The Post-Damrong Era: Deconstructing Nationalism and Confronting Monarchic History

Following Nidhi Eoseewong’s groundbreaking work, the Damrong school of historiography became widely regarded as an antiquated orthodoxy. Scholars like Somkiat Wanthana expanded this critique, demonstrating in his thesis The Politics of Modern Thai Historiography how the representation of Ayutthaya was consistently shaped by the political needs of successive regimes, from the Chakri dynasty to the hyper-nationalism of the 1930s and beyond. This was followed by Chatchai Khumthawiphorn’s philosophical deconstruction of Damrong’s writings in 1991, further dismantling the foundational pillar of royalist historiography.

As Damrong’s shadow receded, the nationalist framework itself came under scrutiny. This reassessment was driven by Thailand’s rapid economic growth and return to parliamentary democracy in the late 1980s, the end of the Cold War, and the diminishing influence of class-based Marxist analysis. Furthermore, Western revisionist scholarship, particularly Benedict Anderson’s concept of the nation as an "imagined community," alongside postmodern deconstruction, profoundly influenced Thai academia. Nidhi Eoseewong himself critiqued the nationalism embedded in primary school textbooks, but the most decisive blow came from Thongchai Winichakul’s seminal work, Siam Mapped (1994).

Thongchai Winichakul deconstructed the sacrosanct notion of Thailand’s timeless territorial nation, arguing that the modern "geobody" was a constructed concept dating only to the late 19th century. Concurrently, archaeologist Srisakr Vallibhotama rejected racial nationalism in works like Aeng Arayatham Isan, emphasizing the multi-ethnic origins of "Siam" and the historical importance of the northeastern region over the central kingdoms. This fueled the "Local History" movement, championed also by historians like Thida Saraya, which shifted focus from royal courts to local communities, albeit often within state-funded parameters that limited its radical potential.

The assault on nationalist narrative was continued by Saichon Satayanurak, a student of Nidhi, who systematically analyzed the constructed notions of "Thainess" by Luang Wichit Wathakan, Damrong, and Kukrit Pramot. However, while nationalism became open to critique, the monarchy remained a largely untouchable subject due to the enhanced political and propagandistic power of King Bhumibol. The official, contradictory narrative of King Prajadhipok (Rama VII) as the "father of democracy" persisted.

The political reforms following the 1992 pro-democracy protests renewed academic interest in the history of democracy. Historians like Charnvit Kasetsiri and Nakharin Mektrairat published significant studies on the 1932 revolution, aiming for a more neutral tone. Their works emphasized continuity from King Chulalongkorn’s reforms and helped rehabilitate Pridi Phanomyong, but often downplayed the radical significance of the People’s Party, with Nakharin later adopting a more overt neo-royalist stance.

A fundamental challenge to monarchic history emerged with the work of Somsak Jeamteerasakul. A leftist scholar and witness to the 6 October 1976 massacre, Somsak authored iconoclastic studies dismantling key royalist myths. He demonstrated that Rama VII actively obstructed democracy, that King Bhumibol refused to pardon the executed scapegoats for King Ananda’s death, and that the monarch was centrally involved in inciting the anti-communist hysteria that led to the 1976 violence. His writings, collected in Prawattisat Thi Phueng Sang, argued the monarchy was a major obstacle to Thai democracy.

Somsak utilized new media, publishing in journals like Fa Dio Kan and on the "Midnight University" website, to bring these critiques toward the mainstream. His work preserved a critical perspective for a generation raised on relentless royal propaganda. The intense political struggles from the 2000s onward, marked by the rise of Thaksin Shinawatra and the 2006 royalist coup, were unmistakably a battle over the monarchy’s future political role—a role long legitimized by royalist historiography.

Conclusion: Historiography in the Reign of Bhumibol. The historiography produced during the long reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (1946-2016), whether supporting or challenging the throne, bears its indelible mark. Despite significant challenges from revisionist, local history, and critical scholarly movements, the politics of Thai history-writing remained dominated by the monarchy. However, as the chapter concludes, the breaking hegemony of the monarchy-military alliance and the looming royal succession suggested that both Thai historiography and politics were on the verge of a profoundly new and contested era.

TIMELINE/KEY DATES:
- 1932: Overthrow of the absolute monarchy by the People’s Party.
- 1946: Death of King Ananda Mahidol; accession of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
- 1947: Royalist-military coup restores throne's powers.
- 1957-58: Coups establish the Sarit Thanarat dictatorship in alliance with the monarchy.
- 1973: 14 October uprising ends military regime.
- 1976: 6 October massacre of students at Thammasat University; royalist coup.
- 1992: Pro-democracy protests reduce military's political role.
- 2001: Thai Rak Thai party elected; Thaksin Shinawatra becomes Prime Minister.
- 2006: Royalist coup overthrows Thaksin government.

KEY HISTORICAL SOURCES:
- Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped (1994).
- Nidhi Eoseewong, Pen and Sail (1984).
- Somsak Jeamteerasakul, Prawattisat Thi Phueng Sang (2001).
- Nakharin Mektrairat, The Siamese Revolution of 1932 (1992).
- Srisakr Vallibhotama, Sayam Prathet (1996).
- Saichon Satayanurak, works on Luang Wichit, Damrong, and Kukrit (2002-2007).