A Transnational Approach to ReOrient Asian Studies to Global Studies

Abstract

This article is written in line with the debate on internationalisation in higher education, especially taking into consideration the connections between the rise of East Asia and the need to internationalise the universities in the West. The author focuses specifically on his professional experience as a member of the Expanding East Asian Studies programme at Columbia University (from now on ExEAS) in 2003–2004. He briefly illustrates his contribution to ExEAS and focuses on the ways this specific endeavour forced him to rethink critically his previous experience as researcher and instructor of East Asia-related disciplines. Through this article, he aims to problematise some of the established categories with which East Asian studies is often approached, and he points out the need to reconsider the shifting points of dialogue, rethinking the reductionist ways in which China and Japan are often constructed within the Western academy.

Notes

 1. This article builds upon some of the ideas presented in the paper “New Directions in Asian Studies” prepared for the workshop “Sharing Good Practice in Teaching Area Studies: Enhancing the Student Experience”, organised by CILT—The National Centre for Languages, London, 14 November 2005. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Ka Ho Mok, Prof. James Thomas Stevens, and two anonymous peer reviewers for their insightful comments.

 2. There is a rapidly growing literature on this and related themes. See, in particular, Arrighi et al., 2003; Frank, 1998, 2003; Pomeranz, 2002; and Wong, 1997.

 3. To see the ExEAS teaching materials and resources listed by categories, go to http://www.exeas.org/teaching-materials.html (accessed 12 May 2006).

 4. Dr Benita J. Stambler works at the Center for Distance Learning, Empire State College.

 5. As the students were doing the readings, they were expected to make their own notes/summary in a journal and add to their notes taken in class from our lectures and discussions. During our class discussion, they were expected to answer the journal questions. The journal-writing was conceived as the backbone of the course; the idea behind the journal is that the students will come to class confidently informed and have reflected on the reading carefully so we may have a substantial discussion. They also have to submit the hard copy of the journal twice during the semester.

 6. See for example the roundtable “Asian Studies/Global Studies: Cooperation or Confrontation?” at the New York Conference for Asian Studies 2003, University at Buffalo, 18 October 2003. I was one of the participants together with James W. Watson (Harvard University), John W. Chaffee (Binghamton University), and David Patt (Cornell University).

 7. Here I paraphrase the title of the book by Frank (1998), but even more so the title of the book by Vervoorn (2005).

 8. This is part of the argument elaborated by Edward Said (1978).

 9. See Note 2.

10. The same may be said in the case of American exceptionalism.

11. The Qin State was not one of the original “Central States (Zhongguo)”, enfeoffed by the Zhou dynasty. Thomas Bartlett (2000) argued that “viewed from the perspective of the Zhongguo in the Central Plain, Qin was a north-western border region, and was originally a nomadic tribal group which supplied horses and tributes to the Western Zhou. Qin's later inexorable rise to imperial dominance depended very much on its access to horses, manpower, and other resources from the west, which were not available to the older Central Plain states”. (Thomas Bartlett's posting on H-ASIA, dated 19 August 2000).

12. For more on Xu Bing, see http://www.xubing.com (retrieved 10 October 2006).

13. Edward Said (1966, 2002) explored the idea of “in-betweenness” or living and working “between worlds” in all his works.

14. Homi Bhabha (1994) defined the “third space” as the liminal, interstitial space that exists “between” competing cultural traditions, national boundaries, historical periods, and also critical methodologies: “The non-synchronous temporality of global and national cultures opens up a cultural space—a third space—where the negotiation of incommensurable differences creates a tension peculiar to borderline existences” (p. 218; see also pp. 102–122).

15. For example, when I proposed a new course called “Chinese Culture through Literature and Films” at SUNY Fredonia, somebody from the committee for the approval of new courses raised the issue of the disciplinary boundaries of such a course, since I “belonged” to a history department. In the end, I was asked to take away the word “literature” from the title. I believe instead that literature is also a historical institution; as discursive entities, both fiction and history are constructed around narratives (circular, linear, or both).

16. Mary Elizabeth Berry, University of California, Berkeley, raised a few interesting points regarding the inequality in the academic world with regard to the numbers of Asia-related scholars, with her keynote speech “How Many People are in your French Department?” at the New York Conference on Asian Studies 2004, Bard College, 29 October. A similar observation derives from my experience teaching East Asian history in the history department at SUNY Fredonia, where eight of the tenure/tenure track professors were teaching U.S. history, while only four other members of the department were required to cover the history of the rest of the world.

17. The Latin expression divide et impera translates as “divide and rule” or “divide and conquer”. It refers to the strategy, used by administrators of the Roman and British Empires respectively, to exercise and maintain power by dividing it among smaller power groups which were prevented from associating to become more powerful.