New Mandala

25 responses so far ↓

• 1 Ant // Nov 9, 2006 at 6:04 pm

  A very interesting combination of astrology combined with political commentary… I particularly like the idea that Sao Lak Muang have been replaced by the constitution as the centre of temporal power and in the absence of a constitution the land is in peril….that in the final concluding comments after we have been told to have faith in Phra Siam Thewathirat we (Thai people ) need to remember tham dee dai dee etc is a strangely familiar and yet somewhat discordant closing thought…is this sufficiency spirituality?

• 2 Bystander // Nov 9, 2006 at 6:09 pm

  I’m not sure if you know about the so-called prophecy. I heard this from respected source many years ago, back when all this mess was unimaginable. It tells of ten reigns in the present royal house. The last two are worth special attention. The 9th Reign is called ‘Thin Ga Khao’, or said to mean literally, ‘land of the white crow’, or metaphorically, white crow could mean, ‘caucasian foreigners’. The 10th Reign is called ‘Chao Si Vi Lai’, or the age of the civilized people, so to speak. Anyhow, another story associated with this is that, there are two ways of counting the number of sovereigns, because Rama IV ruled jointly with Pra Pinklao for some time. So, some people will count Pra Pinklao in and hence, the present is the 10th.

  Anyway, that’s what I’ve heard. I think it is interesting when people really believe in these supernatural things on a massive scale like in Thailand. I suspect they might start to act in such a way as to make the prophecy self-fulfilling.

  Thaksin is an interesting example. It is said that he’s quite superstitious and a lot of what he did was motivated by the fortune tellers. Well, it turns out it is his ceremony in the hall of the emerald buddha that gave traction to Sondhi’s allegation, and that ceremony was supposed to help him fix his bad fortune, or so we’re told. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it’s quite clear that Thaksin could have nip Sondhi in the bud early but somehow didn’t and that prove to be his undoing.

  In any case, a good fortune teller (if ever there is one) does not equal a good fortune fixer. Given that the fame of famous fortune tellers are spread by word of month, I think it’s almost gauranteed that a good fortune teller sucks at fixing your fortune. It is a predicted misfortune that happened despite corrective action that makes people believe the fortune teller is any good. Thus, a misfortune that doesn’t happen means your life goes on as usual and is readily interpreted as inaccurate prediction, and hence a good fortune teller/fixer will have a hard time reaching superstar status.

• 3 Nirut // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:11 pm

  I haven’t heard about the “tenth reign” stuff you mention, bystander, but would be interested to know more if you have more detail. At risk of starting another spate of Thai royal hagiography on this site (apologies if it starts up again, Andrew) I have heard the story about how the 9th king will be the last of the dynasty based on a curse put on rama 1 for killing King Taksin of Thonburi fame…I tend to look at these stories as myths in the Levi-Straussian sense of the word rather than to treat with them literally…

  Another thing just briefly, while this is a multidisciplinary site is it really necessary to refer to other people’s beliefs and practices in typically ethnocentric language? Say calling belief in spirits and astrology, related ritual practice and contemporary forms of this “voodoo” and “superstition”? Has anyone here read E. Evans-Priitchard’s book Witchcraft, oracles and magic among the Azande…I don’t mean this as a complaint but what level discussion are you going to get out of dismissing such things out of hand so readily? Strikes me as a little strange considering the anthropological bent of the site’s administrator…

• 4 Andrew Walker // Nov 9, 2006 at 10:06 pm

  Thanks Nirut, I suspect some of us are using “voodoo” to turn some the mockery back on those who dismiss it as “voodoo.” Others, I suspect, really think it is “voodoo.” I think the anxiety about “voodoo” is an interesting phenomenon in itself.

• 5 nganadeeleg // Nov 9, 2006 at 10:49 pm

  Just because they believe it doesn’t make it not voodoo and superstition – what else is it?

• 6 Nirut // Nov 10, 2006 at 11:12 am

  The use of Voodoo with superstition as parody of Voodoo and superstition is an interesting approach to take to mock those who really think it to be Voodoo and superstition…sorry the subtlty was lost on me…and yet the use of voodoo as emblematic of superstition and hence a little ethnocentric was not. I just thought the anthropological dimension of the multidisciplinary might like to make its contribution and set a tone to the discussions that reflects the deeper interest that anthropology has in humanity and its diversity.

  Hobby, it is not Voodoo as Voodoo is not something practciced on the Asian continent and has a whole different history and form to such things as Thaksin’s use of Thai astrology, duang chata rituals and the related Thai practices being labeled as “dark magic” that was being bandied around. That you wish to call it “superstition” is of course your perogative and duly noted . It is after all what you believe and as Andrew mentioned makes for an interesting aside to the practices under discussion. Or does it…? I would have thought that Evans-Pritchard’s book had dealt with this point quite decisively. That is that to label these practics as superstition has its history and that isn’t one to be proud of. Framing people’s beliefs and practices as Superstition is of the class of the same notions that saw Asians believed to be inferior to Cuacasians, legitimated much of the imperialist project that itself is the source of the interpretation of non-western scientific (and some Christian) practice as being backward superstition of the inferior people’s of the world and so quintessential bigotry. What is it if it isn’t superstition…? practices and beliefs that are meaningful to the people who practice them, that have very real effects, are emblematic of the possibilities of human existence, pose a strong argument against the dominance of the natural sciences as the only legitimate epistemology for understanding the world and something that if looked at with intent to understand rather than to denegrate, anotherway of living to your own…

• 7 nganadeeleg // Nov 10, 2006 at 12:41 pm

  Nirut, I accept it is another way of living to my own.
  I choose to limit my beliefs to the rational, and not be a ‘blind’ believer when it comes to matters such as superstition and religion etc.

  I do not claim to be superior and do not wish to denigrate.
  I only weighed in to this because I would prefer if leaders (and voters) were more rational rather than relying on ’superstitions’ and ‘faith’ in their decision making.

  My concerns are not limited to Thailand.

• 8 Nirut // Nov 10, 2006 at 7:05 pm

  Hobby, it would appear then that you rail at the “irrational peasant” syndrome as did the clonial powers of Europe before you. However, your rationality is but one rationality among many and has no monopoloy on legitimacy, it makes sense to you as does other people’s to them, but your concern that others don’t share yours is where most people on this planet differ from you as is manifest in their rejection of colonialism. Now if you were to avail yourself of Evans-Pritchard’s book you would find that the existence of your rationality does not have to be pitted against others as if they were “irrational” or problematic, in fact you might even come to better terms with the limitations of your own…were you interested that is.

  That goes for the whole world not just Thailand.

• 9 nganadeeleg // Nov 10, 2006 at 8:28 pm

  Nirut,
  Please feel free to summarise Evan-Pritchards conclusions, especially how belief in superstition, voodoo etc is rational.

  If you are interested please look at the work of Bruce Hood, professor of experimental psychology at the University of Bristol (Google should produce some hits).

  I will let your comments about irrational peasants/colonialism pass as I know they do not apply to me.

• 10 Nirut // Nov 10, 2006 at 10:11 pm

  Put simply Evans-Pritchard writes of the beliefs and practices of the Azande with an interest in “reason” or “rationality”. He demonstrates through his ethnography how understanding other’s beliefs and practices, without submitting them to the “authority” of post enlightenment European thought /reason (or its contemporary post-modern cousin) illustrates how in earlier studies attempts to do so obfuscated much of what was going on and effectively blinded (to use your term) people to the fact that magic and sorcery and witchcraft are not about extraordinary phenomena at all and most importantly that there is no such thing as a single or ultimate form of rationality or practical reason.

  The act of labelling one practice in one part of the world with a term from another practice (that you see as being the same) from another part of the world, to imply or state explicitly that it is superstition (in fact do so to emphasise the perception of it being superstitious), is nothing less than a display of coneited ignorance of which the colonial predecessor from which the very language comes from embodied cum epitomised…

  So how do you “know” the allegations regarding irrational peasants and colonialism don’t apply to you , esp as you have stated that they worry you and are superstition (your global range of concern reeks of colony making my friend)?

  An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
  A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality. Idolatry.

  There is no interpretation of superstition implied or stated that isn’t born of conceit on behalf of those making the claim that something is superstitous…

• 11 Nirut // Nov 11, 2006 at 12:40 am

  For a bit more of a context Evans-Pritchard’s work has been pivotal in shaping anthropology into what it is today in terms of much of contemporary notions of cultural relativism within anthropology…concomitantly the study of socery and witchcraft are a staple of anthropology, up there with kinship, and the ideas of multiple rationalities shouldn’t be foreign to anyone familiar with the discipline.

• 12 nganadeeleg // Nov 11, 2006 at 10:17 am

  This is going nowhere – I’m not sure where you are coming from, Nirut – why all this talk of colonialism?
  Since when does having an opinion on global matters ‘reek of colony making’ ?
  My concern that others on the planet don’t share my ‘rationality’ has nothing to do with colonialism – it is more a concern about the many things that are going wrong (my rationality guides me to not harm others in pursuit of my personal satisfaction – I do not kill, seek power or wealth, especially at the expense of others, and I do not just blindly believe – therefore some may say I have no ‘faith’, but am I irrational or a coloniser?)

  Life still has it’s mysteries and while no one has all the answers I choose not to ‘blindly’ believe – that’s my rationality.
  Of course it seems rational to me, just like other peoples beliefs and practices obviously seem rational to them.
  I can be irrational too, usually by choice. At that time am I being rational or irrational?
  As for superstitions (and religions), where there is no real ‘truth’, then I think rationalty can fall into three camps:
  1. I just believe
  2. I don’t know, but I choose to believe
  3. I don’t know, but I choose not to believe

  In my opinion, 2 & 3 are rational, but 1 is irrational.

  Multiple rationalities – I think that term would apply to Thaksin.

  There are also different levels of rationality, heres an example:
  Revenge – on the one hand it would seem perfectly rational, but on another it would be irrational because it is likely to escalate the situation.

  Your initial complaint was:
  ‘is it really necessary to refer to other people’s beliefs and practices in typically ethnocentric language?’
  Here is my response:
  Whilst this is an academic site, I am not an academic.
  Therefore I may not use the appropriate language because I am not aware of it.

  Hopefully, the above has explained where I am coming from.

• 13 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 12:44 am

  Hobby for a non-academic you are certainly committed to your ideas. The relationship between colonialism and what you were saying, that I made, is that your ideas have their history in colonialism and that you mentioned that you were concerned with how other’s were being irrational with their “blind faith”, unlike you and not just in Thailand, could be taken from the annals of a colonial bureaucrat writing of non-European people and their practices…your “opinion on global matters” by the way was in fact a “concern…not limited to Thailand”, subtle but important difference.

  Blind faith and superstition have nothing to do with what you were discussing, that was your interpretation of the phenomena/practices under consideration. An interpretation that reflects how you think such practices must be limited to the superstitious minds of people of irrational faith…an interpretation that originates in colonialism…to think that there is one truth and anyone who doesn’t share it with you is blindly believing in something irrationally is pretty much as ethnocentric as a person can get.

  This is not about being politically correct and using appropriate language for the sake of it. I am not making a rejoinder based on feeling slighted/offended or in order ot set myself up as some kind of speech police. The language and interpretation behind it, that you used is/was ethnocentric, meaning to be of the opinion that one’s own beliefs, practices, culture etc are superior to others…

  revenge may well be rational (depending on who and where you are) but escalation of a situation not universally avoided…in fact in terms of Cambodia revenge is rational and is undertaken in such a way as to eliminate escalation by not only killing the perpetrator of the incident requiring revenge as a response but his/her kin ensuring no one is around to escalate have alook at Alexander Cohen’s journal article “A Head for an Eye” where he discusses this cultural logic of disproportionate revenge.

  The alternative position of course to the ethnocentrism that you (and many others on this site) fall back on, is to recognise that you don’t understand what people are doing when they engage with or practice what you have labelled as voodoo and superstition and if you are genuinely interested, as your “concern” would have me believe (hope), then try reading the book I recommended and if interested others on the topic…

• 14 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 9:57 am

  I am prepared to accept the position I don’t understand what people are doing when they engage with or practice what you I have labelled as voodoo and superstition.

  IMHO the people who practice it don’t understand what they are doing, so how can I?

• 15 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 10:19 am

  Hoby, that is an assertion that makes conceited ignorance sound like it deserves a nobel prize.

• 16 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 12:25 pm

  Nirut, thats a bit rich.
  To be honest, I am becoming quite scared by the opinions of some of you ‘academics’
  You are attacking my conceited ignorance, while your comments on revenge go close to justifying genocide.

• 17 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 1:02 pm

  Nirut, I don’t intend contributing any more to this discussion on what I call ‘voodoo and superstition’.
  I’ve explained my views in post 12 above, and am prepared to accept that I am ignorant (by choice) when it comes to voodoo.

  In case you are wondering, my comment on genocide and revenge was not meant to be personal, and rather another of my ‘concerns’ about how people see things differently.

  I look forward to your thoughts on reasons to still support Thaksin on the other thread:
  http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/09/21/new-mandala-in-the-press/#comment-6803

• 18 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 1:53 pm

  Andrew as an anthropologist who has just given a paper on village ritual, has an interest in matrilineal Spirit cults and said recently that they were going to look into people’s beliefs in the context of political culture do you have nothing to contribute here?

• 19 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 2:26 pm

  Sorry to butt in again, Nirut, but I could not resist.
  Aside from the anthropoligst’s take on things, perhaps a psychologist’s perspective on why people need rituals, superstitions and religion would also be helpful in understanding these things.

• 20 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 6:41 pm

  Well if you would be interested to read about the psychological functionalist interpretations of this kind of thing I suggest you read Melford Spiro’s “Burmese Supernaturalism”…note he doesn’t call it superstition….

• 21 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 8:46 pm

  This is from a review of the book on Amazon:
  ‘Primarily, Spiro presents these beliefs as strategies to deal with suffering. Secondly, he presents them as occasionally expressing dissent against the dominant Theravada Buddhism.’

  That’s exactly in accordance with what I think.
  (I have not read the book and know nothing about Burmese supernaturalism.)

  ‘Strategys to deal with suffering’ – IMHO the reason most people believe in religion, superstion, voodoo and the like.
  There is a lot of suffering in this world, and it’s a lot easier to just believe in something than to have to try to rationalise it some other way.

  ‘Expressing dissent against the dominant Theravada Buddhism.’
  - I like ‘pure’ Theravada Buddhism as a religion, but unlike most other religions it does not offer much explanation for the great questions in life, therefore the need for supernaturalism (voodoo & superstition).

• 22 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 10:03 pm

  Hobby, you are relentless. I disagree with Spiro’s take on these things and while I do not discount the potential psychological benefits that may be part of the experience i wouldn’t reduce the practices to that effect alone. HAve a look at some other literature in the field….

• 23 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 11:21 pm

  Nirut, you must by now realise that I am lazy. Instead of advising me to look at ‘other literature in the field’, it would be much more helpful to me if you gave a concise summary of what you see are reasons behind the practices.
  (I’m not an academic, so there is no need to go into detail about the ‘complexities and subtleties’ that academics might consider important – I’m sure the other academics at this site will let you get away with just a concise summary statement/opinion when dealing with me.)

  By the way, I’m still waiting for some responses from people about other reasons to continue to support Thaksin … maybe I will have more luck getting a response over at Pundits blog?
  Aside from the discussions on rural voters, I would be really interested why an urban voter would continue to support Thaksin.

  Also I would appreciate some comment from the pro democracy, anti-coup camp about how the problem of Thaksin would have been solved without the coup.
  (or do they not even consider that Thaksin was a problem, because he is what the ‘democratic system’ threw up)

• 24 Nirut // Nov 14, 2006 at 12:16 am

  Hobby, the point to all I am saying on this belief issue is the “reasons” you seek do not exist by merit of your limiting any legitimate ones to ones that make sense to you in your terms…I am not holding out on you and expecting you to “find out for yourself’ with a set of explanations that can be looked up in the index of a book, what I am saying is there are other ways of looking at the issue that can cast some light on the areas you are finding difficult to comprehend…there are also huge similarities between how you think and what you believe as thos eof the people under discussion…its how you think about it that is important.

  On the voting for Thaksin issue the urban voters that I know, who aid they voted for Thaksin and would again, did so because in their words he was tough on crime, immigration and illegal immigrants, he was sensitive to the moral crisis that some saw is afflicting Thailand and his social policies reflected this. They were unaware at the time I was talking to them of the conflict between Thaksin and the King, they thought he was a good business man and so had economic accumen and on the issue of corruption they saw him as not that different from other candidates and parties. They very much liked his “det khard” (absolutist) approach to things. In terms of the violence in the south these same people saw the escalation over the last couple of years as evidence that something was being done about the strife there at the same time as evidence that something more needed doing. Thaksin apealed to these people on a number of levels and most of them not that different to the appeal of candidates and parties in the US and Great Britain to their voters. This particular group I am referring to all have tertiary level eductaion from either a Thai intitution or from Japan, Australia the Phillipnes or India. Their education is infields like tourism, economics or business administration, a couple of them were employed in the public service and the rest in private industry. In total I am talking about a group of people numbering around 15 who for the most part socialised together, were long term friends, some from high school, and aged between 30 and 35 yrs. They live in the vicinity of Rad Phrao and Nonthaburi and earn somewhere between 10 to 65 thousand baht a month depending on their respective employment. A couple of them think the coup is a good idea as it is restoring people’s respect in the king while other’s have said they think it is international interference similar to the election that was declared null and void in 1992 and saw Suchinda maintain power after the US said the elected candidate in question had links to drug dealers, priimarily through his brother (their words)…this is just a general account of my experience with one particular group of urban pro Thaksinites…I have met many outer province urbanites who support him but only in passing but they and their rural counterparts do share some of these opinions..this is not said as a determinant of their voting choices, just a reflection of their conversations on the topic and others related to it.

• 25 nganadeeleg // Nov 14, 2006 at 9:31 am

  Thank you Nirut.
  Those urban voters sound similar to voters in the west – voting on single issues seems to be very prevalent (in Australia usually it’s called voting with the hip-pocket)

  I was just trying to be rational looking at the big picture of how divisive Thaksin had become and once he had shown his true colors with the Temasek deal, why people still supported him.

  Of course, if I put my irrational hat on, I too can find many reasons to vote for Thaksin.

Leave a Comment