Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Introduction
- Asia Redux: Conceptualizing a Region for Our Times
- The Idea of Asia and Its Ambiguities
- The Intricacies of Premodern Asian Connections
- Asia is Not One
- Response to Prasenjit Duara, “Asia Redux”
- floating. No Gears Shifting
- Response to Comments on “Asia Redux”
- Contributors
- Index
- Titles in the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Research Series
Asia is Not One
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2015
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Introduction
- Asia Redux: Conceptualizing a Region for Our Times
- The Idea of Asia and Its Ambiguities
- The Intricacies of Premodern Asian Connections
- Asia is Not One
- Response to Prasenjit Duara, “Asia Redux”
- floating. No Gears Shifting
- Response to Comments on “Asia Redux”
- Contributors
- Index
- Titles in the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Research Series
Summary
Asia is not “one,” and there is no singular idea of Asia. Asia is of multiple (although not always mutually exclusive) conceptions, some drawing on material forces, such as economic growth, interdependence, and physical power, and others having ideational foundations, such as civilizational linkages and normative aspirations. Some of these varied conceptions of Asia have shaped in meaningful ways the destinies of its states and peoples. Moreover, they have underpinned different forms of regionalism, which, in turn, has ensured that Asia, despite its fuzziness and incoherence, has remained a durable, if essentially contested, notion.
Before proceeding further, let me briefly comment on the concepts of region, regionalization, and regionalism, the three central pillars of any meaningful discussion of the contemporary idea of Asia. First, our understanding of what makes a region has undergone a major change. There is a growing agreement in the literature that (1) regions are not just material constructs but also ideational ones; (2) regions are not a given or fixed, but are socially constructed—they are made and remade through political, economic, social, and cultural interactions; and (3) just like nation states, regions may rise and wither.
Prasenjit Duara distinguishes between “region” and “regionalization”, taking the former to mean “the relatively unplanned or evolutionary emergence of an area of interaction and interdependence”, and the latter as “the more active, often ideologically driven political process of creating a region”. While this is a valid distinction, it obscures (although it is subsumed under “regionalization”) the concept and practice of regionalism. Indeed, regionalization and regionalism can be separated analytically. The former is normally understood in the political economy literature as market-driven, as opposed to state-led, advance of transnational economic linkages, including trade, investment, and production. Hence, a relevant term here is the “regionalization of production” in East Asia, which was spurred by the southward movement of Japanese companies and capital following the reevaluation of the yen after the Plaza Accord of 1985, which brought South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and other Southeast Asian countries under its ambit and created a de facto East Asian economic region.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Asia ReduxConceptualizing a Region for Our Times, pp. 52 - 68Publisher: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak InstitutePrint publication year: 2013