Overview of the Research
The main reason why I would like to work on Southeast Asia is that this region is the perfect samples of the unity of diversities. A wide diversity in almost every aspect of societies from geography to ethnic structure, from political system to variety of religions and languages draw scholar’s attention. Nevertheless, there is a huge disadvantage of diversity alongside enrichment of culture in society. These obstacles have made difficult to get together of different ethnic groups to create a nation. Particularly, after long colonial periods in these states, internal struggles or interstate disputes brought about because of lack of nation awareness in different ethnic groups, sharing problems due to fragmented territorial structure, ethnic discrimination applied by colonialists and economic inefficiencies. For instance, more than 75 disputes and struggles between countries of the region put on the record from 1967 to 2001 (Hsueh, 2016).
Besides establishing a peace environment, the main problems required to solve were nation-building and economic development. According to Beeson, in the past, along with European countries expansion as colonialist countries, they introduced their state system and comprehensive constitutional infrastructure which has influenced Southeast Asian countries deeply. Developing local bureaucracy, the scope and style of governments and centralization of power gained acceptance widely in the region (BEESON, 2002). At the end, the major problem of the region after Second World War is the creation of a nation and to ensure and sustain economic development.
Nation-building process, differently from other societies, has had great challenges in Southeast Asia. These problems are inherited not only cultural diversities but also politics in the region. Colonialist countries, on the one hand, had allowed large-scale migration flows to the region so that the requirement of intensive labor can be supplied; on the other hand, they had authorized certain ethnic groups in order to administrate the country they had lived, so this policy led to hostility between different ethnic groups (Archarya, 2013). Therefore, to create a nation got harder because of ethnic diversity had gained also a class distinction. The political vulnerability caused to come out by this fragmental ethnic and classy structure, so it led to reinforce autocratic administration style or emerged civil wars due to lack of powerful administration.
Economic development, the other major problem, is the main duty of the countries in the region. It was the necessity to increase manufacturing and employment in order to fulfill the social and economic needs of growing population. After becoming independent, each country has made a stride to develop their economic system. Basically, these countries had an agriculture-based economy, but using their strategic positions and natural resources and thereby transform their economic system to export-based, they were able to diversify economic instruments and so have achieved impressive economic growth between. At the same time, in this process, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam are exceptions, because these countries, in contrast to other liberal economic countries, have applied for enclosed and socialist economic program. Although they have carried out economic cooperation with other region countries and put in practice some liberal policies, they have not got significant economic achievements.
In order to provide national and regional integrity, it has been tried to create an “Asian identity” which made different ethnic groups invisible. Asian way became more popular after colonial period and with ASEAN, local values, identities and features are much more emphasized. For example, in Malaysia, the nationalist economic steps taken by Mahathir bin Mohammad in order to rearrange the class positions of Malay after the colonial period, the aim of creating his own economic development model embodied by the slogan "Look East", the declaration of fundamental values specific to Asian philosophy and Asian tradition, it was the study of ensuring that the society was united under the identity of the Asians, not the Malay (MASELAND & PEIL, 2008). Similarly, Singapore Parliament wanted to create a set of values which are “filial piety, collectivism, consensus, discipline and respect for the authority”. These are the good examples of the nation-building initiative.
On the other hand, both nation-building attempts and economic development has given serious tests in this region. The economic crisis in Asia, starting from Thailand in 1997, followed by other Southeast Asia states and then South Korea, and even Japan, had a great impact on both the economic and the politics of regional countries. The economic collapse in the countries named as “Asian Tigers” and disputes between different ethnic groups brought along political instability (BEESON, 2002). Therefore, 1997 crisis is very important for the region, because it illustrated that the rapid increase of economic development indeed has got a lack of stable political background and the societies did not fully respond the efforts to create a regional identity.
National Identity
A closer look at the region reveals that even the adoption of national identity beyond the regional identity is a serious problem. In Malaysia and Thailand, where the research is to be conducted, there is no different situation in this regard. The following section will discuss Malaysia and Thailand in terms of national identities.
In the case of Malaysia, there is the social texture in which three different ethnic groups live together but separately. In a country with a long history of colonialism, ethnic groups have also been divided into classes economically and this has caused serious social problems. During the years of independence, Malays, who are the dominant ethnic group in Malaysia, were in a very poor financial position compared to the Chinese, who held the trade sector because Malays were generally concentrated in agriculture during the years of independence. For this reason, after taking over the administration, the Malay people have been supported for many years by state-supported development policies (Bumiputara -The sons of the Land-Policy). This, on the one hand, undermines the financial strength of the Chinese, while on the other hand, according to some nationalist groups, they are still responsible for economic problems. This distinction between the two ethnic groups, especially during times of economic crises, emerges as ethnic conflicts in Malaysia.
In Thailand, the other case, which has a complex social structure in terms of its ethnic structure, one of the greatest challenges is the political system that is still not fully stabilized. In 2014 after a military coup and the government's discharge from office, the elections were postponed to an unknown date. On the other hand, political instability is economically also causing Thailand to have difficult times. Thailand, which has not caught any kind of acceleration after 1997 in economic development, seems to be very far away from what it was called "Asian Tigers". On the social level, it is possible to see the reflection of both economic and political problems; the ethnic conflicts that have persisted for many years are still occupying Thailand's agenda. The highly polarized North and South are giving a struggle over sovereignty in Southern Thailand largely through ethnic identities. Conflicts in South Thailand, which have been strained by the impact of Thailand's nationalist policies, have been continuing for a long time.
The examples of Malaysia and Thailand are in fact a reflection of Southeast Asia. In this respect, rather than regional or national identity, ethnic identities emerge as a determinant in social standing. Factors such as ethnic or religious groups not being able to meet under a common/supra identity, nationalist discourses, counter-nationalism triggered by radicalized groups, and social tensions created by economic and political vulnerabilities, completely remove the motivation for the coexistence of different groups. However, economic development and general prosperity plays a major role in ensuring social cohesion. For example, the energy that was created by economic success before the 1997 crisis, emphasizing an Asian common identity with discourses such as "the Renaissance of Asia" and "the discovery of Asia itself". For this reason, the research is based on the premise that economic development creating tolerance and desire for a coexistence of different identities. Identity conflicts are inevitable when this is not the case.
Theoretical Concept
Today, identity-based disputes in many modern countries are triggering social problems. When we look at these conflicts and the crux of the problems, the main reason is the establishment of a nation-state based on the dominance of a specific ethnic group on a bounded territory. According to Shibashis Chatterjee, this state-of-the-art structure creates ethnic-nationalist movements by raising ethnic groups with nationalist rhetoric not only to establish national consciousness but also positioning other ethnic groups living in that territory as other/stranger. Thus, when an ethnic group identifies itself with that state, the other groups also create their own ethnic/religious identity awareness through "what they are not". The biggest problem this creates is nation-states with multi-cultural populations how to drive their existing systems with different ethnic/religious identities while using nationalist discourse.
The nationalism-based state system clearly produces a fragmented social structure by externalizing and alienating different ethnic/religious identity groups within itself. This structure sometimes creates serious social problems by causing conflicts or hostilities among the groups. According to Wimmer, who evaluates identity conflicts from racism perspective on the basis of a nation-state, there are four different theories in the literature that attempt to explain the origin of these conflicts.
The rational choice theory is the most widely known among them. In this theory, conflicts are made on the basis of individual goods such as cheap housing or work. Other groups are alleged to have created pressure on indigenous welfare by increasing competition on resources that are already limited in the economic sphere. Thus, it is concluded that domestic-foreign controversy is, in fact, a result of rational decision-making behaviors of the individuals. But with regard to the latest researches that have not yet reached a proven track record, Wimmer underlines that this thought is a matter of perception rather than a reflection of reality. The Discourse Theory contains answers about where this problem originated. Accordingly, power holders use a discourse that will put the responsibility of the problems on others in order to conceal or deflect the results of their own practice. Thus, culture conflict spreads while power holders strengthen themselves by the help of mass media.
From Functionalism point of view, which is another theory, the problem underlying disagreements are cultural differences. The other that brings with it its own social characteristics are labeled and externalized by the dominant group of the country as culturally unacceptable and incompatible due to differences in educational status, cultural characteristics, religious preferences. However, as these approaches marginalize immigrants and get them into ghettoes, the possibility of their integration also ceases to exist. Finally, in the Phenomenology theory, the reason for the identity conflicts is the deep breaks that society has experienced during the modernization process. These breakdowns create a social anomaly, while the "others" are left out of the concept of "us" and this cause both a social identity crisis and identity conflicts.
In addition to all these theories, Wimmer attempts to test a theory. According to him, the crux of the indigenous-other struggle in society is the nation-state itself. According to him, the "imagined community", which was founded on the basis of a common origin and historical background, later evolved into a new form determined on the territorial level. However, this new order created an imaginary society, while setting up an ethnic group, which defined itself through national identity, as the owner and guardian of the state. Thus, state and culture have become a common interest of all members of a nation. According to Wimmer, the real reason for a fight is not the individual goods but the common interests of this state. As he states, "The legitimate owners of the state or land have the right to sit in the front seats of the community theater." The problem that arises when social or economic crises arise is also hidden behind this understanding; the state is primarily obliged to protect the rights of those who own it, therefore others who are not included in this national majority are seen as an enemy or a threat to social cohesion.
Wimmer takes the socially constructed identity concept of constructivism a step further; "owners" of the state based on an established identity on the one hand, build other identities while at the same time fighting over the common interests of that state such as money, power, authority and legal rights. The struggle between the identities becomes more explicit in times of social anomaly or economic crisis, at that times when the social structure is steady and the economy is strong it is felt less. As mentioned earlier, however, the real problem is the nation-state, which sees a single ethnic group from a multicultural society as the sole proprietor of the state and defines it through a built-in ethnic identity. Today, the nation-state, which has many multi-cultural structures, struggles to keep the peddlers together in harmony. The adoption of the Asian way or the supra-Asian identity, including all ethnic identities, is crucial for ensuring social cohesion and harmony for all Southeast Asian countries against the discrimination of different ethnic groups.