Asia through different lenses: East and Western perspectives

It is generally accepted that the perception of Asia is a mosaic of diverse viewpoints,

interpretations, and representations. But in what ways is Asia being perceived and
understood? What are the differences between a native’s perspective and an outsider’s
viewpoint? How does a scholar’s background influence their engagement with the
complexity of Asia? This article compares the divergent perspectives and approaches of
Asian and Western scholars in their study of the continent.

This paper starts by acknowledging the aspects which shape the scholarship of each
academic community, comparing them and proceeds to discuss the concept of
Orientalism and the heritage of colonialism in Asia. Finally, there is a conclusion
reflecting on the differences between Asia and non-Asian scholarship and how it
impacts the field of Asian Studies.

Asian scholars perceive Asia differently from how the West historically viewed the
Orient. Asia is not an exotic or inferior "Other," but it is their home. (Winichakul, 2014)
This perspective influences their scholarship, bringing with it certain politics and
ideologies. Their approach to studying Asia is shaped by their sense of belonging and
care for their home country. Some of them promote nationalistic or nativist tendencies
in their academic work. They argue that local experiences are unique and cannot be
understood through Western concepts or languages. (Winichakul, 2014) Also, they
might not be familiar with typical Asian "areas" studied in western academies.
Southeast Asia, for instance, is less recognized by natives and scholars in the region
compared to Euro-American academies. (Winichakul, 2014)

The knowledge of larger regional and continental entities in Asia is more susceptible to
be shaped by political conditions. For example, Cold War propaganda, funded by the
United States, influenced Thai people’s perceptions of Asia: anti-communist posters
depicted other Asian countries as the striking opposite of Thai lifestyle. (Winichakul,
2014)

The historical development of academies and scholarship in Asian countries was also
different from the West. In most of them, modern academies were originated as colonial
institutions designed to produce bureaucrats for the state. (Winichakul, 2014) As a
result, the priorities were on "useful" knowledge, applied technical knowledge, and
social sciences. The humanities were often considered less useful and tied to
nationalism. Academia remained teaching-oriented until recently, as research was seen
as a luxury. These historical disparities have manifested in unequal partnerships and
divisions of labor between Western and local researchers, sometimes marginalizing the
latter. (Winichakul, 2014)

The interests and priorities of research vary among scholars in different academies. For
example, western historians of Thailand show little interest in certain crucial historical
questions related to the monarchy. Instead, they tend to emphasize the significance of
maritime trade and questioned the notion of "never-colonized Siam” which are not
common themes for Thai scholars. (Winichakul, 2014)

Another point is that Asian scholars, being intimately connected to their home countries,
often possess a profound understanding of local languages and dialects, which grants
them access to primary sources and nuances that may remain obscured to Western
scholars. (Winichakul, 2014) This linguistic advantage enables them to delve deeper
into the topics. Western scholars, on the other hand, may rely more heavily on translated
texts, potentially missing subtleties, and cultural nuances. (Winichakul, 2014) This
language barrier has the potential to influence the depth and accuracy of their research.

Methodological differences are also evident in the way scholars from both regions
approach their research. Asian scholars, often trained in their home countries, may
prioritize fieldwork and ethnographic research, seeking to understand the lived
experiences of the people they study. (Heryanto, 2007) This qualitative approach allows
for a deeper exploration of cultural practices, traditions, and social dynamics. In
contrast, Western scholars might lean towards quantitative methods, economic analyses,
or policy-oriented research, which may prioritize different aspects of Asia's complex
reality. (Heryanto, 2007)

Asian scholars often operate within the framework of Confucianism, Buddhism,

Hinduism, or other indigenous belief systems that have deep-rooted connections to the
cultural fabric of their societies. These cultural frameworks influence not only their
research but also their values, ethics, and worldviews. (Nair-Venugopal, 2012)

Asian studies in Euro-American academies was influenced by both colonial Orientalism

and Cold War area studies paradigms. Imperialism, with its historical context and power
dynamics, played a pivotal role in shaping how Asia was perceived, understood, and
studied by scholars from both Eastern and Western backgrounds. (Chen, 2010)
European colonialism in Asia laid the foundation for initial encounters and perceptions
of the continent by Western scholars. These colonial powers imposed their own
ideologies, worldviews, and agendas upon Asian societies, often distorting local cultures
and histories through the lens of Orientalism, a concept developed by Edward Said.
(Said, 2003) Orientalism highlighted how European colonial powers constructed an
image of the "Orient" that served their imperialist interests, depicting Asia as exotic,
inferior, and in need of European intervention and governance. (Said, 2003) Edward
Said also thoughtfully reflected on the reception of his work, particularly in regions
where the concepts of Orientalism and postcolonialism hold different connotations.

Western scholars who emerged from these colonial backgrounds may have been
inclined to approach Asia with an emphasis on utilitarian knowledge, such as
economics, administration, and geography, rather than delving into the nuanced aspects
of Asian cultures, languages, and traditions. (Nair-Venugopal, 2012) Colonized societies
experienced cultural assimilation, economic exploitation, and the imposition of foreign
languages and ideologies. Asian scholars, who emerged in this context, were often
driven by a desire to reclaim their cultural heritage and challenge the narratives imposed
upon them by imperial powers. (Nair-Venugopal, 2012)

As the landscape of academia evolves with increased globalization and cross-cultural

exchange, the lines between Asian and Western scholarship are becoming less distinct.
(Chen, 2010) Scholars from both backgrounds are increasingly collaborating,
challenging conventional paradigms, and incorporating diverse viewpoints into their
research. (Winichakul, 2014) This evolving academic landscape presents an opportunity
to bridge the gap between Asian and Western perspectives on Asia, fostering a more
holistic understanding of the continent.

In the past decade, the number of Southeast Asian nationals engaging in Southeast
Asian studies, for instance, has increased significantly. Many of these individuals are
native speakers of the languages spoken in the region and have spent a substantial
portion of their lives there, which makes them well-equipped in terms of language skills
and residence requirements to become Southeast Asianists. (Heryanto, 2007) However,
their dual identity as both insiders of the region and scholars studying it has created
tension. From the perspective of the dominant framework in Southeast Asian studies,
these Southeast Asians are seen as overqualified due to their language proficiency and
local experience. (Heryanto, 2007) They serve as valuable assets in various roles, such
as colleagues, informants, connections, research assistants, and hosts for fieldwork.
(Heryanto, 2007) However, they are also viewed with suspicion, often considered
biased or partial when investigating common research subjects. These Southeast Asian
scholars cannot be completely ignored in the field, but they struggle to fit into the
traditional structures of area studies. (Heryanto, 2007) To be fully engaged in the
production of Southeast Asian studies, they are expected to undergo intellectual
training, adopt the rhetorical conventions, and embrace the cultural vocabularies
commonly used by American, European, or Australian practitioners. (Heryanto, 2007)
Furthermore, they are encouraged to show respect for these established conventions and
practices.

According to this logic, a Thai national is not considered a true Southeast Asianist,
regardless of their expertise in Thailand, until they acquire substantial knowledge about
at least one other Southeast Asian country as studied and recognized by scholars outside
the region. (Heryanto, 2007) Without such broader knowledge, they are often labelled as
Thai specialists or academics in specific disciplines. In contrast, an American can
qualify as a Southeast Asianist even with a deep understanding of a narrow aspect of
social life in a small domain within the region. (Heryanto, 2007) This was an example
to show that there are different treatments in the field based on the individual’s
nationality and/or ethnicity and it is still somehow western dominated.

In conclusion, it is important to remind ourselves of the variety of perspectives that

shape our understanding of Asia. It is not a monolithic entity viewed uniformly by all
communities. By recognizing its diverse lenses, scholars can transcend traditional
boundaries and contribute to a more comprehensive and enlightened discourse on this
continent. The growing presence of Asian scholars in Western academies and vice versa
is gradually blurring the lines between the "Self" and the "Other," creating opportunities
for a more nuanced and balanced dialogue. The historical baggage of colonialism and
Orientalism has often led to the exoticization and simplification of Asia, perpetuating
stereotypes, and misconceptions. And it is by acknowledging this imperialist legacy that
we can comprehend the complexities of Asian studies and the ongoing efforts to
decolonize and diversify the field.
Reference List:

Chen, Kuan-Hsing. 2010. “Chapter 1: Introduction: Globalization and

Deimperialization “ In Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Duke University
Press

Heryanto, A. and Sears, L.J., 2007. “Can There Be Southeast Asians in Southeast Asian
Studies?”. Knowing Southeast Asian Subjects, pp.75-108.

Nair-Venugopal, Shanta. 2012. “Introduction.” In The gaze of the West and framings of
the East, edited by Shanta Nair-Venugopal. Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 3-25

Said, Edward W. 2003. Orientalism. London: Penguin. Pp. 1-28

Winichakul, Thongchai. 2014. “Asian Studies across Academies”. Journal of Asian

Studies, 73(4): 879-897