Download Major Research Projects - NUS – Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Major Research Projects
Empire in Asia: A New Global History
This grant is for the first half of a two-part project on the origins, evolution and legacy of imperialism in
Asia. The project will build a new understanding of Asia in world history, and establish NUS as a global
leader in the study of imperialism, global interaction and indigenous governance in Asia.
Significance
Enduring significance of Imperialism
Imperialism is a topic of continuing relevance to scholars, policy makers and the public at large. Long after
the last formal empires faded into history, various understandings of imperialism continues to cast a long
shadow over how observers interpret not only the past, but also the present and the future of the
international order.
The rise and fall of historical empires has left many legacies throughout the world, most obviously in the
political fate of former colonies. Modern states throughout Africa and the Middle East lie within boundaries
drawn by former imperial powers. In created states such as Iraq or Rwanda, the arbitrary shape of the
imperial-era political map set the stage for a future of conflict among co-nationals. Conversely, the
integration of distant lands into global empires facilitated massive migrations: not merely the movement of
Europeans to settler colonies in the Americas, Africa and Australia, but also of Chinese to Southeast Asia,
and Indians to British Africa. The multicultural composition of modern Singapore is a living testament to
these historical forces.
The legacy of imperialism is not limited to former colonies. Global empires made a global impact, and laid
the political, economic and cultural foundation of the entire postimperial order. The experience of empire
shaped the imperial powers themselves, sharpening their own ideas of national destiny, refining the
instruments of international diplomacy, and shaping the definition of legal sovereignty in areas such as the
law of the sea. Empire transformed global finance and commerce. Empires were often money-losing
ventures. Persistent trade imbalances with colonies, and the problems of funding projects in far-flung
possessions transformed the economies of Europe necessitated, among much else, the introduction of
deficit financing by national banks. Imperialism also created durable commercial networks: even today,
much of the world’s trade and finance remains disproportionately bound to former empires. Education of
colonial elites left former empires united by language, paving the way for the globalization of English,
French and Spanish. Generations of missionaries operating under the umbrella of empire spread religion
(not exclusively Christianity) worldwide, at the same time carving out a unique social role and diplomatic
personality for religious institutions.
Academically speaking, the study of imperialism has implications far beyond the discipline of history.
Scholars of postcolonial and subaltern studies have spun an interpretation of imperialism into an entire
sociology of cultural interaction, ethnicity and power relations. The impact of scholars such as Edward Said,
Dipesh Chakrabarty and Partha Chatterjee has been felt across the humanities, particularly in fields such
as literature and cultural studies. In both academic and popular writings, terms such as imperialism have
evolved out of a specific historical context to signify any systematic exercise of power, or perpetration of
injustice, giving rise to such evocative but dangerously imprecise concepts as American imperialism,
cultural imperialism, ecological imperialism, or linguistic imperialism.
With this understanding of imperialism less as a historical reality than as an ideal political type, scholars
have used empire as a model for understanding the behavior of individual powers within a network of
global institutions. During the Cold War, it became common to portray the Soviet Union as an empire,
here defined as an expansive, multiethnic entity held together by force. By this logic, understanding the
fundamental nature of empire was employed as a tool to predict Soviet political behavior. More recently,
such ideas have been redirected to the study of a resurgent China, and to caution against overreach in
the expression of American power. The bifurcation of global power during the Cold War also prompted a
wave of scholarship by economists, political scientists and theorists of international relations on
imperialism as a system of global hegemony. Empire, in this view, is divorced from political power, and
refers instead to any manner of supranational institution. Such models are still used as an oracle for the
future of the global order, particularly in an age of declining American influence. The first and most
influential proponent of this world systems theory has been Immanuel Wallerstein (especially 1980,
1989). Since then, a variety of voices have made predictions about the future of the global order, based
on a particular understanding of how historical hegemonic systems rose and fell. Among many others,
these include Amy Chua (2007), Niall Ferguson (2003, 2004), Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (2000)
and Fareed Zakaria (2008).
Empire in Asia
Despite the vital importance of this topic across the humanities and social sciences, the study of
imperialism as a historical phenomenon is overwhelmingly equated with a narrow slice of the Western
experience. This emphasis is not surprising, especially given the global reach and transformative power
of Western, especially British imperialism during the nineteenth century. In practical terms, this tendency
is furthered by the fact that the majority of Western scholars are confined to the use of
European-language sources, and that the literal terminology of imperium is itself Western in origin and
thus only applies in a strict sense to those Western empires that referred to themselves as such.
However, a narrative that places European imperialism at center stage does nevertheless present a
skewed view of world history. This problem is particularly evident in the context of Asia, where the
polities we may retroactively identify as “empires” (such as Ming China or Mughal India) were both
militarily and institutionally powerful long before the Europeans arrived. Even at the peak of their
influence, the European imperialist powers were never able to displace Asian political, economic and
cultural systems in the way they had those in Africa or the Americas. Yet the overarching historical
narrative remains fixed on the idea that the global reach of European imperialism goaded premodern
Asian polities into joining a fundamentally Western-derived world system. Indigenous systems of
governance are thus either ignored completely, or treated as passive victims of historical trends. The
relatively small number of works that take indigenous actors such as the Mongols, Chinese or Ottomans
seriously as empire-builders reveals the extent to which pre-modern Asia was in fact composed of many
overlapping systems of rule, culture and commerce, each in its own way global. Yet even the more
insightful of these broad-reaching works are in many cases written by scholars who lack specific
expertise in Asian history or languages, leaving open the question of whether the view of pre-modern
Asia is still paradigmatically based on a European experience of empire, or at least what new insights
primary language scholarship might bring to the table. Few Asian specialists have been willing to take on
the big questions of global history, but those who have done so have produced works of profound
importance (Lieberman 2003, Pomerantz 2000).
This grant will fund the first complete history of empire and imperialism in modern Asia. As explained
below, this project departs from existing scholarly literature by combining the work of numerous
specialists to create a more balanced and sophisticated analysis than any one scholar could do alone.
The goal of placing Asia at the fore is thus not simply a matter of demonstrating that Asian empires were
of a similar size and sophistication as their later European counterparts. Rather, it is to provide an expert
view of these extended systems of rule, culture and commerce, showing the development of patterns and
trends that long predated the arrival of the Europeans. It is only from this perspective that we may truly
understand the true impact of European power as Asia joined a truly global order.
Innovation and Originality
The study of imperialism is a large and crowded field. In order to make a substantive contribution, and
distinguish our efforts, this project aims to make best use of the unique talents of the project investigators.
This group combines the talents and perspectives of Asian and European specialists across disciplines,
and is uniquely qualified to guide this integrated and empirically-driven study of governance, commerce
and culture across premodern Asia, and place of European empires in transforming the continent. The
innovation of this project is in the scale of this collaboration, and in the unique mix of Asian and European
expertise among project investigators.
In planning this project, investigators quickly discovered the need to confront the terminological
inconsistencies that plague the study of empire. As discussed in detail above, imperialism itself remains a
vaguely defined concept. Some scholars reserve the term only for the specific history and institutions of
formal empires, particularly the European empires of recent centuries. Others employ it in a more general
sense to describe any aggressive, expansionist polity, or more broadly still, any looming network of
oppressive power.
In specific terms, this sort of inconsistency has produced two fundamental fallacies in how much of the
scholarly literature approaches the history of European empires in Asia.
1. The first is to view historical polities in modern terms, reducing the pre-modern political landscape to
a dichotomy between empires and proto-states. Such a view is highly misleading, as the sovereign
nation-state did not become the political standard until well into the twentieth century. Pre-modern
polities, both in Europe and Asia, included elements such as hierarchical grades of ethnic
membership, and layered political fealty, that in some ways resemble the later experience of
European empire. Yet the ideas and practices of empire as they developed in Europe are
themselves very unique to these
times and places: the uncritical use of terms such as “empire” to refer to premodern
polities outside of Europe is historically unsound.
2. The second is to exaggerate the coherence of European imperialism, and thus to treat the period of
global encounter around an exaggerated axis of competition between “the West” and the rest of the
world. This view underestimates the ability of Asian systems to adapt to and profit from the Western
encounter, and ignores the wide diversity of actors and interests, both European and non-European,
that drove and shaped this encounter, particularly during its early stages.
This project directly addresses both of these problems. It begins by abandoning any strict definition of
empire, and examining pre-Western systems of governance on their own terms. Within Asia, the Sinic idea
of tianxia, Cinggisid khaganate, Islamic umma and Hindu-Buddhist mandala each represented distinct
systems of power, diplomacy, war, economy and identity that were neither nation nor empire, in the sense
such terms are understood today. Rather, each was a regional system of political alliances and practices
that presented a façade of universal sovereignty, but in practice overlapped and intermingled, especially at
the borders. We begin our study in the thirteenth century. This was the first glimpse of what would become
an “axial age” of empire across Asia, a time when the systems of governance that had emerged out of the
Mongol retreat reached their highest level of sophistication and interaction. Politically, this period produced
the Ming and Qing dynasties in China, and the Buddhist kingdom of Ayutthaya, as well as a string of
Muslim polities reaching from the Ottomans in Turkey and Saffavids in Persia, through Mughal rule in India,
and the Malay sultanates in Southeast Asia. These polities were the centers of regionally-bounded world
systems that we characterise as horizonal, in the sense that each one embodied pretensions to global
authority, often driven by religious conceptions of universal kingship, but in practice reached only as far as
the horizon of its military, administrative or commercial power. Yet these polities and systems were also
linked in very substantial ways. The same forces that allowed the efflorescence of individual empires also
produced a period of regional and transcontinental interaction: sophisticated trade networks in
commodities and precious metals, and zones of intellectual and cultural integration around the Indian
Ocean and South China Sea, and across the central steppes. Even with this new era of interaction, conflict
often took place within horizonal systems, rather than between them. It was precisely the incongruity of
foundational ideas that allowed horizonal systems to overlap without becoming a “clash of civilizations.”
When European ideas and trade did reach Asia, they integrated into this pre-existing network of political,
cultural and commercial systems. The vitality of Asian systems can be lost to many scholars of the
European perspective, who may be unduly influenced by the history of empire in Africa and the Americas,
where local cultures were more thoroughly overwhelmed by European military might. In Asia, the picture
was very different. When Western traders, missionaries, diplomats and sailors reached Asia, they initially
constituted yet another horizonal power, adapting the rules of trade, statecraft and diplomacy as they were
understood in Europe for use among the Europeans themselves. Over time, they did begin to project their
authority and their practices outward, eventually reaching a tipping point in which Western norms,
practices and institutions took on a truly global significance. But they did not merely project: the waxing of
Western reach into Asia also changed the Europeans themselves. To address the relatively new challenge
of integrating far-flung possessions and widespread interests, governments in Paris, London and the
Hague drew upon the rules of domestic governance and international discourse they already knew—but
also created new institutions, drawing both from new ideas of racial and religious difference, and from the
distant historical experience of Roman imperium. Nor was their power unfettered. Beyond the obvious
measures of military power, the limitations of European commercial domination is plainly evident in the fact
that when left to trade freely, many regions of Asia still had sufficient wealth and industrial skill to
economically outcompete Europe. Even at the height of European power, many colonies ran trade
surpluses against the home country, and continued to attract significant foreign investment, not merely
from Europe, but from within Asia itself. The Europeans and their emerging system of global practices
certainly influenced the hybridised horizonal powers of Asia, but never displaced them. Nevertheless, a
wide variety of non-Western actors became ever more deeply invested in a Western-defined system.
These ranged from the Europeanized native elite in India, Malaya, and Indochina to the modernizing
Japanese oligarchs, who went as far as inventing a new vocabulary in order to christen their country an
“empire” in the Western idiom. Despite its limitations, this hybrid system established the foundations and
definition of the first truly global order, and would continue to stand even after Western power no longer
dominated the state structure of Asia.
At this early stage, the project investigators are cautious of overstating the potential of this research to
redefine scholarly approaches to imperialism. We can confidently state, however, that the process of
defining precisely what it is we are setting out to do has already forced us to confront inconsistencies in the
scholarly literature, and that our approach may indeed map out a path for others to follow.
Aims and deliverables
1.
Two volumes of multi-authored publication: ‘Empire in Asia: A New Global History’
2.
Online Document Archive and Portal
The principal publication will be supported and extended by a highly visible online archive. This archive will
contain primary documents selected from archives and libraries in Asia and Europe. The investigators and
PhD students will add value to these documents, by transcribing, annotating, and in some cases
translating them. These additions will make the documents a useful resource for both scholars and
students. This archive will be enriched by including two additional features:
•
•
Annotated Bibliography. This will provide an evolving list of secondary works with brief analytical
reviews and comments. It aims to be a major research aid for researchers and students
exploring facets of empires and imperialism in Asia, within the context of global history.
Live Notes. The two published volumes will feature notes and citations that are updated on-line.
This ensures that the latest findings can be quickly incorporated, and will keep the book
updated and relevant. This prolongs the shelf life of the entire project and facilitates any
updating of the series in a future revised edition.
3. Graduate training
Imperialism and the international order in Asia are of vital interest to a wide variety of scholars and
students in disciplines and area studies programs throughout Arts and Social Sciences. The project and its
reading group will draw together this community, and further facilitate interdisciplinary seminars and
cooperation in the training of graduate students.
4. Postdoctoral mentoring
Principal Investigators
Associate Professor Brian P Farrell, will be the Principal Investigator and will assume primary
responsibility for all facets of the research. A/P Farrell is a leading scholar in the history of British
imperialism in Asia and the modern Western military experience in Asia. He is the author of two
monographs, co-author of two more, has edited (and contributed chapters to) two more books, and has
published a large number of book chapters, journal articles, encyclopedia and handbook articles. He is
best known for his book The Defence and Fall of Singapore 1940-1942, widely regarded as the definitive
study on the topic. His work explores questions relevant to the study of contemporary problems relating to
low intensity conflicts, asymmetrical conflicts across different cultures, and coalition warfare, especially in
Asia. Farrell is fluent in French, and reads Malay.
Collaborators
A/P Peter Borschberg has published widely on the origins of international law, early colonial trade, and
maritime trading regimes. His best-known works focused on the early political works of Hugo Grotius,
especially on treaties and notions of legal sovereignty. Borschberg explores questions relevant to current
international relations research, and the deliberations of policy makers in Southeast Asia and beyond. His
work unlocks the dynamics historically associated with political power, authority, legitimacy and
sovereignty from an historical, interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective (chiefly history, law and
international relations). Borschberg is fluent in German, Italian, Dutch, French, Spanish, and Portuguese.
Dr. Jack Fairey specializes in the history of the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire, particularly the areas of
religion and diplomacy. He is currently completing a manuscript entitled ‘Why the Nations Rage: The
Great Powers and the War for Orthodoxy in the Nineteenth-Century Mediterranean.’ He has also written
two book chapters on the impact of religion and imperial ideologies on national identities in the Balkans.
Fairey will expand the geographical and thematic breadth of the project. Fairey is fluent in Spanish, and
reads Greek, Turkish, French, Russian, Italian and Portuguese.
A/P Bruce Lockhart was trained in Southeast Asian history at Cornell University. His dissertation was a
comparative study of the Vietnamese and Thai monarchies in the mid-20th century. His long-term research
interests include the political history of modern Thailand and Indochina, particularly the role of the
monarchy, and the historiography of Vietnam and Laos. An important focus of his historiographical
research is the ways in which Vietnam's historical expansion and conflicts with its neighbors is portrayed in
various texts written from different ideological perspectives. He has published two book chapters on this
topic, one focusing on Vietnamese relations with Laos and one on Champa. Lockhart is fluent in
Vietnamese and Thai, and functions in Chinese, French and Lao.
Dr. Ryoko Nakano specializes in international relations and modern intellectual history, with a particular
emphasis on Japanese political thought. Currently she is finishing a book manuscript (supported by a
FASS Start-up Grant) entitled ‘Beyond the Western Liberal Order: Yanaihara Tadao and Empire as
Society.’ This monograph examines the political thought of Yanaihara Tadao (1893-1961) a Japanese
scholar whose ideas resonate with contemporary Asian critique of the Western order and universalism.
Her book, consonant with the aims of this grant proposal, aims to construct alternative theoretical
frameworks based on Asian experiences. Nakano is fluent in both Japanese and English. She has
published relevant articles in top-tier international journals, and her most recent works, ‘Beyond
Orientalism and “Reverse Orientalism: Through the Looking Glass of Japanese Humanism’ and ‘Global
Norm Diffusion in East Asia: How China and Japan Implement the Responsibility to Protect’ both advance
a cross-regional and intraregional understanding of international order from East Asian perspectives.
Nakano’s background in International Relations adds theoretical sophistication to the project’s goal of
producing a new conceptual framework for understanding the connection between the legacies of
imperialism and the diplomatic and political trends of contemporary Asia.
A/P Jan van der Putten specializes in literature of the Malay world. His original research interests lie in
traditional Malay writing, especially writings that originate from Riau. Van der Putten’s interests transcend
th
the pre-European and colonial periods. He has produced an annotated translation of a 17 century text
that shows how Malay rulers conceptualized matters of trade, war, administration and religion, but has
also written on Christian mission and colonial law. His recent publications include Lost Times and Untold
Tales from the Malay World (co-edited with Mary Kilcline Cody) and Translation in Asia. Theories,
Practices, Histories (co-edited with Ronit Ricci). In further research, he intends to compare this Hikayat to
other historiographical material in Malay to chart the boundaries of a Jawi cultural world. Van der Putten is
fluent in Dutch and Malay, and reads Javanese, Sundanese, French, and German.