“Intellectual Giants” in
UTokyo: A History of
China/Taiwan Studies

園田 茂人
丸川 知雄
髙見澤 磨
川島 真
黄 偉修
川上 桃子

ブックレット GJSVol. 4

“Intellectual Giants” in UTokyo: A History of
China/Taiwan Studies
国際総合日本学ネットワークは、日本研究の国際化を推進する組織として、2014年４月に東 京 大 学内に設 立されました。英 語 名はGlobal Japan Studies
Network、通称 GJS です。現在は研究部門を東洋文化研究所が、教育部門を現代日本研究センター（2020年７月に設立）が、それぞれ責任をもって管理しています。
この「ブックレットGJS」は、国際総合日本学ネットワーク（GJS）での研究活動や運営経験を踏まえて、その現場から生まれた知見を記録するためのシリーズです。

１

はじめに………………………………………………………………
園田 茂人／Shigeto Sonoda

1

Ｉ．Studies on China
２

Japanese Marxism, the University of Tokyo, and China… ………

３

Development of Empirical Sociology and China Studies in Japan… … 20

４Studies on Chinese Law in Japan: Legends of Tokyo School… … 41

５

 tudies on Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan: Chinese
S
World Order and Modern Diplomacy in China… ………………… 52

丸川 知雄／Tomoo Marukawa

7

園田 茂人／Shigeto Sonoda

髙見澤 磨／Osamu Takamizawa

川島 真／Shin Kawashima

Ⅱ．Studies on Taiwan
６

The Research on Taiwan-Japan Relations at UTokyo… ………… 74

７

U Tokyo’s ROC / Taiwan Studies on Diplomacy andInternational Relations… …………………………………………… 88

黄 偉修／Wei-Hsiu Hwang

川島 真／Shin Kawashima８ rom Colonial Studies to Globalization Studies: History ofFStudies on Taiwanese Economy at UTokyo………………………… 102
川上 桃子／Momoko Kawakami

著者紹介 … ………………………………………………………………… 122

1

はじめに
―― 園田 茂人（東京大学東洋文化研究所・教授）

本ブックレットは、2020 年及び 2021 年の A1 タームに学際情報学府で開講された１単位科目 ITASIA 139 “’Intellectual Giants’ in UTokyo:
Critical Evaluation of Their Accomplishments in Contemporary
Contexts” で行われた講義、計７本の記録を収録したものです。
GJS でサマープログラムを開始したのは 2016 年からですが、これも、研究部門に特化した東洋文化研究所の GJS でもできる教育行為を模索したからで、東京大学にやってきたい学生への「ショーウィンドー」として開設する必要を感じたからです。その後サマープログラムはコロナ禍の影響を受ける
前の 2019 年まで順調に開設・運営され、合計 64 名の国内外の学生がサマープログラムで学んでいます。
これに対して、2017 年から正規学生が履修できる科目を GJS として提供できないかという問題提起がなされ、委員会の中で議論されるようになりました。本来なら GJS セミナーを纏めて授業として展開できればよいものの、
スピーカーが講演会やセミナーで話す時間帯がマチマチであることから、予め授業としてパッケージ化するのは難しい。それでは「できる範囲で」ということになり、１セメスター（半年）でなく、１ターム（４分の１年）であればラインアップも整えられるだろうことになりました。そして 2018 年のA1 タームから、学際情報学府の ITASIA の選択科目として 139 を開講することになりました。その担当となったのは、鍾以江准教授と園田でした。
2018 年 に は「 日 本 社 会 の 特 殊 性 Uniqueness of Japanese Society」、
2019 年には「宗教 religion」をキーワードにして授業を構成しましたが、これだと東文研の先生方をあまり多く動員することができません。そこで、
1

東京大学の中国研究や台湾研究の歴史を回顧し、その知的遺産を検討するという、地域研究と知識社会学を混ぜ合わせたような授業を構想しました。
地域研究は、対象とする国・地域の特性を明らかにすることを目的としていますが、その知的関心のもたれ方や理解のフレームは、観察者と観察対象の関係性に大きく依存しています。多くの地域研究者は、対象とする国・地域の特性を客観的なものとして扱おうとしますが、自らの置かれた知的環境
からは独立しておらず、「間主観性」の中で、自らの知的営為を積み重ねているとすると、これを歴史的に回顧するには、東京大学の内外における知的生産のあり方にも目を向けざるを得ず、そこに GJS がコミットする余地が生まれることになります。東京大学における中国研究と台湾研究の研究史を扱う本ブックレットが GJS によって編集されているのは、このような理由によります。
実際の授業では、オムニバス講義が始まる最初の日にガイダンスが行われ、最終日には総括討論や特別講義が行われました。特に 2021 年度の台湾研究をテーマにした授業では、最終日に中央研究院社会学研究所の兼任研究員で台湾亜洲交流基金会理事長の蕭新煌氏に、東京大学における台湾研究を巡る
４つの授業へのコメントをしてもらい、参加学生と意見交換を行いました。
ガイダンスの際には、GJS のミッションとともに、「京都学派」と対比する意味での、仮設的概念としての「東京学派」に言及しつつ、なぜ東京大学の学知を分析する必要があるのかを説明した上で、各講師とその講義テーマ
を簡単に紹介しました。また、中国研究と台湾研究に係わる国内学会の状況
や、大学・研究機関の特徴などもあわせて紹介しました。中国研究に関して
は NIHU（人間文化研究機構）による拠点形成事業が行われるなど、政府・文科省によるテコ入れは比較的なされているものの、台湾研究に関してはそうした試みはなされておらず、日本の国公立大学で台湾研究を標榜するプロ
グラムや研究所は存在していません。本ブックレットに収録された講義録をお読みになる際には、こうした点を念頭に置かれておくとよいでしょう。
2

なお、中国研究の授業に関しては、社会科学研究所の「現代中国研究拠点」（代表：丸川知雄教授 https://web.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/kyoten/）と総合文化研究科のトヨタ財団イニシアチブプログラム「中国学の再創造」（代表：川島真教授 http://webpark2055.sakura.ne.jp/）との共同事業として実施されました。
本ブックレットに収録されている講義録は、実際のオムニバス講義の順に配置されています。
第１部は中国研究に関する４つの講義録を集めています。
２．“Japanese Marxism, the University of Tokyo, and China” で は、
日本におけるマルクス主義受容の歴史と、日本における資本主義の性格をめぐる講座派と労農派の対立に触れつつ、そこから平野義太郎のような中国の農村に関する議論をする人物が現れた点を指摘します。講義録ではあまり触れられていませんが、講師の丸川知雄（社会科学研究所）は、質疑応答で、
マルクス主義経済の真骨頂は、日本なり中国が市場経済を推し進めている際に生じる問題を分析する際であって、社会主義の計画経済が支配していた中国の経済を分析する際には、マルクス主義的アプローチはさほど有効でないと指摘しています。
３．“Development of Empirical Sociology and China Studies inJapan” では、日本の社会学における中国研究／理解の位置づけを確認しています。講師の園田茂人（東洋文化研究所）によれば、社会学を輸入学問として受容した日中両国は、当初、日本で漢語訳された概念が中国に流れるといった形で結びついていたものの、1930 年代に自国を対象にした実証研究にシフトする中で両国の結びつきが切断されるようになるといいます。ところが戦時下の動員体制にあって、福武直や尾高邦雄はそれぞれ中国で農村調
査や職業調査を行うことで実証研究に目覚め、戦後、日本の農村調査や職業調査を主導するようになる逆説について触れられます。戦後、中国が社会主義化する中で、日本の中国社会研究は途絶えたものの、改革開放後、多くの
3

日本の社会学者が中国に渡り、現地の研究者との共同研究からいくつか重要なモノグラフが発表されるようになる歴史を回顧します。
４．“Studies on Chinese Law in Japan: Legends of Tokyo School” では、聖徳太子の時代から中国の法律（律）が学ばれてきたことを確認します。
講師の髙見澤磨（東洋文化研究所）は、帝国主義下の日本にあって、植民地支配のために慣行調査が実施されるとともに、近代的学問の枠内で古文書を用いた仁井田陞や滋賀秀三などの伝統法の研究や、当時としては先進的な中華民国法の研究が進められてきたことを指摘します。中華人民共和国が成立すると社会主義法としての中国法理解を試みるようになりますが、中国の現実を説明する手段としては困難があったことが示されます。授業の最後では、中国圏にあって異なる歴史を経験している大陸、香港、マカオ、台湾を対象にした比較法的研究の重要性が指摘されます。
５．“Studies on Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan: Chinese World
Order and Modern Diplomacy in China” では、近代的な国家が誕生して始めて外交史研究が可能になることを確認した上で、中国で外交史研究に端緒が付けられたこと、東京（帝国）大学にあっては中国法や中国史の講座で外交史が部分的に扱われたものの、その本格的な研究は坂野正高を待たねばならなかったことが指摘されます。講師の川島真（総合文化研究科）によれば、坂野は J・K・フェアバンクや蔣廷黻に近く、その研究の視野は世界的なものであったものの、その後の東洋史や中国法制史研究におけるマルクス主義の影響から、清末の研究へと沈潜するようになったといいます。坂野が法学部を退官してからは、中国外交史を講じる研究者がいなくなり、文学部の東洋史で関連する研究がなされるようになった経緯が明らかにされます。
第２部では台湾研究に関する３つの講義録を収録しています。
６．“The Research on Taiwan-Japan Relations at UTokyo” では、日台関係という概念が存在してこなかった台湾研究の歴史について分析のメスが入れられます。講師の黄偉修（東洋文化研究所）によれば、台湾を長く中
華民国（の一部）と見なしてきた文脈から、日本との関係で生じた台湾の社
4

会事象は、日中関係や中国史や日本史といった枠組みに位置づけられてきたといいます。他方で、東京大学における学知にあって台湾への接近は、農学
や工学、文学、歴史など多方面から行われており、地域研究としての凝集性に欠ける状態にあったといいます。これが 1990 年代以降、若林正丈と藤井省三のもとで台湾に関する博士号取得者が生まれ、2009 年の『日台関係史
1945-2008』の刊行によって、日本で日台関係という概念が市民権を得るようになった経緯が説明されます。
７． “UTokyo’s Taiwan Studies on Diplomacy and International
Relations” では、東京大学における戦後の台湾研究の水脈が探られます。講師の川島真によれば、戦前戦後で植民地研究の知的継承がなされたかどうかは微妙なところであるものの、戦後長くマルクス主義の影響が強く、国民党
政府下の台湾に対する印象がよくなかったこともあり、台湾研究が発展してこなかったのが、1989 年の中国における天安門事件から状況が変化し、台湾を独自の研究対象と捉える新しい世代が生まれてきたといいます。その産婆役が若林正丈だったわけですが、若林が歴史研究を重視していたとすれば、国際関係を重視する松田や川島の東大着任以降、国際関係の文脈から台湾を研究する傾向が強まり、今日に至っているといいます。
８． “From Colonial Studies to Globalization Studies: History ofStudies on Taiwanese Economy at UTokyo” にあって、講師の川上桃子（アジア経済研究所）は、台湾経済をテーマにした研究者群を取り上げ、その研究内容や基本スタンスに見られる変化を追います。東京（帝国）大学における台湾経済研究は植民地政策学として始まり、
その代表作が矢内原忠雄の『帝国主義下の台湾』（1929 年）でした。戦後は、経済学にあっても台湾研究は停滞し、その「復活」は、凃照彥や劉進慶といった台湾出身で、東京大学で博士学位を取得した者の活躍を待たねばならなりませんでした。2000 年以降、佐藤幸人や川上桃子といったアジア経済研究所所属の研究者や、東京大学のものづくり研究センターの研究者が台湾のエレクトロニクス産業を研究するようになり、現在に至っているといいます。
5

以上、７つの講義録は研究対象や時期、援用するディシプリンや方法、扱うテーマが異なるものの、それぞれに中国や台湾を対象にした東京大学の学
知のあり方が、その時々の国内状況や対象地域の地政学的特徴など、さまざまな環境によって強く規定されてきたことを示しています。こうしたアプ
ローチは、インドや東南アジアなど、他の地域を対象にした研究史にも援用することができるはずですが、これは後続の研究者に任せられることになります。
なお、中国研究に関して言えば、東京大学の学知に留まらず、広く日本の学知形成を担うより多くの研究者を招聘して、『日本の中国研究』という本の出版プロジェクトが川島真教授のもとで進行中です。こちらは日本語の論文を収録したものとなりますが、あわせてご一読いただければありがたく思います。
追記）本ブックレットの講義録には、いわゆる「東京学派」の中国・台湾研究者の写真を入れています。ウェブ上で一般に公開されている方のみを対象とし、そのデータ元となる URL を最後に記しています。

6

2

Japanese Marxism, theUniversity of Tokyo, andChina―― 丸川 知雄（東京大学社会科学研究所・教授）

Tomoo Marukawa (Professor, the Institute of Social Science, UTokyo)

The task given to me from Professor Sonoda was to introduce the intellectual historyof the University of Tokyo and combine that with China studies. That is quite a difficult task for me. I studied Marxist economics here in the University of Tokyo, andthat is how I came in touch with the intellectual tradition of the University. After
graduation, I worked with an institute where I started to study China. I did not study
China in this University. For me, the University of Tokyo and China is two different
topics. So I had a hard time combining the two. But anyway, I would like to mainly
focus on the intellectual history of the University of Tokyo in Marxism, because themain thing I learned here was Marxist economics.

Introduction of Marxism to JapanFirst, let me start from how Marxism came to Japan. It was introduced in the beginning of the 20th century. The first group of socialists gathered, and the Socialist
Democratic Party was established in 1901. But the Party was banned on the day of
its establishment, because there was a law called the public safety and police law andnine years later, many of them got executed.
The Russian Revolution took place in 1917, and the USSR was established in
1922. Marxism again came into Japan, and from the 1920s onwards, it was quite
widely accepted by intellectuals mainly in economics and political science. RussianCommunists instigated the establishment of the Japanese Communist Party. In 1922,
the Party was established by a small group of intellectuals. And, of course, the police
again got worried about the Party. The Party was once dissolved in 1924 but rees7

tablished in 1926. Apart from the Communist Party, Japan also had socialist parties.
They were the Japanese Worker-Farmer Party and Socialist Mass Party. I don't know
so much about the difference between the two, so I just call them the socialists. There
were two groups of Marxists, the Communists and the Socialists.

Debate on Japanese Capitalism
The focus of my talk today is the debate on Japanese capitalism, which took placefrom around 1925 until 1937. It ended in 1937, which was the year of the beginningof Sino-Japanese War. The police suppressed the Communists and Socialists alike.
They either got imprisoned or converted. The focus of this debate was where to place
Japan in the Marxist model of societal development stages. According to Marxism,
societies develop from feudalism to capitalism, and then to socialism. And between
these systems, there should be jumps. In the transition from feudalism to capitalism,
for example, there will be a bourgeois democratic revolution.
Examples of bourgeois democratic revolution are the French Revolution and
the American independence. From capitalism to socialism, there should be another
jump, which is the socialist revolution. And the focus of the debate was, “Was Japanin the 1920s or 30s at the last stage of feudalism, or at the stage of capitalism?” Thedebate got very hot because it relates to the strategies of socialist and communist
parties. If Japan was at the last stage of feudalism, then we must fight for democracy, not for socialism. But if Japan is a full-fledged capitalist society, then we should
fight for socialism. The strategic outcome is completely different depending on how
to diagnose the current status of Japan. The Japanese Communist Party insisted thatJapan was at the final stage of feudalism, while the socialists maintained that Japan
had already entered the stage of capitalism. The USSR supported the Japanese Communist Party.
The debate was fought between two factions. One is called Koza faction 講座
派 . Koza means “lectures.” Another is Rono faction 労農派 . Rono was the title of8

a magazine and it literally means workers and farmers. Koza faction is supported by
the Japanese Communist Party. In fact, its main figure was also a leading member of
the Party. The Rono faction was connected with the socialist parties.
The focus of the debate was on the rural society. The Koza faction points outthat the peasants are very poor because they are extracted high rent by landowners
through extra-economic enforcement. The peasants should be liberalized from theshackles of feudalism. Such reform should come first and after such revolutionarychange, we can think about moving towards socialism. While in the case of Ronofaction, they say that Japan has already entered the stage of capitalism with the Meiji
Restoration, so it's already more than 50 years. And they insisted, therefore, we canmove directly to socialism.

Hirano Yoshitaro
I would like to mainly talk about four scholars that joined the debate. The first one isthis person, Hirano Yoshitaro 平野義太郎 .

Hirano Yoshitaro (1897-1980)

He was one of the main figures in the Koza faction. He studied law at the
University of Tokyo. After graduation he worked for the department as a research
assistant first, and then after two years he became an associate professor. He went
to Europe in 1927 and met Karl Wittfogel. Through Wittfogel’s influence, Hirano
became a Marxist. After returning to the University of Tokyo he restarted teachingcivil law. But after lecturing some months, he got prosecuted for donating 200 yen
9to the Japanese Communist Party. 200 yen is not today's 200 yen. 90 years ago, 200
yen should be like 1 million yen today. This is quite a big sum as a donation. He wasforced to resign the University of Tokyo and he was imprisoned for half a year. After
his release, he became very active as a Marxist theorist. He was one of the main editors of The Lectures on the Development of Japanese Capitalism『日本資本主義発達史講座』. The title of the book series explains why the faction was called Koza or
Lecture faction. And he published The Mechanism of Japanese Capitalist Society『日本資本主義社会の機構』in 1934, which was one of the most important works ofthis faction.
In The Mechanism, Hirano wrote that Japan under the Edo regime was forced
to open its economy. American vessels came to Japan and pressured to open its
ports or otherwise they would attack. This triggered a change in the regime and the
Meiji Restoration started. Japan was reluctantly on the track towards capitalism.
Hirano says that Japanese society was not ready for capitalism but it was forced toenter the capitalist stage. The process that prepares the condition for capitalism iscalled as “original accumulation” in Marxism. It is a process of dissolving the ruralsocieties into two parts. One part consists of capitalists and landowners, and the other part consists of workers. Japan did not really begin the process of original accumulation when it was forced to get on the track towards capitalism. When the Meiji
Restoration took place, 78% of Japanese workforce were rural farmers. The average
acreage of peasants’ plots was very small, 0.87 hectares, which was only 1/10 of thatin Germany. There was no source of government revenue other than taxing the agriculture. 80% of Japanese government's tax revenue in early Meiji period came fromland tax. The government was in desperate need for tax revenue for pushing forward
its industrial and military development to cope with the pressure of Western imperialism. Consequently, the land tax became very heavy. It was as heavy as the tributes
that farmers needed to submit during the previous feudal era. In 1873, there was areform in land tax. That reform tipped the balance of power in rural societies in favor
10

of landowners. Before then, taxes (tributes) were paid by the farmers, but from 1873,
the landowners became responsible for tax payment. Therefore, the landowners imposed high rents, which included tax, to the peasants.
Hirano shows that the distribution of income between the government or theprevious samurai class, and the landowner and tenants. The landowners’ share has
increased from 28% during the Edo period to 38% in 1877, while the farmers sharedeclined from 35 to 32%. The small farmers were impoverished by the heavy tax
and price hikes in agriculture inputs. Some of them have fallen to the status of tenant
farmers. Some of them quit farming and went to the cities. And the poor peasants
had to make their living by not only agriculture but also engaging in sericulture—raising cocoons—and sent their daughters to sweatshops. Daughters of peasantfamilies worked in textile workshops with long working hours. Hirano says that theworking hour would be as long as 15 hours a day. The workers’ freedom was constrained by restrictive labor contracts. Hirano says that the low-income structure ofpeasants was inherited from the previous feudal society. He says that Japan was a
half-feudal society and because the tax and rent burden in agriculture was so heavy,
capitalist agriculture like that in United States and United Kingdom could not develop in Japan. And upon such half-feudal economic substructure stood the upper
structure, which was also half-feudal in his view. The political upper structure ischaracterized as “absolutism by the Emperor.” However, when The Mechanism was
published in 1934, he had to erase the word “Emperor,” because openly criticizing
the Emperor’s authority constituted a crime at that time.
And besides writing a lot about Japan, he was also interested in China throughhis friendship with Karl Wittfogel. Wittfogel was a famous scholar on Chinese economy. Hirano translated Wittfogel’s China's Economy and Society which was originally published in German. Wittfogel argued that in China the management of water
was very important. The water was provided by huge rivers like Yangtze River andYellow River. To manage them, a lot of manpower and a strong political power were11

needed. Upon such agricultural basis, a strong state was constructed. Wittfogel called
such state as an Asiatic despotism. The emperor had great power, and it was supported by a well-developed bureaucracy. Hirano was inspired by Wittfogel’s idea, and hethought that the same thing applied even to Japan. He wrote an article entitled “Twoways of studying China” in 1934. And he argued that the economic basis of China’s
state system was still a feudal society and above that substructure Asiatic despotism
stood as an upper structure.
Sadly in 1936, he was arrested on the charge of violating the Public Security
Law again, and during his detention he declared that he had abandoned Marxism.
In those days many Marxists were enticed to declare “conversion” from Marxism tomilitarism during detention. He got released, and he joined a research group on ruralsocieties in northern China. He made an interesting research trip in China, mainly at
the suburbs of Beijing. There are interesting stories about that, but I don't plan to go
into much detail of that story. And from 1941, he got more involved in Japanese militarism. He wrote books on “the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere” every year.
That period should be considered the most embarrassing period for Hirano.
After the end of the war, he returned to Marxism. In 1946, he published a newversion of The Mechanism of Japanese Capitalist Society. In post-World War II
Japan, the Allied Powers that occupied Japan conducted a major reform in rural society. The landowners were forced to sell their lands to the peasants at low prices. The
tenant farmers became small and independent farmers that had ownership of theirland. That structure created in postwar Japan remains basically unchanged until today. Besides this, the Constitution, civil law, and the political structure were changed
under occupation. In this new edition, Hirano writes that the success of postwar reforms proved that his analyses in the 1934 book were correct.
In 1949, Hirano published a book entitled “China's Great Revolution.” Thebook was published in November 1949, only one month after Mao Zetong declared
the inauguration of the People’s Republic of China. Hirano depicted China as an Asi12

atic despotism, and a half-feudal, half-colonized society. Of course, he was talking
about China before the People's Republic.

Inomata Tsunao
I would like to introduce another interesting person, who is Inomata Tsunao 猪俣津
南雄 .
I think he represents the best part of the other faction, which is the Rono 労農
faction. He has a quite interesting career. He was born in a poor family, so he had tostart working after finishing middle school. He worked first as a teacher at an elementary school and then he went to military service. And after working for several
years, a rich person helped him study at Waseda University. He entered Waseda andthe professors found him very intelligent. Another rich man supported him to go to
the United States to study. He studied agricultural economics at the University of
Wisconsin and earned PhD. He studied at Chicago University and Columbia University, too. The interesting part is that, as soon as he arrived at the United States, he fellin love with a Polish-Jewish woman. They married and his wife taught him Marxism. He became a Marxist in the United States, and came back to Japan via Moscow.
It is rumored that he went to Moscow to discuss with the Russian communists about
establishing the Japanese Communist Party, and indeed, after coming back to Japanhe and the other members established the Japanese Communist Party. He started
working at Waseda as a professor. He was arrested and imprisoned on the chargeof joining the Communist Party. After being released, he didn't join the Communist
Party and he couldn't return to Waseda. He spent the rest of his life as a freelance
writer, and he wrote a lot of books. He joined the Rono faction and the socialist party, but very soon he was expelled from both organizations.
Inomata published An Introduction to Rural Problems『農村問題入門』in 1937.
It talks a lot about Japanese agricultural history. But I don't want to go into thatdetail. I will only focus on his views on the on the current—I mean, the 1920s and13

30s—situation of Japanese rural society. He shares Hirano’s views that the Japanesepeasants are suffering from small lands, high rents, and low productivity, which did
not change so much from the feudal period. But at the same time, he says that Japanafter the Meiji Restoration is no longer feudalism. A feudalistic system has an extra-economic enforcement mechanism that ties peasants to their land. But since the
Meiji period peasants are no longer personally subjective to landlords. Before then,in feudalism, peasants could not leave the land. They could not quit agriculture andwork in other occupations. Since Meiji, they have the right to quit agriculture or sell
their land if they have the ownership. That's not feudalism, he says. Although theland tax and rent were heavy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the society was
under feudalism.
He tried to explain why the peasants suffer so much, even though they are under capitalism. He says that it stems from the characteristics of Japanese agriculture.
Compared to Europe where farmers grow wheat or raise cattle, Japanese agriculture
is focused on rice. Rice production is a very labor-intensive task. You have to pickthe weeds in the rainy season, which is quite troublesome, and the crop season isvery short. You have to harvest rice within a very short period. Otherwise, typhoon
will ruin the crops. In short, it's very labor-intensive. And that's why the average
acreage of paddies remains small.
Because the peasants are poor, the stagnant domestic market restricted the development of industrial capitalism in Japan. Therefore, the redundant workforce inrural Japan could not be absorbed in urban industries. Because of rural overpopulation, peasants have to compete each other for having a land to cultivate. That is why
the rent was so high. With the high rent, low productivity, and small plots, farmers
have to increase their income by side businesses like sericulture and also by sending
their daughters to sweatshops. He admits that agricultural machinery such as tractors
and combines was available in the 1920s and 30s. But only a small number of big
farms introduced such modern machinery. As there were plenty of cheap labor in the14countryside, there was no incentive to introduce labor-saving technologies.
With high rents, the landowner class became rich. They were the people that
paid considerable sums of tax, which earned them voting rights at general elections. Through political participation, they were well connected with politicians andbureaucrats. With high rents, capitalist agriculture could not develop. Capitalists’agriculture is a type of agriculture that runs a big farm by buying or borrowing land,
introduces labor-saving machinery, and employs many agricultural workers. Inomata
says that even in Japan a large farm will be more productive than smaller ones. He
seems to suggest that with a fundamental reform in land ownership—which follows
a socialist revolution—Japanese agriculture can break through its vicious cycle andenlarge the farm size, introducing large-scale farming technology using labor-saving
machinery, and agricultural productivity can be increased. However, he could not
express his ideas overtly, because at the time of publication, such discussion was notallowed.

Sakisaka Itsuro
I would like to shortly introduce two other guys. One is Sakisaka Itsuro 向坂逸郎 .

Sakisaka Itsuro (1897-1985)

He is considered to be another important figure in the Rono faction. The main
reason I want to introduce him is that he was also a graduate at the University ofTokyo. He went to Germany to study Marxism. After returning to Japan, he becamea professor at Kyushu University. He was also forced to resign because of his con15

nections with the Marxist movement. After the war, he became a professor at the
Kyushu University again, and he became a very influential figure, even politically.
He was the head of the leftist faction of the Japanese Socialist Party.
His book on the debate on Japanese capitalism was The Problems of Japanese
Capitalism『日本資本主義の諸問題』. He had a simple idea that even though
there may be varieties in production modes at the beginning of capitalism, with thedevelopment of capitalism, the various types tend to converge to a single type. He
admits that Japanese agriculture was different from what we see in the United Statesor United Kingdom, but with the development of capitalism, it will converge to thesame pattern.
That idea is based on Chapter 24 of Marx’ Capital Volume 1. Marx says thatthe capitalism tends to split the society into two big parts: the capitalist class and theimpoverished worker class. That is the inevitable law of capitalism. Sakisaka did not
explain why Japanese agriculture looked so different from European or American agriculture. He did not explain why the acreage was so small and the rent was so high.
On the contrary, Hirano and Inomata faced these problems and tried to give answers
to them.

Uno Kozo
Finally, I would like to introduce Kozo Uno 宇野弘蔵 .

Uno Kozo (1897-1977)

I was taught Marxist economics from Professor Ito Makoto 伊藤誠 . Professor
16

Ito's mentor was Suzuki Koichiro 鈴木鴻一郎 and Suzuki was a follower of Uno.
Therefore, Uno is my great grandfather in intellectual lineage. Uno studied at the
Economics Department of the University of Tokyo, and he also went to Germany. He
didn't really attend college there. What he did there was to read Marx’ Capital andLenin's Imperialism in his room. After coming back, he became an associate professor at Tohoku University, and after the war, he became a professor at the Institute ofSocial Science, and became the first director. The Institute is where I currently am
working for. So, I have many reasons to admire Uno. Uno created the so-called “Unoschool.” There should be more than 200 scholars who seem to have some relationship with the Uno school. It should be considered the most powerful faction in Japanese Marxian economics.

Ito Makoto (1936-)

I would like to limit my talk on Uno’s remarks regarding the debate on Japanese
capitalism. Uno argues that in the case of England, the polarization of rural societies,
which means the polarization into landowners and landless peasants precedes thedevelopment of capitalism. The landless peasants migrate to the cities to make theirliving and become the proletariats. That process is called “original accumulation” inMarx’ Capital.
But in late-comer capitalisms like Germany or Japan, Uno argues, capitalism
come from outside. The original accumulation in rural societies had not started or
only at its early stage when capitalism was imposed. The old feudal system remains
there. The rural society with feudal characteristics is involved in capitalism without
17

its own transformation.
Therefore, in late-comer capitalisms like Japan, the transformation of rural societies from the feudal production mode to capitalism will be promoted by government
forces. But the process will be a slow and gradual one. That is why even at the stageof capitalism, the rural society seems to have feudal traits. Capitalism has its common tendency to foster rural transformation by eroding the feudal traits from outside.
But this law will be hampered or distorted based on the condition of each country.
And later, Uno was inspired from this debate and developed a kind of meta-theory about how to combine theory and actual analysis. He thinks that to directly apply the basic theory of capitalism like Marx’ Capital to the case of Japan is wrong.
There should be something in between. He advocated to split the Marxist analysis
into three parts. The first part is the basic theory. The second part is the stage theory,
which describes the stages of global capitalist development. Uno said that global
capitalism had passed through the stages of mercantilism, liberalism, and imperialism. The 1920s and 30s was the era of imperialism. The actual situation of Japan
should be analyzed in light of the stage theory and basic theory. The basic law ofcapitalism will work in Japan but it will be affected and distorted by its individual
conditions.

Comparison
I’ve introduced four scholars and let me compare their views. The debate on
Japanese capitalism reveals a problem of applying a universal theory to a particularcountry. I think in many cases you face a similar problem not only in Marxism, butalso in other theories. There is a universal theory, but if you try to apply that to aparticular country like China or Japan, you always face a problem that the actual situation may not fit completely into the model. Japanese agriculture in the 1920s and1930s sustained the low productivity, small acreage, and rural poverty in feudal society. Yet the land ownership institutions could no longer be regarded as feudal. Japan18

did not neatly fit into the schema of Marxism.
Sakisaka was the most optimistic. He thought that within 10 or 20 years thereality would change and it would fit into the model of capitalism. But his view was
wrong. The postwar reforms revealed that without such strong enforcement under
occupation, Japanese agriculture might never be able to get out of its vicious cycle.
Then, was Hirano correct? Well, Hirano was also wrong in his own way, because he tried to prove that Japan was under feudalism in vain. He and the Koza faction tried hard to show the existence of extra-economic enforcement. But barring therule of the state, such extra-economic enforcement did not really exist after the Meiji
Restoration.
I think Inomata had the deepest understanding of what was happening in Japanese agriculture. But, at the same time, he had his failure in his own way because
he seemed to think that only socialism can overcome the problem of Japanese ruralsociety. However, the postwar reform had nothing to do with socialism. The drastic
adjustment of the land ownership structure ─ which could be likened to a revolution ─ paved the way for Japan’s postwar capitalist development.
In short, I think, strategically speaking, the Koza faction like Hirano was correct. Japan really needed a revolutionary reform in agriculture to push forward
its capitalist development. But, at the same time, the Rono faction, in particular
Inomata, was correct in a theoretical sense. Japan was not a feudal society. There
was a split in theoretical correctness and strategic correctness. That was a problem
caused by directly applying the Marxist formula to the case of Japan. Therefore, I
think, Uno’s proposal was the most appropriate. His proposal is a good way to adjust
Marxism to make it useful in explaining Japan’s actual situation while not abandoning Marxism.
That's the end of my talk. Thank you.
October 8, 2020

19

3Development of Empirical
Sociology and China
Studies in Japan―― 園田 茂人（東京大学東洋文化研究所・教授）
Shigeto Sonoda (Professor, the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, UTokyo)

Introduction
The History of Sociology『社会学の歴史』written by Prof. Okui Tomoyuki 奥井智
之 is an authentic textbook for beginners to understand history of sociology in Japan,
but if you read from the very beginning to the end, no names of Asian sociologists
are referred to.
It is often said that the concept sociology was created by Auguste Comte. And
then, Herbert Spencer, German sociologists like Max Weber, and the French sociologists like Èmile Durkheim developed and formed the first generations. After WorldWar II, the US became the center of sociological investigations. Therefore, it’s reallyrare for Chinese students, as well as Japanese students, to know about the history of
their own sociology.
Both China and Japan share a strong sense of identity that sociology came fromsomewhere else of the West, and they think that most of Chinese scholars and Japanese scholars are still using, looking at, sociological theories as something to beborrowed from the West. But, if you look at the history of Japanese sociology andChinese sociology very closely, you can see some connections. But there were someconditions for such connections to take place.
Today, I’d like to focus on how Japanese sociology has had to do with the China studies, and how the sociological imagination of the Japanese sociologists about
China has been shaped in different time in different forms.

20

Dawn of Japanese Sociology: 1890s
When it comes to the history of Chinese sociology, the name Yan Fu 严复 has beenreferred as a person who introduced the concept of sociology to the intellectual
climate in China. When it comes to Japan, Ernest Francisco Fenollosa has been frequently mentioned as a so-called Oyatoi-gaikokujin お雇い外国人 , invited scholarfrom foreign countries who introduced sociology to Japan. In other words, Fenollosa
is the first scholar who had the official talk about sociology at the University of Tokyo. Professor Toyama Masakazu 外山正一 , the first President of Tokyo Imperial
University, was a close friend of Ernest Francisco Fenollosa, and they’re truly the
first generation of the introduction of Western sociology in Japan. Thus, sociology
has been categorized as so-called Western scholarship, or yogaku 洋学 in Japanese.
But the second generation like Takebe Tongo 建部遯吾 , a professor of sociology at the University of Tokyo, was a bit different from the first generation.

Takebe Tongo (1871-1945)

Takebe tried to create his new so-called systematic sociology (Taikeiteki
shakaigaku 体系的社会学 ) by combining Western theories and, interestingly,
Neo Confucianism he learnt from his childhood. Toyama was trained as a Western
scholarship, but Takebe received huge influence from the Confucianism because he
was trained by his father who had extensive knowledge of Confucianism, especially
Neo-Confucianism. Thus, it was natural for Takebe to borrow ideas from Neo-Confucianism, and he tried to merge it with the Western theories. If you had an opportunity to read his book, you will find that his book is so abstract because he tried21

to create “universal sociology” 普通社会学 by himself, while he didn’t show any
interest in applying some theories to understand Japanese society.
He tried to brush up his abstract sociology by digesting different schools of sociology in the West. He himself had an opportunity to go to France, and he knew a
lot of things about Auguste Comte and Durkheimian school.
Interestingly, the introduction of sociology took place almost at the same time
between Japan and China. Japan proceeded a little bit to China, trying to introduce
some basic translated concepts. For example, if you look at left, you can see thepicture of Kang Baozhong 康 宝 忠 , who is said to have served as a first Chinese
scholar on sociology, teaching the class of sociology at Peking University. Kang had
a chance to come to Japan and stayed at Waseda University and learned and digested
some basic concepts about sociology. At your right, you can see the picture of Tao
Menghe 陶孟和 , who also contributed a lot to the development of Chinese sociology. Tao had an opportunity to come to Tokyo Normal High School (Tokyo Koto
Shihan Gakko 東京高等師範学校 ), which later became University of Tsukuba. But
later, after his going back to China, Tao went to London School of Economics andPolitical Science to get a Ph.D.
Thus, in the very beginning of sociology in two countries, there were connections. But the connection was a bit one-sided. Chinese learned from Japan, but Japanese learned almost nothing from China.
On your left hand below, you can see the picture of Dr. Endo Ryukichi 遠藤隆
吉 , who is also a unique guy. He tried to combine Confucian teachings with yogaku,
but he didn’t like the government-supporting disciplines 官学 . So, he set up several
private schools and promoted private education in Japan.
Endo Ryukichi and Ariga Nagao 有 賀 長 雄 were the students of Toyama andthey were the same generation of Takebe Tongo, but they didn’t stay at university.
They changed the disciplines, too. For example, Ariga started from his study on so22

ciology, when he visited Austria. But later, he changed his disciplines of sociology
to statecraft studies and he became interested in international law. Ariga and Endo
were the first- generation sociologists who tried to translate the history of sociology
written in German, French or English into Japanese. And two intellectuals from China tried to re-translate translated Japanese concepts into Chinese. As is well-known,sociology was translated into Japanese as shakaigaku 社会学 , which was “exported”
to China and they started to use shèhuìxué 社会学 as a Chinese translation of sociology.

Founder of Empirical Sociology in UTokyo: Toda Teizo
The third generation of sociologists, notably Toda Teizo 戸田貞三 (1887-1955), who
was a good student of Takebe, however, changed the line of scholarship of sociology.
He’s the first sociologist who promoted the localization of sociology, and he declaredthat the main mission of sociology in Japan was to understand Japan and create its
own theoretical framework based on their empirical findings.
Previous two generations didn’t show interests in promoting understanding
about the Japanese society. They were more devoted to creating abstract theories,
rather than applying the theories to the local conditions in Japan. But Toda, whobecame the third Director of Tobunken 東文研 , changed the nature of the Japanesesociology into very modern one. In fact, he is the first sociologist who used that Japanese census data which was conducted in 1920 to argue the nature and size of Japanese households.
Toda was so much interested in empirical studies, rather than creating abstract
concepts. And this is partly because of the opportunities of his going to Chicago andlearn what Chicago school did at the time. Toda tried to introduce American-styleprogrammatic utilitarian positivist approach, while previous two generations weremore interested in metaphysical nature of sociology in Europe. After Toda, Japansociology became more and more Japanized, and his students became the first generation who tried to understand the nature of Chinese society from sociological per23

spectives.

Two Students of Toda Teizo: Makino and Fukutake
Two scholars below are the core figures who tried to combine Japanese sociology
with China studies. On your left side, you can see the picture of Professor Makino
Tatsumi 牧野巽 . His familial background has to do with his scholarship. Makino’s
father is a well-known scholar on Chinese classics, Makino Kenjiro 牧野謙次郎 ,and he himself was very knowledgeable about Chinese classics.
You know Fukutake Hall in UTokyo, right? Fukutake Tadashi 福武直 , whose
picture you can see on your right side, has some familial relations with Fukutake
Soichiro 福武總一郎 , who donated a lot of money to Johogakkan 情報学環 .

Fukutake Tadashi (1917-1989)

Fukutake was a descendant of relatively rich family in Okayama Prefecture.
Professor Fukutake deceased in 1989, when I was a research assistant at the Department of Sociology at the University of Tokyo.
Makino Tatsumi received a very traditional training of Chinese classics. Prof.
Fukutake was more knowledgeable about Western scholarships and, before he conducted researches on rural villages in China, he translated some papers and books
written in German language into Japanese.
Their nature was very different from each other, but the commonalities are thatthey’re both the students of Toda and that both were more interested in doing empirical researches than investigating theories.
24

Both Makino and Fukutake have published collected works. You can see thepicture of seven volumes of the collected works of Professor Makino Tatsumi below.
Studies on Chinese Family『中国家族研究』, Studies on Clan in Early Modern China『中国近世宗族研究』, Some Issues on Chinese Social History『中国社会史の諸問題』are the book titles. He was interested in China, but not contemporary China.
This is one of the unique commonalities of empirical sociologists at a time. Professor
Makino utilized documents written in classical Chinese. He used historical documentswith sociological frameworks to argue the nature of Chinese families and clans.

7 Volumes of Collected Works by Makino Tatsumi

Makino Tatsumi and His Chinese Study
Do you know why Makino showed little interested in contemporary China? Because
he was very sensitive that his scholarship would be utilized by the military forces inJapan. So he intentionally tried to disconnect what he’s doing and what Japan was
doing.

The same can be said to the case of Prof. Shimizu Morimitsu 清水盛光 ,the author of the book Study on Chinese Society『支那社会の研究』.
Prof. Shimizu’s position in Japanese sociology is very similar to that of Makino. Professor Shimizu had worked for Mantetsu Research Department 満 鉄 調 査
部 before moving to the Institute of the Humanities at Kyoto University 京 都 大
学人文科学研究所 after World War II. I had an opportunity to send a message to
Professor Shimizu before his death. He replied to me in a very short private letter. I
asked him why he was interested in China studies, because he was the first genera25

tion of China studies with sociological perspective. Professor Shimizu confessed tome that he didn’t want to remember these old days, because what he tried to do wasa kind of nightmare. He knew that the military forces, or militarism in Japan needed
knowledge about China. However, in order to make a living, he had to do research toincrease knowledge about China, which gave him a dilemma.
Data accessibility was another reason. More importantly, Fukutake and otherempirical sociologists did some empirical studies, but they heavily depended on local translators. When it comes to the written texts, they were more knowledgeable,
but when it comes to oral aspects of Chinese language, they had difficulty. That’s
why Shimizu and Makino heavily relied on classical documents to do their own empirical studies of Chinese society.

Sociology of Fukutake Tadashi
Fukutake was completely different from Makino and Shimizu. Fukutake is the lastgeneration who had a privilege of conducting fieldwork in China. Actually, Fukutake
was a multi-talented scholar.
I still vividly remember when Fukutake’s funeral was taken place at Aoyama
Cemetery. The former Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro 小泉純一郎 came, because
Fukutake was the central figure of the promotion of social welfare. Fukutake hadmany faces and I guess he’s the only one who could publish such large-scale collected works. When he retired at the age of 60, University of Tokyo Press published 10
volumes as well as one additional volume of his collected works. He served for Univ.

10 Volumes of Collected Works by Fukutake

26

of Tokyo Press 東京大学出版会 and the cooperatives at the University of Tokyo 東京大学消費生活協同組合 as President.
Fukutake was a very well-known scholar with very extensive network. Fukutake was one of the core figures of Todai Toso 東大闘争 , who was one of the
supportive members of Prof. Kato Ichiro 加藤一郎 , President of Todai when theconflict took place. If you read the names of the book titles, you see that most of thebooks deal with methodologies, missions of sociology, and many related articles onunderstanding Japanese villages and Japanese society.
Probably you’ll be very surprised to know that this book on Chinese rural society, The Structure of Chinese Rural Society『中国農村社会の構造』, is the firstbook in his academic life. In other words, books on Japanese rural villages followed
his writings on Chinese rural villages. Later in his life, Fukutake had an opportunity
to go to Indian villages and tried to compare China and India, about which I am notgoing in detail. His book, The Structure of Chinese Rural Society was published in
1946. Remember that Fukutake was born in 1917. It is only when he was 29 years
old that he published the book on Chinese villages.

Fukutake’s Study on Chinese Society
Fukutake visited China, namely Suzhou in Jiangsu Province, five times. The first
visit was in March, 1940. Second time, August and September, 1940. Third time,
March to May, 1941. Fourth time, April, 1942, and finally the last time of his visiting Suzhou was in August 1943. So, he almost all the time was rather short period,
because he had many obligations at the University of Tokyo. But by utilizing 5 times
opportunities of his visiting Suzhou villages, he made very minute observations.
He used two research methods: one is observation and the other is interview.
But when he was conducting interviews, he utilized local translators. Otherwise, he
couldn’t conduct any interviews.
His family was in Okayama, but he was in Tokyo Imperial University in Tokyo,
27

so whenever he went to Suzhou from Tokyo, he visited his home on his way to Shimonoseki from which to go to Shanghai. In Shanghai, he met local translators andsome Japanese guides who made some preparation for his visit to Suzhou. When hedescribed rural villages in central part of China, Huazhong 華中 , he utilized these
two methods, but when it comes to the researches on the northern part of China,
Huabei 華北 , he utilized only documents which were documented by the Japanesescholars who stayed in the city of Beijing, or Beiping 北平 at the time. They kept theso-called collection of document of North China Survey 北支慣行調査資料 , which
later was published by the Iwanami Publishers.
At that time, the documents were confidential, but Fukutake could utilize these
documents because he was a special student (tokkensei 特研生 in Japanese) of Tokyo Imperial University who were free from military duties.
When Prof. Fukutake deceased in 1989, his students investigated what sort ofbooks and handwritings were kept in his second house in Nagano Prefecture, because Prof. Fukutake had a second house in Nagano Prefecture. Whenever he wanted to write a book and write a draft, he went to the second house in Nagano, where
he kept a lot of handwriting materials. Because Professor Hasumi Otohiko 蓮見音彦 ,Photocopies of Handwritings of Prof. Fukutake

28

Chair of Department of Sociology when Professor Fukutake deceased, knew that I
was studying about China, he kindly made a duplication of Prof. Fukutake’s handwritings for me. And the below are some pictures of materials that I’m keeping in
my office.
On your top left, you see the name of Survey on the Villages Developed by theJapanese Emigrants in Manchuria 満州開拓民農村調査 . And if you look at his
handwriting, he might find that he was a very careful guy, taking notes of a lot ofthings he observed. His handwriting of the map is still vivid. He did the same thingsin his study in Suzhou, too, though Prof. Fukutake didn’t have an opportunity to
publish a paper by using this data of Japanese emigrants in Manchuria.
One of the uniqueness of Prof. Fukutake is that he has a career as a professionalsociologist, especially an empirical sociologist, started from his commitment to thestudies on China, not on Japan. In other words, after he’s coming back from China,
he shifted his interest from Chinese villages to Japanese villages. Later, he visited
different parts of Japan, and he tried to divide Japanese villages into two types; oneis called northeast type (tohoku gata 東北型 ), and the other is called southwest type(seinan gata 西南型 ). He was tactically using these schemes, because he had his
own experience to make a rough idea of what the structure of rural villages in Chinawas.
He tried to see how China and Japan are different, even though both villages arecommonly referred as “feudalistic” or “traditional.” He had clear eyes to see the differences. The following is his findings of difference between Chinese and Japanesefamily, clan, and village.

29Comparative Analysis of Rural Villages in China and Japan by Fukutake

World War II Period as a Paradoxical Time
World War II period was really a very paradoxical time.
While Toda didn’t show strong interest in understanding China, but his following generation, like Fukutake and Makino, couldn’t ignore China, because of theJapanese commitment to military invasion to China. Japanese sociologists at thattime had been innocently trained as a professional sociologist to understand China.
On the other hand, some students in outer Japan (gaichi 外地 ) came to Tokyo30

Imperial University to study sociology. For example, Prof. Chen Shao-Hsing 陳 紹
馨 , who received education on sociology at the Tohoku Imperial University by Prof.
Shinmei Masamichi 新明正道 . He is said to be the founder of Taiwan sociology.
Ding Kequang 丁克全 , who received education on sociology at the graduate schoolof Tokyo Imperial University, had taught sociology before 1957, when sociology
was prohibited in China, at Northeast area in China.

Chen Shao-Hsing (1906-1966)

Ding Kequang (1914-1989)

These scholars can be called “connectors” between UTokyo and the other national universities in Taiwan and China. But I’m sorry to say that almost none of theyoungsters in these countries know their names. Some Taiwanese historians know
about Professor Chen, who was named Yamanaka when Japan ruled Taiwan, because
Taiwanese had to have a sir name of Japanese style. Right after World War II, he
converted his family name from Yamanaka to Chen.
Not only Mainland China but also Korean Peninsula and Taiwan were also connected with Tokyo Imperial University. But after the World War II, these connections
were lost and forgotten.

Losing Interest in Asia in Post-war Japan’s Sociology
Let’s see the post-war situation.
On your left hand below, you can see the picture of Professor Kagami Mitsuyuki 加々美光行 , who is a graduate of the Department of Sociology at the Universityof Tokyo. One of the well-known works by Professor Kagami is his analysis of Cul31

tural Revolution in 1960s, who utilized documents to argue that “new China” wastrapped by traditional concept of blood relationship. Of course, it was impossible forhim to go to China and conduct interviews, thus he utilized several documents to understand how blood relationship were utilized for criticizing “class enemies” during
Cultural Revolution. After his graduation from undergrad program, Prof. Kamami
started to work for Institute of Developing Economies, whose head quarter is in Chiba Prefecture now.

Kagami Mitsuyuki (1944-)

Hishida Masaharu (1951-)

The same can be said to the case of Prof. Hishida Masaharu 菱田雅晴 , who
is 10 years senior to me. He’s now a leading scholar of Chinese politics. But when
he was an undergrad, he received influence from Professor Takahashi Akira 髙橋徹 ,a leading sociologist at the University of Tokyo. After his graduation, he started towork for JETRO (Japan External Trade Organization) because he couldn’t find apost within the academia nor a professor who could guide his research on China.
These professors, Kagami and Hishida, promoted China’s studies in Japan, but,at least in the early stage of their scholarship, they lost connection with the department of sociology. Why? There are several reasons behind.
First of all, Asian studies, especially China studies in Japanese sociology, became marginalized. After World War II, many sociologists negated, denied, andcriticized Japanese colonialism and militarism. These mentalities functioned as notkeeping the memories, but to forget them. Scholars including Fukutake intentionallytried not to speak out what they had done.
32Secondly, because of difficulty of conducting fieldwork in Asia, especially in
China since 1957 when Chinese Communist Party banned sociology because theyrecognized that sociology is “science for bourgeoisie.” Unless sociological researches develop in China, it will be quite difficult for outsiders to understand Chinese society.
The third reason, which has to do with the changing nature of Japanese society,is that, as Prof. Marukawa mentioned in his last week’s lecture, many social scientists including sociologists and economists paid more attention to the developed
societies as a model after World War II. To put it differently, as Asian societies including China were developing societies, it was difficult for ordinal sociologists tofind good rationale to do research on China. As you can see in the case of Fukutake
clearly, social scientists were more interested in the changes of their own society. In
case of Fukutake, after his coming back from China to Japan, he energetically studied a lot of issues about democratization of rural villages in Japan.
I think it’s a good thing for Japan to have China experts who have a good command of Chinese language. Fukutake and Makino had difficulty in making communication with Chinese in Chinese, which is a reason why they heavily depended ontranslator as well as written documents. But in order for you to be an area study expert, you cannot help learning foreign languages that you are studying. Kagami and
Hishida are good at speaking Chinese, but unfortunately, once they acquired linguistic skill, their connection with the Japanese sociologists became weaker. Sociology
and area studies, which China study is a part of, were not in good terms.

China’s Opening-up and Its Impact on Sociological Studies on China
But such situation has changed, especially after China’s opening-up.
In 1979, May, Deng Xiaoping suddenly declared the revival of sociology inChina, and just before the declaration, Japanese sociologists were invited to China toknow the revival of Chinese sociology. Fukutake played a very vital role in connect33

ing Japanese sociologists and Chinese sociologists.
Now everyone almost forgot about this episode, but Fukutake, after his retirement from the University of Tokyo, sent his many books to the library of Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences. It’s before the Institute of Sociology was set up. Chinese scholars appreciated Fukutake’s contribution and set up Fukutake Tadashi Collection 福武直文庫 to show their appreciation toward Fukutake.
One year after the Japanese sociologist delegation to China, the Japan-China
Sociological Association was established in 1980. Again, Fukutake played a vitalrole. He promoted that kind of exchange, but he deceased ten years after his first visit to China in 1979 after World War II. Since then Aoi Kazuo 青井和夫 , on your left
side below, who taught sociology at the University of Tokyo, took the Fukutake’s
position and he had served as President of Japan-China Sociological Association fora long time.

Aoi Kazuo (1920-2011)

I had an opportunity to ask Prof. Aoi why he was so energetically supporting
activities of Japan-China Sociological Association. His answer was straightforward
and very moving. He said, “Sonoda-kun, you should keep it in mind that Japan did
something wrong to China. So, we have to do something good to China now.” I
guess that such sentiment must have been shared by all the members of the first andsecond delegates of Japanese sociologists to China.
Luckily, Fei Xiaotong 费孝通 , who is in the center above, and Lu Xueyi 陆学艺 , who deceased seven years ago, knew that rural issues in China are so important.
34

Prof. Fukutake started his career as a rural sociologist, and when he visited China,rural issues in Japan was not so serious. Prof. Fukutake has changed his interest fromrural development to the national development, or the creation of welfare state in Japan. But Fei Xiaotong and Fukutake had a very good partnership. They passed their
missions to the hands of Profs. Aoi and Lu, which created a lot of collaborations
between Japanese sociologists and Chinese sociologists. Thus, from the beginning of
1980s to late 1990s, Japanese and Chinese sociology could enjoy honeymoon period.

Tominaga Ken’ichi’s Visits to Nankai University
One of the most impressive episodes for me during this time is Prof. Tominaga
Ken’ichi 富永健一 ’s visits to China. He was invited to Nankai University in 1984,
36 years ago. He was invited by Nankai to teach a course on economic sociology
which is Professor Tominaga’s specialty. The below are six pictures of different professors who became a big name of Chinese sociology now.

Students of Prof. Tominaga at Nankai University

They attended two-month-long lecture by Professor Tominaga on economic
sociology. They wanted to understand the “secret” of the economic development ofJapan after World War II, so they visited our residence frequently to ask so manyquestions to Prof. Tominaga. These questions include Japan’s development policies,
people’s attitudes toward education, and so on. They put too many questions for35

Professor Tominaga to take a rest, but he seemed to be very happy to have a lot of
discussions with promising young Chinese sociologists.
In the pictures below, Prof. Zhang Jing 张静 , Chair of Department of Sociology at Peking University, is just standing next to me. On her right side, you see thefigure of Professor Jing Yuejing 景跃进 , a political scientist at Tsinghua University.
They were a couple and the classmates of the six professors in the pictures above.
The picture was taken in 2017, two years prior to Prof. Tominaga’s death. You canimagine how Prof. Tominaga was appreciated by his promising young Chinese sociologists.

Prof. Tominaga (front, center) and Profs. Zhang (back, center) andJing (back, right) at Prof. Sonoda’s oﬃce in 2017

Prof. Tominaga visited Nankai University three times. In his autobiography,
Prof. Tominaga mentioned about his visits to Nankai, describing them as most impressive academic experiences he has ever had.

How Should We Study Social Inequality in China?
Another hidden episode that I still remember about this honeymoon period is a collaboration between Japanese sociologists, especially UTokyo professors and scholars
in Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) on social inequality issues.
Professor Lu Xueyi knew that China needed some survey and research to grasp
what’s going on about increasing social inequality. So, he organized a research teamin CASS to know what to do to study social inequality in China.
36

Prof. Lu knew that Japanese sociologists have carried out SSM (Social Stratification and Social Mobility) surveys several times since 1955. So, research teammembers were interested in how Japanese scholars could successfully get money toconduct national-level survey as much as four times.
Secondly, they had some difficulties in creating conceptual schemes on social
inequality. As you know, China is a socialist country, and the concept of “class” is an
official concept. But it was a bit risky to use the concept of “class” when analyzing
enlarging social inequality because socialism is officially negating social inequality
caused by the class. Then the question is, what category can and should be used instudying social inequality? They wanted to hear some lessons from Japan.
Therefore, they invited Prof. Seiyama Kazuo 盛山和夫 , who was Chair professor of the Department of Sociology and expert in social stratification, and me in1999.
We were told that they had already invited two researchers from abroad; one isProf. John H. Goldthorpe, a British sociologist and Prof. Eric O. Wright, an American sociologist. Goldthorpe is a Weberian and Wright is a Marxist. Their approaches
to social inequality issues are different, and it seemed to me that Prof. Lu’s researchteams were considering which approach is more appropriate for China, a Weberian
approach or a Marxist approach.
They eventually chose the former and they published a book titled Researchon Contemporary Chinese Social Stratification『当代中国社会阶层研究报告』in2001. Even though you cannot see any names of Japanese sociologists, but I can see
many influences of Japanese sociological concepts in their book. That’s what happened during this honeymoon period.

Some Works of UTokyo Researchers
Then, what sort of researches have been conducted by sociologists in Tokyo School
after the opening up in China? The following picture shows some of the sociological37books published by professors or former students of the University of Tokyo.

Books on Chinese society written by professors/students of UTokyo

On your left side above, you see the front page of the book titled Industrialization and Community Life in China『中国の産業化と地域生活』, edited byProfessor Aoi Kazuo. This is a collection of chapter papers written by Chinese andJapanese sociologists, who closely worked together to understand family life, local
governance, welfare arrangements, education in local communities in China. They
stayed at the same city, shared the same aspects of social life to write their independent chapters. Basically, they relied on qualitative data rather than quantitative data.
Patriarchy in East Asia『東アジアの家父長制』, written by Professor Sechiyama
Kaku 瀬地山角 who is now teaching at Komaba campus, is also using qualitative data. My book titled China, An Unequal State『不平等国家 中国』, on yourright side, is based on the extensive survey covering four different cities of Tianjin,
Shanghai, Chongqin and Guangzhou, which I think is a very exceptional book.

Final Episode: Odaka Kunio’s Sociology of Occupation
The biggest change of the University of Tokyo took place when Toda, the third generation of sociologists in UTokyo, changed from metaphysical sociology to empirical sociology in 1920s. The nature of Japanese sociology changed. But one of theuniqueness of the University of Tokyo is that, even though students were encouraged
to do some empirical researches, they were also strongly encouraged to know about38

sociological theories. I still vividly remember, when I was undergrad, I was asked toread many theoretical books on sociology. And later, I was asked what concrete facts
I was interested in. Thus, theory is still important in the mainstream sociology at the
University of Tokyo.
I’d like to conclude this lecture by introducing the case of Prof. Odaka Kunio
尾高邦雄 , who was a mentor of Professor Tominaga.

Odaka Kunio (1908-1993)

When Prof. Odaka became eighty years old in 1988, I was a research assistantat UTokyo. We had a small party to celebrate his 80th birthday. Professor Odaka
asked me about my specialty. I said, “My specialty is China studies.” Then he said,“Oh you’re interested in China? When I was of your age, I did research in China. I
know how difficult it is to master Chinese. Good luck!”
Some years later, Prof. Odaka’s former students edited three volumes of hiscollected works. Interestingly, the first paper in his collected works is the one which
explains how he developed his own career as a professional empirical sociologist.
Odaka is very similar to Fukutake in the sense that both received a lot of influenceof Western theoretical sociology. In fact, Prof. Odaka translated Max Weber’s book
Science as a Vocation into the Japanese when he was very young.
Prof. Odaka was interested in occupation and he tried to create occupational sociology by himself. But why did he want to do so?
He left his passage like this:39

“When I was drafted in the autumn of 1944, I was sent to the Army Hospital,
because I was sick. I was released from it immediately, though. This was thetime when I was reluctant to continue to study about theory or methodology,
and I wanted to do something empirical. Right at the time, I was invited by the
Navy and I started to do ethnic research in Hainan Island, which is locatedsouth part of China. I spent one month to do research on family practices of thelocals and it was the most enjoyable time in my life.”
Prof. Odaka started his career as sociologist from theoretical sociologist who
was knowledgeable about German sociology, but later, he was reluctant to do it. It isthrough his commitment to ethnographic research in Hainan Island, China, that herealized the importance and enjoyment of conducting empirical research.
My professor Tominaga criticized Professor Odaka for his lack of theoreticalinterests, but this is an answer for my professor’s criticism. Odaka lost his interest intalking too much about abstract, theoretical things after his visit to Hainan Island. He
realized the importance of knowing something local, knowing something empirical,
knowing something concrete. Odaka as well as Fukutake is still regarded as one of
the founders of empirical sociology not only at UTokyo but in Japan. Fukutake andOdaka started their carrier as an empirical sociologist through their commitment toChina studies, which contained a lot of contradictions and tragedies.
That’s the end of my lecture. Thank you very much for listening.
October 15, 202040

4Studies on Chinese Law inJapan: Legends of Tokyo
School―― 髙見澤 磨（東京大学東洋文化研究所・教授）

Osamu Takamizawa (Professor, the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, UTokyo)

Introduction
It’s a pleasure of me to see you all even through Zoom. Today’s theme is “Studies
on Chinese Law in Japan, Legends of Tokyo School.” I will end the class a bit earlybecause I would like you to think about a question. The question is what kind offunction Chinese legal system has for Japanese as a center, or a periphery. Definitely,
this is the most important theme of today.
Today I have seven parts, including introduction and conclusion.
The history of Japanese legal system is that of studies and the introduction offoreign law or laws. Chinese law had been the main model in pre-modern Japan, andhas been also one of the most important subjects of research since the Meiji era. In
the first, “what is law?” as a difficult question. Tentatively, one of the social norms. I
would like you to see your opinion or your own definition of law. Could you please,using the chat function, give me your own definition, image or prejudice of law?
I would like participants to give me your own definition, images, or prejudice.
Tentatively, we can define it as one of the social norms. And what is Chinese
law? We can divide three major periods of long Chinese history. The first is ancient.
Ancient means the Spring and Autumn period and before it. And then, Imperial period, including the kingdoms in the Warring period. The third and the last one is themodern and contemporary.

Ancient Norms
Perhaps it is not law in the modern category. That happened a clan society in the city
41

states. Upper class people had the same clan-name and the network of city states
have formed kingdom. But we do not have enough evidences to know it by some
excavation of archaeological survey. And the kings of Shang or Zhou, represented
lords and people, prayed Heaven, Earth and their Ancestors.

Imperial Period
Early Imperial Periods, that means Warring States period, though, warring states
were kingdoms, not empire. But king had mostly same power as Emperor. And then,
you know, Qin and Han Dynasty had come. Kings or Emperors enacted state law.
This is a primitive stage of Lü Ling system 律令制 . That was the primitive stages oflaw. Lü and Ling still were general nouns for law or regulation.
And then, Three Kingdoms period. Jin Dynasty and the period of Northern andSouthern Courts (220-589). They formed the prototype of Lü Ling system. Lü had
been a kind of a penal code of today. And Ling had been administrative code.
And then, Sui Dynasty and the first half of the Tang Dynasty (589-756). They
formed the classics of the Lü Ling system and the system influenced other East
Asian countries including Japan.
And the second half of Tang, Period of Five Dynasties, and Song Dynasty (7561279). They developed secondary codes. Lü and Ling were basic codes, and they
had secondary codes to adjust them to their own society.
Liao, Jin, Yuan and Western Xia. These were the dynasties of northern ethnic
groups (916-1368) and they made their legal norms by Chinese legal system andtheir own rules or customs, but Yuan Dynasty did not have their Lü Ling code.
Ming and Qing Era (1368-1911). They had Lü as the basic code, and the secondary code for adjusting Lü to society. How about Ling? There had been Ling foradministration in the early Ming era, but they abolished Ling as an administrative
code, and made the encyclopedia or complete books on state system for administration. Qing inherited this book system: huidian 会典 in Chinese or kaiten in Japanese.
42Modern Chinese Law
The third and last legal system is modern Chinese law, which is the fruit of reception
or transplantation of modern Western law. The basic purpose was to keep independence as a sovereign state. China touched the western legal system (1) as treaties
after 1842, or after the Opium War; (2) international law in 1864 or 1865; and (3)the formation of Western legal system for equal treaties in the last ten years of Qing
dynasty and Republican China. This is the mainstream of modern Chinese law.
The other system is that the system as the colonies or puppet governments.
For example: Hong Kong since 1843, Macau since 1557, Taiwan 1895-1945, Manchu-kuo 1931-1945.
Contemporary Chinese law means the law of the People’s Republic of China,
but it has a prehistory: The bases of Chinese Communist Party between 1927 and1949 had their legal system.

1. Why need to study Foreign Law(s)?
Why is there a need to study foreign law for Japanese people? The first is for legislation or interpretation of law. For example, traditional Chinese law had been a Japanese most important model between Asuka era (sixth century) and Meiji, or earlystage of Meiji until 1885. And then, Western laws became a model for Japan since
the end of Edo era, especially after 1854. The second purpose of study foreign laws
is for a solution of foreign affairs, especially diplomacy, business, and family. The
third is for studying a foreign society or kind of social sciences.

2. Chinese Law as a Contemporary Foreign Law
For pre-modern Japanese elites, the study of the Chinese law was a contemporary
law, not the history between Asuka era and Nara era. The Imperial Court of Japanstudied Sui-Tang Lü Ling system for forming Japanese ruling system. Since Heianera to Muromachi era, the Imperial Court and the Shogunate (bakufu) studied Lü
43

Ling system for interpretation of Japanese Lü Ling codes. The specialists were called
Myoboka 明 法 家 in Japanese. One of the most representative persons is Shotoku
taishi (Prince Shotoku, or Prince Umayado(574-622?)). We can see his image in theold bill of the 10,000 yen. He studied the Chinese legal system, or political system,and tried to introduce them to Japan.
In Edo era, Confucian scholars, as advisers for Shogun or Daimyo lords, studied Chinese law, especially Ming-Qing legal system. And even in early days in Meiji
era, a government still used Japanese Lü Ling system and the books by Edo Confucian scholars until 1885. In 1885, Japan established cabinet system, which was not
the old Chinese ancient one, but the modern British one. Since then, Chinese legal
system had not been a model for Japanese legal system.
In Edo era, one of the most famous confusions who studied Chinese legal
system was Ogyu Sorai 荻生徂徠 . Tokugawa Yoshimune 徳川吉宗 had been theeighth Shogun of Edo era and he ordered Ogyu Sorai and other scholars to study
Chinese legal system.
Studying Chinese law for colonial government is another situation. Since 1895,
Japan studied customaries, made Customary Survey in Taiwan 台湾旧慣調査(1895-1945) and then began to conduct Customary Survey in South Manchuria 南
満洲旧慣調査 (1905-1945). In these surveys, the most famous persons were Goto
Shimpei 後藤新平 and Okamatsu Santato 岡松参太郎 . Goto was a Secretary of
Civil Affairs of the Taiwan Governorate and then he became President of the South

Goto Shimpei (1857-1929)

Okamatsu Santaro (1871-1921)

44

Manchuria Railway. Under his government, Okamatsu, who was a professor of Law
Faculty, Kyoto Imperial University was responsible for these two surveys. He graduated from the Imperial University of Tokyo and is one of the legends here today. The
left picture is Goto, and the right one is Okamatsu.
In 1930s and the 40s, besides colonial governance, there was for studies ofliving law or lebendes Recht in German by Eugen Ehrlich as an academic activity.
Customary Survey of Northern Chinese Rural Area 中国農村慣行調査 had beenorganized in 1940s under the Japanese army occupations.

3. Studies on Traditional Chinese Law in JapanThe year of 1911 is very important. In 1911, Nakada Kaoru 中田薫 came back from
Europe and became a professor at the Imperial University of Tokyo. Before him, thespecialists studied Chinese and Japanese legal history for Yusokukojitsu 有職故実 ,which means the studies of government organizations, ceremonies, and the customs
based on ancient precedents. They explained how to deal with the original history.
Prof. Nakada Kaoru, one of the most important legends, studied the legal history
as comparative studies of government or governance system, referring to culture
through historical materials and sources. And he had two major students: One is Ishii
Ryosuke 石井良助 , who studied the Japanese history, and the other is Niida Noboru
仁井田陞 , who studied Chinese legal history.

Nakada Kaoru (1877-1967)

45

Niida Noboru’s activity should be divided into two parts. The first is before
1945. Tentatively, I call it “Niida A.” He made proof studies. For example, Restoration work for lost text of Ling code in Tang, or Toreishui 唐令拾遺 . People
knew that Tang Dynasty had a basic code of Ling, but it had been lost. Therefore
he restored the Ling code. Afterward, he published a book titled Studies on Legal
Documents of Tang and Song『唐宋 法律文書の研究』. And he had been a professor at Institute of Oriental Culture (Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, since2010), or Tobunken 東文研 after Tokyo Institute of the Academy of Oriental Culture
merged by Tobunken in 1948. Niida after 1945. I call it “Niida B.” He started theoretical studies, especially of materialism or kind of Marxist view.

Niida Noboru (1904-1966)

He had two kinds of students, more exactly, not official students but his followers. A student of Niida A is Ikeda On 池 田 温 . One of the representative works is
Studies on Chinese Historical Archives of Family Register『中国古代籍帳研究』.
A student of Niida B is Fukushima Masao (1906–1989). His works were Studies on
People’s Commune (of China)『人民公社の研究』and Studies on Land Tax Reform(of Meiji Japan)『地租改正の研究』.
In addition, I should introduce Professor Shiga Shuzo 滋賀秀三 . In 1943, hebecame a special research student at the Imperial University of Tokyo, which meansthat he is also one of the legends of this university. What is special research student?
The system of special research student was just only one good thing done by Prime
Minister Tojo Hideki 東条英機 administration in wartime.
46

Shiga Shuzo (1921-2008)

They enjoyed the privilege of exemption from military service, so they could
survive even in wartime. His representative works are Principles of Chinese Family
Law『中国家族法の原理』, and Law and Suite in Qing China『清代中国の法と. In other works, Codes and Criminal Punishment in Chinese Legal History『中裁判』
国法制史論集 法典と刑罰』and Law and Suite in Qing China vol.2『続・清代中
国の法と裁判』.
He explained the Chinese legal principles by Western legal discourse and ordinary Japanese words through historical archives. This method made Chinese-nessstand out. He has good students, who we can call them all legends. Nakamura Shigeo 中村茂夫 , Harro von Sengerfrom Switzerland, Morita Shigemitsu 森田成満 ,and Terada Hiroaki 寺田浩明 .

4. Studies on Modern Chinese Law in Japan
Modern Chinese law means the legal system between 1842 and 1949. In those days,
they studied to Chinese law as contemporary law. The first group were the specialists
invited by Qing dynasty: Okada Asataro 岡田朝太郎 , Matsuoka Yoshimasa 松岡義
正 , Ogawa Shigejiro 小河滋次郎 , and Shida Kotaro 志田鉀太郎 . They also graduate from the University of Tokyo. Okada was a professor of criminal law and criminal procedure law. Matsuoka was a Judge, and his specialty was civil law and thecivil procedure law. Ogawa worked for Ministry of Justice. Shida was a specialist ofcommercial law.
47

In 1930s and 40s, some scholars, especially professors at the University of Tokyo, formed Society for Study of Legal System in the Republic of China 中華民国
法制研究会 . They were legends of law faculty or lawyers who were interested in
and respected the modern legal system of the newly built China. On the member list,
Murakami Sadayoshi 村上貞吉 and Otani Masakatsu 大谷政勝 , but I do not haveenough information on them. Wada Sei 和田清 was a historian. Miyazawa Toshiyoshi 宮沢俊義 was a specialist on constitutional laws. Tanaka Jiro 田中二郎 was aspecialist on administrative law. Wagatsuma Sakae 我妻栄 , Kawashima Takeyoshi
川島武宜 and Hirose Takefumi 広瀬武文 were specialists on civil law. Tanaka Kotaro 田中耕太郎 , Suzuki Takeo 鈴木竹雄 , and Ishii Teruhisa 石井照久 were specialists on commercial law. Kikui Tsunahiro 菊井維大 and Kaneko Hajime 兼子一were specialists on civil procedure code. Ono Seiichiro 小野清一郎 and Dando Shigemitsu 団藤重光 were specialists on the criminal law and criminal procedure law.
Egawa Hidefumi 江川英文 was a specialist on conflict of laws. They are legends
not only in Chinese law but in Japanese legal system, so they are representatives ofscholars on legal sciences.
I should refer to some collections of books and archives. Oki Kan’ichi 大木幹
一 was a lawyer at Tianjin and Beijing (or Beiping) and he was a collector of books
and archives there. In Tobunken, we have Oki Collection (or Oki bunko). Niida alsocollected a lot of books and archives in China, and it became Niida Collection (orNiida bunko) in Tobunken.
As historical studies, here is Shimada Masao 島田正郎 . He also graduatedfrom the University of Tokyo, studying traditional Chinese law and northern Asianlaw. He worked for modern Chinese law as well. Shiga’s lecture at the University ofTokyo also included modern Chinese legal history.

48

Shimada Masao (1915-2009)

5. Studies on Contemporary Chinese Law in Japan
This is the last part: studies on contemporary Chinese law in Japan, including thebases of the Chinese Communist Party (1927-1949). The first stage is the gatheringof information for diplomacy. And then the old generation, like Niiida and Fukushima, also studied a legal system of the People’s Republic of China, and they have a
student, Miyasaka Hiroshi 宮坂宏 . He is graduated from Waseda University and worked
for Senshu University. Both universities are in Tokyo region. I shouldn’t forget
Fukushima’s activity in Waseda University between 1967 and 1971, after his retirement at the University of Tokyo. That time was the first tide for people in Japan to beinterested in China, because of its restoration of lawful rights at the United Nationsin 1971 and the normalization of the diplomatic relations between China and Japan
in 1972. People started to be interested in China.
At that time, Fukushima had several students at Waseda University, including
Nishimura Kojiro 西村幸次郎 , Nozawa Hideki 野沢秀樹 , Toki Shigeru 土岐茂 ,and Kuniya Satoshi 國谷知史 . Surrounding Waseda University and the Universityof Tokyo, I should refer to two scholars: Konoma Masamichi 木間正道 and Tanaka
Nobuyuki 田中信行 . In Konoma’s case, his undergraduate and master courses wereat Waseda and the doctor course at the University of Tokyo. He got a Doctor of Law
at Hokkaido University. Tanaka was an undergraduate student at Waseda and went tograduate school at the Tokyo Metropolitan University. Afterward, he became associate professor and later professor at the University of Tokyo between 1991 and 2012.
49

They are also legends of the Tokyo school.
From the point of view of the constitution studies and socialist law. They themselves are a kind of socialists and are interested in Chinese legal system. The firstexample is Haryu Seikichi 針生誠吉 . He had been a student of Kiyomiya Shiro,
who was a famous specialist on constitution at the Tohoku University. Haryu also
graduated from Tohoku University, and then had been a researcher at Institute ofSocial Science at the University of Tokyo. Later he worked for Tokyo Metropolitan
University. The other example is Asai Atsushi 浅井敦 , who had been a student of
Suzuki Yasuzo 鈴木安蔵 , another famous specialist on constitution at Aichi University. Asai had been an assistant professor at Institute of Social Science at the Universityof Tokyo. Asai had been a part-time lecturer at the University of Tokyo. I joined hisclasses fortunately.
Today we saw some legends of Chinese legal studies. I introduced you a lot of
scholars in Tokyo school who studied Chinese law. If you’re interested in them andcan read Japanese, please take a look at a book in the reference.

Conclusion
I would like to summarize three approaches to Chinese law which Japanese scholars had. The first is toward an aspect as a contemporary law, including the practical
purpose for lawyers, officials, and advisors, as well as the academic purposes. The
second approach was a historical one. In the third one, the Japanese scholars have astyle of comparative studies with Western and Japanese law.
Japanese scholars have studied the Chinese legal system as a most important
subject or a model. There remains, however, some blanks of the studies. They are
future tasks for Japanese scholars. The first one is comparative studies of East Asianlaw. Japanese scholars never had a comparative view amongst China, Japan, Korea
and Vietnam.
The second blank is a “colonial legal system and then” in the case of Taiwan,
50

Hong Kong, or Macau. The third is studies on the imperial system, for example,
Mongolian Empire, or Turkic (not Turkish) Imperial system, the Tibet and Islamic
legal system in East Asia.
So that’s all I prepared for today. Thank you very much.
October 22, 2020

51

5Studies on Chinese Diplomatic
History in Japan: Chinese
World Order and Modern
Diplomacy in China―― 川島 真（東京大学大学院総合文化研究科・教授）
Shin Kawashima (Professor, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, UTokyo)

It’s my pleasure to be here and talk about Todai’s academic history of the Chinese
diplomatic history. Prof. Sonoda introduced the general situation of Todai’s China
studies, Prof. Takamizawa introduced the Chinese law, and Prof. Marukawa talked
about the Chinese economy. So today I will talk about the academic trend in Todai
about the history of Chinese diplomacy.
Prof. Sonoda provided me the topic of today’s presentation about “Studies on
Chinese diplomatic history in Japan: world order and modern diplomacy in China.” I
don’t know how much knowledge you have as well as the background on the historyof Chinese diplomacy, but I’ll introduce them and the academic trends, as possible I
can.

Todai School on Chinese Diplomatic History?
Today’s topic is about the Todai school. Strictly speaking, I don’t know whether wehave the Todai school or not on this academic field, but Todai school on the Chinese
diplomatic history probably exist.
This academic research field is basically based on the history as a discipline.
My background is history. I got a Ph.D. in the doctoral course of oriental history in
the Faculty of Literature here in 2000, twenty years ago.
The diplomatic history as a discipline was founded after World War I. History,
this old traditional discipline, has long history before 19c. However, a diplomatic
history as a specific academic discipline was founded after World War I. Germany
opened diplomatic archives about the processes to the Great War to examine the52processes, how Germany advanced its policy toward the war. This is the moment offoundation of diplomatic history as an academic field. Before the foundation of the
diplomatic history after World War I, foreign affairs were an attractive topic for the
public, so many journalists and intellectuals talked about the diplomatic or foreign
affairs, including China.
Anyway, as a discipline, diplomatic history itself was founded after World War
I. In this discipline, scholars had to use these diplomatic archives to examine the decision-making processes and others. So, archives are so important for us to advanceour research. Before World War I, governments did not open the archives to the public nor the scholars. So, diplomatic history as an academic discipline did not exist.
Chinese diplomatic history as academic discipline was also founded after WorldWar I, I can say, so I talk about the processes of the formation of Chinese diplomatic
history as discipline. As I said, many persons were attracted by foreign affairs. Chinese foreign affairs were the same. Many Chinese, journalist and scholars, and foreigners wrote so-called foreign affairs, Chinese policy towards other countries. And,
traditionally, foreigners who came to China and made negotiation with China, often
wrote some books and articles about China and its foreign policy. For example, Rehe
Riji 熱河日記 , Nekka nikki in Japanese, were written by a Korean official in eighteenth century. As you know, Korea sent tribute envoys towards Beijing or Rehe in
Qing Dynasty four or five times a year. One of officers wrote his diary, from Beijing
into Ruhe (or Jehol), a palace to the north of Beijing. This is very interesting diary

Cover Page of Rehe Riji

53

about how the Korean envoy went to Ruhe, one of the capitals of China at the time. I
can see so many things that Korean envoy and officials were interested in at the time.

Western Envoys to China
Do you know these caricatures or pictures?

George Macartney was a very famous British noble who went to China to negotiate on trade and to open much more with China in 1793. He also wrote the diary.
Some scholars quoted from his diary to illustrate the Chinese situation and Chinese
foreign policy toward British.
William Pitt Amherst also went to China in 1816. He also wrote documents on
the Chinese foreign policy toward British.
Somebody wrote the pictures of Mr. Macartney, actually before Macartney’s
arrival to China. As you see the pictures, the images of the China’s emperor weredifferent. This is the image of Emperor Qianlong 乾隆帝 . The other is also Emperor
Qianlong. In the picture above, Qianlong is arrogant. However, the picture below,
he is not so arrogant, but much more modest, clever, or wise as his behavior shows.
Which is close to Macartney’s impression? Based on his diary, the below picture is
move close to his impression, I think.

Two Origins of Chinese Diplomatic History in Western Countries
As a discipline, Chinese diplomatic history has two or three origins. The first is thewestern officials of maritime customs in China, who wrote a series of documents,
records, articles, and books about the Chinese foreign policy. As you know, after
54

the Opium War in 1840-42, China opened the ports: Shanghai, Ningbo, Fuzhou,
Xiamen, and Guangzhou. After that, foreign countries had settlements and concessions 租界 (zujie in Chinese). Western countries also sent consuls 領事 to manage
foreign affairs there. China also opened the maritime customs, mainly to get the
tariff and to cope with problems on trade. After 1858, the maritime customs of theport started being managed by both the Chinese and the Westerns. Some Westerns
worked at the Chinese maritime customs to get tariff from the Western countries.
Some of the Westerns stayed there for more than 10 or twenty years. Their role wasso important. British diplomats in Beijing and consuls in Shanghai and other ports
worked for three or four years and left for to the other place. However, the officials
in the customs sometimes stay in the same place for more than 10 years. They got
a lot of knowledge about the work including the trades and the behaviors with Chinese officials. After they leave the posts in the Chinese port for the mother country,
they started writing the papers and books. The most famous official in the maritime
customs who published a book was H. B. Morse. He is still so famous at present. His
book, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire, is one of the basic classic
book about the history of Chinese foreign policy. However, his 3 volume books have
one interesting characteristic that the author’s eyes are always located at the outerof China. He was one of the member of officials of the maritime customs in China.
However, basically he observed China as foreigners outside the official system.
The other origin is Western missionaries to China. After the Beijing treaty in
1860, Christian and Protestants missionaries, members of Christianity in some sense,
could do the activities in inner China. Such Christian services wrote seasonal documents about China. They also left China for their mother country or another place.
They also wrote a series of books about China, Chinese people and their society, culture, Chinese foreign policy, Chinese attitudes for foreigners and so on.

55

The Formation of Chinese Diplomatic History
In two origins of the missionaries and the maritime customs, authors’ eyes were always located at out of China. Foreigners observed in China. However, Chinese themselves also started studying Chinese diplomatic history in 20c. They also advanced
the Chinese diplomatic history as the academic discipline after World War I. Before
World War I, Liu Yan 劉彦 , who was very famous journalist, published a book about
the Chinese foreign policy, Recent Chinese diplomatic history 中国近時外交史 .
This book was published in 1911. After World War I, the academic trend on the diplomatic history also landed on China. However, Chinese government did not open
the Chinese original archive to the public and scholars. On the other hand, Chouban
yiwu shimo 籌辦夷務始末 , which is the volumes of the materials, published afterWorld War I. This volume over the materials included the documents in the late Qing
to negotiate with the Russia and other foreign countries, and Diplomatic materials in
the Qing dynasty 清季外交史料 also published. The materials in the former book isfrom Daoguan 道光 period (1820-1850), to Xianfeng 咸豊 (1850-1861), to Tongzhi
同治 (1861-1874). The latter book provides us the information from a part of the
Guangxu 光 緒 period (after 1875) to Xuantong 宣 統 (1910-1912). These printed
materials played the important role to advance the Chinese diplomatic history in
China, instead of the Chinese diplomatic archives that the government didn’t open to
the public.
Under such situation, Chinese younger scholars who educated in the Westerncountries or Japanese universities challenged the diplomatic history as an academic
discipline. Tsiang Ting-fu 蔣廷黻 , a very famous scholar in Tsinghua University
in Beijing, advanced Chinese diplomatic history as an academic field. He left
Beijing for Moscow as a Chinese ambassador to Soviet Union and, after the WorldWar II, he became the ambassador to the United Nations of the ROC China. His personal materials are in Harvard University now. And, Kuo Ting-yee 郭廷以 , he’s also
very famous scholar in Beijing to study Chinese diplomatic history and after 1949,56

he went to Taiwan to be the founder of the institute of Modern history, Academia
Sinica. And, Wang Xinzhong 王信忠 , he is younger than the other persons, but his
books about the first Sino-Japanese war is so substantial and academic.
Wang Yunsheng 王芸生 was a journalist at Ta Kung Pao 大公報 in Tianjin.Wang
published six volumes of books, China and Japan in the 60 years『六十年来中国与日本』, from 1871 to 1931. The year 1871 was when the Qing Dynasty and Japan concluded the Sino-Japanese amenity treaty. In 1931 the Mukden incident, or Manchuria incident, happened. His book is so unique. Why? Wang Yunsheng actually used
the Chinese diplomatic archives, especially the archives of the Chinese legation to
Tokyo. I have not seen this archive. Somebody said to me that this archive of theChinese legation to Tokyo are in an institute at Beijing now.
Under the Sino-Japanese war after 1937, some scholars at National South-western Associated University 西南聯合大学 in Chongqing like Chen Tiqiang 陳体強wrote some books about the Chinese diplomatic history.

What about Japan?
How about Japan? How about Todai? I introduce a little bit about the formation of
the Chinese studies in Japan, or the history of China.
Japanese traditional Sinology founded in the Edo period, or much earlier. This
traditional sinology is so important for Japanese to understand Chinese classics. Why
did this Japanese traditional sinology was advanced so much in Edo period? The reason is that Confucianism interpretation by Zhuxi School 朱子学 was the Orthodox
and the formal basis of education and learning in Edo period.
Every warrior 武士 learned the way of reading the Chinese classics in Edo period. After the Meiji Restoration, history as an academic discipline was imported toJapan. This new history as academic discipline combined with the Japanese sinologythat contains study of historical evidence with China’s style 考 証 学 . Sinology inJapan; new history from western countries; and a study of the historical evidence57with China’s style. They were combined to form Chinese history in oriental history 東洋史学 at the Faculty of the Literature, the University of Tokyo in 1910. The Orientis called China, Korea, Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East Asia, and Africa
before colonized, so vast and wide concept until now. When I was in oriental history
at the University of Tokyo in the 1990s. My friend did research about the Berberpeople in Northern Africa and another friend learned about Latin America before the
Spanish and the Portuguese invaded there. Oriental history has a huge range of thehistory.
How about the Chinese diplomatic history in Japan?
I’ll introduce the research of Chinese diplomatic history in Japan before the endof World War II.
The department of oriental history was founded in 1910 in the Faculty of Literature, the University of Tokyo. However, to explain the formation of Chinese diplomatic history in Japan, I have to introduce another story.

Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan (1)The Faculty of Law, which includes the department of politics, had the professors toresearch the history of law and history of politics. Before World War II, Faculty of
Law had two kinds of professors concerning about Chinese diplomatic history: Onestudied about the history of Chinese law, and the other did research about the Chinese diplomatic history. Maybe Prof. Takamizawa introduced it. Niida Noboru 仁井田陞 was the professor before and after World War II, taught Chinese law. Professors
on history of the politics and diplomacy were not in the department of Oriental history, but basically in the department of politics at the time. The department of politics
had three posts of professors to research history: one is about the Japanese history
from the diplomatic viewpoint, another is about Western history of diplomacy; andthe other is Chinese or oriental history of diplomacy.
Professor Ueda Toshio 植田捷雄 . He was not a professor of Faculty of Law.
58

He was a professor of the Institute of Oriental Studies (Tobunken, former name of
Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia). He was a representative scholar of the Chinese diplomacy at Todai before World War II. He published a series of books about
the Chinese diplomacy and foreign policy. His books include about the Chinese concession and settlement 租界 , Chinese leased territories 租借地 , and others. He focused on treaty itself. He interpreted and considered the contents of the treaties with
China, so his works had a strong linkage with international law. And his works wererelating with the Japanese foreign policy towards China at that time. There were demands for scholars to consider how to interpret and consider the treaties with China
and how Britain and other Western countries use the set of treaties to get much morenational interests. His works had a linkage with international law and also a linkage
with the Japanese national interests at the time.

(Ueda, 1943)

Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan (2)Besides Ueda, Tamura Kosaku 田村幸策 also published a book about the Chinese
diplomatic affairs, Great eastern diplomatic history『大東亜外交史研究』in 1942. Healso mentioned about the Chinese foreign policy at the time, but a little bit journalistic. Prof. Yano Jin’ichi 矢野仁一 , a famous scholar in Kyoto University, lead thesubstantial diplomatic history, based on a study of the historical evidence on China.
His works about the first and second Opium Wars are excellent, so you can read his
books in Chuko Bunko a name of paperback series in Japanese now.
59

Yano Jin’ichi (1872-1970)

But unfortunately, he cooperated the Japanese authorities and wrote the bookabout the Manchuria modern history to support the Japanese government and theManchukuo to strengthen the Japanese authority and Manchu-kuo’s legitimacy there
and also to strengthen the division between the Chinese and Manchuria history toshow the Manchurian independence. Because of his cooperation with the military
service and Japanese government, he left his post at Kyoto University after WorldWar II. This so-called Yano incident on the Chinese history was so crucial to scholars of Chinese history.

Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan (3): After the End of WWII
After World War II in Todai, Banno Masataka 坂野正高 . He also got a job in Institute of Oriental Studies (Tobunken, former name of Institute for Advanced Studies
on Asia) in Todai. After that, he went to Tokyo Metropolitan University, and he cameback to the department of politics, Faculty of Law, Todai in 1980s. Prof. Banno’s
works are so important for us.
His works are so many. When he was younger, he considered China throughthe Western mirror and pointed out Chinese characteristics. His works are not linked
to the international law. This point is different from Prof. Ueda, and Banno’s works
are about the Chinese diplomacy in the 1850s and 60s. Especially, the works about
Zongliyamen 総理衙門 , which is founded in 1861, was basically based on the Western discipline and Western eyes to compare the Western orthodox with China and60

to point out Chinese characteristics. Such Western orthodox or mirror is to consider
China and only the Chinese characteristics. Also, Prof. Banno and John King Fairbank of the Harvard University were good friends. The fact that Banno and Fairbank
shared a way of teaching at a seminar and a lecture at Todai and Harvard University
is a very famous episode.
Fairbank is so famous professor Chinese history at Harvard University. If you
have a read his memoir book, you can know how he started his research on Chinese
foreign policy. The interesting story about him in 1930 is as follows: When he wasa student, he intended to write the dissertation about the Chinese maritime customs.
He intended to write his dissertation on the bases of H. B. Morse’s works whicheyes is outside of China. However, when he came to China and met Tsiang Tingfu at Tsinghua University 清華大学 , who I mentioned earlier today, Tsiang Ting-fu
gifted to him Chouban yiwu shimo『 籌 辦 夷 務 始 末 』, which is published documents about China foreign policy. After that, he changed his attitude and approachto China. Before it, his scope was an outsider of China, same as H. B. Morse. Afterhe started reading the Chinese materials, he found it was so interesting for him toconsider Chinese foreign policy from the scope inside China. How did China understand the world situation in the nineteenth century? How did Chinese officials decide
something on foreign affairs then? This is a different perspective from H. B. Morse’s
eyes. Fairbank got this insider’s eyes from Chouban yiwu shimo. As I said, Fairbank
and Banno are good academic friends and they shared the teaching style. Also, they(Banno, 1964)61

shared one point to observe the Chinese diplomacy in late Qing, the latter part of thenineteenth century: modernization of Chinese diplomacy in nineteenth century. Thisis the important shared topic between Banno and Fairbank. They talk on the confrontation between the traditional tribune system and the Western treaty system. Actually,both of them took importance of inside scope of China, rathar than Morse, but they
were still based on Western standard to argue China’s diplomary, relatively.
But I have to put a footnote. They proposed a simple framework which is theconfrontation between treaty system and tribute system and, argued Chinese diplomacy from Western eyes, relatively. However, both professors pointed out a seriesof details and China’s characteristics. So, they deliberately used this “simple” framework. Anyway, they proposed the simple confrontation between Western and Eastern, between traditional and modern.

The Tribute System
The Chinese diplomatic history as a discipline in Todai, I’ll talk on the discussion of
the tribute system (sakuho taisei ron 冊封体制論 ), which was proposed by Nishijima Sadao 西嶋定生 , a professor of ancient oriental history in the Faculty of Literature, Todai.
His specialization was history of ancient China, Han Dynasty. He published anarticle about the East Asia from six to eight century「六─八世紀の東アジア」in
1962. His article was published in a lecture series of Iwanami Publisher, Iwanami

Cover Page of Iwanami Koza

62

koza 岩 波 講 座 , about the Japanese history. Prof. Nishijima probably intended tomake dialogue with Japanese history through this concept, history of “East Asia”.
Prof. Nishijima, the specialist of the Chinese ancient history, proposed this concept
to talk about the tribute system. What to make out was Japanese history, or maybe
history in general.
That’s so interesting, and his framework was so attractive because the Cold War
divided East Asia, at the Korean Peninsula, and the two Chinas. Prof. Nishijima’s
work had a big impact to think history of whole of East Asia, beyond the camps ofCold War, East and the West.
After the Nishijima’s discussion, Professor Saeki Yuichi 佐伯有一 , who wasalso a professor of the Institute of Oriental Culture (Tobunken) in Todai and Professor Sasaki Yo 佐々木揚 who was a student of the Department of oriental history
in Faculty of Literature in the 1980s and the 1990s. Prof. Sasaki researched tribute
relations too, and published many articles at the journals of Saga University. Sasaki
Yo also has started his research on Chinese diplomatic history about the Chinese envoys, Chinese ministers to foreign countries in the late Qing like Guo Song-dao 郭嵩燾 and he introduced Mark Mancall and his book, China the Center: 300 Years ofForeign Policy, to the Japanese academic society.
Prof. Ueda and Prof. Banno are educated at the Faculty of Law who researched
Chinese history, and played an important role to advance the research on Chinese
foreign policy and Chinese diplomatic history as a discipline in Todai.

The Golden Age of Marxist History (1)The 1960s and the 1970s were the golden age of the Marxist history in Japanese academic society. We have to consider about this background.
First of all, I introduce the academic trend of Chinese diplomantic history
in China. As I said, before World War II, Tsiang Ting-fu, Kuo Ting-yee, Wang
Xinzhong, and others advanced the Chinese diplomatic history in China, based on63Chouban yiwu shimo and other materials. Wang Yunsheng published his book China
and Japan in the 60 years based on other materials. But this trend was declined after
1949 when the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded by Mao Zedong 毛
沢東 and Zhou Enlai 周恩来 , or Chinese Communist Party. In the PRC, new diplomatic history was founded under the Marxist context. The “substantial” Chinese diplomatic history based on the historical evidence is declined, and the new history was
emerged and strengthened the importance of the class struggle, people’s resistance tothe imperialism, and the context of the “Western aggression and the resistance”. So,
it is easy for us to find a series of books like these: Western imperialism and aggression to China, history of the Western countries’ aggression, imperial Russia’s aggression to China, and so on. These are published after 1949. It’s a new trend.
However, some scholars like Zhang Zhenkun 張振鵾 , who is also famous
scholar at the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 中
国社会科学院近代史研究所 , kept the “substantial” academic trend of Minkuo era
before World War II, led by Tsiang Ting-fu and Kuo Ting-yee.

The Golden Age of Marxist History (2)How about in Taiwan, ROC after 1949?
The golden age of Marxism history was emerged in Japan and the PRC China,almost in the 1950s-1960s. In Taiwan, however, the situation was different. ROC
was the anti-communist state so that Marxism was strictly prohibited. And KMT(Kuomintang)’s revolutionary history was the mainstream in Taiwan then. However,Nankang school 南港学派 of Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica in Taipei, led by Kuo Ting-yee kept some distance from KMT’s revolutionary history. Kuo
was a good friend with Tsiang Ting-fu. Kuo Ting-yee went to Taiwan with ChiangKai-shek 蔣介石 and KMT. Kuo Ting-yee was the top of the Institution of Modern
History, Academia Sinica. He advanced a new trend of research on modern history
in Taipei, and he got much financial support from Ford Foundation. Their works are64basically non-political. KMT has its own revolution history and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) had its own revolution history. So, there are two kinds of revolution
history then. However, Nankang school did not belong to revolutionary history in
two China’s.
Nankang is the name of the location of Academia Sinica. Everybody calleda Scholar’s group under Kuo Ting-yee Nankang school. Their works are basically
non-political and very substantial. There are some points apart from the KMT’s revolution history, and they are based on the historical evidence. They published seriesof books about Chinese foreign policy and diplomacy. And they also published avolume of diplomatic materials, because Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica had a huge amount of the Chinese diplomatic original archive. So they use andinterpreted a volume of the archive to publish the printed materials.
This institution got a huge amount of funds by Ford foundation under the initiative of Professor Fairbank. Fairbank was the key person that Ford Foundation
provided much fund to Academia Sinica to advance the new trend of research like
“Chinese Modernization”.

The Golden Age of Marxist History (3)As I said, Prof. Banno and Fairbank shared the interest on the modernization of theChinese diplomacy in nineteenth century. Fairbank and other scholars in the USA
pushed the topic of the Chinese modernization to Academia Sinica, and its Instituteof Modern History published so many books about the modernization on each province in China. So, modernization was a key topic for the USA at the time and USA
makes scholars in Japan, Taiwan, and other allies’ advance the research modernization of China.
On an academic study, so-called modernization theory also had a specific role
to support the camp of USA side under the Cold War, I think.
How about in Japan? Prof. Banno liked this theory as a discipline. However,65Prof. Banno faced so many problems in Japan, at that time.
Banno had strong ties with Kuo Ting-yee in Taiwan. After the 1980s, he went
to Taiwan to see the original diplomatic archive. However, he did not get the chance
to write the articles and some papers, based on the Chinese original materials in
the 1980s. Our generation started using Chinese original materials with diplomaticarchive at Taipei after the 1990s. And I have to point out that in Japan, it was a golden age of Marxist history in academic studies in the 1950s-1960s, Banno was also
criticized strongly by some scholars because he was a non-political, non-politicizedscholar, so his articles and books did not have any Marxism flavor: There is no classstruggle. So, some scholars criticize him that Banno’s works did not have any Marxism flavor. Most of “Marxism” scholars cannot understand what he did.
Actually, he was not influenced by such criticism basically. But his analysis on
Chinese diplomacy of Beiyang government was positive in the 1950s, but it changed
to be negative in his book published in the 1970s.
And he changed his academic style in the 1980s. This was pointed out by Prof.
Sasaki Yo in 1986, at his book review on Banno’s book, Chinese modernization and
Ma Jianzhong『中国近代化と馬建忠』. Ma Jianzhong was a famous private advisor of Li Hongzhang 李鴻章 and played the important role on concluding the treaty
between Korea and the USA in 1882. In this book published in 1985, Prof. Banno
showed his new style. He abandoned using Western modernization theory as a mirror to consider China, but he adopted a new style to dig into the inner context of Ma
Jianzhong himself and further a deep context in China itself. So, he abandoned themirror to check the China from outside. He entered China itself. He changed his way.
Prof. Sasaki expressed how he was surprised by Banno’s change of style to approach
China.

Drastic Change of the Research of Chinese History
After the Tiananmen incident and the end of Cold War in 1989, the style of Chinese66

history was drastically changed. Maybe Prof. Banno felt such atmosphere in 1985,
before most scholars changed their way of research on Chinese history after 1989.
In the 1980s, modernization theory and the inner context was a new trend instead of the revolution histories. In the 1980s, Prof. Banno, who worked at Facultyof Law, used the modernization theory to see China. However, department of mostscholars in oriental history, Faculty of Literature researched based on the revolution
history, or Marxist framework to write papers on Chinese history. The Tiananmen
Square incident and the end of Cold War advanced a new academic trend. And in the
1980s, new materials are opened and published, for example, it is also new trend.
Japanese diplomatic archives that were opened in the 1970s provided a lot of facts
about Chinese modern history including its diplomatic history. For example, Japanese diplomatic archive provides the details about Sun Yat-sen’ 孫逸仙 s activities
in Japan. The Japanese archive shows us many evidences on negotiation between
Japan and China. Most of the scholars uses the printed materials edited by the KMTand CCP to study the Chinese history. After 1970s, they could use the Japanese archives to write much more details about Chinese history, especially Chinese foreign
policy.
However, Japanese archives are the secondary materials for Chinese history because the Japanese archives provides only Japanese observation and information on
China.
Volumes of printed documents of Academia Sinica also had large impact because it based on the original materials for Chinese history.
Why did Academia Sinica have the original Chinese archives? When ChiangKai-shek 蔣介石 went to Taiwan, he took most of the diplomatic archive to Taiwan. Until now, the documents of the Nanking Treaty in 1842, or the documentof the Shimonoseki Treaty (Maguan tiaoyue in Chinese) and other important, andoriginal documents of Chinese diplomacy are in Taipei. The PRC government does
not have original documents of main treaties in the Qing and Minkuo eras. Actually,67

the first and second historical archives in Nanjing and Beijing have some documents
about Chinese diplomatic history. However, important documents are basically in
Taipei. So, Academia Sinica got the materials from the foreign office of ROC to publish the materials. Scholars in the world could use the printed materials by Academia
Sinica in the 1980s to research the Chinese modern history.
However, scholars in Japan hesitated to use the materials that Taiwan’s Academia Sinica got published in the 1980s. Why? As I said, Prof. Banno went to Taiwan in 1980s is to see original materials, but most scholars at Faculty of Literature
hesitated to use them. Marxism history influenced on the most of historians of modern Chinise history. For their point of view, Taiwan, Chiang Kai-shek’s government
was opposite to the CCP that most of them had some sympathy. So, most of them
hesitated to use the materials from Taiwan, even though we cannot imagine such asituation at present.

Chinese Diplomatic Archives
After the 1990s, a new situation has emerged. In the 1980s, Chinese diplomatic archives, it’s original one, were open to the public and the scholars in Taipei. After the
1990s, scholars in the world started visiting Taiwan to see these original documents.
It was the first time for me to stay there to see the materials in 1992, when I was amaster course student, the first grade. I was so astonished to see the original diplomatic archives in the Qing dynasty and Minguo era.
Why was I surprised so much?
Because we had seen the printed materials, edited by the KMT or CCP to research diplomatic history. Especially the level of the details, is different between theoriginal and printed, and also the volumes of history materials of the KMT and CCP
were edited politically to support their historical narratives of the revolution history,
however, archives are basically not edited under the context of revolutional history.
Why did the ROC government agree on opening such documents? Opening the68archives to the public by the ROC was linked with the democratization of Taiwan.
Taiwan’s democratization basically started in the late 1980s. Under Taiwan’s democratization, the KMT government, or Lee Teng-hui 李登輝 administration decided toopen the archives of the period of mainland China (before 1949). The democratization of Taiwan advanced the opening the archives to the public.
Japanese younger scholars went to Taiwan to collect them to advance new
Chinese history. An ideological sensitivity of Japanese historians, especially youger
historians, to Taiwan is also declined in the late 1990s. So many scholars of Japanesescholars, including Todai professors and master and doctoral students, went to Taiwan to collect materials to write papers. The situation was drastically changed.
In 1990s, Chinese historical archives in the Beijing and Nanjing first and second historical archives were opened to the scholars with some extents. The Beijing
one is the first historical archives that is located in the old palace. The second historical archives in Nanjing also opened to the public. In 1990s, we can use both Taipei
and Beijing, Taipei and Nanjing.

New Trends of Chinese Diplomatic History since 1990s
Prof. Banno died in 1986. After his dead, no successors came to the post of Todai.
At Faculty of Law, nobody could succeed to Banno’s post of the Chinese diplomatic
history, so I studied in oriental history, Faculty of Literature in 1990s. My supervisor
was Professor Hamashita Takeshi 濱下武志 , who was a professor at Tobunken.

Hamashita Takeshi (1943-)

69

In 1990s, the many scholars of Chinese diplomatic history started using theoriginal materials. However, in the 1980s and 90s, the trend of history was changed
drastically and to criticize the nationalistic, the nation-based history, and also the
diplomatic history was criticized as the symbol of the nation-based, nationalistic history.
I can understand such a trend, but most of the facts of the Japanese diplomatic
history, or diplomacy, are clear, based on the diplomatic archives. Western countries,
like Britain and the USA opened huge number of materials for a long time and scholars use the first materials to write many papers on diplomatic history. Fact findings
have basically ended in Japanese diplomatic history and the diplomatic history ofWestern countries. However, in the field of the Chinese diplomatic history, we hadjust started using first materials, even the archives, to write the papers. We know thenationalistic and nation-based history, including diplomatic history, was criticized.
However, the situation was different between the Chinese diplomatic history and the
diplomatic histories of the other advanced countries.
And in the 1990s and the twenty-first century, a new trend of Chinese diplomatic history also emerged under the new trend of the history itself in the Westerncountry and Japan. For example, Professor Hamashita in Tobunken criticized theframework of the tribute system, led by Prof. Nishijima and others. Prof. Hamashita
combines the history of economy with the tribute relations. Also, Professor Hamashita proposed the regional economic and trade network in East Asia. So he rewrite thetribute relations from the economic eyes.
And, some scholars digs much more deeply in a context of the modern Chinese
intellectuals and diplomats, like Prof. Sato Shin’ichi 佐藤慎一 , who was a vice president of Todai. He also published the book about Chinese intellectual history in thenineteenth century.
Fact finding of Chinese diplomatic history was also advanced. A politicized
revolution history is criticized so strongly. So many new trends were emerged about
Chinese history of the late twentieth and twenty-first century in Todai.
70Recent Trends
And I talk on the recent trends. Firstly, after opening diplomatic archives about China in the late 1980s and the 1990s, we could use other kinds of new materials. Actually, we are much busier to check the materials.
For example, Chiang Kai-shek diary in Hoover Institute, Stanford University is
so important. We cannot copy them. We have to write it down. It takes many, manytimes to collect this material. And also, we can see the T. V. Soong 宋子文 ’s materials at Hoover institute, and we can see the materials of C. T. Wang 王正廷 in Columbia University, and so on. We can combine the Chinese diplomatic archives andother private documents to write papers.
Taiwan government opened much more archives after the 1950s until the 1970sor the 1980s in Taipei. And the Beijing government opened the diplomatic archives,
from 1949 to 1964. Ten years ago, however, China stopped opening them. Recently
China’s diplomatic archives opened up a little bit again, with a strong limitation.
The second is a multi-archival approach. We have to see the archives of many
countries as well as Japan, Britain, the USA, and others.
Thirdly, some scholars dig much more deeply in Chinese intellectuals anddiplomats, so they illustrate the Chinese context so strongly. They strengthen the
Chinese way and Chinese style. Those trend is sometimes sympathetic with China’s
guoxue 国学 .
As I said, the diplomatic history has been criticized so strongly. However,somebody strengthened the importance of diplomatic history. They wrote the papers
on the “diplomacy and what”. for example, diplomacy and the public opinion.
Next, I talk about the PRC. Recently, the fields of social history and economic
history strengthened the continuity before and after 1949. However, actually it is a
bit difficult for historians on Chinese diplomatic history to talk about a continuity of
diplomacy before and after 1949. As you know, diplomacy links with nation-state.
So the ROC’s diplomacy is different from the PRC’s diplomacy. However, some dip71

lomats and some policies are similar before and after 1949.
The Cold War is the main target of the historians, recently. So like Wilson Center in Washington DC and East China Normal University 華東師範大学 in Shanghai, advanced Cold War history in East Asia. Professor Shen Zhihua 沈志華 leads
the project in Shanghai. PRC diplomatic history is linked with the new Cold War
projects in the world. Although the Chinese diplomatic history has so many difficulties, but we can find so many possibilities to achieve something for the future.
If you are interested in Chinese diplomatic history as an academic discipline,
you can join the lectures and seminars of me and other scholars in Todai, like Prof.
Matsuda Yasuhiro 松田康博 in Tobunken, Prof. Hirano Satoshi 平野聡 in the Faculty of Law, and Prof. Yoshizawa Seiichiro 吉澤誠一郎 in the Faculty of Literature.
Prof. Yoshizawa’s books and articles have so many interesting points, concerning the
Chinese nationalism, patriotism and diplomatic history. Prof. Shiroyama Tomoko 城
山智子 is in the Faculty of Economics. Her book about the Shanghai concession is
excellent. It explores about the history of the negotiation between Western countries
and China in Shanghai. And Prof. Watanabe Miki 渡辺美季 teaches Ryukyu’s history.
I strengthen that historical materials changed the academic trends at this lecture. The publication of Chouban yiwu shimo opened this academic field. Secondly,
the trend of academic circle is also important. Thirdly, the demand of society andgovernment is also important. Fourthly, I can point out the importance of inter-discipline, inter-faculty and the global networks like Prof. Banno and Fairbank.

Todai School?
Finally, I have to point out some originality of Todai’s academic atmosphere. Prof.
Hamashita proposed a new scope on combination between the economy and the politics to consider the tribute system. Prof. Nishijima pointed out the East Asia as theregional unit of the history. Todai’s professors have strong networks with other disciplines and the world. Additionally, former scholars provide us a series of originality72

in the field of Chinese diplomatic history. And Todai’s diversity is so important tokeep academic resilience. About Chinese history, Todai had some different trend in
it. Prof. Banno’s scope was different from some professors in faculty of literature.
Although Banno was criticized before 1980s, his style became more attractive toyounger scholars after the 1990s.
I’ll stop my lecture here. Welcome your questions or comments.
October 29, 2020

73

6

The Research on TaiwanJapan Relations at UTokyo―― 黄 偉修（東京大学東洋文化研究所・助教）

Wei-Hsiu Hwang (Assistant Professor, the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, UTokyo)

I am grateful to Professor Sonoda and Professor Zhong Yijiang for giving me thischance to have this talk. I came to Japan about 18 years ago, so Japanese seems to be
my first language, not Chinese. This is the first time for me to make a long lecture in
English.
The topic which Professor Sonoda and Professor Zhong gave me is the research
about the Taiwan-Japan relations at the University of Tokyo. I would like to explain
about the situation of research about Taiwan-Japan relations in Japan before entering
the main subject.

Current Situation of Studies on Taiwan-Japan Relations in JapanYou might be surprised to know that there is no specialized field called Taiwan-Japan
relations in the academic work not only in Japan but also in other part of the world.
When Taiwan-Japan relations are discussed, they are regarded as a part of modern
Chinese history, Chinese politics, Chinese foreign policies, Taiwan history, Taiwan
politics, Sino-Japan relations, cross-Strait relations, US-China relations, Sino-American relations, or modern Japanese history.
Let me give you a case. Because Taiwan was Japanese colony from 1895 to1945, if you want to research about the subject or relationship about the Japan andTaiwan from this period, your research will be classified into the modern Japanese
history, especially the history of the Japanese colonial empire. And if you want toresearch about the subject between the Japan and Taiwan before 1895, your research
will be classified into the modern Chinese history or modern Japanese history. More74

over, if this study involved Taiwan indigenous, your research also might be classified
into anthropology.

The Case of Taiwan Expedition in 1874
Let me give you one more case. And maybe everyone knows this and Taiwan expedition in 1874 and by Japanese it is called Taiwan Shuppei 台湾出兵 , but in Chinese, it is called Mudanshe shijian 牡丹社事件 . And this is the expedition launchedby the Japanese in retaliation for the murder of Ryukyuan sailors by Taiwan aborigines near southwestern tip of Taiwan in 1871. We are studying this subject from different approaches. Some studies are based on Japanese history, and others are basedon Chinese history. However, some researchers are focusing on the culture of Taiwan
indigenous in this subject. And some researchers are focusing on the political struggle between Okubo Toshimichi 大久保利通 and Saigo Takamori 西郷隆盛 by thedomestic politics to emphasize this subject. Some researchers are focusing to emphasize how Western international law influenced East Asia. And I will cite this case to
explain the situation about the research for Taiwan-Japan relations in Japan. It seems
to me that the situation about the research for the Taiwan-Japan relations is deeply
related to the international relations surrounding Taiwan. Of course, considering Taiwan as an actor in political science and international relations or international politics, but in the political science, international relations and the international politics
actor to be studied means the country used but Taiwan has never been recognized asa country until 1895.
Taiwan was a part of Qing dynasty, but Qing dynasty said that Taiwan was aunited land outside of imperial influence in the Taiwan expedition in Japan. That’s
why Taiwan was called 化外の地 in Japanese or 化外之地 in Chinese. And we also
have already known the historical evidence that the Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to
Japan in 1895 at the end of the first Sino-Japan war and Taiwan became the colony
of Japan since 1945. But China and the force of KMT from the Chiang Kai-shek
75蔣介石 generation asserted that Japan had stolen Taiwan from China.
In Taiwan and mainland China, the researchers and politicians with this historical view also looked at Japan and the Taiwan relations from 1870s to 1945 by
the approach of modern Chinese history. Sometimes they assert that Japan tried to
invade China using Taiwan as a foothold from this historical view, and also asserted
that Japan intended to challenge Chinese hegemony from the Meiji restoration. Even
in Japan, some researchers from China also used this kind of historical view to study
Japan and Taiwan relations or Sino-Japan relations. This kind of political and historical view also makes the terminology in this research complicating as Professor
Matsuda explained last week.

Taiwan under one-China Principle
Maybe you call Taiwan Republic of China or Taiwan or Formosa, or the Separate
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Mazu. And earlier I used theword by English, which is called cross-Strait relations. But the specialists who havenot studied about China maybe do not understand what is the cross-Strait relations.
I had told the greatest researcher in the world history field about my specialties.
And I also had told it to an English teacher at a senior high school in Japan. And
the greatest researcher in the world history field is French. He can speak six foreign
languages. The English teacher is American. But they also asked me “What is the
cross-Strait relations?”. When I told them the cross-strait relations means China andTaiwan relations, they understand it soon.
In Japanese international politics academia, Taiwan is the actor, but not regarded
as a country because of a one China principle. Thus, some researchers often studied
Taiwan-Japan relations as belonging to Sino-Japan relations. For example, Prof. Fukuda Madoka 福田円 , professor at Hosei University, is a specialist on the “one China
principle.” She has analyzed how one China principle had been established from 1916
to 1970s in her book Chinese Diplomacy and Taiwan『中国外交と台湾』. Prof. In76

oue Masaya 井上正也 is now a professor of political history at Seikei University who
is also a specialist about the history of normalization of relations between Japan and
China and published a book titled Political History of Normalization of Sino-Japan
Relations『日中国交正常化の政治史』. They analyzed Taiwan-Japan relations withregard to “one China” policy in their books, but their researches are usually classified to Sino-Japan relations, or Chinese history or Japanese history. And in Japanese
academia, researchers also study Taiwan-Japan relations in fields not directly related
to China. For example, there are many studies about the Taiwan-Japan relations ineconomics, literature, and colonial history. Another characteristic of Japan and Taiwan
relations in Japan is that there are many studies about the Japanese colonial empire.

(Fukuda, 2013)(Inoue, 2010)

Naturally, the Taiwan-Japan relations dealt with this field is the relations between suzerain and colony. Maybe someone thinks that is this kind of researchshould not be put into the field of Japan and Taiwan relations. However, history is acontinuous process and has never been interrupted. The evidence of Japan’s colonial
area has had the subsequent impact on Taiwan. I will mention in more detail later
when introducing the Taiwan-Japan relations at our university. And if you listen to
my talk later, it seems to me that you will understand it. In other words, the image
and the contents about Taiwan related to relations with Chinese, politics, culture,
history, and international relations in Asia, the situation surrounding Taiwan is socomplicated. Japan has also been evolved in it since the 19th century, and researchers analyzed Japan and Taiwan relations, not only by their research fields, but also77

by their recognition about Taiwan from politics, culture, history. Therefore, although
there is no specializing field called the Taiwan-Japan relations in Japanese academia,
we can fight the research about Japan and Taiwan relations from different historicalviews, approach, and fields regardless of the time. And then how does this tendency
affect the research on Taiwan-Japan relations at our university, or how does our university’s researches on Taiwan-Japan relations influence this trend? I will explain it
next, but I would like everyone to think about a question.
Do you know how many professors at our university research Japan and Taiwan relations, or how many professors at our university research the project about
Taiwan-Japan? It seems to me that everyone will call to mind Professor Sonoda,
Professor Matsuda, Professor Kawashima and Professor Takahara. If you check theircareers, you will know that their main specialty is not Taiwan-Japan relations. For
example, Professor Takahara researches on Chinese politics. Professor Kawashima
researches on Chinese history. Professor Sonoda researches Chinese Sociology. And
Professor Matsuda researches Taiwan politics and history.

Composition of Ph.D. Dissertation on Taiwan in UTokyo
I will show you the data and this is the sum of the doctoral dissertation of our University on Japan and Taiwan relations. But I must inform you in advance that thisinformation is not official because I use the database about the doctoral dissertationof our university to organize it.
First, I used the keywords with Japan and Taiwan relations, Taiwan, Japan, Republic of China, nationalist government and China in Japanese and English to gather
the data. Second, I checked the content for all the doctoral dissertations by these
keywords. Third, I deleted the doctoral dissertation, which we are unrelated to Japanand Taiwan relations.
But I should explain you the word “nationalist government”. Nationalist government is an English word. In Japanese, we call it Kokuminseifu 国民政府 , Kokufu
78国府 . In modern Chinese history, nationalist Government of Republic of China was
the government from 1925 to 1948. The Government of Republic of China replaced
it after promulgating the Constitution of the Republic of China of 1948. However, Japanese continued to call the Kuomintang administration or the Chiang Kaishek administration Kokufu after 1948. Of course, it was a mistake. And from thenormalization of Japan-China diplomatic relations, all researchers used Kokufu to
Kuomintang administration or Chiang Kai-shek administration because they want toavoid trouble about the One China by calling it the Republic of China. It has become
the convention in Japanese academia. So, if you read some books and papers aboutmodern Taiwan politics, Taiwan history, and cross-Strait relations, you will find theauthors use Kokufu to call Kuomintang administration, Chiang Kai-shek administration and Chiang Ching-kuo administration. And since the Lee Teng-hui administration, all researchers have been calling Taiwan.

Difficulty in Using Ph.D. Database of UTokyo
However, this work is very difficult. The difficulty with this work is that the databaseby our university is not easy to use. I am not sure whether I could find all the doctoral dissertations about Taiwan-Japan relations at the University of Tokyo. Especially,
I am also not sure whether just reading abstract can determine whether the study isrelated to Japan and Taiwan relations. I also cannot understand the research about
the engineering and the economics. And there are some mistakes in the old data, andI am not sure that I have found all mistakes in that database. Here, I also show you
two cases.
The first case is about Professor Masahiro Wakabayashi 若林正丈 . Professor
Matsuda had already introduced Professor Wakabayashi’s research last week. I will
also introduce his research on Taiwan-Japan relations later. But I will tell you an interesting thing. If you type Masahiro Wakabayashi in Japanese to the doctoral dissertation database of our university, you cannot find any information about his doctoral79dissertation. But if you type Masahiro Wakabayashi in Japanese to the online publicaccess catalog at our library, you can find his doctoral dissertation and his book withthe same title. What is the cause? The cause is that in the doctoral dissertation database of our university, his name is typed Wakabayashi Masafumi 若林正文 , not
Wakabayashi Masahiro.

Wakabayashi Masahiro (1949-)

The second case is about Dr. Hang Xu 許珩 . She is now an assistant professor
at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. She studied at the Department of Advanced Socialand International Studies, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the Universityof Tokyo and received her Ph.D. in 2018. Her supervisor was Professor Kawashima
Shin, and her dissertation was about Taiwan-Japan relations after the war. She hadalready published her dissertation as a book titled Economic Diplomacy and Postwar
Taiwan-Japan Relations, 1950-1978『戦後日華経済外交史

1950-1978』.

(Xu, 2019)

However, when I used the keyword with Taiwan-Japan relations, Taiwan-Japan,
Republic of China, Nationalist Government or China in Japanese, I cannot find her
80dissertation in the database, but if I type her name in the database, I can find her data.
I cannot understand what happened in the database in our university, but it seems tome that this data can help us to understand trend of the doctoral dissertations on Taiwan-Japan relations at our university.

Decentralized Nature of Taiwan studies at UTokyo
I found 64 dissertations in total, and some of these dissertations are not necessarilyon Taiwan-Japan relations, but they all focus on Taiwan-Japan relations. There are 6
dissertations on agriculture and architecture. These dissertations analyze agriculture,urban construction and architecture in Taiwan-Japan relations. There are 25 dissertations about Taiwan-Japan relations in the history of the Empire of Japan. 8 dissertations are on literature, 4 dissertations are analyzing Taiwan under Japanese rulein order to analyze the cross-Strait relations and modern Taiwan in the post-war. 12
dissertations are about international relation in the post-war. 2 doctoral dissertations
are about international history in the 19th century. 7 doctoral dissertations are about
economics. And we can say that the research trend of the Taiwan-Japan relations at
our university is near the trend in Japanese academia.
And here I will introduce the research about Professor Masahiro Wakabayashi
again. Professor Sonoda said that he is the pioneer for the Taiwan research in Japanand Professor Matsuda also introduced his research last week. Maybe his dissertation is the most exceptional of all dissertations about Taiwan-Japan relations at ouruniversity. Because when he entered the doctoral program, there was no professor
specializing in Taiwan studies at our university. His supervisor was Uehara Tadamichi 上原淳道 , but Professor Uehara’s specialty was ancient Chinese history. Professor
Wakabayashi received his Ph.D. from our university in 1985. Before his receiving Ph.D., he published his first book which is titled Historical Study of the AntiJapanese movement in Formosa『台湾抗日運動史研究』in 1983. And Professor
Wakabayashi studied not only about Taiwan on the Japanese group, but also how
81the history influenced contemporary Taiwan politics. And he also analyzed the Taiwan-Japan relations from the international relations about 1972 systems about the
One China in the Republic of China and the politics of Taiwanization『台湾の政治』.

（Wakabayashi, 2001: Revised Version）(Wakabayashi, 2008: First Print)

Profs. Wakabayashi and Fujii
When Professor Wakabayashi can do the supervisor’s advice and examine the dissertation, maybe he became the first specialist about Taiwan to examine doctoral dissertation at our university. And Professor Fujii Shozo 藤井省三 , who is the specialist
about Chinese and Taiwanese literature, had moved from Ohbirin (J. F. Oberlin)
University to the Faculty of Letters of our university since 1988.

Fujii Shozo (1952-)

Professor Wakabayashi and Professor Fujii accepted the specialist about Taiwan
to join the dissertation committee to examine their students. So the committee thatexamines this dissertation on Japan and Taiwan relations, began to involve specialist
about Taiwan since 1990’s in our university. When Professor Kawashima and Matsu82

da have moved to our university since 2000’s, they also accept the specialists about
Taiwan from other universities to examine the dissertation by their students. So, ofcourse, Professor Wakabayashi and Fujii accepted Professor Kawashima or Matsuda
to examine the dissertation by their students too.

Dissertation Committee Members
Here, I want to introduce another trend that specialist about Taiwan joining the dissertation committee at our university.
In the engineering, international history in the 19th century, agriculture and theeconomic dissertations are not examined by any specialists about Taiwan. And there
are 12 doctoral dissertations in the international relations in the post war. But if you
check the membership of the dissertation committee, there are only two dissertations
that specialists about Taiwan joined the committee. But sometimes Professor Akihiko Tanaka 田中明彦 who is a specialist about the IR theories and international politics in East Asia, Tanigaki Mariko 谷垣真理子 , a specialist about the Hong Kongstudies and the south China studies, and Ishii Akira 石井明 , who is a specialist about
the Sino-Soviet relations joined the committee.
There are 7 dissertations in economics and some dissertations are about Asian
economics. But no specialist about Taiwan joined the committee to examine thesedissertations because these dissertations are about theoretical studies and the specialists in the Economic theory joined the dissertation committee to examine these.
There are 4 dissertations which analyzed Taiwan under Japanese rule in order toanalyze the cross-strait relations and modern Taiwan in the post war. Inside that, thedissertation submitted to the Faculty of Engineering is not examined by any specialist about Taiwan. There are 25 dissertations that specialists about Taiwan joined thecommittee and Professor Wakabayashi advised or examined then 15 of these. Whatabout the other dissertations?
Earlier I showed 24 dissertations on the Taiwan-Japan relations in the history of83

Emperor of Japan and 8 doctoral dissertations in literature of Japan. Among the 24
dissertations on the Taiwan-Japan relations in the history of Empire of Japan, there
are 12 dissertations examined not by any specialists about Taiwan, but many specialists about the modern Japanese history joint committees. Of course, this is including
Professor Wakabayashi’s dissertation.
Main focus on these 11 dissertations is not the relationship between Japan andTaiwan and some dissertations dealt with other specialized fields. For example, Dr.
Minato Teruhiro 湊照宏 , professor at Rikkyo University, focused on the electric powerindustry about Taiwan under Japanese rule. There were no specialists about Taiwan
in his dissertation committee, but Professor Kikkawa Takeo 橘川武郎 , a specialist
in the history of the Japanese energy industry, joined his dissertation committee.

(Minato, 2011)

Professor Matsuda joined 1 dissertation committee in Faculty of Letters. Among
8 doctoral dissertations in Faculty of Letters, Professor Fujii joined 6 dissertations.
In the 2 dissertations which Professor Fujii was not a member in the committee,
professor Wakabayashi examined one and Tarumi Chie 垂水千恵 , professor at Yokohama National University, examined the other one. And Professor Tarumi is themember of all dissertation committees that Professor Fujii was the supervisor.

Some Traits of Researches on Taiwan-Japan Relation at UTokyo
Now, let’s have a look at some traits of researches on Taiwan-Japan relations in the84dissertations.
First, the research trend on the Taiwan-Japan relations, our university is near thetrend in Japanese academia. And second, the research on the Taiwan-Japan relationsat our university has not been developed by the establishment of specialized field
called the Taiwan-Japan relations.
It has gradually developed through discussions by young Ph.D. students whoare interested in Taiwan-Japan relations and specialized in the same or similar fields.
In addition, specialists about Taiwan at our university or outside our university havebeen added to this process from 1990’s. For example, Professor Sonoda is a specialist in Chinese sociology, but he has already researched on Sino-Japan relations andorganized many research projects about Asia including Taiwan. Professor Kawashima Shin started his research from the modern Chinese diplomacy. Since he researches the history of Japan, China in 20th century, he has also advanced to research
on Japan and Taiwan relations. Professor Takahara is the specialist about Chinesepolitical economy. Since he has researched Sino-Japan relations related to Chinesepolitical economy, he has also advanced to research on Taiwan-Japan relations about
security.
However, Professor Matsuda, Professor Urara Shimizu, who has moved to Reitaku University, and I are the exception. Professor Sonoda, Kawashima, Takahara,
Fujii, and Wakabayashi have graduated from our university. But Professor Matsuda,
Shimizu, and I have not graduated from the University of Tokyo, and before we
moved to the University of Tokyo, we have already started to study on Taiwan-Japan
relations.

On Publication of Taiwan-Japan Relations
We are from outside and have been added to the processes that our university conducts the research about the Taiwan-Japan relations. And the research results that
Professor Matsuda, Shimizu and I have added the process at our universities in this85

book, History of Japan and Taiwan relations『日台関係史』. The first edition was
published in March 2009 and Professor Matsuda moved to our university in April
2008. Professor Shimizu and I moved to our university in the 2010’s. Professor
Matsuda and Shimizu wrote 9th chapter and 10th chapter in the book. The revised
edition was published in October 2020, and I was in charge of translation. Chinese
edition was published in March 2021 and the major contents are on high politics anddiplomacy, but this is the first book in Japan that analyzed the post-war history of
Taiwan-Japan relations.

(Kawashima, et. al, 2009) (2020: Revised Version)(2021: Translation)

Lastly, I would like to introduce this book, which is titled Japan-China relations
1945-1990『日中関係 1945-1990』.

(Tanaka, 1991)

Professor Akihiko Tanaka is not the specialist about Taiwan politics, but he is
the most famous Japanese specialist about the international relations in the world. In
this book, the contents up to the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japanand China is also analyzed the relations between Japan and Chiang Kai-shek administration. Professor Matsuda and Professor Philip Yang 楊永明 wanted to write a86

similar book about Taiwan-Japan relations, so they organized a team to write Historyof Japan and Taiwan relations .

Conclusion
Finally, I would like to foresee the future based on today’s speech.
Firstly, because it is difficult to organize the data, I have not talked about thevisiting researchers and master’s students who study or had studied the Taiwan-Japan
relations at our university. But they also contribute to the research of Taiwan-Japan
relations at our university. So, it seems to me that if the administrative office of ouruniversity organizes the data, we can understand the whole picture of the research
about Japan and Taiwan relations at our university.
Secondly, because the cross-Strait relations have become worse, the Taiwan-Japan relations will be considered more important in the future. It seems to me that
more foreign researchers and international students will come to Japan to study it. So
the research about Taiwan-Japan relations in Japan will be further advanced under
the leadership of our university.
Thirdly, after Professor Wakabayashi and Fujii’s retirement, we need to see if
there will be fewer dissertations about the Taiwan-Japan relations in literature andTaiwan under Japanese rule.
Fourthly, we must see the progress of research in the economic field as well as
politics and diplomacy about Japan and Taiwan relations. Maybe you can ask Professor Momoko Kawakami about it in her class.
Thank you for listening to my poor English lecture.
October 21, 2021

87

7

UTokyo’s ROC / Taiwan
Studies on Diplomacy andInternational Relations―― 川島 真（東京大学大学院総合文化研究科・教授）

Shin Kawashima (Professor, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, UTokyo)

Today I will talk about UTokyo’s ROC (after 1949)/ Taiwan Studies, especiallyabout on diplomacy and international relations. My background is history, but myspecialization is Chinese diplomatic history and ROC’s diplomacy before and after
1945 or ’49. This is a little bit challenging presentation because it is so hard for me
to find the processes of development of ROC (after 1949)/ Taiwan Studies in UTokyo,
especially about IR and diplomacy. Actually, it’s a tough question who studied about
Taiwan diplomacy in UTokyo during these 150 years. And this guestion is relating a
big issue, how did UTokyo succeed and accept the imperial legacy after 1945?

Colonial Taiwan studies in Todai before 1945
Before the end of the war, there were some academic chars (or koza 講座 in Japanese)in UTokyo, relating with the colonial studies. For example, there was an academic
chair on colonial economy at Faculty of Economics and agricultural economy atFaculty of Agriculture, The chair of colonial economy was changed to that of world
economy after 1945. Department of Oriental History 東 洋 史 at Faculty of Letters
had a chair on history of East and West exchange, (or Tozai Koshoshi 東西交渉史 )in Japanese. Fujita Toyohachi 藤田豊八 was a professor there, who moved to Taipei
Imperial University. His students succeeded his post, like Enoki Kazuo 榎一雄 . He
is also a very famous scholar who succeeded Fujita’s scholarship. Ts’ao Yung-ho
曹永和 and some Taiwanese scholars were influenced by Fujita’s scholarship in
Taipei Imperial University as well. Thus, we can see some continuity of the style ofstudy from colonial studies.
88Researches on ROC Diplomacy before 1990s
However, Taiwan at the colonial period did any diplomacy? Taiwan colonial office(Taiwan Governor General Office), Taiwan Sotoku-fu 台 湾 総 督 府 could makediplomacy? No. So, the diplomacy is and was done by the central government. Colonial studies don’t have any diplomatic history or international relations basically.
Actually, colonial office made some Foreign Matters, includinge management offoreigners in the colony, however it’s not so called “diplomacy”. The colonial studies
are relating to the agricultural economy, development studies, and so on.
On the contrary, we can find some scholars made research about ROC diplomacy, ROC in China before 1949 when ROC moved to Taiwan, Ueda Toshio 植田捷雄 ,he graduated from the Faculty of Law and moved to Tobunken 東文研 . He studied
about the ROC diplomacy, ROC in China. He combined the diplomatic history andinternational law, and he studied about the concession zujie 租界 and leased territory zujiedi 租界地 . However, after the ROC central government moved to Taiwan in
1949, his interest was still in Mainland China, PRC. So, he did not do research about
the ROC diplomacy in Taipei. Actually, Ueda wrote some papers about the U.S.-PRC
relations on Taiwan issue, but it is not about ROC diplomacy itself.
Banno Masataka 坂野正高 is Ueda’s student, and was the founder and outstanding scholar of the modern Chinese diplomatic history. He had strong ties with John
King Fairbank of Harvard University and Kuo Ting-yee 郭廷以 , who was the director of the institute of modern history at Academia Sinica in Taipei. But his interestis also on the Zongliyamen 総理衙門 in late Qing, not Taiwan. So, he wrote somearticles about ROC’s diplomacy, but it’s about ROC in Mainland China before 1949.
Who studied about the diplomacy of ROC in Taipei at Todai? That’s a big problem.
But Eto Shinkijchi was exceptional. He was the professor of department of international relations at Komaba campus, and wrote a book titled Chukaminkoku wo meguru
Kokusai Kankei: 1949-65 (『中華民国を繞る国際関係 : 1949-65』, The International
Relations on ROC in 19490-1965), Ajia Seikei Gakkai(JAAS), 1967. This book was89just about ROC governments foreign policy after it moved to Taiwan in 1949. Eto
was born in Shenyang in 1923, but he had strong commitment with ROC government after 1949. Nakajima Mineo 中嶋嶺雄 was Eto’s student and he advanced academic and educational exchanges with Taiwan, as the president of Tokyo University
foreign studies.
And in 1950-70s, Todai accepted some excellent Taiwanese students who got
doctor degrees and published as books. Ng Chiau-tong 黄昭堂 studies at the department international relations in 1950-60s. His excellent book titled Taiwan Minshukoku no Kenkyu 『台湾民主国の研究』The
study on Taiwan Republic in 1895),(
Tokyo University Press, 1970 is still a milestone of Taiwan history. And Kho Se-khai
許世楷 studied at department of politics of Faculty of Law, and he published a booktitled Nihon Tochika no Taiwan 『( 日 本 統 治 下 の 台 湾 』Taiwan under Japanese
Rule), Tokyo University Press, 1972. Both were famous activists of Taiwan independent movement, and it is interesting that Todai was a “base” of the students of the
independent movement. Except for them, Tai Kuo-hui 戴國煇 was in the departmentof agricultural economy of Faculty of Agriculture, and Liu Jin-ching 劉進慶 and Tu
Jaw-yan 凃照彥 were in faculty of Economy (Their Romanized names are not clear).
Wakabayashi Masahiro 若林正丈 sensei was the founder of Taiwan Studies bothin UTokyo and Japan. Before Wakabayashi sensei, there were some Taiwan Studies
in UTokyo actually. I have to point out that, in the department of Japanese history,
Prof. Ito Takashi 伊藤隆 , he was a very famous scholar of Japanese modern history,
cultivated some scholars to study about colonial Taiwan, like Ito Kiyoshi 伊藤潔 ,his Chinese name is Liu Mingxiu or Ryu Meishu 劉明修 . He published a book about
Taiwan’s opium problem, and e published a book on Taiwan’s history titled Taiwan,
Yonhyakunen no Rekishi to Tenbo（『台湾─四百年の歴史と展望』Taiwan: Four
Hundreds History and Prospects）Chuko Shinsho in 1993. However, there was a
big problem; most of leftist Japanese scholars and students, on the main stream ofacademic field of “history” then were not interested in Taiwan studies.
90Intellectual Atmosphere on Taiwan before 1990s
This point is very important when we reflect on UTokyo’s Taiwan studie. From
1950s to the first half of 1990s, the basic atmosphere in the Faculty of Letters at
UTokyo were influenced by Marxists. Scholars and most students had a sympathy
with Moscow, Beijing or Yoyogi, but some of them were independent. There weremany small groups (sects) among Marxists. From their point of view, Taipei ROC
government or KMT was against Beijing, was against communist. They recognized
Chiang Kai-shek 蔣介石 , KMT , ROC, and Ziyou Zhongguo 自由中國 or free
China were just symbols of anti-communist.
However, some students studied Taiwanese history in Qing dynasty at the department of oriental history, but it was recognized as a part of Chinese history. AfterI entered the master course of the department of oriental history of UTokyo in 1992,
I went to Taiwan to research the diplomatic archives at the Academia Sinica andmade presentation on ROC diplomacy in 1910-20s. But I was criticized, because I
used materials in Taiwan. In 1992-1993, there was an atmosphere at the academic
field of Modern Chinese History, when I said I would do about the diplomatic history, that diplomatic history was recognized an anti-revolutionary topic and materials
in Taiwan weren’t correct and observe. They said to me that I have to study about
the history around the people, society and others. Diplomacy is not relating to thepeople? I don’t think so, but this was the atmosphere, then.

Drastic Change of Taiwan Image after 1990s
In these 30 years, the Japanese, including academic society, the image of Taiwan has
drastically changed. Before 1990s or mid-1980s, most of the scholars who studied
Chinese history did not go to Taiwan even though Taiwan opened the materials. But
after mid-1990s many scholars went to Taiwan to get materials. As you know, in
1980s, before 1989, more than 70% Japanese liked PRC, Beijing. This is the data atpresent, 90% Japanese have negative image about PRC. In 1980, 70% Japanese had
91

positive image. And also in 1970s and 80s, probably more than 60% or 70% Japanese had negative image about Taiwan. So, you have to be deliberate to see the discourses of books and articles of Chinese history in 1950s, 60s, 70s. There’s so many,
many differences on Japanese images of China between before and after 1980s.
As I said, before 1980s, there were some scholars and students in the masters/
doctorate course of faculty of literature did Taiwan history, and at department oforiental history, most of their theme were socio-economic history in Qing dynasty.
Because the colonial Taiwan, this field belonged to Japanese history, because Taiwan
was controlled by Japan. But the Taiwan as a part Qing dynasty, belonged to theoriental history. The department of politics, faculty of law, as I said, Ueda sensei,
Banno sensei researched a little bit about Taiwan. However, I can say the department
of international relations in Komaba campus was small base to study about Taiwan
ROC’s diplomacy and ROC’s international relations. Eto sensei’s works were therepresentative of Komaba’s Taiwan studies then.
At Keio University, Faculty of Law, Prof. Ishikawa Tadao 石川忠雄 , he published some articles about ROC’s diplomacy or KMT’s policies. Keio’s school were
not influenced by Maxist movement relatively, as well as department of international
relations at Todai, where Eto sensei taught.
Generally speaking, after 1945-49, there was almost lack of Taiwan studies and
ROC studies in UTokyo. It seems that UTokyo did not succeed the colonial studies
basically and the main stream influenced by Marxism did not touch Taiwan studies
in 1950s and 60s.

Researchers in Komaba Campus at UTokyo
I must introduce some scholars of Komaba campus. As introduced above, Eto Shinkichi 衞藤瀋吉 published one book for the international relations concerning about
Republic of China from 1949-1965 from Asia Seikei Gakkai ア ジ ア 政 経 学 会 .
This book was published in 1967 after the starting of cultural revolution in Mainland
92

China. At that time the ROC’s diplomatic archive was not opened, so Eto-sensei justused the newspapers and some gazettes of ROC, Taiwan and write this book.
At the Komaba Campus, Prof. Ishii Akira 石井明 was the successor of Eto Shinkichi. He also wrote about the articles about Sino-Japanese peace treaty 1952.
Sino-Japanese, this “Sino” means ROC, not PRC, Sino-Japanese peace treaty was
concluded in 1952 between Japan and ROC in Taipei. Ishii sensei is a specialist
in relations between Soviet Union and China, PRC, but he also studied about theSino(ROC)-Japanese peace treaty in 1952.
And as said above, Eto sensei had one student, his name is Nakajima Mineo
中嶋嶺雄 . He got a Ph.D. at the University of Tokyo. Nakajima-sensei got a postat the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, and he advanced the exchanges between
Japanese scholars and Taiwan scholars in 1990s. Matsuda sensei was the great secretary of Nakashima sensei’s project.
Eto-Ishii line at Komaba studied on Taiwan’s or ROC’s diplomacy, foreign relationship.

Eto Shinkichi (1923-2007)

Ishii Akira (1945-)

Nakajima Mineo (1936-2013)

Unique Functions of UTokyo Press
Talking about Taiwan studies in UTokyo, I appreciate Tokyo University Press. Tokyo
University Press published some excellent books about Taiwan history and Taiwan
studies in 1960-80s when the academic atmosphere in Japan was not positive to Taiwan. I really asked UTokyo Press to open some archives about publishments of these93books on Taiwan studies then in University of Tokyo Press, but they cannot find it.
For example, except for the book of Ng Chiau-tong 黃昭堂 , as I introduced,
the book of Liu Jin-ching 劉 進 慶 , The Analysis of Post-war Taiwan Economy,
originally in Japanese, and Tu Jaw-yan 凃照彥 ’s book titled Taiwan under JapaneseImperialism were published in 1970s. Both of two authors were the students of Faculty of Economics.

Ng Chiau-tong (1932-2011)

Liu Jin-ching (1931-2005)

Complains by Tai Kuo-huiProf. Tai Kuo-hui 戴國煇 is also a very famous scholar and politician. He is oneof the founders of Taiwan studies in Japan, before Wakabayashi School, I think.
He graduated from Faculty of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Economy. He
worked for IDE and then he moved to the Rikkyo University. In 1990s I enjoinedsake with him many times. He is Hakka 客家人 . So, his book titled Taiwan’s History『台湾の歴史』from Iwanami Publishers is based on his Hakka’s eyes. In 1960s
and 70s there were many books published by the Taiwanese students of UTokyo.
Around 1970, Prof. Tai Kuo-hui had strong complain about Japanese academic
trend. At a magazine, he made dialogue with Niijima Junryo (Atsuyoshi) 新
島淳良 , he was a Marxist scholar in Waseda University. What is this discussion?
Nijima said, “we have to start discussing about Taiwan,” but he said, “before 1970s
we did not talk about Taiwan, but now that we have to talk about Taiwan as a part ofChina.” We can understand Nijima’s sympathy with PRC, Beijing eyes. Tai Kuo-hui
94did not criticize Nijima Junryo directly, but he said like this.
“I considered about the Japanese perception on Taiwan and Japanese-Taiwan
studies in the four or five years. Why do I consider this point? As a Taiwanesescholar, I have to arrange and discuss about the Japanese rule over Taiwan, but
actually previous scholars, Taiwanese scholars, did not do this important point.
However, it seems the Japanese scholars also did not do about Taiwan studies,
they didn’t discuss the important point, what about the Japanese rule over Taiwan? After the end of war, end of colonial rule over Taiwan, Japanese scholars
have to discuss about the Japanese rule over Taiwan, in 50 years, but nobody
did.”This is criticism by Tai Kuo-hui in 1970.

The Origin of Rise of Taiwan Studies
In 21st century, Japan is one of the most important bases for Taiwan studies in theworld. Japanese Association of Taiwan Studies has probably 500 members at present. However, this situation at present is different from that of in 1950-70s. And how
did Tai Kuo-hui solve this problem? Tai Kuo-hui proposed many problems and criticism about academic atmosphere in Japan and Tai held some research meeting withJapanese young scholars in 1980s.
Wakabayashi Masahiro, Haruyama Meitetsu 春山明哲 , Kurihara Jun 栗原純
and so many young scholars and undergraduates, graduates students in master anddoctoral course joined Tai Kuo-hui’s research group.
In Wakabayashi’s memoir, he said, “When I was undergraduate student at the
Komaba Campus, when I joined the Tai Kuo-hui’s research group, Tai Kuo-hui introduced a book about the Taiwan’s novelist, Wu Chuo-liu 吳濁流 , and his excellent
piece ‘Taiwan as Asian orphan’. I was shocked by this book.” It is necessary to ex95

amine the situation of Tai Kuo-hui’s research group in order to consider the processof “rise” of Japanese Taiwan studies.

Opening of Japanese Diplomatic Archives in 1980s
In 1980s, soon after 1970s, Japanese government started opening the archives, including materials about the Shimonoseki Treaty in 1895, and the colonial rule overTaiwan. So, younger scholars started using this, first materials to study about Taiwan’s history. However, these first material showed Japanese standpoint for Taiwan.
Except for diplomatic archive, there were some materials to be opened then.
Wakabayashi sensei, how did he write his doctoral dissertation? He went to Hokkaido University’s main library that had Taiwan’s Nichinichi Shimpo, the most famous
newspaper in colonial Taiwan. There are almost of all the volumes in Hokkaido
University. So, Wakabayashi sensei went to Hokkaido University to copy by hand
this newspaper to write his doctoral dissertation. And Haruyama sensei and Kurihara
sensei used the Japanese diplomatic archives that started opening in 1970s. New materials provided possibilities of youngers’ Taiwan study.
But you notice one sensitive wording, ROC history and Taiwan history. I distinguished, I do not use “Taiwan diplomacy”, but I use Taiwan history. Taiwan didn’t
have diplomacy. Because before the 1980s or 1990s, ROC was different from Taiwan. From ROC’s point of view, Taiwan was one of the provinces of ROC. When
did ROC become equal to Taiwan? After 1992, ROC stopped so-called Go andReclaim Mainland China policy. And, in 1980s Chiang Ching-Kuo 蔣 経 國 started
using “the ROC in Taiwan”, and Lee Teng-hui strengthened much more the conceptof “the ROC in Taiwan”. The meanings of “ROC” gradually became equal to themeaning of “Taiwan”.
On the other hands, in Taiwan at present, the concept of ROC history in Taiwan
after 1949 is still sensitive. Is KMT’s policy in 1945-1980s part of Taiwan history?
Most of historian of Taiwan history distinguish Taiwan history from ROC history in
96Taiwan. Scholars of Taiwan history are basically interested in Taiwan local society.
So it seems that ROC’s political history, especially diplomatic history is not the partof Taiwan history. For example, do you know some ROC’s diplomats in UN, like
Wellington Koo 顧維鈞 who played the important role at the security council of United Nations before 1971. The activities of these diplomats in the world are the part of
Taiwan history? It’s a sensitive problem.
And the history of Kinmen and Matsu Islands are sometimes excluded by Taiwan history. The people of these islands mostly don’t have identities as Taiwanese.
However, Taiwan studies in Japan is not so sensitive about the borders of Taiwan
studies. So, these border zones provide some possibilities for Taiwan studies in Japan, I think.

New Atmosphere in Faculty of Letters
In Faculty of Letters, there was some new atmosphere in the late 1980s, I think.
Wensulu 問俗録 , is a very famous material about the society in Hokkien, Fujian
Province, and Taiwan province or Taiwan in Qing dynasty. Kojima Shinji 小島晋治
who was a professor of Chinese history at Komaba campus and moved to Kanagawa
University and Kurihara sensei, who graduated from the department of oriental history UTokyo, translated this material into Japanese and published.
In the late 1980s, ROC government started opening the historical materials tothe public. The democratization in Taiwan after 1986-87, the so-called secret materials of ROC and KMT became not secret materials. That’s a great challenge forJapanese scholars; however, though Banno Masataka sensei visited Academia Sinica to research about the diplomatic documents in mid 1980s, but he was interested
in the Qing dynasty, but most of the scholars did not go there. However, younger
scholars of UTokyo visited Taiwan in late 1980s and 1990s including me, to see the
new archives. Younger scholars found huge materials at archives in Taipei. The firstmaterials of Qing dynasty, ROC & KMT in China, and also ROC & KMT in Taipei
97

were opened. We found huge materials about ROC in Taipei after 1949. That provided new chance for us.
In 1990s, after the Tiananmen Square Incident, Japanese atmosphere started
changing, especially on the perception of China and Taiwan. After 1990s, the situation of Taiwan studies in UTokyo was gradually changed to be a target of academic
studies. I think, Wakabayashi sensei and Fujii Shozo 藤井省三 of the Chinese literature contributed to create new trend in Utokyo.
Japanese Association of Taiwan Studies (JATS) was founded in 1998. There
were so many academic associations about Chinese studies in Japan, that have long
history, but the Japanese Association of Taiwan Studies was the first nation-level
academic association in Japan. The formation of the organization of Taiwan studies
as academic field was so late, even though we have the traditional colonial studies
about Taiwan.
In UTokyo and JATS, especially Wakabayashi School became one of the important bases for Taiwan studies in Japan. But, I hope you understand, UTokyo
does not have any specific post of the professors on Taiwan studies until now. After
Wakabayashi sensei left UTokyo for Waseda University, who succeeded his post as
Taiwan study? Japanese national universities including UTokyo do not have any specific post on Taiwan studies until now. How about Chinese studies? How about Korean? So many posts. Taiwan study in Japan doesn’t have institutional base. That’s a
big problem.
Before 1972 when Japan cut off the formal relations with ROC, Institute of Developing Economics (IDE) found in 1960s had a specific posts for Taiwan economy.
Dr. Kawakami, who will deliver a lecture next week, is now in the IDE.

Wakabayashi Group’s Works
Wakabayashi sensei cultivated so many younger scholars under the support ofProf. Komagome Takashi 駒込武 , who is a professor of Kyoto University at98

present. Taiwan’s young scholars who were guided by Wakabayashi-sensei started
to publish books. For example, Ho I-Lin 何義麟 published a book on Feburary 28th
Incident 二・二八事件 in 2003. Chen Pei-feng 陳培豐 published a book on Taiwan
identity, and Misawa Mamie 三澤真美恵 wrote extensively about Taiwan movies.
However, it’s difficult for us to find any studies on ROC diplomacy among Wakabayashi School researchers. Wakabayashi School is sympathetic towards Taiwan history, but not ROC history.

(Ho, 2003)(Chen, 2010)(Misawa, 2017)

After Wakabayashi sensei’s retirement, the topics of foreign policy of Taiwan
or diplomacy of ROC suddenly emerged in UTokyo. For example, the book of Xu
Hang 許珩 who was a student from mainland China. She is the first Chinese student
who got the academic prize of the Japanese Association for Taiwan Studies. She researches about the changing of the framework of relations between ROC and Japan
in 1960s. She pointed out ROC-Japan relations changed to be economy-based one
rather than political one. She used the materials of ROC, Japan, USA, and others.
Other than her, one Chinese student Mi Duo 米多 got the Ph.D. at UTokyo whose
doctoral dissertation was about the networks of the anti-communist countries
among Taiwan, ROK, South Vietnam and the Philippines. She used the multi archives from South Korea, USA, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Both
Xu and Mi were my student. Ienaga Masaki 家永真幸 is the student of both Wakabayashi-sensei and me, wrote a book on the national symbol of ROC before and after 1949.

99

(Ienaga, 2017)

New Trends of Researches on Taiwan’s Diplomatic History
There are so many new trends about the studies on Taiwan diplomatic history
and international relations. Of course, our book titled History of Japan-Taiwan Relations『日台関係史』is one of them.
While Shimizu-sensei was in UTokyo, she published a book titled The Makingof Taiwan Diplomacy『台湾外交の形成』through the Nagoya University Press. And
if you read the book Introduction to Taiwan Studies『台湾研究入門』, a guidebookof Taiwan studies, which was published through University of Tokyo Press, you canunderstand the members of Wakabayashi group and their studies.

(Shimizu, 2019)(Wakabayashi and Ienaga, 2020)

Finally, I introduce my study on ROC diplomatic history. After my moving to
UTokyo, I published some articles about Taiwan, ROC diplomacy after 1949 andinternational relations on Taiwan ROC. For example, articles about Taiwan’s policy
on foreign students; Japanese and Taiwan’s decolonization; Taiwan’s diplomacy or
relationship between ROC and Japan based on the ROC governmental materials andChiang Kai-shek diary after 1949.
100

In my today’s presentation, I introduced UTokyo’s Taiwan Studies, especiallyabout ROC diplomacy, and international relations on Taiwan ROC. You might beable to find some uniqueness of UTokyo’s Taiwan Studies and some critical junctures of UTokyo’s Taiwan ROC studies after 1945.
Thank you so much for your cordial attention.
October 28, 2021

101

8

From Colonial Studies to
Globalization Studies:
History of Studies on Taiwanese
Economy at UTokyo―― 川上 桃子（（独）日本貿易振興機構アジア経済研究所地域研究センター・センター長）
Momoko Kawakami (Director-General, Area Studies Center,
Japan External Trade Organization, Institute of Developing Economies)

As Professor Sonoda introduced, I’m a research fellow at IDE-JETRO. I have been
researching on Taiwan’s economy since I joined the Institute in1991. My field of research includes industrial development in East Asia, business history, and globalization studies, with a special focus on Taiwan. I have written monographs and articles
on Taiwan’s economic and industrial development. More recently I’m focusing on
the political economy of China-Taiwan (cross-Strait) relations.

Who has been Writing about the Taiwanese Economy?
Edward Carr is a distinguished historian and the author of a classic titled What is
history? He is famous for his idea of history as “a constant dialogue between the historian in the present and historical facts in the past”. According to Carr, history is aprocess of interactions between the historian and his or her facts.
Inspired by Carr’s idea, Professor Haruyama Meitetsu 春山明哲 once raised aquestion in his review article ( 春山 , 2019): who have been writing Taiwan’s history?
Following Haruyama’s inquiry, I would like to raise a few questions: who has
been writing about Taiwan’s economy? How the attributes of the authors of Taiwan
studies have changed over time? How scholars specifically interested in Taiwan’s
economy have interacted with each other and inspired each other across borders?
Hopefully, these questions will navigate my talk today.
Backgrounds and attributes of scholars researching on Taiwan’s economy havechanged over the last decades. In the early 20th century, it was primarily colonial
policy studies scholars, like Yanaihara Tadao, who produced outstanding work on
102

Taiwan. Colonial policy studies at that time were an emergent academic field in theImperial universities system. This academic tradition later turned to be the origin ofarea studies in Japan. After a few decades of a blank period of Taiwan studies, starting from the late 1960s to 1970s, several Taiwanese students who did their doctoral
research at the University of Tokyo started to publish monographs on Taiwan’s economy and economic history. We will take a look at two representative scholars, Liu
Jin-ching 劉進慶 and Tu Jaw-yan 凃照彥 .

Yanaihara Tadao (1893-1961)

In the early 1990s, Taiwan started to witness the emergence of the local academic community of Taiwan study. In this phase, Taiwanese social science scholars,
primarily economic sociologists trained in the US became the leading force of Taiwan studies scholarship. Reacting to this new development, Japanese researchers
started to look into the development of individual industries and the dynamic growthof Taiwanese firms in global production networks. After the 2000s, Taiwan Study
researchers in Japan began to look closely at the globalization process of the Taiwanese industries and firms, as Taiwan provides plenty of great cases for the analysis of
economic globalization.

Can the Economy be an Object of Area Studies?
One challenge that faces area study scholars focused on economic development isthat, how can the economy be a subject of area studies? This question arises because
the economy is by nature a global phenomenon that crosses country borders, while103

economic systems are shaped by national governments and economic policies are
subject to country borders.
How can area studies characterized by a country-based approach embrace research on economies? I always face this methodological difficulty when I take up
the subject of the economy as an area studies scholar. This may be a unique hardshipthat researchers in humanity studies or other social science scholars, like historians
and political scientists, do not face.

Settings: Growth Trajectory of Taiwanese Economy
The shifting structure of the Taiwanese economy and changing relationships between
Japan and Taiwan have always promoted new approaches to the Taiwanese economy
over the last decades. Before exploring the history of Taiwan studies at the University of Tokyo, let me go quickly over the history of economic development in Taiwan.
From 1895 through 1945, Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese colonial government. Imperial Japan primarily regarded Taiwan as an agricultural base, and then asa stepping stone for its Southward expansion. During this period, writing on Taiwan
was primarily dominated by Japanese scholars and policymakers.

After the end of World War II, the KMT (Kuomintang) government took controlof Taiwan. From the late-1960s through the late-1980s, Taiwan’s economy attained
phenomenal growth under an export-oriented industrialization policy framework.
Taiwan turned out to be one of the most successful late industrializing economies
at the time. Successful promotion of inward foreign direct investments and exportsof labor-intensive products were the key factors of the success. This process, along104with the authoritarian regime of developmental state under the KMT government attracted the strong interest of the international academic circle. Here are a few photosof the world’s first export processing zone established in Kaoshiung in 1965, whichbecame an icon of Taiwan’s success in export-oriented industrialization strategy.

Taiwan also attracted the attention of development economists as it saw a dynamic proliferation of small and medium-sized local firms during its high-growth
period. Taiwan came to be known for its mushrooming small- and medium-sized
manufacturing firms, which were started by unskilled workers who realized their
dreams of starting their own factory and becoming a boss. Until the end of the 20th
century, Taiwan was regarded as a success story where “growth with equity” (Fei,
Ranis and Kuo, 1979) was attained.
The late 1980s to the early 1990s was a transitional period, during which Taiwan started to emerge as a high-tech island. The main driver of this sector shiftedfrom the production of computers and peripheral goods in the 1990s to electronic
components, especially semiconductor chips after the 2000s.
Taiwan experienced a surge of outward investment in China in the 1990s, which
triggered dramatic restructuring of industrial organizations on the island.
The phenomenal rise of the Taiwanese high-tech industry continued in the2010s. So did the economic integration with China. This triggered the reaction of
Taiwanese society. In 2014 the Sunflower movement broke out, backed by the spreading
anxiety over the deepening economic ties with China and the growing influences of
the Chinese Communist Party on the socio-politics of Taiwan. For the last few years,
the rise of TSMC and Taiwan’s critical role in US-China high-tech wars are also105

attracting strong interest by Japanese researchers and media in Taiwan’s high-techindustries.

Doctoral Dissertations Submitted to the University of Tokyo including “Taiwan”
in the Title
Let us take a brief look at the number of doctoral dissertations submitted to the University of Tokyo that include “Taiwan” in the title. We can see that several Ph.D.
dissertations submitted to the Faculty of Economics that contain “Taiwan” in its title
account for only 6% of the total number. The percentage for “China” is almost thesame.

Colonial Policy Studies: Nitobe Inazo and His Taiwan Experience
Now let me turn to Nitobe Inazo 新渡戸稲造 , the founder of Japan’s colonial policy studies, and his Taiwan experience. I suppose you are all familiar with Nitobe
Inazo’s face as it’s printed on a 5000-yen banknote.
The early history of colonial policy studies in Japan can be traced back to Sapporo Nogakko 札幌農学校 , Hokkaido. The course became systematized when Nitobe Inazo founded shokumin seisakugaku kouza 植民政策学講座 at Tokyo Imperial
University in 1909. The central subject of colonial policy studies at the time was naturally Taiwan, Japan’s first and the only overseas colony at the time. Haruyama (2019)
points out that this was the origin of Taiwan studies in Japan. He writes that “(with106the setting up colonial policy studies course at Tokyo Imperial University,) a small
research and education base for colonial policy studies was created in the academism
at Tokyo Imperial University as a course in economics.”
Before this, Nitobe was the head of the Sugar Industry Bureau of the Japanesecolonial government, sotokufu 総 督 府 , from 1901 through 1903. He then taughtcolonial theory at Kyoto Imperial University before moving to Tokyo to teach at
Daiichi Kotogakko and Tokyo Imperial University. Nitobe taught colonial policy
studies at Tokyo Imperial University for 10 years, and Yanaihara Tadao was one ofhis students.
Nitobe Inazo himself did not write a textbook for colonial policy studies. Instead, Yanaihara and his colleagues organized the basic contents of his lecture into acollection of lecture transcripts and articles.

Colonial Policy Studies: Nitobe’s successor, Tadao Yanaihara
Now let us turn to Yanaihara Tadao 矢内原忠雄 , one of the most important figuresof colonial policy studies in Japan. I suppose previous lectures have already discussed the position of this intellectual giant and the significance of his work.
Yanaihara became the second chair of colonial policy studies in 1923 andserved this chair until 1937. He was a devout Christian. As a humanitarian and peace
activist, he criticized Japan’s imperialist colonial policies. In 1937, Yanaihara criticized Japan’s militarism and imperialist expansion when the Second Japan-Sino war
broke out and was forced to leave his position. This event is known as “Yanaihara
jiken” 矢内原事件 , case of suppression of speech and academic freedom under Japanese Militarism. It was only after World War II that he returned to the University ofTokyo.

107

(Yanaihara, 1937)(Wakabayashi, 2001)

His masterpiece, Teikokoushugika no Taiwan or Taiwan under Imperialism『帝国主義下の台湾』was published in 1929.
In the explanatory note on Taiwan under Imperialism, Wakabayashi calls ourattention to the fact that Yanaihara wrote this book based on his fieldwork in Taiwanthat took place for three months in 1927 (Wakabayashi, 2001). His trip in Taiwan
was guided by Taiwanese intellectuals Cai Pei-huo 蔡培火 and Yeh Jung-chung 葉榮鐘 , who were also close friends of Yanaihara. The dialogue that Yanaihara
had with his fellow travelers and companions should have played pivotal roles in his
understanding of Taiwan under Japanese imperialism, and shaped the essence of hisbook.
Yanaihara was a very productive scholar and wrote several monographs andnumerous articles. In “Fifty Year History of the Faculty of Economics, the University of Tokyo,ˮ Prof. Kawada Tadashi (Faculty of Economics, UTokyo) classified
Yanaihara’s major works into three categories; theoretical works on imperialism andcolonies, empirical studies of imperialism, and history of colonies and colonial studies. Kawada evaluates the second category, empirical studies on imperialism, as themost important and richest fruit of Yannaihara’s scholarship, and Teikokushugika no
Taiwan belongs to this category.

Yanaihara’s Taiwan under Imperialism
Teikokushugika no Taiwan is an immoral classic of Taiwan studies with rich anddiverse contents. The book contains multi-layer dimensions of analysis and one can108

focus on different aspects of this great contribution.
Still, the emphasis of this book is on economic analysis. Yanaihara writes that
“Japan’s colonial rule over Taiwan has been carried out with economic development
as the primary objective. In fact, Japan’s economic demands for Taiwan were themost important factor that determines Japan’s colonial policies over Taiwan. Therefore, it is natural to place the focus of research on the analysis of economic relations
if we are to explore the meaning of Taiwanese rule.” Clearly, economic analysis ofcolonial rule over Taiwan is the very central issue of Teikokushugika no Taiwan. Colonialism and capitalism were two sides of the same coin. For colonial policy study
scholars, economic analysis of colonialism naturally became foci of the analysis.
Two major arguments of the book, which are both very famous, deserve special
remarks. First, Yanaihara argues that colonial rule by Japan over Taiwan is definedby the backwardness of Japan itself. Second, state power and state policies/projects
laid the foundation for Japanese monopolistic capital to rule over Taiwan. He called
land survey, reforms of weights and measures system and monetary system that Japanese colonial government implemented in Taiwan as “foundation works for Capitalism in Taiwan” 台湾資本主義化の基礎工事 .
As is the case for other imperialist states, colonial policy studies became thevery origin of area studies that emerged after the end of WWII. And Wakabayashi(2001) regards Teikokushugika no Taiwan as an epoch-making work that marked thebirth of social science-based area studies. Why?
First, Wakabayashi points out that Teikokushugika no Taiwan employs an interdisciplinary approach. Yanaihara’s main focus is on the economy, but it also provides
historical accounts of Taiwan’s education systems, political movement, and ethnic
movement in rich detail. Second, the book positions theory as a tool to question themeaning of facts, according to Wakabayashi. Yanaihara employs and applies theories
and frameworks to understand the reality of Taiwan’s economy and society, as wellas to explore Japan’s colonial rules. This pragmatic stance towards theories is shared109

with area studies.

From Colonial Policy Studies to Colonial Studies
So’s Ph.D. dissertation (So 2017) points out that colonial policy studies started to
become systematized under the leadership of Yannaihara during the 1920s. Its textbooks were published. The curriculum became solidified and the programs started to
be funded by the government. In this way, the discipline became even more closely
related to economics (So pp.1-2).
Let me cite another paragraph from So’s dissertation:
“In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the discipline made another transformation; it developed into a part of area studies departments focusing on Asian
countries. As Japan occupied a portion of China…, Colonial Policy Studies
became integrated with several disciplines in the human and social sciences,such as history, linguistics, ethnography, anthropology, and medicine, under thename of Colonial Studies (shokumin-gaku). Colonial Studies, once an academic
field primarily addressing the agricultural economy of colonies, was expanded
into interdisciplinary area studies on Asia at that time”. (So, 2017: 3-4, underline by the lecturer)”
Here we see another link that connects colonial policy studies and colonialstudies with area studies that emerged in post-war Japan.

The emergence of Area Studies
In 1945, Japan lost World War II and its colonial rule over Taiwan ended. Yanaihara
returned to the University of Tokyo and became the Chair of International Economy
at the Faculty of Economics, where the colonial policy studies course was re-organized into the international economy course. Economic development and the anat110

omy of developing economies became the new foci of education and scholarship in
this new course. Global North-South divide problem, or underdevelopment of Global South, were the cores issues for research in this new course.
Tai Kuo-hui (1969) regards the years from 1945 through the 1960s as the stagnation period for Taiwan studies. So was the case for economic research.
Then, starting from the 1970s, the new generation of Taiwan Study scholars
started to publish their works on Taiwan actively. A group of Taiwan-born scholars
who came to the University of Tokyo for their doctoral research started to publish
monographs on Taiwan. At this phase, Taiwanese scholars started writing Taiwan’s
history.

Taiwanese Scholars based in Japan Start Writing on Taiwan
To highlight this new phase, let us focus on the works by two representative Taiwanese scholars, both of whom published seminal work of economic research on Taiwan
in the same year of 1975.

(1) Taiwan under Japanese Imperialism by Tu Jaw-yan
First, let’s look at the major work by Professor Tu Jaw-yan 凃 照 彥 titled Taiwan
under Japanese Imperialism『日本帝国主義下の台湾』. The book is based on his
doctoral dissertation and was published in 1975. As the title indicates, Tu’s research
was inspired by Yanaihara’s Teikokushugika no Taiwan, to which he added “Nihon”
in his book title.
Tu Jaw-yan’s Nihon teikokushugika no Taiwan criticizes Yanaihara (1929) for
its absence of analysis of dynamics of indigenous economic actors in Taiwan. Yanaihara’s focus of the analysis was on Japan’s imperialism and its colonial rule overTaiwan that transformed Taiwan into a Capitalist society, so he did not pay muchattention to the micro-analysis of local actors.
Tu emphasizes the importance of analyzing the Taiwanese economy from a111

“Taiwan-centered perspective” (「台湾経済本位の視角」p.12). His motivation
was to elucidate the interactions between Imperial Japan’s colonial capitals and Taiwanese indigenous economic actors. The book elucidates the coexistence of Japan’s
monopolistic capitals and Taiwan’s traditional landlord system and investigates how
the former made use of the latter.

(Tu, 1975)

Clearly, Tu’s research orientation is rooted in his background, being a Taiwanese. His book places the Taiwanese economy per se as a main subject of the analysis
and by utilizing a wide variety of archives and first-hand data, it elucidates the dynamism of Taiwan’s landowner class and Taiwan’s indigenous capitals.

(2) The Analysis of Post-war Taiwan Economy by Liu Jin-ching
Another seminal work on Taiwan’s economy by a Taiwan-born scholar that represents this phase is Liu Jin-ching’s monograph titled The Analysis of Post-war
Taiwan Economy『戦後台湾経済分析』. The book is based on his doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Tokyo. It was published in 1975, the same year
as Tu’s.
In the preface, Liu writes that majority of previous studies on Taiwan’s economy have been published by Japanese scholars. He expresses that his book is anattempt to fill in the blanks in the research on Taiwan after WWII by a social sciencescholar from Taiwan.
In this book, Liu analyzes 20 years of Taiwan’s post-WWII economic development. In doing so, he focuses on (1) traditional, a quasi-feudalistic system of the112

state sector, (2) private sector, and (3) state-business capitals 官商資本 that sublimate the contradictions between (1) and (2).
In this book, Liu took full advantage of his overseas scholarship, being freefrom suppression against Marxism scholarship by the KMT government. Liu points
out one critical limitation of Taiwan studies conducted in Taiwan is the lack of a critical approach based on Marxian theory, as it has been long repressed under the Anti-Communism of the KMT regime. He says modern economic science alone does
not provide an accurate schematic of economic problems specific to underdeveloped
economies.
Liu’s book incorporates a Marxian approach to analyze the structure of the Taiwanese economy. Here, we can see that his research motivations and framework areinspired by the academic tradition of the international economy at the University ofTokyo, which position underdeveloped economies and the surrounding international
circumstances as core research issues.
The book comprises five chapters. In chapter two, Liu takes a close look at the
exploitative structure of the state sector. It analyzes the monopolistic nature and exploitative structure of the state sector that serves the military demands of the KMTgovernment. Chapter three takes a look at the accumulation mechanism by private
capitals. The concluding chapter analyzes state-business capitals that sublimate thecontradictions between the state sector and private sector. We can position his research in the academic genealogy of Japan, where the influence of Marxism is rather
strong.
In this way, Japan, more specifically the Faculty of Economics at the Universityof Tokyo, played a role as an evacuation port for Taiwanese intellectuals seeking academic freedom and who were politically against KMT’s authoritarian rule. The university provided an academic platform for Marxian-style research for Taiwan-bornscholars too, who found the approach useful for their research on Taiwan.

113

(3) Launch of Taiwan Economy
Taiwan Economy『台湾の経済』was published in 1992, co-authored by three scholars, Sumiya Mikio 隅谷三喜男 , Liu Jing-ching, and Tu Jaw-yan.
Sumiya is a renowned scholar, public figure, and intellectual of action. He
played the role of mediator in some of Japan’s most difficult political issues.
Taiwan Economy is a textbook-style scholarly book with the subtitle Light andShadow of Typical NIES 典 型 NIES の 光 と 影 . The book provides a comprehensive account of the development of the Taiwanese economy after the end of WWII
and explains the factors behind this process in detail. Individual sectors and issues
ranging from agriculture, industry, labor, finance, to trade are studied. As the subtitle
suggests, the book provides a balanced discussion of both the positive and negative
aspects of rapid industrialization. As to the latter, it sheds light on the exploitative
mechanism of the developmental state regime under the KMT rule. It also reveals
how the global economy shaped the growth trajectory.
This book project was organized by Sumiya in 1986, in collaboration with hisformer students at the University of Tokyo, Liu, and Tu, upon the request from and financial support by Taiwan’s Christian community. Sumiya himself was a Christian, but
why did Taiwanese Christians ask him to write this book? How did this project takeform? We can read an interesting back story in the Preface. Here are some excerpts:(Sumiya, et al. 1992)

“What seems strange is that in Taiwan, research on Taiwanese economy, especially those that capture the big picture, are stagnating. … National Taiwan
University does not have a course for Taiwan’s economy. When I asked the rea114

son for this, one professor replied to me: “you are a Professor of the Universityof Tokyo. I wonder if your university has a course for Tokyo economy.”“(According to the professor) Taiwan is only a province of the Republic of China. From his point of view, it’s only natural that the university does not open
a course for “Taiwan Province Economy”. Nor is there a need for academic
research on the “economy of Taiwan Province.”
These episodes make it clear why the Christian community---a long-standing
seeker and supporter of the pro-democracy movement in Taiwan requested and evensponsored Professor Sumiya to write about Taiwan.
The citations I just made reflect the political atmosphere under the KMT regime
in the mid-1980s. The emphasis of Taiwan as a cohesive unit of analysis was a political taboo and Taiwan was regarded as only a province, a tiny part of China.
It was only after the democratization and Taiwanization ( 本土化 ) started in thelate 1980s, that Taiwan became a legitimate subject of academic research in Taiwan.
And once the process of democratization started, the momentum kept building in the
1990s, making “Taiwan’s economy” a central agenda for social science research, especially for historians and economic sociologists.

1990s as a Turning Point: shifting Focus of Taiwan Economy Studies in Japan
Right around the launch of Sumiya, Liu, and Tu (1992), political circumstances in
Taiwan started to change drastically. Japan’s role as an evacuation hub for Taiwaneseyoung intellectuals and a platform for academic freedom started to vanish gradually.
As I just mentioned, until the end of the 1980s, Taiwan studies that take up Taiwan as a historically or politically cohesive unit and investigate its uniqueness waspolitical taboo. Those days are now gone, and a new generation of scholars started
to engage in Taiwan Studies, publishing rich and diverse results of empirical studies
115based on fieldwork in Taiwan. Instead of those studying in Japan, the U.S. - trained
young scholars who returned home after P.D study became a major force of this new
trend.
Ka Chih-ming 柯志明’s Japanese Colonialism in Taiwan and Shieh Gwo-shyong 謝國雄’s “Boss” Island are representative achievements. Shieh’s “Boss Island ”
is a great ethnography of the everyday life of small factories and their owners. It
explains how these small factories are operating in the global production networks
for export products. Hsieh Kuo-hsing 謝國興’s Tainan-bang 台南幇 is a businesshistory monograph that studied the development of a local business group.
These are all solid empirical research based on in-depth fieldwork and archival
research. A growing number of excellent writings by economic sociologists and business historians started to emerge and led to the rise of the Taiwan studies communitybased in Taiwan. Economists did not take an active role in this new wave, as the
US-centered tradition of economics is very much journal paper-oriented. Most of theeconomists take up Taiwan mainly as a site for data collection. The uniqueness of Taiwan’s economy is not their primary research focus, except for economic historians.

Mushrooming of Books on Taiwan’s High-tech Industry since the 2000s
As a new generation of Taiwanese study scholars emerged in Taiwan, Japanesescholars’ research focus started to shift and became more specialized and dispersed.
From early 2000, Japanese researchers writing on Taiwan started to take astrong interest in the Taiwanese high-tech industries. Sato Yukihito 佐藤幸人 andKishimoto Chikashi 岸本千佳司 published detailed monographs on the Taiwanese
semiconductor industry, accounting for the contributing factors behind the rise of
the industry. I myself wrote a monograph on Taiwan’s notebook PC industry witha focus on the learning mechanism of local contract manufacturers in global value
chains. Akabane Jun 赤 羽 淳 published a book that compares flat panel display
industries in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. My and Akabane’s monographs are116

based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Tokyo.
Manufacturing Management Research Center ものづくり経営研究センター
affiliated with the Faculty of economics at the University of Tokyo have published aseries of co-edited volumes. Some of the chapters by management scholars explore
competitiveness of the Taiwan’s high-tech industries, based on field studies in Taiwan.

(Sato, 2007)（Shintaku and Amano, 2009）

The lineup of these books indicates that not only Taiwan specialists but also
technology management and organization sciences scholars started to research on
Taiwan’s high-tech industries and firms after the 2000s. This reflects the attainmentof the Taiwanese economy, including Taiwan’s position as a critical node in thehigh-tech industry value chains. Taiwan offers great examples for case studies ofindustrial upgrading and local firm growth in a globalized economy. The dynamismof Taiwanese high-tech firms and their rising positions in the global value chains all
attract strong attention from Japanese scholars.
For Taiwan Study researchers in Japan, including myself, this shift of research
focus has been a response to the emergence of excellent Taiwan studies based in
Taiwan, an attempt to take advantage of Japan’s strong traditions in industry studies.

(Kawakami, 2012)

117(Akabane, 2014) (Osanai and Kamiyoshi, 2014)

Also, some Japanese scholars have researched strategic alliances between Japaneseand Taiwanese firms. Clearly, these are the topics that Japanese scholars can takesome advantage of. Another field in which Japanese scholars are quite active is
Taiwan’s economic history during the Japanese colonial period.
In this way, Japanese scholars’ interest in Taiwan has become more specialized
and dispersed, as they attempted to differentiate their research focus from Taiwanesescholars.

Conclusion
I started my lecture with some questions including who has been writing about Taiwan? How did Taiwan study communities in Japan and Taiwan interact with eachother across borders over the past decades? I hope I answered some of them, while I’maware some questions remain unanswered.
As my talk today revealed, different approaches to the Taiwanese economy anddifferent responses to “social demands” for Taiwan studies by Japanese scholars at
each period reflect changing relationships between Japan and Taiwan, and the shifting structure of the Taiwanese economy. Until the end of the 1980s, Japan played
a role as an evacuation hub for Taiwanese young intellectuals and a platform foracademic freedom, the circumstances that were absent from Taiwan under the KMT
authoritarian regime. Then starting from the late 1990s to the present, Taiwan is attracting strong attention from Japanese scholars, as it has become a key player in the
global production networks. Now Taiwan is regarded as a choke point in the supply
chain of semiconductors, and one of the battlefields of US-China high-tech confrontation. What a great change!
Finally, I did not fully address the methodological difficulty of taking up “economy” as a subject of area studies in my talk today. “Economy as a global phenomenon” versus “country-based approach of area studies” has always been a challenge118

for area study scholars interested in Asian economies, especially in the era of globalization. There is no clear answer to this, but we should think seriously about thischallenge.
I would like to stop here. Thank you for your attention.
November 4, 2021

ReferencesFei, John C.H., Gustav Ranis, and Shirley Kuo, with the assistance of Yu-Yuan Bian andJulia Chang Collins. Growth with Equity: The Taiwan Case. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
So Jung Um, “Japanese Colonial Policy Studies, 1909-1945: Nitobe Inazō, Yanaihara
Tadao, and Tōbata Seiichi”, Ph.D. Dissertation (History), University of Michigan,
2017.
アジア経済研究所「日本における発展途上国の研究」『アジア経済』100 号
記念特集、1969 年。
東京大学経済学部『東京大学経済学部五十年史』東京大学出版会、1976 年。
春山明哲「日本における台湾史研究の 100 年 伊能嘉矩から日本台湾学会まで」『アジア経済』2019 年。
若林正丈「解説」、矢内原忠雄（著）若林正丈（編）『矢内原忠雄「帝国主義下の台湾」精読』岩波書店、2001 年。

119

写真出典
Hirano Yoshitaro: http://www.robundo.com/robundo/column/?tag=%E5%B9%B3%
E9%87%8E%E7%BE%A9%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E
Sakisaka Itsuro: http://shisly.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2009/01/post-115c.html
Uno Kozo: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%87%E9%87%8E%E5%BC%98%E8%94%B5
Ito Makoto: https://www.japan-acad.go.jp/japanese/members/3/itoh_makoto.html
Fukutake Tadashi: https://www.easyatm.com.tw/wiki/%E7%A6%8F%E6%AD%A6%E7%9B%B4
Chen Shao-Hsing: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%B3%E7%B4%B9%E9%
A6%A8
Ding Kequang: http://www.globalchinaunit.org/ding-kequan-introduction-cn
Kagami Mitsuyuki: https://plus.chunichi.co.jp/blog/kagami/profile/Hishida Masaharu: http://g-gap.ws.hosei.ac.jp/staff/professor/07_hishida.html
Aoi Kazuo: https://spc.jst.go.jp/cad/literatures/download/97
Odaka Kunio: https://yuhikoko.exblog.jp/15786608/
Okamatsu Santaro: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B2%A1%E6%9D%BE%E5%8F%82%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E
Nakada Kaoru: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E7%94%B0%E8%96%AB_(%E6%B3%95%E5%AD%A6%E8%80%85)
Niida Noboru: https://wenhui.whb.cn/third/yidian/201808/03/206813.html
Ikeda On:
Shiga Shuzo: http://dzb.whb.cn/html/2018-03/02/content_639363.html
Shimada Masao: http://dzb.whb.cn/html/2018-03/02/content_639363.html
Yano Jin’ichi: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%A2%E9%87%8E%E4%
BB%81%E4%B8%80
Hamashita Takeshi: http://mingching.sinica.edu.tw/en/Academic_Detail/625
Wakabayashi Masahiro: https://www.nippon.com/ja/authordata/wakabayashi-masahiro/
120

Fujii Shozo: https://book.asahi.com/article/14152868
Eto Shinkichi: https://www.asia-u.ac.jp/about/successive_presidents/
Ishii Akira: https://mainichi.jp/articles/20200526/ddm/005/070/011000c
Nakajima Mineo: https://blog.goo.ne.jp/kirakiraboshi31/e/8a94a16a34c8e2162b4
c38aea809a021
Ng Chiau-tong: http://www.ritouki.jp/index.php/info/2011117/
Liu Jin-ching: https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/5c/36/ae.html
Yanaihara Tadao: https://ainogakuen.ed.jp/academy/bible/kate/00/yanaihara.life.html

121

著者紹介
■著者

園 田 茂 人（そのだ・しげと）

東京大学東洋文化研究所・教授。専門は比較社会学、アジア文化変容論、中国社会論。多様な社会調査データを使用
し、中国を中心にアジア各国の社会を研究している。著書に『中国人の心理と行動』（NHK ブックス、2001 年）、『不
平等国家中国─自己否定した社会主義のゆくえ』（中公新書、2008 年、第 20 回アジア・太平洋賞特別賞受賞）、『アジアの国民感情─データが明かす人々の対外認識』（中公新書、2020 年）などがある。

丸 川 知 雄（まるかわ・ともお）

東京大学社会科学研究所・教授。専門は中国経済、産業経済。単著に『シリーズ現代中国経済 第３巻 労働市
場の地殻変動』（名古屋大学出版会、2002 年。第 19 回
大平正芳記念賞受賞）、『現代中国経済［新版］』（有斐閣、
2021 年 ８ 月 ）、“Dependence and competition: traderelationship between Asian countries and China,”
Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, Vol.10,
No.2, 2021, pp.1-16, 共著に丸川知雄・李海訓・徐一睿・
河野正著『タバコ産業の政治経済学：世界的展開と中国の現状』（昭和堂、2021 年５月）などがある。

髙 見 澤 磨（たかみざわ・おさむ）

東京大学東洋文化研究所・教授。専門は現代中国の法と社会。単著に「社会変動の中の司法制度改革：中国の司法制度改革」『法社会学』86（有斐閣、2020 年３月、76-86 頁）、
「中国・台湾・香港の不均衡な互動的法形成」『現代中国』
95（日本現代中国学会、2021 年９月、21-34 頁）、共編
著に髙見澤磨・鈴木賢編『要説 中国法』
（東京大学出版会、
2017 年９月）、共著に髙見澤磨・鈴木賢・宇田川幸則・坂口一成著『現代中国法入門［第８版］』（有斐閣、2019 年
12 月）などがある。

122

川 島 真（かわしま・しん）

東京大学大学院総合文化研究科・教授。専門はアジア政治外
交史、
東アジア国際関係史。単著に『中国近代外交の形成』（名
古屋大学出版会、2004 年。2004 年度サントリー学芸賞受賞）、共編著に川島真・21 世紀政策研究所編著『現代中国を読み解く三要素：経済・テクノロジー・国際関係』（勁草書房、2020 年８月）、田中明彦・川島真編『20 世紀の東アジア史』（東京大学出版会、2020 年９月）
、川島真・清水麗・松田康博・楊永明共編『日台関係史 1945-2020 増補版』
（東京大学
出版会、2020 年 10 月）などがある。

黄 偉 修（こう・いしゅう）

東京大学東洋文化研究所・助教。専門は台湾の大陸政策決定
過程、中国の対台湾政策、日本の安全保障政策決定過程。第
17 回中曽根康弘賞奨励賞受賞（2021 年 11 月）。単著に『李登輝政権の大陸政策決定過程（1996-2000 年）─組織的決定と独断の相克』（大学教育出版、2012 年 2 月）、
「米中台関係に渦巻く新たなマグマ：「台湾関係法四〇年」から考える」『外交 Diplomacy』55（外務省、2019 年５月、94-99 頁）などがある。

川 上 桃 子（かわかみ・ももこ）

独立行政法人日本貿易振興機構アジア経済研究所地域研究セ
ンター・センター長。専門は台湾を中心とする東アジアの経済、産業、企業。単著に『圧縮された産業発展：台湾ノートパソコン企業の成長メカニズム』（名古屋大学出版会、2012年７月。第 29 回大平正芳記念賞受賞）、共編著に川上桃子・
松本はる香編『中台関係のダイナミズムと台湾：馬英九政権期の展開』（アジア経済研究所、2019 年３月）
、佐藤幸人・
小笠原欣幸・松田康博・川上桃子著『蔡英文再選：2020 年
台湾総統選挙と第２期蔡政権の課題』（アジア経済研究所、
2020 年 11 月）などがある。

123

ブックレットGJS Vol. 4“Intellectual Giants” in UTokyo: A History of China/Taiwan Studies

2022年3月15日発行
発 行 者 東京大学東洋文化研究所
東京都文京区本郷7-3-1（東京大学本郷キャンパス内）
著

者 園田 茂人・丸川 知雄・髙見澤 磨・川島 真・
黄 偉修・川上 桃子

編

者 板橋 暁子

印 刷 所 株式会社サンワ

ISSN 2436-5254

ISSN 2436-5254

1 はじめに
園田 茂人／Shigeto Sonoda
I. Studies on China
2 Japanese Marxism, the University of Tokyo, and China
丸川 知雄／Tomoo Marukawa
3 Development of Empirical Sociology and China Studies in Japan
園田 茂人／Shigeto Sonoda
4 Studies on Chinese Law in Japan: Legends of Tokyo School髙見澤 磨／Osamu Takamizawa
5 Studies on Chinese Diplomatic History in Japan: Chinese World
Order and Modern Diplomacy in China
川島 真／Shin Kawashima
Ⅱ. Studies on Taiwan
6 The Research on Taiwan-Japan Relations at UTokyo黄 偉修／Wei-Hsiu Hwang
7 UTokyo’s ROC / Taiwan Studies on Diplomacy and International
Relations
川島 真／Shin Kawashima
8 From Colonial Studies to Globalization Studies: History of Studies on
Taiwanese Economy at UTokyo
川上 桃子／Momoko Kawakami
著者紹介