It was an image which ran through much of his work and was central to his influential plays. These productions are a striking example of art for socio-political purposes. In contrast to the post-war radical art movement which sought to question the Thai social order, Wichit's dramatic work was unequivocally committed to the state. It served a similar purpose to that produced by Vajiravudh in an earlier era, but surpassed that of the king in aiming to forge a popular historical consciousness in which no particular social class could claim a monopoly on Thainess. Ostensibly, anybody could be a national exemplar whether he were king or commoner, male or female, on the condition that he was prepared to sacrifice himself for the nation. Clearly, however, in the context of the deep political divisions that emerged following the overthrow of the monarchy, not to mention the increasingly belligerent international environment of the time, the virtues embodied in Wichit's model of the quintessential Thai were more readily associated with the military than with any other section of society who better to safeguard internal unity and national independence? Thus, in contrast to Vajiravudh, who had set in place the idea that it was the king, as the "chief warrior", who embodied and guaranteed the existence of the Thai nation alone, Wichit now cast the military in this role. In short, the military-dominated state and the nation were equated as one and the same.
It was an image which ran through much of his work and was central to his influential plays. These productions are a striking example of art for socio-political purposes. In contrast to the post-war radical art movement which sought to question the Thai social order, Wichit's dramatic work was unequivocally committed to the state. It served a similar purpose to that produced by Vajiravudh in an earlier era, but surpassed that of the king in aiming to forge a popular historical consciousness in which no particular social class could claim a monopoly on Thainess. Ostensibly, anybody could be a national exemplar whether he were king or commoner, male or female, on the condition that he was prepared to sacrifice himself for the nation. Clearly, however, in the context of the deep political divisions that emerged following the overthrow of the monarchy, not to mention the increasingly belligerent international environment of the time, the virtues embodied in Wichit's model of the quintessential Thai were more readily associated with the military than with any other section of society who better to safeguard internal unity and national independence? Thus, in contrast to Vajiravudh, who had set in place the idea that it was the king, as the "chief warrior", who embodied and guaranteed the existence of the Thai nation alone, Wichit now cast the military in this role. In short, the military-dominated state and the nation were equated as one and the same.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
