Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Negara Ubud: The Theatre‐state in Twenty‐first‐century Bali

2005; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 16; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/02757200500344616

1477-2612

Graeme MacRae,

Cultural Identity and Representation

Abstract In his book Negara: The Theatre‐state in Nineteenth‐century Bali (1980), Clifford Geertz argued that ceremonial display, rather than material power, was the real basis and indeed the purpose of pre‐colonial states in Bali, and by extension South East Asia. This article argues, on the basis of historical and ethnographic evidence from one of these kingdoms, that he was largely wrong about pre‐colonial Bali, but that, ironically and presciently, his model makes increasing sense in early twenty‐first century Bali. The article also discusses the reasons for this and finally suggests a more dynamic model based on Bourdieu’s metaphor of material and symbolic capital, which seeks to bring Geertz’s essentially static model to historical life. Keywords: IndonesiaSoutheast AsiaHistoryEthnographyPre‐colonial states Notes [1] The visitor was Ludwig Helms, a young man in the employ of Mads Lange, a Danish trader whose base of operations was, and his grave still is, in what is now the heart of the Kuta tourist district. Helms’ account of the cremation can be found in his memoirs (Helms, Citation1882) and more detail about Lange and his operation can be found in Schulte‐Nordholt (Citation1981). [2] E.g., in a recent collection of writings by a virtual who’s‐who of such influences, Negara is mentioned only once, and that by the anthropologist‐editor Ortner (Citation1999a: 38). [3] This brief history, and indeed all the ethnographic and local historical material recounted here, was, unless referenced otherwise, collected in the course of fieldwork in Ubud between 1993 and 1996, and supplemented by several briefer visits since then. This work was supported by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Udayana University in Bali, Dr N. Erawan, the University of Auckland and individuals too numerous to name here. It is recounted in more detail in my doctoral thesis (MacRae, Citation1997) and parts of it in subsequent publications (MacRae, Citation1998, Citation1999, Citation2003). [4] Cokorda is a title indicating descent from the highest‐ranking line in Klungkung. It is often abbreviated “Ck.” and will be hereafter. [5] It is used by some other foreign scholars of Bali, but mostly in response to its instatement by Geertz as a “gatekeeping concept” (Appadurai, Citation1986: 357) rather than reflecting local usage (e.g., Schulte‐Nordholt, Citation1996: 6). [6] Palaces may also be seen, more obviously and I think more defensibly, as simply grander versions of ordinary houses, in all of which (family) temples are a constituent part. Even if we accept this analogy, there are real differences in function, meaning and geometry between Indian and Balinese temples. [7] Similar points are made in various ways by Davis (Citation1982: 267), Herzfeld (Citation2001: 55), Kellogg (Citation1991: 418) and Thomas (Citation1963: 3). An example of the assumption of the separateness of the two disciplines is Sahlins’ (Citation1985: 143) (no doubt also tendentious) claim that “the antithesis between history and structure has been enshrined in anthropology since Radcliffe‐Brown”. [8] For this discussion, see Cohn (2004: 30–45). [9] Negara receives mention, but no more, in Kellogg’s (Citation1991: 425) review of anthropological uses of history. [10] These two categories may appear too broad and loose for some tastes (for an alternative typology, see Kellogg, Citation1991), but they correspond roughly to, or at least overlap with, distinctions made elsewhere including that by French (Annales) historians between “event‐based history and history conceived of as ‘motionless’ and of long duration” (Cohn, Citation1982: 242), Levi‐Strauss’ between “hot” and “cold” societies, and Geertz’s (Citation1980: 5) own between history as “a series of major events” and as “general phases of sociocultural development”. They also condense Roseberry’s (Citation1991: 7–20) three approaches into two. It might also be argued that there is a third category—ethnohistory—whose business is the reconstruction and writing of histories of and from the point of view of the subjects of that history—“the natives point of view” (Cohn, Citation1982). Yet even within ethnohistory, approaches also tend to fall into these two broad categories. [11] The bibliography of Negara, which runs to eleven pages, contains only ten local historical texts, all of them published versions of mid‐twentieth‐century transcriptions. Several others, many of them unpublished, that I was able to find without much difficulty in private collections over thirty years later are notably absent. [12] Tambiah’s (Citation1976) earlier work World Conquerer and World Renouncer is, however, listed in the bibliography of Negara. [13] Shelly Errington’s (Citation1989) Meaning and Power in a Southeast Asian Realm arguably represents another model. However, apart from a useful discussion of the political sociology of “entourages” (Errington, Citation1989: 104–108) and more focus on local understandings of power, it is essentially a Negara‐like model of an ahistorical Indic cultural form. [14] For a general discussion of kesaktian in Bali, see Geertz (Citation1994); and on its role in modern Indonesian politics, see Anderson (Citation1972). [15] The Balinese term “ puri” refers, very much like the English “palace”, simultaneously to the physical buildings, the (extended) family and the institution in general terms. [16] There is a delicate balance of obligation and compulsion here. While the palace insist that villages volunteer their services, and indeed fear missing out on such an opportunity, it is obvious from enquiries in these villages that they are notified of such ceremonies and invited to participate. The lynchpin in the process is usually a local leader keen to enhance his status and power by making things happen in the village and serving the palace at the same time. For an analysis by a local sociologist, see Dwipayana (Citation2001: 256–260) [17] Such elite control or “ownership” of local history is not uncommon in south Bali (see, e.g., Parker, Citation2003: 31, 42). [18] It would be easy to impute motivations to the puri on the basis of an analysis of strategic use symbolic and material resources, but this would be to reduce Balinese motivations to the categories of Western political science—the very mistake Geertz is trying, according to Wiener unsuccessfully, to avoid. More importantly, despite over a decade of fieldwork in Ubud, I cannot claim to know these motivations with any certainty. What I do know and can analyze, however, is the effects of their actions; but to impute motivations from effects is something else. [19] At a conference presentation of this article, I was asked the obvious question “Had they in fact been reading Geertz?”. The answer is, I think: No, but they are certainly thinking about Balinese culture and about Ubud and their place in it in terms of a complex cultural formation involving Balinese re‐appropriation of a courtly/theatrical model of Balinese culture developed by expatriates in the 1930s and cultivated retained by contemporary expatriates and the tourism industry. [20] While this is true of the Balinese texts with which I am familiar, it is apparently much less so of the Malay and Bugis ones with which Milner (Citation1982) and Errington (Citation1989) worked, in which there was much mention of the ceremonial aspects, while the underlying political machinations were systematically obscured. I suspect this may reflect different traditions of historiography, perhaps influenced by Islamic scholarship, but it is a matter for further research. [21] For a defence of Bourdieu against the charge of economic reductionism “in the last analysis”, see Thompson (Citation1991: 14–15). However Bourdieu’s use of the language of economics and symbolism locates him inescapably in the endless debate between “Culture and Practical Reason” in a position that is more or less a mirror‐image of Sahlins (Citation1976). However, this too is another discussion. Additional informationNotes on contributorsGraeme MacRae Graeme MacRae teaches anthropology at Massey University in Auckland, New Zealand. His current research is on architecture, landscapes and agriculture in Bali, Java and South India.