Cognitivism and Behaviourism

Link: http://nishancperera.com/2011/01/31/cognitivist-vs-behaviourist-paradigms-points-of-convergence-and-divergence-by-nishan-perera/ 

Is cognitivism and behaviourism two different world views or do they explain the same phenomena from different lenses?

Introduction

This paper attempts to highlight points where the cognitivist and behaviouristic paradigms converge and diverge from a learning, education technology and instructional design point of view. In discussing this, the author is wondering whether these two paradigms offer entirely different world views in explaining the discussed concepts or do they attempt to explain the same phenomena from different lenses.

Ertmer & Newby (1993) cites empiricism and rationalism as two opposing positions on the origins of knowledge that has shaped many of the learning theories during the first half of the century. Empiricism “takes the view that experience is the primary sources of knowledge” while rationalism “takes the view that knowledge derives from reason without the aid of the senses” (Schunk, 1991 as quoted in Ertmer & Newby). The influences of these epistemologies are seen within the paradigms under discussion.

The most basic difference between cognitivist and behaviourism would be that the latter claims the creation of observable changes in behaviour (Mergel, 1998) as the cornerstone in learning, and education technology and instructional design is used to support this notion. Cognitivism focuses on the learner’s mind (Mergel, 1998) in explaining learning, and educational technology and instructional design is used to strengthen this association. Cognitivists attempt to build mental models through representation and behaviourist focus on the stimulus response process in the classical condition perspective and the use of an antecedent, operant and consequences through a process of reinforcements in the operant condition process. Do these differences make these viewpoints entirely different paradigms/different world views or are they really trying to focus on different parts of a common process?

The following sections will attempt to take a closer look at some of the concepts associated with learning, education technology and design in unfolding this question.

Learning

Learning has been defined in various ways, but universal agreement of any single definition does not exist (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). This is mainly due to the fact that different paradigms define learning through their own perspectives. In understanding learning more closely, concepts such as how learning occur, factors that influence learning, feedback process, the role of memory, the concept of knowledge, the view of an expert, is discussed below.

In terms of how learning occur, the cognitivist stresses the acquisition of knowledge and internal mental structures as important parameters of learning which is closer to the rationalist epistemology (Ertmer & Newby , 1993). It focuses on the conceptualization process and addresses issues of how information is received, organized, retrieved by the mind (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Gardner (1987) highlights how symbols, rules and images are represented between input and output action for learning to take effect. The emphasis is not so much about what learners do but how they acquire, organize and retrieve information (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). As for the behaviouristic perspective, learning occurs with the changes in the form (law of effect, Skinner 1954) and frequency (through reinforcements, Skinner, 1954) of observable behaviour. Learning is accomplished when a proper response is demonstrated to a specific stimulus (Ertmer & Newby , 1993)  in the case of classical conditioning and voluntary behaviour shown through the interaction of an antecedent , operant and a consequence for the operant conditioning principles.(Wise, 2010). No attempt is made to determine the structure and the mental process associated with it.  (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). If one considers the input, process and the output of events, the cognitivist focus mainly on the process that takes place (in the mind) while the behaviourist emphasises on the output and the input components and treating the process as a black box.  This may be considered as the main difference, a point of divergence between the two paradigms. This may suggest that behaviourism would have a tendency to ignore the existence of the mind, conciseness or even deny the active participation of the learner in the process, but it is a false characterisation. Behaviourist following Skinner’s view “do not deny the notion of consciousness, mind” and accepts it as “private events but has a problem in stating that mental activity causes behavioural activity” (Quoted by Wise, 2010). The above discussion does not suggest that these two learning theories are entirely different world views but it seems like an attempt to explain different parts of the input, process and the output model in the context of how learning takes place. With regard to this assertion, the author would state that the two paradigms would converge with the intention it attempts to explain different components of a common learning process. 

In terms of which factors influence learning, behaviourists claim that “environmental conditions receive the greatest emphasis. The most critical factor is the arrangement of stimuli and consequences within the environment” whereas cognitivism “emphasizes the role that the environment plays in facilitating learning” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). The divergent point would be the treatment of the environment as a focal starting point under behaviourism while considering it as a facilitator in the cognitive movement. But the fact that both pays attention to the environment and the context in different degrees, could this be treated as an opportunity for these views to converge considering the environment as a common incubator for learning to take shape?

The emphasis placed by feedback, Ertmer and Newby (1993, page 60) states that “Many of the instructional strategies advocated and utilized by cognitivists are also emphasized by behaviourist, yet used for different reasons. An obvious commonalty is the use of feedback – behaviourist use feedback (reinforcement) to modify behaviour in the desired direction while cognitivist make use of feedback (knowledge of results) to guide and support accurate mental connections”. However, Wise (2010) states that “I would add that a behaviourist justification relates to the need for the learner to associate the reinforcement with the operation they performed, whereas a cognitive justification refers to the efficiency of giving feedback while the problem/attempted solution path is still in the working memory of the learner. From a behaviourist position, if the feedback isn’t immediate, it is useless; but from a cognitive position, it is just less efficient”. (Wise, response to a statement made by the online moderator of the class online discussion, week6). This sounds like an efficiency verses an effectiveness argument with regard to the use of feedback by both paradigms. The author would like to claim that this is an attempt to explain the phenomena of feedback from different points of view than presenting feedback as an entirely different process.

A key difference between the two views would be the concept of memory. Behaviourist “typically does not address the concept of memory although acquisition habits are discussed and  little attention is given how these habits are stored and recalled” while memory is given a prominent role in cognitivism since “ learning results when information is stored in  memory in an organized and a meaningful way”. (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). This does not highlight that memory is disregarded by the behaviourists but this concept is not addressed. A point that relates to this would be the concept of knowledge. Knowledge in the behaviourist perspective is a “repertoire of behaviours” while in cognitive perspective it is related to as “mental models of the world with abstract representations such as, schemas/scripts” (Wise, 2010, Classroom Material). In this context, is knowledge something that one acquires or is it something that relates to “legitimate peripheral participation”? (Safard, 1998). It is clear that in the cognitive paradigm, knowledge is considered to be an acquisition process since “learning is stated as an act of gaining knowledge”; it stresses “the individual mind and what goes on in it” (Safard, 1998). The acknowledgement of existence of the mind and memory in the cognitive domain will further provide a basis for this point of view. However, in the behaviourist realm where the repertoire of behaviours which is equated to knowledge, how could knowledge be acquired in the absence of a discussion of a mind or memory? If one uses the deductive methodology to argue this point, can the behaviourist point of view of knowledge be explained through the participation metaphor? Safard, 1998 states that “the participation metaphor does not relate to knowledge, concepts but introduced a noun as knowing which indicates action”. Therefore can we dismiss the participation metaphor and claim acquisition? Safard, 1998 goes on to state that

“One may oppose the classification of learning theories as purely acquisitional or participational. The act of acquisition is often equivalent to the act of becoming a participant. It would be a difficult argument to consider these as separate or mutually exclusive. Theories can be classified as acquisition oriented or participation oriented only if they disclose a clear preference for one metaphorical ingredient over the other”.

So in this context, while it is clear that the cognitivist paradigm relates more to acquisition, the behaviourist paradigm cannot be clearly classified as acquisition or participation, then they can converge or diverge depending on the strength of each case.  

As for the concept of an expert, to achieve the state of being an expert, one needs to move from a lower level to a higher level performer in a given field, profession (Wise, 2010,). The National Research council (2000) presented six principles that would differentiate a novice from an expert. These reflect on knowledge acquired and seem to suggest expertise from a more cognitive view. If we relate to an expert from a behavioural perspective, an expert could be one who does something with fewer errors, does it faster meeting the benchmarks, ability to discriminate between effective and efficient actions (EDUC932, Class Discussion). If we consider this, expertise could be viewed from a behaviourist perspective since an expert could also build complex behaviours. Thus, the notion of expertise would be common to both cognitivist and behaviourist although it is built differently.

Reviewing the facts so far that converge and diverge the two paradigms for a learning point of view, it seem to suggest that both cognitivism and behaviorism has attempted to explain learning from different lenses rather than pronouncing to be extremely divergent world views that explain learning.

Education Technology

Saettler (1990) states that it is difficult to pin down to one definition of what education technology is, since it is intertwined with various historical, philosophical and psychological perspectives. He highlights several paradigms of education technology. They are namely the physical science or media approach to technology which identifies educational technology with media that aid instruction. The communications approach to technology, “focus shifts to the entire process of communicating information from the source to the receiver from mere media” (Saettler, 1990).

In further looking at education technology through any of the above paradigms of technology, one can draw on differences of how education technology is used both in cognitive and behaviourist realms.

Anderson et, al (1995) highlights how cognitivist could use media such as computers in building cognitive tutors using principles such as production rules, communicating goal structures, problem solving, maximising working memory, providing immediate feedback on errors etc. (8 Principles of building cognitive tutors). The whole focus of using media in the cognitive movement is to allow students to assimilate knowledge by creating representations to acquire and internalizing knowledge through the provision of feedback.

Skinner (1954) also advocated the use of teaching machines to support learning using behaviouristic principles. The argument to use such media in this movement would be to manage the sheer numbers of contingencies of reinforcement used to shape as well as to strengthen the observable behaviours created through stimuli. Keller’s(1968) principles which represents behaviouristic learning concepts presented using computer based media (Math Emporium) is another example of how computers as media could be used to “develop a skilful program which moves forward a series of progressive approximations to a final complex behaviour” (Skinner, 1954). The emphasis on shaping or successive approximations to achieve desired behaviours (Case & Bereiter,1984) was the focus in using media which contrasted from the cognitivist use of media to provide clear information, thoughtful practice and informative feedback (Reighluth, 1999) to support learning.

It is clear that behaviourist and cognitivist application of technology is somewhat different. However, this difference is not on the way they believe how it would impact learning but on how it is applied to the different input, process and output stages of the learning process. So are these differences significantly divergent or is it more about an application to different parts of the same equation?

Design

Instructional design theory “offers explicit guidance on how to better help people learn, develop, a knowledge base that guides educational practice” (Reigeluth, 1999). Perkins as quoted in Reigeluth, 1999, highlights “theory one”, guidelines of what instruction should be to foster cognitive learning. Perkins state that a good instructional design theory in the cognitive realm should provide “clear information” about the goals, expected performance of instruction, include “thoughtful practice” to provide a learner to engage actively in the learning process, “informative feedback” to provide “thorough counsel to learners about their performance” and “strong intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learners”.

In contrast to the above, Case & Bereiter (1984) highlights behaviouristic design guidelines to start with “identifying the potential reinforces”, “identify the desired behaviours ”, “describe the initiate behaviour of the learner”, “define the series of behaviours”, “move students through a sequence” and “reinforce behaviours”.

A closer look at the above will highlight some points of convergence and divergence between the cognitive and behaviouristic instructional design practice. Both paradigms highlight objectives of instruction, but the behaviourist highlight what the “person does” than what a cognitivist would highlight what a “person achieves” (Case & Bereiter, 1984). The behaviourist emphasize “on a sequence of activities leading to the final outcome where each successive behaviour representing a small modification of the preceding one” (Case & Bereiter, 1984). Gegne (1984) is suggesting a hierarchical task analysis which states that “a higher order intellectual skill is based on lower level skills” (on an on) seem to suggest a parallel with the behaviourist realm. Although Gegne states that this process is not linear in the cognitive realm, the fact of a progression seems to be an idea that both cognitivists and behaviourists could share in the instructional design process. Also the work of Gegne (1984) in introducing cognitive behaviourism as a solution to overcome the weakness of some of the principles of behaviourism in instructional design theory is another example of how these two paradigms could be used together in instructional design theories.

Also for the purpose of comparison on a more micro level of instruction, setting learning objectives in both realms are compared and contrasted in this section. In setting learning objectives, both in the behaviouristic and in the cognitive realms “refer to the learning outcome and not the process of getting there” and the “objective refers to the student and not the instructor”. However, behavioural objectives tend to be more “observable and specific” and “pre-requisite and successive criteria would be more clear and specific” than cognitive objectives.   (Quoted by Wise, 2010). Also cognitive and behavioural objectives set at the lower level tend not to be that different while at the higher levels, setting them for these realms tends to have varying levels of difficulties (Class Discussion, week 6). The author is raising the question whether both cognitive and behaviourist objectives could be combined in designing a given instructional activity?

Once again while the differences between both the cognitive and the behaviouristic realms are evident in instructional designing theory, are these differences significant enough for these two approaches to be categorised as two different paradigms?

Conclusion

As stated in the introduction, the objective of this paper was an attempt to highlight how both cognitivist and behaviouristic paradigms converge and diverge in the areas of learning, education technology and in instructional design. There were situations that some differences were highlighted and also some situations where these realms found common ground to some degree. In articulating this view, the main question that the author raised was whether both cognitivism and behaviourism are different world views/paradigms or do they attempt to explain the same phenomena from different lenses? It was the attempt of the author to argue supporting the assertion that both cognitivism and behaviourism attempts to explain the input, process and the output elements that is associated with the human learning process from different angles using different language, than presenting themselves as two different world views as painted in some literature. Neither of these views will truly converge nor will be considered as divergent since it explains different parts of the same process. Wouldn’t it be beneficial if these views are used to explain learning, technology and the design from a more wholistic point of view than merely compare and contrast them which will explain two sides of the same coin anyway?

References

Anderson, J., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207

Case, R., and Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviourism to cognitive behaviourism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design. Instructional Science, 13, 141-158.

Cook, S. & Brown, J. S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4)381-400.

Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. ETR&D 42(4), 55-72.

Ertmer & Newby. (1993), Behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, V6 (4)

Gardner (1987). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. USA: Basic Books. Chp 2.

Keller (1968). Good-bye Teacher…, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89.

Löwgren & Stolterman (2004). Thoughtful Interaction Design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Preface & Introduction)

Molenda, M. (1997). Historical and philosophical foundations of instructional design: A North American view. In R. Tennyson, Schott, F., Seel, N., and Dijkstra, S. (Eds.) Instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 41- 53). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

 National Research Council (2000). How people learn: brain, mind experience and school. Washington, DC. National Academy Press. Ch 2.

Reigeluth, C. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. Reigeluth (Ed) Instructional-design theories and models, Volume II. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Saettler, P (1990), The evolution of American educational technology, Information Age Publishing, 1990

Safard, A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24(1), 86-97.

Wise, A (2010), EDUC932, Class notes, PowerPoint Presentations and Discussion Points

Mahapatra: Bijay Kant Dubey

Jayanta Mahapatra (1928-) As A Poet

Among the exponents of modern Indian English poetry, as such Nissim Ezekiel, Purshottam Lal,  Keki N.Daruwalla, Shiv K.Kumar, Adil Jussawalla, Kamala Das, Shiv K.Kumar, Dom Moraes, Pritish Nandy, Arun Kolatkar, Dilip Chitre and a host of others, whom we presume to be the harbingers of modernism, Jayanta Mahapatra is definitely one of those who have furthered it with one collection after another.

Before discussing Jayanta Mahapatra and his poetry, one should keep in mind that Jayanta is first of all an Odia poet of Odisha then anything we say about him from the identity point of view. First, he is an Odia then an Indian, a regional then national and then international one by one. If we discuss as a poet, he is but an imagist and poetry is image-making. The other most important thing we have forgotten about him is this that he is professor of physics, not of literature and poetry comes to him through physics, via it, not properly, but through the channels of light and darkness theories, astrophysics and metaphysics.

There are so many things in his poetry and it is not easy to discuss him at a stretch and this is for which he is called complex and tedious one; a poet whose poems it is difficult to analyse and paraphrase. He is abstract that the lines mean they not exactly.

As a poet he is historical and the history, art and culture of Orissa have influenced him greatly and he just represents them. The Ganga Dynasty kings and the Kalinga Empire we have forgotten them, just the history of Delhi cannot be the history of India.

As a poet, he is of human hunger, want and scarcity which he has felt in the wide Indian countryside.

A realist he is down to realities and it can be marked in several of his poems when he speaks of the fate-lines of the girl, the poverty of the fisher girl, the defeat of Kalinga and the sun-burnt hamlets of the country. In the poem, Temple, he carries the same age-old story of hunger. The things are just the same; only the shapes keep changing with time.

A feminist he has written keeping in view the poor fate of the country girl, atrocities inflicted upon the Indian women folk doing household works namelessly without any credit given to her as for home-keeping. The tales of Indian backwardness, poverty and un-culture, illiteracy and un-education, how to say to? The woes of a developing third-world nation, none, but those who  live and suffer can know it well. In his long poem, Temple, he has resorted to rape and violence, basing on news items. What it maligns us is the gang-rape of the girl child and dumping of her beyond recognition.

A romantic, he is Wordsworthian, Keatsian, as and when he talks of mornings and evenings, dawns and dusks, noondays and midnights. A poet of the place, he is Lawrentine as for his references to Cuttack, Puri and Bhubaneswar and Hardyian too as they have referred to Nottinghamshire and Essex.

Silence is the prime thing through which the images germinate in a vacant mood of reflection. Sights and scenes are to see, pictures and images. Though silence is the main thing or crux of his poetry, but instead of it, there are ingredients of it. The silence of mornings and evenings, middays and midnights, dawns and dusks, daybreaks and twilights is one aspect while the silence of the solitary and secluded countryside with the hamlets and thorps against a backdrop the another thing of deliberation. At noonday the solitary pyres burning, the cremation work going on, voices resounding and the wife yawning and taking a siesta oblivious of all, tell of another bewitching silence.

 A poet of the sea, he describes it otherwise in terms of J.M.Synge’s Riders to the Sea and livelihood, the rituals going on in the aftermath of the cremation, as such the asthi-kalasha and the panda-dana.

Sexuality is another bewitching and intriguing aspect of his poetry which is but the Lawrentine quality.

A poet of the country, he tells of the mud-housed and straw-thatched hamlets and thorps scattered across a vast stretch of land.

Jayanta Mahapatra had not been a modernist, post-modernist but has become as for the specialties inherent in his poetry naturally. Generally, we call him modernist or post-modernist, or post-colonial as for his handling of the theme and the grasp and grip over the language, the grip over it. 

Silence is the key-word of Jayanta Mahapatra; the key-board and he keeps tapping them to play with words, juggling as a juggler, solving word-puzzles and cross-words. A ludo or chess player of words, he gives a tougher fight in coming to terms with him; his poetic words, sentences and stanzas and those stanzas are the stanzas of nothingness, existentialism, what it seems to be is not and what it seems not is to be. In a word, the gist of which is, his poetry borders on the  theme of nothingness and meaninglessness, nothing is what it seems to be and what it seems to be is nothing. Apart from a poet of silence, he is very much bewitching and intriguing. Against the backdrop of all this, the conspiracies and whispers of silence can be marked in the whorehouse and fisher girl images and pictures.

Eco-centric quality is the cardinal feature of his poetry. The sea, lakes, rivers, hills, water bodies, turtles, forests, empty spaces, vacant moods ns minds and the blank sheets of paper-like feeling possess the poetic self of the writer and he longs for an expression in them.  The poetry of Jayanta Mahapatra is eco-centric and environmental-friendly as and when the talks order on the theme of nothingness, existentialism and he shows us through the morning and the evening, their incessant coming and going, the passage of time. Solid mass or mater remains the same. Just the shapes of the things go changing and this is what he says, communicates and relates to in his poetry.

Linguistically rather than thematically, he goes on keeping us on the tenterhooks. His language is more powerful than being poetical and literary simply as because his is a language of science, that of physics and secondly he is a Christian too and thirdly he has studied in convent schools.

There are so many reasons for it.

Word-play is one of the bewitching characteristics of Jayanta Mahapatra and many struggle to catch the rhythm of his lines in order to mean them, but meaning is not in between the lines, just the images lie in. The images of the vacant skies, sunny and silvery with the spaces blankly lifting us and of the landscapes solitary and secluded, the herons and storks flying over a vast surface, these baffle and perplex us in grappling with.

For the foreign audience, not the Indian readers, some say it, he has written his poetry as had been famous before or in contact with them even before being recognized here. The foreigners too appreciated and admired him as for the bare details of India and the intriguing facts, cramming and compressed. The tales of hunger fascinate them; the tales of want and scarcity, moral depravity and corrosion.

The poems of Jayanta Mahapatra are the lyrics of silence which but a few have come to realize it. He is a poet of silence and his poetry the poetry of silence which is but one phase of his creative dimension.

There is Vedic incantation, Upanishadic recapitulation in Jayanta Mahapatra. The prayers, hymns and psalms recited in the Jagannatha temple can be overheard in his poetry and this is the mantric quality as well as incantation of his poetry. Such a thing is Vedic, Upanishadic and Puranic which it is available in him indirectly. The wooden frame from which the idols are made and changed every nineteen years is another time of festive celebration.

To read him is to know that he is a professor of physics turning, converting the matters and materials of physics into poetry. His base is of physics, not of literature, more especially poetry. He has come to understand and comprehend poetry just through physics. It is the theories of physics which tell of the history of the world in a different way seen through the creation of the universe and the theories doing the rounds.

He is a poet of the dark daughters whose trouble, tribulation we have failed to comprehend which is in other words the myth of feminism, how have we neglected our daughters, how have we treated them? Our patriarchal bias has ruined it all what good it was in us. The inequality and empathy with which we see our daughters hurts us, not only us, but the good and thinking people of the world. Such a thing struck it Derozio and he wrote The Fakir of Jungheera and it benumbed Pandit Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar.

He is a poet of Orissa, his mind one of it, his heart and soul. His mind can go nowhere except Orissa. His heart still beats for the rathyatra, the chariot festival of Puri.

His poetry is a departure from the conventional norms, rules and regulations of verse and he takes liberties with the fancy and imagination of his type, dream and reflection, leaving any a question asked and unasked, answered and unanswered.

This too is a fact not to be suppressed that fame came knocking at his door as there was a dearth of poets and he had been famous with his just Close the Sky, Ten by Ten and Svayamvara and Other Poems. Herein thought and meaning are not, juts image and word-play, abstract brooding and vacant thinking. On the chess-board of silence, he plays his moves tactfully with so much word-play and intrigue.

Waiting is without any doubt a book of Orissa, Orissan history and culture. Written against a historical backdrop, it stands for its crystal and contradictory imagery, surreal expression, change and shift in styles and transitions of thought, idea and imagery. The frequent references to Puri, Cuttack, Konark and Bhubaneswar make it an Oriya poetry-work.

The False Start contains in his famous Balasore elegy just to be placed by the side of Gray’s Elegy. A poem it startles us with its vivid imagery and clear-cut poetic conception and description. There is no ambiguity herein. Luckily, he is so meaningful here as that no one can doubt it that he is meaningless elsewhere. A poet of images, imagery and imagism, he has dealt with poetical themes, but he stuns us here.

A poet of rains and rites, he is very ambiguous as because he has little to do with the rains as it is a common phenomenon of the coastal area. Poetry to Mahapatra is an album of photographs and you just keep seeing them rather than asking him; poetry to Mahapatra is images fleeting and captured into the camera.

Close the Sky, Ten by Ten, Dialogue Publication, Calcutta, 1971,

Svayamvara and Other Poems, Writers Workshop, Calcutta, 1971,

A Father’s Hours, United Writers, Calcutta, 1976,

A Rain of Rites, University of Georgia Press, Athens (USA), 1976,

Waiting, Samkaleen Prakashan, New Delhi, 1979,

The False Start, Clearing House, Bombay, 1980,

Relationship, Greenfield Review Press, Greenfield, New York 1980,

Life Signs, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1983,

Dispossessed Nests, Nirala Publications, Jaipur,1986,

Selected Poems, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1987,

Burden of Waves and Fruit, Three Continents Press, Washington, 1988,

Temple, Dangaroo Press, Sydney, 1989,

A Whiteness of Bone, Viking Penguin, New Delhi, 1992,

The Best of Jayanta Mahapatra, Bodhi Publications, Calicut, 1995,

Shadow Space, D.C. Books, Kottayam, 1997,

Bare Face, D.C. Books, Kottayam, 2000,

Random Descent, Third Eye Communications, Bhubaneswar, 2005,

The Lie of Dawns: Poems 1974-2008, Authorspress, New Delhi, 2009,

Land, Authorspress, New Delhi, 2013.

Relationship, is a story of his relationship with the land of his birth, nativity and historicity of art and culture. With an Oriya mind and heart, he sings of Orissa, the Orissan scenes and landscapes and it is the book for which he has won the Sahitya Akademi award in 1981. 

His poetry is the poetry of silence and on the dashboard of it, he keeps uploading the images. A photographer of the rock-cut temples, he goes picturing the sculptures and figurines in love, war and devotion, telling of sociologically, dharma-artha-kama-and-moksha.

From the sea beach he sees the dawn flashing, the evening descending upon and enveloping the area, the solitary pyres burning.

The things of the dark consciousness the poet explores about through the nocturnal flight of imagination.

The poem Dark Flight may be quoted in:

The sky darkens. The afternoon wind

drifts through the streets of the old city

and wrecks the images on the placid river

that holds the sudden terror

of a man falling into its chilly depths.

My eyes are getting used to the dark.

From time to time 

my father comes at me       

with outstretched arms of judgement

and I answer from no clear place I am in.

If I could get up and move about,

seeking the quick swifts in the halflight in the rain,

trying to feel the wind on the wings

that overcome the earth. In a dream 

I hear someone’s laughter and it’s

no longer the same. In a wind

that carries the smoke and the fear,

the slow, doubled voice of wings 

we are always afraid to hear.

( Prevalent Aspects of Indian English Poetry, Edited by H.S.Bhatia, Sita Publications International, Khanna, Punjab, 1983-84, p.28)

What he feels, what he thinks and what he puts down on paper, it is not easy to grasp, express that as because he is so psychological and internal. The exterior not, but the interior at work is the chief property of the poet.

Loss is one of the poems which deserve to be mentioned:

Outside the house, the trees have grown.

Tonight a dark wind drops down

through the congested leaves

and the fidgets on the steps leading to my door:

it has a lonely voice

of tides spilling up over the beaches of our dreams.

The grass going bare unknown under our feet,

the pigeons sailing across the uneven heart,

the acres of water lying beyond our thirst:

each a key that refuses to turn in  a lock.

Nothing

that memory concealed with ominous heights.

Now when I open the door

is it the green grieving wind which pushes through

and disturbs the things hanging on that instant

or is it the breath of someone once loved

trying to shake something out of the mind?

(Modern Trends in Indo-Anglian Poetry, , Edited by H.S.Bhatia, Sita Publications International, Khanna, Punjab, 1983-84, Reprinted: October, 1982, p.15)

Illness as a poem can be read for our interpretation:

The wind veers. Suddenly, around me

in the darkness of evening.

The old cottage has taken on

a comfortable look,

the afternoon sun’s warmth

has seeped in through my shirt.

But this body

thrown up on its own thoughts.

Of warm water, clean sheets on a bed,

a naked whiteness thrust into summer,

swelling of mangoes and cashews.

Now, twilight.

And the brazen wind

just trying to talk about itself.

I try to touch things.

No one has come yet to turn on the light.

(Bridge-in-Making, Editor Pronab Kumar Majumder, January to April 1999, 24^th Number, p.8-9)

     

The myths of Jayanta are the myths of Orissa and the Oriyas; the folktales doing the rounds in his poetry. The myths of the dark daughters are but feministic and archival, historical and sociological.

As a poet Jayanta Mahapatra is Wordsworthian and Yeatsian, but first of all Ezra Poundian. Imagery and myth-making are the chief priorities, properties of the poet which he excels in profoundly. Rains of rites and rituals are the things of deliberation rather than pattering rains of the coastal area. The monsoon wedding is not the theme of Jayanta Mahapatra nor do the showers of Shravan or Bhadra month of the Hindu calendar. Jayanta is very confused in his art and craft of poetry-writing as the poems come to him as word-puzzles, cross-words and he likes to frolick with word-play.

A poet of summer, he can tell of the scent of the mangoes, raw and ripening, leafy green and sour, yellowish and ripe. A poet of summer, scorching heat and no respite from, he can suggest of passing the day under he shade of the mango groves. But side by side in that sweating can tell   of conjugal love; wet man-woman relationship.

Who does not know Jayanta Mahapatra, a modern Indian English poet who has received many coveted prizes and accolades world-wide? Let us see how he weaves poetic images and myths privately and personally.

To discuss Jayanta Mahapatra is to come to know it that he is first of all imagist than anything we presume about him. First of all, an Odia by identity, he is a poet of Odisha, the and of his birth and nativity and thereafter anything else we think about him. In a writer like him, there are so many aspects and perspectives to be perused.

A Critical Comparison Between Japanese and American Propaganda during World War II

Source: https://www.msu.edu/~navarro6/srop.html

A Critical Comparison Between Japanese and American 

Propaganda during World War II.

Anthony V. Navarro

Hakko Ichiu. (“Eight corner of the World under one roof.”) 

                                                      Japanese War Slogan

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.                                                                                                     President Roosevelt

    World War II was one of the most monumental events in history and certainly one of the most significant events in the 20th century.  The catalyst for drawing the United States fully into the war was the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  The series of confrontational events that led up to Pearl Harbor and the events that followed up until the Japanese surrender in 1945, were waged on the political, economic, and military fronts, but one aspect of the war which is sometimes overlooked is the war waged on the social front.  What makes the social aspect of war so significant is that it involves a dynamic within the human person.  In time of war, there is killing, violence, and hate, all stirred up from within.  Thoughts and emotions come into play.  Ideologies and philosophies, ways of life, and cultures clash.  War is no longer only between soldiers on a battlefield but between nations and their ideas.  And in order to make a whole nation of people support the war with mind and spirit, there needs to be influence.  That influence is propaganda. 

    Much of the social warfare between the United States and Japan involved instilling within their people both a strong nationalistic pride for their own country as well as an incendiary hatred for the other.  This was done with the help of the media—newspapers, books, radio, and film—that were consequently used as propaganda against the enemy.  Much of the material was racist and catered to such ideas as racial inferiority and ethnic supremacy.  One’s own nation was always the civilized one while the enemy was depicted as barbaric, sub-human, and in some cases, demonic. 

    We imbibe a flood of information each day from numerous sources—radio, film, books, newspapers, magazines, and advertisements.  We are consciously and subconsciously told what to think, what to do, how to feel, and how to behave.  Although news sources attempt to be as objective as possible, there is always a grain of cultural salt that factors into how people interpret that objective information.  Socioeconomic conditions, political situations, and social atmosphere not only contribute to how news and information are interpreted, but are also reflected in them.  Media is an art, and art is a way of communicating ideas.  Those ideas are what drive nations and people, to think and act. And during time of war, a nation often tries to stir up a common sense of purpose under which its people can unite. 

    The inspiring quotes above spurred on the war spirit.  The first was a Japanese World War II slogan alluding to the Emperor Jimmu, the first emperor of Japan.  In an 8th Century literary collection, his words are recalled that the “eight corners of the world be united under one roof” creating a brotherhood of races.  The second was spoken by President Frank Roosevelt in his declaration of war to Congress shortly after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Potent words such as these, which were plastered on posters and sung in war slogans, reinforced a sense of duty and instilled a kind of vengeful spirit in not only those fighting on the battlefields but also in the people supporting them on the home front.  Catchy slogans and catch phrases quickly became part of popular culture. 

    If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the images generated from World War II would speak endless volumes.  Words are powerful, but some of the images in wartime posters drew attention more vividly because they attracted an audience on a wider scale.  Posters urging citizens to conserve resources, increase labor production to “help our troops,” or simply slogans summoning an increase national pride were posted in every subway station, train station, bus stop, on every billboard and street corner in every city.  Ads to buy war bonds or join the armed forces were printed in nearly every magazine and newspaper.  So even if one covered one’s ears to the messages broadcast over the airwaves, one couldn’t escape the constant bombardment of visual stimuli. 

    Radio and film, however, may have been the most effective means of reaching its audience simply by virtue of its medium.  New technology, such as radio and motion pictures, were capable of sending information over a much greater scale.  Moving pictures and audible words and music brought to life what was only still and static in a book or poster.  In 1942, the Academy Award for best documentary went to Frank Capra’s Why We Fight, which was the first of a series of war documentaries he made under the commission of the U.S. military.  Not to be outdone, the Japanese had their own cinematic propaganda.  Chocolate and Soldiers and The Story of Tank Commander Nishizumi, two very popular Japanese wartime films, were effective as propaganda tools for Japanese audiences.  Anthropologist Ruth Benedict once exclaimed, “Japanese films have a propaganda courage which Americans films have usually lacked” (Dower 35).  Japanese movies were not afraid to show weakness and hardship that were associated with war.  Japanese films showed a lot of sacrifice more so than American films in order to create a more humanistic and endearing empathy for the characters. 

    The Japanese propaganda campaign was not only directed toward the United States but also towards Asian countries whom they sought to conquer.  During the time that the Japanese began studying about the culture and customs of their Western counterparts, America was going through a period of territorial expansion that saw its borders extend to the Pacific but much to the expense of Native Americans. The time period during which Japan became increasingly more interested in Western culture was during the time that America was going through that expansion phase.  In many ways, Japan took on many of the ideas and methods of American expansionism, and, consciously or subconsciously, incorporated them into their own methods of conquest throughout Asia. 

    The media and propaganda were powerful and often silent weapons that targeted human emotions and psyches, and often caused people to feel and think things that they otherwise would not if not exposed to it.  Politics and military actions can only do so much, but if they are driven by human emotions and impulses, they are driven further.  And propaganda was that driving forces of human emotion during World War II. 

“…a date which will live in infamy”

    Admiral William Halsey, who became commander of the South Pacific Forces early on during the World War II made famous the slogan “Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs.”  So vengeful was his rage following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor that his motto under which he would rally his men was “Remember Pearl Harbor—keep ‘em dying.” (Dower 36). 

 Strong rhetoric such as Admiral Halsey’s was not uncommon during the war years.  The rhetoric was so harsh, in fact, the words bordered on genocidal.  Before Pearl Harbor, the United States was already locking horns with German and Italian forces in Europe.  The American views of Hitler’s regime in Germany and Mussolini’s fascist rule in Italy were due in large part to the careful imagery depicted by popular media.  The Office of Strategic Services, or OSS, played a large part in controlling information.  The OSS, which was formed in 1942 as a secret intelligence agency, was headed by William Donovan under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Its objectives were to analyze secretive information and data and to conduct psychological warfare.  Propaganda material and information was a major component to the psychological tactics used by the OSS.  The task, however, did not involve so much creating new ideas for psychological warfare than it did accentuating and disseminating already existing ones. 

    The spiteful sentiment felt throughout the war among many Americans seemed to stem from much more than simply vengeance for the December 7th attack.  It reflected an already existing racism prompted by Pearl Harbor.  The “yellow” color race code was the branding of choice when referring to the Japanese.  They were the “yellow peril,” and “yellow monkeys.” Even Time magazine in a report on Pearl Harbor used the phrase, “the yellow bastards!”  The New York Times contributed with their own anti-Japanese rhetoric explaining how the Japanese “have kept their savage tradition ‘unbroken through ages eternal,’ from the fabulous age of their savage gods to the present day. 

    A commonly held view was that the Japanese were subhuman or evolutionarily inferior.  It was an all too common idea among not only the Americans but among the other Allies as well.  British Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office Sir Alexander Cadogan referred to the Japanese as “little yellow dwarf slaves” referring to the average height difference between Anglos and Japanese (Aldrich 64). Chiefs of Staff felt “no reason to believe that Japanese standards are even comparable with those of the Italians.” In one of the most famous, and perhaps most fantastic and blatant misconceptions of the Japanese, historian Arthur Marder thought the Japanese to be inherently inferior, especially in the art of war, for several reasons, one being “because of their eye slits… the Japanese fighter pilots could not shoot straight, and Japanese naval officers could not see in the dark” (65).  Captain Vivian from Tokyo said that Japanese were incapable of springing surprise in battle because they have “peculiarly slow brains” (64).  One needs only to obviously site the bombing of Pearl Harbor to disclaim that notion.  Despite this, the West was still convinced during the early part of the war that Japan was of Japan’s inherently inferior.  John Dower offers his explanation:

"Because the Pearl Harbor attack came so unexpectedly—so literally out of the 

blue, as the saying goes—most Westerners also regarded Japan’s imitation of war as high folly… The attack thus managed to reinforce existing impressions of the Japanese as unpredictable and fundamentally irrational—even though, upon calmer appraisal, it might as easily have been interpreted as evidence of the relentless logic of Japanese war planning (44)."

    It is hard to believe that amidst all this anti-Japanese rhetoric, President Roosevelt was totally immune to the circulating sentiment.  He, in fact, was not.  Sir Ronald Campbell, a British delegate in the United States, wrote to Sir Alexander Cadogan about his observations of President Roosevelt.

"He had set one Professor Krdlicka of the Smithsonian Institute, to work on a private study of the effect of racial crossing… The President has asked the Professor why the Japanese were as bad as they were.  The Professor had said the skulls of these people were some 2,000 years less developed than ours (this sounds very little, doesn’t it?). The President asked whether this might account for the nefariousness of the Japanese and had been told it might, as the might well be the basic stock of the Japanese (Sbrega 485)."

    The literature and the rhetoric of the time affected how people viewed the war and viewed the enemy, but the visual art created during the war drew attention more easily and drew a larger audience simply by its nature.  A printed article or quote in a newspaper does not catch the eye quite as easily as a picture. The use of graphic arts in promoting political and social messages was a significant part of America’s propaganda war effort.  Many of the images created during the war-years stand as symbols of their time.  Images such as Uncle Sam pointing, summoning the viewer to “join the army,” or the blue collar woman flexing her muscle encouraging woman to join in the industrial war effort, are cultural icons.  However, not all poster art was as soft-edged as these were.  For example, Figure 1 shows a gruesome image of a Japanese soldier, perhaps even Hideki Tojo himself who was Japan’s War Minister and Premier.

 

             Fig. 1

    The sharp angled features of the figure suggest villainy.  The naked woman thrown sinisterly over his shoulder, almost pornographic in posture, appears the victim of the rape and pillage seen in the background.  The race of the woman grabs the attention of the audience even more.  She is white, most likely American.  The message strikes fear into the viewer and asks the question, “Would you let this to happen?” 

    A common technique used by propagandists was to liken the Japanese to animals like snakes and rats.  But the most common animal used to portray the Japanese was the monkey.  In several posters and editorial cartoons, the Japanese were drawn up as monkeys hanging from trees or lumbering around like big gorillas.  The image of a subhuman primate was key to undercutting the humanity of the enemy.  The enemy was less than human, thus much easier to kill.  Figures 2 and 3 are editorial cartoons that show the use of the simian image in two different ways.  The first is the Japanese as a peculiar object of curiosity.  The second is the Japanese as a savage, untamable beast that should be eradicated by any means.  Figure 2 shows scientists and scholars baffled by their monkey-like Japanese specimen.  One of the scholars holds a document reading “International problem: What goes on in the Japanese mind,” as if the Japanese were a specimen whose behavior was tested and observed like a lab rat.  Despite Japan’s military prowess and technological skills proven in the Pacific, the notion that the Japanese were intellectually inferior was still a stubbornly held popular view.  Editorials such as these reinforced those views even more.  The scientists stand condescendingly over their shorter subject, arms akimbo looking not so much puzzled as they look annoyed.  Note also the raggedy clothes and the stereotypical wooden platform shoes worn by the Japanese man.

       

                Figure 2                                              Figure 3

Figure 3, in a sort of indirect way, offers a solution to the question posed in Figure 2.  Here, a gun labeled “civilization” is pointed at the head of Japan again portrayed as a monkey about to be blown away.  On the chest of the monkey is written “murderers of American fliers.”  This was in reference to the execution of American airmen who crash landed in Japan during the first American bombing raid over Tokyo in 1943.  Notice the face of the monkey.  It neither grovels nor fears the gun that is brandished in its face.  It has no conscience of its heinous actions and would more than likely kill again if not put to death immediately; there is no hope for repentance in this beast. 

    Posters also sounded a call to war for the American people.  The message was that America had been maliciously attacked and would not sit idly by and do nothing.  Not only must America defend herself from her enemies, but the enemy must also be destroyed completely.  Constant references to the December 7th bombing of Pearl Harbor reminded the American people why she was at war and why they should take up arms to help the fight.  Figures 4 and 5 show dark images yet send fiery messages to “Avenge December 7” as printed in Figure 4 in bold, red lettering.  A battleship is blown out of the water in the foreground, and the midshipman, partially hidden in the grimness of the shadows, raises his fist in vengeful defiance.  Figure 5 uses the symbol of America itself, the American flag.  It has been defaced and defiled.  It flies low, tattered and torn amidst the rubble of bombed out ships.  The thick black smoke rising from the disaster invade the peaceful blue sky.  Once again, the words, “Remember Dec. 7th!” are accentuated with a fiery red.  The harrowing superscript solemnly recalls the dead, and that America must take action against the perpetrating Japanese so that these dead “shall not have died in vain” as the poster says.

                

               Figures 4                                       Figure 5

    When discussing the role of popular media in America’s propaganda war campaign, it would be negligent not to mention the role of Hollywood.  During the time of the war, Hollywood created numerous war-related films such as Objective, Burma!, The Bridge on the River Kwai,  The Story of G.I. Joe, and In Which We Serve. 

There were also a number of documentary films created at this time, perhaps the most famous of which was Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series.  Capra, who is noted for such films as It’s a Wonderful Life, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall to create a film series that would be viewed by army men and be used as a learning tool of sorts by the army in order than America would come to “know its enemy.” The primary objectives that Capra had in mind were to rally the American public behind the task to both ‘win the war and win the peace’ (Dower 16). 

    The first of Capra’s series, Prelude to War won acclaim as it took the 1942 Academy Award for Best Documentary.  Because the Why We Fight series was promoted as a documentary series, the films were often seen as objective and true to their nature when in fact they were very propagandous.  In a scene in Prelude to War, a Japanese army is shown marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. with the Capitol building in the background.  The script admonishes, “You will see what they did to the men and women of Nanking, Hong Kong, and Manila.  Imagine the field day they’d enjoy if they marched through the streets of Washington.” 

What Capra did here was to allow the Japanese to speak for themselves (he also did this with German and Italian film as well). Capra used captured documentary footage from the enemy (most likely for their own propaganda use) in his films but did so in a manner that favored the U.S. cause.  Capra took captured footage and newsreels, as well as old samurai movies and the like, and skillfully edited.  He deceptively juxtaposed them with images of war crimes, victimized civilians, and of burned down buildings and rubble in China, and the Philippines.  In The Battle of China, the righteousness of America’s presence in China was reinforced with images of a placid and civilized China with scenes of the country side and its people again juxtaposed with scenes of Japan’s army marching in stringent lines ominously infringing upon their Asian neighbors about to disrupt that serenity and calm.  The peaceful scenes of China set contrast to scenes of Japanese atrocities and destruction portrayed a villainous Japan that was out to destroy the peace.  By viewing captured Japanese footage from Japanese film, it would seem much more objective, and much less propagandous, that the Japanese were the true enemy worthy of any and all relentless attacks administered by the United States. 

    This clearly was not objective documentary story telling, but it was exactly the kind of message Marshall and the rest of the Army wanted to send to the American people.  Some of the films were required viewing for many American soldiers being shipped overseas.  They wanted to send the message that Japan, and the other Axis powers, were a loathsome group of villains who would wreak havoc upon civilization not stop unless America and the rest of the Allies stopped them. One technique that Capra used was the utilization of captured enemy war footage. In a somewhat ambiguous shift, the focus of dislike focused not on all Japanese, but rather on the Japanese military.  Capra’s Know Your Enemy—Japan showed pictures of the Japanese peasantry and those civilians in war-torn areas of Japan.  This was also Japan, the Japan that the powers that be ignored and did not seek to help. 

Purity, Pride, and Empire.

    Throughout the war and the years leading up to it, Japan maintained that its campaign through Asia was virtuous and that their Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere would, in the long run, do good for all of Asia under their guidance.  Seeing what Western countries were doing to Asia—the French presence in Southeast Asia, the British in Hong Kong and Singapore, and the United States in the Philippines—Japan sought to “liberate East Asia from white invasion and oppression” (Dower 25).  In 1942, the Japanese government published a booklet entitled The Greater East Asia War and Ourselves (Dai Toa Senso to Warera) describing how the relationship between Asian countries would be like that of a “branch family” (283). 

    Japan promoted the idea that under their leadership, East Asian would come to know greater economic prosperity free from Western influence and independent of Western economic bureaucracy.  Japan’s “Outline of Economic Policies for the Southern Areas” describes Japan’s plans “to assist the economic expansion of the Japanese people in the southern areas on the bases of overall national planning, and to advance economic changes within the Co-Prosperity Sphere” (287).  However, underneath all the rhetoric of a “Greater East Asia” lay hidden agendas as well. 

    Japan often justified their forceful tactics by citing a lack of cooperation from other Asian nations.  Japanese Foreign Minister Koki Hirota wrote:

"It is hardly necessary to say that the basic policy of the Japanese government aims at the stabilization of East Asia through conciliation and cooperation between Japan, Manchoukuo, and China for their common prosperity and well being.  Since, however, China, ignoring our true motive, has mobilized her vast armies against us, we can only counter her step by force of arms (Lasker and Roman 44)."

    Anti-Chinese rhetoric was quite common partly because China was Japan’s largest foe in Asia.  Yet they still maintained their stance of “good intentions.”  Japan was the good parent while the child countries of Asia, as stubborn as they were in the Japanese’ eyes, didn’t know what was good for them.  Japan was always fighting on their side yet felt that she had been constantly snubbed despite her assistance.  In a 1937 statement regarding the Sino-Japanese conflict at the beginning of the century, the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of New York had this to say:

"Back in 1904-05, Japan… fought Czarist Russia… upon Chinese soil.  She fought, first, to save China and, secondly, to save herself.  The two were the same thing, because Russian absorption of China meant Japan’s own eventual doom.  While Japan was fighting to save China, what was China doing? Secretly she entered into an alliance with Russia against Japan (20)."

Japan failed to recognize any wrongdoings it may have committed to other countries.  It maintained adamantly that Japan’s motives were, without question, for good and only good, and that any action taken against other Asian countries, such as China were brought about on account of self-defense. 

     Two very important war-time documents were Kore dake Yomeba Ware wa Kateru (Read this and the War is Won), and Shinmin no Michi (The Way of the Subject).  The first was a pamphlet written by Col. Tsuji Masanobu and his intelligence unit.  It was a small book handed out to all the soldiers before being sent off to the war in South and Southeast Asia.  In it, Western countries were bashed for their greedy holdings in India, most of Southeast Asia, and the Philippines.  The white Westerners were rich, arrogant colonists who subjugated the native people while they reaped the riches and lived lavishly above the poor.  Japanese soldiers read how “money squeezed from the blood of Asians maintains these small white minorities in their luxurious mode of life” (Dower 24).  It was Japan’s duty to free them from the grip of colonialism.  Not only was the West enslaving other nations and stealing their wealth, but they were doing it right in Japan’s backyard to their own fellow Asians.  Shinmin no Michi was an ideological manifesto issued by the Ministry of Education and directed more toward Japan’s domestic audience to teach them what they should aspire to be “as a people, nation and race” (24).  The Allied powers were depicted as the evil greedy ones as once again evident in their colonization of Asian countries.  Their immoral character was further reinforced by their brutal attacks on Pacific Islands and later on Japan itself.  America own track record was put to question, and the Japanese learned more of their atrocities when dealing with slavery to blacks and the mistreatment of minorities and immigrants in their own country, including Asian Americans.  They read about racially motivated violence and the herding of tens of thousands of Japanese immigrants into internment camps.  The objective was clear.  It was Japan’s “divine purpose” to defeat the enemy.

    Japan has traditionally been noted for its artistic advancements especially prints and paintings.  Often known for its simplicity, Japanese art shifted its motif and focused its efforts on the war.  Similar to America’s were Japan’s own call to arms and aid.

                    

            Figure 6                                               Figure 7

The poster in Figure 6 shows a charging Japanese soldier trampling over the British and American flags with a bayonet.  The poster, issued by the Army Ministry, reads “Fire and Never Quit!”  The soldier in Figure 7 points at the viewer, not too unlike Uncle Sam in his poster, and encourages people to join the Japan’s Young Men’s Military Brigade. 

 Of course Japanese propaganda art did not neglect to target the enemy.  In a manner similar to what American did by depicting the Japanese as subhuman apes, the Japanese countered with their own depiction of Americans (and the British as well) as hairy, demonic mongrels.  Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate such imagery.  In the first, a demonic figure with skulls around its neck wears the visage of President Roosevelt.  Similarly in Figure 9, President Roosevelt is shown with the hands and feet of a monster with a single horn protruding from his head.  He sits atop the "Grieving Statue of Liberty," the title of the picture.  She grieves because in the President's one hand, he waives the banner of democracy while in the other he tenaciously grips the stick of dictatorship.  Hanging from the crown of the statue is a striking worker, and a lackadaisical Navy sailor having a good time with the ladies.  The sullen face of the statue reflects the despicable state that the United States is in.  It shows that America is not as strong as she presents herself to be and that its own folly will result in its ultimate demise.  They were not such a formidable enemy that Japan could not defeat.  The United States was weak and vulnerable

                         

              Figure 8                                           Figure 9

Japan, on the other hand, was anything but weak.  They would bring light to the world, ridding it of the Allied forces, represented by the United States, Britain, China, and the Netherlands in Figure 10. Here, Japan’s rising sun blows them away.  A single wooden shoe represents the Dutch.  The Chinese character possesses an animal’s tail, which was a common depiction of the Chinese.  Britain is depicted as a portly figure, and the Americans as a criminal donning a prisoner’s striped uniform.  Notice also the crowns falling off the head of the British and Americans indicative of their wealth and opulence.

 

                        Figure 10

    One aspect of propaganda in which Japan greatly differed from its American counterparts was its audience.  The Americans for the most part did not have an foreign audience.  The figure in Appendix 3 is a pro-American Chinese poster and was one of a handful of exceptions.  The Japanese, on the other hand, had the daunting task of not only conquering these other Asian countries, but also persuading them to join their cause.  The Japanese, if they were to establish a stronghold within their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, they would have to win over the favor of those countries.  Japan had to positively promote their ideas to the Chinese, Koreans, South and Southeast Asians that a unified Asia, under Japanese leadership, free from the capitalist and economic influence of the West, was inherently and naturally good.  Without the support of other Asian nations, Japan’s cause would flounder.  Figure 11 shows Japan extending its helping hand to its Southeast Asian brother in Indonesia, who had been a colonized by the Dutch.  In the background can be seen a Dutch woman fleeing into darkness, away from the light of Japan.  The sun is labeled “Co-Prosperity Sphere.”  Figure 12 shows Churchill, Roosevelt, and Chiang Kai-Shek, each standing with one hand in his coat pocket in a Napoleon-like pose trampling over who appear to be slaves.  They are dark skinned suggesting that they are South Asian or of African decent.  Throughout the war, Japan often used historical accounts of America’s racist past to cite the many racial injustices of the United States.  The Allies are thus greedy and care about nothing except for their own capital gain.  The three leaders all have staunch yet rather comical looks on their face, not as threatening or as strong as they claim to be.  They are still characters, vulnerable and very much able to be defeated by the Japanese.  The ABCD letters in the background stand for the American, British, Chinese, and Dutch.

                   

                Figure 11                                                    Figure 12

    Although the influence of Hollywood and cinema on popular opinion during the war was apparent in the United States, they were not the only ones to use the art of motion pictures to their advantage.  Other Allied countries produced movies as propaganda against the enemy as well did Axis countries.  As for Japan, some critics would say that many of the Japanese films met or even surpassed American propaganda films both in technical quality and creative ingenuity.  However, in the wake of Japan’s defeat after the war, many of their war era films have been long since ignored. 

    Frank Capra, director of the acclaimed U.S. propaganda film series Why We Fight even acknowledged the excellence of Japanese war films. “We can’t beat this kind of thing,” Capra once said. “We make a film like that maybe once in a decade. We haven’t got the actors”  (Dower 34).  Capra was referring to the film Chocolate and Soldiers made in 1938 about a father fighting in China who sends his son letters from the battle field along with chocolate candy wrappers.  A common theme in many Japanese wartime films was that of the valiant soldier—a father, son, brother, or husband—going off to war and dying honorably for his country. 

    For whatever reason, the Japanese cinema tended to shy away from showing images of the enemy.  The anti-Western sentiment was apparent in both literature and in graphic art, but nearly altogether absent in cinema.  The enemy is vague.  They are referred to as karera or “they,” tekihei or “enemy soldier,” Chinese or Korean communists are hizoku or “bandits” (39).  If there was a direct reference to the enemy, it was done so in regards to the enemy’s past actions.  For example, Japan would cite America’s slave past and point to their history of treating their people unfairly.  In contrast, Hollywood depicted Japanese as an outright despicable and atrocious enemy in the present time and would not hold back from using any racial slurs wherever possible. 

    The Japanese did not rely so much on pointing the condemning finger at the enemy to say “look at them, look how evil they are.”  Instead, the overriding theme throughout most, if not all, Japanese film during this time period was purity. Purity was the supreme character trait of the hero (35).  The idea of national, ethnic, and spiritual purity was the cohesive glue that connected all of Japanese film and which made it very appealing to a Japanese audience seeking to make sense of all the fighting going on around them.  This was all the more important during the middle part of the war during which Japan was clearly on the losing side.  The hopeful messages elicited in film boosted the morale of the people when morale was low.  Even though they were losing the battle, their purity, their pride, and their strength as a Japanese people would hold them together in the end. 

    Another characteristic of Japanese war films that separated them from their American counterparts was their ability to appeal to their audience without over-sensationalizing or over-dramatizing their actors.  Their characters were admirable in their purity of character and valor of action but also very simple.  There is no fanaticism, no turbulent rides between the agony of defeat and the joy of victory (35).  In Yoshimura Kenzaburo’s acclaimed 1940 film The Story of Tank Commander Nishizumi, commissioned by Japan’s Ministry of War, the main character sacrifices his own life for his men in battle during the war with China.  For his sacrifice, he is posthumously honored with the title of gunshin or “military god.” 

The films is noted for its dynamic battle scenes, but where Hollywood might have contrived a more moving death scene with dramatic music, Commander Nishizumi’s death is hardly dramatic (37).  In fact, you do not even see his actual death.  In a calm, comforting scene, Nishizumi’s commanding officer at his death bed whispers, “He is sleeping well… he was a good man… he looks just as if he were alive.” 

    This kind of display of self-sacrifice, this total giving up of oneself for the greater good, was an integral part of that one ubiquitous virtue of purity.  The Japanese sacrifice was part of what made them pure in the spiritual sense.  Anthropologist Ruth Benedict commented about Japanese film saying that “the spirit of sacrifice or the subjection of self to pattern was the dominant theme in these films” (34). 

    Documentaries—not in the strictest sense in terms of objectivity but rather like Capra’s propaganda-style documentaries—were also used in Japanese propaganda.  Even before the war when Japan was not at war with the United States, they brought out the suffering aspects of war in order to elicit empathy from audiences.  In 1939, Kamei Fumio’s Fighting Soldiers and Tasaka Tomotaka’s Mud and Soldiers displayed the relentless tedium and emotional drain of the Japanese forces in China. Fumio’s film showed so much suffering.  Unlike U.S. films, which portrayed an invincible U.S. military and carried vengeful, often racist tones, Japan took the position of underdog. Footage from the war with China or with Russia didn’t show so much war itself than it did how the war affected the Japanese.  The directors most likely sought to create empathy and a sense of need even when Japan had the upper hand.  The effect it had was the material as well as moral support from the country.  They were the victims of war who were simply struggling for their own honorable survival amidst the chaos, which they themselves were helping to create. 

 

Manifest Destiny and Co-Prosperity: Euphemisms for Imperialism

    The United States was not fighting Japan simply because of their surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.  There are even those who might say that the attack really should not have come as much of a surprise at all, that the United States methodically provoked the Japanese to attack in order to give the United States a reason to jump into the war.  Up until that point, the United States had only moderately contributed on the European front, and was looking for a way to join in the fight.  The reasons for the United States entering the war vary, and it would be difficult to argue that they entered the war for any one sole reason.  One explanation is for economic reasons.  The war created jobs and boosted domestic industry.  In Asian, Japan was building a stronghold of Asian nations that included China, Korea, and also the Philippines, which the United States had vested interest in and to whom they were still a major influence.  The United States still had valuable assets that they needed to protect in Asia, as did European nations, such as Great Britain and France who still held colonies in Singapore, Hong Kong, and French Indochina. 

    During World War II, it can be argued that the United States was fighting against imperialist expansionism in the Far East by Japan.  However, deciphering whether or not this was one of America’s primary goals may not be as interesting as pointing out the striking similarities between Japan’s imperialist campaign of the 20th century to that of the United States’ own expansionist movement of the middle and late 19th century. The Japanese and Americans shared one major goal in common: the expansion of its borders by the forceful acquisition or annexation of other peoples’ land for their own increase in natural resources and capital gain. 

    The United States looked Westward as they sought to expand the United States’ ever growing borders. The Lewis and Clark expedition was commissioned to map out the frontier west of the Mississippi.  Although early settlers had already begun exploring lands west of the Appalachians in the 18th century, the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 opened the floodgates to yet more people seeking valuable and arable farmland.  Under the leadership of Sam Houston, Texas declared its independence from Mexico in 1836 and was later annexed by the United States in 1845. Once gold was discovered in California in 1848, the emigration toward the West boomed with pioneers and businessmen alike seeking their own personal fortune. 

The Japanese, not too unlike their American counterparts, sought to expand their borders as well.  Prior to 1868, before the Emperor Meiji was crowned, Japan was locked in feudal disarray, war torn and isolated from the rest of the world.  But when the Emperor Meiji took the throne, he dissolved the old feudal system and sought to modernize and industrialize the islands.  In order to do this, Japan had to be willing to learn from and borrow ideas from industrialized nations such as Great Britain, Germany, and the United States.  In 1873, the Naimusho, or Home Ministry was created to implement economic and industrial policies. 

    America’s movement into the West was fueled by the concept of “Manifest Destiny,” a term coined by Texas journalist John O’Sullivan referring to the idea that it was America’s divine mission, or “destiny,” to spread the American culture and ideals from shore to shore.  The Native American tribes, of course, were but a mere obstacle in the way of that destiny.  Numerous accounts of violence towards them have been documented.  The Natives were savages in the Americans’ eyes, and if they did not accept their ways, they were simply removed or exterminated.  However, it was sometimes made to look as if the Natives were given a fair chance to assimilate, that after much stubborn resistance, American had no choice but to take action against them.  Andrew Jackson, in his statement to congress in 1829 issuing the Removal Act of the Native Americans, saw their removal as for their own good.

“The condition and ulterior destiny of the Indian Tribes within the limits of some of our States, have become objects of much interest and importance.  It has long been the policy of Government to introduce among them the arts of civilization, in the hope of gradually reclaiming them from a wandering life.” 

     -Andrew Jackson, 1829

The Removal Act resulted in thousands of Native Americans being violently mistreated and driven from their land into what was called the Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. 

    The racial attacks not only targeted the Native Americans, however.  Mexicans, Cubans, and Filipinos were often at the brunt end American opinion.  Sam Houston, first president of the Republic of Texas, speaking of the Mexicans, could “see no reason why (America) should not go in… and take their lands” (McCaffrey 68).  Perhaps even more widely read were the words published by the Illinois State Register in 1846 when they called Mexicans “reptiles in the path of progressive democracy… and they must either crawl or be crushed” (69).  President McKinley, after the Spanish-American War saw granting Cuba’s independence would result in “anarchy and misrule.”  Filipinos were “unfit for self-government” and that “there was nothing left for them to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them” (McKinley in Horlacher 40).  Little was McKinley aware that the Philippines was already the most Christianized country in Asia. 

    The Japanese in their own dealings with other Asian countries were no different.  They too would use ambiguous language as the United States did. One moment, h=they would relentlessly bash their neighboring countries, the next, praise them for their redeeming qualities.  A prime example of this is the Japanese’ view of Koreans.  Perhaps some of the more colorful propagandous Japanese writing, albeit extremely racist and demeaning writing, was directed toward Korea.  Travel logs described the filth they saw in Korean homes, exaggerated accounts of the use of human excrement in daily living, and the waywardness of the Korean people altogether.   One traveler said the seven major products of Korea were “shit, tobacco, lice, kaesang [courtesans], tigers, pigs, and flies” (Duus 402). 

    Negative descriptions such as these created popular stereotypes about Korea among the Japanese.  Despite this, however, there was an overwhelming sense of parental duty that the Japanese felt toward their Korean “brothers,” that despite their extreme backwardness, they were somehow redeemable.  A journalist wrote that the Koreans were “by no means inferior to the Japanese in industry and endurance, who, if they have the proper leadership, will have a bright future” (408).  Of course, the leadership of which he spoke was that of the Japanese.  The Koreans were simply in a dark period culturally, and with the help of their ethnic “brothers,” the Japanese, they could break them loose of their stolid ineptitude.  This was the general and popular view of the Koreans. 

    Japan’s concept of Hakko Ichiu, or “eight corners under one roof,” was their counter to America’s Manifest Destiny.  Japan catered to the idea of a common Asian race and promoted ethnic unity under Japan’s “roof” of leadership.  This idea stemmed from the 8th Century tale that when Japan was first founded 2,600 years ago, several races inhabited the islands.  It was only natural, therefore, for the races come back together under the Japanese “roof” (223).  But China, the most populous nation in the world, was a tremendous problem to the Japanese expansion effort.  Japan claimed that the “unification” of Japan and China was not only for the good of Japan but for China’s welfare as well. Forceful action was necessary, however, in order to defend themselves from a resistant China.  Foreign Minister Koki Hirota wrote once in an article entitled “The Sino-Japanese Conflict”:

"It is hardly necessary to say that the basic policy of the Japanese government aims at the stabilization of East Asian through conciliation and cooperation between Japan, Manchukuo, and China for their common prosperity and well being.  Since, however, China, ignoring our true motive, has mobilized her vast armies against us, we can only counter her step by force of arms” (Koki in Lasker and Roman 44)."

    Resources drew Americans West.  There was ample land to farm, and homesteader grabbed as much land as they could stake out for themselves.  The Gold Rush brought people flocking to California in search of wealth.  What the East Coast lacked, the West had.  Similarly, Japan’s islands themselves were not rich in natural resources.  Oil and fuel were one of their major imports.  Approximately 80 percent of the land are mountainous terrain and less than ideal for farming.  China, the northern regions around Manchuria in particular, were rich in natural resources and would have been a primary target for Japan to find resources and good farm land. 

    The United States and Japan both sought territorial expansion, and both had forceful opposition. America acted swiftly and forcefully to get rid of Native Americans, Mexicans, and any Spaniards standing in their way.  Japan tried to assimilate and negotiate with China as well, but as they saw that it would be an impossible feat to simply “get rid of” all the Chinese, they acquired their claims in parts taking Manchuria in 1931 and Manchukuo in 1939.  Korea had been annexed earlier in 1910.  Methods may have differed between Japan and the United States, but the impetus for imperialism was the same. 

Persuasion

    The art of persuasion is a valuable tool, which, if controlled and mastered, could turn the collective minds of an entire people for or against a single idea or concept.  Its advertising in its purest form.  It is not so much what idea is presented than how it is presented that matters the most.  The number of war bonds sold depends on how well the advertisements were developed and how many people saw them.  It depends on who saw them, whether they were wealthy, upper-class or lower to middle class citizens who might not afford to invest in bonds but looked to perhaps gamble and cash in on the booming economy of the time.  How attractive were the armed forces made to look?  What kind of rewards, benefits or honors could be gained?  From the nationalistic stand point, how evil was the enemy made to look?  What facts about the enemy should be told or withheld from the public, and how can that information be skewed to make the enemy look even worse?  What rights had the enemy violated?  Was Japan a realistic threat to our liberty?  If they were, America was certainly not about to stand around and not take up arms.  America’s dignity had been challenged, and Japan would pay. 

    Conversely, how were America and the Allies violating Japan and other Asian nations? Asia had been invaded by an uninvited Western guest wearing the guise of diplomacy and trade.  They brought greed, wealth and sought not the benefit of the native people but for their own wealth.  They brought their Western ways spreading their culture, language, and ideologies, with empty hopes for Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, and Chinese.  They brought materialism and selfishness.  India, China, the Philippines, and, with the exception of Thailand, Southeast Asia were oppressed under the ruling thumb of Western colonization.  Japan had the strongest Army and Navy in Asia.  Certainly it would be up to them to defend the honor and dignity of these Asian nations who could not fend for themselves.  America points their finger at Japan, the aggressor, while America itself has had a history of aggression against Blacks, and other minorities including Asians.  Japan brought wealth to Asia and stirred dormant countries like Korea to raise themselves up.  Asia had the potential to be a world power, and it could only do that with Japan’s leadership. 

    How well did each country play the race card?  Japan took no exception to whom they directed their racial slurs, but they painted a demonic image of the Allies much more than they did their Asian opposition.  They could not insult their own “brethren,” as they would put it, if they were to be won over to the Japanese side.  The United States, on the other hand, fixated on the dehumanized depiction of the Japanese, presenting them as monkeys and gorillas.  They tended to shy away from any animal or demonic portrayal of their European foes partly because the majority of American’s were of European decent.  To dehumanize the Europeans would be to dehumanize themselves.  They felt no ethnic ties to the Japanese whatsoever.  Both countries realized the importance of eliciting an ethnic hatred for the enemy as well as creating a subhuman image of them.  It is much easier to kill a big hairy white mongrel or vine-swinging, gun-wielding monkey than it is to kill another human being.  The enemy was not human. 

    It can easily be said that the United States had more effective propaganda because they won the war.  But the bottom line is that war is won on the battlefield.  The United States won because she swiftly and relentlessly bombed Tokyo and because she had the resources and means to do so.  With the major industrial areas of Japan bombed out of commission, the Japanese government could have shown war films on huge screens in every major town, posted propaganda posters on every street corner and newspaper, and handed out copies of Read This and the War is Won to every man, woman and child boosting morale and national pride, but Japan would have still lost the war.  Propaganda hoped to boosted morale, sold ideas, and gave hope and confidence to its audience.  It did not fight battles for them. 

    The affects of propaganda, however, last well after treaties are signed and the dusts of war settle. Japan, though defeated, still held inside the same hatred for the United States it had before the war if not more so.  They played the role of defeated foe, smiling to appease their victors on the outside but contemptuous and demoralized on the inside. The United States still often referred to the Japanese as “Japs” or other racially derogatory names.  The words and images left to us by propaganda remain in a nation's collective memory.  They are vestiges of war-time.  However good or bad, those memories linger in culture.  The elements of war are not left on the battle field to wither away with those who perished.  Hate, anger, and contempt are brought home so that “war” becomes no longer a job but a way of life.