Geopolitics and Geography in Japan Reexamined
Geopolitics and Geography in Japan Reexamined
复制标题
重新审视日本的地缘政治和地理
DOI：
10.15057/8457
复制
发表时间：
1980
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Takeuchi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Takeuchi
20世纪30年代中期以后，在日本，以“地缘政治”或“至诚学”的名义讨论地缘政治成为某些知识界的时尚。这通常归因于当时日本的状况，即其向东亚和东南亚其他地区推进的扩张主义政治，其国际孤立导致其与轴心国的关系日益密切，以及极权主义政权在国际政治领域的加强。正如我们在后面将更详细地讨论的那样，这些日本地缘政治运动无法形成一个连贯或一致的学科;这里的问题是，这些不同的趋势和运动都采用了“地缘政治”这个名字，这个词显然与德语的“地缘政治”一词相对应。一方面，关于思想或概念的国际传播问题，“知识经济”的发展方向与其最初的对应方向完全不同。换句话说，问题是，尽管两国有着共同的社会背景，即在后来加入帝国主义国家的中产阶级或农民中出现了危机意识，但这些差异是在什么情况下、出于什么原因而产生的。我们不得不考虑谁是地缘政治家思想传播的“守门人”，谁是日本地缘政治学派的“管理者”。另一方面，还有一个问题，即什么样的日本因素，虽然与德国的地缘政治无关，但却聚集在这些地缘政治运动中并成为其一部分。当然，其中有些因素是当时日本社会环境的产物。然而，我们今天在日本又重新出现了一种自命不凡的地缘政治观点，如果说地缘政治是一种主要由其社会基础来解释的现象，那么我们就不得不得出这样的结论：与在“tennoist”日本发现的那些社会因素相同的社会因素在当今日本的社会结构中仍然存在或复活了。既然如此，我们的实践问题就简单了，因为我们可以采取两种策略来反对。
In Japan after the middle of the 1930's, it became the fashion among certain mtellectual circles to discuss geopolitics under the names ofgeopolitiku or chiseigaku. This is generally attributed to the situation of the Japan of that period with its advancing expansionist politics towards other parts of the East and Southeast Asia, its international isolation resulting in its growing relationship with the Axis countries, and with the strengthening of a totalitarian regime in the sphere of international politics. As we shall discuss in more detail later, these Japanese geopolitical movements could not form a coherent or consistent discipline; the problem here is that these different trends and movements all assumed the name geoporitiku, a word apparently corresponding to the German term Geopolitik. There is, on the one hand, the problem concerning the international diffusion of ideas or concepts, geoporitiku having developed in quite different directions from those of its original counterpart. In other words, the question is under what circumstances and for what reasons these differences developed, in spite of the common social background of both countries, namely, the emergence of a crisis consciousness among either middle classes or peasantry of the late-joining imperialist countries. We have to consider who were the "gate-keepers" in the diffusion of geopoliticians' ideas, and who were the "managers" of the schools of Japanese geopoliticians. On the other hand, there is the question of what kind of Japanese elements which, while being extraneous to the German Geopolitik, converged upon and became part of these geopolitical movements. Naturally, some of these elements were the products of the circumstances of the Japanese society of that period. We have today, however, a revival of a pretentious geopoliticap arguments in Japan and if geopolitics is a ~henomenon chiefly explained by its social basis we must, perforce, conclude that the same socral elements as those found m "tennoist" Japan have persisted or been resurrected in the social structure of present-day Japan. This being so, the question of our praxis should be simple, for we are able to adopt two types of strategies with which to oppose