How Thailand's Muay Thai Has Been Collectively Created Through the Wisdom of Local Markets and Gambling

[Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu]

Long has been my thesis that Thailand's Muay Thai developed principally through its vast array of provincial fight networks and the communal wisdom of those gambling markets, which makes of it not so much a sport as a cultural expression of the Thai people, self-organized through the centuries (with some evidence going back to as early as the 17th c), and less a codified, rule-governed artifact of centralized power. Below are some thoughts on the "wisdom of markets" dynamic which presents a much more complex picture of fighting aesthetics and the adjudication of fights. In Thailand's Muay Thai bets are taken throughout the fight, and the shifting of odds operates as a kind of scorecard reflecting the collective opinion of its audience (much of which is gambling). This telling explores the aspect of spontaneous order creation argued to be possessed by markets, understanding ring-side gambling as exactly that kind of spontaneous creation and social steering, summarized most broadly:

Quote

spontaneous order, recognized as a significant and positive coordinating force – in which decentralized negotiations, exchanges, and entrepreneurship converge to produce large-scale coordination without, or beyond the capacity of, any deliberate plans or explicit common blueprints for social or economic development.

- introduction, Markets Not Capitalism (2011)

 

Gambling And The Development of Thailand's Muay Thai

Thailand's provincial Muay Thai may, in brief, display a basic logic of the self-organizing market creation of aesthetic judgements, as communal gambling shaped the form of Thailand's Muay Thai as an art and as a sport. One of the most interesting theoretical potentials of Thailand's provincial ring fighting is that fights by definition are events of adjudication. And, that they possess not one, but (at least) two different processes of adjudication. There is the formal one (conducted by officials) and the implied adjudication of a localized market, the odds (price) which shift throughout the fight, which may or may not agree with the formal judgement. What is compelling - and there are a few things - is that there is an element of the adjudicating nature of markets here, a fundamental aspect of Capitalist ideology (but not reducible to Capitalism itself, for markets have functioned and co-organized culture for a long portion of human history).

Sidenote: My thesis is that Thailand's Muay Thai developed out of Southeast Asian rites of sacrifice, as understood thru the theories of Rene Girard (an argument which may be extended into other forms of ring fighting), tentatively outlined here (if you want to go through a theoretical side path, click this here, or just skip below):

 

The Judgement of Markets

The adjudicating nature of ring sport, and its tractioned, symbolic meaning, may stem from the notion of the sacrificial act, a judgement passed on an innocent (sometimes "perfect") animal. What distinguishes Thailand's Muay Thai (& perhaps other forms of Southeast Asian ring sport combat) is the degree to which it developed along side, co-evolving with a local market of forces (a gambling audience), whose price shifts over time not only reflected communal understanding of the art/sport (a collective wisdom), they also exerted judgement pressures upon the formal judgements of the public event, creating a dialectic of judgements, and forming the custom of the aesthetics of the art/sport. If communal gambling can be seen as collective market judgement, the locus of the wisdom of the sport falls in part within a "democracy" that self-organized the aesthetics of the art, simply through the shifting anticipation of wins or losses, according to how fighters were performing. The prescriptive force of the price of prescience within a group, over time, quantitatively exchanged.

*note, Westerners have a hard time thinking about the sport of Muay Thai because it is not governed by explicit "rules" to be found in a rulebook. The expectation is that the sport have officials who basically execute a written law through judgements.

The rule & custom of Thailand's Muay Thai - and therefore its somewhat unique historical creation - is far more complex, and therefore gives insight into the possible productive, generative relationships between local market dynamics, communal wisdom & formal adjudication. This complexity of judgements, the communal nature of its co-determination, is what makes it - in essence - a cultural product, woven of the values & the aesthetics of the Thai people (however regionally distinct), in 100,000s of adjudicated, public events. It is "Thai". To appreciate the shaping of market dynamics in village Muay Thai, the communal aesthetic judgements (the shifting price throughout the fight) are in communication with the performance throughout, thru the corners but also as if a Greek Chorus, in atmospheric commentary.

Fighters are not just fighting to a rule set or even an aesthetic picture of the art, they are fighting to the live aesthetic judgements of the crowd...as they (their team) too are gamblers. This is a living feedback loop of pricing, which composes the fight. The agonistic market dynamics of the crowd are the quantitative "scoreboard" of who is winning the fight at any particular time. The *functional* score is not hidden on the scorecards of judges...and the fighters are fighting TO the shifting-price market dynamic scorecard. This is one reason why narrative structure is so integral in traditional Muay Thai, and develops even higher levels of skill. In a Western fight the fighter is just trying to control his opponent and influence the judgement of judges, the Thai fighter is seeking to be ABOVE even the fight itself, and control the tide of odds, the shifting market of prices, because the fighter is a gambler (his team). This means its not about winning every round, but telling a story which may involve purposive the fluctuation of price.

When we traveled provincially with Phetjeejaa when she was a girl, she was expert at this. She sandbagged early rounds because her reputation was so large. She'd also take weight disadvantages, so some of the market would bet against her. She was "above" the fight, shaping it. This tidal control is part of what makes the fight so compelling to audience...not sure of how to read the performances early in the fight, which clues were being put out there. The fighter ideally controls the opponent, the judges, but mostly the audience. It's a very complex art, learned from a young age. It isn't just beating another fighter who is in front of you, as difficult as that might be.

Further complexifying the fight is that audience members (gamblers) are themselves in an agonism of social hierarchies, each is trying to display their prescience (knowledge) over others, indicating prowess, some actually also directing the fighters themselves. The fighters are thus mirroring the social capital battles that are occurring in the audience, (quantifiably) expressed in the shifting of price. Gamblers are displaying & proving their prowess thru bets...but also (problematically) may prove their prowess through illicit manipulation (of fighters or refs). The shifting price is not only reflecting the relative powers of the fighters, but it also reflects beliefs in the ability of gamblers themselves to put a thumb on the scale in the decision. This could be thru anything between having deep knowledge (that is an imparting connection to the fighter, from the corner), to injecting financial incentive to the fighter mid-fight, to having social status that influences a close decision, all the way to suspected subterfuge (real or imagined). There is a degree of detective work in gambling itself, which also the fighters performances reflects as prices change. It is not simply a local free market that is shaping the aesthetics of performance, but also a market full of suspicion & postured powers, everyone reading the direction of the wind.

In this way the official are the keepers of the accumulation of 1,000s of past local market adjudications, the aesthetic...and ideally act as a corrective to specific market manipulation (within the collective creation of the sport/art). But, they are also within the social fabric themselves, hold their own place within the social capital, so individual fight adjudications can be highly contested. Is the local market (price) being distorted by undue influence (deviating from the aesthetic), or are officials being manipulated or socially coaxed?

But between these two aspects of adjudication, shuttling like on a loom, is the weaving of the aesthetics of the sport and art, conditioned specifically by market forces of shifting price. It is only when individual influence grows too large (distorts the market, or official adjudication) that the creative process of the aesthetic begins to collapse. Importantly, it is not all a question of aesthetics, throughout the 100,000s of 100,000s of fights (if we count the centuries) there is a Reality Principle of bodies applying force on other bodies, in the framework of prices. These are real full contact fights, with real forces and limitations at work. In this sense Muay Thai over the eras is a composite of THREE adjudications, that of the crowd (the wisdom of markets), that of officials (who keep and reflect the history of market adjudications) and that of the bodies of fighters.

While much has been made of the difficulties of the influence of gambling on fight decisions in Bangkok, especially as crowds and commercial fortunes have shrunk, this is likely more the case of particular factions becoming too strong in the matrix of judgements that makes up Thailand's Muay Thai. It is likely less that the gamblers (the markets that adjudicate) broadly have grown too strong - for it is my argument that Muay Thai has been born from self-organizing market decision-making, fashioning a true product of a culture over centuries - but more that in smaller crowds individuals have gained too much power, too much of a thumb on the scales, uncorrected by other factors which have historically help steer the sport and art. But the complexity of the sport and of its fighting remains of the same fabric that generated it, and that still generates it in the provinces and stadia. It's very unlike Western sport. One can't just fabricate new rules, specify enforcement, and employ fighters like actors or laborers in a commercial product and still have Thailand's Muay Thai...a Muay Thai that is full of subtleties and very high skill levels, the skills to control tides. The skills of Muay Thai come from its social fabric, the woven way that a knowledgeable and invested audience generates the Muay itself, and the dialogue fighters have with that audience through the symbolic language of their bodies, amid the real limits of physical force.

[Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu]

Related notes on Eugene Holland's Nomad Markets resource:

"Is not a provincial festival Muay Thai betting market expressive of the "wisdom of crowds", a collective price movement based on valuations (cultural aesthetics, knowledges), as described by Eugene Holland in his Nomad Market conception? The local gambled market is not reduced to price. It's (if anything) reduced to status. The gambled market is in the service of a communally developed aesthetic, played against the Reality Principle of bodies in conflict. The invisibles made visible." source

and...

from Nomad Citizenship (2011)

[Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu]

"What if "market forces" has always been a democracy of forces, in dialectic with State / Chiefdom symbolism (processes of adjudication, idealized wealth accumulation, rites of expiation), with the proviso that markets also have been regularly manipulated."

In Thailand's Muay Thai this makes for a very robust framework, as in the history of Siam there are very strong (symbolic) traditional hierarchies (which themselves may be agonistic, see: Toward a Theory of the Spirituality of Thailand's Muay Thai), but there are also arguably free-floating movements of peoples, and local market economies (even liquidities like Deleuze & Guattari theories of War Machine). Festival, gambled fighting may present the combination of hierarchical symbolism and market creation of an art, embodying that dialectic. At the very least the art of fighting should read as an amalgam expression of market (crowd) and symbolic adjudication.

"

[Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu]

This is an important historical perspective on the nature of gambling in Siam (Thailand) and Southeast Asia, which helps explain the way in which gambling on Muay Thai also includes betting on, predicting other minds (other gamblers). And its relationship to social status, and concepts of unseen (even magical) influence.