkunde
for Psychology).4 In the first English–Japanese dictionary of 1862―the Eiwa Taiyaku
Shūchin Jisho5―Psychology appears as seishin wo ron zuru gaku or the “study that
theorizes about the mind/soul/heart/spirit/intention” (shin here is “heart,” not
“god”).6 Before shinrigaku stabilized in usage, terms such as dōtoku tetsugaku (moral
philosophy); seishin tetsugaku (mental philosophy), seishin kagaku (mental science),
keijijō-gaku (metaphysics; “what is above”), seishin-teki or shin-teki (“phrenics”),

shinseigaku and seishingaku (study of the mental) were used.7 Nishimura Shigeki used
shingaku and shinshōgaku or the “study of mental images,” an interesting term in how
it obviously highlighted the scopic–visual aspect of interiority. Nishi Amane used
seirigaku. However, because it was a homonym for physiology and associated with an
older worldview, it did not gain traction as the appellation for Psychology. Shinrigaku
appears in 1881 in the first philosophical dictionary (Tetsugaku Jii) compiled by Inoue
Tetsujirō,8 though it would be some time before its usage stabilized.9
The appearance of other Psychology-related words deserves comment.
“Consciousness” appeared as i wo mochiite mite (literally, “attempting to use ideas”)
in 1862. Ishiki, the word now used to mean consciousness, appeared in 1877. Other
related terms include “knowing oneself ” (jichi, 1869) and “perception” or “sensation”
(chikaku, 1867). “Idea” appeared as kangae (1862), omoi (1867), i (1869), i no (1873),
and kannen (1877).10
Psychology via translations
By the late 1880s, a number of books on Psychology, mostly in the American–British

tradition, had been translated or summarized into Japanese.11 Some historical context
is in order. In the 1830s and 1840s “Psychology” was used in American textbooks.
However, by the 1870s and 1880s, it acquired more legitimacy since it began to be
used in course titles. The first book in the English language to have “Psychology” in
the title appeared in 1840 in the United States. Called Psychology, or a View of the
Human Soul including Anthropology, it was written by Frederick Augustus Rauch
(1806–41), a theologian, classicist, and natural historian, who became president of
Marshall College (now Franklin and Marshall College).12 In 1842, Samuel Schmuker
published Psychology: Elements of a New System of Mental Philosophy or The Basis of
Consciousness and Common Sense (see Appendix 3, which lists the different parts and
versions of Nishi’s renditions).
The first translation of a work on Psychology was by Nishi Amane, published in
1875 by the Ministry of Education: Joseph Haven’s 1857 Mental Philosophy Including
Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (see below). Other translations by Inoue Tetsujirō
(1882, 1883), Abo Tomoichirō and Ise Tsu (1886), Matsushima Tsuyoshi et al. (1886),
Morimoto Kakuya and Tanimoto Tomeri (1887), and Yajima Kinzō (1886) introduced
Alexander Bain’s ideas. Waku Masatatsu introduced the Psychology of James Sully
(1887) and in 1889 Yajima Kinzō did the same for James M. Baldwin’s writings.
Significantly, many of the translated Psychology works were education-related. In 1877,
the curriculum for secondary-level normal schools (chūgaku shihan gakka) included
Francis Wayland’s The Elements of Intellectual Philosophy and later Nishi’s translation
of Haven’s book on Psychology (Heben-shi Shinrigaku). From 1885 at Tōkyō Eiwa
Gakkō (later Aoyama Gakuin University), Haven’s ideas were taught and eventually
texts by William B. Carpenter and Sully were adopted. Joshi Eigaku Juku (later Tsuda
Juku University) used a translation of G. T. Ladd’s work. At Keiō Gijuku (later Keiō
University) Bain’s Mind and Body (1872) was utilized in 1881 (see Appendix 4).13
From Soul to Psyche 39
Snapshot Alexander Bain

Bain (1818–1903), a Scottish philosopher and a key figure in British Psychology
during the nineteenth century, was an educationalist, grammarian, rhetorician,
and held a chair of logic at Aberdeen. Bain was not a psychologist though his
contributions substantially developed the discipline’s autonomy. His work
spanned much of the nineteenth century and he “stands exactly at a corner in the
development of Psychology, with philosophical Psychology stretching out behind
and experimental physiological Psychology lying ahead in a new direction.”14 In
1876 he founded Mind, a philosophical journal that dealt with the psychological
and wrote the two most influential Psychology texts to appear before the twentieth
century.15 His The Senses and the Intellect (1855) and The Emotions and the Will
(1859), which were repeatedly revised, remained standard British psychological
texts until the early twentieth century. He also wrote The Study of Character (1861),
Manual of Mental and Moral Science (1868), and Mind and Body (1872). He linked
physiology to Psychology and investigated reflexes, instinct, and voluntary action.
Though he never used “psychophysical parallelism,” this was the premise from
which he viewed the mind–body problem.
Snapshot Mental Philosophers: Wayland,

Carpenter, Sully
Francis Wayland (1796–1865) was an American Baptist educator, professor of
natural philosophy, and president of Brown University and educational reformer,
who wrote Elements of Moral Science (1835; which was repeatedly revised and
translated into foreign languages) and Elements of Intellectual Philosophy (1854).
William B. Carpenter (1813–85) was an English physiologist and naturalist who
did much to advance what might be called the “adaptive unconscious” (perception
occurs outside of conscious interiority; the physiologist and physicist Hermann
Helmholtz had made the same observation). The implications of nonconscious
operations were not fully appreciated until the cognitive revolution of the late
1950s and 1960s. He wrote Nature and Man: Essays Scientific and Philosophical
(1888). James Sully (1842–1923), an English Psychologist, advocated
associationism. In addition to his education at Independent College, he studied
at the University of Göttingen and Humboldt University. He taught philosophy
of mind and logic at University College, London (1892–1903) and authored
Sensation and Intuition (1874), Teacher’s Handbook of Psychology (1886), The
Human Mind (1892), Studies of Childhood (1895), and Children’s Ways (1897).
Here we should note that a number of translated education-related Psychology

works began appearing in the 1880s. For example, in 1886 Ariga Nagao16
produced Kyōiku Tekiyō Shinrigaku Jō (Psychology Applied to Education 1), a
translated and edited version of James Sully’s 1884 Outlines of Psychology. Yumoto
Takehiko introduced the work of Bernhard Maass in his 1888 Shogakkō Kyōshi
Yō Shinrigaku Tekiyō (Outline of Psychology for Elementary School Instructor Use)
and his 1889 Gakkō Jitsuyō Shinrigaku Dai-1 (Psychology for Use in Schools).
In 1885, Tanaka Tōsaku wrote Kyōiku Shinri Ronri–Jutsugo Shōkai (Explanation
of Educational Psychology and Logic Terminology). 17 In 1902, Tominaga Iwatarō
wrote Kyōiku no Jissai ni Ōyō Shitaru Shinrigaku (Psychology Applied to Practical
Education).
Nishi, his translation of Haven, and shinrigaku

Nishi is often credited with coining the Japanese word for Psychology
(shinrigaku). The truth is more complicated. He did in fact create the term
shinrigaku, though he did not use it to mean Psychology. 18 Nishi used shinrigaku
as an abbreviation for shinrijō no tetsugaku, which means “intellectual” or
“mental philosophy,” 19 when he translated Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy
Including Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (translated in three parts, during
1875–76). 20 Shinri, then, originally meant not Psychology but “intellectual” (or
perhaps more literally “principles of the heart–mind”). For Psychology Nishi
actually preferred seirigaku, an older Neo-Confucian term, translatable as the
“learning of the inherent principle uniting the cosmos and the individual” (or
“learning of human nature and natural principles”). By investigating seirigaku,
the rules of thinking and logic are revealed, allowing us to question tradition
and authority and affording ourselves self-knowledge. Such an endeavor was
necessary to achieve social—indeed, universal—harmony at the macro- and
microcosmic levels. In other words, the introcosmic principles of the heart–
mind must be in balance so as to ensure good government. For Nishi and his
contemporary Japanese intellectual reformers, “morality itself was essential.” 21
Nishi’s views of the psychological, then, suggest an introcosmic worldview,
though his faith in science did not completely rule out an introscopic
perspective.
Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities and Will was written in 1857 by
Joseph Haven (1816–74). Mental Philosophy was an ethico-philosophical and moral
work; it was not on experimental, research Psychology. Nevertheless, the translation of
Haven’s book opened up a new way of viewing the psychological: Nishi noted that the
“subdivisions” of the psyche in Haven’s work are “even finer than what the Confucian
scholars in China teach.”22 Nishi wrote other works that investigated the psychological:
On the Relation of Emotion to Intellection (Jōchi-kankeiron, 1871) and Notes on the
Physical and the Spiritual (Seisei Tōki; begun in 1873 but never finished). Written in
old Chinese style (kanbun), it was explicitly about the psychological and stressed the
role of the will.23
Snapshot Joseph Haven

A minister, theologian of Chicago Theological Seminary, and professor of
Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Amherst College, Haven (1816–74) was an
intellectual successor of the Scottish faculty Psychology. He became well known
for his Mental Philosophy Including Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (1857). His Moral
Philosophy: Including Theoretical and Practical Ethics (1859) also affords a sense of
his interests. This work, apparently influenced by Sir William Hamilton, discusses
sensation, memory, imagination, instinct, sensibilities, and will.
The new mentality of Meiji modernity

Historical background to Japan’s new Psychology
Mid-nineteenth-century Japan was politically decentralized, divided into almost
300 han (domains) loosely held together by the shōgun.24 Though a strong tradition
of Confucian bureaucracy configured political structures, a centralized state in the
modern sense did not yet exist. Though what might be called “proto” nationality was
evident among the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago, marked regional cultural
differences played an important role.
In the mid-nineteenth century, calls for political reform became increasingly
strident. Commodore Perry’s arrival at Uraga on July 8, 1853, signaled the beginning
of the new relationship that a cautious Japan was to have with the outside world.
The signing of the Treaty of Friendship between Japan and the United States on
March 31, 1854, was followed four years later by the Commercial Treaty between
Japan and the United States (July 29). This was followed by agreements with other
countries. It was within this context that a self-selected group of ambitious Japanese
patriots embarked on a determined enterprise of national state building in order to
protect their homeland from the invasion and exploitation they witnessed in nearby
nations. Their actions, along with other complex developments, would culminate
in the Meiji Restoration of 1868, which initiated the period lasting until 1912 with
the same name, which means “Enlightened Reign.” On February 13, 1867, Prince
Mutsuhito, later to become the Meiji Emperor, was enthroned. On November 9
of the same year, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the last shōgun, returned power to the
Emperor, ending bakufu (“tent government”) authority over Japan. On January 3,
1868, the new Emperor declared the Great Command of the Imperial Restoration
(Ōsei Fukko no Daigōrei) and about three weeks later, the Emperor’s army, along
with supporters from Satsuma and Chōshū, defeated the Tokugawa troops at Toba
and Fushimi near Kyoto. About two and a half months later on April 6, the Imperial
Oath of Five Articles (Gokajō no Goseimon) was declared, outlining the basic
policies of the new political order. The Fifth principle stated that “Knowledge is to
be obtained from the whole world and the foundation of the Empire is always to
be strengthened.” A little over two months later, the Form of State (Seitaisho) was
issued and the Grand Council of State (Dajōkan) was established as the central state
organ on June 17, 1868.
As in other parts of the world, to be “Western was to be modern.” Associated with the
modern West were objectiveness, scientific approaches and making all matters “manageable
and controllable.”25 A general sentiment that society can be engineered to move forward
was advanced by the “civilization and enlightenment” (bunmei kaika) movement, which
by the 1870s impacted clothing, architecture, manners, science, political economics,
and the military. But much of what occurred in Japan was indigenously decided; it was
the Japanese themselves who selected, modified, and improvised forms of knowledge
from abroad. Indeed, Japan’s elites sought to realize their ambitions by building on an
older bureaucratic tradition in order to orchestrate a controlled “revolution from above.”
This was accomplished not by promulgating a constitution, establishing a parliament,
or forming political parties. These would come later. Rather, the first state structures set
up by the new elite were the ministries charged with guiding Japan along the path of
catch-up modernization (not Westernization). These state agencies were intended to be
free from the push and pull of clannish political circles and particular interests. Also, the
ministries were never intended as neutral policy-implementing organs but were placed
firmly under the control of the elite in order to carry out their agenda. The elite realized
that in order to accomplish their grand plan of guarding Japan against foreign incursions
and maintaining their own power, the populace would have to follow along and this
would require massive education and psycho-socialization projects.
Though often framed within the context of maintaining some essentialist “cultural”
identity, four-character sayings such as “Japanese spirit, Western technology” (wakon
yōsai) and “honor the Emperor, expel the barbarians” (sonnō jōi) acted as intellectual
guideposts which condensed powerful sentiments of constructing an independent and
confident national state on par with Western imperialist powers. Other pithy slogans,
such as “enrich the nation, strengthen the army” (fukoku kyōhei), “increase production,
promote industry” (shokusan kōgyō), and “catch up and surpass the West” (oitsuki
oikose) revealed where visions of nation consolidation, state-building, and economic
empowerment intersected. These slogans may now sound like out-of-date clichés, but
their spirit at least has been institutionalized in state core structures that in no small
measure would shape policies, as well as psychological understandings, to this day.
The Meiji Restoration, then, was the culmination of both external and internal
pressures for political change, set in motion processes of nationalization (convincing the
inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago of how “Japanese” they were), bureaucratization
(building state institutions), and rationalization (economic expansion through
capitalism) that would set Japan on the course of modern development.
The political economics of psychological processes

In the Tokugawa period, a “moral system of orderly social relations” was established
by the authorities who attempted to stabilize society.26 This was done by fixing one’s
position and collectivizing occupational identity within a “four-order” status system
(samurai, peasants, artisans, or merchants). Japan’s modernization brought with it
capitalist industrialization and constitutionalism, that at least ostensibly advocated
“equality among citizens” (shimin byōdō) that would replace the “four-order”
system. The dismantling of the caste system saw peasants disengage from the land
and townspeople released from guild associations. Such emancipatory developments
would alter psychological processes by enhancing self-autonomy.
By the late nineteenth century, translations of Western political economic works
resonated with the view that the individual is the basic unit of society and German
idealism, English empiricism, French rationalism, and American pragmatism were
all being eagerly studied by Japanese intellectuals. The thinking of Jeremy Bentham,27
François Guizot,28 Ernst Haeckel,29 Thomas Henry Huxley,30 Charles Darwin,31 J.S. Mill,32
and Walter Bagehot33 all played their part.34 Katō Hiroyuki introduced Thomas Hobbes35
and Spencer,36 and the philosopher Nakae Chōmin (1847–1901), the “Rousseau of the
East,” introduced the works of Montesquieu37 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.38
Economic individuation
As Japan industrialized, economics became not just a productivist effort tied to one’s
occupational status, but a consumerist endeavor, an exercise of autonomous individuals
making choices. The translation endeavors of Japanese intellectuals acted to legitimate
postfeudal, modernized economics. In Seiyō Jijō (Things Western, 2 vols., 1866 and 1870),
Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835‒1901) discussed economic liberalism the “natural rights of man.”
Property, under the direct control of the individualized unit (i.e., private ownership), was
justified as “natural,” as were, by implication, profits, rent, and interest. He saw value in
laissez-faire economic liberty (not necessarily political liberty); specifically, he proposed
that the state should not interfere with agricultural, industrial, and commercial affairs.
In 1867 the government official Kanda Kōhei (1830–98) put into Japanese William
Ellis’ Outlines of Social Economy (1846).39 Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) was
translated during 1884–88 and though David Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy
and Taxation (1817) was known in the early Meiji era, it was not translated until 1921
by Hori Tsuneo (interestingly, the taxation sections were omitted; a complete translation
appeared in 1927 and 1928, by Koizumi Shinzō and Hori, respectively).
The diplomat and statesman Hayashi Tadasu (1850–1913), along with Suzuki
Shigetaka, translated J.S. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy in 1874–84. J.B. Say’s
Traité d’économie politique, ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se
distribuent et se consomment les richesses (1803) was partially translated by Murota
Atsuyoshi in 1873 and a full translation was completed in 1926 by Masui Sachio.
Thomas R. Malthus’ Essays on the Principle of Population (1798) was translated in
1877 by Ōshima Sadamasu (1854–1914),40 who also translated Friedrich List’s Das
Nationale System der Politischen Okonomie (National System of Political Economy,
1841). In addition to translations, a number of original works on economics were
penned by Japanese. For example, the historian Taguchi Ukichi (1855–1905) wrote
Nihon Keizai-ron (On the Japanese Economy, 1878) and in 1879 founded the Tōkyō
Keizai Zasshi (Tokyo Economic Review), the Economic Discussion Group (Keizai
Danwa-kai), and the Tokyo Economics Association (Tōkyō Keizaigaku Kyōkai).
Taguchi was influenced by David Ricardo (1772–1823), John Stuart Mill, and the
British manufacturer and free-trader Richard Cobden (1804–65). He opposed
protectionism and argued for economic liberalism. The economist Amano Tameyuki
(1859–1938), who served as president of Waseda University, wrote Keizai Genron

(Theory of Political Economy, 1886). In 1891 Amano translated Mill’s Principles of
Political Economy (Kōtō Keizai Genron) as well as John Neville Keynes’ 1890 Scope
and Method of Political Economy (Keizaigaku Kenkyūhō) in 1897.41 Amano founded
the Oriental Economic Review (Tōkyō Keizai Shinpō) in 1890.
The first American economist whose writings were introduced into Japan was
Francis Wayland (1796–1865). A minister and president of Brown University, he
authored Elements of Political Economy (1837) and advocated free trade in the classical
liberalism tradition.42 Dwight Whitney Learned,43 who taught at Dōshisha College
(now Dōshisha University), used materials from Manual of Political Economy (1863;
published in Japanese in 1879), written by the English statesman Henry Fawcett.44
Learned compiled these materials into Survey of Economics (no Japanese title), which
was eventually expanded into a book New Outline of Economics (Keizai Shinron) in
1886. The jurist Mitsukuri Rinshō (1846–97) partially translated Arthur Latham
Perry’s45 Elements of Political Economy (1866; later called Political Economy) in 1869,
1871, and 1876.46 Perry, a professor at Williams College, advocated free trade.
Political individuation
Ideas of constitutionalism, individual rights, and international law began to appear
in Japan in the mid-nineteenth century and political changes would resonate with
individuation: constitutional law, as least ostensibly, was premised on the autonomous
political actor and rights were understood as powers inherently residing within the
person. Nishi Amane and Tsuda Mamichi learned about international law and political
economy under Simon Vissering at Leiden Univeristy. Vissering, who would became
Holland’s Minister of Finance,47 was an advocate of free trade and classical liberalism
who was influenced by John Stuart Mill, the French classical liberal economist Frédéric
Bastiat (1801–50) and Henry C. Carey (1793–1879), an advocate of the “American
System” of developmental and controlled capitalism. In 1868 Nishi wrote Bankoku
Kōhō (Laws of the Nations), a translation of Vissering’s writings on international law
(Volkenregt). He also translated Natuurregt (Natural Law). In 1858 Tsuda wrote Taisei
Kokuhō-ron (Theory of Law in Western Countries), which was inspired by Vissering’s
Staatsregt (State Law). In 1874 he also translated Vissering’s Staatistik (Hyōki Teikō;
literally, “principles of tabular manifestation”).
How Japan’s entered political modernity requires comment. In England’s Glorious
Revolution and the French Revolution, the modern bourgeoisie played a leading role.
However, in Japan’s case it was the “former samurai and the nobility” who engineered
the 1868 Meiji Restoration. The “weaknesses of the bourgeoisie forces” simultaneously
hindered the growth of the liberal movement and bolstered the conservatives.48 Thus,
“Unlike its Western counterpart, the Japanese ‘enlightenment’ occurred after the
political revolution and contributed no ideological justification for the new state” until
after the Meiji state was well established. Late-nineteenth-century Japanese absorbed
the civilization of late-nineteenth-century expansionist Europe, not eighteenth- or
early-nineteenth-century revolutionary Europe. This explains why Fukuzawa took
nineteenth-century England, not eighteenth-century France, as a model for Japan’s
renovation.49 Populist aspirations for political liberties, as evident in the “people’s rights
and liberty movement” (jiyū minken undō), had to compete with more a pragmatic and
elitist, “economic security for the masses.”50
More than Enlightenment thinking, it was the nineteenth-century ideologies of
positivism and utilitarianism that attracted Japanese thinkers. The former ideology is
a faith in verifiable natural phenomena and their knowable properties. However, the
attitude of positivism was “one not of upheaval but of progress and order, which could
help stabilize a nation undergoing revolutionary changes.” For Japanese thinkers,
utilitarianism, or the ethical doctrine that regards the useful as good, became a “social,
not an individual, philosophy,” and some even searched for precedents in Confucianism to
support utilitarianism. Overall, many influential thinkers were more concerned with social
progress and stability rather than the nature of the individual or change for its own sake.51
To summarize Japan’s political-economic transformation of the late 1800s so far:
Economically, classical liberalism was influential and introduced a system of robust
property rights. However, this system would eventually be heavily tempered by state
guidance, a sort of collectivist capitalism. Politically, Japan would evolve into heavy-
handed statism that justified an imperialist constitutional monarchy. Such developments
were apparent in Japan’s German-authoritarianism-inspired Constitution of 1889.
Specifically, the German conservative student of public administration Lorenz von Stein
(1815–90) advised a Japanese delegation, headed by Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi (1841–
1909), to be wary of liberal party politics and to view the state as an agent of social reform.
The invention of “society” as the counterpart of individuation

Interiorization and exteriorization, as responses to social complexity, are both
abstracting processes. The former segregates the person from local communities and
highlights personal traits, while the latter incorporates the person into wider and wider
webs of identification. Both developments take the individual as the basic unit of the
human condition. While exteriorization resulted in new super-collectivities and supra-
communities that increasingly subsumed kinship networks, villages, and locales (e.g.,
“nation”)―the complementary process of interiorization cavitated a psychological
space within the person. Meanwhile, international law envisioned the state as a supra-
individualized collectivity operating within a community of other nations.
Industrial capitalism, political centralization, constitutional law, deliberative
assemblies, emphasis on individual mobility rather than status, and the techno-
scientific wonders of the second industrial revolution would be linked to “civilization
and enlightenment.” In 1870s and 1880s, these dizzying changes were understood
within the Spencerian notion of the “progress of human societies.” A new idea was
needed to conceptualize progress as it transpired at the collective level and to act as
the counterpart of the individuated person. In the West it was called “society,” and in
Japan shakai (coined by Inoue Tetsujirō). This was a “reified organic thing … amenable
to the political praxis and scientific speculation that were spreading in the 1880s.”
Society “enabled Japanese intellectuals to rethink Japanese society on a new scientific
basis and to produce new interpretations of Japan’s past, present, and future. As an
alternate to the concept of ‘the people,’ the idea of society facilitated new forms of
human agency and authorized political proposals intent on guiding the course of social
development.” Before 1880, no standard translation for “society” existed; “indeed, one
can insist that there was no such concept in Japanese.” Originally, terms designating
small face-to-face, self-selected, concrete groups (gangs, clubs, and guilds) that denoted
“associating” or “fraternizing” were employed. Kōsai (“interaction”)—as in “human
society” (ningen kōsai or hitobito kōsai)—and setai (“the human world”) would also be
used. In 1885 Tokyo Imperial University’s Department of Sociology changed its name
from Seitaigaku to Shakaigaku.52 Some used kaisha, a term that now means company
or corporation.
Snapshot Inoue Tetsujirō

Inoue Tetsujirō (1855–1944) would study in Germany from 1884 to 1889 at
University of Leipzig under Wundt and become a professor at Tokyo Imperial
University. He also visited G.T. Fechner in 1886. He would decisively determine the
character of modern Japanese philosophy and attempt to synthesize Confucianism,
Buddhism, and Western philosophies and become well known for his strong
opposition to Christianity and nationalism.
Evolutionism, “progress,” and self-realization

As the nation progresses, so does the self. Such a sentiment was reflected in the
popularity of Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help (Saigoku Risshi Hen), translated in 1871 by
the writer and professor Nakamura Keiu (1832–91). The Japanese edition of Self Help
sold a million copies and was still being republished in 1920.53 Meanwhile, Nakajima
Rikizō (1858–1918), a professor of ethics and philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University,
introduced the works of Thomas Hill Green,54 the English idealist philosopher and
ethical theorist. Green’s advocacy of a progressive self-realization was widely accepted
in Japan, signaling increased individuation.55
The key representative of the powerful leitmotif of evolutionary progress was
Spencer, who was arguably the most influential thinker in Japan during the 1880s.
Between 1877 and 1900, at least thirty-two translations and one critical study of
Spencer’s works appeared. His ideas were used to justify both conservative and
liberal agendas.56 Spencer, who believed in the progressive developmentalism of
all facets of existence (physical, biological, social, psychological), was very popular
among Japanese reformers and thinkers who were concerned with renovating
Japan’s political and economic institutions so as to catch up with the Western
powers.57
Whether Spencerian or Darwinian, evolution would play a central role in the
intellectual transformations witnessed by the industrializing world. In Japan, the
early sociologist Toyama Shōichi (Masakazu) (1842–1900) asked the American
zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838–1925) to teach at the University of Tokyo (from
1877), where Morse introduced evolutionary theory. Ishikawa Chiyomatsu (1861–
1935), a Japanese zoologist who graduated from the Department of Science at
University of Tokyo in 1882, translated Morse’s lectures (“Animal Evolutionary
Theory”) in 1883. Izawa Shūji (1851–1917), who became a principal of Tokyo

Higher Normal School, also translated parts of Darwin’s The Origin of Species
(1879). Takamine Hideo (1854–1910) and Kōzu Sensaburō (1852–97) were also
involved in introducing evolutionary theory into Japan. The latter three studied
biology in America and became either principals or teachers in normal schools in
Japan.58 In 1882, Noritake Kōtarō (1860–1909) translated Spencer’s The Principles
of Sociology (Shakaigaku no Genri; for which the early Japanese sociologist Toyama
Shōichi wrote a preface)59 and Ernest Fenollosa (1853–1908) also introduced
Spencerian thought. The Dutch scholar and political theorist Katō Hiroyuki (1836–
1916), who started out as an advocate of the liberal “freedom and people’s rights”
movement, switched to a conservative nationalism deeply colored by Prussian
statism and an extreme right-wing view of social Darwinian evolutionism. His
views are expressed in his Kyōsha no Kenri no Kyosō (The Struggle for the Rights of
the Stronger, 1893) and Dōtōku Hōritsu Shinka no Ri (The Theory of Evolution of
Morals and Laws, 1900).
Eventually, the model of progress shifted from a focus on “enlightenment”
to a more explicit concern with the “scientific.”60 This change involved a new
understanding of the psychological. For example, Inoue Tetsujirō, known for
his strong nationalist sentiments, would begin to view the functioning of psyche
underlying the technological achievements of the Western imperialist powers.61
Gradually, society became the target of state bureaucrats, reformers, and sundry
experts—such as social psychologists—on human nature. They would postulate a
host of “social problems” (shakai mondai) by the turn of the century that could be
“quantified, charted and acted upon.”62
Snapshot Herbert Spencer

In the ambitious scholarly hurricane that was Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) we
find a confident propagandist for the dominant faith of nineteenth-century
evolutionary progress. The certainty of science was replacing the comforts of
religion and belief in a purposeful universe in which humankind had reached the
pinnacle of cosmic development was very attractive. This undoubtedly explains
the contemporary popularity, which cannot be underestimated, of Spencer’s ideas
on biology, Psychology, sociology, and ethics. Though we do not now take his
ideas on social evolution seriously (which are not the same as Darwinian natural
evolution), for our purposes his Principles of Psychology (1855) is important.
Influenced by associationism and phrenology, it investigated the physiological
basis for psychological processes. For Spencer, an unfolding hierarchy from simple
sensations to more complex states indicated an evolutionary associationism. In the
United States alone, from approximately his first major publications until the late
1800s, Spencer’s thinking would greatly influence William James, John Dewey, G.
S. Hall, and E. L. Thorndike.
The introcosmic–introscopic transition

In Japan, the process of rationally accounting for the spiritual followed the same path
we find in the Euro–American orbit. More broadly, this process can be understood as
the introcosmic–introscopic transition. Below a number of key contributors to Japan’s
intellectual modernization are used to illustrate this change.
Nishi Amane and the way of Heaven

A singular figure in the introcosmic–introscopic transition was Nishi Amane
(1829–97), who is considered one of the most important thinkers of Japan’s Meiji-era
enlightenment. Among his many accomplishments, he was the director of the school
system at the Ministry of Military Affairs, a member of the House of Peers, President
of Tokyo Normal School, an administrator at the Ministry of Education, a founding
member of the Tokyo Academy (established in 1879), and an active member of the
Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society). He also gave lectures to the emperor. Well trained
in the Confucian classics, Nishi was heavily influenced by Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728)
and Zhu Xi, but his advocacy of Western studies and science earned him fame.
He “developed a new set of ideas” that represented a “synthesis of multiple sources
of Chinese and Japanese inspiration with contemporary European ideas.”63 He wrote
on logic, morality, law, and politics, but for our purposes it is his treatment of the
psychological that concerns us.
In 1862 the shogunate sent Nishi, along with Tsuda Shindō (Mamichi) (1829–
1903),64 to the Netherlands to study at the University of Leiden.65 There they studied
under Professor Simon Vissering (1818–88), who taught political economy, statistics,
and diplomatic history. At Leiden, Nishi also studied under Cornelis Willem
Opzoomer (1821–82), a Dutch professor of philosophy greatly influenced by Comte,
J.S. Mill, and Alexander Bain. From Opzoomer Nishi learned about the separation
of religion and scientific study. This is significant: presumably Nishi would realize
that modernization meant teasing scientific knowledge out from a cosmic worldview,
thereby fragmenting the isomorphic, monistic perspective into separate realms of
scopic inquiry.
In 1865, Nishi would return to Japan from the Netherlands and contribute
immensely to Japan’s modernization. He introduced utilitarianism, empiricism,
and positivism, translating John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism (Rigaku) in 1877.66
In Hyakuichi Shinron, or A New Theory on the Hundred and One (composed in
1866–67 but published in 1874), Nishi outlined the major currents of Western
thought. Though he was careful not to reject Japan’s heritage, Nishi contended that
Confucianism was dated for a modernizing Japan. Confucianist thought remained
“static and incapable of innovation,”67 while a new Japan required an outlook that
incorporated notions of progress. Also, Nishi criticized Confucianism for merging
politics and morality with the laws of nature. These had to be distinguished. He
believed that the Western world had discovered the laws of nature. In Jinsei Sampo
Setsu (Theory of the Three Human Treasures, 1875), he urged all Japanese to seek
the goals of health, knowledge, and wealth in place of Confucian subservience

and frugality.
Nishi was also primarily responsible for introducing Comte into Japan and he
published the Hyakugaku Renkan (The Chain of a Hundred Schools; 1870–71), a sort
of encyclopedia of Western knowledge (Table 3.1). This was patterned after Auguste
Comte’s Cours de philosophie positive (1830–42). However, though Nishi’s categorization
of knowledge was Comtean, it differed in certain important ways. For Nishi, knowledge
was divided into “common sciences” (futsū gaku) and “particular sciences” (tokubetsu
gaku). The former included history (the most important), geography, literature,
philology, and mathematics. The particular sciences included “intellectual pursuits such
as theology, logic”,68 ethics (rinrigaku), aesthetics, jurisprudence, political economy,
and philosophy. Philosophy was divided into logic (chichigaku; now called ronrigaku;
literally, discussions of principles) or the laws of thinking (as laid down by Aristotle).
These laws have been made clearer by the Psychology (seirigaku; see below) of J.S. Mill.
Psychology, subdivided into anthropology and physiology, concerns the “union of soul
and body” (Gall’s phrenology is mentioned here). Nishi also discussed the “physical
sciences” (butsurigaku): physics, astronomy, chemistry, and natural history.
Table 3.1 Chapters and sections of Nishi’s Hyakugaku Renkan (The Chain of a
Hundred Schools)
Introduction
(I) Common Science (Futsūgaku)
1. History
2. Geography
3. Literature
4. Mathematics
(II) Particular Science (Tokubetsugaku)
1. Intellectual Science (Shinrijō-gaku)
(1) Theology (Shinrigaku)
(2) Philosophy (Tetsugaku)
- Logic (Chichigaku)
- Psychology (Seirigaku)
(3) Politics, Science of Law
(4) Political Economy
(5) Statistics
2. Physical Science (Butsurijō-gaku)
(1) Physics
(2) Astronomy
(3) Chemistry
(4) Natural History
Source: Nishikawa (2008c: 20).
We “may say that the Japanese lexicon acquired its modern shape in the first
twenty years of the Meiji era.”69 Much of the credit goes to Nishi, who coined 787
terms, 332 of which entered common usage.70 Nishi removed expressions from their
original, classical context and infused them with updated meanings. Key neologisms
include idea (kannen), subject (shutai; in the sense of autonomous subjectivity), kansei
(sensitivity), risei (reason), and tetsugaku (philosophy).
Nishi helped justify the individual profit motive, the spirit of practicality and
rational approaches to the study of both science and society. “None of these was an
exclusive province of the West; all had authentic (although rudimentary) precedents
in Edo period Japan. Together they did not add up to a morality to replace Neo-
Confucianism,” but each would play a crucial role in modernizing Japan.71
Despite his contributions to Japan’s intellectual modernity, Nishi’s thinking is redolent
of an older worldview. It should be stressed that Nishi’s interest in the psychological
was philosophical, not scientific or experimental. For him Psychology was a type of
“intellectual science” (shinrijō no gaku, i.e., “studies of heart–mind principles”) and
concerned the mental, moral, spiritual, or metaphysical (butsurigai no gaku, i.e., “studies
of what is outside the physical”). Intellectual matters were contrasted with the “physical
sciences” (butsurijō no gaku, i.e., “studies of the principles of physical things”). Further
evidence for a lingering cosmic perspective is evident in Nishi’s thinking on Heaven, which
possessed an “absolute, spiritual meaning” for Nishi;72 it was the place where “principles”
are formed, though it is ultimately unknowable to humans.73 Heaven, since it lends itself to
personification by some, might be called Lord on High,74 and Heaven plays a prominent
role for Nishi as evident in the use of: Heaven’s calamity (ten-ō); commandments of
Heaven (tenritsu); the logic of Heaven (ten no rihō); the mandate of Heaven (tenmei); will
of Heaven (ten-i); Heaven’s order (tenchitsu); and Heaven’s Way (tentō). Significantly, for
Nishi, Heaven’s principles (tenri) and mental principles (shinri) are inherently linked.75
The “nature of man” reflects the laws of nature. Note Nishi’s Seisei Hatsu-un (1873), which
might be translated as The Principle of the Physical and the Spiritual.76 The first part is an
historical outline of philosophy that ends with Comte’s positivism.
The monsterology of Inoue Enryō

As societies modernized, the magical, fantastic, mysterious, and irrational were
increasingly pushed to the margins of respectable ideological endeavors.77 This meant
that what we now call religious thought and practices had to be somehow positioned
in the emerging intellectual order of disciplines. The Enlightenment-inspired
perspective that spirituality was an abstract realm of investigation just like other bodies
of knowledge turned religion into an object of rational study. Some, committed to a
strictly empirical approach, simply dismissed religion as mere superstition. However,
some felt uncomfortable with discarding centuries of spiritual and cultural tradition
and sought a more subtle, sophisticated approach. Some even saw religion, once shorn
of its more odd and unusual features, in possession of profound truths. Psychology,
in the same manner that it assisted in the rationalization of other types of knowledge,
would be utilized by some thinkers to analyze the religious. Some believed that religion
had psychological origins, or that it was in some way an expression of our psyche.
A key figure in advocating a scientific approach to religion was Inoue Enryō
(1858‒1919).78 An extremely influential Meiji-era thinker, he would publish on
philosophy, education, religion, and “monsters.” He attempted to reform Buddhism by

searching for resonances with Western science and thought. As in the Euro‒American
tradition, Inoue’s endeavors were attempts to reduce the “sphere of religious authority,
where the universe has been bifurcated into an almost Cartesian duality with religion
relegated to the metaphorical, immaterial, or at best psychological.”79 Inoue was
ordained as a Buddhist priest in the Jōdo Shinshū sect (Ōtani branch), but eventually
he would renounce his status as a priest. While a student at Tokyo Imperial University,
he trained under Toyama Masakazu and focused on Western philosophy. In 1896 he
received his doctorate. In 1882, he founded the Tetsugakkai (Philosophical Society),
which would become the Tetsugakkan and then Tōyō University.
Inoue became famous as “Dr. Ghost” or “Dr. Monster” (Yōkai Hakase) because
he felt that in order to modernize Buddhism, a clear distinction had to be made
between superstitions (meishin)—haunted houses, ghosts, possession by fox and
snake spirits, and so on80—and religion (shūkyō), though certain aspects of the latter
could be redeemed if viewed through a scientific lens. To do this, he developed
what he called yōkaigaku or “superstition studies” (literally, yōkaigaku means
“monsterology”).81 In 1886, he founded the Society for Research on the Mysterious
(Fushigi Kenkyūkai).
For our purposes, Inoue Enryō deserves attention because he wrote on shinrigaku.
Indeed, before Psychology had even became institutionalized, he supervised a shinrigaku
correspondence course from February to November in 1886; became the first director
of applied Psychology (vis-à-vis superstitions) at the Tetsugakkan in 1887; was the first
specialist in shinrigaku to become a professor at Tokyo Imperial University; and is “said
to have probably been the number one person among [P]sychological circles in Japan.”
Inoue saw Psychology as the sunlight that dispelled the fog of irrational ideas. He
interiorized superstitious beliefs, believing them to be psychologically understandable
“organic defects of the brain.”82 “False mystery” (kyokai) had to be distinguished
from “real mystery” (jitsukai). In addition to his many writings on philosophy and
Buddhism, Inoue wrote Tsūshin Kyōju Shinrigaku (Instruction by Correspondence:
Psychology, 1886), Shinri Tekiyō (Psychology: An Outline, 1887), Shinri-ron (Theory of
Psychology, 1887), and Shinri Ryōhō (Psychological Treatment, 1904). In addition to
the Psychology of religion, he also published on memory—Kioku-jutsu (Mnemonics,
1894), Shin Kioku-jutsu (New Mnemonics, 1917), and Shitsunen-jutsu Kōgi (Lectures on
the Art of Forgetting, 1895).
A key concept in his superstition studies was shinkai or “true mystery,” which is
analogous to the Buddhist notion of shinnyo (true or absolute reality). “True mystery”
and “true reality” are the same, but reached via different approaches, and here we
might note that Inoue was probably the first Japanese thinker to attempt to integrate
Buddhism into the worldview and idiom of Western thought and developed what
might be called “Buddhist Psychology.” Shinkai, which from an analytic point of
view functioned as a sort of meta-discipline, “demarcated a transcendent realm, the
existence of which one can apprehend or intuit through spiritual awareness, but not
concretely comprehend through ratiocination.”83
In a 1902 article called “The Relation between Superstition Studies and Psychology”
(“Yōkaigaku to Shinrigaku to no Kankei”), Inoue explained how shinrigaku was
subsumed under kakai (“provisional mystery”), since it could be explained via the laws
of nature (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 Two types of “mysteries” according to Inoue Enryō
Yōkai 妖怪 Superstition Studies

Jitsukai 実怪 Real Mystery Kyokai 虚怪 False Mystery
Shinkai 真怪 Kakai 仮怪 Gikai 偽怪 Gokai 誤怪
True Mystery Provisional Mystery Deceptive Mystery Mistaken Mystery
Fukashigi Shizen no Hōsoku Koi Ayamari
不可思議 Wonder 自然の法則故意語り
Fushigi Laws of Nature Intentional Error
不思議 Mystery
Source: Mizoguchi (1997b: 128).
Modernizing religion: Hara Tanzan

A Buddhist reformer concerned with portraying his faith in a modern and scientific
light, Hara Tanzan (1819–92) would become the first professor of Buddhist studies at
Tokyo Imperial University. Tellingly, his Shinsei Jikken-roku is subtitled Alternatively,
An Explanation of Western Learning (Ichi Mei, Seigaku Benkai). Hara studied Chinese
divination and Confucianism and was ordained a Sōtō Zen priest at Asakusa Sōsenji
Temple. He also studied medicine and claimed to have received sacred teachings during
a mystical experience in the mountains. In his book, which mixes traditional Chinese
medicine, Buddhism, and modern anatomy, he contended that mental disturbances and
physical illnesses share the same cause and offered a treatment. His argument, informed
by his personal experience and “experiments,” is one of different types of flowing vitalistic
energies and bodily fluids (a kind of mucus) and he saw the need for a “Psychological
zen” (shinrigaku-teki zen). As Yoshinaga points out, Hara’s theories, when viewed from
today’s perspective, were not experimental. Rather, the term that comes to mind is
introspection (naishō).84 It is important to note, however, that in Europe and America at
around the same time, introspective Psychology flourished (though different varieties of
“introspective” Psychology existed85). If we note that James’ Principles of Psychology was
published in 1891, Hara’s thinking (though parts of it may seem strange), was in many
ways timely.86 In retrospect, as Harding points out, it is easy to dismiss Tanzan’s theories
of mind as eccentric—a strange mishmash of Japanized Dutch anatomy, Daoism,
and reformist Buddhism. But his work was an early attempt at “thinking through the
possibilities and implications of a religion‒psy dialogue.”87
Other examples: Anezaki Masaharu, Kishimoto Nōbuta, and Nakamura Kokyō

We should also mention Anezaki Masaharu (Chōfū) (1873–1949), who authored
Shūkyōgaku Gairon (Outline of Religious Studies, 1900).88 Besides laying the
foundations of modern religious studies in Japan at Tokyo Imperial University, he
introduced the works of Schopenhauer and William James to Japan. He himself had a
Buddhist background and studied in England, Germany, and India. Kishimoto Nōbuta
(1866–1928) was also instrumental in developing a scientific approach to religion.

He studied at Harvard Divinity School and founded the Hikaku Shūkyō Gakkai
(Society of Comparative Religious Studies).89 Kishimoto, who also wrote on sociology,
reacted to psychologism and pursued organicism in matters social. Meanwhile,
others had very little sympathy for religion. For example, the Psychologist Nakamura
Kokyō (1881–1954) wrote Ōmotokyō no Kaibō: Gakuri-teki Gensei Hihan (Ōmotokyō
Analyzed: Scientific and Impartial Criticism, 1920). This study described the leaders of
the religious organization Ōmotokyō as dangerously deluded.90
Snapshot William James

An intellectual giant in his own right, James (1842–1910) was America’s answer
to Germany’s Wilhelm Wundt. Trained as a medical doctor (though he never
practiced), he did much to establish American Psychology. His output was
voluminous and influential and dealt with education, religion, and mysticism (he
founded the American Society for Psychical Research). In addition to teaching
physiology and philosophy at Harvard, he taught the first experimental Psychology
course in 1875–76. In 1889, he became a professor of Psychology. James was well
acquainted with European developments (e.g., Hermann Helmholtz and Pierre
Janet). A genuine cosmopolitan, he was fluent in French and German as well as
competent in Italian. Though James established a laboratory at Harvard in 1875,
he lacked any sustained interest in experimentation and felt comfortable with
theoretical inconsistency. Through a more naturalistic observation, he searched for
insights into the psychological aspects of religion, literature, and history, as well as
everyday experiences. For James, it was dangerous to reduce the mind to physiology
and viewed it functionalist terms and as inherently purposive. Such a stance
resonates with his philosophical pragmatism. His Principles of Psychology (1890)
became the most popular book ever written in Psychology and is still referred to
for its wealth of insights and writing style (abridged in 1892 into Psychology: The
Briefer Course). Fukurai Tomoichi and Magaki Keiai would translate and introduce
William James into Japanese.
4
Early Institutionalization: How Higher

Education Disciplined the Psyche
The state, nationalism, pedagogy, psychological processes, and Psychology are closely
interlinked. The purpose of this chapter is to delineate these connections. Specifically,
the role of Tokyo Imperial University in the disseminating Psychology and the role
of Toyama Masakazu in introducing Psychology into the curriculum are investigated.
Also, the nexuses among schooling, moral education and the body are viewed from
the perspective of how the state employed pedagogy to discipline the body–mind for
political purposes.
The role of Tokyo Imperial University in the dissemination

of Psychology
The rapidly modernizing Japanese national state required new roles—political (citizens/
imperial subjects) as well as economic (laborers). These social positionings required in turn
an understanding and appropriate reworking of the psychological. Educational structures
in particular evidence how political economic externalization encouraged psychological
internalization; in other words, as state organizations expanded and elaborated the schooling
system (externalization), individuals increasingly became targets of officialdom’s gaze.1
Nineteenth-century industrialization changed the definition of youth from economic assets
(in agriculture) to the producers of wealth who needed to be trained for extended periods
of time for a world of machines, factories and offices. In this sense, they were increasingly
recruited by the state (i.e., formal schooling systems) to be mentally equipped for labor.
Initially, Japan’s officialdom had little interest in the new-fangled field called
Psychology and “it is apparent that after the Meiji Restoration the government and
the Ministry of Education did not directly focus on Psychology.” The “fact that the
state did not dispatch overseas officially-funded students” to study Psychology should
also be noted. Nevertheless, if viewed from another angle, officialdom did play a key
role, since “it is clear that Japan’s first Psychology courses and lectures were offered in
state-operated schools and Psychology developed in places that were supported and
promoted by the government and Ministry of Education.”2 Specifically, Psychology
was viewed as a practical form of knowledge useful for pedagogy and teacher training
and many educationalists (kyōikugaku-sha) (and philosophers) who studied overseas
brought back psychological knowledge. For the most part, however, they specialized
outside Psychology (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Individuals studying Psychology and related fields abroad in the Meiji period
Name Period Country University (mentor)

abroad
Individuals who focused on Psychology
Motora Yūjirō 1883−88 US –Boston (B.P. Bowne); Johns Hopkins
(G.S. Hall)
Morita Kumato 1889−92 US –Yale (G.T. Ladd)
Nakajiima Taizō 1891−94 US –Colorado; Harvard (W. James)
“” 1906−9 US –Harvard (H. Münsterberg); Cornell
(E.B. Titchener)
Matsumoto Matatarō 1896−1900 US –Yale (E.W. Scripture); Leipzig
(W. Wundt)
Miyake Gaishirō 1896−1901 US –Iowa; Yale (E.W. Scripture);
Kawai Teiichi 1899−1903 Germany –Jena; Leipzig (W. Wundt)
Shitada Jirō 1899−1902 Germany –Jena; Leipzig
Kaneko Umaji 1900−5 Germany –Leipzig (W. Wundt)
Tsukahara Masatsugu 1901−3 Germany –Leipzig (W. Wundt)
Kakise Hikozō 1907−11 US –Clark (G.S. Hall)
Arai Tsuruko 1907−12 US –Columbia (E.L. Thorndike)
Okabe Tamekichi 1907−11 US –Cornell (E.B. Titchener)
Kuwata Yoshizō 1910−12 Germany –Leipzig (W. Wundt)
Yokoyama Matsuzaburō 1907−21 US –Primary, High School; Colorado,
Harvard, Clark
Individuals who focused on education, philosophy, and associated fields
Izawa Shūji 1875−78 US –Bridgewater Normal School
Takamine Hideo 1875−78 US –Oswego Normal School
Fukutomi Takasue 1886−88 England –Studied under J. Sully
Nojiri Seiichi 1886−89 Germany –Leipzig (W. Wundt)
Watanabe Ryūshō 1889−95 US –Cornell (E.B. Titchener)
Ōse Jintarō 1893−97 Germany –Berlin; Leipzig (W. Wundt)
Wada Rinkuma 1904−5 US –Columbia
Yoshida Kumaji 1903−7 Germany, –Audited courses at Strasbourg, Berlin,
France Leipzig
Source: Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 100). With alterations; several individuals have been omitted.
The authorities saw psychological processes and their proper pedagogical

cultivation as intimately related. Thus, throughout the Meiji period, many thinkers
discerned an inherent link between psychological processes and education. Educational
Psychology emerged as a response to these new demands and it can be considered
the earliest field of applied Psychology in Japan. Eventually it would subspecialize in
testing, classification, streaming, moral education, and the treatment of students with
special needs.3
Early Institutionalization 57
Tokyo Imperial University
At the level of educational structures, Psychology was primarily and initially

institutionalized via Tokyo Imperial University, normal schools (shihan gakkō or
teachers’ colleges), universities (daigaku), and other types of schools.4 Let us treat
Tokyo Imperial University first, since in many ways it was the most influential
educational site.
In 1877, the Meiji state established University of Tokyo (Tōkyō Daigaku5) when
it brought together older institutions of medicine and Western learning.6 In 1886, it
was renamed the Imperial University (Teikoku Daigaku) and then Tokyo Imperial
University (Tōkyō Teikoku Daigaku) in 1897, the same year that the Imperial University
system was created.7 It was University of Tokyo, the highest-level educational entity at
that time, which became the “soil in which the new Psychology [shin shinrigaku] took
root.”8 Here it should be stressed that Tokyo (Imperial) University, more than any other
educational site, became the preeminent producer of Psychologists and psychological
knowledge and offered courses to those, though not intending to become professional
Psychologists, saw a usefulness in the new topic.9
During the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the preeminence of University
of Tokyo can hardly be exaggerated. And here a slight digression into the connection
between elitism and this academic institution will illustrate its crucial role in early
Japan. The sociopolitical role of Tokyo Imperial University is worth commenting on
since concentrated in this one institution was an academic avant-garde. Characterized
by youthfulness, upward mobility, and high prestige, this privileged group “constituted
the core of the intellectual establishment” for the Meiji period (and well afterward).
Successful academics chose young scholars in their own fields or other disciplines as
husbands for their daughters, while sons often followed their fathers into a certain
field. The impact of these individuals must be appreciated within the legacy of Japan’s
Confucianist context: those who had acted as ritualists–moralists and ethical–cultural
arbiters in premodern times were now scholars–educators and advisors–officials.
Indeed, at the time protests would be heard that Tokyo Imperial University controlled
the Education Ministry, rather than the other way around.10
Snapshot The Origins of the Ministry of Education

and University of Tokyo
On August 17, 1868, the Shōheizaka Gakumonjo was restored and renamed the
Shōhei Gakkō. On July 23, 1869, the Grand School (Daigakkō) was established,
organizing the Shōhei Gakkō, the Kaisei Gakkō (the former Kaiseijo, which had
been the principal official institution for Western Learning and was restored in
October 1868), and the Igakkō (Medical School; restored in October 1868) into one
institution. Within this new organization, the Shōhei Gakkō became the Central
College of the Grand School (Daigakkō Honkō), which was now considered
the Japan’s highest institution of learning. On August 15 of that same year, this
institution was charged with additional responsibilities, becoming the state’s

central organ for educational administration. On January 18, 1870, the Grand School
was renamed the University (Daigaku), though it remained the highest educational
institution as well as the state’s central organ for educational administration, so that
before the establishment of the Department of Education in 1871, any educational
administration that did exist was under the authority of the University. Also on
January 18, 1870, the former Central College of the Grand School (Daigakkō
Honkō) was turned into the Central College of the University (Daigaku Honkō),
the Kaisei Gakkō became the Southern College of the University (Daigaku Nankō),
and the Medical School became the Eastern College of the University (Daigaku
Tōkō). Both these latter two institutions continued Western Learning, while the
other unit taught Nativist Learning and Chinese studies. In March 1870 the state,
impressed with Euro-American principles of academic organization, attempted to
reform the University through the University Regulations (Daigaku Kisoku) which
would have stipulated a curriculum of theology, morals, law, science, medicine,
and literature. This plan met with successful opposition from the nativist-learning
and Chinese-studies factions of the Central College of the University. Eventually,
however, the state closed the latter entity, while maintaining its function as the
central organ for educational administration and keeping the Western-oriented
Southern and Eastern Colleges open.
Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University
Courses that might circumspectly be called psychological (or at least touched upon the
topic) were first offered in the Kaisei School (predecessor of University of Tokyo) in 1873.
It is not clear who taught such courses between 1873 until 1877 (the first instructors may
have been non-Japanese). But we can obtain an idea of what was taught by considering
the texts that were used. This included works by Joseph Haven, Alexander Bain and lesser
known authors, such as Laurens Perseus Hickok, Joseph Alden,11 and Adolphe Franck.12
From 1877, Toyama Masakazu (Shōichi) (1848–1900) began teaching shinrigaku
and utilized works by Carpenter and Spencer. Rather than modern experimental
investigation of the mind, “moral science” or “mental philosophy” better describes what
was taught. Besides the word shinrigaku, these course titles typically included “moral
education” (shūshingaku) or the name of the author whose text constituted the core of
the course. Other instructors probably lectured on psychological-related themes. For
example, between 1874 and 1879, Edward W. Syle (1817–90), an American Episcopalian
clergyman, taught philosophy and shūshingaku (morals) at the Kaisei Gakkō, but it is
unclear if he actually taught Psychology.13 But he did use Mark Hopkin’s14 An Outline
Study of Man: or, the Body and Mind in One System (1873) and Haven’s Mental
Philosophy.15 Though Toyama taught shinrigaku, in some years he lectured on logic,
philosophy, history, and English would be included in the course title. In 1884 Tsuboi
Kumezo (1858–1936), a historian with an interest in philosophy, taught Psychology, and
in 1887 Sakaki Hajime (1857–97) offered a course on psychiatry (seishinbyō) and Ludwig
Busse (1862–1907)16 lectured on philosophy and Psychology (and again in 1888).17
Snapshot Laurens Perseus Hickok

Laurens Hickok (1798–1888), an American philosopher, theologian, and minister,
was vice-president of Union College and professor of mental and moral science. He
wrote Empirical Psychology; or, The Human Mind as Given in Consciousness: For the
Use of Colleges and Academies (1854); Rational Psychology; or The Subjective Idea
and Objective Law of All Intelligence (1849); and System of Moral Science (1853).
His other works include: Rational Cosmology (1858); Creator and Creation, or the
Knowledge in the Reason of God and His Work (1872); Humanity Immortal (1872);
and Logic of Reason (1874). Some of first lecturers on Psychology in Japan relied
on works by Hickok, and in this manner he played a crucial role in the origins of
Japanese Psychology.
The year 1888 was a significant one for the history of Japanese Psychology. This
was when Toyama asked Motora, who had just returned from the United States,
to teach experimental methods in a course that was called seishin butsurigaku
(psychophysics) as a lecturer at Tokyo Imperial University. Motora, then, taught
the first modern course in Psychology and introduced what might be described as
the Wundtian approach. In 1893 the Japanese educational authorities, impressed
by advances in German science and its vibrant universities, introduced their
“chair system” (kōza) at Tokyo Imperial University. In this arrangement, power is
concentrated in a senior professorship. This reform resulted in the establishment
of the chair of Psychology−Ethics−Logic (shinrigaku−rinrigaku−ronrigaku).18 Now
Psychology was taught as a part of a curriculum to train professional Psychologists
rather than as a pedagogical subject (interestingly, at Kyoto Imperial University
the chair in Psychology was independent, that is, it was not combined with ethics
and logic19).
The period from around 1903 to 1905 was crucial in the history of Japanese
Psychology.20 In 1903, Motora, with assistance from Matsumoto Matatarō,
established Japan’s first Psychology laboratory in a one-story wooden structure
at Tokyo Imperial University. The following year Psychology became a two-year
senshū (specialization or “course”) within the Department of Philosophy (Tetsu
Gakka) in the Tokyo Imperial University. In 1906 Matsumoto Matatarō was
appointed first professor of Psychology at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1919 the
“Psychology specialization” or “course” (shinrigaku senshū) within the Department
of Philosophy became its own Department of Psychology (Shinri Gakka) at Tokyo
Imperial University.
In 1905, the first group of seven students taught by Motora that specialized
in Psychology graduated from the Department of Philosophy.21 Graduates who
became Motora’s assistants included Hayami Hiroshi, Kakise Hikozō, Kuwata
Yoshizō, Ōtsuki Kaison, and Gotō Rikusaburō.22 Before Motora passed away in
1912, forty-five graduates had specialized in Psychology. Significantly, many entered
education.23 Table 4.2 provides an idea of what students researched.
Of course, not all Psychology researchers who made significant contributions

came up through the educational ranks of Tokyo Imperial University.24 We should
also note that they all studied overseas.25 For example, consider the career of
Miyake Ishirō (1869–1931), who studied at Iowa University. Via an introduction
from Matsumoto Matatarō, who was at Yale University, he moved to the latter
school from where he would obtain his PhD in 1901 for his work on rhythm. After
he returned to Japan he taught at Waseda University. In 1903, he taught Psychology
and English at the Sixth Higher School and from 1923 he worked at the newly
established Shizuoka Higher School. Morita Kumato (1858–99) studied at Yale
University under G.T. Ladd and was one of the first Japanese to receive a doctorate
in Psychology from an American university. However, he had difficulty pursuing
experimental research since he taught at Dōshisha, a private institution that,
unlike state schools, did not readily encourage the new science of the mind. Other
important figures in this category include: Nakajima Taizō, Kawai Teiichi, Kanda
Sakyō, Kaneko Umaji (Chikusui), Hori Baiten, Haraguchi Tsuruko, and Yokoyama
Matsusaburō.
Here we might comment on the career of Nakajima Taizō (1866–1919), a famous
student of Motora who met him at a meeting of the Shinrigaku Danwa-kai in
1891. At his own expense he traveled to America and began to study philosophy at
Colorado University from where he received his BA. He then studied experimental
Psychology under William James at Harvard. After returning to Japan in 1895, he
worked for Motora as an assistant. In 1896, he began lecturing at Tokyo Senmon
Gakkō (the predecessor of Waseda University) and Gakushūin and Keiō Gijuku
University.26 In 1898, he co-translated Wundt’s Outline of Psychology (Grundriss
der Psychologie, 1896) with Motora and became involved in other translation
projects and the Shinrigaku Danwa-kai (which later became the Shinri Gakkai). In
1904, he became a professor at Sapporo Agricultural School (Sapporo Nō Gakkō),
where he taught English and logic. Two years later he resigned from this school
and went to the United States to study under H. Munsterberg and received an
MA for experimental work on emotions. He then worked under Titchener and
received his PhD from Cornell University in 1909. After he returned to Japan,
he would be awarded a doctorate from Tokyo Imperial University and teach at
Waseda University.27
Two other students of Motora might be mentioned. Kawai Teiichi (1870–1955)
graduated from Keiō Gijuku in 1892. He was sent overseas by Keiō Gijuku to train
as a teacher and for three years studied in Germany. He was the first Japanese to visit
Wundt’s laboratory. After he returned to Japan he pursued studies in Volk Psychology
at Keiō Gijuku. Kaneko Umaji (Chikusui) (1870–1937) was a member of the first
graduating of Tokyo Senmon School. From 1900 to 1905 he studied in Germany.
Though he attended Wundt’s lectures at University of Leipzig in 1903, he did not
pursue experimental Psychology but became a philosopher. After he returned to Japan
he became an administrator at Waseda University.
Table 4.2 Examples of students specializing in Psychology and titles of their graduate

theses at the Tokyo Imperial University (1905–6)
1905
Abe Ayao “Mankind’s Instinct”
Kazami Kenjirō “Volition”
Kuwata Yoshizō “Facial Expression and Gesture”
Koga Sennen “Aesthetic Feeling”
Seki Ryūsei “Space Perception”
Fukushima Tokuhei Unknown
Moriya Kōsaburō “Feeling and Emotion”
1906
Kaison Ōtsuki “Study of Memory Speech”
Kurahashi Sōzō “Speech and Drawing of Children”
Sasamoto Kaijō “Theory of Mind in Yuishiki-ron”
Suyama Ryōzen Unknown
Matsuki Gorō “Facial Expressions”
Kagetaka Nagao “Mental Difference between Man and Woman”
Nogami Toshio “On Comparative Psychology”
Source: Satō and Satō (2005: 59).
Toyama Masakazu: Recognizing Psychology
Toyama was an important figure not just in the history of Japanese Psychology but
also in Japanese social sciences in general. Born in Edo and from a samurai family,
he studied at the Bansho Shirabesho and then in 1866 traveled to Great Britain with
Nakamura Masanao28 as an overseas student. In 1870 he went to the United States as
secretary to the first Japanese legation sent to Washington but decided to enroll in
a Michigan high school and eventually entered the Department of Chemistry at the
University of Michigan (for three years). He returned to Japan in 1876 and became
a professor at the College of Liberal Arts at University of Tokyo. Eventually he would
become dean of the College of Liberal Arts and in 1897 president of Tokyo Imperial
University. He served as the Minister of Education under Itō Hirobumi’s cabinet in
1898 for two months.29
Toyama was a generalist in the study of the new Western sciences and helped
spread Darwinist evolutionary theory in Japan. He is considered to be the first
Japanese professor of philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University (early on philosophy
was taught by non-Japanese). In 1893, just one year after the founding of the
University of Chicago’s Department of Sociology and antedating the establishment
of professorships of sociology in England, France, and Germany,30 he became the
first occupant of the sociology chair at Tokyo Imperial University. He authored
several works on Japanese thought and ancient Japanese society as reflected in its
myths.
Though Toyama taught a course on Psychology and appreciated the significance
of experimental Psychology, he himself was not trained in this discipline and did
not carry out experiments. In his course on shinrigaku, he used texts by William
B. Carpenter, Alexander Bain, and Herbert Spencer.31 In his lectures he discussed
attention, the operations of emotions and thoughts on perception, emotions and
habits, will, memory, imagination, mental mistakes, somnambulism, mesmerism, and
spiritualism.32
Overseas training in Psychology
In the early Meiji era, not many foreigners taught Psychology and for its part the
Meiji state did not recognize the significance of Psychology. Many with an interest
in Psychology went overseas without state support. This is somewhat different if
compared to other disciplines. Note that the “grandfather” and “father” of Japanese
Psychology, Motora and Matsumoto Matatarō, paid their own way to study overseas.33
“For thirty years, from the Meiji Restoration until 1898, officially-sanctioned study
abroad, with Psychology its primary goal, was not achieved.”34 The lack of state
support meant that early on Japanese Psychology did not develop in a “top-down”
manner, but rather, due to the recognition that individual scholars gave to the value
of this emerging field, it developed in a “top-up” process.35 It would not be until the
Taishō period that those who went overseas to study Psychology made this discipline
their primary specialty.
Between 1868 and 1945, 118 individuals (including philosophers and psychiatrists)
who had an interest in Psychology went abroad.36 Overseas study was either by “official
selection” (kansen) or “private request” (shigan) and was regarded as necessary to obtain
full professorship at a state (imperial) university. The most common destinations were
the United States37 and Germany. Indeed, Japanese Psychology would be dominated
by German and American Psychology,38 while the traditions of England and France,
relatively speaking, would not be as influential.39 Those who visited or studied with
Wundt during Meiji included: Inoue Tetsujirō (1885); Nojiri Seiichi (1888–89); Ōnishi
Hajime (1898–99); Ōse Jintarō (1893); Matsumoto Matatarō (1898–1900); Shitada
Jirō (1900–1); Kawai Teiichi (1900–3); Tanimoto Tomeri (1900–3); Kaneko Umaji
(1900–5); Tsukahara Masatsugu (1902–3); Yoshida Kumaji (1906); Kuwata Yoshizō
(1910–12); and Haraguchi Takejirō (1910–12).40
Four categories of overseas students are evident. The first were “pioneer”
Psychologists (thirteen), who did not initially study Psychology in Japan, but did
so overseas. The second were “academic” Psychologists (sixty-seven), who studied
Psychology before traveling overseas and continued to do so after returning to Japan.
The third were “secondary” Psychologists (thirty). These individuals did not begin by
specializing in Psychology and made only minor contributions to Japanese Psychology.
Finally, “transient” Psychologists (eight) studied Psychology before leaving Japan but,
upon their return, left the field or made only minor contributions to Psychology.41
Takasuna discerns two patterns in regards to those who studied Psychology

overseas. The first can be described as staying longer in fewer places. Many of
these ryūgaku (“overseas study”) students received academic degrees from foreign
universities. Of ryūgaku students at least twenty-three received PhDs from foreign
universities and thirty-six published overseas.42 The second pattern can be called
yūgaku or “traveling to study,” which has connotations of moving about from country
to country to study at a number of different universities. Those who followed the
second pattern usually received a special type of state support.43
Those who traveled overseas and had peripheral or indirect contact with but
became acquainted with Psychology include: Izawa Shūji, Takamine Hideo, Nakajima
Rikizō, Fukutomi Takasue, Inoue Tetsujirō, Ōnishi Hajime, Watanabe Ryūshō, Miyake
Kōichi, Wada Rinkuma, Nojiri Seiichi, Ōse Jintarō, Tanimoto Tomeri, Yoshida Kumaji,
Kure Shūzō, Katsumoto Kanzaburō, and Sakaki Yasusaburō. Here we should note that
several scholars who did not study overseas nevertheless made crucial contributions
to Psychology or allied fields during Meiji: Fukurai Tomokichi, Takashima Heizaburō,
and Inoue Enryō.44
Bureaucratizing psyche: Schooling, moral education, and the body
This section examines how educational structures, moral instruction, and the
individual’s very corporeality were involved both in the establishment of Psychology
and the emergence of new psychological processes. Schooling, morals, and the body
saliently implicate externalization, so it behooves us to highlight concrete examples of
how officialdom and societal pressures configured psyche and its study. Consider how
modern education institutionalized individuation. Though now we take it for granted
that students should be classified chronologically, it is worth noting that such grading
is a recognition of individuation (a key feature of interiorization) which has various
meanings, but for our present purposes concerns a focus on individual differences in
acquired knowledge. Though full-blown applied Psychology begins during the Taishō
period, it started during the 1870s and 1880s as Japan’s newly established schooling
system sought ways to classify students.45 The state, in an example of externalization
configuring internalization, mandated a multitiered learning structure supervised by
the Ministry of Education. More specifically, within the Ministry it was the Teachers
Division, renamed the Educational Affairs Division (Gakumu-ka) in 1871, that was
charged with stratifying students. One year later this division would be upgraded to a
bureau.46
Building the nation by disciplining the body–mind
Bureaucratizing and rationalizing psychological processes are best done through the
body, which after all, cannot be detached from the mind. This body–mind unity can
be called the somapsyche. Everyday educational practices may not seem implicated
in psychological processes, but individuals are most efficiently psycho-socialized
via bodily management. Foucault’s ruminations on the development of disciplinary

institutions resonate profoundly with how individuals have been managed by
socioeconomic interests in Japan’s modernization and national-state building. Such
management cannot be understood without viewing the body as its primary target:
“Discipline increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility) and
diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience).”47
It was not long after the Meiji Restoration that state projects penetrated each
educational site. Unlike pre-Meiji schools, in which “Arrival and departure times, texts
and progress all differed from person to person” and the schools were not organized
according to “a fixed, unified system,”48 the new schools followed set schedules,
teaching materials were standardized, and progress was formalized. For instance,
according to the Directions to Elementary School Students (issued by the Kanagawa
Prefecture Educational Affairs Department in 1879), student bodies were arranged
in patterns and more controlled: they were seated in rows, strictly monitored, and
eventually uniformed. Students “should put away their shoes upon arriving at school,
enter the waiting room and place their lunch boxes at their own seats, greet their
friends, quietly enter the classroom at the teacher’s direction and bow to the teacher
upon arriving at their seats.”49
Other examples of disciplining the national body
During the Meiji period, the demands of building a “modern” society and economic
national statism set in motion various processes—emanating from the state but also
occurring in the societal sphere—which radically altered basic notions of time, space,
and the body. As for the latter, modernity prescribed that it be “healthy, normal and
clean” in ways that radically differed from the Tokugawa era.
Another aspect of the official configuration of the psychological via ordering,
patterning and rationalizing was the linking of the physical environment of schools
to student health. The 1881 Instructions for Elementary School Teachers “made
management of space a teacher’s duty as a part of health education: ‘Physical
education includes not only athletics. Pay attention when cleaning school buildings to
ensuring appropriate light, temperature and circulation of air.’” Also, an 1897 Ministry
of Education directive, “How to Clean Schools,” provided detailed instructions for
cleaning classrooms and dormitories.50 As for within the Ministry of Education itself,
in May 1896 a School Hygiene Supervisor (Gakkō Eisei Shuji) was appointed, and
from April 1900 to December 1903, the Minister’s Secretariat had a School Hygiene
Division (Gakkō Eisei-ka) (it would reappear in May 1921). After 1903, a doctor was
assigned on a part-time basis to give advice on school health matters. In June 1916,
a School Hygiene Officer was appointed within the Ministry of Education, and in
May 1922 the School Hygiene Investigation Committee (Gakkō Eisei Chōsa-kai) was
established as an advisory organ to the Ministry of Education. Two years later, in
October, the Research Center for Physical Education was established.51
According to Narusawa, three forces were at work to meet the objectives of
modernity. The first was public health administration. Nagayo Sensai, the first head
of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Hygiene Bureau, stated that “public health in a
narrow sense means the health and welfare of individuals; in a broader sense it is the
wealth and power of the state.”52 The “purpose of public health administration was
less the health of residents than public peace and the wealth and power of the state.”53
Eventually, the Ministry of Health and Welfare would be formed in 1938 to take charge
of the nationalized somapsyche.
The second force was the need to build a strong army. Not surprisingly, it was
the military, both its might as a massive ensemble and the strength of its individual
soldiers, that was regarded as a measurement of the national state’s power and
prestige. But just as significantly, the saying “a soldier is a model for society” would
become popular: “More than the establishment of the military itself, the detailed
regulation applied there to the human body spread beyond the military and was a
revolutionary development in Japanese society.”54 The effect of this development was
an ever-increasing disciplining of the body as it was implicated in more and more
state projects and economic structures. Processes such as: (1) spatialization; (2)
minute control of activity; (3) repetitive exercises; (4) detailed hierarchies; and (5)
normalizing judgments55 were all deployed by power centers to regulate bodies and
thereby psycho-socialize individuals. To illustrate the impact of this new ordering of
individuals, remember that, at the instigation of Mori Arinori, normal schools were
run like army camps, with an emphasis on military gymnastics. Teachers trained in
this way
brought military order to the schools as teachers. The excursions that were a
regular school activity often assumed the form of military marches. The student
body was divided into large and small units and “marched correctly at a proper
pace.” At “sports days,” large banners reading “Peacetime Battles” were displayed
and whatever their content, these events took on the trappings of military drills.
Thus began the militarization of the schools.56
In 1881, a Department of Education (predecessor to the Ministry of Education)

notice―“Directions to Elementary School Teachers”―counseled that teachers
“should maintain proper mental and physical health by consuming proper daily food
and drink and taking proper procedures to divert their minds and to exercise.”57
The third force was “related to the fact that Japanese seem to have had an
inferiority complex vis-à-vis Westerners concerning their bodies.” Thus, many
intellectuals “considered the improvement of the Japanese body an essential element
of ‘civilization and enlightenment’”58 and made proposals for improving nutrition
(i.e., “Westernizing” the Japanese diet) and other suggestions about bodily regulation,
such as prohibiting nudity, which was now considered “uncivilized.”
Moral education: Recognizing and cultivating self-autonomy
The Meiji modernizers, though concerned with practical knowledge from abroad that
would aid in their national-state building projects, were equally interested in inculcating
the proper values and sentiments necessary for loyal citizens and efficient workers.
Indeed, though the stress on morals (shūshin) was rooted in the pre-Meiji period, “it
should be remembered that emphasis on morality and ethics was also an integral part
of contemporary Western educational systems and was thus ‘modern.’”59 This is why
in the early 1870s moral textbooks recommended by the Department of Education
relied heavily on Western texts: the “most widely used was directly translated from
the French and laid heavy emphasis on respect for the Christian God and the Second
Republic.”60 Moral education, to the degree that it acknowledged self-autonomy, was
another technique to augment the power of the national state by transforming the
psyche.
Though which moral principles should be taught was vigorously debated, very
few argued that morals were unnecessary; even “Westernizers” such as Fukuzawa
Yukichi and Nishi Amane advocated moral education. By the late 1870s and early
1880s, the state had begun an ideological consolidation of moral education. The 1879
Imperial Will on the Great Principles of Education stressed the importance of loyalty
and filial piety and noted that Western technical knowledge had been embraced
too quickly, thereby causing a loss of “traditional Japanese values.” Thus, it was the
responsibility of the authorities to instill proper moral values. At the institutional
level, the dissemination of moral education was evident within the establishment of
the Editorial Bureau (absorbed into the Minister’s Secretariat on June 21, 1890) in the
Department of Education in 1880, from which issued texts and guides with a decidedly
ethical spin, such as Moral Education for Elementary Schools. Also, the 1880 Education
Order stipulated that the study of morals be given precedence over other subjects and
in that same year, the translation of some foreign books was prohibited.
The increasing control by the state over the meaning of “morality” did not preclude
debate about exactly what kind of morals to which people should accede. In a tract
written in 1882 called What Way for Moral Education (Tokuiku Ikan), Fukuzawa Yukichi
took an anti-Confucian stance and argued for the need for a set of moral principles
appropriate to the age. Katō Hiroyuki contended in Debating the Direction for Moral
Education (Tokuiku Hōhō-ron, 1887) that a moral system should be based on religion.
In Debating the Stabilization of Moral Education (Tokuiku Chinteiron, 1890), Nose Sakae
(1852–95) reasoned that moral education should be based on certain ethical theories.
Mori Arinori rejected Confucianism and believed that morality should be based on
ethics.61 But others viewed moral education as necessarily grounded in the Imperial
House, the supercharged symbol of Japaneseness. For example, in Putting Forward the
Fundamental Polity of the Nation (Kokutai Hakki), Naitō Chisō (1826–1902) explained
why he believed the fundamentals of moral education should be determined by the
Imperial House. In Theory of National Education (Kokkyō-ron), Motoda Nagazane
developed his ideas expressed in his Imperial Will on the Great Principles of Education
and argued that moral education should be based on ancient teachings. Nishimura
Shigeki recommended that the Imperial House compile moral teachings and called for
the establishment of an agency (Meirin-in) in the Ministry of the Imperial Household
which would clarify the moral responsibility of ordinary Japanese.
All these different opinions resulted in what has been termed the “confusion of
moral education” that so exacerbated local educational authorities. At a conference
of prefectural governors in February 1890, they demanded a clear and consistent

policy statement from the central educational authorities. In response to this,
the Emperor Meiji ordered Education Minister Enomoto Takeaki62 to compile a
collection of proverbs which would be used as a moral canon. This task was continued
by Education Minister Yoshikawa Akimasa.63
After the 1890 Imperial Rescript of Education—which set the tone for a national-
statist morality—was issued, Inoue Tetsujirō was asked to provide a Commentary on
the Imperial Rescript (Chokugo Engi, September 1891). This became the textbook for
middle and normal schools and it greatly influenced official guidebooks and courses
of study for elementary schools. The influence of the Imperial Rescript of Education
is especially evident in moral textbooks which stressed the points of the Rescript in a
state-sanctioned “philosophy of virtues.” Indeed, many textbooks were prefaced with
the complete text of the Imperial Rescript of Education. Nevertheless, some foreign
influence was also apparent in these textbooks. For example, many moral textbooks
pursued the “philosophy of personages” approach inspired by Johann F. Herbart in
which the virtues of model individuals were emulated.
In 1900, the Ministry of Education established the Textbook for Morals Survey
Committee (Shūshin Kyōkasho Chōsa I-inkai) whose task was to set standards for the
state editing of elementary school moral textbooks. As recognition that Psychologists
had a role to play in policymaking, Motora was put on this committee. Ten years later,
morals courses were introduced in postelementary education. In 1911 the state core
continued its construction of societal spheres suited to its needs when moral textbooks
used in elementary schools were revised so as to stress patriotism and the family while
downplaying individualism and internationalism. Revisions in 1918 continued this
trend.64
The success of state education and the structuring of psyche
The initial impact of state policies at the local level met with uneven success. Though
perhaps difficult to imagine in today’s Japan, the initial educational projects of the
state were often met with violent resistance, especially in rural and remote regions.
In many local areas, school attendance was low and some parents refused to send their
children (especially their daughters) to school. In some areas, the financial burden was
too great, so that educational facilities deteriorated, attendance dropped, and schools
closed. “That the Western-style schoolhouse was often the finest building in the village
was also a reminder that is was often the most expensive. There were hundreds of
instances in which the schoolhouse were damaged or even destroyed to make the
point.”65
Promoting the psychological via schooling

Nevertheless, in the late 1880s, there were three clearly discernible and significant
shifts that would have profound implications for individual subjectivity: (1) from
wide regional variation to greater standardization; (2) from officially sponsored
schools with sharp class distinctions to an integrated system that emphasized

merit; and (3) from mostly private institutions with a loose configuration to a
state-administered, clearly articulated, and compulsory system.66 Though setbacks,
confusion, and ideological struggles characterized the first two decades of building
Japan’s modern educational system, in retrospect the achievements of the educational
elites are remarkable:
By the late 1880s, educational professionals of the central bureaucracy in the

[Ministry of Education] were making decisions that had formerly been in the
hands of individual teachers. The [Ministry of Education] was determining
curricula, selecting text materials, setting school hours and schedules, preparing
examinations, deciding on teaching methods to be used and so on. Teachers, who
had been the focus of educational institutions in the Tokugawa period, were now
mere parts of a larger, national apparatus … private schools were no longer outside
the system, but were appendages of it.67
To the degree that that the school system had become an effective instrument
for implementing state policies and projects, it spread the psychological gospel.
Indeed, under the Meiji Constitution of 1889, one of the three duties that people
owed to the state was to receive an education. The others were to pay taxes and to
serve in the military. But from the elite’s perspective education was a tool of the state
and was best conceived as “practical learning” (jitsugaku), as something that could
contribute to the empire. Education that was regarded as indirectly tied to official
projects was “empty learning” (kyogaku), or mere “learning for learning’s sake.” Thus,
in a “rigorously mobilized society like that of Meiji Japan, education can be used
simply to involve every citizen in the governmental network, but not immediately in
the decision-making process” (emphasis in original).68
Rationalizing subjectivity: Applying Psychology to pedagogy
As societies became increasingly industrialized in the latter part of the nineteenth

century, authorities recognized the need to foster a certain mentality among children
suited to modern labor demands. Put differently, during the 1880s and 1890s the
significance of the interior life of the child was recognized: the “child’s―not the
adult’s―interest should be the driving force in teaching and that the child’s interest
develops in stages.”69
Normalizing the Psychology of children

It would be within the normal schools where the new idea that children had their
own mental life that need to be cultivated along certain lines. In the United States
during the 1860s, for example, “educational Psychology” was taught in places such
as Oswego State Normal School, the Normal Department of Iowa University, and
the University of Missouri. Appreciating the modern educational requirements
demanded by the political economic system, in 1875 Japan’s Ministry of Education

dispatched Izawa Shūji (1851–1917) and Takamine Hideo (1854–1910) to the
United States to research normal schooling.70 Izawa visited the Bridgewater State
Normal School in Massachusetts, while Takamine went to the Oswego State Normal
School in New York. Izawa and Takamine, as it turned out, were present at the
beginnings of American educational Psychology. Upon their return to Japan, they
designed a curriculum for the Normal School (see below). Although Psychology
was important in this curriculum, it was not of a scientific, experimental variety;
rather, it was closer to “mental philosophy.”71 In any case, Izawa and Takamine
were interested in “developmental education” (hattatsu kyōiku), not just the how
of teaching; they wanted to investigate the psychological processes of learning
themselves.
Takamine, who had attended Aizu Domain’s Nisshinkan (established in 1803)
and was educated in the traditional Confucian schooling system stressing rote
memorization, was concerned with how the minds of children took in information
and formed complex thoughts from more basic ones. He was also very interested in
memory and how to cultivate it in children. He became a close acquaintance of the
scientist, historian, and educator James Johonnot (1823–88), the author of Principles
and Practice of Teaching (1878). In 1885, Takamine translated the latter’s book into
Japanese as Kyōiku Shinron (The New Theory of Education), a work which would
influence an entire generation of Japanese educators. Izawa would author Kyōikugaku
(Education, 1882).72
In order to ensure that the most modern and appropriate pedagogical principles
were being applied, Japan’s authorities initially established two prototypical
teachers’ colleges in 1872 and 1875, respectively: the Normal School and Tokyo
Women’s Normal School (Tōkyō Joshi Shihan Gakkō).73 The former, which would
become a model for other normal schools, was put under the supervision of the
American Marion M. Scott (1843–1922). It was renamed the Tokyo Normal School
in July 1873 and reorganized into the Higher Normal School in April 1886.74 In
1902, because a second higher normal school had been founded in Hiroshima, it was
renamed Tokyo Higher Normal School.75 In 1879, the central authorities mandated
that all prefectures must establish one public normal school to train primary school
teachers. This cloning of normal schooling around the country in no small way
institutionalized Psychology, and beginning in 1887 it was formally taught at the
Tokyo Normal School.
Significantly, then, normal schools would, along with University of Tokyo,
establish Psychology as a respectable discipline.76 Also significant is how students
at the Higher Normal School conducted basic experiments on those who attended
the attached elementary school (later a secondary school was also attached).
Though Psychology was not necessarily offered at all normal schools, then, it was
through these institutions that Psychology “spread throughout the entire nation,”
thereby greatly aiding its institutionalization (the period from 1886 until 1902 can
be described as an “era of shihan gakkō”). Keep in mind that this was a “period
when Psychology itself was not well known,”77 so to a large degree this was a novel
subject.
Other educational sites that bureaucratized subjectivity
Besides Tokyo Imperial University, the other imperial daigaku—Kyōto, Kyūshū, Tōhoku,
and, outside Japan proper, Keijō (Seoul) and Taihoku (Taipei)—were indispensable for
spreading the worldview of Psychology, training as they did specialists in this new
body of knowledge.78 In addition to the imperial daigaku, private daigaku (many of
which had evolved from academies and what we might call vocational schools) would
also play a vital role in spreading the new psychological knowledge. Great variety
characterizes these institutions and an idea of what they were about can be seen in
Nagai’s classification of private universities/colleges into three types: (1) “liberalism
group” (jiyūshugi-ha), which operated under Christian influence and advocated
“civilization and enlightenment”; (2) “traditional group” (dentōshugi-ha), founded
by those with an eye toward Japan’s older intellectual legacy; and (3) “applied group”
(tekiyō-ha), which taught “practical studies” such as law.79 Very early on Psychology
flourished in the liberalism group, while it did not find much of a home in the applied
group. In a good example in the “traditional group” was the Tetsugakkan or Philosophy
Hall (now Tōyō University). This institute of Buddhist studies was founded in 1887 by
Inoue Enryō, a philosopher who utilized modern shinrigaku in his thinking.80
After 1918, some private vocational schools (senmon gakkō) were upgraded to
daigaku (universities/colleges). Indeed, a number of prestigious private universities
had their roots in these institutions. For example, present-day Waseda University is an
example of this promotion (originally called Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō). Though it is not
clear who lectured during the early phases, later Watanabe Ryūshō (1865–1944) would
use Motora and Nakashima Taizō’s 1900 translation of Wundt’s work (Shinrigaku
Gairon), as well as Nakashima’s own books. Shinrigaku was taught there as early as
1882. Works by Bain, Haven, Spencer, and Carpenter were utilized. Kadono Ikunoshin
taught shinrigaku at Keiō Gijuku (the precedent of Keiō University).81 Nakashima
Taizō, Kawai Teiichi, Henry Mohr Landis,82 and George William Knox83 also taught
shinrigaku at Keiō.84
Psychology, wedded to logic in the curriculum, was also taught in the elite “higher
middle schools” or kōtō chūgakkō (from 1894 abbreviated to kōtō gakkō or “higher
schools”).85 These institutions were intended as special preparatory schools for
university-bound male students (ages 12–18). Instructors with training in Psychology
were employed to teach preparatory courses attached to universities (daigaku yoka).86
In addition to being taught at the imperial universities and normal schools,
Psychology courses would be added to the curricula of professional or vocational
schools, medical schools (ika senmon gakkō), and “miscellaneous vocational schools”
(kakushu gakkō).87 Note should also be made of academies for the police and various
short training schools or institutes (kakushu kōshūkai) in which Psychology was taught
with an applied spin.88
5
Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō:

The Founders of Japanese Psychology
As in other national traditions (i.e., Fechner and Wundt in Germany, and William
James and G. S. Hall in America), Japan has its own founders of its Psychology:
Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō. The purpose of this chapter is to survey their
biographical details, intellectual influences, and contributions. The psycho-philosophy
of Motora as well as his thoughts on the relation between religion and science are also
treated.
The grandfather of Japanese Psychology: Motora Yūjirō
The most crucial figure in the founding modern experimental Psychology in Japan
was Motora Yūjirō.1 He would spend five years in the United States, first studying at
Boston University and then transferring to Johns Hopkins University.2 In addition to
his many scholarly contributions and pioneering work in educational studies, Motora
institutionalized the training of Psychology students, assisted in networking among
scholars in Japan, and kept up a constant exchange with overseas scholars. He was
one of the most active thinkers of the late 1800s and early 1900s in Japan, commented
on pressing issues of the day, and was involved in pivotal intellectual debates of the
day.3 The most important contribution of Motora was his establishment of Japan’s first
psychological laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University in 1903.
Motora taught, trained, and influenced a large number of individuals who would
have a lasting impact inside and outside of early Japanese social science. Before his
death in 1912, forty-five students would graduate from the Department of Psychology
at Tokyo Imperial University. His most famous and influential student, Matsumoto
Matatarō (1865–1943), would attend Yale University to study experimental Psychology.
Matsumoto eventually took over Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University, and, if
Motora is the “grandfather” of Japanese Psychology, then Matsumoto should be
considered its “father.” Other important students of Motora include Nakajima Taizō,
Tsukahara Masatsugu, Kakise Hikozō, Kuwata Yoshizō, Okabe Tamekichi, and Mizawa
Tadasu.4
Motora was extremely prolific. His first academic publication was in 1881, when he
published an abridged translation of a work that dealt with bacteria (his earliest articles
appeared in 1876 and 1878). In addition to research Psychology, his corpus of articles,
books, and newspaper articles dealt with an array of issues, such as the role religion, the
place of women, moral concerns, and current events.5 Satō lists and categorizes books
that were either authored by Motora (11) or to which he coauthored or made a partial
contribution (6), and also his translations (3) and “others” (2). He also enumerates
academic articles and lectures (38) appearing in journals and newspapers6 and the list
of books (10) for which Motora wrote a preface (Table 5.1).
In addition to the many students he cultivated, Motora either knew well or was
acquainted with many of Japan’s luminaries of the day, which should not be surprising,
given his elite training overseas and position at Tokyo Imperial University.7 While in
the United States, Motora was photographed with Satō Shōsuke (1856–1939), who
would become president of Hokkaidō University);8 Nagase Hōsuke (1865–1926), a
famous educator; and Nitobe Inazō9 (1862–1933), who would become well known
as an educator, public servant, agricultural economist, diplomat, and interpreter of
Japanese culture (like Motora, he was also a Christian).10
Much of Motora’s work focused on psychophysics (especially attention),
philosophical issues concerning the theory of the mind, and educational and
clinical Psychology.11 He also had an interest in moral and religious themes, and in
1894, he visited a Zen at a monastery where he practiced meditation, viewing it as
a scientific experiment and claiming he experienced “self without representation.”12
His experience with Zen informed his “philosophical turn” which marked his later
career. His mentor G. S. Hall recounted how “his interest had gone over very largely
into the field of a philosophy that seemed to focus upon religious subjects; and
nearly all his conversations were upon a type of religion which should embody and
unite the chief truths in the faiths of the Eastern and Western worlds.”13 Motora
was the first Japanese Psychologist whose name appeared in a joint publication
in English: in 1887 he coauthored with Hall “Dermal Sensitiveness to Gradual
Pressure Changes” in the first volume of The American Journal of Psychology. This
article, utilizing Weber’s law, investigated touch sensitivity.14 In 1890, he published
Table 5.1 Examples of books by Motora
Japanese title English title Year

Shinrigaku Psychology 1890
Rinrigaku Ethics 1893
Shinrigaku Jū-kai Kōgi Ten Lectures on Psychology 1897
Vunto-shi Shinrigaku Gairon Introduction to Wundt’s Psychology 1900
(co-translated with Nakajima Taizō)
Chūtō Kyōiku Rinri Kōwa Lectures on Ethics in Secondary Education 1900
Shinrigaku Kōyō Summary of Psychology 1907
Ronbun-shū Collection of Articles 1909
Kyōiku Byōri oyobi Chiryōgaku Educational Pathology and Therapeutics 1912
(co-authored with Sakaki Yasusaburō)
Motora Yūjirō and Matsumoto Matatarō 73
Shinrigaku (Psychology), the first textbook on scientific Psychology by a Japanese

that, besides being systematic and original, was not a translation; nor did it rely
heavily on foreign works (Table 5.2). A number of other major works would follow.
Motora helped inaugurate the journal Psychological Research in 1912 and in that
same year, together with Inoue Tetsujirō and Nakamura Rikizō (1858–1918),
composed the Ei-Doku-Futsu-Wa tetsugaku jii Tetsugaku jii (Dictionary of English,
German, French and Japanese Philosophical Terms). Though the dictionary was
riddled with mistakes, it was an invaluable source for those pursuing studies in the
emerging fields of the social sciences and humanities. In 1915, Shinrigaku Gairon
(Outline of Psychology), which outlined Motora’s theoretical system, was published
posthumously.15
Table 5.2 Chapters of Motora’s Shinrigaku (Psychology, 1890)
Introduction Sōron 総論
Sensation Kankaku 感覚
1 The Five Sensory Organs Gokan 五感
2 The Binding of the Senses Kankaku no Ketsugō 感覚結合
3 Nature of Consciousness Ishiki no Seishitsu 意識性質
4 Recall of Ideas Kannen no Saisei 観念の再生
5 Illusions Genei 幻影
6 Concepts Gainen 概念
7 Imagination Sōzō 想像
8 The Ideal Risō 理想
9 Theory of Pleasure and Pain Kuraku no Gakuri 苦楽の学理
10 Music Ongaku 音楽
11 Painting Kaiga 絵画
12 Theory of Beauty Bi no Gakuri 美の学理
13 “Rhythm” “Rizumu” リズム
14 Laughter Shō 笑
15 Love Aijō 愛情
16 Social Sense Shakai-teki Kankaku 社会的感覚
17 Attention Chūi 注意
18 Habit and Instinct Shūkan oyobi Honnō 習慣及本能
19 Nature of Self-Consciousness Jikaku no Seishitsu 自覚の性質
20 Desire Yokubō 欲望
21 Expression Hyōshutsu 表出
22 Will Ishi 意志
23 Ethical Sense Rinri-teki Kankaku 倫理的感覚
Snapshot Granville Stanley Hall

G. S. Hall (1844–1924) was one of most influential and important American
Psychologists. He also played a key role in training Japanese Psychologists―
in particular, Motora―and thereby helped shape the trajectory of Japanese
Psychology (Table 5.3). Eleven Japanese wrote memorials for G. S. Hall in 1924.16
G. S. Hall received the world’s first PhD in Psychology in 1875 under the tutelage
of William James and studied under Wundt, becoming his first American student.
After returning from Leipzig, he became professor of Psychology and pedagogics
at Johns Hopkins University (1893) and set up what many consider to be the first
American Psychology laboratory. He then moved to Clark University, where he
was president from 1899 to 1920. While there, he invited Freud and Carl Jung
to lecture in 1909. His research focused on childhood development, education,
adolescence, and evolutionary theory. It is no coincidence that two institutions
associated with Hall, Johns Hopkins and Clark, were established as research
universities (in 1876 and 1889, respectively) that emulated the German model to
meet the demands of economic growth and techno-scientific advancement.17 He
was the first president of the American Psychological Association (1892); founded
the American Journal of Psychology (1887); and edited the Pedagogical Seminary
(from 1892), the American Journal of Religious Psychology and Education (from
1904), and the Journal of Race Development (from 1910). His books include:
Adolescence (1904), Youth: Its Education and Regimen (1906), Educational Problems
(1911), and Aspects of Child Life and Education (1921).
Table 5.3 Japanese who studied under Hall at Clark University
Name Degree Dissertation

Kuma Toshiyasu PhD 1906 A Study of School Legislation in the United States
Misawa Tadasu PhD 1908 Modern Educators and Their Ideals
Kakise Hikozō PhD 1909 A Preliminary Experimental Study of the Conscious
Concomitants of Understanding
Kanda Sakyō MA 1909 –
Nakamura Yasuma MA 1909 –
Ueda Tadaichi MA 1910 –
Ueda Tadaichi PhD 1912 The Psychology of Justice
Yamada Sōshichi PhD 1913 Psychological Approach to Questionnaires
Kubo Yoshihide PhD 1915 Some Aspects of a Recent Child Study
Hori Baiten PhD 1916 A Study of the Behavior of Attention
Kurihara Shinichi MA 1916 –
Kurihara Shinichi PhD 1918 Theories of Attention
Yokoyama PhD 1921 An Experimental Study of Affective Tendency as
Matsusaburō Conditioned by Color and Form
Source: Nishikawa (2008f: 50).
Motora’s life
Motora Yūjirō was born into a samurai family on November 1, 1858, in Settsu Province
(kuni) in the Sanda Domain (han).18 He was the second son of Sugita Yutaka, a retainer
(hanshi) of the Sanda Domain and a Confucian scholar who taught in a hankō
(domain school). Yūjirō acquired the surname “Motora” when he married his wife
and was adopted into her family.19 From seven years of age, he studied Confucianism
and Western learning (yōgaku) at a hankō called Zōshikan. When he turned thirteen
he entered Eiranjuku, a private academy (shijuku) for Western learning operated by
Kawamoto Kōmin, a famous scholar of Dutch studies (rangaku).20 When Yūjirō’s father
died in 1872, his older brother inherited the family estate.
Snapshot Kawamoto Kōmin

Kawamoto (Yukitami) (1810–71) would introduce developments in nineteenth-
century science to Motora. A student of the physician Adachi Chōshun (1775–
1837) and the Dutch scholar Tsuboi Shindō (1795–1848), Kawamoto was a
physician who studied physics and chemistry. He was appointed in 1859 to teach
at the shogunate’s Bansho Shirabesho (Institute for the Study of Barbarian Books)
and was counselor to the Shimazu Nariakira, the feudal lord of Satsuma. He
authored a book on the mechanics of the steam engine entitled Strange Machines of
the Far West (Ensei Kikijutsu; completed in 1845 but not published until 1854 due
to the political climate) and a work on physics called Kikai Kanran Kōgi (1851–
56; Expanded Commentary on Kikai Kanran).21 He also worked on telegraphic
instruments, daguerreotype, and collodion photographs. He coined “chemistry”
(kagaku) (previously called seimigaku) and is credited with brewing Japan’s first
beer. At the age of fifteen while he was visiting Arima Onsen, Yūjirō met Jerome D.
Davis (1838–1910), an American missionary,22 who Yūjirō would live with in Kobe,
where he learned English and studied the Bible. When he turned sixteen (1874),
Yūjirō would be baptized by Davis into the Christian faith.
In 1875 Davis assisted Niijima Jō (1843–90),23 a Protestant convert and

important educator, in establishing the Christian Dōshisa Eigakkō (Dōshisha
English Academy) in Kyoto, where all textbooks were in English and instructors
regularly taught in English. With themselves as the only two instructors, Davis and
Niijima initially taught eight students, including Yūjirō. Though his experiences
at Dōshisha were significant for the formation of his intellectual orientation
(see below), he was apparently not satisfied with its intellectual offerings and so
Yūjirō left Dōshisha in 1879.24 In that same year he went to Tokyo and taught
math and English at Gakunōsha Nōgakkō (Gakunōsha School of Agriculture),
whose president was the educator and agriculturalist Tsuda Sen (1837–1908).25 In
September 1880 he entered Imperial University (later Tokyo Imperial University),
where he studied physics and mathematics as a senkasei (special student) but
the next year in January he left the university. Then he would teach and serve as
principal at Kōkyō Gakusha,26 which would become part of Tōkyō Eigakkō (Tokyo
English School) in 1881. Yūjirō was involved in the establishment and management
of the latter, where he also taught math.27
The year 1881 was very significant for Yūjirō. First, via an introduction from Tsuda
Sen, he met and married Motora Yone (who was also a Christian) on June 7. Adopted
by his wife’s family, he acquired a new surname. Second, his social status changed:
Yūjirō was a descendent of samurai (shizoku), but now, marrying someone who was
from a Tokyo merchant family, he became a commoner (heimin). Third, because of
his marriage, he obtained a measure of financial stability. And finally, he changed
his religion, from the Congregational Church (Kumiai-kyōkai) to the Methodist
(Mesojisuto-ha), his wife’s faith.
Motora, probably encouraged by Milton Smith Vail (1853–1928), who was the
principal of Tōkyō Eigakkō,28 traveled to America in 1883 at his own expense and
matriculated at Boston University to study moral philosophy and theology. Two
years later, he left to take up graduate work at Johns Hopkins University to focus on
Psychology and from where he would receive his doctorate in 1888.
At Boston University Motora studied under the American Christian philosopher
and theologian Borden Parker Bowne (1847–1910).29 Motora was probably familiar
with Bowne’s Studies in Theism (1879) from his days at Dōshisha. Apparently, the
relationship between the two did not work out, and in 1885, Motora transferred
to Johns Hopkins University, where he would study Psychology under G. S. Hall.30
Altogether, he would spend five years in the United States.
Motora’s pursuit of his interests demonstrates individual initiative, especially
since at that time Psychology as an independent field was quite novel and in many
universities did not yet exist. At the time, Psychology was a three-year program
at Johns Hopkins. The first year covered “senses considered experimentally an
anatomically”; the second year focused on “space, the time-sense, physiological time
and the psycho-physic law” as well as “association, memory, habit, attention, the will,
feelings successively and treated experimentally”; the last year investigated “instinct
in animals, psychogenesis in children, the [P]sychological parts of anthropology and
morbid [P]sychology.”31 In addition to Psychology, Motora also studied mathematics,
pedagogy, and political science,32 and despite his professed interest in experimental
Psychology, Motora’s dissertation, entitled “Exchange, Considered as the Principles of
Social Life,” was not experimental based; nor was it about a specifically psychological
topic.33 He incorporated concepts from sociology, physiology, biology, physics-
mechanics, chemistry, philosophy, economics, and Psychology, and by “exchange”
he meant a wide-ranging, comprehensive idea that covered all sorts of exchange:
among friends, labor-capital, economic, communication, feelings.34 However, it was
teleology (mokuteki-ron) that was stressed, a notion that in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries was influential in philosophy, biology, and physiology.35 The
culmination of Motora’s graduate work was not strictly psychological but illustrated
an open mind to what was considered at the time knowledge in general. His cross-
disciplinary approach certainly aided him in his later efforts to establish Psychology
in Japan.
In June 1888 Motora was awarded his PhD from Johns Hopkins. In July of the same
year he returned to Japan, and in September he became an instructor (kōshi) at the
College of Literature (Bunka Daigaku) at Imperial University. Toyama, who continued

to teach Psychology (shinrigaku), put him in charge of the class on psychophysics
(seishin butsurigaku), in which he taught what were all relatively new topics. Initially
four students who took his class learned how to conduct psychological experiments;
for example, measured the time needed for mental activity, auditory discrimination,
the perception of gravity, vision, muscular sense, dermal sensitivity to pressure, and
the relationship between stimuli and sensation.
From September 1888, Motora also concurrently held a position at Tōkyō Eiwa
Gakkō,36 where he lectured on Alexander Bain’s Psychology and Thomas Henry
Huxley’s physiology, sociology, and the history of philosophy.37 In September 1889
Motora, along with Toyama and Kanda Naibu,38 also became involved in the
establishment of the Seisoku Preparatory School (Seisiku Yobikō)39 and served as its
principal. In October 1890 he was promoted to professor, and in 1891 he received his
doctorate from Imperial University. In 1893, Motora was appointed the professor of the
First Chair of Psychology–Ethics–Logic (Shinrigaku–Rinrigaku–Ronrigaku). As such,
1893 might be considered the date when Japan’s first professional Psychologist began
teaching. In 1894 Motora was appointed professor (until 1900) at the Higher Normal
School (Kōtō Shihan Gakkō) while he concurrently continued his professorship at
Tokyo Imperial University.
Evidence of Motora’s cosmopolitan and collaborative scholarship is apparent in his
travels during 1904–5. He went to America, where he visited William James, Hugo
Munsterberg, G. S. Hall, James Baldwin, G. T. Ladd, Edward Titchener, James McKeen
Cattel, and Judd. In England, he saw William McDougall and in Germany, he spent
time with Carl Stumpf, Georg E. Muller, Wundt, Emil Kraepelin, Ernst Mach, and
Theodor Lipps. He also visited Italy, where he met with Cesare Lombroso.40 In 1905
Motora attended the 5th International Congress of Psychology in Rome and presented
a paper entitled “Idea of Ego in the Eastern Philosophy,” which was based on his
experiences of Zen meditation at a Buddhist temple.41
Motora, who suffered from caries, died on December 13, 1912. On the same day,
he was awarded the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold and Silver Star. Kakise Hikozō
informed The American Journal of Psychology that he had died and translated into
English an address given by Professor Watase Shōsaburō at Motora’s funeral.42 Parts of
this appeared in Titchener’s 1913 obituary for “Professor Yuzero Motora.”43
Motora the person

Politically, Motora had an interest in socialism, which should not be surprising, given
the close connection between this ideology and Christianity at the time. He probably
acquired his views on socialism while overseas. However, he never developed radical
leanings.44 In 1901 he left the Association for the Study of Socialism (Shakaishugi
Kenkyū-kai) and wrote critical articles about socialism for the Nihonjin (The Japanese).45
Motora was also a member of the Dai Nihon Kyō-kai (Great Japan Society),46 which
advocated Japanism (nihon-shugi) and the “Japanese national essence movement.” His
motivations for joining such an organization are unclear,47 though he did not seem to
be a strong supporter of Japanese militarist expansionism.
On a number of occasions, Motora stood his ground on issues of moral and

scientific integrity. For example, he invited the zoologist Mitsukuri Kakichi (1857–
1909) to speak on evolutionism at Tōkyō Eiwa Gakkō. The latter’s criticism of the Old
Testament did not sit well with the school’s directors, who attacked Motora since he
was responsible for the lecture. Consequently, Motora resigned from this position in
February 1889.
Though he suffered from caries, he was always gracious and dedicated to his students.
He refrained from alcohol and tobacco, and “moderate” and “modesty” are the words
that sum up his character. The Psychologist Edmund C. Sanford described him as quiet
and reserved though possessing a friendly manner. According to his mentor Hall, he
was a “man of the most serious and earnest character, quiet and modest, apparently
with no other interest whatever than his Psychological and philosophical studies, his
zest for the latter probably being more pronounced than for the former.” As reported
by Titchener, the Psychologist W. H. Burnham remembered Motora as
a student of the best type, at once sane, temperate, industrious, enthusiastic; as a

thinker, distinctly philosophical, bold, original, independent and vigorous; as a
friend, pleasing, reliable, satisfying and with a large fund of good-fellowship; in
character possessing all the sturdy virtues, dependable, trustworthy, dignified and
helpful. He was thoroughgoing and original as a thinker and scholar.48
Major intellectual influences

That Motora would eventually choose Psychology as an academic field perhaps should
not be surprising, since from the mid-nineteenth century it was the nexus of moral,
theological, philosophical, pedagogic, and scientific concerns. For Motora, Psychology
was the basis for the “study of society” (shakai no gaku), or more specifically, the
investigation of social problems, education, and ethics.49 Note that Motora’s earliest
intellectual influences were: (1) an elite Confucian training; (2) Christianity; and
(3) the latest scientific knowledge, especially physics. The latter, which initially came
via Kawamoto Kōmin, was particularly important for Motora’s view of the nature of
psyche and its relation to the world.50 Like other thinkers of the late nineteenth century,
Motora attempted to integrate the study of nature and society.51
Inspired by the certainty of modern knowledge, Motora attempted to overcome the
differences between psychical phenomena (seishin genshō) and physical phenomena
(butsuri genshō) by unifying their respective laws. He believed that the “origin of mind
is energy and because it is energy, it is controlled by physical laws.”52 In other words,
“he attempted to explain psychical phenomena by physical laws.”53
At Dōshisha, Motora took courses in theology and what was called at the time
“mental philosophy,” reading Thomas C. Upham’s54 Elements of Mental Philosophy:
Embracing the Three Elements of the Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (1869) and Joseph
Haven’s Mental Philosophy: Including the Intellect, Sensibilities and Will (1875).
These works, though they provided a thorough and solid philosophical perspective
then predominant, did not treat Psychology as an experimental science. It has to
be emphasized that even in the industrialized world at this time for the most part
Psychology as an independent field did not exist. Motora was exposed to the American
naturalist and missionary John Thomas Gulick (1832–1923), who lectured on
evolutionism at Dōshisha (1878–79).55 He favored William B. Carpenter’s56 Principles
of Mental Physiology (1874) and, like many Meiji-era Japanese intellectuals and men of
ambition, Motora admired Samuel Smiles’57 Self-Help (1859).58
As Motora learned about the emerging field of Psychology, his views were
shaped by key personages and the major currents of his day. These included Gustav
T. Fechner59 (psychophysics), Wilhelm Wundt (experimental Psychology), William
James (pragmatism), and G. S. Hall (educational Psychology, “genetic Psychology”―
that is, the social and mental development of children―and methodology, surveys,
and observation techniques).60 In his later years, Motora’s philosophical perspective
was greatly influenced by the chemist and Nobel Prize awardee Friedrich Wilhelm
Ostwald (1853–1932) and his ideas on “energetic monism.”
Motora’s contributions
In addition to the emerging field of scientific Psychology, Motora pursued many
interests. In fact, it is difficult to find a realm of intellectual inquiry of what we now
call the social sciences that Motora did not either investigate or comment upon.61
For example, collaborating with physiologists, Motora conducted experiments on
nerve transmission (he actually attempted to simulate neurotransmission based on a
hydraulic model using rubber tubes).62 Though his thinking on neurotransmission was
based on older understandings of how the nervous system functioned, his work in this
area demonstrates his interest in physiological Psychology.
Consider pedagogical Psychology. From very early on, Motora had an interest
in education.63 Indeed, his first book was about pedagogy, called Kyōiku Shinron
(New Theories on Education, 1884). His contributions to this field were far-ranging
and can be characterized as both theoretical (research oriented) and practical.
He was involved in the establishment and administration of several schools (e.g.,
Kōkyō Gakusha and Seisoku Junior High School), and in 1894 he also became
an instructor at Higher Normal School. Motora was a member of the Education
Ministry’s Moral Textbook Survey Committee64 (1901) and the National Language
Committee65 (1902). He also wrote textbooks for secondary school students.
Along with Toyama Masakazu, Kanda Naibu, and Takashima Heizaburō, he helped
set up the Japan Education Research Association (Nihon Kyōiku Kenkyū-kai) in
1890. In 1902, Motora and his students organized the Association of Child Study
(Nihon Jidō Kenkyū-kai); Motora became its first president. He was a member of
the Great Japan Educational Society (Dai Nihon Kyōiku-kai; established in 1883
and later called the Teikoku Kyōiku-kai or the Imperial Society for Education).66
And in 1891, he distributed Japan’s first questionnaire on ethics to normal and
elementary schools.67
Much of Motora’s work focused on problems that children might encounter in
the classroom.68 Indeed, he “can be considered as one of the pioneer researchers”
in cognitive Psychology and learning disabilities.69 Specifically, he researched word
association among children, the sense of morality among adolescents, and the
readability of written Japanese. He was particularly interested in attention and believed
that many children with poor school achievement were not necessarily mentally
lacking but were suffering from a type of attention deficiency. Motora developed a
device designed to train children to maintain concentration during class.70 And in
1911, in what is probably the first publication by a Japanese in clinical Psychology, he
published “An Experiment on Training for Attention,” in which he discussed a method
for increasing children’s school achievement.71
As a key Japanese thinker, Motora possesses an “appealing complexity,” and “it
can be said that he reflected the complex circumstances of Psychology of the time.”
However, “there is a strong sense that we have not reached the point of appreciating the
full story of Motora’s activities.”72 Within the context of the global intellectual scene,
his contributions can be understood as an attempt to move from a confessional, pre-
scientific, cosmic worldview to a secular, scientific, scopic perspective. He was born
the same year as the Buddhist philosopher and educator Inoue Enryō (1858–1919)
and Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), the “father” of sociology. His ideas were responses
to the jarring transition from a mentality that subsumed the person into moral
collectivities to one that positioned a rights-bearing individual in the center of the
political process. Like other great thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, he bridges two very different worlds: one based on a decaying feudalism and
agriculture-based economy, and the other consisting of modern machinery, factories,
and offices. Motora, like other researchers, whether he was aware of it or not, took
his cue from an emerging industrialism and objectified, quantified, and precisely
measured the human psyche. By the same token, the new mentality that emerged in
response to these practical procedures should be viewed as a psychological adaptation
to modernity.
The psycho-philosophy of Motora Yūjirō

In his obituary for Motora,73 Titchener reported that Motora used a “wire helmet”
to perform a “strange experiment” on Watase Shōsaburō, Nitobe Inazō, and Nagase
Hōsuke when they lived together in Baltimore. “During our dreams there occur
certain electrical changes [‘sleep brain waves’ or suimin nōha] in our brains, so if we
transmit the electric current from one brain to another by means of the helmet, all of us
may have the same dream at the same time.” Alas, after several nights of experiments,
no persuasive results emerged, though they shared a good laugh at their attempt.
According to Titchener, this experiment demonstrated that Motora “had a very deep
interest … in mystic phenomena.”74
This account, though occurring when Motora was still young, portends a latter
endeavor to experimentally reveal or explain psychological processes by linking them
to a natural force (e.g., electricity) that arguably possessed associations with vitalism
and cosmic energies. Like many others of his day, Motora stood in both the premodern
and modern worlds, with one foot in a cosmic realm and another foot in a scopically
scrutinized universe.
Motora’s Psychology
Motora was instrumental in introducing to Japan the latest developments in overseas
Psychology.75 In 1888 he wrote “The Present State of American Psychology” (“Beikoku
Shinrigaku no Kinkyō”) for Rikugō Zasshi. He explained that Psychology had come from
Europe and introduced the work of G. S. Hall (1844–1924), T. A. Ribot (1839–1916), B.
P. Bowne (1847–1910), and J. McCosh (1811–94).76 He also introduced the Psychology
of James Dewey. Motora posed the question: Does the new discipline of Psychology
concern science (kagaku), philosophy (tetsugaku), or theology (shingaku)? He
suggested that unlike philosophy, Psychology is scientific since it avoids introspection
(naishō) and relies on observation and experimentation (Tables 5.4 and 5.5).
Table 5.4 Motora’s experimental psychological research
Period Research
Around 1886 Sleep brain waves
1887 Dermal sensitiveness to pressure to gradual pressure changes
1888 Attention (using metal folding screen)
Around 1889 Rhythm
Around 1890 Audio perception
1891 Optical illusion of artificial moon
1895 Vision of those with white cataracts
1896 Advantages and disadvantages of vertical and horizontal reading
1903 Neurotransmission
1904 Difficulty and ease of reading katakana and hiragana
1907 Children’s power of attention and its training
Source: Osaka R. (1998; cited in Satō 2002a: 121). For more on Motora’s experiments, see Osaka R. (2000a).
Table 5.5 Lectures given by Motora, September 1906–June 1907
Chapter Topic
Introduction Characteristics of Psychology or Psychology and other sciences
1 What is psychological phenomena?
2 Attention
3 Conscious experience and abstraction
4 Nerves and muscles
5 The senses and sensory organs
6 Expressions
7 Theories about character
Table 5.5 Lectures given by Motora, September 1906–June 1907 (continued)
Chapter Topic
8 On the concept of the external world
9 Language and thought
10 The relation between humans and the external world
11 General remarks on motions
12 Expressive movement
13 Movement
14 Changes in psychological theories
15 Psychology as a science
16 About the basic concepts of Psychology
17 About mental development
18 Conclusion
Source: Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 89). In Satō Tatsuya’s personal library; originally from the notes of Fujimoto
Seisuke (“Motora Hakase Jutsu Futsū Shinrigaku”).
From 1889 to 1891, Motora published a series of articles entitled “Psychophysics” in

Tetsugakkai Zasshi (Journal of the Philosophical Society).77 These essays were apparently
based on his lectures.78 In the eighth article of the series, he described his “span of
attention of experiment” using a kymograph. This was “probably the first systematic
psychological experiment in Japan.” In the ninth to twelfth articles, he “presented
statistical studies on rhythms on Japanese classical poems and experiments on word
associations in young men.”79
At the most basic level, Motora’s thinking was rooted in a natural science of
physics, energies, and dynamics, or the natural-philosophical “view that nature is
mechanical.”80 Documents preserved at Johns Hopkins University81 demonstrate his
early interest in a positivist approach to Psychology. Such an interest is also evident
in a letter explaining why he wanted to attend Johns Hopkins: he wrote that his aim
was to “study farther [sic] in [P]sychology, especially in the line of phisiological [sic]
[P]sychology and make experimental investigation on the same subject.”82 Here we
might note that his student Fukurai Tomokichi listed three key traits of Motora’s
Psychology: (1) mind is fundamentally dynamic and has the same status as a natural
force, (2) the second law of the conservation of energy can explain the mind as a cause-
and-effect phenomenon, and (3) mental power (seishinryoku) and natural power
(shizenryoku) mutually operate upon each other.83
From a cosmic to a scopic worldview: Widening the Great Split

A “Great Split” between the macro–microcosm (“outer world” of physical reality)
and the introcosm (“inner world” of the mind’s eye) has haunted thinkers for
centuries. By around 1500, the Aristotlean and Ptomeliac cosmology began to erode,
mostly due to the Copernican–Galilean–Newtonian revolutions. During the 1600s

and 1700s, scientific thinking and technological advances, particularly in terms of
“measurement,” reconfigured an older cosmic worldview into a scopic perspective (i.e.,
macro–microscopic and introscopic). During the nineteenth century, this intellectual
evolution transformed the soul into a mind that could be measured and objectively
investigated, while the individual was increasingly interiorized, expanding the gap
between the inner and outer realms. By the late nineteenth century, modern research
experimental Psychology had emerged, which both greeted and encouraged the grand
epistemological fissure (Table 5.6).
Two key questions guide the next section. First, how could the great fissure be sewn
up, especially as it concerned the widening gap between science and religion? Second,
for thinkers such as Motora, did the introscopic (mind) still possess introcosmic
features (soul-like attributes, religious associations, etc.)?
Table 5.6 Variations on the Great Split
Macro–Microcosm or Introcosm or Introscopic Discipline/Debate/

Macro–Microscopic Discourse
Physics: butsurigaku Physics: butsurigaku Psychophysics: seishin
butsurigaku
Object: kyakukan Subject: shukan Different perspectives
Physics: butsurigaku Psychology: shinrigaku Different disciplines
Matter: butsu Mind: shin Matter and mind: busshin
Natural world: shizenkai Mental world: shinkai Different “worlds”
Nature-centered system: shushizen Ego–self-centered system • Different “systems”
keitō Mind-centered system: shuga
keitō • shushin keitō
External world: gaikai Internal world: naikai Metaphors of spatiality
Body: shin Mind: shin Mind–body problem:
shinshin mondai
Body: shintai Heart–mind: kokoro Different “parts” of human
nature
Materialism: yuibutsu-ron Idealism • Spiritualism: Also parallelism: heikō-ron
yuishin-ron
Body and mind: shinshin Ego: jiga Different “aspects” of human
nature
Material world: busshitsu sekai Mental world • Human world: Different substances
seishin sekai • ningenkai
Natural power: shizenryoku Mental power: seishinryoku Different energies
Action: kō Knowledge: chi “Unity of knowledge and
action”: chikō gōitsu (Neo-
Confucian idea)
Spiritualized science
During the late nineteenth century, Psychology became a refuge for many who
respected the findings of science but were still spiritually, or more loosely,
philosophically, minded. Motora, like William James, fits this bill, though it should
be noted that in his later years Motora would put some distance between himself
and Christianity. Motora was clearly interested not just in the workings of psyche
but also in the relation between the mind and the greater outside world.84 Indeed,
his own student, Fukurai Tomokichi, described him as a “philosopher who took
the form of a Psychologist.”
In addition to his more conventional research on psychophysics, then, Motora
also had an interest in philosophical issues concerning the theory of the mind and the
mind–body problem. More broadly, Motora was concerned with stitching together
the great fissure that was becoming more salient in the nineteenth century. For him,
energy had the role of mediating between mind and matter. Utilizing late-nineteenth-
century scientific and Buddhist concepts, Motora attempted to sew together the two
realms of the Great Split. His philosophical thinking evolved through several stages:
(1) psychologized energy, (2) psychical potential and psychical reality, (3) energetic
monism, and (4) the “ultimate psychical ground/source.” But we must first frame these
attempts within Motora’s crucial and formative experiences with Zen.
Zen and Psychology

Motora’s first important attempt at uniting the outer and inner worlds is evident when
in 1895 he spent one week at a Buddhist temple, Engaku-ji,85 of the Rinzai Sect.86 He
viewed the practice of Zen a type of psychological experiment in which conditions are
arranged to control stimuli.87 After all, Psychology was not just about the senses and
perception; it also involved something deeper, a type of experience that stretched the
bounds of conventional knowledge while maintaining a scientific ethos. Motora found
this experience in the practice of Zen. For Motora, Zen was not mysticism; its practice
allowed one to view the contents of mind, whose dynamical expressions we usually
do not notice, though we can be trained to.88 Motora practiced under the supervision
of the famous Zen master and abbot of Engaku-ji, Shaku Sōen (1859–1919),89 and he
kept a diary.90
Given a kōan to ponder, he reportedly achieved “pure experience,” the condition of
ego without representation,91 or as he put it, a “direct experience of energy.” He noted
that “If I compare the [P]sychology which I had learned up to that time to a plane
surface, that experience is like a third dimension.”92 Note that Motora believed that
the main problem of modern Psychology is the relation between mind (subject) and
body (object); this perspective would act as an intellectual prism for interpreting his
Zen experiences. Indeed, Motora claimed that he was able to transcend the subject–
object division.93 But here we should note that mind–body dualism was just one
particular manifestation of the Great Split, which took other forms: matter and mind
(busshin), material world (busshitsu sekai), mental world (seishin sekai or seishinkai),
natural power (shizenryoku), and mental power (seishinryoku). Consciousness itself is
paradoxically dualistic: it divides itself into two parts, subject and object. At the same
time, however, consciousness itself results from the interaction of subject and object.94
Motora, we should note, did acknowledge that Japanese Buddhists may not agree
with his interpretation of the Zen experience. Also, Motora came to view the practice
of Zen as pragmatism à la William James.95 Indeed, the title of a 1910 article is “Zen
is Pragmatism.”96 Here we should note that basically, pragmatism is the argument that
the truth value of a proposition is determined by its practical consequences. But more
specifically for James, pragmatism was a way to evaluate truth claims not by judging
their falsity or opposite (i.e., truth), but by assessing a proposition’s actual outcome.
James also advocated a socially moral type of pragmatism: different beliefs were
acceptable as long as outcomes could somehow be commonly agreed upon.
Based on his experiences, Motora eventually proposed two “systems” (keitō):
shuga (ego or self)97 and shushizen (nature centered). The latter is indirect
experience and concerns observing the natural world and things outside oneself.
But it is through the ego or self that we can obtain “direct experience.” Motora used
the analogy of the solar system: the sun is the ego; that is, the mind is at the center
of the universe,98 and therefore it is not a mere part of nature.99 Here we might note
that rather than determinism, free will (jiyū ishi) accounts for human behavior.
Moreover, will (which can be broken down into three constituents: desires, concepts,
and the physiological mechanism of execution)100 is like electricity or heat; it is an
entity that possesses power. Therefore, like these other energies, the will follows
the laws of the natural world.101 Motora would devise a type of instrument called
kenshingi to illustrate the relation between the universe and the individual.102 It
was composed of three circles. The large ring represents the outside/physical world
(gaikai), the middle one the individual (mind and body; shinshin), and the smaller
one the ego (jiga).103
Psychologized energy
Motora advocated a scientific, objective, and materialist approach and saw no need for
religious concepts. Nevertheless, he believed that, since intentional activity (mokuteki
katsudō) characterized human behavior, physical laws as presently understood could
not explain all aspects of the human condition.104 More specifically, if the soul (reikon)
did not exist, the “unifying function” (tōitsu sayō) of the mind required explanation.
For Motora, the answer was to be found in the certainty of the law of conservation of
energy (the first law of thermodynamics). This principle states that the total amount
of energy in a closed system remains constant. Consequently, energy cannot be
created or destroyed. However, energy can change form (e.g., from kinetic energy to
thermal energy), and for Motora, this meant that it could become a mental energy.
Some natural force or measurable energy must correspond to “pure subjectivity” or its
“original state” before it has been sullied by experience. Thus, though the universe lacks
intention or mind (ishi), a “psychologizing force” or “energy” (seishinka shita seiryoku
or enerugī) can explain consciousness as a scientific phenomenon.105 Motora, then,
used the concept of energy to bridge the gap between two very different worlds (i.e.,
subject and object) that had grown wider.106
Psychical potential and psychical reality

Motora postulated “psychical potential” (shinteki senzai) and “psychical reality”
(shinteki jitsuzai). He identified the former with shin-nyo (Sanskrit: tathata), which
means truth, “suchness,” or “as-it-is-ness” and may be thought of as the eternal
world-soul, unchanging existence, or absolute reality (for our purposes, it might
be identified as the macrocosm). It is the changeless element in human nature.
Psychical reality, for Motora, was the araya-shiki or “storehouse consciousness”
(Sanskrit: alaya vijñāna), which may be understood as the changing element in
human nature and is associated with the senses and the sense of self (for our
purposes, it might be identified with the micro- and introcosm).107 “Psychical
reality,” from which psychical processes emerge, includes various psychological
activities, and for Motora it was a more comprehensive term than “consciousness.”
Psychical reality is a concept that corresponds to the psychical potential and
material reality (butsuteki jitsuzai).108 Before death shin-nyo may be directly
experienced as psychical reality. The psychical potential, being hypothetical,
requires physiological activity in order to manifest itself in the form psychical
reality. The latter is the “water upon which various forms of waves, as knowledge,
desire, purpose and the like, are produced.”109
Energetic monism
In his later years, Motora was influenced by the views of the Baltic German chemist
Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald (1853–1932), who is considered to be one of the modern
founders of physical chemistry and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1909.
In works such as Die energetische Grundlagen der Kulturwissenschaften (Energetic
Principles as a Basis for the Cultural Sciences, 1909), Ostwald developed “energetism”
(or “vitalist energetics” or “energetic monism”; Japanese: enerugī ichigen-ron).110 His
ideas were influenced by the first and second laws of thermodynamics—the law of
conservation of energy and the law of entropy. Energy is the substrate of all phenomena
and changes are transformations of one kind of energy into another. His thinking had
both physical as well as epistemological implications: we cannot perceive matter; rather,
we only perceive energy since our own organisms interact with other energy sources.
Critical of mechanistic explanations, he contended that cause and effect transpire due
to the transformation of one form of energy into another (though the total amount of
energy remains constant). Mind is a form of neural energy and obeys the same laws as
other types of energy.
For Motora, monism came to mean that psychical and physical energy are aspects
of the same reality and are convertible. Energy is the substrate of all phenomena, and
all observable changes can be understood as transformations of one kind of energy
into another. The underlying idea is that time, space, quantity, and energy, which
are natural entities, can be objectified, while sensation, idea, concept, and affection,
which are ego-centered, should be the provenance of Psychology. However, through
transformations of energy, these two systems can be changed into one or another.111
The Great Split had been bridged.
The ultimate psychical source

Eventually, Motora coined the term shingen in his attempt to postulate a philosophical
foundation for his belief in energetic monism and its relation to mind.112 Difficult
to translate, I would suggest the “ultimate psychical ground,” “ultimate psychical
source,” or “ground of all psychical experience” (shin indicates psychical in a cosmic
sense while gen might be understood as “foundational energy”). Though he did not
live to flesh out this notion and his explanation is somewhat unsatisfactory, one of
his close students, Fukurai Tomokichi, listed some of its key characteristics. First, the
concept possesses a decidedly Buddhist flavor. It lacks innate traits in the way a soul
might possess them, though it is not completely a tabula rasa. Though “empty” in a
Buddhist sense, it can be experienced. It is an impersonal natural force, uncreated,
indestructible, constant, and unchanging. The human personality is formed by
the combination of the body and shingen. It is the source of the individual mind
(kokoro no minamoto).113 After death, both the personality and body perish, but the
shingen, as the ground of all existence, continues.114 Shingen, then, though “psychical
energy,” is similar to physical phenomena or natural forces, such as electricity, light,
or gravitation.115
Motora on religion and science

In a 1905 essay titled “Conflict of Religion and Science: From a Japanese Point of
View,” Motora notes that in the past Japanese education, at the expense of scientific
study, overly emphasized “ethics.” And though Japanese society had made impressive
gains from a techno-scientific perspective, recently a disturbing “revival of the old
spirit” was evident: “Young men of Japan are beginning to feel that science does not
necessarily satisfy all their moral needs.” The “social soul” is becoming pathological
and is “losing unification and gradually disintegrating.” This did not bode well for the
“development of our national culture,” and a “universal propagation” of this scientific
spirit among the Japanese was still needed, “and even more urgently than it was a few
decades ago.”116
Motora contended that ethical culture and science do not “antagonize each other”;
indeed, “though many mistakenly believe they contradict each other,” they actually
cooperate with and complement each other. Therefore, we cannot make light of
“ethical culture” and “character building.” People, after all, possess an “innate spiritual
aspiration,” which “cannot be regarded as an abnormal pathological phenomenon of
the soul, for a mystic element is surely to be found in our normal mental activities.”
The sudden revival of “mystic romanticism,” then, cannot be unexpected, since
science cannot satisfy all our emotional needs. Moreover, “we cannot say by reason
of [natural] laws that there is no God.” For Motora, our souls have three distinct
functions: thinking, feeling, and willing. The “foundation of the will” is the “nucleus
of personality.” This nucleus requires nourishment, and it must have as its “constituent
element” a comprehensive concept such as “Mencius’s Vast Energy (Hao jan chih
chi’i),” Christian God, Buddhist Amitabha, or the ethicist’s humanity. At the same
time, this universal concept should be coupled with a healthy and pure sentiment,
such as Confucian fellow-feeling (ren), Christian love, “Buddhist mercy (karuna),” or

the ethicist’s philanthropy.117
What is the relation between science and “general” education? Motora noted
how thinkers such as Helmholtz, Virchow, Huxley, and Tyndall had an interest in
“general social education” and enthusiastically attempted to “propagate scientific
knowledge among the masses.” This was important, since a mystic romanticism
might fill a vacancy created by ignorance. Science had an important role to play
in modern society, and it was necessary to “effect a coordination among isolated
departmental sciences and to establish an organic relation between actual life and
science.” Indeed, any “humanistic movement” must be founded upon scientific
ideas. Moreover, since knowledge is needed in order to be “build character” and
“moral discipline,” two forms of knowledge, scientific and religio-philosophical
knowledge, are required.118
The father of Japanese Psychology: Matsumoto Matatarō
Next to Motora, the one scholar who did the most to introduce and institutionalize
the era of psychological experimentation in Japan was Matsumoto Matatarō. If
Motora was the grandfather of Japanese Psychology, Matsumoto was its father,119 or
perhaps, due to his great organizing and management skills and dedicated efforts at
institutionalization, Japan’s “father of experimental [P]sychology.”120
Before proceeding, a brief sketch of the state of Japan’s Psychology in the first half of
Meiji provides some historical bearings:
Psychology was translated as one component of mental philosophy that included

philosophy, ethics and works by Haven and Bain. Such works were used in
educational institutions. During this period, the main influences were, whether
direct or indirect, from England. In the second half of Meiji, however, scholarly
works from continental Europe were soon being introduced and were on the rise
(e.g., French social Psychology and German Psychology). These would begin the
era of experimentation.121
Matsumoto Matatarō: Nature, literature, and human nature

Matsumoto’s interests, like those of many other intellectual lights of the time, were
quite varied, though according to Matsumoto himself, he had three main concerns:
nature, literature, and human nature. He viewed Psychology as the discipline that
researched the latter.122 In addition to experimental Psychology, he is also credited with
making crucial contributions to applied, aesthetic, and developmental Psychology
and Psychology’s history. He was the first Psychologist to receive a doctorate from a
Japanese institution of higher education and had the fortune to meet and learn from
some of the most important Psychologists in the world at the time. He was a prolific
writer who authored 15 books (11 books on Psychology) and at least 100 articles (70
on Psychology) (Tables 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9).123
Table 5.7 Examples of books by Matsumoto Matatarō
Japanese Title English Title Year

Jikken Shinrigaku Jū Kō Ten Lectures on Experimental Psychology 1914
Seishin-teki Dōsa Psychokinematics 1914
Gendai no Nihonga Modern Japanese Painting 1915
Wataridori Nikkei Diary of a Migratory Bird 1917
Jisseikatsu to Shinri Practical Life and Psychology 1926
Kaiga Kanshō no Shinri Psychology of the Appreciation of Paintings 1926
Soshitsu no Shinri The Psychology of Character 1929
Chinō Shinrigaku The Psychology of Intelligence 1929
Shominzoku no Geijutsu The Art of Various Races 1930
Shinrigaku-shi The History of Psychology 1937
Biographical and educational background

Matsumoto Matatarō (né Iino) was born on September 15, 1865, in Takasaki,
Kōzukunokuni (now in Gunma Prefecture). He was the second son of Iino Tasuku,
a retainer of the Takasaki clan, who served as an accountant to the local lord.124
Matsumoto attended a private academy, where he studied English and learned
calligraphy from a master. He also studied at the Yokohama School of English. Later,
when a primary school opened in Takasaki, he returned to study there. In 1880,
when he graduated from higher elementary school, he was adopted by Matsumoto
Kanjūrō, who lived in Kuragano, a small town in the same locale. In September 1882
he attended Dōshisha English Academy, where he studied for one year and a half.
Then he enrolled in Kyoto Prefectural Middle School125 and in 1886 became a student
in Tokyo’s First Higher School.126
In 1890 Matsumoto entered Tokyo Imperial University, where he studied philosophy
(under Inoue Tetsujirō and Busse), Buddhism, sociology (Toyama), ethics, biology,
psychiatry, physiology, and Psychology (under Motora). He graduated in June 1893
and then became Motora’s graduate student. His graduation thesis was entitled
“Hume’s Doctrine of Causation.” He read Mind, American Journal of Psychology, James’
Principles of Psychology, and Wundt’s Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie.
He took classes in anatomy, neurology, and medical chemistry and conducted
experiments on acoustic space.
In 1892, the Psychologist George Trumbull Ladd of Yale University visited Japan
and the student Matsumoto attended his lectures and published his notes in Rikugo
Zasshi. When Matsumoto saw Ladd off at the wharf for his journey back home, he
informed him that he was interested in travelling overseas for study; Ladd is said to
have responded “Well, come to Yale first of all!”127 In September 1896 Matsumoto
followed Ladd’s advice and, with the latter’s assistance and relying on his own
private funds, set off for Yale. While there, he learned laboratory techniques and was
supervised by E. W. Scripture, and from 1897 to 1898, he worked as an assistant.

From these experiences he learned how to administer a laboratory and was trained in
how to conduct experiments.128 He took advantage of his time in the United States by
visiting other laboratories at Harvard, Clark, and Columbia Universities and was able
to meet such luminaries as William James, I. Royce, G. S. Hall, Edmund C. Sanford,
James McKeen Cattell, and E.L. Thorndike.129 Before leaving the United States,
he submitted his dissertation (“Chō-teki Kūkan no Kenkyū”) to Tokyo Imperial
University and in 1899 received a PhD from the latter institution as well as one from
Yale (for his “Experimental Researches in Acoustic Space,” the English title of his
Japanese dissertation).130
Snapshot George Trumbull Ladd

Ladd (1842–1921) began his career as a preacher. He taught philosophy at Bowdoin
(1879–81) and moral philosophy, metaphysics, and Psychology at Yale University
(1881–1901). Influenced by Lotze (he translated his Outlines of Philosophy, 1877),
he was interested in the relation between mental processes and the nervous system
and founded Yale’s Psychology laboratory. Ladd visited Japan and Tokyo Imperial
University (Ladd would visit Japan three times: 1892, 1899, and 1906–7131). Ladd,
who received two awards from the Meiji state for his contributions to Japan,
greatly influenced Psychology in that country. For instance, Nakajima Rikizō
based his 1898 Shinri Satsuyō on Ladd’s 1898 Outlines of Descriptive Psychology,
and Sasabe Akinobu (who studied overseas from 1909 to 1912) wrote Raddo-
shi Kijustu-teki Setsumei-teki Shinrigaku (A Descriptive Explanation of Ladd’s
Psychology, 1901).132 In the main, though, his influence was organizational rather
than theoretical. Some of his relevant works include: Elements of Physiological
Psychology (1889, rewritten as Outlines of Physiological Psychology, 1890); Primer
of Psychology (1894); Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory (1894); Philosophy
of the Mind (1891); and Rare Days in Japan (1910).
Snapshot Edward Wheeler Scripture

Scripture (1864–1945), who studied under Wundt, became a professor of
experimental Psychology and director of the Psychological Laboratory at
Yale University. His interests were in phonetics, acoustics, and speech. Due to
institutional infighting (Scripture severely criticized Ladd’s nonexperimental
approach), he resigned from Yale in 1903 and led a peripatetic existence, working at
Columbia University, Carnegie Institution, University of Marburg, King’s College,
and finally the University of Vienna. Two of his important works are Thinking,
Feeling, Doing (1895) and The New Psychology (1897).
Snapshot James McKeen Cattell

Cattell (1860–1944) studied under Rudolph Lotze (1817–81) and then with
Wundt, who supervised his doctorate. At Cambridge he met Francis Galton, whose
influence would shape his future research. Along with E. L. Thorndike, he built
up at Columbia University what was probably the most successful Psychology
laboratory in America for the time. He worked on reaction times, mental testing,
and the measurement of individual differences. Cattell was the first person in
the United States to hold the position of professor of the new discipline called
Psychology (1898).
In June 1898, with official financial support, he was ordered by the Ministry of
Education to head for University of Leipzig for two years. He travelled to Germany via
England and the Netherlands. While at Leipzig, where he was a member (Mitglieder) of
the Psychological Institute at Leipzig, he attended lectures by Wundt, Gustav Störring,
and Otto Fischer and visited Ewald Hering’s physiological laboratory.133 He was also
able to visit laboratories in Berlin, Zurich, Würzburg, and Gottingen and meet Oswald
Külpe and Ernst Meumann. Matsumoto also visited the laboratory at Cambridge
University.134 During these visits and meetings, which would prove indispensable for
Matsumoto when he endeavored to develop a rigorous experimental Psychology in
Japan, Matsumoto saw firsthand the state of art of the world’s Psychology laboratories.135
Snapshot Edward Bradford Titchener

Titchener (1867–1927), a British researcher and graduate of Oxford University,
studied under Wundt and taught at Cornell University. He investigated perception
and strongly believed in the use of experimentation to enumerate the structure of
consciousness (structuralism). In a process called “objective introspection,” he used
a detailed log of a subject’s thoughts as well as biological responses to stimuli. Some
of his works include: An Outline of Psychology (1896), Experimental Psychology
(1901–5), Elementary Psychology of Feeling and Attention (1908), Experimental
Psychology of the Thought Processes (1909), A Textbook of Psychology (1909–10),
and Systematic Psychology: Prolegomena (1929).
Career and contributions

Like Motora, Matsumoto supported and trained a number of students who would
come to play crucial roles in the development of Japanese Psychology. About twenty
students obtained doctorates in Psychology under him, and he taught Chiba Tanenari,
Tanaka Kanichi, Kuroda (né Arima) Genji, Narazaki Asatarō, Kuwata Yoshizō, Nogami
Toshio, Imada Megumi, Ishigami Tokumon, and Ide Takashi (who later became
professor of philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University).136 Matsumoto was an advocate
of women’s education. He was also instrumental in the careers of Haraguchi (née Arai)
Tsuruko, Kōra (née Wada) Tomi, and Hatano Isoko. In 1911 Matsumoto assisted in the
establishment of Dōshisha Women’s University.137
Matsumoto assisted with the publications Shinri Kenkyū (Psychological Research),
Shinri Sōsho (Psychological Series), and Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of
Psychology; from Kyoto Imperial University) which became one of the predecessors
of the Japanese Journal of Psychology (Shinrigaku Kenkyū; from Tokyo Imperial
University). Under the leadership of Matsumoto, the Psychological Association
(established in 1925) became the Japanese Psychological Association (JPA) in
1927.138 This marked a milestone in institutionalizing psychological knowledge in
Japan. He became the first president of the JPA and led this organization until his
death. In 1921 he became a member of the Imperial Academy in 1921.
During his career, Matsumoto saw the need for applied Psychology and encouraged
his students to work in industry, education, the military, aviation, criminal science,
law, communications, and vocational guidance and thereby spread the tenets of Japan’s
psychological revolution.139 Matsumoto, along with Motora, investigated writing and
the differences reading Japanese monosyllabaries (katakana and hiragana). In 1926
he became director of the Child Research Institute at Japan Women’s University.
In 1918 he carried out research for the Ministry of the Navy and in 1920 established
the Aviation Research Institute at Tokyo Imperial University.
Near the east gate of Takasaki Castle is a building in which the young Matsumoto
was exposed to fine pieces of art, calligraphy, and armaments. These would apparently
instill within him a love of art―such as Chinese poetry and calligraphy―that would
lead to a lifelong interest in aesthetics and connoisseurship (later in his career he
would become president of an art school). It would also lead him to write about
aesthetics. Matsumoto, like a number of other researchers, had a great interest in
the psychological aspects of aesthetics (note that Fechner, who is regarded as the
founder of “experimental aesthetics,” wrote Vorschule der Aesthetik or Pre-School of
Aesthetics, 1876),140 and between 1910 and 1913, Matsumoto, Nogami Toshio, and
Chiba Tanenari published Psychology-related pieces in the magazine Geibun (Art
and Literature).141
Matsumoto, who had effectively absorbed the practical know-how as well as the
more theoretical knowledge required to build modern Psychology while overseas, was
keenly aware that Japan had much ground to cover. When he returned to Japan in 1900,
he set about with great enthusiasm to cultivate a scientific investigation of the mind.
That same year he was appointed professor at the Tokyo Higher Normal School142
and began to lecture at Women’s Normal School143 on experimental Psychology (until
1906). In the following February he began to teach as an instructor at Tokyo Imperial
University (until 1913). Meanwhile, in 1906 Matsumoto was appointed professor at
Kyoto Imperial University (until 1913) and concurrently served as president of the
Kyoto Metropolitan Arts and Crafts School.144 In 1908 (with Nogami Toshio) he
established Japan’s second Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1913
he was appointed full professor at Tokyo Imperial University (from which he retired in
1926). In 1910 he also became president of the Kyōto Metropolitan School of Painting145
Altogether, he would spend five years as a lecturer at Tokyo Imperial University; seven
years as a professor at Kyoto Imperial University; and thirteen years as a professor at
Tokyo Imperial University. From 1926, he lectured at Nihon University, Nihon Joshi
Daigakkō (later Nihon Joshi University),146 and Tokyo Bunrika University. He passed
away on December 24, 1943.147
While overseas, Matsumoto became keenly aware of how far behind Japan was
in terms of experimental Psychology and understood the role that laboratories
would play in institutionalizing and developing Japanese Psychology. He brought
back some apparatuses that would be kept at Tokyo Imperial University and, with
encouragement and assistance from Motora, set up Japan’s full-fledged Psychology
laboratory in 1903 (around this time a Psychology laboratory of 230 square meters was
also set up at Tokyo Higher Normal School). In 1906 Matsumoto established Japan’s
second Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University (357 square meters),
though it was not completed until 1907. This laboratory consisted of a professor’s
office, a seminar room, several rooms each devoted to specific experiments, a library,
and a workshop. Eventually facilities for animals were set up. We should note that
five out of eight laboratories set up during the 1920s were founded by students of
Matsumoto.
Table 5.8 Table of contents of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Chinō Shinrigaku (The Psychology of

Intelligence, 1929b)
Chapter Topic
1 The Trends of Modern Psychology
2 Qualitative Considerations of Intelligence Functions
3 Quantitative Considerations of Intelligence Functions
4 The Measurement of Specific Intelligence Abilities
5 The Method of Ranking in Psychology
6 The Measurement of General Intelligence
7 The Correlation of Horizontal Intelligence Functions
8 The Correlation of Vertical Intelligence Functions
9 The Improvement and Degeneration of Volk
10 The Course of Intelligence Work
11 The Elderly and Mental Activity
12 Crucial Moments in One’s Existence and Life
13 The Environment and Mental Functions
14 Psychological Research on Efficiency
15 Military Applications of Psychology
16 The World of Psychology in the East and West
Table 5.9 Table of contents of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Shinrigaku Kōwa (Lectures on

Psychology, 1924)
Part Chapter Section

I. The Development of (1) Two Major Currents of a. Spiritual Psychology
Psychology Psychology b. Empirical Psychology
(2) Present-Day Psychology a. Introspective Psychology
b. Physiological Psychology
c. Behavioral Psychology
d. Experimental and Gestalt
Psychology
II. Mental Functions (1) Three Approaches of
Mental Functions
(2) Cognition a. Sensation
b. Stimulation of the Sense Organs
c. The Relation of Perceptual
Content and the Materials of
Perception
d. Concept (Presentation)
e. Perception
f. The Speed and Sharpness of
Discrimination
g. The Suitability of Perception
h. The Accuracy of Memory
i. The Combining of Complicated
Mental
j. Intelligence Tasks
k. The Gestalt Perspective Related
to Conscious Phenomena
(3) Emotions a. Simple Emotions (Sensory
Emotions)
b. Emotions and Physiological
Changes
c. Compound Emotions
(Conceptual Emotions)
d. Feelings and Moods
e. Sentiments
f. Emotions and Daily Life
(4) Will a. Operations of Internal Volition
b. Movements of External Volition
III. Mental Temperament (1) Variation in Temperament a. The Conditions and Disposition

(2) Emotional and Volitional of the Body
Temperament b. Emotional Response and
(3) Intelligence Temperament Disposition
c. Volitional Temperament
a. Types of Intelligence
Predisposition
b. Variations in Amounts of
Intelligence Ability
c. Problems Related to Intelligence
Testing
Table 5.9 Table of contents of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Shinrigaku Kōwa (Lectures on

Psychology, 1924) (continued)
Part Chapter Section

(4) Hereditary Intelligence a. Intelligence Similarities of
Parents and Children
b. The Degree of Correlation of
Intelligence of Siblings
IV. Social Mental (1) The Social Mind a. Impulsive Social Will
Operations (2) Social Will b. Arbitrary Social Will
c. Thoughtful Social Will
(3) Selectivity Activity of a. Moral Social Consciousness
Social Will b. Legal Social Consciousness
c. Aesthetic Social Consciousness
d. The Lineage of Values
e. The Selectivity of the Social
Mind
f. A New Era of History
(4) The Relation between the a. Selectivity and Weeding-Out
Individual and Social Will b. Sensible Persons
c. Those with Inferior Social
Judgment
d. Eccentrics
e. Pioneers
f. Sages and Saints
g. The Subjective Opposition of the
Individual and Social Will
h. Total Consciousness that Newly
Expresses Social Will
i. The Development of Social Will
V. Applied Psychology (1) Applied Psychology in the a. The Meaning of Applied
West Psychology
b. Actual Applications of
Psychology
c. Overseas Applied Psychology
d. Applied Psychology in the
Military
(2) Applied Psychology in a. Applied Psychology in the Navy
Japan and Army
b. Applied Psychology in Spinning
Mills
c. Applied Psychology in
Communications and Legal
Operations
d. Vocational Guidance and
Applied Psychology
e. Applied Psychology in Education
f. Applied Psychology in Aviation
Theoretically, Matsumoto was inspired by Wundt, William James, and G. S. Hall,

but in terms of concrete experimental methods, he derived his approach from E. W.
Scripture and E. B. Titchener.148 He also borrowed methods from E. Kraepelin and
testing techniques from G. M. Whipple, F. Galton, K. Pearson, and C. E. B. Spearman.
Matsumoto is known for introducing Wundtian structuralism into Japan, which
became the mainstream of experimental Psychology in Japan until the 1920s.149 His
ideas on “psychokinematics” foreshadowed later developments in behaviorism.
The psychokinematics of Matsumoto Matatarō

In the late nineteenth century, as interiorization highlighted the dualistic Great
Split between the inner and outer worlds, some Psychologists attempted to explain
the psychophysical divide. We have already seen Motora’s attempt. Matsumoto,
who carried out chronometric studies of psychomotor activities, responded to this
philosophical conundrum by developing what he called seishin dōsagaku or “mental–
movement” (e.g., movements involving the eyes, vocal chords, and upper limbs).
Seishin dōsagaku can be glossed as “psychokinematics,” which was the title of his
1914 book.150 Matsumoto, though influenced by Motora, who advocated mind–body
monism (shinshin ichigen-ron) and the unity of consciousness and behavior, felt
compelled to account for the mutual interaction between mind (consciousness) and
body (activity).151 Though intuitively we all recognize that what is in psyche somehow
becomes visible when we observe bodily movement, we still have not adequately
theorized how psychological processes are manifested through physiology. In other
words, though “subjective conscious phenomena” (shukan-teki ishiki genshō) occurs
in the introscopic realm of introspection (naikan), we must be able to measure the
“objective motions of the body” (shintai no kyakkan-teki dōsa).152
For Matsumoto, the aim of psychokinematics was to investigate the regularity of
motions generated by mental powers under experimental conditions.153 Apparently,
an experimental room (number 6) in the Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial
University was devoted to psychokinematic studies.154 Our direct experiences
themselves do not constitute objects of science until they are generalized through
references to certain relations. Matsumoto believed that three types of relations need
to be acknowledged in order to bridge mental and bodily aspects while measuring
the latter: (1) mental causality, (2) psychophysical causality, and (3) material causality.
As a science, Psychology had to take into account consciousness proper, behavioral
Psychology, and Psychology as a series of natural events. Though the basic premises
of behaviorism had undoubtedly been circulating for some time, significantly
Matsumoto’s thinking was a “harbinger of American behaviorism.”155
6
Intellectual Reactions: Spiritualizing the Psyche

and Psychologizing Society
As in the Euro-American traditions, spiritualism and the search for cosmic energies
that would unite scientific discoveries with the supernatural realm characterized Japan’s
intellectual developments during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This topic is the focus
of the chapter. Also explored are the “collectivized psyche” (i.e., crowds and mobs) and
its relation to other social sciences (e.g., sociology, social Psychology), as well as how
notions of Volk, the state, nation, psyche, and “Japaneseness” were interlinked.
Occultism, spiritualism, and cosmic energies
Neo-vitalism and neo-animism

The transformation of the cosmos from a realm teeming with vigorous life forces
to a universe of mechanical laws illustrates the transition from a cosmic to a scopic
worldview. Animating forces or vital principles have played a crucial role throughout
the centuries in different cultures, but the emergence of a scientific worldview wrote
the death certificate for vitalistic theories. Nevertheless, some thinkers would update
this cosmological concept, in which animals, plants, people, and even things possessed
an animating force or life-energy. This modern manifestation of vitalism, or the
doctrine that living organisms possess a spiritual energy distinct from physicochemical
or mechanist forces, has very ancient roots and has formed the basis of cosmologies,
traditional healing practices, proto-scientific accounts, and currently, New Age
pseudo-scientific theorizing (e.g., biofield and bioenergy therapies).
Vitalism and similar notions, then, straddled the contradictory intellectual
developments of the nineteenth century. Vitalism is actually implicated in a host of
issues, but for our purposes we should note that it has a narrow and broad definition.
The latter is the belief, opposed to mechanistic materialism,1 that the laws of physics
and chemistry alone cannot account for life processes because living entities possess
a nonphysical inner force or energy that gives them the property of life. The narrow
definition concerns the idea that the functions of living organisms are due to a “vital
principle” that is distinct from biochemical reactions. The vital principle might be
conceived as a type of energy, vital energy, life force, life-giving “spark,” or soul that
animated the realm of unseen, spiritual forces, and psychological abilities.
The vagaries of occultism and spiritualism are related to the decline of vitalism
and animism as well as their rebirth via the application of a scientific patina during
the nineteenth century. In this chapter I examine the “abnormal,” spiritualism, and
hypnosis within the context of attempts to scientifically explain cosmic vitalizing and
animating energies. Before exploring how these topics played out in Japan, some global
and historical perspective is in order.
Vitalism and the development of Psychology

Vitalism played a crucial role in proto-Psychology and psychological thinking. Some
believed that the soul might in some way be related to the natural forces of heat, gravity,
or electricity (cf. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein). Animal magnetism illustrates the
naturalizing of what we call sociopsychological behavior and its relation to hypnosis.
Franz Mesmer believed that he had discovered a new energy that was different from
other natural forces, such as mineral magnetism, cosmic magnetism, and planetary
magnetism. His magnétisme animal (animus comes from “breath”) only resided in
animals and humans.
As science made progress during the nineteenth century, vitalism lost its
explanatory appeal. However, it would live on in subtle ways. For example, Reed notes
that what was missing from a “traditional metaphysical” view of the soul was some
force that could be understood along Newtonian lines. For some, such as François-
Pierre-Gonthier Maine de Biran (1766–1824), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860),
and Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841), this was the will. Reed labels those thinkers
who theorized about what might be called neo-vitalism “natural metaphysicians,”
or those who attempted to study the soul scientifically. This natural metaphysical
worldview, though its time span was brief, influenced the first generation of scientific
Psychologists. It was believed by some that perhaps “states of the soul might well
be related to an as-yet-undiscovered physical force or form of force.” It was also
theorized that “theorizing about such forces was inadequate to solve many of the
important issues that would be raised.” Johannes Müller (1801–58) theorized about
“nerve energies” and the universalist minister John Bovee Dods (1795–1872) spoke
of “electrical [P]sychology.”2 Indeed, in his dissertation Motora uses “electricity” as a
metaphor to explain “psychic forces.” As the nineteenth century wore on, conceiving
the mind as a manifestation or collection of energies was reinforced by metaphors
of power-generating machines borrowed from industrialization. However, we can
wonder to what degree Freud, who used “psychic energy” (the energy by which the
work of the personality is performed), was still thinking along vitalistic lines. Here we
should mention the orgone (primordial cosmic energy) of the psychiatrist Wilhelm
Reich (1897–1957), and the philosopher and Psychologist Richard Müller-Freienfels
(1882–1949) probably coined the term “Psychology of the life force.”
In Japan, Sayings of the Dutch (1787) described a mechanism that absorbed
sparks from the human body with curative effects. Later Udagawa Yōan (1798–1846)
conducted medical experiments with the hope that electricity could treat maladies.
Similar linkages were made between the spiritual and scientific,3 as evident in works
such as Fukurai Tomokichi’s Seimei-shugi no Shinkō (The Faith of Vitalism, 1934) and
Susukida Tsukasu’s Seimei Shinrigaku (Psychology of the Life Force, 1935).4
Intellectual Reactions 99
Snapshot Vitalism
Vitalism or a belief in a vital energy can be understood broadly, or in more
particular, concrete manifestations. Different cultures have their own versions:
mana (Polynesian), prana (Indian), qi (Chinese), or ki (Japanese). In the
Western tradition, the vitalistic principle has variously been associated with
humours, spiritus, pneuma, aether (or ether), or quintessence. It was believed
for centuries that each planet possessed its own “spirit” or “intelligence” (mens)
which guided them through the heavens. Johannes Kepler’s Harmonie mundi
(Harmony of the Universe, 1611) provided a brilliant arithmetical account of
planetary motion but it also contained elements of mathematical mysticism.
He used the term animae motrices (“moving spirits”), but he eventually
replaced “soul” or “spirit” (anima) with “force” (vis). This was a step away from
animism. Some form of vitalism is apparent in the foundations of chemistry,
for example, the phlogiston theory of J. J. Becher (1635–82) and Georg Ernst
Stahl (1660–1734): all flammable materials contain phlogiston, a substance
released in burning. Even Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779–1848), a founder of
modern chemistry who argued against the more mystical forms of vitalism,
still saw a place for a regulative principle animating organisms. Vitalism also
played a key role in early biology and medical thinking. Caspar Friedrich
Wolff (1733–94) attempted to explain the development of the organism by the
effects of a “vis essentialis.” The idea of an extra-physical vital force, even after
its official death by the late nineteenth century at the hands of reductionist,
materialist discoveries, still exerted a strong attraction, apparent in the an
anti-mechanistic notion of élan vital (a creative force driving evolution) of the
philosopher Henri Bergson (1859–1941).
The Psychology of the abnormal

The more specialists, experts, and officialdom attempted to delineate what was
psychologically “normal,” the more an entire array of odd and strange behaviors
stood out. Even those with a strict rationalist, materialist, and empirical bent had to
acknowledge that numerous psychological activities and events, despite their linkage
by some to the supernatural, had to be scientifically confronted. Indeed, as early as
1890 Motora wrote on issues that fall under the rubric of abnormal Psychology,5 and
in this context we might mention an influential student of Motora, Fukurai Tomokichi
(1869–1952). He was interested in hypnosis and abnormal (ijō) and clinical (rinshō)
Psychology. However, his enthusiastic pursuit of spiritualism would result in his loss
of credibility among his colleagues and resignation from Tokyo Imperial University
(see below).
It needs to be stressed that for the most part, mainstream research Psychology
focused on one mental state—waking consciousness. Nevertheless, some explorers of
the psyche had an interest in the “pathological” and “transcendent.”6 For some, then,
clinical Psychology was linked to anomalous phenomena such as “dissociation” (a
term coined by William James to describe altered consciousness, multiple personality,
somnambulism, fugue states, trancing, and double consciousness). For others, an

interest in clinical Psychology overlapped with the paranormal—clairvoyance, telepathy,
mediums, ghosts and apparitions, dreams, visions, hallucinations, and particularly
vivid, though otherwise normal, mental imagery (i.e., introceptive interiority).
The Japanese term that indicated the extra- and out-of-the ordinary was hentai.
This word can be translated as “abnormal,” but in actual usage it meant a state that was
not normal in the sense of displaying variation (hensa) or anything out of the ordinary
or unusual (ijō), whether negative (e.g., politically and morally questionable—riots,
prostitution, juvenile delinquency) or positive (e.g., cases of genius or superior
intelligence). It would also become associated with research on eugenics.7
Nakamura Kokyō and the abnormal

An important theorist of the hentai was the doctor and writer Nakamura Kokyō
(1881–1952).8 A graduate of Tokyo Imperial University, he attended Fukurai
Tomokichi’s lectures on hypnotism and was acquainted with Kure Shūzō’s ideas on
psychiatry. With a younger brother afflicted with mental illness, he had a personal
stake in psychiatry and opened up a private psychiatric clinic. He was a vociferous
critic of spiritualism and religious superstition. He established the semi-academic
Nihon Seishin Igakkai (Japan Seishin Medical Society9) in 1902 and edited the semi-
academic Hentai Shinri (Abnormal Psychology, established in 1917).10 He wrote
about the first case of multiple personality (nijū jinkaku) in Japan in 1917, pursued
an interest in hypnotism, and helped introduce psychoanalytic theory into Japan: for
example, he translated Jung’s On Psychic Energy (Seimeiryoku no Hatten) in 1931 (see
Table 6.1 for an idea of how he categorized abnormal psychological phenomena).11
Table 6.1 Various types of abnormal psychological phenomena according to Nakamura Kokyō
Abnormal Psychological Phenomena

Hentai Shinri Genshō 変態心理現象
Episodic Abnormal Phenomena Chronic Abnormal Phenomena
Ichiji-teki Hentai Genshō Jizoku-teki Genshō
一時的変態心理現象持続的変態心理現象
Sleep and dreams Personality transformation
Suimin oyobi Yume 睡眠及び夢 Jinkaku Henkan 人格変換
Optical illusions and hallucinations Hysteria
Sakkaku oyobi Genkaku 錯覚及び幻覚 Hisuterī ヒステリー
Sound, color, and number synesthesia Weak mindedness
Shikichō oyobi Kazuzō 色聴及び数像 Seishin Hakujaku 精神薄弱
Hypnosis Nervous exhaustion
Saimin Genshō 催眠現象 Shinkei Suijaku 神経衰弱
Automatisms Epilepsy
Jidō Genshō 自働現象 Seishin Tenkan 精神癲癇
Spiritualism Various mental disorders
Kōshin Genshō 降神現象 Shoshu no Seishinbyō-tō 諸種の精神病等
Source: Satō (2002a: 521). See also Nakamura (1918).
A few words about the Japan Seishin Medical Society and its publication, Hentai
Shinri, are in order. Membership in this society was not limited to doctors and
Psychologists,12 and it attracted a variety of speakers, such as Morita Masatake, the
founder of Morita Therapy.13 The journal attempted to take a “scientific” approach
to psychotherapy and attacked “superstitions” and religious groups, particularly the
new religion Ōmotokyō and its practice of spirit possession (chinkon kishin).14 Besides
medical specialists and Psychologists, social critics and intellectuals also contributed
to Hentai Shinri, which ran articles on criminal Psychology, psychopathology, sex
crimes, sex education, and psychic phenomena.
Scientizing the soul
In the techno-scientifically advancing world of the late nineteenth century, the discovery
of new energies strongly suggested to some that psyche was but one manifestation
of nature’s power. The idea that our minds are somehow related to the forces of the
cosmos, of course, smacks of an introcosmic worldview and seems to be a type of
mystical thinking to us (see below). But many believed that if science could “discover
hitherto unknown forms for energy,” might it not “eventually find types of mental and
spiritual energy even more subtle”?15 Consider electricity, which “occupied a space
in the cultural imaginary that was once scientific, magic, entertaining and romantic,
touted as a panacea for various diseases as the secret behind numerous inexplicable
phenomena.”16 Motivating such thinking was the hope that beneath the manifold
energies—whether physical or psychic—was an ultimate, unitary power that underlies
all dualities. Here recall Motora’s shingen and note that Fukurai Tomokichi (see below)
would theorize that ideas themselves (kannen) possess “life” (seimei).17
Psychology, with its roots in earlier religions traditions, not surprisingly became
a “magnet for cultural anxieties about the hazy borderline between science and
pseudoscience, between the natural and the supernatural.”18 For some, Psychology was
a “secular theology.”19 The explosive popularity of spiritualism in Europe, America,
and Japan illustrates this well. As it attempted to break free from the gravitational
pull of physiology, physics, and pedagogy, Psychology also had to resist the pull of
powerful religiously tainted speculations that found justification in mysterious powers.
Interestingly, it is crucial to note that Psychology, metaphysics, paranormal, psychic, and
psychophysics were often used interchangeably in the late nineteenth century. Indeed,
Wundt probably changed his journal’s name, Psychologische Studien to Philosophische
Studien, because of the aforementioned associations. Many embraced Psychology as
the science that could analyze the mind in the same manner that physics, chemistry,
astronomy, and physiology explored the natural realm. However, the mystical and
mysterious still characterized interiorized conscious experience in a way that defied
scientific naturalism. As Coon points out, between 1880 and 1920, Psychology battled
the pseudo-scientific notions of spiritualism and other psychic phenomena.20
Nevertheless, a number of prominent personages, including Psychologists, believed
that science could objectively answer questions about the afterlife and anomalous
behavior. Spiritualist events, though they were deeply implicated in belief in God and
Christianity, also became a serious research target.21 In England, the Society for the
Psychical Research (established in 1882) and its American branch (established in 1884)
carried out studies on telepathy, clairvoyance, and spiritualistic phenomena. The British
Psychological Review (established in 1883) was a “journal of spiritualism.” William
James, G. S. Hall, James M. Baldwin, Henri Bergson,22 William McDougall,23 Christine
Ladd-Franklin,24 George Fullerton,25 Alfred Russel Wallace,26 William Crookes,27 Oliver
Joseph Lodge,28 Gustav Theodor Fechner, Simon Newcomb,29 and James H. Hyslop30
expressed varying degrees of interest in spiritualism. James helped found the American
Society for Psychical Research in 1884. Though they themselves were skeptical, Joseph
Jastrow,31 Münsterberg, and Titchener were spurred on by public interest to investigate
mediums. However, Jastrow, along with G. S. Hall, vigorously opposed spiritualism,
and Titchener was interested in the linkages between spiritualism and self-deception.32
Eventually, the majority of experimental Psychologists would distance themselves
from what they regarded as superstition. A positive development from all the attention
given to questionable “scientific research” were contributions that, like Jastrow’s work,
investigated the difference between the real and easily imagined, such as Nogami
Toshio’s Jojutsu to Meishin (Descriptions and Superstitions, 1912a).
Spiritualism in Japan
Spiritualism (reikōjutsu) and occultism gained in popularity in the late nineteenth

century and spread around the globe. Though beliefs centering on ghosts and
shamanism had existed in Japan for centuries, such notions were reinforced at the turn
of the twentieth century when foreign works on spiritualism began spreading among
Japanese thinkers. Many attempted to wed the spiritual with the scientific. Indeed,
A mixture of positivism and mysticism opened the curtains on the twentieth

century. Spiritualism (shinreigaku), a science that tried to clarify and conduct
experimentation on the phenomena of necromancy (kōreijutsu), clairvoyance
(tōshi), spirit photography (nensha; literally “thought photography”) was attracting
interest. For a while, it could be said that spiritualism was the science of the
twentieth century.33
As in other parts of the world, well-regarded intellectuals and researchers were

interested in the border area between science and the spiritual: for example, the Kyoto
Imperial University psychiatrist Imamura Shinkichi (1874–1946) pursued studies
in parapsychology. Yamakawa Kenjirō,34 who studied physics at Yale University and
would become a well-known physicist in his own right as well as a historian, was
intrigued by the possibility of psychic phenomena.
Eventually, organizations such as Seishin Kenkyūkai (Society for the Study of the
Spirit), Nihon Shinsōkai Japan (Society of the Mind), and Seishin Kagakusha (Spiritual
Science Institute) were established. Meanwhile, works that relied heavily on American
writings about spiritualism appeared, such as Hirai Kinzō’s Shinrei no Genshō (The
Phenomenon of the Spiritual, 1909), Takahashi Gorō’s Shinrei Bannō-ron (The Theory of
the All-Powerful Spirit, 1910), and Hirata Motokichi’s Shinrei no Himitsu (The Mystery
of Spiritualism, 1912).35 We should also mention Meiji University’s Oguma Toranosuke
(1888–1978), who authored Shinrei Genshō no Mondai (Issues of Spiritual Phenomena,
1916) and Shinrei Genshō no Kagaku (The Science of Spiritual Phenomena, 1924).
Many emerging religious movements of the time used the same idiom as science,
and one word that illustrated the blurring of science, pseudo-science, and superstition
was seishin, which can be translated, depending on the context, as mind, psyche, or
spirit. As noted in the Prologue, seishin is used in a wide range of terms denoting the
psychological, mental, medical, religious, or philosophical: for example, psychophysics
(or spiritual physics), seishin butsurigaku; psychiatry, seishin byōgaku (literally,
pathology of seishin);36 soul of the deceased (seirei); telepathy (seishin kannō); idealism
(seishin shugi) and so on. As Yoshinaga points out, during the first several decades
of the twentieth century the power of seishin to heal illness gave rise to a number of
groups and movements, such as reikōjutsu (spirit communication), seishingaku (study
of seishin), seishin chiryō (spiritual therapy), and seishin ryōhō (psychotherapy).37
A key figure in attempts to merge science with spirituality was the healer Kuwabara
Toshirō (Tennen),38 who wrote Seishin Reidō (Spirit Movements, 1910) and founded
Seishin Kenkyūkai (Society for the Study of the Spirit) in 1903. For him, seishin
was a type of energy that lacked personality (similar, perhaps, to Motora’s shingen).
Kuwabara believed that hypnotism could release the mind’s power and cure diseases.
Another important figure was Asano Wasaburō.39 A graduate of Tokyo Imperial
University and famous as a translator of Shakespeare, he authored Shinrei Kenkyū to
Sono Kishu (Psychic Research and Its Direction, 1934). In 1922 he founded the Shinrei
Kagaku Kenkyūkai (Society for Scientific Research on Psychic Phenomena). Here we
might note that even Japanese navy officials employed Mizuno Yoshito (1936–45), who
used the very questionable science of physiognomy to assess candidates for the naval
aviation corps.
Spiritualizing the Psychological: Fukurai Tomokichi

Originally from Gifu, Fukurai Tomokichi (1869–1952) graduated from Tokyo Imperial
University’s Philosophy Department in 1899 and then studied under Motora as a
graduate student (he did not study abroad).40 He received his doctorate from the same
institution and wrote his dissertation on hypnotism. Fukurai played an important role
in introducing William James into Japan41 and also wrote on education.42 From 1905 he
began lecturing on abnormal Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University and three years
later became an associate professor. Eventually, however, he turned his attention to
spiritualism and related phenomena, particularly clairvoyance (tōshi, “seeing through,”
or senrigan, “long-distance eye”). Imamura Shinkichi from Kyoto Imperial University
worked together with Fukurai on these topics.
Fukurai began working with the famous clairvoyant Mifune Chizuko,43 a woman
he believed possessed special powers. In 1910, Fukurai performed a series of
experiments with Mifune in front of a panel of distinguished scholars from different
disciplines (Motora was absent). She appeared to be able to read messages written
inside envelopes sealed in special lead containers.44 In 1911 more experiments were
held, though not all the experiments went well. The disappointing results apparently
deeply troubled Mifune. The press took the involved academics to task for pursuing
such questionable activities, and Mifune, apparently unable to deal with the negative
publicity, committed suicide, as did Nagao Ikuko (1871‒1911), another clairvoyant
with whom Fukurai had carried out experiments.45 Despite these tragedies and
setbacks, Fukurai would later work with other clairvoyants, such as Takahashi Sadako
and Mita Kōichi.
Fukurai believed that Nagao could project the contents of her mind on a dry plate of
photographic film. He described this as nensha or “thoughtography” (nen means sense
or feeling and sha picture). In 1913 Furkurai published Tōshi to Nensha (Clairvoyance
and Thoughtography, translated into English in 1931),46 which was heavily criticized
due to its perceived lack of scientifically objective standards. Ten years later, Fukurai
published Shinrei to Shimpi Sekai (Spirit and the Mysterious World, 1923).
Many of Fukurai’s colleagues seriously doubted the existence of parapsychological
phenomena and concluded that he was not practicing genuine science. Consequently,
he was ordered to take a leave of absence in 1913 and was eventually forced to resign
two years later. He became president of a woman’s school and then in 1926 took a
position at Kōyasan University, a Buddhist institution. After his retirement in 1940, he
continued to pursue his interest in the paranormal.
Fukurai was the most famous Japanese researcher who specialized in abnormal
Psychology. Given the prominent status of Tokyo Imperial University, Fukurai’s
departure from this institution had grave consequences for the future development of
Japan’s clinical and abnormal Psychology. His resignation left a vacuum, and with no
one to replace him, Japan’s clinical and abnormal Psychology suffered a serious blow.
The upshot was that before 1945 clinical Psychology in Japan became the purview of
psychiatrists and nonacademic Psychologists.47
Hypnotism: Mystical phenomenon or healing practice?
Researchers had a long menu of mysterious phenomena from which to choose:

necromancy (kōshinjutsu), kokkuri (a form of divinization popular during the
Meiji period),48 dream revelations and spirit dreams (reimu), fox possession,49 and
parapsychology (chō-shinrigaku, e.g., extrasensory perception and psychokinesis).50 Not
a few regarded these as events and experiences that could be objectively investigated.
But one phenomenon, due to its ubiquity, stood out: hypnosis.
What we today call hypnosis would over time follow two very different trajectories.
The first can be characterized as spiritual and mystical. The second trajectory adopted
a more scientific stance that recognized the therapeutic potential of briefly arresting
interiority (currently many psychotherapeutic practices can be traced to hypnosis).
As elsewhere, the intellectual response to and treatment of hypnotism in Japan
illustrates well how the “abnormal” was bifurcated between the supernatural and the
clinical.
In the first decade of the twentieth century, Japan experienced a “hypnosis
boom,” suggesting that there too concerns about self-autonomy and self-
control were on the rise as the individual became increasingly interiorized.

Numerous publications appeared about hypnotism (saiminjutsu), such as Fukurai
Tomokichi’s Saimin Shinrigaku Gairon (Outline of the Psychology of Hypnotism,
1905) and Saimin Shinrigaku (The Psychology of Hypnotism, 1906). In 1904,
Kokka Igaku Zasshi (National Journal of Medicine) published a special issue on
hypnotism, with contributions by Kure Shizō. Relevant research groups were
also established. These included the Teikoku Saimin Gakkai (Imperial Society
for the Study of Hypnotism founded in 1902 by Yamaguchi Minosuke51), Nihon
Saimin Tetsugakkai (Japanese Society for Hypnosis Philosophy), and the Dai-
Nihon Saiminjutsu Kyōkai (Japanese Society for the Practice of Hypnotism).
Additionally, numerous training academies were set up to teach hypnotic methods
and therapies.52
Snapshot Hypnotism: Suspending Interiority

Interest in this odd behavior during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
reflected new questions about self-autonomy and self-control. Physicians and
mystics such as Van Helmont (1577–1683) and the Irishman Greatrakes (1629–
83) had associated faith healing, magic, and magnetism with hypnotism. However,
it was greatly popularized as “animal magnetism” (and later as “mesmerism”)
by the physician Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) and his disciple, Marquis
de Puységur (1751–1825).53 During the nineteenth century, physicians such as
John Elliotson (1791–1868) and James Esdaile (1808–59) had a great interest in
mesmerism for therapeutic purposes. A more scientific approach to the topic was
pursued by the coiner of “hypnotism,” James Braid (1795–1860). In France the
most famous example was Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–93), who utilized hypnosis
at the Salpêtrière in Paris in the early 1880s.54 This “Napoleon of the neuroses”
gave demonstrations before his students in which he hypnotized hysterics. One of
his observing students was Sigmund Freud. In America, Morton H. Prince (who
was inspired by Charcot) used hypnotism and suggestion in his treatments of
mental illness.
Crowds and mobs: The collectivized psyche
Are social forces explained by psychological processes? Or are psychological

processes explained by social forces? Is human nature best understood as something
individualized or collectivized? Such fundamental questions have shaped the
development of the social sciences, but just as crucially, they became implicated in
nation-building projects and intellectual endeavors: To what degree could individuals
be molded into loyal citizens? What were the most appropriate pedagogical procedures
that ensured the production of patriotic sentiments? During the nineteenth century,
rapid industrialization, the formation of socioeconomic strata, class tensions,

alienation, and rising nationalism motivated thinkers to conceptualize novel theories
and utilize new idioms to both explain and justify economic, educational, and
nationalizing undertakings.
The historical context

In the following sections I sketch how the nascent social sciences in Japan theorized
the pedagogical aspects of collectivity–individuality relations. The three fields of
sociology, social Psychology, and Volk Psychology55 would each follow their own
institutional trajectories, but they all focused on the collective facets of human nature.
I begin with sociology and social Psychology and then examine Volk Psychology, but
first, some historical context. As in other parts of the industrializing world, Japan
witnessed economic dislocation resulting in massive rural-to-urban migration, strikes,
and riots from the early days of the Meiji Restoration to the first several decades of
the twentieth century. Added to this social instability were the increasing demands
of individualism, socialism, feminism, and anarchism. These were often linked to a
loss of tradition and what was special about Japan. From the elite perspective, the
aforementioned “isms” were threatening movements that needed to be countered by
officialdom. The response was an interlocking array of ideologies subsumed under
an overarching national statism: identity (Volkisch nationalism), politics (obedience
to government structures), and spirituality (a statized version of Shintōism that
positioned the emperor at the head of the “family–nation”56).
Social Psychology and sociology in Japan
Social Psychology
As a term “social Psychology” is somewhat ambiguous since, depending on the
context, it may mean the individual socio-collectivized, or the socio-collectivity
individualized. In other words, for some society was in essence a psychological
phenomenon, while for others the psychological inherently was a social phenomenon.
In any case, as in other places Japan’s social Psychology (shakai shinrigaku) was
rooted in Volk Psychology. Motora wrote on social Psychology as early as the mid-
1890s, though this work has a distinctive psychological feel; that is, Satō describes
it as “Psychological social Psychology” (shinrigaku-teki shakaigaku shinrigaku).57
Important works of Japan’s social Psychology were Tokutani Toyonosuke’s Shakai
Shinrigaku (Social Psychology, 1906), Higuchi Hideo’s Shakai Shinri no Kenkyū
(Research on Social Psychology, 1908), and Ōmichi Waichi’s Shakai Shinrigaku (Social
Psychology, 1913).
Though his career mostly came after the war, it is worth mentioning Minami
Hiroshi (1914–2001) because of his contributions to social Psychology. He graduated
from Kyoto Imperial University in 1940 and then went to America and received his
doctorate from Cornell University in 1943. His dissertation was entitled “Systematical
Social Psychology.”58 In 1947 he returned to Japan, and after teaching at Tokyo Shōka
University and Japan Women’s University, he became a professor at Hitotsubashi
University. After he retired from Hitotsubashi, he became a professor at Seijō
University. Minami, besides making important contributions to social Psychology,
also worked in physiological Psychology, depth Psychology, mass communications,
and popular cultural studies.
Sociology
Chronologically, sociology (shakaigaku) roughly followed the same trajectory
as Psychology.59 The 1870s saw its incipient development―shakaigaku was
first used in the early 1870s―and influence from intellectual crosscurrents.60
British works, especially those of Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill, were
particularly significant during the early years and were frequently translated.
German influences were also quite salient, while the impact of French and
American thinkers less so. By the First World War, sociology was firmly
institutionalized and in 1920 an independent Department of Sociology was
established at Tokyo Imperial University (previously it was an appendage of the
Department of Philosophy). Sociology took a step toward institutionality when
the Shakai Gakkai (Society for Sociology) was set up in 1896. Two years later
this organization became the Shakaigaku Kenkyūkai (Society for Sociological
Studies; until 1904, but then revived in 1931). In 1913 Takabe Tongō founded the
Nihon Shakai Gakuin (Japanese Institute of Sociology; until 1922), and in 1924,
the Nihon Shakai Gakkai (Japan Sociological Society) was established, which is
still in existence. The Japan Sociological Society’s first journal was the Shakaigaku
Zasshi (Journal of Sociology; from 1924). This became Kikan Shakaigku (Quarterly
Sociology) and Nenpō Shakaigaku (Annual Sociology). After the war, this was
changed to Shakaigaku Kenkyū (Sociological Research), and after 1950 it was called
Shakaigaku Hyōron (Sociological Review).61
Early on, Japanese sociologists, like their intellectual counterparts in the Euro-
American orbit, were ideologically conservative and saw their task as maintaining
social and political structures. For example, Toyama Masakazu and Ariga Nagao
(1860–1921) introduced aspects of Spencer’s organic analogy of society. Indeed,
organicism, which in its extreme version collectivized society so that it was endowed
with a personality and consciousness, would inspire militarist nationalism in the early
part of the twentieth century.
Initially, early Japanese sociology was theoretically oriented and possessed a strong
philosophical flavor. Criticized for being more European- rather than Japan-focused,
it was also considered overly abstract, formal, and theoretical. Such a “pure” sociology
ignored the concrete investigation of real-world problems. Eventually, however,
certain researchers would turn their attention to practical topics and what might
be called applied sociology, such as family structure, rural communities, and urban
labor movements. After the First World War, German-inspired cultural sociology
(Kultursoziologie) became popular as a reaction to formal sociology (formale
Soziologie). In an example of the power of word association, Japanese sociologists

had to contend with negative associations linked to Japanese sociology (shakaigaku);
that is, sounding similar, the latter was often confused with the anti-capitalist,
revolutionary sentiments of socialism (shakai-shugi). After 1945, American influence
became prominent and a more methodologically rigorous, empirically based type
of sociology took center stage, while university courses and programs in sociology
became popular.62
Key sociologists
A number of individuals could be credited with institutionalizing sociology in Japan,
but Toyama Masakazu, who occupied the first chair of sociology at Tokyo Imperial
University from 1893, is often regarded as the father of Japanese sociology.63 Ernest
Francisco Fenollosa (1853–1908) should also be cited. Invited to the Tokyo Imperial
University by the American zoologist Edward S. Morse to teach political economy
and philosophy, Fenollosa began to teach sociology from 1878. A Harvard graduate,
Fenollosa became interested in Buddhism, studied ancient temples and shrines,
and collected art treasures. He is credited with preserving Japanese art and would
establish Tokyo Bijutsu Gakkō (The Art University of Tokyo).
Ariga Nagao, a student of Fenollosa and Lorenz von Stein (1815–90), was a lawyer
and legal adviser specializing in international law. He translated a number of foreign
works and was the first Japanese to publish a systematic sociological treatise, called
Shakaigaku (Sociology, 3 volumes; 1883). Influenced by Spencerian evolutionism, John
Ferguson McLennan (1827–81), and Lewis H. Morgan (1818–81), his work justified
Japanese statism and familism.
Takebe Tongō (1871–1945), a pupil of Toyama whom he succeeded at Tokyo
Imperial University, was the most influential sociologist in Japan from 1898 to 1922.
He combined Comte’s positivism and organicism with Confucian thought in an
attempt to come up with an ideology suited to Japan. In 1913 Takebe founded the
Japanese Institute of the Social Science (which was replaced by the Japan Sociological
Society in 1924) and edited Sociological Miscellany (1906–12). He wrote Riron Futsū
Shakaigaku (General Principles of Theoretical Sociology, 4 volumes; 1905–18).
Yoneda Shōtarō (1873–1945), who studied under the sociologist Franklin Henry
Giddings (1855–1931) at Columbia University and Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904),
taught at Kyoto Imperial University. During the 1910s, Yoneda was responsible
for introducing European sociological thought to Japan, through the works of, for
example, Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) and Georg Simmel (1858–1918). Yoneda
adopted a social psychological perspective and helped establish a German-inspired
sociology until the end of the Second World War.
A student of Yoneda, Takata Yasuma (1883–1972), has been called the “greatest
sociologist Japan ever had.”64 In the opinion of Tominaga Kenichi, Takata’s impact
would have been as great as Dukheim’s, Simmel’s, or Weber’s if his works had been
translated into English. He supposedly authored over one hundred books and five
hundred articles, but his best-known works were Shakaigaku Genri (Principles of
Sociology, 1919) and Shakaigaku Gairon (Outline of Sociology, 1922). A graduate
of Kyoto Imperial University, he became an assistant professor of law at the same

university in 1914. Eventually he would teach at Hiroshima Teachers College, Tokyo
Commercial, and Kyūshū Imperial University. In 1929 he returned to Kyoto Imperial
University as a professor of economics. In his later years he would teach at Osaka
University (where he became head of the Economics Department), Osaka Prefecture
and Ryūkoku University. Takata was influenced by Max Weber, Georg Simmel,
Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936), and Robert Morrison MacIver (1882–1970). He
found the “Psychologism” (what we would call social Psychology) of Tarde, Ribot,
Simmel, and McDougall appealing, but eventually moved toward German formalism
associated with Albert Vierkandt (1863–1953) and Leopold von Wiese (1876–1969).
In addition to providing sociology with institutional autonomy, Takata also made
considerable contributions to economic theory.
Toda Teizō (1887–1955) studied at the University of Chicago, where he learned
about survey methodologies being used in the United States at the time. He also spent
time in Europe (1920–22). Toda would teach at the Tokyo Imperial University, where
he adopted an empirical approach and analyzed statistics on the Japanese family
structure and rural sociology, using census and other then-current and historical data.
Important works by Toda include Kazoku no Kenkyū (Research on the Family, 1927)
and Kazoku to Konin (Family and Marriage, 1934).
Though he did not use “sociology” in the titles of his major works, Katō Hiroyuki
(1836–1916) should be mentioned since he contributed to the development of Japanese
social sciences in general. A specialist in European intellectual history, political
theory, theory of the state, and law, he was originally attracted to French theories of
the rights of man and natural law. However, his ideas took a decidedly authoritarian
turn. He advocated statist doctrines and used social Darwinism to justify Japan’s
imperialistic nationalism and authored Kyōsha no kenri no Kyosō (The Struggle for the
Rights of the Stronger, 1893) and Dōtōku Hōritsu Shinka no Ri (The Theory of Evolution
of Morals and Laws, 1900).65 Katō played a crucial role in the formation of Japanese
higher education, serving as president of Tokyo Imperial University and the Tokyo
Academy.
We should also mention Hozumi Nobushige (1856–1926), who studied in Great
Britain and Germany (1876–81) and, after returning to Japan, taught German and
comparative law at Tokyo Imperial University. In 1885 he helped found the English
Law School (now Chūō University). He assisted in drafting Japan’s 1898 Civil Code
and was the father of legal scholar Hozumi Shigetō (1883–1951) and brother to
constitutional expert Hozumi Yatsuka (1860–1912). He authored Sosen Saishi to
Nihon Hōritsu (Ancestor-Worship and Japanese Law, 1912) and The New Japanese Civil
Code: As Material for the Study of Comparative Jurisprudence (1912).
Other sociologists
Other sociologists that deserve mentioning include Kishimoto Nōbuta (1866–1928),
who published Shakaigaku (Sociology, 1900), and Higuchi Ryūkyō (1875−1929),
a sociologist who studied at Tokyo Imperial University and published a history of
sociological theories (1911). Kobayashi Iku (1881–1933) wrote Shakai Shinrigaku
(Social Psychology, 1909), Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Studies in Social Psychology,

1910), and General Sociology (1923), a work on applied sociology. Matsumoto
Junichirō (1893–1947) authored Shakaigaku Yōkō (Outlines of Sociology, 1934) and
saw a need to synthesize formal and cultural sociology into what he would call “general
sociology.” Aruga Kizaemon (1897–1979) worked in the area of rural sociology and
kinship. He linked his findings with previous folklore studies and attempted to clarify
the conditions of social strata in prewar Japan. Shimmei Masamichi (1898–1984)
attempted to combine Matsumoto Junichirō’s thinking with that of Simmel and Karl
Mannheim. In 1932 he wrote Chishiki Shakaigaku no Shosō (The Various Phases of the
Sociology of Knowledge). He also introduced American sociological thought into Japan
and in 1944 compiled Shakaigaku Jiten (Dictionary of Social Sciences). Seki Eikichi
(1900–39) is associated with cultural sociology, which, given the Depression of the
1930s, became popular for its attention to economic problems of the day. He wrote
Bunka Shakaigaku Gairon (Outline of Cultural Sociology, 1929).
Grounding the nationalist collectivity in the psyche
Despite the conceptual differences among sociology, social Psychology, and Volk
Psychology, they shared a focus on the collective. But significantly, in the case of Volk
Psychology, a more explicit attempt was made to envision—as well as conceptualize
for practical pedagogical purposes tied to statism—the collectivity as an organic
whole, united by vague notions of spirit, custom, historical trajectory, or in some
cases, “blood.” In the German-speaking areas, a key term that was pressed into service
was Geist (“mind” or “spirit”). Strongly colored by German romanticism, this notion
condensed into an indefinable essence the culture, historical heritage, and political
ambitions of a Volk. It overlapped in meaning with Volksseele (“soul of a people”) and
Gesammtgeist (“collective mind”).
The Psychology of the Volk

An important philosopher and educator who would play a crucial role in linking
the Volk, their unification, pedagogy, and Psychology in Japan was Johann Friedrich
Herbart (1776–1841).66 He conceived psychological processes as an array of competing
mental entities (Vorstellungen).67 The latter term (singular: Vorstellung) is often
translated as idea, but it denotes the imagery or introceptive aspect of interiorization,
or as something presented to the mind. For Herbart, ideas possessed force (Kraft),
denoting in this context intensity or clearness. Ideas could suppress the weaker
ones, submerging them below the threshold of consciousness.68 Significantly for the
development of a sociological understanding of the individual psyche, Herbart regarded
these contending ideas as corresponding to competing social ideas. By disciplining the
individual student’s mind or introcosm (especially its volitional aspects), the larger
social functionings (marcocosm) could also be adjusted and ordered.
Herbart would influence the work of Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal,69 who
greatly contributed to the emergence of a collectivized Psychology or Völkerpsychologie
(the latter term might be translated as ethnocultural or ethnonational Psychology,

but for our purposes, in order to maintain an earlier sense of the German Volk, I
will gloss it as Volk Psychology). Lazarus and Steinthal are considered the founders
of Völkerpsychologie (folk Psychology) that regarded the folk mind or spirit
(Volksgeist) as a topic of inquiry. Geist was to be discovered in language, literature,
poetry, songs, and folktales.70 The ideas of Lazarus and Steinthal found expression
in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft (Journal for Cultural
Psychology and Linguistic Science, 1860–90), whose articles constituted the “canonical
texts.”71 Another important figure was Gustav A. Lindner,72 who was also influenced
by Herbart. He contended that individuality developed from the ethnocultural or
national collectivity.
Snapshot Johann Friedrich Herbart

J. F. Herbart (1776–1841), an educational theorist influenced by Leibniz, wrote
Lehrbuch der Psychologie (1816; English translation: Textbook in Psychology,
1891) and Psychologie als Wissenschaft (Psychology as Science, 1824–25). Herbart
attempted to define Psychology, but he did so in a very circumscribed manner.
His “mechanics of the mind” held that ideas obeyed Newtonian laws and interact
just as physical particles do. However, Psychology was only scientific as broadly
understood at the time. It could be mathematical, but like Kant, he maintained that
it could never be experimental in the modern scientific sense. Indeed, for Herbart
metaphysics and Psychology were the same; that is, the fact that the qualities of
interiority were difficult to grasp indicated that they were beyond complete human
comprehension. Interestingly, given Herbart’s opinion that Psychology could never
be experimental, he still exerted an influence and prepared the way for an empirical
and experimental-based physiological Psychology. Indeed, as biology and medicine
made progress during the 1800s, for some it seemed as if Psychology might
develop into a branch of physiology.73 “Herbart represents, therefore, a transition
from the pure speculation of Kant and Fichte and Hegel to the antimetaphysical
experimentalism of Fechner and Wundt and Helmholtz.”74 What is important for
our purposes is Herbart’s discussion of the threshold or “limen” of consciousness;
that is, the qualities of conscious interiority were gradually coming into intellectual
focus as thinkers realized what it was not, that is, nonconscious cognition.
Another important influence on Japanese thinkers was the collectivist ethos of French
thought promoted by Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904), a social Psychologist who theorized
that small interactions among individuals generated a “group mind” through the key
processes of imitation and innovation (the French concern with the deviant is apparent
in Tarde’s interest in criminology). The social Psychologist and amateur physicist
Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931) continued Tarde’s work in “herd behavior” and crowd
Psychology. Le Bon wrote about national traits and racial superiority and his ideas on
“the soul of peoples” (l’âme des peuples) collectivized entire groups. He is best known
for his La psychologie des foules (1895; English translation The Crowd: A Study of the
Popular Mind, 1896). His 1895 Lois Psychologique de l’évolution des peoples, which like
similar works of the time are racist by the standards of today’s sensibilities, was translated
into Japanese by Tsukahara Masatsugu75 (Rubon-shi Minzoku Shinrigaku; literally, Le
Bon’s Volk Psychology, 1900) and Maeda Chōta (Minzoku Hatten no Shinri; literally, The
Psychology of the Development of Peoples, 1910). The Kokumin Kyōiku Gakkai (Society
for National Education) produced its own version in 1900: Kokumin Shinrigaku (National
Psychology).
Endō Ryūkichi (1874–1946) represents a new approach that began to exert
an influence in Japanese sociology during the 1910s: a “psychological social
Psychology” that saw society as a mere function of the innate psychic equipment
of the individual. Originally influenced by organicism, Endō became interested
in the theories of Giddings, Simmel, Durkheim, and Tarde. Called the “Japanese
Tarde,” Endō attempted to explain society as a “willed association of human beings”
or as a manifestation of “social mentality.” Influenced by theorists such as Linder,
in his 1912 book Nihon Ga (The Japanese Self) Endō rooted and justified Japan’s
ethnocultural identity in social psychological concepts. He also authored Kinsei
Shakaigaku (Modern Sociology, 1907) and Nihon Shakai no Hattatsu oyobi Shisō no
Hensen (The Development of Japanese Society and the Transformation of Its Social
Thought, 1904).
Another important researcher on Volk and social Psychology was Kuwata
Yoshizō (1882–1967). He graduated in 1905 from Tokyo Imperial University, where
he specialized in Psychology. His graduation thesis investigated facial expressions
and gestures. Kuwata worked as an assistant at his alma mater and then, at his own
expense, traveled to Leipzig, where for two years he worked under Wundt (1910–12).
In 1921 he received his doctorate from Tokyo Imperial University. His dissertation
examined belief in spirits and ancestor worship (he had already published a book on
this topic in 1916—Reikon Shinkō to Sosen Sūhai). After Kuwata returned to Japan, he
began teaching at Tokyo Imperial University and obtained full professorship in 1926.
In 1941 he became first director of the Institute of Oriental Culture (Tōyō Kenkyūjo)
at Tokyo Imperial University. After he retired from Tokyo Imperial University in 1943,
he joined the faculty at Osaka University. Among some of his key publications are
Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku (The Volk Psychology of Wundt, 1918), Shūkyō Shinri
(The Psychology of Religion, 1924), and Shinrigaku (1927).
Snapshot Wundt’s Volk Psychology

Besides being credited as founding modern Psychology, Wilhelm Wundt later
in his career also wrote on what we might call ethnocultural or ethnonational
Psychology. He considered language, myth, and custom fundamental
constituents of the “mind of a people” (Volksseele). For Wundt, the “tools and
triumphs of the laboratory are judged to be utterly irrelevant to a comprehensive
understanding of human culture and its origins and purposes.”76 His massive
Volk Psychology: An Investigation of the Developmental Laws of Language, Myth
and Customs (Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von

Sprache, Mythus und Sitte, 1900–20) is divided into ten volumes: The first two
volumes focus on language, three on the arts, four through six on myth and
religion, seven and eight on social organization, nine on law, and ten on culture
and history. Wundt listed “four ages” of humankind’s historical development:
(1) “primitive man,” (2) the “totemic age,” (3) “gods and heroes,” and (4) the
present age. Wundt investigated a stunning array of ethnographic and social
psychological materials, believing that certain aspects of the human condition,
such as “higher mental processes,” could not be studied through experimental
methods. Like the social sciences in general, Wundt in the end was torn
between viewing Psychology as a Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and a
Geisteswissenschaft (science of the human spirit in all its complexity).77
Linking state, nation, and psyche
In Japan, for purposes of national unification and ethnocultural identity-construction,

Volksgeist took various incarnations: minzoku seishin, minzoku-shin (Volk spirit
or mind), kokumin seishin, and Yamatogokoro (Japanese spirit). More impartial
sociological concepts, such as shakai ishiki (social consciousness) and shakai shin-i
(social mind),78 were cast in very particularistic, ethnocultural terms. Here we should
note that the idea that the Japanese, like other peoples, possessed an essentialist
Volk spirit (minzoku seishin) shaped the discourses of the social sciences, pedagogy,
morality, politics, and the arts. For example, the literary critic Takayama Chogyū79
viewed minzoku seishin as part of his advocacy of nippon-shugi (Japanism).
The historical context of institutionalizing and instilling Japaneseness

The late 1870s and early 1880s saw the beginning of a reaction against what was
called “excess Westernization.” This “conservative indigenization”80 was a response
to social developments that were considered somehow “too democratic” and “not
Japanese enough.” Indeed, many officials were alarmed by the loss of central power
when the Education System Order was abolished and disparagingly referred to
the 1879 Education Order as the “Liberal Education Order.” It was decided that
general guidance was to be left to the Department of Education, but operational
responsibility was decentralized and left to local officials. But the perception
was that local areas had been granted too much autonomy under this scheme,
and some officials argued that American-style decentralization was not suited to
Japanese conditions and advocated arrangements inspired by French and German
models. The result was the Education Order, proclaimed on December 28, 1880.
It emphasized state control and centralization over education, specifically by
increasing the powers of the secretary of education and the prefectural governors.
Local educational committeepersons were no longer elected, but rather chosen
by the prefectural governor according to central regulations from among a group
selected by the municipalities. As for curriculum, the study of an increasing
and decidedly Japanese-style moral education (shūshin) was stressed.81 Further

regulations, such as the 1885 Education Order, the 1886 Elementary School Order,
the 1886 Middle School Order, and the 1886 Imperial University Order, tightened
central control, and in 1885, Mori Arinori would dismantle the local education
committees in order to increase centralization.
In 1878, the emperor went on an inspection tour and investigated local
educational conditions. Motoda Nagazane (1818–91), a lecturer in Chinese classics
attached to the Imperial House who would become a key actor in the nativist
movement, was entrusted with summarizing the emperor’s views. He wrote the
Imperial Will on the Great Principles of Education (Kyōgaku Seishi), which was
divided into two parts: “General Observations on Education” (Kyōgaku Taishi)
and “Two Provisions for the Conduct of Elementary Education” (Shōgaku Jōmoku
Niken). The first part discussed the significance of loyalty and filial piety in the
Japanese educational tradition and argued that the populace had accepted Western
technical knowledge too readily, thereby eroding Japanese values and ethics. The
second part stated that it was the responsibility of the authorities to instill the
appropriate values as thoroughly as possible. The establishment of the Editorial
Bureau in March 1880 indicates how serious the Department of Education viewed
moral education, which became key to the entire state-ordained curriculum. This
bureau published and distributed the Confucian-inspired “Moral Education for
Elementary Schools” (Shōgaku Shūshin-kun) edited by Nishimura Shigeki (1828–
1902). The Department also began to publish “General Guidelines for the Course
of Study for Middle Schools” (Chūgakkō Kyōsoku Taikō) (July 1881), “General
Guidelines for the Course of Study for Normal Schools” (Shihangakkō Kyōsoku
Taikō) (August 1881), “Ethical Guide for Elementary School Teachers” (June 1881),
and “Regulations for Examining the Conduct of School Teachers” (July 1881).
The latter two works reminded educators—who from 1876 were regarded as state
officials and called “sacred teachers” (seishoku kyōshi)—of their crucial role in
fostering a “spirit of reverence for the Emperor and love of the country” (sonnō
aikoku). Additionally, Motoda edited “Essentials of Primary Instruction” (Yōgaku
Kōyō), which was used as a sort of catechism for teaching moral principles in
schools. These publications and policies eventually culminated in the “Imperial
Rescript on Education” (Kyōiku ni Kan Suru Chokugo or Kyōiku Chokugo) of
October 30, 1890.82 The point of this document is clear, with admonishments such
as “should emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the State.” The fact
that the “Imperial Rescript on Education” was modeled after the 1882 “Imperial
Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors” attests to the elite’s view that students—that is,
imperial subjects trained to work hard, keep public order, and respect authority—
were as valuable to Japan’s defense as were its military personnel and required
psycho-socialization.
The Confucian moralism, traditionalism, and “loyalty to the Emperor and
patriotism” (chūkun aikoku) were attempts to bury ethnonationalist and statist
notions in deep psycho-ideological foundations. The state core was able to colonize
and shape the societal sphere—the family (e.g., filial piety and gender distinctions),
work (e.g., employer–employee hierarchies), and public displays of devotion
(e.g., State Shinto)—with its agendas. The state, by making itself ubiquitous and
omnipresent, ensured that its projects grew in strength. As for classroom practices,
the German Herbartian model would have a great impact. This was a “five-step
process, which appealed to teachers seeking the most efficient means of teaching
systematically a great deal of information and factual knowledge in the shortest
possible time.”83
7
Organizational Institutionalization:
Professionalization, Applications,
and Measuring the Mind
The expansion of departments, scholarly associations, and journals is a solid metric

of professional and organizational institutionalization. Also, laboratories and their
equipment drove the objectification of psyche; this greatly propelled the transition
from a moral-cosmic to a techno-scopic perspective. This is the focus of this chapter.
The work of educational psychologists, and how they attempted to cultivate the minds
of youth, is also detailed, as are attempts to measure and quantify the mind through
mental testing. The development of industrial Psychology is also investigated.
Objectifying the psyche: The role of laboratories
The official birth of laboratory-oriented Psychology

Scientific, experimental Psychology is often said to have begun in 1879, the year
in which Wundt’s very productive laboratory was inaugurated in Leipzig.1 This
anniversary is misleading for different reasons. For one thing, Wundtian theories
and experimental methods (and others in the decade following 1879) had been
developed earlier by the associationists and natural metaphysicians. Nevertheless,
the late 1870s marked two transitions—“lab and lectern”—for Psychology. The first
was institutional. From around 1880s onward Psychology increasingly became part
of the academic landscape. The second transition involved a narrowing of research
interests, making Psychology more “scientific” by limiting methods to “matters of
measurement.”2 Before exploring how laboratory-centered Psychology developed
around the world and in Japan, I treat changes in how the world was “visualized” and
measured. As in tracing the trajectory of other sciences, it is necessary to appreciate
the role of the tools for knowledge production, that is, laboratory equipment.3 In
order to measure and make visible invisible mental processes, various experiments
would eventually be carried out: two-point limen tests;4 reaction time experiments;
galvanic skin reaction (GSR); and electrodermal activity (EDR). In the early stages
of Psychology, an array of tools was used in the practice of experimentation: Hipp’s
chronoscope; Kymograph (which measures velocities of moving structures in an
image time series); tuning forks; pneumograph;5 Zwaardemaker olfactometer;6 and

other chronometrical instruments (e.g., Hipp’s chronometer).7
From the introcosmic to the introscopic
Changes in definitions of the macro- or microcosm led to reconfigurations of

spatiality in both its literal (seeable) and imaginary (introspectable) senses. During
the premodern cosmic period, the introcosm was not an autonomous realm but was
intertwined in the macro–micro cosmology. The introcosm was often regarded as an
epiphenomenon of a deeper reality and was not an order of reality in its own right.
However it may have been conceived, the introcosm was certainly not something that
could be measured, quantified and described in a scientific manner.
One aspect of modernity, then, concerns how the introcosm has been clearly
segregated from the micro- and the macrocosm. Many processes led to this separation
(e.g., the subject–object divide), but it should be noted that in the same way that
technological innovations transformed alchemy into chemistry and astrology into
astronomy, the invention and refining of instruments assisted in no small way the
development of Psychology.
From a moral-cosmic to a techno-scopic perspective

Technological innovations, such as the telescope and microscope, transformed a
cosmic vision into scopic perceptions. A fragmentation of knowledge resulted in
the scholarly specialties with which we are familiar. The centripetal forces of such
specialization would pull apart the prescientific cosmic fabric and specific knowledge
forms would be applied to different realms. Techno-science and rapidly accumulated
knowledge would increasingly be utilized in attempts to improve society. The scientific
revolution would set in motion ideological processes that would gradually lead to a
demoralization of the human condition and a mathematicalized, objective worldview.
Specifically for our purposes, certain technological devices used for measurement
would drive the transition from a premodern religio-philosophical introcosm to a
modern scientific introscopic perspective. This is why the development of Psychology
paralleled experimental physiology and physics: the same devices used in the assessment
of natural processes would be applied to “see” psychological interiority.8
The new visuality of the inward turn
In the first part of the 1800s, physicists, physiologists, and even philosophers
conducted experiments, but not all of these exercises would necessarily be considered
experimental by the strict standards of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, important
scientific endeavors were carried out that laid important foundations: in 1820 the
German astronomer Fredrich Bessel (1786–1846) investigated reaction time by
comparing observations of the transits of stars with those of another astronomer;
Organizational Institutionalization 119
Johannes Müller researched the specific energies of nerves; E.H. Weber worked on “just
noticeable differences” in stimulation; and G.T. Fechner did the first psychophysical
experimentation, leading to the 1860 Weber–Fechner Law (the intensity of a sensation
is proportional to the logarithm of the strength of the stimulus).
Psyche in the laboratory

In 1875 Wundt set up a small room for experiments to demonstrate while lecturing
during his seminar “Psychological Practicum” (Psychologishce Ubungen) at the
University of Leipzig. Around the same time William James set up a room for the
same purpose at Harvard University. In 1879 Wundt established the first psychological
laboratory dedicated to original research. Conventional histories of Psychology assign
an almost mythical meaning to 1879; the image of the laboratory acquired a special
meaning, its use segregating Psychology from philosophy during the late nineteenth
century.9 In this sense laboratories allowed the visualizing of psyche in a new way,
thereby marking the birth of modern research Psychology.
Before Wundt’s laboratory, those investigating psychological-related matters
worked as solitary individuals; after 1879 they began to form a scholarly community.
Those who studied in Wundt’s laboratory comprise a veritable who’s-who list of early
Psychology: for example, G. Stanley Hall; James M. Cattell; Albert Michotte; Edward
Pace; Oswald Külpe10; Edward B. Titchener; Emil Kraepelin; Lightner Witmer;
Matsumoto Matatarō; Hugo Munsterberg; and Charles Spearman. By 1900, forty-
one laboratories had been founded in the United States, many by individuals who
had studied under either Wundt or Hall. By 1900 only about fifty laboratories existed
worldwide, thereby making the United States the leader in psychological laboratory
research (see Appendix 5).11
Snapshot Institutionalizing the introscopic

by measuring psyche
In many ways the 1800s was the century of methodology. This had an impact
on conceptions of psyche which was coming under increasing scrutiny as an
entity that could be “seen” (i.e., measured) in new ways. For example, pioneers
of the psyche increasingly relied on mathematics in proto-psychological and
psychological research. Gustav Fechner used tables and Hermann Ebbinghaus12
and the educational psychologist Edward L. Thorndike13 utilized graphs (1860–
90 might be considered the “golden era of graphics”).14 Particularly in America,
Psychology sought the status of a natural science and the relation between mind
and brain became problematized as an issue of measurement. This would take
different forms, ranging from Hall’s use of questionnaires and a biologistic
emphasis in his thinking on evolution, to James M. Cattell’s positivistic
measurement using brass instruments, to Hugo Münsterberg’s experimentation

mixed with social idealism.15 Related to the more scopic understanding of
psyche was the use of mechanical “brass instruments” in the latter half of
the nineteenth century. These were often clockwork-drive or electromagnetic
devices. They could be, for that time, relatively sophisticated. For example,
Edmund C. Sanford’s16 vernier chronoscope was accurate to 1/100th of a second
and the Hipp chronoscope, an electromechanically controlled clockwork timer,
was accurate to 1/1000th of a second. Such devices were largely German made,
though by the late 1890s, some American firms, employing “mechanicians,”
began to manufacture them. Associated with the “new Psychology,” these
instruments were mostly derived from other experimental devices used in
physiology and physics. However, they were put to different uses: to relate
audition, touch, reaction time, and vision to interiority. Experimental
instruments were employed not just for scientific research but also in classroom
demonstrations and undergraduate instructional laboratories. Indeed, what
constitutes a “laboratory” is problematic, since many “laboratories” were used
for teaching students and demonstration purposes and were not necessarily
well equipped. In 1884 Edmund C. Sanford taught a course in experimental
Psychology at Clark University and laboratories were beginning to be used for
teaching purposes (rather than just pure research). By around 1900, courses
in experimental Psychology had become relatively common. Meanwhile, works
that explicitly detailed methods for a scientific Psychology appeared, such as
Titchener’s 1900 pamphlet “The Psychological Laboratory of Cornell University”
and his four-volume Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Practice
(1901–5), which was a standard text well into the 1930s.17 In 1890 Ladd
published his Outlines of Physiological Psychology, an important textbook for
experimental Psychology. Though Wundt’s Principles of Physiological Psychology
(1874) might be considered the first textbook in experimental Psychology, the
aforementioned works clearly recognized the import of the “new Psychology.”
Psychological experimentation in Japan
By the middle of the Meiji period (1868–1912), “Psychological research methods

could be divided into three types: speculation, observation and testing.” Omi points
out that “speculation” (shiben) and “testing” (shiken)18 were similar in meaning to
“introspection” (naishō) and “experimentation” (jikken), respectively.19 The term that
would eventually be used for experiment was jikken, which had a broader meaning
than today and meant “experience” or “observation,” and denoted actual observations
or “real experience” (jittaiken).20 What is important for our purposes is how the
“existence of mind (kokoro) became clarified as neither immaterial nor invisible. It
was a physical ‘thing with form.’” Mind became a “scientific object,”21 an entity in and
of itself requiring envisioning within the space of the laboratory.
Japan’s first Psychology laboratory

Though Motora was utilizing one or two rooms for experiments by 1890, it
was not until 1903 that a psychological laboratory was formally established at
Tokyo Imperial University (an old building used by researchers in pathology
was renovated and converted into laboratory).22 Motora was greatly aided by his
student Matsumoto Matatarō in these endeavors, whose learning experiences at
Yale and Leipzig were indispensable for introducing concrete research methods
and experimentation into Japan.23 Incidentally, in 1908 Matsumoto would establish
Japan’s second psychological laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1910, the
Tokyo Imperial University published the Illustrated Picture Book of Instrumentation
in Experimental Psychology, which consisted of thirty-seven photos of psychological
experiments.24
The new laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University had six experimental rooms (two
chronometry rooms, dark room, vision room, audition room, and a sound-proof
room). It also had an apparatus room, a lecture room, a workshop, a library, and a
professor’s office.25 The laboratory was originally called a “psychophysical laboratory”
(seishin butsurigaku jikkenshitsu), revealing the legacy of psychophysics (such as the
Weber–Fechner law).26 Experiments investigated perception (the majority), attention,
affection, fatigue, reading, writing, memory, and motor tasks.27 Emphasis appears to
have been on experiments that concerned visuality.28 By 1912 forty-five students had
finished Motora’s program of experimental training.29
Psychology, “possessed of its own energy, spontaneously self-expanded and
disseminated from the inside out. At the same time, external social factors pressured
the new Psychology to take the stage.”30 This development, covering roughly the first
several decades of the twentieth century, is reflected in the number of psychological
seminar rooms (kenkyūshitsu) and laboratories (jikkenshitsu)31 that increased
dramatically throughout Japan.32 During the 1920s eight psychological laboratories
were established: Kansei Gakuin (1922, Kobe); Tōhoku Imperial University (1923,
Sendai); Nihon University (1923, Tokyo); Kyūshū Imperial University (1927,
Fukuoka); Keio University (1926, Tokyo); Doshisha University (1927, Kyoto); Tokyo
Bunrika University (1929; now Tsukuba University); and Hiroshima University
(1929) (see Table 7.1). We should note that the founders of five out of eight were
students of Matsumoto Matatarō. 33
Professionalization: Associations, journals, and societal impact
Academic journals and scholarly societies

The establishment of scholarly journals, publications, and bulletins, as well as professional
associations and societies, is a key measure of disciplinary institutionalization. They
act as conduits and conveyors of developments in the field, interlinking the producers
Table 7.1 Psychology laboratories established in Japan: 1904−34
University Year research Year experimental Founders Alma mater

room † laboratory ‡
established established
Imperial Universities
Tōkyō Imperial 1904 1903 Motora Yūjirō Johns Hopkins

& Matsumoto Tōkyō Imperial
Matatarō
Kyōto Imperial 1906 1908 Matsumoto Tōkyō Imperial
Matatarō & Tōkyō Imperial
Nogami Toshio
Tōhoku Imperial 1923 1926 Chiba Tanenari & Kyōto Imperial
Ōwaki Yoshikazu Kyōto Imperial
Kyūshū Imperial 1925 1927 Sakuma Kanae & Tōkyō Imperial
Yatabe Tatsurō Tōkyō Imperial
Keijō Imperial 1926 1927 Hayami Hiroshi & Tōkyō Imperial
Kuroda Ryō+ Tōkyō Imperial
Taihoku Imperial 1928 1933 Rikimaru Jien & Tōkyō Imperial
Iinuma Ryuen Tōkyō Imperial
State-Established Universities
Tōkyō Bunrika 1929 Before 1929 Tanaka Kanichi, Kyōto Imperial
Narasaki Asatarō & Kyōto Imperial
Takemasa Tarō Tōkyō Imperial
Hiroshima 1920 1929 Kubo Yoshihide & Tōkyō Imperial
Bunrika Koga Yukiyoshi Tōkyō Imperial
Private Universities
Keiō Giku 1926 1926 Kawai Teiichi Keiō Gijuku
& Yokoyama Colorado
Matsusaburō
Waseda 1932 1928 Kaneko Umaji & Tōkyō Senmon
Akamatsu Pōro Gakkō Waseda
Hōsei 1924 1927 Kido Mantarō Tōkyō Imperial
Nihon 1924 Before 1923 Watanabe Tōru+ Tōkyō Imperial
Dōshisha 1927 1927 Wada Rinkuma & Tōkyō Imperial
Motomiya Yahē Berlin
Rikkyō 1927 1932 Okabe Yatarō+ Tōkyō Imperial
& Ushijima Tōkyō Imperial
Yoshitomo+
Kansei Gakuin 1934 1923 Imada Megumi Tōkyō Imperial
Source: Suzuki and Takasuna (1997: 209) and Satō (2002a: 305, 330). With my modifications.
†Jikkenshitsu.
‡Kenkyushitsu.
+All researchers listed received training overseas, except those marked by a plus sign.
and consumers of new knowledge. Such organizations and their publications

standardized scientific terminology, disseminated relevant knowledge, and facilitated
communication, all indispensable for establishing scholarly credibility.
Japanese academic societies and associations

Japan’s rapid development can to a large extent be explained by how, during the Meiji
period, professional bodies of scientists and experts organized themselves. Many
researchers viewed their commitment to endeavors as part of nation-building and
loyalty that once was afforded to a feudal master and bolstered by the warrior ethic
(bushidō). Now it was transmuted into a “notion of professional service to the national
public.”34
The origins of Psychology societies can be traced to the informal meetings
held at Tokyo’s Motora’s home beginning in 1891. In April 1901, the Shinri Gakkai
(Psychology Society) was established (Table 7.2). Motora became its president, with
Matsumoto Matatarō and Tsukahara Masatsugu assisting in its administration.
Between 1901 and 1912, 117 talks were given by the Shinri Gakkai. In 1908 and 1927,
other Shinri Gakkai were established in Kyoto and at Keijō Imperial University (in
Seoul), respectively. Meanwhile, faculty members with similar interests began forming
informal Psychology-related research groups at universities. Eventually, a number of
important Psychology associations would be founded.
In 1912, the Shinrigaku Kenkyū-kai (Association for Psychological Research),
which published Shinri Kenkyū (Psychological Research), was founded, and eleven
years later, the Nihon Shinri Gakkai (Japanese Psychological Association) was
established.35 It was a Tokyo Imperial University endeavor and its organ was
Nihon Shinrigaku Zasshi (Japan Psychological Magazine). The latter publication
was combined with the Shinri Kenkyū in 1926 to form the Shinrigaku Kenkyū
(Psychological Research). The Nihon Shinri Gakkai failed to attract enough
supporters and in 1926 it was reorganized. One year later in April, the Zenkoku
Table 7.2 Meetings of the Psychology Society (Shinri Gakkai), 1901
Month Lecture Speaker

February The Contents of Ego Kishimoto Nōbuta
March Emotional Conciliation Hayami Hiroshi
April Revealed and Latent Parts of Mental Control Fukurai Tomokichi
May An Opinion Concerning Scientific Psychology Motora Yūjirō
June Functional Psychology Tanaka Kiichi
October The Goal and Conflict of Desire Fukurai Tomokichi
November Research on the Reaction Time in Comparing Weight Nakashima Taizō
December The Elements and Form of Poetry Kuroyanagi Ikutairō
Source: Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 87).
Taikai Kaisai Soshiki (All-Japan Psychological Organization) was set up, but the key
conveners decided to rename this organization Nihon Shinri Gakkai. For the first
time a Psychology-focused group at the national level was inaugurated. Matsumoto
Matatarō was chosen as its first president,36 and its publication was called Shinrigaku
Kenkyū. It would meet every two years.37
As Japanese society became increasingly authoritarian, academics, whether willingly
or not, responded to the new demands of centralization. In July 1941, members of the
Nihon Shinri Gakkai decided to rename their society the Shinri Gakkai (Psychological
Society). This would absorb three other organizations: Applied Psychology Association,
Kansai Applied Psychology Association, and the Society of Psychotechnics.38 The new
organization, reflecting the requirements of the times, divided its research specialties
into general, educational, industrial, law, clinical, and military Psychology. After
the war, members changed it back to its original name, that is, Nihon Shinri Gakkai
(Table 7.3).39
Japanese Psychology journals

Early on during the Meiji period intellectuals (such as the political theorist Ukita
Kazutami) and other writers contributed articles related to Psychology in publications
such as Meiroku Zasshi,40 Tetsugaku Zasshi,41 Rikugō Zasshi, Gakugei Shirin, and Tōyō
Gakugei Zasshi. Later on, Psychology-related journals, such as Shinkeigaku Zasshi
and Jidō Kenkyū, would publish relevant writings.42 The first Psychology-focused
publication was Shinri Kenkyū, but this was a semi-academic journal.43 Published
since 1912, Motora would help launch it. Seven years later the Nihon Shinrigaku Zasshi
(Japanese Psychological Magazine) began publication (until 1922) and was edited at
Kyoto Imperial University. This was a purely scientific periodical.44 In January 1923,
a publication with the same name as the latter journal began publication at Tokyo
Imperial University. Three years later, the Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of
Table 7.3 Key Psychology-related Japanese academic associations and societies, 1927–50
Japanese Name English Name Year

Established
Nihon Shinri Gakkai Japanese Psychological Association 1927
Kansai Ōyō Shinri Gakkai Kansai Applied Psychological Association 1927
Nihon Ōyō Shinri Gakkai Japan Applied Psychology Association 1931*
Dōbutsu Shinri Gakkai Japanese Society for Animal Psychology 1933
Nihon Gurūpu Dainamikkusu Japanese Association of Group Dynamics 1949
Gakkai
Rinshō Shinri Gakkai Association of Clinical Psychology 1950†
*Reorganized in 1946.
†Reorganized in 1964
Psychology) was launched. This journal, which is still in existence and regarded as
the major journal for Japanese Psychology, took over the publishing role of the Shinri
Kenkyū and the two Japanese Psychological Magazines (which ceased publication).45
Matsumoto Matatarō, Hayami Hiroshi, Masuda Koreshige, and Kido Mantarō oversaw
its publication. Eventually, an array of specialized Psychology-focused journals would
appear. Typically, they would function as the organs of specialized research societies.46
In addition to societies and journals, mention should also be made of funding
organizations. From 1913, Psychologists received funding from the Teikoku Gakushi-
in (established in 1906).47 The Ministry of Education, along with private organizations,
would also support psychological research (see Appendix 6).48
Institutionalizing interiority at the societal level

By the late nineteenth century, in the same way that Psychology had come into its
own as a recognized independent discipline, interiority had come into its own as
an autonomous experience of the human condition. Still confused with perception,
thinking, reasoning, and anything associated with the especially fuzzy rubric of
“consciousness,” interiority was at least acknowledged as sui generis.
In addition to the academic institutionalization of Psychology, then, the impact of
the psychological revolution can be measured in its societal manifestations—arts, mass
media, and everyday language—and evidence of “pop” Psychology and its interiorized
view of human nature are evident in the Meiji era. More and more people paid
attention to the reconceptualizations of hypnosis, memory (especially for educational
purposes), and mental illness.49
In the literary realm consider how novelists played a vital role via their
psychologized writings (e.g., the shi-shōsetsu or “I novel”) in spreading new ways
of conceiving human nature as something interiorized.50 Natsume Sōseki (1867–
1916), the most famous Japanese novelist of the Meiji era (who was influenced
by T.A. Ribot, C.L. Morgan, E.W. Scripture, and William James),51 wrestled with
the notion of the modern self. His novel Kokoro (1914) deals not only with the
question of “who am I?” but also “what is an ‘I’?” Such an intellectual endeavor
was undoubtedly related to the forces released by modernization. Arguably, Sōseki
was searching for an “analog to the Western ‘self ’ as the necessary precursor of the
political equivalents to ‘liberty’, ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ that are founded on it.” He
understood from within the ideas of Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Hume. In a talk called
“My Individualism,” Sōseki stated that “individualism is good because it is modern
and necessary; it is bad because it is un-Japanese and destructive; one should be an
individual, have a self, but one should not be egotistical, selfish.”52 The challenge,
apparently, for someone like Sōseki was coming to terms with a modern notion
of the self which was associated with “I” or watakushi. In Japanese the latter has
negative associations: selfishness, illegitimate, irregular, misappropriated, unfair,
ill-gotten, pretense, secret, and counterfeit. Watakushi was opposed to ōyake, which
denotes public, communal, for the common good, out in the open, fair, self-evident,
civil, and official.
While ivory-towerism and the highly technical explications of scholars closed

off the new psychological knowledge from the public, outside university settings
attempts were made to connect new forms of understanding human nature with the
everyday life of average citizens, housewives, and elementary and secondary school
teachers. Such endeavors resonated with the goals of “popular enlightenment”
(ippan keimō) and, later, the “popular trends” (minshū-teki keikō) of the Taishō
period.53
A good example of the popularizing of Psychology was the Shinrigaku Tsūzoku
Kōwa-kai (Society for Popular Lectures on Psychology). Established in 1909 by
Ueno Yōichi, Ōtsuki Kaison, Kurahashi Sōzō, and Sugawara Kyōzō,54 this was
an association of Psychology lecturers who gave talks for the public.55 Motora,
Matsumoto Matatarō, and Fukurai Tomokichi acted as advisors. Reportedly
about 400 people attended the lectures held at Tokyo Imperial University. Similar
meetings were convened in cities such as Nagano, Niigata, Sendai, and Yamagata
where it was reported that more than a thousand attended each meeting.56 Such
popularity indicates how the psychological revolution was spreading among the
public.
From 1909 until 1913 the Society published the Shinrigaku Tsūzoku Kōwa-kai
and we should note that the semi-academic Shinri Kenkyū, which helped spread
the new science via articles, translations, and commentaries, had a “Questions and
Answers” column in which Psychology experts responded to questions from the
readership.
Another example of the dissemination among the public of an interiorized
worldview concerns lectures on psychological topics given via the radio (rajio kōen).
In 1933, mental tests were given via the radio (Table 7.4).57
In their analysis of the contents of newspaper articles and radio programs related
to Psychology, Satō and Hoshino note that initially “investigations carried out by
Psychologists were mostly based on empirical evidence. However, after 1940, not
actual data but rather the rhetoric of ‘looking at things Psychologically’ would come
to characterize the discourse.”58 Gradually, a highly Psychologized perspective became
taken for granted.
Table 7.4 Radio lectures by psychologists
Presenter Topic Date

Kirihara Shigemi What Should Be Done to Employ Juveniles? March 5, 1938
Matsumoto Kinju Reading Materials for Boys and Girls September 12, 1938
Yoda Arata Friendship among Female Students March 3, 1939
Hatano Kanji How to Select and Provide Children’s Picture Books October 13, 1940
Aoki Seishirō Group Training for Children January 31, 1941
Kirihara Shigemi The Cultivation of Feelings May 21, 1941
Source: Satō and Hoshino (1997: 314).
Applying Psychology to the problems of modernity
More than the rarefied ivory towers of academics, the institutionalization of

Psychology was driven by practical problems spawned by a rapidly industrializing
world. More concretely, Psychology was a response to industrialization and new
political economic configurations. For its part, officialdom had a keen interest in
the psychological sciences and new forms of “governmental rationality” came into
existence that turned the “population of a particular national territory” into political
subjects.59 Consequently, a “large-scale alliance” developed between governments
and social researchers, who began to focus on “population varieties” rather than
communities.60 Moreover, in the late nineteenth century “practical [P]sychology was
a thoroughly interdisciplinary affair.” Practitioners were not necessarily formally
trained Psychologists; most were sociologists, criminologists, psychiatrists, and
pedagogues.61 For example, social welfare specialists drove the development of social
Psychology in the late nineteenth century.62 By the early 1920s practical Psychology
already overshadowed academic Psychology.63 Indeed, it is “applied fields that seem
to be the mark” of Psychology’s long-term, societal impact.64 The founding of the
American Association for Applied Psychology in 1936 demonstrates the direction in
which the field had been moving for some time.
Applied Psychology in Japan
In Japan practical uses of psychological know-how can be traced back to the early
Meiji era, when Motora did early work on special education and language skills. His
student Matsumoto Matatarō also made contributions to practical Psychology. Tanaka
Kanichi, in his “Ōyō Shinrigaku Saikin no Hattatsu” (“The Most Recent Developments
in Applied Psychology,” 1919), explained that applied Psychology was not concerned
with theoretical issues but aimed to improve “real life” (jissai seikatsu). In a 1935
article “Wagakuni ni okeru Ōyō Shinrigaku-sho” (“Publications about Applied
Psychology in Our Country”), Kishimoto Sōkichi noted that between 1884 and 1933,
744 works on practical uses of Psychology appeared. He divided them into thirteen
categories (though his concept of what constitutes “applied” is somewhat broad).65
Hoshino notes that of the 1,300 Psychology-related articles published between 1874
and 1932, over 700 were on applied topics.66 Interest in the practical applications of
psychological knowledge greatly expanded among academics and by the late 1920s,
the Kansai Association of Applied Psychology, which held conferences twice a year,
was established. The journal Ōyō Shinri (Applied Psychology) was issued in 1931 and
then from 1932 to 1939 was called Ōyō Shinri Kenkyū.67
It was during the Taishō period (or the era of “Great Righteousness,” 1912–26) that
applied Psychology really came into its own.68 Psychological expertise would become
indispensable for the social-engineering attempts of wartime statism, bureaucratic
authoritarianism, and technocratic elitism. Taishō is usually characterized as a time
when “democracy,” “liberalism,” and “Westernization” began to make advances.
The Meiji-era “elder statesmen” (genrō) who had so boldly led Japan out of isolation
and into modernity had either passed away or were in decline. In their place came
sober bureaucrats, the Diet, and increasingly influential if dishonest party politicians.
Urbanization and a growing middle class augmented a general sense of optimism and
openness.
During Taishō the modernization and rationalization of employment sectors (e.g.,
civil service, business, military) resulted in a steady demand for trained personnel.
The individual’s social position became increasingly tied to formal schooling and
the roots of Japan’s present-day credentialism had been firmly planted. The business
world and military, who had previously opposed extending the length of compulsory
education since this would interfere with their efforts to recruit cheap labor and
soldiers, saw the advantages of a better trained workforce. If the Meiji vision was “a
massive elementary school base with only limited necessity for middle-level schooling
and even smaller segments of society advancing to college,” the Taishō period “slowly
gave ground to the pressures for greater opportunity at the secondary and even tertiary
levels. There were calls for extending compulsory education to eight years or even
longer.”69 Consequently, more psyches would be bureaucratized.
We should also note that in the educational realm Taishō has been seen by many as
a period of experimentation and innovation; that is, American influence was apparent
with the introduction of the ideas of John Dewey and journalists and intellectuals
wrote about the darker side of economic progress.
Cultivating the minds of children and youth
As in other subspecialties of Psychology, Motora was instrumental in child studies.70

From 1902 he was president of the Nihon Jidō Kenkyū-kai (presently, the Nihon Jidō
Gakkai). Beginning in 1898, this society published Jidō Kenkyū (Child Studies) which
saw the involvement of Matsumoto Matatarō, Takashima Heizaburō, Shitada Jirō,
Sakaki Yasusaburō, Matsumoto Kōjirō, Fukurai Tomokichi, Ōse Jintarō, Tsukahara
Masatsugu, and Fujikawa Yū. It published articles on physiology, special education,
school hygiene, and pedagogy and took a “scientific” approach to understanding
children.71 It provided a venue in which parents exchanged views on a variety of child-
related concerns.
A 1909 report appearing in The American Journal of Psychology related that 250
individuals attended the 1908 “Congress of the Japanese Society for Child Study” at
Tokyo Imperial University. Besides Psychologists, attendees included schoolteachers,
physicians, ministers, criminologists, and lawyers. Motora spoke on the “purpose of
the society and of its past services.”
Child care and child-related problems, as well as a concern with youth
employment and juvenile delinquency developed during this time (Table 7.5). In
1917 the pediatrician and social worker Sandaya Hiraku (1882–1962), along with
Kubo Yoshihide, established the Jidō Kyōyō Kenkyūjo (Child Educational Research
Institute; later, the Jidō Kenkyūjo or the Child Studies Institute). They also edited the
Table 7.5 Congress of the Japanese Society for Child Study, May 10–11, 1908
Sugawara K. On the Aesthetic Feelings of School Girls for Cherry Blossoms

Dr. Warashina S. On Hysteria in Infancy
Miabe I. On Backward Children in the Common Schools
Sawaki S. On Psychopathic Feeble-mindedness
Roseki G. On the Mental States of School Children
Ohara Y. On Vacation Colonies
Dr. Kurahashi S. Children and Poetry
Sennichi A. On the Hereditary of Myopia
Kishibe The Crying of Children and Its Treatment
Dr. Yoshida K. New View-points of Child Study in Germany
Mayeda F. Mimetic Expressions of the Child
Dr. Ishiwara T. Mental Development of the Child
Dr. Shimoda I. Children in the City and in the Country
Miyamoto N. Convulsions in Children
Dr. Takashima H. On the Influence of Pedagogy upon the Mental States of Youth
Dr. Fujikawa Y. On Nervousness in Infancy
Dr. Miyake A. On Criminal Youth as Result of Disease
Dr. Asoh S. Present Condition of the Higher Education of Women in Europe
Dr. Yamada T. On the Question of Overtaxation
Dr. Fukurai T. “Isolated” Psychical Functions
Dr. Motora Y. On Mental Gymnastics
Dr. Miyake H. Some Remarks on Child Study
Source: “Notes,” The American Journal of Psychology, 1909. Names have been changed to reflect the Japanese conven-
tion of surnames first; otherwise, all names are reproduced exactly as they appeared in “Notes.”
Jidō Kenkyūjo Kiyō (Research Bulletin of the Child Studies Institute). Sandaya wrote
works such as Gakurei Jidō Chiryoku Kensa-hō (School-Age Mental Ability Testing
Methods, 1915) and published the journal Haha to Ko (Mother and Child). In 1919
he became head of the Children’s Division in the Osaka Social Bureau (Ōsaka-shi
Shakai-kyoku Jidō-ka). In the late 1920s he would open the Sandaya Chiryō Kyōiku-
in (Sandaya Therapeutic Educational Center) and the Nihon Haha no Kai (Japan
Association of Mothers). Eventually he established the Midorigaoka Elementary
School.
By the 1920s, child counseling offices (jidō sōdanjo), youth employment counseling
offices (shōnen shokugyō sōdanjo), day nurseries (takujisho), and infant centers
(nyūji-in) would be established. In Tokyo and Osaka, aptitude tests (tekisei kensa)
and employment advice were given in youth employment agencies (shōnen shokugyō
kaishojo).72
An important figure in educational Psychology was Tsukahara Masatsugu (1872–

1946). He graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1890 and became a graduate
student at the same school. Supported by government funding, in 1901 he traveled
to America and Germany where he studied with Wundt at University of Leipzig
A specialist in child Psychology, he would teach Psychology at Tokyo Higher Normal
School and become president of Hiroshima Bunrika University. Tsukahara considered
Psychology the basis for theorizing about pedagogy and believed that understanding
psychological processes was the answer to effective schooling. He edited Kyōiku
Shinrigaku (Educational Psychology, 1898), translated the works of G.T. Ladd (Raddo-
shi Shinrigaku Kōen, 1901), and wrote Seinen Shinri (Psychology of Youth, 1910) and
Jidō no Shinri oyobi Kyōiku (Child Psychology and Education, 1926).
Another important thinker in educational Psychology was Aoki Seishirō (1895–
1956). He was especially interested in child and adolescent Psychology and wrote
Teinōji oyobi Rettōji no Shinri to Sono Kyōiku (The Psychology of Feebleminded
and Inferior Children and Their Education, 1922a), Kyōiku-teki Jidō Shinrigaku
(Educational Child Psychology, 1922b), and Jidō Shinrigaku Josetsu (Introduction to
Child Psychology, 1924). Aoki received his BA in 1922 from Tokyo Imperial University
where he majored in Psychology. His graduation thesis investigated problems of
attention. He would become an associate professor at Tokyo Imperial University’s
School of Agriculture, and from 1937 to 1944 he was a professor at Tokyo Nōgyō
Kyōiku Senmon Gakkō (Tokyo Vocational School for Agricultural Education). In
1941 he became director at Nihon Seishōnen Kyōiku Kenkyū (Japan Adolescent
Educational Institute). After the war he worked at the Ministry of Education and at
the Tokyo Medical and Dental University; from 1950 until his death he was president
at Tokyo Kasei Junior College.
Mobilizing the minds of youth
The Ministry of Education, in order to achieve the goals of the “General Mobilization
of the National Spirit,” promulgated the Youth Social Order on April 26, 1939,73 which
made youth school education compulsory for boys between the ages of twelve and
nineteen (except for those attending regular schools). Formed in 1935, Youth combined
vocational supplementary schools with youth training centers. The authorities also
used neighborhood associations to organize and inform citizens.
The Ministry of Education also provided support and facilities for various kinds
of “patriotic educational groups.” In order to unify these groupings and rationalize
their activities (which reportedly carried on open disputes among themselves), in
1940 the Ministry of Education persuaded leaders of the following groups to combine
their organizations into a massive national movement by January 1941: (1) the Greater
Japan Youth Group (Dai Nippon Seinen-dan);74 (2) the Greater Japan Federation of
Girls’ Youth Groups (Dai Nippon Rengō Joshi Seinen-dan); (3) the Greater Japan
Federation of Boys’ Groups (Dai Nippon Shōnendan Renmei);75 and (4) the Imperial
Association of Boys’ Groups (Teikoku Shōnendan Kyōkai). The new group was named
the Greater Japan Youth and Child Group (Dai Nippon Seishōnen-dan). Under the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, this group was involved in war production
and various educational activities related to national defense. Its activities included
worship at Shinto shrines, the promotion of savings, and assistance to families with
members in the military service.
Important educational Psychologists

It is worth briefly describing the careers and contributions of three important
educational Psychologists: Narazaki Asatarō, Nogami Toshio, and Kido Mantarō.
Narazaki Asatarō (1881–1974), a student of Matsumoto Matatarō, saw pedagogy as
means to promote Japanese nationalism and wrote Sembatsu-hō Gairon (Introduction
to Selection Methods, 1924). Narazaki graduated from Kyoto Imperial University’s
Philosophy Department in 1910 and received his doctorate from the same university
in 1923. He would work as an assistant at Kyoto Imperial University and as a professor
at Tokyo Higher Normal School. In 1929 he was appointed professor at Tokyo Bunrika
University while studying in Germany, and in 1944 he was invited to work in China as
an educational specialist. After the war he worked at Kinki University.
Nogami Toshio (1882–1963), besides making important contributions to
educational Psychology, studied emotion, social Psychology, adolescent Psychology,
and sexuality. He authored Jikken Shinirgaku (Experimental Psychology, 1909) and
Kyōiku-teki Jikken Shinrigaku (Educational Experimental Psychology, 1912b). Nogami
received his BA in 1906 from Tokyo Imperial University where he specialized in
Psychology. He became an assistant to Matsumoto Matatarō after graduation, and
in 1908 he was employed as an instructor at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1911 he
became an associate professor at Kyoto Imperial University and several years later was
awarded a doctorate from the same university. He studied under Wundt at University
of Leipzig for one year (1913) and visited a number of universities in England where
he met prominent scholars. He then went to Clark University where he studied under
G.S. Hall (until 1916). When he returned to Japan he became a professor at his alma
mater. In 1925 he traveled to Paris and attended the League of Nations. In 1942 he
retired from Kyoto Imperial University and after the war became professor at Naniwa
University76 and Kyoto Women’s University.
Kido Mantarō (1893–1985) attempted to develop an “educational science” (kyōiku
kagaku) and would become president of the Society for Educational Science Research
(Kyōiku Kagaku Kenkyūkai). Besides an interest in educational Psychology, he
contributed to the establishment of the Japanese Psychological Association and set up
the psychological laboratory at Hōsei University. He authored works such as Yōji Kyōiku-
ron (Theory of Early Childhood Education, 1939), Yōji Kyōiku (Early Childhood Education,
1968a), and Shinrigaku Mondai-shi (History of Problems in Psychology, 1968b).
Other applications of Psychology by officialdom
In addition to educational Psychology, which is an illustration of applied

Psychology par excellence, the state bureaucracies employed Psychologists for
other reasons. The first state bureaucracy to employ Psychologists was the Ministry
of Communications (Teishin-shō). In 1914, its Telegram (Denshin-kyoku) and

Telephone Bureaux (Denwa-kyoku) tested, for purposes of selection, potential
operators. That same year this Ministry’s Savings Administration Bureau (Chōkin
Kanri-kyoku) also administered psychologically informed tests.77
The 1938 National Mobilization Law (Kokka Sōdōin-hō) instituted a “national
mobilization system” which attempted to organize workers and resources for the
war effort. A number of Psychologists were inducted into these efforts. Working in
the Ministry of Welfare (Kōsei-shō), psychological experts (shinri gijutsu-sha) were
tasked with aiding in the categorization of occupations and, via aptitude tests (tekisei
kensa), assessing individual workers.78 The Ministry classified the Psychologists
it employed as either gishu (assistant specialists) or gishi (specialists).79 In 1937 the
Ministry of Welfare asked Watanabe Tōru to offer advice on the war-wounded and
their employment. Watanabe would help Matsui Shinjirō (1924–95), who lost his sight
in the war and went on to make contributions to the blind in Japan.80 The Ministry of
Home Affairs (Naimu-shō) also employed psychologically trained personnel (e.g., for
disaster prevention).81
Psychology offered tools for social classification and treating problems resulting
from rapid industrialization. In addition to adult working males, women, children,
the elderly, criminals, juvenile delinquents, mental patients, and foreign peoples
had to be categorized and controlled in order to maintain, in the eyes of the elites,
sociopolitical order. For example, encouraged by Motora, Terada Seiichi (1884–1922)
(who was originally interested in the Psychology of plants—shokubutsu shinri) became
Japan’s first expert in criminal Psychology (hanzai shinrigaku), legal Psychology (hō
shinrigaku), and the Psychology of testimony (shōgen shinrigaku). A graduate of
Tokyo Imperial University, he recognized the need for surveys to reveal the social
causes of crime (rather than merely describing the personal traits of criminals) and
conducted research in Sugamo Prison. Terada translated the Italian criminologist
Cesare Lombroso’s82 Theory of the Criminal (Hanzainin-ron, 1917a) and works by
the Austrian criminal jurist and pioneer in criminalistics, Hans Gross.83 Terada also
wrote Shūjin no Shinri (The Psychology of Prisoners, 1913), Jidō no Akuheki (The Vices
of Children, 1917b), Hanzai Shinrigaku Kōwa (Lectures on Criminal Psychology,
1918), Hanzai Shinrigaku Kōgi (Lectures on Criminal Psychology, 1926), and Hanzai
Shinrigaku (Criminal Psychology, 1927). In 1913 Terada founded the Japanese Society
for Criminology (Nihon Hanzai Gakkai).84
Measuring the mind: Mental testing and industrial Psychology

Quantifying the psyche
The industrialization, urbanization, and a rising middle class of the Taishō drove the
dissemination of political rights and economic opportunities. These in turn enhanced
individuation (or an emphasis on personal differences and personality―jinkaku)
and created the need for new social categories that had to be measured, selected,
and ranked through the scientific tools of psychological testing.85 Individuation
was manifested through a concern with kosei (individuality) and kosei chōsa
(investigations of individuality).86 Mental and aptitude tests—variously called seishin

kensa, soshitsu kensa, mentaru tesuto, and chinō kensa—measured intelligence, while
temperament or disposition tests (kishitsu kensa) and character or personality tests
(seikaku kensa) assessed one’s “emotions and will” (jōi).87 Within the educational
system, an objective selection mechanism to filter, rank, and shunt students, that is,
entrance exams, was needed. The result of these processes were “exam hell” (shiken
jigoku) and “entrance exam hell” (juken jigoku), consequences that would continue
well into the post-imperial era. In addition to entrance exams and regular school tests,
mental tests were also deployed by the educational authorities.88 Meanwhile, at the
societal level, books on testing became increasingly popular toward the end of Taishō.89
Before discussing how mental testing developed in Japan, it is helpful to take a
global perspective on the issue since in Japan’s case, tests were borrowed from France,
Germany, and particularly America.90
Measuring the mental

A key figure in the transition from an introcosmic to an introscopic view of mind
was Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911). A half-cousin of Charles Darwin, Galton
arguably possessed one of the most gifted minds of the nineteenth century. He made
contributions to geography, anthropology, meteorology, criminology, statistics, and
what would become genetics. He was also an explorer of Africa and an inventor.
For our purposes, his significance is to be found in how he attempted to understand
the psychological through statistical methods, questionnaires, and surveys. Broadly
speaking, such endeavors involve viewing problems of psyche as a technical, rather
than a theological or philosophical, issue. Through his research on psychometrics
(the science of measuring mental faculties), he “visualized” the mind in an explicitly
empirical and positivist manner. Specifically, he investigated human differences, the
inheritance of intelligence, mental imagery, and sound and hearing. Two of his better
known books are Hereditary Genius (1869) and Inquiries into Human Faculty (1883).
Meanwhile in France the Psychologist Alfred Binet91 and pedagogue Théodore
Simon92 developed the Binet–Simon Intelligence Test which was designed for
educational purposes. Binet designed his first test at the request of French authorities
and it was intended to be used for students who needed special attention (ironically,
Binet himself did not believe that intelligence was fixed or measured). Later, J. M.
Cattell,93 W. Stern,94 Lewis M. Terman,95 and D. Wechsler96 would work in the field
of intelligence testing. Robert M. Yerkes97 would offer the US military, which had
concerns about investing vast resources in training potentially untrainable soldiers, a
system of mass testing.
Mental testing in Japan
The Binet–Simon Intelligence Test was introduced into Japan by the psychiatrist
Miyake Kōichi98 (from the Tokyo Imperial University’s Medical School) and Ikeda
Takanori (the 1908 version). Three years later, Ueno Yōichi would utilize the Binet
test and Ichikawa Genzō99 introduced the 1911 version. Some years later a group
of Psychologists would develop Japanese editions, relying on 1918, 1922, and 1930
versions. Kubo Yoshihide was the first to standardize the Binet test (Kobu–Binet Test),
though Tanaka Kanichi’s100 version (Tanaka–Binet Test) would become more popular.
Suzuki Harutarō101 would standardize the Stanford–Binet Test in 1925 (Suzuki–Binet
Test). 102 Below I introduce several important Japanese figures in the Psychology of
testing.
Tanaka Kanichi
Tanaka Kanichi103 (1882–1962) specialized in Psychology under Matsumoto Matatarō
and received his BA in 1913 from Kyoto Imperial University. His academic dissertation
was on “mental work” (seishin sagyō). In 1919 he was awarded his doctorate from
Tokyo Imperial University for his dissertation entitled “Shinteki Sadō ni Kansuru
Jikkenteki Kenkyū” (“Experimental Research of Mental Behavior”). From 1922 to
1924 he traveled in Europe (including University of Oxford) as an overseas researcher
for the Ministry of Education and studied in the United States where he examined
intelligence and personality tests (1937–38). He established the psychological
laboratory at Tokyo Bunrika University.
In addition to his academic career (he taught at numerous institutions, such as
Nihon University, Tokyo Higher Normal School, Tokyo Bunrika University, and
Shiraume Gakuen Junior College), he worked in private industry. But for our purposes
his significance is in his attempts to apply psychological principles outside academic
settings. He made important contributions to intelligence testing and measurement
(Tanaka B-Version Intelligence Scale and Tanaka–Binet Intelligence Scale), educational
Psychology, mental fatigue, and the Psychology of work. From 1919 to 1945, he as
an advisor to the Office of Experimental Psychological Research (Naval Technology
Laboratory) did work for the Aviation Psychology Laboratory at Tokyo Imperial
University (1920–33) and the Ministry of Communication (1921‒43); at the Ministry
of Education, he was a member of the Occupation Census Commission (1931–37)
and helped select textbooks (1942–44). In 1927 he established the Japan Occupational
Guidance Association and became its president, and twenty years later he founded the
Tanaka Educational Institute (Tanaka Kyōiku Kenkyūjo).
Kubo Yoshihide
Kubo Yoshihide (1883–1942) specialized in Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University,
where he studied under Motora. His graduation thesis investigated anger and
revenge. In 1909 he became an assistant to Fukurai Tomokichi at Tokyo Imperial
University and two years later became a school inspector for Tokyo. He wrote his
dissertation on the Psychology and pedagogy of reading (Tokyo Imperial University,
1923). While at Tokyo Imperial University he pursued “experimental pedagogy”
(jikken kyōikugaku) under the pedagogue Yoshida Kumaji (1874–1964). Kubo
made important contributions to educational Psychology, child Psychology, and the
standardization of intelligence testing. In 1918 he standardized a Japanese version of
the Binet Intelligent Test. 104
In 1913, under the auspices of Motora, he traveled to the United States to survey
American education. That same year he entered Clark University, where he was
employed as an instructor. In 1915 he received a PhD from Clark University, where he
researched child studies with G.S. Hall. He would also travel to Great Britain, France,
Switzerland, Sweden, and Russia to study their higher educational systems. He would
eventually return to Japan and in 1917 became an instructor at Tokyo Imperial
University. Later he would be a professor at Hiroshima Higher Normal School and
Hiroshima Bunrika University, where he would found a psychological laboratory.
Uchida Yūzaburō
Uchida Yūzaburō (1894–1966)105 is important for creating the Uchida–Kraepelin
Psychodiagnostic Test (Uchida–Kureperin Seishin Kensa) in 1927. This is one of
the most widely administered tests in Japan and is designed to induce and measure
endurance. He also introduced the Rorschach test into Japan in 1925 (only four years
after its development in Germany). He received his BA in 1921 from Tokyo Imperial
University and his doctorate in 1962 from Osaka University. In 1922 he began work
at the Industrial Efficiency Institute (Sangyō Nōritsu Kenkyūjo) and that same year
was asked to conduct research on criminals by the Ministry of Justice. The next year,
he worked on a part-time basis at Tokyo’s Matsuzawa Hospital where he aided in the
establishment of a psychological laboratory and, under the supervision of Miyake
Kōichi, attempted to create a psychodiagnostic test for mental patients. Later he would
also carry out research at Maeda Hospital. He conducted research for the Ministry
of Education and taught at Hōsei University (1928–33) and at Waseda University
where he pursued his research interests. In 1947 he began work at the Japan Psycho-
Technology Institute (Nihon Seishin Gijutsu Kenkyūjo). In his later years he lectured
at Nihon and Saitama Universities and the Japan College of Social Work and became a
supervisor at the Child Studies Institute (Jidō Kenkyūjo) at Japan Women’s University.
Here we should also mention Watanabe Tōru, another student of Motora. Watanabe
devised the first group test of intelligence in 1921 for the educational authorities
of Tokyo. This test was intended for elementary students and modeled after the US
National Intelligence Test.106
Okabe Yatarō
Okabe Yatarō (1894–1967) contributed to testing and measurement, as well as
educational Psychology. He was interested in the linkages between school reform,
school counseling, personality types, and career choice. He wrote Kyōiku Sokutei
(Educational Measurement, 1923), became the first president at Nihon Kyōiku Shinri
Gakkai (Japan Educational Psychology Association) (1952–57), and was president
of the Japan Applied Psychology Association. Okabe specialized in Psychology and
received his BA from Tokyo Imperial University in 1919 where he pursued an interest
in melody. In 1919 he became an assistant at Tokyo Imperial University’s educational
laboratory. From 1925 to 1938 he worked part-time at the Tōkyō-fu Shōnen
Shokugyō Sōdanjo (Tokyo Prefectural Bureau for Youth Employment). In 1935 he
became an associate professor at his alma mater and after the war was promoted to
full professorship. From 1938 to 1946 he was director of the Aiiku Institute and in
1950 became head of the Department of Educational Psychology in Tokyo Imperial
University’s School of Education. In his later years he taught at International Christian
and Sophia Universities.
Here we might note other assessments. Some were modeled after US Army tests,
and during the 1920s, indicating the increasing import assigned to individuation,
a number of personality inventories were developed: Morality Test (by Nakajima
Shinichi); Emotional Stability Test and the Personality Adjustment Test (by Watanabe
Tōru); Emotionality Inventory (by Awaji Enjirō and Okabe Yatarō); and Extroversion-
Introversion (by Awaji Enjirō).107 After the war, numerous other tests, under American
influence, would be developed.
Individuating the psyche by disciplining the body
As Japan entered the twentieth century, its state apparatus spread its net wider over
different forms of bodily regulation, and eventually it would not only make efforts to
mobilize minds for war, but it would also mobilize bodies, since bodily management
was considered the most efficient way to psycho-socialize. In order to administer
school health programs, the Local School Hygiene Personnel System Order was
promulgated and enacted on June 10, 1924. Each prefecture was assigned a school
hygiene technician (gakkō eisei gishi). Beginning in May 1928, the School Hygiene
Division in the Education Minister’s Secretariat would become the Physical Education
Division (Taiiku-ka), which was responsible for both school health matters and
physical education. In November 1929, the Physical Education Council (Taiiku Undō
Shingikai), which advised the Ministry of Education until 1938, was established.
On August 8, 1930, the Local Physical Education Personnel System Order came into
effect and most prefectures utilized “physical education leaders” (taiiku undō shuji).
Both school hygiene technicians and physical education leaders were supported by
prefectural funds.
As the war period heated up, more state maneuvers were initiated to inspect,
drill, and arrange bodies in an increasingly ordered manner. During the 1930s,
school hygiene officers (gakkō eisei-kan) were appointed, but in March 1937, they
were replaced by physical education officers (taiiku-kan). One year later, the Physical
Strength Bureau for nonschool physical education programs was set up in the new
Ministry of Health and Welfare. In order to further promote student hygiene and
physical exercise, the National Physical Strength Law was promulgated on April 8,
1940, and the Physical Education and Sports Bureau was established on January 8,
1941 (composed of Physical Exercise, Drill, and Hygiene Divisions), built around
the Division with the same name which had been a part of the Minister’s Secretariat.
It is worth noting the divisional composition of this bureau, since it administered
matters related to physical exercise, drilling, health, and labor, all linked to the body.
Initially, this Bureau was composed of the Physical Education and Exercise (Taiiku
Undō-ka), Training (Kunren-ka), and Hygiene (Eisei-ka) Divisions. One year later,
it was composed of the General Affairs, Promotion, Hygiene, and Labor Divisions.
On November 1, 1942, the Labor Division (Kinrō-ka) would be added. By 1943, it
was composed of Training, Student Mobilization, and Hygiene (Hoken-ka) Divisions.
On July 11, 1945, this Bureau became part of the Student Mobilization Bureau. It
would re-emerge as a separate bureau at the end of the war on September 5, 1945, and
be composed of Physical Education, Labor, and Hygiene Divisions.
The psyche as embodied: Eugenics as applied Psychology
The 1800s were a century of intense rivalry. As older empires decayed, newly
formed national states vied with each other for territory, wealth, and prestige.
Industrialized capitalism drove economic nationalism and prickly honor motivated
neo-imperialism, fomenting an international atmosphere of aggression that was
mirrored within national states, where rapid industrialization resulted in a hyper-
competitive ethos. While some saw all this as an unfair, ruthless struggle, others
welcomed the survival-of-the-strongest ethos as a natural process that pruned from
the social body the weaker and less desirable. Social Darwinism, a pseudo-scientific
idea by today’s standards, was made into a virtue and used to justify “progress.”
Inspired by such thinking was “eugenics,” a term coined by Francis Galton in 1883.
This type of knowledge was intended to “scientifically” rank, sort, segregate, and
shunt populations for the purposes of progress and it reflected the concerns of
industrializing societies as they attempted to compete internationally and maintain
social order at home. Eugenics became implicated in marriage, gender relations, birth
control, immigration, and the general health of the national body.108
In Japanese, eugenics was translated as yūseigaku (science of superior birth) or
jinshu kaizengaku (science of race betterment).109 Other associated terms were yūryō
shuzokugaku (study of superior races), minzoku/jinshu kairyō (Volk/racial betterment),
minzoku/jinshu eisei (Volk/racial hygiene), theories of blood-type (kishitsu-ron), and
pure blood (junketsu)-versus-mixed blood (konketsu).110 Eugenic thinking played an
important role, as evident in works such as Matsumoto Matatarō’s “Yūryō Shuzoku
no Shōchō” (“Prosperity and Decay of Superior Races,” 1912) and Hayami Hiroshi’s
“Shakai on Kairyō to Iden” (“Social Improvement and Hereditary,” 1914).111 Tōgō
Minoru (1882–1950), a politician, diplomat, and theorist of colonialism who worked
as an administrator in Taiwan, applied eugenic thinking in his Sekai Kaizō to Minzoku
Shinri (Global Reconstruction and Volk Psychology, 1922) and Shokumin Seisaku to
Minzoku Shinri (Colonial Strategy and Volk Psychology, 1925). Ikeda Shigenori, a
journalist with an interest in Nazi medicine, popularized eugenics in his “Yūsei
Nippon no Teisho” (“Manifesto for Eugenic Japan,” 1927) and his journal, Yūsei Undō
(Eugenic Movement). Furuhata Tanemoto (1891–1975), a eugenicist, serologist, and
professor of legal medicine at Kanazawa Medical College (who also had an interest
in criminal identification), wrote articles such as “Ketsuekigata yori Mita Nihonjin”
(“Japanese Seen from Blood-Types,” 1935).
The most famous name associated with eugenics was Furukawa Takeji112 (1891–
1940). A graduate of Tokyo Imperial University (1916), he would become a professor at
Kōto Jogakkō (affiliated with Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School). While working
as an educational administrator, Furukawa developed concerns about perceived
unfairness in only measuring intelligence. Moreover, another element of unfairness
was introduced during student interviews, since their personality (seikaku) was
subjectively judged as “gloomy” or “cheerful.” He reached the conclusion that a more
objective assessment was required and noticed temperamental differences between
applicants and came to believe that blood-type and personality were somehow linked.
He also came to believe that all individuals either possessed “blood-type A” or “blood-
type B.” The former were mild tempered and intellectual, while the latter had opposite
traits. In works such as Ketsuekigata to Kishitsu (Blood-type and Temperament, 1932a)
and Ketsuekigata to Minzokusei (Blood-type and Volk Traits, 1932b), Furukawa
popularized his views (despite the lack of scientific evidence) which were widely
accepted among the public. Though not well received, such thinking also spread to the
industry, military, and medical establishment.
Industrial Psychology
Outside officialdom, applied Psychology would be employed in the industrial,

corporate, and commercial circles (to improve industrial productivity, worker
efficiency, personnel selection, and advertising),113 Meanwhile, companies hired
Psychologists to work in labor management and skill training. In 1913 F.W. Taylor’s
Principles of Scientific Management (1911) was translated into Japanese as Gakuri-teki
Jigyō Kanri Hō by Hoshino Yukinori and during the 1910s and 1920s the efficiency
movement caught the attention of industrialists and state bureaucrats interested in
profits and policies that boosted production. Industrial efficiency (shōgyō nōritsu), the
science of labor (rōdō kagaku),114 and aptitude tests (tekisei kensa) became the order
of the day. In 1942 the two-volume Sangyō Shinrigaku (Industrial Psychology) was
published by Awaji Enjirō115 and colleagues.
Ueno Yōichi
The most important figure in Japan’s industrial Psychology was Ueno Yōichi
(1883‒1957). He was not a scholar, bureaucrat, or businessman. Rather, he was an
“independent writer,” management consultant, and educator and, significantly for
our purposes, he was the “father of the efficiency movement” (nōritsu undō).116
Ueno, who was a student of Motora, specialized in Psychology and graduated
from Tokyo Imperial University in 1908. He edited Shinri Kenkyū (Psychological
Research) and introduced the works of Binet, Freud, and Münsterberg. Enthusiastic
about the benefits of Psychology, Ueno was instrumental in administrating the
“Popular Lectures on Psychology” (Shinrigaku Tsūzoku Kōwa-kai). The Ministry
of Agriculture and Commerce (Nōshōmu-shō) financially supported Ueno’s study
of Euro-American industrialism. Ueno’s research was also supported by Kobayashi
Shōten (currently the company called Raion). After the war he worked as a state
official and in 1950 he would set up the Sangyō Nōritsu Tanki Daigaku (Industrial
Efficiency Junior College).117 Ueno was a prolific writer and translator; some of his
works include Kinsei Shinrgaku-shi (with Noda Nobuo, History of Modern Psychology,
1922), Hanbai Shinri (The Psychology of Selling, 1931), and Kōkoku-jutsu (The Art of
Advertising, 1924).
Ueno’s efforts were recognized by the semi-official think tank Kyōchō-kai
(Cooperation and Harmony Society, established in 1919), which promoted
“harmonious cooperation” in industrial relations. The hope was that Japan’s
traditional values, imbued with a “harmonyism,” could, together with reforms in
management (factory laws, health insurance, severance pay, strike mediation, etc.),
put the brakes on social instability caused by lathered industrialization. With support
from Sawayanagi Masatarō, he was dispatched to the United States (in 1921) and
Europe where he met with leaders of the scientific management movement. After he
returned to Japan, he organized and directed the Industrial Efficiency Institute and
published Nōritsu Kenkyū (Efficiency Research), which was affiliated with the Kyōchō-
kai. Uchida Yūzaburō was a member. In 1924, Ueno established the Japan branch of
the Taylor Society and three years later organized the Nihon Nōritsu Rengōkai (Japan
Efficiency Federation) and was made head of the Japan School of Efficiency (Nihon
Nōritsu Gakkō; set up in 1942).
Though Ueno was heavily influenced by F.W. Taylor,118 Confucianism and Zen
permeate his writings; indeed, for Ueno industrial rationalization centered on the
“way of efficiency” (nōritsu-dō). His ideas on industrial management resonated with
the mobilization drives of wartime Japan, specifically the New Order Movement (Shin
Taisei Undō) and the “national defense state” that attempted to balance the interests of
private society with those of officialdom.119
Kirihara Shigemi (1892–1968) specialized in Psychology at the Tokyo Imperial
University and received his BA in 1919. He was awarded his doctorate in 1931
from the same institution for his research on the Psychology of work. In 1920 he
became a researcher at the Kurashiki Institute for Science of Labor (Kurashiki Rōdō
Kagaku Kenkyūjo120) and in 1933 traveled to the United States and Europe to study
industrial Psychology. He became the director of the Welfare Department at the
Imperial Rule Assistance Association121 in 1942 and later would be the director at
the Institute for Science of Labor (Rōdō Kagaku Kenkūjo) (1951–61). From 1958
to 1965 he was the managing director at the Institute while also teaching at Japan
Women’s University.
Kirihara focused on working youth and industrial Psychology, though his interest
was not in increasing efficiency but rather in how the environment impacted factory
workers. He pursued labor reforms, such as maternity protections, the prohibition of
women’s late-night work, and the regulation of the minimum age for employment.
Among his most important publications were Shokugyō Shidō to Romū Hodō
(Vocational Guidance and the Protective Guidance of Workers, 1938); “Sangyō Shōnenkō
no Shomondai” (“Problems of Young Industrial Workers,” 1941); Senji Rōmu Kanri
(Wartime Labor Management, 1942); Rōdō to Seinen (Labor and Youth, 1940); and
Joshi Kinrō (Women’s Labor Service, 1944).
Hori Baiten (1887–1973)122 made important contributions to social and industrial
Psychology. He graduated from Keiō Gijuku University in 1911 and that same year
left for America to enter Clark University (in 1912). Two years later he received his
MA for his thesis called “Theories of Attention” and in 1916 was awarded a PhD from
Clark for his dissertation “A Study of the Behavior of Attention”. He then returned to
Japan and began teaching at his alma mater. After the war he would work at Kassui
Women’s Junior College in Nagasaki.123
8
Disciplinary Maturation: Specializations,

Theories, and Psychotherapy
One important marker of a field’s intellectual maturity is how seriously it engages with
contemporary movements, specializations, and theories. This chapter examines how
Japanese Psychology became established by investigating its articulations in studies
of perception, behaviorism, consciousness, emotions, personality, as well as Gestalt,
animal, and cognitive Psychology. It also examines the history of proto-psychiatry in
Japan, its modernization, and the rise of clinical Psychology and psychotherapy (see
Appendix 7).
Perception studies: A Japanese strength
In Japan perception became one of the most popular fields of research. Japanese
Psychologists displayed “great originality” and their endeavors would influence
later studies in Japan. The influence of Gestalt Psychology (see below) was strong,
though Japanese researchers were typically very precise and stressed quantitative
measurement. Akishige Yoshiharu and Ogasawara Jiei examined issues of size
constancy; Ogasawara and Yūki Kinichi (né Hirose Kinichi), apparent movement in
vision and audition; Abe Saburō and Abe Magoshirō, time–space interaction; Kuroda
Ryō and Akishige, recovery from blindness; and Takagi Sadaji and Kuroda Ryō,
animal perception. 1
Optical illusions have been a popular research topic in Japan, a subject Motora
examined as early as 1890, though these phenomena were not systematically
investigated until the 1930s.2 However, we should mention that Ishihara Shinobu
(1879–1963), inspired by research done in Germany and the work of Ueno Yōchi,
became interested in visual problems and illusions and in 1916 developed a color-
blindness test (shikimō kensa). Others who worked on optical illusions include Obonai
Torao (1899–1968). He experimented on the Oppel-Kundt (divided lines) and Müller-
Lyer and Delboeuf (concentric circle) illusions. Morinaga Shirō, a student of W.
Metzger (at Frankfurt), also experimented on Delboeuf illusions.
Gestalt Psychology
Gestalt Psychology (from the German word meaning “form” or “shape” and denoting
wholeness) emerged as a reaction to the structuralism of earlier Psychology that
assumed perception occurred when independent sensations were assembled in the
mind. Gestalt Psychology3 sought to elucidate innate mental laws that determined the
way in which objects were perceived (particularly visually) in a holistic, self-organizing
manner.
Though the idea of Gestalt has roots in earlier intellectual traditions, the Austrian
philosopher Christian Freiherr von Ehrenfels4 is usually given credit for introducing
the concept. Thinkers such as the Austrian philosopher of science and physicist Ernst
Mach5 are also recognized for contributing to the notion. However, from a more narrow
psychological perspective, the three theorists who developed Gestalt Psychology
were Max Wertheimer6 (credited as the founder of the movement), Kurt Koffka,7 and
Wolfgang Köhler.8 Both Koffka and Köhler were students of Carl Stumpf, 9 the German
philosopher and Psychologist who studied under Franz Brentano and Rudolf Hermann
Lotze.
According to Takasuna, Gestalt Psychology can be divided into two lineages.10 The
first, the “Graz school,” is associated with Graz University in Austria: Alexis Meinong
(1853−1920) and his student C. von Ehrenfels (1859−1932), who were influenced by
the “act” Psychology of Franz Brentano (1838−1917). Meinong and von Ehrenfels
were reacting to what they considered an atomistic, elementalistic, and reductionistic
Psychology. The second lineage, or the “Frankfurt/Berlin school” (associated with
Frankfurt and Berlin Universities), was developed mainly by Wertheimer (1880−1943),
Koffka (1886−1941), Köhler (1887−1967), and Kurt Lewin (1890−1947). The latter
three studied under C. Stumpf (1848−1936) and Lewin, whose work influenced
Japanese Psychology students, lectured at Tokyo and Kyūshū Imperial Universities in
1933. Due to the political climate of 1930s Germany, he would end up fleeing (along
with Wertheimer) to the United States.11
In Japan, Gestalt Psychology would become especially influential in the two
decades before the war.12 The first report on Gestalt Psychology in Japan was probably
given by Takagi Sadaji (1893–1975) in 1921 at Tokyo Imperial University. A student
of Matsumoto, Takagi had visited a number of European universities (1920‒21), but
he also studied with E.B. Titchener at Cornell University (1919‒20) and it is from
him that Takagi probably first heard about Gestalt Psychology. As Takasuna notes,
during the first half of the twentieth century over fifty Japanese Psychologists visited
Germany in the 1920s; notable examples include Onoshima Usao, Kidō Mantarō,
Sakuma Kanae, and Chiba Tanenari (however, no Japanese Psychologist obtained a
doctorate from a German university).13 Meanwhile, increasing international tensions
and war would cut Japan off from developments in the United States.
Other important Japanese Psychologists who were influenced by Gestalt notions
include Sakuma Kanae (1888–1970).14 A student of Matsumoto Matatarō, he
specialized in Psychology as an undergraduate and received his doctorate in 1923
from Tokyo Imperial University and wrote his dissertation on Japanese phonetics.15
Disciplinary Maturation 143
He was sent as a researcher by the Ministry of Education to France and to the

University of Berlin (along the way he met Onoshima Usao). He was influenced by
Köhler (he would translate the latter’s Gestalt Psychology) and also worked with Kurt
Lewin. After returning to Japan, he taught Psychology at Kyūshū Imperial University.
He founded the psychological laboratory (a two-storied building) at Kyūshū Imperial
University as well as the Kyūshū Psychological Association. After the war he would
become president of Tōyō University and teach at Komazawa University. Besides
introducing Gestalt Psychology to Japan, Sakuma did groundbreaking research on
Japanese phonetics and language comprehension.16
Another Japanese contributor to the development of Gestalt Psychology was
Chiwa Hiroshi (1891–1978). He specialized in Psychology and received his BA in
1916 from Tokyo Imperial University and became an associate professor at Tokyo
Imperial University in 1926. In 1933 he traveled to the University of Berlin and two
years later returned to Japan, and in 1943 he was promoted to professor at Tokyo
Imperial University. After the war he taught at Aoyama Gakuin University.17
Morinaga Shiro (1908‒64) studied at Tokyo Imperial University and was interested
in visual illusions.18 From 1935 to 1939, he studied under Wolfgang Metzger in
Frankfurt. In 1941 he took a position at Tokyo Imperial University and beginning that
same year he worked at the Military Safeguard Institute at the Shimofusa Santorium
for disabled veterans and researched cognitive neuropsychology. A student of Zen,
Morinaga represents an enduring Japanese interest and strength in perception and
optical illusions.19
Comparative and animal Psychology
For centuries, cultures had anthropomorphized animals. However, as the internalization

of the individual increased during the late nineteenth century, anthropomorphism
took a turn toward the internalization of animals,20 that is, some thinkers began to
posit mental capabilities within animals. Some even believed (as many of us still do)
that animals possessed conscious interiority. Do nonhuman species have minds? How
do animals learn? Significantly, the comparison of humans with animals and the use
of the latter in research raise fundamental questions about “what type of discipline is
Psychology.” 21
George John Romanes (1848‒94), an evolutionary biologist and physiologist and
friend of Charles Darwin, searched for similar mental processes shared by humans
and animals and is credited with establishing the foundations of comparative
Psychology.22 Also important was Conwy Lloyd Morgan (1852‒1936), who was wary
of anthropomorphizing tendencies and the anecdotal evidence of Romanes. Morgan,
who relied on careful observation in natural settings, developed observational
methods apparent in books such as Animal Life and Intelligence (1890), Introduction
to Comparative Psychology (1894), and Animal Behavior (1890). In America, Edward
Lee Thorndike (1874‒1949),23 an influential Psychologist of learning, would also make
significant contributions.24
Comparative Psychology in Japan
In Japan comparative Psychology got its start relatively early. In 1918 Yatsu Naohide25
and Takahashi Ken published Dōbutsu no Kokoro, a translation of Margaret Floy
Washburn’s26 The Animal Mind: A Textbook of Comparative Psychology (1908).
The Dōbutsu Shinri Gakkai (Society for Animal Psychology) was established in
1933 and Dōbutsu Shinri (Animal Psychology) was published for several years from
1934 and revived in 1944 as the Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Nenpō (Annual of Animal
Psychology).27
Takasuna28 points out that in the Euro–American intellectual traditions, research
on animal cognition was driven by a deep religio-philosophical agenda intended
to demonstrate the mental superiority of humans. This explains why evolutionary
theory met with resistance in some quarters. In Japan, however, evolutionary theory
was readily accepted since it was believed that all living things, animals and humans,
possessed a soul; that is, humans are as much a part of the natural world as are
animals.
Two Japanese pioneers of comparative Psychology were Masuda Koreshige (1883–
1933) and Kuroda Ryō (1890–1947).29 Masuda, a student of Motora and Matsumoto
Matatarō, specialized in Psychology and received his doctorate from Tokyo Imperial
University. He wrote about the uses of quantitative research in Psychology in his 1933
dissertation. In 1915 he worked as an assistant at Tokyo Imperial University and from
1919 to 1921 studied experimental Psychology in America and Europe. When Masuda
returned to Japan, he became a professor at his alma mater. Masuda also worked as a
temporary employee at the Aviation Psychology Department of the Aviation Research
Institute (Kōkū Kenkyūjo Kōkū Shinri-bu) at Tokyo Imperial University and made
contributions to military Psychology.
Masuda was interested in problem solving and discrimination learning and
modeled his research on that of G.J. Romanes and E.L. Thorndike (he used goldfish
and birds in his experiments). He had interests in a large array of topics, including
will, emotion, learning, the senses, and behaviorism. His behaviorism was not as
radical as Watson’s and he saw a place for consciousness—ishiki in Psychology. He
also dealt with problems of research methodology and was involved in the founding
of the Japanese Psychological Association. He also edited Shinrigaku Kenkyū
(Psychological Research). In 1914 he translated Samuel J. Holmes’ The Evolution
of Animal Intelligence (1911; Dōbutsu Shinrigaku: Chinō no Shinka). His Jikken
Shinrigaku Josetsu (Introduction to Experimental Psychology, 1926) was an important
contribution to the field.
Kuroda Ryō (1890‒1947) also specialized in Psychology as an undergraduate
at Tokyo Imperial University and his 1930 dissertation, granted from the same
school, was on the comparative Psychology of sound. After teaching at the
secondary school level for a number of years, he eventually secured a position at
Keijō Imperial University in Seoul, where he was a professor from 1926 to 1942.
For the next five years he devoted his energies to writing. Kuroda researched
amphibious animals (fish and reptiles), but also made extensive contributions to
the study of primate Psychology. He wrote one of the first textbooks on comparative
Psychology Dōbutsu Shinrigaku (Animal Psychology, 1936) and later became keenly
interested in Buddhism and “Eastern” (tōyō-teki) Psychology and wrote Shina Shinri
Shisō-shi (History of Chinese Psychological Thought, 1948) and Yuishiki Shinrigaku
(Consciousness-Only Psychology, 1944). He also wrote Kan no Kenkyū (Research on
Kan, 1933).30
Compared to most Psychologists of his generation, Kuroda’s career trajectory was
unusual because he never studied overseas. Nevertheless, he greatly contributed to the
development of Japanese Psychology. He published Acta Psychologia Keijō in English
in order to familiarize overseas readers with work being done in Japan and became
an editor for Psychological Abstracts which helped introduce Japanese research to an
international audience.
Several other Japanese scholars who made contributions to comparative
Psychology deserve mention. Kanda Sakyo (1874–1939), though he did not study
at Tokyo Imperial University, apparently studied under Motora at the latter’s home
and received his MA under G.S. Hall at Clark University in 1909. He was initially
interested in “religious Psychology,” then tropism and primitive activities in lower
species. In 1915 he received his PhD in physiology from the University of Minnesota
and portions of his dissertation were published in 1915 in the American Journal of
Psychology.31 Yoshioka Joseph (Gennosuke) (1893–unclear), though born in Japan,
spent most of his life in the United States.32 He went to the United States in 1908
where he received three degrees from Berkeley (BA, 1922; MA, 1923; and PhD, 1926).
He studied under George M. Stratton33 and Samuel Jackson Holmes.34 Edward Chase
Tolman35 supervised his dissertation. After his graduate studies he moved to the
University of Chicago, where Karl Spencer Lashley36 managed a lab in the Institute
for Juvenile Research. He would also work with Robert M. Yerkes37 in Florida at
the latter’s Laboratories of Primate Biology. In his later years Yoshioka would work
for a number of US government agencies. We might also mention Takemasa Tarō
and Takagi Sadaji, who continued Masuda’s research at Tokyo Imperial and applied
Gestalt principles to animal Psychology.38
Behaviorism: Explaining away interiority
A confluence of developments, both within and outside Psychology, would lead

to a suspicion and eventually a rejection of what was for many, the essence of
psychological research―inner experience. It is only activity or behavior that
is objective enough to warrant scientific investigation. Though more qualified
and sophisticated versions of behaviorism would emerge that acknowledged the
role of thinking and feeling as behaviors (“privately observable” versus “publicly
observable”), in general behaviorism has been wary of introspective methods,
“internal events” or “hypothetical constructs” such as “mind.” Therefore, activity
should possess observational correlates. For our purposes, what is most significant
about behaviorism is how it attempted to eliminate conscious interiority from
the research agenda of Psychology. Though behaviorism would decline after the
“cognitive revolution” beginning in the late 1950s, its insistence on methodological
rigor would greatly shape modern Psychology.
The origins of behaviorism can be traced to “classical conditioning,” which
is associated with the Russian physician, physiologist, Psychologist, and Nobel
Prize awardee Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849–1936). Pavlov would greatly influence
John Broadus Watson (1878–1958),39 usually regarded as the formal founder of
behaviorism.40 Basing his ideas on his own research on animal behavior, he was the
intellectual heir to a very strict type of empiricism and sought to restrict Psychology
to experimental methods. In an assault on what he regarded as speculative and
superstitious notions (“mind” and invisible, innate mental operations), Watson
pursued a highly objective and descriptive research agenda.41 Throughout the latter
part of the twentieth century, behaviorism would be associated with B.F. Skinner
(1904–90), who conducted research on operant conditioning and is considered by
some to be the most influential psychologist of the twentieth century. His “radical
behaviorism” sought to analyze behavior as a function of reinforcing experiences
and acknowledged a role for the operation of behavioral principles within the
organism, though mentalistic or internal states were not considered causes of
behavior.42
Behaviorism made an early appearance in Japan.43 In 1914 Ōtsuki Kaison discussed
it at a conference in Japan with a talk entitled “Is Psychology the Study of Consciousness
or Behavior?”44 Interestingly, though behaviorism had been introduced into Japan
during the 1910s, the widespread reception of Pavlovian theory was delayed until the
1930s. However, in 1916 Kuroda Genji (1886–1957) wrote an essay about Pavlov’s
ideas on the conditioned reflex.
We should mention that from 1904 to 1933 three Japanese medical physiologists
studied in Pavlov’s laboratory.45 Ishikawa Hidetsurumaru (1847–1947), from Kyoto
Imperial University’s School of Medicine, wrote an article on Pavlov’s ideas in 1916.
Satake Yasutarō (1884–1959), a graduate of Kyoto Imperial University and from
Tōhoku Imperial University’s School of Medicine, conducted Pavlovian-inspired
experiments on dogs but did not refer to Pavlov in his writings. Hayashi Takashi
(1897–1969), who studied under Pavlov (1932–33), graduated from the School of
Medicine at Keio Gijuku University in 1924. In 1937 he translated Pavlov’s work (On
the Cerebral Hemispheres). It was Kuroda Genji, a student of Ishikawa, who wrote
the first book on Pavlov in Japanese in 1924: Jōken Hansha Ron: Ishiki Seikatsu
no Seirigaku-teki Kaishaku (The Theory of Conditioned Reflexive: Physiological
Interpretation of Life Consciousness). In 1930 Itō Dōki (1900–94) translated Watson’s
The Ways of Behaviorism―in Japanese it was called Yuibutsu Shinrigaku or Materialist
Psychology.
Other researchers that deserve mention include Imada Megumi (1894–1970).
A student of Matsumoto Matatarō who specialized in American Psychology
and William James (the topic of his dissertation), he was influenced by Watson’s
behaviorism. The Psychologist Kotake Yashō was a student of Imada and published
on Pavlovian theory in 1943 and conducted conditioning experiments using humans.
Umeoka Yoshitaka, a student of Takagi Sadaji, performed experiments on conditioned
reflexes along lines established by the neo-behaviorist B.F. Skinner. In 1942, Nasu
Kiyoshi (1916–), a student of Imada Megumi, translated Watson’s Behaviorism.46 Not
long before the war’s end Masaki Masashi conducted research inspired by C.L. Hull
(1884–1952) and E.C. Tolman (1886–1959).47 The physiologists Uramoto Seizaburō
(1891–1965; from Kansei Gakuin) and Motokawa Kōichi (1903–71; from Tōhoku
Imperial University) should be mentioned here.48 Such research laid the groundwork
for the Japan’s postwar development of a behaviorism strongly influenced by American
research.49
Consciousness: Acknowledging and exploring interiority
Chiba Tanenari (1884–1972), influenced by Franz Brentano50 and Wilhelm

Dilthey, 51 was primarily interested in problems of consciousness. A student of
Matsumoto Matatarō, he received his BA in 1909 after specializing in Psychology
at Kyoto Imperial University. In 1922 he received his doctorate from the same
university. He was an assistant at his alma mater, then taught at Rinzaishu and
Otani Universities, as well as his alma mater. He went to Germany, where he
studied under Wundt from 1920 to 1923 at University of Leipzig, and in 1923
he became the first professor of Psychology at Tōhoku Imperial University;
three years later, together with Ōwaki Yoshikazu, 52 he founded the Psychology
laboratory at the same school. In 1940 he retired from Tōhoku and became
professor at Kenkoku University in China. 53 From 1945 to 1949 he worked as a
principal at a secondary school and then became the director of an educational
research institute in Miyagi Prefecture. In 1949 he became a professor at
Niigata University and in his later years would work at Nihon and Komazawa
Universities. 54 Though Chiba did not publish much, beginning from 1933, his
cultivation of Tōhoku Psychologia Folia, which published English, German,
and French articles, ensured that overseas scholars were kept up-to-date on
developments in Japanese Psychology. 55
One of Chiba’s key ideas was what he termed “proper consciousness” (koyū ishiki;
German: Eigenbewusstsein). This describes the liminal state between consciousness
and unconsciousness and he theorized that our natural mental state was
unconsciousness (which encompassed both the center and field of consciousness).
We become conscious when the unconscious is inhibited. Proper consciousness can
be characterized as either “relative” (the individual’s psyche) or “absolute” (a sort of
trans-individual psyche).56 Like Motora’s shingen, Chiba’s thinking on koyū ishiki is
somewhat unclear.
In addition to his theorizing on consciousness, Chiba is famous for bringing about
16,000 books and papers of Wundt to Tōhoku Imperial University. The collection, still
at Tōhoku, is estimated to hold 60 percent of Wundt’s library. Obtaining the collection
was no small feat, given the fact that he had to compete with American universities
(including Yale and Harvard) and University of Leipzig, but with financial support
from the Saitō family of Sendai, he was able to purchase this portion of Wundt’s library
for 20,000 yen (equivalent to about US$70,000).57
Another researcher interested in consciousness was Yokoyama Matsusaburō

(1890–1966), who was strongly influenced by E.B. Titchener’s work.58 Yokoyama
sought to solve the problems regarding consciousness: its function, how elements
relate to the whole, the relation between consciousness and unconsciousness, how
consciousness adapts, and the meaning of behavior within the view of structural
Psychology.
Snapshot The Würzburg School and interiority

Eventually some of Wundt’s views on the mind would be challenged. For example,
a former student, Oswald Külpe (1862–1917), reached the conclusion that,
contra to Wundt, thought processes are not beyond experimental investigation.
Using trained individuals who would introspectively self-observe, Külpe and his
colleagues found that though subjects would report an introspective experience,
it was void of imagery. To phrase it metaphorically, their interiorized space
was empty of any mental furniture. At the time, this caused somewhat of
an intellectual earthquake since it was assumed that all thought should be
accompanied by images of some sort, that is, ideas were defined in imagistic
terms. A new idiom was developed to delineate the subtleties of interiorized
experience and what became known as “imageless thought” appeared. What
other type of “content” could there be in the mind if mental imagery were
absent? The Würzburg School, as Külpe and his disciples became known,
used the term “conscious attitude” (Bewusstseinslagen) to describe obscure,
indescribable, and unanalyzable contents―“neither sensations nor ideas.”
Similar to “conscious attitude” is Bewusstheit or “awareness,” a term used by
Narziss Ach (1871–1946) to indicate a vague, not easily described “something
there,” that is intangible and impalpable (and sans image or sensation).59 In an
attempt to accurately delineate the different stages of a psychological act, Ach
discussed the need for “systematic experimental introspection,” meaning that a
careful scientific technique was required despite the fuzziness associated with
interiorized experiences. Along with Henry J. Watt (1879–1925), Ach used
the concepts of Aufgabe (“conscious task”; or an instruction given to a person)
and “determining tendency” (or “mental set”), meaning the preparation—by
nonconscious cognition—of the execution of a task. It became clear that the
tasks given orchestrated the associations and skills into a purposeful orderly
sequence of behaviors outside of awareness. The students and colleagues of
the Würzburg School followed up on the implications of imageless thought. In
deceptively simple experiments, Karl Marbe (1869–1953) would ask subjects to
lift two weights and then judge which was the heavier. He found that, though a
sense of introspection transpired and they assessed correctly which was heavier,
an actual “judgment” was not mentally “seen” (introceived) by the subjects.
Their assessments spontaneously appeared, though they could not describe the
“conscious content” that accompanied such assessments. Judgment, considered
the defining trait of the purposeful, rational, and conscious individual, occurred
while the subjects were introspectively blank.
Interiorized feelings: “Emotions”

Arakawa points out that, traditionally, Japanese believed that we possessed “seven
emotions” (shichi jō): happiness, anger, sadness, fear, love, hatred, and desire.60
But in premodern times, these were not topics of scientific scrutiny but morally
charged stances or reactions to others. As internalization increased, research
Psychology would come to view these as objects in their own right that demanded
investigation.
An important contributor to the study of emotions was Hayami Hiroshi (1876–
1943), who received his BA in 1900 from Tokyo Imperial University. His graduation
thesis was called “Kanjō no kenkyū” (“Research on Emotion”). After his undergraduate
studies, he became a research assistant and in 1921 was awarded his doctorate. While
teaching at other institutions, he became an instructor at Tokyo Imperial University in
1912. Beginning in 1924, he spent almost two years in France, Germany, Great Britain,
and the United States in order to gather information for establishing psychological
courses and a laboratory at Keijō Imperial University. From 1926 he began teaching
Psychology at Keijō and eventually would become its president (1936–40). Hayami
believed that philosophy still had a role to play in Psychology, particularly in how it
dealt with the moral aspects of human nature and that an objective Psychology could
not necessarily come to terms with our introspective abilities. The Hayami Award of
the Japanese Psychological Association was established in his name.
Other Psychologists who pursued research on emotions and feelings include
Yokoyama Matsusaburō and Chiba Tanenari (see the latter’s 1932 Kanjō no Mondai;
English: The Problems of Emotions and Feelings).
Focusing on individuation: “Personality”
A pioneer of “personality” or “character” (seikaku) Psychology was Watanabe Tōru

(1883–1957). Watanabe, a student of Motora, specialized in Psychology at Tokyo
Imperial University. His graduation thesis was called “Jinkakuron” (“Theory of
Personality”) and at Tokyo Imperial University he became a graduate student. In 1957
he received an honorary doctorate from Nihon University. He would become a professor
at Nihon University in 1920 and establish a Psychology laboratory there (1921). During
and after the war, he helped rehabilitate those suffering from injuries. He also had an
interest in “climate Psychology” and explored the history of Japanese Psychology by
examining the works of the proto-Psychologist Kamata Hō.61 Watanabe, who devised
the first group test of intelligence, was influenced by William Lewis Stern, the German
Psychologist and philosopher and inventor of the “intelligent quotient” (IQ).62
Cognitive Psychology
Here we should mention the work of Yatabe Tatsurō (1893–1958), who wrote
prolifically on the Psychology of thinking or what we now more conventionally
call cognition. Yatabe received his BA after specializing in Psychology at the Tokyo
Imperial University. Beginning in 1920 he studied overseas for four years in France
(Sorbonne University) and Germany. He would become a professor at Kyūshū
Imperial, Kyoto Imperial, and Waseda Universities. Though he did graduate work at
Tokyo Imperial University, he received his doctorate from Kyūshū Imperial University
in 1944. His dissertation was on the history of the Psychology of will. He also revised
the J.P. Guilford test in 1953,63 which became the “Yatabe–Guilford Test” (Yatabe–
Girufuyōdo Seikaku Kensa). Some of his important works include Ishi Shinrigaku-
shi (The History of the Psychology of Will, 1942); Shikō Shinrigaku-shi (The History
of the Psychology of Thinking, 1948a); Shikō Shinrigaku I: Gainen to Imi (Psychology
of Thinking I: Concepts and Meaning, 1948b); Shikō Shinrigaku II: Kankei to Suiri
(Psychology of Thinking II: Relations and Reasoning, 1949); and Shikō Shinrigaku III:
Dōbutsu no Shikō (Psychology of Thinking III: Thinking in Animals, 1953).
Therapeutic and clinical Psychology
Premodern treatment of mental disorders

Psychiatry evolved as a science very much concerned with categorization and rooted
in biological and neurological explanations. Despite early attempts at reform and
institutionalization, it was not until the 1890s that the number of those in asylums in
industrialized societies dramatically increased. Late nineteenth-century Germany saw
major advances in psychiatric treatment, probably since asylums there were typically
under the control of universities. Some historical background is in order.
In England the physician William Battie (1703–76) wrote the Treatise on
Madness (1758) which called for the humane treatment of the mentally ill within
institutionalized settings. In the early 1790s the French physician Philippe Pinel
(1745–1826) also called for the humane treatment of those suffering from mental
disorders. Influenced by Pinel, William Tuke (1732–1822) opened the York Retreat,
which became a model for other institutions and reform movements targeting
treatment of the mentally ill (such as the privately funded Brattleboro and Hartford
Retreat64 in the United States). A key figure in the development of psychiatry was Emil
Kraepelin (1856–1926), who had studied under Wundt and taught at the University
of Tartu (in what is now Estonia). He took what he called a “clinical” (as opposed to a
“symptomatic”) approach to mental disorders. Influenced by the German psychiatrist
Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum (1828–99), Kraeplin carefully classified mental illnesses by
discerning common patterns of symptoms (i.e., syndromes), rather than by examining
the major or obvious symptoms.
Proto-psychiatry in Japan65
As in the Western tradition, mental illness in Japan before the late nineteenth
century was understood as either a supernatural (requiring shamanistic or religious
handling) or a biological phenomenon. The idea that the psychological—something
neither strictly spiritual nor physical—could account for mental problems was not
as distinctly developed as today. “Until the early part of the Meiji period in Japan,
the treatment of mental patients still relied on exorcism and folk cures and was
brutal. Atrocities were committed without much thought. Compared to the West,
which had previously treated the mentally ill as witches, therapy had not been
systemized.”66
Despite the superstitious folk remedies we typically associate with the pre-scientific
era, a cursory look at what might be called Japan’s “pre-modern” psychiatrists illustrates
that even before the Meiji period a number of Japanese thinkers investigated mental
disorders from a surprisingly “scientific” perspective.
Several traits characterize premodern attempts to explain and treat mental illness
(as well as psychological processes in general). First, a psychological realm, more or
less clearly segregated from either our physicality or our divine natures, was weakly
developed. In other words, the psyche was not as interiorized as it is today. What
we refer to as psychological processes were highly somatized, conceived as concrete,
almost visible events. Second, theories were premised on “literal metaphoricity,”67 that
is, psychological activities were believed to materially transpire in the heart or other
abdominal and thoracic organs (heart, liver, gall bladder, kidneys, etc.). Some believed
the brain (nōzui) played a role.68 Another key term was ki, the vital energy pervading the
cosmos as well as the human body, which linked the macro-, micro-, and introcosms.
Ki had both material and immaterial aspects and still constitutes the most common
metaphor for describing psychological activities and events in Japanese.69 Third, a
preference for “unitary” explanations, in the sense that all psychiatric conditions arise
from a single cause, was evident; for example, the “theory that poison, produced within
the body, causes various diseases” (manbyō ichidoku-ron) or the “etiological principle
that all diseases is caused by stagnant vital energy or ki” (ikki rutai-setsu). Fourth,
an idiom developed that clearly shows that thinkers took an empirical, medico-
physiological approach to mental illness (though some believed in fox possession
and other superstitions): kan (mental disorders), ten (epilepsy), kyō (madness), kyo
(fright disorder), shinshitsu (heart–mind disease), shinkibyō (hypochrondria), utsushū
(melancholia), and chigai (mental retardation and dementia).70 Finally, despite its
modern-sounding discourse, premodern thinking on mental illness was still rooted
in a cosmic mentality, that is, note the use of spiritual fluid (rei-eiki), life spirit (sei-ki),
divine spirit (shinki), and vital spirit (seiki). Common treatments included emetics,
hydrotherapy, bloodletting, moxibustion, induced sleep, and herbal medicine in order
to, in the therapy of Wada Tōkaku (1744‒1803), “move spirit, change vital energy” (isei
henki).
By the eighteenth century, three schools (ha), all of which were informed by
indigenous folk treatments and kampō (literally, “Chinese way”),71 competed with each
other: (1) Gosei-ha (based on Chinese natural philosophy and medieval medicine);
(2) Kohō-ha (based on clinical observation and critical of speculative approaches, it
advocated a return to classical Chinese medicine); and (3) Setchū-ha (the Eclectic
School, which borrowed from the other two schools and included elements from
Western medicine) (Table 8.1).
Table 8.1 List of Japanese proto-psychiatrists and their works
Name Japanese title English title

Kagawa Shūtoku (1683–1755) Ippondō Gyōyo Igen My Extra Medical Commentary, 1788
Tamura Gensen (1737–1809) Ryōji Sadan Small Talks on Treatment, 1808
Wada Tōkaku (1744–1803) Shōsō Zatsuwa Small Talks by a Window Facing a
Japanese Banana Plant, 1818–30
Nakagami Kinkei (also called Seiseidō Itan Seiseidō’s Commentary on Medicine,
Seiseidō, 1744–1833) Seiseidō Chiken 1795
Seiseidō’s Cases of Treatment, 1804
Komori Genryō (1781–1843) Byōin Seigi Treatise on the Cause of Disease, 1827
Imaizumi Genryū (1797–1874) Ryōji Yawa Night Talks on Treatment, 1860
Honma Sōken (1808–72) Naika Hiroku Memoir of Internal Medicine, 1864
Tsuchida Ken (dates unknown) Tenkankyō Keiken-hen Case Reports of Mental Illness, 1806
Kitamura Ryōtaku (dates Tohō-ron A Treatise on Emetic Treatment, 1817
unknown)
Source: Borrowed from Hiruta and Beveridge (2002: 147).
Those suffering from mental disorders—socially classified along with the destitute
or outcasts—were nevertheless often integrated into the community by being placed
under temple supervision. Some were incarcerated. Home confinement of some sort
was also practiced (this would eventually be formalized and legalized by 1900).72 As in
other places, as Japan industrialized, officialdom increasingly instituted management
of the mentally ill and the line between care and control was often difficult to discern.
Institutionalizing normalcy: The modernization

of Japanese psychiatry
In a fascinating incident that involved charges of forced confinement, bribery, slander,

and murder, an ex-samurai named Nishigori Takekiyo complained to the authorities
in 1883 that the son of his former lord of Nakamura domain, Soma Tomotane (1852–
92), was being locked up by his family so they could take control of his wealth. Their
pretense was that he was mentally unstable. It would be another eleven years until
the issue was resolved, but Nishigori’s charges implicated some important personages,
including Sakaki Hajime (Japan’s first professor of psychiatry) and Nakai Tsunejirō,
the director of Tokyo’s public asylum (Tōkyō-fu Tenkyō-in73), as well as Iwasa Jun,
the personal physician to the Meiji Emperor. Significantly for our purposes, the
“Soma Incident” acted as a lightning rod for public discussion in Japan’s nascent but
lively mass media and the publishing industry about how the mentally ill should be
treated. Legislation intended to socially manage the mentally ill must be understood
within the context of the Soma Incident: the 1900 Mentally-Ill Patient Confinement
and Protection Law (Seishinbyō-sha Kango Hō) and the 1919 Mental Illness Asylum
Law (Seishinbyō-in Hō). By the early twentieth century, the mentally ill were either
sent to psychiatric hospitals, private facilities, or home confinement in a locked room
(zashiki-rō).
Two individuals did much to modernize the treatment of Japan’s mentally ill:
Sakaki Hajime and Kure Shūzō. Sakaki (1857–97), from Tokyo Imperial University,
was dispatched by the Ministry of Education in 1883 to study psychiatry in Germany
for four years. He became a student of the German neurologist Karl Friedrich Otto
Westphal (1833–90). When he returned to Japan, he became the first chair of Psychiatry
at Tokyo Imperial University’s School of Medicine (in 1887) and the director of the
Tokyo Public Asylum.74 He accepted the idea that mental illness is biological in origin
and hereditary (as did Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Henry Maudsley75).
Kure Shūzō (1865–1932), called the “father of Japanese psychiatry” and the
“Japanese Pinel,” studied overseas (1897–1901) under Kraepelin and Franz Nissl.76
Kure, who became a professor at Tokyo Imperial University’s School of Medicine,
was also the director of Sugamo Hospital and instrumental in training a generation
of Japanese mental health specialists. He established the Japan Neurological Society
(Nihon Shinkei Gakkai77) along with the physician Miura Kinnosuke in 1902. He also
founded the Charity and Cure Society for the Mentally Ill (Seishinbyō-in Jizen Kyūji-
kai). Together with Kashida Gorō, he researched the conditions of the mentally ill from
1910 to 1916. Their endeavors resulted in The Situation of Mental Patients Confined in
Their Homes and Its Statistical Inspection (1918).78 In 1900 the state promulgated the
Mental Patients’ Custody Act which allowed the confinement of mentally ill patients
by a family at home. But Kure was stridently critical of officialdom’s attempts to
burden families with the care of the mentally ill and argued that psychiatric problems
were a public concern.79
Psychotherapy and clinical Psychology
Though the history of psychotherapy can be understood as having roots in medicine,

psychiatry, and neurophysiology, other developments would shape its trajectory.
In particular, it is within the historical context of nineteenth-century industrialism
that the growth of psychotherapy, as broadly defined, must be understood. Arguably, as
psychological processes adapted to modernity, some individual psyches, confronting
novel political economic demands, buckled under the pressure and what was called
hysteria, neurasthenia, and ambulatory psychoneuroses became noticeably common
ailments and caught the attention of thinkers in various fields. Eventually, this attention
to mental health and its treatment—that is, clinical Psychology—would spread and
become implicated and institutionalized in psychiatric wards, social work, nursing,
pastoral counseling, and school guidance.80 While much of research Psychology was
institutionalized via the laboratory at universities (where reaction time, reflex action,
association studies, introspection, etc., were the focus), clinical Psychology and
psychotherapeutics took shape in nonacademic settings and, significantly, was rooted
in psychiatry, physiological Psychology, neurology, and paranormal studies (psychical

research).
Several decades before psychoanalysis became intimately associated with
psychotherapy in America, a new field called “experimental psychopathology”
developed at Harvard (William James) and Clark Universities (Alfred Meyer) by the
1890s. French ideas, in particular, the tradition of la clinque (“bedside teaching”),
played a key role in shaping what has been called the “Boston school of abnormal
Psychology.”81 Indeed, Taylor points out that it was not just the German laboratory
model that played a role in redefinitions of the human condition and the nature of
psyche—various strains of psychological inquiry—personality, abnormal, social,
and clinical Psychology—have their roots in an “international psychotherapeutic
alliance” very much informed by French neurophysiology. This alliance flourished for
several decades until Freudian psychoanalysis became closely associated with clinical
practices.82
Here we should mention Pierre Janet (1859–1947), who did groundbreaking
research in hallucinations and hypnotism, as well as in abnormal Psychology
(hysteria, dissociative disorders, and other pathologies). With the French doctor and
psychologist Georges Dumas (1866–1946), he founded Journal de psychologie normal
et pathologique (Journal of Normal and Pathological Psychology) in 1904. Born one
year after Motora, he was a pupil of the neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–93)
and in 1898 was appointed to teach experimental Psychology at the Sorbonne. He
did not establish a “school,” and is one of the most overlooked and underestimated
Psychologists of his generation. Arguably, he stands along with William James in
American and Wilhelm Wundt in Germany as a founder of modern Psychology.
Unfortunately, not all of his work has been translated, and what was translated is not
representative of his major insights. Some of his major works include L’Automatisme
psychologique (Psychological Automatism) (1892), Mental State of Hystericals (1901),
Les Névroses (1905), The Major Symptoms of Hysteria (1907), Psychological Healing
(1925), L’Évolution de la mémoire et de la notion du temps (The Evolution of Memory
and the Notion of Time) (1929), and La médecine psychologique (Psychological
Medicine) (1923).
In America, James and Baldwin had a great interest in such abnormal Psychology
and pursued what Binet described as “French experimental [P]sychology of the
subconscious” in one of his books. Eventually, relevant ideas would be diffused
through medicine, psychiatry, philosophy, Psychology, sociology, anthropology, and
religion.83
Another key figure in abnormal Psychology was the physician and neurologist
Morton H. Prince (1854–1929), who also made important contributions to
psychopathology and clinical Psychology. Prince acknowledged the significance of the
unconscious (but not of the Freudian variety) and became famous for his work in
what is now called dissociative identity disorders (e.g., “multiple personality”). In The
Dissociation of a Personality (1906) he described the case of Sally Beauchamp. He was
instrumental in founding the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and set up the Harvard
Psychological Clinic in 1927.
Freudianism in Japan84
For all the serious problems—some theoretically fatal—associated with Freudianism,

its popularity was explosive (especially in America). Here I will not attempt an
explication, but suffice to say, Freud arguably humanized Psychology in a way no
other thinker did by relating it to the everyday, religion, art, history, and that most
important and immediate crucible for personal identity, family relations. As the
psyche of individuals increasingly became interiorized, a rather poetic idiom (though
one ostensibly grounded in a science of the human) seems to describe a soothing salve
for our irrational, alienated, and inward-focused selves. The work of Freud, then, “can
be seen in a context of widespread cultural change, as an effect rather than instigating
force.”85
Freudianism never became as deeply rooted in Japan as it did in America or
Europe. Some speculate that since matriarchy has played a more important role than
patriarchy in Japan, the attention Freudianism gives father–child tensions, rather than
mother–child dynamics, does not resonate among Japanese.86 In any case, an early
reference to Freud’s ideas appears in an article by Sasaki Masanao (1903).
Psychoanalysis entered Japanese intellectual circles via America. Kakise Hikozō
(1874–1944), a student of Motora who graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in
1901, went to Clark University to study under G.S. Hall. While at Clark in 1909 he met
Freud, Jung, and W. Stern (that year G.S. Hall invited Freud to Clark to give lectures).87
And in 1911 he published an article in Japanese that reported on new developments
in American Psychology. Kubo Yoshihide, who learned about psychoanalytic thought
from G.S. Hall while studying at Clark, wrote an entire book on the topic (1917a).88
We should also mention Ōtsuki Kaison, another student of Motora, who applied
psychoanalytic ideas in his “Psychology of Forgetting” (“Monowasure no Shinri,”
1912). Other important figures include Kimura Kyūichi, who wrote a number of
essays on psychoanalysis (1912a,b, 1913a,b); Ueno Yōichi, who wrote extensively
on Freud (1914a,b,c,d, 1915), and Yasuda Tokutarō, who in 1926 translated some
of Freud’s works in his Seishin Bunsekigaku Nyūmon (The Introductory Lectures on
Psychoanalysis).
The most influential advocates of Freudianism were Yabe Yaekichi (1875–1945),
Ōtsuki Kenji (1891–1977), Marui Kiyoyasu (1886–1953), and Kosawa Heisaku (1897–
1968). Except for Ōtsuki, all spent time abroad and met Freud and underwent analysis.
Ōtsuki, who would pursue his interests outside the hierarchies of academics, adopted
a more humanistic view of psychoanalysis.
Yabe and Ōtsuki were instrumental in founding the “lay analyst” movement that in
many ways opposed a more professionalized and medicalized view of psychoanalysis.
Together they founded the Tokyo Institute of Psychoanalysis (Tōkyō Seishin
Bunsekigaku Kenkyūjo) in 1928 which published Seishin Bunseki (official English
name: Tokyo Journal of Psychoanalysis) from 1933.89 Yabe studied Psychology at
Berkeley in the early 1900s and in 1930 the Japan’s Ministry of Railway (Tetsudō-shō)
would sponsor his three-month trip to Europe to study psychoanalysis. He would meet
Freud in Berlin and in 1930 he traveled to England where he met Edward Glover90
and obtained permission from Ernest Jones91 to organize the Tokyo Psychoanalytic
Association.92 Ōtsuki Kenji, who graduated from Waseda University, is credited with
launching lay analysis in Japan.93 Ōtsuki, who suffered from anxiety as a child, was
not a formally trained Psychologist or psychiatrist, but had specialized in literature
while a student and was a prolific writer and brilliant linguist and translator. After
the war he would develop an unorthodox psychoanalytic approach that he called “life
analysis” (seimei bunsekigaku).
The psychiatrist Marui Kiyoyasu was important for establishing Japanese
psychoanalysis in Japan. From 1916 to 1919 he studied at Johns Hopkins University
under the famous Swiss psychiatrist Adolf Meyer.94 When he returned to Japan, he
taught psychoanalysis at Tōhoku Imperial University’s School of Medicine as well as
in the Department of Psychology (from 1923). His classes may have been the first
systematic lectures in Japan on psychoanalysis. At Tōhoku Imperial University he also
published the Collection of Works in Psychoanalysis (Seishin Bunsekigaku Ronsō). In
1933 he traveled to Europe where he met Freud and after receiving permission from
the father of psychoanalysis, Marui established the Sendai95 branch of the International
Psychoanalytic Association.96 It is important to point out that being a psychiatrist,
Marui viewed Freud’s ideas within the context of psychopathology and diagnostic
categorization informed by German psychiatry (with which psychoanalytic theory
disagreed).97
The most notable Japanization of Freud was accomplished by Kosawa Heisaku, a
student of Marui who visited Freud in 1931 and underwent psychoanalysis in Vienna
under R. Sterba.98 Marui would open his own clinic in the 1930s. Kosawa developed
the “Ajase complex” (from the Buddhist myth of Prince Ajatasatru). Rather than the
father (as in the theory of the Freudian Oedipus complex), the Ajase complex places
the mother at the center of the child’s psychic life. This view of the mother–child
dynamic is more appropriate in Japan, where supposedly ambivalent feelings develop
between mothers and their children.99
If Freud’s impact was limited in Japan, Jung’s influence was even less so.100 The first
to translate Jung’s works was Oguma Toranosuke (1888–1978), who had an interest
in abnormal Psychology. He also made contributions to hypnosis and criminal
Psychology and translated William James.101 After Kakise Hikozō returned to Japan
he lectured on Jung’s “free association method” of uncovering unconscious thoughts
and in a 1911 article that reported on recent developments in American Psychology,
he described psychoanalysis.102
Despite the aforementioned efforts of intellectual pioneers, it is safe to say that
Japanese have not been receptive to psychoanalysis.103 Generally, psychiatry has been a
biological rather than a psychological endeavor in Japan.
Morita and Naikan therapy
The best known psychotherapy indigenous to Japan is Morita therapy. This Zen-
inspired treatment was developed by Morita Masatake (Morita Shōma; 1874–1938), 104
a psychiatrist and graduate of Tokyo Imperial University (1902) who is also credited
with recognizing the need for social psychiatry in Japan. Morita attended lectures
given by Motora, Matsumoto Matatarō, and Fukurai Tomokichi and studied under
Kure. He became an assistant at Tokyo Imperial University and then worked as a doctor
at Sugamo Hospital. Morita would become a professor and chair at Jikei University’s
School of Medicine and he also worked in Negishi Hospital. Eventually he started
to treat those with shinkeishitsu (anxiety-based disorder) and published his ideas of
“Morita Therapy.” Dr. Kōra Takehisa succeeded his chair and continued his work.
Morita, who suffered from some type of neurosis symptoms from the age of sixteen,
was interested in treating neurasthenia (shinkeishitsu), which was a popular term during
Taishō. This was an illness that appeared when a civilized lifestyle made progress, that
is, it can be understood as one type of a “disease of civilization.”105 Morita’s treatment
was premised on the importance of arugamama (“taking things as they are”) and the
Buddhist notion of mindfulness, that is, being fully aware of each moment in order to
appreciate its positive potential. Such attitudes help one obtain self-insight by moving
from a feeling-centered to a purpose-centered perspective, thereby harmonizing one’s
approach toward life within the cosmos.
Naikan was developed by Yoshimoto Ishin (1916–88), a follower of the Jōdo
Shinshū Buddhist sect (True Sect of the Pure Land) who through ascetic practices
realized the power of concentrated self-reflection. Naikan, which can be translated as
“introspection” and literally means “looking inside,” is a method that acknowledges
the therapeutic capabilities of a focused self-reflexivity, a key feature of interiority
that has become more intense in modern times. Yoshimoto introduced his ideas to
young criminals, but eventually Naikan spread to different settings. Naikan practice
involves a series of self-probing questions in which the patient comes to realize how
he or she is embedded in complex social relations, particularly those concerning
one’s mother. It is now used in centers throughout Japan (and elsewhere). Naikan
is employed in a variety of settings: mental health counseling, addiction treatment,
prisoner rehabilitation, educational settings, and businesses.106
9
Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology: State,

Schooling, and Military Applications
This chapter continues an exploration of the links between the state, nationalism,
pedagogy, and Psychology. Specifically, the role of the Ministry of Education and moral
education is investigated and how they related, within educational settings, to Japan’s
“total war” efforts and “national spirit.” Also examined are the military applications of
Psychology, overseas imperial universities, and how Japan impacted the development
of Chinese Psychology.
Psyche and the imperialist state
Political economic institutions as “macroscopic”

The “macroscopic” basically means how we see reality, but a more specific, political
understanding of this term concerns how increasingly large, bureaucratized political
economic institutions (ministries, corporations, civil society organizations, etc.)
understood their mission as taking a bird’s-eye view of populations. Having a panoramic
perspective over society allowed a surveying, charting, and mapping of the body social.
Policymaking became conceived not as a reaction to social problems, but more a matter
of proactive planning, strategy, and long-term supervision of the micro-level social
interactions and the introscopic. In order to ensure that its fundamentalist nationalistic
projects were implemented, the state cultivated and nurtured quasi-state and societal
organizations. Some groups were closer to the state core than others (through funding,
personnel linkages, or more direct control), but all operated under the authoritative
umbrella of the state and sought to psycho-socialize individuals.
In the following sections I delineate the externalization of educational s tructures—
that is, the Ministry of Education and schools—and the concomitant internalization
(e.g., moral education) at the psycho-ideological level.
The Ministry of Education and the mobilization of psyche
The internal restructuring of the Ministry of Education reflected the ideological

concerns of the state as it began to mobilize the Japanese populace for war and war-
related activities. The tightening of state controls was evident in the establishment
of the Student Affairs Department (Gakusei-bu) in July 1929. This unit, which
absorbed elements from the Specialist Education Affairs Bureau, was intended to
provide students “guidance,” monitor their thinking, and mobilize them for war. The
Ministry of Education effected such psycho-socialization by mobilizing bodies. Thus,
in April 1925, the Order on the Attachment of Military Officers to Schools stipulated
that military officers should be attached to all state and local public middle and higher
level schools (but not universities) in order to provide physical education and military
drill. Other institutional developments within the Ministry were the establishment of
the Research Department (Chōsa-bu) in November 1927 and the Social Education
Bureau (Shakai kyōiku-kyoku) in July 1929 (formed from elements of the General
Education Bureau).
In June 1934, the Student Affairs Department was replaced by the Ideological
Control Bureau (Shisō-kyoku). This bureau, which supervised “guidance” for students
and investigated teachers, schools, and social education groups, became an external
agency of the Ministry of Education (renamed the Nationalism Instruction Bureau;
literally, Educational Affairs Bureau—Kyōgaku-kyoku). This bureau, which would
eventually include a Guidance Department (Shidō-ka), focused on preserving the
national body/polity (kokutai) and in order to accomplish its goals, dispatched
“nationalism instructors” (kyōgaku-kan) and “deputy nationalism instructors” who
organized “nationalism research groups” and other activities throughout the country.
It also retrained teachers, examined published materials, kept a check on ideological
developments, worked closely with the Special Police, and published and distributed
various propaganda materials, such as The Essence of the National Polity (Kokutai no
Hongi, 1937, two million copies), The Way of the Subjects (Shimmin no Michi, 1940),
and The Outline of National History (Kokushi Gaisetsu, 1940).
Here we should note that in September 1931 the Ministry of Education established
the National Spirit and Culture Research Institute (Kokumin Seishin Bunka
Kenkyūjo) to conduct research on “Japanese educational principles in order to
oppose liberalism, progressivism and socialism.”1 This institute was combined with
the National Training Center (Kokumin Renseisho; established in January 1942) to
form the Nationalism Training Center (Kyōgaku Renseisho) in November 1943. This
center, which functioned as a “center for nationalism research,” provided teachers
with educational and cultural instruction.
The state’s obsession with the mobilization of minds is evident in the fact that by
November 1, 1942, two of the eight bureaus comprising the Ministry of Education—
the Nationalism Instruction (composed of Planning, Thought, and Guidance
Divisions) and the Moral Instruction Bureaus (Kyōka-kyoku)—were explicitly set up
for ideological inculcation as their appellations indicate (the latter was given control
over social education and religious affairs). Even the name of the unit in charge of
ordinary formal schooling, the National Education Bureau (Kokumin Kyōiku-kyoku),
declared the ultranationalist thrust of the state’s educating projects.
Para-state organizations which socialized members via numerous activities and
practices were employed to expand state core influence and accomplish nationalistic
projects. The Ministry of Education encouraged and supervised the Central
Federation for the General Mobilization of the National Spirit, the Greater Japan
Nationalist‒Imperialist Psychology 161
Youth and Child Group, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, the Greater Japan
Women’s Association, and other “patriotic educational groups.”
Moral education: Configuring psyche for the state
During the Taishō period state core officials encouraged the formation and
coordination of “moral instruction groups” (kyōka dantai) in order to “spiritually
guide the people's sentiments and elevate and improve public morals.”2 Though moral
instruction was basically a Ministry of Home Affairs project, in 1925 the Ministry of
Education oversaw the activities of seven to eight hundred moral instruction groups
and supervised one of several “daily life improvement campaigns” (seikatsu kaizen
undō). Such campaigns advocated thrift and also “introduced methods of bettering
the quality of life by means of scientific budgeting, better nutrition and hygiene and
avoiding wasteful spending on festivals, alcohol and tobacco.”3 These campaigns
displayed a faith in positivism, science, and economism—deep ideological projects
deployed for the sake of the empire.
Though a fair amount of debate occurred during Taishō as to the meaning of moral
education, its definition became increasingly restricted as fundamentalist nationalism
strengthened its hold during the 1930s. Moral education became the ideological link
between national–statist orthodoxy and personal conviction, which was reflected
in the fervent discourse about “national studies” (kokuminka), “national morality”
(kokumin dōtoku), “national education” (kokumin kyōiku), “national thought” (kokka
shisō), “thought guidance” (shisō zendō), “self-denial and service” (messhi hōkō), and
“heroism and service” (giyū hōkō). These notions linked associated nationalism with
moral indoctrination.
Snapshot Challenging officialdom

Not all Japanese wholeheartedly accepted the psycho-socializing mandates of
officialdom. Individuals such as Shimonaka Yasaburō, who founded the Japan
Teachers’ Union Enlightenment in 1919, organized and led counter-hegemonic
groups. The first modern labor union had already been established in 1897 by
Katayama Tetsu and in 1922, the Communist Party was established. Japan's first
student movements became active following the First World War and in 1918
the New Man Society (Shinjinkai) was formed at Tokyo Imperial University
(dissolved in 1929). This organization's influence spread to other universities and
in 1922 the Federation of Students (Gakusei Rengōkai) was founded. This group
was renamed the Student Federation of Social Science (Gakusei Shakaikagaku
Rengōkai) and would eventually be called the All-Japan Student Federation of
Social Science (Zen Nippon Gakusei Shakaikagaku Rengōkai). In the 1920s, well-
known professors at elite universities were politically active: Yoshino Sakuzō
and Fukuda Tokuzō (both interested in combining Western-inspired liberalism
with the Japanese monarchy), Morito Tatsuo and Ōuchi Hyōe (interested in
radical Western ideas), Ōyama Ikuo (reformer and writer), Abe Isoo (Christian
socialist), and the Marxist-inspired Kawakami Hajime. Women leaders such as
Itō Noe, editor of the leading feminist magazine Setō (Blue Stocking), Yamakawa
Kikue, and Hiratsuka Raichō severely critiqued the patriarchic sociopolitical
order. The “New Education Movement” of the 1910s and 1920s, influenced by
progressive pedagogical ideas from abroad, inspired Hani Motoko, who ran the
Jiyū Gakuen (Freedom School) and Sawayanagi Masatarō, who founded the Seijō
Elementary School.
Psycho-socializing the national spirit in schools
The wartime period saw normal schools become centers of propaganda and
indoctrination where an official insistence stressed that nationalist myths be taught
more literally: “Indeed it reached the point where even primary school children are
said to have sometimes expressed skepticism.”4 Slogans such as the “eight corners
of the world under one roof ” (hakkō ichiū) were actively advocated and taught in
schools. The militarization of education is evident in the role played by figures such as
Baron General Araki Sadao (1877–1966). Araki advocated the “imperial way” (kōdō)
and from 1931 to 1934 served as army minister and under Prime Minster Konoe
Fumimarō, he became a Minister of Education (May 26, 1938–August 30, 1939).
Japan's educational structure responded to the state’s drive for imperial
conquest and ideological control of the domestic population.5 On November 18,
1935, the Education Renovation Council (Kyōgaku Sasshin Hyōgikai), which was
comprised of ultra-conservative scholars, was set up to investigate curricula at all
levels. This Council proposed the establishment of an advisory organ to carry out
a long-term and extensive review of Japan’s educational system. The Education
Renovation Council was dissolved on June 23, 1937, and on December 10 of
that year, the Education Advisory Council (Kyōiku Shingikai), comprised of 65
members and several provisional members and under the direct supervision
of the prime minister, continued the former's activities. In 1941, the Education
Advisory Council recommended that elementary schools, in order to provide
the appropriate training for “imperial subjects,” be renamed “national schools”
(kokumin gakkō). On March 1, 1941, the National Schools Order (Kokumin
Gakkō-rei) was implemented. “Its declared objective—‘The National Schools shall
conduct primary education in accordance with the teachings of the Imperial Way
and shall provide the fundamental training required for Imperial subjects’—left
no room for confusion about the work of the schools.”6 As the state extended its
tentacles into the societal level and the expression of everyday knowledge came
under increasing scrutiny. The curriculum of the national schools was simplified
into four main courses, consisting of: (1) national studies (kokumin-ka); (2) science
and mathematics; (3) arts and vocational training; and (4) physical training. This
simplification of the curriculum was extended to the middle schools and women's
high and vocational schools were also reorganized so as to psycho-socialize

imperial subjects.7
Totalism and the great controversy
The notion that psychological processes operate according to holism or a “totality”

of some sort would deeply resonate with the totalitarian impulse and imperialistic
policies of prewar and wartime Japan.8 Indeed, the Japanese word for totalitarianism
is zentai-shugi—literally, whole-ism and “totality” appeared frequently in the 1930s
and 1940s in relation to education.9 This resonated with the official policy of the
Cabinet, which in August 1937 drew up guidelines for the General Mobilization of
the National Spirit. This was not “an unprecedented response to the needs of total
war, but evolved from the peacetime moral suasion campaigns of the 1920s and early
1930s.”10 In October 1937 the Central Federation for the General Mobilization of the
National Spirit was formed. Four years later, elementary schools were reorganized
and designated as “national schools” (kokumin gakkō) and the overriding theme
became “organization” or “system” (taisei). Educators became concerned with
the “mental organization” (shin-teki taisei) of students.11 The order of the day was
having learners fit into the zentaisei (totality) and “holistic teaching” (zentai-teki
kyōju);12 their individuality was not a primary concern.
An example of how an organic whole-ism impacted wartime Japan was the
controversy that erupted over proposed educational reforms. In 1939 the Ministry
of Education appointed a committee that included Psychologists that was tasked
with revising the curriculum for higher schools (kōtō gakkō). Suggested revisions
incorporated themes of Gestalt Psychology.13 At the center of the revisions was
Onoshima Usao (1894–1941), a Psychologist who worked for the Ministry of
Education. Onoshima specialized in Psychology at Tokyo Imperial University and
received his BA in 1919. He was awarded his doctorate from the same university
in 1930.14 In 1923 he was sent to Germany as an “overseas researcher” (zaigai
kenkyūin) where he studied Gestalt Psychology at Berlin University until 1926.15
Before working for the Ministry of Education, he taught at Tokyo Higher Normal
School and Tokyo Bunrika University.16 Onoshima made significant contributions
to Japan’s Gestalt Psychology (geshutaruto shinrigaku). Some of his works include:
Saikin Shinrigaku Jūni-kō (Twelve Lectures on Recent Psychology, 1930); Seikaku
Shinrigaku to Jidō Kenkyū (Personality Psychology and Childhood Studies, 1933);
Gendai Seikaku Shinrigaku (Modern Personality Psychology, 1946); Saikin Shinrigaku
Gaisetsu (Summary of Recent Psychology, 1932); and Shinrigaku Yōsetsu (Outline of
Psychology, 1937).
As for the controversy surrounding the proposed reforms, a generational change
was most likely in play; Onoshima represented a younger generation who had studied
overseas, particularly in Germany. However, older Psychologists, more comfortable
with earlier theories and ensconced in the higher educational system, did not look
kindly on the new-fangled theories.17 In the end, the revisions were greeted with
criticism and the Gestalt-inspired policies were dropped.18
Psychology curricula and the state
Satō traces the changes in key terms in five Ministry of Education directives for
Psychology syllabi used to teach in higher schools from 1928 to 1946. A comparison
of directives from 1928 and 1939 (Tables 9.1 and 9.2) illustrate a curricular change
to more state-centered, collectivist ethos. Relevant terms include: Volk characteristics
(minzokusei), national character (kokuminsei), group mind (shūdanshin), group spirit
(shūdan seishin), and individuality (kosei).19 Table 9.3 offers a look at what was taught
within universities.
Table 9.1 Syllabus for Psychology per Ministry of Education Directive 4, March 31, 1928
(1) The Objects of Psychological Study, Methods, Specialties

(2) Physiological Basis of Mental Functions
(3) Consciousness. Unconsciousness. Behavior
(4) Sensation. Senses of Sight, Hearing, Taste, Smell, Touch, Organic Sense, Sense of Balance,
Kinesthetic Sense. Relation between Perception and Stimulus. Weber’s Law
(5) Perception. Spatial Perception, Temporal Perception. Optical Illusion. Hallucination
(6) Attention
(7) Presentation (Vorstellung). Association. Memory. Learning. Forgetting. Testimony
(8) Imagination. Thinking. Concepts, Judgment, Inference. Relation between Thinking and
Language
(9) Feelings. Emotions. Sentiments. Expressions. James–Lange Theory
(10) Instinct. Impulse. Will. Training. Fatigue
(11) Personality. Ego. Individuality. Disposition
(12) Relation between the Individual and Society
Source: From Kōtō Gakkō Kōtōka Chiri, Shinri oyobi Ronri Kyōju Yōmoku (Syllabus for Advanced Courses in Logic,
Psychology and Geography at Higher Schools). Cited in Satō (2001c: 250–52).
Table 9.2 Syllabus for second-year students per Ministry of Education Directive 18,
June 6, 1939
(1) Definition of Psychology, Its Development, Specialization and Research Methods

(2) Development of Mind: (a) Various Directions of Development—Biological, Individual,
Society, Culture; (b) General Development
(3) Humans and the Environment: (a) Self, Others, Environment; (b) Nature and Society as
Environment
(4) Behavior and Consciousness: (a) Specialization of Behavior—Its Physiological Basis; (b)
Instinctive Behavior and Conscious Behavior; (c) Consciousness, Various Aspects of
Experience; (d) Attention, Readiness
(5) Feelings: (a) Happiness and Unhappiness; (b) Emotions; (c) Sentiments; (d) Feelings and
Physical Changes
Table 9.2 Syllabus for second-year students per Ministry of Education Directive 18,
June 6, 1939 (continued)
(6) Perception (Part 1): (a) Space, Time, Motion; (b) Causes, Formation of Perception
(7) Perception (Part 2): (a) Experiences of Visual and Auditory Sensation; (b) Principles
Concerning Emotional Experiences
(8) Memory: (a) Presentation (Vorstellung); (b) Association in Reproduction and
Reproduction; (c) Contents of Memory
(9) Imagination and Thinking: (a) Imagination; (b) Concepts, Judgment, Inference, Language;
(c) Process of Solving Problems
(10) Volition and Movement: (a) Experience of Volition; (b) Process of Volitional Movement; (c)
Self-Control
(11) Learning and Work: (a) Acquisition; (b) The Various Facts of Work; (c) The Process
of Work
(12) Intelligence: (a) Intelligence; (b) Differences in Intelligence
(13) Personality: (a) Personality, Individuality; (b) Character, Typology
(14) Group Psychology and National Characteristics: (a) Various of Forms of the Group—
Crowds, Family, Nation; (b) National Characteristics, Volk Characteristics
(15) Applications of Psychology: Education, Industry, Medicine, Police, Military
(16) National Culture and Psychology
Source: From Kōtō Gakkō Kōtōka Shinri oyobi Ronri Kyōju Yōmoku Kaisei (Revisions to Syllabus for Advanced
Courses in Psychology and Logic at Higher Schools). Cited in Satō (2001d: 239–49).
Table 9.3 Selected examples of Psychology-related curriculum taught at universities

during the prewar period
University Courses and topics

Tokyo Imperial • Child Psychology • Various Issues of Phenomenal Space • Koffka’s
Principles of Gestalt Psychology • Seminar on Special Psychological
Experimentation
Kyōto Imperial • The Psychology of Heart–Mind Learning • Psychology of Religion, •
Outline of Psychiatry • James’s Varieties of Religious Experience
Tōhoku Imperial • Gestalt Psychology • Educational Psychology • General Methods and Its
Demonstration of Psychological Observation • Brentano’s Psychologie vom
empirischen Standpunkte
Kyūshū Imperial • Seminar on Outline and Principles of Psychology • On Concepts •
Seminar on Statistical Research Methods (for Psychology, Education,
Sociology)
Keisei Imperial • Research on Eastern Psychological Thought • History of Psychology •
A. Messer’s Einführung in die Psychologie
Tokyo Bunrika • Outline of Psychology (Wundt’s Grundriss der Psychologie) • Seminar on
Juvenile Psychology (E. Spranger’s Psychologie des Jugendalters) • Seminar
on Social Psychology (W. McDougall’s The Group Mind)
Hiroshima Bunrika • Psychology of Learning • Intelligence and Intention • Psychology Seminar
(Metzger’s Das Gesetz des Sehens) • Psychology Seminar (Buss’s Die
Ganzheitspsychologie Felix Kruegers)
Table 9.3 Selected examples of Psychology-related curriculum taught at universities

during the prewar period (continued)
University Courses and topics

Hōsei • Developmental Psychology • Seminar (Saupe’s Einführung in die neuer
Psychologie) • Occupational Psychology • Re-education for War-wounded
• Social Problems
Keiō Gijuku • Volk Psychology • Readings (O. Tumlirz’s Jugendpsychologie des
Jugendalters) • Readings (Beebe-Center’s Psychology of Pleasantness and
Unpleasantness)
Waseda • Volk Psychology • Experimental Psychology • Industrial Psychology
Rikkyō • Psychology of Aesthetics • Seminar (Applied Psychology) • Seminar
(Experimental Child Studies)
Kansei Gakuin • Seminar (Car’s Introduction to Space Perception) •Readings (Bühler’s
Abriss der geistigen Entwicklung des kindes) • Psychology of Religion
• Experimental Seminar (Problems of Perception) • Psychological Research
on Feelings
Dōshisha • Psychological Research on Beauty • Social Psychology
Risshō • Volk Psychology •Psychology Seminar • Psychological Experiments
Source: From Satō (2002a: 312–14) who also provides the names of instructors and more complete information. See
also Satō (2008b: 171–73).
Politicizing Psychology
In 1926, the Taishō ended and the Shōwa—the era of “Brightness and Harmony”—
began: For the next two decades political economic elites would tighten their grip and
concoct a deadly ideological mix of imperial belligerency, fundamentalist nationalism,
and state-sanctioned jingoism. Like all authoritarian systems, the polity of wartime
Japan offers lessons about psycho-political socialization. It can be argued that all
educating/socializing is inculcation. But excessive inculcation, such as indoctrination
(e.g., fundamentalist national statism), goes beyond the simple imparting of knowledge.
Indoctrination occurs when those in positions of power demand total integration of
all knowledge and do not tolerate divergence, deviation, or any disconnection from
the sociopolitical orthodoxy. All knowledge forms must march to the beat of the same
drum. Simply, the formation of cognitive “space” that is not somehow firmly linked
to the elite agenda is not allowed. Thus, indoctrination is more than just a matter of
what is imparted; it is a matter of how—that is, in a totalizing manner―knowledge is
delivered. The prewar Japanese state core, with its projects and policies that harnessed
quasi- or para-state organizations and the societal level, ensured that knowledge was
imparted in a totalizing manner. In this sense, Japanese militarism and fundamentalist
national statism “did not represent a pathological breakdown of the educational system
institutionalized by the Meiji statesmen in the 1880s and 1890s, but was its logical
and necessary outcome.”20 Indeed, the Taishō era should not be idealized because any
investigation of this period must recognize that the same national-statist ideology
that drove Japan's imperialistic expansion also administered its edu-socializing

bureaucracy.21
The war effort would substantially alter Psychology. Various Psychology societies
were combined to form one association in order to pool their resources for the
imperial good. It was divided into six divisions, five of which were applied: general,
educational, industrial, legal, military, and war-wounded. Meanwhile, as practical
Psychology expanded in scope, the more theoretical Psychology practiced in
academic settings continued without major interruption.22
Snapshot Imperialism and fundamentalist

national statism
The 1930s witnessed the rising of supercharged national-statist sentiment
and the expansion of Japanese imperialism. A brazen military carried out
assassinations, such as the February 1932 murder of Prime Minster Inukai
Tsuyoshi and the “2–26 Incident” (February 26) in 1936, in which 1,400 officers
assassinated the Finance Minister, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, and the
Inspector General of Military Education. Overseas, the Japanese army, alleging
that Chinese forces had attacked the South Manchurian railway, retaliated on
September 18–19, 1931, in what became known as the “Manchurian Incident”
(the Chinese “attacks” were groundless fabrications of the Japanese army).
Manchuria would be subjugated by 1933 and on March 1, 1934, it became the
puppet state of Manchukuo. A clash between Japanese and Chinese troops in
Beijing on July 7, 1937, gave the Japanese army the excuse it needed to invade
China, and starting on December 13, the bloody orgy that became known as the
“Rape of Nanjing” occurred. On the international scene, Japan signed an anti-
Comintern pact with Germany in 1934 and six years later formed a tripartite
pact with Germany and Italy. Hungry for raw materials, the Japanese empire
launched daring preemptive attacks against the United States on December 7,
1941, at Pearl Harbor. British possessions in Asia also fell to lightning Japanese
advances. Eventually, the Japanese would control the coastal regions of China,
the Philippines, Singapore, Malaya, and the Netherlands East Indies as well
as most of Burma. Though initially the Japanese achieved stunning military
victories and conquests, a series of escalating reverses would in the end lead
to utter defeat. At home, it would result in mass destruction, starvation, and
occupation by a foreign power.
Military applications of Psychology
In addition to nationalistic education and the eugenic movement, in the 1930s and
early 1940s a number of Japanese Psychologists collaborated with officialdom in the
war effort.23 While Psychologists did not participate at the level of national-policy
formation and direction, some of them certainly aided martial projects.24 They gave
advice on and researched human–machine interactions, group management, the

strains and stresses of combat, leadership methods, and propaganda Psychology.
Surveys, personnel assessments, and aptitude tests were designed and administered by
Psychologists for military needs.25 In 1941 Obonai Torao theorized about the military
applications of psychological knowledge in “Kokubō Shinrigaku no Genkyō” (“The
Present State of National-Defense Psychology”).
The military applications of Psychology began relatively early. In 1918 the navy
appointed Matsumoto Matatarō to be a consultant for the Naval Experimental
Psychology Application Research Committee.26 Two years later he established the
Aviation Psychology Unit (Kōkū Shinri-bu) in the Aviation Research Institute
(Kōkū Kenkyūjo) at Tokyo Imperial University. Along with Tanaka Kanichi
and Terazawa Izuo, he investigated issues such as the effects of low-pressure
on thinking ability at the Aviation Research Institute. Other Psychologists who
became involved in military Psychology included Masuda Koreshige, Awaji Enjirō,
and Umezu Hachizō (Table 9.4).27 Applied Psychologists also worked in the Naval
Torpedo School (Kaigun Suirai Gakkō). The Naval Technical Research Institute
(Kaigun Gijutsu Kenkyūjo) had an Experimental Psychology Division (Jikken
Shinri-bu). The Naval Aviation Psychology Research Institute (Kaigun Kōkū Shinri
Kenkyūjo) was established in 1942 and by 1945 over one hundred Psychologists
worked there.28 Military academies recognized the usefulness of Psychology early
on and Nishizawa Raiō, who graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1916
and specialized in Psychology, studied combat Psychology, and how to educate
military personnel.
Tsuruta divides the development of naval Psychology into three major periods:
(1) 1916–31, when military officials relied on Psychologists for research but did not
regularly employ them; (2) 1932–41, when Psychologists were more formally employed
by the military; and (3) 1942–45, when experimental laboratories were established by
the military.29
Table 9.4 Research conducted in the Aviation Psychology Unit, Aviation Research

Institute, Tokyo Imperial University, 1925
• Psychological and Physiological Experiences of Pilots

• Experiments on Retrobulbar Concussion
• Experiment on Visuospatial Perception
• Establishment of Standards for Physical and Somatopsychic Functions
• Experimental Research on Aviation Reconnaissance
• Evaluative Methods for the Flying Ability of Pilots
• Standard Performance for Troops
Source: Satō (2002a: 609).
Individuating versus collectivizing the psyche
As an example of the impact of individuation (a key feature of interiority), consider

kosei. Usually translated as “individuality,” this term was used in pedagogical writings
in the last several decades of the nineteenth century. Originally it indicated differences
among individuals in a neutral sense and concerned ability or aptitude. However, in
the first decades of the twentieth century, its connotations would change and it became
quite popular and acquired the meaning of personal uniqueness and was positively
advocated by many educationalists. In 1915 Nakajima Taizō wrote Kosei Shinri oyobi
Hikaku Shinri (Individual Psychology and Comparative Psychology). To illustrate the
meaning of kosei, Table 9.5 lists the table of contents of a 1920 book Kosei Kyōiku-ron
(Theories of Individuality Education).
Kosei was entrusted with three tasks. First, it described the goal of education, which
should not be for the state; rather, schooling should aim for the “full development
of the individual” (kojin no kanzen hatattsu). Second, kosei was used to criticize
education that ignored the child as an individual learner. This is apparent in Yuhara
Table 9.5 Table of contents of Kosei Kyōiku-ron (1920)
Ōse Jintarō Educational Thought about Individuality

Inagaki Suematsu Assumptions about Individuality Education
Kobayashi Sumie Theories about Individuality Education
Tanimoto Tomeri The Fundamentals of Individuality Education
Onishi Shigenao Complete Individuality and Education
Abe Shigetaka Individual Differences and the Education System
Takabatake Motoyuki The Social System and Individuality Education
Kihira Tadayoshi Looking at Individuality from a Philosophical Perspective
Kido Mantarō Individuality as Personal Integration within Culture
Hayami Hiroshi The Meaning of Individuality and Its Development
Narazaki Asatarō The Variability of Superior Children and the Principles of Class
Organization
Kubo Yoshihide Individual Differences as Manifested in Intelligence Tests
Tanaka Kanichi Individual Differences and Their Causes
Yamauchi Shigeo Individuality and Education from a Biological Perspective
Nagai Hisomu Individuality Education from a Biological Perspective
Fujikawa Yū Theories of Individuality Education From a Medical Perspective
Mita Sadanori Individual Differences of Human Blood
Takamine Hiroshi The Classification of Children’s Individuality from a Mental Science
Perspective
Shinohara Sukeichi Individuality and Education
Source: Kyōiku Ronsō Henshū Buhen (1920).
Motoichi’s 1899 Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku (Educational Psychology) (Yuhara had studied

under Wundt). Finally, kosei stressed the inherent personal distinctiveness of each
individual and thereby acknowledged the limits of socialization. This is seen in the
work of Tsukahara Masatsugu (1872–1946), who argued that hereditary, more than the
environment, was salient in personal development.30
Collectivizing the psyche

Though the Ministry of Education advocated “respect for individuality” during
Taishō, in the 1930s educational authorities took a less sanguine view of kosei and
political developments began to limit “individual-focused” (kosei jūshi) approaches.
“In the era of national unity [kyokoku itchi], individuality was replaced by a stress
on the concept of Volk characteristics [minzokusei].”31 With national consciousness
(kokka ishiki) and Volk spirit (minzoku seishin) being emphasized, the view of applied
Psychology (i.e., individuality and aptitude) was not taken as seriously and was unable
to develop. In the era of national unity the concept of Volk identity was stressed rather
than individuality. Mental testing would become a tool promoted for objectively
comparing and grasping, not individuality, but Volk identity.32 In line with this
emphasis shifted from research on individuality (kosei) to a Psychology of training
(rensei) in educational thought. Three books, all published in 1943, illustrate this
trend: Aoki Seishirō’s Aoshōnen Rensei no Kadai (Themes on the Training of Youth),
Takemasa Tarō’s Kokumin Kyōiku no Shinri (Psychology of National Education), and
Gotō Iwao’s Rensei Shinrigaku (Psychology of Training).33
Overseas imperial universities
The Japanese state established two universities overseas that were intended to serve
imperial interests: Keijō and Taihoku. The official policy of these “overseas universities”
(gaichi no daigaku), which came under the administration of the colony’s governor-
general (sōtoku), was to make loyal subjects in the colonial areas and to preclude the
formation of an anti-Japanese elite leadership.34
Keijō Imperial University

Japanese influence can be seen in the early stages of Korean Psychology. Though they
lacked Psychology departments, American missionary schools did teach Psychology
as early as 1917 (e.g., Ewha Women’s College). The first Korean Psychologists were
educated in Japanese universities in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1924 the Japanese
established a university in Korea, called Keijō (Seoul) Imperial University,35 and
Hayami Hiroshi, Kuroda Ryō, Fukutomi Ichirō, and Amano Toshitake would teach
Psychology and conduct research there. Keijō had a large psychological laboratory,
reportedly one of the best in Asia and supposedly Kurt Lewin had a say in its design.
The first to major in Psychology was Im Sok-Chae, who graduated from Keijō in 1930.
When the University was closed in 1945, it had graduated seven Korean and eleven
Japanese Psychology majors.36 In 1946 a program in Psychology was instituted at Seoul

National University and in the same year the Korean Psychological Association was
established.
Taihoku Imperial University

Though Chinese Psychology was established by the 1920s on the mainland, it had little
direct impact on developments in colonial Taiwan. As in Korea, Japanese influence was
conveyed through an educational arm of the empire, in this case via Taihoku Imperial
University (now National Taiwan University) which was established in 1928.37 Taiwan’s
Imperial University offered Psychology courses in the Faculty of Literature and after
the war, four thousand books, five hundred volumes of journals, and fifty pieces of
laboratory apparatus were left behind.38 Key personages—all students of Matsumoto
Matatarō—who taught at Taihoku Imperial University included: Iinuma Ryūen
(1888–1969); Rikimaru Jien (1890–1945); and Fujisawa Shigeru (1903–62).39 The latter
utilized mental testing (1935–38) to study anger among Taiwan aboriginals in research
believed useful for colonial policy.40
Japan and the roots of Chinese Psychology
In 1905, 500–600 Japanese teachers were working in Chinese schools and universities
and 7,000–8,000 Chinese students were in Japan. Not surprisingly, a number of
Japanese introduced the new field of Psychology into China. Psychology was taught
as an adjunct to education in teacher colleges and the Chinese based their models
for practical pedagogical purposes and teaching training on Japanese thinkers.41
Eventually, functionalism, behaviorism, Gestalt Psychology, and psychoanalysis would
all find advocates. As in Japan, Haven’s work played a key role. Yan Yongjing (1838–
98) translated Haven’s Mental Philosophy in 1889 from the Japanese version. This was
probably first book in Chinese on Psychology. He called his translation Science of the
Soul (Xinlingxue).42 The American missionary W. Martin’s Aspects of Human Nature
(Xing Xue Ju Yu) was also translated in 1898.
Hattori Unokichi (1867–1939), a Sinologist and the first Japanese to lecture on
Psychology, taught at the Qing Dynasty’s Metropolitan University (forerunner of
Beijing University). He composed Xinlixue Jiangyi (Lectures in Psychology, 1902)
and used the same Chinese characters for Psychology (as the Japanese/Chinese:
shinrigaku/xinrixue). Hattori relied on classical Chinese terminology and traditional
sayings to introduce Western Psychology. Wang Guowei (1877–1927) translated
Motora’s Psychology (Xinlixue, 1902a) and Ethics (Lunlixue, 1902b). He also translated
Höffding’s Outlines of Psychology (1907; this was based on an 1891 English translation
by Mary Lowndes).
Other translations appeared: Kubota Sadanori’s Pedagogical Psychology (Xinli
Jiaoyuxue, 1902); Inoue Enryō Psychology: An Outline (Shinri: Tekiyō, 1903); and Ōse
Jintarō and Tachigara Noritoshi’s Textbook of Psychology (Xinli Jiaokeshu, 1903). Chen
Huang, who had studied engineering in Japan, wrote Simplified Psychology (Xinli
Yijie). This was probably the first work on Psychology authored by a Chinese and it
was originally published in Japan in 1905 and then again in 1906. Chen Daqi (1886–
1983), who had studied at Tokyo Imperial University, wrote Outlines of Psychology
in 1918; this was the first Chinese university textbook and exerted great influence.
Chen established the first Psychology laboratory in Peking (Beijing) University (1917).
Cai Yuanpei (1868–1940), an educational reformer, traveled to Leipzig in 1907 and
spent time with Wundt from 1908. He returned from Wundt’s laboratory in 1912 and
became President of Peking University in 1917. Cai wrote Lectures in Hypnosis in 1906
and, using the pen name Kuan Ji Shan Ren, wrote a book on parapsychology that same
year. Between 1922 and 1940, 370 books on Psychology were published, though 40
percent were translations.43 In 1922 the journal Psychology was established and in 1921
the Chinese Psychological Society was set up, which was soon followed by the Chinese
Association for Psychological Testing (1931), Society of Psychoanalysis, and Society
of Mental Hygiene. The first department in Psychology was established in 1920 in
Southeastern University and in 1928 the Institute of Psychology was founded in the
Chinese Academy of Sciences.44
10
Reconstruction and Expansion: Postimperial

Japan as a Psychologized Society
Wartime total mobilization and defeat greatly impacted Japanese Psychology. This
chapter explores the fallout as well as the institutional rebirth and expansion of
Psychology in postimperial Japan. Also discussed is how postwar Japan has become
a Psychologized society and what this implies: the centrality of the self and the
“therapeutic society.” Finally, developments in Japan’s clinical and applied Psychology
are examined.
The institutional culmination of total mobilization and defeat
Major defeats inflicted on the Japanese by the Americans in 1943 tightened a strategic
noose around Japan, while its cities and industries were subjected to massive bombing
raids. As the war was brought closer to home, the state core increasingly appropriated
and utilized educational sites for its war efforts. School buildings were used for
military supply storage, evacuation hospitals, evacuation centers, and even munitions
factories. In March 1944, middle and higher school students were mobilized all year
round in order to carry out war-related duties. On April 1, 1945, it was decided that
at all schools, with the exception of the first several years at elementary schools,
instruction was to be discontinued for one year. On May 22, 1945, the Wartime
Education Order stipulated that each school was to organize a “student brigade.” As if
taking one last institutional gasp to stave off the deteriorating situation and revitalize
psycho-socialization, the General Affairs and Physical Education Bureaux were
combined to form the Student Mobilization Bureau (Gakuto Dōin-kyoku) on July 11,
1945. This bureau brought together thought supervision (Guidance and Mobilization
Divisions) and bodily management (Drill and Health Divisions).
Regardless of the tremendous suffering of the Japanese people, it took the horrific
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively) to
finally convince the Japanese military elite to unconditionally surrender. On August 15,
1945, the Emperor broadcast the “Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the
War,” despite an abortive attempt by military hard-liners to prevent the surrender
announcement. On September 2, 1945, the formal surrender ceremony took place in
Tokyo Bay on board the USS Missouri.
Needless to say, Japanese Psychology, as both an intellectual endeavor and an

array of institutional arrangements, suffered grave setbacks during the war period.
Nevertheless, some important foundations―individuals, associations, organizations,
corpus of knowledge, and so on―had been laid before 1945, upon which would be
built postimperial Psychology.
The rebirth of Japanese Psychology
During the occupation the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied
Powers implemented programs at universities under the auspices of the Institute for
Educational Leaders (IFEL), which played a role in disseminating postwar Psychology.
Financial support was given to a number of Japanese who were sent to the United
States for training, for example, Itō Hiroshi (1919–2000) studied counseling at the
University of Missouri and was awarded a Master’s degree in 1950. In 1947 Tomoda
Fujio (1917–2005) learned about Carl Rogers’s1 “non-directive counseling” from
Logan J. Fox (1922–), who was a student of Rogers and chief of the Counseling Center
at the institution that would become Tsukuba University. In 1948 the developmental
and educational Psychologist Arthur Thomas Jersild (1903–94) visited Japan and
lectured on the ideas of Carl Rogers. In 1954 Yoshimoto Ishin (1916–88), who
developed naikan (“introspective”) therapy, established the first Naikan center and
Umezu Kōsaku (1928–99) would introduce behavior therapy in 1956.
A significant milestone marking the renaissance of Japanese Psychology occurred
in 1951 when Japan became a member of the Union of Scientific Psychology (now
called the International Union of Psychological Science). And at the Kyoto Seminars
in American Studies in 1952, Clarence Henry Graham of Columbia University gave
lectures on developing trends in physiological, perceptual, and learning Psychology.2
Yatabe Tatsurō (1893–1958) of the University of Kyoto greatly contributed to the
development of postwar Japanese Psychology by inviting about thirty Japanese
Psychologists from all over Japan. Many of these young scholars would become key
figures in the academic Psychology during the 1960s.3
American influence would soon prevail in postwar Japanese Psychology. By the
1960s, Gestalt approaches, though still a force, made room for the neo-behaviorism of
Clark L. Hull (1884–1952) and B.F. Skinner (1904–90) which became mainstream by
1960.4 The “character of Psychology moved from the so-called German-style traditional
Psychology to the American-style Psychology” (we should note that many Germans
around the time of the war had moved to the United States).5 Increasingly, more and
more Japanese students traveled to the United States for training.6 Another milestone
came in 1972, when the 20th International Congress of Psychology was held in Tokyo.7
Postwar expansion
Teacher education and the requirements of educational Psychology drove up the number
of Psychology courses, graduate programs, and faculties.8 Specifically, legislation, such
as the Law for Certification of Education Personnel and the Enforcement Rules on the
Reconstruction and Expansion 175
Law for Certification of Education Personnel (both passed in 1949), encouraged the
acknowledgment of educational, adolescent, and child Psychology.9
Two “spurts” in the number of Psychologists can be discerned. The first occurred
after 1952 when universities began to offer relevant courses and the second, after
1990, when the number of clinical Psychologists increased. Clinical Psychology was
originally taught as a part of educational Psychology, but since 1990 graduate programs
began to offer independent clinical Psychology courses.10 In 2000 Japan’s first “School
of Psychology” (Shinrigaku-bu) was established at Chūkyō University.11
Currently, there are well over forty postwar psychological organizations in Japan.
The three largest are the Japanese Psychological Association (JPA; established 1927),
the Japanese Association of Educational Psychology (established 1952), and the
Association of Japanese Clinical Psychology (established 1982).12 Here we might note
that universities with regional names (e.g., Hokkaidō, Tōhoku, Fukushima, Tōkai,
Kyūshū) began establishing their own journals (see Appendix 8).13
Postimperial Japan as a Psychologized society
The “development of academic disciplines and professional institutions in the

human sciences does not immediately seize the imagination as a turning-point
in human self-discovery.”14 But they should. Specifically, for our purposes, the
explosive growth of psychological knowledge, as a part of a broader psychological
revolution has altered the way we look at the world in the same way the Copernican,
Galilean, and Newtonian revolutions changed the way we position ourselves in the
universe. Consider how personnel consultants, econometricians, demographers,
voting analysis, psychotherapists, development economists, counselors, forensic
psychologists, consultant anthropologists, social workers, and philosophers of
medical ethics all engaged in a psychological discourse. What this means is that that
“everyone in the twentieth century learned to be a [P]sychologist; everyone became
her or his own [P]sychologist, able and willing to describe life in psychological
terms.” Psychological knowledge has acquired a “taken-for-granted quality, altered
everyone’s subjective world and recreated experience and expectations about
what it is to be a person.”15 The number of societies that adopt the same models
(economic, political, educational, etc.) is on the rise. Psychology is “one of the
main cores of cultural globalization,” and significantly an increasing number of
societies are using the same models in order “to establish the essence of modern
actorhood.”16
At least in the “liberal West … the formulation of life’s problems in psychological
terms cut across divisions that separate religious and secular belief.”17 But arguably,
a psychologically interiorized view has resonated to varying degrees depending on
cultural locale. Being oriented toward the individual, Psychology predictably resonates
with liberal democracies, where “subjective authenticity, individualism and the search
for happiness” seem central. Not surprisingly, in places where a strong reaction against
secularization and church–state separation occurred, as in traditionally Catholic
Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Latin America, the growth of Psychology encountered
more resistance. Indeed, the writer and philosopher Miguel de Unamuno (1864–
1936) warned against the “Japanization of Spain,” by which he expressed his concerns
about how the Spanish national project would pursue “modernization at all costs.”18
Or consider the vagaries of Psychology in communist societies. In the Soviet Union,
or where social and group rather than stressed individual differences were stressed,
Western Psychology was labeled a “bourgeois pseudoscience” and criticized for
ignoring the class nature of the human condition. Human behavior was given a
physiological basis and understood through Pavlovian theory.19 In China it was all but
suspended during the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), but was rehabilitated in the late
1970s.20
The centrality of the self

A clear indication of the firm establishment of the psychological society has been
the ubiquitous “self ” in the everyday discourse of both experts and the general
public. Our identities are now “understood subjectively and confirmed objectively
by others, as the self.”21 Though it is something of a cliché to claim that self acquired
the same function as the soul, the former is decidedly concerned with the search
for personal uniqueness, individuated differences, and individual variation.22
Illouz points out that the self has become the “prime site of the management of
the contradictions of modernity,” and Psychology offers techniques to manage
the consequent tensions. Illouz insightfully observes that Psychology is less about
Foucaultian “surveillance” or “bio-power” than it is about containing and regulating
the contradictions of modern selfhood. After all, the self now has to perform an
increasing number of tasks, many of which are contradictory: becoming self-
reliant, yet attuned to others’ needs; conducting relationships in a rational manner
yet being highly focused on emotions; being a unique individual yet cooperating
with others.23
The therapeutic society

A key component of the psychological revolution has been the “therapeutizing” of
society and selfhood. A number of commentators (e.g., Lionel Trilling, Philip Rieff, and
Christopher Lasch) have interpreted the rise of the therapeutic worldview, which has
become a “formidably powerful and quintessentially modern way to institutionalize
the self.” This perspective has “crossed and blurred the compartmentalized spheres
of modernity and has come to constitute one of the major codes with which to
express shape and guide self-hood.”24 The therapeutic ethos appears linked to how
new knowledge and technologies have encouraged more “exteriorization” (more
interdependence, more networking more roles, more things with which to surround
ourselves) during the past several centuries. All this has led to more interiorization
(psychological processes required to realize all these extensions of self). It is long-
term self-absorbed consumerism and propertization of self, then, that provide more
opportunities for therapeutic self-absorption, which in turn provides more occasions
for alienation.
Reconstruction and Expansion 177
The psychological revolution certainly has its negative side and critics, often
associated with the rise of the “me” generation, the “privitization of the self,” and the
“cult of narcissism” during the 1970s and 1980s. An overabundance of individualization,
arguably caused by too much social management, leads to new types of alienation.
Commenting on Richard Sennett’s landmark The Fall of Public Man (1977), Roger
Smith notes how the latter charted the “concentration of representations of our
existence in the psychological dimension” and the emergence of “personalities” has
robbed the public realm of the emotional energy required to meaningfully engage
with others.25
Developments in Japan’s clinical and applied Psychology
Satō points out that the development of clinical Psychology in postwar Japan, relatively
speaking, has been slow.26 Presently, challenges confront those dedicated to “social-
service oriented Psychology” (e.g., clinical and counseling).27 Currently, the licensing
of clinical Psychologists in Japan is carried out by various organizations and remains
fragmented (Table 10.1). Nevertheless, the explosive growth in associations and
societies attest to how psychologized Japanese society has become. Furthermore,
the usage of psychological knowledge by key institutions illustrates its centrality
(Table 10.2).28
Table 10.1 Psychology-related qualifications authorized by organizations as of 2004
Qualification Japanese term Year Authorizing organization

initiated
Authorized Counselor Nintei Kānserā 1986 Nihon Kānseringu Gakkai (Japan
Counseling Society)
Clinical Psychologist Rinshō Shinrishi 1988 Nihon Rinshō Shinrishi Shikaku
Nintei Kyōkai (Japan Clinical
Psychologist Qualification
Authorizing Association)
Authorized Psychologist Nintei Shinrishi 1990 Nihon Shinri Gakkai (The Japanese
Psychological Association)
Industrial Counselor Sangyō Kānserā 1991 Nihon Sangyō Kānserā Kyōkai
(Japan Industrial Counseling
Association)
School Psychologist Gakkō Shinrishi 1997 Gakkō Shinrishi Nintei Unei Kikō
(School Psychologist Authorizing
Organization)
Clinical Developmental Rinshō Hattatsu 2002 Nihon Hattatsu Shinri Gakkai
Psychologist Shinrishi (Japan Society of Developmental
Psychology)
Source: Takasuna (2008a: 244).
Table 10.2 Important Psychology-related institutions and ministries
English name Japanese name

National Hospital Organization Hizen Kokuritsu Byōin Kikō Hizen Seishin Igaku Sentā
Psychiatric Center
National Institute of Mental Health: Seishin Hoken Kenkyū-jo: Kokuritsu Seishin • Shinkei
National Center of Neurology and Iryō Kenkyū Sentā
Psychiatry
National Rehabilitation Center for Persons Kokuritsu Shōgaisha Rihabiritēshon Sentā
with Disabilities
National Institute of Special Needs Kokuritsu Tokubetsu Shien Kyōiku Sōgō Kenkyū-jo
Education
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Kōsei Rōdō-shō
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Monbu Kagaku-shō
Science and Technology
Japanese Certification Board for Clinical Nihon Rinshō Shinri-shi Shikaku Nintei Kyōkai
Psychologist
Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Tōkyō-to Seishin Rōjin Sōgō Kenkyū-jo
Gerontology
Tokyo Institute of Psychiatry Tōkyō-to Seishin Igaku Sōgō Kenkyū-jo
Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Tōkyō-to Shinkei Kagaku Sōgō Kenkyū-jo
Neuroscience
In addition to clinical and educational concerns, Psychology is increasingly applied

to new areas, such as environmental and traffic problems. And in other developments,
psychological testing made new strides. For example, the Yatabe–Guilford Personality
Test (after the Guilford–Martin Inventory) was developed in 1956. Japanese versions
of the Maudsley Personality Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory were also designed. The Awaji Enjirō’s Extroversion-Introversion Test, the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
were also introduced.29
Epilogue: In Retrospect: Trajectories,
Alternative Routes, and the Contributions
of Japanese Women Psychologists
Looking back over the evolution of a discipline certain developments may seem
expected and inevitable. However, given the complex of vagaries and variables
that shape a field, we should be open to just how contingent the directionality of
intellectual history can be. In this Epilogue I want to provide a retrospective of sorts
that alerts us to the alternative trajectories Japanese Psychology could have taken.
I also want to conclude with some methodological concerns. The first relates to
how the ghost of spiritual physics still shapes our inquiries into how we view the
mind, regardless of place. The second concern relates to the value of longue durée
perspective. Finally, I provide some commentary on the problematic of Japan’s
“acceptance” of foreign knowledge.
The reader will have by now realized the importance to the state-controlled higher
education system (especially the University of Tokyo) in disseminating psychological
knowledge. Nevertheless, the role of private schools and “unique researchers” who
followed scholarly paths outside the system sanctioned by officialdom deserves
attention. Also, as in other societies, the social sciences were dominated by men.
However, the role played by women researchers cannot be ignored, and in order to
highlight the import of their impact, I devote the last section to an overview of their
contributions.
The persistence of spiritual physics
Despite the stunning advances in neuro-imaging, neurophysiology, and

neurochemistry, a number of questions still haunt inquiries about the nature of
psyche: is the study of the mind a mental science or humanistic philosophy? Can
the perennial enigma of the cosmic split—that is, dualism—ever be solved? As
for the latter problem, note that ironically, strictly scientific approaches appear to
reinforces the notion that two bifurcated realms exist—one observable, physical,
and somehow outer; the other introspectable, psychological, and indescribably
“inner.”1 In other words, the more we dissect, map, and analyze brain processes
in a positivistic, reductionistic manner, the more we rely on a psychologically
interiorized idiom to explain behavior and our very nature. This suggests an
uncomfortable point about the limitations of human knowledge. In any case,
Psychology still stands as a “bridge science connecting the old questions raised by
philosophical speculation.”2
The need for a longue durée perspective
Delineating the trajectory of an academic discipline is one thing, but arguing that
changes in psychological experiences have occurred is more of a challenge. In any case,
a longue durée perspective affords a picture of changes in human mentality, as does
taking into account democratization, techno-scientific innovation, capitalism, the
bourgeois ethic, and global flows of knowledge, for example. These may be considered
“common conceptual denominators” or “common temporal processes” that explain
developments the world over. Assuming that these are indeed historical forces that can
be pointed to as the motor behind global changes, to this list I would add interiorization.
The psychological revolution indicates more than just changes in discourse; it points to
a deeper shift in psycho-sociological processes.
The problem with Japan’s “acceptance” of foreign knowledge
Discerning the global flow of ideas, ideologies, and intellectual traditions is more of
a challenge than noticing the borrowing of organizational models. For example, the
Japanese authorities borrowed institutional configurations from Britain (navy, 1869;
telegraph system, 1869; postal system, 1972; postal savings system, 1875), France
(army, 1869; primary school system, 1872; Tokyo police, 1874; judicial system, 1872;
Kempeitai or military police, 1881), Germany (army, 1878), Belgium (Bank of Japan,
1882), and the United States (primary school, 1879; national bank system, 1872;
Sapporo Agricultural College, 1879).3 Though arguably such organizations, in order
to take root, required a certain ideological climate that must be appreciated, their
inherent nature somehow makes them easier to discern. In the case of more intellectual,
intangible influences, such as psychological knowledge, delineation is more difficult.
Focusing on how the “outside” world impacted Japan during the late Tokugawa and
Meiji period carries a danger, since the “opening of Japan” is usually claimed to have let
in the forces of science, modernization, and foreign learning (i.e., “Westernization”).
It is also important to note that the conventional “imitation-versus-innovation” and
“copying-versus-inventing” dichotomies are unhelpful.4 In the case of Psychology
(which for many Japanese represented an aspect of modernity), it must be stressed
that it was not something that Japan passively absorbed or accepted. Rather, it was
internal forces (as elaborated upon in this book), particularly the interiorization
of the individual, that cultivated the growth of this discipline. And it was Japanese
individuals who actively cultivated and reaped the practical benefits of the new field.
This is why it is “best to think in terms of professional scientists emerging in linked
and global networks, rather than of diffusion of science from the ‘West’ to the ‘East’
and the ‘South.’”5
In Retrospect 181
The challenges of conceptual translation
I end by mentioning issues of conceptual translation. “If we recognize the creativity

required to translate and convey an understanding of the foreign, we must regard the
first generation of tetsugakusha [philosophers] as independent, innovative thinkers.”6
The same, of course, could be said of any first generation Japanese “translator” of
sciences and knowledge forms from overseas. The point here is that translation is
not passive, but an active, creative endeavor, especially if it concerns abstract and
complicated ideas.7 Moreover, it raises an intriguing question: were Japan’s first
Psychologists merely labeling invariant, universal psychological processes by
borrowing concepts from elsewhere and simply coining a new descriptive idiom for
the Japanese language? Or were they, by introducing new ideas, actually assisting in
transforming variant, malleable psychological processes that were adapting to the
new conditions of modernity? I only raise this issue for the sake of argument and
will not directly address it since it would take us into matters too philosophical and
abstruse.8
Looking back: The stages of Japanese Psychology
Originally, I had intended this book’s table of contents and organization to reflect stages
of Japanese Psychology. Due to many cross-currents that defied an easy chronology,
this proved untenable (though this book’s contents very roughly follow an historical
trajectory).9 In any event, I provide an overall historical sense by outlining the
transition from a premodern–moralistic–spiritualistic–cosmic shingaku (learning of
the heart–mind) to a modern–scientific–naturalistic–scopic shinrigaku (Psychology).
I periodize the emergence of Japanese Psychology into five stages:
(1) Pre-institutionalization: 1875–8810

Beginning in the mid-1870s, translations of foreign Psychology-related books began.
Psychology was introduced in missionary schools and taught in courses from 1873 at
what would become Tokyo Imperial University.
Let us take an overview of some major developments from the Meiji Restoration
to mid-Meiji:
First, in private schools, normal schools and University of Tokyo, from the early
period “Psychology” was part of the curriculum. Next, Psychology was considered
to be a field among philosophers and in general academic journals. A number of
Psychology-related publications were printed. Many of these were translations and
Psychology was understood as a link with new knowledge from overseas. In this
period, though no one carried out new research that took Psychology as the main
target, it can be stated that demands and expectations for Psychology were on the
rise in various places.11
Still, we should note that the expansion of psychological programs in the academic
structures was slow, so that the formal training of professional Psychologists would not
occur until later.12 Moreover, in addition to highly specialized training, laboratories
and concomitant equipment were required to produce Japanese scholars and “it is not
easy to see the influence of foreign instructors during the early part of the Meiji period
if compared to other fields.” 13
(2) Incipient institutionalization: 1888–190314

In 1888 Motora was appointed as a lecturer in psychophysics at Imperial University
(Teikoku Daigaku; predecessor to Tokyo Imperial University). Meanwhile, Psychology
became an important part of the curricula at normal schools. In 1903, with assistance
from his student Matsumoto Matatarō, Motora established Japan’s first psychological
laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University. One year later Psychology became a
“specialization” (senshū) within the Department of Philosophy (Tetsu Gakka).
(3) Organizational institutionalization: 1903–26

The teaching of Psychology spread as a specialization and Psychology laboratories
were established at various universities. Psychological knowledge begins to be applied
to social problems and issues (military, educational, mental testing, social reform,
personnel selection for companies, clinical, etc.). Various “schools” or approaches
appear (e.g., behaviorism, Gestalt, Freudian psychoanalysis, social Psychology,
perception, comparative, and animal). In 1906 Matsumoto Matatarō was appointed
the first professor of Psychology at Kyoto Imperial University. Two years later he
established Japan’s second Japanese Psychology laboratory at Kyoto Imperial University.
In 1919 the Department of Psychology (Shinri Gakka) was established at the Tokyo
Imperial University and that same year Nippon Shinrigaku Zasshi (Japanese Journal of
Psychology) began publishing (until 1922).
(4) Application, specialization, and integration: 1926–4515

The practical application of Psychology intensifies, as does an increase in Psychology
majors (senkō) at universities and the establishment of various academic societies
and journals. If we consider Taishō (1912–26) as the era that laid the foundations for
the independence of Japanese Psychology, then, according to Takasuna, early Shōwa
can be called the period when its independence increased. During this era, three
developments, understood as the background that welcomed this independence, can
be given. First, the establishment of chairs in Psychology and Psychology laboratories
at universities allowed the professionalization and training of Psychologists. This can
be viewed as an extension of internal structural development within universities.
Second, academic societies, where scholars and researchers could exchange ideas,
disseminated new knowledge throughout Japan. And third, societal demands led to
the practical application of psychological knowledge.16
In Retrospect 183
(5) Postimperial reconstruction and expansion: 1945–present

After the war, educational reform and strong American influence led to a dramatic
increase in number of universities and the teaching of Psychology. From around 2000,
the establishment of Psychology departments and an increase in graduate-level clinical
Psychology becomes salient.17
Other perspectives
Others have suggested periodization schemes for Japanese Psychology. Watanabe Tōru
proposed three stages. The first, beginning in 1868, represented by Nishi Amane and
Inoue Tetsujirō, is one of “translation–introduction.” The second, from 1890, can be
thought of as “systematic-organizational” and saw Nishimura Shigeki (1828–1902) and
Motora play key roles. The third, from around 1913, was one of specialized research
and is best represented by Matsumoto Matatarō.18 Incidentally, according to Watanabe,
Psychology can be divided into two “schools”: seitō-ha (orthodox) and koyū-ha
(characteristic). The former pursues a type of psychological knowledge imported from
the West, while the latter, the focus of Watanabe’s interests, concerned the excavation
of Japan’s indigenous and unique traditions (incidentally, it seems that concrete
methodologies were accepted more readily by Japanese researchers than abstract and
general theories).19
Satō employs a six fold division of periods: (1) from around 1860: “pre-historical”;
(2) from around 1888: introductory; (3) from around 1903: specialization (senshū)
and establishment of laboratories; (4) from around 1927: increase in Psychology
majors (senkō) at universities and the establishment of academic societies; (5) from
around 1945: increase in number of universities (educational Psychology); and (6)
from around 2000: establishment of departments of Psychology at universities and the
increase in graduate-level clinical Psychology.20
Hoshino proposes four periods: (1) 1878–1925: a period of “enlightenment”
and the establishment of Psychology laboratories and the system of education
for Psychology; (2) 1926–45: a period of experimental studies; (3) 1946–70: the
scope of Psychology widens and its methodologies are sharpened; and (4) 1971–79:
further progress is made.21 Arakawa divides the history of Japanese Psychology,
as it concerns feelings and emotions, into five periods: (1) pre-1850, before Japan
“opened up”; (2) late nineteenth century; (3) from 1903 to the beginning of the
Second World War; (4) from the beginning of the Second World War to the 1960s;
and (5) from the 1960s.22
External influences
Takasuna very usefully describes how “Western” Psychology entered Japan via six
“routes” which roughly follow a chronological order:23
(1) Translations. Best exemplified by the Meiji-Enlightenment thinker Nishi Amane

who studied Western knowledge in the Netherlands (1862–67). He coined many
terms that would become incorporated into the modern lexicon of Japanese.
During the last two decades of the 1800s many translations of Euro–American
Psychology-related works would appear.
(2) Christian missionary schools. Proselytizing activities had been prohibited during
the Edo era (1603–1868), but after the removal of the ban in 1873, Christian
schools were permitted in which English and foreign ideas were taught. One of
the oldest was Doshisha Eigakkō (established in 1875) where works on “mental
philosophy” by Joseph Haven and Thomas Upham were read.
(3) University curricula. In particular, the Psychology-related courses offered at
University of Tokyo (latter Tokyo Imperial University). The key figure is Toyama
Masakazu, who spent three years at the University of Michigan (1872–76).
After returning to Japan, he became a key advocate of Darwinian evolutionism
and Spencer’s thought, as well as other contemporary ideas that would inform
Psychology. He would begin teaching a course called “Psychology” in 1877 at
University of Tokyo.
(4) Normal schools and teacher education. Most notably, Izawa Shūji and Hideo
Takamine traveled to the United States to learn about pedagogy (1875–78).
Izawa would become the principal of Tokyo Higher Normal School and
introduced Psychology in the curriculum for teachers in 1879.
(5) Japanese philosophers who studied overseas. The best example is Inoue
Tetsujirō, who studied in Leipzig under the “father” of modern Psychology,
Wilhelm Wundt.
(6) Motora Yūjirō and experimental Psychology. The most important avenue
involved the introduction of experimental, rather than a speculative,
philosophical-oriented Psychology. The key person in this regard is Motora,
who studied at Boston and Johns Hopkins Universities. With G. Stanley
Hall as his mentor, Motora was awarded a PhD in 1888. After he returned to
Tokyo Imperial University, he introduced experimental Psychology to Japan,
formalized the relevant curriculum, established Japan’s first psychological
laboratory and trained many students.
Different trajectories: Private schools and “unique researchers”
It is worth briefly introducing several key Psychologists who, though some were
educated at Tokyo Imperial University, went on to spread and teach psychological
knowledge at private institutions of higher education. To varying degrees, they were not
part of the state-monitored higher educational structure (i.e., the imperial universities)
and its associated academic cliques.
Yokoyama Matsusaburō (1890–1966) researched feelings and emotions,
the nature of consciousness and applied Psychology. He made great efforts to
internationalize Japanese Psychology and from 1959 to 1961 he was president of the
In Retrospect 185
Japanese Psychological Association. His career followed a most unusual trajectory.24

At age seventeen he quit Mito Higher School in Ibaraki Prefecture and traveled
to the United States, where he continued his pretertiary-level studies by entering
an elementary school in Ogden, Utah. By grade skipping, he was able to enter a
high school (1910) in Colorado and in 1913 was admitted into the University of
Colorado. He earned his BA three years later and entered Harvard University, from
where he obtained an MA in 1918. He was awarded his doctorate in 1921 by Clark
University, where he studied under G.S. Hall and received guidance from Edwin
Boring (1886–1968). His academic dissertation was called “An Experimental Study
of Affective Tendency as Conditioned by Color and Form.” After he returned to
Japan, he would teach at Keio Gijuku University, where he established a Psychology
laboratory.
Imada Megumi (1894–1960) entered Kansei Gakuin University in 1912 but would
receive his BA in 1922 from Tokyo Imperial University. In addition to his work on
behaviorism, functionalism, the Psychology of religion, and the relationship between
thinking and linguistic symbols, he specialized in and translated the works of William
James. In 1922 he became a professor at Kansei Gakuin University and founded the
first Psychology laboratory in a private school (1923). He would eventually become
president of Kansei Gakuin. Beginning in 1929 he studied at Columbia and Cambridge
Universities.25 In the early 1950s he played an important role in introducing Japanese
Psychology into India and Ceylon. He authored Shinrigaku-shi (The History of
Psychology, 1962).
Kido Mantarō (1893–1985) studied at Tokyo Imperial University, but he never
earned his BA because he attended classes as elective courses. In 1916 he became an
assistant to a Psychology class at Tokyo Imperial University. At his own expense, he
entered the University of Leipzig (1922–24). He became a professor at Hōsei University
in 1924 and he also worked as an instructor at Tokyo Imperial University. In 1936 he
became director at Koganei Gakuen, an experimental school for children with mental
challenges. In 1944 he was jailed for his political beliefs and forced to retire from Hōsei
University. After the war he would hold positions at Kogakuin, Hokkaidō, Tōyō, Chūō,
and Hokusei Gakuen Universities. In 1946 he became director at the National Institute
of Educational Research and the following year became a professor at Tokyo Bunrika
University.26
Satō points out that Kido Mantarō, Watanabe Tōru, and Imada Megumi all had
interests in applied Psychology, specifically, developmental, and rehabilitation issues.
Satō also notes that all three had interests in the history of Psychology and theory:
Kido’s Shinrigaku Mondai-shi (Problems in the History of Psychology, 1969b); Imada
Megumi’s Shinrigaku-shi (History of Psychology, 1962); and Watanabe’s Hompō Saisho
no Keiken-teki Shinrigaku-sha toshite no Kamada Hō no Kenkyū (Our Country’s First
Empirical Psychologist: The Research of Kamada Hō, 1940). Satō also notes that unlike
in the private universities (particularly Nihon University), the practical applications
of Psychology were not emphasized at the imperial universities. Interestingly, both
Tokyo Imperial University and private institutions of higher education did not develop
clinical applications of Psychology.27
Satō also describes the careers and contributions of three “unique researchers”
who in their own way challenged and defined the boundaries of Psychology. The first
researcher was Inoue Enryō (1858–1919), who is remembered for his attempts to
modernize Buddhism and strip it of what he believed were its superstitious accretions.
His training was in philosophy and though his interest was in what we would call
psychological processes, his methods were not strictly speaking psychological,
that is, not experimental. For the most part Inoue’s contributions have not been
acknowledged by or integrated into Psychology. Fukurai Tomokichi (1869–1952) was
a trained Psychologist; he relied on psychological methods and his object of study
was the psychological. However, due to his interest in spiritualism, in the end he was
not acknowledged by mainstream Psychologists.28 Furukawa Takeji (1891–1940)
was trained in pedagogy but utilized psychological methods to understand psyche.
However, his ultimate goal was to put his findings into educational practice. His ideas
were originally accepted by Psychologists but later rejected.
The contributions of Japanese women Psychologists
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the psyche of women, along
with the Psychology of children, became a central focus of many researchers. This
was a response to how industrialism altered the relation between the family unit and
labor practices. Note that between 1880 and 1900, the number of employed adult
women in the United States more than doubled, and by 1910, one out of every five
women above fifteen years of age was a member of the work force.29 Concomitant with
these demographic changes among women were growing economic independence,
increased public visibility, and higher political consciousness. Nevertheless, sexism
was the norm and women-oriented education, at least in the United States, was ideally
for “republican motherhood” or the notion that better-educated women would make
better wives and mothers (which, incidentally, paralleled Japan’s ideology of “good
wives–wise mothers”; see below).
More specifically, women were not welcomed in institutions of higher education.
However, interestingly enough, Psychology was “among the most hospitable of the
sciences in opening graduate study to women,”30 and though male Psychologists such
as G.S. Hall, James McKeen Cattell, and William James possessed “androcentric”
views, some did challenge the sex/gender status quo. Examples of American female
Psychologists who made lasting contributions include: Margaret Floy Washburn
(1871–1939), the first woman to be granted a PhD in Psychology (1894) and researcher
of animal behavior. In 1921 she became president of the American Psychological
Association and was the second woman to be elected to the National Academy of
Sciences (in 1932). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1929), who was interested in memory
and the self, was a philosopher as well as a Psychologist. She became president of the
American Psychological Association in 1905 and then president of the American
Philosophical Association in 1918. Helen Thompson Woolley (née Bradford
In Retrospect 187
Thompson; 1874–1947) studied early education, welfare, and sex differences. Leta
Stetter Hollingworth (1886–1939), who studied under E.L. Thorndike, investigated the
Psychology of women and exceptional children.31
Japanese women Psychologists

A review of the careers of Japanese women Psychologists indicates four patterns.
First, most of the Psychologists were associated with Japan’s private educational
institutions, that is, outside of the male-dominated state system of higher education.
Though women did receive a higher education of sorts at two women’s higher normal
schools―Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School32 and Nara Women’s Higher Normal
School33―they were typically not admitted to higher education. Moreover, the
graduates of these teaching-training institutions were expected to seek employment at
girls’ schools. Nevertheless, some institutions, not officially considered “universities”
(daigaku) by the authorities, were dedicated to female learning at the advanced level
(such schools, not officially recognized as universities until after the war, were suffixed
with gakkō, which in this context is translated as “college,” for example, Japan Women’s
College34). Given these institutional constraints (not to mention the restrictions in
higher education), it is remarkable that a number of Japanese women were able to not
only receive advanced training (some overseas) but also make significant contributions.
Indeed, note that in his 2003 dictionary of Japanese Psychologists, Ōizumi lists 786
biographical entries. Remarkably, I was only able to find twenty-one women (2.67
percent).35
A second pattern concerns how most women Psychologists focused on child,
developmental, and educational Psychology. This strongly suggests that women
were encouraged, whether overtly or in an unsaid, implied manner, to pursue topics
concerning nurturing or maternal sentiments that females supposedly appreciate
more readily than males. A third pattern is apparent in how many female Japanese
Psychologists began their student careers by learning about foreign languages rather
than the natural sciences. A final pattern is that their overseas studies took place in the
United States rather than Europe.
Snapshot Good wives–wise mothers

Women, as “good wives–wise mothers” (ryōsai kenbo) came under the state's
bureaucratic gaze and it is worth noting how, via organizations and policies, the
Japanese state attempted to configure women’s Psychology. In prewar times, there
were several nationwide women's organizations under different ministries. For
example, the Women's Patriotic Association (Aikoku Fujin-kai), established by
Okumura Ioko in 1901, was under the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry
of Welfare. The Greater Japan Women's National Defense Association (Dai Nippon
Kokubō Fujin-kai), established in 1932, was under the Ministries of the Army and
the Navy. The Greater Japan Federation of Women's Groups (Dai Nippon Rengō
Fujin-kai; founded in 1930), was under the Ministry of Education’s jurisdiction, as
was the Greater Japan Federation of Girls' Youth Groups. In June 1941, the Cabinet
set out “Guidelines for Making a New Women's Organization to Meet the Critical
Need for National Defense.” In February 1942 these groups merged to form the
Greater Japan Women's Association (Dai Nippon Fujin-kai). This group concerned
itself with teaching about the “national body” (kokutai), the importance of womanly
virtues, national defense, family life, the disciplining of youth, savings, and home
education. All adult women, through neighborhood and village associations, were
mobilized by the Greater Japan Women's Association, which was affiliated with the
Imperial Rule Assistance Association (Taisei Yokusan-kai).
Haraguchi Tsuruko: Pioneer and inspiration

The first Japanese woman to earn a PhD (1912) was Haraguchi Tsuruko.36 Born Arai
Tsuruko in Tomioka, Gunma Prefecture, on June 18, 1886,37 her short but productive
life would be tragically cut short at age twenty-nine (September 26, 1915) when
she was infected by tuberculosis. In 1902 she graduated from Gunma Prefectural
Girls’ Higher School,38 and after studying English literature, Haraguchi graduated
in 1906 from Nihon Joshi Daigakkō (the school that would become Japan Women’s
University). While there she studied Psychology under Matsumoto Matatarō who,
being supportive of female education, encouraged her to pursue studies overseas.39 At
her own expense, Haraguchi left for New York in 1907 to enroll in Teachers College at
Columbia University to study experimental pedagogic and experimental Psychology
under Edward L. Thorndike.40 While at Columbia she also studied under Robert S.
Woodworth41 and James M. Cattell. Five years after beginning her graduate studies,
she completed her dissertation, which explored mental fatigue (especially as it related
to higher intelligence) and was awarded a PhD. That same year she wedded Haraguchi
Takejirō (1882–1951), a future Waseda University professor. Before returning to Japan
in 1912, she traveled throughout Europe.
In 1912 she returned to Japan and suggested that Japan Women’s University
establish an experimental Psychology program and aided in the establishment of a
Psychology laboratory at the same school. In addition to mental fatigue, Haraguchi was
also interested in educational Psychology and measurements for mental tests. In 1914
she published Shin-teki Sagyō oyobi Hirō no Kenkyū (Research on Mental Work and
Fatigue)42 and one year after her death her memoirs of her days at Columbia University
were compiled in Tanoshiki Omoide (Happy Memories).
Mibai Sugi: American connections

During her career Mibai Sugi would travel to the United States three times. She was
born on April 9, 1891, in what was called at the time Tsushi Village, in Tsuna
In Retrospect 189
County, Hyōgo Prefecture.43 After graduating from Baika Women’s College44 (1910),
she entered Kobe Women’s College45 where she studied English and completed her
studies in 1915 and for one year taught at the latter institution. Then she traveled to
the United States to study at Mills College in California from where she would obtain
a BA in 1919. She came back to Kobe Women’s College to teach, but returned to the
United States and obtained an MA (“Reading and Retention”) from the University
of Michigan in 1921. Nine years later she would be awarded a PhD in experimental
Psychology from the same university for her dissertation “An Experimental Study of
Apparent Movement.” She then apprenticed in the field of mental health at Western
Reserve University. In 1931 she became a professor at Kobe Women’s University, but
in 1944 she resigned from her teaching position and worked briefly for the Sumitomo
Aluminum Smelting Company. After the war she became an advisor for the Education
Division in the military administration in Hyōgo Prefecture and in 1948 was elected
to the education board of Hyōgo Prefecture (until 1952). In 1949 she became president
of Baika Academy and in 1956 resigned this position to teach at the Academy’s junior
college.46 She died on May 25, 1969.
Kubo Tsuyako: A woman of firsts

Kubo Tsuyako was a woman of “firsts”: she was the first graduate of Psychology at
Tōhoku Imperial University; she was the first woman to major in Psychology; and just
as impressive, she was also the first female Psychologist to graduate from an imperial
institution.47 She made many contributions to child and educational Psychology
(Table E.1).
Kubo Tsuyako (née Kurose Tsuya) was born on January 2, 1893 in Tokyo. After
graduating from Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School, she worked at this institution’s
attached kindergarten and edited Child Education (Yōji Kyōiku), the journal of the
Japan Kindergarten Association.48
After Kubo received her BA in 1926 (her graduation thesis was “Research on
Cognitive Functions in Infants from the Viewpoint of the Psychology of Thinking”49),
she entered graduate school at Tōhoku Imperial University. In 1927 she became an
assistant principal of Hokusei Girl’s School in Sapporo, Hokkaido Prefecture. She then
Table E.1 Major publications of Kubo Tsuyako
Japanese title English translation

Jidō no Sōzō to Sono Kyōiku The Imagination of Children and Their Education, 1924
(under Kurose)
Wagako no Shinri―Iroiro no The Psychology of Our Children―Different Characteristics
Seishitsu to Tadashii Shitsukekata and the Correct Way to Raise Children, 1926 (under Kurose)
Yōnen Shōnen Aonen no Kokoro The Mind of Children, Youth and Adolescents, 1935
Jidō Shinrigaku―Yōnen Jidai Child Psychology―Childhood, 1949
Kyōyō ni tsuite On Learning, 1951
became an instructor at Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School and taught at Miyagi
Academy in Sendai. In 1941, she was employed as head of the curriculum department
at Ōin Academy in Tokyo. Six years later she took a professorship at Tokyo Kasei
Professional School,50 and then in 1950, began teaching at Tokyo Kasei Gakuin Junior
College.51 Kubo died on May 3, 1969.52
Kōra Tomi: Social activist and internationalist

The funeral for Haraguchi Tsuruko was held at Japan Women’s College (Nihon Joshi
Daigakkō). A young female student, Wada Tomi, was in attendance. Deeply moved by
Prof. Haraguchi’s premature death and impressed with her academic achievements,
the student decided to follow in Haraguchi’s footsteps and would also be encouraged
by Matsumoto Matatarō. The student would eventually travel to the United States and
research the physiology of hunger, developmental Psychology and women’s education.
But she also made important achievements outside the academy, for example, she
took unpopular stands during the war; won a seat in the House of Councilors in the
first election in which women were allowed to vote and run as candidates (1947);
contributed to Sino–Japan economic relations; and was awarded the Order of the
Sacred Treasure in 1977.
Kōra (née Wada) Tomi was born on July 1, 1896, in Takaoka, Toyama Prefecture.
She studied English literature at Japanese Women’s College and graduated in 1917.
That same year she traveled to Columbia University to study educational Psychology.
In 1920 she received her MA. Encouraged by Thorndike, she went to John Hopkins
University in order to conduct experimental Psychology under J.B. Watson and C.P.
Richter (1894–1988). In 1922 she received her doctorate (“An Experimental Study of
Hunger in its Relation to Activity”) from Columbia University.
When Kōra returned to Japan, she became an assistant in the clinical psychiatry
laboratory at Kyūshū Imperial University’s Department of Medicine. Her promotion
to associate professor met with resistance because she was unmarried (note that her
students were all single men). Not one to brook such inequality, after consulting with
Matsumoto Matatarō she resigned from the university in 1927 and returned to her alma
mater that had been upgraded to a university (i.e., Japan Women’s University) where
she was made professor. Two years later she married the psychiatrist Kōra Takehisa.
From 1933 she also taught at Teikoku Women’s Medical and Pharmacy School.53 At
the same school she concurrently was director of the Domestic Science Research
Laboratory.54 In 1939 Kōra became an executive board member of the Japan Applied
Psychology Association. In 1940 she became the women’s delegate to Provisional
Central Cooperation Council55 of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association56 and
would advocate the establishment of a women’s bureau for the latter organization.
In 1942 she resigned from Japanese Women’s University because she disagreed with
how workers were mobilized for the war effort.
Kōra is well known for her contributions to world peace. In 1920 she attended the
third meeting of the Women’s International Peace and Freedom Confederation57 and
participated in an international economic conference in Moscow in 1952. The following
In Retrospect 191
year she helped negotiate the repatriation of Japanese residing in China and formed the
Japanese Women’s Community Joint Association58 and served as its Vice President. That
same year she became a director of the International Women’s Psychology Association59
and over the years would participate in numerous overseas peace conferences. Kōra
passed away on January 17, 1993.60
Hatano Isoko: Organizer and welfare activist

Hatano Isoko, a specialist in developmental and child Psychology, was an extremely
prolific writer and would received many prizes and honors during the course of her
productive career, including the 8th Mainichi Award for her 1954 book Yōji no Shinri
(Child Psychology), Educational Performance Award (1972), Order of the Precious
Crown (1976), and Child Welfare Work Performance Award (1977). Her 1950
Shōnenki (Childhood) was a bestseller (more than 300,000 were sold) and was made
into a movie by director Kinoshita Keisuke in 1951.61
Hatano (née Hatakeyama) Isoko was born on March 31, 1906, in Tokyo.62
She would attend a high school attached to Japan Women’s College. In 1927 she
graduated from the latter institution where she studied English and then became
an English instructor at Women’s Economic Professional School.63 Influenced by
Matsumoto Matatarō, she decided to study Psychology and from 1928 until 1937,
she worked under the guidance of Onojima Usao at the Child Research Institute at
Japan Women’s University. Meanwhile, she would marry Hatano Kanji in 1930, a
specialist in child Psychology, Psychology of literature and audiovisual education.
In 1936 she attended “elective courses” (senka) in the Psychology Department at
Tokyo Bunrika University and the following year became an assistant researcher
in Psychology and an educational counselor at the same university. In 1948 she
became a graduate student at Nihon University and worked on the educational staff
of the Aiiku Society.64 In 1953 she became an associate professor at Tōyō University
and in 1956 received her doctorate from Nihon University. Her dissertation was
called “The Development of Infants and Home Education” (“Yōji no Hattatsu to
Katei Kyōiku”).
In addition to her writing accomplishments, she was also a gifted organizer. In 1960
she established and headed the Japan Child Research Institute;65 meanwhile, until
1971, she was professor of Kunitachi College of Music. In 1963 she set up the Haha
no Gakuen (Mothers’ Academy) and became its director.66 The following year she
established and headed the Japan Family Welfare Association.67 Hatano passed away
on September 15, 1978.
Kamiya Mieko: Searching for the meaning of life

A clinical psychiatrist and talented linguist (she would teach French literature)
known for her translations of philosophical works, Kamiya Mieko’s writings focused
on existential questions inspired by her work with those suffering from leprosy. She
would work at the (National) Nagashima Aiseien Sanatorium for leprosy patients
(where she contracted tuberculosis herself)68 and devoted herself to those suffering
from Hansen’s disease and studied its psychological aspects. Among her many works
is Ikigai ni tsuite (On What Makes Our Life Worth Living, 1966).
Kamiya Mieko was born on January 12, 1914, in Okayama Prefecture. Due to
the work of her father, Maeda Tamon,69 a politician and diplomat, she lived in
Geneva until 1926. There she attended an elementary school headed by Jean
Piaget. In 1935 she graduated from Tsuda English School.70 Three years late she
enrolled in Columbia University in order to prepare for a medical career. In 1941
she transferred to Tokyo Women’s Medical Vocational School,71 from which she
graduated three years later. From 1944 to 1949 she was a student of psychiatry
at University of Tokyo, where she trained under Uchimura Yūshi. In 1946 she
married Kamiya Noburō who taught at the University of Tokyo. In 1952 she
accompanied her husband (who had been transferred) to the Kansai region and
became a psychiatric researcher at Ōsaka University. Meanwhile, she became an
associate professor of Kobe College in 1954 and five years later was promoted
to associate professor. From 1957 to 1972 she worked at the Nagashima Aiseien
Sanatorium and from 1965 to 1967, she was its director of psychiatry. In 1960
Osaka University awarded her a medical degree. Her academic dissertation was
“Psychiatric research on Hansen’s Disease” (“Rai no Seishin Igaku-teki Kenkyū”).
From 1959 she taught at Kobe College,72 and in 1963 worked as a professor at
Tsuda College.73 Kamiya passed away on October 22, 1979.
Other Japanese women Psychologists

It is worth briefly mentioning a few more Japanese female Psychologists born before
1950 (Table E.2). Kume Kyoko specialized in child and educational Psychology and
contributed to developmental and cognitive Psychology. She was born on June 1, 1906,
in Tokyo. After graduating from Japan Women’s College74 where she studied domestic
science and pedagogy, she traveled to the United States and entered graduate school
at the University of Chicago to study Psychology (until 1931). Then, after spending
time as a researcher in Psychology at University of Tokyo, she became an instructor
at what is now Japan Women’s University, where she was eventually promoted to
professor.75 She was awarded her doctorate in 1962 from Tōhoku Imperial University
for her dissertation on “Systematic Research on Size Homeostasis” (“Ōkisa no Kōjōsei
Soshiki-teki Kenkyū”). She died on September 5, 1990.
Kobayashi Sae contributed to educational and social Psychology.76 She was born
on July 21, 1913, in Shizuoka Prefecture. In 1934 she graduated from Nara Women’s
Higher Normal School where she studied literature.77 She entered Tokyo Bunrika
University, where she majored in Psychology and received her BA in 1937 and then
became an instructor―and later a professor―at Tokyo Women’s Normal School.78 In
1940 she became an assistant at Tokyo Bunrika University and majored in physiology
at Tokyo Imperial University. Four years later she became a researcher in Psychology
at the latter institution. In 1945 she took a part-time instructorship at Tokyo Women’s
Medical Vocational School. Eventually she would become a professor at Jissen Women’s
In Retrospect 193
University. In 1984 she became president of the Japanese Psychological Association.

She died on July 20, 2002.
Oka Hiroko was interested in infant development and child Psychology and was
particularly interested in expression and mother–child interaction. She helped establish
the Department of Psychology at Seishin Women’s University. Oka was born on
July 20, 1917, in Saga Prefecture. She graduated from Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal
School where she studied Japanese literature and in 1942 received her BA from Tokyo
Bunrika University in education and Psychology. Seven years later she completed her
graduate studies at the same institution. She then became an instructor at the Tokyo
Metropolitan Higher Kindergarten Teacher Academy79 and in 1950 began to teach at
Wayō Women’s University. By 1955 she was a professor at Seishin Women’s University.
In 1970 she published Nyūji-ki no Hattatsu (Development in Early Childhood). In 1986
she was made president of the Japan Family Life Association80 and four years later
became director of the University Seminar House Foundation.81 She passed away on
April 29, 1998.
Table E.2 Japanese women Psychologists
Name Specialization in Major University/College

Psychology Affiliation
Akitani Tatsuko (1923–) Clinical Psychology, Juntendō
Psychiatry
Akiyama Satoko (1923–92) Writer, Depth Psychology Ochanomizu Women’s, Komazawa,
Tōyō
Asami Chizuko (1919–) Developmental Naruto University of Education,
Psychology, Infant Seitoku
Behavior
Hoashi Kiyoko (1920–) Character and Jōsai
Developmental
Psychology
Ikeda Yoshiko (1924–) Child Psychiatry Seitoku, Tōyō
Kashiwagi Keiko (1932–) Developmental Tōkyō Women’s, Shirayuri
Psychology, Family
Marui Sumiko (1924–) Personality, Clinical Aichi, Gifu
Miyamoto Misako (1928–) Developmental, Nihon Women’s
Achievement Motivation
Shinagawa Takako (1922–) Child, Home Education (Taiwa Gakuen) St. Cecilia Women’s
Junior
Terada Hiroko (1946–77) Early Childhood (Kobe) Shinwa Women’s
Shirai Tsune (1910–99) Developmental Seishin Women’s
Yamakawa Noriko (1910–90) Developmental Kobe College, Seiwa Women’s
Figure 1 Title page of Motora Yūjirō’s Ethics (Rinrigaku, 1893). By author.

In Retrospect 195
Figure 2 Title page of Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology of Our Day
(Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913). By author.
Figure 3 Title page of Motora Yūjirō’s Collection of Essays (Ronbun-shū, 1909). By author.
In Retrospect 197
Figure 4 Title page of Matsumoto Matatarō’s Lectures on Psychology (Shinrigaku Kōwa,

1924). By author.
Figure 5 Title page of Motora Yūjirō’s Outline of Psychology (Shinrigaku Kōyō, 1907). By
author.
In Retrospect 199
Figure 6 Motora Yūjirō. From Fukurai Tomokichi’s Dr. Motora and the Psychology of Our
Day (Motora Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 1913).
Appendix 1
The Flow of Global Knowledge:

Japan at the Crossroads
Going abroad to seek knowledge
In the last days of the Tokugawa period, the authorities had already begun sending
students abroad. Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835–1901), one of the greatest thinkers of the
Meiji period who advocated Westernization and founded Keiōgijuku (later to become
present-day Keiō University), accompanied the Japanese mission to the United States
in 1860 and Europe in 1862. Through works such as Seiyō Jiyō (Western World, 1867),
which presented basic descriptions of Western school systems, he exposed Japanese
to what were then considered “modern” and “enlightened” thinking on education and
other matters.
In 1862, the Shogunate dispatched fifteen students to the Netherlands on first
officially approved foreign study program. In 1865, six students were sent to Russia
and in 1866 twelve went to England. Two more groups were sent to France in 1867.
In addition to these Shogunate-sanctioned missions, various domains also sent
students abroad. Important examples include Itō Hirobumi (eventually to become
one of the most important leaders of the Meiji period; 1841–1909), who was sent to
England by the Chōshū Domain and Mori Arinori (another important Meiji leader
and the first education minister), who had been sent to England and the United States
by the Statsuma Domain.1 On February 11, 1871, the “Regulations Concerning Study
Abroad” (“Kaigai Ryūgaku Kisoku”) was promulgated by the Grand Council. This
order made the university responsible for overseas study, and the university’s Southern
and Eastern Colleges sent many students abroad. While in Washington as the chargé
d’affaires of the Japanese Legation, Mori Arinori sent letters, dated February 3, 1872,
to presidents of all prominent educational institutions in the United States to gather
their opinions: “What are the effects of education—(1) Upon the material prosperity of
a country? (2) Upon its commerce? (3) Upon its agricultural and industrial interests?
(4) Upon the social, moral and physical conditions of the people? (5) Upon the laws
and government?”2
In addition to importing foreign knowledge and personnel into Japan, Japanese
were sent overseas to collect useful information.3 This started even before the Meiji
Restoration. The Bansho shirabesho (Office for Investigating Barbarian Documents),
which was under the control of the Shogunate and translated foreign books, screened
students for study in Holland (1862), Russia (1865), and Britain (1865). Many of the first
to study abroad were young samurai, motivated by a “strong national consciousness.”4
202 Appendix 1
Itō Hirobumi, dispatched abroad by the domain of Chōshū Domain, said that “we were
purchased as capital to become living weapons of war in the future.”5 As an indication
of their strong national identity, one should note that among the students who studied
overseas, the vast majority eventually returned to Japan.6 Though in the beginning
many overseas students had a samurai background, eventually students dispatched
abroad were drawn from all classes.
In addition to the Shogunate, many domains sent students overseas, who were
called ryūgakusei (those sent for shorter periods were called “observers” or shisatsu).
In 1866, the Shogunate lifted its formal ban on overseas study.7 From 1868 to 1874,
most overseas students journeyed to the United States (209). Others were dispatched to
Great Britain (168), Germany (82), France (60), Russia, China, Austria, Belgium, Hong
Kong, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. From 1875 to 1897, most of the 159
students sent abroad by the Department of Education/Monbushō went to Germany,
Great Britain, France, and the United States.8
Gradually, the authorities tightened the administrative leash on overseas study.
In 1869, in its first attempt to impose order, the state began to register overseas
students and it sent students abroad under official auspices. The “Nine Rules
of Conduct” explicitly stated that overseas study was for Japan and not for the
individual’s sake. Future leaders Yamagata Aritomo (1838–1922; prime minister,
modernizer of the army and local government) and Saigō Tsugumichi (1843–1902;
secretary of education, May 24, 1878–December 24, 1878) were the first officially
sponsored students. In 1870 an edict encouraged the nobility to study overseas
in order to become “models for the people.” In January 1871, another edict made
the overseas dispatch of students state policy and formalized the selection process,
determined periods of stay, identified subjects to be studied, estimated expenses,
and established a supervisory system. “According to the 1871 edict, before departure
students were to pay a visit to a Shintō shrine in their native place, to consume a cup
of sacred sake and to vow that they would never disgrace their country while they
were abroad.”9
The authorities gave some administrative order to overseas study through the
“Regulations Concerning Study Abroad” (February 11, 1871), and by 1875 the
Department of Education began to award loan scholarships which continued
until the outbreak of the Second World War. In 1873, the authorities ordered
state-supported students home due to a perceived decline in quality, budgeting
limitations, and charges of favoritism toward powerful domains. In 1875,
the Department of Education issued additional regulations, which stipulated that
loans were to be repaid by working for a number of years in designated employment.10
By 1940, the Ministry of Education had sent a total of 3,168 students abroad.
In line with the growing nationalism of the early 1880s, there was a gradual
indigenization of the state-authorized higher education system. In 1877, the year the
University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Science was founded, only four out of sixteen were
occupied by Japanese (and one of these posts was not a regular position). By 1877,
two foreigners held positions, and by 1893, there were no foreigners in the Faculty of
Science. At Tokyo Imperial University in 1881, Japanese was made the official language
of instruction, and in 1893 it was decided that only Japanese could receive the title
Appendix 1 203
of professor.11 Remarkably, Japan weaned itself from foreign dependence in only

fifteen to twenty years and, increasingly, foreign advisers changed from performing
“decision-making” to “decision-conditioning” tasks.12 By 1880 the “central role in
the modernization of governmental, technological and academic affairs had been
transferred to the hands of Japanese.” As Japanese students began to return to Japan,
many foreign instructors were dismissed from their teaching positions.13 As additional
evidence of the indigenization of Japanese education, as early as the late 1880s the
international community began to recognize the scholarly achievements of Kitao Jirō
(meteorology), Nagaoka Hantarō (physics), and Kitazato Shibasaburō (bacteriology).
Importing foreign knowledge: “Honorable foreign menial hirelings”
Even before the Meiji Restoration, Japanese were making use of foreign expertise.
From 1854 until April 1868, there were about 200 foreigners teaching various
technical, medical, and language studies, chiefly for the Shogunate. The attitude toward
these foreigners was in no small measure utilitarian. In 1862, a Japanese charged with
purchasing machinery from abroad commented that “not a dead machine but a live
machine is what I am thinking of.” Some years later, Francis Piggot (in Japan 1887–
91), an adviser to Itō Hirobumi on constitutional law, described foreign employees of
the Japanese state as “living books of reference.” The employment of foreigners (and
the introduction of foreign capital) was not particularly desired by the Meiji leaders.
The Japanese “wanted foreign technology without the foreigner.”14 But given their
eagerness to modernize, they found the employment of foreign advisers expedient
and the Japanese state took the utilization of foreigners seriously—the Department
of Foreign Affairs issued “Instructions for Hiring Foreigners”15 in 1870—and devoted
a considerable amount of its scarce resources to their employment. In 1873, the
Department of Education was spending about 21 percent of its entire budget on
foreign instructors (it devoted 19 percent of its budget to Japanese sent abroad).16 From
July 1876 to June 1877, expenditures for foreign advisers and instructors accounted for
2.3 percent of the ordinary state budget.
Foreign employees were referred to as oyatoi gaikokujin (honorable foreign menial
or hireling), many of whom worked in an official capacity. Shi yatoi were those who
were privately hired and oyatoi kyōshi (hired teacher).17 In any given year of the Meiji
period, there were approximately 8,000 foreigner employees, half of whom were
Chinese day laborers, though no more than 3,000 (if not less) were in the service of the
state.18 As for the latter, “it is important to realize that a Japanese official held each of
the administrative positions at the same time and the foreign employee of every rank
worked under a Japanese supervisor who held the ultimate power of decision.”19 Foreign
employees of the state were treated commensurate with the top three levels of Japanese
officials. Most were given treatment corresponding to the lowest rank, a few to the
middle rank, and only one, Horace Capron (1867–71), to the highest level.20 However,
to maintain the Japanese/non-Japanese distinction, official rank was not actually
conferred on foreigners. From 1868 to 1900 the Department of Education/Monbushō
employed 367 foreign employees, mostly from the United States (105), Germany (93),
204 Appendix 1
Great Britain (86), France (39), and Holland (12),21 making it the second largest state
organ employer of foreigners (the Department of Industry [Kōbushō] employed the
most [825]).22
The foreign employees were an assorted lot. In the sphere of education, there were
“instant professors,” “those who happened to be in the right place at the right time”
(even today, many unqualified foreigners, especially in language instruction, can
become professors at some Japanese universities). When Guido F. Verbeck (see below)
came to work in what would evolve into the University of Tokyo in 1869, “he began an
immediate housecleaning by ridding the rolls of ex-butchers, drunk and sober sailors,
braumeisters and other ‘honorable frauds’ drawn from the open port. The school had
been referred to by other foreign residents as a ‘camp of vagrants.’”23
In addition to well-known “old Japan hands” such as Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850–
1935; in Japan 1873–1911), Ernest F. Fenollosa (1853–1908; in Japan 1878–90, 1896),
and Lafcadio Hearn (Koizumi Yakumo; 1850–1904), there were many other lesser-
known but just as historically significant figures who devoted themselves to helping
Japan modernize.24 William Elliot Griffis was an American teacher from Rutgers
University who lived in Japan from 1870 to 1874. He worked in the Fukui Domain
academy (Meishinkan), taught physics and chemistry at the Nankō (forerunner of the
University of Tokyo), advised Meiji leaders, and wrote numerous books on Japan and
its history. He also described in colorful detail the lives of oyatoi gaikokujin.25 David
Murray (1830–1905; in Japan 1873–79), appointed the superintendent of educational
affairs, submitted his suggestions for educational administration in “A Superintendent’s
Draft Revision of the Japanese Code of Education” (“Gakkan Kōan Nihon Kyōiku-hō,”
1877), which was used as a reference by Tanaka Fujimarō, an important Department
of Education official. He also helped prepare An Outline History of Education in
Japan, the first official Japanese history of education.26 Guido F. Verbeck (1830–98),
an American missionary born in Holland, taught in a school in Nagasaki from 1864
to 1869 and was made principal of the Daigaku Nankō. He was also asked to help
reorganize what would become the University of Tokyo. He was an adviser to the Meiji
leaders and assisted in sending off the Iwakura Mission of 1871. He also helped write
“Regulations for Contracts for the Employment of Teachers” (“Kyōshi Yatoire Jōyaku
Kisokusho”) (for foreigners). Many other foreign experts helped the Japanese set up
their exhibitions at world fairs; for example, Paris (1867), Philadelphia (1876), New
Orleans (1885), Chicago (1893), and St. Louis (1904).27
Other foreign employees made important contribution in the field of law, and
some were made “special advisers” (komon). Erastus Peshine Smith (in Japan 1871–
76) was the first adviser on international law. Georges Bousquet (in Japan 1872–76),
Emile Gustave Boissonade (in Japan 1873–95), and Albert Mosse (in Japan 1886–90)
also were key figures. Hermann Roesler (1834–94; in Japan 1878–93) helped in the
preparations of the new constitution. The American Henry Willard Denison (1846–
1914; in Japan 1860–1914) worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is noted
for efforts in the revision of the unequal treaties. Denison also advised the Japanese
on the peace conference after the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95) and was consulted
during the Russo–Japanese War (1904–5). His contributions were greatly appreciated
and he was the only oyatoi gaikokujin to receive the Order of the Rising Sun, First
Appendix 1 205
Class (with Paulownia Flowers). Horace Capron (in Japan 1867–71) was an American
adviser to Japan’s Hokkaidō colonization commission. William Smith Clark (in Japan
1876–77), from the University of Massachusetts, was a technical adviser, educator,
missionary, and president of a new college in Hokkaidō. His legacy is still honored
today. The Americans Edward Sylvester Morse (in Japan 1877–79, 1882) introduced
modern biology, Darwinism, anthropology, and archaeology into Japan, and G. B.
Williams (in Japan 1871–75) and Samuel Bryan (in Japan 1881–87) devoted their
energies to currency issues and the postal system. From Great Britain came Richard
Henry Brunton (in Japan 1868–78) for public works and lighthouses, Archibald
Lucius Douglas (in Japan 1873–79) for naval affairs, Thomas William Kinder (in Japan
1870–75) for minting, and William W. Cargill for railways. Other oyatoi gaikokujin
include Erwin Knipping (in Japan 1871–91), who helped open the field of weather
observation; William Ayrton (in Japan 1873–78), who introduced electricity to
Japan; and John Milne, who did seismological research in Japan from 1876 to 1885.
The Prussians Theodor Hoffman and Leopold Müller taught at the Medical School
(Daigaku Tōkō) (to become part of the University of Tokyo). Müller would become
head teacher of the Medical School.
App e ndix 2
The Importation of Techno-Scientific

Modernity into Japan
The impact of science and technology defines modernity. “Science became more
than simply an accumulation of ordered information. It became an engine of human
perfectibility, a force of history,” and governments “called on science to legitimate
themselves as often as they called on God.”1 Though popular perceptions view the
development of science and technology as inherently teleological (as if they evolved in
the same manner as organisms), their progress resulted from social, not natural, factors.
Political ambitions, economic interests, cultural tendencies, religious aspirations, and
other human factors all play their part in the development of science and technology.
Late-nineteenth-century Japan illustrates this.2
The recognition by the Japanese elite in the mid-nineteenth century that much of
Western political and economic might rested upon science and technology was a key
factor in initiating the Meiji Restoration and played a salient role in their attempts at
nation-state building. This is indicated in the Fifth Article of the Charter of Oath Five
Articles (March 14, 1868): “Knowledge shall be sought from the whole world and the
foundation of the Empire is always to be strengthened.”3 Indeed, it can be stated that
“Higher education in the Meiji period was virtually synonymous with westernization
or internationalization.”4 But despite the politicized nature of science and its pursuit,
it is worth noting that “By the end of the nineteenth century, Japanese scientists were
making original, world-class contributions to the sciences.”5
The calculated, deliberate, and systematic importation of foreign technologies and
ideas for the nation-state’s benefit, what may be termed “import internationalization,”6
became deeply implicated in the principal projects of the Meiji state: modernization,
progressivist thinking, “civilization and enlightenment” (bunmei kaika), elite
didacticism, “building up the country through technology” (gijutsu rikkoku), and the
propagation of “statefulness” throughout society. “Import internationalization” was
not (and is not) a simple case of introduction of things from abroad. Burks notes it
involved a plethora of processes—contact, permeation, selective influence, imitation,
acceptance, alteration, modification, rejection, cultural change—which characterized
the impact and importation of foreign scientific and cultural influences.7 Or, more
simply, there was a purposeful “Japanization” of imports.8 The current Science and
International Affairs Bureau is notable in how it brings together and places under
one jurisdiction science and international affairs, presumably because science (i.e.,
Appendix 2 207
technology) has traditionally been associated with things foreign and has come from
overseas. The linking of technology with the importation of knowledge resonates
with Samuels’ view of Japan’s “technonationalism” and “nation-building through
technological development” (gijutsu rikkoku).9 From the very beginning, the authorities
adopted a remarkably practical, indeed, almost mercantilist, attitude toward the uses
of science. Knowledge from abroad was regarded as something to be merely translated
and then applied to the nationalist project of building a strong Japan.10 Erwin Baelz,
who taught physiology at the University of Tokyo (1876–77), stated as follows:
The Japanese people regard science as a kind of machine which yearly performs a
prescribed amount of work and can easily be transferred to any place to have it kept
working there. This is a mistake. The western scientific world is not a machine at
all, but it is an organism, for the growth of which a certain climate and atmosphere
are necessary as is true with the case of all other organisms.11
In order to push forward Japan’s crash course in national–state building, practical

and scientific knowledge was to be gathered from abroad on how to “catch up with
the West.” This was done in two ways: by sending Japanese students on study missions
overseas to other societies and by inviting non-Japanese mentors to teach in Japan.
Beginning in the Meiji period, slogans such as “Japanese spirit, Western skills” (wakon
yosai) and “Eastern morality, Western technology” (tōyō dōtoku, seiyō gijutsu) have
reflected a mentality in which overseas technology was imported for nation-state
building and, presumably, securing the position of domestic elites.
Much of the introduction and development of technology was directed by the
Department of Industry. This state organ established the Engineering Grand School
(Kōbu Daigakkō) in 1877, which was involved in iron manufacturing, shipbuilding,
and military technology. In 1885 the Department of Industry was dismantled and its
Engineering Grand School was placed under the authority of the Ministry of Education,
and then one year later it was incorporated into the University of Tokyo (later the
Imperial University). Other state agencies concerned with science and technology
were the Hydrography Department (1874), Tokyo Institute of Hygienic Sciences
(1875), Tokyo Meteorological Observatory (1875), Geological Survey Institute (1878),
Board of Statistics (1884), Land Survey Department (1884), Tokyo Astronomical
Observatory (1888), the Geodesy Committee (with linkages to the Tokyo Astronomical
Observatory) (1898), the Electric Laboratory (1891), and the Tokyo Academy, later
called the Imperial Academy (1879). The promulgation of the Tokyo Academy Order
(Tōkyō Gakushikaiin kitei) in October 1890 enlarged this institution.
App e ndix 3
Key Japanese Translations, Interpretations,

and Summaries of Psychology-Related Works:
1875–1950
Year Translator Japanese Translation Original Work or Source/

(English Title)* Notes
1875 Nishi Amane Shinrigaku 1 (Psychology 1) Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy
Shinrigaku 2 (Psychology 2) Including Intellect, Sensibilities,
and Will (1857)
1876 Nishi Amane Shinrigaku 3 (Psychology 3) Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy
Including Intellect, Sensibilities,
and Will (1857)
1877 Nishi Amane Rigaku (Utilitarianism) John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism
(1863)
1878 Nishi Amane J osēfu—Heben-cho Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy
Shinrigaku-jō (Psychology of Including Intellect, Sensibilities,
Joseph Haven’s Psychology 1) and Will (1857)/Popular name:
Heben-shi Shinrigaku
1879 Nishi Amane J osēfu—Heben-cho Joseph Haven’s Mental Philosophy
Shinrigaku-ka (Psychology of Including Intellect, Sensibilities,
Joseph Haven’s Psychology 2) and Will (1857)
1882 Inoue Tetsujirō Bein Shinri Shinsetsu Probably Alexander Bain’s
(Explanation of Bain’s New Mental Science (1868)/Abridged
Theory of Psychology) translation
1883 Inoue Tetsujirō Bein-shi Shinri Shinsetsu Probably Alexander Bain’s Mental
(reviser) and Asō Shakugi (Commentary Science (1868)
Shigeo (editor) on New Theory of Bain’s
Psychology)
Isawa Shūji Shinka Genron (Principles of Thomas Henry Huxley
Evolution)
1884 Tsuboi Senjirō Shinri Yōryaku (Outline of Selections from Nishi Amane’s
Psychology) translation
Appendix 3 209

1886 Matsushima Bein Shinri Zensho (Bain’s Alexander Bain’s Mental and
Tsuyoshi, Tanaka Psychology: Complete Set) Moral Science (1884)
Tōsaku, Satō Kisei,
and Hashimoto
Takeshi
Yajima Kinzō Bein-shi cho Shinrigaku Alexander Bain’s Mental and
(Bain’s Psychology) Moral Science (1884)
Abo Tomoichirō Shinri Kōyō (Outline of Alexander Bain’s Mental Science
(editor) and Ise Tsu Psychology) (1868)/Used by normal school
students
1887 Morimoto Kakuya Shintai Sōkan no Ri Alexander Bain’s Mind and Body:
and Tanimoto The Theories of Their Relation
Tomeri (1874)
1888 Waku Masatatsu Sa-shi Ōyō shinrigaku (The James Sully’s Teachers Handbook
Applied Psychology of Sully) of Psychology on the Basis of the
Outlines of Psychology (1886)
1889 Yajima Kinzō Futsū Shinrigaku (Popular From James M. Baldwin
Psychology)
1894 Tanaka Jiroku Shinrigaku-shi (History of From Théodule-Armand Ribot
Psychology)
1897 Kamiya Shirō Shinrigaku (Psychology) From Johann Friedrich Herbart
1900 Motora Yūjirō and Vunto-shi Shinrigaku Gairon From Wilhelm Wundt
Nakajima Taizō (Introduction to Wundt’s
Psychology)
Tsukahara Ru Bon-shi Minzoku From Gustav Le Bon
Masatsugu Shinrigaku (Folk Psychology
(commentary) of Le Bon)
Fukurai Tomoichi Zēmusu-shi Shinrigaku (The From William James
Psychology of James)
Ichikawa Genzō Ribō-shi Kanjō no Shinri From Théodule-Armand Ribot
oyobi chūi no Shinri (Ribot’s
Psychology of Feelings and
Attention)
Sugiyama Tomitsuchi Morugan-shi Hikaku From C. Lloyd Morgan
Shinrigaku Joron
(Introduction to Morgan’s
Comparative Psychology)
Teichienā-shi Shinrigaku
Matsumoto Kōjirō Kōyō (Outline of Titchener’s From Edward Bradford Titchener
Psychology)
1901 Tsukahara Masatsugu Raddo-shi Shinrigaku Kōen From George Trumbull Ladd/
(Lectures on the Psychology Selections
of Ladd)
Magaki Keiai Kyōju-teki Shinrigaku From William James/Selections
(Instructional Psychology)
Sasabe Akinobu Raddo-shi Kijutsu-teki George Trumbull Ladd’s
Setsumei-teki Shinrigaku Psychology, Descriptive and
(A Descriptive Explanation of Explanatory (1899)
Ladd’s Psychology)
210 Appendix 3

1902 Fukurai Tomoichi Shinrigaku Seigi (Explanation From William James/Selections
of Psychology)
1910 Maeda Chōta Minzoku Hattatsu Shinri Gustav Le Bon’s Les Lois
(The Psychology of the psychologiques de l’évolution des
Development of Peoples) peuples (1894)
Ōyama Ikuo Gunshū Shinri (The Group Gustav Le Bon’s La psychologie
Mind) des foules (1895)
Motora Yūjirō and Seinenkino Kenkyū (Research Granville Stanley Hall’s
Nakajima Rikizō on Adolescence) Adolescence (1904)
1911 Ōse Jintarō and Hassei Shinrigaku (Genetic Charles Hubbard Judd’s Genetic
Yamamoto Gennojō Psychology) Psychology for Teachers (1903)
1913 Hoshino Yukinori Gakuri-teki Jigyō Kanri Hō Frederick Winslow Taylor’s
Principles of Scientific
Management (1911)
Honjō Seiji Shakai Shinrigaku Nyūmon William McDougall’s Introduction
to Social Psychology (1908)
Yoneda Shōtarō Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku From Wilhelm Wundt
to Yohai no Shakaigaku
(Wundt’s Folk Psychology and
Our Sociology)
1915 Watanabe Tōru Fūdo Shinrigaku (Psychology Willy Hugo Hellpach’s Die
of Climate) geopsychischen Erscheinungen
(1911)
Sudō Shinkichi Vunto no Shinrigaku From Wilhelm Wundt
(Wundt’s Psychology)
1917 Terada Seiichi Hanzainin-ron (Theory of the From Cesare Lombroso
Criminal)
1918 Kuwada Yoshizō Vunto no Minzoku From Wilhelm Wundt
Shinrigaku (Wundt’s Folk
Psychology)
1926 Yasuda Tokutarō Seishin Bunsekigaku Nyūmon From Sigmund Freud
1927 Katagami Jun Musansha Shinrigaku Jameson
1931 Watanabe Tōru Jinkakugaku Gairon From Wilhelm Louis Stern
1938 Miya Kōichi Ruijinen no Chie Shiken Wolfgang Köhler’s The Mentality
of Apes (1925)
1943 Mochizuki Mamoru Kokubō Shinrigaku Josetsu Max Simoneit’s Wehrpsychologie:
Yōron ein Abriß ihrer Probleme und
praktischen Folgerungen (1943)
1944 Saitō Ryōzō Honkaku to Seikaku Ernst Kretschmer’s Physique and
Character (1931)
1950 Imada Megumi Shinrigaku Jō, Ka (Psychology From William James
1, 2)
Source: Borrowed from Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 559–82) and Ōta (1997: 30–31) with my modifications. Note that
works related to education are listed in Appendix 4.
* My translation.
App e ndix 4
Key Educational and Child Psychology-Related

Works: 1885–1910
Year Author Work Title in English Translation

Source/Notes
1885 Tanaka Tōsaku Kyōiku Shinri Explanation of Educational
Ronri—Jutsugo Psychology and Logic
Shōkai Terminology
1886 Ariga Nagao Kyōiku Tekiyō Psychology Applied to Based on James Sully’s
Shinrigaku Jō Education 1 Outlines of Psychology
(1884); selections
from Ariga’s lecture
1888 Yumoto Shogakkō Kyōshi Outline of Psychology From Bernhard
Takehiko Yō Shinrigaku for Elementary School Maass
Tekiyō Instructor Use
1890 Motora Yūjirō Jidōgaku Kōyō Outline of Child Studies
and Takashima
Heisaburō
1891 Shibue Tamotsu Shotō Kyōiku Shō Booklet for the Psychology
Shinri-sho of Elementary Education
1891 Yumoto Gakkō Jitsuyō Psychology for Use in Bernhard Maass’s Die
Takehiko Shinrigaku Schools Psychologie in ihrer
Anwendung auf die
Schulpraxis (1887)
1892 Makise Goichirō Shinpen New Edition Psychology
Shinrigaku Lectures—Educational
Kōgi—Kyōiku Applications
Ōyō
Honjō Taichirō Jidō Shinrigaku Childhood Psychology
1893 Mine Ōyō Applied Psychology—
Koresaburō Shinrigaku— Secondary Education
Chūtō Kyōiku
Nose Sakai Kyōiku Educational Applications— Based on Gabriel
Ōyō—Kon-shi Compayré’s Psychology Compayré’s writings
Shinrigaku
1896 Hayashi Goichi Kyōiku Ōyō Educational Applied
Shinrigaku Psychology
212 Appendix 4

Source/Notes
1898 Tsukahara Kyōiku Educational Psychology
Masatsugu Shinrigaku
(editor)
Matsumoto Jidō Shinrigaku Lectures on Child
Kōjirō Kōwa Psychology
1899 Yuhara Motoichi Kyōiku-teki Educational Psychology Based on C. Lloyd
(editor) Shinrigaku Morgan’s Psychology
for Teachers (1898)
and W. O. Krohn’s
Practical Lessons in
Psychology (1895)
Matsumoto Jidō Shinrigaku The Psychology of Frederick Tracy’s
Kōjirō and Childhood The Psychology of
Takashima Childhood (1893)
Heisaburō
1900 Takashima Kyōiku-teki Educational Psychology
Heisaburō Shinrigaku
1902 Tominaga Kyōiku no Jissai Psychology Applied to
Iwatarō ni Ōyō Shitaru Practical Education
Shinrigaku
1903 Matsumoto Futsū Jidō Popular Child Psychology
Kōjirō Shinrigaku
Tsuda Motonori Yōji Shinrigaku Infant Psychology
1904 Koizumi Kyōiku-teki Educational Psychology
Mataichi Shinrigaku
1907 Mishima “Gakkō Seito “The Need for Investigating
Michiyoshi Seishin Jōtai the Mental Conditions
Kensa no of School Students” (Jidō
Hitsuyō” Kenkyū)
1908 Endō Ryūkichi Shakai Social Psychology and
Shinrigaku to Education
Kyōiku
Wakita Ryōkichi Chūi no Shinri to The Psychology of Attention
Teinōji Kyōiku and Feebleminded Children
Fukurai Kyōiku Lectures on Educational Based on William
Tomoichi Shinrigaku Kōgi Psychology James’ writings
1909 Takashima Jidō Shinri Kōwa Lectures on Child
Heisaburō Psychology
Yoshida Kumaji Jikken Advances in Experimental
Kyōikugaku no Pedagogy
Shinpo
Appendix 4 213

Source/Notes
1910 Endō Ryūkichi Danjo Seinen no The Psychology of Young
and Ichikawa Shinri Men and Women
Genzō
Miyake Kōichi “Binē-shi “Achievements Concerning
Gakurei Jidō no Binet and the Intellectual
Chiriki hatsuiku Development of School
ni Kansuru Age Children” (Kyōiku-kai)
Gyōseki”
Tsukahara Seinen Shinri Psychology of Youth
Masatsugu
1912 Motora Yūjirō Kyōiku Byōri Educational Pathology and
and Sakaki oyobi Jiryōgaku Therapeutics
Yasusaburō
1916 Miura Kanzō Hanzai to Iden— Crime and Heredity—The Based on Cesare
Kosei no Kyōiku Education of the Individual Lombroso
Source: Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 559–82) with my modifications.
App e ndix 5
Founding of Psychological Laboratories

Worldwide: 1875–1900
Location Date Founded Founder

University of Leipzig * 1875 Wilhelm Wundt
Harvard University * 1875 William James
University of Leipzig 1879 Wilhelm Wundt
Johns Hopkins University 1883 G. S. Hall
Copenhagen University 1886 A. Lehmann
Göttingen University 1887 Georg Elias Müller
Indiana University 1887 William Lowe Bryan
University of Pennsylvania 1887 James McKeen Cattell
University of Wisconsin-Madison 1888 Joseph Jastrow
Clark University 1889 Edmund Clark Sanford
McLean Asylum, Massachusetts 1889 William Noyes
Rome 1889 G. Sergi
Sorbonne 1889 H. Beaunis
University of Nebraska 1889 Harry Kirke Wolfe
University of Toronto 1890 J. M. Baldwin
University of Michigan 1890 James Hayden Tufts
Rennes 1890 B. Bourdon
University of Iowa 1890 G. T. W. Patrick
Columbia University 1890 Frank Angell
Geneva 1891 Th. Flournoy
Cambridge University 1891 J. Ward
Cornell University 1891 Frank Angell
Wellesley College 1891 Mary Whiton Calkins
Yale University 1892 Edward Wheeler Scripture
University of Chicago 1893 Charles A. Strong
Stanford University 1893 Frank Angell
Appendix 5 215
Location Date Founded Founder

Graz 1894 A. Meinong
Moscow 1895 A. Tokarsky
University of California 1896 George Malcolm Stratton
Bryn Mawr College 1898 James Henry Leuba
Northwestern University 1900 Walter Dill Scott
New York University 1900 Charles Hubbard Judd
Source: Partly borrowed from Benjamin (2000) and Harper (1950: 160).
* For classroom demonstrations; not original research.
App e ndix 6
Key Psychology-Related Japanese

Academic Journals
Publication Translated Name Years Published Notes

Rikugō Zasshi The Universe 1880–1921
Tetsugakukai Zasshi Journal of the 1887–92 Became Tetsugaku Zasshi
Philosophical Society
Tetsugaku Zasshi Philosophy Journal 1892–current
Jidō Kenkyū Child Studies 1898–44 Resumed in 1946–current
Shinkeigaku Zasshi Neurologia 1902–35 Became Seishin
Shinkeigkau Zasshi in
1935
Seishin Shinkeigkaku Psychiatria et 1935–current
Zasshi Neurologia Japonica
Shinri Kenkyū Psychological Research 1912–25
Nihon Shinrigaku Japanese Journal of 1919–23 Published at Kyōto
Zasshi Psychology Imperial University;
became Nihon Shinrigaku
Zasshi (Tōkyō Imperial
University) in 1923
Nihon Shinrigaku Japanese Journal of 1923–25 Published at Tōkyō
Zasshi Psychology Imperial University;
became Shinrigaku
Kenkyū in 1926
Shinrigaku Kenkyū Japanese Journal of 1926–44 Resumed in 1948–current
Psychology
Hentai Shinri Abnormal Psychology 1917–40
Jidō Kenkyūjo Kiyō Bulletin of Child 1918–37
Research Institute
Rōdō Kagaku Kenkyū Journal of Science of 1924–40
Labor
Kyōiku Shinri Kenkyū Studies in Educational 1926–40
Psychology
Shinrigaku Journal of Psychology 1928–38
Ronbunshū
Keijō Shinrigaku Ihō Acta Psychologica Keijō 1930–39
Appendix 6 217

Ōyō Shinri Kenkyū Japanese Journal of 1932–39
Applied Psychology
Ōyō Shinrigaku Japanese Journal of 1937–41 Became Ningen Kagaku
Kenkyū Applied Psychology in 1946
Ningen Kagaku Human Science 1946–49; 1978– Resumed in 1962, then
current intermittently published
Dōbutsu Shinri Animal Psychology 1933; discontinued
before 1940
Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Annual Report of 1944–90 Became Dōbutsu
Nenpō Animal Psychology Shinrigaku Kenkyū in
1990
Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Japanese Journal of 1990–current
Kenkyū Animal Psychology
Tōhoku Psychologia 1933–current
Folia
Seishin Bunseki Tokyo Journal of 1933–78
Psychoanalysis
Jikken Shinrigaku Japanese Journal 1933–41
Kenkyū of Experimental
Psychology
Gurūpu Dainamikusu Journal of Group 1951–62 Published irregularly
no Kenkyū Dynamics
Kyōiku • Shakai Journal of Education • 1960–71 Became Jikken Shakai
Shinrigaku Kenkyū Social Psychology Shinrigaku Kenkyū in
1971
Kyōiku Shinrigaku Japanese Journal of 1953–current
Kenkyū Educational Psychology
Japanese 1954–current
Psychological
Research
Shinrigaku Hyōron Japanese Psychological 1957–current
Review
Psychologia 1957–current
Nenpō Shakai Annual Report: Social 1960–85 Became Shakai
Shinrigaku Psychology Shinrigaku Kenkyū in
1985
Kyōiku Shinrigaku Annual Report of 1961–current
Nenpō Educational Psychology
in Japan
Hanzai Shinrigaku Japanese Journal of 1963–current
Kenkyū Criminal Pathology
Rinshō Shinri Clinical Psychology 1952–about 1960 Organ of Rinshō Shinri
Kenkyūkai (Clinical
Psychology Association)
218 Appendix 6

Rinshō Shinri Clinical Psychology 1962–66 Organ of Rinshō Shinri
Gakusha Kyōkai (Society
for Scholars of Clinical
Psychology); became
Rinshō Shinrigaku Kenkyū
in 1966
Rinshō Shinrigaku Japanese Journal of 1966–current
Kenkyū Clinical Psychology
Jikken Shakai Japanese Journal of 1971–current
Shinrigaku Kenkyū Experimental Social
Psychology
Shinri Kagaku Japanese Journal of 1977–current
Psychological Science
Shinri Rinshōgaku Journal of Japanese 1983–current
Kenkyū Clinical Psychology
Shakai Shinrigaku Research in Social 1985–current
Kenkyū Psychology
Source: Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 586–87). This list is not exhaustive and does not include a number of postwar
publications.
App e ndix 7
Key Psychology-Related Works by

Japanese: 1875–1912
Year Author Japanese Title Title in English* Notes

1871 Nishi Amane Hyakugaku Renkan Links of All Sciences
1873 Hara Tanzan Shinsei Jikken-roku Record of Experiments on
the Mind
1879 Mochizuki Kioku Kakujū-ron Expansion of Memory
Makoto
1881 Inoue Tetsujirō Testugaku Jii Glossary of Philosophy
1885 Nishimura Shingaku Kōgi Lectures on Heart–Mind Manuscript used
Shigeki Learning for lectures in
Nippon Kōdōkai
(Japan Society
for Expansion
of the Way);
revised and
expanded in
Kira Kōyō Tōyō Shinri Shoho Eastern Psychology Primer 1886
1886 Inoue Enryō Tsūshin Kyōju Instruction by
Shinrigaku Correspondence:
Psychology
Abo Tomoichirō, Shinri Kōyō Summary of Psychology
editor
1887 Inoue Enryō Shinri Tekiyō Psychology: An Outline Used in
Psychology
course in Seiritsu
Gakusha Joshi
Bu (Seiritsu
Gakusha
Women’s
Section)
1888 Motora Yūjirō “Beikoku Shinrigaku “The Current State of Appeared in
no Kinkyō” American Psychology” Meiroku Zasshi
220 Appendix 7

1889 Motora Yūjirō “Shinrigaku to “The Relation between Appeared in
Shakai no Kankei” Psychology and Society” Tetsugakkai
Zasshi
1890 Motora Yūjirō Shinrigaku Psychology
1890 Sawayanagi Shinrigaku Psychology
Masatarō
1892 Nishimura Shingaku Kōgi Lectures on Heart–Mind
Shigeki Learning (2 volumes)
Kōdera Jitsuyō Shinrigaku Applied Psychology
Shinsaku (2 volumes)
1893 Kusakabe Shinrigaku Psychology: Many
Sannosuke Hyakumon Hyakutō Questions, Many Answers
Sawayanagi Shinrigaku Psychology

Masatarō
1894 Yumoto Ōyō Shinrigaku Lectures on Monsterology
Takehiko
Inoue Enryō Yōkaigaku Kōgiroku
Sawayanagi Futsū Shinrigaku Popular Psychology
Masatarō and
Mitsuishi Shizuo
1897 Motora Yūjirō Shinrigaku Jūkai Ten Lectures on
Kōgi Psychology
Matsumoto Shinrigaku Psychology

Bunzaburō
Nakajima Taizō Futsū Shinrigaku Lectures on Psychology
Kōgi
Tanimoto Futsū Shinrigaku Collection: Popular
Tomeri Shūsei—Jōken Psychology—Volume 1
1898 Nakajima Taizō Shinrigaku Kōyō Outline of Psychology
Nakajima Rikizō Shinrigaku Satsuyō Outline of Psychology
Matsumoto Futsū Shinrigaku Lectures on Popular
Kōjirō Kōgi Psychology
1899 Yumoto Shinrigaku Shinron A New Theory of
Takehiko Psychology
1902 Hayami Hiroshi Shinrigaku Psychology
1903 Tokutani Shinrigaku Mondō Psychology—Questions
Toyonosuke and Answers
1904 Totoki Wataru Shinrigaku Kōyō Outline of Psychology
1905 Fukurai Saimin Shinrigaku Outline of the Psychology
Tomoichi Gairon of Hypnosis
Motora Yūjirō “Tōyō ni okeru Jiga “The Concept of Ego
no Gainen” in the East” (Tetsugaku
Zasshi)
Appendix 7 221

1906 Fukurai Saimin Shinrigaku The Psychology of
Tomoichi Hypnosis
Tokutani Shakai Shinrigaku Social Psychology
Toyonosuke
Higuchi Kanjirō Shakai-teki Lectures on Social
and Tominaga Shinrigaku Kōgi Psychology
Iwatarō
1907 Motora Yūjirō Shinrigaku Kōyō Outline of Psychology
Takashima “Honnō ni Kansuru “Research on Instinct”
Heisaburō Kenkyū” (Jinsei)
1908 Miyake Kōichi “Bine no tesuto wo “Introducing the Binet
and Ikeda Shōkai” Test” (Igaku Chūō Zasshi)
Takanori Gunshū Shinri no New Research on the
Tanimoto Shinkenkyū Psychology of Crowds
Tomeri
Higuchi Hideo Shakai Shinri no Research on Social
Kenkyū Psychology
1909 Kobayashi Iku Shakai Shinrigaku Social Psychology
Hirai Kinzō Shinrei no Genshō The Phenomenon of the
Spiritual
1910 Takahashi Gorō Shinrei Bannō-ron The Theory of the All-
Powerful Spirit
Kobayashi Iku Shakai Shinrigaku no Research on Social
Kenkyū Psychology
1911 Ichikawa Genzō Chinō Sokutei oyobi Intellectual Measurement
kosei no Kansatsu and the Observation of
Individuals
1912 Hirata Shinrei no Himitsu The Mystery of
Motokichi Spiritualism
Matsumoto “Seishin Dōsagaku” “Psychokinetics” (Jinsei)
Matatarō
Source: Satō and Mizoguchi (1997: 559–82) with my modifications. Note that works related to education are listed
in Appendix 4.
*My translation.
App e ndix 8
Postwar Psychology-Related Societies

and Associations
English Name Japanese Name

Association of Japanese Clinical Psychology Nihon Shinri Rinshō Gakkai
Japan Academy for Health Behavioral Science Nihon Hoken Iryō Kōdō-ka Gakkai
Japan Association of Group Psychotherapy Nihon Shūdan Seishin Ryōhō Gakkai
Japan Association of Psychoanalysis Nippon Seishin Bunseki Kyōkai
Japan Clinical Psychologist Qualification Nihon Rinshō Shinrishi Shikaku Nintei
Authorizing Association Kyōkai
Japan Industrial Counseling Association Nihon Sangyō Kānserā Kyōkai
Japan Psychoanalytic Association Nippon Seishin Bunseki Gakkai
Japan Psychoanalytic Society Nippon Seishin Bunseki Kyōkai
Japan Society of Developmental Psychology Nihon Hattatsu Shinri Gakkai
Japan Society of Stress Management Nihon Sutoresumanejimento Gakkai
Japan Society of Vocational Rehabilitation Nihon Shokugyō Rehabiritēshon Gakkai
Japanese Academy of Learning Disabilities Nihon LD Gakkai
Japanese Association for Behavior Analysis Nihon Kōdō Bunseki Gakkai
Japanese Association for Cognitive Therapy Nihon Ninchi Ryōhō Gakkai
Japanese Association for Humanistic Psychology Nihon Ningensei Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Association of Applied Psychology Nihon Ōyō Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Association of Behavior Therapy Nihon Kōdō Ryōhō Gakkai
Japanese Association of Behavioral Science Nihon Kōdō Kagaku Gakkai
Japanese Association of Counseling Science Nihon Kānseringu Gakkai
Japanese Association of Criminal Psychology Nihon Hanzai Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Association of Educational Psychology Nihon Kyōiku Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Association of Health Psychology Nihon Kenkō Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Association of Occupational Therapists Nihon Sagyō Ryōhōshi Kyōkai
Japanese Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Nihon Seishin Shōgaisha Rehabiritēshon
Gakkai
Japanese Association of Psychiatric Social Workers Nihon Seishin Hoken Fuku-shi Kyōkai
Appendix 8 223
English Name Japanese Name

Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Psychology Nihon Rehabiritēshon Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Association of Social Psychology Nihon Shakai Shinri Gakkai
Association
Japanese Association of Social Skills Training SST Fukyū Kyōkai
Japanese Association of Special Education Nihon Tokushu Kyōiku Gakkai
Japanese Association of Stress Science Nihon Sutoresu Gakkai
Japanese Association of Theoretical Psychology Nihon Riron Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Industrial and Organizational Psychology Nihon Sangyō Sōshiki Shinri Gakkai
Association
Japanese Psychological Association Nihon Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Psychonomic Society Nihon Kiso Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Society for Child and Adolescent Nihon Jidō Seinen Seishin Igaku-kai
Psychiatry
Japanese Society for Cognitive Psychology Nihon Ninchi Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Society for Parapsychology Nihon Chōshin Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Society for Physiological Psychology and Nihon Seirei Shinri Gakkai
Psychophysiology
Japanese Society of Animal Psychology Nihon Dōbutsu Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Society of Autogenic Therapy Nihon Jiritsu Kunren Gakkai
Japanese Society of Behavioral Medicine Nihon Kōdō Igakkai
Japanese Society of Hypnosis Nihon Saimin Igaku Shinri Gakkai
Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology Nihon Seishin Shinkei Gakkai
Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry Nihon Shika Shinshin Igakkai
Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Internal Nihon Shinryō Naika Gakkai
Medicine
Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Medicine Nihon Shinshin Igakkai
Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Pediatrics Nihon Shōni Shinshin Igakkai
Japanese Society of Transactional Analysis Nihon Kōryū Bunseki Gakkai
Japanese Union of Associations for Psychomedical Nihon Shinri Iryō Sho-Gakkai Rengō
Therapy
Japanese Union of Psychological Associations Nihon Shinri Gakusha Gakkai Rengō
App e ndix 9
English‒Japanese Glossary of Terms
Abnormal Psychology Ijō shinrigaku 異常心理学

Act Psychology Sayō 作用心理学
Animal Psychology Dōbutsu shinrigaku 動物心理学
Applied Psychology Ōyō shinrigaku 応用心理学
Aviation Psychology Kōkū shinrigaku 航空心理学
Behaviorism Kōdō-shugi 行動主義
Character Seikaku 性格
Child Psychology Jidō shinrigaku 児童心理学
Clinical Psychology Rinji shinrigaku 臨床心理学
Cognition Chishiki 知識
Comparative Psychology Hikaku shinrigaku 比較心理学
Consciousness Ishiki 意識
Criminal Psychology Hanzai shinrigaku 犯罪心理学
Crowd, mob, or mass Psychology Gunshū shinrigaku 群集心理学
Developmental Psychology Hattatsu shinrigaku 発達心理学
Educational Psychology Kyōiku shinrigaku 教育心理学
Experimental Psychology Jikken shinrigaku 実験心理学
Folk Psychology Minzoku shinrigaku 民族心理学
Functionalism Kinō shugi 機能主義
Gestalt Psychology Keitai shinrigaku形態心理学; or geshutaruto
shinrigaku ゲシュタルト心理学
Heart–mind Kokoro 心
Hypnosis Saiminjutsu 催眠術
Individuality, personality Kosei 個性
Industrial–organizational Psychology Sangyō–soshiki shinrigaku 産業 • 組織心理学
Intellectual Science Shinrijō-gaku 心理上学
Intelligence Chinō 知能
Appendix 9 225
Intelligence test Chinō kensa 知能検査

Introspection Naikan 内観
Kenshingi Kenshingi 顕心儀; instrument designed by Motora
Yūjirō to model ego’s relation to the ultimate
psychical source
Learning of the heart–mind Shingaku 心学
Learning of the mind–nature Shinseigaku 心性学
Learning of the principle uniting cosmos Seirigaku 性理学
and individual
Logic Chichigaku 致知学; early term
Mental philosophy Seishin tetsugaku 精神哲学
Mental philosophy (Nishi Amane’s term) Shinrijō no tetsugaku 心理上の哲学
Mental, spiritual, phrenics Seishin teki 精神的
Metaphysics Keijijôgaku 形而上学
Military Psychology Gunji shinrigaku 軍事心理学
Mind, spirit Seishin 精神
Ministry of Education Monbushō 文部省
Moral philosophy Dōtoku tetsugaku 道徳哲学
National Defense Psychology Kokubō 国防心理学
National spirit Kokumin seishin 国民精神
Nerves Shinkei 神経
Neurology Shinkeigaku 神経学
New Psychology Shin shinrigaku 新心理学
Normal school Shihan gakkō 師範学校
Perception Chikaku 知覚
Personality Jinkaku 人格
Personality Psychology Seikaku shinrigaku 性格心理学
Philosophical Psychology Tetsugaku teki shinrigaku 哲学的心理学
Philosophy Tetsugaku 哲学
Physiology Seirigaku 生理学
Psychiatry Seishin byōgaku 精神病学/Seishin igaku精神医学
Psychoanalysis Seishin bunsekigaku 精神分析学
Psychokinematics Seishin dōsakugaku 精神動作学
Psychology Shinrigaku 心理学;
Psychology Seishingaku 精神学; early term
Psychology Xinlingxue心霊学; early term in Chinese
Psychology Shinshôgaku 心象学; early term; literally “study of
mental images”
226 Appendix 9
Psychology Seirigaku 性理学 early term, originally a Neo-

Confucian notion; used by Nishi Amane
Psychophysics Seishin butsurigaku 精神物理学
Scientific Psychology Kagaku teki shinrigaku 科学的心理学
Sensation Kankaku 感覚
Social Psychology Shakai shinrigaku 社会心理学
Sociology Shakaigaku 社会学
Soul, spirit Tamashii 魂
Spiritualism Shinregakui 心霊学
Structuralism Kōzō shugi 構造主義/Kōsei shugi 構成主義
Theology Shinrigaku 神理学; early term
Tokyo Imperial University Tōkyō Teikoku Daigaku 東京帝国大学
App e ndix 1 0
English‒Japanese Glossary of Persons
Abe Magosiro 阿部孫三郎 (1907–84)

Abe Saburō 安部三郎 (1898–1974)
Abe Shigetaka 阿部重孝 (1890–1939)
Akamatsu Pōro 赤松保羅 (1891–1980)
Akishige Yoshiharu 秋重義治 (1904–79)
Akitani Tatsuko 秋谷たつ子 (1923–)
Akiyama Satoko 秋山さと子 (1923–92)
Amano Toshitake 天野利武 (1904–80)
Anezaki Masaharu 姉崎正治 (pen name Chōfū 嘲風) (1873–1949)
Aoki Seishirō 青木誠四郎 (1894–1956)
Ariga Nagao 有賀長雄 (1860–1921)
Aruga Kizaemon 有賀喜左衛門 (1897–1979)
Asami Chizuko 浅見千㧛子 (1919–)
Asano Wasaburō 浅野和三郎 (1874–1937)
Awaji Enjirō 淡路円治郎 (1895–1979)
Chiba Tanenari 千葉胤成 (1884–1972)
Chiwa Hiroshi 千輪浩 (1891–1978)
Endō Ryūkichi 遠藤隆吉 (1874–1946)
Enomoto Takeaki 榎本武揚 (1836–1908)
Fujikawa Yū 富士川游 (1865–1940)
Fujisawa Shigeru 藤澤茽 (1903–62)
Fukurai Tomokichi福来友吉 (1869–1952)
Fukutomi Ichirō 福富一郎 (1891–1946)
Fukutomi Takasue 福富孝季 (1857–91)
Furuhata Tanemoto 古畑種基 (1891–1975)
Furukawa Takeji 古川竹二 (1891–1940)
Gotō Iwao 後藤岩男 (1904–49)
228 Appendix 10
Gotō Rikusaburō 五島陸三郎 (1876–1923)

Hagino Genichi 萩野源一 (1913–96)
Haraguchi (née Arai) Tsuruko 原口 (新井) 鶴子 (1886–1915)
Haraguchi Takejirō 原口竹次郎 (1882–1951)
Hatano (née Hatakeyama) Isoko 波多野 (畠山) 勤子 (1905–78)
Hatano Kanji 波多野完治 (1905–2001)
Hayami Hiroshi 速水滉 (1876–1943)
Higuchi Hideo (Ryūkyō) 樋口秀雄 (龍峽) (1875–1929)
Hirai Kinzō 平井金三 (1859–1916)
Hirata Motokichi 平田元吉 (1874–1942)
Hoashi Kiyoko 帆足喜與子 (1920–)
Honma Sōken 本間棗軒 (1808–72)
Hori Baiten 堀梅天 (1887–1973)
Hozumi Nobushige 穂積陳重 (1856–1926)
Ide Takashi 出隆 (1892–1990)
Iinuma Ryūen 飯沼龍遠 (1888–1969)
Ikeda Shigenori池田林儀 (1892–1966)
Ikeda Yoshiko 池田由子 (1924–)
Imada Megumi 今田恵 (1894–1970)
Imaizumi Genryū 今泉玄祐 (1797–1874)
Imamura Shinkichi 今村新吉 (1874–1946)
Inoue Enryō 井上円了 (1858–1919)
Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎 (1858–1919)
Ishigami Tokumon 石神戸徳門 (unclear)
Ishihara Shinobu 石原忍 (1879–1963)
Ishikawa Hidetsurumaru 石川日出鶴丸 (1878–1947)
Itō Dōki 伊藤道機 (1900–94)
Ito Hiroshi 伊東博 (1919–2000)
Iwasa Jun 岩佐純 (1836–1912)
Izawa Shūji 伊沢修二 (1851–1917)
Kadono Ikunoshin 門野幾之進 (1856–1938)
Kagawa Shūtoku 香川修徳 (1683–1755)
Kakise Hikozō 蛎瀬彦蔵 (1874–1944)
Kakizaki Sukeichi 柿崎祐一 (1915–94)
Kamada Ho (Ryūō) 鎌田鵬 (1854–21)
Kamiya Mieko 神谷美恵子 (1914–79)
Kanda Naibu 神田乃武 (1857–1923)
Appendix 10 229
Kanda Sakyō 神田左京 (1874–1939)

Kaneko Chikusui (Umaji) 金子筑水 (馬治) (1870–1937)
Kashida Gorō 樫田五郎 (1883–1938)
Kashiwagi Keiko 柏木恵子 (1932–)
Katō Hiroyuki 加藤弘之 (1836–1916)
Katsumoto Kanzaburō 勝本勘三郎 (1868–1923)
Kawai Hayao 河合隼雄 (1928–2007)
Kawai Teiichi 川合貞一 (1870–1955)
Kawamoto Kōmin 川本幸民 (1810–71)
Kido Mantarō 城戸幡太郎 (1893–1985)
Kihira Tadayoshi 紀平正美 (1874–1949)
Kimura Kyūichi 木村久一(1883–unclear)
Kirihara Shigemi 桐原葆見 (1892–1968)
Kishimoto Nōbuta 岸本能武太 (1866–1928)
Kishimoto Sōkichi 岸本惣吉 (unclear–1938)
Kitamura Ryōtaku 喜田村良宅 (unclear)
Kobayashi Iku 小林さ郁 (1881–1933)
Kobayashi Sae 小林さえ (1913–2002)
Kobayashi Sumie 小林澄兄 (1886–1971)
Kōdera Shinsaku 国府寺新作 (1855–unclear)
Koga Yukiyoshi 古賀行義 (1892–1979)
Komori Genryō 小森玄良 (1781–1843)
Kōra (née Wada) Tomi 高良 (和田) とみ (1896–1993)
Kōra Takehisa 高良武久 (1899–1996)
Kosawa Heisaku 古沢平作 (1896–1968)
Kotake Yashō 古武弥正 (1912–97)
Kubo (né Hara Yoshimaru) Yoshihide 久保 (源) 良英 (1883–1942)
Kubo (née Kurose) Tsuyako 久保 (黒瀬) 艶子 (1893–1969)
Kuma Toshiyasu 久萬俊泰 (1875–unclear)
Kume Kyōko 久米京子 (1906–90)
Kurahashi Sōzō 倉橋惣三 (1882–1955)
Kure Shūzō 呉秀三 (1865–1932)
Kurihara Shinichi 栗原信一 (1889–1947)
Kuroda (né Arima) Genji 黒田(有馬)源次 (1886–1957)
Kuroda Ryō 黒田亮 (1890–1949)
Kuwabara Tennen (Toshirō) 桑原天然 (俊郎) (1873–1906)
Kuwata Yoshizō 桑田芳蔵 (1882–1967)
230 Appendix 10
Maeda Chōta 前田長太 (1867–1939)

Maeda Tamon 前田多門 (1884–1962)
Marui Kiyoyasu 丸井清泰 (1886–1953)
Marui Sumiko 丸井澄子 (1924–)
Masaki Masashi 正木正 (1905–59)
Masuda Kōichi 増田幸一 (1898–1982)
Masuda Koreshige 増田惟茂 (1883–1933)
Matsumoto Junichirô 松本潤一郎 (1893–1947)
Matsumoto Kōjirō 松本孝次郎 (1869–1932)
Matsumoto Matatarō 松本亦太郎 (né Iino 飯野) (1865–1943)
Mibai Sugi 實生すぎ (1891–1969)
Mifue Chizuko 御船千鶴子 (1886–1911)
Minami Hiroshi 南博 (1914–2001)
Misawa Tadasu 三澤糾 (1878–1942)
Mita Sadanori 三田定則 (1876–1950)
Miura Kinnosuke 三浦謹之助 (1864–1950)
Miya Kōichi 宮孝一 (1908–80)
Miyagi Otoya 宮城音弥 (1908–2005)
Miyake Ishirō 三宅亥四郎 (1869–1931)
Miyake Kōichi 三宅鉱一 (1876–1954)
Miyamoto Misako 宮本美沙子 (1928–)
Mizuno Tsunekichi 水野常吉 (1880–1964)
Mochizuki Mamoru 望月衛 (1910–93)
Mochizuki Mamoru 望月衛 (1910–93)
Morinaga Shirō 盛永四郎 (1908–64)
Morita Kumato 森田久萬人 (1858–99)
Morita Masatake (Shōma) 森田正馬 (1874–1938)
Motoda Nagazane 元田永孚 (1818–91)
Motokawa Kōichi 本川弘一 (1903–71)
Motomiya Yahē 本宮弥兵衛 (1886–1957)
Motora Yūjirō 元良勇次郎 (né Sugita) (1858–1912)
Nagai Hisomu永井潜 (1876–1957)
Nagami Hirsohi 永見裕 (1840–1902)
Nagase Hōsuke 長瀬鳳輔 (1865–1926)
Nakagami Kinkei 中神琴渓 (1744–1833)
Nakai Tsunejirō中井常次郎 (1851–1914)
Nakajima Rikizō 中島力造 (1858–1918)
Appendix 10 231
Nakajima Shinichi 中島信一 (1935–)

Nakajima Taizō 中島泰蔵 (1867–1919)
Nakamura Keiu (Masanao) 中村敬宇 (正直) (1832–91)
Nakamura Kokyō 中村古峡 (1881–1954)
Nakamura Yasuma 中村保馬 (unclear)
Narazaki Asatarō 楢崎浅太郎 (1881–1974)
Naruse Jinzō 成瀬仁蔵 (1858–1919)
Nasu Kiyoshi 那須聖 (1916–)
Natsume Sōseki 夏目漱石 (1867–1916)
Nījima Jō 新島襄 (1843–90)
Ninami Hiroshi 南博 (1914–2001)
Nishi Amane 西周 (1829–97)
Nishida Kitarō 西田幾多郎 (1870–1945)
Nishigori Takekiyo 錦織剛清 (unclear)
Nishimura Shigeki 西村茂樹 (1828–1902)
Nishizawa Raiō 西沢頼応 (1889–unclear)
Nitobe Inazō 新渡戸稲造 (1862–1933)
Noda Nobuo 野田信夫 (1893–1993)
Nogami Toshio 野上俊夫 (1882–1963)
Nojiri Seiichi 野尻精一 (1860–1932)
Noritake Kōtarō 乘竹孝太郎 (1860–1909)
Nunokawa Magoichi 布川孫市 (1870–1944)
Obonai Torao 小保内虎夫 (1899–1968)
Ogasawara Jiei 小笠原慈瑛 (1901–97)
Ogawa Takashi 小川隆 (1915–97)
Oguma Toranosuke 小熊虎之助 (1888–1978)
Oka Hiroko 岡宏子 (1917–98)
Okabe Tamekichi 岡部為吉 (1874–1922)
Okabe Yatarō 岡部弥太郎 (1894–1967)
Ōmichi Waichi 大道和一 (1875–unclear)
Onojima Usao 小野島右左雄 (1894–1941)
Ōse Jintarō 大瀬甚太郎 (1865–1944)
Ōtsuki Kaison 大槻快尊(1880–1936)
Ōtsuki Kenji 大槻憲二 (1891–1977)
Ōwaki Yoshikazu 大脇義一 (1897–1976)
Rikimaru Jien力丸慈円 (1890–1945)
Sagara Moriji 相良守次 (1903–86)
232 Appendix 10
Saitō Ryōzō 斉藤良象 (1889–unclear)

Sakaki Hajime 榊俶 (1857–97)
Sakaki Yasusaburō 榊保三郎 (1870–1929)
Sakuma Kanae 佐久間鼎 (1888–1970)
Sandaya Hiraku 三田谷啓 (1882–1962)
Sasabe Akinobu 雀部顕宜 (1871–1938)
Sasaki Masanao 佐々木政直 (unclear)
Satake Yasutarō 佐武安太郎 (1884–1959)
Satō Koji 佐藤幸治 (1905–71)
Satō Shōsuke 佐藤昌介 (1856–1939)
Sawayanagi Masatarō 沢柳政太郎 (1865–1927)
Seki Eikichi 関栄吉 (1900–39)
Shinagawa Takako 品川孝子 (1922–)
Shinmei Masamichi 新明正道 (1898–1984)
Shinohara Sukeichi 篠原助市 (1876–1957)
Shirai Tsune 白井常 (1910–99)
Shitada Jirō 下田次郎 (1872–1937)
Soma Tomotane 相馬誠胤 (1852–99)
Sugawara Kyōzō 菅原教造 (1881–1967)
Susukita Tsukasu 薄田司 (1907–96)
Suzuki Harutarō 鈴木治太郎 (1875–1966)
Takabatake Motoyuki 高畠素之 (1826–1928)
Takagi Sadaji 高木貞二 (1893–1975)
Takahashi Gorō 高橋五郎 (1856–1935)
Takamine Hideo 高嶺秀夫 (1854–1910)
Takamine Hiroshi高峰博 (1876–1950)
Takashima Heizaburō 高島平三郎 (1865–1946)
Takata Yasuma 高田保馬 (1883–1972)
Takebe Tongo 建部遯吾 (1871–1944)
Takemasa Tarō 武政太郎 (1887–1965)
Tamura Gensen 田村玄仙 (1737–1809)
Tanabe Hajime 田辺元 (1885–1962)
Tanaka Hideo 田中秀雄 (1905–64)
Tanaka Kanichi 田中寛一 (1882–1962)
Tanaka Kiichi 田中喜一 (1867–1932)
Tanimoto Tomeri 谷本富 (1867–1946)
Terada Hiroko 寺田ひろ子 (1946–77)
Appendix 10 233
Terada Seiichi 寺田精一 (1884–1922)

Terasawa Izuo 寺沢巌男 (1880–1970)
Toda Teizō 戸田貞三 (1887–1955)
Togawa Yukio 戸川行男 (1903–92)
Tōgō Minoru 東郷実 (1881–1959)
Tokutomi Iichirō 徳富猪一郎 (pen name Sohō 蘇峰) (1863–1957)
Tokuya Toyonosuke 徳谷豊之助 (unclear–1945)
Tominaga Iwatarō 富永岩太郎 (1866–1908)
Tomoda Fujio 友田不二男 (1917–)
Toyama Masakazu 外山正一 (1848–1900)
Tsuboi Kumezo 坪井九馬三 (1858–1936)
Tsubouchi Shōyō (Yūzō) 坪内逍遥(雄蔵)(1859–1935)
Tsuchida Ken 土田献 (unclear)
Tsuda Sen 津田仙 (1837–1908)
Tsuji Sōichi 辻荘一 (1895–1987)
Tsukahara Masatsugu 塚原政次 (1872–1946)
Uchida Yūzaburō 内田勇三郎 (1894–1966)
Uchimura Yūshi 内村祐之 (1897–1980)
Ueda Tadaichi 上田只一 (1884–unclear)
Ueno Yōichi 上野陽一 (1883–1957)
Ukita Kazutami 浮田和民 (1859–1946)
Umeoka Yoshitaka 梅岡義貴 (1920–)
Umezu Hachizō 梅津八三 (1906–91)
Umezu Kōsaku 梅津耕作 (1928–99)
Uramoto Seizaburō 浦本正三郎 (1891–1965)
Ushijima Yoshitomo 牛島義友 (1906–99)
Wada Rinkuma 和田琳熊 (1870–1944)
Wada Tōkaku 和田東郭 (1744–1803)
Watanabe Ryūshō 渡辺龍聖 (1865–1944)
Watanabe Tōru 渡辺徹 (1883–1957)
Watase Shōsaburō 渡瀬庄三郎 (1862–1929)
Yabe Yaekichi 矢部八重吉 (1875–1945)
Yagi Ben 八木冕 (1915–86)
Yamada Sōshichi 山田惣七 (1879–1971)
Yamaguchi Minosuke 山口三之助 (unclear)
Yamakawa Kenjirō 山川健次郎 (1854–1931)
Yamakawa Noriko 山川範子 (1910–90)
234 Appendix 10
Yamashita Kiyoshi 山下清 (1922–71)

Yamashita Toshio 山下俊郎 (1903–82)
Yamauchi Shigeo 山内繁雄 (unclear)
Yan Yongjing 顔永京 (1838–98)
Yasuda Tokutarō 安田徳太郎 (1898–1983)
Yatabe Tatsurō 矢田部達郎 (1893–1958)
Yatsu Naohide 谷津直秀 (1877–1947)
Yoda Arata 依田新 (1905–87)
Yokoyama Matsusaburō 横山松三郎 (1890–1966)
Yoneda Shōtarō 米田庄太郎 (1873–1945)
Yoshida Kumaji 吉田熊次 (1874–1964)
Yoshimoto Ishin 吉本伊信 (1916–88)
Yoshioka Gennosuke 吉岡源之亮 (Joseph G.) (1889–unclear)
Yuhara Motoichi 湯原元一 (1863–1931)
Yūki Kinichi 結城錦一 (né Hirose Kinichi 広瀬錦一) (1901–97)
Notes
Prologue
1 The course was taught in the Department of Philosophy (Tetsugakka), College of
Liberal Arts (Bunka Daigaku). Imperial University (Teikoku Daigaku) was later
renamed Tokyo Imperial University (Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku).
2 Piovesana (1997: 27, 48). Psychophysics has also appeared as shin-butsurigaku,
literally meaning “heart–mind physics.”
3 For the use of tropes in Japanese psychological terminology and a literature review of
the claim that modern mental vocabularies are built upon metaphors, see McVeigh
(1996). Another example of the metaphoricity of mind-words: in Japanese “heart”
(shin or kokoro) is used to refer to any emotional or cognitive process (not the same
shin in seishin, which means god). Shin prefixes well over 200 words that range in
meaning from spirit, motive, idea, mentality, feeling, sincerity, sympathy, attention,
interest, will, to mood.
4 Also pronounced jin or kami.
5 See Harding, Iwata, and Yoshinaga’s edited volume for an extremely informative
collection of works delineating the complex relation between religion and
psychotherapy in Japan (2015a).
6 Harding (2015a: 8). Cf. Shimazono’s term “psycho-religious composite
movement” (2015).
7 Harding (2015b: 44).
8 Harding (2015a: 2).
9 On Fechner, see Heidelberger (2004).
10 Fechner cannot be described as a psychophysical parallelist because he pursued the
“identity hypothesis”: mind is body.
11 From Zand-i-Avesta, meaning “interpretation of the Avesta” (Zoroastrianism’s
primary collection of sacred texts).
12 Boring (1929: 265).
13 Thinkers such as David Hartley (1705–57), Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841)
and, later, Rudolph Hermann Lotze (1817–81) and Alexander Bain (1818–1903),
speculated about a physiological Psychology from a primarily philosophical
perspective. Johannes Müller (1801–58) and Ernst Heinrich Weber (1795–1878)
pursued a Psychologized physiology.
Chapter 1
1 Robinson (1995: 327).
2 As longue durée processes, socio-externalization and psycho-internalization resonate
with notions such as Norbert Elias’ “civilizing process” (1978, 1982).
236 Notes
3 The details of these processes, which are explained elsewhere with more nuance and
in detail, need not concern us here. See McVeigh (2015).
4 Jansz notes that two socio-historical trends were behind the emergence of Psychology.
The first was “individualization” (individuation), or a shift of focus from the collective
to the individual, which is concomitant with an interest in personal differences and a
focus on the inner world of feelings. The second was “social management” or “efforts
to monitor and control the behavior of individuals and groups” (Jansz 2003: 12).
Actually, rather than viewing individuation as a cause in itself, it is more accurate
to argue that, as an aspect of psycho-internalization, it was a consequence of social
management (socio-externalization). The political and economic control of the
individual demanded a science of behavior, or bodies of knowledge that focused on
how to mold other selves (Tweney and Budzynski 2000: 1015). Applied Psychology
provided the answers.
5 For my purposes, modernity designates a half-millennium period beginning about
1500. Elsewhere I have subdivided modernity into three approximate periods:
(1) early modernity: 1500 to 1800; (2) high modernity: 1800–1880; and (3) late
modernity: 1800 until the present. The reasons for this temporal specificity are
explained elsewhere but need not concern us here. See McVeigh (2015). The focus of
my study is on what might be called late modernity, or the period beginning during
the last two or three decades of the nineteenth century.
6 Note that these terms are relative, that is, by today’s standards, the socio-
externalization/psycho-internalization of the early 1800s appears weak, though
the socio-externalization/psycho-internalization of the latter era seems dramatic if
compared with the same processes of the early 1600s.
7 Robinson (1982: 2, 3).
8 Nishikawa (2008a: 5).
9 Such processes are called introception (in contrast to perception), though a more
prosaic expression might be introspection. Strictly speaking, introspection (“seeing
within”) is restricted to the “mind’s eye,” while introception encompasses all quasi-
perception.
10 Kern (2003).
11 Fuchs (2000: 494).
12 Two other concepts might be mentioned: conciliation and excerption. The latter two
concepts are perhaps somewhat technical for our purposes, but since they are briefly
mentioned in the text, I define them here. Conciliation concerns how a “slightly
ambiguous perceived object is made to conform to some previously learned schema.”
Consilience (or compatibilization or assimilation) is “doing in mind-space what
narratization does in our mind-time or spatialized time. It brings things together as
conscious objects just as narratization brings things together as a story.” Excerption
involves how the inner “I” abstracting from the “collection of possible attentions to
a thing which comprises our knowledge of it … Actually we are never conscious of
things in their true nature, only of the excerpts we make of them.” This feature is
“distinct from memory. An excerpt of a thing is in consciousness the representative
of the thing or event to which memories adhere and by which we can retrieve
memories.” Reminiscence “is a succession of excerptions” (Jaynes 1976: 64–65,
61–62). Interiority is the “instance of selection that picks and chooses among the
many options” that the psyche provides for us (Nørretranders 1998: 243).
13 See Mizoguchi (1997a: i). Also see Cunningham and Williams (1993).
14 Lyons (1978: 70).
15 Jansz (2003: 16).
Notes 237
16 Richards (1992: 53).

17 Note Nishikawa’s distinction between daigaku shinrigaku (“university” or “academic
Psychology”) and daily (nichijō), common sense (jōshiki), or popular (tsūzoku)
Psychology (2008b: 80).
18 Impressively, between 1898 and 1903, Psychology ranked fourth among the sciences
in the production of doctorates in the United States. Milar (2000: 616).
19 Questions of how universal and cultural Psychology relate to each other opens a
Pandora Box of theoretical challenges that need not concern us here. It is worth
mentioning, however, that, as in other social sciences, the tendency to stake out
opposing sides on issues points to the sundering of the universal from the particular,
nature from nurture and physis from nomos.
20 I borrow this convention from Richards (1992).
21 Richards (1992: 373).
22 Rose notes that the “object of a science” (in this case, the psychological) can appear
ahistorical and asocial, and it is assumed that it has “always existed in the same
form,” as if “thinkers of the past have circled around a reality which has remained
the same. Thus, they can be ordered into a narrative, arranged along a chronological
dimension which corresponds to a progress towards the object,” disciplinary
histories
establish the modernity of their science. They both ratify the present
through its respectable tradition and demarcate it from those aspects of
the past which might disturb it. They effect a division between sanctioned
and lapsed texts and authors, between those theories and arguments which
are of a piece with the current self-image of the discipline and those which
are marginal and eccentric. They police the boundaries of the discipline by
their criteria of inclusion and exclusion. (Rose 1988: 179, 180)
23 Cf. Takasuna (2007a: 85).
24 Different approaches to interiority, of course, would assign different roles to private
mental states, for example, psychoanalysis, Gestalt Psychology, and behaviorism (the
latter, in a fit of scientism, would simply deny the significance of private psychological
processes) (Murray, Kilgour, and Wasylkiw 2000: 422).
25 Richards (1992: 232–33).
26 Concomitant with problems defining “Psychology” is classifying individuals as
“Psychologists.” One study on “Individuals Eminent in Psychology” listed 538
individuals (between 1600 and 1967) selected by a panel of nine Psychologist judges
from four countries, but 42 percent clearly classified as “Psychologists,” with 17
percent philosophers, 10 percent physiologists, and 6 percent psychiatrists; the rest
were from a plethora of fields (Watson and Merrifield 1973).
27 Castro and Lafuente point out that the construction of Psychology’s subject (here
meaning the individual as research target) occurred within the context of “Western
liberal democracies” with subjects possessed of an “inner space” who were “able to
define his own individuality and authenticity, aspirations of freedom and choice
between different life options” (Castro and Lafuente 2007: 107). However, readily
accepting this understanding of the subject glosses over cultural differences. I contend
that a belief in the inherent value of interiority swept across many parts of the globe
during the closing decades of the nineteenth and the first several decades of the
twentieth centuries. The most obvious illustration of this was the institutionalization
of modern research Psychology itself.
238 Notes
28 Richards (1992: 21, 246, 396).

29 The ideas in this paragraph are borrowed from Richards (1992: 241, 373, 393, 397).
30 This list is borrowed from Rosenzweig (1994: 753) with my revisions. Though it is
meant to apply to American Psychology, it arguably has general relevancy.
31 Jansz (2003: 35).
32 Rosenzweig (1994: 741).
33 Callon (1986: 204).
34 As did anthropology, ethnography, economics, and political science.
35 Cf. Azuma and Imada for the different “orientations” of Psychology (1994: 708).
36 Robinson (1995: 326, 260).
37 See Misumi and Ōyama (1989) for postwar developments in Japanese applied
Psychology.
38 Kayashima (1993: 21, 28).
39 Watson and Merrifield (1973), in their study of famous Psychologists, noted
the problems with classifying the background and nationality of individuals,
since many studied overseas for extended lengths of time, immigrated to other
countries, and researched, taught, and published in languages other than their
native tongue.
40 Bayly (2004: 4).
41 Brock (2006: 11).
42 Indeed, Richards writes that despite “considerable cross-traffic between countries,”
the “routes taken towards Psychology appear to be more largely determined by their
respective cultural traditions and climates than by international within-discipline
dynamics” (Richards 1992: 289).
43 Thus, any distinction between “Psychology-importing” (Japan, Spain, Italy, Latin
American countries) and “Psychology-exporting” (Germany, America, and England)
countries must be approached with extreme caution. Cf. Castro and Lafuente (2007: 106).
44 Azuma and Imada (1994: 708).
45 Takasuna (1997a: 225–26, 252–53). See also Takasuana (2001a) for a list of 94 articles
published by Japanese Psychologists in foreign journals before 1945. Forty-seven
authors are believed to be Japanese, although seven of these could not be definitely
identified. Eighty percent of the articles were published in the United States.
46 Esquirol most likely gave the word “hallucination” its modern meaning.
47 See Richards (1992: 372, 329, 375). For what it might be worth, Kido notes that
in general Japanese Psychologists have been interested in finding facts from
experimentation, rather than formulating theoretical systems (Kido 1961: 7).
48 Article-length English treatments by Japanese include: Azuma (1984); Azuma
and Imada (1994); Misumi and Peterson (1990; for a review of postwar research);
Nishikawa (2005); Ōyama (2008); Takasuna (2005, 2007a,b). Also relevant are
Hoshino (1979); Hoshino and Umemoto (1987); and Satō and Graham (1954).
49 For example, Satō and Satō (2005: 52).
50 Though some Japanese do lament a perceived dearth of historical treatments: “The
present author greatly regrets the fact that with exception of a handful of scholars,
few in the world of Japanese [P]sychology are interested in its history. The excuse
is that historical investigations should be left to old people who can no longer do
experimental research!” (Nishikawa 2005: 68).
51 For a survey of how the history of Japanese Psychology has been treated (including
Japanese who wrote texts about the history of Psychology), see Satō (1997a: 539–56).
For a list of translations by Japanese of non-Japanese works on the history of
Notes 239
Psychology from 1894 to 1990, see Satō (1997a: 544). See also Nishikawa (2001a,
2006a,b,c), as well as Osaka R. (2000a: 29–33). For more specific methodological and
historiographical issues, see Mizoguchi (2001a: 155–64), Nishikawa (2001b), and
Satō (2005a,c). See also Tsuji (2001) and (2006). Oizumi’s Nihon Shinrigaku-sha Jiten
(Dictionary of Japanese Psychologists, 2003) is a useful reference source. Note that the
Japanese Psychology Association added a history of psychology section in 2001. See
also Kaneko (1987).
52 Satō (2005a: 47).
53 Tanimoto (1897a) and (1901).
54 On the importance of preserving records and the impact of war and earthquakes on
attempts to reconstruct Psychology’s history, see Osaka N. (2000b).
Chapter 2
1 See Satō (1997a: 6).
2 Kido (1961: 3).
3 Takasuna (2007a: 86).
4 See Satō (1997a: 6) and Satō (2002a: 23).
5 Tucker (2007: 61, 60, 58).
6 Tucker (2007: 4).
7 Chan (1963: 784).
8 Sugimoto and Swain (1989: 303).
9 Sugimoto and Swain (1989: 303–4, 306).
10 Tucker (2007: 11).
11 Formal name: Kaibara Atsunobu.
12 Tucker (2007: 4).
13 See Bellah (1957) and Robertson (1979) for treatment of shingaku.
14 See Yasumaru (1974).
15 Sugimoto and Swain (1989: 241).
16 Robertson (1979: 314, 320).
17 Tucker (2007: 11).
18 Ooms (1985: 250, 219).
19 Ooms (1985: 231–32).
20 Tweney et al. (2000: 1015).
21 Reed (1997: 12, 99).
22 Aiken (1962: 15).
23 Iggers (1965: 3, 5).
24 Smith (1997: 584).
25 Helvétius was forced to issue several retractions because of his work’s atheism and
egalitarianism.
26 Reed (1997: 82).
27 Reed (1997: 85). Cf. Abrams’ idea of “natural supernaturalism” in Romantic
literature (1973).
28 Reed (1997: 82, emphasis in original).
29 Reed (1997: 3).
30 Rosenzweig (1994: 741).
31 Fuchs (2000).
32 Robinson (2000: 1018).
240 Notes
33 Reed (1997: 144). See, for example, F.M. Turner (1974).

34 Cf. Reed (1997: 5).
35 Robinson (1982).
36 Lapointe (1970: 645).
37 Robinson (2000: 1018).
38 Pate (2000: 1139).
39 Rice (2000: 491).
40 Fuchs (2000). Dewsbury has called thinkers such as G. Trumbull Ladd, Josiah Royce
(1855–1916), John Dewey (1859–1952), and James Mark Baldwin (1861–1934)
“psychologist–philosophers” (2000a: 256).
41 Rice (2000: 488).
42 Bayly (2004: 332, 330). For a useful treatment of the religion–science confrontation
and how Comte was critically received in America, see Cashdollar (1978).
43 Godart (2008).
44 Howland (2001: 176).
45 Maraldo (2004: 225).
46 Piovesana (1955: 182).
47 Nishi apparently borrowed kitetsugaku from Tsuda Mamichi, who used the term as
early as 1861. The terms kikengaku and kitetsugaku originated in a Chinese work by
the Confucian scholar Zhou Dunyi (1017–73; also known as Zhou Maoshu) called
Xiqiu Xianzhe (Seeking Sagehood; Japanese: Kikyū Kentetsu).
48 Nishikawa (2008c: 24).
49 Satō (2002a: 33–35) and Takasuna (2007a: 86).
50 1828–1902; a member of the Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society), he established the Tōkyō
Shūshin Gakusha (Tokyo Morality School; later renamed the Nippon Kōdōkai or the
Japan Society for Expansion of the Way).
52 Satō (2002a: 115).
53 Satō (2002a: 448–70).
54 Charles (2007: 96).
55 See Datson and Galison’s Objectivity (2007), an important work that traces the
trajectory of “objectivity” in the nineteenth century.
56 Robinson (1995: 281).
57 Charles (2007: 94).
58 Takasuna (2007a: 84, 85).
59 Satō (1997a: 7). See also Satō (2005d).
60 Also pronounced shinsho.
Chapter 3
1 Satō (2002a: 22–23). See Satō (2002a: 21–22) on the question if Psychology existed in
pre-Meiji times.
2 For example, Janine Anderson Sawada’s work on the nineteenth-century religions,
Misogi-kyô and Maruyama-kyô (rich amalgams of Buddhism, Shintoist, Neo-
Confucianism, and folk traditions), reveals how self-cultivation involved the
“common moral values” (tsūzoku dōtoku) of the time: honesty, frugality, filial piety,
loyalty, diligence, and harmony (Sawada 1998: 109). These were “moral” concerns,
related to the pursuit of communal well-being, but they implicated the discipline
Notes 241
of the heart–mind and the attainment of the Buddha-mind (or “no-mind” or the
“original mind”). In a certain sense, practitioners were interested in “mind” (if loosely
understood), but it was still an introcosmic entity, ultimately inseparable from the
micro–macrocosm. See also Sawada (2004).
3 Piovesana (1972: 92).
4 Satō (1997b: 9).
5 English translation: A Pocket Dictionary of the English and Japanese Language.
6 Satō (1997a: 9).
7 Ōta (1997: 39–40). See Satō (2002a: 24–26) for a discussion of proto-psychological
terms.
8 Tetsugaku Jii.
9 Davis (1976).
10 Saitō (1977: 61).
11 For a comparative but somewhat later look at the role of Psychology textbooks in
America, see Fuchs (2000).
12 Born and trained in Germany, Rauch emigrated to America in 1831.
13 Takasuna (1997b: 49, 61–2, 60).
14 Boring (1929: 231).
15 Robinson (1995: 274).
16 A student of Lorenz von Stein, Ariga (1860–1921) was a lawyer and expert in
international law and a translator of European works.
17 The usage of foreign education-related works to improve Japan’s nascent
schooling system predates the 1880s. Uchida Masao translated Dutch Educational
System (Oranda Gakusei, 1869) and Obata Jinzaburō’s rendered Western School
Standards into Seiyō Gakkō Kihan (1870), which provided ideas on how to
structure Japan’s schooling system. The Department of Education (predecessor
to the Ministry of Education) authorized the collection and translation of
documents on Western schooling. The Department had particular interest in
Kawazu Sukeyuki and Sazawa Tarō’s translation of The French Educational System
(Fukkoku Gakusei).
18 See Nishikawa (1998, 2001c) and Uchijima (1996). See also Ōta (1997: 39).
19 Takasuna (2007a: 85).
20 Nishi’s other editions would follow in 1878 and 1879, but these were entitled Heban-
shi Shinrigaku or Haven’s Psychology. See Satō (2002a: 37) for a breakdown of Nishi’s
Shinrigaku into parts, chapters, and sections.
21 Havens (1968: 224). Cf. Terasaki (2006).
22 Cited in Lippert (2001).
23 Piovesana (1997: 18).
24 “Commander”; from seii tai shōgun, meaning “great barbarian-subduing general.”
25 Guo (2005: 10).
26 Howland (2002: 155).
27 1738–1832.
28 1787–1874.
29 1834–1919.
30 1825–95.
31 1809–82.
32 1806–73.
33 1826–77.
242 Notes
34 For general references, see Piovesana, Main Trends of Contemporary Japanese

Philosophy (1955) and Riepe, Selected Chronology of Recent Japanese Philosophy,
1868–1963 (1965).
35 1588–1679.
36 1820–1903.
37 1689–1755.
38 1712–78.
39 1800–81.
40 However, it was glossed not from the original, but from George R. Drysdale’s The
Elements of Social Science; or Physical, Sexual and Natural Religion (1871).
41 Bell (1960/1961: 276–78).
42 Bell (1960/1961: 283, 280, 281).
43 1848–1943.
44 1833–84.
45 1830–1905.
46 Kawamoto Kiyoichi translated the entire book in 1876 (Bell 1960/1961: 281–82).
47 See Bell (1960/1961: 270).
48 Nagai (1954: 56, 60). See Quo on Japanese liberalism (1966).
49 Havens (1968: 218, 217).
50 Nagai (1954: 57).
51 Havens (1968: 223, 224).
52 Howland (2002: 68, 78, 160, 172).
53 Bayly (2004: 319).
54 1836–82.
55 Hirai (1979).
56 Nagai (1954: 55, 64).
57 One specific example: he influenced the thinking of journalist and historian Tokutomi
Sohō (Iichirō), 1863–1957.
58 Takasuna (2007a).
59 Nagai (1954: 61).
60 Howland (2000: 68).
62 Howland (2000: 81).
63 Saitō (2006: 18).
64 A scholar of Western law, Tsuda worked for the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of
War, and was a member of the Diet.
65 Both Nishi and Tsuda taught at the Bansho Shirabe-sho.
66 On Nishi Amane and his translations, see Satō (2002a: 28–36).
67 Saitō (2006: 4).
68 In 1884 he wrote Ronri Shinron (New Theory on Logic) and his Chichi Keimō (1874;
literally, Great Wisdom and Enlightenment) was the first manual of logic written by a
Japanese.
69 Lippert (2001: 64). The Chinese imported “Western ideas whose Chinese equivalents
had been created or invented by the Japanese using Chinese characters,” that is, many
neologisms flowed back into the Chinese language from which they had originated:
the “import of Japanese-made words provided a linguistic key for China to the
discursive door of modernization” (Guo 2005: 12, 14).
70 Some 242 of the latter number have a source in classical Chinese (Lippert 2001: 62).
Notes 243
71 Havens (1968: 228).

72 Saitō (2006: 2).
73 For Nishi’s understanding of ri (principles) and how society and nature differ, see Satō
(2002a: 27).
74 Saitō (2006: 2, 16).
75 Minear (1973: 171).
76 Other possible glosses might be: Manifestation of the Nature of Man and the Universe,
Finding the Physical and the Spiritual, or The Relation of the Physical and the Spiritual.
The title is based on a phrase from Mencius.
77 See Figal (1999).
78 Mizoguchi (1997b: 126–29). See also Satō (2008a: 221–23).
79 Josephson (2006: 158).
80 Many of these beliefs and practices live on in ritual practices of Japan’s shin shūkyō, or
new religions and “new” new religions.
81 Yōkaigaku Kōgi (Lectures on Monsterology, 1894).
82 Figal (1999: 49, 51).
83 Figal (1999: 49, 43).
84 Yoshinaga (2015) provides an excellent explanation of Tanzan’s theories.
85 See Danziger (1980).
86 Yoshinaga (2006: 9). See also Kido (1961).
87 Harding (2015a: 14).
88 Sometimes written as Anesaki.
89 See Suzuki (1970).
90 Satō (2002a: 520–26).
Chapter 4
1 The sense of being observed operates at both the immediate and indirect as well as an
intimate and direct manner. As an example of the latter, the state, in order to ensure
that local sites would adhere to official policies and projects, institutionalized its
officious gaze in the First University District Inspectors Bureau (Dai-ichi Daigakuku
Tokugaku-kyoku) which was established as an external agency on October 13, 1872.
The following year on July 3, this bureau was changed into the temporary University
District Joint District Inspectors Bureau (Kaku Daigakuku Gōhei Tokugaku-kyoku),
which then became the Inspectors Bureau (Tokugaku-kyoku) on April 12, 1874.
Other units involved in the exercise of official visuality included the Inspectors Affairs
Office (Tokumu-tsumesho), which was set up as an external organ on January 15,
1874. On September 15 of the same year, this office became the Inspectors Affairs
Bureau (Tokumu-kyoku) which was eventually absorbed into the Inspectors Bureau
on September 30, 1874. The Inspectors Bureau was discontinued on January 12, 1877,
the same date the Superintendent’s Office (Gakkan Jimusho) was founded, though it
was abolished one year later on December 28.
2 Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 112, 113).
3 For treatments of Japan’s development of educational system and the role of
Psychology, see Satō (2002a: 40–46, 303–35) and Takasuna (1997b: 41–47).
4 Satō and Satō (2005: 53).
244 Notes
5 See Nishikawa’s useful chart on the development of University of Tokyo (2008c: 29)
and Ōta’s more detailed explanation (1997: 33). See also Satō (2002a: 304–8) and
Takasuna (1997b: 41–47).
6 Initially, in 1877 the university was organized into four units along Western lines:
Law, Science, Medicine, and Literature. The latter had two courses: (1) History,
Philosophy and Political Economy; and (2) Japanese and Chinese Literature.
7 After the war its original name was brought back. In 1949 University of Tokyo
absorbed the former First Higher School (currently Komaba Campus) and the
former Tokyo Higher School, now tasked with teaching first- and second-year
undergraduates, while the faculties on Hongo Campus take care of juniors and
seniors.
8 Nishikawa (2008d: 251).
9 Satō provides a very useful chart, “The Production and Training of Talent in the
Imperial Universities until the Taishō Period,” which details the institutional
lineages and connections among the universities and schools. Key students of
Motora and where they ended up are listed (1997c: 584–85). Nishikawa provides
a very useful chart (covering the period from 1880 to 1924) that partially lists
important individuals who studied Psychology at Tokyo (Imperial) University. It
categorizes students by specialization and gakka (department) and indicates those
who majored in Psychology from 1921 (2008b: 87–88). Also, for the contributions
and careers of Psychology students at Tokyo Imperial University during the early
period, see Satō (2002a: 364–82). Also, see Satō and Satō’s chart of the professions
those who specialized in Psychology (at Tokyo Imperial University) entered
(2005: 59).
10 Marshall (1977: 75, 77, 80).
11 American academic and Presbyterian pastor, 1807–85.
12 French philosopher, 1809–93.
13 Later to become part the University of Tokyo.
14 American theologian and educator, 1802–87.
15 Nishikawa (2008c: 20) and Piovesana (1955: 171).
16 Influenced by Kant and Rudolph H. Lotze, he stressed the importance of the history
of philosophy. From 1887 to 1892 Busse held a chair of philosophy at Imperial
University of Tokyo.
17 For a treatment of what was taught at University of Tokyo’s curriculum from 1873 to
1888, see Ōta (1997: 36–37).
18 Takasuna (1997b: 62).
19 Umemoto (2000: 268).
20 Satō and Satō (2005: 52).
21 Nishikawa (2008b: 87–88) and Satō and Satō (2005: 52). See also Satō, Takasuna, and
Ōta (1997: 70) and Satō (2002a) for more details.
22 Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 88–89).
23 Satō and Satō (2005: 58).
24 Haraguchi Tsuruko (1886–1915), the first female Japanese Psychologist to obtain a
PhD, is included in this list.
25 Satō (2002a: 256–59). See also Nishikawa (2008e: 157–61). For a treatment of
individuals who worked at private universities (Imada, Watanabe, Kido), see Satō
(2008b: 167–84).
Notes 245
26 Until 1920, institutions such as Keio Gijuku and Waseda were not recognized as
universities by the Ministry of Education, so in some places I describe them as
daigaku. If the period under discussion predates 1920, then I use “university.” For
a list of private vocational schools that became universities in 1920, see Nishikawa
(2001c: 463).
27 Nishikawa (2008e: 154–55).
28 1832–91. Translator of Samuel Smiles’s Self-Help (1871) and a convert to Christianity,
he was an important educator during the Meiji period. He founded a school called
Dōjinsha and headed what eventually became Ochanomizu University.
29 Nishikawa (2008c: 31–32). See also Becker (1936). Toyama was also a poet and
spearheaded a movement to replace kanji (Chinese characters) with a Romanized
alphabet and founded the Rōmaji-kai for this purpose.
30 Steiner (1936: 709).
31 Ōyama, Satō and Suzuki (2001: 396, 398).
32 Ōta (1997: 38).
33 Though Matsumoto would receive state funding for the latter part of his overseas
studies.
34 Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 65).
35 Satō (2002a: 254).
36 See Satō for a chart of those who went overseas to study Psychology or related fields
(2002a: 254–56). For those who went overseas mainly to study Psychology, see Satō,
Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 99–103). For those who went overseas to study Psychology
but had their main interests outside Psychology, see Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997:
103–6). See also Satō (2002a: 330–35) for a treatment of overseas exchanges.
37 See Hoshino and Umemoto (1987: 187).
38 Because of Germany’s defeat, from the late 1910s to the mid-1920s Japanese
Psychology was more influenced by American developments.
39 Takasuna (2008a: 242).
40 For a list of those who studied at Clark University, see Satō (2002a: 264).
41 Takasuna (2008a).
42 See Takasuna and colleagues’ list of twenty-three Japanese who received degrees
(from 1888 to 1943), the awarding institutions, and dissertation titles (2001: 229).
43 Takasuna et al. (2001: 227).
44 Satō (2002a: 259–65, 265–67).
45 Satō (1997d: 173–74).
46 Also in 1871, the Personnel Division became the Officials Division (Shokumu-ka),
which was responsible for the oversight and regulation of teachers who, as agents of
state projects, played key roles in shaping the psyches of young students.
47 Foucault (1979: 138, emphasis in original).
48 Narusawa (1997: 200).
49 Cited in Narusawa (1997: 231).
50 Narusawa (1997: 209).
51 In addition to the more practical and economically productive practices that directly
implicated the body, the Meiji period also witnessed the introduction of leisure
activities. Dr. George A. Leland taught the Amherst College system of calisthenics
and trained the first Japanese instructors in physical education and in 1913, Swedish
gymnastics became standard in all schools. Horace Wilson and E. H. Mudget
introduced baseball to the students of Kaisei School in 1875. Japan’s first organized
246 Notes
team, the Shimbashi Club, competed with an American team from Yokohama (on
which Henry W. Denison was the star) (Burks 1985a: 364). In later years, the Greater
Japan Amateur Sports Association would be founded (August 8, 1927).
53 Narusawa (1997: 209).
54 Narusawa (1997: 197).
55 Foucault (1979: 141–56)
56 Narusawa (1997: 199).
58 Narusawa (1997: 227).
59 Marshall (1994: 31). See also See Fridell (1970) and Tsurumi (1974) for treatments of
moral education during the Meiji period.
60 Marshall (1994: 31).
61 In addition to his official duties, Mori Arinori had helped found the Meiji Six
Society (Meirokusha) in 1873 and established the Commercial Law Institute
(Shōhō Kōshūjo; the predecessor of Hitotsubashi University) in 1875. Highly
talented and prescient, his life was cut short by assassination. Mori is known for
introducing military exercises into elementary and middle schools and military
style education into the normal schools, decades before most aspects of Japanese
society had become militarized for war-making purposes. He clearly linked the
state with education:
Education in the Japanese State is not intended to create people
accomplished in the techniques of the arts and sciences, but rather to
manufacture the persons required by the State. Rather than proceeding in
accord with Western principles and methods, we should carefully follow
the rules developed in the schools for training army officers … In short,
education must be approached in basic conformity with the spirit of
chūkun aikoku (loyalty and patriotism). (cited in Horio 1988: 100)
See Hall (1973) for a detailed biography.
62 Tenure: March 22, 1889–May 17, 1890.
63 Tenure: May 17, 1890–June 1, 1891.
64 Marshall (1994: 107).
65 Marshall (1994: 49).
66 Rubinger (1986: 195).
67 Rubinger (1986: 229–30).
68 Burks (1985b: 256, emphasis in original).
69 Smith (1997: 589).
70 Kōzu Senzaburō (1852–97) accompanied Takamine to Oswego and Albany State
Normal School.
71 Satō and Satō (2005).
72 We might also mention Wakabayashi Torasaburō who, influenced by Pestalozzi,
Froebel, Agassiz, Spencer, and Bain, recognized the importance of Psychology for
education. An opponent of rote memorization, he saw the need to stimulate “mental
development” (shinsei kaihatsu). See Lincicome (1995: 81–83). Together with Shirai
Kowashi he produced the Kaisei Kyōju-jutsu (The Refined Art of Teaching, 1883), a
well known teaching manual.
Notes 247
73 In 1890 this school became the Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School (Tōkyō Joshi
Kōtō Shihan Gakkō). Eventually, this normal school would evolve into Ochanomizu
University.
74 At first, normal schools divided into jinjō shihan gakkō (regular normal schools) and
kōtō shihan gakkō (higher normal schools), but then in 1886 the Tōkyō Shihan Gakkō
became the only “higher” normal school. See Takasuna (1997b: 15).
75 Predecessor of Tsukuba University that was established in 1973.
76 For a list of Psychology books authorized by the Ministry of Education and used by
examinees (from 1907 to 1917) who sought teaching qualification outside the normal
school system, see Satō (2002a: 318–19).
77 Takasuna (1997b: 51).
78 Nishikawa (2008b: 81–82). See Satō (2002a: 386–420) for the development of
Psychology at Tōhoku (Imperial) University and Satō (2002a: 304–8) for other
imperial universities. See Nishikawa’s chart on the institutionalization of Psychology
in imperial daigaku, 1888–1943 (2008b: 85). Ōizumi offers very useful charts
comparing the development of Psychology in state and private universities (2003:
1228–31).
79 Nagai (1965).
80 Satō (2008b: 181).
81 Takasuna (1997b: 59–63, 60).
82 Missionary; 1857–1921.
83 Missionary and professor of philosophy; 1853–1912.
84 Takasuna (1997b: 60).
85 Under the guidance of Education Minister Mori Arinori, new regulations established
these schools in 1886.
86 Takasuna (1997b: 62). For the role of Psychology in higher schools, see Suzuki and
Takasuna (1997: 205–7) and Satō (2002a: 320–22).
87 Takasuna (1997b: 62).
88 Satō (2002a: 323).
Chapter 5
1 For works about deal Motora, see Imatani (1967); Ko-Motora Hakase Tsuikai-roku
(1913); Ōyama (1998, 2002); Ōyama and Satō (2001); Satō (2001a, 2008c); Uchijima
(1994); and Watanabe (1981). See also Satō (2002a: 51–299), who devotes almost 250
pages to his life and contributions.
2 Satō (2002a: 69–81) details Motora’s biographical details before he went to the United
States.
3 See Satō (2002a: 61) for a list of articles (31) about Motora appearing in the Yomiuri
Newspaper.
4 Satō (2002a: 254–56).
5 For a treatment of Motora’s publications, see Satō (2002a: 58–62, 272–99). Especially
see the extensive list of articles and essays compiled by Satō, which number 591,
pp. 279–99.
6 See Satō (2002a: 59, 60, 62). Note that his earliest works were under his birth name
“Sugita.”
248 Notes
7 For example: Tokutomi Iichirō (1863–1957; pen name: Sohō), a prolific journalist,
historian, critic, and founder of Minyūsha, an influential publishing house, and Tsuda
Sen (1837–1908), politician, agriculturalist, and writer who accompanied Fukuzawa
Yukichi to the United States.
8 Nishikawa (2008f: 54–55).
9 Famous for this best-selling Bushidō: The Soul of Japan (1905).
10 Satō (2002a: 107–8) and Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 79).
11 Arguably, he did research on what we now call cognitive Psychology. See
Ōyama (1998).
12 Satō and Satō (2005: 56).
13 Titchener (1913: 442).
14 The American Journal of Psychology (1(1): 72–98). It was cited by Wundt in a later
edition of his Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, 1902‒3) (Ōyama, Satō, and
Suzuki 2001: 398).
15 Oyama, Sato, and Suzuki (2001: 399) and Satō (2002a: 119). See also Satō (2008c: 63).
16 Nishikawa (2001c: 463).
17 Coon and Sprenger (2000).
18 Now Arima County in Hyōgo Prefecture.
19 For general biographical details on Motora, see Satō (2002a: 54–79).
20 Satō (2002a: 58–62).
21 Kikai Kanran, or Overall View of the Atmosphere, was written by Aochi Rinsō
(1775–1833) in 1826. Much of it is translated from the Dutch Textbook in Natural
Philosophy.
22 See John Merle’s 1916 biography of Davis.
23 Also known as Joseph Hardy Neesima. He studied at Amherst and in 1870 entered
Andover Theological Seminary. Mori Arinori sent him as an interpreter for the
Iwakura Mission to the United States.
24 Satō (2002a: 56).
25 Tsuda Sen accompanied Furukawa Yukichi to the United States in 1867. He was the
father of the female educator Tsuda Umeko (1865–1929).
26 A boys’ elementary school established in 1878 by the missionary Julius Soper.
27 In 1882 Tōkyō Eigakkō merged with Mikai Shingakkō (Mikai Theological Institute,
a Methodist mission seminary established in 1879) and a girls’ elementary school
(established in 1874), becoming Tōkyō Eiwa Gakkō (Tokyo Anglo-Japanese School).
In 1894 the latter evolved into Aoyama Gakuin, which in 1949 became Aoyama
Gakuin University.
28 Vail was the son of one of the founders of Boston University.
29 Bowne, a student of the philosopher and logician Rudolf Hermann Lotze (1817–81),
is best known for his Metaphysics (1882). He was a critic of positivism and naturalism
and became known for his personalism, a form of liberal theology that stresses the
centrality of freedom of self and personality.
30 For a treatment of Motora’s time at Boston and Johns Hopkins Universities, see Satō
(2002a: 82–113).
31 Satō and Satō (2005: 54).
32 See Satō and Satō (2005: 55) for the subjects Motora registered for at Johns Hopkins
University.
33 See McVeigh, “Motora’s ‘Exchange, Considered as the Principle of Social Life’: The
Intellectual Roots of Japan’s First Psychologist” (n.d.). See Suzuki and Kodama’s
project on digitizing Motora’s dissertation (2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b).
Notes 249
34 Suzuki (2006).
35 See Suzuki and Kodama (2001). See also Satō (2002a: 107).
36 Tokyo Anglo-Japanese School; later Aoyama Gakuin.
37 Satō (2002a: 115).
38 English literature scholar, 1857–1923.
39 Now Seisoku High School (Seisoku Kōtō Gakkō).
40 Satō provides a list of those he met on his overseas trip (2002a: 197).
41 See Motora (1905a–d).
42 Watase knew Motora from time spent at Johns Hopkins University.
43 Titchener (1913).
44 Satō (2002a: 122).
45 Magazine founded in 1888 by Miyake Setsurei and Shiga Shigetaka. Its anti-
Westernism caused the authorities to shut it down several times. It ceased publication
in 1923.
46 Established in 1897.
47 Satō (2002a: 124).
48 Cited in Titchener (1913: 443, 442).
49 Uchijima (1994: 78).
50 Satō (2002a: 70–71).
51 Uchijima (1994).
52 Satō (2002a: 57).
53 Satō (2002a: 57).
54 1799‒1872.
55 He taught in Japan from 1875 to 1899.
56 1813–85.
57 1812–1904.
58 Uchijima (1994: 73).
59 1807–87.
60 For a treatment of how Hall influenced Motora, see Satō (2002a: 139–41) and Satō
(2008c: 68).
61 For Motora’s early research activities and interests, see Satō (2002a: 141–46).
62 Takasuana (2001b: 233–37). See Motora (1903a,b). The Psychologist C.E. Price
summarized Motora’s work on nerurotransmission (1904).
63 Satō (2002a: 138–39).
64 Shūshin Kyōkasho Chōsa I-inkai.
65 Kokugo Chōsa I-inkai.
66 Satō (2002a: 148).
67 Satō (2002a: 119).
68 Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 82–84).
69 Satō (2002a: 155–59) and Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398).
70 Osaka R. (2000a: 42–44). See also Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398). He also
researched cataracts. See Satō (2002a: 152–55).
71 “Ein Experiment zur Einübung von Aufmerksamkeit”; Motora (1911).
72 Satō (2002a: 167).
73 The information in the obituary was provided by Watase Shōsaburō.
74 Cited in Titchener (1913: 442). See also Osaka R. (2000a: 44–45).
75 On the introduction of psychophysics to Japan, particularly in relation to Motora’s
role, see Ōyama (2002) and Osaka R. (2000a: 33).
76 Satō (2002a: 115).
250 Notes
77 The Tetsugaku-kai Zasshi, launched in 1887, was the journal of the Testugaku-kai
(Philosophical Society; established in 1884).
78 Motora (1889 to 1891).
79 Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398). See also Ōyama (2008). See Satō (2002a: 134)
for the list of contents of Motora’s “Psychophysics” as they were published serially in
Tetsugakkai Zasshi.
80 Suzuki (1997a: 154).
81 Milton S. Eisenhower Library, Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives.
82 Satō (2002a: 94).
83 Cited in Satō (2002a: 217); originally from Fukurai (1913a).
84 He noted three approaches one could adopt for understanding the relation
between the psyche and reality: (1) idealism (yuishin-ron, sometimes translated as
spiritualism); (2) parallelism (heikō-ron); and (3) materialism (yuibutsu-ron), which is
the most scientific.
85 Also called Enkaku-ji; founded in Kamakura by Hōjō Tokimune in 1282.
86 The Rinzai Sect, founded by Eisai (Rinzen Zenshi) in 1191, based on the ideas of the
Chan Linji (or Huanglong) sect, which was established by the monk Linji (Yixuan;
who died ca. 867) in China.
87 For a detailed treatment of Motora’s interest in Zen, see Satō (2002a: 166–88, 2008c:
67–68).
88 Some of Motora’s descriptions of mind (e.g., “calm but dynamical”) are somewhat
vague and difficult to grasp. For example, mind is “neither merely conscious being,
nor merely one of activity, but conscious activity accompanied by more or less
of feeling-tone” (quoted in Horne 1905: 495). He also stated that mind does not
concentrate on one point, but is distributed in every direction and it is in a static, not
a kinetic state.
89 Originally from Wakasa province, he traveled in India, Ceylon, and the United States.
D.T. Suzuki was one his disciples.
90 Motora (1895a). Sanzen Nikki. For a list of Motora’s publications on Zen, see Satō
(2002a: 191). In addition to Motora’s own writings, a rich literature in Japanese about
the relationship between Psychology and Zen can be traced back to the late 1800s.
See Katō (2005). In 1957, Sato Kōji (1905–71), who had interest in Zen Buddhism,
established Bushikorogia: Tōyō Kokusai Shinri Gakushi (Psychologia: An International
Journal of Psychology in the Orient). See Katō (2002) for an extensive bibliography on
Zen and Psychology.
91 Or transforming the mind into a subject without an array of objects.
92 Quoted in Horne (1905: 495). In 1905 H.H. Horne reviewed Motora’s 32-page An
Essay on Eastern Philosophy. It is useful for our purposes since Horne characterizes it
as substantially about Motora’s own thinking on Psychology, or “is better described
as an essay by an eastern philosopher on the psychological interpretation of
Buddhism.” It shows the “influence of western training on an eastern mind” and is
about “Eastern philosophy” (i.e., India, China and Japan). Zen, a type of “subjective”
“Eastern thought,” acknowledges the mind as subject (unlike “objective” “Western
thought,” which focuses on the object). Horne characterizes the essay as written
in “halting English” and with “abundant typographical errors.” More seriously, it
fails “to distinguish scientific from philosophical thinking.” Horne himself suggests
that Zen experience is a case of “dispersed attention,” or perhaps self-hypnotism.
Also Théodule Ribot reviewed Motora’s work on “Eastern philosophy” and the ego
presented at the Fifth International Congress of Psychology (1905). See Satō (2001b).
Notes 251
93 This is not an experience of a subliminal self or a “secondary personality.”

94 Motora’s explanation, cited in Horne (1905: 496).
95 Pragmatism also resonated with the Neo-Confucian idea of “unity of knowledge
and action” (chikō gōitsu).
96 See Motora (1910a, 1910b).
97 Jiko or ga meant ego (jiko can also mean “self ”or “auto”) and jiga can also mean ego.
In current Japanese, “self-consciousness” is jiko-ishiki, but in the past a term borrowed
from Buddhism that meant to “attain enlightenment,” jikaku, was used (jiko-ishiki can
also mean “subjective”). See Suzuki (2005: 115), who believes that “ego” has a specific
meaning in Japan and therefore “should not be uncritically accepted,” since it is well-
known that the “psychological make-up of Westerners differs considerably from that
of the Japanese”. Also see Suzuki (2005) for how ego (jiga) relates to Motora’s thinking
in his dissertation as well as Ladd’s psychological theory.
98 Though the universe itself lacks intention or ishi.
99 Motora (1907b). See Satō (2002a: 229–30).
100 Cited in Horne (1905: 496).
101 Satō (2002a: 230).
102 He designed a 1905 and 1909 version. The term means something like “model to
manifest psyche/psychical world.”
103 Satō (2002a: 221–22).
104 Satō (2002a: 226–27).
105 Motora (1904).
106 Seishin, like “mental” in English, can in certain situations denote the mystical,
spiritual, and “life force,” and appears in Japan’s traditions of alternative healing. See
Yoshinaga (2007: 9).
107 Shiki (Sanskrit: vijñāna) is the faculty of consciousness that distinguishes, perceives,
and judges and is dependent on the six senses (touch, sight, hearing, taste, smell,
and thought).
108 Satō (2002a: 227).
109 Motora cited in Horne (1905: 496).
110 See Motora (1909b,c,d).
111 Kido (1961: 5).
112 Motora (1909d).
113 Cf. the Buddhist term shingen, meaning the “thought-welling fountain,” or mind as
the source and origin of all things.
114 Fukurai (1913a).
115 See Satō for a discussion of shingen (2002a: 222, 230–31, 234, 236, 240).
116 Motora (1905e: 399, 401, 399).
117 Motora (1905e: 400, 399, 400–1, 407).
118 Motora (1905e: 401, 402).
120 Hoshino (1979: 1).
123 Okamoto (1976); see Ōizumi for a complete list (2003: 1021–23).
124 Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 91–99). See also Okamoto (1976).
125 Kyōto-furitsu Chūgakkō.
126 Dai-ichi Kōtō Gakkō, which was to become the First National Junior College.
127 Okamoto (1976: 32).
252 Notes
128 Osaka R. (2000a: 50–54). See also Hidano (2000: 86–95).

129 Okamoto (1976: 33).
130 Apparently Matsumoto was the first to use a sound cage in the study of auditory
space perception.
131 Suzuki (2005: 121).
132 Suzuki (2001: 257–70). See also Suzuki (1997b: 93–94).
133 During this time, P. Mentz, W. Wirth, F. Kreuger, and O. Klemm were working with
Wundt.
134 Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 95). See also Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 95).
135 Hidano (2000: 88).
136 See Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 97) for a chart that lists students and their
research topics under Matsumoto’s purview. Satō also lists the key students of
Matsumoto and the educational institutions at which they ended up working
(1997c: 584–85).
137 Connected to the Dōshisha Jogakkō Senmon-bu (Special Division of Doshisha
Women’s School). Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 98–99).
138 Azuma and Imada (1994: 709). For information on Matsumoto, see Nishikawa
(2008b); Ōyama (1998); Ōyama, Suzuki, and Satō (2001); Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta
(1997: 91–99); Satō (2002a: 246–53); Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 91–114); and
Takasuna (2008).
139 Osaka R. (2000a: 60–61).
140 For our purposes this development deserves passing mention because a researcher
recognized how conscious interiority shapes aesthetic judgments and preferences.
141 For the list, see Osaka N. (2000c: 280).
142 Tōkyō Kōtō Shihan Gakkō—the same normal school modernized by Takamine and
Izawa.
143 Joshi Shihan Gakkō.
144 Kyōto Shiritsu Bijustsu Kōgei Gakkō, which is now called Kyōto Shiritsu Geijutsu
Daigaku.
145 Kyōto Shiritsu Kaiga Senmon Gakkō.
146 Takasuna (1997b: 2).
149 Tanaka (1966: 234).
150 Some write the word in English as “psychocinematics” or “psychocynematics.”
151 Osaka R. (2000a: 56).
152 Osaka N. (2006a: 84). See also Osaka R. (2000a: 60–61).
153 Kido (1961).
154 Osaka R. (2000b: 18). See Osaka N. (2006a), who discusses Chiba Tanenari’s notes
about the experimental investigation on writing and association reaction time,
which was the “first scientific report” inspired by psychokinematics.
155 Okamoto (1976: 34).
Chapter 6
1 Or that life somehow emerges from a complex combination of organic matter.
2 Reed (1997: 84, 83–85, 1).
3 Mizoguchi (1997b: 134‒36).
Notes 253
4 The philosopher Tanabe Hajime (1885–1962) wrote on vitalism.

5 Satō (2002a: 522–24).
6 Taylor (2000: 1030).
7 Satō (2002a: 520). See also Satō (2008d) and Satō (1997d: 194). On the “rise and fall”
of abnormal (hentai) Psychology, see Satō (2002a: 520–45).
8 Satō (2002a: 521) and Satō (2008d: 120–24). See also Oda et al. (2001).
9 Seishin igaku can mean “psychiatry.” However, in actual usage a measure of ambiguity
surrounded seishin, and it could be associated with hypnotism, the unconsciousness,
or spiritualism. Thus, in order to maintain these connotations, I translated Seishin
Igaku as “Seishin Medicine.”
10 On the journal Hentai Shinri, see Oda et al. (2001) and Satō (2002a: 526–30).
11 Among his works was Hentai Shinrigaku (Abnormal Psychology, 1919).
12 See Satō (2002a: 528) for a list of founding members of Nihon Seishi Igakkai.
13 Satō (1997d: 192‒93).
14 Hyōdō (2005).
15 Coon (2000: 144).
16 Foster (2006: 263).
17 See Fukurai (1914).
18 Coon (2000: 143).
19 Reed (1997: 5).
20 Coon (2000).
21 In the American case, the origins of spiritualism (communication with the dead)
are often traced to strange noises heard by the Fox sisters in upstate New York,
Hydesville, in 1848 (though probably similar events in other communities fed into the
movement).
22 1859–1941.
23 1871–1938.
24 1847–1930; a Psychologist, logician, and mathematician.
25 1839–1925.
26 1823–1913; explorer, geographer, anthropologist, and biologist who, independently of
Darwin, developed the theory of evolution.
27 1832–1919; chemist and physicist.
28 1851–1940; physicist.
29 1835–1909; writer, astronomer, mathematician, and economist. Coon (2000: 144).
30 1854–1920; a philosopher at Columbia University.
31 1863–1944.
32 Jastrow, in particular, wrote much on the topic and spawned the field of the
Psychology of deception and belief. Coon (2000: 144).
33 Mizoguchi (1997b: 124).
34 1854–1931; he later became presidents of Tokyo, Kyūshū, and Kyoto Imperial
Universities.
35 See Hardacre’s treatment of Japanese spiritualism in early-twentieth-century
Japan (1998).
36 Before the 1940s, seishin igaku was used (literally, “medicine of mind”).
37 Yoshinaga (2007).
38 1873–1906; see Yoshinanga (2007: 12–13).
39 1874–1937.
40 Satō (2008a: 224–30). See also Hagio (2001).
41 Zēmusu-shi Shinrigaku (1900) and Shinrigaku Seigi (1902).
254 Notes
42 See his Kyōiku Shinrigaku Kōgi (Lectures on the Educational Psychology, 1908).
43 1886–1911.
44 Suzuki provides an account (1997a: 140–53) and a list of who attended the
experiment. See also Satō (2002a: 530–35) and Satō (2002a: 346–48). See also Satō
and Satō (2005), and Satō (2007: 136), Matsuyama (1993: 156–67), and Yokota (1995:
27–32).
45 Nagai’s husband would also kill himself.
46 Fukurai (1913b).
47 Satō (2002a: 310–11).
48 See Foster (2006).
49 Note that the German physician and physiologist Erwin von Bälz (1849–1913) treated
hysterics with therapies of suggestion at the Tokyo Imperial University’s School of
Medicine.
50 Satō and Satō (2005: 52).
51 Details on Yamaguchi are unclear, though he did study at Yale University under
Scripture.
52 See Ichiyanagi’s Saiminjutsu no Nihon Kindai (Hypnotism’s Japanese
Modernity, 1997).
53 Hypnotism can be explained as the temporarily willed suspension of interiority (in
particular, self-autonomy and introceptive capabilities). Despite attempts to use the
persuasive metaphor of “sleep” to explain and describe it in the 1800s, it is unrelated
to this neurophysiological state (note that Mesmer’s imagery of “animal magnetism”
relied on a completely different trope). During hypnosis, one voluntarily abdicates
one’s belief about self-control and suspends belief in the metaphoric interiority
encased within the head (trancing). This suspension evaporates the elements of
introspectable mind-space, in particular beliefs about how an “I” (active agent)
controls a “me” (passive recipient). The locus of agency temporarily shifts from
internal to external control, so that one’s “I” is replaced by an outside controller
(hypnotist). That beliefs about self-control can be so easily arrested suggests the
following: (1) psychic diversity; (2) psychic malleability, that is, how easily self-
authorization (decision-making) can be altered; and (3) how decision-making may
be thought of as an interiorized version of social interaction between an agent and a
recipient.
54 Other important thinkers on hypnotism include Ambrose Liebeault (Sleep and
Analogous States, 1888); Alfred Binet and Charles Féré (Animal Magnetism, 1887);
and Hippolyte Bernheim (Suggestive Therapeutics: A Treatise on the Nature and Uses
of Hypnotism, 1899).
55 In Japanese, minzoku shinrigaku; a more up-to-date translation might be
ethnocultural or ethnonational Psychology.
56 In June 1868, immediately following the Meiji Restoration, the Jingikan (Council
of Shintō Affairs) was established within the Grand Council with support from
advocates of nativist studies. “Missionaries” (senkyōshi) were charged with instilling
a Shinto-inspired nationalism through spreading the Great Doctrine (Taikyō).
In February 1870, the Imperial Rescript for the Propagation of the Great Doctrine
(Taikyō Senpu no Mikotonori) was issued. In September 1871, the Council of Shinto
was downgraded to a department and then replaced in April of the following year
by the Department of Doctrinal Instruction (Kyōbushō). In May 1872, “instructors”
(kyōdōshoku) were appointed, drawn from the ranks of both Shintōist and Buddhist
clergy and trained at sites headed by the Grand Institute of Instruction (Taikyōin).
Notes 255
The principles of doctrinal instruction included the inculcation of patriotism,

acknowledgment of morality, and the veneration of the emperor. Though within a
few years the propagation of the Great Doctrine would soon fizzle out since it could
not compete with the novelty of Western learning and imported ideas, it laid the
foundations for the virulent imperialist nationalism that would poison Japanese
society during the war period.
57 See Motora (1895b,c, 1897b,c) and Satō (2002a: 129).
58 He was also awarded a doctorate from Kyoto University in 1962.
59 For the interrelationships between sociology and Psychology, see Satō, Takasuna, and
Ōta (1997: 71–73).
60 For works in English on the development of Japanese sociology, see Babe (1962);
Barshay (2007); Becker (1936); Chee (1959); Halmos (1962); Koyano (1976); Nagai
(1954); Odaka (1950); Srubar and Shimada (2005); Steiner (1936); Tamano (2007);
and Tominaga (1975).
61 For a treatment of major trends in postwar Japan (until 1969), see Wagatsuma
(1969).
62 After 1945, a strong American influence would characterize Japanese social
Psychology. See Hotta and Strickland (1991).
63 A mere one year after the founding of the Sociology Department at the University of
Chicago.
64 Tominaga (1975: 31).
65 Incidentally, evolutionary theory was accepted sans the controversy that accompanied
its reception in the Euro-American intellectual orbit. See Takasuna (2005: 89).
66 Herbart, though he developed a sort of mechanics of the soul, still has an introcosmic,
metaphysical view of the psychological; that is, he did not believe that Psychology
could be experimental.
67 In Japanese, kannen or hyōshō.
68 Herbart’s thinking was still very much rooted in an introcosmic worldview, since he
believed that while Vorstellungen were somehow rooted in the soul, the soul itself was
beyond human comprehension.
69 1823–99.
70 This tradition, of course, harks back to J. G. Herder.
71 Richards (1992: 320).
72 1828–87; he taught Psychology, pedagogy, and ethics at the University of Prague.
73 Jansz (2003: 30).
74 Boring (1929: 250).
75 1872–1946.
76 Robinson (2000: 1020).
77 See also Wundt’s An Introduction to Psychology (1973 [1912]), Outlines of Psychology
(1969 [1897]), and Elements of Folk-Psychology (1916).
78 Shin-i or seishin was used in translations of Geist.
79 1871‒1902.
80 Kayashima (1993: 20).
81 This call for a lessening of American-style local control seems to have encouraged the
departure of American advisers to the Department of Education; Luther W. Mason
left Japan in 1882, Marion Scott in 1881, and David Murray in 1879.
82 For a careful analysis of the Imperial Rescript of Education, see Shiro (1991: 346–50).
83 Duke (1973: 14).
256 Notes
Chapter 7
1 Incidentally, in an interesting connection, many books, journals, and reprints that
once belonged to Wundt have ended up in Tōhoku Imperial University in Sendai,
Japan (Takasuna 2001a).
2 Reed (1997: 144). Here we might note that from 1930s, statistics became a “hallmark
of the scientific psychologist.” Starting in 1930s, the “discipline appeared to be defined
by its methodological preoccupations and the training required to master them
rather than by its subject matter” (Smith 1997: 587). Note that the Psychologist John
E. Coover (1872–1938) was the first to advocate comparison of experimental and
control groups as methodologically necessary (Dehue 2000). On the introduction of
statistics into Japan, see Omi (1997).
3 For detailed treatment of equipment, see Satō (2002a: 348–58). See also Osaka N.
(2000d), Nishikawa (1999), and Ōyama (1998, 2004a). For equipment used in Tokyo
Imperial University, see Ōyama and Satō (2000). For Kyoto Imperial University, see
Osaka R. (2000c) and Osaka N. (2006b). Also, note that historical psychological
instruments from the old Taihoku Imperial University are persevered in National
Taiwan University. See Ōyama et al. (2006) and Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001). Also
see Arakawa (2006). For a general view of the role of instruments in psychological
research, see Sturm and Ash (2005).
4 Measures tactile sensitivity.
5 Records the velocity and force of chest movements during respiration.
6 Determines olfactory thresholds.
7 See Nishikawa (1999: 318).
8 Evans (2000: 322). See Omi and Komata (2005) for a treatment of how data analysis
in Japanese Psychology developed.
9 Benjamin (2000: 318).
10 A psychologist and philosopher, who wrote on aesthetics, ethics, and medicine, Külpe
founded the Würzburg School of Experimental Psychology. Some of his better known
works include Grundriss Der Psychologie (Outlines of Psychology, 1893), Einleitung in
Die Philosophie (Introduction to Philosophy, 1895), and Vorlesungen über Psychologie
(Lectures on Psychology, 1922).
11 Benjamin (2000: 319).
12 1850–1909; also known for his important work on memory.
13 1874–79.
14 See Smith et al. (2000).
15 Tweney et al. (2000: 1015); see also Rosenzweig (1994).
16 1859–1924.
17 Evans (2000: 323, 322).
18 Shiken now means test or examination.
19 Omi (1997: 445).
20 See Satō (2002a: 340–41) for a discussion of the evolution of the notion of
“experiment” in Japan. See also Osaka R. (2000a: 27–28).
21 Nishikawa (1999: 318).
22 Forty-three experiments have been recorded in a photographic album.
23 Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 108–112).
24 See Takasuna (2007a: 88) and Osaka N. (2000e), who provide detailed descriptions of
the photos.
Notes 257
25 See Satō (2002a: 338–60) of a treatment of the establishment of the Psychology

laboratory at Tokyo Imperial University. See Osaka R. (2000a) for Motora’s
experiments. See also Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 398).
26 According to Ohse and Noritoshi (1903).
27 Osaka (1998) and Takasuna (2007a: 88).
28 Ōyama and Satō (1999: 295). See Ōyama and Satō (1999: 293–310) for an
analysis of the old instrument registry book for equipment in Tokyo Imperial
University’s Psychology laboratory. They divide equipment usage in the Tokyo
Imperial University’s Psychology laboratory into five periods: (1) Motora’s first
period—1889–1900; (2) Motora’s second period—1901–12; (3) Matsumoto
Matatarō—1913–26; (4) Kuwada Yoshizō’s first period—1927–34; and (5) Kuwada
Yoshizō’s second period—1935–42. We should note that some equipment was
registered with Motora before the founding of the first psychological laboratory
in 1903.
29 For a treatment of Psychology laboratories outside university settings (e.g., in higher
schools (kōtō gakkō), see Hidano (2000: 95–104).
30 Nishikawa (2008e: 164).
31 Kenkyūshitsu and jikkenshitsu are sometimes used interchangeably. Strictly speaking,
the latter is a room with experimental equipment, while the former means a room
for research (or perhaps more broadly, it indicates a program of study or even an
institute). I am grateful to Takasuna Miki for explaining the usage of these terms.
32 Nishikawa (2008e: 163). See Nishikawa (2008e: 165) for a list of Psychology
laboratories established in Japan between 1906 and 1933. See also Osaka N. (2000f),
Azuma and Imada (1994), and Ōyama (1998).
33 For the establishment of Psychology kenkyūshitsu in state-operated (kanritsu daigaku)
and private universities, see Satō (2002a: 308–10). See also Suzuki and Takasuna
(1997: 208–19). For development at Kyūshū University’s Psychology laboratory, see
Sakuma (2000). Satō compares the contributions of three notable scholars who, after
graduating from Tokyo Imperial University, established psychological laboratories
in private universities: Kido Mantarō (Hōsei), Watanabe Tōru (Nihon), and Imada
Megumi (Kansei Gakuin) (2008b: 183–84).
34 Bayly (2004: 319). Examples of professional and scholarly societies include: Tokyo
Mathematical Association (1877); Japanese Engineering Society (1879); Tokyo
Earthquake Study Society (1880); and Tokyo Biological Society (1882) (Ishizuki 1985:
178). Academic organizations were also founded in fields such as chemistry (1878);
earth science (1879); seismology (1880); pharmaceutics (1881); botany (1882);
meteorology (1882); anthropology (1884); agriculture (1887); medicine (1887); and
electrical engineering (1888). Infectious disease institute (1892) was transformed into
a state agency in 1899. Also, the first scientific journals appeared around this time, in
areas such as meteorology (1875); mathematics (1877); zoology (1877–79); general
science (1879); and seismology (1880) (Burks 1985a).
35 See Azuma and Imada (1994) for a brief description of the key role of this
organization. For a treatment of the early stages of the institutionalization of
Psychology-related journals and societies, see Satō, Takasuna, and Ōta (1997: 64–74)
and Satō (2002a: 323–330). For the sake of comparison, note that the American
Psychological Association was founded in 1892 with 31 members; by 1900 it had 126.
Membership in the latter organization overlapped with the American Philosophical
Association (established in 1900), the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (established in 1848; publisher of Science), and numerous local and regional
258 Notes
organizations (Pate 2000). It is worth noting that before the First World War the
number of psychological societies was relatively small and most organizations were
formed after 1950. Pawlik and Rosenzweig (1994: 665).
36 See Nishikawa (2005).
37 For a list of speakers and topics for the first conference, see Nihon Shinri Gakkai
Henshū I-inkai (2002: 15–17).
38 In Japanese: Ōyō Shinri Gakkai, Kansai Ōyō Shinri Gakkai, and the Seishin Gijutsu
Kyōkai.
39 See Takasuna (1997a: 238–49), Nishikawa and Takasuna (2006), and Nishikawa
(2008b: 90–2, 2008g).
40 The Meiroku Zasshi was published by the Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society; active from
1873 to around 1900), an influential intellectual society that examined education,
religion, politics, language reform, and other challenges facing a rapidly modernizing
Japan. Mori Arinori (who became Japan’s first Minister of Education) founded the
society. Prominent members included Nishimura Shigeki, Katō Hiroyuki, Nishi
Amane, Tsuda Sen, Maejima Hisoka, Mitsukuri Rinshō, and Fukuzawa Yukichi. See
Braisted (1976) and Huish (1972).
41 Originally called Tetsugakkai Zasshi.
42 Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 65–68). See also Suzuki (1997c: 161). For an idea of
titles and topics in Geibun and Tetsugaku Kenkyū, see Osaka N. (2000c: 281, 283–85).
43 For the sake of comparison, consider the development of Psychology journals
in the United States. Key figures such as G.S. Hall, James M. Cattell, and James
M. Baldwin aided Psychology’s institutionalization with privately owned and
managed journals. Hall established American Journal of Psychology (in 1887;
the only Psychology journal in the United States at the time) and Pedagogical
Seminary (in 1891). These functioned like house organs for Cornell and Clark
Universities and while at the latter, Hall’s publications served as an outlet for
faculty and graduate students. Baldwin and Cattell established Psychological
Review (in 1894; purchased by the American Psychological Association in 1925)
and Psychological Monographs (in 1895; eventually affiliated with the American
Psychological Association). In 1903 and 1904, Baldwin acquired Psychological
Review and Psychological Bulletin. More focused on education and applied
Psychology, Hall’s journals were appealed to a broader, more public-friendly
readership. Cattell and Baldwin’s journals were more academic and experimental
(and less pieces on applied topics) and had a larger, more international
audience. In 1921, Cattell established the for-profit Psychological Corporation,
which injected more into its research products. Journals gradually became
more specialized and by 1917, about ten journals were spreading the word of
Psychology into different intellectual realms. Examples include: American Journal
of Religious Psychology and Education (established 1904); Morton Prince’s Journal
of Abnormal Psychology (established 1905; renamed Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology); Journal of Applied Psychology (established 1917); W.C. Bagely,
J.C. Bell, C.E. Seashore, and G.M. Whipple’s Journal of Educational Psychology
(established 1910); Robert M. Yerkes’s Journal of Animal Behavior (established
1911); W.A. White and S.E. Jelliffe’s Psychoanalytic Review (established 1913); and
J.B. Watson’s Journal of Experimental Psychology (established 1916). Evidence of
the fragmentation of scholarly fields is apparent in how the Journal of Philosophy,
Psychology and Scientific Methods abandoned its mission to synthesize science
and philosophy and was renamed the Journal of Philosophy in 1921. In 1900, 2,100
Notes 259
Psychology articles appeared (mostly non-English); by 1998, 43,500 articles were

listed in PsycINFO. See Johnson (2000: 1144, 1147).
44 For an idea of titles and topics from 1919 to 1922, see Osaka (2000c: 287–88).
45 For a treatment of psychological journals, see Takasuna (1997a: 238–49); Satō and
Fukutome (1997: 413); and Suzuki (1997c: 165–72). For a discussion of Shinri
Kenkyū, see Suzuki (1997c: 160–65). For a treatment of Acta Psychologica Keijō (or
Keijō Shinrigaku Ihō), see Satō (2002a: 430–431). For a listing of article titles for Jikken
Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of Experimental Psychology) (1934–41), see
Osaka N. (2000c: 290–91). See also Satō (2008e).
46 Ōizumi offers a very useful treatment of the history of Psychology journals and
related publications (2003: 1234–91).
47 Originally called the Tōkyō Gakushi-in, it came under the Ministry of Education in
1879. It was renamed Nihon Gakushi-in after the war. See Fumino (1997a: 463–64).
48 See Fumino for a list of psychological researchers (and their projects) who received
funding between 1927 and 1938 (1997a: 465). See also Mizoguchi (2006).
49 Satō et al. (1997: 498).
50 Satō et al. (1997: 498).
52 Pollack (1988: 419, 426, emphasis in original).
53 Suzuki (1997c: 156–60).
54 Satō (2008f: 113).
55 The Society was dissolved in 1927.
56 Hoshino and Umemoto (1987: 186–87).
57 Satō and Hoshino (1997: 310–16, 311).
58 Satō and Hoshino (1997: 316).
59 Rose (1988: 182).
60 Dehue (2000: 265).
61 Jansz (2003: 32).
62 Morawski (2000: 427).
63 Jansz (2003: 1).
64 Castro and Lafuente (2007: 111).
65 Satō (2002a: 483).
66 Hoshino and Umemoto (1987: 187).
67 Satō (2002a: 481).
68 Satō (2002a: 476–86).
69 Marshall (1994: 93).
70 Meanwhile, in America Lightner Witmer (1867–1956) was pursuing his interests in
children’s academic and behavioral problems and what we call special education.
71 Uchijima (1991).
72 Satō (2002a: 499–500, 479–80).
73 Which superseded the 1935 Youth Social Order.
74 Formerly, the Greater Japan Federation of Youth Groups (Dai Nippon Rengō Seinen-
dan).
75 Formerly, the Japanese Association of Boy Scouts (Shōnendan Nippon Renmei).
76 Now Osaka City University.
77 Satō (2002a: 478–79).
78 Satō (2002a: 479–80).
79 See Satō for a list of Psychologists who worked in the Ministry of Welfare in 1938
(2002a: 479–80). See also Takasuna (1997c: 295–96).
260 Notes
80 Satō (2008b: 174).

81 Satō (2002a: 610–11). For a list of Psychologists who worked for the Ministry of
Home Affairs, see Takasuna (1997c: 295–96).
82 1836–1909.
83 1847–1915.
84 Satō (1997d: 195–97) and Satō (2002a: 507–509).
85 Hoshino, Satō, and Mizoguchi (1997: 290).
86 Satō (2002a: 489–97).
87 Satō (1997d: 182).
88 Satō (2008f: 101, 112–13).
89 Satō (1997d: 181–82).
90 Satō (1997d: 182).
91 1857–1911.
92 1873–1961.
93 1860–1944.
94 1871–1938. Stern is credited with coining the term “intelligence quotient” (IQ):
mental age score divided by chronological age.
95 1877–1956.
96 1896–1981.
97 1876–1956.
98 1876–1954.
99 1874–1940.
100 1882–1962.
101 1875–1966. An inspector in Osaka, he would receive his doctorate from Kyoto
University in 1950.
102 Satō (2008f: 99–114) and Satō (1997d: 177). See also Azuma and Imada (1994: 709).
Currently, the Suzuki–Binet and Tanaka–Binet (2004, fifth version) are used.
103 Satō (2008f: 99–114).
104 Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 399), Satō (2008f: 108, 111), and Suzuki (1997c:
177–78).
105 Satō (2008f: 127–29).
106 Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 399).
108 Robertson uses the term “ethnic national endogamy” (2002: 330).
109 Originally called yuzenikkusu.
110 Mizoguchi (1997b: 132–34). See also Satō (2002a: 568–91, 595–602) and Satō
(2002b). See Frühstück’s (2003) treatment of eugenics in the context of Japanese
sexology.
111 Here it should be noted that in the late 1800s and early 1900s the nurture-versus-
nature distinction was not as clearly drawn as it is now; cultivating one meant
bettering the other. This is why in Japan, though some did distinguish between
culture and biology, the two terms minzoku (Volk or ethnonation) and jinshu (race)
were at times used interchangeably, thereby conflating and confusing socialization
and physicality.
112 Hoshino, Satō, and Mizoguchi (1997: 274–90), and Satō (2008a: 231–36).
113 Satō (1997d: 187–90).
114 Satō (2002a: 500–503).
115 1895–1979.
116 Tsutsui (2009: 443).
Notes 261
117 Now called Sangyō Nōritsu Daigaku (Industrial Efficiency University).

118 1865–1915.
119 Tsutsui (2009: 466). See also Satō (2008f: 113–14) and Suzuki (1997c: 168–69).
120 Presently Nihon Rōdō Kagaku Kenkyūjo.
121 Taisei Yokusankai.
122 For information on Hori Baiten, see also Nishikawa (2001d: 36–42).
123 Nishikawa (2008e: 157–61).
Chapter 8
1 Ōyama, Torii, and Mochizuki (2005: 83).
2 Ōyama and Goto (2007).
3 In Japanese, geshyutaruto.
4 1859–1932; a student of Brentano and Alexius Meinong (1853–1920).
5 1838–1916; proponent of logical positivism. His research on optical illusions had
great relevance for perceptual Psychology.
6 1880–1943.
7 1886–1947.
8 1887–1967.
9 1848–1936.
10 Takasuna (2008c: 140–41).
11 They were part of the movement of Jewish intellectuals fleeing Germany in the
1930s.
12 For treatments of Gestalt Psychology in Japan, see Sakuma (2000), Suzuki and
Takasuna (1997: 242–45), and Takuma (2001).
13 Takasuna and Satō (2008: 49). See Takasuna (2008c: 145–46) for a treatment of
Sakuma Kanae and Onoshima Usao.
14 See Takasuna (2008c: 143–44).
15 “Kokugo no Onsei-teki Kenkyū.”
16 His works include: Kokugo no Hatsuon to Akusento (Pronunciation and Accent in
the National Language, 1919); Gendai Nihongo no Hyōgen to Gohō (Expressions
and Diction in Modern Japanese, 1936); Geshitaruto Shinrigaku no Tachiba (The
Standpoint of Gestalt Psychology, 1932); Gendai Nihongo-hō no Kenkyū (Research on
the Rules of Modern Japanese, 1940); Nihongo no Gengo Riron (Linguistic Theory of
Japanese, 1959).
17 See Takasuna (2001c) who reproduces his notes on Gestalt Psychology.
18 Specifically, parallelism (Ebenbreite) and “system of reference” (Bezugssystem).
19 For Morinaga, see Shiina and Ōyama (2008). We might also mention Takemasa
Tarō (1887‒1965). He studied with David Katz (1884‒1953) at the University of
Rostock (1931‒33) and would teach at Tokyo Higher Normal School. See Takasuna
(2006a).
20 A key question among comparative Psychologists has been the purpose of research
on animal behavior: Should it been carried out for its own sake, or should we
discern how it sheds light on human Psychology? Also, are our minds end points
in the evolutionary process, or only a stage in the development of what will
eventually become a type of mind that is superior to ours as ours are to animals?
See Dewsbury (2000b: 750).
262 Notes
21 Takasuna (2008d: 138–39).

22 See his Animal Intelligence (1882).
23 See his Animal Intelligence (1911). Thorndike, a student of William James and James
McKeen Cattell, was also well known for his work in educational Psychology and
mental testing.
24 Numerous early Psychologists, such as Wundt and William James, made
contributions to comparative Psychologists. Other important names in this regard
are the English biologist, archaeologist, and politician Sir John Lubbock (1834‒1913),
the English biologist Douglas Alexander Spalding (1841‒77), and the American
ethologist and primatologist Robert Mearns Yerkes (1876‒1956).
25 1877–1947; a graduate of Tokyo Imperial University who studied experimental
embryology at Columbia University. He would later teach at Tokyo Imperial and then
Keiō Universities.
26 1871–1939; a student of E.B. Titchener and the first woman to be granted a PhD
in Psychology, she is considered one of the most important American Psychologist
of the twentieth century and developed many lines of research, such as “motor
theory” (1916).
27 In 1990 it was renamed the Dōbutsu Shinrigaku Kenkyū (Japanese Journal of Animal
Psychology).
28 Takasuna (2005).
29 See Takasuna (2008d).
30 Kan might be translated as perception, intuition, or even “sixth sense.”
31 Takasuna (2005).
32 See Takasuna (2006a: 119‒25). According to Takasuna, the contributions of Kanda
and Yoshioka have been overlooked in Japan. Takasuna (2005).
33 1865‒1957; American Psychologist.
34 1868‒1964; American zoologist and eugenicist.
35 1886‒1959; American psychologist who developed a behavioristic-influenced theory
of learning.
36 1890‒1958; influential American neuropsychologist; some consider him, along with
J.B. Watson, the co-founder of behaviorism.
37 1876‒1956.
38 See Takasuna (2006a: 125‒28).
39 Other experimental physiologists that shaped Watson’s thinking were Ivan
Mikhailovich Sechenov (1829–1905) and Vladimir Bekhterev (1857–1927).
40 See his 1913 article, “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It”; often referred to as the
“The Behaviorist Manifesto”).
41 Watson would also become a popular writer on education, child-rearing practices
(e.g., Psychological Care of Infant and Child, 1928), and the advertising industry.
42 Skinner was also a prolific author, social reformer, and poet.
43 See Iwahara and Fujita (1963).
44 “Shinrigaku wa Ishiki no Gaku ka, Kōdō no Gaku ka.”
45 Mizoguchi critiques and rectifies earlier understandings of how Pavlovian theories
were received in Japan. He provides a very convenient table chronicling the reception
of Pavlov’s theories in Japan (2005: 101–2).
46 Entitled Ningen wa ika ni Kōdō Suru ka (How Do People Behave?).
47 See Satō et al. (1997: 521–23).
48 Mizoguchi (2005).
49 Ōyama (2004b).
Notes 263
50 1838–1917.
51 1833–1911.
52 1897–1976; a graduate of Kyoto Imperial University, he studied at Gottingen
University, 1929–31.
53 Established by the Japanese Imperial Army in the puppet state of Manshūkoku.
54 Takasuna (2008b: 71–78), Maruyama (2000: 151–75) and Osaka (2006a: 83–88).
55 Takasuna (2008b: 76–78).
56 See his Muishiki no Shinrigaku (Psychology of the Unconsciousness, 1956) and Ishiki–
Muishiki no Mondai (The Problem of Consciousness and the Unconscious, 1935).
57 For a recounting of how Chiba acquired portions of Wundt’s library, see Suzuki and
Takasuna (1997: 219–20). See also Takasuna (2001c).
58 Here we might also mention Karl Bühler (1869–1963), who researched the varieties
of subjective experience, such as doubt, surprise, and the “consciousness of
consciousness” (i.e., interiorized feelings).
59 Boring (1929: 396).
60 Arakawa (2005).
61 Satō (2008b: 174–75).
62 1871–1938; born Wilhelm Louis Stern. Stern was an advocate of personalism.
63 Joy Paul Guilford (1897–1987) was an American Psychologist who studied under E.B.
Titchener. He is known for his psychometric study of human intelligence.
64 Now called the Institute of Living.
65 Much of this section is borrowed from Hiruta and Beveridge (2002).
66 Satō (1997d: 192). In the early 1870s legislation would outlaw exorcism.
67 As opposed to “figurative metaphoricity.” In other words, we moderns do not
actually believe mental activities take place in our viscera, though we regularly
employ figures of speech to describe emotional, intellectual, and volitional acts. See
McVeigh (1996).
68 Note that while many of us believe that the brain is the seat of the psychological,
strictly speaking, mental operations do not spatially occur “in” our heads, that is, our
neurological system is associated with, but does not contain, the psychological.
69 McVeigh (1996).
70 Hiruta and Beveridge provide a useful chart comparing the terminology of proto-
psychiatrists with the modern idiom for mental illness (2002: 147).
71 A collection of therapies that dates back to the Han dynasty.
72 See Hashimoto (2015).
73 Now Tokyo Metropolitan Matsuzawa Hospital.
74 Tōkyō-fu Tenkyōin. Originally called the Yōiku-in, it was set up in 1873 to house
the poor, elderly, mentally ill, and orphans. In 1879 the mentally ill were placed in a
different institution.
75 1835–1918.
76 1860‒1919.
77 For a brief treatment of how “nerve fibers” were conceived in late-nineteenth century
Japanese Psychology, see Takasuna (2001c: 196–97).
78 Seishinbyō-sha Shitaku Kanchi no Jikkyō oyobi Sono Tōkei-teki Kansatsu.
79 See Satō (1997d: 192–93).
80 Lightner Witmer (1867–1956) is often credited with initiating training in clinical
Psychology (1896 at the University of Pennsylvania), though apparently he had little
faith in pscyhotherapeutics. Taylor (2000: 1029).
264 Notes
81 Also called the “Boston school of psychotherapy” or “Boston school of

psychopathology” (Taylor 2000).
82 Taylor (2000: 1029).
83 Taylor (2000).
84 On the development of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Japan, see Satō
(1997d: 199–201); Satō (2002a: 509–10); Satō (2002a: 549–65); and Satō (2008d:
126–27). For developments after the war, see Satō (2002a: 563–64). See also Blowers
and Yang (1997).
85 Gordon and Nair (2003).
86 See Miyamoto (1973).
87 Kanda Sakyō (a physiologist) also attended Freud’s lectures at Clark in 1909.
Ōyama, Satō, and Suzuki (2001: 399).
88 See also Kubo (1917b).
89 For a discussion of “Seishin Bunseki,” see Satō (2008e).
90 1888–1972; British physician and psychoanalyst.
91 1879–1958; Welsh neurologist, psychoanalyst, and Sigmund Freud’s official
biographer. At the time, Jones was president of the International Psychoanalytic
Association.
92 Satō (2008d: 126–27).
93 Blowers and Yang (2001).
94 1866–1950; one of the most influential psychiatrist of the early period of the
twentieth century. Though initially interested in psychoanalysis, he would later
challenge some of Freud’s ideas.
95 The city where Tōhoku Imperial University is located.
96 Kokusai Seishin Bunseki Gakkai Sendai Shibu.
98 Satō (2008d: 127).
99 See Iwata (2015) for a treatment of Kosawa.
100 Here we might mention Kawai Hayao (1928–2007), a professor of Kyoto University
and director of the International Center for Japanese Studies. He was Japan’s first
Jungian analyst and received an analytic license from the C. G. Jung Institute in
Zurich. See Tarutani (2015).
101 See Satō (2002a: 562–63) and Kitanaka (2003).
102 Satō and Satō (2005: 52).
103 See Kitanaka (2003).
104 Satō (1997d: 197–99), Satō (2002a: 510–13), and Satō (2008d: 124–26). Numerous
works, in both Japanese and English, treat Morita and his therapy. For a recent
work in English, see Ozawa-de Silva (2006). See also Kondo and Kitanishi (2015).
105 Satō (2008d: 125).
106 See Shimazono (2015) and Terao (2015) for a recent treatment of Naikan in
English.
Chapter 9
1 Kayashima (1993: 14).
2 Cited in Garon (1997: 11).
3 Garon (1997: 11).
Notes 265
4 Marshall (1994: 136).

5 For the relation between education and Psychology during the war, see Satō (2002a:
611–12). Also, Terasaki and Senjika Kyōiku Kenkūkai (1987) provide a useful analysis
of how the state mobilized education.
6 Cited in Horio (1988: 78).
7 Efforts to meet military demands were also visible at the tertiary level. Institutions
of higher education de-emphasized courses in the humanities and stressed science
enrollments; intensive courses were instituted so students could complete their
studies more quickly and then join working units for war production. Eventually,
the draft deferment for students was suspended (October 1943) and their enlistment
started on December 1, 1945.
8 Related to Gestalt Psychology but in some respects different is Ganzheitspsychologie
or “holistic Psychology,” a term associated with Felix Krueger (1874‒1948) who
succeeded Wundt at University of Leipzig. The meaning of Ganzheit—whole, entirety,
totality—resonates with Gestalt. Ōwaki Yoshikazu (1897–1976), who studied in
Göttingen at Narziss Ach’s Institute of Psychology from 1929 to 1931, described
Ganzheitspsychologie in Japanese after the war. See Takasuna and Satō (2004, 2008).
9 Takasuna and Satō (2008: 47, 53).
10 Garon (1997: 13).
11 Takasuna and Satō (2008: 54–55).
12 German: Ganzheitlicher Unterricht.
13 Sometimes geshitaruto shinrigaku, keitai shinrigaku, or seitai shinrigaku (German:
Gestaltpsychologie).
14 His academic dissertation was “Über Richtungs-und Angleichungskontrast in einen
Verband von zwei Tonschritten.”
15 Now Humboldt University.
16 Also working at the Ministry of Education was Masuda Kōichi (1898‒1982), a 1923
graduate of Tokyo Imperial University. He linked children’s education to Ganzheit–
inspired Psychological thinking. See Takasuna and Satō (2008: 55).
17 Takasuna and Satō (2008: 54).
18 See Satō (2001d) and (2002a: 448–70).
19 Satō (2001c: 250–52).
20 Horio (1988: 64).
21 Note that before the Taishō era had even begun, Japan had already exercised its
imperialist muscles by defeating China in the Sino‒Japanese War (August 1, 1894–
April 17, 1895); annexing Taiwan on May 8, 1895; ending extraterritoriality on
July 17, 1899; humiliating a Western imperialist power in the Russo–Japanese War
(February 10, 1904–September 5, 1905); and annexing Korea in 1910. Regardless of
any appearance of the “loosening of bureaucratic control” during Taishō, the state
core had already permeated society and constructed solid “substructures” from
which it would extract excessive demands from the populace as Japan entered the
1930s. Much of this construction was done via state para-institutions and capitalist
interests. Moreover, in 1904, the Ministry of Home Affairs set up a special unit to deal
with “subversive ideas”; from April 1, 1904, the Ministry of Education began formal
editing of elementary school textbooks; the Special Police exercised surveillance
over schools; and radical nationalists such as Kita Ikki and rightist student groups
attracted adherents; State Shinto was promoted; military training became compulsory
in Japan’s public schools in 1925; and in response to student activities and other
266 Notes
social movements, the state passed the infamous Peace Preservation Law on April 22,
1925 and a para-state student countermovement was launched, the nationalistic
Japan Federation of Students (Nihon Gakusei Rengōkai). Indeed, the eventual
“suppression of thought and the undermining of education were not, as some like
to argue, excessive abnormalities arising during the period of Japan’s militaristic
authoritarianism. They were not signs of the pathological breakdown of the Imperial
State; they were the very principles by means of which it sustained itself ” (Horio
1988: 73).
22 Takasuna (1997c: 295–96).
23 The Nazis had nothing against Psychology as long as it was not “Jewish.” They
pursued “hereditary environment Psychology” (Erbe-Umwelt-Psychologie) and
“race Psychology” (Rassenpsychologie). Applications included enhancing military
efficiency, educational guidance, and the National Socialist Public Welfare System
(Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt). A relevant figure in Germany was Kurt
Gottschadt (1902–91), director of the Division of Genetic Psychology at Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics.
24 See Satō for a discussion of Psychology during wartime (2002a: 595–617). For
examples of the specifics of military psychological research, see Satō (2002a: 602–11).
25 Such as Kuwata Yoshizō. See Hoshino (1979).
26 Kaigun Jikken Shinrigaku Ōyō Chōsa-kai Komon.
27 Takasuna (1997c: 292–93). See also Hidano (2000: 79–82).
28 Satō (2002a: 478–79) and Takasuna (1997c: 295–96). Satō enumerates key issues
related to naval technical research from 1918 to 1945 and provides a list of projects
that involved Psychologists from 1916 to 1945 (2002a: 604–6).
29 Tsuruta (1980).
31 Satō (2002a: 515).
32 Satō (1997d: 203).
34 Satō (2002a: 445).
35 For the development of Psychology at Keijō Imperial University, see Satō (2002a:
420–47).
36 For Psychology in Korea, see Cha (1987).
37 See Hsu (1987: 128).
38 In 1949, at the suggestion of Tong-mei Fong, the head of the Philosophy Department,
Hsiang-yu Su established a Psychology Department in the Faculty of Science at
National Taiwan University. The Chinese Association for Psychological Testing, which
was founded on the mainland in 1931, was revived in Taiwan in 1951. Two years later
the Chinese Psychological Association was set up.
39 Satō (2002a: 307–8).
40 Arakawa (2006).
41 Blowers (2000).
42 See Kodama (2001: 131) for an interesting table comparing how Nishi Amane
and Yan Yongjing translated terms from Haven’s Mental Philosophy. Note that the
Chinese characters originally used to translate “Psychology”—xinlingxue or literally
“heart–mind spirit study”—were the same for spiritualism or occultism (in Japanese:
shinreigaku). The intellectual Yan Fu, famous for introducing Darwin’s ideas into
China, translated Psychology as xinli (Guo 2005: 8).
Notes 267
43 Lee (1987: 106).

44 See Blowers (2000); Jing and Fu (2001); Murphy and Murphy (1968); and
Wang (1993).
Chapter 10
1 Rogers would visit Japan in 1961.
2 See Sato and Graham (1954). See Nishikawa (2008g: 198) for a list of participants. For
a discussion of historical materials, see Nishikawa (2001b). For a brief treatment of
the Kyoto seminar, as well as some notes on the professional life of Nishikawa Yasuo,
see (2006b: 50–54). See also Mizoguchi (2006: 100–1) and also Azuma and Imada
(1994: 710).
5 Nishikawa (2008g: 187).
6 Though dated, see Tanaka and England (1972) for a review of what directions
postwar Japanese Psychology has taken. For progress made in the history of Japanese
Psychology, see Suzuki (1995), Misumi and Peterson (1990), and Iwahara (1976). For
other postwar developments at the societal level, see Satō et al. (1997).
7 Mizoguchi (1997c: 399–405).
8 By law, each prefecture must have at least one teacher-training program. For postwar
developments in university Psychology programs, see Fukutome (1997) and Fumino
(1997b).
9 Fumino (2005).
10 Sato (2007: 134). Nevertheless, compared to the United States, fewer opportunities
exist in Japan for professionally trained Psychologists. See Nakano et al. (1990). See
also Azuma and Imada (1994: 712) and Mizoguchi (1997d: 324–38).
11 Takasuna (2008a: 243).
12 For information on postwar psychological organizations, including local-level
societies, see Satō and Fukutome (1997: 409) and Fumino (2005). See also Satō
(1997e: 482–85). See Satō’s treatment of articles that received awards from the
major Psychology societies from 1951 to 1984 (1997: 481). Satō also deals with how
submissions are evaluated (1997e: 473–79). See also Satō (1997e: 486–87).
13 Satō (1997e: 473–96).
14 Smith (1997: 575).
15 Smith (1997: 576, 577, 575).
16 Illouz (2008: 217).
17 Smith (1997: 578).
18 Castro and Lafuente (2007: 107, 109, 112).
19 Jing (1994: 670, 671–72). See also Jing, Q.C. (Ching, C.C.) (1984).
20 See Jing and Fu (2001) and Lee and Petzold (1987).
21 Smith (1997: 579).
22 Smith (1997: 599–600).
23 Illouz (2008: 243).
24 Illouz (2008: 6).
25 Smith (1997: 578).
26 Satō (2007: 134).
268 Notes

28 See Takasuna (2008a: 244).
29 Ōyama, Satō and Suzuki (2001: 399).
Epilogue
1 For example, though Fechner’s belief that everything possesses features of
mind is alien to many of us, we all engage in a limited panpsychism when we
anthropomorphize our pets, attributing to them features of human conscious
interiority.
2 Castro and Lafuente (2007: 110).
3 Westney (1987: 13). See also Pyle (1996).
4 Westney (1987: 6).
5 Bayly (2004: 320).
6 Maraldo (2004: 236).
7 An important problem deserves at least a mention. In addition to exploring the
global migration of ideas, a project such as this by its very nature concerns issues of
conceptual translation. In relation to this, Douglas Howland brings up the tension
between “authenticity” and “accessibility,” noting that an “interpretive text” may
be “imaginably more suited to target readers and thereby make the original more
accessible to the target reader…” However, it risks “being less exacting a version of the
original” (Howland 2002: 67).
8 See Quo (1966: 491–92) for problems of “adoption” versus “adaptation.”
9 For the sake of comparison, consider Sprung and Sprung’s detailing of German
Psychology. They treat three “methodological stages of development.” In basic ways
these parallel what transpired in Japan. During the first or “transfer stage,” theories
and approaches of the natural sciences were borrowed and applied to psychological
problems. This was followed by the “dissent stage” during which the formation of
schools or lines of theoretical investigation developed. Finally came the “consensus
stage,” which witnessed the establishment of more institutions, research agendas,
areas of instruction, and professional societies and journals. Major “schools” were
further strengthened and new areas of practice emerged (counseling, therapy, and
educational offerings). Eventually, Psychology and its various applications were
recognized and certified by the state. More specifically, Sprung and Sprung have
enumerated “six primary trends” of German Psychology: (1) the constitution of
subject matter and experimental methods of modern Psychology during the first
two thirds of the nineteenth century; (2) institutionalization (seminars, laboratories,
institutes, etc.) within the university system and the emergence of alternative and
complementary lines of development during the last third of the nineteenth century;
(3) the continuation of institutionalization into the twentieth century leading to the
formation of a “pluralistic system” of Psychology. Paralleling this was the appearance
of temporary divisions among the major schools; (4) the “rise and fall of the major
schools” between 1880 and 1950; the pluralistic system differentiates but is eventually
integrated into an overall system of Psychology from around 1880 to 1950. This
stage also saw the development of applied Psychology; (5) the emergence and
institutionalization of applied Psychology as a profession around the beginning of the
twentieth century; (6) the elaboration of the pluralistic system and the development,
Notes 269
professionalization and institutionalization of modern Psychology as a service

profession after the Second World War (Sprung and Sprung 2001: 366–67). Also,
for the sake of comparison, note Rice’s division of the development of American
Psychology into five stages: (1) in the late nineteenth century courses related to
Psychology make an appearance; (2) one or more Psychology courses are offered; (3)
laboratories are established; in 1900 there were 39 in North America (note that after
1900, American Psychology saw a rapid specialization and a “newly expanded role”
in academia (Tweney and Budzynski 2000: 10150; see also Rosenzweig 1994); (4)
doctorates in Psychology are granted; (5) independent Psychology departments are
set up (Rice 2000: 491).
10 Cf. Azuma’s “pioneer period”: “Intellectual pioneers, native or foreign, realize the
potential relevance of [P]sychology and introduce it at the textbook level (e.g., Amane
Nishi and Inoue Tetsujirō)” (Azuma 1984: 54–55). Also, cf. Azuma’s “introductory
period”: “Psychology is recognized by a number of people as an important field
of study. Foreign experts and members of the intellectual elite trained overseas
introduce technical knowledge (e.g., Matsumoto Matatarō in the prewar period and
postwar seminars)” (Azuma 1984: 54–55). See also Nishikawa (2001c).
11 Satō (2002a: 51).
13 Satō, Takasuna and Ōta (1997: 112).
14 Cf. Azuma’s “translation and modeling period”: Psychology becomes
widely known and the number of students and researchers increases. The
majority of concepts and theories are translations of those from “developed”
countries. Research is conducted but modeled after that of “developed”
countries. Scattered, isolated attempts at indigenous [P]sychology begin
to appear. Application is feasible only at a technical level for problems that
are relatively culture-free (e.g., early aviation [P]sychology, tests of manual
skills). (Azuma 1984: 54–55)
15 Cf. Azuma’s “integration period”: Psychology “gets freed, to a certain extent, from
the rigid but otherwise unnoticed mold of traditionally Western concepts and logic.
Psychology subsumes thoughts and concepts of non-Western origin, deepening and
generalizing the understanding of human nature and thus becomes capable of dealing
with non-Western phenomena without imposing a Western mold” (Azuma 1984:
54–55). Also, cf. Azuma’s “indigenization period”: “New concepts and theories
appropriate to culture-bound phenomena are advanced by [P]sychologists who know
both native and ‘developed’ foreign cultures. New concepts of indigenous origin are
advanced that relate well to other concepts in the same culture. The application of
[P]sychology to culture-bound phenomena becomes more effective” (Azuma
1984: 54–55).
16 Takasuna (1997a: 257).
17 Satō (2005b: 16).
18 Watanabe (1954: 3–22).
19 Satō (2008b: 175).
20 Satō (2005b: 16).
21 Hoshino (1979).
22 Arakawa (2005: 106). See Mizoguchi (2001b) for problems of periodization. See
also Azuma’s stages (1984). Azuma notes (somewhat oddly in my view) that if
270 Notes
“many steps are skipped, however, the imported [P]sychology may fail to develop
a full appreciation of the traditional culture and may be applied prematurely with
disturbing rather than beneficial consequences and the indigenous [P]sychology that
might have contributed to the development of mainstream [P]sychology may remain
parochial and prescientific” (1984: 53–54).
23 Takasuna (2006b).
24 Nishikawa (2008e: 161–62). See also Nishikawa (1995: 5–8).
25 Satō (2008b: 176–78).
26 Satō (2008b: 178–80).
27 Satō (2008b: 183–84).
28 Satō (2008a: 219–37). See especially p. 236.
29 Minton (2000: 613).
30 Milar (2000: 616).
31 Minton (2000: 613). For an important treatment of early American women
Psychologists, see Scarborough and Furumoto (1987).
32 Established in 1874 as Women’s Normal School.
35 This section relies on Ōizumi (2003) for biographical details.
36 We should note, however, that Okami Kyoko earned an M.D. from Woman’s Medical
College of Pennsylvania in 1889.
37 See a full-length biography of Haraguchi, see Ogino, Haraguchi Tsuruko: Josei
Shinrigakusha no Senku (1983). See also Takasuna (2008e: 212–14).
38 Gunma Kenritsu Kōtō Jogakkō; to become Takasaki Girls’ High School.
39 On Haraguchi’s chance meeting Matsumoto, see Ogino (1983: 42–47).
40 1874–1949. Thorndike referenced her research on mental fatigue in Educational
Psychology (1913–14).
41 1869–1962.
42 For an assessment of her work, especially on mental fatigue, see Ogino (1983:
221–29).
43 Takasuna (2008e: 217–18).
44 Baika Jogakkō.
45 Kobe Jogakuin. Now called Kobe Jogakuin University.
46 Baika Gakuen.
47 Tohoku was the first university which accepted women.
48 Nihon Yōchien Kyōkai.
49 “Shi’i Shinrigaku no Kenchi ni okeru Jidō no Shikō Sayō no Kenkyū.”
50 Tōkyō Kasei Senmon Gakkō.
51 Tōkyō Kasei Gakuin Tanki Daigaku.
52 Takasuna (2008e: 217–18).
53 Teikoku Joshi Igaku Yakugaku Senmon Gakkō.
54 Katei Kagaku Kenkyūjo.
55 Rinji Chūō Kyōryoku Kaigi.
56 Taisei Yokusankai.
57 Fuji Kokusai Heiwa Jiyū Renmei.
58 Nihon Fujin Dantai Rengō Kaigi.
59 Kokusai Fuji Shinri Gakkai.
60 Takasuna (2008e: 214–17).
61 1912–98.
Notes 271
62 Takasuna (2008e: 217–18).

63 Joshi Keizai Senmon Gakkō.
64 Of the Onshi Foundation.
65 Nihon Jidō Kenkyūjo.
66 Later renamed the Hatano Fuamirīsukūru (Hatano Family School) in 1966.
67 Full name: Shakai Fukushi Hōjin Nihon Katei Fukushi Kyōkai.
68 Established in 1930 and located on an island off Okayama Prefecture.
69 A convert to Christianity, Maeda was director of New York City’s Japanese Cultural
Center (1938–41) and Minster of Education (1945–46).
70 Tsuda Eigo Juku.
71 Tōkyō Joshi Igaku Senmon Gakkō.
72 Kobe Jo Gakuin Daigaku.
73 Tsuda Juku Daigaku.
74 Nihon Joshi Daigakkō.
75 Nihon Joshi Daigaku.
76 Pen name: Kobayashi Saeko.
77 Nara Joshi Kōtō Shihan Gakkō.
78 Tōkyō Joshi Shihan Gakkō.
79 Tōykō-toritsu Kōtō Hobo Gakuin.
80 Nihon Fuamirīraifu Kyōkai.
81 Daigaku Semināhōsu.
Appendix 1
1 For an English biography on Mori, see Hall (1973).
2 Kaneko (1985: 302–3).
3 See Burks (1985c), “Japan’s Outreach: The Ryūgakusei.” See also Ishizuki (1985),
“Overseas Study by Japanese in the Early Meiji Period.”
4 Ishizuki (1985: 164). Or at least, according to Burks, an “inchoate nationalism”
(1985c: 154), given the embryonic stages of nationalist identity of the time.
5 Ishizuki (1985: 163).
6 Burks (1985c: 150).
7 Burks (1985c: 149–50).
8 Ishizuki (1985: 169, 163). See Ishizuki (1985: 172–75) for examples of overseas
students.
9 Burks (1985c: 149–50, 150).
10 Ishizuki (1985: 169–70, 176).
11 Kobayashi (1979: 168–9).
12 Burks (1985d: 193–4).
13 Ishizuki (1985: 178).
14 Jones (1985: 225, 250, 222).
15 Schwantes (1985: 209).
16 Burks (1985c: 158). Schwantes gives the lower figure of 14 percent for the same year
(1985: 214–15).
17 The “o” is an honorific prefix and yatoi means “menial.”
18 Burks (1985d: 194). See Burks (1985a,b,c,d,e) and Schwantes (1985) for treatment of
foreign employees.
272 Notes
19 Jones (1985: 249).

20 Burks (1985d: 195).
21 Jones (1985: 241, 226).
22 The Department of Industry was abolished in 1885.
23 Burks (1985d: 192–93).
24 Ernest Fenollosa taught philosophy and political economics in Japan, but he was also
made commissioner of fine arts for the empire. He was told by Emperor Meiji that
“you have taught my people to know their own art” (Burks 1985a: 367).
25 See Umetani (1985), Jones (1985), and Motoyama (1985).
26 See Kaneko (1985).
27 Burks (1985a: 365).
Appendix 2
1 Bayly (2004: 315).
2 Before the Meiji Restoration (1868), scientific knowledge did find its way into Japan.
Note that towards the end of the Tokugawa period (1603–1867), interest in “Western
Learning” (yōgaku) and “Dutch Learning” (rangaku) increased and scholars became
particularly interested in medicine, physical sciences, art, navigation, surveying,
shipbuilding, gunnery, and national defense. Eventually, scholars would turn their
attention to English, French, and German. It was through such studies that knowledge
of world affairs entered Japan.
3 An examination of educational institutions of the late Tokugawa period reveals that,
from early modern times, the Japanese authorities regarded learning as a decidedly
practical matter intimately tied to self-defense. And during the closing days of the
Shogunate, officials encouraged and strengthened research in Western knowledge.
For example, the Tenmongata (Bureau of Astronomy), which had been founded in
1684 for astronomical and calendrical research, would eventually conduct surveying,
cartography, and translation of Western languages and became an important official
site for Western learning. Within this Bureau was the Translation Office (Bansho
Wage Goyō), which in March 1856, was turned into the Bansho Shirabesho (Office
for Investigating Barbarian Documents) under the control of the Shogunate. This
institute became the Yōsho Shirabesho (Office for Investigating Foreign Documents)
in 1862 and one year later, the Kaiseijo and given its purpose and curriculum, is “best
rendered Center for Western Learning” (Sugimoto and Swain 1989: 396). However,
its name literally means “Center of Development”—with “nation” understood as what
needed to be developed—suggesting an early connection (at least for the authorities)
between Japan’s interests, strategic schooling and knowledge from abroad. After the
Shogun’s fall, this institution was abolished, but would be resurrected to eventually
become part of the University of Tokyo. Other institutes that indicated a close
association between strategic interests, Japan’s defense, and foreign know-how were
the Naval Training Institute (Kaigun Denshūjo) in Nagasaki (which lasted from 1855
to 1859), where navigation, shipbuilding, and gunnery were taught, and the Warship
Navigation Institute (Gunkan Sōrenjo), founded in 1857 by the Shogunate within the
Military Training Center (Kōbusho) in Edo.
4 Kobayashi (1979: 167)
5 Bayly (2004: 319).
Notes 273
6 Kobayashi (1979: 168, 182)

7 Burks (1985e: 410). See Motoyama (1985) for an example of the impact of Western
influence in one domain.
8 Burks (1985d: 201).
9 Samuels (1994: 42).
10 Cf. Burks, who calls the early Meiji period an “age of translation” (1985c: 148).
11 Cited in Watanabe (1985: 386–87). Over a century later, the following comment from
Baelz resonates with the oft-heard criticism that Japan's education system suffers from
a weakness in basic research: “The Japanese people are content only with receiving the
most recent developments and do not care to learn the basic spirit which has yielded
these results” (cited in Watanabe 1985: 387).
Bibliography
Abo, Tomoichirō and Ise Tsu (1886), Shinri Kōyō, Tokyo: Bunkadō.
Abrams, Meyer Howard (1973), Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in
Romantic Literature, New York: W. W. Norton.
Aiken, Henry D. (1962), The 19th Century Philosophers: The Age of Ideology, New York:
Mentor Books.
Anezaki, Masaharu (1900), Shūkyōgaku Gairon, Tokyo: Tōkyō Senmongakkō.
Aoki, Seishirō (1922a), Kyōiku-teki Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kokon Shoin.
Aoki, Seishirō (1922b), Teinōji oyobi Reittōji no Shinri to Sono Kyōiku, Tokyo: Chūbunkan
Shoten.
Aoki, Seishirō (1924), Jidō Shinrigaku Josetsu, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten.
Aoki, Seishirō (1943), Aoshōnen Rensei no Kadai, Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.
Arakawa, Ayumu (2005), “Psychology of Feelings and Emotions: Its History in Japan,”
Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 106–14.
Arakawa, Ayumu (2006), “Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku Kenkyūshitsu
no Tokushō: Kōgi Daimoku to Sotsugyō Ronbun kara,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project
representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa
Kenkyū, 223–33, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Ariga, Nagao (1883), Shakaigaku (3 vols), Tokyo: Tōyōkan Shoten.
Ariga, Nagao (1886), Kyōiku Tekiyō-Shinrigaku Jō, Tokyo: Makino Shobō.
Asano, Wasaburō (1934), Shinrei Kenkyū to Sono Kishu, Tokyo: Shinrei Kagaku
Kenkyūkai.
Awaji, Enjirō et al. (1942), Sangyō Shinrigaku (Industrial Psychology, 2 vols), Tokyo:
Kawade Shobō.
Azuma, Hiroshi (1984), “Psychology in a Non-Western Country,” International Journal of
Psychology, 19: 45–55.
Azuma, Hiroshi and Hiroshi Imada (1994), “Origins and Development of Psychology in
Japan: The Interaction between Western Science and the Japanese Cultural Heritage,”
Special Issue: The Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National and
Regional Perspectives, International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 707–16.
Babe, Akio (1962), “The History of Sociology in Japan,” in Paul Halmos (ed.), Japanese
Sociological Studies (The Sociological Review Monograph Series), No. 10: 7–13, Keele:
University of Keele.
Bain, Alexander (1874), The Senses and the Intellect, New York: Appleton and Company.
Bain, Alexander (1880), The Emotions and the Will, London: Longmans, Green, and
Company.
Baldwin, J. M. (1897), Social and Ethical Interpretations in Mental Development: A Study in
Social Psychology, New York: Macmillan.
Barshay, Andrews (2007), The Social Sciences in Modern Japan: The Marxian and
Modernist Traditions, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bayly, C. A. (2004), The Birth of the Modern World: 1780–1914, Oxford: Blackwell.
Bibliography 275
Becker, Howard (1936), “Sociology in Japan,” American Sociological Review, 1(3): 455–71.
Begum, Hamida Akhtar (1987), “Psychology in Bangladesh,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and
Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in
Asia and Oceania, 65–70, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bellah, Robert (1957), Tokugawa Religion: The Values of Pre-Industrial Japan, New York:
Free Press.
Benjamin, Ludy T. (2000), “The Psychology Laboratory at the Turn of the Century,”
American Psychologist, 55(3): 318–21.
Bernheim, Hippolyte (1899), Suggestive Therapeutics: A Treatise on the Nature and Uses of
Hypnotism, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Bhanthumavin, Duangduen (1987), “Social History of Psychology in Thailand,” in
Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of
Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 71–89, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Binet, Alfred (1890), On Double Consciousness: Experimental Psycholgoical Studies,
Chicago, IL: Openn Court Publishing.
Binet, Alfred and Charles Féré (1887), Animal Magnetism, London: Kegan Paul, Trench
and Co.
Blowers, Geoffrey H. (1987a), “Appendix: Notes on Psychology in the Socialist Republic
of the Union of Burma,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology
Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 101–03, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Blowers, Geoffrey H. (1987b), “To Know the Heart: Psychology in Hong Kong,” in
Blowers, Geoffrey H. (1987c), “Appendix: Notes on Psychology in Macau,” in Geoffrey
H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western
Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 197–200, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Blowers, Geoffrey H. (2000), “Learning from Others: Japan’s Role in Bringing Psychology
to China,” American Psychologist, 55(12): 1433–36.
Blowers, Geoffrey H. and Alison M. Turtle, eds (1987), Psychology Moving East: The Status
of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Blowers, Geoffrey H. and S. H. Yang (1997), “Freud’s Deshi: The Coming of Psychoanalysis
to Japan,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 33: 115–26.
Blowers, Geoffrey H. and S. H. Yang (2001), “Ōtsuki Kenji and the Beginnings of Lay
Analysis in Japan,” International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 82: 27–42.
Boorstin, Daniel J. (1985), The Discovers, New York: Vintage Books.
Boring, E. G. (1929), A History of Experimental Psychology, New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Bowne, Borden Parker (1879), Studies in Theism, New York: Phillips and Hunt.
Bowne, Borden Parker (1882), Metaphyscis, New York: Harper and Brothers.
Braisted, W. R. (1976), Meiroku Zasshi: Journal of the Japanese Enlightenment, Tokyo:
University of Tokyo Press.
Brock, Adrian C. (2006), Internationalizing the History of Psychology, New York: New York
University Press.
Brožek, Josef M. (1999), “From ‘Psichiologia’ to ‘Psychologia’: A Graphically Documented
Archival Study across Three Centuries,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral
Sciences, 35(2): 177–80.
276 Bibliography
Burks, Ardath W. (1985a), “The Legacy: Products and By-Products of Cultural Exchange,”
in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and
Meiji Japan, 359–68, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burks, Ardath W. (1985b), “The Role of Education in Modernization,” in Ardath W. Burks
(ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 254–64,
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burks, Ardath W. (1985c), “Japan’s Outreach: The Ryūgakusei,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.),
The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 145–60,
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burks, Ardath W. (1985d), “The West’s Inreach: The Oyatoi Gaikokujin,” in Ardath W.
Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan,
187–206, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burks, Ardath W. (1985e), “Conclusions,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers:
Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 409–14, Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Callon, Michael (1986), “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of
the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay,” in John Law (ed.), Power, Action,
and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, 196–233, Boston, MA: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Campbell, Colin (1987), The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Carpenter, William Benjamin (1875), Principles of Mental Physiology (2nd edition),
London: Henry S. King.
Cashdollar, Charles D. (1978), “Auguste Comte and the American Reformed Theologians,”
Journal of the History of Ideas, 39(1): 61–79.
Castro, Jorge and Enrique Lafuente (2007), “Westernalization in the Mirror: On the
Cultural Reception of Western Psychology,” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral
Science 41 (1): 106–13.
Cha, Jae-Eo (1987), “Psychology in Korea,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle
(eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania,
163–82, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Chan, Wing-tsit (1963), “Appendix: On Translating Certain Chinese Philosophical Terms,”
in Wing-tsit Chan (trans. and comp.), A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chandra, Subhas (1987), “Psychology in Fiji: The Pioneering Stages,” in Geoffrey H.
Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western
Charles, Eric P. (2007), “Missed Opportunities: Speculation on What Japanese Psychology
Could Have Been,” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41: 39–96.
Chee, Changbo (1959), “Development of Sociology in Japan: A Study of Adaptation of
Western Sociological Orientation into the Japanese Social Structure,” unpublished
dissertation, Duke University.
Chiba, Tanenari (1932), Kanjō no Mondai, Tokyo: Iwanami-Shoten.
Chiba, Tanenari (1935), Ishiki–Muishiki no Mondai, Tokyo: Tōen Shobō.
Chiba, Tanenari (1956), Muishiki no Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kawade Shobō.
Congress of the Japanese Society for Child Study (1909), Notes: The American Journal of
Psychology, 20(1): 156.
Bibliography 277
Coon, Deborah J. (2000), “Testing the Limits of Sense and Science: American
Experimental Psychologist Combat Spiritualism, 1880–1920,” American Psychologist,
47(2): 143–51.
Coon, Deborah J. and Heather Allard Sprenger (2000), “Psychologists in Service to
Science: The American Psychological Association and the American Association for
the Advancement of Science,” American Psychologist, 53(12): 1253–69.
Cooter, Roger (1984), The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the
Organization of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cunningham, Andrew and Perry Williams (1993), “De-centring the ‘big picture’: The
Origins of Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science,” The British Journal for
the History of Science, 26(4): 407–32.
Danziger, K. (1990), Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (1997), Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language, London: Sage.
Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: J. Murray.
Datson, Lorraine and Peter Galison (2007), Objectivity, New York: Zone Books.
Davis, Winston (1976), “The Civil Theology of Inoue Tetsujirō,” Japanese Journal of
Religious Studies, 3(1): 5–40.
Dehue, Trudy (2000), “From Deception Trials to Control Reagents: The Introduction of
the Control Group about a Century Ago,” American Psychologist, 55(2): 264–68.
Dewsbury, Donald A. (2000a), “Introduction: Snapshots of Psychology Circa 1900,”
Dewsbury, Donald A. (2000b), “Issues in Comparative Psychology at the Dawn of the 20th
Century,” American Psychologist, 55(7): 750–53.
Doi, Takeo (1966), “Amae” no “Kōzō,” Tokyo: Kōbundō.
Duke, Benjamin C. (1973), Japan’s Militant Teachers: A History of the Left-Wing Teachers’
Movement, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University Press of Hawai’i.
Elias, Norbert (1978a), The Civilizing Process, Vol. 1: The History of Manners, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Elias, Norbert (1978b), What is Sociology? (trans. Stephen Mennell and Grace Morrissey),
London: Hutchinson.
Elias, Norbert (1982), The Civilizing Process, Vol. 2: State Formation and Civilization,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Endō, Ryūkichi (1904), Nihon Shakai no Hattatsu oyobi Shisō no Hensen, Tokyo: Sōen
Gakusha Shuppan-bu.
Endō, Ryūkichi (1907), Kinsei Shakaigaku, Tokyo: Seibiō.
Endō, Ryūkichi (1908), Shakai Shinrigaku to Kyōiku, Tokyo: Sebidō.
Endō, Ryūkichi (1912), Nihon Ga, Tokyo: Sōen Gakusha Shuppan-bu.
Endō, Ryūkichi and Ichikawa Genzō (1910), Danjo Seinen no Shinri, Tokyo: Keibunkan.
Enriques, Virgilio G. (1987), “Decolonizing the Filipino Psyche: Impetus for the
Development of Psychology in the Philippines,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison
M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and
Oceania, 265–87, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Evans, B. Rand (2000), “Psychological Instruments at the Turn of the Century,” American
Psychologist, 55(3): 322–25.
Fechner, Gustav (1876), Vorschule der Aesthetik, Leipzig: Breitkopf.
278 Bibliography
Figal, Gerald (1999), Civilization and Monsters: Spirits of Modernity in Meiji Japan,
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Foster, Michael Dylan (2006), “Strange Games and Enchanted Science: The Mystery of
Kokkuri,” Journal of Asian Studies, 65(2): 251–75.
Foucault, Michel (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York, NY:
Vintage Books
Fridell, Wilbur M. (1970), “Government Ethics Textbooks in Late Meiji Japan,” The
Journal of Asian Studies, 29(4): 823–33.
Frühstück, Sabine (2003), Colonizing Sex: Sexology and Social Control in Modern Japan,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Fuchs, Alfred H. (2000), “Teaching the Introductory Course in Psychology Circa 1900,”
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1900), Zēmusu-shi Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Ikuseikai.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1902), Shinrigaku Seigi, Tokyo: Dōbunkan.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1905), Saimin Shinrigaku Gairon, Tokyo: Seibidō.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1906), Saimin Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Seibidō.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1908), Kyōiku Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Kyūdōkan.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1913a), “Motora Sensei no Shinrigaku Kenkyū ni okeru Ippan-teki
Ikō to son no Kekka,” in Ko-Motora Hakase Tsuikai Gakujutsu Kōenkai (ed.), Motora
Hakase to Gendai no Shinrigaku, 173–215, Tokyo: Kōdōkan.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1913b), Tōshi to Nensha, Tokyo: Hōbunkan.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1914), “Kannen wa Seibutsu Nari,” Hentai Shinri, 1: 159–79, 247–63.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1923), Shinrei to Shimpi Sekai, Tokyo: Hachiman Shoten.
Fukurai, Tomokichi (1934), Seimei-shugi no Shinkō, Tokyo: Nihon Shinrei Gakkai.
Fukutome, Akiko (1997), “Tanka Gakkai no Seiritsu to Senmon Bunka,” in Tatsuya
Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 366–98, Tokyo:
Kitaoji Shobō.
Fumino, Yō (1997a), “Kenkyūhi • Kenkyūhi Hojokin,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime
Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 462–72, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Fumino, Yō (1997b), “Shinsei Daigaku no Setchi to Ryō-teki Kakudai no Kiban,” in
Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 339–65, Tokyo:
Kitaoji Shobō.
Fumino, Yoh (2005), “Establishment of New Universities and the Growth of Psychology in
Postwar Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 144–50.
Furuhata, Tanemoto (1935), “Ketsuekigata yori Mita Nihonjin,” in Tōkyō Jinrui Gakkai
(ed.), Nihon Minzoku, 85–101, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Furukawa, Takeji (1932a), Ketsuekigata to Kishitsu, Tokyo: Sanseidō.
Furukawa, Takeji (1932b), Ketsuekigata to Minzokusei, Tokyo: Sanseidō.
Garon, Sheldon (1994), “Rethinking Modernization and Modernity in Japanese History:
A Focus on State-Society Relations,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 52(2): 346–66.
Garon, Sheldon (1997), Molding Japanese Minds: The State in Everyday Life, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Godart, Gerard Clinton (2008), “‘Philosophy’ or ‘Religion’? The Confrontation with
Foreign Categories in Late Nineteenth-Century Japan,” Journal of the History of Ideas,
69: 71–91.
Gordon, Eleanor and Gwenyth Nair (2003), Public Lives: Women, Family and Society in
Victorian Britain, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gotō, Iwao (1943), Rensei Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Teikoku Shuppan Kyōkai.
Guo, Yangsheng (2005), “China at the Turn of the 20th Century: Translating Modernity
through Japanese,” NUCBJLCC, 7(2): 1–15.
Bibliography 279
Hac, Pham Minh (1987), “Some Observations on the Historical Development of

Psychology in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison
M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and
Oceania, 89–100, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hagio, Shigeki, ed. (2001), “Kenkyū Tōron-kai: Fukurai Tomoichi no Gyōseki wo
Megutte (panel discussion),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no
Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 166–85, Kenkyū Seika
Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Hall, G. Stanley (1901), “The New Psychology,” Harper’s Magazine, 103: 727–32.
Hall, G. Stanley (1904), Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relation to Physiology,
Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, New York: Appleton.
Hall, G. Stanley (1906), Youth: Its Education and Regimen, New York: Appleton.
Hall, G. Stanley (1911), Educational Problems, New York: Appleton.
Hall, G. Stanley (1921), Aspects of Child Life and Education, New York: Appleton.
Hall, G. Stanley and Yūjirō Motora (1887), “Dermal Sensitiveness to Gradual Pressure
Changes,” American Journal of Psychology, 1: 72–98.
Hall, Ivan Parker (1973), Mori Arinori, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Halmos, Paul, ed. (1962), Japanese Sociological Studies, The Sociological Review,
Monograph No. 10, Keele: University of Keele.
Hara, Tanzan (1873), Shinsei Jikken-roku: Ichi mei, seigaku benkai, Tokyo: Gakuyō
Shakurahan.
Haraguchi, Tsuruko (1914), Shin-teki Sagyō oyobi Hirō no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Hokubunkan.
Haraguchi, Tsuruko (1915), Tanoshiki Omoide, Tokyo: Shunjū-sha Shoten.
Hardacre, Helen (1998), “Asano Wasaburō and Japanese Spiritualism in Early Twentieth-
Century Japan,” in Sharon A. Minichiello and Gail Bernstein (eds), Japan’s Competing
Modernities: Issues in Culture and Democracy, 1900–1930, 113–53, Honolulu, Hawai’i:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Harding, Christopher (2015a), “Introduction,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki,
and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 1‒24,
London: Routledge.
Harding, Christopher (2015b), “Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan: A Four-
Phase View,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds),
Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 25‒50, London: Routledge.
Harding, Christopher, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi, eds (2015), Religion and
Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, London: Routledge.
Harper, Robert S. (1950), “The First Psychological Laboratory,” Isis, 41(2): 158–61.
Hashimoto, Akira (2015), “Psychiatry and Religion in Modern Japan: Traditional Temple
and Shrine Therapies,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi
(eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 51‒75, London: Routledge.
Hatano, Isoko (1950), Shōnenki, Tokyo: Kōbunsha.
Hatano, Isoko (1954), Yōji no Shinri, Tokyo: Kōbunsha.
Hattori, Unokichi (1902), Xinlixue Jiangyi, Shanghai: Shangyu Yingshuguan.
Haven, Joseph (1857), Mental Philosophy: Including the Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will,
Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln.
Havens, Thomas R. H. (1968), “Comte, Mill, and the Thought of Nishi Amane in Meiji
Japan,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 27(2): 217–28.
Hayami, Hiroshi (1902), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Hokubunkan.
Hayami, Hiroshi (1914), “Shakai on Kairyō to Iden,” Shinri Kenkyū, 26, 27.
Hayashi, Goichi (1896), Kyōiku Ōyō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
280 Bibliography
Hayashi, Takashi (1937), Jōken Hanshagaku―Dainō-ryō Hankyū no Hataraki ni tsuite no

Kōgi, Tokyo: Sanseidō.
Heidelberger, Michael (2004), Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and His
Psychophysical Worldview (trans. Cynthia Klohr), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hickok, Laurens Perseus (1849), Rational Psychology; or the Subjective Idea and Objective
Law of All Intelligence, Auburn, NY: Derby, Miller, and Company.
Hickok, Laurens Perseus (1853), System of Moral Science (3rd edition), New York: Ivison
and Phinney.
Hickok, Laurens Perseus (1854), Empirical Psychology; or, the Human Mind as Given in
Consciousness, Schenectady, NY: G. Y. Van Debogert.
Hidano, Tadashi (2000), “Wagakuni Shinrigaku Jikkenshitsu to Jikken Enshū: Meiji Chūki kara
Shōwa Shoki made,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken
Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 65–107, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Higuchi, Hideo (1908), Shakai Shinri no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Shakaigaku Kenkyūjo.
Higuchi, Kanjirō and Tominaga Iwataru (1906), Shakai-teki Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo:
Dōbunkan.
Hirada, Motoyoshi (1911), Shinrei no Himitsu, Tokyo: Dōbunkan.
Hirai, Atsuko (1979), “Self-Realization and Common Good: T. H. Green in Meiji Ethical
Thought,” Journal of Japanese Studies, 5(1): 107–36.
Hirai, Kinzō (1909), Shinrei no Genshō, Tokyo: Keimei-sha.
Hirata, Motokichi (1912), Shinrei no Himitsu, Tokyo: Dōbunkan.
Hiruta, Genshiro and Allan Beveridge (2002), “Japanese Psychiatry in the Edo Period
(1600–1868),” History of Psychiatry, 13: 131–51.
Hobbes, Thomas (1994 [1651]), Leviathan (ed. R. Tuck), Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Holmes, S. J. (1911), The Evolution of Animal Intelligence, New York: Henry Holt.
Honjō, Seiji (1909), Ishi no Shinri to Sono Kyōiku-hō, Tokyo: Meguro Shoten.
Honjō, Taichirō (1892), Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Hopkin, Mark (1873), An Outline Study of Man: Or, the Body and Mind in One System,
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Horio, Teruhisa (1988), Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan: State
Authority and Intellectual Freedom (trans. and ed. Steven Platzer), Tokyo: University of
Tokyo Press.
Horne, H. H. (1905), “Review of An Essay on Eastern Philosophy (Y. Motora),” The Journal
of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Method, 2(18): 494–96.
Hoshino, Akira (1979), “Current Major Trends in Psychology in Japan,” Psychologia, 22:
1–20.
Hoshino, Akira and Takeo Umemoto (1987), “Japanese Psychology: Historical Review and
Recent Trends,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving
East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 183–96, Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Hoshino, Mayumi, Tatsuya Satō, and Hajime Mizoguchi (1997), “Shinrigaku no Kyōiku
• Shakai e no Eikyō,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no
Shinrigaku, 258–90, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Hoshino, Yukinori (1913), Gakuri-teki Jigyō Kanri Hō, Tokyo: Sūbunkan Shoten.
Hotta, Miho and Lloyd H. Strickland (1991), “Social Psychology in Japan,” Canadian
Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 32(4): 596–605.
Howland, Douglas (2000), “Society Reified: Herbert Spencer and Political Theory in Early
Meiji Japan,” Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, 42: 67–86.
Bibliography 281
Howland, Douglas (2001), “Translating Liberty in Nineteenth-Century Japan,” Journal of

the History of Ideas, 62(1): 161–81.
Howland, Douglas R. (2002), Translating the West: Language and Political Reason in
Nineteenth-Century Japan, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press.
Hsu, Joseph S. Z. (1987), “The History of Psychology in Taiwan,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers
and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology
in Asia and Oceania, 127–38, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Huish, D. J. (1972), “The Meirokusha: Some Grounds for Reassessment,” Harvard Journal
of Asiatic Studies, 32: 208–29.
Hyōdō, Akiko (2005), “Taishō-ki no ‘Seishin’ Gainen: Ōmotokyō to Hentai Shinri no
Sōkoku wo Tsūshite,” Shūkyō Kenkyū, 79(1): 97–120.
Ichikawa, Genzō (1900), Ribō-shi Kanjō no Shinri oyobi chūi no Shinri, Tokyo: Ikuseikai.
Ichikawa, Genzō (1911), Chinō Sokutei oyobi kosei no Kansatsu, Tokyo: Kōfūkan.
Ichiyanagi, Hirotaka (1997), Saiminjutsu no Nihon Kindai, Tokyo: Seikyūsha.
Iggers, Georg G. (1965), “The Idea of Progress: A Critical Reassessment,” The American
Historical Review, 71(1): 1–17.
Ikeda, Shigenori (1927), “Yūsei Nippon no Teisho,” Yūsei Undō, 2(1): 2–3.
Illouz, Eva (2008), Saving the Modern Soul: Therapy, Emotions and the Culture of Self-Help,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Imada, Megumi (1962), Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Imatani, Itsunosuke (1967), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku to Tetsugaku," Kirisuto-kyō
Shakai Mondai Kenkyū, 11: 197–216.
Inoue, Enryō (1886), Tsūshin Kyōju Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Tsūshin Kyōjuikai.
Inoue, Enryō (1887a), Shinri Tekiyō, Tokyo: Tetsugaku Shoin.
Inoue, Enryō (1887b), Shinri-ron, Tokyo: Tetsugaku Shoin.
Inoue, Enryō (1894a), Kioku-jutsu, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan.
Inoue, Enryō (1894b), Yōkaigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan.
Inoue, Enryō (1895), Shitsunen-jutsu Kōgi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan.
Inoue, Enryō (1898), Bukkyō Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan.
Inoue, Enryō (1904), Shinri Ryōhō, Tokyo: Nan’e.
Inoue, Enryō (1917), Shin Kioku-jutsu, Tokyo: Bunshōdō.
Inoue, Tetsujirō (1881), Testugaku Jii, Tokyo: Tōyōkan.
Inoue, Tetsujirō (1882), Bein Shinri Shinsetsu, Tokyo: Dōmiesha.
Inoue, Tetsujirō and Asō Shigeo, eds (1883), Bein-shi Shinri Shinsetsu Shakugi, Tokyo:
Dōmiesha.
Isawa, Shūji (1882–83), Kyōikugaku, Tokyo: Hakubai Shoya.
Isawa, Shūji (1883), Shinka Genron, Tokyo: Maruzen.
Ishizuki, Minoru (1985), “Overseas Study by Japanese in the Early Meiji Period,” in Ardath
W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji
Japan, 161–86, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Itō, Dōki (1930), Yuibutsu Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Shakai Shisō Kenkyūjo.
Iwahara, S. (1976), “Japan,” in Virginia Sexton and Henry Misiak (eds), Psychology from
around the World, 242–58, Montgomery, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Iwahara, Shinkurō and Osamu Fujita (1963), “Behaviorism in Japan,” Psychologia, 6:
59–65.
Iwata, Fumiaki (2015), “The Dawning of Japanese Psychoanalysis: Kosawa Heisaku’s
Therapy and Faith,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga
Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 120‒36, London:
Routledge.
282 Bibliography
Janet, Pierre (1901), Mental State of Hystericals (trans. Caroline Rollin Corson), New York:
Putnam’s and Sons.
Jansz, Jeroen (2003), A Social History of Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Jaynes, Julian (1976), The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind,
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Jing, Q. and Xiaolan Fu (2001), “Modern Chinese Psychology: Its Indigenous Roots
and International Influences,” Special Issue: Origin and Development of Scientific
Psychology in Different Parts of the World: Retrospect and Prospect at the Turn of the
Century, International Journal of Psychology, 36(6): 408–18.
Jing, Q. C. (Ching, C. C.) (1984), “Psychology and the Four Modernizations in China,”
International Journal of Psychology, 19: 57–63.
Jing, Qicheng (1994), “Development of Psychology in China,” Special Issue: The
Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National and Regional Perspectives,
International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 667–75.
Johnson, Deborah F. (2000), “Cultivating the Field of Psychology: Psychological Journals
at the Turn of the Century and Beyond” American Psychologist, 55(10): 1144–47.
Jones, Hazel J. (1985), “The Griffis Thesis and Meiji Policy toward Hired Foreigners,” in
Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and
Josephson, Jason Ānanda (2006), “When Buddhism Became a ‘Religion’: Religion and
Superstition in the Writings of Inoue Enryō” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies,
33(1): 143–68.
Kakise, Hikozō (1911), “Beikoku ni okeru Saikin Shinrigaku-teki Daimoku no Ni-San,”
Tetsugaku, 26: 495–507.
Kamiya, Mieko (1966), Ikigai ni tsuite, Tokyo: Misuzu Shobō.
Kamiya, Shirō (1897), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Bungakusha.
Kaneko, Tadashi (1985), “Contributions of David Murray to the Modernization of
School Administration in Japan,” in Ardath W. Burk, (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas
Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 301‒22, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kaneko, Tadashi (1987), “Japan,” in A. R. Gilgen and C. K. Gilgen (eds), International
Handbook of Psychology, 274–96, New York: Greenwood Press.
Katō, Hiroki (2002), “20 Seiki Izen no Zen-Shinrigaku Bunken-shū,” Komazawa Daigaku
Shinrigaku Ronshū, 4: 23–43.
Katō, Hiroki (2005), “Zen and Psychology,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 125–36.
Katō, Hiroyuki (1893), Kyōsha no Kenri no Kyōsō, Tokyo: Tetsugaku Shoin.
Katō, Hiroyuki (1900), Dōtōku Hōritsu Shinka no Ri, Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Kawai, Hayao (1982), Mukashibanashi to Nihon no Kokoro, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kayashima, Atsushi (1993), American Democracy on Trial in Japan, Tokyo: Ōtori Shobo.
Kern, Stephen (2003), The Culture of Time and Space: 1880–1918, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kido, Mantarō (1939), Yōji Kyōiku-ron, Tokyo: Kenbunsha.
Kido, Mantarō (1961), “Origin of Japanese Psychology and Its Development,” Psychologia,
4: 1–10.
Kido, Mantarō (1968a), Yōji Kyōiku, Tokyo: Fukumura Shuppan.
Kido, Mantarō (1968b), Shinrigaku Mondai-shi, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kimura, Kyūichi (1912a), “Seishin Bunseki-hō no Hanashi,” Shinri Kenkyū, 2(2): 52–57.
Kimura, Kyūichi (1912b), “Himitsu Kanpa-hō to Yokuatsu Kannen Tansaku–hō,” Shinri
Kenkyū, 2(3): 10–26.
Kimura, Kyūichi (1913a), “Fukai Bōkyaku,” Shinri Kenkyū, 4(2): 1–13.
Bibliography 283
Kimura, Kyūichi (1913b), “Seishin Ryōhō no Hanashi,” Shinri Kenkyū, 3(1): 44–73.
Kira, Kōyō (1885), Tōyō Shinri Shoho, Tokyo: Maruzen Shoten.
Kirihara, Shigemi (1938), Shokugyō Shidō to Romū Hodō, Tokyo: Chikura Shobō.
Kirihara, Shigemi (1940), Rōdō to Seinen, Tokyo: Kagakushugi Kōgyōsha.
Kirihara, Shigemi (1941), “Sangyō Shōnenkō no Shomondai,” Shōnen Hogo, 6(12): 65–73.
Kirihara, Shigemi (1942), Senji Rōmu Kanri, Tokyo: Tōyō Shokan.
Kirihara, Shigemi (1944), Joshi Kinrō, Tokyo: Tōyō Shokan.
Kishimoto, Nōbuta (1900), Shakaigaku, Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho.
Kishimoto, Sōkichi (1935), “Wagakuni ni okeru Ōyō Shinrigaku-sho,” Ōyō Shinri Kenkyū,
3: 328–66.
Kitanaka, Junko (2003), “Jungians and the Rise of Psychotherapy in Japan: A Brief
Historical Note,” Transcultural Psychiatry, 40(2): 239–47.
Kobayashi, Iku (1909), Shakai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Kobayashi, Iku (1910), Shakai Shinrigaku Kenkyū, Tokyo: Ikueisha.
Kobayashi, Tetsuya (1979), “The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education,” in
William K. Cummings, Ikuo Amano, and Kazuyuki Kitamura (eds), Changes in the
Japanese University: A Comparative Perspective, 166–84, New York: Praeger.
Kodama, Seiji (2001), “Yan Yongjing to Kanyaku Shinrigaku Yōgo ni tsuite,” in Yasuo
Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru
Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 125–34, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not
given).
Kōdera, Shinsaku (1892), Jitsuyō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Seibidō.
Koizumi, Mataichi (1904), Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Tosha.
Kokumin, Kyōiku Gakkai (1900), Kokumin Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinshōdō.
Komatsu, Y. (1961), “The Study of Economic History in Japan,” The Economic History
Review, 14(1): 115–21.
Ko-Motora, Hakase Tsuikai-roku (1913), “Chosaku Mokuroku,” Shinri Kenkyū,
3: 340–41.
Kondo, Kyoichi and Kitanishi Kenji (2015), “The Mind and Healing in Morita Therapy,”
in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and
Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 103–19, London: Routledge.
Koyano, Shōgo (1976), “Sociological Studies in Japan: Prewar, Postwar and Contemporary
Stages,” Current Sociology, 24(7): 7–79.
Krstic, K. (1964), “Marko—The Author of the Term ‘Psychology.’” Acta Instituti
Psychologici Universitatis Zagrabiensis, 36: 7–13.
Kubo, Tsuyako (1935), Yōnen Shōnen Aonen no Kokoro, Tokyo: Shinseisha.
Kubo, Tsuyako (1949), Jidō Shinrigaku―Yōnen Jidai, Tokyo: Bunkyo Shoin.
Kubo, Tsuyako (1951), Kyōyō ni tsuite, Tokyo: Fuzanbō.
Kubo, Yoshihide (1917a), Seishin Bunseki–Kinsei Shinrigaku Bunko, Tokyo: Shinrigaku
Kenkyū-kai Shuppanbu.
Kubo, Yoshihide (1917b), “Furoido Seishin Bunseki-hō no Kigen,” Hentai Shinri, 1, 1.
Kubota, Sadanori (1902), Xinli Jiaoyuxue (trans. unknown), Shanghai: Shanghai Guangzhi
Bookstore.
Külpe, Oswlad (1893), Grundriss Der Psychologie auf experimenteller Grundlage dargestellt,
Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Külpe, Oswlad (1895), Einleitung in Die Philosophie, Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
Külpe, Oswlad (1922), Vorlesungen über Psychologie, Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
Kuroda, Genji (1916), “Pavurofu no Jōken Hansha Kenkyūhō ni tsuite,” Shinri Kenkyū, 10:
33–19.
284 Bibliography
Kuroda, Genji (1924), Jōken Hansha Ron: Ishiki Seikatsu no Seirigaku-teki Kaishaku,
Kyoto: Ikuta Shoten.
Kuroda, Ryō (1933), Kan no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kuroda, Ryō (1936), Dōbutsu Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Sanseidō.
Kuroda, Ryō (1944), Yuishiki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Koyama Shoten.
Kuroda, Ryō (1948), Shina Shinri Shisō-shi, Tokyo: Koyama Shoten.
Kurose, Tsuyako (1924), Jidō no Sōzō to Sono Kyōiku, Tokyo: Chūbunkan.
Kurose, Tsuyako (1926), Wagako no Shinri―Iroiro no Seishitsu to Tadashii Shitsukekata,
Tokyo: Keiseisha Shoten.
Kusakabe, Sannosuke (1893), Shinrigaku Hyakumon Hyakutō, Tokyo: Nagashima
Bunshōdō.
Kuwabara, Toshirō (1910), Seishin Reidō, Tokyo: Kaihatsu-sha.
Kuwata, Yoshizō (1916), Reikon Shinkō to Sosen Sūhai, Tokyo: Shinrigaku Kenkyūkai
Shuppansha.
Kuwata, Yoshizō (1918), Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Bunmei Shoin.
Kuwata, Yoshizō (1924), Shūkyō Shinri, Tokyo: Nihon Seinen-kan.
Kuwata, Yoshizō (1927), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Bunshinsha.
Kyōiku Ronsō, Henshū Buhen (1920), Kosei Kyōiku-ron, Tokyo: Bunkyō Shoin.
Ladd, George Trumbull (1889), Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory (4th edition),
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Ladd, George Trumbull (1890), Elements of Physiological Psychology, New York: Scribner.
Ladd, George Trumbull (1898), Outlines of Descriptive Psychology, New York: Scribner.
Lapointe, F. H. (1970), “Origin and Evolution of the Term ‘Psychology,’” American
Psychologist, 25: 640–46.
Le Bon, Gustave (1895), Lois Psychologiques de l’évolution des Peoples, Paris: Felix Alcan.
Leary, David E. (1978), “The Philosophical Development of the Conception of
Psychology in Germany, 1780–1850,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,
14: 113–21.
Lee, H. Wing and Matthias Petzold (1987), “Psychology in the People’s Republic of China,”
in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status
of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 105–26, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lincicome, Mark E. (1995), Principle, Praxis, and the Politics of Educational Reform in
Meiji Japan, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press.
Lippert, Wolfgang (2001), “Language in the Modernization Process: The Integration of
Western Concepts and Terms into Chinese and Japanese in the Nineteenth Century,”
in Michael Lackner, Iwo Amelung, and Joachim Kurtz (eds), New Terms for New
Ideas: Western Knowledge and Lexical Change in Late Imperial China, 57–66, Leiden:
Koninklijke Brill.
Long, F. Y. (1987), “Psychology in Singapore: Its Roots, Context and Growth,” in Geoffrey
Lutz, Catherine A. (1988), Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian
Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lyons, J. O. (1978), The Invention of the Self, New York: Feffer and Simmons.
Maeda, Chōta (1910), Minzoku Hatten no Shinri, Tokyo: Dai Nihon Bunmei Kyōkai.
Magaki, Keiai (1901), Kyōju-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Maine, Henry Sumner (1861), Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of
Society, and Its Relation to Modern Ideas, London: John Murray.
Makise, Goichirō (1892), Shinpen Shinrigaku Kōgi—Kyōiku Ōyō, Tokyo: Miki Shoten.
Bibliography 285
Maraldo, John C. (2004), “Defining Philosophy in the Making,” in James W. Heisig (ed.),
Japanese Philosophy Abroad, 220–45, Nagoya: Nanzan Institute for Religion and
Culture.
Marshall, Byron K. (1977), “Professors and Politics: The Meiji Academic Elite,” Journal of
Japanese Studies, 3(1): 71–97.
Marshall, Byron K. (1994), Learning to Be Modern: Japanese Political Discourse on
Education, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Maruyama, Kinya (2000), “Seiritsuki no Tōhoku Daigaku Bungaku-bu Shinrigaku
Kenkyūshitsu,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki
to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 151–75, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Masuda, Koreshige (1926), Jikken Shinrigaku Josetsu, Tokyo: Shibundō.
Masuda, Koreshige (1914), Dōbutsu shinrigaku: Chinō no Shinka, Tokyo: Furokaku.
Matthews, Gareth (2000), “Internalist Reasoning in Augustine for Mind–Body Dualism,”
in John P. Wright and Paul Potter (eds), Psyche and Soma, 133–46, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Matsumoto, Bunzaburō (1897), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Keigyōsha.
Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1898a), Futsū Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Okazaki Yashoten.
Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1898b), Jidō Shinrigaku Kōwa, Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1900), Teichienā-shi Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō
Shuppan-bu.
Matsumoto, Kōjirō (1903), Futsū Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Seibidō.
Matsumoto, Kōjirō and Takashima Heisaburō (1899), Jidō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Fukyū-sha.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1912), “Yūryō Shuzoku no Shōchō,” Shinri Kenkyū, 1, 1.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1914a), Jikken Shinrigaku Jū Kō, Tokyo: Kōdōkan.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1914b), Seishin-teki Dōsa, Tokyo: Rokugōkan.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1915), Gendai no Nihonga, Tokyo: Hokubunkan.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1917), Wataridori Nikkei, Tokyo: Jitsugyō no Nipponsha.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1924), Shinrigaku Kōwa, Tokyo: Kaizōsha.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1926a), Jisseikatsu to Shinri, Tokyo: Jitsugyō no Nipponsha.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1926b), Kaiga Kanshō no Shinri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1929a), Soshitsu no Shinri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1929b), Chinō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kaizōsha.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1930), Shominzoku no Geijutsu, Tokyo: Kaizōsha.
Matsumoto, Matatarō (1937), Shinrigaku-sh, Tokyo: Kaizōsha.
Matsushima, Tsuyoshi, Tanaka Tōsaku, Satō Kisei, and Hashimoto Takeshi (1886), Bein
Shinri Zensho, Tokyo: Fukyūsha.
Matsuyama, Iwao (1993), Uwasa no Enkinhō, Tokyo: Seidōsha.
McHoul, Alec and Wendy Grace (1995), A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the
Subject, New York: New York University Press.
McVeigh, Brian (n.d.), “Motora’s ‘Exchange, Considered as the Principle of Social Life’:
The Intellectual Roots of Japan’s First Psychologist” (unpublished monograph).
McVeigh, Brian J. (1996), “Standing Stomachs, Clamoring Chests and Cooling Livers:
Metaphors in the Psychological Lexicon of Japanese,” Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 25–50.
McVeigh, Brian J. (2009), “Globalizing Spiritual Physics: Motora Yūjirō and the Origins
of Japanese Psychology,” presented at the Western Conference of the Association for
Asian Studies. University of Arizona, October 23–24.
McVeigh, Brian J. (2010), “Globalizing Spiritual Physics: Motora Yūjirō and the Origins
of Japanese Psychology,” presented at the Western Conference of the Association for
Asian Studies. California State University, Northridge, October 22–23.
286 Bibliography
McVeigh, Brian J. (2015), The Propertied Self: The Psychology of Economic History,
Piscataway, NJ: Nova Publishers.
Merle, John (1916), Davis, Soldier Missionary: A Biography of Rev. Jerome D. Davis,
D.D., Lieut-Colonel of Volunteers and for Thirty-Nine Years a Missionary of the
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in Japan, Boston, MA:
Pilgrim Press.
Milar, Katharine S. (2000), “The Generation of Women Psychologist and the Psychology
of Women,” American Psychologis, 55(6): 616–19.
Mill, John Stuart (1843), A System of Logic, London: John W. Parker, West Strand.
Mill, John Stuart (1848 [1891]), Principles of Political Economy, New York: Appleton and
Company.
Mill, John Stuart (1873), The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, New York: Henry Holt
and Company.
Mine, Koresaburō (1893), Ōyō Shinrigaku—Chūtō Kyōiku, Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Minear, Richard H. (1973), “Nishi Amane and the Reception of Western Law in Japan,”
Monumenta Nipponica, 28(2): 151–75.
Minton, Henry L. (2000), “Psychology and Gender at the Turn of the Century,” American
Misumi, Jūji. (1978), Rīdāshippu Kōdō no Gakka, Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Misumi, J. and T. Ōyama, eds (1989), “Special Issue: Applied Psychology in Japan,” Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 38: 307–451.
Misumi, Jyuji and Mark F. Peterson (1990), “Psychology in Japan,” Annual Review of
Miura, Kanzō (1916), Hanzai to Iden—Kosei no Kyōiku, Tokyo: Ryūbunkantosho.
Miyamoto, Tadao (1973), “The Japanese and Psychoanalysis,” The Japan Interpreter, 8(3):
387–89.
Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997a), “Hajime,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds),
Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, i–iii, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997b), “Shinreishugi, Seimeishugi to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya
Kitaoji Shobō.
Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997c), “Dai 20-kai Kokusai Shinrigaku Kaigi,” in Tatsuya Satō
and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 399–405, Tokyo: Kitaoji
Shobō.
Mizoguchi, Hajime (1997d), “Sengo Gakujutsu Taisei no Saikō,” in Tatsuya Satō and
Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 324–38, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Mizoguchi, Hajime (2001a), “Shirigaku-shi no Hisutoriogurafuī: Akuron Daigaku
Shinrigaku-shi Shiryōshitsu Zōsho wo Tsūjite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project
representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki
Kentō, 155–64, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Mizoguchi, Hajime (2001b), “‘Kindai Shinrigaku’ ka ‘Gendai Shinrigaku’ ka: Nihon ni
okeru Shinrigaku Kenkyū Taisei no Rūtsu Mondai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project
representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki
Kentō, 186–90, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Mizoguchi, Hajime (2006), “Nichibei Kenkyū Josei Zaidan to Shinrigaku: Kānegī
Zaidan, Rokkufuerā Zaidan, Saitō Hō-onkai no Baai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project
Mizoguchi, Hazime (2005), “Reception of Pavlov’s Theory in Japan,” Japanese Psychological
Research, 47(2): 95–105.
Bibliography 287
Mochizuki, Makoto (1879), Kioku Kakujū-ron, Tokyo: Shiseidō.

Moglni, S. M. (1987), “Development of Modern Psychology in Pakistan,” in Geoffrey H.
Morawski, Jill G. (2000), “Social Psychology a Century Ago,” American Psychologist, 55(4):
427–30.
Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1898), Psychology for Teachers, New York: Scribner.
Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1890), Animal Life and Intelligence, Boston, MA: Ginn and
Company.
Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1894), An Introduction to Comparative Psychology, London: Walter
Scott.
Morgan, Conwy Lloyd (1900), Animal Behavior, London: Edward Arnold.
Morimoto, Kakuya and Tomeri Tanimoto (1887), Shintai Sōkan no Ri, Tokyo: Ōkura
Shoten.
Moscovici, Serge (1981), “Forward,” in Andrew Lock and Paul Heelas (eds), Indigenous
Psychologies: The Anthropology of Self, vii–xi, New York: Academic Press.
Motora, Yūjirō (1881), “Bakuteriya” Baikin no ishhu no Setsu,” Rikugō Zasshi, 4(1):
231–32.
Motora, Yūjirō (1884), Kyōiku Shinron, Tokyo: Chūkindō.
Motora, Yūjirō (1889–91), “Seishin Butsurigaku,” Tetsugakkai Zasshi, 3: 63–77, 197–208,
256–70, 309–22, 433–46, 571–81; 4: 1–12, 63–79, 249–70, 330–43, 497–516; 5: 837–48.
Motora, Yūjirō (1890), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Motora, Yūjirō (1893), Rinrigaku, Tokyo: Fuzanbō.
Motora, Yūjirō (1895a), “Sanzen Nikki,” Nihon Shūkyō, 1(2): 91–94.
Motora, Yūjirō (1895b), “Shakai Shinrigaku,” Ryūmon Zasshi, 83: 11–17.
Motora, Yūjirō (1895c), “Shakai Shinrigaku,” Ryūmon Zasshi, 84: 13–18.
Motora, Yūjirō (1897a), Shinrigaku Jū-kai Kōgi, Tokyo: Fuzanbō.
Motora, Yūjirō (1897b), “Shakai Shinrigaku (Dai-ichi Shō Jinkaku-ron),” Shūkyō, 12:
25–32.
Motora, Yūjirō (1897c), “Shakai Shinrigaku (Dai-ni Shō Shakaigaku to Shinrigaku no
Kankei),” Shūkyō, 13: 85–93.
Motora, Yūjirō (1900a), Vunto-shi Shinrigaku Gairon (co-translated with Nakajima Taizō),
Tokyo: Dōbunka.
Motora, Yūjirō (1900b), Chūtō Kyōiku Rinri Kōwa, Tokyo: Dōbunka.
Motora, Yūjirō (1903a), “A Study on the Conductivity of the Nervous System,” American
Journal of Psychology, 14: 329–50.
Motora, Yūjirō (1903b), “Shinkei no Dentatsu Sayō ni Kansuru Kenkyū,” Shinkei-gaku
Zasshi, 2(1): 6–44.
Motora, Yūjirō (1904), “Seishin-chū no Tōitsu Sayō ni tsuite,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 19:
239–56.
Motora, Yūjirō (1905a), “The Idea of Ego in Oriental Philosophy,” Atti del V Congresso
Internazionale di psicologia, 365–66.
Motora, Yūjirō (1905b), “Tōyō Testugaku ni okeru Jiga no Kannen,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 20:
1–14.
Motora, Yūjirō (1905c), “Tōyō Testugaku ni okeru Jiga no Kannen,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 20:
15–29.
Motora, Yūjirō (1905d), “Tōyō Testugaku ni okeru Jiga no Kannen,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 20:
31–40.
Motora, Yūjirō (1905e), “Conflict of Religion and Science: From a Japanese Point of View,”
Monist, 15: 398–408.
288 Bibliography
Motora, Yūjirō (1907a), Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Kōdōkan.

Motora, Yūjirō (1907b), “Shizenkai ni okeru Jinrui no Kinō ni tsukite,” Tetsugaku Zasshi,
22: 879–917.
Motora, Yūjirō (1909a), Ronbun-shū, Tokyo: Kōdōkan.
Motora, Yūjirō (1909b), “Kokoro to wa Nani zoya,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 24: 227–38.
Motora, Yūjirō (1909c), “Kokoro to wa Nani zoya,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 24: 327–35.
Motora, Yūjirō (1909d), “Kokoro to wa Nani zoya,” Tetsugaku Zasshi, 24: 421–39.
Motora, Yūjirō (1910a), “Puragumachizumu ni tsuite,” Kyōiku Jikken-kai, 25: 17–19.
Motora, Yūjirō (1910b), “Zen wa Puragumachizumu,” Kokumin Kyōiku, 1: 29.
Motora, Yūjirō (1911), “Ein Experiment zur Einubung von Aufmerksamkeit,” Zeilschrift
für Kinderforschung, 16: 214–25.
Motora, Yūjirō (1912), Kyōiku Byōri oyobi Chiryōgaku (co-authored with Sakaki
Yasusaburō), Tokyo: Fuzanbō.
Motora, Yuzero [Yūjirō] (1888), ‘Exchange, Considered as the Principles of Social Life’,
Unpublished dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
Motoyama, Yukiko (1985), “The Education Policy of Fukui and William Elliot Griffis,” in
Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and
Mumford, Lewis (1934), Technics and Civilization, Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace and
Company.
Munandar, S. C. Utami and A. S. Munandar (1987), “Psychology in Indonesia: Its Past,
Present and Future,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology
Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 249–64, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Murphy, Gardner and Lois B. Murphy, eds (1968), Asian Psychology, New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Murray, David J., Andrea R. Kilgour, and Louise Wasylkiw (2000), “Conflicts and
Missed Signals in Psychoanalysis, Behaviorism, and Gestalt Psychology,” American
Nagai, Michio (1965), Nihon no Daigaku, Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Shinsha.
Nagai, Michio (1954), “Herbert Spencer in Early Meiji Japan,” The Far Eastern Quarterly,
14(1): 55–64.
Nakajima, Rikizō (1898), Shinrigaku Satsuyō, Tokyo: Fukyūsha.
Nakajima, Taizō (1897), Futsū Shinrigaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Fukushima-ken Shiritsu Nishi-
Shirakawa Kyōikukai Kyōiku Bukai.
Nakajima, Taizō (1898), Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Kaihatsusha.
Nakajima, Taizō (1915), Kosei Shinri oyobi Hikaku Shinri, Tokyo: Fuzanbō.
Nakamura, Kokyō (1917), “Nijū Jinkaku no Shōnen,” Hentai Shinri, 1: 65–69.
Nakamura, Kokyō (1918), Hentai Shinrigaku Kōwa-shū, Tokyo: Nihon Seishin Igakkai.
Nakamura, Kokyō (1919), Hentai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Nakamura, Kokyō (1920), Ōmotokyō no Kaibō: Gakuri-teki Gensei Hihan, Tokyo: Nihon
Seishin Igakkai.
Nakamura, Kokyō (1931), Seimeiryoku no Hatten, Tokyo: Shunjunsha.
Nakano, Yoshie, Marjorie H. Richey, Rhonda A. Bohs, James E. Koch, Mary E. Mannion,
and Robert W. Warbin (1990), “Undergraduate Psychology in Japan and the United
States,” Teaching of Psychology, 17(3): 152–58.
Narazaki, Asatarō (1924), Sembatsu-hō Gairon, Tokyo: Chūbunkan.
Narusawa, Akira (1997), “The Social Order of Modern Japan,” in Banno Junji (ed.), The
Political Economy of Japanese Society: Volume 1: The State or the Market? 193–236,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bibliography 289
Nasu, Kiyoshi (1942), Ningen wa ika ni Kōdō Suru ka, Tokyo: Sōgensha.
Nelson, Victoria (2001), The Secret Life of Puppets, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nihon Shinri, Gakkai Henshū I-inkai (2002), Nihon Shinri Gakkai 75 Nenshi, Tokyo:
Shadan Hōjin Nihon Shinri Gakkai (publication venue not given).
Nishi, Amane (1875a), Shinrigaku 1, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō.
Nishi, Amane (1875b), Shinrigaku 2, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō.
Nishi, Amane (1876), Shinrigaku 3, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō.
Nishi, Amane (1878a), Rigaku, Tokyo: Shimura Rijo.
Nishi, Amane (1878b), Shinrigaku-jō, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō.
Nishi, Amane (1879), Shinrigaku-ka, Tokyo: Monbushō Inkō.
Nishi, Amane (1966), Seisei Hatsu-un, in Nishi Amane Zenshū, Ōkubo Riken (ed.), Tokyo:
Munetaka Shobō.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (1995), “‘Daigaku Shinrigaku’ wo motarashita Futari no Nihonjin,” Jōchi
Daigaku Shinrigaku Nenpō, 19: 1–8.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (1998), “‘Shinrigaku’ to iu Gakumei no Kigen: Mentaru • Fuirosofuī ka
Saikorojīka,” Kagaku Kisoron Kenkyū, 26(1): 17–22.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (1999), “Jikken Shinrigaku ni okeru Rekishi-teki Shinrigaku Jikken Kiki
wo Megutte,” Japanese Psychological Review, 42(3): 313–25.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001a), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-
teki Kentō, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001b), “Akuron Daigaku Amerika Shinrigaku-shi Shiryōkan (AHAP)
Saihō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei
ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 43–51, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication
venue not given).
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001c), “Wagakuni e no Shinrigaku no Juyō to Teichaku Katei wo
Ninatta Sendatsu-tachi,” Shinrigaku Hyōron, 44(4): 441–65.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2001d), “Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni kakawaru
Gakumonshi-teki Kentō: Meiji • Taishō-ki ni Ryūgaku shita Sendatsu, Jirei Kenshō
‘Hori Baiten’ no Baai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai
Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 36–42, Kenkyū Seika
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2005), “An Overview of the History of Psychology in Japan and the
Background to the Development of the Japanese Psychological Association,” Japanese
Psychological Research, 47(2): 63–72.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2006a), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū
Chōsa Kenkyū, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2006b), “Personal Background as a Psychologist,” in Yasuo Nishikawa
(project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū
Chōsa Kenkyū, 50–54, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2006c), “Poster Presentation,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008a), “Maegaki,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds),
Shinrigaku-shi, 3–7, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008b), “Nihon no Shinrigaku no Hirogari,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and
Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 80–98, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008c), “Nihon no ‘Shinrigaku-shi’ e no Dōnyū,” in Yasuo Nishikawa
and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 16–34, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008d), “Atogaki,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds),
290 Bibliography
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008e), “Nakajima Taizō, Hori Baiten, Yokoyama Matsusaburō,” in

Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 149–66, Tokyo: Hōsō
Daigaku.
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008f), “‘Shin Shinrigaku-shi’ no Michibikite to Wagakuni e no inyū
to teichaku wo ninatta sendatsu-tachi,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds),
Nishikawa, Yasuo (2008g), “Nihon Shinrigaku Kai no Hensen wo Tsūjite Mita Shinrigaku
no Ichi,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 186–207, Tokyo:
Hōsō Daigaku.
Nishikawa, Yasuo and Miki Takasuna (2006), “The History of the Japanese Psychological
Association (JPA) (poster presentation),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative),
Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 44–46,
Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Nishikawa, Yasuo and Miki Takasuna, eds (2008), Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.
Nishimura, Shigeki (1885), Shingaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Nippon Kōdō-kai.
Nishimura, Shigeki (1892), Shingaku Kōgi, Tokyo: Kakkōken Insatsusha Yoshikawa
Hanshichi.
Nørretranders, Tor (1998), The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size, New
York: Penguin Books
Nogami, Toshio (1909), Jikken Shinirgaku, Tokyo: Dōbunkan.
Nogami, Toshio (1912a), Jojutsu to Meishin, Tokyo: Kōdōkan.
Nogami, Toshio (1912b), Kyōiku-teki Jikken Shinrigaku, Kyoto: Kyōto-fu Kyōikukai.
Nose, Sakae (1893), Kyōiku Ōyō―Kon-shi Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Obonai, Torao (1941), “Kokubō Shinrigaku no Genkyō,” in Kokubō Shinrigaku, Tokyo:
Kawade Shobō.
Oda, Susumu et al. (2001), “Hentai Shinri” to Nakamura Kokyō: Taishō Bunka e no
Shinshikaku, Tōkyō: Fuji Shuppan.
Odaka, Kunio (1950), “Japanese Sociology: Past and Present,” Social Forces, 28(4): 400–09.
Ogino, Izumi (1983), Haraguchi Tsuruko: Josei Shinrigakusha no Senku, Nagano:
Ginga Shobō.
Oguma, Toranosuke (1916), Shinrei Genshō no Mondai, Tokyo: Shinrigaku Kenkyū-kai
Shuppansha.
Oguma, Toranosuke (1924), Shinrei Genshō no Kagaku, Tokyo: Shinkōsha.
Ōizumi, Hiroshi (2003), Nihon Shinrigaku-sha Jiten, Tokyo: Kress Shuppan.
Oka, Hiroko (1970), Nyūji-ki no Hattatsu, Tokyo: Shinyōsha.
Okabe, Yatarō (1923), Kyōiku Sokutei, Tokyo: Kyōiku Kenkyū-kai.
Okamoto, S. (1976), “Dr. Matatarō Matsumoto: His Career and Achievements,” Journal of
the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 12(1): 31–38.
Omi, Yasuhiro (1997), “Kenkyū-hō no Hensen,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi
(eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 444–61, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Omi, Yasuhiro and Seiji Komata (2005), “The Evolution of Data Analyses in Japanese
Psychology,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 137–43.
Ōmichi, Waichi (1913), Shakai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Omura, A. (1990), “Japan,” in G. Schouksmith and E. Schouksmith (eds), Psychology in
Asia and Pacfic: Status Reports on Teaching and Research in Eleven Countries, 207–37,
Bangkok: UNESCO.
Onoshima, Usao (1930), Saikin Shinrigaku Jūni-kō, Tokyo: Baifukan.
Onoshima, Usao (1932), Saikin Shinrigaku Gaisetsu, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten.
Onoshima, Usao (1933), Seikaku Shinrigaku to Jidō Kenkyū, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten.
Bibliography 291
Onoshima, Usao (1937), Shinrigaku Yōsetsu, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten.

Onoshima, Usao (1946), Gendai Seikaku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Utatane Bunsho.
Ooms, Herman (1985), Tokugawa Ideology, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Osaka, Naoyuki, ed. (2000a), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō
kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Osaka, Naoyuki (2000b), “Maegaki,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō
to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, i–ii, Kyoto: Kyoto
University Press.
Osaka, Naoyuki (2000c), “Jikken Shinrigaku no Seiritsu • Hattenki ni okeru Gakujutsu-shi
no Kiyo: Kyōto Daigaku no Baai,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō
to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 279–302, Kyoto:
Kyoto University Press.
Osaka, Naoyuki (2000d), “Shinrigaku Kenkyūshitsu ni okeru Koten Kiki,” in Naoyuki
Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru
Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 327–45, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Osaka, Naoyuki (2000e), “‘Jikken Shinrigaku Shashinchō’ ni Miru Meijiki no Shinrigaku
Jikken to Koten-teki Jikken Kiki,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō
to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 112–50, Kyoto:
Osaka, Naoyuki (2000f), “Jikken Shinrigaku Seiritsu no Haikei,” in Naoyuki Osaka
(ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon
Shinrigaku-shi, 304–26, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Osaka, Naoyuki (2006a), “‘Seishin Dōsagaku (Psychocinematics)’ no Tanjō to Sono
Tenkai: Chiba Tanenari ‘Shoki Nōryoku oyobi Rensō Hannō Jikan ni Kansuru
Jikken’ (1908) wo Tsūshite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no
Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 83–88, Kenkyū Seika
Osaka, Naoyuki (2006b), “Kyōtō Daigaku Shozō no Vunto-shiki Kuronogufu no Rekishi-
teki Igi ni tsuite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi
no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 77–81, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho
(publication venue not given).
Osaka, Ryōji (1998), “Meiji kara Shōwa Shoki ni itaru Jikken Shinrigaku no Keisei Katei,”
Shinrigaku Hyōron, 41: 333–58.
Osaka, Ryōji (2000a), “Meiji kara Shōwa Shoki ni okeru Jikken Shinrigaku no Keisei
Katei: Motora Yūjirō to Matsumoto Matatarō wo Chūshin toshite,” in Naoyuki Osaka
Osaka, Ryōji (2000b), “Wagakuni Shoki no Shinrigaku Jikkenshitsu,” in Naoyuki Osaka
Osaka, Ryōji (2000c), “Shinrigaku ni okeru Rekishi-teki Jikken Kiki ni tsuite: Kyōto Daigaku
no Baai,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to
Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 245–64, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Ōse, Jintarō and Tachigara Noritoshi (1903), Xinli jiaokeshu (Textbook of Psychology)
(trans. Zhang Yungke and Li Jinglian), Beijing: Zhuli Xuexiao Pian Yichu.
Ōse, Jintarō and Yamamoto Gennojō (1911), Hassei Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon
Tosho.
Ostwald, Friedrich Wilhelm (1909), Die energetische Grundlagen der Kulturwissenschaften,
Leipzig: W. Klinkhardt.
292 Bibliography
Ōta, Keiko (1997), “‘Shinrigaku’ to ‘Psychology,’” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi
Ōtsuki, Kaison (1912), “Monowasure no Shinri,” Shinri Kenkyū, 1(4): 1–40.
Ōtsuki, Kaison (1915), “Bōkyaku to Yokuatsu Sayō,” Shinri Kenkyū, 7(1): 124–40.
Ōyama, Ikuo (1910), Gunshū Shinri, Tokyo: Da-Nippon Bunmei Kyōkai.
Ōyama, Tadasu (1998), “Wagakuni ni okeru Jikken Shinrigaku no Seiritsu ni taisuru
Motora • Matsumoto Ryō Kyōju no Idai na Kōken―Osaka • Hidano Ryō Bunron wo
Yonde,” Shinrigaku Hyōron, 41: 359–64.
Ōyama, Tadasu (2002), “Wagakuni ni okeru Seishin Butsurigaku no dDōnyū―Motora
Yūjirō ni okeru Seishin Butsurigaku no Dōnyū,” Shinrigaku Hyōron, 44(4): 422–32.
Ōyama, Tadasu (2004a), “20 Seiki Shotō ni Yunyū sareta Hipu no Kuronosukōpu wo
Megutte,” Shinrigaku-shi—Shinrigaku-ron: nukizuri, December, 45–47.
Ōyama, Tadasu (2004b), “Wagakuni ni okeru Kōdō Kenkyū no Genryū,” Japanese
Psychological Review, 47(4): 501–11.
Ōyama, Tadasu (2008), “Development of Psychophysics in Japan,” Japanese Psychological
Research, 50(4): 183–92.
Ōyama, Tadasu and Goto Takuo (2007), “Editorial: Studies on Optical Illusions in Japan,”
Ōyama, Tadasu, Shuko Torii, and Toshihiko Mochizuki (2005), “Pioneering Studies in the
1930s on Perception: An Historical Background of Experimental Psychology in Japan,”
Ōyama, Tadasu and Tatsuya Satō (1999), “Tōkyō Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku Koten
Jikken Kiki ni tsuite: Bihin Daichō wo Tegakari toshite,” Japanese Psychological Review,
42(3): 289–312.
Ōyama, Tadasu and Tatsuya Satō (2000), “Tōkyō Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku Koten
Jikken Kiki ni tsuite: Bihin Daichō wo Tegakari toshite,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken
Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi,
77–213, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Ōyama, Tadasu and Tatsuya Satō (2001), “‘Kindai’ Shinrigaku ka ‘Gendai’ Shinrigaku ka:
Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku Shijō no Ichizuke―Nishikawa (1999), Mizoguchi (2000)
Ryō Ronbun ni Kotoeru,” Shinrigaku-shi • Shinrigaku-ron, 3: 21–28.
Ōyama, Tadasu, Tatsuya Satō, and Y. Suzuki (2001), “Shaping of Scientific Psychology in
Japan,” Special Issue: Origin and Development of Scientific Psychology in Different
Parts of the World: Retrospect and Prospect at the Turn of the Century, International
Journal of Psychology International Journal of Psychology, 36(6): 396–406.
Ōyama, Tadasu, Yasuo Nishikawa, Naoyuki Osaki, and Ayumu Arakawa (2006),
“Kokuritsu Taiwan Daigaku Shozō no Kyū Taihoku Teikoku Daigaku Rekishi-teki
Shinrigaku Kiki nit suite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no
Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 211–22, Kenkyū
Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Ozawa-de Silva, Chikako (2006), Psychotherapy and Religion in Japan: The Japanese
Introspection Practice of Naikan, London: Routledge.
Pate, James L. (2000), “Psychological Organizations in the United States,” American
Pawlik, Kurt and Mark R. Rosenzweig (1994), “Editorial Preface,” Special Issue: The
Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National and Regional Perspectives,
International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 665–66.
Piovesana, Gino K. (1955), “Main Trends of Contemporary Japanese Philosophy,”
Bibliography 293
Piovesana, Gino K. (1997), Recent Japanese Philosophical Thought, 1862–1996, Surrey, UK:
Japan Library.
Pollack, David (1988), “Framing the Self: The Philosophical Dimensions of Human Nature
in Kokoro,” Monumenta Nipponica, 43(4): 417–27.
Price, C. E. (1904), “Psychological Literature,” Psychological Bulletin, 1: 349–50.
Prince, Morton (1906), The Dissociation of a Personality, New York: Longmans, Green,
and Co.
Pyle, Kenneth (1996), The Making of Japan, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath
Quo, Fang-quei (1966), “Jiyushugi: Japanese Liberalism,” The Review of Politics, 28(4):
477–92.
Reed, Edward S. (1997), From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus
Darwin to William James, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Regmi, M. P. (1987), “Historical Development of Psychology in Nepal,” in Geoffrey H.
Ribot, Théodule (1905), “An Essay on Eastern Philosophy par Motora, Leipzig:
Voigtlander,” Revue Philosophique, 60: 643–45.
Rice, Charles E. (2000), “Uncertain Genesis: The Academic Institutionalization of
American Psychology in 1900,” American Psychologist, 55(5): 488–91.
Richards, Graham (1992), Mental Machinery, Part 1: The Origins and Consequences of
Psychological Ideas from 1600 to 1850, London: Athlone Press.
Richardson, Barry (1987), “Psychology in Papua New Guinea: A Brief Overview,” in
Riepe, Dale (1965), “Selected Chronology of Recent Japanese Philosophy (1868–1963),”
Philosophy East and West, 15(3/4): 259–84.
Robertson, Jennifer (1979), “Rooting the Pine: Shingaku Methods of Organization,”
Robertson, Jennifer (2002), “Blood Talks: Eugenic Modernity and the Creation of New
Japanese,” History and Anthropology, 13(3): 191–216.
Robinson, Daniel N. (1982), Toward a Science of Human Nature: Essays on the Psychologies
of Mill, Hegel, Wundt, and James, New York: Columbia University Press.
Robinson, Daniel N. (1995), An Intellectual History of Psychology (3rd edition), Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Robinson, Daniel N. (2000), “Philosophy of Psychology at the Turn of the Century,”
Romanes, G. J. (1882), Animal Intelligence, London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Company.
Rose, Nikolas (1988), “Calculable Minds and Manageable Individuals,” History of the
Human Sciences, 1(2): 179–200.
Rosenzweig, Mark R. (1994), “The Diverse Origins and the Development of Psychology in
the USA,” Special Issue: The Origins and Development of Psychology: Some National
and Regional Perspectives, International Journal of Psychology, 29(6): 739–56.
Rubinger, Richard (1986), “Education: From One Room to One System,” in Marius
B. Jansen and Gilbert Rozman (eds), Japan in Transition: From Tokugawa to Meiji,
195–230, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sahlins, Marshall (1976), Culture and Practical Reason, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Saitō, Takako (2006), “The Meaning of Heaven According to Nishi Amane,” Essays in
Japanese Philosophy, 1: 1–21.
294 Bibliography
Saitō, Tsuyoshi (1977), Meiji no Kotoba: Higashi kara Nishi e no Kakebashi, Tokyo:
Kodansha.
Sakuma, Akira (2000), “Seiritsuki no Kyūshū Daigaku Shinrigaku Kenkyūshitsu:
Geshitaruto Shinrigaku wo Chūshin ni,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no
Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 216–43, Kyoto:
Sakuma, Kanae (1919), Kokugo no Hatsuon to Akusento, Tokyo: Dōbunkan.
Sakuma, Kanae (1932), Geshitaruto Shinrigaku no Tachiba, Tokyo: Uchitarōtsuruhata.
Sakuma, Kanae (1936), Gendai Nihongo no Hyōgen to Gohō, Tokyo: Uchitarōtsuruhata
Sakuma, Kanae (1940), Gendai Nihongo-hō no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Kōseikaku.
Sakuma, Kanae (1959), Nihongo no Gengo Riron, Tokyo: Kōseisha Kōseikaku.
Samuels, Richard (1994), “Rich Nation, Strong Army”: National Security and the
Technological Transformation of Japan, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sandaya, Hiraku (1915), Gakurei Jidō Chiryoku Kensa-hō, Tokyo: Jidō Shoin.
Sasabe, Akinobu (1901), Raddo-shi Kijutsu-teki Setsumei-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo:
Ikuseikai.
Sasaki, Masanao (1903), “Sutēringu-shi no Shinrigaku ni Kansuru Seishinbyō Rigaku,”
Tetsugaku, 18: 27–29.
Satō, Kōji and C. H. Graham (1954), “Psychology in Japan,” Psychological Bulletin, 51(5):
443–64.
Satō, Tatsuya (1997a), “Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi Kenkyū,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime
Satō, Tatsuya (1997b), “Nihon no Shinrigaku: Zenshi,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime
Satō, Tatsuya (1997c), “Taikoku ni okeru Taishō Jidai made no Jinzai no Ikusei to
Haishutsu,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku,
584–85, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya (1997d), “Jissai-teki Kenkyū no Kiun: Genba to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya
Kitaoji Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya (1997e), “Hyōka to Hōshō,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds),
Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 473–96, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya (2001a), “Kaigai Ryugaku izen no Motora Yūjirō,” Seigai Gakushū Kyōiku
Kenkyū Sentā, Fukushima Daigaku, 6: 25–32.
Satō, Tatsuya (2001b), “Furansu no ‘Tetsugaku Hyōron’ no Keisai sareta Ribō ni yoru
Motora Ronbun no Shōkai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon
no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 253–56, Seika
Satō, Tatsuya (2001c), “Monbushō ‘Kōtō Gakkō Shinri Kyōju Yōmoku’ (1923 (Shōwa 3)
Nen~1946 (Shōwa 21) Nen),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no
Satō, Tatsuya (2001d), “1939 (Shōwa 14) Nen no Monbushō ‘Kōtō Gakkō Shinri Kyōju
Yōmoku’ Kaiteiji ni okeru Geshiyutaruto Shinrigaku-ka wo Meguru Arasoi,” in Yasuo
given).
Satō, Tatsuya (2002a), Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku no Juyō to Tenkai, Tokyo: Kitaoji
Shuppan.
Bibliography 295
Satō, Tatsuya (2002b), “Senzenki-senjiki taisei to nihon no shinrigaku: Yūseigaku-

Gunji-Kyōiku to no kawari wo chūshin ni (Psychology in Japan and Its Prewar and
Wartime System: Focus on the Relation between Eugenics, Military, and Education),”
Ritsumeikan Ningen Kagaku Kenkyū, 4: 1–19.
Satō, Tatsuya (2005a), “The History of Psychology in Japan,” Japanese Psychological
Research, 47(2): 47–51.
Satō, Tatsuya (2005b), “Shinrigaku-shi no Sōzōryoku, Shinrigaku no Tenkairyoku,” in
Tatsuya Satō (ed.), Shinrigaku-shi no Atarashii Katachi, 3–18, Tokyo: Seishin Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya (2005c), “Shinrigaku no Tenkairyoku—Shinrigaku-shi kara,” in Tatsuya Satō
(ed.), Shinrigaku-shi no Atarashii Katachi, 209–19, Tokyo: Seishin Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya (2005d), “Nishi Amane ni okeru ‘Psychology’ to ‘Shinrigaku’ no Aida,” in
Shimane Kenritsu Daigaku Nishi Amane Kenkyūkai (ed.), Nishi Amane to Nihon no
Kindai, 217–51, Tokyo: Perikansha.
Satō, Tatsuya (2007), “Rises and Falls of Clinical Psychology in Japan: A Perspective on
the Status of Japanese Clinical Psychology,” Ritsumeikan Ningen Kagaku Kenkyū, 13:
133–44.
Satō, Tatsuya (2008a), “Nihon no Shinrigaku no Kyōkai Kakutei Sagyō—Sorezore ni
yunīku na Kenkyūsha: Inoue • Fukurai • Furukawa no Katsudō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa
Satō, Tatsuya (2008b), “Kido Mantarō, Watanabe Tōru, Imada Megumi—Kyūsei Shiritsu
Daigaku ni okeru Shinrigaku no Tenkai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds),
Satō, Tatsuya (2008c), “Motora Yūjirō: Wagakuni Saisho no Shinrigakusha,” in Yasuo
Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 58–70, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.
Satō, Tatsuya (2008d), “Morita Masatake, Nakamura Kokyō, Terada Seiichi, Uchida
Yūzaburō—Ijō, Hentai, Hanzai e no Torikumi—” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki
Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi, 115–29, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.
Satō, Tatsuya (2008e), “Zasshi ‘Seishin Bunseki’ ni okeru shinsei bunseki no Tenkai,”
Seishin Bunseki—Senzen-hen, 21–40.
Satō, Tatsuya (2008f), “Kubo Yoshihide, Tanaka Kenichi, Suzuki Harutarō—Chinō Kensa
to Hattatsu Shinrigaku no Shinten,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds),
Satō, Tatsuya and Fukutome Akiko (1997), “Shinri Gakkai no Genjō,” in Tatsuya Satō and
Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 406–41, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya and Hajime Mizoguchi, eds (1997), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, Tokyo:
Kitaoji Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya and Hoshino Mayumi (1997), “Masumedeia to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya
Kitaoji Shobō.
Satō, Tatsuya and Takao Satō (2005), “The Early 20th Century: Shaping the Discipline of
Psychology in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 52–62.
Satō, Tatsuya, Hajime Mizoguchi, Miki Takasuna, and Yō Fumino (1997), “Poppu
to Akademikku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no
Satō, Tatsuya, Miki Takasuna, and Ōta Keiko (1997), “Shinrigaku Kenkyū no Jiritsu:
Gakkai • Ryūgaku • Jikken,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi:
Nihon no Shinrigaku, 64–122, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Sawada, Janine Anderson (1998), “Mind and Morality in Nineteenth-Century Japanese
Religions: Misogi-kyō and Maruyama-kyō,” Philosophy East & West, 48(1): 108–41.
296 Bibliography
Sawada, Janine Tasca (2004), Practical Pursuits: Religion, Politics, and Personal Cultivation
in Nineteenth-Century Japan, Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press.
Sawayanagi, Masatarō (1893), Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Tōkyō Senmon Gakkō.
Sawayanagi, Masatarō and Mitsuishi Shizuo (1894), Futsū Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Fuzanbō.
Scarborough, E. and L. Furumoto (1987), Untold Lives: The First Generation of American
Women Psychologists, New York: Columbia University Press.
Schwantes, Robert S. (1985), “Foreign Employees in the Development of Japan,” in Ardath
W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji
Japan, 207–18, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sennett, Richard (1977), The Fall of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism,
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Shibue, Tamotsu (1891), Shotō Kyōiku Shō Shinri-sho, Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Shiina, Ken and Ōyama Tadasu (2008), “Remembering Shiro Morinaga,” Gestalt Theory,
30(1): 6–10.
Shimazono, Susumu (2015), “From Salvation to Healing: Yoshimoto Naikan Therapy and
Its Religious Origins,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi
(eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 150–64, London: Routledge.
Shiro, Amioka (1991), “Changes in Educational Ideals and Objectives (From Selected
Documents, Tokugawa Era to the Meiji Period),” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The
Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 323–57, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Shweder, Richard A. (1990), “Cultural Psychology: What Is It?” in James W. Stigler,
Richard A. Shweder, and Gilbert Herdt (eds), Cultural Psychology: Essays on
Comparative Human Development, 1–43, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinha, Durganand (1987), “Psychology in India: A Historical Perspective,” in Geoffrey
Smiles, Samuel (1859), Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct, London:
John Murray.
Smith, Laurence D., Lisa A. Best, Virginia A. Cylke, and D. Alan Stubbs (2000),
“Psychology without p Values: Data Analysis at the Turn of the 19th Century,”
Smith, Roger (1997), Norton History of the Human Sciences, New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Sprung, L. and H. Sprung (2001), “History of Modern Psychology in Germany in 19th-
and 20th-Century Thought and Society,” Special Issue: Origin and Development of
Scientific Psychology in Different Parts of the World: Retrospect and Prospect at the
Turn of the Century, International Journal of Psychology, 36(6): 364–77.
Srubar, Ilja and Shingo Shimada (2005), Development of Sociology in Japan, Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.
St. George, Ross (1987), “Psychology in New Zealand: A History and Commentary,”
in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The
Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 325–44, Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Steiner, Jesse Frederick (1936), “The Development and Present Status of Sociology in
Japanese Universities,” The American Journal of Sociology, 41(6): 707–22.
Sturm, T. and M. G. Ash (2005), “Roles of Instruments in Psychological Research,” History
of Psychology, 8: 3–34.
Sudō, Shinkichi (1915), Vunto no Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Uchitarōtsuruhata.
Bibliography 297
Sugimoto, Masayoshi and David L. Swain (1989), Science and Culture in Traditional Japan,
Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle.
Sugiyama, Tomitsuchi (1900), Morugan-shi Hikaku Shinrigaku Joron, Tokyo: Ikuseikai.
Sukemune, S. (1987), “Psychology in Japan,” in S. R. Perls (ed.), Psychology: An
International Perspective, 62–80, Albuquerque, NM: Professional Seminar
Consultants.
Sun, Lung-Kee (1992), “Social Psychology in the Late Qing Period,” Modern China, 18(3):
235–62.
Susukida, Tsukasu (1935), Seimei Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Tōen Shobō.
Suzuki, Norihisa (1970), “Nobuta Kishimoto and the Beginnings of the Scientific Study of
Religion in Modern Japan,” Contemporary Religions in Japan, 11: 155–80.
Suzuki, Yūko (1995), “The Current Status and Significance of Research in the History of
Psychology in Japan,” Japanese Psychological Review, 38(3): 396–423.
Suzuki, Yūko (1997a), “Shinrigaku Kibo no Meikakuka,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime
Suzuki, Yūko (1997b), “Raddo no Rainichi,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds),
Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku, 93–94, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Suzuki, Yūko (1997c), “Shinrigaku Tsūzoku Kōwa to Senmon-shi no Sōkan,” in Tatsuya
Kitaoji Shobō.
Suzuki, Yūko (2001), “Nihon ni okeru Raddo no Shinrigaku: 3 Do no Rainichi wo Majiete
Kangaeru,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku
Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 57–70, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho
Suzuki, Yūko (2005), “An Historical Examination of the Concept of Jiga (Ego) in Japanese
Psychology, Particularly as Employed in a Dissertation by Yujiro Motora and Ladd’s
Psychological Theory,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 115–24.
Suzuki, Yūko (2006), “Motora Yūjirō no Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ to Kikokugo
no Chosakugun no Tenkai: ‘Shakai’ e no Shisen,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project
Suzuki, Yūko and Miki Takasuna (1997), “Kenkyūshitsu no Kaisetsu to Kenkyū no
Kokusaika,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no Shinrigaku,
204–36, Tokyo: Kitaoji Shobō.
Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2001), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no
Hōga,” Tōhoku Joshi Daigaku • Tōhoku Joshi Tanki Daigaku Kiyō, 40: 73–84.
Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2004), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no Hōga:
Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongo-yaku Sagyō (Dai 3 Hō),”
Tōhoku Joshi Daigaku • Tōhoku Joshi Tanki Daigaku Kiyō, 43: 25–34.
Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2005), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō no Hōga:
Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongo-yaku Sagyō (Dai 4 Hō),”
Tōhoku Joshi Daigaku • Tōhoku Joshi Tanki Daigaku Kiyō, 44: 42–51.
Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2006a), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō
no Hōga: Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongoyaku Sagyō
(Dai 3-hō),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no
Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 179–88, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho
Suzuki, Yūko and Seiji Kodama (2006b), “Motora Yūjirō no Shinrigaku-teki Shisō
no Hōga: Gakui Ronbun ‘Exchange’ Denshi Tekisuto-ka to Nihongoyaku Sagyō
298 Bibliography
(Dai 4-hō),” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Shinrigaku-shi no

Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 191–200, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho
Takada, Yasuma (1919), Shakaigaku Genri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Takada, Yasuma (1922), Shakaigaku Gairon, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Takahashi, Gorō (1910), Shinrei Bannō-ron, Tokyo: Maekawa Buneiraku.
Takano, Chōei (1972), “Seiyō Gakushi no Setsu: The Theories of Western Philosophers”
(trans. Gino K. Piovesana), Monumenta Nipponica, 27(1): 85–92.
Takashima, Heisaburō (1900), Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Yūbunkan.
Takashima, Heisaburō (1903), “Wagakuni ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu,” Jidō Kenkyū,
6, 4.
Takashima, Heisaburō (1909), Jidō Shinri Kōwa, Tokyo: Kōbundō.
Takasuana, Miki (2001a), “1945-nen made ni Kaigai no Senmonshi ni Keisai sareta
Nihonjin Shinrigaku-sha no Ronbun,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative),
Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 210–14,
Takasuana, Miki (2001b), “Shinkei Dentatsu Riron ni Miru Motora Yūjirō,” in Yasuo
given).
Takasuna, Miki (1997a), “Nihon Shinri Gakkai no Seiritsu to Kokusai Kōryū no
Honkakuka,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi (eds), Tsūshi: Nihon no
Takasuna, Miki (1997b), “Kyōiku Seido to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime
Takasuna, Miki (1997c), “Sensō to Shinrigaku,” in Tatsuya Satō and Hajime Mizoguchi
Takasuna, Miki (2001a), “The Wundt Collection in Japan,” in R. W. Rieber and D. K.
Robinson (eds), Wilhelm Wundt in History: The Making of a Scientific Psychology,
251–60, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Takasuana, Miki (2001b), “Chiwa Hiroshi no Ōshū Taizai Memo: 1933-nen 11 Gatsu
kara 1934-nen 1 Gatsu,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no
Takasuna, Miki (2001c), “Shinrigaku ni okeru Shinkei Seni—Baiosaikorojī-shi,” in Yasuo
Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 192–99, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Takasuna, Miki (2005), “Six Researchers’ Contributions to Comparative Psychology in
Japan: 1900–1945,” Japanese Psychological Research, 47(2): 88–94.
Takasuna, Miki (2006a), “Senzen no Nihonjin Ryūgakusha to Sono Eikyō: Yoshioka
Gennosuke to Takemasa Tarō no Baai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative),
Takasuna, Miki (2006b), “The Origins of Scientific Psychology in Japan,” Physis; rivista
internazionale di storia della scienza, 43(1–2): 319–31.
Takasuna, Miki (2007a), “Proliferation of Western Methodological Thought in Psychology
in Japan: Ways of Objectification,” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41:
83–92.
Bibliography 299
Takasuna, Miki (2007b), “What Was Not Discussed: Reply to Comments,” Integrative
Psychological Behavioral Sciences, 41: 114–19.
Takasuna, Miki (2008a), “Shinrigaku-shi kara no Matometo Kadai,” in Yasuo Nishikawa
Takasuna, Miki (2008b), “Matsumoto Matatarō to Chiba Tanenari—Shinrigaku no
Teichaku to Hirogari,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki Takasuna (eds), Shinrigaku-shi,
71–78, Tokyo: Hōsō Daigaku.
Takasuna, Miki (2008c), “Sakuma Kanae, Onoshima Usao,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki
Takasuna, Miki (2008d), “Masuda Koreshige, Kuroda Ryō,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki
Takasuna, Miki (2008e), “Nihon no Josei no Shinrigakusha,” in Yasuo Nishikawa and Miki
Takasuna, Miki and Tatsuyo Satō (2004), “Felix Krueger and Ganzheitspsychologie in
Japanese Psychology,” From Past to Future, 5: 17–23.
Takasuna, Miki and Tatsuyo Satō (2008), “Felix Kruger and Ganzheitspsychologie: History
of Psychology in Japan and during World War II,” in Rainer Diriwächter and Joan
Valsiner (eds), Striving for the Whole: Creating Theoretical Syntheses, 47–58, New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Takasuna, Miki, Tatsuya Satō, Hajime Mizoguchi, and Yasuo Nishikawa (2001), “Studying
Abroad in Europe and the United States: Influences on Japanese Psychology 1868–
1945,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei
ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-teki Kentō, 226–29, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication
venue not given).
Takemasa, Tarō (1943), Kokumin Kyōiku no Shinri, Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.
Takuma, Taketoshi (2001), “Kurt Gottschaldt no Kenkyū ni tsuite,” in Yasuo Nishikawa
(project representative), Nihon no Gendai Shinrigaku Keisei ni Kakawaru Gakumonshi-
teki Kentō, 59–78, Kenkyū Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Tamano, Kazushi (2007), “Social Survey Research in Japanese Sociology,” International
Journal of Japanese Sociology, 16: 1–9.
Tanaka, Jiroku (1894), Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Tetsugakkan.
Tanaka, Kanichi (1919), “Ōyō Shinrigaku Saikin no Hattatsu,” in Saikin Shinrigaku no
Shinpo, Tokyo: Dainippon Gakujustu Kyōkai.
Tanaka, Tōsaku (1885), Kyōiku Shinri Ronri—Jutsugo Shōkai, Tokyo: Fukyū-sha.
Tanaka, Yoshihisa (1966), “Status of Japanese Experimental Psychology,” Annual Review of
Tanaka, Yoshihisa and George W. England (1972), “Psychology in Japan,” Annual Review
of Psychology, 23: 695–732.
Tanimoto, Tomeri (1897a), “Wagakuni ni okeru Shinrigaku no Hattatsu,” Kyōikudan, 2:
1–24.
Tanimoto, Tomeri (1897b), Futsū Shinrigaku Shūsei—Jōken, Tokyo: Rokumeikan.
Tanimoto, Tomeri (1901), “Notice historique de la psychologie au Japon,” in Félix Alcan
(ed.), IVe Congrès International de Psychologie: Compte rendu des Séances et texte des
mémoires, 60, Paris: Ancienne Librairie Germer Bailliere and Co.
Tanimoto, Tomeri (1908), Gunshū Shinri no Shinkenkyū, Tokyo: Rokumeikan.
Tarutani, Shigero (2015), “Kawai Hayao’s Transnatioanl Identity and Japanese Spirit,”
in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and
Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 181–203, London: Routledge.
300 Bibliography
Taylor, Eugene (2000), “Psychotherapeutics and the Problematic Origins of Clinical

Psychology in America,” American Psychologist, 55(9): 318–21.
Taylor, F. W. (1911), Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Harper.
Terada, Seiichi (1913), Shūjin no Shinri, Tokyo: Ganshōdō Shoten.
Terada, Seiichi (1917a), Hanzainin-ron, Tokyo: Ganshōdō Shoten.
Terada, Seiichi (1917b), Jidō no Akuheki, Tokyo: Chūbunkan Shoten.
Terada, Seiichi (1918), Hanzai Shinrigaku Kōwa, Tokyo: Nihon Seishin Igakkai.
Terada, Seiichi (1926), Hanzai Shinri Kōgi, Tokyo: Nihon Seishini Gakkai.
Terada, Seiichi (1927), Hanzai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Terao, Kazuyoshi (2015), “Naikan and Mourning: A Catholic Attempt at Naikan
Meditation,” in Christopher Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds),
Religion and Psychotherapy in Modern Japan, 165–80, London: Routledge.
Terasaki, Hiroaki (2006), “Hajimari no ‘Shinrigaku’ to Nishi Amane: ‘Shinrigaku’ wo
risetto suru,” Yamanashi Daigaku Kyōiku Ningenka Gakubu Kiyō, 8: 278–87.
Terasaki, Masao and Senjika Kyōiku Kenkūkai, eds (1987), Sōryokusen taisei to kyōiku:
Kōkokumin “rensei” no rinen to jissen, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Tester, Keith (1992), Civil Society, London: Taylor and Francis.
Thorndike, Edward Lee (1911), Animal Intelligence, New York: Macmillan.
Titchener, E. B. (1913), “Professor Yuzero Motora,” The American Journal of Psychology,
24(3): 441–43.
Toda, Teizō (1937), Kazoku Kōzō, Tokyo: Kobundo.
Tōgō, Minoru (1922), Sekai Kaizō to Minzoku Shinri, Taipei: Taihoku Dōjin.
Tōgō, Minoru (1925), Shokumin Seisaku to Minzoku Shinri, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Tokutani, Toyonosuke (1903), Shinrigaku Mondō, Tokyo: Hakubunkan.
Tokutani, Toyonosuke (1906), Shakai Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Makotonoto.
Tōkyō Teikoku Daigaku, Bunka Daigaku Shinrigaku Kyōshitsu, ed. (1910), Jikken
Shinrigaku Shashinchō, Tokyo: Kōdōkan.
Tominaga, Iwatarō (1902), Kyōiku no Jissai ni Ōyō Shitaru Shinrigaku, Tokyo:
Satō Seijirō.
Tominaga, Ken’ichi (1975), “Yasuma Takada: An Unknown Giant of Sociology,”
Sociological Inquiry, 45(1): 31–44.
Totoki, Wataru (1904), Shinrigaku Kōyō, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Tosho.
Tsuboi, Senjirō (1884), Shinri Yōryaku, Tokyo: Gifu Seigadō.
Tsuda, Motonori (1903), Yōji Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Tsuji, Keiichirō (2001), “Shinrigaku ni okeru Gakushi Kenkyū no Shomondai: Jitchi Chōsa
wo Tsūjite Kangaeta Koto to,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative), Nihon no
Shinrigaku-shi no Kakawaru Kaigai Shiryō Shūshū Chōsa Kenkyū, 147–54, Kenkyū
Seika Hōkokusho (publication venue not given).
Tsuji, Keiichirō (2006), “Shinrigaku-shi no Kenkyū • Kyōiku ni Mirareru Henka:
Naihatsu-teki Yōin to Gaihatsu-teki Yōin,” in Yasuo Nishikawa (project representative),
Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1900), Ru Bon-shi Minzoku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Ikuseikai.
Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1901), Raddo-shi Shinrigaku Kōen, Tokyo: Fuzanbo.
Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1910), Seinen Shinri, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Tsukahara, Masatsugu (1926), Jidō no Shinri oyobi Kyōiku, Tokyo: Meiji Tosho.
Tsukahara, Masatsugu, ed. (1898), Kyōiku Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Tsurumi, E. Patricia (1974), “Meiji Primary School Language and Ethics Textbooks: Old
Values for a New Society?” Modern Asian Studies, 8(2): 247–61.
Bibliography 301
Tsuruta, Shōichi (1980), “Kaigun ni okeru Shinrigaku-teki Kenkyū,” Ōyō Shinrigaku

Kenkyū, 5: 27–33.
Tsutsui, William M. (2009), “The Way of Efficiency: Ueno Yōichi and Scientific
Management in Twentieth-Century Japan,” Modern Asian Studies, 35(2): 441–67.
Tucker, Mary Evelyn (2007), The Philosophy of Qi: The Record of Great Doubts by Kaibara
Ekken, New York: Columbia University Press.
Turner, F. M. (1974), Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in
Late Victorian England, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Turtle, Alison M. (1987a), “Psychology in the Australian Context,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers
and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East: The Status of Western Psychology
in Asia and Oceania, 305–24, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Turtle, Alison M. (1987b), “Introduction: A Silk Road for Psychology,” in Geoffrey H.
Tweney, Ryan D. and Cheri A. Budzynski (2000), “The Scientific Status of American
Psychology in 1900,” American Psychologist, 55(9): 1014–17.
Tytler, G. (1982), Physiognomy in the European Novel: Faces and Fortunes, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Uchijima, Sadao (1991), “Kindai Nihon ni okeru Hatattsu-ron Kentō no Shiten—Kodomo
Kenkyū no Shisō to ‘Kagaku’,” Kyōiku to Shakai Kenkyū, 41–45.
Uchijima, Sadao (1994), “Motora Yūjirō ni yoru Nihon ni okeru Shinrigaku no Kakuritsu,”
Hokkaidō Dōkyōiku Daigaku Kiyō, 44(2): 73–83.
Uchijima, Sadao (1996), “Nishi Amane no Ningen Hattatsu-ron to Sono Hōsoku-teki no
Haaku Tameshi,” Hokkaidō Dōkyōiku Daigaku Kiyō, 46(2): 11–18.
Ueno, Yōchi (1914a), “Yume to Seiyoku to Kodomo,” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(2): 41–57.
Ueno, Yōchi (1914b), “Furoido no Yume no Setsu (1),” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(3): 3–20.
Ueno, Yōchi (1914c), “Furoido no Yume no Setsu (2),” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(4): 54–71.
Ueno, Yōchi (1914d), “Seishin Bunseki-hō no Kigen,” Shinri Kenkyū, 6(4): 97–106.
Ueno, Yōchi (1915), “Seishin Bunseki-sha no Kantaru Kyōiku,” Shinri Kenkyū, 8(1): 77–89.
Ueno, Yōchi (1924), Kōkoku-jutsu, Tokyo: Sanseidō.
Ueno, Yōchi (1931), Hanbai Shinri, Tokyo: Chikura Shobō.
Ueno, Yōchi and Noda Nobuo (1922), Kinsei Shinrgaku-shi, Tokyo: Dōbunkan.
Umemoto, Akio (2000), “Kyōto Daigaku Bungaku-bu Tetsugaku-ka Shinrigaku Kyōshitsu
Enkaku-shi,” in Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Jikken Shinrigaku no Tanjō to Tenkai: Jikken Kiki
to Shiryō kara Tadoru Nihon Shinrigaku-shi, 267–77, Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Umetani, Noboru (1985), “William Elliot Griffis’ Studies in Japanese History and Their
Significance,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign
Employees, and Meiji Japan, 393–408, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Upham, Thomas Cogswell (1869), Elements of Mental Philosophy: Embracing the Three
Elements of the Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will, New York: Harper and Brothers.
Vidal, Fernando (1993), “Psychology in the 18th Century: A View from Encyclopaedias,”
History of the Human Sciences, 6(1): 89–119.
Wagatsuma, Hiroshi (1969), “Major Trends in Social Psychology in Japan,” American
Behavioral Scientist, 12: 36–45.
Wakabayashi, Torasaburō and Shirai Kowashi (1883), Kaisei Kyō-jutsu, Tokyo: Fukyūsha.
Wakita, Ryōkichi (1908), Chūi no Shinri to Teinōji Kyōiku, Osaka: Yashima Seishindō.
Waku, Masatatsu (1888), Sa-shi Ōyō shinrigaku, Tokyo: Makino Shobō.
Wang, Guowei, trans. (1902a), Xinlixue (by Motora Yūjirō), Shanghai: Jiaoyu Shijie
Chubanshe.
302 Bibliography
Wang, Guowei, trans. (1902b), Lunlixue (by Motora Yūjirō), Shanghai: Jiaoyu Shijie
Chubanshe.
Wang, Zhong-Ming (1993), “Psychology in China: A Review Dedicated to Li Chen,”
Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 87–116.
Ward, Colleen (1987), “The Historical Development and Current Status of Psychology in
Malaysia,” in Geoffrey H. Blowers and Alison M. Turtle (eds), Psychology Moving East:
The Status of Western Psychology in Asia and Oceania, 201–22, Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Washburn, M. F. (1908), The Animal Mind: A Textbook of Comparative Psychology, New
York: Macmillan.
Washburn, M. F. (1916), Movement and Mental Imagery: Outlines of a Motor Theory of the
Complexer Mental Processes, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Watanabe, Kazuyasu (1981), “Motora Yūjirō ni okeru Shizen to Ningen,” Aichi Kyōiku
Daigaku Kenkyū Hōkoku, 30: 139–56.
Watanabe, Masao (1985), “Science across the Pacific: American–Japanese Scientific and
Cultural Contacts in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Ardath W. Burks (ed.), The
Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan, 369–92, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Watanabe, Tōru (1915), Fūdo Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Bunmei Kyōkai Jimusho.
Watanabe, Tōru (1940), Hompō Saisho no Keiken-teki Shinrigaku-sha toshite no Kamada
Hō no Kenkyū, Tokyo: Chūkōkan.
Watanabe, Tōru (1954), “Hompō Shinrigaku no Ayumi,” Shinrigaku Kōza: Daichi 1 Gendai
Shinrigaku (Nihon Ōyō Shinri Gakkai-hen), Tokyo: Nakayama Shoten.
Watson, John Broadus (1913), “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It,” Psychological
Review, 20: 158–77.
Watson, John Broadus (1924), Behaviorism, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Watson, John Broadus (1928), Psychological Care of Infant and Child, New York: W. W.
Norton Company.
Watson, Robert I. and Marilyn Merrifield (1973), “Characteristics of Individuals Eminent
in Psychology in Temporal Perspective: Part I,” Journal of the History of Behavioral
Sciences, 9(4): 339–59.
Wayland, Frederick Winslow (1855), The Elements of Intellectual Philosophy, Boston, MA:
Philips, Sampson and Co.
Wertheim, Margaret (1999), Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, New York: W. W. Norton.
Westney, Eleanor D. (1987), Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer of Western
Organizational Patterns to Meiji Japan, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wundt, Wilhelm (1863), Vorlesungen über die Menschen-und Tierseele, 2 vols, Leipzig:
Leopold Voss.
Wundt, Wilhelm (1874), Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, Leipzig: W.
Engelmann.
Wundt, Wilhelm (1896), Grundriss der Psychologie, Leipzig: W. Engelmann.
Wundt, Wilhelm M. (1900–1920), Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der
Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte (EthnoCultural Psychology: An
Investigation of the Developmental Laws of Language, Myth, and Customs), Leipzig:
Kröner.
Yajima, Kinzō (1886), Bein-shi cho Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Chūai-sha.
Yajima, Kinzō (1889), Futsū Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Fuji Shobō.
Yasuda, Tokutarō (1926), Seishin Bunsekigaku Nyūmon, Tokyo: Arusu.
Yasumaru, Yoshio (1974), Nihon no kindaika to minshū shisō, Tokyo: Aoki Shoten.
Bibliography 303
Yatabe, Tatsurō (1942), Ishi Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Baifukan.

Yatabe, Tatsurō (1948a), Shikō Shinrigaku-shi, Tokyo: Baifukan.
Yatabe, Tatsurō (1948b), Shikō Shinrigaku I: Gainen to Imi, Tokyo: Baifukan.
Yatabe, Tatsurō (1949), Shikō Shinrigaku II: Kankei to Suiri, Tokyo: Baifukan.
Yatabe, Tatsurō (1953), Shikō Shinrigaku III: Dōbutsu no Shikō, Tokyo: Baifukan.
Yatsu, Naohide and Takahashi Ken (1918), Dōbutsu no Kokoro, Tokyo: Hanabusa Shobō.
Yokota, Junya (1995), Meiji Fukashigi Dō, Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.
Yoneda, Shōtarō (1913), Vunto no Minzoku Shinrigaku to Yohai no Shakaigaku, Shinri
Kenkyū 3(1–2).
Yoshida, Kumaji (1909), Jikken Kyōikugaku no Shinpo, Tokyo: Dōbunkan.
Yoshiie, Sadao (1998), Nihon Koku Gakkan Deibiddo Marei: Sono Shōgai to Gyōseki,
Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppan-bu.
Yoshinaga, Shinichi (2006), “Hara Tanzan no Shinrigaku-teki Zen: Sono Shisō to Rekishi-
teki Eikyō,” Jintai Kagaku, 15(2): 5–13.
Yoshinaga, Shinichi (2007), “Seishin no Chikara—Minkan Seishin Ryōhō no Shisō,” Jintai
Kagaku, 16(1): 9–21.
Yoshinaga, Shin’ichi (2015), “The Birth of Japanese Mind Cure Methods,” in Christopher
Harding, Iwata Fumiaki, and Yoshinaga Shin’ichi (eds), Religion and Psychotherapy in
Modern Japan, 76–102, London: Routledge.
Young, Robert M. (1970), Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Yuhara, Motoichi, ed. (1899), Kyōiku-teki Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Yuki, K. (1965), “Experimental Psychology,” Science in Japan (American Association for
the Advancement of Science), 335–73.
Yumoto, Takehiko (1888), Shogakkō Kyōshi Yō Shinrigaku Tekiyō, Tokyo: Hakubunka.
Yumoto, Takehiko (1891), Gakkō Jitsuyō Shinrigaku Dai-1, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Yumoto, Takehiko (1894), Ōyō Shinrigaku, Tokyo: Kinkōdō.
Yumoto, Takehiko (1899), Shinrigaku Shinron, Tokyo: Fukyū-sha.
Index
Abe Ayao 61 Asada Gōryu 30

Abe Isoo 162 Asami Chizuko 193, 227
Abe Magoshirō 141 Asano Wasaburō 103, 227
Abe Saburō 141, 227 Association for Psychological Research
Abe Shigetaka 169, 227 123
Abo Tomoichirō 38, 209, 219 Association for the Study of Socialism 77
academic associations 13, 15, 43, 83, Association of Clinical Psychology 124
101, 117, 121, 123, 124, 167, 174, Association of Japanese Clinical
177 (see also academic societies; Psychology 175, 222
individual associations) associationism 39, 47
academic societies 123, 182, 183 Austria 132, 142, 202
Japanese 123–4 (see also academic authorized counselor 177
associations; individual societies) authorized Psychologist 177
Adachi Chōshun 75 Aviation Psychology Laboratory 134
aesthetics 3, 49, 92, 166 Aviation Research Institute 92, 144, 168
Akamatsu Pōro 122, 227 Awaji Enjirō 136, 138, 168, 178, 227
Akishige Yoshiharu 141, 227
Akitani Tatsuko 193, 227 Baelz, Erwin 207
Akiyama Satoko 193, 227 Bagehot, Walter 31, 43
Alden, Joseph 58 Bain, Alexander 20, 38, 39, 48, 58, 62, 70,
All-Japan Student Federation of Social 77, 88, 208, 209
Science 161 Baldwin, James M. 38, 77, 102, 154, 209,
Amano Tameyuki 44 214
Amano Toshitake 170, 227 Bank of Japan 180
American Association for Applied Bansho Shirabesho (Institute for the Study
Psychology 127 of Barbarian Books) 61, 75, 201
American Psychological Association 74, Bastiat, Frédéric 44
186, 257, 258 Battie, William 150
American Psychology 18, 53, 62, 74, 81, Beauchamp, Sally 154
146, 155, 156, 184, 219 behaviorism 11, 17, 96, 141, 144, 145–7,
anarchism 106 171, 174, 182, 185, 234
Anezaki Masaharu (Chōfū) 52, 227 Belgium 180, 202
animal magnetism 98, 105, 254 Bentham, Jeremy 7, 43
anthropology 38, 49, 76, 133, 154, 205 Bergson, Henri 99, 102
Aoki Seishirō 126, 130, 170, 227 Berzelius, Jöns Jakob 99
apparitions 100 Bessel, Fredrich 118
Araki Sadao 162 Binet, Alfred 61, 133, 134, 138, 154, 163,
Ariga Nagao 40, 107, 108, 211, 227 188, 113, 221
Aruga Kizaemon 110, 227 Binet–Simon Intelligence Test 133
Index 305
body–mind 55 Chinese Psychology 159, 171, 172, 225

disciplining of 63–4 Chiwa Hiroshi 143, 227
Boissonade, Emile Gustave 204 Christianity 25, 46, 66, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77,
Boring, Edwin G. vii, vii, 185 78, 84, 87, 88, 102, 136, 142, 162,
Boston University 71, 76 184 (see also religion)
Bowne, Borden Parker 56, 76, 81 citizens 7, 8, 15, 3, 55, 66, 68, 105, 126,
Braid, James 105 130
Brentano, Franz 142, 147, 165 civilization and enlightenment 42, 45, 65,
Brunton, Richard Henry 205 70, 206
Bryan, Samuel 205 clairvoyance 100, 102, 103, 104
Bryan, William L. 214 Clark University 56, 74, 90, 120, 131, 135,
Büchner, Ludwig 31 140, 145, 154, 155, 174, 185, 205,
Buckle, Henry Thomas 31 214
Buddhism 23, 25, 28, 33, 34, 36, 37, 46, class 8, 14, 68, 106, 176, 202
51, 52, 70, 77, 80, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, middle 27, 128, 132
104, 108, 145, 156, 157, 186 (see clinical developmental Psychologists 177
also religion) clinical Psychologists 165, 177, 178, 222
Burnham, W. H. 78 Cobden, Richard 44
Columbia University 90, 91, 108, 174, 188,
Cai Yuanpei 172 190, 192, 214
Calkins, Mary Whiton 186, 214 Comte, Auguste 31, 48, 49, 50, 108
Cambridge University 91, 185, 214 Condillac, É. B. de 32, 33
capitalism 7, 8, 42, 43, 44, 45, 108, 137, Confucianism 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34,
180 37, 41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 66, 69, 75,
Capron, Horace 203, 204 78, 88, 108, 114 (see also Neo-
Carey, Henry C. 44 Confucianism; religion)
Cargill, William W. 205 conscious interiority 9, 10, 11, 14, 39, 111,
Cattell, James McKeen 90, 91, 119, 133, 143, 145 (see also consciousness;
186, 188, 214 interiority; interiorization)
Chamberlain, Basil Hall 204 consciousness 8, 38, 59, 73, 84, 85, 86,
Charcot, Jean-Martin 105, 154 91, 95, 96, 99, 100, 107, 110, 111,
Charity and Cure Society for the Mentally 113, 125, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147,
Ill 153 148, 164, 170, 185, 186, 201, 224
Chen Daqi 172 (see also conscious interiority,
Chen Huang 171 interiority, interiorization)
Cheng Ho 25 consumerism 7, 9, 12, 43, 123, 176
Cheng Yi 25 Cooperation and Harmony Society 139
Chiba Tanenari 91, 92, 122, 142, 147, 149, Cornell University 60, 91, 107, 120, 142,
227 214
child counseling offices 129 cosmic energies 13, 80, 97, 98 (see also ki;
Child Educational Research Institute 128 life-energy)
Child Research Institute 92, 191, 216 cosmic worldview 35, 40, 48, 80, 83, 101
Child Studies Institute 128, 129, 135 collapse 9–10
children 27, 39, 61, 67, 76, 79, 80, 81, 95, cosmology 29, 59, 118
126, 128, 129, 130, 132, 156, 162, Japanese 9, 23
169, 178, 185, 186, 187, 189, 212, 213 Ptomeliac 82
psychology of 68–9 counseling 17, 129, 135, 153, 157, 174,
China 40, 131, 147, 167, 171, 176, 191, 177, 222
202, 242 Cousin, Victor 32
Chinese Academy of Sciences 172 criminology 111, 127, 128, 132, 133
306 Index
Crookes, William 102 Elliotson, John 105

cultural sociology (Kultursoziologie) 107, Ellis, William 43
110 emotions 13, 23, 39, 40, 60, 61, 62, 87, 94,
123, 131, 133, 136, 141, 144, 149,
daily life improvement campaigns 161 164, 165, 176, 177, 183, 185
Daoism 25, 28, 30, 52, 162 (see also Endō Ryūkichi 112, 212, 213, 227
religion) energetic monism 79, 84, 86, 87
Darwin, Charles 43, 47, 133 Enlightenment 3, 45
Darwinism 15, 46, 47, 184, 205 Japanese 44, 48, 40, 65, 70, 183, 206
Davis, Jerome D. 75 Esquirol, J. E. D. 20
day nurseries 129 ethics 5, 7, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41,
Dazai Shundai 26 45, 46, 47, 49, 57, 59, 66, 72, 77, 78,
de Biran, François-Pierre-Gonthier Maine 79, 87, 88, 89, 114, 123, 171, 174,
31, 98 180, 194
de Puységur, Marquis 105 eugenics 100, 137–8, 167
de Saint-Simon, Henri 31 Europe 19, 29, 42, 44, 48, 52, 53, 81, 88,
de Unamuno, Miguel 176 101, 107, 108, 109, 129, 134, 139,
democracy 113, 127, 175 142, 144, 155, 156, 187, 188
democratization 180 evolution(ism) 11, 15, 46, 47, 61, 74, 78,
Denison, Henry Willard 204 78, 83, 99, 109, 112, 119, 143, 144,
Department of Education 58, 65, 66, 113, 154, 180, 184, 208, 210
114, 136, 202, 203, 204 (see also Exchange, Considered as the Principles
Ministry of Education) of Social Life (Motora Yūjirō’s
Department of Psychology (Tokyo dissertation) 76
Imperial University) 59, 71, 182 exorcism 151 (see also fox possession)
Descartes, Rene 27, 35
developmental education 69 Fechner, Gustav 2, 3, 4, 32, 46, 71, 79, 92,
Dewey, John 47, 8, 128 102, 119, 121
Dilthey, Wilhelm 147 feminism 106, 162
Dods, John Bovee 98 Fenollosa, Ernest Francisco 47, 108
Dōshisa Eigakkō (Dōshisha English Fischer, Otto 91
Academy) 75 foreign employees 203, 204
Douglas, Archibald Lucius 205 foreign knowledge 19, 179
dreams 80, 100, 104 acceptance of 180
Dumas, George 154 fox possession 104, 151 (see also exorcism)
Durkheim, Émile 80, 108, 112 Fox, Logan J. 174
France 32, 44, 56, 61, 62, 105, 133, 145,
Eastern morality, Western technology 143, 149, 150, 180, 201, 202, 204
207 Franck, Adolphe 58
Ebbinghaus, Hermann 119 French Psychology 32
economic liberalism 7, 43, 44 Freud, Sigmund 74, 98, 105, 138, 155, 156,
Education Orders 210
1879 113 Freudianism 154, 182
1880 66 in Japan 155–6
1885 114 Fujikawa Yū 128, 169, 227
1945 173 Fujisawa Shigeru 171, 227
efficiency movement 138 Fukuda Tokuzō 161
electricity Fukurai Tomokichi 63, 82, 84, 87, 98, 99,
as type of cosmic energy 80, 85, 87 100, 101, 103, 105, 123, 126, 128,
as mental/spiritual energy 98, 101 134, 157, 186, 195, 199, 227
Index 307
Fukushima Tokuhei 61 Greater Japan Women’s Association 161

Fukutomi Ichirō 170 Greater Japan Youth and Child Group 130
Fukutomi Takasue 56, 63, 227 Greater Japan Youth Group 130
Fukuzawa Yukichi 43, 66, 201 Green, Thomas Hill 46
Fullerton, George 102 Griffis, William Eliot 204
Fukuzawa Yukichi 171 Gross, Hans 132
functionalism 171, 185, 224 Guizot, François 43
Furuhata Tanemoto 137, 227 Gulick, John Thomas 79
Furukawa Takeji 137–8, 186, 227
Haeckel, Ernst 43
Galton, Sir Francis 91, 96, 133, 137 Hall, G. S. 47, 56, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79,
Geist 110, 111 81, 90, 96, 102, 119, 131, 135, 145,
Geisteswissenschaft (science of the human 155, 184, 185, 186, 210
spirit) 2, 113 hallucinations 100, 154, 164
General Mobilization of the National Hani Motoko 162
Spirit 130, 160, 163 Hara Tanzan 36, 52
German Psychology 88 Haraguchi Takejirō 62, 228
Germany 46, 52, 53, 56, 60, 61, 62, 71, 77, Haraguchi Tsuruko 60, 92, 188, 190, 228
91, 109, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, harmonyism 139
141, 142, 147, 149, 150, 153, 154, Harvard University 53, 56, 60, 90, 119,
163, 167, 180, 202, 203 147, 154, 185, 214
Gesammtgeist (collective mind) 110 Hatano Isoko 92, 191, 228
Gestalt (shape, form, “global whole”) 102, Hatano Kanji 126, 228
142, 145, 163, 174, 182 (see also Hattori Unokichi 171
Gestalt Psychology) Haven, Joseph 20, 33, 38, 40, 41, 58, 70,
Gestalt Psychology 17, 94, 141, 142, 143, 78, 88, 171, 184, 208
163, 165, 171, 224 (see also Gestalt) Hayami Hiroshi 59, 122, 123, 125, 137,
ghosts 1, 51, 100, 102 149, 169, 170, 220, 228
Giddings, Franklin Henry 108, 112 Hayashi Razan 25
global knowledge 201 (see also Hayashi Tadasu 43
globalization) Hearn, Lafcadio 204
globalization 4, 8, 175 (see also global heart–mind 1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36,
knowledge) 40, 83, 151, 165, 219, 220, 224, 225
Glover, Edward 155 learning of 1, 27, 34, 37, 50, 181
good wives–wise mothers 186, 187 Hegel, G. W. F. 32, 111
Gotō Rikusaburō 59, 228 Helmholt, Hermann von 32, 39, 53, 88,
Graham, Clarence Henry 174 111
Great Britain 61, 109, 135, 149, 202, 204, Helvétius, Claude Adrien 31
205 Herbart, Johann F. 67, 98, 110, 111, 115,
Great Chain of Being 9 209
Great Japan Society 77 Hering, Ewald 91
Great Split 82, 83, 84, 86, 96 (see also Hickok, Laurens Perseus 33, 58, 69
mind‒body dualism) Higher Normal School 56, 69, 77, 79, 92,
Great Vacuity 24 93, 130, 131, 134, 135, 138, 163,
Greater Japan Federation of Boys’ Groups 184, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193
130 Higuchi Hideo 106, 221, 228
Greater Japan Federation of Girls’ Youth Higuchi Ryūkyō 109
Groups 130 Hirata Motokichi 103, 221, 228
Greater Japan Federation of Women's Hiratsuka Raichō 162
Groups 188 Hirose Genkyō 37, 141, 234
308 Index
Hitotsubashi University 107 Imperial University 1, 57, 182, 207 (see

Hoashi Kiyoko 193, 228 also Tokyo Imperial University)
Hobbes, Thomas 43, 125 imperialism 167 (see also neo-
Hoffman, Theodor 205 imperialism)
Holland 45, 201, 204 (see also Japanese 167
Netherlands) imperialist powers
Hollingworth, Leta Stetter 187 Western 42, 47
Holmes, Samuel J. 144, 145 Inagaki Suematsu 169
home confinement of mentally ill 152, 163 individual 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 43,
Hong Kong 202 44, 45, 50, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65,
Honma Sōken 152, 228 67, 68, 83, 85, 87, 91, 105, 106, 110,
Hopkin, Mark 58 112, 119, 125, 128, 148, 155, 164,
Hori Baiten 60, 74, 139, 228 175, 176, 180, 202, 221, 213, 225
Hori Tsuneo 43 as basic unit of society 4, 19
Hōsei University 131, 135, 185 inner life of 3
Hoshino Yukinori 138, 210 internalization of 143
Hozumi Nobushige 109, 228 and modernity 7–20
Hozumi Shigetō 109 individualism 67, 106, 125, 175
Hozumi Yatsuka 109 individuality 7, 12, 13, 15, 106, 111, 132,
Hull, Clark L. 147, 174 133, 163, 164, 165, 169, 170, 224
Hume, David 89, 125 individuation 11, 12, 25, 27, 29, 35, 43, 45,
Huxley, Thomas Henry 43, 77, 88, 208 46, 63, 132, 136, 149, 169
hypnosis 98, 109, 100, 104, 105, 125, 156, industrial counselor 177
172, 220, 221, 223, 224 industrial revolution 9, 14, 19, 45
Hyslop, James H. 102 second 9
infant centers 129
“I” 10, 11, 12, 35, 125 (see also “me”) Inoue Enryō 50–3, 70, 80, 171, 186, 219,
Ichikawa Genzō 133, 209, 212, 221 220, 228
Ide Takashi 92, 228 Inoue Tetsujirō 38, 45, 46, 47, 62, 63, 67,
Ideological Control Bureau 160 73, 89, 183, 184, 208, 219, 228
Iinuma Ryuen 122, 171, 228 Institute for Educational Leader 174
Ikeda Shigenori 137, 228 Institute of Oriental Culture 112
Ikeda Takanori 133, 221 intellectual philosophy 32, 33, 38, 39 (see
Im Sok-Chae 170 also mental philosophy; mental
Imada Megumi 92, 122, 146, 147, 185, science)
210, 228 intelligence testing 17, 94, 133, 134
imageless thought 148 interiority 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 25, 27,
Imaizumi Genryū 152, 228 28, 100, 105, 111, 118, 120,
Imamura Shinkichi 102, 103, 228 125, 145, 147, 148, 157, 169
Imperial Association of Boys’ Groups 130 (see also conscious interiority;
Imperial Rescript of Education 67, 114 consciousness; interiorization)
Imperial Rule Assistance Association 139, interiorization 10, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35,
161, 188, 190 45, 63, 96, 110, 176, 180 (see
Imperial Society for the Study of also conscious interiority;
Hypnotism 105 consciousness; interiority)
imperial subjects 55, 114, 162, 163 International Christian University 136
imperial universities 70, 122, 142, 159, International Union of Psychological
170, 184, 185 Science 174
overseas 170–1 (see also individual introception 11, 35 (see also interiority;
universities) interiorization)
Index 309
introcosmic 10, 11, 13, 17, 24, 25, 28, Japanese Association of Educational
29, 30, 33, 37, 40, 48, 82, 83, 86, Psychology 175, 222
101, 110, 118, 133, 151 (see also Japanese Association of Group Dynamics
introscopic) 124
introscopic 10, 11, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, Japanese Certification Board for Clinical
27, 29, 30, 35, 37, 40, 48, 83, 96, Psychologist 178
101, 118, 119, 133, 159 (see also Japanese Institute of Sociology 107
introcosmic) Japanese, defining 19–20
introspection 7, 10, 11, 31, 32, 52, 81, 91, Japanese Psychological Association 92,
96, 120, 148, 153, 157, 225 (see also 123–24, 131, 144, 149, 175, 177,
interiority; interiorization) 185, 192, 223
inward turn 7, 10, 15, 128–9 (see also Japanese Psychology 16, 17, 20, 21, 37, 59,
interiority; interiorization) 61, 62, 71, 74, 88, 91, 93, 124, 125,
Iowa University 60, 68 141, 142, 145, 147, 149, 171, 173,
Ise Tsu 38, 209 179, 181, 182, 183, 185
Ishida Baigan 23, 27, 28 rebirth of 174
Ishigami Tokumon 92, 228 role of private schools 184–5
Ishihara Shinobu 141, 228 stages of 181–3
Ishikawa Hidetsurumaru 146 Japanese Society for Animal Psychology
Ishimori Masanori viii 124
Italy 77, 167, 175, 202 Japanese Society for Criminology 132
Itō Dōki 146, 228 Japanese Society for Hypnosis Philosophy
Itō Hirobumi 45, 61, 201, 202, 203 105
Itō Hiroshi 174, 228 Japanese spirit, Western skills 207
Itō Noe 162 Japanese women Psychologists 179,
Iwakura Mission 204 186–93 (see also individuals)
Izawa Shūji 47, 56, 63, 69, 184, 228 Japanism 77, 113
Japanization 156, 176, 196
James, William 16, 47, 52, 53, 56, 60, 71, Jastrow, Joseph 102, 214
74, 77, 79, 84, 85, 89, 90, 96, 99, Jaynes, Julian vii, viii
102, 103, 11, 125, 146, 154, 156, Johns Hopkins University 56, 71, 74, 76,
164, 165, 185, 186, 209, 210, 212 82, 122, 156, 184, 190, 214
Janet, Pierre 53, 98, 154 Johonnot, James 69
Japan Adolescent Educational Institute journals 15, 19, 72, 117, 121, 124, 125, 175,
130 181, 182, 206–08
Japan Applied Psychology Association Japanese 124–5
124, 135, 190
Japan Child Research Institute 191 Kadono Ikunoshin 70, 228
Japan Educational Psychology Association Kagawa Shūtoku 152, 228
135 Kagetaka Nagao 61
Japan Family Welfare Association 191 Kahlbaum, Karl Ludwig 150
Japan Neurological Society 153 Kaibara Ekiken 26, 27
Japan Occupational Guidance Association Kaison Ōtsuki 61
134 Kakise Hikozō 56, 59, 71, 74, 77, 155, 166,
Japan Psychotechnology Institute 135 228
Japan Seishin Medical Society 100, 101 Kamada Hō 20, 23, 185, 228
Japan Sociological Society 107, 108 Kamiya Mieko 191–2, 228
Japan Women’s College 187, 190, 191, 192 Kamiya Noburō 192
Japan Women’s University 92, 107, 135, Kamiya Shirō 209
139, 188, 190, 191, 192 Kanda Naibu 77, 79, 238
310 Index
Kanda Sakyō 60, 74, 145, 229 Kraepelin, Emil 77, 96, 119, 135, 150,
Kaneko Umaji (Chikusui) 56, 60, 153
62, 122 Kuan Ji Shan Ren 172
Kansai Applied Psychological Association Kubo Tsuyako 189–90
124 Kubo Yoshihide 74, 122, 128, 134, 155,
Kansei Gakuin University 121, 122, 147, 169, 229
166, 185 Kubota Sadanori 171
Kant, Immanuel 111 Külpe, Oswald 91, 119, 148
Kashida Gorō 153, 229 Kuma Toshiyasu 74, 229
Kashiwagi Keiko 193, 229 Kumazawa Banzan 25
Katō Hiroyuki 43, 47, 66, 109, 229 Kume Kyoko 192, 229
Katsumoto Kanzaburō 63, 229 Kunitomo Ikkansai 29
Kawai Teiichi 56, 60, 62, 70, 122, 229 Kurahashi Sōzō 61, 126, 129, 229
Kawakami Hajime 162 Kure Shūzō 63, 100, 105, 129, 135, 153,
Kawamoto Kōmin 75, 78, 229 157, 123, 229
Kazami Kenjirō 61 Kurihara Shinichi 74, 229
Keijō Imperial University 122, 123, 144, Kuroda Genji 92, 146, 229
149, 170 Kuroda Ryō 122, 141, 144, 145, 146, 170,
Keil, John 30 229
Keiō University 38, 70, 121, 201 Kuroyanagi Ikutairō 123
Kepler, Johannes 99 Kuwabara Toshirō (Tennen) 103
ki (cosmic vital energy) 151 Kuwata Yoshizō 56, 59, 61, 62, 71, 92, 112,
Kido Mantarō 122, 125, 131, 142, 169, 229
185, 229 Kyoto Imperial University 59, 92, 93, 96,
Kihira Tadayoshi 169, 229 102, 103, 106, 108, 109, 121, 124,
Kirihara Shigemi 126, 139, 229 131, 134, 146, 147, 182, 216
Kishimoto Nōbuta 52, 53, 109, 123, 229 Kyūshū Imperial University 70, 109, 121,
Kishimoto Sōkichi 127, 229 122, 142, 143, 150, 165, 190
Kitamura Ryōtaku 152, 229
Kitao Jirō 203 laboratories 11, 15, 19, 34, 53, 60, 71, 74,
Kitazato Shibasaburō 203 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 112, 113, 117,
Knox, George William 70 119–22, 131, 134, 135, 143, 145,
Kobayashi Iku 109, 221, 229 146, 147, 148, 153, 154, 168, 170,
Kobayashi Sae 192–3, 229 171, 172, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188,
Kobayashi Sumie 169, 229 190, 207, 214
Kobe Women’s University 189 objectifying psyche 117–8 (see also
Koffka, Kurt 142, 165 laboratory-oriented Psychology)
Koga Sennen 61 laboratory-oriented Psychology 34, 117–8
Koga Yukiyoshi 122, 229 (see also laboratories)
Köhler, Wolfgang 142, 143, 210 Ladd, George T. 20, 38, 38, 56, 60, 77, 89,
Koizumi Shinzō 43 90, 102, 120, 130, 151, 209
Komazawa University 142 Ladd-Franklin, Christine 102
Komori Genryō 152, 229 Landis, Henry Mohr 70
Kōra Takehisa 157, 190, 229 Lasch, Christopher 176
Kōra Tomi 92, 157, 190–1, 229 Lashley, Karl Spencer 145
Korean Psychology 170–1 Lazarus, Moritz 110–11
Kosawa Heisaku 155, 156, 229 Le Bon, Gustave 111, 112, 209, 210
Kotake Yashō 146, 229 Learned, Dwight Whitney 44
Kōzu Sensaburō 47 learning disabilities 79, 222
Index 311
Lewin, Kurt 142, 143, 170 McLennan, John Ferguson 108

liberalism 10, 12, 44, 45, 127, 160, 161 “me” 10, 12, 35 (see also “I”)
economic 7, 43, 44 “me” generation 177
life-energy 97 (see also cosmic energies; ki) medical schools 57, 58, 70, 133, 205
Lindner, Gustav A. 111 mediums 100, 102
Lippershey, Hans 29 Meiji Constitution 68
Lipps, Thomas 77 Meiji period 5, 20, 56, 57, 64, 66, 104, 120,
Locke, John 27, 31, 32, 35, 125, 152, 153 123, 124, 151, 180, 182, 201, 203,
Lodge, Joseph 102 206, 207
Lombroso, Cesare 77, 132, 210, 232 Meiji Restoration 17, 25, 41, 42, 44, 55, 62,
Lotze, Rudolf Hermann 32, 90, 91, 142 64, 106, 181, 201, 203, 206
Lowndes, Mary 171 Meiji University 103
Lu Chiu-Yuan (Lu Hsiang-Shan) 27 Meinong, Alexis 142, 215
Meirokusha (Meiji Six Society) 48
Maass, Bernhard 40, 211 mental disorder 100, 150, 151, 152
Mach, Ernst 77, 142 Mental Illness Asylum Law 153
MacIver, Robert Morrison 109 mental imagery 100, 133, 148 (see also
macrocosm 10, 25, 30, 86, 118 (see also interiority; introception)
macroscopic) Mental Patients’ Custody Act 153
macroscopic 159 mental philosophy 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40,
political economic institutions as 41, 58, 69, 78, 88, 171, 184, 208, 225
159–60 (see also macrocosm) (see also intellectual philosophy;
Maeda Chōta 112, 210, 230 mental science)
Mannheim, Karl 110 mental science 2, 32, 33, 37, 78, 88, 169,
Marx, Karl 31 179, 208, 209 (see also intellectual
Martens, Martinus 29 philosophy; mental philosophy)
Martinet, Johannes Florentius 29 mental state 99, 129, 147, 154 (see also
Marui Kiyoyasu 155 156, 230 consciousness; subjectivity)
Marui Sumiko 193, 230 mental testing 18, 91, 117, 132–3, 170,
Masaki Masashi 147, 230 171, 182
Masuda Koreshige 125, 144, 168, 230 in Japan 133–4
materialism 3, 31, 33, 83, 85, 97, 99, 146 Mentally-Ill Patient Confinement and
Matsui Shinjirō 132 Protection Law 152–3
Matsuki Gorō 61 Mesmer, Franz A. 98, 105
Matsumoto Junichirō 110, 230 mesmerism 62, 105
Matsumoto Kinju 126 Metzger, W. 141, 143, 165
Matsumoto Kōjirō 128, 209, 212, 220, Meumann, Ernst 91
230 Meyer, Alfred 154, 156
Matsumoto Matatarō 20, 56, 59, 60, 62, Mibai Sugi 188–9, 230
71, 88–110, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, Michotte, Albert 119
125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 134, 137, microcosm 10, 13, 25, 30, 40, 82, 83, 118
142, 144, 146, 147, 157, 168, 171, (see also microscopic)
182, 193, 188, 190, 191, 197, 209, microscopic 83 (see also microcosm)
212, 220, 221, 230 Mifune Chizuko 103
contributions 91–6 Mill, J. S. 31, 43, 44, 48, 49, 107, 125, 208
educational background 89–1 Minami Hiroshi 106, 230
Matsushima Tsuyoshi 38, 209 mind‒body dualism 2 (see also Great
Maudsley, Henry 153 Split)
McDougall, William 77, 102, 109, 165, 210 Ministry of Communication 134
312 Index
Ministry of Education 38, 48, 55, 57, 63, Motokawa Kōichi 147, 230
64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 91, 125, 130, Motomiya Yahē 122, 230
134, 135, 136, 143, 149, 160, 161, Motora Yone 76
163, 164, 165, 170, 178, 188, 202, Motora Yūjirō 1, 2, 19, 20, 56, 59, 60, 62,
207, 225 (see also Department of 67, 70, 71–89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96 98,
Education) 99, 101, 103,106, 121, 122, 123, 124,
Ministry of Health and Welfare 65, 136 126, 127, 128, 129, 132, 134, 135,
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare 178 138, 141, 144, 145, 147 148, 149,
Ministry of Home Affairs 65, 132, 161, 154, 155, 157, 171, 182, 183, 184
187 biography 75–7
Ministry of Railway 155 contributions of 79–80
Ministry of Welfare 132, 187 and Great Split 82–3
Misawa Tadasu 74, 230 intellectual influences 78–9
Mita Sadanori 169, 230 psychology of 81–82
Mitsukuri Rinshō 44 psycho-philosophy of 80
Miura Kinnosuke 153, 230 Muller, Georg E. 77, 214
Miyake Gaishirō 56 Müller, Johannes 32, 98, 109
Miyake Ishirō 60, 230 Müller, Leopold 205
Miyake Kōichi 63, 133, 135, 213, 221, 230 Müller-Freienfels, Richard 98
Miyamoto Misako 193, 230 multiple personality 99, 100, 154
Miyazaki Yasusada 26 Munsterberg, H. 56, 60, 77, 102, 119, 120,
Mizoguchi Hajime 11 138
Mobilization of the National Spirit 163 Murray, David 204
modernity 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 19, 29, 30,
37, 41, 44, 50, 64, 80, 118, 127, 128, Nagai Hisomu 169, 230
153, 176, 180, 181, 206 (see also Nagao Ikuko 104
modernization) Nagaoka Hantarō 203
modernization 42, 43, 48, 64, 125, 128, Nagase Hōsuke 72, 80, 230
141, 152, 176, 180, 180, 203, 206 Naika Hiroku 152
(see also modernity) Naikan Therapy 2, 156–7, 174
moral education 28, 55, 56, 58, 63, 65, 66, Naitō Chisō 66
55, 114, 159, 161 (see also morals) Nakae Chōmin 34, 43
moral-cosmic perspective/worldview 10, Nakae Tōju 25
117, 118 Nakagami Kinkei 152
morals (shūshin) 66 (see also moral Nakajiima Taizō 56
education) Nakajima Rikizō 46, 63, 90, 210, 220, 230
Morgan, Conwy L. 125, 143, 209, 212 Nakajima Shinichi 136, 231
Morgan, Lewis H. 108 Nakamura Keiu 46, 231
Mori Arinori 65, 66, 114, 201 Nakamura Kokyō 52, 53, 100, 231
Morimoto Kakuya 38, 209 Nakamura Masanao 61
Morinaga Shirō 141, 143, 230 Nakamura Rikizō 73
Morita Kumato 56, 60, 230 Nakamura Yasuma 74, 231
Morita Masatake (Shōma) 101, 156, 230 Nakano Ryūho 30
Morita Therapy 2, 101, 156–7 Nara Women’s Higher Normal School
Morito Tatsuo 161 187, 192
Moriya Kōsaburō 61 Narasaki Asatarō 122
Morse, Edward S. 46, 109, 205 Narziss, Ach 148
Mosse, Albert 204 Nasu Kiyoshi 147, 231
Motoda Nagazane 66, 114, 230 national body (kokutai) 64, 137, 160, 188
Index 313
national education 66, 112, 160, 161, 170 Nihon University 93, 121, 134, 149,
National Education Bureau 160 185, 191
National Hospital Organization Hizen Nihonjin (The Japanese) 77
Psychiatric Center 178 Niijima Jō 75
National Institute of Mental Health: Nishi Amane 34, 35, 36, 38, 44, 48, 66,
National Center of Neurology and 183, 208, 219, 225, 226, 231
Psychiatry 178 Nishigori Takekiyo 152, 231
National Institute of Special Needs Nishikawa Joken 25
Education 178 Nishikawa Yasuo viii
National Mobilization Law 132 Nishimura Shigeki 34, 38, 66, 114, 183,
national morality 161 (see also moral 219, 220, 231
education) Nishizawa Raiō 168, 231
National Physical Strength Law 136 Nissl, Franz 153
National Rehabilitation Center for Persons Nitobe Inazō 72, 80, 231
with Disabilities 178 Noda Nobuo 139, 231
national spirit 130, 159, 160, 162, Nogami Toshio 61, 92, 102, 122,
163, 225 131, 231
national state 7, 18, 19, 41, 42, 55, 65, 66, Nojiri Seiichi 56, 62, 63, 231
137 Noritake Kōtarō 47, 231
fundamentalist 166, 167 (see also state) normal schools 38, 47, 57, 65, 67, 68, 69,
national studies 161, 162 70, 162, 181, 182, 187, 209
National Taiwan University 171 North America 19
national thought 161 novel 7, 125
National-Defense Psychology 168
Nationalism Instruction Bureau 160 Obonai Torao 141, 168, 231
nationalism occultism 13, 97, 98, 102
fundamentalist 159, 161 Ogasawara Jiei 141, 231
Volkisch 106 Oguma Toranosuke 103, 156, 231
nationalist collectivity, psyche and Ogyū Sorai 26, 48
110–113 Oka Hiroko 193, 231
nationalist myths 162 Okabe Tamekichi 56, 71, 231
natural metaphysicians 32, 98, 117 Okumura Ioko 187
Naturwissenschaft (natural science) 113 Ōnishi Hajime 62, 63
Naval Aviation Psychology Research Onishi Shigenao 169
Institute 168 Onoshima Usao 142, 143, 163
necromancy 102, 104 Opzoomer, Cornelis Willem 48
neo-animism 97 (see also vitalism) Osaka University 109, 112, 135, 192
Neo-Confucianism 1, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, Ōse Jintarō 63, 128, 169, 171
30, 40 (see also Confucianism; Ostwald, Friedrich Wilhelm 79, 86
religion) Oswego State Normal School 68, 69
neo-imperialism 8, 137 (see also Ōtsuki Kaison 59, 126, 146,
imperialism) 155, 231
neo-vitalism 97, 98 (see also animism) Ōtsuki Kenji 155, 156, 231
Netherlands 48, 91, 167, 183, 201, 202 Ōuchi Hyōe 161
(see also Holland) overseas training 55, 60, 61, 62, 71, 72,
neurology 1, 89, 154, 178, 223, 225 92, 93, 95, 122, 134, 145, 147, 150,
New Man Society 161 153, 159, 163, 184, 187, 188, 201,
Newcomb, Simon 102 202, 238
Newton, Isaac 30, 83, 98, 111, 175 Ōwaki Yoshikazu 122, 147, 231
314 Index
Ōyama Ikuo 162, 210 bureaucratizing 63

Ōyama Tadasu viii collectivizing 169
individuating 169
Pace, Edward 119 measuring 117
paranormal 100, 101, 104, 154 objectifying 117
para-state 160, 166 (see also state; state psychiatry 2, 58, 89, 100, 103, 141, 150, 15,
core; state projects; statefulness; 153, 154, 156, 165, 178, 190, 192,
statism) 193, 223, 225
patriotic educational groups 130, 161 psychic phenomena 101, 102, 103
Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich 146 psychoanalysis 2, 15
Pearson, K. 96 psycho-internalization 8, 9, 13, 16 (see also
perception studies 141 socio-externalization)
Perry, Commodore Matthew C. 41 psychokinematics 89, 96, 225
personality 12, 17, 87, 98, 99, 100 103, 107, psychological processes 4, 11, 13, 14, 18,
132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 27, 35, 42, 43, 47, 55, 56, 63, 69, 80,
149, 154, 163, 164, 165, 178, 193, 96, 105, 110, 130, 151, 153, 163,
224, 225 (see also self) 176, 181, 186
philosophy 4, 9, 14, 16, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, invariant/universal 181
28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, variant/malleable 181
41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, psychological revolution 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 92,
69, 60, 61, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 125, 126, 175, 176, 177, 180
78, 80, 81, 88, 89, 90, 92, 103, 105, spiritual roots of 3–4
107, 108, 119, 131, 149, 151, 171, psychological society 13, 124, 172, 176 (see
178, 182, 186, 216, 219 also therapeutic society)
physical education 64, 136, 137, 160, 173 Psychological Zen 52
Physical Education and Sports Bureau 136 Psychology
Piaget, Jean 192 abnormal 99–100, 103, 104, 154, 156,
Piggot, Francis 203 216, 224
Pinel, Philippe 20, 150, 153 academic 4, 5, 13, 15, 62, 104,
positivism 7, 23, 30, 32, 33, 45, 48, 49, 50, 127, 174
82, 100, 102, 108, 119, 133, 157, animal 124, 143–5, 217, 223, 224
161, 169, 179 applied 17, 46, 63, 92, 95, 124, 127, 131,
postimperial Japan 183 134, 137, 138, 156, 170, 173, 177,
as Psychologized society 173, 175–6 185, 190, 209, 211, 217, 220, 222,
as therapeutic society 173, 176–7 224, 236, 238, 256
practical learning (jitsugaku) 26, 27, 68 child 130, 134, 165, 175, 189, 191, 193,
pragmatism 43, 53, 79, 85 211, 212, 224
Prince, Morton H. 105, 154 climate 149
progress 7, 10, 11, 31, 45, 46, clinical 17, 72, 80, 99, 100, 104, 124,
47, 64, 137 141, 150, 153–4, 175, 177, 183, 193,
proto-psychiatry 141, 150, 162 217, 218, 222, 224
proto-psychological 14, 23, 27, 31, 33, 37, cognitive 79, 141, 149–50, 192, 223
98, 149 comparative 17, 61, 143–5, 169, 209,
psyche 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 224
24, 28, 29, 34, 37, 40, 47, 49, 50, 51, developmental 17, 88, 166, 177, 190,
55, 63, 65, 66, 67, 78, 80, 84, 96, 97, 193, 222, 224
99, 101, 103, 105, 110, 113, 117, educational 31, 40, 56, 68, 69, 79, 117,
119, 120, 128, 132, 133, 136, 137, 119, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 165,
147, 151, 153, 154, 155, 159, 161, 170, 174, 175, 183, 187, 188, 189,
170, 179, 186 190, 211, 212, 216, 217, 222, 224
Index 315
ethnonational 111, 112 Romanes, George John 143, 144

experimental 14 19, 20, 35, 53, 60, 62, romanticism 87, 88
71, 76, 79, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, German 110
96, 117, 120, 121, 131, 144, 154, Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 43
166, 168, 184, 188, 189, 190, 217, Russia 27, 135, 146, 201, 202, 204, 205
224 Ryōji Yawa 152
industrial 18, 117, 132–3, 138,
139, 166 Saigō Tsugumichi 202
institutionalization of 13 Sakaki Hajime 58, 152, 153, 232
military 124, 144, 167–8, 225 Sakaki Yasusaburō 63, 72, 128, 213, 232
nationalist‒imperialist 159 Sakuma Kanae 122, 142, 232
philosophical 14 Sandaya Hiraku 128, 232
physiological Psychology 4, 14, 17, 39, Sanford, Edmund C. 78, 90, 120, 214
79, 90, 94, 107, 111, 120, 154, 223 Sapporo Agricultural College 60, 180
propaganda 168 Saris, John 29
scientific 34 Sasaki Masanao 155, 232
as secularized religion 9, 23 Sasamoto Kaijō 61
types of 16–17 Satake Yasutarō 146, 232
Psychology Society 123 Satō Nobuhiro 26
psychophysics 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 19, 35, 59, 72, Satō Tatsuya viii, 20, 26, 34, 82
77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 101, 103, 121, Sawayanagi Masatarō 139, 162, 220, 232
182, 226 Say, J. B. 43
psychotherapy 2, 101, 103, 104, 141, Schmuker, Samuel 38
153–4, 156, 175, 222 school Psychologist 177
schooling 55, 69, 128, 130 169
race 74, 89, 137 and body 63
rationalization 8, 42, 50, 128, 139 and psychological processes 67
Rauch, Frederick Augustus 38 and Psychology 17, 18
Reich, Wilhelm 98 and military 159, 160
religion 30, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 66, 71, and moral education 63
72, 74, 76, 83, 85, 87, 88, 100, 101, Schopenhauer, Arthur 32, 52, 98
103, 112, 113, 118, 144, 145, 150, Scott, Marion M. 69
154, 155, 160, 166, 175, 185, 206 Scripture, E. W. 56, 90, 96, 125, 214
and roots of Psychology 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, seishin 1, 2, 37, 38, 58, 59, 77, 78, 82, 83,
9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 32, 33, 34 84, 89, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 113,
(see also Buddhism; Christianity; 121, 133, 134, 135, 153, 155, 156,
Confucianism; Neo-Confucianism; 160, 164, 170, 178, 192, 193, 210,
Daoism; Shintōism; spiritual 121, 216, 217, 221, 222, 223, 224,
physics) 226
revolution 42, 44, 83, 92, 108, 176 Seki Eikichi 110, 232
consumerist 9 (see also industrial Seki Ryūsei 61
revolution; psychological self 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 24, 28, 29, 31,
revolution) 32, 35, 56, 72, 83, 85, 86, 112, 125,
Ribot, Théodule A. 20, 81, 109, 125, 209 164, 173, 176
Ricardo, David 43 centrality of 176
Richter, C. P. 190 privatization of 177 (see also
Rieff, Philip 176 personality)
Rikimaru Jien 122, 171, 231 self-authorization 11, 12, 35
Roesler, Hermann 204 self-autonomy 11, 12, 43, 65, 66,
Rogers, Carl 174 104, 105
316 Index
self-help manuals 27, 79 Soma Incident 152–3

self-narratization 11, 35 Soma Tomotane 152, 232
progress and 11 Sophia University 136
self-reflexivity 11, 12, 35, 157 soul 1, 3, 15, 16, 17, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37,
Shiba Kōkan 29 38, 49, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 99, 101,
Shibukawa Shunkai 29 103, 110, 111, 144, 171, 176, 226
Shimmei Masamichi 110 scientizing of 101–02
Shimonaka Yasaburō 161 Soviet Union 176
Shinagawa Takako 193, 232 spatiality 10, 14, 17, 19, 83, 118
Shinohara Sukeichi 169, 232 imaginary 14
Shintōism 1, 25, 26, 27, 28, 106, 115, 131, modern 10 (see also introcosmic;
202 (see also religion) macrocosm; microcosm)
Shirai Tsune 193, 232 Spearman, C. E. B. 96, 119
Shitada Jirō 56, 62, 128, 232 special education 127, 128, 223
Shizuki Tadao 30 Spencer, Herbert 20, 31, 32, 43, 45, 46, 47,
Shogunate 25, 48, 75, 201, 202, 203 58, 62, 70, 107, 108, 145, 184
Simmel, Georg 108, 109, 110, 112 spiritual culture 2
Skinner, B. F. 146, 147, 174 spiritual physics 1, 2, 3, 5, 103, 179
Smiles, Samuel 46, 79 definition 2–3
Smith, Adam 42 Spiritual Science Institute 102
social Darwinism 11, 109, 137 spiritualism 2, 13, 32, 62, 83, 97, 98, 99,
social problems 8, 47, 78, 159, 166, 182 100, 101, 102, 103, 186, 221, 226
social Psychology 88, 106–107, 109, 110, Stahl, Georg Ernst 99
112, 127, 131, 165, 166, 182, 192, state 8, 16, 18, 19, 25, 29, 41, 42, 43, 45,
210, 212, 217, 218, 221, 223, 226 47, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65,
socialism 35, 77, 106, 108, 160 66, 67, 68, 69, 97, 109, 114, 115,
societies and associations (Psychological) 122, 131, 136, 137, 138, 153, 159,
15, 121–2, 222 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167,
Japanese 123–4 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 179,
society 184, 187, 203, 204, 206, 207 (see
discovery of 16 also national state; para-state; state
invention of 26, 45–7 core; state projects; statefulness;
psychologizing of 14, 19, 33, 106, 112, statism)
173, 175, 176 state core 4, 67, 114, 159, 160, 161, 166,
therapeutic 173, 176 173 (see also para-state; state; state
Society for National Education 112 projects; statefulness; statism)
Society for Popular Lectures on statefulness 206 (see also para-state; state;
Psychology 126 state core; state projects; statism)
Society for Scientific Research on Psychic state projects 64, 65 (see also para-state;
Phenomena 103 state core; state; statefulness;
Society for Sociology 107 statism)
Society for the Study of the Spirit 102, State Shinto 115
103 statism 45, 47, 64, 106, 108, 110, 127, 166,
Society of the Mind 102 167 (see also para-state; state; state
socio-externalization 8, 13, 14, 16 (see also core; statefulness; state projects)
psycho-internalization) Stein, Lorenz von 45
sociology 14, 16, 35, 46, 47, 53, 61, 76, 77, Steinthal, Heymann 110, 111
80, 89, 97, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, Stern, William 133, 149
112, 154, 165, 210, 226 Störring, Gustav 91
Index 317
Stratton, George M. 145, 205 techno-scopic perspective/worldview 10,

Student Federation of Social Science 161 117, 118
Stumpf, Carl 77, 142 Tejima Toan 27, 38
subjectivity 13, 14, 17, 50, 67, 68, 70, 85 telepathy 2, 100, 102, 103
objectification of 14 (see also temporality 9, 11, 19
consciousness; mental state) modern 10
subject–object dichotomy/divide 23, 35, Terada Hiroko 193, 232
84, 118 Terada Seiichi 132, 210, 233
Sugawara Kyōzō 126, 232 Terazawa Izuo 168
Sully, James 20, 38, 39, 40, 56, 209, 211 Terman, Lewis M. 133
superstition studies 51, 52 Tetsugakkan (Philosophy Hall) 51, 70
Supreme Ultimate 24 therapeutic society 173, 176–7 (see also
Suyama Ryōzen 61 psychological society)
Switzerland 135, 202 Thorndike, E. I. 47, 56, 90, 91, 119, 143,
Syle, Edward W. 58 144, 187, 188, 190
thought guidance 161
Tachigara Noritoshi 171 thoughtography 104
Taihoku Imperial University 70, 171 Titchener, E. B. vii, 56, 60, 77, 78, 80, 91,
Taine, Hippolyte 31 96, 102, 119, 120, 142, 148
Taishō period 42, 62, 63, 126, 127, 128, Toda Teizō 109, 233
142, 133, 157, 161, 156, 170, 182 Tōhoku University 70, 121, 147, 156, 189,
Taiwan 137, 171 192
Takabatake Motoyuki 169, 232 Tokugawa Ieyasu 29
Takabe Tongō 107, 109 Tokugawa period 23, 27, 30, 42, 64, 68,
Takagi Sadaji 141, 142, 145, 146, 232 180, 201
Takahashi Gorō 102, 221, 232 Tokugawa Yoshimune 26
Takahashi Ken 144 Tokugawa Yoshinobu 41
Takamine Hideo 47, 56, 63, 69, 232 Tokyo Academy 48, 109, 207
Takamine Hiroshi 169, 232 Tokyo Higher Normal School 47, 69, 92,
Takano Chōe 37 93, 130, 131, 134, 163, 184
Takashima Heizaburō 63, 79, 128 Tokyo Institute of Psychiatry 178
Takasuna Miki viii, 20, 23, 34, 63 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of
Takata Yasuma 109, 232 Gerontology 178
Takayama Chogyū 113 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for
Takemasa Tarō 145, 170, 232 Neuroscience 178
Tamura Gensen 152, 232 Tokyo Imperial University 35, 46, 51, 52,
Tanaka Educational Institute 134 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 75,
Tanaka Kanichi 92, 122, 127, 134, 168, 77, 89, 90, 92, 93, 100, 103, 104,
169, 232 107, 108, 109, 112, 121, 123, 124,
Tanaka Kiichi 123, 232 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134,
Tanaka–Binet Test 134 13, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143,
Tanimoto Tomeri 20, 38, 62, 63, 169, 209, 144, 145, 149, 150, 153, 155, 156,
220, 221, 232 157, 161, 163, 168, 172, 181, 182,
Tarde, Gabriel 108, 109, 111, 112 184, 185, 186, 192, 202, 216, 226
Taylor, F.W. 138, 139, 154, 210 (see also University of Tokyo)
techno-science 9, 10, 26, 74, 87, 101, 117, Tokyo Women’s Higher Normal School
118, 180, 106 138, 187, 189, 190, 193
and innovation 180 Tokyo Women’s Normal School 69, 192
techno-scientific worldview 9–10 Tolman, Edward Chase 145, 147
318 Index
Tominaga Iwatarō 40, 212, 213, 234 Vissering, Simon 44, 48

Tominaga Kenichi 108 visuality
Tomoda Fujio 174, 233 new 4, 10, 128
Tönnies, Ferdinand 109 scientific 11
totalism 163 vitalism 80, 97, 98, 99 (see also
totalitarianism 163 animism)
Toyama Shōichi (Masakazu) 46, 47 vocational schools 70, 163
translation, challenges of 181 Volk 60, 93, 97, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113,
Trilling, Lionel 176 137, 138, 164, 165, 166, 170
Tsuboi Shindō 75 Volk identity 170
Tsuchida Ken 152, 233 Volk Psychology 60, 106, 110, 111, 112,
Tsuda College 192 137, 166
Tsuda Mamichi 44 Völkerpsychologie 110, 111, 113
Tsuda Sen 75, 76, 233 Volksgeist (folk mind or spirit) 111, 113
Tsukahara Masatsugu 56, 62, 71, 112, 123, Volksseele (soul of a people) 110, 112
128, 130, 170, 209, 213, 233 von Ehrenfels, Christian Freiherr 142
Tuke, William 150 von Krafft-Ebing, Richard 153
von Wiese, Leopold 109
Uchida Yūzaburō 135, 139, 233
Uchida–Kraepelin Psychodiagnostic Test Wada Rinkuma 56, 63, 122, 233
135 Wada Tōkaku 151, 152, 233
Uchijima Sadao viii Waku Masatatsu 38, 209
Uchimura Yūshi 192, 233 Wang Guowei 171
Udagawa Yōan 98 Wang Yangming 25, 28
Ueda Tadaichi 74, 233 Waseda University 44, 60, 70, 135, 156,
Ueno Yōichi 126, 133, 138–9, 188
155, 233 Washburn, Margaret Floy 144, 186
Umeoka Yoshitaka 146, 233 Watanabe Ryūshō 56, 63, 70, 233
Umezu Hachizō 168, 233 Watanabe Tōru 20, 23, 122, 132, 135, 136,
University of Chicago 61, 109, 145, 192, 149, 183, 185, 210, 233
214 Watase Shōsaburō 77, 80, 233
University of Colorado 185 Watson, John Broadus 144, 146, 147, 190
University of Leipzig 46, 56, 60, 74, 91, Watt, Henry J. 148
112, 117, 119, 121, 130, 131, 147, Wayland, Francis 20, 33, 38, 39, 44
172, 184, 214 Wazuko Dōjikun 27
University of Massachusetts 205 Weber, E. H. 72, 119, 121, 164
University of Michigan 61, 184, 189, 214 Weber, Max 8, 108, 109
University of Missouri 68, 174 Weber–Fechner Law 119, 121
University of Tokyo 46, 57, 58, 61, 69, 108, Wechsler, D. 133, 178
179, 202, 204, 205, 207 (see also welfare 8, 19, 65, 127, 139, 187, 191
Tokyo Imperial University) Wertheimer, Max 142
Upham, Thomas C. 78, 184 Western learning 52, 57, 58, 75
Uramoto Seizaburō 147, 233 Westernization 42, 113, 127, 180, 201, 206
Ushijima Yoshitomo 122, 233 (see also modernization)
Westphal, Karl Friedrich Otto 153
Vail, Milton Smith 76 Whipple, G. M. 96
Verbeck, Guido F. 204 Williams, G. B. 205
Vierkandt, Albert 109 Witmer, Lightner 119
visions 100 Wolff, Caspar Friedrich 99
Index 319
Women’s Patriotic Association 187–8 Yatsu Naohide 144, 234

Woolley, Helen Thompson 186 Yerkes, Robert M. 133, 145
Wundt, Wilhelm vii, 4, 15, 19, 30, 46, 53, Yoda Arata 126, 234
56, 59, 60, 62, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, Yokoyama Matsusaburō vii, 60, 74, 122,
89, 90, 91, 96, 101, 102, 112, 113, 148, 149, 185, 234
119, 120, 130, 131, 147, 148, 150, Yoneda Shōtarō 108, 210, 234
154, 165, 170, 172, 184 Yoshida Kumaji 56, 62, 63, 134,
Würzburg School 148 212, 234
Yoshimoto Ishin 157, 174, 234
Yabe Yaekichi 155, 233 Yoshinaga Shinichi viii, 52, 103
Yale University 60, 71, 89, 90, 102, 214 Yoshio Shunzō (Nankō) 29
Yamada Sōshichi 74, 129, 233 Yoshioka Joseph (Gennosuke) 145, 234
Yamaga Sōkō 26 Youth and Child Group 130, 161
Yamagata Aritomo 202 youth employment counseling offices 129
Yamakawa Kenjirō 102, 233 Yuhara Motoichi 169–70, 212, 234
Yamakawa Kikue 162 Yumoto Takehiko 40, 211, 220
Yamakawa Noriko 193, 233
Yamauchi Shigeo 169, 234 Zen 25, 36, 52, 72, 77, 84, 85, 139, 143,
Yamazaki Ansai 25, 29 156, 161 (see also Psychological
Yan Yongjing 171, 234 Zen)
Yasuda Tokutarō 155, 210, 234 Zhang Zai 24, 25
Yatabe Tatsurō 122, 149, 174, 234 Zhou Dunyi 25
Yatabe–Guilford Personality Test 178 Zhu Xi 24, 25, 26, 48

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The History of Japanese Psychology

SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan

Series Editor: Christopher Gerteis, SOAS, University of London (UK)

Series Editorial Board:

SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan features scholarly books on

Global Perspectives, 1875–1950

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

First published 2017

© Brian J. McVeigh, 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-8308-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Series: SOAS Studies in Modern and Contemporary Japan

Cover design: Sharon Mah

Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

Prologue: Spiritual Physics—A Physics for the Soul 1

1 Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Ethics (Rinrigaku, 1893). By author. 194

In this book, I distinguish between the academic discipline of Psychology (with a

Table 1 Periods of Japanese history

Psychologizing the spirit

In Shintō terminology, shin denotes “divine” or “sacred,” and it appears in terms

for example, psychiatry (seishin igaku), psychopathology (seishin byōingaku), mental

What is spiritual physics?

The spiritual roots of the psychological revolution

Though the Enlightenment eroded religious traditions and ended up precluding

stressed, psychophysics was a mere by-product of his messianic philosophy detailed

Three key themes of this work

Theme one: Historical changes—implications for understanding “modernity”

Theme two: Psychological processes—how do society and psyche constitute

Theme three: Academic Psychology—what trajectory did spiritual physics

Places, Periods, and Peoples:

Theme one: The individual, modernity, and a change

Theme two: Co-constituting society and psyche

To a large degree, the nineteenth-century perspective on reality was driven by

The cosmic worldview’s collapse: Giving birth to Psychology

From a cosmic to a techno-scientific worldview

(1) The Emergence of Modern Spatiality: Mathematically measurable and infinitized

The introscopic as a new visuality: Expanded horizons of the inward turn

Focusing the mind’s eye: Conscious interiority

Self-narratization and progress

Individuation and self-reflexivity

Self-autonomy, self-authorization, and political economic liberties

Theme three: The emergence of academic Psychology

The psychological revolution

Discipline versus subject matter

The intellectual background of academic Psychology

The institutionalization of academic Psychology

Specifically speaking, a number of preconditions encouraged the growth of Psychology:

●● First university courses dedicated to Psychology

Psychology: Tensions and types

Applied Psychology and its societal impact: Bureaucratizing subjectivity

the psychological, then, is educational structures. Chapters 4 and 9 investigate the

Other applications of Psychology

Global exchanges versus national traditions

This project attempts to strike a balance between Psychology-as-global and Psychology-

Global connections, comparisons, and commonalties

commonalities. The appearance of Psychology, a crucial intellectual offspring of

What does it mean to be “Japanese”?

Methodology and relevant literature

No comprehensive history of Japanese Psychology exists in English,48 though article-

Historical Context: Japanese Cosmology

Japan’s premodern cosmology

Prologue: Spiritual Physics—A Physics for the Soul 1

1 Title Page of Motora Yūjirō’s Ethics (Rinrigaku, 1893). By author. 194