Japanologists in the Field: First Experience of Collective Field Research of Japan in Germanspeaking Social Sciences

The article analyzes the “Aso Project” (1968-69) of the Vienna School of Japanology as an attempt to synthesize various theoretical traditions in order to create a new methodology for studying Japan. The Vienna School, in contrast to the dominant philological-historical paradigm, initially positioned itself as ethnological and, in the postwar period, continued to maintain its closeness to ethnology. This episode in its history can be seen as a particular case of searching for a new research paradigm after the collapse of grand theory and amidst growing theoretical diversity. The theoretical basis of the project was a critical rethinking of two research approaches: American community studies, which were criticized for their inability to connect the micro level with macro processes, and Japanese interdisciplinary regional studies (Kyugakkai Rengo), whose drawback was considered to be weak integration of results across disciplines as well as propensity for generalisations. The Aso Project sought to combine indepth local studies in the American style with the Japanese approach to the region as an intermediate unit of analysis, while adding the historical context. In practice, however, this ambitious synthesis did not materialize. Due to a lack of resources, weak coordination, and the fact that each researcher pursued his own narrow specialization, the project resulted in a series of rather fragmented microsociological, ethnographic, and historical works. Despite failing to create a universal model, the Aso Project had enormous symbolic significance, becoming a “founding myth” for the Vienna School of Japanese Studies. It clearly demonstrated the productivity of social science methods in studying Japanese culture and normalized the study of contemporary Japan within German-language Japanology. From the perspective of the history of anthropology, this is an example of borrowing anthropological theories and methods into related disciplines, which illustrates both the productivity of such borrowings and the difficulties that arise in the process. The author declares no conflict of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References