Satoshi Ikeuchi is a young Japanese scholar of the Islamic world with an unusual position within the Japanese debate. He is a genuine scholar who comes out of Japan's "Middle East Studies" community. He is a graduate of Tokyo University who focused his studies on Arab and Islamic political thought.

However, unlike most other Japanese academics in this field, Ikeuchi has veered to the political right in recent years, and has become an enthusiatic advocate of fighting the "war on terrorism." As a result, he seems to have become estranged from most other Japanese scholars in the field, while, at the same time, he has been embraced by conservative circles within the Japanese establishment.

Below is a translation of one of Ikeuchi's recent articles in the Mainichi Shinbun. In my own view, he makes both some sound as well as questionable points in this short essay. One also gets the feeling that Ikeuchi is targeting his criticisms here at what he regards to be the mainstream trends within Japanese "Middle East Studies" academic circles.

How to Get Along with Different Senses of Values: The Problem with Japan's External Understanding

By Satoshi Ikeuchi

Our generation has been taught in the course of our growth, "Let's make things international," "We should understand different cultures." Indeed, "intercultural dialogue" is now a kind of popular catchphrase, and is often used in a wide range of fields from education to public diplomacy. Well then, did Japanese society come to "understand" different cultures or religions? I can't say yes.

Of course, Japanese show great curiosity, which matches most others, mainly in the aspect of consumer culture, like foreign food, clothes, and the unique customs of each country.

However, it is doubtful that Japan is facing the reality where obvious differences exist in religious norms and senses of values. Although we repeatedly hear words like "Let's acknowledge differences," I don't think the "differences" which are the causes of friction and conflicts can be "acknowledged" that easily. In addition, while it is believed that "focusing on parts that we share and have dialogue" is more important than seeing "differences," the fact is that we tend to see only the part of another culture which is easily understood, and overlook the causes of collision.

For example, you cannot understand the conflicts between today's Western countries and Islamic power unless you study Islamic law. In the political thought that Islamic law insists upon, there is a rule which determines their relations with pagans. Islamic power reconfirms these rules, and they define themselves as a body that can change the world based on it. An armed attack which is considered to be terrorism in Western countries is theorized so that it can be justified in the view of Islamic law. Thus, the criticisms of others are often excluded. This is often the case with Islamic nations (especially Arab nations and in South Asia) which has retained the absolute faith in the "commandments" of God in the face of a spreading secular society. If you want to have a "dialogue" with a region that has a different cultural background, in this case Islamic nations, you have to find out how to get along with them while understanding this aspect of obedience to the "commandments."

However, when it comes to having a "dialogue with the Islamic world," Japan tends to focus on mysticism or medieval philosophy, which exists on the periphery of the history of Islamic ideas, in order to find similarity with Western ideas, or interaction with them, and then is satisfied that it has accomplished "dialogue." That's how Japan looks away from the causes of the problems.

Behind this, there's a feeling of expected harmony peculiar to Japanese that "we can understand each other by having a dialogue," but that's not permissible if they make up a false "dialogue." Thoughtless conclusions won't eliminate the causes of conflicts, and it even makes you feel as if there aren't any such problems. This is a paradox that one believes they have a dialogue with another culture by "not acknowledging the existence of differences." Alternatively, some might insist that "conflicts don’t emerge from religion or other senses of values." If this is true, then there's no need for "intercultural dialogue" anyway.

If someone points out that there is indeed a different sense of value, he could be blamed as if his remark were an obstacle to "intercultural dialogue." What's worse, by killing off such criticism, one feels as if intercultural dialogue has actually been achieved.

However, such a vicious circle is hardly understood in Japan. I can't help thinking that Japan's "intercultural dialogue" exposes the negative aspects of Japanese society in that they exclude people who are different, or who have uncommon ideas, in order to force them to be assimilated. I think the "intercultural dialogue" which depends on the expected harmony, and the unconscious pressure for assimilation, is an "odd culture" that foreign countries can't easily understand.