Search

If the rubric of the Global Anglophone has come to be largely synonymous with the postcolonial, a development that some commentators have viewed with concern and even alarm, this essay explores a certain politically aspirational potential in the catachrestic elisions this category might engender. For if postcolonial studies has always struggled with a certain exclusionism predicated on how the South Asian context has functioned as its paradigmatic example, then the category of the Global Anglophone might help the field shed its own version of provincialism and develop more expansive geographic and temporal understandings of empire. Drawing in part from the work of Roanne L. Kantor, which bridges South Asian and Latin American studies, this essay explores how this newly ascendant category might help bring the fields of postcolonial, Asian American, and East Asian studies into more explicit alliance. While first acknowledging the potential identitarian tensions that might emerge between Asian scholars hired under the rubric of the Global Anglophone and Asian American and/or Ethnic Studies respectively, this essay ultimately argues for a more coalitional awareness of how seemingly distinct strains and traditions of anticolonial and antiracist scholarship might be relationally articulated to one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay draws on the philosophy, principles, and practices animating Global Asias scholarship to consider how this conceptual rubric shifts the ways in which we approach the subjects, objects, methods, and praxes of the academic study of Asia. Structurally dissonant as an epistemological project, Global Asias encourages scholars to acknowledge the institutional designs and disciplinary practices that currently organize and make legible work on Asia and its diasporas while simultaneously highlighting the limits of, and points of noncontact between, the broader infrastructures (including area studies, ethnic studies, diaspora studies, and the disciplines and interdisciplines) under which such work has traditionally been organized. In addition to offering a conceptual topography of Global Asias, this essay proposes three praxis-oriented concepts—relational nonalignment, structural dissonance, and imaginable ageography—that enable Global Asias as a tactical and evolving approach to the study of Asia and its multiple diasporas, one which actively resists the drive toward "critical consolidation" that often results from academic paradigm work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proposals for Global Asias as an emerging field that "bridges" Asian studies and Asian American studies should attend to the residual debris of older understandings of global bridging work. This response explores two motifs for speculating about what bridging work in Global Asias could be: stars, as understood in terms of interimperial constellations, and sandbars, as a metaphor for more local, coalitional, and temporary aggregations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My social identity as a diasporic Korean American male sometimes engendered doubts about my competency as a cultural anthropologist of South Korea. Such ethnonational gatekeeping by my ‘native’ Korean colleagues laid bare broader critiques of ‘the West’. Paradoxically, they also prompted re-entrenchments of nativeness (and implicitly, non-nativeness) by my colleagues despite their increasingly ‘non-native’ transnational identities. These embodied cultural boundaries are less visible (and arguably less consequential) to those viewed as recognisably non-native Asian (for example, white, Euro-American) or native Asian. But they are markedly visible and relevant to diasporic subjects who fit less comfortably within both boundary-enforcing classifications. The figure of the diasporic anthropologist reveals presumed racialised and gendered markers of difference—chiefly the unmarked but organising role of whiteness—conveniently subsumed under categories of ‘the West’ and ‘Asia’. Consequently, recent calls for ‘global anthropology’ against ‘Euro-American academic hegemony’ that fail to address this essentialising tendency, although important, remain inadequate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including a history from the Pacific versus a transpacific history, Asian studies and Asian American studies, and the points of commonality be­tween the U.S. and Japanese empires.

The author discusses the conceptual possibilities in the term position and the creation of new spaces for discussion by the publishing of positions as of 2012. The article differentiates positionality from position and exposes both their different uses in the study of the political significance of East Asia. The author observes that Asian American studies have never been harmonious with Asian studies and that U.S. studies and East Asian disciplines are mutually dependent through bilateralism.