Until recently in Japan, theories of “domination” (shihai), “conflict” (toso), and “autonomy” (jichi) have been the most utilized conceptual tools in political science research. However, when one applies these theoretical constructs in an attempt to analyze actual political phenomena as they exist in society, there are inevitably things which cannot be adequately explained by these models. In the past, it was often convenient to claim that since we are dealing with a “backward country where cultural standards are lower, one has to expect a certain degree of irrationalism.” I do not believe this explanation is persuasive any longer; rather, the problem is that our conceptual tools are inadequate for understanding Japanese political culture fully.
Given this perspective, it is possible to observe from the outset that considerable theoretical confusion persists among these three conceptual tools listed above, and in some instances, extraneous factors have been included. For example, when autonomy is rendered not as self-determination, but as “self-government, ” this is because it has been transformed by the concept of domination. This suggests that it would be valuable not only to distinguish clearly among these three different theoretical constructs, but to abstract from existing reality whatever other tools or theories are necessary for enhancing our understanding. If we were to do this, the following types of theoretical approaches could be developed.
Let us list three major concepts: “involution” (kikyo), “assimilation” (doka) and “karma.” These represent three principles which are at the very roots of political culture in Japan, China and India. Since it is a relatively simple matter to identify the basic elements of a particular political culture, one might easily jump to the conclusion that all political cultures can be reduced to a single basic principle. However, this is not the case, and one would be well advised to consider that political cultures are rooted in a series of highly complex principles. Moreover, for each of these principles we can identify seven basic components: ultima ratio (kirifuda), structure, organization, movements, values, change and the social base, and this sheds light on the manner in which these complex elements are intertwined. If we apply these potentially very useful tools to the task of deciphering the reality we perceive around us, the range of our capacity to explain the various existing political and social phenomena which we encounter will be significantly expanded.
While political movements are often described as political processes, and political processes are often rendered as developing political conditions, I argue that the overall developmental process of political conditions can be seen as taking a definite form. I call the “place” (ba) in which political conditions develop a fixed “magnetic field” (jiba). We can distinguish three different types of magnetic fields: unipolar, bipolar and multipolar. Moreover, presumably there is some degree of correspondence, between these three types of magnetic fields and the six basic elements that make up society, and with the special characteristics emerging from the way these elements are combined. For example, we can hypothesize that the principles of “karma” and “involution” correspond to the unipolar field; “conflict” and “domination” correspond to the bipolar field; and “assimilation” and “autonomy” correspond to the multipolar field. These elements can be broken down further by distinguishing between the six basic ingredients depending on whether they are diffusive or cohesive, and dividing them into two categories accordingly. It is my hypothesis that if, among the six elements,

View full abstract

Movements in the field of politics have been studied, so far, as political or social movements. The analytical framework for studying movements, then, is fixed by their relationship to political, social or cultural changes. Therefore, almost by definition, movements are contrasted to “order, ” “institution, ” “rational behavior” or “normal daily lives.”
In the first two chapters, the present situation in political science concerning political and social movements is briefly reviewed. Theories of Marx and Smelser are analyzed and the effort of Shiobara, a leading Japanese sociologist in this field, to synthesize both of these theories is also examined. According to the author's conclusion, these theories which retain the traditional analytical framework for studying movements are inadequate for studying the emerging type of movements in participatory politics, and are insensitive to the organizational effects of an administrative society which degenerates movements into pre-emptive governing machines.
By contrast, the traditional Japanese framework of treating movements —“undo”—, is not necessarily united to mass movements. The word refers to any political action to move others without coercion or bargaining. It denotes the quality of action, and organized action which involves authoritative or oppressive relationships is not usually referred to as “undo.” Since the word is conterminous with sports or exercises, conceiving of political movements as “undo” often implies the idea of influencing others by exerting one's own body. The notion originally derived from Chinese, but the author finds that usage has developed in accordance with the historical and social traits of Japanese society where mass movements have nor succeeded in revolutionizing society and where people's main concern has been to influence authorities through “undo.” If properly developed, the author believes that this Japanese notion of movements might be helpful for studying newly emerging citizen activities in the direction of generating participatory politics.
In the following chapters, the author attempts to clarify the nature of the power to move others which movements (undo) actually have. Their power is not rooted in any influence base or tied to particular social values as Lasswell argues, but relies instead upon the human capacity to reach or move others in their hearts. Of primary importance is the ability to reduce others, influentials and officials, to naked human beings, to bring them out of their institutional and organizational contexts. Thus, they are removed from the arena of power and bargaining. Then follows the ability to penetrate into the minds and hearts of others.
This process is aided by refining insights and expressions. Bodily exertion, such as demonstrations or sit-ins, and other direct actions are viewed as means of expression in undo. Repetitive and group actions are used to intensify the overall influence.
The spiritual and emotional capacity which participants in movements demonstrate are of special interest to the author. He tries to define this capacity in terms of the notion of “subjecthood” in political science. Though sometimes led by irrational emotions, participants display independence coupled with a real ability to influence others without any obvious external means of coercion. In discussing this capacity and its role in politics, the author contrasts the approach of undo participants with traditional persuasion and discussion techniques in Western democracies, which are often given sole legitimacy as a means to influence others. The author stresses the importance of legitimatizing the power of undo in constructing communal politics in a contemporary democracy.

View full abstract

An Event is an Encounter in human life.
Social Science, according to what Edgar Morin says in his pioneering article on the Sociology of Event (“Evénement-Sphinx, ” in Communication, No. 18), has been oppressed by obsolete schemes for it relies on only two items of analysis: static Structure and dynamic History. With these archaic schemes, social science is no longer able to analyze the complexities of present-day society. To re-vitalize social science, two mediate items, System and Event, should be added.
System is self-regulating, controlled by information-apparatus or culture, existing as it does within a larger Eco-system or Environment.Interactions between System and Eco-system are potential Events. So, Event may be considered the response to challenge, in Toynbee's terms. Responses can be of three types: 1) System is so closed that it shuts out any challenge, or if a challenge filters in, the System is unresponsive. In this case, System is stagnant. 2) If the response proves to be unsuccessful, System is destroyed. 3) Lastly, if System succeeds in achieving a creative response, Learning, Evolution and Development can result. In short, durable change or transformation is brought to the System.
Another French theorist, Louis Althusser (“Pour Marx”) writes that the creative response, which can be achieved only by exploring our “collective unconsciousness of depth, ” enables us to solve the problem of “realizing the necessariness of History in our accidentalness.” Here the creative response can be construed as the significant Event in politics, and so we may, to present a hypothesis, apply this idea in exploring the implications of Japanese political tradition.
What is the “collective unconsciousness of depth” of Japanese people? Shuzo Kuki, a philosopher who analyzed the implications of Japanese culture in “Ori-ni-Fure-te (Accidental Sayings), ” feels that the essence of Event is an Accidental Encounter between two things and/or persons that gives birth to something new. The Chinese characters are shown because they have the same pronunciation and associated meaning.
Furthermore, in our own language, politics is literally called the Festival-Event (matsurigoto). According to sociologist, Kazuko Tsurumi, who explores the modernizing capacities of Kunio Yanagita's study of Japanese folklore in her “Hyohaku-to-Teiju-to (Vagrancy and Settlement), ” the festival (matsuri) is an Encounter between the settled people and the vagrants. This Event has a vitalizing effect on an otherwise static social life.
In Japan, one of the most conspicuous recent phenomena is the increased population of Danchi, collective housing areas. Here the temporary inhabitants of Danchi once again embody the idea of an Encounter between the settled and the vagrant, as seen in the Matsuri concept above. Again, this form of temporary residence is expressed with the Chinese character, which has the same pronunciation as and.
Moreover, these Danchi residents are assuming a large part of the responsibility for the “citizens” or “tenants” campaigns in Japanese politics. These campaigns are sowing seeds which could grow to have a long-range effect on maintaining and improving the quality of human life in post-industrial Japan.
If this hypothesis or expectation is justified, the Encounter embodied by the political role of Danchi residents could result in the most significant Event in human history.

View full abstract

Theoretical and analytical frameworks of “politics of language” are investigated in this article.
In Chapter 1, the dominant theoretical assumption for “politics of language.” is discussed. The changing reality of political society has given birth to the discipline of “politics of language.” This new discipline has crystallized and taken on the epistemological split among the former political studies on language. The former studies, inclined to word behaviorism and functionalism, tend to focus attention on a settled cycle of normative political languages used by political leaders or government agencies. Since the 1960's, however, a post-industrial society has developed in Japan as in the USA, the USSR, and the European countries, and normative political language has responded to these changes. Industrialization accompanied by rapid economic growth has inevitably promoted the development of massization and huge organization, resulting in changes in the political modes of control, social integration, cultural manipulation, and dominance. This changing political reality has politicized language, and has “languaged” politics. The 1960's has also seen the simultaneous development of another new political actuality in Japan, an era of such radical liberation movements is shimin (citoyen) movements, jumin (residents') movements, women's liberation and student activism. Identity politics of this kind have evoked a new political parole, at Sanrizuka, Minamata and everywhere. In the changing political situation, “politics of language” has been noted for first, demystifying the “Word of the hidden political God” in the normative daily language, and second, for introducing newborn political paroles.
In Chapter 2, the basic theoretical framework for “politics of language” is described. We find primary political language in the natural language of daily life. The primary is transformed into secondary political language by its usage as the “Word of the Other, ” the Other being the dominant class: elites, leaders, priests or technocrats. In this process, the capitalized Word first arises from its usage in the primary political language. But once elevated to the holier realms of secondary political language, the Word is re-established, reidentified and its meaning is thus redefined in terms of the dominant political context. In this manner, secondary political language evolves. New words also join the secondary political language when political systems merge and out of the contest, revolt and revolution new political paroles appear which express opposition to the established normative system of langue. These new words contribute another dynamic in the formation of secondary political language.
Chapter 3 deals with the analytical framework as applied to the dynamics of political langue and parole. Seven dichotomous units which together make possible cumulative analytical levels are investigated: 1) langue and ecriture, 2) langue and parole, 3) signifiant and signifie, 4) metaphor and metominy, 5) connotation and denotation, 6) normative language and life language and 7) political language and political society. Applying these analytical levels to Japan, two sources for the mystification of normative language can be found: one stems from the rhetorical, connotative language based on traditional social relations, and the other originates in scientific, denotative language derived from modern economics. Paroles of identity politics enforce or demystify these normative languages.

View full abstract

The history of Peace Research in Japan should be analyzed not only in terms of development of pure peace science, but also in terms of the politics of peace in post-war Japanese history. The origins of peace research in Japan go back to the 1948 statement by eight UNE SCO social scientists. The statement immediately inspired Japanese intellectuals to form “The Peace Problems Discussion Circle” by which was covered the monthly Journal Sekai published by Iwanami Shoten. The strength of the 1948 UNESCO statement, attracted the attention of Japanese intellectuals who participated in the monthly Sekai forum from the beginning of 1949 to the end of 1960. Their objective was to oppose the cold war strategy of the super-powers. Among all statements, “On Peace for the Third Time, ” which was originally drafted by Masao Maruyama, was especially notable for the scope and depth of its analysis of world politics and for its high analytic quality as an example of clinical-type peace research. Because of the long-term value of its penetrating insights into the nuclear age, this essay has acquired great meaning for the present stage of research development in the mid-1970's.
According to the author, “On Peace for the Third Time” was singled out not only for its illuminating qualities, and the strength of its clinical evaluation of post-war international society, but for its sensitivity to the original spirit of peace as well. On the other hand, the development of basic peace research in Japan fell completely behind in comparison with its American and European counterparts in the process of institutionalizing peace reseach. In this article, the reasons for the lack of progress in the institutional development of peace research in Japan, is tentatively analyzed in terms of the social and organizational weakness of the politics of peace, and in terms of the non-innovative, conservative character of the academic community in Japan.

View full abstract

This study aims at analyzing the political dynamics of developing countries with the concept of the ‘Third World.’ It seems, however, the analytical method for the study of the politics of the Third World has not yet been established.
In the past, studies of Asia, Africa, and Latin America in Japan centered around the nationalist movements, internal politics, and the international relations among countries in these areas, while little effort has been attempted to characterize the politics of the Third World seen as a whole.
One of the features of the political situation of the Third World, as the writer observes it, is instability brought about by various factors—geographical, cultural, historical, ideological—entangled in international settings.
Another feature can be seen in the political systems being transitional. Many instances have taken place in which the revolutionary council established as the consequence of a military coup proceeds toward a socialist state. The writer assumes that such circumstances will lead the military in power to dictatorship.
In his analysis the writer shows a critical attitude to the military who are in most cases apt to reinforce armaments. The writer presumes that this attitude has, at the same time, something in common with his standpoint against the military expansion race between the two nuclear-armed superstates.
The writer presents in this study a new approach to the political analysis of the Third World with an orientation backed up by the definite value judgment which is based on contemporary peace research.

View full abstract

In this article the author discusses the possibilities of a Third World approach to political science. It is argued that theories of international politics in the West, based on the study of the Western State-system, are inappropriate to answer the questions asked by Third World countries. The Third World is now in search of new paradigms capable of approaching the major themes of the Third World problematique: dependence, countervailing power, the building of an equitable world order, national identity, self-reliance, and cooperation among Third World countries. The first three themes must be studied by a new science of international relations, making full use of research developed in the West, but developing new paradigms in the analysis of the international structure, the treatment of power, and values orientation emphasising equity in a pluralistic world community. The latter three call for the creation of a new approach to political development defined as a national and collectively self-reliant development.
Such a political science should develop a competitive and complementary relationship with the political science of the industrialized countries.

View full abstract

Comparative-primatologically, Gestalt of human society has the methodological indeterminacy, because of his peculiar anthropological ενεργεια-dominating-δυναμιζ-complex: Political Integration in the development.
Political Integration is one thing, Social Integration is the other: the latter is naturally given due to each bio-behavioral characteristics of each genus; the former, to be artificially and specific anthropologically produced through the mutually intermediating formation of both social productivity and Dominance-Subjugation category.
The Relationship of Dominance-Subjugation is, however commonplace it may seem, the organizational-historical category sui generis of human society, the uncritically generalized application allover non-human spheres of which is quite anthropomorphological error.
But, Dominance must be institutionalized, logically: because of the necessity of feed-back for its own survival, and socio-physically: because of the socio-physical υλη of Dis-Communicative Cybernetical Control of Dominance itself. In fact, the social possibility of political resistance depends upon the socio-physical reality of dis-communicative resistance effect.
Behavioral-functionally speaking, any kind of social activity is, in each way, some Dis-Communicative Cybernetical Control Matrix, formed and developed with and in the formation and development of the organizational-historical category of Dominance-Subjugation.
Now, the optimal control of Dis-Communicative Cybernetics at the optimal Dis-Communicative degree is to be achieved, not so much positivistically, as dialectically: neither verifiable nor falsifiable, but only shifting the responsibility of verification to another.
Accordingly, the production of the social values in Dis-Communicative Cybernetical Control Matrix cannot help dialectically transforming itself into the production of the social non-values as well, accompanied and emphasized by the constant possibility of shifting the responsibilities, which is never seen in non-human society upon Social Integration only.
Nevertheless or just therefore, Political Integration as the condition of the possiblity, of human society, neither yet completely established nor yet sufficiently evolved even in such form as modern sovereign state, is the most fundamental political problem.
Behaviorism, taking Political Integration for granted too much, has been concerned only with ενεργεια of human society, which remains methodologically to be analyzed in the framework of ενεργεια-dominating-δυναμιζ-complex.

View full abstract

The aim of this paper is: (a) to review briefly the present stage of mathematical and quantitative political science; (b) to examine new directions for its future development; and (c) to discuss some caveats regarding the relevance of mathematical and quantitative political science and its proper institutional function.
Mathematical political science is one of the ways in which we develop models regarding political phenomena and examine the extent to which they represent the real world. A major characteristic of such models is the use of mathematics, statistics, and symbolic logic. Given this general definition of mathematical political science, the field is, and has become, very diversified in terms of its aims, methods, and substantive problems. However, we can delineate two salient traditions in mathematical and quantitative political science. One may be called a “causal model” approach. The other is based on the use of “rational actor models.”
In the causal model tradition, political phenomena are analyzed in terms of cause-effect relationships between variables. These relationships are usually represented by mathematical functions (equations). Mathematical equations in this kind of analysis (a) are used to deduce other propositions regarding political behavior at varied levels of aggregation, and/or (b) are examined against data, and through statistical techniques, to determine the extent to which they represent the referent world. Furthermore, simulation models can be utilized in such a way that logical consequences are obtained from a set of empirically tested propositions.
Even though causal models are sometimes built implicitly on the assumption that actors, such as voters, are rational, we can single out a set of models that are different from causal models and which are directly built on the rationality assumption about political actors. In rational actor models, just as in causal models, the aims, styles and substantive problems are quite varied. While they are utilized to examine such normative problems as comparative study of decision rules which transform individual preferences into collective choice, many models have been constructed in order to represent and explain real political phenomena such as voting behavior, alliance maintenance in international politics, etc.
Given the diversity of mathematical and quantitative political science, it is most difficult to set up fundamental dimensions by which we can satisfy the requirements of assessing its general appropriateness to the analysis of political phenomena and of forecasting its future development. However, let us propose two dimensions which may satisfy these two requirements. One dimension ranges from a mechanistic view of political phenomena to the view in which politics is considered as adaptive, an organized complexity. The other dimension is an idiographic-generalization continuum. Admitting that we need simple models in analyzing political phenomena at least at the elementary stage, it seems apparent that contemporary mathematical and quantitative political science, and methods and models thereof, tend to adopt a mechanistic, rather than an adaptive view, and intend to be general rather than idiographic. If politics is collective adaptation by human beings to both internal and external environments, a mechanistic view and models representing such a view, though not irrelevant, must be considered to be short of giving us a full understanding of political phenomena. If human beings adjust their objectives and change their purposes in responding to internal and external changes, idiographic approaches may be more important than implicitly assumed among many mathematical and quantitative political researchers.

View full abstract