"Southeast Asia Is a Region Without an Identity." Discuss.
3. ------------------------------------------------- “SEA is a region without an identity”. Discuss this statement with reference to at least 3 examples.
The term “Southeast Asia” has been debatable to be an imaginary “Unicorn” or true “Rose” as suggested by Ronald K. Emmerson in 1984. Over the years, “Southeast Asia” remains as a name given to this particular region, seemingly for convenience sake, to address the countries within this region collectively. “I began by picturing Southeast Asia as a cross between an unicorn and a rose – partly imaginary, partly real.” (Emmerson, 1984) Indeed, it is dismissive to simply state that Southeast Asia is a region without an identity. I acknowledge the reasons why some people advocate the idea that Southeast Asia has no identity. However, we cannot neglect and overlook the efforts of creating one. There may not be a concrete identity to talk about, but there are definitely traces of one being created in progress. In the past, people may see Southeast Asia as an “Unicorn”. However, the region is moving towards becoming a “Rose”, establishing an identity of its own slowly but visibly.
“I do not mean to suggest that ‘neotraditional’ scholarship can discover a cultural synthesis on whose basis Southeast Asia will be unified.” (Emmerson, 1984) The word ‘identity’ is usually associated with something in common and in unison. Indeed, nations classified under Southeast Asia are pretty different from each other. Does this necessarily mean that a regional identity cannot be forged? Can an identity be established from differences instead of similarities?
There are many arguments showing the differences of the Southeast Asian nations, which in turn translate to the regional identity becoming a fallacy. For instance, “differences between values and political systems within Southeast Asia also impede the creation of a common identity.” (Jönsson, 2008) The differences do not only surface in the political sense. Ethnically and
The term “Southeast Asia” has been debatable to be an imaginary “Unicorn” or true “Rose” as suggested by Ronald K. Emmerson in 1984. Over the years, “Southeast Asia” remains as a name given to this particular region, seemingly for convenience sake, to address the countries within this region collectively. “I began by picturing Southeast Asia as a cross between an unicorn and a rose – partly imaginary, partly real.” (Emmerson, 1984) Indeed, it is dismissive to simply state that Southeast Asia is a region without an identity. I acknowledge the reasons why some people advocate the idea that Southeast Asia has no identity. However, we cannot neglect and overlook the efforts of creating one. There may not be a concrete identity to talk about, but there are definitely traces of one being created in progress. In the past, people may see Southeast Asia as an “Unicorn”. However, the region is moving towards becoming a “Rose”, establishing an identity of its own slowly but visibly.
“I do not mean to suggest that ‘neotraditional’ scholarship can discover a cultural synthesis on whose basis Southeast Asia will be unified.” (Emmerson, 1984) The word ‘identity’ is usually associated with something in common and in unison. Indeed, nations classified under Southeast Asia are pretty different from each other. Does this necessarily mean that a regional identity cannot be forged? Can an identity be established from differences instead of similarities?
There are many arguments showing the differences of the Southeast Asian nations, which in turn translate to the regional identity becoming a fallacy. For instance, “differences between values and political systems within Southeast Asia also impede the creation of a common identity.” (Jönsson, 2008) The differences do not only surface in the political sense. Ethnically and
Bibliography: Acharya, A. (1999). Imagined Proximities: The Making and Unmaking of Southeast Asia as a Region. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science (27) , 55-67. Acharya, A. (2000). The Quest for Identity. International Relations of Southeast Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press. ASEAN Tourism Forum. (2012). Indonesia ATF 2012. Retrieved 2012, from http://www.atfindonesia.com/atfobjective.php Cook, A Emmerson, D. K. (1984). "Southeast Asia": What 's in a Name? Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1 , 1-21. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. (2012). Avian Flu: Questions and Answers. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/avianflu/en/qanda.html#5 Han, K Jönsson, K. (2008). Unity-in-Diversity? Regional Identity Building in Southeast Asia. Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies Lund University, Sweden. Sweden: Lund University, Media-Tryck. Jones, M. E. (2004). Forging an ASEAN Identity: The Challenge to Construct a Shared Destiny. Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 26, No. 1 , 141. Lakrintis, A. (2011). Regional Identity Formation in Southeast Asia and the Role of the European Union. Retrieved 2012-17-09 from KEDIA Working Paper 01/2011: http://www.kedia.gr/WP/KEDIA_WP_01-2011.pdf Mauzy, D Ooi, K. G. (2009). Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia: Agenda for the Twenty-First Century. New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 11, 1 , 426-446. Pfetsch, F. R. (2002). European Culture, European Identity. Center for the Study of Democracy Bulletin (9) 2 , 1. Tagatac, P. R. (2005). Forming a Regional Identity in Southeast Asia: The Role of Non-For Profit Organizations and Regional Volunteering. Retrieved 2012-17-09 from http://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/849 The ASEAN Secretariat Yao, S. (2001). House of Glass. Culture, Modernity, and the State in Southeast Asia. Singapore: ISEAS.