BOOK REVIEWS

Michael Leifer ed., Asian Nationalism

Now that regional studies seem to have acquired permanent status and while nationalism and nationhood, despite their detractors, are still very much in being, the book compiled by Michael Leifer on “Asian Nationalism” is a timely publication. The Asian financial crisis of 1997 gave rise to all kinds of comment about the miracles and models in that part of the world coming to an end: from being described as “reborn” or “rediscovered”, Asia soon found itself to be “in danger”, indeed, the object of a great deal of concern as to its “future”((1). Now that the worst of its economic difficulties are over, we have reverted to more politically centred form of inquiry. It is generally recognised, moreover, that the economic crisis served as both revelatory and catalyst of the changes of government that have taken place in Asian capitals during the past two years: some of these have been sweeping (Indonesia, East Timor), some less so (South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand).

The various contributions to Asian Nationalism were written back in 1997 following the seminars organised by the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE) to mark the founding of its Asia Research Centre. Nearly all have been revised, however, to take account of more recent political developments. The book showcases the work of the LSE’s leading specialists; and among its virtues, it combines long-term considerations, such as the emergence of national identities and the building of nation-states, with the most recent development: the reawakening of nationalism.

The book opens with an excellent overview of theories of nationalism and of how nations are created. In this introductory chapter, Anthony Smith gives a finely shaded account of the main explanatory models, both fixed and dynamic, and contrives to reconcile the vision of the “modernists”, for whom the nation is a recent creation, with more “culturalist” or “ethno-culturalist” approaches emphasising the pre-modern heritage((2). Smith shows, by the end, that in “an interdependent world of unsatisfied, but hopeful, ethnic nationalisms, the chances of transcending a world of nations must remain a dream of liberal cosmopolitans”, which achieves an ideal transition to the various monographs that follow.

China is awarded special treatment. Michael Yahuda’s contribution takes stock of the imperial heritage and the present-day patriotic frenzy of Communist China, greedy for profit and in mid “de-ideologisation”. And it aptly illustrates the idea that China is a “nationless state”, to borrow John Fitzgerald’s formula((3). This view is rounded off by a survey of “ethnic nationalism in China”, in which Solomon Karmel reveals the extent of nationalism in Tibet and Xinjiang and suggests a few ideas likely to lessen the risk of anti-Chinese reaction in those autonomous regions. Supplying the mirror image, Christopher Hughes, certainly the leading foreign authority on Taiwanese nationalism, offers a post-modernist reading of the creation of a national identity in that “other China”: there, the priority allegiance given to the legitimate and democratic government has brought to a conclusion the process of building a nation-state in Taiwan.

South Asia is the other main focus of the book. Meghnad Desai shows how the deficiencies of Indian nationhood arise from the near-insoluble conflicts between “constitutionalism” and “communalism”, that is to say, between the secular foundations of the Indian nation and a social organisation based on caste differences as prescribed by the Hindu religion. Athar Hussein deals with the “peregrinations” of Pakistani nationalism, dwelling upon the conditions in which modern Pakistan was born—the partition of India—and upon the effects, now unifying, now divisive, of an Islamic state, while General Zia’s regime is squeezed between Afghanistan’s Taliban and India’s Bharatiya Janata Party.

Last of all come two excellent chapters on nationhood and nationalism in Indonesia and the Philippines, by way of South-East Asia, the panoramic ambitions of the whole undertaking. For Michael Leifer, nationalism is at the heart of the creation of Indonesia’s archipelagic state. It is expressed firstly in the battle against the Dutch colonial power; and is reaffirmed through the non-aligned movement—of which Indonesia was one of the founding states—and in the struggles against enemies at home—those provinces tempted to secede. After the fall of the Suharto house, and despite the independence won by East Timor, Indonesia today seems more concerned with economic recovery; and Michael Leifer predicts a lessening of state nationalism at a time when the government desperately needs financial aid from abroad. As to the Philippines, James Putzel paints a comprehensive picture of nationalism there, from its origins as one of Asia’s first republics, founded right at the end of the nineteenth century, to the most recent developments leading to racist demonstrations—anti-American, anti-Chinese, anti-Indian—which serve to reveal the tension existing between the notion of democracy and that of nationalism—all the more so when it is a populist president who presides over the destiny of that ailing democracy((4).

In the end, it is only the chapter on Japan that turns out to be a cruel disappointment. Too short and above all too skimpy in its aims, Ian Nish’s chapter is limited to a brief account of the clashes between nation and nationalism ever since Japan first opened up to the world in 1853, and ends with a rather dull discussion of how Japanese youth is becoming disenchanted with nationalism. How could he omit from his bibliography the translated works of Maruyama Masao, who on this question is one of Japan’s leading political scientists?

Despite all its qualities, mainly its solid theoretical chapter and its precise and valuable case studies, this book suffers from at least two main defects: a strange omission and a methodological failing.

On the one hand, it seems a great pity that, in a book about nationalism in Asia, a country as paradigmatic as Korea—both the Koreas—should not even be mentioned. An ancient unitary nation, divided several times over, a bridge between Japan and China and under the direct domination, now of one, now of the other, one of the hottest battlefields of the Cold War, a small tiger among the developed Asian economies, a successful example of democratic transition, Korea brings together all the elements of a political syllabus. Amid the tangle of nationalism theories, it might have provided valuable material for debating which influence was the more apt: primordialism, perennialism, modernism or ethno-symbolism. Research into Korean nationhood and nationalism has been fairly long established((5) and continues to draw academic attention((6). All the same, we are well aware that specialists on South or South-East Asia would similarly find it regrettable that countries such as Sri Lanka and Cambodia have also been left out of this collection of studies.

On the other hand—and we come now to the book’s methodological failing—while one cannot attribute it exclusively to the “collective” character of the whole, the book does not really succeed as a work of comparison, one about “Asian nationalism”: it goes no further than to juxtapose “nationalisms in Asia”. Regrettably, Michael Leifer’s preface covers no more than a page; and James Mayall’s closing chapter is also too short for a discussion of the questions raised by the different monographs. Only the challenges posed by the resurgence of nationalism benefit from any cross-disciplinary approach. Lastly, an opportunity was perhaps missed in not asking Anthony Smith to carry out an aporetic synthesis of all the varied forms of nationhood and nationalism described here. Brilliant though it is, his introductory presentation draws upon several of his own publications and, in sum, it is sad that his talents as a “thinker of nationalism” should not have been put to better use.

Translated from French by Philip Liddell