A Genealogy of “Double Standards”: The Construction of Unequal Justice in Thai Society
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims to explain the formation and persistence of the phenomenon of “double standards” in the Thai justice system by employing a genealogical analytical framework to examine the relationships among power, knowledge, and discourse that render inequality normalized and socially acceptable. It argues that “double standards” are not merely practical malfunctions or the result of individual failings, but rather the products of social structures and regimes of knowledge that organize perception, reasoning, and the exercise of discretion within the justice process. These dynamics operate through social binary oppositions such as rich–poor, powerful–powerless, and legally knowledgeable–legally unknowledgeable. In addition, the article analyzes the mechanisms through which inequality is made “acceptable,” including the rationalization of inequality, the individualization of structural problems, and silence as a modality of power. At the same time, it conceptualizes the discourse of “double standards” in public and online spaces as a form of discursive resistance that challenges the legitimacy of the justice system and destabilizes both the perceived sanctity of law and the credibility of the state. In conclusion, the article contends that addressing double standards cannot be confined to legal reform or technical procedural adjustments alone but requires a critical dismantling of the underlying cognitive structures and regimes of knowledge that systematically enable justice to be “unequally just” in Thai society.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Published Manuscripts are the copyright of the Journal of the Justice System. However; the opinions that appeared in the content are the sole responsibility of the author.
References
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. Sage Publications.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal, 38(5), 805–853.
Bourdieu, P. & Thompson, J. B. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Polity Press.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference. University of Chicago Press.
Ewick, P. & Silbey, S. S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford University Press.
Phongpaichit, P. & Baker, C. (2017). Unequal Thailand: Aspects of income, wealth and power. Southeast Asian Economies, 34(2), 427–428.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Sarat, A. & Kearns, T. R. (1995). Law in everyday life. University of Michigan Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
