The State of Culture Theory in the Anthropology of Southeast Asia

The State of Culture Theory in the Anthropology of Southeast AsiaAuthor(s): Mary Margaret SteedlySource: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28 (1999), pp. 431-454Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223401 .

Accessed: 06/03/2014 23:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review ofAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.18 on Thu, 6 Mar 2014 23:26:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/223401?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1999. 28:431-54 Copyright ? 1999 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

THE STATE OF CULTURE THEORY IN THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF SOUTHEAST ASIA

Mary Margaret Steedly Department ofAnthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138; e-mail: [email protected]

Key Words: gender, marginality, violence, the state

* Abstract Southeast Asia is probably the part of the world most closely associated by anthropologists with an interpretive concept of culture. Yet do such ideas as culture areas or local cultures retain their analytical salience when our attention turns to processes of domination, displacement, and diaspora? This article considers the state of culture theory in the anthropology of South- east Asia today, focusing on the themes of gender, marginality, violence, and the state. Culture is increasingly viewed as an attribute of the state-an object of state policy, an ideological zone for the exercise of state power, or literally a creation of the state-whereas the state itself is comprehended in ways analogous to totalizing models of culture.

CONTENTS Introduction ................................................... 431 Southeast Asia as a World Region ................................. 433 Gender and Power: Regional Perspectives ........................... 437 The State of Culture ............................................ 440 Scenes of Violence ............................................. 444

INTRODUCTION

Is there a place for area studies in an era of global culture, international conglom- erates, and transnational flows of people, goods, information, and capital? In a time of border crossings, fragmented identities (Kipp 1990), and cyborg subjects, what-as Ortner (1997) asks regarding the writings of Clifford Geertz-is the

0084-6570/99/1015-0431$12.00 431



432 STEEDLY

"fate of culture"? As anthropologists turn their attention to processes of domination, displacement, and diasporic imagination, can the concepts of culture areas or of local cultures retain their analytical salience? Or are they too deeply implicated in colonial and neocolonial structures of knowledge to provide any alternative intellectual purchase (Rafael 1994)? With hybridity, fragmentation, mobility, and

marginality celebrated, and continuity and coherence rendered suspect, can one still speak with confidence of "culture" as a relatively discrete system of shared

meanings? These questions are especially germane to the anthropology of Southeast Asia.

The extraordinary diversity of aesthetic traditions has made Southeast Asia, for anthropologists, arguably the best place to look for culture. The writings of Clif- ford Geertz (e.g. 1973b, 1980), among others, have thoroughly associated this part of the world, and Indonesia in particular, with a meaning-based, interpretive concept of culture. Indeed, the prominence of the region in the discipline's dominant cultural paradigm has led one anthropologist to characterize Indonesia as being for us what the French Revolution is for historians-the area that every scholar, whatever his or her specialization, must know something about (Segal 1999).

But for many of us who have maintained long associations with one or more parts of Southeast Asia, this is a time of uncertainty. There is a growing sense of confusion, as if we had somehow lost our ethnographic footing. Interpretive frameworks developed to enable us to read cultural texts "over the shoulders of those to whom they properly belong" (C Geertz 1973a:452) seem unable to expli- cate the things we most wish to understand. This is not just because of the cascad- ing political and economic crises that have followed the 1997 collapse of the Thai baht. Even before then, the ethnographic ground had shifted in ways unsettling to anthropology's culturalist sensibility. In the 1990s, the Southeast Asian "economic miracle" made computers, satellite dishes, cell phones, and fax machines commonplace. Air-conditioned shopping malls replaced street markets; Ken- tucky Fried Chicken and its like-named clones were a fast-food vanguard for culi- nary Americanization, soon to be followed by McDonalds, Pizza Hut, and Planet Hollywood. Isolated villages tuned in to CNN or MTV or StarTV. For middle- class city dwellers, having a car or a computer was no longer a sign of social prominence but an ordinary necessity of life. Moneymaking schemes, of varying levels of grandiosity (and legality), were on most everyone's minds, from the nouveau yuppies of Jakarta and Bangkok to the coffee- and cocoa-growing peasants of the interior highlands. Governments seemed intent on demonstrating that the grotesque mode of power, which Mbembe identified as characteristic of the new states of Africa, also characterized the postcolonies of Southeast Asia (Mbembe 1992). The exploitation of natural resources reached new levels of rapaciousness and environmental disregard. Nature seemingly returned the favor, as El Ninio brought droughts to eastern Indonesia and exacerbated the effects of forest burning in Kalimantan and Sumatra. Smoke from the fires made the air virtually unbreathable in parts of Malaysia and Singapore, and in Indonesia at least one major plane crash was blamed on the thick haze. Sex tourism flourished in



STATE OF CULTURE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Thailand and the Philippines, golf courses abutted temple complexes in Bali, Vietnam was targeted as the next Newly Industrialized Country (NIC), and the spread of AIDS and "ecstasy" made news everywhere. American tabloids head- lined the playboy lifestyle of the Sultan of Brunei and the Singaporean penchant for corporal punishment. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge's show trial of Pol Pot promised, but did not deliver, a new peace. In Indonesia, the resignation of Presi- dent Soeharto likewise failed to deliver the long-anticipated end of his New Order regime. Instead, it left the nation economically crippled, the military discredited, and the population struggling in a backwash of ethnic and religiously inspired violence, military and paramilitary reprisals, street riots, looting, arson, rapes, and thuggery. In Malaysia, the arrest and trial of finance minister Anwar Ibrahim rivaled in absurdity, if not in prurient detail, the impeachment of President Clin- ton. In all this, it was hard to find a place for "culture."

This article is a reflection on the state of culture theory in Southeast Asia in these uncertain times. My reading is necessarily a partial one, limited by space and by my own expertise and interests as an Indonesianist. Emphasizing the American tradition of cultural anthropology, I have little to say about Euro- pean, Australian, Japanese, and Southeast Asian scholarship on the region. Some topics receive less attention than they deserve: among them, political ecology, development and migration studies, analyses of kinship, and social structure. Other topics-Islam, scriptural traditions, language, ritual, performance, and ethnicity-have recently been well covered elsewhere (Bowen 1995). I do not repeat that coverage here. Instead, I focus on some of the themes that are central to culture theory in Southeast Asia today: gender, marginality, violence, and the state.

I begin with a consideration of Southeast Asia as a culture area, in the double sense of a region marked by certain shared values and practices and a place profoundly identified with the anthropological idea of culture. I then examine the interrelation of regional approaches and cultural analysis in studies of gender in Southeast Asia. Third, I consider the impact of orientations toward agency, power, nationalism, and locality on the concept of culture. My argument is that culture is increasingly viewed by Southeast Asianist anthropologists as an attribute of the state-as an object of state policy, an ideological zone for the exercise of state power, or literally a creation of the state-whereas the state itself is comprehended in ways analogous to totalizing or superorganic models of culture. I conclude by turning to the matter of violence.

SOUTHEAST ASIA AS A WORLD REGION

In making a case for a "regional anthropology" of Southeast Asia, O'Connor complains that in recent years "empirical generalizations have given way to an anthropology of discrete cases" (1995:968-69). Ethnographers of Southeast Asian societies, he asserts, "dote on the people or village they study" without much concern either for comparative analysis or for logical modeling. This rever- ence for local particularities and case-by-case description, combined with the pre-

433



434 STEEDLY

sentist orientation built into ethnographic fieldwork, makes it increasingly difficult to conceive of Southeast Asia, or even a regional subset of it, as a unified field of ethnological study. Although O'Connor is correct in noting the recent intensification of ethnographic particularism in Southeast Asia, the question of whether Southeast Asia can-or should-be comprehended as a bounded field of

study remains more open than these remarks suggest. As Anderson has pointed out, Southeast Asian studies "has never been able to

take itself calmly for granted" as an academic discipline. It has always been nec- essary "to argue, with varying degrees of plausibility and sincerity, for its contemporary utility and future relevance" (Anderson 1992:30). Arguably the most insubstantial of world areas, "Southeast Asia" is at once territorially porous, historically shallow, inherently hybrid, and conceptually implicated in the global realpolitik of US foreign policy interests. The term itself only came into common use during World War II, to designate the Allied theater of operations under the command of Lord Louis Mountbatten. It was appropriated after the war by US foreign policy specialists and scholars and remapped-Ceylon was dropped, Indonesia and the Philippines added-to cover the Asian subregion where the US strategically supported first decolonization and later the political and military containment of communism (Emmerson 1984). Southeast Asia could thus be characterized as an area united mainly by the "domino theory" of communist expansion and by the Cold War creation of academic Area Centers devoted to its study (Anderson 1992, Keyes 1992, Wolters 1999, McVey 1998).

That most anthropologists working in Southeast Asia identify themselves primarily as national or subnational specialists-as Thai scholars or Indonesianists, say, or Javanists, orang asli, or hill tribe specialists-is a sign of the region's wide cultural span as much as a symptom of the fragmentation that O'Connor decries. It would surely be difficult to envision an area of greater socioaesthetic range, or one that has been more profoundly shaped by exogenous forces. All the world's great religions originated elsewhere, but with the exception of Judaism, all are prominently represented here. The same diversity of origins and breadth of dis- persal can be seen in Southeast Asian art styles and techniques, technological innovations, languages and lexical elements, forms of knowledge and political authority, legal codes, and the like (Hutterer 1992, Keyes 1992). What, then, could provide the basis for either comparison or generalization?

Characterizations of an indigenous Southeast Asian "cultural matrix" often start from a bilateral or cognatic system of kinship found in premoder Southeast Asian states and their heritors, as well as in some (but not all) upland groups (Wolters 1999). From this kinship system several secondary features are derived, including the tendency to downplay lineage and inherited rank, fairly egalitarian gender relations, a presentist orientation, and political leadership by charismatic "men of prowess." Combined with often-noted tendencies toward the public dis-

play of power in the form of sacred objects and regalia, religious and secular rituals, monumental architecture, and the like, these features were thought to provide the basis for distinctive forms of political organization (Geertz 1997, Mabbett 1985), variously described as the "exemplary center" (Heine-Gelder 1956),




"mandala" (Wolters 1999), "galactic polity" (Tambiah 1977), or "theater state" (Geertz 1980).

More recently, population mobility and an attraction to the foreign have been identified as characteristic features of some upland societies of insular Southeast Asia (Atkinson 1990, Rutherford 1996, Tsing 1993a). Historians and other scholars of precolonial Southeast Asia have posited a similar outward orientation and ease of movement in the early maritime states of the region's coastal lowlands. Reid, in his overview of maritime Southeast Asia in the early modem "age of commerce," points out that although Southeast Asian societies have historically been open to overseas trade, there has also been a "high degree of commercial intercourse" within the region itself (Reid 1988:5). If the former tendency accounts for the pervasiveness and diversity of foreign influences, the latter, Reid argues, explains the ubiquity of certain traits (betel chewing, cockfighting, gong- based musical systems, tattooing, penis pins, fermented fish products, games such as chess and takraw) and organizing concepts (i.e. bilateral kinship, female prestige, charismatic leadership).

By the first century common era (CE), Southeast Asian polities were important sites of international commerce because of their rich natural resources as well as their intermediate location on monsoon routes between China and India. Goods, ideas, populations, institutions, terms, and technologies flowed along these routes, spreading inland from port cities to the hinterlands. These trade circuits also fostered more intimate connections, both symbiotic and adversarial, among neighboring and distant communities (Bronson 1977, Drakard 1990). Political authority was grounded in personalistic relationships; political boundaries, insofar as they existed, were flexible, sometimes overlapping and plural, and thoroughly permeable. Rather than being inscribed in fixed territorial domains, the legitimacy and expanse of rule was measured in the impermanent, personal quality of sovereignty and displayed in royal regalia and titles, often of foreign origin, in elaborate ceremonies, and in the giving and receiving of gifts.

This "relaxed" state of political affairs in the region (Wolters 1999) was profoundly transformed by the experience of colonialism. No other part of the world has suffered so wide a range of foreign rulers. These include China, Japan, and the United States, as well as most of the major European imperial powers. Only Thai- land has remained formally independent, and even there Western powers-Eng- land, France, and later the United States-occupying neighboring countries had a significant impact on the nation's "geo-body" (Thongchai 1994). Under Western colonial rule, fluid boundaries became fixed, and power was gradually extended (in theory if not in practice) uniformly throughout each realm, stopping abruptly at the colonies' borders. In a process that Scott (1998) refers to as "state simplification," colonial soldiers and administrators clarified genealogies of rule and hierarchies of authority or, where none existed, invented them (Steedly 1993, Henley 1996). New legal codes and juridical structures were established, sometimes based on existing customary precedents and sometimes on European legal models, whose applicability established relatively invariant categories of colonial subjects (Stoler 1989, 1992b). As colonial cartographic practices scanned and

435



436 STEEDLY

delimited territories of control, censuses and ethnographic atlases firmed up ethnic identities (Anderson 1983, Rafael 1993). In some places, Christian missionaries forged a kind of denominational ethnicity based on mission fields of exclusive influence; these formed the prototypes for contemporary vernacular or ethnic churches (Keane 1996, Kipp 1990). Administrative and educational circuits established and confirmed special relationships of interest between colonies and their Western metropoles, so that, for instance, Paris might seem closer-and cer- tainly more important-to Hanoi than Rangoon might seem, and Washington might seem closer to Manila than either Jakarta or Singapore might seem (Ander- son 1983).

Some of the parochialism that affects the field of Southeast Asian studies can be traced back to this state of affairs. Colonial scholarship was driven for the most part by the local interests of scholar-administrators and the practical concerns of governance. It thus tended to be descriptive rather than theoretical, "provincial" in its scope, and fragmented by "imperial rivalries" (Anderson 1992:27). The postwar "new states" of Southeast Asia retained the cultural categories and conceptual horizons of their colonial predecessors. Western researchers, influenced by the scholarly traditions in which they were trained, by the pragmatics of Cold War funding initiatives, and by the practical difficulties of language training, archival access, and research permits, largely followed suit. As a result, country- based or even subregional specialties developed as relatively autonomous fields, each associated with certain privileged topical and theoretical orientations. One effect of this has been the difficulty in establishing a common intellectual ground for conversation among Southeast Asianists (McVey 1998).

Another divisive inheritance of colonial scholarship on Southeast Asia was the conceptual separation of"great" and "little" traditions. The former category covered the precolonial agrarian kingdoms of the Southeast Asian mainland, Java, and Bali, which were understood as profoundly influenced by the civilizations of India, China, and to a lesser degree the Islamic world. The latter class was com- posed of small, non-state societies in which expressions of an indigenous cultural substrate, elsewhere obliterated by the impact of foreign influences, could, pre- sumably, still be found. The polarized distinction between "advanced" but cultur- ally degenerate state societies and "primitive" but authentic exemplars of a local

genius has been translated in the postcolonial context to a conceptual separation between an "urban superculture" (Geertz 1963), part national and part transnational in its makeup, and small-scale communities outside or marginal to the supercultural projects of the moder nation-state. Bringing together notions of nationalism, modernization, and globalization, the new "great traditions" were understood as both exogenous and fundamentally inauthentic "imagined communities" (Anderson 1983). Insofar as the superculture is understood as coinciding with the political projects and territorial expanse of the nation-state, its recent conceptual prominence has reinforced the "country studies" tendency among Southeast Asianists.

One of the few topics in Southeast Asian studies for which a comparative regional approach has consistently been applied is the study of gender. Between




1982 and 1998, a number of edited volumes of essays on gender in Southeast Asia appeared (Atkinson & Errington 1990, Locher-Scholten & Niehof 1992, Ong & Peletz 1995a, Sears 1996, Sen & Stivens 1998, Stivens 1991, Van Esterik 1996). These collections cross national borders and historical periods, juxtapose "great" and "little" traditions, and sometimes transcend the grand regional binaries of upland and lowland, "island" and "mainland" Southeast Asia. A review of this literature illustrates the problems and possibilities inherent in a comparativist "regional anthropology."

GENDER AND POWER: REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Although it is currently one of the field's primary growth areas, studies of gender in Southeast Asia had a slow takeoff. This may be because, as Atkinson noted, feminist anthropologists found it "more compelling and perhaps easier to dwell on the dichotomization of gender and the devaluation of women" in societies with highly developed, elaborate systems of gender distinctions than it was to "unravel the intricacies of gender in a culture that downplays it" (Atkinson 1982, 1990). Theoretical efforts to account for the presumed universal second-class status of women provided little purchase in a region where gender forms were subdued and women were said to have a good deal of personal autonomy and prestige.

In the feminist literature of the 1970s, Southeast Asian societies appeared mostly as exceptions to the general rule of male dominance. One of the most influential early essays on the anthropology of gender was Rosaldo's introductory theoretical overview (Rosaldo 1974b). Rosaldo proposed that the association of women with the domestic sphere and men with more socially encompassing public arenas was the basis for the universal denigration of women's activities and thus for the second-class status of women. Her own fieldwork among Ilongot hunter-horticulturalists of the Philippines yielded at most a partial counterexam- ple. The blurring of distinctions such as domestic/public in egalitarian or "sim- ple" societies such as the Ilongot could, she argued, engender a more favorable (though still secondary) social position for women. In the same volume, Tanner (1974) likewise described Indonesian societies-the matrilineal Minangkabau, patrilineal Acehnese, and bilateral Javanese-as instances of "matrifocality" (prominence of mothers) associated with generally egalitarian gender relations.

Because of the universalizing and implicitly evolutionary assumptions that underlay much feminist scholarship in the 1970s, gender studies tended to focus on stages of societal development rather than on regionally specific gender styles or systems. Thus Rosaldo found similarities between the Ilongots and Mbuti pig- mies, and Tanner's comparative cases ranged among African and African- American as well as Indonesian societies. The first volume of essays to address gender in a specifically regional Southeast Asian perspective was published in 1982 (Van Esterik 1996). In its introduction, Van Esterik suggested that an examination of Southeast Asian gender systems could reorient a field more attuned to the overt forms of gender discrimination encountered elsewhere in the

437



438 STEEDLY

world. Yet she also warned that there was still little evidence to confirm the often- repeated cliche that women in Southeast Asia enjoyed a relatively high status.

The second major collection of essays on gender in Southeast Asian societies (Atkinson & Errington 1990) was the outcome of a 1983 conference on "The Cul- tural Construction of Gender in Island Southeast Asia." Western feminists, Atkin- son & Errington argued, "should look to cultural worlds in which the rules are different .... [L]ocal constructions of gender relations demand understanding on their own terms" (1990:viii). These essays aimed to identify and delineate a

regionally salient "gender system," i.e. a "cultural system of practices and sym- bols implicating both women and men" throughout (island) Southeast Asia (Err- ington 1990:3).

In seeking to break the hold of universalizing theories of gender based in the

particularities of Western experience, the essays (Atkinson & Errington 1990) asserted a regional pattern of gender relations (with subsidiary variations) and stressed the symbolic-classificatory aspects of gender systems. This meant mini-

mizing the impact of exogenous factors on local gender systems. Nor was much attention paid to possibilities of resistance "from below" or to disruptive or anomalous cultural elements, such as transgressive sexuality (but see Atkinson

1990). Scant regard was given to Islam or Christianity, European colonialism, global capitalism, or governmental institutions and agencies. These themes, which have since come to the fore as key areas of gender analysis, are the focus of attention in the third major volume on gender in Southeast Asia (Ong & Peletz

1995a). As Ong & Peletz (1995b) assert, gender is not a static, regionally consistent

cultural system but rather a fluid, contested, and negotiable conceptual field, characterized by multiplicity, ambiguity, and improvisatory reinvention. Mod- ernization and global capitalism have profoundly affected indigenous gender concepts and practices; thus oppression of women in Southeast Asia cannot today be viewed separately from global capitalist expansion and development. These

essays consider the actual and potential power that women may have, how they can use it to resist or support male authority, and in what ways women's power or

autonomy may be drained away by "specific historical and political economic forces shaping various postcolonial milieux" (Ong & Peletz 1995b:2).

Two more recent collections of essays, in which Western anthropologists and historians are in dialogue with feminist scholars from Southeast Asia, have gone even further in these directions. In a collection by Sears (1996), gender is framed in oppositional terms. On the one hand, it is a set of powerful representations and institutions constructed by the Indonesian state to constrain female agency and to control and coerce the population as a whole (Saraswati Sunindyo 1996, Surya- kusuma 1996, Tiwon 1996). On the other hand, it is a site of playfully ambiguous sexual pleasure, fictively imagined in Rabelaisian scenes of marketplace debauchery in nineteenth century Java (Florida 1996); in colonial fantasies of submissive, refined native mistresses (Taylor 1996) or dangerously contaminat-

ing nursemaids (Stoler 1995); or in the comic misadventures of a thoroughly moder, gender-bending hero/ine (Anderson 1996). In the collection by Stivens




(1998b), the impact of global capitalism on women of the "new middle class" in Asia is considered. Essays reflect on advertising images (Stivens 1998a), con- sumerism (PuruShotam 1998), and social ideals and images (Spyer 1998, Roces 1998). A more complex relation between sexuality and subjection is asserted, in which desire is what draws individuals into a coercive political-economic order, rather than being that which escapes the regulative efforts of that order. As Robin- son writes, "[r]omantic love, although apparently arising not from the external force of state power, but from the individual's own desire, would seem to be securely located in the economic and cultural imperatives of the global order" (Robinson 1998:83).

These five collections by no means exhaust the coverage of gender in South- east Asia, nor are they as internally consistent as my account suggests. The "relatively high status of women" continues to be cited as a pan-regional cultural trait, but there is still no consensus as to what, if anything, this might mean in practical terms. What, for instance, is the significance of women's participation in economic activities? Do women's economic activities signal a degree of personal autonomy, or are they in fact a measure of second-class status (Brenner 1998, Carsten 1989, Papanek & Schwede 1988)? Does gender complementarity imply a degree at least of equality for women or is it a screen for male dominance (Sutlive 1991, Atkinson 1990, Tsing 1990, Peletz 1996, Sanday 1981)? What is the relation between gender representations and gender experience (Florida 1996; George 1993; Siapno 1995, 1997; Steedly 1989)? How does gender imagery affect women's status and opportunities (Cook 1998, Djajadiningrat- Nieuwenhuis 1987, Eberhardt 1988, Hatley 1990), and how is it used to represent other kinds of power relations (Edwards 1998, Gouda 1998, Rutherford 1998, Sen 1994, Tiwon 1996)? What does the frequently noted downplaying of gender differences suggest regarding attitudes toward alternative sexualities (Anderson 1996, Atkinson 1990, Johnson 1998, Oetomo 1996, Peletz 1996)? How have world religions affected local systems of gender meanings and roles (Brenner 1996, Keyes 1984a, Kipp 1998, Kirsch 1985)? Are practices such as prostitution or veiling simply instances of gender oppression or should they also be regarded as empowering (Brenner 1996, Muecke 1992, Murray 1991, Ong 1990b)? Do family planning programs represent a widening or a constriction of opportunities for women (Heng & Devan 1995, Suryakusuma 1996, Wee 1995)? How open are gender or other social systems of meaning to strategic manipulation, contestation, or resistance by interested actors (Atkinson 1990; Krier 1995; Kuipers 1990; Ledgerwood 1996; Tsing 1990, 1993a). These and other questions have generated considerable debate but little agreement about the actual status of women and the nature of gender in Southeast Asian societies.

Nevertheless, a general direction seems clear. Beginning from the critique of universal theories of gender, anthropologists have shifted to increasingly smaller units of generalization-regional, subregional, local, sublocal. Ethnographic attention is directed toward the internal complexity and historical specificity of social domains, and the variety of motives and positions of social actors and observers. This can lead to a refusal to generalize even within a particular case.

439



440 STEEDLY

Brenner, for example, in describing her field work among Javanese batik traders in a middle-class neighborhood in the city of Solo usually thought of as the "heart" of Javanese culture-insists that "the women about whom I write do not constitute an undifferentiated category of 'Javanese women'.... I cannot justify making sweeping generalizations about all Javanese women based on research undertaken primarily in one urban community, nor would I want this ethnography to be read as a general statement about Javanese women" (Brenner 1998:19). This orientation toward partial accounts, internal differences, and contested meanings is by no means limited to studies of gender but seems to be one of the most significant current trends in cultural analysis.

Another important development in Southeast Asianist gender studies is the growing attention paid to the power of encompassing forms and forces-colonial regimes, bureaucratic states, capitalist markets, religious institutions-to influence, alter, or create altogether the social roles and identities of women and men. As local communities are increasingly seen as sites of heterogeneity and contestation, the forces of cultural homogenization and gender oppression have been transferred to the state, which is often equated with normative, centripetal, or "official" forms of discourse. Particularly valuable in this regard have been studies of the "gendering" of the state itself: "state fatherhood" in Singapore (Heng & Devan 1995; see also Shiraishi 1997) or the ideology of"ibuism" (motherhood) and domesticity in New Order Indonesia (Djajadiningrat-Nieuwenhuis 1987, Newberry 1999, Suryakusuma 1996). This recognition of the state's role in creat- ing and maintaining gender ideologies is a crucial one, but there is also a danger of downplaying or disregarding local forms of gender oppression, of overlooking the symbiotic interaction of local, national, and global systems of inequity-or, conversely, of overestimating the power and coherence of state discourse, the forces of the global market, or the institutions of organized religion.

THE STATE OF CULTURE

In a 1995 state-of-the-field essay, Bowen declared that the idea of culture was still alive and well in the anthropology of Southeast Asia. But where once anthropologists looked at cultural forms as expressive "texts" to interpret, more recent analyses have approached interpretation from the inside. Cultural forms, he argued, are not monologic; they give rise to a variety of meanings that are often in conflict with each other and that are not always resolvable to an internally coherent structure. Rather than reading events, institutions, or ways of speaking as parts of a single culture "text," anthropologists increasingly ask how social actors interpret cultural forms, how actors change their interpretations over time, and what is most at stake for them in their interpretations (Bowen 1995:1049-50).

By giving greater weight to questions of social and individual agency, anthro-

pologists have come to comprehend the cultural landscapes of Southeast Asia as

open, plural, contested interpretive spaces rather than as a collection of discrete, bounded cultural entities. At the ground level of ethnographic observation, cul-




tural frames were being opened up to notions of subversion, difference, porosity, doubleness, ambiguity, and fluidity.

As the agency (or lack of agency) of social actors came to occupy a central place in cultural analyses, anthropologists have become increasingly skeptical of claims of order, wholeness, or stability (Keane 1997b). Gender studies have been particularly important in establishing that cultures are never homogeneous, and that the differences produced within and among cultures are variously weighted with regard to power. Feminist anthropologists have tracked the workings of power into the most intimate spaces of daily life, and in the subjective experience of social actors. They have demonstrated both the ubiquity of domination and the manifold strategies through which domination can be countered, evaded, or accommodated.

At the same time, the "historical turn" in anthropology has introduced a new uncertainty regarding the stability of cultural forms over time. Continuity is understood not as something that just happens in the absence of change, but rather as something that has to be produced and reproduced in the face of change (George 1996, Pemberton 1994a, Steedly 1993). As George argues in the case of public rituals, "there is no ur-text, no abstract cultural schema, no basically basic story or structure behind ritual," but rather "an ongoing history of prior ritual events and texts being recalled and put in productive tension with the present" (George 1996:14). Ethnographers celebrate the hybridity of urban culture, as in Ness's description of the "damaged" or "polluted" culture of the Philippine port of Cebu City: "[W]hat kind of culture could exist and endure in such a place as this?... It was going to have to be a culture born and reborn in rapid succession. It most likely would be a purely impure culture, a culture nourished by assimilation, sustained in acts of translation and improvisation, and visible in duplication. Irony and paradox would be its prevailing characters" (Ness 1992:31; see also Cannell 1999, Chua 1998).

Culture contact is shown to produce genuinely "bicultural" art as well as cheap souvenirs for tourists (Adams 1998, Geertz 1997). Traditions are portrayed as "invented," identities constructed, and pasts fabulated (Adams 1997a, Kahn 1993, Nagata 1981, Schiller & Martin-Schiller 1997, Spyer 1998), as in Pember- ton's study of the collaborative Dutch-Javanese creation of "Java" as an imaginary site of uncolonized consciousness in the midst of a colonial empire (Pemberton 1994a), or Errington's deconstruction of the idea of "authentic primitive art" (Errington 1998). In Cannell's (1999) ethnography of lowland Filipinos, the apparent "absence of culture" is a productive point of analytic departure.

This understanding of local cultures as inherently plural, unstable, and contested-or else aestheticized, simplified, and therefore inauthentic-has spawned a "darker" form of culture theory, in which the desire for order, coherence, and stability is displaced upward from society into the realm of the state (see e.g. Hooker 1993, Trankell & Summers 1998, Kahn & Loh Kok Wah 1992, Schiller & Martin-Schiller 1997, Kahin et al 1996). This variant of the notion of an unlocal- ized, and thus fundamentally inauthentic, superculture focuses on state projects of social control, rational simplification, and the creation of "good" (i.e. acquies-

441



442 STEEDLY

cent) citizens through the operation of various ideological and repressive appara- tuses. This approach recognizes the tendency of modem Southeast Asian states toward the micromanagement of cultural affairs (Yampolsky 1995). Pemberton refers to this tendency, in the case of Indonesia, as the "state of culture," in which the legitimacy of Soeharto's New Order regime was cultivated through an idiom of shared values, emphasizing consent, stasis, and acquiescence-an ideal condi- tion, in other words, in which "nothing happens" (Pemberton 1994a; see also Acciaioli 1985, Bowen 1986, Van Langenberg 1986).

An important influence in these developments was Anderson's (1983) study of nationalism. Three points in Anderson's subtle and multilayered study have been seized on in particular by Southeast Asianist anthropologists. The first of these is the assertion that all communities are, in a sense, imagined rather than primordial entities, whose identities need to be constantly reproduced through the work of imagination (Keyes 1984b, Jonsson 1998). The second is the concept of official nationalism, i.e. a form of communal, monumental self-imagining guided or maintained by the state in the service of its own continuation (Adams 1997b, Evans 1998, Van Langenberg 1986, Widodo 1995, Bourchier 1997). The third point is the designation of certain privileged sites in these processes of collective imagining, whether guided or relatively spontaneous: schools (Keyes 1991, Shi- raishi 1997); museums, monuments, and festivals (Adams 1997b, Cunningham 1989, George 1998, Hooker 1993, Kalb 1997, Ledgerwood 1997, Rutherford 1996); and print-capitalism (Rodgers 1991, Hagen 1997). Other topics that have been addressed in this regard are political rituals (Bowie 1997; Evans 1998; Pem- berton 1994a; Sekimoto 1990, 1997), public depictions of ethnic diversity in text- books, posters and dioramas (Kalb 1997, Rutherford 1996, Pemberton 1994b), national arts competitions (Ness 1997, Rutherford 1996, Widodo 1995), national heroes (Cunningham 1989, Hoskins 1987, Schreiner 1997, May 1997), language and literacy (Keane 1997a, Kuipers 1998, Steedly 1996), religion (Hefner 1993, Kipp 1993, Kipp & Rogers 1987, Malamey 1996, Taylor 1993), tourism and art

(Adams 1997a, 1998; Errington 1998; George 1997; George 1998; Taylor 1994; Volkman 1990; Taylor 1997), television and films (Caldarola 1994; Charlot 1989; Heider 1991; Saraswati Sunindyo 1993, 1996; Sen 1994), music and popular entertainment (Rodgers 1986, Ubonrat Siriyuvasak 1998, Wong 1995, Yam-

polsky 1989), fashion systems (Brenner 1996, Spyer 1998), and mass organizations (Bowie 1997, Ryter 1998, Suryakusuma 1996, Jones 1999, New- berry 1999).

In all these areas, the idea of the fake seems to have become as central to our cultural discourse as "authenticity" once was (see Siegel 1998:52-65). Neverthe- less, against the "inauthentic" supercultures of nation-states, anthropologists continue to keep an eye on the local, which is, Brenner (1998:23) suggests, "what

anthropologists still seem to do best." As Keane (1997b:6) has noted, "[s]uspicion of the normative, the official, and the verbalized has opened up new vistas as

anthropologists seek out the marginal, the everyday, and the contested." Some addressed the survival of indigenous cultures literally "on the road to tribal extinction" (Eder 1987) as a result of state policies, economic exploitation, and




ecological degradation (Anderson 1987, Sutlive 1991, Brosius 1997). Others celebrated marginality and resistance in a variety of locales and contexts-in urban neighborhoods (Brenner 1998, Murray 1991, Ness 1992) and on shop floors (Ong 1990a, Wolf 1992), at funeral seances and curing rites (Cannell 1999; Kessler 1977; Pemberton 1994a; Steedly 1988; 1993; Tsing 1990, 1993a)- which were seen as sites of diversity, carivalesque resistance, and subversive disorder. Some found coherence in the lives of individuals, in the form of mem- oirs, paintings, or other "biographical objects," or in stories of personal experience (George 1997; Hoskins 1998; Rodgers 1995; Rosaldo 1980, 1986; Steedly 1993; Tsing 1993b). A few pointed out that this sense of the local, whether understood as a congeries of cultural shreds and patches, as a "pure product" of ethnographic regard, or as a figment of the national imagination, was itself constructed (Keane 1997a, Rafael 1988, Steedly 1996).

If it is no longer possible to overlook the state, then has also become virtually impossible to look past it, even in the case of diasporic communities or "ungrounded empires" (Dusenberry 1997, Ong & Nonini 1997). The idea of marginality offered an important corrective to the anthropological yearning for a bounded, autonomous place for culture, outside the circuits of global capitalism and state power. It insisted that even the most isolated locales were shot through with-indeed, one might say constituted by-power and influence emanating from dominant centers located elsewhere. But the idea of marginality also ensures that small-scale communities are relegated to minority or subsidiary status; it allow us to see them only in relation to an external force to which they stand as conceptual or actual limits. If marginal communities retain in the ethnographic imaginary some residual cast of authenticity, then theories of the "state of culture" insist that there is no unmediated approach to it: everything comes through the state or its subsidiaries/surrogates.

There is a tendency to think of states as transcendant agents, guided as if by a single will, either Oz-like, in the person of the head of government (Lee Kuan Yew, Soeharto), or by a kind of uniform animating spirit (Indonesia's "New Order," the Khmer Rouge, or the State Law and Order Restoration Council of "Myanmar"), with overwhelming power to enforce its ideological vision or to construct knowledge as it sees fit. But state operations are not just ideological, and neither are they ubiquitous. Any appearance of popular consent is under- girded by the possibility (and often the actuality) of force, as well as by opportunities for advantage to some. Moreover, state programs are not necessarily of a piece; they are also heterogeneous, fractured, contentious, contradictory, sometimes unsuccessful, often transient, and open to subversion both from within and without. Stoler and others have shown that what has been easily generalized as "colonialism," or "the colonial establishment," is crosscut with internal differences and contradictions (Kipp 1990, Stoler 1989, Stoler 1992a, Taylor 1983); a similar point needs to be made with regard to Southeast Asia's "new states." Anthropologists may, as Bowie suggests, have at one time "preferred to leave the study of the state and nation to political scientists" because of an unwillingness to generalize beyond the domain of their field studies (Bowie 1997:6-7); but now it

443



444 STEEDLY

seems that the state has taken culture's place as the generalized and generalizing superorganic center of our theories of meaning.

Without underestimating the control that states (or other centers of institution- alized power) can exert on isolated enclaves, nomadic populations, or socially denigrated groups, might it not be worthwhile to reflect on the internal mecha- nisms, limits, contradictions, and failures of state power? Might we not find ways of thinking about the local that do not reduce it entirely to a manifestation of something else, something "false?" Might we not move away from the binaries of national/local or change/continuity, which position small or "stateless" communities as besieged relics of bygone times? Might we not also localize the state? One might, for instance, want to consider the complicity of local (gendered) agents with state programs and agendas, or the intersection of state and local forms of political authority (Tsing 1993a). It would be useful to track the weak- nesses and failures of states in enacting policies (Li 1999), to explore the tactics and practices of state corruption or family connections, or even to think about ways in which states can open up and proliferate opportunities-legal and ille- gal-for its subjects (Hefner 1993, McCoy 1993, Shiraishi 1997, Sidel 1998). We might track historical shifts in state policy (Yampolsky 1995, Bourchier 1997) or look at regional differences in policy implementation. To think of states as "weak" or fragmented is not to deny the pervasiveness of power, but rather to understand it as dispersed and polyvalent rather than emanating as a unitary force from exemplary centers in Jakarta, Hanoi, or Bangkok.

SCENES OF VIOLENCE

As much as Southeast Asia has been the place to look for culture, it has also been a place seemingly marked by violence. The Vietnam War, and its journalistic and fictional representations, enhanced this image, especially for Americans. Inci- dents of extraordinary brutality, such as the 1965 slaughter of communists in Indonesia, the Cambodian "killing fields," or even the massacre of Vietnamese civilians by American soldiers at My Lai, seem to define Southeast Asia in popular consciousness. So too has the anthropology of Southeast Asia been haunted by figures of violence. In studies of headhunting (Hoskins 1987, 1989, 1996; Rosaldo 1980), mass suicide (Wiener 1995), violent forms of trance behavior (Belo 1960), sorcery and witchcraft (Geertz 1997, Watson & Ellen 1993, Wikan 1990), as well as such sublimated acts of violence as cockfighting (Geertz 1973a) and headhunting songs and oratory (George 1996; Rosaldo 1974b, 1980), violence is placed within a cultural frame. This can be disturbing, as is Rosaldo's culturalist conclusion regarding Ilongot headhunting: "to understand why killing could give rise to celebrations of collective life, I had to understand its sense within lives ultimately constrained by the relational forms of Ilongot society" (Rosaldo 1980:234; for a culturalist interpretation of the Cambodian holocaust, see Hinton 1998). Equally disturbing, however, is the opposite approach,




whereby less exotic forms of violence-the US involvement in Vietnam, the Indonesian massacres of 1965-1966 (Cribb 1991, Robinson 1995, Shiraishi 1997, Tiwon 1996, Vickers 1998), the Cambodian holocaust (Ablin & Hood 1990, Fein 1993, Kieran 1996, Ledgerwood 1997, French 1994), military and paramilitary attacks on student demonstrators (Thongchai Winichakul, unpub- lished data), the Indonesian occupation of East Timor (Franke 1981), along with outbreaks of communal violence, the brutality of revolution or insurrection or even the cruelty of daily life (Dumont 1992, H Geertz 1991, McKenna 1998, Stoler 1992a)-are seen as comprising a "counterpoint to culture," being both from the perspective of the observer and from that of the victims incomprehensi- ble, inexpressible, "uncivilized," indeed inhuman acts (Daniel 1998). These and other incidents, such as race riots and other attacks on ethnic Chinese, and "Petrus," the so-called mysterious shootings in Indonesia in the early 1980s, continue-as they should-to haunt our ethnographies (Ita Nadia 1999; Pemberton 1994a; Siegel 1986, 1998; Steedly 1993).

Whether we regard violence as something to be explained by culture or as something antithetical to it, we run the risk of primordializing it-making it appear as inherent in and distinctive to Southeast Asia as a world region. This is especially dangerous at a time when the media would seem to be making precisely that point. Across Southeast Asia in the past decade, increased population mobility and the expansion of information technology has generated an explosion of inter- and extra-regional communication. This has made violence visible in dra- matic new ways. Not only can researchers in the United States or Europe stay in touch with Southeast Asian colleagues, friends, and informants by phone or e- mail, they can also keep up with breaking news, political debates, and current issues of interest through a variety of online news services and discussion groups. Ironically, this has heightened our sense of a continual crisis. Inside jokes, rumors, political manifestos, news reports, scandals, and eyewitness accounts of protests, reprisals, and riots are reproduced, repeated, enhanced, and proliferated electronically, in new, often unpredictable, and usually uncontrollable forms, via internet caf6s, photocopied broadsheets, and cell phones. These messages reach us with the immediacy of the spoken word, and the authority of the photographic image. I recall, for instance, the minute-by-minute accounts of the 1998 student demonstrations in Jakarta, and more recently the horrifying color photos, Web- circulated, of a decapitated "ninja" victim of mass violence in East Java. Because of its tendency to highlight these elements of danger, violence, novelty, and ter- ror, interet communication can obscure the ordinary aspects of life-things that go on even in a state of emergency. Moreover, by plugging us in so directly to the experiences and views of individuals in Southeast Asia's cosmopolitan centers, it may lead us to disregard the nonurban, non-online majority-people living in villages, farmsteads, hill settlements, slums, and even "middling" neighborhoods- except for those moments when violence flares.

The alternative to essentializing or to culturalizing violence is not to disregard it but rather to localize it. By this I mean exploring the full particularity of its mul- tifarious occasions: how it is produced in certain circumstances; how it is

445



446 STEEDLY

deployed, represented, limited, imagined, ignored, or instigated; how it is identified, disciplined, interrogated, and, of course, punished. Recent work on the topic of criminality begins this project. In areas as diverse as political assassination in Thailand (Anderson 1998), criminal law in Indonesia (Lev 1999), the history of the prison in colonial Vietnam (Zinoman 1999), the organization (and disorgani- zation) of Indonesian youth gangs (Ryter 1998), gangsterism, nationalism, and democracy (Cribb 1991, Trocki 1998), the appropriation of local forms of violence and security by the state (Barker 1998, 1999), and the place of the criminal in popular imagination (Schulte Nordholt & van Till 1999, Siegel 1998), South- east Asianists have begun to disturb such clear binaries as local and national, legality and illegality, order and disorder, subjection and resistance, freedom and authority, culture and violence. But in continuing this line of inquiry we should also reflect on the partialities of our electronically enhanced consciousness: what is obscured, neglected, or erased by our attention to the cruel and the unusual. What we miss is the landscape of the banal-the ordinary routines of everyday life, in cities and in the countryside, the times when things don't fall apart, when expectations hold, when people get by or get on with their lives, however difficult or oppressive or violent the circumstances of those lives might be. We miss the regularities, the taken-for-granted, the business-as-usual aspects of human experience, the sense of how things should ordinarily be and where they might be going. What we miss, in other words, is culture, which might now be worth another look.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper grew out of conversations with many Southeast Asianist colleagues, among them Kathleen Adams, Suzanne Brenner, Sue Darlington, Steve Ferezacca, Nancy Florida, Lindsay French, Ken George, Byron and Mary-Jo Good, Leif Jonsson, Webb Keane, Rita Kipp, Ann Marie Leshkowich, Jan New- berry, Susan Rodgers, Laurie Sears, Patsy Spyer, Anna Tsing, Gigi Weix, and Philip Yampolsky. I thank them all for their interest and inspiration as well as their suggestions and criticisms. Some of the latter I have taken on board in this article; others I will continue to think about in the future. The views expressed in this article are my own, as are all mistakes and infelicities herein. In preparing this article, I was assisted by Amy Farber, who did the initial bibliographic work, and by Amy Young, who ably saw it through to completion.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org.




LITERATURE CITED

Ablin D, Hood M, eds. 1990. The Cambodian Agony. Armonk, NY: Sharpe

Acciaioli G. 1985. Culture as art: from practice to spectacle in Indonesia. Canberra Anthropol. 8:148-72

Adams K. 1997a. Ethnic tourism and the re- negotiation of tradition in Tana Toraja (Su- lawesi, Indonesia). Ethnology 36:309-20

Adams K. 1997b. Nationalizing the local and localizing the nation: ceremonials, monumental displays and national memory- making in upland Sulawesi, Indonesia. Mus. Anthropol. 21:113-30

Adams K. 1998. More than an ethnic marker: Toraja art as identity negotiator. Am. Eth- nolog. 25:327-51

Anderson B. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: New Left Books. 2nd ed.

Anderson B. 1987. Introduction. In Southeast Asian Tribal Groups and Ethnic Minori- ties, pp. 1-16. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival

Anderson B. 1992. The changing ecology of Southeast Asian studies in the United States, 1950-1990. See Hirschman et al 1992, pp. 25-40

Anderson B. 1996. "Bullshit!" s/he said. See Sears 1996, pp. 270-94

Anderson B. 1998. Murder and progress in modem Siam. In The Spectre of Compari- sons, pp. 174-91. London: Verso

Atkinson J. 1982. Anthropology: review article. Signs 8:236-58

Atkinson J. 1990. How gender makes a difference in Wana society. See Atkinson & Err- ington 1990, pp. 59-94

Atkinson J, Errington S, eds. 1990. Power and Difference. Gender in Island Southeast Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Barker J. 1998. State of fear: Controlling the criminal contagion in Suharto's New Or- der. Indonesia 66:7-44

Barker J. 1999. Surveillance and territoriality in Bandung. See Rafael 1999, pp. 95-127

Belo J. 1960. Trance in Bali. New York: Co- lumbia Univ. Press

Bourchier D. 1997. Totalitarianism and the "national personality": Recent controversy about the philosophical basis of the Indone- sian state. See Schiller & Martin-Schiller 1997, pp. 157-85

Bowen J. 1986. On the political construction of tradition: Gotong royong in Indonesia. J. Asian Stud. 45:545-61

Bowen J. 1995. The forms culture takes: a state-of-the-field essay on the anthropology of Southeast Asia. J. Asian Stud. 54: 1047-78

Bowie K. 1997. Rituals of National Loyalty: An Anthropology of the State and the Vil- lage Scout Movement in Thailand. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Brenner S. 1996. Reconstructing self and society: Javanese Muslim women and 'the veil.' Am. Ethnol. 23:673-97

Brenner S. 1998. Domesticating Desire: Women, Wealth, and Modernity in Java. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Bronson B. 1977. Exchange at the upstream and downstream ends: notes toward a func- tional model of the coastal state in South- east Asia. In Economic Exchange and So- cial Interaction in Southeast Asia: Perspec- tives from Prehistory, History and Ethnog- raphy, ed. K Hutterer, 13:39-54. Ann Ar- bor: Cent. South Southeast Asian Stud., Univ. Mich

Brosius P. 1997. Prior transcripts, divergent paths: resistance and acquiescence to log- ging in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 39:468-510

Caldarola V. 1994. Reception as Cultural Ex- perience: Mass Media and Muslim Ortho- doxy in Outer Indonesia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press

Cannell F. 1999. Power and Intimacy in the Christian Philippines. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Carsten J. 1989. Cooking money: gender and the symbolic transformation of means of exchange in a Malay fishing community. In Money and the Morality of Exchange, ed.

447



448 STEEDLY

M Bloch, J Parry, pp. 117-1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Chariot J. 1989. Vietnamese cinema: the power of the past. J. Am. Folk. 102:442-52

Chen KH, ed. 1998. Trajectories. London: Routledge

Chua B. 1998. Culture, multiracialism, and national identity in Singapore. See Chen 1998,pp. 186-205

Clancy-Smith J, Gouda F, eds. 1998. Domesti- cating the Empire: Race, Gender, and Family Life in French and Dutch Colonial- ism. Charlottesville: Univ. Press Virginia

Cook N. 1998. "Dutiful daughters", estranged sisters: Women in Thailand. See Sen & Stivens 1998, pp. 250-90

Cribb R. 1991. Gangsters and Revolutionar- ies: The Jakarta People's Militia and the Indonesian Revolution, 1945-1949. Hono- lulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

Cunningham C. 1989. Celebrating a Toba Batak national hero: an Indonesian rite of identity. See Russel & Cunningham 1989, 1:167-200

Daniel EV. 1998. The limits of culture. In In Near Ruins, ed. N Dirks, pp. 67-92. Min- neapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Djajadiningrat-Nieuwenhuis M. 1987. Ibuism and Priyayization: path to power? In Indo- nesian Women in Focus. Past and Present Notions, ed. E Locher-Scholten, A Niehof, pp. 43-51. Dordrecht: Foris

Drakard J. 1990. A Malay Frontier. Unity and Duality in a Sumatran Kingdom. Ithaca, NY: Corell Univ. Southeast Asia Program

Dumont J. 1992. Ideas on Philippine violence: assertions, negations, and narrations. In Paths to Domination, Resistance, and Ter- ror, ed. C Nordstrom, J Martin, pp. 133-53. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Dusenberry V. 1997. Diasporic imagings and the conditions of possibility: Sikhs and the state in Southeast Asia. Sojourn 12:226-60

Eberhardt N, ed. 1988. Gender, Power, and the Construction of the Moral Order: Stud- ies from the Thai Periphery. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Cent. Southeast Asian Stud., Monogr. 4

Eder J. 1987. On the Road to Tribal Extinc- tion. Depopulation, Deculturation, and Adaptive Well-Being among the Batak of the Philippines. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Edwards P. 1998. Womanizing Indochina: fic- tion, nation, and cohabitation in colonial Cambodia, 1890-1930. See Clancy-Smith & Gouda 1998, pp. 108-30

Emmerson D. 1984. "Southeast Asia": What's in a name? J. SoutheastAsian Stud. 15:1-21

Errington S. 1990. Recasting sex, gender, and power: a theoretical and regional overview. See Atkinson & Errington 1990, pp. 1-58

Errington S. 1998. The Death of Authentic Primitive Art and Other Tales of Progress. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Evans G. 1998. The Politics of Ritual and Re- membrance. Laos since 1975. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

Fein H. 1993. Revolutionary and antirevolu- tionary genocides: a comparison of state murders in democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 35:796-823

Florida N. 1996. Sex wars: writing gender relations in nineteenth-century Java. See Sears 1996, pp. pp. 207-24

Franke R. 1981. East Timor: physical and cultural genocide. Anthropol. Humanism Q. 6:18-20

French L. 1994. Enduring Holocaust, Surviv- ing History. Displaced Cambodians on the Thai-Cambodian Border. 1989-91. PhD thesis. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA. 294 pp.

Geertz H. 1963. Indonesian cultures and communities. In Indonesia, ed. R McVey, pp. 24-96. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files

Geertz C. 1973a. Deep play: notes on the Bali- nese cockfight. In The Interpretation of Cultures, pp. 412-54. New York: Basic Books

Geertz C. 1973b. The Interpretation of Cul- tures. New York: Basic

Geertz C. 1980. Negara. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press




Geertz H. 1991. A theatre of cruelty: the contexts of a Topeng performance. In State and Society in Bali: Historical, Textual and

Anthropological Approaches, ed. H Geertz. Leiden: Koninklujk Inst. Taal- Land-en Volkenkunde

Geertz H. 1997. Images of Power. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

George K. 1993. Music-making, ritual, and gender in a Southeast Asian hill society. Ethnomusicology 37:1-27

George K. 1996. Showing Signs of Violence. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

George K. 1997. Some things that have hap- pened to "The Sun After September 1965": politics and the interpretation of an Indone- sian painting. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 39: 599-634

George K. 1998. Designs on Indonesia's Mus- lim communities. J. Asian Stud. 57: 693-713

Gouda F. 1998. Good mothers, Medeas, or Jezebels: feminine imagery in colonial and anticolonial rhetoric in the Dutch East In- dies, 1900-1942. See Clancy-Smith & Gouda 1998, pp. 236-54

Hagen J. 1997. "Read all about it": the press and the rise of national consciousness in early twentieth-century Dutch East Indies society. Anthropol. Q. 70(3):107-26

Hatley B. 1990. Theatrical imagery and gender ideology in Java. See Atkinson & Err- ington 1990, pp. 177-208

Hefner R. 1993. Islam, state and civil society: ICMI and the struggle for the Indonesian middle class. Indonesia 56:1-37

Heider K. 1991. Indonesian Cinema: National Culture on Screen. Honolulu: Univ. Ha- waii Press

Heine-Geldem R. 1956. Conceptions of State andKingship in SoutheastAsia. Data Paper Series No. 18. Ithaca, NY: Comell Univ. Southeast Asia Program. 23 pp.

Heng G, Devan J. 1995. State fatherhood: the politics of nationalism, sexuality, and race in Singapore. See Ong & Peletz 1995a, pp. 195-215

Henley D. 1996. Nationalism andRegionalism

in a Colonial Context: Minahasa in the Dutch East Indies. Leiden: KITLV

Hinton A. 1998. A head for an eye: revenge in the Cambodian genocide. Am. Ethnol. 25: 352-77

Hirschman C, Keyes C, Hutterer K, eds. 1992. Southeast Asia in the Balance. Ann Arbor, MI: Assoc. Asian Stud.

Hooker V, ed. 1993. Culture and Society in New Order Indonesia. Kuala Lumpur: Ox- ford Univ. Press

Hoskins J. 1987. The headhunter as hero: local traditions and their reinterpretation in national history. Am. Ethnol. 14:605-22

Hoskins J. 1989. On losing and getting a head: warfare, exchange and alliance in a changing Sumba. Am. Ethnol. 16:419-40

Hoskins J, ed. 1996. Headhunting and the So- cial Imagination in Southeast Asia. Stan- ford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Hoskins J. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of People's Lives. New York: Routledge

Hutterer K. 1992. Epilogue. See Hirschman et al 1992, pp. 135-44

Ita Nadia. 1999. Gender Based Violence and Gender Ideology of Indonesian State. Pre- sented at Am. Anthropol. Soc. Annu. Meet., Boston, MA, March

Johnson M. 1998. Global desirings and trans- local loves: transgendering and same-sex sexualities in the southern Philippines. Am. Ethnol. 25:695-711

Jones C. 1999. Saving Face: The Economy of Femininity in a Central Javanese City. Pre- sented at Am. Anthropol. Soc. Annu. Meet., Boston, March

Jonsson H. 1998. Dead headmen: histories and communities in the Southeast Asian hinter- land. See Trankell & Summers 1998, pp. 191-212

Kahin G, Lev D, McVey R, eds. 1996. Making Indonesia. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Pro- gram

Kahn J. 1993. Constituting the Minangkabau: Peasants, Culture and Modernity in Colo- nial Indonesia. Providence, RI: Berg

Kahn J, Loh Kok Wah F, eds. 1992. Frag-

449



450 STEEDLY

mented Vision. Culture and Politics in Contemporary Malaysia. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

Kalb L. 1997. Nation building and culture dis- play in Malaysian museums. Mus. Anthro- pol. 21:69-81

Keane W. 1996. Materialism, missionaries, and modem subjects in colonial Indonesia. In Conversion to Modernities, ed. P van der Veer, pp. 137-70. New York: Rout- ledge

Keane W. 1997a. Knowing one's place: national language and the idea of the local in eastern Indonesia. Cult. Anthropol. 12: 37-63

Keane W. 1997b. Signs of Recognition. Pow- ers and Hazards of Representation in an Indonesian Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Kessler C. 1977. Conflict and sovereignty in Kelantanese Malay spirit seances. In Case Studies in Spirit Possession, ed. V Crapan- zano, V Garrison, pp. 295-332. New York: Wiley

Keyes C. 1984a. Mother or mistress but never a monk: Buddhist notions of female gender in rural Thailand. Am. Ethnol. 11:223-41

Keyes C. 1984b. Tribal ethnicity and the state in Vietnam. Am. Ethnol. 11:176-82

Keyes C, ed. 1991. Reshaping Local Worlds. Formal Education and Cultural Change in Rural Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Southeast Asia Stud.

Keyes C. 1992. A conference at Wingspread and rethinking Southeast Asian studies. See Hirschman et al 1992, pp. 9-24

Kieman B. 1996. The Pol Pot Regime. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Kipp R. 1990. The Early Years of a Dutch Co- lonial Mission. The Karo Field. Ann Ar- bor: Univ. Mich. Press

Kipp R. 1993. Dissociated Identities. Ethnic- ity, Religion and Class in an Indonesian Society. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

Kipp R. 1998. Emancipating each other: Dutch Colonial missionaries' encounter with Karo women in Sumatra, 1900-1942. See Clancy-Smith & Gouda 1998, pp. 211-35

Kipp R, Rogers S. 1987. Indonesian Religions in Transition. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press

Kirsch A. 1985. Text and context: Buddhist sex roles/culture of gender revisited. Am. Ethnol. 12:302-20

Krier J. 1995. Narrating herself: power and gender in a Minangkabau woman's tale of conflict. See Ong & Peletz 1995a, pp. 51-75

Kuipers J. 1990. Talking about troubles: gender differences in Weyewa speech use. See Atkinson & Errington 1990, pp. 153-75

Kuipers J. 1998. The Inner State. Self, Nation and Linguistic Marginality on an Indone- sian Island. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Ledgerwood J. 1996. Politics and gender: ne- gotiating conceptions of the ideal woman in present day Cambodia. Asia Pac. Viewp. 37:139-52

Ledgerwood J. 1997. Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocidal Crimes: national narrative. Mus. Anthropol. 21:82-98

Lev D. 1999. The criminal regime: criminal process in Indonesia. See Rafael 1999, pp. 175-92

Li T. 1999. Compromising power: development, culture and rule in Indonesia. Cult. Anthropol. In press

Locher-Scholten E, NiehofA, eds. 1992. Indo- nesian Women in Focus. Leiden: Kon- inklijk Inst. Taal-, Land-, Volkenkunde

Mabbett I, ed. 1985. Patterns of Kingship and Authority in Traditional Asia. London: Croom Helm

Malarey S. 1996. The limits of "state func- tionalism" and the reconstruction of funer- ary ritual in contemporary northern Viet- nam. Am. Ethnol. 23:540-60

May G. 1997. Inventing a Hero: The Posthu- mous Re-creation of Andres Bonifacio. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day

Mbembe A. 1992. Provisional notes on the postcolony. Africa 62:3-37

McCoy A, ed. 1993. An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines. Madi- son: Univ. Wisc. Cent. Southeast Asian Stud.

McKenna T. 1998. Muslim Rulers and Rebels.




Everyday Politics and Armed Separatism in the Southern Philippines. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

McVey R. 1998. Globalization, marginaliza- tion, and the study of Southeast Asia. In Southeast Asian Studies: Reorientations, ed. C Reynolds, R McVey, pp. 37-64. Ith- aca, NY: Corell Univ. Southeast Asia Prog.

Muecke M. 1992. Mother sold food, daughter sells her body: the cultural continuity of prostitution. Soc. Sci. Med. 35:891-901

Murray A. 1991. No Money, No Honey. A Study of Street Traders and Prostitution in Jakarta. Singapore: Oxford Univ. Press

Nagata J. 1981. In defense of ethnic boundaries: the changing myths and charters of

Malay identity. In Ethnic Change, ed. C Keyes, pp. 87-16. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

Ness S. 1992. Body, Movement, and Culture. Kinesthetic and Visual Symbolism in a Philippine Community. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press

Ness S. 1997. Originality in the postcolony: choreographing the neoethnic body of Phil- ippine Ballet. Cult. Anthropol. 12:64-108

Newberry J. 1999. Making Housewives: PKK and the Kampung "Village. " Presented at Am. Anthropol. Soc. Annu. Meet., Boston, March

O'Connor R. 1995. Agricultural change and ethnic succession in Southeast Asian states: a case for regional anthropology. J. Asian Stud. 54:968-96

Oetomo D. 1996. Gender and sexual orientation in Indonesia. See Sears 1996, pp. pp. 259-69

Ong A. 1990a. Japanese factories, Malay workers: class and sexual metaphors in West Malaysia. See Atkinson & Errington 1990, pp. 385-422

Ong A. 1990b. State versus Islam: Malay families, women's bodies, and the body politic in Malaysia. Am. Ethnol. 17:258-76

Ong A, Nonini D, eds. 1997. Ungrounded Em- pires. New York: Routledge

Ong A, Peletz M, eds. 1995a. Bewitching Women, Pious Men. Gender and Body

Politics in Southeast Asia. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Ong A, Peletz M. 1995b. Introduction. See

Ong & Peletz 1995a, pp. 1-18 Ortner S. 1997. Introduction. In Representa-

tions 59:1-13 Papanek H, Schwede L 1988. Women are

good with money: earning and managing in an Indonesian city. In A Home Divided. Women and Income in the Third World, ed. D Dwyer, J Bruce, pp. 71-98. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Peletz M. 1996. Reason and Passion. Repre- sentations of Gender in a Malay Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Pemberton J. 1994a. On the Subject of "Java. " Ithaca, NY: Corell Univ. Press

Pemberton J. 1994b. Recollections from "beautiful Indonesia" (somewhere beyond the postmoder). Public Cult. 6:241-62

PuruShotam N. 1998. Between compliance and resistance: women and the middle- class way of life in Singapore. See Sen & Stivens 1998, pp. 127-66

Rafael V. 1988. Contracting Colonialism. Ith- aca, NY: Corell Univ. Press

Rafael V. 1993. White love: surveillance and nationalist resistance in the United States colonization of the Philippines. In The Cul- tures of United States Imperialism, ed. A Kaplan, D Pease, pp. 185-218. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Rafael V. 1994. The cultures of area studies in the United States. Soc. Text 41:91-111

Rafael V, ed. 1999. Figures of Criminality in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Colonial Vietnam. Ithaca, NY: Corell Univ. South- east Asia Program

Reid A. 1988. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680. Vol 1: The Lands Below the Winds. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Robinson G. 1995. The Dark Side of Paradise. Ithaca, NY: Corell Univ. Press

Robinson K. 1998. Love and sex in an Indone- sian mining town. See Sen & Stivens 1998, pp. 63-86

Roces M. 1998. The gendering of post-war

451



452 STEEDLY

Philippine politics. See Sen & Stivens 1998, pp. 291-316

Rodgers S. 1986. Batak tape cassette kinship: constructing kinship through the Indone- sian national mass media. Am. Ethnol. 13(1): 23-42

Rodgers S. 1991. The ethnic culture page in Medan journalism. Indonesia 51:83-103

Rodgers S. 1995. Telling Lives, Telling His- tory: Autobiography and Historical Imagi- nation in Modern Indonesia. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Rosaldo M, Lamphere L, eds. 1974a. Woman, Culture and Society. Stanford, CA: Stan- ford Univ. Press

Rosaldo M. 1974b. Woman, culture and society: a theoretical overview. See Rosaldo & Lamphere 1974a, pp. 17-42

Rosaldo M. 1980. Knowledge and Passion. Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Rosaldo R. 1980. Ilongot Headhunting, 1883-1974: A Study in Society and His- tory. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Rosaldo R. 1986. Ilongot hunting as story and experience. In The Anthropology of Expe- rience, ed. V Turner, E Bruner, pp. 97-137. Urbana: Univ. Illinois Press

Russel S, Cunningham C, eds. 1989. Changing Rites, Changing Lives: Ritual and Social Dynamics in Philippine and Indonesian Uplands. Ann Arbor: Cent. South South- east Asian Stud. Univ. Mich.

Rutherford D. 1996. Of birds and gifts: reviv- ing tradition on an Indonesian frontier. Cult. Anthropol. 11:577-616

Rutherford D. 1998. Trekking to New Guinea: Dutch colonial fantasies of a virgin land, 1900-1942. See Clancy-Smith & Gouda 1998, pp. 255-72

Ryter L. 1998. Pemuda Pancasila: the last loy- alist free men of Suharto's order. Indonesia 66:45-74

Sanday P. 1981. Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Ine- quality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Saraswati Sunindyo. 1993. Gender discourse

on television. See Hooker 1993, pp. 134-48

Saraswati Sunindyo. 1996. Murder, gender, and the media: sexualizing politics and violence. See Sears 1996, pp. 120-39

Schiller J, Martin-Schiller B, eds. 1997. Imag- ining Indonesia: Cultural Politics and Po- litical Culture. Athens, OH: Ohio Univ. Cent. Int. Stud.

Schreiner K. 1997. The making of national heroes: guided democracy to new order, 1959-1992. See Schulte Nordholt 1997, pp. 259-90

Schulte Nordholt H, ed. 1997. Outward Ap- pearances: Dressing State and Society in Indonesia. Leiden: KITLV

Schulte Nordholt H, van Till M. 1999. Colo- nial criminals in Java, 1870-1910. See Ra- fael 1999, pp. 47-69

Scott J. 1998. Seeing Like a State. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Sears L, ed. 1996. Fantasizing the Feminine in Indonesia. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Segal D. 1999. A response to Kevin Birth. Am. Ethnol. 25:498-99

Sekimoto T. 1990. State ritual and the village: an Indonesian case study. In Reading Southeast Asia. Transl. Ser. No. 1, ed. T Shiraishi, S Shiraishi, pp. 57-73. Ithaca, NY: Corell Univ. Southeast Asian Prog.

Sekimoto T. 1997. Uniforms and concrete walls: dressing the village under the New Order in the 1970s and 1980s. See Schulte Nordholt 1997, pp. 307-38

Sen K. 1994. Indonesian Cinema: Framing the New Order. London: Zed Books

Sen K, Stivens M, eds. 1998. Gender and Power in Affluent Asia. New York: Rout- ledge

Shiraishi S. 1997. Young Heroes: The Indone- sian Family in Politics. Ithaca, NY: Corell Univ. Southeast Asia Prog.

Siapno J. 1995. Alternative Filipina heroines: contested tropes in leftist feminisms. Ong & Peletz 1995a, pp. 216-43

Siapno J. 1997. The Politics of Gender, Islam and Nation-State in Aceh, Indonesia: a Historical Analysis of Power, Co-Optation




and Resistance. PhD diss. Univ. Calif., Berkeley. 347 pp.

Sidel J. 1998. Macet total: logics of circulation and accumulation in the demise of Indone- sia's New Order. Indonesia 66:159-95

Siegel J. 1986. Solo in the New Order. Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Siegel J. 1998. A New Criminal Type in Ja- karta. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Spyer P. 1998. The tooth of time, or taking a look at the "look" of clothing in Late Nineteenth-Century Am. In Border Fetish- isms, ed. P Spyer, pp. 150-82. New York:

Routledge Steedly M. 1988. Severing the bonds of love: a

case study in soul loss. Soc. Sci. Med. 27: 841-56

Steedly M. 1989. Innocence as authority: shifting gender roles in Karo curing ritual. See Russel & Cunningham 1989, pp. 133-66

Steedly M. 1993. Hanging Without a Rope. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Steedly M. 1996. The importance of proper names: language and "national" identity in colonial Karoland. Am. Ethnol. 23:447-75

Stivens M, ed. 1991. Why Gender Matters in Southeast Asian Politics. Clayton, Aust.: Monash Univ., Cent. Southeast Asian Stud.

Stivens M. 1998a. Sex, gender and the making of the new Malay middle classes. See Sen & Stivens 1998, pp. 87-126

Stivens M. 1998b. Theorising gender, power and modernity in affluent Asia. See Sen & Stivens 1998, pp. 1-34

Stoler A. 1989. Rethinking colonial categories: European communities and the boundaries of rule. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 13:134-61

Stoler A. 1992a. In cold blood: hierarchies of credibility and the politics of colonial nar- ratives. Representations 37:151-89

Stoler A. 1992b. Sexual affronts and racial frontiers: European identities and the cultural politics of exclusion in colonial South- east Asia. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 34:514-51

Stoler A. 1995. A sentimental education: European children and native servants in

the Netherlands Indies. See Sears 1996, pp. 71-91

Suryakusuma J. 1996. The state and sexuality in New Order Indonesia. See Sears 1996, pp. 92-119

Sutlive V, ed. 1991. Female and Male in Bor- neo: Contributions and Challenges to Gen- der Studies. Williamsburg, VA: Borneo Res. Council

Tambiah S. 1977. The galactic polity: the structure of traditional kingdoms in South- east Asia. Ann. NYAcad. Sci. 293:69-97

Tanner N. 1974. Matrifocality in Indonesia and Africa and among Black Americans. See Rosaldo & Lamphere 1974a, pp. 129-56

Taylor J. 1983. The Social World of Batavia. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press

Taylor J. 1993. Forest Monks and the Nation- State: An Anthropological and Historical Study in Northeastern Thailand. Singa- pore: Inst. Southeast Asian Stud.

Taylor J. 1996. Nyai Dasima: portrait of a mistress in literature and film. See Sears 1996, pp. 225-48

Taylor N. 1997. Orientalism/occidentalism: the founding of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts d'Indochine and the politics of painting in colonial Viet Nam, 1925-1945. Cross- roads Interdiscip. J. Southeast Asian Stud. 11:1-33

Taylor P. 1994. Fragile Traditions: Indone- sian Art in Jeopardy. Honolulu: Univ. Ha- waii Press

Thongchai Winichakul. 1994. Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

Tiwon S. 1996. Models and maniacs: articulat- ing the female in Indonesia. See Sears 1996, pp. 47-70

Trankell I, Summers L, eds. 1998. Facets of Power and its Limitations: Political Cul- ture in Southeast Asia. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala Univ. Stud. Cult. Anthropol.

Trocki C. 1998. Gangsters, Democracy, and the State in Southeast Asia. Ithaca, NY: Comell Univ. Southeast Asia Prog.

Tsing A. 1990. Gender and performance in

453



454 STEEDLY

Meratus dispute settlement. See Atkinson & Errington 1990, pp. 95-125

Tsing A. 1993a. In the Realm of the Diamond Queen. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Tsing A. 1993b. "Riding the horse of gaps": a Meratus woman's spiritual expression. In Creativity/Anthropology, ed. S Lavie, K Narayan, R Rosaldo, pp. 100-30. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

Ubonrat Siriyuvasak. 1998. Thai pop music and cultural negotiation in everyday politics. See Chen 1998, pp. 206-27

Van Esterik P, ed. 1996. Women of Southeast Asia. De Kalb: North. Illinois Univ. Monogr. Ser. Southeast Asia. 2nd ed.

Van Langenberg M. 1986. Analysing Indone- sia's New Order state: a keyword approach. Rev. Indones. Malays. Aff 20:1-47

Vickers A. 1998. Reopening old wounds: Bali and the Indonesian killings- a review article. J. Asian Stud. 57:774-85

Volkman T. 1990. Visions and revisions: To-

raja culture and the tourist gaze. Am. Eth- nol. 17:91-110

Watson C, Ellen R, eds. 1993. Understanding Witchcraft and Sorcery in Southeast Asia. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

Wee V. 1995. Children, population policy, and the state in Singapore. In Children and the Politics of Culture, ed. S Stephens, pp. 184-217. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Widodo A. 1995. The stages of the state: arts of the people and rites of hegemonization. Rev. Indones. Malays. Aff. 29:1-36

Wiener M. 1995. Visible and Invisible Realms: Power, Magic and Colonial Con- quest in Bali. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Wikan U. 1990. Managing Turbulent Hearts. A Balinese Formula for Living. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Wolf D. 1992. Factory Daughters. Gender, Household Dynamics, and Rural Industri- alization in Java. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Wolters 0. 1999. History, Culture, andRegion in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Southeast Asia Pro- gram. Rev. ed.

Wong D. 1995. Thai cassettes and their cov- ers: two case histories. In Asian Popular Culture, ed. J Lent, pp. 43-60. Boulder, CO: Westview

Yampolsky P. 1989. Hati Yang Luka, an Indo- nesian hit. Indonesia 47:1-17

Yampolsky P. 1995. Forces for change in the

regional performing arts of Indonesia.

Bijdr. Taalkd. Landkd. Volkenkd. 151: 700-25

Zinoman P. 1999. The history of the modem

prison and the case of Indochina. See Ra- fael 1999, pp. 152-74



The State of Culture Theory in the Anthropology of Southeast Asia

Documents

Transcript of The State of Culture Theory in the Anthropology of Southeast Asia