Phenomenology in East Asia

Author(s):  
Toru Tani ◽  
Nam-In Lee ◽  
Ni Liangkang ◽  
Fang Xianghong

Western philosophy was rapidly introduced into East Asia from the second half of the nineteenth century, in a movement that began in Japan but quickly spread to China and Korea. When phenomenology appeared in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Japanese philosopher Nishida Kitaro was one of the first to realize its importance. In the 1920s, many Japanese scholars, including a number of Nishida’s students, traveled to Europe to study under Husserl and Heidegger in Freiburg. Korean philosophers also became interested in phenomenology in the 1920s, and Xiong Wei of China went to Freiburg in the 1930s and was greatly influenced by Heidegger. The reception of Western philosophy was impeded by the barrier of a different culture and intellectual tradition, in addition to the barrier of language, but phenomenology was felt to have many affinities to East Asian thinking. This was particularly true of Heidegger’s work. Both Husserl and Heidegger were criticized from the East Asian perspective on various points, but this criticism helped to develop the phenomenological movement as an intercultural project engaging both East and West. Japan, Korea and the countries that make up the Chinese cultural sphere have much in common, but differences in political and social climate affected the development of phenomenological research in each country. In Japan, existentialism became popular after the nation’s defeat in World War II (1939–45) and this led to a shift in interest from German phenomenology to French thinkers like Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. The Korean peninsula suffered a long period of chaos because of the same war and the Korean War that followed (1950–3), and the resulting devastation there also led to a heightened interest in existentialism. Marxism also became an important influence, especially in Japan, where various left-leaning thinkers attempted to integrate phenomenology with Marxist thought. In mainland China, the Communist Revolution and subsequent establishment of the People’s Republic of China (1949) and the Cultural Revolution of 1966–76 hampered the reception of Western philosophy, but the country has since produced many fine phenomenological researchers. The Chinese University of Hong Kong is a long-standing centre of phenomenological research and has maintained close ties with institutions on the mainland since Hong Kong’s reversion to China in 1997. Scholars in Taiwan continued to study phenomenology throughout the postwar period and now maintain active exchange with colleagues in Hong Kong and mainland China. Phenomenology is well established in East Asia, with research expanding in many directions. Scholars keep up with developments in the West and pursue research in similar directions; others focus on the connection between phenomenology and the intellectual traditions of East Asia; still others apply the methods of phenomenology to interdisciplinary studies. Other phenomenologists are working on original theories that are relatively free of cultural and disciplinary boundaries. Research is active at universities in all the countries in question. Each country has phenomenological organizations that are active domestically and which engage in academic exchange with organizations abroad. On the whole, East Asia may be said to be one of phenomenology’s most active venues.

Author(s):  
John Lie

In the 2010s, the world is seemingly awash with waves of populism and anti-immigration movements. Yet virtually all discussions, owing to the prevailing Eurocentric perspective, bypass East Asia (more accurately, Northeast Asia) and the absence of strong populist or anti-immigration discourses or politics. This chapter presents a comparative and historical account of East Asian exceptionalism in the matter of migration crisis, especially given the West’s embrace of an insider-outsider dichotomy superseding the class- and nation-based divisions of the post–World War II era. The chapter also discusses some nascent articulations of Western-style populist discourses in Northeast Asia, and concludes with the potential for migration crisis in the region.


2019 ◽  
pp. 144-165
Author(s):  
Mary Augusta Brazelton

This chapter investigates the role of mass immunization in Chinese medical diplomacy programs during the 1960s and 1970s. While most scholarship has stressed the influence of barefoot doctor and other paraprofessional training programs in the emergence of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as a global model for rural health services, mass immunization programs in China had measurable results—in terms of lowered incidence of disease—that helped legitimize these training efforts and the nation's program of rural health care more broadly. Ultimately, the global popularization of Chinese public health was a consequence of regional competition within East Asia. During the Cold War era, the PRC used medical aid to foreign countries to compete for power and influence with the Republic of China on Taiwan, where institutions and personnel that the Nationalist Party brought to the island after 1948 built upon practices established during the period of Japanese colonial rule (1895–1945). The involvement of Taiwan in medical diplomacy reflected the expansionist agendas of its Western allies in the Cold War as well as competition with the PRC for recognition as the legitimate government of mainland China.


2020 ◽  
pp. 299-332
Author(s):  
William V. Costanzo

Informed by centuries of Daoist, Buddhist, Shinto, and Confucian thought as well as the particularities of Eastern languages and customs, film comedy in China, Korea, and Japan offers fascinating new viewpoints for Westerners. In contrast to the Greek distinction between comedy and tragedy, laughter in East Asia tends to be allied with equilibrium, an integral part of a balanced state and state of mind. This chapter highlights major figures and trends associated with humor in Japan (Yasujiro Ozu, Juzo Itami, Toshiro Mifune), Korea (Jee-won Kim, Sang-jin Kim), Hong Kong (Jackie Chan, Stephen Chow), Taiwan (Chun Han Wang, Ang Lee), and the People’s Republic of China (Zhang Yimou, Xiaogang Feng).


Author(s):  
B Jane Jackson

As internationalization efforts intensify across the globe, the number of students who are studying outside their home country for part of their tertiary education has increased significantly. The vast majority of students from East Asian nations (Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, Macau SAR, Mainland China, and Taiwan) study in a second language while abroad, with English the most common medium-of-instruction. As institutions of Higher Education (HE) in other regions compete for students from this part of the world, increasingly, questions are being raised about what students gain from outbound mobility programs. Scholars have drawn attention to the need for systematic empirical research that critically examines the experiences of student sojourners in order to determine the most effective ways to support and enhance their learning (e.g., linguistic, cognitive, social, academic, (inter)cultural, and professional).


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 504-523
Author(s):  
Yanhong Yin ◽  
Irene Wieczorek

This article provides an analysis of the bill proposed in 2019 to amend Hong Kong Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO), Hong Kong domestic legislation on extradition. The FOO Amendment Bill introduced the possibility of, and detailed the conditions for, surrendering fugitives from Hong Kong to other regions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), among which, controversially, mainland China. After multiple protests, the proposal was withdrawn. It nonetheless represents the first attempt of introducing a legal basis for extradition between Hong Kong and mainland China, and it is thus deserving of close scrutiny. The article describes the unique constitutional setting in which this amendment was proposed, Hong Kong and mainland China being two regions of the same sovereign country which have two radically different legal systems under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. It compares the proposed system for extradition between these two regions with the rules regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third states, and with international systems for surrender, including the European Arrest Warrant and the UN Model Extradition Treaty. It shows that the FOO Amendment Bill would have put in place a surrender system in some respects less advanced and subject to more obstacles than standard international extradition Treaties and than the system regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third countries. This is the case, for instance, for the rules on penalty thresholds and on double criminality. Conversely, in other respects, it would have been even more advanced (and with fewer obstacles) than the European Arrest Warrant, one of the most advanced systems of international surrender. This is notably the case for the rules regulating extradition of Hong Kong residents to other parts of the PRC. These latter were, however, among the more controversial aspects of the proposal. The article also discusses the challenges that reintroducing a similar proposal would face in the future, including in light of current political and legal developments – notably the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress’s July 2020 adoption of the ‘Hong Kong National Security Law’. It suggests that one avenue to smoothen surrender proceedings between Hong Kong and mainland China would be taking a procedural rather than a substantive approach, namely by increasing the role of courts and decreasing the role of executive bodies in the extradition procedures.


2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 115-124
Author(s):  
Sergey Radchenko

Andrei Ledovskii, a long-time Soviet diplomat with a particular expertise on East Asian affairs, and several other Russian specialists on Soviet policy in the Far East have published a massive collection of declassified documents about Soviet policy vis-à-vis China in the first five years after World War II. The authors seek to show that the Communist victory in the Chinese civil war was attributable to Soviet fraternal help, that Josif Stalin wholeheartedly embraced the Chinese Communists' struggle for power, and that the Sino-Soviet alliance from beginning to end enjoyed unstinting Soviet support. But in fact the documents reveal that Stalin's policy toward the Chinese Communists was opportunistic and utilitarian, that he refrained from decisively supporting the Communists in the Civil War until almost the end, and that all the talk of proletarian internationalism in the Sino-Soviet alliance was but a cloak for Soviet expansionist ambitions in East Asia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregg A. Stevens

This collection of essays in Medical Education in East Asia: Past and Future outlines the history of medical education in five East Asian countries and territories: China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document