For hundreds of years, Asia’s identity has been defined in Western terms due to colonialism and imperialism. However, in this age of post-colonialism, the forces of globalization are de-Westernizing the way the world is perceived and interacted with. It has in turn shifted the way that we view the cultural, geographical and historical aspects of the idea of “Asia” and “the East”. Isolation from the West has become a fleeting dream from the past. There has been a distant relationship between the entity of the West and the East for thousands of years, but in recent years, increased globalization has slowly forced this relationship to become increasingly intimate. This impending collision of cultural entities is no longer impending but is now our present reality. The idea of Asia can no longer be thought of alone, but must be defined in its context in the global community. This shift in the relationship between the East and the West has been dualistic in nature in that it has caused the idea of Asia and the East to be inseparable from the context of the idea of the West and the rest of the world that surrounds it. However, it has at the same time caused a reaction among the nations to call for a greater understanding of what Asia is apart from the influence of the West and the rest of the world, and on Asia’s own terms. All in all, this shows that Asia today is defined by an interplay between its relationship with the rest of the world, including the West, and Asia’s view of itself to form an identity that fits into the context of globalization. This interplay has created an identity that is de-westernized, but not devoid of Western thought. Rather, Asia is not centralized in one culture’s perspective, but a collective identity composed of insider perspectives and perspectives formed by the relationship outsider forces have with Asia..
The first element of Asia’s identity is an increased awareness of itself free from Western influence. The centrality of the Western discourse and power structure over Asia has become decayed and decentralized (Iwabuchi, 19). This has given other discourses that dissent from the Western discourse on Asia the opportunity to take hold. For example, there have been movements in the study of Asia to indigenize the knowledge of Asian nations. For instance, histories of colonized nations start only after the colonization of that nation by a European country. Anything before that is considered prehistory in some countries. An indigenization of the knowledge of the term “Asia” would mean that the knowledge base of Asia would come from Asian indigenous sources (Dirlik, 163). This disarms the centrality of the Western narration of Asia and centers knowledge of Asia on Asian sources. Further, in the last twenty to thirty years, there has been a resurgence of civilizational view of Asia, in which Asia’s identity is no longer based on a Western colonial modernity, but by its own cultural modernities such Islam or Neo-Confucianism (Dirlik, 162). This departs from a Eurocentric colonial mindset and instead creates an identity that not only sets Asia apart from the West, but goes so far as to set the idea of Asia in direct confrontation against the Euro-American civilization. However, although the Western discourse on Asia has diminished, the new discourse on the identity of Asia has not become entirely Asian-centered.
The second element of Asia’s identity is in its interaction with the West and the world outside of Asia. One of the most prominent ideas that embody this identity is the idea of the Pacific Rim. The Pacific Rim makes Asia a part of a larger economic and power structure that is centered not on the West or on Asia, but on the area in between them- the Pacific Ocean (Dirlik, 165). This view identifies Asia not from an Asian discourse or a Euro-American discourse, but instead defines Asia from a discourse formed from the relationship between those discourses. Another example of an Asian definition based on its relationship with other nations is the rise and study of diasporic communities. This way of viewing Asia “replaces areas and groundedness with the motions of people” (Dirlik, 166). This viewpoint of Asia focuses on the creation of identity in the interaction and relationship between Eastern cultures and Western cultures (for example, Chinese culture and American culture become the Asian American culture in Chinese diaspora communities in America). Again, this is a discourse that blurs the distinction between the West and the East and demands a new matrix of thinking based on the inseparable relationship between Asian identity and Western identity. On the surface, this integrationist view of Asia as part of a larger system is in direct contradiction to the idea that the identity of Asia must be free of Western influence.
On the contrary, however, the introspective identity of Asia and the relational identity of Asia work towards the same goal- the decentralization of Western thought that defines Asia. These elements have the potential to come together to form a “new cosmopolitanism” in which post-colonial thought of non-Western countries allies itself with the “disowned West” that recognizes the deterioration of the West’s nce (Nandy, 146). In the same way, the introspective view of Asia apart from the West sets the stage for a viewpoint in which the West no longer has the authority to dictate identity, and the relational element creates a concrete alternative to an ethnocentric view of Asia. This cosmopolitanism can in turn form an environment of egalitarian dialogue between civilizations (Nandy, 147). This creates an identity in which the idea of Asia is not just formed by the West, but can even be a force in defining and affecting Western thought.
Thus, Asia, in the context of globalization, is a combination of its own independently formed personal history and identity and its identity formed by its relationship with the rest of the world. Firstly, the idea of Asia has expanded beyond the West’s definition of Asia, but now includes the voices of Asia itself. Secondly, Asia’s identity is now centered on its relationship with its global context. This dualistic identity not just relevant in Asia, but is relevant to the changing identities of people groups, nations, and continents all over the world. For example, this dualism is found in America’s relationship between Mexico, in which there is an increased dependence on Mexico for America’s economy, while at the same time, efforts to build a wall on the border and efforts to define who is American and who isn’t have significantly increased. To understand Asia’s dualistic identity in a global context not only assists in the understanding of Asia, but in questions of identity around the world, in which globalization has simultaneously melded and demarcated ideas of identity from the personal level to cultural and continental identity.
