The Articulation of National Identity in Early Twentieth-century East Asia: The Intertwining of Discourses of Modernity and Civilisation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Reimagining Nation and Nationalism in Multicultural East Asia
2017
National identity and attachment to national culture have taken root even in this era of globalization. National sentiments find expression in multiple political spheres and cause troubles of various kinds in many societies, both domestically and across state borders. Some of these problems are rooted in history; others are the result of massive global immigration. The problems and ongoing challenges of nationalism are very much alive throughout East Asia. East Asian societies are increasingly multicultural, inevitably forcing their governments to come up with new immigration and border-control policies, revisit their laws regarding labor policies, sociopolitical discrimination, socioeconomic welfare, and, more fundamentally, rethink the constitutional make-up of the citizenry and the ideal of social harmony, one of their most cherished political values. Nevertheless, contemporary studies of nationalism, whether philosophical or empirical, are almost exclusively focused on cases in western cultures. One primary aim of this conference is to address this ongoing neglect of the East Asian perspective and explore new concepts and theories that are socially relevant in East Asia. Not only will this provide access to the particular experiences of nation, citizenship, and nationalism throughout East Asia but it will bring to bear philosophical concepts, approaches, and styles of reasoning about them that currently are not part of this critical debate. Providing an opportunity to hear these distinct and different East Asian voices and opening up these conceptual and methodological resources to scholars around the world will greatly advance the understanding and appreciation of nationalism. In addition, the conference will achieve two other novel, and important goals. First, by design, it will bring to bear a multi and interdisciplinary approach to the problems of nationalism. We are not privileging either conceptual or empirical studies in the organization of our conference and will bring together philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, and historians, making every effort to invite scholars who explicitly employ or are interested in exploring different and at times hybrid approaches. Second, we will draw together scholars from around the world: China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, United States. Combining these two additional goals will enable us to organize a uniquely diverse conference, both in terms of intellectual discipline and national origin. Along with our primary aim of introducing East Asian voices and theories, this will make our event original, distinctive, and unprecedented in value. Our age is one in which it is unavoidable for people of different cultural backgrounds to live together in many different places. For the sake of justice and stability, a comprehensive re-examination of nationalism is both urgent and necessary.
'Emergence', vol. 4 (Autumn 2012), pp. 1-6 [ISSN: 2041-8248]
"""Utilising an original approach incorporating an analysis of the influence of indigenous Asian imperialism (predominantly Japanese) in addition to foreign Western imperialism between the 1850s and 2000s this paper will argue that imperialism was one of the most formative influences upon national identity in Japan and China. It will bring to relief how internal and external identity created by foreign and native imperialism left an indelible mark on these East Asian giants’ national identities well into the 21st-century. Understanding this context and its implications will be of heightened importance as we enter what has been termed the ‘Asian Century.’ The analysis will open by studying the cross-cultural interactions brought about by Western imperialism and its impact upon traditional national identity. It will then reveal that Western imperialism imported the raw materials which helped define the modern global identity of Japan and China. In particular, it will show that the adoption of European-style imperialism by Japan redefined the historic regional identity of East Asia in which China had culturally and politically dominated and Japan was a relative regional pariah and how this transformed regional and global interaction. Developing the above, it will highlight identities in crisis by underlining that the lingering historic residue of Western and Japanese imperialism has left China’s identity with a sense of theft and humiliation and Japan’s of victimisation and insecurity. These internal identity traits will be shown to have punctuated their external relations with the international community well into the 21st-century."""
Rise of Modern Chinese Nationalism
Recently, the rise of Chinese nationalism has attracted a great deal of attention and caused widespread anxiety in Western and Asian countries. Yet what China watchers call Chinese nationalism is a complex phenomenon and several forms co-exist not only one kind. Since May 4th Movement of 1919 nationalism in China have been on the forefront in making politics. From 1990s onwards following Tiananmen incident and the collapse of Soviet Union nationalism has regained its place in political discourse of Communist Party. Recent manifestations of nationalistic feelings as seen in dispute over Daiyou Islands with Japan reveal a particular feature of Chinese nationalism negatively directed to outsiders. But the resurgence of Chinese nationalism is not only the result of antagonistic relations with the West and Japan but also it is a response to the decline of central power. This paper will not discuss the concept of nationalism but rather try to gain insight into the factors that incited Chinese nationalism in the past and present. Basic argument I want to make here is Chinese nationalism has a plural character, as a phenomenon it has a historical background and it is not just a product of state propaganda. This paper is organized as follows. First it will briefly explain historical background that nurtured nationalist thinking in Chinese mainland. Further it will interpret the development of Chinese nationalism and examine diverse nationalist responses to China’s problems.
Nationalism as a Primary Institution in Northeast Asia Sean OMalley 2022 AOM
This paper contrasts and complements earlier work of Buzan and Zhang by offering an English School analysis of East Asia that is limited to the smaller regional scope of Northeast Asia. The paper argues that the inter-state society of Northeast Asia can be categorized as power political in English School theory and analyzes this inter-state society through the lens of primary institutions. In relations that are power political, classical primary institutions embedded in the region’s inter-state relations are limited, and in the case of Northeast Asia, no universal, secondary institutions exist to regulate behavior. Therefore the contention put forth is that intersubjective understandings of primary institutions provide a better vehicle for analysis of the region. The claim made in this analysis is that the master primary institution guiding states in Northeast Asia is nationalism and the derivative primary institution that is most influential is victimhood nationalism. It thereby expands the theoretical range of primary institutions in international society, while offering an English School perspective on regional relations in Asia.
Nations and Nationalism roundtable discussion on Chinese nationalism and national identity
Nations and Nationalism, 2016
Framing statement The literature on Chinese nationalism is vast and contentious. In his article titled 'A flawed perspective: the limitations inherent within the study of Chinese nationalism', published by Nations and Nationalism in 2009, Allen Carlson identifies two opposing arguments in the English-language literature on the subject: the first arguing that Chinese nationalism pushes Chinese foreign policy in a more assertive direction and the second maintaining that, conversely, Chinese nationalism has been misconstrued and exaggerated and erroneously linked to 'China threat' theories. Carlson claims that both these positions are empirically unsubstantiated not only because they analyse nationalism in inadequate ways but also, and more importantly, because a focus on nationalism is in itself inherently constraining and even distorting. He suggests that rather than simply redressing flaws within the Chinese nationalism scholarship, a more radical intellectual move is needed, mainly shifting focus away from nationalism towards the notion of 'national identity formation'. Such conceptual reframing will, according to Carlson, enable scholars to understand how both leaders and the general public in the People's Republic of China define their position in world politics better than they would by continuing to focus on nationalist politics alone. Anna Costa's response, published in 2014 in the same journal under the title 'Focusing on Chinese nationalism: an inherently flawed perspective? A reply to Allen Carlson', addresses Carlson's claim that focusing on nationalism inhibits research on Chinese identity politics. She argues that while some of the problems that Carlson identifies do plague the literature on Chinese nationalism, his advocacy of abandoning this focus is unwarranted. Two main shortcomings affect Carlson's plan: first, it is based on a rather particular understanding of the scope of Nationalism Studies, this perspective leading him to conclude that focusing on nationalism necessarily narrows the gaze of the China watcher. In particular, Costa queries Carlson's identification of a 'consensus' in the extant literature about the dual naturehistorical and instrumentalof Chinese nationalism, which tends to conflate not only multiple nationalist discourses with official nationalism but also the study of nationalism with the phenomenon itself. Second, Carlson's proposition to move to an alternative frameworknational
Encounters with Japan. Japanese Studies in the Visegrad Four Countries. Edited by Melinda Papp (Pappová), Budapest, Eötvös University Press, 2015, pp.51-86, 2015
The debate about Japan's ‘uniqueness’ is central in Japanese public discourse and thus in Japanese studies. Though the Japanese development seems ‘unique’ in certain views, it shows some similar traits, and can be interpreted similarly with some of the European patterns. The Japanese cultural movement of the 18-19th centuries (kokugaku) of defining cultural and national identity before modernization can be compared not to the development of Western Europe (where national identity strongly attached to modern nation states) or other parts of Asia (where these emerged after the Western colonization), but – considering the role of premodern cultural identity in forming modern (national) identity and following mainly Miroslav Hroch’s comparative theory of national development – it can be examined compared to the ‘national awakening’ movements of the peoples of East Central Europe. In the shadow of a cultural and/or political ‘monolith’ (China for Japan and Germany for Central Europe), before modernity, ethnic groups or communities started to evolve their own identities with cultural movements focusing on exploring or even inventing their own language and culture, thus creating a new sense of community, the nation. Similar motives of argument can be identified in these movements: ‘language’ as the primary bearer of collective identity, the role of language in culture, ‘culture’ as the main common attribute of the community; and similar aspirations to explore, search and develop native language, ‘genuine’ culture, ‘original’ traditions. The ‘cultural identity’ played a very important role in the formation of national identity before modernization, and the effect of this (‘cultural nationalism‘) is present even today in Japan and in Central Europe, too.
The differing confluences of historical memory, identity, and nationalism in South Korea and Japan have prevented the two countries from resolving their history disputes in order to achieve reconciliation. How the Koreans and the Japanese view historical events is deeply interwoven with how they define themselves and the emotional attachment to their countries. Therefore, it is the convergence of these three factors that lies at the heart of these disputes and is what makes the latter so volatile and difficult to resolve. This paper will first examine how the intertwining of the three factors has led to mutually conflicting identities in South Korea and Japan and why that has hampered reconciliation between the two countries. It will then analyze what they can do to overcome those obstacles by analyzing the case of Germany's reconciliation with its former historical enemies.