the Jews.
Finally, the radical nationalist option is an ideology to which I have been paying some attention to lately. Probably because of the interesting surge of writing about nationalism since the books of Anderson or Geilner or others in the early eighties we have had a lot of writing which helps us to understand what the nationalist phenomena is. Partly because it's starting to lose its hold over the imagination we can start to see beyond nationalism to a kind of post-nationalist world.
So we know more about it. We can now make some distinctions between what has been horrendously dangerous nationalism and what has been positive or constructive. The dangerous kinds have been linked to blood, descent, biology, to a sort of presumption of racial purity and homogeneity and purity of a particular group, which then demands the right to erect a state around them. If we look to Southeast Asia, there are nationalisms and nationalisms. Most nationalisms have not been of the racial kind. They are aspiring to be anti-colonial nationalism for the most part, which has resembled the old imperialism it sought to replace in its tendency to group many ethnicities together in imagining a new, rasher artificial, community. There are examples of the biological tendencies of nationalisms. They are more evident in Malay nationalism of Malaysia and Khmer nationalism of Cambodia, and to some extent all the nationalism of the mainland Southeast Asian states which are always in danger of confusing the nations with ethnic majority and making things hard for the ethnic outsiders.
We have to worry about these things. I want to end, however, by being optimistic. I don't say in any sense that the history of Europe will be repeated in Southeast Asia. But the surest way to ensure it will not be repeated is to be mindful of this history.
｡?AOKl
I think that Prof. Reid has presented the problems now facing Asia in various ways. That's how to avoid being exclusive or chauvinistic when politics and economics are on the verge of crises which raise nationalism, This is true in crisis-ridden situations in Asia now, including examples in Indonesia and Cambodia. However, it is now different from what it used to be in Europe in the first half of the 20th century, because there is ASEAN in Asia now. I'd like to further later.
｡?Heita KAWAKATSU
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University
In today's keynote lecture, delivered by Mr. Teofisto T. Guingona, former Secretary of the Philippine Department of Justice ,"more power to Asian nations" was emphasized at the end of the message, and I'm of the same opinion. I endorse his message, proposing that we should cooperate to construct fairer and greater economic stability in Asia with its highly sophisticated cultures. Mr. Yamazaki stated in the second keynote lecture that such a kind of Asia should be the one we are aiming for.
When we refer to the word "Asia" it implies Asia as a shadow of Europe. According to he study by Mr. Shuntaro Ito, "Asia" simply meant the place of the sunrise and "Europe"
that of the sunset in Assytian language. In 19th century, when the notion of Orientalism was established, words of "Orient" and "Occident" were applied the same way. "Orient" or "Asia" was exploited as a shadow only to highlight the Modern West. Therefore, it is remarkable to remember that these words don't have positive meanings and in a sense there is no "Asia" as a place of independent significance. I understand the message as we should construct "Asia" cooperatively and Japan is a part of it. Also, such an "Asia" should not be closed and Japan must play an important role as a member of the Asian Pacific Community.
Let me refer to the message from Mr. Yamazaki, saying that the second modemization does not suggest Westernization, an idea with which I am in complete agreement. In his speech, he applies the word, "globalization" which he defines as covering a wider concept than "Westernization", so that "Westernization" is included as only one style of "globalization". "Americanization" is also one style of "globalization". Again, I quite agree with this idea. Keeping the above comments in mind, I would like to spend some time to address a number of issues.
In the first session, three different time scales were presented: the last 50 years, 150 years, and 500 years. First of all, I would like to interpret these time scales, applying them to this session's key terms or key concepts: globalization, Asia and culture. The last 50 years is identified with the Cold War Era. At the very end of the era, the Socialist block had resolved itself and been defeated by the free market economy. Frankly speaking, the Soviet Union had collapsed and the United States won the contest. Therefore, it was naturally predicted that Americanism would influence the whole world, but such a prediction has not necessarily come to pass.
