International Academic Exchange in the Era of Globalization:
Beyond academic exchanges between Japan and France
La Société Japono-Française de Sociologie
OGINO Masahiro
1. Starting Point for Sociological Exchanges between Japan and France
La Société Japono-Française de Sociologie was established in 1936 (Tanabe 2001: 349). In
1932 Joseph HACKIN, Curator of La Maison Franco-Japonaise, came into contact with TANABE
Suketoshi via YAMADA Yoshihiko, following which Marcel MAUSS sent a letter to Tanabe
stating his desire to establish a venue for holding exchanges with Japanese sociologists, which inturn led to the establishment of the society. The end of Mauss’ letter contained an exhaustive list of
the names of major French sociologists from the time that focused mainly on those in the
Durkheimian school, which indicates that this was no mere diplomatic nicety, but that in fact
Mauss was earnestly considering academic exchanges with Japanese sociologists.
Tanabe wrote the following in 1933 prior to the establishment of the society:Research on the stages of development of Japanese society and on collective representation
at each of these stages is absolutely essential for contemporary sociology. But as I have juststated, since such research is difficult for foreign scholars it must, by necessity, be carried out
personally by Japanese sociologists themselves (Tanabe 2001: 262).
Tanabe asserted that “genuine academic partnerships” could be conducted by having research
on Japanese society performed by Japanese people themselves “yield results” and then providing
these to French scholars. Unfortunately, the opportunity for these genuine academic partnerships
was lost on account of World War II. Yet research on “collective representation” in Japan moved
forward even during the war years. For example, ARUGA Kizaemon’s Nihonkazokuseido to
kosakuseido (The Japanese Family System and Tenancy System) (Aruga 1943) was published in
the form of the Series on Sociological Studies Compiled by La Société Japono-Française deSociologie in 1943 during the war. This study, which performed a finely detailed investigation into
the Japanese tenancy system, was published by La Société Japono-Française de Sociologie.
2. The Major Activities of

La Société

Japono-Française de Sociologie and the ColloqueFranco-Japonais
The society made a fresh start after the war in 1959 with the appointment of Tanabe Suketoshi
as its chairperson. Its major activities consisted of: (1) studies on French sociology, (2) studies on
French society (including the history of its social thought), and (3) comparative studies on Japaneseand French societies. It held meetings once a year and published the Revue de la Société
Japono-Française de Sociologie in an ongoing manner for the sake of exchanges between Japanese117

and French scholars and to introduce the latest trends in French sociological studies. In 2005 it
published a five-volume series entitled the Japanese-French Sociological Series (KouseishaKouseikaku Corporation) as the result of systematic research on French sociology that had been
performed by Japanese researchers (Volume 1: “Durkheim shakaigaku heno chosen (Challenges to
Durkheimian Sociology)”, Volume 2: “France shakaigakuriron heno chosen (Challenges to FrenchSociological Theory)”, Volume 3: “Bourdieu shakaigaku heno chosen (Challenges to Bourdieuien
Sociology)”, Volume 4: “Nichifutsu shakairon heno chosen (Challenges to Japanese and FrenchSocial Theories)”, Volume 5: “Kyouseishakai heno chosen: Nichifutsushakai no hikaku(Challenges to Symbiotic Societies: A Comparison of Japanese and French Societies)”. From this it
could be claimed that the society has occupied a central role of French sociological studies inJapan.
What is more, academic exchanges with French researchers have also served as a mainstay of
the activities of la Société Japono-Française de Sociologie. The Japanese-French Academic
Symposia’s Sociological Colloquium (Le Colloque Franco-Japonais) is held once every three
years.
It wasn’t until 1982 that the academic exchanges dreamed about by Marcel Mauss and Tanabe
were finally realized. Pierre ANSART, who had been a driving force behind Japanese-Frenchacademic exchanges from the French side, said that he wanted to see French sociologists instantiate
periodic exchanges with Japan in order to consider important questions like how Japan had beenable to achieve its remarkable, rapid development following World War II (Ansart 2004:7).
Therefore, the First Colloque Franco-Japonais was held in 1982 under the theme of “Politique
Industrielle et Population” at La Maison Franco-Japonaise. Tanabe Suketoshi’s and Marcel Mauss’wish had at long last been fulfilled.
Le Colloque Franco-Japonais that was held in 1985 was conducted under the same theme as
the first colloquium, but its setting had been moved to France (Paris, Lyon, and Aix-en-Provence).
The colloquium in 1988 was held at La Maison Franco-Japonaise under the theme of“Education et Société”. In 1991 the location moved to Sorbonne University, University ofStrasbourg, and University of Montpellier, where theoretical and empirical debates were held overthe course of one week on the theme of communication issues in both Japan and France. Not only
that, but after the colloquium had ended the participants visited former French territories in North
Africa (the Maghreb countries) to perform a joint study on the actual state of development in the
Maghreb countries and their connections with both France and the European Community (EC). As
this shows, Le Colloque Franco-Japonais carried out by la Société Japono-Française de Sociologie
has allowed for substantial academic exchanges to be periodically carried out that incorporate
reports, debates, joint studies, and more over a length of time of one week or longer.
In 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004 symposia were held under the theme of “La Qualité de la Viedans les Sociétés Vieillissantes” a total of four times. The results of this were published in France
in 2004 in the form of Quand la vie s'allonge France-Japon, L’Harmattan (Sous la direction de
Pierre Ansart, Anne-Marie GUILLEMARD, Monique LEGRAND, Michel MESSU, SASAKI
Koken).

118

Table. Le Colloque Franco-Japonais
Year held

Theme

Location held
La Maison Franco-Japonaise,
Soka University, Nihon

1

1982

Politique Industrielle et Population

University, Tenri University,
Takasaki City University of
Economics, and others
Paris 7 University, University

2

1985

Politique Industrielle et Populationof Lyon, Aix-en-Provence

3

1988

Education et Société

La Maison Franco-Japonaise
Paris Sorbonne University,

La dimension sociale de la communication en
4

1991

Paris 7 University, Strasbourg,
France et au Japon
Montpellier
La Maison Franco-Japonaise,5

La qualité de la vie au sein de la société en

Kinjo Gakuin University,

vieillisse : clivages entre la réalité sociale et laKwansei Gakuin University,

conscience individuelle (comparaison France-

Soka University, Nihon

Japon)

University, Chuo University,

1995

and others
6

La qualité de la vie dans les sociétés vieillissantes

Sorbonne (University of Paris),

Approches sociologiques comparatives

Lyon, Nantes

1998
Société vieillissante et qualité de vie：

7

2001

Iwaki Meisei University
comparaison France-Japon
University of Nancy 2, École
des Hautes Études en Sciences

8

2004

Longévité et Politiques Publiques
Sociales(EHESS)
Kwansei Gakuin University,

9

2007

L’insécurité sociale: comparaison France-Japon
Koyasan University
Generation of Culture in the Era of Globalization:

10

2011

The Tolerance for Cultural Diversity and Peace-

EHESS

building

At this series of symposia, the participants were made acutely aware of the structural risks thataging societies will inevitably be saddled with, as well as the importance of responding to these invarious domains throughout society. At the same time, they were also made acutely aware of thenecessity of presenting a “sociological vision for safe and secure societies” that could contribute to119

erecting such safe and secure societies. Therefore, in 2007 a symposium was held that was called“L’insécurité Sociale: Comparaison France-Japon” (at Kwansei Gakuin University and Koyasan
University). At this symposium the participants debated risks that threaten safety and security incontemporary societies. In particular, it pointed out that one challenge faced by advanced,
information-based sociologists is that over-circulating information on risks produces more anxiety
in people than is strictly necessary, whereas conversely failing to disseminate information on risks
produces the possibility of magnifying the damage caused. These results were compiled into a
special feature entitled “L’insécurité Sociale: Comparaison France-Japon” in the Revue de la La
Société Japono-Française de Sociologie (17th edition). It affirmed that it is utterly crucial toachieve a harmonious coexistence through multicultural understanding within globalized societiesin which the entire world is closely interconnected. The contemporary issue of “cultural diversity”
that was presented here tied in with the theme for the next symposium in FY2011.

3. Challenges that Are Currently Being Addressed
In 2011 a symposium entitled “Generation of Culture in the Era of Globalization: The
Tolerance for Cultural Diversity and Peace-building” was held at L’École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris (with the backing of the Japan Foundation).
As a result of globalization, in contemporary societies the production, distribution, andconsumption of new culture is being driven forward at the global level, such that steadyadvancements are being made in the standardization of culture. But unless cultural diversity is
accepted in contemporary societies and that its value is actively recognized and created, thenpeace-building simply cannot be achieved. The thinking was that by focusing on the generation of
new culture that accompanies globalization and the diverse cultures that this continues to produce,
as well as deepening our understanding of the true meaning of cultural diversity, we could offer up
important clues for the peace-building that we must strive for.
This symposium primarily featured the following three characteristics by way of its method
for approaching this theme and its research methodology.
(1) Researchers from primarily Japan and France, but also Brazil, took up contemporary “culture”
in each of these three countries, exchanged opinions, and performed a comparative social
theory comparison from the perspective of multiple fields—including sociology, anthropology,
philosophy, psychology, and ethnology.
(2) The researchers attempted to perform a theoretical revision of the general concept of culture
and the contemporary phases of the phenomena pointed out by this based upon specific data
covering a wide range both temporally and spatially.
(3) They also perceived of the mounting risks and growing societal anxiety found incontemporary societies as a cultural issue by relating it to the generation of new culture.
The reason that the approach described above was adopted was due to the thinking that therisks that must be surmounted in contemporary society are characterized by the “individualization”
of said risks. Having been freed from the bonds of traditional families and collective bodies,120

individuals in contemporary societies must now confront risks directly. To put this another way, itmeans that individuals are becoming divorced from the traditional cultures that had been an
integral part of these collective bodies as well. Generally speaking, individuals must now respondto the risks arising from things like employment, consumption, disasters, and accidents under theirown personal responsibility. As such, almost as if in concert with this phenomena, new cultures arebeing produced that are divorced from these traditional collective bodies.
As if in response to the societal anxiety brought about by this “individualization” of risk, newcultures have emerged in such forms as a search for a way to restore the connection between thedead and the living, as well as a consumer culture that serves as compelling conduct in life that
underpins one’s individual existence. This also erupts as “culture” that is thoroughly suffused withnegative aspects in the form of insurrections and domestic violence.
Such circumstances are common to both Japan and France, and represent important themesthat must be clarified equally within advanced countries. But due to the differing historical andsocial backgrounds in Japanese and French societies, the manner in which their problems manifest
themselves vary. For example, in French society, which has proactively accepted immigrants sincethe 19th century, the entry of Islamic immigrants into the labor market has been producing various
conflicts in recent years. A trenchant example of this would be the riots in the autumn of 2005. On
the other hand, in Japan violence occurs in more intimate quarters, like with social withdrawal andbullying. These points were discussed by the researchers from Japan, France, and Brazil.

4. Initiatives since 3.11
La Société Japono-Française de Sociologie reached the 75-year anniversary in 2011. Tocommemorate this, it had initially planned to take up the history of Japanese-French exchanges insociology from the angle of academic history at the meeting’s symposium. But because the Great
East Japan Earthquake occurred on March 11 the symposium’s theme was hastily changed to“Risque, Insécurité et Disparité: Penser la Société D’après Mars” (cosponsored by La Maison
Franco- Japonaise). This theme took over where the subject of “L’insécurité Sociale: Comparaison
France-Japon,” which had been addressed by the society through the Colloque Franco-Japonais,
left off.
At present, Japanese society has been thrown into disorder by the composite disaster thatexceeded all expectations, which included the damage from the earthquake and tsunami as well as
the accident at the nuclear power plant that this produced. Yet the problems have not been confined
just to within Japan. Aid workers from countries all around the world came to Japan, and intensive
coverage was devoted to the nuclear power plant accident in the news from around the world. Fromsuch examples it can be seen that this disaster was not only composite in nature, but was also
globalized. In the midst of all this, what sorts of paths should be considered when it comes toerecting safe and secure societies? This is an extension of the theme of “L’insécurité Sociale:
Comparaison France-Japon” from the 2007 Colloque Franco-Japonais.
In order to get a grasp of disasters from a Japanese-French comparative perspective,121

Henri-Pierre JEUDY, the author of Le Désir de Catastrophe (2010, Circé) was invited from Francewith the aid of La Maison Franco-Japonaise and asked to give a keynote speech. In addition,
MIKAMI Takeshi (Kobe University) and MATSUMURA Sachiko (Open University of Japan) fromthe society offered research reports.
Jeudy raised questions about how disasters are perceived in modern societies based on a studyof Chernobyl and a study of the museums related to disasters in Japan such as Minamata disease
and the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. In particular, he critically discussed systems that exploit
the vagueness in the distinction between natural disasters and man-made disasters in an effort toreclaim disasters that had originally been deemed man-made disasters as natural disasters. In
addition, he pointed out that risk management ideas based on the myth of completely eliminatingrisk are giving rise to a new ethic and serving to constrain society itself. He also asserted that the
ethics of risk avoidance was what lay behind this deep-seated anxiety. Mikami likewise presented
the notion that social theories of risk were barely viable in the form of “solidarity based on anxiety”,
and that it was “diabolic” that solidarity based on risk management had already become impossible.
Matsumura took a social welfare perspective in claiming that information that underpins people’s
daily lives following an earthquake is unreliable, and advocating for the need to qualitativelytransform the lifestyle in Japan.
5. Current State of and Problems with International Academic Exchanges
Moving forward, a broad-ranging debate will have to be carried out regarding whether weshould carry on with the academic exchanges between Japan and France in the same manner as
they have previously been handled.
To start with, it is gradually growing increasingly more difficult to raise the funds to hold themeetings. Furthermore, given the fact that the obligations from teaching and the other routine workof university teachers, who are the main constituents of the society, are increasing from year to year,
it is hard to secure the time and labor required for the fundraising process. The same holds true forthe researchers on the French side. Moreover, while symposia like those to date have been valuable
as international symposia because they pursued large themes, the recent trend in sociology is forever-increasing fragmentation in each field, with this being particularly pronounced among theyounger generation. The situation is the same on both the Japanese and French sides. But as
expected, the greatest point of contention is the question of whether the changes in the world of the
21st century can be captured solely through a bilateral comparison of the two nation states ofFrance and Japan. In the most recent symposia this was broadened out beyond a bilateralcomparison through the participation of Brazilian researchers. But if we adopt the point of viewthat this is the “era of globalization,” then surely it will be necessary to construct a more expansive
framework for research.
Here it should be pointed out that two challenges emerge from the question of how theinternationalization of sociology should proceed that are not limited to exchanges between Japanand France.

122Challenge 1: What should the language of sociology be when it comes to international
exchanges?
Challenge 2: To what extent are comparative studies and research via a nation state framework
valid?
The question of what language sociologists should use to express themselves merits a bit moredebate. Most of the Japanese sociologists write their papers in Japanese. Yet when discussing
internationalization the papers and writings that are primarily referenced are those that have been
written in English. This is premised on language unification for internationalization(standardization in English). But is English really the superlative choice as the language forsociological papers and description? This issue has not come up for discussion. At the very least it
is considerably trying for researchers who do not use English as an everyday language or as an
academic language to give reports at academic conferences and write academic papers in alanguage other than the one with which they are most familiar.
At a meeting of the International Institute of Sociology (IIS) from several years back a report
was given by a Romanian researcher (I myself was one of the reporters). This researcher began
their report by first interjecting an apology by saying, “Please excuse me for giving my report insuch broken English.” The majority of the other reporters, myself included, were researchers fromthe non-English world, and harbored the impression that we could significantly boost the quality of
our reports if we could express them in the languages that we normally spoke.
In addition to which the organizers of the working groups proposed that they would like tocompile together and publish all of the reports, with themselves as the editors, and to allappearances they were going to produce results befitting an international academic conference.
They collected together the manuscripts early on, but before long we were informed by the editorsthat the publishing company that they had originally planned to use contacted them to say that a
number of the papers that had been scheduled for publication were expressed rather clumsily inEnglish, and that it had deemed them unfit for publication. Even after this the process leading up to
their publication did not exactly proceed smoothly on account of the fact that it took a considerable
amount of time to obtain the approval of the publishing company. In truth there were likely various
different considerations, such as problems with the level of quality of some of the papers, but in theend they were eventually published by an Italian publishing company (in English!). But the editors
asked the authors to have native checks of the English texts done by native speakers.
Sparing precious research time to writing papers in English is hardly productive. Even more
problematic is the fact that when something is expressed in English or another foreign language its
meaning is somehow subtly shifted from how it was expressed in Japanese. Some are even of theopinion that it is the problems borne from this subtle shift in meaning themselves that are indicativeof sociology’s “lagging behind” as a science. Yet there have been no attempt to at least simply
standardize the language used in sociology like was done with the natural sciences. Naturally, it
appears as if there is a certain “something” that can only be expressed in the language with which
one is accustomed to speaking; what you might call “linguistic embodiment.” Furthermore, it is123essential to not only pen papers exclusively in highly specialized academic jargon (or in foreign
languages such as English), but we must also publish papers and writings that can be read by thepeople in the regions targeted for study. In this sense the significance of allowing people to write
research papers in the language with which they are most familiar cannot be denied—such as inJapanese if they have fluent command of that language.
6. Offering a Model for Bilateral Academic Exchanges
The circumstances at bilateral exchanges such as the academic exchanges between Japan andFrance envisioned by Mauss and Tanabe differ from those at international academic societies thatgather together numerous researchers, such as IIS and ISA. The academic exchanges between
Japan and France differ from the model of having a standardized language via English or the likeby carrying out exchanges in Japanese and French. This type could be called a two-directionalmodel. Since Japanese people can speak in Japanese it does not produce the feelings of inadequacy
such as I experienced in the IIS working group.
Yet this is not to say that there is not a problem at a more fundamental level. There is thequestion of the extent to which comparisons through a nation state framework are valid, which was
brought up as the second challenge. Tanabe has asserted that studies on Japanese society should be
conducted by Japanese people themselves. Yet in light of the unitary nature of Japanese society that
this presupposes, would just promoting exchange not be insufficient? This matter is full ofquestions about what sort of direction sociological theory as a whole should take in the future.
While this is not something that I can argue in great detail here, I would like to make one point:
which is that nation states are not monolithic. Internally they contain multiple ethnic groups.
Moreover, there are also peoples who lack a single state despite being recognized as belonging to
the same ethnic group. If we fail to take this point into consideration then there will implicitly belimitations with moving forward with joint research that performs bilateral comparisons that are
predicated on the notion of nation states.
Finally, in place of the unified model via a particular language (primarily English) I would
like to consider the possibility of expanding such exchanges out to three or more countries (or threecultural spheres) without being limited merely to exchanges between two countries that are basedon this two-directional model between two countries by taking this idea into consideration. To start
with, when adopting multiple languages at academic meetings and academic conferences this isrelatively easy to do with two languages. Yet when this grows to three or more languages then there
will be many cases where this will be difficult to achieve in practice due to financial and other such
constraints, even if it is fully possible in a technical sense.
Conversely, in a technical sense it would not be all that difficult to create an electronic journal
system that guarantees that papers would be written in not just a single language, but multiple
languages. For example, it would be quite simple to post papers in three languages on a particulartheme to such a system. But just by doing this alone the papers would only be readable to people
who understood the languages used to write them, and this would rob it of its meaning as a form ofinternational exchange. Consequently, in the case of researchers who use Japanese for example, this124

would necessitate that they have papers written in Japanese translated into different languages. In
doing so, the circumstances will vary when it comes to what languages to select according toquestions like what languages the researcher is fluent in, the sort of people in the region that theywould like to convey their research results to, and what region the people are from that constitutethe members of the researcher’s community. There would not be just one answer.
Hereafter, exchanges of a type that differ from exchanges with countries that gave birth tosociology—such as France—are sure to grow in importance. Opportunities for academic exchanges
are sure to increase in East Asia in particular. For such exchanges adopting a non-East Asian
language such as English or French as the common language could hardly be called productive inthat textual representations would have to be checked since said language is not used in any of theregions there, to take but one example. There is no doubt that the need has arisen to promote thetwo-directional model like that with the academic exchanges between Japan and France via three ormore countries. In so doing I personally hope that an electronic journal written in East Asian
languages will be created at the outset in particular research domains. This would entail thecreation of a system in which a paper could be read in not only one language but in multiple
languages. For this there will be questions that must be considered, such as the issues of a peer
review system for and the translation of papers, but such a venture would by no means be
impossible.
Reference Literature
Ansart, Pierre, 2004, “Preambule,” Quand la vie s'allonge France-Japon, L’Harmattan．
Aruga Kizaemon, 1943, Nihonkazokuseido to kosakuseido (The Japanese Family System and
Tenancy System), Kawade Shobo.
Tanabe Suketoshi, 2001, “Ronso・Zuiso (Discussions and Thoughts)” (Tanabe Suketoshi comp. /Vol.5), Miraisha.
Websitehttp://www.socio-nichifutsu.com/
Emailnichifutsusocio@gmail.com

125