Beyond Methodological Nationalism

Q3 Social Sciences
Aike P. Rots
{"title":"Beyond Methodological Nationalism","authors":"Aike P. Rots","doi":"10.22439/cjas.v41i1.6883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the problem of lingering methodological nationalism within Japanese studies. It argues that methodological nationalism remains widespread not only in research but also in university teaching and public dissemination, which legitimises popular conceptions of Japan as a singular, unified entity that is essentially different from both the West and continental Asia. This methodological nationalism is a consequence of the ways in which disciplinary structures contribute to the reification, demarcation and naturalisation of ‘Japan’ and ‘things Japanese’ as distinct objects of study in need of their own guild of specialised interpreters. The article argues that to overcome methodological nationalism, scholars of Japan need to reconsider their choice of subject matter and reflect more upon their use of the adjective ‘Japanese’. It proposes three research agendas for the academic study of Japan. First, we should study discursive and institutional processes of Japan-making instead of being complicit in them. Second, we need to rethink ‘Japan’ as our main spatio-cultural unit by focusing on diversity within the Japanese isles and beyond (including migrant and Indigenous perspectives). Third, we should conduct and contribute to comparative research that focuses on both local particulars and transnational connections, rather than using the nation-state as our main unit of analysis.","PeriodicalId":35904,"journal":{"name":"Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v41i1.6883","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article discusses the problem of lingering methodological nationalism within Japanese studies. It argues that methodological nationalism remains widespread not only in research but also in university teaching and public dissemination, which legitimises popular conceptions of Japan as a singular, unified entity that is essentially different from both the West and continental Asia. This methodological nationalism is a consequence of the ways in which disciplinary structures contribute to the reification, demarcation and naturalisation of ‘Japan’ and ‘things Japanese’ as distinct objects of study in need of their own guild of specialised interpreters. The article argues that to overcome methodological nationalism, scholars of Japan need to reconsider their choice of subject matter and reflect more upon their use of the adjective ‘Japanese’. It proposes three research agendas for the academic study of Japan. First, we should study discursive and institutional processes of Japan-making instead of being complicit in them. Second, we need to rethink ‘Japan’ as our main spatio-cultural unit by focusing on diversity within the Japanese isles and beyond (including migrant and Indigenous perspectives). Third, we should conduct and contribute to comparative research that focuses on both local particulars and transnational connections, rather than using the nation-state as our main unit of analysis.
超越方法论民族主义
本文讨论了日本研究中挥之不去的方法论民族主义问题。它认为,方法论民族主义不仅在研究中,而且在大学教学和公共传播中仍然普遍存在,这使日本作为一个独特、统一的实体的流行概念合法化,它与西方和亚洲大陆都有本质的不同。这种方法论民族主义是学科结构有助于“日本”和“日本事物”的具体化、划界和归化的结果,它们是不同的研究对象,需要自己的专业口译员协会。文章认为,为了克服方法论上的民族主义,日本学者需要重新考虑他们对主题的选择,并更多地反思他们对“日本人”形容词的使用。提出了日本学术研究的三个研究议程。首先,我们应该研究日本制造的话语和制度过程,而不是串通一气。其次,我们需要重新思考“日本”作为我们的主要空间文化单元,关注日本岛屿内外的多样性(包括移民和土著视角)。第三,我们应该进行并促进既关注地方细节又关注跨国联系的比较研究,而不是将民族国家作为我们的主要分析单位。
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
Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies
Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信