A research meeting was held on January 11. The purpose of the meeting was to share the content of the presentation and discussion at the workshop held at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin on Dec. 4 to 6 of the previous year. The four presenters at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin described the content of their presentation while adding further details and posing questions anew. In addition, two members who had participated in the workshop as audience acted as commentators and reported on the overall agenda and points of discussion of the workshop.

 

HANEDA Masashi: “History of Japanese Historiography and ‘Global History’”

 

In his opening statement on the purpose of his presentation, Masashi Haneda noted that the presentation was intended to explain the nature of “new world history” (= “global history”) currently being discussed in Japan to researchers from the three other collaborating universities in Paris, Berlin, and Princeton (US). The presentation was intended as work to build a foundation for managing the collaborative project and as a part of the effort to get researchers from the different institutions to understand each other’s perspectives on global history as well as their positionality and perceptions of history. In addition, three items were identified as important/necessary in the process of creating this “new world history” through the collaborative project: (1) comparisons, connectivity, and intercourse between different groups of people; (2) interpretations and explanations of history in a global context; (3) examination of history over a long time span.             

 

In his presentation, Haneda repeatedly referred to such differences in the stance of researchers based on their views of history and awareness of issues using the term “positionality.” The issue of “positionality” was a sub-theme of the workshop at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Haneda discussed “positionality” in the context of the need for researchers at the University of Tokyo to be aware, in the process of developing “new world history” against the backdrop of the Japanese people’s view of history and awareness of issues, that their understanding of the issues and challenges are not necessarily shared by researchers around the world. Haneda pointed out that, while the aspiration of all collaborating research groups to create a “new world history” is the same, the process or path by which each group reached this point differs. He further mentioned that, given that this difference in process results in differences in perspective, it is extremely important in terms of future activities to first clarify and understand each group’s “positionality.” The idea of “positionality,” which may continue to be used as fundamental concept, includes fixed factors such as a researcher’s region of origin/training, language, and academic discipline (which perhaps could be called “personality”) as well as variable factors such as stance and research theme. It seems the first step to be taken is for each group and each researcher to sufficiently understand this concept and to recognize their own “positionality.”

 

Following a description of the reaction to the presentation at the workshop, the idea of “positionality” was discussed by members of the audience. It was also pointed out that it may be inappropriate to call the perception of history and the awareness of issues at the University of Tokyo and MEXT a “Japanese view of history” because a wide variety of senses of history exist.  

 

FUSHIMI Takeshi: “Searching the Place of American Civilizations in the ‘Japanese World History’”

 

North and South American history does not fit well into the conventional regional and temporal divisions in the study of world history in Japan and, as such, may serve as an important factor for re-examining the framework of historical studies. Takeshi Fushimi asked what possibilities thinking about North and South American history, especially prior to subjugation by the Western World, would open up for the study of world history in Japan and attempted to answer the question by starting with the awareness of issue that existed in the early stages studies of North and South American history conducted in Japan. To this end, Fushimi focused on two authorities of American history in Japan, Seiichi Izumi and Eiichiro Ishida, and identified three characteristics of early North and South American historical studies carried out by these two: (1) the paradigm shift in the academic world resulting from the loss of colonies following defeat in war and the influence of United States and the League of Nations; (2) re-examination of concept of ancient civilization, and (3) fixation on cultural diffusion theory in the 15th century and earlier. Based thereupon, Fushimi explained that North and South American history can potentially serve as a vehicle for re-examining the concept of ancient civilizations and for investigating diffusion and connectivity within the Pacific Rim in the 15th century and earlier. From the floor, questions were raised related to the degree of influence that studies by Japanese researchers have had on North and South American history, the nature of differences in positionality with regard to New World, North and South American, and Latin American history, and the understanding of North and South American history in the United States. In addition, the opinion was expressed that the position of Latin America, as part of the Spanish-speaking world, in global history is an extremely interesting research theme.

 

YUGE Naoko: “The Enlightenment and its Darkness”

 

Naoko Yuge re-examined Japanese research on the enlightenment, based on a view that, up to this point, Japanese enlightenment scholar have focused entirely on importing and understanding the viewpoint of Western enlightenment scholars and have not sufficiently examined how they themselves have had understood the enlightenment. In doing so, Yuge, referring to Sebastian Conrad’s 2010 paper in which Conrad argues that enlightenment philosophy has existed in different regions throughout the world at different times, Yuge focused her discussion on whether the civilization movement (Bunmeiaika) in Japan during the Meiji Era can be considered enlightenment. She then developed this line of reasoning further by asking what would appear to be a fundamental question in global history, namely, whether the enlightenment originated in Europe and subsequently spread to other parts of world or whether it emerged spontaneously in various parts of the world. Questions were raised by the audience regarding the significance of examining the spread of enlightenment as a topic in global history and the differences in reaction to the enlightenment in non-European and European regions.       

 

MORIKAWA Tomoko: “Global History and a View from West Asia”

 

Tomoko Morikawa pointed out the risk of falling into a view of global history based on a dyadic confrontation between Europe and Asia and proposed that a more multilateral understanding would be made possible by adding even more axes of investigation. In particular, she explained the importance of adding West Asia, a region whose boundaries are changeable, as a third axis of investigation when thinking about global history by taking up the phenomenon of “pilgrimages,” which cross national, language, and, at times, even religious boundaries. In addition to questions related the definition of sacred places/pilgrimage, the question of what can be learned when the phenomenon of pilgrimage is studied in terms of not only geographical spread but, also, temporal spread was raised by audience. The opinion was also expressed that it might be more interesting to overlay the concept of pilgrimage, which supersedes the concept of region, on top of the existing concept of region, rather than to try to fit it back into the regional concept of West Asia.                   

 

(Natsuko SAJI)

                                           

After the reports from the presenters, Miki Sugiura and Yuki Terada provided comments on the Berlin workshop as a whole.

 

First, Sugiura outlined the questions and discussions that arose at the Berlin workshop and introduced the 7 points of discussion as summarized by Andreas Eckert in his concluding comments. These included (i) how should “time” be understood global history; (ii) what topics related to the world’s past should be investigated; (iii) the need for global history to move beyond simply comparing and describing the intercourse among regions, and (iv) re-examination of how historical documents have been used in the past and re-examination of existing terminology and concepts. Sugiura pointed out the need to incorporate historical studies from all parts of the world that have been written in languages other than English (or non-major languages) and the need to discuss global history research that has been conducted up to this point. Finally, Sugiura introduced the situation of each institute involved in the Global History Collaborative project.   

 

Next, Terada introduced and commented on other points of discussion that arose at the Berlin workshop. Specifically, Terada commented on the keywords “spatial axis,” “temporal axis” and “topic selection” and referred to the difficulty in finding the right balance between overarching themes and specific events, the need to investigate not only the overall circumstances of the world in each age but also the unique characteristics of each age, which tend to be overlooked in conventional historical studies. She also pointed out the importance of writing history that do not create “others”.

 

Terada’s report was followed by general discussion. The question “who are the agents of contribution?” yielded discussion and comments related to how world history written by Japanese historians can contribute to humanity and the importance of the writers’ positionality and intended audience. A proposal was also made regarding the potential theme of contemporaneous “transnational learning” that crosses over national and regional boundaries. In addition, a general discussion (summary) of this year’s activities and outlook took place. Each participant responded to questions regarding the global history-related programs and organizations at their respective institutions.

 

(Asuka TSUJI)