Japanese Journal of Sociology最新文献

Although mainstream globalization literature has attempted to provide an empirical proof of the rise of transnational business elites using several indicators, it is still not clear how to pinpoint transnationality and to establish whether globalization has led to the erosion of nation-state boundaries through worldwide mobility and networks, as globalization theorists argue. Using empirical data on career paths and mobility over three decades in Japan – compared with other East Asia economies and India – we examine the shift in career mobility. First, we maintain that a comprehensive understanding of social, political and cultural dimensions need to be considered in a discussion of transnationality. Second, we suggest that the globalizing economy does not necessarily lead to the weakening of the nation-state territory and its institutions in all sociocultural and political dimensions. In particular, transnationality in career mobility in Asian economies is not greatly evident. We propose instead that a new career pattern, which we call brain circulation, highlighting the importance of international experience, has emerged.

This article offers a framework for exploring the relevance of modernity to contemporary East Asia. I first examine different conceptualizations of modernity, paying special attention to Eisenstadt's influential concept of multiple modernities. Second, I point out the limitations and flaws of Eisenstadt's theory by drawing on nationalist politics in East Asia as an illustrative case. In particular, I examine the so-called “history perception problem,” which has been created by war and shaped by the legacies of war, to demonstrate the peculiar features of modernity in East Asia. Third, I use the works by three scholars as examples to show how intellectuals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan respond to the tensions between universalism and particularism, which, as a whole, reflect what can be called “East Asian modernity.” And finally, I try to respond to the controversial but fashionable question that is peculiar to East Asia: can modernity be overcome? It is argued that East Asia can be understood through the lens of modernity, and vice versa. Nowadays, modernity has become a global condition in both geographical and topological senses. It is not something to be overcome, but a condition that we all live in and should learn to live with, here and now.

This article aims to construct a new perspective for analyzing the recent omnipresence of screens, the diversity of images, and their impact on our daily lives. Because of the diversification of digitalized images today, research based on film and television studies is unable to grasp the fluid relationships among screen images, spaces, and the bodies of their audience, and important task for recent scholarship is to determine how to include these screen images in media and cultural studies. In response to this issue, this article seeks to reconstruct the concept of screen practice, guided by the perspectives of Jonathan Crary and Friedrich Kittler on media and practices; Koji Taki and Ai Maeda's historical research on Japanese modernity; and Erkki Huhtamo and Yussi Parikka's media archaeological perspectives for screen and visual culture. Although the notion of screen practice was originally proposed in the field of film history, it should be expanded for broader screen cultures as the sites at which scientific discourses and technologies act on the bodies of viewers. Taking the experiences of Japanese modernity as its subject, this is a critical issue, because at these sites we can find traces of dynamic negotiations between the circulation of science and media derived from Western modernity, and existing physical and cultural vernacular practices. Moreover, going back to the screen cultures at the end of the 19th century will make clear how the process of our contemporary media environment was formed.

In this article, I analyze the governmental discourses of Chung-Hee Park, drawing on Walter Benjamin's concept of the archeology of dreams. Following Benjamin, I argue that modern Korea has been shaped largely under the prevailing influence of survivalism, viewed as a principle of governmentality as well as a collective mentality. Since the late 19th century the Korean peninsula has been enmeshed in enduring geopolitico-economic threats. The Cold War brought about suffering through the Korean War, which was carried over into an authoritarian and developmental state. Finally, under the hegemony of neoliberalism at the end of the 20th century, Koreans once again underwent a collective crisis of survival. Here, I focus on Cold War survivalism and explore the discourses of Chung-Hee Park as representative texts exemplifying the logic and rationale of survivalist governmentality. Viewed as the most influential figure of 20th-century Korea, Park crystallized and implemented a survivalist governmentality, the fundamental logic of which can be delineated in the following four axioms: (i) the transcendental structure of problems, (ii) kairotic time, (iii) the praxeology of power, and (iv) the sovereign leader. These four constitute the specific narrative of national survival that functioned as a blueprint for building up the developmental Korean state.

This article addresses three questions on modernity. Can “the premodern” and “the modern” be differentiated in the historical process? If they can, what is the relationship between “the premodern” and “the modern”? And what will become of these relationships in the future? This article attempts to answer these questions by criticizing the world-system theory and considering some of the experiences of the modernization process in Japan. The world-system theory has tried to relativize social theories from advanced societies in the global perspective. However, the world-system, born during the long 16th century, was defined from the start as modern and capitalist. Therefore, logically this theory cannot adequately grasp the modernization process. To overcome this challenge, this article first accepts the differentiation between “the premodern” and “the modern” and defines modern society as one in which “the modern” is not exclusive but dominant. Second, this article turns to some of the Japanese experiences of “modernization”, particularly in industrial relations. This article asserts that a Japanese-style society tends to keep “the premodern” over a longer term and to replace “modern” relations with “the premodern” ones in management. The author defined this process as informalization. Third, this article stresses that since the late 1990s with globalization, informalization is no longer derived from original “premodern” relations, which are nowadays reproduced by capital. An example of this is the “black company.” This article notes, finally, that capitalism is likely to reproduce premodern forms for its duration.