Looking at the aftermath of 1932, the political struggles over state-form had led to some ambivalence in the kinds of project emanating from the centre; civilizational, constitutional and traditionalist rationalities competed or complemented each other. Yet no clear and enduring project of democra subjection had emerged. There had yet to be a coincidence of perspectives on nation and citizenship with particular rationalities of citi aspects zenship construction. Certainly, both governmental and hegemoni of democracy were in formation, but nothing approaching a stable hege monic project had crystallized. This is the significance, ideologically, of the Sarit era. With that regime's embracing of traditionalism, within the fold of modernity, crucial aspects of a future project of democrasubjection were put in place, most significantly, the place of culture in the democratic identity of a people: a theme that would dovetail with the idea of civic culture propa- gated in political development circles. When state actors began to elaborate a more extensive programme of developmental democracy in the 1960 greater heed was given to programmes of reform which took the people's cultural position not as in need of transcendence, but rather in need of assimilation into the ways of the modern. This assimilation would be sensi tive to the assumed place of the traditional in matters of authority congruent with the idea of civic culture. Phibun's projects of an idealized modern subject were effectively superseded. In their place more extensive projects of subject reform and citizen construction emerged, which began first with getting to know the people and using this knowledge as a basis to