Contemporizing Asian Studies in Europe and European Studies in Asia
by W.A.L. Stokhof
As an academic community in the fields of Asian and European Studies, we have not paid enough attention to the study of contemporary phenomena. We have been too much oriented towards the past and we have been thinking in 19th-century frameworks, not unlike the politicians. Imagine: on the threshold of the 21st century in Asian Studies in Europe and European Studies in Asia, only a very small percentage of these studies is about present-day developments. There is still a lot which the universities and institutes can do to encourage the study of contemporary issues and this should be implemented from a comparative point of view. The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) should act as a catalyst in this context. Although this is so, so far not much attention has been paid to culture in the ASEM process in general and even less to education, training, and joint research in particular.Universities are first and foremost the carriers of culture and they have at least two extremely important objectives which are completely interwoven: teaching and researching. I believe that education and research as such are two indispensable elements in the process of what I call 'de-tribilization'. They will allow us to cross the boundaries of the ethnic group, the province, the state, the region and the disciplines. When education and research are implemented in the right way, they will sensitize and alert us to ideas, attitudes, and concepts of other peoples in different parts of the world. It is for that very reason that we have to pursue our activities, notwithstanding the tendency towards particularism which seems to be ingrained in the policies and strategies of the member states of the EU and ASEAN. This is also reflected in the educational and cultural co-operative agreements which are primarily bilateral in nature.
Detribilization
Although all countries are involved in those types of agreements, we can clearly distinguish the key players in this field: Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Germany, France, and Great Britain. The political objectives of these countries provide a partial explanation. Through their local representatives and institutes, they have developed large and often meaningful networks between their universities and institutes in Asian and European countries. These endeavours obviously serve national goals, not ASEM objectives. As long as these national agencies still view themselves primarily as proponents of their respective national cultures instead of representatives from Europe or Asia, these institutions cannot play a significant role in the de-tribilized 21st century frame-work I envision.
These institutions or foundations such as the Goethe institute, the British Council, the Alliance Francaise, the Japan Foundation, the Korea Foundation, the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation, and a whole range of smaller national institutions and foundations are remnants of colonial thinking. They were set up in times when international competition at the state level reigned supreme. Their main objective is to attain influence and prestige which is generally done by underlining the uniqueness of their own country and culture. This limitation in focus and scope, based purely on national culture and language promotion, is contraproductive in terms of the interregional ASEM process we are involved in. As I see it, the ASEM process flows from a multi-layered approach wherein, on the one hand people identify themselves with (sub)national entities and, on the other hand, with supranational or even global (pro-fessional) groupings which are defined by political, industrial, mercantile, or humanitarian objectives. Contemporizing European and Asian Studies would, to my mind, in the first place imply a rethinking of the national vs supranational opposition. Denationalization of national institutions abroad and reforming them in truly international EU (or even better ASEM) agencies would be an important step forward in the process of the detribilization of Europe. They could become centres where Asians and Europeans could work on a long-term cultural, economic, and academic strategy in the regions.
New approaches in Asian and European Studies
Before I turn to new approaches in Asian and European Studies, I want to give a tentative answer to a question of the utmost importance in this context, to wit: How can we improve the academic quality of research and education at universities and institutes in both Asia and Europe? First of all we should accept the fact that no single country of the ASEM member states is able to generate top quality research and education on all topics in Asian and European Studies. What is needed first is an analysis at the national level of the strong and weak points in Asian/European Studies which can lead to a streamlining at the national level. Once this operation has been successfully completed, programmes can be developed in co-operation with institutes and universities, first in neighbouring countries, and thereafter or concurrently in the ASEM context.
It is superfluous to say that in order to improve the quality of the academic level, competition between universities at a national and international level is crucial. Differentiation and selection are necessary for the improvement of the academic quality of universities. Competition may enhance the selection of top talent in faculties and from amongst students and it may engender differentiation in curricula and research agendas. Smaller countries like the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and Belgium probably do not have a large enough population to produce sufficient top talent in all specialities and disciplines. The pooling of resources and expertise is inevitable in this case. Contrary to the present tendency which is to strive for a complete set of all possible knowledge in a university, it seems to me much more economical to distribute knowledge over several top knowledge centres in a regional setting. These bilateral or trilateral linkages are the pillars for a future multilateral alliance. By entering into alliances, strong points can be enhanced and weak spots disregarded. In addition, too rigid a delimitation of disciplines organized in faculties will endanger future research. Universities should offer classical studies as well as contemporary studies and in research equal attention should be given to fundamental theory as well as to applied work and vocational training.
A breakthrough in these barriers, a multi-disciplinary approach, combining technology and other disciplines is of untold importance. It is necessary to make serious attempts at linking universities and integrating technology, technical training, research and academic educa-tion. Such attempts will be conducive to a sense of community, stimulate diversity of academic approaches, help students to work with their fellow students, and will facilitate the free movement and dynamism of faculties and students. Actualization of Asian Studies in Europe is slowly making progress. In many universities, curricula are now being renovated and/or supplemented; classical disciplines like ethnology, customary law, and history, which were often rooted in a colonial past and have consequently showed a certain bias, are now being replaced or supplemented by contemporary topics with broad themes and transnational perspectives. New Asian courses are being introduced, such as compara-tive Asian law, management, economics, politics, business administration, media, communica-tion and so forth. This development could be an ideal opportunity to bring Asian Studies in Europe and Asian Studies in Asia closer together and at the same may lead to the contemporizing of Asian Studies in Europe. Inherent in a transnational approach is that more attention is paid to global issues such as: changing labour relations, welfare systems, water and energy man-agement, environmental awareness, integration issues, security and regionalization, value systems and cultural heritage, knowledge systems, environment, and transmission of technology.
Before these types of research projects can acquire a truly global dimension, we shall have to successfully complete the intermediary stage we are now passing through in the ASEM framework. But also in a more limited ASEM context they can be extremely useful:
- to prepare for programmes in a global tripolar (Asia, Europe, America) context;
- in coming to grips with each other's mutual diversity using cultural diversity as a means of sustainable development;
- knowing ones' neighbours but also ones' neighbours' neighbours through interregional activities.
I see a future of a loosely, dynamically organized educational co-operation and exchange arrangements encompassing three levels:
- interregional;
- intraregional; and
- bilateral
- on the one hand, broadly defined thematic programmes and, on the other hand
- focused problem or policy related co-oper-ative activities.
ASEM as catalyst
I am glad to note that with the establishment of the ASEM and Asia-Europe Foundation, both the political and the institutional prerequisites and conditions are now in place and nothing stands in the way of closer co-operation. However, we must remain vigilant and that is exactly why the Programme for Europe-Asia Research Linkages (PEARL) was launched. PEARL first met in Copenhagen in August 1997 and was attended by represen-tatives from leading Asian and European institutes in the field of Asian Studies. The participants were concerned that research might not receive sufficient attention on the ASEM agenda. They believe that a broad-based research partnership encompassing the Social Sciences at the two ends of the Eurasian continent, can deliver enormous intellec-tual benefits to scholar-ship at national, regional, and global levels.
The contemporizing of Asian Studies in my view means to break through the borders of the set scientific categories. In the 21st century a fusion between Natural Sciences and Technology and the Humanities and Social Sciences is crucial. Here we must keep in mind that fashionable tendencies should not predominate. Profound knowledge of language, culture, and history is the very basis of every scientific endeavour and should always play a basic role in Asian Studies in Europe. Promotion of this partner-ship between Natural Sciences and other sciences ought to be an integral part of the ASEM dynamics and a major element in the future activities of the ASEF. The ASEF will support the Asia-Europe Workshop on Research Policy in Asian and European Studies, organized by PEARL and be given the task of drawing up an agenda for future priority action. The workshop will be held in Korea in November 1998. The workshop should come up with durable arrangements in the ASEM process which will make the best expertise in Asian and European Studies accessible to a broader audience and it should devise self-renewing structures which will contribute to creating a Europe-Asia research culture not confined to the Social Sciences and Humanities, but with clear technological input in view of the ongoing digitalization of our societies. The use of new communication technologies will not only speed up this process, it but can also make it significantly cheaper.
It must have become clear that a great deal still remains to be done before we can conduct co-operation in a new, more effective manner. In sum: I want to stress a number of points on which action should be taken, some of which have been developed in this article, others I mention since I believe they too are of relevance.
Points of action
- Try to do away with "tribilization" which stands in the way of a rethinking of our relationship and as a consequence stands in the way of the development of a new education and research culture;
- Stop the "compartmentalization" of knowledge: set up more curricula in which technology, Natural Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences interact;
- Organize higher education in close co-operation with neighbouring countries; build on regional centres of excellence and distribute them evenly over the regions.
- Organize research in national and regional councils;
- Set up national and supranational academies in line with, for example the Royal Academy in GB and improve the quality of these institutions;
- Joint ASEM prioritizing of scientific issues;
- Implement new transnational research programmes;
- Make an inventory of Asia-Europe academic relations;
- Widen the scope of PEARL;
- Establish an Asia Science Foundation;
- Enhance academic dynamism/mobility among ASEM member countries;
- Stimulate the establishment of regional professional organizations in Asia and enhance co-operation with the European and American organizations;
- Develop a joint ASEAN curricula pertaining to history;
- Stop covert and overt censorship;
- Abolish monopolies and licenses in publications and information distribution;
- Tax-free import and subsidizing of professional materials and free access to them;
- No budget cuts on education, even during this crisis;
- Sponsoring of reading.