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.
Don’t worry Tara. The fact that Tim can only respond by citing Western academic writing in a response full of academic jargon show that no matter how much he’s tied up in all that schtick.
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)
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….
Hobby, I don’t think this site has a preference either way for academic or non-academic contribution, a strength I hope it maintains as, as worrisome or tediuos as some posts (such as mine) may be, this is one of very few forums that bring the two perspectives together in a constructive dialogue. It would appear so long as a good debate is had by all (I assume from the non-censorship code that I have seen in play here) that anyone can jump in and have an equal share of the “microphone”.
I must take exception to your summation on academic perspectives being padded with waffle and think that what you mean to say is that you have little patience for the complexities and subtleties that academics might consider important to any consideration of an issue or topic or problem (however you wish to phrase it).
Your take on the psychological dimensions of practice in the realm of people’s beliefs is what is called a functionalist approach to studying social and cultural phenomena and it doesn’t have much currency as it is a teleological argument predicated on sets of errouneous assumptions regarding social or cultural practice (the details of which can be found in many a tome of which Evans-Pritchard’s book is one) in particular that a practice exists for its perceived function (effect).
Having said that I applaud your comment regarding the political sophistication of the rural voters. It is interesting and important (I think actually pivotal ) point to the discussions on this site and should be receiving more attention than it has thus far…
In an earlier thread I raised the issue of Andrew speaking on behalf of the rural voters and questioned his position as I saw it simply as a displacing of the urban middle-class that he was critiquing without actually getting to the heart of the problem. Failure to address this problem properly in the discussions is due I think to the critics (Andrew et al) commenting on the rural voters from the same position as the “urban middle-class” they are critiquing. That is they are no more or less familiar with the rural population than each other and so are left guessing…
I have watched a number of elections in Central and Northeast Thailand both pre and post Thaksin and have seen vote buying and know it is an ongoping practice. Your and Andrew’s interest in it at the level of its efficacy in actually securing votes in a quid pro quo fashion isn’t a fruitful way of going about the issue on two grounds. Firstly, to ask such a question simplifies the issue/ practice to a level of expecting efficacy to be measurable in purely economic terms and sees decision making reduced to the economic part of the exchange alone…something most anthropologists understand to be a bit of a reductionism. Secondly, it overlooks the vote buyers and their rationale and fails to account for what they are doing (in their own terms). In effect economic rationalism is substituted for rural voter’s logics of practice and the lack of political sophistication (as seen from the urban middle-class) is replaced with a view of political culture that asserts no variation across cultures, a kind of homogenised political landscape that sees all practice explainable in the observers/commentators own terms…veritably the death of culture as we know it…
My suggestion, without actually sharing specific data on the issue, is to look at who are all the actors in a voting situation and understand them as people, interconnected with sets of personal individual and group relations and stop looking at the election process from the rather ideological perspective of certain class fractions and international observers where ideas of transparency and good governance structure questions. For example there is no point in an election where non or extra-social forces come into play…there is no point where voters, voting boxes, vote transportation, vote counting is removed from the social system where they originate…nor is the act of voting ever separated from the social world in which it takes place with the exception of the brief moment that people step into the booth and vote, which is not done to secure the vote from tampering as some may think, but to protect the privavcy of the individual…a privacy that seems to take on mammoth proportions in the face of threats by political heavies and their thugs (in the imaginations of the urban critics of rural voters who vote for Thaksin and their international critics Andrew etc.) but has never really been unpoacked or investigted through long term observation. The numerous kamakarn and what not that are employed to ensure transparency are part of this system and so on…
Beyond this there seems to be little if any consderation for the political history of the rural voters under question and how this articulates with contemporary political culture…so much is overlooked…
Anyway, suffice it to say for now that we might ber better off to think about what political acuity or sophistication looks like from the perspective of a rural voter and go from there…
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).
[…] So why the mockery of Thaksin’s beliefs? Of course, politicians’ habits are fair game, and visiting Burma to consult with an astrologer called ET certainly warrants critical scrutiny. But I wonder if there is more going on here. Regular New Mandala reader Chris White made an interesting observation in relation to the moral panic about “coyote dancing”: [Definitions of what it is to be] culturally ‘Thai’ stress Siamese (or central Thai or ‘Bangkok’ or what ever you want to call them) cultural values, in terms of very narrow and specified ideas of language, monarchy, religion and state that have been promoted by so called ‘nation’ building ‘leaders’ over the last 100 or so years. And it seems to me that whenever there is a crisis the resultant return to governments of the ‘elite’, ‘strongmen’, ‘dictators’ or ‘Thai democracy’ there is a retreat to, and a renewed promotion of, these very specific ideas of ‘Thainess’. Within this understanding of being ‘Thai’ there is not much room for difference. […]
[…] A similar trend can be observed in some of the discussion about “superstition” or “voodoo”. Those making a post-coup argument for “Thai style democracy” seem to be arguing that the cultural basis for legitimate power lies in a narrowly defined form Buddhist virtue, with the king as its chief personification. While most casual and academic observers would probably accept that Buddhist and non-Buddhist cosmologies and practices are hopelessly intertwined, elite ideology is highly selective in its emphasis on the basis of legitimate power residing in what Pattana refers to as “Buddhist righteous charisma”. […]
[…] So why the mockery of Thaksin’s beliefs? Of course, politician’s habits are fair game, and visiting Burma to consult with an astrologer called ET certainly warrants critical scrutiny. But I wonder if there is more going on here. Regular New Mandala reader Chris White made an interesting observation in relation to the moral panic about “coyote dancing”: [Definitions of what it is to be] culturally ‘Thai’ stress Siamese (or central Thai or ‘Bangkok’ or what ever you want to call them) cultural values, in terms of very narrow and specified ideas of language, monarchy, religion and state that have been promoted by so called ‘nation’ building ‘leaders’ over the last 100 or so years. And it seems to me that whenever there is a crisis the resultant return to governments of the ‘elite’, ‘strongmen’, ‘dictators’ or ‘Thai democracy’ there is a retreat to, and a renewed promotion of, these very specific ideas of ‘Thainess’. Within this understanding of being ‘Thai’ there is not much room for difference. […]
[…] Paul Handley’s political biography of King Bhumiphol contains numerous examples of the king’s religious practices and orientations to various otherworldly forces. It is perhaps stating the obvious, but in Thai social and political discourse, royal ritual is almost never disparaged as “voodoo”, superstition or irrationality. […]
Nirut, the only way I can explain my enthusiasm and interest in politics is that perhaps I’ve got too much time on my hands.
Not being an academic, I prefer to be direct and get to the point rather than produce copious amounts of rationale. It’s a throwback to my school/uni days where I hated producing all the padding (waffle) needed to play the game. I’m too old to change now, and I still dislike reading academic papers because I just want to see the conclusion with a few pertinent reasons why that conclusion was reached.
The chronoligical account of possible reasons to vote for Thaksin was my attempt at looking at the picture ASSUMING ‘vote buying’ did NOT exist, or was not important (as Andrew and a few others appear have been implying).
The picture would look different if vote buying did exist.
I have already posted in other threads that I do think vote buying is a factor, and in my personal experience it is a factor in the rural areas I have visited.
However, my personal experience is pre the Thaksin era, and also in the central rice farming rural region. In fact I will admit to having never travelled further north than Autthaya – at this time, the best thing I like about the Northern regions is the mor lam music. I could go on to say I have a few north eastern thai friends, and draw some conclusions about their political awareness – but that would not be appropriate on an academic site because my sample group is too small and my friends might not be truly representative.
I’m not predujiced against the northern thai people, and only chose not to travel north because all the farang that recommended I go up north happened to be into the drug culture. I may make the effort to go north next time I am there.
Now, the reason I tried to apply a rationale for voting for Thaksin was that another of Andrew’s contentions seems to be that the urban notion that the rural poor are politically unsophisticated is wrong.
The way I see it (in my direct way of looking at things) you cannot have it both ways:
Either the rural poor are politically sophisticated, and vote buying is not a factor. Therefore they are rational voters – if this is the case, I am still waiting for possible reasons why they would continue to suport Thaksin, apart from the two I so naively proposed.
OR
They are not politically sophisticated.
This is not an attempt to denigrate the rural poor (or colonialism)
They are a victim of their of circumstances and surroundings (as we all are)
I could go on about superstition, voodoo & religion now, but to further that discussion I really think we need a psychologists input about the the need for humans to have such beliefs.
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….
Uh-oh, Aiontay, looks like you’ve really set him off now. The best thing to do when accused of being a ‘narcissistic, pig ignorant, class traitor’ is just to back away slowly and don’t make any sudden moves – and whatever you do, don’t make direct eye contact.
Hobby, understanding the cultural dimensions of violence as I outlined in the other thread does not constitute condoning genocide, it in fact allows for the possibility of preventing future incidence.
Now I would be interested to know to some degree, without compromising your anonimity on this site, what your interest in Thai (and other places) politics is? The reason being that the enthusiasm with which you take up discussion is quite admirable, but your penchant for the emperical off sets this by limiting discussion to how things appear at face value and again that face value is your own take on things, with no sensitivity to the perception of the people of whom you speak.
For example your last post here outlines a haphazard chronological account of cause and effect that has led to the successive re-election of Thaksin, according to how you THINK other people might have thought at the time of each election (basically your account of other people’s rationale for voting aka rationality) and then conclude that there is only two possibilities that could see people want Thaksin re-elected again, both of which are just pure naivity. Your account (not unlike other contributors here) reduces the voting peasant’s rationale to issues of personality politics and an unfounded notion of linear rational peasant action…a reflection of the structure of your own thought and those who share your sentiments on this site, rather than anything related to the rationality of the people you speak of.
In brief, you and many others here are taken up with the media representations of the situation, and are overlooking vast tracts of social and political landscape in favour of personality politics which only reflects just how out of touch you are with the people you speak of…vote buying is a reality (regardless of how effective it may or may not seem to the western rationale of “just take the money and don’t vote” renown) and so are a whole plethora of other factors and practices and motivations all of which your dependency on your own rationality would appear to blind you to the possibility of….
On the point of Hitler you might like to consider that it is no secret that Thais have a predisposition towards facism…I amnot condoning it just offering it up as point of reference for how you thinkabout what is going there now…
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.
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?
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.
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.
Aiontay request denied. Your membership to an indigenous group of north America gives you no more authority to mute others than my membership to an indigenous group of northern Europe gives me.
Your attempt to claim authority based on your ethnic and class disposition speaks for itself regarding your grasp of paternalism, no need to become repetitious about it, and the recourse to the authority of having friends and family who are “decidedly middle-class” reflects further the kind of contempt one can expect from a class traitor.
Are you trying to say that there is no point to what I wrote here? If so explain why rather than claim to be able to speak for the spirits of paternalism (which you do so well)..or are you going to reinforce my point with your obvious pig ignorance of anything outside of your narcissistic conceit of being a “native”.
A recommended read regardless
“How Natives Think? about captain cook for example.” Sahlins
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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.
Burma boycott – some questions about “avoided tourism”
Don’t worry Tara. The fact that Tim can only respond by citing Western academic writing in a response full of academic jargon show that no matter how much he’s tied up in all that schtick.
Like I said, it is always good for a laugh.
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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)
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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….
New Mandala in the press
Hobby, I don’t think this site has a preference either way for academic or non-academic contribution, a strength I hope it maintains as, as worrisome or tediuos as some posts (such as mine) may be, this is one of very few forums that bring the two perspectives together in a constructive dialogue. It would appear so long as a good debate is had by all (I assume from the non-censorship code that I have seen in play here) that anyone can jump in and have an equal share of the “microphone”.
I must take exception to your summation on academic perspectives being padded with waffle and think that what you mean to say is that you have little patience for the complexities and subtleties that academics might consider important to any consideration of an issue or topic or problem (however you wish to phrase it).
Your take on the psychological dimensions of practice in the realm of people’s beliefs is what is called a functionalist approach to studying social and cultural phenomena and it doesn’t have much currency as it is a teleological argument predicated on sets of errouneous assumptions regarding social or cultural practice (the details of which can be found in many a tome of which Evans-Pritchard’s book is one) in particular that a practice exists for its perceived function (effect).
Having said that I applaud your comment regarding the political sophistication of the rural voters. It is interesting and important (I think actually pivotal ) point to the discussions on this site and should be receiving more attention than it has thus far…
In an earlier thread I raised the issue of Andrew speaking on behalf of the rural voters and questioned his position as I saw it simply as a displacing of the urban middle-class that he was critiquing without actually getting to the heart of the problem. Failure to address this problem properly in the discussions is due I think to the critics (Andrew et al) commenting on the rural voters from the same position as the “urban middle-class” they are critiquing. That is they are no more or less familiar with the rural population than each other and so are left guessing…
I have watched a number of elections in Central and Northeast Thailand both pre and post Thaksin and have seen vote buying and know it is an ongoping practice. Your and Andrew’s interest in it at the level of its efficacy in actually securing votes in a quid pro quo fashion isn’t a fruitful way of going about the issue on two grounds. Firstly, to ask such a question simplifies the issue/ practice to a level of expecting efficacy to be measurable in purely economic terms and sees decision making reduced to the economic part of the exchange alone…something most anthropologists understand to be a bit of a reductionism. Secondly, it overlooks the vote buyers and their rationale and fails to account for what they are doing (in their own terms). In effect economic rationalism is substituted for rural voter’s logics of practice and the lack of political sophistication (as seen from the urban middle-class) is replaced with a view of political culture that asserts no variation across cultures, a kind of homogenised political landscape that sees all practice explainable in the observers/commentators own terms…veritably the death of culture as we know it…
My suggestion, without actually sharing specific data on the issue, is to look at who are all the actors in a voting situation and understand them as people, interconnected with sets of personal individual and group relations and stop looking at the election process from the rather ideological perspective of certain class fractions and international observers where ideas of transparency and good governance structure questions. For example there is no point in an election where non or extra-social forces come into play…there is no point where voters, voting boxes, vote transportation, vote counting is removed from the social system where they originate…nor is the act of voting ever separated from the social world in which it takes place with the exception of the brief moment that people step into the booth and vote, which is not done to secure the vote from tampering as some may think, but to protect the privavcy of the individual…a privacy that seems to take on mammoth proportions in the face of threats by political heavies and their thugs (in the imaginations of the urban critics of rural voters who vote for Thaksin and their international critics Andrew etc.) but has never really been unpoacked or investigted through long term observation. The numerous kamakarn and what not that are employed to ensure transparency are part of this system and so on…
Beyond this there seems to be little if any consderation for the political history of the rural voters under question and how this articulates with contemporary political culture…so much is overlooked…
Anyway, suffice it to say for now that we might ber better off to think about what political acuity or sophistication looks like from the perspective of a rural voter and go from there…
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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).
Thaksin, Phone Home
[…] So why the mockery of Thaksin’s beliefs? Of course, politicians’ habits are fair game, and visiting Burma to consult with an astrologer called ET certainly warrants critical scrutiny. But I wonder if there is more going on here. Regular New Mandala reader Chris White made an interesting observation in relation to the moral panic about “coyote dancing”: [Definitions of what it is to be] culturally ‘Thai’ stress Siamese (or central Thai or ‘Bangkok’ or what ever you want to call them) cultural values, in terms of very narrow and specified ideas of language, monarchy, religion and state that have been promoted by so called ‘nation’ building ‘leaders’ over the last 100 or so years. And it seems to me that whenever there is a crisis the resultant return to governments of the ‘elite’, ‘strongmen’, ‘dictators’ or ‘Thai democracy’ there is a retreat to, and a renewed promotion of, these very specific ideas of ‘Thainess’. Within this understanding of being ‘Thai’ there is not much room for difference. […]
Thai style democracy – “Asian values” reborn?
[…] A similar trend can be observed in some of the discussion about “superstition” or “voodoo”. Those making a post-coup argument for “Thai style democracy” seem to be arguing that the cultural basis for legitimate power lies in a narrowly defined form Buddhist virtue, with the king as its chief personification. While most casual and academic observers would probably accept that Buddhist and non-Buddhist cosmologies and practices are hopelessly intertwined, elite ideology is highly selective in its emphasis on the basis of legitimate power residing in what Pattana refers to as “Buddhist righteous charisma”. […]
Lewd dancing and Buddhist festivals
[…] So why the mockery of Thaksin’s beliefs? Of course, politician’s habits are fair game, and visiting Burma to consult with an astrologer called ET certainly warrants critical scrutiny. But I wonder if there is more going on here. Regular New Mandala reader Chris White made an interesting observation in relation to the moral panic about “coyote dancing”: [Definitions of what it is to be] culturally ‘Thai’ stress Siamese (or central Thai or ‘Bangkok’ or what ever you want to call them) cultural values, in terms of very narrow and specified ideas of language, monarchy, religion and state that have been promoted by so called ‘nation’ building ‘leaders’ over the last 100 or so years. And it seems to me that whenever there is a crisis the resultant return to governments of the ‘elite’, ‘strongmen’, ‘dictators’ or ‘Thai democracy’ there is a retreat to, and a renewed promotion of, these very specific ideas of ‘Thainess’. Within this understanding of being ‘Thai’ there is not much room for difference. […]
The King Never Smiles?
[…] Paul Handley’s political biography of King Bhumiphol contains numerous examples of the king’s religious practices and orientations to various otherworldly forces. It is perhaps stating the obvious, but in Thai social and political discourse, royal ritual is almost never disparaged as “voodoo”, superstition or irrationality. […]
New Mandala in the press
Nirut, the only way I can explain my enthusiasm and interest in politics is that perhaps I’ve got too much time on my hands.
Not being an academic, I prefer to be direct and get to the point rather than produce copious amounts of rationale. It’s a throwback to my school/uni days where I hated producing all the padding (waffle) needed to play the game. I’m too old to change now, and I still dislike reading academic papers because I just want to see the conclusion with a few pertinent reasons why that conclusion was reached.
The chronoligical account of possible reasons to vote for Thaksin was my attempt at looking at the picture ASSUMING ‘vote buying’ did NOT exist, or was not important (as Andrew and a few others appear have been implying).
The picture would look different if vote buying did exist.
I have already posted in other threads that I do think vote buying is a factor, and in my personal experience it is a factor in the rural areas I have visited.
However, my personal experience is pre the Thaksin era, and also in the central rice farming rural region. In fact I will admit to having never travelled further north than Autthaya – at this time, the best thing I like about the Northern regions is the mor lam music. I could go on to say I have a few north eastern thai friends, and draw some conclusions about their political awareness – but that would not be appropriate on an academic site because my sample group is too small and my friends might not be truly representative.
I’m not predujiced against the northern thai people, and only chose not to travel north because all the farang that recommended I go up north happened to be into the drug culture. I may make the effort to go north next time I am there.
Now, the reason I tried to apply a rationale for voting for Thaksin was that another of Andrew’s contentions seems to be that the urban notion that the rural poor are politically unsophisticated is wrong.
The way I see it (in my direct way of looking at things) you cannot have it both ways:
Either the rural poor are politically sophisticated, and vote buying is not a factor. Therefore they are rational voters – if this is the case, I am still waiting for possible reasons why they would continue to suport Thaksin, apart from the two I so naively proposed.
OR
They are not politically sophisticated.
This is not an attempt to denigrate the rural poor (or colonialism)
They are a victim of their of circumstances and surroundings (as we all are)
I could go on about superstition, voodoo & religion now, but to further that discussion I really think we need a psychologists input about the the need for humans to have such beliefs.
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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….
Burma boycott – some questions about “avoided tourism”
Uh-oh, Aiontay, looks like you’ve really set him off now. The best thing to do when accused of being a ‘narcissistic, pig ignorant, class traitor’ is just to back away slowly and don’t make any sudden moves – and whatever you do, don’t make direct eye contact.
New Mandala in the press
Hobby, understanding the cultural dimensions of violence as I outlined in the other thread does not constitute condoning genocide, it in fact allows for the possibility of preventing future incidence.
Now I would be interested to know to some degree, without compromising your anonimity on this site, what your interest in Thai (and other places) politics is? The reason being that the enthusiasm with which you take up discussion is quite admirable, but your penchant for the emperical off sets this by limiting discussion to how things appear at face value and again that face value is your own take on things, with no sensitivity to the perception of the people of whom you speak.
For example your last post here outlines a haphazard chronological account of cause and effect that has led to the successive re-election of Thaksin, according to how you THINK other people might have thought at the time of each election (basically your account of other people’s rationale for voting aka rationality) and then conclude that there is only two possibilities that could see people want Thaksin re-elected again, both of which are just pure naivity. Your account (not unlike other contributors here) reduces the voting peasant’s rationale to issues of personality politics and an unfounded notion of linear rational peasant action…a reflection of the structure of your own thought and those who share your sentiments on this site, rather than anything related to the rationality of the people you speak of.
In brief, you and many others here are taken up with the media representations of the situation, and are overlooking vast tracts of social and political landscape in favour of personality politics which only reflects just how out of touch you are with the people you speak of…vote buying is a reality (regardless of how effective it may or may not seem to the western rationale of “just take the money and don’t vote” renown) and so are a whole plethora of other factors and practices and motivations all of which your dependency on your own rationality would appear to blind you to the possibility of….
On the point of Hitler you might like to consider that it is no secret that Thais have a predisposition towards facism…I amnot condoning it just offering it up as point of reference for how you thinkabout what is going there now…
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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.
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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?
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
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.
Burma boycott – some questions about “avoided tourism”
Aiontay request denied. Your membership to an indigenous group of north America gives you no more authority to mute others than my membership to an indigenous group of northern Europe gives me.
Your attempt to claim authority based on your ethnic and class disposition speaks for itself regarding your grasp of paternalism, no need to become repetitious about it, and the recourse to the authority of having friends and family who are “decidedly middle-class” reflects further the kind of contempt one can expect from a class traitor.
Are you trying to say that there is no point to what I wrote here? If so explain why rather than claim to be able to speak for the spirits of paternalism (which you do so well)..or are you going to reinforce my point with your obvious pig ignorance of anything outside of your narcissistic conceit of being a “native”.
A recommended read regardless
“How Natives Think? about captain cook for example.” Sahlins
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
Hoby, that is an assertion that makes conceited ignorance sound like it deserves a nobel prize.