戰前日本思想界從時間性的近代,退向空間性的亞洲,結果形成了獨佔亞洲的軍國主義。戰後反省起來,同時有左派對侵略的懺悔,也有右派回歸原理性的近代精神追求;前者突破軍國主義的亞洲空間,把近代性的動能重新讀進中國歷史脈絡,恢復近代概念的時間性質,而後者則反省軍國主義造成的時間斷裂,試圖恢復具有已經加上了近代性的古層文化,促成更進一步的近代精神。在竹內好看來,左右兩派都不能擺脫西歐啟蒙現代性的束縛,進而以火中取栗的態度回到亞洲概念,提倡去實體化的亞洲方法,以同時避免實體化亞洲所曾帶來的軍國主義,及一味移植西歐近代性所產生的奴性。針對竹內好,溝口雄三透過各自歷史基體的演化,將時間性帶回,用各個歷史基體自己的特殊時間性來完成特殊的空間,既不讓每個特殊的空間內涵固定,又不讓任一特殊空間擴張。回應溝口的各個亞洲思想家,則分別根據自身的位置敘說亞洲。他們爲了抗拒現代性中的西方霸權而回歸亞洲,並仰賴多元化的與去實體的論述,超克亞洲的帝國記憶。
An obsession with modernity plagued Japan's modern thinkers as modernity seemed the key to Japan's inferiority to the West. One solution was to return to an Asia that enabled Japan to overcome modernity's alien features. However, this stress on Asia practically led to imperialist expansion. As a remedy, Maruyama Masao decided to bring modernity back into Japan's pre-modern history, while Takeuchi Yoshimi relied on an Asia that was a process rather than an entity. Koyasu Nobukni echoes Takeuchi with a postmodern narrative on East Asia that denies any claim to fundamentalism. In contrast, Mizoguchi Yuzo shuns Asia by linking each national modernity to the universal world without anything in between. Mizoguchi ironically inspired Baik Youngseo and Chen Kwang-hsing to resort to Asia again. Both cherish peripheral, sub-national narratives. Together, they are united in the quest for a deconstructed Asia that can overcome modernity's Western features.