Agree with your first comment; despite what is said by the royalists, Thailand has only been ‘relentlessly’ moving towards a return to the ‘Divine Right’ absolute Monarchy for decades, while ‘relentlessly’ trying to create the impression of a growing democracy. It’s a ‘relentless’ deceit, perpetrated upon a population deliberately kept uneducated and unintelligent in order to permit a few donors to the royal coffers to continue the perpetration of larceny on the Thai people.
It’s been a very successful strategy, and the ‘relentless’ army coups encouraged/sponsored/approved by the former King has reaped enormous rewards (to the tune of 20,000 THB from every man, woman and child in Thailand).
The reality of Thailand is obvious to anyone with a 3-digit IQ, which, on its own explains why Thailand, which spends . world-leading percentage of its GDP on education regularly one of the worst education records in the civilised world. Not an accident, keep ’em stupid, keep ’em ignorant, keep ’em compliant seems to be the watchword.
Thais aren’t even schooled in Thai law and the function of law in society, and yet the crime rate in Thailand (petty and otherwise) seems genuinely not to be understood by those who have incompetently managed the country for decades.
No mystery to me…
As for the ‘timeless’ Thai culture; culture in Thailand has been manufactured and banged into the heads of those educated in the substandard Thai education system, specifically to assist in maintaining the hegemony of the kleptocracy. There is so much evidence pointing to this that it must surely be accepted as fact, despite the obsequious offerings by the Matthew Phillips and others.
The situation of politics and management in Thailand is not complex but appears to be complex only because of the incompetence of successive governments. It is not subtle, it is chaotic.
Alas, all things must come to an end, and when it does in Thailand. there will be probably be considerable conflict, such is the psychology of oppressed and exploited people.
The old monk who predicted there will be no 10th King in the Chakri dynasty is not yet wrong, since the new head boy has not yet been subject to coronation, and is still the ‘King-in-waiting’. An opportunity exists for him to change the face of Thailand, though I doubt it will be taken – too much profit in maintaining things the way they have been for decades.
And some people really seem to wonder where the corruption and dishonesty in Thailand comes from.
A very interesting interview, showing Toer’s social conscience. However, younger generations might need to be reminded that Toer viewed the world through doctrinaire marxist lenses. He was active in the far-left writer’s group, LEKRA, which was intolerant of other points of view and successfully lobbied to have Manikebu, an umbrella group of liberal-minded writers, banned and its adherents vilified. That included Goenawan Mohamad, who later became editor of Tempo magazine, which criticised the Suharto regime and was closed down for doing so.
The The ‘timelessness’ of Thai culture is a reference to colonial and then post-colonial Cold War tropes about the Thai people as described above. It alludes to the idea that the Thai people exist in a separate “ancient” temporality apart from global time. This implies a natural lag behind more developed regions of the world (i.e. the West, first French and British, later Americans).
During the Cold War, the idea that the Thai were largely untroubled / uninterested in both communism and the expansion of capitalism (propaganda disproved by events through the decades) was only possible because of a constellation of elite groups who committed to these ideas in various ways. From the early 1950s and beyond, American academics, journalists, politicians, spies and business leaders forged powerful coalitions with local partners and vested interests to affirm such ideas.
The project to modernise Thailand (which had been a major source of political legitimacy for Phibun Songkhram up to 1944 – and which had collapsed as a result of the calamity of WWII) was reimagined, reconfigured from from pre-war ideas of ‘progress’ to the ‘development’ of the modern nation-state as promoted in American ideology and scholarship. Under this rubric, social transformation was seemingly assured (the textbooks said so!) – but those implementing the ideas continued to place significant value in the idea there was a ‘Thai character’ – or a distinct ‘Thai way of life’ – generally described as ‘happy’, ‘stable’ or in more scholarly circles – ‘psychologically secure’ (Look back at Ruth Benedict’s wartime study ‘Thai Culture and Personality’ – written through dialogue with well-heeled Thais based in the US during WWII – she never went to Thailand – and yet her conclusions are repeatedly referenced as a reason for rural Thailand’s lack of interest in politics even today).
While there were waves of democratisation – largely led from the urban centre (before 1997) – the urban elite in particular continued to believe that Thailand’s rural majority remained committed to ‘traditional’ ways of life. As a result, some came to believe that this called for revolutionary change. But eventually, (during the 1980s) even the revolutionaries acceded to the idea that change had to be made slowly – in line with the textbooks!
As a result, many of the most prominent political leaders failed to challenge the fundamental premise of the modernisation theorists / social scientists who had written so much about Thailand during the 50s-60s. Indeed, many returned to it in a subtly new configuration (look up the Communitarian School).
Increasingly King Bhumibol’s notion of the “sufficiency economy” became to absorb the separate strands of this discourse, reinforcing the widely held view that 1) the interests of rural Thailand were secured by maintaining a level of protection from the world (capitalist) economy 2) A paternalistic attitude from the urban classes was necessary to support rural lifestyles 3) Democracy (as a project emanating from the urban centre) should be considered the final goal, but should be achieved (or not) by acknowledging the ‘distinct’ needs of the majority population.
Coincidentally, for a while, this seemed to fit neatly with global trends / assumptions following the end of the Cold War (if you haven’t read it read Francis Fukuyama, ‘The End of History and the last man’ – which is basically the logical conclusion to the modernisation theorists world view).
The victory of 1992 was widely regarded as a pivotal point in this journey – setting up the widely held view in the following years that coups were finally a thing of the past. This is the point to which I was referring when I spoke of the drive toward a more democratic society. Many middle class Thais became deeply committed to their sense of ‘Thainess’, because it promised BOTH integration into the world economy AND because it spoke to a specific responsibility to appreciate, enjoy and consume Thai culture.
While it seemed to many from 2006 that the Thai middle class had lost their interest in participating in global time (moving forward to genuine democracy), in truth very little had actually changed in their world view – rather it was outsiders who had apparently begun to loose their commitment to the perpetuate the claim that the ancient traditions of rural Thailand removed villagers from their own temporality. This change was extremely painful, because unlike the Cold War, when the Americans supported the violent suppression of political and economic activity, it now appeared that this was no longer possible.
This is why the most virulent anger amongst Thailand’s cosmopolitan classes has been to those international (people / media organisations / political institutions) who for years accepted the myth of Thailand’s development narrative, but who from 2006 began to claim that the country was on the verge of joining global time – that the majority population had finally come into the fold. Scholarship and journalism through this last decade of the ninth reign has continued to predict a final ‘event’ in the journey through developmental time (I myself spoke at one point of a coming civil war). As anthropologist Charles Keyes has phrased it, rural Thailand had finally found its voice, (as if the political movements that came before were largely Irrelevant, or even non-existent).
I don’t claim to know what comes next – but what is clear is that there are now clear attempts to reclaim the assumption that there exists a ‘timeless’ Thai culture. Now, however, this is arguably less to do with putting the brakes on political development, but rather about reorienting / realigning the country altogether. This year of mourning is the golden opportunity to formally decouple from the ideological demands of American-led capitalism – wherein political can now be reconfigured to eradicate the harbingers of growth imposed by American imperialism. It also proved to be a golden opportunity to align the military and the monarchy in such a way as to (perhaps) forever eradicate any notion of electoral democracy as political ideal.
“After decades in which history appeared to be driving Thailand relentlessly toward a more democratic society”…
Relentlessly? Are you sure about that Every time a few concerned citizens have expressed a distaste for elite rule they have been knocked back to zero.
If we consider the protests of students in the 70’s, the rise of the nascent middle classes in combination with the students in the 90’s, Thaksin at the Millennium, or the rural poor a decade later, on every occasion the elite/military has won the battle. we are today, no further forward and arguably further away from Democracy in Thailand than at any time over the past few decades.
And what does the following quote mean?
“… the presumed timelessness of the Thai character once again runs the risk of uprooting the present from the recent past”
How does timelessness manage to uproot anything? I’m not understand your point, and as it is the conclusion of your essay some clarification would be helpful, professor.
A few people have contacted me about the film itself. Unfortunately, the TAT have not uploaded this version to their Youtube channel, and I only saw it because I stumbled across it while watching CNN (which I have been doing much more of recently for obvious reasons). I did manage to record it – crudely on an iPad – and so if anybody wants to see it please feel free to email me – [email protected]. For everybody else – the full script is as follows:
[scenes of large crowds holding candles]
Amazing Thailand welcomed 2017 with the candlelight of Siam
[Shots of the Grand Palace and the Temple of the Golden Mount illuminated at night]
Where Iconic sites were illuminated by the glow of candlelight
[Close up shots of individual Thais holding candles and saying prayers]
And the Nation demonstrated its solidarity in their celebration of Thainess
It is NOT ONLY the issue of these coral atolls, now turned into military bases. It is ALSO the fact that Duterte’s China leanings mean China’s nuclear-armed navy now has the capacity to break out of the naval pen which hitherto has kept them penned in. What next ? Pearl Harbour ?
Most ordinary Thais still wear black – because they paid good money for this clothing. As for khwam sammakhi – the REAL test of that will come when this mourning period is finished. I applaud Bumiphol for his many great, good works. But whether he succeeded in integrating Thailand’s outlying regions, only time will tell. I remain sceptical that even the greatest of Thai kings, have achieved that near-impossibility. Regardless of how much TAT spin.
Two aspects not mentioned is 1) the environment, i.e. flooding. And 2) related enviro-political Impact regionally – eg. Bangkok faces very similar flooding problems, not the same scale of religious tensions – but certainly similar ethnic tensions (i.e. Lao v. Thai / Sino-Thai). While Ahok’s vote was high in upmarket, largely Chinese suburb Pluit, where Ahok massively improved flood prevention, his vote sank in nearby Luar Batang slum, populated by mostly by poor indigenous, Muslim Malays. Ahok ( apparently), in this instance, could not find a way to fix the ENVIRONMENTAL problem of saving parts of Jakarta – which, like Bangkok, is sinking – without his measures becoming a zero/ sum game, in which his supporters MASSIVELY gained, while those he displaced, lost heavily. How reminiscent of Prayut’s Thailand.
You ask what they are bought with? They are given a sense of belonging for which they sell their souls. Prem knows this which is why he peddles the great lies that ‘All Thais love the King’ and ‘All Thais love each other’ Both are fictions but both have their usefulness to the privileged classes, who must maintain compliance among the serfs in order to maintain their kleptocracy..
Perhaps 95% of people need to feel a part of a group. Eventually they grow out of it but Thais have already exchanged their individuality for a sense of belonging. If you live in Thailand, look and see how many Thais you see who are on their own on the street. Usually they ether have a companion or are getting companionship from the smartphone. This is the reason Facebook as one of it’s highest saturations in Thailand. They feel vulnerable on their own, and this begets mob violence on one scale or another. Thais very rarely enter a conflict one-on-one, it’s usually as a part of a group (mob).
“I am intrigued though at your statement that Thais are being bought – bought by what precisely?””
Compliance, conformity. Surrender of individuality in favour of the collective. It’s a cultural and evolutionary stage that all populations go through when they are too young to walk on their own.
@Alex,
I thought my point earlier and Krisna’s point are both reasonable and deserve to be taken seriously. Krisna was unnecessarily aggressive, which is very counter-productive to meaningful discussion. However, I think it’s not decent for you to characterise the majority of people here as batshit crazy assholes and dismiss them as lacking ‘real insight’ just because they disagree with some aspects of your article.
Thank you mas Rudy. Finally there is someone who is a fellow traveller with some real insights rather than bat*** crazy ***holes who just likes to argue for the sake of having arguments :-).
I will take your suggestions into account in my ongoing research. Thank you again, Sir.
It is surely important though to separate the response of individuals from those projected through state media. Everybody wears black – but not necessarily for the same reason – and indeed it is impossible to discern the individual experience of those who attend such mass events. I am intrigued though at your statement that Thais are being bought – bought by what precisely? And also, do you think that those who attend these events – many of whom will never be watching CNN to watch the TAT adverts in which they are appearing – know that they are offering themselves up in this way? Do they care? My surprise at the advert was the way that the TAT seemed to feel it was legitimate to re-present the images that internally could surely not be presented as anything other than mourning – as something different to an international audience. Certainly, the proclaimed ‘unity’ that such images seem to indicate runs throughout the coverage – and create strong assertions of cultural hegemony – ‘solidarity’ is just a way of articulating that state controlled assertion in this specific way.
The apparent ubiquity of black/white-shirted Thais, in reality demonstrates 3 things: Firstly it demonstrates the success of the CIA-initiated campaigns of propaganda relating to the monarchy, about which a lot has already been said.
Secondly, the vulnerability of Thais to the deceit and rewriting of history of such propaganda, which boils down to a function of mean IQ, most consistently measured in the last 10 years to be less than 90, but which has been pronounced recently as ‘between 100 and 120 (whatever that means – a mean is a number not a range) by the Prayuth Government which must be considered to be much more interested in self-perpetuation than reality.
And thirdly, the extent to which Thais will either support or pretend to support any party of the moment perceived to have power – usually for expected self-benefit or gain of some kind. This was the crucial element in the surrender to the Japanese (without a shot being fired) during WW2, and the popularity of Thaksin governments during the Thaksin era – I’m sure there are many other examples.
What it does not show, is solidarity, cultural or otherwise. What is does show in my mind at least, is just how cheaply many or most Thais can be bought.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
Agree with your first comment; despite what is said by the royalists, Thailand has only been ‘relentlessly’ moving towards a return to the ‘Divine Right’ absolute Monarchy for decades, while ‘relentlessly’ trying to create the impression of a growing democracy. It’s a ‘relentless’ deceit, perpetrated upon a population deliberately kept uneducated and unintelligent in order to permit a few donors to the royal coffers to continue the perpetration of larceny on the Thai people.
It’s been a very successful strategy, and the ‘relentless’ army coups encouraged/sponsored/approved by the former King has reaped enormous rewards (to the tune of 20,000 THB from every man, woman and child in Thailand).
The reality of Thailand is obvious to anyone with a 3-digit IQ, which, on its own explains why Thailand, which spends . world-leading percentage of its GDP on education regularly one of the worst education records in the civilised world. Not an accident, keep ’em stupid, keep ’em ignorant, keep ’em compliant seems to be the watchword.
Thais aren’t even schooled in Thai law and the function of law in society, and yet the crime rate in Thailand (petty and otherwise) seems genuinely not to be understood by those who have incompetently managed the country for decades.
No mystery to me…
As for the ‘timeless’ Thai culture; culture in Thailand has been manufactured and banged into the heads of those educated in the substandard Thai education system, specifically to assist in maintaining the hegemony of the kleptocracy. There is so much evidence pointing to this that it must surely be accepted as fact, despite the obsequious offerings by the Matthew Phillips and others.
The situation of politics and management in Thailand is not complex but appears to be complex only because of the incompetence of successive governments. It is not subtle, it is chaotic.
Alas, all things must come to an end, and when it does in Thailand. there will be probably be considerable conflict, such is the psychology of oppressed and exploited people.
The old monk who predicted there will be no 10th King in the Chakri dynasty is not yet wrong, since the new head boy has not yet been subject to coronation, and is still the ‘King-in-waiting’. An opportunity exists for him to change the face of Thailand, though I doubt it will be taken – too much profit in maintaining things the way they have been for decades.
And some people really seem to wonder where the corruption and dishonesty in Thailand comes from.
I don’t.
Pramoedya’s Message to the Youth of Indonesia
A very interesting interview, showing Toer’s social conscience. However, younger generations might need to be reminded that Toer viewed the world through doctrinaire marxist lenses. He was active in the far-left writer’s group, LEKRA, which was intolerant of other points of view and successfully lobbied to have Manikebu, an umbrella group of liberal-minded writers, banned and its adherents vilified. That included Goenawan Mohamad, who later became editor of Tempo magazine, which criticised the Suharto regime and was closed down for doing so.
The missing middle
You are entitled to your own views and I am entitled to mine. We are in the marketplac of ideas. This the only thing i will comment on.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
The The ‘timelessness’ of Thai culture is a reference to colonial and then post-colonial Cold War tropes about the Thai people as described above. It alludes to the idea that the Thai people exist in a separate “ancient” temporality apart from global time. This implies a natural lag behind more developed regions of the world (i.e. the West, first French and British, later Americans).
During the Cold War, the idea that the Thai were largely untroubled / uninterested in both communism and the expansion of capitalism (propaganda disproved by events through the decades) was only possible because of a constellation of elite groups who committed to these ideas in various ways. From the early 1950s and beyond, American academics, journalists, politicians, spies and business leaders forged powerful coalitions with local partners and vested interests to affirm such ideas.
The project to modernise Thailand (which had been a major source of political legitimacy for Phibun Songkhram up to 1944 – and which had collapsed as a result of the calamity of WWII) was reimagined, reconfigured from from pre-war ideas of ‘progress’ to the ‘development’ of the modern nation-state as promoted in American ideology and scholarship. Under this rubric, social transformation was seemingly assured (the textbooks said so!) – but those implementing the ideas continued to place significant value in the idea there was a ‘Thai character’ – or a distinct ‘Thai way of life’ – generally described as ‘happy’, ‘stable’ or in more scholarly circles – ‘psychologically secure’ (Look back at Ruth Benedict’s wartime study ‘Thai Culture and Personality’ – written through dialogue with well-heeled Thais based in the US during WWII – she never went to Thailand – and yet her conclusions are repeatedly referenced as a reason for rural Thailand’s lack of interest in politics even today).
While there were waves of democratisation – largely led from the urban centre (before 1997) – the urban elite in particular continued to believe that Thailand’s rural majority remained committed to ‘traditional’ ways of life. As a result, some came to believe that this called for revolutionary change. But eventually, (during the 1980s) even the revolutionaries acceded to the idea that change had to be made slowly – in line with the textbooks!
As a result, many of the most prominent political leaders failed to challenge the fundamental premise of the modernisation theorists / social scientists who had written so much about Thailand during the 50s-60s. Indeed, many returned to it in a subtly new configuration (look up the Communitarian School).
Increasingly King Bhumibol’s notion of the “sufficiency economy” became to absorb the separate strands of this discourse, reinforcing the widely held view that 1) the interests of rural Thailand were secured by maintaining a level of protection from the world (capitalist) economy 2) A paternalistic attitude from the urban classes was necessary to support rural lifestyles 3) Democracy (as a project emanating from the urban centre) should be considered the final goal, but should be achieved (or not) by acknowledging the ‘distinct’ needs of the majority population.
Coincidentally, for a while, this seemed to fit neatly with global trends / assumptions following the end of the Cold War (if you haven’t read it read Francis Fukuyama, ‘The End of History and the last man’ – which is basically the logical conclusion to the modernisation theorists world view).
The victory of 1992 was widely regarded as a pivotal point in this journey – setting up the widely held view in the following years that coups were finally a thing of the past. This is the point to which I was referring when I spoke of the drive toward a more democratic society. Many middle class Thais became deeply committed to their sense of ‘Thainess’, because it promised BOTH integration into the world economy AND because it spoke to a specific responsibility to appreciate, enjoy and consume Thai culture.
While it seemed to many from 2006 that the Thai middle class had lost their interest in participating in global time (moving forward to genuine democracy), in truth very little had actually changed in their world view – rather it was outsiders who had apparently begun to loose their commitment to the perpetuate the claim that the ancient traditions of rural Thailand removed villagers from their own temporality. This change was extremely painful, because unlike the Cold War, when the Americans supported the violent suppression of political and economic activity, it now appeared that this was no longer possible.
This is why the most virulent anger amongst Thailand’s cosmopolitan classes has been to those international (people / media organisations / political institutions) who for years accepted the myth of Thailand’s development narrative, but who from 2006 began to claim that the country was on the verge of joining global time – that the majority population had finally come into the fold. Scholarship and journalism through this last decade of the ninth reign has continued to predict a final ‘event’ in the journey through developmental time (I myself spoke at one point of a coming civil war). As anthropologist Charles Keyes has phrased it, rural Thailand had finally found its voice, (as if the political movements that came before were largely Irrelevant, or even non-existent).
I don’t claim to know what comes next – but what is clear is that there are now clear attempts to reclaim the assumption that there exists a ‘timeless’ Thai culture. Now, however, this is arguably less to do with putting the brakes on political development, but rather about reorienting / realigning the country altogether. This year of mourning is the golden opportunity to formally decouple from the ideological demands of American-led capitalism – wherein political can now be reconfigured to eradicate the harbingers of growth imposed by American imperialism. It also proved to be a golden opportunity to align the military and the monarchy in such a way as to (perhaps) forever eradicate any notion of electoral democracy as political ideal.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
“After decades in which history appeared to be driving Thailand relentlessly toward a more democratic society”…
Relentlessly? Are you sure about that Every time a few concerned citizens have expressed a distaste for elite rule they have been knocked back to zero.
If we consider the protests of students in the 70’s, the rise of the nascent middle classes in combination with the students in the 90’s, Thaksin at the Millennium, or the rural poor a decade later, on every occasion the elite/military has won the battle. we are today, no further forward and arguably further away from Democracy in Thailand than at any time over the past few decades.
And what does the following quote mean?
“… the presumed timelessness of the Thai character once again runs the risk of uprooting the present from the recent past”
How does timelessness manage to uproot anything? I’m not understand your point, and as it is the conclusion of your essay some clarification would be helpful, professor.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
A few people have contacted me about the film itself. Unfortunately, the TAT have not uploaded this version to their Youtube channel, and I only saw it because I stumbled across it while watching CNN (which I have been doing much more of recently for obvious reasons). I did manage to record it – crudely on an iPad – and so if anybody wants to see it please feel free to email me – [email protected]. For everybody else – the full script is as follows:
[scenes of large crowds holding candles]
Amazing Thailand welcomed 2017 with the candlelight of Siam
[Shots of the Grand Palace and the Temple of the Golden Mount illuminated at night]
Where Iconic sites were illuminated by the glow of candlelight
[Close up shots of individual Thais holding candles and saying prayers]
And the Nation demonstrated its solidarity in their celebration of Thainess
[Return to shots of the large crowd]
Thailand looks forward to welcoming you in 2017
Risk and imagination in the Trump era
It is NOT ONLY the issue of these coral atolls, now turned into military bases. It is ALSO the fact that Duterte’s China leanings mean China’s nuclear-armed navy now has the capacity to break out of the naval pen which hitherto has kept them penned in. What next ? Pearl Harbour ?
“There will be no peace in this land”
“But our experience in the peace process tells us that using a ceasefire as a precondition carries several risks. ”
What the f are they?
“There will be no peace in this land”
Perhaps there are vested-ly interested parties hell bent to stop it happening.
Anlong Veng calling
Hi Kimly
Thank you for your comment and support. I think it will be extended, eventually.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
Most ordinary Thais still wear black – because they paid good money for this clothing. As for khwam sammakhi – the REAL test of that will come when this mourning period is finished. I applaud Bumiphol for his many great, good works. But whether he succeeded in integrating Thailand’s outlying regions, only time will tell. I remain sceptical that even the greatest of Thai kings, have achieved that near-impossibility. Regardless of how much TAT spin.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
The farther you go away from Bangkok, the less the effect all of this has on real life.
Interpreting the Jakarta election
Two aspects not mentioned is 1) the environment, i.e. flooding. And 2) related enviro-political Impact regionally – eg. Bangkok faces very similar flooding problems, not the same scale of religious tensions – but certainly similar ethnic tensions (i.e. Lao v. Thai / Sino-Thai). While Ahok’s vote was high in upmarket, largely Chinese suburb Pluit, where Ahok massively improved flood prevention, his vote sank in nearby Luar Batang slum, populated by mostly by poor indigenous, Muslim Malays. Ahok ( apparently), in this instance, could not find a way to fix the ENVIRONMENTAL problem of saving parts of Jakarta – which, like Bangkok, is sinking – without his measures becoming a zero/ sum game, in which his supporters MASSIVELY gained, while those he displaced, lost heavily. How reminiscent of Prayut’s Thailand.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
Sorry – I posted an incomplete response. My bad.
You ask what they are bought with? They are given a sense of belonging for which they sell their souls. Prem knows this which is why he peddles the great lies that ‘All Thais love the King’ and ‘All Thais love each other’ Both are fictions but both have their usefulness to the privileged classes, who must maintain compliance among the serfs in order to maintain their kleptocracy..
Perhaps 95% of people need to feel a part of a group. Eventually they grow out of it but Thais have already exchanged their individuality for a sense of belonging. If you live in Thailand, look and see how many Thais you see who are on their own on the street. Usually they ether have a companion or are getting companionship from the smartphone. This is the reason Facebook as one of it’s highest saturations in Thailand. They feel vulnerable on their own, and this begets mob violence on one scale or another. Thais very rarely enter a conflict one-on-one, it’s usually as a part of a group (mob).
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
“I am intrigued though at your statement that Thais are being bought – bought by what precisely?””
Compliance, conformity. Surrender of individuality in favour of the collective. It’s a cultural and evolutionary stage that all populations go through when they are too young to walk on their own.
The missing middle
@Alex,
I thought my point earlier and Krisna’s point are both reasonable and deserve to be taken seriously. Krisna was unnecessarily aggressive, which is very counter-productive to meaningful discussion. However, I think it’s not decent for you to characterise the majority of people here as batshit crazy assholes and dismiss them as lacking ‘real insight’ just because they disagree with some aspects of your article.
The missing middle
Thank you mas Rudy. Finally there is someone who is a fellow traveller with some real insights rather than bat*** crazy ***holes who just likes to argue for the sake of having arguments :-).
I will take your suggestions into account in my ongoing research. Thank you again, Sir.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
It is surely important though to separate the response of individuals from those projected through state media. Everybody wears black – but not necessarily for the same reason – and indeed it is impossible to discern the individual experience of those who attend such mass events. I am intrigued though at your statement that Thais are being bought – bought by what precisely? And also, do you think that those who attend these events – many of whom will never be watching CNN to watch the TAT adverts in which they are appearing – know that they are offering themselves up in this way? Do they care? My surprise at the advert was the way that the TAT seemed to feel it was legitimate to re-present the images that internally could surely not be presented as anything other than mourning – as something different to an international audience. Certainly, the proclaimed ‘unity’ that such images seem to indicate runs throughout the coverage – and create strong assertions of cultural hegemony – ‘solidarity’ is just a way of articulating that state controlled assertion in this specific way.
Private: Grieving as Thainess in 2017
The apparent ubiquity of black/white-shirted Thais, in reality demonstrates 3 things: Firstly it demonstrates the success of the CIA-initiated campaigns of propaganda relating to the monarchy, about which a lot has already been said.
Secondly, the vulnerability of Thais to the deceit and rewriting of history of such propaganda, which boils down to a function of mean IQ, most consistently measured in the last 10 years to be less than 90, but which has been pronounced recently as ‘between 100 and 120 (whatever that means – a mean is a number not a range) by the Prayuth Government which must be considered to be much more interested in self-perpetuation than reality.
And thirdly, the extent to which Thais will either support or pretend to support any party of the moment perceived to have power – usually for expected self-benefit or gain of some kind. This was the crucial element in the surrender to the Japanese (without a shot being fired) during WW2, and the popularity of Thaksin governments during the Thaksin era – I’m sure there are many other examples.
What it does not show, is solidarity, cultural or otherwise. What is does show in my mind at least, is just how cheaply many or most Thais can be bought.
Time to draw the line
To all the Australians who care about this,
Write to your local member of parliament.