Professional Documents
Culture Documents
King (2008) Sociology of Southeast Asia
King (2008) Sociology of Southeast Asia
Victor T. King
AWN
University of Hawai`i Press
Honolulu
Contents
2008 Victor T. King All Rights Reserved Preface: Setting the Scene vii Acknowledgements xiv Published in North America by University of Hawaii Press 284o Kolowalu Street Honolulu, Hawai`i 96822 First published in Europe by NIAS Press Leifsgade 33 2300 Copenhagen S, DENMARK 1. Introduction: The Sociology of a Diverse Region 2. The Sociological Context
20 37
5. Social Class, the State and Political Economy 91. 6. Ethnicity and Society 129 7. Patronage and Corruption 155
Printed in Malaysia
8. Asian Values and Social Action 178 9. Transformations in the World of Work: Gender Issues 197
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data King, Victor T. The sociology of southeast Asia : transformations in a developing region / Victor T. King. p. c m. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8248-3228-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8248-3229-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. SociologySoutheast Asia. 2. Social problemsSoutheast Asia. 3. Southeast AsiaSocial conditions. I. Title. HM477S643K56 2007 301.o959'o91724dc22 2007022074
01.o. Transformations in Urban Worlds 225 11. Conclusions: Modernity, Globalization and the Future 246 7: Images of Southeast Asia 256 References 270 Author/Name Index 317 Subject Index 322
111,Irkr,r,rf'
U114V
We hold that sociology and history should be viewed not as completely separate, but as disciplines with an identical object; that though their methods and techniques may differ, the fundamental preoccupations are the same' (van den Muijzenberg and Wolters, 1988: 2). Both [sociology and history] seek to understand the puzzle of human agency and both seek to do so in terms of the process of social structuring ... Sociology must be concerned with eventuation, because that is how structuring happens. History must be theoretical, because that is how structuring is apprehended (Abrams: 1982: xxi). Instead of searching exclusively for integrative expedients, we should with equal intellectual force try to detect strains and conflicts in society, as possible agents in future change (Wertheim, 1964a:35).
tives and the insights which have emerged from the fragmentation of disciplines into particular specialisms; thus, she commended gender studies, ecology, political economy, agricultural economics, business history, musicology, popular literature, and the visual and performing arts. In contrast to McVey I believe that a sociological perspective should embrace precisely this multidisciplinary, eclectic spirit. It is in the spirit of Wertheim's approach to the study of Asian societies 'on the move; a spirit which enfolds the social sciences as 'a unity' (1993: 4-5). I have referred to three of the major sources of sociological inspiration: Marx, Weber and Durkheim. What is striking in their approaches and theories is a commitment to the integration of social-science perspectives and methods within a historical framework. They were interested in the 'totality of society; not just in its social or political institutions, its economic structure, nor its cultural values and practices (Martinussen, 1997: 22, 25-30). Sociology then is closely entwined with political economy, history and anthropology, and these areas of expertise have, during the past three decades, drawn on and been embraced by the more recognizably cross-disciplinary studies of gender, culture, the media, the environment and development (Batan, 2006: z; Bautista, 1994: 12). Therefore, I am casting my net relatively widely in this book.
Introduction
This chapter discusses the reasons for the relative lack
of progress, or the 'underdevelopment' of the postwar sociological study of Southeast Asia. It provides ;;;----": a context for the consideration of theories of modernization, underdevelopment and dependency, and . Yr political economy perspectives discussed in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. In anticipating the issues to be addressed in the study of Southeast Asia in the immediate future, McVey, in a paper published in the mid-199os, referred to the 'urban sector; 'labour as well as industry; and 'the media and modern culture: She suggested that this research agenda 'implies a larger place for sociology; although she doubted the ability of its practitioners 'to assume a leading intellectual role' (1995: 8). She was also doubtful whether other social science disciplines, including politics and economics, could take up the challenge. For her they were too wedded to the old paradigms particularly modernization theory and she suggested that economics is 'too mathematical and abstract to have much immediacy' (ibid.: 9). Instead she referred approvingly to cross-disciplinary perspec20
't
The Sociology of Southeast Asia social scientists may seem important in many respects, ... from a global perspective the ideas on how Southeast Asian societies work have been outlined and described mainly by foreigners' (ibid.: 2). Clearly the health of sociological studies has improved during the past decade, but the empirical materials are still patchy and we have not seen the robust emergence of distinctive schools of study or internationally recognized academic programmes. Some new developments have shown signs of promise (Anderson, 1984; Doner, 1991; Rodan et al., 1997, 20012, 2oo6a) but, despite Chen's and Evers's strictures about the generally unhelpful influence of imported paradigms, we continue to look primarily outside Southeast Asia for insights into such processes as modernization rather than to locally generated sociologies. I recognize, however, that in other disciplinary fields, including politics, anthropology and history, scholars working on Southeast Asia have developed some key social science concepts (Chou and Houben, 2oo6a: i; King and Wilder, 2003; Taufik, n.d.). Wertheim too drew upon the traditions of European sociology to investigate whether or not 'we could establish similarities between developments in earlier European history and developments in contemporary Asian societies' (1993: 2). He did this with considerable skill and historical sensitivity and, in his Indonesian Society in Transition (1959 [1956]) and East-West Parallels (1964a), adapted concepts which had been devised in the encounter with Western experiences to enable scholarly engagement with the fast-changing societies of Asia. His overall conclusion was that 'such parallel developments could certainly be revealed; but ... in each instance they only hold to some extent: and, in Asia in general contrast to the West, he draws attention to the considerably enhanced role of the state in economic affairs, and the relatively recent emergence of an urban bourgeoisie, which has not had the opportunity `to play a dynamic, innovative role similar to that played by a parallel group in the West' (1993: 3). A subsequent set of readings on Southeast Asia in the Macmillan 'Sociology of "Developing Societies"' series reveals the persistence of the problems highlighted by Evers a decade before (Taylor and Turton, 1988a). The editors capture the dilemma in a paradox; they demonstrate that, from any point of view, this socially and culturally complex region is of crucial global political and economic importance. 'Yet the degree and quality of much of the research on the region often does not enable one to address the most important aspects of its current and future development' (Taylor and Turton, 1988b: 1). In this regard the authors contrast sociological research on Southeast Asia with the work of Latin American and other scholars on dependency and world systems analysis, East African studies on 'the role of the state and its relation to indigenous classes: and the analyses of capitalist relations of production in agriculture and agrarian differentiation in South Asia. Taylor and Turton, like Evers, lament that Southeast Asian academics have adopted ideas from outside the area to examine processes of change 'rather than generating indigenous explanations of the region and its place in the world economy' (ibid.: 1). Prior to Taylor's and Turton's remarks, Neher had already contrasted the 'innova22
The Sociological Context tive perspectives of Latin American-oriented writers with the poor performance of students of Southeast Asian societies' (1984: 130). Then Doner drew attention to the 'relative weakness' of studies of Southeast Asian political economy (1991: 819), although the situation has steadily improved during the past decade or so since he made this remark (Rodan et al., 1997, zoota, 2oo6a). Comments along very similar lines were made by Preston (1987). Among other things he criticized the writings of the European observers, Boeke and Furnivall, and attempted to counter the claims of Evers, who reproduced key extracts from Boeke and Furnivall in his 'reader' of 1980, that these two colonial writers represent the beginnings of a distinctively Southeast Asian sociology. Preston maintained that the work of colonial administrator-scholars cannot make a contribution to an independent Southeast Asian sociological perspective because their analyses have been shaped by colonial interests. Instead, he argued that any 'indigenous' Southeast Asian sociology 'will only be discovered (if it's there) in the work of local scholars, commentators and activists' (ibid.: 99). He was also critical of local sociologists who were concerned with development policy and planning issues (see Chen, 1983). Preston's view was that this kind of sociology provided a convenient defence of government development strategies and served to maintain the sociopolitical status quo. I agree with Preston's criticisms to a point. There are shortcomings in the early studies of Boeke and Furnivall, but their work has intellectual value. Furthermore, although we can be critical of both foreign and local sociological research on the region, we should not underestimate what has been accomplished and we have to be aware of the constraints on sociological enquiry (Neher, 1984: 131). For example, in their review of sociological research in Singapore, Ong et al. remark, with regard to the policies of Lee Kuan Yew's People's Action Party (PAP), that from 1965 when a Department of Sociology was founded in the local university, it had to establish 'its credentials in a difficult arena because it was the domain of a government that was very pragmatic and all-encompassing in its sense of mission' (1997a: viii). Heryanto (2005: 57-89) and Samuel (1999), too, have remarked on the strong relationships of dependency between the social sciences and government in post-independence Indonesia (see also Hadiz and Dhakidae, 2oo5a: 1-29), as has Shamsul for Malaysia (1995), Bautista during the martial law period under Marcos (1994; Carino, 1980), and Schulte Nordholt and Visser more generally for Southeast Asia (1995). In Thailand, Reynolds and Hong, in their examination of Marxist influences on local historical and political economy studies of Thailand, identify periods of political constraint on scholarship as well as of intellectual ferment (1983: 78). For example, the 1958-73 period of military dictatorship was 'a restrictive one; but in the liberal period of 1973-76 there was a local outpouring of Marxist-inspired analyses of Thailand's underdevelopment (ibid.: 79-98). Returning to Preston's contribution, there are two points. First, Boeke's and Furnivall's insights have stimulated considerable debate and further studies of Southeast Asian societies, nor is it the case that the provision of imaginative responses to
23
An Alternative Tradition?
Before considering in more detail McVey's 'regnant paradigm' and the counterparadigm of underdevelopment and dependency in Chapters 3 and 4, it is worth examining briefly a rather different sociological tradition. This was critical of American-led modernization theory and, to some extent, ran in parallel with radical scholarship, although, in important respects, it also pre-dated it (van den Muijzenberg and Wolters, 1988). This tradition, established by Dutch scholars from the early post-war period, had only modest influence on the modernization paradigm, and it did not receive much attention from neo-Marxists and political economists whose work began to take on a higher profile in the study of Southeast Asia from the late 197os (King, 1996: 168-173). I am referring to the historicalsociological school of Wertheim and his successor at the University of Amsterdam, Otto van den Muijzenberg. In important respects, these carried the same messages as the underdevelopment and dependency writers, but they provided an intriguing bridge between neo-Marxist concerns, certain neo-evolutionary ideas, and Weber's sociology. I have already remarked on the unfortunate neglect of Wertheim's and his colleagues' work in the general sociology of Southeast Asia (ibid.: 169). Their specifically theoretical contribution to the analysis of social change did not receive much attention in Evers's sociology reader, although Evers did feature Wertheim's historical overview of Southeast Asia (198oa: 8-23), his early descriptive work on 'trading minorities' (198ob: 104-120; 1964a: 38-82), and van den Muijzenberg's piece on 'involution or evolution in the Philippines'(198o: 209-219). Nothing from the Dutch school appeared in the compendium of Taylor and Turton (1988a). The Dutch contribution was mentioned in passing in Higgott's and Robison's book, to the effect that the socio-historical approach 'sought to integrate political, social and
32
complexities of socio-economic change, the variable responses to it, and the ways in which continuing problems of poverty and inequality could be addressed in the developing world.
Introduction
The social transformations set in motion in Southeast Asia after the Japanese occupation and the processes of decolonization which gathered pace following Ho Chi Minh's declaration of Vietnamese independence on 2 September 1945 and Sukarno's proclamation of the Indonesian Republic on 17 August 1945 defy simple generalization. We must recognize that during the period of decolonization significant parts of the region were embroiled in political and military conflict, there ,.. ,,were serious internal ethnic conflicts between majority lowland populations and minorities, and the problems of former colonial economies, given the imbalances in resource exploitation and the dominance of external groups, were formidable. New socio-economic groupings were emerging as these economies became increasingly integrated into a global system and as cal people began to fill the political and administrative spaces left by the departing colonial powers. Yet in the 195os and 19 6os many senior social scientists attempted to understand this complexity, in retrospect rather surprisingly, by recourse to a general theory of social change, which, it was thought, would assist them in anticipating the future character and
36 37
References
Bauzon-Bautista, Ma. Cynthia Rose (1987) 'The Teaching of Sociology in the Philippines: Some Notes on a Survey of Sociology Teachers'. Philippine Sociological Review, vol. 35, pp. 7-10. Bell, Peter F. (1978) -Cycles" of Class Struggle in Thailand'. Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 8, pp. 51-79. (1982) 'Western Conceptions of Thai Society: The Politics of American Scholarship. Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 12, pp. 61-74. (1991) 'Gender and Economic Development in Thailand: In Penny and John van Esterik (eds), Gender and Development in Southeast Asia. McGill University: Canadian Asian Studies Association, Proceedings of the Twentieth Meetings of the Canadian Council for Southeast Asian Studies, York University, 18-20 October, 1991, pp. 61-82. Bellah, Robert N. (1957) Tokugawa Religion: The Values of Pre-industrial Japan. Glencoe: The Free Press. (1965) 'Epilogue: In Robert N. Bellah (ed.), Religion and Progress in Modern Asia. New York: The Free Press, pp. 168-229. Bellwood, Peter (1985) Prehistory of the lndo-Malaysian Archipelago. Sydney: Academic Press. (1995) Austronesian Prehistory in SoutheastAsia: Homeland, Expansion and Transformation: In Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox and Darrell Tryon (eds), The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra: Department of Anthropology, Australian National University, pp. 96-111. Benda, Harry J. (1962) 'The Structure of Southeast Asian History: Some Preliminary Observations: Journal of Southeast Asian History, vol. 3, pp. 106-138.
(1972) Continuity and Change in Southeast Asia: Collected Journal Articles of Harry J. Benda. New Haven: Yale University Press, Southeast Asia Studies. Bendix, Reinhard (1964) Nation Building and Citizenship. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Benjamin, Geoffrey (1975) The Cultural Logic of Singapore's Multiracialism'. University of -
Singapore: Department of Sociology, Working Papers No. 44. Beresford, Melanie (zoo6) 'Vietnam: The Transition from Central Planning: In Rodan, Hewison and Robison (2006a), pp. 197-220. Berger, Mark T. (zoos) '(De)constructing the New Order: Capitalism and the Cultural Contours of the Patrimonial State in Indonesia'. In Yao (2oosb), pp. 191-212. (2002) 'Battering Down the Chinese Walls: The Antinomies of Anglo-American Liberalism and the History of East Asian Capitalism in the Shadow of the Cold War! In Wee (2002c), pp. 77-106. Bernstein, Henry (1979) 'Sociology of Underdevelopment vs Sociology of Development: In D. Lehmann (ed.), Development Theory. London: Frank Cass, pp. 77-106. Beteille, Andre (1969a) 'Introduction: In Beteille (1969b), pp. 9-14. - (ed.) (196913) Social Inequality. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Bit, Seanglim (1991) A Psychological Perspective of Cambodian Trauma. El Cerrito: Seanglim Bit. Blackburn, Susan (1991) 'How Gender Is Neglected in Southeast Asian Politics: In Stivens (19916), pp. 25-42. Blackwood, Evelyn (1995) 'Senior Women, Model Mothers, and Dutiful Wives: Managing Gender Contradictions in a Minangkabau Village: In Ong and Peletz (19956), pp. 124-158. 273
272
National Development Policy and Urban Transformation in Singapore: A Study of Public Housing and the Marketing System. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Yoshihara, Kunio (1988) The Rise of Ersatz Capitalism in South-East Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press. - (2004) `The Problem of Globalisation for Southeast Asian Countries. The Case of ) Malaysia: In Abdul Rahman Embong (,2004,, pp. 83-102. Young, Ken (2004) 'Globalisation and the Changing Management of Migrating Service Workers in the Asia Pacific: Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 34, pp. 287-303. Yun Hing Ai (1984) 'Women and Work in West Malaysia: Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 14. pp. 204-218. Zakaria, E (1994) 'Culture is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew: Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, pp. 109-126. Zakaria Haji Ahmad and Suzaina Kadir (zoos) 'Ethnic Conflict, Prevention and Management: The Malaysian Case: In Kusuma and Thompson (zoo5a), pp. 42-64. Zamora, Mario D., Donald J. Baxter and Robert Lawless (eds) (1982) Social Change in Modern Philippines. Perspectives, Problems and Prospects. Manila: Rex Book Store for St. Mary's.College of Bayombang, 2 vols. Zariski, Raphael (1960) `Party, Factions and Comparative Polities: Some Preliminary Observations'. Midwest Journal of Political Science, vol. 4, pp. 27-51.
Author/Name Index
(Page numbers in bold = extended coverage)
Abdul Rahman Embong, 100, 102, 104, 270 Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Datuk Seri, 144 Abrams, P.H., 20 Adas, M., 74 Aguinaldo, E., 86 Alatas, S.H., 2, 38, 178, 186, 194, 247 Ananda, King, 121 Anderson, B.R., 4, 5, 14-15, 19, 122, 249, 271 Anwar Ibrahim, Dato' Seri, 183 Appadurai, A., 150 Apter, D., 38, 56 Aquino, C., 118-19, 182 Arghiros, D., 158, 174-6 Armstrong, W., 232 Askew, M., 232 Atkinson, J.M., 205 Aung-Thwin, M., 67-8 Ayal, E.B., 44 Bagyidaw, King, 144 Baker, C., 176 Banharn Silpa-archa, 173 Baran, P., 54, 56, 58, 60-1 Batan, C., 24, 29 Bautista, C., 23, 272 Bauzon-Bautista, Ma.C.R., 21 Bell, P.F., 67, 200, 215 Bellah, R.N., 195 Bellwood, P., 16 Bendix, R., 38 Benjamin, G., 129 Berger, M.T., 110 Bit, S., 49 Blackwood, E., 208 Bodawpaya, King, 144 Boeke, J.H., 7-8, 23-4, 4 1-3, 53, 74, 78, 232-3, 248 Boender, W., 231
Bonifacio, A., 86 Bottomore, T.B., 91, 97 Branson, J., 207, 223 Brennan, M., 99, 135, 138-40, 143 Brewer, A., 56, 6o Brooks, A., 190 Brown, David, 129, 130, 134, 138, 142-4, 146-50, 151-2 Brown, D.E., 31 Brummelhuis, H. ten, 176 Bruun, 0., 182, 188, 191 Bukharin, N.I., 35, 58 Bunnell, T., 238 Burger, D.H., 54 Burling, R., 15-16 Cady, L.E., 132 Callahan, M.P., 46 Catley, B., 63, 64 Chai-anan, S., 48, 126 Cham, B.N., 248 Chan Kwok Bun, xi Chan Yuk Wah, 130 Chatichai Choonhavan, 125 Chatthip, N., 67 Chen, M., 187 Chen, P.S.J., xi, 21, 22, 31, 38, 47, 99, 183-6, 276 Chong, T., x, 37 Chua Beng Huat, 101, 182, 189, 240-1, 251, 277 Chuan Leekpai, 125, 173 Chulalongkorn, King, 6, 121 Clad, J., 168 Clammer, J., 183, 188, 242, 247, 277 Cohen, E., 48, 5o, 67, 216, 255, 277 Cook, N., 217 Cordero, F.V., 28
317
316