Asianismen seit dem 19. Jahrhundert

Over the last two decades, “Asia” has gained an important place in Western public discourse. Ideas of “Asia” as an entity, however, have a long tradition in Western discourse and were subject to significant changes over time. Within the region, concepts of a shared Asian identity and projects of integration and collaboration can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when Japan proposed to lead Asia in its struggle against Western colonialism and imperialism. Due to its own bid for power in the region, Japanese Pan-Asianism was not uncontested. Throughout the twentieth century, various actors at different levels of society developed a variety of definitions of “Asia” and alternative projects of intraregional collaboration. The term “Asianisms” is used to refer to both discursive constructs of Asia as a region as well as to political, economic, social and cultural practices related to them. The article gives an overview of the evolution of Asianisms since the late nineteenth century and introduces the individual contributions to this volume.

The article explores Asianist discourses that emerged in India from the late9th century through the first decade after independence. The first section gives a general overview of the various historical stages of the Indian involvement with Asia during the period under survey as expressed in the writings and speeches of leading intellectuals and politicians. The second section analyses in greater detail three of the most important discursive constructions of a pan-Asian identity from the interwar period: Rabindranath Tagore’s influential anti-modernist conception of ‘Asia as spiritual counter-Europe’; the powerful trope of Asia as ‘Greater India’, that gained particular popularity among Hindu nationalist outfits; and the pragmatic and modernist concept of Young Asia’, that posited a pan-Asian solidarity as a strategic device in the fight against Western imperialism. With the possible exception of the ‘Young Asia’ model, it is argued by way of conclusion, the Indian ‘cult of Asianism’ was clearly built on Western Orientalist stereotypes and had only limited potential to contribute to the intellectual decolonisation of India.

“Under the banner of Asianism”: transnational dimensions of Japanese Asianism discourse during the Taishō period (1912–1926)

This article investigates the background and dynamics of the emergence and establishment of Asianism (Ajiashugi) as a contested key concept in mainstream political discourse in Japan during the 1910s and 1920s. Mainly focusing on the influence of Chinese and “Western” conceptions of Asianism on the debate in Japan, it analyses the Japanese “embrace of Asia” during the Taishō period (1912–1926) in a transnational politico-intellectual context. Initially, not only claims for Asian unity were largely rejected but Japanese “Asianity” as such was disputed by a majority of public opinion leaders. After the First World War, however, Japanese intellectuals increasingly began to embrace the idea of Asia and to propose Asianism as a political principle in opposition, or complementary to, the predominant doctrines of the time, such as nationalism, internationalism, or imperialism. While the self-affirmative call for an “Asia for the Asians” appealed to participants in this debate beyond national and ideological borders, the mere adoption of “Western” Orientalist rhetoric by Japanese and Chinese proponents of Asianism obstructed a full-scale conceptual emancipation from “the West”.

Asianism and International Law: Japan’s Easy Transition from the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere to the United Nations, 1944–56

Japan’s defeat in the Asian-Pacific-War (1937–45) is often seen as one of the great watersheds in global history. For Japan, it separates modern history from the present. However, there also existed conspicuous continuities, one of which was the seemingly easy transition from support of the wartime concept of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity sphere to the post-war international order centering on the United Nations. In international law, the transition was accomplished through the re-appropriation of legal concepts and political sentiments associated with the “Großraum”-concept of the Co-Prosperity Sphere and their transference to the new global peace order. This paper argues that the transference was made possible through an intrinsically integrative spirit, i.e. Asianism and internationalism, respectively, as the common link between the two seemingly contradictory concepts of international order.

Since the Asian financial crisis of 1997 initiatives of regional cooperation and integration have proliferated in Asia. However, these initiatives are usually based on government agreements and business networks only. They are rarely substantiated by what scholars of regionalism call a “cognitive” or “imagined” region. This article explores contemporary transnational dialogues of (mainly Northeast) Asian intellectuals on the history of Asia as an important dimension of a “cognitive” region. Three forms of dialogue are discussed and compared: textbook dialogue, academic dialogue and the dialogue of critical intellectuals on the nature of Asian modernity. The analysis shows that the persistence of nationalist perspectives is a major obstacle to constructing a shared view of Asian history. The transcendence of nationalist points of view, on the other hand, requires a level of reflexivity and epistemological awareness that also reveals the constructed nature of any definition of “Asia”. Asia as a category remains contested and unstable.

Ausgehend vom Konzept der historiographischen und geschichtspolitischen Kanonisierung fragt der Beitrag nach dem konflikthaften Verhältnis zwischen europäischer und Nationalgeschichte am Beispiel Spaniens. Der Kanon einer allumfassenden Universalgeschichte drückt das hegemoniale Projekt bestimmter Gesellschaften gegenüber der Vielfalt der Kulturen aus; und in vergleichbarer Weise versuchte der nationalgeschichtliche Kanon seine Deutungen verbindlich zu machen. Im Falle des spanisch-kastilischen Kanons kollidieren diese Bemühungen jedoch mit dem in Europa dominanten universalgeschichtlichen Kanon, der sich auf das Zeitalter der Aufklärung zurückführt. Daraus ergibt sich eine besondere Chance für die Wiederbelebung eines regionalgeschichtlichen Kanons, etwa in Katalonien, der die Europäisierung des Geschichtsbildes gegen den Einheitsdruck der Nationalgeschichte wendet.