Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs

Arugay, Aries Ayuson (2009), Erik Martinez Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu (eds.): Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis, in: Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 28, 3, 107-110. ISSN: 1868-4882 (online), ISSN: 1868-1034 (print) The online version of this article can be found at: <www.CurrentSoutheastAsianAffairs.org>

Published by GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Institute of Asian Studies and Hamburg University Press. The Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs is an Open Access publication. It may be read, copied and distributed free of charge according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. To subscribe to the print edition: <ias@giga-hamburg.de> For an e-mail alert please register at: <www.CurrentSoutheastAsianAffairs.org> The Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs is part of the GIGA Journal Family which includes: Africa Spectrum Journal of Current Chinese Affairs Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs Journal of Politics in Latin America <www.giga-journal-family.org>

Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 3/2009: 107-125

Book Reviews
Kuhonta, Erik Martinez, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu (eds.) (2008), Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis, Stanford: Stanford University Press ISBN 10: 0804758107, 455 pages This compendium of essays written by the newest group of Southeast Asianists as well as eminent scholars could be considered as the most comprehensive survey of political science literature in the region to date. The goal of the book is to fill a long overdue gap of exposing the significant contributions made by scholars studying Southeast Asia in concept formation and theory-building in political science. Essentially, it contains wellwritten essays on major themes on Southeast Asian politics states, democracy, civil society, political parties, political economy, ethnicity, and religion, among others. Each chapter did not only summarize the authoritative works on the respective topic but situated them within the context of the ongoing theoretical debates and methodological issues confronting comparative politics. It is this critical engagement of the literature that separates Kuhonta et al.s edited volume from similar projects in other regions. The thematic essays possessed logical coherence and consistency as they basically follow a similar format. Each of them began by providing a background on the current conceptual issues surrounding the particular topic within the subfield of comparative politics as well as its major theoretical approaches. It then proceeded to surveying the seminal works done by Southeast Asianists on the various themes in the book. The authors have maintained a proper balance by underscoring the positive contributions made scholars in the region. However, they were also candid in revealing the weaknesses and limitations of these works on Southeast Asian politics thus far. To a general extent, the essays have argued that past work done on the region have made a dent in knowledge accumulation in political science. For example, Benedict Andersons concept of nation as imagined communities and James C. Scotts idea of moral economy in peasant studies are considered as influential works whose impact have even transcended Southeast Asian studies. This book did not exaggerate when it concluded that the region has been a source of conceptual innovation and novel theorizing. Moreover, in-depth studies on cases in Southeast Asia have not only validated theoretical arguments in comparative politics but also have engendered interesting nuances not found in other regions. By taking history and intensive fieldwork seriously, this book argued that scholars were able to make a significant dent in the study of comparative politics.

108

Book Reviews

Some might see this edited volume as an apology for qualitative, descriptive, and historical analyses. All of the authors concluded that there is a dearth of statistically-oriented research in the study of politics in Southeast Asia. However, this is not the focus of the books critique on the state of political science literature in the region. Kuhonta et al. argued that most of the current scholarship has not employed rigorous comparative analysis. In general, scholars have either done thick descriptions of single countries or for those that have done multi-country projects; few have utilized the comparative method. This has become the major source of criticism from some political scientists who have labelled such scholarship as area studies. Donald K. Emmersons excellent contribution to this book discussed the tensions between the major methodological camps within the discipline and their relevance for Southeast Asia. While the region has not been affected by the wave of statistical methods, formal theory, and rational choice, the book concluded that the lack of rigorous comparative work that takes case selection and theory testing seriously have undermined the ability of Southeast Asian scholars to influence current debates in political science. Indeed, the book made it clear that the current body of scholarship on Southeast Asian politics manifested the merits of employing qualitative methods. This methodological bias is also reflected in their recommendation that such technique needs to be modified to include more systematic comparisons of countries. However, the authors refrained from making remarks on the value of quantitative and statistical methods in studying the region despite the palpable lack of such works. Almost all the authors did not see this imbalance as detrimental to the quality of literature on Southeast Asia. Will the contribution of Southeast Asianists remain toward providing indepth, qualitative, and even rigorous comparison of countries? Or is there promise in using statistical and more quantitative methods? To a certain extent, notwithstanding the limitations of the existing body of scholarship, this book concluded that qualitative work remains to be the future of Southeast Asian political science. However, Emmersons essay was sober enough to point out that the choice of method to utilize ultimately relies upon the nature of inquiry. Given this, the book could have examined the various ways in which different methods could co-exist in pushing Southeast Asian studies further to the fore of comparative politics. Almost all the authors also treated the diversity of the countries in Southeast Asia as a good thing for comparative politics as the region is seen as a natural laboratory for the subfield. Indeed, the nuances of each of the eleven nations in the region enable scholars to use what are known as most similar or most different comparative research designs. The variety in terms of history, politics, culture, religion, and level of economic develop-

Journal of Current Southeast Asian Studies 3/2009

109

ment might be considered an asset but the book did not pay sufficient attention to the disadvantages of this diversity. One might argue that it is this diversity that has negatively affected the state of the literature in Southeast Asia. Unlike in Latin America or in Africa where comparativists were able to carry out research projects with a command of Spanish or French, Southeast Asia does not have a predominant language that ties the region together. This also might explain why it is rare for regional scholars to escape from doing single country case studies because the requisites for comparative work are relatively greater in Southeast Asia. An observation that could be made from the sources that were used by the book is the fact that they are overwhelmingly works written in the English language and were published in the West. There are relatively few indigenous sources, whether books or academic journals, that were mentioned. For example, Meredith L. Weiss chapter on civil society in Southeast Asia did not include the rich studies in the Philippines that were published locally. Indeed, one might defend this project by arguing that these essays are not comprehensive surveys of the entire literature. However, the authors were not clear on how they chose the works to be cited and discussed and the bases of inclusion and exclusion in their selection process. Being able to successfully carry out comparative research in a region whose countries have variation in breadth and depth is the challenge for Southeast Asian political science. It is in this regard that collaboration with local scholars might find itself as a way to address the weaknesses of the current literature as well as remove the constraints posed by a highly diverse region. There have been partnerships between scholars in some of the work that was cited in the book but it is silent on whether this should be further pursued. This is not to castigate Southeast Asianists but to push the idea that partnerships with locally-based scholars could lead to fruitful, efficient, and more informed analyses of politics in the region. However, the recommendation of the authors for scholars to take their methods and techniques seriously remain valid and worth pursuing. Collaborative efforts or projects that synergize both comparativists and locally-based experts have the potential to be the future of the literature on Southeast Asian politics. By culling the contributions of key literature and providing a set of feasible research directions, Kuhonta et al. were successfully able to put Southeast Asia in the limelight of comparative politics. Their sober analysis on the flaws of the current state of scholarship is representative of some of the challenges faced by area-based studies elsewhere. One can definitely agree with this edited volume that Southeast Asia is not simply an obscure part of the world nor a nuisance given its tremendous diversity but a region that has generated a lot of serious work to the improvement in the study of

110

Book Reviews

comparative politics. Students of politics interested in the region will definitely find the essays in this book highly informative, useful, and meaningful. More so, it will also guide anyone seeking to be immersed in the seminal literature in Southeast Asian political science to the right direction. Finally, political scientists will find the books discussion of and position on pressing methodological debates within comparative politics highly interesting. Aries Ayuson Arugay PhD in Political Science program, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; University of the Philippines at Diliman <aries.arugay@up.edu.ph>