|
Teaching
Cultural Studies in Asia
1.
What it means to be a cultural studies practitioner in Asia
Becoming
a cultural studies practitioner in Asia entails a successive process in
which a person self-examines the historical formation of their
knowledge, accepts any self-contradictions and forms a new identity as
an intellectual. This process can apply especially to me. I was trained
as a feminist anthropologist in the United States from the late 1980s to
the mid 1990s and was greatly influenced by the quickly expanding
institutionalized cultural studies during that time. That is to say, my
current position as a critical cultural studies practitioner is not only
a product of the western academic world, but also a product of my
experience in studying Asia in the context of its desire to
differentiate itself from the 『west』 and in the context of localized
Korea.
I
was greatly inspired by the politics of representation and discourse
practiced by culture studies practitioners during my time of study in
the United States. It was a time when global capitalism was spreading
worldwide and there was also the fetishization of everyday lives,
nationalism, ethnic conflict and sexual struggle. At the time, critical
intellectuals were showing their scorn and cynicism at the conservative
and dominating US government and I found the tactics of 『hit and
run』 employed by the US culture studies practitioner, leaders of the
struggle of meanings, to be quite refreshing and engaging. Also while
studying the effects of incorporation of 『the third world』 women』s
labor into global capitalism, I also had to embark upon a
epistemological competition within the U.S cultural studies in the
academic institution. My dual weapons were post-colonialism and
third-world feminism.
Upon
returning to Korea I spent much of my energy in strengthening feminism
logic, hoping to build a foundation sturdy enough to contend against the
more special characteristics of local Korea. This characteristic was the
pervading acceptance of the rule of the phallus, as the 『natural
law』 throughout all facets of Korean society. From everyday life to
the halls of academia and politics, this male-centric domination and the
colonization of women』s bodies were accepted as the way of Mother
Nature. According to my naïve thinking at the time, I believed that
despite the deep-rooted branding and prejudice against 『westernized』
feminists, feminist epistemology was the core of universal criticism
against power and that it would be able to transcend the differences
between regions.
In
1997 I worked as the coordinator of Ewha Womans University』s <Asia
Women Studies Curriculum Development Project> and had the pleasure to
meet and communicate with fellow women』s studies colleagues from eight
Asian countries for the next three years. During our many meetings in
Korea and abroad, we constantly discussed and questioned 『Why Asia?』
Could this project possibly lead us to reproduce the same hegemonic
logic which caused men to espouse and find solidarity centered on
『Asian values』? Was this entire project based upon a narrow-minded
and anti-western regional centrism? Could Asian researchers truly be
independent and critical with funding still coming from 『western』
churches, corporations and foundations? Might Ewha University be
creating an 『imperialistic』 women』s studies in Asia? My colleagues
and I all had to endure and overcome this moral validation, examining
these many doubts expressed by our inner voices. An especially grueling
part of our meetings was establishing a common conceptual framework for
women』s studies curriculum and knowledge in Asia. The phase of
development and institutionalized levels of each country were vastly
different and there were so many views and perspectives on feminism
itself that it was difficult to find common ground. One of my colleagues
from a particular nation said that feminism in relation to the
government of her country was still a 『risky business』 and asserted
that the title of feminism should be more 『docile』.
Through
this project I was able to make many friends throughout the Asian
women』s studies scholars. This experience was even more meaningful in
my position as a scholar and activist in that I began to 『desire』
Asia as an arena to put my knowledge to the practice and in doing so
begin to compose a newer me. I began to incorporate some works written
by my
Asian colleagues in my class syllabus, which had been dominated by the
western and Korean feminist works. At the same time I realized that for
this desire to become a reality, I had to begin with the self
acknowledgment that I knew very little about Asia. Also I realized that
communications with 『others』 and scholars of Asia would have to
increase and development in order for all of us to escape the shrouds of
conjecture and imagination and gain a clearer understanding of one
another. There is a great 『scarcity』 in exchanges between Asian
countries when compared with the ample stories of exchange with the
western academic world.
2.
The Conceptual Framework of Inter-Asia Cultural Studies : Towards the
development of the curriculum
During
the Asia Women』s Studies Project, there were many discussions
pertaining to the naming the curriculum and textbooks we were
developing. Whether it should be named <Women』s Studies in Asia>
or as a new field of research be named, <Asian Women』s Studies>.
Through our discussions we realized there was a complicated political
horizon separating the two. In the same way, teaching culture studies in
Asia requires two different epistemological pathways of thought. One is
to discuss the issues of Teaching Cultural Studies in Asia, the other is
to discuss Teaching Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. For me the former
subject will be one that introduces how cultural studies are taught in
Korea, the position of cultural studies in Korean universities and what
curriculums are provided in Korea. Thus the researchers from the
different parts of Asia will be able to see the similarities and
differences among the cultural studies and individual researchers of
different nations and return home with a better understanding of the
different parts of Asia. However when you reflect upon the past 5 year
history of inter-asia cultural studies, discussions on how researchers
participating in these meetings will later create a uniqueness in inter-asia
cultural studies through conceptual frameworks of knowledge are
necessary. Though such discussions might seem fruitless and exhaustive
at the present, I believe it will provide meaningful insights for the
education of later generations.
First,
I would like to concentrate on the subject of <Teaching Cultural
Studies in Asia> by introducing my teaching experience in Yonsei
University』s graduate school for the past 5 years. If you look at the
syllabus provided, you can see that my lectures are taught under the
『old』 title of Cultural Theories. You can also see that there is no
sense of consistency in the seminar. My seminars have gone through what
might be called 『evolutionary processes』. These evolutionary
processes are more of a 『reflection of the change mechanisms that keep
the lecture alive and stable』, rather than successive steps of
development. I believe to be trained as a cultural studies researcher in
Asia and especially Korea, one must possess a critical view of the time
and spatial changes within the framework of post-colonial theory,
feminist theory and post-structuralism theory on representation and
image. Such time and spatial changes consist of the state-led
modernization, the expansion of global capitalism and the expansion of
the image-based surplus industry. At the same time, I emphasized that as
cultural anthropologists, students should take 『concrete field』 and
observe how diverse identities are formed and utilize this information
to find solutions to issues.
When
I came to the Dept. of Sociology, Yonsei University in 2000, I was
mostly familiar with the Dept』s positivistic methodology, and thought
that introducing graduate students to cultural studies as a new academic
subject was the most important objective. Therefore my courses tended to
leap from one new subject to another. Feminism I taught separately in a
different seminar. I slowly realized my expectations that students would
suddenly experience an 『epistemological switch-over』 were not going
to happen, as most of the students showed very positivistic attitudes,
were too busy translating the English text to Korean. Translated Korean
introductory texts of cultural studies were too descriptive and
contained many errors. I felt that the lecture needed to be specialized
but could not ignore the many requests from students asking for a
general encompassing summary on culture studies. Up till now I think
I』ve been going back and forth between two necessities. The first is
my role as a teacher who wishes to introduce my field of research and
methodology on cultural studies as a new critical academic subject. The
second is the academic need to establish a new knowledge paradigm in the
constantly changing Korean environment.
There
are several reasons behind the hardships in teaching cultural studies in
Korea. One of these hardships is that the word 『culture』 in Korea is
mostly used in a non-political meaning. Another hardship is that the
『interpretative』 methodology of cultural studies, which theorizes
the relationship between power and culture, is abstract and is also
perceived as difficult to understand. Also becoming a critical
intellectual on Korea means, they can lead a social transformation by
taking the position of the elite and are hard to identify themselves to
the sense of the cultural minorities. On the other hand, the
modernization of Korea has mass-produced a new middle class. The
students that have grown up in these middle class families are very
sophisticated and emotionally sensitive as consumers of popular culture.
They also try to self examine themselves on a personal level. However on
issues of structural power, they feel they are somehow endangering their
own personal happiness and perceive cultural studies as a burden of the
former generation. As a teacher I was confronted with the positions,
predilections and incommunicability with my customers of knowledge and
it was inevitable that I would be perceived as a frightening and
anxiety-inducing teacher.
In
some ways when I acknowledge my ever-changing interests as a cultural
studies practitioner for the past 15 years, I find it unreasonable to
force on my students the critical epistemology that comprises the
history of my own knowledge. However for students to empower themselves
in these days of anti-intellectualism and high unemployment, it is
necessary for them to ceaselessly train in the context of power and
knowledge. Therefore as a teacher I think that it is important for
cultural studies scholars in Asia to set the example, to show the
students the 『positioning』 of scholars in their roles as cultural
studies researchers in Asia, as well as to incorporate the experiences
of the young generation as the important source of the critical
knowledge to be taught.
Fortunately
during the past few months many books written by Asian cultural studies
researchers have been translated and published in Korean. This will
greatly increase the possibility of Korean graduate students being able
to understand what it means to 『conduct』 culture studies in Asia.
Books written by Kuan-hsing Chen, Iwabuchi Koichi, Shunya Yoshimi and
Sun Ge have been translated into Korean. It is easier for me to make a
linkage between the cultural studies colleagues in Asia and my students
in class.
However
the most important point to always keep in mind as a cultural studies
scholar is to avoid taking the position of purposefully not
understanding the significance of 『difference』 because it is
chronologically and spatially in a different hierarchy.
I think conducting cultural research in the post-colonial
perspective is empowering the identities formed by the respective local
agents through the emphasis of coevalness. Recently there has been a
transnational flow of popular culture throughout Asia and the
simultaneous production and consumption of the same cultural products
through the Internet and the appearance of a generation that translates
these cultural products to fit their reality. Also groups that are
positioned within the web of power of empire but still build the most
innovative technologies of resistance have appeared as well. Such groups
and others will not be content to either criticize or accept the
difference in power inherent in the existing dichotomous hierarchies
such as West and Non-west, empire and surrounding states, gender and
sexuality. To these groups are endowed the status of creators of new
meaning. Incorporating the achievements of these serious critics and
creators of new meaning into the framework of Asian culture studies
seems to be the work ahead.
|
