New Mandala

49 responses so far ↓

• 1 polo // Jan 12, 2008 at 2:28 am

  So did everyone wear black?

• 2 Srithanonchai // Jan 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  Are the organizers going to make all the papers presented at the conference available for the public on their web site?

• 3 Bob // Jan 12, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  At least one media ‘outlet’ is giving the Conference good coverage …

  http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=340
  http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=347
  http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=345

• 4 Fab-bob // Jan 12, 2008 at 5:53 pm

  I don’t want to spread false rumours, but has anyone seen a confirmation that the police confiscated the videos taken during the conference (including of course those of the SE and Handley panels)

  Btw, I found there was not that many people wearing black the second and third day.

• 5 June // Jan 12, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  I missed the registration deadline, yes, my fault!
  I didn’t want coffee, dinner, and anything. All I want is to sit and listen to what presenters say. It was unbelievably difficult for me to finally get a permission from the conference organizers. I can’t help but wonder why, why, and why. Isn’t academic conference supposed to be open for all who wants to join it?

• 6 saraburian // Jan 13, 2008 at 1:58 am

  Re: Fab-bob

  On the third day of the conference I think the organizer openly acknowledged that the police requested for the video tape of the Monarchy panel in which they said they willingly co-operated. I also didn’t see any confiscation during or after the panel.

  On wearing black, my own estimation is 70-80% were in black.

• 7 ChrisIPS // Jan 13, 2008 at 8:01 am

  ……..on the third day….the police requested for the video tape of the Monarchy panel?!

  ……..from an academic conference?!

  ……..if I were a Thai academic with a wife and family to support and a career in Thailand to ponder, I would either be keeping my mouth completely shut………or only using words that were completely pc and safe.

  …..how can the academics from all the other countries passively accept such a situation!?

• 8 polo // Jan 13, 2008 at 1:26 pm

  If Saraburian is right, can anyone say on what grounds the organiser gave/shared the videotape with the police? That’s outrageous. If the police want information with no grounds, they ought to have to work for it. Even if the point is to show them nothing happened.

• 9 Srithanonchai // Jan 13, 2008 at 4:21 pm

  Saraburian: So, now the fun part of the monarchy panels will start, hoping that the “sky won’t fall on our heads” (AW, Hagar)? It is the duty of the Thammasat organizers to issue a statement on this point, and to closely follow up the police proceedings. It tells us something about the state of academic freedom in Thailand that such an international academic conference is subject to police observation. Annette Hamilton’d words at the conference spring to mind.

• 10 Mahamekian // Jan 13, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  I also missed registration deadline, at least the on-line one. I subsequently sent an email to the organisers seeking advice as to how I could register. The reply, when it eventually came, was that registration was not possible. Like “June” I didn’t want coffee, dinner, attendance at opening receptions, accommodation, or conference bags or t-shirts, and I would have been happy to wait until after the conference finished for copies of the abstracts. Basically I just wanted to attend a few sessions that were of interest and would have been happy to pay the registration fee (despite the ridiculous two-tiered pricing). Unlike “June” I didn’t persevere and didn’t get to attend.

  It seems to me that the Conference has departed radically from the spirit in which it was originally conceived, which was to include rather than exclude, and encourage participation of all genuinely interested in Thai (Tai) studies.

• 11 Srithanonchai // Jan 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  ICTS:

  The Nation: Kavi is so daring, he has to embed a few words on the Thai monarchy and the ICTS in an article on the monarchies of Nepal, Bhutan and the UK.

  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/14/opinion/opinion_30062115.php

  Bangkok Post: Here is an article reporting the broadside on the sufficiency economy at the ICTS.

  http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/14Jan2008_news15.php

• 12 June // Jan 14, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  On the Paul Hanley’s session, I was surprised to hear Prof. Kobkua.

  “As to questions from people who specifically mention my name, let’s talk during coffee~”

  Oh~ My~

  What about other people who also want to hear from the author of ?

  I don’t think this kind of attitude is appropriate at the academic conference. I expected more than that from Thai academia. It was very disappointing.

• 13 June // Jan 14, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  from the author of “Kings, Country and Constitution”

• 14 Republican // Jan 14, 2008 at 9:28 pm

  #11 Thanks for the link to the Kavi article. I couldn’t help but notice this comment: “…Last October, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand published a collection of articles written by foreign journalists from around the world about His Majesty and his six-decade reign. Almost all of them were positive…”

  Here lies the problem. Blame it on the Privy Council or the military or the “elite” or the “conservatives” or the bureaucracy or anybody but the king himself. Why can’t the foreign journos see through the charade? If they can see through the charade why don’t they say?

• 15 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jan 14, 2008 at 10:56 pm

  Regarding today’s Bangkok Post report on debates over sufficient economy.

  Notice how Prof.Keyes’ positive remarks on HMK’s ’sufficient economy’ is being used by the reporter to contrast with views of others critical of HMK’s idea. Just as Khun Republican has earlier predicted here.

• 16 saraburian // Jan 15, 2008 at 1:13 am

  Nithi was even worse than Kobkua. He did not even finished his part nor responded to any questions. Kobkua at least finished her part as well as responded to many comments, albeit half-heartedly.
  Well, how much can we expect from the most prominent coup-inviting academic?

• 17 VL // Jan 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm

  I was completely disappointed with the conference’s over-use of packaging and plastic for food.
  Snacks: individually wrapped and served in boxes.
  Meals: cold, un-appetizing meals served in plastic boxes with plastic utensils wrapped in plastic ( I will not even go into their lack of vegetarian options). Even the ‘banquet’ meals deferred to plastic! There is really no excuse; every time after meals or snacks you could see wait staff hauling away full-garbage gags!

  I assume that this was an ‘oversight’ on the organizers part but I strongly recommend that this be of concern for future conference (and yes, I wrote all this on the evaluation).

• 18 Srithanonchai // Jan 15, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  To all: Does anybody have an overview on how the ICTS was reflected in the Thai press, English and Thai?

• 19 Republican // Jan 16, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  Further to Fab-bob/polo/Srithanonchai/Chris IPS/Saraburian’s query whether the ICTS organizers handed over the video tape of the panel on the monarchy to the police/Santibal: can anyone confirm this?

  This seems to me to be an extremely serious issue. I agree with Srithanonchai (#9) that, given the significance of the ICTS to Thai Studies generally, as well as the controversy surrounding this year’s conference in particular, the organizers ought to make a statement of clarification.

  This ICTS was advertised as an academic conference (with a substantial registration fee), and participants were encouraged to be critical. If we find out that the ICTS organizers were complicit in providing evidence which could later be used to substantiate a lese majeste charge against conference participants (whether they were legally required to do so or not) then what does this tell us about the integrity of the ICTS organizers and the ICTS itself?

• 20 Srithanonchai // Jan 17, 2008 at 3:01 am

  xWhy have there been so few comments on the ICTS, and not a single substantial post on its panels so far (the only one I saw was by Justin McDaniel on his mailing list)?

• 21 nganadeeleg // Jan 17, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  Why have there been so few comments on the ICTS, and not a single substantial post on its panels so far

  Perhaps they have all been arrested

  (or still in transit?)

• 22 Srithanonchai // Jan 17, 2008 at 8:27 pm

  NG: Hopefully in transit!

• 23 Land of Snarls // Jan 17, 2008 at 10:20 pm

  Naaah! They’re all caught up in queus, waiting to sign the Memorial Book.

• 24 German-lover // Jan 17, 2008 at 11:09 pm

  why everybody only asks for coverage in English papers. There had been a substantial coverage of the event with 3 or 4 quite critical comments on the german internet site http://www.schoenes-thailand.de

• 25 German-lover // Jan 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm

  can anybody confirm, that the police confiscated the video-tapes of the conference?
  If yes there would be a quite drastic answer from the German academic community I believe

• 26 George Orwell // Jan 18, 2008 at 8:30 am

  I attended the monarchy panels.

  1) The moderator Prof Herzfeld of Harvard and organizer (Thai professor from U of Wisconsin, name escapes me) both told me afterwards that the video would not be given out. They were certainly aware of the situation and suspected police presence so we can at least trust that they will treat such an issue with some gravity.

  2) The panel discussion on the book was disappointing but the point was simply to “open the dialogue” as Prof Herzfeld said. They must be given credit for doing this. I personally could not have imagined this when the book was released. The other panels were excellent, especially the one on lese majeste. It is a strong start overall, I think.

  3) The panelists (three) on TKNS freely told me that they were wary of saying anything controversial and dodged questions to an extent. Can we blame them? Again, they wwere courageous to even show their faces and risk being banned.

• 27 Land of Snarls // Jan 19, 2008 at 4:41 am

  Conference paper now available in full on Prachatai site:

  Memory and Power on Ratchadamnoen Avenue

  by

  Chatri Prakitnonthakan

  Faculty of Architecture, Silpakorn University

  Acharn Chatri Prakitnonthakan is known for his writings on the political history of Thai architecture and are of interest to students of Thai politics and history, as well as architecture. This paper was delivered to the 10th International Thai Studies Conference which was recently held at Thammasat University and is published with the author’s kind permission.

  http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=484

• 28 Thongchai // Jan 19, 2008 at 7:09 am

  The news/rumors spread afterward that police asked for the tapes and/or confiscated the tapes.
  Fact: As far as I know, the police have not asked for any tapes (yet?). I do not know if they are going to ask or not. At this point, I do not know how the rumors spread.

  Thanks for the genuine concerns.

• 29 an observer // Jan 20, 2008 at 6:44 am

  A few people here seem like a shark who smells blood (of the organizers) even though the blood is only a rumor. They seem care only about how bad ane evil the organizers are romuored to be but not much discussion about the panels (its substance, its politics, and so on). Their interest seem to minimize any positive contributions and find whats’ wrong about the organizers and the panels. This is similar to Thai l anguage newspapers that only care about the danger of the panels, speakers and call the police to investigate. Their info are worng and never checked the open and available sources because all they care was to attack.

  Distrust and biases have been so strong that even any little thing like the problem with late registration was interpreted as a political conspiracy. The fact that Thai media didn’t report the event was suggested as if it was the organizers’ false. Nidhi’s first half of presentation was on how Handley has put forward a new frame to understand the monarchy’s role in Thai politics and how scholars have failed to do what Handley does. Yet, nobody cares to discuss this point. Nidhi dismisses Nakharin’s book as nothing. Yet, some people on webboards reported the opposite, that Nidhi priases Nakharin’s book. Many here and on other webboards ridicule the speakers and dismiss them as saying nothing. I think they talked much more than what has been reported. They said a lot of things that are normally not said in public. Of course they cannot say everything as they wish. But not-so-stupid people realize immediately what they mean and what to think more. Why should we demand that they say exact words we want to hear? If so, we should first say those words on this webboard with real names. If we dare not to say those words even on a webboard with real names, who are we to demand those in a public forum to say what we want to hear.

  When the panels were porposed, some dismissed them as impossible. When they are possible, the same people said they are smokescreen for evils and only nice things to be said about the monarchy. Now the panels proved to be very critical (repeat: much more than being reported, from the first panel to the end, perhaps except only one speaker out of ten), all that some people here care is to take advantage of the rumors to scold at the organizers and the event again.

  Where is the discussion about the connections between the cult of King Chulalongkorn and the present king, as a paper in poanels one suggested?
  Where is the disucssion about the Crown Prop Bureau and how it survived the 1997 crisis in mysterious ways as another paper on the first panel suggest?
  Where is the discussion about the role of the privy councillor and the fatc that this paper was written by Handley (and this daring politics is not even mentioned except in a report by AP)?
  Where is the discussion about the self-censorship among Thai media becausae of the lesxe majeste law as a paper in the secon dpanel suggested?
  Where is the discussion about the four propositions about the lese majeste law that two other speakers of the second panel suggested? They suggest that Thai public should discuss the four proposals: 1)add the clause that an expression about the monarchy in the spirit of the constitution should be protected; 2) cut the category of “Doo Min” (not sure what legal language is) from the lese majeste law; 3) create a condition that the palace or its secretariat, as the injured, must approve a charge; and 4) abolish the lese majeste law. Are these strong and courageous enough to put in public at this time.
  Where is the discussion about Nidhi’s endorsement of Handley’s book as a new frame for analysis that no other works have done before. He doesn’t say he totally supports it. But this is the same when most of us say a book is great, i.e. we are not required to agree with it. Given the fat that the book was banned and said to be dangerous to the monarchy, why isn’t this enough to appreciate what Nidhi does? Why do we only appreciate one only when he says the word we want to hear?
  Where is the discussion about the politics of the whole panels, plus the Sufficientcy Econ and some other highly critical panels in the conference? Or do we only care to point out that they cannot say everything because of the lese majeste law 5555? Is it a proud victory to say so?

  I do not expect that we must give praises and high acclaims to them. But in my opinion, distrust, biases, negetivity are rampant on the anti-roylaist webboards. They ignore the worthy opportunities to discuss the issues that have been raised by the panels. What we should do is to encourage more discussions in public as possible and as opportunity allows.

  Some people only care to claim that they are true anti-royalist than others, pure and superior to others. Yet most of this kind of people rarely say anything in full with real names even on a webboard, let alone a public form. Some said an open form is the place for fame seeker. (The same person now blames the organizers, based on rumors, for not protecting the speakers.) Why can’t we credit whom and where deserve credits, and question and criticze whom and where deserve criticism?

• 30 khamtham // Jan 20, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  Perhaps this conference should have been called the international conference for those obsessed with debating the monarchy. I know this issue was always going to be the ‘big one’ but the extent to which the discussion of this conference on new mandala, and anywhere else, has obsessed about it is appalling. It was an international conference on thai studies for buddha’s sake. You should all be ashamed to call yourselves academics and researchers. You have all been sucked in by the very populism you seek to critique. There was a lot lot more to discuss and debate at the conference but it was simply a lost opportunity. You all seem to have forgotten that one of the great strengths of academic research is that it transcends the immediate issues of the day, those that are picked up by media, rumour and general public discouse. Where was the deeper intellectual discussion about Thai studies? I agree with the king, there is nothing to smile about.

• 31 Srithanonchai // Jan 20, 2008 at 3:22 pm

  xAn observer: Since you have obviously been at the conference, why don’t you move beyond your complaints, and add a substantial comment on one or two of the panels that you attended? That would be beneficial to people such as me, who were prevented from taking part in the conference.

• 32 hrk // Jan 20, 2008 at 8:49 pm

  I appreciate the comment from the observer. One should definitely not judge a conference based on rumours, especially if it is not evident where they have been generated. Any larger scale conferences faces problems and difficulties. Of course, these should be addressed, but not with a kind of conspiracy theory in mind.
  I am slightly surprised that the discussion focuses nearly entirely on issues related to monarchy. Haven’t there been several other panels dealing with other issues like the changes in the Mekong region or are these irrelevant?
  The references to the own biography in some comments is annoying. Not because someone lives in Thailand since a few years, was born there etc. makes an argument strong, but the perspectives and data the argument is based on.

• 33 Land of Snarls // Jan 20, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  ‘an observer’: Thanks a lot! At last I’m starting to get some idea of the scope & content of the conference. Unfortunately I was unable to attend and , like many in my position, I’m waiting for a reasonable discussion to begin.

  I’d really appreciate it if SOMEONE would answer the following question: Is there a published colloquium from the conference? If so, will it be made available at an affordable price to non-attendees? If not, will someone please scan it & put it onto the net, even on a torrent site, if necessary.

  Yes, yes: it is early days, I know. And many of the international attendees are probably still away from home. But this was obviously a rather ground-breaking conference, hence my impatience.

  Ummm, ‘an observer’: Why the 5555 after ‘lese majeste’?

• 34 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jan 21, 2008 at 2:50 am

  http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?showtopic=5270

  This is my partial response to ‘an observer’ above as well as my partial re-action to Nidhi’s paper. (It’s partial because I simply have no time to write a long and complete one yet.)

  Sorry too, in Thai only.

• 35 Srithanonchai // Jan 21, 2008 at 2:49 pm

  yKhamtham, hrk – been at the conference, attended panels – why not put together posts on the non-monarchy panels that you observed?

• 36 Srithanonchai // Jan 23, 2008 at 1:17 am

  ySince there seem to be little interest in commenting on the ITSC, can somebody perhaps throw some more light on the news piece below? According to it, Sweden will withdraw its development cooperation from Laos.

  “Sweden upset over slow reform in Laos

  Sweden’s decision to shut its embassy in Laos this year was primarily due to a redirection of Swedish development aid towards Africa but was also influenced by the slow pace of political reforms in the communist state, media reports revealed Tuesday.
  “The process of political reforms in Laos has been rather slow in comparison with other reforms in the country. This has not been the only reason but could be one of the factors affecting the final decision,” said Swedish Charge d’Affairs to Vientiane AnnLis Aberg in an interview with ScandAsia, a news portal on Southeast Asia.
  Sweden has decided to close its embassy in Vientiane on August 15, this year, as a result of a refocusing of the its Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
  Of the 70 countries that currently receive bilateral aid from Sweden only 33 will remain.
  Aberg said that the “guiding principle” in the cuts is that the Swedish government has decided to give more priority to Africa than to Asia.
  “Laos is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Personally I would have preferred if we could have continued for a few more years. We have been here for more than 30 years,” Aberg told ScandAsia.
  SIDA’s projects in Laos have concentrated on education, infrastructure, good governance, and natural resources.
  While Laos has made progress in pushing through economic reforms in recent years it remains under a one-party political regime controlled by the communist party.
  After the closure of its embassy in Vientiane, all consular cases will be handled by the Swedish embassy in Bangkok.
  Sweden is also ending development cooperation with Vietnam and the Philippines, while it plans to open new embassies in Belarus, Sudan and Afghanistan. (dpa)” (BP, 22 Jan. 08)

• 37 Republican // Jan 23, 2008 at 2:36 am

  Reply to “an observer” (#29): “…in my opinion, distrust, biases, negetivity are rampant on the anti-roylaist webboards…”

  “…Why can’t we credit whom and where deserve credits…”

  What a strange outburst. Well, if it’s so unpleasant for you here perhaps it might be more comfortable for you at the royalist webboards or the royalist newspapers. There maybe you can get the “credit” you seek.

• 38 Bret Johnston // Jan 23, 2008 at 3:19 am

  This is a response to Srithanonchai at #36 above.

  This news first came out a few weeks ago. At the time the comments attached to ScandAsia’s article seemed to be mainly from the overseas Lao community. The general tone was, “the Lao government deserves this loss of aid and diplomatic relations because of its corruption and mismanagement.” A few commentators who seem to be based in Laos shot back, but not many.

  In related news, the Laos-based website Mahasan (www.mahasan.com), which seems to be government connected, actually does allow readers to post comments to articles. I’ve seen a few heated discussions occur among the otherwise innocuous comments. I wonder if the Lao government has opened a pandora’s box by allowing online discussion in the Lao language to happen in a “public” setting such as the Web?

  To connect this back to ICTS–I would love to hear whether there were any panels dealing with Thailand’s neighbors, especially in terms of their cultural or historical connections with Thailand.

• 39 German-lover // Jan 23, 2008 at 7:54 pm

  So bad we cannot force the Thais to speak English properly like we did to Malaysia, South African and Australia. So bad they still hold on their culture and beliefs. Any way, there are some Thais who think like us. It won’t be long befor the other Thais to follow. Then we can conquer the country with out any war. Bravo!!!

• 40 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 26, 2008 at 12:56 am

  re: German-lover

  Yes, Anglosphere linguistic imperalism is a reality, but I don’t see how it’s germane to the discussion concerning the ICTS.

  Perhaps you can enlighten me?

• 41 Republican (Impersonator) // Jan 26, 2008 at 1:45 am

  Note (by Nicholas Farrelly): This message is from an individual who has been posting repeated messages using the names of prominent New Mandala contributors. It is not a message from the “Republican” who has been a regular commentator on New Mandala for over a year. It is posted here for the interest of readers but I should clarify that such repeated attempts to hijack the discussion will not be tolerated. There will be no further warnings.

  To ‘an observer’
  You are in such a wrong place. We are not welcome any one that think in a different way form us.
  Yes, you are so right we are much more pure and superior than those royalists in Thailand or Thai people in general.
  No, we don’t want to use our real name. We enjoy saying bad things about these inferior people behind their back.
  We don’t want to encourage any sensible discussion, we love rumors, distrust, biases, and negativity. We can treat them with anything in any forms. They are sub-human any way.

  If you support free speech as you have been saying, allow my idea to be posted.

• 42 Teth // Jan 26, 2008 at 3:26 am

  For that matter, LSS, I don’t see how discussing Thai-studies issues in German would make it any less a case of lingual imperialism.

  Gotta love your replies, btw!

• 43 Srithanonchai // Jan 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  The ICTS had “transnationalized world” as its main theme. Put in another way, it was (or should have been) about the globalization of social and cultural structures and how this process works out on a specific territory the people of which imagine to have a set of “indigenous” social and cultural heritage (Thailand). Languages are part of cultural structures. Thus, if we take the main theme of the ICTS seriously, “linguistic imperialism” (and its role in the transfer of social and culture structures from the centre to the periphery) is just as relevant as medical, economic, scientific, political, legal, or educational “imperialism.”

• 44 Republican // Jan 27, 2008 at 12:01 am

  I think that problems associated with the global dominance of English are certainly worth discussing, analysing, and debating. But calling this “imperialism”? If “imperialism” is to have any analytical use then surely, taking its historical manifestation, among its meanings must be included the use or threat of violence to force people into submission. But is that the reason why people across the world today learn English? Apart from the argument that the many – the majority? – of people who learn English do it willingly because of the opportunities it affords them, the ability to understand English also opens up a world of ideas that may in fact help the user to resist or overcome other forms of domination, other “imperialisms” (hence the concern of the Thai king and conservatives to preserve the purity of the Thai language).

  Arguments about “linguistic imperialism”, of course, goes down well among the embittered lefty-cultural studies types schooled on Said and the subaltern studies gurus. But it seems to me that today in most places in the world English is not replacing local languages but adding to them. Most of the world is or will soon be bilingual, if not trilingual, except for the poor native English speakers ofthe Anglophone countries themselves. It is these people who, one would think, will increasingly find themselves at a disadvantage in the global marketplace when they have to compete with fellow English speakers who not only are willing to work at a lower wage but who also have a second or third local language that will give the user and his employer a local market advantage.

• 45 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 27, 2008 at 6:05 am

  re: Srithanonchai and Republican

  Srithanonchai, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments in #43. I was just saying that German-lover’s comment in #39, to me, seemed to come “out of left field”. (By the way, is using a baseball idiom too Amero-centric? If so, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!)

  Republican, the term “linguistic imperalism” comes from the work of Robert Phillipson. His book Linguistic Imperalism, helped popularize the field known as “Critical Applied Linguistics”.

  I do think that linguistic imperalism does exist in the world today, even according to your definition that includes threat of violence; the actions of certain American missionaries in hill-tribe country comes to mind, as does the Summer Institute of Linguistics’s (cumthe CIA) spotted history in Central and South America.

  However, your criticisms, which seemed tied with the “appropriation theory” school are certainly valid, and are a better description of the role of English and EFL/ESOL teaching in mainstream Thai society.

  P.S. Srithanonchai, I do want to continue our discussion concerning Thai sociopedagogy, but I’ve been very busy as of late, and when I have free time, the last thing I want to talk about is “work”.

• 46 Republican // Jan 27, 2008 at 2:36 pm

  Reply to LSS: Sure – there may be a few examples today, but not many I would think. But sometimes I think that people are too precious about the need to preserve languages, and too critical of English’s dominance – a relic of the era of linguistic nationalisms and postcolonial angst. And ironically most of the main academic critics are native English speakers or people raised and educated in an English speaking academic environment. In fact, as more non-native English language speakers enter the medium of English language discourse one might expect that English, far from being a mode of “imperialism”, will become democratized, because it will no longer be the language of an Anglo-American global elite.

• 47 Srithanonchai // Jan 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm

  aLSS: No need to mea culpa, just explain what “out of left field is.”

• 48 Srithanonchai // Jan 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  Republican (#44): I agree with your view that the role of actors who adopt “foreign” social models is often played down by those who apply a merely hierarchical model of globalization or world culture in which both are reduced to outcomes of power relationships. Governments, the mass media, civil society, business organizations, individuals etc. actively observe what kind of solutions are developed elsewhere that might be of use in their own social environments. Moreover, these actors are often involved in supra-national networks dealing with finding solutions to common problems. Obviously, individual actors at the receiving end also make their choices. Simply speaking, why should a Thai let his root canal be treated by a traditional healer instead of by a bio-medical dentist? The issue of empowerment is a tricky one, because, in modern society, function systems open up enormous opportunities, but they also make us dependent on them for our individual and family advancement. Part of the uneasiness with this problem is probably due to an outdated understanding of the “subject” as a self-determined being, which negates the fact that individuals have to live in pre-determined social structures and cultures.

• 49 Frank G Anderson // Oct 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  Somsak:
  Do you have a personal photo available? I wanted to use it to refer to your recent suggestions regarding the role and authority of the monarchy.
  Thank you!

Leave a Comment