Articles , Books and Media

The issue of how history is recognized as a whole is not merely a matter of interpreting the past but is intimately tied to the problem of how the future is envisioned. In this sense, it becomes necessary to expand and refine existing frameworks in International Relations and Comparative Politics in order to systematically address the frictions that arise when history—originally indivisible at the global level—is perceived through the lens of individual “nations.”

This month’s focus falls on constructivism, a methodology within international relations theory, which appears particularly effective for addressing this challenge.

Constructivist theory conceptualizes actors within international society—such as states, corporations, and NGOs—as socially constructed entities that internalize rules from their societal or market environments and act with autonomy based on internalized judgments. It is a theory that deliberately circumscribes its scope and focuses on how new rules are incorporated by such actors. Central to constructivism is the analysis of how emerging norms and values, particularly in fields such as environmental protection and trade, are internalized through processes of interaction—whether resistance or conflict—between actors and the international society as a whole (Ōyane Satoshi, ed., Konsutorakutyizumu no Kokusai Kankei Ron [International Relations Theory of Constructivism], Yuhikaku, 2013).

Expanding this perspective further suggests the possibility of viewing the “nation” itself—as a collective entity encompassing economy, culture, and politics—as a social construction born from the dynamics of international power politics, reaching its zenith in the nineteenth century and persisting to this day. Such a conceptual expansion constitutes a foundational insight of Reconciliation Studies.

Research in nationalism has addressed the processes through which national communities are socially constructed and imagined. However, particular attention must be paid to the fact that nations continue to be democratically reproduced, and that while internalized democratic values differ among nations, intense mutual consciousness among national communities persists. This point offers a critical starting point for analyzing historical frictions through a constructivist lens.

Contemporary constructivism often limits its conception of actors to specific fields such as security, economy, or human rights. Yet, within domestic politics, the process by which new norms—such as regulations governing large-scale retail stores or frameworks like the SDGs—come into conflict with, adjust to, and eventually resonate with “traditional norms” rooted in family structures, cultural practices, and commercial customs spans not only the economic sphere but also culture and politics. The U.S.–Japan trade friction concerning distribution channels and wholesalers serves as a pertinent example.

An analytical framework examining whether internationally proposed norms resonate with domestic traditions—whether new international norms concerning the economy or human rights are accepted or resisted—is particularly well-suited to the study of historical issues. In cases such as the domestic acceptance of concepts like “corporate contributions to the SDGs” or “ESG investment,” it is evident that beyond appeals to the legitimacy of the ideas themselves, democratic persuasion of entrenched vested interests, as well as transformations of traditional systems intertwined with economic structures, were indispensable.

Applying this analytical method to the process by which values such as “women’s dignity” and “human rights” have retrospectively penetrated national consciousness through engagement with deeply internalized values and traditions sustaining democratic society allows for a nuanced understanding of historical friction. In such an application, the redress of historical injustices suffered by Japanese victims—symbolized by comfort women, civilian bombing victims, and military nurses—must be considered alongside the redress sought by Korean comfort women. The current confusion can be understood as part of an ongoing frictional process involving resonance and resistance.

The basis of the “resistance” observed within Japanese society lies in the legitimacy of legal procedures. At the foundation of the argument that postwar settlements should be considered completed exists judicial precedent asserting that citizens bear the obligation to “endure” the suffering of war (Hatano Sumio, “Wakai” seisaku no shatei to henyou [The Scope and Transformation of ‘Reconciliation’ Policy,] An Attempt at Reconciliation Studies, 2021). It was precisely through enduring suffering that national unity, Japan’s postwar economic growth, and the achievement of “prosperity” were realized. “Prosperity” thus became the universal value to which Japan’s democracy was historically attached.

Nonetheless, contemporary circumstances call into question whether prosperity alone suffices as the core of democracy, and for what purpose prosperity was originally pursued. It may now be time to reexamine that traditional definition of prosperity, and to reflect on what has been sacrificed in its name. By leveraging the current historical frictions, it becomes possible to contemplate the emotions held by neighboring peoples, the memories that sustain those emotions, and the values underlying the selection of those memories—including what may have been sacrificed in pursuit of prosperity. The present era demands a mutual consideration of values capable of eliciting national empathy, recognizing that competition and cooperation now coexist within international society.

Note: This text was originally published in Toki no Hōrei. Minor editorial discrepancies may exist between this version and the published article.