183

Book Review
Review of “Ajia” o Kangaeru 2000 2015 (Thinking about “Asia,” 2000
2015), Fujiwara Shoten editorial staff, ed., June, 2015.

Fujiwara Shoten’s “Relay Series:
Looking at ‘Asia’ Now” has been
compiled into a book. Having beenpolished for over fifteen years since theproject’s inception, the works by 132
authors represent various viewpoints andinterests presented in a candid manner.
There is no particular style or visible
theme. The image of Asia “conceived”
here cannot be judged by one valuesystem.
If there is some characteristic
common to the works, I would proposethat it is goodwill toward neighbors.
Here there is no vestige of conflict ortensions that are present when discussing
border problems, political interests, or international relations; nor is there any
sign of contestation over “nations” arising from nationalism. Perhaps it isreflection on the past, future peace, or multi-perspectives on life, culture,history, human interaction, and economics from the perspective of neighborsthat has given rise to this goodwill.
However, Asia in the present reality cannot be delineated simply withwords of goodwill. When international relations, political gains and losses,
and historical consciousness are included in the discussion, there is no resolution. Further, since the early modern term “Asia” is laden with the burdenof negative legacy that accompanied political formation, there are many whoreact against and disagree with the term “Asia” itself. It is true that “Asia” isa geopolitical term, a reflection of how the West views the East. This is not
the gaze of good-willed neighbors but a view of a region from the perspective of early modern greedy nations. Because of a history of partition andcovetous politics, the hypocrisy and ugliness latent in the word “Asia”
increased.
From the above logic, two opposing principles of views of Asia arise:

184

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 7 2016

although the region is the same Asia, there are good neighbors and greedy
countries. This book is the result of goodwill from a neighbor’s perspective,
but when discussing politics from the standpoint of “nations,” it is difficult toimagine what kind of transformation arises in people’s images of Asia. The
problem is that most people are not aware of this principle, and are subconsciously seeing Asia from both the perspective of neighbor and as a greedy
country. In a word, this is a phenomenon of conflating people and nation
states.
What is of importance here is that humans are born with intrinsic
goodwill, but self-awareness as citizens of nation states does not necessarily
arise automatically. Just as historical hatred of other countries and peoples
does not survive generations if not deeply inculcated, if feelings of loyalty are
not fostered toward one’s own country’s political party, system, or leaders,people will not naturally protect them. This is the purpose of educational
management by the state today; patriotism and a consciousness of “nationhood” are being indoctrinated through education. A primitive love of homethat approximates humanness—love of one’s hometown, of nature, peace,neighbors, and pride in one’s ethnic culture is replaced by support for anddefense of national policy, protection of territory, national interests, politicalparties, and loyalty to political leaders. Such two-dimensional education bystate administrators causes mass production of “citizens” instilled withnationalism and a historical hatred for other peoples and nations.
I think that the increasing complexity of the view of Asia stems from this.
The confusion of national avariciousness and human goodwill, or examples ofthe deliberate mixing of the two, are also found in Japan’s “Asian-ism” andis not acknowledged by Asians. The keyword here is “solidarity,” but it isconfounded by the avarice of nation states regarding territorial and politicalinterests and history, culture and economics, mixed in with the human feelings of neighborly goodwill. The fact that the objectives of the former areachieved by means of the latter is a mechanism of this “ism.”
From the aspect of national sovereignty, territory, and interests, was thereever a possibility of solidarity? In the final analysis, there was never any
genuine cultural, historical, ethnic, or karmic solidarity as expounded under“Asian-ism” in the prewar political reality. It is evident by looking at history
that these lofty principles were merely tools to achieve political goals—
nothing other than Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910, a united East Asia,and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
The same trends can even be seen in the Asian-ism of Takeuchi Yoshimi(1910 1977) in the post-war period. Of course, the thorough self-reflection
on the war, aspiration for peace, and starting point of goodwill as a neighbor
are completely different from prewar Asian-ism. Trans-border artistic

Book Review

185

elements (Okakura Tenshin), human feelings (Miyazaki Tōten), and otherthings appealed to human goodwill. Contradictory objectives and means areobfuscated as types of “human feeling” and “tendencies,” but in terms ofbeing used as a philosophical tool for leaving the Cold War, the Asian-ism isprobably the same.
The wisdom of Takeuchi Yoshimi lies in the fact that such a contrived
philosophy was forced to stop at the stage of sentiment and ideals. What heindicated to us was an ideal image of what should be, not an interpretation ofhistory or political objectives. As a Japanese who had gone along with theideology of the Cold War, it was a way for thought reconstruction. For him,
Asian-ism was nothing more than a kind of human feeling that could not
become independent and therefore “couldn’t unfold as a historical development.” On the other hand, people who have followed after Takeuchi have
employed the same methods but have crossed the line he established and areattempting to reduce them to a new political objective: a re-interpretation ofhistory and realization of an East Asian communal sphere.
Asian-ism is artificial politics and contrived philosophy. The motivation
for it is nationalism. I think it uses for specific objectives culture, history, andhuman connection, which can cross borders, to serve national and politicalinterests that cannot. This is the merging of national greed and human goodwill, and the inversion of objectives and means. Isn’t this what blights
narratives of Asia as an “ism”?
In the case of neighborly relations of goodwill, it is fine to be natural andto have human emotions. There is no need to speak of Asia as an “ism.” It is
most important to become aware of the principle of national greed andhuman goodwill, and to recover the former self, the natural self from a“citizen” overflowing with enmity.
What is Asia to the nation? Listen to the true intentions of Prime Minister
Abe who has made his feelings known publically some seventy years after
the end of the war. He says that the Russo-Japanese War gave courage tomany Asians and Africans who were under the yoke of colonialism. I hopepeople who are interested in Asia will think once again about the implications
for historical awareness inherent in these words.
Jiang Keshi 姜克實
Okayama University 岡山大学