Current Publications in Southeast Asia - Research Paper Example

Discuss the following quotation: “The term ical’ is Eurocentric and should not be used in a Southeast Asian context”. Say whether you agree or disagree and give reasons for your answer. According to Wheeler, “classical” may be used to refer to an age of antiquity or something that is valuable to the extent that it largely shapes what comes later.1 Therefore, the term “classical”, when applied to Southeast Asian history, would refer to a period that is valuable and has outstanding qualities, and which shapes all the happenings of all future generations in this region. “Classical” is a Eurocentric description that has been used to single out a particular historical period in SEA history that is thought to be important in shaping what the SEA region is today. Eurocentric in this context implies a term having its origin from Western Europe, but with no historical significance to the historical context of SEA people. According to Aung-Thwin,2 when historians refer to the “classical” period in Southeast Asia, they are usually referring to the period between the ninth and fourteenth centuries AD. In other words, the use of the term “classical” refers to civilization of SEA ancient kingdoms. The term refers to specific dynamics in the past considered critical in shaping the current dynamics in SEA countries. Moreover, as Aung-Twin argues, the word “classical” in SEA historical context was only recently used. Its use gained root in lectures and seminars during the 1960s and 1970s by western history scholars.3 Importantly, the term “classical” was first used when a group of western scholars of SEA studies met in 1977 to discuss “indigenous conceptual systems” among the “Indic” states.4 After some heated discussions among the scholars in the conference, the term “Indic” was deliberately replaced by the term “classical,” and all the following scholastic work in SEA studies started bearing the term “classical” instead. Essentially, the aim of the scholars was to separate the SEA historical context into distinct and systematic periods that successfully built on one another, similar to the European pre-medieval to post medieval periods. Therefore, judging from these dynamics, the term “classical” is Eurocentric and does not have any relevancy or meaning to the SEA people regarding their history. In addition, the current breed of scholars have refrained from writing anything about the classical SEA as people are more and more becoming aware of Eurocentrism, which is portrayed as a biased interpretation of history. The fact that earlier scholars chose to dwell on “classicalness” of SEA may be because they were Western educated, different from the current scholars who continually engage in detail inquiry from all spheres of history. This would imply that the historical accounts offered in such books are developed in the subjective context of the scholars, and do not necessary portray the reality of such history to the SEA people. Therefore, such “classical” history as would be referred to result from European construction and deconstruction of the ancient SEA history, implying that such “classical” history is Eurocentric, from where the largest numbers of such historians come from. The SEA history does not signify any period that can be isolated from the SEA historical context as outstanding in shaping social or political dynamics in the region. Research portrays that no considerable transformations happened between the origins and collapse of Burma as a monarchy; the entire pre-colonial era has to be viewed as a single entity with no significant changes before or after the collapse of the monarchy. 5This is derived from the fact that studies have shown that from the middle of the ninth century towards the late nineteenth century, the main characteristics of Burma’s economic, social, political, religious and administrative systems portray no significant change. This means that in the “classical” period between 9th and 14th century, Burma did not undergo any meaningful change different from what the county was by 19th century. It is thus hard to come up with distinct SEA kind of “classical.” The idea of isolating a “classical” period In Burmese history thus does not portray a clear picture of the country’s historical context, and can only be ascribed to Europeanization of the region’s history. Classical being a Eurocentric term may not have any relevancy in SEA. Therefore, not every European connotation may be applied to the SEA history to effectively explain the dynamics of history in such a region as the two have divergent introspection of historical events shaping their lives Such materials were thus used to reconstruct the SEA history from the European perspective, implying the use of the term “classical” as a product of deconstruction and constructing the large historical colonial archeological services were all Eurocentric, and do not have any relation to the SEA people and their historical context. This is further supported by Aung-Thwin assertion that the influences of the French analysts on early SEA historians has been perceived to have a reliable impact due to these constructs and wide ranging interdisciplinary methodologies, which may be considered to be well developed and suited to construct a better and more comprehensive account on the early SEA history.6 Therefore the “classical” as was coined and applied by western scholars is Eurocentric as much of the said history has been constructed from the perceptions of European scholars and historians, mostly French scholars who were considered to have a better construction of events that marked this period. Hobbs argues that in the recent past, many scholars and persons have shown an interest in learning about the SEA history and obtaining factual data and information regarding this area particularly in its historical dynamics.7 Therefore, according to Hobbs, to meet such a demand, many books have been published in the recent past in America and Europe. Such books and publications are claimed to bring about consciousness to many readers regarding the significance of SEA region, and their political and social dynamics until the attainment of independence. However, Aung- Thwin explains that the use of the term “classical” is self-deceiving and a concept derived from the feeling of nostalgia on the part of such beholders.8 However, as portrayed above, the idea of “classicalness” in portraying the ancient SEA history as critical in defining the current states goes beyond nostalgia to a professional culture. Such explains the trend behind many scholars and writers compiling numerous books in Europe and America claiming to rate a historical reality, which suggests to explain the “classicalness” of SEA history as perceived today. In other words, the scholars attempt to bring the past to present for new readers to read and understand the SEA “classical era,” and how it helped shape the current SEA countries today. Extrapolating the past in SEA to explain the idea behind a unified “classical” SEA fails to indicate any trend among the natives that could have resulted in a unified territory whose impact shapes the current SEA9 Scholars such as Wolters, and Anthony Reid have expressed sentiments regarding a unified SEA region culture, or history. Hobbs argues that such a concept on a unified SEA idea is non-autonomous to the indigenous SEA history, and is portrayed as an academic or political creation.10 For example, several historians while writing in Paris, Canberra, and Ithaca were responsible for unifying the SEA as a historical heritage entity, a unity that can only be considered for the unity of studies by scholars. Aung-Thwin in his experience remarks that recently and still up to date, most SEA students have a change of historical understanding and start to view the SEA region as a unified region only when they have spent considerable time in the West and particularly for academic reasons.11 Therefore, the westernized education system may be responsible for creating such a concept on a unified SEA, which raises many questions on this justification, and how we conceive the “classical” Southeast Asia. It would be expected that such students having a better experience of SEA region would take charge as self-appointed guardians of historical reality and describe the SEA in the most clear and easy way to understand. This implies the western scholars are responsible for the “classical” concept, which is another way of constructing and arranging the SEA history in a way that would be easier to describe in meaning and make sense, similar to the European historical periods, which are systematically arranged and which largely explain the current European context. The difference in perception of the “classical” period between the natives and other western scholars clearly portrays the term as being Eurocentric. For example the Burmese had a special reference to the “Camelot,” a society that was considered extemporary in the golden past. However, the reference of “classicalness” in Burmese context was not static, but a movable concept which later applied to later kingdoms and dynasties in Burma.12 This is because the term was used in a relative way; it needed justification depending on similarity of activities and systems in such kingdom based on the activities of the “Camelot”. This is in contrast to the fixed westernized “classicalness,” a critical stage when civilization in SEA is perceived to have taken place. Therefore, this context is Eurocentric and different from the natives’ perception of their history. The problem of continuity vs. discontinuity of SEA history as perceived differently by western scholars and the SEA natives present another case, which rules out any possibility of a “classical” period in the SEA history. While the Burmese people reflect on, multiple classical periods, the western scholars maintain only a single pagan classical state. Importantly, the dependence of western scholars on inscriptions from the early ages was dependent on finding any evidence from the Cambodian legends. This refers to a body of narratives by monks who recalled the narratives and accommodated the imagined needs of the foreigners to whom such narratives were narrated.13 This led to major discrepancies in consolidating the historical context of Cambodian people. As Mabett argues, the western scholars were doing some pioneering work in consolidating the historical myths, beginning with no prior knowledge of names of dynasties, location of kingdoms, or their names.14 Thus the westernized scholars’ account of SEA history is limited to the information available by then, and the narratives offered by monks. Many ancient dynasties and kingdoms may have been forgotten. Evidence of many dynasties in the ancient SEA portrays Sea history to be dynamic and full of discontinuity. For example, between 1181 and 1218 in Angkor under Jayavarman VII, the monarch underwent tremendous changes in political, economic, and social dynamics.15 The dynasty thus stood out very different from other reigns before and after this period, but the monarchy later fell despite the major developments erected. This is a manifestation of the discontinuities marking Sea history.16 However, the Europeanized historical context chooses to major on political periodization as the main benchmark in understanding Sea history, and ignores other major factors such as social and economic factors that occurred during this period. This can be traced to the European history that is classified in distinct periods of pre-mediaeval, mediaeval period, and post medieval periods. The “classical” is similarly a European benchmark to classify SEA history to emphasize continuity of dynasties in trying to understand current dynamics in SEA history. Judging from the derivation of the term “classical” from European scholars and how it has been used, it was perceived to be an easier way to rearrange SEA historical events into distinct and systematic periods which are considered to have an impact to the current states. Moreover, many Western scholars have argued differently regarding “classicalness” in the SEA region in the recent past. The contradiction between “classicalness” of the SEA region between the natives and European contexts clearly portrays the term “classical” is used for convenience by western scholars, but does not have any relevancy to SEA native people. This implies that the term “classical” is Eurocentric and does not have any relation to the native historical perspectives. Bibliography Aung Tghwin Michael, “Jambudipa: Classical Burma’s Camelot,” Contributions to Asian Studies, 16(1981), Aung-Thwin Michael. “The Classical” in Southeast Asia: The Present and the Past,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 26, 75-91 Hobbs Cecil, “Current Publications in Southeast Asia,” Association for Asian Studies, 8.3, (1949), 296-318. Mabbett I.W., Kingship in Angkor http://www.siamese-heritage.org/jsspdf/1971/JSS_066_2b_Mabbett_KingshipInAngkor.pdf Wheeler L. Kip. Classical Literature, http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/resource_lit.classics.html Retrieved 4th April, 2013 Read More