FLUID IRON

STATE FORMATION IN SOUTHEAST

ASIA by Tony Day

(BOOK REVIEW)

SUBMITTED BY:

Rose Elaine D. Marquez

Reiko C. Kuroda

TE204

CHAPTER 1
 Tony Day argues that culture must be replace to the study of Southeast Asian
history so that the state and historical developments in the region can be returned to
their own "alternative" historical contexts. Every continent or countries has its own
cultural practice that amazes me. I agree of Foucault said that state is super structural
in relation of the whole because we people who lives in a state build and cooperate for
the betterment of our society and environment in and out. For me Tony Day's Fluid Iron
is a case that over bit of allocation on the way of state arrangement in Southeast Asia. It
is very interesting studying the state in Southeast Asia because of the histories and
cultures we adopt. It is likewise a reflection on how control functions, in any case, and
how it has been sorted out by and large, not similarly as found in symbols of
progressive Southeast Asian states. My instinct is that this book will be consider
common, definitely in light of the fact that it has such a great amount to state to such a
large number of individuals who lives here. Day begins off his discourse with an
examination of a few critical masterminds on the way of state arrangement, and he
sincerely tries to change the basics he does. He reveals to us that Weber is vital on the
grounds that his thoughts on honest to goodness constituted specialist, sound
administration, appeal, and the practice of control over the method for brutality are still
so present in how researchers consider states. Marx gets his broadcast appointment as
well, as Day stresses that such Marxian ideas as states serving the interests of
exclusive classes and indeed, even the (apparently long-back exposed) idea of an
"Asiatic method of creation" are still amazed with us. In the event that this is a portion of
the calculated things that we drag around with us in contemplating states, then Foucault
has requested that we be more present day and basic in our approach. Day discloses to
us that for Foucault, states basically are relations of control: power is really created and
tackled through clash, battles, and unending procedures of moving because of the wars
we had way back then. Despite the fact that the creator sees justify in every one of the
three of these foundational definition of the beginning of the states, he is worried about
when all is said in done, they engender a qualification between conventional, non-
Western, and social structures on the one hand, and cutting edge, Western, called
"balanced" structures on the other. And we should be accepting the difference about the
two different continents especially the culture practice, habits and behaviors. Much of
the book that takes after this underlying definition is an aim to twist that double, which
Day says generally mess the way of state development continuously what's more.
 CHAPTER 2

Starting this chapter, He examined how kinship, families, and gender as a

necessary involved and affected by the state formation. Kinship and families, which the
consisting of many different agents that help to justify in more details about between the
Southeast Asians states that havent examined before and explain its similarities. One
of the most important aspects in the familyism of Southeast Asia, which there are three
have been differentiated in the book about the state formations: to feminize,
masculinize, and lastly is the infantilize. Also, kinship and gender, which suggested
that, should act upon taking in order in the region.

Denoting a system of government or the patriarchal dynastic families of Europe

should not call, for Southeast Asian states can be called familial state.

Having a dress code, for example in Thailand (which there are dress regulations
for their modern, for men expected to wear hats, shoes and socks, etc. and for ladies
expected to wear hats, skirts, blouses covering the shoulders, etc.) which compliance
with a model of Southeast Asian colonial state formation. Localizing outside in
Southeast Asia, which has been made and acted out in the manner to the inclusion the
practices through a kind of culture cross-dressing and the foreign ideas, which
automatically binds.

One of the most important dimensions is the states in the region have been
formed, which helps out to give an outline of the history of kinship networks and
gendered powers in Southeast Asia.
 CHAPTER 3

To begin this chapter, Southeast Asian state is called cosmological that has a
close similarity between the universe and the world of me, with state that acquires
power with which to dominate space, time and social relations. The last paragraph of
this chapter is about why freedom is the most extreme state of invulnerability in the
possibility of suffering harm country, the world rather.

First part, it talks about the question of the cosmological form of the Southeast
Asia state, which has been continuously examining and understanding in studies of
traditional Southeast Asia state formulations. The origins of colonial domination that
holds back from current discourses into the Southeast Asia or gender in the power of
concept of power relations are still want to be understood. It was mentioned in the book
that Southeast Asian studies such questions that have not asked. Those of the
Javanese or with those alternative models to the theater state, which concerned with
indigenous concept of power. The statement mentioned a while ago is one of the
Historical Literatures, which intentionally talks about questions of power. Also, he
examined Southeast Asia as cosmologies, especially as observed through the windows
of customary writing and workmanship.

It was stated in the book that each state has its regime of truth, its general
politics of truth, showing the capacity to develop that opposing truths, which functions as
true, recognizes true and false statements, the acquisition of truth, and what counts as
true. The formation of regimes of truth in the book talks about the universalization of
knowledge of several Southeast Asian state formations.

Day said that there are three forms of knowledge in the condition connected with
forming the setting of networks of agents, ideas and powers relations in Southeast Asia,
which should be thought more about the common features and hybrid combinations.

The knowledge about invulnerability is the most important form of knowledge.

Southeast Asians brings powerful decisively affects the outcome of sustaining the
formation of states, like Nicola Tannenbaums study of tattoos (the invulnerability, and
power that sketches the kind of protection among the San in Thailand).
 It is getting more hybrid, as the book examine the forms of modern knowledge in
Southeast Asia in a pure manner. To be able to make the concept of freedom to new
forms of knowledge is through articulating hybrid concepts, which older conception of
cooperated safety mix with newer thought as to a possible course of risk-taking
individual action and freedom in search of states of well being, because freedom still
makes sense in modern Southeast Asia.
 CHAPTER 4

The perverse irrationality and curious non-functionality of bureaucratic state

organization in modern Southeast Asia, which have been revealed by the models of
modern Southeast Asian state formation such as the bureaucratic polity. It also
represents the institutionalization of a certain myth of modernity or serves the interests
of elites and myths rather than modernity since the bureaucratic polity is an
antidemocratic and a nonmodernizing,

Modernity which involve a radical break as an inevitable part of the past, which is
one of the most much needing effort to accomplish in unraveling the bureaucratic which
difficult to understand in Southeast Asia. It was mentioned that scholarship on modern
bureaucracy in other parts of the world is helpful because it challenges the assumption.

Rational rules could both strengthen values of loyalty and devotion, like the
example of 19th and 2th century Vietnam, early Java, and 19 th and 20th century
Philippines, which expressed in an idiom of kinship that did not always cause individuals
to stick together with the families and the state. While if acted in the interest of the
family alone, it will be served as bureaucratic cohesion.

Repertoires, identifies a limited set of routines that are learned shared and acted
out through a relatively deliberate process of choice. In the historical development of a
bureaucratic repertoire, in the Javanese case, which still needs greater exact and
accurate about the insisting aspects and effects of the interaction of cultural and
transcultural forces, which turned out bureaucratic-state repertoire over time. The
transcultural, was misrepresents during western bureaucracy were introduced to
Southeast Asia also, which the modern rationalization gave a misleading history of
Southeast Asian state. The standard chronology of Southeast Asian History, which
made bureaucratic practices that it, cannot be arranged in some different ways.su

Bureaucratic offices in premodern Southeast Asia was said to be important, for a

reason that what goes on inside Southeast Asian bureaucratic repertoires is wealth;
also, for a reason that they grant both high status and access to wealth. Which the
status, it helps provide access for extended families to wealth and immorality), that
former can able to be done through individual religious devotionalism and the last
through commerce in the transgenerational.

Favored some, but not all kinds of rationalities over others and compelled certain
practices, but still, Rituals and bureaucracy still havent successfully bring out them.
Summarizing all, it was stated that it can be achieved through strength that has been
tried by Southeast Asian; the struggle for status and wealth, not authoritatively decided
powers.
 CHAPTER 5

This chapter is all about how government and military forces stick together and
how to win the wars, also how to get a state. His argument all through is relative, and
his cases move effortlessly crosswise over topographies and, without confusion, even
crosswise over eras, so he shows actually scores of occurrences to test his
speculations. Day needs to demonstrate that culture and governmental issues can't in
certainty be effortlessly isolated and that customary and present day types of this
transaction are reflections of each other in many shapes, pretenses, and structures. The
time of war Southeast Asian were the one who attacks the western countries, Asians
didnt think of the peoples of their state. Where they got under populated because of
attacking and sacrificing for their state. It is cruel for me to know that western countries
think that we were violent and loves to attack, the government and military was very
selfish that they didnt think the rights of every people. But I look up to those who got in
to war for the loyalty and love for their family and the state.
 CONCLUSION

The conclusion states about the modern, traditional and other arguments about
the states in Southeast Asia. This is truly Day's fundamental commitment to the open
deliberation on statecraft, I think its more aware that, contemplated recommendation
that we are concern to look past simple pairs in clarifying the way of lead and ought to
see coherencies and also breaks as meaningful of the unpredictability of force. As I read
the conclusion they state that Southeast Asia is incongruous, which means
inappropriate, for me it is not a bizarre state because we have unity and we can change
it step by step. We The creator took the words "liquid iron" in his title from a Dayak
enchantment spell since it recommended to him the idea of sharing quality. At the end of
the book he said that we should continuing develop and build a better state, and also to
coup with new ideas or sharing knowledge to others. But we should not forget our
human culture practices of our country and respect the other states as they respect
ours. Honestly it was difficult to read it but I learned many things about what they
studied and arguments about the Southeast Asia.