Interview with Professor Eugenia Lean

Vy Luu: Today is April 26, 2022. This is Vy Luu with the Columbia University Oral History Master of Arts Program. I'm interviewing Professor Eugenia Lean today for the Oral History Project of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute. We are conducting this interview in Professor Lean's office at the Institute located at Columbia University in New York City. And I'll share just a bio of Professor Lean before we go into the interview itself.

Eugenia Lean is a professor of Chinese history in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia University, and she is the current director of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute. She is a scholar of modern Chinese history, history of science, technology and industry and affect studies. Professor Lean received her BA from Stanford University and her master's and PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles. Before joining the Columbia faculty in 2002, she taught at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. In her first book, Public Passions The Trial of Shi Jianqiao and the Rise of Popular Sympathy in Republican China, she examines a sensational crime of female passion to document the political role of sentiment in the making of a critical urban public. This book was awarded the 2007 John K. Fairbank Prize for the best book in modern East Asian History given by the American Historical Association. Professor Lean, in her second book Vernacular Industrialism in China, Local Innovation and Translated Technologies in the Making of a Cosmetics Empire 1900 to 1940, examines the cultural and intellectual dimensions of industrialization by focusing on the practices and writings of polymath Chen Diexian, a professional writer, editor, science enthusiast and pharmaceutical industrialist. The project explores how lettered men of early 20th century China engage in vernacular industrialism, the pursuit of industry and science outside the conventional venues that drew on the process of experimentation with both local and global practices of manufacturing and was marked by heterogeneous, often ad hoc forms of knowledge and material work. Professor Lean's third book project, titled Making the Chinese Copycat, focuses on China's involvement in shaping 20th century global regimes of intellectual property rights from trademark infringement to patenting science. It investigates the local and vibrant cultures of copying and authenticating in China, as well as how, as well as inquiries into how China emerged as a quintessential copycat in the modern world. She is featured in the top young historians in the History News Network in fall 2008, and she received the 2013-2014 Faculty Mentoring Award for Faculty in Columbia's Graduate Schools of Arts and Sciences. I feel like that's kind of the formal bio, but is there anything that you would like to add to that or anything that I missed?

 

Eugenia Lean: No, I think it's very thorough. Thank you for reviewing my bio.

 

Luu: Great. I think a really great place to start is for us to learn a bit about you, actually. Could you tell me how you began to study modern Chinese history?

 

Lean: So my interest in modern Chinese history started when I was an undergraduate at Stanford University. I actually was born and raised in New York, and so when I went to California, I experienced a very different culture and, of course, going to college as well, that was a very eye-opening experience and that was the first time I started to think about my identity as an Asian-American. Prior to that, I had thought of myself as the daughter of overseas Chinese. I was Chinese, but the issue of identity was not prominent––or certainly race and ethnicity as as bases of identity was not a topic of discussion when I was at high school, but it was a huge topic of discussion when I got to Stanford. And so that was really thrilling. And one way I started to explore issues of identity was through the study of my past, where I came from, where my parents came from. So I started to take classes on China. And I actually was technically an international relations major, which is, I think, one of the more popular majors on campus at Stanford. But that was more of a professional track. But I think by the end I started to realize that I was really interested in pursuing the history of China from an academic perspective. A couple of years out from after graduating from Stanford, I decided to apply to a graduate program in Chinese history. And that was UCLA.

 

Luu: I see, and what was the topic that you were interested in exploring?

 

Lean: Well, it was sort of both a combination of interest in my heritage and my past. But it was also, as I said, heady days for myself as a young adult who was grappling with identity issues. And identity was not specific to race. I was also really drawn to feminist issues––women's studies––while at Stanford, and that continued to be of concern for me when I entered graduate school. I knew that I wanted to study Chinese history from the perspective of gender. And that coincided with developments in the field of history that started to turn towards gender studies, bringing up the issue of not just the history of women, but understanding gender relationships as a legitimate topic of study.

Gender was a prominent topic of interest for me to research and my first book [was] Public Passions The Trial of Shi Jianqiao and the Rise of Public Sympathy. That particular book featured a a new style of woman in early 20th century China who really took advantage of the burgeoning media scene and became a very public woman and actually generated this huge media scandal where she assassinated a warlord in the name of seeking revenge for her father, and using that kind of cause célèbre, I explored larger issues of the rise of a critical urban public. You know, how do masses get mobilized to engage in critical issues such as political participation, legal reform, sanctioning certain forms of violent behavior, weighing in on gender norms––all of these things were sort of part and parcel of this particular book. But that actual academic project, which turned into my 2007 book, came out of a very personal point of departure. My interest in my heritage, my interest in gender issues. And as I said, it just coincided with currents and historiographical and academic currents of the '90s where there was a real turn towards understanding gender, also a turn towards urban history, especially in China. Because this was a period where China was opening up; Shanghai and other big cities started to really open up towards the West, and that was linked then to a turn in the field away from trying to understand rural China to understanding kind of the past of these big cities that were becoming sort of engines of China's economic revival and of China's participation in the world. Shanghai, Beijing and so on and so forth. So this particular project was also an urban history and kind of related to these trends as well.

 

Luu: I see. That's so fascinating.

 

Lean: I think a lot of academic projects are tied to one's personal interests. And also where you are. It's linked to also historical developments, right? Larger geopolitical developments. So, that's not to say that one should be driven only by one's personal passions about things, but rather you have to be also trained professionally to kind of check some of those personal interests in order to think critically, both about your own investment, but into a particular academic inquiry. Also about the inquiry itself. About the object that you're analyzing itself.

 

Luu: I guess I'm going to take us to how you came to Columbia in 2002. I'm just curious how that came onto the horizon.

 

Lean: I entered graduate school, UCLA, I entered the PhD program in the early nineties, and I graduated by 2001, and my initial job was at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. And then there was a job opportunity here at Columbia. I'm originally from New York, and I tend to be more of a big city person. And the opportunity was just really fabulous to come to such a renowned research university.

 

So I joined in 2002, I believe, as an assistant professor, and my first office was precisely in this building at the Weatherhead––very small office in the corner on the other side of the floor. But this has always been home. And I just kind of worked my way up from being an assistant professor to now: I'm currently a full professor at Columbia. So the bulk of my career, of my academic career, has been at Columbia. And it has been a fabulous journey. The community, the intellectual community here is so vibrant. Both in terms of my immediate circle, which is colleagues in my department, the East Asian Languages and Cultures Department, but also colleagues here at the Weatherhead East Asian Institute. The East Asianists on campus. You have these nested communities, right? But then in addition to kind of colleagues in the Asian studies world at Columbia, I also have ties to the history department and to the humanities field writ large. And that's what's great about Columbia, is that there are all these different kind of intellectual communities that you can embed yourself in, and you just keep growing as an intellectual because of all of these various discussions you can have across campus.

 

Luu: Yeah, and it sounds like you were involved with the Institute when you came.

 

Lean: Oh, very, yes. So the Institute has always been very generous, supporting certainly me individually, but junior faculty in general. As a junior faculty, you're focused on your own research and you kind of keep your head down. But I do remember being able to participate in wonderful programing, attending talks, events, parties––Weatherhead always had good parties. And so I was part of the community, even from day one.

 

Luu: I'd say, yeah, like what the I guess you kind of speak to, spoke to, like the community there. But I'm just curious to hear more [about] what was it like to interact with other faculty?

 

Lean: And so what's what's wonderful about the Weatherhead is that you are sitting on this floor with faculty who are not necessarily in your home departments, right? So my home department is in the East Asian Languages and Cultures Department, and I also have an affiliation with the History Department as a historian. And there I have colleagues. So the East Asian Languages and Cultures Department, also known as EALAC, is actually physically located in a different building. And most of my colleagues sit there and that department happens to be interdisciplinary. It has historians, it has literature scholars, religion scholars, but it does tend to be more of a humanities based department. And, you know, whereas the Weatherhead is an umbrella organization that spans departments in Arts and Sciences as well as the different schools at the University. And it includes members. So Weatherhead members are those who are located across campus who are doing work on Asian studies, and so by being part of this community, I get to know people beyond my immediate colleagues in EALAC and History. So I get to know people, scholars who are in political science. I get to know, you know, my colleague Ben [Benjamin L.] Liebman, who is an expert on Chinese law in the Law School. You get to know people who are in social work, in the Architecture School. So that's what's been really exciting is that you get to kind of diversify your communities and get to know more people precisely because of these connections through Weatherhead, some of whom some of these faculty sit on this floor, some attend the parties and go to the talks, and they become collaborators so that you have an opportunity to do programing with them and or do intellectual projects together, all sorts of things.

 

Luu: Did you ever end up doing a collaboration with anyone during your time as a member?

 

Lean: I've done all sorts of collaborations. I've been on panels. And with somebody like Ben Liebman who's in the Law School. Because we're––myself and Matti Zelin, who is my senior colleague in Chinese history, we're all interested in law, right, in law in China. I have done other work that goes actually beyond kind of collaborations with East Asianists; I'm interested in the history of science and studying Chinese science within the context of the modern world, and in particular, the relationship between science and capitalism. So my third project on IPR [intellectual property rights] is related to this. I had a wonderful opportunity to work with colleagues who are at the Society of Fellows and the Heyman Center, which is on campus, a humanities center, historians of science and capitalism, who specialized in American history and early modern European history. And we had this huge conference several years ago where we looked at science and capitalism in the making of the modern world. My job was to bring the global south to the table, and to bring Asianists and and Africanists, and so on and so forth, to engage with discussions and dialogue with scholars who are specialists in American history and European history who have historically tended to dominate the conversations about modern science and about modern capitalism. So Weatherhead sponsored this particular event with the Society of Fellows in the Heyman Center.

 

And that's one thing that I actually really appreciate about the Weatherhead––precisely because it's kind of a powerhouse on campus. It has a lot of resources, it has a wonderful intellectual community. It can kind of shape some of the discussions taking place in all corners of the University, including those that might not necessarily include Asianists to begin with. Right? So as I said, traditional narratives of understanding the rise of modern science have tended to look at Asia as only a catch-up player in the making of modern science. And those conversations tend to have tended to be dominated by Europeanists or Americanists. Well, because of some of the efforts here at Weatherhead, and my own interest in the topic and the support I've gotten, I was able to participate in a discussion that's shifting now, that really wants to look at the understanding of the making the world from a more global perspective.

 

Luu: That's interesting. I'm curious [about] these years leading up to you becoming director in 2014. Did you ever think, this is a role I want to do at some point?

 

Lean: So it wasn't obvious immediately because, as I said, as junior faculty, you just really worry about getting your book done. You focus on fulfilling the requirements that are necessary for tenure, and you kind of keep quiet and keep your head down. So it wasn't an obvious choice immediately. And also prior to that, the Institute had been––the directors prior had been much more senior in their standing than that, [and had] much deeper experience here at Columbia. So when I first got the request to join or to consider the directorship, I was actually kind of taken aback. You know, I just––I was quite young. I'd just gotten tenure. So it wasn't something that I expected. But it was an interesting opportunity. So I decided I should give it a try and, you know, seven, eight, I'm not sure how many years now. It's probably eight or nine years later––from 2014 to 2022––you know, I'm actually quite happy that I took the opportunity. I grabbed the opportunity and it was definitely very difficult in the beginning. Obviously there were a lot of challenges involved and in part because I think when I did take over, the Institute was kind of at a transition point and it was transitioning from an Institute that included a lot of members.

 

But the real core was a group of pioneering senior scholars who had been at the Institute for a long time and who had really built the Institute into what it is today. And some of them, many of them, are still active now. But even at the point when I took over, I think some of them were already heading towards retirement or they were––I think the Institute itself was looking to kind of, expand its purview, its membership, its directions, and also to mobilize some of the younger generation to participate. And I think that's partially one of the reasons why I was asked to become the director. And that was something I took quite seriously and and I'm quite proud that I was able to kind of steward this generational shift. Building on the immense contributions that my senior colleagues made for the Weatherhead, but also ensuring that their legacy and their participation would continue and thrive. I did work quite strongly to expand the purview in literal terms, to increase membership to ensure that the next generation of scholars were invested in the Institute, that they had a sense of ownership and participation. And this included inviting scholars who were traditionally not closely linked to the Weatherhead.

So prior to my directorship, I think the focus was much more traditionally on policy and politics and the social sciences. And I wanted to maintain that because that was the core base. And this comes out of the kind of understanding of regional institutes that emerged from the Cold War. These were institutes that were oftentimes funded by the US government to understand different parts of the world. And during the Cold War there were parts of the world that were sometimes known as enemies, right? Or antagonistic players in the geopolitical scene. So, you know, Asia during the Cold War was understood in a certain way. And the approach often that was taken to understand Asia was one that was predicated on sort of––from a perspective of policy or political science or social sciences. And I think that legacy had cast a long, long shadow, one that was oftentimes very productive. But even to the early 2000s, I think this Institute and all institutes on campus, all regional institutes on campus, tended to be more oriented towards policy and social science fields. And so when I took over the directorship, one of the things I realized was that some of the most vibrant scholarship and scholars focusing on Asia were not in the social sciences and should be part of the Weatherhead and would only enhance the vibrancy of the Weatherhead community.

 

I sought to bring the Weatherhead and the East Asian Languages and Cultures Department, for example, which houses a lot more of the humanities scholars. I wanted to bring those scholars to the table to be avid participants in the Weatherhead community, and this also meant kind of expanding it to other schools. And this coincided with Columbia expanding its interest in China across schools where––not just China, but Asia across schools. In part because China was and has been and continues to be so important geopolitically. But, you know, schools such as the Social Work school, the Architecture school, they all started to hire in Asia. So that coincided with my directorship.

I was able to bring on really young and exciting scholars: Wu Weiping at GSAAP, the Architecture school; Qin Gao at the Social Work school. And I drew on them and asked them to become members of the Weatherhead. And that really has expanded the scope of the Weatherhead, Weatherhead's reach beyond [what] traditionally had been kind of mostly in the school of International Policy for SIPA and also Arts and Sciences. And then some people, you know, one or two people in law school, in the business school. But one thing that I've been very happy about under my directorship was the chance to expand it beyond those traditional schools. We've also been able to collaborate with schools even if they don't have Asianists there.

 

Another very recent turn has been towards trying to understand Asia and the environment. This coincides with the rise of environmental studies and also the climate school at Columbia. The Weatherhead has been able to make connections with Lamont-Doherty, for example, which is the Earth Institute. And so we've done really exciting collaborative work with them. The Modern Tibetan Studies Program here is very interested in the history of the environment and ecology. And they're working with scientists now to try to understand ecological change from the present all the way to into the past. That's an example of the kind of new, exciting, collaborative relationships that are being forged since I assumed the directorship. And that's something that I obviously have always supported, but it's also in part because of the energy and the excitement that these younger faculty who are interested in going in new directions––they're the ones generating these kinds of new, innovative academic collaborations. This just brings Weatherhead to the center. It improves our profile on campus. 

 

Luu: Since you did mention how historically the center was rooted in more understanding these regions from a policy or political science perspective, did this trend that you wanted to spearhead, was it received generally well? 

 

Lean: Yeah. I think it's already started. I mean, obviously certain people want certain emphases. But I think overall, as I said, what I'm really proud of is that, by spearheading this more expansive purview, both in terms of making this generational shift and expanding what we cover in terms of disciplines and fields and different associations with different schools on campus, that has just made the Weatherhead so much more vibrant. The other area where we expanded is thinking about what Asia means. So again, regional institutes are born of a certain historical moment, right? These are all postwar institutes that were created during the Cold War, and they had very fixed notions of what Asia was like. Asia was mostly China and then Japan and then maybe Korea. And they were kind of fixed. Each region was kind of seen as a very fixed entity that was separate from, for example, Eastern Europe, that was separate from, for example, Latin America. And then I think late 20th century early 2000s, there was a change in academia more generally that was linked to the reality that everything was globalizing. Columbia as a community had so many more students coming from all over the world and there were just so many more concrete ties between Columbia and different parts of the world. And I think that kind of turn in, you know––that kind of is linked to global capitalism in the late 20th century and early 21st century [and] has shaped trends in academia. One thing––that had already started under my predecessor––that I really worked to continue was globalizing what we mean by East Asia. Thinking about Asia not as a static fixed unit, but as something that changed over time; not just the historical evolution. And the region was never cut off from other regions. There were always transnational global ties and connections. And so, ways that we sought to think about how to globalize Asia institutionally was to first of all, expand beyond China, Japan and Korea. And that it already started with––certainly prior to my directorship with the Weatherhead––moving towards, for example, thinking about Tibet as a borderland on China, but also as an area that has historic ties, a historic identity that was separate from China prior to the 20th century and the middle part of the Qing Dynasty. So we have a fabulous Modern Tibetan Studies Program that thinks about that borderland region and Tibet's relationship not just to China, but also to the Himalayas, to other frontier lands to Central Asia. And then another area that we've also expanded into is Southeast Asia. And that's also been very exciting; thinking about Southeast Asia, both in terms of its relationship to the traditional areas of East Asia––so for example, thinking about Sino-Vietnamese relationships––but also thinking about Southeast Asia beyond the Sinosphere. Thinking about Southeast Asia's relations to the Muslim world, which is going to inform, for example, Indonesia. That kind of investment into these areas to support––we brought on visiting scholars and visiting professors, including Duncan McCargo, who is a Thai expert. We've also fundraised in order to hire new colleagues who specialize in Southeast Asia. And now we have two fantastic scholars who specialize in Vietnamese history, one, John Phan, a young scholar in EALAC, who does tremendous [research]––from 10th century to the 20th century––looking at Sino-Vietnamese culture. And then we have [Lien-]Hang [T.] Nguyen, who is going to actually be the next director, and she is a specialist in US-Vietnamese relations. And the two of them have been fantastic in helping me continue what my predecessor had started, which was raising our profile in Southeast Asia, fundraising in Southeast Asia, and increasing Southeast Asian coverage, programing, academic coverage, that we as an Institute could support across campus.

 

Luu: I actually would love for us to go a bit back to what you were sharing in the beginning of challenges that you encounter. Would love to hear more.

 

Lean: Well, there are there are all kinds of challenges. And some of which were more productive than others, let's put it that way. I took over as a young woman. I mean, I wasn't that young, but I was younger than a lot of my colleagues who had been here for a long time, and certainly younger than a lot of my predecessors who were directors. And I'm the second woman who has ever held the directorship, and I was the first Asian-American woman. So I'm actually quite proud of that. But I think there is, you know, some adjustment that had to be made culturally to accommodate kind of a new generation of leadership. All my colleagues were very, very supportive. There certainly wasn't any kind of problem on that front. But I think what I did bring to the table was recognition of challenges that Asian-Americans might face in an academic community, or how women might face particular challenges in positions of leadership or as graduate students. And this has always been something of interest to me. And it coincided towards the end of my career, at my end of my directorship here with the [#]MeToo movement. Right, so certainly I was heartened to see that discussion opening up. But of course, those issues are always kind of latent and kind of shape [my perspective]––as an Asian-American woman who is taking on––when I assumed the directorship in 2014, I was certainly very conscious of those things. And as I said, most of my colleagues are just really fabulous in supporting me. But those are those are kind of the challenges.

 

And I can give you a concrete example that was quite fun. I was invited to Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto at my I think it was the first summer right after I'd taken over the directorship. At that point I was probably in my early forties and just gotten tenure and I was representing the Weatherhead in Japan. And we were talking about possible collaborative relationships between the Weatherhead and this university, the Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. And I remember just they were so incredibly gracious and inviting. I was meeting all the important sort of academic leaders there, including the key deans and and the former university president. And I remember walking into his room––he had this huge corner office in Ritsumeikan University. And the first thing he said to me was, "Oh, you're young and you're a woman." So I think he was kind of surprised a little bit, to be honest, and he was very gracious afterwards and there was no problem about that. And my response to him is, I look younger than I am––and I think he meant it actually in a complimentary sort of way, but it was a little bit unexpected on my part. And being a new young director who was a woman, it was––actually I was nervous about things, and I don't think he meant at all to put me in any kind of position of discomfort, but those are kind of the challenges that I did face even in 2014. He took me very seriously afterwards. But just that little moment of surprise, right, does suggest that there are certain expectations that came along with his directorship––that I didn't fit the mold completely all the time. And so, to navigate those, I had to just be aware that sometimes––how do you get taken seriously by people who don't expect the director of the Weatherhead to be sort of a very young Asian-American woman? And I do believe also that the person who was coordinating the visit, he made an effort to kind of find young colleagues to go out to dinner with me. And so he was very attentive to my needs. He didn't want me to hang out with the old fogies.

 

Luu:  I mean that's so fascinating that it's like, age.

 

Lean: And it's also a little bit of a cultural gap. I think in the United States, it's fine for a recently tenured woman to be a director of an institute. In Japan perhaps that would have been a little bit unexpected. But those were kind of the issues. And I think it's good in the sense that even today, our leadership on campus here continues to evolve. And you constantly want more diversity in academic leadership, more women. So I think that's an ongoing conversation, and I'm glad to be part of that generation, you know, to be part of that generation that I can open up doors. And I do feel like––I'm quite proud, again, of being the first Asian-American woman who served as the Weatherhead director.

 

Luu: I mean, in the context of Columbia itself, under Institute leadership, when you became the first Asian-American director here in 2014, was it also reflected in these changes in leadership? I guess I'm trying to understand you stepping into this role then, and the broader community.

 

Lean: I think there were starting to be shifts. I mean, in academia, I think the generation before me really broke down barriers, especially gender barriers. So some of my colleagues here––Matti [Madeleine] Zelin is a former director and she was the first female director here at the Weatherhead. I think that generation of scholars more broadly––as an academic, they had to deal with probably a lot––far more sexism, and they had to really claw their way to the top and they had to deal with expectations of what their family life was. They didn't have a wife at home to support the kids. They had to juggle childcare institutionally. There was far less recognition of needs of family, family leave, child support and that kind of thing. So I really give that generation, the generation above me, quite a bit of credit for breaking down gender barriers and insisting on institutions like Columbia and other big universities to recognize specific needs as women become an increasing presence in the workforce. When I came along, I think a lot of those barriers were already kind of torn down. And certainly in the humanities, I think a lot of the departments are almost 50/50 women at this point. I think there's a lot more work to be done in the social sciences and certainly in the sciences where women are far less represented. And then precisely because of the lower numbers, their needs are not addressed as well. In terms of race, I think that is an ongoing conversation. It's one that, very recently from an Asian perspective, is gaining kind of more prominence, right? I think there have been very productive conversations about sort of Black and Latino representation and Asians precisely because, in many ways, Asians are quite ubiquitous, right? You see a lot of Asians, especially in the sciences, on university campuses. But the question of actual leadership positions is one that remains. And I think it's being brought up now because of some of the anti-Asian hate that has been generated in the past few years during COVID, in part because COVID was associated with China. There was anti-Asian hate being spewed from the highest offices in our country. And so Asians started to be really targeted. And as a result of the anti-Asian violence that many of us witnessed––some experienced––I think, discussions of where Asians fit, "is there discrimination against Asians in all areas of and all sectors of American society?" is actually now a conversation, including on campus. And I think that's a good one. I think there's now a recognition that, yes, there are a lot of Asian faces on campus. But in terms of positions of power, I think that that's not the case. It's starting to change now. And there's a recognition that that needs to be addressed. In fact––the very fact that there are so many Asians across campus, especially in the sciences––but they're oftentimes in kind of more lower level positions. You know, that number should demand more representation at the upper levels. So if I'm part of that kind of new discussion or that new wave then I'm very happy to be part of that new wave.

 

Luu:I'm curious, have the conversations played out here at the Weatherhead among the members and among the staff?

 

Lean: Yeah. I think prior to my arrival, Xiaobo Lü was a director and he was, I think, the first Asian of Chinese descent, Asian director. I think I'm the second one, right? I think that speaks. There's a long––a longer history of excellent directors. But they aren't Asian. And I think that speaks to the field. I mean, the field of Asian studies was dominated by, initially, white men and then increasingly white women who were studying Asia. And that's understandable, right? This was just that. And that was reflective of the demography of academia in the United States in the postwar period. But as I mentioned, academia––the world––globalized, and so did academia starting in the late 20th century. And I think I'm a product of that, as was Xiaobo Lü. I think many people here recognize that it's good, right? It's something that is kind of a natural evolution. So I never dealt with any racism. In fact, I think there was quite a bit of support, especially among the students, because we now also have students who are increasingly coming from Asia. And I think it was really wonderful for them to see, again, Asian faces in the classrooms as their teachers, but also at the Institute, as a director or as a chair of the department. When you have more Asian faces, you know that that kind of makes sense to those who are coming from abroad to study here.

 

Luu: What are, or, there were things that surprised you or [that] you weren't expecting in the role?

 

Lean: Certainly there were many more demands on my time and certainly in terms of having to navigate expectations that had been long traditions––that had long been established––and wanting to respect those traditions while wanting to bring the Institute in new directions, right? So there was always a little bit of that tension between kind of wanting to maintain traditional ways of doing things that had worked for so long and respecting the hard work and the pioneering efforts of the colleagues who had preceded me and and maintaining the vibrancy of that that foundation that they built while kind of, as I said, bringing the Institute in new directions, making sure that we grew both in terms of geographical coverage, whether that's expanding Tibetan studies, whether that's moving into Southeast Asia or bringing us in new directions on campus, merging kind of this humanities and the history with climate science, right? That's something that, I think 20 or 30 years ago, that just was not something the Institute would be interested in doing. You know, I want to do that while maintaining our traditional strengths, our strengths in the policy world, our strengths in working with, you know, the Business School. I think kind of trying to balance both the traditional orientation that had worked that has served the Institute so well with new ambitions, new visions. And I think those new visions are necessary because that allowed me to bring in new blood, to bring in the next generation, to give a sense to the younger scholars that they had a right to define what this institution is about. I think that's very, very important. I think all institutions have to evolve, and it's unhealthy when an institution gets into a defensive crouch, right, it has to be willing to recognize the past and build on the past, but always move towards the future. And I'm hoping that that was something that I've hopefully, you know, helped sort of steward as we move into the 21st century or past where, you know, now the second decade. Yeah.

 

Luu: I mean, how did that tension play out in the day to day,? Like, I'm just trying to picture it.

 

Lean: We're fairly well-supported and we have a healthy endowment. So we have a lot of resources, but ultimately all resources are limited. You can't just say yes to everything. How many events do you want to have that are about East Asian policy? How many events do you want to have that might focus more on things that we haven't done in the past, including some of the current projects that we're doing, which include a focus on material, cultural, digital humanities. We had a whole initiative on the digital humanities in the early years that I was here. That required actually a considerable amount of money bringing in speakers. We also invested in experts who could do work on the digital humanities, so we had to make these decisions––should we put our resources to supporting digital humanities? And some people felt that it wasn't as necessary, and some people felt it was actually completely worthwhile. I have to obviously manage competing interests, but that and other things. One thing that I was very happy to see under my tenure was that we also moved into the arena of the arts quite actively. Many people like this idea, whether you were new members or older members.

 

One typical example, one of the highlights of of my early years at the Institute, was this contemporary artist by the name of Xu Bing [who] had a huge installation at the Saint John the Divine––this church cathedral down the road––that was known as the Phoenix, and it was this brilliant artistic installation. We sponsored a huge event where 500 people showed up for a panel of five famous Chinese poets who commented on the Phoenix, the installation with the artist Xu Bing. This was held at the Saint John the Divine. And it was this huge turnout. This is something very new that occurred under my tenure because I was able to draw in scholars. This was my colleague, Lydia Liu––she is a scholar of modern Chinese literature and culture and had connections to the Chinese art world and to all these poets, and so by bringing her into the fold, I was able to have a huge event that brought tremendous attention to the Institute and that took the Institute in new directions. We've been working with Xu Bing on another potential installation, although that was interrupted due to COVID, but that was originally going to be another installation on campus and hopefully we might pursue that down the line. We've brought other literature scholars, from Mo Yan, who is a Nobel Peace winner of literature, a very famous Chinese writer. He was part of the World Leaders Forum here on campus. And Weatherhead helped sponsor that. Whereas traditionally we brought, the Weatherhead would bring policy leaders––and we brought fantastic policy leaders. We brought Shinzo Abe from Japan. We brought [Benigno S.] Aquino [III] from Philippines. Since then, Indonesia, Vietnam, we've had policy leaders come to campus and Weatherhead has been involved in sponsoring those visits. But I think now we're also moving into the arts and the art world. Recently, prior to the pandemic, we had a writer in residence, a very famous writer named Xiaolu Guo. And that was part of a program that I initiated, which I called Asia in Action. And this is an attempt on my part to kind of think about the relationship between the academic work we do and the real world. And one of the obvious places of that convergence was in the artistic arena, right, so Xu Bing is a perfect example.

 

He's a practicing artist, but we have the School of the Arts here. We also have cultural studies, people who study art history, who study Xu Bing and his work. So he's an object of of academic study. And yet we could also work with him in these very public events, like an installation, a huge public event. Xiaolu Guo––having a writer in residence who would have workshops with our students about what it's like to be a writer, right? Asia in Action has since expanded beyond kind of thinking about the relationship between academia and the art world to include, you know, our relationship with activists, you know, to one initiative, which, again, was kind of interrupted by COVID, was to bring environmental activists who work in Asia to come and be affiliated, to be in residence at the Weatherhead. What we have done under the COVID conditions was that we sponsored several talks on Zoom during COVID about COVID in Asia. So we were able––and this we sponsored under Asia in Action. We invited not just academics, but policymakers and so on and so forth. And that was one way we responded to the real-life situation through this initiative. So that just kind of gives you an idea. Other series that we've had under Asia in Action include, for example, Reporting Asia. Speaking to and inviting reporters who cover Asia, whether it's in China or Vietnam or in Japan or Korea. And we had a whole series talking about journalism in Asia and the pros or the challenges of covering whatever country you might be covering. So that's another kind of example of the kinds of initiatives that kind of fall under Asia in Action.

 

Luu: And I mean, since you mentioned, too, with anti-Asian hate coming up, how did Asia in Action...?

 

Lean: That was another area where we were able to respond to and be kind of nimble in our response because of the Institute's support of Asia in Action. And so we would release a call for proposals and ask our members and our associate members to apply for funding that might support their activities that would deal with anti-Asian hate. These activities could include programing, explicit programing on anti-Asian hate. I think we also supported, for example, one of our members, their research work, in doing and conducting surveys of anti-Asian hate incidents that emerged after COVID. Because we also support research here at the Weatherhead. One big event that I organized was called "Open Science." And this was an event that invited and featured Xiaoxing Xi, who is a Temple University physicist who was targeted by the Department of Justice––he was accused of being a spy. And this was the direct result of recent competition with China that started under the Trump administration, where the Department of Justice increasingly targets scientists of Asian descent, specifically Chinese descent, and seeks to find ways to find illicit or illegal collaboration between these scientists and their Chinese colleagues. And this has obviously caused tremendous turmoil and distress in the scientific community. And very famous scientists at MIT at Temple University at Harvard have have been ensnared by this initiative. One of the events that I held was this panel called "Open Science," where I invited Xiaoxing Xi. Ben Liebman, who is my colleague at the Law School who is a specialist on Chinese law, participated. And we also had a Wall Street Journal writer, a journalist who covers the Department of Justice and these issues. And it was a fantastic [event]––over 300 people attended. It was a very vibrant and urgent conversation, right? This was during the height of COVID. So this is the example of that––the kinds of programing and the kinds of activities that Asia in Action seeks to support.

 

Luu: This is kind of related to something you shared in kind of sharing about being the first Asian-American director and how you're proud of that. My question is, what are other things that you are proud of in your directorship?

 

 Lean: Well, I think also I've done a lot to, as I said, increase a sense of the purview or the scope of Weatherhead. I've already mentioned, you know, the multiple directions, the new directions that we've moved in, the different collaborations across schools, the increase in membership and the new generation of scholars that I've brought into the Weatherhead fold. And one example, just to give you a sense, especially about how I've sought to mobilize or invite younger scholars to become invested in the Weatherhead. So I think part of the problem was, you know, Weatherhead was seen as very, very different or very––for young scholars who are oftentimes really immersed in their research, myself included, you know, I was located here, but––Weatherhead just seemed very far away. And occasionally I would go to a talk, but I didn't feel like I was a member of the community. I mean, I did eventually, but, you know, it took me some time. And I think that is especially the case for young faculty who don't happen to have an office. I mean, I happen to have an office in the Weatherhead. So one of the things that I decided to do in order to ensure that young faculty across the campus who might not have an office here on the floor, nonetheless feel that they kind of care about the Weatherhead was that I would not just give them––I mean, we always gave research support, right? So support for young faculty to conduct research abroad, you need money for that. But I've also worked to open up kind of programing opportunities and workshop opportunities so that young scholars, when they want to run a program or a conference, they have the ability to apply for support. That was less available prior. But I think young scholars are often, again, the ones with a lot of the energy, a lot of the ideas, the pioneering new ideas. So to get them more involved in our workshops and in our programing was actually something I'm very, very happy about.

And then lastly, I've also instituted something known as the Junior Book Workshop, Book Manuscript Workshop, where all junior faculty on campus, during their period as a junior faculty, they get a chance to workshop their book manuscript whereby, you know, we have them invite 4 to 5 preeminent scholars in the field to come to Columbia for a day and discuss their book manuscript. And this is something that's really wonderful. It's a very unique opportunity that allows them to get invaluable feedback in order to revise their book for publication, which is obviously very, very important for tenure. So those are the kinds of initiatives that I sought to pursue in order to, you know, again, increase a sense of belonging, of ownership over the Institute beyond just a small senior group, but to really get sort of the younger generation to get more involved.

 

Luu: Yeah. I see. Well, I wanted to make sure I have an opportunity to talk to you about your support system in your time. You mentioned, let's say some weird challenges would come up. Who like did you find support here or like what helped you to...?

 

Lean: As I said, it's a wonderful community. So I had support in so many different ways. I had support both in terms of some of my senior colleagues who have been in many ways my patron, right, who supported me. They asked, you know, some of them asked me to become director and promised to support me and guide me because they have years of experience. Some of them were former directors themselves. Matti Zelin is somebody who was just––she's my senior colleague in modern Chinese history. And she's always been a supporter of mine. And that extends to her help and advice. Especially when I stepped into the directorship, when I was first starting. But I also have a fantastic staff. You know, there was a little bit of turnover when I first began. But the new staff is fabulous, including Nicole Vartanian, who is my executive director. And so having a wonderful staff is also key and making sure an institute as big as this is able to run. This is a very complex institute, and so we have a staff of 11 and they're all extremely professional. But, you know, colleagues who are of my own age who––some of them are research scholars here, and they give me input and ideas.

 

You know, I think for a director to be successful, you have to constantly be in conversation with other scholars. And get a kind of a sense of the pulse of what's happening academically and in Asia and about Asia on and beyond the campus. And the best way to do that is to constantly have colleagues who can support you in that way. But, you know, the junior faculty, even the postdocs––I mean, we've always had a very vibrant postdoc community. And while they don't support me necessarily in terms of figuring out how to navigate the University––in terms of institutional politics––they do support me in so far as it helps keep the Institute young. So we've had a whole series of different kinds of postdocs. When I first began, there was something known as the INTERACT Postdoc Program that was soon replaced by something known as the Borg Initiative Post-Docs. And the Borg initiative was named after Dorothy Borg, who was a donor, a very generous donor to the Institute. And when I first took over, we had some money from the endowment and we supported these Borg research programs. And in those Borg research programs––Dorothy Borg herself was a scholar of Sino-US relations, so she was very interested in kind of thinking about Asia in the global context. And so we had different research programs that kind of fell under this general theme, and many of them included inviting postdocs. And even now, now that the Borg is over, we continue to have a very vibrant postdoc community. And I think that's important in the sense that, again, it's good to keep abreast of new evolving directions. Postdocs are recent graduates and they're doing the most cutting edge work. So we've had postdocs not just in the policy world, not just doing foreign policy, but we've had postdocs who do Asia in music, right from the musicology department. We've had an anthropologist who looks at Tibetan nuns in the 21st century, who sits in the anthropology department. We've had historians who look at Southeast Asia, Vietnamese history. Now we have a Chinese poetry specialist who's a postdoc, who's doing really exciting work, the most cutting edge work, in the study of Chinese poetry. Young people bring––it's not so much support––but they intellectually support [us] in the sense [that it feels] fulfilling to have a very vibrant community that is very active.

 

Luu: I would be remiss not to ask about the pandemic. How did it affect you as director and the Institute overall?

 

Lean: I think the Institute, like much of Columbia––it was obviously in much of the world––it was a huge shock. It was a huge existential shock, right? Where suddenly all relationships became virtual and we were all locked down and there was tremendous isolation. Luckily enough, we all had Zoom. It's not a complete replacement for face-to-face interaction, but I think that facilitated ongoing discussion and possibility for intellectual engagement as well as social and emotional support that we, as a community, could offer each other. So, certainly events and programs––certainly in-person ones completely shut down. But we started to rebuild, first through Zoom events and now we continue to do hybrid events. But it continues to reverberate. We just had an event just last week talking about the possibility of doing research in China in this post-COVID world. And it was kind of a sobering event. I mean, first of all, it was hybrid. And the hybrid event is both good and bad. You don't have as much of that in-person possibility for meeting face to face, although some did show up. But a hybrid event did allow for people––one graduate student who happens to be in China and one junior faculty member who's a Barnard professor––Nick Bartlett, who is a Chinese anthropologist who's also a Weatherhead member. They were able to Zoom in for the event and talk about their experiences on the ground to do research. It was sobering, because the ability to travel and to go to these other countries, which are so crucial for those of us who study Asia––historians who have to go to archives in China, anthropologists who have to go on the ground, to Taiwan to study, or to go to China, or Tibet to do interviews or fieldwork, that has been really hampered by COVID traveling restrictions, quarantine expectations. Actual archives aren't open. Collections and libraries are shut off. The tensions between China and the US as a result, partially, of COVID, but also of competing superpowers––they're both competing superpowers––has also made travel and access [challenging]. And academic exchange is no longer open. The fact that I just mentioned–– the earlier panel was called Open Science; the possibility for scientific collaboration or collaboration more generally in academia, whether it's humanities or social science collaboration––it's just it's a very different world we live in. And so that's something we're going to be grappling with, I think, for years to come. And so the Institute is responding to that and and part of that Asia in Action series where we had a whole bunch of events under the COVID-19 pandemic umbrella, is meant to respond to these challenges that I think will be with us for a long time.

 

Luu: Yeah, I really I didn't think about the repercussions in terms of scholarly research.

 

Lean: It really impacts scholarly research. And topically too, right? I mentioned Nick Bartlett, who is a medical anthropologist, and he, along with some of the contemporary China scholars, including Qin Gao, who does social work, and others, really responded quickly in response to COVID-19 from a medical and social perspective. They had an array of speakers come to talk about China's policy on COVID containment, which continues controversially to today. They looked at the impact on elderly care in Flushing [in Queens, New York] as a result of COVID and the anti-Asian hate rate that emerges, because of COVID, against Asian populations in the United States. That's also been a huge theme that the Institute has been grappling with through programming and academic work. And we support those inquiries avidly, because they're they're so important and so relevant and timely.

 

LuuL I mean, kind of similar to how COVID was this broader societal event that we all experienced, I'm curious, since starting in 2014, were there broader events in society or even at Columbia, the University that impacted how you thought about being a director, impacted the Weatherhead?

 

Lean: Yeah. I think I've mentioned several of them. So in general, even prior to my start, the community––actually prior to COVID––Columbia was this incredibly global cosmopolitan university. And much more increasingly. When I was in college it was the 1980s; it was not nearly as global. And part of that globalization across universities, across American academia has been courting Asians and especially Chinese students. Obviously, that has huge ramifications, because China had become this 21st century world power and Chinese families wanted to send their kids out to be educated abroad. That meant that our classrooms––those of us who teach Asia––our classrooms, suddenly looked very different. There are far more Asian faces than they'd ever been in the past, but that also meant that what we write about––we have to kind of think about how we understand Asia not as this kind of "us versus them" mentality that came out of the Cold War, but think about global connections. And so this theme of globalizing Asia, which so informed my predecessor, but myself as well, [drove us] as we direct this huge institute that's a product of the Cold War, into the 21st century. That's one example of how the larger world impacts and shapes the production of knowledge, but also university institutions. How we institutionalize knowledge, right? How do we make a regional institute born of the Cold War a new 21st century institute?

When I first took over, it was kind of really continuing this kind of understanding of what "Global Asia" meant. Now, I think we have new challenges. It's a period of illiberalism globally, in part because of the pandemic. But even prior to the pandemic with the rise of all these authoritarian leaders, Xi Jinping––I mean, Trump himself, right? In the Philippines, in Modi in India, I mean, there's this rise of global illiberalism that is, in a weird way, a response to the opening up of the world under the Obama administration. And prior to that, I mean, there's far more complexity behind this trend of illiberalism. But I think that's something that we have to––that, along with the pandemic, impacts the understanding of Asia. Those are kind of some of the concerns, I think, that we're going to have to deal with topically, academically, but also in terms of what it means to be a scholar or a student. It's now much harder for our students to get here, or for them to go back, for that matter. So students have to be here. I mean, that just impacts their lives here. They can't travel back and forth as freely as they once could. And that means issues of mental health on the part of students who are isolated from their families, to the question of whether some of our students who initially were going to return to China or to Asia to teach after they get their master's or PhDs––that might not be the case anymore––to the reality of far fewer students coming, whether it's from China or elsewhere in Asia. Because it just takes so much time––the quarantine and the travel restrictions. Many people now are kind of hesitant to come to the US because of anti-Asian hate that emerges out of this illiberalism.

 

I think we're at a turning point. And this is something I've witnessed over the course of my directorship. I came in one kind of globalism was at its height, and now the duopoly, the geopolitical environment and the larger kind of societal impact or the existential impact of COVID in the pandemic means that we're heading into a really new world. What does that mean for those of us who study Asia for the Institute? I think that's that's something we'll be exploring for the next couple of years, if not longer.

 

Luu: I mean, since you are transitioning out, what would you say are your hopes for where the Weatherhead is going?

 

Lean: Well, my hope is that the Weatherhead will continue to be a leader in pushing for the kind of optimism of globalism that I had initially stepped [into] when I stepped into the Weatherhead. That was the height of openness and cosmopolitanism. That sense of openness that allowed for intellectual exchange and collaboration around the world between us and our colleagues in Asia. But beyond, right? That or the openness that allowed for scientists of Chinese descent not to be persecuted by the Department of Justice, right? That kind of openness. I hope Weatherhead can continue to push for that in multiple ways, both in the sense of in the prosaic: making sure that we can fund our scholars and our students to get abroad, as difficult as it might be, provide them with a support, make sure that they can get through the quarantine and make sure that they have the research money to go do archival research. Or the flip side: bring the scholars from Europe, from Asia, right from the Ukraine, to come to the Weatherhead and to Columbia, and to engage in ongoing global conversations about the study of Asia and Asia's place in the world. And to do that academically. Continue pressing on the fronts that we've been developing. We have this fabulous move into Southeast Asia. We're doing exceedingly exciting work academically, but also a lot of fundraising to develop Southeast Asian studies on campus. Similarly, Modern Tibetan Studies––I hope we kind of move into Central Asia to think about the relationship on the edges of regional borders. Regional institutes before didn't really give you much space to understand those borderlands. Well, maybe we should take the lead and try to understand those borderlands, and work with Harriman Institute, which is the institute that covers Russia and Eastern Europe, but also should cover Central Asia and work with them to think about: How do we grow Central Asian studies on campus? I think these are the new exciting directions that had already started under my predecessor, and that I was able to really kind of push forward with gusto when I first started. But I think those kinds of initiatives are only all the more important in this contemporary moment, which is a little bit more bleak. So we have to fight against the rise of illiberalism that is unfortunately characterizing a lot of parts of our world.

 

Luu: What advice do you have for the next director?

 

Lean: Well, the next director is great, Hang Nguyen, and she's working already. She's been here only for five or six years. And she has hit the ground running in terms of working with the Weatherhead to develop concretely the Vietnam initiative. She and John Phan have really built a wonderful and vibrant, if small, program on Vietnamese studies. But she just has tremendous energy and enthusiasm and is already spearheading, for example, a fundraising trip to Vietnam this summer in order to talk to alums and friends in Vietnam who might be interested in helping us build Vietnamese Studies, possibly build a center for the study of Vietnam, or even more ambitiously, the study of Southeast Asia. So I think she's in a perfect position to do exactly what I was talking about before, which is ensuring that Weatherhead is at the forefront of defending a very global and open view of not just Asia, but of collaboration and exchange in our world that is both academic and institutional. And that's really kind of crucial for this historic moment where things are actually pretty bleak. But I think Hang has the right personality and so much energy. And she's going to be, I think, a wonderful predecessor. Or not––you know, someone who's following me [laughs]. She'll be a wonderful next director, yeah.

 

Luu: I think we're winding down here. I want to make sure that I ask all the different questions.

Was there any other topic that we didn't cover that you want to talk about?

 

Lean: Well, one thing I will say I was happy to have under my directorship was that the Weatherhead was able to celebrate its 70th year anniversary. That was a year where we could really celebrate. As I said, why Weatherhead has been such a leading institute on campus is in part because of those who preceded me, who had the vision, the pioneering outlook to build Asian studies and the Institute, and to promote the importance of understanding Asia in the late 20th century and into the 21st century. But the anniversary also allowed us to showcase the new directions. This is not an institute that is stuck in the past. It was actually really a celebration of the pioneering past, but also the orientation towards the future, which we've discussed in so many ways. One that allows such a huge institute to be quite nimble, to respond to unique historical moments, whether it's one where globalism and the world is quite open and cosmopolitan––that we had experienced maybe in 2014 when I first started––to this contemporary moment where things seem to be closing off. But I think we should we should fight against that. And I think that ability to keep nimble––I think we celebrated that at the 70th year anniversary. One of the reasons why Weatherhead––[why] we could celebrate its longevity––is precisely because it's an institute that evolves. It changes, it rises to the moment in terms of understanding Asia, Asia in the world.

 

Luu: Was that a theme that you made sure that New Directions designed?

 

Lean: We were really celebrating New Directions in the 70th anniversary. It was a yearlong anniversary celebration. And we did all kinds of events, including a huge party to celebrate the Weatherhead. That was a fun part, but we also had really wonderful programming and we kicked off the Vietnamese initiative that year. Hang Nguyen and John Phan had a fantastic conference on Sino-Vietnamese relations through time. That was a huge event and conference that marked the arrival of the Vietnamese initiative. That was an example of the New Directions. We started to think about Asia in Action. We had the Reporting Asia series. We launched that that year too, thinking about how academia can meet the real world. And that series was kind of an example of that. Those two come to mind. There are a whole host of events. I can't remember all of them. But, you know, I think it's a good time. [The] 70th anniversary was, was celebrating the initial transition that I witnessed under my first few years as a director. But I think we're making another transition now as I move out of the directorship and Hang Nguyen takes over––and it's another very important transition––one that has to respond to the historical moment. But I have great faith that the 75th anniversary will be celebrating the Weatherhead for its ability to respond to the occasion.

 

Luu: I think those are all the different again questions and topics. Anything else? 

 

Lean: No, I think we covered the main themes. I mean, there's so many events and programs.

 

Luu: What were some of your favorites that stick with you?

 

Lean: From big to small. Some of the big events included the Vietnamese initiative because it launched a new program. I'm also a big fan of some of the ecotourism that Modern Tibetan Studies––Modern Tibetan Studies has a long history at the Weatherhead. It was, I think, launched over 20 years ago. But during my tenure as director, there was a real shift in the leadership––under the former leader, it was also very vibrant, but with a new leader, Gray Tuttle, the faculty advisor––he's worked with several excellent academic coordinators and staff members to run Modern Tibetan Studies in the past few years. And they're really taking the Modern Tibetan Studies Program in new directions. This is what I do very much like about the Weatherhead in general. It's very entrepreneurial. We spend a lot of time, both faculty as well as research scholars who we bring on board, to find ways to engage in fundraising, to secure soft money, to support all kinds of initiatives. What the Modern Tibetan Studies Program has done is use a State Department grant to support efforts in ecotourism in Tibet. It's related to Asia in Action; thinking about how academic expertise can meet real-life situations. I love that particular theme that's associated with Modern Tibetan Studies.

The Xu Bing event will stay with me––the Phoenix one. But other small, more modest things. There was a series on material culture that kind of drew together the expertise of a lot of scholars on campus who all happened to be thinking about doing scholarship in new ways, including using material objects as the source of their analysis. This is moving beyond art history. These were historians, these were lit scholars who traditionally use text. So this is more of an academic kind of event. But it was a great series that––we brought some of our experts on campus to talk about new ways in which you can study Chinese history from the perspective of the bound foot. This is my colleague, Dorothy Ko, and she is really innovative in terms of material culture work. And then my own interest has been bringing history of science and technology to the study of Asia. This is also a growing field in general––in thinking about science critically, the politics of science, the environmental costs of technological development. These are questions that are very, very important in understanding how the modern world has been made, why science has long been celebrated, and why the celebration has sometimes been problematic, especially as we enter the 21st century where we have so many constraints––or not constraints, but real issues with climate, environment [as] a result of industrialization that comes out of science. So history of science has been a really interesting field and I've been quite invested in promoting the study of science and society in Asia. There have been a whole host of fabulous conferences, some of which I ran, but some of which my graduate students ran, including looking at kind of the exchange of scientific exchange between Eastern Europe and China in the Cold War. And the poster is featured right here. It's called "Global Search Circuits of the Expertize and the Making of the Post 1945 World." But that's an example where I worked with colleagues of mine who are in the Harriman Institute and we brought together scholars who usually don't speak to each other because one is a specialist in Eastern Europe, in Poland, and one is a specialist in South Korea or North Korea or China. And we brought them all together and we talked about these real connections during the Cold War between what we call the Global East between Eastern Europe and East Asia, but specifically the socialist world. Right. And that generated a lot of new kinds of collaborations and a lot of exchange that I think is really sort of characteristic of what I love about this institute. The ability to really engage in academic exchange and cross borders in all ways. 

 

Luu: I feel like that really is showing in the different ways you talk about here.

 

Lean: Yeah, you cross disciplines, you cross schools, you cross borders both in the sense of being at Columbia, but then traveling abroad––and trying to ensure that that ability to cross borders and keep things open is something that I think this institute should do. It shouldn't close off, right? And shouldn't be siloed. We should fight for that ability to have open exchange. Both here, institutionally, and also worldwide.

 

Luu: Fingers crossed, we'll have to see.

 

Lean: Fingers crossed. You have to be optimistic, right? We have to be optimistic.

 

Luu: Well, if there is nothing else you want to chat about.

 

Lean: No, I think that's it. I think I covered everything.