What was Asian about Modernity?
Asia, like other parts of the world, had its own modern development experience. The region is characterized by the socio-cultural, political, and economic revolutions driven by its mindset and ideologies. The ideologies proposed the overarching frameworks that conceptualized the social, economic, cultural, and technological development in the region’s modernization efforts. The conceptualization of the development helps understand the disciplinary divisions in Asian modernism as aesthetic and physical development with distinct modernity characteristics. The distinctions occur in innovation, cultural expression, and social agency transcended in history that only match their style. Moreover, it is essential to look at the structural reconstruction that took place in the region after the post-World War error that distinctively set itself away from the other areas of the world, such as the case of Japan. Looking at the Asian perspective of modernity requires questioning the entire spectrum of development influenced by Asian culture and inherent practices. The Asian version of modernity is upheld by its harmonization of the relationship between tradition and science.
Asia has a high dependence between its traditions and modernization, which is perceived as dialectically and practically harmonious. The region has a high retention of viable traditions that are assumed as the foundation of its development. The traditions guide people and the society in the quest for what they perceive truly good and acceptable modernization that has proven relevant for society. For instance, the slogan, “Japanese Spirit” suggested a harmonious cultural inspiration towards development that set a unique approach to modernization to the rest of the world. Rather than depending on western science, the region has crafted its definition of science, incorporating what they believe is right for their development. The position defines the Asian way of modernity based on uniqueness and none resemblance to the other region’s growth. The most recognizable uniqueness of the Asian version of modernity is its harmonization of tradition and science that stands above any other region. There is always an imminent conflict between tradition and science for different areas, but not the case of Asia. The majority of nations like Japan, Korea, and China have just harmonized their definition of modernity to avoid internal conflict, even though their actions are exposed to external criticism, such as the case of Chinese development. This Asian view of modernity allows the nations to experience tremendous scientific innovation while retaining their traditional ways of life. It is, therefore, a society of scientific development but characterized by conventional consumption. Moreover, the Asian version of modernity has only proven effective and reliable for the region itself since the model only proves to work for itself.
The accounts of Jin Feng, professor of literature at Grinnell College and author of the Chinese Food-ways, describe the Asian version of modernity in the form of the image of Chinese food. The scholar reviews her travel experience, which changes to a research program that steered development in the food industry, focusing on heritage food. The change of the scholar from a mere travel enthusiast to an advisor and innovator to the restaurants based on her experience in China and Russia study trips replicates the Asian approach to development. Jinn Feng understands that development in the food industry is without a recap of the traditional delicacies that are popular and value-added to the people, either socio-culturally or economically. As a scholar, she ignites the purpose of adventurous investment, where entrepreneurs try to invest in areas of great interest to the common market. This is a post-modernity approach to development where people are seen to be exhausted with the modern science experience. For instance, the reason many people travel across the world is to experience the unique traditional or reserved leisure that modern science cannot give. The west, in particular, fully transcended from the conventional approach of development to the scientific method, thereby leaving in deficiencies of unique experiences. For example, many would prefer to have the traditional as opposed to the modern taste of food. As such, the scholars advise entrepreneurs on ways of investing in cultural and most appealing restaurants based on the need to give the market what it lacks.
Jin Feng also admits that China, like other Asian countries, is reserved and still bestowed in their traditional approach to life. Through research, she found that the majority would always prefer Chinese cousins. More so, scholars from Asian nations that live in the western world still show a high affinity to their traditional food, exposing the harmonious transition regardless of the modern scientific culture. The perspective gives a cultural heritage and society whose modernity is defined by structural balance with the world’s development, but in a manner that fulfills their traditional identity. Thus, according to Jin Feng, the Chinese development and modernization are toed within the traditional realms. For example, in the case of the food industry, the majority tend to use modern science to sell traditional Chinese cuisine due to their high affinity given by available philosophical knowledge about their traditions.
Another account that supports Asian tradition and science harmonization version of modernity is given by Scott Schnell, a professor of anthropology at the University of Iowa and coeditor of the Asian Ethnology. Like Jin, Scott is attracted by the conservative approach of life given by the Japanese, which defines their way of life. Scott reviews the rousing drum rituals, mountain conduits, traditional hunting beliefs, the ideology that drive the people, environment, nature, limits of consumption, and skills development to show the Japanese approach and interpretation of modernity. According to Scott, the Japanese mountain dwellers’ beliefs in animism, attitude towards matagi, government’s support for the matagi, and the tourism attraction, all show the conceptualization of their way of life and how the life is unanimously accepted. The view shows the identity that they are given, considering that the people and the government accept their practices amidst the global innovations and advancements. However, like the author, I believe the belief and practice of the Japanese hill life do not mean they are less modernized. Apart from the traditional socio-cultural life, the community is well informed of the global technological changes. This way of interpreting their approach to modernization is often seen as an attitude to keep a simple but informed life. The Japanese government is also fully aware and supports traditional life. Moreover, the way of life is a great economic source of income to the community and the nation, where the local community is the tour guide. As such, it can be assumed that their reservation is the ideal version of modernity, one that supports structural and technological development, but within the frames of their traditional life. Thus, their decision to keep it does not imply less developed or modernized.
On a different approach, the Asians are also top of the global technological and structural development. Arguably, World War II led to the misinterpretation of the Japanese, which led to Japan’s American occupation. While the Americans posed themselves as liberators of the Japanese people, it is believed that the traditional role of the Japanese culture must have been misinterpreted. This view came to be proved wrong when Japan embarked on wider technological development after the wars. Japan reasserted its Asian identity to reposition itself in the rise of other economic prowess of other Asian nations. The adoption philosophies, such as “Just in Time,” drove Japan to an industrial hub and global competitor to its former occupants, America. Today, Japan is home to many global multinationals in motor, computer technology, and other engineering industries. However, the nation’s growth was based on its interpretation of modernization that supported vast economic advancement at retained traditional and cultural practices. The same position applies to China, which oversaw massive global economic development and innovation at its model of modernization.
Asian region has a unique interpretation of modernization based on its approach to socio-cultural and economic development. The region managed to harmonize its traditional approach to development with modern science to support immense growth. Through the research undertaken, the scholars retaliate the region’s ability to blend its traditional lifestyle with modern science as a foundation for its development. Nations like Japan and China have become global emblems of the region’s way of modernity, which has supported its development. Thus, Asian modernity is defined by their ability to harmonize the relationship between tradition and modern science.