![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bibliographic Data: Duus, Peter. The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Main Argument: Contrary to the title, this book essentially starts with the attempts by Japan to open Korea in the early 1870s. Duus argues that "Korea was a laboratory where the Meiji leaders experimented with the various models of imperialism" and concludes that "the historical record suggests much greater tentativeness in Japanese policy" on "what to do about Korea" than has previously been suggested by people who have drawn a straight and unflinching line from the opening attempts beginning in 1868 to annexation in 1910 (424, 425). Duus also views Japanese imperialism as essentially "mimetic" of Western powers' due to Japan's military, economic, and capitalistic "backwardness," and he also argues that the Japanese colonists were not racist towards the Koreans. I agree that the Japanese military was nowhere near as strong as Western powers' until the early 1900s, when the Japanese beat the Russians handily in the Russo-Japanese War, but I think that trying to set up a paradigm of "feudal-militaristic imperialism" and "backwards imperialism" fundamentally misses several very important points, and I disagree on this point, and on the question of racism, completely.
Historiographical Engagement: The criticism of this book that I hear most often is that it doesn't use hardly any Korean language sources, because Duus doesn't know Korean. Thus, it is a portrait almost exclusively from the Japanese side, although to his credit he does read a lot of works by Korean scholars writing in Japanese. Other than that, the usual suspects of the old "Japan was backwards" consensus--ironically, although Duus shares their views, this book became one of the beachheads of the new wave of studies of Japanese empire, which usually take a diametrically opposite view.
Introduction: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter outlines the origins of Meiji imperialism, saying that "about all that can be said with certainty is that by responding to the intrusion of Western imperialism by reconstructing Japan as a modern nation-state and by undertaking the industrialization of the economy, the Meiji leaders set themselves on the road to imperialist expansion" (23). [Well, yes. In the 19thC, as industrial nations successfully substituted "the law of nations" for natural law, it seemed clear that there were two choices: devour or be devoured.] Duus argues that "Meiji imperialism, and more specifically expansion into Korea, was the product of a complex coalition uniting the Meiji leaders, backed and prodded by a chorus of domestic politicians, journalists, businessmen, and military leaders, with a subimperialist Japanese community in Korea" (ibid). This imperialism proceeded on two interlocking tracks, political and economic, arguing that "the industrialization of Japan did not impel the Japanese leaders to adopt an imperialist policy in Korea but merely empowered them to do so" (24).
( The abacus and the sword )
Critical assessment: This book is absolutely the benchmark for the field, and while the evidence that Duus marshals is worthwhile the book is marred on the whole by his inability to recognize the essential violence of all imperialism, Japanese imperialism included, or to call a spade a spade in the case of Japanese racism. Later writers like Mark Driscoll have not failed in this regard, at least. In the acknowledgements Duus thanks several readers who helped him "avoid what might have appeared to be an endorsement of Japanese imperialism" (xii), which is really rather telling. Although he never says this explicitly, the impression lingers, partly because Duus uncritically accepts the idea that modernity = good and partly because the Korean elites come off very poorly indeed. This may be fairly accurate or it may be an artifact of the sources or both. I've articulated most of my other objections in other sections of the above; here let me just note that I think Duus' book is almost atavistic in the attitudes it takes, perhaps because he evidently worked on it for a very long time. And finally, let me wave my "Japanese modernization was not solely imitative" banner one more time, as well as my "kokumin does not mean 'citizen'" flag. (This is a tic that Gluck shared too. Is this also a throwback to modernization theory?)
Further reading: Mark Driscoll, Absolute Erotic, Absolute Grotesque; Uchida Jun, Brokers of Empire
Meta notes: Colonialism encompasses violence on multiple levels. And racism can be couched in a variety of terms while still being racism. And reading this book in 2014, when the fates of none of the major players in this story--Russia, Korea, Japan--are what anyone would have predicted in 1905, is both full of ironies and something of a headtrip.
Main Argument: Contrary to the title, this book essentially starts with the attempts by Japan to open Korea in the early 1870s. Duus argues that "Korea was a laboratory where the Meiji leaders experimented with the various models of imperialism" and concludes that "the historical record suggests much greater tentativeness in Japanese policy" on "what to do about Korea" than has previously been suggested by people who have drawn a straight and unflinching line from the opening attempts beginning in 1868 to annexation in 1910 (424, 425). Duus also views Japanese imperialism as essentially "mimetic" of Western powers' due to Japan's military, economic, and capitalistic "backwardness," and he also argues that the Japanese colonists were not racist towards the Koreans. I agree that the Japanese military was nowhere near as strong as Western powers' until the early 1900s, when the Japanese beat the Russians handily in the Russo-Japanese War, but I think that trying to set up a paradigm of "feudal-militaristic imperialism" and "backwards imperialism" fundamentally misses several very important points, and I disagree on this point, and on the question of racism, completely.
Historiographical Engagement: The criticism of this book that I hear most often is that it doesn't use hardly any Korean language sources, because Duus doesn't know Korean. Thus, it is a portrait almost exclusively from the Japanese side, although to his credit he does read a lot of works by Korean scholars writing in Japanese. Other than that, the usual suspects of the old "Japan was backwards" consensus--ironically, although Duus shares their views, this book became one of the beachheads of the new wave of studies of Japanese empire, which usually take a diametrically opposite view.
Introduction: Argument, Sources, Examples This chapter outlines the origins of Meiji imperialism, saying that "about all that can be said with certainty is that by responding to the intrusion of Western imperialism by reconstructing Japan as a modern nation-state and by undertaking the industrialization of the economy, the Meiji leaders set themselves on the road to imperialist expansion" (23). [Well, yes. In the 19thC, as industrial nations successfully substituted "the law of nations" for natural law, it seemed clear that there were two choices: devour or be devoured.] Duus argues that "Meiji imperialism, and more specifically expansion into Korea, was the product of a complex coalition uniting the Meiji leaders, backed and prodded by a chorus of domestic politicians, journalists, businessmen, and military leaders, with a subimperialist Japanese community in Korea" (ibid). This imperialism proceeded on two interlocking tracks, political and economic, arguing that "the industrialization of Japan did not impel the Japanese leaders to adopt an imperialist policy in Korea but merely empowered them to do so" (24).
( The abacus and the sword )
Critical assessment: This book is absolutely the benchmark for the field, and while the evidence that Duus marshals is worthwhile the book is marred on the whole by his inability to recognize the essential violence of all imperialism, Japanese imperialism included, or to call a spade a spade in the case of Japanese racism. Later writers like Mark Driscoll have not failed in this regard, at least. In the acknowledgements Duus thanks several readers who helped him "avoid what might have appeared to be an endorsement of Japanese imperialism" (xii), which is really rather telling. Although he never says this explicitly, the impression lingers, partly because Duus uncritically accepts the idea that modernity = good and partly because the Korean elites come off very poorly indeed. This may be fairly accurate or it may be an artifact of the sources or both. I've articulated most of my other objections in other sections of the above; here let me just note that I think Duus' book is almost atavistic in the attitudes it takes, perhaps because he evidently worked on it for a very long time. And finally, let me wave my "Japanese modernization was not solely imitative" banner one more time, as well as my "kokumin does not mean 'citizen'" flag. (This is a tic that Gluck shared too. Is this also a throwback to modernization theory?)
Further reading: Mark Driscoll, Absolute Erotic, Absolute Grotesque; Uchida Jun, Brokers of Empire
Meta notes: Colonialism encompasses violence on multiple levels. And racism can be couched in a variety of terms while still being racism. And reading this book in 2014, when the fates of none of the major players in this story--Russia, Korea, Japan--are what anyone would have predicted in 1905, is both full of ironies and something of a headtrip.
