Review: Siam Mapped by Thongchai Winichakul

In his monograph, Siam Mapped, historian Thongchai Winichakul explores the ways in which Thai identity evolved in conjunction with its geographic identity, often manifested in the form of maps. Winichakul defines the geographical boundaries of a nation as a geo-body, saying that it "describes the operations of the technology of territoriality which created nationhood spatially…[and] emphasizes the displacement of social knowledge which has in effect produced social institutions and practices that created nationhood" (16). Throughout the text, Winichakul focuses primarily on the differing geographical concepts that the nineteenth century Thai carried in comparison to those of the colonial powers, and attempts to explain how the changes in those ideologies impacted the formation of Siam as a separate, defined national entity. He also stresses throughout the book that Siam was not, as prior historians have supposed, a victim of colonialism. Instead, he argues that it was a highly capable and independent nation that took advantage of the modern ideas and innovations the colonial powers had to offer. Winichakul presents his argument by offering a history of the Thai conceptions of its geography. Beginning in Buddhist prehistory, where maps served as pictograms of stories and myths rather than tangible tools for navigation, he traces the evolution of the Siamese geo-body and its maps through the ideological transformations of the colonial era.

What I enjoyed most about Siam Mapped was Winichakul's detailed explanations of much of Siam's conflict with the Europeans, and how those disagreements rose almost single-handedly from differences in their geographical perceptions. For example, when deciding the Siamese-Burmese border with the British, the Siamese felt that the location of boundaries lay in the hands of the locals who lived within a questionable region, and that a boundary was more of a region where people of both nationalities existed, rather than an imaginary line on a map. In essence, before European influence forced the Siamese to adapt for their survival, the Siamese nation was a collection of people, rather than a defined territorial area. Winichakul explains, "To point out only one basic discrepancy, all of the [Siamese] terms [for boundary] tend to signify areas, districts, or frontiers, not boundary lines. They mean a limit - an extremity without a clear-cut edge and without the sense of division between two powers" (75). Winichakul clarifies how the concept of the imaginary line as a boundary was foreign to the Siamese, because they had never mapped Siam before as a nation in relation to other nations. He then goes on to describe the processes by which Siam was compelled to form an objective, physical concept of its country. These processes included the introduction of cartography to the country, bureaucratic rezoning to ensure that governed people were actually Siamese residents, and continuing negotiations with the French and British over land ownership.

Winichakul's monograph is organized by concept, rather than by a specific time period. Because the ideologies of Siam's identity and geo-body were so dynamic, however, the structure of the book does follow a more or less chronological progression. Winichakul does an excellent job of discussing each ideology, but he often makes large jumps in chronology in order to compare these ideas. For example, when discussing the nineteenth century problem of chiefdoms often serving several overlords, he mentions Prince Anuwong's rebellion in 1826, Thaeng's annexation by Siam in 1885, and the Siamese campaign against two other regions in 1833 (98-99). For a reader not completely familiar with the chronology and development of the Thai state, Winichakul's frequent jumps in time periods made for a difficult read at times.

Another facet of Winichakul's argument is that the Thai sense of nationalism could not have been created without this strong sense of physical borders and the geo-body. He suggests that the concept of the geo-body was vital in organizing the Siamese sense of community and nationhood, the Thai-self. While this conclusion is very well substantiated and presented throughout the book, perhaps Winichakul places slightly too much emphasis on the physical boundaries of a country as delineating its identity. For example, he describes how sovereignty was hierarchical in both pre-modern and colonial polities, forming a sort of patron-client relationship (81). Winichakul makes the argument that in regions bordering on two or more large kingdoms, smaller kingdoms often were tributary to both, thus belonging to both countries or neither, depending on the perspective. Hence, he argues, the defined geo-body allowed these kingdoms to be sorted out. But boundary areas aside, Winichakul just argued that the governmental structure was very hierarchical. Couldn't a sense of national identity, then, be based upon the hierarchy that "monogamous" tributaries shared with Siam? Wouldn't at least part of the nation feel a sense of allegiance and respect for its leaders, not to mention a sense of consolidation, as Anderson suggests, due to comparable social traditions and beliefs? Winichakul seems to argue that outside of Bangkok, Siam had no definite relationships with its tributary kingdoms; each and every one was in danger of promising loyalty to Burma or Laos. But this conclusion does not seem entirely justified - not every tributary government was in this indeterminate zone. This is just one example of how Winichakul stresses (perhaps too much) the importance of borders and limits on Siam's identity.

But overall, Winichakul provides excellent insight into the gradual evolution of Thailand's self-concept. He stresses Siam's distinctiveness as the only un-colonized Southeast Asian country, and outlines the ways in which the Siamese ideas about the composition of their country were forced to change. Winichakul does not offer many interpretations of whether colonialism and its effects were positive or negative occurrences for Siam. Instead, he posits that the Siamese survived the colonial period and thrived due to their willingness to adapt. Winichakul successfully traces Thailand's unique geographical history, and applies that geography to the more qualitative aspects of the nation.