Thailand The Society and Its Environment
Ayutthayan style bronze Buddha in royal attire, Monastery of
the Fifth King (Pencamapabitra), Bangkok.
Busy street scene in Bangkok
Courtesy United Nations
NEITHER A STATIC nor a revolutionary society, Thailand has
always been able to harness the talents of its people, make
effective use of its natural environment, and progress at an
evolutionary pace. The tendency of the Central Thai--for
centuries the controlling group in Thai society--to eliminate or
suppress ethnic or religious differences was tempered by the
Chakkri Dynasty, which had, for the most part, fostered
toleration since assuming the monarchy in 1782.
Although Thai society appeared homogeneous, it actually
represented a compromise among various groups, which, in order to
preserve their own identity, accepted certain aspects of general
Thai identity, or Ekkalak Thai. As in the past, in modern
Thailand the basic social and communal structure was controlled
by a power elite system comprising the monarchy, the military,
and upper level bureaucrats. These groups had a symbiotic
relationship with the economic and business community that
strongly influenced decision making. As a result of modern
education and international influences, however, the composition
of all parts of the elite system was changing in the late 1980s.
As Thailand became more active in world trade and the
international community in general, the traditional practice of
measuring status by the extent of landholdings became less
meaningful. Although the Buddhist sangha (monastic
community) and the royal family remained the largest landholders,
they were no longer the richest elements in society. Their wealth
was often surpassed by that of members of the business community
and the bureaucracy (including the military), who derived their
growing affluence from diverse sources.
Commerce and other economic endeavors had always had a place
in Thai society, but it was only in the late twentieth century
that income derived by means other than landholding became
socially acceptable. In modern Thailand, entrepreneurs, educated
civil servants, and career military officers were all accepted
into the elite ranks. This expansion of the ruling elite was
reflected in the growing influence of elected members of the
National Assembly. More kinds of people had the opportunity to
participate in the shaping of Thai society after 1973; however,
the gap continued to widen between rich and poor.
As it made the transition from less developed country to
industrialized state, Thailand often was cited as one of the
success stories of the Third World. Although Thailand benefited
from modernization, being a rapidly developing nation was not
without problems and costs. One problem related to increased
urbanization and a growing market economy was the heightened
desire for more consumer products at the expense of locally made
goods, services, and recreational activities. The growing
incidence of violent crime, divorce, prostitution, and drug
addiction also could be attributed in part to increased
urbanization. Modernization was also changing the traditional
ways by which individual Thai improved their economic and social
condition. A university education, for example, used to virtually
guarantee financial betterment; by the late 1980s, however, large
numbers of liberal arts graduates were either unemployed or
underemployed. Modernization also hurt the rural Thai.
Previously, their access to housing, forests, and usable water
sources had been a given. By the 1980s, however, environmental
destruction and a growing scarcity of arable land made it
increasingly difficult for the rural Thai to be relatively
independent of the government.
Another cost of modernization was loss of security by some,
including the elderly and Thailand's Buddhist monks, who
previously had had an assured place in Thai society. Care of and
respect for the elderly had once been the responsibility of the
immediate or extended family, but by the 1980s Thailand was
beginning to build public and private senior citizen centers.
Before World War II, the local monks and the sangha had
been the main source of advice and information; in the 1980s,
civil servants were often better equipped to attend to the needs
of the people in an increasingly urban society.
One of the greatest changes in society following World War II
was the emergence of a middle group that included affluent
bureaucrats, medium-scale entrepreneurs, educated professionals,
and small shopkeepers. The lower class included steadily employed
wage workers and unskilled laborers who worked intermittently, if
at all. Those in the middle and lower groups had not
traditionally constituted self-conscious classes; those
categories were relatively new and just beginning to develop
common interests. Labor unions, for example, hopelessly divided
over political differences in the past, made active attempts to
unite on a number of issues, such as basic health and social
benefits, in their negotiations with the government and the
private sector.
The peasants still comprised the majority of the population.
They were, however, much more differentiated than in the past.
The peasantry could be defined in terms of its desire for or
ownership of land or other agricultural resources, such as teak
forests. The issue of landlessness in the central plain arose in
the early twentieth century but was soon resolved by the opening
of previously untilled areas in the northern part of the country.
As a result of rapid population growth in the 1960s and 1970s,
international competition in a number of Thailand's traditional
agro-economic industries, and migration to the city, landlessness
was again on the rise in the 1980s. The number of rural Thai
remained large and continued to increase. As Thailand's economy
continued to grow in the service areas of banking and tourism,
more young adults were attracted to city jobs, thus reducing the
ability of families to continue labor-intensive rice farming. At
the same time, land increased in value, and absentee landlords
bought up small family farms because there were no legally
enforceable limits on the amount of land that could be acquired.
Cutting across rural and national strata was the system of
patron- client relationships that tied specific households or
individuals together as long as both patron and client saw
benefits in the arrangement. In many respects, the dynamics of
political and economic life were comprehensible only in terms of
patron-client relations.
Another traditional system of complex values and behaviors
that the majority of Thai shared through the 1980s was Theravada
Buddhism. Complementing the religion were beliefs and practices
assuming the existence of several types of spirits
(
phi--see Glossary) whose behavior was supposed
to affect human
welfare. The Buddhism of the Thai villagers, and even of poorly
educated monks, often differed substantially from the canonical
religion.
Data as of September 1987
|