death, modernity and monuments: the realities expressed in the monuments of the hanshin–awaji...

Death, Modernity and Monuments:The Realities Expressed in the Monuments

of the Hanshin–Awaji Earthquake*

NOBUO IMAI

Abstract: Many monuments have been constructed to commemorate theHanshin–Awaji earthquake. If a memorial represents the need to reaffirm one’sties to “a world,” each monument is supposed to provide an image of that“world.” An analysis of the monuments shows that they are greatly influencedby the character of the various organizations and groups that constructed them.Therefore, the monuments almost appear to be linked to the duties or functionsof these groups. However, two realities appeared across these organizations. Atfirst, there is a pattern in the monuments to mourn the death of those with whomone in familiar. It expresses a spiritual feeling about death. Second, we often findthe word “we” in the monuments. The word “we” expresses reality in ahomogeneous space. Although each reality does not correspond to a particulartype of group or organization, they cannot be expressed simultaneously in theone monument. The result of the research shows that the two realities areconstituted through different means.ijjs_1167 119..132

Keywords: earthquake, modernity, monument

Introduction

As stated by Yoichiro Murakami, “religion,supposing we rely upon a usage of Buddhistwording, is a set of narratives which tellabout this and the other world, and it is noneother than the process of ‘articulation’ of lifeas a whole” (Murakami, 1984: 27). In the eraof post-religious sociology, then, we mustconsider how this “articulation of life” hasbeen conditioned and replaced.

As time has passed since the GreatHanshin–Awaji Earthquake struck Japan on

17 January 1995, a variety of what could becalled “monuments,” such as cenotaphs andstructures to commemorate the spirit of thevictims, have been constructed in variousareas of the disaster. These monuments,symbolically representing the disaster, canbe regarded precisely as reflections of an“articulation of life.”

This paper defines these monuments as“structures that have been put up for repre-senting ‘something’ that is related to theGreat Hanshin–Awaji Earthquake,” andthere are 116 monuments1 which fit thisdefinition. Here we need to explore theimplications of this “something,” and toexamine the realities in contemporarysociety that bring us articulation of life aswell.

Original Article: “Shi to kindai to kinen koui: Hanshi-Awaji daishinsai no ‘monyumento’ ni miru riariti,”Japanese Sociological Review (2001) 51(4), 412–429.*Translation by Yu Fukuda, Graduate School of Soci-ology, Kwansei Gakuin University.

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Japanese Sociology doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6781.2012.01167.x2012, Number 21

© 2012 The AuthorInternational Journal of Japanese Sociology © 2012 The Japan Sociological Society

“Particular Deaths” and

Memorial Events

It has already been pointed out by severalscholars that the act of “commemoration” isdeeply related to modernization. Forexample, Hutton indicates, based upon theargument of Ariès, that as a result of a sen-sibility that emerged in the late 18th andearly 19th centuries,“lived experience of thepast can never be directly retrieved,” “theneed to reaffirm ties to a world that waspassing” led to practices of commemoration(Hutton, 1993: 2). “A world that waspassing” can be conceived as “a world”whose totality is maintained by “symbolicexchanges,” i.e. a “symbolic realm” asdescribed by Baudrillard. This symbolicrealm consists of a single form in everydomain of “reversibility, cyclical reversaland annulment” (Baudrillard, 1993: 2). Inshort, if reversibility and a cyclical reversalare lost, then death (loss of life) can neverbe recovered because it has gone forever.

Masahiro Ogino coined the term, “orderof recollection” which is “a way of construct-ing order sustained by recollection of thedead who used to be members of a commu-nity although they reside in sacred space atpresent,” to clarify the model that createsthe community as one totality of life anddeath. Through this “order of recollection,”according to Ogino, the basis of a commu-nity is to be constructed by “the deaths of itsfamiliars” (Ogino, 1998: 19).

In modern society, however, only life andproduction came to have value, while deathno longer exists as a symbol of exchange.According to Ryuzo Uchida, who com-mented on Baudrillard’s book, “the ratio-nalism of industrialized society destroyedthe ambivalence which life of man couldhave, giving that aspect which is merelyuseful for life and production positivevalue,” yet, “the negative aspect, which isrelated to insanity, illness, or death, wouldremain as a negative.” The conversion or

exchange of these negatives to positives isexcluded, and only the brighter aspect of lifeis valued after the separation of the brightand the dark aspect of mankind. Thus, “thedark aspect,” i.e. death, will be excludedas “a thing that cannot be included intoany exchange of human value, that is anetwork of communications” (Uchida, 1987:143–144).

Henceforth, it transpires that “death” isno longer available to create a totality inmodern society. Nevertheless, “death” cameto play a significant role in modern societyin other ways than as a form of symbolicexchange. This is the modern phenomenonwhich Ariès describes as “the confluence ofthe death and the national sentiment”(Aries, 1977: 492).

Memorial Day in the USA, the com-memoration of war-dead, is an illustration ofthis new role of death. Warner clearly dem-onstrated that Memorial Day is attached toa sense of the nation, in this case “the Statesof America.” In a sense, we have becomeresponsible for paying “special honor” tothe war dead who sacrificed their lives fortheir country. Through this feeling, asWarner explains, groups and organizationsthat are socially divided and opposed toeach other by gender, class, race, and reli-gion are able to share a sense of “the totalcommunity.” Similarly to Ariès, Warner alsoindicated a sense of collectivity in earlymodern society with the term, “cult of thedead” (Warner, 1959: 249, 278–279).

Anderson states at the beginning ofChapter Two, “Cultural Roots,” in his bookThe Imagined Community:“No more arrest-ing emblems of the modern culture ofnationalism exist than cenotaphs and tombsof Unknown Soldiers” (Anderson, 1983: 17).

However, not all the dead are worth com-memorating. One must have died, symboli-cally, for “a state.” Despite the fact that“unknown soldiers” or “war dead,” whichare special groups of dead in the early stagesof a nation, Parsons and Lidz point out thatnational sentiment is also unified through

Nobuo Imai120


the death of a figure of prominence, such as“the death of J. F. Kennedy” (Parsons andLidz, 1967: 160). Kennedy’s funeral becamea national funeral, and by virtue of massmedia, various people were able to “partici-pate” in the funeral service. “The death ofKennedy” constitutes the social communityof a whole nation, regardless of religionsand denominations, including Protestants,Roman Catholics, and Jews, in the same wayas Memorial Day provides the sense of atotal unity across social boundaries.2 To sumup, by “particular deaths” (Parsons andLidz, 1967: 142) (not simply death by thosenoted as war dead or a prominent figure)can the reality of a nation be experienced asan integrated community beyond any socialdivisions.

Then, who are the “particular dead” thatare worthy of this “particular honor,” andwhere are they located in the case of asociety where the nation is already estab-lished and where a state of war has sus-pended for the present?

For Baudrillard, the significant death inmodern society is “the violent death” causedby “accidental, criminal, or catastrophic”events (Baudrillard, 1993: 165). While it was“natural death” which had a huge signifi-cance for communities at the time of thesymbolic exchange, it is the “violent death”which is regarded as the most significant incontemporary society. Baudrillard observesthis as an attempt to perceive the “artificial-ity of death,” because the accidents andcatastrophe are experienced as “sociallysymbolic events of the highest importance,as sacrifices” (Baudrillard, 1993: 165).

In fact, it is for society that the placementof “violence” is fundamental. First of all,people can get rid of the need to face the“natural” aspect of death by emphasizingthe “violent” aspect. On top of that, thecause of death is to be regarded as social.Consequently, it is implicated ultimatelythat “death” has its meaning in its “social”dimension, that is, in the dimension of “lifeand production.”

Ariès, for example, points out that “thegap between the bookish death whichremains garrulous in books and the actualdeath, shameful and unspoken, is one of thestrangest but most significant characteristicsof our era,” with regard to the massiveamount of novels dealing with the theme ofdeath (Aries, 1967: 178). Taking this intoaccount, Uchida indicates that, “in fact,today’s paradox is not the taboo of death,rather it is a whole structure involving a gapbetween non-discursive manipulation of thedeath taboo and the discursive practice ofgarrulity on death” (Uchida, 1987: 132).Here, social exclusion and garrulity of“death” take place in parallel.

Norms and Values

As we discussed above, if we suppose thatthere is on the one hand “the death of thefamiliar” which one commemorates as asymbolic exchange, and the “particulardeath,” which can be observed in such set-tings as national commemoration, on theother hand, we must also turn our eyes tothe social relations that make it possible toconstitute each “death.”

For Anderson, social relations that haveappeared in modern society can be charac-terized as a “literal” phenomenon. Accord-ing to Anderson, the way people constructtheir narratives, as is observable in pre-nation literature, is by dialogues betweendifferent characters (explaining each rela-tionship on their own) (Anderson, 1983:33–34). Masachi Osawa explains this phe-nomenon as follows, “it’s because the narra-tives are drawn only from the immanentviewpoint [of characters] that readers arealso restrained by that viewpoint” (Osawa,1996: 36–37).

In contrast with literature in pre-nationsocieties, Anderson draws attention toexpressions, which have become viable inliterature after the nation had been estab-

Death, Modernity and Monuments 121


lished (the late 19th century) (Anderson,1983: 30–31). The expression, “A and Bmake love, while C quarrels with D,” impliesthe existence of readers “who overlook” and“a homogeneous space (and its boundary)”in which it is overlooked. Suggesting that“social experience” in the pre-nation periodarose in a direct and face-to-face network insuch a way that the character in the centerwas facing others, Osawa points out that inthe period after nation had been estab-lished, “a sense of community developedcompletely independently from face-to-facerelations,” allowing for the experience of asocial relation as a “homogeneous andunified totality which involves no privilegedview point. . . . In short, each constituentmember of a community must obtain theexternal transcendent viewpoint which iscomparable to omniscient readers in novelsto sense the unity of a nation” (Osawa, 1996:37).

Thus, it can be considered at present that“the face-to-face network” is restricted to“the inherent viewpoint on the surroundingworld,” whereas “non-face-to-face relation-ships” can have “an omniscient point ofview.”

According to Hobsbawm, likewise, theconstruction of a large quantity of monu-ments at the time of the rise of nationalismcan be considered to be a part of the “inven-tion of tradition,” “which seek to inculcate

certain values and norms” (Hobsbawm,1983: 11).

Taking this into account, it can be saidthat the “norms and values” represented inearthquake monuments can be thought ofas reflections of “a world.”3 If commemora-tion can be thought of as an act directedtoward “a world,” as Hutton points out(Hutton, 1993), four features can be identi-fied by crossing the two axes of “face-to-faceand non-face-to-face relationships” and“death and life,” that might provide aneffective perspective to analyze the “world”represented in monuments. Those are “thedeath of face-to-face relationships,” “thedeath of non-face-to-face relationships,”“the life of face-to-face relationships,” and“the life of non-face-to-face relationships.”

Therefore, 116 earthquake “monuments”4

in the Hanshin–Awaji disaster areas havebeen selected for this investigation, all ofwhich are classified into five categories5 bythe organizations who founded them(schools, local communities, religious orga-nizations, administrations, and service orga-nizations). As we observe the tendencies ofthese organizations, we can discover that thecharacteristics of monuments are stronglyaffected by their functions (duties) (seeTables 1,2).

Commemoration practices of schools aredirected toward students (“life in face-to-face relationships”), those of administra-

Table 1. “Death of face-to-face relationships” and “death of non-face-to-face relationships” in monuments

Number of cases directedtoward “death offace-to-face relationships”

Number of cases directedtoward “death ofnon-face-to-facerelationships”

Number of cases notdirected toward“death” Total

Schools 14 (12) 0 (0) 20 34Local communities 14 (2) 2 (2) 5 21Religious organizations 1 (1) 12 (11) 8 21Administrations 0 (0) 6 (5) 8 14Service organizations 1 (1) 2 (2) 7 10Others 6 (3) 7 (6) 3 16Total 36 (19) 29 (26) 51 116

( ) is number of monuments with inscriptions.

Nobuo Imai122


tions are directed toward local communities(“life and death of non-face-to-face rela-tionships”), those of religious organizationsare directed toward all the living and thedead (“death and life of non-face-to-facerelationships”), and those of service organi-zations attempt to contribute to the wholesociety (“life of non-face-to-face relation-ships”). All those practices reflect the dutiesof the organizations that constructed amonument. From this standpoint, the localcommunities (“death of face-to-face rela-tionships”) can be seen as exceptionalfor they are the only organizations thatconstructed monuments out of theirfunction.

Let us turn for a moment to the realityfound in the earlier stages of the nation.When various groups are to be integrated asa nation that share “a world,” ritual prac-tices directed toward “the particular dead”exist as norms and values beyond the rangeof normal duties or functions. Henceforth,the ritual practice of “prayer” formulates “aworld” ex post facto.6 If an earthquakemonument is strongly influenced by thefunction of an organization who founded it,we can assume that they are not able toreflect values and norms that lie beyond thelimits of social divides and constitute an“imagined community.”

This does not mean, however, that suchritual practices cannot form an imagined

community in contemporary society. It canalso be said that the characteristic of monu-ments remains within the range of theirfunctions, for the imagined community hasalready been set up.

We can observe in epitaphs of the earth-quake monuments, the characteristic usageof the words “prayer” and “memory.”

Noble prayer for the GreatHanshin–Awaji Earthquake

Based on the dignity of life that we experiencedin the great earthquake, we keep on praying togrow up to be open-minded members of a societywith robust health and sure scholastic ability.(Shiomi Junior High School). . . As we pray to advance the reconstruction ofthe city . . . (Nagata Shrine). . . In memory of the importance and precious-ness of life and nature, we hereby built a monu-ment . . . (Masago Junior High School)“Be prepared at all times,” the disaster memorialmonument of Konan Gakuen, the GreatHanshin–Awaji Earthquake (Konan Gakuen)

Although these are just a few examples, it isnotable that the words “prayer” and“memory” are used to represent spiritualfeelings in monuments. In addition, it isnoteworthy that in many cases the word“memory,” on one hand, is used for remem-bering the earthquake disaster, whereas“prayer,” on the other hand, is employed toexpress the “wish for reconstruction.” Inother words, the words “prayer” and“memory” can be understood as words

Table 2. “Life of face-to-face relationships” and “life of non-face-to-face relationships” in monuments

Number of cases directedtoward “life of face-to-facerelationships”

Number of cases directedtoward “life ofnon-face-to-facerelationships”

Number of casesnot directedtoward “life” Total

Schools 25 (22) 3 (3) 6 34Local communities 5 (3) 3 (3) 13 21Religious organizations 1 (1) 9 (8) 11 21Administrations 0 (0) 11 (9) 3 14Service organizations 1 (1) 9 (9) 0 10Others 3 (2) 5 (5) 8 16Total 35 (29) 40 (37) 41 116

( ) is number of monuments with inscriptions.



directed toward “life,” that is, toward the“future” of the imagined community.

We have already confirmed that themodern way to construct reality is through“the confluence of death and the nationalsentiment.” The sensibility of the nation isformed ex post facto through the act of“prayer.” On the contrary, such words as“prayer” and “memory,” when directedtoward the living, are premised on “theimagined community that is to be recon-structed” and “the disaster that is to berecorded.” Based on these premises, there-fore, most of the monuments can be thoughtof as representations of the “values andnorms” of each organization.

If the norms and values expressed inmonuments are limited in their range offunction, the difference between face-to-face or non-face-to-face relationships can bethought of as a matter of size of the found-ing organization, or a matter of their insti-tutional role structure. This is probably notrelated to the “reality” that we must clarifyin this paper. Rather, more research aboutthe monuments is required, set up by localcommunities whose characteristics are notrestricted to a range of their functions.

Death as Symbolic Exchange:

Reality to Cross

Organizations

Considering that norms and values are rep-resented in monuments as reflections ofsocial functions, we must examine to whatextent institutional structures and socialroles influence the monuments, that is to saythe extent of the “sociality” of monuments.To do so, it is worth concentrating on the“literal inscriptions” of monuments.7 Inshort, we must clarify whether the existenceof words in inscriptions on monumentsascribes to a character of an organization,or that some kind of reality makes an

organization carve particular words into amonument.

Following our classification, only the localcommunities have fewer inscriptions inmonuments compared with other organiza-tions. First, this can be thought as a result ofthe influence of sociality. In contrast, we canpresume such cases that represent some-thing are related to their functions or to theprocess of founding monuments, and thatthis leads to an increase in the number ofwords. In the case of schools, for instance,“writing and composition” is closely relatedto their function. Similarly, in the case ofreligious organizations, it is understandablethat they inscribe words related to their doc-trine and scripture. In the case of adminis-trations or service organizations, moreover,inscriptions are usually planned and oftenexperts or artists etc. are asked to constructa monument.

Thus, we can hypothesize here that the“few words” on monuments of local com-munities reflect their sociality. However, animportant characteristic of the monumentsof local communities is that they aim tocommemorate the dead in a face-to-facerelationship. As already seen, “the death ofthe familiar” was an aspect which has beenexcluded in the process of modernization. Ifwe consider the dominance of the literalcommunication in modern society, it canalso be assumed that fewer words, that is,relatively non-literal expressions, can beassumed as a reflection of the reality whichwas dominant in pre-modern society. If so,the existence of a few words in monumentsfor commemorating the familiar can bethought of as a reflection of the “symbolicexchange” or “order of recollection” whichwas once persuasive. Hence we proceed toinvestigate monuments other than localcommunities, which are directed toward“the death of face-to-face relationships” andthose of local communities with inscriptionsto find out how the reality based on a world-view of face-to-face and non-face-to-facerelationships is represented in monuments.

Nobuo Imai124


First of all, we turn our attention to themonuments of schools, which are directedtoward only “face-to-face relationships.”Monuments that were placed in Syukugawaand Taisya Elementary Schools were con-structed to commemorate the studentvictims of each school. The only inscriptionthey have is “rest in peace.”There is anothermonument, with an inscription, that wasfounded by a local community. The monu-ment in the Nigawa Landslide Museum,which was founded to commemorate thelocal victims, similarly has only “in peace”inscribed on it.

Furthermore, there are monuments whichcombine the features of “death and life offace-to-face relationships.” The monumentsin Seido High School and MiyagawaElementary School were both founded tocommemorate student victims, and todeclare the determination of studentsgraduating at the time. These can be consid-ered to be monuments which include fea-tures of “the death and life of face-to facerelationships.”

. . . We lost something of enormous value in aninstant. Overcoming this sorrow, raising newhopes and dreams . . .Forever rest in peace (name of the deceased) . . .(Seido High School). . . Along with the dreams of the friend whopassed away. A step towards a future filled withhope.In peace (name of the deceased) . . . (MiyagawaElementary School)In both cases, the first half of the inscrip-

tion is directed toward “the life of face-to-face relationships” and the latter halfdirected toward “the death of face-to-facerelationships.” While relatively manyexpressions of “the life of face-to-face rela-tionships” can be seen, there are far fewerdescriptions of “the death of face-to-facerelationships.”

In fact, the phrase “rest in peace” was theonly inscription dedicated to “the death offace-to-face relationships.”8 Yet expressingsomething in words can be thought of as anact of transcription (= literacy), whereas the

schools’ duty, closely related to transcribing,is not able to find words for “the death offace-to-face relationships.” Or it may bebetter to say that “letters” are themselvesavoided to represent “the death of face-to-face relationships.”9

A typical type of monument directedtoward “the death of the familiar” is inNakano-Kita Park. This monument is builtto commemorate local victims. The front ofthe monument, is inscribed with just oneword, “cenotaph,” and the names of thedeceased from that area are inscribed on theback. A memorial ceremony held everyJanuary has been a place for people whowere familiar with the deceased to gettogether and share memories of thedeparted ever since the monument wasfounded. One of the local residents who wasalso one of the founders, said “I want this tobe a place where we can look back and talkabout the departed with nostalgia.”10

Baudrillard talks about the world where“symbol exchange” exists, as follows:

For death is something that is shared out,and we must know how to share it outamongst objects just as much as amongstother men. Death has only given andreceived meaning, that is to say it is social-ised through exchange (Baudrillard, 1993:166).

Here, to be “shared out amongst othermen” and to “share it out amongst objects”is inseparable. In the case of Nakano-KitaPark, “building a monument” and “talkingabout the deceased” has functioned as a wayto share out death with others and withobjects as well. Hereby, the reality of socialexchange with the familiar dead can be seenas being represented by a monument. Thus,it can be said that the monument is a form inwhich the sense of community can be sus-tained through recollection directed towardthe familiar dead.11

We have seen one reality crossing a levelof organizations. This was a form of sym-bolic exchange with the familiar dead. Thesymbolic exchange is observable in a



present-day monument, notwithstandingthat it reflects the form of the reality whichwas dominant in pre-modern society. Then,is the reality which became dominant inmodern society also recognizable in monu-ments that extend beyond immediate dutiesand across organizations?

“We”: Reality to Cross

Organizations

As we have seen above, the reality of thenation that Anderson has clarified consti-tuted omniscient readers who could “over-look” and the existence of a “homogeneousspace” on which they looked down. In fact,there were inscriptions on monuments forfamiliar dead, however, people who wish forthe dead to “rest in peace” are the onesfamiliar with the deceased. We do not seeany “omniscient viewpoint” or “homoge-neous space” here.

To reflect once again on his argument,Anderson finds “the imagined community”in the fact that a protagonist was called “ouryoung man” in the work of an Indonesiannationalist (Anderson, 1983: 36):“The imag-ined community is confirmed by the dualityof our reading about our young man”(Anderson, 1983: 37).

To rephrase this, the “homogeneous spaceand subject” were established by “our youngman” in the first place, so that “the imaginedcommunity” finds itself on firm groundthrough the “double” act: that of the exist-ence of “space” and “subject” which iswidely shared in the totality of an actualsociety (=“we” as omniscient readers).

In the case of the Nishinomiya Earth-quake Memorial Park, there is a monumentto mourn the dead of Nishinomiya City andfor citizens to pledge their determinationfor the municipal policy of the future. Thereare two plates on the side of the monumentwith inscriptions that list the names of thevictims where the word, “we” can beobserved.

. . . We will never forget the fact that we wereable to overcome the hardships of the disaster byvirtue of warm encouragement from all over thecountry and the support provided by citizens anda large number of volunteers. Here, the monu-ment for mourning the victims is erected to leaveon record the Great Hanshin–Awaji Earthquakeand to hand down undying memories of itsvictims for ever and ever.In the coldest dawn, the earth shook with aroar, and the city sank. Please, rest in peace.We make a pledge to build up Nishino-miya again, a beloved city where we canlive safely, a beautiful city filled with hope. . . (Nishinomiya Earthquake Memorial Park)In the first plate, “to hand down memo-

ries” can be interpreted as words directedtoward the “life of non-face-to-face rela-tionships.” In contrast, the next plate can beunderstood as words dedicated to thevictims, directed toward the “death of non-face-to-face relationships.”

It is clear that this writing not only takesthe form of the first person plural “we,” butalso presents “the omniscient position”which overlooks the axis of time, that isfrom the past to present, and to the future,by using the words, “hand down memories.”

Furthermore, the word “us” is also seenon the municipal monument of Kobe, whichis placed in the Higashi-Yuuenchi Park.Thismonument has its light on always, and theepitaph is inscribed as follows:

. . . 1. 17, the light of hope.At 5:46 a.m. on January 17, 1995, the GreatHanshin–Awaji EarthquakeWhat we lost, our lives, work, happy circles,streets, and memories,. . . The limit of the human being, never predict-able for even a second . . .What the earthquake left us, kindness, thought-fulness, bonds, and friends,This light ties and links with all the life which islost and the feelings of us who have survived . . .(Higashi-Yuuenchi Park)The word, “we” is also recognizable in

other monuments of organizations. Themonument in the Yakusen Temple is con-structed with a pillar, utilizing one from thedestroyed Oowada Bridge. It is inscribedwith,“here, we reconstruct the main pillar as

Nobuo Imai126


a monument, that is ‘a living witness’, thatexperienced both the war and the earth-quake” to “remember them forever and toexpress our feeling to appease the deadspirit.”

Another example of the expansion of“the imagined community” through theexpression of “we” is a monument depictinga globe which was placed in Seaside Park.The city of Kobe preserved the globe, whichhad originally been a part of another monu-ment, “the tower of green,” but collapsed inthe earthquake. The inscription on the platebeside it is as follows.

. . . The Southern Hyogo Earthquake whichdropped this globe, with a diameter of 1.2 metersand a weight of 2.4 tons, indeed shook the earth,namely “our world,” to its very foundations. Itwas no doubt an event of a scale for which wehave no words. For we should not forget thememories of the terrible disaster, we should lookback on this fallen globe to remember. . . .(Seaside Park)

“Our world,” as narrated by the meta-phoric expression of the globe, can beunderstood exactly as a physically expandedform of “the imagined community.” As welook at these monuments, the reality of a“we-feeling” is also evident in monumentsof various organizations which transcendsocial borders, as we saw in the reality of the“familiar death.”

Yet, the word “we” was not seen onmonuments for the “death of face-to-facerelationships.” Taking that into account arethese two realities, the reality of the order ofrecollection, which is related to familiardeath on the one hand, and the reality of a“homogeneous space” together with an“omniscient viewpoint” that we havedetected within the “we-feeling” on theother, albeit based on completely differentframings of “a world”? To have relevance tothe argument about the difference in socialrelations, if the sense of community iscreated through the remembrance of thefamiliar dead, then their reality is to be guar-anteed by face-to-face relationships, and sothe word “we” does not suit the monuments.

The Alternative “We”: Past,

Present, and Future

As we mentioned above, the whole totalityof a society is experienced by transcendingactual social divisions at the time of thebuilding of a nation. However, this does notmean that a “particular death,” such as thewar dead, directly contributes to building“the imagined society.”

In the case of “Memorial Day,” forexample, an organization, “GAR” plays acrucial role in forming “the imagined com-munity.” “GAR” refers to the “Grand Armyof the Republic” which consists of soldierswho fought in the civil war. According toWarner, members of the organization areregarded as “symbols of a past and a crisis ofthe United States” (Warner, 1959: 251). Asin the case of Kennedy’s funeral, peoplesuch as “the bereaved” and “Kennedy’s wifeand her children” were given “a very specialsymbolic position,” which was indispensablefor carrying out its function. They exist as “asymbolic focus for a bereaved nation and,beyond that, a bereaved world” in whichbereavement is to be shared widely and poi-gnantly by millions (Parsons and Lidz, 1967:161).

When we look back on the study of“Memorial Day,” the subject of “we” is alsorepeated in the ritual narratives (Warner,1959: 258–259). In these cases, however,“we” as the subject is not based on thepremise of “the imagined community.”Rather, “we” functions for all the nations tosense “particular death” transcending socialdivides. It is through the ritual behaviors ofthe practice of commemoration that “we” astheir narration is literally sensed as theyspeak, and so “the imagined community” isformed ex post facto.

Suppose we refer to a “particular death”as a symbolic death which provides a basison which to form a whole nation, peoplefamiliar to the deceased, such as thebereaved, can be designated as a “particularlife.” In sum, it is through the practices of



commemoration to form a nation that a“particular life” is placed among the par-ticular dead and the living of non-face-to-face relations, so that the ritual core isformed to tie the two together.

With respect to practices of commemora-tion concerned with a “particular death,” itis implied that the ritual action concernedwith a “particular life” forms the core of theconnection between the “particular death”and the “community of non-face-to-facerelationships,” thus leading to the construc-tion of the imagined community.

Let us look at the inscription fromHigashi-Yuuenchi Park once again. Here, itcan be noticed that the word, “us” has beenmodified to “who survived.” In the begin-ning, the “particular life” played a significantsymbolic role for all the members, allowingthem to sense the “particular death.” Bycontrast, the “inscription” from Higashi-Yuuenchi Park indicates the expansion ofthe “particular life.” The modifier, “who sur-vived” in the inscription classifies all “life”as “particular life.”

As we have seen above, a “particularlife” had the quality of being directlyrelated with a “particular death,” forexample, through the bereaved or familiars.This inscription, however, shows the realitythat all the members of society are placedwithin a category of “particular life” whichis not directly related to any “particulardeath.” This expansion of the “particularlife” can be observed in the following caseas well.

. . . ThisIt is this that happened in the pastIt is this that might happen againThus, it needs to be rememberedIt needs to be remembered over and overAs we surviveFrom now on . . . (Akashi Park)This inscription also describes the “we” as

being a “particular life” by the rhetoric useof the word “survive.” Furthermore, it mustbe noted in this inscription that the “particu-lar life” is qualified by “this,” that is, theearthquake that occurred in the past. This

point is very important when we try tounderstand the implications of alternativereality.

The expansion of a “particular life” isbased upon the premise of the existence of“us.” It is not the reality we can observe inthe early stages of a nation. It is not thereality that forms an imagined communityex post facto, or strengthens it.

When reconsidering reality based on thepremise of “the imagined community,” thefollowing point, made by Yusuke Maki, iscrucial.

No matter how the past is “refined as a model,” itrequires some extent of actual, material existencefor it to be considered a past reality. On the con-trary, the future can be considered as a morepurified form of the independent modern self inthe sense that it is not theoretically restricted bysuch factuality. (Maki, 1997 [1981]: 242)In the early stages of a nation, “we” as a

member of “the imagined community” wasformed around the core of a “particulardeath.” However, it is the “we” that is notrelated to “death” that can be seen here; it isthe “we” that is assumed to exist and hasexisted from the past to the present, andbeyond to the future.As we confirmed in thesecond section, the words, “memory” or“prayer” can be regarded as directives to thefuture (based on the premise of the imag-ined community), to recollect (the past of)the earthquake, and to determine therevival of the city.

This directivity to the future can bedivided into categories of directivity to“life,” regardless of face-to-face or non-face-to-face relationships. This can be typicallyseen in the monuments of schools whichcannot recall the “death of face-to-face rela-tionships” (that is, no student was killed atthe school).

. . . From the day of the earthquake, January 17th,we have experienced so many things. Now ourschool building has been repaired, and a newschool life starts. Remembering with a gratefulheart the people who supported us, together,hand in hand, we will build a wonderful KozonoElementary School. (Kozono ElementarySchool)

Nobuo Imai128


Aim for the future.The town trembled terribly. Collapsed houses,lives that disappeared, the days we helpedeach other in the prefab school, sharing adesk between two. We also shared our smallplayground.The children of Muko-Minami have perseveredtogether and have overcome many difficulties.With this new school building, let us aim forthe future now . . . (Muko-Minami ElementarySchool)

“We” as an expansion of a “particularlife.” “We” taking the direction towards thefuture, seeking the meaning of “life.” Bothcan be considered as realities based uponthe premise of the imagined community thatemerged after the establishment of thenation.

From the standpoint that this new realityis based upon (a chronological order ofpast–present–future of) “us,” it acquires astructure of self-reference which guaranteesthe “life (of the present and future)” by the“life (of the past).” Considering the fact thatthe number of monuments that are not“directed towards death” (51 cases) is largerthan those that are not “directed to life” (41cases) (see Tables 1 and 2), this alternativereality, which has newly emerged, mightalready be pervasive among our society.

Furthermore, it should be emphasizedthat the “we” (in the present) who experi-enced the earthquake (in the past) guaran-tees the existence of “us” (in the future) whowill remember that experience. Accordingto Maki, while “the ground of the past” is“the ground of the interpretation of a world,”“the ground of the future” is “the ground ofthe reformation of a world” by virtue ofpractice, and at the same time “much morereal” (Maki, 1997 [1981]: 242–243). Makicontinues: “The ground of the past, as longas it is linked with practices, is already theground of the future” (Maki, 1997 [1981]:243).

Let us reflect on the inscription thatshows the expansion of a “particular life.” Itcan be noticed that a “particular life” doesnot warrant a relationship with “particular

death,” but rather a relationship with theexperience of the earthquake (the past).Similarly, the case of the inscription indicat-ing a direction toward the future has thatfuture guaranteed in the past of the earth-quake. The implication of an alternativereality is (on the assumption of the imaginedcommunity) based upon the axis of thepast–present–future, to form a relationshipin which the past guarantees the state of thepresent and the present guarantees the stateof the future. In that sense, it can be said thateither the expansion of a “particular life” or“directivity to the future (devotion to life)”suggests the “purified modern.”12

Conclusion

The act of the construction of monumentshas spread by an increase of commemora-tion functions, accompanied by the expan-sion of the non-face-to-face network inmodern society and the tide of change in thelocations of “death” and devotion to “life.”On the other hand, however, it can beunderstood as a practice to retrieve thefunctioning of symbolic exchanges.

There is a way to analyze society chrono-logically, while overlooking the pre-modern,modern, and post-modern. As discussed inthis paper,“society itself” has been analyzedby concentrating on changes as discussed byBaudrillard and Anderson.13 Nevertheless,we have clarified that it is not each society asa whole that has changed, but rather a plu-rality of many realities that has occurred.What does it mean to live in these pluralrealities? This paper is just the beginning offurther inquiries into this topic.

Notes

1 A large number of monuments came to beknown through a photo exhibition held in Sep-tember 1998 that showed 33 photographs of



monuments in the disaster area taken by a localphotographer. Soon after the exhibition, a localvolunteer group, “Ganbarou Kobe” and theMainichi Newspaper began to collect informa-tion on monuments. They named the monu-ments in the disaster area Shinsai monumento(disaster monuments) and published theShinsai monumento map which introduced 55monuments in 1999, and 120 in the year 2000.Considering that information on the monu-ments was collected by the media and a volun-teer group, it may be reasonable to assume thatthese 120 monuments included all of those thatexisted at that time.The Shinsai Monumento Map Committeedefines the monuments as a structure placed ina “public” space which “expresses an intentionto hand down the memory of the disaster,”including not only structures but also paintingsand tree-plantings.Owing to the fact that “a monument” is gener-ally regarded as “a structure for commemora-tion,” this paper investigated 116 monumentsas a sample non-inclusive of non-structuresfrom the 120 and additions in some cases in afollow-up survey.On 17 January 2001, a new edition of the“monumento map” was distributed, and thenumber of the monuments had increased to158.

2 Kiyomitsu Yui sets out a viewpoint of the sym-bolic significance of the “particular death” in asocial community which has also been referredto by Parsons (Yui, 2000a).

3 The author has conducted investigations toclassify earthquake monuments (32 cases)which employ the key terms “instructivelesson” and “mourning” etc. (See Imai, 1999).

4 The 116 monuments under consideration are asfollows (in no particular order). Inscriptions ofthe monuments cited in this paper are pre-sented in their original layout (except for punc-tuation marks) in order to maintain the overallimpression they make.Itami: Yamada Shrine.Takarazuka: Yuzuriha Green Tract, TakarazukaShrine, Takarazuka Animal Cemetery.Amagasaki: Kozono Elementary School, JonaiElementary School, Amagasaki City HighSchool, Tachibana High School, Tachibana-West Elementary School, Forza Mukonosou,Muko-Kita Elementary School, Muko-MinamiElementary School,Suidou Elementary School.Nishinomiya: Kawaragi Junior High School,

Kouryou Junior High School, Takagi Elemen-tary School, Ushiro Wasai Gakuin, TsumonElementary School, Masago Junior HighSchool, Nigawa Landslip Museum, Kabu-toyama Sou, Uegahara Junior High School (twomonuments), Nishinomiya Earthquake Memo-rial Park, Taisha Elementary School, Syuku-gawa Elementary School, Otemae University,Kouroen Elementary School.Ashiya:The Hanshin Expressway Public Corpo-ration, Seidou High School, Hamakaze no ie,Miyagawa Elementary School, Ashiya-MinamiHigh School, Ashiya High School, ShiomiJunior High School, Asahigaoka ElementarySchool, Sanpachi doori Shopping Center,Seidou Nursery School, Seidou ElementarySchool,Ashiya Park,Seidou Kindergarten,Nyo-raiji Temple, Tsuji Park, Konan Gakuin.Kobe: Konan University, Houtouike Park,Honjo Cemetery, Nakano-minami Park,Nakano-kita Park, Hokura Shrine, Nakanoma-chi Park, Motoyama Route 2, Uozaki WardLand, Motomezuka-Higashi Park, YuzuruhaShrine, Takaha Cemetery, Kobe University,Tsuga Ward, JR Rokkomichi Station, Nishi-Nada Park, Nishi-Nada Elementary School,Kankiji Temple, Nunobiki Park (two monu-ments), Higashi-Yuuenchi Park (two monu-ments), Earthquake Disaster Memorial Park,Sannomiya Center-gai,Shinkou-chou,Motoma-chi Shopping Center, Ookurayama, Kuon-jiTemple, Amida-ji Temple, Oowada Bridge,Yakusen-ji Temple, Wada Shrine (two monu-ments), Mitsuishi Shrine, Ozaki-yahata Shrine,Cookie-koubou mommy, Omoike-chou,Rokuban-chou, Nagata Shrine, Kobe TokiwaGirls’ High School, JR Shin-Nagata Station(two monuments), Asuta Kunizuka, FutabaElementary School, Hiyoshi-cho, TakatoriChurch, Manpuku-ji Temple, Daikoku Park(four monuments), Suma Ward Office, SeasidePark, Suma-dera Syoukakuin, Suma-deraNioumon, Suma-ura Park, Tamonroku Shrine,Hiyodorigoe Cemetery (two monuments),Kongou-ji Temple, Saikou-ji Temple (twomonuments), Municipal Iwaoka residence,Kobe Gakuin University.Akashi: Akashi Park, Akashi Ginza ShoppingCenter, Kanon-ji Temple.Awaji-shima: Awaji Highway Oasis, Hokudan-cho, Ichinomiya-cho community residence,Shizuka Hall, Kumata disposal site.

5 Founders of monuments were classified asfollows. “Schools” include pre-schools, elemen-

Nobuo Imai130


tary, junior high, and high schools, universitiesand vocational colleges; “local communities”include neighborhood councils, property wards,and town planning committees etc; “religiousgroups” include temples, shrines, and churches;“administrations” include prefectures andmunicipalities; and “service organizations”include volunteer groups.Some monuments only have explanations,facts, or records of the disaster, such as “recordsand photographs of the disaster” and “explana-tions of the extent of the damage.” As long asthey exist as monuments, these could beregarded as directing toward “life of non-face-to-face.” However, from the standpoint of thispaper, which attempts to explore “the world”through the key concept of “norms and values,”the monuments not expressing any values ornorms were classified as neither directingtoward “death” nor “life.”

6 Words of prayer dedicated to the dead are alsorecognizable in Warner’s analysis of MemorialDay (Warner, 1959: 248–279).

7 This investigation classified monuments byinscription of any kind of “words” which havea direction toward an object. This derivesfrom the varied knowledge of scholars regard-ing “literal culture” as a modernistic form ofcommunication, such as Anderson’s “printcapitalism” or Marshal McLuhan’s consider-ation of “print” as media (McLuhan, 1964).In concrete terms, a monument was takeninto consideration when a certain semanticdescription other than explanation, fact, orrecord that is related to “The Great Hanshin–Awaji Earthquake” or “1.17” was expressed as“literal expressions.”For this reason, “inscriptions” in this paperindicate words which literally express “valuesand norms” or “meanings,” so it must be notedthat the literal expressions of “explanations,facts, or records” are excluded as objectsunder consideration.

8 The monuments of Seidou Kindergarten andSeidou Nursery School can be considered asexceptional in this regard. Despite the fact thatthey were both founded in the direction “deathof face-to-face,” each of the monuments hasplenty of words inscribed on them. The style ofthe inscriptions in both monuments is in the“narrative tone.” It can be presumed that this isrelated to the age of the victims.

9 This does not mean that words will not beinscribed for the “death of non-face-to-face”

because there is a possibility for death to beobjectified and verbalized.

10 Interviewed by the author on 13 July 1999.11 All monuments which only have an inscription

of the names of the victims (Uosaki propertyward, Houtouike Park, and Nakano-chou Parketc.) were those directed toward the death ofthose familiar.

12 Needless to say,“we” as seen in the early stagesof a nation can be relatively different from thealternative reality. It cannot be differentiated asa boundary between a form of symbolicexchange and modern reality.

13 Yui already points out, referring to the unpub-lished paper of Parsons, that “The nostalgia toGemeinschaft which ‘was lost’ ” is “a themerelated to historical establishment of sociologyitself” (Yui, 2000b: 38).

References

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nation-alism. London: Verso.

Aries, Philippe. 1967.“La mort inversée: Le change-ment des attitudes devant la mort dans lessociétés occidentales.” Archives européennes desociologie 8: 169–195.

Aries, Philippe. 1977 (1985). L’homme devant et lamort 2: La mort Ensauvagee. Paris: Editions duSeuil.

Baudrillard, Jean. 1993. Symbol Exchange andDeath. Translated by Iain. H. Grant. London:Sage.

Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983. “Introduction: InventingTradition.” Pp. 1–14 in The Invention of Tradi-tion, edited by Eric Hobsbawm and TerenceRanger. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hutton, Patrick. 1993. History as an Art of Memory.Hanover: University Press of New England.

Imai, Nobuo. 1999. “Samazama na Shinsai-monumento ga imi suru mono.” Pp. 298–312 inHanshin daishinsai kenkyuu 4, daishinsai gonen no saigetsu, edited by Kobe DaigakuShinsai Kenkyuu Kai. Kobe: Kobe ShinbunSougou Syuppan Center.

Maki, Yusuke. 1997 [1981]. Jikan no hikaku sya-kaigaku. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media:The Extensions of Man. New York: New Ameri-can Library.



Murakami, Yoichiro. 1984. Hi-nitijou no imi tokouzou. Tokyo: Kaiou-sya.

Ogino, Masahiro. 1998. Shihon syugi to tasya. Nishi-nomiya: Kwansei Gakuin University Press.

Osawa, Masachi. 1996.“Neisyon to esunisiti [Nationand Ethnicity].” Pp. 27–66 in Iwanami kouzagendai syakaigaku, Vol. 24, edited by ShunInoue, Chizukol Ueno, Masachi Osawa, Mune-suke Mita and Shunya Yoshimi. Tokyo:Iwanami Shoten.

Parsons, Talcott and Victor Lidz, 1967. “Death inAmerican Society.” Pp. 133–170 in Essays inSelf-Destruction, edited by Edwin Shneidman.New York: Science House.

Shinsai Monumento Map Committee and MainichiNewspapers. 2000. Wasure nai 1.17: shinsai

monumento meguri. Osaka: YoubunkanSyuppan.

Uchida, Ryuzo. 1987. Syouhi syakai to kenryoku.Tokyo: Iwanami Syoten.

Uenishi, Isamu. 1999. Shinsai irei-hi, private edition.Hyogo: Monumento.

Warner, Lloyd. 1959. Yankee City Series, Volume 5:The Living and the Dead. New Haven: YaleUniversity press.

Yui, Kiyomitsu. 2000a. “Death in America: W. L.Warner and Two Parsons.” Bulletin of theFaculty of Letters, Kobe University 27: 185–202.

Yui, Kiyomitsu. 2000b. “Societal Community” andthe Public Sphere in Talcott Parsons’ LastFormula.” Japanese Sociological Review 50:32–47.

Nobuo Imai

FACULTY OF SOCIOLOGY, KWANSEI GAKUIN UNIVERSITY, Uegahara Ichibancho1-155, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 662-8501, Japan. Email: [email protected]

Received 17 December 2011; accepted 6 January 2012.

Nobuo Imai132


death, modernity and monuments: the realities expressed in the monuments of the hanshin–awaji...

Documents