Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:09:26.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Middlemen in the Politics of Rural Thailand: A Study of Articulation and Cleavage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

R. A. Hall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The growth of modern nation states seems to have inevitably entailed the progressive encapsulation, incorporation and integration of local, relatively autonomous systems into a broader political and socioeconomic framework, generating in the process new pressures on local systems as they are forced to reformulate their relationship with the encompassing state. Even in the case of peasant societies where there is, by definition, a relationship between local community and an overarching political and economic structure, there has, historically, been a high degree of decentralization in many spheres, and a relatively low demand for the integration of the total society. The process of modernization, however, is generally accompanied by increasing central interference in subordinate systems, leading to new pressures, opportunities, interests and alignments.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 1980 , pp. 441 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example: Levy, Marion J. Jr, Modernization and the Structure of Societies (Princeton University Press, 1966), pp. 16–17 and passim.Google Scholar

2 There is considerable debate as to exactly what peasants are. Essential to most definitions, however, is basic self-sufficiency and rent or tribute relations to a politically and economically dominant class.

3 A seminal exploration of this theme is: Wolf, Eric R., ‘Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society: Mexico’, American Anthropologist, 58 (1956), pp. 1065–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Vickery, Michael, ‘Thai Regional Elites and the Reforms of King Chulalongkorn’, Journal of Asian Studies, 19, viii (1970), pp. 863–81, 866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 872.

6 Bunnag, Tej, ‘The Provincial Administration of Siam from 1892–1915’, D. Phil., Oxford University, 1968, pp. 34–6.Google Scholar

7 Ramsay, J. A., ‘The Development of a Bureaucratic Polity: the Case of Northern Siam’, Ph.D. Cornell University, 1971, p. 18.Google Scholar

8 In an articulate Marxist analysis, Bruneau et al. see this reorganization of ‘national space’ as an integral part of the passage from the Asiatic to the capitalist mode of production. Bruneau, Michel, Durand-Lasserve, Alain and Molinie, Marie, La Thailande: Analyse d'un Espace National (Centre d'études de Géographie Tropicale, Bordeaux, 1977).Google Scholar

9 Bunnag, Tej, ‘Provincial Administration of Siam’, passim.Google Scholar

10 Rabibhandana, Akin. The Organization of Thai Society in the Early Bangkok Period, 1782–1873. Data Paper no. 74, Southeast Asia Program (Cornell University, 1969), p. 80 and passim.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., p. 155.

12 Ibid., p. 133.

13 A sophisticated, though overstated discussion of the persistence of patron–client relations and entourages is: Hanks, Lucien M., ‘The Thai Social Order as Entourage and Circle’, in Skinner, G. W. and Kirsch, A. T. (eds), Change and Persistence in Thai Society (Cornell University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

14 Punyodyana, Boonsanong ‘Social Structure, Social System and Two Levels of Analysis’; in Evers, (ed.), Loosely Structured Social Systems. Cultural Report Series no. 17 (Yale University Press, 1969), p. 95.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 99.

16 Jacobs, Norman, Modernization without Development: Thailand as an Asian Case Study (Praeger: New York, 1971), p. 66.Google Scholar

17 Young, Stephen B., ‘The Northeastern Thai Village; a Non-Participatory Democracy’, Asian Survey, 8 (1968), pp. 873–86, 873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Moerman, Michael, ‘A Minority and its Government: the Thai-Lue of Northern Thailand’, in Kunstadter, Peter (ed), Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities and Nations (Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 401–23, 407–8.Google Scholar

19 Roy, Edward Van, Economic Systems of Northern Thailand: Structure and Change (Cornell University Press, 1971), p. 185.Google Scholar

20 See, for example, Turton, Andrew, ‘Northern Thai Peasant Society.’ Ph.D., London University, 1975, p. 513.Google Scholar

21 Neher, Clark D., The Dynamics of Politics and Administration in Rural Thailand (Ohio University Center for International Studies, Southeast Asia Series no. 30, 1974), p. 70.Google Scholar

22 Riggs, Fred W., Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (East West Center, Honolulu, 1966), pp. 177–96.Google Scholar

23 Rubin, H. and Rubin, I.. ‘Effects of Institutional Change Upon a Dependency Culture: The Commune Council 275 in Rural Thailand’, Asian Survey, 13:3 (03 1973), pp. 270–87, passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Wilson, David A., Politics in Thailand (Cornell University Press, 1962), Ch. 8.Google Scholar

25 Morell, David L., ‘Power and Parliament in Thailand: the Futile Challenge, 1968–1971’, Ph.D., Princeton University, 1974, particularly Ch. 8.Google Scholar

26 Cited in Bunnag, Tej, ‘Provincial Administration of Siam’, p. 402.Google Scholar

27 Moerman, Michael, ‘A Thai Village Headman as a Synaptic Leader’, Journal of Asian Studies, 28 (1969), pp. 535–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar However, avoidance of headmen positions is not an exclusively new phenomenon. For the historical dimension to it, see Bunnag, Tej, ‘Provincial Administration of Siam’, pp. 343–4.Google Scholar

28 Moerman, , ‘Thai Village Headman’, p. 245.Google Scholar

29 Neher, Clark D., ‘District Level Politics in Northern Thailand’, Ph.D., University of California, 1969, p. 32.Google Scholar

30 This is much more commonly the case in the north and northeast of Thailand than in the central plains.

31 Moerman, , ‘Thai Village Headman’, p. 543.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., pp. 540–1.

33 Keyes, Charles F., ‘Peasant and Nation: A Thai-Lao Village in a Thai State’, Ph.D., Cornell University, 1967 (a), p. 119.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., p. 116.

35 Neher, , ‘District Level Politics’, p. 44.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., p. 125.

37 Calavan, Sharan Kay Mitchell, ‘Aristocrats and Commoners in Rural Northern Thailand’, Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1974, pp. 375–6.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 372.

39 Moerman, Michael, Agricultural Change and Peasant Choice (University of California Press, 1968), p. 110.Google Scholar

40 Thaxton, Ralph, ‘Modernization and Peasant Resistance’, in Seldon, (ed.), Remaking Asia (New York, 1974), passim.Google Scholar

41 Neher, Clark D., ‘The Politics of Change in Rural Thailand’, Comparative Politics, 4:2 (01 1972), pp. 201–16, passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Bunnag, Jane, Buddhist Monk, Buddhist Layman (Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Hanks, , ‘Thai Social Order’, passim.Google Scholar

44 Roy, Van, Economic Systems of Northern Thailand, pp. 158–81.Google Scholar

45 Calavan, , ‘Aristocrats and Commoners’, p. 331.Google Scholar

46 At least in any of the works referred to.

47 Neher, , Dynamics of Politics, pp. 62–3.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., p. 67.

49 See, for example, Rubin, Herbert J., The Dynamics of Development in Rural Thailand (Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University. Report no. 8, 1974), p. 34.Google Scholar

50 de Young, John E., Village Life in Modern Thailand (University of California Press, 1966), p. 168.Google Scholar

51 Keyes, , ‘Peasant and Nation’, p. 155. See also p. 183.Google Scholar

52 Gurevich, Robert, ‘Teachers, Rural Development and the Civil Service in Thailand’, Asian Survey, 15:10 (10 1975), pp. 870–81, passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Keyes, , ‘Peasant and Nation’, pp. 97–9.Google Scholar

54 Bunnag, Jane, Buddhist Monk, Buddhist Layman, pp. 8 and 148.Google Scholar

55 Mulder, J. A. Niels, Monks, Merit and Motivation: Buddhism and National Development in Thailand (Northern Illinois Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Special Report no. 1, 1973).Google Scholar

56 Turton, , ‘Northern Thai Peasant Society’, p. 321.Google Scholar

57 Keyes, , ‘Peasant and Nation’, p. 221.Google Scholar

58 Sharp, Lauriston, et al. , Siamese Rice Village: A Preliminary Study of Bang Chan 1948–1949 (Bangkok, Cornell Research Center, 1953), p. 59.Google Scholar

59 Young, De, Village Life in Modern Thailand, p. 148.Google Scholar

60 Kaufman, Howard K., Bangkhuad: A Communist Study in Thailand (New York, 1960), p. 94.Google Scholar

61 For details of these programmes, see: Mulder, Niels, Monks, Merit and Motivation, pp. 23–6.Google Scholar

62 Neher, , ‘District Level Politics’, p. 317.Google Scholar

63 Morell, , ‘Power and Parliament in Thailand’, p. 377.Google Scholar

64 Ibid. p. 385.

65 Ibid. pp. 377–411.

66 Keyes, Charles F., Isan: Regionalism in Northest Thailand (Cornell Thailand Project, Interim Report Series, 10, 1967(b)), passim.Google Scholar

67 Tej Bunnag, ‘Provincial Administration of Siam’.

68 Keyes, , ‘Peasant and Nation’, p. 120.Google Scholar

69 Neher, Clark D., ‘Constitutionalism and Elections in Thailand’, Pacific Affairs, 43:2 (1970), pp. 240–57, passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Morell, , ‘Power and Parliament in Thailand’, p. 386.Google Scholar

71 A good example of the increasing importance of commercial contacts is found in Potter, Jack, Thai Peasant Social Structure (Chicago University Press, 1976), pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

72 Dibble, Charles Ryder, ‘The Chinese in Thailand against the Background of Chinese-Thai Relations’, Ph.D. Syracuse University 1961, pp. 308–9.Google Scholar

73 Detailed study of this at the local level on the lines carried out by Skinner and Riggs at the national level remains to be done.

74 Keyes, , ‘Peasant and Nation’, p. 334, 254–5.Google Scholar

75 These relations do not always develop where there is a strong feeling of Chinese community and where a policy of avoidance can still be followed by both sides. See, for example, Galaska, Chester F., ‘Continuity and Change in Dalat Plu: A Chinese Middle Class Business Community in Thailand,’ Ph.D., Syracuse University, 1969. p. 212.Google Scholar

76 Moerman, Michael, Agricultural Change and Peasant Choice (University of California Press, 1968), p. 8.Google Scholar

77 Skinner, G. W., Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand (Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. 194–5.Google Scholar

78 Sternstein, L., ‘Aspects of Agricultural Land Tenure in Thailand’, Journal of Tropical Geography, 23 (1967), pp. 22–9; particularly p. 25.Google Scholar

79 Potter, , Thai Peasant Social Structure, p. 56.Google ScholarAlso: Piker, Steven, ‘The Post-Peasant Village in Central Plain Thai Society’, in Skinner, and Kirsch, (eds), Change and Persistence in Thai Society, p. 319.Google Scholar

80 Turton, , ‘Northern Thai Peasant Society’, p. 187.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., p. 441.

82 Moerman, , Agricultural Change, p. 16.Google Scholar

83 Rubin, Herbert J., ‘A Framework for the Analysis of Villager–Official Contact in Rural Thailand’, Southeast Asia, 2:2 (1973), pp. 233–62, 249–58.Google Scholar

84 Piker, , ‘The Post-Peasant Village’, p. 320.Google Scholar

85 Ibid., p. 313.

86 Migdal, Joel S., Peasants, Politics and Revolution: Pressures toward Political Change in the Third World (Princeton University Press, 1974). Migdal sees peasant participation in flawed and monopolistic outside networks as a key factor in explaining the growth of rural unrest.Google Scholar