The continuing relevance of Comparative Austronesian Studies for understanding the way of life of contemporary Austronesian-speaking populations cannot be taken for granted. Are Austronesian societies still similar and, at the same time, diverse enough in this 21st century to permit a meaningful comparison? And, if so, is their similarity still based predominantly on a shared cultural heritage or is it on account of their having been similarly subjected to the presumably homogenising influences of colonialism, modernity and globalisation? Or, alternatively, are there any thematic issues in the contemporary Austronesian world that are best understood in terms of an interaction between the influences of a regional cultural heritage and a new, global form of cultural homogeneity?

The evidence suggests that ‘traditional’ organisational and conceptual patterns derived from a common Austronesian heritage have not become irrelevant. Nor should we ignore the growing dependence of Austronesian-speaking societies on a global capitalist economic system, which does have a homogenising influence on culture, or at least on consumer culture and technology. Both factors seem to be exerting an influence on the cultural trajectory of the Austronesian world. The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that they might do so in fundamentally different ways. Extending Norbert Elias’s (1969) historical theory on the rise of modernity, one could argue that the postmodern form of cultural similarity is based no longer on a common heritage, which assumes a process of branching out from a common historical origin, but, quite to the contrary, on an ever-tightening web of socioeconomic interdependencies drawing different cultures inward into the whirlpool of a centrifugal and homogenising world system.

There is no debating the rapid internationalisation that is taking place in the world today. Anthropologists and others with an appreciation for cultural diversity, however, may often feel dismayed at examples they encounter in the public domain of an extreme globalisation perspective on current affairs. As Friedman (1997: 269) points out, ‘Notions of globalisation, hybridisation, and creolisation are socially positioned concepts that in their classificatory thrust say very much about the classifiers and much less about those classified.” For example, many political commentators seem to be looking at places like Indonesia once again through Western eyes, as still imperfect replicas of Western democratic nation states, destined to become more and more ‘perfect’ and hence more transparent to our understanding in the course of globalisation, either naturally or, if need be, with some benevolent intervention here and there. In adopting this new universalist model of a singular future for humanity, the presumably culture-less Western centre of the global system regards ‘culture’ as a non-Western phenomenon that is increasingly and quickly becoming irrelevant. And whenever the ‘locals’ provide evidence to the contrary by asserting their tradition, the response is to classify their self-representations as neo-traditionalism, primordialism or some other futile revivalist attempt at reimagining and reinstating a long-lost past. And if they assert their right to be different violently, the problem must be contained by force. ‘We’, who are already posturing as the defining force of ‘their’ past—by reducing that past to a history of colonial domination—are now projecting our vision of ourselves into their future, by casting ourselves as the carriers of the universal model of a global, postmodern way of life to which they must inevitably conform. If there is some truth to this popular perspective on globalisation at all, then the process of cultural and political imperialism it alludes to is not necessarily one that should be further encouraged in social science by depicting it as natural and inevitable.

Anthropologists need to challenge reductionist perspectives on globalisation and associated assumptions about cultural homogenisation by highlighting the contrary, localising and diversifying forces that also shape trajectories of socio-cultural change. The preceding comparative analysis has shown some of these contrary forces at work among related societies across a vast region. It has done so by highlighting how changes in local, historical and situational conditions over several millennia have contributed to the cultural diversity of the Austronesian world. At the same time, several of the case studies also allude to the centrifugal or homogenising force of growing interdependence—from complex village societies with clan groups of variable origins, to early state formation, to the rise of modern nations—suggesting that these centrifugal processes are not a new phenomenon. In order to remain viable well into the future, the Comparative Austronesian Studies Project will need to develop methods to identify emergent and centrifugal forms of similarity as well as trends towards new patterns of variation among contemporary Austronesians. This volume is taking some important first steps in this direction.