How should we conceptualize regions? What is the context in which new approaches to regional study take place? What is the role of historical change in the reconceptualization of regions or areas? This article addresses this issue by using two case studies to shed light on the history of regional study by comparing some of the ways in which the Middle East and Southeast Asia have been conceptualized. Accordingly, the discussion traces the ways in which these areas were understood in the 19th century by highlighting the ideas of a number of influential Victorian thinkers. The Victorians are useful because not only did British thinkers play critical roles in the shaping of modern patterns of knowledge, but their empire was global in scope, encompassing parts of both Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
However, the Victorians regarded these places quite differently: Southeast Asia was frequently described as “Further India” and the Middle East was the home of the Ottoman Empire.
Both of these places were at least partly understood in relation to the needs of British policy-makers, who tended to focus most of their efforts according to the needs of India— which was their most important colonial possession.
The article exhibits the connections between the “Eastern Question” and end of the Ottoman Empire (and the political developments which followed) led to the creation of the concept of “Middle East”. With respect to Southeast Asia, attention will be devoted to the works of Alfred Russell Wallace, Hugh Clifford, and others to see how “further India” was understood in the 19th century. In addition, it is clear that the successful deployment of the term “Southeast Asia” reflected the political needs of policy makers in wake of decolonization and the Cold War.
Finally, by showing the constructive nature of regions, the article suggests one possible new path for students of Southeast Asia. If the characterization of the region is marked by arbitrary factors, it may actually point to a useful avenue of enquiry, a hermeneutic of expedience. Emphasis on the adaptive and integrative features of lived realities in Southeast Asia may well be a step beyond both the agendas of “colonial knowledge” and anti-colonial nationalism.
Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World”
SUVANNABHUMI
약어 : SVN
2015 vol.7, no.2, pp.27 - 56
DOI : 10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27
발행기관 : 부산외국어대학교 아세안연구원
연구분야 : 지역학
Copyright © 부산외국어대학교 아세안연구원
약어 : SVN
2015 vol.7, no.2, pp.27 - 56
DOI : 10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27
발행기관 : 부산외국어대학교 아세안연구원
연구분야 : 지역학
Copyright © 부산외국어대학교 아세안연구원
Region, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Victorian, Britain, Ottoman, imperialism, territorial
- 1. [단행본] Adelson, Roger / 2012 / Is There a Middle East? / Stanford University Press
- 2. [학술지] Agnew, John / 1994 / The Territorial Trap: the Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory / Review of International Political Economy / 1 (1) : 53 ~ 1
- 3. [단행본] Anderson, Benedict / 1983 / Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism / Verso
- 4. [보고서] Anderson, John / 1871 / A Report on the Expedition to Western Yunan via Bhamo
- 5. [단행본] Appadurai, Arjun / 1996 / Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization / University of Minnesota Press
- 6. [단행본] Celebi, Evliya / 2010 / An Ottoman Traveller: Selectons from the Book of Travels of Evliya Celebi / Eland
- 7. [단행본] Clifford, Hugh / 1904 / Further India / Frederick A. Stokes Company
- 8. [단행본] Colquhoun, Archibald Ross / 1883 / Across Chrysê: Being the Narrative of a Journey of Exploration Through the South China Border Lands from Canton to Mandalay
- 9. [단행본] Doughty, Charles / 2009 / Wanderings in Arabia / I.B. Tauris
- 10. [단행본] Gadamer, Hans-Georg / 1975 / Truth and Method / Continuum
- 11. [단행본] Goh Ben Lan / 2011 / Decentering and Diversifying Southeast Asian Studies: Perspectives from the Region / Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
- 12. [단행본] Heryanto, Ariel / 2007 / Knowing Southeast Asian Subjects / University of Washington Press : 75 ~
- 13. [학술대회] Keck, Stephen L. / 2010 / The British Discovery of Southeast Asia. The Historical Construction of Southeast Asia / SIEAS International Conference of Research Clusters: Sogang University : 293 ~
- 14. [학술대회] King, Victor T. / 2010 / The Development of Southeast Asian Studies in the United Kingdom: The Making of a Region: The Historical Construction of Southeast Asia / SIEAS International Conference of Research Clusters: Sogang University : 131 ~
- 15. [단행본] Kratoska, Paul H. / 2005 / Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics of Space / Singapore University Press
- 16. [단행본] Martineau, Harriet / 1848 / Eastern Life Present and Past / Edward Moxon
- 17. [단행본] O’Connor, V. C. Scott / 1904 / The Silken East. 2 vols / Hutchison and Co.
- 18. [단행본] O’Connor, V. C. Scott / 1996 / Mandalay and Other Cities of the Past in Burma / White Lotus Press
- 19. [학술지] Smail, John R. W / 1961 / On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of Southeast Asia / Journal of Southeast Asia History / 2 (2) : 72 ~ 2
- 20. [단행본] Stoler, Ann Laura / 2009 / Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense / Princeton University Press
- 21. [단행본] Tagliacozzo, Eric / 2009 / Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Islam, Movement and the Longue Duree / National University of Singapore Press
- 22. [단행본] Wallace, Alfred Russel / 1986 / The Malay Archipelago / Oxford University Press
- 23. [단행본] Yilmaz, Huseyin / 2012 / Is There a Middle East? / Stanford University Press
타입을 선택하세요
Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World”
@article{ART002533255},
author={
Stephen L. Keck
},
title={
Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World”
},
journal={
SUVANNABHUMI
},
issn={2092-738X},
year={2015},
number={2},
pages={27 - 56},
doi={10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27},
url={http://dx.doi.org/10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27}
TY - JOUR
AU - Stephen L. Keck
TI - Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World”
T2 - SUVANNABHUMI
PY - 2015
VL - 7
IS - 2
PB - 부산외국어대학교 아세안연구원
SP - 27 - 56
SN - 2092-738X
AB - How should we conceptualize regions? What is the context in which new approaches to regional study take place? What is the role of historical change in the reconceptualization of regions or areas? This article addresses this issue by using two case studies to shed light on the history of regional study by comparing some of the ways in which the Middle East and Southeast Asia have been conceptualized. Accordingly, the discussion traces the ways in which these areas were understood in the 19th century by highlighting the ideas of a number of influential Victorian thinkers. The Victorians are useful because not only did British thinkers play critical roles in the shaping of modern patterns of knowledge, but their empire was global in scope, encompassing parts of both Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
However, the Victorians regarded these places quite differently: Southeast Asia was frequently described as “Further India” and the Middle East was the home of the Ottoman Empire.
Both of these places were at least partly understood in relation to the needs of British policy-makers, who tended to focus most of their efforts according to the needs of India— which was their most important colonial possession.
The article exhibits the connections between the “Eastern Question” and end of the Ottoman Empire (and the political developments which followed) led to the creation of the concept of “Middle East”. With respect to Southeast Asia, attention will be devoted to the works of Alfred Russell Wallace, Hugh Clifford, and others to see how “further India” was understood in the 19th century. In addition, it is clear that the successful deployment of the term “Southeast Asia” reflected the political needs of policy makers in wake of decolonization and the Cold War.
Finally, by showing the constructive nature of regions, the article suggests one possible new path for students of Southeast Asia. If the characterization of the region is marked by arbitrary factors, it may actually point to a useful avenue of enquiry, a hermeneutic of expedience. Emphasis on the adaptive and integrative features of lived realities in Southeast Asia may well be a step beyond both the agendas of “colonial knowledge” and anti-colonial nationalism.
KW - Region, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Victorian, Britain, Ottoman, imperialism, territorial
DO - 10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27
ER -
Stephen L. Keck (2015). Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World”. SUVANNABHUMI, 7(2), 27 - 56.
Stephen L. Keck . 2015, “Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World””, vol.7, no.2, pp. 27 - 56. Available from: doi:10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27
Stephen L. Keck. “Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World”“ SUVANNABHUMI 7.2 pp. 27 - 56. (2015): 27.
Stephen L. Keck . Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World” SUVANNABHUMI [Internet]. 2015; 7(2), : 27 - 56. Available from: doi:10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27
Stephen L. Keck . “Constructing Southeast Asia and the Middle East: Two Corners of the “Victorian World”“ SUVANNABHUMI 7, no.2, (2015): 27 - 56. doi: :10.22801/svn.2015.7.2.27