Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
My book on Thailand’s Political Peasants is out now. Here is an extract from the Introduction (pp. 5-6):
This book is an exploration of the underlying economic, political, and cultural processes that contributed to Thailand’s contemporary contests over power. It does not examine Thaksin’s political rise or the red-shirt movement directly. Instead, it investigates the rural transformations that have produced a major new player in the Thai political landscape: the middle-income peasant. I examine this middle-income peasantry from the perspective of Ban Tiam, a rural village in northern Thailand, located about one hour’s drive from the region’s major city, Chiang Mai. Of course it would be ludicrous to argue that life in a single village could fully explain the seismic movements that have shaken an entire country. But it is well to remember the old truism that anthropologists don’t study villages, they study in villages. At a time when the political motivations of the peasantry are poorly understood, detailed ethnographic engagement has the advantage of providing insights that fall below the radar of more totalizing forms of analysis. In simple terms my argument is this: in order to understand the politics of Thailand’s middle-income peasantry–including its strong electoral support for Thaksin’s populist policies, the political passions that brought the red shirts to Bangkok, and the electoral triumph of Yingluck Shinawatra–it is necessary to address how power is perceived in a context of rising living standards and a transformed relationship with the state. Rural politics in contemporary Thailand is not the old rebellious or resistant politics of the rural poor; rather, it is a new middle-income politics of peasants whose livelihoods are now relatively secure. Rural Thailand’s new “political society” is energized by a fundamental desire to be productively connected to sources of power. The power of the pro-Thaksin movement lies in a middle-income peasantry whose thoroughly modern political goal is to bind itself to the state, not to oppose it.
Over the next few weeks I will feature some key extracts from the other chapters.
Wouldn’t it have been fruitful to study in the North East for obvious reasons?
0
0
thank you for your real-life perspective
0
0
“bind itself to the state” — from a different theoretical perspective, this is about the process of inclusion into the thai political system.
0
0
Had Walker omittted ‘middle-income’ when he said “The power of the pro-Thaksin movement lies in a (omitted) peasantry whose thoroughly modern political goal is to bind itself to the state, not to oppose it”, would it have lost its bite?
Because with the Thailand (Bangkok?) middle-class vocally and palpably against him, Thaksin and his PTP party crack or leak from lack of credibility and legitimacy.
But in my humble opinion it is rather oxymoronic to describe the Thai peasantry segment (with or without the middle-income prefix) bound to Thaksin (and only Thaksin) as being motivated by “thoroughly modern political goal to . . .”
0
0
“The power of the pro-Thaksin movement lies in a middle-income peasantry whose thoroughly modern political goal is to bind itself to the state, not to oppose it.”
I think you have to admit that Thaksin’s demogogue brand of authoritarianism was not “thoroughly modern”, likewise “middle income peasants” binding themselves to such would also not be “thoroughly modern” (e.g. keeping things out of parliamentary debate and governing by cabinet decree, one man and one party dominance of politics over long periods of time, acceptance of extrajudicial killings by police as a legitimate form of law enforcement and justice, etc etc).
The transparency that would come from an independent local media monitoring in detail what is happening at the local level so people can think for themselves and not just follow (stimulus-response style) the promptings of the local power broker (e.g. Banharn) who in turn is hooked up to the national demogogue (e.g. Thaksin, Sarit) but rather select from a wide array of democratic alternative candidates and policy platforms that are continually changing and adapting to constituent needs based on past performance, successes, failures, could make it thoroughly modern.
Also can’t wait to find out why the term “peasant” is used because quite frankly I don’t think you hear that word being used much for farmers in Thailand. In fact, as Wikipedia points out the term is also used “as slang to refer pejoratively to those of poorer education who come from a lower income background.” The term certainly is evocative though. By using it you hook into the whole 19th century social-scape, for instance as portrayed by Balzac in his comedie humaine and in particular in Les Paysans, one of Marx’s favourites. The term “middle-income peasant” immediately brings to mind post-Russian revolution history and efforts to collectivize agriculture [Wikipedia: “According to Bolshevik doctrine, the Russian peasantry was divided into three categories: poor peasants (bednyaks), individuals who were forced to sell their labor to others to survive and were thus regarded as natural allies of the new Soviet regime; “middle” peasants (serednyaks), who conducted farming operations on their own land with their own labor; and wealthy peasants (kulaks), who profited through the hired labor of others”]
0
0
Jon:
I am sure, Andrew would call the large-scale farmers in the USA “high-income peasants.” In German, the word “Bauer” (peasant) is not pejorative, but rather indicates an outdated, traditional view of people working in small-scale agriculture (although there is also the word “Grossbauer” to indicate large-scale operations, but this is more of a historical term). The modern expression is the more technocratic, management oriented “Landwirt” (farmer). For details, see the section on “Zu den Begriffen Landwirt und Bauer” in your beloved Wikipedia (German version) at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landwirt.
0
0
Many people are uncomfortable about the term “peasant”. I discuss why I use the term in the book. My question here is: what term would be better. “Farmer” is clearly inadequate to describe rural people who, in the majority of cases, earn most of their income off-farm. AW
0
0
Jon (II):
You might also want to have a look at Robert Daley. 2011. “Thailand’s Agrarian Myth and Its Proponents.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 46 (4):342-360.
0
0
Wouldn’t that be true of almost every farmer on a family-owned and run farm in the world now Andrew? I recall studies in Australia from more than a decade ago that made the point for the family farm, and studies for France and the US. That is, the farms keep solvent via off-farm income. I think I can find the old references if required.
0
0
Thanks Ralph. Indeed. So “farmer” is just as problematic as “peasant”.
0
0
My understanding of the economic difference between peasants and farmers (in what is a longstanding debate) is that peasants become farmers when the balance for the reproduction of their farms shifts off-farm. This is now the case in Thailand, and is beginning to become the case in Laos. It has long been the case in Australia, USA, Canada, and elsewhere.
It’s nice to able to label Andrew a ‘romantic’ once in a while, and I think his attachment to ‘peasant’ is such.
Like most people, I have not yet read Andrew’s justification for persisting with the term though.
0
0
Thanks Grant. Happy to be romantic on this one. When I was at school, my best friend had to give a presentation on peasants. But he accidentally prepared his talk on pheasants. Mistakes can be the best learning experience and “peasant” has stuck with me ever since. AW
0
0
I would like to call them Thailand’s liberals, but then perhaps that wouldn’t antagonise, or at least shift the consciousness of those who still persist with an outlook on livelihoods ‘out in the sticks’ (not that towns like Ban Tiam can really be out in the sticks ala Heart of Darkness) as being feudal. ‘Peasants’ strikes me as a term that has been used throughout history, and one that doesn’t necessarily have to be associated with negativity – but that it is, even here, more reflects the associations of those who disown parts of language because contemporary prejudice is better expressed with more neutrality.
0
0
So Andrew, did you mistake my contribution as being one about pheasants?
0
0
Why not call them village farmers or smallholder farmers? In my 30 years of working and living in northeast Thailand I have never heard the word peasant farmer. In all of my research papers I either use the terms smallholder farmer or village smallholder farmer.
0
0
I think that it is important that the term “peasants” does carry a negative weight with connotations of backwardness and feudalism etc. Clearly, the Bangkok establishment and middle class regard Thailand’s farmers, peasants, agriculturalists or whatever you want to call them as peasants in the negative sense of the word.
By calling them “political peasants” with the implication that they are aware and savvy rather than backward and feudal but that there is still backwardness and feudalism in play , I think Andrew uses and overturns the negative connotations of the word. A clever and appropriate choice in my opinion.
0
0
Andrew @8:
‘”Farmer” is clearly inadequate to describe rural people who, in
the majority of cases, earn most of their income off farm’.
Sorry, but I don’t agree. Where I live the majority do earn their living by
farming. Usually it is not enough to live on and their incomes are
supplemented by their sons and daughters who are no longer rural people.
They are urban people working as construction workers, taxi drivers, sex
workers, etc or even working abroad, South Korea being the favourite country at present.
I certainly would describe those living in my village as farmers. Whether you
then describe them further as small scale or otherwise is a separate issue.
0
0
FYI – Thaksin isn’t the only politician that offered or is offering populist policies. Abhisit spent billions on populist policies during his administration trying to imitate Thaksins success, and all political parties promised trillions of ‘free money’ during the 2011 election.
The fact that Thaksin easily won, despite the other parties promising just as much or more, shows (proves?) that it’s more than just populist policies here at play here.
(but I didn’t read the book, so perhaps that is already accounted for)
0
0
I suspect that Walker quickly reached his conclusion that “middle-income peasants are . . . er pro-Thaksin” from anecdotal evidence (rather than compelling research findings). And because the Red Shirts recent violent rampage of bombings and arson in year 2010, Walker was compelled to adorn with a conclusion such: “pro-Thaksin middle-income peasants thoroughly ‘modern’ political goal is to bind itself to the state, and not oppose it”.
Because it just goes against the grain of common sense and developing logic that Thai “middle-income peasants” would espouse such so contrarian Thai middle-class values; specifically the Thai middle-class animosity against Thaksin’s arrogant corruption and arrogant constitutional abuses.
‘Middle-income Esan people’ is perhaps what Walker meant. Thaksin’s Esan following is legendary . . . and I suspect Esan peasants whose income had reached ‘middle-income’ would still be enchanted by the Thaksin charisma and Thaksin’s ‘I am Esan too’ propaganda as to be willingly be deceived.
0
0