Southeast Asian culture as a primitive culture

This section will examine how Matsumoto discussed Southeast Asia in his ethnological

writings. It will show that Matsumoto perceived that Southeast Asian peoples were primitive

because he considered their marital custom promiscuous and their religious thinking naïve.

Matsumoto often used word “primitive” or “uncivilized” in his writings, but he did not

specify its meaning in relation to other stages in the human evolution. He followed the practice

of many ethnologists who discussed only the primitive culture without defining its stage in the

evolutionary process. Among them, eminent ethnologist James George Frazer who was one of

Matsumoto’s most cited authors did not present any sequence of stages in his works. Frazer was

obviously concerned with the lower stages of the development since he used terms “primitive,”

“barbarous,” “ruder” and “savage.”¹⁹⁶ Likewise, Matsumoto used the term “primitive” for

196 Frazer, James George,The Golden Bough. A study in magic and religion, Wordsworth Reference, 1993, pp.

XI, 2, 6, 10, 48, etc.

indicating the lower stage in the human evolution like Western ethnologists.

Matsumoto’s writings suggest that Matsumoto considered Southeast Asian culture to be

primitive. In his paper “The Mountain Legends in Fudoki,” he introduced his comparison of the

ancient Japanese culture with the culture of other primitive peoples in these words: “I do not

have space to compareutagaki broadly with the customs of uncivilized peoples [mikaijin, 未

開人] to build an argument now, so I will just mention a few examples.”¹⁹⁷ Then, he took note

on the marital custom of people from ancient Sukhotai (Thai kingdom): “In ancient Sukhotai

Land, single men and women freely chose their spouse, and after living together for one year,

they were permitted to freely decide the course of their action. Considering the above mentioned

examples, utagaki is not simply habit that was practiced only in ancient Japan, but it is a

common habit broadly discovered among many uncivilized peoples [mikaijin, 未開人].”¹⁹⁸

Furthermore, he added the custom of the contemporary people in Sumatra which was cited in

Section 2.4.1. (The ethnological methodology, page 64).¹⁹⁹

The three quotations from Matsumoto’s paper show that Matsumoto treated Southeast

Asian peoples as uncivilized, primitive peoples in his comparison with the ancient Japanese

culture. Thus, he borrowed the method of the Western ethnologists who used the comparison

with the contemporary primitive peoples for reconstructing the ancient culture of the

197 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Fudoki ni arawaretaru santake densetsu,” Tōkōkō, II, Keiō gijuku taiikukai sangakubu nenpō, Shuppan kagaku sōgō kenkyūjo, 1920, p. 36.

198 Ibid, p. 38.

199 Ibid, p. 39.

contemporary civilized peoples in accordance with universalism. In Matsumoto’s writing, all the

compared customs of ancient Japan, ancient Sukhotai and the contemporary Rechihi tribe in

Sumatra suggested a promiscuous relationship between men and women from the perspective of

the contemporary modern peoples whose marriage norms were greatly different. In this was,

Matsumoto’s idea had origins in the hypothesis of evolutionist scholars that the primitive peoples

were promiscuous. In other words, Matsumoto adopted the idea of the Western ethnologists that

ancient Japanese people and contemporary Southeast Asian peoples were primitive and

promiscuous because they did not follow a marital custom like contemporary civilized peoples.

In addition, Matsumoto considered Southeast Asian peoples to be naïve because he

borrowed the Western scholars’ opinion that naivety was a typical feature of primitive culture.

Matsumoto’s belief in the naivety of the primitive people is apparent from his vocabulary. He

pointed out the naivety of the ancient Japanese people in “The Mountain Legends in Fudoki”:

“Naïve ideas of ancient people [kodaijin no sobokuna kangae, 古 代 人 の 素 朴 な 考 え]

concerning mountains were recorded as traces in various legends remaining in ancient

records.”²⁰⁰ In “Ancestor Worship of People in Ancient China,” he touched upon the ancient

Chinese people in the following: “From the naïve psychology [sobokuna shinri kara, 素朴な心

理から], they called the soul by names hun [魂], hunqi [魂気] or zhiqi [知気].”²⁰¹ Moreover,

200 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Fudoki ni arawaretaru santake densetsu,” Tōkōkō, II, Keiō gijuku taiikukai sangakubu nenpō, Shuppan kagaku sōgō kenkyūjo, 1920, p. 23.

201 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai Shina minzoku no sosen saishi,” Shigaku, dai 1 kan, dai 4 gō, Mita shigakkai, 1922, p. 49.

Matsumoto suggested that considering this primitive thinking, naivety is a common opinion held

by modern Japanese people on their early beginnings. This is clear from his words in “The

Research of Mount Tai”: “Now we laugh at the stupid superstitions of the ancient people, then

maybe generations of few thousand years later will laugh at many ancestral idols of our present

time.”²⁰²

From the above mentioned quotations in three of Matsumoto’s writings, it can be

concluded that Matsumoto considered primitive peoples to be naïve because of their religiosity.

This was not an unusual perception of an educated Japanese man who believed in evolutionism.

This opinion was based on the Western scholars’ argument that science was superior to religion

and symbolized the top of the human cultural evolution. Thus, in Matsumoto’s era, many

scholars argued the naivety of religious thinking. Matsumoto’s favorite ethnologist, James

George Frazer even applied this approach to Christianity.²⁰³ Thus, it was common for believers

in evolutionism in Matsumoto’s era to surmise cultural inferiority of contemporary Southeast

Asian peoples due to this perceived naivety stemming from their religious thinking.

Matsumoto’s ethnological study shows that Matsumoto was concerned with the primitive

spirit of the primitive people within the realm of religiosity. Consequently, he did not discuss the

national spirit although it was usual in his time. For example, Fukuzawa Yukichi, ²⁰⁴ the founder

202 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Taizan no kenkyū,” Tōkōkō, III, Keiō gijuku taiikukai sangakubu nenpō, Shuppan kagaku sōgō kenkyūjo, 1921, p. 40.

203 Frazer, James George,Folk-lore in the Old Testament: studies in comparative religion, legend and law, 1919.

204 Fukuzawa, Yukichi,An Outline of a Theory of Civilization, Columbia University Press, New York, 2008, p.

of Keio Gijuku, or Matsumoto’s teachers, such as Tanaka Suiichiro or Kanokogi Kazunobu

discussed the Japanese national spirit. Matsumoto’s teachers had an idea that the national spirit

existed at the level of the nation-state which was considered important in Matsumoto’s era.

However, Matsumoto did not reflect on Tanaka’s ideas or Kanokogi’s ideas on the national spirit

in his writings but this did not mean he was unimpressed by them.²⁰⁵ This is because Matsumoto

focused on the research of people who did not have any notion of the nation-state. As it turned

out, in contrast with his teachers, Matsumoto perceived the spirit to encompass the entire

humanity in the primitive stage of the human evolution

In summary, Matsumoto brings up Southeast Asian peoples because he considered them

the holders of primitive culture. Based on universalism, he believed that this comparison with

Southeast Asian culture could contribute to an improved understanding on the ancient culture of

Japan and China. From the Western ethnologists, Matsumoto adopted the argument that the

Southeast Asian peoples’ marital customs were promiscuous and their thinking was naïve. This is

because Matsumoto believed in the evolutionist hypothesis that religious thinking occupied the

lower stages of human evolution, and that a modern thinking dictated by science was the highest

stage. Thus, due to this ethnological approach, Matsumoto’s image of Southeast Asia was limited

to its primitive culture of marginalized people that he considered culturally inferior to the

contemporary Japanese and Chinese people.

22.205 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro,Matsumoto Nobuhiro shinpen zakki, Matsumoto Chie, 1982, p. 39.