孙歌：亚洲作为原理
采访、编辑：林昱（Aimee Lin）
I 亚洲意味着什么
林昱（Aimee Lin） 亚洲意味着什么？在地理之外还有别的意义吗？
孙歌 当然了，亚洲并不仅仅是一个空间概念，也就是说它不仅仅是一个地理的概念，而且也不仅仅是一个政治历史地理概念。现在在学术领域里面已经有这样一个领域叫政治历史地理，这个领域是把各种政治、文化、历史问题，放到它发生的那个空间里进行讨论，亚洲其实也是这样的一个政治的、历史的和地理的结合体的概念，但是除此以外，我认为还有很重要的另外一方面的功能，这个概念常常被忽视的，就是它的精神风土性格。
林昱 风土是什么？
孙歌 风土，是讲一个地区，某一个地理空间里面所具有的一些自然的地理特征，当它和人的精神活动结合起来的时候，自然地理特征通过社会活动这一媒介，与特定人群的精神活动结合，我们把它称为“风土”。所以亚洲概念至少是以自然地理的特定空间，承载了其中由于人类活动所造成的政治、历史和精神文化，种种人文的和社会的精神产物，把它放到特定空间里面来讨论。
林昱 “亚洲”最初是外部于亚洲的人对这样一个地理空间的称呼，亚洲或者说亚洲这个观念，对于生活在这个空间里面的人本身是否也有含义？
孙歌 “亚洲”在近代以前不具有主体认同的含义。但是这个情况在20世纪以后发生了变化。最早自十字军东征时期——那时候亚洲指的还是小亚细亚地区——直到20世纪之前，在欧洲向全世界进行殖民扩张的过程中，西方的亚洲论述一直持续到现代的基本方向，就是说亚洲是欧洲的“他者”。这个“他者”在伊斯兰世界很强大的古典时期是一个强敌的概念，近代以后这个“他者”就成了反证欧洲文化先进性的参照物。在欧洲的意识形态里面，应该说直到第二次世界大战之后，才开始存在把亚洲作为一个平等的而且可以相互理解的对象加以认知的可能。可是这也只是作为一种可能，事实上这样的可能，在欧洲到现在为止还是比较边缘的，这是欧洲的情况。
就亚洲来说，直到第二次世界大战结束之后，才形成了比较广泛的、把“亚洲”反转为主体认知的政治符号的趋势。这时就不能再说亚洲只是一个西方制造出来的概念，因为历史是在不断改变的。这个变动的典型符号是1955年的万隆会议，当然它也只是一个阶段的状况。从历史的大趋势来看，亚洲论述的性质发生变化是在20世纪以后，它开始被转换成了亚洲地区一部分社会自我认同的符号。这个自我认同最早发生在日本，而它的亚洲主义的高峰期是1904-05年的日俄战争，这场战争被日本人认为是一个人种之间的战争，它意味着黄种人对白种人的胜利。孙中山在其三民主义的讲演里也提到，日俄战争后他回中国的途中，在轮船上有阿拉伯人问他你是日本人吗，阿拉伯人很少有机会向东亚表示他们的一体感，但是日俄战争使阿拉伯人作为黄种人产生了亚洲认同。很不幸的是日本的亚洲主义是伴随着战争推进的，它模仿的是欧洲殖民的方式。所以它走的并不是一条真正意义上的亚洲主义道路，而是欧洲主义的道路，最典型的表现就是侵华战争和第二次世界大战，日本整个战争推进的方式和它的殖民主义采用的完全是欧洲早期殖民的模式。
所以如果说亚洲存在亚洲主义的话，那么这个亚洲主义存在好几个侧面，它们相互之间是有张力的。但是有一点，我们可以去掉价值判断地说，至少是从19世纪末开始，在亚洲各个地区以不同的方式开始出现了把西方作为他者的文化符号转换成自我认同的主体符号的趋势，这是一个历史的趋势，所以“亚洲”在早年被西方命名的那段历史，并不能用来说明20世纪之后，亚洲人使用亚洲这个范畴的状况。
林昱 那对于从二战之后一直到当代，亚洲这个观念的意义又发生了什么改变？
孙歌 二战之后亚洲这个观念，特别是万隆会议，提出来的是亚非——亚洲和非洲，讲的是亚洲和非洲的民族独立运动。而那个时候亚洲认同的一个核心内容是以国家为单位的民族独立运动。在50年代亚洲兴起的过程中，亚洲的主要含义在于它是一个政治上的主体单位。由于亚洲地区除日本之外，绝大部分地区都有被殖民或者说间接被殖民的经验，所以在近代被歧视、充满了屈辱感的意义上，亚洲在50年代获得了一个短期内的高度一体化认知。亚洲并不像欧洲那样，能够大致地由一种宗教统合起来。亚洲至少有三大文明圈，主要的宗教还不止三个，它们相互之间是不能够简单统合的，但是在50年代以万隆会议为标志，亚洲出现过一个统合的时期，所以那个时候的亚洲概念很饱满，它覆盖了几乎是绝大部分亚洲地区。但是到了后来，在这个历史阶段过去之后，后发国家获得了独立、建立了主权国家之后，这个情况就发生了变化。
林昱 这大概是什么时间点？
孙歌 应该说是当冷战结构趋于解体，70年代亚洲就开始分化了，因为这个时候整个亚洲都在面对发展的问题，即实现现代化。所以就出现了亚洲和西方世界的各种对话、交流、合作。于是在70年代之后随着冷战结构的逐渐解体，新一轮的殖民以看不见的形式开始发生了。到柏林墙倒塌之后，亚洲面对着一个重新结盟的课题。所以比如说上合（上海合作）组织、金砖国家等一些联盟，实际上是亚洲在重组新的国际关系的标志。在这种情况下我们就会发现，亚洲已经不能够在地理上让自己作为一个独立的单位来强调它的认同。比如说东北亚的六方会谈，这是一个亚洲的重大事件，但是里边有两个亚洲之外的国家参与（美国和俄罗斯），而且没有人质疑。美国已经通过第二次世界大战完成了它在亚洲特别是在东亚的内在化，在这样的情况下，有些人就说那亚洲就不成立了。从地理空间上的意义上看，确实亚洲好像不能够摆脱千丝万缕的和其他地区的结合关系，50年代万隆会议标志的那种一体化现在确实解体了。
II 亚洲作为原理
林昱 作为地理空间的亚洲的一体性不成立了。
孙歌 对。但是如果我们回到最初的话题上看，我们讲这个亚洲它不仅仅是一个地域概念，它同时是政治、历史和精神文化的结合体，它标志了人的精神活动、人文和社会活动的风土性格，在这个意义上，我认为今天到了把亚洲作为一种原理进行重新论证和重新组合的阶段。
林昱 你曾经写过《亚洲意味着什么》，但“亚洲作为原理”仿佛是第一次提出。
孙歌 我觉得我是刚刚走到这一步，今天对亚洲的讨论我认为是还不到位的，如果亚洲没有自己的原理的话，那么它真的仅仅是依附于西方论述框架的田野材料而已。到目前为止，亚洲在西方和中国学界里基本上只是一个田野，但是我认为，现在我们应该生产亚洲原理了。这样做并不仅仅是为了亚洲人，我觉得这是一种对人类的历史责任。亚洲原理，它只是相对于欧洲原理、非洲原理和拉美原理的一个相对化的原理，讨论亚洲原理，并不是为了对抗西方、取代西方而进行的知识活动。
林昱 在我们展开关于亚洲作为原理的话题之前，我想问一下，艺术或者文化，在亚洲或者亚洲观念中扮演的角色，它是否也用于塑造认同和身份？
孙歌 艺术和文化是通过形式来给精神进行形塑的活动，因为我们人类的精神活动一定要有一种形状才能自我呈现，那么艺术是用一种直观的造型来表达精神的。我可以这么说，到目前为止就我所接触到的东亚艺术，比如说美术作品、戏剧、电影，它们的主流是西方化的，它的亚洲性是不够的。
林昱 你是说它背后缺乏那种所谓亚洲主体那种意识，它不知不觉的在用西方的方法或者西方的目光吗？
孙歌 对，它用的是西方的目光，你比如说最典型的是张艺谋，他作品中所有的中国化表现是为了迎合好莱坞的需要。当然其他的一些有抱负的艺术家并不像张艺谋这么浅薄，他们相对来说更会寻找亚洲元素，但是这些艺术家包括艺术策展人，他们的视野基本上是一个西方视野。比如说搞当代艺术的艺术家和策展人脑袋里有一个根深蒂固的概念就是现代性，如果不让他们谈现代性，他们基本上就没有办法工作。这个是到目前为止的一个趋势，这个趋势我也不认为应该否定，因为在某种意义上，它呈现了西方从政治经济乃至文化上向整个亚洲渗透的过程所带来的后果。但是实际上，在非主流的边缘地区，一些文化和艺术的活动里面有亚洲元素在慢慢生长。只是这个生长是非常需要营养的，我认为亚洲的知识分子现在好像还没有走到那一步，它需要一个过程。
林昱 你所提到的这类文化活动，能举个例子吗？
孙歌 比如说日本有一个剧作家叫樱井大造，他的帐篷剧是非常日本的，用了日本底层老百姓的那种生活感觉去进行表演，是很特别的一种艺术方式。樱井很有想象力，有能力欣赏他的帐篷剧的知识分子是很有限的，其实樱井在整个东亚地区是受到追捧的，年轻的小知识分子特别喜欢他的剧，追捧他的剧，是因为他的形式很新鲜，但是他里面包含的那样的一种亚洲元素是需要转换的。再比如说在韩国光州的版画活动，还有就是正在冲绳发生的一些艺术活动，比如摄影。那个地区现在还保存着有一点像萨满教的原始宗教。有一个摄影家就专门拍宫古岛（冲绳最大的离岛）每年二月份的神女祭祀。但是这种真正本土的、不是用西方的观念来诠释的文学和艺术活动，到目前为止，还很难被广泛流通和共享，这是一个基本的事实，不过这部分资源有很强的生命力，它们不会消亡。
林昱 可能是因为当代艺术的认证和流通的机制，归根到底也这个机制背后的人，他们本身没有办法能够看得懂或者看得见这样的艺术。
孙歌 我想还需要一段时间，而且这应该不仅仅是亚洲人的工作，西方知识界，或者说整个西方世界在国际格局里它的功能、定位都在发生变动，西方的知识界，他们对亚洲的想象也会发生变动。我想无论是西方还是亚洲有抱负的知识分子，不会满足于只在我们的现实那么丰富的生活里去寻找所谓的现代性问题、后现代问题。有一天大家会进入更丰富的、更新鲜的经验。在这个意义上来说，艺术和文化能够承担非常重要的功能，只是到目前为止，它做得还确实不太够。
林昱 也有一些西方人有一种认识，人们之所以会认为亚洲的身份和认同是通过文化来定义和塑造的，是因为人们缺乏当地的语言技能，所以只能模式化的想象其他的文化。我不知道您是怎么看的。
孙歌 我觉得这当然是要素之一，但是不是全部的。对于亚洲缺乏认知，在某种意义上是因为西方太自足了，一直到现在这个状况才刚刚开始发生变化，当西方人能够问出这样的问题，就表明他开始觉得这是一个问题了。其实一直到现在，大多数西欧和北美的知识分子对亚洲是缺少真正意义上的好奇心的，而缺少好奇心的原因绝对不是语言问题。
林昱 是他们本身文化上的一种封闭吗？
孙歌 这个现象和近代以来西方强势地去征服全球的政治、经济的历史趋势是合流的，文化不可能脱离政治和经济，独立具有自己的特征，所以在西方真正具有亚洲意识的文化人也一定是边缘的。
林昱 非常少。
孙歌 但应该是有的。我接触的西欧和北美的知识分子跟我谈中国问题的时候，他先会拿出几个框架，比如说现代性的框架、后现代的框架、理性和个人权利的框架、科学主义的框架，还有就是进化论的框架。所有的这些框架，其实作为欧洲近代以来的文化结构，有很成熟的积累，西方知识分子在这样的一个文化系统里面被训练，把这一切视为正常的前提。但问题是当他们面对没有这个传统而只是片断地引进了这些元素的东方，他应该怎么办？我遇到的所有的西方知识分子几乎都在做一个努力，要把他看到的那些他不熟悉的经验，半信半疑地塞进这些框架，然后进行解释。
林昱 你这样一说，亚洲作为原理的必要性其实就显示出来了。因为对于他们来说这也是一个非常大的一个挑战，一个非常有难度的工作。
孙歌 对。亚洲作为原理实际上不是一句空话。这件事意味着我们要从重新定义普遍性开始，我们要从这样一个视角开始：任何一种思想和精神活动都是风土性的。这就意味着你不可以把你的欧洲和北美的局部经验作为一个人类共享的全球经验来套到其他区域里面去，这样的做法从一开始就应该是被否定的。这是亚洲作为原理向人类提出的要求，现在如果我们在欧洲原理的视野里面去看亚洲的话，那么你一定会用一个所谓的普遍性想象去对待亚洲，所以你就会在亚洲里面寻找现代性，寻找科学和理性。不光是西方人。亚洲人也在做这件事。
林昱 因为我们接受的教育和学术训练，我们在脑子里也已经变成他们了，但是我们的生活、身体那种感性经验，还是可以超出脑子的部分。
孙歌 所以从这样的教育背景出发，大家看到的亚洲各个社会正在发生的变动就很难解释，比如说怎么去解释今天中国社会的高度流动性。从亚洲原理出发去讨论各个社会的状况的时候，并不是为了给目前的各个社会的存在提供正当性的基础。因为这是一种知识工作，不是在肯定它或者是否定它，我们要做的是去解释它。我不是做艺术的，从思想史的角度看，这个问题非常迫切，这才迫使我现在来讨论亚洲原理，我认为亚洲原理如果用一个最简化的方式来说，就是一个以形而下的多样共存为基本特征和前提的普遍性。
林昱 形而下也就是你所说的“风土”？
孙歌 对。
III 亚洲艺术的前提
林昱 从你作为学者的角度看，是否有一种可以被称为亚洲艺术的东西，如果是的话是什么构成的这种艺术的所谓亚洲性？
孙歌 这个问题真的很大。首先我认为亚洲艺术不但是可以存在，而且是必须存在的。但是亚洲艺术一定是多样性的存在，所以当我们说到亚洲艺术的时候，前提是，它没有代表。西方艺术虽然我们也不能说它就一定有代表，其实西方当代艺术家也会说出很多流派来。亚洲艺术我认为也是一样，而且它还有一个和西方艺术不一样的地方，就是说它没有可以统合为亚洲艺术的“一”。
林昱 它不具有独一的特质。
孙歌 对。经过了西方至少一、二百年来的强力打造，我们习惯于谈一个区域就必须找出一个代表来谈论它的“一”。现在，我们要用“多”来谈这个区域，大家还没有形成这个习惯，这是我们讨论亚洲艺术的前提。为什么需要这个前提，因为亚洲艺术是一个不能够被统合的艺术，所以它是多种多样的。中国哲学家陈嘉映提出了一个“个殊性”的说法，就是把个体和特殊性结合起来。每一个“个殊性”（individual peculiarity）的载体叫做“个殊者”（peculiar individual）。我认为亚洲艺术是由无数个个殊者构成的，但是我们要说的并不是一个拼盘，如果是拼盘，亚洲艺术就不存在了，是一盘散沙。在个殊者之间是要发生关系的，这个关系我们必须用亚洲原理解释，这个关系是什么意思，是说每一个个殊者和其他的个殊者绝对不可能一样，而且他和其他的个殊者重合的部分，也不是绝对相同的。在建立关系的时候，个殊者之间没有优劣之分。这个东西从欧洲原理里面是不可能产生的。所以当各种个殊者之间只能通过相互理解、通过自我开放，通过对自己的超越来达成建立关系的目标时，这个亚洲艺术就形成了。这就牵扯到我们要改变必须用欧洲的现代性和后现代作为媒介来进入亚洲艺术的欣赏习惯。我们现在的欣赏习惯是把自己的文化先翻译成英语，然后再拿这个英语进入其他的文化 。
林昱 在亚洲这个观念当中是否有一些部分，是建立在西方世界及其理念的对立和冲突之上的。
孙歌 有，但是我认为这部分是不太重要的，因为对立于西方的方式。一直到目前为止仍然是需要的，但是只要你对立你就会受制于你对立的对象。所以这部分的知识生产只具有过渡性不太具有建设性。比如说后现代就是受制于现代性的，所以它不可能自由。亚洲受制于西方的这样一个历史事实是我们绕不过去的，真的要从这样一种受制于西方的状态里面进行自我解放的话，我认为批判是无效的，我们必须要做的是把西方相对化，而不是否定它。要把包括西方对亚洲渗透过程当中所产生的后果也包含在内，建立自己的认识和结构框架，这是最重要的。对西方的批判和对立不具有建构功能，亚洲的思想和文化建设现在最需要做的是进行结构性的建设。东方的知识分子目前为止比较熟练的方式，一个是批判西方，一个是修改西方，这两种工作都有意义，而且都跟西方内部有非常紧密的联动关系。但是我认为这两种工作都是过渡性的，我们要在这个基础上进行不受西方制约，也不把跟西方的对立冲突作为前提的自我建设，更自由地去想象，更自主地去建设。
林昱 亚洲这样的一个观念，它是由竞争或对立驱动还是合作驱动？
孙歌 这两部分都有。如果说经济一定是以竞争为主的，合作服从于竞争的需要，所以合作永远是临时的。政治就更是这样。但是说到文化，我觉得文化的问题恐怕很难用竞争和合作来进行把握，特别是精神产品的生产，其实我认为亚洲地区的精神产品的生产是互为媒介的。
林昱 互为媒介是什么意思？
孙歌 就是说我把对方作为媒介，从对方的工作和他的精神产品里面激发出我的想象，激发出我进行创作的动力。互为媒介的意思是我的工作并不全是他的工作，他的工作也不能解释我的工作，但是如果我们相互之间没有理解的话，那么我的工作可能不会是这个样子。比如说中国和日本之间的精神生产，到目前为止是以非常实体化的方式去想象，那个东西是低级阶段的一种思考方式，其实我们应该下一步到一个更有品质的领域，中日文化之间应该互为媒介，这既不是竞争也不是合作。
林昱 今年是二战结束70周年。由于历史的原因，在韩国与日本，还有中国与日本之间，会有一个非常强的心理紧张的状态，至今仍然存在并没有消除。所以我想问你，文化本身或者艺术本身是不是具有一种可能性慢慢的通过一些方法让这样的紧张消除掉。
孙歌 这要从几个方面来说，从理想状态来看文化是跨境的，文化本来可以利用跨境的优势来消除由国家紧张所造成的不同社会之间的对立想象，其实这个对立只存在于想象之中。但是事实上看没有那么简单。到目前为止有一项工作我认为是欠缺的，就是文化工作者在进行思考和创作的时候，他使用的母语先规定了他的认同，而多数文化人对于自己的认同很少进行反思。因此他会觉得例如他是一个日本的画家，但是作为日本的艺术家是什么意思他没有追究过，所以如果文化要想跨越国别之间的意识紧张的话，文化人应该做的事情是首先对自己的认同这个前提进行反思。然后形成他自己的认同，这个认同会大于他的国别单位，我认为跨越不了个别单位的人是不可能创造真正的世界一流的精神产品的。但是这不意味着说你跨越了国别单位你就没有国别了，不是，我强调的是他一定自己的文化属性，他母语的那部分文化属性一定是整个创造里面的最基本的源泉和基础，只是他没有把他的国别放到绝对的前提上，从政治和思想的角度讲，还有一个你要履行社会责任，你的政治功能等等都是国别性的。我认为，认同有深有浅，文化认同如果能够深入到人类精神的深度，那么，它将会以国别方式具体呈现人类的精神，但同时又拒绝抽象的一般性表述。
林昱 这让我想到了有一些流亡于海外的策展人和艺术家。尽管他们能够自由地去到世界上最远的地方，精神上却呈现出一种比较虚无的状态。当一个人已经完全不相信国别或者其原生的文化，他其实是离开了一个地方但最后却哪也没到达的状态。
孙歌 这话说得很到位，是这样的，所以无根的艺术家是没有前途的。
林昱 他可以作为现象来观察，但很难走到更有建设性的地方。
IV 当代艺术作为亚洲论述的生产平台
林昱 最近在艺术领域，在香港、光州、上海、新加坡，还有中东的那几个石油国家在建立新的文化或艺术机构的时候，都宣布要建立自己在区域性地图上的位置。这些事情集合在一起，大概可以让人看到一类区域性的视野的形成。我想问一下，这个趋势对于我们的亚洲性或者是亚洲人的自我认同会产生怎样的作用。
孙歌 这个现象是挺让人振奋的，因为在55年万隆会议召开的时候只有政治家在谈亚洲。现在最大的变化是，虽然我们的政治家也在谈亚洲，但是对他们来说亚洲不是一个前提。可是对于艺术界文化界来说，这个代表了和国家不同层次的——姑且说是“社会”，虽然我对这个词的使用还是有犹豫的——由文化界来主导的关于亚洲的想象及其主体的打造，这是一个标志性的变化。而在这个变化里面，我认为艺术界走在了知识界的前面。做学术研究的人现在仍满足于把亚洲当成一个西方的田野，或者一个大拼盘。就中国来说，有些知识分子就用中国代表了亚洲，跟当年日本的想象差不多。所以当艺术界来邀请我谈论亚洲，就让我意识到，其实当代艺术已经变成了生产亚洲原理的一个重要的平台。而它也象征了，从万隆会议时期由政治家主导的、以国家为单位的亚洲独立运动，在今天转向为由文化人主导、对于原理的探求。
目前看显然亚洲各地的双年展，虽然说的是亚洲，但是展览呈现的基本上是一个大拼盘。很多地方谈亚洲就是在谈自己，我觉得谈自己这件事本身，不构成对于亚洲的篡改或者是取代。谈自己有的时候只是在谈自己，有时候则变成了谈亚洲，两者的区别在哪？就在于你能不能深入开掘你自己文化里面的原理性，当你开掘了之后能不能用开放的相对化方式完成自我超越。如果你能做到自我超越的话，这就是亚洲性的一个最重要的特征。你谈一个局部的文化，是可以用亚洲原理的态度，就是你这个文化可以具有亚洲性，你可以用原理的态度对待你的局部问题，否则它就仅仅是一个特殊状况。因此我觉得是不是只做一个区域这件事不那么重要，重要的是你怎么做，反过来我们可以看到，很多以亚洲为名，而且聚拢了大量亚洲不同地区作品的展览，里面的亚洲性是非常稀薄的。但是不管怎么样，亚洲受到关注这个现象我认为是很重要的。
林昱 你曾经说过，关于第三世界内部，每个国家所理解的第三世界也是有着不一样的中心，我相信当我们在讨论亚洲的时候，我们也是面临不同的国家想要建立起自己为中心的世界或者亚洲的冲动，所以这样的情况下，既使是在亚洲内部的交往与认识也是有很多盲点的。对于每一个生活在具体现实或者文化中的人来说，的确就是要有一个操作层面的事情怎样克服视野中的盲点，然后去看见和理解亚洲内部其他地区的情况。
孙歌 我接着你的话往前推，我想我可以把它推成问题。就是说在什么情况下，我们会有去了解他者的冲动？比如说作为中国人，我们会有去了解中东的愿望，盲点的产生不是知识的问题，而是动力的问题，这个动力从何而来，我们可以看到，今天第三世界的大部分知识分子，特别是主流，他们的欧美知识储备是很齐备的，哪怕不会英语，他也会用翻译去读欧洲的经典，而且引经据典地去谈它，但是他对非洲是没有兴趣没有动力的，他认为那个地方不产生思想、不产生原理；那么这样的盲点，是迄今为止的由西方中心的知识和现实的那个权利格局造成的。而且只要国民国家形成，他就会复制这样的一种模式，所以你不能全说这个问题在西方。在亚洲的任何一个社会内部都是这样，它一定是以自我为中心，对那些强势的文化主动产生需求，这种情况有一部分是要由历史来解决的，我们靠艺术家的推动去强调说什么什么地方非常重要，那个没有用。所以我们必须要关注有效工作的边界。艺术家可以做一些工作，比如说针对今天中国社会的现实，把大家迫切想要解决的问题，但是找不到出路找不到头绪的那些问题，如果我们能把亚洲其他地区的资源转化成思考这些问题的媒介，自然就会引起关注。总而言之这个问题其实是一个大问题，是可以深入讨论的。
林昱 我最近在观察中日韩三个东亚国家之间的艺术交往（不包括两国文化和外交部门主导的艺术项目），作为观察者我感到中国仿佛是一个最不在乎其他亚洲国家的国家，您是怎么看这个问题的？
孙歌 我觉得你这个直觉是有一定道理的，这跟中国1949年建国以来，整个国家和社会的焦虑有关系，还记得1958年，当时国家的口号叫做超英赶美，所以从建国开始，因为我们的敌人来自西方，我们的现代化想象的那个原型也在西方，这个东西到国家建设完成，社会开始发展的阶段也就是所谓的文革之后改革开放时期，知识界继承的就是这么一套政治模式，它被转化成了文化模式，主导知识界的是一些留美和留欧的知识分子，他们的论述基本上是英语式的论述，如果他们要有所贡献的话，他们最大的贡献要么就是批判欧美，要么就是修改欧美，在这样的一个框架下，我们的文化领域里面的国际化想象，就是和西方接轨。尽管现在开始发展出亚洲想象来了，但这还是一个萌芽状态。不重视亚洲国家，不重周边的邻居，有一个历史的逻辑在里面。我刚才说的是这样的一个历史脉络，这个我们没有办法否定，可是肯定它也是有问题的。不能说存在就是合理的，现在到了开始改变它的时期了，我这几年被策展人不断拉去谈亚洲，开始让我感觉到，文化人走到前面，艺术界走在了前面。
孙歌 1955年出生于中国吉林长春，日本东京都立大学法学部政治学博士、北京第二外国语学院特聘教授、中国社科院文学研究所研究员。孙歌的研究兴趣包括东亚议题、中国和日本政治思想史的比较研究、中国现代文学、日本现代思想史。主要著作有《亚洲意味着什么：文化间的日本》（2001）、《主题弥散的空间》（2002）、《竹内好的悖论》（2005）、《我们为什么要谈东亚》（2011）、《思想史中的日本与中国》（2017）、《历史与人：重新思考普遍性问题》（2018）、《寻找亚洲：创造另一种认识世界的方式》（2019）、《从那霸到上海：在临界状态中生活》（2020）等。
林昱（Aimee Lin） 现居上海的策展人、作者和艺评人，复旦大学比较文学硕士。曾是《艺术界》杂志创始副主编（2010-2012）、《ArtReview Asia》联合创始人和主编（2013-2019）、北京长征空间总监（2019-2021）。除了写作和艺术评论，林昱同时是一名独立策展人，曾在北京、上海、柏林、伦敦和纽约等地策划艺术家个展、群展和其他种类的艺术项目，她目前也是纽约视觉艺术学院大中华区代表，并因此往返于中国与纽约。
Email: aimeelinyu@gmail.com
Sun Ge: Asia as Principle
Interviewed and edited by Aimee LinI. What does Asia mean?
AIMEE LIN What does Asia mean? Does it possess meaning beyond its geographical connotations?
SUN GE Of course. Asia is
more than a spatial concept, which is to say, it is more than a geographical
concept, and it is also more than a political-historical-geographical concept.
In academia, there is now a field called political historical geography in
which various political, cultural and historical questions are discussed in the
context of where they happened. Asia is indeed a compound concept of politics,
history and geography, but in addition to that, I believe it has an important
alternative function, one that is often overlooked: its spiritual fūdo character.
AIMEE LIN What is fūdo?
SUN GE Fūdo refers to the natural geographical characteristics possessed by a given region or geographical space. The combination of these characteristics with the particular spiritual life of people via social activities is called fūdo. [Fūdo, or Fengtu, is a term used by Japanese philosopher Tetsuro Watsuji (1889–1960) in Fūdo: ningen-gakuteki kōsatsu (1935), translated in English as Climate and Culture (1961). The term signifies ‘wind and earth… the natural environment of a given land’.] So the concept of Asia is at the very least a particular natural geographical space that bears the weight of political, historical and spiritual culture produced by human activity within it. The various spiritual products of society and the humanities are discussed within the context of a particular space.
AIMEE LIN ‘Asia’ was originally a name that outsiders used for a specific geographical space. Does Asia, or the concept of Asia, mean something to the people who live within this space?
SUN GE Prior to modern times, ‘Asia’ did not have any connotations of subjective identification, but in the twentieth century that changed. From the Crusades, when the term referred only to Asia Minor (Anatolia), until the turn of the twentieth century, as Europe gradually subjected the world to colonialism, the Asia discourse of the West was consistently one in which Asia served as Europe’s ‘other’. During the powerful classical period of the Islamic world, this ‘other’ was a formidable foe. In modern times, this ‘other’ has become a source of comparison – evidence against the predominance of European culture. Until the end of the Second World War, European ideology did not acknowledge that Asia could be an equal counterpart with which mutual understanding was possible. Even then, such a relationship was merely a possibility. And to this day, this possibility remains relatively marginal in Europe.
As for Asia, it was not
until the end of the Second World War that a relatively widespread trend
emerged in which the meaning of ‘Asia’ was reversed in order to connote a
subjectively identified political symbol. At that point, one could no longer
say that Asia was merely a concept created by the West. This change in the
symbol was marked by the Bandung Conference of 1955 [the meeting of African and
Asian states that anticipated the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement of
countries]. Of course, that was just one phase of its evolution. In terms of
major historical trends, the general development of the Asia discourse began in
the twentieth century as ‘Asia’ was transformed into a symbol of
self-identification in some societies in the Asia region. Japan was the first
place where this self-identification occurred. The growth of Asianism in Japan
reached its peak with Japan’s victory in the 1904–5 Japanese–Russian War. The
Japanese saw this war as a war between races: a victory of the yellow race over
the white race. In his speech on the ‘Three Principles of the People’ [1905],
[Chinese revolutionary] Sun Yat-sen recounted how, on his boat trip on the Suez
Canal, an Arab asked him if he was Japanese. At that time, Arabs rarely
expressed their sense of solidarity with East Asia, but the Japanese–Russian
War had contributed to Arabian identification with Asia as part of the yellow
race. The unfortunate thing is that Japanese Asianism accompanied war, and
their methods of war were imitations of European colonial methods. So Japan’s
path was not one of genuine Asianism; it was a path of Europeanism. This
Europeanism was most typically exemplified by the Second World War and Japan’s
invasion of East and Southeast Asia. Japan’s colonialism, along with its
methods of advancing the war, was completely in the mould of early European
colonialism.
Therefore, if it can be
said that Asianism exists in Asia, then this Asianism has many faces, and
tension exists between them. But we can say without value judgement that in the
late nineteenth century a trend emerged in which several different parts of Asia,
in many different forms, began to cast off the cultural symbols of the Western
‘other’ and adopt subjective symbols of self-identification. It was a
historical trend, and so the earlier period of history in which ‘Asia’ was
named by the West cannot be used to explain the use of the nomenclature of Asia
by Asian people after the turn of the twentieth century.
AIMEE LIN Then what changes have occurred in the meaning of this idea of Asia since the end of the Second World War?
SUN GE After the Second World War, this idea of Asia was used at the Bandung Conference in the context of Afro-Asia – ie, Africa and Asia – and the national independence movements of the two continents. At that point, a core aspect of Asian identity was the national independence movements at the state level. During the process of Asia’s rise during the 1950s, the principle significance of Asia as a political unit was political subjectivity. Other than Japan, the vast majority of Asian regions had experienced either direct or indirect colonisation. In this context of being discriminated against and feeling humiliated, Asia experienced a sharp surge in solidarity in the 1950s. Asia is not like Europe in that it cannot be roughly integrated on the basis of a single religion. There are at least three major civilisations in Asia, and more than three main religions that cannot be easily integrated. However, the Bandung Conference symbolised a period of integration during the 1950s in which the concept of Asia was spread vigorously through virtually the entire region. As these states gained independence and sovereignty, so the situation changed.
AIMEE LIN Roughly when did that happen?
SUN GE I would say it happened as the Cold War structure began to disintegrate. Asia began to split up during the 1970s, because at the time the entire continent was facing a developmental problem: how to achieve modernisation. The result was all sorts of dialogue, exchange and cooperation between Asia and the West. Thus, after the 1970s, a new round of colonialism began, but this time in an invisible form. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in the early 1990s, Asia was faced with the question of forming new alliances. So new coalitions, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or the BRICS countries, are in fact symbols of Asia’s reorganisation of international relations. In these circumstances we discover that Asia is already incapable of acting, in terms of geography, as an independent unit in order to emphasise its identity. For example, the Six Party Talks in Northeast Asia are a major thing for Asia, but nobody raises an eyebrow at the participation of two non-Asian states (Russia and the United States). By means of the Second World War, the United States had already completed its internalisation in Asia, and especially in East Asia. These circumstances have led some people to say that Asia has not been established as a reality. From a geographical perspective, Asia does indeed seem unable to cast off the countless claims of other regions. The solidarity of the 1950s symbolised by the Bandung Conference has indeed disintegrated.
II. Asia as Principle
AIMEE LIN So the integration of Asia as a geographical space was not achieved.
SUN GE That’s right. But if
we recall our initial discussion, we said that Asia is more than a geographical
concept. It is also an amalgamation of political, historical and spiritual
culture. It symbolises people’s spiritual activities, and the fūdocharacter of social and artistic activities. In this sense, I believe that
today we have reached a stage in with we can reorganise and rephrase the
discussion by treating Asia as a set of principles.
AIMEE LIN You have previously written about the question ‘how does Asia mean?’ But it sounds quite new when you mention ‘Asia as principle’.
SUN GE I reached this step
quite recently. In my opinion, the present Asia discourse is still off the
mark. If Asia does not have its own principles, then it truly is no more than
field material within the framework of Western discourse. To date, that is how
Asia has been treated in Western and Chinese scholarship, but I believe that we
should now produce Asian principles. However, producing Asian principles is not
only for the benefit of Asian people. I think it is a historical responsibility
for the benefit of humankind. Asian principles are simply principles that are
relative to European, African and Latin American principles. The discussion of
them is not an intellectual activity intended to resist or replace the West.
AIMEE LIN Before we start discussing Asia as principle, I want to ask you: do art or culture play a role of shaping the identity of Asia or the idea of Asia?
SUN GE Art and culture give
form to spiritual energy. The spiritual activities of humans must have form
before they can present themselves to us. Art utilises the form of direct
observation to communicate this spiritual information. I can say that, to date,
the art I have been exposed to, such as the fine arts, theatre and film from
East Asia, are Westernised in the mainstream. Their Asian-ness is insufficient.
AIMEE LIN Are you saying that the reasoning behind it lacks that awareness of so-called Asian subjectivity, and it unconsciously uses Western methods or Western perspectives?
SUN GE Yes, it uses Western
perspectives. The most typical example is Zhang Yimou: all of the expressions
of Chinese-ness in his films are intended to cater to the requirements of
Hollywood. Of course, there are other ambitious artists who are not as superficial
as Zhang Yimou. They are more inclined to seek an Asian element, but these
artists, including art curators, have an essentially Western field of vision.
For example, one deeply rooted idea in the minds of contemporary artists and
curators is modernity. If you do not let them talk about modernity, they
basically cannot function. This is a trend that exists today, and I do not
believe that it should be negated, because in a certain sense it expresses the
consequences of Western infiltration of all of Asia, from politics and
economics to culture. But in fact, there are fringe cultural and artistic
activities in which comparatively Asian elements are developing. This
development requires nourishment, but I believe that Asian intellectuals seem
to have not yet reached this point. It requires a process.
AIMEE LIN Can you give an example of the cultural activities you mentioned?
SUN GE One example is the
Japanese playwright Sakurai Daizo. His Tent Theatre is extremely Japanese. The
performances draw on the lives of ordinary, lower-class Japanese people. It is
a very special artform. Sakurai is very imaginative, but the number of intellectuals
who can appreciate his Tent Theatre is limited. Yet Sakurai has received
acclaim throughout East Asia. Young intellectuals are especially fond of his
plays because his methods are very fresh. But the Asian element that he
contains must evolve. Another example is the printmaking activities in the
Korean city of Gwangju. There are also some artistic activities in Okinawa,
such as photography. That area retains its original religion, which resembles
shamanism. There is a photographer who photographs a sacrificial ritual that
takes place every February in the Miyako Islands [the largest archipelago in
Okinawa Prefecture]. But this kind of genuinely indigenous artistic or literary
activity that does not utilise Western concepts and hermeneutics is to date
very difficult to circulate and share widely. This is a basic fact, but this
wellspring possesses powerful vitality. It will not disappear.
AIMEE LIN Perhaps the explanation lies in the mechanisms of acknowledgment and circulation in contemporary art. After all, the people within these mechanisms have no ability to see and understand this kind of art.
SUN GE I think this is a
matter that requires a bit more time, and moreover, it is not just a matter for
Asian people to resolve. The status and function of the Western intelligentsia,
or one could even say the entire Western world, changes. The Western intelligentsia’s
conception of Asia is also changing. I think that ambitious intellectuals,
whether they are Asian or Western, will not be satisfied solely with questions
of so-called modernity and postmodernity when the reality of our lives is so
diverse and abundant. The day will come when everybody’s experience will be
fresher and more abundant. In this sense, art and culture can play an extremely
important role, but to this point, they have really not done much.
AIMEE LIN There are some Westerners who believe that the language barrier is the reason that Western people define Asian identity through culture. They can only mechanically imagine other cultures. What do you think of this opinion?
SUN GE I think it is
definitely one factor, but it does not tell the whole story. The lack of
understanding of Asia in the West is in a certain sense due to the excessive
autonomy of the West, which has only just begun to change. When Westerners
begin asking this kind of question, it demonstrates that they have begun to
recognise the problem. Yet to this day, the majority of Western European and
North American intellectuals lack genuine curiosity about Asia, and the reason
for this is certainly not the language barrier.
AIMEE LIN Is it a kind of insularity in their own cultures?
SUN GE That goes together
with the historical trends in politics and economics of recent times: the West
going forth to conquer the whole world from an advantageous position. Culture
cannot be separated from politics and economics, even though they each have
their own characteristics. Cultural people in the West with a genuine awareness
of Asia are definitely on the fringes.
AIMEE LIN There are very few.
SUN GE But I believe there
are some. When I discuss the China question with Western European and North
American intellectuals, they first trot out a few frameworks, such as
modernity, postmodernity, rationality, individual rights, scientism and
evolution. All of these frameworks in fact constitute the quite mature cultural
structure of modern Europe, and Western intellectuals have been instructed
within this cultural system to see them as normal. But the question is, what do
they do when they are faced with the East, which does not share these
traditions but only imports parts of those elements (from those frameworks)? It
seems that every Western intellectual I encounter always tries hard to take
whatever unfamiliar experience he or she witnesses and hesitantly cram it into
these frameworks, and use them to interpret it.
AIMEE LIN When you put it that way, the necessity of Asia as principle becomes apparent, because to them as well this is a huge challenge, a very difficult task.
SUN GE Yes. ‘Asia as
principle’ is not an empty phrase. It means that we must redefine what is
universal. We must start from this perspective: any intellectual or spiritual
activity is endemic, ie, governed by fūdo. This means that you cannot take your
European or North American partial experience to other regions and treat it as
a global experience shared by all humankind. This kind of approach should be
negated right from the start. This is the demand that Asia as principle makes
of humanity. At present, if you view Asia from the perspective of European
principles, then you will use an allegedly universal imagination to view Asia.
So you will search for modernity in Asia, and search for scientific
rationality. It is not just Westerners who do this. Asian people also do this.
AIMEE LIN That is because in our minds we have already become like them due to our education and academic training. But our lives, and our physical and sensory experiences, go beyond that mental aspect.
SUN GE Everybody with this
kind of educational background has trouble interpreting the change that is
occurring in the various Asian societies. For example, how should we interpret
the present high degree of mobility, or more specifically, the massive phenomenon
of migrant labour in Chinese society? The point is not to give a basis of
legitimacy to the existence of every society. This is a kind of intellectual
work, so it is not about affirming or negating. What we want to do is to
understand. I do not make art, but from the perspective of intellectual
history, this issue is extremely pressing. This is what compels us to discuss
Asian principles. I think Asian principles in their most simplified form are a
universalism based on the premise of the coexistence of a diverse plurality of
physical phenomena.
AIMEE LIN When you say physical phenomena, is that the fūdo you mentioned?
SUN GE That’s right.
III. The Prerequisite for Asian Art
AIMEE LIN From your perspective as a scholar, is there such a thing that can be called Asian art, and if so, what constitutes the so-called Asian-ness of this art?
SUN GE This is truly a big
question. First of all, I think the existence of Asian art is not only possible
but necessary. However, the existence of Asian art is definitely a diverse
existence. So when we talk about Asian art, the prerequisite is that it does
not have representatives. We cannot say that Western art has definite
representatives – in fact it is very easy to name several different schools of
Western contemporary art. I believe that Asian art is the same. But there is
also a way in which it differs from Western art, in that there is no
‘primariness’ that encompasses Asian art.
AIMEE LIN It has no unifying characteristic.
SUN GE That’s right. Over at
least the last one or two centuries of forceful moulding by the West, we have
become accustomed when discussing a given field to identify a representative
and talk about their primariness. What we should do now is discuss the plurality
of a field, but people have not yet formed this habit. This is the prerequisite
for discussing Asian art. The reason we need this prerequisite is because Asian
art cannot be unified. It is varied and plural. The Chinese philosopher Chen
Jiaying has proposed the terminology of ‘the particular’, which emphasises the
combination of the individual and the characteristic. I think Asian art
comprises countless particulars, but what we want to talk about is not a
buffet. If it is a buffet, then Asian art does not exist, because it is too
dispersed. There are relations between the particulars, and we must use Asian
principles to interpret these relations. What is the meaning of these
relations? Well, the various particulars are absolutely not the same, and the
ways in which they coincide with each other are also not uniform. In
establishing these relations between particulars, there is no good and bad.
This idea does not comport with European principles. Asian art takes form when
we have the goal of establishing relations between the particulars through
mutual understanding, through self-liberation and through the individual’s
transcendence. This is related to the need for us to change our practice of
appreciating Asian art on the basis of European modernity and postmodernity.
Our current custom of appreciation is to first translate our culture into
English, and then use it to enter other cultures.
AIMEE LIN Are there some aspects of this idea of Asia that contradict or oppose the Western world and its theories?
SUN GE Yes, but I think that
point is not so important. Opposing the methods of the West has been necessary
thus far, but as soon as you oppose something, you become subject to the
limitations of your opposition.
AIMEE LIN You are ‘countered’.
SUN GE Yes, which means that this part of the production of knowledge is transitionary, and not particularly constructive. For example, postmodernity is restricted by modernity, so it cannot be free. Asia is restricted by the West: an unavoidable historical fact. If you want to work towards genuine self-liberation from this state of being restricted by the West, I think criticism is ineffective. You must relativise the West, not negate it. The crucial thing is to build our own framework of understanding and organisation that includes the effects of the Western infiltration of Asia. Negating and opposing the West has no constructive function. The establishment of Asian thought and culture requires structural construction. At present, two relatively familiar methods of Eastern intellectuals are those of critiquing the West and reforming the West. These two modes are both significant, and they are both closely linked to the West itself. But I believe that they are transitionary. They form the foundation on which we must engage in our own construction, unrestricted by the West and not predicated on opposition to the West. We must imagine more freely and build more autonomously.
AIMEE LIN Is this idea of Asia driven by competition and opposition, or by cooperation?
SUN GE A little bit of each.
If we’re talking about the economy, then it is definitely competition, and
cooperation, which serves the needs of competition, is always provisional.
Politics is similar. But I think competition and cooperation are a difficult terminology
to use to understand the realm of culture, and particularly the creation of
spiritual products. In fact, I think the creation of spiritual products in Asia
is intermediary.
AIMEE LIN What do you mean by intermediary?
SUN GE I mean that I treat my counterpart as a medium, and draw on their work and their spiritual production to fuel my own imagination and creative motivation. Intermediary means that my work is not entirely their work, and their work cannot interpret my work, but if we did not understand each other, then my work would not be the way it is. For example, the spiritual production between China and Japan has to date been imagined in an extremely material form, which is a low-level way of thinking. The truth is that we should take the next step, into a field of greater quality. The relationship between China and Japan should be intermediary, or reciprocal, which is neither competition nor cooperation.
AIMEE LIN This year is the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Historical factors have created an extremely powerful state of psychological tension between, for example, South Korea and Japan, and China and Japan as well, which has still not dissipated. Can art or culture, through certain means, dissipate this tension?
SUN GE There are several ways
to look at this. Ideally, culture will transcend borders, and in this way it
can dispel the imagined opposition between different societies created by
national tension – for in fact this opposition exists only in the imagination.
But the truth is not that simple. When cultural workers do their thinking and
creating, it is their mother tongue that determines their identity. The vast
majority of cultural people rarely reflect on this self-identification. If
culture is to transcend the tense mentality between nations, then cultural
people must first reflect on the very presupposition of their
self-identification, and then form an identity for themselves that is greater
than their national unit. I believe that people who cannot transcend this
specific unit cannot create truly world-class spiritual products. This is not
to say that if you transcend your national unit then you have no nationality.
No, what I want to emphasise is that of one’s fixed cultural characteristics,
one’s mother tongue, is certainly a fundamental source of one’s creative
practice, but one need not treat one’s nationality as an absolute
presupposition. I believe that there are various levels of depths in cultural
identity. If a cultural identity reaches the depth of human spirit, it will
reflect it [human spirit] by means of nationality, while resisting an abstract,
general expression.
AIMEE LIN I am reminded of certain artists and curators who live abroad. They can freely travel to the most distant parts of the world, but their spirituality seems somewhat lacking. Once a person completely ceases to believe in nationality or their original culture, they may be able to depart a place, but they ultimately never arrive at a new place.
SUN GE Yes, I think that is
very accurate. Artists with no roots have no prospects.
IV. Contemporary Art as the Production Platform of Asia Discourses
AIMEE LIN Recently, new cultural and art organisations or institutions have been established in Hong Kong, Gwangju, Shanghai, Singapore and the oil-exporting states in the Middle East. They all proclaim the intention of establishing their position on a regional scale. Together, they appear to present the formation of a regional field of vision. What effect does this trend have on our Asian-ness or our self-identification as Asian people?
SUN GE This is a very
encouraging phenomenon, because when the Bandung Conference was convened in
1955, the only people talking about Asia were politicians. Today, the biggest
change is that our politicians are still talking about Asia, but Asia is no
longer a presupposition for them. But to people in the worlds of art and
culture, this trend you mention is a symbolic change that represents the
imagination of Asia and the formation of its subjectivity, guided by the
cultural world at different levels of society – although I use that word
reluctantly. Some people who do academic research are still content to treat
Asia as either a field for the West or a big buffet. As for China, it is
treated by some intellectuals as a representative of Asia, just like Japan was
previously. So when the artworld invites me to talk about Asia, I recognise
that contemporary art has already become an important platform for the
production of Asian principles. It also symbolises the transition from the
politics-driven period of the Bandung Conference, where the subject was Asian
independence movements at the state level, to a culture-driven period in which
we search for principles.
The various biennials in
the region may take place in Asia, but the content of the exhibitions are
basically a big buffet of their own region. In a lot of places, when they say
Asia, they are really talking about themselves. Sometimes they switch to talking
about Asia, so what is the difference between the two? It lies in whether or
not you are able to deeply explore the principles of your own culture, and if
you are, whether or not you are able to use open, principled, relativised
methods to transcend yourself. The ability to transcend the self is one of the
most important characteristics of Asian-ness. When you discuss a local culture,
you can take the approach of Asian principles. This culture of yours can
possess Asian-ness, and you can use the approach of Asian principles to address
your local issues, which are otherwise merely a particular situation. So I
don’t think the question of being a particular region is that important. The
crucial thing is how you do it. Conversely, we see many events with ‘Asia’ in
their title that assemble large quantities of Asian things to exhibit, but the
Asian-ness of these events is in fact quite shallow. But regardless, I think it
is an important phenomenon that Asia is now obtaining attention.
AIMEE LIN On the subject of the Third World, you once said that each state’s understanding of the centre of the Third World is different. When we discuss Asia, we face the impulse of different states to establish a world or an Asia in which they are at the centre. In these circumstances, there are many blind spots in how states within Asia relate to and acknowledge each other. Each of us inhabits a specific reality and culture, and we require an operational solution to overcoming these blind spots in our fields of vision. If we can do that, then we can see and understand the regional situations within Asia.
SUN GE To elaborate on that point, I would say that the problem can be identified. In what circumstances should we seek to understand ‘the other’? For example, though I am a Chinese person, I have the desire to understand the Middle East. The blind spot is a problem of motivation, not a problem of knowledge. Where does this motivation come from? We can see that most intellectuals in the Third World today, particularly in the mainstream, have quite complete repositories of European and American knowledge. Even if they do not speak English, they read the European classics in translation, and quote them authoritatively in discussions. But they have no interest in Africa, no motivation. They think it is a place that does not produce ideas or principles. This kind of blind spot is the result of the prevailing Western-centric power structure of knowledge and reality. Moreover, whenever a new nation-state is formed, it reproduces this paradigm. So you cannot locate this problem solely in the West. All of the societies of Asia are like this. They put themselves at the centre and actively respond to the demands of the dominant culture. To an extent, this situation will be resolved by history. This is not something that we can rely on artists to guide us through by emphasising certain ideas – that is useless. We must pay attention to the limitation of the effectiveness. Artists can do some work, for example urging people to resolve certain problems in Chinese society. But the solutions to these problems are not easy to identify. Accessing the resources of other regions of Asia can be very helpful if they can be transformed into the intermediary of reflection, and will naturally lead to new ideas.
AIMEE LIN I have recently been observing artistic exchanges between China, Japan and South Korea (not including art programmes sponsored by government cultural or diplomatic initiatives). As an observer, I sense that China is the state that least cares about other Asian states. How do you view this issue?
SUN GE I think there is some
truth to your observation, which is related to the anxiety that has afflicted
the entire state since it was established in 1949. In 1958, the national slogan
was chao ying gan mei: ‘Surpass England and Catch Up with the United States’.
This was because our enemies came from the West, which was also the source of
our modernised imagination. Once the state had been established and society
began to develop, that is to say, during the reform period that followed the
Cultural Revolution, the political modes inherited by the intellectual class
were transformed into cultural modes. So you see our leading intellectuals are
those who studied in Europe and the United States. Their discourse is
essentially an English-based discourse. Their only contribution is either to
critique or to reform Europe and the United States. Given this framework, our
imagination of international relations in the cultural field essentially runs
on a Western track. As a consequence of these circumstances, the present effort
to develop an Asian imagination is a nascent one. This fact influences the
fine-arts world as well as other fields that overlap with the intellectual
world. There is a certain historical logic to our neglect of other Asian
states, of our neighbours, but that is not a justification. Now, things are
beginning to change. In recent years, curators are always dragging me out to
talk about Asia, which has led me to recognise what I just mentioned: cultural
people have moved to the front. The artworld has moved to the front.
Interviewed on 5 August 2015, the Chinese text was proved and edited by Sun Ge and Aimee Lin and translated into English by Daniel Nieh. The English text was first published in the Autumn 2015 issue of ArtReview Asia and re-edited in 2023. Use of the text is for non-profit purposes only.
SUN GE Born in 1955 in Changchun, Jilin, China, Sun Ge studied Chinese literature at Jilin University and is a professor at the Institute of Literature in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Interested in the issue of East Asia from early on, she has conducted comparative research on the literatures and philosophies of China and Japan across the boundaries of academic disciplines and departments. Her fields of interest include modern Chinese literature, the history of modern Japanese thought and comparative cultural studies. Her major works include How Does Asia Mean? (2001), Space of Pervasive Subjectivities: The Dilemma of Discursive Asia (2002), The Paradox of Takeuchi Yoshimi (2005), The Literary Position: Masao Maruyama’s Dilemma (2009), Why Shall We Talk About East Asia: Politics and History in Situation (2011), Japan and China in History of Thought (2017), History and Humanity: Reflection on Universalism (2018), In Search of Asia: Another Way of Knowing the World(2019), From Naha to Shanghai: Living in Critical State (2020).
AIMEE LIN Curator, writer and critic based in Shanghai. Master of Comparative Literature from Fudan University, Shanghai. Formerly founding editor of LEAP(2010-2012), co-founder and the Editor of ArtReview Asia (2013-2019), and Director of Long March Space, Beijing (2019-2021). Parallel to her practice in writing and art criticism, Lin is an independent curator and has been organising solo and group exhibitions and multi-disciplinary programs in Beijing, Shanghai, Berlin, London, and New York. Lin currently works as the Greater China Representative of the School of Visual Arts, for which she travels between China and New York.
Email: aimeelinyu@gmail.com