Frederik Holst

In the context of group (identity) formation processes, the linkages or references to an ‘original’ idea , a ‘pure’ origin etc. are a key factor to create an ideological framework that the group’s members can relate and subscribe to. Clearly, most people strive to be and ‘original’ and not a ‘copy’ – or at least to have as close links as possible to the ‘original’. This is applicable to a variety of groups, from retro fashion to religious movements. Authenticity as a measurement for compliance or closeness with the perceived original (or the lack thereof) is thus created through the degree of acting in accordance with the standards set out to be original or genuine. While authenticity is actually a binary unit (something is authentic or not authentic, as much as something is true or false), the process of establishing authenticity is a much more fluid one: For one because it is mostly impossible to determine the actual root or origin of an idea, a practice or a school of thought and therefore a certain (often significant) level of ambiguity remains. In addition to that, the reference points of what is original or genuine change over time. Thus, what is referred to as original does not actually have to be the original, it can be merely the point of reference that most people in a certain context agree to be ‘the original’. The perception of something deemed authentic is therefore dependent on how it is sustained, for example in public discourse or vis-à-vis other groups with differing interpretations of authenticity. In this paper, I argue that the various elements that constitute authenticity hold a certain ‘currency’ – some add significant value to one’s (self-)perception of being authentic, others do so only to a lesser degree. Some come at a bargain, just waiting to be incorporated, while others can be acquired only at great expenses. Religiosity (here understood as: the degree of incorporation of religious practices into one’s life) is a suitable example to demonstrate all these aspects in establishing authenticity: Other group members can ‘measure’ the level of compliance with what is set to be the genuine belief, while at the same time numerous interpretations compete against each other for what constitutes a genuine – i.e. authentic – belief system within a certain religious denomination. Religiosity thus becomes a currency in establishing authenticity, with some religious practices or affiliations offering more economical ways to accumulate authenticity than others. I will demonstrate this in the context of Malaysia, where in recent years increasing debates about what constitutes ‘genuine’ Islam, deviancy and apostasy have dominated large segments of public discourse. In addition to contextualizing these debates in a larger context as ethnicization of religion, I shall explain their appeal as reference points of authenticity as well as the accompanying ambiguities and resulting difficulties in dismantling these more and more ossified frameworks of authenticity.

Can race and ethnicity be sound and valid analytical categories in the first place, especially in a contemporary academic context? Are they sufficiently coherent that they can be applied in every possible context, or do they rather only make sense when looking at the ‘other’? And are there ways and means to describe the phenomena that we encounter in fundamentally different ways, rather than just replacing one shaky term with another?
In this article I want to address these questions from a trans-disciplinary area studies perspective.  Modern area studies, which go beyond merely studying a nation-state environment, are helpful in overcoming eurocentric approaches, which are often still very much engrained in the ‘classical’ disciplines. Taking inspiration from disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and discourse analysis, and adjusting and testing them outside a predominantly white, ‘Western’ environment may produce better results not only when looking at the area of the ‘other’, but also one’s own area, ‘at home’.
One of the outcomes of this direction is an alternative approach, in terms of concept as well as terminology, to the phenomena we often describe along the lines of race and ethnicity: the layered concept of ethnicization as a processual framework of analysis. In order to provide a new perspective, such an approach must go beyond classical counter-arguments with regard to race and ethnicity, with the bottom line that everything related to these is constructed. It must take into account the power that notions of race and ethnicity have in real life, but at the same time avoid reinforcing notions of homogeneity, and instead underline the processual aspect of group and identity formation. This may not be an easy task, and might challenge accustomed and convenient categories often used when analyzing group dynamics and relations. But in the end it is a worthwhile endeavor that opens up more differentiated views of the underlying issues at stake, which are all too easily overlooked when focusing on the rather static categories of race and ethnicity.

"This book is the first monograph to provide an in-depth and multifaceted study of the processes of ethnicization and identity construction in Malaysia, from the colonial period until the present. In his analysis, the author takes multiple layers of ethnicization into account and shows how these have shaped Malaysia’s socio-political system and society in different ways. Moving beyond a center-focused, top-down-oriented perception of identity politics, this work highlights on the one hand the role and position of a multitude of actors - from grassroots level to mainstream politics - who contribute to the persistence of ethnicization in Malaysia in numerous ways. On the other hand, it also shows where and under which circumstances possibilities for transethnic cooperation arise.

A multi-disciplinary approach, substantiated by empirical data based on qualitative and quantitative methodologies, provides a perspective that moves beyond stereotypical narrations of Malaysia as being constituted by mainly three separate, homogenous groups. At the same time, this book gives a detailed and comprehensive account of political and historical developments and constitutes a rich resource for any Malaysia-related research.

While the focus of this publication lies on Malaysia, the concept of manifestations and implementations of ethnicization provides an analytical framework that can also be applied in the study of ethnicization and identity construction elsewhere in the region and beyond."

The attached review is an electronic version of a book review that was published in Asian Ethnicity © 2013 Copyright; Taylor & Francis. Permission kindly granted by Taylor & Francis, any other form of reproduction or redistribution requires permission. Asian Ethnicity is available online at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14631369.2012.745748

Malaysia is an often cited example of a semi-authoritarian regime in which the Internet is seen as an important tool to counter a government-controlled media hegemony. The election results in 2008 in particular have been accredited with mobilizing voters through the use of online media and are seen as a challenge to Malaysia’s ethnic-based political system. In this
article, however, it is argued that ethnicization, as one of the fundamentals of this system, is more complex and resistant and that, thus, simply having access to different kinds of information does not necessarily change ethnicized perceptions. Using the theoretical framework of manifestations and implementations of ethnicization, this paper aims to identify the ambiguities
and contradictions that result from the impact of the online media in an ethnicized society, and demonstrates that the ‘online’ world eventually reflects ‘offline’ structures of power, wealth and knowledge.

Ever since the Internet became a widespread medium of mass communication in the 1990s, its influence on democratic development has been a central issue. New and relatively unrestricted ways to access and disseminate information were and still are seen as a means of undermining control mechanisms in authoritarian societies. More than a decade later, and in the light of the so-called ‘Facebook revolution' in the Arab world, the authors in this volume seek to approach the impact of the Internet from different perspectives, beyond over-optimistic expectations of change in democratic practices. The focus hereby lies on Southeast Asia, with its unique variants of (semi-)authoritarian regimes, and includes often neglected aspects such as the reactions of authoritarian regimes towards these new challenges, the inter-connectedness of the ‘online' and the ‘offline' worlds, as well as the disparate development and usage of IT infrastructure in the region.

Ausblick, kein Rückblick Sindy Herrmann und Frederik Holst Festschriften haben leicht den Charakter einer Retrospektive: Kollegen stellen zu Ehren der For-schungsleistung des/der Gewürdigten Beiträge zu einem Schwerpunktthema zusammen und setzen da-mit vielleicht keinen ...

An important function of area studies is the combination of a trans-disciplinary approach with a perspective from the inside as well as from the outside. Merely applying and transferring the theories and methodologies from one’s own academic-cultural context to another carries the danger of seeing only the things that fit. Socio-cultural “blind spots” – against which no researcher is immune  – may only become visible when normative notions of one’s own background are being questioned and challenged. While doing research on sensitive subjects in far distant societies may be feasible, the real challenge lies in re-applying these findings to one’s own environment. Doing so will provide meaningful and more structural-focused results than looking at the case studies in their own, distant and disconnected domain.
This case study looks at the ethnicization of religious identities in Malaysia and Germany, focusing on the construction of Muslims as an ethnicized group rather than a socio-cultural religious identity. While the connotations of what it means to be Muslim could hardly be any more different in Malaysia and Germany, the structural processes that sustain these processes of ethnicization show significant parallels, through legal, political or discursive means. Nevertheless, realizing these similarities is often obstructed by one’s own socio-cultural barriers. Through the re-application of findings both “in the field” and “at home”, an area studies perspective helps to shed at least some light on otherwise rather blind spots.

Processes of ethnicization, defined by Eder et al. as such processes "through which objective conditions of economic or political grievances become the basis of political claims justified by reference to a collective identity" (2002: 17), are a key element of Malaysia's political and societal systems: Ethnic-based parties have for long dominated the political agenda and continue to do so until today, but at the same time, the construction and stabilization of ethnicized groups and their contestations have been advanced by various actors and from various directions. Maintaining these processes has been crucial for the ethnic-based political elites in order to sustain their positions.

Until the 1980s, ethnicized categories of "Malay", "Chinese", "Indians" or "Others" have been structurally defining Malaysia's society, especially in terms of political and economic participation. Parties which offered themselves as representatives of ethnicized group interests have dominated government policies since independence. This resulted in an environment where political contestations were framed first and foremost as confrontations between ethnicized groups which were seen as distinct from each other, but each characterized by uniform and homogenous interests. The assumed confrontation between the interests of ethnicized Malays on the one side and the remaining part of the population on the other side has played a major role in this context.

In recent years, however, and especially since 1998, shifts have occurred in these processes of identitization: With an increasing political diversification within the ethnicized groups, the stability of ethnicized party boundaries has become shaky. The elections of 1998 and 2008 have shown that large portions of the electorate no longer see ethnicized group interests as the main point of reference. By drawing from a broader spectrum of political demands, spaces for new alliances beyond ethnicized group boundaries have opened up.

However, in conjunction with this challenge to the established political system, developments can be identified where the dichotomy "Malay" vs. "Non-Malay" has been extended or shifted respectively to one of "Muslims" vs. "Non-Muslims" and a more and more frequent interchangeable use of "Malay" and "Muslim" and vice versa.

The established (semi-)authoritarian system would be a major beneficiary of such a process because the existing – especially ideological – structures would remain intact if the identity category "Muslim" would be construed as homogenous and static as the category "Malay". For the major ethnic-based political actors, such a development would be essential for their political survival, as in the aftermath of the 2008 elections, ethnic-based parties have already shown signs of disintegration due to their lack of coherence in a quickly changing political environment.

This paper analyzes the genesis, the respective actors and the discursive development of this new direction of ethnicization and identicization in Malaysia. Especially the entanglements and cross-references between ethnic- and religious-based identity ascriptions which are pushed forward by various actors (parties and state-religious institutions but also civil society groups) are focal points of this analysis.

Eder, Klaus, et al. (2002): "Collective Identities in Action – A Sociological Approach", Ashgate, Aldershot.

In this paper, I want to take a closer look at the impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and argue that these technologies are as much carriers of meaning and ideologies as the content they relay, especially in regard of an often underestimated impact on postcolonial societies.

The analysis of a supposed neutrality of ICT is problematic as it actually refers to two aspects which are often used interchangeably: Semantically, it only refers to the technology that is used to transmit information and communication. Yet as ICT has enabled new flows of communication in the last twenty years, it is no longer just the impact of the technology, i.e. the means and modes of transmission, that is analyzed, but it is also the impact of the content, i.e. the actual information and communication being transmitted, that becomes a focus of attention. Therefore, it generally does not lead to raising eyebrows if research on the impact of ICT (or, equally ambiguous, “the internet”) solely deals with the impact of the contents transmitted via ICT.

Whether technology or content is at the center of attention often seems to depend on the disciplinary background of each individual scholar, and it can be assumed that disciplines leaning towards the sciences, for example some segments of media and communication studies, are more likely to focus on the technology whereas in the humanities such as cultural studies, area studies or postcolonial studies where culture, literature and language are points of reference, the impact of the content seems to play a more important role. The underlying risk is that the aspect of ICT which is not part of the analysis remains underestimated, thus becomes ‘neutral’ through negligence. This underlines the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach to encounter ICT beyond mere lip service.

Challenging the notion of a supposed neutrality of ICT, this paper stresses that ICT symbolize and reinforce positions of power, status and situatedness. To address these issues in marginalized societies and communities, a postcolonial perspective shall be taken into account in order to emphasize the specific characteristics of the impact of ICT in these environments. While there do exist models like the path dependence theory that is applied in a number of disciplines such as social sciences, history or economy (see for example Arthur (Arthur 1994) or Mahoney (2000)) which explain the prevalence of some (technological) developments over others, there is still only limited consideration for the specific impact on postcolonial societies. Postcolonial approaches cover a wide range of contexts and applications, but a common theme often overlooked in other disciplinary approaches is questioning power structures, especially in relation to the center and the periphery, as well as which forms of emancipation can emerge from this (Franzki and Aikins 2010: 14). An approach limited for example to the combination of media and communication studies as well as area studies may risk underestimating or even ignoring the said power structures. However, it is imperative to keep in mind that the ‘online’ world eventually reflects ‘offline’ structures of power, wealth and knowledge. Thus, a postcolonial perspective embedded in a trans-disciplinary framework will help to locate “contemporary phenomena in need of new modes of analysis and requiring new critiques” (Anderson 2002: 643). This combination shall therefore be applied in this paper to highlight intersections of and impacts on knowledge flows, technological developments and cultural perception of the self and others in regions and areas that have experienced marginalization. In practical terms, the question of adjusting technology – and not just content – to local demands and settings is of importance and shall be looked with a focus on the impact on language and script. While postcolonial literature has advanced the breaking of binary dichotomies and has shown that both the colonized and the colonizers are affected in the process, the focus of this chapter shall lie on the impact of ICT on marginalized societies in the Global South. For one, this has been a neglected field of research, especially in regard to the technology transfers and the underlying technological blueprints. In addition to that, while there are notable influences in the development of ICT that originate among others from former colonies, such as India for example, the balance of power in this respect is far from equal as shall be shown in this paper.

Analyzing ethnicization – the process of infusing and intertwining economic or political contestations with ethnicized collective identities – is often focused on the outcome of this complex process rather than the process itself. In Malaysia and other ethnicized societies, a perspective of instrumentalization has led to an engagement with politics at or near the centers of political power where actors are seen as having target-oriented motivations while pursuing ethnicized divide-and-rule policies. This bias towards the center not only over-emphasizes the powers-that-be and underestimates the apparently easily manipulable society, but also assumes a cause-and-effect chain of events characterized by more or less clear intentions and measurable outcomes.

In this paper, I argue that two perspectives, layers so to speak, need to be looked at more closely in order to explore ethnicization in a more holistic way: The manifestations and implementations of ethnicization. The former looks at the various fields in which ethnicity has become a – sometimes subliminal – core pillar of a societal sub-system, whereas the latter examines the circumstances and practical executions of ethnicized policies that carry a certain intention, often to secure positions of power. These two layers are related to each other, as manifestations are providing the foundation for implementations, and implementations can themselves result in further manifestations in this process. At the same time, differences and even contradictions might occur if, for example, long-term manifestations of ethnicization run counter to implementations of short-term ethnicized political agendas.

In the Malaysian context – and hopefully beyond – this helps to explain on one hand the centrality of ethnicized policies and their implementations as stabilizing factors in societies characterized by ethnicization. On the other hand, manifestations of ethnicization go far beyond the sphere of mainstream politics and have an impact on larger sections of society. As a result, changing or removing ethnicized regimes or power-centers – through the ballot box or otherwise – is unlikely to effectuate substantial changes within an ethnicized society. Accompanied by examples from the Malaysian scenario, I argue that the whole discourse around de-ethnicizing political and societal systems needs a significant shift in perspective away from a focus on a ‘core of all evil’ that instrumentalizes ethnicized contestations and simply needs to be removed in order to free society from ethnicization, towards a more critical approach that extends the scope of analysis on the various direct and indirect beneficiaries of manifestations and implementations of ethnicization.

The Internet has played a substantial role in transforming Malaysia since the implementation of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC). Primarily developed to spur economic growth and provide a basis fo a knowledge-based economy, the possibilities and uses extended into the realm of politics. Since the Reformasi years in 1998/99 the relatively uncensored access to and dissemination of information has changed the political landscape significantly, contributing partly to the watershed elections of March 2008.
However, the changes are happening on a multitude of layers: Technology gets adopted, but communication patterns remain. Discourses extend beyond the realm of so called 'liberal-western' values and ideas. Discussion culture changes through Web 2.0 and forums of the blacked-out and marginalized appear.
This paper takes a closer look at these impacts and examines the layers of the Malaysian media system which are affected in this process of adaptation and transformation.

Analyzing concepts of ethnie and ethnicity, in Malaysia and beyond, is often reduced to an engagement with politics that focuses more on the outcome of the complex process referred to as ethnicization, rather than the process itself. In this paper, I argue that two perspectives, layers so to speak, need to be looked at more closely in order to explore ethnicization in a more holistic way: the manifestations and the implementation of ethnicization. The former looks at the various fields in which ethnicity has become a core pillar of a societal sub-system, whereas the latter looks at the way ethnicization is put into practice. Looking at ethnic perspectives often leads to a focus on various perceivably ethnic balances of power within the political system or society. However, shifting the focus to ethnicized manifestations provides for an analysis of who benefits – intentionally or unintentionally – from imbalances and inequalities based upon, loaded with or framed around ethnic identity.
A further shift of perspective is needed in order to examine the implementations of ethnicized policies to see these not merely as a convenient divide and rule approach. The analysis should rather focus on the centrality of these policies as stabilizing factors of the current system, especially in constantly reviving the raison-d’être of the ethnicity-centered Barisan Nasional.
Instead of focusing on what kinds of policies are actually pursued and the reactions to them, I argue that the implementation and impact of these policies, how they are pursued and on which layers they show manifestations, deserves greater attention. In this paper, I discuss three case-studies, namely the role of migrant workers as the ‘outside other’, the impact of ethnicization on university students, and the possibility of transethnic cooperation among social activist groups. Through these cases, I analyze manifestations and implementations of ethnicization in Malaysian society.
As language and religion form significant parts of a person’s identity, I argue that they constitute central layers in the process of ethnicization. These layers become important when questions of identity form crucial areas of contestations – especially in connection with social position in society. As these kind of contestations not only occur in the sphere of ethnicized politics, but in larger sections of society, the whole discourse around de-ethnicizing Malayisa’s political and societal systems needs a similarly substantial shift in perspective.

Malaysia’s ruling political elites legitimize their position in an ethnicised political system as the negotiators of different ‘ethnic’ demands. Seeing themselves as representatives of ‘Malay’, ‘Chinese’ and ‘Indian’ interests while at the same time rhetorically aiming for a united Malaysian nation, the need to create ‘others’ arises in two ways: On one hand, constant highlighting of differences between the communities is necessary for the elites to remain in a position of reasonable negotiators who can prevent ethnic conflict. On the other hand, especially after ruling Malaysia in this constellation for more than 50 years, some level of unity needs to be ‘felt’ as common interest of all communities. ‘Outsiders’ constitute a convenient backdrop against which intra-Malaysian unity can be demonstrated. Although a corner-stone in Malaysia’s economic success, migrant workers have become the pawn in the hand of the political elites in recent years who use them for their own political gains: Campaigns were launched against ‘illegals’ that have led to massive expulsions and severe laws have been passed to show the power of the state. The mainstream media, controlled directly or indirectly by the government, have played their part in creating an image of the dangerous, violent, job-snatching or disease-carrying migrant who poses a threat for Malaysians as a whole. By calling subtly or directly for joint action against this ‘menace’, the creation of the migrant ‘other’ helps to sustain a feeling of common interest that is otherwise not highlighted as it may run counter to the interests of the ruling political elite.
This paper tries to analyze the way in which the mainstream media are being used by the government to create images and sentiments of migrant workers as well as looking at how these campaigns have been carried out and in which way the discourse around migrants and migrant workers has developed.

Malaysia’s social system is perceived to be deeply entrenched alongside ethnic boundaries, despite official concepts of “Bangsa Malaysia” or advertisement-campaigns like “Malaysia – Truly Asia”. Discourses and conflicts, especially in party politics, are often polarized and exploited along these lines that transgressing them seems like an insurmountable task. The ruling multi-ethnic coalition sees itself as the sole guarantor for peace and stability by maintaining a balance between the interests of the different ethnic groups through elite negotiations, thus delegitimizing other forms of interethnic cooperation.
This research project tries to analyze the possibilities of challenging this dominant perception on two levels. On a macro level, structural elements in politics and society are examined that weaken or prevent closer interethnic ties, whereas on a micro level, an empirical analysis covering qualitative interviews with local grassroots-NGOs and a quantitative survey of university students tries to evaluate the chances and obstacles towards transethnic solidarity in sections of society that usually fall under the radar.

Vorliegender Artikel ist der zweite Teil zum Thema "Internet-Ressourcen in Malaysia". Teil eins erschien in ASIEN ([April 2000] 75, S. 100-103) und hat sich ausführlich mit dem politischen System Malaysias sowie mit Quellen zur wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung des Landes beschaftigt.

... 1 I am grateful for comments by Christoph Haug, Sumit Mandal, Antje Mißbach, Saskia Schäfer and Nadja-Christina Schneider. Although not all of them may agree with my analysis in this article completely, their feedback has helped me significantly to approach this topic. ...