Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Tropics of Savagery: The Culture of Japanese Empire in Comparative Frame (review)

Tropics of Savagery: The Culture of Japanese Empire in Comparative Frame (review) own story" [p. 273]); national allegory is by definition unable to take into account the mediated nature of fiction, which is rich in the possibility of irony and indirection; and finally it gives way to a simple dichotomy of colonized literature (Korea, Taiwan, China) versus the literature of imperial domination (Japan). However, the most serious problem is that this strategy is based on the same logic as imperialism itself. Not only must Lu Xun, for example, be treated as a Chinese writer, just as Akutagawa Ryunosuke and Natsume ¯ Soseki are reductively seen as Japanese writers, the texts themselves are ¯ conceived as necessarily products of these nations, which they in turn reflect. The moment of resistance in which the text signals its politicality by resisting such identification is violently erased in Thornber's strategy--the Soseki text must be Japanese because its author is Japanese--and this vio¯ lence replicates a certain logic of imperialism which sets in motion identificatory displacement only to more effectively resolve it at a higher level. The second point involves quantification: the vast complexities and ambivalences of literary phenomena produced during the course of Japanese imperialism are reduced to a binary opposition between texts of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Japanese Studies Society for Japanese Studies

Tropics of Savagery: The Culture of Japanese Empire in Comparative Frame (review)

The Journal of Japanese Studies , Volume 38 (1) – Feb 1, 2012

Loading next page...
 
/lp/society-for-japanese-studies/tropics-of-savagery-the-culture-of-japanese-empire-in-comparative-GEVhRhzLXA
Publisher
Society for Japanese Studies
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Japanese Studies.
ISSN
1549-4721
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

own story" [p. 273]); national allegory is by definition unable to take into account the mediated nature of fiction, which is rich in the possibility of irony and indirection; and finally it gives way to a simple dichotomy of colonized literature (Korea, Taiwan, China) versus the literature of imperial domination (Japan). However, the most serious problem is that this strategy is based on the same logic as imperialism itself. Not only must Lu Xun, for example, be treated as a Chinese writer, just as Akutagawa Ryunosuke and Natsume ¯ Soseki are reductively seen as Japanese writers, the texts themselves are ¯ conceived as necessarily products of these nations, which they in turn reflect. The moment of resistance in which the text signals its politicality by resisting such identification is violently erased in Thornber's strategy--the Soseki text must be Japanese because its author is Japanese--and this vio¯ lence replicates a certain logic of imperialism which sets in motion identificatory displacement only to more effectively resolve it at a higher level. The second point involves quantification: the vast complexities and ambivalences of literary phenomena produced during the course of Japanese imperialism are reduced to a binary opposition between texts of

Journal

The Journal of Japanese StudiesSociety for Japanese Studies

Published: Feb 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.