Register
If you haven’t already, register to start contributing news and events, and to search the Member Directory. Registration is free, but only open to current members of the American Studies Association.
Group Members
The following people are members of this group:
The following people are administrators of this group:
Member Tools
We're sorry. You are not yet a member of the ASA-JAAS.
Register or login to join this group.
MAIN | Reports | Submit a Proposal | Contact
ASA-JAAS
ASA-JAAS Delegate Report 2000
Japan-United States Friendship Commission
Washington, D.C.
Name of Submitting Institutions:
American Studies Association
Japanese Association for American Studies
Project Title: Japan-United States Dialogues Across the Pacific: Globalization and American Studies
American Studies Association Participants
Michele Bogart, Department of Art History, SUNY Stony Brook
Mary Kelley, Department of History, Dartmouth College
Robert Dawidoff, Department of History, Claremont Graduate University
Submitted by John F. Stephens, Executive Director, American Studies Association
July 28, 2000
REPORT OF THE ASA PRESIDENT
MARY KELLEY, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION
INTRODUCTION
It is with a profound sense of gratitude that I submit this report on my visit to Japan as President of the U.S. American Studies Association. Michele Bogart spoke for all three of this year’s delegates when she declared, “This is the most memorable trip of my professional life.“ As indeed it proved to be. It is an enormous pleasure to thank all those who supported our visit. The Japan-American Friendship Commission and the USIS were instrumental in providing financial support. For more than a decade, the Japanese Association for American Studies has worked with the U.S. American Studies Association to make possible these wonderful scholarly exchanges. On behalf of the three of us, I wish to thank both of the Associations for their ongoing commitment, and especially to thank the Japanese Association for American Studies Administrative Associate Motoko Aoki and the US American Studies Association’s Executive Director John Stephens, each of whom who did so much to facilitate arrangements on both sides of the Pacific.
We are most deeply indebted to the individual Japanese scholars who made this an extraordinary visit. In thinking about our days in Japan, what they did daily, indeed hourly, always comes to mind. For me in particular there was the matter of my arrival on a flight that landed two and a half hours later than scheduled and my departure from Tokyo Station on a train for Kyoto and Nara very shortly thereafter. Making that train would been impossible had it not been for the coordinated efforts of numerous individuals. When he heard about the delay on the morning of my arrival, Yoshitsuga Nakamura set revised plans in motion, arranging to have me taken from the airport to central Tokyo; he and Warren Soiffer met me at Tokyo City Air Terminal; they whisked me off to the train station, briefing me en-route; the three of us dashed through the station to meet Professors Masako Notoji, Fumiko Fujuti, and Naoki Onishi who were waiting on the platform with tickets in hand for the trip to Kyoto and Nara. We boarded—Hikari #125 left no more than thirty seconds later. All this was accomplished with an efficiency and ease that belied the need to make all these contingencies at the last moment. At every juncture of our visit, the care and thought taken with us were visible—the beautifully prepared copies of our presentations, which allowed participants to read our papers as we delivered them at the JAAS meeting; the evening arranged by Professor Masahiro Nakano in which we sampled traditional arts at “Gion Corner”; the seminar at Tokyo University’s Center for Pacific and American Studies which Professor Yoshiko Takita organized after a change in my schedule left an afternoon free; the tours in Nara and Kyoto, which introduced us to the richness and diversity of Japanese culture. Attending the annual JAAS conference in the concluding year of Professor Hiroko Sato’s presidency was my special privilege. I was honored that she and I had the opportunity to deliver our presidential addresses at a joint session, which was attended by virtually everyone at the conference. Both Professor Sato and I were struck by the degree to which our ideas about the practice of American Studies intersected, especially in terms of our commitment to the continued internationalization of the field. Just as our positions intersected, so have our lives. I had known that Hiroko Sato and I shared Mount Holyoke College as our alma mater before I arrived in Japan. What I did not know was that Professor Sato and US Minister Counselor Louise Crane, also a Mount Holyoke graduate, had arranged a dinner in my honor at the Embassy. It made for a memorable conclusion to my visit.
DAILY ITINERARY
June 2: I arrived at Narita Airport in the late morning and as I have already described, proceeded with no little haste to Tokyo Station, where Michele Bogart and Robert Dawidoff had assembled with Masako Notoji, Naoki Onishi, Fumiko Fujita to take the “bullet” train to Kyoto. In Kyoto, we were met by one of Professor Notji’s students who had purchased the tickets for our trip to Nara, one more instance of our hosts taking care to see that we made a close connection. The elegant Nara Hotel was a wonderful choice. Situated in the middle of a deer park, we were treated by visits from the local inhabitants. Shortly after our arrival, we attended a reception and banquet that had been prepared in our honor. Held at the Nara Hotel, it was as spectacular as the setting. I was delighted to meet Professor Kensaburo Shinkawa, the incoming president of the Japanese Association for American Studies, Professor Jin Young Choi, the current president of the Korean Association for American Studies, representatives from Tezukyama University, where the conference was being held, as well as Minister Louise Crane, who had traveled to Nara to attend the banquet and the conference.
June 3:
Professor Sato and I delivered our presidential addresses in a joint session at the JAAS conference, which was held at Tezukayama University. From both formal and informal comments made by those attending, our talks seem to have been very well received. Many of those with whom I talked stressed the importance of scholarly exchanges, especially if they are designed as dialogues in which faculty visiting from the United States anticipate they will learn as much as their hosts. That was surely the circumstance throughout my visit; indeed, I probably learned much more relative to my Japanese counterparts. The example of Professor Sato’s address, which had as its focus a reading of Harriet Jacob’s Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, is telling in this regard. It was illuminating to have her interpret this text as a self-described “other” in two key dimensions for practitioners of American Studies—as a Japanese scholar reading the text of an African American and as a female president reading any text before an Association in which men had held the majority of offices until recently.
At the conclusion of the day, we were the guests of the Association at a reception that provided splendid conversation and food in equal measure. At this and other informal moments at the conference I was struck by the attention to detail that made our visit a pleasure in all possible ways. It made a very real difference in a culture where we were unfamiliar with the language, not to mention the structures of discourse. The word hospitality is one that is easily and widely used. However, in this instance, it cannot fully capture what we experienced in terms of the thoughtfulness with which we were treated.
June 4:
On the second day of the conference I attended the “Workshops” in which my American colleagues gave papers. Both exemplified the ideal dialogues that I sketched earlier in my commentary. Participants in the panels as well as those in the audience engaged in debate about issues ranging from the multiple meanings attached to community to the definition of art in the context of papers on the widely divergent practitioners Matsumi Kanemitsu and Norman Rockwell. I also participated with President Sato in a session devoted to “U.S. Women’s History and Gender Studies.“ Each of us commented on recent developments in gender studies, especially in terms of the current research women’s entry into public life. We were also asked to comment on our experience as academic women pursuing the study of women. I was struck yet again by the sustained and sustaining contribution that Hiroko Sato had made, serving as a model for generations of women entering the academic profession in Japan. At the conclusion of the conference we had the opportunity to thank the many students who had facilitated the meeting. The enthusiasm with which they pursued their tasks made this conference sparkle. That evening we had an unexpected gift—a stunning Japanese feast that was as beautifully prepared as it was served.
June 5:
Professors Bogart, Dawidoff, and I traveled to Kyoto on the “bullet” train. Escorted by Professor Fumiko Fujita, we were able to continue our conversation about our individual research that we had begun at the JAAS Conference. I found this one of the most stimulating informal exchanges of the visit. I am also indebted to Professor Fumiko for taking me about the train stations, both in Nara and Kyoto in search of an elusive ATM. We failed in that enterprise, but it did provide us the opportunity for more extended conversation, which in the end was more important. That evening, Professor Masahiro Nakano, the Co-Director of the Center for American Studies at Ritsumeikan University, took the three of us for dinner and a tour of Kyoto’s neighborhoods. Discovering a modern and sophisticated metropolis in a city known to foreigners solely for its extraordinary art and history made a fine beginning for the visit.
June 6:
We began the day with a tour of the Nijo Castle and its magnificent gardens. It is little wonder that the Ninomaru Palace, which consists of five buildings with thirty-three lavishly decorated rooms, has been designated a National Treasure. We also visited the landmark Rokuon-Ji Temple, also known as the Golden Pavilion. That afternoon Professors Bogart, Dawidoff, and I delivered papers at the Ritsumeikan American Studies Seminar. The topics for our session, which was chaired by the Center’s other Co-Director Hiroshi Yoneyama, were diverse—the tensions of “lowbrow/highbrow” in the work of Charles Knight by Michele Bogart, the contributions of closeted gays to American culture by Robert Dawidoff, and the reading practices of Post-Revolutionary American women by myself. It was a pleasure to deliver “Reading Women/Women Reading: Making Meanings in a Newly Independent America” to faculty and graduate students from Ritsumeikan, Doshisi, and Kyoto Universities. The fact that the talks had been circulated prior to the seminar made it possible to discuss the papers at length and in substantial depth. The questions posed during the seminar and the reception following ranged widely while at the same time established connections between our very different subjects.
June 7:
Professor Bogart and I traveled by the “bullet” to Tokyo and made our way to our respective hotels. I stayed that evening at the ANA Tokyo, a truly wonderful hotel only blocks away from the American Embassy. The afternoon was devoted to a seminar that Professor Yoshiko Tatkita had organized at Tokyo University’s Center for Pacific and American Studies. I delivered a talk entitled “Entering the Empire of Reason: The Making of Learned Women in Nineteenth-Century America.“ My paper was very well received by the large seminar that included the Director of the Center and many of its graduate students. I was also honored by the presence of faculty from Ferris University, Tsuda College, Tokai University, and the University of the Sacred Heart, all of whom had been educated at women’s colleges and universities. There were also a number of students who were currently attending women’s institutions. I deeply appreciated the fact that JAAS’ incoming President Kensaburo Shinkawa attended the seminar, as did this year’s Fulbright Fellow John Taylor. The discussion was an extraordinarily rich one for me. It was also one in which many participants testified eloquently to the value of women’s colleges and universities, both in educating women for richly varying lives and in preparing them to challenge gender roles that have subordinated women and placed social and cultural restrictions on their aspirations. That I have framed and have hung in my office the large and beautifully illustrated poster announcing the seminar testifies to the importance this afternoon continues to hold for me. My visit concluded with yet another wonderful dinner hosted by Minister Counsel Louise Crane at her residence in the American Embassy Compound. I am deeply grateful to Counsellor Crane and to Hiroko Sato for arranging this most gracious of conclusions to my visit.
June 8:
I departed from Narita Airport in the early afternoon.
OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS:
Like Professors Bogart and Dawidoff, I want to say once more how valuable I found this experience and how grateful I am to all those who made the trip possible. The days that I spent in Japan constituted one of the most remarkable professional and personal experiences in my life. Having had the benefit of reading the reports of Professors Bogart and Dawidoff before I began to draft mine, I find that our observations very much coincide. Like Michele Bogart, I consider culture shock an expected and, more important, essential component in the education of a scholar. I take delight in the unexpected, finding in the moment of intellectual and cultural disruption of the predictable a potential opening for very important learning. (I do admit to one exception—the failure to find that familiar ATM!)
Let me reiterate one suggestion I consider particularly relevant for the future of this immensely valuable exchange. The exchange itself needs to be made fully reciprocal, as has already been stressed by Janice Radway in her report last year. I hope that we will be able to pursue Robert Dawidoff’s suggestion that we establish a grant, which would support U.S. graduate students working as research assistants for Japanese scholars. The Center for Pacific and American Studies at Tokyo University has a capacious library filled with relevant books and journals. However, I understand that the Center is very much the exception. Japanese scholars continue to experience persistent difficulty in obtaining research materials, a difficulty that could be at least partially relieved by instituting this program. As Robert Davidoff has noted, the benefits for U.S. graduate students would be considerable. They would learn as he says what the JAAS and a visit as a delegate in this exchange teach—“that American Studies is not a scholarly franchise of the United States.“
REPORT OF ASA DELEGATE TO THE JAPANESE ASSOCIATION FOR AMERICAN STUDIES CONFERENCE
MICHELE H. BOGART, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK
INTRODUCTION
It is with great pleasure that I submit this report on my trip to Japan as an ASA delegate to the Japanese Association of American Studies annual conference in Tezukayama University in Nara. I was in Japan from May 31 to June 10, 2000. I visited Tokyo, Nara, Kyoto, and Sapporo, and delivered four lectures on art-related subjects to university scholars and students, artists, and interested members of the general public. The sojourn was one of the most memorable experiences of my life, and I wish to express my profound gratitude to the Japan-American Friendship Commission, the Japanese Association for American Studies, the American Studies Association, and to the United States Information Service for offering me the privilege of participating in this wonderful scholarly exchange. My intellectual exchanges with Japanese scholars and artists offered me a new understanding of the expanding terrain of American Studies and the importance of global perspectives on art and American culture. My conversations with Japanese scholars, combined with my travels, gave me insight into Japanese academic life, urban planning and landscapes, public art, historic preservation enterprises, and popular and commercial culture, all of which provided important and instructive comparisons with U.S. contexts. I made numerous personal and scholarly contacts that I believe will result in future collaborations between the United States and Japanese associations.
Before providing an account of my activities, I want to acknowledge, with immense gratitude, the numerous Japanese scholars and professionals who worked so hard to insure that we United States delegates felt welcome and that events ran smoothly. The hospitality and graciousness of these individuals was nothing short of extraordinary. I am especially grateful to Professor Masako Notoji of Tokyo University, who devoted tremendous time and energy to coordinating my plans, shepherding me around Tokyo and Nara, serving as moderator for my Tokyo lecture, and to showing me a good time in a whole range of ways. I would like to thank Professors Notoji, former JAAS President Hiroko Sato, and Professors Fumiko Fujita, Naoki Onishi, Fusako Ogata, Sinichi Shigihara, Shigeo Fujimoto and Kyoko Nozaki for all of the work that they put in to provide the ASA scholars with outstanding and memorable quarters in Nara, to involve us in the scholarly exchanges, to show us the town of Nara, and, in general, to make the JAAS conference such a extraordinarily successful one. I want also to offer my thanks to Professors Kozo Kozaka and Professor Aiko Ichise of Tezukayama University for taking time during the conference to show me the Nara Prefectural Museum. The faculty and students of Tezukayama University worked hard behind the scenes of the JAAS conference, and were magnificent and enthusiastic hosts. Professor Masahiro Nakano of Ritsumeikan University generously showed us ASA scholars the sights of Kyoto and offered his insights into American Studies; Ms. Atsuko Hori and Keiko Maeda and Mr. Motoaki Yoshizaki facilitated my visit to the Sapporo Art Park. The individual acts of kindness of these and other Japanese colleagues touched me deeply. I would also like to thank Mr. Warren Soiffer, Mr. Yoshitsugu Nakamura, Mr. J. Brooks Spector, Ms. Louise Crane and Consul General Mr. Michael Meserve of the U.S. Embassy, Mr. John Stephens of the ASA, and Professor Stephen Sumida of the University of Washington, for their time, advice, and assistance.
I will provide a summary of my activities in Japan, and then offer some brief observations and suggestions.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
TUESDAY, MAY 30
Left JFK 11:55 am on United Airlines
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31
Arrived at Narita 2:45 pm. Thanks to detailed instructions emailed by Professor Masako Notoji, took the Friendly Airport Limousine Bus directly from Narita to Hotel Sunroute, in Shinjuku, Tokyo, without a hitch. Wandered around neighborhood department stores a bit.
THURSDAY, JUNE 1
Free day. Masako Notoji came to the hotel 10:30 am to give me my cash per diem and to go over my Japan itinerary with me. She then introduced me to the JR train system by accompanying me to the Tokyo International Forum. She kindly joined me for lunch at a nearby Chinese soba restaurant, then gave me detailed instructions for visiting Hibaya Park, grounds of Imperial Palace, and Ginza on my own. Took subway back to Shinjuku area, an incredibly interesting neighborhood. Wandered about in Eastern part of Shinjuku, with its pachinko parlors, sex and gimcrack shops, and neon signage that puts Times Square to shame. Walked over to Metropolitan Government building complex and then over to Takashimaya Times Square.
FRIDAY, JUNE 2
A.M. free, I visit the observation deck of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building, which offers a free panoramic view of the entire city and a lesson on earthquake-proofing for a massive skyscraper. Meet Professor Notoji at hotel at 11 am, and take subway to Tokyo Station. Meet up with Professors Mary Kelley, Naoki Onishi, Fumiko Fujita, and Robert Dawidoff, and we travel by Shinkansen (bullet train) to Kyoto. Thanks to a student of Professor Notoji, who brings us our tickets, we transfer to the train to Nara, where we stayed at the extraordinary Nara hotel. That evening we enjoyed a reception and banquet at the hotel, hosted by Professor Hiroko Sato, outgoing JAAS president, the incoming JAAS President, representatives of Tezukayama University, and Minister Counselor of the U.S. Embassy, Louise Crane. At dinner, I had the pleasure of sitting next to and speaking with Professor Jin Young Choi, President of the Korean ASA.
SATURDAY JUNE 3
During the morning, while Japanese colleagues were in all-Japanese sessions, ASA scholars went spent sightseeing with Professors Onishi of International Christian University in Tokyo, Fusako Ogata of Tezukayama University, and Masayuki Fukumochi, a graduate student in Japanese History at Tezukayama University. The highlight of our visit was the Sansaku-ichi and the extraordinary Todaiji shrine, with its enormous sculptures. We were also taken to an extremely interesting archeological site, and en route had an opportunity to drive through the local neighborhoods, which I thoroughly enjoyed. In the early afternoon, I attended the Presidential addresses of Hiroko Sato and Mary Kelley. Both made it clear that American Studies can no longer be conceived solely in terms of U.S. [citizen] perspectives, but must continue its trend toward a greater inclusiveness. American Studies must take account of and incorporate the perspectives of “non-citizens” [my quotes], and continue the tendency toward being open to a broader array of objects of study. The Japanese scholars whom I met seemed to be thoroughly receptive to these ideas.
In late afternoon Professors Kosaka and Ichise of Tezukayama University took two hours of their time away from JAAS sessions (in Japanese) to accompany me to the Yamato Minzoku Park and Nara Prefectural Museum of Folklore. I was extremely grateful, since as a student of material culture, I found fascinating both the content of these exhibits—on traditional Nara housing, agriculture, industries, and everyday life—and the displays themselves. On my return to Tezukayama University in the late afternoon I then attended a lovely general reception for JAAS members, in which we international scholars were welcomed. I was interested to see how everyone stood around the tables, beautifully decked out with food, politely waiting for the brief introductory remarks before attending to the food and drink. I do not think Americans would wait!
SUNDAY, JUNE 4
In morning I attended the English-speaking “Workshop A: Globalization and American Studies.“ After lunch with ASA and KAAS scholars, I participated in my “Art and Culture” workshop, where I delivered my paper “Norman Rockwell, Commercial Artist” to about 30 scholars, who seemed to respond well to the papers. (Participants had written copies of the paper to consult, although since mine was delivered with slides, in a darkened room, some may have had difficulties reading it.) I was asked to comment on the [excellent] comments provided as part of the workshop by Atsushi Yoshida, a graduate student (from Nara) currently attending the Ph.D. program at Washington University at St. Louis. Several other members of the audience asked questions of the other panelists before we ran out of time. I found it interesting that whereas U.S. scholars present scholarly papers standing up, it is customary in Japan to sit while delivering a talk.
That evening the ASA delegates joined Professors Sato, Notoji, Fumita, Shigihara, and Fujimoto for a magnificent and beautiful traditional Japanese meal, generously hosted by the JAAS.
MONDAY JUNE 5
Hastily visited Katsuga Grand Shrine on my own in early am, before traveling from Nara to Kyoto by train with Mary Kelley, Robert Davidoff, and Fumiko Fujita. Taxi to Hotel ANA Kyoto. That evening, the three ASA delegates met Professor Masahiro Nakano of Ritsumeikan University for dinner and sightseeing in the Gion neighborhood, with its extraordinary old wooden houses. Professor Nakano also took us to the “Gion Corner,“ which offered a sampling of the traditional arts of Kyoto, from flower arranging to puppetry to dance and music.
TUESDAY JUNE 6
Professor Nakano met Bogart, Kelley, and Dawidoff in the hotel lobby, and was kind enough to take us around in his car so we could leave our extra belongings over the course of a long day. Sightseeing at Nijo castle and the Golden Pavilion in Kyoto. I enjoyed some very interesting discussions with Professor Nakano regarding historic preservation in Kyoto (or lack thereof), and we all marveled at the palace and its magnificent paintings of the Kano school. For lunch, Professor Nakano took us to “Bordeaux,“ an outstanding French restaurant.
After our tour of the Golden Temple we drove to Ritsumeikan, where the three of us participated in the American Studies Seminar. I delivered my paper “Charles R. Knight, Urban Art Work, and the Spectacle of Prehistoric Life.“ Judging from the comments provided by Professor Nakano and one of his students afterward, the lecture was a success. The group was unfamiliar with Knight’s work, and in general, seemed to be intrigued with the possibilities offered by art and material culture as a means of representing and analyzing American culture. The seminar participants, several professors and about fifteen graduate students from the area, the majority women, seemed especially fascinated by the issues of gender and sexuality raised by Professors Dawidoff’s and Kelley’s papers. I was quite impressed with the articulateness and ready participation of all of the students. When we complimented them for this, at least one of the students commented that Japanese students had a reputation for not being particularly vocal or opinionated; they seemed to want to counter that reputation. At the completion of the seminar, we had a nice little reception with the group before returning to the hotel.
WEDNESDAY JUNE 7
Awakened at 6:17 am by an earthquake. Mary Kelley and I traveled by taxi to Kyoto Station, where we took the 9:03 “Nozomi” bullet train back to Tokyo. I traveled by taxi to International House, and was later picked up by a U.S. Embassy car and transported to the embassy for a briefing and confirmation of travel plans with Program Development Officer Warren Soiffer. The briefing, which focused primarily on how to deliver a lecture when accompanied by simultaneous translation (as at the Tokyo American Center) versus consecutive translation (as at Sapporo Art Park), offered much useful information—so much so that I think would be helpful for future delegates to get this information several months in advance of their travels, to enable efficient preparation of their talks. I learned, for example, that although the itinerary listed one hour for my Sapporo talk, that I would really only want to speak for a half an hour or less, since the consecutive translation process takes a great deal of time because of the particularities of Japanese sentence structure. (Indeed, the Japanese translation took much longer than my English presentation, and although I engaged in several sessions of paper cutting before my Sapporo talk, I ended up cutting again during the presentation itself.)
After the briefing, the Embassy car took me to the American Center in Tokyo, where I met with Center Director J. Brooks Spector before delivering my lecture “Maxfield Parrish, Norman Rockwell, and ‘Popular’ Art Work in the Twentieth Century” to a group of 23 academics, artists, and students. The lecture was delivered with simultaneous translation, a new experience for me. Masako Notoji served as moderator, offering very thought-provoking comparisons between Rockwell and Walt Disney. We had a lively exchange after the lecture. The questions were very interesting. They included one from an American Studies professor who asked whether Rockwell and Parrish’s work was gendered in terms of its reception (with Rockwell pitched as “masculine” and Parrish as “feminized.“) An American Studies student asked whether the current celebrations of Rockwell’s work were appropriate, given the limitations of his vision of “America.“ An art historian of Asian art asked about Rockwell and Parrish’s relation to other contemporary artists, especially the modernists, and another professor asked me to compare the work of Rockwell and Parrish to that of Ben Shahn. Mr. Spector asked for comment on the parallels or intersections between Rockwell’s vision and that of Walker Evans. I thoroughly enjoyed this event. Afterwards, Professor Notoji and her delightful and generous anthropologist colleague (whose name I unfortunately don’t have, since she had no business card), joined me for a fantastic meal at a restaurant near the I-house.
THURSDAY JUNE 8
Free day. Took subway to Asakasa, whose reconstructed shrines, though of great interest, were outshone by the shopping arcades and the crowds. From there I took the subway to Ueno, where I walked about Ueno Park, and visited the incredible Tokyo National Museum. I also spent an all-too-brief period in the Museum of Western Art, which has an unusual and outstanding collection of Post-Impressionist painting. Subway back to the I-House, which had extraordinary gardens in the back.
FRIDAY JUNE 9
Taxi to Haneda Airport over Rainbow Bridge. Flew to Chitose Airport, Sapporo. Sat on the ground in Tokyo for an hour due to high winds, hence arrived an hour late. Interpreter Michiko Yabe also on plane; we rode to hotel Keio Plaza Sapporo together. Lunch with Consul General Michael Meserve and his wife, Carolyn, Mr. Motoaki Yoshizaki, Curator of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sapporo; Yasushi Asakawa, Curator of the Hokkaido Museum of Modern Art; Atsuko Hori.
After lunch, en route to the Sapporo Art Park, the group made a stop at the downtown park in which Isamu Noguchi’s Mantra, a sculpture that doubles as a childrens’ slide, is installed. The work is magnificent; I commented, however, that such a work could never be installed in the City of New York because of liability concerns. All I could imagine was some child slipping and bashing his chin while ascending the slide. Likewise, I was amazed at the large, mountain-like rockslide adjacent to the Noguchi. Hence my Sapporo visit, like those to Kyoto and Tokyo, offered instructive comparisons for my work on urban design. I neglected to ask whether municipal liability differs in Japanese cities, but in hindsight, I wonder about this.
At the Museum of Contemporary Art of Sapporo, I delivered (via consecutive translation) my lecture on public art to a group of about 50 people, who included academics, artists, students, museum volunteers, and members of the Sapporo City Hall landscaping office and the Sapporo Municipal Hospital. It was clear that few of the audience members had been to New York or the States, and that the public monuments and traditions I discussed were new to them. Professor Asuka Kunimatsu, a sculptor at the Sapporo Art School, then offered an extremely interesting talk about his and his colleagues efforts to establish a sculpture park in Sapporo. Asked by Mr. Yoshizaki to comment on my talk, Mr. Kunimatsu asked me to discuss the circumstances surrounding the removal of Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, and to compare the situation with that of Calder’s work in Chicago. I, in turn, asked about the mechanisms in place for municipal design review in Sapporo. There are apparently few in place.
After the event, Mr. Yoshizaki, Ms. Hori, and Ms. Keiko Maeda took me around the Sapporo Art Park, which is extraordinary. They then joined me for dinner at a nearby Udon Restaurant, which I really appreciated. During dinner, I discussed, at Mr. Yoshizaki’s request, the various mechanisms used by the City of New York to preserve its public art. He indicated that although the city government of Sapporo was very generous in funding the Art Park and its public art, which it has not taken as seriously as it needs to the importance of maintenance and preservation. I recommended that he look at various U.S. websites that might offer further information.
SATURDAY JUNE 10
Took JR train to Sapporo Airport, and caught 10:50 flight to Narita. Took 4:45 flight leaving Narita for JFK.
SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS
On the technical side, I was very impressed with the “multimedia” capacities of the room for our workshop at Tezukayama. I should note for future reference, though, that from my experiences at Tezukayama, at Ritsumeikan in Kyoto, and in Sapporo, Japanese universities and institutions appear to have somewhat different set-ups for display of slides than in the United States. The rooms at Tezukayama and at Ritsumeikan, for example, were equipped with only one slide projector, rather than the two to which United States art historians are accustomed. Future ASA delegates who show images will want to request confirmation, as I did, that their rooms will be equipped with lights or flashlights for reading in the dark. It is worthwhile double-checking again upon arrival at the specific institution, because in my case at least, even though I know that my requests were definitely relayed in advance by Professor Notoji, and that all my hosts knocked themselves out to accommodate my “media needs,“ in several instances the lights turned out not to be available when I arrived in the room, and had to be hunted down. Podium lights are not the norm. I say this not to be critical, but merely to indicate that U.S. scholars are accustomed to certain modes of presentation that they cannot assume they will find in Japan (or, for that matter, in some US venues). In some instances, such in Sapporo, the institution utilized a different slide display system (using a box-like form rather than a round carousel) for showing the slides, and had no mechanism for the speaker to change his/her own slides. The staff in Sapporo assisted me in loading the slides and in advancing them (I would say “Next!“ and they would advance the slide). So again, U.S. delegates need to be flexible about, and on top of their own, technical requirements.
One thing I concluded from my visit was that American Studies in Japan could benefit from having greater engagement with issues of representation, specifically through continued efforts to integrate art, visual culture, and material culture into the purview of American Studies. The workshop on “Art and Culture” in which I participated was certainly an indication that the interest is there and that scholars are working in this area. I think far more could be done. For example, while literature, history, and geography seem to be firmly entrenched within the interdisciplinary framework of American Studies, art history is not—or certainly not in the way it is in U.S. American Studies. I did not get the sense that anyone actually teaches American art in Japanese universities, whereas courses in American literature are commonplace.
I understand that culture shock has been an issue for some ASA delegates. I consider culture shock to be an essential aspect of travel and of a scholar’s education, and enjoyed the experience tremendously (I have to admit, however, that I was extremely happy to stay in comfortable Western-style hotels!). Living in New York, where living is always a challenge, I did not actually experience that much culture shock in Tokyo or any other part of Japan, although to be sure, life was very different. I also have to credit Masako Notoji for helping to ease the way for me on the second day of my visit. I was especially pleased to receive an initial orientation to the Tokyo subway and JR line. Professor Notoji was kind enough to introduce me to the system, and once I understood how to buy my ticket, adjust my fares, and work with the subway map, I had little difficulty getting around, since the signs for subway stops were all in Roman letters as well as Japanese. Since the principles for using the system were essentially the same, I was able to utilize the Kyoto and Sapporo subway systems with no difficulties whatsoever. Conductors and the staffers who stand beside the ticket machines were invariably helpful, as were individual citizens. I was struck with the degree to which most people could understand and speak a bit of English (certainly much more impressive than my command of Japanese), and could make perfect sense of my gestures and questions. I found the guidebook by Jan Dodd and Simon Richmond, Japan: The Rough Guide (1999), to be a very helpful introduction to Japanese culture and history as well as sights, both before and during my travels. Adventuresome delegates may find it useful to secure a decent street map of Tokyo, although I saw a great deal using only my guidebook’s limited neighborhood maps.
Mostly, I was struck by the extraordinary generosity and thoughtfulness of our Japanese hosts. They spent a tremendous amount of time and effort taking us around, making sure we reached our destinations, and in general, keeping us company. They were wonderfully enthusiastic guides, but also wonderful new acquaintances and colleagues. I know that my fellow ASA delegates and I want to keep the dialogue going, and we are definitely planning to reconvene with our Japanese colleagues at the Detroit ASA and at future ASA meetings. I certainly also hope to stay in touch with many of them by email, and look forward to reading their publications and to continued exchange of ideas. I found that the broader perspectives they bring to American Studies are mind-bending in the very best sense.
REPORT OF ASA DELEGATE TO THE JAPANESE ASSOCIATION FOR AMERICAN STUDIES CONFERENCE
ROBERT DAWIDOFF, CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY
The chance to attend the JAAS meeting at Tezukayama University in Nara and to visit Japan came my way unexpectedly this January. I was thrilled at the prospect of visiting Japan, a country in whose history and culture I had long been interested. The chance to meet with Japanese Americanists and to see how non-US scholars and students might respond to American Studies in general and my own studies in particular excited me as well. I had for some time been aware of how provincial and proprietary my own assumptions had become. I welcomed the chance to experience American Studies from a more cosmopolitan perspective. The time I spent in Japan more than lived up to my expectations. It transformed my awareness of the contemporary resonance and practice of American Studies. Time will tell whether I respond clearly and coherently to the challenges of what I began to understand in Japan this June. There is no question that I came home with a different sense of what American Studies can and should be and that this will become a theme in my work with students.
The months leading up the trip were exceptionally busy ones for me, I was hard pressed to prepare the lectures, and to make sure that my hosts received copies in time. The effort was worth it. The chance for my Japanese colleagues to read and distribute my remarks in advance was invaluable – not just a matter of good manners. I was asked to give four presentations, three deriving from my work on the history of gay male contributions to American civilization and one about the classic American popular song. In each case, it was necessary to tailor the presentations at the last minute for reasons of timing and audience. The conversations I had with my hosts about the presentations were valuable in themselves, since there is as much to be learned about how different audiences receive one’s work as there is from substantive comments about the work. Every presentation was distinctly different, each required me to think about the audience, and in turn, I am happy to say, about the substance and international context of the scholarship I was presenting. In general, the best advice I got and can pass along was that one must be prepared to speak one’s piece very slowly and with unaccustomed dramatic emphasis. One needs to be prepared to cut and paste not only at the last minute, but in the very moment. To do so gracefully and without commotion is important. One is addressing an audience whose command of English and of the American Studies subject matter varies. What is unvarying is the attention and interest with which these audiences reward a speaker who tries to communicate with them. I kept in mind my own lack of any Japanese language skills that reminded me of how polite and hardworking were my various colleagues and audiences.
I left LA May 31 and arrived in Tokyo June 1. I stayed overnight at International House. Friday morning, June 2, Professor Naoki Onishi met me at I House and after an introductory visit, we met the others of our party at the train station and traveled together to Nara.
The JAAS Meetings: (June 2-4)
My presentation at the JAAS was part of a session on American community, “Globalization and American Studies: Art and Culture.“ My colleagues addressed the idea of the “city upon the hill,“ the creation of the Back Bay area of Boston and the development of the Asian American sense of community. My presentation emphasized the contribution of certain key figures (Walt Whitman, Herman Melville, Horatio Alger and Thornton Wilder) the American definition of community in a context of the gay male closet. I think the session was excellent. Each paper was a good example of American Studies scholarship and each one was methodologically different. I learned from all three and felt that together we illuminated aspects of American community. My own presentation raised certain issues having to do with the gay subject matter I shall address below, but I am certain that our panel would have suited an American Studies meeting in the US.
Professor Kohei Kawashima from Musahi University gave an excellent example of social historical research that he drew from his dissertation at Brown University. His discussion Boston’s Back Bay as an instance of “the changing role and meaning of class/ethnic boundaries in an Anglo-Saxon upper-class community” was thoroughgoing and informative and an example of the kind of scholarship that is broadening our concrete understanding of American communities. His evidence was impressive and his summary questions keen and thoughtful. His work is the kind of work that is most attractive to our students at the Claremont Graduate University and is an advance upon previous studies of the Back Bay.
We were fortunate to have Professor Youn-Jin Kim from Danook University in Korea on our panel. She and Professor Jin Young Choi of Chung-Ang University who is President of the American Studies Association of Korea were welcome colleagues in the session and in informal discussion. (I was very glad to have the chance to discuss with the latter her own extensive work on John Steinbeck and the activities of the Korean association.) Professor Kim’s paper on “Pan-Asianism in the 1960s and 70s” gave a thoughtful overview of the creation of Asian American communal consciousness in its formative period. Her notions of the “pan-ethnic” suggested both the analytical and pragmatic aspects of her scholarship. I am directing a dissertation on aspects of lesbian woman of color organizing in the same period and was struck by how pertinent and comprehensive a summary she gave. Again, it expanded our common discussion of ethnic national community in this case from an international perspective.
Professor Naoki Onishi of International Christian University gave a witty and absorbing paper that gave the session its thematic definition. In his demythologizing of John Winthrop’s mythical City Upon a Hill sermon, Professor Onishi used this example of “origin and myth-making of American community” to raise the subject of how a scholarly discussion of American community might indeed have to do with “Globalization and American Studies.“ I had the same experience Professor Beth Bailey referred to in her report last year when she realized how reflexively United States scholars use “we” when we mean to refer to the subjects of American Studies. I was struck by how stubborn and limiting that nationalist presumption can be. The internationalization of American Studies, a term I think a little more to this point than “globalization,“ is probably the most important lesson I learned at the JAAS, and it is one that I intend to make a part of my work with students at CGU.
I attended the other English language session at the JAAS and again was impressed by the quality of the papers and discussion– my colleague Michelle Bogart’s discussion of Norman Rockwell was memorable and the comments by Atsushi Yoshida, a graduate student from Washington University especially impressive. Art history and art historical cultural history are in many ways ideal subjects for such international exchanges, as Professor Bogart’s presentation a few days later in Kyoto confirmed. One has seen things in common, which makes it easier to communicate.
The Presidential addresses of Hiroko Sato of the JAAS and Mary Kelley of the ASA were in effect a third English language scholarly and critical Americas Studies session. Together, these two scholars gave a context and an agenda for a renewed international American Studies movement that demonstrated how the internationalization of scholarly interest must be accompanied by a globalization of scholarly subjects. They articulated many common themes and, in particular, concepts of difference that suggest how a truly international American Studies movement can share out the Americanist subject without imposing restrictive notions of “American” upon it. The shared experiences that accompanied the impressive scholarship of each address lent a mutually reinforcing effect that made this an important occasion, indeed, an event. I am confident that these were significant as well as enormously interesting Presidential addresses and proved how beneficial the visit of the ASA President is to the success of this exchange.
Informally, the JAAS meetings were at once fruitful and frustrating. We were welcomed beautifully, with every possible consideration and with extraordinary hospitality. Our hosts attended to our curiosity as tourists as well as our interest as scholars. The chance to see something of ancient Nara was enhanced by staying at the elegant and atmospheric Nara hotel. The two banquets we attended were unforgettable as dining and convivial occasions. Indeed, the final evening’s unforgettable dinner seemed to me partaken by a company of friends, with a friendly informality and a regret at parting ways in happy and tender contrast to the beautiful formality of the meal. Indeed, although I was careful to behave with the more formal manners experts on Japan counsel, I found my colleagues warm and eager for genuine and also friendly exchange. I had occasions to discuss scholarly and non-scholarly matters with several colleagues and was delighted to see Erika Yamamoto, a former student who earned her MA at CGU some years ago. I encountered a US graduate student, Joshua Dale, who is finishing his degree at SUNY Buffalo and teaching near Tokyo and he gave me a tour around Tokyo the last my final night.
I wish I could have attended the JAAS in a more participatory fashion but that would have meant knowing Japanese. It might be good, if there were any interest among the Japanese scholars, in arranging one or two occasions for informal discussions with scholars and with graduate students. I was glad to have made myself familiar with the scholarship of some of my hosts before the trip but I think it would be a good idea to have some of the leading works of JAAS scholars one will meet (in English) listed before one visits.
As always at scholarly meetings, one had a feeling of being at once too busy and not sufficiently occupied. I do not want to stress this, however, because I believe I made the acquaintance of several Japanese scholars with whom I expect I shall continue to have communication. I want to mention the remarkable Masako Notoji at this point, since her good company, thoughtfulness, and unresting efforts to make our trip a success were one reason it went so well. Like all of our hosts, she is a busy scholar and an active presence among Japanese Americanists. The chance to spend informal conversational time with our hosts in Nara and elsewhere gave layers of personal and intellectual meaning to the visit. I felt I gained real insight into the similarities and differences of our academic and scholarly life in Japan and the United States. That in turn gave one a more informed perspective from which to experience and profit from the trip.
In fine, the JAAS meetings were a valuable experience for me and one that set the tone for the entire visit, a tone of collegiality, respect for the Americanist work being done in Japan and a transformed understanding on my part of what international American Studies can be.
Kyoto: (June 5-7)
Kyoto was the city I had most looked forward to visiting. Its history and art were familiar enough so that to me so that the chance to see such landmarks as the Golden Pavilion was reason enough to be glad. The visit did not disappoint. Thanks to Professor Masahiro Nakano, Professor of American Studies and Geography, our host at Ritsumeikan University, we had a marvelous and varied experience of Kyoto, which included landmarks of its traditional culture and of its sophisticated contemporary flavor. Professor Nakano proved a patient and informative guide and an able and a cultural geographer whose scholarship proved of great interest.
The American Studies Seminar at Ritsumeikan University was attended by several graduate students, including some from other Kyoto area universities. It featured presentations by all three visiting Americans and was gave me as a welcome chance to learn from Professors Kelley and Bogart and to hear the various questions posed. It might perhaps have been better for the students had we not spoken together at one long session, especially since our subjects were so different and the presentations might have profited from somewhat more time to expand. Mary Kelley did a notable job during the question period of making some important connections between the subjects, and illuminated some aspects of mine especially very usefully. Still, I was left with a sense of something unwieldy and unresolved. I do not mean to sound ungracious or emphatic, especially since I got so much time to see Kyoto, which I might otherwise not have had. Some of the students asked very perceptive questions, which encouraged me to think they had indeed learned from our presentations. One of them turned out to be Mazumi Izumi a student from Doshisha University who had made an impression on Alan Trachtenberg, while he was in Kyoto – Alan had urged me to look her up – which suggests that there is an accruing benefit to various Americanist scholarly exchanges and to inter university co-operation. I wish I might have spent even more time at Ritsumeikan, which seems like an especially interesting place nowadays, and gotten to know Kyoto University more and to have visited Doshisha as well.
Wednesday, June 7, Mary Kelley and Michelle Bogart left for Tokyo and their other scheduled lectures. This is perhaps the place to say how much I enjoyed their companionship and learned from their conversation. Being part of a “delegation” is especially valuable for the opportunity to share perceptions and be able to depend upon someone familiar in an unfamiliar country. I was fortunate in my American colleagues in every respect.
I lectured at Kyoto University Wednesday afternoon. My topic was “the classic American song” and was selected from the list of possible topics I had submitted by my hosts at Kyoto. I welcomed the chance to prepare this talk, as the American song is a subject of particular interest to me and one I shall be working on more extensively in the future. I expected to be speaking to Americanist scholars and advanced students and so had pitched my talk to such an audience, although I did not assume much familiarity with the subject. I also brought a compact disc with the examples of songs (one each by Berlin, Rodgers and Hart, Porter, the Gershwins, Kern and Fields) I used. My host was Akiko Murakata with whose scholarship on Ernst Fenellosa I was already acquainted. I was honored to be introduced, on this occasion, by Professor Shinichi Shigihara, emeritus at Kyoto and currently a professor at Tezukayama University. Professor Shigihara had asked some valuable questions after my JAAS presentation and I had looked forward to further conversation with him. As it happened, the audience for my talk was an English class not the specialist group I had expected. I tried to simplify my approach somewhat as I went along – and the students did have the text in front of them - but was uncertain that I had made much sense to the students, a concern that was increased by their silence during a question period.
My hosts attributed this to shyness and told the students to so an exercise in written English to give to me. The student comments and questions, copies of which I shall forward, were both reassuring and in themselves interesting. One student wrote that he also wrote songs and had brought his guitar and would like to play them for me.
After the class, several of us gathered outside and this student played some of his music for me – “Japanese soul” he growled - and we all relaxed a little. It was an unexpected chance to visit with some Japanese students on a somewhat informal setting and it was a happy way to end the visit to Kyoto University.
Professor Shigihara kindly accompanied me to the train station, where I caught the bullet back to Tokyo. We talked at greater depth about Thornton Wilder and some of his concerns about my presentation. He also told me more about his own work as a scholar and a music critic and translator, leaving me again with a warm impression of uncommonly accomplished colleague. I had less chance than I should have liked to speak with Professor Murakata, but in our brief conversation we discovered many subjects of common interest.
Tokyo and Saitama (June 7-9)
I returned June 7 to International House where I stayed until leaving for the US on June 9. I was struck by the glamour and fascination of Tokyo and regret that I did not have the chance to lecture and hence spend more time in this city. I guess I expected to be enchanted by Nara and Kyoto but Tokyo took me by surprise.
On June 8 I went to Saitama University for my final lecture. On this occasion, I had arranged with my host Professor Naoko Sugiyama to give a fuller and historically more complete version of my work on gay men than the community-oriented focus of the JAAS panel afforded. Professor Sugiyama and I met at Nara and she told me about her own interest and that of her students in such contemporary American writers as Toni Morrison and confirmed what she had emailed me before my visit, that some of the students at Saitama were interested in gay studies.
I had already informed myself to some degree about the situation of the gay studies and gay men and lesbians in Japan and its striking differences historically and at the present time from that in the United States. I was not a little surprised to find that the JAAS and two of the universities where I would be speaking had welcomed or even selected the gay male subject from my list of possible topics. I was also pleased at evidence that it was a subject of interest. I encountered nothing but respectful attention to my presentations on this subject and a professionally proper and personally respectful attitude towards my possible personal relation to the subject matter.
As in the United States, people do not always distinguish between the gay subject and gay people. To raise the scholarly issues one must sometimes first answer questions that precede such discussions in the minds of people who are for whatever reasons unused to the subject. My work assumes a fair amount of knowledge about American civilization and about the gay male identity of some key figures not yet commonly so identified. In addition, my thinking about the subject is not simple to explain. One of the most valuable things I learned from my trip was that I have to simplify my thinking if I hope to make my book on the subject clear to readers. My discussions with Professor Shigihara, for example, have already made me revisit how I am expressing certain key notions.
It had been arranged for two graduate students from Saitama to meet me at I House and accompany me on the long and complicated subway bus trip to Saitama. They were each doing MA thesis research on a gay subject, one historical, one literary. It was interesting to meet them, and although their English was not expert, I was able to give them some advice about their research topics, which were both of considerable interest. Upon arriving, I talked with Professor Sugiyama and also with Professor of American Studies and History Natsuki Aruga, whom I had met at the JAAS meeting. At considerable inconvenience to herself, she attended my lecture, which was a great compliment to me from her – she is an important teacher at Saitama as well as scholar in the JAAS - and one I greatly appreciated.
I had the chance to meet several of the students before the lecture. It was clear to me and to Professor Sugiyama that the lecture I had ready would tax the attention and English language knowledge of the students even with the texts available. She was ready to translate the talk so I read a section, she translated and while she was translating, I cut text and proceeding in this fashion we manage quite well, which is a real tribute to Professor Sugiyama’s expertise and concern for her students. Some of her colleagues came, but it was principally a student audience. There were some questions but by then I was expecting an initial shyness and knew that there would be some informal time over beer and food after at a local hangout. I was pleasantly surprised by the lively and relaxed discussion we had. With a few exceptions, the students were more interested in talking about pop music and kidding around than about the lecture, and I was glad to have the chance to kid around and get a sense of them. I tried out what I thought I had been learning about Japan on them and we had an easy exchange. Once we spilled outside and were heading towards bus and subway destinations, a few students asked me questions more direct questions about the gay subject, which they had been reluctant to ask before. It was good to engage their questions and to some extent their fears.
Two students accompanied me back to Tokyo and I House. One was one of the ones who had come with me earlier, writing his thesis on contemporary gay male literature; the second was somewhat older, who had studied in the US and had a fluent command of English. Thanks to him, the other student was able to put all sorts of questions that he had not known how to ask and was probably shy of asking earlier and I was able to answer without presuming any personal stake on his part. It was in many ways an apt conclusion to the formal part of my visit and left me with a sense of how interesting the differences between Japan and the United States are and yet how much common ground American Studies can provide for mutual discovery. It also reminded me how much one always gains from meeting students as well as fellow scholars and how fortunate I was to have the chances I did to meet students in different contexts.
My last full day in Tokyo I spent with Naoko Onishi who took me on a short tour of Tokyo, including some old book and print stores and a splendid lunch. Like all of the scholars who too the trouble to host me on my eventful and unforgettable visit to Japan, he made me aware of international community of American Studies, founded in the intellectual, scholarly, professional and hence personal experiences we share. I had only dimly glimpsed this community before my trip, but now I have experienced it for myself and intend to make it a part of my work.
SUGGESTIONS:
Perhaps this has already been done, but I think it would be a good idea to go back and examine the suggestions from the several years of participants with a view to seeing if there are features that a significant number have noted could be improved or added. For my own part, I think that the visits of future scholars to the JAAS meeting would be improved by an increased pre-trip co-ordination of the visits. This seems to be a thread in the comments of previous reports. This is not a complaint but a suggestion for how to improve an already excellent program. It is not fair, however, to impose as much of this burden on our Japanese colleagues as was the case this year. I noticed with empathy how much work I added to the already busy academic schedules of my hosts. I think the ASA office could well shoulder more of the responsibility of the visits, especially scheduling co-ordination and putting some of the suggestions in these reports into practice. It is more a matter of regular communication than anything else and may be impractical.
In Janice Radway’s report last year, she noted the imbalance in the exchange program. I think this is a very important point that we must begin to address. It also speaks to the inherent discontinuity of the program. I have one idea of a way we might build on the exchange. One problem our Japanese colleagues experience as research scholars is the frequent difficulty of obtaining materials, whether journals or new books or material from archival collections. It strikes me that we might explore the possibility of a grant, which would support some US graduate students to serve as research assistants in the United States for Japanese American Studies scholars. The JAAS chosen scholars would communicate with their US research assistants through electronic and regular mails, and the assistants would send them necessary materials – a fairly generous copying budget would be necessary – and perhaps be able to make a few modest research trips to collections. If materials were purchased, it would be arranged that they would be given to the libraries of the Japanese scholar’s home institutions or otherwise made available to Japanese Americanists. The JAAS would have responsibility and control over the selection of scholars in Japan to participate. It is possible that my institution, Claremont Graduate University, could be interested in helping to raise money for 3 year pilot project to select research assistants from our students – the ASA could work with CGU in developing this pilot project but would be spared immediate development and administrative responsibility. I think this would be a project that the Japan-United States Friendship Commission could properly sponsor under its guidelines. The cost of such a program would be modest – stipends for students for 20 hours a week during semester at the usual work study rates, generous copying costs, some funds for purchase of materials and perhaps money available for research trips. There would be no need to disburse money to Japanese scholars and the cost to the JAAS would be minimal for selecting scholars to participate.
The benefits would be considerable. I especially like the idea of facilitating the work of our American Studies colleagues in Japan in this fashion. It could build more connections between our professional organizations and add to the sense of community in a common work. It would aid them in their research. The benefits for graduate students would be considerable, but it would begin to address, albeit in a small way, the challenge of how to make real the international character of the American Studies movement from the United States perspective. It would be a permanently powerful experience for US graduate students to function as research assistants to Japanese professors of American Studies -not so powerful as travel and other kinds of exposure perhaps, but surely a start in learning what the visit to the JAAS teaches: that American Studies is not a scholarly franchise of the United States.
I shall conclude by thanking the ASA and the JAAS and my US and Japanese colleagues for this extraordinary opportunity and this memorably happy adventure.
Quick Links
American Quarterly [official journal site]
American Quarterly [editorial site]