Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale in Southeast Asia
Географии знания, географии незнания: смена масштаба в Юго-Восточной Азии
2002-11-25
SCID: 54.1/wyx9ht5a
Discuss with AI
Zomiaacademic politics of scalearea studiesborderlandsgeographies of ignorance
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
‘Area studies' use a geographical metaphor to visualise and naturalise particular social spaces as well as a particular scale of analysis. They produce specific geographies of knowing but also create geographies of ignorance. Taking Southeast Asia as an example, in this paper I explore how areas are imagined and how area knowledge is structured to construct area ‘heartlands' as well as area ‘borderlands‘. This is illustrated by considering a large region of Asia (here named Zomia) that did not make it as a world area in the area dispensation after World War 2 because it lacked strong centres of state formation, was politically ambiguous, and did not command sufficient scholarly clout. As Zomia was quartered and rendered peripheral by the emergence of strong communities of area specialists of East, Southeast, South, and Central Asia, the production of knowledge about it slowed down. I suggest that we need to examine more closely the academic politics of scale that create and sustain area studies, at a time when the spatialisation of social theory enters a new, uncharted terrain. The heuristic impulse behind imagining areas, and the high-quality, contextualised knowledge that area studies produce, may be harnessed to imagine other spatial configurations, such as ‘crosscutting’ areas, the worldwide honeycomb of borderlands, or the process geographies of transnational flows. Scholars of all conventional areas can be involved in this project to ‘jump scale’ and to develop new concepts of regional space.
Key Findings
1
Area studies should critically examine the academic politics of scale and develop alternative configurations, including crosscutting areas, global borderlands, and transnational process geographies.
2
Area studies’ geographical categories naturalize particular social spaces and analytical scales, producing both structured knowledge and systematic geographies of ignorance.
3
Dividing Zomia among established East, Southeast, South, and Central Asian area frameworks rendered it peripheral and slowed the production of knowledge about the region.
4
Southeast Asia’s area knowledge constructs privileged regional heartlands alongside marginalized borderlands through specific academic and political arrangements.
5
Zomia failed to become a recognized postwar world area because it lacked strong state-formation centers, had ambiguous political status, and possessed limited scholarly influence.
Research Object
Area studies' conceptualization of Southeast Asia (including the imagined region Zomia) as a geographic/social area
Research Subject
The academic politics and knowledge-producing effects of geographical scale in constructing area-study heartlands, borderlands, and alternative regional configurations
Publication Details
DOI
Publication Date
2002-11-25
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest