著者

加藤 泰史 高木 駿 馬場 智一 小島 毅 納富 信留 建石 真公子 芝崎 厚士 後藤 玲子 杉本 俊介 田坂 さつき 柳橋 晃

出版者

椙山女学園大学

雑誌

学術変革領域研究(A)

巻号頁・発行日

2023-04-01

---

本総括班は、「領域運営調整会議」「ジェンダー学会議」「評価会議」を主導的に開催することで、本領域研究を適切に遂行できる環境と条件を整えると同時に、Web上にHPを作成して研究成果を各計画研究班で共有できるように工夫したりその都度社会に向けて発信したりできるようにする。その際に、各計画研究代表者の役割を明確にし、特に特任助教や特任研究員等の採用といった若手支援を適切に遂行できるように促す。また、年度毎の論文集の企画や『講座 尊厳』、さらに社会へのアウトリーチ等の企画にも責任を持つ。

著者

芝崎 厚士

出版者

日本政治学会

雑誌

年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, no.1, pp.1_138-1_169, 2015 (Released:2018-06-10)

参考文献数

50

---

This paper is designed to present a speculation of the future of the study of international relations from the birds-eye-view analysis of IR by pointing out the “theoretical aporia”, which emerges from ignoring the crucial relationship between “theory” and “domain”. Recent literatures on analysis of the present status of IR converge on two pluralisms: one is on theory and the other is on domain. Both of them basically welcome for IR to get more plural in each aspect but both of them are in a sense nothing but a ‘whishing for the moon’, in that they are not aware of the importance of the interaction between theory and domain in the process of making a discipline. This paper shows that interaction in general and how that process was overlooked in the disciplinary history of IR, and insists that all disciplinary aporias in IR comes from it. Based on those explorations, this essay concludes that in order to get out of those aporias, IR, and study of international relations in general has to become the study of global relations, which deals with all the transboundary phenomenon on this globe, based on the purpose of how the human-being to survive.

著者

芝崎 厚士

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2018, no.191, pp.191_143-191_156, 2018-03-28 (Released:2018-12-19)

参考文献数

15

著者

芝崎 厚士

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2009, no.156, pp.156_18-36, 2009-03-30 (Released:2011-09-10)

参考文献数

51

---

This paper explores the life and thought of Tomonaga Sanjyuro (1871–1951) from historical and theoretical perspective, in order to find out formation of the epistemological base of understanding modern international relations in Japan. ‘Epistemological base’ is what all people in a certain time and place cannot help depend on or start from, when they try to conceive and explain the question, “What is International Relations?”, regardless of their theoretical or methodological or political standpoint. In other word, this paper aims at founding the proto-paradigm of IR/International Thoughts, or the episteme that made modern IR/International Thoughts possible before such paradigm or school or discipline emerged.First part of the paper deals with the importance of Tomonaga's Thought, which has been hidden by the presupposition of his historical role as merely an introducer or interpreter of history of modern Western Philosophy. Although his main academic work concentrating on introduction of Western philosophy, he wrote many articles about how Japan or Japanese should be-have as a civilized nation, when trying to receive Western customs, cultures, and way of thinking. He developed his argument by citing and applying his knowledge of the history of Western philosophy, sometimes almost going beyond rigid academic restraint. Tomonaga was not an ivory-tower scholar. Actually he was in a sense a critic of Japanese civilization. His concern is always what is the best philosophical position or attitude Japanese nation should import and incorporate, by amalgamating these western philosophy and traditional way of thinking.Second part analyzes his one of the two main works, Kant No Heiwa Ron (Study of Kant's discourse on Peace) (1922). Tomonaga always faced with twofold project. One is how to make Japan/Japanese philosophically independent and stable, by make them understanding the history of Western philosophy from his lectures in Kyoto University and his first main book, Kinsei Ni Okeru Ga No Jikaku Shi (Awakening the consciousness of Self in the history of modern Western philosophy) (1916). The other is how to construct the world that Japan/Japanese was stably founded in modern world, as a subject who has the same entitlement as other western states or nations. Kant No Heiwa Ron has been understood as an interpretation of Kant's Perpetual Peace (1795). However this book made a vital role of explaining how self (man), state, and international relations tightly connected by cross-reference structure. His main contention was not how Kant thought peace, but how to use and interpret Kant's argument in his unique way in order to construct the modern world. This paper concludes the validity of his constitution of ‘Self-State-International Relations’ after his death in 1951 and to the present.

著者

芝崎 厚士

出版者

財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2002, no.129, pp.44-60,L9, 2002-02-28 (Released:2010-09-01)

参考文献数

56

---

This article aims at introducing a brief overview of the theoretical perspective of International Cultural Relations (ICR, Kokusai Bunka Ron). ICR employs two meanings of “culture”, one is culture sensu stricto (CSS), the other is culture sensu lato (CSL). In order to understand ICR as one of the new fields of study in International Relations, one would have to elucidate how CSS and CSL are applied into international relations respectively and how these two analyses could be integrated as ICR.The study of ICR based on CSS has two traditions. Both regard ‘culture’ as elements from which the actor or some relations (composed of these actors) are constructed. Students of ICR use CSS in order to examine how ‘culture’ is used inside the reality of international relations.One tradition generated by the study of diplomatic history in the United States from 1970s, was conducted by Akira Iriye and his successors. They insisted on the need to interpret international relations as intercultural relations, rejecting the realist, power oriented approaches which dominated the field. They also tried to change diplomatic history into ‘international history’, which seeks to overcome the somewhat narrow-minded nationalistic view of diplomatic history.The other tradition was initiated in the study of International Relations in Japan from 1970s, launched by Kenichiro Hirano and his disciples. They borrowed their approach from anthropology, especially acculturation theory, which captures culture's dynamic changes and reconstructing processes. Basically they perceive international relations as cultural relations, which implies that international relations need not only to be interstate relations, and international relations are only one part of many cultural relations. They seek to establish ‘mobile International Relations’, which opposes traditional ‘immobile International Relations’.CSL studies consists of two parts. One is ‘international relations (ir) as culture’; the other is ‘International Relations (IR) as culture’. Students of ICR use CSL when they want to understand how ir or IR would look like from outside of the IR discipline, from the historical point of view. Unfortunately, the research stock is not so abundant in the study of ICR based on CSL. However, some recent studies indicate that CSL will be one of the most important future fields of study.Thus, ICR students have to deal with two notions of cultures. Sometimes they apply CSS, which focuses on how international relations could be explained by culture as elements of actors or groups of actors. Sometimes they adopt CSL, which explicates how and why international relations are generated in the history of mankind and International Relations invented in the history of ideas. ICR must deal with these two tasks, which could be accomplished both by the work of a single individual or though collaboration.

著者

芝崎 厚士

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2020, no.200, pp.200_101-200_118, 2020-03-31 (Released:2020-04-16)

参考文献数

48

---

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.

著者

安高 啓朗 芝崎 厚士 山下 範久

出版者

立命館大学国際関係学会

雑誌

立命館国際研究 = Ritsumeikan kokusai kenkyu / The Ritsumeikan journal of international studies (ISSN:09152008)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.34, no.2, pp.35-60, 2021-10

著者

伊藤 貴雄 大橋 容一郎 福谷 茂 加藤 泰史 松井 慎一郎 芝崎 厚士 川口 雄一

出版者

創価大学

雑誌

基盤研究(B)

巻号頁・発行日

2020-04-01

---

19世紀後半から20世紀初頭にかけて世界的に影響力のあった新カント派の哲学は、日本において大正から昭和初期にかけて大きく受容され、その影響は狭義の哲学にとどまらず、広く文化評論から経済学・政治学・法律学・教育学など社会科学分野の思想家にも及んだ。新カント派哲学への理解なしに近代日本思想史を正確に理解することはおよそ不可能と言える。にもかかわらず今日、日本の学界では同学派への関心は極めて希薄なものにとどまっている。本研究は、近代日本思想史において新カント派哲学が社会科学と接点をもった意義を学際的に明らかにし、新カント派の継受をめぐる国際比較研究を可能とする研究基盤を構築するものである。

著者

芝崎 厚士 Shibasaki Atsushi

出版者

駒澤大学グローバル・メディア・スタディーズ学部

雑誌

ジャーナル・オブ・グローバル・メディア・スタディーズ

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, pp.27-45, 2010-03

著者

芝崎 厚士 Shibasaki Atsushi

出版者

駒澤大学グローバル・メディア・スタディーズ学部

雑誌

ジャーナル・オブ・グローバル・メディア・スタディーズ

巻号頁・発行日

vol.4, pp.1-20, 2009-03

著者

高橋 良輔 芝崎 厚士 山崎 望 大庭 弘継 川名 晋史 今井 宏平 伊藤 丈人 佐藤 史郎 中内 政貴

出版者

青山学院大学

雑誌

挑戦的萌芽研究

巻号頁・発行日

2015-04-01

---

当初の研究計画では最終年度となる平成29年度は、総括的研究を実施した。そのため共同研究の焦点は、”政治的資源としての時間”の位相の解明/時政学の構築に置かれている。研究推進の具体的方法としては、基礎的研究段階で各研究者が提示した研究構想に沿って課題を追究する個別研究と、その研究の進捗状況について報告・討議を行う研究会という二つの側面から実施された。まず平成29年8月24日(木)13:00-18:00 青山学院大学で開催された第5回研究会では、前半で研究アプローチについて検討したうえで、個別の研究状況を報告・討議を行い、時政学研究の成果公開の方法について協議をしている。当日のプログラムは以下の通り。1.前回までの研究会の振り返り&時政学研究のアプローチについての確認、2.個別研究(事例班)からのご報告:大庭先生/今井先生/八木先生(各自20分程度で個別の時政学研究についてご報告いただき、20分程度の議論)、3.時政学研究の成果についての検討、4.共著書刊行の検討、5.今後のスケジュールについて、6.その他。また平成30年1月28日(日)13:00―18:00に青山学院大学で開催された第6回研究会では、個別研究の報告を踏まえて、共著書企画案の共有・執筆者アンケートの共有、研究アプローチの類型化を行っている。当日のプログラムは以下の通り。1.個別研究からのご報告と討論(佐藤先生、伊藤先生 各20分報告+質疑応答)、2.共著書企画案のご説明、3.執筆者アンケ―トの共有、4.共著書構成および研究アプローチの検討、5.その他(今後のスケジュール・研究会開催など)。上記2回の研究会の結果、共同研究の成果を4つの類型に整理したうえで、ミネルヴァ書房からの共著書刊行を目指すことが合意された。

著者

芝崎 厚士 シバサキ アツシ Shibasaki Atsushi

出版者

駒澤大学グローバル・メディア・スタディーズ学部

雑誌

ジャーナル・オブ・グローバル・メディア・スタディーズ

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, pp.75-102, 2008-03

著者

芝崎 厚士

出版者

日本国際文化学会 ; 2003-

雑誌

インターカルチュラル : 日本国際文化学会年報 = Intercultural : annual review of the Japan Society for Intercultural Studies (ISSN:13485385)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, pp.124-127, 2016

著者

芝崎 厚士

出版者

創文社

雑誌

創文 (ISSN:13436147)

巻号頁・発行日

no.453, pp.12-16, 2003-05