AS230 Wednesday

Adrian Rey Penetrante

Session 1 Reflection Paper

According to Plath, D. (2020), the closure of Japan from outside interference during the
more than 250 years rule of the Tokugawa Era allowed for Japan to independently develop
socio-political entities and structures under a hereditary and hierarchical civil society that
became synonymous to autonomy. Despite the opening of the country’s borders during
Commodore Matthew Perry’s mission that heralded the onset of the Meiji era, Japan retained
most of its established systems and culture.

Therefore, Naoki, S. (1997) pointed out that the question of Japanese identity was not the
main problem but rather, how Japan had been constructed during the crucial Meiji era. A sense
of a collective “Japanese thought” that continued to flourish during the times when the Meiji
Restoration allowed for the process of nation-building. The question now is how the collective
history of Japan became to be, as the retelling of the story of Japan produced the concept of
nation-state for the Japanese of the time.

Naoki continued that colonialist universalism, nor the concept of the “other”, concealed
the complicity of the West and Japan in the transferential transformation of respective identities.
For Naoki, the narcissism and uncritical endorsement of such schema of both entities delineated
the West from Japan. Due to preferential representation of literature from western and eastern
scholars, studies in the past on Japan became clouded with biases and inaccuracies. The notion
emphasizes that we as Asian studies scholars have the moral responsibility to reshape and retell
the story of the region through our own perspective, through empirical lenses not marred by the
biases of the colonial past. Such that, as Japan majors, we may investigate the history of Japan in
a manner befitting modern scholarly thought.

To compare, the mysticism which accompanied European scholars such as Kaempfer, E.

(1999) in the retelling of the Japanese story emphasized the detachment of western scholars to
the idea of Japanese thought, mainly focusing on observable evidence rather than contributing to
focused, or perspective-based study of the country. Although at some points enlightening, the
narrative of western scholars focused more on the brutality of Japanese history, somehow
painting the Tokugawa era as an age of bloodshed and backwardness stuck in wartime and
postwar culturalist discourse. Notably, the author compared samurais to Russian hussars without
much discussion on the parallelism of the in fact, completely different breed of warriors, only
attributing differences based on fierceness in battle which is subjective.

However, we cannot fully discredit western studies which have given interest in
understanding Japan as scholars such as Plath (2020) did indeed give us a proper argument on
the socio-political and economic systems which thrived during the vital eras of the Tokugawa
and Meiji. Notably, the argument that Japan was a late developer that benefited from borrowing
and adapting foreign technology gave scholars consideration of the western influences which
shaped Japan to what it is today. While we can argue that Japan did indeed flourish even without
outside interference, the opening of the country during the Meiji era gave the country a push into
becoming part of the international community.

Notably, guns introduced by foreign entities such as the Dutch and British influenced the
many battles that occurred from the Sengoku era to the Meiji, emphasizing the importance of the
port of Najima in allowing foreign interference to have a role in Japanese history. The
inalienability of western influence was also emphasized by Plath, saying that the entry of foreign
influence allowed for the formation of a Japanese identity. However, some scholars such as
Naoki would argue that the sense of nationalism was not brought upon by western influence but
rather, was due in part to the nation-building practices which transpired during the Meiji era. The
discourse presented by Naoki on the Shutai and Shikan gave a more nationalistic approach, in the
definition of cultural identity.

On Japan’s economy, the Meiji restoration did indeed allow for the opening of not only
Japan’s borders, but of the Japanese thought to foreign influences. The era marked the
renaissance period for Japan, which scholars such as Ohno (2006) would describe as the period
of enlightenment. Probably, the reason why western scholars categorize Japan as a later
developing country was due to comparisons made with European counterparts. Whereas
European countries such as England and France have begun the onsets of industrialization in
their respective countries, Japan had been struggling as a country to open its borders.

Rather than comparison, scholars must investigate the individuation that various
countries underwent during those times. While comparison may be needed in the formulation of
relevant foreign policies in the modern era, the retelling of history in different regions of the
world should be treated differently, as countries have even yet to define national borders let
alone identity during pre-modern times. Countries such as Japan must be tackled as a country a
piece, as the country already had existing systems and hierarchy even before opening its borders
during the Meiji Era.

References:

Plath, D. (2020). The Japanese Economy. Oxford University. Oxford New York.

Ohno, K. (2006). Japanese Views on Economic Development. Routledge Studies in the Growth
Economies of Asia. London and New York.

Kaempfer, E. (1999). Kaempfer’s Japan. Tokugawa Culture Observed. University of Hawaii

Press. Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Group

Naoki, S. (1997). Translation and Subjectivity. On Japan and Cultural Nationalism. University
of Minnesota. Minneapolis London.