I recently came across a book from a very different period of global interest in Southeast Asian affairs. It is Daniel Wit’s Thailand: Another Vietnam? published in New York by Charles Scribner’s Sons in 1968. I thought New Mandala readers would be keen to digest the analysis. The book concludes, on page 191, with this reflection:
Is Thailand going to be another Vietnam? It does not have to be, as its many assets and strengths indicate. But it may nevertheless become one. As an essentially administrative state governed by a conservative bureaucracy, it may not be able to rise to the new challenges sufficiently because to do so requires a major and rapid self-transformation in the ruling oligarchy. One can only hope that the Communist pressure is limited enough, the traditional Thai cultural resistances to revolution still strong enough, the education of new bureaucrats modern enough, and the dedication of senior Thai elites to their country great enough to produce in time that societal development (above and beyond limited economic growth) which alone can prevent still another agonizing Southeast Asia catastrophe.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Grasshopper // Nov 15, 2007 at 12:12 am
Maybe an updated similarity could be seen in Bangkok being a new, new interest economy like Ho Chi Minh City (or even vice versa) - with a conservative administration arbritrating (perhaps) Privy Council corporate interests for maximal economic growth. But yes, a rather telling prophecy for the predicament at present. Although I suppose it might only be a catastrophe (given the reasonable current state of Vietnam comparitively) if we justify invasion on grounds of the plague of monism! (with a much better advertising campaign than the last plague predecessor: communism.. ie. banning reprints of monist penguin classics and promoting exceptionalised, individual engagement through pdf files which can never have nostalgic musty pages)
Anyone for a game of dominos?
2 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Nov 15, 2007 at 1:54 am
Re: Grasshopper>
I have to admit that you lost me on “monism” in this context. I understand the term “monism” when applied to metaphysics and theology, but not in a political(?) sense. Could you please explain?
As for dominoes, while the game was invented by the Chinese, the Arabs seem to currently produce the champion players nowadays.
“After knocking over one domino after another, we will stand face to face with the key domino, the United States.” - Dr. Abu Hafiza, Psy-Ops officer for al-Qaeda, referring to the 2004 Madrid attacks, of which he was the mastermind.
3 Grasshopper // Nov 15, 2007 at 9:38 am
LSS,
Monism in a political sense just refers to what Hardy elaborated as ‘triumphalist nationalism’ where persons within the state are convinced that there is only one right way. A monist state would have a centralized source of power and would reject diversity. ( - and doesn’t necessarily have to be a ‘dictatorship.’)
Isaiah Berlin said of monism “One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great historical ideals — justice or progress or the happiness of future generations, or the sacred mission or emancipation of a nation or race or class, or even liberty itself which demands the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society. This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution. This ancient faith rests on the conviction that all the positive values in which men have believed must, in the end, be compatible, and perhaps even entail one another.” p.173 in Two Concepts of Liberty.. Karl Popper referred to this line of thought as ‘essentialism.’ Monist political philosophers can be said to be Plato, Hegel and Marx.
Therefore, when a state seeks (or already has in place) a system where there is one right way, or a final solution to (sufficient) economic, cultural, gendered — or perhaps, just perhaps (don’t want to give credit to Huntington, but because you have mentioned al-Qaeda) civilisational disagreements they are practicing a monist form of politics.
From this description, it can be said that SEA nations are all fairly well entrenched in monist political behaviour. So perhaps last night my thoughts were skewed because clearly these dominoes had already fallen long ago and are half sunk in the ground. Even when one domino looks like getting dug up and re aligned, it proves far to heavy for those trying and usually collapses on top of them.
I suppose it can be said that ‘isn’t it a monist belief that there is no final solution, but only relative situations where there is no right answer’?, and my response at the moment is: yes.
4 Ex-Ajarn // Nov 15, 2007 at 5:57 pm
1968: Is Thailand going to be another Vietnam?
2008: Is Thailand going to be another Burma?
5 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Nov 16, 2007 at 1:36 am
Re: Grasshopper>
Thanks for the explanation. So, if I understand you correctly, I guess the opposite of monism would be some form of political “value pluralism”? I can see how political monism can stem from philosophic monism espoused by Plato and Marx & Hegel (via Kant).
However, and this is where I think we have disagreed before, I don’t believe that pluralism necessarily leads to out and out relativism. For example, one can accept that for any given situation there are several value-judgements that can be made, all of which are equally correct and true. Furthermore, one can accept that the values used to formulate these value-judgements are in conflict with each other; however, this need not mean that all value-judgements are equally correct. Only several need to be true for a pluralistic ethic.
I’m now having flashbacks of my sophmore year thesis, which was a Perspectivist analysis of Machiavelli’s The Prince as a response to the world-view formulated in St. Augustine’s De civitate Dei. Ack!
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate but we reserve the right to reject or edit comments that contain material that is offensive, irrelevant, overly repetitious or involves personal attack rather than a discussion of the issues. And please avoid long quotes from other online sources - just provide the link!