Mon National identity: A demographic study

By

Pon Nya Mon

Department of Political Science/Program in Criminal Justice

Washington State University Pullman, Washington. honsawatoi@aol.com

International Mon Study Conference

Chulalongkorn University Bangkok Thailand

October 10-13, 2007

Abstract

This study examined the influence of demographic variables (age, gender, education, and region) on the level of national identity of the Mons. A survey was conducted among the Mon populations living in Burma, Thailand, United States, Denmark, and Sri Lanka. Two hundreds and seven Mons participated in the survey and responded to a set of questionnaires designed to measure the national pride, national preference, national superiority, outgroup differentiation and ambition for an independent Monland. The preliminary data indicated that the participants’ level of education is the most significant factor in explaining the level of national identity: participants with lower levels of education tend to show higher levels of national identity compared to those with higher levels of education. Age and gender were not significant in explaining the level of national identity among the participants in overall scale. However, some of variables did show significance in subscales.

1

Introduction

Among all ethnic groups in Burma, Mon people have been known as the first group to arrive in the present of Burma. Their arrival was estimated around 1500 BC. They settled in today’s Lower Burma and established their kingdoms in Thaton and Pegu. They were also the first group who had contacts with the Buddhism in India and introduced the Buddhism to the rest of Southeast Asia (Fredholm, 1993, pp.19-21). The Mon share a common origin, culture, language, ancestry myths, national history and territory. Their civilization was highly developed and the Mon sovereign kingdoms enjoyed peace and prosperity for many centuries.

However, started from 1057, the Mon kingdoms were repeatedly invaded and occupied by Burman kings. The Thaton Mon kingdom was first invaded by the Burman king Anaratha in 1057. The occupation captured the Mon king, Manuha, along with thousands of skilled workers, scholars, artists, intellectuals, and Buddhist monks and brought them to Burman Kingdom, Bagan. The captures served Burman in many ways. Since the Mon civilization was highly developed then, Burman adopted culture, art, alphabet, writing system as well as the Buddhism from the Mon. The Burman occupation came to an end in 1287, when the Mongols invaded and destroyed Burman kingdom, Pagan. After the Pagan was destroyed, the Mon regained independence and reestablished their kingdom in Martaban, south of the former Thaton Mon kingdom. Later the capital of the kingdom was moved to Pegu. At the same time, Burman reestablished their kingdom in Toungoo.

The independent Mon Kingdom lasted until 1546 when Burman king, Tabinshwehti of Tougoo invaded the Pegu Mon kingdom. The Mon kingdom was again ruled by Burman kings until 1752 when the Mon overthrew the Burman ruler and regained their independence. After overthrowing the Burman ruler, the Mon marched to upper Burma and occupied the heartland of Burman, Bagan. However, the occupation of the Mon did not last very long. U Aung Zeya, a Burman village headman, proclaimed himself king of Burma, Alaungphaya, and fought against the Mon occupation. As the Burman rebellion became stronger, the Mon retreated. Finally, in 1757, the Mon kingdom fell under Burman again (Fredholm, 1993, pp.21-22).

Although the first two occupations were not seriously threatened the Mon culture and ethnic identity, the last one was a devastated destruction of the Mon identity. U Aung Zeya and his followers not only committed the mass killings of the Mon populations but also the mass destruction of Mon culture, literature, artifacts, and intellectuals. U Aung Zeya massacred thousands of women, children, and learned monks. Thousands of Mon fled to Thailand (MUL 1997, p.3).

Consequently, the Mon civilization had declined. Many Mons adopted the language and culture of the victor, Burman. Mon population had dramatically reduced after the fallen Mon Kingdom, Hongsawatoi. For example, Bassein, one of the three provinces of former Mon kingdom, was one of the most populous Mon settlements before 1757. According to the population census recorded in 1856, nearly half of the population in Henzada district was ethnic Mon. But, in the 1911 “out of a total population of 532,357 only 1,224 describe themselves as Mon, of whom only 399 could speak Mon and not even 50 write it” (Smith, 1999, p. 43). By the Burma’s independence from British, in 1948, Mon population became the lowest point in Burma’s history.

2

Under the oppressions of successive Burman rulers once highly developed culture, language, and ethnic identity of the Mon are endangered and almost extinct. The fear of extinction of the Mon national identity was a major motivation for the Mon nationalists upon the Burma's independence. At the eve independence, the Burma’s constitution granted political autonomy to most non-Burman ethnic nationalities except the Mon and Arakan. The Mon was excluded because those Burman leaders believed that the Mon as a distinct ethnic identity no longer existed in Burma. When Mon leaders demanded the cultural and political rights of the Mon, Burman leaders responded that “The Mon and Burman were identical and so there was no reason for the Mon to crave for a separate ethnic identity” (MUL, 1997, p.4). In fact, the Burman leaders underestimated the strength of the Mon nationalism. The Mon nationalist movements began to fight for Mon ethnic rights right after the Burma’s independence and the struggle of the Mon ethnic rights has continued till today.

The successive Burmese government has imposed various assimilation policies, including the banning of the teaching Mon language and culture in Burma (South 2003, p.36). The banning of the teaching of an ethnic language may not be a great threat to an ethnic group whose ethnic identity is not defined along the linguistic line. However, their distinctive language is one of the most important ethnic identities for the Mon. Thus, the banning of the teaching of Mon language is an effective way to assimilate the Mon into Burman population.

The Mon ethnic identity has been threatened not only by the government’s assimilation policy, but also by the human rights abuses and economic hardships in the country. Due to human rights abuses and economic hardship under the present military regime, thousands of Mon fled their homeland to neighboring countries. It is estimated more than one hundred thousand of Mon are currently living in neighboring countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. Some of them were recognized as refugees by the United National High Commission for Refugee and allowed to resettle in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. The mass migration is also prone to the assimilation into foreign cultures and languages.

Despite all of the obstacles, due to their rich culture and strong history, the Mon national identity such as Mon national pride, preference, superiority and ambition for reestablishment of independence are still strong and alive. It may be even stronger than that in the pre-independence era. As Ashley South puts it, “For early a thousand years, the Mon heritage has been under threat from a ‘Burmanization’ of culture and history. However, the Mon have not always been passive victims in this process. Identity is plastic, and can be affected by long-term historical processes, as well as by more immediate actions of politicians and generals. This Truth has inspired generations of Mon activists, who have campaigned to conserve and resurrect the Mon language, history and culture—the foundations of Mon identity. Some have gone further, and sought to re-establish Monland as a more-or-less independent political entity” (South 2003, p.35).

The Mon national identity has rarely been studied. Ashley South (2003), in his work on the Mon nationalism, covered a great detail of the Mon nationalist movements in Burma’s modern history. In fact, this study was an extension of Ashley south’s work on the Mon nationalism by examining the national identity of groups of Mon from different demographic backgrounds. The main objective of this study was to examine the degrees of Mon national identity across demographic variables including age, gender, level of

3

education, and region through survey data collected from Mon population living inside and outside Burma. The study also compared the level of national identity between the Mon general publics and those in the leadership positions of a number of Mon civil and political groups. In addition, to investigate whether there are any differences in the level of national identity based on education systems, the level of national identity between the participants educated under the monastic education system and the state education system was compared. The Process of National Identity

The approach that explains the process of identity in a social group is known as Social Identity Theory (SIT). The SIT was originally developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979 in order to explain the psychological basis of intergroup behaviors. They defined the social identity as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which drives from his [her] knowledge of his [her] membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that memberships” (quoted in Cottam et al. 2004, p. 46).

According to the SIT, people or group members strive to maintain or achieve a positive self-concept rather than a negative one. In order to achieve a positive identity, groups seek and maintain some positive distinctiveness from each other because part of the self-concept or identity is identified in terms of group affiliation. The need of the groups to achieve some positives for themselves through their associations with a favorably regarded ingroup leads to social comparisons that favor the membership ingroup over the outgroup (Brown, 2000, p.311, Gaertner et al, 1999). The SIT suggests that people evaluate their own group's worth by comparing it to other groups. Being a member of a group provides the individual with the social identity, which in turn enable the individual to compare their in-group with relevant out-groups. Such comparison allows individuals to gain self-esteem or positive self-concept. Therefore, people prefer positive self-concept, so that they view their ingroups more favorably than outgroups (Brown, 2000, p.312).

Searle-White (2001) suggested that “our sense of who we are” come from two different perspectives. One is personal identity and the other is social identity. Personal identity derives from individual history and experiences whereas social identity derives from memberships of various social groups that individuals have affiliated with (p. 50). Similar to the social identity, national identity is formed by “an emotional tie among people in a nation and is performed through a process of emotional and behavioral sensitizing to national symbols (flag, anthem, etc..) and through learning the particularities of national history (common collective memories), of national culture, and of the so-called historical destiny of a national group" (Kecmanovic , 1996, p.11). Since the social identity and personal identity are “important to individuals as part of his/her very ‘self’, people are strongly identify with their groups (nations) and became part of the groups (nations) (Searle-White 2001, p.51).

Defining the National Identity It has been a long debate among scholars regarding a formal definition of the

national identity. Different scholars define and operate it differently. According to

4

Anthony Smith (1991, p.9), “National identity involves some sense of political community, history, territory, patria, citizenship, common values and traditions” and the national identity or nation consists of five fundamental attributes: (1) historic territory or homeland (2) common myths and historical memories (3) a common, mass public culture (4) common legal rights and duties for all members (5) common economy with territorial mobility for members” (Smith 1991: 14).

This definition has been criticized by scholars for not being applicable across cases such nations without states and with a diasporas population. Searle-White (2001) argued that, by this definition, the Armenians living in the diaspora, in Syria, or Lebanon, would not be considered as part of the Armenian nation. The diaspora Armenians may disagree with the definition because they are considered themselves to be part of the Armenian nation. Therefore, according to Searle-White, “national identity is more than physical or economic connections between people” ( p.52). Montserrat Guibernau (2004) also argued that the Smith’s definition of national identity only applicable to nations with states, not nations without states. He suggested that the sharing of legal rights and duties among all its members are only applicable citizens of nations-states. The national identity is not only shared by citizens of a nation-state but also, in some cases, shared among individuals belonging to a nation without a state of their own. For example, people without state shared “memories of a time when the nation was independent, endured collective oppression, or together with the current desire for self-determination, strengthen a sense of common identity among those who belong to the nation” (p. 135). Therefore, for Guibernau, national identity or nation is a community which shared culture, history, traditions, symbols, kinship, language, religion, territory, founding moment, and destiny.

Benedict Anderson also defines national identity or nation differently. According to Anderson, nation is “an imagined political community—and imaged as both inherently limited and sovereign”(p.5). By “imaged,” he means that nations are communities in which members are believed to have connection among each other. But they “will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion" (p. 6). This definition allows for linguistic or ethnic groups who do not have their own state to consider themselves ‘nations’,(Searle-White 2001, pp.52-3).

Nationalism and Patriotism Nationalism and patriotism are components of the national identity. The

attachment and loyalty to a national group has been viewed “as one of the fundamental characteristics of nationalism” (Kecmanovic 1996, p. 21). Schatz, Staub, and Lavine (1999) differentiate the national identity into blind and constructive patriotism. They describe blind patriotism as "a rigid and inflexible attachment to country, characterized by unquestioning positive evaluation" (p. 153) while constructive patriotism is defined as “an attachment to country characterized by critical loyalty” (p. 153). The blind patriotism is considered to be uncritically loyal and attach to one’s own nations whereas constructive patriotism is critically loyal and attach to one’s own nations. The blind

5

patriots consider critics who criticize states or nations as disloyal, whereas constructive patriots believe that people can criticize the states if they believe the state is mistaken.

Blank and Schmidt (2003) also divided national identity into two categories: nationalism and patriotism because nationalism and patriotism are described as more specific expressions of the national identity. According to Blank and Schmidt (2003), nationalism is characterized by idealization of nation, a feeling of national superiority, and an uncritical acceptance of national state. The constructive patriotism is viewed as critically loyal to states, rejection of an uncritical acceptance of state authorities, and supporting democratic principle.

Dekkar et al. (2003) defined nationalism as “ feeling a sense of belonging a particular ‘nation’ with a common origin, wanting to keep that ‘nation’ as pure as possible, and desiring to establish and/or maintain an independent state for that particular ‘nation’” (Dekker et al, 2003, p. 346). Dekkar et al. (2003) distinguishes six national attitudes, i.e., national feeling, liking, pride, preference, superiority, and nationalism. These attitudes are cumulative hierarchy which national liking is at the bottom of the hierarchy while nationalism is on the top. According to the authors, these attitudes also correspond to “constructive patriotism” with national feeling, liking, and pride; “blind patriotism” with national preference; “nationalism” with national superiority and nationalism.

According to Mummendey et al (2001), nationalism is characterized as intergroup differentiation or outgroup derogation whereas patriotism is a positive related to own group independent of out-group derogation. In general patriotism is understood as “an affective attachment towards the ingroup implying feelings of belonginess, responsibilities and pride” (p. 160).

Method

Participants To investigate the effect of regional variation, the survey was conducted among the Mon population both inside Burma and outside Burma. Since 1990, Mon refugees have been resettling in the Western countries such as the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia. Due to their new social, economic and political environment in their host countries, their perceptions of the Mon national identity may be different from that of their colleagues in Burma. Two hundreds and seven Mons from Burma, Thailand, the United States, Denmark, and Sri Lanka participated in the study. Of these 207 participants, 93(45%) reported living in Monland, Burma, 24 (12%) in border areas, 16 (8%) in Thailand, 50(24%) in the United States, 15 (7%) in Sri Lanka, 9 (4%) in Denmark. One hundred and fifty four of the participants (76%) were male and 48 (24%) were females. Of 154 males, 27 (12%) of them are Buddhist monks. The age distribution of participants ranges from 16 to over 60 and about 60 percent of participants were between the age of 21 and 40 (See Table 1). All participants are assumed to speak and read Mon well. Most of them are also knowledgeable about the Mon history and politics and have been participating in social and political activities of the Mon affairs directly and indirectly.

6

Procedures Most of the survey’s samples were taken during conferences, meetings, and social

training classes held in the Thai-Burma border area, in Monland, and in the United States during the past two years. The first set of samples was taken in May 2006 during the Third Mon National Conference held in the MNSP’s control area. Most of the conference attendees were Mon representatives from Burma, overseas, and Thailand. About 88 representatives from 24 Mon organizations attended the conference. The questionnaires were distributed at the conference; sixty respondents returned the questionnaires the day after. The second set of the samples was collected during the 12th annual conference of the Monland Restoration Council in Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA in December 2006. The questionnaires were distributed at the beginning of the conference and the respondents returned the completed questionnaires on the same day. Of 100 attendees, 70 responded to the questionnaires. However, six samples from the first set and nine samples from the second set were not included in the analysis due to incorrectly filling out the questionnaires. The third set of the samples were taken during the Mon Youth Conference held under NMSP’s administrative areas in February 10-12, 2007. Attendees were the representatives of the Mon youth organizations inside Burma. There were about 50 representatives at the conference. Thirty of them responded the questionnaires. Twenty seven samples were taken in Mon State, Burma during the meetings and social training classes organized by the Mon Youth Progressive Organization. The rest of the samples were from Denmark and Sri Lanka.

Table. 1 Demographic make-up Demographics N % Male 127 63 Buddhist Monk (male) 27 13 Female 48 24 Age 16-20 31 16 Age 21-30 57 29 Age 31-40 68 35 Age 41-50 23 12 Age 51-60 12 6 Age 60 Over 5 3 Elementary School 64 33 High School 56 29 1-2 Years College 24 12 3-4 Years College 41 21 Graduate School 8 4 State Education 129 66 Monastic Education 65 34 Monland 117 57 Diaspora 90 43 Leaders 52 25 Non Leaders 155 75 Total 207 100

7

Measures The primary independent variables in study are demographic variables including

age, gender, education level, geographic location, while the dependent variable is the national identity. The study also compared samples taken at the Third Mon National Conference with samples taken elsewhere in order to compare differences in level of national identity between the leaders of Mon organization and the Mon general public.

In most studies, the national identity is measured with a general term of how an individual identifies himself or herself to a nation. However, in this study the national identity is operationalized into two main factors: patriotism and nationalism, because the nationalism and patriotism are more specific expressions of the national identity (Blank and Schmidt, (2003). The two factors were further broken down into five attributes: (1) national pride, (2) national preference, (3) national superiority, (4) outgroup differentiation, and (5) national autonomy. While the national pride is categorized as the patriotism, the national preference, national superiority, outgroup differentiation, and ambitions for national autonomy were categorized as nationalism.

Most of the questionnaires used for measuring the national identity in this study were adopted or translated from the National Identity Survey provided by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), Blank and Schmidt (2003), Mummendey et al. (2001), and Dekker et al. (2003). The ISSP National Identity Survey provides a wide range of attitudinal variables which are related to sense of national identity. These include national pride, national preference and nationalist orientations or attitudes. The nationalist orientated questionnaires include the national superiority and attitudes toward outgroups such as immigrants and minorities (ISSP). However, some of questionnaires designed by ISSP, Blank and Schmidt (2003), Mummendey et al. (2001) are designed for nations with states such as Australia, Canada, USA and Germany, not for nations without states such as Mon and Basque. Therefore, some survey questionnaires developed by Dekkar et al. (2005) to measure the Basque national attitudes were incorporated in this study.

Some of the questionnaires in this survey are also uniquely designed for measuring the Mon national identity based on their culture, literature, religious, and historical background. For example, a question if the participants feel that the Mon are noble people can be used to indicate their national pride. The questions related to the national flag, anthem, or national institutions are not applicable to measure to the national preference or pride for the Mon because, the Mon currently do not have their own national institutions or national flag. But, Mon music has had a long history and has been popular among the Mon populations in recent years. Thus, the questions on their preference of Mon music over those of Burman and other nationalities may be a more reliable measure for the Mon national preference.

The survey questionnaires used in this study was originally designed for my dissertation research to study the national identity and image of Mon people. Forty questions were formulated to measure the national identity. Of these 40 questions, 19 questions were measures of the national identity (See Appendix). The participants were asked for their perceptions on the national pride, national preference, national superiority, attitude toward outgroup, and ambition for national autonomy. The overall national identity scale was created by assigning the 5-point Likert scales (1= strongly agree to 5=

8

strongly disagree) to each attribute and by averaging the scales from the 19 questions (See appendix) with reliable scale = 0.801.

The national pride subscale is created by averaging three questions, the national preference subscale was created by averaging two questions, the national superiority subscale was created by averaging six items, the outgroup differentiation was assessed with five questions and the ambition for national autonomy were assessed with four questions (See appendix). The two items (shame to be Mon and federalism) which have negative covariance with other items were excluded in both overall and subscales. Of two items of national preference, only one item (preference of Mon music to Burman music) include in general scale. The other is excluded because number of samples for the items is much smaller than the others. However, it was used for the preference subscale calculation. All individual subscales were statistically reliable (Cronbach’s αs varied from .58 to .80) (Table 2).

For demographic variables, respondents were asked their age range, gender, level of education, country of residence. If they live in outside Burma, they were also asked numbers of years living in those countries. In the case of Sri Lanka, most of participants were directly from Burma to study in Sri Lanka. If they lived there less than a year, they were accounted as living in Monland for regional analysis. The income variable was not included in the study because there is not systematic documentation of incomes in Burma.

The respondents were also asked the type of education systems under which they were educated and level of education they have completed. The Monastic education has four standards: basic standard, middle standard, high standard and Dhamasariya standard. 66% of the respondents reported to having the state education, while 34 percent reported to having monastic education. In order to measure the general education of respondents, the monastic education levels are coded to be equivalent to the levels of state education, e.g., Basic and middle standards under the Monastic system are coded as equivalent to the levels of elementary school under the state education system. Dhamasariya is coded as equivalent to 3-4 four years collage education. Some of Buddhist monks who have studied or have being studying in University in Sri Lanka were considered to be educated under the state education system.

Results Overall scale

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the effect of demographic factors on the level of national identity. As previously mentioned in the Method, the general scale of national identity was developed by averaging 19-items of the questionnaire (See Appendix). The score of overall scale shows that respondents generally expressed moderate-high level of national identity (M=1.91, SD= .56). The analysis of variance test indicated that among all the demographic variables only education level is significant in explaining the level of national identity [F (4, 188) =6.32, p<.001]. The respondents with a lower level of education tend to show a higher rating in the level national identity. Other factors such as gender, education system, leadership status, and regions are not significant in explaining the level of national identity among

9

the respondents. Although the ANOVA test does not show statistically significance between the Mon living in Monland and overseas, however, a comparison of the mean between the two regions revealed that the oversea Mon rated slightly higher level of national identity (M=1.83, SD=.57) than the Mon who are living inside Burma (M= 1.96, SD=.55). Moreover, the contribution of age to the ANOVA is marginally significant [F (1, 188) = 3.02, P = .084]. Younger generations show moderately higher level of national identity than older generations (See Table 3).

In order to test the interdependent effects among independent variables, a three ways ANOVA (education × age × regions) was also conducted. The result shows that the effect of education on the level of national identity is still significant [F (4,150) =4.50, P<.01)]. There were no significant interactions among these three variables. The means and standard deviations for each independent variable are presented in Table 2.

National pride

In order to assess the level of national identity among respondents more specifically, the general scale was broken down into five subscales. Each subscale was analyzed against each independent variable. The national pride subscale was developed by averaging three items together (See Appendix). The score of the subscale shows that the respondents expressed a strong sense of national pride (M=1.33 and SD=0.537). For example, 97% of respondents reported that they are glad to be Mon while 98 % reported that they are proud to be Mon. Moreover, 86% of respondents believe that the Mon are noble people (Table 2). A repeated-measure ANOVA of the subscale shows that there are no statistical significances among all independent variables with respect to the level of national identity. National Preference

The national preference subscale was created by averaging two-items (See Appendix). The subscale score indicates that the respondents generally expressed a great sense of national preference (M= 1.88, SD = 1.07). A repeated-measure ANOVA for each independent variable was performed to assess the effect of each variable to the level of national identity. The test shows that the level of education, leadership status, and regions are significant [F (4,188) = 5.69, p<.001], [F (1,205) = 5.38, p<.05], and [F (1, 205) =5.42, p=.024] respectively. However, when a three-ways ANNOVA (education × leaders× regions) measures was conducted, only education level was significant [F (4,175) =3.24, p<.05). There are no interactions among these variables. This result suggests that the respondents with lower education levels show more national preference than those with higher education levels (Table 3). National Superiority

The national superiority subscale was created by averaging 6-items which are related to superiority of culture, region, and status (See Appendix). Overall subscale score indicates that participants show moderate-high level of national superiority (M= 1.93 and SD= .75). A repeated-measures ANOVA is significant [F (4,188) =5.74, p<001) for the education and [F (1.205) =4.22, P<.05) regions. However, when the education is set as control, the region factor is no longer statistically significant. But,

10

compared to the Mon living inside Burma (M=2.03, SD =.752), the oversea Mon (M= 1.18, SD= .735) show a higher level of superiority. Again, the education level is negatively correlated to the level of national superiority. Outgroup differentiation

The outgroup differentiation subscale consists of five-items related to the perception on interracial marriages and immigrants (See Appendix). The mean of outgroup differentiation subscale (M= 2.24, SD= .786) is higher than the means of the previous three subscales (Table 2). This result indicated that participants show less outgroup differentiation but they have a high level national pride, preference, and superiority. A repeated-measures ANOVA is significant [F (4, 188) =4.42, P<.01] for education and [F (1, 205) =3.84, p=.051] for the leadership status. However, when a two-ways ANOVA (education × leaders) is conducted, only education attainment shows a significant difference [F (4, 183) =2.04, P<.05). The participants with higher levels of education have a lower outgroup differentiation. National autonomy

In order to assess the ambition of respondents for seeking the autonomy of Monland or for re-establishment of Rehmonyadesa, a separate subscale was created by averaging four items (See Appendix). The subscale is also part of measuring nationalistic orientations of the respondents. The overall subscale score shows that the respondents highly desire of independence of Monland and would like to cover territories (especially in Burma) where they were used to be the areas of old Mon kingdoms (M= 1.89, SD=.735). For example, 90% of the respondents desire to have an independent Monland. When respondents are asked what part of Burma and Thailand should be included in the independent Monland, 95% percent agree that Pegu city should be included in Monland, while 68% agree that the Monland should cover the whole lower Burma (from Tenassarim Division to Irrawaddy Division). Only 48% agree that part of Thailand where it used to be the areas of old Mon kingdoms or where most Mon people settled should be included in the independent Monland. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was analyzed for each independent variable respected to the subscale. Both the regions and leadership status variables are significant [F (1,205) = 12.81, p<.001] and [F (1, 205) = 4.18, p<.05], respectively. The education factor does not show any significance for this subscale. In order to test interaction between the two significant variables: regions and leadership status, a two-ways analysis of variance was conducted. The test shows that only the region factor is significant [F (1, 203) = 4.273, p<.05]. There is no interaction between the two variables. The oversea Mon expressed a higher degree of desire of independence of Monland (M=1.29, SD=.68) than those living in Monland (M=2.05, SD=.74) (See Table 4). For example, about 80 percent of participants from overseas rated “strongly agree” for reestablishing an independent Monland, while only 54 percent of participants in Monland rated “strongly agree”.

In summary, the level of education was significant in overall scale and in most subscales but the region factor was significant in the national autonomy subscale. The gender, education system, and leadership status do not show any significant differences in all subscales but the age factor does show a marginal significance in overall scale.

11

Discussion The analysis of the overall scale indicated that participants show moderately high

in the level of national identity. When comparing the subscales, respondents expressed a high national pride, national preference, and national autonomy, a moderately high in national superiority and outgroup differentiation. The analyses also show that the national identity is a cumulative hierarchy. The results agree with the finding of Dekker et al. (2004). As the subscale move from the national pride to the outgrouop differentiation, the mean of the subscales increases. In other words, people rated lower (or disagree) on the level of national identity as they move from the lower degree to the higher degree of the national identity.

In overall scale, the only education level was highly significant in explaining the level of national identity. In other words, education plays a major role in explaining the level of national identity among the respondents. However, when each subscale is analyzed, education level does not show a significant influence on the national pride and national autonomy; Education level shows a significant influence only on the national preference, superiority and outgroup differentiation. In fact, none of the independent variables shows a significant effect on the national pride subscale. This indicates that most respondents, regardless of education level, education system, gender, age, and the region they live, are proud and glad to be the Mon. That means most of respondents, regardless their education level, are patriotic. But they seem to be different in terms of nationalism. The respondents who have a high level of education show less national preference, superiority, and differentiation toward outgroup. This finding is consistent with previous studies that the nationalism and education level has negative relationship. For example, Marcel Coenders and Peer Scheepers (2003) found that education level is strongly correlated to the ethnic exclusionism and chauvinism, but not to patriotism. Other studies also reported negative relations between the education attainments and the attitude toward outgroup (Smith 1985; Vogt, P., 1997). These studies suggested that people with lower education attainment are more prejudiced toward ethnic outgroup than those with higher education.

Some argued that Mon people who have educated under monastic education system are more nationalistic than those who have educated under the state education system. This study finds no significant differences between the two education systems with respect to the level of national identity. However, further studies are needed to confirm this argument. The age factor shows a marginal significance in overall scale. The younger Mon tend to score higher in the nationalism. The result may be an indication that Mon people may become more nationalistic society in the future if the education level of the people would not improve. The study also reveals that there are no different perception between the people in leadership positions and general publics regarding the level of national identity. Both groups have similar perception toward the national identity. Gender also shows no significant differences. The females’ perceptions on the national identity may be influenced by their male counterparts because the Mon national affairs have been dominant by males and influenced by males’ ideologies. It could also be that the samples were not large enough to see the differences. A larger group of female participants are needed in future studies.

The region factor shows a statistical significance in the national autonomy subscale. An independent Monland or ambitions for restoring Rhamonya desa is an

12

ultimate goal of the Mon people. However, the issue is politically very sensitive and is not usually discussed openly. This study reveals that the participants (both leaders and general publics) strongly desire an independent Monland. They also strongly desire to include Pegu city in current Mon State or future Monland. It is not surprising that, started from 60 years ago until today, the Mon people have annually celebrated the founding day of Hongsawatoi, Pegu, as the Mon National Day. But, the respondents showed less agreement on the issue of incorporating the whole lower Burma and some parts of Thailand in the independent Monland (See Table 2).

Most of the oversea respondents against the idea of Monland incorporated in the federal union of Burma, while the respondents from Monland agree with the idea of creating an independent Monland as well as its existence in the federal union. This suggests that the Mon in Monland impose more flexible option for political autonomy while diaspora Mons impose more extreme ideas. For example, 64% of the respondents in Monland agree on the federalism, while only 25% of the respondents from overseas agree. Please note that the education factor does not have a significant influence on the Mon national autonomy subscale; Most of the respondents regardless their education backgrounds are strongly desire the independence of Monland.

Why diaspora groups are more willing to impose extreme ideas than group in homeland? One possible explanation is that diaspora communities have more freedom to express their demands and desires than the Mon currently living in their homeland. They do not face the same level of threat or insecurity as the people in their homeland. According to Jolle Demmers (2002), since people who are living in the homeland are physically involved in the conflicts, they experienced fear, hunger, pain, and stress. Diaspora groups, who are not involved directly in the conflicts, “feel anger, frustration or alienation” (p. 95). Diaspora and homeland groups, therefore, produce incompatible goals. Since diaspora groups do not face immediate dangers for actions or face no consequence for their actions, they are “easier to push extreme ideas when [their] safety can’t be threatened because of those ideas” (Curtis 2005, p.7). Conclusion

Overall, the respondents do show moderate-high level of national identity. Of all independent variables, only education level was statistically significant in explaining the level of Mon national identity: lower level of education shows higher level of national identity. However, when each subscale is analyzed, the region factor shows a statistical significance for the national autonomy subscale. Most of respondents are strongly desires of independence of Monland. But compared to the Mon in Monland, oversea Mon show a higher level of desire for the Mon national autonomy. This study analyzed part of the data which were originally collected for a dissertation research. Further studies are needed to address the questions on the influence of demographic variables on the level of Mon national identity.

13

Table 2. Responses on national identity questions among respondents Items Responses (%)

Means SDs ++

+

Sum

-

--

Neutral

N

National Pride (α=.664) 1.33 0.54 Noble 1.56 0.92 66 20 86 5 1 8 204 Glad to be Mon 1.22 0.53 82 15 97 1 0 2 207 Proud to be Mon 1.27 0.55 77 21 98 2 0 1 203 Shame to be Mon 4.67 0.74 3 0 3 23 75 0 203 National Preference (α=.804) 1.88 1.07 Prefer Mon music to Burman 1.77 1.10 57 24 81 7 3 8 205 Prefer Mon music to other nationalities' music 2.07 1.11 41 25 66 9 3 22 121 National superior (α=.78) 1.93 0.75 Mon Culture 1.51 0.94 71 14 85 4 2 9 198 Higher status than Burman 1.61 0.98 65 19 84 9 1 7 206 Higher than all other ethnic groups 1.87 1.12 53 21 74 8 3 15 206 Highest status in the world 2.57 1.27 30 15 45 17 7 31 203 Best region in Burma 1.65 0.96 57 30 87 2 4 8 202 Best region in Asia 2.37 1.21 33 22 54 14 5 27 203 Outgroup differentiation (α=.59) 2.24 0.79 Should not marry to Burman 2.17 1.47 51 19 70 12 13 6 207 Should not marry to others 2.35 1.30 35 28 62 17 7 14 206 All Mon should live in Monland 2.01 1.27 50 23 73 16 5 7 201 Non-Mon should not live in Monland 3.10 1.36 22 11 33 39 13 17 200 Burman immigrants 1.57 0.94 63 27 90 2 3 4 206 Ambitions for Autonomy (α=.64) 1.89 0.74 Independence 1.55 0.95 65 25 90 5 3 3 204 Federalism 3.01 1.47 18 30 48 18 24 10 199 Pegu 1.32 0.64 74 21 95 1 1 3 207 Lower Burma 2.10 1.25 45 23 68 13 5 13 201 Dvarawatoi (Thailand) 2.62 1.27 27 18 45 20 7 28 207 Overall Scale (α=.86) 1.91 .56 ++, strongly agree; +, agree; --, strongly disagree; -, disagree; Sum, strongly agree and agree;

14

Table 3. Means and standard deviation of scales with respect to demographic variables

preference

Superiority

Characteristics Overall Pride Outgroup

Autonomy Male (including monks) 1.91 (.58) 1.32 (.53) 1.90 (1.10) 1.91 (.78) 2.23 (.82) 1.95 (.74) Female 1.91 (.51) 1.38 (.58) 1.80 (.98) 1.98 (.67) 2.31 (.69) 1.72 (.71) Age 16-20 1.67 (.41) 1.18 (.30) 1.45 (.82) 1.67 (.52) 1.85 (.58) 1.83 (.78) Age 21-30 1.98 (.57) 1.40 (.65) 1.89 (1.02) 2.06 (.73) 2.38 (.82) 1.83 (.70) Age 31-40 1.85 (.54) 1.33 (.52) 1.88 (.99) 1.83 (.72) 2.23 (.79) 1.79 (.67) Age 41-50 2.09 (.71) 1.36 (.51) 2.04 (1.29) 2.09 (.99) 2.39 (.80) 2.26 (.93) Age 51-60 2.02 (.49) 1.36 (.48) 1.96 (1.14) 2.05 (.74) 2.32 (.62) 2.13 (.77) Age 60 Over 1.96 (.49) 1.13 (.30) 1.30 (.45) 2.07 (.69) 2.12 (.1.4) 2.25 (.73) Elementary School 1.68 (.47) 1.24 (.42 ) 1.54 (.96) 1.65 (.63) 1.99 (.72) 1.70 (.71) High School 1.95 (.55) 1.38 (.63) 1.80 (.91) 1.95 (.73) 2.35 (.86) 1.91 (.70) 1-2 Years College 1.95 (.59) 1.30 (.56 ) 1.96 (1.06) 1.94 (.79) 2.33 (.79) 2.00 (.71) 3-4 Years College 2.01 ( .51) 1.39 (.53) 2.05 (1.13) 2.13 (.70) 2.18 (.66) 2.04 (.74) Graduate School 2.55 (.75) 1.58 (.50) 3.25 (1.48) 2.73 (.95) 3.05 (.64) 2.21 (1.20) State education 1.94 (.53) 1.33 (.52) 1.86 (1.01) 1.97 (.68) 2.27 (.73) 1.95 (.79) Monastic education 1.83 (.64) 1.33(.71) 1.85 (1.19) 1.85 (.88) 2.16 (.88) 1.79 (.64) Monland 1.96 (.55) 1.36 (.53) 1.73 (1.01) 2.02 (.75) 2.21 (.74) 2.05 (.74) Diaspora 1.83 (.57) 1.30 (.54) 2.07 (1.12) 1.81 (.74) 2.26 (.84) 1.29 (.68) Leaders 1.98 (.45) 1.28 (.38) 1.58 (.73) 1.94 (.75) 2.42 (.69) 2.07 (.66) Non Leaders 1.88 (.59) 1.35 (.58) 1.98 (1.15) 1.93 (.75) 2.17 (.81) 1.83 (.75)

Table 4. Different perceptions between diaspora and Monland respondents on national autonomy Items Monland Diaspora Means SDs Means SDs P< Independence of Monland 1.73 1.050 1.307 0.733 .01 Federalism (Reverse) 2.62 1.42 3.55 1.38 .001 Pegu 1.38 .65 1.26 .61 n.s. Lower Burma 2.28 1.29 1.87 1.17 .05 Dvarawatoi (Thailand) 2.84 1.22 2.34 1.29 .01

15

References

Anderson, Benedict (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso,

pp. 5-7. Blank, Thomas and Peter Schmidt (2003). “National Identity in a United Germany:

Nationalism or Patriotism? An Empirical Test with Representative Data” Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 2, Special Issue: National Identity in Europe. (Jun., 2003), pp. 289-312

Brown, Rupert. (2000). "Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups."

Blackwell Publishers. Coenders, Marcel and Peer Scheepers (2003), The Effect of Education on Nationalism and

Ethnic Exclusionism: An International Comparison. Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No.2, 2003.

Cottam, Martha, Beth Dietz-Uhler, Elena Mastors, and Thomas Preston (2004). “Introduction to Political Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Curtis, Andy (2005). “Nationalism in the Diaspora: a study of the Kurdish movement,

Universiteit Utrecht, 4 February. Dekker, Henk and Darina Malova, and Sander Hoogendoorn (2002). “Nationalism and

Its explanation.” Political Psychology, Vol. 24 No.2. Demmers, Jolle (2002). Diaspora and Conflict: locality, long-distance nationalism, and

the delocalisation of conflict dynamics, The Public/Javnost, Vol. 9, no. 1.

Fredholm, Michael (1993). “Burma: Ethnicity and Insurgency." Praeger, London. Gaertner, Samuel L., John F. Dovidio, Jason A. Nier, Christine M. Ward, and Brenda S.

Banker (1999). “Across Cultural Divides: The Value of a Superordinate Identity. Edited by Deborah A. Prentice and Dale T. Miller. “Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict.” Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). National Identity. Available at

http://www.gesis.org/en/data_service/issp/data/2003_National_Identity_II.htm Kecmanovic, Dusan (1996) . “The Mass Psychology of Ethnonationalism.” Springer

Verlag, New York, LLC.

16

Montserrat Guibernau (2004). “Anthony D. Smith on nations and national identity: a

critical assessment.” Nations and Nationalism, 10 (1/2), 2004, 125–141, 2004 Mon Unity League (MUL) (1997). “The Mon: a people without a country.” Bangkok,

Thailand. Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). “Nationalism and patriotism: National

identification and out-group rejection.” British Journal Social Psychology, 40, 159-172

Schatz, Robert T., Ervin Staub, and Howard Lavine. (1999). “On the Varieties

Of National Attachment: Blind versus Constructive Patriotism.” Political Psychology, 20(1):151–74.

Searle-White, Joshua (2001 ). "The Psychology of Nationalism." Palgrave, New York. South, Ashley. (2003). "Mon Nationalism and Civil War in Burma: The Golden

Sheldrake." RoutledgeCurzon. Smith, Martin. (1999). "Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity." Zed Books Ltd,

New York. Smith, A. W. (1985). “Cohorts, educations, and the evolution of tolerance.” Social

Science Research, 14, 205-225. Smith, Anthony D. (1991). National Identity.” London: Penguin. Vogt, P.W. (1997). “Tolerance and education. Learning to live with diversity and

difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17

Appendix Survey questionnaires for measuring Mon National Identity National Pride 1. I am very proud to be Mon 2. I am glad that I am Mon 3. Being a Mon is so shameful (Reverse) 4. Mon are noble people National Preference 1. I prefer Mon music to Burman music 2. I prefer Mon music to other nationalities’ music National Superiority 1. Mon culture is regarded as superior than Burman culture 2. Mon have higher status than Burman 3. Mon have the highest status among all ethnic groups in Burma 4. Mon have the highest status in the world 5. Mon region is the best region in Burma 6. Mon region is the best region in Asia Outgroup differentiation 1. Mon should not marry Burman 2. Mon should not marry any nationalities 3. All Mon should live in Monland 4. Non-Mon cannot live in Monland 5. The flood of Burman migrants’ workers in Mon State poses a threat to the Mon identity Ambitions for national autonomy 1. Monland should be an independent state 2. Monland should be under the Federal Union of Burma 3. Since Pegu city was used to be the capital of old Mon Kingdom, it should be part of current Mon State or future independent Monland. 4. Independence of Monland should cover from Kawthaung, Tenassarim Division to Thayet town (Irrawady Division) 5. Some parts of Thailand where they were used to be old Mon Kingdoms or where most Mon population are settled should be included in future independent Monland

18