Why are Japanese geographers so
uncritical?
Toshio Mizuuchi
mizuuchi@lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp
http://www.lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp/geo/e-st_mizuuchi.htm
(English)
The
second international critical geographers conference was held at Taegu, South
Korea in August, 2000. Both theoretical and practical researches filled the
conference about the polemical issues of the uneven development, land and
housing problem, changing industrial structure, local politics, everyday life,
cultural space, and political economy. Postmodern conditions, industrial system,
the problem of nation state, culture, and environment were generally discussed
from the standpoint of political economy approach. As compared with rise of
such critical geography seen in the Anglo-America, Korea and Taiwan, existence
of the critical geography in Japanese academic world seems to be very small and
weak. In sociology, economics, and political science of Japan, they are paying
a bigger interest in the critical geography in this Anglo-American world than
geographers in Japan. This paper illustrates that why such a twisted phenomenon
has arisen and what action Japanese critical geographer should set out to such
a strange phenomenon.
It
is no doubt by two books published in 1989, which were entitled with the term
of postmodern, that critical geography affected extensively social sciences.
The secret of this extensive acceptance of the works of Harvey and Soja is
locating where they always hold critical viewpoint over the actual world and
adhere the spatial idea as a key concept. Thus, he understood the new discourse
of postmodern conditions and continued to perform cultural, political, and
intellectual criticism. Soja(1989, pp.158-159) also asserted that 'It is now
possible to begin to generalize about the particularities of capitalist spatialization
and to particularize the generalizations of s spatialized critical social
theory. ……filled
with new conditions and possibilities that challenge established modes of
understanding. Making theoretical and practical sense of this contemporary
restructuring of capitalist spatiality has become the overriding goal of an
emerging postmodern critical human geography’.
Such
a special feature of critical geography was having greatly deviated from the
existing style and methodology of geography or sociology, as a sociologist's
Ueno (1999) stated ('Spatial turn in sociology and geography and after', Review
of Contemporary Thought 26-13). Their spatial theory was not simply
situated as interdisciplinary, rather it questioned the relevance of discipline
itself, and solve and release the role and restraint of a discipline it holds,
in addition it helped to deviate the disciplinary thinking in another
direction, and invite readers to activities of various practices in everyday
life, or resistance. Ueno further described as follows. It is quite difficult
in this Japanese academic society to thrust a leg into the arena of space
theory-thinking as in the Anglo-American world, as long as a geographer is to
be a ‘serious’ traditional geographer. Moreover, although he might not
sympathize, he is ready to understand geographers' silence, inappreciative
attitude, and hesitation to such space theory. I, as a geographer, cannot but
agree the backward situation prevailing among geographers' community, and
further ask why Japanese geographers keep silence to a debate of spatial
theory. I would start to point out in the following section some specific
problems within the geographer' community in Japan.
According
to the National University system, historically, geography had been belonging
to a department of science in the east Japan, and physical geography has taken
the lead. On the other hand, in the western part of Japan, geography had been
belonging to a department of literature, and human geography has predominated
the academy of Western Japan. In the department of literature in the University
of Tokyo, generally located in a top hierarchy of a disciplinary system, human
geography is not existing there, therefore, in a social science system,
geography is used to be paid little attention and evaluation. In addition, the
presence of geography is always scarce and the evaluation to this discipline is
not high among the government bureaucrats of Japan where the University of
Tokyo governs its system. Suspending the judgment of right or wrong for this
situation, it can be said that geography was institutionally set outside the
structure where a channel to the political decisions or a policy-making process
were easily working. However, since geography existed in elementary secondary
education, it had considerably many academic posts reserved for geography in
the department of education. Moreover, the blessed time had continued long that
the barrier to becoming university teacher was a relatively low and graduate
student who majored in geography was not so big population.
Concerning
the academic level, great scholars like Marx or Weber did not exist, and
translation culture had not been rooted. In addition, geographical terms were
valid only within the closed market of geography. Therefore, between other
human and social sciences, geography was taking delay with the whole flow of
academic restructuring. There was also little participation in a policy-making
and also little circulation of the books of geography, which gains a common
reader. Entry to the geography from an activist and social movement leader was
also close to zero. There was no opportunity by which geography in academy was
motivated with the strained relation facing local movement and local people.
Moreover,
many human geographers belonged to the department of literature, and they are
regarded as taking mild stance based on apolitical cultural science. It is a
fact that such a human geographers was considered as researching hobby-like
non-thoughtful manner in political economy, by economic geographers of a
department of economics who graduated with acknowledging the pride of one of
the social science. How critical geography was positioned in the closed
discipline market of human geography, which grew up from the department of
literature? There, the critical viewpoint was never turned to the political
society and cultural situation of Japan, Rather, such a viewpoint must be
forcibly made within a discipline itself. note:
See Mizuoka (1997: ‘The disciplinary dialectics that has played eternal
pendulum swongs: spatial theories and disconstructionism in the history of
alternative social and economic geography’ in “Geographical review in Japan”
about the trend of critical geography in economic geography.
If
the meaning of being critical defines it as the counter movement to the
mainstream human geography, from the second half of the 1970s to the beginning
of the 1980s, geography with critical stance corresponded to humanistic
geography and social geography at that time. Among outcomes of humanistic
geography, only Yamano's review article stood prominent, and afterward, very
few empirical studies were produced (Yamano, 1979: recent trend in humanistic geography).
About social geography, especially for example in the heritage of critical
geography, a series of review paper (Takeuchi, 1976: Social
geography and the Third world, 1980: Radical geography movement and radical
geography, 1984: Geography of David Harvey, and 1984: Revival of geopolitics and
the new development of political geography (in Hitotusbashi Ronso except
1980 paper in Human Geography of Japan)) of
Takeuchi were prominent in the 1980s. Moreover, translation of 'Social
Justice and the city' of Harvey in 1980 timely was published by Takeuchi et.
al. and obtained great readership. However, they were all review paper
about the current researches that followed up European and American trend. It
is regrettable to say that critical geography was not appeared in the real sense
of critical social theory. The situation of living peacefully in the market in
the discipline and describing normally and neutrally present condition were
structurally embedded, and the mechanism was also functioning well in which
geography was institutionally reproduced even if not being critical. Such
factors might serve to weaken the sense of impending crisis of geography.
The
rise of social theory-oriented geography in the Anglo-American world which
started in the 1980s enter to Japan in the beginning of 1990s, and began to be
taken in through some translations in Japan. note: The influential books of
geography were translated such as Harvey(1980: justice, 1989: limits, 1991:
urbanization, 1999: postmodern), Scott(1996: metropolis), Tuan(1988: dominance,
1988: space & place, 1991: fear, 1991:morality, 1992, topophilia, 1993:
segmented, 1994: passing, 1997: cosmos), Relph(1991: place),
Knox(1993-95:social geogr., 1997: world cities), D.Smith(1985: greener),
P.Jackson(1991: exploring), Pinch(1990: cities & service), Taylor(1991-2:
political), Massay(2000: division), Lefebvre(2000: production), G.Rose(2000:
gender), Cosgrove & Daniels(2001: iconography), Soja(2002: postmodern)
. In geography, the number of translations is very few compared with sociology.
One of the ways chosen in order to overthrow such an inactive situation was
translating both theoretical and empirical informative books, however, in
itself, this activity was only to catch up a new theoretical current in Anglo-American
geographical literatures with passive posture. Hamatani (1991: (newsletter of 'Theory
and subject for social geography' no.2, See below.)), looking back upon the 1980s,
deplored the academic circles’ situation as follows. "I wonder whether it
is a run-up of a future leap or the sign of break down which has covered the
discipline of human geography in Japan at large. Early retirement of the
researchers over 40 years old, delay of achievement of a young researcher. Why
it became like this? Is it because the inescapable phenomenon which comes from
an advancement of theory, or is it because a deviation of problematique of
research, or that of a paradigm? Although there will be no other way but to try
hard if it is the former, there might be accompanying with an evil on the advancement
of too much abstraction or sophistication. If it is the latter, the
deconstruction of a perspective will be demanded. Translation of a good book,
on the contrary, may also wither a geographer facing the high degree of
sophistication."
The
research group which was going to overthrow such a situation was established in
1991, whose name was 'Theory and subject for social geography', with a
small financial background of the Association of Japanese Geographers. Here,
five interest groups gathered together in this research group, whose member
were more than twenty younger generations geographers in the years of 30s
including graduate students. They tended to take a value-laden approach in the
stance of anti-mainstream geography. Their research orientations were
considered as follows: 1. Explaining and describing spatial phenomenon that is
considered to be a social problem, 2. Grope of new cultural and social
geography for breaking through traditional humanistic approach, 3. Improving the
relevance of the study of geographical thought, 4. Theoretical reconstruction
of the economic geography in the line of Harvey's orientation of 1980s, 5. Following
of political economy approach in the Anglo-American geography. note:
News letter No. 1 of this research group dated 15 May 1991.
Concerning
approach 1, it asserted that geography should be associated with how social
problem has been tackled by geographers. As one reason of inactivity of human
geography in Japan, during more than twenty years or so, this discipline have
made light of or deleted issues that were concerning with problem, politics and
planning, in contrast with pursuing too much the general tendency or normality
of spatial behaviors and patterns. Specifically, Ota, Mizuuchi et al.,
appealing against the importance of taking up ethnicity and a gender problem,
began to plan a serial column of "ethnicity, gender", in the
most popular common magazine in Japan "Chiri (Geography)" 39
times from July, 1989 to December, 1993. note.
Most of the writers who appeared in this series consisted of a member of an
above-mentioned research group.
Then,
the argument about the methodology of geography was developed focusing on the
problem of gender, ethnicity, and a minority. It can be said that, for the
first time, they problematized on the geography magazine how all the critical
problems of class, gender, ethnicity, etc. could be articulated. In the same
magazine, a series essays of 'Social geography and its periphery' was
planed by Mizuuchi during one year just after the project of the special issue
of social geography in May, 1993. Becoming clear from these contents, it could
be pointed out that the contributors were mainly belonging to not only social
problem group of 1 but including new socio-cultural geography group of 2, and
reconstructionist of economic geography of 4.
Concerning
the accumulation of empirical research, it called attention as a typical and
prominent social geography of Niwa (1991)'s field study of day-laborers
districts and Naito(1991,1995)'s work about Turkish guest-workers problems in
Germany, which were both accomplished by participants observation research.
However, the theoretical naiveness was pointed out to this kind of social
geography, it was criticized to be directed to stand on social theory
simultaneously based on concrete example consciously.
As
compared with the backward situation of geography, growing interest to spatial
theory have been attracting researchers in the neighboring disciplines.
Especially in sociology, political science, economics, development of the
spatial theory might stem from the reconstruction of the contemporary
capitalism theory in the middle of the 1980s. This argument was preceded as
state theory which drew keen attention how the crisis management was in
operation in the territory of a nation-state, and for sociology, it came to be
woven from a critical view for spatial fetishism of the Chicago School to
creating relative judgment to the modernized actual world. Rereading of the
space theory of Lefebvre made the theoretical important point in this case.
Critical stance to the analysis of the modern capitalist economy and society
according to the post-Marxist horizon, started to be discussed in the Japanese academic
arena of political science (Mizuguchi, Sato), sociology (Yoshihara, Machimura,
Yoshimi), and economics (Hirai), and it served as rise of a spatial theory. In
this disciplinary current, urban sociologists most often adopted especially Harvey's
works after the “Conditions of postmodernity”, which had timely caught
the dynamics of political economy of the changing capitalist society centering
around the concept of time = space compression.
From
the position of new urban sociology inspired by Castells, Yoshihara edited
"Frontier of urban theory" as early as in1986, and wrote down
"Social theory of urban space" as the critical study for the
contemporary city. Urban sociologist, Machimura also edited in 1991 "Frontier
of urban sociology: structure, space, method", with his critical
review of global city and postmodern urban theory. Another wave of spatial sociology
was the approach represented by Yoshimi and Ueno who derived his interest from
cultural-studies research (Yoshimi, Ueno). Entering into the 1990s, cultural
studies have been received as a current of post-colonial representation
analysis, which was added with the critical view to nation-state, and also
emphasized the connection with the resistance movement of oppressed people.
Thus, cultural studies have attracted young researchers' concerns as a kind of
politics of representation. Yoshihara, Yoshimi et al. also planed "The
imaginative power of urban space", and "The body of city,
space of city" in the series of the urban sociology toward the 21st
century in 1996. These books brought the concern about the spatial theory also
including history. Using the term of spatiality and space as a key word, the
new problematique were carving out, and it reclaimed the perspective and the
imaginative power of new recognition there.
The
research group of the above-mentioned social geography was succeeded, in 1994,
to that of "Space and society" research group, which has
continued to be a core group tackled with such a subject. First, the research
exchanges were planned with urban sociologists, economists, and historians who
received spatial theory research of Anglo-American geography more profoundly.
All projects were planned by Mizuoka's initiative, and one of them was the
Japan Association of Economic Geographers' annual symposium of space and
society in 1993, to which D. Ley and well-known spatial theorists in the
neighboring disciplines in Japan were joined. Another was in the Association of
Japanese Geographers annual conference, where D. Harvey and several other
spatial theorists also attended. The former symposium was later arranged by
several papers, whose title was, 'Geography and studies of modern urban
history', 'A study of the theories of the state in political geography',
'Economics and spatial configuration in the Japanese alternative geography and
the theory of spatial configuration', 'Theoretical pluralism in Anglo-American
human geography'. The latter symposium was constructed by the speeches of
'Harvey and logical positivism, quantitative geography', 'Harvey in the Marxist
economics', 'Harvey's critics of post-modern theory', 'Harvey and the study of geographical
history' after the keynote lecture of 'Why is now Harvey's geography?'
At last, in order to support
financially the research group activity which repeated the theory-informed
empirical researches with critical views, Mizuuchi et. al. applied for
research fund support to the Ministry of Education. Three research projects of 'Social
theory and geography' in 1993, 'Socio-economic theory in geography and
spatial thought' in 1995, and 'Political geographical research of Japan'
in 1995 had started each from two to three years' duration. The former two
research projects, which respectively H. Nozawa and T. Mizuuchi was the head, inherited
the member and its theme of research organization, which had started from 1978
as a Japanese version of research group activity of the history of geographical
thought under the guidance of IGU. The reports books were published in English
about the history of geography, the history of a map, and a geographer's
bibliography using the common subtitle of the “Japanese contribution to the
history of geographical thought”, and their contribution was large which put
geographical thought into the geographical subject and analysis.
However, there was a tendency to push
in geopolitical approach and a theoretical inclination of a nation state theory
or new socio-cultural geography in the term inside geography, and the intellectual
circuit connected to the macro-political social structure of modern Japan was
not fully opened. It was these research projects above-mentioned that broke
through this situation. In the latest volume of No. 6, (“Social Theory and
Geographical Thought”, Edited by H Nozawa, 1996), some research members
tried to tackle the spatial theoretical studies in the current geographical
debate in order to adapt them to developing an original view in their
fact-findings. 'Geographical thought and the formation of nation state' of T.
Mizuuchi (1994) also tried to connect the nation-state theory to such a
historical research of geographical thought. It examined critically what
relation geographical thought and geography had in the formation of nation
state, and added the critical viewpoint to the existing historical research of
geographical thought, and tried to renew this geographical field. It was an
epoch-making contribution of emancipating geographical idea from the very major
journal of "Shiso (The review of thought)".
And
focusing on this Mizuuchi's activity, he published the collection of
translations with the cooperation works of the research group members of 'Space
and society' entitled as "Horizon of the studies of society and
space" in 1996, and also, at the same time, edited the annual journal
of "Space, society, and geographical thought". With the former
book, influential papers appeared in the 1970s early in the 80s, which should
already also be called neo classic, was translated such as Harvey, Soja,
Thrift, Cosgrove, Gregory, Ley, and Buttimer. Concerning the latter annual
journal, Mizuuchi is editing it by using the fund of the Ministry of Education.
According to the editorial strategy, it should run outside the existing lane,
which is paved by "Geographical review of Japan" and "Human
Geography of Japan". This journal now covers original papers with
challenging and attractive theme, which are filled with discussion but just a
bit lack of completeness that the existing established journals used to
require. It also includes timely translating influential papers (now up to 34 translations
of D. Harvey(4), Ó`Thalthail(2), Gregory, Pinch, S.J.Smith, Lafestin(3),
L.McDowell(3), P.Jackson, L.Kong, Raichert(2), Valentine(2), Domosh, R.Sack,
Nash, A.Kobayashi, G.Benko, Townsend, J.Agnew, S. Chirstpherson, etc.). In
original papers, they deal with and contain the theme of theoretically
articulated with politics and spatiality, Foucault's Heterotopia, Bergson's
space and duration, about a nation-state, geographical thought, and
geopolitics, nation state and imaginative geography and Japanese geopolitics in
the academy, Haushofer and German-Japan military relation and geographical
thought and nation building and geographic survey by military etc.. part of these
researches are preponderantly deepened to the geopolitics of prewar days by
which has been tabooed for so long. They also pursue the relevancy of social
geography, in demonstrating the present conditions of illegal migrant workers
and NPO activities, and slum clearance in Okinawan community etc., which
produce good quality of monographs of touching the real local actual facts. The
contributors, besides geographers, have spread to sociologists, or political
scientists. And among socio-political geography and the field of geographical
thought, it has grown to be the active journal, which attracts attention most.
From
viewing the project of a special issue concerning new wave of geography in a
major journal of sociology, architecture, or urban planning, it was noteworthy
to mention that the architects’ journal of “Ten Plus One” issued a
special edition entitled 'new geography' in 1997. While terms called geography,
space, place, location etc. were seen everywhere in this edition, and
translation of Harvey and Massey etc. were included, most contributors were,
ironically enough, non-geographers except geographers of Mizuuchi and Oshiro.
In the round-table talk which Mizuuchi and Oshiro were invited to attend, urban
sociologist Yoshimi and a fine-arts historian Taki clearly pointed out that
there had been no foundation in which an argument of post-modernism was
received by geography of Japan. Thus, readers were quite acknowledged through
this special issue that geography in Japan did not have for the academic environment
at all, which cherished critical research. By introducing the word 'space',
transformation of thought and ideas within the discipline could be introduced
to evoke new set of problematiques, where sociology, history, and economics had
keenly required. However, in the case of geography, it can be said that such
development of thinking did not decisively need a term called space, a place,
mapping, and a location.
It
was the book that shared such a term completely “From space to place”
published in 1998 by Arayama and Oshiro, who are younger members of the
research project above mentioned. According to Onjo and Oshiro (1998), about
the geographical approach which 'reads' modern Japan which they claim, ‘Since
formation in the modern world, in a changing relation of space in a global
scale, two questions in this geographical approach, should be highlighted with
tracing back work how the material apparatus, institution, everyday custom,
'common feeling' of each social groups which are supporting our present society
are established and reproduced through the social production of `space',
'landscape' and 'place', which have been compulsorily included in this
relation’. Another question is posed that what kind of social practice
geography is describing and reading this modern society, where academic
disciplines of geography was institutionally produced and established as one of
its sub-system (Onjo and Oshiro, 1998, pp.1-2). This proposition must be borne
in mind. As opposed to the description of geographical facts which geography
has dealt with conventionally, and such a new approach gives the depth of the
thinking for seeing in total ideology and strategies which knowledge, science,
technology, discourse, and eyes posses (Hisatake 1995, p. 239). As this Hisatake's
indication, it obviously becomes an important work to describe spatially and
critically the mechanism of formation of the national land space.
On
reflecting this kind of critical view, Mizuuchi, in 1999, edited such stance in
English as "Nation, Region and the politics of Geography in East Asia"
just after his participation of the First East Asian Critical Geographers
Conference and by encouragement received from its attendants. The two strong
streams of the studies on geographical thought and those on space and society
are now articulated in this volume. They also lead us to focus on the spatial
issues of nation state building, state intervention, geographical imaginations
and discourse, colonialism and geopolitical concerns.
Simultaneously,
in 1999, one of the active journal of "Gendai Shiso (Review of the
Contemporary Thought)" planned to launch the special issue entitled
'Spatial transformation', which contained several original papers and five
translations by the research project members. In original papers, such as 'How
should geography be a critical discipline?' Mizuoka elaborated on the opinion
of N. Smith translation in the same journal, clearly demonstrated as a social
accusation the outline of the geography of economical exploitation and social
oppression, and asserted that the political activism from a grassroots level
should be required for such critical geography. Mizuuchi illustrated, in 'Total
war, planning and the configuration of national land space', the irony of the
history in which the spatial planning most powerfully progressed using the ‘opportunity’
of total war, and clarified the political and power nature of geographical
ideology. Hisatake, in his 'Heritage of Japanese geopolitics', started from
using metaphor that Hawaii in the prewar days was a small Manchuria,
demonstrated the reality of the U.S. Asian and Pacific Rim Region’s strategy at
that time, and critically and comprehensively showed the political expansionism
of Japan. It is, thus, that clear critical geography should serve to judge the
role and practice of national state policies and its execution (Mizuuchi,
2000), and in other words, state policy and state intervention becomes the main
problematique of geography.
Cultural
studies in terms of spatial representation and political economy of space,
which attract younger generation researchers, might have to now reply
practically to responding to the changing present conditions (Kato, Kato and
Kanda). We need a critical geography which supports thinking how to articulate
actual local problems and to exchange a dialog theoretically and globally (Hsia
and 2000). Furthermore, critical geography should promote norm-worth of the
human life in citizen society or ecological environment as Choi (2000) claimed,
and it should throw more strongly critical concerns, supported by theoretical
concern, toward many actual problems. And critical geography should encourage
people who are going to make effort to solve such many problems and to revive
some trials for the transformation of the present situation. In the future, it
is necessary to unify both practical knowledge of the people in everyday life
and the theoretical knowledge of political economy. Such a movement in East
Asia is now in the situation that the critical geography of Korea and Taiwan
precedes Japan. Moreover, geography of Japan is exposed to the crisis of
deconstruction by university reform. Critical geography cannot but overcome
such a crisis and it must be tentatively concluded both practically and
theoretically that the necessity of weaving substantial relations with actual
locale and university is keenly high.