Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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.
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.
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
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.