相對於戰後台灣知識生產不斷深化「脫亞入美」的走向，本文提出「亞洲做為方法」的命題，其目的在於自我轉化，同時轉變既有的知識結構。它根本上的意涵在於：透過亞洲視野的想像與中介，處於亞洲的各個社會能夠重新開始相互看見，彼此成為參照點，轉化對於自身的認識；在此基礎上，能夠更進一步，從亞洲的多元歷史經驗出發，提出一種重新理解世界史的視野。 本文論辯從日常生活到學術的主要參考點、參考座標及認同對象移轉的必要性，將既有的「西方」、「美國」多元化，移轉到「第三世界」，及鄰近的「亞洲」，否則我們不只沒有跳出殖民主義以降的殖民認同邏輯，也沒有辦法清楚透過座標的移轉與比較來辨識「我們」的「自我」，永遠活在我們的想像認同對象之中。 在問題意識提出後，本文分成三大部分，由三組對話組成。第一部分首先處理長期存在的所謂「西方問題」，透過近期後殖民論述中面對西方的論述姿態及策略，點出向亞洲轉向是偏執於批判西方的出路。第二部份，企圖透過具體的問題，與Partha Chatterjee在印度脈絡中提出第三世界所浮現的新的「政治社會」空間對照，尋找新的理論起點，重新發現「民間」的概念並轉化成分析概念；這個部分的目的在於透過實際參照，初步地展示對話對象的移轉會產生什麼樣的新問題與新的可能性，以做為提出亞洲／第三世界做為一種方法實際操作的例子。第三部分展開亞洲做為方法的討論，主要在方法及理論的層次操作，通過與溝口雄三「做為方法的中國」為對話的起點，將討論集中在溝口所謂的基體論上，提出要掌握歷史變動中的基體，必須能夠讓亞洲中不同的基體得以相互參照，在參照過程中相互成主體性的一部分，來自我轉化。因此，「亞洲做為方法」不再只是將亞洲當成分析的對象，而意味著知識生產轉化的媒介，同時也是「自身」再發現／轉化的動力。在以上論辯的前提下，本文的結論提出台灣主體性定位的再思考，指出兩岸關係、華文國際與亞洲區域，其實正是全球化所依循的軌跡與形成的路徑；因此，台灣必須有意識地將自身放入這些多重的網路當中來自我定位。

In confronting the long lasting impacts of ”leaving Asia for America” (tuo-ya ru-mei) in the Post World War II Taiwan, this essay puts forward ”Asia as method” as a critical proposition to transform the existing knowledge structure and to transform ourselves. Its bottom line implication is that, mediating through the horizon of ”Asia” as an imaginary anchoring point, societies in Asia could begin to mutually see the existence of one another and become one another's reference points, so that the understanding of the self can he transformed, anti subjectivity rebuilt. On this basis, to push one step further, historical experiences and practices in Asia can he developed as an alternative horizon or perspective, and seen as method to advance a different understanding of world history. The argument must be placed in the context of a new global order after the 911 Incident. Various regional mechanisms have gradually emerged to counter US imperialism and global hegemony. In this process, the integration of Asia remains slow and informal. ”Asia as method” is then a call for regional integration in Asia as a necessary mechanism to maintain global peace. The paper is organized in the form of a series of dialogues. The first part deals with the question of the 'West', as it is rehearsed again in the postcolonial discursive strategies. Here, the essay confronts the historical question of the West and to pinpoint understandable but unnecessary obsession with the question of the west, and then point towards the imaginary Asia as a possibility to shift its referent point. In the second part, the essay tries to demonstrate what can be gained from this shift by engaging dialogue with Partha Chatterjee's recent proposed theory of 'political society', with reference to practices emerging in India, in that the analytical notion of 'min-jian', which was a ”pre-modern” term and is still operating in the mandarin Chinese speaking places, was rediscovered as a contemporary living space, intersecting but somehow excluded by the imposed concept of 'civil society'. By analyzing how civil society has been ”translated” as min-jian society, it argues that ”translation” provides a means to conduct the re-investigation so that the organic shape and characteristics of local society and modernity can begin to emerge. The third part comes to the theoretical formulation of 'Asia as method', through dialogue with Misogugi Yozo's ”China as method”, by focusing on his historical-ontological claim of a theory of 'base-entity' (ji-ti), which is closer to my own earlier attempt to work and rework a 'geo-colonial historical materialism', in that we argue the necessity to capture the constantly changing base-entity, through which different base-entity in different locales in Asia could become the referent point of each other and become part of each other's subjectivity, so that the 'self' can be transformed. Therefore, 'Asia as method' ceases to look at Asia as object of analysis, but actually means medium to transform knowledge production, and the driving force of the rediscover and transforming of the self. The conclusion section comes back to the ”leaving Asia for America” problematic and teases out the implication of Asia as method for ”Taiwan” to reposition itself so as to reconstitute a critical subjectivity. It argues that Cross-Strait relation, Chinese International and Asia Regional are in fact the trajectories and routes of globalization, and Taiwan has to self-consciously place itself within these network of relations as its own self-positioning