He then borrows the three“leadership foundations”which emerged from the
ethnographicfieldwork of Conner ( 1996 ), who found three sources of power avail-
able to Thai leaders:amnaj, which he calls“authority”;itthiphonor“influence”; and
baramior“personal power.”Whileamnajis based on legal or institutional power,
itthiphoncomes from a leader’s access to and control of certain valuable resources
that others need, and barami refers to the moral strength and“selfless moral behavior”
of leaders. Whilebaramicould be placed in thephra-khundimension, inside of the
hierarchy of the inner-group, based mainly on mutual trust and informal dependency;
amnat and especially itthiphon are power relations in thephra-dejdimension, inside
of the hierarchy of the power-based outside world, characterized by mutual distrust
and formality (see Fig.4.1). However,“itthiphonis by far the most pervasive and
effective form of power in Thailand today. To wield this kind of power you must
accumulate and control coveted resources, things that other people dearly need, or at
the very least, greatly desire”(Persons 2016 : 150). This kind of power can be rooted
in socioeconomic force (money), physical force (ability to gain compliance by
physical coercion), or psychological force (the threat of using one or both of the
former). So“itthiphonleaders have two primary tactics for controlling their
entourages. They woo them with kindness and promises of profit, and they restrain
them with displays of power. In other words, these leaders want subordinates to both
love them and fear them at the same time”(Persons 2016 : 153).
While the three forms of power/leadership continuously overlap and interact,
and while people, from a traditional village perspective, may still long for the
barami in their leaders, they most often are faced with the hard reality of itthiphon
instead.
4.11 Conclusion..........................................
- An analysis of the interdependency between Thai culture and its communicative
expressions was offered with the aid of two complementary, mutually inter-
pretive 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 sociological. - Power is the most central element in the Thai worldview. The way in which
Thai deal with power and submit themselves to it is essentially animistic.
Animism does not attempt to explain the complexity of everyday reality on the
basis of“rational”and universal principles but reduces the world into simplistic
categories such as“us”and“them,”insiders and outsiders. - The institutionalized way of living of the Thai is set in a continuum with, on the
one hand, the moral order and, on the other hand, the amoral power. Relations in
the khuna dimension, inside of the hierarchy of the inner-group, are based
mainly on mutual trust and informal dependency. Relations in thepra-dej
dimension, inside of the hierarchy of the power-based outside world, are
4.10 Thai Leaders and Face 65