Panel

The Sixth EuroSEAS Conference, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Call for papers for panel on
SOUTHEAST ASIA AND ANTHROPOLOGY – theory and area studies

La Raw Maran, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA, email: kachinusa@aol.com
Monika Arnez, University of Hamburg, Germany, email: monika_arnez@yahoo.de

Framework and objectives
Anthropological study of Southeast Asia (SEA) seeks to account for the distinctive characteristics of the region using disciplinary concepts and methods. Literature on the region shows that this has been going on for over five decades. We want to focus on the role of anthropology as theory, in bringing this about. The discipline being in the western scholarly tradition, researchers come to SEAsian empirical study sites with preconceived concepts and methods. To derive readings representative of regional ethnography, they must do two things: initially theorize about observed behavior using available tools, and after arriving at satisfactory explanation to report, explain how and why the account offered is adequately descriptive. They begin by theorizing about empirical data, then they build explanatory theories to show that the conclusion is logical. This fundamental linkage is formed by theorizing-data-theory building.

E.R. Leach as an example
Leach (1954) studied Kachin social structure and political system change, the gumsa-to-gumlau transformation, and circumspectly, he made three contributions; one, he theorized and explained Kachin social dynamics, becoming a pioneer in SEAsian area study. Two, within British social anthropology, his work clearly has overarching presence as disciplinary theory. Three, the impact of his theory, as discernible transforms and derivatives, continues today, as attested in Robinne & Sadan (2007) where Leach’s work is reconsidered fifty years after it appeared. Indications are that his work still has influence in this area studies, in anthropology, as well as in political science (Kuhonta et al, 2008).

For example, the idea that gumsa-gumlau type system changes likely occur between systems that are structural opposites (see Davidson in Kuhonta et al, 2008), and with likely social upheaval, is relevant today to the topics of democratization impinging upon traditional social structures, producing, inter alia, gender-based social-political activism, political ethnicity, marginality, etc. He noted that adherents of gumsa & gumlau societies are Kachin, hence, identity expression across the boundary is porous. Today this phenomenon is observed as ethnicity, situational identity, political ethnicity, etc. J. Nagata (1971) shows that the boundary is more than porous, it is malleable. Keyes (1967) calls this ethnic adaptability. The overview on this in King & Wilder (2003) is exemplary.

The specific objective of the panel
Today, arguably, anthropology continues as the discipline without comparison in the study of social dynamics, changes and causes, etc. but there is no acknowledgement of an overarching theoretical presence, as it was for Leach. Instead, SEAsian anthropology is largely driven by the requirements to explain the social dynamics associated with three broad cataclysmic changes, the struggle for political dominance, globalization, and the encroaching paradigm of democracy. Whether the topic is cultural marginality, dominance and resistance, political ethnicity, gender-role in social-political movements, etc. the fundamental linkage of theorizing, data and theory-building, continues to be the paradigm of analysis.

Call for papers, conference regulations, etc.
We invite contributions to discuss the fundamental linkages of your work, and theoretical bearings. Please submit to us a reasonably brief statement with a descriptive title, author-email address, key words and phrases of your topic, and ethnographic location. Please note dates and deadlines in Conference announcements. If accepted, a proper abstract will be requested.