Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:12:51.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sociology of a Not-So-Integrated Discipline: The Development of International Relations in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Takashi Inoguchi
Takashi Inoguchi*
Affiliation:
University of Tokyo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stimulated by Ole Waever's (1998) examination of American and European developments in International Relations, this article examines the growth of the discipline of international relations in Japan, focusing on the major currents of the social science tradition since 1868 and the intellectual agenda of international relations since 1945. Postwar scholarship has reflected the main themes and questions of Japanese history — the causes of war, the struggle for peace, Japan's place in the world and Asia, and Japan's role in the Cold War. To an extent, the organization and substance of IR teaching and scholarship in Japan can be explained by reference to certain sociological and historical variables. Discussions about methodology have not mirrored the “great debates” of the United States, but the younger scholars are moving closer to the American pattern. Recent exposure to and interaction with American scholarship has become increasingly visible, allowing Japanese scholars to make important contributions to debates in the US.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 111 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baylis, John and Smith, Steve. 1998. Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cumings, Bruce. 1999. Webs with Spiders, Spiders with No Webs: The Geneology Of The Developmental State. In The Developmental State, edited by Woo-Cumings, Meredith, 61–92. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoguchi, Takashi. 1989. The Study of International Relations in Japan. In The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, edited by Dyer, Hugh and Managasarian, Leon, 257–264. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Inoguchi, Takashi. 1995. Democracy and the Development of Political Science in Japan. In Regime and Discipline: Democracy and the Development of Political Science, edited by Easton, David, Gunnell, John, and Stein, Michael, 269–293. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Inoguchi, Takashi. 2001. Infrastructure, Social/ Behavioral research: (Japan and Korea). In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Smelser, Neil and Baltes, Paul, 7489–7493. N.Y.: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Inoguchi, Takashi. and Bacon, Paul. 2001. The Study of International Relations in Japan; Toward a more International Discipline? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Inoguchi, Takashi. and Shiro, Harada. 2002 (forthcoming). Kokusai Seiji Kenkyusha No Senko Senryaku (Strategies of Specialization by IR Scholars). In Tahenryo Kaiseki Jisurei Handbook (Handbook of Multivariate Analyses). Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.Google Scholar
Sakai, Tetsuya. 2001. Kokusai Kankeiron no Seiritsu: Kindai Nihon Kenkyu no Tachibakara kangaeru (The Origin of International Relations: From the Angle of Modern Japanese Studies). Sobun No. 421 (May): 6–10 Google Scholar
Smouts, Marie-Claires. 1987. The Study of International Relations in France. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 16: 281–286.Google Scholar
Viotti, Paul R. and Kaupi, Mark V. 1998. International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole. 1998. The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52(4): 687–727.Google Scholar