(DOWNLOAD) "Towards a Poststructuralist Southeast Asian Studies?(Research Notes and Comments)" by SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Towards a Poststructuralist Southeast Asian Studies?(Research Notes and Comments)
- Author : SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia
- Release Date : January 01, 2006
- Genre: Social Science,Books,Nonfiction,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 234 KB
Description
Observers had it that the heyday of conventional area studies, in general, and Southeast Asian studies, in particular, has long faded in the horizon (Anderson 1984, 1992; McVey 1998). The initial outburst of optimism and excitement has been replaced by a sense of uncertainty and foreboding characteristic of a field under threat. Despite renewed interest as of late in Asian Studies brought about by the growing "Asianization" of some American universities, (1) and because of the post-September 11 atmosphere, (2) perpetual insecurity rather than sustainable growth seems to be what holds for the future. While such pessimistic estimation captures more adequately the state of Southeast Asian Studies in North America, something not diametrically different may also be said of that in Australia (3) and in Europe. (4) Apparently, it is only in Singapore and in Japan where area studies, especially the Southeast Asian branch, are on the rise. (5) The reasons for the above-cited condition are many. These include the shift in the thrusts of funding agencies, (6) a move that was related to area studies' close association with the Cold War era and modernization project, both of which have seen their days. Of equal, if not more, importance is the nature of conventional area studies itself that makes it seemingly incongruous with the changing configuration of a globalizing world. (7) By nature of conventional area studies, I take it to mean the often narrow concerns for a specific area, usually a nation-state, coupled with the empiricist/positivist approach adopted that left unarticulated the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings. (8) This echoes the two-decade old observation by Anderson that "the bulk of North American scholarship on Southeast Asian politics is ... decidedly untheoretical.... uncomparative and thus, from a disciplinary point of view, unsophisticated" (Anderson 1984, p. 42). Seen from the Australian perspective, Sundhaussen blatantly calls a similar phenomenon as a manifestation of parochialism. (Sundhaussen 1986). He was referring specifically to the study of Indonesian politics and history, but his critique may well cover other countries, and perhaps other fields of study that deal with the region. According to Ruth McVey, one almost fatal consequence of this is, specifically referring to the case of the United States, that once area studies ceased to be the "darling of the grant-makers", it has been easy for those in the discipline to "ghettoize" and marginalize it (McVey 1998, p. 44). While some observers claim that Australia's engagement with Asia is different owing among other things to its proximity to the region and that this would ensure resilience of Asian Studies in Australia, the downsizing if not closing down of Asian Studies in most universities tends to fuel a sense of "crisis" that haunts the field. (9) Against such a backdrop we can easily understand the various calls from different directions (10) either for the rejection or re-invention of the concept of "area studies" that traditionally underpins Southeast Asian Studies (or Asian Studies in general). As Kenneth Prewitt emphasizes, the area studies we have known for so long is "not the optimum structure for providing new insights and theories suitable for the world in which the geographic units of analysis are neither static nor straightforward" (cited in Reynolds 1998, p. 13).
 "Towards a Poststructuralist Southeast Asian Studies?(Research Notes and Comments)" by SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}