Takeuchi: "Letters to Young Friends-requirements for historians"

Cover photo: in August 1958, people in the Inner Beach of Japan opposed the establishment of a shooting range by the US military.

The author of this article, Hiroshi Takeuchi, is an outstanding thinker in modern Japan. After the war, he raised some important questions in the history of Japanese thought, such as "the Theory of National Literature", "Modern Transcendence" and "Asianism". And became the spiritual leader of the intellectual circles before and after the security movement in the 1960s.

(from the introduction of the author of Modern Chaoke) this article is some thoughts on how the Japanese historians should do the research of world history.

A letter to a young friend.

-- requirements for historians.

Takeuchi is good.

[source] excerpt from Takuchi: Chaoke in Modern Times, edited by Sun GE, translated by Li Dongmu, Zhao Jinghua and Sun GE, Sanlian Bookstore 2016, pp. 342-345.

I accepted the request for historians, but after careful consideration, I couldn't think of anything to ask for.

Last fall, when I attended the Peace Symposium held by the History Research Society, I did make a request to historians.

The record at that time was published in No. 155 of Historical Studies.

I have made a total of three requests.

One is to use concise and easy-to-understand text to make a correct expression, which should be changed from the way of thinking.

The other is not to take the law of history as a self-evident thing, as a given premise, but to constantly doubt it; otherwise, it will not be able to move the feelings and psychology of the people.

Third, this point is not a request but a question: isn't it a completely different thing to know for the sake of change and to know for the sake of understanding?

Raising this question is related to my long-held view that Japan and China have different ways of modernizing, and their impact on the academic attitudes of the two countries will also be very different. I hope to ask historians for advice on my idea.

For details and discussions, please refer to the minutes of the meeting. I will not repeat them here.

Today, I thought about it further, but I still didn't think of anything to add.

In order to avoid repetition (although it may eventually have to be repeated), I am determined to change the point of view.

Recently, I heard such a saying.

This is an indirect rumor heard from a historian who specializes in Western history. It is said that Japanese historiography-- in this case, Western history-- is as good as European scholars.

However, in terms of historical materials, it is impossible to catch up with the scholars of the host country who have mastered a large number of original historical materials. The so-called "no less than" means that in terms of problem consciousness, it means to be quite good at being on a par with the scholars of the target country on this point.

When I heard this, I thought it was impossible.

I don't know much about history, especially the current situation of Western history, so I don't know its internal situation.

It may not be known that such excellent research does exist.

However, from the general journals I have seen and the overall academic situation, I can't believe that this Western historiography alone is so outstanding.

In my opinion, there is something wrong with the idea of being excellent in problem awareness.

Of course, this is an indirect rumor, and I did not make the above judgment on the basis of directly confirming the other person's feelings.

This statement also reminds me of another thing I heard on other occasions.

The thing is this: an academic institution in Japan has sent its published works on Chinese studies to Chinese scholars, hoping to be criticized and corrected.

The reply of Chinese scholars is as follows: this research is very outstanding, and it is entirely feasible to publish it as a Chinese work without revision, and it will win the appreciation of readers, but there is one thing I don't understand. Why do Japanese people write such books today?

This is a bitter irony.

That is to say, the study of China in Japan is no less than that in China. If it is written in Chinese, it can be used in Chinese academia without any changes.

However, there is not the slightest problem consciousness based on the position of Japanese today!

If you put this matter into the previous statement, you will know the nature of the problem consciousness of Japanese historiography that historians are proud of.

That is to say, the problem consciousness is the problem consciousness which is regarded as a problem in the western academic circles, not from the standpoint of being a Japanese and a person in real life.

Therefore, such problem awareness does not absorb the feelings and sorrows of the Japanese people at all, because the research is carried out at a level that has nothing to do with the people.

Yes, learning and life are not the same thing.

However, in terms of the ultimate result, knowledge that has nothing to do with life does not exist at all, and any knowledge starts from the question of how we should survive.

Indeed, learning and life can not be equated, without being separated from the direct life, the development of learning itself is impossible.

In spite of this, if the ultimate connection is ignored, learning will become the scholastic school, and then it will degenerate.

Learning is international, and there are common subjects in the world.

However, the nature of the common problem can be restored to the question of how the human world should survive.

The international nature of learning does not mean that learning is stateless. Stateless learning is also an encumbrance to worldwide learning.

Only by having one's own nationality and being associated with life can we participate in the discussion of common topics in the world and contribute to the development of learning.

Isn't that right?

However, Japanese learning, on the whole, is stateless, and this characteristic of statelessness is mistaken for cosmopolitan.

They hope to catch up with the research level of their own scholars as far as possible to be praised, thinking that this is the progress of learning.

This situation is true not only in history, but also in the academic circle as a whole. It can be said that the weakness in the consciousness of historians encountered occasionally before is an obvious and prominent manifestation.

Japanese historiography is excellent in the grasp of problem awareness, reaching the European level-perhaps indeed.

But what's going on?

I think European scholars will make high comments and ask, "what does this mean to the Japanese?"

One more thing. No.