Trans–East Asia as methodthe permeation of national feeling is facilitated and performed by mundane practices such as
casually displaying the national flag. An increase in inter-nationalized encounters with people,
cultures, and images from many parts of the world, in which people enjoy participating in events
by, for example, displaying a specific national emblem, has not only banalized national belonging,
but further endorsed the permeation of banal inter-nationalism, which comprehends global
cultural encounters as principally those among mutually exclusive national cultures. Since the
1990s, we have witnessed a substantial increase in the number of global media spaces created
through satellite and cable broadcasting and Internet audiovisual sites, as well as an increase in
the number of global media gatherings, such as sports events, food showcases, and film festivals,
as SooJeong Ahn discusses in the previous chapter. These spaces and events are sites in which
cultures from many parts of the world are exhibited, introduced, placed in competition with
one another, and mutually recognized as national brands in the inter-national arena. While these
developments might create the possibility of cultivating new kinds of connection and imagina-
tion that go beyond the exclusive framework of the nation, they also prompt people to implicitly
comprehend cross-cultural encounters as those among mutually exclusive national cultures with
clearly delimited boundaries. They define the global as the congregation of nations, whereby
cultural diversity is comprehended mostly as the diversity that exists among nations, and the
conception of the nation as a branded form or a container based on a territorial understanding
of culture gains wider currency.
The inter-national administration of popular culture connection is endorsed by its interplay
with the promotion of the international circulation of nationally produced popular cultures
by the alliance of state and industry. Although the discursive construction of national identity
necessarily develops in tandem with internationalism and is always a significant part of modern
nation-state building, a market-driven mode of industry-state alliance for the global promotion
of popular cultures has made national thinking and feeling even more pervasive in the world
at large, so much so that the idea of the nation as the unit for global cultural exchange, com-
petition, and diversity has completely permeated society. This is illuminated by the globalized
practices of soft power and nation branding, including in East Asia. Although the term “soft
power” was originally put forward in the United States in the post-Cold War context, the term
has been widely adopted by other states seeking to further their economic and political national
interests and enhance the international image of their nation by pragmatically projecting their
popular cultures. “Cool Britannia” was one such pioneering effort, and its success led many
governments in East Asia to actively pursue this kind of policy, as detailed in Chua’s chapter.
The widespread adoption of soft power has also altered the original meaning of the term, which
is now understood as giving particular prominence to the enhancement of the national image
through the projection of an attractive popular culture. Many states in East Asia have become
keen to establish soft power policies that, together with nation branding, cultural diplomacy, and
the development of creative industries, aim to advance the full range of national interests, from
international relations to economic development.
The rise and competitive nature of soft power and nation branding in East Asia raises seve-
ral critical research questions. First, we need to carefully examine what strategies have been
developed by policymakers in East Asia, the kinds of popular culture they promote and circulate
internationally, and the program content and reception of international broadcasting services,
such as CCTV International, Arirang TV, and NHK World. Related to these issues is the question
of the effectiveness of soft power as a foreign policy tool—the export of popular culture may
not actually improve a country’s international image. Moreover, “effectiveness” is a challenging
thing to measure, though a subtle combination of qualitative and quantitative research would
likely reveal productive patterns. The processes of soft power policy implementation are also