NEW HORIZONS IN JAPANESE LITERARY AND CULTURAL STUDIES International Symposium Organized by Columbia University and Waseda University March 13, 2015 403 Kent Hall, Columbia University New York, NY, USA

Founded in 1754, Columbia University is one of the world’s top research universities, and has produced 101 Nobel Prize laureates to date. With its core curriculum courses for undergraduates, the university is also known for having a particularly strong emphasis on liberal arts education among the Ivy League institutions. Each year, about 1,500 new students move into a residential hall reserved for incoming freshmen. From the second year till graduation, they continue their studies while living in one of more than ten residential halls. Students focus on liberal arts education without declaring their majors during their first year and half at the university. Liberal arts courses for students in their early years include studies of history, culture, and literature, concerning not only the West but also Asia, thanks to the efforts made by former students of the late Ryusaku Tsunoda, such as Professors Emeriti Theodore de Bary and , who led the field of Japanese Studies in the United States in Tsunoda’s footsteps. The symposium ─New Horizons in Japanese Literary and Cultural Studies─ was held on March 13, 2015 at Columbia University as a startup event for the Global Japanese Studies Project. The project constitutes a part of Waseda University’s Top Global University Project, and is led by three core institutions: Waseda University, Columbia University, and UCLA. Thirty-eight scholars from seventeen universities and one institute participated in the symposium as presenters and commentators.

Opening Remarks

As one of the organizers of the symposium, Professor Haruo Shirane of Columbia University described the purpose of the symposium: The main purpose of this symposium is not to present on individual research, but rather to discuss and explore the future directions of Global Japanese Studies. In particular, following the establishment of the Ryusaku Tsunoda Center of Japanese Culture at Waseda University, we hope to formulate future plans for building Global Japanese Studies through collaboration between the three institutional hubs: Waseda University, Columbia University, and UCLA. One of the ideas for constructive change for the future is attending to the fact that Japanese Studies, over the years, have excessively been divided into narrow subfields. Research on Japanese literature has been divided by historical periods, such as the , the medieval period, and the early-modern period, and has been further divided by literary genres. Scholars would then focus on a specific theme within a framework that has already been narrowly defined by the period and genre. I believe that new possibilities will emerge when scholars within and outside come together to reconsider the ways to bring about change to the current state of the field. What types of new research can be conducted? How can we influence society? How should we best foster students? Today we face the danger of a decrease in the number of students who pursue Japanese Studies. To put a brake on this crisis, we need to find ways to make the field more appealing. We need to continue our effort to reexamine the field and raise interest in the field among students.

Panel 1. Rethinking Literature and Writing in the East Asian Context

In reexamining literature and writing in the East Asian context, the first panel generated discussions of the future directions of research on “literature,” with conversations about the notion of literary canons in Japan, contested definitions of “literature,” the understanding of wakan texts, and the relationship between history, thought, and literature. Torquil Duthie discussed how English-language scholarship on Japanese literature has become increasingly subdivided in recent years, even as there has been an emergent effort to bridge the already narrowly subdivided research fields in Japan. He argued that the opportunity is ripe for bringing together English-language and Japanese-language scholarships. He also argued for the need to discuss the notion of “literature” in ancient Japan, and to redefine the value of research on “literary” practice. Considering -related knowledge in the Heian period, Jennifer Guest pointed out that there was no clear division between kanbun and wabun, and that the close entanglement of the two modes of literacy in fact generated possibilities for new types of literary creativity. She also discussed the challenges entailed in teaching about kanbun to students of literature. Through a comprehensive examination of the intersection and divergence between materials and the world of wakan texts in Japan, Ko no Kimiko argued for the importance of understanding the characteristics of “texts” in East Asia, and of conducting a multi-dimensional reevaluation of the development of the humanities since the nineteenth century. Jinno Hidenori pointed out the lack of theory and intellectual depth in the current state of research on pre-modern Japanese literature in Japan. He argued that examining Chinese words found in Japanese texts could enable a reconsideration of the intellectual elements contained in pre-modern Japanese literature, and broaden the horizons of Japanese literary research.

Panel 2. Language Studies, Translation, and Questions of Reading

In the second panel, four presenters discussed issues of language studies, translation, and “reading.” Ce cile Sakai discussed the current state of research and education about Japan in France, as well as methods for reexamining “literariness.” Anne Bayard-Sakai called for historicizing studies of Japanese literature to counter the current state of crisis in the field. Indra Levy talked about her effort to promote an understanding of the importance of advanced studies that is closely linked with research on Japanese literature. Nan Ma Hartman discussed the challenges faced by liberal arts colleges in the process of reconfiguring Japanese Studies programs into East Asian Studies programs. The presentations were followed by more detailed discussions of the state of research and education concerning Japanese Studies in France and in the United States. The panelists emphasized the necessity of finding new approaches rather than reproducing existing methods, particularly at a time when the studying of both literature and Japan has seen a decline amidst institutional reorganization processes. The potential that translation studies present was also discussed, together with a caution against overreliance on that potential.

Panel 3. Genre, Gender, Media, and the Field of Literature

Examining the topics of genre, gender, media, and the field of literature, the third panel explored new possibilities in the study of early modern and modern Japanese literature through a diverse range of discussions. Daniel Poch discussed representations of emotion and desire in the production of literature from the period to the Meji period. He stressed the importance of examining the complex and ambivalent nature of literary texts and their social function and location, considering both continuities and discontinuities between the early modern and the modern period. Hitomi Yoshio argued that discourses surrounding women and writing were at the core of the formation of modern Japanese literature. A reconsideration of the process through multiple perspectives such as media, translation, canonization, and literary histories, she noted, can also contribute to modernist, feminist, and transnational studies. Pau Pitarch-Fernandez discussed the interrelation between economy and literature, arguing that writers used the notion of “psychological abnormality” to claim for themselves the status of “modern authors,” and to legitimize the unique artistic value of their literary works as commodities. Using Tayama Katai’s Futon as an example, Kobori Yo hei suggested that examining the background and the formation process of a certain literary work may facilitate alternative readings of the work, as well as a reconstruction of literary histories, bridging the gap that exists in Japanese literary studies between the conventional empirical approach and more radical, theory- driven approaches. Shiono Kaori proposed two research methodologies that surpass the framework of single-author studies. One was investigating the process of manuscript revision to understand better the contexts that produce and transform writers. The other was examining translations of Japanese literary works into foreign languages during the Sho wa period, paying attention to why certain works were translated, what translations brought forth, and what aspects of literary works were excluded in the process of translation.

Panel 4. Translation, Transformation, and Trans-Nationality

The fourth panel discussed issues of translation, transformation, and trans-nationality. The panelists reexamined a number of notions that have been considered obvious in studies of Japanese literature, and called for a bold restructuring of the field. Seiji Lippit discussed the “interregnum” in studies of Japanese literature, which has transitioned away from the nation-centered model, but has yet to discover a new standpoint. Christina Yi explored the boundaries of “Japanese-language” literature, and drew attention to the historical construction of such boundaries as generative discourses embedded in specific conditions. Michael Emmerich discussed the concept of “translation” as a means to examine Japanese language and Japanese literature, and considered how it relates to research on Japanese literature in an English-language context. He also stressed the importance of engaging with readers outside of academia, as he is currently attempting to do through the translation of Japanese critical essays on Murakami Haruki’s works into English. Tsuneda Makiko discussed her research, which closely examines French translations of , and argued for the value of translations of Japanese literature and their potential as primary subjects of research. Anri Yasuda emphasized the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach, and called for the introduction of perspectives from other fields into Japanese literary studies.

Panel 5. Intermediality, Popular Culture, and Social Imaginery

The fifth panel was organized under the themes of intermediality, popular culture, and social imaginary. Tomoko Sakomura presented on the boundary-crossing potential of calligraphy, and the ideas for developing a digital humanities project that retains the sense of physicality of objects. David Atherton pointed out the potential that research on literature has for contributing to explorations of various conceptual realms that extend far beyond the bounds of Japan Studies. Satoko Shimazaki discussed bringing in the perspectives of research on performance and visual culture to the studies of Edo , which hitherto had largely relied on textual evidence. Considering the links between popular fiction, media, and historicity, Satoru Saito explored ways to position Japanese literacy studies within political contexts. Nathan Shockey discussed the analysis of literature in the age of integrated media discourses. Kerim Yasar utilized a rich array of film excerpts to explore the intersection between media materiality and symbolic forms in modern Japanese culture. The subsequent discussion further explored the notion of intermediality, a topic shared by all six presentations.

Closing Comments: The Future of Japanese Literary and Cultural Studies

Professor Lee Sungi of Waseda University, who was one of the organizers of the symposium, shared his resolve to continue the effort to organize constructive symposiums and workshops in the future, and concluded the event with the following comments: I was moved by Professor Lippit’s presentation, in which he cited Gramci’s notion of “crisis.” Indeed, in studies of literature and history alike, we know that the nation-state framework is no longer useful, but we have not been able to find new alternatives. We are in the state of “crisis,” in which “the old is dying and the new cannot be born.” Every twenty years, about a hundred fifty scholars of Japanese history in Japan gather together to collaboratively produce a publication called Japanese History (Iwanami ko za series). The latest volume in the series is on regional theory. The volume does not use the conventional format of discussing regional histories by dividing Japan into several regions such as To hoku, Kanto and so forth. Instead, it attempts to understand the through a bird’s-eye view of Asia, considering Japan’s links with its surrounding regions. The history of the Japanese Archipelago has never been self-contained. Rather, modern Japan functioned as a hub for East Asian countries. To conduct research in Japanese Studies through self-absorbed analyses without considering what lies beyond the national boundary is unhealthy. For the sake of the sound development of Japanese Studies, I hope that we will be able to organize more stimulating symposiums like the one we had today, and to provide more inspiration to scholars in Japan.