Asianismen im 20. Jahrhundert - Asien als Bezugspunkt der (Neu-)definition von Räumen, Identitäten und Machtordnungen
Final Report Abstract
From the above, it appears that it is difficult to generalize. Asianisms were employed by various actors at various moments in time for specific purposes. As definitions of the concept `Asia` are instable, they can easily be used to signify rivaling agendas. The most explicit and frequent contradiction regarding differing conceptions of `Asia` refers to the tensions between regionalist and nationalist agendas. In most Asian countries under research, nationalist conceptions of `Asia` played an important role in public political discourse, either as the main narrative (“from above”) or as the counter-narrative to be overcome (“from below”). The main aim of Asianist discourses was to envisage an Asia as an interconnected and independent continent. This continent encompassed, in the first half of the 20th century, East, Southeast and South Asia. In the post-world war two decades, it gradually extended to Western Asia. In the first half of the 20th century, Asianist discourses served two main objectives: they challenged images of inferiority to the ‘West’, and they legitimized Japanese Imperial ambitions. Both objectives served to focus attention on the power asymmetry between the ‘West’ and Asia and were meant to deflect power asymmetries between different Asian countries. Nationalisms emerged in the context of nation building, anti-colonialism, decolonization and the Cold War, and they continuously undermined ideals of an Asian integration. In more present times, civil society groups seek to overcome tensions and rivalries that are based on national divisions. But they tend to avoid controversies that may increase conflict. This strategy, however, is also political in nature and constitutes yet another dimension of history politics. Of course, history politics are not absent from the discourses of political decision-makers and government-funded think tanks. But here, discourse on Asia remain closely linked to national(ist) agendas; that of the “peaceful rise of China” to its assumed rightful place as a regional and global world power, of Korean unification and mediation in East Asia, and of Japanese revisionism of the post-World War Two order and its fear of China as Asia`s next leader. The research group is convinced that ‘Asianisms’ continue to be a fertile field of historical enquiry. As one example of an interest of a wider public we point to a long review of one of our early publications on the topic (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 29 July 2009), which featured the special issue of the journal Comparativ (Leipzip 2009) on ‘Asianisms’. Projects such as our one as well as future projects on Asianisms face the challenge to do research about a multi-cultural and multi-lingual large region. We have been happy to assemble scholars who were not only fluent in a number of European languages but also in Japanese, Chinese and Korean. With the assistance of student assistants, we could also translate Indonesian and Thai language publications. This points to a vital characteristics of this and possibly other projects: joint research can be truly rewarding.
Publications
- “Remembering or overcoming the past? ‘History politics’, Asian identity, and Visions of an East Asian Community", in: Asian Regional Integration Review, 3 (2011), 39-55
Torsten Weber
- “Die Gegenwart der Vergangenheit in Ostasien: Das Nanking-Massaker als chinesisch-japanisches Geschichtsproblem“, in: Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 7/8 (2012), 402-419
Torsten Weber
- “The Fourth Asian Games (Jakarta 1962) in a Transnational Perspective: Japanese and Indian Reactions to Indonesia’s Political Instrumentalisation of the Games.” In: International Journal of the History of Sport 29.9, 2012, 1295-1310
Stefan Hübner
- „Wer und was spricht für „Großasien“? Chancen und Grenzen eines transnationalen Diskurses im Interbellum Ostasiens, 1919-1931“, in: Sönke Kunkel/Christoph Meyer, eds., Dimensionen des Aufbruches: Die 1920er und 1930er Jahre als Experimentierfeld des 20. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt: Campus 2012, 145-167
Torsten Weber
