Harakiri, a consecution of obligation in conflict

It is the history of Man to be faced with decisions, as is seen from the etiological times of the Great Fall, unto the political issues of modern day. The dilemmas faced are usually clear as to their correct response; however, when one’s obligations are clouded in a vague conflict of opposing moralities, the conclusions reached are most certainly astounding. Such is the display of conscience in Japanese literature, evinced by Masaki Kobayashi in Harakiri

In the film Harakiri, the plot is generally speaking of 17th Century samurai who have been taken from work upon the displacement of their masters by the Ieyasu Tokugawa shogunate. The main character and antagonist Kageyu Seito tells of his encounters with two ronin named Motome Chijiiwa and Hanshiro Tsugumo, both of whom ask for the castle in Seito’s care as a place to perform the act of Seppuku (ritual suicide, by means of disembowelment). Chijiiwa has a family of dying dependants whom he must support, and uses the threat of suicide as a possible means for charitable income. Instead of the expected outcome; however, Seito forces Chijiiwa to kill himself, using bamboo swords (as Chijiiwa has sold his blades for money to support his family). This is the first chronological example of obligations in conflict. Chijiiwa has a choice to make of which either way has its benefits and blows. To not approach Lord Seito for this last act of hope for his family would bring dishonor upon him personally. Can one have been said to live honorably at the cost of others lives? No, not at all, but in the same situation he has the opposing argument that could result in death or at worst a loss of one’s honor, a highly valued possession in Japanese society. The same can be said in his selling of his true samurai blades. The samurai’s sword is the soul of the warrior. The craftsmanship, legacy and art that the Katana (curved Japanese sword, also found as a two-handed sword known as a Dai-Katana or a small short sword called a Wakasazi) contains are directly proportional to the man who wields it. Thereby in the act of selling his blades for those of bamboo, Chijiiwa is essentially selling his soul for profit in exchange for a “soul” of fragile and unworthy nature. In both of these situations he chooses to support his family, and even so I opine that credible and convincing arguments may be made in defense of each of the opposing paths.

Further along in the tale in a quest for truth, Chijiiwa’s father-in-law Tsugumo ventures to the same castle. Also claiming the threat of suicide, but with different motive, he reveals the dishonor of the Iyi household (under the care of Lord Seito) and kills many of the prized samurai before committing Seppuku himself. On one side, it can be said that Tsugumo has an obligation to his family and to the reparation of Chijiiwa’s death but would also bring dishonor upon him, and honor only regained by Seppuku. On the other hand, to remain inactive is to live for naught. Tsugumo is prepared to die, for he has nothing left. His son-in-law was killed at the hands of the House of Iyi, consequently resulting in the deaths of his daughter and grandson Miho and Jinai. He is out of employment and has no prospect of work in the future. The path he chooses; to confront the House of Iyi and accept death, a death reached by his own blade; seems the most logical of any choice in the plotline. Although arguments may be made to support inactivity, they are not seemingly proportionate to that of vengeance.

The manner of vengeance is in itself also a conflict. Tsugumo, to restore the honor of Chijiiwa, systematically removes the symbolic “top-knot” of three samurai that wrong Chijiiwa. This removal of such a badge of social standing is equivalent if not worse than decapitation. Yet after this act is performed, the responses of the samurai are most appalling. They have a choice of either killing themselves to show their shame, or to continue to live and wait for the knot to grow back. The former carries the consequences of death, and no hope for further enjoyment of life; however, the latter carries with it the worst dishonor of all. They cowardly chose the latter of the two roads, which is revealed by Tsugumo in a presentation before the judge, Lord Seito. This choice ignores completely the obligations which they posses. To remain alive is a luxury, to uphold the honor of the House of Iyi is an absolute, one that is ignored in the behavior of the three samurai.

In the end, Lord Seito commits the ultimate upholding of his obligations by covering up the entire preceding debacle in his journal with the words “Nothing much happened today…” In his positions there is no opposing obligation. Honor to the aristocracy is superficial, something to be enforced but not practiced. So the legacies of Motome Chijiiwa and Hanshiro Tsugumo live on only in the mind of the reader, forever to be forgotten by society. Obligations and the conflicts therein contained are but the gilded covering of a dank and dark world. That which is normal, that which is expected, and that which is truth is only as real as a people make it to be. As such, no matter the conflicts existent, a person’s resolution to a scenario cannot be objectively viewed, and support may be found for any outcome achieved. It is the iron structure of society built upon a foundation of sand, ever shifting with the tide until corruption sends it toppling into the sea.

Patrick McGroarty, Nic Nac Paddywhack (give a dog a bone)