Live Locally, Grow Globally

What's NEW

Society, Politics, Economics, Law  [International Conference]
Seminars & Symposiums

Osaka University International Symposium Program -- "Interdisciplinary Perspectives for Asia-Pacific Region: History and Prospects"

2014-2-14 (Fri) - 2014-2-16 (Sun)

Venue: Osaka University Hall, Toyonaka Campus, Osaka University

DAY1: 14 February (Friday) Symposium Day1

07:00 - Breakfast

8:50: Please come to the Hotel Lobby → taxi to Osaka U.

09:50 – 11:50 Sessions 1 and 2

*Presenter: Professor Snodgrass, “The Young East: Asia-Pacific networks of Global Buddhism”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Cheng

*Presenter: Dr. Saunavaara, “The unforeseen effects of the American intervention – The political purge program and the making of Japan’s postwar leadership”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Ooi

12:00 – 14:00 Lunch with Japanese cultural experience (Tea Ceremony)

14:10 – 16:10 Sessions 3 and 4

*Presenter: Prefessor Weiss, “A Comparative Analysis of the Relationship between Learning Environments and Educational Performance in the Asia Pacific Region”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Cumings

*Presenter: Professor Otmazgin, “Does Popular Culture Matter to the Asian Region? Possible Implications and Methodological Challenges”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Paden

16:25 – 17:15 Graduate Students Session (limit: 3 graduate students)

*Mr. Koji ITO (Osaka U.) America's Annexation of Hawaii of 1898 Reconsidered

Abstract: It is interesting to note that the Obama administration has shifted the focus of its foreign policy from the Middle East and South Asia to East Asia and the Pacific region. This “strategic pivot” has been demonstrated in President Barack Obama’s statement that the United States is a “Pacific power” and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s definition of this century as “America’s Pacific Century.” However, what has motivated America’s paying more attention to East Asia and the Pacific region? Is it because of a dramatic rise of China in military and economic terms? Or is it a result of severe economic recessions from which the United States has struggled to escape since late 2008? Focusing on America’s overseas expansion into the Pacific in the 1890s, when it was suffering from a serious economic depression and seeing Japan’s sudden emergence as an imperial power, would provide a useful insight into what has underlain the Obama administration’s “strategic pivot.”

I have studied the historical significance of America’s annexation of Hawaii of 1898 from a geopolitical perspective in international relations. While much ink has been spilled on the topic of the annexation of Hawaii, most of the previous studies have paid too much attention to the relationships between America’s absorption of the Pacific islands and the social developments its domestic society faced in the 1890s. Actually, we cannot neglect contemporary domestic developments, including the rise of imperialists, the upsurge of socio-psychological unrest, the outbreak of a chronic economic depression, and the fall of muscularity in the U.S. domestic society, as factors explaining America’s annexation of Hawaii. However, such uniarchival and unilingual approaches prevent us from seeing another important aspect of the historical development: the existence of mutual interests between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii. Without taking this aspect into account, we cannot fully explain why the United States began to promote the annexation of Hawaii in the spring of 1897.

My argument stresses that the annexation of Hawaii was the creation of an alliance between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii against rising threat of Japanese expansionism into the Pacific. If we regard alliance as a “formal and informal relationship of security cooperation between two or more sovereign states,” as Stephen M. Walt has defined, it is impossible to see the annexation of Hawaii as the formation of an alliance between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii because the latter lost its position as a sovereign state after 1898. However, my argument focuses on the process leading up to the annexation of Hawaii and pays special attention to profound forces behind the historical development. Interestingly, rising threat of Japanese expansionism into the Pacific allowed the United States and the Republic of Hawaii to possess mutual interests before 1898. While the former sought to maintain its superiority in the Pacific islands in economic, military, and strategic terms, the latter desired to protect its social system dominated by minority white Americans economically and politically. Thus, America’s annexation of Hawaii was a way to promote the common interests between the two countries, and it was characterized by the process seen in the formation of alliances in international relations.


*Mr. Petko SLAVOV (Osaka U.) Noh, Seen through Foreigner’s Eyes - the Image of Noh in the West during the Meiji Period

Abstract: My research has the purpose to review the overall image of Noh abroad, before it was popularised by Ezra Pound, William Butler Yeats, Noel Peri and others in the 1910s, as well as to attempt an explanation as to why has this unique dramatic art been noticed so late by the West, compared to some other Japanese cultural resources. I argue that among other factors, crucial to the forming of the image of Noh was its form of presentation to foreigners in the early Meiji period. During this period, in most cases Noh plays were often performed in front of foreigners not as full-length plays, but as short extracts with an emphasis on dances. Thus deprived of the dramatic element, Noh was perceived by most foreigners as a one-dimensional performance, a dance, most often referred to as "the Noh Dance.” This image was intensified by the Noh-based geisha dances (kamigata-mai), especially at the Japanese style clubhouse called Koyokan, which was extremely popular among foreigners. The high appraisal of Noh by the Japanese contradicted the rather jejune “dance” that the foreigners saw performed before them and many of them were disappointed with it. However with the increase of research on Noh, and especially on its historical and literary aspects, in the late Meiji and early Taisho periods, this one-dimensional image started to dissolve.


*Ms. Akiko Sato (Osaka U.) Reception and Transformation of Science and Technology: Public Health in Occupied Japan Transformed by SQC

Abstract: The purpose of this presentation is to answer the research question how the hegemony of the United States led to the reception and transformation of science and technology in Occupied Japan. In particular, the presenter will clarify the process of how SQC advocated by Deming led the private sector to improve public health in Occupied Japan. Deming was an Advisor in Sampling, Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President and a professor of statistics in New York University at that time.

Firstly, to successfully understand the contribution of Deming to public health in Occupied Japan, the presenter will refer to the “Memorandum for the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers from the Second U.S. Scientific Mission to Japan.” This memorandum, issued in 1948, recommended the Japanese people solve the problems of industry, agriculture and public health in Japan for the future.

Secondly, the presenter will discuss contribution of traditional Japanese pharmaceutical companies to reduce the TB mortality rate in Japan. They adapted Deming’s SQC method for the production process of its anti-TB drug in 1950.

Lastly, confirming the response of GHQ/SCAP PHW to “Recommendation on Social Security System in 1950” advocated by Ouchi Hyoe, the presenter will explain how the SQC was a trigger to develop the pharmaceutical industry in Japan, which proudly has the second largest market share in the world at present.

18:00- Bus pick-up, Reception (-20:00) Ganko Toyonaka-ten → Shuttle bus to hotel


DAY 2: 15 February (Saturday) Symposium Day2

07:00- Breakfast

08:50: Please come to the Hotel Lobby → taxi to Osaka U.

09:50 – 11:50 Sessions 5 and 6

*Presenter: Professor Söderberg, “Myanmar – the last frontier for Japanese ODA to Southeast Asia”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Oga

*Presenter: Professor Cheng, “Confucian Values and Democratic Governance in Hong Kong”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Söderberg

12:00 – 12:50 Lunch

12:50 – 14:50 Sessions 7 and 8

*Presenter: Professor Cumings, “The Obama 'Pivot' to Asia and the ‘Rise’ of China in the Context of American Hegemony”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Takeuchi, Toshitaka (Osaka University)

*Presenter: Professor Paden, “APEC tipping points in 2001: issues of dispute settlement and trade security”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Aiko Ikeo (Waseda University)

15:05 – 17:05 Sessions 9 and 10

*Presenter: Professor Ooi, “Birthright Citizenship Questioned: ‘Chinese Citizens’ in the Periphery of Sovereignty, Freedom, and Equality in Late Nineteenth-Century America”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Otmazgin

*Presenter: Dr. Shimamoto, “Abolition of Japan’s Nuclear Power Plants?—Explaining from Historical Perspective on U.S. Atomic Policy of Early Cold War”

Chair and Discussant: Dr. Saunavaara

Move to Hotel → 18:00 – Banquet at the Hotel


DAY 3: 16 February (Sunday) Symposium Day3

07:00- Breakfast

08:50: Please come to the Hotel Lobby → taxi to Osaka U.

09:50 – 11:50 Sessions 11 and 12

*Presenter: Professor Oga, “Privatizing Foreign Policy: the role of business executives in the U.S.-Japan economic relations”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Snodgrass

*Presenter: Sugita, “Japan's Epoch-Making Sickness Insurance Reforms, 1937–1945”

Chair and Discussant: Professor Weiss

12:00 – 12:50 Lunch

12:50 – 14:00 Session 13, Graduate Students Session

*Ms. Lukminaite, Simona (Osaka U.) Women’s Education in Japan during Meiji – a glance into the roles played by Iwamoto Yoshiharu in the Japanese society

Abstract: I am researching the formative (i.e. Meiji) period of the modern women education in Japan from a historical perspective. Using the writings of Iwamoto Yoshiharu, a Christian educator and a publisher of the first women magazine Jogaku Zasshi, as an axis, I inquire into the change and conflict that was taking place in the society in regards to the position of women and consequently their education and paths that were opening up for them in an attempt to throw more light onto this transitory period. During my presentation I would like to discuss Iwamoto’s relationship with the US, his activities in Japan, and the influence he had in the Japanese society.


*Ms. Anna Skarpelis (Japan Foundation Fellow, New York University and Tokyo University) War and the Welfare State: A closer look at the legacies of WWII on Japanese and German welfare state development.

The origin of what we now understand as ‘welfare state’, and what has informed most of the past 30 years of welfare state research, can be situated in many countries during or after the Second World War. While there have been changes to these countries’ welfare states since 1945, the welfare state in its immediate post-war iteration has become an ‘established fact’ (Pierson and Leimgruber 2010) and remains fundamentally the same in that it covers a similar array of social risks: health care, pensions, education, childcare. Despite this remarkable convergence in timing, few studies have addressed the underlying reasons, especially the potential role of authoritarianism⁠1 and World War II in contributing to this development.

In the literature addressing war and welfare, there is broad agreement that war matters for the creation or expansion of the welfare state, yet the underlying mechanisms of change as well as the timing of such developments remain obscure. Additionally, this literature makes serious theoretical and causal claims about war despite choosing cases on the dependent variable and thereby disallowing any negative or contrary cases. The studies treat World Wars I and II and only countries that experienced welfare state development and did not participate in subsequent wars fought on their own territory. If war truly matters for welfare state building, what role then did the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars play for Bismarck’s creation of the welfare state? If war matters, why is it only World War II that matters for Japan, but not the large number of wars the country had been involved in throughout the previous half century?

Further, the literature addressing the role of war in welfare state building is Anglo-centric, both in objects of analysis as well as the citizenship of its authors, with the result that countries experiencing both war and authoritarian rule receive short shrift. If British historiography has declared World War II as one of the causes of the British welfare state, based around the ‘caring society’s consensus’ among citizens fused together by their collective memory of the Blitz, we know little about how the war mattered for Germany, Japan or Italy. Did these countries also change social policies now that they collectively belonged to a Schicksalsgemeinschaft of sorts? Or did changes in the fascist countries originate in military necessity? Or did bureaucratic expansion under the aegis of war lead to welfare state development?

The literature’s understanding of the links between war and welfare are at once limited and over-determined. I will cast doubt on the tacit assumption that victorious democracies have experienced change through collective reactions to joint sufferance, but that the losing fascist regimes only reacted mechanically to external constraints imposed on them because of the requirements of war and the voraciousness of expansionary military expenditure. Attributing social policy changes between 1930 and 1950 to war-induced solidarity (for the post-war changes), or as technical response to military needs (for war-period changes) both demotes many events as ‘noise’ and utterly fails to capture the role of fascism and national socialism.

The Anglo-Saxon literature’s omission of the possible interactions between fascism and the war in shaping institutions and policies is shadowed in German and Japanese research. There is not a single work within German historiography analyzing the effect of war and National Socialism on the welfare state writ large, and Japanese research either situates the origins of the welfare state firmly in the post-war period, or gives hopelessly over-determined accounts of how war mattered for welfare. When fascism is discussed, this is done to the exclusion of the war, and in the rare works discussing both in conjunction, war and fascism are seen as events with distinct logics that do not overlap or shape each other. If anything, war distorts and stunts fascism’s natural development.

Authoritarianism largely remains out of the bounds of most studies on war and welfare, and I will argue here that authoritarianism can intersect with war aims in ways that may be contradictory or mutually reinforcing. Understanding how welfare states change under authoritarian regimes and war will go far toward addressing the following concerns: How can we explain the expansion of social policy under non-democratic regimes, when traditional explananda of labour strength or the electoral system are temporarily incapacitated? Does war promote particular forms of social policymaking? To what extent can radical alterations in the form of political institutions, as in the transition to authoritarianism, change what are mostly considered to be continuous and hard to alter institutions?

My dissertation connects the historical literature on war and statemaking with the political science literature on welfare state change, and it lays out theoretical claims implicit in historical sociological accounts of war-related social policy change, contesting these where appropriate based on preliminary research into my two case studies, Germany and Japan. Through including evidence from two non-Anglo-Saxon cases, I hope to contribute to our knowledge of the interrelationships between total war, authoritarianism and welfare state building.


*Mr. Fujiwara, Ikuro (Osaka U.) “U.S. and the Pacific: To dodge losing its legitimacy

The Empress of China left New York for Guangdong in 1784, sailing into China’s territory for the first time. U.S. trade with China was following the path paved by Britain; U.S. trade vessels with China crossed the Atlantic, dropped anchor at Ismir, Ottoman Turk, trading opium to sell in China. The U.S. did not hold any counterparts to India colonized by Britain. Small part of merchants, especially Boston and New York benefitted themselves by trading with China. However, the percentage of trade revenues with China was around 3% of U.S. trade during 19th century. The trade pattern was changed when the U.S. developed the Pacific rout to China and/or whaling port of call in Japan. Since the end of 18th century, Russia expanded its territory over Eurasia to Alaska, and the fur business with China was rampant in the northern part of Pacific Ocean. U.S. sea hunters going upstream of the west coast to confront with Russia, England, and Spain. Spain did not hold its influence in North America to renounce its territories and ports to England and the U.S. Furthermore, England could not take advantage when the U.S. opened Panama Canal Railway in 1855; leaving England to explore Canadian railroads to the Pacific. At the same time, fur business became curtailed because of excessing hunting. The U.S. merchants were looking for trade items with their Chinese counterparts. In this frame, Asian nations and countries opened their trades with regional nations as a result of Western Impact. Asian nations competed with each other to take better trading positions, that is, industrialized goods producers, and otherwise, stayed as primary goods producers. American expansion to the Asia Pacific triggered multilayer trading system in Asia.


15:10 – General Meeting

Good bye

Date: 2014-2-14 (Fri) - 2014-2-16 (Sun)
Organizer: Language and Society Dept., Graduate School of Language and Culture
Sponsored: Administrative Office for Large-Scale Education and Research Projects, Osaka University
Venue: Osaka University Hall, Toyonaka Campus
Registration: Registration by email is required. Send an email to the address provided above.
Contact: Yoneyuki SUGITA, Language and Society Dept., Graduate School of Language and Culture

Back to top