English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Inspired by the concept of ‘archipelagic Islam’ and the recent academic call for archipelagic thinking, this article proposes the term ‘archipelagic Chineseness’ to analyze various discourses and practices of Chineseness that take into account diverse national and local contexts, without disregarding various transnational connections. However, different from the proponents of ‘archipelagic Islam’ who promote an ideal type of Islamic identity in Indonesia, I use ‘archipelagic Chineseness’ mainly not to prescribe a kind of ideal Chinese identity, but instead to explore and theorize multiple ways of being or not being Chinese in Indonesia, Malaysia, and beyond. The concept points to the possibility of being Chinese in a way that is neither totally subscribed to China’s growing influence, nor completely assimilated due to the demand of some nationalists. By examining the trends of Chinese-style mosques and Chinese Muslim preachers, I discuss how and under what conditions different Chinese and non-Chinese Muslims appropriate Chineseness for diverse reasons. While the Chinese-style mosques borrow the architectural design of ancient mosques in China, they adopt local cultural traditions and interact with local politics. Many Muslim leaders welcome such mosques as an initiative to promote localized Islam and to imagine a translocal Chinese Muslim identity. However, when it comes to preachers, there are contesting – if not conflicting – cultural and religious orientations, which are shaping and being shaped by the politics of race, religion and class in both countries. Thus, I propose ‘archipelagic Chineseness’ to analyze various entanglements of diverse transnational connections, national belongings and local sensibilities among ethnic Chinese in general and Chinese Muslims in particular. Archipelagic thinking around Chineseness also allows us to explore how ethnic Chinese in maritime Southeast Asia negotiate their Chineseness with their other identities, such as nationalities, localities, religion, and sexual identities.

Archipelagic Chineseness: competing ways of being Chinese Muslims in contemporary Indonesia and Malaysia