When social and human sciences scholars from over 20 Asia-Pacific countries recently gathered in Bangkok to review their evolving roles and responsibilities in the region, one thing was unmistakable: Social criticism is needed in Asia today more than ever, not least of all as an act of resistance. But resistance to what? And to what purpose?
Acceleration of Development
The Asia-Pacific is characterized by a singularly rapid pace of development. According to the World Economic Forum, the economy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is the fifth largest in the world, and on track to become the fourth by 2030. ASEAN’s poverty rate has notably fallen over the last two decades, from 47 percent to 14 percent. Complementing such trends, urbanization in the greater Asia-Pacific has been remarkably rapid: more than 2.3 billion people – 54 percent of the world’s urban population – now inhabit Asia’s major cities. The numbers are staggering: over the next quarter century, or roughly by 2050, Asia’s metropolitan areas will be home to 3.5 billion people, representing 60 percent of the world’s urban population. The acceleration of urban development is proceeding in conjunction with the growth of an increasingly youthful population, with the Asia-Pacific now hosting 60 percent of the world’s youth, or 750 million people aged 15-24.
While such figures generally bode well for economic development, rapid urbanization and industrialization also mean that an estimated 4 billion people in Asia-Pacific – roughly 92 percent of the region’s population – are exposed to levels of air pollution that now pose a significant risk to their health.
Other less tangible, yet equally notable sociological challenges implied by such rapid material and economic shifts relate to changes in social norms and aspirations among the people. Tensions between individual expectations and less rapidly evolving social and cultural norms can have significant sociological and political ramifications. Indeed, the acceleration of economic growth raises concerns and exigencies about how governments address income redistribution and pursue social justice; manage natural resource exploitation and environmental degradation; and allow the civic space to express itself and accommodate divergent opinions. All of these suggest a pressing need for new models of governance, accountability, and civic dialogue.
The conundrum that is posed by twin poles of development and preservation (e.g., of cultural heritage, value systems, and ways of life) complicates many aspects of policymaking. In such circumstances, new critical perspectives offered by the social and human sciences should function, at the very least, as constructive forces of resistance to the all-too-common calls for “quick-fix” solutions. Policymakers should not lock themselves into two-dimensional developmental narratives inevitably geared towards rapid but inequitable economic growth, no less into those equally common, narrow ideologies prescribing that national communities build homogenous identities. Nation-building with respect to ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity thus currently calls for responses of nuance and subtlety throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and it is time that regional governments pay attention.
Obliterated Histories?
The Asia-Pacific is an extremely diverse region, one with intricate histories and cultures that have been interpenetrating for centuries. Asia is home to two-thirds of the world’s indigenous peoples – approximately 260 million people representing 2,000 distinct civilizations and languages. Yet, in many of the region’s societies, long-advocated linear narratives have often been based on an obliteration of large parts of human history. Instead of underscoring and celebrating shared cultures, heritage, and histories – as is to be recognized, for instance, in a long cultural continuum linking Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand – divisive nationalist discourses are being weaponized and, in turn, amplified by digital platforms and social media. Such narratives are even reflected in national education programs and curricula in the region, such as where UNESCO has uncovered “an ethno-cultural essentialism and a narrative of ever-present foreign ‘threats’.” National borders politics – many inherited in part from a rather recent history of colonization – as well as growing competition in the world market have somehow succeeded in obliterating collective memories of cultural commonness.
What kind of future may we then hope for if we fail to recover and try to understand what the various peoples of the region share intimately, or well beyond conjunctural changes or temporary crises? Can we reasonably expect societies and governments to address such fundamental issues without equipping themselves with tools and methodologies that the social and human sciences have refined and sharpened over centuries? As the saying goes, a problem well-defined is a problem half-solved: social and human scientists, as social critics, can serve to formulate and understand such complex problems.
Globally, the current levels of national budgets dedicated to research in social and human sciences stand far below 0.05 percent on average of the national budget. Although specialists unanimously agree that it is vitally important to change the familiar narratives, assumptions, and matrixes used to evaluate and fund social and human sciences research, we also know that no robust scientific research ecosystem can be sustained without clearly articulated choice and support by governments. In this regard, UNESCO advocates for the implementation of its “Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers” as a framework that should allow countries to harness the power of scientific freedom for individual and collective empowerment.
Automation
Scientific inquiry is even more vital in the face of the automation of many aspects of contemporary life the world over. While digital transformation – where it is widely accessed and proving effective – has incontestably improved our everyday lives and common communications around the globe, “tech solutionism” has created a bias towards thinking that complex issues may be reduced to simple metrics and solved by applying an appropriate technology. Are we naive enough to think that there could be an “app” for every challenge encountered in society?
In the era of AI and rapid digital transformation, the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler has noted in his 2020 book, “Bifurquer,” “The devices create a loop between our body and brain, and the platform servers, thus cutting us partially from the external environment, so that the opening of the minds is compressed, and our conscience by-passed and short-cut by the intensive calculations of the algorithms.” Is there a more alarming thought today than that one?
From a perspective provided by the social and human sciences, a central question is to define the position and the functional role that ethics, values, and human deliberation/determination should continue to play in our increasingly automated world. Research in the social and human sciences as an act of resistance? In such swiftly changing times, such research might be as much an act of envisioning: of a future for Asia-Pacific where freedom is not about doing whatever we wish, but about never failing to reflect on the full range of possible options ahead of us.