94Butoh Studies 2003 Number 26 Secondary Fundamental Points

Tatsumi Hijikata: Reception and Change in Ankoku

Butoh
-The Question of Originality in the Current Research into Present Day
Nationalized Society: The Example of Kuriharas Theses-
By Dr. Kayo Mikami of Kyoto Seika University
Translated By Joshua Gibbs

Aims and Methods

At the Keio Universitys art centre the Hijikata archive opened the Butoh volumes such as
the Butoh score to the public. In August 2002 there was an open Butoh Summit which was held
in Tokyo. Here scholars of Hijikata such as Satoru Kawamura and Masaru Shimizu discussed
works such as the The Dancing Girl in Sickness (Yameru Maihime) by Hijikata and its French
language version Butohs. Accompanied by university lecturers and others these scholars
discussed this topic for a one year period. But does this discourse on Butoh show any prosperity?
It is still not clear to what extent Hijikata and Butoh have been understood.
As the most important feature of this international research project is Japan and the rest of
the scholarly worlds grasp of current events in Butoh and Butoh practitioners reception and
change, this paper has two of the worlds leading Hijikata scholars, Kayo Mikami who wrote The
Human Body as a Vessel: an Approach to Tatsumi Hijikatas Ankoku Butoh Techniques and
Nanako Kurihara, who wrote Hijikata Tatsumi the Words of Butoh and her university theses The
Most Remote Things in the Universe: Critical Analysis of Hijikata Tatsumis Butoh Dance (New
York University 1996.9) looked at from the perspective of originality and then has them compared
and contrasted. The reason why this paper discusses this comparison is that an American scholar
suggested that both scholars had the same ideas independently.

By way of this theory, the book The Human Body as a Vessel which was based on the
worlds first Hijikata Butoh theses, which was also written by Mikami, The research of Tatsumi
Hijikatas Butoh Technique Trial Theory, Ochanomizu University M.A Dissertation 1991.3, is not
shown to have any pioneer spirit in the work of Kurihara and this lack of reference points to
intellectual violation. In this current paper the academic danger which is inherent in international
research and in aspects of contemporary international Butoh will become clearer.

Consideration of the Topic

(1) The Human Body as a Vessel and Drama Review Theory
The objective of explaining Hijikata Butohs ideas and techniques from the relationship
between body and language is stolen by Kurihara. The methods for deciphering the Hijikata code
which have their basis in the researchers (i.e. Kayo Mikami) own experience of Hijikata Butoh is
stolen by Kurihara. The difficulties and necessities of deciphering Hijikatas linguistic code are
included in Hijikatas the Butoh Score are stolen by Kurihara. The foundations of his
independent ideas and excess from the personal history of Hijikata to Butohs establishment in the
cultural and sociological background are also stolen from Mikami by Kurihara. Continuation and
change in the products themes and techniques throughout the performance products history is
mentioned as is the relationship with the traditional performing arts and discussion of Butoh and the
body from the perspective of weakeningi and fadingii are also themes which are stolen. The
similarities of these themes and constructions, are, to conclude, vital to the role of understanding the
Hijikata Butoh body and these themes have been stolen from Kayo Mikami by Nanako Kurihara.
There are also similarities between the translation of Hijikatas original materials which are
attached to Kuriharas essay and quotes in Mikamis piece about the material mentioned above. The
above similarities with Hijikatas first thoughts, Butoh Score, are a peculiarity of Mikamis
theory.
Kuriharas theory restructs the body by using techniques, and from 1989 the theme of
deconstruction can be compared with a similar theory which belongs to Mikami who carried on the
work of Hijikata. Despite this, there is no reference in Kuriharas corpus to Mikami being her
intellectual predecessor.
Furthermore in the first official English language translation of the Hijikata texts, performed
by Kurihara, one of the key pieces of terminology in the work Kaza Daruma iii is misspelled as
Kaze Daruma. Here we can see that the responsibility for accuracy and academic standards held
by people dealing with primary sources i.e. Hijikata texts is immense.

(2) Mikamis text The Human Body as a Vessel and Kuriharas university dissertation.
Similarities of aim, method, structure and overall feeling of piece can be seen in (1).
Keywords such as shamanism, transform, sacrifice, passitivity, negativity, experience,
becoming nerves a condemned prisoner and other phrasal similarities as well as the main
themes mushikuiiv and walk as length and shared references and the like also show
borrowing from Mikami without reference and this is inappropriate. In the middle of the
Kurihara text, there are mistakes in passages where she is, using quotes from Mikami to discuss the
Cult of Hijikata
Ideas are used without proper reference such as a section in Shigeo Godas Hijikata Butoh
historys Banzai Woman (Banzai Onna), Daughter in Law (Yome) s. This paper connects the
body and the memory of Thoku, where Hijikata was born, the period of the establishment of the
technique, and the Karayukisanv motif from the oeuvre of Ashikawa amongst many other things and
due to this informality of acknowledgement it is a violation of its intellectual predecessor.
Finally in the main points of research there are similarities with Mikamis work but, the
Mikami book it is compared to The Human Body as a Vessel, does not even have any subtitles
and it is not mentioned in Kuriharas degree dissertation that there is reference that Mikamis Body
as a Vessel Book is based on Mikamis M.A. theses. This mixture of solid fact and severe doubt
points to theft from previous theories and leaves the very originality of Kuriharas theses held in
doubt.

CONCLUSION

By showing new vision, new methods and new materials the essay shows originalityvi, in
contrast to its predecessors new it is truly original.
Kurihara uses the same idea retortvii, replying through a lawyer that The Human Body as a
Vessel subtitle was overlooked and she did not know of Mikamis degree dissertation. But is
there some scope for mistake in this argument? It is unfair that Kurihara only chooses to present
herself as a researcher outside of Japan.
Now, although obvious similarities between the theories of Kurihara and Mikami are
accepted, Kuriharas ideas must not be repeated and interpreted as original ideas. The M.A.
students and researchers of Hijikata who only pick upon the writings of Kurihara to read say Butoh
research is more advanced abroad than in Japan because of Kurihara. The fact is that there are
people who think in this way: it is no wonder Butoh research is not moving forward and this is a
serious problem in dance studies.
This example shows the problem of the whole of Butoh dance studies, the fact that historical
facts cannot be established. This paper opposes Kuriharas dance theory and thinks it should be
judged fairly by the Japanese Society for Dance Research. It is hoped that further understanding of
the situation and that the important function of academia called the preservation of the originality
of the text is a thing which can be achieved by the Japanese Society for Dance Research.
Kyoto Seika University Research Association Assistant
i
Suijakutai is the original Japanese. The first two kanji are glossed in the Canon Wordtank Dictionary as
weakening, enfeeblement, and debility and the final kanji means body but as a suffix it means state.
ii
Kieru is the original Japanese. The translators mind automatically replied fading but the Canon Wordtank
Dictionary gives to die out to put (a light) off as well as fade.
iii
The kanji may be pronounced as kaze or Kaza depending on the other kanji it is in a compound with. Kaze is
translated as wind and Daruma is a borrowing from Chinese for Bodhidharma the founder of Zen Buddhism.
Daruma is written with Hiragana in the original text though the kanji for Daruma are .
iv
Mushikui is glossed in the Canon Wordtank Electronic Dictionary as vermiculation, though a more colloquial
rendering would be worm eaten. Having said this the latter translation implies that only worms have eaten
whereas in the Japanese any insect could have eaten. The first kanji is often glossed as insectand
means eating.
v
Karayuki is a word for a Japanese prostitute who worked outside of Japan in East Asia in the last half of the
nineteenth century. San is the prefix equivalent for the English suffix Mr or Mrs although it can be used after plurals.
vi
In the Japanese text Kayo Mikami uses the Katakana script to draw attention to originality and this Katakana script
catches the Japanese readers attention. Hence originality is put in bold and other words which are either written in
Katakana or are found in Kagikakko ( ) are but in bold in this translation.
vii
i.e. That because there is only so much the human mind may do, two humans often have the same or similar ideas.