The Natural Order of Things
June 30th, 2009Last weekend I had an interesting conversation with a new acquaintance. He’s lived in Thailand for many years and authored a book on Thai culture. He is a public figure, and I’m not sure he was aware I might quote some of the things he said, so it’s probably best he remain anonymous. We talked about many things that evening, but I thought one in particular was worth sharing.
I asked him if he could explain why Thais generally wait till the last minute to take care of things, don’t usually plan, coordinate, strategize, and seemingly go through life putting out one fire after another. Any plans or decisions made usually are based on best case scenario, and never allow for the unexpected. He said Thais are not very good at dealing with things independently. On the other hand they excel at accomplishing tasks and/or solving problems as a group.
He explained this stems from rural life. When a farmer needs to harvest his rice the entire village comes together and gets the job done quickly and efficiently. Then they move to the next farm, and the next, until all the rice fields in the village have been harvested. He said it works the same in an office environment. When a complex task needs to be done in a short period of time you bring in a group of people, all working together to achieve the goal. Left to one individual, it probably won’t get done, or at least not by the deadline.
He went on to say some of the behavior I have observed is driven by Buddhist teachings. Put simply, Thais take life as it is dealt to them. They do not attempt anything that would alter the natural order of things. Thus, making plans that take into account a worst case scenario would be unthinkable, as would trying to develop a strategy for the purpose of altering the natural or anticipated outcome.
I asked the BF about not taking into consideration the worst case scenario because it would go against Buddhist teachings and he said this is true. He added if things do not go as expected you just deal with it at that time.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Fascinating, isn’t it?
It reminds me of conversations that I’ve had with devout Christians. Quite a few believe that there is a true separation of church and state in the US and are a little surprised when I start citing examples to the contrary.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:05 am
The similarities to Mexicans in the USA on how they work and live compared to Thais is striking. Just sub the names of the nationalities and switch the word Buddhist with “Lazy F**ker” and you have a match. Construction companies hire a army of them. They tear up a site and finish the job in one day. Ask one to do something at home, you wont get anything accomplished.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:49 am
Perhaps it just my hopelessly materialist conception of history and human society, but I find your friend’s first explanation spot on, and his second a bit lacking. I was going to bring up a point similar to nellouise’s (though probably in a far less crude manner), that the characteristics you mention describe the approach to life taken by a large number of peoples across Latin American, Africa, and parts of the Middle East and Central and Southern Asia. I think it is a common point of view among people of rural living. I think once you get industrialization and the formation of a solid middle class, you see these traits dissipate quickly. In fact, I have found them to be virtually unrecognizable among people I know who are of the Thai middle and upper class.
-John
p.s. Mr. Lomker, I must admit I utterly fail to see the connection between this post and the separation of church and state in the US. Would you care to elaborate?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:35 am
John this is not directed entirely at you, so please don’t take it that way.
I do have confirmation from the middle class BF this is a Buddhist belief, and one he practices. I would be more inclined to believe people in the upper classes put less stake in their religion than capitalism, particularly when the two collide. I’ve even seen that back home.
The reason I find this sort of thing interesting is I’m not comfortable jumping to conclusions about a society, based on my own cultural point of reference. Thus, while living in regions of the US that where heavily populated by Mexicans I wanted to know what the real reason was for them appearing to be lazy. What I discovered is its a collision between two cultures. Latin American, Africa, the Middle East and Central and Southern Asia have very hot climates. Over time, people living in these regions have learned to take life at a much slower pace, because its just too damn hot to do otherwise.
The siesta, largely thought to be unique to Latin cultures, is actually practiced by many cultures, particularly those that are in hot climates, including South Asia. While siesta is practiced mostly by developing countries, we also find it in Southern Italy, Greece, and even Japan, although it may not be called siesta. In countries with hot climates it is commonplace for people to labor during the early morning and evening hours, when the temperatures are cooler and their is less risk of exposure to the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation - sun burn.
I’m skipping over a lot of details, but the point is when you take people that are culturally and physiologically wired to live life at a slower pace, and work in the early morning and evening hours, and drop them in a society that does the opposite, you have what appears to be lazy people. And these are only the first generation immigrants and illegals. Second, third and fourth generation Mexicans are no different than their white counterparts.
In any population you’ll find lazy people. As a former office work force supervisor, in a region heavily populated by Hispanics, I can say without reservation its not the Mexicans that are lazy clock watchers. On the contrary, its the trailer trash Caucasians that need a fire put to their ass.
I have heard people refer to Thais as lazy people, something I adamantly disagree with. When this gentleman said Thais are not very good at dealing with things independently, the furthest thing fro my mind was this is a tactful way of suggesting they are all lazy. I took it to mean something more along the lines of social order.
I once had a rather lengthy conversation with a Thai medical doctor who said he wished he could go back to America where independent thinking (research) was not only accepted, but encouraged. He was very critical of the medical society in Thailand which, as a rule, does not permit doctors to conduct independent research. Any research that is allowed, and according to the Doctor not much is, will never be credited to the one doing that research. Someone above him would get all of the credit. He said this is why Thailand doesn’t do a lot of medical research. He added that Thailand wanted to do something to stand out in the world, and with research off the table, the only logical option was to offer world class service.
Some things in cultures are not always as they appear, and that’s why I write about them. I’m looking for answers to dispel the prejudice so common when we use our own cultural reference to draw conclusions about another’s. So you can imagine my frustration when I see someone take that information and still manage to dilute it with personal prejudice.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
crude? … I prefer uncouth
July 1st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I did not mean to imply that I didn’t think it was a Buddhist belief, only that I tend to be skeptical of religious beliefs or traditions as an explanation for certain wide scale human behaviors, particularly those seen in a wide variety of cultural and ethnic milieus. I tend to look towards materialist explanations first and will then widen my scope if I cannot find a satisfactory answer.
I think the general approach to life ascribed to many Thais (focusing primarily on getting through the next couple of days, not lending a great deal of weight to future potentialities, etc.) is actually quite common among people of agrarian livelihood. Many of the Thais I know who have relatively deep roots in BKK do not fit this mold. And, as I am sure you know, many ethnic Thais have extremely prejudicial views of people from Isan, for example, as lazy and boorish. For an example closer to home, consider the stereotypical examples of a New England WASP and a redneck. Again, an industrial/agrarian split.
On a side note, I was hoping to avoid the rainy season altogether this year, but it looks like I’ll be back in the LOS next month.
-John
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 am
John,
I agree with your comments about the prejudice toward Isan. That certainly does exist. I do find it interesting that every Isan boy I’ve talked to about this refuses to acknowledge it. I’ve also learned that many people in Laos are prejudice toward the Isan people, but apparently not over skin color or perceived lack of ambition that the Thais have. They just don’t like the Isan’s boorish behavior. It is also interesting that many Lao living in Thailand go out of their way to hide it and try to pass themselves off as Thai, apparently due to some sort of prejudice Thai have toward the Lao.
I’m a little confused. If you acknowledge it is a Buddhist belief then how can you discard it as the explanation? There are other examples of Buddhist teachings that drive wide scale human behavior in Thailand…avoidance of confrontation comes to mind.
Yes, some beliefs and traditions do get discarded by many, not all, as a society becomes industrialized, but that doesn’t change where they are rooted.
And a VERY rainy one it is this year.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 am
I have never heard that about Laos/Isan before. Interesting, considering that Isan essentially describes Lao living in Thailand. The only thing that really separates Lao from Isan is a political border. But I digress.
I am trying to keep my comments fairly brief, and so I suppose I am not articulating myself as well as I could with a more full-throated explanation. I am not saying that beliefs are discarded as a result of industrialization but that industrialization brings about a fundamental change in a society’s material circumstances and that it is material circumstances, to a much larger degree than ideology, that really shapes the character of a society. I think that increased affluence and the creation of a middle class follows a similar pattern cross culturally and that this pattern is often mistakenly referred to as a society becoming more “westernized.”
I am actually in the minority of people that does not believe the Sociology 101 explanation that avoidance of confrontation in Thailand is a result of Buddhist teaching. I think it is related to an earlier split in what you might call Western and Eastern thought, which led Eastern philosophy towards a greater emphasis on tribes, clans, and groups than on the individual. On the other hand, one of the most common critiques made of historical materialism is that it is unfalsifiable, so maybe I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. I am, after all, incredibly biased against religion. I’m a pretty hardcore atheist. I dislike Pat Robertson and the Dali Lama with equal verve.
-John
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 am
I don’t have a complete picture of the Laos/Isan/Thai thing yet, but I’ve learned enough to conclude there are some lines drawn in the sand. Some day I should write about the Lao boy I introduced to the Silom scene, including a fuck show. It was a most enlightening experience, for both of us.
And I’m saying capitalism has a bad habit of colliding with fundamental religious beliefs. Thus, it is no surprise some ideology takes a back seat to the conflicting priorities of an industrialized society. Honey, you don’t have to be religious to acknowledge its influence on cultures.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 am
Oh, I don’t deny that it has an influence on culture. I just think that its influence is often overstated and that even the most rigidly dogmatic religions often accommodate material realities. And I particularly find Buddhism an unsatisfying explanation in the specific example, because nearly identical traits and dispositions are observable in a wide variety of societies, many of which are as far removed from Buddhism as possible. In those instances, I think the explanation is more likely to be one more common to the human condition than any particular religion or religious beliefs. My remark about my own atheism was just to acknowledge some of my own inherent biases.
-John
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:30 am
I don’t think a religion’s influence is over stated at all. The primary purpose of any religion is to establish a social order. The fact that you can identify a culture with similar traits isn’t evidence to the contrary.
Also keep in mind there are variations of Buddhism. I don’t know what the specific differences are, but I can tell you the boys won’t go into a Chinese temple. And I’ve observed Chinese Thai are a very forward thinking people. They do not share these traits I’ve observed in other Thai that are from every region of Thailand, not just Isan. Yet the Chinese Thai are living in and sharing the same human condition.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I think you have only strengthened my point. Thai Chinese and ethnic Thai are both Buddhist. And while early Chinese, and a large number currently still, practice Mahayana Buddhism as opposed to Theravada Buddhism, there has been a lot of conversion as a result of assimilation. Also, there is already a lot of synchronicity between the Theravada Buddhism practiced in Thailand and Mahayana Buddhism. So, generally the same religious beliefs. Also, the vast majority of Thai Chinese have their roots in Bangkok, and thus their material experiences have been significantly different than those from other regions of Thailand.
-John
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
Sorry, but I don’t see how it strengthens your point at all. I don’t know what the “specific” differences are between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism, and I suspect you don’t either. I’m also not prepared to accept your claim that the “vast majority” of Chinese Thai have their roots in Bangkok, as it is no secret the northern region of Thailand, home of the second largest city in Thailand, is heavily populated by Chinese Thai. Short of living there and rubbing elbows with them, there would be no way to know if only those in BKK have changed.
What I do know is this believe in not upsetting the natural order of things is part of the Buddhist religion practiced by most Thais. The assertion that other cultures share this belief, but are not Buddhist is irrelevant. As I said before, religions are established primarily for the purpose of creating social order. If another culture develops a similar believe system it doesn’t change the fact that in Thailand it is a religious belief. Nor does it provide evidence that the other culture’s belief system evolved independent of some sort of religion. It has been my observation that all religions have similarities, and for good reason…
Christian:
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Buddhist:
Do not destroy life.
Do not take what is not given you.
Do not commit adultery.
Tell no lies and deceive no one.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
Once again, I am not denying that it is a Buddhist belief. Going back to your original post. You mentioned a specific trait of Thai people, a trait I agree exists and have witnessed a number of times. You also mentioned a friend who provided you a couple of explanations for that belief. The only point I was trying to make was that I thought the first explanation was overall more satisfying and more instructive than the second explanation. I also remarked that I might have reacted better to the first explanation because my general approach to history and the social sciences is a materialist one. And I must admit that a phrase like “not upsetting the natural order of things” sounds a bit like white noise to me. Seeing a doctor due to an illness is upsetting the natural order. Deploying a fairly sophisticated early warning system to protect against another tsunami seems to go against the natural order. Thermal scanners on the airport to screen against a possible outbreak of H1N1 seems like an interference with the natural order. I do not recall any serious denouncements by the Sangha. I have never doubted that it is a Buddhist belief, only that I tend to have difficulty in accepting it as an explanation for widespread human behavior. For example, if someone asked why is it that most Thais do not commit murder, I would not accept the explanation that it is because of Buddhist beliefs, any more than I would explanation that the Ten Commandments is the reason that most Americans do not commit murder. Italy and Ireland are both very Christian countries, yet I am not sure I know of any Irish or Italian men who, when struck in the face, would readily offer his other cheek. Yet, it is a direct instruction by a being that Christians believe to be the embodiment of god on earth.
I certainly do not claim any particular expertise on Buddhism or Thailand in general. Nonetheless, I have had some formal instruction in the history of the region, and it is my understanding of Chinese immigration to Thailand in the 19th and 20th centuries that most Chinese came as tradesman and craftsman and not as agrarians and settled in the areas around the Chao Phraya river that we would consider part of the larger Bangkok area. In fact, Chinese immigrants had to be moved out of the area when the capital was moved from Ayuthaya.
But again, I do not see this as a particularly salient argument between you and I. I am essentially arguing your friend’s first point, that the behavior we observe is a result of an agrarian background. As far as I can tell, the strongest argument you have made for the second explanation is that your boyfriend told you that it is indeed a Buddhist belief.
-John
p.s. We might be getting dangerously close to spinning our wheels here, so if I do not respond to your next comment, do not in any way interpret it as a concession by me
. If the topic continue to hold your interest, I’ll be happy to jump down your throat on the subject over a glass of Chivas. You buy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
One does not have to believe anything at all in order to be a Buddhist. In fact, it is better if one has no beliefs at all.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I shutter at the thought of pursuing another tangent in an already tangential conversation, but Bulla, how do you define a Buddhist?
-John
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
We give up all our attempts to conceive Dhamma as being this or that or anything at all and let go of our desire to have a personal relationship with the truth. We have to be that truth here and now. Being that truth, taking that refuge, calls for an immediate awakening, for being wise now, being Buddha, being Dhamma in the present.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Bulla, would the assumption that there is something beyond the physical world that can be known by means other than our physical senses constitute a belief? It seems to me to even invoke a word like “truth” connotes a belief. Lastly, if you are going to quote Ajahn Sumedho verbatim, you should at least give him credit.
-John
July 4th, 2009 at 2:42 am
I didn’t invent the language either.
But in this case, it is Ajahn Sumedha who is quoting me.
Your discussion places too much faith on the ego, an illusion, and its deceptions. You are living an illusion which is a state of “sin” if you like concepts from the West.
If you don’t know, why do you ask?
Language is a virus at best, a disease at worst.
Do you give credit to your mother for having popped you out and thereby adding to the suffering of the universe?
N.B. All words used above have been taken directly from the O.E.D. The illusion of form has been provided by Bulla Gniźnieńska.
Ta-ta.
July 4th, 2009 at 5:30 am
The notion that ego is an “illusion” and has “deceptions” seems awfully like a belief to me. I can tell readily that the last comment was from you, as it is quite different in style and tone than the passage you lifted directly from “Now is the Knowing” without attribution. I should have heeded my first instinct and not pursued the question, but I thought that you might have had something interesting or useful to add to the conversation. I was wrong.
-John
July 4th, 2009 at 8:05 am
I spoke to another boy about this and he too confirmed it is driven by Buddhist teachings. His English is a little better, so he was able to elaborate a bit more than the BF. He explained that the mere consideration of a possible negative can actually bring negative into your life (bad karma I think) and by always thinking positive you actually drive away potential negatives. Thus it is always best to think positive and then deal with any negatives in the moment they occur. With this in mind, it is easy to see why Thais appear to only live in the moment.