[Tlc] T-Thai Studies Conference reflection

[justinm at ucr.edu]

Dear All,

Yesterday I returned to California from the Tenth
International Thai Studies Conference held at Thammasat
University in Bangkok. This conference was groundbreaking in
many ways and thanks to the excellent organizing capabilities
of the Thai Khadi Institute (and sponsorship from Mahasarakham
University, Thai Airways International, Chevrolet, EGAT, and
many other corporations) the academic events were
well-attended and the social events very festive and relaxing.
Professors and organizers Anucha Thirakanont, Rujaya Abhakorn,
Craig Reynolds, Narisa Dejsupa, Charles Keyes, Thongchai
Winichakul, Chaiwat Satha-Anand, Thaveesilp Subwattana, and
many other people worked hard to make the conference a success.

No one person could (and no one person should) summarize the
conference. The vast majority of the papers delivered at the
conference were distributed on CD-Rom and a book of abstracts
was handed out to registered guests. If you would like to know
which papers are available for viewing, please contact me.
Also, I took detailed notes on every panel I attended and so
if you would like to know more about a particular talk, the
Q&A session, etc., please contact me as well and I will share
my experiences with you off-list. I am sure, many other people
who attended, would be able to tell you more and offer
different perspectives. 

For the sake of those TLC members who could not attend, I will
offer some short reflections on the sessions I attended.
Although I attended nearly every conference time-slot, I had
to choose between many different panels. There were many I
couldn’t see. These sessions include probably the three most
controversial and exciting: Sufficient Economy,
Democratization, and the panel critically reflecting on Paul
Handley’s book The King Never Smiles. My panel on the
“Contested Legacies of King Mongkut’s Buddhist Reforms” (Ven.
Phra Sugandha, Anne Hansen, Thomas Borchert, Dion Peoples, and
myself) was scheduled opposite to the controversial panel on
Handley’s book. Therefore, I heard a number of stories about
the panel (which ended up not being extremely controversial
after all), but was not an eyewitness. I encourage members who
did attend that panel as well as several others I could not to
send in their own reflections about the conference. I welcome
reports from panels on Thai music, economics, health and
development, especially, since I attended panels in my field
of religious studies, linguistics, and history.

First, I noticed that there were a few emphases this year that
were not represented very much in the last Thai Studies
Conference at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.

1)	Transgender and Gay Studies panels
2)	Architecture and Urban Planning
3)	Modern Art
4)	Modern Music 
5)	Ahom and Mon history and culture 
6)	Tai and Mekhong Studies
7)	Sufficiency Economy
8)	The King Never Smiles

Themes that were very well-represented in DeKalb, like
Southern Thailand, the policies of former Prime Minister
Taksin, and Thai film were hardly mentioned at this conference. 

Besides the controversy over panels on the Thai monarchy,
probably the most lasting impression people will have of this
conference is the large number of keynote speakers and
honorary panels. There were honorary panels for Andrew Turton,
Stanley Tambiah, and Craig Reynolds. There were keynote and/or
special talks by Charles Keyes, Piriya Krairiksh, Hayao Fukui,
Charnvit Kasetsiri, Mano Mettando, and Donald Swearer. 

*Day One
HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn gave a short speech about
the contributions of Thai Studies to the nation, but since she
was in mourning because of the recent passing of her aunt,
Princess Kalyani Vadhana, her speech was unusually somber and
short. She was presented with a newly minted statue of Ganesha
and took photographs with the keynote speakers and organizing
chairs. The area around Thammasat University was crowded with
thousands of people going to pay their last respects to
Princess Kalyani. Many speakers at the conference were dressed
in black.

The first keynote speech was by Piriya Krairiksh. He gave an
overview of history of Thai Studies beginning with the Siam
Society’s inauguration in 1904. It was a good way to start the
conference by a major scholar in Art History of Thailand. 

The second keynote was by Charles Keyes. He gave an overview
of the changes Thailand has gone through in the past 40 years
through the lens of one village. It was a nice counter-balance
to Ajahn Piriya’s talk which looked at the elite and urban
legacy of Thai Studies.

The third keynote was by Hayao Fukui of Ritsumeikan Asian
Pacific University who offered a reflection on “How to Teach
Southeast Asia to Southeast Asian Students.” Since each panel
was attended by many Thai undergraduate and graduate students,
this was a good way to look to the future of the field.

One of the best panels I attended on the first day was with
Daniel Lynch and Duncan McCargo.  They offered particularly
clear and informative papers. Lynch’s “Positioning Thailand’s
International Affairs in a Global Landscape” emphasized that
we need a comparative perspective if we are going to
understand the possibilities and possible pitfalls of Thai
democracy. No state exists in a vacuum. He compared changes in
China, Taiwan, and Thailand over the past 40 years. He says
that unlike many previous analyses that see strong democracies
arising out of a strong economic power in the middle-class.
However, there has not been a grassroots or elite level move
towards democracy in China even though they have had a boom in
the middle class and a strong and growing domestic economy for
20 years. What can China tell us? We need to go beyond simple
economic reasons for democracy and look take a long historical
view. Was has Thailand developed a democracy and China not?
Does China provide another model which challenges the assumed
superiority of democracy? Does China have a different
understanding of the “end of history?” Will Thai politicians
and intellectuals look to China as another model of governance? 

Duncan McCargo gave the first broad analysis of the burning of
the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh on January 29, 2003:
“Thai-Cambodian Relations and the January 29th, 2003 Embassy
Crisis.” How do we explain this event? How did it start? Why
was it forgotten so quickly? The second of these questions is
perhaps the most interesting. This was a major international
political crisis, but it was quickly forgotten in presses of
both country’s almost no scholarly analysis. He said that
there are 6 possible (could be more) causes of the crisis: 1)
Historical and Economic Grievance Theory, 2) Conspiracy
Theories of Thais trying to take over Thailand, 3) Opposition
Band-waggoning: Sam Rainsey’s party attempting to destabilize
the government, 4) Unplanned action by Irate Youth, 5)
Initially ordered by Hun Sen, but government lost control and
it got out of hand, 6) Deliberate Plot by Hun Sen for domestic
political reasons. The evidence leans towards the last two and
the others have no basis in fact. The Q&A session led to
interesting reflections on the event.

I encourage other TLC members to send in their reflections on
other panels on the first day. I heard very positive remarks
about the panel in honor of Stanly Tambiah’s career (who was
also in attendance and feted for his major contributions to
the field). 

*Second Day
I was happy to attend the first of two panels in honor of the
career of Andrew Turton, a scholar whose work has greatly
influenced me. This panel, “Culture and Discourse, Language
and Power, Text and Ritual Practice: Reflections on the
Anthropology of Thailand through the Works of Andrew Turton
I,” featured talks by Craig Reynolds, Jamaree Chiengthong,
Nicholas Tapp, Paul Cohen, and a response by Turton himself.
Craig Reynolds gave a critical response to one Turton’s most
influential articles on the concepts and practices of slavery
in Thailand. This was followed by Nicholas Tapp who showed how
Andrew Turton was one of the most influential anthropologists
who had worked Thailand. He was significant because of his
markedly different approach to the field from Stanley Tambiah.
Instead of approaching Thai culture through a “unitary
structuralist view” where there is an internal logic to Thai
culture, he instead focused on cognitive dissonance and
heterogeneity. Jamaree and Cohen’s papers were more general in
their reflections and revealed how Turton influenced areas of
study far outside of social anthropology. Cohen in particular
emphasized that Turton contributions revealed that State power
was limited in its ability to dominate the lives of Thai citizens.

For the historian, the panel, Across Borderline: Reading Thai
History through Different Sources, with contributions by
Acharaporn Kamutpismai, Bidya Sriwattanasarn, Chris Baker,
Hungguk Cho, Piyamas Sanpaweerawong was groundbreaking.
Bidya’s paper comparing different translations of Chou
Ta-Kuan’s “Notes on the Customs of Tchen-La” was controversial
because it looked critically at one of the most used sources
for the early history of Southeast Asia. Chris Baker offered a
paper informed by his (and his co-translator Pasuk
Phongpaichit) translatation of the epic romance, Khun Chang
Khun Paen. He stated that this story was a repository of
meanings, which instead of only coming out of the elite court
culture, came from the oral troubadour traditions of the
countryside. These two modes (folk and court) are in constant
dialogue in the story and reveal the importance of
“protection” in the monarchy, as well as the power of monks
and magicians. Piyamas’s paper examining the first Lanna
language dictionary and “school” in China in the sixteenth
century was extremely useful for those interested in the
development of Sino-Lanna relations and the Lanna script(s).

The panel, The Buddhist Movements in Thailand, offered talks
by Osamu Izumi, Sandra Avila, and Tavivat Puntarigvivat. Osamu
looked at changes in the ways Buddhism is presented in Thai
text books (especially secular public education). He showed
that textbook quality was getting better and that the way
Buddhism was presented was growing more standardized and less
diverse. The teaching of Buddhism was connected deeply to
teaching of Thai culture. Avila’s paper gave a broad
historical background to the bhikkhuni/bhiksuni ordination
movement in Thailand. Usually, this movement is seen as
limited to the work of Ven. Dhammananda, but she showed that
it had roots earlier in the 20th century. Tavivat’s paper was
the most critical of the panel and he proposed that the
Mahatherasamakhom be abolished so that Buddhist administration
would move back to the village level and not be controlled by
national Sangha laws (promulgated in 1902, 1941, 1963, 2002). 

The dinner on the second night of the conference featured a
talk by the doyen of Thai History, Charnvit Kasetsiri, who
spoke on conflicting ideas of national history and future
directions for the country. Set in the sculpture garden of the
university and surrounded by memorials to the revolutions and
violence of the 1970s, it was an event perfectly appropriate
for perhaps the most radical and controversial Thai Studies
Conference since its inception 25 years ago.

*Day Three
In my personal opinion, the most coherent and scholarly
impressive panel of the entire conference (which I was able to
attend) was, History of Architecture and Urban Space I, which
offered talks by Pirasri Povatong, Worrasit Tantinipankul, and
Taylor Easum (moderated by Thongchai Winichakul). Easum’s
paper took on an understudied topic in Northern Thai Studies.
He looked closely at what the Chiang Mai chronicle (as well as
other sources) can tell us about the way the sacred space of
Chiang Mai was manipulated for political purposes by King
Kawila. Worrasit’s paper was an excellent overview of the ways
urban monasteries in the Ratanakosin section of Bangkok had
changed in response to changing administrative and economic
policies in the Thai State. Through the use of GIS technology
and aerial and 3D immersive mapping, he showed how commercial,
political, and traffic needs influenced major Thai monasteries
in the city over the last 100 years. Pirasri’s paper broadened
Worrasit’s scope by comparing European and Thai maps of
Bangkok. While he offered few conclusions about the ways
Thai’s and European’s conceived space, his excellent research
inspired a number of questions from the audience.

There were two special talks (each one hour) offered on
Buddhist Studies by Mano Mettanando (formerly known as
Mettanando Bhikkhu) and Donald Swearer. These two talks were
bold because they offered critical reflections on the state of
Thai Buddhism from two very different perspectives.
Mettanando’s paper offered a rare insider’s reflection on the
teachings and organization of the Dhammakaya movement. This
controversial lineage of Buddhism which arose partly from the
teachings of Phra Mongkol Thepmuni (Luang Phu Wat Pak Nam) and
the work of Khun Yai and Phra Dhammachayo was described as
“esoteric.” A detailed overview of the lineage’s meditation
systems and understandings of social ethics was followed by a
heated exchange in the audience led by Sulak Sivaraksa among
others. It was tense moment in a panel that was not supposed
to be particularly controversial compared to panels on the
monarchy and democratization. Donald Swearer’s talk offered a
broad overview of the state of Thai Buddhist Studies by
looking at the ways in which Buddhist Studies has been
fragmented in some ways because of political, economic, and
social changes in Thai society since the 1970s. He emphasized
that there is simply not one way to understand Buddhism in
society since so many voices attempted to speak for the
religion. He looked at socially engaged movements,
commercialism, State attempts to control and reform the
Sangha, gender and women’s movements, new movements like the
Santi Asoke, Dhammakaya, and engaged Buddhist practices rising
out of Suan Mokh, among others. The room was packed. It was a
moving talk and a rare opportunity to listen to one of the
most important scholars in Thai Buddhism over the last 40 years.

The last afternoon of the conference was happily taken up by a
double session in honor of the career of Craig Reynolds. The
first session focused on the release (available for sale at
the conference for the first time) of Craig Reynolds’s new
book Chao Sua Bun Seuk Sakdina Banyachon lae Khon Saman. This
book offers seven major essays on different subjects in modern
Thai history focusing on “non-elite” historical agents. For
many students of Thai history, this will be their first Thai
language overview of Reynolds’s research. This almost 400 page
book is replete with a long introduction, a biography of the
author, and a major bibliography. I feverishly read it on the
flight back to California and in my opinion it is absolutely
essential reading for any student of Thai Studies. The editor,
Worrunee Osatharom, offered an overview of the years she spent
with Reynolds working on this project. She joked around that
he was such a detailed oriented historian and writer that her
job was made easy in some ways and harder in others. She also
gave a nice analogy about students “in the kuti” and “outside
the kuti” which had been influenced by his work. Now both
English speaking and Thai speaking students would have the
opportunity to critically respond to his approaches to Thai
history. Thanet Wongyannawa offered a very different
theoretical talk. He placed Reynolds in an intellectual
history with Marxist, Post-modernist, and Structuralist
approaches. He compared Reynolds’s work to that of Geertz,
Foucault, Thomas, Kuhn, Hayden White, among others who were
trained during the cold war. He showed that Reynolds cannot be
easily placed in categories such as Post-modernism or Marxism.
Although he was slated to speak during this panel, the
moderator (who peppered the panel with humorous reflections),
Chalong Soontravanich, a well-known historian of modern
Thailand, allowed Charnvit Kasetsiri to offer a lengthy
response to the panel which was as hilarious as it was
informative. Charnvit joked that Reynolds worked not in the
era of “cut and paste,” but of “scissor and paste,” and that
he was so meticulous that his room during graduate school was
littered with hundreds of pages of drafts of his dissertation
that were cut or rewritten. He referred to Reynolds’s
intellectual approach as coming out of the “Camelot
Generation” and looked at new possibilities in the study of
history. He said that this new vision of Reynolds is seen in
his comparison of the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon and the
Democracy Monument in Bangkok. Charnvit admits that he thought
Reynolds was crazy when he compared those two places, but that
in the end it worked and was insightful. 

The second session moved from a reflection on Reynolds’s new
book to a series of short talks by former students of his from
ANU: Chalong Soontravanich, Lysa Hong, Maurizio Peleggi,
Sudarat Musikawong, Warren Mayes, and Villa Vilaithong. This
was touching panel peppered with humorous anecdotes. Each
spoke about Reynolds as a teacher as well as a scholar. This
panel was followed by a lengthy series of comments about
Reynolds from the audience including Tamara Loos, Wasan
Pangyakaeo, Chris Baker, Donald Swearer, among others. Craig
Reynolds offered a response to the panels that was moving and
looked to the future of Thai Studies. It was notable that he
spent almost his entire response talking about other scholars
and students rather than himself. He emphasized that history
was a creative field which didn’t simply document the past,
but offered creative ways of understanding specific places and
times.

The last evening was marked by a dinner along the river and
final words of gratitude by Anucha Thirakanont, Thongchai
Winichakul, and Charles Keyes. 

Books were on sale throughout the conference. I will send a
short report on new books by Orchard Books, River Books,
Silkworm, and Routledge. 

Please send in your own comments about the conference
especially for panels that you attended and particularly
enjoyed (or were even troubled by).

Thanks,
justin

______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
2617 Humanities Building
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
951-827-4530
justinm at ucr.edu