open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 2092-738X
How should we conceptualize regions? What is the context in which new approaches to regional study take place? What is the role of historical change in the reconceptualization of regions or areas? This article addresses this issue by using two case studies to shed light on the history of regional study by comparing some of the ways in which the Middle East and Southeast Asia have been conceptualized. Accordingly, the discussion traces the ways in which these areas were understood in the 19th century by highlighting the ideas of a number of influential Victorian thinkers. The Victorians are useful because not only did British thinkers play critical roles in the shaping of modern patterns of knowledge, but their empire was global in scope, encompassing parts of both Southeast Asia and the Middle East. However, the Victorians regarded these places quite differently: Southeast Asia was frequently described as “Further India” and the Middle East was the home of the Ottoman Empire. Both of these places were at least partly understood in relation to the needs of British policy-makers, who tended to focus most of their efforts according to the needs of India— which was their most important colonial possession. The article exhibits the connections between the “Eastern Question” and end of the Ottoman Empire (and the political developments which followed) led to the creation of the concept of “Middle East”. With respect to Southeast Asia, attention will be devoted to the works of Alfred Russell Wallace, Hugh Clifford, and others to see how “further India” was understood in the 19th century. In addition, it is clear that the successful deployment of the term “Southeast Asia” reflected the political needs of policy makers in wake of decolonization and the Cold War. Finally, by showing the constructive nature of regions, the article suggests one possible new path for students of Southeast Asia. If the characterization of the region is marked by arbitrary factors, it may actually point to a useful avenue of enquiry, a hermeneutic of expedience. Emphasis on the adaptive and integrative features of lived realities in Southeast Asia may well be a step beyond both the agendas of “colonial knowledge” and anti-colonial nationalism.
Adelson, Roger. 2012. British Use and Misuse of the Term Middle East. Is There a Middle East? Michael E. Bonine, Abbas Amanat and Michael Ezekiel Gasper eds. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Agnew, John. 1994. The Territorial Trap: the Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1): 53-80.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, John. 1871. A Report on the Expedition to Western Yunan via Bhamo. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Celebi, Evliya. 2010. An Ottoman Traveller: Selectons from the Book of Travels of Evliya Celebi. Translation with commentary by Robert Dankoff and Sooyoung Kim. London: Eland.
Clifford, Hugh. 1904. Further India. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company.
Colquhoun, Archibald Ross. 1883. Across Chrysê: Being the Narrative of a Journey of Exploration Through the South China Border Lands from Canton to Mandalay, 1883.
Doughty, Charles. 1908. Wanderings in Arabia. Abridged Edition: 2009. Forward by Barnaby Rogerson. London: I.B. Tauris.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1975. Truth and Method. Originally published 1960. Translated by Garrett Burden and John Cumming. New York: Continuum.
Goh Ben Lan ed. 2011. Decentering and Diversifying Southeast Asian Studies: Perspectives from the Region. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Heryanto, Ariel. 2007. Can There Be Southeast Asians in Southeast Asian Studies. Knowing Southeast Asian Subjects. Laurie Sears ed. 75-108. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Keck, Stephen L. 2010. The British Discovery of Southeast Asia. The Historical Construction of Southeast Asia. 293-309. SIEAS International Conference of Research Clusters: Sogang University, Seoul Korea,
King, Victor T. 2010. The Development of Southeast Asian Studies in the United Kingdom: The Making of a Region: The Historical Construction of Southeast Asia. 131-182. SIEAS International Conference of Research Clusters: Sogang University, Seoul Korea.
Kratoska, Paul H., Remco Raben and Henk Schulte Nordholt, ed. 2005. Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics of Space. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Martineau, Harriet. 1848. Eastern Life Present and Past. London: Edward Moxon.
O’Connor, V. C. Scott. 1904. The Silken East. 2 vols. London: Hutchison and Co.
O’Connor, V. C. Scott. 1907. Mandalay and Other Cities of the Past in Burma. Reprint. Bangkok: White Lotus Press, 1996.
Smail, John R. W. 1961. On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of Southeast Asia. Journal of Southeast Asia History, 2(2): 72-102.
Stoler, Ann Laura. 2009. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tagliacozzo, Eric, ed. 2009. Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Islam, Movement and the Longue Duree. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Wallace, Alfred Russel. 1869. The Malay Archipelago. Reprint Edition: 1986. Introduction by John Bastin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yilmaz, Huseyin. 2012 The Eastern Question and the Ottoman Empire: The Genesis of the Near and Middle East in the Nineteenth Century. Is There a Middle East? Michael E. Bonine, Abbas Amanat, and Michael Ezekiel Gasper eds. Stanford: Stanford University Press.