Spectres of Comparison: Japanese Law through Multiple Lenses

Veronica Taylor

 

I.     Spectres of Comparison

1.   Japanese Law Distinguished from Comparative Law

2.   Academic Publications and Practice-oriented Publishing

II.    Tilting Our Paradigms

 

I.     Spectres of Comparison

When we teach or research or practice that knowledge we call “Japanese Law” we are entering a field that is largely one of our own creation. “Japanese Law” exists in our minds and in our writings, but it maps very imperfectly the worlds of jurisprudence and legal practice, as they exist in Japan.^[1] “Japanese Law” is not a neutral label; it comes with built-in inferences, drawn from our own locale and from those of colleagues with whom we share the “field”. In effect, the images and reference points that we “fix” as emblematic of our country of study are “haunted” or shadowed by the concepts and images of other, European concepts and institutions. Once we become aware of the shadows, we can no longer matter-of-factly experience the setting for our study.

My guess is that most of us have had turning points or moments when our view of Japan and “Japanese Law” changed quite dramatically. At that moment, we became aware that we have been seeing “Japanese Law” through the prism of a particular set of theories or views, or experiences.

In “Spectres of Comparison”, Anderson uses the analogy of an inverted telescope, through which you see new images of the target of your comparative study, which become ineradicable.^[2] For Anderson, the defining moment was hearing Sukarno invoke the name Hitler with approval during a national address. Anderson experienced the destabilizing nausea of having his preconceptions and terms of reference completely inverted in an Indonesian setting by someone who knew European history as well as he did, but who chose to manipulate the image in a politically expedient way.

My own turning point was an amicable debate with Professor John Haley about ten years ago, during which I became convinced that the “Japan” we had each spent time in was in fact two different countries. I had been working on aspects of immigration law and prostitution regulation in Japan at the time, and John Haley had not long since

---