Using Jit Poumisak's The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (1957), Reynolds both rewrites Thai history and critiques relevant historiography. Discussing imperialism, feudalism, and the nature of power, Reynolds argues that comparisons between European and Thai premodern societies reveal Thai social formations to be "historical, contingent, and temporally bounded."
This work is something difficult for me to review. The strength of the book is the work of another author, Jit Phoumisak, whose life is discussed in detail and one of his most life-changing work (for himself and for Thailand) is translated and presented. The work by Jit Phoumisak, with the reading and knowledge of today, is rather incomplete and comes across as quite a typical Marxist historiographical work. The power of this book, then, lies not so much in what it discusses, but as Reynolds informs us, the timing and the myth building around it. Published in 1957 (rushed to the printers as Jit mentioned in the editor's note), it is a Marxist historiography at a time when Marxism was declared a public enemy in Thailand due to communist insurgency that not merely tries to show class struggle in Thailand, but rather integrates feudalism into Thai history. At times this was powerful, but often it felt quite out of place and forced. What I like about this work is that Reynolds discusses the development of the term saktina, how it is debated and how other authors have dealt with it (e.g. Akin and Udom). His notion that Thai social formation is historical, contingent, and temporally bounded is a nice finishing touch, and that the term feudalism is rather difficult given its essentializing notions. What makes this work so fascinating is the discussion around it. However, this leaves much untold, in the work of Jit and in the discussion by Reynolds alike.