Towards a Poststructuralist Southeast Asian Studies?

Abstract

This article is specifically in response to the two thought-provoking articles ("Space, Theory and Hegemony: The Dual Crises of Asian Area Studies and Cultural Studies" and "Mapping Poststructuralism's Border: The Case for a Poststructuralist Area Studies") published in Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia in April 2003. It questions the viability of the author's attempt to integrate poststructuralism in an effort to re-invent conventional area studies, such as Southeast Asian Studies. It argues that the justification for the call for a poststructuralist area studies is flawed and that while there is a need to re-invent area studies, it cannot be safely accomplished by appropriating poststructuralism as a theoretical support. This is primarily because the opposing epistemological foundations of the two projects — area studies and poststructuralism — will tend to cancel each other out and analysis therefore that purports to combine the two contains contradictions. It further argues that poststructuralism can be more useful in playing the role of a higher-order critique of — as adjunct to, rather than as an integral part of — area studies.