How to Read “喧嘩両成敗”
Kenka ryouseibai
Meaning of “喧嘩両成敗”
“Quarrel both sides punishment” means that when a dispute or fight occurs, both parties involved in the conflict are punished equally, regardless of who is at fault.
This expression represents a way of thinking that focuses on the very fact of “participating in a dispute” rather than investigating the cause or legitimacy of the conflict in detail. In other words, it shows a strict stance that even if one party was in a victim-like position, they should bear responsibility as long as they placed themselves in a situation of conflict.
Even in modern times, administrators sometimes apply this principle when troubles occur at schools or workplaces. It is used in situations where stopping the conflict is prioritized over investigating the details, and warnings or disciplinary actions are given to all parties involved. The reason for using this expression lies in ensuring fairness and preventing the escalation of conflicts. If only one party is punished, it could create a sense of unfairness and potentially lead to further confrontation.
Origin and Etymology
“Quarrel both sides punishment” originates from the legal philosophy of warrior society that was established from the Muromachi period to the Edo period. The background to the birth of this term lies in the era when conflicts between samurai were constant.
Originally, the concept of “both sides punishment” was institutionalized as a law of the Muromachi shogunate called “Kenmu Shikimoku” and the “Quarrel both sides punishment Law.” This was the idea of punishing both parties involved in a conflict equally when fights or disputes occurred, without investigating the origin or legitimacy of the matter in detail.
The reason this legal principle was born was quite rational. In warrior society, conflicts involving drawing swords frequently erupted over trivial matters, and conducting detailed fact-finding investigations each time would prolong trials and risk creating further chains of revenge. Therefore, by establishing a clear rule that “those who participate in conflicts will be punished regardless of reason,” they sought to suppress conflicts themselves.
In the Edo period, this concept spread more widely among common people and became established as the proverb we know today. The strict legal philosophy of the warrior class was passed down through the ages as popular wisdom.
Interesting Facts
In the town magistrate offices of the Edo period, this principle of “Quarrel both sides punishment” was applied very strictly. Even victims who were unilaterally beaten could be punished the same as perpetrators if they talked back or fought back on the spot.
Interestingly, this legal principle aimed for a preventive effect of “avoiding conflicts.” The idea was that if people knew in advance that “both parties would lose if they fought,” they would naturally avoid conflicts – a way of thinking that connects to modern deterrence theory.
Usage Examples
- When the children started arguing, I decided to apply Quarrel both sides punishment and have both of them reflect in their rooms
- Regarding the matter that became a heated discussion in the meeting, let’s have both parties apologize under the principle of Quarrel both sides punishment
Modern Interpretation
In modern society, the concept of “Quarrel both sides punishment” calls for complex debate. This is because in our information society, it has become easier than before to investigate the course of conflicts and detailed facts, making more fair judgments possible.
Particularly in educational settings, the application of this principle has come to require caution. In bullying issues, the recognition has spread that treating perpetrators and victims equally is not appropriate. This is because punishing even the actions victims took to protect themselves could lead to further harm.
On the other hand, in corporate and organizational management, the “conflict prevention effect” of this principle is still valued today. In workplace troubles, stopping conflicts is often prioritized over detailed fact-finding investigations.
This way of thinking is sometimes applied to social media and online controversies as well. Cases can be seen where not only the original poster who started an incident, but also people who participated in extreme criticism are similarly criticized for “participating in the conflict.”
In modern times, it has become important to balance “fairness” with “consideration for individual circumstances,” and the reality is that flexible judgment according to situations is required rather than uniform application.
When AI Hears This
In modern courtrooms, the iron rule is that “harmful actions cannot be justified even if the victim bears some fault,” but “kenka ryōseibai” (punishing both sides in a fight) directly contradicts this logic. At the core of this philosophy lies Japanese society’s value system that prioritizes maintaining group order over individual rights.
What’s fascinating is how this way of thinking still deeply governs modern Japanese judgment. When bullying issues arise and people repeatedly say “the bullied party is also partly to blame,” this is precisely a manifestation of kenka ryōseibai thinking. Even in workplace harassment cases, there’s a tendency to ask “wasn’t there something wrong with the victim’s attitude?” This fundamentally differs from Western approaches that prioritize victim protection.
Furthermore, in international issues, Japan tends to favor a neutral stance of “both sides are wrong.” This stems not so much from diplomatic consideration, but from a strong cultural resistance to making clear distinctions between good and evil.
From a psychological perspective, this philosophy can be seen as a Japanese version of the “just-world hypothesis.” It emphasizes relationship repair over individual justice, aiming for solutions that don’t create winners and losers. However, in today’s global society, this ambiguity is increasingly criticized as “avoiding responsibility” and “dismissing victims.” At the root of the discomfort Japanese people feel in international society lies this deep-seated clash of values.
Lessons for Today
What “Quarrel both sides punishment” teaches us today is the importance of having the courage to choose peace over perfect justice. When conflicts of opinion arise in daily life, focusing on “how we can repair relationships” is often more constructive than thoroughly pursuing “who is right.”
Especially in family, friendship, and workplace relationships, making things black and white is not necessarily the best solution. Sometimes, when both parties compromise step by step and reflect on themselves mutually, deeper understanding and bonds can be born.
This proverb teaches us the value of “protecting relationships” over “winning conflicts.” While modern society tends to emphasize individual rights and legitimacy, we must not forget that sometimes the attitude of “sharing responsibility together” brings harmony to the entire community. The next time you have a conflict of opinion with someone, try looking for solutions that lead to mutual growth rather than winning or losing.
Comments