The Dynamics of “Ethnic Boundary”: In the Identity of the Tengger Community of Madurese Descent
- 1 Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Department of Anthropology, Postgraduate Program, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
- 2 Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Department of Anthropology, Postgraduate Program, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Abstract
Tengger people are known as those who are very obedient in carrying out traditional ceremonies and highly uphold honesty. The research problem in this dissertation is that people of Madurese descent prefer their main identity as Tengger people. Data collection uses observation methods involved and in-depth interviews. The results of the study concluded that the “ethnic boundary” or Tengger people’s social boundary was to have attributes, such as sarong, Tengger language, farming communities, and obediently carrying out traditional ceremonies, and having the value of those living in the Tengger region, hardworking, egalitarian, peace-loving and always doing good, obeying the leader and obeying the customary rules, maintaining family ties and being close to the spirit world. Madurese people carry out the process of “becoming Tengger” to get various accesses whose legality is owned by the original Tengger people. These accesses are social identity, market, capital, knowledge, through negotiations from other social relations, a better life and authority for the original Tengger people. The Tengger’s strong efforts to maintain “ethnic boundary” resulted in a social construction that depicted the Tengger region as a sacred area that only certain people could live in, which ultimately gave Tengger people full autonomy to manage their territory with minimal outside intervention.
- Anttonen, M. (2003). The Politization of the Concepts of Culture and Ethnicity: An Example from Northern Norway. Pro Ethnologia, 15, 49-65.
- Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
- Blanton, R. E. (2015). Theories of Ethnicity and the Dynamic of Ethnic Change (PNAS Early Edition, pp. 1-6).
- Chai, S.-K. (2005). Predicting Ethnic Boundaries. European Sociological Review, 21, 375-391. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jci026
- Cohen, A. P. (2000). Signifying Identities: Anthropological Perspective on Boundaries and Contested Value. London and New York: Routledge.
- Conversi, D. (1999). Nationalism, Boundaries, and Violence. Journal of International Studies, 28, 553-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298990280030901
- Erickson, P. A., & Murphy, L. D. (2003). A History of Anthropological Theory (2nd ed.). Peterborough: Broadview Press.
- Erikson, T. H. (2010). Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspective (3rd ed.). London: Pluto Press.
- Gagnier, R. (2004). Introduction: Boundaries in Theory and History. Victorian Literature and Culture, 32, 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1060150304000555
- Hefner, R. W. (1985). Hindu Javanese: Tengger Tradition and Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691224282
- Hefner, R. W. (1999). Geger Tengger: Perubahan social dan perkelahian politik. Penerjemah: Wisnuwardhana. LKiS Yogyakarta.
- Jenkins, R. (1997). Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Exploration. London: SAGE Publication.
- Jung, C. (2006). Race, Ethnicity and Religion. In R. E. Goodin, & C. Tilly (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (pp. 360-374). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
- Nash, J. Ed. (2005). Introduction; Social Movements and Global Processes. Social Movements (pp. 1-26). An Anthropological Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
- Oldenquist, A. (2002). Ethnicity and Sovereignty. Studies in East European Thought, 54, 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019756828895