However, East and West are far apart, so what is the idea of turning to universal justice for relations with foreigners who have come from completely different parts of the globe? This is extremely shallow thinking. The theory is all too simplistic. It proclaims that universal justice should of course be the ideal. Have the Western nations not made contacts with Japan in accord with universal justice? Thereore we must be willing to respond to them and by no means turn them down. I say that if that is really the case, then we ought to abolish national governments throughout the world the same way we abolished the old han. Scholars should set this as their goal. As long as there are countries which set up national governments, there can be no way to eliminate their self interests. If there is no way to eliminate their self-interests, then we too must have our self-interests in any contacts with them. This is why partisanship and patriotism differ in name but mean the same thing.
As stated above, foreign relations have become the great affliction of Japan. If we cannot find the remedy ourselves we shall have nowhere to turn. Our responsibility is great, and our liability heavy. As I stated at the beginning of this chapter, this is a time of crisis for our country. Moreover, this crisis is more troublesome than in years past—foreign relations are truly the most troublesom affliction there is. It is in this area of foreign relations that we should be willing to sacrifice everything, even our lives. If so, how can we Japanese of today fritter away our days in ease, how can we enjoy idle leisure? What since our early history has been termed the loyalty between lord and retainers, ancestral tradition, moral obligation between superiors and inferiors, and the distrinction between main trunk and branch have today become loyalty toward Japan, the traditions of Japan, moral obligration between Japan and foreign countries, and a distinction between Japanese and foreign. Have they not all increased a hundredfold in importance? The story is told of how, in the old feudal days, there was a standing feud between the Shimazu house of Satsuma and the Itō house of Hyūga. The retainers of the Itō house bore such a deep-seated grudge against the Satsuma clan that every New Year's Day, when the entire body of retainers assembled at the castle, their first words to one another were a reminder not to forget vengeance against Satsuma—and only after this did they celebrate the New Year. In Europe, too, during the reign of Napoleon I of France, Prussia was subjected to unprecedented disgrace after her defeat at the hands of the French; thereafter, the Prussians harbored a deep resentment and the thought of revenge never died. Not only was the desire for revenge kept alive in people's hearts in churches and other public places where citizens gathered; pictures were also hung that reproduced the lamentable results of their humiliating defeat and disgrace by the French. Through these and other means people's hearts were stirred up and directed toward the single goal of revenge, till finally, in the year 1870, they paid the French back.
Both sets of behavior stemmed from a wicked spirit of revenge, so they cannot be termed praiseworthy. However, from them it is possible to know how people suffer when they cannot defend their nation. Although in our relationship with foreigners we have not as yet undergone suggerings comparable to those of the Itō house or of Prussia, in view of what happened to India and other countries our vigilance must be like that of the Itō family family and the Prussian people. Rather than once a year on New Year's Day, the Japanese people should admonish each other every morning before breakfast not to let their guard down in foreign relations, and only afterwards proceed to eat.
Considered in this light, it is not true that we Japanese put down the heavy burden passed on to us from our ancestors and have no other burden in its stead. Rather, a burden is upon our heads; what is more, it is a hundred times heavier than the former one. The responsibility to shoulder that load requires that we exert a hundred times more energy than people did in the old days. Our past charge was merely passively to tolerate rigidity, but today's charge requires energetic activity as well. The elevation of people's conduct depends, indeed, on both this kind of rigid morality and timely activity. however, those who now take up this burden and yet inwardly are still carefree are simply ignorant and unaware of its nature and relative importance. Perhaps even though they may be aware of its nature, they are mistaken as to the methods of dealing with it. For instance, there is no lack of men in society who hate foreigners, but their hatred of them is misplaced. They do not hate what should be hated, and hate what should not be hated. Harboring jealousy and envy, they are angered by trivial matters they see in front of their noses. They bring harm to Japan by their assassinations and their advocacy of the expulsion of foreigners. They are a variety of lunatics, who can only be described as sick victims, as it were, of a plague-stricken nation.
Another group of patriots, somewhere more far-seeing than the jōi advocates,* has no wish indiscriminately to expel all foreigners, but sees the problem of our relations with foreign powers as basically a matter of simple military weakness. They feel that we could have sufficient power to oppose the Western powers if we simply increased our military preparedness; hence they call for larger funds for the army and navy, the purchase of large warships and cannons, and the construction of forts and armories. The idea seems to be that, if England has one thousand warships, and we too have one thousand warships, then we can stand against them. Now, this is the thinking of men who are ignorant of the proportions of things. The fact that England has one thousand warships does not mean that she has one thousand warships only. If there are one thousand warships, there have to be at least ten thousand merchant ships, which in turn require at least one hundred thousand navigators; and to create navigators there must be naval science. Only when there are many professors and many merchants, when laws are in order and trade prospers, when social conditions are ripe—when, that is, you have all the prerequisites for a thousand warships—only then can there be a thousand warships. In like manner armories and forts also have to be proportionate to every other element in society. If things are not in proportion, then even the best instruments are useless. For instance, placing a twenty-inch cannon in front of the gate of a disorganized household where the people lock neither the back nor the front door cannot provide appropriate protection against burglars. In countries where there is an imbalance in military strength there is apt to be no sense of proportion—indiscriminate military expenditures drain the national treasury and thus undermine the country. Now, while warships and cannon can be a match for an enemy with warships and cannon, they cannot be a match for going into debt. Even in present-day Japan military expenditures for everything from warships to rifles and uniforms go almost entirely for foreign-made products. Maybe it is true that our manufacturing techniques are not yet highly developed, but the fact that these manufacturing techniques are undeveloped is proof that the country's civilization is not yet ripe. When conditions are so unripe it would be to lose all sense of proportion and render things useless if Japan today were to attempt to build up only military armament. Hence our present foreign relations should not be supported by means of greater military power.
As I stated above, proposals to assassinate and expel the foreigners are not worth discussing; going futher, even efforts to expand military preparedness are of no practical avail. Moreover, the arguments for national polity, for Christianity, and for Confucianism referred to earlier are also insufficient to bolster people's hearts. What, then, will? I say, there is only one thing: namely, to establish our goal and advance toward civilization. What is that goal? It is to be clear about the distinction between domestic and foreign, and thereby to preserve the independence of our county. However, the way in which to preserve this independence cannot be sought anywhere except in civilization. The only reason for making the people in our country today advance toward civilization is to preserve our country's independence. Therefore, our country's independence is the goal, and our people's civilization is the way to that goal. In all human affairs, if proper attention is given to the end and the means to the end, there is no limit to the number of steps on can take. For instance, spinning cotton is the means to make thread, and making thread is the means to weave cotton cloth; cotton cloth is the means to make clothes, which are the means of keeping people warm. In this way, each of several steps is the goal of the preceding one and the means to the next, the final goal being the preservation of bodily temperature and the body's health.
*[Those who were for expulsion of foreigners.]
From: Fukuzawa Yukichi's An Outline of a Theory of Civilization. A Monumenta Nipponica Monograph. Translated by David A. Dilworth and G. Cameron Hurst (Sophia University, Tokyo 1973), 190-193.