In 2003 the Eastern and Oriental Express celebrated its tenth anniversary of rail travel between Singapore and Bangkok. The Orient Express Magazine, heralded this event as a landmark for South East Asia because many distinguished writers, personalities and important people travel by using this rail service. Moreover the magazine asserts that the rail journey is “designed to evoke the atmosphere of the film Shanghai Express” and “with its open air carriage you can almost reach out and touch the greenery” (Orient Express Magazine, 2003: 14).
This essay argues that the concept of South East Asia as a region is "capricious" because it is a creative label, bannered by influential groups at times when its fashion attains a political, financial or social advantage. Beginning with tourist marketing, "South East Asia," as a concept, was created through colonial, post-colonial and historic influences. This essay investigates South East Asia's position in a maritime setting, climatic zone and its agricultural practices and argues that these are the physical attributes that classify South East Asia but do not necessarily define its conception. This concept arises from institutions that intellectually, politically and often-times physically journey through era's of human occupation.
One might argue that the mix of labels, images and themes of the Eastern and Orient Express caters to the individual, who views South East Asia as a romantic place of adventure and is seduced by their own desire and perception about this region. Contemporaneously, 19th century South East Asia as a colonial region, was created by European desire and perception of a place that needed to be cultivated, harvested and guarded. Individuals in associations like the Academic Society of Indochina and the French Committee of Asia, became experts on colonial domains and interpreted South East Asia for their compatriots (Said, 1978: 219).
This occupation of interpretation of South East Asia during WW II and post war decolonisation became fashionable for universities like, Yale and Cornell, who could afford to replace the colonial officer or expert with libraries, collections and research projects. South East Asia was still viewed as a place that could be cultivated, harvested and guarded but Cold War "fears" shifted European views of South East Asia from the colony to a region of potential modernisation and development, of a "Western" ideal (Anderson, 1998: 9-10).
Moreover that dominant and enterprising forces, not necessarily foreign states, but companies such as the Orient Express, created South East Asia through the desires and needs of their era, which in turn was influenced by the activity and politics of the time. Harrison, (1954: ix-x) in one of the first "Western" chronicles of South East Asia, defined the region as a place of similar histories and politics without a specific governing or cultural identity. This climatically similar geographic archipelago and mainland, was mostly impacted by external influences as a focus of culture, commerce and the impacts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity.
South East Asia's distinctive feature of archipelagos, myriad coastal zones and river deltas allowed communication, a flow of trade, migrants and cultures by sea. Wolters (1999: 42-43) argues that this maritime character is not like the Mediterranean with its coastal cities acting as a terminus for the rest of Europe but rather, South East Asian coastal cities as royal centres and rest points to other destinations. Furthermore Coede's (1966: v) suggests that archipelagic and mainland South East Asia had two separate paths to "development," not reliant on a maritime character, with relations between Indo-Chinese states more important than ones with the Islamic influenced archipelago.
Perhaps Coede's(1966: v) argument is partly correct because mainland and archipelagic South East Asia chose separate paths for development but the rivers, coasts and island’s still acted as "super-highways" of communication and trade, through the faster water transport, rather than, crossing the densely forested landscapes that until recently were also a distinctive, if not, unique feature of South East Asia. Moreover this maritime character, with perhaps the Malayan/Portuguese port of Malacca as one historical precedent, has in colonial times and up to the present, been the defining factor in modernisation, development and strategic issues.
Before European colonialism Higham (2000: 14) argues that there has never been uniformity in South East Asia but acknowledges that the Kingdom of Angkor from 1000 to 1300 AD was a dominant culture. This lack of unity may be attributed to a linguistic diversity but this has not prevented other parts of the world from becoming united regions. Coede's (1966: 218)suggests that although each state in Indochina developed a civilisation of its own, the impact of Indian administrative and religious systems was a unifying factor. However archaeological research by Higham (2000: 14) indicates that development in South East Asia although influenced by an Indian “veneer” still received incremental change through local ancestral deities and customs.
Conversely Higham’s research is not supported by other sources of knowledge or research and requires proof that vested interests have not benefited or encouraged these results. For example, the Military Regime in Burma funded research into the paleontological origins of humans to legitimise their governance of the state. When Palaeolithic bones were discovered, by state sponsored research, undisturbed, intermingled and without wounds, this was perceived and argued as a precedent for the present day legitimisation of governance of Burmese ethnic groups who do not want to be governed by a Military Dictatorship (Steinberg, 2001: 61).
Dobby (1966: 15-16) uses a different classification for South East Asia by grouping it with Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, East China and Japan into a climatic zone of a “Monsoon Asia.” Further described as “a golden fringe to a beggars mantle” or “the golden crescent” because of its agricultural wealth, as the worlds third largest cultivated area which invests its harvest calendar in the reliability of the monsoon's. One might argue that rainfall is a substantive element in defining geographical areas but because “Monsoon Asia” is so vast and diverse it defeats the original purpose of finding a unitary concept of South East Asia. Moreover one might argue that this is another example of how institutions and enterprises view the naming and labelling of regions, especially its perception as a valuable agricultural "commodity" in world trade at the time of Dobby’s writing.
Traditional agriculture in South East Asia has until recently had different goals to the high yield cash crops of the industrialised world and for many centuries has effectively met the needs of the population. Small scale farmers place more importance on the stability, resilience and sustainability of their crops because farming societies in South east Asia customarily integrate with, rather than, control the agricultural system. Moreover the diverse crop choices of the small scale farmer has led to an insight into the availability and use of land, environmental considerations and the organisation of labour. The mono-cropping commercial farm, with the exception of rice or rubber plantation agri-business, was the trademark of traditional agriculture in South East Asia (Marten, 1986: 6-7). Development ambitions of governments since the 1970's have forced the small-scale farmer into producing cash crops using the technology of the "green revolution." Characterised by introduced plant species, fertilisers, pesticides and mechanised harvesting has changed shifting agriculture and home gardens into community field crops and and agri-businesses (Sein, 2003: 196).
Conversely one might argue that traditional agriculture is not a unique element in contributing to a concept of South East Asian because there are other parts of the world such as South America which have a traditional agriculture practice that has not created a unified label. However it is the foreign influences that brought the label, name and title of South East Asia to the region because of the opportunity of exploiting these unique agriculture practices for the political, commercial and social benefit of vested interests.
This essay illustrates how the naming and labelling of a region is manufactured by the influences of the time or era in which it is situated. Identifying elements that indicate regional cohesion can come from diverse or unifying characteristics but it is reliant on the perceptions and influences of the institutions that do the naming and labelling. The concept of South East Asia is capricious because it relies on the relevance at any given time or era on the importance of the characteristics that impact the region. For the Orient Express, marketing and capturing the image is the defining factor for naming and labeling its train service, which contributes to the title that a region is given.
Selected References
Anderson, B. 1998, The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, South East Asia and the World, Verso, London.
Coede's, G. 1966, The Making of South East Asia, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dobby, E.H.G. 1966, Monsoon Asia, University Of London Press, London.
Harrison, B. 1954, South East Asia: a short history, MacMillan & Co. London.
Higham, C. 2002, Early Cultures of South East Asia, River Books, Bangkok.
Marten, C.G. 1986, Traditional Agriculture in South East Asia: a human ecological perspective, Westview Press, Boulder.
Said, E. 1978, Orientalism, Penguin Books, London.
Sein, C.L. 2003, South East Asia Transformed: a geography of change, ISEAS, Singapore.
Steinberg, D. 2001, Burma the State of Myanmar, Georgetown University Press, Georgetown.
Wolters, O.W. 1999, History, Culture and Region in South East Asia, SEAP, Ithaca.
2003, Orient Express Magazine, Volume 20, No. 2, The Illustrated London News Group, London.
This essay argues that the concept of South East Asia as a region is "capricious" because it is a creative label, bannered by influential groups at times when its fashion attains a political, financial or social advantage. Beginning with tourist marketing, "South East Asia," as a concept, was created through colonial, post-colonial and historic influences. This essay investigates South East Asia's position in a maritime setting, climatic zone and its agricultural practices and argues that these are the physical attributes that classify South East Asia but do not necessarily define its conception. This concept arises from institutions that intellectually, politically and often-times physically journey through era's of human occupation.
One might argue that the mix of labels, images and themes of the Eastern and Orient Express caters to the individual, who views South East Asia as a romantic place of adventure and is seduced by their own desire and perception about this region. Contemporaneously, 19th century South East Asia as a colonial region, was created by European desire and perception of a place that needed to be cultivated, harvested and guarded. Individuals in associations like the Academic Society of Indochina and the French Committee of Asia, became experts on colonial domains and interpreted South East Asia for their compatriots (Said, 1978: 219).
This occupation of interpretation of South East Asia during WW II and post war decolonisation became fashionable for universities like, Yale and Cornell, who could afford to replace the colonial officer or expert with libraries, collections and research projects. South East Asia was still viewed as a place that could be cultivated, harvested and guarded but Cold War "fears" shifted European views of South East Asia from the colony to a region of potential modernisation and development, of a "Western" ideal (Anderson, 1998: 9-10).
Moreover that dominant and enterprising forces, not necessarily foreign states, but companies such as the Orient Express, created South East Asia through the desires and needs of their era, which in turn was influenced by the activity and politics of the time. Harrison, (1954: ix-x) in one of the first "Western" chronicles of South East Asia, defined the region as a place of similar histories and politics without a specific governing or cultural identity. This climatically similar geographic archipelago and mainland, was mostly impacted by external influences as a focus of culture, commerce and the impacts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity.
South East Asia's distinctive feature of archipelagos, myriad coastal zones and river deltas allowed communication, a flow of trade, migrants and cultures by sea. Wolters (1999: 42-43) argues that this maritime character is not like the Mediterranean with its coastal cities acting as a terminus for the rest of Europe but rather, South East Asian coastal cities as royal centres and rest points to other destinations. Furthermore Coede's (1966: v) suggests that archipelagic and mainland South East Asia had two separate paths to "development," not reliant on a maritime character, with relations between Indo-Chinese states more important than ones with the Islamic influenced archipelago.
Perhaps Coede's(1966: v) argument is partly correct because mainland and archipelagic South East Asia chose separate paths for development but the rivers, coasts and island’s still acted as "super-highways" of communication and trade, through the faster water transport, rather than, crossing the densely forested landscapes that until recently were also a distinctive, if not, unique feature of South East Asia. Moreover this maritime character, with perhaps the Malayan/Portuguese port of Malacca as one historical precedent, has in colonial times and up to the present, been the defining factor in modernisation, development and strategic issues.
Before European colonialism Higham (2000: 14) argues that there has never been uniformity in South East Asia but acknowledges that the Kingdom of Angkor from 1000 to 1300 AD was a dominant culture. This lack of unity may be attributed to a linguistic diversity but this has not prevented other parts of the world from becoming united regions. Coede's (1966: 218)suggests that although each state in Indochina developed a civilisation of its own, the impact of Indian administrative and religious systems was a unifying factor. However archaeological research by Higham (2000: 14) indicates that development in South East Asia although influenced by an Indian “veneer” still received incremental change through local ancestral deities and customs.
Conversely Higham’s research is not supported by other sources of knowledge or research and requires proof that vested interests have not benefited or encouraged these results. For example, the Military Regime in Burma funded research into the paleontological origins of humans to legitimise their governance of the state. When Palaeolithic bones were discovered, by state sponsored research, undisturbed, intermingled and without wounds, this was perceived and argued as a precedent for the present day legitimisation of governance of Burmese ethnic groups who do not want to be governed by a Military Dictatorship (Steinberg, 2001: 61).
Dobby (1966: 15-16) uses a different classification for South East Asia by grouping it with Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, East China and Japan into a climatic zone of a “Monsoon Asia.” Further described as “a golden fringe to a beggars mantle” or “the golden crescent” because of its agricultural wealth, as the worlds third largest cultivated area which invests its harvest calendar in the reliability of the monsoon's. One might argue that rainfall is a substantive element in defining geographical areas but because “Monsoon Asia” is so vast and diverse it defeats the original purpose of finding a unitary concept of South East Asia. Moreover one might argue that this is another example of how institutions and enterprises view the naming and labelling of regions, especially its perception as a valuable agricultural "commodity" in world trade at the time of Dobby’s writing.
Traditional agriculture in South East Asia has until recently had different goals to the high yield cash crops of the industrialised world and for many centuries has effectively met the needs of the population. Small scale farmers place more importance on the stability, resilience and sustainability of their crops because farming societies in South east Asia customarily integrate with, rather than, control the agricultural system. Moreover the diverse crop choices of the small scale farmer has led to an insight into the availability and use of land, environmental considerations and the organisation of labour. The mono-cropping commercial farm, with the exception of rice or rubber plantation agri-business, was the trademark of traditional agriculture in South East Asia (Marten, 1986: 6-7). Development ambitions of governments since the 1970's have forced the small-scale farmer into producing cash crops using the technology of the "green revolution." Characterised by introduced plant species, fertilisers, pesticides and mechanised harvesting has changed shifting agriculture and home gardens into community field crops and and agri-businesses (Sein, 2003: 196).
Conversely one might argue that traditional agriculture is not a unique element in contributing to a concept of South East Asian because there are other parts of the world such as South America which have a traditional agriculture practice that has not created a unified label. However it is the foreign influences that brought the label, name and title of South East Asia to the region because of the opportunity of exploiting these unique agriculture practices for the political, commercial and social benefit of vested interests.
This essay illustrates how the naming and labelling of a region is manufactured by the influences of the time or era in which it is situated. Identifying elements that indicate regional cohesion can come from diverse or unifying characteristics but it is reliant on the perceptions and influences of the institutions that do the naming and labelling. The concept of South East Asia is capricious because it relies on the relevance at any given time or era on the importance of the characteristics that impact the region. For the Orient Express, marketing and capturing the image is the defining factor for naming and labeling its train service, which contributes to the title that a region is given.
Selected References
Anderson, B. 1998, The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, South East Asia and the World, Verso, London.
Coede's, G. 1966, The Making of South East Asia, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dobby, E.H.G. 1966, Monsoon Asia, University Of London Press, London.
Harrison, B. 1954, South East Asia: a short history, MacMillan & Co. London.
Higham, C. 2002, Early Cultures of South East Asia, River Books, Bangkok.
Marten, C.G. 1986, Traditional Agriculture in South East Asia: a human ecological perspective, Westview Press, Boulder.
Said, E. 1978, Orientalism, Penguin Books, London.
Sein, C.L. 2003, South East Asia Transformed: a geography of change, ISEAS, Singapore.
Steinberg, D. 2001, Burma the State of Myanmar, Georgetown University Press, Georgetown.
Wolters, O.W. 1999, History, Culture and Region in South East Asia, SEAP, Ithaca.
2003, Orient Express Magazine, Volume 20, No. 2, The Illustrated London News Group, London.
0 comments:
Post a Comment