1. Introduction
Nambara Shigeru (1889–1974)Footnote 1 was professor of political philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University before 1945 and president of the university after World War II. He lived his academic life from 1918 to 1951. His research focused on Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottlieb Fichte. His first academic article analyzed Kant and eternal peace. His second article focused on liberalism. Nambara criticized liberalism but praised ‘isms’ at the core of the national community. Unlike many contemporary intellectuals during the interwar, wartime, and post-war eras, Nambara neither resigned (between Tokyo University and Kyoto University, two dozen professors resigned in the 1930s), nor was he investigated (Maruyama Masao in the 1930s, for instance), placed under house arrest (Yoshida ShigeruFootnote 2, for instance), or arrested or jailed. He was even appointed dean of the law faculty in March 1943 and became president of the University of Tokyo after the defeat of Japan in December 1945.
Why and how did Nambara survive during these difficult times? What are the key tenets of Nambara's thought? What are the key tenets of Japanese liberalism? If Nambara is a liberal thinker, how does he compare with contemporary liberal thinkers like Tanaka KotaroFootnote 3, Yanaihara TadaoFootnote 4, Uchimura KanzoFootnote 5, Nitobe InazoFootnote 6, Ishibashi TanzanFootnote 7, Asakawa KanichiFootnote 8, Kiyosawa KiyoshiFootnote 9, and Yanagida KunioFootnote 10? If Nambara is distinguished as a Kantian, where is he located in the continuum of leftwing and rightwing Kantians who have emerged in the 2000s against the backdrop of democracy promotion from outside? Where is he located on the continuum of leftwing or rightwing Kantians against the backdrop of colonial economic development and against the development of United Nations’ peacekeeping? This article addresses these and other issues. Before analyzing Nambara's ideas, let me first provide a brief description of his life (Nambara, Reference Nambara1972; Karube, Reference Karube2003; Takashi Kato, Reference Kato2015b, Reference Kato2016).
2. Early years
Nambara was born in 1889, in a tiny village of Kagawa prefecture on the island of Shikoku, as the second son of Nambara Sadakichi and Kikuno. Their first son died shortly after he was born. Therefore, Shigeru was the only son. His father abandoned the family in 1891 when Shigeru was only 2 years old. He lived alone with his mother during his early life in Kagawa. In 1895, he entered primary school where one of his teachers taught him how to read classical Chinese. This means that, although poor, Nambara's family was of such a class background that he had access to many classical Chinese books. This also informs us of the kind and quality of primary school education Nambara received. For junior high school, it was also in Kagawa, but it was 20km away from his home. Nambara walked two and a half hours each way to reach his junior high school. He acknowledged later that the school commute required so many hours per day that he was not able to read many books.
Then, in 1907, he entered the First High School in Tokyo. Its principal was Nitobe Inazo (Benesh, Reference Benesh2012; Kusahara, Reference Kusahara2012; Nitobe, Reference Nitobe2012), a Christian (Quaker), author of Bushido: The Soul of Japan, and later one of the Under-Secretaries-General of the newly established League of Nations. It is not a coincidence that Nitobe in his early years was a student of Sapporo Agricultural College (Inoue, Reference Inoue and Tetsuya2006), of which Dr. William Smith Clark was deputy principal (1876–1877). Dr. Clark was widely known in Japan for his farewell message to Sapporo Agricultural School: ‘Boys, be ambitious.’ Clark was a veteran of the American Civil War, who needed a job. One of the jobs he took was the assignment of deputy principal of Sapporo Agricultural College. The famous message of his was not only longer in length but also had a witty ending. ‘Boys, be ambitious …, including this old man.’ In 1877, he was 51 years old. Nitobe, influenced by Clark's legacy, became a Christian without committing to a particular denomination. Nitobe refused to be affiliated with either a Catholic or Protestant church organization and argued that Christians and God communicate directly without the intermediation of a church organization.
In 1910, Nambara entered Tokyo Imperial University, where, as a student, he was influenced by lecture Uchimura Kanzo (Shibuya, Reference Shibuya2013). Uchimura was fond of saying that he loved two ‘Js,’ that is, Jesus and Japan. Nambara followed Uchimura in this respect. He was both a Christian and a nationalist. On campus, Uchimura was considered not sufficiently respectful to the Emperor for his failure to bow deeply. For this reason, he was ousted from the university and privately taught a small number of religious and diligent students about the bible at his home in Tokyo, far from the university. One of his students was young Nambara. Nambara recalled that the encounter with Uchimura and the bible was most important during his student years.
In 1914, Nambara graduated from Tokyo University and entered the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Home Ministry was a large powerful bureaucracy that embraced almost all domestic economic sectors and internal security. In 1917, he was assigned to head Imizu County, Toyama Prefecture, where his major tasks were draining water from rice paddies and making arable land solid. While there he also proposed to establish a public agricultural school for the county. His rural background and Ministry of Home Affairs bureaucratic background in handling agriculture may have shaped his later ideas about peace, the nation, and national sovereignty. In 1919, he was assigned to the Bureau of Policing and Protection, where his task was to draft a Labor Union Law. Little is known about whether he was happy about this task. In 1920, he resigned from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry of Agriculture and Industry, then emerging as a new powerful ministry as World War I helped Japan to industrialize itself vigorously, opposed the Nambara-drafted labor law for being too radical or progressive. Prime Minister Takashi HaraFootnote 11 decided that the contest between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Industry was a draw and withdrew the legislation. Hara probably considered Nambara too liberal or too lenient toward employees. Nambara was among a very small number of young state elites whose career could be flexibly adjusted. His switch from the Home Affairs Ministry to Tokyo Imperial University in 1921 did not come as a surprise.
Nambara became an assistant professor of political philosophy thanks to Professor Onozaka Kiheiji, his mentor at the university. Nambara was sent to Europe for 3 years to study the philosophic movement of German idealism, starting with the writings of Immanuel Kant. In 1921–1924, he spent 3 years in three countries – England (at the London School of Economics), Germany (at Berlin University), and France (at Grenoble University). His main interest was the philosophy of law on which Prof. Rudolf Stamler tutored him in Berlin. Nambara, on his return to Tokyo, was assigned to teach ‘Introduction to International Politics.’ In 1925, he was promoted to professor. In 1925, his wife Yuriko passed away. The following year he married Hiroko Nishikawa. It is in 1927 when his first important article was published ‘The Idea of International Politics in Immanuel Kant’ (Nambara, Reference Nambara1972). In 1928, another philosophy piece entitled, ‘An Investigation into Liberalism as a Political Principle’ was added. In 1929, on the appointment of one of his senior colleagues, Onozuka Kiheiji, to the president of the university, Nambara taught not only political philosophy but also Onozuka's subject, political science. In 1930, he showed his strength in Greek philosophy in an article entitled, ‘The Ideal Republic of Plato and the Heavenly Kingdom of Christian God.’ In 1934, he shifted his attention to nationalism as argued by Johann Gottlieb Fichte in ‘The Theory of Nationalism in Fichte.’ In 1936, he attempted to relate his interest in Greek philosophy to contemporary politics in ‘The Revival of Plato and the Problems of Philosophy of the Contemporary State.’ In 1939, he examined Fichte's socialism with his nationalism in ‘The Theory of Fichtian Socialism.’ In 1941, his magnum opus’ precursor, ‘The Weltanschauungen of the Nazis and the Problem of Religion’ was printed. In 1942, in another article called ‘The State and Religion,’ he wrote about what the relationship should be between state and religion. In 1942, about 1 year after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he published his first book, entitled ‘The State and Religion: A Study of European Cultural History (geistige Geschichte).’ This was his academic answer to why Europe succumbed to Nazism. Perhaps helped by his bureaucratic life in 1914–1921, Nambara was cautious in his writing by hiding himself and buying time. Publishing the book in 1942 was a risk. But he was able to escape investigation. He fell completely silent and did not mention anything related to current affairs during the entire wartime period.
3. Later curricular and extracurricular life
In 1925, universal male suffrage and the Peace Preservation Law both passed the Imperial Diet. In 1929, the US economy entered the Great Depression, which spread to the entire world. The zeitgeist of the 1920s, that is, self-determination, democracy, disarmament, peace, internationalism, and free trade was replaced by the zeitgeist of the 1930s, that is, fascism, colonialism, militarism, state regulation of the economy, and protectionism.
Nambara's mentors, Uchimura and Nitobe, passed away in 1930 and in 1933, respectively. Prime ministers Hamaguchi Osachi and Inukai Tsuyoshi were both assassinated in the early 1930s. Freedom of expression as interpreted by the Peace Preservation Law was reduced steadily in the 1930s. Takigawa Koshin lost his professorship, and Minobe Tatsukichi's major books on the Imperial Constitution were banned. Yanaihara was forced to resign. Ouchi Hyoe and other professors were arrested. The major books of both Kawai Eijiro and Tsuda Sokichi were banned from publication. In 1943, university students were mobilized for war. Nambara wrote many Japanese-style poems on the forced resignations and investigations (Nambara, Reference Nambara1972; Minear, Reference Minear2008). In one of these poems, he declared:
Upon announcing the end of my lectures at the end of the academic year,
the tears flowed, and my glasses unwittingly fogged up.
On wartime student mobilization he composed:
Would you say that there is no regret in sacrificing life for war when you are a student?
Nambara was secretly busy with peacemaking in the spring of 1945. He and a few university colleagues drafted an ‘authentic’ analysis of the world situation and Japan's status and argued that it was the right time to seek peace with the USA. Their message was conveyed to senior bureaucrats at the Imperial Court Office with the intention that those closest to the emperor could persuade the monarch to make peace as soon as possible. According to Yoko Kato (Reference Kato2015c), Nambara thought that the US government was astute and agile in driving a wedge between the emperor and the military. By contrast, Nambara and his colleagues assiduously linked the Emperor with the nation (Tetsuro Kato, Reference Kato2005; Toyoshita, Reference Toyoshita2015; Yoko Kato, Reference Kato2015c). Nambara confessed later that his idea of tightly linking the Emperor and nation was his solution to the survival of Japan. Shortly after defeat, Nambara became president of Tokyo Imperial University.
4. On Kant
In his first article, Nambara praised Kant's ideas for portraying a more peaceful future beyond utilitarian individualism. Kant thought that the general will should impinge upon the good individual rather than Jean-Jacques Rousseau's good citizen. On this, Nambara generally agreed with Kant, although he was very critical of the German philosopher on two points. First, Kant preached three ideas in the pursuit of a more peaceful world: (1) encouraging a republican polity rather than a monarchical polity; (2) promoting trade across nations; and (3) enhancing agreements among nations and creating international organizations. Nambara seemed to approve all three points. Second, Nambara considered Kant's thought limited to peace on the basis of Voelkerbund (literally, a league of nations). Nambara argued that a world-federated state should be the basis for eternal peace. However, a world-federated state is not mentioned in this article. Only his 1937–38 lectures does he mention his idea of a world-federated state. This idea persisted throughout his life. Immediately after Japan's defeat, Nambara was summoned by the House of Peers to deliberate on a new constitution. He argued that Article Nine prohibiting armed forces in Japan would be ineffective without a world-federated state. Japan, he thought, should provide significant armed forces when it joined the United Nations. Nambara was adamant and almost alone on this issue of Article Nine. Only Nosaka Sanzo, Secretary General of the Japan Communist Party, agreed with him. Nambara came to reluctantly accept Article Nine as a reality shortly after 1945–1946. Later in 1950–1951 during Diet deliberations over a peace treaty, Nambara argued vehemently against concluding a separate peace with the allied powers at the expense of the Soviet Union and China. Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida accused Nambara of ‘bending academic learning to please public emotion’ (kyokugaku asei).
As Uchimura's episode on the two Js, that is, Jesus and Japan, tells us, Nambara loved the Japanese nation. Nambara was critical of such thinkers as Yoshino SakuzoFootnote 12 and Tanaka Kotaro, who focused on cosmopolitanism in democracy and international law, respectively. Nambara insisted that any vision of world peace cannot be built without the solid foundation of nation-states. Knowing that Nambara spent his younger years in a rural setting, the traditional communitarian influences of this experience may well inform his sense of liberalism. Here, Nambara was influenced strongly by Fichte in that the healthy national community is the basis of everything, including peace. Nambara hoped to preserve the emperor's status in a new constitution and argued that popular sovereignty did not conflict with Japanese tradition. However, he argued that the emperor should abdicate precisely because the Japanese nation needed it. He argued that Emperor Hirohito should take spiritual and moral responsibility for the nation's disastrous wars and defeat.
5. Nambara in the context of liberalism
We can locate Nambara within the spectrum of Japanese liberalism on three issues: promotion of democracy, economic development, and peacekeeping. The difference in historical contexts makes the comparisons attempted here difficult. However, it is attempted with the thought that giving my interpretation of their thoughts free from oppressive historical contexts might help readers to glimpse an otherwise more vivid Wilsonian moment in the interwar and occupation periods (Inoguchi, Reference Inoguchi, Isakhan and Stockwell2012; Toyoshita, Reference Toyoshita2015). It is important to note that the examination of key concepts that include the Constitution, war prohibition, collective security, democracy promotion, and responsibility to protect are debated in Japanese political forums and are meticulously traced and masterly examined in Hideaki Shinoda's works (Reference Shinoda2003, Reference Shinoda2012, Reference Shinoda2016, Reference Shinoda2017). Kant's Eternal Peace is a small treatise. It defines six requirements and three settled points. The first requirement is not to consider an agreement a peace treaty, if it contains the seeds of a future war; the second is that any state, small or large, should not be possessed by another state, whether by inheritance, by exchange, by purchase or by gift; the third requirement is to abolish the standing army for the long term; the fourth rejects government debt for external conflicts; the fifth requirement is no forceful interference in the internal affairs of another state; the sixth is an end to hostile conduct that jeopardizes mutual trust and makes impossible future peace, such as the use of assassins, murder by poison, violation of a surrender agreement, or invading an enemy's space. The settled points for peace are: first, a republican system in each state; second, international law based on a federation of free states; third, world civil law limited to conditions that facilitate universal friendship.
Some 200+ years after Kant's Eternal Peace was published, what is called ‘democratic peace theory’ was born in the USA. Michael Doyle (Reference Doyle1986) has highlighted Kant's eternal peace concept in the twentieth-century context. Bruce Russett's Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Democratic World argues that democracies rarely fight among themselves (Russett, Reference Russett1993). Kant's republicanism was replaced by democracy. In a twist of American politics, President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush employed the concept of democratic peace to justify military intervention in other countries. This was an odd reversal. Two American presidents used democratic peace theory to justify the intervention of a democratic state into a non-democratic state. Those who argue that American intervention is justified are called rightwing Kantians (despite Kant being against military intervention) and those who argue otherwise are called leftwing Kantians. The distinction between rightwing and leftwing is difficult. Here, rightwing Kantians use universal values, whereas leftwing Kantians use the vocabulary of national sovereignty.
In the 1990s, rightwing and leftwing Kantians were identified in an entirely different context. The former were cosmopolitan, whereas the latter were nationalist. The former were represented by George W. Bush, Jr. (Reference Bush2003) and Roger Scruton (Scruton, Reference Scruton2004), whereas the latter were represented by Vladimir Putin (Lipsnar, Reference Lipsnar2006) and his ideologue Vladislav Surkov (Sakwa, Reference Sakwa2011; McFaul and Spector, Reference McFaul and Spector2009). These two kinds of Kantians were born in the context of democratization. The former argues that democracy is a universal value and that if citizens of country A are assisted by citizens of country B, it is quite natural and that there would be no problem. The latter argues that democratization must be supported by indigenous and national forces and that democratization attempts from outside of national sovereign borders is a violation of international law. In the post-Cold War era, democratization took place in Central Europe like Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Also, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, former Soviet republics like Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia experienced conflict between democratic and authoritarian forces with Western and Russian assistance, respectively. What is called the colored revolutions occurred as a result of conflict between the two groups inside and outside the nation. If this conceptual scheme were applied to Nambara as a Kantian, he would belong to the category of nationalist Kantians. Nambara insisted on a national community and nation-state as a critical foundation for eternal peace.
More recently, the ‘Responsibility to Protect (R + P)’ argument has appeared. The R + P holds that when democratic forces intervene in other countries’ affairs, states have not only rights but also responsibilities. Like individuals, states should have the obligation to protect citizens. Here, citizens are built on a communitarian notion of citizenship. Amitai Etzioni (Reference Etzioni2016) writes: ‘one might observe a certain similarity between this [communitarian] view and the Kantian view proposed in the article ‘Perpetual Peace.’ … [A communitarian notion of citizenship] recognizes that states (like individuals) have not only rights but also responsibilities; they are entitled to self-determination and self-government, but must also demonstrate this commitment to the common good by protecting the environment, promoting peace, and refraining from harming their population.’ (Etzioni, Reference Etzioni2016)
This point is elucidated by comparing Nambara with those economists who supported the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) in the 1940s. Former Marxist economists argued that the GEACPS should be guided by a leading regional economy. In the 1930s and 1940s, most parts of East Asia were colonized or semi-colonized and thus their national independence was the highest goal. Those tenko (meaning transforming Marxism into anti-Marixism) Marxists like Hirano YoshitaroFootnote 13 (Inoguchi, Reference Inoguchi2007) were rightwing Kantians in their conception of a regional economic grouping. Those economists who waved the flag of decolonization and national development included Yanaihara Tadao, who was forced to resign from Tokyo Imperial University for criticizing the GEACPS (Nakano, Reference Nakano2013). Thus, Nambara was a leftwing Kantian among economists, as well.
In further stretching the time horizon to the current and the near future, the problem of colonialism, League of Nations Trusteeship-applied Areas, the United Nations Mandatory Territories, and United Nations Transitional Areas need to be examined. Nambara was clear about Article Nine. He thought a sovereign state should possess armed forces. Perhaps Nambara, like Machiavelli, regarded the solid duo of armed forces and laws as critical elements of sovereign states. His Kantian thinking did not stop there. The United Nations should have its own armed forces to which Japan should contribute a sizable force. Without sovereign nation-states acting together, Nambara's Kantian ideal would not materialize. Without concluding peace with all the Allied Countries, including the Soviet Union and China, no Kantian United Nations would be possible. As member of the House of Peers, Nambara in March 1950 argued against a peace treaty with the Allied Powers because of this imperfection.
A summary of Nambara's positions on democracy promotion, national economic self-determination, and peacekeeping can be summarized as follows:
5.1 Democracy promotion
Nambara would argue that democracy can be facilitated only with the agreement of those governed in a national setting (cf. Inoguchi, Reference Inoguchi, Gourevitch, Inoguchi and Purrington1998, Reference Inoguchi, Cox, John Ikenberry and Inoguchi2000; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Ikenberry and Inoguchi2000).
Roger Scruton, a British philosopher, argued in the context of the Iraq War that democracy is a universal value and non-governmental citizens are free to promote democracy abroad (Scruton, Reference Scruton2004).
Vladislav Surkov, a Russian policymaker cum ideologist, argued in the context of the colored revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan that democracy manipulated from outside is not regarded as sovereign democracy (Surkov, Reference Surkov2006).
5.2 National economic self-determination
Nambara would probably take a position close to that of Yanaihara (see below).
Yanaihara argued that the colonial government's policy of economic development should help the colonies to achieve national self-determination (Townsend, Reference Townsend2000; Sakai, Reference Sakai2006; Nakano, Reference Nakano2013).
Kaname Akamatsu, in the context of post-World War II Asia-Pacific regional economic development, argued that underdeveloped economies could be led through the metaphor of a flying geese formation with one country taking the lead in a regional economic group (Akamatsu, Reference Akamatsu1961).
5.3 Peacekeeping
Nambara would probably take the position somewhere between Nitobe and Yanagida (see below).
Nitobe argued that the League of Nations trusteeship (or United Nations mandate, United Nations transitional) areas are one step ahead of colonialism (Kusahara, Reference Kusahara2012).
Yanagida Kunio argued that League of Nations trusteeship (or United Nations mandate, United Nations transitional) areas are a guise of colonialism. National community formation is allowed to make its own national economic self-determination (Nakano, Reference Nakano2013).
6. Conclusion
Nambara Shigeru was a rara avis in the following senses:
(1) His idea was liberal international, following the Kantian humanistic thread kept intact throughout his life.
(2) He believed the critical importance of national community and sovereignty in attaining world peace like Kant. He followed Nitobe who loved the two Js – Jesus and Japan.
(3) He believed in the critical importance of the army in sovereign states like Machiavelli whose magnum opus, Prince, starts with the discussion on two essential matters of state, that is, the rule of law and army.
(4) He believed that the emperor should not be merely symbolic but substantive.
(5) He believed that Emperor Hirohito should resign from office like Emperor Juntoku (r. 1210–1221) who was forced to abdicate because he participated in an unsuccessful coup d’état to re-assert imperial power against the warrior class hegemony. In this way, Emperor Hirohito would take responsibility as the Commander in Chief of a defeated country.
(6) He believed that if the United Nations Organization is to be central in a world-federated state, Japan should donate portions of its armed forces to the United Nations Organization.
(7) He believed that to further the above, Japan should conclude a peace treaty with all the allied countries, not merely with those aligned with the USA.
Nambara Shigeru was a rara avis in that he combined all the above tenets in one person. His belief in the critical importance of national community and sovereignty could have had negative consequences for him personally when militarism swayed Japan. Strong factors alleviating this belief were that he was genuinely from a desolate rural background that made his communitarian belief very strong and enforced by a belief in Christianity. His early exposure to foreign ideas of Christianity was a positive factor. Kita IkkiFootnote 14 (Wilson, Reference Wilson1969; Tankha, Reference Tankha2006) and Ohkawa ShumeiFootnote 15 (Samuels, Reference Samuels2003), who became spiritual leaders of far-right wing nationalism in the 1930s, were also from desolate agricultural backgrounds but their exposure was to anarchism, socialism, and fascism.
In 1946, Nambara argued in the National Diet that Japan should not solely rely on other countries’ favor, that Japan should have armed forces for its self-defense, that Japan should exercise the rights and duties of a member state of the United Nations when it is allowed to enter the United Nations, including the provision of armed forces for UN peacekeeping operations. In late 1949 and early 1950, Nambara visited the USA to argue for a peace treaty with all the member states of the United Nations, including the Soviet Union and China. Norihiro Kato (Reference Kato2015a) argues that Nambara's line of total peace was fully approved by General Douglas MacArthur with whom Nambara met briefly before his visit to the USA. Yoshida's line of separate peace was also approved by General Douglas MacArthur as it was extremely uncertain about how the United Nations would shape itself with regard to UN collective security action. To MacArthur, Japan's peace with all or with US allies and friends did not matter very much as long as he and the USA were confident in keeping Okinawa fully armed with US armed forces bereft of Japan's tariff autonomy and territorial sovereignty in Okinawa.
Nambara's wartime (1943) publication, The State and Religion, was his philosophical rebuttal to Nazism. When Japan was allied with Germany and Italy, criticizing German Nazis would have caused political trouble. Yet his criticism is along the line of arguing that Nazism, which held sway over most of Europe, was deviating entirely from all the Kantian narratives of European cultural history. His earlier career as a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Home Affairs may have helped him in avoiding any current affairs, personalities, events, newspapers, or radio.
His belief in the critical importance of helping create a world-federated state did not prevent him from opposing Articles in the draft version of the Japanese Constitution regarding the emperor's status, and non-possession of armed forces and non-military confrontation in resolving disputes.
Nambara coasted over the post-wartime period which was also a tumultuous period of occupation, poverty, labor strikes, and political contestation between leftwing and rightwing political parties. His ascension to president of the University of Tokyo, his focus on the role of young students rebuilding a peaceful Japan, and his remorse about mobilizing students for a premature death as young soldiers were entirely harmonious with the zeitgeist of Japan during that period. Nambara was a rara avis in this respect as well.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Prof. Takashi Kato for cogently answering my blunt questions about Shigeru Nambara on 3 November 2015. Furthermore, his publication in 2016 on Nambara was also enormously helpful. Prof. Gergory Kasza was very helpful in pushing me to clarify and elaborate on some parts of Nambara's academic career in the not-so-free environments before and after 1945. Prof. Sergey Chugrov of the MGIMO (the State Institute of International Relations in Moscow) enlightened me on Vladislav Surkov. I may also note that when I was an undergraduate student at the University of Tokyo more than half a century ago, I had one occasion on which I briefly conversed with Nambara. One of my classes was that of ‘writing in English,’ given by Reverend Neil Henry Lawrence. I had to bring my humble product of a few pages to his church at Meguro, Tokyo, because I was slow in finishing my homework. As I walked into the church to turn in my homework to Reverend Lawrence, he appeared with an elderly gentleman. Reverend Lawrence introduced me to President Nambara. The question Nambara asked me was: With whom do you work at the University of Tokyo? It struck me that President Nambara's attachment to a small academic community called the University of Tokyo was very deep. I heavily rely on Writings of Nambara Shigeru, 10 Vols., 1972, for writing this paper, including 10 professors who contributed to the annotations of each of the 10 volumes.
Takashi Inoguchi is an Eminent Scholar-Professor at J. F. Oberlin University, Tokyo and Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo. He received a B.A. and M.A. in international relations and a Ph.D. in political science from M.I.T. He writes prolifically on Japan, Asia, international affairs, and quality of life. Latest among his numerous publications are: Exit, Voice and Loyalty in Asia, Springer, 2017, Trust with Asian Characteristics: Interpersonal and Institutional (co-edited with Yasuharu Tokuda), Springer, 2017, and The Development of Global Legislative Politics: Rousseau and Locke Writ Global, Springer, forthcoming in 2019. He is currently working on the QOL-based typology of Asian societies from the angle of multiple modernitiy. He is the founding editor of three journals: Japanese Journal of Political Science (Cambridge University Press, 2000–2018), International Relations of the Asia Pacific (Oxford University Press, 2000–2005), and Asian Journal of Comparative Politics (Sage Publications, 2016-today). He also directs AsiaBarometer Survey since 2002.
