สำนักราชบัณฑิตยสภา

The Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand Volume II - 2010 Towards A Culture of Peace in Thai Society Discussions over debatable issues are not won or decided by ‘better’ arguments but by the relative position of those involved. Quite likely though this is leaving those on the ‘losing’ side at times with a deep unresolved frustration. This also explains, why – when it comes to public or political issues – Thais commonly prefer to remain ‘invisible’ and are not inclined to speak their mind in public in case they risk exposure or invite criticism or ridicule. Elevating this argument to the level of the wider society; such characteristics and traits are conducive to maintaining the status quo and support the ‘powers-that-be’ in exerting and maintaining control over their subjects. Are these then a positive force or influence or a drawback to modern urban life? The dramatic and fast-paced transformation of society – as witnessed over the last five decades – that have released many millions of people into a chaotic urban environment, with its smaller families and relatively uncontrolled, individualized, living and life style have changed the status quo and upped the ante. The family cannot control its individual members at ease any longer as in times past. As it turned out, even the schools’ authority over adolescents cannot compete with peer pressure; today’s youngsters at times seem more open to influence of modern pop culture and the media than to traditional values. Limited Public Concern While Thais as individuals are not really prepared for open communication or for trusting or relying on the world outside of their family, social institutions that would be inviting or supportive for such attempts are not readily available either. This is another shortcoming of Thai social structure; social institutions at the intermediate levels are either absent or fragile, hence not dependable. The transmission of trust and good will, the ‘glue’ of social cohesion, from family to some higher social entity needs improving. The links between family and community (and again between community and the nation) must be viewed as fragmented. This is so because of an underlying apprehension towards ‘outsiders’ and open distrust towards ‘strangers’ and thus not much inclination towards including all and sundry within the ‘in’-group. A simple test for the lack of communal orientation or space would consist in walking through the streets of our towns or cities. Whether a building or its location or positioning (or that of a street or an entire neighbourhood) is pleasing to the eye is of less concern; its main purpose is to make money (or simply showing off). The obvious lack of city planning and urban design that resulted in a stark deficit in public spaces or parks for esthetic reasons or the recreation of their residents