The Chair returned to the main title of the workshop “What is to be written?” She asked all participants for their opinions and comments on the agendas they intend to work on from now. She proposed that a book would be published by the end of August on the content of the workshop. She asked participants for their comments on the workshop as a whole.
Prof. Seth reflected back on the previous session, commenting that it was about public history, as well as US hegemony. He noted that public forms of history can attempt to either whitewash the past or look to the future to invoke a collective “we”. He stated that history is a very public affair and noted that it is important to recognize the specialized nature of the subject, but not to forget that it must be disseminated to a wider public. He suggested that it would be advisable to remember that historicity is the context in which many ethical and political discussion is engaged. He urged the group to consider historicity as a public endeavor.
Prof. Ileto responded that the points made by Prof. Seth were implicit in other papers delivered in earlier presentations. He asked how Prof. Seth would begin to actualize the widening of the public endeavor of historicity.
Prof. Seth stated that he was speaking about forms of historical representation and invited all members to consider cultural and other forms of historical production and discuss these.
Prof. Ileto stated that in the Philippines it was impossible to disassociate academic writing from the society at large. He stated that historians are not generally confined to the writing of history as a specialty.
Prof. Nagano stated that concerning the theme “What is to be written?” she had synthesized her paper from other written prior to the September 11 attack in 2001. She stated that prior to 9-11 her historical outlook had been much more optimistic than now, which had had a serious impact on her writing. She suggested that 9-11 could make an important impact on historical consciousness and asked participants to consider this.
Prof. Nagano added that occasionally she felt a gap of understanding about Japan and Japanese social science, because although there is much literature on this subject in English, without an understanding of Japanese language materials, a full comprehension of the perspectives extant in Japan cannot be fully appreciated. She urged that a Japanese should engage in an English narrative of the evolution of the social sciences in Japan.
Prof. Morris-Suzuki took up the question related to 9-11, suggesting that there was a defendable view that with what has happened since then, we have now arrived at a crucial turning point in history. She stated that in debate about writing history there has been a great deal of talk about spatial frameworks. What has not yet been worked through thoroughly is the temporal frameworks that are used to understand history. The idea of progress that supported post-modernist writing has fallen apart. She pointed out the fundamental question of understanding transformation in history in an age of progress.
Prof. Fujiwara stated that the idea of the breakdown of progress separated into two domains ? what exists, and what is changing. He noted that most of the papers have addressed how we think, which leads to a sobering notion about the role of historians. It also raises the question of non-historical reconstruction of the past. Prof. Fujiwara asked whether there was some way to create a larger understanding of the past.
Prof. Watson suggested that the memories of the Japanese soldiers should be studied in greater detail. He cited the film Know your Enemy ? Japan as a very effective form of propaganda. He stated that in the early 1950s there was a book published by a Japanese-American about his experiences in the Japanese Imperial Army. He highly evaluated these books as an insight into the “enemy” soldier’s perspective.
Prof. Watson referred to Prof. Seth’s comment about memory and remembering memories. He referred to the Heike Monogatari as an illustration of this point.
Prof. Abinales also referred to memory, asking what audiences really do remember. He suggested that in trying to look at history, it might be useful to look at other forms, pointing out that people now remember film, television and other media. He asked what historians should do to counter this. Prof. Abinales added that grand narratives that are supported by states are very difficult to confront.
Prof. Ileto took up the issue of September 11 by referring to the massacre of US soldiers on 28 September 1901 in the Philippines. He explained that the incident was almost identical in its US response to the 9-11 attacks in 2001, whereby a retaliatory attack was launched in the Philippines by the US. He also referred to the case of 70 Philippine women making accusations of rape against US soldiers. He then referred to the necessity of forgetting and suggested that the instances of Japanese cruelty and rape actually supplanted previous memories of similar US atrocities.
Prof. Takenaka commented on the public access to history today. She stated that film, television and Internet are now narrating the present and the past, and the society in the 2000s is now very transnational and information is instantly distributed. She suggested that history, public and memory are now competing phenomena.
Prof. Fujiwara suggested that the conference had succeeding in elucidating what people like to be written and what people dislike to be written.
Prof. Abinales proposed that a more interesting question is “What is to be filmed?” pointing out that Stephen Spielberg was reaching far more people than the participants gathered around the table. He stressed the importance of making people interested in history.
Prof. Seth suggested that it would be interesting to explore when we came to live in history. He asked at what point history suffuses many areas of our social existence.
Prof. Nagano stated that her major concern was the conditionality for writing history.
Prof. Yang referred to 9-11 as a turning point, suggesting that it would be interesting to return to the end of the Cold War as having created the conditions to return to the issues of colonialism and anti-colonial struggle. He also mentioned society’s need to remember in order to move on and the role of historians in this collective remembrance. He suggested that in some cases historians could be the saboteurs of collective memory.
Prof. Takenaka stated that she was not seeking to conclude discussions in any way. She expressed the hope that the two-day workshop would empower the participants to contemplate history in the contemporary world. As organizer, she thanked the participants for their contributions.