Reminds me of the interview of Clyde Prestwitz by GLOCOM web magazine few years ago,that Prestowitz was saying he’s no Japan hand but basically an EU specialist.As if he now thinks relating his expertise with Japan is an one way ticket to the intellectual warehouse…

IMD at Lausanne professor Jean-Pierre Lehman also wrote series of derogatory essays on Japan at Japan Times about couple years ago.

加えて、当時いわれていた「世界三角経済」の中にあっては、ヨーロッパとアジアの結びつきは弱いものである、と考えられていました。
バンコックで開催された「アジア欧州首脳会議」が創設されるのは、数年先の1996年のことでしたが、1992年当時、アジアやヨーロッパにとって、相互理解をより一層深めることが、主要な目標であったことは、すでに明らかでした。

従って、私は、上記の点を詳しく説明した後、寄付提供者からなる代表役員会に対して、研究所の名前は、「スウェーデン日本研究所」ではなく、「ヨーロッパ東アジア経済研究所」とすべきであると提案いたしました。
当時、スウェーデン側は、ヨーロッパからの唯一の寄付国であるにもかかわらず、すぐに了解してくれました。
私は、大来氏が亡くなる直前まで、私のこの提案について、氏と非公式に協議してまいりましたが、日本側の副議長である大来氏と同世代ながらも、氏ほどの先見性を持ちあわせてはいない人物が、大来氏の後任となりました。

アジアから寄付を提供した国は、唯一日本だけである、との理由で、私の提案は拒否され、結局、研究所の名前は、「欧州日本研究所」となりました。

私にとっては、にがい経験となりましたが、結論として三つの点を学びました。

第一点目は、「長老学者」を説得することは不可能なことであり、私の見たところ、日本の長老学者たちは、第三者の意見は聞こうとせず、権力を振りかざしながら、あらゆる分野で幅を利かせています。
長老支配によるこれらの弊害は、日本の社会、経済に悲惨な結果をもたらことになるだろうと、私は感じました。

第二点目は、日本の学者たちの研究対象の多くが、近視眼的な「日本研究」に集中しており、日本の「知的雰囲気」が、ますます内向きで、自己中心的となっているため、進歩が見られない状況となっています。
グローバル時代の日本を描くための、このシリーズの冒頭でも申し上げましたが、日本は、グローバリゼーションの波に乗り遅れたようです。
日本は、かなり多くの分野で、グローバルな視点（さらには、リージョナルな視点においても）に立った、知的展望を持ちあわせておらず、またその能力にも欠けているようです。

第三点目の結論として学んだことは、寄せられた様々な期待とは裏腹に、アジアにおける日本のリーダーシップが発揮されていないどころか、狭量なナショナリズム（国家主義）が日本国内に復活し、広まりつつあるという点です。

Lehman must have foreseen the decline of Japan studies as an academic field and probably wanted to switch his career as Asia hand by letting Japanese paying all the expense.And if we say no,then we will all be stamped as”narrow minded nationalists”.Ha!

Chalmers Johnson’s brain child,Japan Policy Research Institute’s director,Steven Clemmons now runs a blog on the U.S policy on totally different island nation from Japan…That is Cuba.

I’ve also noticed the recent U.S house resolution on the comfort women was lobbied by a quasi-think tank by the name of Asia Focus Point,which used to brand themselves as”Japan Information Access Project”.

No wonder some Japanese think Japan specialists are tenured vultures!

Laicus says:

“Is there anything that I’m missing that implies that this phenomenon was more intimately related with Japan than it appears on its face?”

One thing that the Japanese intellectuals were lacking compare to their German or Russian counterpart was the possibility of defect was very limited.

Japanese language is only spoken in Japan and the intellectuals could not find place for their activities once you are out of the country.
The immigrant communities aboroad were limited.The colonies in East Asia were almost as opressive as homeland.Those in the western hemisphere are basically peasant centered community totaly lacking intellectual mindset.Anyway most of them had suffered internment after the Pearl Harbor,thus couldn’t provide sphere of any activities.
The Soviet Union had accepted about 100 or so political exiles whom were all communists,but many were purged in the great purge of the 30′s by Stalin.

The other option for defect is to go religious.But Japan is known for the state controlling the religion from the days of the buddhism arrivals and the state shinto supported by the ministry of the interior had oppressed freemdom of the religion,thus the religion could not offer any sanctuary for the dissident just as it was in say Poland during the cold war or Tibet inder the rule of Beijing now.

Being dissident in the 1930′s Japan means you would be completely cut off from the outside world.You get no mental support from your voiceless countryman in neither the form of nationalism nor shared religion.There were no international organization that give you a helping hand because there were no UN nor Amnesty International.And the west was totally lacking any sympathy toward Japanese of any political ideas.

Such isolation can easily persuade an individual to Tenko and abandonement of the universal values.For they have felt the societies that holds these values(read Western nations)do not open doors to them because of the racial prejudice or the language barriers or the conflict of the national interests.Thus tenko intellectuals usually become the true believer of the imperial cause afterward without any further persuasion from the authority.

The novelist Endo Shusaku had wrote about Tenko in “The Silence” in 1960′s using the story of a Portuguese Jesuit trun-around in the 16th century as a metaphor.I’m waiting how it would be represented in the coming film by Matin Scorcese.

alin, you jumped at your own interpretation of my question. The question was about cultural determinants of tenko and apparently similar phenomena in USSR and Germany at the same time. It was NOT about generalizing from this similarity to equating stalinism and fascism.

I was curious if people thought there were differences in national character such that, while superficially similar, the end result of confessions and turn-arounds was different in the USSR and Japan. In the USSR in most cases a confessor would still be executed or sent into camps and worked to death.

Thanks to Aceface for illuminating comments!

First, Steinhoff, like academics of yore, notes the important role her husband plays. I find this too. Frankly, if one hopes to have a stable home life and an international academic career, the supportive spouse is a MUST.

Secondly, her area of expertise – unusual, important and valued – emerged from her following her nose/heart. She did not allow conventions within academe to define the topic, she set out with spirit, pursued something worthy of her interest, and was therefore embraced by academe. This is too often ignored. It is not that she ignored the rigor of academe – it is that she brought more to her work.

The third point I find interesting (but do not know where it leads) is that Steinhoff self-identifies not as a Japanologist, but as a sociologist. She has the credibility to do either. I would suggest that others are also doing the same, because the field is atrophying… It is worth asking ourselves (within academe) why Steinhoff makes this distinction and what it means.

I would also add my voice to the other folks’ saying this is a wonderful use of the web~!

You may have a point that they are fundamentally different in some kind of character, but why they are put into a binary is pretty obvious.

sorry i don’t see why you had to take that personaly. nowadays i’d say a bit of objectivity in regards to post-war american ideology should be a prerequisite to an intelligent conversation shouldn’t it?

again i stressed american because BASICALLY no european or asian or whatever folk would look for symmetry in those two. (even in germany who has equally experienced and still dealing with the consequences of both).

it’s historically quite clear now that communism and fascism have been paired and demonized beyond reason to make the other idology the natural and only choice that doesn’t need to be questioned.

and, i repeat my original point: fascism and communism are neither the same nor complements. they don’t really form a binary.