You are hereReviews / Conference reports
Conference reports
· Continuity and change: (re)conceptualising power in Southeast Asia
· Strategies and consequences of intercultural exchange in Southeast Asia c.1500–1800
Continuity and change: (re)conceptualising power in Southeast Asia
University of Cambridge
26-28 March 2009
Report by Nicholas J. Long
Department of Social Anthropology University of Cambridge
Over the last half-century, Southeast Asia has witnessed the rise of postcolonial nation-states, rapid industrialisation, economic growth and democratisation but also genocide, political upheaval and widespread repression. Power lies at the core of these developments, whether in the form of brute military force or as a more capillary ‘disciplinary’ influence on religious and political subjectivities. This conference facilitated one of the first truly interdisciplinary and international engagements with power in the region, revisiting and debating the ‘classic’ analyses of power in Southeast Asia that helped mark the region out as a distinctively compelling area to study, and providing an opportunity to workshop new paradigms, theories and approaches.
Panels covered a wide variety of topics, including virtue, sovereignty, welfare, landscape and the arts. Contributors – drawn from Europe, Australia, North America and Singapore – hailed from a range of disciplines, including social anthropology, political science, music, law, architecture and Asian studies. The fruits of such interdisciplinarity were evident in the first keynote speech, given by James Scott, who argued that the physical geography and ecology of Southeast Asia is central to understanding historical hill-valley relations. Scott suggested that so-called ‘hill tribes’ were ‘societies against the state’ who had escaped from lowland states into ungovernable mountainous terrain. This was followed by a screening of the film Terlena by activist Andre Vltchek. Both events set the stage for two of the major issues to be debated in the conference: the role of aspiration and desire, and the significance of connection and encompassment.
Throughout many of the papers, aspirations, expectations and desires – for prosperity, modernity and recognition, or for the ability to bring these to others – played a central role. Holly High examined motivations for giving in rural Laos, arguing that they were driven by multiple, competing – fantasies of what it meant to be a good person. The broader question of how such fantasies and aspirations are forged thus emerged as a key research priority. The consequences of their being thwarted also appeared to offer great potential as a site for studying ‘power’. Ruth Toulson suggested that the failure of working class Singaporeans to realise the aspirations integral to contemporary capitalism led to their performing a ‘necessary mistake’: the invocation of ‘the dead’ as exerting power over their lives. Could the phenomenological realities of power that Southeast Asians inhabit sometimes be artefacts of crushed expectations, inexpressible in their own terms?
‘Connections’ comprised the second major theme. Andrew Walker suggested that in Northern Thailand, ‘string’ represents a distinct local modality of power, as individuals seek to bind themselves into localised fields of auspiciousness. The same practice, he argued, could also be seen in development projects. As the conference continued, it became clear that binding oneself into networks was of wide significance. Patron-client relations were extensively discussed, whilst Yanuar Nugroho and Nicola Frost’s papers suggested that ‘networks’ were not just instruments for achieving aims: ‘connection’ could be powerful in itself.
This raised questions regarding how consistently ‘networks’ or ‘fields of auspiciousness’ were construed across Southeast Asia. Moreover, several papers examined how national polities appeared to be binding themselves into ‘Western’ projects of statecraft and good governance – the values of the ASEAN Charter, constitutionalism, and anti-narcotics programmes – raising the intriguing question of whether these could be seen in similar ways to smaller-scale networking. Could aspirations be increasingly inflected by non-Southeast Asian ideals, whilst the practices of connecting to ‘fields of auspiciousness’ remain influenced by regional understandings of power? The possibility is exciting, although Michele Ford and Lenore Lyons warned that the apparent inclusion of certain actors in a network – notably global capital – has misled many scholars into attributing more power to such actors than they deserve. For them, the best analytic framework was less the network than the concrete relations between states, territories and subjects.
A final theme concerned the enduring usefulness of classic notions of power in Southeast Asia. In her keynote speech, Shelly Errington traced the intellectual trajectory of such concepts, and suggested they remained relevant, but were taking on new inflections, now that hierarchies were becoming unmoored by globalisation and political instability. Catherine Allerton argued that notions of power as an energy that animates the landscape remained salient in contemporary life; Adrian Vickers drew on Indonesian horror films to make a similar point, but stressed that the meaning of ‘power’ is being rendered increasingly national, and freshly imbricated in class and commodity relations.
‘Classic’ understandings of power have also been instrumentalised as political techniques. Ingrid Jordt and Nicholas Farrelly explored how notions of Buddhist merit, royalty and chieftainship were used as strategies of control by the Burmese military, but had also been turned against them in the Saffron Revolution. Other papers charted the innovation or resurgence of novel, yet distinctly Southeast Asian, tropes of power – such as wibawa (charismatic authority) amongst Indonesian parliamentarians, or ‘prayer power’ in the Christian Philippines. ‘Indigenous’ notions of power thus appeared to be fertile areas of study for years to come.
The conference was organised by Liana Chua, Joanna Cook, Nick Long and Lee Wilson, of the University of Cambridge. It was supported by the Department of Social Anthropology, Trinity College, the Evans Fund and the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH), University of Cambridge.
Strategies and consequences of intercultural exchange in Southeast Asia c.1500–1800
Jesus College, University of Cambridge
25 April 2009
Report by Tara Alberts & David R. M. Irving
University of Cambridge
Scholars from a number of different disciplines met at Jesus College, Cambridge on 25 April 2009 for a one-day conference on intercultural exchange, interaction, and representation in early modern Southeast Asia. This event was organised by Tara Alberts and David R. M. Irving as a means of bringing together a forum of specialists to explore, debate, and engage with issues relating to the study of the field from the disciplinary perspectives of history, geography, historical anthropology, art history, English literature, and musicology. It was made possible through financial sponsorship from the Association of South-East Asian Studies in the United Kingdom, the Trevelyan Fund (Faculty History, University of Cambridge), and the John Stewart of Rannoch Fund (Faculty of Music, Cambridge). A special feature of the day was a rare performance of Thai classical music by the professional performing ensemble SEAmusic
The day’s programme began with a fascinating paper by Alan Strathern (University of Cambridge) on the politics of conversion to monotheism in early modern Southeast Asia. Strathern explored the differences between mainland and island Southeast Asian theological perspectives and their implications for the maintenance of state power, theorising a system of kingship categories, and exploring the potential for a conversion that never took place – that of Narai of Siam. He pointed out that the conversion from a transcendentalist to a monotheistic religion was often seen as an act of exclusivity, in the sense that it involved the abandonment of old rites; it thereby had the potential to undermine the legitimacy of kingship as perceived by the ruler’s subjects. Marya Rosenberg (University of Hawaii at Manoa) then surveyed representations of women in artworks from the colonial Philippines, refiguring the position of women in Filipino society from one of dominance and sexual freedom in pre-Hispanic society to one of submissiveness and chastity in the Spanish colonial period. Using artworks that ranged from pre-Hispanic sculptures to images of the Virgin Mary (the Marian manifestations including those of Nuestra Señora de Guía, Antipolo, Casaysay, and Peñafrancia), she showed how animist beliefs and associated elements of visual symbolism were able to survive suppression and persist in syncretic forms of Roman Catholic devotion.
In the next session, Marjorie Rubright (University of Toronto) focused on the little-known theme of Anglo-Dutch relations on the island of Bantam. She explored how representatives of these northern European nations used both the interchangeability of their national stereotypes and also particular representational strategies of cultural self-distinction as a means of furthering their respective and common commercial objectives, and also as a way in which they could strengthen their respective cultural identities in an unfamiliar host environment. Her re-reading of Edmund Scott’s An exact discourse of the subtilties, fashishions [sic], pollicies, religion, and ceremonies of the East Indians (London, 1606) in the context of Anglo-Dutch interchangeability opened up discussion on the crisis of cultural and national representation in Southeast Asia, in the face of emerging categories of sovereignty and statehood in the early modern world. Katrina Gulliver (Institute of Historical Research, London) offered a valuable examination of the urban development of Malacca from the perspective of comparative metropolitan history. The crucial geographical position of this city had important ramifications for the development of Portuguese, Dutch, and British colonial strategies in Southeast Asia, and consideration of Malacca’s role as a locus of intercultural exchange provided the basis for discussion of how symbolic sites themselves swapped hands and were reconceptualised in the context of different power structures.
During the lunch break, SEAmusic’s performance of two brackets of Thai classical music brought the sonic aspect of early modern Southeast Asian culture to the foreground. Led by Larry Oliver Catungal on the khong wong yai (bronzed gong-circle), the instrumentalists played the sor u (two-stringed low-pitch fiddle), sor duang (two-stringed high-pitch fiddle), ranad ek (wooden xylophone with twenty-one bars), klong khaek (pair of double-headed drums), and a pair of ching (finger cymbals). In keeping with the theme of the conference, their selection included music demonstrating Thai imaginings of the musical cultures of foreign lands.
Leading off the first session after lunch, Matthew Sargent (University of California, Berkeley) explored the role of local informants used by European naturalists to gather scientific knowledge. Focusing on the employees of the Dutch East India Company in the Indonesian archipelago, he demonstrated how close ties between naturalist and their informants were necessary in order to gather detailed and useful information. The role of women in the transmission of medical and botanical knowledge was also thoughtfully uncovered. Christina Granroth (University of Cambridge) considered the importance of indigenous knowledge in her examination of two Swedish accounts of Java from the eighteenth century. The work of Carl Peter Thunberg and Carl Fredrik Hornstedt contrasted with many other European accounts of Java and its inhabitants. Granroth argued that by asking comprehensive questions of the local inhabitants, recording observations systematically and in detail, the Swedish authors apply a Linnean ‘scientific gaze’ which foregrounded indigenous knowledge.
Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells (University of Cambridge) presented an intriguing exploration of the alternative networks of power in early modern Malay-Indonesian polities. Her treatment of the political economy of the region highlighted the complex systems of commerce and cultural exchange that contested and resisted forms of European colonial expansion; the Hadarami sayyid from the early modern period to the 20th century formed the focus of this discussion. Janice Stargardt (University of Cambridge) closed the day with her consideration of the contrasts and similarities between Chinese voyages to Southeast Asia and beyond in the early 15th- century and 16th-century Portuguese maritime projects. Drawing on material from archaeological sites as well as written records, she considered the role of tribute missions between Southeast Asian polities and China, and how Chinese and Portuguese concepts of ‘empire’ could vary.
Important themes that emerged from the day included the idea of legitimacy of power (and of knowledge), changing ideas of indigenous sovereignty in the face of European colonial and trading projects, and the subsumption of local knowledge and social and economic structures by European colonial powers. Lively discussion followed each of the papers, and fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue continued at the dinner that followed. The organisers are currently proposing the publication of this day’s proceedings, and hope that similar events focusing on early modern Southeast Asia will take place in the near future.
