ASIA ACROSS THE CURRICULUM 2005

Participants in the Asia Across the Curriculum faculty seminar held at the Graduate Theological Union in spring 2005 broke the initiative down into two preliminary tasks: to define the challenges and to lay the groundwork for practical strategies. Understanding that the discernment of challenges necessarily frames the entire undertaking, we chose to present those basic questions of definition and purpose that, once answered, will suggest a framework for developing Asia Across the Curriculum. Three broad challenges loomed largest in the minds of the participants:

1) Why Asia? At the GTU, the cognitive, cultural and spiritual opportunities inherent in Asia may speak directly to only one or two constituencies from among the larger body of students and faculty who pursue interests that cover the globe. Many of the community’s interests remain very much at home, both in terms of historical memory, ideology and geography, so that the energy given to Asia appears to them as unwarranted. Others may embrace the spirit of looking outside of ourselves, but prefer to look South or elsewhere, as opposed to East. Answering the question “Why Asia?” forces us to speak to and engage the broadest possible constituency (and hence attain the greatest legitimacy and energy). A unitary, cogent answer to this question will both define the goal and relieve us of pursuing all the other possible ones.

How then does Asia Across the Curriculum speak to the basic mission of our institution, namely, interreligious/ecumenical education and scholarship? Will this project attempt to implement the matrix model for the religions themselves? That is, will it, in the parlance of postmodernism, “de-center” the interreligious dialogue? Or will it allow for centers of religious gravity to maintain their privileged status within their own constituencies, in a way that does not unseat the Western tradition (or any other) from its place, but rather brings Asia as a respected partner in a dialectic, whereby the so-called “other” serves as a vehicle to understand the self with greater integrity and nuance? The answers to these questions will help formulate the initiative’s rationale, as well as its place in the ongoing negotiation of what the GTU fundamentally is.

2) What is Asia? This question challenges us to define Asia in real-world terms, meaning the range of ideas and people associated with our conception of it. Do we mean “Asia” writ large, embracing the entire continent and all the cultures and peoples that emanate from it? Or do we mean Pacific-Asian Christianity in relation to the traditional religion-philosophies of Buddhism and Confucianism? Thence, we can ask finer questions about the boundaries of interest and investment. For obvious reasons, the answer to this question will define the very content of Asia Across the Curriculum, which in turn directly impinges on the makeup of its audience, faculty, courses, etc.

3) What will be the programmatic and institutional scope of the project? Is Asia Across the Curriculum limited to the doctoral level of study? Or do we want it to permeate all of our curricula whenever possible? Is it properly a curricular initiative, such as an Asian Studies unit, or a philosophical one of exposure to a specific set of interlocutors? Who decides this, and what are the implications for faculty commitments and training?

And what of our Asian student body? Presumably they are one of the reasons Asia looms so large in our consciousness. But Asian students historically have come to us for what we offer in terms of Western traditions; they do not come to the GTU only to study Asia. What groups then, are we primarily responding to, and how does that play itself out in practical terms? How can we harness this potential headache of diverse interests and render it an advantage? Certainly if anyone can do it successfully, the GTU has the experience to do so.

Asia Across the Curriculum cannot reasonably go forward until it defines itself in relation to these three questions: “Why Asia?” “What is Asia?” “What is the scope of the initiative itself within the GTU?” Once these questions are answered with compactness and clarity, the initiative will have real shape and power. Until then, the messy process of coming to a neat set of answers will guarantee that we come to the meaningful solutions.

- Joshua Holo (Former Assistant Professor of Jewish History at Richard S. Dinner Center for Jewish Studies of the Graduate Theological Union)