Identity, Foreign Policy and the `Other': Japan's `Russia'

Abstract

This article examines contemporary Japan's identity construction through the self/other lens, focusing on USSR/Russia as Japan's `other'. It identifies two main constitutive dimensions, political and socio-cultural, along which Japan's identity vis-a-vis the Soviet Union was constructed during the Cold War years. The origins and the nature of these constructs are examined in the first part of this case study. Unlike the existent Japan-related constructivist scholarship, this article argues that postwar Japan's identity had both domestic and international sources and that certain dimensions of the contemporary identity discourse can be traced to the prewar years. It also argues that the political and the socio-cultural identities, while overlapping in certain parts, led to different constructions of the Japanese `self'. The operation of these constructions in Japan's relations with post-communist Russia is examined in the second part of this article, with special attention paid to the territorial dispute which continues to haunt bilateral relations.

Identity and desecuritisation: the pitfalls of conflating ontological and physical security

“…Ontological security through reconfiguring Self/Other relations Building on the seminal work of David Campbell on identity and foreign policy (1992), a number of scholars have investigated the implications of the Self/Other distinctions that underpin the relations among states in international politics (Neumann 1996(Neumann , 1999Weldes et al 1999;Guillaume 2002;Rumelili 2004Rumelili , 2007Hansen 2006;Bukh 2009). The guiding premise of this post-structuralist literature, which is associated with critical theories of security to varying degrees (Hansen 2011), has been that identity is constituted through difference; state identities lack a stable, pre-given essence, and hence states are in permanent need of reproducing their identities by constructing Other(s) as different, morally inferior, and physically threatening.…”

Kampen om idémessige forklaringer på japansk sikkerhetspolitikk: Kina i Japans identitetskonstruksjon

“…Nylig har imidlertid en underskog av relasjonelle studier utfordret både den nyklassiske realismen og normkonstruktivismen i studiet av japansk sikkerhetspolitikk (Bukh 2009(Bukh , 2010(Bukh , 2012(Bukh , 2015Wirth 2009;Hagströ m og Jerdén 2014;Gustafsson , 2016Hagströ m & Gustafsson 2015;Hagströ m & Hanssen 2015Suzuki 2015;. Selv om bruk av relasjonelle perspektiver Á inspirert av poststrukturell teori Á utgjør en liten andel av forskningsfeltet om japansk utenrikspolitikk, vokser antallet slike studier raskt.…”

“…Av åpenbar interesse for studiet av IP er studier av andre stater og regioner som Japan forholder seg til: USA (Suzuki 2015), Kina (Suzuki 2015;Gustafsson 2016), Sør-Korea (Tamaki 2010;Bukh 2015), Russland (Bukh 2009(Bukh , 2010(Bukh , 2012, Nord-Korea (Hagström & Hanssen 2015), og Asia (Tamaki 2015). Men den Andre kan også vaere grupper innad i Japan, det vaere seg burakumin (Japans underkaste), koreanere, Ainu (urbefolkning nord i Japan), Okinawaere, osv.…”

Japan and identity change: why it matters in International Relations

“…The literature on Japan, which adheres to this concept, has identified a number of Others À both external ones, such as the West, Europe, the US, Asia, China, North Korea and South Korea, and internal ones, such as the outcast group at the bottom of Japan's social order À burakumin, the ainu people (often described as 'indigenous'), Okinawa and the Korean minority in Japan À and it has analysed how these Others have been juxtaposed with Japan to emphasise what Japan is, and hence to construct Japanese identity (Befu 2001;Bukh 2009Bukh , 2010Guillaume 2011;Gustafsson 2011;Hagstr€ om 2014;Klien 2002;Morris-Suzuki 1998;Oguma 2002;Schulze 2013;Tamaki 2010;Tanaka 1993).…”