The Quest for a Common East Asian Pop Culture

Chua’s lengthy outline of the mechanisms and characteristics of East Asian pop culture is helpful in contextualizing discussions on pop culture within the framework of academia. The author, a Singaporean, outlines and critically analyzes the various interspacing of cultural influences that carved the pop culture landscape of East Asia in music and on-screen (film, drama series primarily) before spelling out the criterions in establishing a so-called common East Asian popular culture identity.

Although I found the article resourceful and informative, I struggled with the shortcomings in definitions and concepts, particularly the idea of “East Asia.” Academia has traditionally incorporated China, Greater China (Hong Kong and Taiwan), Korea and Japan into what we generally call the East Asian sphere, or East Asia. To suggest a common Confucian identity as a base for an East Asian identity might seem plausible, but it creates a significant reality and conceptual disconnect with regards to the degree of intensity of each nation’s experience – from a historical and cultural standpoint - with Confucianism. The author offers a weak justification in this comparative research – a common ethnic heritage (In his case, Chinese). Admittedly, a common ethnic heritage might offer some grounds for lumping nations together, but one has to seriously question the intensity of tradition experienced by Chinese in Singapore and Chinese in the Mainland. While elementary school students in China (sometimes in Taiwan) are forced to memorize Tang poetry and Confucian sayings, students in Singapore slave over English grammar and the perils of Trigonometry (Chua himself alludes to this cultural gap in Pg.10).

When we consider the historical background of Singapore, one can sense an even greater level of cultural disconnect. It is a nation comprised of fourth to fifth generation immigrants (first from China to Malaysia, then through the expulsion of the Singapore state from Malaysia in the 1960s) where almost everyone speaks fluent English and only a handful is fluent in Chinese. Chua admits to the “danger” in suggesting a common East Asian culture, and should have headed that danger by paying more attention in substantiating his cause for such “lumping.” Fourth generation Japanese-Americans will not attest to a common Confucian culture shared by ethnic Japanese in Japan. The same analogy extends to countries with multi-generational ethnic immigrants. The author might have more thought currency if he formed a basis for comparison on similar consumption patterns or even common ideas of aesthetics – at least form my point of view.

But even with that conceptual disconnect, Chua did highlight some interesting characteristics of East Asian popular culture. The pop culture market is fluid, with two “originators” – Chinese and Japanese pop cultures. Entertainment markets are essentially profit machines governed by consumption changes, and not innovators of cultural creativity. For example, the untouchable Hong Kong pop of the 1970s and 1980s has reinvented itself into “Mandarin” pop to cater to the Mainland market, although admittedly it is losing its battle to Mandarin-speaking Taiwan. In the article, Chua speaks of the Korean influence as a relatively new entry. Although Chua wrote the article during the rapid rise of Hallyu in 2004, he does not express much interest in contextualizing the Korean Wave. Rather, he suggests that Korean pop culture was built upon, or at least, mimicked traits pioneered and championed by Japanese pop culture (refer to his comments on Korean listeners attesting to the similarity Kpop has to Jpop). In the same vein, Korean dramas imitate the sleek, urban chic “feel” first conceived in Japan via Tokyo Love Story. Thus, at least from the way I read it, the author did not feel that there is not clear difference or innovation contributed by the Korean Wave. At the same time, it is important to highlight Chua’s point on Japan’s disinterest in exporting its own drama series. They were produced for the domestic market, and exports were not even a consideration in its conception. Contrast this with the export-mentality that influences Korea’s domestic entertainment landscape.

But the larger question is, can there indeed be a common East Asian popular culture agreeable to everyone in East Asia (I am focusing on the traditional definition of East Asia as it is not only more convenient but it is also more relevant to our class’ focus on Korea and its immediate neighbors in East Asia)? Yes and no. For me, there is an apparent set of basic aesthetics that is appreciated by most East Asian folk – from syrupy, easy-listening pop music (meaning anyone with the slightest sense of tonality can predict the tonal progression of each pop chart topper) to physical attributes (for men, tall, built, etc; for women, petite, big eyes, etc.). This common sense of aesthetics enables the relatively free-movement (“fame”-fluidity) of various East Asian artists (Faye Wong, Sang-Woo Kwon, Bin Won, etc.). In drama series, as Chua attests, it is almost impossible to distinguish the set of a Korean drama series from that of a Chinese or Japanese one – they share a general sense of style and design.

However, it gets harder when we travel outside the confines of entertainment aesthetics. Can nations overlook ethnic prejudices and historical sore-points? Japan might hold the answer to appeasing political tension, but I believe elements of ethnic prejudice are also preventing the realization of a common East Asian popular culture. What do I mean by this? The apparent hierarchy Asian individuals “rank” Asian ethnicities. In some sense, popular culture is not just a mere issue of entertainment innovation or profits. It is more than that. It is a cultural export, which is intertwined with national pride. Thus, I can see the sharing of a common set of aesthetics in East Asia, which has already taken place. But the idea of taking this common ground to the next level and structuring it as a collective East Asian pop-culture identity is but an unattainable utopia.

- ARC