Dinosaur Hunting with Harry

In his scathing critique of Asian studies, Harry Harootunian argues for a methodology that addresses the uneven temporalities engendered by modernity and capitalism.  Harootunian emphasizes everyday life as the site of encounter, by which he means "the experience of the lived reality that marks the appearance and expansion of industrial capitalism and its propensity to install similar conditions everywhere it is established" (54).

One of Harootunian's central objectives is to dismantle Asian studies as an isolated specialization defined by nation and discipline, impenetrable to outsiders.  While I am in complete agreement with this aim, I would like to reflect a bit more on how to close the gap between local knowledge (most notably, language) and broader theoretical discourse.  Also, since much of Harootunian's discussion centers on modern history, I would also like to ask how his ideas might extend to a premodern context.

What intrigues me about Harootunian's perspective is his desire not only to overcome the obvious shortcomings of Asian studies as it developed in the post-WWII era, but also to transcend the epistemological limitations of postcolonial studies and cultural studies as they are currently practiced.  I echo his concern that "the search for the excluded voice often leads to the futile pursuit for authenticity and restores the Eurocentric claims of the sovereign subject it wishes to eliminate" (48).  Although he vehemently rejects the foundations of Asian studies (even the idea of Asia itself), Harootunian is astute enough to note that this rejection itself will not be enough to satisfy his ambitious objectives.