The Study Features of the Southeast Asian Countries at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Abstract

A brief analysis of the general trends in Southeast Asian studies carried out by the authors of the article showed that during the Soviet era, for a long time, this region was studied in two practically unrelated aspects. The first one was closed and subordinate to the tasks of the world revolution, and the second one was opened, devoted mainly to history of the countries of Southeast Asia and certain aspects of the anti-colonial struggle. It was only in the 1950s that the formation of the Southeast Asian school of studies began, but this process was complicated by the need to withstand work in the spirit of the “general line” of the party and government. A new, one might say “golden period” on the region study began after 1991 in modern Russia. The opening of archives, the expansion of communication opportunities and the removal of ideological barriers, as well as the highest qualifications of the majority of domestic scientists made it possible to bring the research of Southeast Asia to a new level. At the same time, an important motivational component, the connection between science and power, was almost completely lost. In the ruling structures, interest in scientific research through academic institutions was largely lost in favor of “strategic centers” close to the authorities, which began to perform expert functions. Scientists began to receive beggarly salaries, many under pressure of circumstances were forced to leave the country or even leave science. However, it was during these difficult years that scientists were able to prepare and publish world-class works, which for a long time will be the main reference points for all those who study the history, politics, economy and culture of the Southeast Asian countries. The authors did not set themselves the goal of presenting a complete bibliography of publications on Southeast Asia and the South Pacific region, do not claim to fully cover the entire problem, they can be subjective in their assessments, referring only to key works that characterize, in their opinion, the main periods and main directions studies of the countries of the region.