著者

石積 勝 Ishizumi Masaru

出版者

国際大学大学院国際関係学研究科

雑誌

国際大学大学院国際関係学研究科研究紀要 (ISSN:09103643)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, pp.135-146, 1984-12

---

Japan is no longer viewed abroad as a rising sun. She is increasingly perceived as a risen sun. This is evident from the extensive coverage of the country in the foreign mass media and from the number of scholary publications devoted to the study of Japan. In recent years, much foreign literature on Japan has fbcused on the alleged collective nature of Japanese society (Japan Incorporated) and on the growing economic friction between Japan and several of its major trading partners. In this context, the way in which Japan is portrayed has considerable economic and political importance. The major purpose of this paper is to examine the ideological assumptions hidden in some major fbreign works on Japan and to consider alternative and, possibly, more valid ways of looking at Japanese society. The paper is devided into fbur parts. The first part discusses the recent research into Japanese Studies undertaken by such scholars as YSugimoto, M.Ikeda, and C.D.Lummis. Here, I indicate my general agreement with the views (strongly held by these scholars) that the emphasis on Japan's uniqueness, hitherto characteristic of most Japanese and fbreign research, needs to the thoroughly reexamined. In this connection, however, the recent appearance of a small body of literature which rej ects the unconscious re-production and reconfitmation of the unique and exotic streotypes should be noted. Part two reviews the arguments presented by C.D.Lummis in his New Look at the Chrysanthemum and the Sword. The Chrysantemum and the Sword is still regarded by many as an unchallenged classic among both writers and the students of Japanese studies. Following his argument, I attempt to lay bare the ideological assumptions of Ruth Benedict's famous work. These assumptions continue to form the basis for the perceptions of Japan as a unique, collective and, to enlightened Americans and even to some Japanese, ultimately unacceptable culture. Part three discusses possible new approaches to the description and analysis of Japanese society. Here I argue that to simply place Japan within the universalistic framework of global socio-anthoropological studies, will not in itself solve all our problems. This is in no way to deny the important contributions made by the students of the literature on Japanese society. Methodologies, however, tend to be value laden and it is by no means clear that the cognitive frameworks of the modern western social sciences can be applied with equal effectiveness to the study of all peoples at all times and in all places. Rather, the task of the serious social scientists is to understand the inherent characteristics of these complex societies using cognitive frameworks that can be derived from within. In this context, I find the political scientist J.Kamishima's dynamic approach to the study of Japanese society highly suggestive, although Ido not discuss in this paper his key concepts such as hard rule and soft rule, familiarization process and strangerization, status democracy and opinion democracy, first village and second Village. Finally, reflecting on my own personal experience of international society, particulary at the U.N., I stress the urgent importance first, of reconstructing the frameworks for the analysis of Japanese society, and second, of portraying Japan to non-Japanese audiences in such a way as to avoid possible psychological isolationism on the part of the Japanese people themselves.