Newsletters and Essays

The participation in the International Association of Reconciliation Studies in Seoul 2025 (IARS Seoul 2025) reaffirmed for me the importance of fundamentally thinking about, and at times, challenging, what constitute reconciliation, or indeed, what reconciliation is.  

I presented my work-in-progress on July 14, 2025, in the panel Post-colonial Legacies and Reconciliation. Entitled “Humorous Propensity: Trans-textual Readings of the Disabled, Encounted and Unended,” the presentation was an exploration of the ideas I began developing in the workshop in February 2025, organized by the Philosophy and Psychology group of the Waseda Institute of International Reconciliation Studies. Since the workshop, I have been cultivating my interest in the intersection of laughter, humor, and various forms of disability. 

At IARS Seoul 2025, I furthered the line of my inquiry by conducting a trans-textual reading on three works: A Song of Duck (1954), a short story by Japanese writer Ueno Eishin; Greek Lessons (2011), a novel by Korean writer Han Kang, and; The Man Who No Longer Knew How To Write (2018), a journal-like text by French philosopher François Matheron. Each of them features protagonists with disabilities. My reading proposed that the disabilities were not only embodied struggles of the characters themselves but also mirrors of broader post-colonial impasses. While the protagonists were deeply entangled in the bodily, material and historical conditions, each author practices strategies for deflecting, however subtly, the fatalism of the deadlocks. Involving various unexpected encounters of others, their strategies forge a communal will to surpass what may otherwise inevitable. I characterize the narrative gestures as a “humorous propensity”——a drive that, with or without laughter, inclines towards the collective transformation of thought and subjectivity, even amidst inexorable bodily and material entrapments. My trans-textual reading proposed that this humorous propensity acts as catalyst for an otherwise impossible undertaking: the opening toward reconciliation of conflicts, if reconciliation is, indeed, possible. 

During the Q&A and subsequent discussion with fellow young researchers, I received invaluable feedback. Some questions focused on how I selected the three texts, how laughter and humor may differ across socio-cultural contexts, and how the differences must be accounted for in any cross-cultural or bi-national reconciliation framework. Another important critique concerned my usage of colonialism that draws on Franz Fanon’s definition. I was cautioned that my usage risks turning colonialism as a metaphor, thereby undermining the historical and political specificity of the term. A similar criticism, I realized, might also apply to my use of “the disabled.” As I continue developing the project further, I will engage with these critiques and ensure that my terminology carries relevant historical, political, cultural and bodily significations.      

I also learned a great deal from other fellow presenters, Professor Dongyoun Hwang (Soka University of America) and Professor Naoko Kumagai (Aoyama Gakuin University). Although their topics and approaches differed, both problematized the unresolved post-colonial and/or national tensions. To this end, I was particularly intrigued by Prof. Kwang’s comment during Q&A in which he suggested that any reconciliation efforts may remain futile so long as nation-states persist as dominant political-economic form. He proclaimed that, instead, we should stive for transnationality instead of internationality, for the latter still presupposes the existence of nation-states. Although this task may be impossible, he insisted that we still should continue “nagging at” various forces that always resist it. Both presentations demonstrated this “nagging at” spirit——challenging dominant assumptions and status quo——and I recognized in them the very spirit of humorous propensity that I am trying to theorize. I would like to thank the panel chair, Professor Jahyun Chun (Yonsei University), for fostering such enriching discussions. 

Attending other panels at IARS Seoul 2025 was also an invaluable experience. These sessions introduced me to a wide range of issues and approaches, offering valuable insights. To give one example, some presentations theorized the body——whether dead, unnamed, unfound or colonized——as critical lens through which to gauge the enduring, if not haunting impact of past events on the present. I was particularly interested in their interventions because the theme of the body may become central to my own research. In fact, in a series of conversations during the conference with Dr. Wataru Sanada (Waseda University), who also kindly shared with me his original reading on Greek Lessons that I had analyzed in my presentation, we began developing an idea for a future IARS panel centered on the theme of body. We hope to invite other researchers whose work also engage with the theme. I look forward to learning from our collaboration for the panel, as Dr. Sanada’s philosophical critique of closed communities and predetermined subjectivity through contingency, non-communicative speech-act, and radical vulnerability will offer valuable guidance in the development of my own project as well.

On July 18, I participated in the conference excursion to the Demilitarized Zone. While I had a mixed feeling about how the border appeared from the South Korean side as a sort of tourist spectacle, the visit felt necessary. The vista over the Imjin River, with no bridge crossing into North Korean territory, was unsettling. As much as the river without bridges may evoke a primordial landscape, the very lack of human-made structures embodied the ongoing division of the two countries.

The scene stayed with me after I returned to Japan, making me realize how considerate, emotionally charged, and urgent the IARS Seoul 2025, titled “Bridge the Division,” truly was. Although the two countries remain divided, I am grateful that the conference itself became a kind of bridge, where many of us were able to share ideas, experience chance encounters, build relationships, and enjoy casual conversations over tasty lunches. 

Lastly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Toyomi Asano, the head of Waseda Reconciliation Project, and especially to Dr. Hajime Onozaka and Dr. Hiroko Kawaguchi for all their intellectual and administrative efforts, which facilitated our preparation for and participation in the conference. Also, I am thankful to the organizers of the conference at Seoul National University, particularly Ms. Minjeong Lee of the secretariat for her tireless dedication in ensuring that everything proceeded smoothly. Their efforts were undoubtedly the foundation beneath the many connections we were able to build, which, I believe, have begun to pave the way toward an unseen bridge.