This is very interesting topic, btw. Do you think that there is "European thinking", that the Scandinavians think same as the Italian or Spanish, or do you think that Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Philipino, Indonesian etc. think all the same ?
It's a delicate issue to discuss, Tim.
It more of a certain tendency, or logical process of achieving motivation towards certain specific means, rather than exists a signified
"Asian way of thinking" or
"European way of thinking" or
"American way of thinking" per se... ie., it is very difficult to come up with a certain standard in which to distinguish what sort of thinking falls under which category.
However, there does seem to exist a certain tendency, or profound difference in the basic logical process in which different peoples of the world reach different conclusions altogether. Certainly, in the case of Kamikazes, there existed a strong, brutal, and militaristic need to motivate people into seemingly "insanely hyper-patriotic" course of action, in the higher circles of the military (most notably the Imperial Japanese Army, which dominated the Imperial general staff). However, the basic premise is that such process of motivating the soldiers wouldn't have worked, unless the soldiers themselves were already familiar with such notions through unique cultural conditioning from the society they were brought up in. Hence, the (possibly misleading) term
"~ way of thinking".
For instance, it is terribly awkward to imagine contemporary troops of the West - let's say, the USN pilots and sailors for instance - willingly embarking on a literally
"suicidal" mission because they were commanded to do so. Usually "suicidal" in the West, would mean a mission of high profile with very high casualty rates expected, rather than literally ordering your soldiers to dive in and commit deadly suicide.. and in most cases, the middle command would probably very strongly protest and resist such demands from the higher chain of command, even before the soldiers would ever be notified of such orders, in the first place.
In the case of the Japanese, there does seem to exist some evidence that such notions weren't exactly welcomed by neither the soldiers nor the middle command - however, despite such differing individual opinions, the ultimate justification of the Kamikaze -
"sacrifice to defend the nation" - did succeed in convincing both the soldiers and the organizers into actually realizing and performing suicidal attacks.
As I've mentioned earlier, suicidal acts of bravery and valour do exist both in the East and the West, but the key difference seems to be that the former, in the form of the Kamikaze, was systematically organized and performed as a regular course of action, in sharp contrast to, let's say, the Alamo for instance, in which case individual voluntarism resulted in the fatal stand which resulted in the massacre. This difference in the prelude to the event, in which the top brass orders intentional suicide, and the soldiers following the order to its bitter end without resistance or question, seems to be what the afore mentioned
'Western way of thinking" finds most inexplicable.
The problem is, as a Far-Eastern Asian myself, such notions are quite familiar to me. Ofcourse, it doesn't mean I'd do the same thing in their shoes, but I really
do find the concept of patriotic, willing death very familiar and in a sense, almost natural. The deep rooted feelings of the masses concerning their own nation and society, in most cases, Western literature would call it
"Nationalism".. However, the interesting thing is that in the Far East, such feelings existed a lot earlier than the advent of modern nationalism in the 19th century. This Asian version of ancient nationalism borders more on the concept of blood lines and family values, probably a bit similar to the Italian mob concept of 'family' in films.
Confucianism acted as a strong, concrete bond which supports this way of thought, in which the nation, its king, and the society and its people were a singular part of the same, earthly body which represents the
"way of the Heavens". An ideal society was a
"righteous" society - and in which case, everyone was dutified to defend the society to the death, were it ever under attack. This meant that realistically, the ultimate goal of every one inside the society would be to preserve the
status quo to its utmost.
IMO, this is where the Western and Eastern way of thinking starts to diverge. IIRC Western feudalism was basically a loose-formed web of individual duties and contracts. When the upper rank in the hierarchy failed to fulfill its duty, the lower rank, as conditioned by the contract, would have the right to rebel. This resulted in most of the Europe existing as small, individual kingdoms and lordships for most of the former millenium. Only after the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries did powerful kings emerge, and almost immediately the advent of captalism and industrialism castrated the feudal system and reshaped it into a nationalistic imperialism in the 19th century. In contrast, most of Asia, with the afore mentioned social characteristics, maintained kingdoms and empires of highly-centralized bureacracy for at least 2,000 years straight. A vassal's vows to his lord were like marital vows - in sickness and health, for better or worse, and
even death wouldn't do us apart. A king is a king, and a vassal is a vassal. When a vassal has sworn loyalty it doesn't have an expiration date. It was literarily to the death. Everything was about righteousness and loyalty, and to preserve the line of kings, to protect one's lord, to preserve one's own society from outside incursions and ideas, was the utmost duty for every one born on the land. It's not only the samurais of Japan who had these notions - as a matter of fact, the Japanese had imported and learned such strict and fanatical devotion from the scholars of the Korean peninsula during the 13th century. These ideas were restrengthened during the Tokugawa shogunate after the 17th century, and ofcourse, the Korean peninsula was already thinking this way from at least the 10th century and so forth.
This way of thinking, after the 19th century, fused and mixed with modern concept of nationalism and imperialism in Japan. And thus, ultimately led to the tragedy of the Kamikazes. As said, a vassal's sworn loyalty was eternal - thus, you see Japanese high ranking officers committing ritual suicde after failing to protect the Empire. The society had a duty to preserve itself from outside incursions and ideas - thus, you see young soldiers, despite their individual terrors and fears, finally succumbing to the call of the divine wind, and sacrificing their lives in attempts to stop the US invasion of the Home Islands.
In the beginning of the 1950's, when the Korean War started, South Korean soldiers were basically no different from the Japanes of WWII. Patriotism was the ultimate virtue, and defending the new-born Republic of Korea, was of utmost importance when the war started. High-school kids were volunteering en masse to the ill-equipped and shabby organized ROK Army.
When feudalism ended in the Far East, the fiercely loyal, devoted sentiment towards one's king and society quickly replaced the "king" part with the "nation/government" part.
That's why I've mentioned that it would be hard to imagine such things happening in Denmark for instance. King Christian X of Denmark was the country's symbol of survival during the years of German annexation, but that didn't mean to the Danes that they had a direct duty to protect and preserve the Royal family with their deaths. Had the Nazis murdered Christian X, that'd have brought out furious public outbreaks of rage and anger, but that wouldn't necessarily have meant the death of Christian X would mean the end of Denmark or its people. However, to the Japanese, US invasion was coming closer everyday. This might mean the Emperor might be deposed, and Japanese society might be changed by a foreigner's whim. To them, that was as same as a death threat, and they found enough reason to sacrifice even one's own life, to put a stop to it. Things weren't so different in Choson, the kingdom that existed before the Republic of Korea. When the king was murdered by the Japanese, many of the vassals followed him in death, When the annexation of the peninsula was realized, social leaders and scholars committed suicide in anguish, shame, and guilt. It was their duty to preserve the ideals of the society - and failing it, and living to see the shame of it, was the ultimate disgrace.
That kind of thinking, is what I'd consider
"Asian way of thinking"I happen to know some "Asian" thinking, and what i know, many Chinese really hate the Japanese. I speak from experience.
Same here in Korea.
Remember that I've mentioned earlier that the old Asian variant of loyalism, was fused with modern nationalism. As a result, the Far East is about the most nationalistic region in the world nowadays, in contrast to the fact that nationalism is a passing ideal in the West nowadays. Ofcourse, the fact that the Japanese invasion and annexation didn't exactly treat the natives of each land with kindness and equality, during the days prior and into WWII, doesn't exactly help either.
