2004.
暨南大学全国排名王屏『近代日本的亚细亚主义』商务印书馆
Wang, Ping: Jindai Riben de Yaxiya zhuyi [Modern Japane Asianism]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan, 2004, 388 pp., 22 Renminbi
肺部真菌感染能治好吗Reviewed by Torsten Weber
In a recent volume of the publishing hou Iwanami’s well-received “Intel-lectual Frontier”ries, simply titled Ajia/Nihon [Asia/Japan], Yonetani Masafumi suggests to re-visit “Japan’s entangled relationship with Asia” by starting from Sun Yat-n’s famous “Greater Asianism” address of 1924. Given in Kôbe to a mainly Japane audience, Sun’s speech highlights “the ambiguity of solidarity (rentai) and invasion (shinryaku) contained in the Asian solidarity thesis (Ajia Rentai Ron)”,1 Yonetani states. Owing to its wide circulation in Japan until 1945, Sun’s “Greater Asianism” has become an important part of modern Japane consciousness of Asia. While in large ctions of his speech Sun praid the Japane for their civilisational achievements and successful resistance against Western aggression, to-wards the end he warned Japan not to become “the watchdog of Western rule of might” (badao, Jp. hadô) but to function as “the stronghold of Eastern rule of virtue” (wangdao, Jp. ôdô) instead.2 Indeed Japan, as ha
ving to choo between joining “the West” and adopting Western imperialism on the one hand or opting for “the East” and promoting Eastern solidarity on the other is a pre-dominant topic in Japane discour on Asia, most famously ex-presd by Fukuzawa Yukichi’s “Leaving Asia”-thesis (Datsu A Ron). Whereas Fukuzawa in 1885 had strongly rejected Japane attempts to re-vive Asia together with its neighbours, which he denounced as the “bad company of East Asia”, Sun in 1924 appealed to the Japane for a “Greater Asianism to restore the status of the Asian peoples”. Between both state-ments, but also after and before them, many debates on Japan’s relationship with Asia, on Japane ‘Asianity’, and on Asia’s significance for Japan and vice versa, aro in Japan. In the past decades the diversity of such expres-sions of Asia consciousness (Ajia ninshiki) has received much attention by
1See Yonetani Masafumi, Shikô no furontia: Ajia/Nihon, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2006, p. iii. Yonetani identifies Ajia Rentai as an ideal inherent in Asianism (Ajiashugi); e p. v.
2For Sun’s speech and contemporary reactions e Chin Tokujin and Yasui Sankichi (eds.), Son Bun kôen ‘Dai Ajiashugi’ shiryô shû, Kyoto: Hôritsu Bunkasha, 1989; quotes from p. 80.
261
月饼糖浆Japane scholars of modern history. Similarly to Yonetani, many of them have attributed particular significance to the concept of Asianism (Ajiashu-gi).3 In fact, from a Japane perspective modern Asia appears unthinkable without thinking of Asianism at the same time.
Unlike Anglophone scholarship, which only of late has embarked on dis-cussing Asianism as a part of modern Japane Asia consciousness,4 schol-ars on mainland China have long shared with their counterparts in Japan this interest in Asianism and its implications for modern Japan’s relation-ship with Asia, in particular with China. However, until relatively recently, the political function of studying Japane Asianism as a mere jargon for imperialism and aggression could hardly be overlooked. This position was fundamentally challenged when, in 2000, Sheng Banghe, history professor at Shanghai’s East China Normal University, argued in the prestigious Lishi Yanjiu [History Rearch] journal for a more refined interpretation of Japa-ne Asianism. Before Asianism “turned right” to become the ideology be-hind Japan’s continental policy of expansionism, he contended, it had aimed at promoting an “Asian alliance” (Yazhou tongmeng,Jp. Ajia dômei) and propod “Sino-Japane mutual help and guidance” (Zhong-Ri lianxie, Jp. Chû-Nichi renkei) as a means of resistance against the Western powers.5 This partially “positive” interpretation of Japane Asianism, which Sheng supported by extensive references to pro-Chine Japane writings from th
e early- and mid-Meiji periods, met with fierce criticism from some Chi-ne scholars who re-iterated the orthodox view of Asianism as being noth-ing but “Greater Japanism”6 and a “product of Japan’s march towards im-3See Furuya Tetsuo’s praid edited volume Kindai Nihon no Ajia ninshiki, Tokyo: Ryokuin Shobô, 1996, which contains a parate chapter by the editor on “Asian-ism and its circumference”, and Yamamuro Shin’ichi’s state-of-the-art Shisô kadai toshite no Ajia, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2001, which dedicates one third of the book to “Asianism as Entwurf” (Tôki toshite no Ajiashugi). Many additional refer-ences to Asianism and the Asia solidarity thesis can be found in both books.
4Sven Saaler and J. Victor Koschmann (eds.), Pan-Asianism in Modern Japane His-tory: Colonialism, Regionalism and Borders, London and New York: Routledge, 2007, is the first book in English entirely dedicated to Japane Asianism.
5Sheng Banghe, “19 shiji yu 20 shiji zhi jiaode Riben Yazhou zhuyi” [Japane Asianism in the Transitional Period from the 19th to the 20th century], in: Lishi Yanjiu, 3/2000, 125–35; here p. 125.
6Wang Xiangyuan, “Cong ‘he bang’, ‘yi ti’ dao ‘da yaxiya zhuyi’: Jindai Riben qinhua lilun de yi zhong xingtai” [From ‘merged states’, ‘an integral whole’ to ‘Greater Asianism’: A theoretical form for Japane
invasion of China in modern times], in: Huaqiao Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue shehui kexue ban), 2/2005, 77–84; here:
77. See also Wang Xiangyuan, Riben dui Zhongguo de Wenhua qinlüe: Xuezhe, Wen-
huaren de qinhua zhanzheng [Japan’s cultural invasion of China: The Invasive war of scholars and intellectuals against China]. Beijing: Kunlun Chubanshe, 2005.
262
外汇赚钱吗
perialism”, providing Japan with “a theory for invasion”.7 However, Sheng’s progressive interpretation marked the start of a gradual re-evalua-tion of Japane Asianism by Chine scholars of which the book under review can be regarded as reprenting a current peak.
Wang Ping’s meticulous study, for which she undertook rearch at the University of Tokyo in 2000/2001, derves particular attention mainly for three reasons. Firstly, while articles on Asianism have been published in China in great number, Wang’s study constitutes the first Chine mono-graph on Japane Asianism. In fact, it may well be one of the first mono-graphs ever published on this subject outside of Japan. Secondly, unlike many other Chine works on modern Japan history,
her study is well informed by recent Japane scholarship, and she supports her analysis with extensive references to Japane (not Chine) condary literature. Thirdly, and most importantly, the overall tone of her study is “relatively rational and extremely neutral”, as one Chine reviewer criticid.8 This is all the more noteworthy as Wang is by no means a pariah in her field but a member of the Institute of Japane Studies at the state-run Chine Academy of Social Sciences and also a frequent commentator of Sino-Jap-ane relations for the central organ of the Chine Communist Party, the People’s Daily newspaper (Renmin Ribao). Although it may be too much to conclude that her book marks the beginning of a paradigm shift in offi-cial Chine historiography of modern Japan, it doubtlessly stands out as a powerful renunciation of orthodox Chine study of modern Japane history (which Wang largely ignores) and as a timely contribution to inter-national scholarship on Japane Asianism.
Wang’s choice of the term Yaxiya zhuyi [“Asianism”] in the title and throughout her book may already be regarded as an act of political incor-rectness, from a Chine point of view. In China, Japane Asianism is traditionally referred to as Da Yaxiya zhuyi or Da Yazhou zhuyi (both mean-ing “Greater Asianism”) in a negative n, stressing Japane ambitions to create and rule a “Greater Asia”.9 Wang clings to the negative connota-7Qi Qizhang, “Riben Da Yaxiya zhuyi tanxi: Jianyu Sheng Banghe Xiansheng shangque” [Exploring Japane Greater Asianism: A Discussion with Mr.
Sheng Banghe], in: Lishi Yanjiu, 3/2004, 132–45; here p. 132.
8Online-Review by Liu Jingyu (Northeast Normal University, Changchun), /asia/dsypl/text-3/liujingyu.htm (last access 7 June 2007).
9Sun Yat-n’s Kobe speech is treated as an exception becau it was originally published under the title “Greater Asianism”. Wang, too, hastens to explain that Sun’s “Greater Asianism” is not to be confud with Japane “Greater Asianism” but rather belongs to the category of Japane “Classical Asianism”
(for definition e below); e Wang, p. 20.
263
tions of “Greater Asianism”, but she only us the term for a specific sort of Asianism – “expansive Asianism” – whereas she choos the more neu-tral “Asianism” as her overall term. Historically, a strict division between “Asianism” and “Greater Asianism” is arguable becau both terms (and a third, “Pan-Asianism”) were mostly ud synonymously by contempo-raries. At any rate, Wang’s message is clear: “Asianism cannot indiscrim-inately be called invasionism” (17) and, from a scholarl
y point of view, is not to be ud in a “praising” or “downgrading” n but as a “neutral term” (25).
Wang’s elaborate definition of Asianism underlines her de-politicid understanding of historical Asianism further. According to Wang,
[M]odern Japane ‘Asianism’ means a sort of reprentative political thought and its corresponding behaviour that is related to Japane views on Asia. It took shape during a time of crisis due to intensified aggression by Western powers against the East and revolved around the question of how to understand concepts of ‘East’ and ‘West’. As a result of the complicated and particular historical development pro-cess which modern Japane Asianism underwent, it displays the three forms of Classical Asianism(Gudian Yaxiya zhuyi,Jp. Koten Ajiashugi) emphasizing equal cooperation in Asia, of Greater Asianism (Da Yaxiya zhuyi,Jp. Dai Ajiashugi) emphasizing expansion, and of the “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” which implemented the in-vasion of Asia. In the cour of its formation, development, and ex-tinction, modern Japane Asianism completed its historical process as a qualitative transformation from “Reviving Asia” (Xing Ya,Jp. Kô
A) to “Invading Asia” (Qin Ya,Jp. Shin A). (15)
合情推理Similarly to Sheng, Wang emphasis that Asianism cannot be studied de-tached from its historical c
ontext of a “Western threat” which did not au-tomatically lead to a Japane formulation of a blueprint for Japane ag-gression. Rather, for Wang as for Sheng, in the early period “Classical Asi-anism” stood for cooperation and reprentatively expresd itlf in the Asian Solidarity thesis (Ajia Rentai Ron). This interpretation is reminiscent of the minimal definition of Asianism as “solidarity of the Asian coun-tries” (Ajia shokoku no rentai)10 by Takeuchi Yoshimi who, more explicitly 10Takeuchi Yoshimi, “Ajiashugi no tenbô”, in: Ajiashugi (Gendai Nihon s hisô taikei, Vol. 9), ed. by Takeuchi Yoshimi, Tokyo: Chikuma Shobô, 1963, p. 14. There is still no published English translation of this classical text. An excellently anno-tated German translation is now available in Japan in Asien: Geschichtsdenken und Kulturkritik nach 1945, edited and translated by Wolfgang Seifert and Chris-tian Uhl, München: Iudicium, 2005.
264
than Wang, linked early Asianist thought to the Freedom and Popular Rights Movement of the 1880s.
Not entirely in accordance with her chronological definition, Wang’s study nominally falls into three larger topical parts: Asianism as “thought”, as “behaviour”, and as “diplomatic strategy”. However, W
ang understands the divisions non-exclusively and ultimately gives prefer-ence to a historical narrative along the above-mentioned temporal units (formation, development, extinction) rather than clinging to her thematic structure. It should further be emphasid that Wang, even where she dis-cuss Asianist action and diplomacy, generally comprehends Asianism as intellectual (not social or diplomatic) history and therefore studies, with few exceptions, writings by intellectuals expressing a particular con-sciousness of Asia.
In the first part (“Asianism as thought”) she focus on the time be-tween the foundation of the Shin A Sha [Rou Asia Society] in 1878, as-sumedly the first Asianist organisation, and the foundation of the Tôa Dôbunkai [East Asia Common Culture Association] by Konoe Atsumaro in 1898 (chapter 2). In chapter 3, we are reminded of Okakura Tenshin’s views of Oriental and Occidental civilizations and his formulation of “Asia is one”, which Wang regards as the “solid theoretical ba of Asian-ism” (84). The fourth chapter is concerned with Asianist plans for “con-crete action” and studies Tarui Tôkichi’s propod solution of the Korea problem (Dai Tô Gappô Ron) and Miyazaki Tôten’s commitment to a Chi-ne revolution. Wang regards this “formative period of Asianism” (1878–1898) as reprenting “Classical Asianism”.
保护的英文The cond part (“Asianism as behaviour”), examines how the work of groups such as the Gen’yôsh
潮性办公室粤语a and the Kokuryûkai (chapter 6), which Wang classifies as t he national esntialist branch (guocui pai,Jp. kokusui ha) of Asianism, together with Kita Ikki’s “reformist” Asianism (chapter 7) and Ishiwara Kanji’s Tôa Renmei movement (chapter 8) replaced sol-idary “Classical Asianism” with aggressive “Greater Asianism” in the de-velopmental period of Asianism (1898–1928).
一亩是多少
In the last part (“Asianism as diplomatic strategy”), Wang announces her intention to study Japan’s mainland policy, but effectively analys Rôyama Masamichi’s geopolitical theory and Ôkawa Shûmei’s writings about establishing a new order in East Asia (chapter 10) as leading to “the extinction of Asianism” (Yaxixa zhuyi de xiaowang,Jp. Ajiashugi no shôbô) between 1928 and 1945. While 1945 appears as an obvious terminus for the study of historical Asianism, the choice of 1928 as the turning point from expansive to invasive Asianism remains somewhat opaque. Perhaps 1938 would have been a more convincing choice, in particular as Wang, in the third part, focus on the declaration of the “New Order in East Asia” (Tôa
265
