Summary
What do I mean by 'shutai (主体)'?
The concept
Shutai is a Japanese term combining the kanji 主 (shu or nushi), which conveys ownership or primacy, and 体 (tai or karada), which refers to the body. While its meaning has evolved, it generally emphasizes the body’s sensory and motor functions and the perceptual field they create. Shutai is distinct from shukan (主観), which also includes the kanji 主 but pairs it with 観 (kan or miru), referring to the eye that gauges a visual object. In my research, I define shutai as a process of subjectifying and the person who subjectifies the laws of nature.
The practice
Shutai represents what Hannah Arendt called the life of activity, or vita activa. It pertains to our physical practices that engage with and shape a common world, from which a public emerges as a result. The term can be used adverbially (shutai-teki) to describe active participation in various interconnected practices, or it can refer to the individual figure that emerges from this network of practices. In my research, I apply Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy of Dialectical Critical Realism to explain how the dialectic constitutive of becoming shutai stratifies and changes the reality in which the shutai emerges as a figure.
Dialectical Critical Realism
Roy Bhaskar (1944-2014) was a philosopher best known for his work on Critical Realism (CR). Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR) builds on CR by recognizing the ontology of negation. He advocates for ‘ontological multivalence’ over ‘ontological monovalence’ that only recognizes the positive aspects of reality by stating: ‘I would like the reader to see the positive as a tiny, but important, ripple on the surface of a sea of negativity’ (2008, 5). The dialectic in DCR is based on the logic of absence, which is also a logic of change to absent an absence – or to remove a constraint on wants, needs, or well-being.
Both CR and DCR share the tenets of ontological realism, epistemic relativism, and judgmental rationalism. Ontological realism states that there is a reality which exists independently of human perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge. Even though there is only a single, independently existing reality, epistemic relativism states that our knowledge about it is relative due to a variety of factors such as historcial and cultural contexts, socioeconomic positions and interests, and so on. However, judgmental rationality states that humans are capable of evaluating the plurality of beliefs and claims in light of evidence, logical consistency, and relevance.
What makes CR and DCR attractive is that they allow us to study ontological and epistemological processes together to retroductively identify the causal mechanisms of an emergent phenomenon. Because CR and DCR deals with emergence, they are also in the business of ‘underlaboring’ – removing knowledge and beliefs which cannot explain the phenomenon that has emerged – based on an understanding of science as a sociohistorical process. Moreover, the emergent phenomenon must not only be explainable in theory but it must also make sense in practice. If theory falls short of explaining what is right in practice, then the task of science is to reflexively update theory, and if the practice is wrong then science must transform practice. Science must be able to walk its talk.
Shutai in Modern Japanese History
Shutai evolved both ontologically and epistemologically throughout modern Japanese history. As an ontology, shutai existed even before it was explicitly named. My research demonstrates this through early female Physical Education scholar-teachers who engaged in physical activities that subjected them to the laws of nature. In this context, I refer to biological laws that naturally triggered neurophysiological movements in response to music. By aligning themselves with these laws, these pioneers advanced the field of female Physical Education centered on dance. Moreover, through observing and studying these principles, they became shutai—active subjects of their own bodies—as dance teachers and choreographers.
Epistemologically, shutai developed along a different trajectory from its ontological practices and processes. One of its earliest public appearances as a concept was at the 1942 Overcoming Modernity symposium, where Kyoto School philosopher Nishitani Keiji introduced the term shutai-teki mu—with mu meaning absence, void, or nothingness. Nishitani used this term to describe an excess that is ‘neither a physical object nor “mind,” that is, the conscious self generally called “self”‘ (Calichmann 2008, 5). By 1946, however, the shutai-sei debate had reshaped its meaning, igniting discussions in literary and philosophical circles. This postwar debate also influenced how shutai was later used to interpret the 1960s student protests, which led to major university shutdowns.
Shutai is now an established concept in Japanese education discourse. It is a key term in the phrase ‘active, interactive, and deep learning’ (shutai-teki, taiwa-teki de fukai manabi), included in the K-12 Curriculum Standard issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). While scholars and educators interpret and apply shutai-sei education in various ways, my research develops shutai theory on the premise that scientific knowledge ultimatley depends on the laws of nature or the intransitive dimension of reality. I argue that humans achieve deeper, more meaningful learning—enhancing their own well-being, as well as that of others and their environment—when they subject themselves to the study and observation of the laws of nature. If this theory holds true, as I believe it does, then its validity should be evident in practice.
What do I mean by 'Metabolic Sociology'?
Metabolic sociology is different from ‘social metabolism,’ an idea that social evolution is interdependent with, and may be analogically associated to, biological evolution (Molina and Toledo 2014). Like social metabolism, metabolic sociology rests on the understanding that human life and social existence are constitutive of the natural ecosystem. However, metabolic sociology goes beyond the ‘scientific’ observation of social metabolism that studies the exchange of energy, materials, and information between human societies and the natural world by studying how humans both willingly and unwillingly subject themselves to the laws of nature. Subjectification is a critical step to live in own bodies, to become aware of the physical and material domain, so we can better adapt and flourish with the environment in/of which we become the subject or shutai.
Karl Marx critiqued capitalism for creating a ‘metabolic rift’—a disruption of humanity’s relationship with nature through exploitation, pollution, and ecological degradation. Shutai offers a path to remediation by requiring active, physical engagement in nature’s metabolic processes. This approach goes beyond textbook instruction and technological tools; learning occurs through the direct immersion of body, intellect, and emotions in nature’s laws. While this mode of learning is as old as humanity itself, it is now more critical than ever to align our daily practices—economic and otherwise—with our bodies, other living beings, and the ecosystems that sustain our planet.
My approach to developing metabolic sociology centers on reintegrating the intransitive dimension of nature into our understanding of society. Sociological frameworks such as Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory and Margaret Archer’s morphogenetic approach often overlook nature’s role in shaping social structures and practices. In contrast, many Indigenous cultures recognize nature as a fundamental cosmological force rather than merely a material resource. Dismissing these perspectives as non-scientific overlooks the ways in which human beliefs and practices help interpret and internalize the principles that govern life on earth.
Metabolic sociology is ‘metabolic’ because the discourse and practices that shape our ontological beliefs about the laws of nature emerge and disappear alongside the individuals and groups who embody and subjectify them. History is filled with spontaneous social upheavals and collective actions. For example, Michel de Certeau (1970) analyzed the 1634 case of Ursuline nuns in Loudun, France, who were said to be ‘possessed’ by demons. Similarly, Oguma Eiji (2009) examined the discourse surrounding student protests in 1960s Japan but ultimately concluded that the essence of these movements remains elusive. Every society has accounts of entire generations or groups acting in what is often described as a ‘hysterical’ frenzy—whether spiritual, political, or both.
Metabolic sociology views these events not as anomalies but as essential forces that restore humanity in societies that have marginalized and diminished fundamental human qualities. It examines how nature, broadly conceived, pervades and regulates capital-driven structures and systems with rhythms of life. My assumption is that these kinds of uprisings occur when inherited common sense of previous generations or dominant cultures no longer align with a rapidly changing reality—a hallmark of capitalism. This can trigger spontaneous reactions that only later become intelligible through logic and reason. Metabolic sociology serves as the counterpart to modern sociology by offering what Bhaskar calls a ‘perspectival switch,’ or a deeper, ontological perspective which can help identify the causal mechanisms underlying such changes to reality. Shutai can teach us about the metabolism of societies as a figurative ‘metaphor we live by’ (Lakoff and Johnson 1980), or the meanings people come to embody, signify, and represent by subjectifying the laws of nature.