• 건축역사연구
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.65-84
• /
• 2000

The region of Southeast Asia had already experienced rapid urbanization and cultural change before the East Asia region did. None the less, nowadays shophouses and rowhouses still form the major portion of streets in Chinese town in Southeast Asia countries. The purpose of this study is to examine the adaptation process of shophouse and rowhouse in the Southeast Asia region and the architectural characteristics between the middle of 18th and the early of 20th, which Chinese people of the region inherit and develop, for more thorough understanding of cultural adaptability and regionalism of Chinese architecture in Southeast Asia. The common fact found in the Southeast Asia region is that Chinese people in countries of this region gradually started to live densely as a group in a certain zone in city area since they got to play important roles in commerce, trade and service works related with cities, due to European countries' advance into Southeast Asia and their construction of colonial cities in the region. Chinese people in the region utilized residential rowhouse and special shophouse, which is a kind of shop adapted from rowhouses' sitting room or storage, for their commercial and industrial activities in urban areas, which had problems of limited space. They also realized high densities through vertical expansion of space in order to adjust to changing urban structure under execution of urban planning in cities of colonial area and rapid urbanization. Even though residence of Chinese in Southeast Asia was influenced by new political, social, economic and cultural rules of European colonies in Southeast Asia, it has continuously succeeded to the cultural tradition of China, their home country, in terms of planning principle which puts air well in the middle and hierarchial spacial construction method. Appearance of the open connected verandah, designed by Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, can be regarded as one of the architectural characters. Hence, Chinese residence in cities of Southeast Asia can be understood as a new regional architectural culture in the context of European countries' urban planning and urbanization of colonial areas, Immigrants from southern China and their role, their adjustment to urban areas by utilizing mixed type houses of residence and business, cultural tradition of Chinese home country.

• 수완나부미
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.71-100
• /
• 2019

The region between mainland China on the east and the Indian sub-continent on the west is referred to as Southeast Asia since the conclusion of the Pacific War (1941-1945). As a region, Southeast Asia appears as a hodgepodge of disparity and diversity, but a closer scrutiny reveals numerous common attributes and characteristics. This study attempts to identify and examine the cohesive and shared characteristics across the Southeast Asian region from a historical and sociocultural perspective. The intention is to differentiate an identity borne of the underlying commonalities of shared characteristics whether physical, experiential, emotive, and/or in terms of heritage. Subsequently, Southeast Asia has more grounds to claim itself as a distinct region, and an "area of study," besides the political expediency of ASEAN.

• 수완나부미
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.121-146
• /
• 2016

Defining key characteristics of Southeast Asia requires historical interpretation. Southeast Asia is a diverse and complicated region, but some of modern history's "grand narratives" serve to unify its historical experience. At a minimum, the modern history of the region involves decisive encounters with universal religions, the rise of Western colonialism, the experience of world wars, decolonization, and the end of the "cycle of violence". The ability of the region's peoples to adapt to these many challenges and successfully build new nations is a defining feature of Southeast Asia's place in the global stage. This paper will begin with a question: is it possible to develop a hermeneutic of "expedience" as a way to interpret the region's history? That is, rather than regard the region from a purely Western, nationalist, "internalist" point of view, it would be useful to identify a new series of interpretative contexts from which to begin scholarly analysis. In order to contextualize this discussion, the paper will draw upon the writings of figures who explored the region before knowledge about it was shaped by purely colonist or nationalist enterprises. To this end, particular attention will be devoted to exploring some of John Furnivall's ways of conceptualizing Southeast Asia. Investigating Furnivall, a critic of colonialism, will be done in relation to his historical situation. Because Furnivall's ideas have played a pivotal role in the interpretation of Southeast Asia, the paper will highlight the intellectual history of the region in order to ascertain the value of these concepts for subsequent historical interpretation. Ultimately, the task of interpreting the region's history requires a framework which will move beyond the essentializing orientalist categories produced by colonial scholarship and the reactionary nation-building narratives which followed. Instead, by beginning with a mode of historical interpretation that focuses on the many realities of expedience which have been necessary for the region's peoples, it may be possible to write a history which highlights the extraordinarily adaptive quality of Southeast Asia's populations, cultures, and nations. To tell this story, which would at once highlight key characteristics of the region while showing how they developed through historical encounters, would go a long way to capturing Southeast Asia's contribution's to global development.

• 수완나부미
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.27-56
• /
• 2015

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.

• 수완나부미
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.17-53
• /
• 2016

Debates continue to multiply on the definition and rationale of Southeast Asia as a region and on the utility of the multidisciplinary field of area studies. However, we have now entered a post-colonialist, post-Orientalist, post-structuralist stage of reflection and re-orientation in the era of globalization, and a strong tendency on the part of insiders to pose these issues in terms of an insider-outsider dichotomy. On the one hand, the study of Southeast Asia for researchers from outside the region has become fragmented. This is for very obvious reasons: the strengthening and re-energizing of academic disciplines, the increasing popularity of other non-regional multidisciplinary studies, and the entry of globalization studies into our field of vision. On the other hand, how has the local Southeast Asian academy addressed these major issues of change in conceptualizing the region from an insider perspective? In filling in and giving substance to an outsider, primarily Euro-American-Australian-centric definition and vision of Southeast Asia, some local academics have recently been inclined to construct Southeast Asia in terms of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): a nation-state-based, institutional definition of what a region comprises. Others continue to operate at a localized level exploring small-scale communities and territories, while a modest number focus on sub-regional issues (the Malay-Indonesian world or the Mekong sub-region are examples). However, further reflections suggest that the Euro-American-Australian hegemony is a thing of the past and the ground has shifted to a much greater emphasis on academic activity within the region. Southeast Asia-based academics are also finding it much more important to network within the region and to capture, understand, and analyze what Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scholars are saying about Southeast Asia, its present circumstances and trajectories, and their increasingly close involvement with the region within a greater Asia-Pacific rim. The paper argues that the insider-outsider dichotomy requires considerable qualification. It is a neat way of dramatizing the aftermath of colonialism and Orientalism and of reasserting local priorities, agendas, and interests. But there might be a way forward in resolving at least some of these apparently opposed positions with recourse to the concepts of culture and identity in order to address Southeast Asian diversities, movements, encounters, hybridization, and hierarchies.

• 동남아시아연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.311-324
• /
• 2012

• 수완나부미
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.143-153
• /
• 2018

The paper comments on the contribution of Oscar Salemink on his personal intellectual journal from Vietnam to Europe and back again. This then leads to the contemplation of the construction of Southeast Asia as a "place" or "locality", early preoccupations within the region of the national dimension. And more recent developments in universities in Singapore, examining the continuing perceptions of Southeast Asia as a region and Singapore as its "gateway", and the increasing interest in "connectivities" and transnational relations between the region and other parts of Asia and the wider world.

• 동남아시아연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.1-41
• /
• 2012

동남아의 1천년에 관한 우리의 얘기는 아직도 쌀의 8천년에 관한 아시아의 얘기를 시작조차 못하고 있다. 그러한 서사가 왜 우리의 역사책에는 실리지 않는가? 적어도 동남아에 있어서 역사는 여전히 민족주의를 맴돌고 있다. 따라서 모든 민족은 농민과 전답이 아니라 제왕과 전투가 역사의 주연으로 등장하는 각자의 얘기를 가지고 있다. 그 줄거리는 정치와 민족성이지 농업과 생태학이 아니며, 그 가르침은 갈등과 경쟁이지 협동과 상생이 아니다. 그렇다면 지금도 숨어있는 것은 쌀이 일찍이 만들었고 아직도 좋아하는 지방의 협동과 지역의 보편성이다(O'Connor 2004, 29).

• 동남아시아연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.263-297
• /
• 2010

The relics of the Southeast Asian civilizations in the first phase are found with the relics from India, China, and even further West of Persia and Rome. These relics are the historic marks of the ancient interactions of various continents, mainly through the maritime trade. The traces of the indic culture, which appears in the historic age, are represented in the textual records and arts, regarded as the essence of the India itself. The ancient Hindu arts found in various locations of Southeast Asia were thought to be transplanted directly from India. However, Neither did the Gupta Hindu Art of India form the mainstream of the Gupta Art, nor did it play an influential role in the adjacent areas. The Indian culture was transmitted to Southeast Asia rather intermittently than consistently. If we thoroughly compare the early Hindu art of India and that of Southeast Asia, we can find that the latter was influenced by the former, but still sustained Southeast Asian originality. The reason that the earliest Southeast Asian Hindu art is discovered mostly in continental Southeast Asia is resulted from the fact that the earliest networks between India and the region were constructed in this region. Among the images of Hindu gods produced before the 7th century are Shiva, Vishnu, Harihara, and Skanda(the son of Shiva), and Ganesha(the god of wealth). The earliest example of Vishnu was sculpted according to the Kushan style. After that, most of the sculptures came to have robust figures and graceful proportions. There are a small number of images of Ganesha and Skanda. These images strictly follow the iconography of the Indian sculpture. This shows that Southeast Asians chose their own Hindu gods from the Hindu pantheon selectively and devoted their faiths to them. Their basic iconography obediently followed the Indian model, but they tried to transform parts of the images within the Southeast Asian contexts. However, it is very difficult to understand the process of the development of the Hindu faith and its contents in the ancient Southeast Asia. It is because there are very few undamaged Hindu temples left in Southeast Asia. It is also difficult to make sure that the Hindu religion of India, which was based on the complex rituals and the caste system, was transplanted to Southeast Asia, because there were no such strong basis of social structure and religion in the region. "Indianization" is an organized expansion of the Indian culture based on the sense of belonging to an Indian context. This can be defined through the process of transmission and progress of the Hindu or Buddhist religions, legends about purana, and the influx of various epic expression and its development. Such conditions are represented through the Sanskrit language and the art. It is the element of the Indian culture to fabricate an image of god as a devotional object. However, if we look into details of the iconography, style, and religious culture, these can be understood as a "selective reception of foreign religious culture." There were no sophisticated social structure yet to support the Indian culture to continue in Southeast Asia around the 7th century. Whether this phenomena was an "Indianization" or the "influx of elements of Indian culture," it was closely related to the matter of 'localization.' The regional character of each local region in Southeast Asia is partially shown after the 8th century. However it is not clear whether this culture was settled in each region as its dominant culture. The localization of the Indian culture in Southeast Asia which acted as a network connecting ports or cities was a part of the process of localization of Indian culture in pan-Southeast Asian region, and the process of the building of the basis for establishing an identity for each Southeast Asian region.

• 동남아시아연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.35-79
• /
• 2014

This study examines the measures for the activation and the growth of intra-regional trade in Southeast Asia taking a look at the four dimensions of tariff rates, non-tariff barriers, trade facilitations, and trade infrastructures. Utilizing a gravity model, we performed empirical analysis and discussed the policy implications with the priorities to implement. To expand the intra-regional trade in Southeast Asia it would be necessary to enhance the level of trade facilitations and provide trade infrastructures, such as ports and airports as well as cutting the tariff rates and eliminating the non-trade barriers. In particular, in the case of exports of ASEAN6 to ASEAN6 the infrastructure is the important factor. Also, in the case of the exports of ASEAN6 to CLMV(Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam), it is expected that eliminating non-tariff barriers and enhancing trade facilitations may play important roles in the progress of intra-regional trade. These results may provide the important implications for Southeast Asian countries, which are trying to promote intra-regional trade ahead of the constitution of ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. Southeast Asian countries could be evaluated to achieve a certain level of trade liberalization and economic integration through the formation of AFTA. But in order for Southeast Asia to develop to advanced economic integrated region it requires mutual cooperations and policy harmonizations among regional countries. Also, for the elimination of non-tariff barriers, promoting trade facilitations, and providing infrastructures, the administrative, legal, and institutional measures would have to be fulfilled in advance. In addition, capital investment for constructing infrastructures would be necessary to realize the intra-regional trade expansion. However, to achieve the goal, it would require a large capital investment and highly mandated policy considerations and harmonizations among Southeast Asian countries in terms of further trade liberalization and economic integration.