Articles , Books and Media

This analysis seeks to explore the historical continuity of Reconciliation Studies by examining the arguments of Edwin Reischauer, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan and former Director of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University. Reischauer advocated for utilizing Japan’s post-war democracy within the broader framework of U.S. Asia policy, and his perspectives provide valuable insight into the intersection of democracy and collective memory.

Reischauer was born in Japan in 1910, the son of a missionary who played a pivotal role in the establishment of Tokyo Women’s University. Growing up during the era of Taisho Democracy, he experienced firsthand the dynamic atmosphere of a relatively free-spirited Japan. He attended the American School in Japan, where he participated in activities such as baseball, tennis, and Boy Scouts. During the Great Kanto Earthquake, Reischauer, at the age of 13, was involved in rescue efforts, offering milk to a mother holding an infant at Karuizawa Station, where refugees had gathered. Based in Karuizawa, extensive mountaineering was undertaken, covering virtually every mountain from Nagano to Gunma. On the return journey to the residence located within the campus of Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, intense hunger often followed these exertions, leading to the consumption of plain udon noodles served on a nickel plate. During elementary school years, it is noted that, when the streetcars were congested to the point of forming clusters, it was common to sprint and leap onto the preceding car.

In 1927, at the age of seventeen, a return to the United States was made, bearing memories of the period of freedom once enjoyed in Japan. After studying at Oberlin College (the sister institution of Obirin University in Japan), further studies were pursued at Harvard University, where exposure to Serge Elisséeff, an émigré Russian scholar and former disciple of Natsume Sōseki, led to a deep engagement with Japanese studies. In Paris, where Elisséeff had previously resided, acquaintance was made with the son of Maeda Tamon, a close associate of Gotō Shinpei, the founder of the Boy Scouts in Japan. Notably, Gotō’s close ties extended to Nagao Hanpei and Nitobe Inazō, both of whom were instrumental in the founding of Tokyo Woman’s University. Following marriage, a return to Tokyo was made via the Trans-Siberian Railway, leading to research on the travel diaries of Japanese monks studying in China.

It was the youth spent amidst networks of democracy and international cooperation that later informed fierce criticism of militarist Japan during the wartime era. Japanese language education for American military officers was undertaken, along with policy involvement at the United States Department of State. Personal experiences, such as witnessing the destruction of a once-beloved Tokyo, crossing Paris, Moscow, Korea, and Tokyo by rail, and returning in the 1930s to a Tokyo weighed down by continental expansionism and repression of free speech, fostered a profound antipathy toward Japan’s militarization and an enduring hope for the restoration of democracy.

Upon “returning” to postwar Japan in 1955, a minority opinion was voiced, advocating a distinctive vision for American policy toward Asia. Rather than imposing military burdens upon Japan, it was proposed that Japan’s revitalized democracy—rooted in free speech and a vibrant mass society—should serve as a model for an independent Asia. Mobilization of Japan’s technological and economic power was called for, aiming to support nationalisms in China and Korea that sought to build sovereign states on par with the West, thereby generating a shared U.S.–Japan philosophy of Asian “modernization.”

The starting point for the proposal was found in an op-ed contributed to The New York Times on August 26, 1956, and in submissions to The Mainichi Shimbun. It was asserted that postwar Japan, by successfully functioning as a democracy even within the cultural and economic conditions of Asia, had become the “most important psychological asset” of the Asian Cold War. Accordingly, it was argued that the Japanese people should not delegate the resolution of global problems to the United States. Rather, with “intellectual honesty and boldness,” they were urged to reject “vulgar attitudes” of disregarding Asia and to pay greater attention to the psychological and emotional realities of neighboring countries. Simultaneously, it was emphasized that Asian nations must not dismiss Japan merely as a subordinate to the United States.

On the extension of the proposal lay the normalization of Japan–South Korea relations in 1965, the normalization of U.S.–China and Japan–China relations in 1972, the democratization processes in South Korea and Taiwan during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and policies of engagement with China. The realization of this intellectual vision reached a significant milestone in the 1972 normalization of U.S.–China relations, marking a strategic shift from military containment to engagement through economic means. At its core was an advocacy for the promotion and support of democratic values, grounded not only in economic interests but also in psychological and emotional dimensions. Appointment to the ambassadorship was predicated upon the capacity to understand and navigate Japanese national feeling.

Today, the overarching framework of U.S.–Asia policy and U.S.–Japan–Asia relations, forged in the postwar period, faces profound impasses. The eruption of historical disputes between democratized Japan and South Korea, coupled with the retreat from engagement and reversion to military confrontation with China, demands a new “intellectual boldness.” There is an urgent need for scholarship and civic maturity that can dissect the collective imaginative forces of nations, and examine how universal values such as democracy and human rights resonate with or clash against national memories, incorporating emotional dimensions into the analysis.

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