A Personal Deconstruction of Khmer Social Cohesion: A Critical Analysis

Phnom Penh, 23 August 2025

Mut Somoeun, Lecturer of Khmer Studies

When the call for national unity echoes across Cambodia and the global diaspora, it is a powerful and deeply moving experience for me. I feel it as the sound of a people coming together against a perceived threat, a moment where our differences seem to melt away in the face of a shared purpose. I have frequently observed this phenomenon during border disputes or geopolitical tensions with neighboring countries, particularly Thailand and Vietnam, or other affiliated countries. While this unity is often hailed as an inherent trait of Khmer resilience, my personal reflection reveals a more complex reality. I have come to deconstruct Social Cohesion not as a spontaneous act of patriotism, but as a reactive and strategically mobilized phenomenon driven by what I see as a strong spirit of National Unity and Nationalism. This analysis explores how powerful sociological and Buddhist theories have helped me understand why and how my people unite in these moments of crisis.

1. The Ideological Engine: Nationalism and the “Imagined Community”

From my perspective, Khmer social cohesion is propelled by a powerful, collective belief in our nation. I find Benedict Anderson’s concept of nations as “Imagined Communities” so insightful because it explains how people who will never meet can feel a deep connection through a shared story. For us in Cambodia, this national narrative is often one of a once-glorious empire besieged by foreign powers. The “invading neighbor” is a recurring character in our story, a motif that instantly triggers a familiar and unified response.

This narrative is incredibly effective because it simplifies a complex geopolitical issue into a clear moral choice: you are either with the nation or against it. I see this strategic use of a shared story helping leaders to channel popular sentiment and solidify national identity. For me, cohesion is therefore not merely a reflection of the people's will but also a product of a powerful, and at times politically motivated, nationalist narrative. It takes our diverse populace and gives us a singular, compelling reason to act as one. Yet, this is where the critical analysis truly begins: this unifying narrative is a double-edged sword. It not only binds us together but also defines another – a necessary enemy against which our unity is forged. This kind of cohesion, by its very nature, can breed hostility and a closed-mindedness that stifles internal dissent and critical thinking, all in the name of a collective identity.

2. The Foundation of Unity: Historical Trauma and Dukkha

I've come to realize that while nationalism provides the ideological framework, its raw power comes from our shared history of trauma. This is the First Noble Truth of Buddhism, Dukkha (so-called suffering in Buddhist principles), which for me, and for so many Cambodians, is not just a philosophical concept but a lived reality. This profound connection between Buddhist principles and the nation's social history is something I've seen well-documented. The constant struggle against perceived and actual hardship has ingrained the notion of suffering into our national consciousness, transforming a religious truth into a societal bond. From the French colonial era to the genocide of the Khmer Rouge and decades of civil war, our nation's history is a collective memory of hardship. When a new crisis emerges, it doesn't just feel like a political issue to us; it feels like another chapter in a long history of suffering.

I see this firsthand as a manifestation of Émile Durkheim's concept of Mechanical Solidarity, a cohesion born from a shared collective conscience. For us, this shared consciousness is forged in the crucible of historical suffering. We are united by a common grief and a common fear of reliving the past. The nationalist call to action is understood on a deeply emotional level, bypassing political or economic complexities because it resonates with this historical pain. The shared trauma becomes a source of pride and resilience, a testament to our nation's unique struggle and a foundation for its nationalistic spirit. It is an automatic, almost reflexive form of unity, but one that is often fragile. As soon as the immediate threat recedes, the underlying social and economic divisions resurface. This makes me question: is a unity built on trauma a healthy or sustainable model? Does a constant reference to our suffering prevent us from truly healing and moving forward? It can feel like we are perpetually caught in a cycle of fear, only capable of true unity when we are facing an external wound, unable to maintain that same cohesion when tasked with healing the deep internal scars.

3. The Practical Channels: Social Capital in Action

I've learned that while our emotional and ideological bonds are strong, they require practical channels to be effective. This is where Pierre Bourdieu's theory of Social Capital becomes essential. Social capital is essentially the value derived from social networks – the relationships, trust, and connections that can be mobilized for a collective goal. In the Khmer context, this is not just about individual friendships; it is about a deeply ingrained cultural fabric that is instrumentalized to advance nationalistic aims.

The pagodas (Buddhist temples/ Wats) and community associations, both within Cambodia and across the diaspora, serve as vital hubs of this social capital. They are places where trust is established and where communication can spread quickly and authentically. In the digital age, this has been amplified by social media platforms like Facebook, Telegram, TikTok, and Instagram, which serve as virtual “pagodas” where news, opinions, and calls to action are shared instantly. During a protest against an aggressive border encroachment, the rapid mobilization of people is not a miracle; it is a result of a robust, pre-existing network that converts nationalistic fervor into tangible action. This network, built on generations of trust, is the engine that transforms emotional unity into tangible results. But I must critically reflect on this as well. While these channels can unite, they can also become dangerous echo chambers, amplifying misinformation and radicalizing sentiment. This isn't just cohesion; it's digital tribalism, where the call for unity can be easily distorted to silence a nuanced perspective or attack a fellow citizen who dares to disagree.

In conclusion, I believe the social cohesion of the Khmer people against external threats is a remarkable testament to an enduring spirit and resilience. It is a powerful force that draws on the shared pain of our history, the strength of our community networks, and a long-standing nationalistic narrative. However, it is crucial for us to reflect on the nature of this unity. It is, by and large, reactive – a powerful response to a specific stimulus – rather than a stable, proactive form of solidarity.

For me, the true challenge for Khmer nation is to transform this crisis-driven unity into something more sustainable. How can we use the same deep bonds of shared history and social capital to address internal challenges, such as economic inequality or political divisions? The unity observed in moments of crisis proves that the capacity for collective action exists. The true test for our nation lies in our ability to harness this power not just against outside threats, but also for building a more stable, equitable, and prosperous society from within. It is a question of whether we can finally break the cycle of reactive cohesion and build a true, lasting solidarity that is not dependent on the existence of a common enemy.