Articles
On Decontextualization and Recontextualization in
East Asian Cultural Interactions:
Some Methodological Reflections
HUANG Chun-chieh*

Abstract
In the history of cultural interaction in East Asia, decontextualization andrecontextualization can readily be observed in the exchanges of texts, people,
and ideas among the different regions. When a text, person, or idea is transmitted from its home country into another country, it is first decontextualized
and then recontextualized into the new cultural environment. These processesof decontextualization and recontextualization I refer to as “a contextual
turn.” The present paper discusses methodological problems involved in the
study of decontextualization and recontextualization.
Section 1 introduces the paper. Section 2 then clarifies that “East Asia” isnot an abstract term ranging over the countries of China, Japan, Korea, andVietnam, but rather refers to the dynamic, real process of concrete culturalinteractions among these living cultures. On the dramatic stage of these interactions, China plays the role of the significant other to the many other actors.
China is certainly not the sole conductor of the symphony of East Asia.
Section 3 shows that the methodology of the history of ideas can be used
when studying the phenomena of decontextualization. But one can easily
become ensnared in what I call “the blind spot of textualism.” Section 4
provides an analytic discussion of an effective methodology for studying
recontextualization that involves looking at the concrete exchange of texts,
people, and ideas against a specific historical background, and then highlighting the subjective emotions of the intermediate agents in these cultural
exchanges as the agents navigate the processes of decontextualization andrecontextualization.
This paper concludes by stressing that East Asian cultural interactions are
dynamic processes and not static structures. Therefore, in our study of thehistory of cultural interactions in East Asia, we must seek a dynamic equilibrium between textualism and contextualism, as well as between fact and value
or emotion.
Key words: contextual turn, decontextualization, recontextualization,
East Asia, China, history of ideas, textualism, contextualism	  * National Chair Professer, National Taiwan University

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 20138

1

Introduction

In the intimate exchange of people, ideas, faiths, and texts among thevarious countries of the East Asian cultural region, we commonly observe
contextual turns. For example, many ideas and texts may originally be
produced in one country (e.g., China) and are then transmitted to anothercountry (e.g., Japan or Korea). Upon reception, they are decontextualized,
since they are now outside of their native sociocultural setting. As they arerecontextualized into the cultural-intellectual milieu of the receiving country,
they are then infused with new meaning.1 After undergoing this contextual
turn, these transmitted people, ideas, faiths, and texts receive new meaning
and also bear new values.
In studying such a contextual turn in the history of cultural interactions
in East Asia, the most effective method is to shift one’s focus from the results
to the process of such cultural interaction. In this way, the researcher’s focus
can be shifted from static results to the dynamic developments of cultures in
East Asia.2
This change of focus in research from the results to the process of contextualization means that the researcher should engage with texts, ideas, andpeople as they are reflected in the process of cultural exchange, through which
decontextualization and recontextualization are exhibited. Yet in analyzingthese two kinds of phenomena, the researcher must beware of the problems oftextualism and contextualism, and the labyrinthine relationship between facts
and values, in the history of cultural interaction.
This paper aims to explore the research methods and related problems inthe study of such decontextualization and recontextualization, in order betterto understand the relations between text and context, and between fact andvalue, when studying the history of cultural interactions in East Asia.

1 For a discussion of the contextual turn in the history of cultural exchanges
between China and Japan, see Chun-chieh Huang, “On the Contextual Turn in
the Tokugawa Japanese Interpretation of the Confucian Classics: Types andProblems,” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 9, no. 2 (June 2010):
211–223.
2 See Chun-chieh Huang 黃俊傑, Dongya wenhua jiaoliu zhong de rujia jingdian
yu linian: Hudong, zhuanhua yu ronghe 東亞文化交流中的儒家經典與理念：互動、轉化與融合 (Taipei: Taida Chuban Zhongxin, 2010), pp. 3–38; Chun-chieh
Huang, “Some Observations on the Study of the History of Cultural
Interactions in East Asia,” Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia 1(March 2010): 11–35.

On Decontextualization and Recontextualization in East Asian Cultural Interactions 92
2.1

East Asia and China in the History of Cultural Interactions in East
Asia

East Asia as a Synthetic Cultural Body
We can commence our discussion by first considering the term “East Asia”
in the history of cultural interaction in East Asia. Recently, Fujita Takao, an
expert on East-West cultural negotiation, stressed that East Asia should beviewed as a cultural complex.3 At the same, he recommended going beyond
the old nation-centric approach to pioneer the new field of East Asian culturalinteraction. It must be emphasized, however, that the “East Asia” mentioned
in “East Asian cultural complex” is not a static, unchanging geographicalregion. Rather, it signifies the dynamic body of cultural exchange among thecountries of East Asia. Consequently, studies of the history of cultural interaction in East Asia must focus on the process of cultural exchange rather thanon the results that follow from those interactions. For this reason, “East Asia”
should be understood as it actually presents in the course of such exchanges
among constituent East Asian countries, not as an abstract concept ranging
over and above the individual countries.4
2.2

China in the History of Cultural Interaction in East Asia
During the past 2,000 years of cultural interactions in East Asia, Chinatended to play a leading role. We must also note, however, that for the last
several thousand years, cultural interactions in East Asia were a complex
drama, rather than a symphony. In drama, actors play out their individual
roles. So too in the drama of cultural interaction over the past several thousand years, China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam have each gradually establishedtheir own cultural and political subjectivities, which they then play out. In
other words, each East Asian culture first sprouted an essence that then gradually informed its existence. Cultural interaction in East Asia during the past
several thousand years was not like the performance of a symphony, led by
China as the musical conductor. On the contrary, in the process of cultural
exchange, where the cultures of Japan, Korea, and Vietnam formed their own
subjectivities, China was at most a significant other rather than the sole center
directing the performances of the cultures on its periphery.

3 Fujita Takao, “Towards the Creation of East Asian Cultural Interaction Studies,”
Journal of East Asian Cultural Interaction Studies 1 (2008): 9–15.
4 See note 2 above.

10

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

3

The Phenomena and Methodology of Decontextualization in
Cultural Interactions in East Asia

3.1

Decontextualization and the Methodology of the History of Ideas
Having examined the meaning of “East Asia” and “China” in the processof cultural interactions in East Asia, we are now in a position to discuss thefirst process associated with East Asian cultural exchange: decontextualization. “Decontextualization” refers to what happens after elements of culture
produced in one region. These cultural elements can be texts, such as
Confucius’s Analects or the Mencius; concepts, such as the Han-barbarian
distinction, the distinction between humane king and cruel despot, the publicprivate distinction, the concepts of loyalty and filiality; or personages, such as
Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming. In decontextualization, such cultural elements
undergo analysis and assessment by the intelligentsia of the receiving region,
who view these imports (texts, concepts, personages) apart from their originalcontext and meaning, so that these texts, concepts, and personages aredivested of any situatedness in their being accepted, understood, and digestedby that intelligentsia.
Naturally, the research methods for inquiring into decontextualization in
cultural exchange is diverse and multifaceted; no single approach alone isuniversally applicable. In the last century, however, a relatively effective andprominent method was formulated and used by Arthur O. Lovejoy (1873–
1962). His method was called “the history of ideas.” 5
Lovejoy mentioned that while many academic disciplines (such as thehistory of philosophy) are intimately related to ideas, studies in theseacademic disciplines that pursue the methods of the history of ideas would be
more interdisciplinary.6 The most important task in Lovejoy’s history of ideas
was to analyze the evolutionary process of ideas, for example, the impact ofancient thought on modern thought or the impact of philosophical ideas onliterature, art, religion, and social thought. The core task of the history ofideas is interpreting what Lovejoy called “idea units.” Lovejoy compared suchanalysis of idea units to the sort of analysis done by analytic chemists.7
The study of cultural interactions in East Asia presents many concrete
cases of decontextualization suitable for investigation using the analytic
method of the history of ideas. For example, the term zhongguo (central state;
5 Arthur O. Lovejoy, “The Historiography of Ideas,” in his Essays in the Historyof Ideas (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1948), pp. 1–13.
6 Arthur O. Lovejoy, “Reflections on the History of Ideas,” Journal of the Historyof Ideas 1, no. 1 (January 1940): 7.
7 Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of Ideas(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961), pp. 3–23.

On Decontextualization and Recontextualization in East Asian Cultural Interactions 11

contemporary term for China) appears frequently in ancient Chinese classics.
This complex idea can be placed in and analyzed within many idea units,
such as the geographical zhongguo, the political zhongguo, the culturalzhongguo, the intellectual zhongguo, etc. The Book of Odes contains manyreferences to a political and geographical zhongguo. The three commentaries
on the Spring and Autumn Annals—Zuo zhuan, Gongyang zhuan, and Guliang
zhuan—suffuse the term zhongguo with cultural significance and frequently
mention the idea of zhongguo in the context of the Han-barbarian distinction.
In the thought of Confucius and Mencius, the term zhongguo is even moreabundantly endowed with cultural significance. In their texts, zhongguo isused most predominantly in the cultural sense. In the premodern politicalorder of East Asia, zhongguo carries the political connotation of Celestial
Empire (tianxia) and the cultural connotation of a Chinese cultural homeland,thus synthesizing the two idea units of a political and cultural zhongguo.8
Interestingly, this Lovejoyan idea complex for zhongguo (hereafter“central state”) went through new permutations once the Chinese classics
were transmitted to Japan. For example, the seventeenth-century Confucian
scholar Yamaga Sokō 山 鹿 素 行 (1622–1685) decontextualized the idea of acentral state, ridding the political use of the term of its Chinese context byreferring to “our court” ( 中 朝, Japan) as “the central state (zhongguo).” 9
Furthermore, the eighteenth-century scholar Sakuma Taika 佐 久 間 太 華 (d.
1783) used the cultural connotation of “attaining the mean”10 to revise thedefinition of “the central state” and claimed that Japan alone deserved to becalled “the central state.” In the eighteenth century, the Korean ConfucianChŏng Dasan 丁 茶 山 (1762–1836) said, “With the rule of Yu, Shun, Yu, andTang, there was the so-called [political] central state. With the teachings ofConfucius, Yan Hui, Zisi, and Mencius, there was the so-called [culturalethical] central state. Where is this so-called central state today?”11 He thus
synthesized the idea of a cultural central state with the ideas of a geographical and political central state. The above account of the idea of zhongguo in
8 Chun-chieh Huang, “The Idea of ‘Zhongguo’ and Its Transformation in Early
Modern Japan and Contemporary Taiwan,” Journal of Kanbun Studies in Japan
2 (March 2007): 398–408.
9 Yamaga Sokō 山鹿素行, Chūchō jijitsu 中朝事實. In Hirose Naruse 廣瀨豐, ed.,
Yamaga Sokō zenshū 山鹿素行全集 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1942), vol. 13, bk.
1, p. 234.
10 Sakuma Taika 佐久間太華, Wakan meiben 和漢明辨, in Nibon julin sōsho 日本
儒林叢書 (Tokyo: Hō Shuppan, 1978), vol. 4, “Disputations,” “Preface,” p. 1.
11 Chŏng Yakyong 丁若鏞, Yŏyudang chŏnsŏ 與猶堂全書 (Seoul: Minjok Munhwa
Mungo, 2001), vol. 13, pp. 393–394. [Au: I don’t know Korean. Please checkthat romanization is correct.]12

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

the history of cultural exchange in East Asia shows the decontextualization
process that this idea went through in Tokugawa Japan and later in eighteenth-century Chosŏn Korea. This example offers a vivid illustration of theapplicability of Lovejoy’s methodology for analyzing idea units in different
contexts.
By applying Lovejoy’s methodology, we can examine whether the ideaof the central state stressed the idea unit of a geographical, political, or
cultural central state in the minds of Tokugawa Japanese and Chosŏn Korean
intellectuals and officials. Moreover, we can consider whether, in using theterm zhongguo, they were using one, two, or several of these constituent idea
units in their discourses. We need to ask: At what time and place and underwhat conditions was the term used, and by whom? Was the term zhongguo
being used in the process of decontextualization or as its product?
3.2

Limitations of the Method of the History of Ideas
The method of the history of ideas regards systems of thought as integrated
idea complexes of idea units. For this reason, it is applicable in studying
decontextualization in cultural exchange, and for analyzing how the culture orideas of a particular region can have their original meanings set aside andnew meanings added within idea systems.
However, this method also suffers from a serious limitation. That is, it
tends to be focused on independently formed and evolved intellectual
systems, apart from the impact of external social, political, or economic
factors. The development of many thoughts and concepts led to the formationof a “great chain of being.”12 This method is based on a tacit hypothesis
about human nature, namely, that human beings can transcend the world andexist independently of their environment. Consequently, it assumes that there
need not be any relationship between human concept formation and development, and the world. Such a hypothesis about human nature cannot lead to anunderstanding of the real world of human affairs, and thus has a number ofserious blind spots.
This sort of methodological limitation becomes apparent in the study ofcultural interactions in East Asia. In the history of East Asian cultural interaction, intermediate agents, such as intellectuals and officials, were carriers ofConfucian values. At a minimum, what they absorbed was a practical familyand community-centered Confucian ethics, and they regarded the commonsocial welfare as their aim.13 These intermediate agents shuttled around East

12 See note 7 above.
13 For a recent discussion of Neo-Confucian ethics, see David Wong, “Rights andCommunity in Confucianism,” in Kwong-loi Shun and David Wong, eds.,

On Decontextualization and Recontextualization in East Asian Cultural Interactions 13

Asia reciting passages from the classics, particularly those calling for the
management or even saving of the world. The classics were not regarded aslofty, elegant texts beyond common human affairs, and the values andconcepts being exchanged were not seen as cold intellectual games. Rather,
the cultural texts, people, and thoughts exchanged in East Asia wereconcerned with Confucian values and interacted intimately with the realworld. As Lu Jiuyuan 陸九淵 (Xiangshan 象山, 1139–1193) noted, “Even when
Confucians touch upon the abstract sphere of the soundless, odorless, shapeless, bodiless, they are chiefly concerned about managing the world.”14
Although Lovejoy’s method has the strength of analytic precision, we stillcannot use it to grasp the this-worldly orientation and contextual turn of theideas traded in East Asian cultural interactions—a special feature of cultural
exchange in this region.15
In summary, the history-of-ideas method is closely related to semantics.
As its leading task, it strives to distinguish the meanings of ideas and always
seeks to establish conceptual synonymity.16 For this reason, such research isalways geared toward textualism and inclines away from contextualism (eventhough establishing the meaning of an idea always involves establishing its
linguistic context). The abstract, semantic trend in this method means that theapproach of the history of ideas creates many blind spots when applied to thestudy of cultural interactions in East Asia. The key problem was succinctly
stated in Quentin Skinner’s criticism of Lovejoy, namely, that when thehistory-of-ideas method pursues the development of idea units, it always
assumes that different thinkers viewed the same words as having the same
meanings. In the process of abstracting idea units out of context, Lovejoy
tended to set up ideal types of ideas. In this way, he often tended to takeearlier thinkers as paving the way for later thinkers.17
Viewed from the perspective of the experience of cultural exchanges in

14
15

16
17

Confucian Ethics: A Comparative Study of Self, Autonomy, and Community(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 31–48.
Lu Jiuyuan 陸 九 淵, “Yu Wang Shunbo” 與 王 順 伯, in Lu Jiuyuan ji 陸 九 淵 集(Taipei: Liren Shuju, 1981), chaps. 2, 17.
Maurice Mandelbaum pointed out that in Lovejoy’s study of the idea of naturein the Western history of ideas, two categories of ideas can be demarcated:
continuing ideas and recurrent ideas. Lovejoy’s treatment of the recurrent ideaof nature at least deserves our notice. See Maurice Mandelbaum, “Arthur O.
Lovejoy and the Theory of Historiography,” Journal of the History of Ideas 9,
no. 4 (October 1948): 412–423.
Nils B. Kvastad, “Semantics in the Methodology of the History of Ideas,”
Journal of the History of Ideas 38, no. 1 (Jan.–Mar. 1977): 157–174.
Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History
and Theory 8, no. 1 (1969): 3–53, esp. 11ff.

14

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

East Asia (via the exchange of texts, ideas, and people), all exchanges takeplace in the contexts of society, politics, and culture. Even the languages
spoken by the people involved in these exchanges have their specificlinguistic contexts. For this reason, people on both sides of the cultural
exchange must be viewed as performers on the stage of history, andexchanges should be viewed as historical events.18 When we begin from thisperspective, we can enter into a better method for studying decontextualization in the history of cultural exchange in East Asia.

4
4.1

The Phenomenon and Methodology of Recontextualization in the
History of Cultural Exchange in East Asia

Recontextualization: A Definition
In cultural exchange in East Asia, “recontextualization” refers to theprocess whereby a text, idea, or person, having been transmitted from one
region to another and thus decontextualized, is then recontextualized into thereceiving region’s intellectual background or cultural context, so that it will
be assimilated into its intellectual or cultural environment and become
responsive and applicable therein. As an example, consider Confucius’s
Analects, a classic produced in China’s intellectual culture. The spiritual
homeland of Confucius was concerned with managing the world, and yet it
also had its broad, deep, and transcendent aspirations. Confucius and his
disciples were able to find a spirituality in the ethical relationships of daily
life. After the Analects was transmitted east to Japan, however, Tokugawa(1603–1868) Confucian scholars discarded the intellectual world of the text’s
Chinese cultural context (including such concepts as Heaven, the Way, humannature, and destiny) and recontextualized it in the practical realism that typified Japanese intellectual tendencies. They thereby assimilated the Analects toJapanese culture, so that it became a link to the spiritual world of Japanese
intellectuals for the next three centuries.19 Only because it underwent thisprocess of recontextualization by Japanese scholars did the Analects become
generally congenial to Japanese intellectuals. Additionally, because Japanesescholars had recontextualized the Analects, Tokugawa scholars were able toread in new meanings for the age, and thus could infuse the text with a newsignificance.
Another illustration of recontextualization is Sun Yat-sen’s reworking of
18 Jing Guantao 金 觀 濤 and Liu Qingfeng 劉 青 峰, “Lishi yanjiu de keguanxing:
Lun guannianshi tuxiang zhong de zhenshi” 歷史研究的客觀性 ―― 論觀念史圖
像中的真實, Xinshixue 新史學 18, no. 1 (March 2007): 87–119.
19 Chun-chieh Huang 黃俊傑, Dechuan Riben Lunyu quanshi shilun 德川日本論語
詮釋史論 (Taipei: Taida Chuban Zhongxin, 1st ed. 2006; rev. 2nd ed. 2007).

On Decontextualization and Recontextualization in East Asian Cultural Interactions 15

Pan-Asianism, in which he decontextualized a version of that idea promulgated by intellectuals in imperial Japan. On November 28, 1924, Sun Yat-sen
delivered a speech titled “Pan-Asianism” to the Kobe Enterprise Association
at Kobe Girl’s High School. In his speech, Sun declared, “You Japanese haveacquired the hegemonic culture of the European and American powers while
keeping the substance of Asian kingly rule. From this day forward, whether
the future path of world culture will trend toward the hawks of hegemonic
culture of the European and American powers or toward the bulwark of the
kingly culture of the East will depend on the careful deliberation and choiceof you Japanese.”20 Sun’s idea of Pan-Asianism came from the discussions ofAsianism in Japanese intellectual circles from the beginning of the twentiethcentury. For example, in 1903 Okakura Kakuzō 岡 倉 覺 三 (1862–1913)
published The Ideals of the East in English, in which he advocated that “Asiais one,” and maintained that while Asian culture pursues the ends of humanlife (the kingly way), Western culture pursues the means of human life
(hegemony).21 In the following year, however, Okakura published The
Awakening of Japan, also in English, in which his advocacy for the idea that
“Asia is one” was contexualized into “Japanese hegemonic discourse.”22 In
the 1920s, in the context of Japanese discourse, the idea of Pan-Asianism wasmobilized in the diplomatic strategy of Pan-Asianism.23 The 1920s was also
the decade when Japan started to look down upon China, causing tensions in
Sino-Japanese relations.24 Sun Yat-sen used this idea of Pan-Asianism, which
was familiar to everyone in Japan, yet at the same time decontextualized itfrom that context and transplanted it into the context of Sino-Japanese political relations to persuade the Japanese to abandon their ambitions to invade
China and to return to the spirit of the kingly way in Asian culture. Sun’srecontextualizing of the idea of Pan-Asianism in the contemporary history of
Sino-Japanese cultural interactions was extremely shrewd and warrants deeper
inquiry.25
20 Sun Yat-sen 孫逸仙, “Da Yazhou zhuyi” 大亞洲主義, in Guofu quanji 國父全集
(Taipei: Zhonghua minguo gejie jinian guofu bainian danchen choubei weiyuanhui, 1965), p. 312.
21 Okakura Kakuzō, The Ideals of the East (London: John Murray, 1903; Tokyo:
Kenkyusha, 1931).
22 Okakura Kakuzō, The Awakening of Japan (New York: Century, 1904).
23 See Wang Ping 王 屏, Jindai Riben de Yaxiya zhuyi 近 代 日 本 的 亞 細 亞 主 義(Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan, 2004).
24 See Yamame Yukio 山根幸夫, Taishō jidai ni okeru Nihon to Chūgoku no aida
大正時代における日本と中國のあいだ (Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan, 1998).
25 Chun-chieh Huang, “Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Pan-Asianism Revisited: Its HistoricalContext and Contemporary Relevance,” Journal of Cultural Interaction in East

16

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

4.2

Methodology for the Study of Recontextualization
In researching recontextualization in the history of cultural interactions inEast Asia, perhaps the most effective method is to focus our study on themutual, interactive influences between intellectual-cultural history andpolitico-economic history. On the basis of this concrete historical background,
we can then analyze the process of recontextualization and the resulting
creation of new meanings that take place in cultural exchanges of texts, ideas,
and personages.
For example, in examining how Japanese intellectuals recontextualized
the Confucian Analects within the Japanese intellectual climate, one must pay
special attention to Japan’s socioeconomic background.26 An example of suchcare is Rongo to soroban (The Analects and the Abacus), by the Japanese
entrepreneur Shibusawa Eiichi 澀 澤 榮 一 (also known as Seien 青 淵, 1840–
1931).27 This book recontextualized Confucius’s Analects in the capitalistsocioeconomic environment of early-twentieth-century Japan. Shibusawa,long known as the father of Japanese capitalism, reinterpreted the Analects in
the intellectual context of the practical learning that had dominated Japan
since the Tokugawa era, arguing that the terms yi 義 (appropriateness, righteousness) and li 利 (benefit, profit) did not stand in mutual opposition.
Rather, he advocated that ethics and profit could be synthesized into aharmonious whole, that the principles for being a good person and for
managing the world given in the Analects could be applied to modern enterprise and business management.28 When studying Shibusawa’s recontextualization of the Analects, we must also consider the background of Japan’s
economic development at that time. Moreover, to correctly analyze themeaning of Sun Yat-sen’s recontextualization of the Japanese idea of
Asianism, we need to consider the background of Sino-Japanese relations
during the 1920s and the attitude of the Chinese Nationalist Party(Kuomintang) toward Japan in 1924.
The strength of this research method is that the researcher selects therelevant factors and operative ideas from the specific, concrete historicalbackground. However, we must also remember here to pay attention to the
new life and new meanings created for such texts or ideas after their reconAsia 3 (2012): 57–68.
26 In the last century, the renowned scholar of modern European intellectual history
Franklin L. Baumer considered the relations between thought, society, andpolitical environment. See his “Intellectual History and Its Problem,” Journalof Modern History 21, no. 3 (September 1949): 191–203.
27 Shibusawa Eiichi 澀 澤 榮 一, Rongo to soroban 論 語 と 算 盤 (Tokyo: KokushoKankōkai, 1985, 2001).
28 See my Dechuan Riben Lunyu quanshi shilun, pp. 353–370.

On Decontextualization and Recontextualization in East Asian Cultural Interactions 17

textualization in their new settings.
4.3

The Issue of Emotion in Recontextualization
Especially noteworthy in the history of cultural exchanges in East Asia
are the potential emotional issues of the self and the other that appear in theintermediate agents involved in interactive recontextualization processes.
In section 2.2 above, we noted that China played the role of significant
other in the history of cultural exchange in East Asia. When Japanese monks
or Korean and Vietnamese envoys sought to conduct exchanges in China with
Chinese court officials and officers, they were required to chant poetry inunison, using the Chinese language, in order to exhibit an emotional identification with Chinese culture. In 1644, after the fall of the Ming dynasty,
Korean scholar-officials continued to use the Ming reign-year names,
expressing a form of emotional identification with Ming culture.
It is precisely this issue of emotional identification that makes decontextualization and recontextualization necessary in cultural exchange in East
Asia. At the beginning of the Tokugawa period in Japan, many Japaneseregarded China as the abode of sages and worthies. But by the eighteenth
century, Japanese subjectivity had fully matured, and China gradually became
the other in the minds of Japanese.29 During the more than 260 years ofJapanese sinology during the Tokugawa period, the Japanese style of interpreting Chinese texts became ever more evident. As the Japanese scholar
Yoshikawa Kōjiro 吉 川 幸 次 郎 (1904–1980) wrote, “Fundamentally, sinology
during the Tokugawa period is a sort of Japanese ethnic learning. Therefore,
it does not reflect an accurate understanding of China.”30 Tokugawa sinologists had effectively decontextualized Chinese culture and had recontextualized it within Japanese culture. In fact, what they did in this respect is essentially what continues to be done today in the contemporary academic world ofJapanese sinology. All Tokugawa-period and modern Japanese scholars arewhat Mizoguchi Yūzō 溝 口 雄 三 (1932–2010) has called “sinologists without
China.”31
In the processes of decontextualization and recontextualization, emotions
29 See Marius B. Jansen, China in the Tokugawa World (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 76–88; Peter Nosco, “The Place of China
in the Construction of Japan’s Early Modern World View,” Taiwan Journal of
East Asian Studies 4, no. 1 (June 2007): 27–48.
30 Yoshikawa Kōjiro 吉川幸次郎, “Zhongguo yinxiang zhuiji” 中國印象追記, in his
Wode liuxueji 我的留學記 (Beijing: Guangming Ribao Chubanshe, 1999), p. 4.
31 Mizoguchi Yūzō 溝口雄三, “Riben de Zhongguo sixiangshi yanjiu zhi gaige yu
jincheng” 日本的中國思想史研究之改革與進程, Guoji ruxue yanjiu 4 (1998):
12–26, esp. pp. 16–17.

18

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

are highly important leading factors. The Kaitokudō 懷德堂 Confucian scholar
Goi Ranshū 五 井 蘭 洲 (1697–1762) compiled a book expressing his doubts
about Japanese paying deep respect to Confucian learning. He wrote, forexample, “I humbly venture to ask, ‘You were born in this land, you grew up
in this land, yet you do not uphold Shinto but follow the foreign teaching of
the Duke of Zhou. Why is this?’ ”32 Although this question was raised by Goi
Ranshū in the second person, it still vividly displays how, in the contextual
turn and in the course of cultural exchange, emotions are definitely importantfactors in identification.33 If many people in a certain era or society share acertain emotional make-up, this will create a certain spirit of the age, or zeitgeist, that will affect the direction of cultural interactions.
Emotions also determine the self-representations that intermediaries maketoward the other in the course of such cultural exchanges. For example, in thehistory of Sino-Japanese cultural exchanges, Zhu Shunshui 朱 舜 水 (Zhiyu 之瑜, Luyu 魯 璵, 1600–1682), Li Chunsheng 李 春 生 (1838–1924), and Xu
Fuguan 徐 復 觀 (a postwar Neo-Confucian scholar who fled from China to
Taiwan, 1904–1982) all visited Japan during different historical periods, andthus presented different impressions of Japan in their respective journals. But
underlying their different impressions were their differing emotions. In theseventeenth century, Zhu Shunshui lived in exile in Japan following the fallof the Ming dynasty. “Living in exile with scant hope of return, dwelling longin the east [Japan] with tears of hope,” he lamented that “Japan seemed not tohave received the teaching of Confucius and Mencius.”34 As for Li
Chunsheng, he visited Japan after the Qing court had ceded Taiwan to
Japanese rule in 1895. Li travelled to Japan at the invitation of the firstJapanese Governor-General of Taiwan, Kabayama Sukenori 樺山資紀 (1837–
1922), joining a group of eight elders from his family and visiting Japan for
sixty-four days. Li was shocked by what he saw and heard there, and remembered the words of an old Japanese friend: “When you arrive, you are of adifferent tribe; when you depart for home, you are like a brother.”35 After
32 Cited in Tao Demin 陶德民, Kaitokudō Shushigaku no kenkyu 懷德堂朱子学の研究 (Osaka: Ōsaka Daigaku Shuppankai, 1994), p. 271.
33 The eminent American anthropologist Clifford Geertz has said, “In many
modern societies, factors like people’s inborn emotions, customs, etc., areimportant elements in constructing their ‘identity.’ ” Clifford Geertz, The
Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 260.
34 Huang Zunxian 黃遵憲, Nihon zatsuji shi 日本雜事詩 (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1968),
p. 118.
35 Li Chunsheng 李 春 生, “Dongyou liushisi ri suibi” 東 遊 六 十 四 日 隨 筆, in Li
Ming-hui 李 明 輝, Huang Chun-chieh 黃 俊 傑, and Li Han-chi 黎 漢 基, eds., Li
Chunsheng zhuzuo ji 李春生著作集 (Taipei: Nantian Shuju, 2004), vol. 4, p. 227.

On Decontextualization and Recontextualization in East Asian Cultural Interactions 19

returning to Taiwan, Li composed his “Dongyou liushisi ri suibi” (Jottings on
a 64-Day Journey East to Japan), which contains his largely positive impressions of Japanese society, people, customs, etc. In contrast, when Xu Fuguan
visited postwar Japan, after Japan’s unconditional surrender to the UnitedStates and the Allies, he witnessed the burnt-out ruins of a defeated power,36
and his descriptions stressed how the dark side of a personality can easily be
led to dire straits.37 We may also take the experiences of Japanese on tour in
China as examples of how emotions determine the self-representations thatintermediaries make toward the other. The Kyoto University sinologist Naitō
Konan 内 藤 湖 南 (1866–1934) toured China in September and October of
1899. While he experienced a profound nostalgia for cultural China, he wrotethat when he “brushed shoulders with ordinary Chinese and their sleevestouched, I did not feel comfortable.”38 Toward the contemporary real China,
he could not suppress his feelings of disdain. Hence, the recollections in his
travel journal were mostly of the dark side of Chinese society. We findanother example in the experiences of Nakamura Ōkei 中村櫻溪 ( 忠誠, 1852–
1921), who came to Taiwan in 1899 to teach Chinese in the school attachedto the Taiwan imperial governor-general’s office and stayed for nine years. He
wrote, “Oh my! With the passage of nine years, I have grown accustomed to
Taiwan’s climate, at ease with Taiwan’s lifestyle, acquainted with Taiwan’s
scholars, appreciative of Taiwan’s natural scenery, and fond of Taiwan’s
cultural artifacts. Also, I have cultured friends and common friends. On asplendid spring or autumn day, what is better than to sing in harmony with agroup of friends?”39 In his writings about Taiwan, he always stressed thebeauty of the natural scenery and the warmth and hospitality of the people. It
is not farfetched to say that all of these examples show that emotion is truly
the font of self-identity. In the course of cultural interactions, emotion is anespecially decisive factor not only for representing the other but also fordecontextualizing and recontextualizing in cultural exchanges.

36 Xu Fuguan 徐 復 觀, “Dongxing zagan” 東 行 雜 感, in Zhongguo wenxue lunji
xupian 中國文學論集續篇 (Taipei: Taiwan Xuesheng Shuju, 1981), p. 252.
37 Chun-chieh Huang 黃 俊 傑, “Zhongguo rujia zhishifenzi de Ribenguan: Zhu
Shungshui yu Xu Fuguan de bijiao” 中國儒家知識分子的日本觀――朱舜水與徐復 觀 的 比 較, in Shing-ching Shyu 徐 興 慶, ed., Zhu Shunshui yu jinshi Riben
ruxue de fazhan 朱舜水與近世日本儒學的發展 (Taipei: Taida Chuban Zhongxin,2012), pp. 13-24.
38 Naitō Konan, Naitō Konan zenshū 内 藤 湖 南 全 集 (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō,1944), vol. 2, p. 75.
39 Nakamura Ōkei 中 村 櫻 溪, Shōtō sanshū 涉 濤 三 集 (Taihoku: Hirashima
Tatsutarō, 1908), p. 28.

20

5

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

Conclusion

This discussion has centered on the contextual turn in the history of cultural
exchanges in East Asia, focusing on research methods for studying decontextualization and recontextualization. I pointed out that while Lovejoy’s method(which focuses on the history of ideas and stresses the analysis of idea units
in idea complexes) is useful and effective for studying decontextualization,
this sort of method cannot effectively grasp how East Asian intellectuals andthought intimately interacted with concrete reality in their managing theworld. This paper advocated that when we focus on recontextualization in thishistory of cultural exchanges in East Asia, the most effective method is toanalyze examples of cultural exchange against their concrete and specifichistorical backgrounds in order to interpret the motives and emotions of therecontextualizing intermediate agents.
From the analysis above, we found that cultural interactions are dynamic
processes. For this reason, in researching decontextualization and reconceptualization in cultural exchanges, if we rely solely on Lovejoy’s methodology(textualism), we will find ourselves “buried in words,” to resurrect the ridicule of Qing Confucians. Yet if we examine the production and movement of
new meanings after ideas or texts were introduced into different regions andcarefully consider the factors behind the new meanings against their historicalbackground (contextualism), we will be blind to the whole. For this reason,
whenever we choose between the approaches of textualism and contextualism, we must strive to seek a dynamic balance between them in order toavoid being either illogical or impractical. I strongly urge students of thehistory of cultural interaction to consider these points.
Finally, this essay points out that emotions are a key factor in the contextual turn in the history of East Asian cultural exchanges. When intermediate
agents from an alien culture decontextualize and recontextualize foreigncultures or thought, they always become involved in emotional issues. In
cultural exchanges, the key factors in the choice of values are always
personal emotions and the zeitgeist that supports them, and never cold,
abstract ideas. These issues merit further investigation.