

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON

“CULTURAL FACTORS IN

THE U.S.げEAST ASIA RELATIONS” HELD 


     The Institute of American Studies sponsored an 
international symposium on the cultural factors in the U.S.げEast 
Asia relations in Beijing from July 29 through 31 of 1996.

     Participating in the symposium were 24 scholars from China, 
the United States, Canada, France, the Republic of Korea, the 
Philippines and Indonesia.

     In his opening speech, Wang Jisi, director of the Institute 
of American Studies said that since Samuel Huntington of Harvard 
University published his article “Clash of Civilizations?” in 
Foreign Affairs in 1993 it has aroused wide discussions and 
debates among scholars of international relations. Chinese 
scholars published a series of papers debating such topics as 
“cultural hegemony”, “cultural colonialism” and “postげcolonial 
mentality”. He noted that with the momentous rise of the economy 
in East Asia in the last few years, East Asia, as a cultural 
entity different from the Western Culture, poses many a challenge 
to Western democracy.

     The symposium had five sessions on: 1. The role of culture ―
 the theoretical theme and central idea; 2. Cultural traditions 
and foreign relations; 3. Social transition and cultural 
development and international relations; 4. International justice 
and international new order; and 5. Looking into the future.

     In her paper “Hundred years of Interflow and Clash of 
Ideas”, Zi Zhongyun, Senior fellow of the Institute of American Studies believe
d 
that the history over the last hundred years indicates that 
American foreign policy has been consistently tinged with 
ideological intent. It may soften due to considerations of 
practical interest but will never be forsaken. She held that in 
the last hundred years the Americans in their relations with 
China used to have an impulse to influence and change China. 
Though the political regimes in China have changed in the last 
hundred years, they have a consistent stand in face of the 
ideological influence as represented by the United States: the 
patriotic intellectuals are attracted to a different extent to 
American democratic system and its advanced social organizations 
as well as its advanced science and technology; however, they are 
invariably repugnant to the power politics of the United States 
that hurts the national feelings. Though the governments need 
American support in complex international relations and practical 
economic construction, they invariably regard American political 
system, ideology and cultural influence as a threat to social 
stability and the regimes themselves.

Academic Activities
American Studies in China
     Wang Yizhou, senior fellow of the Institute of World Economy and Politic
s in his paper cited 
cases to show that the Chinese and the Americans have many 
important and delicate differences in cognition. He maintained 
that due to the differences in the political system, economic 
structure and strategic culture, it is impossible for the Chinese 
and the Americans to reach unanimity on many issues. He believed 
that it is all the more pressing now to know the differences than 
to find ways to tackle them.

     Allen S. Whiting, professor of the University of Arizona in his paper 
“Culture, Conflict and Cooperation in AmericanげEast Asian 
Relations” said that genuine conflicts of national interests as 
defined by the ruling elites can still exist. Nationalism remains 
a primary frame of reference for determining whether such 
conflicts exist and how they are to be resolved.

     He said that this is true to some extent for all countries, 
new or old, rising or declining, democratic or authoritarian. 
Seen in this perspective cultural conflict is a less worrisome 
aspect of the contemporary world order than is projected by the 
Huntington hypothesis. he believed that on the positive side, 
these conflicts of national interest are a somewhat more 
manageable future than does the forecast of an apocalyptic clash 
of civilizations.

     Mark Juergensmeyer, professor of the University of California, Santa 
Barbara, in his paper “From Christendom to Modernism to 
Globalism: Americaюs ‘Civilizations’ and Their Global Impact” 
said that if the moralism and naive optimism of Christendom and 
other religious civilizations are tempered by the rationality of 
Modernism, and the Modernist illusions about the invincibility of 
human knowledge are leveled with a religious sense of limitations 
of the human condition, then the emerging multiげcultural 
civilization of the 21st century, Globalism, can provide a 
cultural basis for both social identity and human harmony. The 
dismal alternative is a world mired in cultural anarchy and 
locked in petty tribal disputes. Perhaps it is not too much to 
hope for a Global civilization that would advance all of the 
worldюs communities in a shared responsibility for maintaining 
and uplifting the common good, he said.

     Dr. Emmanuel C. Lallana, professor of the University of the Philippines 
in his paper “Globalization, Culture and Foreign Policy” believed 
that globalization will have enormous consequences for the future 
content of foreign policy, states will increasingly rely on 
policy coordination, the creation of international cooperative 
regimes and multilateral institutions to secure their interest. 
He said that there are questions on whether the state in its 
present form ― the nationげstate ― will survive. Theorists are 
beginning to imagine a postげnationげstate that is able to 
effectively provide public goods to its citizens in a globalized 
context.

     He held that not all cultures respond to modern/Western 
cultural influence in the same way. Some cultures are better able 
to resist than others. Other cultures which have taken western 
ideas and practices have adopted them as their own. But in 
contemplating this point, it is also important to remember that 
while a homogenized global culture has yet to emerge, a cadre of 
transnational cosmopolitans had already been created. The members 
of these cadre are bearers of modern/western culture in their 
respective countries. They are also often the wielders of power 
in these societies. This trajectory will put to lie the prognosis 
that we will be witnesses to the clash of cultures, he 
maintained.

     Michael Zielenziger, professor of the Tokyo Bureau Chief of Knight 
rider in his paper “A Difficult Agenda: the Role of the Press and 
the Clash of Values between East and West” said “As we move into 
a global and ‘borderless’ world where technology, commerce and 
information transcend national boundaries, thus reducing the 
power of individual governments, recognizing and resolving these 
tensions through new and innovative techniques will emerge to 
become one of the great new challenges of the next century.” he 
thought that it will become more important for journalists, to 
discover and promote a new lexicon to help discuss the “cultural” 
dimensions of emerging global disagreements.

     David I. Hitchcock, professor of the U.S. Center for Strategic and 
International Studies said in his paper “Asian Values and the 
United States: How Much conflict?” that the differences across 
the Pacific are manageable. East Asian watch ― and generally 
admire ― U.S. standards of liberty, law, and protection of the 
individual. But the paths and byways lit by libertyюs torch in 
Asian countries will be fashioned to fit older cultures, other 
religions and traditions, that may continue to place lifeюs 
priorities in somewhat different order from that of Americans.

     He held that the goals of East Asia are not basically that 
different from those of the United States; the challenge is to 
work more closely for common policies to reach those goals. If 
the United States demonstrates its appreciation of these 
gradually diminishing differences; if Americans place greater 
emphasis on a need to learn from Asia and to respect differing 
cultures and priorities; and if they seek to exchange ideas with 
East Asians on how best to deal with values in modern societies ―
 then the United States will not only gain a new level of 
confidence among East Asians in its leadership, but also deepen 
their respect for its wisdom and maturity.

     Kim KyongげDong, professor of the Seoul National University believed 
that it is difficult to establish a completely equal relationship 
between any two nations. There must be some aspects of the 
relations which separate the two countries, militarily, 
economically, technologically, demographically, and so on. He 
held that a close look at the nature of relationship, therefore, 
would yield a result that shows some degree of oneげsided exchange 
of culture between the two. He called this as “tilted” 
acculturation.

     He said that as long as such lopsided flow of culture and 
influence continues, the perceptions and attitudes of one people 
about the other remains to be distorted or at least incomplete. 
This incomplete images of each other in turn cause the relations 
to be swayed easily by immediate national or political interests. 
He noted that while deeper cultural understanding of other 
societies takes some deliberate effort, it is essential in 
building international relations on a sounder and more meaningful 
ground.

     Richard Madsen, professor of the University of California, San Diego 
noted in his paper “Changing National Narratives and the Problems 
of U.S.げChina Relations” that in the 21st century, the challenges 
of U.S.げChina relations will once again stimulate Americans and 
Chinese to develop new master narratives for a new world. This 
time, he said, the primary dialogue creating such visions will 
not be between Beijing and Washington, but between a multitude of 
diverse Chinese and Americans interacting within the fertile 
spaces on the edges of both societies: in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and 
multiethnic metropolises such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.

     He said that within such places are occurring new 
conversations about the deepest meaning of Asian and Western 
cultural traditions, fruitful comparisons between American and 
Chinese assumptions about the relation between self and society, 
about the legitimate bases of authority, about the proper bond 
between political and economic life in the rapidly changing 
conditions of the Pacific Rim. He noted that amid the anxieties 
and uncertainties of this transitional time, this cultural 
ferment offers some help for the creation of humane new visions 
about how Chinese and Americans might create a common home in the 
intricately interdependent world of the twentyげfirst century.

     Zhu Shida, senior fellow of the Institute of American Studies in his paper 
“A Cultural Study of the American East Asian Policy” maintained 
that the rise of the economic power of East Asia will give rise 
to the following trends: 1. The United States will strategically 
pay greater attention to the AsiaげPacific region. The motive 
behind the eastward shift of its strategy is economic interest; 
2. East Asia will be one of the three large centers in the world 
structure after the cold war; 3. East Asia increases its 
confidence and assertiveness; 4. The world has a better 
understanding of Confucian culture and comes to believe that it 
is necessary to draw on wisdom from Confucian culture to solve 
human problems in the 21st century.

     he discussed a series of differences on such issues of human 
rights and perceptions of values. On the issue of human rights, 
he maintained that if people delve into the nucleus and depth of 
the question they will find the understanding of man in each 
culture is essentially different and the understanding of right 
itself is different likewise. the countries with centralized 
authority and the capitalist democratic countries are different 
in social system and the rule by man and the rule by law are 
different.

     If the Unitied States attempts to enter into East Asia, he 
said, it is necessary: 1. The United States shall have to 
separate ideology from trade and deげpoliticize the human rights 
issue; 2. The United States shall have to establish a formal 
doubleげdeck superhighway contact pattern with the East Asian 
countries and regions; 3. The United States shall have to 
recognize that all social changes and evolutions hinge on the 
maturity of the forces in the society itself; 4. It is important 
to recognize that the social development in East Asia calls for 
an evolutionary process; 5. The United States should try to find 
common ground in the perception of value and will not impose its 
own perception of value on others; and 6. The United States 
should learn from East Asian civilization.

     Dewi Fortuna Anwar, professor of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences 
maintained in her paper “the Impact of SocialげCultural Changes on 
U.S.げEast Asian Relations” that with their growing maturity and 
economic successes Asian states have less reasons to be either 
apologetic or defensive about what they do, so that they can deal 
with the former colonial powers in a more equal footing. She said 
that in turn western powers have also come to recognize the worth 
and importance of Asia, so that they are learning to be more 
sensitive and less arrogant in their attitudes and politics visげ
aげvis this region.

     She said that this reality has an implication for American 
foreign policy in the region. Despite its status as the sole 
remaining super power, the United States no longer sets the 
agenda in Asia. She stressed that increasingly it must deal with 
other countries as equals and secure their cooperation by 
adjusting its interests to accommodate theirs.

     Daizaburo Yui of the University of Tokyo noted in his paper 
“Cultural Gaps in the Memories of Asiaげpacific War between Japan 
and the United States of America” that it will continue to be 
more and more unavoidable for Japan to settle the issue of war 
responsibility, as a sense of community is developing in Asiaげ
Pacific, if Japan wants to be a member of this community in the 
future.

(Zhu Shida)
