As social science and humanities scholars from more than 20 Asia-Pacific countries gathered in Bangkok recently to consider their shifting roles and responsibilities in the region, one thing was clear: Asia today needs social critique more than ever before, and not just as an act of resistance. But resistance against what? And to what purpose?
Accelerating development
The Asia-Pacific region is characterized by a remarkable pace of rapid development. According to the World Economic Forum, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is the world's fifth largest economy and is expected to become the fourth largest by 2030. ASEAN's poverty rate has dropped significantly over the past two decades, from 47% to 14%. Complementing this trend, urbanization in the Asia-Pacific region is proceeding at an astonishing rate, with more than 2.3 billion people, or 54% of the world's urban population, now living in Asia's major cities. This figure is staggering: over the next 25 years, or around 2050, Asia's metropolitan areas will be home to 3.5 billion people, accounting for 60% of the world's urban population. The accelerating pace of urban development goes hand in hand with the growth of an increasingly young population, with the Asia-Pacific region currently home to 60% of the world's young people, or 750 million people between the ages of 15 and 24.
While such figures are generally a sign of economic development, rapid urbanization and industrialization are exposing an estimated four billion people in Asia and the Pacific – around 92 percent of the region's population – to levels of air pollution that pose significant health risks.
Other less visible but equally noteworthy sociological challenges implied by these rapid material and economic changes are related to the shift in people's social norms and aspirations. The tension between individual expectations and less rapid social and cultural norms can have significant sociological and political consequences. Indeed, accelerated economic growth raises concerns and urgency about how governments address income redistribution and pursue social justice, how they manage the exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation, and how they allow civic spaces to express themselves and accommodate different opinions. All this suggests that new models of governance, accountability and civic dialogue are urgently needed.
The challenges arising from the dichotomy between development and preservation (cultural heritage, values, ways of life, etc.) complicate many aspects of policymaking. In this context, new critical perspectives offered by social sciences and humanities should at least act as a constructive resistance to the calls for “quick fix” solutions that have become all too common. Policymakers should not be trapped by a two-dimensional development narrative that inevitably leads to rapid but inequitable economic growth, nor by an equally common and narrow-minded ideology that prescribes a homogenous identity for a community of nations. Thus, nation-building that respects ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity now requires a nuanced and sensitive response across the Asia-Pacific region, and it is time for regional governments to pay attention.
Has history disappeared?
The Asia-Pacific region is extremely diverse, with intertwined histories and cultures that go back centuries. Asia is home to two-thirds of the world's indigenous peoples, numbering around 260 million, and boasting 2,000 different civilizations and languages. Yet many societies in the region have long told a linear narrative that erases large parts of human history. Instead of highlighting and celebrating common cultures, heritage, and history, as recognized, for example, in the long cultural continuum that connects Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand, divisive nationalistic discourses have been weaponized and amplified by digital platforms and social media. These narratives are also reflected in national education programs and curricula in the region, where UNESCO reveals “narratives of ethno-cultural essentialism and ever-present foreign 'threat.'” Border policies (many of which are inherited from a relatively recent history of colonization) and increasing competition in the global marketplace have somehow managed to erase the collective memory of cultural commonalities.
So what kind of future can we expect if we don’t step back and make an effort to understand what different peoples in our communities intimately share, or what they share well beyond momentary changes or crises? Can we reasonably expect societies and governments to address such fundamental questions without being equipped with the tools and methodologies that the social sciences and humanities have refined and honed over centuries? As the saying goes, a well-defined problem is a problem half solved. Social scientists and humanities scholars, as social critics, can help us formulate and understand such complex questions.
Globally, the current level of national budgets dedicated to social sciences and humanities research is well below the average of 0.05% of national budgets. Experts unanimously agree that it is crucial to change the prevailing narratives, assumptions and matrices used to evaluate and fund social sciences and humanities research, but they also know that without clear government choice and support, a strong scientific research ecosystem cannot be sustained. In this regard, UNESCO advocates for the implementation of its Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers as a framework to enable countries to harness the power of scientific freedom for individual and collective empowerment.
automation
As many aspects of modern life become automated around the world, scientific inquiry becomes all the more important. While digital transformation is widely used, proven effective, and has undoubtedly improved our daily lives and general communication around the world, “techno-solutionism” has created a tendency to reduce complex problems to simple criteria and assume that they can be solved by applying the right technology. Are we naive enough to think that there is an “app” for every challenge we face in society?
In an age of AI and rapid digital transformation, French philosopher Bernard Stiegler wrote in his 2020 book Bifurquer, “devices create loops between our bodies, our brains, and platform servers, partially isolating us from the external environment, stifling our mental openness, and allowing us to bypass and shortcut our conscience through the intensive computation of algorithms.” Could there be a more alarming thought today?
From a social science and humanities perspective, a central question is to define the place and functional role that ethics, values, and human deliberation/decision should continue to play in an increasingly automated world. Is social science and humanities research an act of resistance? In times of rapid change, such research can also be an act of envisioning the future of Asia Pacific. Freedom is not about doing whatever we want, but constantly reflecting on all the possible options before us.
