國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 164 of 334
2. Stage two is called “constructive dialogue” where building greater understanding encourages the process of dialogue. In this stage, differences in perceptions, values, and attitudes can emerge, but certain issues of common interest can be identified as well.
3. Stage three is the consensus-building one. It is a time during which partners are able to develop shared values and goals in various fields. E.g. ASEAN-EU Eminent Person Group in 1996 identified some common areas of endeavour like liberalization of trade, reduction in state intervention, etc.283
Graph 11: Stages of ASEM interaction process
Source: Adopted by the author based on “Cultural Rapprochment between Asia and Europe”284
One needs to bear in mind that developing mutual understanding is a complex and slow process. The process of networking, constructive dialogue, and consensus building between Asia and Europe is to gradually bring the societies together, to diminish the psychological and
cultural distances. The above stages certainly are necessary conditions for building an identity;
yet not sufficient. Identity is a complex and rather intangible issue, that no formula can guarantee the outcome.
Mutual awareness of Asian and European cultures should be achieved by involving the media, academic institutions, social and cultural foundations and other public institutions in both
283 Ibid., 17-18.
284 Goh Chok Tong et al., Cultural rapprochement between Asia and Europe : five essays on the Asia-Europe relationship, Lecture series (Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies, 1997).
Networking Constructive
dialogue Trust-building
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 165 of 334
regions, in an integrated, coherent way. In other words, ASEM’s objective of mutual learning and socializing cannot be complete without ASEF’s activities.
Graph 12: Visualization of the process of identity formation
Source: Author’s research
4.2.5. Identity on the grassroots level
Similarly to the meeting of heads of states when it comes to representation, regional identification on the people’s level are also based on the contextual representation. In her small questionnaire the author exercised upon Asia-Europe Foundation activities, she found out that only when there are a clear point of reference, in this case – Europeans, do many Asians look for affiliation to each other.
The first and perhaps most inspiring response I found out was an Indian respondent saying:
“I only feel Asian when I leave Asia.”285
285 Response to th q s “D y y s As ?” I v c c ASEF c v y P s 2009.
Interaction:
getting to know
Othering:
defining Self and Other
Awareness:
"reinforcing" the newly acquired identity
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 166 of 334
This experience has led me to look closer at the people’s level of interaction and their perceptions on the regional identity. The activities of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) working on the mandate of ASEM created the opportunity to draw data from.
The Asia-Europe Foundation was established in 1997, and as a child of ASEM it reflects the political structure of membership, and is entitled to ASEM’s agenda. ASEF was an initiative by Singapore to promote exchanges between Asian and European think-tanks, cultural groups, and people. ASEF was designed to act as a clearinghouse and a catalyst or facilitator of dialogue and cooperation. The third pillar’s activities of ASEM inter-regional process is handled by ASEF.
Its official mission statement includes the following:
“Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) seeks to promote better mutual understanding and
closer cooperation between the people of Asia and Europe through greater intellectual, cultural, and people-to-people exchanges. These exchanges include conferences, lecture tours, workshops, seminars and the use of web-based platforms. The major achievement of ASEF is the establishment of permanent bi-regional networks focused on areas and issues that help to strengthen Asia-Europe relations.”
286The Asia-Europe Foundation has since served as an agent of connection between the two regions at the peoples’ level. It facilitates exchange among civil societies, academic institutions, NGOs, and professional organizations to ensure that ASEM work exceeds merely the governmental level. It creates people-to-people networks in view of strengthening “information multipliers”, which can increase awareness and understanding between the two regions. The intellectual exchange functions as a think-tank for ASEM, inviting academia, government, private sector, and civil society to contribute to long-term strategic thinking.
By launching cultural exchange projects, ASEF promotes cultural dialogue and networking among young artists and offers a platform for dialogue at the policy-making level.
As one of the ASEF program’s participants described: “Never in the history of mankind have
cultural boundaries between nations and civilizations been so fluid as we are now experiencing”.
287 Countries once divided by Iron and Bamboo Curtains now share many similar286ASEF official website: http://www.asef.org (accessed September 18, 2012).
287 Zainal Mantaha and Charit Tingsabadh, Asia-Europe: Towards Greater Inter-Cultural Exchanges. 6th ASEF University (Singapore: ASEF, 2003).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 167 of 334
cultural traits, and countries that used to be separated in the hierarchy of power by colonialism now grow through similar economic welfare, technology, and information development.
The Asia-Europe rapprochement itself serves no purpose of comparison, differentiation or deliberate “Othering”. It provides a venue for meeting, learning and commonness in creating.
Not only do the Europeans learn from and about the Asians and vice-versa, but the Asians can learn from each other. This learning process creates an opportunity for self-definition, association and accommodation, as well as a re-evaluation of old stereotypes and even prejudices.
In fact, most ASEF alumni are artists, intellectuals, and young people with open minds who emerge into a new culture of globalization, where no fixed values or cultural traits are solely specific to one region. The Asia-Europe inter-cultural exchange welcomes cultural pluralism, where difference is celebrated, but does not divide.
Another ASEF alumnus expressed:
“I welcome the inception of ASEF because it creates intellectual links – in their broadest
sense – between two continents that have contributed immeasurably to the flowering of human history”.
288 Indeed, the motto for ASEF is Embracing Diversity, Bridging People, and ShapingPartnership which intends to blur the divide between the two continents, build unity in diversity,
and join together peoples regardless of their geographic origin. On these terms, the theory of“Othering” and contradicting partners in order to define the “self” seems inapplicable.
4.2.6. Perceptions of “Asia” and “Europe”
However, while looking at the very idea of ASEF projects, such as “East West Dialogue”
or “Asia-Europe Interface” there is a clear definition of regional divide. The Asians are put in the
“Asia” team and the Europeans in the team labelled “Europe”. For Japanese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Mongolians, Indians, Indonesians etc. this is the first time that they all appear in one side. For such a diverse continent which rather associates itself in terms of sub-regions, it is a very new experience to be simply labelled as being of one region. The inter-regional framework brings them together despite political, ideological, linguistic, religious, economic, or societal
288 ASEF, 10 Years of ASEF: Voices from Asia and Europe (Singapore: ASEF, 2007).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 168 of 334
sub-divisions. That could only be accomplished with the presence of an extra-regional actor, which in this case is Europe, with whom Asia has had special historical connections.
Evi Firtriani, in a similar attempt to understand the attitudes of Asians towards Europeans within ASEM and ASEF interactions, came out with equivalent conclusions. In her participatory observation, she noticed a polarization tendency between the Asian participants as well as European participants of both ASEM and ASEF meetings. Based on psychological distances, conditioned by history and culture, Asians would show tendency of grouping with other Asians rather than Europeans, and vice versa. 289
The cultural and psychological distances between Asian and European participants are reflected in polarizing grouping similarly among the participants of ASEF activities as well as during ASEM governmental meetings.290 Fitriani claimed that colonial memory remains the main obstacle hampering from open and equal dialogue. “The feeling of shared colonial memory
among Asian participants may also lead to ‘collective intentionality’ to speak out or act together vis-à-vis their European counterparts”.
291At the officials’ level there has been a certain degree of imbalance regarding the interests that Asia and Europe paid to each other. According to her interviews, the Asia–Europe
polarization subsequently informed cognitive processes in identity development among the Asian participants in the ASEM and ASEF forums so that the “other” and the “us” were quite obvious.
Fitriani noticed at one of ASEF forums:
“Asian participants tend to “flock” into an Asian group while the Europeans also