Monastic Idols: Aesthetic Embodiments of Masculinity

“Who are your idols?” One monk helping me with my research asked a focus group of community members at his temple. He used the English word, ‘idol,’ in his Thai sentence, and the group immediately grasped its meaning, eagerly discussing their faith in monks they revered as teachers or had worshipped with the parents. In Thai Buddhism, becoming an idol embodies ideals of masculinity and monastic aesthetics. Followers reinforce these ideals by circulating monks' images in photographs, portraits, and statues. When these depictions extend beyond the home temple, a monk's recognition can spread nationally. This presentation examines two types of idealized male monastic mediations, arguing that through aesthetics, we can observe a spectrum of masculine constructs.

Buddhist monasticism represents an alternative form of hegemonic masculinity, as described by R.W. Connell in Masculinities (1980), which emphasizes self-discipline and control over sexual desires. Connell argues that this form of masculinity legitimates patriarchy. In Theravāda Buddhism, this justification reinforces male monastic dominance while subordinating female ordination. Recent scholarship, including Megan Bryson and Kevin Buckelew’s Buddhist Masculinities (2023), Ward Keeler’s The Traffic in Hierarchy (2017), and studies on novice monks by Michael Chladek (2018, 2021) and Benjamin Theobold (2024), highlights ongoing debates about normative masculinity in monastic institutions. Keeler, working in Myanmar, argues that Buddhist hegemonic masculinity is marked not only by detachment from sexuality but also by autonomy, exemplified by monks who live in complete isolation. The more detached a monk is, the more spiritually powerful and worthy of respect he appears.

In Thailand, while monastic autonomous masculinity remains a normative ideal, aesthetics reveal alternative expressions of monastic identity. Hilary Kalmbach (2015) defines aesthetics as “the collection of elements perceivable via the senses,” while Alexandra Grieser and Jay Johnston (2017) describe it as “a process of knowledge gained by sensory perception.” Within religious institutions, aesthetics shape how the sacred is mediated and how religious leaders are perceived. Though monks have limited personal aesthetic choices, they communicate with the laity through the color of their robes, the objects they carry, and their demeanor. Monks in the charismatic kruba lineage distinguish themselves with maroon robes and a beaded necklace. In contrast, those in the Thai forest lineage wear brown-shaded robes or patchwork robes, while the uniform of monks in city and village temples is typically yellow or orange robes. These aesthetic distinctions reflect contemporary Thailand’s religious and cultural landscape, demonstrating how monastic masculinity is continually performed and negotiated. Only after religious leaders establish authority and acceptance can they subtly reshape norms of behavior, performance, and aesthetics. Two monastic case studies illustrate how monks regarded as idols innovate within monasticism and spark debates on proper practice.

This presentation centers on monks in the Thai forest tradition, originating in northeast Thailand, and monks who have the title kruba, from northern Thailand, who have acquired enough authority to be recognized as ‘idols’ and are able to play with the form of monastic masculinity. Forest monks are renowned for their lineage of asceticism and renunciation, embodying an autonomous and distant ideal that prioritizes enlightenment. While kruba means “teacher,” in northern Thailand, the title designates a monk who not only cultivates personal development but also strengthens the temple and surrounding community. Kruba monks blend asceticism with nurturing and caretaking qualities. These two traditions illustrate the diverse ways monks embody monastic masculinity—beyond simple contrasts with lay masculinity or femininity. Their aesthetic choices also signal the types of religious services they provide, reinforcing distinctions between Buddhist practitioners. Through these mediations, monks actively construct diverse forms of monastic masculinity, revealing the complexities that emerge when plural masculinities intersect.

Incorporating images and videos of these monastic ‘idols’ to encourage audience discussion, my analysis examines and compares perceptions of monastic embodiments. Methodologies include media analysis, focus group opinions, and visits to kruba and forest monk temples. Since 2019, I have collected over one hundred pieces of monastic images through Google Alerts searching Thai media outlets for keywords, as well as following Facebook pages, temple websites, and practitioner pages and websites. In 2023–2024, I presented a selection of these images to twenty focus groups from temple communities, gathering insights from over two hundred participants on which aspects of monastic identity inspired faith. Finally, during site visits to forest monk temples in February 2024 and kruba temples during holiday celebrations in January, March, and May 2024, I researched the aesthetic representation of these two lineages.

While Buddhist studies scholarship (Cohen 2017, Taylor 1993, Tiyavanich 1997) has examined these monks, a focus on media, embodiment, and performance highlights how specific habitus attract and sustain lay communities while reshaping notions of purity. These monks establish religious authority through performance, aligning with community values expressed in distinct aesthetics. The mindful, slow gait of forest monks collecting alms, their meditation postures in brown robes, and the kruba monks’ slender frames—shaped by vegetarianism and cave meditation—along with their magical and royal accoutrements, demonstrate how embodiment and performance connect with faith and shape monastic masculine and religious ideals.