This thesis and the research on which it is based would not have been possible without the support of several institutions and individuals. The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore, with which I am privileged to be associated, was instrumental in enabling me to embark and complete the research and course of study which this thesis represents. My first year of study at the Department of Anthropology, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University (RSPacS, ANU) was financed by a grant from the Ford Foundation made possible only through ISEAS. Fieldwork in Chiang Mai, Thailand, conducted under the auspices of the National Research Council of Thailand and the sponsorship of Chiang Mai University (CMU) and the Tribal Research Centre, Chiang Mai, was funded by two grants. The first was a grant under a United Nations University (UNU) Fellowship, through its Natural Resources Programme, in connection with the UNU-CMU Joint Research Project on Agro-Forestry and Highland-Lowland Interactive Systems. The second grant was very generously provided by the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk, again made possible only through ISEAS. The ANU awarded me a one year scholarship for thesis writing at the university. This was later extended in the form of a grant from the Director’s Discretionary Fund (as I believe it is called), RSPacS. Long though it has taken, this thesis would have taken even longer to complete had it not been for the further support and allowances in time unstintingly given by ISEAS. It is a manifestly inadequate acknowledgement, but I am extremely grateful to these institutions for their support and consideration.

However benign and philanthropic they may be in supporting research, even by the unimportunately impecunious, research institutions, funding agencies, and universities do not — at least in my own experience — act out of some anonymous impulse. I therefore feel compelled to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Professor Kernial S. Sandhu, Director, ISEAS, for his unfailing but always unobtrusive support, patience and, if I may say so, a realisation that the “art of the possible” is possible; Peter Geithner of the Ford Foundation for initial encouragement; Wolfgang Wittwer of the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk for his interest and considerable patience; E.C. Chapman who, as consultant to the UNU-CMU Project (and another master of the “art of the possible”) made the UNU Fellowship indeed possible; and James J. Fox (yet another master of what can be made possible) for administering extreme unction, as it seemed then, in the form of the grant from the Director’s Discretionary Fund, RSPacS.

Theses are, of course, written under supervision of one sort or another and, just as it is usual to acknowledge one’s intellectual debt to one’s supervisors, it is also usual to absolve them of any shortcomings and deficiencies. I do not see why this should be so. Apart from a certain fallaciousness in the reasoning that underlies this reprehensible practice, it seems rather unfair that they should share in any credit, if there is any, and yet be excused from blame, should it come to that. I therefore feel obliged to say that I am profoundly indebted to my supervisors, Ted Chapman, James J. Fox, and Gehan Wijeyewardene, for all that I have been privileged to learn from them and that this thesis is in large part a testimony of the intellectual debt I owe them; but, if there are any shortcomings and deficiencies in it, we are all collectively responsible. This may not be a refraction of some Theravada Compact, but it certainly makes good Durkheimian sense.

Nevertheless, there is also a great deal else for which I am grateful to them which, as with all that I have learnt from them, made everything worthwhile. Not being a practitioner of the art of the possible, I consequently find it impossible to express it all, but some things seem to stand for everything else, rather like dominant symbols and the totality of the ideological structures which, as I claim, they uphold and help to reproduce. They are: with Ted, an introduction to the mysteries of field-book-and compass-traverses and elementary map-making at Kioloa, an initiation into the somewhat complex and confusing world of applied research in Northern Thailand, an awareness of the importance of commonsense, a fear of prolix, and the question of Karen identity; with Jim, an introduction to the ethnography of the societies of Eastern Indonesia, the critical roles of the Head of the Earth, ina, and ama, the issue of procreative models, and occasionally relentless “bemused” questioning; with Gehan, Meskin functions, a pathological fear of sociological fallacies, a painless introduction to Chiang Mai and kham myang, that things like Ayutthaya maa tii Chiang Mai are worth thinking about, Northern Thai cuisine, olive planting and an introduction to chain saws (fortunately well away from the forests of Northern Thailand), and epistemological problems. There is in all of this another debt I owe them, and Professor Sandhu as well, rather more difficult to express; it is of the kind that generally leaves prodigal sons thoroughly abashed. That, perhaps, comes closer to saying all of it.

In the course of work on this thesis, I benefitted from discussions of certain problems in the ethnography of the Karen with Peter Kunstadter, Ronald Renard, Roland Mischung, and Peter Hinton. Some analytical problems were also clarified by Geoffrey Benjamin, who first introduced me to anthropology, and whose work on Temiar kinship and naming systems read so long ago, is the original inspiration for an analysis contained in this study. I am, however, particularly grateful for his interest and encouragement throughout all these years.

At the Department of Anthropology, RSPacS, ANU, I was fortunate to enjoy the friendship and support of a great many people. However, I feel I must mention especially Jimmy Weiner, Wayne Warry, Douglas Lewis, Satoshi Nakagawa, Greg Acciaioli, Penny Graham, and Nerida Cook for sharing with me their views of anthropology, and their concern and interest expressed in so many ways in what I was doing which made a difference then.

At ISEAS, Singapore, the interest, encouragement, and companionship of many, no less than at the ANU, made all the difference this time. I must mention Sharon Siddique “about whom I have nothing but nice things to say”, as we agreed I must say, and who introduced me to the administration of social science research at ISEAS which eventually helped me put my own work more appropriately in its larger context, namely, its proper (and much smaller) place, Subbiah Gunasekaran and Ng Chee Yuen for outrageously hilarious moments with “lizard forecasts”, “long haired operations”, and lunch time gourmet tours which, if I understand their intentions correctly, are meant to stand for life after a thesis if not death, Kenneth James for “computerising” me, Yao Souchou for explorations in ideological analyses, and Tim Huxley and Pauline Khng for, amongst many other things including explorations in the “ideologically unsound”, not asking me (too often) when the “thing” would be done — all of which has made the completion of this thesis a rather less excruciating experience than I thought it would be.

Also at ISEAS, a great deal of the production of this thesis would not have been possible without the highly professional assistance, always cheerfully given, by Betty Kwan, Jane Ong, Rahim bin Mohd. Amin and Ramlee bin Othman, and I thank them too. All too often, so it appears to me at least, acknowledgements of this nature sincere though they may be are expressed in somewhat perfunctory fashion. That seems like yet another reprehensible practice. I would, therefore, like to say that I am very grateful indeed to Betty Kwan for making major and more difficult portions of earlier versions of this thesis much more presentable and, intended or otherwise, instruction in how to do it; Rahim bin Mohd. Amin for advice and help with diagrams and figures always given with lordly good humour (though I must confess to some feeling of umbrage at his gleeful reception of my wholly innocent mistakes), and Ramlee bin Othman for patient support, invariably given with enviable modesty, without which none of this would be readable. I am, however, especially grateful to Jane Ong for her care in rejuvenating a somewhat “ancient” document.

Fieldwork in Chiang Mai is, I believe, always regarded by the old Chiang Mai hands, or most of them anyway, as an extremely rewarding and pleasant experience. Though I may not have eaten as much rice as they have had salt, and presumptious though it may seem, that too has been my experience. Much of it was due to Cecilia Ng Siew Hua to whom I owe amongst a great many other things an interest in Karen clothes and cloths even if they may not appear to be splendid symbols, Donald Gibson for his friendship and hospitality, Thra Phy and Thra My Phi Ta Moo for showing me what being Karen meant to them, and Phongwattana Na Chiang Mai. It would be remiss of me if I did not also mention that much of my understanding of conditions in the Mae Muang Luang-Huai Thung Choa area where this study was conducted was gained through my association, in the UNU-CMU Project, with Pakorn Jringsoongnoen, Thannarong Viboonsunti, Sompote Nuntapong, Samer Lympchuvong, Tongchai Pratoonsuvan, Chusak Wittayapak, Chaiwoot Hongthong, Hans Hurni, and Wieland Kunzel. But most of all, if I have gained some understanding of working in Northern Thailand, and any feeling for it, I owe it to Gehan Wijeyewardene and Ted Chapman.

If these acknowledgements seem rather lengthy and excessive, I can only say that I feel they are necessary because that is what it took. My other more personal debts are better acknowledged elsewhere even if, like the ones here, they cannot be fully discharged.

To the Palokhi Karen who are the subject of this study, my debt is enormous and quite impossible to express. Though it is hardly adequate, this thesis stands as my acknowledgement of all that they gave in the twenty-two months when, as I would like to think, they admitted me into their collective conscience and allowed me glimpses of their cultural ideology. It may not be a “golden book”, but they have never expected one anyway. All the same, this “book” is really in large part theirs. I only hope I have been able to do them some justice in it.

A.R.

ISEAS

November 1986