Thai Cursing Rituals and Anti-Corruption: Symbolic Strength and Social Function

Sanya Kenaphoom; Panya  Senawiang; Thanyachanok  Pawala

Authors

Sanya Kenaphoom Rajabhat MahasaraKham University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9833-4759
Panya Senawiang Rajabhat Mahasarakham University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2432-5761
Thanyachanok Pawala Rajabhat Mahasarakham University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3512-9413

Keywords:

Cursing rituals, Corruption, Symbolic power, Thai culture, Anti-corruption

Abstract

Cursing rituals in Thai society signify culturally ingrained symbolic activities that are increasingly utilized in reaction to perceived corruption and institutional inadequacy. This study seeks to analyze the role of these rituals as instruments of symbolic authority and informal accountability in modern anti-corruption frameworks. The study utilizes a qualitative interpretative research design, employing a multiple-case approachgrounded in publicly documented ritual acts linked to corruption claims. Data were gathered from media reports, public pronouncements, and digital sources, and analyzed using thematic and interpretive discourse analysis guided by the theoretical frameworks of symbolic power and accountability.

The findings indicate that cursing rituals function as mechanisms of moral framing, converting technical accusations of corruption into culturally significant tales of guilt, justice, and moral violation. These strategies create emotional engagement and public visibility through symbolic classification, performative language, and ritual dramatization. Media amplification broadens their influence, allowing ritualized condemnation to serve as a mechanism of informal accountability by exerting reputational pressure on the accused individuals and institutions. Nonetheless, the study reveals that these rituals are fundamentally limited by their absence of legal authority, reliance on collective belief systems, and susceptibility to political interpretation.

This study enhances the interdisciplinary comprehension of governance by illustrating that ritual behaviors can function as culturally rooted, yet context-specific, instruments of informal accountability. It further posits that successful anti-corruption programs must amalgamateinstitutional reform with a focus on the symbolic and communicative aspects of public trust and legitimacy.

References

Alexander, J. C. (2011). Performance and power. Polity Press.

Asad, T. (1993). Genealogies of religion. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001

Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/202060

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.

Cohen, E. (2012). Contesting discourses of blood in the “red shirts” protests in Bangkok. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 43(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463412000033

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton University Press.

Dalpino, C. E. (1991). Political corruption: Thailand’s search for accountability. Journal of Democracy, 2(4), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0053

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge.

Durkheim, É. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life (K. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published in 1912)

Engel, D. M. (2016). Blood curse and belonging in Thailand: Law, Buddhism, and legal consciousness. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 3(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2016.2

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. Pantheon Books.

Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469955

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford University Press.

Kertzer, D. I. (1988). Ritual, politics, and power. Yale University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32brpc

Keyes, C. F. (1987). Thailand: Buddhist kingdom as modern nation-state. Westview Press.

Mutebi, A. M. (2008). Explaining the failure of Thailand’s anti-corruption regime. Development and Change, 39(1), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00472.x

Pattana, K. (2012). Mediums, monks, and amulets. Silkworm Books.

Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (2016). Unequal Thailand: Aspects of income, wealth, and power. NUS Press.

Rajah, A. (2005). Political assassination by other means: Public protest, sorcery, and morality in Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 36(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463405000056

Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is the quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x

Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13–28). Lynne Rienner Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781685854133-003

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance. Yale University Press.

Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine Publishing. https://archive.org/details/ritualprocessstr00turn

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published in 1922)