冷战后，美国学界对日本安全政策是否发生质的变化展开了争论。20世纪90年代中期，社会建构主义学者对日本“反军国主义文化”的研究略占上风。他们指出，冷战后的日本安全政策在“反军国主义文化”的制约下不会发生质的变化。21世纪以来，新现实主义与制度自由主义的研究成为主流：前者认为，由于安全环境的变化，日本走向“正常化军事大国”的道路不可避免；后者指出，日本在安全态度上转向“国际主义”，美国可以利用其在军事方面的主动性深化美日同盟关系。美国学界还着重从文化规范、公共舆论、选举体制、政党政治、政治体制等视角，探讨日本安全政策变化的根源。美国学界对日本安全政策变化的研究呈现路径多元、视角丰富等特点，但也存在陷入范式之争、忽视政治势力对公共舆论的逆向影响等诸多不足。总体而言，出于为自身战略利益服务的“实用主义”立场，并受缚于日本财力的支持，美国学界的研究缺乏全面的历史观，且受价值观的影响颇深。%After the Cold War,American academic circle debates whether Japan’s security policy has un-dertaken an essential change.In middle 1990s,the study on“anti-militarism culture”by social construc-tivists prevailed.The study shows that Japan’s security policy has not changed in essence under the con-straint of“anti-militarism culture”.In the 21st century,neo-realism and liberal institutionalism hit the mainstream:the former believes that Japan will become a normal military power because of the changing se-curity environment;the latter points out that Japan turns to“internationalism”in security policy,so the U-nited States should deepen its alliance relationship with Japan.American academia tries to explore the roots of Japan’s changing security policy from Japan’s cultural norms,public opinion,election system,party politics and political system,making Japanese security policy study more stereoscopic and structured.Yet the studies also have some defects such as falling into paradigmatic debates and neglecting the interaction between political forces and public opinion.After all,because of the position of pragmatism to support its strategic interests and being restricted by the support of Japanese foundations,American academia lacks comprehensive historical views and is influenced by American values.
展开▼
