Facing the "Unknown" | Tomoki Kamo, Dean of the Faculty of Policy Management
Today was the day of the general entrance examination for the Faculty of Policy Management. I believe that all the examinees were able to fully demonstrate the results of their hard work up to this point. Thank you for your efforts.
In the upcoming issue of "KEIO SFC JOURNAL" Vol. 25 No. 2, I have written the foreword for a special feature titled "New Developments in Contemporary Chinese Studies." Today, I would like to talk a little bit about what I discussed there.
Since the 1980s, China has walked the path of "Fang" (Reform and Opening-up), and we researchers have felt the transformation of society firsthand through field surveys. In the past, Chinese studies operated under implicit assumptions such as "transparency will increase in the long run" or "as a result of economic development, Chinese politics will eventually move toward democratization." However, the current trend has shifted toward "Shou" (Closure), and information is increasingly becoming a black box. It seems that the assumptions we have unconsciously shared—namely, the "certain directionality or scenario that history should follow"—are now wavering. We are standing at a phase where we must question the assumptions themselves.
When a research subject becomes a black box, what happens to the research targeting it? Wang Hsin-hsien, a prominent Taiwanese political scientist, states the following in an essay based on the current state of Chinese studies in Taiwan: There is a risk of giving up on the analysis of the "upstream" (the logic of decision-making) regarding what is happening inside the subject, and instead becoming preoccupied only with the "downstream" (dealing with impacts and concerns) regarding what results the black-boxing will bring to us. He argues that, when faced with an invisible opponent or one that poses a threat, people tend to retreat into a self-defensive perspective, avoid pursuing essential questions, and fall into a state of intellectual paralysis.
I believe this awareness of the problem is spot on. If so, what should be done? If the walls of information become thicker and the other party intentionally seeks to create opacity, we must also change our approach and draw closer to the invisible "upstream." In my essay, I argued for a fundamental shift in the "perception of the subject" and the "methodology" currently required of researchers.
The first is a shift in the "perception of the subject." This is the awareness of a reflexive situation: "observing the state while being observed by the state." Currently, in the field of research, accessibility to official documents, statistical data, archival materials, and memoirs is declining, and conducting interviews is becoming increasingly difficult. However, we should not lament this "incomplete data" or "unnatural silence" as mere research noise. The fact that access to information is becoming difficult is itself an important political product that vividly tells the story of "what the state is thinking." We are required to shift our thinking to take the very facts of "invisibility" and "the unknown" and sublimate them into objects of analysis.
The second is a shift in "methodology" to overcome physical walls—namely, the fusion of knowledge. Now that field surveys have become difficult, attention is being paid to the revival of traditional document deciphering (a "Lost Art"), which predecessors utilized during the Cold War era of the 1960s and 1970s. They possessed sophisticated techniques to read true intentions from slight changes in wording or between the lines of limited official announcements and propaganda. Of course, this was supported by a deep understanding of the history, culture, and language of the target region. Today, we can combine such meticulous humanities knowledge and social science analytical knowledge with the latest digital technologies, such as AI that visualizes satellite images and internet censorship patterns through machine learning. By fusing traditional literacy with cutting-edge data science, we can estimate the theories and constraints located "upstream" from a puzzle of fragmentary information with higher precision. Through such work, a completely new configuration of knowledge is emerging—one that constructs analytical frameworks contributing to policy judgment and risk assessment and maps out decision-making processes.
On the other hand, there is a point we must be strongly aware of here: the difference between academia and intelligence. In terms of exploring the "upstream" of an invisible opponent and performing precise collection and analysis of public information, the boundary between the two is becoming blurred. However, while regional studies as an academic discipline focuses on "understanding" the subject, intelligence focuses on "systematizing" knowledge that contributes to security concerns and policy formation; thus, although they handle the same subject, their centers of gravity differ. While they can be complementary, because their purposes and evaluation axes differ, tensions sometimes arise. While it might be ideal to move freely between the two, it is not easy. That is precisely why those of us who aspire to research must be aware of which purpose and evaluation axis we are speaking from, and construct arguments while clearly indicating the scope and limits of our evidence and reasoning. It is through such procedures that we can concretely support the autonomy of scholarship.
Currently, the field of contemporary Chinese studies is in a fluctuating intermediate state where old assumptions have fallen into dysfunction and new frameworks have not yet been completed. That is precisely why we should not easily conclude that things are heterogeneous or threatening and feel as though we understand them, nor should we escape into pessimism. We are currently in the midst of a challenge to systematize the very mechanism by which this "unknown" is born as a new theory.
Those of you seeking to study at SFC may also face the "unknown" in your daily research and social practices, such as lacking data or having assumptions overturned. At such times, I hope you will have the resilience to stay within the fluctuation and continue to grapple with the logic of the invisible "upstream," rather than feeling you understand based only on immediate "downstream" phenomena or increasing excessive anxiety and impatience.
Unraveling the "unknown" in an uncertain world. I hope to continue this quest for knowledge together with all of you here at SFC.