A Report on the pre-symposium: “Rethinking Mobility beyond Migration: Networks and Actors in the Pacific World, 1890s to 1960s”
Yui Ibuki
Ph.D. student, Sophia University
On December 14, 2018, as part of the symposium “Practicing Power in the Global Asia-Pacific: Environments, Migrants and Womanhood,” graduate students organized a pre-symposium titled “Rethinking Mobility Beyond Migration: Networks and Actors in the Pacific World, 1890s to 1960s.” One of the main purposes of this pre-symposium was, as introduced by the panel organizer, Ms. Keaki Matsudaira (Sophia University), an academic exchange between Ph.D. candidates from the University of Zurich and Sophia University, as it was the first opportunity for both universities to meet. For this purpose, the pre-symposium included a session for comment exchanges between the presenters from the University of Zurich and Sophia University, followed by comments from Professor Eiichiro Azuma of the University of Pennsylvania. The topics covered by the presenters were varied in time and space. However, the common themes underlying the four presentations were their actor-centric perspectives and mobility around the Pacific world.
The first presenter, Mr. Gonzalo San Ementerio Cabañes (University of Zurich), talked about his challenge in deconstructing master narratives concerning the Japanese expansion to Nan’yo (currently Micronesia). According to Mr. Cabañes, there are two main philosophies that should be considered regarding the Japanese southern expansion to Micronesia. First, there are the Nanshin-ron theories, which are top-down, elitist models. Second, there are bottom-up theories, which are typified by a master narrative based on Mori Koben’s experiences. However, by looking at individuals’ letters, diaries, and other personal documents, it can be argued that individual Japanese migrants to Micronesia did not necessarily fit into these master narratives.
Ms. Yukako Nagamura (Sophia University) gave a presentation about Latin American Nikkei students and their political positions in Japan during World War II. Although little has been examined about them in the official histories of both Japan and Latin America, there were a number of exchange students at that time, and their stories offer possibilities for comparative studies with Japanese American “kibei” students.
Ms. Keaki Matsudaira compared the “trans-border” experiences of three Japanese American soldiers. These individuals’ stories suggested that although the soldiers served the US, they did not necessarily share a common purpose with its government. Based on the analysis of these cases, Ms. Matsudaira proposed the concept of “borderless-ness” since individuals’ experiences transcend the framework of geographical or psychological borders. She suggested that the concept of “borderless-ness” can be a keyword for deconstructing the existing monolithic, nation-centric narratives regarding soldiers’ experiences.
The final speaker, Mr. David Walter Möller (University of Zurich), gave a presentation about the Rest & Recuperation (R&R) program implemented during the Vietnam War. The R&R program was created to allow soldiers to enjoy tourism in a destination country inside the Pacific region. In his presentation, Mr. Möller revealed the primarily economic purposes of the program by explaining the role of an American military general in its formation. He also argued that the destination countries of the R&R program, such as Taiwan and Singapore, cooperated with the US military in establishing the program for economic interests and national security.
Next, Professor Azuma vividly illustrated significant questions and perspectives to be considered in these research projects, including gender, race, and the differences in influences that the nation-states had on individuals. In summary, he encouraged all the presenters to advance their “cutting-edge” research projects.
All of the presentations were based on individual experiences and narratives, as this was stated as one of their common themes. They made me realize once again how interesting and appealing individual stories are, and that “History” needs to be complemented by “history with a small h.” While I was very much intrigued by the personal narratives introduced in the workshop, they also made me reconsider the meanings of deconstructing master narratives and finding new perspectives from the stories of individuals. Of course, finding alternative stories is itself an essential academic contribution. However, because they were all alluring accounts, I could not help thinking how they differed from previous studies, or what new perspectives these narratives posed. The relationships between the master and alternative narratives seem to be a challenging topic for further exploration.
Additionally, the interplays of empires or nation-states and individuals were thought-provoking. This makes me wonder where the border between “History with a capital H” and “history with a small h” lies. For example, while the accounts of voluntary migrants and exchange students illustrated alternative histories, they could be seen as part of the Japanese colonial expansion or public-funded exchange program, which could also be part of “History.” I always thought that when “history from below” was emphasized, “history from above” simply disappeared. However, through this workshop I realized that the distinction between the two is unclear and that they always interconnect with one another.
Since I also use life story interviews in my research on contemporary immigrants in Japan, this workshop inspired me in many ways even though its focus was not exactly my specialty. I am very much looking forward to learning more from the panelists’ research projects, especially how individuals’ stories will be used in their Ph.D. dissertations.
s enlightening opportunity.