An interesting seminar this morning at ANU by historian Peter Jackson on the deva-raja (god-king) in Thailand. Too late for NewMandala readers to go to the seminar but the circulated abstract makes interesting reading in the light of some of our earlier discussion:
God-King as Commodity: Thailand’s King Bhumiphol as a “Virtual Deity”.
In this work-in-progress seminar I will discuss the re-emergence of the discourse of “deva-raja” (god-king) around the present King of Thailand, Bhumiphol. Historically the legitimacy of monarchical rule in Thailand drew both on Buddhist notions of “dhamma-raja” (righteous monarch) and Brahmanical notions of “deva-raja” (god-king). There was never a clearly formulated resolution of the tension between these different conceptions of kingship, with the alternative Buddhist and Brahmanical symbolisms of royal rule rising and falling in prominence in different periods. In the modern period, ideas of Buddhist kingship have generally been more popular and linked with notions of modernity, scientific rationality, and progressive democratic rule. In contrast, Brahmanical symbolisms have at times been critiqued for their historical association with “irrational” beliefs and “dictatorial” government. However, in the past couple of decades the notion of Thailand’s king as a “deva-raja” or “god-king” has begun to reappear in nationalist discourse, even if in the somewhat ironic idiom of a “virtual god-king” (sammuti deva-raja).
6 responses so far ↓
1 Nui // Sep 27, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Here, I wrote this blog in October 2004, “Pra Chao Paendin” not a God. I find it frustrating that people who don’t speak our language try to interpret our concepts for us. The dig in their books and papers and use their intelligence to imagine silly things.
2 Nicholas Farrelly // Sep 27, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Dear Nui,
I understand your frustration but, just to clarify, Peter Jackson does, in my experience, speak and read Thai. He is a very competent historian, and a serious scholar of Thai religion, sexuality and politics.
The sloppy (and sometimes awkwardly eurocentric) interpretations that you criticise in your 2004 blog post perhaps don\’t apply in Jackson\’s current research. I didn\’t attend this recent seminar – and haven\’t seen his paper on this particular topic – but in my experience his work always merits a concerted reading.
It may be a bit presumptuous to dismiss his ideas as \”silly things\”.
Nicholas
3 Andrew Walker // Sep 27, 2006 at 8:16 pm
I suppose the key question is how you would translate “deva raja”. You may be interested in reading Grant Evans’ review of Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles which we featured earlier on NewMandala. Evans is critical of Handley’s use of the deva-raja concept (and he also states that Handley overestimates the power of the king).
4 JS // Sep 28, 2006 at 4:03 pm
To me, what is unclear in Peter interpretion of ‘God-King’ here is the way he defines the concept of ‘deva-raja’ in modern thai society. Besides, I think by framing the analysis with such concept in explaining the changing images of kingship percieved by Thais is partial true yet too quick for conclusion. Another discourse that maybe worth understanding is the idea of ‘Dhama Raja’ And if you watch television program during the royal celebration, you might see the quick swap, and the mixture of, representations of the king as both Deva and Dhamma Raja. Often times, theses two concepts have been used interchangable by medias without really dig into the roots of its very idea. There is a trend in society to shift the the idea of King from merely grounded on Deva notion to the more integrative representation with relations to the realm of Dhama. The very reason is that the latter one, as it is more down to earth, can be ‘felt’ and ’sympathetic’ by the Thai people better. And that they are more tied or feel closer to the royalty than the king as god. If you ask the Thais walking on the street how they percieve the King as, I am sure that the latter one will make more counts.
So, yes, I agree that the idea of Deva still is attached to the royalty symbolism and as social institution, but using merely Deva concept in explaining the changes may risk ignoring the dynamics of royal re-construction of public images as well as different chrarismatic tools employed by the palace in maintaining the royal legistimacy in today Thailand.
5 New Mandala » “Thou shalt not criticise dad” // Oct 18, 2006 at 9:34 pm
[...] Kraisak argued that it is ridiculous to suggest that the monarchy is on the rise in Thailand and said that any suggestions that the king was behind the coup are “absolutely false”. He suggested that the idea of a god-king (deva-raja) is contrary to democratic ideology. Like Sondhi he emphasised the positive role of this king. He referred to the role of the king in protecting people in the violent crises of both 1973 and 1992. He applauded the king for speaking out against Thaksin’s bloodthirsty war on drugs. Like Sondhi, Kraisak also emphased the role of the king in welfare provision: many of the minorities in the north of Thailand would still be very poor if it wasn’t for the king’s projects (whereas Thaksin, he claimed, had annulled the citizenship of many uplanders and, through the free trade agreement with China, destroyed the opium substitution initiatives of the Royal Project Foundation). And, Kraisak argued, prior to the Thaksin era, the “network monarchy” had played an important role in easing tensions in the south. [...]
6 New Mandala » Buddhist Studies at Oxford // Nov 2, 2006 at 2:40 am
[...] Depending on how broadly it is conceived, “Buddhist Social History” is one sub-discipline that is particularly relevant to the sorts of recent discussions we have hosted here at New Mandala. [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.