vol.006 - 人間文化研究機構「北東アジア地域研究推進事業」島根県立大学NEARセンター拠点プロジェクト「近代的空間の形成とその影響」第1回国際シンポジウム2016“北東アジア:胚胎期の諸相”

National Institutes for the Humanities (NIHU) Northeast Asia Area Studies Project

University of Shimane NEAR Center Project “Formation of Modern Spaces and their Impact”

1st International Symposium 2016

Northeast Asia: The Embryonic Stage

Toru ISHIDA, University of Shimane

The symposium mentioned above took place over the course of a weekend, on November 19 and 20, 2016. Due to space constraints, I’m sure you will understand that I cannot go into full detail of all comments and questions during the event.

The first symposium as part of this project, and the first held at the Institute for North East Asian Research (NEAR Center), the event consisted of three sessions and a general debate, with the first two sessions taking place on the Saturday, and the third session and debate on the Sunday. The symposium was based on the premise that the period up to the 18th century (mainly the 17th century) in Northeast Asia was an “embryonic stage,” during which the foundations were laid for the “preliminary stage” from the 19th century onwards, as modernization began to sweep across the region. Discussions revolved around the situation in each country in the region during that period, approaching the subject from three key perspectives; “perceptions,” “ruling philosophies” and “exchange.”

The first session was chaired by Xiao Dong Li (University of Shimane). Entitled “Perceptions: Self-Perception or History,” it featured four reports, followed by comments and questions with Hiroki Oka (Tohoku University). A report from Tomoyasu Iiyama (Waseda University), entitled “12th-14th Century Northern China – the Borderland Between Mongolia and China,” went back further than the 17th-18th century focus of the symposium to look at the northern part of China during the 12th to 14th centuries. He discussed the fact that northern China was strongly characterized as a borderland between the typically “Northern Asian” aspects of Mongolian culture and the Jiangnan region of China. Osamu Inoue (University of Shimane) meanwhile gave a report entitled “Research into Mongolian Chronicles and their Effects on Subsequent Generations.” He provided an overview of numerous “Mongolian chronicles” written from the 17th to the 19th centuries, and outlined a direction for continuing research in the future. The next report, from Atsushi Inoue (University of Shimane), was entitled “Differing Perceptions between Korea and Japan.” He talked about the impact that the Mongol invasions of Japan had on perceptions in both Japan and Korea, referring to sources such as the “Goryeosa (History of Goryeo),” “Annals of the Joseon Dynasty,” “Taiheiki (Chronicle of Great Peace)” and “Jinno Shotoki (Chronicles of the Authentic Lineages of the Divine Emperors).” Yoshikazu Nakamura (Professor Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University) gave a report on “The Utopia Legend (Belovodye) of the Russian Old Believers.” He spoke about the “Old Believers” (former followers), who emerged from the mid-17th century movement to reform the Russian Orthodox Church, and their fascination with the east, which they passed on through the generations by maintaining belief in the legend of utopia.

The second session, chaired by myself, was themed around “ruling philosophies,” and once again featured four reports followed by comments and questions with Xiao Dong Li. Takeo Kuryuzawa (Professor Emeritus, Hokkaido University) gave a report entitled “Ruling Philosophies in Russia during the Embryonic Stage.” He provided an overview of Russian history from 9th century Kiev onwards, and discussed key aspects of Russia’s relationship with Asia. This was followed by a report by Toshio Motegi (Tokyo Woman’s Christian University), entitled “Chinese Philosophies on Order.” He discussed the shape of order in China during the pre-modern era, while also looking at various “transformations” that have occurred in the modern era. Hiroki Oka gave a report on “The Qing Dynasty’s Rule over Mongolia in the Context of Mongolian History.” He explained that there was no “inner and outer” structure between the Qing Dynasty and Mongolia, highlighting the multifaceted nature of rule under the Qing Dynasty, based on a concurrent yet different historical context. Hyeon-Cheol Do (Yonsei University, South Korea) gave a report on “The Relationship between Neo-Confucian Ruling Philosophies under the Joseon Dynasty and China.” He discussed the reasons why Neo-Confucianism became the norm under the Joseon Dynasty, the inner workings of public opinion and politics during that era, and perceptions of the tributary-investiture relationship with China.

The following day, the third session on the 20th was chaired by Jianhui Liu (International Research Center for Japanese Studies) and was based on the theme of “exchange.” It featured two reports, followed by comments and questions with Tsuneo Namihira (University of the Ryukyus), Naoki Amano (Yamagata University) and Osamu Inoue. The first report was from Dong Yu Han (Northeast Normal University, China), entitled “The Academic Debate Surrounding the Issue of Self-Control in Pre-Modern Japan and China.” He discussed how the concept of “self-control” was portrayed in classical Chinese literature, and how it was received and understood when it came over to Japan. Akira Yanagisawa (Waseda University) then gave a report entitled “Russian-Chinese Diplomacy and Intermediary Languages in the 17-19th Centuries,” focusing discussion on which languages were used in negotiations between Qing Dynasty China and Russia during the 17th to 19th centuries, while also looking at translation systems and translator training.

This was followed by a general debate, chaired by Atsushi Inoue. The session began with a summary debate between a panel of four speakers, with Hiroki Oka, Naheya (Inner Mongolia University, China) and Eduard Baryshev (University of Tsukuba) joined on short notice by Yuki Konagaya (NIHU), before moving on to a question and answer session with speakers who had given reports. Yuki Konagaya summed up the symposium using the phrase “civilizations (i.e. the foundations that different cultures share) coming together.” She commented that, while there is real diversity between regions within Northeast Asia, embracing that diversity makes it possible to achieve a sense of stability, and pointed out that these two key points were evident in each of the reports. She also recommended taking into account the concepts of space and location when thinking about the Northeast Asia region on a conceptual level, and commented that working with the National Museum of Ethnology would be a viable option when it came to examining how different cultures come together.

Hiroki Oka referred to the “curious stability” and “diversity” of Northeast Asia, before raising the two questions of how to view Northeast Asia as a region and how to tackle research into the region. He stressed the importance of “paying more attention to the north,” particularly in Japan. Naheya meticulously commented on and questioned each of the ten reports, while Eduard Baryshev singled out the “presence and dynamism of Mongolia” as one of the overriding features of the symposium. He also commented that Northeast Asia is a geographical reality and a space that is transforming itself, as it moves further away from the issue of ethnicity, and pointed out that Northeast Asia as a space depends on the relationships between those who make up the region. He finished by underlining the “presence and significance of the north,” and posing important questions regarding the symposium’s lack of any “western” input and the position of Japan within Northeast Asia.

I am already running out of space, but would just like to briefly share my thoughts on this event. As you can tell from the above, this symposium was an extensive, far-reaching affair, with western representatives from Kiev and Moscow alongside eastern counterparts from the Korean Peninsula and Japan, and a timeframe ranging from the 9th to the 17th centuries. It was an opportunity to experience “the contents of four conferences in one” (Konagaya). Although I myself chaired the second session, I must confess that I did get a little lost when the subject of the symposium turned to the west and the north. Having focused largely on the history of relations between Japan and Korea myself, I found I had trouble absorbing what was being said. Needless to say, this was due to my own lack of knowledge about the west and north, or moreover down to a lack of study on my part. Although, I wonder if this was also due to the absence of perspective on the entirety of Northeast Asia and method to consider Northeast Asia in a systematic manner.

How should we structure the history of Northeast Asia, or the history of Northeast Asian thought, which is not a collection of histories of each nation? There is a common saying “it’s always darkest before the dawn.” I think that describes this symposium perfectly. The more discussions progressed, the less clear things became. The key to overcoming this issue can be found in some of the ideas raised during the general debate. These include “the importance of the north (Mongolia/Russia)” and “mechanisms to enable us to accept differences and embrace diversity,” which after all is one of the defining characteristics of Northeast Asia. I may be wide of the mark, but personally, I found myself wondering if it might be worth re-reading Tadao Umesao’s “An Ecological View of History,” to avoid falling into the trap of focusing on “transhistorical notions.” The symposium gave me a real sense of the impact that lifestyles in Mongolia had on culture. I hope we can use this symposium as a stepping stone towards tackling this issue in the future, so that we can all welcome in the dawn.

 

(Note: This article is an edited version of a piece with the same name, due to be published in NEAR News No.51 (March 2017), the official newsletter of University of Shimane NEAR Center.)

 

 

 

人間文化研究機構「北東アジア地域研究推進事業」島根県立大学NEARセンター拠点プロジェクト

「近代的空間の形成とその影響」第1回国際シンポジウム2016“北東アジア:胚胎期の諸相”

                                                          島根県立大学 石田 徹

 2016年11月19日(土)・20日(日)の2日間に亘り標記シンポジウムが開催された。紙幅の都合上、各コメント・質疑の詳細までは紹介できないことをお許しいただきたい。

 シンポジウムは3つのセッションと総合討論からなり、19日には第1・第2セッションを、20日には第3セッションと総合討論が行われた。本事業、NEAR拠点第1回目となる今シンポジウムでは、北東アジア地域において「近代」が広がっていく19世紀以降の前段階=前提条件を形づくる18世紀以前(メインは17世紀)を「胚胎期」と捉え、【認識】【統治理念】【交流】の3つの視角からこの時期の北東アジア各国の状況について議論を進めた。

 第1セッション(司会:李暁東氏(島根県立大学))は、「認識:自己認識あるいは歴史」と題し、4つの報告と岡洋樹氏(東北大学)によるコメント・質疑が行われた。飯山知保氏(早稲田大学)「モンゴル・『中国』の接壌地帯としての12-14世紀華北」は、本シンポが射程とする17~18世紀をさらに遡り、12~14世紀の華北地域に注目し、華北地域が「北アジア的」特質を持つモンゴル文化と江南中国との〈接壌地帯〉としての性格を強く持っていることを論じた。井上治氏(島根県立大学)「『モンゴル年代記』の成立とその後代への展開の研究」は、17世紀から19世紀にかけて成立した複数の「モンゴル年代記」の特徴を概観し、これから進める研究のアウトラインを提示した。井上厚史氏(島根県立大学)「朝鮮と日本の自他認識」では、元寇という事件が日本と朝鮮にいかなる認識上の衝撃を与えたのかについて、『高麗史』『朝鮮王朝実録』『太平記』『神皇正統記』などを用いて論じた。中村喜和氏(一橋大学名誉教授)「古儀式派ロシア人のユートピア伝説〈白水境〉」は、17世紀中期ロシア正教内の改革運動の結果現れた「古儀式派=旧教徒」の中から「東方」への期待や関心がユートピア伝説として語り継がれ、人々に信じられていった状況が論じられた。

 第2セッション(司会:筆者)は、「統治理念」と題し、同じく4つの報告と李暁東によるコメント・質疑が行われた。栗生澤猛夫氏(北海道大学名誉教授)「『胚胎期』ロシアにおける『統治理念』」は、9世紀キエフ時代からのロシア史を概観しながら、ロシアのアジアとの関わり方の特徴を論じた。茂木敏夫氏(東京女子大学)「中国的秩序の理念」では、近代に生じた様々な‘変容’を見据えながら前近代における中国的秩序にはいかなるものがあったかを整理し論じた。岡洋樹氏「大清国によるモンゴル統治のモンゴル史的文脈」は清朝とモンゴルとの間にはいわゆる「中心・周辺構造」はなく、清朝の統治には異なる歴史的文脈を共存させうる多面的性格があることを指摘した。都賢喆(ト・ヒョンチョル)氏(韓国・延世大学校)「朝鮮王朝の朱子学的支配理念と中国との関係」では、朝鮮王朝において朱子学が主流となった理由、朝鮮時代の公論政治の内実、中国との朝貢冊封関係の捉え方について論じられた。

 翌20日第3セッション(司会:劉建輝氏(国際日本文化研究センター))は、「交流」と題し、2つの報告と波平恒男氏(琉球大学)・天野尚樹氏(山形大学)・井上治氏によるコメントと質疑があった。韓東育氏(中国・東北師範大学)「前近代日中学界における『制心』問題をめぐる議論」では、「制心(self-control)」という概念の、中国古典における態様とそれが日本に入ってきたときの受容・理解のされ方をめぐって議論が展開された。柳沢明氏(早稲田大学)「17~19世紀の露清外交と媒介言語」では、17~19世紀において、清とロシアの間での交渉において、現場でどのような言語が用いられていたのか、また翻訳システムや翻訳者養成はどのように行われていたのかを論じた。

 その後総合討論(司会:井上厚史氏)では、岡氏、娜荷芽(ナヒヤ)氏(中国・内モンゴル大学)、バールィシェフ・エドワルド氏(筑波大学)に、急遽小長谷有紀氏(人間文化研究機構)も参加しての4名による総括討論とそれを踏まえた各報告者との質疑が行われた。小長谷氏は本シンポを「文明(=異なる文化が相乗りできる土台)の接壌」というキーワードで総括し、北東アジアという地域において、一方では各地域における多様性があり、他方ではその多様性をも包摂して達せられる安定性の2つの特性が各報告それぞれに見られたこと、北東アジアという地域概念を考える上で、〈空間〉概念と〈場所〉概念を意識することの有効性と異文化の「接壌」時の実態に迫る際には民族学博物館との連携という方法もあることを指摘した。

 岡氏は、北東アジアにおける「妙な安定性」と「多様性」を指摘した上で、北東アジア地域をどう見るのか、北東アジア地域を研究する際の姿勢という2点の問題提起を行い、とりわけ日本においては「北に気づくこと」の重要性を強く訴えた。娜荷芽氏は、全10報告それぞれに丁寧なコメントと個別の質問を行い、バールィシェフ氏は本シンポの全体的特徴として「モンゴルの存在感とダイナミズム」を挙げ、北東アジア地域とは、エスニシティから切り離し、地理的事実であると同時に変容していく空間であること、地域の構成要員間の「関係」が、北東アジアという空間を構成していることを指摘し、また「北の存在・北の意味」がやはり重要となること、そして今回のシンポでは「西洋」がなかったことへの疑問と、改めて北東アジアにおいて「日本」という存在は何なのかという大きな問いを出した。

 すでに紙幅も尽きているが、ごく簡単に筆者の感想も述べて本稿を擱筆したい。以上のように、本シンポジウムは、西はキエフ・モスクワから東は朝鮮半島・日本、時は9世紀から17世紀までを扱った広大、遠大なもので、「4つの学会の内容を1度に聞く」(小長谷氏)機会となった。筆者は第2セッションの司会を担当したが、恥を忍んで白状すれば、内容が「西」・「北」になればなるほど、これまで日朝関係史をやってきた筆者には文章は分かっても内容が頭に入ってこず、五里霧中な状況に陥ってしまった。無論それは筆者に「西」・「北」の基本知識が脱落していたからであり、筆者の勉強不足によるところが大きい。しかし、もう一つにはこれまで「北東アジア」を一望する視角、体系的に考える方途がなかったことにもよるのではないだろうか。

 一国史の寄せ集めではない「北東アジア史」「北東アジア思想史」をどのように構築していけるのか。俗に「夜明け前が一番暗い」などと言うが、筆者にとって本シンポジウムはまさにこの状態で、議論が進めば進むほどわからなくなっていった。そこを打破するきっかけが総合討論で議論された「北(モンゴル・ロシア)の重要性」であったり、北東アジアの特徴と言えそうな「差異を許容し、多様性を維持出来るメカニズム」などにあったように思う。また、個人的には、的外れかも知れないが、「超歴史的な発想」に陥らないように留意しつつ、梅棹忠夫の『文明の生態史観』をもう一度読み直してみようか、などとも思った。モンゴルの生活形態が「文化」に与えるインパクトの大きさを感じたからである。無事夜明けを迎えられるよう本シンポジウムをその足がかりとして今後もこの課題に取り組んでいきたい。

 

(記:なお、本稿は島根県立大学NEARセンター機関誌 NEAR News No.51(2017年3月発行予定)の同名原稿を再編集し、転載したものである)

 

nihumaganine6-1.jpg

Img1: The symposium was held at the University of Shimane

 

nihumaganine6-2.jpg

Img2: Participants discuss issues during a session