Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T18:09:36.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thai Pattern of Social Organization: Note on a Comparative Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1975

Koichi Mizuno
Get access

Extract

In 1950 Embree characterized Thai society as loosely structured in contrast with a Japanese-like, closely woven social system. Since then his article has served as a general guide-post for Thai studies. As data has accumulated, however, there have been reconsiderations of the application of his concept “loose structure” as applied to Thailand. For example, his analysis has been described as impressionistic: while it is phrased in structural terms, the evidences he adduces are stated in terms of individual behaviour rather than of social structure. This failure to distinguish the dimensions of culture, society, and personality makes the notion of structure, to say the least, fuzzy.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Embree, John F., “Thailand — A Loosely Structured Social System”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 52 (1950), 181–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Evers, Hans-Dieter (ed.), Loosely Structured Social Systems, Thailand in Comparative Perspective, Cultural Report Series No. 17, Southeast Asian Studies, Yale University, 1969, pp. 16–17Google Scholar, 23–4, 43, 59, 79–82, and 109–11.

3 For the concept of social organization, see for example: Goldschmit, Walter, Man's Way, A Preface to the Understanding of Human Society, Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1959), pp. 61–2Google Scholar.

4 The field research was carried out during 1964–66, and the comprehensive report is Social System of Don Daeng Village, A Community Study in Northeast Thailand, Discussion Paper Nos. 12–22, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, 1971. Other articles in English are: “Multi-household Compounds in Northeast Thailand”, Asian Survey, Vol. VIII, No. 10, Institute of International Studies, University of California (1968), 842–52; “Japanese Scholarship on Southeast Asian Villages — A Socio-Anthropological View,” Foreign Values and Southeast Asian Scholarship, edited by Joseph Fischer, Research Monograph No. 11, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, 1973, pp. 211–36.

5 Murdock, George P., “Cognatic Forms of Social Organization”, in Social Structure in Southeast Asia, edited by Murdock, George P., Quadrangle Books, Chicago (1960), p. 4Google Scholar.

6 Near the entrance of the village, there was a small shrine called puta. The term means “grandfather”, but the shrine appears to be treated as the home of guardian spirits of the land and village, rather than of an ancestral spirit.

7 The traditional Japanese family, which can be understood as an extreme emphasis on a lineal extension of kinship core.

8 For example: Buntabed, Com, Maha Anisong 108 Kan (The Great Merits 108 Volumes), Phranakhorn, 1959, pp. 559–566Google Scholar; Buncan Buacan, Phua Son Mia (Husband's Teachings to Wife), Khon Kaen, n.d., pp. 15–18; Phrakhru Anujodthamphan, Photaw Son Lugkhoei (Wife's Father's instruction to His Son-in-law), Khon Kaen 1957, pp. 5–7.

9 This feature is in striking contrast to the Japanese authoritarian family.

10 A full analysis will be found in my report: “Social Stratification”, (Social System of Don Daeng Village, Chapter V), Discussion Paper No. 16, CSEAS, Kyoto University (1971), pp. 112–33.

11 The village activities are described in my report: “Government”, (Social System of Don Daeng Village, Chapter VI), 1971, pp. 143–165.

12 As for the concept of dyadic contract, see for example: Foster, George M., “The Dyadic Contract in Tzintzunzan, Patron-Client Relationship”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 65 (1963), 1280–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Local sayings and proverbs are collected in a Thai text: Prichayan, Phasid Isan Lae Nanaphasid (Proverbs of the Northeast and Various Others), Phranakhorn, Wathanaphnid Press, 1956, pp. 57–69. Some analysis of the proverbs of the text has been carried out in my report: “Themes and Proverbs”, (Social System of Don Daeng Village, Chapter VIII), CSEAS Discussion Paper No. 19, Kyoto University (1971), pp. 214–236.

14 See my report, “Government”, op. cit., pp. 141–2.

15 References are: Hanks, Lucien M., “Merit and Power in the Thai Social Order”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 64, 1247–61Google Scholar; and Blanchard, Wendel et al., Thailand, its People, its Society, its Culture, New Haven, HRAF Press (1958), p. 91Google Scholar.

16 Ministry of Education, Thailand, Baeb Rian Wicha Sangkhomsugsa Samrap Chan Prathom Pi Thi 3, (Civics, Text for the Third Year), Pranakhorn (1959), pp. 57–8.

17 The Japanese equivalent for this concept is on and ongaeshi.

18 For example: deYoung, John E., Village Life in Modern Thailand, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press (1955)Google Scholar; Kaufman, Howard Keva, Bangkhuad, A Community Study in Thailand, Locust Valley, N.Y., J. J. Augstin (1960)Google Scholar; Kingshill, Konrad, Ku Daeng, The Red Tomb, A Village Study in Northern Thailand, Chiengmai, The Prince Royal's College (1960)Google Scholar.

19 See Lucien M. Hanks, “The Corporation and the Entourage: A Comparison of Thai and American Social Organization”, Catalyst, No. 2, 55–63, and Francis L. K. Hsu, Clan, Caste, and Club, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., (1963).

20 For example: A. Thomas Kirsch, “Loosely Structure, Theory or Description?”; and Clark E. Cunningham, “Characterizing a Social System, the Loose-Tight Dichotomy”, Loosely Structured Social Systems, Thailand in Comparative Perspective, op. cit., pp. 45–6, 109–10.