Reproduced from Southeast Asian Studies: Debates and New Directions edited by Cynthia Chou and Vincent Houben (Singapare: Institula of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006). This version wes obleined electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is nol infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced williut the prior pemhigsion of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Individual articles are available at < htlpr bookshop. iseas.edusy > SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES pebates and New DirectionsThe International Insticute for Asian suudied BAS) is a postdoceoral research centre based in Leiden and Amsterdam, the Nethégands. Irs main objective is to encourage the study of Asia and co promote national atid inrernational co-operation in this field. The geographical scope of the Insticuse South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Central Asia, The insimuve focuses en.she humanities and che social sciences and, where relevant, on their imeraction with other sceinces. The Inetitute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) was established as an ausonomous organization in 1968. It is a regional research centre dedicated to the study of socio- political, securicy and economic trends and developments in Southeast Asia and its wider geostraregic and economic environment. The Insticure’s research programames ate the Regional Economic Studies (RES, including ASEAN and APEC), Regional Strategic and Political Smudies (RSPS), and Regional Social. and Cultural Studies (RSCS). ISEAS Publications, an established academic press, has issued more than 1,000 books and journals. Ic is the largest scholarly publisher of research abou Southeasc Asia from within che region. ISEAS Publications works with many other academic and trade publishers and distributors to disseminate imporcant research and analyses from and about Southeast Asia to the rest of che warld.IIAS / ISEAS Series on Asia SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES pebates and WwW Directions EDITED bY CYNTHIA CHOU ano VINCENT HOUBENFirst published in Singapore in 2006 by Institute of Southeast Asian Seudies 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Pasir Panjang Singapore 119614 E-mait: publish @iseas.edu.sg Website I INTRODUCTION Cynthia Chou and Vincent Houben Southeast Asian studies today is being reconfigured. Its intellectual landscape has been grafted with many new and exciting developments over the last century. Publications on the region from various disciplines offering different theoretical perspectives have grown by volumes, Many of these works contain berter-informed ethnographic content and reflect much greater theoretical sophistication. Southeast Asian studies have also been an epicentre for theoretical knowledge production, It has made crucial contributions with analytical categories such as “agricultural involution”, “thick description”, “theatre state”, “imagined communities”, “galactic polity”, “geobody”, “weapons of the weak” and “moral economy”, all of which have become key concepts in the social sciences. Yet, the status of Southeast Asian studies today varies within different settings around the world. On che one hand, the field of study is flourishing in some parts of the world, yet ironically it is seemingly declining in other locations, In many institutions actoss the globe, the field of study is prone to intense debate. It is promoted as an emerging and important study programme in some areas, yet it is also anxiously talked about in many other quarters as a “small and endangered subject”. In the past few years, the structural underpinnings of this field of study have been challenged by questions such as, “What is the relevance of the area studies approach to Southeast Asia?”, “Does it not simply focus on specific issues that only serve to foster ideological and theoretical particularism?”, “Is there utility in 12 Gjathia Chow and Vincent Hauben maintaining an institutional structure to support an area studies programme?”, and “What is the economic rationale of having such a costly area studies programme that has countless regional languages and seven national languages drawn from four distinct families?” In Southeast Asia, new programmes of Southeast Asian studies have been established. New positions have been created and a spirit of optimism prevails. National policymakers recognize the need for acquiring solid knowledge about the region itself. This awareness has been fuelled by urgent social, political, and economic demands. Things of great magnitude are happening in the region itself. International attention has been transfixed on the social, political, economic, and technological developments in the region. The Internet and e-mail revolution has enabled one and all within and beyond the region to communicate with each other on a daily basis. The speed and volume of news and information flowing in and out of the area have been phenomenal. In the aftermath of the Cold War, technological advances as well as che easing of earlier political and economic barriers have enabled the region to increase its global economic and culeural networks. Simultaneous to such moves are tremendous parallel domestic social, political, and economic developments. Upheavals and dislocations have also arisen in the course of adjustment to this international integration. Tncernational excitement has been aroused over the newly open political landscape and path-breaking collective “people's power” in the region. The unimaginable has become a teality. From Cambodia, the Philippines, Indonesia to East Timor, the world has witnessed processes of democratization never thought possible before. This is not to say chat all is well for the region and that no problems exists. Rather, it is the case that national policymakers of che region have pinpointed chat it is the very mission of “Southeast Asian studies” to address these outstanding problems. In religion and culture, the upsurge and penetration of global forces from fundamentalist Islam and terrorism have given rise to as yet incompletely understood trends which are of domestic as well as international concern. The outbreak of SARS and bird flu along with deforestation and the recurrent regional “haze” have posed massive public health and often inter-related environmental problems of global magnitude, Political leaders and ordinary people from all over the world, shaken by the swncmi, are making Herculean attempts to rebuild all tha have been washed away. What has sometimes been called “The Asian catastrophe” has been a global calamity coo, ‘These current events, transitions, and transformations in the region form a laboratory for articulating new concepts for the understanding of che dynamism of the area with relevance also for the rest of the world, Global andInsrodiection 3 regional developments such as these have raised the profile of the region, bringing it to the attention of broad public and professional audiences around the world. In concrase, faculty advertisements for Southeast Asianists in the Wesc, particularly in Europe, are fewer nowadays. There has, in the past few years, been a drastic loss of cenured positions dedicated to Southeast Asian studies. The number of replacement positions has also been dismal. Once the incumbenes retire and if replacements are hired ac all, it is highly likely thac the positions will be downgraded from tenure to junior-level positions. Needless to say, there are insurmountable difficulties in maintaining centres of Southeast Asian studies when retiring scholars are not replaced at all Already, problems in the transition from one generation to another, are occurring in some institutions, The main problem is the generation gap berween the senior scholars recruited in the 1970s and the present upcoming group — the field is very weak in the forty co fifty-five year age groups. Serious budget cuts also result in a serious loss of expertise. Programmes that are maintained by only one- ox two-full time staff members face the impossibility of being able to offer comprehensive courses covering a wide range of chemes. Te is clear that this is a cause for major concern for the future. ‘Yet another challenge is that of the dwindling investment of resources inco this field of study. The problem is especially acute for language instruction. Universities, even those with well-established programmes are very reluctant to support instruction in less commonly taught languages. Enrolments and the number of students who successfully graduate from the courses are deemed always to be insufficient for the programmes to be cost- effective. Due to the overall lack of financial resources, it is often the case that budgets are also lacking for research in distant locations. This inevitably poses hurdles for scholars to undertake fieldwork and to maintain their linguistic skills. ‘With these new developments in Southeast Asian studies, ic is thus timely that we provoke conversations among the practitioners of the field of Southeast Asian studies to think aboue their area of study and its place in the international academy. In view of the prevailing intense debate on the merits and deficiencies, as well as the relevance and irrelevance, of che area studies-approach to Southeast Asia, let us begin our discussions with owo questions: “Which directions should we undertake co create an essential research agenda for Southeast Asian studies in the coming period, say, the first half of this century?”, and “Is there a ‘right’ approach to this field of study?” It is worth commencing our deliberations by tracing and asscasing the development of Southeast Asian studies since its inception in the 1950s.4 Gynthia Choe and Vincent Houben DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE 1950s 1950s; UncteaR BOUNDARIES Southeast Asian studies programmes have evolved from disparate origins. Historically, it arose out of colonial interests wanting to assert their imperial influence in che Far East. Southeast Asian scudies in itself was not a full- fledged programme because of its unclear boundaries. The states of Southeast Asia were but a part of “Greater India”, “South of China’, or in the case of Vietnam, the “smaller dragon”. It was thus under the umbrella of Oriental studies thar the study of ehe region was approached by way of reading piecemeal accounts and reflections of scholar-administratots, missionaries, and travellers. The French were singularly focused on Indochina, while the British concentrated on Malaya and Burma, and the Dutch on the Indies. Orientalist paradigms dominated the writings of the colonialists and their main incerest centred on how Western concepts could be applied in Far Eastern cultures and societies, Insticutions of Oriental Studies during this period were set up to mect the practical needs of che colonialists and much emphasis rested on language training to meet the need for expertise in the relevant vernacular languages of the colonies. The Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes in Paris, presently known as INALCO, was founded in 1795. In 1916 and che late nineteenth cencury, the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and Leiden University in the Netherlands inaugurated their own programmes. Beyond the Western world, Japan too had established the Tokyo University’s Department of Oriental History during the Meiji period, the Tokyo School of Foreign Languages now known as the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies in 1899 and the Toyo Bunko in 1924.! 1950s To Earty 1960s: Power of AREA STUDIES Southeast Asian studies per se finally took on a more coherent form and scholarly approach when the belief in the power of area studies emanated in the 1950s, It cook the military campaigns of World War I and the politics of the Cold. War to jerk governments and funding bodies to establish centres for Southeast Asian studies. Although there was expressed interest to invest in scholarship and to develop a more scholarly approach to studying the region, the one important purpose, that of meeting national needs, remained high on the criteria list for the setting up of this branch of area studies. In an overview of the developments in the United Kingdom, Victor King points to three crucial government-initiated reports, namely the ScarbroughIntroduction 5 Report (1947), the Hayter Report (1961), and the Parker Report (1986) which collectively suggested the necessity of “the practical application of area studies programmes” and “the importance of a base of scholarship in area studies” in order to avoid problems deriving from lofty Euro-centric or British-centric views of the world.? Subsequent to the reports, and in particular the Hayter Report, a Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hall and another at the University of Kent were set up in 1962 and 1978 respectively.’ The post-Hayter period from the early 1960s to the lace 1970s was indeed Britain's “Golden Age of Area Studies”.4 The 1950s were also the high point for the development of Southeast Asian studies in the United Seates. Lauriston Sharp has been acknowledged as the man who grasped the need for the study of the region in the Uniced States, Through his great efforts and leadership, a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation was obtained for the founding of the Southeast Asia Scudies Programme at Cornell University in 1950, Simultaneously, another grant was made available to Yale for the very same purpose. The idea was “officially to promote a healthy competition but also to pre-empt any charge of partiality”.> By the end of the decade, Cornell successfully produced the ficst generation of Southeast Asian area specialists. Like the British, ic was in the name of national interest that American federal funds were made available co promote Southeast Asian studies. America had begun to see its role in global politics and security and wanted. to locate itself strategically in the region. Thus, in che era of the firse and second Indochina wars, between the late 1950s and the carly 1970s, the U.S, federal government, foundations, and universities coalesced to institutionalize a network of study programmes about the region at various universities such as Michigan, Northern Illinois, and Wisconsin-Madison. Te was a joint endeavour whereby: [tlhe federal government through the National Defence Education Act, funded the teaching of Southeast Asian languages ~ a difficult, costly venture, Foundations gave grants to fund programmes and. fieldwork for individual scholars, Universities, notably Michigan, matched these external funds with considerable internal resources to build the programmatic foundations for arca studies — library collections, language classes, and tenured faculty. For geographical and political reasons, Australia too embarked on an ambitious plan of establishing centres of Southeast Asian studies. In Canberra, the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies and che Faculty of Asian Studies — both of the Australian National University — were set up in 19476 Cynthia Chose and Vincent Houben and 1950 respectively. In the mid-1960s, a Centre of Southeast Asian Studies was put into place at Monash University in Melbourne! It is no exaggeration to say chat soon after, there came to be “a greater concentration of Southeast Asian scholarship and university teaching in Australia than in any country outside the region”. Further developments were also taking place in Japan. The Inscituce for Developing Economies was set up in 1957, to be followed by the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies in Kyoto and the Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA) in the early 1960s? Mip-1960s To Mrp-1970s: Sire oF DisPLACEMENT Although all chrough the 1950s to the 1970s, energies and resources were poured into laying the foundations for this area study, the base was weak. There were already signs by the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s thar “Southeast Asian Studies was not so much a place as a site of displacement”. People opting for this field of study were doing so not so much for invested interests in the scholarship of the region, as for the strong emotions of that time to expand notions of freedom and justice. This was at a time of the traumas of decolonization in the Third World, revolutions in Indonesia, and uprisings in the Philippines and Thailand. The Vietnam War years had an “enormously complex and contradictory impact upon the Southeast Asian field”. The furor over Vietnam aceracted graduate students who wanted to correct the evils of the world. The chaos of anti-war demonstrations that were often associated with staff and students of this area study all but began to make “university administrators wary of funding the study of this region.”!? With waves of decolonization escalating across Southeast Asia, the funding of the study of the region declined drastically in Europe as the need to train colonial officers for the region evaporated. It is thus paradoxical chat “as Southeast Asia became more established, both as a field of study and as a geopolitical and economic region, its institutionalization of Southeast Asian studies ha[d] also come into crisis.” Mip-1970s To Mip-1980s: STAGNATION AND REPRESSION By the post-war decade of 1975 to 1985, the field of Southeast Asian studies in the Western world went into the doldrums, Academic recessions in the 1970s had a severe impact on this field of study, To worsen matcers, ‘Western governments ne longer saw this area study as serving any immediate national need, so it was either stagnated or repressed. The Americans hadInsrodiection 7 been defeated in Vietnam and they simply wanted to forget this entire episode of history. There was a huge decline in political science participation in this field of study. Things were progressing no better in Britain. Funding dropped drastically and so centres either saw a decline in staff members or were simply closed down. What is noteworthy here is that it was precisely the withdrawal of che American forces from Vietnam in 1973, and the communist victories throughout Indochina in 1975 chat accentuated the ASEAN governments? interest vo strengthen their own national foreign policies as well as to nurture self-reliance and promote regional cooperation. To achieve this, they realized that solid knowledge of the region was necessary. Therefore, in 1976 che decision was reached at the first ASEAN Summit Meeting to promote Southeast Asian Studies in che region itself.'* This was in contradistinction to the dip in this field of study in the ‘West, Programmes and centres were swiftly created to satisfy a variety of needs, The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore, established in 1971, had become a major mecting point for Southeast Asianists, as well as the leading publishing house for Southeast Asian studies, buc its focus was on the research rather than on the teaching of the region. Hence in 1976, Malaysia kicked off che first inter-disciplinary Southeast Asian studies programme in the region at the University of Malaya.!? Three years earlier, an Institute foc Southeast Asian Studies within the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences with a narrower focus on Laos and Cambodia had been set up in Hanci.!¢ Lae 1980s: Revival Tn the late 1980s, Southeast Asian studies enjoyed a spate of revival. AFfordable air passage fares now paved the way for more direct contact with the region and its people. This stimulated interest in going co the region as well as knowing more about it. Other immense technological advances such as the facsimile, television, and telephone lines also enabled more communication lines with the region ta open. Nevertheless, it was the hyper-growth of che area during this period that bred an atmosphere of confidence and a sense that the region had defined itself. ASEAN seemed to have become more insticutionalized and to work towards melding the region into an effective entity:” Hordes of scholars and students from Europe to America and from Australia to Japan found a reason to study the region. Very quickly, Southeast Asian studies became one of the healthiest branches of area studies. This time, interest was focused largely on the debate over what constituted the essence8 Gjathia Chow and Vincent Houben of the economic dynamism of the region or if there were too many hidden social costs unaccounted for. Once again, governments outside the region directed their attention to this field of study because they recognized the opportunities that could be reaped from the region’s economic miracle. ‘Therefore, for national-policy and economic related reasons, research on che area was once more encouraged and. funds were provided. The study of Southeast Asia was rejuvenated due to increased research interests in post- colonial, Thitd World, and non-Western history. In the United States, the tripartite coalition of government, philanthropy, and individual university administrations began to rebuild the field by introducing more new programmes, The original network of north-eastern universities housing the area studies was expanded to the Midwest, down che Pacific Coast, and across to Hawaii to form a truly national network of Southeast Asian programmes. Likewise, Australian universities introduced mote centres, Throughout this period of revival, it was apparent chat while commendable progress was made in Vietnamese studies, the study of the Philippines, Laos, Burma, and even Malaysia did not appeal to many. The fields of anthropology and history scored remarkable success, but Southeast Asian literature attracted very few. 1990s: UNDER ATTACK Tn the 1990s, Southeast Asian studies came under attack again from several fronts. When the economic miracle of Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia dissipated in 1997, so did Southeast Asian studies. The burst of the economic miracle generated a fluery of analyses, but these were not always by scholars of the region. The field of study suffered from paradigm shifts within academia too. Supra-national bodies ranging from APEC to international non- governmental organizations and the growth of diasporic communities articulated new geopolitical formations. It seemingly became more relevant to speak of borderless worlds, and this impaired the significance of the region as @ unit of study. Similarly, the focus on globalization and transnationalism often led to diminished incerest in fine-grained area studies scholarship. Interest was turning to “shifting patterns of movement...rather than to the deliberation and action through which these new geographies were being produced”.'* The intellectual orientations and approaches adopted in post-colonial studies, cultural studies, and che study of global cultures had a further negative impact on Southeast Asian studies, especially inInsrodction 9 terms of the interest in language learning, In post-colonial studies, scholars were often more interested in the colonizers than the colonized. Rather than being in the field and learning the languages of the peoples of che region, practitioners of cultural studies were satisfied in critiquing scholarship on the region from afar, basing themselves upon mass media coverage and viewing films. The study of global cultures inspired some to observe the movernent of chings rather chan people. As a reconfiguration of the world seemed to be happening, the Area Studies committees of the American Social Science Research Council were decommissioned after twenty-four years of office and the following statement was released: Now free from che bi-polar perspective of the cold war and increasingly aware of che multiple migrations and intersections of people, ideas, institutions, technologies and comtodities, scholars are confronting the inadequacy of world ‘areas’ as bounded systems of social relations and cultural categories.” By the end of the decade, much uncertainty loomed over the funding for Southeast Asian studies in Western universities. Yet, we see history repeating itself here, As Southeast Asian studies suffered a decline in the Western world, the field of study continued on an upward curve in the region itself, In the early 1990s, the National University of Singapore established a multi-disciplinary Southeast Asian Studies programme. By the mid-1990s, teacher and student mobility chroughout the region to enrich language learning was launched via the inauguration of a Southeast Asian Studies Regional Exchange Programme.” 2000s: RECONFIGURATION Since che turn of the millennium, there has been much discussion and debate over the need to reconfigure this field of study in order to revitalize it. ‘Although there has after September 2001 been increased federal funding for Southeast Asian studies in the United States, interest in the region has been varying in Europe. For some, it has declined as the area has come to be viewed as a scene of social disorder and economic disarray. How lasting this adverse effect will be on the field remains to be seen. For others, these very issues have become the very reasons for the need to tevitalize the study of the area, Today, as it has been since inception, there has been litte if not no global congruity in the development of Southeast Asian studies, There are those who think that the field of study in Europe seems always to be lagging at least one10 Gjathia Chow and Vincent Hauben decade behind America, while there are others who see the study of the region as making more inroads in grounded knowledge in Europe. Ic is notable though, chat in the periods when interest and funding for Southeast Asian studies flagged in the West, it gained momentum in the region itself and grew from strength to strength elsewhere, for example, in Japan, and Singapore. "Today. Southeast Asian studies is more buoyant and well-supported in che region itself chan it has ever been. In this present and exciting phase of che reconfiguration of Southeast Asian scudies, how should we advance? NEW PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES Southeast Asian studies, as part of area studies in general, is undergoing great transformations. In view of the current worldwide conflicts and simultaneous processes of localization and globalization, this field of study has acquired a new practical and theoretical relevance for some, while there is a declining incerest in the region for others. Thus, there prevails different scenarios with regard co the status of Southeast Asian studies today. From our overview of the development of Southeast Asian studies since its inception in the 1950s, what are its strengths and how can we address its weaknesses? There is a widespread feeling amongst its practitioners that the area studies approach, as it was envisaged and implemented since the 1950s, has to be reconfigured. There are several reasons for the current debate on Southeast Asia as an object of scientific enquiry. From the Western perspective, the definition of Southeast Asia as a region has been problematic. One basic critique of area studies has been che questioning of the demarcation of distinct areas as such, with congruent cultural, linguistic, and geographical identities. Typical of the “critical” attitude of current scholars is the following quote by Kratoska, Raben, and. Schulte Nordholt in the recendy edited volume on Locating Southeast Asia, “[e] forts to define an entity to match the term ‘Southeast Asia have been inconclusive, and the term persists as little more chan a way to identify a certain portion of the earth’s surface.”*" To define Southeast Asia as a “region”, that is a social- cultural entity bound to a particular geographical space, seems indeed questionable, since its boundaries are unclear and diffused. The fact of che matter is that the concept of “Southeast Asia” is only one-and-a-half centuries old and its study only fifty years old, Southeast Asian studies is also thought to have lagged behind in che wider scientific landscape. Instead of being at the forefront of inter-disciplinary research and teaching, most area specialists operate within rather restrictedIntroduction ie niches. They are sometimes insufficiently aware of major debates in the disciplines (humanities and social sciences) and produce highly specialized knowledge that can only be accessed by a few specialists. The many different cultural-linguistic topics existing within the region require a lot of expertise, making informed generalizations difficult to attain for individual researchers. Over the last decades, there has been a horizontal expansion of regional knowledge and a shift from linguistic-literary topics to social-economic and cultural themes. At the same time, scholars have split chemselves up into three main geographic domains (Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam) and various subsidiary ones (Laos, Myanmar, Malaysia, and the Philippines), without taking much notice of the other Furthermore, the inverface between discipline and region has not been solved by the regional studies’ approach. Ifa geographical space is taken as the basis for organizing the acquisition of knowledge, what scientific angle should be taken? Theories and methods seem to belong co particular disciplines that consider one or more thematic fields as their main areas of focus. Place as a marker of differentiation plays only a minor role, and is often relegated to che exotic, yet ucterly annoying, category of “culture”. Up to the present day, che issue of how to organize the region as an entity superseding that of a subject matter viewed from a particular angle is a philosophical question that has not been answered satisfactorily. For those in Asia, however, the existence of a region called “Southeast Asia” has been becoming more and mote self-evident. The end of the Cald War has created a multilateral world in which supra-national regions have acquired new strategic importance. With the rise of ASEAN, a new and stronger regional identity has emerged with countries lying at the geographical perimeters of the region choosing not 10 be part of either India or China. ASEAN was reformed and expanded and now includes all ten nation-states of Southeast Asia, with as yet the exclusion of East Timos. The rise of China has made closer cooperation becween Southeast Asian countries necessary. To facilitate more productive relations with China, India, and Japan, closer cooperation between the Southeast Asian countries has also been necessary. Ina post-colonial setting, bilateral linkages between European countries and their former colonies have been becoming less relevant. At the same time, nation-states in Southeast Asia are no longer contested, although ac the periphery, major conflicts continue to prevail. ‘The combination of all these factors have established the need for Southeast Asian studies within the region. National governments in and close to che region have been convinced of the necessity to prioritize Southeast Asian studies within the study programmes of universities, So whereas Japan (Tokyo,12 Gathia Chow and Vincent Hauben Kyoto), China (Xiamen) and South Korea (Pusan) have well-established Southeast Asian teaching programmes, the same holds true for an increasing number of universities in the region itself. Apart from a full-blown Southeast Asian studies programme at the National University of Singapore, we also find Southeast Asian studies programmes at the University of Brunei, University of Malaya, Chulalongkorn Universiry, Thammasat Universicy, and che Vietnam National University. In other places, courses on Southeast Asia are part of Asian studies programmes (in Indonesia and the Philippines, for example) or appear within course-work far the social science disciplines and humanities. The Southeast Asian Studies Regional Exchange Program (SEASREP), established in 1994, not only promotes Southeast Asian studies as such, but also regional networking among area-specialists and students. On a global scale, the combination of these different perspectives, have not only provoked recurrent debate within Southeast Asian studies, but also the emergence of different patterns of development within the profession in different settings. Regional studies programmes at European universities have been suffering fram severe budget cuts, while che opposite has happened in Asia. For Americans, the need to understand the region for strategic reasons, especially after the September 11 attacks, has contributed to a recent resurgence of Southeast Asian studies. AN AGENDA FOR SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES The debates on Southeast Asian studies and che emergence of different scenarios in different contexts, have provoked discussions on a number of theoretical issues. There is a need co rethink Southeast Asia as a region. It is generally agreed that the old “unity in diversity” paradigm once used to “capture” the region is flawed as it largely ignores the impact of change and gives too much emphasis to its external construction. Furthermore, the idea of constructing Southeast Asia on the basis of the old paradigms of the development cowards nationhood, as was the case in the 1950s, and, that of the progress cowards modernity, have become outdated.¥ A number of crucial questions in this regard were once again raised in the Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 1999. The questions asked included: “Where do the boundaries lie?”, “What is the nature of intra-regional linkages with those of outside areas?” , “Does heterogeneity or homogeneity prevail?”, and “What is the role of the region as an ‘imagined’ consteuct?” Despite the unlikelihood of unity due to the divisions coming from che colonial past, the argument that Southeast Asia still occupies a “distinctive” place in the global world prevails.#Insrodction 13 Insum, a “softened” concept of the region is advocated by most present- day Southeast Asianists. Donald Emmerson argues that “Southeast Asia” is something which is useful, being something pareway becween a description of something that exists and a creation of the mind. Anthony Reid, writing on the early modern era, has been quite outspoken in his defence of Southeast Asia as a viable physical concept: “Southeast Asia was a region united by enviconment, commerce, diplomacy, and war but diverse in its fragmented polities and cultures.” In a recent anthropological survey, Victor King puts it as follows: Despice differences among scholars in the artempcs co put cultural flesh on che concept of South-East Asian identity, there are certainly various social and cultural elements which serve to unice large parts of the region and distinguish them from China and India, although they do noc consticute general unifying fearures of all ren South-East Asian nation-states nor do they establish clear and unambiguous baundaries.2” Within Southeast Asia itselfa new and stonger regional identity is emerging. With chis in mind, che following arguments can be made in favour of Southeast Asia as a “region”. First, che concept of region is primarily a heuristic device. Ic distinguishes a particular area from other areas in order to be able to analyse developments thae seem to be specific to it. A region can be defined on several levels. It can be part of a particular country; it can be a transnational structure between several countries; and it can also be conceived as a particular part of the world. The crucial question seems to be whether che region possesses sufficient particularity to be able to distinguish it from adjoining areas. Particularity or specificity therefore seems to be more important than homogeneity or heterogeneity. Secondly, the geographical underpinnings of the Southeast Asian “ellipse” fit within accepted raphical ascriptions. This ellipse can clearly be distinguished from a sinicized Asia (Northeast Asia: Japan, China, Korea), the Hindu-lslamic sub-continent (India) and Central Asia. Reducing scales by breaking down Southeast Asia into parts (such as distinguishing between a mainland and insular part, or breaking it down even further as Denys Lombard has done it his Le careforr javanais) might produce a greater homogeneity among individuals and fower-level regions. However, this does not in any way explain the outer distinctions with respect to other world regions. Maps chat have been produced over time incorporate other perspectives of the region, revealing quite different projections of reality. Indigenous maps, as well as modern ones, that chart distances in travel hours or present panoramic views from unexpected standpoints clearly inform us of another sense of space.14 Gynthia Choe and Vincent Houben Thirdly, regions are complex entities. The French scholar Edgar Morin in his book, Thinking Europe, asserts that: [tlhe attempt to simplify Europe chrough idealization, abstraction or reduction, would be equal to mutilation, Europe is a complex (complexus: chat [which] has been woven together), in which the Iargest differences are united withous mingling, and in which diffecences are indivisibly connected to another,* ‘An area, in which the unitary can be studied within plurality and the other way around, docs not disqualify Southeast Asia as a region. Fourthly, regions should be defined from within rather chan from che perspective of boundaries. Often political boundaties are taken to construct economic, social, and cultural demarcations, The colonial project of che modem state and the superimposition of nationhood were certainly extremely relevant for Southeast Asia, but these processes have been until now neither completed nor unchallenged. Fifthly, “Southeast Asia” should be historically defined as a regional construct that expanded and acquired more substance over time. It started, as Reid argued, in a “bottom-up” manner. It was the focal communities of peasants and fishermen, living in small-scale communities chat formed the common backbone of che region. This reality was, however, not really broken up by Western colonialism. Colonial states created formal-judicial divisions which entailed common experiences for those colonized within these states. Contacts continued to exist between Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, as was the case with minorities living alongside borderlines. The rise of nationalism throughout the region, the disruption of the Japanese Occupation, and the struggle for independence created, despite all differences, further common experiences. The most divisive force in the modem history of Southeast Asia was probably the Cold War era. As soon as Vietnam was reunified, ASEAN acquired more substance, and has not adhered to the European Union model of relinquishing national savereignties. New pressures, especially in the realm of internal and external security, provide a currenc impetus towards integration. In Southeast Asia itself, and among its inhabitants, the awareness of the region has grown, Having made a case for the region, a more practical issue has 10 be addressed, that is, the internal divisions between scholars of Southeast Asia themselves, This fragmentation among researchers is partly a consequence of the nature of the object of study, and also a reflection of the general organizational format of universities and research centres. Arca studies presuppose an intimate knowledge of the region that can only be reached byInsrodiection 15, acquiring a view-from-within, This, in turn, requires acquiring a good command of one or more local languages and cultures, including gaining familiarity with che sicuation on the ground chrough regular and possibly extended field visits. Both requirements automatically lead scholars to concentrate their work on one or at most 2 few regions within Southeast Asia. A more institutional reason is that, despite advocating multi-disciplinary and comparative research, most scientific knowledge is produced along the lines of disciplines that have emerged during the nineteenth century and which are still controlling institutions of higher learning. In theory, six forms of institutional arrangements for arca studics can be conceived, which represent a hierarchy with regard to degree of complexity, innovative potential, and expected output. Format 1 is mono-disciplinary plus mono-regional and comprises what most individual Southeast Asianists do. Ins scope for productivity is high but its complexity and innovativeness low, Format 2 is mono-disciplinary plus multi-regional and has been practised in several institutes, such as the Bielefeld Institute of Development Economics. Its productivity is high but its innovative potential is restricted by the boundaries of the discipline. Format 3 encompasses multi-disciplinacy plus mono-regional research and is represented by most Southeast Asian centres in che world. Its complexiry and innovative pocential are of middle rank, whereas the concentration of specialists working on one area allows for high productivity. Format 4 is both multi-disciplinary and multi-regional, enabling greater innovative potential through comparative perspectives, but at the same time is more difficult to manage because researchers represent not only differen disciplinary angles bur different areas as well. Formats 5 and 6 involve inter-disciplinary wark, either on one or various regions. The complexity of such arrangement is very high, as are their innovative potencials. Real inter-disciplinary research has yet to be fully realized. Therefore, this new and. emerging research agenda could either reap high resules or yield very low productivity. The Comparative and Interdisciplinary Research Program on Asia at UCLA and the Asia Research Institute in Singapore represent such high aspirations. The reality is that most universities are unable to supersede either level 1 of 2, This effectively means that Southeast Asianists are 2 minority within disciplinary departments or, at best, a number of them cooperate within one department. Such arrangements arc often inadequate in attaining a full coverage of the area, both in terms of the region and the subject matter, Indeed, even within Southeast Asian university departments, tesearch is not combined but remains a matter of individual interests. In this manner, respective departments are often unable to exhibit the added value of their16 Gynthia Choe and Vincent Houben staff's different research output. The only solution lies in forming a critical mass and acquiring a consensus to work as a group on innovative research themes over a couple of years. The institution — and this very much depends upon its size — has then to decide if such an endeavour can be realized within its own existing internal configuration. Another solution lies in creating networks of experts that agree to work on common projects. It is seemingly the case chat an individual research culture has to give way to such collaborative efforts. The Incernet communications revolution has created the technical potentiall for worldwide neworking, moving far beyond the confines of one’s own institution, discipline, and area. ‘The third fundamental problem in Southeast Asian studies lies in looking for a new interface between region and discipline. Dumping the region as irrelevant and submerging regional studies into global studies are not solutions. This has in fact been the recent trend in many insticutions with a social science agenda, reiterating the universalistic claims of the 1960s and 1970s, John Bowen offered a recent view concerning this issue in his essay on the inseparability of area and discipline in. Southeast Asian studies, Neither arca nor discipline should be separated since they strongly interact, inasmuch as discipline is referred to as a particular set of questions and methods, and “area” marks cultural continuities and discontinuities. Strong regional continuities even shape the disciplines chat study them. Therefore political scientists, economists, anthropologists, historians, and the like who work on specific areas share certain ideas that distinguish them from others within their own disciplines. Bowen proposes three cultural continuities that bind all Southeast Asianists, namely, relative gender equality, hierarchical reciprocity, and an outward orientation.” It is along these lines that congruity between one region and various disciplines can be reached. Thar this works can be experienced by every area scholar participating in cross-disciplinary panels at the Association for Asian Studies meetings in the United States or EUROSEAS conferences in Europe. The case for Southeast Asian studies is strengthened by current global developments. Uneil 2001 there was a widespread assumption that globalization was leading into the direction of worldwide homogenization and convergence. Since September 11, this idea has been dashed and the world has increasingly been exposed to ethnic and religious conflicts of a regional origin. There are also new hopes of Southeast Asia picking itself up from the Asian crisis of 1997 and levelling up with the West in economic development. Today, many of the key international policy issues facing the Western world are framed in terms of a security threat by IslamicInsrodection 17 fundamentalism and terrorist movements. Southeast Asia has been identified as a strategic platform for the actors and their theatre for warfare. In scholarly writing a cleac upsurge of studies on regional, ethnic, and religious conflicts can be discerned. However, this upward trend is perhaps less evident in universities in Europe and Australia. What agenda for the furure can be distilled from the contribucions in this book? Southeast Asian studies can no longer be wholly local but needs to take into accoune the wider region (South and East Asia) and che global dimension. Southeast Asia has to be redefined in terms of the ways in which che particularities of the region, and the local and globall processes, are interlinked. Multi-level studies that include a broader geographical scope cannor be undertaken by the individual researcher in isolation, but requires rietworks of researchers, preferably located both in the West and in Asia. Asian researchers should infuse more local knowledge into scholarly debate on Southeast Asia.» ISSUES RAISED The chapters following this preface are a collection of scholarly viewpoints about the state of Southeast Asian studies today. A dozen or so invitations to participate in this discussion were sent to scholars of various disciplinary backgrounds in different parts of the world. We had heped for many more scholars of Southeast Asian origin to also present their views. Although some had expressed interest in contributing chapters, they were unfortunately unable to meet our publishing deadline. The contributions in this collection represent the views of a relatively young generation of researchers and teachers working on the region, with the aim of assessing the current situation sa as to suggest a blueprinc for Southeast Asian studies in the fucure. Each chapter takes up the challenge of reflecting on a meaningful approach to this field of studies and mapping out directions that will consticute che essential research agenda in che coming period. The chapters ate not arranged in any special order so as to reflect any particular pre-set empirical or eheoretical orientation. Each author has adopted an individual approach to addressing the issues. King, Cribb, Hayami, and Chou have appropriated a broad-disciplinary view as a basis for the future. Platt, McCargo, Houben, and Barnard have assessed che applicability ro che region of general theoretical developments within their disciplines. Each chapter can therefore be read om its own. Yet seen as a whole, each chapter also constitutes a part of a multi- and inter-disciplinary dialogue — in comparative and longitudinal terms — with regard to the merits and deficiencies,18 Gjathia Chow and Vincent Hauben and the relevance and irrelevance of the area studies approach ftom which Southeast Asia has emerged. The incent is to present readers with the varying positions and opinions thar resonate in the debate on che current status and future of Southeast Asian area studies. These are the imaginations and visions — and indeed the strengths - of a younger generation of scholars for opening up new horizons in Southeast Asian studies. “Can an atmosphere of confidence and a sense of the region be restored by building on, and yet ac the same time reconceptualizing the significant contributions of an earlier generation of scholars of Southeast Asia?” “What are the kinds of issues that the next generation of students, researchers, and scholars consider as critical for clevating Southeast Asian studies to prominence?” “What are the priority areas in which resources should be invested?” These questions and many more are pondered, discussed, and debated by contributors. The chapters in this volume have much co say about Southeast Asian studies. Still, it is noteworthy that chere are certain issues that are time and again raised by one and all. We shall therefore highlight a few of these predicaments in che field of Southeast Asian studies that have been raised as common causes of concern for contributors to this book. ComMUNICATING SCHOLARSHIP Another issue chat underscores many concributions in this book is che question of language, both as a wol co understand people in the region, to communicate scientific resules, and also as an object of study in itself (Hayami, Plate, Chou). Southeast Asia is a mosaic of linguistic diversity, chus posing 2 challenge for communication and interaction. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has overcome this hurdle by adopting English as theie common language. Yet, this is am issue chat remains unresolved within the discipline. Although English is recognized as the language co facilitate exchange and reduce isolation so as to produce a more vibrant atmosphere, English language literature on the region by indigenous scholars remains limited. Many important works produced by scholars writing in their local languages remain unknown to an international audience. If significant investments could be made to enable translations of these works of interest into English, chis could undoubeedly spark off new reciprocities in the exchange of ideas and knowledge for the reinvigoration of Southeast Asian studies, While scholars could be encouraged to write more in English in order to make cheir works more widely accessible, there is also room for rejuvenating our classrooms byInsrodection 19 enabling intemational student exchanges and collaborative teaching by allowing the use of English in classes and scudent papers. Although English is today’s #ngwa franca for international communication, this does nat in any way preclude the studying of Southeast Asian languages. Anyone seeking to become a specialist on any area or country can only attain a deeper insight into these domains and its people through advance competency in che spoken and written languages, including the knowledge of the vernacular literatures and scholarship of the area. More attention needs to be directed to a durable and consistent study of Southeast Asian languages. Universities are reluctant co support programmes of less common languages with small enrolments because such endeavours are considered as a financial burden. Hence, Southeast Asian languages, and particularly the pre-modern and ancient ones which inchade old Burmese and Javanese, classical Khmer, Ném and a whole host of dialects, are grossly under-funded and fast disappearing today. The crux of the matrer is that these language abilities are indispensable for pursing studies of “ancient” pre- modern Southeast Asian societies. Already, we face a serious lack of scholars working on the pre-nineteenth cencury history of Southeast Asia. The strength and breadth of any area stuclies programme depends equally on its language-teaching programme and a constellation of humanistic or social science concent courses. Availing more resources for augmenting language studies, hiring more professionally teained. pedagogues, who are competent in language or literary culeure, and building up library holdings, especially on Soucheast Asian literary and cultural cexts, will open possibilities for broadening the curriculum to its fullest potential in the long run. IMPORTANCE OF AREA STUDIES Although che contexts and institutional formats of area studies are in the process of being reconfigured, area studies remains crucial. The scudy of Southeast Asia is part of a broader issue. Its very existence should neither be hampered by profit-making nor political considerations. [es motivation lies in the cencral cenet of the pursuit and propagation of knowledge. Area studies — of expansive or smaller zones, of old civilizations or newly defined territories — is about haw we teach and learn to see, to chink about and live in this world. Ic involves understanding issucs of universalism as well as appreciating che internal logic and systemic practices of particular societies — instead of simply regarding them, at best, as interestingly exotic and, at worst, hopelessly strange.20 Gjathia Chow and Vincent Houben CriticaL ASsesSMENTS OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS ‘What characterizes the state of Southeast Asian studies at this moment is that a double shift of the main parameters of the profession and within these parameters is occurting. The four basic parameters in the landscape of regional studies are institutions, locations, communities, and knowledge production. In academic insticucions the relationship between the disciplines and area studies is being reconfigured. In Europe, for instance, this means that area studies should be brought back into che disciplines. It appears that, apart from a few major centres, area studies is on the decline. In Southeast Asia and the United States, the opposite trend seems to be happening. This means chat, as far as the status of Southeast Asian studies is concerned, it is either on the rise of revitalizing in Southeast Asia and America, whereas it is declining in Europe. Regional studies in the region itself seems to be a natural outcome in a globalized and post-colonial world. As far as communities of scholars are concemed, it can be observed that networks of scholarly exchange that used to be mono-lateral have become ucterly multi-lateral and global. The exchange of ideas that is facilicated by the Internet and fast travel leads to a sharing of knowledge. That knowledge is much more varied in its thematic content and its theoretical-disciplinary orientation, which also means that Southeast Asian studies is increasing in breadth and scope. There is a shared consensus among the authors in this volume that the furure is wich comparative study or (as Hayami asserts) a cross-disciplinary and region-wide approach by scholars across the globe. Therefore, although in some places there is reason for gloom, Southeast Asian studies as whole is in the process of being reconfigured to become more of a central concern in our cutrent world, Notes 1. Reid, Anthony. “Studying Southeast Asia in a Globalized World". Taiwan Journal of Soushease Asian Studies 1, no, 2 (2004): 6. 2. King, Victor T. Between West and East; Policy anal Practice in Sousis-Eass Studies in Brisain, Hull: Hull University Press, 1990; 4. 3. Halib, Mohammed. and Tim Hudey. “Introduction”. In Aa dnvreduction to Southeass Asian Studies, dived by Mohammed Halib and Tim Huxley, London, New York and. Singapore: Tauris Academic Studies, 1B. Tauris Publishers and Instieute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1996; 3. 4. King, Berween West and East: &. 5. Kahin, George McT: “Lauriston Sharp 1907-93)". Southeast Asia Program Bulletin (Fall 1994): 3.1, 12, 13, 14, PY eN ‘Soupbeart Asian Srudies Ten Yeare After, edited by Social Science Research Council, Preceedings of rwo meetings held in New York City on 15 November and 10 December 1999. New York: Southesse Asia Program, Social Science Research Coithigl (SSRC), 1999: 10. Reid. *Seudying Soucheast Asia in a Globalized World”: 7. Reid. “Studying Souchcast Asia in a Globalized World”: 6. Rafael, Vicentey“Southeast Asian Studies ~ Wherefrom?” In Weighing the Balance: Sowsieast Asin Sudies Ten Year fier, died by Social Science Research Council, Proceedings of,rey mectings held in New Yoo City on November 15 and Deoembet 10, 1999. New York: Soushease Asia Program, Social Science Research Council (SRC), 1999: 10. McCoy, “Southeast Agian Studies — Wherefrom?"; 10. iair Studies — Wherefrom?"; 10-11. Tunku Shatasul Bahrin, m“Southeave Asan Suis in Malay In A Colloguitam on Sousheast Asian Studies, edited by Tunku Shamsul Babrin, Chandean Jeshurun and A, Tey Rambo, Singapérer, Instieute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1981: 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21, 24, 23. Reid, “Studying Soucheast Asia ine &Globalized World”; 15, Hue Tam Ho Tai. “Southeast Asian Sridies - Whereftom?": 12, Guyer, Jane 1, “Anchropology in Area Stddies". Annual Review of Ansbropology 33 (2004); $01. Prewitt, Kenneth, “Presidencial Items”. Zé $0, no. 1 (1996); 13-18, Reid. “Studying Southeast Asia in a Globaligad World”: 16, Kratoska, Paul, Retneo Ruben and Henk Schulte Nordhole, eds, Locating Southeast Asia, Leiden: KITLV Press, 2005: 10. £o . Van Schendel, Willem. “Geographies of Knowledges Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale in Southeast Asia”, Environment and Planning D: Sociery and Space 20 (2002): 650-51. |. McVey, Ruth, “Globalization, Marginalization, and the Study of Southeast Asia”, In Southeast Anian Studies: Reorientasions, edited by Craig J. Reynolds and Ruth McVey, Ithaca, New York; Comell University, Southeast Asia Program Publications, 1998: 37-64, Acharya, Amitav and Ananda Rajah, “Introduction; Reconceptualising Southeast Asia”, Sourteast Asian Journal of Social Science 27, no. 1 {1999}; 14, A summary of the debate can be found in Taxing, Nicholas, Historians and Southeast Asian History, Auckland: New Zealand Asia Instieute, 2000: 98-103. 3. Reid, Anthony. “Introduction: A Time and a Place”, In Sowtleeast Asia in the Early Modern Era. Trade, Power, and Belief, edited by Anthony Reid. Ithaca, London: Comell Univerity Press, 1993: 19,Gjathia Chow and Vincent Houben 27. 29. King, Victor T. and William D, Wilder. The Modern Anshropology of South-East ‘Asia, An Introduction. London and New York: RoudledgeCurzon, 2003: 14. |. Based on che German translation: Morin, Edgar. Europa Denken. Franlefure, New York: Campus Verlag, 1991: 19. Bowen, John R. “The Inseparability of Area and Discipline in Southeast Asian Studies: A View from he United Seares”, Adoxssons 1 (2000): 3-19. |. Fox, James. “Tracing Genealogies: Toward an International Muleicultural Anthropology”. Antrapotegi Indonesia 69 (2002): 106-16.Reproduced from Southeast Asian Studies: Debates and New Directions edited by Cynthia Chou and Vincent Houben (Singapore: Inslitute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infinged. No part of this publicalion may be reproduced without the prior permission of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at 2 SOUTHEAST ASIA Personal Reflections on a Region Victor T. King INTRODUCTION This chapter is a development of some of the ideas which I raised at a workshop on the subject of “Locating Southeast Asia” in late March 2001, held at the University of Amsterdam, in honour of Professor Heather Sutherland's contribution to Southeast Asian studies in the Netherlands. I happened to be a discussant on the anthropology panel led by the American anthropologist, Mary Margaret Steedly, who had then only recently published an excellent and thought-provoking overview paper on che theme of culture theory in the anthropology of Southeast Asia.' There was a broad range of issues which we addressed in the Amsterdam meeting, and aside from commenting on Steedly’s paper, | was prompted, at that time, co reflect on what I had been doing for the past thirty years or more, from a British and to some extent a European perspective. These reflections were subsequently published in 2001 in the French journal Moussons and entirled. “Southeast Asia: An Anthropological Field of Study?” The subtitle was intended to acknowledge the important contribution which Professor JPB de Josselin de Jong had made to che study of ethnologically or anthropologically defined areas, a contribution which had special resonance in European anthropology. Rather more importantly, what I wrote was supposed to be in dialogue with American anthropology; it was triggered not 234 Viesor T. King simply by Mary Steedly’s contribution, but more particularly by John Bowen's two papers, “The Forms Culture Takes: A State-of-che-ficld Essay on the Anthropology of Southeast Asia’ and “The Inseparabiliry of Area and Discipline in Southeast Asian Studies: A View from the United States”, which attempted to trace a dominant style, perspective, approach, and preoccupation in the anthropology of Southeast Asia, as well as in related disciplines. He argued that here is a strong interaction between area or area studics and academic discipline, and, in the case of Southeasc Asian anthropology, an overriding concer with comparative cultural interpretation im context, prompted by “che ubiquity of publicly displayed cultural forms”. Steedly also confirmed in her 1999 paper that Clifford Geertz’s writings, among others, “have thoroughly associated this part of the world, and Indonesia in particular, with a meaning- based, interpretive concept of culture”. Bowen, like Steedly, was careful t0 qualify his remarks by stating that he was primarily concemed with American social science research on Indonesia, and more specifically with a Cornell pezspective, and had Jiele to say about European or other traditions of scholarship. Two issues immediately presented themselves: first, that, in some way, American social science of a particular kind was seen to define what is significant in a regional style of scholarship, and secondly, the assumption that research on one councry in Southeast Asia and the character of that country of sub-region can be extrapolated to define a wider region. Given these assumptions ftom an American perspective, it seemed even more important co at least draw attention to de Josselin de Jong’s and his colleagues’ and followers’ contributions to the study of the Malay-Indonesian world, and, in addition, to say something about distinctively European contributions to regional studies. In case I am seen co be engaged in a trans-Adantic war of words, I should also emphasize that in my recent introductory text on the anthropology of Southeast Asia writeen wich William Wilder, a British-based and -trained American anthropologist, the American contribution co our understanding of Southeast Asian culture and society was fulsomely acknowledged and admired.* However, our concerns about defining, locating, reflecting on, deconstructing, reconstructing, imagining, and imaging Southeast Asia seem to be surfacing with alarming regularity. We speculate, sometimes amusingly to the outsider, whether or not the region should be likened to a rose, a unicorn, a rhinoceros or a spaceship.’ Many of us have used and contemplated some of the key staternents and texts on these matters — Ananda Rajah, Barbara Andaya, Benedict Anderson, John Bowen, Donald Emmerson, Grant Evans, Russell Fifield, Ariel Heryanto, Charles Hirschman, Charles Keyes, Victor Lieberman, Denys Lombard, Ruth McVey, Anthony Reid, CraigSoutheast Asia: Personal Reflections on a Region 2b Reynolds, Willem van Schendel, Shamsul A.B., Wilhelm Solheim, Heather Sutherland, Wang Gungwu, and Oliver Wolers, to name but a few’ Inverestingly Southeast Asians are in the minority: indeed most of those mentioned are American social scientists and historians, and other Caucasians. This tells us much about the nature and focus of the debate about the Southeast Asian region and regional studies. ESSENTIALISM Our navel-gazing, our introspection, and our soul-searching are rather easily explained and have been referred to endlessly, With regard ro Southeast Asia, we have always been the junior partner in Asian studies, struggling co find positive criteria for demarcation in a primarily negatively-defined, geographically ambivalent, residual cegion. But more importantly, and linked to this client stacus, we always seem to be in crisis or under threat, or, if we are enjoying a brief period of happiness and success, we anticipate that the honeymoon is unlikely co last for too long,’ Several of us have been obsessed by the constructed or invented nature of the Southeast Asian field of study, and some of us also have a desire to make it more than it is or should be; in Craig Reynolds’ words, to “authenticate” it. When we do this, we usually have recourse primarily to the disciplines of history and anthropology, and to some extent geography. We search for and reconstruct origins, prior to outside, particularly European intervention and influence, to reveal the “real” or “essential” Southeast Asia; we construct the cultural matrix or sub-stratum or cultural continuities and commonalities; we pursue indigenous models of society and polity; we identify Southeast Asian agency, historical autonomy and the active domestication and localization of the foreign; we mark out the general categorical differences between “the Southeast Asian” and others, particularly “the Chinese” and “the Indian”. We look for regionally defined “genius. More recently, we have proffered Southeast Asia as the site of a particular style or styles of scholarship, and for the generation of distinctive or dominant research questions and perspectives, in other words we demarcate it as a discursive field. Ina paper published in 1978, Ben Anderson referred to che state of area studies in the United States, and that its academic position and profile had already been in decline for a decade prior to that, Ruth McVey’s “golden age” of Southeast Asian studies in America in the 1950s and 1960s was drawing to a close.’ Craig Reynolds, among others, then draws attention to anxieties among American regional specialists in the 1990s about the weakening of the intellectual commitment to and the questioning of the rationale for area6 Viesor T. King studies, and the associated change in funding strategies. Anderson provides us with some reasons for this: The context-dependent, fragile nature of area studies as a product of American post-war and Cold War involvement and incervention in the developing world, area studies’ lack of methodological and theoretical sophistication, and its distance from disciplinary specialization." The preoccupation with region is charged with being old-fashioned, ethnocentric, parochial, politically conservative, essentialist and empiricist in its mission to chart distinctive culeure-language zones and draw boundaries in an increasingly changing, globalizing world; these allegations have been made with increasing intensity during the past three decades, including from insiders and sympathizers like McVey, who remarked in the mid-1990s thac “Southeast Asia itself has changed far more massively and. profoundly than have Southeast Asia{n] studies”."" In addition, the charge chat post-war, American-led arca studies is in the direct line of succession of pre-war European Orientalism has brought into question the ethics and underlying purpose of studying and characterizing other cultures at a distance.” THE CHALLENGE OF GLOBALIZATION AND POST-STRUCTURALISM ‘Yet another series of threats has emerged since the 1990s. Peter Jackson, in two substantial, densely-written, and inter-connected papers published recently in the Singapore journal Sojourn focuses on the even more serious and formidable challenge to area studies, specifically Asian studies in Australia, from an amalgam of globalization theory, and post-colonialist and post- structuralist cultural studies.!? With reference to Japanese studies in Australia, Chris Burgess, also explores the link berween globalization and the “academic crisis” as he calls it, in Asian studies.4 These post-modern fields have been ploughed by Joel Kahn in a very vigorous fashion in Southeast Asia during the past decade." What is more, Ruth McVey, Craig Reynolds, Mary Steedly and Grant Evans, among others, have also addressed these matters in relation to the definition of region.'* Jackson says, with reference to processes of globalization, that: Rapidly intensifying flows of moneys goods, services, information, and people across the historical borders of nation-states and culture-language areas suggest that it is no longer possible 1a study human societies as geographically isolaced culturally distinctive units.” With regard to Asian studies in Australian universities, he draws attention to the “intellectual climate” in which area studies is “widely considered to beSoutheast Asia: Personal Reflections on a Region a based upon false premises and to be an epistemologically invalid approach to understanding contemporary Asian societies and culvures’.!® Nevertheless, to counter this decline he wishes, rather ambitiously, 10 propase and develop “a theoretically sophisticated area studies project” which recognizes the continued imporeance of “geography” or “spatiality” as a “domain of theoretically and discursive difference in the eza of globalization”. 1 shalll return co Jackson's observations shortly. But the threat to area studies is, Ithink, much more broadly based chan in its cheorecical and methodological inadequacies, and to an intellectual climate of disdain and dismissal. CHANGING MARKETS A major difficulty which we face, is that we are not in fashion in the student matket, and, although we may ponder the academic shortcomings of arca studies, it seems to me much more to de with the lifestyles, tastes, career aspirations, financial pressures, and educational backgrounds of our students. In my view, closures, mergers, and rationalizations of academic departments and programmes will continue, and, although I think that Southeast Asian studies will certainly not disappear entirely from the academic scene, the landscape of area studies is destined to become rather different in character and appearance. Whether or not we manage to present a Jacksonian justification fot and defence of area studies on the basis of the importance of “localized, geographically bounded forms of knowledge, culture, economy, and political organization”,”° it is my view that, for the immediate future, we will continue to lose market-share in specifically area studies programmes. Student demand is much more important than letters of protest and. complaint about lack of funding and support from professional associations of Asian studies to hard- hearted vice-chancellors, rectors, and principals. Therefore, we should not only dwell on our scholarly interests in che region, but also keep in sharp focus the institutional, financial, and international context within which we teach and research. In this connection I want to emphasize the different ways in which we can approach and study Southeast Asia, These approaches may not necessarily depend on us protecting our borders and continuing to define our concerns in strictly regional terms. In other words, the future of teaching, research, and scholarly activity on Southeast Asia or parts of it may rest on us neither defining the object of our study in the terms in which we have been used to defining it, nor on delimiting the institutional context within which we pursue it as “Southeast Asian studies”. We may need to be much more pragmatic and versatile in our work, and not throw up regional barriers and retreat28 Viewor T. King increasingly into our atea, nor attempt to dress it up in some readjusted, re-laundered pose-structuralist clothing. We should also recognize that there is some buoyancy in Southeast Asian studies in certain other parts of the world. Anthony Reid, for example, has presented a vibrant picture of growth in the variant Asian- American studies and its interaction wich Southeast Asian studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, and on other campuses, and the progressive Asianization of the Californian universicy system in the contexe of substantial Asian migration and settlement on the American West Coase. He also noted the ways in which the competitive American model of Federal Funding produces strong graduate training, based on “language study and regional sensitivity” and “determines what is an area and what qualifies as success in studying ie”. In the Southeast Asian region itself, we all know about and admire the success of the National University of Singapore and the Institute of Southeast Asian studies there, although both within and beyond Singapore there is increasing attention to Asian studies rather chan a separate Southeast Asian studies, in for example, neighbouring Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, as well as in Europe and Australia.” In his review of Asian studies in Australia, Milner cefers to it as “something of a rallying cry, a reminder of an urgent national priority”.” In Japan too, for obvious reasons, there cohtinues to be a telatively healthy environment for the nurturing and development of Asian and Southeast Asian studies. WEST AND EAST (OR FOREIGN AND LOCAL) A more serious problem which will simply not go away is the relationship between native and non-native Southeast Asianists, if these are indeed appropriate categories, A trenchant, though generally polite criticism of non- Southeast Asian Southeast Asianists by Ariel Heryanto gives us pause for thought.” Ie also has echoes of ehe debates, though it fights on rather different terrain, which were very alive in the 1960s and 1970s on the possibility of the development of distinctively Southeast Asian approaches to and perspectives on he region. I am not specifically eargeting what Heryanto says for rebutral, although I think chat his remarks require some qualification, However, as a highly respected Indonesian scholar who has experience of teaching and research on Southeast Asia, both within and outside the region, he makes a number of points which need to be weighed carefully. He emphasizes, as most of us have from time to time, that Southeast Asia as a region has an “exogenous character”.’* He charges that when we discuss theSoutheast Asia: Personal Reflections on a Region 29 region and who has contributed to making it and telling us something significant abouc it, we rarely mention Southeast Asian scholars. Heryanto sets about explaining, in his words, the “subordinate or inferior position [of Southeast Asians] within the production and consumption of this enterprise”, and, in an impassioned counter, proposes chat “Southeast Asians are not simply fictional figures authored by outsiders, or submissive puppets in the masterful hands of Western puppetecrs”.26 He also discusses the vexed issue of whether the region is becoming meaningful to Southeast Asians and whether they are responding to the constructions of Western scholarship? Indeed, he notes that Southeast Asian studies appears to be of little interest to Southeast Asians, with the exception of Singapore and to some extent Malaysia, and the main centres are still in North America, Australia, and Europe. He draws attention to the emphasis that local citizens place on the study of cheir own country, and their strong tendency “to be myopically nationalistic in their endeavors’.?” Craig Reynolds, too, remarked in the mid-1990s that “Southeast Asia is not, generally speaking, adomain meaningful for study in councries within the region, where national histories are of primary concern’.* More recently, Wang Gungwo, in his Amsterdam paper, made reference to “the desultory efforts by local scholars to nail down a Southeast Asian regional identicy”.” On the positive side, Heryanto anticipates gradual expansion in a home- grown Southeast Asian studies in most parts of the région, but he says that “the name and boundaries .., may be different from that of the American-led Southeast Asian studies of the Cold War period”; “the old Southeast Asian studies”, based on “the old structures of area studies”, with che dwindling advantage of “old archives that are currently conserved in a few old libraries in France, Great Britain, Spain, che Netherlands, or North America”? may well “continue to have some bearing upon locally-produced knowledge” as “an intellectual legacy, historical baggage, source of inspiration, institutional assistance, and partner”. Debates about past and present unequal relationships and related issues such as “agency, positions of difference and representation” are also likely co intensify?" THE ISSUES REVISITED Let me then return co the set of issues which I have raised with regard co the plight of Southeast Asian studies and area studies more generally, and make some comments, necessarily brief, on these: On essentialism, the challenge of globalization and post-structuralism, changing markers and West against East (or the relations between foreign and local scholarship).30 Victor T. King ESSENTIALISM For many of us studying the Southeast Asian region, the desire or need to define and authenticate it is something of a non-problem, and 1 personally assign it a low priority. One of the main purposes of my 2001 article in Moussons and my comments on Maty Steedly’s paper was to demonstrate that the definition and conceptualization of Southeast Asia have never loomed large in anthropology, despite the admiring references co carly German and Austrian ethnology and its perceptiveness in discovering a Southeast Asian cultural area, and a few more recent excursions into regional anthropology.” One result of this lack of interest was the absence, until recently, of any substantial anthropological cext on the Southeast Asian region as a whole, and a positive rejoicing not in cultural commonality but in cultural difference and diversity. To my mind, anthropology, at its most successful and productive, has directed its comparative gaze on sub-regional categories and populations, the Kachin Hills, central Borneo, eastern Indonesia, Mountain Province of northern Luzon, or the Malay Archipelago. And despite O'Connor's passionate call for a Southeast Asian regional anthropology, he dwells primarily on mainland Southeast Asian “agro-culcural complexes"? Anthropology has also been concerned, as we would expect, not so much with the “heartlands” and political centres of the region, bur with the borderlands, margins, and peripheries, where, in Jackson's post-structural and globalized world one encounters very directly “border-crossing flows’. Mary Steedly’s “porous borders” and “perpetual open ends” are rather differently conceptualized, in her discussion of the enormous flows of clectronically-gencrated up-to-the- minute information and the consequences of this for our understandings and perceptions of Southeast Asia. Iris also not without interest that Steedly’s 2001 paper in the Amsterdam workshop was not specifically about Southeast Asia as an area at all, although her 1999 overview article did address regional issues from an anthropological perspective. Indeed, in most respects the later paper is an extension of the eatlier one, and they need to be read together. Taking her lead from certain of Geertz’s reflections on his career, she focused on the lack of engagement of anthropologists in current political and economic events and processes, on the problems of addressing turmoil, chaos, crisis, and violence, and on examining the events of today as indicators of future directions. The very important point chat she made is that, in a world of “constantly breaking news”, our treasured concepts of culture, communicy, nation, and region have been thrown into disarray. She makes these observations in a workshop on the theme of locating Southeast Asia not as a Southeast Asianist nor as anSoutheast Asia: Personal Reflections on a Region 31 area studies specialist per se but as an Indonesianist, and as an American cultural anthropologist. Like others before her she extrapolates from country to region. In focusing on Indonesia she proposes thac, though the recent political evencs chere suggest a situation “extreme and perhaps unique”, there is a vision of the wider Southeast Asian region, both popular and co some extent scholarly, and perhaps peculiar to America, “as a space at once incomprehensible and violent”.*” Well, this is another reading of Southeast Asia; one which, from other perspectives, can be directly disputed, and which does not provide a readily manageable critetion of regional definition. To my mind, her paper gains no obvious advantage by widening the vision of violence and turbulence to what she calls “the Southeast Asian postcolony”.®* ‘With regard ro her earlier paper, there she draws attention to the more general American position thar, for anthropologists, Southeast Asia is “arguably the best place to look for culture”, and to the attraction in regional and comparative terms of gender issues.*” We are perhaps being drawn into a declaration of what a Soucheast Asian regional anthropology might comprise, and, as well as a place to look for culture, though we now have to look for it at the level of the state, it is also a place “seemingly marked by violence”. However, the regional project then collapses; we might be able to discern a culture area in the strands of culture cheory on which she focuses - gender, marginality, violence, and the state. But because of the very nature of “cultural landscapes” (‘open, plural, contested, interpretive”), and “cultural frames” as open to “notions of subversion, difference, porosity, doubleness, ambiguity, and fluidity”, it is unclear how we might contain and comprehend them within a Southeast Asian regional frame of reference, or whether itis analytically useful to do so.*! Let me move on to another case, which, in a different way, is also illustrative of che regional dilemma, and this is one of my own main areas of involvement in Southeast Asia — Borneo. The Borneo Research Council, which is the professional academic association representing Borneo specialists, holds an internarional biennial conference. But it often seems to live in 2 world of its own — apart even from Southeast Asia. In many of the conference sessions, one is only vaguely aware of the fact that the island is divided between three political states, and chat its two largest areas are part of larger nation-states with their capitals across the seas. Significant numbers of Bornean anthropologists still seem to be primarily concerned with “salvaging”, with gathering and. recording fast disappearing oral traditions, with studying communities which have not been studied before, and with poring over European archives to construct histories of pre-literate peoples.