Abstract
This comment on Nagasawa's article points out some difficulties in it. First, it tends to use jargons without enough explanation. He needs to clarify those concepts that he uses and needs to show the necessity to use them. Second, the (Japanese) title and the abstract of his article suggest that the main purpose is to rearrange the concepts of the three thinkers, but the third part of the article is saying much about his concern about evaluation of care work. This inconsistency needs to be rectified.
Then, the reviewer reformulates the author's main concept of Cooperation and defines it as an interactive provocation and communication of individuals' devices/skills in life through communal practice. However, author does not validate his conception. Selection of previous studies might be inadequate. Negri and Hardt is certainly to be discussed, but it is not clear why the author selected them. When he refers to them, he does not mention any problem with them. Thus he fails to keep a critical distance to them. And these difficulties may lead to an elitistic and authoritarian utilization of their thought.
The reviewer confirms the content of the concept of Empire and its paradoxical relationship with the concept of Cooperation, then points out that the authors knows this relationship but he ended the article with a one-sided assessment of Cooperation.
The reviewer also points out an ethical problem of citation of students' papers as such. Finally, the reviewer emphasizes the necessity of minimum procedure of proper argument to gain readers' understanding, even if we give an importance on interdisciplinarity and originality of the contributed article.
