Periphery of Knowledge
I still remember when I was taking a course of Political Science in Stockholm University. That time I presented in the lecture of Comparative Politics. Along with political circumstances in Asia the professor mentioned a little about Tibet. She then said "what was the name of country or region, which China and people there are struggling for autonomy?" As a matter of fact she forgot the name, Tibet, although she might have known the political turmoil. The ignorance of information concerning not only Tibet but Asia is lamented; however such sad defect of knowledge can be justified.
What kind of topic are Japanese interested in most from the following headlines; non-compliance of policy commitment of a Swedish politician, the US's appeasement policy toward PLO, and the fall of Japanese tycoon, Takafumi Horie. My answer would be the last, hope the other Japanese agree to my choice. Starting from domestic news, what expected next is news on the neighborhoods. In Japanese case what they might concern other than Japan are secondly the incidents and happenings around Asia; thinking of China, both South and North Korea for instance. They are the countries which are geographically close and may immediately affect Japan in several aspects such as politics and economy. That is one of factors why Japanese knowledge is centered upon Asia. Geographical proximity and the direct influence to the country are to locate where the periphery of knowledge is.
Another reason why the professor did not know the Tibet was that it is not worth knowing in terms of immediate outcomes which she benefits. It should be compulsory to know at least basic information about Tibet, if her specialty is Political Science. However discussions and lectures during the course were mainly focused on European perspectives, and above all, the struggle for Tibetan hegemony is not on the course texts, it naturally leads teachers and even students to the shy of information. It is true that study of Political Science is the study of European politics; contemporary politics of the globe are based on political ideologies originally from Europe. It is sad but can be justified that the professor did not have a good understanding of Tibet.
Who ever tried to know about Swedish welfare system thirty years ago? Nowadays the welfare apparatus in Sweden is said to be a blue-print of well-being, but before it coming to the blue, who tempted to know the system? Where there is a need, there is an incentive to obtain the knowledge. How far does our periphery of knowledge widen? That is depending on what we want to know.
What kind of topic are Japanese interested in most from the following headlines; non-compliance of policy commitment of a Swedish politician, the US's appeasement policy toward PLO, and the fall of Japanese tycoon, Takafumi Horie. My answer would be the last, hope the other Japanese agree to my choice. Starting from domestic news, what expected next is news on the neighborhoods. In Japanese case what they might concern other than Japan are secondly the incidents and happenings around Asia; thinking of China, both South and North Korea for instance. They are the countries which are geographically close and may immediately affect Japan in several aspects such as politics and economy. That is one of factors why Japanese knowledge is centered upon Asia. Geographical proximity and the direct influence to the country are to locate where the periphery of knowledge is.
Another reason why the professor did not know the Tibet was that it is not worth knowing in terms of immediate outcomes which she benefits. It should be compulsory to know at least basic information about Tibet, if her specialty is Political Science. However discussions and lectures during the course were mainly focused on European perspectives, and above all, the struggle for Tibetan hegemony is not on the course texts, it naturally leads teachers and even students to the shy of information. It is true that study of Political Science is the study of European politics; contemporary politics of the globe are based on political ideologies originally from Europe. It is sad but can be justified that the professor did not have a good understanding of Tibet.
Who ever tried to know about Swedish welfare system thirty years ago? Nowadays the welfare apparatus in Sweden is said to be a blue-print of well-being, but before it coming to the blue, who tempted to know the system? Where there is a need, there is an incentive to obtain the knowledge. How far does our periphery of knowledge widen? That is depending on what we want to know.
