Preface
Japanology as East Asian Studies
CHOI Gwan*

I would like to begin with an examination of the designations that havebeen used for the region to which we belong. The region has been called
variously Kyokutō 極 東 (Far East), Tōhigashi 遠 東 (Far East), Tōyō 東 洋(Orient), Tōhoku Ajia 東北アジア (Northeast Asia), and Higashi Ajia 東アジア(East Asia). As can be deduced from the fact that the terms Kyokutō andTōhigashi derive from the English designation, “Far East,” the words signify
an east distant from Europe. That is, the terminology is conceived from anotion of European centralism. The term Tōyō (Orient) designates the expanseof area on the eastern side of Turkey, and not simply the regions centering
around Japan, China, and Korea. Thus, in many cases, different people intend
different parameters by these terms. Further, it can be said that the “East” isa term used in contraposition to the “West,” and as such is a dualistic conceptof the West. The terms Tōhoku Ajia or Hokutō Ajia 北東アジア (both meaning
Northeast Asia) are mainly geopolitical concepts that usually include Far East
Russia and Mongolia besides Japan, China, and Korea. Lastly, the designation
Higashi Ajia has been used equally vaguely to indicate the same general
region as northeast Asia, but in many cases has connoted cultural concepts.
As I have indicated, it is difficult to settle on one specific designation for
the region. The German scholar Reinhard Erich Zöllner in his book,Einführung in die Geschichte Ostasiens (Introduction to the History of EastAsia) proposes a suggestive theory:
I define East Asia as “a region in which chopsticks are used for eating.”
East Asia is not simply a spatial world but a cultural one as well. It is anarea in which have existed interregional systems where political andeconomic interaction characterized by subtropical monsoon and historicalcultures and civilizations has consistently occurred.
If the definition of Asia is based on the above points, it includes Mongolia,	  * A professor, Department of Japanese Language and Literature, Korea University
and President of the Society

2

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

the Korean peninsula, the Japanese archipelago, Taiwan, and even Vietnamwith China provisionally at the center. We can even define the larger area inits broadest sense as the ASEAN countries (the Philippines, Myanmar, Laos,Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore), Russia, and apart of central Asia.
In other words, we can say that East Asia until pre-modern times was anarea that centered on Chinese culture or was influenced directly or indirectlyby Chinese culture. It is a region that accomplished great developments
across many fields beyond the Sinitic writing system. For example, in termsof spirituality, it has created the worlds of Daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism,
and other religions. For systems, it produced the Ritsuryō (lüling) legal codes,
the civil service examination system, bureaucracy, and feudalism, among
others. For technological advances, such inventions as paper, explosives,printing, porcelains and pottery, and the mariner’s compass can be listed as
examples. What was the highest standard in cultures in the world at the time
spread to surrounding areas. The various peoples in the periphery aspired
after Chinese culture, imitating it, digesting it, and sometimes expelling it as
they developed their own cultures. From this point of view, the East Asianworld had certain parts of Chinese culture in common.
Of course, not all of this Chinese culture was created on the Chinese
mainland. If we trace it back to its origins, the cultures of the neighboring
northern peoples, Islamic culture, Indian culture, and even Mediterranean
culture could be said to be related. I will include these elements as Chinese
culture, however, because they were spread after being Sinicized through
Chinese script.
Further, this does not mean that the cultures of Korea and Japan, whichhave different languages and ethnic groups than does China, were completelyovertaken by Chinese culture. Indeed, the fact that they repulsed Chineseculture and maintained and developed their own traditional cultures and identities cannot be overlooked. Thus, it could be said that East Asia is a region
that strongly manifests a commonly shared Chinese culture as well as eachindividual country’s own unique culture.
In the modern era, most of the region except Japan suffered damage from
Western imperialism, and has continued to have opposing ideologies since theend of WWII. Only Japan in Asia succeeded in westernizing, modernizing,and industrializing at an early stage to build itself into a major power. It isaxiomatic that Japan concurrently inflicted inestimable damage on Korea,
China, and other neighboring states. As mentioned above, East Asia has manyproblems, but it is now maturing into a central region of world development
in conjunction with the dynamic transformation it is undergoing. The motive
force behind this maturation process is a long history and culture that was

Japanology as East Asian Studies﻿3

maintained and developed in the distant past from before the formation ofmodern nation states. The current success is owing to the wisdom accumulated by the peoples of East Asia through the process of bearing the trials of
the modern era.
Through the centuries, the pre-modern states of Japan, China, and Korea
took a stance toward each other of admiration and disdain within the paradigm of central, peripheral, and outlying countries. This rubric wascompletely reversed at the end of the nineteenth century through the disparities of national power that arose from differing degrees of adoption ofWestern culture and modernization. Now that another century has passed, thestructure is again being reformulated under the umbrella of the world’s
central power, the United States. The three above-mentioned countries of East
Asia are being confronted with the necessity to search for a new paradigm inthis scenario. If the directions that these three East Asian nations must walkare greatly simplified, they can be defined as follows. 1) Choose the path ofbuilding a total regional bloc as has the European Union, and strengthen thepolitical and economic community in East Asia to form a new culturalsphere; 2) Divide into pro-US or pro-China camps, resulting in the East Asian
bloc proceeding along divided lines; 3) Japan, China, and Korea taking positions of cooperation and rivalry vis-à-vis each other in different fields andeach walking their own separate path.
In spite of standing at the crossroads of such choices, it cannot be said
that these three East Asian nations have been actively endeavoring to understand their own or each other’s countries in the context of regional dynamics.
Compared with Europe or the Islamic bloc nations, East Asia has long had an
identity as a single cultural bloc in name only, and there is a strong possibility of growing competition and even antagonistic relations within theregion as each nation pursues profits for itself.
It is now the time to consider seriously the region’s future based on calmly
acknowledging that even if East Asia is classified as one cultural and regional
bloc, the region has only a very loose commonality in actuality. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the paradigm that had been maintained ofcenter, periphery, and outlying areas began to crumble. The task of Japan,
China, and Korea must be to search for new paths that make prosperity
possible both for their own countries and for the region at large. The fundamental premise necessary to achieve this goal, unlike in the past, must be a
new sense of values and cultural awareness based on equal tripartite interaction. We must strive to create a common vision of a regional bloc.
From this point of view, we have come to a point when we must seek
new paths for new paradigms in scholarship. Up until now East Asia has been
researched as an object within the frame of Western scholarship. It is time to4Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 4 2013

cast off the West-centric, colonial, and racist character intrinsic to earlymodern Western scholarship and to pursue scholarship that puts East Asia atthe core. At the same time, the West and the modern era should not be criticized indiscriminately; neither should we advocate a return to the pre-modernera. We must chart a course that contributes to humankind via East Asia. Thelong pre-modern history of the East Asian world, its bitter experiences in themodern era, and the knowledge gained from overcoming these experiences
will make possible scholarship for humankind as East Asia maintains itself as
the main constituent.
It is necessary as a part of our embarking on the path to such East Asianscholarship to reexamine and reconfigure terminology that we have thus far
unthinkingly used. For instance, the term racialism (民族主義), which is thetranslation of the term “nationalism,” has been used in the West for theperiod after the Napoleonic Wars, but this concept cannot explain the problemof the relationships among East Asian peoples. It is inappropriate to define
and argue East Asian society, arts, and literature based on Western concepts.
It is important to grasp East Asian studies not fundamentally as a world
divided into units of pre-modern and modern eras, and a period of casting off
modernity, but to understand it as a vast, continuous current. This is because
East Asian studies is itself a product of the era of casting off the modern
period in concert with globalization.
From this perspective the study of East Asia is first, research into thepeoples and cultures that comprise East Asia; and second, research into therelationship between East Asia and the external world. For this reason it must
be research that is open to inside and outside the region and must emphasize
the importance of integrating humanities and social sciences into comprehensive, synthesized whole.
Now is the time that Japanology must adopt a research methodology thatis commensurate with the East Asian era, or even the global era. It must firstbe positioned as a pivot in East Asian studies.
In order to truly comprehend a nation, an understanding must be sought
on a fundamental level of that nation’s natural environment, and its historicaland social vicissitudes. The overall flow of how its cultural embodiment has
existed in its natural environment must be comprehended. Japanology has
traditionally consisted of a research methodology that focused mainly on
Japan and directly examined its unique culture on a mono-national level.
It is clear now, however, that all cultures have mutual relationships directly
and indirectly with neighboring cultures, or in a broader sense, with worldcultures. First what is sought is a change in consciousness to comprehend therelationship between Japan and its neighbors, and of the objective characteristics of Japanese culture within the construct of the natural world. It isJapanology as East Asian Studies﻿5

necessary to compare the commonalities and differences between Japan andneighboring Korea and China, compare what kind of influential relationships
exist between Korea and China, and to indicate somewhat more objectively
the distinguishing features that Japan has in the East Asian cultural sphere.
We must indicate a directionality through these aspects that understands Japanultimately within the framework of human culture. That is, we should
examine Japanese culture along the lines of understanding the country ofJapan, comparing it with China and Korea, understanding it within East Asia,and then as a world culture.
It is for this reason that we must conduct broad, profound research on
Japan rather than the detailed, narrow research methodologies common today.
We must depart from the era and genre-specific research environment to an
approach that was considered taboo until just recently: interdisciplinary, integrated research that is not limited to era or genre. If we proceed in this direction, not only will research creativity have limitless potential, but the uniquequalities of Japanese culture vis-à-vis universal qualities will become
apparent and Japanese culture will become better positioned within humancultures. Further, this perspective should not be limited to Japanology, butshould be applied to Korean studies, Sinology, and other fields to become afoundation for East Asian studies.