Zomia (geography)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about geographical and cultural use of the name Zomia. For genus of moth in the family Geometridae, see Zomia.
 Zonia Map
A map of Zomia.

Zomia is a geographical term coined in 2002 by historian Willem van Schendel[1] of the University of Amsterdam[2] to refer to the huge mass of mainland Southeast Asia that has historically been beyond the control of governments based in the population centers of the lowlands.[3]

Etymology[edit]

The name is from Zomi, a term for highlander common to several related Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in the India-Bangladesh-Burma border area.[4]

Geography[edit]

The exact boundaries of Zomia differ among scholars:[5] all would include the highlands of north Indochina (north Vietnam and all Laos,) Thailand, the Shan Hills of northern Burma, and the mountains of Southwest China; others extend the region as far west as Tibet, North India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. These areas share a common elevated, rugged terrain, and have been the home of ethnic minorities that have preserved their local cultures by residing far from state control and influence. Other scholars have used the term to discuss the similar ways that Southeast Asian governments have handled minority groups.[6]

Zomia covers more than 2.5 million square kilometers known as the Southeast Asian Massif and comprises nearly one hundred million marginal peoples. This large area is inside the fringe of eight states and the entirety of one, stretching across the standard regional designations (South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia). Along with its ecological diversity and its relation to states, it arouses a lot of interest. It stands for an original entity of study, a type of international Appalachia, and a different way in which to study regions.

James C. Scott[edit]

Professor James C. Scott of Yale University used the concept of Zomia in his 2009 book The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia to argue that the continuity of the ethnic cultures living there provides a counter-narrative to the traditional story about modernity: namely, that once people are exposed to the conveniences of modern technology and the modern state, they will assimilate. Rather, the tribes in Zomia are conscious refugees from modernity itself, choosing to live in more primitive, locally-based economies. From the Preface:

“[Hill tribes] seen from the valley kingdoms as “our living ancestors,” “what we were like before we discovered wet-rice cultivation, Buddhism, and civilization” [are on the contrary] best understood as runaway, fugitive, maroon communities who have, over the course of two millennia, been fleeing the oppressions of state-making projects in the valleys — slavery, conscription, taxes, corvée labor, epidemics, and warfare.”

Scott goes on to add that Zomia is the biggest remaining area of Earth whose inhabitants have not been completely absorbed by nation-states, although that time is coming to an end. Though Zomia is exceptionally diverse linguistically, the languages spoken in the hills are distinct from those spoken in the plains. Kinship structures, at least formally, also distinguish the hills from the lowlands. Hill societies do produce “a surplus”, but they do not use that surplus to support kings and monks. Distinction of status and wealth abound in the hills, as in the valleys. The difference is that in the valleys they tend to be enduring, while in the hills they are both unstable and geographically confined.[7]

Differing perspectives[edit]

Jean Michaud, explains the many dilemmas that arise from the language used to address the group of people residing in Zomia in his Historical Dictionary of the Peoples of the Southeast Asian Massif.[8] The people of Zomia are often referred to as “national minority groups,” and Michaud argues that contention arises with each of these words. In regards to the word “national,” Michaud claims that the peoples of the Southeast Asian Massif are in fact transnational, as many groups span over several countries. According to Michaud, “minority” is not the legitimate way to label the group either, since the populations are so vast. Michaud even claims that the word “group” is problematic because of its connotation with community and “social cohesion” that not all groups share.[9][10]

In 2010, the Journal of Global History published a special issue, "Zomia and Beyond",[11] in this issue, contemporary historians of Southeast Asian history respond to Scott’s arguments. For example, although Southeast Asian expert Victor Lieberman[12] agrees that the highland people crafted their own social worlds in response to the political and natural environments that they encountered, he also finds Scott’s documentation to be very weak, especially its lack of Burmese-language sources, saying that not only does this undermine several of Scott’s key arguments, but it brings some of his other theories about Zomia into question.

Furthermore, Lieberman argues that Scott is overestimating the importance of manpower as a determinant in military success. While the bulk of Scott’s argument lies on the efforts of lowland states to dominate the highlands, Lieberman shows the importance of maritime commerce as an equally contributing factor.

Lieberman also says that examples not included in Scott’s analysis need to be taken into consideration. Scott firmly believes that the culture shaped as a defensive mechanism, as a reaction to surrounding political and social environments. Lieberman, however, argues that the highland peoples of Borneo/Kalimantan had virtually the same cultural characteristics as the Zomians, such as the proliferation of local languages and swidden cultivation, which were all developed without a lowland predatory state.[13]

More recently, Scott’s claims have been questioned by Tom Brass (2012), ‘Scott’s “Zomia,” or a Populist Post-modern History of Nowhere’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42:1, 123-33. Brass maintains that it is incorrect to characterize upland Southeast Asia as ‘state-repelling’ ‘zones of refuge/asylum’ to which people voluntarily migrate. This is, he argues, an idealization consistent with the ‘new’ populist postmodernism, but not supported by ethnographic evidence. The latter suggests that populations neither choose to migrate to upland areas (but go because they are forced off valley land), nor – once there – are they beyond the reach of the lowland State. Consequently, they are anything but empowered and safe in such contexts.

See also[edit]

General:

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Prof. dr Willem van Schendel". Profile : Selected publications since 2000. International Institute of Social History. Retrieved November 28, 2010. 
  2. ^ van Schendel, W. (2005). "Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: Jumping scale in Southeast Asia." In Kratoska, P., Raben, R., & Nordholt, H. (Eds). Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics of Space. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
  3. ^ van Schendel, W. (2005). "Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: Jumping scale in Southeast Asia." In Kratoska, P., Raben, R., & Nordholt, H. (Eds). Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics of Space. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
  4. ^ Scott, James C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale Agrarian Studies. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. pp. 14–16. ISBN 978-0-300-15228-9. "Notes to pages 5 – 14: Other explicit proponents of a systematic view from the periphery include Michaud, Turbulent Times and Enduring Peoples, especially the Introduction by Michaud and John McKinnon, 1–25, and Hjorleifur Jonsson, Mien Relations: Mountain Peoples, Ethnography, and State Control (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005). F. K. L. Chit Hlaing [F. K. Lehman], “Some Remarks upon Ethnicity Theory and Southeast Asia, with Special Reference to the Kayah and Kachin,” in Exploring Ethnic Diversity in Burma, ed. Mikael Gravers (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2007), 107–22, esp. 109–10." 
  5. ^ Michaud 2010
  6. ^ Michaud, J. (2009, February). "Handling Mountain Minorities in China, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos: From History to Current Concerns." Asian Ethnicity 10: 25–49.
  7. ^ In addition, he maintains that many traits that are viewed in mainstream cultures as "primitive" or "backward" and used to denigrate hill peoples are actually adaptations to avoid state incorporation, such as lack of a written language, shifting messianic religious movements, or nomadism. Their presence is absent from most histories, since, as Scott puts it, "it is the peasants' job to stay out of the archives." Nonetheless, in reality he sees the relationship between upland and lowland peoples as reciprocal, since upland peoples are essential as a source of trade. Scott, James C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale Agrarian Studies. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. pp. 14–16. ISBN 978-0-300-15228-9. "Notes to pages 5 – 14: Other explicit proponents of a systematic view from the periphery include Michaud, Turbulent Times and Enduring Peoples, especially the Introduction by Michaud and John McKinnon, 1–25, and Hjorleifur Jonsson, Mien Relations: Mountain Peoples, Ethnography, and State Control (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005). F. K. L. Chit Hlaing [F. K. Lehman], “Some Remarks upon Ethnicity Theory and Southeast Asia, with Special Reference to the Kayah and Kachin,” in Exploring Ethnic Diversity in Burma, ed. Mikael Gravers (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2007), 107–22, esp. 109–10." 
  8. ^ "Jean Michaud, Ph. D., Anthropologist". Université Laval, Québec, Canada. Retrieved September 22, 2011. "Jean Michaud is a social anthropologist and specialises since 1988 on issues of social change among highland populations of Asia." 
  9. ^ Michaud, Jean (April 2006). "Introduction". Historical Dictionary of the Peoples of the Southeast Asian Massif. Historical Dictionaries of Peoples and Cultures #4. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-8108-5466-6. Retrieved September 8, 2011. "For this dictionary, a compromise solution has been adopted, which was to accept official national ethnonyms but correct mistakes whenever possible and cross-reference to alternative names. Close to 200 ethnonyms thus have their own entries, which is the largest number the relatively humble format of this series allows." 
  10. ^ Michaud, Jean (2010). "Editorial – Zomia and beyond*" (PDF). Journal of Global History 5, London School of Economics and Political Science. Université Laval. pp. 187–214. doi:10.1017/S1740022810000057. Retrieved September 8, 2011. "This editorial develops two themes. First, it discusses how historical and anthropological approaches can relate to each other, in the field of the highland margins of Asia and beyond. Second, it explores how we might further our understandings of the uplands of Asia by applying different terms such as ‘Haute-Asie’, the ‘Southeast Asian Massif’, the ‘Hindu Kush–Himalayan region’, the ‘Himalayan Massif’, and in particular ‘Zomia’, a neologism gaining popularity with the publication of James C. Scott’s latest book...." 
  11. ^ Editors: William Gervase Clarence-Smith, Jean Michaud (2010). "Journal of Global History" 5 (2). Cambridge Journals Online. ISSN 1740-0228. Retrieved September 7, 2011. "Published for London School of Economics and Political Science" 
  12. ^ "Victor B. Lieberman". Marvin B. Becker Collegiate Professor of Southeast Asia, pre-modern Burma, early modern world history. University of Michigan. Retrieved September 7, 2011. 
  13. ^ Little, Daniel; Michael E. Smith, et al. (October 18, 2010). "Zomia reconsidered" (blogspot). web-based monograph. UnderstandingSociety. p. 1. Retrieved September 7, 2011. "[Lieberman's] most recent volumes, Strange Parallels: Volume 1, Integration on the Mainland: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830 (v. 1) and Strange Parallels: Volume 2, Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830, are directly relevant to Scott's analysis." 

External links[edit]