전쟁책임과 점령기 일본문학

Abstract

‘Simpan’ by Takeda Taijun (1947) deals with the issues of war crime committed in China by a Japanese soldier Jiro, according realization of crime and responsibility and it has been considered as a piece of literary work that pursued the issue of self-portrait of perpetrator Japanese solider and responsibility of war at a relatively early period. Although this paper shares the opinion that ‘Trials’ was a piece of literary work that showed moral introspection rare during the period, this paper focused on the fact that it lacked very core matters from today’s perspective during the process of arriving at the cause of Jiro's intensive internal exploration and thematic consciousness of realization of responsibility for a crime. Accordingly, it interpreted this novel once again from a perspective of gap of the literary work and Jiro's limitation in light of the discussion on responsibility of war not only from judicial level but also from moral level. Jiro’s act of killing civilians by shooting twice was a meaningless act of murder and the only motive for shooting was the difference of nationality between the victim and perpetrator. The first killing more fundamentally contains the issue of responsibility of war that should be interrogated by ‘non-Japanese’ for the war of invasion and war crimes committed by Japan since the killing was committed according to the chain of command of the state. This novel in which Jiro that faithfully responded to the draft obligation as a citizen ends up committing a crime of civilian killing as a result of such faithfulness has a plot that reminds of the chain structure of national responsibility that lies behind Jiro, as well as enlightening the severity of the political & moral responsibility of a low-ranking solider that acts as a part of such structure. However, ‘Trials’ neither reveal or imply the root of responsibility by tracing back to chain of command nor particularly reveal the consciousness of perpetrator of Jiro. It's because Jiro's insufficient consciousness of perpetrator is shifting a significant part of his responsibility to the national chain of command that lies behind him in an exceptional situation of wartime. Accordingly, connecting link between the chief and lowest persons of responsibility remains in vacuum in the novel just as the Japanese emperor was not included in Tokyo Trials. In addition, Trials omits the painful appeal of ‘the other’ and voice of protest even while dealing with responsibility of war. Jiro who says that his war crime and act of confessing his crime to his fiancee also resulted from his will and determination appears as establishing himself as ‘subject to take responsibility’ and ‘subject to apologize’. If ‘responsibility’ is seen as ‘the possibility of response to the other’ as emphasized by many people or subject is seen as a concept that is established only upon moral responsibility on the other as Emmanuel Levinas, the appearance of ‘subject’ that exists as ‘responsibility for the other’ is lacking in the way Jiro accepts his responsibility of war. The untold things by Trials such as the chief person responsible for war, the other and consciousness of wrongdoing are consistently silenced or overlap with concealed areas in the discussions on Japan’s responsibility of war that have unfolded since the defeat. In that sense, Trials is a novel that makes readers seriously look into the issue of Japan’s responsibility of war in East Asia not only immediately following the defeat but also currently through the untold ‘vacuums’.