This article seeks to assess the contributions and key characteristics of comparative-historical analysis in the field of Southeast Asian studies. It does so by examining three specific issues that emerge from this methodological genre: the conceptualization of the region of Southeast Asia, the role of theory, and the emphasis on macro structural ontology. These issues are analyzed in three disciplines: political science, history, and anthropology. The article shows that dialogue among comparative-historical researchers is most evident within the disciplines of political science and history. In anthropology, important comparative-historical work has also been produced but it has been less engaged within the comparative-historical canon. In reviewing these three disciplines’ shared analytical concerns as well as contributions to comparative-historical analysis, the article makes an implicit case for greater interdisciplinary engagement across the disciplines.
東南亞與比較-歷史分析：一幅寬廣畫布上的地區、理論及本體論
本文旨在評價東南亞研究領域中比較-歷史分析的貢獻和關鍵特征。為此本文檢視了這個方法學類型中產生的三個具體問題：東南亞地區的概念化、理論的作用以及對宏觀結構本體論的強調。本文分別在政治學、歷史學以及人類學三個學科對這些問題加以分析。本文表明，从事比較-歷史分析的研究者之間的對話在政治學和歷史學科中最為顯著。 人類學也有重要的比較-歷史分析的成果，但其較少在學科內進行比較-歷史分析方面的經典理論性對話。通過檢視評估三個學科分析共享的關注點，以及各學科對比較-歷史分析所作的貢獻，本文也表明這些學科間需要更多跨學科交流與互動。
Translated from English by Li Guo
Erik Martinez Kuhonta