1 2 THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE Principal Organisers TAN See Kam, University of Macau Gary BETTINSON, Lancaster University Tony SCHIRATO, University of Macau Coordinator XU Xiaying, Richard Co-directors GENG Li, Monique HUANG Yawen, Wendy KONG Mengxun, Carol YANG Liu, Sylvia ZHANG Xiaoyi, Sherry Secretarial Support Jenny LOU Barbara CHIN Conference Helpers CHEN Shuping, Jasmine DING Junxiao, Tony HU, Janice LIANG Ni, Mary LIANG Xinyuan, Angela LIN Han, Catherine LIN Xiaoying, Carmen LIN Xinrui LIU Chenxi, Ban LIU Wenhui LIU, Wencheng, Vinson O.S. EMMANUEL QIAN Qiao, Ted SUN Zhichu, Vincent TZENG, Karmen XIAO Yu, Sherry YAN Xi, Max ZHANG Guonan, Garland 3 ACSS CONFERENCES: Past and Present Asian Cinema Studies Society (ACSS) was launched in the United States in 1984 by Mira BINFORD, with help from a coterie of Asian cinema scholars. It initiated a newsletter and held successful conferences in Athens, Ohio, USA (1988), Melbourne, Australia (1990), and New York City, USA (1992). In 1994, a second conference was held at Athens, Ohio. John A. LENT was elected chair and editor-in-chief of Asian Cinema , which had evolved from a newsletter to a periodical. Lent turned Asian Cinema in an academic journal. In 2012 he stepped down as Chair of ACSS and Editor of Asian Cinema which by then has published through to Vol. 22 (2011) with a total of 32 numbers, each issue averaging 250-300 pages. Intellect Books (UK) now publishes Asian Cinema which is a doubly blind reviewed journal dedicated to promoting and building Asian cinemas communities and scholarship. During this period, ACSS has conducted five more international conferences: Peterborough, Canada (1997), Norman, Oklahoma, USA (2000), Jeonju, Korea (2002), Seattle, Washington, USA (2003), Beijing/Shanghai, China (2005), and Hong Kong SAR (2012). The 11th ACSS conference is held in Macau SAR from 14-16 July, 2014. In collaboration with the Department of Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macau SAR, the ACSS presents three keynote addresses, six film screenings and drawing from the inter-disciplinary field of arts, humanities and social sciences, some 120 academic papers. Our delegates comprise scholars, researchers, and students of film, media and popular culture, including filmmakers. The conference theme is ‘Post-Asia Film, Media and Popular Culture’: If the historical experiences of colonialism and imperialism, both internal and external, have produced the asymmetries of Asia versus the Rest, how does one address the problematics of Asia as an identity category? Indeed how can one define ‘Asia’ or ‘Asian-ness’ without falling into the traps of essentialism that glosses over the diversity of experiences not only within the Asian region but also beyond -- where sites of Asian-ness come to being, and where sights of Asian-ness float about? How do film, media and popular culture and other cultural artifacts expressive of the changing spectra of representations and identities -- whether created inside or outside Asia -- imagine that diversity in the past and the present, as well as for the future? Do they otherwise articulate sameness that cuts between Asia and the Rest? If essentialist notions of identity can be tolerated as expedient means for political ends, at what point do they become unquestioned categories for academic inquiry? Can an interdisciplinary lingua fran?a be found to rethink Asia beyond the terms of geographical, cultural, ethnic and national essentialisms? Can ecologies of the ‘Inter-Asia’ and the ‘Sinophone’, and other new critical categories, including the renewed 4 take on cosmopolitanism, de-territorialize ‘Asia’ and ‘Asian-ness’ without reinscribing existing ontological dilemmas? Can ‘Asia’ and ‘Asian-ness’ be de- Asianized? What is post-Asia? Finally this international conference would not have been possible without the generous support of the University of Macau’s Research and Development Administration Office. Our gratitude also goes to the Department of Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences; the Department of English, Faculty of Arts and Humanities; and the Asian Cinema Studies Society. Last but not least, we are grateful to all who contribute to its success. The Organising Committee July 2014. 5 KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Professor Ien Ang, University of Western Sydney, Australia http://www.uws.edu.au/ics Not Yet Post-Asian: Paradoxes of Identity and Knowledge in Transitional Times 尚未後亞洲：過渡時期下身份和認識的悖論 Abstract 摘要: We live in transitional times, in which the weight of global power is markedly shifting towards Asia. In this context the meaning of the category ‘Asian’ is thoroughly in flux, negotiated and contested across multiple dimensions. It is not only a marker of identity (addressing the question, ‘who is Asian?’); it is also, in this 21 st century, a particular sign of desire (‘we want Asia’) and a signifier of power (as in the discourse of ‘the rise of Asia’ and the coming ‘Asian Century’). In this light, is it possible, or even desirable, to speak about post-Asia? If so, what could it mean? Or is such talk perhaps premature? In this paper, I will consider three ways of thinking about the notion of the post-Asian, all tied to the shifting complexities and contradictions of ‘Asia’ as a category of identity: the temporal, the spatial and the epistemological. In all these instances, I argue that a genuinely post-Asian perspective has not yet emerged. If we are to nurture a more post-Asian imaginary, whatever that means, it will have to be done as we navigate the brittle realities of these unsettling transitional times. 我們生活在一個全球權力顯著轉向亞洲的過渡時期。在此語境下‘亞洲’的意 6 義範疇在多重維度下都是十分流動的，協商的和爭議的。它不僅是身份的製造 者（針對這個問題，”誰是亞洲的？”）。同時，在21世紀，一種特定的渴望 （”我們想要亞洲”）和權力的信號（如同在”亞洲崛起”的話語和即將來臨 的”亞洲的世紀”）。 就此而論，談論後亞洲是否可能，甚至是否可取的？如果可以，它意味著什麼 ？又或者這種討論尚未成熟？ 本文中，我會考慮從三方面去思考後亞洲的這個概念，它們都與變化中的複雜 性和矛盾的”亞洲”身份範疇緊密聯繫著：時間的，空間的和認知的。任何情 況下，我認為真正的後亞洲視角尚未出現。如果我們要培養一種更加後亞洲的 假像，無論這意味著什麼，動盪的過渡時期裡當我們航行在脆弱的現實中時， 它都將被完成。 Bio 簡介: Distinguished Professor Ien Ang is Professor of Cultural Studies and Director of the Institute for Culture and Society (ICS) at the University of Western Sydney. She is one of the leaders in cultural studies worldwide, with interdisciplinary work spanning many areas of the humanities and social sciences, focusing broadly on processes of cultural flow and exchange in the globalised world. Her books, including Watching Dallas , Desperately Seeking the Audience and On Not Speaking Chinese , are recognised as classics in the field and her work has been translated into many languages, including Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Turkish, German, Korean, and Spanish. Her most recent book is co-edited with E. Lally and K. Anderson, is The Art of Engagement: Culture, Collaboration, Innovation. She currently works on an Australian Research Council-funded project on Sydney’s Chinatown in the ‘Asian Century’ and chairs an Expert Working Group on ‘Asia Literacy’ for the Australian Council for Learned Academies. 洪美恩 （ 又譯為伊恩·昂） 教授是文化研究領域的頂尖教授 ， 目前是西悉尼大學文化 與社會研究所主任。作為全球文化研究領域的領軍人物之一 ， 她的研究跨越人文與社 會科學多門學科 ， 主要研究全球化語境下的文化流通與交換的過程。她的許多專著 ， 包括《觀看<達拉斯>》、《拼命尋找觀眾》、《起居室之爭》、《論不說漢語》等，被奉為 文化研究領域的經典 ， 並被翻譯成包括中文、日語、意大利語、土耳其語、德語、韓 語、和西班牙語等多國語言。她最新的作品是與 E. Lally 和 K.Anderson 合作編輯的 《 介入的藝術:”亞洲世紀”中的文化、合作與創新 》。目前她正在主持研究由澳大 利亞研究評委會資助的研究項目”亞洲世紀悉尼的唐人街”。同時她還為澳大利亞高 等研究院主持一個題為”亞洲認識”的專家工作組。 7 Professor Brett de Bary Cornell University http://lrc.cornell.edu/asian/faculty/bios/debary Looking at Foreign Skies , Desperately Seeking Post-Asia: Soni Kum, Nagisa Ōshima, Ri Chin’u 望著《異國天空》，奮力尋找後亞洲：瑞裡琴，大島渚，Ri Chin’u” Abstract 摘要: “Today, when one section in the nation-state works hand in glove with self-selected moral entrepreneurs of ‘the international civil society,’ how will the touchstone of nationalism alone allow us to read the situation, let alone act on it?’ asks Gayatri Spivak in her essay, “Nationalism and the Imagination.”1 Her question is premised on the observation that many of us in the contemporary world lead lives defined simultaneously by forms of local and global citizenship, or what Spivak provocatively terms “cultural nationalism” and “global nationalism.” On the local level, she notes, our experiences of “affective collectivity” are likely to have been defined by “social movement-” or “leftist-nationalism” (often forged in anti-colonial struggles) or by more virulent forms of reactionary nationalism. Yet, while modern internationalism assumed an at least formal equivalence between modular nations, globalization, where the medium of value is capitalism, does not. 2 These observations might well be borne in mind as we pursue our conference’s theme of “post-Asia.” While suggesting a putatively shared regional and historical framework, “post- Asia” surely expresses a determination to find practices and imaginings of commonality that refuse, and refuse to repeat, those of twentieth century imperialism and its successor, the Cold War. But is this commonality, ipso facto, given us by the contemporary global? How do we understand the temporality of a “post-” Asia? What are the dangers and possibilities of seeking post-Asia in the era of globalization? My paper will neither assume the existence of some kind of “post-Asian” perspective nor attempt to enumerate its “qualities” (essentialistically). Rather, I will seek for the “post- Asian” as performative; that is, what comes into being only when “acted upon,” to use Spivak’s words. Efforts to produce new “affective commonalities” are politically necessary yet partial, as they continue to be embedded in the contradictions noted above. I will focus particularly