I am Thai!

Princess Máxima's remark in March 2007 that de Dutch identity does not exist, has caused a great deal of controversy and was the start of a fierce debate. Two groups emerged: those who believed in a specific Dutch identity and those who rejected that idea.

Thailand hardly knows this debate, almost everyone, in the population as a whole, in the circles of education and especially among the elite, assumes that there is such a thing as thainess, Thai identity, also called ความเป็นไทย (khwaampenthai) named. Every Thai gets that at birth, so to speak, and grows up with it. A 'National Identity Commission' watches over this.

A foreigner would thainess impossible to fathom

An important aspect of thainess is that it is impossible for a foreigner to fathom it and that is why a foreigner's criticism of Thailand is often dismissed with the comment that 'you can't understand Thailand'. On a forum of the Bangkok Post has sparked a fierce discussion under the statement 'Farang cannot know Thainess'. I do not want to withhold a comment from Cha-am Jabal:

'Contrary to the premise of the article about the impossibility of farangs to comprehend Thailand (“Farang cannot know – even if they do understand,” Bangkok Post, Aug 31), Thais often have to turn to farangs living on the other side of the world to learn about their own country, as we have seen in many high-profile corruption cases as well as in the identification of other social ills, particularly in the areas of human rights and human trafficking.
Thais are often uniquely incapable of learning about their own country, being too deeply entangled in the characteristics of Thai-ness that prevent them from seeking the truth. They are hampered by superstition, the importance of image over substance and of social harmony over truth, a natural tolerance of social ills, and a willingness to smooth things over instead of addressing ugly problems head on.
Farangs are an asset to Thailand in many ways, including their objective view of Thai society that exposes obvious truths that are often invisible to Thais.'
This aside, I am deviating from my topic.

I once had an argument with a Thai friend about Buddhism. At one point she exclaimed in desperation, "You cannot understand Buddhism because you are a foreigner!" To which I said, "But the Buddha himself was also a foreigner." She: "That's not true, the Buddha was a Thai!" For a Thai means thainess all good and non-thainess all the bad.

The concept of identity is often used to set you off against the other

We can describe our own identity (self-image and target image), that is subjective. Determining the Dutch identity presupposes objectivity. The greatest common denominator, a sum of Dutch characteristics, divided by the number of Dutch people, with a pinch of culture, history and art. That's fine as a scientific activity, until the moment we hold a random, individual Dutch person to account for it.

Furthermore, the concept of Dutch or Thai identity is often used to oppose the other, to emphasize differences, to draw dividing lines, often with a moral undertone, good or bad. What I encountered in literature is, for example: The Dutch are not as servile against authority as the Japanese, we are a bit more anarchic; not as passionate as Italians, we are more down to earth; not as stiff as British but more cozy and not as paralyzingly confrontational as Americans but more poldering.

In the discussion about thainess those differences, the 'us' and 'them' feeling are emphasized even more. It is these two aspects, the elevating of a national identity to a gold standard and the tendency to use that identity to oppose 'the other', that make establishing such an identity undesirable. The implicit message is always: if you do not meet the standards and the outlined profile of 'the Dutch identity' then you are not a real Dutch person, and the same applies to the Thai identity.

Thainess was used to emphasize the king's absolute power

What are those qualities or characteristics that make someone a Thai? Some say that Thais are peace-loving, others that Thai identity has to do with the worship of the three pillars 'nation, religion and king', with religion almost always referring to Buddhism. But how did this notion come about thainess established and can it still be used in an increasingly diverse and modern Thailand?

Under the absolute monarchy, from King Rama IV (Mongkut) to Rama VII (Prajadhipok), Thailand faced the Western Powers from which they adopted the technical and economic elements to ensure Thailand's independence. At the same time, aspects of thainess modified to avoid accusations of barbarism.

Thainess was, by displaying the royal rituals, used to promote the absolute power of the king, and the necessary division of the population into classes to emphasize. The well-being of the population was closely linked to the power of the king. Buddhism supported this view and was preached by monks in temples.

Prince Damrong Rajanubhap had a somewhat different, and more modern, vision thainess. He named as the three moral pillars of the Thai people "the love of national independence, tolerance and compromise or assimilation."

After the 1932 Revolution; Nation, Religion and King

After the 1932 revolution, when a constitutional monarchy was created, not much changed in the ideas of what thainess meant. Intellectuals defended the idea that, despite the political changes, kingship and Buddhism remained at the core of thainess belonged and that the history of the 'Thai race' proved that this had been the case since the kingdom of Sukhothai (13th century).

In 1939, the ultra-nationalist Prime Minister Plaek Phibunsongkraam decided to replace the old, inclusive, name for the country, 'Siam', with 'Thailand' to indicate that the values ​​and culture of the Central Thais should apply to the whole country. In 1945 Pridi brought back the name 'Siam' to show that he believed in a multiform and diverse country where all ethnicities could find a place.

In 1949, after ousting Pridi, Phibun definitively adopted the name 'Thailand' and started a campaign to 'translate' the country under the banner of Nation, Religion and King. Ironically, Phibun issued a decree forbidding Thai traditional dress and the use of betel, and prescribed trousers for men and skirts for women, while also mandating a good-bye kiss by the man early in the morning. About thainess spoken!

MR Kukrit Pramoj was a leading figure in this vision. In his books and journalism, he championed the view that the king and the royal family were, and always have been, necessary for the Thai nation to be peaceful, stable and prosperous. And because the king, as a Buddhist, upheld Buddhist values, his rule was always ethical and democratic even without checks and balances.

MR Kukrit talked a lot about democracy, rights, freedoms and equality, but he felt that something like this should happen within what thainess prescribed. He saw ru thi sung thi tam, 'know of high and low' or 'know your place' as an important virtue among thainess. Fortunately he added that 'respect' and 'humility' are also very des 'Thai'.

The old beliefs about thainess begin to collide with social reality

Thai Muslim children taken by the hand of Thai Buddhist children in front of a city gate with royal symbols.

Since the XNUMXs, Thailand has increasingly started to change into a much more varied and complex society. The term thainess was increasingly used to support an outdated hierarchical structure by emphasizing a specific 'Thai decorum, language and ethics'.

That left no room for a rising Thai middle class that demanded more political rights and more control over the distribution of wealth. The old beliefs about thainess collided more and more with social reality.

In the old model of thainess, implying a strictly organized hierarchy, the upper class had a duty of support and kindness to those below them who in turn provided loyalty and assistance. Social changes rendered this model unusable, but it remained a guideline.

The traditional understanding thainess was also too limited to address the issue of 'racial' origin. There was a lot of pressure on the many different peoples of Thailand to become 'Thai' and thainess to embrace, with all that this entails. This became all the more important as the bureaucracy extended its grip to all corners of Thailand. This led to major problems, especially in the Muslim South.

Those who do not live up to the ideal image of thainess were often exploited, denied rights and subjected to ridicule and even violence. They were pushed to the margins. Thainess became an obstacle preventing Thais from adapting to the rapid and profound changes in their community.

Changes in the structure of Thailand are often referred to as un-Thai

Most Thais are convinced that thainess possesses an inestimable value, the core of which has been untouched for centuries and is indispensable to understand being Thai. This is how children learn: at school, at home and in the media. Changes in the social, economic and cultural structure of Thailand are often labeled as un-Thai, as abnormal behavior.

A young person who disobeys an older person, someone on the bottom rung of a ladder who does not respect someone higher up, people who demand more rights and freedoms, all of these are often condemned as wrong behavior by invoking thainess. Thainess is seen as a value that can be accepted or rejected based on appearance, behavior and speech.

It is mainly the military and the elite who have this idea of thainess promote. I once spoke to a Thai and in the heat of the discussion I said, "You look like a communist!" "Not at all," he said. 'I'm Thai!' Thai and communist are completely mutually exclusive.

On websites much praise and glorification of thainess

I went on a number of Thai websites where that image is confirmed. Much praise and glorification of thainess without much interpretation being given to it, apart from 'nation, religion, king'. Search for the meaning of thainess is a journey through symbols, indoctrination, political straightforwardness and prejudice, voluntary and involuntary. I give a few examples:

• Thailand is good en The Thai community is characterized by friendliness,
• There is only one kind of 'thainess': the upper class Thai culture that sets a right and justified standard.
• All members of any race or ethnic group in Thailand must 'become Thai' before they can become part of the nation.

Thainess is taken for granted and is therefore virtually non-negotiable. I only found one site with criticism; a teacher from Isaan there described his struggle to become a 'real Thai' which has not succeeded to this day, he wrote bitterly. "I'm too dark and have a light accent." I also came across a review of a dozen children's books, intended for reconciliation in the conflict in the South. but which in a subtle way in word and image the superiority of thainess putting forward.

Muslim man greeted in Thai way.

The Thai Buddhist children are all taller, prettier and better dressed than the Thai Muslim children. It is always the Thai Buddhist children who take the lead. Temples are more prominent than mosques. A 'Thai' does not greet a 'Muslim Thai' with a 'salaam' but with one  'wai and sawadee'.

Any definition of a particular 'national identity' leaves out people who are also entitled to a dignified life. This applies to 'the Dutch identity' and it applies even more so to the Thai identity: thainess.

If Thailand are scary idea of thainess If you don't let go, more serious conflicts cannot be avoided in this rapidly changing and diverse society. Now it becomes understanding thainess used only to maintain and legitimize existing power relations.

Sources
Saichol Sattayanurak, The Construction of Mainstream Thought on 'Thainess' and the 'Truth'.
Constructed by 'Thainess', Chiang Mai University, 2002.
Paul M. Handley, The King Never Smiles, 2006.
Various web sites.