ࡱ > q` R bjbjqPqP 2, : : y 4 ( t y y y 8 z { b/ y f ^| ^| ^| ^| ^| 9} ~ D $ h G ] 9} 9} ^| ^| 3 V ^| ^| p h ^| R| P/ y d L I 0 y w g g $ y A y b/ b/ b/ D> m $ b/ b/ b/ m d j d n DDX 8TX T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n : T h e S h a p e - s h i f t i n g P o w e r a n d T e r r o r o f t h e S u b l i m e M a c h i n e : | T¤Д % TX H u i P e n g C o n s t a n c e G o h / T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t i n g h a m l XϤФ ( u i P e n g C o n s t a n c e G o h ) / xӄ Y A b s t r a c t ] This paper examines the idea of translation and the infidelities within oriental inscriptions. I shall argue that Asian culture is a hybrid culture simply because what the west arrogates from eastern philosophy or contrariwise is an interrogative advancement that is also a detour to the selfsame. Jacques Derridas deconstructive absence in eastern writings may be surprising to those who are acquainted with his eloquence when it comes to phonetic writing and the Egyptian hieroglyphs. By (dis)locating the commentaries revolving around Derridas reticence with regard to the writings of the east in his interrogations into metaphysics and writing, I shall launch my argument from what most have put down merely as his lack of knowledge, which will be inverted to expose the always already missing link between the articulator and reality. t |8@ ٳ X 0] t 0\. DD 8T֔ 䲑\ 8T ȩ \. t ٳ YD htXp ٳt ŠYD htXՔ @ @ nj| ƌXՔ @ M@ t0 L8t. l pX D DŔ @ L1 0] tɸ 8@ (t ٳ8 ( l pX tմ | ij . pX tY 0 \ l , ٳ (t h5\ D @ X t q\ t| \ D |<\ ` t. qt| @ l@ X Űବ t 䲔 D ܴ췼 t. T h e a d d r e s s b a s e d o n h i s s i l e n c e i s n o e a s y w a y o u t ; i n s t e a d , I s h a l l e l a b o r a t e t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s e n c o u n t e r e d o n t h e w a y i n t o t h e i d e a o f o r i e n t a l w r i t i n g t o which his deconstructive silence attests - the thick void at the heart of logocentrism. Derridas cryptic remark about ideographic writing as the testimony of a powerful movement of civilization developing outside of all logocentrism will be read as a suggestion of a certain parallelism between Derridean deconstruction and Lacanian psychoanalytic theory on writing, and eastern philosophy, accidentally encountering in this paper. The signifying dissemination within ideographic or phonetic writing is most ad v a n t a g e o u s t o m y r e a d i n g o f t a o a n d k h o r a a s p a r a l l e l s i t e s , p e r c e i v e d a s s y n o n y m o u s a n d o n l y m e e t i n g w i t h a s u p p l e m e n t a r y i n v e r s i o n a t t h e d i v i d e b e t w e e n t h e e a s t a n d t h e w e s t . X h5 \ |Xǔ } J. tմx h5t И ٳ8X P - \ତXX u ǔ J@ h- t 5䲔 D 8 t. \X8\ t \ତ X xƀ %\ 8t X 䲔 p \ \\ pX خ| @ @ ӉXX T\ t. \ pX tմ@ |X ¬x t`, t |8 ň ȹ\ ٳŠY X ӉX. \X8\ L1<\ X X ǔ @ ӉXՔ <\h, ij@ T| \ X ų uX. t P ɔ ǬXՌ x ٳX Ĭ Dx XX \ ̹. T h i s s y n o n y m y w i l l b e r e a d f r o m a c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s c i n e m a t i c t r a n s l a t i o n s o f R i n g u f r o m t h e n o v e l i s t , K o j i S u z u k i , i n c l u d i n g F e a r d o t c o m , w h i c h i s n a m e d a l t e r n a t i v e l y P a r a l l a x i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . A lthough Derridas deconstructive focus is on difference, he gestures to the sameness in form as presence: the identity of the self made possible only with the rejection of the other, a rejection that recalls the other as a trace, which is not that different from the Lacanian splitting of the One, a doubling that speaks of the antagonism between dichotomies as a contestation between mirror opposites; the two sides of the same coin meet precisely because they will never meet in a face-to-face encounter. In other words, the tension between conceptual opposites is diffrance speaking of sameness within the inversion; the sameness attests to the structural problematic we confront in the reading of texts. The Lacanian knot, a result of the encore of centres, is reconciled here with the parallax view of Slavoj Zizek playing the deus ex machina. t Ǭ1@ X 䲑\ D pȬh<\h L . @ $ ɤ T( K o j i S u z u k i ) ij ň, m P a r a l l a x \ 0ij XՔ F e a r d o t c o m . pX tմ Ŕ (t ̹, L @ Ǭ1D . А| ph<\h̹ D| Ux. А| T<\h XՔ D p, tǔ |a )X t h e O n e D XՔ t J. p X D\ @ X tDŽ t \ 0, \ T t` 0 L8 ٳX tt Uֈ |Xh. йt P tX @ X X ٳ|1 t йXՔ )X (t. Ǭ1@ MѤ¸| }D L Ƭ tXՔ lpx 8\ М. D lXՔ x |aX @ ͐x D | ( S l a v o j Z i z e k ) X p a r a l l a x v i e w @ pT| t. T h u s , a l l r e p r e s e n t a t i ons are merely illusory cords, the Derridean supplements, linking the self to the other, open to discordance because of the terrifying vortex of the Real. Postmodernist culture and poststructuralist thinking are transliterated by the east to forms that are doppelgangers retaining the silhouettes of the west but rebutting the west with the left-handed violence of desubstantiation owing to permutation. What we have instead are intercultural transferences, oscillations that see eastern philosophy making a migra t o r y r e - t u r n t o t h e e a s t , d i f f e r e n t a n d , y e t , t h e s a m e . 0| \@ \ )X Tܴtp, D@ xD ŰXՔ pX D@ tȬX ̳t\ xt pT| |0\. Ӥ¸ TȲ 8T@ 0lpXX ଔ X xD XՔ ij1| 1XՔ ٳ<\ T ̹, XX<\ xt %X D´T| t D x\. Ƭ 8T tٳ, ٳŠY ٳ<\X Xt| , ̹ x 0 ٳD \. C h a n g e a n d C o n t i n u i t y : A s i a n C u l t u r a l I d e n t i t i e s a n d N a t i o n a l i s m i n a G l o b a l i s i n g A g e T@ ɍ1: DD8Tȴ1 8ĬT X qX E l i a n e B o e y S u m / S i n g a p o r e M a n a g e m e n t U n i v e r s i t y Ŭ t ,( E l i a n e B o e y S u m ) / t Y A b s t r a c t ] I n c r e a s i n g i n t e r - c o n n e c t i v i t y a n d d e c r e a s i n g b o u n d a r i e s a r e o n l y s o m e o f t h e g l o b a l i s i n g f o r c e s t h a t b r o u g h t t h e w o r l d t o A s i a P a c i f i c a n d v i c e v e r s a . R e s p o n d i n g i n k i n d , A s i a P a c i f i c r e g i o n a l i s m a i m s t o p r e s e n t a r e g i o n a l m a r k e t t o f a c i l itate outwardlooking trade. Presumed cultural similarities and values aid this movement. Yet the culturally destabilising effects of both forces come to bear as intra-Asian cultural and national differences amongst surface similarities makes groups want to assert their individual cultural identities above others clamouring for attention in the region and beyond. This is seen at the group level, with paranational Asian cultural identities seeking to re-assert themselves and at the national level, with the awakening of Asian nationalism as a response to the presence of cultural others. Interestingly, non-ethnically and culturally homogenous nations are more likely to face these phenomena than others in the region. A possible way forward for approaching issues of regional ethnicity and cultural identity is to strive for multiculturalism and not the melting pot, yet it remains to be seen if true multiculturalism can exist as cultural identities and groups seek to reassert themselves Ű1t X Ĭ DT @, DD ӑ 8Ĭ| ŰXՔ 8ĬTX ٳ% |ǀ X. t QX DD ӑ Xǔ xƀ ɥx 4D X0 t, X ¥ $D \\ \. 8T Ǭ1 XΔ t\ 8 ijt . 췘 t P ٳ%t 8T HD |0XՔ | xt| \. \аXt Ŵ DDm X x Ǭ1 ttX 8T, m (t\ xt, m \ 8T ȴ1D ȥX , 8Ĭx D 8X0 L8t. ( DD m @ mX 8T ȴ1D ¤\| UxX$ ` tp, m ( 8T А X tȬ \ Q<\h, DDX qX XՌ t. q<\ 8T<\ |X J@ m t t\ t` 1t . q, 8T ȴ1 \ )Ŕ \ t D̲ 8TX| lXՔ )t . 췘 8T ȴ1 t XՔ i \ 8TX tȬ` Dɔ P | \. W r i t i n g t h e n a t i o n a n d t h e O t h e r A C a s e S t u d y i n J a p a n s N a t i o n a l I d e n t i t y D i s c o u r s e | А | 0]Xp, |X m ȴ1 `X @l A l e x a n d e r B u k h / J S P S P o s t - D o c t o r a t e F e l l o w , W a s e d a U n i v e r s i t y L 0 l( A l e x a n d e r B u k h ) / @8 Y , J S P S l I n t r o d u c t i o n ij T h i s a r t i c l e w a s c o n c i e v e d a s p a r t o f a b r o a d e r i n q u r y i n t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f J a p a n s n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y . T h e f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h J a p a n s i d e a t i o n a l a n d c u l t u r a l s t r u c t u r es has been shared by both Western and Japanese pundits alike, and has resulted in numerous academic and quasi-academic works, most of which engage in exploration of the generic cultural, normative or ideational structures of the Japanese society (for example, see Dale 1986 and Befu 1992 for a critical review of the Japanese works, Benedict 1946, Vogel 1978, Kazenstein 1996, Berger 1998). It is beyond doubt that all of these works have their benefits in offering positivist explanations for social scientists and general public that demand a structure that would bind the non-material factors and policy. However, the conclusion that was reached by the present author is that attempts to uncover a monolithic structure combined with the postivist framework are bound to result in essentialism and generalisation of both the non-material structures and policy alike (see Bukh 2001 for further discussion.) l |X m ȴ1 1 \ \ pȬX |X<\ . |X P 8T lpX %@ |X 8 PŌ xDT, ι@ Y , Y x D ̹. X @ | 8T, |X x Px lp| lXՔ t. ( | t D a l e 1 9 8 6 a n d B e f u 1 9 9 2 f o r a c r i t i c a l r e v i e w o f t h e J a p a n e s e w o r k s , B e n e d i c t 1 9 4 6 , V o g e l 1 9 7 8 , K a z e n s t e i n 1 9 9 6 , B e r g e r 1 9 9 8 ) . XX t @ YՐ@ | t lXՔ D< ƌ@ ED ŰXՔ lp \ x $D XՔ t . X̹ X `@ x @ hخ |lp| X$ ij D< lp@ E PX X@ |T| D 1t l䲔 t. ( |X| t B u k h 2 0 0 1 8) I n o r d e r t o a v iod those dangers but also to avoid over-complicated definitions of national identity, here it is defined as a multi-layered and dynamic construct which consits of cognitive discursive practises that shape the relativized understanding of the self vis--vis the other (Hopf 2002, 24-25) While this constructivist approach can be considered relatively new (but, as some may claim, already over-used) in International Relations, the conceptions of a nation not as a historical reality but as a spiritual prin c i p l e t h a t r e l i e s o n m e m o r i e s o f a c o m m o n p a s t h a s b e e n p r e s e n t i n h i s t o r i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p f o r o v e r a c e n t u r y ( s e e R e n a n 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 . ) \ D ɹ m ȴ1 \ ɘXΌ \ X| ɹ0 t, l m ȴ1D x( H o p f 2 0 0 2 , 2 4 - 2 5 ) X tt| <\ 1XՔ, xx `X \ l1 5t ٳx lp\h X\. t lpX )@ m Ĭ DP \ P<\ . X̹ |ǀ t ιt ȥX0ij \. Ŭ \h D̲, X p 0 XtXՔ x Ƭ\hX m P@, 1 0 0 D ŬYՐ t |XX t . ( 8 R e n a n 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 . ) N a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y a s a r e l a t i v i s e d d i s c o u r s e v i s - - v i s t h e o t h e r i s closely related to the historical narrative (or historical conciousness see Saaler 2005, 125) which provides interpretations of the self interaction with the other by this serving a dual purpose-providing a unified and continious sense of the self and tools for judging and evaluating the present state of relations with this particular other. А \ x `<\hX m ȴ1@ Ŭx $ 4 . ( S a a l e r 2 0 0 5 , 1 2 5 0tt Ŭ X) t Ŭ $@ |X ɍx !tX D| P D X, А@X ֬ Ĭ| X XՔ t t, А@ DX \ tD \. W e c a n c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e n a t i o n - S t a t e , p r e s upposes a certain kind of emotional tie (Bloom 1990, 28) which is constructed through value laden terms of which the interpretation consists. In other words, purely factual description of certain events can provide a common experience but will lack the unifying character of historical memory, as it will not provide the tools necessary for communal orientation emphasized by the definitions of national identity, historical narrative and historical conciousness (Hopf 2002, 25, Barnett 2002, 6, Bloom 1990, 47.) Since the historical narrative of a nation involves numerous others, the national identity discourse is a multi-layered construct with the others being located outside and inside the nation, and which can also move between these two realms (see Oguma Eiji 2002.) m X ȴ1Ux@ t\ t<\ l1 X| t 1 |DžX x \ ( B l o o m 1 9 9 0 , 2 8 ) ` . йt, tD XՌ <\ XՔ @ X | п DȲ| Ŭ 0X |\ 1t q` t| t. \аXt m ȴ1, Ŭ $ Ŭ XX X Xt p, ٳX X DՔ\ D X J0 L8t. ( H o p f 2 0 0 2 , 2 5 , B a r n e t t 2 0 0 2 , 6 , B l o o m 1 9 9 0 , 4 7 . ) m \ Ŭ ι@ А (0 L8, m ȴ1 `@ mxX А\ t踴 5x lpt, \ t\ t P D tٳX0ij \. ( 8 O g u m a E i j i 2 0 0 2 . ) T h e b r o a d i n t e r e s t o f t h e a u t h o r l i e s i n J a p a n s n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n v i s - - v i s R u s s i a a n d t h e present inquiry is the result of the search for the locale where identity is constructed. As has been seen in the recent history textbooks controversy, at least in the context of Japan, school textbooks are widely perceived to be the locale for historical consciousness and hence national identity construction in Japan. However, a survey of the most widely used history textbooks in last twenty years has revealed that, unlike with the discourse on Japans interactions with its former colonies, the narrative on Russia and Russo-Japanese relations is very limited in space and mainly factual, providing little material for historical conciousness construction. In spite of the neutral and limited narrative in the textbooks that has not changed much over the last two decades, the public opinion has been consistently unfriendly to USSR/Russia. Over at least the last three decades the number of respondents that have expressed lack of affinity to Russia has been just below 80 percent, with the numbers dropping below 70 only in 1991 The numbers are similar for the post-war and young generation as well, and could hardly be contributed to direct personal experience. At the same time be easily derived from the official documents on Japans foreign policy, in the context of international relations, Russia still occupies a place of honour among the nations, with whom bi-lateral relations are considered to be of major importance. D@ (\ | m ȴ1 1 ι@ D P