Access count of this item: 49
|Other Titles:||<ARTICLES>The Reception of Max Weber's Asia Study in War-time Japan From Japanese Orientalism to Dual Structure|
|Author's alias:||JI, Chenjia|
|Journal title:||京都社会学年報 : KJS = Kyoto journal of sociology|
|Abstract:||This research focuses on the reception of Max Weber's Asia study in Japan during the 15-year war time period (1931-1945). In contrast to banning of his work in Nazi Germany, Weber's study first flourished in Japan during that period. It would appear that social scientists' interest in Weber's study of Asian Societies in Confucianism and Taoism, etc. was directly related to the empire's domination in the region. This meant not only bringing an understanding of colonial society into the existing knowledge structure, but also providing evidence for the legitimacy of the Japanese rule. Such a conclusion has especially been drawn in the so-called 'Japanese orientalism' approach advocated by political scientists such as Kang Sang-jung, etc. Inspired by Edward Said's pioneering research, Kang examined social scientists' Asia Studies (東洋学) during the war years and showed how they were structured into the Japanese Empire's war-time policies. Social science research of the period displayed similarities with parallel studies in Europe, which included analytical bifurcation of Japan and Asia, the unilateral construction of imagery depicting Asian societies as backward, and also the conspiratorial relationship between the knowledge and the colonial authority. Nevertheless, Japanese orientalism has neglected the unique knowledge geopolitical circumstances of war-time Japan. Following Takeuchi Yoshimi's conception of 'dual structure', this research applies an alternative yet local perspective to War-time Asia understanding in social science. Two different types of understanding - the Ansai, Naito type and the Shima type - could be found in response to Weber's work during that period. Although the former type fits the Japanese orientalism understanding, Shima's criticism of Weber was based on the emphasis on Asia's initiative. Thus, the research illustrates that, rather than the single hermeneutics provided by Japanese orientalism, the knowledge situation, or at least the research on Weber during the war years, appeared more as ambivalence between 'modernity' and 'Asia'.|
|Appears in Collections:||第26号|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.