‘South Asia’: Construction and Deconstruction of Spaces and Institutions. Part II

Q3 Arts and Humanities Vostok (Oriens) Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.31857/s086919080025759-1
Irina P. Glushkova
{"title":"‘South Asia’: Construction and Deconstruction of Spaces and Institutions. Part II","authors":"Irina P. Glushkova","doi":"10.31857/s086919080025759-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The term ‘South Asia’ in its present meaning was coined in the late 1940s following a reinterpretation of previous approaches to the study of the (ancient) Orient, which had proved to be ill-suited under the conditions of the Second World War. The concept was created by an American Indologist W. Norman Brown (1892–1975) who defined almost the entire territory of British India as such and founded the Department of South Asia Regional Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. The consequence of this innovation was the institutionalization – along with traditional Sanskrit – of the modern socio-political spectrum of disciplines essential for the comprehensive understanding of the region where the languages studied are spoken. As the new idea spread beyond the borders of the United States, and changes continued in the geopolitical structure of the decolonized space, ‘South Asia’ as a concept in the educational strategy and post–war world order began to be replaced by ‘South Asia’ as a construct composed of new states and further reinforced by the formation of many new institutions, first of all SAARC. However, unlike Southeast Asia, the construction of which was also facilitated by external actors during the Second World War, ‘South Asia’ has failed to become a distinct region with its own identity, and its nomenclature is maintained for functional convenience while the search for its unifying factors in various spheres keeps going. The example of the latter is the idea of ‘Southasia’ (in one word), coined in Nepal and currently promoted from Sri Lanka.","PeriodicalId":39193,"journal":{"name":"Vostok (Oriens)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vostok (Oriens)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s086919080025759-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The term ‘South Asia’ in its present meaning was coined in the late 1940s following a reinterpretation of previous approaches to the study of the (ancient) Orient, which had proved to be ill-suited under the conditions of the Second World War. The concept was created by an American Indologist W. Norman Brown (1892–1975) who defined almost the entire territory of British India as such and founded the Department of South Asia Regional Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. The consequence of this innovation was the institutionalization – along with traditional Sanskrit – of the modern socio-political spectrum of disciplines essential for the comprehensive understanding of the region where the languages studied are spoken. As the new idea spread beyond the borders of the United States, and changes continued in the geopolitical structure of the decolonized space, ‘South Asia’ as a concept in the educational strategy and post–war world order began to be replaced by ‘South Asia’ as a construct composed of new states and further reinforced by the formation of many new institutions, first of all SAARC. However, unlike Southeast Asia, the construction of which was also facilitated by external actors during the Second World War, ‘South Asia’ has failed to become a distinct region with its own identity, and its nomenclature is maintained for functional convenience while the search for its unifying factors in various spheres keeps going. The example of the latter is the idea of ‘Southasia’ (in one word), coined in Nepal and currently promoted from Sri Lanka.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“南亚”:空间与制度的建构与解构。第二部分
目前意义上的“南亚”一词是在20世纪40年代末创造出来的,当时人们重新解释了以前研究(古代)东方的方法,这些方法在第二次世界大战的条件下被证明是不合适的。这一概念是由美国印度学家W. Norman Brown(1892-1975)提出的,他将英属印度的几乎整个领土都定义为这样,并在宾夕法尼亚大学建立了南亚区域研究系。这一创新的结果是将现代社会政治领域的学科与传统梵语一起制度化,这对于全面了解所研究语言的使用地区至关重要。随着这种新思想传播到美国之外,以及非殖民化空间地缘政治结构的持续变化,“南亚”作为教育战略和战后世界秩序中的一个概念开始被“南亚”所取代,作为一个由新国家组成的结构,并因许多新机构的形成而进一步加强,首先是南盟。然而,与东南亚不同的是,“南亚”在第二次世界大战期间也受到了外部行动者的推动,它未能成为一个具有自己身份的独特地区,它的命名是为了功能上的方便,而在各个领域寻找其统一因素的努力仍在继续。后者的例子是“南亚”(一个词)的概念,在尼泊尔创造,目前从斯里兰卡推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Vostok (Oriens)
Vostok (Oriens) Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The Democratic Republic of the Congo: the Rise of Islamic Radicalism At the Origins of European Oriental Studies: an Unknown Letter by Benjamin Schultze to Georg Jacob Kehr The Problem of the Eu's Defense Identity: the Peacekeeping Experience in Africa Overseas ports of China: evolution, geography, investment structure. Stylistics of Amaravati and Poetics of “Lalitavistara”: Comparative Analysis of Visual and Textual Narrative
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1