Abstract
The difficulties faced by Japanese policy makers in their relationship with their counterparts in Seoul are a social construct. They are a product of historical interactions between the two nations involving exchange of ideas among the policy elites and business community, not to mention cultural exchanges at subnational levels over the centuries. The memories of colonialism in both Japan and South Korea add to what has turned into an incendiary mix. Yet, it is also the case that Tokyo’s perception of bilateral relations is a resilient one, involving generations of Japanese policy makers in rekindling the often negative images of their Korean counterparts and reifying the collective image of Korean otherness as a starting point in condsidering Japan’s Korea policy. In short, the Korean otherness is a reified image, but as such, it is real.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See, for example, John Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II (London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1998), chap. 10;
Takeu-chi Yoshimi, “Hoho to shiteno Ajia,” in Takeuchi Yoshimi zenshu, Takeuchi Yoshimi, vol. 5 (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, 1981), 90–115.
See Unno Fukuju, Nikkan heigo (Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho, 1995); and Iriye, Nippon no gaiko (Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 1966), chap. 2.
See, for example, Lee Chong-sik, Sengo Nikkan kankeishi, trans. Okonogi Masao and Furuta Hiroshi (Tokyo: Chuo Koron, 1989);
Takasaki Soji, Kensho: Nikkan kaidan (Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho, 1996); and
Lee Tong-won, Kan-Nichi joyaku teiketsu hiwa (Tokyo: PHP, 1997).
John Gerard Ruggie, “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitar-ianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 855–85.
See, for example, Irving Velody and Robin Williams ed., The Politics of Constructionism (London: Sage, 1998); and
Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Maja Zehfuss, “Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison,” European Journal of International Relations 7, no. 3 (2001): 315–48.
Roxanne Lynn Doty, “Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory,” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (1997): 376.
Roxanne Lynn Doty, “A Reply to Colin Wight,” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 3 (1999): 389.
See Margaret S. Archer, Being Human: The Problem of Agency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Nikolas Busse, “Constructivism and Southeast Asian Security,” The Pacific Review 12, no. 1 (1999): 41.
See Seng Tang, “Rescuing Constructivism from the Constructivists: A Critical Reading of Constructivist Interventions in Southeast Asian Security,” The Pacific Review 19, no. 2 (2006): 239–60.
Peter J. Katzenstein, Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military on Postwar Japan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996);
Thomas U. Berger, “Norms, Identity and National Security in Germany and Japan,” in The Culture of National Security: Norms, and Identity in World Politics, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), chap. 9;
Thomas U. Berger, “From Sword to Chrysanthemum: Japan’s Culture of Anti-Militarism,” International Security 17, no. 4 (1993): 119–50; and
Peter J. Katzenstein and Nobuo Okawara, “Japan’s National Security: Structures, Norms and Policies,” International Security 17, no. 4 (1993): 82–118.
David Campbell, “Foreign Policy and Identity: Japanese ‘Other’/American ‘Self,’” in The Global Economy as Political Space, ed. Stephen J. Roscow, Naeem Inayatullah, and Mark Rupert (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994), chap. 7.
Victor D. Cha, “What Drives Korea-Japan Security Relations?” The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 10, no. 2 (1998): 69–87.
Victor D. Cha, “Abandonment, Entrapment, and Neoclassical Realism in Asia: The United States, Japan, and Korea,” International Studies Quarterly 44, no. 2 (2000): 261–91.
See, for example, Chung Dae-kyun, Kankoku no imeji (Tokyo: Chuko Shin-sho, 1995);
Chung Dae-kyun, Ilbon no imeji: Kankoku-jin no Nippon-kan (Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 1998);
Yoon Keun-cha, Nippon kokumin-ron: kindai Nippon no aidentiti (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, 1997); and
Masao Miyoshi, Off Center: Power and Cultural Relations between Japan and the United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
AA Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934).
Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper, “Beyond ‘Identity,’” Theory and Society 29, no. 1 (2000): 1.
AA Archer, Realist Social theory: The Morphogenetic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 257.
Douglas V. Porpora, “The Caterpillar’s Question: Contesting Anti-Humanism’s Contentions,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 27, no. 2/3 (1997): 251.
John R. Searle, Intentionality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), chap. 5; and
John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (London: Penguin, 1995), chap. 6.
See Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), chap. 3.
Takeuchi Yoshimi, “Introduction,” in Gendai Nippon shiso taikei, vol. 9: Ajia shugi, ed. Takeuchi Yoshimi (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, 1963).
Dower, Embracing Defeat; and Yukiko Koshiro, Trans-Pacific Racisms and the US Occupation of Japan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999).
See Yoon, Nippon kokumin-ron, 166–73; Takasaki Soji, “Han-Nichi kanjo”: Kankoku, Chosen-jin to Nippon-jin (Tokyo: Kodansha Gendai Bunko, 1993), 197–99; and
Iriye Akira, Shin Nippon no gaiko (Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 1991), 213.
For ideas in foreign policy, see Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane, ed., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (New York: Cornell University Press, 1993).
Robert O. Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1988): 392.
Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 24–25.
Milja Kurki, “Causes of a Divided Discipline: Rethinking the Concept of Cause in International Relations Theory,” Review of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2006): 214–15.
Merje Kuus, “European Integration in Identity Narratives in Estonia: A Quest for Security,” Journal of Peace Research 39, no. 1 (2002): 94. I thank Wolfango Piccoli for alerting me to this article.
Steve Smith, “Wendt’s World,” Review of International Studies 26, no. 1 (2000): 161.
See Archer, Realist Social Theory, 257–58; Searle, The Construction of Social Reality, 23–26; and Colin Wight, “They Shoot Dead Horses Don’t They? Locating Agency in the Agent-Structure Problematique,” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 1 (1999): 125ff.
For a discussion of actor designation, see Frederick Frey, “The Problem of Actor Designation in Political Analysis,” Comparative Politics 17, no. 2 (1985): 127–52.
Copyright information
© 2010 Taku Tamaki
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tamaki, T. (2010). Conclusion. In: Deconstructing Japan’s Image of South Korea. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230106123_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230106123_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-38201-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-10612-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)