Seminar: Regionalwissenschaftliche Debatten Author: Matthias London

Lecturer: Prof. Dr. phil. Vincent Houben E-Mail: London.mat1@gmail.com

Semester: WiSe 18/19 Enrolment number: 596146

Summary#1
van Schendel (2002) – Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping
Scale in Southeast Asia

In his publication Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale

in Southeast Asia the Dutch researcher van Schendel (2002) elaborates on the nature of the
academic discipline area studies and, taking South East Asia as an example, illustrates the
discipline’s various achievements, challenges, and shortcomings since the end of the Second
World War. More precisely, he examines how areas have been conceptualized and imagined
up until today and how the accumulation of knowledge about these certain areas corresponds
to their predetermined and static spatial segmentation. From the perspective of the Asian region
Zomia, van Schendel (2002) argues that utilizing the ‘geographical metaphor’ (p. 290) as a
basis to draw boundaries between the various areas, is a rather problematic one, since it leads
to a dichotomy of academically more relevant ‘geographies of knowing’ (p. 290) and peripheral
areas of lower interest, namely ‘geographies of ignorance’ (p. 290). He further points out the
counterproductive consequences of this circumstance for the academic world and concludes
with a set of implications to alter the area studies’ approach to spatial segmentation with the
aim of facilitating its effective creation of knowledge and contribution to science.
In the process of constantly questioning existing spatial distributions and creating new
ones, it is critical for the area studies to consider imagining and visualizing areas in either way
or the other. A common way is the use of spatial metaphors to map out geographical and
cultural areas and to thus clearly distinguish one area from another with the help of well-defined
borders. According to van Schendel (2002) the understanding of space is threefold: An area
can be a physical space, a space that can be pointed out by natural geographical boundaries
such as rivers or mountains; a symbolic space, a ‘site of theoretical production’ (p. 278) which
gives new insights to various questions related to social theory and the resulting spatial
differentiation; or an institutional space, a space which creates highly-qualified labor through
universities research institutes and centers of policymaking. Nevertheless, this theoretical
setting of boundaries is not flawless in its translation into the materialistic world, as it is
impossible to draw precise and timeless boundaries between regions. Moreover, the intellectual
1
focus on some specific areas appeared to be more favorable to a researcher’s security to remain
employed in an increasingly competitive labor market than conducting research on other areas.
Some regions would thus inevitably become what van Schendel (2002) calls ‘victims
of cartographic surgery’ (p.281), they would be rendered ‘areas of no concern’ (p.280), or
‘geographies of ignorance’ (p. 290), which he illustrates with the help of the Asian region
Zomia. This conclusion results from a critical revision of the globe’s academic spatial division
after World War II, a division which is equally valid in the 21st-century world, as it is open to
doubt. Firstly, it was executed from the US American- and European perspective and therefore
exclusively focused on Global South regions as ‘areas’, leading to the emergence of a
community of area specialists which was, harshly speaking, characterized by the exclusion of
peers in academic discourse who were specializing in other regions than one’s own. Secondly,
at a time so immediately after the initiation of ongoing independence processes of former
colonies, the drawing of borders was certainly guided by the spatial determination as given by
the imperialistic setting of national borders. Finally, these areas were understood as completely
internally homogenous entities that are constant over time. In other words, there was a ‘scalar
fix’ (p.291) which slowed down both the area studies’ production of knowledge and its
scientific progress.
In a quest to confront these developments, van Schendel (2002) suggests various
readjustments on the area studies’ approaches on the production of knowledge. Firstly, he
advocates for a rearrangement of the scalar configurations underlying the area studies’
approach to spatial segmentation. They should be altered from ‘trait geographies’ (p. 290), the
theory of geographical scale as described above, to ‘process geographies’ (p. 290), which
would still include the visualization of areas according to specific criteria, but which would
treat them as arbitrary entities that are subject to constant change, as opposed to fixed and
constant. This shift in perspective is necessary, as through ongoing processes of globalization
(e.g. free flow of capital, free flow of people, free flow of ideas, internet, etc.) regions are
unavoidably undergoing constant change. Secondly, and within this framework, scholars
should more actively focus on the periphery, as it can give valuable insights surrounding
concerns faced by researchers concentrating on a region’s heartland. Finally, van Schendel
(2002) sees a need for intensified cross-regional collaborations and intellectual exchanges
between researchers and institutions, which he calls ‘jumping scales’ (p.291). In this respect,
it is necessary not only to seek out collaborations between the west and the rest of the world
but to equally facilitate south-south collaborations. In considering these implications, the area

2
studies will eventually gradually progress by developing new concepts of regional space and
in this way facilitate the meaningful production of high-quality knowledge.

References

van Schendel, W. (2002). Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping

Scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(6),

647–668.