The 1AC’s techno-orientalizing frame of Asian nation states as rivals to be secured against or subservient allies is rooted in racialized and gendered tropes – that pushes Asian women to the periphery of empire in service of Western hegemonic interests.

In the era of 21st century globalization and technological development, Asians are constructed as (hyper-)technological beings in both cultural and political terms. Prior to the technologization of Asian countries in this period, Orientalist logics framed Asian countries as backwards, primitive, and inferior to the West. Post-colonial theorist Edward Said (1987), writes that Orientalism, “create[s] not only knowledge but also the very reality they appear to describe” (p. 94). Under an Orientalist framework, the West constructs and over-determines Asian countries. It is the Occident that inscribes logics which produce the conditions for threats and that we must be eradicated and/or exploited for capitalist gain.

Through the incorporation of specific Asian countries (Japan, China, and now India) into capitalist institutions through globalization, however, techno-Orientalism manifested as a form of white panic over the perceived foreign threat to Western hegemonic primacy. “Techno-Orientalism” is a phrase coined by David Morley and Kevin Robins (1995) in Spaces of Identity, which they originally contextualized to the rise and commodification of Japan writing:

If the future is technological, and if technology has become ‘Japanised’, then the syllogism would suggest that the future is now Japanese too. The postmodern era will be the Pacific era. Japan is the future, and it is a future that seems to be transcending and displacing Western modernity. (p. 167)

Techno-Orientalism refers to a frame in which the nation-state, subjectivity, and geography have been relegated to Western neoliberal epistemologies. Techno-Orientalist logics arose after WWII and during the Cold War through the United States’ “revitalization” and investment in Asian nations, particularly Japan and Korea, and with the hegemonic rise of China (Morley and Robins, 1995). Cold War logics evolved into subjugating techno-Orientalist epistemologies. By constructing Asians as unfeeling, robotic, and technologized, Western power was reaffirmed and the exploitation of Asian technologies and economies was legitimized (Said, 1978; Sohn, 2008). A contemporary example is the film Ghost in the Shell (2017). Directed by Rupert Sanders and starting Scarlett Johansson, both being white, it propagates Japan as an inherent technologically advanced society. Johansson plays a Japanese cyborg. The white-washing of the film serves a process of thief and interpolation of Masamune Shirow’s seminal manga, which reifies techno-Orientalist epistemologies.

Despite this, Asians use techno-Orientalist themes

within speculative fiction, music, and film. Thus, techno-Orientalism is simultaneously debilitating and liberating. How do we locate Sawayama’s music within a larger frame of quotidian violence? How is her utopian aesthetic a means of subversion to neoliberal governance? What can we learn from Rina about Asian resistance and liberation?

Techno-Orientalism and the Hegemonic Rise of Japan

In a techno-Orientalist framework, Western countries require the expansion of globalization to attain technology and information from a futuristic East Asia, which is a key way to secure a Western future. Techno-Orientalism is located within the neoliberal era of the present. In this age, the Orient is no longer a site to fear because it is barbaric, but it is required for the development and expansion of the West and feared because of its economic growth. Globalization thus becomes a tactic to ensure that an “Asianized future” does not displace Western modernity or dominance; a fear developed throughout the late 1900s as Japan and China, in particular, grew in economic and political strength (Roh et al., pp. 2, 2015).

Japan’s development as a technological threat to the West occurred concurrent to the fetishization of Japan by cyberpunk theorists and artists. Within the age of technoOrientalism, Japan manifested as a site of technological and futuristic innovation, but was simultaneously shrouded in ancient traditions and mystery. Japan is thus not only configured as Alien to the West, but also inherently technological and cyborgian in essence as Orientalism transforms into techno-Orientalism (Sohn, 2008).

The ways in which techno-Orientalism manifests in Asia are predicated on Cold War logics, a kind of Western militarized violence. Jodi Kim (2010) finds in Ends of Empire that the Cold War brought spatial and temporal distinctions for racialized Asian bodies via proxy wars. The United States’ relationship with Asian nations is overdetermined by the events of that era: “The Cold War, as a geopolitical, cultural, and epistemological project of gendered racial formation and imperialism undergirding U.S. global hegemony” (Kim, 2010, p. 4). The United States’ investment in nations like South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam is predicated on Western interests in the geopolitical sphere. The United States rebuilt Japan after World War II as a means of gaining capital and hegemonic power, which is a neo-imperialist and gendered project that undergirds U.S.-Japan relations. Okinawa is a focal point for empires to collide—Japan’s settlement and the US military occupation—both of which have brought genderbased violence to indigenous Okinawans (Yoneyama, 2015). The racialized, gendered dynamic produces a taxonomy of Asian subjectivity in that Asians are tools for the West. Within hegemonic systems, Asian women are pushed to the periphery of Empire. Their subservience and domination are used to further neo-colonial, white, hegemonic, masculine interests, which is evident in the advent of comfort women and the military sex industry (Yoneyama, 2015). Western nations, specifically white men, are invested in Asia because they perceive themselves as “saving” Asian women from an Orientalized depiction of violent Asian men, which propagates a racialized and heteronormative notion of Asia (Park, 2012). The political and economic rise of Asian principalities such as China, Japan, and India transform Oriental epistemologies via a disruption of white hegemonic power. In the attempt of Asian nations to secure capital, security anxieties manifest from white fears of emasculation or the loss of power. In a discursive response to maintain international white supremacy, a new form of othering occurs (Park, 2012; Agathangelou, 2016).

Thus, Cold War logics spectrally transform, haunt, and underlie techno-Orientalism. Asian subjectivity is always within a state of flux or being and exists in nonlinear spatio-temporalities as a result of Western modernities:

the Cold War between capitalism and communism is actually a “civil war” within the selfsame Western modernity. As Odd Arne Westad argues, both the United States and the Soviet Union saw themselves as the successors of Western modernity and, the Cold War was waged over which one would be the sole rightful successor, and would thus be able to articulate its own conception of Western modernity and attempt to universalize it. (Kim, 2010, p. 24)

The spectral violence that manifests in Cold War logics, techno-Orientalism, and racial capitalism finds its origin in modernity itself. Thus, the Cold War is a lynchpin for the neoliberal era. The revitalization of specific Asian nations becomes a means of securing new means of neoliberal production. Asian countries, specifically in Southeast Asia, are locked in Cold War temporalities due to their history of colonization and neo-colonial geopolitical relationship with the West.5 Yet within new technologized nations, racial capitalism produces industries such as sweatshops and call centers, equating Asian subjectivity with technology (Roh et al., 2015).