How national political culture shapes international relations: the case of Japan

How national political culture shapes international relations:
the case of Japan


Chugrov S.V.,

Institute of International Studies, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, s.chugrov@inno.mgimo.ru


elibrary_id: 252110 | ORCID: 0000-0002-8307-7606 | RESEARCHER_ID: E-4747-2016

Article received: 2023.11.22. Accepted: 2024.02.13


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.02.09
EDN: VCOYCY


For citation:

Chugrov S.V. How national political culture shapes international relations: the case of Japan. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 3. P. 126-141. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.02.09. EDN: VCOYCY


The publication was supported by the MGIMO University development program “Priority 2030.”


Abstract

Political culture presupposes going beyond national borders to the outside world, it implies comparing oneself with other cultures in the mirror of socio-political values (“I am the other for the other”). Japan is a testing ground with an exceptionally rich texture for analyzing the influence of a specific political culture on the country’s foreign policy. The author conducts such an analysis based on the methodological arsenal of comparative political science along the “modernity-postmodernity- neomodernity” axis. The author critically examines the concept of the political analyst Andrey Kortunov who focuses on the transition of a number of countries from the postmodern development track, which, within the framework of globalization, led them to nowhere, to a more distinct neo-modern track with its pragmatic transactionalism and orientation to their original values. According to the author, Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe tried to break the postmodern deadlock, but then a breakdown ensued caused by the indecisive and reactive policies of weak leaders. Japan is ’’astride on the fence” with one foot in the globalist postmodernity, blindly following the lead of the United States, and the other in neo-modernity, trying to rely on national foundations and values. Using concrete examples from the current reality of Japan, the article shows how the constants of political culture transform the trends that determine the key vectors of international relations, including the negotiations with Russian leaders on the highest level. 

Keywords
international relations, Japan, foreign policy, Russia, traditions, postmodernism, neomodernism, nationalism, Abe.


References

Berque, Au. (2013). Mesology (Д±^) in the light of Yamauchi Tokuryu’s logos and lemma. In Ts. Ishii, Lam Wing-keung (Ed.), Philosophizing in Asia (pp. 9-26). Tokyo: The University of Tokyo Center for Philosophy.

Doi, T. (1974). Amae: a key concept for understanding Japanese personality structure. In Japanese Culture and Behavior (pp. 145-154). Honolulu.

Gustafsson, K., Hagstrom, L., & Hanssen, U. (2019). Long live pacifism! Narrative power and Japan’s pacifist model. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32, 502-520.

Inoguchi, T., & Jain, P. (2011). Introduction. In T. Inoguchi, P. Jain (Ed.), From Karaoke to Kabuki Demo cracy: Japanese Politics Today (pp. 1-9). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/1010.1057/9780230370838_1

Inoguchi, T. (2006). Japanese politics: an introduction. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Inoguchi, T. (2015). Multiple modes of wellbeing in Asia. In Global Handbook of Quality of Life (pp. 597-607). Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9178-6_27

Ishii, S. (1984). Enryo-sasshi communication: a key to understanding Japanese interpersonal relations. Cross Currents, II(1), 49-58.

Harootunian, H.D. (2023). Archaism and actuality: Japan and the global fascist imaginary. Durham: Duke University Press.

Huang, Yo. (2013). Liberal neutrality, state perfectionism, and Confucianism: a neglected dimension. In L. Ishii, & W.-k. Lam (Ed.), Philosophizing in Asia (pp. 93-130). Tokyo: The University of Tokyo Center for Philosophy.

Kinefuchi, E. (2022). Competing discourses on Japan’s nuclear power pronuclear versus antinuclear activism. London; New York: Routledge.

Kuzuya, A. (2018). Theory of two “ends” and Japanese point of view. In A. Kuzuya & A. Shibasaki (Eds.), The End of International Relations? Reply from Japan (p. 1-22). Tokyo: Nakanishi shuppan,

Maruyama, M. (1988) The structure of matsurigoto. The basso ostinato of Japanese political life (ch. 2). In H.S. & Lehman J.-P. (Eds.) Themes and Theories in Modern Japanese History. London: Athlone, 27-43. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472553638.ch-002

Morioka, M. (2017). The Trolley Problem and the Dropping of Atomic Bombs. Journal of Philosophy of Life, 7(2), 316-337.

Wirth, J.M. (2019). Nietzsche and other buddhas. Philosophy after comparative philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.


Doi, T. (2007). Anatomy of ‘amae'. Tokyo: Kobunsha. (In Jap.)

Hando, K. (2021). Why do Japanese-type leaders suffer defeat? Tokyo: Bunshun shinsho. (In Jap.)

Hirose, Yo. (2021). Hybrid warfare. Russia's new state strategy: Tokyo, Kodansha. (In Jap.)

Kawato, A. (2022). The day Japan will turn into Ukraine. Tokyo: CCC media house. (In Jap.)

Sakamoto, H. (2005). 21th century concept of bioethics. In H. Sakamoto et al. (Ed.), Theory of Bioethics (pp. 207-221). Tokyo: Hokuju shuppan. (In Jap.)

Tanaka, A. (1996). The new Middle Ages: the world system in the 21st century. Tokyo: Nikkei. (In Jap.)

Yamauchi, T. (1987). Logos and lemma. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. (In Jap.)


Chugrov, S.V. (2010). Yaponiya v poiskah novoj identichnosti [Japan in search of new identity]. Moscow: Nauka Oriental Literature Publishing House. (In Russ.)

Fedotova, V.G. (1997). Modernizatsiya “drugoj” Evropy [Modernization of “other” Europe]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy RAS. (In Russ.) http://philosophy1.narod.ru/www/html/iphras/library/fedot_mod.html

Kortunov, A. (2017). From postmodernism to neomodernism, or Memories of the future. Russia in Global Affairs, 1. (In Russ.) http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/ot-postmoderniz- ma-k-neomodernizmu-ili-vospominaniya-o-budushch/

Streltsov, D.V. (2023). Conflicts in East Asia: how are they different from Europe's? Russia in Global Affairs, 21(2), 180-191. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2023-21-2-180-191

 Streltsov, D.V., Naka, K.O., Nelidov, V.V., Sarkisov, K.O., Dobrovolsky, V.N., Lebedeva, I.P., & Romanova, I.A. (2023). Roundtable “Unification Church in Japan as a Sociocultural and Political Phenomenon.” Japanese Studies in Russia, 1, 111-129. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.55105/2500-2872-2023-1- 111-129 

Content No. 3, 2024

See also:


Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Streltsov D.V., Chugrov S.V., Karelova L.B., Oznobishchev S.K.,
Russia and Japan. Part II. View from Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No1

Kazantzev A.A.,
Liberal approach to russian foreign policy. Notes on the margins of the book by V. Petrovsky. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No2

Busygina I.M., Filippov M.G.,
Political modernization of Russia as condition of growth of her international influence. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No5

Chugrov S.V.,
Moscow University Bulletin. Series 25. International relations and world politics: 5 years on track. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No5

Melville A.Yu., Ilyin M.V., Makarenko B.I., Meleshkina Ye.Yu., Mironyuk M.G., Sergeev V.M., Timofeev I.N.,
Russian Foreign Policy as Seen by the Expert Community. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No4

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
5 2006


Mezhuyev B.V.
The “Orange Revolution”: a Reconstruction of the Context

 The article text
 

Archive

   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991