Medium 2

Both “Goodbye Asia” and “The Way of the Subject” are essentially justifications for Japan’s expansion. They share the common thread of believing the world is realistic and competitive, and that Japan must become stronger to avoid being bullied. Both also use the argument that “Japan is relatively civilized, advanced, and has a strong sense of mission” to justify its ability to influence, manage, and even control neighboring countries, portraying expansion as Japan “fulfilling its responsibilities” rather than aggression. The difference lies in their perspectives. “Goodbye Asia” was written when Japan was still weak, so the author argues that China and Korea were too backward and would drag Japan down, requiring Japan to quickly align itself with Western civilization, learn Western systems, and even stand with the West to avoid being bullied by the great powers. “The Way of the Subject,” however, was written when Japan had become an empire and relations with the United States and Britain had deteriorated. Its narrative completely changes, portraying the West as selfish, greedy, and only interested in exploiting Asia, while depicting Japan as a benevolent nation with a “national polity” and “imperial spirit,” claiming that Japan came to lead, protect, and “liberate Asia,” and demanding that the entire nation sacrifice itself for the country and the Emperor, portraying the war as a “just holy war.” These changes stemmed from two main factors. First, the international environment had genuinely shifted: in 1885, Japan feared colonization and sought to integrate with the West; by 1941, Japan had successfully expanded its influence and felt strong enough to confront the West. Second, Japan’s self-perception had changed: initially, it saw itself as a “student striving to catch up with civilization,” relying on the West for progress; later, it saw itself as “Asia’s leader” and “the nation with the strongest spirit,” believing only Japan was qualified to lead the region. This illustrates that the differences between the two articles arose both from the changing geopolitics of the time and from a fundamental reimagining of Japan’s identity and role.