Combative scholarship in Southeast Asia - Term Paper Example

Combative Scholarship in Southeast Asia Part 1: Lessons learnt from the application of combative scholarship Scholars are people whose main aim is to advance different topics in academia. In this discussion, the scholars mentioned herein are those that chose to adopt a combative approach in their publications of historical occurrences in an attempt to counter the British and Dutch hegemonic scholarship. At a time when their respective societies were ridden with poverty and all the negatives associated with it, the government seemed more focused on politics rather than on efforts geared towards genuine nation-building. The scholars chose to document the events of heroes that had fought against the regime in the previous decades. These were aimed at stirring the masses to fight for their citizenship and push for positive and concrete efforts towards nation-building and they were opposed by the respective governments for this reason; thus the term combative scholarship was coined. In Southeast Asia, the struggles for nation building and citizenship have been fought for the better part of the last decade, although collisions for the longest while have been between one another rather than against an outside power. The image portrayed by the relevant states is one of an authoritarian regime that is propelled by cultural legacies and largely underscores the struggles for democracy and citizenship. The struggle is further seen to have been overtaken by the creation of an economically inflected society but that does not however make it less relevant. The discussions on democratic rights and citizenship have always been ridden with political implications and should not be interpreted as being politically innocent. Those that bore the brunt were the scholars who realized that unless there was application of combative scholarship, then the state mechanisms would neither deliver real results nor will to. The rapid transformation of the political context in the Southeast Asia states, largely caused by the incorporation of the economy into the globalized neoliberal economy left some unresolved citizenship struggles. What is simply dismissed by analysts of the situation in Southeast Asia as being a result of cultural legacies is simply making light of a complex situation. The culture itself has been a propellant of the struggle and therefore part of the unexplained in the overall scheme of things (Faist 215-217). The focus on the cultural aspect of the struggle only served to shift the attention of scholars from influencing the struggle for citizenship and nation building occasioned by hegemony, colonialism, subsequent revolution and development in a bid to leveling patches history. All the efforts that aided in the ending of colonialism and nation building were initiatives of heroes of the past century who envisioned a better life for themselves and future generations. Thus the scholars like Atalas, Agoncilo, Chamvit and Sartono only served to document the heroic actions of theses heroes in a bid to continuing in the path of democracy that they charted. In the course of these actions they have suffered damage to their reputations and their credibility was also battered all due to the struggle. Citizens who now enjoy citizenship benefits to the fullest owe it to these scholarly heroes since some even lost their lives in the struggle. It is not fair to ask that history focuses on scholars who did not have their credibility battered at the expense of those who did. In all fairness, the struggle should be documented as it was since all those who played part despite the consequences deserve mention. Part 2: Is the application of combative scholarship still viable? There is a large possibility that the nations of Southeast Asia would coalesce to form one state but this would never occur due to cultural commonalities but rather because all of them have had a similar struggle in their own territories for citizenship and nation building. The struggles over the last century have given them certain commonalities as antagonists and this has led to the nations having projected images that have made relations with each other easier. There has been those that attempt to compare the shapes in which democracy has taken in Southeast Asia with that in the American and European states. This comparison is not justifiable as there are fundamental differences not only in culture but also historically which warrant the analysis of the nature of citizenship in this region in different contexts. In the modern society, globalization has been engrained in the minds of the global citizens and with that, there are more civil avenues that can be used to fight off what may be a reversal of the gains already realized. The citizenship that the scholars fought for in the yesteryears is far different from that enjoyed in today’s society. This citizenship is under increased scrutiny since the governments are being seem as complacent and without the capability to protect the sovereignty of the citizens as it is mandated. This is evidenced by the inability to control the influx of people and capital and the withdrawal from providing social rights by increased privatization. This is further compounded by the increased suspicion on the government of its citizens that has warranted increased surveillance and the anxiety of terror. The above claims are aimed at highlighting the plight of the citizens of the neo-liberal world. Although combative scholarship is not an option here, there is need for a different kind of struggle. Migrants have changed the face of citizenship with imposition of their culture on that of the native society. Neo-liberalism has also done its share of damage with the privatization of major parts of the economy. Thus, the problems that have been created in the modern society have been warranting more government intervention in order to protect the general public from parties with vested interests comprised of a few privileged people in society. Considering that Atalas, Agoncilo, Chamvit and Sartono were basically fighting against what they interpreted as excessive government control in the affairs of the state, the current situation is a complete reversal of the gains that they had made. Therefore, the popular saying; ‘the more things change the more they remain the same’, hold true here. The strategies that the scholars used will need to be reengaged to fight off the new occurrences as ultimately, the increase in government activity will spark off conflict in the long run. Maybe, historians have been far too hasty in assuming that the days of combative scholarship are behind us. But on close inspection of the situation, and by analyzing all the facts presented in this paper, the bottom-line is that combative scholarship is needed now more than ever as citizens fight battles on multiple grounds. It is thus fitting to conclude that combative scholarship is part of Southeast Asian history and will be part of it for years to come. Works Cited Faist, Thomas. Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of Citizenship and Culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(2): pp. 189-222, 2000 Read More