Upload
alexandra-alexa
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Sirijit Sunanta PhD is chair of the same program
([email protected]). 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
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.