It’s difficult to know how to react to art with a political agenda. I couldn’t say if Sanctuary is swinging towards the right or left, but that it is developing an ideology at all has left me feeling a bit concerned, because when the characters start arguing about how Japan is good at this and America is bad at that, it’s like the art itself is trying to influence my real opinions of these countries, and considering the origins of the debate (i.e. Japan), I feel a bit uncomfortable about it all.
Perhaps the problem is that I’m not used to reading nationalistic text that isn’t of Western (as in UK and North American) origin? Obviously I’m not Japanese, so my views are a tad more objective when it comes to reading things like this; any sign of aggression seems to set off my internal alarm bells, but at the same time, it is fascinating to read and understand how some Japanese have come to view their country’s state (and the world at large) from the inside looking out.
I imagine a good Marxist would say that ‘not having any obvious ideological viewpoint’ is itself an ideological viewpoint, and an especially dangerous one because it’s unlikely to spur anyone to improve the world.
Personally I find overt political statements comforting, on the basis that if I can spot them, they probably won’t affect me. Of course, then I start worrying about whatever it is that I can’t spot . . .
That’s an interesting way to look at it. I suppose I’m quite wary of any signs of nationalism because of the sensationalist connotations it has with the more “extreme” shades of the UK’s own political spectrum. So, while a viewpoint in itself is quite harmless, I wonder who it may influence; like LOGH, Sanctuary seems to be moving towards a point where a Reinhard-esque leader comes to power and intends to force his strong views on the Japanese people, and while those views might not be wrong, the implication is anti-democratic.