The ASEAN Studies as a field of academic discipline is bound to unearth an unimaginable

amount of knowledge awaiting in this part of the world. ASEANology, as the comprehensive and
systematic study on the affairs of ASEAN, shall provide us the breadth and depth of the many aspects of
our region and of our respective states. Using the term ASEANology to pertain to the academic pursuits
in the South East Asia and the ASEAN as a regional bloc is both easily identifiable and practical so as not
to confuse it with the term Asian studies. As the study of ASEAN is expected to cover numerous
academic disciplines across involved countries, it is only rightful to be accorded with a specific and
identifiable term for its field of study. Hence, we use the term ASEANology.

One of the ways of understanding the dynamics in the South East Asian region is the Meta-
Nation State Paradigm introduced by Dr. Sylvano D. Mahiwo. Dr. Mahiwo asserted that as the
phenomenon of globalization becomes inevitable, the nation-states adapt to certain schemes in the
international relations to keep up with the global trends and to provide better living conditions for its
people. The paradigm is divided into three layers of interfaces which describe the amount and depth of
interaction occurring, namely: the Nation-State Strata, the Intra-Nation Strata, and the Supra-Nation
Strata.

The Nation-State Strata is a layer in the Meta-Nation Paradigm in which states in the South East
Asian region interact among each other. This becomes the avenue for sovereign nations to forward their
interests and goals as entities bound to its respective citizens. Long before the Association of South East
Asian Nations came to existence, nation-states have fostered the necessity to communicate and interact
with each other as it is more advantageous in many levels rather than closing their borders to the world.
Also, with the truth that states are increasingly confronted by collective dilemma, they are pressured to
act together towards resolving such issues which are particularly taxing because they confound even the
most powerful states when acting alone. Hence, the emergence of the two other strata in the meta-
nation paradigm.

The Intra-Nation State Strata is another component in the Meta-Nation paradigm which allows
sub-state components to interact among each other while not having to encroach each other state’s
sovereignty. This stratum only solidifies the depth of interaction among people across countries who
continue to widen their horizons and networks. This also becomes useful to an easier exchange of best
practices among local communities as communication is more direct and personal than having to course
it through the prerogative of the state instrumentalities.

On the other hand, the Supra-Nation State Strata expands the reach of a particular nation-state
as it becomes a part of a larger entity in the international community. Nation-states may now move as
regional blocs or economic groups to forward their motivations as one. The supra-nation state interface
provides the necessary and appropriate avenue, especially to relatively smaller states, to raise global
issues and concerns, and provide immediate and effective solutions beneficial to everyone. Further, it
also includes non-governmental institutions to participate in such exchanges and to provide neutral
perspectives in helping solve collective dilemmas.

While these layers of the Meta-Nation State Paradigm provide explanation, and to some extent
justification, of the interactions occurring between nation-states, this should not limit researchers and
interest groups to explore other paradigms to approach ASEAN studies. Recently, an emerging
methodology is being advanced by Taiwanese scholar Chen Kuan-Hsing known as “Asia as Method”.
Chen (2010) asserts the “Asia as Method” as “inter-referencing” of social-historical experiences and
meanings in Asian contexts as a methodology to build alternate social scientific vocabularies and
categories.1 This paradigm aims to produce comparative studies of the different Asian contexts that
capture analytical registers, social categories and meanings that depart from the Western contexts.
Chen’s argument is that while history, meanings and analytical categories in Asian societies may
originate from and are inevitably interconnected to the West, the understanding of the Oriental context
needs to start with the deduction of the West. This paradigm can also be applied to the study of the
ASEAN as it aims to explore the social and historical roots of the Asian context vis-à-vis the influences of
the West. With cultural diversity being one of the attributes of the communities in the South East Asian
region, this paradigm can help raise the level of genuine understanding of the different cultural contexts
in ASEAN and promote unity among its member-states.

1
Chen, Kuan-Hsing. 2010. Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press