Momotaro As Proletarian

Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
ISSN: 1479-1420 (Print) 1479-4233 (Online) Journal homepage: http://nca.tandfonline.com/loi/rccc20
Momotaro as Proletarian: A Study of Revolutionary

Symbolism in Japan
Satoru Aonuma
To cite this article: Satoru Aonuma (2014) Momotaro as Proletarian: A Study of Revolutionary
Symbolism in Japan, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 11:4, 382-400, DOI:
10.1080/14791420.2014.959452
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2014.959452
Published online: 19 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 79
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://nca.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rccc20
Download by: [National Communication Association]
Date: 10 September 2015, At: 15:29
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies

Vol. 11, No. 4, December 2014, pp. 382400
Momotaro as Proletarian: A Study of

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan
Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015
Satoru Aonuma
This article discusses the ideological working of Momotaro, a popular Japanese folktale
in which an imaginary hero liberates his people from evil demons in a distant land.
During the 1930s and 1940s, this folktale was used by the imperial authorities to justify
the war against demonic Anglo-Americans. Little known is that the same story
was also appropriated by Japanese orator-communists challenging imperialism and
war capitalism. The article critically examines how the folk hero acquired class
consciousness and became proletarian, critiquing the dominant ideology.
Keywords: Folklore; Japanese Rhetoric; Marxism; Proletarian Literature; Rhetorical
Subversion
Insofar as a writer really is a propagandist, not merely writing work that will be
applauded by his allies, convincing the already convinced, but actually moving
forward like a pioneer into outlying areas of the public and bringing them the first
favorable impressions of his doctrine, the nature of his trade may give rise to
special symbolic requirements.Kenneth Burke1
Write in such a way as that you can be readily understood by both the young and
the old, by men as well as women, even by children.Ho Chi Min2
Satoru Aonuma (MA, the University of Iowa; Ph.D., Wayne State University) is Professor of Rhetoric and
Communication at Tsuda College, Japan. An embryonic idea of this article was presented at the 1992 Speech
Communication Association (now National Communication Association) Annual Convention. The author
wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers of the journal for their constructive feedback as well as Mark H.
Wright for fine-tuning the author's use of language. Unless otherwise specified, all the translations from original
Japanese sources to English in this article are the author's; all the Japanese names are transcribed in western
order, i.e., given name followed by family name. This article is dedicated to the late Michael Calvin McGee, the
late Robert James Branham, the late Tamotsu Todd Imahori, the late Bruce E. Gronbeck, and Professor Emeritus
Roichi Okabe, without whom the author is not what he is. Correspondence to: Satoru Aonuma, Department of
English, Tsuda College, 2-1-1 Tsuda-Machi, Kodaira, Tokyo 1878577 Japan. Email: aonuma@tsuda.ac.jp.
ISSN 1479-1420 (print)/ISSN 1479-4233 (online) 2014 National Communication Association
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2014.959452
383
Introduction
As a carrier of public morality, folktale makes a powerful persuasive discourse.3 With
its wide and easy accessibility, its ideological utility is time-tested. In early-twentiethcentury Germany, the Third Reich appropriated folklore and mythic narratives to
promote the Nazis ideology and its theory of a master-race. To celebrate and
strengthen Bolshevism, the Soviet government solicited folk legends and heroic songs
from the collective-farm workers.4 This was also true in Japan from the late
nineteenth through early twentieth centuries, the time when the symbolic power of
folklore was the very cornerstone of the countrys political structure.5 During the
period when imperialism and, by extension, war capitalism constituted the countrys
dominant ideology, the imperial regime adopted one folktale called Momotaro
(Peach Boy) and exploited its rhetorical power.
Momotaro is the name of an imaginary folk hero. He was so named, as he was
miraculously born out of a peach (momo); together with his loyal companions
(a monkey, a dog, and a pheasant), Momotaro took the divine mission to conquer
evil demons in a distant land and saved his village. This benign folktale was picked
and appropriated by the imperial authorities in need of rhetoric when their Empire
was at war with the West. As John Dower coined the term Momotaro Paradigm,
the story became an epitome of Japans waging of the Holy War in the name of Asian
liberation: the war against the Western colonists and the creation of the Greater
Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.6 Based on this folktale, many artifacts were created for
propaganda purposes; these include Momotaro No Umi No Arawasi (Momotaros Sea
Eagle) and Momotaro, Umi No Shinpei (Momotaro, God Warriors of the Sea), two
animation films produced under the supervision of the Navy Ministry, featuring
Momotaro as a commanding officer and his animal followers flying Zero-fighters
over the island of demons, i.e., Hawaii.7
Approximately at the same time, however, there existed different versions of
Momotaro that challenged imperialism and war capitalism. 8 Kunio Yanagita, a noted
Japanese folklorist, contended that folktale is a genre that empowers common people:
oral tradition teaches them practical, social knowledge; studies of folklore therefore are
the scholarship of resistance.9 In the mid-1920s, Japanese Marxists and left intellectuals
launched a revolutionary literary front called the Proletarian Literature Movement,
organizing a nationwide politico-cultural opposition to the imperial-capitalist regime.
In this Movement, Japanese orator-communists10 hailed Momotaro, the imaginary
folk hero, to work for their political cause. They criticized the powers that be and were
engaged in agitation and propaganda or agitprop for revolution, making the story
of Momotaro a brilliant rhetorical work of proletarian counter-discourse. Namely,
Momotaro was not only a collaborator of the imperial regime but also part of
revolutionary symbolism.
This article will delineate a rhetorical enactment of the folk narrative in the latter
sense, i.e., Momotaro as proletarian, at the height of Japanese imperialism and war
capitalism. Engaging the analysis, the article attempts to make a modest contribution
to studies of modern Japanese rhetoric. Japan has been proven to possess a rich
384
S. Aonuma
tradition of rhetoric. While the larger body of scholarly literature is now available,
however, most of the previous studies, with a few exceptions,11 have focused mainly
on the working of discourses of power, e.g., speeches and writings of national political
larders,12 prominent opinion leaders,13 Emperor,14 teachings of a dominant religion
(e.g., Buddhism),15 and official policy pronouncements,16 virtually ignoring a variety
of dissenting discursive practices that have existed in the countrys history. This is
truly unfortunate, given that Japan has a strong tradition of grassroots uprisings, civil
unrest, and other forms of political dissension. It is a country where protests and
other mass movements have traditionally been a means of expressing popular
grievances.17 Particularly since the implantation of Marxism onto its soil, words and
deeds of the political left have continued to play a significant role in shaping the
nations political culture.18 Any fuller understanding of the actual working of rhetoric
is incomplete without taking into account the existence of historically situated
dissension and struggle. By examining this folktale-turned revolutionary symbolism,
this articles wishes to shed light on a significant missing part of the politico-rhetorical
history of a nation-state once erroneously depicted as a rhetorical vacuum.19
Perhaps more importantly, this article seeks to extend critical rhetorical scholarship,
particularly the one that deals with the relationship between Marxism and rhetorical
discourse. In the English-speaking world, the working of symbolic power that made
history has been extensively studied by rhetorical scholars.20 Among them, issues
regarding what rhetorical strategy left revolutionaries could/should employ have
generated a contentious debate.21 Against this backdrop, this article will highlight
rhetorical subversion, one viable tactic available to orator-communists and the political
left. Revolutionary symbolism does not need a new language; a new language, if it is to
be political, cannot possibly be invented: it will necessarily depend on the subverting
use of traditional material.22 Ideological change is a symbolic conversion. When we
employ symbolism rhetorically and ideologically to do the work, we change the internal
structure of that symbolism as well as its relationship with other signs and discourses.
In such rhetorical operation, we most likely locate the potential to change the
present ideology.23 Thus, as James Aune suggested, the contemporary American left
could steal the language of family values from the conservative, refurbish it, and use it
for left politics.24 Most likely, however, strong objections will be raised by the
conservative against this rhetoric. Rhetorical subversion does not always go smoothly
as various different classes use one and the same language. As a result, different
oriented accents intersect in every ideological sign. Sign becomes an arena of the class
struggle.25 I submit that Momotaro-as-proletarian should be understood as one
particular instance of such ideological struggle. By critically exploring how the Japanese
left in the early twentieth century attempted to fight the dominant ideology by
recreating, refurbishing, and retelling the popular folktale, an attempt will be made to
extend the ongoing scholarly discourse on Marxist rhetorical strategy outside the
North American and European contexts.
Following the Introduction, the article offers a synopsis of the historical development of Japanese Marxism and the Proletarian Literature Movement26 in which
Momotaro-as-proletarian emerged. It then proceeds with an analysis of the proletarian
385
remaking of this folktale as a form of rhetorical subversion, explicating how the

popular folk hero became a proletarian hero (and anti-hero) during the heyday of
the countrys capitalism and imperialism. The article concludes the analysis by
reminding critical communication scholars of the historical significance of this
rhetorical dissension in modern Japan and suggesting that they pay more attention
to internationalization and global solidarity of rhetorical dissension.
Marxism, Proletkult, and the Proletarian Literature Movement

The year 1868 marked the birth of a modern empire on the Japanese archipelagos. It
was also the dawn of the countrys economic industrialization/militarization. Taking
over the countrys sovereign authority from the Shogunate, the imperial regime
began aggressively engaged in transforming Japan into a modern industrial economy
as well as a military power. By the 1910s, Japan had become the worlds leading
exporter of textiles; there also was a drastic increase in steel, copper, and coal
production, as well as other heavy industries such as railroads, arms production, and
shipbuilding. Especially after winning two wars against China (18945) and then
Russia (19045), Japan recognized itself, and became recognized by other major
Western powers, as a newly emerging competitor in the world of colonialism,
imperialism, and war capitalism.
At the same time, with its rival powers, Japan also experienced its share of the
problem during this period: The introduction of an industrial economy in Japan
brought with it the labor problems of the West.27 Namely, at the height of its
industrialization, Japan saw a drastic increase in labor disputes, strikes, and other forms
of organized unrest involving angry workers. While the regime succeeded in turning
the country into a major world power, its aggressive modernization policy ran counter
to the peoples wants and needs; whereas, the country itself became richer and stronger,
the people became poorer and economically less secure. Despite official disfavor,
frequently manifesting itself in arrests, interruptions of meetings, suspension of
publications, and dissolution of organizations, a number of leaders emerged who
devoted themselves to the organization of trade unions and political groups.28
It is these politico-material conditions that gave rise to Japanese Marxism. Its
origin dates back to when Shusui Kotoku and Toshihiko Sakai, two progressive
journalist-writers, encountered Marx and Engels and began translating their works.29
A portion of their Japanese translation of the Communist Manifesto appeared in
1904; two years later, the full Japanese version came out. Equally important is the
role played by Sen Katayama, a US-educated Christian socialist and the publisher/
founder of Rodo Sekai (Labor World), the countrys first trade-union journal.30
Seeking to represent the interest of the working people in the political arena, Kotoku,
Katayama, and other activists founded the Social Democratic Party. In 1906, they
organized another socialist party, i.e., the Japan Socialist Party, taking a more radical
turn and instigating more direct actions such as strikes and sabotage in the countrys
major industrial sectors.
386
S. Aonuma
As Japanese labor turned to socialism and became more politically involved, it

invited severe governmental repression. Many of the activists were arrested or went
underground. Some, including Kotoku, were executed by the authorities; others
escaped overseas and sought political asylum, including Katayama who went back to
the United States. In retrospect, this was a significant turning point in the historical
development of Japanese Marxism: While in the United States, Katayama and his
group were contacted by the Communist International or Comintern and, against the
backdrop of the successful Russian Revolution, they became convinced of the
superiority of Lenins interpretation of Marx, i.e., scientific socialism, and became
part of the international Bolshevik movement.31
Soon, across the Pacific, Marxism was smuggled back into the country and
(re)implanted onto its soil, enabling intellectual and literary socialism to flourish. In
the late 1910s, intellectual and scholarly writings of Japanese Marxists began to appear
not only in their own underground periodicals but also in general publications.
Curiously enough, the authorities then were inattentive to the non-political works of
socialists and Marxists, e.g., creative writing, scholarly treatises, etc., for [s]ocialist
literature was generally regarded by the state as being akin to yellow journalism
undeniably obstreperous but, for the most part, relatively harmless.32 During the
1920s, the quantity and quality of their works became almost equal to that in
Germany.33 In the words of Masao Maruyama, a noted post-WWII intellectual,
Marxism [swept] through the Japanese intelligentsia like a whirlwind,34 making it
hard to find an intellectual who did not broadly agree with Marxs basic diagnosis of
the problems of capitalist society.35
Against this politico-intellectual climate, the Japan Communist Party was inaugurated in 1922. As the one and only Bolshevik vanguard in Japan, it was less a mere
political party than a political organization. Namely, under the Cominterns
direction, its primary goal was the political education of the working class and the
development of its political consciousness.36 And to achieve that goal, literary-minded
Marxists, as well as some communist sympathizers among literary circles, participated
in the battlefield of cultural practice,37 commencing the Proletarian Literature
Movement and seeking to create the distinct proletarian culture or Proletkult. The
proletarian state must educate thousands of first-class craftsmen of culture, engineers
of the soul. This is necessary in order to restore to the whole mass of the working
people the right to develop their intelligence, talents, and faculties.38 As Kiyoshi Aono,
a leading figure in the Movement, wrote:
The Proletarian Literature Movement is an ultimate collective activity whereby
already committed proletarian, that is, socialist-proletarian, artists seek to help
other [would-be] proletarian fellows acquire the teleological consciousness of
socialism. This is where the significance and the necessity of the Movement lie.39
With Bungei Sensen (Literary Front), a journal devoted exclusively to the publication
of proletarian literature, they established the Japan Proletarian Literary Arts League
in 1925. Going through some factional disputes within the League, it was later
reformed as the All Japan Federation of Proletarian Arts and Senki (Battle Flag), the
387
Federations official journal, became their primary literary outlet during the late
1920s and early 1930s.
Distributing creative writing that carried politico-educational messages, those who
participated in the Movement were largely under the Cominterns directive and
necessarily abided by the idea of socialist realism, the one and only literary genre for
the international proletariat. Emphasizing objectivity and scientific truth, this
Bolshevik dictum demands proletarian artists of truthful (pravdivyi), historically
concrete representation of reality, while truthfulness (pravdivost) and historical
concreteness of artistic representation of reality must (or should) be combined with the
task of ideologically remaking and training the labouring people in the spirit of
socialism.40 As such, it denounced and rejected impressionism, cubism, and other
unrealistic, untruthful, and imaginary forms of artistic expressions as bourgeois and decadent.
At the same time, among these Marxist writers and intellectuals were those who
did not necessarily subscribe to the idea of socialist realism. This is particularly true
during the early phase of the Movement when the Cominterns dicta were not so
dogmatically imposed. More specifically, these unorthodox Marxists called for
literary populism that should supplement the realism, for scientific and objective
representation of reality alone would have limited rhetorical appeal: It is simply not
so interesting to the mass readership. Similarly, they maintained that Proletkult
should be more inclusive and more widely accessible across generations and diverse
social strata. Accordingly, they advocated that an equally significant generic emphasis
should be put on the imaginary, fanciful, and fairy, as a counterpart of the real,
scientific, and objective, in literature and other artifacts that should create necessary
conditions for revolution to come:
[I]s it really true that Marx and Engels avoided the politics of dreaming, the social
poetics of anticipatory imagination? Can one separate the ideal from the real in a
scientific fashion? Is it possible to mobilize people to fight oppression without a
future state of affairs for consciousness to fasten on? Scattered throughout the
Marx/Engels oeuvre are numerous references to life in communist society. And these
anticipatory imaginings function as an ethical normative standard of the truly
human by which to judge the failings of class society. Which is to say, utopian visions
of communism are presented as powerful critiques of actually existing capitalism.41
It is crucial to recognize the co-existence of these two different genres when we are
to understand the status of childrens literature and the rhetorical deployment of
folklore in the Proletarian Literature Movement. Just as Burke, these literary Marxists
in Japan understood the role that adult education42 should play in the creation of
proletarian hegemony; as such, they wrote novels and other forms of realistic
literature for the would-be proletarian adult readership. At the same time, they also
recognized the need for educating those who were, more or less, ideologically
innocent; they found in many younger readers, i.e., school children, another
significant group of potential comrades. With the belief that the writers of childrens
literature, with the consciousness of socialism and anti-capitalism, should liberate
[our] children from the evil of the time,43 they launched a series of politico-
388
S. Aonuma
educational offensives through their literary works. In June 1927, Chisai Doushi
(A Little Comrade), a column for primary and middle school children, started to
appear regularly in Bungei Sensen. Also, Shonen Senki (Battle Flag Junior), a collection
of proletarian literary works written for the same readership, began as a supplement
to Senki in 1929, and it soon became a separate periodical. It is in this politicohistorico-cultural situation and in the literary-generic pendulum between realism and
the politics of dreaming that we see Momotaro make a political turn.
Momotaro as We Ordinarily Know Him

Momotaro is undoubtedly among the most popular (and perhaps the most favorite)
folk heroes in Japan. The story of his conquest had been featured in every
state-authorized, grade school level textbook for Japanese language instruction until
1945, the year WWII ended. Even today, most Japanese know the story as a
bedtime story, in a picture book series, or even from cartoons and comics.44 While
there are some variances, the following is a typical version most Japanese people
would tell to an English-speaking audience when asked what the story is like:
Once upon a time, there lived an old couple in a small village. One day the old wife
was washing her clothes in the river when a huge peach came tumbling down the
stream. The old woman brought the peach home and cut it up to share with her
husband. To their great surprise, a healthy baby boy came right out of the peach!
The old couple said, Lets name him Momotaro (Peach-boy) as he was born from
a peach. They brought him up with love and care.
Momotaro grew up rapidly into a strong boy. One day, he said to the old couple,
Dear Grandma and Grandpa, I am going to fight and kill evil demons. The old
couple made some millet dumplings for Momotaro to take with him.
As Momotaro walked toward Demons Island, a dog approached him and said,
Hello, Momotaro, can I have one of your millet dumplings, please? You can, if
you come with me to fight and kill bad demons, said Momotaro.
Then, as Momotaro and the dog went further on, a pheasant came up to them
and said, Hello, Momotaro, can I have one of your millet dumplings that youre
carrying around your waist? Sure you can, if you come with us to fight and kill
bad demons, said Momotaro.
As the three went on, a monkey showed up and said, Hello, Momotaro, can I
have one of your millet dumplings from around your waist? You sure can, if you
come with us to fight and kill bad demons, said Momotaro.
Thus, Momotaro with the dog, pheasant, and monkey as his companions
crossed over to Demons Island. As soon as they arrived on the island, red demons
and blue demons attacked them, shouting, What are you here for, you cocky
people? Well knock you out! The pheasant pecked at demons heads, the monkey
scratched their faces, the dog bit them on the leg, and Momotaro swung his sword
at them. Were sorry, so sorry. We wont harm anyone any more. So please forgive
us. The demons begged and surrendered. Then they offered many treasures to
Momotaro.
389
Momotaro brought the treasures home where the old couple were waiting, and
they lived happily together from that day on.45
Reading Momotaro With Marx

Unlike Momotaro-as-we-ordinarily-know-him, Momotaro-as-proletarian lived only
four years. In 1927, as the first proletarian version, Kiyoshi Eguchis Aru Hi No
Onigashima (One Day in the Land of Demons) appeared. Subsequently four others
were published in 1929: Soichiro Imajiris Shin Momotaro Banashi (A New Story of
Momotaro); Mitsuo Sakanashis Sonogo No Momotaro (Momotaros Later Life);
Heihachi Kuroitas Momotaro Seibatsu (The Conquest of Momotaro); and Nobuo
Mitsunaris Menboku Wo Tsubushita Hanashi (A Story of Losing Face). The final
proletarian Momotaro, Mutsuo Honjos Oni Seibatsu No Momotaro (Momotaros
Conquest of the Demon), was published in 1931.
Among these proletarian recreations of the story, two versions in particular
deserve our attention: one by Eguchi and the other by Honjo. As the first proletarian
version, Eguchis Momotaro was published in the October and November 1927 issues
of Akaitori (Red Bird), a monthly periodical for grade school pupils founded and
published by Miekichi Suzuki, a noted writer of childrens literature and a champion
of child innocentism (dousin shugi), an educational philosophy that values freedom
and innate creativity of children and is critical of governmental control over school
education.46 Honjos final version appeared in the May 1931 issue of Shonen Senki,
another monthly for the same readership published by the All Japan Federation of
Proletarian Arts, the premier organization for Marxist writers and artists under the
Communist Partys/Cominterns influence. My analysis in what follows will focus on
these two works. As the two authors marshaled their brilliant literary techniques to
incorporate Marxism into the story, subverting and turning it into a piece of
revolutionary symbolism, their works should highlight the rhetorical power of
folktale for political and ideological purposes. At the same time, reading the first and
the final proletarian versions of the story in tandem should provide an interesting
comparison and contrast in terms of generic requirements for, as well as historicalsituatedness of, this folktale-turned revolutionary symbolism. In one version,
Momotaro was characterized as a hero of Bolshevik revolution. In the other version,
the same folk hero was depicted as the arch enemy of the working people, i.e., a coldblooded imperialist-capitalist.
Momotaro as Capitalist/Imperialist
As the first proletarian recreation, the storyline of Eguchis Momotaro47 is basically
the same as that of the standard version: With help from his three loyal animal
companions, Momotaro, a miraculous boy, bravely took on a mission of conquering
demons in a distant land. A glance at the story, however, would instantaneously alert
us to the strong presence of Marxist ideological critique. Specifically put, what makes
390
S. Aonuma
Eguchis version proletarian is the distinct vantage point from which he constructed
the story, i.e., the story is narrated from the perspective of the demons Momotaro
conquered. This completely reverses the role that each character is assigned to play:
Momotaro as the exploiter and the demons as the exploited.
Eguchis story begins with a description of the demons life. In an island far distant
from the human world, a tribe of demons lived peacefully. One day, they held a
festival at a shrine located at the top of a rocky mountain. Except for the aged and
babies, all the other demons gathered at the shrine away from their village.
Meanwhile, old demons were enjoying basking in the sun; they were at the south
coast of the island, guarding the gate and babysitting infants. Suddenly a pheasant
flew over the gate, and then came a monkey climbing the wall and opening the gate
within. Through the gate, a baby-faced boy came in:
Attention, you demons! I am Momotaro, the number one in Japan. To conquer
your land, I come all the way across the sea from Japan. Now the battle is
declared! So Momotaro shouted, brandishing a sword in front of the demons.48
The old demons did not get frightened, however. To capture the young human boy,
they moved forward instead of surrendering or escaping. It was Momotaro who was
appalled and frightened. He was too nave to think that he could have easily conquered
the demons without actually engaging in combat, expecting that showing a sword as a
threat would do the job. Having realized that he was dead wrong, Momotaro screamed
out of fear and ran away, not even having a chance of turning back.
Back to the beach where his boat was anchored, Momotaro called his dog. Soon a
dog as gigantic as an ox came out from the boat, and Momotaro came back to the gate,
this time setting his dog on the demons. The dog assaulted the demons with its sharp
teeth and strong jaw, while Momotaro sat down just watching the fight. The old
demons bravely fought back, but unfortunately they were powerless against his gigantic
dog and soon surrendered. Momotaro commanded one of the demons to open their
storehouses and expropriated all of their treasure. Moreover, he captured some baby
demons and brought them back to Japan as souvenirs. Later in the afternoon, the
young demons came back from the festival and found that Momotaro had invaded
their land. They became furious about things he did in their absence, but, since
Momotaro and his followers were already gone, there was nothing they could do.
Then several years later, a curious news story came into the land of demons from
the human world. It was about Momotaro. Since brave Momotaro conquered the
atrocious evils in the distant land, so went the news, the human race, especially
people in Japan, admired him as a god-like figure, worshiping his pictures and
singing songs about his brave mission. There was no mentioning of his sneak attack,
the old demons, and his kidnapping of the baby demons; nor was there any
mention of the dog, the monkey, and the pheasant who did all the work. Having
heard of this, the demons recalled their furies of several years ago, and one after
another they started to accuse Momotaro of being a wimp (yowamushi), a liar
(usotsuki), and sneaky (zurui).49 Trying to calm down his angry fellows, however,
one old demon who survived Momotaros invasion interrupted the talk:
391
This talk of fury gets us nowhere. That is the way of life in the human world
anyway. [Another demon replied:] But thats unfair, isnt it? Those who work
honestly arent entitled to receive a reward, and only sneaky folks can take the
lions share? It that really the way it is in the human world? If so, then, Im sure the
land of demons is a much better place, for here everyone lives peacefully, works
honestly, and cooperates with each other. And another old black demon, with a
low-toned voice showing his conviction, replied: Yes, it certainly is. Life in the
human world is really worthless. We are the luckiest to be able to be born and live
in the land of demons. Having heard his words, all demons eased their furies and
then smiled at each other.50
Eguchis Momotaro was published when socialist realism was yet to become fully
dogmatic in the Proletarian Literature Movement. As such, his recreation still
retained the imaginary and unrealistic elements of the standard version. Just as the
Momotaro we originally knew, the story told by Eguchi is hardly an objective,
scientific, or concrete description of historical fact or truth. By contrasting the
present (i.e., humans) and alternative (i.e., demons) worlds, however, it exposes
contradictions inherent in any capitalist society and asks his readers to imagine how
wonderful it would be to live in a communist society. As Terry Eagleton maintained:
[A]ll prescriptions about what to do imply description of what is the case. It
must combine the indicative mood with the subjunctive one, yoking a coldly
demystified sense of the present to a warmly imaginative leap beyond it The
mind is called upon to be both mirror and lamp, faithfully reflecting its
surroundings while shedding a transformative light upon them. The flights of
fantasy which get in the way of trying to see the situation straight are vital to
imagining an alternative to it.51
In Eguchis Momotaro, the land of demons is represented as an imaginary utopia

where everyone lives peacefully. The human world, on the other hand, is depicted as a
place full of contradictions, where those who work honestly arent entitled to receive a
reward, and only sneaky folks take the lions share. For instance, although his
subordinates did all the work, Momotaro took the lions share and was adored and
worshipped as a god-like figure; such is the way of life in the human world, as one
demon said in the story. In so doing, Eguchi offers a rationale for creating a socialist
dream land where everyone works honestly and cooperates with each other.
Equally notable in Eguchis story is a rhetorical implication of the parallel between
Momotaros mission of conquest and Imperial Japans foreign adventurism. That is,
told from the vantage point of the demons, the story ridicules the absurdity and
destructiveness of Momotaros divine mission and exposes the not-so-divine material
motives behind it. Put specifically, the story challenges kichiku beiei, literally translated
as the demonic Anglo-Americans, a political symbol or ideograph52 which helped to
justify the atrocity inflicted upon the Asia-Pacific by Imperial Japan in the name of the
war against the white colonists. Eguchis proletarian storytelling functions as a
powerful critique of this official ideology: Imperial Japan, as represented by Momotaro,
was in fact itself a demonic imperialist seeking to colonize and exploit the rest of Asia.
It should be remembered that Eguchis Momotaro was written for ideologically
innocent school children. Yet, if the proletarian adults read this piece, they should
392
S. Aonuma
have understood why Lenin referred to Japan as the prime example when he
debunked the objective conditions of imperialism and critiqued how shamelessly
untruthful the capitalists are on the questions of annexations.53 This was the time
when all news reports were to be officially authorized by the imperial authorities.
Only good news came from China, annexed Korea, and other parts of the AsiaPacific; people were led to believe that their Empire was engaged in the Holy War,
liberating Asia from the Western imperialists. All of these did make sense within
Dowers Momotaro Paradigm: Imperial Japan played a role of a Momotaro-like
figure, emancipating the Asian nations from the hands of the demonic AngloAmericans. As Alvin Gouldner explained:
Ideology makes a diagnosis of the social world and claims that it is true. It alleges
an accurate picture of society and claims (or implies) that its political policies are
grounded in that picture. To that extent, ideology is a very special sort of rational
discourse by reason of its world-referring claims.54
Narrated from the side of the demons, Eguchis Momotaro attempted to deconstruct
the rationality of the officially sanctioned ideological discourse.
Momotaro as Working-Class Hero

Mutsuo Honjos recreation of Momotaro is a shorter and final proletarian version55;
in contrast to Eguchis, the story consistently exhibits, from the beginning to the end,
a strong presence of socialist realism. While Eguchis version remains fanciful
and folkloric, Honjo radically recontextualizes the narrative as a story of peasants
uprising and workers revolt where Momotaro is presented as a Marxist role model.
Equally important, Honjo claims that his proletarian version is a concrete description
of the real, i.e., a (hi)story that actually happened.
In Honjos version, Momotaro appears as a tenant farmer in a small village. Born out
of a peach taken from a river, he was raised as a grandchild of an old peasant couple. As
he grew up, he became a hard-working farmer, helping his old grandparents. But, as the
story goes, he began to question his life as a farmer, a sign that he developed a distinct
class consciousness, leading Momotaro to an idea of undertaking the divine mission: to
conquer the demon:
As he grew up, Momotaro started to think about the status of farmers who always
remained poor no matter how hard they worked. Rice they harvested was exploited
by the landowner as farm rent. Particularly this year, since most of their harvest
was exploited, there was little left for the peasants to consume by themselves.
People in the village backbit the landowner and called him demon behind his
back. Momotaro, too, thought that he was certainly a demon. I wish the demon
should go away. We should exterminate him!56
Momotaro knew that no history is made in a day by ones solo work alone. One
night, he talked to his grandparents of this idea and, after deliberation, they agreed
that he should carry out the mission of conquest. Given the exploitation and
393
oppression that the villagers had suffered, said his grandmother, it is natural (as it is
in dialectical materialism) for them to engage a revolt:
Listen, Momotaro. We grow and harvest rice, but we can eat yard grass only. Such
a society is not just. It is no one but a demon in the hell who can exploit us and eat
our rice to his full. We should [censored]57 him as much as we want to.58
Meanwhile, the rumor that Momotaro was to take on his mission to conquer the
landowner spread in the village. Soon many began to unite under Momotaro. Among
them were Saru-Ichi, Inu-Jiro, and Kiji-Suke,59 a trio of farmer-revolutionaries
equipped with strong leadership and special skills.
On the eve of his divine mission, the grandmother made dumplings for Momotaro
to carry and Momotaro, instead of consuming them by himself, provided the
dumplings to all who gathered and once again emphasized the significance of their
unity and solidarity. In the morning, Momotaro and his comrades left for the
landowners mansion, the place they called onigashima or the island of the demon.
To cheer themselves up, these revolutionaries sang a fight song on their way:
We farmers grow rice and wheat
Are generous and powerful;
To conquer the demon, the landowner
United for the mission, we are ready to go!60
Having encountered the farmers uprising, the landowner got frightened at his
mansion. He apologized, begged for mercy, and tried to negotiate a temporal
resolution with Momotaro and his fellow revolutionaries. But they never listened to
him, for they knew that capitalists were always liars61 and, more importantly, that
workers and farmers in Russia had won the unconditional victory:
[Conversation among the farmers] Now is the time that we should get even! We
capture that large mansion, comfortable with a lot of sunshine and cool air, and
use it as our collective storehouse. Yes! What a good idea! That mansion should
originally belong to us by nature. Beat him now! Beat him now! He is a
poisonous evil, and we should not let him live any more. And in Russia, there are
no capitalists nor landowners any more, and there people work and live peacefully.
This is what I know.62
Then Momotaro jumped into the conversation: Yes, indeed. [In Russia] farmers
and workers exterminated capitalists and landowners to the hilt. Now is our time to
go ahead! Having heard this, [the farmers] did not have any hesitation at all.63 After
besting the demonic landowner, Momotaro and his comrades declared the victory.
The treasure stripped off from the storehouse became the collective property of the
villagers. Since then, the people were able to live a peaceful life thanks to Momotaros
conquest of the demon, i.e., the landowner.
As the final proletarian version published in 1931, Honjos Momotaro turns the
folklore into a story of revolution where the folk hero is depicted as an exemplary
proletarian. The story is social-realistic in several respects. First, except for Momotaros
unnatural birth (a baby born from a peach on the river), Honjo accommodated the
story into the genre of the objective, natural, and necessary. In his recreation,
394
S. Aonuma
Momotaro was just an ordinary peasant who developed a distinct class consciousness
through farm work, i.e., his dialectic with nature. As he knew that a revolution is a work
of collectivity, he cooperated with his fellow villagers and emphasized the importance
of their unity. Facing the demonic landowner, he was uncompromising. After
conquering the demon(ic landowner), he never took the lions share. All of these
aspects of the story make Momotaro a perfect leader for proletarian social movement.
As Takiji Kobayashis64 quasi-autobiographical novel Tou Seikatsusha (A Life of the
Party Man) taught adult readers how the life of a committed proletarian should ideally
be, Honjos Momotaro provided children of the working class with a blueprint for
possible Bolshevik revolution in Japan by representing Momotaro as a working
class hero.
The story told by Honjo is also socialist-realistic in that the episode of Bolshevik
Russia was added to the story and was presented as the real and possible. The farmers
knew the success of Russian Revolution; as one farmer said in the story, in Soviet
Russia there are no capitalists nor landowners any more, and there people work and
live peacefully. The idea and necessity of a vanguard was also implied, as the
conquest of the demon was successful due not only to the (spontaneous) uprising of
the villagers (working mass) but also to the role of organizers played by Momotaro
and his party, i.e., a group of fully committed proletarian leaders represented as the
monkey, the dog, and the pheasant. In Lenins words:
Lack of training of the majority of the revolutionaries, an entirely natural
phenomenon, could not have roused any particular fears. Once the tasks were
correctly defined, temporary failures represented only part misfortune.
Revolutionary experience and organisational skill are things that can be acquired,
provided the desire is there to acquire them, provided the shortcomings are
recognized.65
Equally significant, at the end of story Honjo left the postscript to his readers, i.e.,
school children, claiming that the story adopted in school textbooks authorized by
the imperial authorities was false and that his version in fact was real and authentic:
The Story of Momotaro that you had been told [in schools] is wrong and distorted.
This is because [in Japan] there still exist landowners and capitalists. They dont want
the true story to be told to you. It is no wonder, for you are children of farmers and
workers. So these demons command your school teachers tell you a lie.66
Stating Momotaro was originally a story of revolution, Honjo rejected the textbook
version as it embraced false consciousness. Condemning that school system was
controlled by the ruling idea of the ruling class, he suggested that his readers not be
deceived by these real-life demons but be united against them instead.
Conclusions
Once flourishing as a nationwide politico-cultural dissension, the Proletarian
Literature Movement was disbanded by the government in 1934. Many involved in
the Movement were arrested and tortured to death; others were forced to accept
395
ideological conversion and became collaborators of the imperial authorities.67

Momotaro was no exception. While he was allowed to continue appearing in stateauthorized school textbooks, his story started to be featured in other state-sanctioned
cultural texts and artifacts, glorifying the Empires Holy War against the West: heroic
Japan represented by Momotaro drives out the demonic evil doers of the West and
establishes its hegemony in the world. With Japans defeat in WWII, Momotaro
completely disappeared from the political scene. Since then, no state-sanctioned
school textbook adopted this folktale; nor is there any political propaganda based on
the story. After all, as Michael McGee put, no ideological symbolism can be
divorced from past commitments.68
Japanese orator-communists in the early twentieth century failed to make Bolshevik
revolution a reality; their efforts to create Proletkult were crushed by the imperial
regime. This should never be a reason to ignore one obvious fact: strong politicorhetorical oppositions did exist when the countrys imperialism and war capitalism
were at their pinnacle. The Proletarian Literature Movement was the chief example of
such oppositions. The preceding analysis also shows literary creativity as well as
rhetorical sophistication of those who participated in the Movement. Two versions of
Momotaro-as-proletarian analyzed in this article particularly demonstrate the political
utility of folklore-turned revolutionary symbolism. Eguchi subverted the standard
version by retelling it from the side of the demons and refurbishing it with the critique
of capitalism and imperialism, while retaining the storys folkloric dimensions. Honjos
version incorporated socialist realism with the original storyline, turning this folktale to
a real story of farmers revolt and suggesting to his readers that his in fact was
authentic. Executed by Japanese orator-communists, these, I submit, are textbook
examples of rhetorical subversion. Just like the contemporary American left stealing
the symbol of family value, they chose not to invent a completely new symbol for
agitprop; they instead picked the story of Momotaro, a traditional story. Engaging
revolutionary symbolism, they turned the traditional folktale into a powerful counterdiscourse critiquing the dominant ideology and exposing its contradictions.
Among the worlds prominent political left figures, Italian Marxist Antonio
Gramsci stands out as the one who found in folklore critical rhetorical potentials. In
his words, Folklore should be studied as a conception of the world and life
implicit to a large extent in determinate (in time and space) strata of society and in
opposition to official conceptions of the world.69 When he wrote this passage,
Italy was in the hands of fascism. As one of Mussolinis prisoners, Gramsci died in
1937, never being able to put his idea into practice. Across the Eurasian continent,
however, his contemporaries in Japan launched the Proletarian Literature Movement
and were engaged in a politico-cultural struggle. The rhetorical strategy they
deployed was what Gramsci had envisioned: Fully recognizing the political utility
of folklore to oppose the official worldview or the dominant ideology, they exploited
its rhetorical power for critiquing the status quo and for creating the discursive
condition necessary for revolution. We also know that a similar politico-rhetorical
development was simultaneously taking place in North America. In 1935, young
Kenneth Burke called for the creation of counter-hegemony by way of rhetoric,
396
S. Aonuma
arguing that the American left should drop the symbol of worker and instead use a
more unifying, class-transcendent symbol of people. Unfortunately, his call was not
welcomed by his comrades at that time; yet if we can now praise Burke for doing
Gramscis work before anyone but Gramsci,70 the historical significance of
Momotaro-as-proletarian should become obvious. Namely, Japanese orator-communists may have been practicing a Gramscian rhetoric before Gramsci and, more
importantly, before Burke.
This, in fact, should come as little surprise: As far as this particular historical period
is concerned, rhetoricians, Marxists, and other political dissidents in Japan were the
best accomplices in crime. As the first comprehensive historical treatment of Japanese
rhetoric, Meiji Enzetsushi (History of Oratory in the Meiji Era) was published in 1929;
Gaikotsu, the author, declared that he published this work to express oppositions to
the dictatorial government, to support resistance of popular rights advocates, and to
further instigate clash between the people and the authorities.71 In 1930, Eizo Kondo,
a veteran Marxist-Leninist and a founding member of the Japan Communist Party,
published Proletaria Yubengaku (Proletarian Elocution), the countrys very first
practical handbook on public speaking and persuasive argumentation exclusive for
orator-communists.72 In addition, the first theoretical treatise on rhetoric in modern
Japan was published in 1937; it was authored by Kiyoshi Miki, a Marxist, a philosopher,
and one of the most influential figures in the countrys intellectual history.73 This
Japanese tradition of dissenting rhetoric even continued after WWII. Makoto Oda, a
prominent anti-establishment activist who played the leading role in the post-WWII
peace movement, wrote that the classical Greek rhetoric he studied at the University
of Tokyo where Miki had served as the Philosophy Department Chair likely
constituted the basis for his anti-war activism.74
Calling for more studies of rhetoric in international relations, Robert Oliver once
wrote: [T]here is no such thing as a rhetoric that is common to all; instead there are
many rhetorics. Peoples in separate cultures and separate nations are concerned about
different problems; and they have different systems of thinking about them.75 Perhaps.
But we also know that there have been many historical instances in which peoples with
different cultures and nationalities were engaged in rhetorical practice for a common
cause, responding to a common issue beyond boundaries. For instance, we know
globalization is a problem that should be fought not only globally but also locally; those
who consider themselves as 99 percent are taking to the street and joining Occupy
Movements not only in Wall Street but also at many other corners around the globe.
Against this backdrop, we should be more attentive to the working of localized
rhetorical dissension while, at the same time, taking into account solidarity of such
dissenting practices across borders. More specifically, I humbly suggest that, regardless
of their nationalities or citizenships, and whether they agree with communism,
socialism, or any other left politics, critical rhetorical scholars of the world should not
forget one politico-rhetorical phenomenon that took place glocally in the early
twentieth century: the workers of the world united against imperialism and war
capitalism. It was the period when international Bolshevism was formed
among the anti-war socialist left wings. The concentrated and interrelated series of
397
events on Russias western and, I would add, eastern borders. should be treated as
an integral whole And the very idea of World Revolution underlies the integral
whole.76 It is in this very politico-discursive climate that Momotaro turned
proletarian.
Notes
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
Kenneth Burke, Revolutionary Symbolism in America. Speech by Kenneth Burke to

American Writers Congress, April 26, 1935, in The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, ed. Herbert
W. Simons and Trevor Melia (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 10.
Famous Revolutionary Quotations, http://irishredstar.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/famousrevolutionary-quotations/ (accessed October 30, 2013).
Robert Glenn Howard, A Theory of Vernacular Rhetoric: The Case of the Sinners
Prayer, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_2_116/ai_n15727506/?tag=content;
col1 (accessed August 30, 2013).
William R. Bascom, Folklore and Anthropology, Journal of American Folklore 66 (1953):
28390; Richard M. Dorson, Folklore and the National Defense Education Act, Journal of
American Folklore 75 (1962): 16064; Dana Prescott Howell, The Development of Soviet
Folkloristics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992).
Matthias Eder, Reality in Japanese Folktales, Asian Ethnography 28 (1969): 19. Also see
Robert J. Adams, Folktale Telling and Storytellers in Japan, Asian Ethnography 30 (1967):
99118.
John W. Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1986).
Klaus Antoni, Momotaro (The Peach Boy) and the Sprit of Japan: Concerning the Function
of a Fairly Tale in Japanese Nationalism of the Early Showa Age, Asian Folklore Studies 50
(1991): 15588.
This article is inspired by and indebted to Shin Torigoe who collected and reviewed a variety
of Momotaro stories that existed in modern Japanese history. See his Momotaro No Unmei
(Tokyo: NHK Books, 1983).
For Yanagitas contribution to political theory, see, for instance, Kazuko Tsurumi, Yanagita
Kunios Work as a Model of Endogenous Development, Japan Quarterly 22 (1975): 2247.
The term is adapted from Ronald Walter Greene, Orator Communist, Philosophy &
Rhetoric 39 (2006): 8595; and James Arnt Aune, Rhetoric & Marxism (Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1994), 1543.
Robert James Branham, Debate and Dissident in Late Tokugawa and Meiji Japan,
Argumentation and Advocacy 30 (1994): 13149; Miyori Nakazawa, A Rhetorical Analysis
of the Japanese Student Movement: University of Tokyo Struggle 196869 (PhD diss.,
Northwestern University, 1989).
Hiroko Okuda, Murayamas Political Challenge to Japans Public Apology, International &
Intercultural Communication Annual 28 (2005): 1442; Toshiyuki Sakuragi, Doi Takako: A
Japanese Player of the Western Game of DialogueDois Speech of September 17, 1987,
Howard Journal of Communication 4 (1992): 10517.
Roichi Okabe, Yukichi Fukuzawa: A Promulgator of Western Rhetoric in Japan, Quarterly
Journal of Speech 59 (1973): 18895.
Takeshi Suzuki and Frans H. van Eemeren, This Painful Chapter: An Analysis of Emperor
Akihitos Apologia in the Context of Dutch Old Sores, Argumentation and Advocacy 41
(2000): 10211.
Satoshi Ishii, Buddhist Preaching: The Persistent Main Undercurrent of Japanese
Traditional Rhetorical Communication, Communication Quarterly 40 (1992): 39197.
398
S. Aonuma
[16] Yuko Kawai, Neoliberalism, Nationalism, and Intercultural Communication: A Critical

Analysis of Japans Neoliberal Nationalism Discourse under Globalization, Journal of
International and Intercultural Communication 2 (2009): 1643.
[17] Patricia Steinhoff, Protest and Democracy, in Democracy in Japan, ed. Takeshi Ishida and
Ellis E. Krauss (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989), 172; Also see David E.
Apter and Nagayo Sawa, Against the State: Politics and Social Protest in Japan (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1984); Ellis S. Krauss, Thomas P. Rohlen, and Patricia G.
Steinhoff, eds., Conflict in Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984).
[18] Rikki Kersten and David Williams, eds., The Left in the Shaping of Japanese Democracy:
Essays in Honor of J. A. A. Stockwin (London: Rutledge, 2006); George R. Packard, III,
Protest in Tokyo (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966).
[19] John L. Morrison, The Absence of a Rhetorical Tradition in Japanese Culture, Western
Speech 36 (1976): 89102.
[20] See, for example, Celeste Michelle Condit and John Louis Lucaites, Crafting Equality:
Americas Anglo African World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); Michael Calvin
McGee, The Origin of Liberty: A Feminization of Power, Communication Monographs 47
(1980): 2345; Michael C. Leff and Fred J. Kauffeld, eds., Texts in Context: Critical Dialogues
on Significant Episodes in American Political Rhetoric (New York: Routledge, 1995).
[21] Aune, Rhetoric & Marxism; Lee Artz, Steve Macek, and Dana L. Cloud, eds., Marxism and
Communication Studies: The Point is to Change it (New York: Peter Lang, 2006); Dana L.
Cloud, Fighting Words: Labor and the Limits of Communication at Staley, 1993 to 1996,
Management Communication Quarterly 18 (2005): 50942; Terry Eagleton, Walter Benjamin
or Toward a Revolutionary Criticism (London: Verso, 1981); Ronald Walter Greene,
Another Materialist Rhetoric, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 15 (1998): 2141;
Greene, Orator Communist; Richard W. Wilkie, Karl Marx on Rhetoric, Philosophy &
Rhetoric 9 (1976): 23246.
[22] Herbert Marcuse, Counterrevolution and Revolt (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972), 80.
[23] Michael Calvin McGee, The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology, Quarterly
Journal of Speech 66 (1980): 14.
[24] James Arnt Aune, Culture of Discourse: Marxism and Rhetorical Theory, in Argumentation Theory and the Rhetoric of Assent, ed. David Cratis Williams and Michael David Hazen
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1990), 165. Also see Dana L. Cloud, The Rhetoric
of <Family Values>: Scapegoating, Utopia, and the Privatization of Social Responsibility,
Western Journal of Communication 62 (1997): 387419.
[25] V. N. Volosinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, trans. Ladislave Matejka and I. R.
Titunik (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 23.
[26] Unless otherwise specified, the historical synopsis of Japanese Marxism and the Proletarian
Literature Movement given in this article is based on the following: Hirotaka Koyama, Nihon
Marukusushugi Shi (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1956); Ken Hirano, Showa Bungaku Shi (Tokyo:
Chikuma Shobo, 1963); Yukio Kurihara, Proletaria Bungaku To Sono Jidai (Tokyo:
Heibonsha, 1971); Hiroaki Matsuzawa, Nihon Marukusushugi No Shiso (Tokyo: Chikuma
Shobo, 1973); Kazuo Nimura, The Formation of Japanese Labor Movement: 18681914, in
The Formation of Labour Movements 18701914: An International Perspective, Vol. II, ed. M.
van der Linden and J. Rojahn (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), rpt., http://oohara.mt.tama.hosei.ac.
jp/nk/English/eg-formation.html (accessed October 30, 2013); Hideo Odagiri, Shakaibungaku Shakaishugibungaku Kenkyu (Tokyo: Seisou Shobo, 1990).
[27] Evelyn S. Colbert, The Left Wing in Japanese Politics (New York: Institute of Pacific
Relations, 1952), 7.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Kazuo Ohkouchi, Koutoku Shusui To Katayama Sen: Meiji No Shakai Shugi (Tokyo:
Koudansha, 1972).
399
[30] Ibid., 17279.

[31] Akito Yamauchi, The Early Comitern in Amsterdam, New York, and Mexico City, The
Journal of History (Kyushu University) 147 (2010): 11112.
[32] Hyman Kublin, The Origin of Japanese Socialist Tradition, The Journal of Politics 14
(1952): 269.
[33] Miriam Silverberg, Changing Song: The Marxist Manifestos of Nakano Shigeharu (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), 4748.
[34] Quoted in Christopher Goto-Jones, The Left Hand of Darkness: Forging a Political Left in
Interwar Japan, in The Left in the Shaping of Japanese Democracy (New York: Routledge,
2006), 5.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Vladimir I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/
download/what-itd.pdf (accessed August 30, 2013), 34.
[37] Asao Yuichi, Proletaria Bungaku Undo: Sono Riso to Genjitsu (Tokyo: Banseisha, 1991), 10.
[38] Hilary Chung and Tommy McClellan, The Command Enjoyment of Literature in China:
Conferences, Controls, and Excesses, in In Party Spirit: Socialist Realism and Literary
Practice in the Soviet Union, East Germany, and China, vol. 6 of Critical Studies, ed. Hilary
Chung (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1996), 3.
[39] Quoted in Yuichi, Proletaria Bungaku, 10.
[40] Martin Dewherst, Socialist Realism and Soviet Censorship System, in In Party Spirit:
Socialist Realism and Literary Practice in the Soviet Union, East Germany and China, vol. 6
of Critical Studies, ed. Hilary Chung (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1996), 24.
[41] Jerry Phillips, Marxism and Utopia Socialism, http://www.english.ilstu.edu/Strickland/495/
utopia.html (accessed August 30, 2013).
[42] Burke, Revolutionary Symbolism; Also see Frank Lentricchia, Criticism and Social Change
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 2829.
[43] Torigoe, Momotaro, 94.
[44] For a picture book currently available in English, see Momoe Saito and Ralf F. McCarthy,
The Adventure of Momotaro, the Peach Boy, bilingual ed. (Tokyo: Kodansha International,
1996). For Momotaro comics (in Japanese), see Makoto Niwano, Za Momotaro, vol. 2
(Tokyo: Homusha, 2004).
[45] Reading Japanese Folklore in English: Momoraro (The Peace Boy), Karashidanes Blog,
March 14, 2011, http://blog.livedoor.jp/karashidane/archives/50832281.html (accessed
November 30, 2013).
[46] Regarding the relationship between child innocentism and Marxism, see, for example,
Takashi Kumagai, Bungaku kyouiku (Tokyo: Kokudosha, 1956), esp. Chapter 1.
[47] Kiyoshi Eguchi, Aruhi No Onigashima, Jou, Akaitori (October 1927): 4853; Aruhi No
Onigashima, Ge, Akaitori (November 1927): 4047.
[48] Eguchi, Jou, 51.
[49] Eguchi, Ge, 47.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Terry Eagleton, Figures of Dissent: Critical Essays on Fish, Spivak, Zizek and Others (London:
Verso, 2005), 8788.
[52] McGee, Ideograph.
[53] Vladimir I. Lenin, Preface, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), http://
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref01.htm (accessed August 30, 2013).
[54] Alvin W. Gouldner, The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: The Origins, Grammar, and
Future of Ideology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 31 (my italics).
[55] Mutsuo Honjo, Oniseibatsu No Momotaro, Shonen Senki (May 1931): 89.
[56] Ibid., 8.
400
S. Aonuma
[57] Typical of works published in this period, a word or two are made blank in a copy of the
original print obtained from the National Diet Library.
[58] Honjo, Oniseibatsu, 9.
[59] These correspond to three animals, i.e., a monkey, a dog, and a pheasant, that supported
Momotaro in the standard version. In Japanese, saru refers to monkey, inu dog, and kiji
pheasant.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Takiji Kobayashi was one of the most prominent and active members of the Proletariat
Literature Movement. He was arrested and tortured to death by the authorities in 1932.
[65] Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, 19.
[67] For a comprehensive discussion on the issue of war-time ideological conversion, see Shugo
Honda, Tenko Bungaku Ron, 3rd ed. (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1985).
[68] McGee, Ideograph, 13.
[69] Antonio Gramsci, Selections from Cultural Writings, ed. David Forgacs and Geoffrey NowellSmith, trans. William Boelhower (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 189.
[70] Lentricchia, Criticism, 37. For a more contemporary rhetorical (re)appropriation of Gramsci,
see Joseph P. Zompetti, Toward a Gramscian Critical Rhetoric, Western Journal of
Communication 61 (1997): 6686.
[71] Gaikotsu, Meiji Enzetsu Shi (Tokyo: Seikokan Shoten, 1929), front cover.
[72] Eizo Kondo, Proletaria Yubengaku (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1930).
[73] Kiyoshi Miki, Kaishakugaku To Shujigaku, in Miki Kiyoshi Zenshu 5 Kan (Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten, 1967 [original published in 1937]), 13958. For contemporary studies of Mikis
rhetorical theory, see Mitsuhiro Hashimoto, Miki Kiyoshi No Rhetoric To Communication, Hikaku Bunka Kenkyu 49 (2000): 6168; Hideki Kakita, Rhetorical Resistance in
Wartime Japan: Kiyoshi Mikis Critical Praxis (PhD diss, University of Iowa, 2003).
[74] Kimihiko Ohtsuru, Demo Ni Koso Honshitsu Ga Aru, Ohtsuru Kimihiko No Blog, July 27,
2008, http://ootsuru.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/cat20507669/index.html (accessed August 30, 2013).
[75] Robert T. Oliver, Culture and Communication: The Problem of Penetrating National and
Cultural Boundaries (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1962), 155 (italics in original).
[76] Yamauchi, The Early Comintern, 112.

Momotaro As Proletarian

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Momotaro As Proletarian

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies

ISSN: 1479-1420 (Print) 1479-4233 (Online) Journal homepage: http://nca.tandfonline.com/loi/rccc20

Momotaro as Proletarian: A Study of Revolutionary

Published online: 19 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Date: 10 September 2015, At: 15:29

Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies

Momotaro as Proletarian: A Study of

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

remaking of this folktale as a form of rhetorical subversion, explicating how the

Marxism, Proletkult, and the Proletarian Literature Movement

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

As Japanese labor turned to socialism and became more politically involved, it

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Momotaro as We Ordinarily Know Him

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Reading Momotaro With Marx

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

In Eguchis Momotaro, the land of demons is represented as an imaginary utopia

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Momotaro as Working-Class Hero

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

ideological conversion and became collaborators of the imperial authorities.67

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

Kenneth Burke, Revolutionary Symbolism in America. Speech by Kenneth Burke to

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

[16] Yuko Kawai, Neoliberalism, Nationalism, and Intercultural Communication: A Critical

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Revolutionary Symbolism in Japan

[30] Ibid., 17279.

Downloaded by [National Communication Association] at 15:29 10 September 2015

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi