Phrases such as “post-coronavirus world” and “new lifestyle” have been frequently heard in casual discussions since the state of emergency over the COVID-19 pandemic was lifted in late May.

But these seemingly innocuous words and terms conjure up images of Japan during World War II, according to Eiji Otsuka, 61, an expert on Japan’s wartime culture.

Otsuka also says that even media programs urging people to declutter their homes or grow their own vegetable were tactics used by the wartime government to ultimately control society. In addition, self-imposed bans and theories about “Japanese superiority” are resurfacing.

Those methods were political moves that totally changed society into one that could be mobilized to support the wartime regime, he said.

Otsuka has studied manga and otaku subcultures in modern Japan. He has written several manga comic books, including “Unlucky Young Men” and “The Kurosagi Corpse Delivery Service.”

Excerpts of the interview follow:

***

QUESTION: You have pointed out that the government-proposed “new lifestyle” evokes images of wartime society. Can you elaborate on that?

ANSWER: I am concerned more than anything else with the overuse of words and terms such as “everyday life” and “lifestyle.” These words and terms were frequently used in wartime Japan. Before and after the outbreak of war between Japan and the United States, newspapers and magazines began featuring articles related to “everyday life” and “lifestyle,” for instance.

How to make seasonal Japanese pickles from your home vegetable garden. How to decorate a “fusuma” screen with old kimono clothes. Media companies raced to run such articles, which could very well be collectively coined as “neat lifestyle” in today’s environment.

Famed editor Yasuji Hanamori played a significant role in the media. As a member of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, Hanamori worked to spread political propaganda. Concurrently, he edited many lifestyle-themed magazines for women. The article advocating the reuse of old kimono for fusuma screens was produced by Hanamori while he worked for the association.

After the war, Hanamori became the chief editor of Kurashi no Techo (Living Handbook), a popular and influential magazine targeting homemakers.

Q: Advocating an elaborate lifestyle represented by handmade stuff and well-prepared dishes sounds like a wonderful thing to me.

A: Each of these things appears to be an undeniably “wonderful thing.” But the absolute intention behind such a proposal was to build up a wartime social structure. On the surface, these proposals urge people to be creative and live economically to prepare for wartime shortages.

But the real purpose was to make the public become acclimatized to the “new normal” under the wartime regime.

It was the Imperial Rule Assistance Association that strongly promoted such an acclimatization process. They tried to persuade the public to remodel their everyday life and lifestyle.

These terms may sound apolitical, but they are indeed political. These terms do not carry militaristic images, providing a shield against political criticism from the public. Yet, the movement to promote a new lifestyle absolutely played a political role by successfully changing society from the ground up and disciplining the public so that they could be mobilized to support the wartime regime.

When I heard the term “new lifestyle” over the coronavirus pandemic, I felt offended because it reminded me of the same term used during the war. It was not only because of the linguistic similarity.

The news that we have been exposed to daily also bizarrely overlaps with (what happened during the war). There was a media report about people flocking to a home vegetable garden section at a home center. During the war, building home vegetable gardens was also encouraged.

The Tokyo metropolitan government has posted a video to encourage decluttering. During the war, some local governments urged residents to get rid of disused articles. The list can go forever.

Some libraries have a search service for wartime newspaper articles, and you may go see for yourself.

Q: I don’t think that the “elaborate lifestyle” itself is necessary a bad thing.

A: That is not the point. Discussing what is good and what is bad is not what matters. What I’m saying is that politics is trying to make a total change of the public’s lifestyle and everyday life, and that is not right, now or during wartime.

Politics and media are taking the initiative to convince the public to change their actions and consciousnesses. In other words, politics is making an attempt to rework the public.

In order to accomplish that, they are blatantly spreading messages and guidelines that show people what their everyday life and activities should look like.

They don’t use difficult words theorizing everything. Instead, they control the public by urging them to participate through action. It is the same method that the Imperial Rule Assistance Association and others employed during the war. Tell people to do something on their own in their everyday life. Then they are already mobilized. It’s so easy, just like that.

Q: But I think the information regarding decluttering and home vegetable gardening were needed for people who tried to make these “stay home” days as enjoyable as possible.

A: Each newspaper article published during the war was “useful for today and tomorrow.” Each piece of the puzzle didn’t look political, but once completed, the “new everyday life” was indeed a new political reality, which became the wartime regime.

Q: I myself spent extra time thinking about how to get things that were scarce and what to do about preparing meals. But it was because I was focusing on a task at hand, and nothing else.

A: Women were the main bearers of the “new lifestyle” during the war. For them, such guidelines may have shown a “proper way to participate in society.” Women at the time may have felt fulfilled. At least, it was portrayed as such at the time.

It was 1940 when the “new lifestyle” slogan started appearing, the same year the Imperial Rule Assistance Association was founded. The following year, the war between Japan and the United States began.

But a “self-imposed ban” had been promoted and encouraged even before that, in the wake of the war between Japan and China in 1937.

First, the public was urged not to get their hair permed. Then, the cafes where women served were put on the list of the self-imposed ban. These were the things that struck a deep chord in women’s hearts. To me, they were slipped into the category of the voluntary ban in mastery fashion.

Under the coronavirus pandemic, governments discussed whether beauty and hair salons should be put on the restriction list. Now, officials are working hard to take measures against “nightlife districts.” Some women’s associations have taken vigilante-like action.

Such a “self- imposed ban” leads to a voluntary remodeling of lifestyle. Then the “control and regulations” go into full swing. We have already seen a discussion of introducing penal regulations into the self-imposed ban, which is about control and regulations.

Q: There were people who welcomed the central government’s lifestyle guidelines to prevent the spread of virus infections because they ensure public safety.

A: There has always been a call for “strong political leadership,” even without the coronavirus outbreak.

It is desirable for somebody else to make a decision that he or she only has to follow. Such a desire goes against democracy. During the virus pandemic, local government leaders who were skillful at such performances appeared to be doing a great job because their voices were loud and their agitation skills were deft. Many people gave them a big hand.

However, I am very concerned that this society has gotten used to “following a powerful force” and wondering which way it will go.

Q: The words from experts are convincing, after all.

A: These experts at the government’s task force meetings talked about the “new lifestyle,” which is nothing more than some “rules” that students can make in a classroom discussion. More often than not, I have seen some experts neglecting their responsibility and spreading information as “ordinary people.” I think the expertise of science has retrogressed in the pandemic.

For example, many people have begun actively arguing that Japan’s fatality rate from the novel coronavirus is lower than those of countries in Europe and North America because of “Japanese behavior” and “Japanese culture.”

I have heard indirectly that even an expert said such a thing. There are East Asian countries whose fatality rates from the novel coronavirus are lower than Japan’s.

Terms such as “lifestyle” and “everyday life” appear to be the basis of culture. Therefore, it is easy for many to take the leap and cite a spiritual and cultural theory that “Japan is great” as the reason the pandemic did not get worse here.

A Diet member even used a term “Japan miracle.” This coronavirus-related cultural theory is almost entering a dimension similar to the “kamikaze” (divine wind) theory (a myth used during the war). Most Japanese cultural theories that are self-congratulatory should be taken with a grain of salt.

Q: But if people are afraid of getting infected with the coronavirus, it is hard for them to say “no” to the self-imposing ban and new lifestyle guidelines, right?

A: Once the coronavirus pandemic is over, there will be criticism against the self-imposing ban and new lifestyle guidelines. People will describe (these restrictions) as “lacking medical grounds” or “excessive and wasteful.” I have seen some of this already.

Then, people will start searching for a “war criminal,” wondering, “Who in the world said such ridiculous things back then?”

When asked, “Why in the world did you follow them back then?” most people will make an excuse and say, “The atmosphere back then was not like that, and it was hard to oppose.”

Isn’t this the same excuse that people made after the war? That they were carried away with the wartime mood and remained silent?

Q: Then what should we do?

A: If you feel something is wrong, just say, “Yuck, I don’t like it.” I say so because I don’t feel comfortable with the “self-imposing ban” and “new lifestyle,” as well as a certain “righteousness” that clings to these terms.

But I feel even more uncomfortable with a society in which people cannot express their discomfort or feelings that something is strange. It is not right.

There are measures that we should take at the very least to prevent infections from spreading. But this should not be the same as politics changing people’s lifestyles amid the confusion. When public authority invades private lives in one form or another, saying “I don’t want to obey” is a basis of democracy.

Q: But the “new” part of the term “new lifestyle” sounds very positive.

A: The term “new” is intentionally put in there to diminish the subject of criticism and direct it to “old.” It is a historically used tactic. In a stagnant society, people tend to accept anything “new.”

The success of establishing the new regime of Fumimaro Konoe (a prime minister who presided over Japan’s invasion of China and founded the Imperial Rule Assistance Association) came out of a revolutionary movement. The same can be said about the births of the postwar innovation movement, the administration of Junichiro Koizumi who criticized the ruling Liberal Democratic Party as “old,” and the current administration of Shinzo Abe who has regarded the postwar framework as “antiquated” and dismissed it.

Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) came out the same way. The reality of their “newness” is never scrutinized or questioned. Those who do not question it are wrong.

Q: As a matter of fact, the “newness” of the post-coronavirus world is frequently discussed these days.

A: I don’t trust people who argue about the “post-coronavirus world.” Certainly, the world will become worse with many problems being revealed. But such a world had been expected with or without the coronavirus.

There is no such thing as a “new” world that pretends some things never happened. Looking back over the past 20 years, we have repeated a discussion about a “post-something” world. There was a “post-3/11 world” discussion after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. There was also a “post-9/11 world” discussion referring to the 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States.

Phrases like, “The world has changed after this” and “Let’s talk about the new world that is coming from now,” were repeated in these discussions. I expect the same people will talk about the “post-coronavirus world” with a knowing look.

I heard that some scholars in the humanities field who have struggled to acquire money for research are seeing this as an opportunity to gain more research expenses by choosing the “post-coronavirus world” as a theme.

Including that, I believe a “new” politics, which exploits the “post-coronavirus world” for political purposes, will begin.