Stranded Modernity

High modernity claims that the modernity project gave rise to institutional organs of modern nation states, culminating in an emergence of ultra-military states with wartime economy in the early twentieth century. It also argues that the same developmental pattern continued to dominate in the post-World War II period. This chapter examines this high-modernity thesis, employing Japan and Hiroshima as cases to be analyzed. Against the high-modernity thesis, many believe that Japan had a historical disjuncture in 1945, being ultramilitary before the end of World War II and a peaceful nation after. Examinations show that, while the modernity project controlled a large-scale historical process in Japan, it met vehement resistance, and became stranded in Hiroshima.

CONSTRUCTING GLOBAL ‘WARS WITHOUT END’: Vocabularies of Motive and the Structure of Permanent War

My purpose in this paper is to link the larger social context that structurally necessitates „wars without end” perpetrated by the U.S. elite with the rhetoric that legitimizes them so as to sociologically situate the rhetoric, the vocabularies of motive within a historically formed war-centric social structure that reveals an easily discernible pattern in the use of language. I consider Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech of December 8, 1941 announcing U.S. entry into World War II to be the rhetorical “Master Frame”, the blueprint in this regard that was subsequently incorporated by later presidents to justify all wars without end. I compared dissected components of this rhetorical Master Frame to war speeches made by different U.S. presidents in the pre- and post-World War II era to reveal the qualitative difference between war rhetoric of a peace-time social structure where war is an aberration and the permanent war based social structure of the post-World War II U.S., when war became the taken for granted norm.

Nguyen’s The Sympathizer and Coetzee’s Early Fiction: Representation, Grievability, Framing

Viet ThanhNguyen’s The Sympathizer(2015) is an intriguing novel for anyone familiar with the early fiction of J.M. Coetzee. Nguyen’s debut novel has as its theme the war in Vietnam, which is not surprising given his background and his scholarly work preceding its publication. Interestingly, Coetzee’s first novel, Dusklands(1974) comprised two novellas, the first of which,called “The Vietnam Project”, is also related to the US invasion of Vietnam. Both works offer critical insights into US war-mongering in the post-World War II era. Additionally, Coetzee’s third novel, Waiting for the Barbarians(1980), bears thematic resemblances with both his and Nguyen’s debut novels, as they, in one way or another, are concerned with imperialism’s modus operandi and its continuation through the subjugation, intimidation,and annihilation of collective subjects. The main aim of this paper is to investigate the parallels and overlaps that can be detected among these three novelsthat are germane to the stratagems adopted by an imperialist power to sustain its dominion, legitimize its presence,andjustify brutality. These stratagems mediate the way the imperial force relatesto or conceivesof the other. Of the concepts employed in this article,the following areof particular significance: representation, grievability, and framing.

The Post-World War II World Order and the Unresolved Cultural Legacies of the Korean War

The Korean War has never had a notable place in American culture. A crop of recent scholarship by Korean American scholars queries the reasons for this absence of the Korean War's cultural presence, going against the critical commonplace that the war was insignificant and calling for a reckoning with the cultural legacies of the Korean War. Christine Hong's A Violent Peace, Daniel Y. Kim's The Intimacies of Conflict, and Crystal Mun-hye Baik's Reencounters illustrate new directions and new possibilities in the scholarship on the Korean War, which is dominated by historical studies often guided by traditional approaches to international relations or foreign policy. Informed by approaches in ethnic studies – and particularly the field's interest in racialization as transnational and cross-border phenomenon – these books show that it is not only productive to revisit the “forgotten war” but imperative to do so. Through a wide range of cultural texts and with an exclusive focus on the perspectives and experiences of people of color, these studies probe the underexamined role the conflict has played in shaping liberal ideas on freedom and justice, attend to the contradictions of the cultural forms that clothed these ideas in post-World War II US culture, and point to new cultural interventions that challenge and dislodge long-standing Cold War orthodoxies.

Victim and Perpetrator Perspectives in Post World War II Contexts: Intergroup Forgiveness and Historical Closure in Europe and East Asia

<p>The current thesis aimed to extend existing research on intergroup forgiveness by considering historical context as an important element. The clear victim and perpetrator roles in the European and East Asian post World War II settings provided the context for this research. Social representations of history provided the theoretical framework for four studies. Study 1 employed a meta-analytical approach to explore the impact of contextual variables on interpersonal forgiveness across 13 societies. Based on Berry's ecocultural framework and Inglehart's affluence theory it was expected that socio-political, societal well-being and socio-economic variables are linked to interpersonal forgiveness. Significant differences in interpersonal forgiveness between the 13 societies emerged, which could be explained by conflict potential, socio-economic and socio-political context variables, societal peacefulness, societal well-being, and negative societal evaluations of historical calamities. Study 2 explored conceptualisations of interpersonal and intergroup forgiveness using a qualitative approach with interviewees from Japan, Germany and the Philippines. Facets, antecedents and outcomes of forgiveness were identified as main themes. Differences in the relevance of forgiveness as a means of conflict resolution were revealed across cultures. An illuminating concept was identified and labelled as "historical closure", signifying an attitude towards historical issues as relevant or irrelevant to present and future relationships between groups. Study 3a and 3b included victim perspectives from three formerly victimized European nations (France, Poland, Russia) and three formerly victimized East Asian nations (China, Taiwan, Philippines). Study 3a examined differences in intergroup forgiveness across the six societies. Between-society differences were found. Chinese participants were less forgiving compared to French participants, pointing to the different historical contexts as an explanatory source. Study 3b investigated the ability of historical closure and other group-based constructs to predict intergroup forgiveness. In both settings, historical closure was a consistent significant predictor and contributed to explain unique variance. A cross-level operator analysis revealed that political apologies by the perpetrator country during the last 20 years was negatively associated with intergroup forgiveness, indicating that external context related variables can contribute to explain intergroup forgiveness. Study 4 investigated perpetrator perspectives from Japan and Germany, with focus on the cognitive and behavioural components of the willingness to make amends. Japanese and Germans differed significantly on the behavioural component: it was predicted by lack of closure in the Japanese sample; whereas in the German sample guilt and shame were positive predictors. Lack of historical closure consistently contributed to predicting the cognitive component of the willingness to make amends. Japanese experienced more guilt and shame feelings than Germans. Stronger national identification did not contribute as expected and had a reversed effect in Japan by being a positive predictor. Historical closure is an intriguing concept, as it is a positive predictor for intergroup forgiveness among participants from formerly victimized nations, but a negative predictor for the willingness to make amends among participants from formerly perpetrating nations. This is an interesting interdependency in coming to terms with history: closure seems to be needed by victims to be ready to forgive, whereas the lack of closure for perpetrators seems to drive the willingness to make amends.</p>

Victim and Perpetrator Perspectives in Post World War II Contexts: Intergroup Forgiveness and Historical Closure in Europe and East Asia

<p>The current thesis aimed to extend existing research on intergroup forgiveness by considering historical context as an important element. The clear victim and perpetrator roles in the European and East Asian post World War II settings provided the context for this research. Social representations of history provided the theoretical framework for four studies. Study 1 employed a meta-analytical approach to explore the impact of contextual variables on interpersonal forgiveness across 13 societies. Based on Berry's ecocultural framework and Inglehart's affluence theory it was expected that socio-political, societal well-being and socio-economic variables are linked to interpersonal forgiveness. Significant differences in interpersonal forgiveness between the 13 societies emerged, which could be explained by conflict potential, socio-economic and socio-political context variables, societal peacefulness, societal well-being, and negative societal evaluations of historical calamities. Study 2 explored conceptualisations of interpersonal and intergroup forgiveness using a qualitative approach with interviewees from Japan, Germany and the Philippines. Facets, antecedents and outcomes of forgiveness were identified as main themes. Differences in the relevance of forgiveness as a means of conflict resolution were revealed across cultures. An illuminating concept was identified and labelled as "historical closure", signifying an attitude towards historical issues as relevant or irrelevant to present and future relationships between groups. Study 3a and 3b included victim perspectives from three formerly victimized European nations (France, Poland, Russia) and three formerly victimized East Asian nations (China, Taiwan, Philippines). Study 3a examined differences in intergroup forgiveness across the six societies. Between-society differences were found. Chinese participants were less forgiving compared to French participants, pointing to the different historical contexts as an explanatory source. Study 3b investigated the ability of historical closure and other group-based constructs to predict intergroup forgiveness. In both settings, historical closure was a consistent significant predictor and contributed to explain unique variance. A cross-level operator analysis revealed that political apologies by the perpetrator country during the last 20 years was negatively associated with intergroup forgiveness, indicating that external context related variables can contribute to explain intergroup forgiveness. Study 4 investigated perpetrator perspectives from Japan and Germany, with focus on the cognitive and behavioural components of the willingness to make amends. Japanese and Germans differed significantly on the behavioural component: it was predicted by lack of closure in the Japanese sample; whereas in the German sample guilt and shame were positive predictors. Lack of historical closure consistently contributed to predicting the cognitive component of the willingness to make amends. Japanese experienced more guilt and shame feelings than Germans. Stronger national identification did not contribute as expected and had a reversed effect in Japan by being a positive predictor. Historical closure is an intriguing concept, as it is a positive predictor for intergroup forgiveness among participants from formerly victimized nations, but a negative predictor for the willingness to make amends among participants from formerly perpetrating nations. This is an interesting interdependency in coming to terms with history: closure seems to be needed by victims to be ready to forgive, whereas the lack of closure for perpetrators seems to drive the willingness to make amends.</p>