A Practicum on Racism (Apologies for Expletives)

Within a 15-hour period I have had experienced two quite different racist affronts. Last night and this morning. In the streets of Europe. Neither subtle nor hidden. Both received doubly just responses from me. The hatred of these three pale, smelly, filthy, drunkard, aggressive skinhead hooligans backfired on them -- receiving sharp blows they deserve from a force of justice. Educated activists like me always carry with us the swords of justice, ready to avenge whatever insults and offset injustice in all its forms.

Last night at around half past seven in Viru Keskus (perhaps the most popular mall in Tallinn). I met with MQ, a new Filipino resident in Estonia with years of international experience in the shipping industry. On our way out of the mall to have some drink in the Old Town, I sensed somebody passing through my back and uttering some Chinese sounding prattles 'ching-chong-chang'. Nagpantig ang tainga ko (I didn't like what I heard)! It irritated me and instantly reminded me of the racist insult Shaquille O'Neal made in a press conference towards Yao Ming over a couple of years ago. I said 'Kupal 'to ah!' (Such a smegma!); and then I looked back and saw this six-foot-something youngster looking drunk, face gone red, wearing a bonnet on his way up already on the stairs. Our eyes met, I gave him a tiger look and I said to his face 'Hoy, kupal!' and threw a dirty finger at him. He did not react.

This morning at around half past eight. I was with MQ again. We didn't have any plans to go wherever -- just to have a walk. But we happened to pass through this very controversial, highly sensitive monument which has long been a source of serious conflict between the two social groups in Estonia -- the local Estonians and the Russian-speaking community. The monument, often referred to as 'Bronze Soldier', depicts a bronze figure of a lone Soviet soldier with the hammer and sickle emblem behind its head. It was erected in 1947 and said to be in memory of the soldiers who died fighting for the USSR against the Nazis. For some though, this 'soldier-liberator' recognition of the monument defies the real history of Estonian independence because it actually is a tricky relict perpetuating Russia's historical denial. It becomes even more contested because it stands right at the very heart of the city of Tallinn. The issue holds resemblance to the revival of Japan's denial to admit the excesses of its military occupation during World War II with the recent controversy provoked by the categorical pronouncement of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of the absence of proof to warrant Japan's guilt on sex slavery. Interestingly, if not contemptuously, I remember reading in the news that people from both the opposing camps even sent their respective appeals to US President George W. Bush to intervene either for the removal or retention, depending on whose interest, of the monument during his state visit in Estonia on November 2006 (To my mind, what a brazen sell-out of sovereignty!). Such implies the intensity and complexity of this convoluted issue that involves questions of history, ethnicity, legality, politics, and even psychology.

Going back to the story....When we reached the monument premises, MQ took pictures of the monument with some colourful flowers on the ground. There were two other people in the area who we later learned to be mediapeople from the Latvian national television, taking videos of the monument. While we were chatting with the media reporter I noticed three girls who drew closer to the monument but then left the place immediately. After a few minutes, MQ and I decided to go on with our walk around the Old Town. Just about a few meters away from the monument there were two guys walking opposite our lane. And suddenly one guy did a side step towards our path and then spat in front of us! I then reacted and said 'gago 'to ah'! (Such a hooligan!) At first I thought it was not intentional and then I looked back at the two with a frown on my face and with angry eyes. I made eye contact with the spitting guy and he said 'fuck off'! I fired back at him with a louder shout than he did, 'fuck off'! I then threw a dirty finger at him. Both of them proceeded their way and didn't react on my cursing hand gesture. MQ and I continued our walk to the intersection and while we were waiting for our turn at the traffic light we looked back at the two racist nutheads and we saw one of them splattering liquids from the plastic bags they were carrying onto the monument and the flowers (We suspect it was urine). The spitting guy confronted the woman reporter from Latvia with whom MQ and I had a nice chat. While the spitting guy was barking at the Latvian reporter his left hand was trying to block the video camera, which the reporter's cameraman switched on to capture this berserk spitting guy, who I also saw, to have splashed some liquid on the camera. A very sad scene indeed, not only of racism but, based on my conception, of an excessive nationalist sentiment.

While we were walking through the Old Town and turned our backs on the ugly sight of fascist bullying going on a few meters from us, I told MQ how disgusted I am. A father that he is with a military training as well, MQ had been sober all throughout our bad experience from lost souls. MQ said to me that he understands them. I, too, understand them.

The first incident last night with the 'ching-chong-chang' youngster I could easily bear. But the hooligans who spat on our path warrant the painful consequence of their uncivilised acts! I feel I do not deserve such treatment -- and nobody has the right and the arrogance to demean any human being in this world. In my half a year residence in Estonia I have paid my dues to this society. I have had contributed in my own little ways to the development of its education system and to policy advice for its economic development. I pay taxes to the government, give donations to the church, and I even enrolled my bank account to this system in which a certain amount of my purchase goes to charity every time I use my ATM. How I wish I am doing these endeavours to my country, where my home is and my heart truly belongs; and to the millions of my fellow citizens, whose blood and sweat gave me the privilege of a wonderful education from the premier university. Some may think I had stooped down to the levels of these hooligans so young to waste their lives finding meaning in the meaningless pursuit of racism and fascism. But I feel I have given justice to myself, and been able to assert justice over unjust bullying. When we let bullies do their way, they will always contrive to do their way. Justice is there to offset any injustice.

In my first few weeks here in Estonia I have felt how difficult it is for activists like me to live in this young republic. Almost all of the issues of concern of activists and NGO workers are alive here: a neo-liberal economy, a government very supportive of the US coalition of the killing, xenophobia, homophobia, ecological degradation, racism, trafficking of women, increasing HIV-AIDS incidence, petty crimes, etc. True that these issues can be found in almost all societies in this world. But for such a small country, for such a developing economy, for such a young republic like Estonia the intensity and scope of these social (i.e., political, economic, cultural, ecological, gender) issues and ills are extremely alarming for its developmental trajectory as a polity, as an economy, and as a society. For a few years now, before I venture into any challenges I am about to face in life, I say to myself: 'Don't go there if your heart is not strong'.

Do not get me wrong that I do not like this country. I consider the incidents I encountered as isolated cases. A traveller always has to satisfy two thirsts which one cannot long neglect without drying up: admiring and loving. At the end of the day, despite this mad experience of an intolerable reality, I could still feel that happiness, love, and justice are still intact in myself, rediscovering the memory of the beauty of Estonia and its people that has never left me.

The more I experience human-relations-among-different-races-turning-out-badly the more I get to know myself that my mind and my heart could really not tolerate injustice. The advocacies I believe in are not only for a living, they are part of me. Three incidents abroad in the past come to mind. First, in Malaysia I almost hit a drunk man in his face when he cursed my friend in a Chinese language, a really foul cuss word I understood which my friend did not. Thanks and no thanks to my classmates in Malaysia who taught me the cuss words in Chinese and Bahasa Melayu. But much thanks to my classmate who timely pulled my arm to prevent the Manny Pacquiao super punch to hit him and brought me back to sober senses. Second, in Singapore I reacted when this vendor at Lucky Plaza said to me and to my friend: 'You Filipinos you just ask and ask, but you don't buy....' I did not let him got away with it and I answered back, 'Don't be a racist and say Filipinos are this and that'! Third, in Kuala Lumpur's red light district of Bukit Bintang with my international classmates, a pimp was offering us 'young girl, young girl'. I first confronted him and said to him: 'That's disgusting'! He kept on repeating: 'What? What? What?' I also kept on saying: 'That's disgusting'! And then, I said to him, 'We work for a human rights organisation'! He eventually backed off and left the place. Saying 'That's disgusting' has always been my line every time I've been confronted by pimps. I have also done this in Bangkok and in Tallinn.

I am quite versed in the issues related to racism. But racism is stranger in personal experience than in texts. The 'personal is political' dictum of the feminists also applies to the issue of racism. That is to say, one can only fully understand the politics of racism through personal experience. Most of the time racism does not know the victim's class background, academic knowledge, economic status, and professional experience; it only knows colour and physical attributes. Poverty exacerbates it. The history of colonialism, manifested in both material and extra-material aspects, deepens and perpetuates it, letting this monster celebrate its orgies in haunting generations by generations into a world replete with people doomed to die as if they have not lived. I wish that rather than setting up hatred against racist acts done to anyone, the sensibility for meaningful coexistence can strike any human being in the face! Education is key to stopping this vicious assault to humanity, especially in the wisdom offered by the fields of history, anthropology, psychology, geography, sociology, philosophy, politics, arts and humanities.

I cannot say that my acts have instantaneously succeeded in offseting injustice with justice. After all, the spitting hooligans proceeded to harass the Latvian mediapeople even after I showed them I could not be swayed by their bullying pretence. I could only hope that my not being silent at those morally intolerable moments of exchanges with the 'ching-chong-chang' youngster and the spitting hooligans have made them felt the jolt utterly necessary to awaken their souls and realise the indomitable humanity long been slumbering in the nightmare of the dead generations. To paraphrase Marx, the history of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare in the brains, hearts, and souls of the living and the generations yet to come. I could only hope that one day the nightmare of the dead generations of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all the other tyrants, with their shared worldview of unequal humanity that led to our history of people striving for superiority rather than equality, comes to an end as soon as possible. We all have to work together so as the entire humanity be soon reconciled to what we have always been -- peaceful, loving, and beautiful human beings.

I let these lines from the philosopher Albert Camus in his essay 'Return to Tipasa' (1950) speak for me as a way of concluding this reflective post, lines which are even more apt as a reminder to our time not only in the context of Europe:

'For there is merely bad luck in not being loved; there is misfortune in not loving. All of us, today, are dying of this misfortune. For violence and hatred dry up the heart itself; the long fight for justice exhausts the love that nevertheless gave birth to it. In the clamour in which we live, love is impossible and justice does not suffice. This is why Europe hates daylight and is only able to set injustice up against injustice. But in order to keep justice from shrivelling up like a beautiful orange fruit containing nothing but a bitter, dry pulp, I discovered once more...that one must keep intact in oneself a freshness, a cool well-spring of joy, love the day that escapes injustice, and return to combat having won that light....In the middle of winter, I at last discovered that there was in me an invincible summer'.

To be for justice. To be for hope. To be for love.

A Curious Blend of Good Luck and Bad Luck: The Culture of Political Economy, or the Political Economy of Culture

'You have a curious blend of good luck and bad luck', said my supervisor, Erik S. Reinert, over the phone on my birthday (17 January) referring to my adventures here in Europe since I left the Philippines on September 2006. 'A curious blend' indeed – some doors have had been closed over the months but not without opening great windows of opportunities!

At the beginning of the new year I sent messages to my family and friends with the theme 'Life is a game of forgetting and remembering'. We win the game when we remember what motivates us, what inspires us, what has helped us, what has made life worthwhile; and when we forget the old things that have stolen our dreams. We lose the game when we remember the things of no value, the things gone and will never come back; and when we forget the lessons of past mistakes.

I have once written to my siblings about the loving and lovely virtue of our mother that we must all imbibe and be mindful of all the time: her secret to being content in all circumstances, 'a gift of peace' I would call – be free from expectations; want nothing from anyone; be generous; do not worry and try to solve everything on your own, pray, leave some spaces for God to come and help you; see the advantages hidden in any unfortunate circumstances.... I actually believe that these values are innate in each and every human being. Not having these only means that they have gone missing in us for whatever reasons, and thus recovering them back would be worthwhile and meaningful.

One of the frustrating experiences I encountered over the last few months was when I had hoped to apply for a fellowship at a business school in Northern Europe on a research project on 'cultural diversity' in emerging markets and developing countries. It was unfortunate that my application documents reached the department a day after the deadline. And it was painful to think that my application documents – written and sent in good faith, with the best intentions, and with all the efforts and hopes put into them – was immediately rejected and sent back to me without even literally opening the envelope. It was totally disappointing at first especially because I believe that notwithstanding the failure of my documents to reach the department on time, it is just proper that the envelope should have at least been opened, and hence been considered for its content, and not simply at face value.

Anyway, frustrations and disappointments – like any other emotions, things, and people – are essentially impermanent; they come and go. Now, my research proposal may have not reached its intended audience, but I am posting a copy of it here with the world as its audience. After all, and especially because of the structural logic of today's world, ideas are not to be enclosed within school walls. The world is their home.

Note: For reasons of space, the sections 'Work Schedule' and 'References' of the research proposal have been deleted in this posting.

The Culture of Political Economy, or the Political Economy of Culture

The Constitution of Cultural Diversity in Southeast Asian Development Strategies*

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

BONN JUEGO

Introduction

I propose a PhD research project that will examine the constitution of cultural diversity in the development strategies of the developing countries and emerging markets of Southeast Asia in pursuit of competitiveness through an innovative knowledge-based society from the 1990s to the first decade of the 21^st century. Taking contrasting development strategies of the distinctive political-economic-cultural structures, hence social relations, of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore – generally characterized as neo-liberal, neo-statist, and neo-corporatist, respectively (see Table 1) – the research seeks to combine the concepts and tools from critical political economy and evolutionary development economics to produce a distinctive approach in understanding the constitutive role of cultural diversity in political and economic activities, political and economic institutions, and hence development strategies in the emerging markets and developing countries of the Southeast Asian region. In doing so, the research addresses the omission, as well as eschews the reductionism, of mainstream accounts found in the fields of business, development, economics, and international political economy in understanding the challenges of culture, especially of cultural diversity, in the emergence of knowledge-based societies in the dynamic region of Southeast Asia under conditions of globalisation.

Research Questions

The process of globalisation ushers in tremendous reorganisation of production both in the developed and developing worlds towards the consolidation of a new accumulation regime as depicted in the narrative of a ‘knowledge society’ in which development is to be pursued through the promotion of competitiveness, entrepreneurship, and innovation. The consolidation of a new economic regime with distinctive economic regularities may be either ‘organic’ or ‘arbitrary, rationalistic, and willed’ depending on the regime’s success or failure in realising a ‘structured coherence’ among technological innovations, political institutions, economic forms, cultural practices, and intellectual understanding that would reorganise the entire social formation (Gramsci 1971). In other words, the new ‘techno-economic paradigm’ is a product of the interaction among technology, politics, economy, and culture leading to certain economic pattern (Perez 2002). Hence, the emergence of a ‘knowledge society’ constitutes a social relation in which ‘the political’, ‘the economic’, and ‘the cultural’ spheres are organically connected to, rather than separate from, one another. As such, it is sensible to conceive of development as a social relation that constitutes both ideational and material aspects.

The Southeast Asian region is, as ever, marked by national differences on: [a] levels of economic development, [b] characteristics of political regimes, and [c] attributes of culture (see Table 1). These varying domestic configurations from society to society within the globalising geographical landscape in the region give rise to distinct arrays of interests and distinct projects from society to society in pursuit of their shared idea for reform of their respective ‘business climates’ to promote investment and domestic entrepreneurship and to enhance innovation. The combined yet uneven character of development in Southeast Asia thus requires different political approaches and economic policies from society to society in the region in pursuit of development. At the heart of this dynamics is the role played by cultural diversity as an ideational feature of Southeast Asian societies in relation to the materiality of the political economy of the region. The culturally diversed, as well as the politically and economically different, societies of Southeast Asia signify the co-evolution of the processes constitutive in the ideational aspects of cultural diversity with the processes involved in the materiality of political economy. The dynamics of these processes, including their conjoint impact, on development is bewilderingly complex, yet interesting. It is this distinctive and novel feature of ‘culture and political economy’ (ie, the political economy of culture, or the culture of political economy) of the Southeast Asian region that demands explanation, and which is the principal object of enquiry in this proposed research.

How is cultural diversity constituted in the varying domestic development strategies of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore? And how does the political economy of development in these countries, which are oriented towards knowledge-based society, impact on their diversified cultural configurations?

Hypothesis

Given said main problematique the proposed research puts forward a rather general hypothesis that:

While the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore have different political regimes, levels of economic development, and cultural attributes, their development strategies share common goals for competitiveness through the realisation of an innovative knowledge-based society in response to globalisation. The issue of cultural diversity as a constitutive feature of their respective societies, while distinctive in their respective social relations, is inflected to suit the requirements of global competitiveness. Cultural diversity then is regarded both a challenge for political crisis management and a tool for economic development under conditions of a knowledge society.

This general hypothesis is laid down here simply as a guide for the conduct of the research. The foremost aim of the proposed research is to look for novelties in this theme of cultural diversity and development.

Review of Literature

Much of the literature in business studies, development studies, economics, social sciences, and (international) political economy have not addressed the theme related to the challenges of cultural diversity in emerging markets and developing countries at the epoch of globalisation. First, mainstream accounts have omitted the constitutive role of culture (and of cultural diversity in this case) in political and economic activities and institutions; and hence they have approached the phenomenon in the fashion either of essentialism or of reductionism between culture and political economy. And, second, hardly anyone has dealt with this theme seriously with reference to the dynamic emerging markets and the puzzling developing countries in the Southeast Asian region.

In business studies, a number of research have been done providing causality between a culturally diverse work force, on the one hand, and a firm’s organisation, behaviour, and performance, on the other. These are empirical studies addressing issues such as a firm’s motivation in hiring a diverse work force (e.g., Carr 1993; Cox and Blake 1991; Johnson 1999) and the implications of cultural diversity of the work force for a firm’s performance (e.g., Thomas 1999; Hartenian and Gudmundson 2000). Aside from the fact that much of the firms studied are located in the US, such studies, however, easily neglect the dynamic processes and factors exogenous to the firm, providing stories of success or failure as if there is such a thing as a ‘representative firm’ as trivialised in ‘standard textbook economics’. Such studies also lose sight of the fact that each and every firm is unique (Penrose 1959 [1995]); that a firm exists to avoid transaction costs (Coase 1937 [1991]); and that a firm is capable of developing their ‘pool of stability’ through planning, research, and management in responding to the ever changing, uncertain competitive environment within which it operates (Coase 1937 [1991]; Chandler 1990; Best 1990; Lazonick 1991; Chandler, et. al. 1997). Hence, a research that focuses on the complex processes involved in an environment of competitive uncertainty seems to be much more meaningful for firms to guide their provision of ‘pools of relative certainty’ (Penrose 1959 [1995]) within which they could organise their strategic and innovative responses to external volatility.

In evolutionary economics, far more investigation is needed into the roots and trajectory of (uneven) development in the developing countries. The pioneering works on national systems of innovation (NSI) approaches of the Freeman-Lundvall-Nelson persuasion (Freeman 1987; Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993) have been essentially crafted to understand the synergy among the government, industry, academe, and other social actors in the process of innovation in the contexts of developed, relatively homogenous, and to a large extent Scandinavian societies. Recent improvisations of the NSI approach have however attempted to address the challenges of the globalising learning economy as developing countries become increasingly integrated into this trend towards a knowledge society. Here, the idea of ‘tacit knowledge’ in which culture and cultural diversity may be both essential and crucial for the long-term success of developing countries is worth exploring (e.g., Ernst and Lundvall 2004).

In social sciences and economics, most accounts tend to either resort to the subsumption of economic activities under broad generalisations about social and cultural life (for instance, the ‘culturalisation’ of economic life in the new economy, in Lash and Urry 1994; and the discursive ‘cultural materialism’, in Williams 1980 and in Milner 2002), or opt for reification of the market and at the same time the abstraction of the economy into mathematical calculations as if economic activities are devoid of the larger extra-economic context and supports (e.g., Samuelson 1948; Krugman 1996). The former’s discursive predisposition glosses over the materiality as well as the specificities of economic activities, contradictions, and institutions. On the other hand, the latter provides the theoretical underpinnings of economic reductionism, treating the economy with rigid economic laws in an ahistorical fashion. Hence, the constitutive material role of ‘social variables’ such as cultural diversity, which are traditionally regarded as extra-economic in mainstream economics, is missing in these literatures.

In (international) political economy, the dynamics specific to the region of Southeast Asia is undertheorised, especially in the analysis of the global political economy of development since the post-War (sometimes referred to as ‘Fordist’, mass production – mass consumption ‘régime of accumulation’ [Aglietta 1979; Jessop 2001; Boyer, et.al. 2002]; or as ‘mass production paradigm’ [Perez 2002]). Most literatures on the political economy of development have focused on the US and Europe (Atlantic Fordism), Latin America (‘populist’, import-substitution industrialisation), and East Asia (national developmentalism) to provide various accounts of social structural changes that have occurred in particular phases of capitalist development. Even the powerful narratives of the Aglietta-Lipietz-Boyer ‘régulation schools’, which attempted to develop a deep institutionally sensitive historical and comparative analyses of capitalist development, have missed out the Southeast Asian region (Aglietta 1979; Lipietz 1985, 1987; Boyer, et. al. 2002). The same goes with the ‘post-régulation approach’ being developed recently to understand the dynamics of contemporary ‘knowledge-based economy’ as the post-Fordist accumulation régime that has emerged out of the crisis of the mass consumption – mass production regime (e.g., Jessop 2001; Aglietta 1998, 2000; Boyer 2000). It would be uncritical to hastily assume that these narratives, notwithstanding their powerful resonance in the academic literature, can be inflected to suit the dynamics in the Southeast Asian region. Hence, the dynamism and specificities of Southeast Asia must be given the seriousness it deserves.

These gaps as well as inadequacies in the existing literature in business studies, evolutionary economics, social sciences and economics, and (international) political economy thus prompt at least two main research objectives related to the challenges of cultural diversity in the developing countries in Southeast Asia. First, given the absence in the existing literature of an account of the co-evolution of the ideational (especially, on cultural diversity) and the material aspects intrinsic in the development process, the research hopes to make an original contribution to this largely unexplored, yet significant, terrain. Second, given the selectivity of existing narratives, the research considers the factors, processes, and phenomena left unstated, repressed, and marginalised in the official dominant discourses – that is to say, the question of cultural diversity in the political economy of development and the dynamism of the Southeast Asian region, both areas being marginal in established discourses.

Theoretical Framework

Most theories – through which the literatures reviewed above are examined – would founder on their inability to grasp the significance of the dynamic phenomenon of the co-evolution of the ‘ideational’ and ‘material’ processes and their conjoint impact in the constitution of development strategies in contemporary Southeast Asia. It is for this reason that an alternative approach derived from the combination of concepts and tools of critical political economy and evolutionary development economics will be utilised in this research. Accordingly, this alternative approach will prove useful to examine the relationship between cultural diversity and development in ontological, epistemological, and methodological terms.

The critical political economy approach understands phenomena as ‘social relations’ – in which ‘the political’, ‘the economic’, ‘the cultural’, ‘the ecological’, and all other spheres of social life are organically connected to, rather than separate from, one another. Through this approach, it can reveal not only the politics behind the economy, but the culture of political economy and the political economy of culture as well.

The non-equilibrium, non-physics based, and non-mathematical approach of evolutionary development economics (referred to as ‘Other Canon Economics’ in the works of Reinert, et. al. 2006, at http://www.othercanon.org) would be able to explain the complexities of cultural diversity in the broader economic development context. Its interest in the ‘economy’ as a real object, rather than the abstractions of ‘economics’, and its consideration of social variables that are traditionally excluded in mainstream, ‘standard textbook’ economics in explaining the uneven process of development are appropriate tools to grasp the significant phenomenon of the constitution of cultural diversity in the development strategies of developing countries.

Combining the concepts and tools from critical political economy and evolutionary development economics thus create an alternative approach viewed from comparative, critical, and inter-disciplinary perspective. Ontologically, the alternative approach does not naturalise theoretical objects such as technology, the economy, culture, and the development process; but regards them as historically specific, socially embedded, and, to a certain extent, socially constructed. Epistemologically, while it criticises the ahistorical, universalistic, and reductionist claims to knowledge of orthodox economics, the alternative approach understands phenomena through an assessment of the constitutive role of the material and ideational aspects in social relations and their impact on change. And methodologically, it takes into account the relevant and significant elements, factors, and processes excluded in mainstream literatures and theories so as to provide a certain degree of predictability vital for economic development strategy, political governance, and firm management.

Through this theoretical framework, the constitution of cultural diversity in the development strategies of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore will be understood. Hence, cultural diversity is taken seriously in the context of social relations, while emphasising on the differences and specificities of national situations in particular historical moment.

Methodology

While the research highlights the role of cultural diversity as constituted in the different development strategies of the distinctive societies of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore from the 1990s to the first decade of the 21^st century, it regards culture as neither comprehensive nor exclusive. As such, the research will analyse the constitution of cultural diversity within social relations in which it is constituted. The general characteristics of these social relations are outlined in Table 1. The spheres of social life to be examined – ‘the political’, ‘the economic’, and ‘the cultural’ – are seen as constituting the ‘social relation’. That is to say, there is no clean separation among the three spheres and their relationship to one another may be seen as interrelated or reciprocal. While the development process and strategy is also to be understood as constituting a social relation, the definition of ‘cultural diversity’ will depend on the respective official development plans of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore.

TABLE 1 General Characteristics of Social Relations in Globalising Southeast Asia
Society	‘The Political’ (State Form)	‘The Economic’ (Economic Policies)	‘The Cultural’ (Cultural Diversity)
Philippines	Neo-liberal	Market-led, service-oriented, and partially agricultural	Homogenous (with peoples acknowledging one Filipino race); cultural diversity based largely on linguistic locales and religion)
Malaysia	Neo-statist	Focus on manufacturing and services	Heterogeneous; internal diversity with three major races: Malay, Chinese, and Indian
Singapore	Neo-corporatist	Strong manufacturing sector and knowledge-intensive services	Largely homogenous, yet increasingly becoming heterogeneous with the incorporation of foreign workers

The research will thus make extensive reference to the official documents and development plans by respective governments of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore in relation to their regard for cultural diversity, especially from the aftermath of the 1997 crisis to the present. In addition, documents from multilateral institutions and regional associations (which are now readily accessible from their official websites) such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, ADB, APEC, and ASEAN shall also be looked into since these organisations have increasingly become domestic social forces in the arena of nation-states, and are active in policy advice as well as policy-making in the emerging markets of Southeast Asia, especially in the developing countries of the Philippines and Malaysia. In doing so, the research may identify the incorporation of cultural diversity in the broader development strategies to be either ‘organic’ or ‘arbitrary, rationalistic, and willed’ against the background of the structural requirements of competitiveness in a knowledge-based society. Further, an extensive review of literature on the culture and political economy of Southeast Asia will be done to unpack the region’s dynamism.

Significance and Prospective Contributions of the Study

The research hopes to immensely contribute to the inescapable link between theory construction and policy advice for real development, a qualitative improvement to the lives of all. In terms of policy, the research will not only reveal the constitutive role of cultural diversity in social relations and its concomitant dynamics to guide government, firms, and other actors; but it will also open up the exploration of the necessary synergy among political economic institutions and policies in pursuit of alternative development strategies especially needed for developing countries. In particular, it may usher in an idea to be reflected upon about the formulation of a coherent institutional fit and synergy for development among three organically connected spheres in the society: [a ] state form, or government structures and systems (the political); [b] economic policies on the relationship among economic activities and economic sectors, the relationship between financial capital and production capital, and the relationship among the factors of production such as capital, labour, land, and technology (the economic); and [c ] system of ideas and values , which includes way of thinking and lifeworld (the cultural).

And in terms of theory, it hopes to contribute to the broader debate, argument, and communication of innovative findings in the social sciences, business studies, development studies, development economics, evolutionary economics, (international) political economy, cultural studies, and Southeast Asian studies; as well as in the ‘post-disciplinary’ research agendas on ‘cultural political economy’ (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ias/polecon/index.htm), ‘politics of global competitiveness’ (Cammack 2006), and ‘technology governance’ (http://hum.ttu.ee/tg/) recently set out by various academics and institutions.

* 7 December 2006

Development as a 'Social Relation' in Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Methodologies of Post-structuralism for Critical Development Studies

[On September this year, I was so lucky to be granted a scholarship to participate in a Conference and PhD Workshop with PhD students from the Nordic, Baltic, and Russian universities for the period 5-9 November 2006 at the University of Turku, Finland. But due to some frustrating complications regarding my immigration status here in Estonia, I have sent my letter of regret to the conference organisers that I cannot make it to Finland this time. This sad news comes today, the 14th anniversary of my father's death. A part of my long time plan seems to have died as well. Well, life is...life! And I know that this frustrating experience is telling me something -- some of life's lessons that must be instilled in me. A good game continues. Nevertheless, below is a copy of the paper which I submitted to the workshop organisers a few weeks ago. This is a proofread version of the one I earlier submitted to the organisers, which is also available on-line at the conference organiser's website.]

DEVELOPMENT AS A ‘SOCIAL RELATION’ IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Reflections on the Methodologies of Post-structuralism for Critical Development Studies*

BONN JUEGOb

The good is the most accurate measure of all things.
Aristotle, Politikos

Introduction

Social sciences today – its associated theories, methodologies, spatial-temporal boundedness, and vocabularies – is being reconfigured by, if not under assault from, multiple hegemonising intellectual currents: from the fad of post-structuralist sensibility, to the project of ‘social sciences colonisation by economics’. Post-structuralism poses a great challenge to the sacrosanct values and assumptions of the disciplines under the social sciences, namely: anthropology, psychology, history, sociology, politics, and geography. Proponents of these respective disciplines have responded to the post-structuralist current in various ways. While some have launched ruthless criticisms against it in defense of their disciplines, some have either wholeheartedly or partially incorporated it in their discipline. For almost half a century now since post-structuralism assumed prominence, the field of economics seems to be untouched from the theoretical challenges posed on by Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. This is rather ironic, especially that a careful understanding of the post-structuralist methodologies (i.e., not simply looking at the conventional understanding on its disregard for ‘systems’ as well as its privileging of contingency over historical causality) would pose a great theoretical challenge to the hegemony of neo-classical economics. In particular, Derrida’s ‘deconstruction’ and Foucault’s ‘power-knowledge’ nexus would certainly empower the counter-hegemonic (ideological) potentials of proponents of alternative development to the dominant model by current mainstream (mathematical, neo-classical) approach to economics.

Academic disciplines are always for someone and for some purpose. In this case, development studies are commonly understood to be carried out for the development of the developing world. The general social sciences discourse on post-structuralism has tremendous implications for development studies and area studies as sub-disciplines of the social sciences – in particular, to the search for context-specific development prescriptions for the Third World countries in Southeast Asia under conditions of globalising capitalism.

This essay reflects upon the usefulness of specific post-structuralist methodologies for development studies, viewed from a critical perspective. First, it sketches out ways on how Derrida’s methodology of ‘deconstruction’ and Foucault’s idea on the inescapable link between power and knowledge could be conducive to a critique on the dominant discourse of the neo-liberal development paradigm. In doing so, it could reveal a reality in the history of economic development that has been concealed through the years by the neo-classical economists and neo-liberal forces in order to impose their authority and hegemony. Second, it provides an account for critical development studies to recognise specificities of social situations – specifically, the combined and uneven character of development in Southeast Asia at this historical moment of the universalisation of capitalism that would require distinct development strategies from society to society in the region. Third, it outlines an example of a development studies research that recognises the usefulness of specific post-structuralist methodologies, yet viewed from critical, historical, and inter-disciplinary perspectives in understanding development as a ‘social relation’. Finally, it concludes with a progressive challenge to development studies, as well as an appropriate classical reminder from the Greeks that a theory’s basic focus must be on the lucrative, the conducive, and the good life.

Deconstructing the Mainstream, Revealing the Power Behind the Development Model

Today’s dominant development model – as prescribed by rich economies and by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the Third World – is founded on neo-classical economics that essentially frames the neo-liberal policies of an open market economy through privatisation, deregulation, liberalisation, and the pursuit of global competitiveness since the crises of the 1970s. One of the great-unconsummated theoretical projects for development studies today, if it is to be a tool to usher in real development to the Third World, is the deconstruction of this mainstream, standard textbook economics, as well as the exposition of the power behind its rise to hegemony.

Derrida’s Deconstruction for Development

In the utilisation of the methodology of Derrida’s deconstruction, one does not create a new reality. Rather, one highlights the reality that has been present from the very beginning. In this sense, development studies have to rediscover the contributing factors to development that have been marginalised through the years. Therefore, an essential task for an alternative development economics as a constitutive discipline of development studies is to understand the history of economic development. That is to say, development is to be seen as a process of cumulative causations which are the joint effects of factors excluded by the neo-classical equilibrium metaphors, namely: [i] qualitative difference between economic activities (across and within manufacturing, services, and agriculture); [ii] diversity (the degree of division of labour); [iii] synergies (linkages and clusters between manufacturing, services, and agriculture sectors); [iv] institutions (to safeguard the common good); and [v] novelty (significance of innovation, learning, and science). This will, in turn, discard the mother of all assumptions in neo-classical economics: the assumption of no diversity and no qualitative difference in economic activities; hence the equilibrium metaphor that portrays the market as a mechanism creating automatic harmony.

Using the method of deconstruction this way thus challenges the neo-classical economics’ view on science as ‘a compression of reality’. It does so by focusing on the relevant factors that led to the economic development of rich countries in history. In the end, the theory is to be shaped by reality; instead of the vicious propensity of mainstream economists to shape reality on the terms of neo-classical economics. The foremost interest for theorising would therefore be ‘the economy’ as a real object with people’s lives as its real subject, more than merely the abstracts of ‘economics’.

Foucault’s Power-Knowledge Nexus on the Development Discourse

This deconstruction of the mainstream development paradigm has to be extended to an understanding of the politics behind the emergence of neo-liberal policies, which is patterned after the ideology of mathematics-based neo-classical economics, to be the dominant development paradigm for several decades now. Here, Foucault’s approach to knowledge claims would be very useful to development studies. For Foucault, it is not only the case that knowledge is power; but power is knowledge as well. In particular, knowledge about development is not only a question of epistemology or rationality, but of ‘authority’ to impose one’s will to power.

At least three inter-related, reinforcing factors can be attributed to the project of neo-classical economists and neo-liberals to create the conditions for their hegemony. First, the pro-capitalist political forces in the West during the Cold War found ideological refuge to the factor-price equalisation theorem (which ‘proof’ is based on scientific mathematics) of the most prominent neo-classical economics figure, Paul Samuelson, that under the capitalist system wages in the world will eventually converge in which all wage earners will become rich. This became the West’s ideological counter-offensive against the communists’ promise that everyone will receive according to his/her needs. Second, this has had since led to the essentialism of mathematics in the field of economics in general, and hence reducing the scientific as well as the social-historical into mere quantitative abstractions. Third, the recent emphasis put on ‘social capital’ by the proponents of neo-liberalism aimed at colonising the social sciences. ‘Social capital’ entails non-market responses to market imperfections. It therefore enlarges the circuit of ‘capital’ to include and incorporate in it ‘social’ variables – such as the state, civil society, institutions, and trade unions – that are traditionally outside mainstream economics.

Specificities of Southeast Asian Development: Combined, Yet Uneven

Regional dynamic of contemporary Southeast Asia is, as ever, marked by national differences on levels of economic development, characteristics of political regimes, and diversities of culture. The combined and uneven character of development in the region suggests that there are still pre-capitalist relations coexisting with features of modern capitalism in almost all of the countries. For instance, the persistence of constitutional monarchies in Brunei, Cambodia, and Thailand; of pre-capitalist relations in the states of Malaysia; and of political power rooted in land ownership in the Philippines as well as of conflicts over land. Alongside the universalising tendencies of neo-liberal policies, there exist actually resisting forces in defense of the locale.

Born out of the crisis of the 1970s, a neo-liberal global political economy has evolved, restructuring the impoverished domestic political economies in Southeast Asia which were vulnerable to the constraints and pressures imposed upon by the oil crisis, the internationalisation of financial markets, and the structural adjustment programmes attached as conditionalities to the heavily-indebted Third World. This new configuration of capitalism has dramatically reorganised production through the intensification of new technologies and the introduction of financial innovations.

While development is a universal ideal, the strategies needed to realise it would depend on the specific economic, political, and cultural contexts from society to society within the region in a particular historical moment. Mindful of the historical and social specificities of development strategies, the respective societies then have to collectively define their understanding and their meaning of development. This premise is essential to development studies, if it is to be serious in its social task of ushering in real development to the Third World.

The following section is a sample research project for a particular kind of development studies in Southeast Asia that is founded on the theoretical premises outlined above. It views development as a ‘social relation’, in which the political, economic, and cultural spheres are organically connected in search of social development. As such, it has an inter-disciplinary and a critical approach to the question of development in Southeast Asia. Its ultimate goal is to examine the coherent fit not simply between ‘politics’ and ‘economics’, but especially on the appropriate institutional fit between ‘the polity’ and ‘the economy’ that could potentially uplift the lives of the peoples of developing Southeast Asia.

Progressive Potentials, Regressive Realities: A Critical Political Economy Approach to a Social Innovation System in Southeast Asia

Perhaps a great paradox that lies at the heart of the intensification of technological innovation depicted in the information and communications technology (ICT) revolution as the enduring techno-economic paradigm is that of technology's progressive potentials, on the one hand, and of regressive social realities, on the other. While it can be said that the intensification of the wealth-creating power of technology comes at a time when material inequality in the world is increasing, the apparent phenomenon that of technology becoming a source of perpetuation of this regressive reality is yet another contradiction. The research thus attempts to investigate this conundrum: Why, despite its progressive potentials, technology is resulting in regressive socio-economic realities? And it runs the hypothesis: That the progressive potential of technological innovation is regressively constrained by its dependence on the capitalist, neo-liberal market.

The research explores a ‘critical political economy approach to social innovation system’ that critiques the disembedding of the market from the society, on the one hand, and that attempts to offer an alternative through a progressive project of re-embedding the market forces to the society, on the other. It does so in three inter-related general sections. First, it lays down propositions for ‘a critical political economy approach to social innovation system’. This critical political economy approach improvises from the established national innovation system (NIS) approaches of the Freeman-Lundvall-Nelson persuasion, with emphasis on the developmental needs of the developing countries and the indispensable role of the workers; and the Other Canon reality economics, which is mindful of the intrinsic uneven character of economic development and the need to find alternative, innovative responses relative to specific social situations. Second, it examines the contradictions of the progressive-potential-but-regressive-reality characteristic of today's techno-economic paradigm by juxtaposing the promises of technological innovation vis-à-vis its capitalist market-dependent nature under conditions of neo-liberal globalisation. Finally, an alternative ‘social innovation system’ is being proposed, deriving the alternatives from the very structural contradictions of market-dependence (i.e., the internal logic of the capitalist market competition itself) that constrains the progressive potentials of technological innovation, and not merely out of normative or ethical prescriptions that are devoid of reality. It is exploring the necessary structure conducive for real development, a development as a social relation where ‘the economic’, ‘the political’, ‘the cultural’, ‘the ecological’, ‘the ideational’, and all the other spheres of social life are organically connected to – not separate from – one another. In particular, it is examining the coherent institutional fit and synergy for development among three organically connected spheres in the society: [a] state form, or government structures and systems (the political); [b] economic policies on the relationship among the factors of production (capital, labour, and technology) and the relationship between financial capital and production capital, which will include an investigation of the appropriateness of the stock market as the financial system for innovation and industry (the economic); and [c] system of ideas and values, which will include a critique on and an alternative to the defunct assumptions of neo-classical economics and the outmoded values of neo-liberalism (the cultural). This proposed alternative recognises the fact that the combined and uneven character of development that characterises the geographical landscape of contemporary global political economy would require different innovation strategies and economic policies from society to society in Southeast Asia in pursuit of real development, a qualitative improvement to the lives of the multitude.

The research hopes to immensely contribute to the inescapable link between theory construction and policy advice for real development. In terms of policy, the research will not only reveal the wounds of modernity – the widening social divisions and increasing poverty – that are just sealed, and not healed, amidst the tremendous productive capability of technological innovation; but also the exploration of the necessary synergy among political economic institutions and policies in pursuit of alternative development strategies. And in terms of theory, it hopes to contribute not only to the reconstruction of the theory of uneven development in particular, but to the broader debate, argument, and communication of innovative findings on the fields of political economy, technology governance, development economics, and evolutionary economics in general.

Conclusion

Specific methodologies of post-structuralism such as Derrida’s deconstruction and Foucault’s power-knowledge nexus could contribute a great deal to the essential objective of development studies to understand and critique the outmoded ideas of the dominant neo-classical, neo-liberal development discourse. Much has been written about the pitfalls of post-structuralism. Hence, development studies must be conscious of this, and be guided by the classic reminder of the great Greek theorists: the basic focus must be on ‘that which is lucrative and that which is conducive’. After all, ‘the good is the most accurate measure of all things’.

But a progressive and critical kind of development studies, one that is for changing the intolerable realities of the status quo into a better life for all, must also be responsive to the hegemonising, and even to the reactionary, predisposition of post-structuralism. Critical development studies must dare to enrich and rediscover productive activity that is being displaced by ‘discourse’ as the constitutive practice of social life; the material reconstruction of society that is being replaced by the intellectual deconstruction of texts; the terrain of progressive politics that is not enclosed within the walls of the academy; and historical causality that is purposefully being dissolved in postmodern fragmentation, ‘difference’ and contingency.

REFERENCES

(These are the specific articles read upon which the reflections in this essay are based. These articles are in the ‘List of the Reference Material’ provided for by the Conference Organiser to the the PhD workshop participants.)

General

Buck, D. (1991), ‘Forum on Universalism and Relativism in Asian Studies – Editor’s Introduction’, in Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 50, No. 1, February, pp. 29-34.

Dutton, M. (2002), ‘Lead Us Not into Translation: Notes toward a Theoretical Foundation for Asian studies’, in Nepantla: Views from South, Vol. 3, Issue 3, Duke University Press, pp. 495-537.

So, A.Y. (2003), ‘The Challenge of Globalization to Social Sciences and Area (Asian) Studies’, in Hong Kong Journal of Sociology, No.4, pp. 13-26.

On Southeast Asia

Jackson, P.A. (2003), ‘Space, Theory, and Hegemony: The Dual Crises of Asian Area Studies and Cultural Studies’, in SOJOURN – Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-41.

King, V. (2005), ‘Defining Southeast Asia and the Crisis in Area Studies: Personal Reflections on a Region’, Working Paper No. 13, Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies, Lund University, Sweden.

------------------------------------

* An essay for the ‘Asian Studies at a Turning Point Conference and Ph.D. Workshop’, to be held on 5-9 November 2006 in Turku, Finland. (16 October 2006)

b Bonn Juego (Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tallinn University of Technology (Estonia); and Research Centre on Development and International Relations, Aalborg University (Denmark). Email: bonnjuego@yahoo.com.

Progressive Potentials, Regressive Realities: A Critical Political Economy Approach to Social Innovation System (A Proposal)

[I have been in Europe for almost a couple of months now to participate in the Technology Governance Programme at the Tallinn University of Technology (Estonia). I feel so honoured learning with some of the world's leading scholars who hold some of the most important ideas on development. Thus far, I have been able to attend great lectures of these brilliant minds, namely: Erik S. Reinert (the leading exponent of 'The Other Canon' reality economics); Carlota Perez (the prominent theorist of 'techno-economic paradigm shifts'); and Wolfgang Drechsler (the classical Hermeneutician student of the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer). What a truly worthwhile learning encounters with these lovely personalities indeed! Below is the proposed research I submitted to Prof. Rainer Kattel, director of the programme, on June this year which I would have wanted to work on in the coming months. In my application letter, I indicated that I wished to work on this topic under the supervision of Dr. Erik S. Reinert, an acknowledged expert on technology governance and development strategies. Photos L-R: Bonn Juego, Wolfgang Drechsler, Carlota Perez, Rainer Kattel, Erik Reinert]

Progressive Potentials, Regressive Realities:

A Critical Political Economy Approach to Social Innovation System

BONN JUEGO

Perhaps a great paradox that lies at the heart of the intensification of technological innovation depicted in the ICT revolution as the enduring techno-economic paradigm is that of technology's progressive potentials, on the one hand, and of regressive social realities, on the other. While it can be said that the intensification of the wealth-creating power of technology comes at a time when material inequality in the world is increasing, the apparent phenomenon that of technology becoming a source of perpetuation of this regressive reality is yet another contradiction. The proposed research will thus attempt to investigate this conundrum: Why, despite its progressive potentials, technology is resulting in regressive socio-economic realities? And it will run the hypothesis: That the progressive potential of technological innovation is regressively constrained by its dependence on the capitalist market.

The proposed research will explore a ‘critical political economy approach to social innovation system’ that critiques the disembedding of the market from the society, on the one hand, and that attempts to offer an alternative through a progressive project of re-embedding the market forces to the society, on the other. It will do so in three inter-related general sections. First, it will lay down propositions for ‘a critical political economy approach to social innovation system’. This critical political economy approach is seen to improvise from the established national innovation system (NIS) approaches of the Freeman-Lundvall-Nelson persuasion, with emphasis on the developmental needs of the developing countries and the indispensable role of the workers; and the Other Canon reality economics, which is mindful of the intrinsic uneven character of economic development and the need to find alternative, innovative responses relative to specific situations. Second, it will examine the contradictions of the progressive-potential-but-regressive-reality characteristic of today's techno-economic paradigm by juxtaposing the promises of technological innovation vis-à-vis its capitalist market-dependent nature under conditions of globalisation. Finally, an alternative ‘social innovation system' will be proposed, deriving the alternatives from the very structural contradictions of market-dependence (i.e., the internal logic of the capitalist market competition itself) that constrains the progressive potentials of technological innovation, and not merely out of normative or ethical prescriptions that are devoid of reality. It will explore the necessary structure conducive for real development, a development as a social relation where ‘the economic’, ‘the political’, ‘the cultural’, ‘the ecological’, ‘the ideational’, and all the other spheres of social life are organically connected to – not separate from – one another. In particular, it will examine the coherent institutional fit and synergy for development among three organically connected spheres in the society: [a] state form, or government structures and systems (the political); [b] economic policies on the relationship between financial capital and production capital, which will include an investigation of the appropriateness of the stock market as the financial system for innovation and industry (the economic); and [c ] system of ideas and values, which will include a critique on and an alternative to the defunct assumptions of neo-classical economics and the outmoded values of neo-liberalism (the cultural). This proposed alternative recognises the fact that the combined and uneven character of development that characterises the geographical landscape of contemporary global political economy would require different innovation strategies and economic policies from society to society in the world in pursuit of real development, a qualitative improvement to the lives of all.

The research hopes to immensely contribute to the inescapable link between theory construction and policy advice for real development. In terms of policy, the research will not only reveal the wounds of modernity – the widening social divisions and increasing poverty – that are just sealed, and not healed, amidst the tremendous productive capability of technological innovation; but also the exploration of the necessary synergy among political economic institutions and policies in pursuit of alternative development strategies. And in terms of theory, it hopes to contribute not only to the reconstruction of the theory of uneven development in particular, but to the broader debate, argument, and communication of innovative findings on the fields of political economy, technology governance, development economics, and evolutionary economics in general.