Cold War Undercurrents: The Extreme-Right Variants in East Asia*

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1177/00323292211033080

Yoonkyung Lee

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines the mobilization of the Far Right in Korea and Japan in the 2000s and probes how and why the actors and political claims of East Asian extremists differ from their counterparts in Europe and North America. The Far Right forces in Korea and Japan are politically regressive in glorifying the authoritarian or colonial past and cling to unchanging ideological claims from the postwar decades in their current targeting of old-time, internal “others.” This divergence is explained by the United States–led Cold War geopolitics in Asia, under which Far Right elites were fortified in postwar Japan and Korea. The Cold War that has not ended in Asia as opposed to Europe or North America further allows the institutional sustainability of the radical Right and the political resonance of its old ideology of anticommunism and colonial racism. As such, democratic politics in East Asia is predicated on Cold War undercurrents.

查看原文本刊更多论文

冷战暗流:东亚的极右变体*

本研究考察了2000年代极右翼在韩国和日本的动员情况，并探讨了东亚极端分子的行为体和政治主张与欧洲和北美极端分子的不同之处。韩国和日本的极右翼势力在美化独裁或殖民历史方面在政治上倒退，并坚持战后几十年来不变的意识形态主张，目前针对的是旧时代的内部“其他人”，在其统治下，极右翼精英在战后的日本和韩国得到了加强。与欧洲或北美相比，亚洲的冷战尚未结束，这进一步允许激进右翼的制度可持续性，以及其反共产主义和殖民种族主义旧意识形态的政治共鸣。因此，东亚的民主政治是建立在冷战暗流之上的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.