8/9/2019 Iias Nl62 4647-Libre

1/2

46 | The Network

Announcements

The Newsletter| No.62 | Winte r 2012

ON 2-3 OCTOBER 2012 the workshop Multiculturalism in

Thailand: Concept, Policy and Practice was held at Mahidol

University in Salaya, Thailand. The workshop was organized by

Dr. Sirijit Sunanta and Dr. Alexander Horstmann, on behalf of

the new PhD program in Multicultural Studies, which success-

fully commenced in August 2012, at the Research Institute for

Languages and Cultures of Asia (RILCA; Mahidol University).

A third organizer was Professo r Chayan Vadhanaputhi,

Director of the two other participating centers, both at Chiang

Mai University: Regional Center for Sustainable Development

(RCSD) and Center for Ethnic Studies and Development (CESD).

Professor Chayan Vadhanaputhi is also Senior Advisor of the

PhD program in Multicultural Studies at RILCA.

The aim of the workshop was to discuss the state of multi-

culturalism as a political position and policy in Thailand. The

main question was if multiculturalism as an ideological position

has arrived in Thailand and how multicultural policies impact

on ethnic minorities in Thailand. Another question asked was if

Thailand has quit the assimilation model and has implemented

multicultural policies that sincerely aim to accommo date

diversity. The workshop concluded that multicultural policies

are not yet sincere and although some encouraging signs of

rethinking the cultural others and community participation

indicate change, Thailand is not yet prepared to grant sub-

stantial rights to ethnic minorities, let alone self-government.

Migrant populations fall outside government policies and

the state is mostly repressive.

Multicultural policies should not only include identity and

cultural heritage, but also full access to education, social

welfare and full rights of political par ticipation. The special

cultural zones (ket wathanatham piset)seem to be a crucialindicator of government honesty and commitment to

multiculturalism and some of the speakers in the workshop

are committee members. The project was critically discussed

and evaluated and it was concluded that there are still too

many limitations and contradictions as to the responsibilities

and sincerity of the project.

The panels

In the first panel, Multiculturalism in Thailand: A new frame-

work and its challenges, Chayan Vadhanaputhi provided

a foundational analysis of different theoretical concepts of

multiculturalism in Southeast Asia. He argued that ethno-

nationalism used to prevail in Thailand and that Thailand in the

1950s had a strong nationalist and civilizing project in w hich

ethnic minorities were seen as a problem and troublemakers

who had to assimilate to mainstream Thai national identity

in order to benefit from modernization. This led to a state of

discrimination and exclusion. Only in the 1980s did Thailand

apply a policy of selective multiculturalism and selective

ethnic pluralism, although selective multiculturalism has not

yet replaced the assimilation model. Cultural rights for ethnic

minorities are still outstanding, and ethnic minorities are ex-

oticized and used for tourist purposes. Thailand does not grant

rights of self-determination or self-government to national

minorities and the sincerity of selective multicultural policies

have yet to be proved. Chayan contrasts state multiculturalism

with critical multiculturalism and argues that initiatives

should come from civil society rather than from the state.

Sirijit Sunanta (RILCA) likewise critically reviewed the

experience of multiculturalism in Thailand and in the West.

Even in the countries where multiculturalism originated,

such as Canada and Australia, governments have partially

withdrawn from the approach, and the concept as a policy

has come under increasing controversy. Sirijit argued that the

concept may be state-centered, ethnocentric and disadvanta-

geous for women. Multiculturalism in the West is squeezed

between the left and the right. Sirijit argues that multi-

culturalism as a discourse and policy has not really arrived

in Thailand, although there are some changes that are more

than cosmetic. It has to be seen if and how much a rethinking

of diversity will take place in Thai society.

Olivier Evrard (CESD, Institut de Recherche en Developpement)

questioned the appropriateness of the terminology of multi-

culturalism in the context of mainland Southeast Asia. Like

Chayan did, he too referred to the ethno-spatial order and the

civilizing project of the hill communities in Northern Thailand.

He argues that multiculturalism has replaced older terms and

narratives and he maintains that there are competing concepts

of cultural pluralism existing side by side. Evrard referred to

concepts of hybridity, creolization and spaces of dispersion

to emphasize the complexity and contradictions underlying

current multicultural policies in mainland Southeast Asia.

He said that even France emphasizes universal rights on the

detriment of partial group rights. He also distinguished formal

from substantive citizenship. Substantive citizenship includes

full access to education and full political participation.

In the first panel, speakers suggested that the application

of multiculturalism in Thailand is far from cer tain and that

multiculturalism exists side by side with other competing andcontradicting models, such as ethno-nationalism. The following

panel focused on the perception of rights in Thailand. In her

conceptual presentation, Coeli Barry (Sirindhorn Anthropology

Centre) conceptualized different types of rights, collective

rights, community rights and cultural rights. She argues that

Thailand has a history of impunity and has basically withdrawn

collective rights from ethnic minorities. Barry argues that

cultural rights have huge political implications, and that a

recognition of rights is essential for giving people back their

right to cultural identity, history and dignity. Barry states that

the idea of rights has still to be promoted by civil society

and that ethnic minorities claim ownership of cultural heritage.

International rights frameworks need to be contextualized

to become effective in the local context.

Prasit Leepreecha (CESD) gave a comprehensive introduction

to the rise of indigenous rights movements and how indigenous

people form partnerships with local and international NGOsto claim access to social welfare and rights. He describes how

civil society was able to empower community leaders from

hill tribes who now regularly participate in the UN forum on

indigenous rights. The Thai government is not able anymore

to simply ignore the citizenship and rights claims of indigenous

people.

Tiamsoon Sirisrisak (RILCA) presented his work on

community rights and contested ownership of cultural

heritage in Bangkoks Chinatown. The Bangkok Metropolitan

Administration has plans to modernize Bangkok that conflict

with the maintenance of cultural heritage by the communi-

ties. Tiamsoon argues that while the BMA does not invite the

community to participate in urban planning, the community

although divided organizes activities in their place to

raise consciousness for the significance of cultural heritage

in their neighborhood. The outcome is open to contestation.

Tiamsoon concludes that urban modernization is state and

business driven, and does not consider community needs.

The practice of multicultural policies was deepened in the next

panel. Malee Sitthikriangkrai (CESD) is advisor of the special

cultural zones project. This pioneer project is funded by the

Ministry of Culture and aims to strengthen marginalized com-

munities. The project was initiated by civil society actors and a

pioneer project of Karen communities in Northern Thailand and

Moken communities in Southern Thailand is now underway.

But, even though the project is supposed to strengthen the

identity of Karen and Moken, there are a number of problems

arising. Neither Karen nor Moken have substantial rights to use

environmental resources and conflicts with the Environment

and Forestry Department are rampant. Bilingual education is

practiced, but local teachers are not recognized by the Ministry

of Education. The project stops short of granting the communi-

ties any substantial rights and customary law is not recognized.

Malee thus confirms the general statement made by Barry,

that the government is not yet prepared to shift ownership

and substantial cultural rights to the minorities. Karencommunities, however, are able to use their internal strength

to pressure the government for more accommodating policies.

Suwilai Premsrirat (RILCA) gave an overview of national

language policies that followed the assimilation model.

The Mahidol project aims to preserve endangered languages

and promotes multi-lingual education. The government does

not yet provide teachers and funds to support native lang-

uages. Suwilai gives particular significance to the introduction

of multi-lingual education in the Deep South as a means to

reduce ethnic conflict there. This point was taken up by

Panadda Boonyasaranai (CESD) in her case study of the

multi-lingual Akha. The non-recognition of minority cultures

in Southern Thailand was again discussed by Ngamsuk

Ruttanasatian. Kwanchit Sasiwongsaroj (RILCA) provided

a detailed picture of health policies in Thailand and how they

impact on migrants access and exclusion from these policies.

The final panel again reminds us that multiculturalismis state-centric and that a lot can be gained by looking at the

agency of borderland communities and refugee-migrants.

The presentation by Alexander Horstmann (RILCA) reminded

us that migrants are not even considered for multicultural

policies and are controlled in state spaces. Thailand has not

signed the Refugee Convention and refugees are hence not

protected. Worse, refugees have been routinely abused by

state authorities and are not even considered of equal value.

Alexander showed how refugee-migrants organize themselves

to create their ow n spaces. Mukdawan Sakboon (CESD) reminds

us that many people in T hailand are still stateless and face

many obstacles to receiving proper citizenship.

Clearly, multiculturalism is on the map of Southeast Asian

Studies. The workshop was well received, was given substantial

outside attention and both RILCA and CESD agreed to, in the

future, exchange faculty and students, develop workshops

and conferences, produce publications, and provide training

to government ministries and civil society.

Dr. Alexander Horstmann is a teacher for the new PhD

program in Multicultural Studies, at the Research Institute

for Languages and Cultures of Asia, at Mahidol University

(ahorstmann3@gmail.com)

Sirijit Sunanta PhD is chair of the same program

(Sirijit.Sunanta@gmail.com). This is the first PhD program

in Multicultural Studies in Thailand.

Multiculturalism in ThailandAlexander Horstmann

Above: The Manoora

master puts his bare

foot on the face of a

sick baby of a Muslim

mother in Wat Ta

Kura, Songkhla,

Thailand. Local Thera-

vadin Buddhists and

Muslims alike believe

in the power of

ancestral spirit. Photo

reproduced from

Thomas Reuter and

Alexander Horstmann

(eds.). 2012. Faith in

the Future,Leiden:

Brill. Photo by Alexan-

der Horstmann, May

2006, in Sating Phra,

Songkhla, Thailand.

Below:

Dr. Chayan Vadhana-

puthi (director CESD,

Chiang Mai) giving

his presentation.

8/9/2019 Iias Nl62 4647-Libre

2/2

The Network | 47The Newsletter| No.62 | Winter 2012

Soviet Modernism 1955-1991:Unknown StoriesElena Paskaleva

Exhibition in Architekturzentrum Wien:

8 November 2012 25 February 2013

UNTIL 25 FEBRUARY 2013 the Architekturzentrum Wien

is presenting a unique exhibition focussing on the modern

architecture of the former Soviet republics (with the exception

of Russia). Organised according to four geographical regions,

Soviet Modernism 1955-1991offers visual and material insights

into the architecture of the Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia,

Lithuania), Eastern Europe (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus), the

Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) and Central Asia

(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan).

The project, based on the initiative of Georg Schllhammer

and the association Local Modernities, has resulted in an

extensive network of scholars from East and West who have

jointly wor ked towards the exhibi tion. For th e first tim e, the

Unknown Storiesof eyewitnesses and architects themselves

have been recorded and are now being told in Vienna. As aresult of the collaboration between researchers and local

architects, the exhibition outlines the diversity and artistic

value of Soviet Modernism.

The construction programmes initiated by the Soviet leader

Nikita Khrushchev in the late 1950s resulted in the creation of

model socialist cities. On the one hand, the reduced functional-

ity of apartment buildings was meant to solve the pending

social problems of free housing for each Soviet citizen. The

plans were uniform and mass-produced, and the material

was invariably pre-fabricated concrete. The complete design

process was carried out in large architectural institutes, with

very limited artistic freedom, using standardised plans and

techniques. On the other hand, representative buildings were

designed individually, allowing for more creativity on the part

of the predominantly Russian educated architects.

Stretching from Scandinavia to China, the region covered

by the exhibition is enormous and rich in diverse ethnicand religious traditions. The architecturally unique designs

of Soviet Modernism express both the cultural relationships

to Russia (particularly in Eastern Europe) and the struggle

for new national identities (mostly evident in the Caucasus

and Central Asia). These characteristics have been skilfully

represented by the curators Katharina Ritter, Ekaterina

Shapiro-Obermair and Alexandra Wachter.

Architectural examples from the four geographical regions

were selected by the curators according to the following five

typologies indigenous to Soviet architecture:

Houses for political education.These public buildings

played a major role in Soviet propaganda and in the

majority of cases represented the story of the Revolution

and the heroism of the Soviet people. (e.g., Lenin Palace,

1970, Almaty, Kazakhstan; Lenin Museum (now Historical

Museum), 1984, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; Lenin Museum,

1970, Tashkent, Uzbekistan). Wedding palaces.These palaces were used as a venue

for mass celebrations in which large groups of people

could gather without any religious connotations.

(e.g., Wedding Palace, 1985, Tbilisi, Georgia; Wedding

Palace, 1987, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).

valour in a capital which remained unscathed by the war.

Another decorative idiom used by the Soviet Uzbek

designers was theganch panjaras (lattices) with stained

glass that could be seen in the Gulistan Restaurant inTashkent from 1967. They were designed by Grosman and

Lipene, whose work was influenced by the achievements

of Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian artists.

In the 1960s, the multi-storey apartment blocks were

imposed upon the traditional Uzbek way of life in which several

generations lived together and shared large common spaces

that could not be accommodated by the new standardised

living norms. These new Uzbek dwellings were elaborately

decorated with colourful mosaics and were erected along large

Soviet avenues in order to promote Tashkent as the centre of

Socialism across Central Asia. The Uzbek capital was a Soviet

show city, the stage of multiple international conferences and

symposia attracting pro-socialist architects from all corners

of the world. Architecture was a political tool used in a

larger scheme of creating a modern Soviet nation out of

backward nomads.

The exhibition layout was designed by Six & Petritsch.Each region is represented by a huge map with clear

boundaries marked around the newly independent states.

Selected buildings based on the above mentioned typologies

are presented with photographs and architectural drawings.

Many local architects have kindly lent images, newspaper

clippings and magazine articles from their private archives,

which are exhibited in glass cases. Period (propaganda) films

depicting the construction and the design of the buildings

enrich the visual experience. However, the large screens with

pictures are set against the walls or fitted into metal frames

in a vaulted, rather cluttered elongated space. In my view,

the exhibition would have profited from a more spacious

setting, which could have allowed for a better perception

of the architectural images, and perhaps the inclusion of

architectural models. For perceiving architecture is multi-

sensory and the quality of the space does matter.

The exhibition is accompanied by a catalogue in English

and German (published by Park Books). The publication aims

to go beyond the average exhibition catalogue as it provides

an extensive overview of each country composed by a local

expert. Since the main aim is to present Soviet Modernism

both from outside and from within the local cultural contexts,

the Architekturzentrum Wien has become a pioneer in the

search for the roots of local Soviet modernities.

Exhibition website: tinyurl.com/cz8ct68

(or museum website: w ww.azt.at).

Information on the Park Books catalogue:

tinyurl.com/bqylswm

Elena Paskaleva works on architectural heritage in Central

Asia. At present she is an affiliated post-doctoral fellow at

the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) in Leiden

(elpask@gmail.com)

Winter circuses.In 1952 the Council of Ministers of the

USSR issued a decree to build permanent winter circuses

in the country. As a tribute to the Belarusians who had

contributed to the reconstruction of the national economy,

it was decided to build the first one in Minsk (1959).

(e.g., Circus, 1976, Tashkent, Uzbekistan).

Markets.Markets are intrinsic features of Central Asian

culture as trade was at the centre of the Silk Road routes

that connected China with the West. Covered markets,

in particular the four-fold type of chorsu, can still be found

along the trading hubs in pre-modern settlements. During

the Soviet period the concept of the market was further

developed by utilising the century-old multiple dome struc-

tures and using modern engineering methods. (e.g., Bazar,

1983, Baku, Azerbaijan; Chorsu B azar, Tashkent, Uzbekistan).

Restaurants as free standing buildings.(e.g., Gulistan

Restaurant, 1967, Tashkent, Uzbekist an).

The timing of the exhibition is appropriate as it provides,among others, material sources for the study of Central

Asia, which is a relatively new field in the West. Of particular

interest is the architecture of Uzbekistan. It can be analysed as

a synthesis of Soviet Modernism and centuries-old ornamental

traditions. The majority of public and apartment buildings

in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent were designed by Russian

architects from Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). One

example of the cultural exchanges between Soviet design

and the architectural heritage along the Silk Road is the Lenin

Museum in Tashkent designed by Boldychev, Rozanov and

Shestopalov in 1970. It constitutes a massive prism clad in

a sun-protective grating of Gazgan marble, using medieval

patterns dating back to 14th century Il-Khanid architecture.

The interior walls, covered with mosaics praise the Soviet

Above: Residential

building, Tashkent,

Uzbekistan. Photo

by Elena Paskaleva.

Left:

Residential building

on Minskaya

Street, 1980s,

Bobruisk, Belarus.

Belorussian

State Archive of

Scientific-Technical

Documentation.

Below:

Lenin Palace, 1970,

Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Simona Rota.