Transcending trans-Asia? : lessons from trans-Europe

In invoking the idea of trans-Asia as a method, this book aims to promote a bundle of approaches or perspectives designed to generate innovative knowl- edge through “intellectual dialogue beyond country, region and discipline.” 1 This is an ambitious aim and, I would argue, a more complex one than it seems. Following on from the two previous chapters by Iwabuchi and by Chow and de Kloet, this chapter will continue the task of conceptual ground clearing by exploring some of the difficulties and ambiguities related to the notion of trans-Asia or trans-Asian, so that we can develop a clearer idea of what is at stake—conceptually and politically—in our search for effec- tive “trans-Asian” approaches. These difficulties and ambiguities pertain to both components of the idea of trans-Asia, namely, “trans” and “Asia” (or “Asian”). In relation to the prefix “trans,” the conceptual and political issues are, as I will show, best highlighted by juxtaposing it with the competing prefix “pan”—as in “pan-Asia” or “pan-Asian.” In relation to the idea of “Asia” (or “Asian”) itself, I will discuss the complexities and contradictions of deploying it through a detour to an equivalent, but arguably much more developed idea, both discursively and existentially, namely that of “Europe.” Thus, my aim here is to examine what we can learn from the context of Europe—and more specifically, “trans-Europe”—in our efforts to advance trans-Asian approaches to the study of Asia. In other words, what can the project of trans-Asia learn from trans-Europe?