In other words, in the study of concrete examples of cultural identity, one must
be attentive to the following aspects:
(a) the characteristics and dimensions of the cultural reference framework (i.e.,
the world view, the ethos—norms and values—and their symbolic representation);
(b) the interaction and interrelation with the environment of power and interests;
and (c) the“ideological apparatus”by which the cultural reference framework is
produced and through which it is at the same time disseminated.
Important starting questions are:
- How do Thais construe and interpret their own “Weltanschauung” (world
view)? - How do they explain their world in terms of (wo)mankind, (wo)man to (wo)man
relationships, (wo)man to nature, and (wo)man to the supernatural relationships? - What are the formats, contents, and institutions in which such a world view and
value system are symbolically represented?
As the needs and values that various communities develop in divergent situa-
tions and environments are not the same, various cultures also manifest varying
“identities.”Far from being a top-down phenomenon only, foreign mass media and
cultural influences interact with local networks in what can be termed a“coerse-
ductive”(for coercion/seduction) way. Far from being passive recipients, audiences
are actively involved in the construction of meaning around the communication
messages they consume. Consequently, such messages may have different effects
and meanings in different cultural settings.
Mainly expanding on the cultural, anthropological, and sociological interpreta-
tions of Chamarik ( 1993 ), Klausner ( 1983 , 1997 ), Mulder ( 1985 , 1990 , 2000 ),
Phongphit ( 1989 ), and Rajadhon ( 1968 , 1987 ), I attempt to offer an analysis of the
interdependency between Thai culture and its communicative expressions with the
aid of two complementary, mutually interpretive, and influential dimensions from
the traditional, rural, and animistic culture, which still fundamentally condition
modern-day Thailand. One dimension is of a spiritual-moral nature, the other is a
sociological one.
4.2 Thai Feudalism: The“Sakdina”System....................
Historically, the Thai societal structure is rooted in the so-calledSakdinasystem.
(Sakdimeans status or power andnameans land or ricefield. Sakdina could
therefore be translated as“land status”or“status shown by land.”) The major
difference between the Sakdina system and the European feudal system is its
dependence on the king and the changeability of status. Status was not possible
unless one had royal blood. The king orChao Phaendin(the lord of the land) was
perceived as infallible, semidivine, and all-powerful. He was the only land owner.
He distributed the right to use land according to the Sakdina status which depended
4.1 Introduction 51