The fate of the Thai village

13 March 1997

What is going to happen to Thailand’s villages? Is it inevitable they are swept away by industrialization, as elsewhere in the world? Is there anything in the village we should preserve, before it is too late?

For many who live in the villages, these are very real questions. The young people slip away to work in the city. The village loses resources of land, forest and water to urban development. Television undermines the old culture and lifestyle.

For some city folk, the eclipse of the village would be a good thing. They see villagers as backward and inefficient. Bringing them into the city will make them more productive and boost the economy. Turning farmers into factory-workers will solve the problem of the poor and bring an end to messy demonstration camps in Dusit.

But other city-dwellers are becoming concerned about the survival of the village. If we are not sure we like the society, environment and culture of the city, should we try to preserve what exists in the village, as a living alternative. Could city and village be made to coexist side by side?

In fact, the village is proving remarkably resilient. Despite a generation of concerted, urban-biased development, half the population still lives in the village. Chang Noi knows a village family about an hour’s travel outside Bangkok. They see Bangkok on the TV every night, but they have never been. Why not? It doesn’t look pleasant or interesting.

Although many villagers have to migrate out for work because agriculture no longer provides a livelihood, a lot still go back. Last week The Nation quoted a factory-workers from Buriram: "I can stay home and be without a job but happy. Or I come to Bangkok to work and be unhappy." It is proving easier to lure workers from Burma than from rural Thailand.

Asian countries which industrialized earlier than Thailand quickly converted most of their farmers into workers. Thailand is unusual in having a rapidly industrializing economy existing side-by-side with such a large rural community.

Why is this? Some academics and NGO workers argue that Thai villages survive because they have their own distinctive culture, based on the family and the local community. The binding force is "namjai", the spirit of helping one another. But how long can this survive? The city breeds the spirit of individualism, "getting ahead", "making it", and "survival of the fittest". The young villagers who go to work in the city inevitably become infected. But isn’t there something very valuable in "namjai"? Could it be preserved as the basis of a better social ethic, an alternative to the dog-eat-dog culture of cities all over the world?

For many, this may seem hopelessly romantic. But for others, it offers an ounce of hope, and an incentive to do something now before it is too late.

Over the last Valentine Day weekend a group of Bangkok academics, provincial teachers, and NGO workers gathered in Petchburi to discuss these issues. Urban capitalism is undoubtedly now the most dynamic force in Thailand’s economy and society. Yet the urban mentality does not yet pervade everywhere and everything. The spirit (jitsamnuk) of living in a village community is still very strong. Even when people go to the city, they recreate the feeling of the village within the community of the urban slum. The village values still survive. But for how long?

For several years, a group of academics and NGO workers have argued that the way to conserve the village is by strengthening its cultural core. This group has become know as the community culture (wattanatham chumchon) movement, and has been influential in development policy and academic study. The movement has encouraged villagers to understand and preserve their own history, culture and uniqueness. It has promoted development policies which build on the community and strengthen it.

But at the Petchburi meeting, this strategy was challenged. Community culture is a good thing, but it is not enough. Villages no longer live in isolation. They are part of the globalizing, industry-dominated world. The village economy is inseparably part of the national economy. The farmer has to deal every day with the trader and the shopkeeper. The village community can survive only if it has an economic base which is its own, which is somehow separate, which can help the villagers withstand the penetration of urban capitalism.

To build this economic base, the starting point must be understanding the existing village economy from the perspective of the villagers themselves. For ages, textbook economists have been perplexed by ways villagers behave. Villagers don’t respond to prices in the ways the textbooks describe. They don’t try to maximize income. The economists have often assumed that the villagers are just stupid. But maybe they just run their economy on different values. They are not trying to maximize income, but something else. Perhaps, the chances of community survival. Perhaps, happiness.

With the growth of the city, rural families adopt some complex strategies. They keep a base in the village, partly for livelihood, but probably more as an anchor for family and community. Then they send off family members to the city to earn the money to meet rising needs. The village family is dipping into the urban capitalist pool, but not plunging all the way in.

Understanding this family strategy, and the values that lie behind it, will be the first step in finding ways to strengthen the community’s capacity to resist and survive.

One academic described the idea of "community business" (thurakit chumchon), a compromise between business principles and community lifestyles. Many villages have founded such ventures, and a few have become famous. The community business is run as a business, and buys and sells in urban markets. But the organisation of the enterprise reflects community ideals. Profits are allocated by "social criteria" of equality and welfare. Some are used to "replenish the community". The community business provides a way to survive alongside urban capitalism without being overwhelmed by it.

Some community businesses have done well. But others have run into problems. As they become more successful, those involved often become greedy and ambitious. Some break away and set up on their own. They pursue personal profit, and completely forget the original intentions of a community business. The compulsion to make more and more money is like a contagious disease. Those who take part in business and rub shoulders with professional businessmen run a high risk of becoming infected.

With this thought, the meeting came back round to the importance of the cultural core of the village. Some talked about the need for "cultural vaccination" to enable village communities to coexist with economic change. The leader of the meeting summed up: "Village communities may get broken up. But if they hold on to the idea of a community, they can always regroup around it. Yet if they lose the idea, the belief, then everything goes. That’s why it is so important at this point in our history to nurture this belief in the community."