The Intellectuals and Politics

Although this paper is concerned mainly with the participation of the intellectual in the process of decision-making in the narrow sense, his participation in the broader political process is, if anything, even more important.

In certain areas intellectuals themselves are one of the main constituencies. Scientific development and education are obvious examples, and in these areas the influence of intellectuals is most effectively brought to bear through organized bodies. Some organizations purport to speak in the name of intellectuals as a whole—the Japan Science Council is the elected representative body of the natural and social sciences. Others represent particular constituencies (the teachers unions), or professions (the Japan Medical Association), or scholarly fields (the Japanese Political Science Society). Some are more political in character, like the Democratic Scientists Association. Although there are many professional organizations, so far, with the sole exception of the Japan Medical Association, they have been politically weak as pressure groups. Since the intellectuals seldom achieve consensus, even on the issues closest to their own interests, it is not surprising that they can only rarely put forth a unified view to compete with others on the field of political battle.

In the more general political process, it is no less true of Japan than of the United States that "intellectuals, more than most other groups, have the power to create, dignify, inflate, criticize, moderate or puncture" the "galloping abstractions" of public life.^[10] Their influence is transmitted through their teaching, their books and articles, which form the basic parameters of public discussion, and the mass media. Through these

[10] Charles Frankel, "The Scribblers and International Relations," Foreign Affairs , October 1965.

means they have an influence, and often a decisive one, on public opinion and therefore on one of the key factors in the background of decision-making.

In many countries the intellectuals are isolated from the mass media. In Japan this is not the case. Although professing dismay about the vulgarity of the media, intellectuals play a very active part in them. The level of journalism, particularly of the national dailies, which occupy the bulk of the market, is very high, and there is also a vigorous intellectual journalism in weeklies, monthlies, and the pages and columns of the great dailies.

Japanese journalism has two traditions that are important in connection with the political role of intellectuals. First, it is strongly oppositional. Since its inception in the Meiji period, it has been, except in the period of militarist control in the 1930s, almost always on the opposition side. Although the national press professes a strict neutrality with regard to parties, its general thrust has been against the party in power. This, along with the fact that the majority of journalists tend to be progressive, has created a hospitable environment for independent and anti-establishment intellectuals.

Second, it is a very individualized journalism with a European-style feuilletoniste tradition. The newspapers carry many signed articles and frequently invite outside contributors. Leading Japanese intellectuals, in consequence, have newspaper outlets that are normally not available to Americans, other than celebrities. It is common, in a way that is not the case in the United States, for intellectuals, scholars, and writers to be called upon for comment on the news, analytic articles, roundtable discussions, and general social commentary. This kind of journalism not only gives intellectuals an outlet for their views, but also a high degree of public visibility (the leading press is national and runs to millions in circulation) and a significant addition to income.

The weekly and monthly journals consist virtually entirely of signed contributions rather than of unsigned staff articles. At least fifty of them provide outlets for intellectuals to express their views and opportunities for them to earn extra income. Although the intellectual journals (sogo-zasshi^[*] ) do not match the huge popular weeklies in circulation, they are by no means "little mags"; they reach national audiences, and they play an important role in maintaining a high degree of unity and communication among intellectuals.

To this high demand from the print media has been added the virtually insatiable demand of radio and television. Here too intellectuals are active on the artistic as well as the intellectual side. They appear frequently as commentators, news analysts, panelists, and lecturers. The relations between practicing intellectuals and the intellectualized staffs of the broadcasting media is much closer than in many other countries. Here again the broad access that intellectuals have to television and radio gives

them an important outlet, enhances their influence by turning them into celebrities, and makes them more viable by adding to their income. The demand from all of these sources is sufficient to support a large corps of free-lance critics (hyoronka^[*] ).

During the postwar period intellectuals have provided important leadership for or identified themselves closely with all the major mass movements, particularly those involving protest against authority. Writers Hirotsu Kazuo and Uno Koji^[*] played a decisive role in the development of the Matsukawa movement which finally led, after twenty-one years, not only to full exoneration and payment of damages to the defendants, but also to major impact on the judicial system, investigation and trial procedures, and the American Occupation's criminal-code reforms.^[11] Although "union support and mass letter-writing campaigns helped create the impression of popular backing for the movement," writes Chalmers Johnson about the Matsukawa case, "it was the involvement of famous Tokyo intellectuals that made the headlines and filled the columns of commentators."^[12]

For further examples of the influence of intellectuals one has only to think of the close relationship of the Peace Problems Symposium (Heiwa Mondai Danwakai) in the 1960 movement against the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.^[13] Or one can think of Ota^[*] Minoru in the post-1960 antitreaty movement, or Nakajima Kenzo^[*] in the movement for the normalization of relations with China.

Intellectuals are often influential even without the backing of a specific mass movement. The shift of national priorities from the "growth first" to the "balanced growth" policy, which gives greater emphasis to welfare and environmental protection, has been decisively affected by their views. There are, to be sure, many other factors that go into that shift, but the influence of the intellectuals in pushing it against the reluctance of business and government is clear.

Another way of assessing the weight of intellectuals in decision-making is to look at the social demand for their services. While intellectuals, especially the academic intellectuals, like to complain about how ignored they are, there are many who would argue that they are, if anything, too much involved with the powers. Are they, in fact, as powerless as some would like to make out or, on the contrary, too much "the handmaidens of whatever political, military, paramilitary, and economic elite happens to be financing their operations," to borrow a phrase from Roszak's charges about American intellectuals?^[14]

[11] Chalmers Johnson, Conspiracy at Matsukawa (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972), particularly chap. 5, "The Two Zolas."

[12] Ibid., p. 237.

[13] See George R. Packard III, Protest in Tokyo (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), pp. 26–31.

[14] Theodore Roszak, ed., The Dissenting Academy (New York: Pantheon, 1968).

Let us take the example of the academic intellectuals. If we look at the total round of their activities, we find that although most of their time is spent in teaching-related activities—that is, teaching, preparing courses, grading papers, conducting examinations, seeing students, and sitting on university committees—a significant amount is also spent in outside work. This outside work, called arubaito (from the German arbeit ), is very important.

There are two sides to the professor's outside work. On the one hand, he needs extra income because his salary is low. The outside work helps him make ends meet. On the other hand, outside work is also a measure of social demand. Both of these aspects undoubtedly enter the balance sheet.

International comparisons of wages are notoriously difficult methodological exercises. We cannot, therefore, be dogmatic about whether Japanese academics' salaries are low or high on any absolute scale, and whether their share, compared with that of other components of the labor force, is appropriate or not. What can be said is that although they are lower in money amount (as measured by international exchange rates) than American or Western European academic salaries, within Japan they are on the same level as the civil service. This means they are not as good as equivalent positions (and equal years of service) in large-scale private industry, but that they are better than smaller companies and elementary and secondary schools. Although there are differences between public and private universities and great variations among the private universities, academic salaries in Japan range between (at 1973 exchange rates) $7,000 per annum for a full professor just starting and $14,000 for a senior professor with upwards of thirty-years seniority. They can also be expected to go up about 10 percent a year.

But for the great majority of professors, particularly in the better universities of the Tokyo area, salary is only one portion of total income; and in the case of the popular, well-known professors who are in constant demand, a very small portion indeed. Figures are hard to come by, but a good estimate is that for the well-known professors of leading Tokyo universities, the stars or celebrities of the academic profession, university salary often represents no more than one-third of total income. Table 4 gives the results from a 1965 survey on the sources of income for national university faculty members. Table 5 reports the results from a 1967 sample survey of public as well as private universities.

If we compare the Japanese and the American university professor, we can say that the American university salary is higher than the Japanese. Outside work is important for academic income in both countries, but there are three important differences. First, the Japanese professor receives a smaller proportion of his total income from his salary. If we assume that American professors derive 90 percent or more of their total income from salary (there are, of course, many exceptions), on the whole Japanese

professors would receive more on the order of 70–80 percent in this form. Second, the Japanese academic's salary buys him a somewhat less satisfactory standard of living than the American's. Third, the mix of elements that makes up his outside income is somewhat different. Outside income for the American professor usually comes from research, teaching, lecturing, and consulting. In Japan, a much larger proportion would come from writing (both for the mass media and in the form of books) and from panel discussions in the public media, and significantly less from research.

A checklist of outside work opportunities for Japanese professors would look somewhat as follows:

1. Writing articles—in the mass media, general journals, specialized journals.

2. Writing books—textbooks, general books, scholarly books.

3. Lectures, panel discussions, public speeches.

4. Teaching elsewhere—in other universities, governmental training programs,^[15] private business training institutions.^[16]

5. Research grants.

6. Contract research—with government, private business, research organizations, public associations.

7. Consulting (for the same as 6 above).

8. Government advisory commissions.

9. Editing.

10. Private practice (lawyers, doctors).

11. Private business (architects, engineers, etc.).

Obviously, opportunities for outside work vary by field of specialization. Doctors, dentists, and lawyers can have private practices. Chemists, engineers, and architects often have corporate as well as governmental consulting outlets. They will also have access to considerable research funds. Among social scientists, economists are in the greatest demand, rather like engineers. However, there is increasing demand for sociologists and political scientists as well. More practically oriented fields, such as business administration, labor-management relations, and urban planning increasingly call upon social scientists. For the humanist scholar, there may be fewer outlets in government and corporate consulting (although these are not entirely absent), but a larger world of cultural and intellectual activity is open to him: the mass media, cultural journals, editing, public speaking, and civic associations.