EBP - Revisiting Asian Values

‘Revisiting Asian Values’ by Leigh Jenco explores the “Asian Values” discourse, a political perspective founded through the basis of Asian identity. In particular, she examines the arguments of how this discourse is “condemned for its instrumentalism and lack of cultural authenticity.” (pg 237) This is at large due to its establishment through a non-Asian scope. Traditional values and practices were merely considered, with much attention to one singular norm - the embracement of community above the individual. Jenco argues this value was heavily normalised within the discourse and was used to justify authoritarianism and capitalism within European and other societies. In addition Asia is a large, culturally diverse region, raising the question of - to what extent of culture or region was Asianness restricted to? Jenco clearly outlines the European observation of Asia to sum to East Asia, encompassing Japan, China and Korea. Through the elaboration of history starting from the mid-nineteenth century, Jenco highlights imperialism and how it had asserted the identities of Eastern civilisations and other civilisations leading to the concept of Asian Values.

During the late nineteenth century, fear of the democratisation trend was faced by Germany, Britain, France and the US. In Germany the notion of ‘kultur’ - culture in English - was developed by Oswald Spengler ”to deny its inclusion in a (global north) civilisation increasingly defined by democracy.” (pg 239) The concept developed the idea of civilisation. Rather than civilisation being a universal goal adopted by every individual, it extended the idea that each society has their own meaning of civilisation defined by their unique customs and traditions. Therefore, a different cultural journey was expected to be carried out by each distinct society to reach the end result of civilisation. Influenced by this, Asian academics also followed this notion, criticising the global north for their universal civilisation approach to justify imperialism. This notion created the structure of the global north civilisation and the Eastern or Asian civilisation as we know it. However much of the Asian identity was enforced by Europeans to create a sense of political hierarchy and separation. Evidently, Japan’s identity in the late nineteenth century more or so aligned with the US, influenced by their power and imperialism. Fueled by this new sense of identity, Japan went on to invade both China and Korea. Arguably, Jenco explains this can be interpreted as pan-Asianism, carried out on the basis that the “nations’ shared history, culture, and origins, grounded on a belief that Japan was endowed with a divine mission to “liberate” its fellow Asians through forced modernization.” (pg 242)

Japan’s modernisation success soon led to East Asian values to be redefined, challenging China’s traditional Confucianism. This difference raised a question of what can be considered East Asian collectively by academics at the time. Confucianism was considered to embody the East, however Jenco explains Confucian ethics is “identified as China’s traditional “essence,”” (pg 246), and they shared little commonality among other countries of the East. It was also argued to be an outdated concept which supported traditional institutions such as the monarchy. Nonetheless, it was countered by Du Yaquan, who saw Confucianism to be flexible within the modern system, “insisting that these indigenous “foundations” can support republicanism, and even democracy” (pg 245). Du found difficulty in producing his theories without considering the modern attributes of Japan, which saw criticism by traditionalists. On the other hand, he also didn’t want to offend modernists when “celebrating China’s antiquity or past influence on the region.” (pg 247) Du challenged the idea that what is American is considered modern, and rather argued for the fact that Eastern traditions can be adapted and developed for future needs. He concluded the nucleus of East Asian civilisation lay in their “willingness to adapt, through seeing new relationships between concepts that were not there before…” (pg 248) And opposingly, other civilisations were outdated under the aftermath of WWI.

These ideas have pervaded into the modern politics model, an example being the Former Prime Minister of Singapore stating in an interview, “Easterners” are disciplined by the core values, “thrift, hard work, filial piety, and loyalty in the extended family.” (Lee Kwan Yew in Foreign Affairs, 1994, pg 250) There has been development of the theory which extends the ““Asian” ethic to respond to a global crisis of faith in received wisdom about political, economic, and social progress.” (pg 251) Scholars questioned the traditional theory about whether it was a political tool engineered by governments to mask their deeper political and economic intent. Evidently, certain Japanese and Korean economic development reforms were driven by these government efforts rather than by traditional Confucianism. 

Jenco concludes by digging into the true nature of Asian Values discourse. The ideology has been historically, inextricably linked with European norms which illegitimates true Asian norms. European norms continue to inform beliefs and values onto Asian societies relating to economic and political development. Jenco suggests Taiwanese academic Chen Kuan-hsing’s concept of “inter-referencing” which aims for Asian states to refer and compare with one another to promote regional dialogue and knowledge-sharing. With the absence of northern states, it can encourage Asian states to develop into a new direction with “longstanding modernisation narrative of conventional social science…” This will help take apart the European-limited view of Asian Values discourse and head Asia into a direction where they will “resume the centre stage which they occupied for millennia.” (pg 258) 

Asian Values in real life

Although the Asian Value discourse was established from a European lens, as it developed, Asian states claimed it as their own, through their own reflection of their society.  Looking back at its early development, Jenco describes it as a metric for separating the political institutions of the East and the global north. Evidently, former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid was recommended by Malaysian Prime Minister at the time - Mahathir Mohamad - to not follow any non-asian model to run his state. Mahathir explained ASEAN “has its own solutions to resolve the economic and political crisis of Indonesia.” (Hoon, Chang Yau. 2004) The narrative had flipped with Asian societies becoming in control of the discourse, stemming from the “...deep resentment against the (global north) for its past colonialism and [those] who have an inferiority complex in regards to (European) civilisation.” (Hoon, Chang Yau. 2004) It was becoming clear this discourse was being used to justify oppressive behaviour. China is an example where their government emphasises principles of Confucian thought. As part of this principle, the state is represented as a ‘parental governance’ and the citizens are their children who owe filial piety - the responsible act of obedience towards one’s parents. Anyone who threatens this social order is considered an “irresponsible malcontents”. Hoon explains this rhetoric is used by the country to perpetrate “repeated acts of state violence when faced with domestic dissent.” (Hoon, Chang Yau. 2004) He refers to the Tiananmen Massacre which was a case where the parent i.e. the state was demonstrating their authority towards their children i.e. citizens “in order to restore stability and to deter any possible future dissents” (Hoon, Chang Yau. 2004) This parent-child dynamic between the state and the citizens can be representative of their government system. It has been constantly criticised by the US and its allies for its undemocratic nature however, you can argue communism is a key element to their Confucian philosophy, embracing the parent-child dynamic. 

In recent times, China has used this discourse in foreign politics to “build consensus and seek common ground while shelving differences.” (Xinhua. June 2024) Under New Zealand foreign policies, China has been under the spotlight for their growing presence in the Pacific. It has found itself to be a threat towards the allies who have existing influence in the region. In response to this, in June of this year, the Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun, carried out a speech, drawing on the similar values shared between Asian and the Pacific society. He stated, “People in the Asia-Pacific are committed to pursuing harmony, are peace-loving, independent, self-radiant, and have always supported each other through thick and thin.” (Xinhua. June 2024) Dong emphasised on the Asian value of peace to demonstrate that China is not a threat to the Pacific and to the allies who have existing territories in the region. 

Founded by common East Asian principles, the Asian Value discourse has become a tool in international politics to use whenever necessary. It can be described as a trump card to encourage or embrace partnership as well as an opportunity to hide your true motives. It is a useful concept that has adapted into the way it is today to fit into the modern political framework. It can also be described as a protest against the global north and their system. Their system, namely democracy does not extend to include traditional Asian Values and thus cannot be forced upon a region who has a completely different set of norms. 

References: 

https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202406/02/content_WS665c2ec2c6d0868f4e8e7c83.html#:~:text=People%20in%20the%20Asia%2DPacific,common%20ground%20while%20shelving%20differences.

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/soss_research/article/1832/&path_info=Asian_values.pdf