Second-modern transformation in East Asia: An active dialogue with Ulrich Beck1

This paper is an attempt to explore an open-ended dialogue with Ulrich Beck with respect to second-modern transformation. The aim is at an “active,” and thus perhaps “strong,” dialogue, which is more penetrating than a “passive” and “weak” dialogue. I define an approach to be “active” if one takes full consideration of the genealogical traits of Asian culture and history. Critical of the hegemonic assumptions of Western social theories, this approach is intended to respond to Beck’s cosmopolitan appeal, while breaking away from the Euro-centric assumptions still kept alive in his theory. This approach opens up a dialogue with the West, while being faithful to Asian identity and paying close attention to the specific developmental pathways and their consequences. In order to explore whether multiple pathways of development, despite their fundamental differences, give rise to certain potentials shaping the basic direction of historical change, I discuss five theoretical issues: the normative dimension of second modernity, historical reflection, tradition, cosmopolitan change, and individualization.