Whither Southeast Asia?

A Western invention

In spite of such non-committal conclusions that pepper the narrative, the author is highly committed to introduce the reader to the sociological tools and theories available to make sense of transformations or macro-sociological dynamics in a strikingly complex region of this world, and so, both tools and Southeast Asia stand in need of explanation. Since King's focus is on dynamics, he needs, like the fathers of modern social thought—Marx, Weber, Durkheim—to use comparative and historical methods across a range of societies, and so the historical-sociological approach, prominently developed by Wertheim in the Netherlands, becomes his guiding light.

In a way, the Southeast Asian Region fits the challenge, because on almost any count—geographical, ethnical, economical, high-cultural/civilizational, religious, colonial-historical, linguistic, and even post- and neo-colonial—the region is a patchwork of such mind-boggling diversity that it is well nigh impossible to come to any Southeast Asia-centric conclusions. What remains, is to apply historical-sociological analysis and to look for parallels in patterns of process and change. And this is precisely what the author does, without escaping from the fact—even as on occasion he tries to do so—that sociology—its theories, paradigms, methods, and fashions—is a Western invention and a Western way of looking at things that thus invite to work with farfetched, extraneous, and inescapable comparative measures.

Modernization perspective versus historical-sociology

The study opens on a short programmatic introduction, in which the author promises to offer a 'sociological perspective' on the social dimensions of inequality, urbanization, modernization and globalization, and relationships based on the social organizational principles of ethnicity, gender, class, power, status, and patronage (1). This is followed by a discussion of the inner diversity and consequential fuzziness (19) of the Southeast Asian Region. From then on, we plunge into sociological analysis and its history in the countries of the Region.

The second chapter, The Sociological Context, discusses "the underdevelopment of Southeast Asian sociology”, which, considering that the Region as a separate geographical and possibly cultural area is a relatively recent invention, can only be expected. At the time the countries concerned achieved their political independence, there were hardly any indigenous academics, and those few who were subsequently trained, parroted the post-war, overwhelmingly American fashions of behaviourism, structural-functionalism and positivism. In King's discussion, these are subsequently contrasted with the dynamic historical-sociological approach. This contrast found its parallel in the competing paradigms of modernization versus underdevelopment or dependency theory that are considered in the third and fourth chapters.

Under Modernization and Post-War Social Change, we are again reminded of the diversity of local or national experiences in the era of decolonization, and thus the hazards of across the board generalizations. Even so, the vague yet much encompassing concept of modernization did the trick as scholars were concerned to understand how stability and structure could be sustained in periods of transition. Importantly, they did this against the background of the Western and particularly the American experience of triumphant capitalism; in brief, modernity and rapid economic growth would inexorably lead to the good life. It was the days that an aspiring student seeking funds for research in the Region would be very blind, indeed, not insert the putative correspondence of 'development' to, for instances, religion, personality, or ethnicity, prominently into his proposal.

Be this as it may, from then on the chapter will review research findings on and interpretations of such relations in Burma, Java and Bali, Thailand, and the Philippines. The subsequent considerations demonstrate that high-flown theoretical ideas hold little value in explaining the historically diverse trajectories of these countries; what seemed to be plausible relationships in the one case, are no more than chimeras in that of the neighbour. Consequently, the very idea of 'modernization' needs to be reconceptualized, even as concerns about values and institutions that aid or hinder the realization of modernity continue to this day.

The chapter on Underdevelopment and Dependency takes us out of the American modernization orbit and brings us back to, to my taste, more solid European perspectives, such as those of Marx, Lenin, Hobsbawn, Baran, Gunder Frank, Wallerstein, etc. These are made specific in short discussions of European mercantilism, and industrial and monopoly capitalism that precede historical country case studies on British Burma, the Netherlands East Indies, and the Spanish and American Philippines that bring to light an impressive range of different experiences and trajectories, resistant to be caught in any consistent theoretical frame.

The challenge of diversity

The above chapter sets the format for the following three on Social Class, the State and Political Economy; Ethnicity and Society; and Patronage and Corruption, that all begin with introductions of intra-regional diversity and theoretical approaches to the subject matter at hand, then to discuss a set of national case studies that invariably show tremendous variations. About this, parallel to how I began this review, the author observes, e.g., "The template of social class can only approximate the complexity and variety of unequal social relations which are constantly in a state of flux and transformation" (127).

The eighth chapter on Asian Values and Social Action shows that states propagate or mobilize certain values, including religious ones, to support political positions and policies. In my view, to which I shall return later, the chapter is totally divorced from any recognizable reality on the ground, other, of course, than the fact of instrumental political manipulation or so-called 'reactionary modernism', in which Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir's ideas are privileged. The value of the chapter is not so much in the discussion of these ideas as in the exploration of the complexities of the relationships between religion and modernization that follows the trail set out by Von der Mehden.

In the fore last chapter on Transformations in the World of Work: Gender Issues brings us back to terra firma in as far as that is possible in discussing the changes in the position of 'women' through changes in the economy, in their education, migration and commerce, while pondering whether, in this modern age, they are more than ever victims of oppression, marginalization and invisibility if they stick to the domestic realm and 'traditional' occupations. So such is clear: within the overall transformations and changing structure of opportunities, the position of women and the culture that surrounds it is in flux, at the same time that prevailing religious thinking, state ideology, factory work and sex tourism tend to retard their emancipation. In contrast to this depressing diagnosis stands the liberating experience of educated, middle-class women professionals who are in ascendancy in public life, where they may even become heads of state!

The last substantive chapter is on Transformations in the Urban Worlds where the issues to do with the state, class, ethnicity, gender, patronage, corruption and cultural values are thought to be at their most magnified and intense. To illustrate this claim, the historical context of cities in the Region is taken into consideration, together with the issue of migration, and a set of analytical concepts before these are applied to the concrete examples of Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, and their role in symbolizing the nation and projecting images and identities of nationhood in a modernizing and globalizing world.

Research to come

The work concludes on a section on Modernity, Globalization and the Future, in which it is noted that the inexorable advance of modernity, and its destabilizing potential, propel, in one way or other, the sociological and even anthropological research agendas. In this perspective, recent approaches are briefly reviewed, the discussion of which, predictably, leads to many instances of 'not necessarily..., but rather...', or, "Overall, Asian modernity is 'always an ambiguous mixture of local needs and global ambitions, national/communal aspirations and a desire for their transcendence'" (253).

Be this as it may, the interconnections between culture, economic development, democracy and class formation should drive the research agenda, and the resulting endeavour should be comparative within Southeast Asia and/or more wide-flung while tracing interconnections between China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the Southeast Asian countries. Then, as a final reflection on his work, King concludes that in the historical-sociological and political economy approach taken, he largely left out the discussion on cultural identity (including the examination of religion, the arts, literature, media, consumerism, lifestyle, youth, gender and education) and that such a culturally focused companion volume is urgently required.

The local point of view

I couldn't agree more with these last statements. If I were a teacher of sociology—a discipline concerned with the description and analysis of social organization, relations and processes (1)—with a particular interest in macro-sociological dynamics, King's text would provide me with an excellent outline for any course at the undergraduate level. Yet, concentrating on the conceptual mechanisms that underlie social dynamics does not elucidate the way(s) life is lived, a fact about which our students at Bielefeld, when involved in a pub brawl with somebody from the working class, quipped, 'Look here, finally class struggle!'

Whereas sociological concepts, such as class, have become part of the Western imagination and may capture life on the ground in a somewhat recognizable manner, in Southeast Asia they remain at best latent tools, existing 'in themselves' (as against 'for themselves'). In Southeast Asia, or at least in my experience of it with exponents of approximately half its population (Javanese, Thai, Filipinos), Western sociology is not part of the emic imagination. They see the social arrangement as a moral edifice based on the essential inequality of individuals who are obliged (or not) to each other through 'debts of gratitude' that spell their concretely experienced life worlds that shade off into a not morally obliging space that appears as the property of others, be it the king, the politicians and other power-holders. That space may be seen as 'public in itself', but is not seen as 'of the public' or 'for itself', other than as the hunting ground where one vies for a prize.

This is not to say that there are no well-trained sociologists in the Region capable of all the tricks of Western social analysis! Yet, in my experiences with them since 1965, I have always been amazed that many of them revert in our discussions to their indigenous moral view at the drop of an unwelcome hat. Perhaps this is the (unconscious) reason why King has sidestepped native principles of social construction, such as kinship, the 'religious' position of parents, hierarchy as the moral backbone, violence and competition for power (the highly admired social good (177)). All these principles are experience-near in the same way as a Western labourer knows himself to be a member of the working class. In Southeast Asia, moral inequality exists 'for itself', which may explain the absence of a discussion of the concepts of civil society and democratization that are repeatedly mentioned as the Godot-like saviours of civilization.

Need for action theory

In order to understand the Southeast Asian experience of social life, we need to urgently develop an action theory based on dominant indigenous perceptions. With these I mean the ideas found among those lowland populations that trace descent bilaterally and whose religious imagination mirrors their kinship organization. As far as this goes, I did my share, for which I refer to the last chapters of my Southeast Asian Images; Towards Civil Society? (Silkworm Books, 2003). These days, in retirement on Mt. Banáhaw in the Philippines, I have been looking back on how I gained my insights, from the time I was a Young Dog to when I became a Professional Stranger (White Lotus, 2008,9). As a professor at the University of Leeds, however, Terry is still at it and even promises us that he began a two to three year encounter with Culture and Identity in order to prepare for a complementary volume to the present study. No need to say that I am eagerly looking forward to the outcome of that engagement, with which I wish him the best of luck.