New Mandala readers hoping to get a grip on the current state of scholarship on Burma would do well to read a new paper by Andrew Selth. It is published in the City University of Hong Kong’s Southeast Asia Research Centre Working Paper Series. The full text is available here. Thanks to prolific contributor, Srithanonchai, for bringing it to my attention.
For those who don’t have the time to wade through this excellent 65-page document, I should highlight Selth’s conclusion. He writes:
…The Burma studies scene is more active than ever.
Yet much remains to be done. There are aspects of Burmese society and culture that have been barely touched upon by scholars, and even in some well-trodden areas of study, like the country’s history, politics and economics, there is wide scope for additional research and analysis. Burma is still poorly understood, compared to most other countries in the region. The brief survey above reveals numerous gaps in the literature that would benefit from attention. Not only could such works shed light on hitherto unexplored aspects of the country but, by adding empirical data to the public record, they would have the added benefit of encouraging the inclusion of Burma in broader thematic and theoretical works. In such circumstances, comparative studies would be easier to conduct.
Yet, until the military government in Burma falls, or the current regime changes its attitude to academic research — neither of which are in prospect — field work in Burma will remain difficult. Changes will also need to occur outside the country. Burma studies demands greater recognition as a legitimate and worthwhile field of academic activity, and deserves more support from universities and funding institutions. Also, despite the current highly charged political climate, there must be a greater emphasis on the rigorous analysis and frank discussion of contemporary developments. It is to be hoped that Burma-watchers of all kinds, both within the Academy and outside it, can pursue their shared interests in a collegiate and civilised manner, and in an atmosphere that tolerates — indeed encourages — intellectual differences. For failure to do this will inevitably be at the cost of originalresearch, and fresh insights into Burma, a country that has for too long remained hidden behind walls of ignorance and misunderstanding.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Blogger Jotman // Nov 8, 2007 at 8:12 pm
There is much that I don’t understand about Burma. Speaking of which, can somebody please tell me what this dance was all about?
http://thejotazine.blogspot.com/2007/11/dance-of-burmese-sasquatch.html
2 jonfernquest // Nov 9, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Thanks. This is valuable. Three observations:
a. The Japanese? The French?
b. Euwen Bagshawe’s translation and Kin Wun Mingyi diaries.
Translations of important Burmese works have a lasting value, that this year’s stylised theoretical observations will soon lose.
d. Don’t agree with this statement at all:
“Not surprisingly, the largest proportion of scholarly books and articles on Burma that have appeared since 1945 can be broadly classed as history.”
[Most are political science (Silverstein, Callahan, Taylor, Steinberg), often history by political scientists. There were some historians who started in the colonial era who continued working into the post-colonial era like Luce and Than Tun, for instance. In recent history, there have been very few mentors in the area of history to study under.]
c. Regarding this statement:
“In recent years, there has been a number of important works in English produced by Western-trained Burmese scholars, looking at their country’s history from an indigenous perspective.” (footnote citing Aung-Thwin’s “Mists of Ramanya”)
He really should have listed Thant Myint-U’s latest book, because that is the default history of Burma that people are buying in the bookstore and reading nowadays according to bookstore owner friends of mine.
As for Aung-Thwin’s “Mists of Ramanya” attempt to erase Mon history without knowing any Mon language at all, or deeply reading reading any Mon inscriptions or chronicles, and by essentially blaming Mon history on some colonial era historians tried to mess with the prior ethnic Burmese state, there was a whole international Mon history conference last month that dealt with this topic, only partly because there are mor important issues like starting to read and study Mon chronicles themselves, and a whole string of negative book reviews of his book (Pierre Pichard included).
IMHO what Burmese history really needs is a smart non-elite rural scholar. Enlightened western educational institutions don’t seem to be able to provide such an opportunity. It’s not difficult. I did it by myself by hiring a research assistant who was waiting for university to reopen. More imagination please.
a. Good that Selth acknowledges three referreed journals, because the Journal of Burma Studies has been passing itself off as the only one around: “Journal of Burma Studies: The world’s only peer-reviewed printed research journal on Burma published outside of Burma/ Myanmar….” (From their website) I can vouchsafe that the SOAS journal is also refereed since I’ve published four articles in it.
3 Suriyon Raiwa // Nov 9, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Thanks, Jon. But might you elaborate a bit on “Euwen Bagshawe’s translation and Kin Wun Mingyi diaries” and also on your experience with “a smart non-elite rural scholar” of Burmese history? Please … Both of these tidbits are very intriguing.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate but we reserve the right to reject or edit comments that contain material that is offensive, irrelevant, overly repetitious or involves personal attack rather than a discussion of the issues. And please avoid long quotes from other online sources - just provide the link!