lead the panel to discuss and share the vision with Professor Wang 's
proposition for "an attempt to break through 21st-century 'new
empire ' order and its logic." In the third presentation, Mr. Goenawan
Mohamad, discussed Asia as "a concept by which we measure ourpain," and introduced accounts of contradictions in Indonesianhistory accompanied by a delicate historical analysis. This perceptionof"pain" resonated with Professor Sakai's keynote speech, and led robear fruit during the panel discussion which in part examined therepresentation of "Asia in pain ."To feel the "pain" in "Asia" that is two-sided, "liberated" and"dominated," gave hint to illuminating the many "Asias" that wereexcluded from the schematism of"co-figuration." There were several
cases in Sessions II and III that also responded to this idea of "themany Asias in pain." Although this pain may not be relieved, if webecome aware of it, we could at least be sensitive to the risk ofvictimizing Asia again.

Koizumi Shinya
I participated in Session I to discuss the concept of "Asia" andthe historical process of its making. My prediction -that "Asia isdiverse," therefore, the word "Asia" will not be able to explain
anything -was half right and half wrong.

Professor Wang Hui asserted that there is no real discussion on
the topic of Asia in China. He examined the case on Asia in ahistorical context, and led to discussing the "tributary system," which
he raised as an example to describe an Asia that could be explained
from a historical perspective of Western modernity. Although thetributary system was more than a simple center-margin relationship,from the view of the modern European international treaty system,
even Hegel saw Asia as a state of standing still. It was an eye-opening
experience for me to realize that such ideas originated in theories ofJapanese historians in the 1940s.
Mr. Mohamad's Indonesian perspective on "Asia" and its pain
were equally inspiring. His remark on how the "Asian image" thatemerged from the Russo-Japanese War was not normative but
performative is remarkably comparable to that of Okakura Kakuzo, a434

Panelists'Comments

Japanese contemporary. Also , Theosophical Society's involvement indisseminating an expressive Asia, based on the Tagore 's recognition of"uniquness of Asian cultural inheritance," was new knowledge for me.
I was particularly reminded by how the Society's core identity was"Asia chat was discovered by che West." I would imagine chat,
together with Italian educationalist Moncesorri's deep involvementwith India in her lacer years, che society in Boston with which
Okakura had close association was familiar with, if not influenced by,che Society's movement. The face chat the Theosophical Society inIndonesia welcomed Japanese invasion of Indonesia strikes a chordwith how Okakura's ideas were received during chat particular period,
as well as what the relationship between che Nazis and the German
Theosophical Society was like at the time.
Ac che plenary session, Mr. Mizusawa pointed out, throughexamples of Hider's "Encarcece Kunst (Degenerate Arc)" and "Great
German Arc" exhibitions chat modernism itself entails an aspect oftotalitarianism. Mr. Mohamad responded by asserting chat in "the arc
in che realm of ideas, there is always a perpetual production of elite"
and chat "identity is a form which is basically a group phenomena,"
and co which we muse at times respect differences. While I waslistening co chis comment, I thought of Okakura who pitied himself
in a love letter he wrote in his lacer years.

Wang Hui
Although China is an Asian country, discussions about Asia havenot been so common in China. When I was writing my paper, thequestion chat haunted my mind was why China seems co have kept its
silence on chis issue. In my speech at the conference, I presented
several possible answers co these questions as follows. First, Asia, as aconcept, or a recognized resource, was a produce of the 19th century.
During chat period, che Chinese scholars were moscly under che
influence of China-West dualism. Second, the evolution of China inmodern times, especially in the 20th century, was brought about bysocial revolution. Notions such as class, nation, and internationalism
as well were given much more importance than chat of Asia during
the development of modern identity. In Mao Zedong times, chePanelists' Comments 435

significance of Asia, Africa, and Latin America lay in their position
within the imperialist period, rather than on each of their own historyand culture . Third, the development of Asia as a concept had been
curbed when the Japanese colonialism expanded into other areas ofAsia (including China) in the name of"Greater Far East Coprosperity Sphere" since the late 19th century, particularly in the firstpart of 20th century. The new emerging "Asian Identity" was thus
gradually strangled. Fourth , modern ideologies in China have been
inevitably imprinted with the "Western-centrism," as demonstrated
by "Chinese-centrism." Within this framework, communications
between Asian countries were neglected. One point to be added tothis, is that the Asian countries were isolated from each other largely
because they were divided into two worlds by the hegemonic power
during the Cold War period. Such a postwar world condition is still
exerting its influence upon the relations between Asian countries.
Therefore, residues of the Cold War and colonialism and neocolonialism in any forms should be eliminated before we can discuss
the issue of Asia.
The symposium in Tokyo was a forum which triggered off thedebate over this issue. Exchanges within Asia will have profound
impact on our societies. The "Under Construction" exhibition
presented us a lively picture of the artistic field of Asia. In China,
discussions about Asia are just on its way, which I believe will not
only contribute a lot to he growth of the new self-identity of China in
our own minds, but also urge the Chinese scholars to give genuine
attention to other societies in Asia. Nation-state should not become
the obstacle to the free communications between us. I sincerely hopethat the discussion about Asia can be associated with art, social
movements , knowledge-building , and other concrete social exchanges.

Goenawan Mohamad
The question "What is Asia," like that of "What is the Orient,"
has been debated for many years -especially since the publication of

Edward Said's seminal work, Orientalism. I started to plan my paperwith difficulty, believing that everything has been said before. I waschinking of dealing the question by linking it to issues on aesthetics

436

Panelists· Comments

and policies (to make it more relevant to the focus of the event, which
was the visual arcs exhibition, "Under Construction"). Bue to myregret, I had problems doing my research to make a presentable paperon "Asia," aesthetics and policies. Hence, my decision to relate thetopics with issues of modernity in Indonesia.
To my delight, the symposium was much better than I thought itwould be. You had papers dealing with the arcs, and I learned a lot
from them. The panelists were excellent. The only problem was theaudience. This has always been a dilemma . When you want a large
audience (and you miraculously got it), you will have people with too
different levels of information about the issue with a very limited time
to participate.

Yoshimi Shunya
This symposium was able to explore the ambiguous possibility ofrepresenting/ exhibiting "Asia" and provide us with a more solid andcomplex insight into this subject, as we discussed it in the context ofhistorical process of moving from colonialism under Western powers
towards Japanese imperialistic invasion, and also in the context ofcurrent globalization, in which the cross-border movement of capital,culture, and representation is accelerating. For example, in Session I,
Goenawan Mohamad vividly portrayed the process of howIndonesian gaze towards "Asia" emerged among the Indonesian
intellectuals through their experience of objectifying themselves as"ochers" under Dutch colonial rule. He also referred to how they
developed desires toward Japan and India and, through this process,came to accept Japanese imperialism. We examined how discourses
on colonialism and orientalism were reversed, repeated, and eaten
away. So, who and how has "Asia" been represented or not
represented in the context of modernity? What kind of contorted
relationship with postcolonialism I nationalism, or Cold War/ global
capitalism discourses has chis brought about as consequence?
Profound and perceptive questions were posed on such complex andmultilateral relationship between "modernity" and "Asia."
In looking back at Sessions II and III, in which I participated asmoderator, we were able to question how Asia is currently represented

Panelists'Comments 437

and exhibited in the political framework of representational sire, byreferring to examples of arr exhibitions , biennials, and triennials in
Session II, and in film and performance arr, as we extended ourvantage point in Session III . Lee Yong Woo, Tarehara Akira, andDavid Elliott presented their views based on their experiences as theydescribed the complicat ed conditions under which "Asia" has been
exhibited and how opportunities to exhibit Asian arc in a
mulciculcural context has been increasing. Hence, the following topics
were brought under incense review: proliferation of arc events in theglobalizing process and the possibility of their introducing a new
approach to challenge the status quo in the arc world, while at thesame time, caking pare in global capitalism and national strategies; orthe proliferation of multicultural arc exhibit and its effect ofundermining Western-centric perspective on arc chat could lead topromoting decontexcualization of globalism in turn.
I chink I was able to gain from the rwo-day symposium which
provided a high-level, as well as specific and actual accounts on theissues chat led to an intense discussion.

Lee Yong Woo
The Significance of a Broader Discourse on Identity
It is uncommon chat arc and social science meet for a discussion
on the same topic in the same place. The subject of identity deserves
not less, for it is worthy of only the most vibrant discussion.
What is important to the frontiers of identity is a homogeneous
race chat emphasizes its different homogeneous groups. Yee thefrontiers of identity, until now, have been nationally defined. There
have been no successful cases of che identity of a country or people
imposing itself on a continent . If the territorial limits of identity weretransferable from che concept of the nation , the people , the society,and the individual to the continent, what would its significance be?
Would political tensions around che word "identity " continue if
discussions were now centered not on che identity of Korea or Japan,
but on the identity of Asia? Would it still be valuable to talk about
the homogeneity of the identity of certain geography, religion, race,or people?

4]8Panelists·Comments

The symposium, "Asia in Transition: Representation andIdentity," organized by the Japan Foundation Asia Center, is a rarecase of extending the limits of the discourse on the identity of apeople or a national concept, a language or a racial concept co asplendid discussion on Asia. Ic has started an important momentum
that confirms chat such discussion can be empathetic and productive .
Thi s symposium and che exhibition, also organized by che JapanFoundation Asia Center to coincide with the symposium , will be an
important document, one that proposes responses to the problems ofthe national, and che international, and future identity.

As an arc critic and a specialise in the human sciences, I haveparticipated in quite a few discussions on identity . This time,
however, I felt that something very different was going on . Previous
discussions were serious yet, in all honesty, a foregone conclusion.
They were a resume of che past. This time, we asked ourselves
questions: Are all Asians the same? Does the Asian continent, with its
three billion people living in different cultures, have a homogeneous
history? On che one hand, these questions are insignificant, and , on
the ocher hand, we hypothesize chat discourses on identity can now
unite che planet. We need co keep hypothesizing and asking thesequestions. Together with a broader and more concrete dialogue, it's
important co hypothesize on che history of race and cul cure in Asia.

Tatehata Akira
I have found chis symposium most productive among the several
symposia organized by che Japan Foundation Asia Center in che past
decade (the first one was organized under the Center's former name,
ASEAN Culcure Center), in which I participated as both a panelist
and an audience. This is more so because after several discussions
among panelists of visual arts researchers, curators, and artists,
including myself, the discussion reached a stage where the issues
raised became rather repetitive . I would say that we were unable counravel ourselves from che dichocomic scheme, when discussing
different concepts of art or perception on modernism between che
West and che Ease.
In chis symposium , we had professionals from the areas of film,

Panelists'Comments 439

held that there could not now, or ever, be a single 'correct' definitionof Asia -no more than there could be such a definition of Europe orof America.
And this for the very good reason that regional cultural identities
are, like all identities, shaped in the context of their relations to one
another -which means that they are incessantly re-shaped, given

new dimensions and meanings, since those relations themselves are ina process of constant change and flux. What Asia is now depends, inpart, on how, in the myriad practices of representation through which
identities are organised, its relationships to Europe are depicted but, since Europe is not now what it once was, particularly in thecontext of current debates about the enlargement of the EuropeanUnion, it is unable to furnish a fixed point of reference against whicha single and fixed Asian identity might be constructed.
Yet I had some sympathy with the person who put the question.
For if the central message of the symposium was that identities haveto be seen in the context of their ongoing dialogic and mutuallyinteractive relations with one another, the actual way in which thesymposium was conducted suggested something quite different. For,over two days in which long presentations squeezed the time available
for questions to a bare minimum, and in which dialogue between
speakers and the audience was minimised through the screening ofwritten questions by the panel chairs, there was very little evidence
that the roles and identities of speakers and listeners might themselves
become more fluid, interactive and dialogic.
Perhaps, then, the theme of the symposium might have been
better conveyed had there not been such a clash between what
Marshall McLuhan would have called the message and its medium .

David Elliott
The "Asia in Transition" symposium benefited from theincorporation of a broader range of disciplines which included
history, sociology and cultural studies -however inevitably (with theexception of the keynote) the focus on what constituted Asia wasdirected on Eastern Asia, India (a little) and South East Asia asrepresented by Indonesia. This was even more restricted that thePanelists'Comments 441