Experiencing Southeast Asian Studies in China: A reverse culture shock

Author(s):  
Kankan Xie

Southeast Asian Studies (SEAS) in China has experienced significant changes in the past twenty years. China's rising political and economic power has stimulated growing demands for better understanding of the wider world, resulting in the rapid development of area studies in recent years. Although SEAS in China predated the relatively recent notion of ‘area studies’ by at least half a century, the boom in area studies has profoundly transformed the field, most notably by attracting a large number of scholars to conduct policy-relevant research. Not only does the ‘policy turn’ reflect shifts of research paradigms in the field of SEAS, but it is also consistent with some larger trends prevailing in China's higher education sector and rapidly changing society in general. This article shows that SEAS in China has grown even more imbalanced, as indicated by the rapid growth of language programmes, absolute domination of short-term policy research, and further marginalisation of humanistic subjects. To respond, Chinese universities have adopted new approaches to SEAS depending on their distinct disciplinary foundations, language coverage, faculty interests, and local governments’ policy preferences.

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-157
Author(s):  
Thomas Engelbert

From modest beginnings in the 1950s and 1960s, Vietnamese studies experienced a slow but consistent rise in Germany. In the GDR, the rise was connected first with close relations between the two communist states. Second, the area studies’ concept favored Vietnamese studies as a subject of Southeast Asian studies, rather than as a side subject of sinology as it had been before. In both parts of Germany, the interest in Vietnam has grown, especially after its reunification in 1975. Since 1990, at least one place is continuing to teach the subject in the framework of the Southeast Asian Languages and Cultures Program. In this way, one of the two professorships could be preserved.


Author(s):  
Mikko Huotari ◽  
Jürgen Rüland

This chapter argues that the value of comparative area studies (CAS) depends on some original frame of reference, here the field of Southeast Asian studies. We trace the evolution of this field in view of research on other world regions and general methodological debates. The chapter also highlights the role of CAS in overcoming increasingly rigid methodological divides over such core issues as context-sensitivity and the challenges of comparative research practice. We outline a methodologically pluralist framework of area studies comparisons. This requires methodological bridges between mainstream disciplines and area studies as well as innovative approaches to conceptual problems associated with comparing different regions and cultures. In the process, CAS can also increase attention to non-Western regions, which sometimes get short shrift in theory building in the social sciences. Thus, CAS is in a particularly strong position to mediate the ongoing internationalization and “de-Westernization” of global knowledge.


2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-100
Author(s):  
Michael Salman

AbstractEvaluations of the success, viability, and future of Southeast Asian studies in the United States have long been characterized by pessimism, and also by a set of deeply rooted assumptions about what an area studies programme is supposed to be and what it requires to be successful. These assumptions concern not just institutional issues, but conceptions of what makes a region a proper unit for scholarly analysis, conceptions that invariably hinge on explicit or implicit comparisons to other regions. In this essay, I reverse the gaze of such evaluations by turning some of O.W. Wolter's classic notions about Southeast Asian cultures back upon the practice of Southeast Asianists, and by reversing some of the comparisons that are often used to demarcate Southeast Asia as both as distinctive region and a distinctively weak subject for successful area studies. Rather than accept such abstract and a priori notions about what Southeast Asian studies must be and what must be wrong with it, I propose instead a much more expansive, inclusive, and flexible definition of the field based upon the way it is practised in particular places and times. Such a performative model of Southeast Asian studies can take students, pedagogy, diaspora, and diverse transnational flows into account, while emphasizing all the more the importance of Southeast Asia as a field of scholarly and institutional collaboration.


Author(s):  
Victor T. King

Review of: Goh Beng Lan (ed.), Decentring & diversifying Southeast Asian Studies: Perspectives from the region. Singapore: ISEAS, 2011, xiii + 304 pp. ISBN 9789814311564, price: USD 34.90 (paperback); 9789814311571, USD 45.90 (hardback). Terence Wesley-Smith and Jon Goss (eds), Remaking Area studies: Teaching and learning across Asia and the Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2010, xxvii + 243 pp. ISBN 9780824833213. Price: USD 45.00 (hardback). Jacob Edmond, Henry Johnson and Jacqueline Leckie (eds), Recentring Asia: Histories, encounters, identities, xv + 339 pp. Leiden/Boston: Brill, Global Oriental: 2011. ISBN 9781906876258. Price: EUR 80.00 (hardback).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document