Theory and Asian humanity: on the question ofhumanitasandanthropos

What can an Asian theory be? Is the question a blatant oxymoron, or some intellectual anomaly? What is at stake in this enquiry is not the character of Asia at all. On the contrary, what makes the pairing of Asia and theory somewhat strange is our presumption that theory is something we normally expect of Europe or the West. (Europe and the West must be differentiated historically and geopolitically, but for reasons of space the two designations are treated almost interchangeably in this article.) Just like any other civilization, Europe produces knowledge, but it is distinguished from other civilizations by its unique mode of operation in knowledge production. Until recently, Europe was proud of its commitment to theory—or philosophy at large—in the sense that it determines itself in terms of the secondary or derivative mode of theory: it is constantly reflecting upon, criticizing, and transforming its own manner of knowledge production. The Europeans regarded themselves as an exceptional kind of humanity capable of theory, and they called themselves humanitas in contrast to other types of humanity, namely anthropos: those who produce knowledge, but are incapable of reflecting upon and criticizing their modus operandi in knowledge production. However, the central topic of this article is not the dichotomy of humanitas and anthropos which still shapes the disciplinary configuration of human sciences today, but rather what has been generally referred to as the crisis of European humanity. This crisis stems from the fact that it has been increasingly difficult to sustain the exceptionalist notion of the West or European humanity. Through an examination of the crisis of European humanity, this article discusses what the status of theory might potentially mean to us in relation to Asian humanity today.