Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

From Southeast Asian Studies to ASEAN Studies?

Muhadi Sugiono
|
Department of International Relations
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences /
Center for Southeast Asian Social Studies
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Yogyakarta

The interest in ASEAN Studies has grown very rapidly in Southeast Asia as
signified especially, but not exclusively, by the establishment of ASEAN
Studies Centers at the universities throughout the region. This phenomenon
seems to indicate that ASEAN Studies will soon replace Southeast Asian
Studies which has never actually gained a stronghold in the region. This paper
departs from the argument that while there are strong reasons for such
optimism, simply replacing Southeast Asia with ASEAN can be misleading
both politically as well as academically.

Southeast Asian Studies and Its Problems


Southeast Asia as a region and as an object of inquiry emerged in the course
of the World War II and after. Born from military strategy with the
establishment of the Southeast Asia Command under the Admiral Lord Louis
Mountbatten in 1943, Southeast Asia became increasingly important in the
decades after the end of the war. The growing international interest of the
United States and its confrontation with the Soviet Union gave Southeast Asia
its geopolitical significance. It has transformed Southeast Asia from a
geographical position into a regional concept with political dimensions.
Especially important in this process were Indochina wars. The wars
strenghtened the notion of Southeast Asia as a region which, from the
American point of view, was very vulnerable to the domino effect of the
spread of communism (Fifield 1976).
It was against this background that Southeast Asian Studies came into
existence. Southeast Asian Studies was a type of knowledge with strategic
importance to American geopolitical strategy in its global confrontation
against communism. With the extensive resources support form the
government agencies and private foundations, Southeast Asian Studies has
molded the region to reflect this geopolitical strategy in the region. As such,
Southeast Asian Studies transformed Southeast Asia from a concept into real

existence. Mostly took place with significant contribution of the disciplines of


Anthropology and History, Southeast Asian Studies seeks to reveal the real
nature of Southeast Asia, i.e. Southeast Asia prior to the outside or European
intervention. Thorugh its construction of Southeast Asian as an autonomous
entity, Southeast Asia can be differentiated from other entity such as India
and China. In short, Southeast Asian Studies understanding of Southeast
Asia is therefore quite essentialist in character.
Direct connection between Southteast Asian Studies and American
geopolitical strategy inevitably led to the production of knowledge of a specific
kind in terms of its nature, objective and methodology. Along with all area
studies, Southeast Asian Studies was modernist body of knowledge. It departs
from the very basic assumption of the centrality of modern nation-state in
defining social world. It focused on knowledge production with practical
policy implication i.e., to understand and to direct social change modelled
after modern western and developed countries (Ludden 2000). Within this
framework, significant numbers of studies on political development in the
forms of nation- and state-buildings as well as economic development have
been produced to better understand as well as to solve the problem of
underdevelopment which characterized most of the Southeast Asian
countries.
Southeast Asian Studies entered into crisis along with crisis facing area
studies in general. Changing global political context with the end of Cold War
has put to an end the golden era of area studies. As a discipline initially
designed to serve American and its western allies' interest in their
competition with the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, area studies has lost
its relevance if not its rationale for its existence as Cold War ended.
Consequently, area studies could not rely on generous financial support that it
enjoyed previously to support its sustainability any longer.
Apart from fiscal, epistemology is another dimension of crisis facing area
studies. Area studies has been subject to criticism since from the very
beginning. Many criticized area studies as American and western imperialism
in the knowledge production. This imperialistic knowledge production
continues even after the rationale for its development has gone. Referring to
the intelectual (along with psychological and emotional) impact of Cold War
to the people of Taiwan (and Asia in general), Kuan-Hsing Chen, for example,
reflects to this criticism when he writes that 'cold war is still alive with us'
(2010, 118). In addition, area studies has also been criticized as not offering
any substantial body of knowledge. While some area studies scholars have
individually made significant theoretical contributions in social sciences, area
studies did not offer 'distinctive approach to inquiry' nor 'particular
methodology' apart from the ones derived from modernization theories (Gos
and Wesley-Smith 2010, xiii). Now, with growing influence of globalization
studies, area studies has increasingly been seen as getting obsolete. Its

conception of areas does not fit reality of the contemporary globalized world.
While area studies generated American picture of the world, the challenge
now is to produce more global picture of the world. In the world where
borders become porous, the concept of region or area has increasingly been
overshadowed by the rise of transnational concept of spaces. Area is no longer
reflect a cultural border with clear demarcating geographical boundaries.
Modern ways of knowing characterizing area studies must give way to other
ways of knowing such as postmodernism or critical theories.

Where does ASEAN Studies Fit in?


What is the implication of the crisis of area studies for Southeast Asian
Studies? Can ASEAN Studies be ? There is no straightforward answer to this
question. While all those critiques of the nature, objective and methodology of
area studies are legitimate, they do not imply that no such thing as the area or
region exists. Regions do not only exist, but also increasingly play significant
role in the contemporary world. One writer characterizes our contemporary
world as 'a world of regions' (Katzenstein 2005). Giving attention to regions,
therefore, is more rather than less important now. Regions are not only the
actual sites of interaction, but also entities with relative idependence to the
processes at global level (Acharya 2007, 629).
Area studies has correctly given attention to regions, but the understanding of
regions and, hence, the ways of knowing them tends to be misleading.
Regions should not be understood as a stable existence. They change
continuously reflecting the dynamics of interaction within themseselves as
well as in their interaction with factors and actors outside the regions. But,
instead of understanding the regions as constitutive to various process and
therefore dynamic entities, area studies existentializes regions by imposing
fixed and stable characteristics upon them.
The history of Southeast Asia clearly reflects this reality of region. Coming
into existence as part of American (and British) strategy during the World
War II and strengthened by the war by proxy during the Cold War, Southeast
Asia, a region characterized by instability, conflict and underdevelopment, is
now a dynamic, relatively stable and cohesive region with increased
confidence and assertiveness in terms of identity, power and agency in the
contemporary world. These capacities exist despite strong influences and
pressures of the great powers from outside the region, such as the United
States, China, India and Japan.
The establishment of ASEAN can be seen as a turning point in the history of
Southeast Asia and and provides us with a clear example of the dynamic and
relative independence of a region. ASEAN was established initially as a intra
regional conflict management as well as an effort to gained a degree of

independence in terms of intervention from the great powers outside the


region. In addition, ASEAN was initially established as a bastion of the spread
of Communism in Southeast Asia. 1 ASEAN is now actively promoting and
facilitating close interaction between ASEAN and the great powers outside the
region. In terms of membership, ASEAN is a house of countries with different
ideological orientation, both left and right.
Amid their economic achievement in 1980s and 1990s Southeast Asian
countries have also been very assertive in expressing their idenity. Arguing
that the very success of their economic development owed to their distinctive
cultural context, Southeast Asian leaders challenged the dominance of liberal
and western values in what so-calles Asian values debates. Today, Southeast
Asian countries are more confident in expressing their identity. The
establishment of ASEAN Community which means that Southeast Asia will
formally become a single community of nations with shared values clearly
reflects the identity that ASEAN leaders are envisaging. This identity, which is
clearly reflected in ASEAN Charter, is obviously a constructed one. It is a
mixed of what ASEAN leaders claimed as ASEAN values and universal values
democracy and human rights which previous ASEAN leaders referred to as
western values.
No doubt, ASEAN has been instrumental in making the region more dynamic
and more visible. It has relatively successful in politically constructing the
region as reflected ultimately in the notion of ASEAN Community. Taking this
development into account, the ASEAN Studies clearly offers a new perspective
in understanding the region. It does not only capture correctly the dynamics
of contemporary Southeast Asia, but also gives credit to the endogenous
construction of identity of Southeast Asian as well as their capacity agency in
the contemporary world.

But, while providing an important picture of Southeast Asia, ASEAN is not


identical with Southeast Asia. It is not the whole picture of Southeast Asia and
is not sufficient to understand the region as a whole. ASEAN does provide one
story of Southeast Asia. While ASEAN leaders are projecting Southeast Asia
as a single and integrated community in the region, many people remain left
marginalized or even excluded. In other words, other and different stories are
also being written in the region.
1 ASEAN was established in 1967 during the fear of domino effect of the spread of
Communism following the fall of Saigon. The five founding members of ASEAN Indonesia,
Malaysia, Thaland, Singapore and the Philippines, were countries with strong anti
Communist governments.

Focusing on ASEAN tends to give privilege to the role of the state in defining
or construction Southeast Asia and marginalizes the contribution of the other
actors. Not state actors have also played a very important role in the
construction of Southeast Asia. It goes without saying that the role of both the
state and non state actors is not necessarily contradictory. The initiative of the
ASEAN leaders to establish an ASEAN Community has motivated Southeast
Asian civil societes to work closely together. Along with ASEAN leaders
Southeast Asian civil society has also been very enthusiastic to the idea of a
more integrated Southeast Asia. But, it emphasizes a more people-oriented
ASEAN Community, rtaher than institutional or elitist one. In addition, the
role of business community cannot be neglected in bringing Southeast Asian
people closer together. Air Asia provides us with a good example. While its
founder surely did not have a vision of integrating Southeast Asian people, Air
Asia facilitates the process by connecting smaller cities which otherwise are
neglected by national flag carrier airlines. The impact of this increased
interconnectedness is undoubtedly very significant for the future of Southeast
Asian people.
The dynamics of the process of constructing the Southeast Asia demands us to
change our understand of the region and the ways ins which we approach it.
One thing is clear, that Southeast Asian Studies in its conventional form of
knowledge production is not only infufficient but also provides misleading
picture of the region. In order to maintain its relevance, Southeast Asian
Studies needs to change its objective, its nature and its methodology. Whether
or not these problem can sufficiently be addressed by ASEAN Studies is too
early to determine.
But, one this is very clear. Significant change in Southeast Asian Studies
means, in more concrete terms, should be a move away from the modern
understanding of Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia has to be understood not
simply as a region consisting of nation-states where all the progressive
characters of modernization can be projected. Nation-states are important,
but not in deterministic way. While focusing on the states might have
practical convenience for instumental purpose of Southeast Asian Studies
during the early phase of its development (and I am afraid of ASEAN Studies
today), it cannot rely on this basic assumption anymore. At least, as
globalization scholars continuously remind us, the states are hollowing out in
the process of globalization. In addition, broadening the ways of knowing i.e.
viewing Southeast Asia from different and even contradictory perspectives
will give more meaning and relevance of Southeast Asian Studies to the
people of Southeast Asia.

Conclusion

The development of ASEAN Studies is clearly a positive development in


understanding Southeast Asia. It correctly understands Southeast Asia with
its capacity of agency and endogenous construction of identity. But, the
danger is there. Replacing Southeast Asia with ASEAN can lead to other
misleading conception of region. It tends to neglect contending contruction of
Southeast Asia.

References
Acharya, Amitav, 2007, 'Review Article: The Emerging Regional
Architecture of World Politics,' World Politics, 59, pp. 629-52.
Chen, Kuan-Hsing, 2010, Asia as Method: Towards Deimperialization,
Duke University Press, Durham.
Fifield, Russell H., 1976, Southeast Asian Studies: Origins,
Development, Future,' Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 7/ 2,
Setember, pp. 151-161.
Gos, Jon and Terence Wesley-Smith, 2010, 'Introduction: Remaking
Area Studies,' in Terence Wesley-Smith and Jon Gos, eds., Remaking
Area Studies: Teaching and Learning Across Asia and Pacific, Manoa:
Univesity of Hawai'i Press.
Heryanto, Ariel, 2007, 'Can There be Southeast Asians in Southeast
Asian Studies,' in Laurie J. Sears, ed., Knowing Southeast Asian
Subjects, Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J., 2005, A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the
American Imperium, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen