Human Impulse and Heart Water: Takeaways from a Study of Religion and Society in Chiang Mai, Thailand

  At the end of our two weeks in Chiang Mai, Thailand, the students were tasked with pinpointing which experiences made the largest impact on our time abroad. One of the largest questions that we were to tackle was the question of what we can bring back to the United States with us from Thailand — souvenirs, definitely, but more so which values and instances we’d like to hold on to and share with others. My largest takeaway from this experience lies in the treatment of human impulse and how rigidity in societal structures impacts everyday life in Thailand. From this, efforts can be applied domestically and globally towards conflict resolution, hopefully taking some cues from the Thai people on what it means to be human. 

Dr. Andrew Irvine with Dr. Mark Tamthai

To divert for a moment, for my senior thesis last semester I was doing a lot of research in a couple different disciplines, including social psychology. My thesis isn’t at all related to Buddhism or Thailand, but it is related to religion and society, and so I was very happy to remember a source that I feel connects to our time in Thailand. German philosopher Theodor Adorno wrote, in the wake of WWII, a piece called “The Authoritarian Personality.” He was basically trying, with other psychologists, to describe personality traits that tend towards authoritarianism — trying to get to the bottom of how the world got to the Holocaust and WWII. He was influenced by Freudian personality theory, so there are parts of it that I feel are applicable today and parts that I feel are not. What I think is parallel is what he says about childhood rigidity and how it affects cognitive development. He theorized that children raised in a dichotomous manner are less able to find the “gray” areas of decision making, where “it depends.” I find that Mark Tamthai’s lectures on the cultural prisons in Thailand are parallel; Sombat Phu Dee and the Three Seals Law leave little room for the in betweens. When children are raised in this manner, they tend towards authoritarian traits (obedience to authority and intolerance to ambiguity) and this is ingrained in cognitive development. It is a sort of color-blindness, in a sense; it’s not that the gray is being ignored, it’s that it isn’t able to be seen. This is, of course, not direct causation, but I believe it can be related to the Thai government's inability to conceptualize protest and talks for peace; if a gray area cannot be conceptualized by authority figures, those below them often fail to accurately communicate their standpoint. 

The impulse, then, tends towards polarization if there is no middle, or gray, ground. Applying this domestically, it becomes supplemental to understand Adorno’s theory of how authoritarianism begins, how it thrives, and where it thrives — to learn from a country that is seeking freedom how to prevent the loss of our own — preventing a relapse towards an authoritarian impulse.

The discussion of intractable conflicts globally is likewise important for how this trip has impacted me, especially on reflection on conflicts like those in the Patani. It is inevitable that these discussions were often extended to other intractable conflicts, such as the conflict continuing between Israel and Palestine. And even in these discussions, we tend to search for a “proportional” response in times of war, appealing to a sense of fairness. This experience in Thailand has taught me that, during these times, there is no “proportional response” — or that the only proportional response is peace. The American answer is often that peace in the face of violence is a concession, a weakness, but many Thai leaders have worked tirelessly to teach that there is more courage in having a peaceful conversation. Speaking generally about the loss of sacred values, reactive aggression in response to conflict comes naturally — yearning for the short term satisfaction that aggression brings and the impulse towards reaction is quite easily found. But in contrast, peaceful articulation and communication is actually quite strenuous. This is easily evidenced by the careers of leaders like Mark Tamthai, who have spent decades on committees and in meetings where there is often no agreement towards peace. Further, this is what I believe Ajahn Ly was teaching in her lectures about Buddhist ideals for communication, in addition to ideals of discernment and the control of human impulse. She reminded us that to communicate like the Buddha is to give from the heart — that right speech has the ultimate higher purpose of wholesomeness and must come from the individual. She reminded us that peace, as the Buddha saw it, cannot be legislated upon. This nods to Mark Tamthai’s paper on Buddhist objections to the rule of law in Thailand: the Buddhist opinion being that change towards peace cannot come from the law, but must instead be drawn from the Buddhist leaders as individuals. 

Here is the heart of my experience: how these teachings on religion and peace-building can be brought back to the United States with us. What Ajahn Pam told us in the mosque has resonated with me since she said it, the request to “be [her] speaker” when we go back to the US. I thought, at first, “I think that might be the least we can do.” But in reflection I decided that, somehow, this request is both the least and the most we can do: the least in that we, as students seeking other cultures, bear responsibilities to carry some soul back with us in our pockets — but the most in that that’s the sort of advocacy that Dr. Le and Dr. Tamthai are looking for in their peace talks: simply using the advocacy of communication and speaking the language of the peaceful through as many mouthpieces as possible. 

from Wat Phra That Doi Suthep

I struggled along this trip with the opposition between faithful leaders who advocate so greatly for peace and a nation that is torn by violence and conflict in so many ways; additionally finding conflict within myself on what it would mean to be a woman and religious in these societies. But I don’t have a good answer to this, so I have to leave with the knowledge that that’s the human experience: the very communities and the indulgences that can bring about the most suffering can perhaps only do so because of the passion and the heart that lies under the aggression, under the reactionary impulses. 

So as far as what to take home with me, the religious leaders that spoke to me the most, like Pam and Mae Chi Win, said that they weep regularly for humanity, and they pray for others. I think regardless of religion, agnosticism, atheism — regardless, you should pray for others and weep for them also. This heart for others is what I believe the Thai concept of Nam Jai (heart water) speaks to, and I hope we can take little bits of their hearts, or heart water, home with us in our pockets.

myself and Dr. Mark Tamthai