3. Smooth Interpersonal Relationship Orientation

Taken from:
Suntaree Komin, Psychology of the Thai People: Values and Behavioral Patterns, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), Bangkok 1991, ISBN 974-85744-8-2, pp. 143-161. References and tables are available in the original. Typing errors edited. Underlines by author.

Unlike the Americans whose top values tend to focus on Self-actualization, ambition and achievement, down-playing such values of Self-control and Polite, the Thai, after pricing “ego” and “grateful relationship”, place high value on a group of ‘other-directed’ social interaction values—all added up to project a picture of smooth, kind, pleasant, no-conflict interpersonal interactions, in short, the “surface harmony” as observed by many. This orientation is characterized by the preference for a non-assertive, polite and humble type of personality (expressed through appearance, manners, and interpersonal approach), as well as the preference for a relaxed, and pleasant interaction which accounts for the “smiling” and “friendly” aspects of the Thai people, fascinating most foreign visitors.
This group of ‘other-directed’ social interaction values, which the present researcher would like to call “social smoothing” values, is another most interesting finding of the Thai Value Survey. They are projected by the following values, listed according to their rank order of importance:

(1) Caring and considerate
(2) Kind and helpful
(3) Responsive to situations and opportunities
(4) Self-controlled, tolerant-restrained
(5) Polite and humble
(6) Calm and cautious
(7) Contended
(8) Social relation

The findings of this group are significant for three reasons:

1. Five out of the above eight interpersonal relationship related values emerged on the Thai value list, but not on the American value list. They are: Caring and considerate; Responsive to situations and opportunities; Calm and cautious; Contended; and, Social relation. The other three are more or less comparable with the American corresponding values, with slightly different shades of meanings.

2. Not only that some of the “social smoothing” values are not found in the American value list, they have consistently secured their significantly high rankings in the Thai value system. The first two values—Caring and considerate, and Responsive to situations and opportunities—have never slipped from the high value group. And the whole group of “social smoothing” values have consistently shown to have very few variations across groups over time. Almost no significant differences were found when considering different backgrounds, such as sex, different educational levels, different occupations, poor and rich, politically conservative and radical, and, religious and non-religious. This finding is exciting, because it suggests that, more than anything else, the consistency across groups and over time, is due to the uniform perception from the Thai of all walks of life, and that these values are deeply internalized and are actively functional in the everyday life of the Thai. And the Thai are intuitively keen in observing and practicing these subtle social rules.

3. The finding is also significant, in that it helps to shed some light on the often-cited Buddhist influence in shaping certain Thai characteristic traits, such as Jai yen (calm, easy-going, not easily excited), May pen rai (contented, nothing really matters or Arai koa dai), and Arom dii (ever-smiling, even-tempered, not extreme emotional expression). Such characteristics have often been explained by the Buddhist teaching of the “Middle Path”, “Detachment”, “Equanimity”, and extinction of desires and emotions. However, the three values which are related to such characteristics were not found to be related significantly with religion. These three values are Calm and cautious, Contented, and Self-controlled, tolerant-restrained. And the correlations with the proven religious value indicator—Religious and spiritual life—are, +.00, +.09, and +.05, respectively, which are very low. Neither are they significantly different in the 1981 data, when Southern Thai-Buddhists and Thai-Muslims were significantly differentiated by their different degree of tenaciousness to the religious value of Religious and spiritual life, they were not different in these three often cited Buddhist influenced values. In fact, there were no significant differences found for the whole group of “social smoothing” values between the Thai-Buddhists and Thai-Muslims. This suggests a disproof of the over-claimed religious influence of Buddhism over these characteristic traits of the Thai. Evidently, these over-claimed religious related values are thus more of the socio-cultural traits that have no direct relationship with Buddhist religion. They, together with other “social smoothing” values, are elements of Thai culture, that through socialization, have been internalized by all Thai—be it Buddhists, Thai-Muslims, or Thai-Christians. The present finding is also substantiated by an early study of the effects of Buddhism over the personality traits, particularly on the dimension of “maintaining equanimity or staying uninvolved”, which found that there was absolutely no significant difference found between Buddhist and Christian tenth grade (M.S. 3) students in Chiangmai (Sensenig, 1973).

One has to bear in mind that most of the religious influence claims have been based mainly on speculations and on a serious of cross-references, rather than on concrete proof of relationships. The findings should provide some thought for any future reference of Buddhist influence. It is true that Buddhist doctrines provide great appeal because of their simplicity and face validity. But to cite them to support any observed behaviour should be done with great caution, list it can be very misleading.

Since the value of smooth interpersonal relationship is a dominant value orientation in the cognition of the Thai, a number of related issues or topics will be analyzed as follows.

Thai Cognition of Social Interaction

What is the cognition of social interaction of the Thai? What constitute the core and essence of this group of “social smoothing” values? As a group, each of these values reflects certain aspect of interpersonal interaction traits or goal. Among them, the core value rests on the value of Caring and considerate, the highest and thus psychologically more significant value, as it indicates the deepest reason for the surface smooth and pleasant interpersonal interactions. This value which does not appear on the American value list, is obviously a Thai cultural-laden value, and an important means to maintain or preserve one another’s feelings and ego (Raksa nam jai kan). This value shares the closest meaning with the concept of Kreng jai discussed earlier in relation to “ego” preserving. While Kreng jai is a base concept, Raksa nam jai kan or Caring and considerate slightly emphasizes more the interactional aspect of the concept.

The cognition of the Thai social interaction projected by the group of “social smoothing” values, is as follows: that at all time, one shall be careful not to hurt another person’s feelings (“ego”), for example, not to criticize as well as not to reject another person’s kindness or good intention, even though it is contrary to one’s own feelings. The fact that one disagrees with another person’s opinion or is not convenient or comfortable to accept another person’s kindness, etc., does not entitle him/her to hurt the other’s “ego”. On the contrary, by sacrificing a bit of one’s inconvenience or one’s urge to disagree, one would not hurt the other person, and the resulting atmosphere is much more pleasant, soothing to both parties as well as to everybody. There is nothing to lose, because there are chances where he/she can voice his different opinions at other time and space, and still save one another’s “ego” by avoiding face-to-face confrontation.

Therefore, being flexible (Responsive to situations and opportunities) in not doggedly forcing and asserting one’s own desire at times of potential differences and conflicts, is very important. Besides, showing of Nam jai (literally meaning ‘water from the heart’, kindness, considerateness, and sincere concerns) in being Kind and helpful, is something to give out without any expectation in return. The Thai is not calculative in the showing of kindness and help. This is why it has been overtly observed by foreigners that Thai interactions are usually smooth, pleasant, and “often accompanied by genuine kindness and an interest in the well-being of the other” (Mulder, 1978, p. 66).

There are countless daily examples to illustrate this Thai social interaction behavioural pattern. Furthermore, this pattern retains even at unusual events, like coup d’etat. The coup d’etat in Thailand, as often as we have, is not like anywhere else. As expressed by the Japanese ambassador to Thailand in a recent television interview, they are “friendly changing of government leaders” or Palace guards, hardly bloody. The deposed Prime Ministers were often escorted out of the country to live for a period of time, before they were allowed back. Take the latest case as example, where else in the world would one find that the leader of the coup d’etat, not only allowed the ousted Prime Minister to leave the country, but saw him off at his residence with and envelope containing US52,000, saying “I brought this for you. It’s just a little bit that I can’t get hold of”. Such an act of Nam jai has impressed the ousted Prime Minister immensely (Lak Thai, No. 498, 1991, p. 9).

Successful personality Besides showing positive gestures of sincere kindness and concerns, in order for interaction to go smoothly, it also requires on the part of interactors, such characteristic traits of having certain degree of Self control, be Tolerant and restrained, and to be Polite and humble. This polite and humble “front” or polite and humble approach is very important for the Thai, since it soothes one another’s “ego”. This explains why most studies of Thai personality show very low percentage (less than 1%) of aggressive personality (i.e., Kumbanaruk, 1990). It naturally follows that showing of one’s aggressiveness and superiority, even overt self-confidence, more often than not, elicits only negative perception of Man sai (feeling indicating a mixture of jealousy and disgust) from the interactor and audience in general. Frequently, this term is used to comment about that person behind his back. Time and again has proved that a successful personality in the Thai cultural context, is often one of competence and substance, but most important of all, has to have a soft and polite appearance, presentation and approach—as best illustrated in the Thai phrase of Orn nork khaeng nai which literally means “soft outward, firm or had inside”. This characteristic is even more important in the government sector than in the private sector.

A number of Western education highly competent and superiority projected personalities, known for their straightforwardness (Khit yangai kop hood yang nun, meaning ‘Speak what one thinks’) and integrity in standing-up for what they believe, cannot stay long in the organization, after receiving only indirect, slow and non-cooperative performances for a while. Even if they stay, the future of attaining the higher position will be blocked. Such is the case of Mr. Amaret Sila-orn, the highly capable former Vice President of the Siam Cement Company of Thailand, who resigned from his deputy position after being blocked from becoming the chairmanship three times—through the obvious third time extension of the should-be-retired President. Basically, it was because of his straightforward, achievement oriented, no-nonsense personality, which is not well-liked by his conservative higher-ups as well as a number of his subordinates (Matichon, April 9, 1990). Another case is the well-known public figure Dr. Somkiat Ornvimon—the Western educated Television anchorman and former AFS student—who started the creative revolution of the Thai television a few years ago, has learned it the hard way that he was too assertive, thus too aggressive, for the Thai taste. Although well admired by the public for his creativity, he has evidently created too many enemies for his own good, which has forced him to move from one TV station to another. He is now with the last TV station available, doing a series of much limited and subdued programs. These are examples of the more publicised well-known figures, adequate for illustrating the point.

Even among the academic circle, which is supposed to be more liberal, again, there are many cases of highly competent, no-nonsense, more outspoken, more principled and achievement oriented intellectuals, who are often blocked from higher-up positions. Besides, highly achievement oriented intellectuals, are by nature much less power and politics oriented. Therefore, coupled with office politics, it is not surprising to find some highly political academic departments, run by someone who are much less qualified than their subordinates. Although office politics is totally another matter, evidently, when other things being equal, the non-assertive, polite-humble personality and the soft interpersonal approach is the decisive factor. Thus, the “ego” and the politic and humble interactions cannot be taken for granted for Thai interactions.

For interactions to be smoothly processed and void of overt conflicts, such characteristics of being Calm and cautious—Jai yen, the ability to calm oneself as well as calmly control situations by taking a slow, calm and careful step—is very important. This value is activated when one faces problems or conflicts. And all these “social smoothing” values purport to maintain a good Social relation, which is another value not found in the American value list. Although it might be implied in the American value of Social recognition, these two values are separated on the Thai value list as they have proved to be of different shades of meanings as discussed in the earlier section.

These “social smoothing” values relatedly project a picture of smooth, kind, pleasant, no conflict, interpersonal interactions—in short, the surface harmony as observed by many. They are the necessary means to function successfully in Thai society. They are the essential “front” or the “presentations” (according to Ervin Goffman’s conception), or the “social cosmetics” (termed by Herbert Phillips) of Thai interactions. And the Thai are intuitively keen in observing and practicing these subtle implicit social rules.

It is important to note that behind the smooth, pleasant, and polite interaction, is the respect for one another’s ego, dignity, and psychological integrity—the core concern of not to hurt others. It is the balance between the positive “ego” self on the one hand, and on the other hand, keeping the smooth and pleasant interactions as the means to preserve one another’s ego as well as an end in itself, from which the Thai derive pleasure and genuine enjoyment. It is this element of the positive value of the “ego” self that lies beneath the relaxed personality and the relaxed and Sanuk (fun) interactions, enjoying certain measure of independence by being one’s own master without disturbing others, ever-adjusting one’s equilibrium to environments, while strictly observing all those interpersonal interactional social rules. This is the core cognition behind the behavioural pattern of the everyday life social interactions of the Thai. And it is this value of smooth and pleasant interpersonal interaction that gives Thai people the image of being very “friendly” people, and Thailand, the “Land of smile”.

Social Interaction and the Suppression of Emotion Expression

The issue of restraint from expressing negative emotions is vital for a society that highly values smooth interpersonal interactions. In fact, the degree of emotional expression can clearly differentiate between the more direct, forceful, and self-assertive American interactional pattern, and the indirect, non-assertive, less-opinionated but pleasant interactional behavioural pattern of the Thai. Only the positive feelings and emotions are expressed. And together with the core value of Caring and considerate (Raksa nam jai kan), the result I the friendly, pleasant interpersonal interaction. It is not surprising that Gardiner’s research found 5 terms most descriptive of Thai nationality “friendly, peace-loving, polite, kind, and gentle” (Gardiner, 1968, p. 221). However, this apparent smiling façade should not mean that the Thai are emotionless or void of negative emotion. In fact, they can get very personal and emotional as have already been discussed in the first value cluster of “ego” orientation. This is why when probed beneath this veneer of serenity, Gardiner discovered that the anti-social feelings and aggressive emotions are felt, but they are considered “improper and unwise to accentuate and exaggerate such anti-social emotions and bring them into direct and open expression” (p. 221). Such response is understandable, because otherwise the smooth interpersonal interaction will be disrupted.

Where does this restraining of emotions come from? From Buddhist teaching? Many have turned to Buddhism to find the foundations for the Thai tranquillity and restraint which related to such concepts as Jai yen (calm and cautious, or playing cool, not easily exited) and Choej (emotionless, indifferent, or non-active response, or non-involvement). For example, Ayal (Ayal, 1963) stated that the Buddhist value of Uppekkha (equanimity) find its expression in daily behaviour through its secular equivalent concept of Choej to mean non-involvement and keeping cool under all circumstances, which explains the extreme tolerance the Thai show for deviant behaviour, non-conformity, failure to live up to expectations, and for practicing of a different religion, etc. The meaning of Choej as used by Ayal here is rather selective in meaning ‘true non-involvement’. In fact, Choej indicates the broad category of behaviour of ‘no response’, the meaning includes ‘not wanting to give any response’ as means to avoid making negative answer for making any clear position, which could be quit different from ‘true non-involvement’. Besides, the related characteristics of Calm, Contented, Self-retrained, and the Polite-humble self-effacement values have been proved by empirical data from the Value Study and from other (i.e. Sensenig, 1975) to have no direct relationship to Buddhism per se. Thai-Buddhists, Thai-Muslims, and Thai-Christians, are not different in the socialization of these values.
What are the reasons for the suppression of negative emotions if not related to Buddhism influence? This brings out a theoretical issue questioning two existing interpretations  of Thai social behaviours. That is, whether these emotion related interpersonal interaction values, or the keeping of the smooth, pleasant, cool, polite and humble “front” values, are in fact motivated by ‘fear’ as suggested by Mulder’s power-oriented theoretical frame and Weerayudth Wichiarachote’s insecure affiliative personality conceptual frame. The results of the Thai Value Study revealed that the majority of the Thai (from 52% to 70%) when experienced dislike or dissatisfaction towards someone, would usually not express their feelings (Table 7.2 and 7.3). But, the reason for not showing emotions was in fact due to the perception of the Thai with regards to “a person of strength”. The responses for this perception is very high, ranging from 53% to 90%, averaging around 68.15%, with 14.9% disagreed and 17% indicated it depended. As can be expected, it was found higher for the rural group than the urban, as the rural people are more likely to keep certain cultural traits and less likely to change. However, the difference is not great. The consistency of this view is shown by the very similar patterns of responses for the two national samples.

It is quite clear that the restraint from emotions in general and negative emotions in particular, is not out of ‘fear’ as hypothesized by Mulder and Weerayuth. Since these two theoretical conceptual frames proposed to explain Thai social system from the perspective of social interpersonal relationships with the core notion of ‘fear’ underlying them, it is appropriate and important for the present research to respond to the two theoretical propositions here.

A. Thai social relation and Weerayudh’s “Affiliative personality”

Weerayudh Wichiarachote (1973) perceives Thai society as an “Affiliative society” (opposite to the Western “Achieving society”), in which people are highly dependent and find their security in dependence and patronage of the superiors. Thus, he postulates that the basic motivational drive of individual behaviour is to establish networks of personal relationships. His social relationship frame is mainly focused upon the Phooyai-phoonoi (superior-inferior) relationship, which in turn is narrowly based on the concept of Kreng jai as meaning “respectful fear”, emphasizing the fearful aspect. He therefore hypothesizes that the Thai, as representatives of his “Affiliative society”, are characterized by high need for affiliation, approval and acceptance, which generally result in such personality traits of “low self-confidence”, “low self-esteem”, highly dependent and emotionally insecure, etc. A number of these characteristics derived from the “affiliative” personality frame, were identified and tested (Table 7.4), mostly by graduate students and conducted on school children. Findings showed that: (I) urban children were more self-confident, emotionally stable, and brighter than rural children who were more insecure and guilty prone (Moncharee Bunnag, 1971); (2) affiliative personality (equated with Kreng jai) wa elated with lower creativity; and (3) no significant difference between parental background and affiliative personality scores (Kritsadavut, 1971).

This too simplified conceptual frame is culturally bias, and the basic concept of Kreng jai is narrowly, if not incorrectly, perceived. When the concept of Kreng jai was narrowly interpreted as ‘fear’ (already discussed under the heading of “ego” orientation), the measuring instrument would be measuring the ‘fearful’ dimension, and the results of the above three studies are understandable and predictable. Rural children are less assertive and therefore proved ‘insecure’; or the fearful and suppressed children are likely to be also low on creativity. This is so because it is equated with the dimension of assertive characteristics following the Western personality scale, of which non-assertiveness is associated with negative personality traits of introversion and thus psychologically insecure.

Limitations with regards to Weerayudh’s conceptual frame have to do with the cultural bias of the theoretical frame, the resulting measurement scale, and the narrow conception of Thai cultural value traits of Kreng jai, not to mention the generalizability from the sampled school children even if the conceptual frame is valid.

B. Thai social relation and Mulder’s “Moral-amoral power” frame

Mulder’s “Moral-amoral power” conceptual frame suffers some degree of validity. Since his model is based on the concept of Kreng jai and Kreng klua on the continuum of “fearfulness”, as narrowly used by Weerayudh, he therefore came up with the power based interaction conceptual frame which leads him to analyze that, behind the smooth, polite and smiling presentations, lies the insecurity and the feeling of fearfulness and distrust (a concept which was proposed by Piker in 1964 and was disproved by Sensenig in 1973). To further support his theoretical frame, he cited as ‘consequences’ of his ‘third person power interaction’, such research reports and figures, to show that the Thai as being psychologically very insecure, finding their outlet in violence, prostitutions, drug addiction, and with the highest murder rate in the world, and so on (Mulder, 1978, p. 74). He cited report from Udomsilp Srisaengnam (1977) who reported that, from a survey of 130,000 young Thais, “23% of the Thai population between 25-30 years succumb to some form of neurosis”, and evidence from Chira Sitaswan et al. (1976) that “50%” of their sample of the married population in Bangkok Noi, “were not in good mental health”. To these, he concluded that “although these figures appear high when compared to the 10% rate of mental disturbance for the population of developing countries as a whole, as estimated by the W.H.O., it is not unlikely that Thai society culturally generates psychological tensions out if itself by placing its individuals behind and identifying them with their presentation, while suppressing their natural needs for self-expression and communication” (Mulder, 1978, p. 74). Unfortunately, these examples he cited to validate his model, have been found to be invalid as follows:

(1) With regard to the report of 25% of a survey of 130,000Thai youth suffer from neurosis, that Mulder cited from Asia Week magazine, 1977, it was found to be a misquote of the Asia Week, when the present researcher traced to Srisaengnam himself. In fact, there was no such survey, and Srisaengnam was only referring to Chira Sitasuwan’s research finding, which was a totally different matter.

(2) With regard to the report that 50% of the sample of married population in Bangkok Noi “were not in good mental health”, it was quoted and misinterpreted out of context. The research was to investigate the effects of birth control on married couples. It was a quasi-experimental study of 400 selected samples from the total population of around 130,000 of Bangkok Noi District in Bangkok Metropolitan, breaking down into 200 birth control users and 200 non-users, with male-female equally distributed. And the research reported that “50% of the sample were psychiatrically ill”, and “25% of the sample suffered from anxiety neurosis”. A closer inspection of the study revealed some question with regard to the research method and mental illness indicators used in the study.

(a) With regard to methodology, the physical and mental illness of the sample was determined by an interview with a psychiatrist from 15 minutes to 2 hours at most. With no detailed measurement criteria given, the research method seems to be rather shaky.

(b) With regard to mental sickness indicators or index that the sample were to be categorized as psychiatrically sick, it was found that many normal behaviours were included as psychiatrically sick symptoms, such as having less than average IQ, having headach, taking beers and alcohol, feeling depressed when one’s spouse or children passed away, having high blood pressure, asthma, or skin disease, etc. (Table 7.5). having seen this, one has to be more careful about making generalization of mental health about Thai people in general.

Therefore, viewing Thai social interpersonal interaction from the perspective of both Mulder’s and Weerayudh’s conceptual propositions with the base of power and fear, might be quite limited, if not incorrect. Although the present researcher agrees with Mulder in the recognition of the existence and importance of the pleasantness of interactions or presentations as a Thai reality, the underlying reasons for such presentations are different.

Social Relations and the Patronage or Entourage System

While networks of personal relationships do exist and function as a result of accumulated good social relations, and through which jobs often get accomplished, ti which extent such connections are in fact explained by the “patronage” or “entourage” system which involved a tightly bonded patron-client group. Many writers have tried to use this concept of patronage or “entourage” which was introduced by Lucien Hands (1975), to understand Thai social structure as a whole, to explain the observed phenomena of personal connections, cliques, power group, or Phak phuak (or ‘partisan entourage’ syndrome called by Klausner, 1981), as a factor in achieving and maintaining bureaucratic or political power, or even connections of bribery and corruptions.

Does such entourage system exist in the cognition and behavioural pattern of ordinary Thai people in general, or does it exist only in certain circles? The survey data indicated that the practice of the “patronage” or “entourage system is not the norm. Table 7.6 and 7.7 which show the percentage of agreement to the “patronage” system of favouring one’s own Phak phuak more than other people, reveals that the majority (54% and 52.3%) of the national sample disagreed that “one should love and favour one’s Phak phuak more than other people”. Only 19.2% agreed to favour Phak phuak, with 26.8% said it depended. In fact, to love and help one’s friends is a common worldview of the rural community life, where villagers cooperate and help one another, at times of harvest, at social cultural occasions like Tham khwan ceremony or Buat naak ceremony (ordain the novice), or in extending loans of money to one another, and assisting each other in times of crisis, etc. However, on the whole, this Phak phuak orientation is not a majority. There were more who disagreed than agree, even in the rural peasant group. This seems to indicate a loose bond if it does apply. The “entourage” concept or the concept of “patronage” system seems to only explain certain power groups., be it a wealthy rural Thai, a head of a hoodlum gang, or any elite power group, who through various means, brought the “entourage” for use in exchange for certain degree of protection and benefits. The majority (60.2%) of the national sample disagreed that one should help one’s Phak phuak even when they were wrong. It should also note that the degree of loving and helping ones own Phak phuak is higher for Thai-Muslims than for Thai-Buddhists.

Thai Social Relation Values and Their Effects on Cultural Assimilation

Cultural assimilation is a complex process that any general theory of what it entails would have to draw its concepts from many different areas of social psychology and sociology. Minority-majority group relations, social learning, stereotyping, the function of groups, prejudice, the development of norms, role theory, attitude change, social motivation, and discrepancy theory are but a few of the many relevant areas. It would be naïve and unrealistic to talk of a single, well-articulated, comprehensive theory of the assimilation process. And there is no intention to do so. However, the fact that there are evidences of successful assimilation of ethnic groups in Thailand (i.e., Chinese, Indians, etc.) or acceptance of different religions in Thailand (i.e., Christian, Islam, Hindu, Sikhs, etc.), has led many attempts to investigate the reasons for the successful assimilation. And the intention here is to see what part do the value systems of the members of the host society play in the facilitating or inhibiting the assimilation process, since it takes both the migrants and the host culture to make any successful assimilation.

Theoretically, what factors are identified in a successful assimilation process? A look at the existing three major approaches to the study of assimilation reveals some similar factors on the part of the migrants as well as the host society. The three approaches are those proposed by Eisenstadt (1954), Gordon (1964), and Taft (1965).

(1) Eisenstadt (1954) analyzes migratory movements in relation to the motivation to migrate, the social structure of the actual migratory process, and the absorption of the migrants into the social and cultural framework of the new society. He sets three criteria to determine the degree of full absorption with the new society. They are: (i) Acculturation—the extent to which the immigrant leans the various roles, norms, and customs of the absorbing society; (ii) Personal adjustment—successful adaptation evidence as low rates of suicide, mental illness, crime, family upheaval and so on; and (iii) Institutional dispersion—the extent of the immigrants dispersion into the various institutional spheres of the society, with the assumption that full absorption has occurred when the migrant group populates the society’s institutions and ceases to have a separate identity.

(2) Gordon (1964) gives special importance to the structural aspects of assimilation—to the degree to which migrants have been able to move beyond the primary groups that are part of their ethnic communities into groups that are contained within the new society. He distinguishes 7 different but inter-related sub-processes of assimilation. They are: (i) Cultural or behavioural assimilation (acculturation), where cultural patterns have changed toward those of the host society; (ii) Structural assimilation, where large-scale entry of migrants into cliques, clubs, and institutions has occurred within the host society, on a primary group level; (iii) Marital assimilation, where extensive inter-marriage has taken place; (iv) Identificational assimilation, where migrants have developed a sense of peoplehood based exclusively on the host society; (v) Attitude receptional assimilation, where social relations involve an absence of prejudice toward members of the migrant goup; (vi) Behavioural receptional assimilation, where no discriminatory behaviour is shown toward members of the migrant group; and (vii) Civic assimilation, where conflict between migrants and the host society is absent over issues concerning values and power.

(3) Taft (1965) who also treated assimilation as a multi-faceted process, in his attempt to identify basic aspects of the assimilation process, lists 5 aspects, with each may be analyzed in terms of their dynamics. They are: (i) Cultural knowledge and skills, in which the migrant leans the language, learns new roles, and acquires knowledge of the history and culture of his host society; (ii) Social interaction, in which the migrant is socially accepted and interpersonal contacts occur; (iii) Membership identity; in which the migrant is granted formal membership in groups within the host society; (iv) Integration into new groups within the host society, in which the migrant assumes some status within the new society and is granted attendant roles, privileges, and rights; and (v) Conformity to group norms, in which the migrant adopts the values, frames of reference, and role perceptions of the host society, performs roles according to its norms, and conforms to its norms in appearance and expressive behaviour.

According to these criteria, there is no doubt that the minority groups (i.e., Chinese-Thai) in Thailand are successfully assimilated on all counts. Briefly stated, there is fact of structural assimilation or institutional dispersion where migrant descendents have merged in and up in various institutions, social, administrative and political as well as identificational assimilation, where there is hardly any migrant descendent who would want to be identified as anything else other than being Thai. As observed by researchers, they bear Thai names, look and behave like Thai. They acquire shared attitudes, values and beliefs in various aspects. They are, to all intents and purposes Thai. It is not in their consciousness at all that they are different. Nothing in their daily activities or interactions would remind them of their migrant ancestors. Take for example, one of the well-known family last name, “Na Ranong”, is in fact a Chinese descendents family. When the descendents were asked about their assimilation by an Australian historian, the typical answer is usually: “Who cares? It doesn’t matter.”

Since society has a structured nature, any migrant does not enter a homogeneous mass, but a social field that is organized and stratified in various ways which sets the range of possibilities. However, the extent to which a migrant has become assimilated is very much determined by his success in being accepted into some of these groups, and assuming a role and status in each. Crucial on the process of being accepted has to do with the receptional assimilation on the part of the host society, both in attitude and behaviour, where social relation involve an absence of prejudice toward migrants, and social interaction, in which the migrant is socially accepted and interpersonal contacts occur. These are viewed as the potential positive ground and atmosphere for successful assimilation to take place. In view of this basic assimilation process, which has a lot to do with the attitude of the host society and the pattern of social interactions, the present researcher considers that the Thai “social smoothing” interpersonal relationship values have to a great degree accounted for the initial important successful assimilation process, in that: (i) there is an obvious absence of strong prejudice against different religion, different beliefs or different race, because the Thai would rarely show a look-down attitude toward another human being. It is the cognitive world of the Thai interactions to keep one another’s “ego” relatively untouched; and (ii) the value of smooth interpersonal interactions has played down any apparent differences between interactors.

This “soft” approach characteristics of the Thai—in keeping one another’s ego intact and by providing pleasant and smooth interpersonal interactions—helps to reduce tensions and provides a comfortable ground for adjustment process to occur smoothly and successfully. It makes the migrant feel at ease, and disarms their potential defensive mechanism, who in turn are charmed into the Thai way of interacting, behaving, and thinking, and ultimately assimilated into the Thai identity as evidenced in the case of the Chinese-Thai. Through positive interactions, changes voluntarily occur on the part of the migrants, who gradually discard certain stereotypic manner and behaviour of their migrant parents (for example, the Wok wek woi wai loud and blunt manner of the Chinese) and adopt the contrasting Thai soft-spoken polite manner, and so on. This internal subjective assimilation at the cognitive-affective level provides the sold base for successful assimilation.

This subjective-affective assimilation is further facilitated by structural assimilation (Punyodyana, 1971), whereby a fully assimilated person can work his way up in any social, political or administrative position with no discriminative barrier. One can find, tracing through the backgrounds of all the powerful position holders, a number of different ethnic backgrounds. But the important point here is that none is conscious of their different origins. And if there is, there will be conscious effort to play down the original ethnic identity. The structural assimilation facilitation is even clearly documented in the Civil and Commercial Code, drafted several decades ago. The Code showed foresight, wisdom and broadmindedness, demonstrating “flexibility” with regards to different ethnic and religious practices. For example, there included a provision that allowed Thai-Muslims in the four predominantly Islamic Southern provinces to follow their Islamic traditions in family affairs and matters of inheritance. Clearly, the wise men who drafted the Civil and Commercial Code ages ago, did not believe that this concession to Thai-Muslims in the South would compromise national interests or security. On the contrary, they believed that the small privileges would fester harmony and unity among the nation’s different faiths. This has worked well all long, with exception of some occasions where short-sighted politicians or administrators have unwittingly created rigid enforcement on religiously sensitive issues. For example, the recent statement by the Deputy Interior Minister, opposing the Ministry of Education’s order to relax or exempt female Thai-Muslim students from wearing uniforms, is a case in point (Bangkok Post, 25 Jan., 1988). His statement did unfortunately stimulate some unwise proponents, arousing the ethnic conflicts. One has to bear in mind that it is a long tradition that Muslim women in the South have for years dressed conservatively with their faces partially concealed behind the chador and their arms and legs covered. And the female Muslim students are asking for no more than the right to dress in a womanly and conservatively manner in accordance with their religious traditions. Rigidity is not always the best way to resolve a dispute, particularly when it involves religious believes. This possibly explains why our wise men decades ago incorporated ‘flexibility’ in the laws they drafted to govern the Thai-Muslim in the South.

In general, at the behavioural level, the ‘flexibility’ and open-mindedness of the Thai can be seen in their participation of other religion’s functions. Table 7.8 shows that Thai-Buddhists, both government officials and peasants, participated in Islamic ceremonies more often than Thai-Muslims participated in Buddhist ceremonies. Although it could be that Islamic and Christian religions are stricter than Buddhism with regard to participation in other religious ceremonies, the fact remains, that the ‘flexibility’ and open-mindedness of the Thai provide a comfortable ground for adjustment and assimilation process to occur smoothly.

From the value system point of view, as shown in the earlier section, there was not much difference found, in general, between the three different ethnic groups in Thailand—the Chinese Thai, Thai-Buddhists, and Thai-Muslims. Certainly, there was no significant difference fund in the area of social relationship values—a feature that the present researcher attributes to the effect of socialization of the Thai social system. These groups are characteristically different from other specific aspects. For example, the Chinese-Thai are characteristically higher for task-achievement values and lower for religious values when compared to the Thai. But when Thai-Buddhists are compared to Thai-Muslims, the characteristic Thai “ego” and “independence” values as well as the “fun-pleasure” value emerged, while Thai-Muslims are characterized by a higher value for wisdom, knowledge, and education, and a much higher sense of group consciousness.

Back