Reports of Members’ Activities

International Symposium: Commonality and Regionality
in the Cultural Heritage of East Asia
MASUDA Chikako*

The international symposium Commonality and Regionality in the Cultural
Heritage of East Asia was held at Barnard College from May 9 to 10, 2009.
Hosts of the event included Barnard College’s Department of Asian andMiddle Eastern Cultures, Columbia University’s Department of East Asian
Languages and Cultures, and Kansai University’s Institute for Cultural
Interaction Studies. Sponsors included the Donald Keene Center of Japanese
Culture at Columbia University, the International Shinto Foundation, theInstitute for Japanese Culture Studies at Zhejiang Gongshang University, andmany other institutions.
The various peoples of East Asia have interacted over an extensive periodof time, creating a cultural heritage with common aspects and regional differences. The conference examined these attributes from a multidimensional
academic perspective. The conference brought together scholars interested in
the East Asian cultural sphere from Japan, the United States, China, Taiwan,
Canada, Great Britain, Korea, Italy, and other countries of the world. The
languages used as media of communication were Japanese and English. About
eighty people participated in the two-day event. The following is a briefsummary of the conference.
In the first keynote-speech session, Benjamin Elman of Princeton
University gave the keynote speech “Sinophiles and Sinophobes: Politics,Classicism, and Medicine in Tokugawa Japan.” Kate Wildman Nakai ofSophia University served as commentator. Professor Elman explained thevarious complex aspects of Sino-Japanese relations in the Meiji period,* Kansai University

106

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.1 2010

including how the adoption of Chinese medicine in Japan provided further
impetus for Japanese interest in Dutch Learning and early modern Westernmedicine. The second speaker of the first keynote-speech session was Huang
Chun-chieh of Taiwan University, who discussed “The ‘Contextual Turn’ inthe Interpretation of the Canon of Chinese Classics within the History of East
Asian Cultural Exchange: Models and Questions.” Conrad Schirokauer ofColumbia University served as commentator. Professor Huang discussed reinterpretations of the Chinese classical canon when transmitted to othercultures, focusing on how interpretations caused resistance when thoughts andvalues came into contact with other cultures, evolved, and produced newinterpretations.
Two panel discussions were also held on the first day of the conference.
The first panel was on sharing language. David Laurie of Columbia
University served as moderator. There were four panel members. Aldo Tollini
of Ca’Foscari University in Venice gave a talk titled “Chinese Linguistic
Heritage in Japan.” Chen Xiaofa of Zhejiang Gonghshang University spokeon “Homographs with Different Meaning: Chinese and Japanese Expressions
in Sakugen Shūryō’s Travel Diary to Ming China.” Masuda Chikako ofKansai University discussed “East Asia in Early Modern and ModernJapanese Literature.” And Timothy John Wixted of Arizona State Universityspoke on “The Kanshi [Chinese Poetry] of Mori Ōgai: Allusion and Diction.”
Members of the panel thus discussed issues that arise when divergent
language structures and lexicons cross borders, the modification and creationof Chinese characters by the Japanese, and the influence of Chinese literature
on Japanese writers during the Meiji and Showa periods and authors’ personalrevolutions.
The second panel was on sharing Buddhism. The moderator was Michael
Como of Columbia University. There were three panel members. Wang Yongof Zhejiang Gongshang University spoke on the “Monk Jianzhen and the Cultof Buddhist Relics.” Abe Ryūichi of Harvard University gave his talk on“What Five Chinese Portraits Did in Early Heian Japan.” And Yoshihara
Hiroto of Waseda University presented a talk titled “About Chōnen’s Letter toEmperor Taizong of the Song Preserved in the ‘Japan’ Section of the Historyof the Song.” This panel thus took up the riddle of the monk Jianzhen’smission to Japan, the historical background and significance of ritual performance, and cultural interaction as seen in the Japan section of the History ofthe Song. Questions and answers covered the issue of whether cultural transformations are affected by the level of education and cultivation of culture.
The lively discussion developed along interesting lines.
The roundtable discussion was moderated by Wang Yong of Zhejiang
Gongshang University. There were five participants. Song Xingwu ofReports of Members’ Activities

107

Zhejiang Gongshang
University discussed holism
and individualism in ancient
China. Noma Haruo ofKansai University talked
about Hue from a periphery
approach. Kumano Takeshiof Kansai University spokeon the UNESCO world
heritage site in Ifugao. Jun
Sung-kon of Korea
University gave a presentation on discussing regionality and commonality in East Asia. And Xiao Xia ofShandong University discussed romanticism in the Cao Yu’s Tuibian (TheMetamorphosis) and the author’s gaze. The efforts of members of Kansai
University’s Institute for Cultural Interaction Studies who have focused on theperiphery-area project in Hue, Vietnam, were reflected in the panel discussion
presented by Kansai University. Panel members discussed the state of East
Asian cultural interaction in the region of Hue, which has been recognized asa world heritage site. The Kansai University team is involved in the analysisof important new Hue manuscript discoveries, which are becoming a globaltopic.
On the second day of the conference, May 10, there was a second keynotespeech session. Peter Kornicki of Cambridge University discussed“Translation, Vernacularization, and the Loss of Universality in East Asia.”
The commentator was Haruo Shirane of Columbia University. In his discussion of the impact of translation upon the process of vernacularization and thegradual disappearance of commonality, Professor Kornicki examined conduct
books for women and Buddhist texts.
The second speaker of the session was Professor Shen Guowei of Kansai
University. His topic was titled “New Wisdom from Scholars of Dutch
Studies and Protestant Missionaries: The Potential of Kanji for the Receptionof Foreign Culture.” The commentator was Wang Chun of Zhejiang
University. Professor Shen gave examples from dictionaries and encyclopedias written by Robert Morrison and Matteo Ricci. He explained the processof recognizing new concepts and the difficulties of symbolic representation in
the transmission of knowledge and reception of foreign culture. He also
examined the importance of a common writing system of Chinese charactersin the East Asian cultural sphere.
Two panel discussions on May 10 were a continuation of the first twopanel discussions of the previous day. The third panel discussion focused on

108

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.1 2010

the sharing of classics. The moderator was Li Feng of Columbia University.
There were four speakers. Kōno Kimiko of Waseda University gave a talktitled “Legacy and Development of the Canon of Chinese Classics: Receptionof the Classic of Changes in Ancient Japan.” Wiebke Denecke of Barnard
College presented “Academic Exercises: Digesting the Chinese Classics on
Poetic Occasions in Ancient Japan.” Kate Wildman Nakai of Sophia
University spoke on “The Vicissitudes of Kings Tang and Wu in TokugawaJapan.” And Joshua Fogel of York University in Canada discussed “The Gold
Seal and the Debate in the Late Edo Period.” Panel discussions thus ranged
from the Japanese reception of the Classic of Changes, Japanese poems ontopics from the Chinese classics, the evolution of Confucianism in Japan, andthe debate in Edo Japan on the gold seal given by the Han emperor Guangwu
to the king of Na in 57 C.E.
The fourth-panel members’ discussions centered on shared perceptions oftaste. The moderator was Sen Sōoku, tea master and fifteenth-generation heirto the Mushakōji Senke School of Tea and special advisor for culturalexchange, 2008–2009. There were three participants. Kuriyama Shigehisa ofHarvard University spoke on “East Asia and the Archaeology of ModernTaste.” Zhang Jianli of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences discussed“The Way of Tea and the Tea Ceremony in East Asia.” And Matthew
McKelway of Columbia University talked about “Yang Guifei in Japan: The
Visual Afterlives of a Tang Romance.” This panel thus delved into the originsof culinary taste preferences in East Asia, the common cultural heritage of tea,and the representation of a Chinese consort in Japanese painting.
The symposium thus covered a variety of genres, from language, literature,philosophy, history, the visual arts, and the arts in general to religion, cultural
anthropology, geography, and culture. It also ranged over a vast temporalspan, encompassing ancient to early modern times. The conference provided
significant insights into the processes of transmission and reception of culture
and the ensuing cultural transformations and formulations. Hence, participants
could deepen their understanding of the commonalities in East Asian culturalinteractions. The symposium will serve as an important springboard for thesecond annual meeting of the Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia.

Reports of Members’ Activities

109

Report on the International Convention ofAsia Scholars 6KIMURA Mizuka*

ICAS 6: The Largest Gathering of Asia Scholars

The International Convention of Asia Scholars 6 (ICAS 6) was successfully held in Daejeon, South Korea, from August 6 to 9, 2009. The conference proved to be one of the largest gatherings of Asia scholars to update onand discuss developments in the field. ICAS 6 was made possible through theefforts of Chungnam National University, the Center for Asian Regional
Studies, and the city of Daejeon. Daejon was the ideal venue for ICAS 6,
since it merges culture, tradition, and a long colorful history with leading
research in science and technology.
First held in 1998 in Leiden, Netherlands, ICAS was organized to createa transatlantic dialogue between the Association for Asian Studies (AAS), inthe United States, and the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS), inEurope. From the Netherlands it went to Berlin in 2001, Singapore in 2003,
Shanghai in 2005, and Kuala Lumpur in 2007. Attracting delegates andparticipants from more than fifty countries in 2009, ICAS has indeed come along way.
One of the goals of this convention is to transcend boundaries of disciplines, nation-states, and citizenship. The interests of ICAS are similar to
those of the Institute for Cultural Interaction Studies (ICIS) of KansaiUniversity.
This year’s overarching theme was “Think Asia!” ICAS 6 boasted a totalof 178 sessions on various multidisciplinary topics. Subthemes ranged from
“Security Issues in Asia,” “Gender and Globalization,” “Labor Migration,”and “Russian-Japanese Relations and East Asia,” to “Aspects of Islam,”“Colonialism in Asia,” and “Manga Studies.” Because of the great number ofconcurrent panels and sessions, it was impossible to attend even a tenth ofthem. This report presents some of sessions that I attended during the conference.

* Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University

110

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.1 2010

Sessions on Cultural Interaction

Of particular interest to me was the phenomenon of cultural hybridity on
the interface of diverse cultures. The session titled “Northeast Asia in Motion:
The Social and Cultural Dimensions of Regional Migration” presented several
aspects of migrant literature. The panel convened by Tessa Morris-Suzuki, aprominent Australian social historian, discussed how migrant identities areconstructed and changed through expression in literature. The panel titled“The Embedding of Asian and Muslim Migrants in Asia and the West,”
presented by graduate students, reported on the cultural dimension of migration. Notable presentations in this panel were that of Zai-Nichi Korean(Korean residents of Japan) and of Hmong migrants in the U.S. Both studies
utilized comprehensive fieldwork to analyze the interaction of different
cultures on the level of individuals. They also illustrated the variety of hybrid
identities formed by immigrants living in host societies. In the panel “Family,Hybridity, and National Identity in the Malaysian Region,” three cases ofChinese and Indian migrant families in Malaysia were discussed. The presentations demonstrated the hybrid dispositions of migrant families in the political, cultural, and social spheres. The papers presented in these sessions
reflect the very core of the program of the Institute for Cultural Interaction
Studies: understanding cultural interactions in East Asia.

The ICIS Panel: The Potentiality of the Peripheral Approach“The Potentiality of the Peripheral Approach in the Study of CulturalInteraction in East Asia,” the institution panel of the ICIS, presented perspectives in the analysis of various dimensions of cultural interaction, in particular, cultural interaction between the center and periphery, as well as therelationship between the center and periphery. The peripheral approach is afeatured project of the ICIS program. It focuses on cultures formerly recognized as peripheral and aims at breaking away from history focused on theindividual nation. Though striking, it is still an emerging approach.
Before the presentation proper, Yoshiko Oda, the panel chair, introduced
the basic plan of the session. The session sought to highlight different interdisciplinary fields, such as Chinese history, anthropology, and religious
studies. Since the term “periphery” has various meanings in terms of relationships between self and others, she then presented key concepts foranalyzing these relationships, including nation-states and pre-nation-states, thestrategy of the periphery, and the periphery as represented by the other. Next
she emphasized that “periphery” is always defined in relation to the center orthe imagined center. Finally, she noted that by pursuing existing issues, wecan transcend history focused on the individual nation.
The panel showcased four interesting papers. Takao Fujita investigatedReports of Members’ Activities111

the cultural and political strategies of an artificial immigrant community along
the Hexi Corridor of the Gansu province during the Han dynasty. The essenceof his presentation was that immigrants along the Hexi Corridor preferred tomaintain prominent peripheral position, and to depend on the central HanDynasty, to preserve ties with the center. A paper by Hiromichi Okamoto
analyzed the formation of the Ryukyu Kingdom. Along with changes in tradecommodities in both external and internal societies, Ryukyu maintained aperipheral position as a dual tributary state to both China and Japan.
Hideyuki Onishi examined the cultural transformation of the Ainu in
Hokkaido under Japanese colonization. Under Japanese colonial policy, theAinu in the Kamikawa Basin were removed from their original habitat andresettled on reservations without the consideration of their subethnicities. Asa result, their important rituals were entirely transformed. Finally, Mizuka
Kimura studied identity formation in Chinese Muslims in Myanmar. One
notable phenomenon of these Chinese Muslims is that they inscribe on theirtombstones Panglong, a place in Myanmar, as their native town, though theyrecognize that they came from Yunnan province.
After each presentation, scholars of various disciplines but with commoninterests participated in healthy discussions. Not only did the panel presentation highlight the endeavor of the Institute for Cultural Interaction Studies; italso facilitated building and broadening connections among fellow Asia
scholars during the event. The panel presentation was a wonderful addition tothe laurels of the Institute for Cultural Interaction Studies, and the conference
overall was a great success.