The EU in the eyes of Asia: Motivation and methodology

Abstract

In his seminal work on the social theory of international politics, Alexander Wendt acknowledged Herbert Mead’s symbolic interactionist framework in which social learning of international actors occurs when “actors come to see themselves as a reflection of how they think Others see or “appraise” them, in the “mirror” of Others’ representations of the Self” (Mead 1934, cf. Wendt 1999, 327). Through history, Asia–Europe relation has been cast into a ‘being-with-Other’ mould—not only have the two been conceptualised as separate, but as fundamentally different and even opposing entities. As Chaban (2008, 138) noted, for Asia, the distinctive alterity of the European ‘Other’ comes with recognition of geographical distance, cultural disparities and racial differences. Moreover, historical legacies of colonial past and the recurrent threat of ‘Western’ cultural and civilisational domination split the two even further apart. For Europe, the idea of Asia’s ‘otherness’ can be traced back to the ancient worlds of Greece and Rome—to the concept of ‘Orient’ (Said 1978). Europe’s later explorations of China, Japan, Indonesia and Indochina sealed the European notion of the ‘Oriental Other’ in terms of exotic, opulent and mystical East (Foss and Lach 1991)—sometimes unknowable and mysterious (Radar 2007), sometimes irrational and despotic (Wilkinson 2003)—but always alien and different to Europe. These differences, proclaimed by various European discourses across centuries, have fuelled eurocentric and xenophobic attitudes inside the ‘European Self’ and spurred antagonistic reactions in Asia. Asia Eur J (2010) 8:127–131 DOI 10.1007/s10308-010-0256-9