[Voliscietle]

The carefully constructed definition of being Thai has come under much strain in today's society

By SAICHOL SATTAYANURAK
Bangkok Post
February 09, 2008

What are the qualities or characteristics that define being Thai? Some say Thai people are peace-lovers; others say we are Thai because we cherish the three institutions of Nation, Religion and Monarchy.

But how have these notions of ''Thainess'' been constructed? Do they still function as a cohesive force in our increasingly diversified, modern Thailand?

The construction of ''Thainess'' under absolute monarchy

When Thailand had to face Western culture that came with superior power, Thailand's ruling class chose to accept Western-style material progress and maintain most parts of ''Thainess'' in culture by assigning new definitions to various constituent parts of Thainess to prevent it from being viewed as barbaric.

At the same time, the ruling class had to ensure that Thainess could justify the political structure that centralised power in the king, and justify the social structure which divided people into different classes according to their birthright _ the kind of social structure deemed crucial in an absolute monarchy.

To maximise the effectiveness of this power centralisation process, King Rama V focused the effort of defining ''being Thai'' on giving new meaning to various royal rituals and processions, and on constructing symbols that placed the king at the centre of state, wielding absolute power over aristocrats, civil servants and subjects of all ''races'' whose lives depended on the king's power, wisdom and magnanimity.

Patriarch Prince Wachirayanwarorot helped delineate the ideology of Thainess that centred on the king who led Thailand to achieve Western-style civilisation, in such a way that made it clear and memorable to people across all social classes.

He did this by transforming the ideas regarding the Thai nation and Thainess as constructed by King Rama VI into Buddhism-based ideas that were disseminated via sermons and monastic educational reforms.

The use of Buddhist philosophy in defining a king-centred concept of the ''Thai nation'' helped create a clear, indivisible ideology of ''nation, religion and kingship.''

This ideology was widely known among monks, most of whom came from the lower-class populace both in the cities and the countryside.

Prince Damrong Rajanubhap constructed a Thai identity without focusing on the cultural aspects of ''genuine Thainess''.

Instead, he placed the emphasis of Thainess on the three ''characters'' or ''virtues'' of the Thai race: ''fealty to the nation's independence, absence of spite, and wisdom in reconciliation of interests.''

Another important idea that Prince Damrong Rajanubhap always stressed in his writings _ in response to public calls to change the system from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy _ was that absolute monarchy had ruled Thailand for so long that it had become the tradition of Thai-style governance, which should be maintained for posterity.

This was because Thai kings did not freely use their power as a devaraja (god-king); in contrast, Thai-style governance was a ''paternalism'' that was full of kindness, and Thai kings in the Chakri dynasty embodied all three virtues of the Thai race.

Construction of ''Thainess'' after the 1932 Revolution

After the 1932 Revolution which changed the political regime from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy, Thailand's political structure remained centralised in the hands of the political ruler.

The ruling aristocrats therefore did not significantly change the ideals regarding government that had been constructed during the preceding period of absolute monarchy; they merely chose certain ideas that fit the ruler's needs under the new system, made them clearer, and modified their justifications in response to changing political situations.

A number of other intellectuals also helped define Thainess, such as Luang Wichitwathakan, Prince Wan Waithayakon, Prince Dhaninivat, Phraya Sriwisanwaja and General Saweang Senanarong.

But the ideas about Thainess proposed by these intellectuals were not so different as to be new paradigms. The crux of these intellectuals' ideas was their desire to prove that the royal institution and/or Buddhism remained valuable in the new system.

Mom Ratchawong Kukrit Pramoj belonged to the same intellectual wave that inherited the definition of ''Thainess'' from the period of absolute monarchy.

But he was the most dominant intellectual who changed the ideology's focus and explanation that enabled Thainess to powerfully respond to social situations and post-World War Two politics, while preserving the main framework of Thainess.

From the early 1950s, when he penned the novel Four Reigns, M R Kukrit was highly successful in reviving the ideals of ''royalism,'' by convincing the Thai people that the royal institution, and kingship as an institution and as a person, were indispensable to the Thai nation because it was mostly to their credit that the Thai nation was organised, peaceful, stable and prosperous.

Furthermore, M R Kukrit stressed that being Buddhist made the ''Thai-style ruler'' wholly ethical, so he could rule without the need for any means of check-and-balance.

Also, Thai-style governance in which the ruler himself wielded judicial power could only result in justice for all.

M R Kukrit's construction of Thainess was largely based on his own beliefs concerning Thai society and culture. He was convinced that the traditional social structure which divided people into different social classes in a detailed and complex manner was correct and appropriate.

Although he always talked about democracy, rights, freedom, equality and similar concepts, the meanings of these terms were restricted only to what he wanted Thais to recognise in each situation. His former wife, M R Pakpring Thongyai, recalled that M R Kukrit usually emphasised the importance of ru thi soong thi tum (know thy place) behaviour.

M R Kukrit convinced Thais to accept ''Thai-style governance'' and to believe that there was no need for democratic institutions (such as parliament or independent organisations) to supervise the government's use of power, because Thailand already had the king to supervise the government, to ensure that it would not abuse or misuse its authority.

Narrow Thainess and Identity Crisis

From the late 1960s, Thailand's social and cultural structure began to change so rapidly that mainstream thought regarding Thainess became too narrow to respond to such changes.

As a result, Thais found it difficult to adapt while facing problems that increased in diversity and complexity.

The concept of Thainess was defined to support a hierarchical social structure, stressing that everyone must ''know his place'' via Thai decorum, Thai language and Thai ethics.

Although this concept allowed people to move between social classes, such movement depended on each individual's own ability and ethics, without any alteration of the social and political structures to permit the underprivileged to truly move up the social ladder.

At the same time, ''Thainess'' left no room for ''raising political awareness'' of the middle class. As a result, the divide between Thainess as defined by intellectuals, and the realities of Thailand's rapidly changing society and culture, began growing wider and wider.

The social relationship of the Thai people moved further and further from the framework of Thai ethics, because they were increasingly governed by the commercial relationship which concentrated on profit and loss. The use of natural resources became more diverse, and the struggle over resources became more violent. The government's management of resources remained imbalanced, i.e. favouring capitalists and businessmen, placing labourers and farmers at a disadvantage. Tension and conflicts in Thai society have dramatically increased as a result.

Under the ''Thai-style hierarchical social structure,'' those in ''high social spaces'' had a duty to be kind to those in ''low social spaces,'' to prevent exploitation and oppression in society. But the expansion of capitalism _ in which people related to each other mainly commercially _ turned profit and loss into the basis for social relationships, weakening the ethics of kindness to the point that it lost influence.

Therefore, while the government had no real policy to distribute national income, the widening gap between the rich and the poor began aggravating the plight of the poor much more severely than in the past. Thainess, in terms of ethics, was completely unable to address unfair income distribution and the struggle over resources in the capitalist economy.

The traditional notion of Thainess was also too narrow to address the problem of racial origins. Instead, Thainess placed pressure on other races to ''become Thai.'' This problem was not severe when people of each race did not have to come in contact with bureaucrats.

However, national development expanded the bureaucracy into the countryside, forcing every race to fall under its sphere of influence. Those of other races which did not or could not truly become Thai did not receive certain rights from the state, did not find convenience in their contacts with bureaucrats, and were even oppressed in various ways, ranging from taunts to extortion and use of force.

That the concept of Thainess was not broad enough to accommodate all races in Thailand but instead forced other races to become Thai is one part of the identity crisis problem which became more acute since the late 1960s.

Where rapid expansion of the capitalist system has connected people of all races to a single political economy that is increasingly cohesive, but which remains fraught with numerous uneven advantages and disadvantages in the economic and political structures, the Thai-style governance (which centralises the power to manage resources) therefore causes more frequent clashes between non-Thais and Thais in many areas, both in terms of cultural conflict and the struggle over resources.

The accepted definition of ''Thainess'' is also too narrow to help Thais understand the complexities and diverse changes in their society, especially the economic, social, political and cultural problems which have occurred since the late 1960s.

Since Thais do not profoundly understand all aspects of these changes and problems, they cannot effectively solve both life and social problems.

In other words, Thainess has functioned as an obstacle preventing Thai people from adapting themselves to the rapid and crucial changes in Thai society.

All the mainstream intellectuals who defined Thainess wanted Thais to strongly adhere to the key framework of Thainess by convincing them that Thainess is a priceless inheritance from the past, whose core has remained unchanged through the centuries.

Thais therefore can imagine social change only in terms of material progress, but cannot imagine change in terms of social relationships, and see no change in the social structure that is occurring rapidly alongside changes in the economy and culture.

Instead, Thais consider those things in the modern system of social relationship which do not fit in the framework of Thainess as ''abnormal'' behaviour that must be quelled or corrected; for example, when youths or those on the lower social rung disobey those higher up, or when Thais become more individualistic and demand more individual rights and freedom, this is considered incorrect behaviour.

Looking at the changes without understanding where they come from is another factor behind the increase in social conflicts, which induces those in power to use violence to correct them.

The more rapid and complex the changes in Thailand's political economy become, the more questions will be asked regarding the above-mentioned issues concerning Thainess.

This is the Thai identity crisis which every faction of Thai society must unravel together and as quickly as possible, by finding a way to re-define ''Thainess'' so that it is broad enough to give each member of every group his or her own ''space'' in Thai political society on an equal basis, and allow them to live a dignified life as befits every human being.

[monologue]

I hope Thainess will always be a mai ben lai attitude, but I don't think that sits so easily in the modern world. Fingers crossed

[Fvmfrctt]

M.R kukrit . Former PM and movie actor . Played the PM in the movie "the ugly american" with Marlon Brando. Very surprizing revelation regarding his thoughts on gov't./

[monologue]

M.R kukrit . Former PM and movie actor . Played the PM in the movie "the ugly american" with Marlon Brando. Very surprizing revelation regarding his thoughts on gov't./

Yeah, well those on the top of the heap always seem to have a better idea of what "Thainess" is. As nationalists in a time of peace do in many other countries.
Those lower down don't seem to make such an issue of it. Wonder why that is?

[SeftyJokipl]

I feel cultures that can embrace people from outside the original communities will survive for the new people will drive them through their affection and love for it. However, cultures which are closely guarded and where people attempt to control it, have practical problems...? For me culture (+ ive) happens while you are doing good things for your people or with your people. To control it and make it happen in itself, is probably not possible?.