My first ideas about the dissertation
This blog is, more than anything, my notepad.
2 parts.
1. The discourse around the Kyoto School
- the crumbling of a paradigm.
2. Building an active regional identity: The legacy of the Kyoto School in Japanese contemporary politics?
- reactive or active?
(Liberal IR theory - building a state personality/ identity and using it in international relations.)
Introduction/abstract
This essay is divided into two parts. In the first part, I will recap and analyse the main ideas and paradigms behind the debate surrounding the Kyoto School of Philosophy. The last 10-15 years have seen a major shift in how this wartime philosophy is studied and thought of. The discourse has also widened from religious studies into political science, and more recently, into international relations theory. A new reading of philosophers such as Nishida Kitaro and Tanabe Hajime puts the emergence of a Japanese international presence and the creation of an Asian regional identity into a historical perspective, with the difference that the legacy of this wartime school of thought is no longer branded a negative influence.
The discourse surrounding the Kyoto School acts for me as an indicator that Japan’s political identity and perception abroad is changing.
Internal changes has made it possible for Koizumi and Abe to profile themselves as active diplomats who still carry a strong message of nationalism. (Cont.)
1. The original paradigms
This text is part of a paper I would have given in Toronto in a conference
The Kyoto School Revisited: How 'fascists' became 'philosophers' through academic discourse
Abstract:
The wartime political philosophy of several Kyoto University scholars
(Nishida Kitaro and Tanabe Hajime in particular, but also Nishitani Keiji and
Watsuji Tetsuro, amongst others) was long seen as religious philosophy at best,
and as militaristic and fascist philosophy at worst. This did not deter scholars from research into the Kyoto school, but the label of 'fascist' always remained on the Kyoto philosophers, and thus the political aspects of their philosophy was more or less ignored. However, in the past 10-15 years a new tribe of scholars ranging from pacific war revisionists to scholars of Japanese political history and philosophy, have emerged that dare to question both the motives and the methods of past
scholarship into the Kyoto School. As a result, a new story of Japanese
history and philosophy emerges. A modern, solid, and radical non-white
philosophy, which may well force a retelling of the fundamental reasons of
the Pacific War.
The 'rehabilitation' of Kyoto School philosophy may also have far-fetching consequences for what we accept as political philosophy. Nishida Kitarô in
particular has attracted attention from outside the immediate realm of
Japanese studies, e.g in International Relations theory. The ongoing discourse and
retelling of this period in the history of Japanese philosophy, and the scholarship of it, is a sign of paradigm change within Japanese studies, but it also asks serious questions of the motives of historical analysis and our experiences of modernity.
Introduction:
Japan studies as an academic field may be facing a challenge in the years to come, and how we welcome this challenge may determine the future of our chosen field of study. The challenge comes in the form of a group of philosophers who lived and worked under the label of the Kyoto School, but as we shall see, there were several strong members of the group who went on to forge very distinct bodies of thought. The Kyoto School philosophers lived and worked before, during, and after the Pacific War, but it was the wartime experience that would give them the contested status they have within Japan studies. However, as the 'school' was comprised of numerous independent thinkers, it is difficult to present a short comprehensive account on what constitutes 'Kyoto School philosophy'. Kyoto School philosophers took issue with questions of history, subjectivity, the historical role of Japan in the world, and of the historical significance of non-whiteness and of race in shaping history. They asked difficult questions and offered contested answers to what they saw as being a turning point in history: the consequences of Japanese imperialism and the true significance of the Pacific War.
The question I wish to ask is twofold: Is this debate an unnecessary polarisation of two distinct schools of thought, and if not, will this discourse signal a new beginning for Japanese studies as an academic field? The two 'schools' of thought most often cited are the 'revisionist' faction which is mainly European in location and tradition; and the 'post-modern', most often linked with Chicago University, in particular, Harry Harootunian’s work on Japanese modernity. In this paper I wish to shed light on the revisionist side of this discourse.
A few words needs to be said about the literature and on my own location within this debate. David Williams is a Pacific War Revisionist under whom I first became interested in not only the Kyoto School but in how we study Japan, given that we might be blind to the cultural biases imbedded in the teaching of social sciences in the U.K. Indeed, our social sciences may be incapable of measuring or evaluating the Japanese historical experience unless it, as a body of thought, adopts the Japanese experience of modernity.
Williams has argued many a time that Western scholars are doing themselves and their scholarship damage by not taking the lessons offered in Japanese political history and philosophy seriously (Williams, 1996). More controversially, Williams argues that this ignorance is to some extent deliberate as well as endemic. Graham Parkes, who, together with Williams, has been described as having launched 'full frontal assaults' on scholars who are ideologically dismissive of wartime Japanese thinkers (Townsend, 2002) criticises the inability of some scholars to fairly evaluate the historical context in which the Kyoto School emerged in the first place (Parkes, 1997).
History in this debate has a very politicised and almost objectified role; it is a story that has been manipulated for political and reasons.
Rikki Kersten claims that this dead-end of Western thought asks for a radical re-evaluation of Japanese studies itself: we must start again (…) . Parkes, Williams and Kersten are modernists and 'conservative revisionists' with the explicit intent to demolish the post-modern school of thought within Japanese studies.
Christopher Goto-Jones has written on the political aspects of Nishida Kitarô's philosophy, including the political traditions within his 'An Inquiry into the Good' (Zen no Kenkyû, 1913). Goto-Jones has especially criticised the failure of religious scholars to probe the political underpinnings of Kyoto philosophy in an intellectually honest fashion. Instead, scholars have dismissed the political aspects of th Kyoto school as 'fascists' simply relying on previous faulty research by political or social scientists.
The sources available for the study of the Kyoto School are still few and far between. My materials are mainly journal articles, as the English language books on this topic can be counted using the fingers on one hand. For example, the proceedings of the four symposia held with various Kyoto philosophers before and during the Pacific War (published in Chûôkôron) have not yet been translated, not are they easily available Japanese, either. Add to this that the English language literature is arguable riddled with bad scholarship and biased views, the study of the Kyoto School still requires a leap of imagination for the Western student. The Kyoto School is for the brave only because it forces us to question our understanding of the world and of the motives of not how we know, but why we know what we know.
Understanding the political underpinnings of Kyoto School Philosophy
Nationalisms
Too often the focus of scholars into the history of philosophy in Japan has been on the nationality and history of the philosophy and the philosopher, rather than on the philosophy itself. It is considered Japanese philosophy, rather than Japanese philosophy.
Modernities
Conclusion: Studying Japan
- arguments for
- arguments against
There seems to have a renewed interest in the Kyoto School in the past fifteen years,
Conclusion:
This is a fascinating topic which is bound to attract more attention in Asian studies. It also appears that Kyoto School philosophy is attracting attention as philosophy. The development of Asian regionalism and Asianism
References:
Calichman, Richard F, ed. (2005) Contemporary Japanese Thought, New York: Columbia University Press
Goto-Jones, Christopher S. (2005), Political Philosophy in Japan: Nishida, the Kyoto School, and Co-Prosperity, London and New York: Routledge
Jones, Christopher S (2002) "A Lost Tradition: Nishida Kitarô, Henri Bergson and Intuition in Political Philosophy", Social Science Japan Journal 5:55-70 (2002)
Kersten, Rikki and Schneider, Axel (
Ong, Graham Gerard (2004), "Building an IR Theory with 'Japanese Characteristics': Nishida Kitaro and 'Emptiness', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No 1 , pp. 35-58
Parkes, Graham (1997), "The Putative Fascism of the Kyoto School and the Political Correctness of the Modern Academy", Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No 3, July 1997
Townsend, Susan (2002), "Japan's New Order in Asia 1938-45: Rethinking Globalism"
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/SueArticle.pdf
Weinmayr, Elmar and Berger, Douglas (2005), "Thinking in Transition: Nishida Kitarô and Martin Heidegger", Philosophy East and West Vol. 55, No. 2, pp 232-256
Williams, David (1996), Japan and the Enemies of Open Political Science, London and New York: Routledge
Williams, David (2005), Defending Japan's Pacific War: The Kyoto School Philosophers and post-White power, London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon
The Kyoto School Revisited: How 'fascists' became 'philosophers' through academic discourse
Abstract:
The wartime political philosophy of several Kyoto University scholars
(Nishida Kitaro and Tanabe Hajime in particular, but also Nishitani Keiji and
Watsuji Tetsuro, amongst others) was long seen as religious philosophy at best,
and militaristic and fascist philosophy at worst. This did not deter scholars from research into the Kyoto school, but the label of 'fascist' always remained on the Kyoto philosophers, and thus the political aspects of their philosophy was more or less ignored( ). In the past 10-15 years a new tribe of scholars ranging from pacific war revisionists to scholars of Japanese political history and philosophy, have
emerged that dare to question both the motives and the methods of past
scholarship into the Kyoto School. As a result, a new story of Japanese
history and philosophy emerges. A modern, solid, and radical non-white
philosophy, which may well force a retelling of the fundamental reasons of
the Pacific War.
The 'rehabilitation' of Kyoto School philosophy may also have far-fetching consequences for what we accept as political philosophy. Nishida Kitarô in
particular has attracted attention from outside the immediate realm of
Japanese studies, e.g in International Relations theory. The ongoing discourse and
retelling of this period in the history of Japanese philosophy, and the scholarship of it, is a sign of paradigm change within Japanese studies, but it also asks serious questions of the motives of historical analysis and our experiences of modernity.
2 parts.
1. The discourse around the Kyoto School
- the crumbling of a paradigm.
2. Building an active regional identity: The legacy of the Kyoto School in Japanese contemporary politics?
- reactive or active?
(Liberal IR theory - building a state personality/ identity and using it in international relations.)
Introduction/abstract
This essay is divided into two parts. In the first part, I will recap and analyse the main ideas and paradigms behind the debate surrounding the Kyoto School of Philosophy. The last 10-15 years have seen a major shift in how this wartime philosophy is studied and thought of. The discourse has also widened from religious studies into political science, and more recently, into international relations theory. A new reading of philosophers such as Nishida Kitaro and Tanabe Hajime puts the emergence of a Japanese international presence and the creation of an Asian regional identity into a historical perspective, with the difference that the legacy of this wartime school of thought is no longer branded a negative influence.
The discourse surrounding the Kyoto School acts for me as an indicator that Japan’s political identity and perception abroad is changing.
Internal changes has made it possible for Koizumi and Abe to profile themselves as active diplomats who still carry a strong message of nationalism. (Cont.)
1. The original paradigms
This text is part of a paper I would have given in Toronto in a conference
The Kyoto School Revisited: How 'fascists' became 'philosophers' through academic discourse
Abstract:
The wartime political philosophy of several Kyoto University scholars
(Nishida Kitaro and Tanabe Hajime in particular, but also Nishitani Keiji and
Watsuji Tetsuro, amongst others) was long seen as religious philosophy at best,
and as militaristic and fascist philosophy at worst. This did not deter scholars from research into the Kyoto school, but the label of 'fascist' always remained on the Kyoto philosophers, and thus the political aspects of their philosophy was more or less ignored. However, in the past 10-15 years a new tribe of scholars ranging from pacific war revisionists to scholars of Japanese political history and philosophy, have emerged that dare to question both the motives and the methods of past
scholarship into the Kyoto School. As a result, a new story of Japanese
history and philosophy emerges. A modern, solid, and radical non-white
philosophy, which may well force a retelling of the fundamental reasons of
the Pacific War.
The 'rehabilitation' of Kyoto School philosophy may also have far-fetching consequences for what we accept as political philosophy. Nishida Kitarô in
particular has attracted attention from outside the immediate realm of
Japanese studies, e.g in International Relations theory. The ongoing discourse and
retelling of this period in the history of Japanese philosophy, and the scholarship of it, is a sign of paradigm change within Japanese studies, but it also asks serious questions of the motives of historical analysis and our experiences of modernity.
Introduction:
Japan studies as an academic field may be facing a challenge in the years to come, and how we welcome this challenge may determine the future of our chosen field of study. The challenge comes in the form of a group of philosophers who lived and worked under the label of the Kyoto School, but as we shall see, there were several strong members of the group who went on to forge very distinct bodies of thought. The Kyoto School philosophers lived and worked before, during, and after the Pacific War, but it was the wartime experience that would give them the contested status they have within Japan studies. However, as the 'school' was comprised of numerous independent thinkers, it is difficult to present a short comprehensive account on what constitutes 'Kyoto School philosophy'. Kyoto School philosophers took issue with questions of history, subjectivity, the historical role of Japan in the world, and of the historical significance of non-whiteness and of race in shaping history. They asked difficult questions and offered contested answers to what they saw as being a turning point in history: the consequences of Japanese imperialism and the true significance of the Pacific War.
The question I wish to ask is twofold: Is this debate an unnecessary polarisation of two distinct schools of thought, and if not, will this discourse signal a new beginning for Japanese studies as an academic field? The two 'schools' of thought most often cited are the 'revisionist' faction which is mainly European in location and tradition; and the 'post-modern', most often linked with Chicago University, in particular, Harry Harootunian’s work on Japanese modernity. In this paper I wish to shed light on the revisionist side of this discourse.
A few words needs to be said about the literature and on my own location within this debate. David Williams is a Pacific War Revisionist under whom I first became interested in not only the Kyoto School but in how we study Japan, given that we might be blind to the cultural biases imbedded in the teaching of social sciences in the U.K. Indeed, our social sciences may be incapable of measuring or evaluating the Japanese historical experience unless it, as a body of thought, adopts the Japanese experience of modernity.
Williams has argued many a time that Western scholars are doing themselves and their scholarship damage by not taking the lessons offered in Japanese political history and philosophy seriously (Williams, 1996). More controversially, Williams argues that this ignorance is to some extent deliberate as well as endemic. Graham Parkes, who, together with Williams, has been described as having launched 'full frontal assaults' on scholars who are ideologically dismissive of wartime Japanese thinkers (Townsend, 2002) criticises the inability of some scholars to fairly evaluate the historical context in which the Kyoto School emerged in the first place (Parkes, 1997).
History in this debate has a very politicised and almost objectified role; it is a story that has been manipulated for political and reasons.
Rikki Kersten claims that this dead-end of Western thought asks for a radical re-evaluation of Japanese studies itself: we must start again (…) . Parkes, Williams and Kersten are modernists and 'conservative revisionists' with the explicit intent to demolish the post-modern school of thought within Japanese studies.
Christopher Goto-Jones has written on the political aspects of Nishida Kitarô's philosophy, including the political traditions within his 'An Inquiry into the Good' (Zen no Kenkyû, 1913). Goto-Jones has especially criticised the failure of religious scholars to probe the political underpinnings of Kyoto philosophy in an intellectually honest fashion. Instead, scholars have dismissed the political aspects of th Kyoto school as 'fascists' simply relying on previous faulty research by political or social scientists.
The sources available for the study of the Kyoto School are still few and far between. My materials are mainly journal articles, as the English language books on this topic can be counted using the fingers on one hand. For example, the proceedings of the four symposia held with various Kyoto philosophers before and during the Pacific War (published in Chûôkôron) have not yet been translated, not are they easily available Japanese, either. Add to this that the English language literature is arguable riddled with bad scholarship and biased views, the study of the Kyoto School still requires a leap of imagination for the Western student. The Kyoto School is for the brave only because it forces us to question our understanding of the world and of the motives of not how we know, but why we know what we know.
Understanding the political underpinnings of Kyoto School Philosophy
Nationalisms
Too often the focus of scholars into the history of philosophy in Japan has been on the nationality and history of the philosophy and the philosopher, rather than on the philosophy itself. It is considered Japanese philosophy, rather than Japanese philosophy.
Modernities
Conclusion: Studying Japan
- arguments for
- arguments against
There seems to have a renewed interest in the Kyoto School in the past fifteen years,
Conclusion:
This is a fascinating topic which is bound to attract more attention in Asian studies. It also appears that Kyoto School philosophy is attracting attention as philosophy. The development of Asian regionalism and Asianism
References:
Calichman, Richard F, ed. (2005) Contemporary Japanese Thought, New York: Columbia University Press
Goto-Jones, Christopher S. (2005), Political Philosophy in Japan: Nishida, the Kyoto School, and Co-Prosperity, London and New York: Routledge
Jones, Christopher S (2002) "A Lost Tradition: Nishida Kitarô, Henri Bergson and Intuition in Political Philosophy", Social Science Japan Journal 5:55-70 (2002)
Kersten, Rikki and Schneider, Axel (
Ong, Graham Gerard (2004), "Building an IR Theory with 'Japanese Characteristics': Nishida Kitaro and 'Emptiness', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No 1 , pp. 35-58
Parkes, Graham (1997), "The Putative Fascism of the Kyoto School and the Political Correctness of the Modern Academy", Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No 3, July 1997
Townsend, Susan (2002), "Japan's New Order in Asia 1938-45: Rethinking Globalism"
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/SueArticle.pdf
Weinmayr, Elmar and Berger, Douglas (2005), "Thinking in Transition: Nishida Kitarô and Martin Heidegger", Philosophy East and West Vol. 55, No. 2, pp 232-256
Williams, David (1996), Japan and the Enemies of Open Political Science, London and New York: Routledge
Williams, David (2005), Defending Japan's Pacific War: The Kyoto School Philosophers and post-White power, London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon
The Kyoto School Revisited: How 'fascists' became 'philosophers' through academic discourse
Abstract:
The wartime political philosophy of several Kyoto University scholars
(Nishida Kitaro and Tanabe Hajime in particular, but also Nishitani Keiji and
Watsuji Tetsuro, amongst others) was long seen as religious philosophy at best,
and militaristic and fascist philosophy at worst. This did not deter scholars from research into the Kyoto school, but the label of 'fascist' always remained on the Kyoto philosophers, and thus the political aspects of their philosophy was more or less ignored( ). In the past 10-15 years a new tribe of scholars ranging from pacific war revisionists to scholars of Japanese political history and philosophy, have
emerged that dare to question both the motives and the methods of past
scholarship into the Kyoto School. As a result, a new story of Japanese
history and philosophy emerges. A modern, solid, and radical non-white
philosophy, which may well force a retelling of the fundamental reasons of
the Pacific War.
The 'rehabilitation' of Kyoto School philosophy may also have far-fetching consequences for what we accept as political philosophy. Nishida Kitarô in
particular has attracted attention from outside the immediate realm of
Japanese studies, e.g in International Relations theory. The ongoing discourse and
retelling of this period in the history of Japanese philosophy, and the scholarship of it, is a sign of paradigm change within Japanese studies, but it also asks serious questions of the motives of historical analysis and our experiences of modernity.
posted by Mirjami at 8:23:00 午後
3 comments
