[Critique] The Peace of Oblivion and the Pain of Memory—Kazuo Ishiguro, Norihiro Kato, and Paul Ricoeur on the "Ethics of Memory"
Introduction: The Question Beyond the Mist
“Forgetting” and “remembering.”
While these two activities are quite natural to the human heart, they possess enough power to determine the nature of communities and nations. Whether to continue remembering a certain event or to consign it to oblivion—therein lies a social and political choice that transcends mere individual psychology.
We who live in contemporary society cannot escape this question. The memories of disasters, the memories of war, or the death of someone close to us. Being forgotten sometimes becomes a form of healing, while continuing to remember sometimes becomes a burden. Yet, both are essential, and it seems that the very basis of living as a human being lies in the struggle between the two.
To consider this “struggle between memory and oblivion,” I would like to draw upon three important texts from the realms of literature and thought: Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel The Buried Giant, Norihiro Kato’s essay collection The Post-Defeat Theory, and the philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s magnum opus Memory, History, Forgetting.
Ishiguro allegorically depicted a community that barely maintains peace through the loss of memory. Kato looked squarely at a postwar Japan that had avoided living its defeat “as a defeat.” And Ricoeur proposed a path that transcends the binary opposition of memory and oblivion, suggesting we accept both as an ethical attitude.
Reading across these three, a deeper horizon emerges that goes beyond a simple choice between “memory or oblivion.” In this essay, I will first trace the shadows of “memory and oblivion” presented by Ishiguro and Kato.
Chapter 1: Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Buried Giant—An Allegory of Memory Covered in Mist
Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Buried Giant is set in Britain after the age of King Arthur. There, people’s memories are covered by a “mist,” making it impossible to recall the past. At the center of the story are an elderly couple, Axl and Beatrice. Without clear memories of their former lives or family, they set out on a journey to meet their son, who is supposed to be in a distant village.
As the story progresses, it becomes clear that this “mist” is not a coincidental natural phenomenon, but a form of oblivion engineered to maintain the peace of the community. By losing the memories of past wars and massacres, people were able to live without harboring hatred for one another.
However, during the journey, it is suggested that Axl himself had participated in murderous wrongs in the past. Because he had forgotten his own past sins, he had been living peaceful days. But as his memory returns, those sins quietly emerge, shaking his very existence.
What this story presents is the paradox that while oblivion is a “device for peace” for a community, it is also a “mechanism for concealing past violence.” If one regains memory, one must face the truth, but at the same time, new conflicts might be ignited. If one continues to forget, peace is maintained, but the dead and the victims of the past remain unacknowledged.
Ishiguro does not provide a definitive answer to this question. Rather, through the couple’s parting and the presence of the boy Edwin, who is entrusted with the future, the story ends while remaining open. A structure emerges here not of “which is correct, memory or oblivion,” but of “entrusting the question to those who will live the future.”
What Ishiguro depicted was a story like a bridge connecting the past and the future. The memory beyond the mist brings pain if reclaimed, and peace if forgotten. A question entrusted to the next generation while holding onto that contradiction. That can be said to be the essence of The Buried Giant.
Chapter 2: Norihiro Kato’s The Post-Defeat Theory—Accepting Defeat as Defeat
Meanwhile, the critic Norihiro Kato looked sharply at Japan’s postwar period in The Post-Defeat Theory. What he discerned was the fact that postwar Japanese society had been built upon “forgetting the defeat.” Economic growth, the Japan-US alliance, and prosperity—Kato pointed out that these were made possible not by facing the pain of defeat head-on, but rather by forgetting it.
However, Kato’s position is not a simple “critique of oblivion.” He calmly observes the reality that stands upon oblivion. Based on that, he speaks of the necessity of “living the defeat as a defeat.” There is a sense here not of idealism, but rather of having one’s feet firmly planted in reality.
What is important for Kato is not merely “remembering historical facts,” but the act of mourning each and every one of the dead. Seeing through the structure of oblivion, facing its shadows, and maintaining an attitude of responding to the dead. This is the core of the phrase “accepting the defeat as a defeat.”
This attitude is in contrast to the “peace through oblivion” depicted in Ishiguro’s novel. While Ishiguro opened the question as an allegory, Kato planted his feet in actual Japanese society and attempted to fulfill the responsibility of response in the form of “mourning.”
There is no simple judgment of “good or bad” in his argument. Rather, a question laden with shadows is placed at the center: “How do we accept the reality that stands upon oblivion?” Kato emphasized the necessity of continuing the act of facing the dead while keeping one’s eyes on reality.
Chapter 3: Paul Ricoeur’s Memory, History, Forgetting—Toward an Ethics of Memory
Philosopher Paul Ricoeur's magnum opus, 'Memory, History, Forgetting,' is an attempt to rethink memory and forgetting not as a binary opposition, but as a more complex relationship. For him, memory is not merely the preservation of past facts. Memory always takes the form of a narrative, is reconstructed, and is retold.
This concept of 'narrative memory' resonates deeply with the arguments of Ishiguro and Kato. The memories beneath the 'mist' depicted by Ishiguro are also constructed as narratives rather than recollections, at times inciting violence and at others bringing hope. The endeavor described by Kato of 'living the defeat as a defeat' is nothing other than the act of retelling the past and reweaving the narrative of mourning.
Furthermore, Ricoeur does not view forgetting as a mere omission or loss. Forgetting has an active aspect and is an essential element for moving toward the future. It is impossible to continue remembering everything, and without forgetting, neither individuals nor communities can move forward. What is important is the attitude of 'how to accept forgetting.'
Here, Ricoeur introduces the 'ethics of memory.' In other words, we must not ask for a binary choice between 'remembering' and 'forgetting,' but rather 'how to remember and how to forget.' This entails a responsibility to respond to the other. How do we receive the voices of the dead and the victims, and how do we pass them on? Ricoeur argues that this attitude itself is the ethical challenge.
By introducing this perspective, Ishiguro's allegorical world and Kato's postwar criticism begin to illuminate each other even more deeply.
Chapter 4: Making the Three Resonate—Beyond the Politics of Memory and Forgetting
Let us place the three of them side by side once again.
Kazuo Ishigurodepicted the struggle between memory and forgetting allegorically and entrusted the choice to the future.
Norihiro Katoadvocated for the endeavor of accepting the defeat as a defeat and mourning the dead one by one, while keeping his eyes fixed on the reality that stands upon oblivion.
Paul Ricoeurreconstructed memory and forgetting as mutually complementary and presented a philosophical foundation called the ethics of memory.
The resonance among the three goes beyond a simple choice between 'memory or forgetting.' Rather, what is important is the endeavor itself of how to narrativize memory and how to accept forgetting in a way that is grounded in reality.
Ishiguro opened the problem in the form of a novel, Kato planted his feet firmly in the reality of postwar society, and Ricoeur organized them ethically and philosophically. While in different fields, the three are piercing the same question from different angles.
Looking at contemporary Japan, the memories of war are gradually fading, and new experiences such as disasters and pandemics are being added. The balance between memory and forgetting is constantly fluctuating. Within this, having the perspective of the 'ethics of memory' extends beyond the issue of historical recognition to the issue of how we ourselves live.
Final Chapter: The Work of Memory Entrusted to Us
What is ultimately derived is not a simple answer. It is not that 'forgetting is good' nor that 'remembering is justice.' What is important is the attitude of how to accept memory and forgetting.
Kazuo Ishiguro drew an allegory that entrusts the future. Norihiro Kato argued that while looking squarely at the reality based on oblivion, one should still continue the work of responding to the dead. Paul Ricoeur re-examined memory and forgetting dialectically and provided a universal perspective called the 'ethics of memory.'
When we superimpose the three, the questions we should face become visible.
They are practical tasks directed toward the future: 'how to remember' and 'how to forget.' Living while mourning the past. Responding to the voices of the dead and others while accepting oblivion. Therein lie the responsibility and hope of us who live in society.
Memories covered in mist, the shadows after the defeat, and the complexity of history. We move forward while embracing it all. It is the 'ethics of memory' that supports that journey.