Is the 21st Century Going to be an Asian Century?

Much ink has been spilt on pronouncing the 21st century as an Asian century. Pundits from Kishore Mahbubani to the eminent Jacques Martin have asserted with confidence that Asia will leave an indelible imprimatur on world politics, culture and economics.  And that western pre-eminence or predominance over these domains will gradually but inexorably come to an end. The grist to the mill of these assertions is provided by the stupendous economic growth achieved by the so called ‘Asian Tigers’ or NIC’S such as Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea in the eighties and the nineties and now China and perhaps India. Itis extrapolated from this that Asia has either rediscovered itself and will inevitably strut on the world stage in an idiom that is informed by its own ethos and creativity.

Or in other words, ‘Asian modernity’ will or is emerging and this is premised on confidence which, in turn, is predicated on the achievement of economic growth. That this took these countries only a few decades to achieve, in contrast to the west, is held to be testimony to Asian vigor and vitality. The inevitable conclusion that is drawn is that there is something new and different about this. While the frame work and template for this success is set by the west, what will emerge out of this will be purely Asian. And that nothing works like success: the example set by Asia will then be imitated by others and a new world order-economic, political and cultural –will emerge. The tone for this will beset by Asia and Asians.

The question is: Is there merit to these assertions? Or do these stem from the western side from insecurity or a feverish imagination? And from the Asian side from ephemeral euphoria and the attendant hubris?

 First, the Asian-Western dichotomy is from the long duree scheme of things and the larger historical perspective a false one. Both are constructs. The west essentially is a set of ideas about the individual, society, economics and the philosophies undergirding these. Asia, to the contrary is a disaggregated mass of peoples, contending and competing philosophies, cultures and world views.  There is no real coherence to Asia: the nomenclature ‘Asia’ attributed to it implying homogeneity is false. So the question of competing paradigms flowing from different cultures or civilizations does not arise. What may be true for the current historical period is that the set of ideas that owes its genesis to philosophies pioneered in the west are paramount and powerful. Such is their power that other cultures axiomatically and inevitably are compelled to articulate their aspirations and mode of life in the western inspired idiom. The classic example of this is the widespread acceptance and prevalence of western modernity which for all intents and purposes is universal.

The current or the contemporary fad of a civilizational or more accurately a cultural clash in which competing paradigms jostle and compete with each other is false. Modernity and ‘progress’ are correlated and one cannot be disentangled from the other. And modernity- essentially an attitude and the temper flowing from it- is western. This attitude, to repeat the cliché, calls for control and mastery over the forces of nature. Questioning, curiosity and innovation are inherent to it. The stage and premise for it was set in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and has since then inexorably percolating to other societies and cultures in different permutations and combinations. Other societies and cultures have no real choice but to accept these premises of modernity and adapt. The choice is rather stark: adapt or perish and languish in a mode of thinking that militates even against survival.

What then explains the current fad of deeming the coming era as an Asian one? Two factors account for this. One is the tectonic economic shift taking place contemporarily to Asia, especially China. And the other is the insecurity generated by the shift in the west and the concomitant hubris generated by this among ‘Asians’. The former, if a foray maybe made into the domain of economics, accrues from the nature of economics itself and free(r) trade and the attendant economic globalization wherein economic activities are naturally getting dispersed. The west has nothing to fear from this rather natural trend: the core of these economic activities especially leading and cutting edge innovation still and naturally will take place in the west. It is in the west where the scientific temper accruing from modernity has been fully internalized. The rest of the world can only imitate and take cues from the west.

However, this shift in, to use an outsourcing metaphor, ‘back end’ activities is generating a curious insecurity in the west. Inferences made from economic growth and the hot air (or rhetoric) flowing from Asian leaders and intellectuals validate this insecurity and then attempts are made to rationalize this as the‘re-entry’ and predominance of Asia. On the other end of the spectrum, economic growth has generated wild and naturally ephemeral hubris among ‘Asian’ intellectuals and leaders. This hollow pride stems from historical memory and these intellectuals collate economic growth with unshackling of western modernity and hence Asia coming of age.

In sum then, while the rise of what is called Asia is welcome, given that it means liberation and liberty-economic, cultural and political-potentially for millions, it in no way represents or reflects a challenge to the core premises of western modernity. The rhythms, direction, tone and tenor of history has been and is set by the western idea. To think otherwise is short sightedness, hubris ethereal.