Pramote Pakdeenarong

The Contested Construction of Thai Cultures
Pramote Pakdeenarong
Ph.D. Student, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Chiang Mai University, Thailand

I have approach the concept of culture as a social knowledge, or knowledge system, and or social construction. I purpose
to explore that how ‘Thai culture’ has constructed? I read some of academic writing on Thai culture and discover that Thai
cultural writings have been at least 4 major movements on the production of Thai culture in the period of 80 years. The firstmovement, the early modern Thai culture was constructed by the states official agency and elite intellectuals who aimed tounite different ‘classes’ and preserve an unequal social relation. However, the second movement, academic intellectuals
and liberal writers attempted to criticize the cultural representation of the official agency about the ‘origin’ and ‘authentic’of what called “Thai culture”, or “Thainess”. The third movement, Thai culture have been involved with identities
construction and consumption of people. Not only consumer and producer but also academic intellectuals became ‘newcultural agency’. And the fourth movement, Thai culture has been created by ‘rural’ or ‘subaltern’ people. Increasingly,
this ‘suburban culture’ has being challenged to all of ‘good values’ of Thai culture of an elite, academics intellectual, andcultural consumer in city.

1. The Cultural Construction by the States Of-

year. I focus my investigation in this period of eighty years
because I have the assumption in this period that Thai soci-ficial Agency

ety had been begun to be a ‘new society’ of the nation-state.

As we all know that at the present Thailand is a constitution-

The state had reinvented of culture and also created a body

al monarchy state, or the Kingdom of Thailand. The mainof knowledge of culture and teach their subjects to have cul-construction of modern Thai culture has begun since theture, or teach their subject to be civilized.

political change from absolute monarchy to constitutional

In the early period of Thai modernization, elites who hadmonarchy in 1932. We can say that the attempt to modern-been educated from western countries began to construct

ize Thai culture has already begun a few years before thisThai culture or “Thainess” related to monarchy, nationalism,

Figure 1 : national-anthem illustrations on Thai T.V. (channel 3) during 2004 to 2008.
Origin: www.YouTube.com, 7 Nov, 2011.

12

The Contested Construction of Thai Cultures

and Buddhism. Their “Thainess” still has been presented byhave the same ancestor who sacrificed and fight against an

media and education until now such as video of Thai-nation

enemy of nation. Therefore people must accept and trust theanthem on Thai T.V. (figure 1)

nation-state leader in order to fight against communist who

Saichon Sattayanurak (2003) explains that Thai culture in

was being represented the enemy at that time. The cultural

the colonial period or in the regime of the absolute monar-

construction by the states official agency convinced that nochy was constructed by the most of influent intellectual theclass and cultural conflict and no inequality in Thai society

Prince Krom Phraya Dhamrong Rajanupab (1862-1943).

because the leader is a good Buddhist and sacrificer; he will

At that time Thai society that called “Siam” was influenced

lead his people in peaceful modernity (Saichon, 2002). An-

by the concept of social progress, the global economic cri-other major intellectual Phraya Anuman Ratjadhon (1888-

sis, the growth of Chinese merchants, and abolishment of1969) had a role in the reign of Pibunsongkhram. He re-slave. The Prince aimed to promote a dictatorial regime,

sisted communism by offering an image of local people whobureaucracy, and ‘class’ structure in order to govern people.

have their own tradition and cultural heritage, in particular

He created the identity of people means that follow an or-

Buddhism, temples, and monks which make the village ader of officials which mean monarch authority; particularly

peaceful and formalistic way of life (Saichon, 2007c: 371-

just after releasing the people from slavery. He inherited a372).

motto that “different people in Siam take shelter under royal

Since 1950, Thai elite also use Buddhism and monarchy

protection” (Bhothisomparn). He propagandized that eachto resist against both communism and the western cultural

person has duties to each other with kindness rather thanoccupation. Saichon Sattayanurak (2007a and 2007b) ex-

classes’ exploitation (Saichon, 2003). However, in the lateplains that the major elite intellectual Mom Rajawong (the1930s after the absolute monarchy had been replaced bygreat-grand-child of a king) Kukrit Pramoj (1911-1995)

constitutional monarchy, the Prince emphasized the mean-

was installing Thai identity that verified the great value ofing of government official as ‘slave’ (Kha) of the His Majestic

Thai royalty. He suggested an image of ‘Thainess’ from theKing which means that the recipient of the Royal Command

absolute monarch period that was a factor of peace, orga-

work for the country. He promoted rural people as “Kha”

nization, stability, and progress. This Thainess also differedand “Laos” to imply their less civilization; therefore the statefrom “communism culture”. But he offered an image of ruralof the King has to use (modern) knowledge to develop thosepeople especially that they fall into the cycle of “stupid–

people. In addition, he still value of ‘high, or low family’ – orpoor–painful”. He also promoted that the absolute power

differentiation by birth into a ‘high’ family of royal and ‘low’

leader is both clever and have a goodness of Buddhism tofamily of ordinary people. Thus Saichon criticize that thesehelp people leave from poorness; he supported the politi-

Thainess constructions stilled the unequal social struc-cal authority of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat government

ture even though the political regime had been changed(1959-1963) even though he will regulate people without a(Saichon, 2003).

constitutional rule and the Council of Representatives. This

These constructions had been used again during the 1930s‘Thainess’ was based on people’s accepting Sarit because heto 1940s when ‘Siam’ was renamed to ‘Thailand’ (in 1939)

exercised the absolute power to ‘develop’ or to ‘modernize’in order to fight against communism. According to Saichon

the country and people. At that time, Kukrit need to define

Sattayanurak (2002), ‘Thai culture’ at that time was linked‘Thainess’ in order to communicate the people that thewith nationalist ideology by the major intellectual Luang“American culture’ was destroying the ‘goodness’ of ancientWichitwathakan (1898-1962) in the period of Field Marshal

culture – including the roles of traditional institutions of

Por Pibunsongkhram government (1940s to 1950s). In ad-

The King and Buddhism. He, therefore, promoted that thedition, he reconsidered that traditional institutions, such as

King not only develops the country and helps people to

the ruling by the king, Buddhism religious worship, ideals

escape from poverty, but also helps to conserve ‘Thainess’and customary way of lives are valuable for his anti-commu-

for challenging with the ‘alien culture’ (Saichon, 2007a andnism. He emphasized these values of institutions in a genre

2007b).

of the collective memory in national history - all classes

We can see that the construction of Thai culture by elite13

Pramote Pakdeenarong

stilled the unequal social structure and the centralized po-

the movement of progressive intellectuals, authors, andlitical power. Prince Krom Phraya Dhamrong Rajanupab

activists after this year (Pattana, 2003: 87). Many intel-

created ‘Thai culture’ and ‘Thai identity’ for promoting thelectuals in Thailand started noticeably to criticize the Thai

regime of the absolute monarchy before the 1940s. Luang

cultural knowledge constructed by elite and official agency.

Wichitwathakan linked “Thai culture’ to nationalist ideol-

For them, “Thai culture” has never been a “pure Thainess”

ogy which included royalty, Buddhism, and custom; hebut it always mixed with the other cultures such as Indian,

aimed to fight against communism during the 1930s to

Chinese, Cambodian, and also Western culture, for in-

1940s. Phraya Anuman Ratjadhon weighed ‘Thainess’ of

stance. I would like to show you the comparing between thelocal people if they have their own tradition and cultural

traditional Thai dance on left-side and the traditional Cam-

heritage that means Buddhism which form the way of life

bodian dance on right-side of figure 2; I see that they are theof villager. Another ‘Thai culture’ was constructed by Kukritsame style.

Pramoj aimed to resist both communism and the cultural

Which picture is very Thai? ‘Middle class’ intellectual in

occupation of Western culture. It also promoted the roles ofparticularly the late twentieth attempt to criticize the ‘ori-

traditional institutions of The King and Buddhism.

gin’ and ‘authentic’ of “Thainess” which has been promotedby the official agency. One of them is, Srisak Vanlibhodom

2. The Academic Critique of ‘states official cul-(1991) presented that during the eighth and ninth Buddhist
century, elite leaders received Indian culture and ideology

ture’

to useful their governing; and also authorized their status

Although the construction of ‘Thai culture’ of elites is aand social institution. ‘Siamese’ or ‘Thai’ art, at the same

powerful definition but we also can see the critique of con-time, was also influenced from another place such as Indian,temporary intellectual though, for instance, the series books

Cambodia, and Sri Langkha. For example, in King Rama I

of Saichon one of contemporary historian. Her criticalto King Rama II of Chakri period (1782-1824), the local andbooks are being represented the challenged knowledge of

ethnic performance; for instance khon (masked dance), pup-

whatever claimed “Thai culture” that always linked with po-pet drama, Chinese opera, Mon (ethnic) dance, were sup-litical project of governor, particularly royalist and the state

ported by elites who prefer to present their credit and au-

official agency. Saichon’s writings are being representing thethority with to support the artist group (Srisak, 1991: 1-20).

knowledge or cultural movement of intellectual nowadays.

According to Srisak, Thainess ‘origin’ should be hybrid cul-Since the 1970s, according to Pattana Kittiarsa (2003),

ture rather than authentic Thai. In addition, Michael Wright‘Thai culture’ of elite was initiated by two important move-(1991) explained that in the nineteenth century or the Kingments: the first, the movement of student and people fightRama III (1824-1851), Siamese elite saw themselves as civi-

against the dictatorial government in 1973, and the second,

lized group because they lived in Hinddu Buddhist civiliza-

Figure 2 : the example of traditional Thai dance and Cambodian danceOrigin: www.YouTube.com, 7 Nov, 2011.

14

The Contested Construction of Thai Cultures

tion. The elite insulted continuously Westerner (Farang) as

practitioners in the 1980s and the early 1990s. They werethe uncivil group. However in the period of King Rama VI

educated and attracted by many private dance schools andera (191-1925) when Siam entered a ‘modern’ era, the refer-higher educational institutions. They practiced ‘Thai dance’

ence of ‘civilization’ translated a hierarchy from Hindu-nessrationally and internalized emotionally for submitting theirand folk-ness to Western. Importantly Field Marshal Por

own identity that associated with the cultural knowledge of

Pibunsongkhram government (1938-1957) prohibited theofficial agency (Paritta, 2002). Thai dance is known now as

performance of many folk cultures that were accused as ana ‘cultural property’ of the country. The Thai dance practi-

obstacle of the modernization of Thailand (Wright, 1991:

tioners, differ from an official agency and intellectual, prefer

31-36). Both Write and Srisak are pointing to the conflict of

their knowledge consumer rule to producer rule.

Thai cultural construction.

My work (Pramote Pakdeenarong 2004) studied on the

Srisak, Wright, and also Saichon are examples of criticaltraditional tube-skirt, Pha Sin Tin Jok of Mae Chaem district

intellectual who attempted to divide their knowledge andin Chiang Mai province. I argued that the consumption of

position from the knowledge of official agency. They criti-

Pha Sin Tin Jok had never meant the material consumption

cized that the reference of ‘origin’ or ‘authentic’ of ‘Thai cul-of Pha Sin Tin Jok but it was more a symbolic consumption

ture’ has been linked to the political conflict and competi-of a valuable local tradition. Since Mae Chaem district wastion of governor and dominant class. They, therefore, aim toassociated with tourism and ‘Northern (Lanna) localism’ incriticize the unequal relation between governors and their

the 1990s and 2000s, it was emphasized with the representa-

people.

tion of old tube-skirt is high or authentic value’ of local artculture. The localism and conservationism group saw the3. Thai culture in the age of consumption

modern development of government was destroying thislocal value. I criticized that the tube-skirt knowledge ofNowadays we can see that there are two types of Thai cul-

local-conservationism intellectuals usually represented toture at least combined with the global and local images formedia and tourism; because it was corporate with the de-example goodness, beauty, peaceful and environmental

sire of outsiders: academics and consumers in urban rather

friendly, modern and also simple lives. The question is thatthan it was presented by the local people. For example, thewho is going to buy or to use it? The answer will be in theoutsiders prefer to know that those villagers will grow cot-

global consumption such as tourism and cultural commod-

ton plants by themselves in order to weave the tube-skirt.

itization. This chaotic change allows an academic intellectual

In contrary, villagers have never used the cotton from their

become the new cultural agency who will educate governor

garden for the tube-skirt because it is too bad for weaving;and people; and, will conserve and/or commoditize “Thaithey, and also their ancestor, always buy a qualified thread

culture”. ‘Thai culture’ is not only forms of performance andfrom city markets. I criticized that the ‘voices’ of local peo-art, it is a sign produced and consumed by people for identi-

ple were usually subsided by the ideological and desire offying their own identity in the global-local context.

the outsiders (Pramote, 2004). The knowledge construction

From studying of Anchala Phochanasomboon (1991), theof Mae Cham culture is representing the ‘field’ of contested

private drama school became the ‘cultural agency’ as well as

meaning of local culture in Thailand. This contestation is

the official agency during 1960s -1980s. Especially, private

not battling between official agency and academics or or-

drama groups popularized the cultural performance suchdinary people; but between the powerful consumption andas traditional Thai dance (ramthai) of the official agency

representation of ‘outsiders’ or city people and the identities

in public space: television. This ‘high art’ or official culture

affirmation of local people in the space of media and tour-knowledge had been become to popular culture in term of

ism consumptions.

‘Thai cultural consumption’ of middle class in city (Anchala,Difference from above intellectual movements, the writ-1991). In case study of Paritta Chalermpow Koanantakool

ing of critical historian Saipin Keawpetchngambhasert(2002), middle-class Thainess consumers adopt the tra-(1995) was fall down. She criticized the official knowledge

ditional Thai dance as a recreational activity for amateurof Lady Mo (1771-1852) - the heroine in Nakhonratchasima
15

Pramote Pakdeenarongprovince who fight against the enemy of Siam, the Kingvillager, local people, or the new national administer in thisAnuwong of Loas; and has been promoted the honesty ofcountry? I would like to see that the public space of knowl-

provincials, particularly it represented the ‘good citizen’ who

edge: mass media and educational and cultural institutions

honest the loyalty and the nation. The monument of Lady

for instance is the field where all ‘new’ powerful leaders:

Mo was constructed in 1934. This Lady Mo story was used

official agency, academic intellectual, consumer of sign, andto promote the nationalism ideology also. Saipin attempted

capitalist administer, are using it in order to construct theto criticize (and publicize) that the fighting story of Lady Mo

new cultural ideology of people. If, therefore, local people

was written for politics. The story had been never written byhave never occupied and controlled this public space really,

writer in that period until the reign of political centraliza-

and have never written their own story and identity in thetion of the King Rama V; and it was publicize increasingly

space by themselves; they will be directed (and re-directed)

after the end of absolute monarchy – the government preferby new (and new) governor unchangeably. However I thinkpromoting the national hero from local to the king. Howev-

that whenever the national administrators demand to pre-er Nakhonratchasima people permitted completely the story

serve their own power, they will be contested by people whoof official agency because they translated it for daily life

attempt to affirm and present their own identity and self-such as to make a votive offering for Lady Mo. According toconsciousness in public affairs.

Charles F Keyes (2002), the story of Lady Mo has been belonged to of national history and knowledge. The knowledge

4. Thai cultural movements from below

has carried out self-consciously by local people of the ruling
elite - who seek to maintain a unitary and hegemonic narra-

All the above mention, the cultural production was tootive about the history of the Thai nation. Local people makeformal and very institutional construction of Thai culture

a votive offering cult of Lady Mo have taken their authority

which gives no space for the local expression. The lo-neither from that official or academic knowledge but fromcal people do not their own ‘subjectivity’. We, therefore,the ‘sacred power’ they believe. The power is also projecting

would see local cultural expression especially people inbecause it is expressed in emotive acts; votive makers usu-

the province or countryside. The folk opera of northeast-

ally desire for winning their problem by the helping of Ladyern provincial called “molum”, for instance, which shows

Mo’s power, rather than their logical or rational acts (Keyes,that they also could produce their culture. But usually it

2002: 130).

has been denied or insulted its value by official and intel-

We can see that the studies of Anchala and Paritta repre-

lectual visions; it is not ‘culture’, or it is a worthless or dirty

sent that middle-class consumer and academic intellectual

performance. The northeastern folk opera (molum) is the

became the ‘cultural agency’ as well as the official agency,

performance of the Northeastern people with singing inparticularly they preferred the construction of ‘Thai culture’

the Lao language. According to Phornsuang Thaothaweefrom the consumer position. We can see from my studying that the knowledge of an academic intellectual andconservative developer win over consumer outstandingly
particularly when it was reproduced through public space ofmass media and education; even though it is differed radically from the knowledge and experience of local people.
And we can see from the critique of Saipin that Thai cultureis the contesting field of knowledge constructions of different social/political groups; the notice of Keyes, local people
used consciously the national story/knowledge for problemsolving in everyday life. I see that our question is not only
how to they negotiate the ‘other’ or ‘outsider’ knowledge but
also who is the real director of a ‘new knowledge or value’ –16

Figure 3 : the traditional molum performance
Origin: www.YouTube.com, 7 Nov, 2011.

The Contested Construction of Thai Cultures

molum called “luthong molum” or “molum plern,” was being
modernized with the exciting rhythm of music and dance; itless aware about the rhetorical intelligence of the performers. The third new molum called “molum vieng” presented
the intelligence of performers; but they usually dress in luxurious clothes. The performers of Molum vieng attempted
to convince the local schools to conserve the ‘true’ patternof traditional molum. During 1989 – 2000, the fourth new
molum called “molum sing” (figure 5) highlights on the enFigure 4 : the molum moo performance
Origin: www.sahavicha.com, 25 Jan 2012.

joyment and excitement: sexual attraction, nude and seductive dancing, and obscene speech. It was emerged alongside
the young worker movement from rural area to city who(2000), before 1957 it was told the local myths and the sto-became the main productive providers of their family, andries of a sacred writing of temple - the palm leaf book, by

also became the new sponsor of molum performance at vil-skillful performer. The molum performers also took bothlage (Phornsuang, 2000).

religious and secular beliefs to perform in front of as well as

I see that although this kind of ‘Thai culture’ has being

to teach the audiences. Each performance was done by only

invented by ordinary people or villager however it has been

one or two performers who dress with casual clothes; sing-seldom popularize and accept in the cultural construction

ing together with traditional musical instrument made fromof national media. It, therefore, has been limited by tastebamboo called “can” (figure 3). The audiences of this molumand modern ideology of urban consumer and producer.

were impressed on the performers’ knowledge and sharp‘Thai popular culture’ form below was sometimes supported

rhetoric. However the first new style molum was appearedby the official agency, academic intellectual, consumer, andalongside Thai modernization during 1947 to 1969; it had

especially tourism agency if it was representing the ‘goodbeen called “molum moo”, the performance with many per-value’ of local community and holistic society in Thailand.

formers who dress the luxurious clothes; they perform to-

For example it was representing the harmony, sacrificial

gether with the modern musical instruments; with the light

mind, and virtuous villager.

and sound, to excite the audiences (figure 4). In addition

Pattana Kitiarsa (1999) studied the urban spirit-medium

molum moo performers touch on the secular life of ordinarycult was portrayed an “outlawed religion” by official agency

people rather than religious; and they become the voice ofand the Sangha order, particularly in the past. However peo-

the government for the battle against the communist move-ple seemed to search for a ‘religion’ that was meaningful andment during 1969 – 1989. In addition, the secondary new

relevant to their uncertain lives, and that institutionalized

Figure 5 : the molum sing performance
Origin: (left side) www.karaoke-soft.com, 25 Jan 2012; (right side) www.oknation.net, 25 Jan 2012.

17

Pramote Pakdeenarongor state-sponsored religions could not provide. Thai press

culture,’ included both national and local cultures, is a socialand media invented and represented negatively the spirit-knowledge and constructed system therefore it is the politi-

medium’s images and narrative as those of a deceiver, an ir-

cal invention rather than legacy of our ancestor.

rational spirit mentor, or an unreliable public representative.
However the spirit-medium cults were being represented

Bibliography

the religious practices and beliefs of the subaltern people. In
addition, they became to the promoted commodity of media

Material in English

such as mysterious magazine and T.V. program in order toKeyes, Charles F.

sell an image and reputation of cults’ figures. The spiritual-

2002“National Heroine or Local Spirit?” in Cultural

medium cult was being represented a system of multi-vocal

Crisis and Social Memory: Modernity and Identity

signs as primarily expressed by the marginal or subalternin Thailand and Loas, Tanebe, Shigeharu andsegment in the contemporary process of Thai cultural con-Keyes, Charles F. (eds.). London: RoutledgeCur-

struction (Pattana Kitiarsa, 1999).

zon,.

‘Thai popular culture’ in the molum case of Phornsuang
was changed from sacred and religion teaching to secular

Paritta Chalermpow Koanantakool
2002“Thai Middle-class Practice and Consumption

and emotional liberation. The modernized molums high-of Traditional Dance: “Thai-ness” and High Art”

lighted on the desire of people such as excited and luxurious

in Local Cultures and the “new Asia”: the State,

performance. The urban spirit-medium cult, Pattana shows,

Culture, and Capitalism in Southeast Asia, Wee

the cultural construction of the subaltern people join to the

C.J.W-L. (ed). Singapore: Seng Lee Press.

commoditizations of media and charm producer. This ‘Thai
culture’ was constructed by the multi-voice (and multiinterest) of both producers and consumers.

Pattana Kitiarsa
1999“You May Not Believe, But Never Offend theSpirits: Spirit-medium Cult Discourses andthe Postmodernization of Thai Religion.”

5. RemarkPh.D.dissertation, University of Washington.

The constitutional monarchy of Thailand at this time, theMaterial in Thai

political powers of monarch and capitalist administer have

Pattana Kitiarsa

being decentralized increasingly; however the cultural

2003(2546)

Khon Pan Pop: Thai Identity in Popular

power of them still have been operated and promoted

Culture. Bangkok: Princess Maha Chakri

powerfully by media and educational and cultural institu-

Siridhorn Anthopology Center; the Thai-

tions. Comparatively, our old and new administers are theland Research Fund.

master of ‘knowledge factories’; they control the ‘machine’of cultural production of this country. They occupy a public

Phornsuang Thaothawee
2000(2543)“Development of Molum in Ubonrach-space and majority rule sponsored by national institutions

atani” M.A. thesis (History), Chiang Mai

and capitalist media. They also fight among them to ‘sell’ the

University.

‘good thing’, ‘good culture’, or ‘suitable value’ to consumer
and people.

Pramote Pakdeenarong
2004(2547)“The Politics of Aesthetics in Pha Sin Tin

At villages and local places, people wish to liberate them-

Joke and the Re-invention of Mae Ch-

selves from all of the tensions of cultural domination. They

aem’s Culture” M.A.Thesis (Social Devel-

construct a diverse culture at local level. But their cultures

opment), Chiang Mai University.

and ‘local wisdoms’ were sometimes promoted by thedominant cultural agency if it had been commoditized, orAnchala Phochanasomboon
1991(2534)“The Private Art Performance School andused for supporting the political authority of the (new andDance Teaching” in Opening the Show:new) leaders and country administers. As I consider ‘Thai

critiques of art performances in Siam soci-18The Contested Construction of Thai Cultures

ety. Bangkok: Thammasat University.
Saichon Sattayanurak
2002(2545)

Changes in the Consructing ‘Thai Nation’and ‘Thai-ness’ by Luang Wichit Wathakarn. Bangkok: Matichon,.

Saichon Sattayanurak
2003(2546)

Prince Krom Phraya Dhamrong Rajanupab: ‘Thailand’ and ‘Class’ Identification ofSiamese. Bangkok: Matichon,.

Saichon Sattayanurak
2007a(2550)

Kukrit and the invention of Thainess Volume 1. Bangkok: Matichon.

Saichon Sattayanurak
2007b(2550)

Kukrit and the invention of Thainess Volume 2. Bangkok: Matichon.

Saichon Sattayanurak
2007c(2550)

Research in ‘History of Thought about
Thai Society and Culture of Intellectuals’(Thai decade between .2435-2535). Chieng
Mai University.

Saipin Keawpetchnambhasert
1995(2538)

The Politics of Thao Suranaree’s Monument. Bangkok: Matichon.

Michael Wright1991(2534)“Masked Drama and Sacredness” inOpening the Show: critiques of art performances in Siam society. Bangkok: Thammasat University.

Srisak Vanlibhodom
1991(2534)“Art and performance of Siamese” inOpening the Show: critiques of art performances in Siam society. Bangkok: Thammasat University, 1991.

19