Benedict R. O'G. Anderson. Exploration and Irony in Studies of Siam over Forty Years. Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 2014, 166 p.

Abstract

Exploration and Irony in of Siam over Forty YearsProfessor Crocodile Who Blocks CanalHelpfully compiled and arranged both chronologically and thematically in one volume, various essays, articles, and reviews that make up this book reflect wonderful skepticism, relentless questioning, daring iconoclasm, contrarian perspective, critical intelligence, penetrating insight, mordant humor, wide-ranging and in-depth knowledge of country, its people and beyond, and above all, tender and deeply-felt love and care which Professor Ben Anderson, worldrenowned doyen of nationalism and Southeast Asian at Cornell University, has consistently brought to study of Siam/Thailand over past 40 years. Like Jorakhe khwang khlong or a crocodile who blocks canal (and thereby obstructing smooth flow of canal traffic) in a traditional Thai saying, this body of his work was indeed widely recognized as a paradigmatic watershed in Thai studies that has altered and shifted hitherto dominant, conservative, elitist, state-centric, royal-nationalist mainstream to an inundation of revisionist counter-streams and sub-streams since 1990s.I first encountered Khruu Ben's (or Teacher Ben as he likes to be called) path-breaking, seminal literature review essay of Thai State: The State of Thai Studies (first published in 1978, Chapter 1 of this volume) shortly after I leftthe communist-led maquis in northeastern Thailand in early 1980s when I was asked to translate it into Thai by editor of Pajarayasan Magazine, an independent intellectual periodical under patronage of Sulak Sivaraksa, a well-known conservative Buddhist intellectual who happened to be one of two commentators of this essay when it was first publicly presented. Still fresh from jungle and blinkered by rigid Maoist ideological frame of reference, I could hardly fathom groundshaking impact of its message, which attempted to overhaul in toto axiomatic foundations of Thai studies as practiced up till then by both Western scholars and their Thai official nationalist counterparts. Argued defiantly, systematically, solidly, and meticulously, review essay contains Ben's central revisionist vision of modern Thai history that has proven to be most thought-provoking, stood test of time, and rendered it an indispensable item in any serious reading list on modern Thai politics in past four decades. This central vision was subsequently expanded upon and developed further in other writings of his also included in this volume. Let me lay it out point-by-point here as briefly and succinctly as I can for readers' benefit.1. In order to properly understand essence and trajectory of modern Thai history, it is imperative to conceptually separate Thai nation from its monarchy. Not only are two non-identical and not only do they have different interests, but in many cases their interests also clash (p. 21).2. The state built by Jakri dynasty during reigns of King Rama V to VII (A.D. 1868- 1935) was by no means a modern nation-state but an absolutist dynastic auto-colonial one that carried out modernization in some aspects to a certain degree but delayed and/or obstructed it in others, particularly those that were related to vested interest and position of monarchy itself. Hence, rise of Siamese absolutist state did not amount to successful building of a modern nation-state. On contrary, it hindered latter alongside coming of Siamese nationhood (pp. 28, 34).3. In contrast with erstwhile European absolutist states, Siamese one was too short-lived (lasting about 40 years from 1892-1932), and reach and effects of its power were too shallow. Since it had not transformed Thai society and economy widely and profoundly enough, political reaction that finally came about in form of a constitutionalist putsch, staged by self-styled People's Party of junior military officers and government officials, was merely the partial, mystified revolt . …