｡?AOKI
Thank you very much. Do you have any comments, Dr. Yamano?
｡?Masaru YAMANO
Former Executive Director of Kansai Association of Corporate Executive Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.
I am from the business field, which is most unrelated to the subject matter being discussed. However, since my background is in physics, I should perhaps comment from the technological point of view, even though it is also remotely related to the subject matter being discussed today.
After listening to the views presented by the four professors, I was particularly impressed with the importance of history being observed from various angles by the four of them. Professor Iokibe already gave comments on the discussions given by the four professors, so I have nothing to add to that. The only thing I would like to say is about what Dr. Kawakatsu pointed out. In his speech about globalization and Asia hg said culture which is admired by others will lead to civilization, which impressed me very much. Will Japan be able to move to that direction? I believe there will be a number of methods for Japan to go in that direction.
One method is the field of natural science, where Japan can make many contributions, Natural science, as you know, surpasses any religious belief or ideology, as we say, "there is only one truth", if I may use a big expression. I think this field will be shared by any nation, civilization or culture from now on. And in another field, the field of economy, which is the topic of my speech tomorrow, we can no longer talk about economy without referring to natural science and technology.
Conventional nations were supported by military power and therefore, 20th century can be considered as the age of military power. However, we are now in the age of economy and I feel that natural science will exert a very strong power.
As I was very much stimulated by the speech given by Dr. Kawakasu and I wish to thank him for that.
｡?REID
There are four points I want to make. One is a response to some of the things Dr. Nandy said. Particularly, the appealing picture of the multiple-identified villagers in India and elsewhere. We know that picture well from many parts of Asia and we know that social reality everywhere. It describes a world which is not yet affected by the kind of nationalism which imposes uniform identity. What troubles me is this, It fails to reassure, just because one knows that was the world of Vienna in 1890, the world of so much old Europe before nationalism and particularly ethno-nationalism tore apart their multi-ethnic communities. It was the world of Sarajevo, not very long ago. It doesn't in itself guarantee against this kind of danger breaking out. This takes me to another question. Is Asia different from Europe, or our period different in such fundamental ways from the 1930s that we should be reassured? The period is certainly different, because we no longer have the crazy ideology of biological purity. DNA is bringing some of the genetic emphasis back into Science. But there simply is not that ideological basis (even though it didn't stop Serbs and Croatians thinking and sounding rather as though there was). The other point: is Asia different? I don't know. I just want to say I have been a little unsatisfied with the new literature on nationalism although I mentioned it has been so enlightening in some respects. But it seems to me it has not helped us so much with Asia, in particularly East Asia. It does not help us understand what Chinese nationalism, what Vietnamese and Korean nationalism is. I suspect that it is something different.
Benedict Anderson talks about "print capitalism". But there has been print in this part of the world for 1,000 years. So a certain kind of nationalism was already there maturing, sustained also by a technocratic, or bureaucratic state uniformity. What I mean is that in the East Asian world, you had a certain uniformity carried by printing, by uniform bureaucracy open to the talented, who sat the same sort of examinations long before Europe did. So there has been something there longer. On the other hand, much of Asia is very new to nationalism. In Indonesia I worry that perhaps nationalism, especially ethno-nationalism, has not happened yet. Maybe the danger is still awaiting us. But you also have the other phenomenon of nationalism being older in parts of Asia in encouraging a certain sense of self. Being older, therefore perhaps, it is less in danger of being affected with the disease of enthusiasm for a national mono-identitv.
｡?KAWAKATSU
Mr. Mohamad is quite right in saying that universal words such as "civil society", and "global people,, should be more respected, what I would like to point out, however, is that oceanic Asia has been less known that continental Asia and that this fact will help to establish its own identity. I introduced this view as one of the key concepts to describe the multiplicity of Asia. The concept does not mean viewing your culture in a single uniformity. In response to the comment that defining a lifestyle suggests a fixed image and
