by Abe Kobo
Beasts Head for Home
WEATHERHEAD BOOKS ON ASIA
Abe Kōbō
Beasts Head for Home
A NOVEL
Translated by Richard F. Calichman
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK
Columbia University Press gratefully acknowledges the generous support for this book provided by Publisher’s Circle member Donald Keene.
This publication has been supported by the Richard W. Weatherhead Publication Fund of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University.
Columbia University Press
Publishers Since 1893
New York Chichester, West Sussex
cup.columbia.edu
Kemono tachi wa Kokyou wo Mezasu
Copyright © 1957 by Kobo Abe
English translation rights arranged with the Estate of Kobo Abe through Japan UNI Agency Inc., Tokyo
Translation copyright © 2017 Columbia University Press
All rights reserved
E-ISBN 978-0-231-54466-5
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Abe, Kōbō, 1924–1993, author. | Calichman, Richard, translator.
Title: Beasts head for home: a novel / Abe Kōbō; translated by Richard F. Calichman.
Other titles: Kemonotachi wa kokyō mezasu. English
Description: New York: Columbia University Press, 2017. |
Series: Weatherhead books on Asia | First published in Japanese as Kemonotachi wa kokyō mezasu.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016041666 (print) | LCCN 2017001595 (ebook) | ISBN 9780231177047 (cloth: alk. paper) | ISBN 9780231177054 (pbk.)
Subjects: LCSH: Japanese—Manchuria—Fiction. | Identity (Psychology)—Fiction. | Manchuria (China)—History—1945—Fiction. | Psychological fiction. | GSAFD: Historical fiction.
Classification: LCC PL845.B4 K413 2017 (print) | LCC PL845.B4 (ebook) | DDC 895.63/5—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016041666
A Columbia University Press E-book.
CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at [email protected].
Cover design: Lisa Hamm
Cover image: [composite] Shutterstock
Contents
INTRODUCTION
Beasts Head for Home
Introduction
Abe Kōbō’s novel Kemonotachi ha kokyō wo mezasu (Beasts head for home, 1957) occupies a rare place among his fictional writings. Abe’s most famous works typically provide a bare minimum of proper nouns as indicators of people and place, as he seeks to present situations whose meaning, in its generality, goes beyond the limits of any particular context. Indeed, as he once remarked in an interview, “In my fiction, proper nouns are insignificant; they don’t need to be there.”1 And yet Kemonotachi ha kokyō wo mezasu is inconceivable without the specificity of its references, for these mark the concrete place and time of postwar Manchuria. Abe possessed firsthand knowledge of Manchuria, having been raised in the city of Shenyang within the confines of the Japanese colony that had been established there. Certainly the attention to historical detail that punctuates the novel can be traced back to Abe’s own experiences in Manchuria, but it must be remembered that Kemonotachi ha kokyō wo mezasu is neither Abe’s only novel set in Manchuria (Owarishimichi no shirube ni [The signpost at the road’s end, 1948] is also set there) nor his only “historical” novel (in Japan, it is rather Enomoto Buyō, published in 1965, that is regarded as Abe’s most properly historical work). In the present novel, Abe grounds fictional characters and situations in a concrete historical setting in such a way as to provoke among his readers a reconsideration of the relation between historical specificity and those more general elements that remain irreducible to any particular historical event.
Historically, Kemonotachi ha kokyō wo mezasu depicts one of the overlooked casualties of Japan’s transition from empire to nation-state following the end of the Pacific War. As part of the terms of its surrender in 1945, Japan was forced to relinquish control of its extensive colonial holdings throughout Asia. This transfer of territory brought about a drastic reorganization of populations on at least three levels: (1) Japanese soldiers and civilians residing overseas began to return en masse to the Japanese islands; (2) a large majority of those colonized peoples first brought to Japan for the purpose of slave labor gradually returned to their countries of origin; and (3) the collapse of the various institutions supporting the colonial framework brought an end to the ideological identification among the colonized as members of the Japanese Empire, resulting in the emergence of new forms of subjective affiliation. It is against this background of dislocation among peoples, for whom the shift from the wartime to postwar periods effectively invalidated previous modes of identification and belonging, that Abe describes Kuki Kyūzō’s tortuous journey from Manchuria to Japan.
Abe is intent on re-creating the specific historical context in which Kyūzō finds himself. In a chronology of global events from 1946 to 1948, the narrator informs us that “the Foreign Affairs Office reports that a total number of 4,039,447 Japanese remain unrepatriated.”2 In envisioning the figure of a Japanese youth abandoned in what was previously the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo, Abe provides a layer of fictional representation to the Soviet occupation of Manchuria and the final years of the Chinese civil war between the Nationalist and Communist (Eighth Route Army) forces. If the narrative present of the novel focuses on the Soviets and Chinese as the central collective agents in postwar Manchuria, however, we must not fail to note how Abe continually refers back to the wartime figure of Japan. This he does not simply through the technique of flashback, significantly, but also by alluding to the surviving traces of that otherwise vanished past. Just as, at the very opening of the novel, Kyūzō’s room is described as in a sense haunted by the remnants of an absent past—“On the wall, pale traces remained of such long ago objects as a dresser and picture frame, adding to the sense of emptiness”3—so, too, is the former presence of wartime Japan signaled throughout Abe’s text in terms of such things as a Chinese Nationalist military truck expropriated from the Japanese army, the Residence of Overseas Japanese Retainers, the discontinued Japanese repatriation ships, and the red roofs of “the Japanese residential district from long ago,”4 as well as of course the lingering hatred toward the Japanese that prevents the characters from freely speaking the Japanese language in public.
Yet if Abe is committed to the task of recalling this history of Japanese militarism, we should nevertheless not be led to reduce the complexity of his ideas as introduced in the work to mere empirical history. This would be to fall into the trap of historicism, understood here as the reduction to a strictly empirical event of what are rather general conditions of possibility. Such a trap can be seen, for example, in the literary critic Isoda Kōichi’s “Commentary” (kaisetsu) on the novel that is appended to the original paperback edition. Isoda writes as follows regarding the issue of man’s historical situatedness:
Moreover, how effective can it possibly be for an individual to assert his autonomy [jishusei] when encountering a reality in which even his personal safety cannot be guaranteed without passing through the mesh of politics? When reality is enmeshed in political relations, even the escape of the individual cannot take place by ignoring the political power of the outside world. Even such questions as “What is an enemy?” and “What is an ally?” are determined by external reality and its contingencies. An autonomous individual is nothing; rather, it is only the “relations” with the outside world that determine the raison d’être of the “individual.”5
Isoda forcefully argues that the individual is to be seen in the essential context of his relations with the wor
ld. Taking issue with a liberalist conception of the individual as existing, in his freedom, originally distinct from others, inhabiting a personal zone of integrity and autonomy, Isoda insists that no autonomy can be achieved without first negotiating the multiple bonds that determine the individual as inherently social. Indeed, Kemonotachi ha kokyō wo mezasu can be read as a particularly vital illustration of this point in showing how Kyūzō’s desire to return to Japan is consistently thwarted by forces over which he ultimately has no control, forces that expose the limits of his freedom and so ground him in the complex reality that is postwar Manchuria. Nevertheless, the notion of “reality” (genjitsu) to which Isoda appeals in order to disclose the restrictions placed upon personal autonomy derives quite clearly from the empirical context that surrounds Abe’s protagonist. The “political relations” that threaten an individual’s “personal safety,” as he writes, refer in this instance to a postcolonial Manchuria in which the vacuum created by Japan’s defeat has given rise to a violent, lawless society that is temporarily under Soviet occupation but where a protracted battle for national sovereignty is being waged between the Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces. It is this larger political reality that Isoda regards as the foremost restraint upon individual autonomy. In attributing the impossibility of such autonomy to empirical circumstances, however, Isoda disregards the possibility that individuality can never be formed or fully achieve itself under any circumstances whatsoever—and this for essential rather than merely empirical reasons. What is required here, in other words, is a shift of perspective from the discourse of historiography to that of philosophy. Isoda provides a crucial insight into Abe’s text by reminding us that the “autonomous individual is nothing,” but the explanation for this failure of autonomy—without which, in all rigor, the individual is incapable of ever forming himself qua individual—is to be sought less in particular historical phenomena than in the general, or essential, exposure of individual propriety or identity to worldly alterity. In Abe’s novel, such exposure cannot be limited to the specific site of Manchuria or to the specific time of the postwar period. On the contrary, the protagonist Kuki Kyūzō’s inability to achieve a sphere of selfsame identity marks itself from the very moment he originally appears in the world as such.
How then can we as readers recognize this force of alterity operating throughout the novel? I would like to argue that, in the particular context of Kemonotachi ha kokyō wo mezasu, Abe elaborates what might be called a notion of homelines that serves to call into question the fixity or givenness of all borders, and above all those borders that delineate the space of the home. Here the concept of home that appears in the very title of the novel would refer not only to the “hometown” or “native place” typically designated by the word kokyō. On the contrary, an attentive reading of the novel reveals that Abe seeks to generalize this concept by reconceiving the notion of border. The traditional understanding of home requires the functioning of borders, but Abe implies that this use of the border paradoxically dissimulates or disavows its force. Whereas the boundary that allows a home to appear in its identity is seen to mark its difference from the nonhome, or that which exists outside this privileged domestic space, Abe suggests instead that borders can at any moment potentially be drawn within that internal space itself, thereby disrupting its putative unity. In the novel, Kyūzō learns this lesson from Kō, who emphasizes the precarious and strangely proliferating nature of the border:
“I wonder where we are now.”
“We’re probably about twelve miles outside of Taonan.”
“Will we go into town there?”
“No, we won’t be able to. We’re still at the border between friend and enemy. When all is said and done, I think, the most dangerous thing is a border. They’re more dangerous than being in the midst of enemies. At least in my experience, they certainly are.”
“Then how about the next town?”
“The next town is Shuanggang. That’s also on the border. The towns after that, Kaitong, Bianzhao, Tanyu, Taipingchuan, as well as the towns thereafter, are all on the border. In times such as these, the border definitely expands.”6
In these lines the border is narrowly determined as that between friend and enemy, but Abe’s reconceptualization of the notion of home leads him to define this space more broadly as referring to any privileged site of interiority whose enclosure appears to provide security or a sense of refuge vis-à-vis the threat of external difference. The home territory that Kyūzō and Kō seek, therefore, would in principle safeguard them from the outer force of the enemy by consolidating their bonds with the friends or allies whom they identify as in some sense similar to themselves. Here the relation between the notions of border and home comes clearly into view: the borderline that demarcates the home establishes the nonhome, or the foreign, in that same gesture, thereby determining the home as the site of identity, interiority, and security, while simultaneously projecting the qualities of difference, exteriority, and danger onto the alien nonhome. It is in order to disturb or in some way unsettle this bounded oppositionality that Abe is led to conceive of a proliferating homelines, in which the presence of fixed or given borders comes to be desedimented and traced back to the instituting act that first allows these borders to appear as themselves. No home is possible without this act of bordering, and yet the maintenance, or continued recognition, of the home as such demands that this border be constantly redrawn in order to confirm the distinction between friend and enemy, inside and outside, security and danger. For Abe, the disclosure of the border as in truth an act, continually repeated, of redrawing borders effectively threatens the security and self-identity of the home, since this latter is incessantly redetermined at each and every moment homelines are marked.7
In Kemonotachi ha kokyō wo mezasu, Abe presents a variety of homes whose delineation introduces an essential instability to this concept, one that the reader is tasked with recognizing. I would like to identify four such instances of homelines, where Abe both sets forth what appears to be a space of interiority and security and demonstrates how this space is from the beginning—that is to say, beyond the limits of historicism—violated from within: (1) the home qua individual subject, (2) the home qua family, (3) the home qua nation-state, and (4) the home qua human. It is these four levels of home, Abe suggests, that provide in their overlapping mediations the major framework by which to understand the modern world as depicted in the novel.
1. Given the nearly exclusive focus throughout the novel on the figure of Kuki Kyūzō, it may be tempting to read Abe’s work as an example of bildungsroman, a novel of formation or education in which the main character’s development is reflected in his changing ideas about Japan and himself as Japanese. In the sense that the other characters in the novel are viewed largely from Kyūzō’s subjective standpoint and that the otherwise neutral third-person narrative comes frequently to be breached by his own narrative voice, there can be no question that Kyūzō occupies the very center of this text. Yet it is precisely this centrality that Abe calls into question by attending to the particular borders that establish the protagonist’s unique identity and thus distinction from others. By the very name Kuki Kyūzō, for example, in which the initial character of the youth’s last name is doubled in the initial character of his first name, Abe hints at the repetition and internal divisibility that mark all instances of identity. This theme of duplicity can in fact be found scattered throughout the work, from the appearance of Kō, whose theft of Kyūzō’s travel certificate allows him to fraudulently represent himself to others as Kyūzō, to the occasional references to the Japanese mainland (or “Japan proper”: naichi), which comes in the course of colonial expansion to be duplicated by the gaichi, or “external territories,” where Kyūzō was born and raised and where the novel is first set, to finally the conspicuous date of 2.22 that appears in the ship’s log toward the end of the work. These instances draw attention to the manner in which the sphere of oneness, whose b
oundaries function to maintain the self in the unity of its home, finds itself continually exposed, drawn outside itself into other iterations.
For Abe, it is important to unearth the conceptual prejudice involved in the literary convention whereby characters must be presented as ultimately unified. By absorbing the variety of differences manifested by characters as strictly instances of internal difference, the discourse of literature in effect reveals its debt to the most classical notions of subjectivity. In the character of Kyūzō, one can see Abe respond to this domestication of alterity in the particular language of his descriptions, and above all in his use of the word tanin, or “other(s),” which typically signifies those people outside of or in addition to one. Let me cite three instances of this term so as to emphasize the unusual status with which Abe endows Kyūzō: (1) After having been viciously beaten by Kō: “I might die now, he felt at last, as if referring to someone else [taningoto/hitogoto].” (2) Upon arriving both physically and mentally exhausted at the Residence of Overseas Japanese Retainers: “He felt absolutely no sense of reality. He could not even distinguish whether he felt happy or sad. Only his long journey ran through his mind, as if it were someone else’s [tanin] story.” (3) Finally, in a profoundly ironic sense given that Kō has illicitly claimed Kyūzō’s identity for himself, Kyūzō considers that “Kō’s fate could no longer be someone else’s [taningoto/hitogoto] problem.”8
In these passages, Abe attempts to underscore the elusive nature of difference by focusing on the divisibility that marks the subject in the entirety of his relations with the world. This would represent a radicalization of the traditional literary device of the doppelgänger, in which an already existent self is merely doubled on the outside. On the contrary, Abe’s intent here is to show that the root of such duplicity is to be found in the essential insufficiency of identity. Much like his novel Tanin no kao (The face of another, 1964), the subject-protagonist discovers that the appearance of the double must be traced back to a difference that lies at the very heart of the one, thereby preventing the one from ever fully encapsulating—or, as it were, homing in on—itself. At the end of the novel, Kyūzō finds himself to be doubled twice: first by Kō, who in his insanity now believes himself to actually be Kyūzō, and then by himself, as he dreams of two distinct Kyūzōs, one safely inside the walls of the home and the other outside, excluded, unable to do anything but look in. Regardless of whether Kyūzō is doubled by another character or by himself, or indeed whether such doubling divides his actual self from a dream self or a dream self from a second dream self, Abe’s overriding concern is to examine the fault, or cut, that inhabits all forms of unicity. Once doubled—and again, there can be no appearance of identity without this doubling—the home that is the individual subject finds itself to be internally violated.