That's the unofficial title of my research paper. Of course I have to come up with a longer, convoluted and more fancier title than this, but it can wait until at least my first draft is done.
I'm so happy now that I finally have a testable hypothesis and a bunch of sources I can work with. My research will attempt to explore the basis for the formation of a regional identity in the context of geopolitical/military and economic interests, social class vis-a-vis social communication, and common experiences (history). It'll be basically a side-by-side comparison between the two regions with each of the above contexts will be my independent variable, while regional identity will be my dependent variable.
What is a regional identity--European or SE Asian? This is one concept I will not dare to attempt to define in my research. My contention is that for one region to integrate, there has to be some kind of an abstract notion of identification between the people that transcends the traditional national boundaries, and it is the formation of this elevated sense of identity in the people's psyche is what I'm trying to explore. What compels the people--by way of national governments--to think beyond their existing nation-state borders? Ask any Europeans--Brits, Swedes, Greeks, Poles, etc--and all of them will give a different definition of what constitutes as being a European, but virtually all of them easily identify themselves as Europeans despite their obviously conflicting meanings. Have you ever heard any Malaysians or Indonesians or Thais identify themselves as SE Asians? Never, right? One's identity in this region is still defined by national boundary.
Can this existing identity be changed? I sure hope so but I'm pessimistic that it can happen in the near future. My research hypothesis suggests that the European experiences are peculiar and cannot be replicated successfully in the SE Asia. But I'm only human and who am I to say that the region can never integrate? It'll be my ultimate dream come true, which I hope to see materialize in my life time. At least for the Malay archipelagoes--Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Southern Thailand, and Mindanao--to again unite and relive its old glory days.
2 comments:
The SE Asian identity is probably more 'real' than the European identity. At least much of SE Asia belonged to the same poltical entities at different points in its existence. The 'European unity' is pretty much a farce cooked up in a buracrats lunch room. A little bit of stress and that bad boy and it is going to come flying apart.
What is regional identity anyway? I don't think it can be safely defined to include the aggregate interests of all. In the EU case, majority of Europeans seem to agree, to one degree or the other, that they are part of this ephemeral identity and are willing to surrender part of their national sovereignty and resign their collective fate to this oddly-created supranational entity, that is the EU. This would never happen in SE Asia, at least for now.
The difference between Europe and SE Asia is that European states have the luxury of time to reify their national identities and feel secure about who they are; SE Asia on the other hand has only been freed from the clutches of colonialism for 50+ yrs and each of its member states is still struggling to find its own distinct identity that breaks the long-standing mold created by the former colonial powers. Country like Malaysia is still steeped in old colonial sectarian identity that pits different races against each other. If we, Malaysians, cannot even acknowledge ourselves as one, how can we even identify ourselves as SE Asians?
I do agree with you that EU is mostly the creation of the bureaucrats, or the "Eurocrats." You know, people like Jean Monnet, Jacques Delors and others acting as cheerleaders, and the EU institutions do have a serious problem of "democratic deficit." But hasn't it always been the case throughout history that any kinds of identity have usually been set by the political and cultural elites? I'm just stating the claim often made by social constructivist theorists that institutions act as an agent that shapes the way the society behaves.
Post a Comment