ABSTRACT
The question of Asia, like the question of modernity, resists any attempt to provide a clear explanation partly because it is loaded with interconnected issues from many facets. Asia is not only a political concept, but also a cultural concept; it is not only a geographical location, but also a measure of value judgement. The Asia question itself does not bear any necessary relation to the question of hegemony and counter-hegemony, although the attempts to tackle this question have brought into play considerations of hegemony of the East and the West. The question itself does not entail nationalism, although the theme of nationalism has been conjured in the course of discussing this question. Another reason why the question of Asia is difficult to explicate is that it is hardly a question of substantialization, namely, by way of ascribing to it unequivocal geographical attributes. Quite contrarily, it is often invoked in the discussion of questions that bear no direct relation, or are even in stark opposition, to any geographical considerations. For a long historical period, Asia has not been treated as a self-contained geographical concept, but has only been put forward ideologically in opposition to Europe. The discussion of Asia involved not only the question of Eurocentrism, but also the question of hegemony within the East. As difficult as it is to sort out the question of Asia, it remains an underlying thread running through the intellectual history in the modern world. Hence, we still have to grapple with the question of Asia as one that constitutes a totality in itself.
