Organizer, Chair and Discussant: Maitrii Aung-Thwin, National University of Singapore

In the past 120 years, the idea of Burma (Myanmar) has come to be known, produced, and understood through a variety of intellectual and popular perspectives that often reveal particular and often contested perceptions of the Burmese past, present, and future. These multiple images of Burma reflect the presence of what literary critic Stanley Fish has coined "interpretive communities," in reference to groups of "readers" who share distinctive modes of interpreting and writing while simultaneously producing a text’s meaning. This theory might be usefully applied to Burma Studies, where a variety of communities--- scholars, colonial administrators, missionaries, politicians, artists, journalists, students, ethnic groups, and activists---have each conceptualized the idea of Burma (the text) through their particular experiences, education, and interests marking their affinity towards each other and their own distinctive strategies of interpreting. Thus, it is towards uncovering these particular sources, influences, and contexts that produced these images and meanings of Burma---not the varying interpretations themselves---that will be the focus of this panel’s presentations and discussion. Collectively, the papers will consider Fish’s ideas as a possible approach to structuring Burma’s intellectual history via its community of scholars. With each member of the field representing different disciplinary, generational, and research agendas within Burma Studies (history, linguistics/anthropology, religion, and political-economy), the presenters will examine how the idea of Burma/Myanmar has been constructed from their varied, yet intersecting perspectives---noting the analytical approaches, institutional affiliations, historical settings, or enduring paradigms that helped shape these "communities."

F. K. Lehman, University of Illinois

There will be two, interrelated foci for this paper: On the one hand, I shall be concerned to show how the development of the anthropology of Burma is connected, with the development of anthropology as a scholarly discipline; this will include the way aspects of the anthropology of Burma have affected the discipline as a whole. On the other hand, I shall be concerned with the ‘contrapuntal’ relations between anthropological studies of the minority peoples and anthropological studies of the Burman majority society and culture. In this respect I shall take into consideration the ‘political’ considerations by fellow panelists such as Robert Taylor and Michael Aung-Thwin. Similarly, I must consider relations between anthropology, history, Buddhology and related fields in the development of Burma Studies. I shall do all this from the perspective of my own work in the anthropology, history, Buddhology and linguistics of Burmans, Chin, Shan, Kayah and Kachin, in Burma, Thailand, India and China, over a period of half a century. Certain scholars will figure prominently in this overview, such as Leach, regarding the Kachin (with remarks upon the colonialist project) and Spiro on Burman religion and social organization. Finally, I shall pay attention to the placement of Burma scholarship in the larger context of the study of South-East Asia, and connections with Indology and Sinology.

Michael Aung-Thwin, University of Hawaii

The image of Burma’s history as one of irreconcilable, perpetual ethnic conflict is a nineteenth century colonial construct, in part created by its officials to be commensurate with its desired political consequences: namely, divide and rule. Since scholarship, like trade, also followed the flag, colonial scholars, who were more often than not its officials as well, reconstructed Burma’s early, pre-colonial, and post-colonial history to fit that image. Subsequently passed on to its protégés, it became the overriding framework of analysis for the interpretation and writing of all histories of Burma published in English. They, in turn, became the basis for the current epistemology of the country. Yet, as this perspective is largely artificial, it is neither recognized by any of its non-English speaking inhabitants nor does the primary evidence support it. Nevertheless, it has become the authoritative, conventional "understanding" of the country's history. My paper will show that the century-old image created by this "community of interpretation" simply cannot stand the scrutiny of the primary evidence.

Juliane Schober, Arizona State University

This paper examines shifts in approaches and parameters in the study of Burmese Buddhism in consonance with scholarly objectives and the interests of their audiences. The pre-colonial accounts of Father Sangermano and Bishop Bigandet are among the earliest European missionaries to describe Burmese Buddhist practices and typically frame their subjects with moral, religious and racial judgments. Under colonialism, the study of Burmese Buddhism was subject to the curatorial intentions of colonial elites. For instance, the Pali Text Society strove to define the pristine origins of the Buddha’s teaching and to classify canonical texts. Taw Thein Ko and Gordon Luce similarly worked to categorize and classify the archeological records of Burmese religion. The period between the world wars saw the appropriation of modern categories by Burmese elites who sought to redefine themselves in terms of a modern Burmese and Buddhist identity. The Burmese state since independence has been plagued by a perpetual constitutional crisis that strengthened the role of Buddhism in public life. Scholars examined these modernist trends from an "objective" distance, welcoming what they described as rationalized religion within a modern state. Studies on Burmese religious practices since the early 1980s (by Patrick Pranke, Juliane Schober, Gustaaf Houtman, Jake Carbine and Guillaume Rozenberg) have moved away from the modernist, national premise to focus on regional and local Buddhist communities. As younger scholars contribute to the project of interpreting Burmese Buddhist practice, their work will differentiate and nuance the diversity of religious traditions in Burma yet to be fully explored.

R. H. Taylor, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore

From British colonial historians who sought to explain the behaviour of Konbaung kings through to the contemporary scholars who attempt to decipher the relationship between "the peoples" and the military government, the political studies construction of "Burma/Myanmar" has been through a glass darkly. Developing with nationalism, and seeing political studies as more than explaining the institutions and ideas of kings; growing as a separate discipline combining history, economics, anthropology and law, initially from the pen of J. S. Furnivall, the political studies interpretation of Burma/Myanmar has recently been seen through the lenses of comparative politics and "modernisation" and "political culture" theories. Being a field of study with few long term participants, not only has "Burma/Myanmar" been the proverbial elephant and handful of blind men, but also as an arena of adaptation from other disciplines and comparative studies in the absence of opportunities to conduct en situ research. The authoritarian nature and political sensitivities of Burma/Myanmar have also shaped how the country has been studied as have international political rivalries. In generational terms, after Furnivall, it was Hugh Tinker, Frank Trager, Josef Silverstein and David Steinberg who shaped our understanding of Burma in the 1950s through the 1970s; my offering in 1987 was enhanced by earlier researchers; the 1990s and beyond have been enriched by new constructions of Burma/Myanmar, both enlivened and distracted by the debate over "democracy".