The Im/Possibility of Building Indigenous Theories in a Hegemonic Discipline: The Case of Japanese International Relations (original) (raw)
Related papers
All Azimuth, 2018
This paper aims to introduce a neglected methodology from Japanese international relations (IR) – the culturalist methodology – to Anglophone specialists in IR. This methodology is neglected not only by an Anglophone audience but also by Japanese IR scholars. I argue here that despite this negligence, the culturalist methodology has great potential to contribute to contemporary post-Western international relations theory (IRT) literature by posing radical questions about the ontology of IR, as it questions not only the ontology of Western IR, but also the IR discourses developed in the rest of the world. Consequently, in understanding and imagining the contemporary world, I clarify the importance of perceptions based on what, in Japan, are commonly called 'international cultural relations' (kokusai bunka) and 'regional history' (chiikishi). I also indicate how our perceptions of the world are limited by the Westphalian principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention among 'equal' nations on the basis of state borders. While historical understanding is widely recognised as an important approach to contemporary IR, its scope is limited by its universalised principles.
International Relations, 2020
This paper focuses on the main theme of this 200th volume of International Relations: What is the ‘common challenge’, and what is the ‘shared approach’ among all scholars who belong to Japan Association of International Relations? The exploration of this macro-scale issue is taken by the perspective of International Cultural Relations, which seems to effectively deal with the core assumption of this theme. To start with, part 1 configures the systematic understanding of the whole questions, which takes the form of typical dialectic of universal/particular dualism of the discipline: globally universal one International Relations on the one side, and nationally divided many International Relations’ on the other. Also, part 1 pays enough attention to the recent tides of multilingualism and multiculturalism within one scholar or within one national IRs. Then it analyses recent researches on the nature of past and future IR in Japan and future vison of Global IR. Those precedent research has not reached to the further important vision of the global structure of IR, and the paper tries to construct that. Part 2 discusses one of the two main accounts of the basic structure of the discipline of science in general, by examining the researches of Hiroyuki Yoshikawa and Ichikawa Atsunobu. The first is about the theoretical aporia of IR, based on the irrelevances which stems from both the nature of social science / humanity, compared to that of natural science, and the consequence of theory making from the different views toward a given area. Also, this analysis seeks to break through such aporia by making a totally new discipline, which should be called Global Relations. Part 3 explains the second one, which is the theory of interaction between two culturally or lingually different disciplines devised by Kenichiro Hirano and Yanabu Akira. The theory is based on the premise that regards the encounter of two disciplines as mutual ‘encounter’ between the unknown, and that emphasize the unique function of Japanese language which accepts any kinds of foreign concepts through translation. Part 4 introduces the same challenge in the field of global history by Masashi Haneda and tries to acquire some useful implication for advancing the discussion. His contention about the ideal image of making global history through multilingual interaction of different system of knowledges, and rendering asymmetrical power structure between English or western languages and non-Western language including Japanese has ample implication to IR world, which has much asymmetrical relations between English language and others. The concluding section summarizes the whole argument and seeks to suggest the future vision for the future of ‘Japanese’ International Relations.
Global Studies Quarterly, 2022
In an age of relative Western decline, international relations (IR) scholars and practitioners can learn from Japan's attempt to re-envision world order in an earlier era of relative European decline. In both periods, an apparently pluralistic, relational ontology of IR has been articulated by East Asian thinkers. However, a closer examination of the philosophical underpinnings of these Confucian frames reveals a hierarchical, culturalist reasoning. Under conditions of heightened militarism, this tension can lead to another tension between pluralism in theory and universalism in practice. In the case of 1940s Japan, it informed and legitimized an exceptionalist mission civilisatrice and imperialistic expansion. The takeaway for our current age of "Western" decline and "non-Western" rise is that we must resist any utopian temptation emanating from any ethical system, not least Confucian hierarchical relationality, to say "we will save the world." Dans une ère de déclin relatif de l'Occident, les chercheurs et professionnels des Relations internationales (RI) ont des leçons à tirer de la tentative japonaise de révision de l'ordre mondial lors d'une ère antérieure de déclin relatif de l'Europe. Au cours de ces deux périodes, une ontologie relationnelle, a priori pluraliste, des RI a été articulée par les penseurs de l'Asie de l'Est. Cependant, une analyse attentive des fondations philosophiques de ces cadres confucéens révèle un raisonnement culturaliste hiérarchique. Dans un contexte de militarisme accentué, cette tension peut en engendrer une autre, entre pluralisme en théorie et universalisme en pratique. Dans le cas du Japon des années 1940, elle a renseigné et légitimé une mission exceptionnaliste d'expansion civilisatrice et impérialiste. La conclusion à tirer de l'ère actuelle de déclin « occidental » et d'essor « non occidental » est que nous devons résister à toute tentation utopique émanant de systèmes éthiques, notamment de la relationalité hiérarchique confucéenne, de dire « nous sauverons le monde ». En una época de relativo declive de Occidente, los investigadores y profesionales del campo de las RRII pueden aprender del intento de Japón de replantear el orden mundial en una época anterior de relativo declive europeo. En ambos periodos, los pensadores de Asia Oriental han articulado una ontología aparentemente pluralista y relacional de las relaciones internacionales. Sin embargo, un examen más detallado de los fundamentos filosóficos de estos marcos confucianos revela un razonamiento jerárquico y culturalista. En condiciones de intensificación del militarismo, esta tensión puede dar lugar a otra tensión, entre el pluralismo teórico y el universalismo que tiene lugar en la práctica. En el caso del Japón de la década de 1940, este inspiró y legitimó una misión civilizadora excepcionalista y una expansión imperialista. La conclusión que se extrae con respecto a nuestra época actual de declive «occidental» y ascenso «no occidental» es que debemos resistir cualquier tentación utópica que emane de cualquier sistema ético, sobre todo de la relacionalidad jerárquica confuciana, en el sentido de decir «vamos a salvar el mundo».
Japanese International Relations: an assessment of the 1971-2011 period
Brazilian Political Science Review, 2016
This article examines Japanese International Relations in the last quarter of the 20th century, highlighting the history of IR academic development and the opportunities and constraints posed by the International System. It demonstrates that Japanese approaches to IR varied in strength and representativeness, despite the coexistence of four strands of thought: Staatslehre, Historicist, Marxist and American Style. The lack of integration between these approaches and in methodological refining can be held accountable for the absence of a stricto sensu bumiputra (autochthonous) Japanese theory of IR. The 1997 Asian Crisis was a fracture point in Japanese scholarly debate as it represented the ultimate failure of the Gankou Keitairon (Flying Geese) paradigm, pertaining to the until-then highly reputed Staatslehre strand of thought. This effectively yielded towards a greater popularization of the American style approach and evidence suggests that such strand gained more and more adepts as years went by. Being heavily influenced by international events, however, it is difficult to predict how Japanese IR will develop in the future. To be sure, there are simply too many variables in Japanese regional and global political and economic environments for one to tell for sure if the American style approach will continue gaining adepts or if it is going to be rolled back and lose ground. International challenges, especially in the case of Japan, might produce unpredictable results, as to the academic debate in the field of IR.
Rethinking Japan in mainstream international relations
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2018
A significant caveat to our claim against uniqueness is that we deal only with Japan and make no attempt to propose a general framework applicable to other countries. Japan is often compared with Germany on the grounds of both being defeated great powers. This is valid, but superficial, and applies only post-1945. Japan's story is affected by Eurocentrism in a way that Germany's is not, involving race and non-Western culture.
Transcultural Studies, 2011
This is a translation of an essay by Atsushi Shibasaki, which was originally published in Japanese. Shibasaki investigates Japanese intellectual Tomanaga Sanjūrō’s lifelong engagement with Immanuel Kant and the development of the notion of international relations to argue that the process of translation and adaptation of seminal Western philosophical works are not a simple passive reception, but rather an active engagement, the selective nature of which reflects actual local historical and ideological circumstances. Gaynor Sekimori translatedand prepared this text for an English-speaking readership.
Cambrigde Review of International Affairs, 2015
This paper investigates the risk presumably involved in the narratives of non-Western international relations theory (IRT) by focusing on a similar historical case in Japan. It reveals the risk of uncritically accepted geographical division, and particularly focuses on the discourses of the Kyoto School's theory of world history as an example of non-Western narratives in the past, which was to ‘overcome’ the Western civilization similar to the contemporary non-Western IRT. However, they are also infamous for providing justification for the wartime regime in Japan for their aggression in the Asian continent. What is the connection between their philosophy and support for the imperialist regime? If there is a connection between them, is there any possibility of the resurrection of the same results in the case of non-Western IRT? To answer these questions, the article introduces the philosophy of Tosaka Jun who was critical of the School but, unlike Kyoto School philosophers, stubbornly fought against the mainstream politics of the time.
2013
Today's globalised world has witnessed astonishing political and economic growth in the regions of Asia and Africa. Such progress has been accompanied, however, with a high frequency of various types of conflicts and disputes. The Afrasian Research Centre aims to build on the achievements of its predecessor, the Afrasian Centre for Peace and Development Studies (ACPDS), by applying its great tradition of research towards Asia with the goal of building a new foundation for interdisciplinary research into multicultural societies in the fields of Immigration Studies, International Relations and Communication Theory. In addition, we seek to clarify the processes through which conflicts are resolved, reconciliation is achieved and multicultural societies are established. Building on the expertise and networks that have been accumulated in Ryukoku University in the past (listed below), we will organise research projects to tackle new and emerging issues in the age of globalisation.