Asia is the largest continent, landmass-wise and population-wise, in the world (Hsu, “Week 2 Lecture Slides”, slide 5). In efforts to understand more about the cultures and peoples, labels and borders were created to separate Asia into different subregions (i.e. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, etc.), grouping together countries that share similar characteristics such as experiences (i.e. industrialization, influences, history, etc.), physical land attributes (i.e. climate, great water sources, mountains, etc.), and general location (geography). While defining the vast continent of Asia into smaller subregions is helpful in simplifying one’s understanding of Asia, this simplification has the unintended consequence of narrowing one’s scope to focus on diversity of Asia by the general subregions more than on the diversity of the peoples and cultures. In fact, even the major landmass of China, just one country in all of Asia, is considered a “realm of many realms” and cannot be classified so easily due its size and diversity (Holcombe 4). The defining of “subregions” provide generalizations of countries which are valid to an extent; however, similarities and differences between countries in Asia exist even beyond these socially-constructed borders.
The documentary, Deep in the Tropical Forest, is a great example for how defining subregions can be both beneficial and limiting when understanding the cultures and peoples. It discusses the use and importance of the Mekong River by the peoples living in close proximity to the area. The narrator of the film explains that the river has had a major impact on growth of crops and the peoples’ cultures in “this part of Southeast Asia” and states that the Mekong River is the “soul of Southeast Asia” (Deep in the Tropical Forest). In context, “Southeast Asia” generally includes: “Philippines, Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, [and] Burma (Myanmar)” (Hsu, “Week 2 Lecture Slides”, slide 17). Some of the places in the documentary did not fit into this general grouping such as Tibet and China; however, the peoples of Tibet and China that live in close proximity to the river lived similar lifestyles to those of Laos and Thailand. For example, the Tibetans had established temples near the river to hold spiritual ceremonies which is synonymous to how the people in Laos would hold rituals of celebration in the forests nourished by the river to ask for protection for their village (Deep in the Tropical Forest). The Dai people of China that lived along the river had lived in the forest and off its natural resources (for food and for income) like the people in Laos and Thailand (Deep in the Tropical Forest). Looking at the similarities, using the definition of “Southeast Asia” is beneficial as one can draw parallels between Thailand and Laos and their relationships to nature; however, it can also be limiting as people in China and Tibet have been just as impacted by the Mekong region’s biodiversity and share similar lifestyles with Thailand and Laos. Stating the Mekong River as the “soul of Southeast Asia” undermines the wider spread impact of the river’s natural resources to peoples and cultures outside of this arbitrarily defined region. The convergence between these countries may have been a byproduct of shared geographical forms, climate, and natural phenomena that in turn, shape their lifestyles, identities and cultures with shared characteristics.
Another interesting case that explains the benefits and limitations of classifying Asia into subregions would be Vietnam and its relations to East and Southeast Asia. Vietnam can be considered, as coined by John Furnival, as an “ethnically pluralistic country” where there are multiple cultures and peoples represented under one defined community/country (Winzeler 68). While some may argue that John Furnival’s definition of “plural society” simplifies the classification of the relationships between other groups in a country, it’s limiting but beneficial to an extent. It does not take into account the ethnic indigenous minority groups and their contribution to the diversity of a community, but it’s helpful in that it recognizes that diversity exists within a single country/community and may bring about interesting juxtapositions for discussion, relative to his definition or not, such as Vietnam and its fluid subregional classification.
Vietnam often gets placed in the country make-up of either East or Southeast Asia which correlates to which regions of Vietnam represent the country in each context. The East Asian definition comes from Chinese imperialization in the northern regions of Vietnam, making it one of the southern parts of the Chinese empire until 10th century A.D. (Hsu “Week 3 Lecture Notes”, slide 21). Because of China’s contact with the northern part of Vietnam, there have been a lot of instances of inter-play and cultural transmission between the two regions. During the thousand years under the Chinese empire, “many dimensions of Vietnamese religion and culture…became Sinitic”, and even after Vietnam gained independence post-WWII, they did not reject the Chinese culture and brought it with them (Winzeler 10). Additionally, indigenous groups from China had migrated southward into other countries including Vietnam which brought more cultural transmission and contact between the two regions (Winzeler 10). Because a factor taken into consideration while grouping countries into subregions was shared practices and language, Vietnam fits the label of “East Asia”. However, this is only taking into account one region within Vietnam that did make contact with Chinese culture and customs.
There are southern parts of Vietnam that have never made contact with China and thus represent a culture with different values and influences from its northern counterpart (Hsu “Week 3 Lecture Notes”, slide 21). For instance, countries in “Southeast Asia” can usually see equality in a relationship between wife and husband with variances (matrilineal and patrilineal) depending on the country and region (Winzeler 14). In East Asia, the relationship between man and woman is generally considered patrilineal, especially with influences from Confucianism or tradition. This idea of patrilineality is prevalent in the northern parts of Vietnam that made contact with and received cultural transmissions from China, making the classification of Vietnam as part of “East Asia” valid. However, this can be contrasted with peoples in the southern parts of Vietnam in the Central Highlands who are more matrilineal, like some other countries in Southeast Asia (Hays). Another one of the influences in south Vietnam are the migratory peoples from Burma, Indonesia, and Polynesia that have settled in the mountainous Central Highlands area of southern Vietnam where their languages have been used by and represented through the indigenous ethnic minority group, the Degar (Hays). This ideology on social relationships and presence of cultural transmission from migrants from countries in Southeast Asia demonstrates the different cultural influence experienced by the southern regions of Vietnam and contributes to the subregional definition of Vietnam being a part of “Southeast Asia”. Looking at the culturally transmitted and adopted dynamics of Vietnam, it brings about issues, divergencies, and contradictions when putting it under the umbrella of a subregion. Neither definition completely covers Vietnam and its political borders in its entirety, thus adopting either definition will inevitably limit the perception and understanding of Vietnam and its diversified cultural identities and influences.
Overall, classifying Asia into subregions can be helpful in the beginning stages of understanding some of the general cultures and identities of the continent through shared characteristics. However, upon more indepth research and understanding, using a set subregion as an umbrella term for all the countries in a specified area of Asia can limit one’s understanding to the diversity of cultures and peoples represented as there are similarities beyond and differences within these socially-constructed boundaries. It can further complicate and not fully cover the representation of identity with countries that have experienced exposure or lack thereof to influences in different parts of the country. In conclusion, culture and influence has the ability to transcend political and social boundaries, so while one can get a general and simple understanding of some of the different cultures in Asia by dividing it into subregions, these identifications will not completely and accurately communicate the “ethnic complexity” of the peoples and cultures of the countries in Asia (Winzeler 67).
Works Cited
Deep In The Tropical Forest. Film Ideas, 2013. Kanopy. Web. 6 Mar. 2019.
Hays, Jeffrey. “Montagnards in Vietnam.” Facts and Details, Facts and Details, 2008, factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Vietnam/sub5_9d/entry-3395.html#chapter-8.
Holcombe, Charles. The Genesis of East Asia 221 B.C. – A.D. 907. Univ. of Hawaii Press, 2001.
Hsu, Minna. “Week 2 Lecture Slides.” People and Cultures of Asia, 6 Feb. 2019, Whittier College. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
Hsu, Minna. “Week 3 Lecture Slides.” People and Cultures of Asia, 6 Feb. 2019, Whittier College. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
Winzeler, Robert L. The Peoples of Southeast Asia Today: Ethnography, Ethnology, and Change in a Complex Region. AltaMira, 2011.
