Cultural policy as general will and social-order protectionism: Thailand’s conservative double movement

Abstract

This article interprets the work of Thailand’s Cultural Surveillance Unit through the lens of social-order protectionism. It argues that apparently facile interventions of the CSU into culture debates are underlined by genuine concerns about social disorder and the capacity of citizens to make morally sound choices. Secondly, it interprets cultural policy as implicit social contract making: those who make and activate cultural policy do so invisibly mandated by a higher order of legitimacy than the ballot box – they do so seemingly in the name of the general will. Culture policy as presently constituted provides conservatives with an aesthetic weapon against populism and the assumed deficiencies in the practice of democratic citizenship.

Keywords:

• Thainess
• democrasubjection
• democratic subjectification
• social-order protectionism

Notes

1. These politics share similarities with liberal-localist but anti-statist currents of Thai thought and activism that seek to embed moral forms of capitalism (see Connors 2003, Chapter 9.).

2. The Chakri dynasty , founded in 1782, and its varied institutional forms (of which the current king, Bhumipol, is the 9th) is officially conceived as a founding moment , with several of its monarchs effectively stylized as iterative legislators. Royalist historiography certainly grants a succession of monarchs with founding power (of borders, of identity, of norms). The CSC, unlike the National Identity Board, does not play a significant role in propagating the monarchy beyond ritualistic representations: see the chapter ‘Citizen King’ in Connors, Democracy and National Identity in Thailand (2003). For a critique of royalist historiography see Jory (2003).

3. The following observations were recorded when the author visited the CSC in October 2005.

4. By 2011 it was reporting that it worked with over 10,000 organizations whose combined membership exceeded 2.2 million members. See Surapan 2011.

5. When this author asked to view such complaints the request was disallowed because of privacy, ‘it would be like revealing who our spies are’. This was not meant literally.