The ‘Khanan Dream’: Engagements of Former Buddhist Monks with the Market Economy in Sipsong Panna, PR China

Abstract

Studies of post-monastic careers and experiences of ordained men in Theravada Buddhist societies are few and far between. This paper explores this topics focusing on the case of Tai Lue former monks (khanan) in Sipsong Panna, in southwest China. During the post-1980 reform period, and contradicting stereotypes concerning economic performance on the part of ethnic minorities, Lue former monks have made use of the skills acquired during monkhood in order to engage with the contemporary economy in urban contexts. While many of them succeed in becoming mediators between the tradition symbolised by the temple and new economic forms, this paper argues that the participation in profit-oriented business of men whose behaviour is expected to be determined by selflessness and sacrifice for the community, provokes contradiction and tension among members of the group. This is seen in a recent economic venture set into motion by a group of young khanan who attempt to take advantage of nascent Buddhist economic networks in Sipsong Panna.

Keywords:

• China
• Ethnic Minorities
• Sipsong Panna
• Theravada Buddhism
• Monasticism
• Former Monks
• Market Economy
• Moral Economy
• Guanxi

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the panel ‘Religiosities in the Margins: Boundaries, Locations and Mobilities’, Australian Anthropological Society Annual Conference, 6–8 November 2013, and at the American Anthropological Association 112th Annual Conference in Chicago, 20–24 November 2013. I would like to thank Philip Taylor, Assa Doron and Andrew Kipnis, the members of the ANU anthropology writing workshop, as well as the two anonymous reviewers of this paper, for their kind comments on previous drafts. In particular I want to mention Nicholas Tapp for the kind guidance and support he provided during my PhD, before passing away in September 2015.

Notes

[1] For a general overview of early studies see Strenski (1983). On the relevant concept of a ‘merit ideology’, see Tambiah (1970, 141–51). For an argument on the potential of Buddhism for capitalist accumulation, see Tambiah (1973). On the more recent discredit of Weberian approaches, see Pattana (2009). For a present-day interesting take on Theravada monastic economies, with an emphasis on gender, see Cook (2008). Areas such as Papua New Guinea have become a focus of anthropologists’ economic thinking in the last decades. See Graeber (2001) for a still valid overview.

[2] Keyes 1986. On ranking and systems of value, see Graeber (2001, 75).

[3] On the connection between literacy and post-monastic status in rural contexts, see Moerman (1966, 155–58), Tambiah (1970, 129–40) and Terwiel (2012, 132). On monasticism as a transformative process for males from raw to cooked, or from unripe to ripe, see Keyes (1986) and Moerman (1966, 147) for northern Thailand, and Terwiel (2012, 97) for the central region of the country.

[4] Jane Bunnag's (1973, 46–50) study of urban Buddhism in Thailand did include a short take on former monks’ post-monastic endeavours.

[5] On Tai and Akha (Ch: Hanizu) rubber farmers subverting cultural hierarchies thanks to economic success, see Sturgeon (2010, 2012).

[6] It is not my intention to adopt here the ‘economic approach to religion’ (Yang 2006) in relation to Sipsong Panna monasticism. Instead of equating religious and market practices, and presenting a reductive picture of Buddhism in Sipsong Panna as an affair between consumers and suppliers, my goal is to emphasise the subtle complexities and uncertainties concerning the outcome of the monastic experience among Lue men. For a thorough critique of the economic approach to religion, see Palmer (2011).

[7] For a historical introduction to Sipsong Panna see Hsieh (1989) and, more recently, Liew-Herres, Grabowsky, and Wichasin (2012).

[8] On the political violence of the Maoist period, see especially Hsieh (1989). The recovery of Buddhism is well documented in Hsieh (1989), Peters (1990) or Hasegawa (2000). For a personal recollection of the recovery, see Kang (2009). This paper will not delve into the specific idiosyncrasies of Lue Buddhism in relation to traditions in other parts of the region.

[9] On the canonical version of the ten precepts, see Terwiel (2012, 203–5). On the ignorance of the precepts on the part of Lue novices in northern Thailand (a common situation in present day Sipsong Panna), see Moerman (1966, 154).

[10] I was often told that monks were expected to remain so for at least three years before disrobing—that is, three wassa or three-month Lent periods (from July to October). I have known many cases of monks who disrobed before completing that period of time.

[11] Impatient monks may decide to disrobe without obtaining permission but this will negatively affect their post-monastic reputation.

[12] In fact, most Lue boys in rural areas do not see any benefit in continuing their education and quit school after completing nine years of compulsory education, or even earlier. On the poor performance of Lue novices in the Chinese public school system, see Luo (2010).

[13] In spite of this habitual procedure, the ceremony of disrobing is not considered an inauspicious occasion; see Terwiel (2012, 133). On the po chang or lay ritual specialist, see Swearer (1976).

[14] For a disrobing ceremony in the Thai context, see Terwiel (2012, 133–34); on the five precepts (178–89).

[15] Uxorilocality is common among the Tai Lue.

[16] In 2008 the College moved from Wat Pajie, still the central temple in the region, to Wat Long Moeng Lue, where it is currently located. See Casas (2011). On monastic education in Sipsong Panna, see also Borchert (2005).

[17] The temple publishes mainly Buddhist ritual texts; although this industry is very underdeveloped (well behind that of the monks at Wat Sai Moeng in Tachilek, Shan State), a handful of books are produced each year, including materials for learning Tai Lue.

[18] This so-called ‘folk association’ (Ch: minjian zuzhi) is funded and staffed by members of the local community—in this case, monks and former monks.

[19] On this monk, see Wasan (2010). All personal names in this paper are pseudonyms.

[20] Among those who studied in Sri Lanka, a few former monks have mastered English language as well. However, at the time of publication, I was aware of only one of them working as a guide for foreign tourists in Sipsong Panna.

[21] Laoban is a Chinese term colloquially designating a ‘boss’ or ‘(successful) businessman’.

[22] This remains one of the most important sources of income for Tai households in the so-called ‘urban villages’ of Jinghong. See Evans (2000).

[23] See Osburg (2013) on businessmen in Chengdu.

[24] The quote is from Zigon (2008, 71), who paraphrases E. P. Thompson's celebrated concept. According to Didier Fassin (2011, 486), this traditional interpretation of ‘moral economy’ refers to ‘the existence of an economy distinct from that of the triumphant market, and based on norms and obligations, practices of solidarity and expectations of justice, which were prevalent among the dominated'. Neither Zigon nor Fassin accept Thompson's notion uncritically.

[25] Of course Han guanxi are themselves far from being configured in a depersonalised or demoralised realm. See the study by Kipnis (1997); also Osburg (2013).

[26] Waidiren, a Chinese term referring in this case to Han migrants from outside Sipsong Panna.

[27] My own role within the temple community as coordinator of a locally implemented UNESCO project from 2005 to 2007, and my continuing visits to the place have allowed me to become a peculiar member of this community of reciprocity, with similar obligations to those of other members. After completion of my PhD I am expected by monks and former monks to return to Sipsong Panna and continue contributing to the preservation and fostering of local ‘Buddhist culture’.

[28] On this association see also Wasan (2013, 35).

[29] This is an informal designation. The official name of the venture is Company for the Spread of Khanan Culture, Ltd (Ch: Xishuangbanna Kangnan Wenhua Chuanbo Youxian Gongsi), abbreviated in their logo as ‘Khanan Banna’ (Banna is a short name popularised by Han Chinese to refer to Sipsong Panna).

[30] In 2013, new Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping began promoting the term ‘China Dream’ (Zhongguo Meng) as a slogan, leading to its current widespread use in the Chinese media. Xi described the ‘dream’ as a symbol of national rejuvenation, of prosperity and the improvement of people's livelihoods and of the construction of a better society. See Zheng (2014).

[31] On Khuba Bunchum see Cohen (2001) and, more recently, Amporn (2015). During his two-day visit to Sipsong Panna, Khuba stayed in Khanan Keo's house in Jinghong.

[32] For a recent contribution on the diversity of masculinities in China relevant to the Sipsong Panna context, see Zheng (2012).