Kimitaka Matsuzato (ed.): Comparative Imperiology. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 2010, 132 S. = Slavic Eurasian Studies, 22. ISBN: 978-4-938637-53-8

Kimitaka Matsuzato (ed.): Comparative Imperiology. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 2010, 132 S. = Slavic Eurasian Studies, 22. ISBN: 978-4-938637-53-8.

A group of Japanese historians lead by Kimitaka Matsuzato from Hokkaido University organized several conferences on imperial studies at Kyoto in the last decade. A book under the title “Comparative Imperiology”, which was published by the Slavic Research Center at Hokkaido University in 2010, is a result of these workshops. Besides an introduction of Matsuzato there are five contributions in the book, which were written by representatives of different fields of historical research and area studies. The aim of the publication project was “to overcome, to some extent, insufficient exposure of Japanese historiography in the booming study of empires” (p. 5).

In his introduction (pp. 5–20) Kimitaka Matsuzato delivers an interesting overview on the development of “Empire Studies” in Japan in the context of European, Western discourses and the international debate on Orientalism launched by Edward Said in the 1970s. Matsuzato shows the intricate relationship between the social-political processes and the booming of the field of “imperiology”. Simultaneously, Matsuzato criticizes the Eurocentric periodization of world history by showing that “Japanese studies on Central Eurasian Empires identify the Pax Mongolica in the thirteenth century, not the emergence of proto-capitalism in Western Europe in the sixteenth century, as the decisive turning point in world history” (p. 8).

Akihito Kudo’s (Osaka University) article is devoted to the depiction of the “Recognized Legal Disorder. French Colonial Rule, c. 1840–1900” (pp. 21–36). He revisits the assumptions of the ‘traditional’ imperial studies that the French colonialism had been based on “direct rule”, while the British one – on “indirect rule”. The both systems, and particularly the French one, were mixed and more intricate. Kudo throws light on the French legislative practices in Algeria by illuminating key terms like “sujet français” – the legal status of the indigenous population of French colonies. He showed the interplay and encounters between Islamic law and the French model of legislature. “While direct rule and assimilation remained as the underlying principles of French colonial rule, they did affect Algerian society in multiple ways”, (p. 28) writes Kudo. The author evaluates the French sources from the 19th century as well as modern French secondary literature on colonialism. The lack of Algerian sources in Arabic in the case of this contribution is understandable, since the aim is to show the colonialist discourses on “Legal Disorder” and not the reception of them in colonized Algeria.

Kazuhiko Yago, who published an article about the Russian and Soviet banks in the context of Empire, describes in detail how the Russian banks operated between the Russian Far East and Paris. Toyomi Asano illuminates the normalization of the Japanese-Korean relations after the collapse of the Japanese Empire and the end of World War II. Asano depicts the relationship “former colonizer – colonialized” in the context of US-American engagement in the region and its impact on the Korean-Japanese contacts. In the same time Asano shows that it was not only the influence and pressure from outside but also the economic interests which brought Korea and Japan closer to each other.

The book project initiated and edited by Matsuzato is an important contribution to the actual debates on imperial studies but also on post-colonialism. It is based on well-researched case-studies. All contributors have succeeded in explaining the discourses within Empires and around them.

Zaur Gasimov, Mainz