Nineteenth-century European History Studies in Postwar Japan(*)

ODANAKA, Naoki

at Hangyang University (Seoul, 1st December 2012)



In this text, I will survey the trends in the Japanese research on European history after the World War Two. The research being referred to concerns the five countries of England, France, Germany, the United States, and Russia.

1. The Age of Revolutions (1945-1960)

1.1. Shared Frame of Reference

The Comparative Economic History School led by OTSUKA, Hisao, came to dominate historical studies in Japan immediately after the war. A salient characteristic of this school was its regard for the independent and self-managing small producer as an agent in history.

According to its members, European history since the end of Middle Ages is depicted as follows ;

-these producers emerged at the end of the medieval period, based on the wealth brought through domestic economic expansion.
-Via the bourgeois revolution, small producers broke through the fetters of the feudal order and began the polarization of themselves, and that of the society as a whole.
-In the 19th century they gave birth to capitalists and wage laborers, who came through the industrial revolution and comprised modern capitalist society.
-This development went along with the creation of a national economy and a class state ruled by capitalists.
-This process was tacitly hoped to lead to the expansion of trade unionism and then a socialist revolution carried out by laboring classes who accepted socialism (1).

The foci of research, the bourgeois and industrial revolutions, are regarded as two mutually interconnected events.

1.2. Shared Interest

According to this same School, postwar Japan was on the eve of the bourgeois revolution. Consequently, the study of European history should indicate the course of the bourgeois revolution in Japan ; and thus such phenomena ? and especially the preconditions for revolution -- ought to be objects of examination. Most historians (centered on the first postwar generation, i.e. those born in 1920s and 1930s) followed this emphasis (2), studying histories of England and France in particular, for the process which post-war Japan should follow was particularly evident in the course of these two countries. As a result, there was an analytical neglect of the 19th century in the research on the two countries, where the bourgeois revolutions, i.e. the English Puritan and Honorable Revolutions (Civil War) and the French Revolution, were completed in 17th and 18th centuries. As for other countries, their histories were regarded as deviated from this orthodox path or were delayed. Hence, work stressed comparisons -- thus the name of the School -- with England and France, in order to measure much deviation there was and how late the process was in such and such countries.

What is more, Japanese research exhibited a consistent focus on the history of ideas. Important objects of study were various figures and groups, from Hegel and Marx to the German Socialist Party and British Political Economists such as Ricardo and Mill. The background to this work was a strong interest in Marxism. Compared to other areas of historical research, it was relatively easy to get materials ; and with the focus being the interpretation of texts, a very advanced level of scholarship was realized.

1.3. England and France, i.e. Leaders

The concerns of historians of England and France focused, in particular, on the landed proprietor system of the late Middle Ages. From 1955, a vigorous debate -- called the �gLanded Proprietor System Dispute�h -- ensured over the question of whether or not the landlords of this period later had became agents of the bourgeois revolution (3). Due to the controversy, research on the bourgeois revolution itself was obscured.

There was, of course, some historical research on 19th century England and France. The research on English history presupposed that the capital-labor relation was constructed in a normal manner, and then proceeded to examine the formation of wage labor and the evolution of the labor movement. Also, concerning the end of the 19th century, the influence of theories of imperialism saw research on finance capital, monopoly capital, and imperialist policies -- in other words, �gstudies of imperialism.�h In historical research on France, analysis of the February Revolution and the Paris Commune was undertaken.

1.4. Germany, United States, Russia, i.e. Late Comers

In the cases of Germany, the United States, and Russia, though, the bourgeois revolution was a matter of the 19th century. In Germany and Russia, �greform from above�h was implemented in place of the bourgeois revolution.

Research on German history was directed at the question of why Prussian reformist politics, from the Schtein-Haldenberg Reform to Bismarckian social policies, were successful. This meant asking why the German March Revolutions, which held the potential of turning into a bourgeois revolution, failed. A cause of this has repeatedly been sought in the immaturity of the working class. But one can ask why it was immature. Henceforth, the interest of historians should turn to the German phenomenon of an industrial revolution that progressed alongside bourgeois revolution or reform.

The failure of the bourgeois revolution in Germany meant, it was argued, there was deviation and lateness relative to the orthodox route. In this, many historians found the origins of Nazism. Also evident is the influence of theories of imperialism, in that �gJunker-led Imperialism�h is deemed a late-19th-century precursor of Nazism ; research into this area has become popular (see e.g., OHNO, Eiji).

As to research on Russian history, it centered on the liberation of the serfs and whether or not this brought about a modern society. Dispute over whether or not Russian society of the latter half of the 19th century was modern can be said to have commenced in the 1960s.

On the other hand, research into American history generally regarded the American Civil War along with the War of Independence as bourgeois revolutions, and hence centering their research on these wars. In the wake of these conflicts, America entered smoothly into its industrial revolution and constructed a modern society. Indeed, at the end of the century, America showed an inclination towards imperialism. The bourgeois revolution was late, but in its wake America was viewed as having proceeded on an orthodox path (see, e.g., SUZUKI, Keisuke). However, attention has to be paid to a point of dispute in the Civil War ; namely the pros and cons of freeing the slaves. Research on American history has to consider the existence of Black Americans. It is likely that this issue explains the concern for ethnicity and minority groups. In this earlier research, however, the object of study was not Afro-Americans per se. The study centered on what kind of influence the freeing of the slaves had on the industrial revolution.

With French and English history as the focus, 19th century European history was not yet the most important sphere of research. That had not yet awoken, but in 1960 one proposal served to break a peaceful sleep.

2. The Discovery of the Nineteenth Century (1960-1968)

2.1. Impact of Ampo Toso

In the summer of 1960, Japan was in the midst of its largest postwar popular movement (Toso), called Ampo Toso. The incident stemmed from the Japan-US Security Treaty (Ampo) problem, but the circumstances had a profound effect on historians. The question was : how best to apprehend Japan�fs historical position ? Providing one answer to this question was a specialist of English history, YOSHIOKA, Akihiko (4).

According to YOSHIOKA,

-The bourgeois revolution in Japan had for the time being come to an end.
-The focus in the wake of that would be the birth of the relation between capital and labor.
-Japanese historians would have to clarify the special features of that relationship, and turn to the analysis of the industrial revolution which produced it.

In taking up this suggestion, most historians shifted their attention to research on the industrial revolution. The fact that YOSHIOKA was the historian of the late Middle Ages who had himself initiated the Landed Proprietor System dispute five years before, is suggestive on this point. This meant, too, that in historical studies of France and England the 19th century as an object was generally discovered.

Thus to the question of how to research over the industrial revolution. The Comparative Economic History School, noted earlier, stressed the relation between the bourgeois and the industrial revolutions. Viewed from the perspective of research on the industrial revolution, this became a debate concerning whether the origin of capitalism lay in the victory of small producers in the bourgeois revolution and whether they had a protagonist role in the industrial revolution. In particular, this origins research became popular in historical research on France, Germany, and the United States. This fact meant that the industrial revolution was not regarded as an independent object of research.

The research in this period had the common feature of the central shift in attention from the bourgeois to the industrial revolution. What we must pay attention to is the fact that the class state and the national economy were unconsciously supposed to be the framework of research. The industrial revolution gave rise to the capital-labor relation and the national economy. Both of these have to be understood as a unified whole in the context of the rule of the capitalist class and its construction of the state (the class state) to promote the national economy. The working class, too, organized in labor unions and accepting socialism, should acquire the power in the class state. Hence everything converges in the national economy and the class state made by the industrial revolution.

2.2. Quest for the Origins of Industrial Revolution

In research on France, ENDO, Teruaki, established two ideal types : the �gNorman type,�h wherein the industrial revolution proceeded through capitalists who originated as small producers ; and the �gAlsatian type,�h whose industrial revolution proceeded through different means. Endo stressed the antagonistic relationship between the two. Needless to say, the former was regarded as an orthodox industrial revolution. HATTORI, Haruhiko, challenged the above argument, asking whether it was possible and necessary to separate the conceptions in that way.

In historical research on the United States, there was as well a dispute over whether the orthodox industrial revolution arose in the north (MIYANO, Keiji, and others) or in the west (KUSUI, Toshiro, and others).

Even in historical research on Germany, different types of industrial revolutions could be assigned to each region and compared, as the west followed the orthodox path and Prussia, under the strong rule of the Junkers, deviated from the standard route. Also, scholars sought the reasons for the failure of the bourgeois revolution, and thus tried to examine the relationship between the two revolutions.

In the historical research on the three above countries, comparison among domestic regions was employed in grouping for the special characteristics of the orthodox route and deviations from it, or of delays in timing.

However, after the passage of some years, the question came up of whether it was necessary to so limit the causes of the industrial revolution. An example of this was HATTORI�fs (noted earlier) historical research on France. Taking the industrial revolution itself as an object, he insisted that one ought to research all the structures and patterns of development characteristic of the phenomenon. This kind of insistence grew more powerful and persuasive, and thus examination of diverse aspects of the industrial revolution was undertaken. This was the �gindependence�h of research on the industrial revolution, and the level of evidence took a jump skyward. However, along with these developments, the angle of inquiry into the relationship between the two revolutions became localized and weakened, and the researches became further subdivided, or compartmentalized.

2.3. Other Themes for English and Russian history

On the other hand, matters were different in the field of historical research on England. Of course, in England as well the number of researches on the industrial revolution took a sudden increase. However, a problem arose concerning the inter-relationship between the two revolutions. In the first half of the 19th century, England rather quickly completed its industrial revolution. This ought to have led to the assumption of ruling class status on the part of capitalists. But instead, political control remained largely in the hands of the landed aristocracy. The question is : how can this be understood ? In the wake of this, Japanese historians turned to examine the relationship between the English economy and politics. Some scholars (e.g., SEKIGUCHI, Yoshiyuki) insisted that the landed aristocracy had become political proxies for the capitalists. Others (e.g., MURAOKA, Kenji) argued that the political sphere and the economic sphere were independent of one another. From this came a flowering of interest in historical research on �gpolicies�h linking the two spheres.

In historical research on Russia, there was a debate on whether or not Russian society was modern in the wake of the freeing of the serfs. Most of the criticism targeted WADA, Haruki, who argued that Russian reform politics of the latter half of the 19th century was directed at the realization of a modern society. Concerning the problem of what historical stage at which to place Russian society of the latter half of the 19th century, the point of view then shifted to the villages and indeed continues to be there.

2.4. Some Doubts

However, research forcing a revision of this much mechanistic 19th century imagery had already appeared. This was evident in English and German labor history. In the English studies, the question was : how we ought to understand the 19th century labor movement ? Part of the English working class at the time constituted the so-called �garistocracy of labor,�h one that was in favor of reformism rather than socialism. Though wage laborers appeared on the historical stage, they were not revolutionary. On the other hand, in the German research, there was the problem of retarded formation of the working class. Up until the end of the 19th century, German workers maintained a tradition of handicraft and artisan production. However, they were revolutionary and had to shoulder the failure of the bourgeois revolution. The question here was : how best to understand the relationship between wage labor, socialism and labor unions ? It was also thought that the image of labor itself had to be reexamined. This was a constant flashpoint in 1968.

3. Counter-Culture (1968-1983)

3.1. �g1968�h and the Appearance of the Second post-war generation

The year 1968 was marked by the youth rebellions that occurred around the world, especially in the United States and France. Japan exhibited similar trends. The youth protested the authoritarianism and elitism of the existing order and movements, including such deficiencies on the Left. The hope was that autonomy for laborers and the people would bring a social transformation. This counter-cultural trend of thought inevitably had an influence on historical research.

At this time a younger cohort of historians (the second postwar generation, centered on those born in the 1940s) made their appearance. They advocated a �ghistory from below�h approach and rejected previous work as �ghistory from above�h (history that stressed national politics, the national economy, state formation, and other large-scale concerns, as well as history seen from the perspective of ruling class ; or of the eventual triumph of the �gorthodox�h socialist and labor movements).

3.2. �gHistory from Below�h Approach

As an example of the research based on history-from-below approach, we shall look at KIYASU, Akira, a specialist of French history. He took as his point of departure a criticism of Marx�fs assumption that the events of June 1848 were the first class struggle by the proletariat in the history. KIYASU argued that the �gproletariat�h is not a homogeneous working class, and it does not necessarily support revolution. After that, KIYASU turned to analyze the �grevolutionary syndicalist�h trend in the late 19th century labor movement. In this he found a protagonist for autonomous social transformation. His work on this subject was published in 1972 (5).

The characteristics of the historiography of the second postwar generation, who gathered around Shakai Undo Shi (History of Social Movement), a journal that was launched also in 1972, are summed up in three main points.

The first point is a criticism that the bourgeois revolution and its success in modern society (as well as its �gdevil�fs offspring,�h the socialist society) were authoritarian and elitist.

The second point is a claim that 19th century workers were not necessarily wage laborers. A revision of existing research, which saw the capital-labor relation as an inevitable product of the industrial revolution, was required.

They also stressed that workers were living in a �gworld of labor�h that was anti-elitist, anti-authoritarian, autonomous, and far different from socialism or trade unionism.

This concept gave rise to two research trends. First, there was an insistence on examining the daily lives of workers. This was also advanced by the introduction of the French Annales School in Japan, and scholars undertook research into all aspects of daily life. Next, there was an energetic start to research on non-wage laborers. Since the appearance of KIYASU�fs work, research on revolutionary syndicalism has become one stream in historical analyses of France. In English history, the influence of Thompson�fs cultural Marxism has seen progress on the Luddite movement, the food riot, and other areas. German historical studies have stressed and examined the position that the proletariat was not wage laborer, but rather the poor. For example, the protagonists of the March Revolution were previously thought to be the small producers (until the 1960s), but then arose the insistence that it was the poor (e.g., RACHI, Tsutomu, and others).

The third point is a phenomenon that non-Marxian socialism (from England and France) and the �gyoung Marx�h (from Germany) influenced that generation�fs thought. The former line of analysis started with research on Fourier, Saint Simon, Proudhon, the Chartists, and others. Because this field -- research on the history of thought through the interpretation of texts -- has a strong tradition and accumulation of ideas, it has attracted many researchers and has been carried out at an advanced level.

In summary, the history-from-below approach fixed its gaze on workers and not wage-laborers as the protagonists of the counter-culture. However, the definition of this social class as �gworkers�h seemed not meaningful. From this point on it became popular to use the ambiguous term �gpeople.�h The similarities between 19th century workers and the people in the pre-industrial era came to be discovered. On the other hand, these historians appealed for a shift of research perspectives and aims, from attention to the national economy and the state to the lifestyles and consciousness of the workers and the people. But this was less �ghistory from below�h that it was the �ghistory of below.�h Such research was self-referential (the relationship with the �gabove�h was not asked), and did not serve to clarify the image of �gbelow.�h It was also unclear what methodological dimension this shift in historical research was leading to.

3.3. Other Topics

History-from-below approach had the greatest influence on historical research of England, France, and Germany. As for studies of America and Russia, the effect of the approach was generally ambiguous.

In studies of the United States, most researchers continued as before to be drawn to analyses of the industrial revolution. But a matter that deserves attention was that, beneath the influence of the history-from-below approach, there was the emergence of minority-group studies, especially of immigrants, Black Americans, and indigenous peoples (as well as, in due time, women). For some of the researchers this was a change of focus. Take, for example, the Civil War historian, HONDA, Sozo. He initially viewed Black Americans as an economic class, and sought to analyze their conditions from a class struggle perspective. However, from the beginning of the 1970s, he took an emphasis on the uniqueness of the Black experience in America. Afterwards, the influence of HONDA would make the approach used to examine the case of Black Americans popular in all American historical research field.

In Russian studies, from 1968 there emerged a dispute over the character of the rural community. The original problem was whether or not the communities were the point of origin for the socialist revolution, but then the dispute contributed to a shift in interest in the characteristics and circumstances of the communities. Research on the lifestyles and cultures of the peasants in these communities progressed. There was also interest in the thought of the Narodnikis, who were social thinkers concerned with the communities.

Even in the historical studies of England, France, and Germany, not all the historians were won over to the history-from-below approach.

Research on imperialism progressed through the influence of disputes over the �gimperialism of free trade�h in England, and it would lead to an explosion of studies of empire in the 1980s.

On the other hand, the development of researches on the industrial revolution continued. A particular aspect of this was structural studies of a quite advanced level, which progressed to the extent where research was being conducted on the management of individual firms. A point of argument that surfaced in these works concerned industrial relations and labor management. For example, from the end of the 1970s, research on France turned its attention to paternalism and its accomplishments. This research could not avoid critiquing the history-from-below perspective : If labor management was successful, then even if one says workers had their own consciousness, world, and culture, in actuality they would seem integrated. The history-from-below view was thus perhaps excessively optimistic concerning the autonomy of laborers and the people. These kinds of questions arose in all areas, as in the 1980s the wind of �gintegration�h began to blow through research on 19th century Europe.

4. State and Integration (from 1983 to the beginning of 21st century)

4.1. Wallerstein a la mode

The counter-cultural movement of youth that earlier shook Japan had by the beginning of the 1980s become quiescent. It was regarded very important to ask why this movement failed. Perhaps this trend in social thought influenced historical research (6).

However, the first shock that hit the world of Japanese historians in the 1980s was the World System theory advocated by Wallerstein. This became an opportunity for a flourishing of studies on empire, especially in English historical studies. Of course there had been certain interest in empire prior to this, but it had concentrated on economic and foreign policies and the economic structure underlying them, influenced by theories of imperialism. In contrast, the research on empire (not research on imperialism per se) that began around this time under the influence of World System theory, stressed that one should study all aspects of the construction and operation of empire in Europe since the late Middle Ages.

A representative scholar in this effort was a historian of England, KAWAKITA, Minoru (7). He discovered that a special characteristic of English history from the late Medieval period was the continued rule of the landed aristocracy, and sought the sources for this fact in the structure of empire. Implicit within his opinion on this matter was a criticism of the Comparative Economic History School�fs image of 19th century European history as a time when the national economy gave an economic base to the rule of capitalists.

However, with respect to the acceptance of World System theory, there was also another path. Is it not possible to connect the World System approach with the history-from-below methodology that swept over the discipline in the 1970s ? One who raised this question was SHIBATA, Michio, whose book (8) was published in the same year as KAWAKITA�fs main work. According to SHIBATA, there is convergence in the state as a field of government, between the world system and the localized world of workers and the people. He explained that, after being relativized via the view from both global and regional perspectives, research on the state ought to be revived.

4.2. State and Integration

SHIBATA�fs work received a strong response. But most historians first took it to be an insistence on the importance of �gintegration�h research. This trend would seem to mean the resurrection of the earlier work on the state, national politics, and the national economy, but it is not correct. There is interest in integration as a vector heading toward the core, but there is as yet no consensus on what the core is about.

The development of integration research was a kind of the re-direction of academic thinking based on the transformation of trends in social consciousness. This integration research was directed by the second postwar generation who, in the 1970s, had placed much stress on the history-from-below approach. Counter-culture of 1968 and after, which they projected onto the 19th century worker and popular culture, was by then in a process of decline. In answer to the question why it failed, it was suggested that the ruling culture�fs powers of cooptation were too strong. The question of what underlay this power is the background to their research on integration.

A main line of integration research is seen in the work of TANIGAWA, Minoru, a historian of France. He gave a central place to studies of revolutionary syndicalism. In spite of this, from the start (in discussing the ideas of Corbon, a French militant worker in the middle of the 19th century) he showed doubts about an evaluation which emphasized the autonomy of workers and the people rather one-sidedly. Then in the beginning of the 1980s he began cooperative research using the key concept of �gcultural integration.�h He edited a collection of books based on it in 1990, a work that included a wide variety of studies on the function of integration (9).

The development of integration research was influenced by such atmosphere in Japanese society, but this was not all. One can also identify the conditions pertaining within the scholarly community.

First, there was the beginning of the emphasis on the 19th century as the era of the nation-state. Prior to that, the 19th century state had been seen more than anything else as a class state. The ruling capitalist class controlled the �gruled class�h of laborers through power. By contrast, if one views the phenomenon in term of the nation-state, then there is the problem of national integration to be dealt with : in other words, how to acquire the consent of the ruled class. This area of interest was particularly strong in French historical studies (e.g., NISHIKAWA, Nagao).

The second point concerned the development of research on the management of labor in the 1970s. Especially in England, France, and Germany, capitalists�f control of labor was strong up until the 19th century. Studies on the �gintegration of laborers�h by capitalists seemed to be important.

The third point derives from the introduction of the work of Foucault and others. This work caused an upwelling of interest in modes of disciplining by non-public authority. Research was undertaken on issues such as public health or family problems from the perspective of non-public authority (e.g., SAKAGAMI, Takashi) (10).

4.3. Other Works

Not all historians have accepted the integration approach. In research on France, the number of economic historians going overseas increased, and hence there has been a significant amelioration in the level of studies on the history of finance and management. Among these works is one that was translated in French (11). Research on Russia showed continuous attention to the issues of village communities and lifestyles as well as the thought of the Narodnikis. German research denied that the workers�f handicraft and artisan character was due to lateness or a deviation from the orthodox path. Rather, most scholars studying such matters regarded them as characteristically German (influenced partly by the �gGerman peculiar path�h debate). In research on the United States, one aspect showed the development of minority and ethnic group studies.

Moreover, in all the research on the countries�f histories, examination of the industrial revolution and the history of thought were popular as before. As for new fields of research, some themes, studies of women and families for example, in 19th century historical work have appeared.

5. And Now ?

As for the present situation of the historical studies in Japan, I could only give you three keywords.

First one is the �gtrans-border network,�h i.e. the networks of people, goods, events, etc., over the frontiers and other kinds of borders. Some historians, FUKASAWA, Katsumi, for example, have analyzed the human networks of merchants around the (Mediterranean, Northern, exc.) sea. Networks could organize themselves, against of force of integration if necessary, passing over the frontier of Empires if necessary.

Second one is the �gMemory�h. We Japanese people have just started , as in France (Vichy), in Germany (Shoah), or in ex-USSR (purge led by Stalin), to confront (non-positive, we have to say) memories of our history : the massacre of Nanjing (China), sexual slaves of Japanese army, etc. Japanese historians, even in the case that they are specialists of 19th century Europe, are asked to contribute to resolve the very delicate question : how to construct (or not) the collective memory which we should have today.

Third one is the �gGlobalization.�h More and more of Japanese young historians are leaving Japan and study in foreign universities for the Ph.D so that they could find academic posts in JAPANESE universities. What is more, we are under the growing pressure to publish articles in non-Japanese languages, especially in English, on the internationally evaluated (i.e. high-ranked) journals if possible. Japanese academic world of historians seems to be entering in the age of globalization. Before welcoming this phenomenon, however, we need to think about a question : what is the raison-d�fetre of the historical research of foreign countries ? or wouldn�ft the division of labor (French history by French historians, Japanese history by Japanese historians, Korean history by Korean historians, etc.) be sufficient and desirable ?

Viewed from this point, research on 19th century European history in Japan can be summarized as follows : even as the focus was shifting, the overall extent of the research was expanding. The sketching of a consistent image of 19th century Europe by non-Europeans is not only possible but required, even though the actualities of historical studies is at issue today.



[Footnotes]

(*) This is a revised and extended version of ODANAKA, Naoki, �gWhere have all the Revolutions Gone ? : Nineteenth-Century European Historical Studies in Postwar Japan�h (Bollettino del Diciannovesimo Secolo 4, 1995).
(1) OTSUKA, Hisao, The Spirit of Capitalism (Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1982).
(2) Cf. TAKAHASHI, Kohachiro, Du feodalisme au capitalisme (Paris : Societe des Etudes Robespierristes, 1982).
(3) Cf. YOSHIOKA, Akihiko, �gIgirisu zettai ousei seiritsuki no nouminsou [The polarization of the english peasantry around the establishment of absolutism]�h (Fukushima Daigaku Shogaku Ronshu 23-5, 1955).
(4) YOSHIOKA, Akihiko, �gNihon ni okeru seiyoushi kenkyu ni tsuite [On studies of western history in Japan]�h (Rekishi Hyoron 121, 1960).
(5) KIYASU, Akira, Kakumeiteki Syndicalism [Revolutionary Syndicalism] (Tokyo : Kawade Shobo,1972).
(6) Cf. KONDO, Kazuhiko, �gSeiji bunka no shakaishi ni mukete [Toward a social history of political culture]�h (Shiso 776, 1989).
(7) KAWAKITA, Minoru, Kogyoka no rekishiteki Zentei [Historical Conditions of Industrialization] (Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1983).
(8) SHIBATA, Michio, Kindai Sekai to Monshu Undo [Modern World and Popular Movements] (Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1983).
(9) TANIGAWA, Minoru, et als., Kihan to shiteno Bunka [Culture as Norm] (Tokyo : Heibon-Sha, 1990).
(10) I want to make three points concerning the remaining issues that have to do with integration research.
First, there should be a search for points of contact with research on empire. It is, for example, probably necessary to re-examine SHIBATA�fs suggestions and make efforts to uncover points that were not taken up.
Second, there is the question of how to understand the relationship between the movement for integration and the counter-culture (of laborers and the people). In order to appropriate the fruits of the history-from-below approach, this question is indispensable. Still on this point, in reference to hegemony and other theories, there is already a fixed line of research. An example of this is the research on industrial relations and the history of the management of workers, but in the future it is probably necessary to extend such studies to analyses of the entire society. TANIGAWA�fs research on cultural integration is suggestive here, so far as its attention to education policy is concerned. Moreover, sketching the dynamics of history is called for. This can be done via research on the tension between integration�fs centripetal movements and the centrifugal tendencies of various social groups including the workers and the people.
Third, there is the question of how to apprehend the force that promotes integration. It has to be asked whether it is capitalists, landed aristocracy, or other social groups. In asking this, one could clarify the contradictions within these efforts at integration. Moreover, one can also find points of contact with the inheritance of the Comparative Economic History School.
(11) GONJO, Yasuo, Banque colonial ou banque d�faffaires (Paris : Editions du Comite pour l�fhistoire economique et financiere de la France, 1993).