Sufficiency Economy and Backdated Claims of its Application: Phooyai (Headman) Wiboon’s Agroforestry and Self-narrative

Introduction

His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej has been committed to improving the life of people in rural areas. Through royal projects, socio-economic development has been implemented. However, his words on the proper direction of development were clearly heard in 1997, the year of a great economic crisis in Thailand. Then, the Sufficiency Economy (SE) was articulated, but it was not seriously implemented until the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin’s government. Since then, the SE has been so influential that it is incorporated into not only policies and plans at national and local levels, but also people’s life stories. The SE in its present form was formulated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. “Sufficiency” is understood as a set of moderation, reasonableness, and security against change, all of which are applicable in not only the economic area but also all domains of life. In addition, the SE is meant to create changes not only in the outside world but also in people’s attitudes.

An observation is made that, in various reports or success stories, people’s claims of applying the SE are backdated. Based on this, a criticism has been launched that the SE is part of a socio-political agenda to create a false consciousness to promote self-sufficient complacency and thus subdue struggles and movements for emancipation. In this article, through the lens of Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutic philosophy, an alternative interpretation of the act of backdating the claims is offered through a hermeneutical analysis of Phooyai (headman) Wiboon’s agroforestry.

In the 1980s, Phooyai Wiboon started his highly successful lifelong project of agroforestry that makes it possible for farmers to self-subsist and liberate themselves from the market economy. It is evident that, although his project started more than a decade earlier than the rise of the term “sufficiency economy,” he now resorts to it when he explains about agroforestry, whose development has been dynamic for over three decades. Apart from methods and techniques, Phooyai Wiboon not only formulates principles of agroforestry, but also has made a conscious endeavor to interpret and re-interpret his project, which eventually led him to incorporate the SE as part of the interpretation. This makes him an ideal case for the hermeneutical analysis.

Research Question, Scope and Method

According to Unger (2009: 148), there are cultural and institutional approaches to development. The former works inside out by changing people’s thoughts and behaviors while the latter operates outside through structural reform. He argues that the SE is best understood as the cultural approach. This approach is useful for understanding not only the SE itself but also its criticisms. Many scholars argue that the SE is used for socio-political agendas to create a false consciousness or myth that inhibits the autonomy of the poor and sustains the status quo and influences of the elites (see, for instance, Dayley, 2011; Elinoff, 2014; Hewison, 2008b; Rossi, 2012). One of the justifications, especially that of Hewison (2008b), is based on the observation of the backdated claims. A question can be raised as to whether such retrospective attribution can be understood differently. Within the framework of the cultural approach, this article offers an alternative interpretation of such claims through a hermeneutical analysis of Phooyai Wiboon’s agroforestry, the project that is recast in the language of the SE and yet, contrary to the criticisms, promotes emancipation by empowering farmers and challenges the power of capitalists.

Ricoeur’s concept of narrative time provides the analytical framework. Data of Phooyai Wiboon’s thoughts are derived from Kemchalerm (1991) and NESDB (2007c), which are his transcribed and edited interviews; and Bansirichote and Wankao (1996), which is a descriptive presentation and discussion of his biography and thoughts together with extensive quotations of interview transcripts. In addition, I had an opportunity to visit his learning center, listened to a lecture by him, interviewed and exchanged notes with his son, Mr. Khanchit Kemchalerm, who has carried on his frail 78-year-old father’s lifelong project. In what follows, the SE is first introduced along with its criticisms. Then, Ricoeur’s concept of narrative time is outlined before Phooyai Wiboon’s case is presented and analyzed.

Background of Sufficiency Economy

The SE is proposed by the King of Thailand. Though its name was articulated in a royal address delivered on his birthday in the year 1997, its ideas can be traced back to the 1970s. The oft-quoted passages are taken from the royal address to a convocation ceremony at Kasetsart University in 1974 and a speech delivered on his birthday in the same year (Sufficiency Economy Movement Sub-committee, 2007a: 9, 23, 24). When the SE gained currency, the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) invited scholars from different fields to formulate a clear definition of the SE in 1999. A synthesis of selected portions from royal speeches was created and the result was submitted to the king for revision and approval. Later, in 2001, the Sufficiency Economy Working Group (SEWG) was set up to give further formulation to the SE and thereby developed a general theory, which is now recognized as the standard interpretation, for instance, disseminated by the NESDB, used in basic education curriculum and textbooks and included in the Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh (the present) National Economic and Social Development Plans (see, for example, NESDB, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2008a, 2008b; Office of Non-formal and Informal Education, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c; Office of the Basic Education Commission, 2008; Sufficiency Economy Movement Sub-committee, 2007b).

Despite the uniformity obtained by the mutual recognition of the SE theory, its details are subjected to variation and different interpretations. Piboolsravut (2004: 128–129) delineated the details according to form and function, relevant contexts, and working definitions. Regarding its form and function, the SE is a guidance of the “middle path” with universal domain of application (for instance, individual, household, business, country, humanity, and biosphere). The guide is applicable to motivation, criteria, behavior, system, and “all issues within a dynamic setting” (2004: 128). The contexts, in which the SE has an important role, include the 1997 Asian economic crisis, post-crisis, and future development within the environment of globalization. A paradigm shift of development, the SE is a promise of a sustainable future. Finally, the working definitions comprise components and conditions for their realization. The components are moderation, reasonableness, and security against changes. (The latter is usually translated as “immunity” or “self-immunity.” However, “security” is preferable because the original Thai term has a sense of being safe or protected from impacts of changes. It is here understood that adaptability is part of the protection. Compare with the rendering by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2007: 30) as “build-in resilience.”) To obtain these components, intellectual and conative conditions are required. The former refers to well-rounded planning, prudential application of knowledge, and cautious implementation of plans. The latter includes possession of integrity and honesty, and living one’s life with perseverance, harmlessness, and generosity.

Thongpakdee (2007: 11–14) explained that, to develop the theory, the SEWG analyzed relevant royal speeches and derived a framework, defining features, definitions, practical conditions, and expected benefits. The framework is marked by the goal toward sustainability in every dimension amidst changes and risks from the dynamics of globalization. Its domain of applicability includes all levels of society (that is, individuals, family, community, and country). It can be applied both in the short and long term. The defining feature is its being the “middle path” way of living and doing everything, economic or not. “Sufficiency” is defined by moderation, reasonableness, and security against changes. The conditions of SE implementation cover elements that are both intellectual (that is, well-roundedness, prudential, and cautious consideration and planning) and conative (integrity, honesty, diligence, perseverance, solidarity, and generosity). The expected benefit is balanced and sustainable development in economic, social, environmental, and cultural dimensions.

Meanwhile, Ampon Kittiampon, the then secretary-general of NESDB, described the SE as consisting of a conceptual guideline, principles, conditions, and goals (NESDB, 2007a: 23). The conceptual guideline is the “middle path” that governs the course of living and conduct of all households, communities, and the government in an effort to develop and rule the country. Moderation, reasonableness, and security constitute the principles of sufficiency, whose realization is based on three conditions. The first condition is intellectual, focusing on well-roundedness marked by knowledge of oneself and academic theories and their prudential and cautious application. The second is the collective virtues of integrity and honesty, while the last conditions are individual virtues of diligence, perseverance, and mindfulness. The goals are social well-being, the living together of people with a sense of morale, and their peaceful coexistence with nature.

In keeping with its principle of universal applicability, the general theory of SE is subjected to a diverse range of application areas; for instance, in agriculture (Kasem and Thapa, 2012; Supadit, 2007), psychology (Pantumnavin and Pantumnavin, 2007), organizational studies (Kantabutra and Siebenhuner, 2011), human resource development (Pruetipibultham, 2010), information technology (Savetpanuvong, Tanlamai and Lursinsap, 2011), and geoinformatics (Boondao, 2011). (See also Piboolsravut’s (2004: 131–132) reviewed and categorized literature on SE; and UNDP’s (2007: 38–68) examples of the SE in action.) In addition, Apichai Panthasen (2004), the head of a project to study and build a database of groups, organizations, and areas that apply the SE, collected data of 1857 cases from all over Thailand. They are cases of royal projects, model agriculturists, model communities, private enterprises, community businesses, saving groups, etc. These cases are categorized into those able to be classified under the SE, those in which the practitioners understand and implement the SE, and those that are models of SE implementation.

Criticisms of Sufficiency Economy and its Backdated Attribution

The SE suffers from misunderstandings and attacks. For example, many understand that its sole concern is the agricultural sector while others think it is an alternative economic system only. Many believe it is against commercial business, market economy, and globalization (Piboolsravut, 2004; NESDB, 2007b; Thongpakdee, 2007; Unger, 2009). One criticism often heard is its elusive nature, “a vague, mystifying philosophy” or “largely an ideological statement, which could not be effectively implemented” (Noy, 2011: 598) and which has “[t]he ability to do almost anything and still call it the sufficiency economy” (Chanyapate and Bamford, n.d.). Its situation is worse when caught in the political polemics of pro- and anti-Thaksin. Since it was believed that not only was the SE used to justify the 2006 coup (Noy, 2011: 599; Unger, 2009: 147), but also that the King himself backed it to overthrow Thaksin Shinawatra, the then prime minister, in order to protect the elites’ interests (Hewison, 2008a: 204, 206; Unger, 2009: 145), an ad hominem attack was launched against the SE.

In this spirit, Hewison (2008b: 213) indicated a contradiction arising from the fact that “[t]he King, promoting moderation, heads the wealthiest family in Thailand, which owns huge tracts of land and large capitalist corporations.” Likewise, an engaged irony is observed by Unger (2009: 141) that “the King, an extraordinarily influential figure at the head of a fabulously wealthy set of institutions, is identified with calls for moderation among the country’s poor farmers.” Such attacks remain even after a clarification in an annual report of the Crown Property Bureau (2011: 46-47), and a further explanation in the social media by Borwornsak Uwanno, a well-known law expert and the director general of King Prajadhipok’s Institute, that the estimate of the king’s wealth was based on a failure to distinguish among the king’s personal property, the crown property, and the Chakri Dynasty’s property, the latter two of which belong to the country (Uwanno, 2013). An explanation can be taken from Unger (2009), who implies a link between the belief about the king’s support for the coup and a belief that the promotion of the king’s SE has a socio-political agenda “to keep the rural majority poor and happy, or at least to rationalize doing little to help them” (Unger, 2009: 145; see also Hewison, 2008a: 201).

In 2007, the UNDP released Thailand Human Development Report. Sufficiency Economy and Human Development to internationally disseminate the SE because of its global relevance to the needs for sustainable development in the time of economic and environmental crises. In his review of the report, Hewison (2008b) criticized that, acting as an accomplice in the socio-political agenda hidden behind the SE and thereby contributing to the “royalist propaganda” and “political nonsense,” the UNDP defeated its own goal to promote equality. One of his criticisms is relevant here. Referring to chapter 3 of the report that contains case studies of the SE, Hewison (2008b: 214) points out that not only are they not new and unfamiliar, but also these cases predate the SE. Whether or not the latter assertion is correct with respect to the report, it agrees with an observation I had when visiting Phooyai (headman) Wiboon Kemchalerm’s Learning Center of Sufficiency Economy Philosophy. The observation is also substantiated by exploring publications that promote the SE. For example, in NESDB (2007c) and Ketthet (2009), well-known and successful figures—ranging from agriculturists, to civil servants, to businessmen, to physicians, to actors and actresses, to writers, to former ministers and a privy—are featured along with interview reports of their experiences in applying the SE in their lives. It is found that many re-described lessons were learned early in their lives through the lens and terminology of SE. Moreover, it can be observed in Panthasen’s (2004) categorization above that, among the cases of actual and successful application, one category comprises cases considered to be compatible with the SE.

A question arises of how these backdated claims of applying the SE should be understood. Despite criticisms against the SE, an undeniable fact is that sincere appreciation and cases of successful application exist. Directly or indirectly, case studies show the SE contributes to farmers’ autonomy. And, these should not be played down for political purposes. In what follows, it is argued that the SE can function as a hermeneutical framework through which people interpret their experiences. This is demonstrated through an analysis of Phooyai Wiboon Kemchalerm’s interpretation of his agroforestry project. He is a deeply learned man who is marked by consciousness of his hermeneutical endeavor and development of well-considered and consistent thoughts based on his life experience.

Phooyai Wiboon is also marked by his extensive self-narration through writing, lectures, and interviews. For instance, his 1991 lecture grew out of his address as a keynote speaker in an event organized by the prestigious Komol Khemthong Foundation in 1986. After that, new essays such as “Towards an Agroforestry Society: Enough for Life-long Consumption,” and “Agroforestry Society: The Remaining Alternative for Life-long Provisions” were added. In total, it is a collection of over 10 essays mostly written with the style of narrating and reflecting on his direct experiences of agroforestry and exchanges with others. It is, therefore, argued that his backdated explanation of his own efforts as an application of the SE should be considered in the context of narration. Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical analysis of narrative time can show us a new way of looking at his retrospective attribution.

Paul Ricoeur’s Narrative Time and Hermeneutics

To begin with, it can be said that the astonishment stems from the ordinary perception of time as linear succession. Therefore, let’s start with Ricoeur’s existential critique of the linear representation of time. Based on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Ricoeur (1980: 172; 1984: 62) saw as a guide for his analysis the concept of “within-time-ness,” according to which everything happens in time existentially constituted by our preoccupation, or in other words, objects of our concern. The concern is here understood as one of the characteristics of care. Therefore, instead of being a neutral succession of abstract instants, time is always “time to do” (1980: 173). We either have or do not have time, do things in the right or wrong time, and so on. We start to measure time only when we need to “reckon with time” (1980: 173; 1984: 62). It is in this sense that the terms like “now,” “next,” “then,” etc. should be understood. For instance, “now” is always “now that.” When we say “now,” it means “now that we have to do something.” The existential now is defined by our present preoccupation (1980: 173; 1984: 63). Machines that allow neutral temporal measurements create an illusion of abstract time cut off from the context of preoccupation. Whence comes the ordinary representation of time as linearly succeeding instants (1980: 174; 1984: 63). Time in stories is also the “within-time-ness” as not only the characters but also the readers reckon with time, for instance, trace the “now,” “next,” and “then,” or expect to see whether the hero arrives in time (1980: 174–175).

According to Ricoeur (1980: 174; 1984: 66), to follow a story is to be pushed ahead along the development of successive episodes in which the characters’ thoughts, feelings, and action are witnessed. The readers cannot but follow the unfolding of the story. Each episode marks “within-time-ness” of the characters who are preoccupied by each present situation while being also in the context of “awaiting and retaining” (1980: 177; 1984: 63). They respond to circumstances or consequences they have no control over. Neither can they control what follows from their actions. Arising in the interplay between the characters’ intervention and the course of the world, all of these add up to the unfolding to follow until the end (1980: 176–177). Neither prediction nor deduction is possible. When the conclusion is reached across a myriad of contingencies, the readers find it is acceptable, not predictable. Ricoeur (1980: 174) called it “the paradox of contingencies,” meaning that the story’s accidental past is necessary for its conclusion. The acceptability is based on a backward looking over and across the flow of forward movement. Ricoeur (1980: 178; 1984: 65) stated that the episodic succession is grasped as a coherent whole by virtue of the plot, which can be encapsulated with one “thought” (1980: 179; 1984: 65), which may be a term or theme. The configurational operation of the plot gives unity to diverse episodes that, at times, appear not to be fitted together. This operation implies “re-collecting” of events across the course of the story from the beginning to the end. Here again we find the concept of reading time backward. Through recollection, the readers read “the end in the beginning and the beginning in the end” (1980: 180; 1984: 67) as the earlier episodes are recapitulated in the culmination. Thereby, the unity of time—past, present, and future—arises.

Apart from emplotment, the configurational operation can be accomplished through metaphors and models, the latter of which are “incorporated into the very meaning of theories” (Ricoeur, 1991: 11). Since the plot can be captured by “thought,” it is not a surprise to see also a term or theme as performing this synthetic operation. One way to explain this operation is through the concept of a hermeneutical circle, a process whereby the whole is grasped from its parts and vice versa. Take, for example, narrative reading as a framework. In this process, readers need to go back and forth between the whole and its parts. They need to follow through the story’s discordant parts (for instance, events) in order to reach its overall meaning; meanwhile, the obtained concordance will further become a context for understanding these parts. However, according to Ricoeur (1974: 106–107), understanding the story is not the end in itself. The hermeneutical circle is expanded to include the understanding of text and oneself. Therefore, ultimately, interpretation is not to understand the author or project the readers’ self onto the text. It is for the readers to expose themselves to the configured whole, the world of the text, and therein project possibilities from their pre-understanding and learn about themselves. In other words, through configuration, their prefigured self-understanding becomes refigured. The fusion occurs of the text’s and the readers’ horizons and the meaning of the text is appropriated by the readers.

Phooyai Wiboon and Agroforestry

In the 1960s, Wiboon Kemchalerm, also known as Phooyai Wiboon, jumped on the bandwagon of the first growth-promoting National Economic and Social Development Plan that encouraged the planting of cash crops such as rice, cassava, soybean, and corn. Gradually, he cleared and owned around 80 acres of land, on which he produced cassava. His sources of income were also from his jobs as a crop middleman and an agent for banks, “loan capitalists.” Apart from his financial success, he was well recognized so as to be elected as a village headman in 1969. After continual huge losses following drops in crop prices and his discovery that his job as the agent undermined trust and relationship with community members, he started to reconsider the benefits of capitalism. In the 1970s, coordinating with academics, university students, NGOs, and development organizations, he became one of the farmer movement leaders to request justice in the agricultural sector, which was only for him to learn about the truth of politics. Governments’ promises were never translated into practice. The hope for top-down assistance was proven to be impractical. Although, as the leader, he suffered severely from threats posed by government agents, all of his action was halted in 1981 due to a bank lawsuit for his huge accumulated debts from the loans for his farming. Then, he decided to sell almost all of his land and, as a result, had only around three acres left. It was the time when he found himself as a forsaken man who had lost all credibility in the eyes of government officials, banks, and other community members. Consequently, he was unable to seek help from anyone, which gave rise to his determination to restore his dignity and an idea of self-sustenance. This became a big turning point in his life.

Phooyai Wiboon drew upon all resources available to him, that is, his three-acre piece of land, knowledge in medicinal herbs that he had learned from his father, understanding of Buddhism he had gained in his Elementary Dhamma Study, and connections with his former fellow activists that allowed him to participate and exchange in conferences. A major starting point of his lifelong project was told in an oft-cited anecdote. When he had nothing left, he grew water spinach on an area of three square feet for his own consumption. He sold the excess at a local market and gained 30 baht. It was the very first amount he gained without any accompanying debt and, therefore, was considered to be a real profit. Upon that, he was enlightened. This gave birth to a model in which production is primarily aimed to sufficiently provide for livelihood and its excess is put to commercial benefits. His piece of land provided an interpretive domain for the concept of self-sufficiency. This led to his conception of agroforestry (“wana kaset” or “forest-growing agriculture”). To sufficiently sustain himself and his family, he grew diverse plants on his land and, thereby, turned it into a forest that was capable of giving him and his family not only daily food and medicinal herbs but also long-term security (for instance, profitable timber trees). Although self-sustenance cut all dependence on the market, he could benefit from it and gain real profits. This also brought him the justice he had longed for because, without market dependence, he possessed negotiating power so that no one could force him to sell his products at low prices. With the remaining spirit of an activist, his quest for justice continued. He tried to disseminate his insights and experiences to other farmers to help them liberate themselves from the market system.

Years of pondering and self-reflection gave rise to a clear formulation of principles to manage agroforestry as a way of life. The first principle is for farmers to begin to step out of what he called “the conveyor belt” of the market system. In so doing, the farmers will build a conveyor belt of agroforestry that will give them a new course of life. Following this principle, the farmers will create a leeway from the cycle of commercial agriculture and accumulation of debts by reserving 25 percent of their land for subsistence farming to realize self-sufficiency and relative independence from the market. Another set of principles is then proposed to promote a learning process for self-sustenance. The set comprises the principles of “three things to know,” “five things to manage,” and “three plans to make.” The farmers need to know themselves (for instance, needs and expenses), their own problems (for instance, limited sources of incomes and debts), and resources available to them. They have to manage the whole system of rice production, improve soil quality (for instance, with soil microbes), and grow plants for food, household articles (for instance, soap, shampoo, and toothpaste), and medicinal herbs. In addition, they should plan for their life and family, for relationships with community members to promote mutual learning and create a safety net, and for sustainable utilization of natural resources. Implementing these principles, the farmers will go through a learning process that forms their agroforestry mentality. Phooyai Wiboon further analyzed from this set of principles three major elements of people, knowledge, and resources. The people need to know the three things. Consequently, they need knowledge to plan and stand on their own feet with confidence. With knowledge, they also need to promote biodiversity and to restore and conserve the resources in such a way that, while reaping benefits from these resources, they co-exist with them. These elements provide a basis for sustainable development of economic self-sufficiency, ecologically balanced environment, and peaceful community (Agricultural Land Reform Office, 2011: 11–15; NESDB, 2007c: 85–87).

These general principles are subjected to individuals’ interpretation to suit their needs and contexts. For example, Phooyai Wiboon’s son, Khanchit, explained that his family does not grow rice. How does he “manage the system of rice production” for his family’s consumption? He has a deep understanding of not only the production system but also the rice business. As a result, he adopts the method used by rice mill business owners who buy paddy rice from farmers, sell milled rice, profit from the price margin, and spend part of the profit to buy new stocks of paddy rice. In this way, they have a continuous supply of rice. Upon his calculation, Khanchit knows that his family consumes 180 kilograms of rice a year. He buys 720 kilograms of paddy rice from his fellows in an organic farming network. Then, he keeps 180 kilograms of milled rice for his family’s consumption, sells the excess, and saves the money to purchase rice in the following year. Thus, his practice is different from his fellows who grow organic rice mainly for their family’s consumption and sell the excess. Another example is Khanchit’s interpretation of planting for food, household articles, and medicinal herbs. He came up with his planting methods. Based on his extensive knowledge of plants, he divided them into three categories, that is, high, middle-sized, and underground. The three varieties can provide food, medicine, fuels, and woods for house construction. He also classified plants into yet another three types, that is, edible and fast growing, edible and multipurposed, and large and long-lived trees. The first type is for immediate use and consumption; the second and the third for middle- and long-term uses. This all adds up to security along his course of life from young to old age (interview; Agricultural Land Reform Office, 2011: 16–18; compare with Kemchalerm, 1991: 147). Phooyai Wiboon was aware of such interpretive dynamics and admitted that even he himself was still in the process of learning (NESDB, 2007c: 84).

In Phooyai Wiboon’s and Khanchit’s presentation of the agroforestry, the concluding phase was to wrap up everything within the framework of the standard theory of SE. Of course, an interpretive variation is to be expected. At the learning center, Khanchit explained the SE as comprising the principles of moderation, reasonableness, and security against changes. Moderation was explained to mean the “middle path” (not too much, not too little) and avoidance of causing troubles to oneself and others. Reasonableness covers careful consideration of factors and prediction of possible consequences while security against changes is preparedness for impacts and changes. Conditions for implementing these principles are intellectual and conative. The intellectual conditions consist of well-roundedness, prudence, an ability to see connections, and expense planning while the conative conditions include integrity, honesty, diligence, and sharing. The goals are a happy life, economic sufficiency, a peaceful society, and a balanced environment. His lecture on the principles to manage agroforestry as a way of life did not only focus on the reasonableness and the intellectual conditions because, whenever possible, he never missed the opportunity to insert moral anecdotes and insights showing the virtue of moderation and the conative conditions that facilitate the integration of the agroforestry into a course of one’s life and, thereby, build security against changes. In case of Phooyai Wiboon, his practice of wrapping up in the SE framework is remarkable given that it is not found at all in the 1991 publication (Kemchalerm 1991) and his interviews in Bansirichote and Wankao (1996).

Phooyai Wiboon’s Hermeneutical Pathway

From the hermeneutical perspective, an analysis of Phooyai Wiboon’s ideas in the 1991 publication (Kemchalerm 1991) and in Bansirichote and Wankao (1996) shows that liberation is the main theme (or “thought”), which recurs in his self-narration and instruction. Sub-themes are self-dependence and alternative seeking: non-infliction and interconnection. Metaphors are also used to configure his experiences.

These themes and sub-themes were gradually formulated and refined in the process of his self-narration, which was an effort to grasp the whole of his life. He constantly told and re-told stories about himself, in which process he at the same time read and re-interpreted them. In that way, he went through a series of prefiguration, configuration, and refiguration. A hermeneutical circle was then in its full swing.

Under the theme “liberation,” his ideas focus on emancipation not only from the market system but also from one’s own craving. As for the former, the market system is called a conveyor belt, which gives a picture of exclusive control that provides no space for choice of direction. To leave it, an alternative conveyor belt is needed, one that allows self-subsistence and, therefore, relative independence from the market. Moreover, Khanchit goes further and interprets the theme to be liberation from the mainstream perspective of socio-economic development based on the cycle of ignorance, poverty, and disease. He indicated that, caught on the capitalist conveyor belt, farmers are doomed to ignorance because of their limited understanding of the system. The alternative of agroforestry is not to cure the ignorance but to prevent it from affecting the farmers in the first place. Of course, with additional understanding of the system, agroforestry farmers can know how to connect to and reap benefits from the market (interview). Besides, based on his experiences, Phooyai Wiboon diagnosed that craving for material comfort—that is also a basis for social recognition—lures and ties farmers to the market system. Due to the craving, farmers are in quest of higher incomes so that they have to abandon the traditional subsistence farming and embark on commercial agriculture. This is where Phooyai Wiboon introduced the metaphor of agroforestry as true profit, which is drawn from his experience of selling the water spinach. Although the commercial agriculture can raise incomes, their net incomes are not high because of farming costs. Furthermore, they cannot truly enjoy the profit, which is to be kept for a next round of farming. The true profit comes only from selling surplus from subsistence farming.

The sub-themes, self-dependence, and alternative seeking are also related to the metaphors of savings banks and pension savings, which are used to describe the practice of agroforestry. Phooyai Wiboon saw that agroforestry is a form of savings bank and different types of trees are deposits. Together, these savings give both short- and long-term returns. Big trees that can be used after decades of growing are considered to be pension savings. Therefore, an alternative form of pension savings, agroforestry supports self-dependence and provides security until old age. According to Phooyai Wiboon, all profit-making activities take advantage in one way or another and, thus, inflict suffering on people. Therefore, this form of savings is better than farmers’ savings co-operatives (as contrasted to his preferred non-profit savings group). The sub-theme of non-infliction is intimately related to that of connection. Not to inflict also means not to exploit surpluses of one’s community. The sub-theme of connection is related to collective self-dependence and the return to the traditional way of life, in which people share and help each other. When the connection is formed, liberation is facilitated. This was why his learning center was established. Also implied is non-competitiveness. Related to this, agroforestry is described by the metaphor of play, or hobby. Phooyai Wiboon even went further to say that the practice, which allows self-dependence, promotes laziness. Apart from these, both of the sub-themes cover other interpretations. Phooyai Wiboon saw agroforestry as a system of interconnectedness, in which humans and different types of plants and animals co-exist. Therefore, he took into account which types of plants to grow to support the living of birds and animals. He even developed a habit of walking with bare feet to avoid bruising plants on his farm. Like his father, Khanchit does not have farm animals. However, he interpreted the non-infliction to cover such avoidance of slaughtering (interview).

The analysis shows Phooyai Wiboon’s refiguring his pre-understanding of the agroforestry practice through the configuration of the “thoughts” (that is, themes and sub-themes) and metaphors. Also shown is his within-time-ness based on preoccupation with the liberation through the agroforestry project, which comes together with the retention of his past struggles and awaiting future development of and learning more from the practice of such alternative farming. Apart from the past experiences from the beginning of his commercial agriculture and a job of bank agent through his political activism for the farmers’ interests to his development of agroforestry from scratch, he also drew from his pre-understanding the knowledge of Buddhism. The thoughts of liberation from craving and non-infliction are clearly connected to Buddhism, whose influence is also observed in the thought of connection when he suggested that people should opt for social recognition gained through their virtues (for instance, generosity and helpfulness) rather than material possessions. Buddhist terms that he mainly used in relation to self-dependency are “pramada” (negligence) and “santosa” (contentment with what one legitimately possesses), the latter of which are linked to the SE in many studies (for instance, Ariyamethi, 2004; Yamaphat, 2009).

Above is the picture before 1997. Later in his interview, Phooyai Wiboon in his seventies said:

I cannot tell when I started applying the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy in my living. Maybe, it was twenty years ago. Because of my economic problems, I turned to the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy without knowing what it was. Through relentless learning until the later period, I conclude that it is the way of Sufficiency Economy that the King offered. So I call [my practice] a sufficiency economy. (NESDB, 2007c: 81)

Obviously, he here read the end in the beginning and the beginning in the end, which is similar to the way the presentation of his life and work given at his center is concluded with the SE. The configurational operation of the SE is evident as it is adopted as a framework to examine his own practice as he said:

Practicing the Sufficiency Economy, I cannot tell what parts are missing. But, there are clues for me to see my over- and under-emphasis. According to the King’s principles of Sufficiency Economy, action should be governed by reasonableness, which I see that I have already had. Moderation, I already had too because I never make an all-out investment or take risk. I am, therefore, secured. Regarding knowledge and virtues, they rise spontaneously. (NESDB, 2007c: 85)

Through the configurational operation, his self-understanding becomes refigured. As a result, a fusion of horizons occurs between his prior self-interpretation and the SE. In other words, Phooyai Wiboon appropriated the SE and received a new self-understanding.

A question is not whether his practice was actually guided by the king’s SE in the past, but whether the SE that he used to wrap up his life story is acceptable. Readers can answer it by considering whether the SE can comprehensively “recollect” the events of his life, especially those refigured with the plot of liberation above. Though Phooyai Wiboon did assume that, his other effort was found to make the refiguration of his life acceptable by showing a common thread between the SE and his life, Buddhism, whose influence is discovered in both of them:

If you say that I have fully realized the Sufficiency Economy, I do not think so. But, I have seen it because I have learned about it from the Buddhist temple since my childhood. Eventually, I heard about it from the King’s words. The most obvious that I listened to was in 1997. As I had listened [to him] closely and continuously, I could [then] understand better. Part of what I had been doing helped me obtain clear guidelines for further application. And, I can use them with understanding. (NESDB, 2007c: 86)

When I asked about the backdated claim of applying the SE, Khanchit gave a similar answer. The SE and agroforesty were all in accordance with Buddhism.

Conclusion

As the cultural approach to development, the SE works to change people from the inside. In Phooyai Wiboon’s self-narrative, the reinterpretation of his lifelong project in terms of the SE provides a clear illustration of how such a mechanism works. Rather than a pointer of a deceptive plot to weaken the poor’s aspiration for a better life, the backdated claims can be understood through Ricoeur’s concept of narrative time as the act of reading the end in the beginning and the beginning in the end. The SE functions as a hermeneutical framework through which people’s experiences are interpreted or re-interpreted. The frequent discovery of narratives about successful application of the SE, especially those in which the stories predate the SE in its present form, shows that the SE takes a cultural life of its own and becomes a common thought, or plot, for people to draw upon to configure or refigure their life stories, which is not only to retain their past memories but also to await future changes. This resonates with Noy’s statement, “The power of the sufficiency economy philosophy may ultimately rest not in its political rhetorical deployment, but in its ideas” (2011: 600). The effect of such refiguration is deep because it reaches the level of self-understanding.

The case of Phooyai Wiboon shows that the refiguration does not operate to inhibit his autonomy. On the contrary, his reinterpretation of agroforestry through the SE is in keeping with his overall plot of liberation and events of his lifelong efforts to create both material independence and a sense of mastery over his own life. This can be understood within the framework of the struggle against market economy or the capitalist elites, not the framework of the political battles between the conservative elites and the poor as used by many scholars (for instance, Dayley, 2011; Elinoff, 2014; Hewison, 2008b; Rossi, 2012). This finding agrees with Unger that the SE internally empowers people so that they can “thread the rapids of a market economy” (2009: 141).

From another perspective, it can be clearly seen in the case of Phooyai Wiboon that the SE assists him as a co-author of his life. According to Ricoeur (1992: 162), although people are not in full control of events in their life, they create a narrative unity out of these discordant experiences. In so doing, they are a co-author of their own life. In his continuous effort to create such unity, Phooyai Wiboon uses different “thoughts” such as liberation, all of which are finally wrapped up in the framework of SE. In this light, the SE can be seen as empowering people by providing them with a plot to co-author their own life.