Diversity and change are the only constants in Southeast Asia. In a region of approximately 4.5 million square kilometres in size, over 500 million people, one thousand languages, a religious smorgasbord of Animism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, the sheer diversity of Southeast Asia defies simple categorization. The region has also been host to a variety of political ideologies from monarchism to colonialism, communism, authoritarianism, and different versions of democracy.

Given this diversity, a stable and distinct Southeast Asian identity remains elusive. The region's identity is very much defined in contrast to other regions than by any specific inherent features or characteristics. As a geographical concept, Southeast Asia is a recent invention. The term only gained popular acceptance from World War II, during which the British used “Southeast Asia” to describe the collection of peninsulas and islands to the south of China and east of India as a particular area of military operation against the Japanese. It was only in the 1950s and 1960s with the wave of anti-colonial and nationalist sentiments sweeping across the region that nation-states — itself very much a modern entity — emerged. On 8 August 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established in Bangkok. The five original member countries were Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined later, in 1984; Vietnam in 1995; Laos and Myanmar in 1997; and Cambodia in 1999.

There is little doubt that Southeast Asia is undergoing modernization, changing not only the way Southeast Asians live but also the way they see themselves. The extent of modernization, however, varies from country to country. It is thus important not to think of modernization as a static concept but as an uneven process that societies undergo. This book seeks to capture the main debates surrounding certain issues that are affected by, and in turn influencing, the modernization processes in Southeast Asia. It is not intended to serve as a comprehensive examination of the complex and multifarious processes of modernization; rather, it offers itself as an introductory, and hopefully critical, approach to selected issues.