Prof. Fu Daiwie's paper addresses two important issues: (1) he compels us to reconsider the center-periphery relationship from the perspective of East-Asian historical and social experiences; and (2) he highlights the concept of “new appropriate technology” in connection with the social practices of East Asian STSers. I believe that these two points are very stimulating and give some fresh insights on the scope and activities of our new discipline in the future. Agreeing generally with the spirits embedded in these proposals, I will propose my own opinions on these issues, which I hope will strengthen and supplement Prof. Fu Daiwie's proposals.
On the first issue, Prof. Fu Daiwie has critically examined a recent revisionist trend in postcolonial STS and other academics fields, which has blurred a distinctive boundary between center and periphery. I liked Daiwie's provisional conclusion that, given the inequality of power, analytical categories like center and periphery, and notions such as dependency and dominion, should not be considered to be totally meaningless or as something that we should abandon. I agree with him, but I also think that we, living in the early twenty-first century, have a reason for using such notions and categories in a more careful and restricted manner.
