r 3.!" ' .

 

 

CULTURE CHANGE: me ‘PRQBLEM oz: mmooucnofl
CF LAND comemtm mm rmmua

Thesis for the Dawn 9? M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSITY »
Snif ‘Smuckam

1965

 

‘ lllllafllllLl?lllllllllUllHlllllllllllll'IINIIIIHIIIIHIIM 1

1293 10395 6482 i, *

__

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

ABSTRACT

CULTURE CHANGE! THE PROBLEM OF INTRODUCTION
OF LAND CO~OPBRATIVE INTO THAILAND

by Snit Smuckarn

This thesis centers on the study of problems of
"cultural borrowing," one of the most significant forms of
culture change. The hypothesis is that the introducing
culture, with different values from those of the existing
one, produces resistance from the local culture. The more
the differences, the more the resistances. The case study
of the introduction of the land co—oPerative organization
into Thailand is investigated as an evidence supporting
this hypothesis. This thesis shows the origin, purpose,
organization, and results of the Operation of the land
co~operative program in Thailand. It also describes the
social organization of rural Thailand. The differences
between the new system and the existing organizations are
discussed and analyzed within the framework of cultural
anthropology. The tentative conclusion of this thesis is
that the co-operative principles and methods are in contra-
diction with the structure of Thai society; therefore, it
cannot integrate and articulate well with other elements of
the existing culture. Instead, co-operative organizations
must change in many aspects in order to survive within the

framework of Thai culture.

CULTURE CHANGE: THE PROBLEM OF Ii~ITRODUCTION

OF LAND CO-OPERATIVE INTO THAILAND

BY

Snit Smuckarn

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

WASTE R OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1965

ACKT-J Iv'LEDGIfiENTS

First and foremost, the writer wishes to express
his deepest gratitude to Dr. John D. Donoghue, the writer's
major professor and the director of this thesis. without
his guidance, valuable suggestions, and patient indulgence,
this work would not have been possible at all.

And also the writer's sincere gratitude is extended
to Dr. James McKee and Dr. Charles Moffer, the members of
the committee for this thesis, who made valuable suggestions
on many aspects of this thesis; to Mr. Edmond Alchin of the
Institute of Community Development and Mr. Charles Lantz of
the Department of Anthropology, who helped read the earlier
drafts of the thesis and made constructive criticism and
suggestions. Special thanks are due Mrs. Donoghue who
helped correct grammatical errors.

Finally, the writer wishes to thank the Department
of Land Co-operatives of Thailand which allowed the writer
to use some official materials concerning the co~operative
movement in Thailand. Special appreciation is due to my
wife Manit who helped in sending materials from Thailand

for use in this work.

11

TABLE OF CONTEHTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

INLKODUCTION. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Review of the Literature. . . . . . .
CODCIUSiODo o o o o o o u o o o o o o o 0

THE PROBLEM OF INTRODUCTION OF LAND

COOOPBRATIVCS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9

Land Settlement Co~operatives . . . . . .
PrOjeCt Operation 0 o o o o o o o o o 0
Land Hire-purchase and Land Tenant
CO‘Operatives o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Land Improvement Co-operatives. . . . . .
The Organization of the Program . . . . .
Operation of the Program: Some
Acceptance. o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Resistance and Reinterpretation . . . .

SOCIAL CRGANIEATION IND STRUCTURE OF

RURAL THAILAND. O O O O O 0 O O O O O O I

Social Organization vs. Social Structure.
Village Patterns and General Description.
Political System. . . . . .

Economic Organization . . . . . . . . . .
Kinship SYStemo o o o c 0 o I o o I e o 0
Religious Organization. . . . . . . .
Thai Peasant's View of the World. . . . .

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS . . . o o . o 0

Images and Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Particulariam vs. Universalism. . . . . .
Problems of Change and Development. . .
Social Organization and Social Structure:

A Final R8V18Wo o o o o o o o o o o o o
Hypotheses for Further Research . . . . .

BIBLIOGRI\PHYO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iii

Page
ii

12

17
17

19
22
24

29
34

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In this thesis an attempt is made to study culture
change in rural Thailand by describing and analyzing the
Operation of land co-operatives among Thai peasants. The
main purpose of this thesis is to illustrate the case of
an innovation which does not seem to fit the local cultural
setting and, therefore, produces only a weak reception. In
order to make an innovation more acceptable, it must have
characteristics which correspond to the institutions and
general patterns of behavior of the people in the local
culture.

The methodology and concept of this thesis are
those of cultural anthropology. Due to the writer's
inability to do direct field research on this problem,
library research is used as the base of this thesis. This
will include a review of the pertinent literature on
culture change and development. Nevertheless, the writer's
experience as a land co-operative officer in Thailand, for
about ten years, will also be drawn upon as a source of
knowledge. The main source of data concerning the land
co-Operative program is the Department of Land Co-operatives

of Thailand. In addition, anthropological material about

2
Thailand in general, and rural Thailand in particular,
will also serve as a major source of knowledge in describing
social organization and peasants' behavior within the
cultural setting of Thailand.

The nature of this thesis will be both descriptive
and analytical. An attempt is made in Chapter II to show
the origin and function of land co-operatives among farm
people in rural Thailand. This will include the reason
for the introduction, under the auspices of the government,
of land co-operatives to Thailand and, also, the operation
of co-operatives within the framework of Thai culture.
Chapter III will deal with the social organization of
rural Thailand including the political, economic, kinship,
and religious systems. In Chapter IV, the analytical part
of the thesis, the correlation or contradiction in
adjusting the new system to the existing systems of the
culture will be shown. The acceptance, resistance and/or
syncretism which are the result of the contact of two
cultures will be analyzed.

This thesis is concerned with the second type of
the socio—cultural segments or subcultural groups of indi-
viduals according to Julian Steward's concept of "levels
of socio-cultural integration." The group of prime concern
is occupational. By occupation they are called farmers.

By attitude, value, or world view they are classified as
"peasants." Their locality is various parts of rural

Thailand. The attempt is made here to study only those who

3
are members of land co-operative organization and the
problems of the introduction of land co~operatives into
Thailand. Co—operative principles and organization are
products of European origin. Co-Operative principles are
mainly democratic, for example, the idea of "one man, one
vote." Co—operatives rest on procedures, for example, the
election of officers and committees to run the business of
the co-operative organization. The Thai government, by
good intention, saw the merit in this system, "borrowed"
this particular aspect of European culture, and placed it
within the framework of Thai culture which has different
value system, institutional pattern, etc.

Thailand, at present, does not have a real
democratic system of government according to the Western
viewpoint. Since the 13th century, political organization
has traditionally emphasized strong central government,
with kings as head of state and head of government. There
was a change from absolute monarchy to constitutional
government in 1932, but, by and large, political power has
been in the possession of a minority elite with the support
of the military forces. Thai peasants, who compose about
85 per cent of the total population, take very little part
in the process of the government. Their way of life is
"traditional" and has continued with little change from
generation to generation. At the village level, there
appears to be only limited participation in group action

and most of this is temporary in nature. The forming of a

4

"permanent" organization, such as a co-Operative, is
contradictory to the "basic personality" of Thai culture.
It seems, therefore, worthwhile to investigate the pro-
blem of "borrowing" an institution, like the co~operative
organization, which operates well in a democratic country,
in order to see how it works when brought into operation
in a different cultural framework in which voting and the
electoral system are not clearly understood.

although the major concern of this thesis is the
community level, the national level must be included
because, in the operation of land co—operatives, the Thai
government has set up a national level of administration.
This administration holds the highest responsibility and
decision-making powers in regard to the lower levels-
regions, districts, and villages. Nevertheless, reference
to the national level will be brief and relevant to the
point of understanding the problem at the community level

only.

Review of the Literature

 

In dealing with change in developing countries
which are relatively modernucomplex societies, one must
be aware of the levels of interrelation between various
parts of the culture within a nation. Julian Steward calls
this the "levels of socio~cu1tural integration." By this
he means:

. . . a total national culture is divisible into
two general kinds of features: first, those that

5

function and must be studied on the national level:
second, those that pertain to socio—cultural segments
or subgroups of population. The former include the
suprapersonal and more or less structured—~and often
formally institutionalized—-features, such as the form
of government, legal system, economic institutions,
religious organizations, educational system, law
enforcement, military organization, and others. . . .

The socio-cultural segments or subcultural groups
of individuals are amenable to the methods of direct
observation used by ethnology. There are several
categories of such groups in modern states and nations.
First, there are localized groups, which may result
from differentiation that has occurred during national
developmenta-for example, subcultures arising from
local specialization in production or cultural ecolo-
gical adaptations-or which may consist of ethnic
minorities. . . . Second, there are "horizontal"
groups, such as castes, classes, occupational
divisions, and other segments, which hold status
positions in an hierarchical arrangement and usually
crosscut localities to some extent. (Steward 1963:
47-48)

In the study of culture, the problem of culture
change is one of vital importance and has been attracting
the attention of "behavioral scientists," especially
cultural anthropologists, to a larger extent since the end
of world war II. Anthropologists have long recognized that
culture is subject to change; and, therefore, no societies,
however isolated, are really static. The problem of culture
change has received more attention recently because of the
emergence of newly developed countries into world affairs.
These countries which are classified as "poor" need rapid
economic development in order to share the prosperity of
the so-called "advanced" countries. Economic development
is quite a complicated process. First, it is necessary to
learn or imitate Western techniques, ideas, and institutions.

This means borrowing or the "taking in" of many aspects of

6
modernization. Second, it seems necessary to change the
traditional way of life to some degree when adopting new
techniques, ideas, or institutions from "outside.“ This,
however, does not appear to be easy and smooth, because
cultures do have a resistance to change, and economic
development is not only concerned with technological
change and does not involve only economic theories and
economists. This is because the economic system is only
one aspect of a culture which includes and involves more
than material products. It is, therefore. not possible to
bring technological change to a society without consi~
daring other aspects of that particular culture. This
viewpoint at the present time is gaining more acceptance
from economists and other "behavioral scientists" than
before.
For example, Hirschman writes:

when it was increasingly realized that economic

backwardness cannot be explained in terms of any out-

right absence or scarcity of this or that human type or

factor'SfmpraductIon, attention turned to the attitudes

and value systems that may favor or inhibit the emer-

gence of the required activities and personalities.
(Hirschman 1962z4)

 

And again Hagen (196238) admits that economic
theory has rather little to offer toward an explanation of
economic growth and that broader social and psychological
considerations are pertinent.

These statements are supported by George M. Poster
when he says:

Technological development is a complex process,
imperfectly understood even by specialists. The

7

expression itself is misleading for, strictly speaking,
there can be no such thing as technological development
in isolation. Perhaps the use of the term socio~
technological development would clarify our”thinking,
'for development is much more than the overt acceptance
of material or technical improvements. It is a
cultural, social, and psychological process as well.
(Foster l962:2

 

Anthropologically speaking, culture change is a
well-accepted concept but rates of change and resistance
to Change may differ from one society to another. Cultural
anthropologists who were interested in the dynamic aspect
of culture, such as malinowski, Leslie white, Herskovits,
Ralph Linton, Julian Steward, and others, had formulated
some hypotheses of culture change ranging from pure
deduction to empirical studies in various primitive and,
to some extent, in peasant or folk societies in the hope
of finding the "universal law” for culture change. So far,
though a great deal has been learned, such as White’s
generalization (1949:374~7S) that ”the degree of cultural
development varies directly as the efficiency of the tools
employed, other factors remaining constant," and Julian
Steward's concepts and methods of ”cultural ecology" and
"cultural core" (Steward 1963: chap. 2), which show some
progress in the way of thinking and may be used as a tool
for study of culture change, scientifically speaking, they
are still far from the so-called "universal law."
Nevertheless, the problem of culture change is a signi-
ficant one in our time and it needs the attention of all

social scientists.

8

George M. Foster (1962:25) writes: "The major
force in culture change is borrowing." And Murdock
(l960a:253) also says: "Of all forms of innovation,
cultural borrowing is by far the most common and
important." This thesis is a study of problems of
"cultural borrowing" as we have discussed. "Borrowing"
causes more problems than "invention" which is a change
from within. Invention may have the problem of rejection
or acceptance. If the society accepts, it remains to be
part of that particular culture. If not, it will disappear
sooner or later. But the process of borrowing is more
complicated than that. It involves series of barriers
which are composed of the cultural, social, and psycholo-
gical aspects of the receiving culture. This, however,
does not imply that invention is not concerned with these
barriers. It is but to a lesser degree.

Acculturation which is "the process that occurs
when two or more previously separated cultures come into
contact with each other to a degree sufficient to produce
significant changes in either or both" (Poster 1962:25)
stimulates more borrowing. Without acculturation, there
will be less borrowing or none. When a culture borrows
some aspects of culture from another, it is not necessary
to take in all characteristics of those aspects because
each particular culture has its own "value system" which
differs from that of another culture. -Very often, the
receiving culture reinterprets or "syncretizes" the

borrowed institution according to its own value system.

9
George M. Foster (1962:130) writes:

In every society, people learn the behavior that is
appropriate to them and that they may expect from
others, in an infinite number of situations in which
they find themselves. Differing perceptions of role
behavior frequently cause difficulties in intercultural
settings, because the members of each group are faced
with behavior which they do not eXpect or do not
believe to be appropriate to the setting, and in turn
they are unsure as to what may be expected from them.

In the same book, he also writes:

Different perception and faulty communication may
be barriers in situation in which change agent and the
recipient have different expectations of the proper role
behavior of the other. (Foster 19622121)

Murdock (1960a:255) stresses the importance of
similarities of elements in cultures when he writes:

The presence in a receiving society of some of the
habit elements involved in a new trait greatly facili-
tates borrowing. It is for this reason that diffusion
occurs most readily among people of similar culture,
who already share many elements of habit.

Raymond Firth (1959:157) writes:

One generalization of importance which emerges
from studies of social and cultural change is that on
the whole the people of a community tend to respond
most easily to stimuli which have some continuity
with, or analogy with, their traditional values and
forms of organization. Even if they are seeking some-
thing quite new, they often tend to interpret the
resulting organization in terms of structures and
principles with which they are familiar.

Finally, it seems expedient to mention two
statements by Foster (1962:144,162):
Motivation for a general change may be strong, but
unless the innovation fits local cultural, social, and
ideological values, it will have a weak reception.

And

. . . in all societies, traditional institutions have
recognized roles: if new forms can be integrated or

10
associated with these traditional roles, they have a
better chance of being accepted than if there is
nothing to tie to.

In the study of culture change, it is assumed that
all aspects of culture are functionally interdependent upon
one another. Changes in one aSpect of culture, therefore,
will have an effect on other aspects of culture as well.
On the contrary, if all other aspects of a culture remain
"traditional," change in one aSpect of that particular
culture is not likely to occur. This is the "holistic"

approach to analyzing a society according to the

contemporary cultural anthropological concept.

Conclusion

 

It is the tentative conclusion of this thesis that
co—operative principles and methods which are strange to
Thai culture do not integrate well with other elements of
the culture. Therefore, the borrowed institution fails to
produce sufficient change in the patterns of relationship
among individuals and between individuals and institutions.
Unless and until there is a change in other elements of
the social organization, such as the political, economic,
kinship, and religious, to a sufficient extent and in a
direction favoring co-Operative ideas, the co-operative
movement in Thailand cannot claim success to the same
degree as the co-Operative movement in European countries
does.

The significance of this study for anthropology is
that it may contribute to the better understanding of the

ll
problems of change and development in relatively
modern-complex societies like those of newly developing
countries. At least, the findings of this thesis confirm
the principles or theories on culture change which have
been discussed in anthropological literature. In this
sense, it helps to strengthen the anthropological concept
of change and deveIOpment. It also shows that this
concept cannot be ignored if change agents want their work
to be done effectively. This will be fully discussed and

analyzed in the next three chapters.

CHAPTER II
THE PROBLEM 01“ INTRODUCTION OF LAND CO~OPERATIVES

In this chapter, the origin and purpose of the
introduction of land co-Operatives into Thailand will be
discussed. It will also include the organization and
Operation of the program. how the program functions, and
the reactions of peasants and other people concerning
this program.

The co-Operative movement in Thailand was the
result of one of several government efforts to improve
the economic situation of the country which relied mostly
on agricultural products, rice being the main crop. The
changing socio—oconomic condition of rice farmers was
characterized by their growing dependency on middlemen and
private money-lenders who. because of their broader image
of the society resulting from the continuing contact with
urban centers, took advantage of the peasants' ignorance
of marketing conditions and credit operations. The
situation was more serious at the end of the last century
when Thailand began to enter a new phase of trade with
other countries. Peasants who used to grow rice for their
own consumption turned to commercialization. Lack of

capital induced them to borrow money from private

1?

13
money-lenders. Lack of certainty in agricultural
production because of dependency on nature. in many cases,
and scarcity of loans available, causing the high rates
of interest on loans, contributed to their indebtedness,
later causing the loss of land and other properties. Such
a deterioration of economic conditions among the farmers
warranted the introduction of co~0perative credit
associations to act as an effective means of remedying
this undesirable situation as well as a basis for the
future development of co-operatives of other types.

Thus, the co-operative movement in Thailand was
launched in the year 1916 when the first co—operative
society along Raiffeisen lines was organized among a group
of farmers in Pitsanuloke Province for the purpose mainly
of helping them in the elimination of their indebtedness
and in the promotion of thrift, mutual help, and self-help.
(The Raiffeisen type of co-Operative credit society is a
rural small organization of about 10-20 members who reside
in the same or near villages and know each other quite
well because they have to share all costs incurred by their
co—operative society without limitation in case of loss
according to the principle of "unlimited liability" of
this type of co-operative.)

Since 1916 the co—operative movement has gradually
spread to other areas of the country until the present time
there exist several types of co-operative societies in

Thailand, both producers' and consumers', agricultural as

14
well as industrial. However, the rural credit
associations still predominate.

The land co—operative movement in Thailand was
originated and carried out by the government. The reasons
for the introduction of land co-Operatives were many.

The population of Thailand, according to the 1954
census, was about 20.1 million. The highest population
density was in the Delta area around Bangkok (250 persons
per square mile) and the lowest (50 persons per square
mile) was found in the western mountain zone of central
Thailand. The North and Northeast had papulation densities
ranging somewhere between 50 and 100 persona per square
mile. In many cases, it should be remembered that these
figures give us only a rough idea of concentration since
most of the rural population is crowded along the roads,
waterways, and in the fertile river valleys. The number
of persons per cultivated land would be much higher in
the other parts of the country than in the Central Plain
where the land has been extensively cultivated for a long
time.

Since 1954, there has been a consistent increase
in the total population of Thailand, at an estimated rate
of about 2.0 per cent per annum. As population increases,
more land in the upper reaches of the rivers has been
brought into cultivation. The production of rice and
other crops has also increased, but the rice yield per

rai (l rai is equal to 0.4 acre) has continued to decrease.

15
For example, a rai of land in 1957 could produce only
228 kilograms of rice while 50 years ago it could produce
as many as 300 kilograms. The basic fact has been that
major agricultural land of Thailand does not normally have
a sufficient supply of rainfall. The water for the fields
is obtained mainly from the natural floodings of the
rivers, and only a small fraction of the total cultivated
land areas possess controlled-irrigation facilities. The
lack of knowledge in using improved farm practices is also
a dominant factor affecting the decreasing yield of rice.

As population increases, Thailand has been able to
maintain her ratio of man to land by the expansion of
cultivated areas because many free spaces are still
available. Nonetheless, there are many farmers who do not
own the land they farm. In 1950, according to the census,
only 82.7 per cent of all farms in Thailand were owner-
operated, either in full or in part. The proportion of
tenancy was highest in the fertile Central Plain and in
the North where 34 per cent and 23 per cent of all the
farms in the areas respectively were cultivated by the
tenants.

To let the rural people settle as they please is
generally undesirable because the pattern of settlement
would tend to be in disorder. Furthermore, each individual
farm family would meet with many difficulties in making a
living and in clearing the lands or the forests. Therefore,

in order to help the landless people settle and own the

16
farms they operate, it becomes necessary for the
government to undertake "settlement projects." In order
to solve some problems of the existing tenancy system,
the government has also launched the so-called "land hire~
purchase and land tenant co—operative programs."

A second problem is that various improvements in
the uses of farm land are desirable if Thailand is to
increase agricultural production for economic development
in the future. Although the installation of irrigation
facilities by the government is highly desirable, the
secret of land improvement lies in the uses of improved
farm practices and utilization of water resources by indi-
vidual farmers. The movement for land improvement on the
co-Operative basis stems primarily from this basic insight.

Thus, the introduction of land co-operatives in
Thailand is mainly for the economic benefits of three
types of farmers: (1) those who are landless or small
landowners: (2) those who are tenant farmers concentrated
in the Central Plain; and (3) those who own farm land
which needs to be improved. Land settlement co—operatives
fulfill many of the needs of farmers in category one, while
land hire-purchase and land tenant co—operatives serve
farmers in category two, and land improvement co-operatives
render services to those of category three. These
associations, at present, are the major types of land

co~0peratives in Thailand.

17

Land Settlement Co-operatives

 

According to the ministry of Co-Operatives
(Co-operation in Thailand 1961:24—30), the land settlement
co-operative project was first introduced into Chiengmai
Province in 1938 when the government established a number
of agricultural settlement co—operative societies on the
land set aside by the provisions of the Land Conservation
Act of 1935. At present, the law for such a settlement
project is the Land Accommodation Act of 1942 which pro-
vides for the promulgation of a Royal Decree whenever and
wherever a land settlement co-operative will be organized.

The basic objectives of developing land settlement
co-operatives are: to help the landless farmers as well
as those who possess small land holdings to become land-
owners by settling them on the arable but undeveloped
lands: to help the settled farmers help themselves to
improve their resource and income; and to help increase
the national income by opening up the abundant new lands
left unutilised in different parts of the country for

agricultural production.

Project Operation

A preliminary survey of a selected area for
settlement, covering the physical and climatic conditions,
is made before the land settlement co—operatives are
organized. If, on the basis of this survey, the organi-

zation of a land settlement co—operative is feasible, then

18
the government survey officials go to the area to study
and prepare a blueprint of the project. The selection of
farmers then is made. In general, each member of any land
settlement co-operative must possess adequate farming
experiences, "good health and behavior."

Every member is allotted a plot of land considered
to be economically appropriate to the size of his family
and the type of farming to be practiced. The government
grants loans to the co-operetives through the Bank for
Co~operatives for financing its members in clearing the
lands, installing small irrigation and drainage facilities,
constructing houses, purchasing livestock, draft animals,
and farm equipment. In addition, the government helps
foster the welfare of the "settlement community” by pro—
viding it with schools, health centers, roads, markets,

a monetary and other necessary facilities. Hembers'
liabilities to theco-operative are unlimited. As soon as
the lands allotted to all members are fully utilized, the
long term loans advanced to them are fully repaid with
interest, parts of the money invested by the government in
the project are fully recovered, and if the Registrar of
Co—operatives is satisfied with the progress of the
co—operative, the government will grant the titles of
allotted lands to every farmer-member of the land settlement
co-operetives.

Until the end of 1959, 84,223 rsi of land had been
settled on by about 3,000 family-members of 159 land

19
settlement co-operetive societies. Of these, 17 societies
of 230 families were organized to utilize 7,300 rai of
land for salt production along the seashore of Samutsakorn
and Dhonburi Provinces (south of Bangkok), and 6 societies
of 70 families were organized to utilize 7.000 rai of land
for fisheries.

piand nirefpurchase and Land_Tenant Co-operatives

 

A large number of Thai farmers still have no farms
of their own. A high proportion of tenancy is found in
the fertile area of the Central Plain where population
pressure and land value are relatively high. Commercial
types of farming and easy access to the Bangkok markets
may also contribute to the large number of tenant culti-
vated farms. In any case, whenever tenancy exists, high
rents, insecurity of tenure, one year verbal contracts,
and lack of assurance of compensation for unexhausted
improvements or maintenance of lands are the most common
conditions of the system. The tenant also furnishes his
own draft animals, farm equipment, lodging facilities,
and family labor while the landlord provides only the land
and the taxes associated with it. The rental rate, paid
in kind, is approximately one-half of the total crops
harvested-«mostly rice or paddy.

It is evident that the tenancy system in Thailand
does not tend to create incentives for the tenants to
improve the land or to use new farming techniques. Much

of the rent exacted by the landlord leaves the tenant

20
with a bare subsistence and with no margin for investment.
In any bad year, a crop failure may put the tenant in debt
and is likely to make the existing debt more enormous.
Thus, the tenant is not likely to increase production.
The tenant system may even increase the dangers of over-
crOpping and soil erosion. This point is of particular
importance since in 1953 only 87 per cent of the total
cultivated land in the country was owned by farmers

(Thailand Ferm_§conomic Survey 1953). Therefore, 13 per

 

cent of all agricultural land or around 6 million rai may
be subject to such danger.

In order to correct the unhealthy conditions
associated with the existing system of tenancy, the
Government of Thailand initiated the land hire—purchase
and the land tenant co—operative programs.

The main objectives of the land hire~purchase
co—operative program include: first, to help the tenants
or landless farmers acquire ownership of the lands they
farm by purchasing such lands on installment basis; and,
secondly, to help the farmer-members improve their farm
production and family incomes by providing them with
capital and knowledge necessary for better use of their
resources. ’

The land hire-purchase societies, based on the
principles of unlimited liability, are organized among
qualified tenants in certain areas. These societies, with

the necessary funds furnished by the government without

21
interest, buy large tracts of land from big landowners
to be purchased by members on a hire-purchase plan. The
plan calls for each member to pay for his lot by annual
installments within the period of 15 years. Since the
co—operative society is based on unlimited liability. the
title-deeds to these lands will not be turned over to
members until all the lots in the society are entirely
paid for. The members of the land hireupurchase societies
also have the privilege of borrowing funds at interest
from their societies for any productive and provident
purposes.

At the end of 1959, there were 52 land hire-purchase
co-operative societies consisting of 994 membering families
which utilize about 37,600 rai of land in many parts of
the country.

The Thai government also initiated the development
of land tenant co—operatives. They were organized along
the same line as the land hire-purchase co—operatives with
the exception that the tenant-members do not have an
Opportunity to acquire ownership of the land they farm.
The main purpose of this program is to improve the uses of
land and to lower the rental rates by giving the tenants
more security of tenure. In practice, each land tenant
society leases the land from the owners on behalf of its
members for a period of not less than 20 years. It then
relets separated lots to members at the rates prescribed

in the bylaws of the society. This type of land co—operative

22
was first organized in 1955 in Nakorn Nayok and Patum
Dhani Provinces in the Central Plain where a high pro-
portion of tenant-operated farms exist. In 1959, 14,250
rai of land and 20 land tenant co-operatives were organized

among 318 tenant families in the Central Plain.

Eand Improvement Co-operatives

The lack of adequate water supply is still a major
problem facing Thailand's agricultural industry. Only a
minor portion of the agricultural land has modern
controlled-irrigation facilities. The rest of the crop
lands are still dependent upon water from rainfall.

Development of land improvement co-operatives is
purported to help farmers help themselves in effectively
securing water for their farms by means of group action in
the regulation of waterflow, in the installation of water
pumps, in building small ditches needed for distribution
of water from the irrigation canals, and so forth. It is
purported also to utilize the co-operatives as a means of
encouraging farmers to develop scientific farming practices.

Land improvement co-Operatives were first organized
in 1938 on the Central Plain between the main rivers where
the level of water is usually low at the beginning of the
rice growing season and where, when the rain comes, the
paddy fields are flooded. The crop yields in these areas
are limited by the excessive floods toward the end of the
growing season. The land improvement societies organised
in these areas are primarily for the purpose of regulating

the water supply.

23

The lack of water is a more serious problem in
the Northeast. In order to help the farm people in this
region, the government through the Department of Royal
Irrigation has constructed many reservoirs, and in
connection with this develoPment the government has also
organized a number of land improvement co~0peratives.

The main purpose of these societies is to have members
control and operate the water reservoirs for their benefit.
Thus, small ditches needed for the distribution of water
to the members' farms are also constructed. At the end of
1959, 39 land improvement co—operatives were organized
among 2,323 farm families which cultivate about 68,500

rai of land in the Northeastern provinces.

In Thailand up to the end of 1959, 54 land
improvement co—operative associations had been organized
among 4,567 farm families which cultivate about 132,200
rai of land.

As for the development of the central organ for
supervision of co~0peratives in Thailand, the Thai
government first established the Department of Co—operatives
within the Ministry of Agriculture in 1920. Later, in
1952, the Department of Co-operatives was promoted to the
position of Ministry of Co-operatives composed of the
Department of Land Co—operatives, the Department of Credit
Co~operatives, the Department of Producers' and Consumers'
Co—operatives, the Department of Co-Operatives Auditing,

and the Office of the Under-secretary. In 1963, the

24
Ministry of Co-operatives was dissolved and the
Department of Land Co-operatives and others were placed
under the new Ministry of National DevelOpment. All
co-operative societies in Thailand operate under the

Co-operative Societies Act 8.3. 2471 (A.D. 1928).

The Organizationfof the Program

The Department of Land Co-operatives is divided
into four divisionsgi.e., the Division of Organizing and
Inspecting Land Co-operatives, the Division of Controlling
and Promoting Land Co-operatives, the Division of Land
Management, and the Engineering Division. In addition,
there is the Office of the Secretary to the Department
responsible for the general administrative work which does
not fall within the Jurisdiction of other divisions.

The Division of Organizing and Inspecting Land
Co-operatives is responsible for the work of organizing
and inspecting various types of land co-operatives. There
are many co-operative officials who were trained specially
for the technique of organizing and inspecting the land
co—operative societies. These officials periodically
travel to the area in which the work of organizing or
inspecting land co-operatives has to be done. They
usually turn in their reports and recommendations for the
consideration of higher officials after their return from
rural areas. The Division of Controlling and Promoting
Land Co-operatives has area-offices under it. The area-

office usually locates on or near the locality of the land

PS
co~operative society in order to supervise, recommend, and
be consulted on matters of Operation. within the juris-
diction of a particular area-office, the chief area-
officer holds the highest responsibility and power. he
normally has from three to eight junior officials under
him, depending on the scope of his work. The area-office
is the most important link between the Department of Land
Cenoperatives and the co-operative society. The Division
of Land hanagement is concerned with the condition of soil
and the allotment of land for the purpose of organizing
land co—operatives and for deveIOping higher crop yields
per unit of land. The Engineering Division is divided
into three main sections; that is, the Mechanical Engi—
neering Section, the Civil Engineering Section, and the
Surveying Section. The engineering work is concerned
mainly with farm equipment such as tractors, power-
generators, irrigation pumps, construction of area-offices,
and land surveys.

In organizing a land settlement co~operative
society, after having conserved the land for this purpose,
the Department of Land Co—operatives sends one or two
senior officials to the district or area-office to select
qualified farmers to be members of this type of land
co-Operative. A committee for the selection of people to
be members of the land settlement co~operative is composed
of three members. The provincial governor or the district

officer of the area, one senior official from the Department

26
of Land Co-operatives, and the land co-operative
area-chief normally are appointed to be the committee.

Members of land settlement co-operatives must have
the following qualifications:

1) Thai nationality;

2) 20 years or more and a family of their own;

3) not physically or mentally handicapped;

4) have had experiences in farming;

5) do not own farm land, or own only small piece of
farm land not large enough to earn a living;

6) indicate good behavior and show industriousness
in occupation; and

7) not be members of other "unlimited liability"
co—Operative societies.

In the meantime, the Department of Land
Co«operatives proceeds with land surveys, land clearing,
building roads, and allotting plots of land for the
settlement of selected farmers. The expenditure for this
is to be repaid by members of land settlement co-operative
societies after they can produce incomes from the land.
Usually the repayment begins in the fifth year of the
settlement. The rate of repayment per year and the total
cost are fixed by the co-operative bylaws to correspond
with the regulations of the Department of Land Co—operatives.
In fact, the total cost fixed by the co~operative bylaws is
considerably lower than the real expenditure the government

invests. Before settling on the allotted land, members of

27
land settlement co-operative associations are briefed of
the principles and methods of land co-operatives including
the role of government in helping them with technical and
financial problems. After the co-operatives have been
organized, the area-officials will continue to advise,
supervise, and promote better understanding between the
co-operative members and the Department of Land Co-operatives.
It is notable that everytime the Department of Land
Co-operatives announces the selection of new members for
new land settlement projects, an increasing number of
peeple come to be selected. The main attraction of the
program is not the principles and methods of co—operatives
but the tangible evidences of having land for farming,
loans with low interest rates, and other facilities such
as roads and medical treatment associated with the program.

Qualifications for membership in land hireupurchase
and land tenant co—operatives are similar to those of land
settlement. Members of land improvement co~operatives
must be farmers within the area for which the improvement
plan is set.

The principles and methods of land co~operatives
are quite complicated, at least for the illiterate
peasants of rural Thailand. The main principles and
methods of land co-Operatives are as follows:

1) The underlying concept of permanent co-operation
is "self help and mutual help" by the organization

of a group of peeple with similar economic needs.

3)

28
The idea is to utilize individual strength and
group effort to improve economic conditions and to
share the benefits that occur according to parti—
cipation with the organization. In short, the
basic principle of co—operatives emphasizes group
effort and group prosperity.
Democratic methods are stressed. The principle of
"one man, one vote" regardless of how much the
investment in labor and capital in the organization
makes co—operatives different from other kinds of
business organizations. The co—operative method
emphasizes the full participation of members in
the association's affairs, for example, general
meetings of its members in case of important matters,
electing management committee, exclusion of
unqualified members, and so on. As for land
co-operatives, the management committee is coma
posed of six elected members, including a presi-
dent, a secretary, and a treasurer. As a rule,
the business of a co-Operative organization is
decided by a majority vote. In cases of very
important matters provided by the organization's
bylaws, the vote of two-thirds may be applied.
The principle of ”unlimited liability" along
Raiffeisen's concept is applied to every type of
land co~operative except one or two land improve-

ment societies. "Unlimited liability" means that

29
members must face full reaponsibility for the
business of their organization in case of loss
and its properties do not meet the demand of
creditors. The creditors may demand the payment
from any member they deem appropriate to pay their
debts. With this principle, farmers with some
properties are reluctant to join land co~operative
associations, if they really understand it. In
addition, members with some properties may feel
uncomfortable about their future if they find
their co~0perative society is not in a sound
financial condition.

4) The basic fact which cannot be overlooked is that
a land co-operative society belongs to its members.
The government role in technical and financial
assistance does not mean that co-operative
organization is a government organization.
Nevertheless, close supervision and yearly
auditing by government officials obscure this

fact to some degree.

gperation of the Program: Some Acceptance

Generally speaking, land co-operatives, especially
land settlement, land hire-purchase, and land tenant,
gained acceptance from farmers. Evidence for this is that
everytime the Department of Land Co—operatives announced
the selection of farmers to be members of these types of

land co—operatives, more farmers volunteered than there

30
was land available for them. Many of them came from
different districts or provinces. This does not mean,
however, that farmers understand principles and methods of
land co-operatives as a means of improving their economic
situation. The obvious fact of their acceptance is
related to the tangible evidences of having farm land to
work and loans with low interest rates from the government.
The method of selecting land settlement co-operative
members also supports this statement. Before becoming a
land cacoporative member, farmers normally do not have any
knowledge of co~operative principles and methods. In later
stages, an orientation program may help them to have
clearer ideas of the project, but this does not mean that
farmers accept land co-operative principles and methods
wholeheartedly. They may agree with the explanation; they
may even doubt or not accept the idea at all. The facts of
having land to farm, having a source of credit, and having
the protection from the government in carrying on their
business are more than enough for the landless farmers to

become members of land settlement co~0peratives. This is

‘ also true in the case of tenant farmers who live at the

mercy of landlords and private money~lenders in such places
as the Rangsit area of the Central Plain. As mentioned
before, these tenant farmers were insecure with regard to
the length of time they could farm on the land because,
usually, there was no formal contract between them and the

landlord. The traditional period of one harvesting year

31

is verbally agreed upon in most cases. The high interest
rates of loans (in many cases reported to be more than 50
per cent per annum) which could not easily be obtained
from private moneyolendera, many of whom were also land-
lords, made their lives more miserable and uncertain. When
the land co-Operative officials called the meeting among
these tenant farmers and told them the outlines of land
hire-purchase or land tenant co-operativea, as the case
may be, these peasants saw the advantages of the program
quite easily. Though their understanding of the principles
and methods of the co-operatives is doubtful, the possi-
bility to own land seemed as clear in the case of the land
hire-purchase society as did the possibility of settling
on the same land for a considerable period of time. The
access to loans with low interest rates and a longer period
for repayment seemed advantages as did the fact that the
co—operative personnel were government officials whom they
trusted more than ordinary landlords and private money-lenders.

With regard to land improvement co—operatives, the
degree of acceptance is somehow less than in the case of
land settlement, land hire-purchase, and land tenant
co-operatives. It is not possible to produce concrete
evidence for this phenomenon in this thesis because this
would take a careful field study of each individual commu-
nity, but there are some basic facts which may explain
this statement. First of all, land improvement

co-operatives are organized among farmers most of whom own

32
their farm land. Their economic status is considerably
better than those of the first three types. The need for
land improvement also differs from one farm to another.
The problem of access to water, which is needed badly
during the growing season, is also different. Farm land
located near canals or rivers has easier access to water.
Besides, if farmers agree to join a land improvement
co-operative, they have to share the costs of such pro-
jects as the digging of ditches to have water flow to
remote farms: they have to sacrifice some part of their
land for this purpose. In some cases members have to
donate their labor to dig canals and other such work.
Land co—operative officials in many circumstances had to
take pain explaining the concept of group effort and group
prosperity to them before they could organize this type
of land co-operative. Advantages were mentioned about
getting aid from the government in the form of loans and
technical equipment like irrigation pumps. Though in most
cases land co-operative officials succeeded in having the
land improvement co-operative organized, it could not be
said that members of this type of land co~operative accept
this method of improving their farm land voluntarily.

In the Northeastern part of the country where the
problem of water is more severe, the government set up a
policy of organizing land improvement co-operatives in
areas which could benefit from reservoirs constructed by

the Department of Royal Irrigation. Here the problem of

33
acceptance is harder to judge. The mixed role of land
co-operative officials contributes to the difficulty of
this problem to some extent. As a government official, he
is supposed to take orders from, and take care of the
interests of, the government. As a development worker or
change agent, he is supposed to bring progress to his
clientele who, in this case, are farmers. In order to do
this, he has to change farmers' images at least enough to
make them see the value of co-Operative principles and
methods. As a husband and father, he has to take responsi-
bility in providing income for his family. In the case of
conflict of the first two roles, a land co-Operative
official usually inclines to playing the role of government
official at the expense of the other one. This is logical
because the government pays his salary and has power to
reward or punish.

In a study conducted by Gordon R. Sitton, Chaiyong
Chuchart, and Suphan Tosunthorn (1962:138) about
co-operative land settlement projects in Thailand, when
asked to explain the differences between co—operative and
privately owned organizations, about 21 per cent of the
members of land co—operative settlements interviewed in
five different projects did not know of differences. with
the same question, 33 per cent of land co-operative settle-
ment members interviewed in nine projects did not give any
eXplanation at all. In addition, there were some members

who answered this question in a way which indicated that

34
their image of co-operative organization was something
beyond their real understanding. There is no other
reliable study of this type on other land co-Operative
rojects which can be cited at the present time.

The vague and unclear image which land co-Operative
members have had toward their organization raises the
question of acceptance of the principles and methods of
the co-operatives. Nevertheless, one thing to be clear
from various observations and studies is that the acceptance
is based primarily on economic advantages of the program.
In the case of land co-operatives. economic advantages to
its members is foreseeable and realistic. For example, in
1959 alone, the Department of Land Co-operatives granted
loans to 297 land co-operative societies amounting to
1,243,745 baht (20 baht is equal to one dollar), and the
total amount of loans outstanding in the same year was
more than eight million baht (Ministry of Co-operatives,
Co-operation in Thailand 1961234). Therefore, even with
the vague image of its principles and methods, they accept

the program without much questioning.

Resistance and Reinterpretation

Resistance to the land co—operative program
primarily came from groups of people who did not benefit
from this program. They were landlords and private money-
lenders who used to lease land and lend money to land
co—operative members. Resistance took various forms: false

information such as spreading the news that the land

3S

co-operative program was a government plan to impose the
corvee on peasants by having the peasants work on the
government land; it was rumored that the government would
take most of the agricultural products produced, if not
all; there was also overt violence by hired hoodlums to
scars and hurt land co~0perative officials in some areas.
False propaganda or false information spread by landlords
and private money-lenders created a complex situation
during the organization period. Fortunately, the rela-
tively high status of government officials in Thailand
helped reduce the difficulties to some degree. Normally,
land co—operative officials ask help from district
officers, chief village headmen, and village headmen in
assembling farmers for explanation of the land co—operatives.
After having been organized, resistance from "outside"
usually declined, and, later, when the land co—operative
organization was firmly established, the belief in false
information normally disappeared. ‘

Resistance from "within," i.e., from members
themselves, also occurred in various forms: apathy which
manifests itself in the form of negligence to observe rules
and regulations of the organization, absence from meetings,
and non—participation in the business of the organization
are the most significant form of resistance from within;
resignation and leaving the place permanently without
paying debts also occurred in some types of land

co-operative. However, the percentage of members who

36

resign and leave societies without paying debts is small,
and it is not difficult to replace them, except in the
case of the land improvement co—operatives which need
members who own land within the improvement area.

Reinterpretation occurs because of the mixing
roles of land co-operative officials as government repre-
sentatives and as change agents. The tradition of high
status of government officials and the fact that a land
co—operative is organised, supervised, and promoted by
the government obscures the basic fact that a land
co-operative society belongs to its members. Land
co—operative area-officials, who are the closest personnel
to land co—operative members, play the most significant
role in changing the members' images and plans for
development. If the area-official plays the role of a
strict government official most of the time and gives
orders instead of giving advice or guiding them, the
social distance between him and land co-operative members
is relatively far. In such a case, members incline to
believe that the land co—operative organization is of and
for the government. In fact, members of the land
co-operative usually call the land co—operative official
"chaonai" which means "boss." The emphasis on the role of
"boss" by practicing it is tantamount to encouraging
misconceptions of the program.

The government assistance in technical and

financial aspects in running land co-Operatives, including

37
the yearly auditing by government officials of all
co-operative societies; loans of different periods of
repayment with considerably low interest rates granted by
a government controlled Bank for Co-operatives; help from
other government officials, such as district officers and
provincial governors, in organizing land co-operetive
societies, all contribute to the reinterpretation of the
program according to the traditional values of the Thai
peasants.

The question raised in the first chapter on the
introduction of co—operative principles which are mainly
democratic into a country with a long history of absolute
monarchy presents a series of complex consequences. The
mixed reactions of the Thai peasants because of the intro-
duction of a new concept which basically contradicts their
traditional values has already been created. Their
behavior may point in new directions or retreat to the
same traditional orientation, probably much depending on
the guidance of change agents who in this case are land
co-operative officials. Therefore, the role of land
co-operative official as a change agent is no doubt an
important factor in changing the "modal personality" of
Thai peasants within his area of reSponsibility.
Unfortunately, the nature of this study prevents getting
into many details which, if obtained, would help clarify

the problem better.

38

From this writer‘s observation of the role of
land co—operative officials in the past, it was evident
that they were not properly trained to be change agents.
Hany of them do not have a real understanding of the prin-
ciples and methods of land co~operatives. Those who do
understand them lack the knowledge of how to effectively
work as change agents. They received only limited
training on how to transfer their knowledge to peasants
with a relatively low level of education. he training in
anthropological concepts of culture and culture change
has been offered to them. The problem of communication
or information flow, therefore, is one of the main
obstacles preventing the program from a higher level of
achievement. In addition, it is not probable to evaluate
the success or failure of the program by this type of
study without jumping into conclusions which, usually,
lead to errors. A field study of this program is
recommended as a better way to apprehend facts and
theorize about them. At the present stage, it should be
only appropriate to hypothesize that the introduction of
a land co-Operative program and the ways of practicing it
up to the present time have not affected enough change in
farmers' behavior to produce a great change in their
"model personality." Instead, the peasants tend to
reinterpret the program according to their traditional
values formed by various elements of Thai rural social

organization which will be mentioned in the next chapter.

CHAPTER III
SOCI.-"L C-i'ZGM'JlflfiTICN AND STFUCTURB OL’ RURAL Tiiz“.ILI-‘x353

In this chapter, the writer will discuss the
concept of social organization and social structure
according to the anthropological theory and then proceed
further to describe the social organization and structure
of rural Thailand. This will include the general dos-
cription and village pattern as well as the political,
economic, kinship, and religious systems. In the end,
the writer will tie these things together in the form of
peasants' world view in order to show their ways of seeing
the world through the blind of the social and cultural
setting of Thailand.

U1

0:131 Organisation vs. Social Structure

The words "social organization" seem to have
something connecting or relating to the words "social
structure." find the latter seem to be very arguable among
cultural anthropologists and to a lesser extent among
other social scientists, too. nevertheless, at present
there seem to be two major, different Opinions on the words
"social structure." One is primarily of the British social
anthropologists who, more or less, agree that social
structure covers a broader area of social relations and

39

40
includes political, economic, and religious in addition
to kinship. On the other hand, many fimerican cultural
anthropologists seem to be satisfied with the narrow
viewpoint of the term "social structure." To them, social
structure is only one aspect of culture, not the whole
culture, and refers to only those relationships among kins
or social relations pertaining to the kinship system (Fred
ngan 1954a:745-47). The long and fruitful discussion of
the term "social structure" has been presented by Claude
levi-Strauss (1953) in his paper named "Social Structure."
It is, however, not the intention of this thesis to discuss
"social structure” and "social organization" in detail but
only to show the complexity of the terminologies which
exist in the field of social sciences like sociology and
anthropology at the time being. For the purpose of this
thesis, this writer is satisfied with Raymond Firth's
discussion and definition of the two terms as follows:
Social organization has usually been taken as a
synonym for social structure. In my [Firth's] View it
is time to distinguish between them. The more one
thinks of the structure of a society in abstract
terms, as of group relations or of ideal patterns, the
more necessary it is to think separately of social
organization in terms of concrete activity. Generally,
the idea of organization is that of people getting
things demo Ly planned action. Thisvis a social pro-
cess, the arrangement*of action in sequences in con-
formity with selected social ends. These ends must
have some elements of common significance for the set
of persons concerned in the action. The significance
need not be identical, or even similar, for all the
persons; it may be opposed as between some of them.
The processes of social organization may consist in
part in the resolution of such opposition by action

which allows one or other element to come to final
expression. Social organization implies some degree

 

 

41

of unification, a putting together of diverse elements
into common relation.

To do this, advantage may be taken of existing
structural principles, or variant procedure may be
adopted. This involves the exercise of choice, the
making of decision. As such, this rests on personal
evaluations, which are the translation of general
ends or values of group range into terms which are
significant for the individual. In the sense that all
organization involves allocation of resources, it
implies within the scheme of value judgments a concept
of efficiency. This infers a notion of the relative
contributions which means of different amount and
quality can make to given ends. The sphere of allo-
cation of resources is one in which economic studies
are pre—eminent. . . . But of necessity economics has
been restricted primarily to the field of exchange
relations, especially those which are measurable in
monetary terms. In the social field beyond this the
processes resulting from the possibilities of choice
and the exercise of decision are also of major
importance. (Firth 1956:35—36)

Finally, Firth links the concept of social
organization to the study of social change, when he writes:

The concept of social organization is important
also for the understanding of social change. There
are structural elements running through the whole of
social behavior, and they provide what has been the
metaphorically termed social anatomy, the form of a
society. But what is this form? It consists really
in the persistence or repetition of behavior; it is
the element of continuit in social life. . . .
Continuity is expressed in the social structure, the
sets of relations which make for firmness of'expegiw
iation, for validation ofipast experience in terms of
simiiar experience in future. Members of’a society
look for a reliable guide to action, and the structure
of the society gives this-through its family and
kinship system, class relations, occupational distri-
bution, and so on. At the same time there must be
room for variance and for the explanation of variance.

This is found in the social organization, the
systematic ordering of sociaI relations"5y acts of
‘Ehoice and decision. (Firth 1956739-40)

 

 

 

 

 

So much for ”social organization" and "social

structure"; nevertheless, it is the writer's intention to
"

use the terms social organization and social structure in

42
the broader sense, more or less, along with Firth's
discussion and definition of the terms. The word "system”
is also used interchangeably with the word "organization"
in many occasions. It is now the time to describe the
social organization and structure of rural Thailand; we
will begin with the description of the village patterns

and the general characteristics of rural Thailand.

Village Patterns and General Description

A village in Thailand, formally, is the smallest
unit for the purpose of the "territorial administration"
of the country. The largest unit of the territorial
administration is the province (changwat), of which there
are 71. ranging in population from some 20,000 to over one
million. The administration of the province is under the
control of a governor (phuwarechakarn) appointed by the
Minister of Interior. Attached to each province office
(sale klang), and subordinated to the governor. are
official representatives from nearly all central government
'agencies.

Each province is subdivided for administrative
purposes into districts (amphur) ranging in number some~
where between 8 and 13. with a district officer (nai amphur)
as the chief official directly responsible to the pro~
vincial governor for the character of district administration.
Each district also has a staff of civil servants assigned
to the field offices of central government agencies with

functions at this level. There are 448 districts in

43
Thailand at present, as well as 50 subdistricts with

smaller staffs.

Below the district level there are no government
offices or civil servants. The central government,
however, recognizes further subdivisions of territory,
and accords the quasi-traditional leadership of these
units some official status. within each district a
group of villages is called a commune (tambol) and the
individual village (muban) comprises the basic admini-
strative unit. Formal leadership at the village level
is achieved by a mixed process of election in the
villages and confirmation in office by the governor,
and is vested in village headmen (phuyaiban) who choose
one of their number as the chief headmen (kamnan) of
the commune. There are 4,700 of these latter units,
composed of a varying number of villages as population
and geography dictate, but containing about twenty
villages on the average. Altogether, there are some
49,832 villages in Thailand which meet the minimum
requirement of at least five households in a single
cluster and ideally have a population of 200 persons.
(Horrigan l962a:47)

Thailand is truly a rural country. The vast
majority of Thai people, perhaps about 85 per cent of the
papulation, live in communities ranging in size from 200
to 3,000 individuals. The most striking feature of these
communities is their similarity and integral homogeneity.
A Thai peasant, no matter what his geographical or family
background, could move to a distant village and find that
the general pattern of its social life was completely
familiar. Despite some minor and inevitable local
differences in practice and the development of new ideas
and wants where urban influences have penetrated, all of
rural Thailand seems to have a single basic pattern:

Rural society is characterized by the absence of

a hierarchical class structure and by a relative lack

of elaboration, complexity, and institutionalization
in the social forms. There are only a limited number

44

of social groupings to which the individual can
belong or with which he can be identified, and most
of these are organized informally, and there are only
few social statuses he can occupy, with even clearly
defined roles. (Blanchard 19582399)

However, John DeYoung (l95':399~400) writes about
patterns of village settlement in rural Thailand as follows:

Villages in Thailand commonly fall into two main
types: a group of houses strung along a waterway or
road, or a cluster of houses set along fruit trees,
coconut palms, and rice fields. Along a wide river,
houses of the latter type of village are built on
only one bank, but along a narrow river, a canal, or
a road, houses may be located on both sides; the
village may extend from one to several kilometers,
houses often being only one deep along the road and
rice fields starting at the rear of the house compounds.

Villages of the other sort, the cluster type, are
set some distance (one-quarter of a kilometer to a
kilometer) from main thoroughfare-a river, a navigable
canal, a railroad line, a branch road, or a main
highway. A cart road or cart track leads from these
villages to the thoroughfare; these tracks are built
and maintained by the villagers and, although
impassable during the rainy season, can be used for
at least eight months of the year.

Generally speaking, Thai culture has been a
culture of wet-rice cultivation for a long time. Except
for the minority of Westernized Thai who live mostly in
urban areas, the vast majority of Thai people still live
in some 49,832 villages scattered all over the country,
which has the total area of $00,000 square miles, and
still engage in agriculture, primarily wet-rice cultivation.
The basic theme of traditional Thai culture, therefore,
evolves around this occupation.

The major patterns of social relations within a
village are based primarily upon kinship, physical proxi-
mity, and membership in the few groups that exist beyond

45
the family. Relationships also depend on certain status
factors, such as the differentiation between Buddhist
monks and laymen, headmen and other villagers, the old
and the young, male and female, and other personal
qualities such as moral and religious character or pro-
ficiency in farming, medicine, astrology, music, story-
telling, and the like.

John meree (1950a3185,188) also observes the
similar characteristics of Thai villages when he writes:

In Thailand the hamlet also has its own identity

and the members also have rights and duties, but they
are less clearly defined and less strictly enforced.
Exchange systems are less clear cut. Thus in Thailand,
with its mobility of population and lack of emphasis
on long term obligations, we do not find the financial
associations (K0) which extend over twenty years or
so. . . . At the local group level, where the people
live by wet rice agriculture, there seems to be a

less closely woven pattern of c00perative organization
for accomplishing agricultural labor as compared with,
say, Japanese society.

Because of the lack of group action and formal
organization among Thai peasants, leadership in rural
Thailand is vested mostly on the success or status of
individuals according to traditional values of what is
considered to be the "good" things to achieve. In the
village level, it is generally agreed that village head-
men, Buddhist monks, and school teachers are the potential
leaders of the community. Out of these, Buddhist monks
probably hold higher status and prestige largely because
being a monk means observing more strict rules of life

than ordinary people. But as Blanchard (1958:403-404)

says:

46

The role of monks in village society is difficult
to characterize. In both city and village the priest-
hood is supposed to be outside the secular affairs of
the community, but in villages, since the line between
sacred and secular activities is usually not very
clear, the monks tend to be involved in community
affairs. The local Buddhist temple is not only the
religious but also the social center as well. It is
at the local temple that peOple come together and
experience a sense of village membership. The village
religious rituals held there are nearly always
accompanied by social activities: the people picnic,
feast, have fun, and are entertained. It is to the
temple monks, the most respected men in the village
and specialists at counselling, that people bring
their problems; in time of crisis a monk is often the
first person sought out for counsel and encouragement.

within this type of social relations many monks
obviously find it difficult to maintain the ideal state
of scholarly seclusion and otheroworldliness. Euch
depends, of course, upon the character of the abbot. If
he is a particularly dynamic individual, the vet's
(Buddhist temple) involvement with the village may be
large; if he is a retiring, meditative person, the other
monks may follow his way of seclusiveness and not involve
much with the community affairs. Whether active or passive
participants in village life, all monks are at the top of
the village respect-prestige pattern, and their potential
power to instigate or guide social action and change is
considerable.

As for village headmen, their role as community
leaders is not very well accepted everywhere, though
formally they are supposed to be. DeYoung (1955:28) writes:

Generally, the village headman is at the top of

the village social structure, a landowner of some
status and a man who has demonstrated leadership

47

qualities. From the standpoint of social prestige
and importance, the abbot of the village wat will
outrank the headman, . . .

Wendell Blanchard (1958:404—405) also confirms
by writing:

The nominal village leaders are the headmen of
the hamlets which make up the community. . . .
Respected farmers, often substantial landowners who
have lived in the village or its adjacent hamlets
for sometime and who have shown some ability to act
as village spokesmen, are usually chosen as headmen.
Holding public office gives them a measure of
prestige and honor; translating that prestige into
authority, however, is quite another matter. In the
village of Bang Chan, for example, observers dis~
covered that in several cases headmanship was merely
an honorary position. Three of the seven persons who
held the official title were clearly recognised as
village leaders; the other four had a goodly measure
of prestige but little or no real power, and one of
these was clearly incompetent, managing to stay in
office simply because his fellow villagers did not
want to hurt his feelings by demanding an election.
In this village the head monk and one of the village
school teachers seem to have as much authority as
any of the seven headmen the government relied on for
community leadership. In the North and Northeast,
however, the headmen tend to be quite strong, their
authority commensurate with their prestige, so that
they are the active leaders of their community. . . .

The village school teacher also has an important
status within a rural community because of his authority
deriving from his position as a teacher, his education,
and his outside connections. He and the local abbot are

often the actual leaders in the village.

Political System

In order to understand the political system of the
Thai village, it is necessary to mention some higher levels
of the organization. For the purpose of this thesis, it

is considered to be appropriate and inevitable to discuss

48

the authority and prestige of the district officer or nai

amphur who is probably the most important man in rural

Thailand. According to Frederick Horrigan (l962a:52):
The district officer or nai amphur is the single most
important link of the government with the people. Each
of the 448 districtsof the territorial administration
is under the control of a district officer appointed
by the Department of Interior and directly responsible
to the governor. This officer is the ubiquitous agent
of the central government in the daily administration
of domestic affairs. . . . Before the advent of modern
communications and the reforms of the constitutional
regime, the district officer exercised an almost
absolute rule within his jurisdiction, and so long as
the district was undisturbed by major crime, satis-
factory revenues were collected and remitted, and
periodic reports were filed with the government, he
was allowed to function undisturbed.

The district officer has a great deal of power and
many duties which include the following: (1) To administer
in accordance with the law and regulations. If the
execution of law within his area of responsibility has not
been assigned to any particular official, it is the duty
of the nai amphur to carry it out. (2) To administer in
accordance with the orders and advice of the changwat or
province governor and other inspectors empowered by the
changwat governor and central government within the amphur.

Indeed, the district officer has for decades been
a man of many duties. The law assigns the district officers
such diverse tasks as taking measures against outbreaks of
disease, protecting of forests, protecting breeding grounds
for fish, and establishing educational facilities. The
scarcity of technical specialists in the past made the

district officer a general administrator in the classical

49
sense; he was, and still is, often referred to as the
"royal garbage can” in recognition of the many responsi-
bilities imposed upon him by the government. In recent
years, as technical personnel have appeared in increasing
numbers at the district level to take care of many pro—
grams in agriculture, fisheries, health, and education,
the job of the district officer has lost scepe but not
prestige or responsibility.

In his role as the "link" between the government
and the people, the district officer has a regular pattern
of communication with each. at least once a month he
reports to the provincial office for a formal conference
with the governor and provincial board, and some few days
later he calls the village headmen together at his office
to discuss district affairs. It has been observed that
communication at the district meeting is apt to be
unilateral, with the district officer doing most of the
talking and the assembled headmen assuming passive roles.
Of course, the conduct of the meeting may vary according
to the nature of the relationship which the individual
district officer seeks to establish with the headmen, but
the tradition of one-way communication and the small value
which Thai culture places on "speak up" condition the
communication in a unilateral pattern.

John DeYoung (1955:14,16) writes of relationships
between district officers and villagers as follows:

To the villager, the district officer is known as
the nai amphur, which might be translated "boss of the

 

SO

/a district"; he is for them the closest and the most
reel of all contacts with the central government. He
may be called in to settle disputes between villagers
concerning boundary lines of their rice fields; he
Judges disputes between landlord and tenant and sees
that villagers obey government regulations. . . . In
addition to the regular monthly meeting, district
officers frequently call special meetings of headmen;
these may be occasioned by the visit of a central
government official to inspect the amphur, or to
explain a government program, as, for example, a new
drive for credit cooperative membership.

In addition, John K. King (1956a:l7l) writes:

Four characteristics of the Thai administrative
system of special significance are a heritage from the
days of the absolute monarchy. They are: (l) the
territorial organization of the administrative system;
(2) the "habit of obedience" within the bureaucracy
and between the bureaucracy and the public; (3) the
tradition of prestige associated with civil servants;
and (4) the concentration of decision making authority.

Before the change from absolute to constitutional

monarchy in 193?, the Kings of Thailand were autocratic
rulers. The power of the King, through his agents and
officials, reached into the smallest village. Under the
absolute monarchy the habit of obedience to authority was
firmly ingrained in the Thai people.

within the administrative service, the higher

ranking officials were usually the higher ranking members
of the Royal Family. bedience not only was a matter of
civil regulation but also was a manifestation of respect
for loyalty to the King. The monarchical institution,
veneration and loyalty to the King were, as they are today,
essential ingredients of Thai culture.

Closely connected with the habit of obedience is

the prestige traditionally attached to the Thai bureaucracy.

51
It serves both to attract men to the service of the King
and to lend greater authority to their administrative
regulation. Public servants of Thailand are called
Ka—raj-karn, meaning ”those who serve the King's business"
or the "King's men." Within the royalist framework of I
Thai society, this title carries great prestige.

Royal policy strengthened prestige of the public
servants within the hierarchy of the bureaucracy as well
as between the bureaucracy and the public by the practice
of granting titles to members of the public service. Such
titles are highly prized as personal marks of Royal appre-
ciation, and titled public servants were shown the greatest
deference by those of lower rank and the general public.
The system served to maintain discipline within the
bureaucracy, to tie the bureaucracy closer to the monarchy.
and to insure the highest respect for the bureaucracy by
the ordinary citizen of the country.

After 1932, the new government discontinued the
practice of granting titles to members of the bureaucracy,
but the tradition of prestige of the public servant, and
even of the leftover titles, remains.

This is also confirmed by Herbert Phillips
(1958a339) who writes:

The hold that this autocratic tradition has upon
the thinking of most Thai peasants should not be
underestimated. Many government officials still
retain the aura of power and prestige formally asso—
ciated with agents of the King. In their own minds

and in the minds of the governed, these men rule
rural areas: they do not represent them. This is

$2

the attitude toward both government civil servants
and most elected public officials.

In regard to the concentration of decision~making
power, it is also the result of a long and uninterrupted
tradition of absolute power. King (1954azl72) says:

The Kings of Siam, prior to the 1932 coup,
traditionally ruled by Royal Decree and retained a
great deal of the decision-making authority for
themselves. Advisers and cabinet ministers were intro-
duced at the early date but, as King Chulalongkorn
recorded in his diaries, the King seldom found his
advisers or ministers holding Opinions different from
hi 8 own 0

within a limited area of responsibility the
cabinet ministers tended to become the focal points
for decision-making. Under the monarchy and under the
constitutional regime since 1932, the tendency of all
but the highest ranking public servants to avoid the
responsibility of decision-making has continued. Many
questions of detail of minor importance find their way
up through the chain of command for decision by
ministry chiefs or by the cabinet. The emphasis on
decision from above and the obedience from below has
created a "vertically minded" bureaucratic tradition
that has remained strong. Only the center of highest
authority has shifted, from the King and his advisers
to the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers.

Because of the great tradition of politics in
Thailand as mentioned above, Thai peasants always look for
help from the central government in various ways. They
usually bring their complaints to local leaders who may
be the abbot of the local wat, village headman, or school
teacher: these men will contact the district officer who,
in turn, if he thinks the matter is appropriate to conti—
nue, will bring the matter up to the province governor,
and so on. The "habit of obedience" and the high prestige
of government officials plus a relatively economic self-

sufficiency permit Thai peasants to manage to stay away

53
from any political uprising. On the contrary, they tend
to obey orders from the government and regard government
officials with high respect. As Herbert Phillips (1958a339)
writes:

The peasant attitude towards government officials
was perhaps best summed up by a villager who said he
was voting for the Prime Minister and his party
"because he is our master. He has been very good and
kind to us. He is like our father, and we are like
his children."

Economic Organization

The economy of Thailand is not only predominantly
agricultural but is primarily a "rice economy." Rice
production has been the main economic activity of the
people from time immemorial, and for more than a century
agriculture has accounted for well over half the national
income. Agriculture, including forestry and fishing,
provides employment for about 85 per cent of the population;
agricultural products accounted for most of the country's
foreign exchange earnings and a large share of its
revenue-in 1956 about 46 per cent of the gross national
product.
- For many centuries the plains, valleys, and parts
of the hills of Thailand have been devoted to the culti-
vation of rice. The farmers of today plow, plant, and
harvest in much the same manner—uand often with the same
kind of implements-«as did their ancestors. Rice pro-

foundly influences Thailand‘s commerce, politics, and

social conditions. It constitutes the principal food of

S4
everyone from the highest nobleman to the lowliest
commoner; horses, cattle, and all other domestic animals,
including cats and dogs, live on it. It is used for making
beer and liquors. Religious and superstitious Observances
frequent occasions for holidays and festivals. Buying or
lending on rice or rice fields is a recognized means of
investing money. Records in the law courts show dealings
in rice and ownership of rice lands as the principal
causes for civil litigation. Rice forms the cargoes of
the thousands of boats passing up and down the great Chao
Phraya River, the freight of the trains to Bangkok from
the interior, and the loads of the ocean-going steamers
which load in the port of Bangkok. Rice husk is used to
stoke the furnaces of the mills of Bangkok and of many
provincial towns. Finally, rice provides the government
with a significant part of its revenue.

Besides rice, other agricultural and mineral
products, including rubber, teak, tin, and salt, combine
to be exported commodities for Thailand; but, by and large,
they are less significant than rice in almost every aspect
of consideration.

The two important characteristics of rice economy
in rural Thailand are the marketing system and credit
Operation.

Carle C. Zimmerman (1931:175-76) describes the
rice marketing system in rural Thailand as follows:

The marketing system of Siamese rice consists of
four partsa-the peasant, the dealer, the transportation

55

method, and the miller at Bangkok. As a rule the
peasants do not sell padi direct to the rice millers.
In fact, the business of transporting the grain from
the field to mills has never been seriously undertaken
either by the millers or by farmers. Consequently,
there has grown up a number of middlemen, who buy from
the latter and sell to the former.

One other important fact of Thai economy worth
mentioning here is the role of the Chinese in economic
activities in this country. There are approximately three
million Chinese or Chinese descendants among the total
28 million of Thailand's population. Most of the Chinese
are able merchants and businessmen, and they live in urban
centers as well as in rural areas. Because most of the
Thai are farmers, therefore, the middlemen are Chinese.

The middlemen go into the country, buy paddy

directly from the grower, and ship it to Bangkok for
sale to the millers. Until well in the twentieth
century nearly all rice for export came from the
Central Plain. middlemen went out on canals and
rivers to the rural villages, bought the paddy, and
brought it to Bangkok in river boats. Rarely did the
growers themselves bring their paddy to the mills or
the millers send their own buyers into the country.
Sometimes, when competition was usually keen among the
millers, they sent their buyers up the rivers and
canals to meet the paddy boats, but they bought for
delivery in Bangkok and ordinarily did not undertake

to transport the paddy themselves. (James Ingram
1955271)

Certainly, many of the agricultural problems of
ihailand are tied up with the system and methods of
middlemen. These men not only buy and sell paddy; they
also lend money, advance supplies, own and rent land, sell
merchandise, and transport goods in both directions. The
various functions are so mixed together that it is too

difficult to estimate the cost of any single function.

56
The problem is further complicated by the seasonal
variations in the price of paddy, the cost of storing it
to take advantage of off-season prices, and the varying
standards of quality and volume used in selling it.

The peasant's lack of knowledge of prices and
markets, together with his lack of liquid assets, have
made him peculiarly dependent on the middlemen. This is
particularly true of tenant farmers, who frequently do not
have much security to offer against loans but who are
compelled to sell their crops at harvest time when prices
are low in order to repay advances made at high rates of
interest. However, middlemen account for only a small
part of the loans at high interest rates. The basic pro-
blems are risk and scarcity of loans comparing with the
demand for credit.

Thus the Thai have participated in the rice trade
only as growers, and their lack of knowledge and
experience in markets, prices, and business methods,
plus their lack of cash reserves, have meant that a
rather large share of the export proceeds of rice has
been taken by the various middlemen. (Ingram 1955373)

Besides being middlemen and money-lenders, the
Chinese in rural Thailand still have many economic roles.
As DeYoung (1955:106-107) writes:

To the peasant, the Chinese, whether peddler,
miller, shop-keeper, or rice broker, is an essential
link to the larger economic pattern of the country and
a means of providing necessary and beneficial services.
As aliens, as businessmen, and as townmen, the Chinese
of course come in for the inevitable garrulous depre-
ciation of their rural clientele; the Thai peasant
calls all Chinese peddlers chek, a somewhat derogatory

Thai word for "Chinese," an3"EHe villager describes
the peddler, when he is not present, as a sharp dealer

57

who will try to cheat the village buyer whenever
possible. But little of this is seen in face-to-face
dealings with the peddler; in isolated villages, he

is a welcome visitor, for he brings not only necessary
goods but news and gossip from the market towns and
from other villages. In larger villages where Chinese
shep-keepers or mill owners live, they are likely to
have married local Thai women, and their children are
considered Thai by the villagers. Pretty girls of
poor families often aspire to marry Chinese shop-
keepers or rice-mill workers, for by the village stan-
dards they are prosperous and can assure her and her
family of economic support.

To sum up, the economic activities in rural
Thailand can be characterized by the Thai working on the
farm producing agricultural products while the Chinese buy
and sell as well as lend money. Therefore. it is not
exaggerative to say that the Chinese are economically
powerful in rural Thailand and Thai peasants are dependent

on them in many economic activities.

Kinship System

 

In Thailand, the basic socio—economic unit is the
simple nuclear family, ideally consisting of a father, a
mother, and their offSprings. In many cases, there are
some older relatives such as grandparents living with them.
nevertheless, at times the rural household may become a
small extended family. including a son or daughter with
his or her spouse and children, or a widowed mother and
'her children. Ordinarily only one daughter or, if there is
no daughter, only one son remains in the family household
and inherits the house and the equipment.

The kin relationship is primarily that of husband

and wife, and this determines the domestic grouping or

58

household. A newly married couple prefer to establish
their own household; other arrangements are usually
temporary. Customarily, in large families all the married
children except the youngest son or daughter establish
households elsewhere. Since the youngest will inherit the
family house and equipment, he or she and spouse usually
live with the parents. A young couple may also live with
the wife's parents until the birth of the first child,
and then establish themselves independently or sometimes
with the husband's family. No fixed rule determines the
residence of the young couple; economic considerations are
probably of principal importance in each individual case.

In rural Thailand, there appears to be no rigid
rule of inheritance. Formally, all sons and daughters
inherit equal shares of the family land and other property,
but since this has apparently not resulted in fragmentation
of landholdings, compensating factors probably exist. The
impressive expansion of farming acreage, indicating a
constant movement into new land, is one explanation.
After having lived for a time on the parental farm, each
family tries to acquire its own farm. After death or
retirement of the parent owner, the family house, compound,
and a share of the land normally pass to the youngest
married daughter or son who probably reunites some of the
family holdings through private arrangement with the other

heirs.

S9

The relationships between parents and children
are, more or less, flexible in the sense that there is no
strict discipline concerning child rearing, toilet
training, or other social interactions. The process of
socialization, therefore, moves along individual charac-
teristics more than rigid sets of rules. Except for the
major concepts that are emphasized, i.e., the recognition
of parents' position as the most respected persons, the
grateful attitude toward one's own teacher, and the
acknowledgment of the higher status of the aged, other
patterns of relations are left to the individual's judgment.

It is perhaps logical to conclude this part of the
chapter with Blanchard's words (1958:438-39) as follows:

For the broad peasant base of Thai society, the
family is a microcosm of the society at large. The
family is one of the few permanent groups whereby the
rural Thai can occupy a status in which his role is
formalized to some extent and in which his relation-
ships are firmly channeled. As in his religion, where
the salvation is a wholly personal matter which the
individual must attain singly and by his own effort,
the rural Thai is largely left to work out his own
adjustment to society. In establishing a pattern for
his social relationships, he is originally supported
only by his immediate family or close kin. Under
these circumstances, respect relationships taught
between generations-taught to the child within the
family group-traditionally form the basis of the
organization of Thai society and, even today, exert a
pervasive influence on the individual Thai in his
social adjustments.

Outside the immediate family, the general lack of
groups and associations with clearly defined status
positions permits the transfer of the respect rela-
tionship existing at home between family and child to
the larger national community. In this context the
king or the government fills the role of the father,
and behavior pattern learned in childhood forms the
basis of the Thai's patriotism, loyalty, and respect
for his country. The king or government is thought

60

of as a "second parent," to whom one owes respect
and obedience.

geligious Organization

 

Thailand is a country in which Buddhism is the
predominant religion. It is estimated that more than 80
per cent of the population are Buddhist. Buddhism in
Thailand is of the Hinayana form. It is the state religion,
and the King is the defender of the Buddhist faith.

In rural Thailand, excepting the family, the wet
or Buddhist monastery is the most important institution in
the community. The social life as well as religious
affairs of the community still revolve around the temple
compound.

Besides the obvious religious activities, a wet
may carry out any of the following functions:
community chest, recreation center, hospital, dis-
pensary, school, community center, public utility
system, place of safe deposit, community warehouse
and equipment rental, home for the psychotic and aged,
employment agency, news agency, social work and
welfare agency, village clock, hotel, and information
center. (Blanchard 1958:111)

It is not possible to deal with the principles or
philosophy of Buddhism in detail here because to do so
would be too long for the size of this thesis. Therefore,
it is necessary to cut short and discuss only some of the
very important aspects which concern a peasant's life and
his attitude toward the world in general. Also, it should
be noted that Buddhism in Thailand as well as in other

countries cannot be described clearly and easily because

its spirit of tolerance has permitted the absorption of

61
many beliefs and practices from other sources which have
served to supplement or expand its concepts or to fill
gaps. Buddha taught that life is pain and sorrow, which
the wise man must escape. Deliverance from the chain of
existence is to be attained by suppressing every passionate
act that entails a consequence, for this suppression will
allow the individual to break the chain and achieve a
perfect state of rest or nothingness. The basic Buddhist
tenets said nothing about the existence of supernatural
beings and very little about the nature of the universe;
such concepts and others were added later.

Because of the fact that traditional Thai culture
was largely influenced by the Indian culture which had
prevailed in the area before, it is, therefore, natural
that Buddhism and Brahmanism have become so closely
interwoven as to be indistinguishable to the ordinary
Thai worshipper. The animistic or spirit worship which is
very important in the peasant's daily life has infiltrated
into the Buddhist practice. As a means of storing up
merit for life in the next world, the villager turns to
Buddhism; but for protection in his present world, in
addition to Buddhism, the peasant always looks to the host
of good and evil spirits that, according to his belief,
affect his every undertaking.

Wendell Blanchard (1958:91,9€) writes of Thai's
concept of cosmology and supernatural beings as follows:

The basic concept of Thai cosmology, and also of
the Buddhist doctrine, is that of change, consequence,

62

or Karma (called Egg by the Thai). The action of

karma causes the continual creation and dissolution of
worlds, individuals, and angels. All space is believed
to be occupied by an infinite number of cosmic groups,
each containing a world of men with heavens and hells.
From time to time many of these groups are annihilated
by fire, water, or wind, leaving only a void filled
with perfect disembodied Brahman angels. Eventually
desire manifests itself in some of the angels: tangible
dwelling places, food, and material things come again
into existence. . . . Forms of life appear and go
through their cycles of existence until finally,
billions of years later, the cosmic groups are again
annihilated.

Thai beliefs concerning supernatural beings, . . .
derive from non-Buddhist sources and are completely
integrated into the religious system. Theoretically,
the Thai do not sharply distinguish between earthly
beings and those which could be called supernatural.

. . . The attributes to each being-form, wealth,
prosperity, misfortune, or supernatural powero-are
”gifts“ or "punishments“ resulting from merit or
demerit, from the action of karma. An official‘s
wealth or position, for example, is the result of his
past actions, and no pious poorer individual can
resent it.

Phys Anuman Rajadhon (1961365), a famous Thai
scholar, writes about Buddhism in Thailand as follows:

Buddhism in essence is a religion of ethics and

philosophy rather than a religion in the strict sense
of the word. In Buddhism "man is as he has made him.
self; man will be as he makes himself"; the indivi-
dual has to strive by himself to be pure of heart and
deed for his own salvation without the intervention of
God or any other divine being.

Nevertheless, in practice, most of the Thai do not
mind adding to their own beliefs the prevailing Brahmanism
and animism of gods and spirits. According to the writer's
observation, the rural Thai incline to practice the
”ritual" part of the religion more than upholding the
basic philosophy of Buddhism. For example, building a wat
is regarded as highly meritorious and as a praiseworthy

sacrifice of time, labor, and wealth; and a male Thai whose

63
parents are Buddhist should, on reaching twenty years of
age, become a monk for a period of time.

A son who becomes a novice or a monk is in popular
belief a mysterious agent for helping save his parents
from hell when they die. . . . Thus parents are
desirous of having at least one of their sons become
a novice, or better still, a monk. If possible, the
son-candidate ought to be an unmarried man; if he has
been married, all the merit thus gained will go to the
wife instead of to the parents, . . . (Anuman Rajadhon
1961365)

The relationship between Buddhist monks and
villagers is characterized as the monks play the role of
spiritual leaders as well as counsellors in secular
affairs. Generally speaking, most villagers consider that
monks, especially those who practice meditation, are in a
position to know more about the world than themselves,
because monks can learn and practice Buddhist method and
philosophy which are considered to be meritorious.

Again, Phya Anuman Rajadhon (1961:82-83) writes:

An abbot of the village wat, if he is a man of
age, full of lore and wisdom, Is a highly respected
person in the village. He is called luang phoe or
"great father" by the villagers. His counsel is
eagerly sought in case of difficulties and differences.
The villagers seek his advice and decision even in a
serious case rather than refer the case, if they can,
to the official authority for decision. A decision by
the authority or the legal court will take days, and
also a certain amount of money has to be paid out in
fees and other eXpenses. But not so with the venerable
abbot, their spiritual father. The abbot in his spare
time will make a round of afternoon visits to the
villagers, giving advice or distributing the home-made
medicine or other things as needed.

 

To sum up, the religious organization of rural
Thailand is composed of three major components. They are:

the wet or Buddhist monastery, the Buddhist monk, and the

64
villager. The wet serves as the center of the community
for religious affairs as well as for social activities.
The monk serves as the spiritual leader of the community;
the villager provides food and repairs the wet. In
return, he receives advice and blessing from the monk.
Brahman rituals and spirit worship also prevail and are
practiced by Thai peasants in addition to the Buddhist

philosophy.

Thai Peasant's View of the world

 

From our discussion of social relations of rural
Thailand by looking into the political, economic, kinship,
and religious systems which govern the relationships among
peasants, and between peasants and other kinds of people,
we can see that these relationships tend to form simila-
rities and differences by one way or another; and we can,
by systematic observation, classify and categorize them
into patterns or groups of patterns to show the related
whole of the community. In the same manner, we can draw
out the main principles or structures of the community.

It is, therefore, the writer's intention in the
last part of this chapter to tie together the major
patterns of the Thai peasant's behavior described in the
former parts in order to show patterns of relationship and
the ways a peasant looks at the world or a peasant's world
view-what is "good" and what is "not so good" for him

according to his point of view.

65

Robert Redfield (1961:63-64) makes three
generalizations of peasants' attitudes or world views as
follows:

Among peasants of nineteenth century England,
present day Yucatan, and ancient Boeotia, I seemed to
find a cluster of three closely related attitudes or
values: an intimate and reverent attitude toward the
land; the idea that agricultural work is good and
commerce not so good; and an emphasis on productive
industry as a prime virtue.

From the writer‘s observation of the peasant's life
in the Central Plains of Thailand, these three generali~
zations seem to hold true. Thai peasants also view land
as a major source to earn their living; therefore, land is
very important and dear to them. They also value agri-
cultural worh as "honest"; and, therefore, it is good.
Commerce is not so honest; therefore, it is not so good.
These attitudes certainly bring along the third generali-
zation: the emphasis on productive industry as a prime
virtue, because, one reason among others, it is an "honest"
work. The attitude that commerce is not so good was formed
when the economic situation of the country changed from
subsistent to commercialized economy; it left the Thai
working on the farm and gave the Chinese a chance to come
in as merchants and money-lenders, upon whom they have to
depend heavily. Many Thai, especially those who were in
the Central Plains, lost their land because of indebtedness
and ignorance of trading and credit systems. These

situations increased the unfavorable attitude toward

merchants and Chinese. Yet, at the same time, the Thai

66
cannot stay away from themg they must come to them to sell
their agricultural products, to buy other commodities, to
mill their rice, and to borrow money.

Herbert Phillips (1963atloe) in his study of
relationships between personality and social structure in
a Thai village writes:

There are essentially only five social unitso—the
nuclear family; a loosely defined, laterally oriented
kindred; the nation-state; . . . and to a lesser
extent, the village temple and school-which demand,
and toward which villagers express, some continuing
psychological commitment. Otherwise, there are no
castes, age-grade societies, occupational groups
(other than family), neighborhood groups, or groups
eXpressive of village solidarity (such as councils,
governing boards, etc.) which might impose a sense of
obligation on the villagers, or to whose norms or
functions the villagers might have to conform.

From the kinship system we observed that
relationships among kins are loosely structured. There is
no other formal organization except the nuclear family
with which they are familiar. No rigid rules of inheri-
tance and residence or even strict discipline in child
training contribute to the more flexible patterns of the
Thai peasant's behavior. In this sense the Thai peasant
seems to be left to his own judgment regarding his future-
uhat he wants to do or what he wants to be-depending on
what he thinks he ought to do or ought to be. or course,
there are not many alternatives for him to choose except
to work on the farm or to be hired as a laborer of some
sort. This, however, may be settled with advice from

parents or older relatives whom he respects according to

tradition taught from generation to generation.

67
A case study in Bang Chan by Herbert Phillips
(l963axlo7) shows that there are superordinate and sub-
ordinate patterns of relationships among Thai peasants:

. . . the nuclear family and kindred, is
characterized by an overriding emphasis on super~
ordination and subordination based upon the relative
age of each member. This emphasis upon superiority
and inferiority is perhaps the most important single
factor in the organization of not only the family,
but all Thai social groupings, the maintenance of group
coherence being a function of how well superiors take
care of those below them in the hierarchy and how well
inferiors obey those above. . . . Moreover, although
an individual is expected to be unequivocally obedient
and deferential to his parents and older siblings,
his deference is completely voluntary and given only
as long as he receives benefits from his munificent
superiors, to whom he in turn provides his service or
labor. Should such benefits not be forthcoming, or
should the individual feel dissatisfied, put upon, or
think he can do better elsewhere, he has complete
freedom and sanction to break his affiliation and
either go it alone or change his alliance to someone
with greater resources (employer, high government
official, teacher). The greatest benefit a family can
give its children and which most strongly maintains
the latter's loyalty is of course the promise of land.

Religious organization also emphasizes the
individualistic ways of achievement either for the next
life or the present life in this world. From this belief
system, the peasant views success as one part deriving
from merit accumulated in the past, one part from what he
is doing at the present, and, perhaps, the other part from
a little help of spirits or supernatural beings that he
believes to exist in the world around him and his family.
violent death and mental or physical disorder resulting
from accident or from other causes also is believed to be
the result of past actions in the former lives or harmful

acts to spirits in this life. To live long, healthy, and

68
peaceful with a considerable amount of "wealth" is
considered to be a "happy" life which everyone should
have. Hard work is valued as "good,” but "overawork" is
never considered to be appropriate. The Buddhist philo-
sophy of "middle way" is applied to every course of action.

From the political organization, the Thai peasant
views bureaucrats or government officials as persons who
have power over him; yet they are benevolent to some
degree. They are "chaonai" or "boss," but, at the same
time, they are considered to be like his parents from whom
he can expect help in cases of misfortune or distress.
Therefore, the peasant has duties to obey and be loyal to
the government. The great tradition in the political
system in Thailand has deeply established this type of
image within the peasant's mind long ago, and even today
there is only little change in his view.

To sum up, patterns of social relations in rural
Thailand can be characterized as personal or "particula—
ristic" more than contractual or "universalistic";
temporary (shifting alliance) more than permanent; and
inequality, i.e., superordinate and subordinate rather
than equality. The Thai peasant's world view can be
described as an "ego-focussed image" (Hirschman 1962:14)
which regards self as a central organ for everything. At
the same time, to achieve something significant in life,
it needs perhaps a little help from spirits, supporting

past actions in the former lives in addition to his own

69
effort. The main themes of a "happy" life are: to live
long, to be healthy, to be peaceful, and to have a

considerable amount of "wealth."

CHAPTER IV
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS

In this chapter, an attempt is made to analyze
the problems of the introduction of co-operative structures
into Thailand. This will include the contrasting of images
and plans of different groups of people; the contrasting
patterns of social relations within the existing framework
of cultural settings to the introduced structure of ideas
which requires new forms of behavior; and, finally, the
general problems of change and development which need to

be understood.

Images and Plans

The case of the introduction of land co-operatives
into Thailand as we have discussed may be analyzed in terms
of the differences of images and plans of two different
groups of people. On one side are the intellectual. edu-
cated, and well-acquainted with the outside worldanthe
high level government officials who have broader images of
space, time, value, affection, etc. On the other side are
the peasants with a low level of education and less
acquaintance with the outside world. They have a rela-
tively narrow image of space because of less travelling
and inability to translate information from various channels

70

71
of communication due to little education. Their image of
space or spatial image usually is limited to their own
community. Connections with district. province, and
Bangkok or Thailand may come to their minds only as a
blurred picture. Their image of time or temporal image is
also different from that of the other side. They may
think of seasons, months, and years. The rainy season for
growing rice is probably the most concern to all. They
may picture the cool season in terms of harvesting time
and the dry or hot season in terms of merit-making and
funning time for them. They may think of the eighth lunar
month of the year as the proper time to have their son
ordained to be a Buddhist monk who, according to their
belief, can prevent them from going to hell when they die.
They may talk about the year of "great snake“ or "small
snake" with the probable events which may happen according
to the astrologer's prediction and so on. By and large,
they are less concerned with exactness of hour, minute,
and second. They are likely to talk about going out to
work in the early morning, coming back late in the after-
noon, or something like that. Their image of value is also
different from that of the other group. Although hard work
is praiseworthy, merit accumulation by giving away wealth
to Buddhist monks and to the poor and the unfortunate is
not less valuable. "Poor but good, rich but vicious" can
be heard among the peasants' expressions in their convern

sation when referring to someone with such a character.

72

On the contrary, high level government officials
have different images from those of the peasants. From
various messages or information, their knowledge about
the deterioration of the peasant's economic condition was
real and quite disturbing to them. They saw the workable
method to improve the peasant's economic condition in
countries of EurOpe like Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, and
many others, even India. This method is co-operative.

If co~operatives can be workable among peasants of other
countries, why can't they be workable among the peasants
of Thailand?

with these images, plans followed; some high
government officials were sent to study co—operative credit
societies in India. After they had returned and with some
experimentation, co—operative organizations of various
kinds sprang up in many parts of rural Thailand. The
government plan was to improve the economic situations of
peasants by using co~operative methods as a means to achieve
the end.

The peasants' goal in joining land coaoperative
programs is also to improve their economic condition, but
their plans are somehow different from those of the
government. 0! course, their plans derived from their
images which, in turn, are shaped by various elements of
social organization of rural Thailand. They want to be
co-operative members because, among other things, they

know that co-operative organization is initiated, organized,

73

and supervised by the government, the institution which
appears to them as omnipotent yet benevolent. They also
know that they can trust and expect help from the govern-
ment in many cases. In this case, they plan to get help
from the government by being co-operative members; other
things beyond this seem to be out of their expectations.
Differentiation between the government and peasant's plan
in this instance slows down the process of interactions
within the co-operative organization to some extent. If
the land co-operative program is to succeed, the government
plan and the peasant's plan have to come to be one and the
same. The government must have a plan to change plans,
and this can be done only by changing peasants' images
first. Images can be changed by receiving more messages
or information. Messages or information cannot be given
"raw," because in so doing peasants will interpret or
rather reinterpret them according to their limited scope
of understanding. The translating of information to suit
the peasants' ability of understanding is one of the most
important techniques which change agents must learn to be
able to do. The understanding of social organization and
structure of the community we seek to develop is one of
the important keys to help translate the information more
meaningfully to people of such a community.

The social organization and structure of rural
Thailand as we have discussed emphasize the individualistic

ways of achievement. This is in contrast to the co—operative

74
principles and methods which emphasize group action and
group prosperity. The goal of Thai peasants and of Thai
government is the same, that is, economic improvement.
Religious organization, though, encourages merit-making;
it does not discourage working hard and getting rich.
But the plans are different: the peasants' plan is to
achieve economic improvement individually; the government
plans for them to help each other among themselves for
group prosperity. If the government does not have an
effective plan to change the peasants‘ plan. co~0perative
organizations in Thailand will be as they have been, i.e..
members still do not actively participate in the business
of their organization. One of the "basic" or "model
personalities" of Thai culture is the individualistic
behavior. The lack of formal group action increases this
character. The introduction of land co-Operatives may
cause a change in this aspect but unless and until this
has been changed, the land co-operative programs cannot be

claimed as successful as they should have been.

Particularism vs. Universalism

 

In a "traditional" society like Thailand which
lacks formal group action and group affiliation, patterns
of behavior of individuals incline to be "particularistic”
more than "universalistic," to use Talcott Parsons'
terminologies. The two types of behavior have a different
expectation and obligation which sometime come into conflict

with each other.

75

A particularistic obligation is limited to

persons who stand in some special relationship to one
(for example, the obligation to help a relative or a
close friend or neighbor). Diffuseness of particu-
laristic obligations provides flexibility in the
definition of these roles. That is, the content of
an individual's particularistic obligations (toward a
friend, a brother, a grandchild) depends in part on
the intimacy of the relationship itself. The greater
the affection, the greater the sense of obligation.
(Stouffer and Toby 1952a3432)

On the contrary,

a universalistic obligation is applicable to dealings
with anybody (for example, obligation to fulfill a
contract); . . . Universaliatic obligations are defined
more rigidly, for they regulate behavior toward all
human beings-regard1ess of affective involvement.
(Stouffer and Toby 1952ax482)

Patterns of relationship within a land co-operative
organization which has fixed rules and bylaws usually are
classified as "universalism." Ideally speaking, univer—
salism is not concerned with personal ties such as friend-
ship or kinship. Any individual who comes under the same
categories will receive the same quantity and quality of
services. The strong "particularistic" patterns of
behavior among Thai peasants and to a lesser degree among
Thai bureaucrats create many practical problems within an
organization like co-Operativea. In many cases, they
ignore rules or regulations in favor of personal affection
such as friendship and kinship. Within a land co—operative
organization, the decisions in favor of friends or kin may
involve such matters as granting a loan, accepting to be a
member, extending the period of repayment of loans,
interest, and so on. The area-officer also can utilize

his particularistic obligation for friends or kin in the

76
matters which he has power to decide, supervise, and
control.

Religious and political organizations of Thailand
which emphasize individualistic behavior and "parents and
children" type of relationships also increase the practice
of particularistic expectation and obligation. Within an
organization of all kinds, the problem of particularism
vs. universalism is one of vital importance in a country
which has social organization similar to that of Thailand.
At the time being, it is clear that particularistic
expectation and obligation are stronger than the univer-
salistic ones. How this type of behavior can be changed
in favor of the other side is, of course, quite a compli-
cated problem. It needs the change in the relationships
of various systems of the society to furnish the change in
the behavior of the population. The introduction of land
co-operatives into Thailand can be justified in this
matter as an "innovation" with an attempt to increase the
"habit" of group participation and group affiliation among
the Thai peasants. At least, they had a chance to practice
the universalistic expectation and obligation. The result
at this stage may be very little, because it contradicts
the basic pattern: of relationship which exist within the
social organization of the country; but a gradual change
in other elements of the social system is also expected
and, if this really occurs for some period of time, the

universalistic expectation and obligation may increase

77
themselves to the level that group participation and group
affiliation are the general acceptance among peasants as
well as townsmen. The key role to help increase the rate
of change is, of course, that of change agents who, if they
understand what they are doing, will contribute more to
the changing situation of the community. Land co-Operative
officers, both in the department and in the local levels,
therefore, should realize the importance of their roles as
proper change agents. Iuch of the success or failure of
land co—operative work depends on their skills and under-

standing of the work they are supposed to do.

Problems of Change and Development

Within the framework of social organization of
rural Thailand as we have discussed, there seem to be few
obstacles to change and development. The case study of
Bang Chan may be quoted to support this statement, in
addition to other references which have been cited.

The peeple of Bang Chan continue to rely on their
own traditional values. Particularly important are
those of their pervasive southern Buddhist religion,
which are connected with nationalism and the strong
position of the local Buddhist 525' These values
encourage hard work, thrift, honesty, and benevolence,
which are viewed as paying off in this life as well as
in future lives. The prevailing values do not seem to
be inimical to technological change. The few indivi-
duals who introduce useful technological innovations
are esteemed highly for these services and rewarded
with prestige. The literate or educated person is
also valued as such. . . . (Sharp, Lauriston 1950a:
160

Nevertheless, the "ego-focussed image of change,"

which is one main characteristic of Thai society because

78
of the lack of group affiliation and identification,
somehow obstructs the economic development to some degree.
To quote from Hirschman (1962:16) as follows:

The reasons why the ego~focussed image of change
is inimical to economic deveIOpment are several. In
the first place, success is conceived not as a result
of the systematic application of effort and creative
energy, combined perhaps with a "little bit of luck,"
but as due either to sheer luck or to the outwitting
of others through careful scheming. The immense
popularity of lotteries in the Latin American countries
and the desperate intensity of the political struggle
testify to the strength of the belief in, and desire
for, change through sheer luck or through scheming,
respectively. .

These attempts to reach success through various
shortcuts obviously diminish the flow of energies into
activities that will stimulate economic development.

The introduction of land co-operatives into

Thailand, though their basic principles and method: did
not correspond to the distinctive elements of Thai
culture, i.e., the individualistic ways of achievement,
did not meet any serious resistance because the values of
hard work, thrift, and betterment also prevail in Thai
society, in addition to the desire for quick steps to
success by luck or scheming. However, many problems
regarding change and development must be solved in order
to quicken the rate of change. The small amount of
resistance shown does not mean that the program receives
more acceptance. A reinterpretation of the program
according to traditional values always occurs. In the
case of land co-operatives, farmer-members are inclined to
think that the government or chaonai (boss) wants them to

have a better life and that the government officials

79
decided to have land co-operative organizations which,
according to their image, can help farmers, whom they
regard as their children, improve their economic conditions.
Therefore, farmers join the organization and get assistance
from the government. They join the organization mainly
because they can get help from the government and not
because they appreciate the principles and methods of
co—operatives. The traditional patterns of relationship
between the government and the people of Thailand contribute
to this reinterpretation.

. . . the role of government in the daily life of
the Thai people is striking in its extent. The entire
educational system is controlled by the central
government; even college professors are civil servants.
All utilities are government owned. Almost all tech-
nical assistance from abroad, UN, US, and private,
goes through Thai government agencies. Many private
organizations-for example, one f the press
associations-are government sponsored and financed.
The government has a direct hand in the religious life
of the people. Through its Department of Religious
Affairs, . . . the government is the legal owner of
all temple lands. It frequently gives money for the
construction or maintenance of temples and mosques,
and publishes books on Buddhism for the general public
as well as text-books for monks. With the exception
of a few missionary clinics in northern Thailand, all
rural health and veterinary programs are run by the
central government.

In view of this situation it is not surprising
that the farmer looks to the government for many of
the things he wants. (Phillips, Herbert 1958az39-40)

As for economic improvement, which is the main
thought of the introduction of co—operatives into Thailand,
it is also hard to appraise because of the difficulty in
calculation of government expenditures for administration

and support of the co~operative movement.

80

When co-operativa societies enjoy substantial
government support, their economic performance cannot
be rationally assessed. This applies even if the
amount of direct and indirect government assistance
can be measured, for a most important advantage of a
policy of official support is the knowledge that more
help can be expected from the familiar source, and
that the government will not be in a position to
refuse help in case of need, even if it might wish to
refrain from helping. A policy of large-scale govern-
ment support of co~operative societies in general, or
of certain societies in particular, creates for
government a contingent liability to continue the
support, and to come to the aid of those societies
which run into financial difficulties. This liabi-
lity is particularly onerous when government support
has been directed in favour of particular societies
which have acquired large number of members as-a
result of this support. A large proportion of the
inhabitants of a particular area may become largely
dependent upon a particular society, and the ability
of the government to stand aloof from its difficulties
is impaired.

It is often suggested that co—operative enterprises
should not be judged solely or mainly on the basis of
their achievements as business enterprises. It may be
urged that co—operation is socially and politically
desirable because it encourages producers, for example,
to be self-reliant, thrifty and ready to submerge
individual interests for greater good of a community
of producers. It may also be said that participation
in couoperation is economically desirable because it
acquaints producers with the problems of markets and
of business organization, and so enables them to see
their problems as producers more intelligently in the
larger setting of economic life; it also may widen
the range of alternatives open to them.

There is some validity in these views, and this
may justify government assistance in the form of pro-
viding an advisory service and technical assistance;
thus it could maintain a corps of auditors to serve as
a safeguard against abuse in the early stages of
development. But these considerations are irrelevant
when government assistance assumes such proportions
and forms that it is better described as government
participation. Co-operation then ceases to be a
spontaneous outgrowth of a community of interests or
of a desire for independence. Government assistance,
and the promise and expectation of further assistance,
undermine the self-reliance of the co—operators.
Membership of a society comes to be prized largely
because the society enjoys privileges and support which
can only be shared by joining it. . . . Substantial

61
official support does not generally promote the
qualities which are so highly regarded in the
literature of the co-operetive movement and in its
philosophy. (Bauer and Yamey 1963:225-26)

The co-operetive movement in Thailand is, more or
less, like what has been described above. The degree of
government involvement in the process of the movement is
tremendously complex and very difficult to measure. The
fact that the government originates, organizes, supervises,
and helps the co-operative movement in various ways reduces
the true "co-operative spirit" of its members a great deal.
The hOpe to create the qualities of "self help and mutual
help" among co-operative members is still far from reality.
because the role of the government in the daily life of
Thai people increases the eXpectation of "outside" aid for
farmers. According to the peasants' image, the joining of
land co-operative organisations is not for the principles
of "self help and mutual help” but mainly to gain economic
support from the government and secure for themselves
government protection as co-operative members. If the
area-officer wants them to come to the meeting, they come.
In case they have problems, they also come to seek advice
from area~officers. They regard an area-officer as a
”boss" or "parent" upon whom they can depend in case of
need. To change the pattern of relationship between
co-operative officers and farmer-members is rather diffi-
cult within the setting of the present social organization
which also recognizes this type of relationship in various

fields from the national level down to the community level.

82
If the pattern of relationships cannot be changed, the
acceptance of the basic principles and methods of
co-operatives is more spurious than genuine. In such a
case, it raises the question of the introduction of
co—operative principles and methods into a country which
has social organization and structure like those of
Thailand. Whether or not co-operatives can be an effective
means for economic develoPment is the problem of major
concern.

Social Organization and Social
§iructurex A Final Review

 

 

At the beginning of Chapter III, we discussed the
concepts of social organization and social structure. It
seems to this writer that the introduction of land
co—operative methods and principles concerns and involves
more the social organization of the community than the
social structure, if we agree as to Raymond Pirth's defi-
nition of the two terminologies. Firth said that members
of a society look for a reliable guide for action, and the
structure of the society gave this. And to him, social
structure is "the sets of relations which make for firmness
of expectation, for validation of past experience in terms
of similar experience in future." These sets of relations,
therefore, are products of behavior in the past which
continue through time and remain within a society to
become the guide of action for the new generation. It is
something like an ideal pattern which members of a society

83
aim for. For example, the social structure of rural
Thailand regarding religious affairs can be drawn from
patterns of relationship between monks and villagers.
The accepted value that monks are respectable, knowo
ledgeable, and can be dependable either on religious or
secular matters is the product of relationships between a
layman and a monk in the past. This type of relationship
must have been carried on for quite a long time until it
established value for the validity of its existing and
continuing. Within a "traditional" society, members of
the society usually have rather fixed roles and patterns
of relationships, because it is likely that the social
structure of such a society is firm and easily known to
them. These sets of relations or values were taught from
generation to generation without much change. On the
other hand, role differentiation in traditional society
is not too complex compared to that of the so-called
"affluent society." Therefore, it seems to be that within
a traditional society everybody has his place to stay and
knows his obligations: peasants, monks, village headmen,
and bureaucrats know what they should do and expect from
others.

Where can we observe the social structure of a
society? The answer may be that we can find social
structure within the social organization of the society.
And, according to Firth again, social organization is

"the systematic ordering of social relations by acts of

84
choice and decision." Certainly, social organization must
have the same meaning with the words"social system." It
is a system because it is organized, which implies planning
and ordering of events-the social relations. Social
organization may be big, small, segmented, or cover the
whole society, depending on what kind of interactions we
are looking for; but, whatever it is, it involves the
similar patterns of relationships, that is, systematic or
organized concerning choice and decision, aiming at
selected end or ends. within a society, we can expect to
find social organization in many forms according to their
functional relationships. These are kinship, economic,
political, educational, religious, organization for health,
and so on. And within each particular subsystem we may
find other kinds of social organization like business
corporations or athletic clubs, for example. It is
assumed that the more complex the society, the more
diverse and varied the social organization. 0n the con—
trary, if the society is more or less "static," types and
forms of social organization may not be very diversified.
with technological improvement, many forms of specialization
increase; the result is an increase in types and forms of
social organization. If this trend continues for quite
some time, it will virtually bring a change to the struc-
ture of the society as a whole. It is, nevertheless, the
writer's belief that social organization is easier to

observe than the social structure of a society. This is

85
because social organization is more real in the sense that
we can see and observe directly from social actions or
relations which happen everyday in various matters. But
social structure is rather abstract, and we can know only
by drawing from various elements of interaction which
occur within the framework of each type of social
organization.

The introduction of co-operative principles and
methods into Thailand is tantamount to bringing into the
society new elements of social structure. It is a struc-
ture because it has been abstracted from the real behavior
of groups of people who had tested its validity for eco-
nomic improvement. As mentioned in Chapter I, co-operative
ideas were originated by groups of peeple of the Western
world who, generally, had already absorbed the value of
discussion and group participation. This abstracted
pattern of relationship is the result of common experience
of economic hardship within a particular social condition
at a particular time and of a particular culture. When
this pattern of social relations was brought into a
society which has a rather different structure which
guides social interactions to various ends, it certainly
must have an effect on the existing patterns of relation—
ship of the society. And from our analysis, we have
observed that it did not integrate well with other elements
of the existing structure, because they were basically

contradictory to each other. The result, therefore, is

86

that the co-operatives did not function well according to
their own principles and methods. Instead, in order to
survive, other forces from various elements of existing
social organization made it change its forms of relation-
ship to suit the existing structure until it is hardly
recognizable from its original form. This is natural,
because without the change in other elements of the
existing social organization to furnish the change in the
structure of the society, it is hard to expect the new
element, which has a rather different value, to survive
without changing itself. Taking this viewpoint, therefore,
we can conclude that co~operative associations in Thailand
failed to change patterns of social relations which still
organize along the existing structure of the society, and,
therefore, cannot and will not function well according to
their own principles and methods within the present
elements of social organization, unless there is a major
change in the elements of social organization in the
direction which favors the ideas of "self help and mutual
help" and the methods of "one man, one vote” and so on.

The failure of the co—operative movement in
Thailand, therefore, was the result of bringing into the
society a structure which was foreign to the existing.
values or guides to actions of the people. The real
behavior or social relations of co—operative members
within their co—operative organizations, certainly, could

not reach the goals set by co-operative principles because

87
they were not familiar with these structures, and they
could not find similar structures within their community
to lead them to accept the new value.

Because of the limited nature of the study, this
thesis cannot provide conclusive evidences which may lead
to constructing a new hypothesis or theory. The conclusion
of this thesis, which has been mentioned, is only the
affirmation of what many anthropologists, such as Murdock
and Foster, have concluded from their previous studies.
The contribution of this thesis is, in part, the hope
that it may help in understanding the problems of change
and development in newly developing countries which have
different images. plans, recognized role—statuses, and
other patterns of relationship among various elements of
their culture. In many cases, these countries need models
for development of their own, not just copies from
countries which have different cultural backgrounds and
value systems. The case of the introduction of land
co-Operatives into Thailand was illustrated as an example
of the conflicting of these things. The more the
differences between the introducing "innovation" and the
existing culture, the more confusion and resistance will
result. This thesis is just like a preliminary study of
the problem. A more conclusive type of study by field
research, perhaps, may contribute more to the knowledge

in the field of culture change.

88

Hypotheses for Further Research

 

This final part of the thesis is an attempt to
propose some "working hypotheses" for further research
concerning the co-operative prospect and future in
Thailand. These hypotheses, however, are not necessarily
right or always workable, but at least they can be consi-
dered as methods of selective practice for further
development of co~operatives in Thailand.

First of all, from our critical analysis of the
problem of co-operatives in Thailand, we might come to an
agreement that, at the present stage of development, there
seems to be two alternatives for further development of
co-Operatives in this country. These two alternatives are
based on the following assumptions:

1) Let us assume that Thailand needs co-operative
ideas and methods to act as a channel for changing
the "basic personality" of Thai peasants from
individualistic to group minded behavior in order
to furnish other changes in the social and political
conditions of the country. In this case, we are
not as concerned with the effectiveness of
co—operatives as a means for rapid economic
development, and we regard it only as a secondary
purpose for bringing co-operative methods into this
country. To be an effective channel for changing
the "basic personality" of the Thai peasant from

individualistic mind to group mind, which is the

89

major concept of co-operatives, we need the

following prerequisites:

a)

b)

c)

Adequate trained personnel who have
adequate knowledge of "culture" and
"culture change," methods of information
flow, and personality psychology, in
addition to principles and methods of
co—operatives.

In order to furnish prerequisite (a). the
co-operative movement in Thailand must
have qualified personnel in the fields of
cultural anthropology, sociology, and
personality psychology, in addition to
those who are qualified in the fields of
co-operation and economics. These per-

sonnel will work together organizing an

'elaborate training program to produce

adequate qualified change agents to work

in the field with farmers.

In addition to establishing a training
program as mentioned in (b), the personnel
above have to carry on further research
projects in the field of culture and per-
sonality in order to develop more effective
ways of dealing with problems of change

and development of this field in general.

This research project will involve a

9O

considerable amount of money, and the

result may not be very constructive at

the present stage of our knowledge in
these fields.

d) Information flow seems to be the most
important key to success in this program.
Therefore, concepts and techniques of
information flow must be explored in
detail, and it must be remembered that in
practice it is much harder than getting
the concept or idea from the training
program.

It seems to be that the assumption of
having co—operatives act as a channel for changing
"basic personality" of peasants is rather an
uphill task in practice. It will involve an
expansion of spending resources either in man~
power or in finance and the final result is still
doubtful. In addition, within the present stage
of development, Thailand still lacks adequate
qualified personnel in the field of cultural
anthropology, sociology, and personality psychology
to furnish an effective training program for this
purpose. Therefore, let us turn to the more
logical assumption of the problem.

The assumption that Thailand needs rapid economic

development and wants to reconsider whether a

91

co-operative model is an effective means for rapid

economic develOpment or not. If it is, what kinds

of improvement do we need; if it is not, what

model or models for development should be applicable

to Thailand? we will now consider these problems

in detail.

According to what we have discussed in the earlier
parts of this thesis, we have some evidences that the role
of land co-operatives as an effective means for economic
development is rather ambiguous. On the contrary, the
government has to provide a considerable preportion of the
national budget to support the program in various ways.

It is the writer's opinion that without financial and
technical support from the government, only a few co—operative
societies will survive in Thailand in spite of the fact
that the program was started in 1916. The contribution
which the co~0perative movement as a whole has made toward
economic development of the country in general seems to be
very limited-concentrating on only a small percentage of
farmers in some areas and only on some aspects of economic
activity. The most predominant one is credit facilities,
which generally are not considered to be adequate even for
expanding a farmer's production in many cases.

From the very limited contribution the co-operative
movement in Thailand is making toward economic development
of the country as a whole, the writer is inclined to

believe that the co—operative movement or the co-operative

92
model is not the effective means for rapid economic
development which is needed in Thailand at the present
time. The further expansion of the organization which
controls or supervises the co—operative movement is,
according to the writer's view, not going to contribute
more toward economic development in the same proportion
as expenditure which is going to be involved in the
program. No doubt, Thailand needs models for economic
development which suit its cultural background and social
conditions at the present time. The major characteristics
of any model for economic development in Thailand will be
composed of the following ingredients:

1) Ingredient of individualistic orientation. It
may be individually owned property, individual
responsibility, individual reward or achievement,
individual recognition, and so on.

2) Ingredient of "patronage system." The role of the
government as leaders, father, and "boss" is
essential in bringing change and development to
Thai peasants, at least within the foreseeable
future.

3) Methods of information flow are also the key to
increase the rate of change. The greater the
effectiveness of the method of information flow,
the higher the rate of change will be.

For example, one model to facilitate credit for

farmers in rural areas can be built up in the process of

93
"agricultural banks" by the government setting up units of
the banking system in various districts to serve as a
channel to facilitate credit to farmers in rural areas.
These agricultural banks will provide credit in short,
medium, and long terms to farmers with some income and
initiativeness who need further capital to eXpand and
improve their production. Of course, this type of banking
system cannot help poor farmers without securities but can
give loans to only those who can provide property guarantee.
But we must not forget that these farmers are the real
potential power for economic develpment of the country as
a whole because of their ability to compete and change
their situation according to the new social condition
which demands new kinds of social relations. In every
society, there seems to be groups of peeple who. probably
because of their interest or keen observation. expose them-
selves to various kinds of information and get benefits
from it. These people usually are small in number com-
pared to the population as a whole, but they are very
important considered from the economic development
viewpoint, These people normally can get information
which the vast majority cf people ignore or overlook. In
every occupation. there are those who seem to have a
greater advantage than others because of their alertness
to grasp and benefit from new techniques and knowledge.

This is also true in the case of farm people.

94

Techniques of information flow cannot be discussed
here in detail, but they will involve these questioner
What kind of information do we need to let flow? How much
or how little information should be carried out at a time,
and at what frequency should the information be loaded?

To what channel or channels should the information be
flown?

The effectiveness of the techniques of information
flow will show by the interest of the receivers of the
information. This is to say that the receivers understand
the meaning of it and know that it is useful to them, to
their occupation, and to their welfare in general.

Though co-Operative model is not suitable for
rapid economic development, it does not mean that
co-operatives are worthless in improving the economic
conditions of some groups of peeple. In fact, co—operative
organization is an ideal type of economic Operation and
should be encouraged if it shows propensity to progress.
But to assume that co~operatives will work in every social
condition is, as we have seen, tantamount to ignorance of

the importance of the influence of culture.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Articles

 

ANUMAN RAJADHON, PHYA
1961 Life and Ritual in Old Siam. HRAF Press,
New Haven. *'

BAUER, paras T. and YAMEY, BASIL s.
1963 The Economics of Underdevaloped Countries.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

BLANCHARD, wENDaLL
1958 {Epsiland, Its PeOple. Its Societ and Its
Culture. Human Relations free Files, inc”
New Haven.

BOULDING, KERNETH 5.
1961 The Image. The University of Michigan
Brass, Ann Arbor.

 

BENEDICT, RUTH
1943 Thai Culture and Behavior. Unpublished
wartime study. “

 

DEYOUNG, JOHN E.

 

1955 _yillage Life in Modern Thailand. University
of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
EGGAN, FRED
1954 "Social Anthropology and the Method of
Controlled Comparison." _§merican

 

‘gnthropologist Vol. 56.

smears. JOHN F.
1950 "Thailand-A Loosely Structured Social
System." American Anthropologist Vol. 52.

FIRTH, RAYMOND

 

1959 Human Types: An Introduction of Social
‘Kfithrogdlogy. Theiflmerican“£ibrary of“
Wor L terature, Inc., New York.

1956 Elements of Social Organization. Watts

 

and Co., London.

95

96

FOSTER, GEORGE M.
1962 Traditional Culture: And the Impact of
TQchnological Change. Harper and Row,
New York.'_

HAGEN, EVERETT E.
1962 On the Theory OQISocial Change: How
Economic Growth Begins. The Dorsey Press,
Homewood, III.

HIRSCHMAN, ALBERT o.
1962 The Strategy of Economic Develgpment.
Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

HORRIGAN, FREDERICK J.
1962 "Provincial Government and Administration."
‘groblems of Politics and Administration in
Thailand. Edited by Joseph L. Sitton,
lndIana University, Bloomington.

INGRAM, JAMES c.
1955 Economic Change in Tgailand Since 1850.
Stanford"UnIVersity Press, §tanford.

ISHINO, IwAO
1962 Information Flow and Culture Change. Paper
presented to the American Anthropology
Association meeting in Chicago, November 15th.

KING, JOHN x.

 

1954 "Thailand's Bureaucracy and the Threat of
Communist Subversion." Far Eastern Survey,
November.

LEVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE
1953 "Social Structure." Anthropology Today.
Edited by A. L. Kroeber.

MALINOWSKI, BRONISLAW
1961 The Dynamics of Culture Change:_‘An Inquiry
‘Into Race ggIations in Africa. The Yale
University Press, Sew Haven.

 

MURDOCK, GEORGE P.
1960 "How Culture Changes." Man,_Culture, and
Society. Edited by Barry L. Shapiro,
Cx or University Press, New York.

 

PHILLIPS, HERBERT p.

 

1958 "The Election Ritual in a Thai village."
The_Journal of Social Issues Vol. XIV, No. 4.
1963 WRelationships between Personality and

Social Structure in a Siamese Peasant
Community." Human Organization Vol. 22, No. 2.

97

REDFIELD, ROBERT
1961 Peasant Sogiety and Culture. The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.

 

SHARP, LAURISTON
1950 "Peasants and Politics in Thailand." Far
Eastern Survey, September 13th.

 

SITTON, GORDON R., CHUCHART, CHAIYONG, and
TOSUNTHORN, SUPHAN
1962 Farm Success and Project Administration
Co—operative Land'Settlement Project._—
Kasetsart UniverSity, Bangkok.

 

STEwARD, JULIAN H.
1963 Theory of Culture Change. University of
illinois Press, urbane.

 

STOUFFER, SANMUEL A. and TOBY, JACKSON
1959 "Role Conflict and Personality." Toward a
General Theory of Action. Edited By Talcott
Parsons and Edward Shils, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.

 

WHITE, LESLIE A.
1949 The Science of Culture. Farrar Straus
andeudafiy.

WILSON, DAVID A.
1962 Politics in Thailand. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca.

ZInMERMAN, CARLB C.

1931 . Siam: Rural Economic Survey. The Bangkok
‘ Time PressI‘Eangkok.

 

Reports and Documents

 

MINISTRY OF CO-OPERATIVES
1961 Co-operation in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand.

 

DEPARTMENT OF LAND CO—OPERATIVSS
_The By-Law of Land Settlement Co-operative
Society. fifiangkok, Thailand.

 

 

" ‘5'.

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

llllllllllll
931

312

03956482