Consumerism versus nationalism

On 28 April 1993, Wednesday, Manager Daily, a best-selling Thailanguage business daily, carried a full-page advertisement of the Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage (ASA) announcing its annual seminar for that year on the theme of “Seubto winyan seubsan wela” (“Tradition and Trend”, in the Association's own English rendering, although a more literal translation would be “Carry on the Spirit, Move on with the Times”), to be held in the Plenary Hall at Queen Sirikit National Convention Center from 30 April to 3 May. The advertisement featured a photograph of an attractive young Thai lady elegantly dressed in a business suit. Sitting relaxed in an armchair and looking intently (even invitingly) at her supposed viewers, she was surrounded by several graphic pointers with English captions revealing the unThainess of various parts of her bodywear, namely, a hairstyle with a “Parisian Touch”, “Italian Import(ed)” ear-rings, “American Fragrance”, a suit of “English Wool”, a “Swiss Made” watch, and “Japanese Silk” stockings. A big caption in the top right corner of the photograph asks, directly enough: “Bok dai mai khun pen thai thi trong nai?” (“Can you tell which part of you makes you Thai?”).

But who, actually, was the “you” being asked? And who, for that matter, was the consumer of un-Thai commodities being looked at? Was it the lady in the photograph or her viewers? Through her reflexive gaze, the viewers were enticed to look with unexpected and growing unease at her image as evidence of the possibility of their own unThainess, their imagined communion with her being grounded on the common challengeability of their Thai identity. For once, the voyeurs themselves were subjected to ethnic self-voyeurism.