The Material Heritage of “The Wild Boars Cave Rescue”—A Case-Study of Emotions and Sacralisation in Present-Day Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I miss an in-depth symbolic analysis of the local (bottom-up) meaning of the presented events (possible to carry out on the basis of ethnographic interviews). I have included more detailed comments in the review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting topic with great potential to contribute to heritage studies and theory. There are also some interesting data inside. However, it is not executed to the standards of academic journal and as it stands now it reads like a newspaper article. And it has weak scholarly value. Bellow I summarize the main problems to help the author understand the expected standards.  

1.     Poor structure that confuses the reader and eventually missing out important information. A paper should have apart from the aim a lit-rev chapter, a conceptual/theoretical framework leading to established gaps and methodology. Findings and Discussions. This format can vary but not the fundamentals including validity. Most of these chapters are missing while new information blended with authors voice are to be found everywhere even before the conclusion.

2.     Lack of lit-rev. This is very important drawback as the author has failed to connect the topic of ‘high density events’ with other related examples. Although an effort was made examples (even from newspapers) should have been addressed, reviewed and major findings discussed. That would have been an opportunity for the author to establish gaps and connect this event with existing scholarship (empirical and theoretical). In general, the paper is underenforced. Also, some important concepts such as ‘heritagization’, ‘sacred (natural) sites’, ‘liminality’ need more elaboration.

For example. Line 11: If this concept is ‘resonated globally’ then surely other scholars investigated similar events… speak about them and review their work. See papers on Indian Ocean Tsunami and late 20^th century soviet heritage in Europe how they draw upon Authorized Heritage Discourse.

3.     Conceptual Framework. On many occasions throughout the author claims that he draws upon many scholars including Bonno Thoden van Velzen’s /Anton Blok / Victor Turner / David Chidester’s / Kirshenblatt-Gimblett / Smith etc. A clearer approach should have been expressed in a single chapter that match with heritage or religious studies.

For example. Lines 67-87 here you are trying to have a theoretical contribution or something similar… but this is not coming out organically from the paper. The lack of literature review on similar events does not back up the point about ‘family resemblances’ .

Another example: Throughout the paper you keep repeating (see lines 412-417) your conceptual aim ‘selection of people, objects etc’. There is no need for that. Put this clearly and emphatically in the CF chapter.

4.     Methodology. The author claimed that he applied ethnographic approach. What is ethnography what it contributes to this study and what are the limitations should have been presented to the reader.

For example: As far as I am ware there is no single reference to back up your methods. See: Line 118 ‘Each episode highlights a selection of moments, objects, persons, words, practices... how did this selection was made?

Also: Is your ethnography based on observations? Interviews? If yes, do you have ethical approval? If you have done document analysis of newspapers is this considered ethnography?

5.     Findings. 80% of the paper comprise of information/findings. This suffocates the original contribution of the paper as it uses predominantly a descriptive language that deprives the author from more abstract thinking. How these are related to the broader debates in the field of heritage studies. The lack of lit-rev. is not helping the author to do this. There are other issues with the presentation of the findings which I will not address in this feedback.

For instance, a Figure could help: I would like to see a linear diagram/figure that shows the main dates and the events that took place. For instance, July 18, the Wild Boars were released from hospital.

6.     Discussion. This may be a personal perspective, but I do believe that the author has lost the opportunity to draw upon Critical Heritage Theory and discuss how existing heritage acquires new values and uses. I would like the author to explain (see Historic England) what the cultural, communal, spiritual values are attached to the site before the event and what new values this acquired. How then heritage is used to support political and other contemporary agendas.

For example: Line 364: ‘From this perspective, the sacred is to be understood as a condensation of dominating ideas in the fields of values, norms, and identity’ . You have not addressed the (heritage) values though.

Very long sentences!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your profound review of my article, to which I am very much indebted.

Basically, I agreed with most of your remarks. I have brought in a conceptual framework on heritage and heritagization, (Why is this heritage, whose heritage) and have made explicit what topics I seek to address.

I have sticked to my approach on sacralisation, but I clarified my assumptions on the role of ritualisation herein.

Your remark on “the concept resonating globally” demonstrated the shortcomings of my formulation. I attempted to be more clear on what I aim to achieve with drawing attention to what I call high-density event. In relation to your language remarks: I shortened my sentences and had the text proof read by an editor.

You were very right about the absence of an explanation on the methodology, an issue now included in the introductory section.

And yes, what you say about the suffocation effect of the “findings” and its descriptive nature, that was something I had been really struggling with myself. I think that your suggestion of a time-line figure would not do the job, but that is not the point. In my opinion, I have been able to solve this problem by presenting The Rescue through the narration displayed by the heritage itself. This helped me also to better flesh out the politics at stake in the creation of this heritage. In that respect, also your last point raised as discussion, on the original spiritual and other values of the site and the impact of the rescue heritage on the site, was useful. Indeed, in the rewritten version, the political (nationalist, Buddhist, royalist) nature of this heritage is put centre stage.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents a study on the role of emotions in the national heritage-making process at the example of the rescue action of the Wild Boars team from a flooded cave in 2018, in Thailand. The Author convincingly presents how high-density events, triggering heightened emotions resulting, among others, from intense media coverage might become a heritage of national importance.

The case study of the rescue process is very well described and allows grasping the atmosphere of the whole event, and how emotions were triggered, managed, and politicized. Also presented details of the established museum preserving certain emotions (e.g. the mural) or evoking them (cave part of the exhibition) clearly indicate a link between heritage-making and emotions.

Although the article is well and convincingly written, some changes may improve its quality.  It is very much focused on the description of the events and the museums, it does not engage much with the anthropology of emotions and media management of emotions. This relation between theorizing the role of emotions and their relation to media content (emotion is not only triggered by media coverage, it is also a part of its content) should be more balanced. Moreover, these emotions should be presented in a more detailed way. There are named emotions, e.g. fear, joy, gratefulness, but they are not attached to any particular people, rather to media performances (even the rescued boy’s gratefulness is framed in a series of media performances). This brings a question about the method of research. The Author has not shared how the research was conducted. Was it a media content analysis or was the Author present in Thailand at the moment of the rescue action and interviewed people about it? What are the data enabling the Author to discern particular emotions?

The other notion that should be unpacked by the Author is the sacralization of heritage. While the presented ethnographic data clearly relate to Meyer and de Witte’s understanding of this process and the importance of the rescue action for the national identity and heritage is evident, the relation of religious rituals, prayers, novice service of the boys and their coach is not enough clearly interpreted in terms of sacralization of heritage. How exactly the religious rituals contribute to the sacralization of the heritage process and would sacred and sacralized mean the same when religious practice is involved?

There is also one more question that should be answered by the Author. Whose heritage does the Author describe? There are important fragments about stateless inhabitants of Thailand, to this group belong also some of the rescued boys. However, the heritage of the rescue action is deemed a national heritage. Some tension could be sensed here and perhaps the Author could shed some light on it.

Last but not least the question is about the ephemerality of the heritage built, among others, as a result of collective heightened emotions. Emotions are ephemeral, hence what makes such a heritage last?

Perhaps some visual material could also be included in the article. 

Also, there is a missing reference to Victor Turner in the text, he is mentioned, and his concept of social drama is mentioned, but no reference. His book is, however, listed in the References. 

The quality of English is good. The article should undergo a standard proofreading procedure. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your generous and thoughtful review of my article. Your suggestions, especially your remarks on the unpacking of sacralisation have significantly contributed to this new version. I have included an explicit line of thought on the relation between ritualisation and processes of sacralisation.

I have also paid explicit attention to the political, national dimension of the heritage generated in the rescue operation (your question was: whose heritage does the author describe). This helped me also to flesh out more clearly the relevance of high-density events as serious objects of research.

You were also totally right in your remark on the absence of any reference to my methodology, an omission I have dealt with. The inclusion of that section helped me also to formulate my approach on the study of emotions and how their relation to media, and why it is justified to use the material produced in the event for my ethnography.

            Last but not least I have attempted to move away from the descriptive line followed in the earlier version, by bringing in a more analytical framing and by implementing that in the presentation of the empirical material that constitute the Wild Boars Cave Heritage displays.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your generous and thoughtful review of my article, to which I am very much indebted.

As a matter of fact, I could not agree more with your suggestions.

Thus, I have been more explicit what I mean by heritage and why it makes sense to call the exhibitions and other displays at Tham Luang “heritage”.

Indeed, I should have been much more explicit on the moral Buddhist, nationalist and royalist dimensions of this heritage, of its political nature  – and that helped me to be also more explicit on what this heritage does to the site.

In a way I have tried to relate to what is toned down in the exhibition (but not in terms of risk, but your suggestion opened my eyes for other dimensions). In terms of space, I could not relate well relate to your point on Buddhist morality, karma, risk and disaster. I will take that suggestion with me for further consideration, elsewhere.

As I see it,  high-density events highlight the importance of the collective (fears and desires), and the power of imagination, to understand the immense engagement with risky, dangerous situations.

Your third point on the comparison is also an important one. Yes, there are other instances of high-density event that have generated national heritage (the Colombian “Jungle children” and the drama with Moroccan boy Rayan, all did; possibly the Chilean mining accident too.) Unfortunatel, again, this article left no space – yet, such comparison will be the topic of an article to follow.

I admire you for this beautiful phrasing:  “The Chiang Rai artist’s piece of work, the temple museum, and the exhibitions can be perceived as additional brushstrokes on a larger mural painting that similarly pays homage to the Lord Buddha and revered Buddhist saints by extending its praise to established figures and institutions within Thai society.”…. which helped me tremendously in better seeing what I am working on.

Sincerely