*Tuesday 26 September 2006*
*Peter Jackson – PAH*

*God-King as Commodity: Thailand’s King Bhumiphol as a “Virtual Deity”*

*Abstract *

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). I

will consider the partial rehabilitation of the discourse of “god-king”
in the context of the June 2006 celebrations of the 60th anniversary of
King Bhumipol’s accesion to the throne. I will reflect on the place of
“god-king” discourse in the current intense polarisation of Thai public
opinion around the rule of “interim prime minister” Thaksin Shinawatra
and the ways that royalist discourse constrains otherwise “rationalist”
Thais to voice public support for “supernatural” accounts of the place
of the King in contemporary Thai social and political life.**

Translation of the discussion into German….

I would like to point out that the Bangkok Post released on 11. April 2007 an interesting commentary on the lese majeste laws by David Streckfuss, who had earned a PhD on the issue of lese majeste and defamation in Thailand. Streckfuss – rightly, I think – argues that as this law is open to interpretation and can be used rather freely, it’s mostly used to attack political opponents. Streckfuss also suggests to add a clause that his law should only by applied “by order of the king of with his consent”.

As to how the majority of people feel about the king (as distinct from the monarchy), I think Taxi Driver has summed it up best in post #41 above.

Anyone mystified of deity kingship shoud visit the site of ‘Fah Diew Kan’. They really ‘love him’ over there!

Jon Fernquest: I don’t deny that the King is treated “inside” Thailand as if he was the equivalent of the Dalai Lama or the Pope. But as analysts we should be clear that this is historically and religiously speaking a deeply confused fallacy. I also suspect it is a self-interested one on the part of the palace, for the power of their ideology about the role of the King as a religious icon and spiritual leader relies upon slippery metaphors and associations that are not, or cannot, be examined with precision. The same with the ambivalent manner in which he is described as “like a god”. Thus the King is both fully human and fully divine, since they want to preserve both of those options when positioning the King as a political and social actor. If he was restricted to either one of those options, his authority would be significantly impaired.

I also don’t deny that he is involved in lots of (state) ceremonial activity as reported on the news. But how much of that is specifically identified as “religious” or “Buddhist”? And in how much of the religious ceremony that does occur is he positioned as a religious leader or icon (vs the monks or other religious actors taking part) instead of as a devout lay patron? Are other patrons of Buddhist ritual marked as spiritual leaders by the Thai media (obviously the King is seen as the greatest patron and thus by extension the greatest lay devotee in official, orthodox terms). These are not academic questions. Orthodox Theravadin notions of kingship are clear that the living kings are subordinate to monks as a religious actor. Which is why it would be strange to see offerings made to the living King as if he was Rama 5, for instance, who is treated as a thep in a way that the living monarch could never be (again, from an orthodox perspective).

My point is that there is a lot about the religious identity, role and significance of the current monarch that we simply don’t really know about because it hasn’t been studied. And the reason why it hasn’t been studied is obvious, of course.