Attachak Sattayanurak analysed changes of Thai historical consciousness over time from King Rama IV until the Siamese Revolution in 1932. He explained in his master’s dissertation how the way that people think about time affects historical consciousness (Sattayanurak “The Transformation”).
Time perception influenced by The Three Worlds (Buddhist Cosmology)
Traditionally, the Thai worldview has been based on a Buddhist scripture called The Three Worlds or Tephumitkata (written in 1345 AD). This book describes Buddhist cosmology, incorporating heaven, earth, and hell. An important part of this book is the
world system it describes. It proposes four great historical periods, and each period consists of many worlds. Each world lasts a long time. A world is created and destroyed by fire. Once one world ends, another world starts over as a cycle. Each world has one Buddha.
Human beings are now in a period called Traidayuk. The Buddha of this world has come.23 This world will last for 5,000 years. It passed its purest condition at the beginning and will be destroyed by the fire in due time. Until then, it is slowly declining. The book talks about five declinations (Panchaantaratan) that will happen continuously in Tipitaka:24 Buddhist practice, enlightenment, disciplines, knowledge, and Buddha’s relics.People in the world will become so morally degraded that they will be destroyed. After the fire cleanses the earth, a new world will start again with a new Buddha (Pongsripian).
This thought about declination influences the perception of time and historical consciousness. Siamese people traditionally saw time as cyclical. This led them to worry less about their current life because it is already determined by their past lives.
Causation is seen on a very large scale. One’s life condition and status is determined by past lives. The only way to secure a better future life is by performing meritorious deeds. Furthermore, people believe that overall, things are going to get worse,
regardless of their contribution.
Kings are believed to be those with barami or high moral goodness in their past lives (that is why they were born as a king). The kings with such a condition will lead the country to prosperity and peace. (If the king is good, he will be able to deaccelerate the declination.) On the contrary, the kings with little barami will lead their people to difficulties. History was thus written to reassure that the kings are virtuous enough to govern the country.
Hence, history was created to be believed not to be speculated on. How it was described is also vague and fictional. For example, the history of the making of the image of Buddha was always described as having been made by the God Indra; details about the sculptor or the date it was created would not be provided (Sattayanurak
“The Transformation” 51).
23 Siddhartha
24 Buddhist sacred texts
This worldview does not allow people to see the continuity of past and present in their lifetime. It is commented in later periods that it is unsustainable. King Rama IV initiated a new way to describe history, that is, describing the detail of the events (Sattayanurak “The Transformation” 51). A new way of thinking about time competes with this traditional way of thinking in the modern period. Although this kind of thinking does not make sense for most people now, it is interesting to observe to what extent the belief has left traces and influences in today’s culture – for example, how much people still believe information without considering much; or how history is perceived as tales and narratives.
Historical consciousness among elites changed in the middle of the Rattanakosin era due to the fact that upper class people started to do business with foreigners.
International trading changed people’s mind-set. Success in business and worldly pleasure became important considerations at this time. How one could be successful was no longer seen to be only about how good one had been in past lives but also about what one did in this life. So, actions done in this life became more meaningful.
This influenced another way of writing history.
History in the Western sense arose during this period (late King Rama III until King Rama VI25). However, the history was written by the elites themselves. Although kings and noblemen in this period adopted a Western model of history rather than chronicles or tales, it was nevertheless written in such a way that the kings were the only people who could control history (Sattayanurak “The Transformation” 103).
History was hence about how great the kings were and the gratitude people should have towards him.
The history in this period was made with the purpose to undermine individual consciousness. Moreover, all benefits that could happen in one’s life were also because the kings gave it to one. For example, King Rama V gave rankings and names to civil servants, but the civil servants would lose their names when they retired. All their names were given by the king. Their salary was not called a salary but the king’s money given to them. Similarly, King Rama VI gave family names to
25 King Rama III Nangklao (1824-1851) King Rama IV Mongkut (1851-1868) King Rama V Chulalongkorn (1868-1910) King Rama VI Vajiravudh (1910-1925)
noblemen and made them realise that he was the one behind every name (Sattayanurak “The Transformation” 103-5).
The royalist and nationalistic history became the truth accepted by most Thai people up until the present because it has been continuously publicised by textbooks, education, and all different media. It was the only kind of history Thai people know since other points of views could not be expressed.
The changes and the realisation that the king was not the only person controlling history as well as new ideas from scholars educated abroad led to the abolition of absolute monarchy and the introduction of democracy under the king in 1932.
Thai society increasingly changed socially and economically after the imperialist period. Individuals could run their own business and had more educational
opportunities. These changes led people to realise that success in one’s life does not depend on the king but rather on each person’s potential (Sattayanurak “The
Transformation” 313) Under the influence of a perception of time that emphasised linear causation, people started to be aware of their own significance. History and fiction in this period more fully expressed individuals’ stories. Characters in fictions expressed a more individual side rather than social status.
Although a new historical consciousness emerged from non-royal families or noblemen, these people interested in history were civil servants and the educated.
Citizens were still considered unimportant and ignorant of politics and history. For example, having heard that some people in the country wanted a parliamentary system, King Rama VI stated that democracy would not fit with Thai people since the majority did not have an understanding about democracy. It is also found that a new kind of interest in history is about personal and family history. Even though this new kind of interest appeared in this period, it was interested only in the family history of noblemen and those with high rankings.
Overall, modern Thai history was profoundly royalist and nationalistic, and was used to support absolute monarchy (Winichakul 39).
This discussion demonstrates that the original time perception did not help people to care about their roles in history. Once a linear time perception came to society, history
was still shaped by the kings and other powerful people in different periods and occasions. Social memory has been strictly framed by history from above until now.
Although some historians have different perspectives, they cannot talk about their views directly. Thongchai Winichakul wrote, “For Thai history, scholars know that telling the truth can be a risky business” (Winichakul 20). He referred to Barend Terwiel who said that a historian needs a ‘subtle craft’ to write a history of Siam (Winichakul 20). Thongchai cited examples that every historian and student has to accept the “Siam-was-never-colonised” conditions. The country survived the threat of Western powers thanks to the skilful diplomacy of the monarch, which makes Thai history royalist. Thongchai claimed that the country was, in fact, under what he called a “crypto-colonial condition”, where the monarchs themselves collaborate with the West politically and economically. Moreover, the West did not colonise Thailand because France and Britain agreed to leave it as a buffer state. All subsequent history has been written to aggrandise the royal institution (Winichakul 30).
Another example is the story of Sukhothai. Every Thai school textbook frames Thai history in three different eras: Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, and Rattanakosin. Sukhothai was not considered more outstanding than other kingdoms until King Rama VI.
Actually, there were many kingdoms before Ayutthaya but Sukhothai was chosen as its history helped to consolidate the image of a righteous king who was close to his people like a father. Again, this can be seen as King Rama VI’s propaganda during his well known nationalistic period. The king wrote a play about Sukhothai history,26 in which he also acted.
Nevertheless, there are two sides (or many sides) to every story. It is fair to
understand history from each person’s point of view. Some might frankly believe in royalist history. The problem is that only one side of the story can be presented in the society, and the version that been most prevalent in Thailand has become the
historical consciousness of the majority of Thai people. This makes people feel distant from history because it is not relevant to their lives.
26 Originally from northern Thai chronicles, the story was about a king of Sukhothai whose every word spoken from his mouth came true. He cursed a spy (Khom Damdin) of the Khmer, Sukhothai’s enemy at that time, to turn into stone. The Phra Ruang myth was disseminated to promote nationalistic point of view in Thai history.
Dr. Pongsripian discussed that this affects access to archives. He himself does not have any problems with regard to access because he is considered “special”, but he indicated that other, less esteemed researchers such as master’s students will not easily gain access to some records. Also, as history recorded in Thailand is not ‘real’
history, historians have to find historical evidence outside of the country. For example, Dr Pongsripian said that researchers have to search for records on Thai history in the National Archives of France, the Netherlands, or the UK because records relating to Thai history are kept there (Pongsripian).
These situations are not desirable in democratic culture and governance; however, looking from different perspectives, Thailand was not originally a democratic country nor do any of its beliefs and culture support democracy. These characteristics can be investigated via the nature of history in the country and how history has been used, as previously discussed. The impact of this on Thai society is the success in the framing of history in nationalistic and royalist terms, and different interpretations can be expressed limitedly. The worst thing is probably the limitation of education in history which frames history in a way the powerful in the country want.
Collective memory is distributed under a particular frame. The memory might be true or untrue depending on how reliable the source of information is. In the society where people do not care much about reliability and accuracy of the source, collective memory can be shaped without the need for a primary source, and no other interpretations are allowed.
Besides perceptions about history themselves, historical consciousness patterns and levels are determined by the cultural atmosphere and some societal values. Using a sociological framework, it can be seen that some values appear to have a role in forming the Thai historical consciousness.
Forgiving
Thai people are taught to be kind and ready to give, and the greatest alms is forgiving.
It is said that it is easy for Thai people to forget. Due to the emphasis on maintaining relationships in society, Thai people tend to avoid conflicts. Remembering is
sometimes concerned with the act of not forgiving. However, the right approach on
this is probably to be aware and learn from the past. To forgive does not mean that we have to forget.
Towinus discussed that people in the society are more interested in thinking about the future, so if they do not think that knowing about history is useful, interest in archives will definitely be low (Towinus). The fact is that people understand the past to know how to move forward (Rungsawang). This utility of history is not well recognised in the society.
Thai credulousness is related to the epistemology in respecting seniors and following the leaders. Being curious and erudite is considered good in itself. However, new knowledge will not easily be accepted once it is discovered. This is because the new discovery may cause conflicts with prior knowledge and beliefs. Povatong, a user at the NAT, suggested that the cultural trait of emphasising seniority derives from the fact that Thai people like answers to be justified. Once the question has been answered and justified by someone, especially one with authority, it tends to be the end of the quest for knowledge. This culture does not encourage historical research and the use of archives. Moreover, this has impacted historical study to be more about remembering information rather than making connections between the past and the present or learning from history.
Another related pattern of behaviour is that of information being believed easily, which can be dangerous. Towinus is concerned about Thai society in the information age in respect of the way information can be believed without consideration of its veracity. In this case, the study of history in a more analytic way can help people to consider about information more carefully (Towinus).