Spatial Politics of Identity in Cambodia

(Pre)occupations, transformation and the (re)making of Khmer historical agency

The history of Cambodia in the twentieth century was a history of violence deeply intertwined with the Cold War and decolonisation in the region. External powers (the United States, China, Vietnam and France, for example) were often involved in this history. It is little wonder then that questions about the role played by Cambodians not only in these different episodes of violence (anti-colonial struggles, civil and proxy wars, bombardments, genocide, etc.) but also in ending conflicts and establishing a viable sociopolitical system have become a critical point. In recent years, for example, the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen (in power since 1985 with the ruling Cambodian People’s Party or “CPP”) has actively promoted narratives in which Khmer historical agency is being reclaimed against enduring ideas of victimhood and passivity and re-articulated in the light of current geopolitical and economic developments. Many of these narratives are explored in this case study.

The spatial politics – or the politics in, of and through space – by which the interpretations of Khmer agency are visualised and materialised offers a point of entry into both the formation of post-conflict identity in Cambodia today and the CPP Government’s vision of Cambodia’s position in globalised Southeast Asia.

This case study, compiled by Dr Stéphanie Benzaquen-Gautier, examines the spatial politics of identity in Cambodia through visual materials collected by Dr Benzaquen-Gautier during her research on the Win-Win Monument (Vĭméan Chhneăh Chhneăh) on the outskirts of Phnom Penh (January 2020) and the city of Sihanoukville in southern Cambodia (February 2020), as well as from the Royal University of Fine Arts (RUFA) collection at the National Archives, and from the collection of the Agence Khmère Presse (AKP) at the Ministry of Information in Phnom Penh. At first sight, this material might appear heterogenous and disparate. However, it helps to paint a picture of contemporary Cambodia and makes it possible to unpack the ways in which (pre)occupations – a term that covers a wide semantic field, from old and new forms of physical “inhabitancy” to concerns over Cambodia’s place in the world and the social impact of fast-paced economic changes – shape current understandings of nation, citizenship, power and legitimacy. A core theme in the present-day debates on these issues is historical agency.