International Relations as a Discipline in Thailand

Theory and Sub-fields

Chanintira na Thalang, Soravis Jayanama, Jittipat Poonkham

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351180863
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

There has long been considerable debate about the nature of non-Western IR theory. Most attempts to understand such a phenomenon begin by taking a top-down approach on a country by country basis. Instead, this book takes a bottom-up approach, involving specialists from a range of Thai universities, revealing the contours of the Thai IR community. It examines the state of various sub-fields under the IR rubric in Thailand such as foreign policy analysis, security studies, international political economy and area studies, and how Thai thinkers in these fields have contributed to IR as a discipline and IR theory development in Thailand. In doing so, it identifies factors unique to Thai academia which have hindered the development of an indigenous-sourced theory as well as exploring the similarities shared with other non-Western contexts that have posed an obstacle to the creation of a more general non-Western IR theory.

Providing both an in-depth insight into the specific phenomena of Thai IR theory, and a broader perspective on the challenges of formulating non-Western IR theory, this book aims to push the debate on non-Western IR theory forward. It will be of particular interest to readers looking for a better understanding of IR theory in Thailand, but also for those more generally looking to formulate and characterise non-Western approaches to the discipline.

1 Introduction

Chanintira na Thalang, Soravis Jayanama and Jittipat Poonkham

This book is about the current state of International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline in Thailand and how its practical experience and knowledge can contribute to the wider debates of IR. It places itself within the debates of ‘Global IR’ and ‘non-Western IR’ that have not only broadened the way IR is interpreted in a variety of geographical spaces but have also led to a critical examination of the usefulness and applicability of IR theories and concepts sourced from the West for explaining the growing complexities and problems in other parts of the world. In light of this debate, this volume seeks to reflect on the ethnocentric nature of IR through an exploration of its status and its subfields in Thailand. The book is divided into three parts. The first part looks at the impact various Western theories have had on the development of Thai IR theorising. The second part examines the various sub-fields of IR in Thailand. It seeks to elucidate what factors have hindered or provided opportunities for the development of an indigenous sourced IR theory, as well as to examine the implications of indigenous knowledge and experience with respect to the advancement of IR as a discipline. The third part critically reflects on the developments in IR in Thailand.

Pluralism, Global IR and Non-Western IR: locating the problem within the debates

The interest among IR scholars (Sil and Katzenstein 2010; Dunne, Hansen and Wight 2013; Ferguson 2015; Eun 2016 to name just a few) in raising questions concerning the diversity of the discipline has gained momentum over the years as a result of the proliferation of IR theories brought about by the third (or fourth) debate (Dunne, Hansen and Wight 2013, 407). Consequently, there has been much discussion concerning the extent of pluralism we are witnessing in IR and exactly which kind is desirable. Such discussions also highlight the need for students to be introduced to a variety of theories and approaches as well as alternative understandings of the discipline as illustrated in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith’s (2013) co-edited textbook, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. All in all, many hold that pluralism is a healthy state for IR and should be ‘valued’ (Dunne, Kurki and Smith 2010, vi),as ‘more than one theoretical perspective often enhances understanding’ (Ferguson 2015, 1), which is an essential ingredient allowing for the progression of knowledge (Walt 1998; Soravis 2009; Jittipat 2013).

However, as IR is experiencing a proliferation of theories, it begs the question to what extent these theories reflect the experiences and knowledge claims of those in countries outside the core producers of IR theories. While IR as a discipline originally derived from an American endeavour to make sense of the events surrounding the world wars, there was no attempt to theoretically discuss other events in the non-Western world such as the ramifications of colonisation and de-colonisation. As Robert Cox (1981, 128) notes: ‘Theory is always for someone, and for some purpose.’ To address the imbalances of theoretical innovation monopolised by the West, book projects and articles have emerged with the agenda of ‘correct[ing] this imbalance, [while] making strides towards expanding the discipline’s geographical boundaries by showcasing academic production and activity in distinct parts of the globe’ (Tickner and Blaney 2012, 1). As the debate has increasingly gained momentum over the years, various positions have emerged including ‘non-Western IR’ and ‘Global IR’. Though not entirely by design, the latter may have unintentionally attracted the attention of the non-Western academic community, thus confining the discussion to a group of ‘likeminded’ scholars (Acharya and Buzan 2017).

In comparison, the debates surrounding Global IR imply inclusivity, incorporating several different positions such as ‘non-Western’ and ‘post-Western’, the latter of which aims to supplant Western IR theories altogether. Unlike post-Western IR, non-Western IR does not seek to replace Western IR theories. Though the use of ‘West’ and ‘non-Western’ is common, it is not an attempt to dichotomise the fact; certain aspects of the debate may warrant the use of the terms ‘West’ and ‘non-Western’ but this is merely for the sake of convenience (Acharya 2014, 649). In consequence, due to its all-encompassing nature, many prefer the term ‘Global IR’. Global IR is an academic exercise to critically question the usefulness and implications of Western-derived IR for non-Western contexts. It also rejects the notion of the non-Western world as a mere testing ground for the reinforcement of existing IR theories based on the historical, social and political experiences of the West; instead, it encourages the inclusion of indigenous thought, experiences and knowledge for the development of the discipline. By ‘indigenous’, we refer to different localities in which a terrain of knowledge as well as intellectual interaction and practices can individually emerge and develop. It is the contribution of locally produced knowledge shaped by a variety of socio-political and historical factors that would make invaluable advances to IR as a discipline making it truly global.¹

While history and empirical data have provided the basis of theory-building through the abstractions of reality, debates of Global IR are not necessarily limited to countries whose positions are rising on the global stage. For example, Africa is among the regions where scholars have taken an interest in exploring the tensions between Western IR scholarship and local realities (i.e. Dunn and Shaw 2001; Nkiwane 2001; Abrahamsen 2017). This has ignited several debates between those who argue that the application of Western scholarship and theory in non-Western contexts should not be rejected out of hand as some strands of IR theory may prove useful (Brown 2006) and those who simply feel the urge ‘to address inequalities in knowledge production in the field of Africa’s international relations’ (Harman and Brown 2013).

However, those who are not merely content to ‘raise marginalised voices’ have urged scholars to introduce new alternatives (Hurrell 2016, 2–6). As a consequence, scholars have examined these academic discussions in IR from a comparative perspective (Tickner and Wæver 2009). Some have discussed the prospects for a ‘de-Westernized (or non-culturally/historically biased) framework of IR analyses’ to capture the complexities of global transformations (Voskressenski 2017); meanwhile, other work has revealed how concepts with Western origins such as security are perceived differently in diverse contexts (Tickner and Blaney 2012; Lima 2015; Bilgin 2017).

Like many scholars in various non-Western contexts, a variety of Asian scholars and others who are interested in Asian scholarship have also participated in these growing debates. This is a stark contrast from a decade earlier where IR theory was of very little interest among Asian scholars. As Amitav Acharya notes in his presentation given at St Antony’s College, Oxford University, in 2005, academia in various Asian contexts is generally ‘inhospitable to any theory’. And he continued by asserting that ‘in international relations, theoretical work has been dreaded and despised. Across Asia, the mere mention of the word “theory” is sure to induce panic attacks in the classrooms.’ While Acharya’s observation does still ring true in many Asian contexts, including the Thai academic scene as many of the contributors of this volume will argue, Asian scholars and academics interested in Asia have been instrumental in exploring their national academes in search of an indigenous IR theory (Qin 2007; Inoguchi 2007; Choi 2008; Kook and Young 2009; Mallavarapu 2009; Acharya and Buzan 2009; Zhang and Chang 2016). This small but gradually expanding interest in theory among IR scholars with a focus on Asia has inevitably been encouraged by Asia’s growing prominence in the contemporary world. Furthermore, the advancement of Asian academia and the vast amounts of funding some national contexts enjoy have also played a part. Asian universities and national granting agencies in Asia such as the Korea Foundation have dedicated funds to support research, textbook projects, conferences and summer schools, as well as scholarly and student exchange. Many Asian tertiary institutions and their scholars have also gained international recognition. As such, Asia possesses the essential elements to contribute to the advancement of IR but this begs the question of why indigenous theoretical innovation has not transcended to a more global level.

It is within this paradox that this volume aims to contribute to the existing debates by focusing on the current state of IR in Thai academia. Based on the experience and knowledge produced by Thai IR scholars, this volume endorses diverse and alternative ways of studying IR. Though it has been ten years since Acharya and Buzan first embarked on the project in search of a non-Western IR theory, the growing dynamism within Asia makes it interesting to revisit the question: ‘why is there is no non-Western IR theory?’ Doing so may enable us to identify the factors that have both hindered and provided opportunities for the development of an indigenous sourced theory. This search focuses on the current state of IR in Thai academia in terms of using existing Western IR theories and a variety of sub-fields under the rubric of IR, including foreign policy analysis, security studies, international political economy, and area studies. By taking a bottom-up approach to investigating the various sub-fields of IR in Thailand, this volume differs from existing studies that have contributed to debates as the latter have predominately taken a top-down approach by examining the state of IR on a country or regional basis (i.e. Acharya and Buzan 2009; Tickner and Wæver 2009). We have also given the contributors free rein in terms of how they have conducted their search for an indigenous IR theory and knowledge. Consequently, this contribution differs from other prominent edited volumes that have explored alternative understandings of different concepts of IR in various parts of the world (Tickner and Blaney 2012). By asking the contributors of the volume to conduct a thorough search within their field of expertise, we aim to reveal the contours of the Thai IR community largely hidden from other academic circles, highlighting the changing nature of the discipline and the main points of contention.

Thailand was a natural choice due to the expertise of the contributors to the volume who collectively represent diverse research interests as well as varied methodological and theoretical perspectives of IR in Thailand. While this volume is entirely dedicated to the state of IR in Thailand, this choice is by no means an attempt to argue that IR in Thailand is an exceptional or unique case. Such a notion runs the risk of promoting reverse ethnocentrism rather than addressing it. The contributors to the volume are well aware that exceptionalism eschews the debate and intellectual interaction deemed essential for the progress and development of theories in any discipline. As Acharya (2005, 3) notes: ‘Claims of exceptionalism, whether individual or collective, national or regional, often do not stand up to rigorous scholarly scrutiny. They shut the door to genuine ideational intercourse between the global and the regional, or between regions.’ In his oft-cited critical study of Thai Studies, Benedict Anderson (1978) bluntly observes, ‘what damn good is this country – you can’t compare it with anything.’ Thai exceptionalism, coupled with its incomparability, is based on the dominant narrative that Thailand has never been colonised. This narrative has been challenged by a number of approaches such as Marxism (Reynolds and Lysa 1983) and postcolonialism (Harrison and Jackson 2010). At a minimum, this volume asserts that Thailand should not be treated as unique. Rather, it stresses that Thailand shares certain commonalities with other ‘small’ and ‘postcolonial’ states. While it has never experienced anti-colonial sentiment, the formation of a nationalist front or the process of de-colonisation, Thailand has faced challenges of state and nation building similar to those confronted by its Southeast Asian neighbours including separatism, economic insecurity and political instability defined by experiments of democracy and intervals of authoritarianism. And like many parts of the world including the West, the practical conduct of IR and how it is studied as an academic discipline is dependent on a variety of factors including historical experiences, size and geographical location.

The genesis and practical experiences that have shaped the trajectory of IR in Thailand

Theory is never far removed from historical, political and social reality as illustrated in the development of realism and liberalism. Embracing this link provides opportunities for theoretical innovation (Acharya and Buzan 2017) while opening new spaces for alternative understandings of various concepts used in IR. While the challenges and opportunities Thailand has faced throughout the decades have provided scholars with the empirical data essential for indigenous conceptualisation and theoretical development, in practice Thailand’s academia has been significantly constrained by internal factors and structural limitations. From the outset, the establishment of IR as a discipline largely had a more practical agenda rather than an academic one. In addition, other obstacles including demands for policy-oriented research, lack of funding and the commercialisation of education, to name just a few, have all placed limitations on IR scholars in Thailand.

As discussed in some of the sub-field chapters of this volume, IR as a discipline in Thailand was shaped by both exogenous factors and the internal demands of an emerging modern bureaucracy. Historically, Thailand as a ‘small state’ and a part of Southeast Asia has long been a theatre for power play between extraregional powers. As a result, Thailand’s foreign conduct has largely been contingent on its external environment. And like any other small state, Thailand’s struggle for survival in an anarchical environment has limited the country’s ability to adopt a proactive stance in international affairs. During colonial times, western European nations laid claim over every inch of Southeast Asia except for Siam (as it was known at the time). Sandwiched between British interests in Malaya and Burma and French interests in Indochina, Thailand’s location made it a natural buffer that enabled it to escape the clutches of European expansionism. Later during the Cold War, instability within Indochina transformed Thailand’s position as ‘buffer’ to ‘frontline stalwart’ against communism. Despite the numerous challenges, policymakers and academics have hailed Thailand’s shrewdness in responding to knotty situations. Academics have commonly highlighted Thailand’s flexibility and pragmatism in its foreign policy otherwise labelled as ‘bending with the wind policy’ and ‘bamboo diplomacy’. This is illustrated by its remarkable ability to adapt to regional and wider international currents while seizing opportunities to align itself with the dominant power of the time (Singh 1963, 353; Kislenko 2002). However, Thailand’s pragmatism and flexibility have also portrayed the image of a country lacking any consistency in its conduct on the international stage (McCargo 2010, vii). At times, it brings into question both moral and political responsibilities of smaller powers on the regional stage (Duncan McCargo, personal communication to Chanintira na Thalang, 14 January 2018).

It is within the context of these security challenges that IR as a discipline was established in Thailand. Faced with the perils of Western imperialism, King Chulalongkorn sought to modernise Siam by centralising the government and establishing a modern bureaucracy. In consequence, the study of IR in Thailand was essentially a study of diplomacy tasked with producing diplomats for the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was not until after the Second World War that the Department of International Affairs and Diplomacy was established within the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University in 1948. In 1949, a Master’s degree in International Affairs and Diplomacy was offered by the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University. However, the lack of personnel meant that ‘scholars’ who taught in these faculties were also key members of the political elite that steered the course of Thailand’s foreign policy. As such, the early stages of development of Thailand’s IR academic community was not autonomous but was strongly influenced by state affairs.

Inevitably, the security challenges at the time, the more practical orientation of IR and the role of policymakers in teaching IR had a direct impact on the direction of the literature that was produced. In turn, professionalism, or whether Thai academics enjoy sufficient autonomy from political influences, has been brought into question. As Kasira Cheeppensook (in Chapter 7 of this volume) illustrates, the highly centralised nature of the state meant that Thailand’s political elites monopolised and shaped the conceptualisation of security. Consequently, security was predominately tied in with the integrity of the state, a feature commonly shared among ‘small states’ (Buzan 1991). However, the challenges to the integrity of the state changed according to both external and internal threats including Western expansionism, communism and separatism. This in turn not only limited any academic endeavour to theorise security but also delayed any scholarly discussion of security until the 1980s. Due to the nexus between academia and policymaking, Jittipat Poonkham (in Chapter 2 of this volume) and Pinitbhand Paribatra (in Chapter 5 of this volume) note that early works had the tendency to describe events in a more practical manner as opposed to developing systemic explanations of the social world....

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Table of Contents
• List of contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• PART I
• PART II
• PART III
• Index