My winter this year was Natsume Soseki’s 1906 satirical novel I Am a Cat (Original Title: Wagahai wa neko de au). The novel is Toblom from the perspective of an unknown cat, and includes some observational vignettes of Master Snaze (Sozeki’s own concept), Mrs Snaze (his wife), and Mrs Snaze (his wife) of Muzie’s single man, Mrs Snaze (his wife). This post is not intended to be a different analysis of the novel’s theme. This is not a time or a place. Rather, I would like to highlight the sub-elements that found the plot and how they relate to the modern American world.
But first, a little background:
The Meiji era was one of Japan’s turbulent turbulence. In February 1867, Prince Mutshito was taken over the throne and became emperor of Japan. For over two centuries, the Japanese emperor was a nominal title. In reality, the country was ruled by Shogun, known as Tokugawa, and 300 feudal lords, by the news known as Tokugawa Shogun (1603-1868). However, after Admiral Matthew Perry forced trade in 1853, Western influence began to enter this isolated culture, putting pressure on Shogan to modernize. In the end, the pressure got too high. On November 9, 1867, the Tokugawa River hut resigned. On January 3, 1868, a new government was formed under Emperor Mutoshito (known as Emperor Meiji after his death).
Mutshito has undergone many reforms, including abolishing class privileges and creating an elected advisory body street. Furthermore, Japan had just achieved a decisive victory over Russia in the Japanese War, causing public pride among the Japanese. The Meiji era was experiencing rapid social, cultural, political and economic changes.
I am a cat, written during this turbulence. And in the different characters (and the cat itself), we see anxiety, hope and concern. This is especially true in Volume III, which counts many interesting arguments. For example, at one point, by observing what we now call “the main agent problem,” the cat says:
Similarly, civil servants are servants of the people and can acquire reasonable Bengards as agents who entrust specific authority to be exercised on their behalf in the operation of public service. But just as before officials were used to the daily domination of things, they begin to acquire delusions of grandeur, acting as if the authority they exercise was in fact themselves, treating people as if they weren’t speaking out about the issue (Pg 361, Kindle Edition).
Also, in a paragraph that resembles the parable of Adam Smith’s poor man’s son, they are concerned about commercial values (how street “modern people” affect people’s characters, as Snaise spoke.
Modern man never stops thinking about what will benefit him, even his deepest sleep. In the morning, in the noon, and at night he secretly feels anxious and does not know peace. There will be no momentary peace until the cold takes him. That is the condition in which our so-called civilization holds us. And what a mess (Pg 440).
(Please also be aware of loss aversion for this concern.)
The power of social change.
“There you can see how time has changed. It’s not that long. The power of an authoritative person was unlimited. There are certain specific things.
And then channel Adam Smith again. Human duality desires freedom and domesticity.
Obviously, individuals have each become a little stronger because of this new personality. But of course, everyone was growing stronger, so everyone was growing weaker than their fellow individuals… Everyone wanted to be stronger naturally.
I was able to quote this book in Langth, but I’m already too long to reach my point.
What I have is that by reading foreign literature (and interacting widely with foreign cultures), we see the universality of humanity. I have the same concern. There is the same joy. We have the same goals in life. Certainly, any line and language separate us. Geography can have an impact. But as nationalists often argue, it’s not too different for us to interact with. Foreign interactions help us to see our common humanity. This helps us to sympathize with foreigners and break down the so-called “distinguishment between friends and enemies.”
