Articles , Books and Media

This discussion addresses the question raised previously: how to recognize the values and memories shared among the people. Although there exists a field known as Japanese Cultural Studies, debates within it often tend to devolve into mere exchanges of subjective opinions—assertions of “I believe this” versus “I do not.” To avoid such a tendency, it appears more constructive to ground the analysis in the normative debates on societal development directions conducted within Development Studies, a field that has addressed shared social values from a global perspective.

Where does the path of development, grounded in economic growth, ultimately lead? Until very recently, China demonstrated an alternative model, but until then, the model of development had been that of advanced democratic nations. Even when democratic systems are shared, historical friction still arises. This is because national groups are constructed through the shared memory of history, within which specific values connected to that memory “constitute” society. It is through this conjunction of memory and values that we imagine the “nation” in our minds, and it is within this framework that democracy functions based on the constitution.

The issue of historical recognition revolves around the friction between these intersecting memory-value conjunctions. In pursuing reconciliation, it is essential to focus on the concepts honed in Development Studies—specifically, the discussions on how to guide overall societal change in a particular direction. Initially, “development” was focused on the society defined by the nation-state. Up until the late 1960s, development equated to the expansion of national wealth. In this context, dictatorship was legitimized, as the expansion of investment, production, trade, and consumption under a highly efficient bureaucratic structure was seen as the ultimate goal. By constructing large metropolitan areas and industrial zones at the heart of the country, spaces generating high added value were created. It was believed that if the economic pie of the nation expanded, the benefits would eventually reach the remote areas of society, leading to “development.”

This approach can be viewed as an attempt to create “little Britains” around the world, a notion criticized by Gandhi in India. In practice, however, dictatorial regimes oppressed the masses, and corruption and inefficiency exacerbated internal inequalities within developing countries (with the few successful cases being in the Asian Newly Industrializing Economies, or NIEs). Moreover, the emergence of nations plagued by excessive debt led to a significant revision of the initial developmental policy trajectory.

After the 1960s Pearson Report, the goals of development shifted from the expansion of wealth, i.e., societal “prosperity,” to a focus on “poverty reduction,” ensuring that no one dies of hunger, and improving “quality of life” in ways that maintain the dignity of individuals, adapted to local realities. “Social participation” also became an increasingly emphasized goal. Furthermore, NGOs have long advocated for “people-centered social development” and the prioritization of human rights as prerequisites for social development. Bhutan’s promotion of the “Gross National Happiness Index” is a recent example of such shifts.

As a result of this turn in Development Studies, the definition of “modernization” has also shifted from mere “prosperity.” The earlier modernization theory, which was central to U.S. aid policy during the Kennedy administration, conceptualized modernization in terms of comprehensive societal changes on the physical level to counteract the ideological hegemony of communism. “Modernization” was thus often linked not only to capitalism but also to the deepening of social division of labor and rationalization.

However, since the 1970s, with the focus of development shifting to the dignity of the individual and the eradication of poverty, the definition of modernization has changed. Today, the new version of “modernization theory” emphasizes the expansion of social choices that support human dignity and the political participation of the people (note).

Indeed, without “prosperity” and development, it is unlikely that values of “human rights” or “women’s dignity,” which represent “self-expression,” would dominate, and people would have likely been preoccupied with daily survival. The meaning of the transformation in development studies lies in the demonstration that societal “prosperity” is inseparable from individual “human rights” and dignity.

In light of these developments in development studies, we have now reached a pivotal moment where we must reconsider the definition of “prosperity” that has been shared by the Japanese people since the post-war period. As previously mentioned, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that citizens have a “duty of tolerance” in regard to war damage. This is evidence that the values of post-war reconstruction and economic development were socially shared. However, as we look deeper, the hidden issues behind “prosperity”—such as pollution, Hansen’s disease, and the status of women—are now coming to the forefront. Perhaps it is time to rethink the notion that “a society with dignity and ample choices for individuals is truly prosperous.” Only through a conscious shift in our mindset (and emotions) can we foster dialogues with our neighbors, recognizing the values that support their memories. National sentiment, after all, is also a product of memory and values.

(Note) For further trends in the history of development, see Yutaka Sasaki’s “The Changing Discourses of ‘Modernization’ and ‘Development’ in Development Aid,” Journal of International Language and Peace Studies, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, 2020, Issue 95.

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