美國研究在亞太地區:戰後日本的國際學術交流

American Studies in Asia-Pacific: International Exchanges in Japan after the WWII

冷戰時期，日本的美國研究學界，曾與亞太其他地區的美國研究學界進行過組織性的交流。但這種趨勢在日後卻逐漸式微，它的原因是什麼？這是本文擬闡明的問題。本文對這個問題的看法是認為；日本的美國研究擁有兩種交流（即，國內交流與國外交流），隨著時間，因國內交流還是多數學者較容易採行的途徑，國內交流的比重於是日漸增加，而以亞太地區為中心的海外交流則逐步衰落。日本的美國研究，自戰後起的確提高了其水準。我們要如何全面的了解美國？戰後日本的美國研究，一直面對此課題。為了解決這個課題，研究者提出了科際整合的研究途徑。這邊所謂的科際整合，擁有兩種意義。研究者自認為了能全面性的了解美國，(A)不應受限於既存學術領域，而應該處理各種各樣的研究對象（即，應該擴大研究對象）；(B)因此不應該將自己的立場（問題意識）固定於某一特定學術領域之內，而應該對其立場加以相對化。根據以上的觀察，日本的美國研究以往與亞太地區的交流，擁有後者（即B）的性質。換言之，日本的美國研究者依據自身與亞太的美國研究之間的比較，曾企圖發掘其在日本土地上從事美國研究之際所面臨的長處與短處，即可能性與侷限性。日本的美國研究者，後來傾向於將掌握自身可能性與侷限性的意圖，放在日本國內來處理。換言之，他們認為充實國內的研究體制、推動國內學術交流，由此可以掌握美國研究在日本的優缺點。所以日本的美國研究的兩種交流方式，隨著時間將重點自國外交流移動至國內交流。

During the Cold War era, Japanese America specialists systematically had dialogues with Asian-Pacific specialists. How and why did they do that? And now, why have the exchange declined gradually? Ⅰ believe, basically, there are two ways of exchanging views in American studies in Japan: one is to have domestic dialogue among Japanese scholars; the other is to have international dialogue with specialists from other countries. However, the exchange of views among Japanese scholars becomes more important since it is easy for them to do so. As a result, the Asia-Pacific centered dialogue is declining Since the World War Ⅱ, there has been a great development in American studies in Japan. The only question that Japan’s American specialists keep in mind is: how to understand the United States totally and comprehensively? ”Inter-disciplinarity” has been highly regarded by them. Inter-disciplinarity then had the following two meanings: to have better understand of the United States totally, (1) the research subject should not be limited to the existing academia, but should be expanded without any limit, and (2) researchers should not limit their standpoints to a certain academia, instead, they should relativize their standpoints without any limitation. Based on this observation, the dialogues between Japanese America specialists and Asian-Pacific scholars have the nature of second category. In another word, having compared American studies in Japan with that in Asia-Pacific region, Japanese America specialists wanted to find out the advantages and disadvantages, the potentiality and limitation for them to do American Studies in Japan. I believe that, then, Japanese America specialists tend to understand their potentiality and limitation mainly by exchanging views among themselves. They came to believe that they could realize the advantages and disadvantages of doing American Studies in Japan by improving the research system in Japan and increasing exchanges of views among themselves. Therefore, the international exchanges between Japanese America specialists and Asian-Pacific scholars have eventually declined.