Back on 20 August 2006, I posted a short note that flagged what I then saw as some of the potentially important events that were looming over the horizon for scholarly interpretations of Southeast Asia. The dramatic events of September 19, but a month later, were certainly beyond my vision of the political stalemate. Back then, almost nobody openly speculated on the possibility of another Thai coup.
In part, I wrote:
Over the next few months we will be continuing our analysis of mainland Southeast Asia’s current wave of political turbulence. Alongside the more familiar Thai showdown and looming October election, there are coming events in Burma, Cambodia and Laos that we will be following closely. There has even been recent chatter about resuming Burma’s controversial military-sponsored Constitutional Convention. This is just one more nudge to remind us that, for all its chaos and unpredictability, the situation in Thailand is still usually far tamer and more transparent than politics elsewhere in the neighbourhood.
This is worth repeating. It is my final sentence that probably requires the most revision. The situation in Thailand is now anything but “tame” or “transparent”.
In much of the 100,000s of words that have been written and spoken about Thai politics over the past month, there is clear disagreement between many well-meaning observers. At a time of crisis, this is healthy, I am sure. These divisions will, for the foreseeable future, probably mean that the academic study of Thailand occupies a divided landscape. New Mandala has, of course, contributed, in its own very small way, to this situation. In the weeks after the coup such division was unavoidable. And differences of opinion and interpretation still run the full gamut of possibilities.
New Mandala readers with an interest in Burma may be all too familar with the divisions that mark the academic study of that country. Academic alliances and shared positions – often founded in political alignments and claims - are common to almost all scholarly discussions of Burma. As far as I’m aware, this has been the prevailing situation for some decades. Perhaps countries with polarised political situations cannot help but propagate division in the academic communities that study them. Complicated and controversial politics foster different points of view. This is the nature of academic debate in the critical social sciences and humanities.
It is likely that new (or revitalised) factions will become a more conspicuous part of the Thai Studies academic scene. Some of these factions are, I reckon, beginning to form right here on New Mandala. Differences of opinion, strategy and focus are now being fully tested in a furnace of incomplete information and polarised positions. This process of testing is healthy. I think there probably needs to be more of it!
Southeast Asian Studies scholars - the anthropologists, linguists, sociologists, geographers, political scientists, economists and historians who form this collective – are now faced with the task of revising their assumptions and understandings to fit a changed environment in Thailand. The personal criticisms that can gain currency in this type of factionalised scene will not help with that crucial task. Real discussion - particularly among people who may feel that they disagree vehemently - requires a level of open-mindedness and tolerance of diversity.
These introductory comments are certainly not the last word on this crucial topic. Some - like a few regular contributors to New Mandala - may feel that academics who aren’t Thai have little to contribute and should just mind their own business. This is one position. It is certainly not the only legitimate view.
Your views on the place of Thai Studies in the current scene are, I should emphasise, most welcome. Hopefully New Mandala can host a debate that sheds some light on today’s conditions and provides some initial perspectives from those interested in the future direction of research about Thailand and its neighbours.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Ant // Oct 15, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I think that the recent debate and commentary on the coup on New Mandala is evidence that Thai studies has an important place in “the currnet scene”. I understand the sentiment that some might think non-Thais should stay out of it but that is parochial and cerrtainly not to the benfit of Thailand. As I outlined in my posting to “Outside” I think the “revising of assumptions” you mention need to be made in a critical and reflexive manner as the assumptions that are out of line with what is happening have been shown to be so, over and over throughout the region time and again. So not so much a need for revising assumptions but perhaps “questioning” them reflexively and making a bit of an epistemological shift (for some ontlogical) away from the orientalist narratives of SEAsia, democracy and economics and more of a focus on the people, perhaps is called for. The small effort to try to understand Thailand on its own terms BEFORE applying these externally derived models will pay big dividends. Revise assumptions by asking new questions I say.
2 chris white // Oct 17, 2006 at 12:16 am
Hi Ant
I was interested in reading your post particularly where you write “As I outlined in my posting to ‘Outside’ I think the “revising of assumptions” you mention need to be made in a critical and reflexive manner…” I’m a bit confused here because I looked for the post and I couldn’t find it. However, I did find in a post or two later to Grant Evens you said that you found that “some of New Mandala’s contributor’s comments regarding relationships to and of exchange (vote buying) being somewhat unreflective…” Fair enough I thought – but reflective and reflexive really do mean totally different things. Now I realize that you are a bright young fella and it’s probably just an innocent typo – I find that I make typos all the time – particular if I don’t have my glasses on. But can you please clarify which term you meant to use. And if you did mean unreflexive can you please point me to the comments that on New Mandela that demonstrate this?
Also you see the need for an “epistemological shift”. Well – I’m so excited about all this terminology – it is taking me right back to my early student days in the 1970’s – sex, drugs and rock and role. Ohh and so much fun – I wish I could still get it up. But anyway, to get back to the point . To have an “epistemological shift” suggests that we need to have some type of meta narrative to ‘shift from. I thought that we had well and truly buried them (meta narratives) by the end of the 20th century – even in the so called social ‘sciences’. One of the things that attracted me to ‘New Mandalla’ was the diversity of the stories and viewpoints being put forward – lots of small narratives – lots of different opinions. So I’m a bit surprised. If you can point them out to me (the meta narratives that is) on this site I’d really appreciate it too.
This is drawing a bit of a long bow, but, I do recognize a number of ‘types’ of meta narrative coming out of military junta in Thailand. The first is a type of perverse type of reverse ‘orientalist’ narrative. One where instead of Thailand being judged against the values of the so called ‘superior’ metropolis found in Europe the rest of the world is being judged by the superior metropolis of Bangkok – the rest of the world will never understand because they are not ‘Thai’ (what ever that is) and are inherently inferior. (perhaps this is what you are reffering to) Secondly, I sense a perverse type of neocolonial narrative emanating from the junta too– there seems to be some need to get out there and re-colonialise the country again. I would point to the coup itself and Surayud’s mission to the military outpost in Sakon Nakhon and Biri Bam last week, amoungst others, as evidence for this.
3 Ant // Oct 17, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Hi Chris, it is a typo and I did mean reflexive, sorry for the confusion. The post to “outside” is the one numbered 20 on the same thread as Grant Evans’ post and my reply to him (its just before it.). You probably saw it but as it doesn’t state categorically anything about being reflexive probably thought I was referring to another one somewhereelse.
The epistemological shift I am advocating is one away from the position that analysis of democratic and capitalist forms, in terms of how they are operationalised outside of Thailand, is how we study Thai politics/society. Indigenous political norms and processes are reduced to simplistic descriptions of institutional barriers to success of greater economic and political realisation in these analyses. In effect and as I have briefly touched on elsewhere, studies of Thai politics lack the fine grained and highly nuanced study that anthropology should be contributing to debates as the “meta narrative” or sets of assumptions as to what the issues are and what constitutes an appropriate research problem are already set and left unquestioned. In fact they dominate in the field of South East Asian studies in general.
Here we get the analyses that talk about tiger economies and Asian values and the “How to…” of democracy? You could say that there is a meta narrative that informs these approaches but I prefer to think of them as sets of assumptions (taken for granteds) that require unpacking by being subject to rigorous critical reflexive scrutiny.
Problems I see emerging from this beyond the flippant dismissal of the normative practice of vote buying being meaningful, because its stated aim of “buying votes” can’t be comprehended under the auspices of this episteme of Thai politics, namely it isn’t seen as being effective so therefore, it is redundant; is that academic accounts of Thai politics mirrors in tone and depth media reporting and diplomatic statements as to what is going on…both groups having vested interests in procedings. There is very little meaningful disagreement in debates. On the one hand we have pro Thaksin and anti-coup and on an other hand anti Thaksin anti coup pro democracy and then pro coup and anti Thaksin all of which are positions that are barracking for one or another team, the rules of the game already being understood by all players (researchers) and so not requiring being questioned. If you look a little more closely the debates of Aisan values and conditions for democracy are still with us here and what is actually happening has escaped everyone’s notice. Research findings are often more concerned with how well is democracy or capitalism going in Thailand or whereever, and problems are those issues that seem to be in the way of either one being successful.
Importantly, throughout this class and peasant are scrapped from the vernacular, unless we talk about the middleclass, and somehow through it all, the Asian values and tiger economy people become convinced that two fundamental aspects of Thai political practice, vote buying and coups have been done away with for no better reason than a couple of elections were held and a new constitution was written somewhere (again). Then suddenly there is a coup, (the vote buying has been ongoing) and people decry the loss of democracy ). It is strange to me to hear academics (social scientists–partculalry anthropologists) saying the same thing as diplomats and government heads who have vested interests in events and very tighly controlled/censored options for commentary. To conclude we need to cease seeing like and reporting for States and return some reflexivity to our ponderings. I could go on but I am sure people are getting a little tired of this soap box and it wasn’t my intention to dominate discussion so I will spare you all the rest of the sermon.
On your last point the ideologues who espouse the nationalist “occidentalism” you mention are a deeply entrenched institution of the Thai state.
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.