Modernism, Postmodernism, and Japan: an Inquiry into the Making of Identity and Contemporary International Political Economy

Abstract

With advances in production technology and developments in transportation and communications, international relations (IR) discourses now clearly include not only political, but also economic and social concerns. The intellectual endeavour of international political economy (IPE), in its contemporary form, was born in response to such a broadening perspective. The discipline had to wait until the 1980s, however, for the emergence of a focus on IPE of equal significance to that on IR as traditionally construed. It is still waiting for the emergence of an equivalent focus on international political culture (IPC). Contemporary scholars commonly understand IPE as a study dealing with the interaction of international politics (IP) and international economics (IE). Most define IPE solely in terms of how politics shapes international economic relations or economics shapes international political relations. Concentrating on the relationship between the international polity and the international economy does not necessarily indicate a wider focus than traditional IR, however, with its concern for the international polity only. This is because the separation of IP and IE is based upon one particular understanding of world affairs, namely, liberalism. Other discourses, such as mercantilism and Marxism, do include the interaction of IP and IE within their theoretical horizons. As such, a focus that encompasses these discourses will provide a wider understanding of world affairs. This is particularly so in the case of Marxism, partly because Marxist analyses often ask philosophical questions of an explicitly epistemological kind, and partly because they focus on the social dynamics of world affairs as well as its material foundations. The singular focus on the interaction of IP and IE is not one on which we can construct a comprehensive IPE discourse, therefore. We have to go back to the initial point of our argument, in fact, to consider neglected dimensions to traditional IR, if we want to meet the need for as comprehensive an analysis of IPE as possible. Mushakoji argues, for example, that, since IR has been focused heretofore only on political and military issues, the traditional international relations discourse neglects economic issues and socio-cultural issues. He insists on involving the social dimension. My argument will be developed along similar lines, namely, the need to include the neglected dimensions, and especially the socio-cultural dimension of world affairs. Indeed, I go beyond this argument to argue that socio-cultural factors are the most crucial determinants of world affairs. The first question I want to address in this thesis, therefore, is that of the dimension of culture, which has long been missing from traditional accounts of world affairs in general, and IPE in particular. I analyse the absence of this dimension from the study of IPE in particular by discussing in detail the orthodox accounts of the subject in Chapters 1 and 2. To heighten the sense of this absence, Chapter 3 looks at the phenomenological world view, and the alternatives it provides to traditional IPE. Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 are the core theoretical chapters. Both of them directly condemn traditional modernist and positivist accounts of IPE for their neglect of socio-cultural depth. The theories I discuss in each chapter are different however. In Chapter 4, I introduce critical international theory and postmodernism in order to condemn traditional modernist and positivist accounts of IPE for their neglect of socio-cultural depth. I focus first on the relationship between the ruling class and the intellectual community. This is a very important part of the thesis as it highlights the deeply tangled relationships between power and theory. Following the introduction of the focus on power and theory, I then employ a postmodernist standpoint, and highlight the theory it provides of the modern use of power. This standpoint is particularly useful in analyzing contemporary global issues since it makes very clear the interaction between power and knowledge. Unlike critical international theory, the theoretical scope of postmodern IPE is not restricted by positivist concepts of rationality. It deconstructs rationalism, in fact, firstly by investigating modernity in detail, and secondly by arguing that contemporary knowledge is biased by the very process of constructing rationalistic knowledge. This bias is reflected, in turn, in the way world affairs are imagined. Contemporary power dynamics are formulated on the basis of particular systems of knowledge and ideology. I propose as a consequence a theoretical alliance between postmodern IPE and phenomenology. The alliance of these two discourses provides a completely different picture of the world from that of more traditional accounts. It is arguably more comprehensive as well, not least in the democratic sense that it empowers marginalised populations by providing a viable basis in theory for those Critical social movements attempting to be heard in the world. The second part of the thesis is an explicit application of the alliance of postmodern IPE and phenomenology. In Chapter 6, I discuss the Japanese history of industrialisation. I do so from a feminist perspective, however. It has been common to analyse Japan's rapid modernisation in market terms and in terms of its centralized political institutions. It is still uncommon to analyse it in a way that pays such special attention to the ideological terms of the times, and to a marginalised perspective like that of feminism. Postmodern IPE allows special attention to be given to gender relations, and it shows closely that the culture of the time was artificially constructed by one particular ideology - that of anti-colonial nationalism - by the patriarchs who promoted and protected that ideology. I attempt in the process to deconstruct traditional accounts of Japan's industrialisation. In so doing, I investigate the ways in which the dominant ideology of anti-colonial nationalism succeeded in silencing many "others", and especially, many Japanese women. I also discuss how this politico-cultural marginalisation resulted in the impoverishment of Japanese women's everyday lives in politico-economic terms as well. In Chapter 7, I proceed chronologically to the imperial era. I investigate the Japanese narratives of IPE offered at the time within the nascent discourses of social science, philosophy, economics, and colonial studies. What emerges from this investigation is the way these discourses made "Others" of the non-Japanese populations of Asia. These discourses were meant to "civilise" and "educate". I encounter in the process the perspectives of "Others" in the Asian region, such as those of Koreans and Chinese, whose voices were repressed on the basis of race. I discuss in Chapter 7 how racist narratives were used to create a Japanese politico-cultural "Self" in support of the dominant politico-economic and the politico-strategic regime. I also discuss how these racist narratives devastated and impoverished the lives of "Others". In chapter 8, my focus shifts from Japan's imperial era to that of World War II and its aftermath. Here I investigate specifically the issue of Japan's governmental compensation to individual so-called "comfort women". There are at least two key ideological narratives here: that of Asianism and of Japanese anti-colonial nationalism. These two ideological narratives have a common basis in modernism. Concerning the "comfort women" issue, and that of Japanese government compensation, both Asianism and anti-colonial nationalism have been used to reject the voices of former "comfort women". As a result, the voices of women have been largely regarded as trivial. I attempt to describe how the narratives of Asianism and anti-colonial nationalism were constructed on the basis of modern scientific knowledge, how biased this construction happened to be; how important it is that the voices of "comfort women" be heard; and how they should not be regarded as trivial. My purpose in this chapter is twofold. Firstly, I seek to deconstruct Japanese narratives of Asianism and anti-colonial nationalism in order to create a thinking space for the voices of "comfort women". Secondly, I seek to show more generally how the politico-cultural dimension of political economy can be related to politico-strategic and politico-economic concerns.