He Ping: From the perspective of the interaction between "area studies" and "discipline studies", we can see the Japanese studies in the United States
Author: He Ping, Professor, Center for Japanese Studies, Fudan University
Raigen: NihonGaku 2021 6th Sec.;
WeChat platform editor: Zhou Yue
He Ping believes that since the second half of the 19th century, Japanese studies in the United States have undergone several generations of replacement, showing a relatively distinct stage characteristic. In the process of its dynamic evolution, a focus of repeated thinking and fierce debate in the Japanese studies circles in the United States is the positioning and interrelationship between "area studies" and "disciplinary studies". Since the 1970s, the theory and methods have gained momentum, and Japanese studies have been more integrated into the perspective of the discipline as a country-specific object of comparative studies. After the 1990s, the "area studies" variant resurged, realizing a new integration with "disciplinary studies."
It is generally believed that in the "international Japanese studies" after World War II, the Scale of Japanese Studies in the United States was the most impressive, and its achievements and influences were also the most prominent. Generally speaking, there are two intertwined development lines in The Study of Japan in the United States: one is the intergenerational inheritance of scholars; the other is the change in the perception of Japan in the United States with the adjustment of the international pattern and the changes in Japanese society. Behind this, there are other influencing factors, such as the political and economic situation in Japan and the United States, the dominant academic interest of the American academic community in Japan, and the changes in the evaluation system of regional studies. These factors work together to cause the Study of Japan in the United States to show more obvious characteristics and stage changes.
I. Intergenerational Replacement of American and Japanese Studies
China studies in the United States have shown a distinctive feature, that is, the emergence of a new research paradigm is closely related to the changes in domestic political thought in the United States and the interpersonal factors in the process of intergenerational transformation of scholars. This judgment also applies perfectly to the Study of Japan in the United States. In terms of age structure, academic career, and research style, Japanese studies scholars in the United States can be mainly divided into the following generations.
In the early days, most of the first generation of Western Japanese researchers were diplomats, scholars in Japan, and foreigners hired by the Meiji government, and a small number of professional Japanese studies scholars gradually appeared in the later period. In addition, some missionaries have also contributed to the field of Japanese language studies and translation. Most of the researchers of this generation are Europeans, and there are only a few true American scholars, and their reputation is not as good as other scholars.
Most of the second generation of scholars were born in the early 20th century, from missionary families, or as diplomats in Japan or their descendants. The particular family background and the resulting "dual identity" had a major impact on their Study of Japan and produced a large number of long-standing classics. This generation of scholars can be regarded as the first generation of Scholars of Japanese Studies in the United States in the true sense, not only because of the increasing number of scholars from the United States, but also because of the gradual integration of modern social science methods into Japanese studies. During this period, the more prominent disciplines of history and anthropology in Japanese studies, the traditional humanistic and descriptive methods still occupied the mainstream, but the social sciences and normative research gradually became faintly recognizable. Affected by this, the "Japanese studies" of American scholars have gradually parted ways with the "Japanese studies" of traditional European scholars, showing more obvious differences.
Overall, in the study of Japan by first- and second-generation scholars, the awareness of theories and methods is not prominent. However, there are also outstanding scholars such as Robert Hall and John Embrey, who are famous for their fieldwork and interdisciplinary research, and have played an outstanding pioneering role in social anthropology, especially in the study of rural Japan.
The third generation of Japanese researchers mainly participated in Special Training Courses in Japanese after the outbreak of the Pacific War, or obtained doctoral degrees after the war and embarked on the path of Japanese studies. The fourth generation of scholars began to enter the field of Japanese studies mainly in the 1960s and 1970s, involving a wider range of disciplines and topics, but the research fields of individual scholars are increasingly focused.
If Japanese studies are divided into "individual stages" based mainly on self-interest, "policy stages" that are mainly for consultative purposes, and "disciplinary stages" that are more academic, the transformation from the former to the latter can be clearly seen from the evolution of the above generations. Although the generation of Japanese researchers after the fourth generation can be subdivided, it is difficult to list them all because of the larger lineup and more complex situation. If the age difference of twenty or thirty years is generally used as the criterion for dividing generations, then the fifth generation of American and Japanese studies can be called the "Heisei generation". The timing and object of study of this generation is intertwined with the background of major eras such as the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the bubble economy, and the adjustment of social unrest in Japan. Today, at the beginning of the "Reiwa Era", the review and summary of all aspects of the "Heisei Era" is the trend of the wind, and the combing of the academic path after the fourth generation is timely, and the conditions are relatively mature.
Ii. The Study of Japan in the United States: Evolutionary Context and Core Debate
Throughout this century of development of American and Japanese studies, a focus of repeated thinking and debate in the American academic community is how to position Japanese studies and what position theories and methods occupy in Japanese studies. Thus, the core controversy is prominently manifested in the dispute between "area study" and "disciplinary study". The game between the two constitutes a main line of research and development in the United States and Japan, and has also become a key perspective for analyzing and judging its overall evolution.
(1) The shift and emphasis from "area studies" to "discipline studies"
Among the first and second generations of scholars, Japanese studies is a field of "area studies" in the traditional sense. In the early post-war period, "regional studies" increasingly felt the pressure from "disciplinary studies". Since the 1960s and 1970s, Japanese studies with a clear disciplinary scope and professional orientation in the contemporary sense have gradually taken shape in the American academic circles. This transformation was mainly established in the above-mentioned third generation, especially the fourth generation of researchers. In other words, although Japanese studies is still a branch of "area studies", it is increasingly taking on its own disciplinary color. Affected by this, the traditional "regional research" is increasingly on the defensive, showing a "fight and retreat" posture, that is, although the recognition and acceptance of "discipline research" are increasing, they are not completely surrendered and retreated. After the 1980s, the traditional "area studies" further declined, and "disciplinary studies" were already in the dominant position of giving up on others.
(ii) The resurgence of variants of "area studies"
Into the 1990s, the pendulum between "area studies" and "disciplinary studies" seemed to swing back to the foreman in a peculiar way. Many theories such as "postmodernism", "postcolonialism", "post-structuralism", and "critical theory" have become emerging forces in regional and country studies in the United States. Disciplines such as linguistics, psychology, semiotics, and communication studies continue to penetrate into the field of Japanese studies. In addition, in the context of the deepening of globalization, "deprovincialization" and even "anti-regional studies" have also appeared in Japanese studies. Other scholars have tried to strengthen the perspective and critical orientation of "cultural studies" on the basis of traditional "regional studies", so as to construct a "third force" in Japanese studies. In a sense, "cultural studies" transcends and reconciles the boundaries between different disciplines and theories, and also enriches the traditional "area studies" model.
(3) The integration of "area studies" and "disciplinary studies"
What is intriguing is that it is in the context of the above theoretical controversy and the division of portals that in the Study of Japan in the United States, "regional studies" and "disciplinary studies" show signs of going in opposite directions after a long period of confrontation. Its reasons and manifestations are mainly in the following three aspects.
First of all, the accelerated development of "discipline research" has made many scholars worry that due to the clear boundaries and strict boundaries of various disciplines, the research on a certain area has become too refined and professional, showing a highly "fragmented" tendency, which not only reduces the communication between different problem areas, but also lacks the overall observation of the region and the awareness of the big problem. Judging from the development trend of "international Japanese studies" in recent years, the selection of topics has become more and more specialized, small and even cold, which indeed reflects this characteristic. As a result, the "discipline studies" of the Japanese issue have focused on the development of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and marginal disciplines, and the initiative of "post-discipline" (post-discipline) has emerged in cultural studies. This trend invisibly produces the effect of "discipline weakening" or even "de-disciplineization", thus alleviating the tension between "discipline research" and "regional studies". The intersection and even integration of different disciplines, or the so-called "confusion of literature", not only occurs in anthropology and other disciplines that were originally at the boundary between "humanities" and "social sciences", but also reflects in almost all humanities and social sciences. Japanese studies in the United States also show this trend.
Second, many scholars recognize the need to "get Japan back." The emphasis on "disciplinary research" makes it often that the exchange object of Japanese studies scholars in a certain field is no longer the Japanese research community, but the peers of their disciplines. Like other regions and countries, Japan is only a starting point or a foothold for the comparative analysis of research in this discipline. For example, in the study of Japanese intellectual history, more and more scholars in the Field of English Studies no longer only look for inspiration from the original texts of Japanese scholars, but draw issues, styles and methods from the study of Western intellectual history, and comparative research has received more and more attention. Many scholars worry that this may make Japan, as the object of study, become more and more vague, hollow and illusory, departing from the original meaning of "Japanese studies".
Third, although "critical theory" and "postmodernism" go further than mainstream "disciplinary research" in theory and concept, they are extremely counterproductive and have no shortage of commonalities with traditional "regional studies". On the surface, "critical theory" and mainstream theory belong to two camps, with their own like-minded people, discourse systems, and academic positions. But when "metahistory" is more appreciated by scholars of philosophy and literary criticism, and when anthropology emphasizes "social poetry", the original disciplinary boundaries are also invisibly generalized. It is also paradoxical that although postmodern Works of Japanese Studies are frequently criticized by orthodox Japanese researchers for their linguistic accuracy and cultural details, in terms of the original intent of their research path, they place great emphasis on the importance of linguistic and cultural analysis, and Japanese language proficiency and original texts are precisely one of the focuses of "regional studies". In addition, Japanese studies from the theoretical perspectives of "postmodernism", "postcolonialism", and "post-structuralism" emphasize concepts such as "discourse", "rhetoric", "narrative", and "emplotment", which seem to be similar to the first generation of "pre-modern" Japanese studies. Therefore, the language shift, cultural shift, and postmodern turn that have been present since the 1980s and 1990s have made Japanese studies somewhat "retro" and have achieved a convergence and even a return to traditional Japan in another theoretical space.
In summary, in the Study of Japan in the United States, "Area Studies" and "Discipline Studies" show a phased change of subject-guest situation and role reversal. In the early days, the so-called theories and methods were basically absent or implicit, and were not the focus of academic debate. From the mid-1960s onwards, the contradiction between "area studies" and "disciplinary studies" gradually emerged. Since the 1970s, the theory and methods have gained momentum, and Japan has become more and more a country object for comparative study from the perspective of disciplines, and the expertise and local details based on Japanese characteristics have increasingly been subordinated to the "guiding role" and grand narrative of theory. In the 1990s, with the rise of emerging theories such as "critical theory" and "postmodern theory", the theory and method, "regional studies" and "discipline studies" objectively showed a new integration.
*Disclaimer: This article only represents the personal views of the author and does not represent the position of this official account
Think tank of the digital economy
Political Science and International Relations Forum
In order to better serve the construction of digital China, serve the construction of the "Belt and Road", and strengthen theoretical exchanges and practical exchanges in the process of digital economy construction. Experts and scholars from China's digital economy and the "Belt and Road" construction have established a digital economy think tank to contribute to the construction of digital China. Wei Jianguo, former vice minister of the Ministry of Commerce, served as honorary president, and well-known young scholars Huang Rihan and Chu Yin led the way. The Political Science and International Relations Forum is a dedicated platform under the umbrella of the Digital Economy Think Tank.