O R G A N O N 20/21 : 1984/1985 L A P E N S É E G É O G R A P H IQ U E
Keiichi Takeuchi (Japan)
STR A TEG IES O F H E TER O D O X R E SEA R C H ER S
IN TH E N A T IO N A L SCHOOLS O F G E O G R A P H Y A N D T H E IR ROLES IN S H IF T IN G PA R A D IG M S IN G E O G R A P H Y
In Japan, as in any other civilisation, geography has existed from ancient times, whether in the shape o f chorographical description, or in the shape of an environm entalist interpretation o f the phenom ena o f the e a rth ’s surface, or in the sense o f the consideration o f spatial organisation. Since the beginning o f the nineteenth century, after the introduction o f geography in the Western sense, either through m aterial obtained directly at the source or through Chinese writings on Western geography, the term chiri had begun to be used by intellectuals (literally, it means the “logic” or “p attern ” of the e a rth ’s surface). The usage o f this term became com m on after the Meiji Restoration, especially after the establishm ent o f the com pulsory education system in 1877. A t this point, the role o f geography in the school curriculum came to be considered an im portant one. This was partly because it served to awaken a sense o f national identification on the p a rt o f the Japanese people but partly, also, because it brought up the viewpoint whereby Japan was observed in a relativist perspective, especially in com parison with advanced industrialised countries; hence, it inspired the people with the necessity o f modernising their own country. Thus, in the second half o f the nineteenth century, num erous geographical writings with this purpose in mind were published. The necessity for the form ation of geography teachers resulted in the establishment o f geography institutions o f higher education and, also, the publication o f geographical textbooks o f higher-education level.
Should we use the term “national school o f geography”, we generally mean it to refer to a group o f geographers having com m on characteristics based on (1) The sharing in comm on o f cultural circumstances pertaining to the nation-state; (2) institutional frames proper to a nation-state; and (3) hum an relationships within a geographical circle in a given nation-state, especially a circle operating under the aegis o f prom inent maestri. We can con
firm the establishment o f the Japanese school o f geography at the turn of the century, when specialised course in geography and chairs of geography were established at institutions o f university level. This newly established ortodoxy o f academic geography was characterised by (1) The introduction and adaptation o f the W estern geography o f the day, hence the predo minance o f environm entalist interpretations; (2) unlike the case o f earlier authors o f geographical works, an apparent form al detachm ent from direct involvement in the encouragem ent o f a nationalist sentiment ; and (3) a strong self-awareness on the p art o f the geographers o f their positions as acade micians. They worked for the establishment o f academic geography in Japan and, partly because o f the teacher’s license exam ination system, their publica tions, which were considered authoritative, enjoyed a large commercial success
(most o f these academic geographers were members o f the examiners’ commission for the teacher’s licence examination) and gave rise to a large number o f geographical technical term s or academic jargon.
Num erous studies on these geographers, who comprised the first generation o f the academic geographers o f Japan, are to be found, and the large contribution m ade by them tow ards the prosperity o f geography in Japan cannot be denied. However, from the viewpoint o f the reexam ination o f the history o f m odern geography in Japan, some researchers in the history o f geographical thought are now taking notice o f certain figures who, while they lived or at least while they worked m ost actively, were considered heterodox researchers or “outsiders”. Some o f them were pioneers in modern geography in Japan and achieved a high degree o f sytematisation in geography com parable to th at achieved by later researchers in academic geography who had easier access to source m aterials and equipment. Some o f them developed a geography which, in the beginning, was considered heterodox or at least original but which came to be recognised in the end as a pioneering achievement in the cricles -of academic or orthodox geography.
In the volume Languages, Paradigms and Schools in Geography: Japanese
Contributions to the History o f Geographical Thought II, M r Tsujita traces
an outline o f Japanese geography in the nineteenth century and mentions Yukichi Fukuzawa, Shigetaka Shiga, K anzo Uchim ura and Bunjiro K oto am ong M aiji period writers o f geographical works. According to my classi fication, K oto should be considered one o f the founders o f academic geography in Japan, though his m ain interest was geology. For Yukichi Fukuzawa, geographical writings constituted an instrum ent by means o f which emphasis could be laid on the necessity o f m odernisation according to the Western mode. For Shigetaka Shiga, geographical knowledge and the geographical viewpoint were to be utilised as a means o f expressing his nationalistic ideology but, at the same time he recognised the im portance of geography as a scientific discipline in education and other applied fields, as in the age o f colonisation schemes. Geography for K anzo U chim ura was a somewhat
Strategies o f H etero d o x R esearchers in the N ational Schools o f G eography 279
different proposition com pared with th at for Shiga, though these two writers belonged to the same generation and were both graduates o f the Sapporo Agronomical College. Fundam entally, U chim ura recognised the validity of geography in the practical or applied field, i.e., in economic activities, b u t he did not share the nationalist sentiments of Shiga. Except for K oto, the geographers examined by Tsujita were neither academic geographers nor out sider or heterodox researchers because they did not aim at constructing
geography as a scientific discipline per se.
Am ong the first o f the outsider or heterodox geographers, I would like here to point first of all to Tsunesaburo M akiguchi (1871-1944). H e published three im portant geographical books, the Jinsei chirigaku (Geography o f Human
Life) in 1903, Kyoju no togochushin to shite no kyodoka kenkyu (Study o f the Homeland as the Centre o f Integrated Teaching) in 1912, and Chirikyoju no hoho to naiyo no kenkyu in 1916. He graduated from the Teacher’s
Training College in H okkaido in 1893 and in 1896 passed the exam ination for teachers o f geography at middle schools. It was while teaching at the H okkaido Teacher’s Training College that he wrote the draft o f Jinsei chirigaku. In 1901, he left H okkaido to come to Tokyo where he worked mainly as a school teacher, and was always interested in the problem o f geographical education. Jinsei chirigaku was published with a foreword by Shigetaka Shiga and was highly recommended by the latter. Shiga was then a famous writer on political and international problems; he also expatiated a great deal on the beauty o f the Japanese landscape in th at blend o f patriotic pride and aesthetic appreciation of nature peculiar to the time. According to him, the “Geography o f Human Life is a systematic exposition on the interrelationships between natural phenom ena and phenom ena concerning hum an life on the e a rth ’s surface”. In effect, therefore, this 995-page book is the first systematic treatm ent of hum an geography in Japan. (The original m anuscript was much longer and M akiguchi shortened it to about half the original length at the suggestion o f Shiga.)
M akiguchi discovered new fields of research in hum an geography in various papers and books written in Japanese and involving fields other than geography. He was not proficient in foreign languages; perhaps he was able to read English but it is improbable that he actually read the G erm an literature which he cites as reference works in his book. Nevertheless, this work treated num erous topics that were new at the time and th at are also interesting from the present-day viewpoint of the system of geography; for instance, in the chapter on agricultural geography, he introduces J. H. von Thiinen’s locational model and, in the chapter on m anufacturing industries, he presents considerations based on the locational viewpoint later systematised by A. Weber. It is necessary to rem ark that, if from a somewhat functio nalist viewpoint, he gave great weight to the subject o f u rban settlements and that, where rural settlements were concerned, he presented a pertinent morphological typology. Topics such as these were rarely to be found in
contem porary geography textbooks in W estern countries, and only later came to be recognised as themes pertaining to hum an geography.
The publication o f M akiguchi’s book took place over several years; in 1903 alone, the first edition was printed three times and in 1908, on the occasion of the eighth printing, it underw ent considerable revision by the author. By 1914, it had been printed eleven times. We may, therefore, conclude that, as a publication, this work had considerable success; at the same time, it was rarely referred to by newly emerging academic geographers o f that time. In academic journals, the only favourable review was th at written by Takuji Ogawa in the geographical journal Chirigaku zasshi, Vol. XV I,N o. 181. o f the Tokyo Geographical Society. The book review commences with a reference to Shiga’s preface to M akiguchi’s book; it was chiefly bacause Shiga had written the preface th at Ogawa wrote the review. Since the book sold well, we can only suppose that the greater part o f its readers consisted o f elementary school teachers, especially those who aspired to a teacher’s license for teaching at middle school. M akiguchi him self perhaps did not think that he would be accepted in academic geographical circles and his later years were dedicated to the developing o f a new teaching m ethodology applicable not only to geography but to other fields o f study as well. In 1930, he founded the Soka Kyoiku G akkai, literally, the Association for Creative Education, origin o f the present Soka G akkai, a com paratively new, m ilitant Buddhist sect which today exerts a considerable social and political influence in Japan.
Judging from the career o f M akiguchi and the geography he evolved, we can confirm that, in spite o f the immense value o f his works, particularly the Jinsei chirigaku, his influence on the academic geography o f Japan was negligible for the following reasons. Firstly, in introducing W estern geography or new geographical analyses, he did not refer himself to original sources but mainly fell back on secondary o r tertiary material, comprised o f writings in Japanese. Secondly, merely because o f what was considered the insignificance o f his social position as a lowly teacher at the elementary school level, his work was, officially, ignored by academic scholars and geography students o f institutions o f higher learning, although we cannot be sure that they did not, unofficially, read his work. Thirdly, though at the age o f thirty-three, he had pioneered in the forming o f a system o f hum an geography, he later devoted himself mainly to the consideration o f teaching methods in general and no longer pursued geographical research either in empirical or in theoretical fields. In a certain sense, his case is the tragedy o f a m an o f brilliant ability and advanced geographical thought who was, nonetheless, outside the academic institution at the period o f the institutionalisation o f geography or the form ation o f the national school o f geography.
Michitoshi Odauchi (1875-1954) was one o f the first graduates o f the history and geography courses at the Tokyo Higher N orm al School; these courses constituted the highest level geographical education in Japan at
Strategies o f H etero d o x R esearchers in the N a tio n a l S chools o f G eography 281 the time (1899). While a student, he was interested in history but, in W aseda Middle School, where he obtained a post after graduation from the higher N orm al School, he was assigned to teach geography: hence, his form ation as a geographer cam e about as a result o f his having to teach geography. U pon consideration from the viewpoint o f his proper interest, i.e., history, he found th at the geographial textbooks then in use did n o t satisfy him ; he felt that they attributed too m uch im portance to physical geography and to an environm ental determinist methodology, ignoring social and historical factors. In 1902, he published, under the jo in t authorship o f the Association o f Geographical Studies, a textbook o f geography for middle school readers. As he wrote later, during the period o f the preparation o f this textbook, he was greatly inspired by Inazo N ito b e’s Nogyo honron (Fundamentals o f
Agronomy), published in 1898 and which introduced the work o f A. Meitzen
with considerable precision.
According to N itobe’s autobiography, Odauchi visited N itobe’s house for the first time in 1902 or 1903 and this was the start o f a close association. Subsequently, Odauchi came under the influence o f not only N itobe b u t o f other folklorists, including K unio Y anagita who later came to be considered the founder o f the Japanese folklore school, m em bers o f which gathered regularly for study meetings at N itobe’s house. It is also interesting to rem ark that Tsunesaburo M akiguchi also frequented the study meetings at that period and, in fact, they met each other at N itobe’s hom e and, together joined the research trips o f the folklorist group in 1910’s.
Unlike M akiguchi, Odauchi consulted foreign publications in the original language, and, according to the autobiographical writings, around 1915, he read Patrick Geddes and through him began to be influenced by the Le Play School. On the other hand, he dedicated a great deal o f time to field research in various parts o f Japan, and the Waga kokudo (Our Country,
Japan), mostly based on his own field research, constituted an epoch-m aking
regional geography o f Japan. In 1914, he was responsible for the com pilation o f Toshi to sonraku (Towns and Villages) which included some o f his own writings. This was the first scientific work on settlement geography in Japan and contained translations o f foreign geographical m aterial as well as treatises by Japanese scholars. However, am ong the contributors to this volume, where both the writing o f original papers and the translating of foreign papers were concerned, besides Odauchi himself, the only geographer was G oro Ishibashi, then head o f the D epartm ent of Geography, K yoto Imperial University. A perusal o f these works enables us to understand easily just why Odauchi was ready to be influenced by Geddes and the Le Play School.
From 1914, Odauchi was a lecturer, though not on a perm anent basis, conducting courses in hum an or settlement geography in private universities such as W aseda University or Keio University, in Tokyo. Thus he was not completely outside the academic circle and, in fact, in 1916, he passed from
W aseda M iddle School to the Research Institute of O kura upon the recom m endation o f N aom asa Yam azaki, then professor o f geography at the Imperial University o f Tokyo and the Tokyo Higher N orm al School. N aom asa Y am azaki who, later in 1915, founded the D epartm ent of G eo graphy of the Imperial University o f Tokyo, also wrote the preface to O dauchi’s book, Teito to kinko (Tokyo and Its Environs). W ith his background o f pioneering studies in settlement geography and the field research he carried out actively in Japan, K orea and China, he was adm itted to academic circles and contributed to various academic journals. He was, moreover, a member o f the Association o f Japanese Geographers from its inception in 1925 and attended the international geographical congress in 1931 at Paris and in 1934 at Warsaw. Hence, we are justified in considering him a representative Japanese geographer of the time, though he never occupied a chair o f geography in a university and never had any students or disciples in the sense of forming a school. His influence m ade itself felt only through his publications and some personal contacts with a limited num ber o f other geographers who were interested in hum an geography. Only in the period after W orld W ar II, when he was m ore than seventy years old, did his writings begin to be appreciated by a broader range o f geographers, especially the younger generation o f geographical scholars of that period. In spite o f his advanced age, he wrote actively at this time, criticising the natural science-oriented orthodoxy o f Japanese geography and insisting on the validity o f the a p p lic a tio n 'o f geography in regional development policies and, also, in social studies in school curricula. It is perhaps symbolic that he appreciated Koji Iizuka’s works which were published and wielded considerable influence, ideologically speaking, on hum an geography in Japan after W orld W ar II. In 1955, Odauchi died suddenly in a traffic accident. Iizuka eulogised him in an article in the Geographical Review o f Japan
(Chrigaku hyorori), organ o f the Association o f Japanese Geographers.
Iizuka, at least before the end o f W orld W ar II, was considered an outsider geographer, as was Odauchi. A lthough Odauchi was a pioneer of scientific geographical studies, especially in the field o f settlement geography, and stim ulated studies in hum an geography, the true value o f his works became recognised on a broad basis only after W orld W ar II, due to his basic position “outside” the academy.
As explained in my paper “Two Outsiders: An Aspect o f M odern Academic G eography in Jap an ”, two geographers, Ryujiro Ishida (1904-1979) and Koji Iizuka(l 906-1970) were academic geographers in the sense that they belonged to academic institutions; b ut from the point o f view of their scientific stance, both were considered “outsiders” prior to the end o f W orld W ar II. Unlike Odauchi, who because of his advanced age and sudden death, was not able to exercise leadership in the form ation o f new orientations in geography in Japan after W orld W ar II, Ishida and Iizuka, both about
S trategies o f H eterodox Researchers in the N a tio n a l Schools o f Geography 283
thirty years younger than Odauchi, succeeded in a certain sense in creating a new ortodoxy in Japanese geography. We are able to find certain similarities between these two geographers. (1) They began their academic activities in the prew ar period with the assurance of subsequently receiving an academic position. Their influence was rather limited at this early period but, by exercising discretion, they succeeded in prom ulgating their ideas without provoking already established geographers; (2) partly due to their discrete strategies, and partly because o f the inconsistency of their criticism o f the totalitarian regime o f militarist Japan, they did not m anifest a clear and radical stance against the oppression o f scientific research during W orld W ar II. In this sense, perhaps, Iizuka was the more aware o f the two o f the cultural and socio-political circumstances o f that tim e; (3) their opinions and viewpoints had mostly been formed during W orld W ar II, but it was only after the war th at their influence on the new developments in Japanese geography became explicit and affected the postw ar generation o f geographers; (4) they formed, respectively, new schools o f geography centering around themselves, but their influence reached others through channels other than lectures at any one university: hence, their schools had an inter-university aspect. While they m aintained little personal contact, they shared a num ber of viewpoints in common, i.e., against environm ental determinism, a progres sive or left-wing stance in political ideology, similar observations regarding the indigenous tradition of geographical thought, and so on. An ideological emphasis on the dangers o f eurocentricism was stronger in the case of Iizuka ; (5) from these comm on features o f the two maestri, it was natural that the two schools over which they respectively presided shared com m on elements in the shape o f the scholars who now constitute a num ber o f the m ainstream scholars in Japanese geography; and (6) they greatly contributed towards the revolu tionising of the m ainstream in postw ar Japanese geography. Nevertheless, they fundam entally remained within the fram ework o f classical m odern geography, i.e., relying on the paradigm o f environmentalism in the tradition o f Ratzel on to Vidal de la Blache and under the strong influence o f Darwinism. At the same time, they also m aintained a more or less holistic view o f the m an-nature relationship or l ’unité terrestre. Utilising the terminology o f the social sciences, Ishida and Iizuka were able to exercise a strong and effective influence am ong both geographers o f the old school and o f the younger generation o f geographers o f the time who harboured in com m on a kind of inferiority complex with regard to the humanities and social sciences, disciplines they were not familiar with, in their form ation as geographers.
N aturally, there were also differences between these two geographers; for instance, Ishida adhered until the day o f his death to the idea o f being a geographer per se, while Iizuka exercised the stronger influence on the trends am ong postw ar Japanese geographers who adhered less strongly to the idea o f being geographers. In fact, Iizuka’s followers were diverse, and
include'd specialists in social and economic history, folklore studies, intel lectual history, and so on.
O ur appraisal o f the above four geographers leads us to certain conclusions. (1) The close relationship between the establishment o f the institutional fram ew ork and the development o f the scientific content o f geography. The establishm ent o f geography in the academy or in research and higher educational institutions derived, both directly and indirectly, from the develop m ent o f school geography. The best o f the hum an elements in school geography, such as Tsunesaburo M akiguchi, early dedicated themselves to work in the field o f school geography and were thus engaged at the time o f the establishment o f academic geography in Japan. In this sense, M akiguchi’s contributions to the development of m odern geography is extremely im portant but, for this same reason, his proper position remained an outside one with regard to the academ y; and he himself never complained of this situation. (2) A lthough differences existed between D epartm ent o f G eography in the Faculty o f Letters o f the Imperial University o f K yoto and the departm ents o f Geography in the Faculties o f N atural Science in the Universities o f Tokyo, they shared in com m on an environm entalist paradigm ; and criticism o f a classical geography o f this sort cam e mostly from outsider geographers who had been trained in other disciplines, or at least those who were familiar with non-geographical disciplines. In the case of Odauchi, the disciplines other than geography with which he was involved were agronom y and folkore; in the case o f Iizuka, it was the economic sciences and in the case o f Ishida it was history and the humanities. (3) It should be noted that, even in the time now past when academic outsider geographers were particularly singled out for being outsiders, some aspects o f their studies earned them the appreciation and respect o f orthodox academic circles. For instance, N aom asa Yam azaki, the first head o f the D epartm ent o f Geography at the Imperial University o f Tokyo, recom mended that some o f his students specialising in hum an geography contact Odauchi, in order to obtain a more thorough knowledge of settlement geography. (I have recently learned these facts from interviews with certain senior geographers who were students of Yam azaki in the 1920’s) In his autobiographical writings. Odauchi gave voice to the com plaint that he was isolated from the academic community but, at the same time, he wrote th at he enjoyed a close relationship with and the support o f G oro Ishibashi, the second in succession to head o f the D epartm ent o f G eography at the Imperial University of Kyoto (the first head was Takuji Ogawa). (4) As I m entioned before, where Ishida and Iizuka were concerned, they enjoyed the privileges conferred upon academicians though, p rio r to W orld W ar II, they did not exercise a great deal o f influence in geographical circles. In the history o f m odern geography in Japan, political and social circumstances played an im portant role in influencing the development o f geography under the m ilitarist regime that later collapsed with Ja p an ’s defeat in W orld W ar II. H ad this regime been allowed to continue in one
S trategies o f H e tero d o x R esearchers in the N a tio n a l Schools o f Geography 285 way or another, M akiguchi or Odauchi would never have attained, as they did, the recognition of postw ar geographers. As for Iizuka and Ishida, had the postw ar dém ocratisation o f society not taken place, they would not have been able to bring their influence. to bear over a broader range o f geographers. (5) These outsiders, however, never overtly opposed the wartime m ilitarist regime and its concom itant, the oppression o f freedom o f speech and research. It is true th at M akiguchi was arrested in 1943; bu t this was mainly for his religious activities which contravened the idea o f the absolute divinity o f the tenno (emperor). The other outsiders, Odauchi, Ishida and Iizuka, outwardly at least, appeared to support the course o f imperialist colonialism and expansionism pursued by m ilitarist Japan. (6) The influence o f academic outsiders such as Iizuka and Ishida was very strong after W orld W ar II, but because they persisted in rem aining within the framework o f a m odern version o f classical geography or an environm entalist paradigm , the very strength of their influence constituted a hindrance to the realisation o f the quantitative revolution in geography in Japan. The emergence o f this revolutionary m ovem ent in geography and the subsequent hum anistic reaction against this positivist geography were brought ab ou t by elements who, academically speaking, were marginal, or who were outside the sphere of influence o f the im portant new teachers in post-W orld W ar II geography, such as Iizuka or Ishida.
In this way, in the history of the Japanese school o f geography, it is possible to observe a num ber o f considerably interesting dialectical interrela tionships between centre and periphery and between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.
B IB L IO G R A P H Y
A oki. N . (1982) T oshi-noson-kenkyu to O hei chirigaku. G e o g rap h ic al In stitu te , K y o to U n i versity (ed.) “C h iri n o sh iso ” C h ijin -sh o k an .
H ag a, N . (1972) Cliihoshi 'no shiso N ihon-hoso-shuppan-kyokai, 284 p.
Iizu k a, K . (1955) O dauchi M ich ito sh i sensei no s e iky o o itam u, “C h irig a k u -h y o ro n ” , V ol. 28/3. K im o to , C . (1979) O dauchi M ich ito sh i no jin m o n chirigaku shiso no k e ise i k a te i, kyo d o
k y o ik u undo n i ka kaw arum ade no, “ W ak o D a ig a k u Jin b u n g a k u b u K iy o ”, Vol. 14. K im o to , C. (1980) O dauchi M ich ito sh i no nem pu o yobi chosaku m o ku ro k u , “ W a k o D a ig ak u
Jin b u n g a k u b u K iy o ”, V ol. 15.
K u m ag ai, K . (1978) M a k ig u c h i Tsunesaburo, D a isa n b u n m e i-sh a, 217 p. K u n im atsu , H . (1978) J in sei chirigaku gairon, D a isa n b u n m e i-sh a, 268 p.
M akiguchi, T. (1904) Jin sei chirigaku, B u n k a id o , 195 p., re p rin te d in: M ak ig u ch i T su m e s ab u ro zen-shu, Vol. 1. D a isa n b u n m e i-sh a, 606 p. (1981)
M akiguchi, T. (1912) Kvoju no togochushin to shite no k y o d o k a k e n k y u , N ib u n k a n , re p rin ted in : “ M ak ig u ch i T su n e sa b u ro zen -sh u ” , Vol. 3, 348 p. (1981)
M akiguchi, T. (1916) C hirikyoju no hoto to naiyo no k e n k yu , M e g u ro sh o te n , re p rin te d in “ M ak ig u ch i T su n e sa b u ro z en -sh u ” , V ol. 4, D a isa n b u n m e i-sh a, 409 p. (1981)
M ak ig u ch i, T. K yodo ka g a ku ken k y u , in : “ M a k ig u ch i T su n e sa b u ro z en -sh u ” , V ol. 3, D a isa n b u n m ei-sh a, 348 p. (1981)
N a k ag a w a , K . (1978) K indai ch irikyo ik u no genryu, K o k in -sh o in , 360 p.
N o zaw a, H . (1982) Furansu g a ku h a to N ihon chirigaku, G eo g rap h ic al In stitu te , K y o to U n i versity (ed), “C h iri no sh iso ” , C h ijin -sh o k an .
O d au ch i, M . (1913) W aga ko ku d o , K enkyu-sha. O d a u ch i, M . (ed) (1914) Toshi to sonraku, H a k u y u -sh a . O d a u ch i, M . (1918) Teito to k in k o , O k u ra K enk y u jo . O d a u ch i, M . (1928) Shuraku to chiri, K o k o n -sh o in , 310 p. O d au ch i, M . (1930) K yodo chiri k e n k yu , T o k o -sh o in , 325 p.
O d au ch i, M . (1948) N ihon Jinm onshirigaku no k e im o k i (l)-(2 ), “ S h in ch iri” , V ol. 2, 6, 7. O d au ch i, M. (1948) Jinm onchiri no konpon shiso. liz u k a K o ji "C h irig a ku hihan" o m egutte,
S h o h y o (1948-6).
T ak eu ch i, K . (1974) The Origins o f H um an Geography in Japan “H ito tsubashi Journal o f A rts and Science", Vol. 15.
T ak eu ch i, K. (1976) G eneral R em a rk s o f H um an G eography D uring the P a st F ifty Years, K iuchi, S. (ed.), G e o g rap h y in J a p a n , U niv ersity o f T o k y o Press.
T ak eu ch i, K . (1978) S o m e R em a rks on the H isto ry o f R egional D escription and the Tradition o f R egionalism in M odern Japan, H ito tsubashi Journal o f S o cia l Studies, Vol. 10, N o . 1. T ak eu ch i, K . (1984) Two O utsiders: A n A spect o f M odern A cadem ic Geography in Japan, in :
T ak eu ch i, J. (ed.) Languages, P aradigm s and Schools in G eography, L a b o ra to ry o f Social G e o g rap h y , H ito ts u b as h i U niversity.
T su jita, U . (1984) Japanese G eographers in the 19th C entury, in : T ak eu ch i, K . (ed.) Languages, P aradigm s and Schools in Geography, L a b o ra to ry o f S ocial G e o g rap h y , H ito tsu b ash i U niversity.
