Boundaries, Asian, European, & Religious

Thongchai Winichakul's book, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation (1997), has become something of a classic in Tha and Southeast Asia studies. In brief, Tongchai (we always refer to people by their first name in Thailand) examines the ways in which traditional Thai concepts of national space were transformed by European colonialism. Thailand (or Siam, then) was the only nation in Southeast Asia to escape direct colonization, but by 1900 it had British or French colonies on its borders in all four directions.

Here's the thing: before the Europeans showed up, Southeast Asian nations had very loose, ill-defined boundaries. At the center, there was one central power, but as one travelled outward that power slowly diminished and was increasingly shared by rulers of the outer provinces—then shared even more with the princes of the tributary states. Eventually one travelled out of one nation's power sphere and entered, gradually, that of another nation—again going through tributary states, outer provinces and inner provinces until one reached the center of power. These spheres of power waxed and waned, grew and diminished. The far tributary states were often tributary to two powers at once.

By European standards all of this was a chaotic mess. When the British conquered Burma, thus, they wanted to know exactly and precisely what they had conquered. Down to the foot and inch. And they went to great trouble to survey "the" border between Burma and Siam. The Thai political leadership had to learn this European concept of boundaries and space in order to survive it—and they did.

Now, my point: all of this has a great deal to do with the liberal-conservative split in contemporary American Christianity.  When it comes to people of other faiths and religions, progressive Christians usually feel more comfortable with the traditional Southeast Asian view of boundaries. They will "borrow" Buddhist meditation, find meaning in Islamic theology, and happily integrate the latest scientific findings into their faith and theology.  Conservative Christians more often than not feel more comfortable with the European conception of boundaries when it comes to religion.  There is a desire to designate clearly what is "Christian" and what is not.  Where nationality is hard to determine in the older view, in the one imported by the Europeans everyone had a nationality that could be clearly determined.  In the same way, evangelical Christians usually care a great deal about who is saved (i.e. lives in the territory of Christ) and who is not.

It would be fascinating to know why we have these differences.

P.S.  There must be something about October.  Just a year ago, I posted another posting that draws on Tongchai's, Siam Mapped (here).