It is very rude (so I'm told) to show another person the bottom of your foot. Feet are considered dirty in Thai culture and to sit cross legged so as to show the sole of your foot is the equivalent of giving somebody the finger. Today we hosted an English camp for school directors and I was surprised to see many of these school bigwigs sitting cross legged and displaying the bottoms of their feet. Confused, I asked my boss. In short, because they are directors and are very high on the social ladder they have earned the privilege of sitting as they do.
But I remain confused. It is not considered an insult when they sit and show their feet. So what exactly has their social status earned them? Not the right to insult those sitting next to them. (I would argue that because of this showing your foot is not at all like showing the middle finger) No, they have earned the privilege to be comfortable. I think this identifies a very interesting dichotomy in Thai culture. As a general rule, I would say that Thai people are free from unfounded social prejudice. Ie They are accepting of all religions and lifestyle choices. However, the population as a whole subscribes to a very rigid and occasionally illogical code of social conduct. Buddhist, Muslim, gay, straight whatever, who you are is your karma and as such you are accepted. But good heavens, don't show us the bottom of your feet.... unless you're an important person.
Which comes back to being comfortable. It is perfectly fine for everyone to be comfortable with who they are and what they do in private (eat, sit, speak, fuck however you like) But in public, only the highest members of society may continue as they were. In other words, their shit don't stink. The rest of the masses are expected to squeeze into the one size fits all uniform. Are the members at the top of the social pyramid serve as examples for our private lives? Are we expected to aspire to their ideals of comfort (correctness)?
Wrapping my head around this foot thing has been quite difficult. Arbitrary social regulation grates against me. Its just who I am. And I take an almost sadistic pleasure in inserting a little bit of social anarchy into the the lives of people who follow blithely follow these rules.
Social regulations are a necessary part of a culture. I think you would be hard pressed to find any culture that values social anarchy. So,
What is the value of social regulations (however arbitrary)?
Are social codes of conduct meant to be questioned?
Would a critical examination of these cultural nuances really make people happier? I think that stigma against feet is ultimately pointless and an unnecessary psychological burden, but maybe people need these weights to construct a sense of self.
Are people capable of constructing a self image without the holding to the arbitrary psychological rules their cultures provide them?
No comments:
Post a Comment