Navigating language in Southeast Asian Studies in Latin America

What language should one use when producing Southeast Asian Studies as a scholar based in Latin America? While the question might appear to have a straightforward answer—Spanish—I have continued to reflect on this matter since the ARI roundtable on Latin American scholarship on Southeast Asia held in early 2023, where the choice of language came up as a key matter. Far from an idle rumination, the language of production actually has a serious impact on the careers of scholars of Southeast Asia based in Latin America (SSEABLAs). Publishing in Spanish might lead to a smaller readership audience and marginalise the work from broader discussions taking place in the far wider circles of Anglophone Southeast Asian Studies. However, publishing in English could entrench the paucity of Spanish-language materials on Southeast Asia. The quandary appears to be between the isolation of the scholar or the underdevelopment of the field in Latin America.

How can this dilemma be resolved? My current inclination is to propose a two-track solution, whereby SSEABLAs do not need to select one or the other but they could develop two publishing tracks in their careers instead: one in English, not only to engage with Anglophone scholars of the Global North, but also to communicate with scholars from Southeast Asia; and another in Spanish, to build the foundations and develop the epistemological basis of a vibrant branch of Southeast Asian Studies in another region of the Global South.

The state of SEA studies in Latin America

Asian Studies has a long history in the Hispanophone world, featuring notable names such as José León Herrera for South Asia, Felipe Pardinas for China, or Antonio Cabezas for Japan, as well as a very robust history for the study of the Islamic world. Hispanophone scholars in these fields can look forward to productive careers where they can engage with a vibrant community of peers and students. Southeast Asian Studies, however, is a far more recent pursuit. While Pablo Neruda and Miguel Covarrubias wrote about their experiences during their sojourns in Southeast Asia in the first half of the twentieth century,[1] scholarly and systematic study of Southeast Asia really only took root in Latin America in the 1990s, when El Colegio de México first included it within the scope of its Asian and African Studies program. As such, the size of the community of scholars devoted to the region is still minuscule compared to other more established fields.

This youthfulness is reflected in the extant corpus of texts. While there is a sizeable number of Spanish-language texts for the average Latin American undergraduate student to dive into the histories and cultures of East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East, there is nothing yet comparable for Southeast Asia. There is no broad, modern Spanish-language history textbook for Southeast Asia as a whole. The closest might be John Villiers' Asia Sudoriental: Antes de La Época Colonial, but even then, it is limited to the precolonial period. Even when looking at individual countries, only the Philippines has made the cut. In a region where English-language proficiency is very low, this represents an insurmountable barrier for young scholars when they are defining their areas of study.

Naturally, this should point SSEABLAs towards publishing introductory texts in Spanish. Someone needs to fill the role of an Anthony Reid for Southeast Asia, a David Chandler for Cambodia, a M.C. Ricklefs for Indonesia, or a Christopher Goscha for Vietnam—an attractive, if daunting, prospect. Broad, readable (besides being affordable and locally available) Spanish-language textbooks would make the region accessible to a larger corps of university instructors and students. Supplemented by articles coming out of journals such as Estudios de Asia y África (Mexico) and Asia/América Latina (Argentina) as course readings, solid undergraduate courses on Southeast Asia could take shape, leading to an increase in Latin American students studying in the region with the potential that they might become Southeast Asia specialists of the future.

To Spanish or to English?

Does this mean that Spanish is to be the language of introductory texts, while English is that of original research? Not necessarily. While the diminutive size of the scholarly audience for original research on Southeast Asia published in Spanish might appear unpromising at first glance—especially considering that one’s career may hinge on the impact of one’s scholarship—there is further complexity to consider. As one weighs what the best venue for a piece of scholarship might be (an area studies journal or a disciplinary one, for instance), SSEABLAs must also ponder what language is the most appropriate for a text. Especially when one is trying to shape Southeast Asian Studies from a Latin American perspective, the natural language of communication would be Spanish. These intellectual primers on the significance of the field of Southeast Asian Studies for Latin America or its configuration from a Latin American perspective means that SSEABLAs would have to wrestle with the raison d’être of Southeast Asian Studies in an academic milieu characterised by a hyper-focus on the national or Latin America, where the study of the “foreign”, in typical Eurocentric fashion, often only extends as far as the Oder. They would also have to deconstruct local articulations of Orientalism in its inflection towards Southeast Asia. Perhaps being free from the “original sin” of being born from colonial or Cold War interests in the region, Southeast Asian Studies from Latin America can emerge as an alternative non-instrumentalised scholarship. Indeed, the doctorate programme in Asian and African Studies at El Colegio de Mexico is already contemplating seminars exploring this positionality.

In other cases, publishing in English might make the most sense. This may be the case when trying to impact current debates in the Anglophone academe and draw their awareness to advances in the Hispanophone world. However, this begs the question whether SSEABLAs who publish in English are simply submitting to Anglophone supremacy imposed from the Global North. Although this might appear to be the case, there is another region to consider—Southeast Asia. Except for some scholars of the Philippines, proficiency in Spanish is not high among the priorities of Southeast Asian scholars,[2] especially considering the current paucity of Spanish texts dealing with the region.[3] If these scholars are to engage with what SSEABLAs produce, it would necessarily have to be through English—unless SSEABLAs were to publish in Southeast Asian vernaculars. which, with some exceptions (see Bayona, 2018; 2019; Cabrera, 2020), is not part of the discussion. The language shared between Southeast Asia specialists in both regions will thus continue to be English, at least for the medium-term. Of course, the rise of AI translating software might open up possibilities of a “post-language” future, in which scholarship in any language may become accessible to anyone. This, however, merits a separate discussion. In this manner, publishing original research in English is not simply a submission to the Global North, it also constitutes an act of bridge-building with Southeast Asia.

The promising position of SSEABLAs

SSEABLAs are in a complex position in Southeast Asian Studies. Located amidst a “two-front war of language”, they need to carefully parse the language of their next publication, something that Anglophone scholars rarely need to do. SSEABLAs are also forced to negotiate a positionality between being full-fledged participants in the global and well-established Southeast Asian Studies networks while also building up the field in their home regions. Despite the challenges, taking such a position holds the promise of further enriching Southeast Asian Studies with perspectives and questions, and one that should excite us.

Endnotes:

[1] It must be noted, however, that Covarrubias’ book was written in English and published in New York.

[2] The irony is that Southeast Asians who do learn Spanish are directed towards Spain or Latin America rather than Southeast Asia.

[3] One wonders how many scholars of Southeast Asia learn Japanese or German specifically to access scholarly texts about Southeast Asia in those languages—which are, in all likelihood, far greater in number than those in Spanish.

The views expressed in this forum are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, or the institutions to which the authors are attached.