program - framing asian studies - website - framing...maitreyee choudhury, centre for himalayan...
TRANSCRIPT
Program
Conference program
Framing Asian Studies:
Geopolitics, Institutions and Networks
18‐20 November 2013
Venue: BplusC (Chapel Hall), Oude Vest 45
(entrance via Hazewindsteeg), Leiden
Conference Organizers
International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS), Leiden, the Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
www.iseas.edu.sg www.iias.nl
Monday 18 November 2013 Contested Idea of Asia
0900‐1000 Welcome Address Phillippe Peycam, Director of the International Institute for Asian Studies, the Netherlands Ooi Kee Beng, Deputy Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore Albert Tzeng, IIAS‐ISEAS Postdoctoral Fellow and Conference Convenor
Coffee Break
1030‐1200, Western Discourses on Asia Chair: Carolien Stolte, Lecturer, Institute for History, Leiden University, the Netherlands
From Oriental Studies to Asian Studies: The Metamorphosis of Western Mind in Framing Asia Maitreyee Choudhury, Centre for Himalayan Studies, North Bengal University, India
Asian Studies in Portugal Nuno Canas Mendes, Orient Institute, School of Social and Political Sciences – University of Lisbon, Portugal
Geopolitical and Social Framings of Australia’s ‘Asia Literacy’ Kirrilee Hughes, Australian National University, Australia
Lunch Break
1330‐1500, Asian Discourses on Asia Chair: Young‐Chul Cho, Korea Foundation Visiting Profesor, International Institute for Asian Studies and Leiden University Institute for Area Studies, the Netherlands
Colonialism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Indian Discourse on Asia Krishna Sen, Department of English, University of Calcutta, India
Knowing Asia: Why is there no ‘Asian Studies’ in India Brij Mohan Tankha, Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi, India
Asia as Method: Case Study of Kuan‐Hsing Chen (1957‐ ) Abby Hsian‐huan Huang, Research Master in Asian Studies, Leiden University, the Netherlands
Coffee Break
1530‐1730, Contested Geographical Framing Chair: Yih‐Jye Hwang, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Leiden University College the Hague, the Netherlands
Cartographic Illustration and the Ongoing Geopolitical Construction of Asia and South Asia William Louis Richter, Kansas State University, United States
Pivotal Projections: Geographical Fulcrums of History and the Framing of Asia in the Writings of Halford Mackinder and Owen Lattimore Hasan Karrar, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan
Area Studies, Asian Studies, and the Pacific Basin Shane Barter, Pacific Basin Research Center / Soka University of America, United States
The Sea of Changes‐Shifting Trajectories Across the Sea of Bengal Jayati Bhattacharya, South Asian Studies Programme, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Tuesday 19 November 2013 Colonial Legacies and Institutions
0900‐1200 Colonial Legacies Chair: Ward Keeler, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin, USA / Fellow, International Institute for Asian Studies, the Netherlands
Science and Practice: the Colonial Legacy of ‘Improvement’ in Indian Agricultural Knowledge Sanjukta Ghosh, Independent Researcher, United Kingdom Anthropology in India‐ From Colonial Legacy to Post Colonial Identity Sekh Rahim Mondal, University of North Bengal, India
Coffee Break
Malays as Natives: Conceptualization of Malays in British Malaya Yuji Tsuboi, Oriental Library, Japan
Classifying the Chinese in Diaspora: Southeast Asian Chinese in Colonial Eyes Huei‐Ying Kuo, Dept. of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, United States Remembering Empire: Apotheosis, Atrocity and National Memories of the Dutch East India Company Eric Jones, Southeast Asian History, Northern Illinois University, United States
Lunch Break
1330‐1500, Foundations and Institutes Chair: Albert Tzeng, IIAS‐ISEAS Fellow, International Institute for Asian Studies, the Netherlands
Institute of Pacific Relations,1923‐57: Asia’s First International NGO Stephen R. MacKinnon, Arizona State University, United States
American Philanthropy and Social Science in Early Coldwar Japan Masato Karashima, Kyoto University, Japan
Culture as a Tool for Soft Diplomacy: The Curious Case of the ASEAN Cultural Fund and other Japanese initiatives in Southeast Asia David Ocón Fernández, Independent Arts Manager and Consultant / International University of Catalonia (UIC), Spain
Coffee Break
1530‐1730, Archive and Publishers Chair: Elisa Ganser, Fellow, International Institute for Asian Studies, the Netherlands
Notes in the Margins: Music, Magic and Institutional Knowledge Julia Byl, King's College London, United Kingdom
From Manuscript Hunts to Collections, Catalogues and Oriental Institutes: Representing Indigenous Knowledge of India at the Turn of the Centuries Cezary Galewicz, Institute of Oriental Studies, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Building a Bridge between China and the West in Contemporary China Studies Suisheng Zhao, University of Denver, United States
Mapping of University Presses in India: Pattern of Knowledge Production and Dissemination Anup Kumar Das, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
Wednesday 20 November 2013 Inter‐Regional Gazes
0900‐1200, On Southeast/ South Asia Chair: Siobhan Campbell, Fellow, International Institute for Asian Studies, the Netherlands
From Geertz to Ricklefs: The Changing Discourse on the Javanese Religion and its Wider Contexts Riwanto Tirtosudarmo, Research Center for Society and Culture, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia
The ‘Politics’ of Scholarship and Journalism on Cambodia Gea D.M. Wijers, Cambodia Research Group, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Coffee break
Institutes of Southeast Asia in China Jean Berlie, Centre for Greater China Studies, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
Southeast Asian Studies in Russia: The Agents against Structural Limits Ekaterina Koldunova, Moscow State Institute of International Affairs, MGIMO‐University, Russia
Approaching Asia from Outside the Establishment: Bodies and frameworks of India studies in Soviet Lithuania Valdas Jaskunas, Centre of Oriental Studies, Vilnius University, Lithuania
Lunch Break
1300‐1500, On China Chair: Frank Pieke, Leiden University Institute for Area Studies, the Netherlands
The Rise of China and the Framing of “Asian Studies” in Latin America & Caribbean Gonzalo S Paz, Georgetown University, United States
Study of China's Foreign Policy in Post‐Soviet Russia Vladimir Portyakov, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia The status of China studies in the Arab World Mohammad Selim, Department of Political Science, Kuwait University, Kuwait
Interplay between Local Embededness, Geopolitics and Knowledge: Genealogies of Knowledge Production of Chinese Studies in its Neighbourhood Claire Seungeun Lee, Asia Research Institute and the Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Coffee Break
1530‐1700, On Taiwan Chair: Shelley Ching‐yu Hsieh, Visiting Professor, Taiwanese Chair of Chinese Studies, International Institute for Asian Studies, the Netherlands Studying “Taiwan Studies:” The Evolution and the Transformations of a Multi‐Disciplinary Sub‐field, 1600 CE to 2011CE Murray A. Rubinstein, Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University / Baruch College of the City University of New York / City College of New York, United States
Taiwan Studies in the United States and Europe Hardina Ohlendorf, Centre of Taiwan Studies, SOAS, University of London, United Kingdom
1630‐1700, Closing Remarks
1700, Reception
ABSTRACTS IN ORDER OF PRESENTATION
Maitreyee Choudhury, Centre for Himalayan Studies, North Bengal University, India
From Oriental Studies to Asian Studies: The Metamorphosis of Western Mind in Framing Asia Asia caught the imagination of the West for centuries. The fabled Orient with its gold and riches, and mysticism and romanticism, attracted the westerners from distant Europe who came to Asia as adventurers, travelers, traders and conquerors. In addition to settling down in Asia as colonial rulers, they set up eminent institutes for the study of the Orient. The Asiatic Society founded by Sir William Jones in Calcutta (now Kolkata) in 1784 may be cited as one of the fore‐runners in the tradition of Oriental Studies. The British rulers founded many Asiatic societies in the then British Empire in Asia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Surprisingly, none of these Asiatic Societies included scholars of Asian origin in their formative period, though they were supposed to acquire knowledge on Asian Philosophy, language, religion, and culture. Strangely enough, “the European scholar or the soldier, the merchant or the missionary, by virtue of their politically super‐ordinate status, also acquired the right to interpret the orient and to build up its image according to their liking” (Misra, 1996). Traditional Oriental Studies gave way to modern Asian Studies in the wake of the emergence of Area Studies in the aftermath of World War II, first in the United States of America and gradually in European West. The point of departure from traditional Oriental Studies to modern Asian Studies may also be traced in the then USSR. According to Primakov, former Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, USSR Academy of Sciences, Russia experienced early transformation in Oriental Studies which could be subdivided into two stages: one before the Great October Revolution of 1917, and the other after. Before October Revolution, Oriental Studies in Soviet Russia primarily meant historical, philological and textual research on Asiatic countries. Post October Revolution, Oriental Studies in the Soviet Union became actively involved in promoting national liberation movement in the colonial East, and studying economy, contemporary history and politics. Meanwhile, the rise of Japan as an industrial super‐power rivaling the West intrigued the western super‐powers. In recent past, “the Middle East has become one of the most explosive regions of the world” (Tirtha, 2001) and have forced attention of the western scholars and political leaders. In addition, the rise of China and India as economic giants has ignited the passion of the western mind for a deeper understanding of the East in the new avatar of Asian Studies.
Nuno Canas Mendes, Orient Institute, School of Social and Political Sciences – University of Lisbon, Portugal
Asian Studies in Portugal The paper intends to analyse the development of Asian Studies in Portugal during the XXth century, bearing in mind the fact the Portuguese historical heritage in the area and the fact that it was in Asia the Portuguese decolonization ended (East Timor and Macao, 1999). Till 1974 and by the end of Salazar's and Caetano's Estado Novo, Portuguese Universities and Geographical Society of Lisbon developed these studies mainly with political purposes ‐ the maintenance of the "Empire"; since then the scientific research continued in a more neutral way. Paradoxically, the "Empire" started and finished in Asia and that was an added value for the refreshment of Asian Studies, for both political and scientific reasons. The paper will try to focuse this evolution.
Kirrilee Hughes, Australian National University, Australia
Geopolitical and social framings of Australia’s ‘Asia literacy’ Australia’s ‘Asia literacy’ agenda commenced from the early 1970s and has experienced discontinuous government funding through to 2013. Over this time, ‘Asia literacy’ has linked Asian languages and Asian studies education to broader notions of economic advantage for the Australian nation and for Australian individuals. Through a close reading of government reports and other official documents addressing Australia’s ‘Asia literacy’ between 1971 and 1994 complemented by interviews with their main authors, I explore ‘Asia literacy’ from intersecting spatial and cultural perspectives. This reveals a new way of looking at ‘Asia literacy’ and exposes its metageographical foundations which attempt to separate ‘Australia’ and ‘Asia’, and in doing so, mask cultural hybridity in Australia. A spatial perspective—or the ‘where’ of ‘Asia literacy’—reveals the geo‐political assumptions which underpin ‘Asia literacy’, particularly in terms of placing Australia within ‘Asia’ and as a member of an ‘Asian neighbourhood’. In contrast, a cultural perspective—or the ‘who’ of ‘Asia literacy’—highlights the socio‐cultural aims of Australia’s ‘Asia literacy’ agenda. Within this framework I consider hybridity as an alternative to the Australia‐Asia dichotomy that has permeated ‘Asia literacy’. I explore the tension between Asia literacy’s attempts to place Australia within Asia whilst simultaneously denying cultural flows which place Asia in Australia. Recognising cultural hybridity as a creative force for change has the potential to broaden the sites of Asian languages and Asian studies education in Australia beyond schools and universities. In doing so, Asian languages and Asian studies are no longer framed as ‘foreign’ studies, and instead become studies of the ‘familiar’. This paper is a discussion of geopolitical factors which have underpinned Australian federal government policies to promote Asian languages and Asian studies education in Australian schools, universities and other education institutions. I draw on Lewis and Wigen’s work on the concept of ‘metageography’ as well as Ang’s application of ‘cultural hybridity’ to Australian society. Ultimately, this paper—along with the author’s wider research—aims to critique the power structures which underpin Australia’s Asia literacy: what does ‘Asia literacy’ seek to achieve and for whose benefit? References ‐ Ang, Ien, ‘Australia, China, and Asian Regionalism: Navigating Distant Proximity’, Amerasia Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2010, pp. 127–140 ‐ Ang, Ien, ‘Together‐in‐Difference: Beyond Diaspora, Into Hybridity’, Asian Studies Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2003, pp. 141–154 ‐ Lewis, Martin and Wigen, Karen, The Myth of Continents, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1997
Krishna Sen, Former Professor and Head, Department of English, University of Calcutta, India
Colonialism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Indian Discourse on Asia The Asian discourse on Asia (as opposed to its more celebrated ‘Orientalist’ counterpart) is not new but occluded, and needs to be retrieved for Asian Studies to have a viable pedagogical foundation. It is necessary to recuperate alternative geo‐cultural knowledge‐scapes from the colonial era that problematised and ‘provincalised’ imperialist (mis) readings, to locate Asian Studies within a non‐interpellative frame. This paper focuses images of Asia in colonial India. As opposed to the metropolitan binary between the West and the rest, colonial Indian perspectives on Asia were simultaneously ecumenical and empirical. For the first, we can take Gandhi’s reference in his address at the closing session of the first Inter‐Asian Relations Conference (New Delhi, March 23‐April 2, 1947) to “wise men” of Asia, from “Zoroaster and the Buddha” to “Jesus and Mohamed.” Appropriating Jesus within the ranks of Asian prophets is part of a long
tradition (mainly of the Brahmo Samaj) of ‘Asianising’ Jesus and thus subverting the Christian/pagan dichotomy. Rammohun Roy, founder of the Samaj and a noted linguist, traces certain Christian theological controversies to “disregard … [of] the idiom of the Hebrew, Arabic, and of almost all Asiatic languages” (Roy, The Precepts of Jesus; New York: H. Bates, 1825, 240‐1). His disciple, Keshub Chunder Sen, is more emphatic – “I am proud that I am an Asiatic. And was not Jesus Christ an Asiatic? … Christianity was founded and developed by Asiatics, and in Asia … an altogether Oriental affair” (Sen, Jesus Christ: Europe and Asia; London: Wm. H. Allen & Company, 1870, 26). For the empirical approach we can refer to Jawaharlal Nehru’s opening address at the same conference – “…perhaps one of the notable consequences of the European domination of Asia has been the isolation of the countries of Asia from one another. … The old land routes almost ceased to function and our chief window to the outer world looked out on the sea routes which led to England.” Significantly, Nehru stresses the fragmentation rather than the fiefdom of Asia during colonialism, with Asian solidarity its main casualty. (In fact, he hoped that a new discipline, “Asian Studies,” would emerge from the conference.) Tagore’s little‐known travel writing (in Bengali) to Asian countries – Japan, Java, Asiatic Russia and Persia – is a personal quest for this lost Asian comity. Indeed, it is in Persia and Japan rather than in Europe that he finds certain ideals to invigorate colonised India.
Brij Mohan Tankha, Honoray Fellow, Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi, India
Knowing Asia: Why is there no ‘Asian Studies’ in India Very few Indian universities have had an ‘Asian studies’ programme, and India has never witnessed a Japan or China ‘boom’ comparable to what has occurred in the U.S, Europe and many other countries. That is not to say that Asian countries have not been studied. What then is the difference? In this paper I argue that Indian ‘understandings of Asia’ have a different and layered history and this has shaped the how Asia is known. While I use the word ‘Asia’ for convenience it is not a stable category but a fluid and changing conception that needs to be interrogated. In India geo‐strategic compulsion have played a role but these have been overlaid, with often conflicting ideas that come out of a history that has its origins in the spread of Indic civilization and Buddhism, a history that was reworked to argue for a cultural and non‐violent expansion in the colonial period. To this was added the various layers formed by those in opposition to it, the émigré nationalists and revolutionaries networksfighting for independence. This anti‐colonial nationalism had a strong international vision that led J. Nehru to convene, in New Delhi,the Asian Relations Conference in 1947, which, in turn, led to the establishment of the Indian School of International Relations (later the School of International Studies, JNU).The war with China in 1962 gave a further impetus and a department of Chinese studies (later Japan and Korea were added) was created in Delhi University. The role of international foundations, such as Ford and the Japan Foundation, also contributed to the shaping of these academic programmes. Yet these programmes have remained ‘marginal’ in the universities. So how is ‘Asia’ known? The paper will address this question within the two defining contexts, one the demands of the state and two, the role of civil society to ask how knowledge about ‘Asia’ has been produced.
Abby Hsian‐huan Huang, Research Master in Asian Studies, Leiden University, the Netherlands
Asia as Method: Case Study of Kuan‐Hsing Chen (1957‐ ) Born in Taiwan in 1957 and got the Master and Ph.D. degree of Journalism and Mass Communication from University of Iowa in 1988, Chen now is a professor in Institute for Social Research and Cultural Studies in Chiao‐Tung University in Taiwan. Chen’s works are mainly about critical cultural studies,
focus on issues of de‐colonization, de‐imperialization, de‐cold war and so on. Chen himself is a perfect example on how United States have extensively influenced intellectual realm in East Asia that he pursued higher education there, along with many Taiwanese students who had the same ‘America dream’ since 1960s, but he chose to go back to Taiwan instead of staying in America afterwards. Chen observes that because of the hegemony of the English language and dominant Western institute publications, the knowledge production in East Asia has been highly influenced by the West. Confronted by such uneven power relation, Chen urges to create an Asian academic community as an opposition to the Western counterpart. As a student of journalism and mass communication, Chen finds journal as a place to practice his faith for which he founded "Inter‐Asia Cultural Studies: Movement" in 2005 as a starting point. The goal of the journal is to ‘link together communities in Asia’ and to ‘link Asia to the global community’ by providing a platform on which academic work can intersect and critical work can circulate in and out of Asia. Chen criticizes the notion that the Orient/Rest cannot speak for themselves so the West do it for them, not only by his act of finding Asian allies, but also by his scholar work. In this paper, my discussion will base on Chen’s latest book, Asia as Method: Toward De‐imperialization (Duke University Press, 2010). Asia as Method, as its title says, aims to provide another perspective for post‐colonial study, upon which I hope to develop the discussion with two aspects: for one, I will pinpoint historical and cultural elements in Chen’s ‘writing Asia’ to see how Chen’s post‐colonial discourse is distinct in the specific geo‐political context of Taiwan, also in his personal education genealogy by which I will unravel how he has appropriated US‐centered academic writing in de‐colonialism to Asia; for the other, I will discuss how Chen draws boundaries of his notion of ‘Asia academic community’, how he includes and excludes knowledge production from different countries in Asia, by which I hope to reflect uneven power structure existing not only between Asia and the West, but also inside of Asia.
William Louis Richter, Professor Emeritus, Kansas State University, United States
Cartographic Illustration and the Ongoing Geopolitical Construction of Asia and South Asia This study begins with a survey and interpretation of maps used to illustrate the covers of contemporary scholarly journals and books on Asia, especially South Asia. Interpretation of these cartographic cover illustrations, drawing upon Foucault, Harley, and others, identifies key features, including intentional distortion or obfuscation and inconsistencies in defining regional boundaries. These observations in turn lead to investigation of twentieth‐century factors that have helped to construct (i.e., to shape and reshape) our contemporary perceptions. Recent works on Asian "makers of Asia" are noted, but primary emphasis is on the evolution of professional associations and journals, especially the Association for Asian Studies and the Journal of Asian Studies. The study concludes that our "mental maps" of Asia and South Asia, represented in and reflective of the cartographic illustrations on our scholarly journals and books, have been shaped in the 20th century ‐‐ and continue to be shaped in the 21st century ‐‐ by non‐Asian as well as Asian geopolitical interests.
Hasan Karrar, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan
Pivotal Projections: Geographical Fulcrums of History and the Framing of Asia in the Writings of Halford Mackinder and Owen Lattimore In 1904, the British geographer and scholar, Halford Mackinder (1861‐1947) made a seminal address to the Royal Geographic Society titled “The Geographical Pivot of History.” In this speech he noted that although the age of “dramatic discoveries” had ended, political power and geography remained
intertwined; geography had the potential to influence the degree and projection of political power. Mackinder posited that over the course of history, certain pivotal regions ‐ such as Central Eurasia ‐ acted as fulcrums affecting state‐building and commerce (Mackinder 1904; see also, Dodds and Sidaway 2004; Kennedy 2004; Kruszewski 1954). Writing soon afterwards, the American academic, explorer, and linguist Owen Lattimore (1900‐1989) who traveled extensively through China and Central Asia in the 1920s and 1930s also identified certain regions – in this case, Xinjiang, in western China – as fulcrums in larger geopolitical processes of political and economic transformation evolving across Central, East and South Asia (Lattimore’s writings on Xinjiang culminated in his well‐known Pivot of Asia [1950] and his magnum opus, Inner Asian Frontiers of China [1962]). My paper explores how the idea of the geopolitical pivots, as articulated by Mackinder and Lattimore represented a framing of Asia as a dynamic space that viewed commercial exchange, strategic posturing and migration being spurred by geographical dynamics in pivotal regions and less by the nation‐state. The timing of Mackinder and Lattimore’s writings in the first half of the twentieth century is critical. This was an insightful historical window when colonial and indigenous states disintegrated but Cold War rivalries were yet to lock states across rigid and militarized boundaries; at this time, many Asian frontiers remained discursive, albeit sometimes disputed. This inter‐Asian connectivity that was motivated by geography defined how Asia was understood by these two seminal observers of the contemporary world, which takes us away from prioritizing the nation‐state as an arbitrator of exchange between states and likewise draws us outside of regional categorization – East, South, Southeast Asia – of the Cold War. References: Dodds, Klaus and James D. Sidaway. 2004. “Halford Mackinder and the ‘Geographical Pivot of History’: A Centennial Retrospective.” The Geographical Journal 170, 4 (December): 292‐297. Mackinder, Halford. 1904. “The Geographical Pivot of History.” The Geographical Journal 23, 4 (April): 421‐437. Kennedy, Paul. 2004. “The Pivot of History.” The Guardian. 19 June. Kruszewski, Charles. 1954. “The Pivot of History.” Foreign Affairs 32, 3 (April): 388‐401. Lattimore, Owen. 1950. Pivot of Asia: Sinkiang and the Inner Asian Frontiers of China and Russia. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ‐‐‐. 1962. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. Boston: Beacon Press.
Shane Barter, Associate Director, Pacific Basin Research Center / Assistant Professor, Soka University of America, United States
Area Studies, Asian Studies, and the Pacific Basin Area studies tend to approach the world in terms of the peoples, places, and events of specific communities, as opposed to discipline‐driven studies which may treat proper nouns solely as variables. Area studies thus contribute to our understanding of other societies, and through reflection our own, making area scholarship of particular interest to not only academics, but also to policy makers and students. But one danger of area studies is that areas may be reified as objective places. In this case, Asian studies may suggest that Asia is a defined geographical and cultural unit, overlooking the fact that it is a construct. This is not to suggest that Area studies are inherently problematic, but instead, that scholars must be continually reminded of how their area overlaps with and contains other areas. Within Asian studies, one finds Southeast Asian studies, East Asian studies, South Asian studies, as well as a transcendent study of Asia Massif, or Zomia (Scott 2009). This paper look upwards, locating Asian studies in the Pacific Basin, a region of regions that includes much of Asia, but also Oceania, western North America, and western Latin America. It is a look at Asia’s Far East, just as Eurasian studies may look west. The Pacific Basin is a geographical unit defined by the Pacific Ocean and contains a multitude of regional cultures. For years, commentators have heralded the coming “Pacific Century”, positioned against the Atlantic world, in which cultures and peoples of Asia and the Americas merge (Mahbubani 1997). The Pacific Basin represents a
pedagogical and policy‐based way of situating Asian studies within a broader world. It allows students to bridge Asian and North American worlds, as well as locating Asian influences in the Americas, plus American influences in Asia, consistent with globalization and hybridity. It allows policy makers to make sense of global shipping patterns, Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) activities, and investment opportunities. And the Pacific Basin allows scholars to see Asian studies in a new light, appreciating how Asia extends to other parts of the world and how other regions shape Asia.
Jayati Bhattacharya, South Asian Studies Programme, National University of Singapore, Singapore
The Sea of Changes: Shifting Trajectories across the Bay of Bengal Popular imagination and intellectual discourses have both been involved and interested in exploring the different facets of geopolitical factors, diasporic mobilities, strategic concerns across the Bay of Bengal and its littorals as a part of the larger framework of Indian Ocean studies, so that is not fully an innovation. What is however, interesting is to locate the paradigm shifts and fluidity in the scholarly discourse around Bay of Bengal at different moments of history. Thus the flow of narratives from the colonial enterprise to post‐colonial nationalistic fervor of independent nation‐states, regional demarcations and imaginary divisions within Asia into contemporary trajectory of knowledge enterprise, has all been a part of knowledge production in different frameworks of time and space. In contemporary international relations, foreign policy strategies and initiatives in bilateral relations between the nation‐states, both big and small, the focus has been to redirect connectivities through littorals and landscapes, maritime spaces and cultural imaginary throughout this region. This has undoubtedly led to an increase in related scholarships not only from intellectuals, political scientists, economists and think tanks, but also to an increasing awareness and visual imaginaries in popular discourse. This paper will focus on the story of power structures and their interactions exploring past linkages and present trajectories in the region leading to regionalized globalism and an emergence of a “new Asia”. Over the decades, perceptions of sea and waterscapes have changed dramatically. Even if not so much a carrier of passenger traffic anymore, waterways still remain major links for container movements, energy trade flows, underwater cable networks, storehouse for maritime resources, etc. There has been major shift of visions from territorial dimensions to maritime trajectories for the two rising powers in Asia ‐‐China and India. This paper will try to examine the different layers of interactions and flowing connections through the lenses of the past linkages into the present context which will add a new dimension to the existing narratives of the region. It will also try to explore how the strategic horizons of many of the Southeast Asian states have converged with those of Indian trajectories, not to mention the increasing maritime interests and ambitions of China in the same waterscape, motivating and facilitating the search for commonalities and regional groupings in the region.
Sanjukta Ghosh, Independent Researcher, United Kingdom
Science and Practice: the Colonial Legacy of ‘Improvement’ in Indian Agricultural Knowledge The research paper is set in the broad framework of colonial knowledge formation and dissemination in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century India that was facilitated by a process of categorisation of society and economy. The categories of colonial knowledge represented the ideas of state officials accumulated through surveys, settlements, maps, institutional and personal/amateur pursuits. Of the four crucial stages of knowledge formation – the land revenue histories, surveys, census, museums and scientific institutions that set the agenda of a hegemonic colonial discourse, this paper is concerned with the fourth stage ‐‐ a study of Pusa (1903) as an
institutional site of agricultural ‘improvement’ in the Bengal Presidency that was modelled on the nineteenth century British traditions at the Rothamstead Research Station (1843) and the Cirencester Agricultural College (1845). The British notion of progress and state responsibility for development in colonial India was first deployed in the agricultural economy, which remained an autonomous domain of scientific inquiry open for progressive intervention. Scientific surveys were undertaken to identify, describe and explain the agrarian conditions. Such professional specialisation of the experts replaced the earlier non‐specific interests of orientalist scholars, amateur travellers and company surgeons. The paper focuses on the establishment of an agricultural institution, its experts and their communication of ideas. ‘Scientific’ knowledge attained through institutional farm experiments, was deployed but also indigenous knowledge and existing local processes of production were considered. The policy addressed the particularities of Indian environmental conditions based on ideas of ‘tropicality’, which emerged in the larger historical context of a transfer of botanical knowledge between the metropolis and other tropical/subtropical colonies. One of the most dominant themes for explaining agricultural change and development in colonial society is that a discourse of science replaced a heterogeneous indigenous worldview in agricultural practice. This displacement suggests a polarity between ‘modern’ technologically advanced agriculture on the one hand and a traditional system on the other. But currently it is doubted whether Indian agriculture was organised according to the rationale offered by colonial officials and agronomists. This precaution calls for an analysis of the colonial legacy that does not appear as a monolithic external force of change, with regard to codifying Indian agriculture. The paper focuses on the type of agricultural knowledge produced as a result of farm experiments through state control, interaction with local perspectives, and the distinctions following from such developments.
Sekh Rahim Mondal, University of North Bengal, India
Anthropology in India‐ From Colonial Legacy to Post Colonial Identity Anthropology is an important discipline in India which has a long history of more than 200 years. On the occasion of foundation of Asiatic Society Sir William Jones delivered his first discourse on January 15, in 1784, where he said that enquiry of the society will be within the limits of man and nature. His emphasis on the enquires on man in Asia produced tremendous effect in the rise of Anthropological Studies in India. The effort of Asiatic Society for scientific and humanistic understanding of man and societies in Indian subcontinent and this diversities both biological and cultural, has made an impact on Indian Universities to open the department of Anthropology and to offer courses for the study and research on this vital subject. In India the formal teaching and research in anthropology was at first started in the University of Calcutta in 1920. At present there are about 40 anthropology departments in various Indian Universities spreading over all parts of this vast country. Besides University departments of anthropology, there are several research organizations in various states of India. These are engaged in anthropological research in the name of Tribal or Cultural research institutes. The prime anthropological research organization of the Indian Government named as Anthropological Survey of India (ASI) in 1945. The ASI has headquarters in Kolkata (the new name of Calcutta) and 10 regional centres at different zones of this country. In addition, there are several ethnographic/ anthropological museums in India those are also engaged in anthropological studies and research. The history and development of anthropology in India reveals that it bears a colonial tradition as well as acquired the national character. Since the inception of the discipline in the late 18th century and up to middle of 20th century anthropology in India was highly influenced by western anthropological traditions primarily British and American. But since later part of the 20 th century anthropology in India moved towards the indigenization of the discipline. The issue of self
reflexivity and self questioning pertaining to its relevance and representation and so also the future of discipline under changing circumstances was also started to address since 1980s. In recent times due to the forces of globalization and many other forces anthropology in India is facing serious crisis owing to its own internal as well as external challenges. To come out from such a crisis the Indian anthropologists are now reevaluating their conventional subjects of study, searching for new areas of enquiry and developing new or alternative methods, approaches and perspectives to sustain and to strengthen their discipline. In the 21st century global issues are quite conspicuous. Globalization offers new challenges as well opportunities to humanity across continents, countries and nations. New forces of economy, technology, polity and market have brought human destiny to a cross road. India is facing some challenges and in some levels these are more vigorous and complex than any other small and homogenous country. As a result Indian anthropology has also started to address the globalization from Indian perspectives. India with its rich environmental, human and cultural diversities has always been an unending source of anthropological fascination right from colonial to post colonial and global era. But what is very interesting to note that for obvious historical reasons anthropology in India bearing the colonial legacy and at the same time it has developed its own identity. This ambiguous and unique character of Indian anthropology requires a new discourse analysis for its future growth and development in this country. Present paper is a humble attempt to make a brief survey on growth and development of anthropology in India and to find out the research trends of this discipline in this country, with particularly reference to social and cultural anthropology. A special emphasis shall also be given in this country to highlight the problems as well as prospects of anthropology in India. The author is of opinion that it is the high time for Indian anthropology to address the needs of the hour, which the peoples of this country is facing today.
Yuji Tsuboi, Oriental Library, Japan
Malays as Natives: Conceptualization of Malays in British Malaya This paper reexamines how the British colonial government had framed the concept of Malays by focusing on population statistics in British Malaya. The concept of race had taken its shape along with the process of expansion and institutionalization of the colonial regime. The British introduced census and other population statistics in the Straits Settlements in the 1870s. An important purpose for the government was to categorize population into “races”, as most of the population were immigrants from various places of Asia. The racial framework in Malaya, such as Malay, Chinese and Indians, was closely related to the colonial administration, as it was introduced in the late 19th century to classify immigrants into jurisdictions of the government. When the British expanded their rule into the Malay Peninsula, they applied their demographical methods to Malaya. They tried to separate natives from immigrants and define Malays as natives, for these states were Protected Malay States. While the Malay race contained immigrants from all over the Malay Archipelago in the Straits Settlements, the Malay States government had become inclined to distinguish immigrant Malays from local Malays by the beginning of the 20th century. In the 1931 census, the Malays had come to mean natives belonging to British Malaya. The transition would reflect how the British authority had perceived native population in Malaya. Meanwhile, the concept of Malays should not merely be regarded as a colonial imposition. The fact that the government had to revise the definition in every census indicates their attempts for drawing a distinction between natives and immigrants among Malays were not so successful, as immigrant Malays could cross the border by calling themselves as native Malays in census. The British finally had to accept them as native Malays as long as they were born in British Malaya. The transformation of the concept of Malays was a result of interactions between constant labeling by the government and transition of native population.
During the colonial period, the concept of Malays had become closely related to the framework of Malaya. In addition, “nativeness” was embedded into it. This transition affected the course of formation of “Malayness” thereafter.
Huei‐Ying Kuo, Dept. of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, United States
Classifying the Chinese in Diaspora: Southeast Asian Chinese in Colonial Eyes The agenda of colonial census, according to Ann Laura Stoler, served more than the purpose of political domination. It was also for the colonizers to construct the “qualified knowledge” about the colonial subjects, in the hope of achieving the “epistemic supremacy.” In the research on ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, the prolific publications of Victor Purcell (1896‐1965) can be considered as the “qualified knowledge.” With his experiences as a colonial administrator at British Malaya, Purcell notices the differences between various Chinese groups. He believed that their boundaries were demarcated along the native‐place and dialect ties originated in China. Purcell thus considered overseas Chinese communities in Southeast Asia as a continuity of the Chinese in China. The studies of Maurice Freedman (1920‐1975), G. William Skinner (1925‐2008), and Constance Mary Turnbull (1927‐2008), to raise but a few, continue this perspective. But the British were not the sole observers of the Chinese in Southeast Asia. Between the 1910s and 1930s, Japanese colonizers and intelligence agents from Taiwan have also contributed to a spate of writings about the Chinese in the region. For example, the Japanese colonial bureaucrat from Taiwan, Ide Kiwata, framed the Hokkien, or migrants from southern Fujian province in China, as a distinct group. They were different from the Cantonese speakers from the Guangdong province. He also emphasize that these southern Chinese groups altogether belonged to a unique racial group, which did not belong to the rest of the Chinese in central and northern China. To what extent these Japanese writings were responses to the British discourses on the one Chinese race? To what extent that these Japanese observations were related to prewar Japan’s mixed race theory? Did any of the Japanese prewar colonial knowledge on a variety of Chinese races survive in the postwar academy? Why did the Japanese emphasize the difference between Southern Chinese and the generic Chinese group while such a distinction was neglected by the British? This paper will answer the questions by investigating at Japanese prewar intelligence reports between the 1910s and early 1940s, and by comparing these Japanese sources with British census data. The goal is to scrutinize the racial taxonomies of overseas Chinese against the backdrop of interimperial rivalry in the early twentieth century. It is also to highlight the partial and selective uses of colonial legacies in the postwar academic construction on the boundary in Asian studies.
Eric Jones, Southeast Asian History, Northern Illinois University, United States
Remembering Empire: Apotheosis, Atrocity and National Memories of the Dutch East India Company Much of what is both loathed and lauded about world trade today finds an origin in the early modern Dutch East India Company. From 1602 to1799 the Dutch East India Company (VOC) forever changed global commerce. In its successful attempt to corner Asian commodities, especially the fine spices of clove, nutmeg and mace, this European concern constructed new institutions and practices: the modern stock exchange, the joint‐stock company, the multinational corporation; all of which were revolutionary then and all of which form the fabric of business today. For such a transformative institution, comparatively little academic research has been done. As part of a larger study of the VOC, I am intrigued by the particular set of intellectual networks, nation‐state oriented institutions, and geopolitics factors that have helped construct the various historiographies of the Company. Part of the challenge to writing a new history of this influential institution has been that many of the scholars most interested in its inner workings occupy
extreme ends of a love‐hate continuum for the VOC. Dutch historians are blinkered by the central role the VOC played in the great and storied ‘Golden Age’ of the Netherlands. Meanwhile, Indonesian historians exhibit great contempt for the ‘350 years of [colonial] suffering’ brought by the VOC and subsequently cast the Dutch as uncomplicated villains in Indonesia’s national origin narrative. For this conference, I will be examining the various Dutch, Indonesian and other discourses on the Dutch East India Company and how those have evolved over time, addressing questions such as: How did colonial era versions of VOC history differ from the immediate post‐colonial and from the present? Is there an “Indonesian” narrative of the VOC? Is there a “Dutch” narrative and what role does the maintenance of their respective national narratives play?
Stephen R. MacKinnon, Arizona State University, United States
Institute of Pacific Relations, 1923‐57: Asia’s First International NGO Today no other International NGO is as important in Asia as the Institute of Pacific Relations or IPR was in terms of the influence of its publications, organized research, and conference agendas. Founded in the 1920s, by the1930s the bi‐annual meetings of the IPR represented Asia’s most prestigious forum for discussion of international relations, especially economic issues, by the foreign policy elites of major East Asian nations. Although headquartered in New York and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, each division or Council of the IPR operated independently, selecting its own researchers and representatives. By the 1930s membership included Japan, China, Philippines, Soviet Union, Australia, and Canada. The IPR operated outside of and often in opposition to the colonial framework that still controlled major parts of south and southeast Asia. India and Indonesia did not become members until after they won independence in the 1940s. The IPR was especially important to China because of the support its Council (located in Shanghai) gave to the study of the Chinese economy and foreign relations. Major Marxist scholars like Chen Hansheng and protégés Xue Muchao and Sun Yefang conducted systematic, large scale surveys of land tenure and market conditions in the Chinese countryside under IPR sponsorship. R.H.Tawney’s classic study, Land and Labor in China (1932) was financed by the IPR. The resulting publications shaped debate on the subject for decades and influenced future land reform policies of the Chinese Communist Party. The leading journal, Zhongguo nongcun, was initially funded by the IPR. At the same time the leader of the China Council was the politically more moderate scholar, Hu Shi, who led high level discussions with Japanese counterparts in attempts to reduce rising Japanese‐Chinese tensions. Likewise the Japanese used the IPR as a foreign policy platform in the mid‐1930s. A leading figure in the Japanese branch was China expert, Ozaki Hotsumi. Prince Konoye as prime minister addressed an IPR conference in 1936; Prime Minister J. Nehru addressed another conference at Lucknow in 1950. The wording for major parts of the U.N. declaration of universal human rights (1948) orginated in documents from a widely attended wartime IPR conference in Virginia (1945). The paper concludes with a discussion of the agenda and publications that resulted from the 1931 (Shanghai/Hangzhou), 1933 (Banff), and later international conferences. The IPR was a victim of Cold War politics and was dissolved in the early 1950s. To date the secondary literature on the IPR is sparse. The paper is a call for more scholarly attention to the subject, and is based on IPR publications and archival records that survive in New York, Vancouver, Tokyo, and possibly Shanghai.
Masato Karashima, Kyoto University, Japan
American Philanthropy and Social Science in Early Coldwar Japan The Rockefeller Foundation (RF), which restarted their philanthropic activities in Japan soon after WWII, planned the “reorientation” of Japan in the cultural arena, and tried to modify Japanese academia and universities from the German style (“ivory tower”) to an American approach, focusing on pragmatic skills. The RF supported “Anglo‐Saxon‐Scandinavian” economics (so‐called Kindai Keizaigaku). Hitotsubashi University was one institution judged suitable for the foundation’s policy. American liberals supported Itagaki Yoichi and expected that his visit to the US would promote anti‐communist liberal ideas and theories in Japan. Thanks to a grant from the RF, Itagaki had the opportunity to observe nation building and economic development in Asia and to visit the US and Europe in 1957‐58. At Cornell University Itagaki was surrounded by Southeast Asia specialists focusing on nationalism rather than development theorists such as at MIT. Moreover he did not fully follow modernisation theory, although he introduced Rostow’s anti‐communist theory in Japan soon after his trip. He maintained an interest in dual economies and plural societies in Asia and emphasised the impact of colonial legacies. Itagaki confronted the Americanisation of Japan’s social science with his wartime colonial experiences, and promoted democratic socialist groups and initiatives through his intellectual and cultural activities in academia and journalism. However, contrary to the expectations of his US supporters and sponsors, some of whom worked with the Kennedy‐Johnson government, Japan failed to establish an anti‐communist social democrat camp capable of taking power and exerting a major influence on academic journalism.
David Ocón Fernández, Independent Arts Manager and Consultant / Ph.D candidate at the International University of Catalonia (UIC), Spain
Culture as a tool for soft diplomacy: the curious case of the ASEAN Cultural Fund and other Japanese initiatives in Southeast Asia In the context of World War II, Japan invaded large parts of China, the Peninsula of Korea and several regions in Southeast Asia. During the years of occupation, Japan spearheaded the concept of the Greater East Asia Co‐Prosperity Sphere, aimed at promoting culture and economic unity in the region and which is controversially considered by some authors as the first modern scheme of Asian cooperation. After Japan’s surrender, the country undertook fundamental economic reforms and dramatic reconstruction, and by the late 1960s, not only had it risen from the ashes of the war, but it had also achieved an astounding economic recovery. Events such as the hosting of the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games and the Osaka International Exposition in 1970 underscored and internationally legitimised the country’s economic development. Japan’s image in Southeast Asia was heavily damaged after the occupation period; mistrust and suspicion were common among governments and citizens in the region. After the country was back on its feet, Japan initiated a proactive policy of soft diplomacy in the region aimed at reactivating links, improving relations and cleaning up its deteriorated image. In 1972, the Japan Foundation was created to undertake international cultural exchange and several bilateral agreements that fostered cultural cooperation followed. In 1978, in an unprecedented measure in the region, Japan proactively funded with 5 billion yen ($25USD million) the establishment of an ASEAN Cultural Fund. The Fund was meant to be instrumental in the promotion of cultural activities and cooperation in the region. 35 years since its inception, this initiative remains today as the main source of funding for the promotion of multilateral cultural activities in Southeast Asia. The creation of the ASEAN Cultural Fund was followed by other measures that also targeted the cultural field in Southeast Asia, intended to reinforce the new diplomatic path Japan was
undertaking. This paper aims to prove how culture and the arts have been instrumental in the reconstruction of Japan’s reputation and in re-inventing its image vis-à-vis strategic partners, which has decisively contributed to making it one of ASEAN’s biggest investors (and friend), and its second largest trading partner. Ultimately, this analysis should assist in framing and putting into context some analogous strategies currently observed in the region, such as China’s strategic “cultural re‐ balancing” towards Southeast Asia and South Korea’s recent efforts to promote a “re‐union” of Asian cultures.
Julia Byl, King's College London, United Kingdom
Notes in the Margins: Music, Magic, and Institutional Knowledge The recuperation of the musical past in Southeast Asia is an inherently sketchy project. Looking for evidence of music before the age of print often means paying attention to the world of magic, to rhyming couplets, weighty letters, and the performance potential of diagrams scrawled in the margins of bark books. Such a project also involves movement from archive to archive, and a gradual awareness of how the collectors and curators of this material have shaped the way Southeast Asian cultural history has, and can, been written. This paper explores the entanglement of colonial knowledge, the sources on musical magic, and the world of performance, both documented and imagined. I begin by discussing material I have found in archives in England, the Netherlands, Malaysia and Indonesia. I end by exploring the ways that the institutions that have made this knowledge accessible have shaped the past and the possible interpretations of their holdings. Magical (and musical) practices are spread out throughout the Malay world, both recognizable and locally customized: a similar diagram shows up with a Cham and a Batak explanation; a similar magical being is called a jinn in one place, a mountain spirit in another. The situation became more complex as the free flow of traditions was impeded by colonial terriorialism, both geographical and cultural. Yet the subject of magic has consistently fascinated powerful writers, from the British administrators Skeat and Winstedt, to the University of Michigan rubber speculator Bartlett. The scholarly interests of these scholars, in both Sumatra and the Malay peninsula, has made a broad exploration of magic, music and performance possible; their non‐scholarly activities have made it crucial to understand the way that power and knowledge production are a part of this material as well.
Cezary Galewicz, Institute of Oriental Studies, Jagiellonian University, Poland
From Manuscript Hunts to Collections, Catalogues and Oriental Institutes: Representing indigenous knowledge of India at the turn of the centuries Towards the end of the 19th century a bunch of intrepid scholars set off for the Indian interior in quest of manuscript sources of the indigenous knowledge that had been rumored to remain with native “gentlemen” and traditional institutions. Their quest followed a British Government initiative to allocate new funds for a project envisaged as holding out a promise for “many … uncontemplated practical uses.” The project, unprecedented and never repeated again, added substantially to a new frame for the Asian Studies in general and Indology in particular. It continued and aimed at confirming the then conceptualized role of Sanskrit philology as a major and dominating scholarly paradigm centered on written material artifacts in the shape of manuscripts conceived as representing the vast and mostly neglected treasure of the knowledge of the past. The finds and reports of the scholars involved in the project helped in developing new libraries, supplied ideas for descriptive catalogues and research Institutes thus framing a part of Asian studies in a way that must have seemed at the moment to be holding good forever. The paradigm and its historiographical presumptions proved soon to be seriously challenged.
Suisheng Zhao, University of Denver, United States
Building a Bridge between China and the West in Contemporary China Studies: This paper presents how the Journal of Contemporary China (JCC) as a leading journal of China studies founded in early 1990s has tried to incorporate yet two new developments in the field of China studies. One is the integration of the traditional sinology into the contemporary social sciences research. For about a half century, most scholars of China studies were influenced heavily by the so‐called sinology tradition that was started in Europe during the 19th century. This tradition takes China as an isolated and unique case and emphasizes its unique historical and culture while ignored the social science methodology and comparative approaches in the study of China. This situation has been changed along the development of behavior revolution in the Western academic world as more and more scholars of China have been trained in vigorous social sciences departments. They have therefore been able to apply contemporary social sciences approach toward the study of contemporary China. The second new development is the gradual integration of Chinese scholarship into mainstream international scholarship of contemporary China studies. Until very recently, very few scholars in Greater China were able to make serious contributions to the Western scholarly studies of contemporary China due not only to differences in academic training, but also—perhaps more importantly—due to ideological constraints. This situation has been changed in recent years. Western studies of China have been greatly enriched in the last decade by the contribution of more and more of the Chinese scholars who are in an equal position to conduct sophisticated dialogues with their Western counterparts. This new development is a result of more and more Western trained Chinese scholars returning to their homeland and an increasing number of indigenous Chinese scholars receiving rigorous academic training. More importantly, Chinese scholars have explored the contemporary era with fewer constraints than in the past. As a result, a greater number of Chinese scholars have been able to publish their research in Western journals. It is indeed impressive that these works by Chinese scholars have provided not only valuable empirical data (raw materials) but also in‐depth analysis (paradigms). These are challenges that may help lay a foundation for establishing a new standard for scholarship in the twenty‐first century that will demonstrate competence in integrating the analytic literature of Chinese and Western discourses.
Anup Kumar Das, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
Mapping of University Presses in India: Pattern of Knowledge Production and Dissemination Academic presses in India have long standing in production of knowledge and knowledge dissemination to worldwide learned communities. Century‐old universities in India, which were started during colonial period, had established their own university presses to publish research monographs and other publications, for engaging with an extended scholarly community, and outreaching to general audience of educated citizens. Some of these university presses in India are now becoming extinct as university authorities find them non‐functional or dead entity with no possibility of resource mobilization. However, few universities and academic institutions are still maintaining their university presses. The advanced studies institutions in India, such as Asiatic Society of Calcutta, Indian Institute of Advanced Study of Shimla, have very‐rich experience of academic publishing. They have created a space for mutual learning through their prestigious fellowship programmes and postdoctoral research studies. Their interdisciplinary, trans‐disciplinary and multi‐disciplinary approaches have been appreciated by worldwide learned communities. Fusion and handholding of academic disciplines have created an environment of mutual learning, benefiting researchers understanding others’ disciplines. On the other hand, Visva Bharati Publishing – a university press in West Bengal, have been publishing Noble‐laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s literary works in Bengali and few other languages. They also have strong focus on Tagore studies, Tagore’s philosophy, comparative literature, arts and humanities.
In recent time, we also see the death of university presses in India. Many university presses were shut down that implicate low interest of academic communities in sustaining this model of knowledge production. Some university presses only publish text‐books for their undergraduate or postgraduate students. A declining trend in publishing new monographs is recorded. Low technology‐penetration, particularly ICT, has made them virtually non‐visible in the cyberspace. This constructs a disconnect with worldwide academic communities. On the other hand, some sustaining academic presses have embraced ICT tools for outreaching wider academic communities through cyberspace with their new academic titles. They also collaborate with established commercial publishers exploring co‐publishing option. New collaborations have helped in regaining confidence of best academic minds in publishing their books through these age‐old not‐for‐profit academic presses. This paper will narrate present status of university presses in India, and how they are integrated with their prestigious fellowship programmes as knowledge dissemination channel. This paper will analyze global visibility and availability of produced knowledge through institutional and external web catalogues, e‐commerce sites, book reviews, citations and different language editions.
Riwanto Tirtosudarmo, Research Center for Society and Culture, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia
From Geertz to Ricklefs: The changing discourse on the Javanese religion and its wider contexts Java and the Javanese have been studied extensively by Western scholars. The burgeoning literatures on Java and the Javanese only prove how attractive this place and its people to Western scholars. One aspect of the Javanese that continue enchanted is their religion and religiosity. The Javanese embraced all religion that brought to Java and we noticed the changing dominating religion in Java. This paper investigates the study of Javanese religion by the Western scholars since the 1950as to the early 2010s. The seven long decades of endurance deserves an explanation why the Javanese religion continues to attract the Western scholars? This paper is basically a survey of literatures and will began its analysis on “The Religion of Java” (1960) by the American anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, and ended on “Islamization and Its Opponents in Java” (2013) by Australian historian, Merle Ricklefs. In between those two books a close reading will be conducted to books by several scholars that focusing their study on the Javanese religion. The wider contexts of global politics from “Cold‐War” in the 1950s to “War on Terror” in the recent years will become the framework in the analysis of the book. The paper will shed some lights on the way in which the western scholarship have perceived and constructed the discourse on the Javanese religion.
Gea D.M. Wijers, Cambodia Research Group, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
The ‘Politics’ of scholarship and journalism on Cambodia The paper will address the politics involved in international publications on Cambodia for both a general and an expert public. This issue will be addressed by presenting and comparing examples from several types of French and American publications on Cambodia and Cambodians. First, it is argued that the mono‐ethnic, and fundamentally nationalist, governmental stance on Cambodia as a ‘pure’ Khmer nation is not seriously contested, or even under scrutiny, in many of the popular and scholarly post‐conflict English‐language publications on Cambodia (Becker 1998, Chandler 2007, Freeman 2004, Wilmott 1970). In the French‐language tradition of ‘Khmer studies’, however, Cambodia is traditionally treated as a distinctly multi‐ethnic nation (Tan 2008). French research has long‐time accepted that the national debate on being ‘pure’ Khmer, in perfect relation to the Khmer motherland, can be considered a political ‘tool’ used by subsequent Cambodia rulers over time to legitimize choices in awarding defined ethnic groups access to economic opportunities
(Edwards 2007). Also, this debate is highly influenced by the warmth of strategic relations to China and the neighbouring countries (Béja 1982, Cadart 1982, Simon‐Barouh 2004). Second, research suggests that local perceptions of Cambodian communities in resettlement were deeply affected by the positive or negative mediatisation of the situation in Cambodia, geopolitical powerstructures and historical relations (Meslin 2009, Wijers 2011). Next to the study by Gunn and Lee (1991) Cambodia Watching Down Under. A critical view of Western Scholarship and Journalism on Cambodia since 1975 very little seems to have been written on this issue. To illustrate this argument, the decidedly warm reception of Cambodian French refugees in France and the marginalization of Cambodian American refugees in resettlement are described and analysed from this perspective while exploring the ways in which this may have affected their transnational relations to Cambodia. The paper is based on the findings of a multisited comparative research conducted in Lyon, France, Long Beach (CA) USA and Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in 2010 and 2011 inquiring into the transnational social networks of Cambodian French and Cambodian American returnees. It’s conclusions may contribute to debates on the framing of Cambodian nation building as related to refugee reception, international aid and the processes of democratization imposed on an emergent nation.
Jean Berlie, Centre for Greater China Studies, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
Institutes of Southeast Asia in China Southeast Asia is a dynamic region of Asia, geopolitically essential. Colonial legacy cannot be forgotten, one of the first name of the region was Indochina. Of course this does not include Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. The name Malay world is not so global. This of course can be discussed, Malay language was probably more a lingua franca than Vietnamese and Thai‐Lao. So we will discuss and compare this particular region of Asia between the colonial term Indochina and Southeast Asia which became used during WWII. There are five main Institutes of Southeast Asia in South China. Two are located in Guangzhou at Zhongshan University (Sun Yat‐sen) and Jinan University. Yunnan, Guangxi and Fujian have in their capital Kunming, Nanning and Xiamen an Institute of Southeast Asia. These three main cities are also part of Southeast Asia. For Xiamen it is enough to say that Hokkien, or South Fujian people, are almost present everywhere in Southeast Asia. What? For What? and How? will be used to look at the mission of these particular institutes and their evolution. For example Jinan University Institute of Southeast Asia is now called Academy of Overseas Chinese, an answer at the question Why? will be given. China, now Greater China, and its importance is not limited to Southeast Asit Kunming and Nanning are really part of Southeast Asia. It is demonstrated by the priority given to Burmese studies at the Institute of Yunnan. Nanning is far‐ahead of the four other institutes mentioned for its knowledge of Vietnam and the number of conferences. The reasons and evolution of the relationship of China with Southeast Asia ‐ very present for example in East Timor ‐ is fundamental for the peace in the region. How these institutes deal with this geopolitical question?
Ekaterina Koldunova, Moscow State Institute of International Affairs, MGIMO‐University, Russia
Southeast Asian Studies in Russia: The Agents against Structural Limits Southeast Asian states and Russia are not often seen as natural partners or countries engaged into a tight web of interconnections. They lack the geographical proximity which usually drives such
interconnections in the political, economic and intellectual spheres and creates a shared space, literally and figuratively, of mutual practices, narratives and academic discourses. However Southeast Asian studies in Russia has not only managed to take shape but also resulted in several well‐established academic schools focused on the area studies, linguistics and the analysis of the international relations in the region. Southeast Asia studies in Russia experienced different periods – a well‐grounded rise in the Soviet period, dramatic decline in the 1990s and more or less pragmatic stabilization nowadays. The background conditions for Southeast Asian studies during each of these periods were shaped by the geopolitical and structural factors. The USSR’s role of a second pole in the bipolar system during the Cold War presupposed its global reach both politically and intellectually. The early 1990‐s witnessed a sharp “shrinking” of Russian foreign policy. After the Soviet Union dissolution Russia rapidly transformed from a power with a visible presence in all regions of the world, including Southeast Asia, to a state with limited economic capacity and internal structural problems. However the intellectual asset of Southeast Asian studies did not vanish overnight. The community of Russian experts specializing on Southeast Asian studies embarked on the path of struggle for intellectual survival. The main argument of the proposed paper is that “the agents” (scholars specializing on Southeast Asian studies in Russia) managed to preserve their knowledge network in spite of all structural limits. The paper seeks to analyze particularly the ways in which this scholarly network was and is still successfully overcoming the ideological constraints (the division of Southeast Asia into pro‐Soviet and anti‐Soviet‐oriented states during the Cold War), geopolitical constraints (the dissolution of the USSR, decline of the academic research in the Russian Academy of Sciences’ institutions in the 1990‐s, “shrinking” of the geographical scope in Russian foreign policy analysis) and Russian current foreign policy debate constraints (the overestimation of separate partners in Asia, e.g. China, to the prejudice of other Russia’s counterparts in East and Southeast Asia).
Valdas Jaskunas, Centre of Oriental Studies, Vilnius University, Lithuania
Approaching Asia from Outside the Establishment: Bodies and frameworks of India studies in Soviet Lithuania Asian studies as a constituent of Area studies has constantly been framed by the discourse of a nation state both as an object of studies and the subject that generated demand for such knowledge. In particular it holds true to nation state debate in Area studies, which questions methodology as well as the organizational principles of Area studies based on the concept of nation state. Meanwhile, focused on the nation‐state Asian area studies has given less attention to frameworks of studying Asia from the perspective of stateless nations, also in Europe, that shared the legacy of colonial knowledge production and yet appropriated this knowledge for the purpose other than colonial pragmatics. Academic traditions of India‐related studies on the marginal zones of colonial formations, such as 20th‐century Lithuania under Soviet regime, will be addressed as a case to examine local appropriations of approaches to India and invention of hybrid tradition of studying India and the Orient infused with sensitivity for national identity. Commenced before WWII during the period of independent Lithuanian state, Asian studies, and Indian studies in particular, were appropriated as an argument in a more general discussion on national identity and partly lay on the cultural myth of Indo‐European homeland, which brought Lithuania and India into close affinity. After the WWII, with the loss of independence Lithuania was subject to prohibition to carry out Area studies at its HEIs as this academic field came under severe supervision of ideological bodies and got infused with the political agenda of the Cold War, which brought it into intellectual isolation. Interruption of statehood resulted in that knowledge on Asia, commonly developed at the universities, was driven by the institutions at the fringe of ideologically laden academic establishment such as cultural societies for friendship with foreign countries that due to meager contacts with partner countries focused on national identity issues approached from comparative perspective. To examine specific framework of social and academic interest for India in Soviet Lithuania, academic
contestations of the prominent Lithuanian Sanskritist and the chairman of Lithuania‐India Society, Ričardas Mironas, for structured Indian studies will be discussed, which on a broader scale addresses the issues about contribution of stateless nations to the enterprise of the post‐WWII Asian studies and the role of non‐academic institutions in generating interest about Asia framed by the particular ideological regime.
Gonzalo S Paz, Visiting Researcher, Georgetown University, United States
The Rise of China and the Framing of “Asian Studies” in Latin America & Caribbean The main purpose of the proposed paper is to analyze critically the potential influence of the discourse on China Threat and about the Rise of China on the knowledge production about China in particular (and Asia in general) being done in Latin America and by Latin American scholars. My research on previous instances of hegemonic competition in Latin America & Caribbean demonstrates that since the enunciation of the US Monroe doctrine in 1823, scholars, institutions and academic networks were framed by US foreign policy, attitudes and propaganda, and thus impeded, delayed or severely restrained the conditions and possibilities for a more autonomous knowledge production and practices in the region about extrarregional partners in various eras. Uncritically extrapolating a Cold War geopolitical vision may help to reproduce this vision and approach to current situation. This particular kind of framing has enormous constitutive power. Perceived strategic competition might also become a self‐fulfilling prophecy. Even just perceived hegemonic challenges as intersubjective phenomenon acquire causal capabilities that may produce externalities and unintended framing consequences. China’s current relations with Latin America are expanding geometrically and have promoted a sharp increase of journalism and scholarly interest in the region. For instance, China has become the first or second most important economic partner for most countries in the region. Certain conditions for the emergence of its own visions in the region are improving. For example, (physical) distance is frequently overstressed in superficial analyses of the relationship (in particular in US knowledge production). I posit that physical distance must be measured in dollars, not in kilometers. Kilometers are fixed, but cost of communication & transport keeps diminishing. Internet (WebPages, blogs, emails, Skype, etc), increasing travel possibilities and personal and scholarly exchanges, and even better economic conditions in Latin America have dramatically reduced this cost. This Kairos is allowing for a new consciousness, for the progressive development of increasing ownership in the regional visions and scholarly analysis done in the region about China and about the relations, breaking governmentality. Thus resistance to unconditional reception of an externally framed portrait is emerging and enabling the questioning of previously naturalized Orientalism. This production is rooted in the rich experience of the region with long decolonization, dependency, developmental studies, and attempts at diversification of external relations. At the same time, it must also be recognized that the production of knowledge about China and its relations with the region is also subject to the growing capability of China to influence in the region and project “soft power”. A cultural gap between the region and China has also been consistently pointed in the past, although frequently equaling gap with vacuum. There is a latent substratum of naturalized imported visions of China on the Latin American side. The deployment of a dense network of Confucius Institutes in recent years in the region must inescapably be taken into consideration. While it is helpful to fill the so‐called gap, at the same time it may be perceived as proposing/imposing a Chinese official and desired vision, as well as framing of China. While challenging the framed status quo, there is advocacy for visions sustained by the Chinese state, intentionally or unintentionally finding affinity with persistent pockets of anti‐Americanism. Even without endorsing or denying the current existence of a strategic competition in Latin America between China and the United States, it is tempting to explore the notion of an increasing “framing challenge” and “framing competition”, a Scylla and Charybdis for more ownership in the visions emerging from Latin America & Caribbean.
Vladimir Portyakov, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Study of China's Foreign Policy in Post‐Soviet Russia During twenty years of post‐Soviet period, relations between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China have gone from a "friendly interaction" (1992) to "comprehensive relationship of equal trustful partnership and strategic cooperation" (2012). As relations with dynamically growing China – Russia’s largest neighbor and largest trading partner – are of special importance for the RF, the Russian Research Foundation for the Humanities in 2011 chose to announce the tender for implementation of several research projects in Chinese studies. One of such projects, "The main directions and problems of Russian Sinology", was won by the team of scholars from the Institute of Far Eastern Studies, established under the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1966 for study of contemporary China. My function in this team is to provide inventory, synthesis and analysis of the main features of Russian scientific papers on international relations and foreign policy of the PRC. The first article on this issue, covering the period of 1992‐1999, was published in the “Far Eastern Affairs" journal in Russian (2012, № 6). The second article on the period of 2000‐2013 is under preparation. Compared with other areas of Russian Sinology, the study of China's foreign policy in the post‐Soviet period has undergone the most significant changes. Before the normalization of Sino‐Soviet Relations (1989), the dominating estimates of Beijing’ international activities were mostly negative and ideologically motivated. After 1991, a noticeable spread of views and opinions on the research subject appeared. Advocates of rapprochement between Russia and China and of Moscow's choice in favor of the "Chinese way of development and reform" assessed China’s foreign policy in no other but positive terms. Adherents of the traditionally suspicious approach to China preferred to take expectant position towards its initiative to establish relations of good‐neighborliness and cooperation with neighboring countries. Finally, the adherents of Russia’s first and foremost rapprochement with the West react to the rapid development of Russian‐Chinese relations with a notable share of alarmism. Among research topics the absolute priority is given to China's relations with Russia (history, current stage and future prospect of bilateral relations, image of Russia in China and China’s image in Russia). Considerable attention is also given to Beijing's policy in Central Asia and in the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to the Sino‐US and Sino‐Indian relations. The first works with comprehensive analysis of the evolution of China's foreign policy in the 2008‐2012 period, were published recently (e.g., Vladimir Portyakov. Emergence of China as a Responsible Global Power. Moscow, IFES RAS, 2013).
Mohammad Selim, Department of Political Science, Kuwait University, Kuwait
The status of China studies in the Arab World China Studies emerged in the Arab world shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War and grew rapidly as a result of the 1949 China revolution and the exchange of diplomatic relations between Egypt and China in 1956. These studies were almost exclusively based in Egypt at least until the end of the Cold War. During the post Second World War era various books were published and academic dissertations were written on China. However these were mostly individual efforts of Egyptian intellectuals attempting to understand the Chinese revolutionary experience at home and abroad. By the end of the Cold War, China studies in the Arab world began to develop in two directions, (i) they began to develop as an academic discipline, a trend which picked up momentum with the establishment of academic institutions majoring in Asian studies, with special emphasis on studying China and teaching its language; and (ii) other Arab countries began to develop interest in China studies parallel with the economic rise of that country in the global system, its special interest
in Arab and African countries, and most importantly, the reliance of Arab oil exporting countries on the China as a reliable oil importer. Among all Arab countries, Saudi Arabia developed its own version of China studies. Today, Egypt and Saudi Arabia possess the “pillars” of China studies, which comprise language and social science research, and authorship and translation. However, these pillars function as “islands” of studies, lacking a multi‐disciplinary perspective that would put them together into a system of China studies. The objective of this paper is to review the emergence and development of China studies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the main issues addressed by these studies, to what extent has China studies in these countries been in line with these studies in other regions, and what are the main problems which China studies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are encountering. In this paper, China is defined to include the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macu. To achieve these objectives; the paper will be divided into nine parts. In part one; we will review the first wave of China studies in Arab countries, which was based in Egypt between 1934 and 1949. This will be followed by a review of the second wave which characterized the 1950s, and a review of the present third wave which has been developing since the early 1960s. The fourth part will deal with the emergence of China studies in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Cold War, and the flourishing of China studies in Egypt during that era. The following parts will deal with the “islands” of China studies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These include books, academic journals, academic dissertations, teaching Chinese language, in addition to the contributions of the Center for Asian Studies of Cairo University. Each of these “islands” will be reviewed in a separate section. The final part will look at the future of China studies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the pre‐requisites for a well‐integrated discipline of China Studies in these countries.
Claire Seungeun Lee, Asia Research Institute and the Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Interplay between local embededness, geopolitics and knowledge: Genealogies of Knowledge Production of Chinese Studies in its Neighbourhood Asian universities that have not inherited a western colonial legacy have no strong tendency to maintain an Asian Studies or related department as a separate discipline. However, in part due to the US and colonial influence in researching other countries, area studies by region and country concomitantly exist in these settings. In South Korea and Japan, the discipline of area studies by and large started with foreign language and literature background and later embracing social science within the regional variations. In particular, the Kim Youngsam government (1993‐1998) of South Korea, which rapidly started to embrace a globalization discourse into one of the important state agendas, established a set of 9 Graduate School of International or Area Studies in 1997. This paper explores how local embeddedness and geopolitical contexts play a significant role in constructing and disseminating Chinese Studies as a particular knowledge in these two Asian societies. The following questions are examined: (1) how divergent paths of the knowledge production of Chinese Studies in South Korea and Japan have managed in changing geopolitics in the region and (2) how South Korea and Japan negotiate different sources – funding, institutions, governments, public needs – in maintaining and further developing Chinese Studies, as one of the largest area studies disciplines in these two countries. Chinese Studies in both South Korea and Japan have been oscillating between the China factor, studying China, and the Taiwan factor, studying Taiwan as objects of research, as a consequence of Sino‐Chinese relations and background of scholars. First, geopolitical relations: 50 years of the colonial nexus between Japan and Taiwan shape its direction of Chinese Studies in Japan rather differently, whereas South Korea normalized its diplomatic relation with PRC in 1992, abounding its relation with the Republic of China. This change of Korea’s diplomatic relation with the two societies configures a new direction of research focusing on China rather than on Taiwan. Second, scholar training and subjects of study: In the case of Japan, local training in prestigious Japanese institutions has been the mainstream rather than studying abroad. On the other hand,
linking with the diplomatic relation, many Korean scholars, who are currently faculty members, have benefited from their training in Taiwan. Yet, largely due to China’s rapid economic growth, there has been a tension related to conducting research on Taiwan. The two divergent patterns of knowledge production and dissemination, which are inherited from social and diplomatic relations, are illuminated.
Murray A. Rubinstein, Senior Research Associate, Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University / Prof. Emeritus, Baruch College of the City University of New York / Visiting Professor, MA program in Chinese Business, City College of New York, United States
Studying “Taiwan Studies:” The Evolution and the Transformations of a Multi‐Disciplinary Sub‐field, 1600 CE to 2011CE This essay is an attempt to capture the nature of Taiwan Studies by examining the stages of that subfield’s development and giving the reader a sense of the literature dealing with Taiwan that evolved over four hundred years of Taiwan’s formal history. I argue that Taiwan Studies as distinct scholarly subfield only began to evolve in the years since 1957, the year that the American Fulbright Foundation sent the first American scholars to Taiwan. This bibliographica essay is organized into a four sections. Section I. focuses upon what I term Proto‐Taiwan studies. This means, those books about Taiwan that were produced those long periods in Taiwan’s history—and the study of Taiwan , from the coming of the Dutch VOC merchants and missionaries to the conquest and development of the island by the Zhengs and the Qing to the creation of the Treaty Port culture to the Japanese colonization, to the coming of the ROC military men, bureaucrats and mainland business elites, to entry of the American MAG and AID representatives with their aid and technological assistance In Section II., I examine the first period in the development of modern Taiwan Studies. This period began in the late 1957s, with the arrival of a number of American anthropologists to the island. It ends in 1978, just before the United States lifted its diplomatic recognition of the ROC and threw this nation into a kind of international limbo, until the creation of the AIT/TECO agencies that were the “children” of the Taiwan Relations Act. This first formal period is both the formative period of Taiwan Studies and a period in which Taiwan becomes, becomes as China for purposes of on‐site research—for it is the only China scholars could go to. Section III covers the years from 1979 to 1999. What I suggest is that the sense of "Taiwan as China" is put to death and that Taiwan and Taiwan studies are changed radically with De‐recognition of Taiwan by the United States. That singular act ushers in a period from1979 to 1999 that saw Taiwan becoming a very new kind of nation and, at long last, is the true center of Taiwan Studies. Students of the mainland China could now go to that evolving and then still an unsettled state that was beginning recovering from the disasters of the two and a half decades of hyper Maoism that preceded it. In Section IV, we follow the development of Taiwan Studies within the history of Taiwan through the first decade of the 21st century. What we saw and studied and wrote about were no less than the series of large scale sea‐changes that governments and the populations of Taiwan, PRC and the third player in the great game, the United States all experienced and dealt with .
Hardina Ohlendorf, Centre of Taiwan Studies, SOAS, University of London, United Kingdom
Taiwan Studies in the United States and Europe This paper compares the construction of the academic field of Taiwan Studies in the United States and in Europe and seeks to answer the question why Taiwan Studies have become more institutionalized in Europe.
The United States has been in a very close and complex relationship with Taiwan, which has had an impact on the way Taiwan Studies evolved as a field. Systematic knowledge production on Taiwan has a long tradition in the United States. Yet the model under which the island was studied, changed with the political circumstances. As long as China isolated itself from the West, Taiwan served as a substitute for academic studies on China. Specialized scholarship on Taiwan proper grew mainly from an interest in Taiwan as a case study for the social sciences. The production of knowledge on Taiwan has been actively encouraged by the government in Taiwan as a way to increase the island’s international exposure. However, in spite of the long tradition of US scholarship on the island of Taiwan, the field of Taiwan Studies has not become strongly institutionalized in the United States. The legacy and subsequent crisis of area studies in the US has prevented a strong presence of Taiwan research outside the disciplines. Contrasting with the situation in the United States, where Asian studies were institutionalized as area studies during the Cold War with ensuing legitimacy problems after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Asian Studies in Europe have been very much embedded in a longer philological tradition. The relatively strong institutionalization and acceptance of sinology as a distinct academic discipline together with shrinking public funds for academic research have made European universities fertile ground for financial ouvertures from Taiwan. Taiwan’s symbolic capital as a democracy and the government’s support for Taiwan Studies in the context of flexible diplomacy has encouraged the conscious institutionalization of Taiwan Studies in Europe. The institutionalization of the field has been actively promoted and coordinated by individual scholars who could build on experiences gained in Taiwan Studies institutions in the United States. A key element to the successful institutionalization of Taiwan Studies has been the creation of a Europe wide network as it has allowed Taiwan to allocate resources and facilitate exchange.
ORGANIZING INSTITUTIONS
The International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) is a research and
exchange platform based in Leiden, the Netherlands. IIAS encourages
the multi‐disciplinary and comparative study of Asia and promotes
national and international cooperation, acting as an interface between
academic and non‐academic partners, including cultural, social and
policy organisations. The main research foci are Asian cities, dynamics
of cultural heritage, and the global projection of Asia. These themes are broadly framed so as to
maximise interactions and collaborative initiatives. IIAS is also open to new ideas of research
and policy‐related projects.
In keeping with the Dutch tradition of transferring goods and ideas, IIAS works both as an
academically informed think tank and as a clearinghouse of knowledge. It provides information
services, builds networks and sets up cooperative programmes. Among IIAS activities are the
organisation of seminars, workshops and conferences, outreach programmes for the general
public, the publication of an internationally renowned newsletter, support of academic
publication series, and maintaining a comprehensive database of researchers and Asian studies
institutions. IIAS hosts the secretariats of the European Alliance for Asian Studies and the
International Convention of Asian Scholars. In this way, IIAS functions as a window on Europe for
non‐European scholars, contributing to the cultural rapprochement between Asia and Europe. For
more information, please visit www.iias.nl
The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) is dedicated to
the study of social, political and economic trends in the region.
The aim of the Institute is to nurture a community of scholars
interested in the region and to engage in research within the fields of sociology, anthropology,
political science, history and economics in order to understand the multi‐faceted dimensions of
socio‐political and economic change.
The intention is not only to stimulate research and debate within scholarly circles, but also
to enhance public awareness of the region and facilitate the search for viable solutions to the varied
challenges confronting the region. ISEAS seeks to offer reflective analysis and critical investigations
in the best traditions of scholarship. For more information, please visit www.iseas.edu.sg