“New Research Approaches to Southeast Asia”

On the morning of October 13, 2010, Prof. Dr. Vincent JH Houben (Director of the Institute of Asian-African Studies, Humboldt University) gave a presentation to the staff and students of the Faculty of International Studies. This activity is part of a series of activities towards the 15th Anniversary of the Faculty of International Studies.On behalf of the school's leadership, Vice President Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Van Kim warmly welcomed Prof. Houben and thanked him for taking the time to present to the school's staff and students on the methodology and research methods of Southeast Asia, an issue of particular importance to Vietnamese researchers. According to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Van Kim, Southeast Asia, with its position and role, is worthy of being a research subject for scientists and is in great need of new research theories. Within two hours, Prof. Houben led the audience with a concise presentation that was not boring, philosophical but not dry, general but not superficial, specific but not trivial, on the theory of new approaches to Southeast Asian research, combining historical and regional studies methods.The question that Prof. Houben raised was what the prospects of regional studies in general and Southeast Asia in particular would be like? This question makes sense because according to Prof. Houben's observation, up to now most historical studies have been influenced by a Eurocentric perspective. Moreover, compared to other regions, there are very few studies on Southeast Asian history. Another reality is that if there are any, most of these studies are only at the descriptive level, with an attempt to differentiate Southeast Asia from other regions and especially not based on a solid theoretical foundation. From that observation, Prof. Houben presented the history of Southeast Asian regional historiography, reviewing the works and contributions of senior scholars in the early period, from JC van Leur, John Smail, Wim Wertheim to the golden age of Southeast Asian studies in the 1960s-1970s with names such as Benedict Anderson, Geertz and Wolters, then to the period of the 1970s-1990s, reviewing Southeast Asian studies. According to Professor Houben, since the end of the Cold War, a new generation of Indian-American researchers has emerged such as historian Dipesh Chakrabarty, anthropologist Talal Asad, sociologist Arjun Appadurai, and literary figures such as Gayatri Chakavorty Spivak, etc.

According to Professor Houben, we are currently in a period when the relationship between history and area studies needs to be redefined. In recent years, both history and area studies have undergone a period of “soul-searching” because the parameters of the Cold War era do not fit the reality of our current globalized and interconnected world. Therefore, according to Professor Houben, at a general level, we must move beyond the limitations of the “post-structuralist” world to a world with broader meanings. In this context, Professor Houben believes that it is possible to develop a new theory applicable to the study of Southeast Asia. After analyzing and explaining the advantages and limitations of five different approaches and because most historians are obsessed with change, Professor Houben proposes a new theory for the study of Southeast Asia. Houben suggests using “processual concepts” to point out specific development dynamics in Southeast Asia at certain historical moments including both “site” and “area” levels and connecting discrete events to a larger structure or context. To illustrate this point, Prof. Houben came to an interesting observation: “the development of Vietnamese history should be understood not only by specific internal factors but also as the result of the interaction between internal and external factors in the Southeast Asian context.” Although not an expert on Vietnam, Prof. Houben surprised his listeners by generalizing Vietnamese history into four “historical conjunctures” with the following characteristics: The period of localization of Chinese culture can be called “progressive enculturation”, the period of prosperous maritime trade can be called “plural integration”, the period of development of nationalism can be called “dynamic transposition” and the period of Vietnam in the current globalization trend can be called “responsive adaptation”.