Theories, Paradigms, or Models in Burma Studies

Abstract

Any study of a particular area or country always has an implicit or explicit theoretical framework behind the purely descriptive accounts. In this respect Burma studies are no exception, and it is highly useful to bring these models to the forefront for the purposes of clarifying our thought processes.1 Thomas Kuhn, in his pathbreaking essay The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, defined paradigms as accepted models or patterns. These paradigms, which can variously be used synonymously with myths, maps, models, images, standard explanations, or organizing principles, are at the basis of all thought. The economist Kenneth E. Boulding, in particular, examined different images in personal perceptions, in political and economic systems, and in organization theory.2 Why should this matter of different perceptions by different actors on the scene be so crucial in Burma studies? I believe differences in perception are at the root of our failure as Burmese to come up with a solution to our collective political and economic problems. Participants in a recent conference on Burma studies, which was billed as insider and outsider views of the country, found that without declaring themselves as insider or outsider, both or as neither, they could at once perceive that the location of researchers would produce important differences in their