2004
DOI: 10.1080/1351034042000234576
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Buddhism, democracy and identity in Thailand

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, Christonormativity does not represent the only kind of religious hegemony and privilege that can shape a society. Hindu Nationalism in India, Theravada Buddhism in Thailand as well as religious minorities in Islamic countries illustrate the contextual nature of religious hegemony and privilege (see e.g., McCargo, 2004; Anand, 2011; Keyes, 2016).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, Christonormativity does not represent the only kind of religious hegemony and privilege that can shape a society. Hindu Nationalism in India, Theravada Buddhism in Thailand as well as religious minorities in Islamic countries illustrate the contextual nature of religious hegemony and privilege (see e.g., McCargo, 2004; Anand, 2011; Keyes, 2016).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is not the intention of this paper to idealize the past and its 'back to the future' reconstitution through processes of neo-localism-a criticism that has quite rightly been levelled at neo-localists by their many detractors (e.g., Hewison, 2000;McCargo, 2004). Nonetheless, the case-study raises some interesting (and, in the context of this special issue, relevant) points about the role of neo-and eco-localism processes in the (re)building of sustainable livelihoods in the poorer parts of the world.…”
Section: Eco-localism In North-east Thailandmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Most literature connected to Thai nationalism focuses on analyzing the policies and practices of the socializing agents of Thai nationalism, rather than the experiences of the individuals subjected to the nationalizing regimen (for example, see the excellent work by Chachavalpongpun, , ; Kasetsiri, ; McCargo, , , , ; Strate, ; Sturm, ; Winichakul, ). This article uses instead rich ethnographically collected data focusing on the experiences and perspectives of individuals.…”
Section: Affective Self‐nationalizationmentioning
confidence: 99%