Asian Studies in Area Studies: legitimacy, challenges and impacts

This article analyses the ongoing debate regarding the legitimacy of Asian Studies
within Area Studies. To delve deeper into this topic, I will expand on the concerns and
doubts which have been haunting the field. To what extent are the academic rigor and
objectivity of research guaranteed? Does its success depend on government interests
and policy goals? Is the tendency to rely on geographical regions suitable for today’s
globalized world? How can it be accurately situated between disciplinary-focused
academic departments and interdisciplinary approaches? (Huat et al., 2019)

This paper starts by examining the genealogy of the debate, then proceeds to present
views and justifications from various sides and discuss potential impacts on Asian
Studies scholarly. Finally, there is a conclusion reflecting on the influence this
controversy has in my approach to the field as a scholar.

The beginning of Asian Studies as an academic discipline has its origins in the historical
evolution of Area Studies. As a response to the geopolitical dynamics of the Cold War, it
was recognised the need for expertise on various world regions and substantial funding
was provided. This included Asia-related programmes. Its importance and relevance
were recognised while thinking about national security, foreign policy, and intelligence
gathering. (Huat et al., 2019) If the United States’ government would like to effectively
engage with countries around the world and influence them, specialists who could
provide in-depth knowledge of these regions were crucial.

Originally, Area Studies has geographical regions as its organizing principle. It does not
own a unifying theoretical or methodological framework as other social sciences. Critics
may argue that Area studies lack methodological rigor compared to more established
disciplines. (Sidaway, 2013) And for that reason, scholars should engage more deeply
with theories and methods from various disciplines to enrich their research. Geography,
for instance, is still framed by social theory and theoretical abstractions, while having a
descriptive focus on regions as well. (Sidaway, 2013) What one can wonder is what
exactly constitutes a region and what defines its essence.

Contemporarily, the rise of globalization challenges this traditional approach which

consists of viewing the world in terms of static regions. Globalization blurs borders,
connects distant places, and challenges the validity of fixed regional boundaries. Area
Studies, by emphasizing regions, may fail to adapt to the dynamic, interconnected
nature of today’s world. (Van Schendel, 2002) Even though strong academic
communities were built around Area studies and will continue to produce high-quality
knowledge, who will find it relevant if it does not concern the characteristics of the 21st
century? (Van Schendel, 2002)

A possible solution involves shifting the focus from regional traits to studying processes
and making cross-regional comparisons. (Huat et al., 2019) Territories should be
understood as interconnected spaces within trading networks and circulation societies.
Instead of focusing on specific characteristics which define a region, this new approach
should explore a region's connections and dependencies with other regions, places, and
peoples. (Huat et al., 2019) A region should never be defined in isolation.

There have been scholars writing on the concept of “Asias” exactly to challenge the
monolithic entity of the continent and emphasize its diversity. (Huat et al., 2019) To
understand the interconnectedness of different “Asias”, it is important to bear in mind
the importance of maritime history. There is a tendency in the field to prioritize land-
based perspectives. (Andaya, 2006) Some societies have historically regarded the sea as
a boundary rather than an integral part of their territory. (Andaya, 2006) In fact, it has
often served as a unifying element, connecting regions, and enabling the flow of people,
ideas, and trade. (Andaya, 2006) By considering the maritime dimension, many issues,
which often transcend regional boundaries, like climate change and migration, can be
better addressed by the field. The study of different regions in Asia, such as South, East,
and Southeast Asia, can be interconnected by maritime history. (Andaya, 2006)

Also, what should the degree of interdisciplinarity embraced be? The answer may be
somewhere between a multidisciplinary approach which combines various perspectives
and the need for greater disciplinary rigor. Many scholars have moved to disciplinary
departments, leaving mainly arts and humanities subjects within Area Studies. (Huat et
al., 2019) Consequently, there is difficulty in fully embracing the opportunities for
interdisciplinary research. There is also a more limited form of interdisciplinarity,
primarily focusing on collaborations within the humanities. (Huat et al., 2019)

Area studies have faced criticism for their historical connections to imperial projects. It
cannot erase its past as a political tool to satisfy the interests of colonial powers and
expand spheres of influence. (Huat et al., 2019) It often perpetuated Eurocentric
perspectives and reinforced power imbalances between colonizer and colonies. (Huat et
al., 2019) This Eurocentrism was reflected in the selection of regions and cultures to be
studied, with a focus on areas of strategic importance to imperial powers, often
neglecting or marginalizing other parts of the world. (Huat et al., 2019) The knowledge
produced by Area Studies was not to contribute to genuine understanding and
collaboration between cultures but to justify colonial rule. (Huat et al., 2019) Nowadays
there has been ideas to move on from past approaches and even refer to the field as
“Global Studies” instead. (Sidaway, 2013)

In the same way, “Global Asia" has been discussed. The concept emerged in the early
2000s, reflecting discussions on globalization after the end of the Cold War. (Sato Jin,
2021) It has come to signify Asia's increasing political and economic power on the
global stage, including the expanding influence of China. The increasing connectivity
among Asian societies can be observed through the study of migration, environmental
and health issues which are considered universal. (Sato Jin, 2021) A research agenda
which can be proposed for "Global Asia" studies includes topics like mutual reliance in
the formation of national identity, the impact of foreign aid projects, the exchange of
human resources across regions and distribution of food. (Sato Jin, 2021) Local voices
and demands in Asia should also be taken into consideration. It is important to
understand the local reactions to global forces and their role in shaping the global
landscape. This can be seen as a shift from an "outside-in" approach, which looks at
how global forces affect a local region, to an "inside-out" approach. (Sato Jin, 2021)

New methodologies are emerging in Asian Studies due to digitalization and the
availability of open-access data. The availability of such data has democratized
research, allowing scholars from around the world to engage with a lot of materials. The
COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, has forced scholars to work from home more
seriously, and online research has become more accessible. (Sato Jin, 2021) With travel
restrictions and safety concerns, scholars had to adapt to work remotely and rely on
digital resources more than ever. (Sato Jin, 2021) Nowadays, the use of online resources
and telecommunication is common for the study of humanities. This convenience has
accelerated the research process and expanded the scope of available sources. Also, it is
possible to connect with individuals and communities in Asian countries without the
need for physical presence. (Sato Jin, 2021)
Another related controversy lies in the fact that many Area Studies scholars believe
Asian Studies should have some distinction from Area Studies, given the uniqueness of
Asian societies and cultures which require specialized attention. (Huat et al., 2019)
Others argue that in an era of globalization, studying Asia is not just about
understanding those societies and cultures but also about comprehending global
processes, such as economic integration, cultural exchange, and political alliances. (Van
Schendel, 2002) For that reason, it should always be addressed within Area Studies. In
my opinion, I believe there could be a balance between these two perspectives to be sure
not to remove the specialization factor from Asian Studies. The field allows scholars to
become experts in particular regions or topics within Asia. But they need to be aware of
how it engages with the world in terms of trade, politics, and cultural exchange. (Huat et
al., 2019)

In conclusion, the ongoing debate surrounding the legitimacy of Asian Studies within
Area Studies is a multifaceted issue which has had implications for the success of the
field in academia. The suggestion to rename the field as "Global Studies" shows the
intention to move beyond historical backgrounds and adapt to the demands of
globalization. As scholars, we must remain open to new perspectives which challenge
traditional limits and offer new understandings of the societies and cultures we study. In
my own approach to the field, this debate reminds me of the importance of critical
thinking and adaptability to new realities. It encourages me to consider the evolving
nature of knowledge production and the need to engage with interdisciplinary methods
and global perspectives. In academia, we are always learning, living, and absorbing new
facts, even when our subject tends to look at the past and has come with a lot of pre-
conceptions. Asian Studies, like all academic disciplines, must evolve to remain relevant
and address the issues of our time.

Reference List:

Andaya, B.W. (2006) “Oceans Unbounded: Transversing Asia across ‘Area Studies’”,
The Journal of Asian Studies, 65(4), pp. 669-690.

Huat, Chua Beng, K. Dean, H. Engseng, H.K. Chong, J. Rigg, and B. Yeoh. (2019)
“Area Studies and the crisis of legitimacy: a view from South East Asia”. South East
Asia Research, 27(1), pp. 31-48.
Sato Jin, S. Sonoda. (2021) “Asian studies “inside-out”: a research agenda for the
development of Global Asian Studies”. International Journal of Asian Studies, 18, pp.
207–216.

Sidaway, James D. (2013) “Geography, Globalization, and the Problematic of Area

Studies.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103 (4), pp. 984–1002.

Van Schendel, W. (2002) “Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: jumping

scale in Southeast Asia”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(6), pp.
647-668