[บทความเรื่องนี้แปลจากบทความของ ศจ. ดร. นิธิ เอียวศรีวงศ์ เรื่อง “วัฒนธรรมความจน” เป็นภาษาอังกฤษ ท่านสามารถดาวน์โหลดต้นฉบับภาษาไทยของบทความนี้ รวมทั้งบทความอื่นๆ ที่เกี่ยวข้อง ที่รวบรวมในหนังสือเรื่อง “วัฒนธรรมความจน?” ทั้งเล่ม ในรูป PDF (54 หน้า) ได้โดย คลิ้กที่นี่ ขอขอบคุณอาจารย์นิธิ เป็นอย่างสูง ที่อนุญาตให้ผู้เขียนเผยแพร่หนังสือเล่มนี้ผ่านอินเตอร์เน็ต]
There has been a lot of interesting comments on my previous English blog entry on Prof. Dr. Nidhi’s article on the concept of freedom in Thai culture, a few of which may have been pre-empted if I had written a decent introduction to the ‘Buddhist way of thinking’ that many Thai intellectuals including Prof. Dr. Nidhi typically use. Then the context and concepts may be clearer to non-Thai readers. I promise to do that properly before my series of entries on Thai culture and politics starts in earnest.
In the meantime, following is another one of Prof. Dr. Nidhi’s articles I translated that will serve as another ‘thought pillar’ in my blog series alongside the previous article. Before reading this article, it might help readers to be aware that in Thailand (as in many developing countries), “the poor” and “the rich” are different in more ways than the latter group having much more money. Hopefully this article illustrates some of these differences, which I plan to explore further.
The Culture of Poverty
Prof. Dr. Nidhi Eoseewong
In the movement to demand increasing government salary, many factions of civil servants talk about high pay as if it were vaccine against corruption.
Many people seem to think that, if the police extorts money from citizens, public prosecutors took bribes to mistreat a case, or teachers illicitly sold students to brothels, etc., because these people get low pay, these corruptions are “justified” or are at least forgivable.
However, those who like to justify corruptions this way don’t seem to ever wonder how corruptions are not limited to low-ranking, low-pay civil servants, but spread to civil servants of all levels, including high-ranking officials whose high pay should be enough to deter them from corruption.
[บทความเรื่องนี้แปลจากบทความของ ศจ. ดร. นิธิ เอียวศรีวงศ์ เรื่อง “วัฒนธรรมความจน” เป็นภาษาอังกฤษ ท่านสามารถดาวน์โหลดต้นฉบับภาษาไทยของบทความนี้ รวมทั้งบทความอื่นๆ ที่เกี่ยวข้อง ที่รวบรวมในหนังสือเรื่อง “วัฒนธรรมความจน?” ทั้งเล่ม ในรูป PDF (54 หน้า) ได้โดย คลิ้กที่นี่ ขอขอบคุณอาจารย์นิธิ เป็นอย่างสูง ที่อนุญาตให้ผู้เขียนเผยแพร่หนังสือเล่มนี้ผ่านอินเตอร์เน็ต]
There has been a lot of interesting comments on my previous English blog entry on Prof. Dr. Nidhi’s article on the concept of freedom in Thai culture, a few of which may have been pre-empted if I had written a decent introduction to the ‘Buddhist way of thinking’ that many Thai intellectuals including Prof. Dr. Nidhi typically use. Then the context and concepts may be clearer to non-Thai readers. I promise to do that properly before my series of entries on Thai culture and politics starts in earnest.
In the meantime, following is another one of Prof. Dr. Nidhi’s articles I translated that will serve as another ‘thought pillar’ in my blog series alongside the previous article. Before reading this article, it might help readers to be aware that in Thailand (as in many developing countries), “the poor” and “the rich” are different in more ways than the latter group having much more money. Hopefully this article illustrates some of these differences, which I plan to explore further.
The Culture of Poverty
Prof. Dr. Nidhi Eoseewong
In the movement to demand increasing government salary, many factions of civil servants talk about high pay as if it were vaccine against corruption.
Many people seem to think that, if the police extorts money from citizens, public prosecutors took bribes to mistreat a case, or teachers illicitly sold students to brothels, etc., because these people get low pay, these corruptions are “justified” or are at least forgivable.
However, those who like to justify corruptions this way don’t seem to ever wonder how corruptions are not limited to low-ranking, low-pay civil servants, but spread to civil servants of all levels, including high-ranking officials whose high pay should be enough to deter them from corruption.
I think the belief that poverty is the cause of all kinds of corruption is highly prevalent in Thai society. Politicians like to claim that because they are already rich, they do not enter politics to corrupt. Instead, they claim they become politicians to “repay the society,” and people are not typically question the honesty of public individuals who are already rich.
Some politicians even announce that poverty is the cause of crime.
The image of poor slums that we see on TV also reflects the thinking of sitcom producers and audience, that poverty is the root cause of crime and all kinds of sins in the society.
In my view, this idea is not only absolutely untrue, but also represents a significant gap of understanding in our society between the rich and the poor. The belief that poverty is the cause of corruption shows that the believer does not understand the poor’s way of life at all.
These people just imagine the poor’s mentality without ever having a direct contact with them. They also probably notice that most crooks arrested by the police are poor; infrequent arrests of millionaires typically make front-page news.
The poor’s livelihood is a kind of culture I call the culture of poverty. Poor people have built themselves a system of relationships that extensively helps guarantee the stability in their life.
It’s worth noting here that everyone wants stability in life, but the ways to build that stability differ between the cultures of the rich and the poor.
The rich build stability in life by accumulating as much material wealth as possible, to guarantee that they could forever buy and maintain their lifestyle, no matter how unstable their lives and society become. Therefore, the stability in rich people’s lives is either not related to other people, or is indirectly related.
The poor cannot emulate the rich because it is impossible for them to accumulate significant material wealth. Therefore, they are forced to seek another way to ensure stability: building relationships with a group of people who allow them to forever roll over their debts.
I’d like to give a concrete example regarding the behavior of borrowing in slums, which was a subject of one academic study.
Borrowing is an unavoidable necessity in the culture of poverty (whether in the form of rice or money). Therefore, the poor must keep their sources of borrowing with them forever, because they have limited access to these sources.
The poor preserve their financing sources by maintaining a good relationship with their lenders, primarily by being honest. There is a difference between failing to repay on time and intending to default on their loans. The poor will try not to default, but they may be unable to repay on time.
The uncertainty of timely repayments is one reason that the poor have to pay high interest on their loans. Therefore, the second important thing in the relationship between the poor and their lenders is for the poor not to excuse their lenders of extortion, even though the rich will see such rates as extortion. I think the borrowers realize that the interest is too high, but paying high rates is better than failing to find any lenders. Besides, high rates are compensated by the lenders’ willingness to lend without collateral requirement and with flexible repayment terms – both of which are crucial for the poor. Anyone who makes an enemy out of his lender will suffer from reduced stability in life.
It’s not enough for the poor to maintain a good relationship with his lenders, because even though no collateral is required for grassroots lending, typically a middleman is required as a sort of semi-guarantor for the borrower. The middleman is usually well-connected, sharp-tongued, and a scandalmonger. Defaulting on loans will cause the borrower to lose face, because the middleman will spread the news in the community. This makes it more difficult for the defaulting borrower to find willing lenders in the future, and his stability in life may all but disappear.
Thus, we can say that the culture of poverty has the mechanism that compels the poor to be honest borrowers.
I don’t mean to suggest that the poor never willingly default on their loans. If an outsider lends the poor some money, without building the relationship that can serve as control mechanism, I am certain that the poor will default because he cannot find funds to repay. More importantly, the borrower in this case would not be afraid of not finding source of funds in the future, because the lender’s outsider status means that he will never become the borrower’s permanent source of funds.
Rich people who borrow from banks would probably do the same thing, if banks do not put various mechanisms in place to lessen the risk of default.
The level of honesty isn’t necessarily different between the rich and the poor. But what’s different is that among the poor, both borrowers and lenders will explain their behavior mostly from the perspective of ethics. For example, lenders often claim that they lend out of pity for the poor, even though they charge exorbitant interest in reality.
The borrowers, on the other hand, will explain that they have to repay both principal and interest because they need to be honest and keep their word, otherwise their dishonesty would be bad karma that follows them into the next life.
Let’s now turn to how the rich might explain their debt burden. Most millionaires often explain their debt in terms of legal and economic commitments. For instance, a rich man might say that low-interest loans would ensure profits for their business, and once they make profits, there is no reason to renege on the loans. Another might say that he is legally bound by terms of the loan agreement; reneging on the loans would be grounds for lenders to sue for bankruptcy or jail terms.
The rich and the poor are equally honest or dishonest, but the poor look at the world from the perspective of ethics, while the rich look at the world from the perspective of economic or legal reasons.
If “being ethical” means always looking at the world from the perspective of ethics, I think the poor are “more ethical” than the rich (but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily more honest).
The culture of poverty in Thailand does not promote drug addition, robbery, adultery, larceny, or other crimes. On the contrary, it is a kind of culture that promotes stability in life by focusing on forging interpersonal relationships rather than on accumulating material wealth.
Such interpersonal relationships are sustained by rules and customs that both sides adhere to. Therefore, the poor accords a lot of importance to rules of conduct that govern various relationships. The launderer adheres to the code of conduct between him and his clients, in order to guarantee their long-term loyalty. Even a gambler must strictly adhere to a set of conventions: for example, he should not leave as soon as he wins, but allows his opponents an opportunity to win back, otherwise he would not be able to make money from gambling again in the future. When a poor person buys on credit, he has to periodically repay at least part of his dues, so that the shopkeeper will continue to let him buy on credit. Slum residents cannot steal from each other, lest they will be so busy stealing that they will not have time to work, preoccupied with protecting each other’s property.
The culture of poverty is definitely not the source of crime.
In reality, crime is an option that is available to both the rich or the poor. It is a special path that lies outside the normal life of the rich and poor, but it is a path that some people may opt to walk, because they believe that it does not lead to a dead-end.
Now let’s look at the corruption in politics and government services, most of which is corruption for money and material wealth, an important condition for the stability in life in the culture of the rich. I think that this kind of corruption is particular to the rich. Even high-ranking and low-ranking civil officials who corrupt do so out of a dream of building stability for their lives in accordance with the culture of the rich.
Nonetheless, once we understand how the cultures of the rich and the poor are different, we will no longer be surprised to see how so many rich men – most of whom are civil servants or politicians – seem to engage nonstop in corruption.
The stability of life is an illusion. No matter how rich you are, you can always imagine being infinitely richer. The greater your imagination exceeds your station, the more corrupt you are likely to get.
Legend has it that in the old days, there was a very wealthy Chinese emperor who desired stability in life so much that he craved immortality. Countless citizens died under this emperor in his quest for an elixir for immortality.
When we are talking on the level of ultimate natural truths (Poramat Dhamma), stability of life is always an illusion because all things are impermanent. How can we strive to secure stability in life, when life is dominated by illusions? The poor may sell drugs, and the rich may corrupt.