By ATTA WONGSUCHAT
EXCERPTS FROM LAW OF THE JUNGLE
In classic Anthropological tradition, primitivity is defined by the subhuman, the body of colour, and non-Western epistemologies. Infinitely existing in the state in which it spawned, it is the unbuilt and un-evolved. Untouched by social structure, norms, and rules, primitive behaviour is that which precedes development. It is raw, simple, and, predicated on a chronotic timescale, it is primeval — the very first. For the temporally modern West and cerebrally advanced Human, primitive behaviour regresses from an established social and moral convention, demarcating it from the civilised. It is the unsophisticated and the animal. Uncivilised or ‘animalistic’ behaviour is therefore an expression of the innate, unmediated by socialisation and lacking in logical reasoning or thought, driven purely by instinct. In 1871, Edward Burnett Tylor — often regarded as the father of cultural anthropology — outlines “the definiteness of moral principles” as a method for ethnographers to measure the “grade” of civilisation; deviant behaviour is deemed sub- or pre-human. Because this ideology is predicated on Biological and Anthropological imperialism, it is inevitably an unstable one; full of contradictions. Nonetheless and subsequently, they pervade and underlie our collective conscience. I adopt these beliefs as a way to dissect them.
To me, the crux of The White Lotus appears to boil down to the matter of unadulterated desire; one so pure and powerful that any regard for consequence is obliterated. Discussing Season 1 of the White Lotus, Karim Townsend writes that Mike White overturns the classical idea of the primitive subject by projecting animalistic behaviour on the white hotel guests. Season 3 maintains this tradition, emphasising to us the absurdity of whiteness and wealth through portrayals of lack of self-restraint, hypersexuality, and social anomie.
In Season 3, we are presented with incestuous desire, hedonistic gossip, adultery, erotic freedom,
There is a certain animality projected onto each character. These parallels are further emphasised by jungle/animal sounds and shots of macaques on trees.
Jaclyn, Laurie, and Kate exhibit this lack of self-restraint through their poignant portrayal of gossip and friendship. It felt inevitable — arguably for both audience and character — that each would have their turn as the victim. Yet, they couldn’t help but engage as perpetrator, allowing resentment to murk their “victory tour”, frothing at the mouths, rabid to wring out the repressed. With each gossip session overlaid with insect chirps and simian calls, the blondes suggest that jealousy and judgement exist at the instinctual level; that there is an undeniable animal urge for social hierarchy and validation. In the last episode, their tension is released at the dinner table when Laurie delivers her monologue expressing her gratitude for Jaclyn and Kate. We see Hanuman, the god monkey, moving gracefully behind the three; this scene is backdropped by a live performance of Ramakien, an iconic Thai mythological epic adapted from the Sanskrit Ramayana, whose central theme has been posed as the struggle between good and evil, as well as infatuation. The four glass walls of the conservatory in which they dine offer the guests a sense of proximity to the show. Yet, ultimately insulated, in all senses of the word, the three are too absorbed in their self-indulgent reflections to notice the, frankly by Western standards, quite unavoidably extravagant performance of a culturally significant play. For Jaclyn, Laurie, and Kate, the holiday has been a medium for them to engage in insulated, tunnel-visioned self-absorbed dynamics. Their insulation to Thailand is so emphasised, I feel like it shows the sort of like lack of self control, survival will always be the most important thing.*
SEE FULL STORY IN ARTIFACT ISSUE N°1