At what point does economic globalisation begin to chafe against the established social order and cultural traditions? The preservation of social hierarchy is central to Thai cultural practices. It has been observed by many Western scholars that the Thai educational system reinforces the hierarchical stratification of Thai society. According to Valenti (1974), the system has historically and traditionally prepared the upper and upper-middle classes to function within the government bureaucracy and to occupy leading positions in finance, international affairs and commerce. Elite education ensures continued elite privilege and power (p.78). Despite the emergence of a large business class, this elitist system endures to the present day where only students from higher income groups, higher status occupations and higher educational backgrounds will likely to be selected for the top universities. International education is only open to students from affluent backgrounds with sufficient means to pay
high tuition fees. This group is most open to outside cultural influences because of their propensity to consume Western products and to adopt cosmopolitan fashions and tastes. As such, one would expect students from this social category to be more open and receptive to new approaches to education.
In order to highlight the cultural dimension to curriculum internationalisation and the cultural impacts of economic globalisation, a discussion of what constitutes Thai cultural values is warranted. Although cultures are dynamic, multifaceted and elude sharp categorisation, the extent to which cultural traditions underpin professional and institutional practice should not be underestimated. Mulder (1997) made an interesting observation on how local Thai knowledge encourages the maintenance of harmony with life and nature in the community,
Local Thai knowledge is not only holistic, but also considers non-empirical causes, such as spirits, to be influences on natural and social events affecting human existence. (p.168)
This observation of rational value has been highlighted as useful in terms of the operation of transnational education by Western partners in Thailand. Eldridge (2007) suggested “we perhaps should not be surprised when our Thai partner in transnational education decides to open a program for enrolment not when details are finalised (rational) but on a date deemed auspicious by a spiritual advisor (transrational)” (p.7). Then again, Suntaree Komin (1990), a former research fellow at National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), is among very few Thai scholars who has completed a thorough research on Thai behaviour and social systems. She found that the Thais place a low value on wisdom as knowledge, and that they have instrumental attitudes towards learning. Her observations point to a strength within Thai culture, the ability to rationalise and to retain or discard knowledge according to its use value; principles that seem in harmony with utilitarian or instrumentalist approaches to education prevalent in the West.
Globalists assert that there are universal cultural values, or more precisely, values that societies appear to share in common. This is not the same as accepting that cultures are converging or that cultural differences are superficial and merely disguise or masque cultural commonalities. While there are similarities between cultures in attitudes to the sanctity of human life or in the popularity of certain ‘global’ consumer brands such as Pepsi, KFC or Levi jeans for example, agreed universal human values and superficial commonalities in consumer taste can disguise subtle cultural differences. The methodological individualism of Western liberalism should not, for example, be equated with the ‘individualistic’ Theravada
Buddhist idea of ‘self-reliance’. The example here is a well-known Buddhist phrase ton pen
thiphung khongton, which, according to Mulder (2000) means that a person needs to be self- reliant in thought and action (p. 65). In addition, a self-reliant person should not be easily upset by any kind of misfortune, fate or social judgements, but should, instead, seek to cultivate “a cool heart” (jai yen). This valuing of serenity or calmness explains the popular Thai expression, mai-pen-rai (it does not matter)” which, rather than being a dismissive statement is in fact “an expression of optimism,” (Mulder, 2000, p.66). Similarly, Komin (1990) explained this Thai cultural-specific characteristic of jai yen as being “calm and cautious” which is very important to “calmly control situations by taking a slow, calm and careful step” (p.179). She regarded it as one of very important “social smoothing” values that the Thais often display to achieve a good social relation. Yet, this value has no Western equivalent. Individualism in the west implies achievement-orientation, self-interest and competitiveness. Self- reliance in a Thai context requires more connectedness to family and society. The expectations regarding professional performance depend as much upon the relationship of individuals to their social group as upon individual attributes or qualities. A Thai scholar, Weerayut Wichiarajote (1973) observed Thai social systems and behaviour from the point of view of ‘individualism’ which emphasizes self-sufficiency as a core characteristic. He believes that Thai’s society is “affiliative” as “people are highly dependent upon each other and find their security in dependence and patronage rather than in individualism” (cited in Komin, 1990, p.13). Thais have a strong need for affiliation because they want to establish and maintain “networks of personal relationships” (p.13). Komin (1990) explained every Thai has been brought up and oriented towards the value of ‘bunkhun’ (indebted goodness), a gratefulness relationship. She explained bunkhun as,
A psychological bond between someone who, out of sheer kindness and sincerity, renders another person the needed help and favors, and the latter’s remembering of the goodness done and his ever-readiness to reciprocate the kindness. The bunkhun relationship is thus based on the value of gratitude (p.168).
It is significant to note that Thai principle of gratitude and obligation (khwam katanyoo kata
we thi) is highlighted as a ‘hierarchical and obliging model’ and it is central to the social construction where hierarchy exist naturally, e.g., students depend on teachers (Mulder, 1997, p.36). The attitude of gratitude is a highly valued trait in the Thai society and Thais have been socialized to value this (katanyuu) quality in another. According to Komin (1990), ‘being grateful to bunkhun constitutes the root of any deep, meaningful relationship and friendship’
(p.168). Traditionally, this value has been highlighted in terms of teacher and student relationship, a teacher is regarded as a knowledge provider to a student in an educational setting at all levels.
The polite and humble approach is very important for Thais and these have been observed among Western academics who engage with Thai educational settings. Moreover, if a person happens to show his/her aggressiveness and superiority and even overt self-confidence, it is likely that the person will be perceived negatively of ‘man-sai’. Komin (1990) explained this culturally specific behaviour of ‘man-sai’ a ‘feeling indicating a mixture of jealousy and disgust from the interactor and audience in general’ (usually talking about someone behind his/her back) (p.178).
Such significant differences in value and outlook raise questions about the ‘commensurability’ of Western and Eastern modes of knowing and learning. Traditionally, family and school are two important institutions reflecting Thai hierarchical social system which imply ‘unequal position’ (tha-na) of individuals which must be respected and practised (Mulder, 1997). Teachers and professors, in the academic community in particular, are expected to be respected by students (Komin, 1990; Mulder, 1997, 2000 and Klausner, 2000). Thai academics are observed to “silently revel in the respect accorded to them and in their highly exalted status and importance”, “they do not expect or take kindly to being challenged and are content to dispense wisdom from on high”(Klausner, 2000, p. 59). Economic, political and cultural changes have led to changes in Thai universities. Klausner (2000) observed that the environment of Thai universities was that of a “comfort zone” in which prestige and assured tenure mattered more than “intellectual give and take” (of Western universities) and one that is not likely to change to a more “favourable climate for intellectual combat”. To some extent, this change has been influenced by the educated middle-class since the economic boom. Students are traditionally trained to be obedient and listen to the teachers and this characteristic is known among Western academics as ‘passive’ learning behaviour. Currently, rote learning and memorising are still considered to be ‘preferred choices’ by both academics and students in Thai education. However, this cultural behaviour of passive learning is not helpful to the current skill requirements of global graduates in global environments which require creative thinking and intellectual challenge and response (Mulder, 1997, 2000 and Klausner, 2000).
Changes to higher education policy and practice in response to the challenges of globalisation should logically affect the culture of education in Thailand and induce some cultural change at the individual and institutional levels. As will be discussed in Chapter 5, cultural changes are not easily detectable at the level of practice. Education policies are changing and so are Thai universities, but the experience of globalisation as reflected in the data collected for this thesis suggests the persistence of tradition in Thai educational settings. Perceptions of knowledge and learning have deep roots in Thailand’s historical experience. Further, and consequently, the cultural dimension of teaching and learning still however receives scant attention from practitioners and policy makers in Thailand.
Though academic programs and educational services are being internationalised, the national Thai context exerts a strong influence over education provision. While the distinctions between Asian and Western philosophies of individualism are not the concern of this thesis, it is important to emphasise the different starting points for educational practices within these traditions and to highlight the potential conflict of values. For example, individual educational achievement/success confers social status not just on the individual but the whole family. Hence, the family exercises an enormous influence over individual choice and achievement. Thai university students study as much to earn approval of their families and peers as to gain professional advancement. Status demand or social demands weigh as heavily as individual aspiration in shaping student behaviour.
Increasingly, questions are asked why Thai students/graduates are still inadequately prepared in terms of English language and skills demanded by the current job markets, especially, in the international working environments. Many Thai students continue to graduate from universities without having been taught how to question, analyse and respond to a problem. By and large, the criticism reveals weaknesses in Thailand’s education system. Niels Mulder (1997) who has been researching on Thai society criticises the traditional way of training and teaching in Thailand’s education system. Thai students up to university level he argues are subjected to a rigid pedagogy of rote learning which does not encourage student participation in class. Traditionally, Thai students have been family-oriented and trained to listen passively with less challenging seniority. Likewise, in an educational setting, a teacher is meant to be respected and not to be challenged. University curricula are developed according to subject content and assessed based on the content presentation instead of promoting engagement of the content. This encourages memorization of detail rather than learning in the fullest sense of the word. Students mainly listen passively in the lecture and student engagement with the
subject content is observed as optional even at the degree levels. This characteristic causes difficulties in promoting deep learning or creative thinking and, this, following the logic of Mulder, does not prepare students for employment in companies that require staff to exhibit creativity, independence and leadership.
What then should we expect of international professionals working in Asian education settings? John Biggs (1999, 2003) a leading Western scholar researching cross-cultural approaches to learning of international students, believes that ‘teaching is individual’. He suggested that it is a teacher’s responsibility to modify teaching methods to suit students’ learning circumstances in the context of cross-cultural environments. He believes that there will never be one ‘right’ method of teaching. International students are likely to bring with them differences in learning habits acquired in their home countries. This fact makes the cultural mix of any classroom even more complex– at least to those educators who can detect and interpret cultural dynamics in their classroom and the wider institution.