First, I haven’t finished IPOS, but I’m about halfway through. I notice Tanizaki complaining about the newfound preference towards wasteful use of electric light, and the increasing proliferation of neon signs. For me, the obliteration of the shadow aesthetic, is a type of obliteration of history. Reading his description of the patina accumulating on tin dishware suggests the accumulation of history, as does his description of the toilet room. If you really want to be paranoid and see things that aren’t there, you could say that Tanizaki is aware of the historical aspect of his shadows, and the commentary on the toilet room is a commentary on history, Japanese and Western, and the associated approaches towards history.

What really provoked this hypothesis was a reading of Pico Iyer reviewing some Chinese cultural revolution novels. One interesting aspect of Chinese myopia towards the CR period would be that as the period becomes more distant and the society becomes less similar, the electrical power available for lighting increases and the relevant entities put it to greater and greater use. I still remember in ’97 when visiting one of my relatives for the last time, the cityscape had a vague resemblence to what Pyongyang must look like now, relative darkness at midnight. These days the buildings shine with empty splendor.

So, porting this back to the Japanese example, might the obliteration of the shadow aesthetic reflect a disconnect with the historical past?

One other thing. Even if you accept the hypothesis that the use of shadow is central to Japanese aesthetics, there must be something wrong with it. How well does it interact with Shinto aesthetics favoring purity and cleanliness? Take a Japanese restaurant decorated in “traditional” wood and compare it to a Korean or Chinese restaurant with similar usages of wood. If I’m right, the Korean or Chinese institution would have deeper shades of wood, but it could just indicate better access to tropical hardwood.

But seriously, Royall Tyler?

Tell me about it. I write three other blogs, freelance articles, plus have a job and family and hobbies. It’s not just academics who are busy.

Perhaps my position was not clear. I am not detaching Japan from Asia. Rather, as we’ve been posting, “Asia” is less a geographical based reality of some shared culture, race, or whathaveyou than a discursive construction specifically created under a moment of imbalanced world power. Japan has almost ALWAYS been positioned ambivalently within the idea of “Asia.”

Under Japan’s empire, the concept of “Asia” was taken up as an elaboration and expansion of the growing kokugaku studies field. It is at this moment that the modern notion of “we Japanese” as better than the rest of “Asia” was firmly established. “We” might all be “Asian” but, “we JAPANESE” must lead the filthy unenlightened masses.

Moreover, Japan was also discursively and materially privileged by Western scholars – especially during the Cold War. Again, we see that “Japan” is positioned as different, special, a rare ally in a sea of Asian communists.

Even by the 1990s, when Japan suddenly found itself in an Asian culturalist boom, do we see this sentiment. “Japan” is now proudly Asian again…but, you also see a recycled discourse of Japanese leadership, superiority, advancement that is an interesting throwback to the sort of lines thrown about under the Greater East-Asia Co-P Sphere.

And:
“The “modernisation” process of non-western countries accompanies similar pains and ideological conflicts.”

I will not deign to respond to this throw-back to the “belated modernity” thesis.

I do not blog for some of the reasons provided by M-bone. But, I have always disliked academic name dropping, the posturing that we have to do, and the anxious flurry of name googling (you know we all do it) when we try to pick apart an author. Would you read my comments differently if my name was HD Harootunian? If I was an unknown or a graduate student? What if I was a man in his 50s? Or if I was a young woman? The anonymity of the internet helps to temper some prejudices (mine and others). That being said, I do enjoy neo-J and neo-M for the variety of topics and voices here.

But mostly, it is quite a bit of work in an already hectic life. Who’d want to read a blog updated twice a year?

I think that I actually threatened to kill some jouralist or other over on Mutantfrog one time.

`Neojaponisme will never be able to be an academic-level print publication`

Nor should it be. I`m happy to see Neojaponisme as more of a replacement for the type of stuff that we see on the NYT. So you guys are better than the NYT, AP, etc. on Japan by far and different than an academic jouranl. In any case, I don`t think that what I have to say in these comments is necessarily better or more insightful than what you guys have to say just different (and not necessarily academic all of the time either – that Macross thing was pure nerd on my part). It is great to have forums for all sorts of different points of view. I actually tell students who ask about Japanese fashion or music to read Neojaponisme, BTW. I don`t give much better compliments than that.

One last point – this particular essay did invite an academic response by taking an academic structure.