Paper short abstract:

Focusing on Japanese migrants in Singapore, this paper argues that Asianism(s) today is better maintained by Anglophone, multiethnic societies than by a mono-lingual, mono-ethnic nation. Asianism requires the intervention of a Western language and multiethnic policy, which Japan has been lacking.

Paper long abstract:

Since early modern times, "being Asian" has played complex roles in Japanese self-identification as well as in governmental politics. The World War II invasion of Japan to other Asian countries was justified under the name of "Asian co-prosperity", which in reality meant Japanization, or mono-lingual and mono-ethnic hegemony. After World War II, "Asia" has never composed a strong identity of the Japanese, both in governmental and individual levels, even if it meant an economic market or tourist spots. After decades of economic growth of Asian neighbors, "Asia" is now ready to affect Japanese self-identification, despite the general indifference among the Japanese in Japan. Also, other parts of Asia are not waiting for Japan to define "Asia". Then, where and in what forms the discourses of "Asia" are earnestly produced today, and how can they affect Japanese self-identification?

Based on the fieldwork on Japanese migrant workers in Singapore, this paper argues that Asianism in the 21st century is better maintained by Anglophone, multiethnic societies than by military force or economic power of supposed mono-lingual, mono-ethnic nations. Here Asianism means "discursive constructs of Asia and their political, cultural and social practices" (Frey and Spakowski 2016: 1). Singapore, a city-state in the size of Metropolitan Tokyo, but a hub of Asian economy, is a model state whose success highly relies on discursive construction of "Asia" and "racial harmony (between different Asian ethnic subgroups)". Its discourses and practices drastically change the self-identification of Japanese migrant workers, who now clearly and positively identify themselves as "Asian".

Paradox is that Asianism in Singapore requires the intervention of a Western language (English); it also requires multiethnic environment, where different "Asian" ethnic groups live in theoretical equality, controlled by a dominant ethnic group (the Chinese). Yet the biggest paradox is that governmental discourses are internalized more deeply by the Japanese migrants than by Singaporeans. Even with these paradoxes, Asianism in Singapore is persuasive enough for the Japanese migrants, who are from a mono-lingual, mono-ethnic country as argued by its statesmen.