The Japanese term *sôke* seems to generate a great deal of confusion, not just among people who lack Japanese-language skills but among Japanese people themselves. In different contexts the term acquires different meanings and connotations. For this reason, when writing about *sôke* in English (or, rather, when arguing about its meaning) it is useful to distinguish the ways that this word has been used in different historical, commercial, legal, and contemporary contexts. The expert on this subject is a Japanese scholar named Nishiyama Matsunosuke. A brief English-language summary of his research can be found in the translator's introduction, pages 4--5, to *Edo Culture: Daily Life and Diversions in Urban Japan, 1600--1868* (1997; translated by Gerald Groemer; Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). Detailed explanation can be found in his Japanese-language works: (1) *Iemoto monogatari* (Iemoto stories, 1956; Tokyo: Sangyô Keizai Shinbunsha), (2) *Gendai no iemoto* (Contemporary Iemoto, 1962; Tokyo: Kobundô), (3) *Iemoto no kenkyû* (Researches in the Iemoto System, 1982; Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan). This last book is the classic study in the field. All Japanese scholars who write about *sôke* begin with Nishiyama's 1982 study. Since classical times in Japan there always have existed families that exercised exclusive commercial control over the production and distribution of certain crafts and manufactured goods. In most cases those families maintained their monopolies through the protection and patronage of local nobles or the royal court. These families operated much like corporations with many branches and other affiliated groups operating together. Even if proper male progeny did not exist economics demanded that the main family line must always continue since the monopoly power rested with that family alone. If necessary, therefore, another male from one of the affiliated groups would be brought in and designated as heir to succeed to the head of the family. The heir, whether related by blood or adopted, was responsible for maintaining the unity of the corporate families, maintaining their commercial monopoly, and maintaining their good relations with their patrons. The main family itself, as a multi-generational entity, and the head of the family both were called *sôke*. In Chinese *sôke* (*zongjia*) originally referred to the main lineage within a clan that was responsible for maintaining the ancestral temple for the entire clan. In Japan, like China, *sôke* assume the filial duties of ancestor rites, but the term implied stronger commercial overtones than religious ones. During the Tokugawa period many types of artistic and cultural activities, not just commercial enterprises, came under the domination of familial guilds that exercised monopoly or near-monopoly power over the performance of those arts and endeavors. Actors in Noh or Kabuki theater, practitioners of tea ceremony or flower arranging, performers of musical instruments like *koto* or *shakuhachi*, and participants in many other popular pastimes could learn their crafts or skills only from instructors who had been licensed by one of a very limited number of these familial guilds. Because the familial guilds enjoyed monopolies, they earned money from every single person throughout the entire country who participated in their particular type of craft or art. Gerald Groemer (cited above) neatly summarizes the commercial powers of these familial guilds: *quote* 1. Rights regarding the art --- for example, the right to secrecy, the right to allow or prohibit performances, rights over the repertoire or the set forms (*kata*) of an art. 2. Rights concerning the teaching, transmission, and licensing of the art. 3. The right to expel or punish members of the school. 4. The right to dispose of costumes, ranks (pseudonyms), and the like. 5. The right to control equipment or properties used in the art. 6. Exclusive rights to the income resulting from the preceding five items. *end quote* Let me emphasize that the above rights all were possessed by just one or two or three familial guilds that enforced their rights throughout the entire kingdom. Nishiyama argues that from the mid-18th century on these guilds provided a government-regulated medium for the distribution of cultural knowledge that allowed people assigned to different levels of society (nobles, samurai, lower warriors, townsmen, merchants, wealthy farmers, rural warriors, etc.) to interact with one another on near-equal footing. Historians have labeled the social structures created by the familial guilds the *iemoto seido* (iemoto system). In Tokugawa-period texts the terms *iemoto* and *sôke* were used interchangeably. Both words could be used to refer to the main lineage within a guild or to refer to the person who is the current head of that lineage. After 1868 when Japan became organized as a modern state, the government formally recognized the legal rights of *iemoto* (a.k.a. *sôke*) to control the copyright of all musical scores, theatrical plays, textbooks, and artistic works produced by members of their guilds. In this way the terms *iemoto* and *sôke* acquired strict legal definitions. To maintain their copyrights guilds had to register with the government as legal entities. At the same time they lost the ability to enforce commercial monopolies over the teaching and practice of their crafts. Before 1868 martial arts never were controlled by an *iemoto* or *sôke* structure. This is the reason why there exists so many different schools (*ryûha*) of martial arts. Different styles and lineages proliferated because the ruling authorities never would allow any single martial entity to exercise monopoly control throughout the land. In every generation there always existed martial students who broke away to start their own schools with their own secret teachings and their own repertoire of kata. When they issued diplomas they did so by their own authority without paying license fees to any larger organization. In contrast to the wide diversity of martial schools, only a limited number of schools of Noh or Ikebana or Tea Ceremony (etc.) could exist because the monopoly power of the *sôke* prevented any rival schools from being created. In short, the ability to found new schools constitutes a repudiation of the *sôke* power. If there are new schools, then there is no *sôke*. If there is a *sôke*, then there are no new schools. Osano Jun argues that the first marital art in Japan to adopt a *sôke* system was the Kodokan School of judo (see his *Zusetsu Nihon bugei bunka gairon*; Illustrated Overview of Japanese Martial Art Culture, 1994; Tokyo: Fûyôsha). Osano could be right. The Kodokan set the standards not just for members within one training hall in one location but for all participants in judo throughout the nation. The Kodokan defined the art, it controlled licensing and instruction, and it established branch schools that maintain permanent affiliation with the headquarters. If the Kodokan does not recognize something as being "judo," then it is not judo. Therefore, there is no such thing as a new school of judo. All of these elements constitute essential characteristics of traditional *sôke* in Tokugawa-period Japan. In actual practice, however, no one ever refers to the Kodokan as the *sôke* of judo. The term seems out of place with judo's emphasis on modernity. After analyzing the term in this way Osano goes on to suggest that present-day use of the label *sôke* by practitioners of small koryu traditions not only is incorrect but reveals an ignorance of traditional Japanese culture. Osano's strict historical understanding probably is too strict. He overlooks the legal changes in the status of *sôke* that occurred after 1868. Nowadays no *iemoto* (a.k.a. *sôke*) can enforce monopoly control over the practice of their traditions. Anyone can teach tea or flower arranging or anything else whether they licensed by one of the traditional schools or not. In this open environment, the traditional schools distinguish themselves from up-start rivals by pointing out that they constitute the direct heirs to a long familial history (whether fictional or real). *Iemoto* or *sôke* simply happen to be the usual terms for designating the main lineage in which a craft or art has been handed down. Therefore these words have become a part of common usage when discussing families who traditionally have possessed a proprietary knowledge of a craft or art. This social or popular use of these terms denotes a historical past, not a present-day commercial or legal monopoly. Consider, for example, the case of Kashima-Shinryu. In his books and articles the current head of Kashima-Shinryu, Seki Humitake, uses the label *sôke* as a designation for the Kunii family. He uses this term as a way of honoring the role the Kunii family played in preserving Kashima-Shinryu traditions. Down to the time of Seki's teacher, Kunii Zen'ya (1894--1966), Kashima-Shinryu had for a long time been passed down from father to son from one generation of the Kunii family to the next. The modern use of the label *sôke* simply acknowledges that legacy. In the writings of Kunii Zen'ya and in the scrolls preserved within the Kunii family, however, the word *sôke* cannot be found. Kunii Zen'ya never referred to himself or to his family as the as the *sôke* of Kashima-Shinryu. He simply signed his name. In writing out copies of the old scrolls (these copies would be handed out as diplomas), though, he usually would add the words "Kunii-ke sôden" before the title of the scroll. For example, if he copied an old scroll titled "kenjutsu mokuroku" he give it the title "Kunii-ke soden kenjutsu mokuroku." In this example, the original title simply means "kenjutsu curriculum" while the longer version means "the 'kenjutsu curriculum' transmitted within the Kunii family." Used in this sense of "transmitted within a family" the term *sôke* seems perfectly reasonable. Of course it is not meant to imply the existence of some kind of commercial monopoly. Now, I would be the last one to condone the use of obscure Japanese terminology to describe American social practices for which perfectly acceptable English words already exist. I cannot imagine how any non-Japanese could call himself a "soke" except as a joke. At the same time I must say that I cannot regard this term with any special reverence either. During the Tokugawa-period *sôke* designated a commercial system of hereditary privilege that took advantage of the ignorance of ordinary people for financial gain. Perhaps teachers of commercial martial art schools in America who adopt the title "soke" for themselves are more historically accurate in their usage than they themselves realize. __________________
William Bodiford Associate Professor Department of East Asian Languages UCLA
Likes: 
THANK YOU!
