Over the last two decades, Japanese popular culture products have
been massively exported, marketed, and consumed throughout East
and Southeast Asia. A wide variety of these products are especially
accessible and readily apparent in the region’s big cities. Many
Hong Kong fashion journals, for example, are Japanese, in either
original or Cantonese versions. Japanese comic books are routinely
translated into the local languages of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia,
and Taiwan, and they dominate East Asia’s comic book market. The
Japanese animated characters Hello Kitty, Ampan Man, and
Poke’mon are ubiquitous, depicted on licensed and unlicensed
toys and stationary items in the markets of any typical Asian city.
Japanese animation, usually dubbed, is the most popular in its field.
Astro Boy, Sailor Moon, and Lupin are
successful examples of animated characters seen in almost every
shop that sells animé in Hong Kong and Singapore. In China’s big
cities, too, now that hedonism is politically acceptable, Japanese
popular culture products quickly fill local stores, opening doors
into the country’s expanding cultural market.
The success of Japanese popular culture in East and Southeast Asia
during the last two decades has occasioned a flood of academic writing.
Although the topic is still relatively neglected in political science
and international relations literature, it is staple fare in cultural
studies, anthropology, and ethnography. The majority of works have
focused on particular examples, emphasizing the reaction of audiences
to cultural exposure in relation to the global-local discourse (Alison
2000; Craig 2000; Ishii 2001; Iwabuchi 2004; Martinez 1998; Mori
2004; Otake and Hosokawa 1998; Treat 1996). No single study has
so far provided comprehensive empirical evidence regarding the capacity
of the newly created Japanese cultural markets in East and Southeast
Asia, nor examined these issues within a regional paradigm.
It is not possible to analyze here the plethora of studies on the
dissemination of Japanese popular culture and all the insights they
provide, nor is the author competent to do so. This article instead
addresses some of their major theoretical and analytical foci, all
of which touch directly on the central problem of analyzing Japan’s
cultural expansion overseas. Its main purpose is to propose a regional
paradigm for analyzing the dissemination of culture throughout East
and Southeast Asia, including Japanese popular culture.
The Existing Literature: Everything is Global
Most studies of Japanese popular culture abroad consist of a series
of anecdotal case studies with a strong tendency to privilege the
text and its representational practices. This is partly understandable,
owing to the specific interest of the academic discipline and given
the lack of comprehensive empirical information on the subject.
Timothy J. Craig’s edited volume, Japan Pop! Inside the World
of Japanese Popular Culture (2000), is a good example. The
book discusses the phenomenal success of Japanese popular culture
in the 1990s. Its first thirteen articles include textual analysis
of Japanese music, comics, animation, television programs, and films,
while the last four articles discuss the dissemination of Japanese
comics, animation, and pop idols abroad.
Other notable examples are the edited volumes of John Lent, Asian
Popular Culture (1995), and of Timothy J. Craig and Richard
King, Global Goes Local: Popular Culture in Asia (2002).
These books include analyses of specific Japanese popular culture
products and fields, examining their contextual narrative, practice,
and broader social meaning. In Asian Popular Culture, for example,
Ron Tanner looks at the making of animated toys, their export to
the United States, and the way these toys reflect “the [Japanese]
nation’s inclinations, if not the agenda of the government” in the
hope for a brighter future (100). In the same volume, Ito Kinko
inquires about the meaning of weekly comic magazines in Japan, arguing
that “comic magazines do reflect social reality in terms of the
occupations and roles of woman, gender power structure, and double
standards” (134). Similarly, in Global Goes Local, Mark
MacWilliams argues that Osamu Tezuka’s famous comic Hi no tori
(The Phoenix) implicitly “revisions Japanese religiosity.” There
are many other published examples of these trends. Prominent works
include Martinez 1998; Mori 2004; Otake and Hosokawa 1998; Schodt
1996; and Treat 1996.
In explaining the success of Japanese popular culture in East and
Southeast Asia (but not in America or Europe), some suggest that
“cultural proximity” determines the trajectory of cultural flows.
They maintain that Japanese popular culture embodies some sort of
Asian content, or “Asian fragrance,” which easily resonates with
local consumers. According to this view, cultural confluence is
geo-cultural and not simply transnational. Writing about Japanese
TV dramas in East and Southeast Asia, Iwao Sumiko has introduced
the concept of “shared sensibilities” (1994: 74), Honda Shino the
“East Asian psyche” (1994: 76), and Igarashi Akio “cultural sensibility”
(1997: 11). This “cultural proximity”, however, cannot explain why
Taiwanese youth, for example, prefer to buy Japanese instead of
Chinese products, or why Thai students listen to American music,
which is ostensibly not as “culturally” close.
Others have argued that Japanese popular culture products are “faceless”
(see Alison 2000; Shiraishi 2000). That is, the appeal of Japanese
popular culture derives from being non-national and therefore highly
transferable, to the extent that it is no longer recognized as “Japanese.”
Indeed, it is difficult to see what is “Japanese” about the animated
characters Hello Kitty, Doraemon, or Poke’mon,
or how any sort of subliminal cultural messages that may be embedded
in the products resonate with Asian consumers.
Japanese magazines in Taipei, November 2006
On the other hand, consumers in East and Southeast
Asia do seem able to recognize cultural products that originated
in Japan. In conducting a series of interpretative questionnaire
surveys with 239 university students in Hong Kong, Bangkok, and
Seoul,1 one of my strongest impressions was that
most could identify Japanese animation, music, and comics, even
when they were translated into local languages. They could also
distinguish among Japanese popular culture products, other imported
products, and local imitations. In this sense, the “Japanese odor”
of the products might lay in their representation of a specific
genre associated with “Japan” that is recognizable and appreciated
by consumers, rather than in their containing an “Asian” cultural
fragrance.
The work of Iwabuchi Koichi (2002; 2004) offers another approach,
one that interprets the manifestation of “Japanese” cultural practices
within a broader cultural dynamics. Iwabuchi is a pioneer in the
study of Japanese popular culture in East Asia and Southeast Asia,
and his works provide rich evidence of the popularity of Japanese
television dramas in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Bangkok, South Korea, and
mainland China. He maintains that the concept of “cultural proximity”
does not necessarily explain the consumption of Japanese popular
culture. Rather, he argues that Japanese popular culture products
represent “modern” ideas that consumers strategically choose.
In his book Recentering Globalization (2002), Iwabuchi
situates the rise of Japanese cultural power in light of the globalization
process. His central argument is that the expansion of Japanese
culture to Asia in the 1990s correlates with the decentralizing
forces of global-local relations. In Iwabuchi’s view, Japanese media
companies have exported the Japanese experience of indigenized Western
culture to Asia (20). In this way, people in Asia no longer consume
“the West” but an indigenized or hybridized version of it (105).
Iwabuchi’s edited volume Feeling Asian Modernities (2004)
provides the most sophisticated attempts currently available to
theorize the content and flow of Japanese popular cultural. Contributor
Lisak Yuk-ming Leung analyzes two popular Japanese dramas that debuted
in Hong Kong in 1992 (Love Generation) and 1997 (Long
Vacation). According to her, the Japanese ganbaru message (“to
strive and to struggle hard”) has traveled across Asia through Japanese
TV dramas that “embody Ganbaru messages in a new guise”
(91). The ganbaru behavior is depicted by the dramas’ urban
heroes, who “have been struggling in work and in relationships…
encouraged by their counterparts to strive on” (92). The viewers
of the dramas, for their part, have adopted the ganbaru message
in varying intensities across age groups (100-102).
In the same volume, Yu-fen Ko argues that Japanese idol dramas play
a role in Taiwan’s “latent ambivalence of ‘anxiety and desire’ for
modernity” (108). In this context, Japanese dramas represent the
“real life problems” that Taiwanese are facing (108). Lee Ming-tsung’s
study, too, finds that “the cross-cultural practices of imagining
in Taiwan and experiencing in Japan facilitate a transformation
of cultural orientation to and self-identification with the dominant
other, Japan” (130). In the same book, Siriyuvasak Ubonrat’s study
of Bangkok and Dong-Hoo Lee’s study of South Korea provide similar
results about the way Japanese popular culture products “project
modernities.” These studies also suggest that the act of cultural
consumption and the practice of Japanese culture lead to a strong
identification with Japan and will eventually affect East Asia’s
national or regional identity as a whole.
All of the studies mentioned above contain rich information and
analysis related to the various practices of Japanese popular culture
overseas. Their ultimate importance, I think, is in refuting Western
globalization theorists’ notion of cultural homogenization. Globalization
theorists have described a homogenizing world in which the evolution
of business and cultural networks increasingly shape peoples’ economic
destiny, identity, and culture (for example Druker 1993; Hannertz
1991; Huntington 1996; Kotckin 1992; Robertson 1991; Schiller 1976;
Tomlinson 1991;and Wallerstein 1991). The overall picture is of
supranational tribe-like cultural entities grouping to adjust to
the new global order. The contribution of the specific ethnographic
studies mentioned above to an effective rebuttal of that delusion
lies in their rich accounts of cultural diversity and heterogeneous
practices that remain resistent to the supposedly homogenizing forces
of globalization.
The weakness of this literature, however, is its retention
of a global-local paradigm. Most of these studies view the expansion
of Japanese culture overseas as a part of a global process and overlook
their own testimonies indicating that Japanese cultural commodities
have a constricted circulation, a deeper acceptance, and a conspicuous
impact within the cultural-geography of this region. To them, the
global-local paradigm is employed as the only unit of analysis;
the “local” is considered a receiver and indigenizer, while Japan
is regarded as both indigenizer and mediator to the “global.” This
tendency is a part of the wider phenomenon of engaging in contextual
analysis and labeling the examined cultural practices as a part
of a global process (see, for example, Craig and King 2002; and
Hall 1995).
Interestingly, even those who do mention the conspicuous regional
acceptance of Japanese culture in East Asia, do it matter-of-factly.
Prominent studies describing “Japanization/Asianization” (Otake
and Hosokawa 1998), “Pop Asianism” (Ching 1996), “Trans-Asian Cultural
traffic” (Iwabuchi 2004), and “Pan East Asian popular Culture” (Chua
2003) tend to see these phenomena as tantamount to globalization
in the East and Southeast Asian region. Because they do not think
the “region” is a viable unit of analysis, the analysis suffers
from the tendency to note the phenomenon only in passing. As a result,
they fail to ask what kind of role intra-regional relations play
in shaping the circulation and consumption of cultural products.
In this sense, Iwabuchi is correct in maintaining that Japan’s cultural
influence has been conspicuous and immense in East and Southeast
Asia. In contrast, many Japanese popular culture products, such
as music, fashion accessories, and idol-culture, have rarely found
receptive consumers outside the specific cultural geography of this
region (Iwabuchi 2002: 47, 84). Perhaps this observation can lead
us beyond the premises of globalization.
A Call for a Regional Paradigm
At this point, my argument is that we should try to
construct a regional paradigm as a basis for analyzing transnational
culture flows in East and Southeast Asia. In other words, we should
see the “regional” not only as a process by which culture flows
across national boundaries or as a manifestation of global-local
relations, but as an analytical unit containing particular characteristics
which differentiate it from the discourse of globalization.
An explicit harbinger is the fact that regions have become important
in the world’s politics and economy, even in an era of globalization
(Hettne et al. 1999; Mansfield and Milner 1999; Mittelman 1996).
An indicator of this phenomenon is the progress achieved by the
European Union, as well as other ongoing regional formation attempts
in North America (NAFTA), South America (Mercosur), Africa (AU),
Asia (ASEAN, EAEC), and Asia-Pacific (APEC).
Mao and Doraeman in Shanghai, August 2004
In East and Southeast Asia, the economic achievements
of the last three decades have increased the visibility of the region,
whose formation has been generated by “market dynamism” and cross-border
economic activities. This process continues despite an obvious lack
of formal regional institutionalization and an emphasis on the informal,
negotiated, and inclusive approach in regional policy, as some scholars
have observed (Castells 2000; Frankel and Miles 1993; and Katzenstein
2002).
A few studies have accounted for the dynamism of the economy, suggesting
that market-centered processes have been the main engines propelling
East and Southeast Asian regionalization (Haggard 1997; Hatch and
Yamamura 1996; Katzenstein and Shiraishi 1997; Petri 1993). A recent
comprehensive study by the World Bank has underlined these findings,
showing that since the mid-1980s intra-regional trade has grown
at a rate roughly double that of world trade and higher than that
of the intra-regional trade of NAFTA or the EU. According to the
World Bank study, trade relations between most East and Southeast
Asian countries have grown sharply in intensity, and the economic
linkages and interdependence among the region’s economies have strengthened
considerably (Ng and Yeats, 2003).
The rise of middle classes in metropolitan East and Southeast Asia
is another indication. These middle classes are both the product
and the stimulators of regionalization in East Asia and provide
the model for others to follow.
Approximately ten consecutive years of double-digit annual economic
growth since the late 1980s have nurtured the emergence of East
Asia’s middle classes. Observing their emergence, Shiraishi Takashi
has argued that “they are the product of regional economic development
which has taken place in waves under an American informal empire,
over half a century, first in Japan, then in South Korea, Taiwan,
Hong Kong and Singapore, then in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and
the Philippines and now in China” (2004: 33). (On East Asia’s middle
classes, also see Chua 2000; Hattori et al. 2002; and Robson and
Goodman 1996).2 Their socio-economic power constantly
generates demand for imported consumer goods and cultural products,
invigorating the region’s consumerism and converging its markets.
In the field of culture as well, rapid developments have produced
lasting changes. Examination of these changes may point the way
to a regional paradigm that provides better tools for analyzing
the manifestation, practice, and impact of popular culture in East
and Southeast Asia. The main cultural features of East and Southeast
Asia since the early 1990s are the overlapping confluences of American,
Japanese, Chinese, and Korean cultures. Existing simultaneously
and in varying intensities, they are continually shaping cultural
scenes and lifestyles. People in East and Southeast Asia share a
pool of popular culture products from which they may choose according
to cultural preference, concurrently or supplementarily consuming
American, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and other cultural products.
Millions of youth in Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, and Jakarta covet
the latest fashions from Tokyo, listen to the same genre of American
pop music, watch Chinese dramas on television or DVD, read Japanese
comic books, and go with friends to watch the latest Korean movie
(Otmazgin 2005).
Cultural confluences in East and Southeast Asia, however, are selective—they
mainly involve urban middle classes, not whole national populations
.Cities are central to our understanding, as they are the junctions
where cultural flows overlap with excessive consumerism. East Asia’s
megacities (Bangkok, Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Taipei,
Tokyo, etc.) serve as matrices for cultural innovation, expansion,
and mixing; they are where the construction of intra-regional and
extra-regional consciousness culminates. In East and Southeast Asia,
therefore, we should talk about a multi-layer interaction between
metropolises, rather than between nation-states.
Moreover, regional collaborations between media companies and promoters
are having a strong impact on the East and Southeast Asian cultural
market. These players are essentially entrepreneurs in search of
new business expansion opportunities, and they have been encouraged
by the magnification of East and Southeast Asian media markets in
the last two decades. Their activities consequently endorse the
expansion of East and Southeast Asia’s culture markets, extend and
strengthen regional cooperation and links, and provide substantial
cultural content to the imagery of “Asia.”
Movies, Music, and Television
Pan-Asian movies are a conspicuous example. With their
dovetailing of Asian and Western motifs, they have gained much popularity
in East and Southeast Asia, and to a lesser degree in the American
market as well. Movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
Hero Jan Dara, 2046, Initial D, and Musa
were produced and marketed transnationally. Some are ambitious
co-productions involving staff members and actors from South Korea,
China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Thailand.3 Low production
costs in places such as China, Thailand, and Malaysia provide the
incentive to relocate production. The existence of potential consumers
in the regional and global markets encourages marketing strategies
that aim to include the widest range of audiences in East and Southeast
Asia and beyond. The resulting imagery is affecting the way both
regional and extra-regional audiences conceptualize “Asia.”
Regional collaborations are taking place in the field of music and
television as well, testing the waters for the rise of an East and
Southeast Asian popular culture and creating new cultural genres.
More than the broadcast media industries, the primary tendency of
music and television production in East and Southeast Asia is to
develop regionally, rather than attempt to extend globally. Channel
V is an important player. It is an Asian version of MTV
that enjoys phenomenal popularity across East Asia. The channel
continually introduces local and international pop and rock music
to its wide cable television audiences. Channel V’s music
programs often categorize the featured music as “Asian music,” which
includes the pop music of artists and bands from different East
Asian countries. Sony Music Entertainment is also working
to create a pan-Asian music genre. In 2004 it produced a two-volume
pop music collection featuring Japanese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, and
South Korean artists. The success of the album motivated the production
of new volumes in 2005 that also included Thai music.4
In the field of television, a few transnational alliances have been
articulated; however, high production costs impede many transnational
production attempts, leaving them in an embryonic stage. The importance
of the few existing attempts lies in the overall entrepreneurial
exploration and consequent transfer of cultural production know-how.
In transnational television broadcasting, Star TV is Asia’s
biggest entrepreneur in recent years, owning a wide variety of entertainment,
news, and sports channels and creating a pool of consumers in 300
million homes ranging from China to India. Its strategy favors localizing
content and broadcasting in Asian languages, especially Mandarin
(Sinclair 1997).
Japanese music and television companies are also important players.
A few have been gradually exploring markets in East Asia, spurred
by both entrepreneurship and local demand. Pony Canyon
and Avex Trax, for example, two of the big six Japanese
music companies, have broadened and deepened their entry into East
Asian media markets by moving from licensing agreements with local
companies to opening their own branches. In the field of television,
Amuse, Rojam, Fuji TV, and JET TV are
notable. They engaged in various television broadcasts and productions
in the 1990s, often based on Japanese formats, establishing ties
with local companies and media organizations. These Japanese companies
have not only marketed Japanese music and television programs, but
have been seen as examples and models by local cultural industries
in East Asia.
These are only a few of the developments in the regional cultural
scene of East and Southeast Asia in the last few decades. They have
created a new reality in which a wide domain of East and Southeast
Asian urban middle classes share a variety of cultural products
and opportunities. Although they are embedded in different spatial
locations with different incomes, a comparable level of lifestyle
consumption is available to most, if not all. Today’s Chinese, Malaysian,
and Indonesian urban middle classes can aspire to the same cultural
access and preferences as their counterparts in Seoul, Singapore,
and Bangkok.
In sum, markets and communities in East and Southeast Asia are converging
as a result of economic, social, and cultural forces. Throughout
the cities of this region, especially, markets for popular culture
and mechanisms for cooperation are being constructed, processes
that lay a solid discursive and conceptual space for analyzing the
dynamic of regional cultural confluence. The examination of popular
culture flows in this light is both more detailed and more accurate
than the discourse (and rhetoric) of global-local relations, with
its implicit or explicit emphasis on homogenization. A regional
paradigm which takes account of local and regional particularities
might be more useful in understanding cultural flows in this region.
|
Nissim Kadosh Otmazgin is a Ph.D. candidate
at Kyoto University researching the political economy of Japanese
culture in East and Southeast Asia.
Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia 8 (March 2007)
© Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University
Army of Kitty-chans in Hong Kong, April 2004
1
Questionnaire surveys and interviews were conducted by the author
among 239 university students in Hong Kong (June 2004), Bangkok
(February 2005), and Seoul (April 2005). The questionnaires included
19 open-ended questions and 2 multiple-choice questions. I asked
about the students’ cultural consumption patterns in general and
their consumption of Japanese popular culture in particular, and
about their attitude and opinions regarding various aspects of
Japan’s society and state. I am grateful to Dr. Ubonrat Siriyuvasak
(Chulalongkorn University) and Dr. Shin Hyun Joon (Sungkonghoe)Japanese-
Japanese-style costplay in Seoul,
March 2005
2
In these works, East Asian middle classes are generally classified
as educated and working as professionals, technicians, clerks,
managers, business executives, engineers, and accountants, for
example.
3
See coverage of these movies in Newsweek, 21 May 2001,
15 December 2004, and Special Edition, July-September 2001; and
Time, 21 January 2002.
4 The
Sony Music Entertainment regional office in Hong Kong has been
strategically encouraging its branches in East Asia to produce
constellation albums that include transnational collaboration
of music artists. Interviews in Bangkok and Seoul, February and
April 2005.
References
Alison, Anne. 2000. “Can Popular Culture Go Global?: How Japanese
‘Scouts’ and ‘Rangers’ Fare in the US.” In A Century of Popular
Culture in Japan, ed. Douglas Slaymaker. U.S.A.: Edwin Mellen
Press.
Castells, Manuel. 2000. End of Millennium. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ching, Leo. 1996. “Imagining in the Empires of the Sun: Japanese
Mass Culture in Asia.” In Contemporary Japan and Popular Culture,
ed. John W. Treat. Great Britain: Curzon.
Craig, Timothy J., and Richard King, eds. 2002. Global Goes
Local: Popular Culture in Asia. Canada: UBC Press.
Craig, Timothy J., ed. 2000. Japan Pop! Inside the World of
Japanese Popular Culture. U.S.A: M.E. Sharpe.
Chua, Beng-Huat. 2003. “The Making of East Asian Popular Culture.”
Paper presented in the Carolina Asia Center, University of North
Carolina.
Chua, Beng-Huat. 2000. “Consuming Asians: Ideas and Issues.” In
Consumption in Asia: Lifestyles and Identities, ed. Beng-Haut
Chua. London: Routledge.
Drucker, Peter. 1993. Post Capitalist Society. New York:
Harper Business.
Frankel, Jeffrey A., and Miles Kahler. 1993. “Introduction.” In
Regionalism and Rivalry: Japan and the United States in Pacific
Asia, ed. Jeffrey A. Frankel and Miles Kahler. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Haggard, Stephan. 1997. “Regionalism in Asia and the Americas.”
In The Political Economy of Regionalism, ed. Edward D. Mansfield
and Helen V. Milner. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1995. “New Cultures for Old.” In A Place in
the World? Places Cultures, and Globalization, ed. D. Massey
and P. Jess. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hannertz, Ulf. 1991. “Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures.” In
Cultural Globalization and World Systems, ed. A. King. London:
Macmillan.
Hatch, Walter, and Kozo Yamamura. 1996. Asia in Japan’s Embrace:
Building a Regional Production Alliance. Hong Kong: Cambridge
University Press.
Hattori, Tamio, Funatsu Tsuruyo and Torii Takashi, eds. 2002.
Ajia Chukanso no Seisei to Tokushitsu [The Emergence
and Features of the Asian Middle Classes]. Tokyo: Ajia Keizai
Kenkyusho.
Hettne, Björn, Inotai András, and Shukle Osvaldo. 1999. Globalization
and the New Regionalization. U.K.: Macmillan Press.
Honda, Shiro. 1994. “East Asian’s Middle Class Turns into Today’s
Japan.” Japan Echo 21, 4.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and
the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Igarashi, Akio.1997. “From Americanization to ‘Japanization’ in
East Asia!?.” The Journal of Pacific Asia 4: 3-20.
Ishii, Kenichi. 2001. Higashi Ajia no Nihon Taishou Bunka
[Japanese Mass Culture in East Asia]. Tokyo: Sososha.
Iwabuchi, Koichi. 2002. Recentering Globalization: Popular
Culture and Japanese Transnationalism. United States: Duke
University Press.
Iwabuchi, Koichi, ed. 2004. Feeling Asian Modernities: Transnational
Consumption of Japanese TV Dramas. Hong Kong: University
of Hong Kong Press.
Iwao, Sumiko. 1994. “Popular Culture Goes Regional.” Japan
Echo 21, 4 .
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2002. “Variations of Asian Regionalism.”
In Asian Regionalism, by Peter J. Katzenstein, Natasha
Hamilton-Hart, Kozo Kato, and Ming Yue. Ithaca: Cornell University
East Asia Program.
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Takashi Shiraishi, eds. 1997. Network
Power: Japan and Asia. Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press.
Kotckin, Joel. 1992. Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identity
Determine Success in the New Global Economy. New York: Random
House.
Mansfield, Edward D., and Milner V. Helen. 1999. “The New Wave
of Regionalism.” International Organization 53, no. 3:
589-627.
Martinez, D. P., ed. 1998. The Worlds of Japanese Popular
Culture: Gender, Shifting Boundaries and Global Cultures. China:
Cambridge University Press.
Mittelman, J. 1996. “Rethinking the ‘New Regionalization’ in the
Context of Globalization.” Global Governance 2: 189-213.
Mori, Yoshitaka, ed. 2004. Nishiki Kanryu: “Fuyu no Sonata”
to Nikantaishoubunka no Genzai [Japanese Style, Korean Boom:
‘Winter Sonata’ and Current Japanese-Korean Mass Cultural Relations].
Japan: Serika Shobo.
Ng, Francis, and Yeats, Alexander. 2003. “Major Trade Trends in
East Asia: What are Their Implications for Regional Cooperation
and Growth?” The World Bank Development Research Group, Policy
Research Working Paper No. 3084 (June).
Otake, Akiko, and Shuhei Hosokawa. 1998. “Karaoke in East Asia:
Modernization, Japanization, or Asianization.” In Karaoke
around the World: Global Technology, Local Singing, ed. Toru
Mitsui and Shuhei Hosokawa. London: Routledge.
Otmazgin, Kadosh Nissim. 2005. “Cultural Commodities and Regionalization
in East Asia.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 27 (3): 499-523.
Petri, Peter A. 1993. “The East Asian Trading Bloc: An Analytical
History.” In Regionalism and Rivalry: Japan and the United
States in Pacific Asia, ed. Jeffrey A. Frankel and Miles
Kahler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Robertson, Ronald. 1991. “Social Theory, Cultural Relativity and
the Problem of Globality.” In Cultural Globalization and World
Systems, ed. A. King. London: Macmillan.
Robison, Richard and Goodman S.G. David. 1996. “The New Rich in
Asia: Economic Development, Social Status and Political Consciousness.”
In The New Rich in Asia: Mobile Phones, McDonalds and Middle-Class
Revolution, ed. Richard Robison and David S.G. Goodman. London:
Routledge.
Schiller, H. 1976. Communication and Cultural Domination.
New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Schodt, Frederik. 1996. Dreamland Japan: Writing on Modern
Manga. Berkeley: Stonebridge Press.
Shiraishi, Saya. 2000. “Doraemon Goes Abroad.” In Japan Pop!
Inside the World of Japanese Popular Culture, ed. Timothy
J. Craig. USA: M.E Sharp.
Shiraishi, Takashi. 2004. “The Rise of New Urban Middle Classes
in Southeast Asia: What is its National and Regional Significance?”
Paper presented in the Core University Program Workeshop, Kyoto
University, October.
Sinclair, J. 1997. “The Business of International Broadcasting:
Cultural Bridges and Barriers.” Asian Journal of Communication
7, no. 1: 137-155.
Tomlinson, John. 1991. Cultural Imperialism. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Treat, W. John, ed. 1996. Contemporary Japan and Popular Culture.
Great Britain: Curzon.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1991. Geopolitics and Geoculture.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
