Transethnic Identity and Urban Cognition in Makassar

27 Pages·2003·0.38 MB·English

Transethnic Identity and Urban Cognition
in Makassar:
Regionalism and the Empowering Potential
of Local Knowledge1
Christoph Antweiler
(University of Trier)
Abstrak
Tulisan ini membahas situasi etnis yang khas di Sulawesi Selatan. Tradisi pertukaran
antaretnis yang sudah lama berlaku, dan konflik terbuka yang relatif jarang terjadi, menjadi
fokus kajian tulisan ini. Di lain pihak, secara politis, kota dan daerah sekitarnya baru saja
terintegrasi ke dalam negara Indonesia. Karena itu, secara historis Sulawesi Selatan masih
terkenal dengan jelas atas kecenderungannya untuk memisahkan diri dari, atau tidak
sepenuhnya terintegrasi ke dalam negara Indonesia. Jika konsep dan gagasan otonomi daerah
akan sungguh-sungguh diterapkan, Sulawesi Selatan merupakan tempat yang sangat tepat
untuk uji coba.
Bagian lain dari tulisan ini mengulas metode-metode untuk meningkatkan partisipasi
lokal dalam pembangunan. Beberapa metode elicitation yang sederhana, namun dapat
diandalkan, digambarkan dengan menggunakan contoh pengetahuan perkotaan dalam
konteks pengambilan keputusan mengenai tempat tinggal di Makassar sebagai sebuah kota
propinsi yang multietnis. Sebuah metode yang hampir tidak dipergunakan di Indonesia dan
dalam program pembangunan, yakni repertory grid technique yang berasal dari Kelly’s psy-
chology of personal constructs, digambarkan dengan rinci. Metode tersebut terdiri dari
perbandingan triadik yang dikombinasikan dengan prosedur peringkat (ranking procedure)
yang menunjukkan suatu pola kognitif dari konstruk mental (a cognitive pattern of mental
constructs). Dideskripsikan pula penyesuaian secara teknis dan budaya dari metode dan
masalah-masalah praktis yang berkaitan dengan wawancara.
Metode tersebut mengungkapkan perbedaan-perbedaan antara ungkapan dan persepsi
penduduk lokal dengan bahasa dan konsep-konsep resmi yang digunakan oleh perencana
perkotaan berorientasi nasional. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa metode-metode kognitif yang
formal, tetapi sederhana, berpotensi besar untuk digunakan dalam pendekatan-pendekatan
pembangunan; terutama, bila pengetahuan lokal perkotaan digunakan di dalam ilmu yang
berorientasi pada masyarakat untuk kepentingan pembangunan yang efektif dan manusiawi,
serta perencanaan perkotaan di Indonesia. Pendekatan semacam itu dapat memperkuat upaya
untuk meningkatkan otonomi daerah.
1 This article is a revised version of the paper presented at the panel of ‘Endorsing Regional Autonomy:
Reempowering Local Institutions’, at the 1st International Symposium of Journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONE-
SIA ‘The Beginning of the 21st Century: Endorsing Regional Autonomy, Understanding Local Cultures,
Strengthening National Integration’, Hassanuddin University, Makassar, 1-4 August 2000.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001 13
Makassar and otonomi daerah Anonymus 1957; Walinono 1974; Abu Hamid
1984 and earlier editions of ‘Ujung Pandang
Makassar: a peripheral metropolis in outer
dalam Angka’.
Indonesia
The region of South Sulawesi is one of the
Being a port city located in the southwest-
centers of Islam in Indonesia and has a com-
ern part of Celebes Makassar is the provincial
paratively low settlement density. The
capital of the province of South Celebes
province’s agriculture is based mainly on rice,
(Propinsi Sulawesi Selatan). Makassar is a
added by cocoa, fishing and shrimp farming.
center of trade, business and education2 with
There is a slowly growing industry and a de-
more than 1.3 million people today. Ethnically
veloping international as well as domestic tour-
the city is dominated by the Bugis and Makasar,
ism. The formal urban economy is based on
both having a strong profile within Indonesia
the harbor, political administration and facili-
as adventurous, status-oriented and proud
ties for higher education. Informal economy is
people. Despite that Makassar is a truly
very important for work and as service for the
multiethnic city since centuries, with intra- and
households (Forbes 1979; Jones and Supratilah
interethnic rivalry but a comparative low rate
1985; Turner 2000). As a center of in- and out-
of violent communal conflicts (Antweiler 2001).
migration (Mukhlis and Robinson 1986) and
Makassar had 1.268.000 inhabitants in 2000
due to its regional functions the city can be
according to official data and the density was
characterized as a ‘peripheral metropolis’.
4.259 persons/km2 in 1984 (Kotamadya Ujung
The principal ethnic groups represented
Pandang dalam Angka 1996). I would estimate
in the city, Makasar, Bugis (Mattulada 1979,
that there are at least 1.4 million inhabitants
1988; Koentjaraningrat 1980); Mandar (Rach-
today. Exact numbers are not easy to obtain
man 1987) and Toraja (Heeren 1952; Abustam
due to thousands of trishaw drivers and small
1975; Yamashita 1986), all have their roots in
vendors living for months every year or per-
the province. Others came as migrants, often
manently in the city without being registered.
from other islands, as Minang from Sumatra
The population increased more than in compa-
(Darwis 1980) or people from Flores (Kapong
rable Javanese cities in the last decades: 5.5%
1986). Many of the other inhabitants come from
(1971-1980); 1.5% (1980-1984); 2.92% (1980-
Eastern Indonesia. A lot of former residents,
1990). The area of municipality (kotamadya)
especially members of the footloose Bugis, mi-
Makassar is 172 km2; Figure 1 shows only the
grated permanently to other parts of Sula-wesi
central part of the city. Due to official sources
and other islands. Most often they are deeply
60% of the surface are residential areas, 15%
immersed in local economies and even inte-
industrial and 25% open space (M. Engst, pers.
grated into local cultures. Despite having only
comm., 2000). The average household size is
scant inclination to resettle in South Sulawesi,
5.41 people.3 For data on earlier periods see
recent communal riots in Eastern Indonesia
pressed some of these people to return to the
city.
2 There is only scant anthropological and sociological
The city and especially the surrounding
literature on this city. For an early sociological sketch
see Walinono et al. (1974), for an overview see region was only lately integrated into the In-
Antweiler (2000. ch.4 and n.d.a); for a bibliography
on Makassar see Antweiler (n.d.b).
Walinono (1974), Abu Hamid (1984) and earlier edi-
3 For data on earlier periods see Anonymus (1957), tions of ‘Ujung Pandang dalam Angka’.
14 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001
Figure 1: Central Parts of Makassar with gridiron street pattern
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001 15
donesian nation politically. It remained a his- Celebes. Its inhabitants today are only 9% of
toric and ‘hot’ region well-known for isola- the province but about 65 % of the province´s
tionistic or secessionist tendencies. This makes urban population (1971: 57%). Makassar
it a contested candidate for regional autonomy. houses the centers of the army and navy com-
If concepts and ideals of otonomi daerah are mand. Furthermore Makassar is the bureau-
meant earnestly, they could have their litmus cratic and economic and education center for
test here (see Figure 1). the neighboring province of Southeast Celebes
(on bureaucracy see Conkling 1975). For East-
Situating Makassar: history, structural
ern Indonesia, apart from being the node of
location and regional functions
traffic, Makassar is most important in provid-
Makassar historically was a city of regional
ing possibilities for higher education. There are
and even international economic importance
many students from e.g. of Timor and the
(Mangemba 1972; Reid 1983; Reid and Reid
Moluccas, studying at the higher schools and
1988, Villiers 1990; Poelinggomang 1993). But
many small universities. The university (Uni-
within the colonial hierarchy its position was
versitas Hasanuddin, UNHAS), founded 1956,
peripheral. The harbor, which was very impor-
was the first university outside Java to offer
tant and is still important, opens to the west
graduate studies (since 1986) and now has
and is situated to the eastern coast of
more than 10.000 students. In terms of regional
Kalimantan. There are age-old links between
development in Indonesia, Makassar, together
Makassar and East Kalimantan. Since the 1980s
with Jakarta, Surabaya, Medan and Ambon, is
the province of Kalimantan Timor (Kaltim) is
considered as a center of a ‘special develop-
the main aim of people migrating out from
ment region’.
Sulawesi in search for work. Together with the
Today the role as a primate city for the
ports of Tanjung Priok (in Jakarta) and Tanjung
island is uncontested and the harbor is still
Perak (in Surabaya) Makassar today is a main
important for Eastern Indonesia. The city’s
node of the inter-insular passenger network
larger role within Indonesia is open to debate.
(operated by PELNI), which was reorganized
The future will depend on policies of develop-
in the eighties. Makassar harbor is the door to
ment (pembangunan; ‘awakening’, ‘building
the Eastern part of the archipelago and Aus-
up’) not yet determined after the demise of
tralia. Since the 1970s the province of Irian Jaya,
Suharto. Potential functions of the city in the
for example, receives almost all consumer
future might include the leading position in
goods, canned food and beer via Makassar or
Eastern Indonesia (versus the currently still
Surabaya. But this position is contested. Di-
dominating Surabaya) and as a tourist center
rect lines from Jakarta to Ambon, Irian Jaya,
of whole Celebes (competing with the city of
Kendari, Palu and Manado were established
Manado in North Celebes). Regional rivalries
thus diminishing the port’s importance. The
as well as ethnic and religious issues are in-
competitive relation of Makassar to its rival
volved within these competitions (see Figure
Surabaya as well as the subdominant position
2).
to ‘the center’, that is, Jakarta, are a cultural
theme of this city, especially in the discourse Ethnicity and established migrancy
among local politicians. Situated in a region of a growing sense of
Makassar has established itself as the re- regional consciousness and cultural processes
gional primate city for the province of South transcending ethnic boundaries (Antweiler
16 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001
Figure 2: Levels of identity and regional politics in Makassar (a): regional inclision and exclusion
2001), Makassar is a city ethnically dominated prominent in the city´s life and urban politics.
by Makasar4 and Bugis. Everyday life is char- Apart from these Toraja and Chinese are im-
acterized by an intense interaction between portant ethnic groups. Toraja came from their
members of many ethnic groups originating in home area Tanah Toraja since the 1930s and
the province and migrants from elsewhere, es- are generally regarded as part-time urban dwell-
pecially Eastern Indonesia. Even among the ers (Heeren 1952). The Chinese, today mostly
generally multiethnic cities of Indonesia speaking Makasar language, dwell mostly in
Makassar stands out in cultural diversity the dense and congested old urban center
(Antweiler 2000, Ch. 4 2001). Makassar is domi- (Saaduddin 1972; Kaharuddin 1988; Gani 1990;
nated by the four main ethnic groups of South Lombard-Salmon 1969a, 1969b). Only since
Celebes: Bugis, Makasar, Mandar, Toraja. But some years they are beginning to settle on big
Makassar is not simply a ‘city of minorities’ streets in the outskirts (e.g. in Rappocini). Since
like e.g. Medan in Sumatra. long the city has come to be known as a ‘mi-
The city is situated in an area of the former crocosm of the eastern seas’. Life in Makassar
Makasar kingdom Gowa and near the border to is like a step from the village into the world for
traditional Bugis area. Thus Bugis and Makasar, many Indonesians from the eastern part of the
together more than 90% of the inhabitants are archipelago. People from many places in East-
ern Indonesia, especially from Flores (Kapong
1986) and Timor, often live for longer periods
4 If I refer to the ethnic group I use ‘Makasar’ (with in Makassar, as students or traders. In recent
one s, one of several names used in the literature), in years additionally there are refugees fleeing
order not to confuse that with the name of the city
communal struggles in the Moluccas (Maluku).
(‘Makassar’, with two s).
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001 17
Intercultural life, low segregation and like Medan, where the majority comes from
ethnic dominance another island. Current norms and values guid-
Contrary to some other Indonesian cities, ing life in Makassar are a result of a combina-
Makassar is not to be regarded as a plural city tion of parts of the adat shared by members of
today and also in earlier times. Members of the four South Sulawesian groups, rules of in-
many different ethnic groups interact since teraction established through centuries and an
hundreds of years in Makassar, not only at the orientation on values of modern nationalized
workplace. Since colonial times close intereth- Indonesian urban culture. The dominance of
nic economic relations and interethnic mar- Bugis and Makasar presents a specific social
riages were established among members of the environment compared to other Indonesian cit-
elite of the respective cultural groups despite ies. Most urbanites in Indonesia can be re-
residential segregation (Sutherland 1986; garded as being bicultural. They follow their
Abidin 1982; Mattulada 1991). Nowadays mem- regional culture (kebudayaan daerah) and a
bers of all ethnic groups (except a part of the so called ‘Indonesian culture’ (kebudayaan
Chinese community) not only work together, Indonesia). In Makassar, people of the non-
but reside together and intermingle in every- dominant have to know Bugis-Makasar pat-
day life. Today such exchange is found in all terns as a third culture. Only sporadically there
social strata. Social differentiation and rank is are communal conflicts. Usually having small
a central cultural theme in South Celebes causes, like conflicts between young people
(Röttger-Rössler 1998). In the city status is dis- of different blocks, often they are quickly
played mainly by consumption and at social framed in ethnic terms. The dominance of
gatherings, such as meetings of rotationg credit Makasar and Bugis is not the only framework
associations (arisan) or wedding receptions for interethnic relations in this city (see Figure
(resepsi, cf. Blechmann-Antweiler 2001:ch.8 for 3).
a description). But this status display is mainly
An emerging trans-ethnic regionalism
based on socioeconomic instead on ethnic fac-
Sulawesi Selatan is well known as a region
tors. Residential ethnic segregation is low (Fig-
where identity looms large (Mattulada 1982).
ure 3). There are quarters where one ethnic
Since about 15 years there is a growing sense
group has the majority, but only a few have
of a regional belonging and province-related
more than 50% of one group. The highest domi-
collective identity in the city and parts of the
nance of one ethnic group in the urban quar-
province. Everyday discourse as well as offi-
ters was about 80% in the 1980s. Despite some
cial propaganda speak of ‘South Celebes
remaining ethnic names of urban quarters,
people’ (orang Sulawesi Selatan or orang
many areas are almost unsegregated in ethnic
Sulsel for short). A unified culture of the prov-
terms today.
ince, the ‘Culture of South Celebes’
The dominance of South Celebes regional
(kebudayaan Sulawesi Selatan) is often men-
ethnic groups in the city has implications for
tioned in bureaucratic circles but also in every-
the specific interethnic relations in Makassar.
day talk. Contrary to Sutton (1995:674) my ex-
Here the traditional norms and values (adat) of
perience is, that this concept of a regional South
the Makasar and Bugis are not only relevant
Celebes culture is not only an idea of foreign-
for these two groups, but for all others as well.
ers or of Indonesians from outside the region.
This is in contrast to other Indonesian cities,
18 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001
Figure 3: A Typical ethnically mixed neighbourhood in Makassar
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001 19
It is in the heads of many people in the region. trated in the southern parts of the province
More and more people speak of ‘South Celebes and in Makassar are now trying to get their
dances’ and ‘South Celebes houses’. This re- share in tourism, but infrastructure and services
gional concept gives an orientation transcend- are still poor (see Figure 4).
ing ethnic boundaries (Antweiler 2001). Going
beyond Islam it is capable to integrate the Local knowledge and regional
mainly Christian Toraja into the imagined or participation in development
proposed regional culture. The core of this
Local knowledge
conception is heavily biased towards the four
How can local people participate in mea-
big groups of the province (Bugis, Makasar,
sures and decisions regarding development?
Mandar and Toraja). These four groups are
Required is firstly a political commitment to the
usually differentiated from another in the first
ideal that people should decide themselves
instance. But these four have such close his-
about development aims and measures pertain-
torical ties and similarities in their cultural
ing to their locales (cf. Arce and Long 1999).
makeup, that the remaining ethnic groups are
What is needed secondly, is locally and region-
lumped together (Figure 4) and sometimes even
ally relevant knowledge, that is real-life, real-
almost forgotten.
time and real-space knowledge. These two are
Trends towards regionalism are reinforced
general requirements for participatory devel-
in the huge cultural park (Minatur Sulsel) show-
opment, be it in poor countries or in problem
ing wooden stilt houses of the traditional elites.
areas of prosperous countries, e.g. downrun
The general outline is in line with Indonesian
areas in Germany.
cultural and tourist policies. In its folklorization
This paper is mainly concerned with the
and reduction of cultural diversity the park mir-
second requirement of participation in devel-
rors the ‘archipelago concept’ (one island/prov-
opment, knowledge. It aims to further ap-
ince-one culture) used in Jakarta’s cultural park
proaches which try to use scientific knowledge
Taman Miniatur Indonesia Indah (and similar
and layman’s more contextual resp. local knowl-
cultural parks in East and Southeast Asia, e.g.
edge in combination (Antweiler 1998). Not only
in China and Laos). But beyond that it shows a
people´s knowledge but also their experiences
self conscious regional profile and a concen-
and sentiments (Abram and Waldren 1997)
tration on certain groups and sub-regions
should be integrated explicitly. What we need
(Adams 1997; Robinson 1997). The park is one
is what has been aptly called—in the context
of the arenas where struggles of provincial
of sustainable development in modern indus-
autonomy as well as ethnic dominance are
trial societies—a ‘citizen science’ (Irwin 1995).
acted out. Politicians, local anthropologists,
Local knowledge consists of knowledge,
historians and elite members of the respected
skills and capabilities, most of which have some
groups are engaged. A linked contested arena
empirical grounding. Local knowledge has a
is the growing tourism in the province still domi-
potential for use in development measures (see
nated by Tanah Toraja. The Toraja are portrayed
Pasquale et al. 1998 for an overview), but its
as ‘the people of South Celebes’ in tourism
concrete implementation for development is
brochures and schoolbooks. Even in ordinary
quite ambiguous (Posey and Dutfield 1996;
huts and houses of Makasar, Bugis and Mandar
Antweiler 1998). One problem concerns the
people, Torajan items are displayed in the
unresolved epistemological status of local
guestroom. The Bugis and Makasar concen-
20 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001
Figure 4: Levels of identity and regional politics in Makassar (b): regional inclusion and exclusion
knowledge (Agrawal 1995; Antweiler 1998). necessarily present themselves as comprehen-
That is clearly indicated by the diverse terms sive systems and activities based on local
which reflect several epistemological assump- knowledge, are not necessarily sustainable or
tions and diverse political backgrounds (see socially just. Cognitive anthropology has re-
Antweiler 1998 for a list). Most often it is called vealed that local knowledge is more than just
indigenous knowledge, but especially that term technical and environmental knowledge, and
connotes notions of states, age, aboriginality consists of several forms of knowledge and
etc., which are quite problematic. Secondly the knowing. Different assumptions, methods and
problem of the ownership of local knowledge divergent motives characterize anthropologi-
is unresolved (e.g. Greaves 1994; Posey and cal approaches to local knowledge. Especially
Dutfield 1996; Brush and Stabinsky 1996). A relevant to development measures is know-
third problem is that the term ‘local knowledge’ ledge of processes. Thus the he use of local
is sometimes simply used as a label, a fate, that knowledge for development should not either
the term shares with the term ‘participation’, at be restricted to the extraction of information or
least in Germany. simply seen as a countermodel to western sci-
The practical application of local know- ence. Local knowledge is culturally situated and
ledge is less of a technological but a theoreti- best understood as ‘social products’.
cal and political problem, what is shown here
Eliciting local knowledge systematically
generally and by referring to urban knowledge.
Local knowledge is often instrumentalized and Data collection on cultural knowledge is
idealized by development experts as well as by torn between two opposing poles. One the one
their critics, be it as ‘science’ or as ‘wisdom’. hand there are, coming from cognitive anthro-
Within the context of development measures, pology, methods of structured interviewing.
local knowledge has strengths as well as weak- They are often very formal and time-consum-
nesses, both of which result from its local and ing. On the other hand we have the set of very
situated character. Local knowledge, despite simple tools used in several rapid and/or par-
often being called ‘knowledge systems’, do not ticipatory appraisal and learning methods (e.g.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001 21
RRA, PRA, PLA). Both approaches have se- pological fieldwork, in development projects
vere drawbacks. The former are very system- or in other applied research (but see e.g.
atic but concentrated on specific cultural do- Richards 1980:187-190 and Barker 1980:300 as
mains (e.g. the classification of animals or soils). early examples) .
Furthermore, intracultural cognitive variability Reported experiences with such methods
remains largely unexplored and these methods in the context of anthropological fieldwork in
are expensive in terms of time. The latter meth- non-western settings are varied. Some infor-
ods are rapid, but generally leave out the cul- mants found them funny and thus interesting,
tural context. The paper adopts the position, others regarded them as so childishly, that they
that we need direct, systematic, formal and com- preferred to proceed instantly to a coffee or an
parative yet culturally sensitive methods for ouzo. As an illustration of the divergence be-
larger samples, if we want to establish a truly tween bold textbook claims and disappointing
citizen science. The paper tries to complement fieldwork experiences compare Weller and
RRA, PRA and PLA methods with simplified Romney‘s and Bernard’s textbook with
methods coming from cognitive anthropology Barnes’s drastic statement about fieldwork re-
and clinical psychology. ality:
Within cognitive anthropology there are ...the interviewing and data collection tasks
many works on the procedures for the process- contained in this volume are as appropriate
for use in such exotic settings as the highlands
ing of data but far less on data gathering tech-
of New Guinea as they are in the corporate
niques and especially on the specific practical offices on Wall Street (Weller and Romney
problems. But anthropological experience re- 1988:9).
veals that especially the systematic elicitation
I consider the techniques reviewed in this chap-
of data may be very problematic in a cultural ter to be among the most fun and most pro-
context different from the researchers. The gen- ductive in the repertoire of anthropological
method. They can be used in both applied and
eral assumption of methods handbooks (e.g.
basic research, they are attractive to informants,
Weller and Romney 1988; Werner and and they produce a wealth of information that
Schoepfle 1987) is simply that systematic in- can be compared across informants and across
cultures (Bernard 1988:240).
terviewing resp. systematic data collection or
systematic elicitation techniques may be uni- ...(the informants) quickly got stuck, resort-
versally applied. Cognitive anthropologists ing the cards as each new name was added,
before stopping and declaring the task to be
claim to seek the emic perspective, but critiques
impossible (Barnes 91:290).
maintain that the methods of cognitive anthro-
Principally I see three ways to react to these
pology are overly formal, too complicated and
problems if we are interested in establishing a
not applicable in the context of people in real-
citizens science. First, we could use established
life non-western settings. These methods are
methods from the toolboxes e.g. of RRA, PRA,
largely based on US-American experiences with
PLA or other participatory approaches. Follow-
people who are accustomed with formal tests.
ing this way we should not only follow the
To a great extent the methods were developed
glossy brochures but also be aware of the limi-
with paid American college students or they
tations of the methods and the fuzziness of the
were used with informants, whose cultural back-
use of the term ‘participation’. A second ‘solu-
ground was already well known. No wonder
tion’, most often followed by anthropologists,
that these elaborated methods were seldom
is simply to drop systematic elicitation and to
used in non-western settings, be it in anthro-
22 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 65, 2001