This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 07:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Japanese Studies
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjst20

Two faces of Kokusaika

J.V. Neustupny
a
Monash University
Published online: 03 Jun 2008.

To cite this article: J.V. Neustupny (1988) Two faces of Kokusaika, Japanese Studies,
8:2, 19-22, DOI: 10.1080/10371398808522200

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10371398808522200

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
 expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:39 07 October 2014
 19.
3. Family life is also influenced by the internationalization and the
spread of information. The trend of establishing one' s independence is
encouraging an increase in the number of unmarried. divorced. and
illeqitimately married persons, and WOlllell's increased economic
capabilities support this trend.
4. The extension of life expectancy and high-qrade education make the
growth of children more slow, and the independence of children is thereby
delayed.

(7) 'n«> PACES OF KOKUSAIKA : J. V. Neustupny, Monash university

An invitation to participate in two international conferences held at the
beqinning of March 1988 in Kyoto and Tokyo was accaapanied by the
privileqe of staying once again in the Miyako Hotel and eating some' of
the best Japanese food, including French and Chinese. However, the
overall atmos~ere was a working one, we were not invited to a ~
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:39 07 October 2014

party or taken to see a kabuki performance. There was an opportunity

to meet former teachers and"'Students, as well as friends, including
Roger Pulvers, who now lives in Kyoto.
I suppose that the reason why I was asked to give the keynote address
at the first symposium orqanized by the Kokusai Nihon Bunka Kenkyuu
Sentaa (International Research Centre for Japanese Studies, semi-
OffICial abbreviation Nichibunken) was the title of the symposium,
"Paradigms of Japanese Studies" which coincided with the title of my
1980 paper (~Analysis 5(6) and its Japanese counterpart (in
Nihonjinron ni kansuru 12 shoo). I understand that the symposium was
watched with interest by both friends and adversaries of the Centre. On
the whole, it was an undeniable success and nothing indicated an
unusual ideological bias that some perhaps had expected.
'!he paper I read built on my earlier work on paradigms but added a new
dimension: I tried to show how the paradigms (developnental types)
cross with types that result from social or individual functions as
they are fulfilled by the study of Japan (functional types). This
new addition may not have been sufficiently em~asized in my oral
presentation but I hope that it will be given fair consideration in
future attempts to understand what we are doing qua students of Japan.
In short, our behaviour is determined by a paradigm, but also by an
array of functions the discipline fulfills. For instance, the study of
Japan may support certain ideologies, assist in practical contact of
individuals with Japan, or be built to help governments. I em~asized
that paradigms should not be used as evaluative concepts and that the
contemporary (post-modern) paradigm which has its limitations, as the
previous paradigms had, should not be idealized.
Interestingly, in the discussion following my paper, Wolfgang Schamoni
(Heidelberq), referred to. his personal experience of passing from the
Japanology to the Japanese Studies paradigm, he spoke of the need to
establish a new model that seeks a unified object "Japan" and
deem~asizes the inflexible disciplinary approach of the Japanese
Studies paradigm. Other overseas participants whose contribution to the
symposium -- in papers or discussion -- supported what I call the
contemporary (post-modern) paradigm included Patricia Steinhoff
(Hawaii), Sapp Linhard (Wien) and Barbara Ruch (Columbia). It was
encouraging to see so many companions at ams.
In contemporary Asian countries the paradigmatic components of Japanese
studies often seem to give way to the impact of functional types.
Japan is used as a symbol of success in modernization (symbolic
function) and as a source of information (learning function). In his
paper Surichai WUn'Gaeo clearly outlined the situation of Japanese
 20.

studies in Thailand. Functional aspects (search for a model and the

knowledqe of one's economic partner and competitor) mix with paradigmatic
features (strict disciplinary segmentation and some still older traits).
The question of universaliSlll of Japanese culture and society was raised
several times but most explicitly during the last day of the converence.
Tsuneo Iida (Nagoya) spoke strongly in favour of universalism and
Schamoni joined, noting .that reminiscences of nihonjinron sounded in some
contributions to this conference as well. I myself stressed that we
considered Japanese culture and society as basically universal; however,
it would be a very boring world in which ethnically specific features
would disappear. While accepting universalism we must not ignore the
specific characteristics of Japan.
It is impossible to mention all speakers and discussants. Among the
Japanese participants Tooru Haga (Todai) made a particularly positive
impact. Hidahiro Sonoda (Nichibunken) in his llI1ch discussed paper
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:39 07 October 2014

entitled "Japanese Studies as the study of Own and Foreign Society" set
out from the observation that the majority of Japanese social scientists
who work with Japanese data move within narrow disciplinary boundaries and
postulated the necessity of developing within Japan an interdisciplinary
area approach. This discussion confirmed his claim that this should not
mean a return to the nandemoya system of the Japanology period.
The phrase nihon kenkyuu no kenkyuu was used several times during the
conference. We should try to understand more about our own behaviour as
students of Japan, and try to understand the position of others. It is
to be seen whether Nichibunken will take up the challenge in an organized
way. In general, one expects from the Institute that important issues
will be identified in all areas of Japanese studies (not simply in
cultural history and literature but, of course, including these two) and
true international co-operation towards their clarification will be made
possible. It would be a shame should the word "international" in the
title of the Institute only mean an annual conference with international
participation, and fellowships fo.r overseas academics who happen to be
available or who are on sabbatical leave. It remains to be seen to what
extent the Institute will take initiative and become a foreceful agent
for moving the clock of Japanese studies forward.
Two further conferences to be organized by the Centre will be Taishoo
to hooboo (kaku senmon kara mita nihon kenkyuu no mondaiten) in 1989 and
Bunka kenkyuu to iu shiten -- nihon kenk~ no soogooka ni tsuite in 1990.
The sole official language of the symposium was Japanese -- probably for
the first time in the history of international conferences of this type.
The linguistic competence of the foreign participants was remarkably
high, both in prepared contributions and in discussion from the floor.
This clearly showed the advanced "contemporization" of overseas Japanese
studies. The claim by ~ ~ (17/3/1988) that the Japanese of
the participants contained mistakes and was on occasions difficult to
comprehend shows the victory of a stereotype over independent
observation of actual behaviour.
The Kyoto symposium with its thirteen overseas and some twenty Japanese
participants was closed to the public, except for members of the press
and .especially admitted auditors. However, it was preceded by three
public lectures which attracted a large crowd. The programme was
introduced by Takeo Kuwabara, whose excellent introductory address did
not bear a trace of his age. It was nice to listen to Levi-Strauss'
presentation entitled "Japanese Culture and the World" (Sakai no naka
 21.

no nihon bunka). admire his French, his intellect and the iUIlOUnt of
preparation he must have undertaken. It was interesting to listen to his
kind of nihonjinron and contemplate, as he was talking, of the past glory
of structuralism and the importance of realizing that the glory was past.
'nle second lecture, delivered by Donald xeen, gave another testimony of
the erudition of the man who might well be nominated as a "living cultural
treasure". He spoke of the attitudes to Japanese literature in the
western world. A third lecture, on "Japanese Religion and the World",
emphasizing the importance of Shinran, was delivered by 'the Director of-
Nichibunken, Takeshi UJnehara.
After arriving in Japan I was surprised to find that the second
conference on my programme, which I imagined to be a seminar for specialists,
was in fact to be attended by 400 people and televised throughout Japan.
There were more applications than seats and participants had to be
selected by lot. Two speakers were invited f:r:om each of China, South
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:39 07 October 2014

Korea and Australia, and one from Indonesia and Thailand. TsUyako
Coveney of the University of Western Australia, who spoke on teaching
Japanese in the secondary schools in her State, made an excellent
contribution to the conference.
'nle selection of participants seems to have been'motivated by the fact
that the majority of learners of Japanese (over 60 per cent) are
currently located in the East Pacific. Since I was reading about
contemporary Japanese language teaching in Germany on my way to Japan. I
could not help feeling that a conference which would seek new perspectives
should not omit developments elsewhere. However, the intention of the
organizers, the Japan Foundation and the Japan Forum, was obviously to
survey the current situation rather than to discuss future developments
or possible co-operation. The sheer size of the Japanese language
teaching operation in the East Pacific is of course very impressive.
And while some fifteen years ago few Japanese were prepared to accept that
Japanese would become an important language internationally, many now
seem to take pride in the recent developments.
Reports from individual countries were delivered under the able chainnan-
ship of Munemasa Tokugawa and Osamu Mizutani, who are of course well
known to all Japanese language teachers. Reports from individual
countries were followed by a paper entitled Waga kuni no nihongo kyooiku
no shisaku ni tauite, delivered by the Executive Director of the Japan
Foundation, Mr. Yukihiko Hishimura. The report contained new points, in
particular an emphasis on "local initiative" (genchi shudoo) with regard
to Japan Foundation's assistance.
It was welcome to hear that in future all production of teaching materials
will be undertaken with participation from the target countries. The
decision will presumably strongly affect the work of the Japan
Foundation's new Nihongo Kokusai sentaa (to be opened in 1989 in Urawa)
which contains extensive plans for the production of teaching materials.
I was not sure whether the principle of "local initiative" also meant
more participation in decisions concerning the dispatch of Japanese
experts overseas, the conduct of Japanese language examinations, and the'
planning and implementation of the spread (fukyuu) of the Japanese
language overseas in general.
Some Japanese participants questioned the use of the word fukyuu which
may carry the connotation of one-sidedness. I wonder whether it is the
word, or the actual practice that matters. I still believe, as I did in
1986, that the Japanese authorities should involve "locals" (another word
questioned by Japanese participants) in the process. It is important for
Japan to develop a relaxed policy. This is what Hidetoshi Kato probably
 22.

had in mind when, in his special lecture closing the symposium, he spoke of
the need for -Japanese language teaching without the feeling of a mission
(shimeikan) - •
That a dialogue develops between the Japanese language teaching profession
in Japan and overseas is a necessity. The Japan Foundation and the Japan
Forum must be commended for the first attempt" in the decade to bring
foreign and Japanese experts together. Meetings such as the symposium
should be repeated more' often, perhaps on a less formal basis and with
emphasis on particular problems of Japanese language teaching.
Undoubtedly, both the Kyoto and the Tokyo symposium can be connected to
the process of kokusaika. There are. of course, many types of kokusaika
and I hope that the current kokusaika mood will gradually develop
towards intensive international co-operation between Japan and other
countries -- including the study of Japan and the Japanese language. In
1988 it would be an exaggeration to claim that such intensive co-operation
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:39 07 October 2014

exists.

(8) THE EMPEROR SYSTEM AND MINOTITY PROBLEMS IN JAPAN, by Shinobu Ohe,
edited and translated by Yuki Tanaka.

Japanese society is not a unique society that is difficult for foreigners

to understand. The Japanese race is made up of a conglomeration of people
from East Asia who have migrated there over a long period.
The basis of Japanese culture is also a mixture of primitive animism which
it cOlllllOn to tribal society in its primitive stage and shamanism which
originated in north-east Asia. With this as its foundation, Japanese
culture and religion emerged from a combination of Buddhism, which
originated in India and came to Japan through China and Korea; Confucianism,
which originated in China and also came to Japan through Korea; Chinese
ideology, Le. the idea that the Chinese Emperor is the cultural centre of
the world; and Taoism, which was probably introduced to Japan directly
from China. The supervicial complexity of Japanese culture lies in the
fact that not one of these influences was singly more important than any
other.
As the rice agriculture society developed in Japan, a primitive Shintoism
based upon a mixture of animism and Shamanism and further influenced by
ancient Korean culture also emerged. The religious authority of the chief
who was the only and supreme officiant of this primitive Shintoism ensured
him authority over all, as ruler. The ancient Emperor system which was
based upon a theocratic monarchy evolved fran a combination of this and
further influence from Chinese ];ililoso];ily. It is thought that the
establishment of that ideology does not precede the 7th century.
The origin of the Emperor's authority is based upon the right to conduct
religious services. Because this right was founded on an agricultural
society, under the Emperor's rule, people engaged in agriculture were
treated as cOlllllOners and those not engaged in agriculture were regarded
as subordinate people, required to serve in the Emperor's religious
services. The Emperor as theocratical monarch thus divided the people
into two groups: those who obeyed the Emperor's rule, known as
-matsurou mono- (which means people who revere the Emperor as god); and
those who did not obey the Emperor's rule, known as "matsurowanu mono"
(Le. people who do not revere the Emperor as god). Furthermore.~
people who followed the Emperor's religious services and revered his
godliness were regarded as loyal subjects and those who did not do so
were seen as enemies of the Emperor and were therefore the target of
military subjegation.