Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
The paper brings together several strands of debate and deliberation in which I have been involved since the early 2000s on the definition of Southeast Asia and the rationale of Southeast Asian Studies. I refer to the relationship between area studies and methodologies as a conundrum (or puzzle), though I should state from the outset that I think it is much more of a conundrum for others than for me. I have not felt the need to pose the question of whether or not area studies generates a distinctive method or set of methods and research practices, because I operate from a disciplinary perspective; though that it is not to say that the question should not be posed. Indeed, as I have earned a reputation for “revisionism” and championing disciplinary approaches rather than regional ones, it might be anticipated already the position that I take in an examination of the relationships between methodologies and the practice of “area studies” (and in this case Southeast Asian [or Asian] Studies). Nevertheless, given the recent resurgence of interest in the possibilities provided by the adoption of regional perspectives and the grounding of data gathering and analysis within specified locations in the context of globalization, the issues raised for researchers working in Southeast Asia and within the field of Southeast Asian Studies require revisiting.

Abstrak :
Over the last decade, the field of Southeast Asian Studies has been inundated with issues of its “territory” (or the definition of what comprises Southeast Asia), relevance and future. The methodology of approaching Southeast Asian Studies has also come under constant scrutiny providing much fodder for debate. One significant suggestion was that the field of Southeast Asian Studies should “break out of the comfort zone” (Van Schendel, Bijdragen, 2012:168(4)). This paper will explore some of the ways of approaching Southeast Asian Studies beyond that comfort zone by examining other/alternative units of studying Southeast Asia in place of the traditional (or statist) perspectives that tend to confine the field within the scope of the national/ nation-state boundaries. The paper will also provide some personal observations of the author on the current state and limitations to teaching and researching Southeast Asian Studies in the region.

Abstrak :
This study on Mahāsammata Model of Kingship in Mrauk U Period from the 15th to 18th centuries attempts to demonstrate how the kings of Mrauk U or royal officials tried to claim this legitimating model of kingship and how they accepted this model of kingship and under what conditions the legitimate order of this model was lost. Vital to the adaptation of Mahāsammata model of kingship in the Mrauk U period is the claim that Mrauk U’s rulers were direct lineal descendants of the first Buddhist king of the world, Mahāsammata and thence the clan of Gotama Buddha, Sākiya clan. This ideological model of kingship has a recognizable effect on the political stability of Mrauk U kingdom. While the Mahāsammata model of kingship performed as a belief of legitimizing kingship within the arena of royal court, the kings of Mrauk U tried to perform the related models of Mahāsammata, the ideal models of Buddhist kingship as dhammarāja and a cakkavatti. However, the conditions that fail to maintain the Mahāsammata model of kingship saw the weakening of the other related models of kingship, which eventually led to the decline of the kingdom.