This is the list of ISJAI 2022 Panels:
Panel 1. Epistemology, Adaptation, and Disaster Mitigation of Masyarakat Adat Nusantara
Disasters, whether in the form of natural disasters or disease outbreaks, are facts that have accompanied humans throughout history, including indigenous peoples who have lived for thousands of years in the archipelago. Disasters encourage them to build epistemology or knowledge or understanding of what, where, why, and how to deal with and interpret disaster situations. This epistemology is manifested in the form of customary law (in the form of a ban on cutting down trees on the coast; a ban on taking coral, coral reefs, and coral kimo in the sea; a ban on large-scale sand excavation; and a prohibition on clearing land along rivers and springs). oral literature, tribal/village/community history (history of migration and village formation) even rituals to taboo laws. Over time, through repeated life experiences or the process of “trial and error” the knowledge that is built becomes a guide or in Gertz’s terms becomes a “model of” and “model for” which guides them to mitigate and adapt when faced with problems. disasters, whether psychological or physical, for example by implementing strict customary laws, rituals for asking for directions, rituals against reinforcements to migration from the old village to build a new village. Indigenous peoples are a vulnerable group in the event of a disaster. Due to limited access, they are often isolated and do not receive assistance from any party. Therefore, it is important to know their epistemology about disaster, how disaster mitigation and adaptation is carried out. By clearly knowing their epistemology about disasters, it is possible to build indigenous groups that are resilient to disasters. Even with the presence of science, there is an opportunity to build a new epistemology that is contextual with developing situations and conditions.
Panel 2. Mobility Challenges of a Border Population in the Celebes Sea
Border populations are communities that live in vulnerability and constant crises. The Sangir people of the Sangir Talaud Archipelago, Indonesia’s northernmost islands, are a border population with a history of experiencing simultaneous challenges. In the precolonial era, natural disasters, mainly volcanic eruptions, had forced them to adopt a mobile lifestyle in order to adapt. Meanwhile, Sangir were forced to follow colonial rules in the colonial era, including religion and established agricultural lifestyle. After the independence of Indonesia and the Philippines, they experienced more complex crises. The introduction of decentralisation policies and local autonomy in Indonesia at the onset of the Reform Period aimed to increase the control of local authorities towards resources and enhance effective relationships with local communities. Despite this new policy, cross-border and fishing activities for border populations are still regulated under the central government laws. The Border Crossing Agreement and “exclusive economic zones” (EEZ) have operated as major frameworks to manage border population in the north Sulawesi and the southern Philippines. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic came and interrupted the cross-border activities, making their everyday life struggle even harder. This panel invites papers on how anthropology has contributed and can continue to analyse the local perspective of border communities toward various crises, including natural disasters, colonial rules and dynamic of laws and policies by the Indonesian and the Philippines government. The panel invites conventional single or joint presentations, short videos and any innovative formats in keeping with the parameters set by the organising committee.
Natasha Devanand Dhanwani
Panel 3. Interpreting the Etiology and Effects of Disasters in Indonesia: Anthropological Analyses and Interventions
It is a well accepted dictum in Disaster Studies that while hazards can be natural, disasters always are co-created in a conjuncture of natural, social and cultural factors (e.g. Kelman 2020; Hoffmann & Oliver-Smith 2002). That is, there is always an anthropogenic component in the destruction wreaked by disasters; the term ‘natural disaster’ is a misnomer. Liquefaction becomes a disaster when human settlements and other infrastructure have previously been erected in its vicinity. As such, anthropology is able to play a major role in providing analyses not only of the social effects of disasters, but of the conditions that create them and sustain their effects in the aftermath. This panel invites papers on how anthropology has contributed and can continue to contribute to analysing disaster trajectories and facilitating interventions for various disasters in Indonesia, including such events as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, liquefaction, and disasters catalysed by deforestation, climate change, pollution practices and other drivers. Papers may focus on such topics, among others, as: The cultural symbolism of disasters: Local interpretations of disasters and their effects; The social organisation of disaster interventions: How they succeed and fail; Accommodation of local knowledge and institutions in disaster interventions Social and cultural facilitators of disaster impacts; Differential vulnerabilities to disasters among constituencies in disaster-affected populations; Mobilisations to mitigate disaster impacts: Local and global interconnections; Constructions of disaster expertise, including within BNPB (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana) and related organisations; Multi-species perspectives on disaster etiology and impact; Designing appropriate interventions to mitigate disaster impact and facilitate recovery. Coping mechanisms of local people affected by disasters Cultural values and local people’s strategies of resilience in areas vulnerable to multiple and/or recurring disasters The panel invites conventional single- and joint presentations, as well as short films, short participatory discussions, and any innovative formats in keeping with the parameters set by the organising committee.
Panel 4. Anthropological Responses to Gender-Based Violence in a Multidimensional Crises
The multidimensional crises – climate change, pandemics, and humanity – are becoming more and more real as we enter the third decade of the 21st century. One that needs attention is the crisis in the field of gender, particularly with regard to violence against women and LGBTQ, domestic violence, structural gender-based violence, legal uncertainty for women and LGBTQ, also, job losses for women in the pandemic, vulnerability of women’s safety in work, sexual violence in online platform, and so on. These issues need to get a critical approach from the perspective of feminism, socio-legal, and gender studies. Not only in the theoretical paradigm approach, but also in terms of methodology, research methods, and more importantly, practical contributions. This panel will welcome academics, observers, and practitioners with a special interest in issues concerning women and multidimensional crises from various scientific backgrounds. Experience-based cases based on the results of research, advocacy, and even auto-ethnography are expected to emerge as the anthropological basis for discussion in this panel. In addition, Indonesia as the main and comparative context is also expected to emerge in this panel discussion.
Lidwina Inge Nurtjahyo
Mochammad Arief Wicaksono
Panel 5. New Developmentalism in Indonesia: Where is the Marginal?
Infrastructure and economic development have been a strong focus of different regimes in Indonesia. According to Tuang Vu (2007), Indonesia assumed the form of a developmental state immediately after independence, and this orientation became very strong in the New Order period (Feith 1981). After the onset of the reform era in 1998, the ideology of developmentalism was backgrounded until Joko Widodo won the 2014 presidential election. According to Eve Warburton (2016), Joko Widodo’s administration has been marked by the rise of a New Developmentalism, an ideology that is reminiscent of the old developmentalism of the New Order with some differences, such as having a strong commitment to nationalism while still being open to the international market. Commitment to such an ideology is not only ubiquitous among the people in the state administration, but also among non-government actors and lay people. With its strong focus on infrastructure development and economic growth, this New Developmentalism normatively has a fairly weak focus and commitment to social justice especially in ameliorating the condition of the under class and marginal groups (masyarakat pinggiran). This panel seeks to exemplify how anthropology can contribute strategically and significantly to analysing, critiquing, and perhaps even dismantling the new developmental ideology, especially to how anthropology can illuminate how this ideology addresses marginality issues and to how people respond to the implementation of this ideology in the ground, including forms of resistance in which they may engage. This panel invites paper on such topics, among others, as:
- The theoretical conceptualisation of New Developmentalism in Indonesia,
- The implementation of new developmentalism in different sectors in Indonesia,
- Effects of the implementation of New Developmentalism ideology, especially on the under class and marginal groups, as delineated by asymmetries related to poverty, gender inequality, disability, LGBT, inequality in general, religious and ethnic minority status, and other variables related to inequality.
- Responses to the construction and the implementation of the ideology and structural injustices, including strategies of resistance, appropriation of its idioms for other aims, purposeful noncompliance, and others. The panel invites conventional single- and joint presentations, as well as short films, short participatory discussions, and any innovative formats in keeping with the parameters set by the organising committee.
Panel 6. The Dynamics and Challenges of Indigenous People in Recognizing Customary Forest
The issue of the recognition of indigenous people and customary forest needs to be discussed further by the parties in order to accelerate the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous people. On the other hand, indigenous people as subject can be categorized into authentic indigenous people, the result of revitalization or new constructions. Thus, this panel takes the main theme of the dynamic and challenge of indigenous people in the recognition of customary forest. On May 16, 2013, the Constitutional Court partially granted AMAN’s claim through Law No. 35/PUU-X/2012 (MK35) which ruled that customary forests are not part of state forests, but are owned by indigenous peoples. The process of establishing a policy for the recognition of customary forests took quite a long time until it was in 2016 that the State declared recognition of customary forests. This panel covers topics related to the challenges and risks faced in the process of verifying the boundaries of customary territories and customary forests; understand customary forest from a subjective and objective point of view; genealogical history, complexity of customary tenure issues, and the legitimacy of customary identity in the dynamics of agrarian politics; external and internal factors that affect the process of recognition of indigenous people and customary forest; opportunities and challenges in the restoration of rights through the recognition of customary forests; the dynamics of indigenous peoples and the potential for seizure of forest resources after MK35; strategies for recognizing and protecting the rights of indigenous people and the dilemma of participatory mapping of customary territory as an agrarian conflict resolution effort; transformation of identity from “Farmers” to “Indigenous Peoples” as an effort to maintain ulayat rights; the urgency and contestation of the formation of regional regulation in the determination of customary forest. However, the topic of this panel also covers other issues related to indigenous people and the wider customary forest.
Panel 7. Berkah dan Kutukan: Retelling Environmental Narratives in Indonesia
Indonesians have been familiarized to environmental narratives such as “tanah surga,” “hutan untuk kesejahteraan,” “lahan tidur,” “bencana alam,” “sawit baik,” “net zero development” and many others. Anthropologists and other scholars have posited that these kinds of narratives are particularly powerful in directing environmental management, shaping policy, and reconfiguring both geographical and societal lives. Environmental narratives impose meaning and structure pertaining to how nature and its resources are construed, lived, managed, and/or exploited. These scholars then demonstrate that environmental narratives are central for political actors in justifying developmental agenda (Fairhead and Leach 1995), appropriating forests (Vandergeest and Peluso 2006), and validating conservation efforts (Oates 1999) while incorporating people into the market economy (McElwee 2016) and discriminating certain populations (Smith 2020). Key to this arrangement is the imperativeness of Western science and imagination, instead of local knowledge and realities, in the production and dissemination of such narratives—things that are apparent in the stories of the current climatic crisis and the subsequent interventions. This panel will address these inquiries within Indonesian contexts, particularly to how environmental jargons, propositions, myths, tall tales, or stories have been deployed and maintained as part of state-making strategies (Forsyth and Walker 2008)—governing practices that have led to natural resources depletion, biodiversity loss, anthropogenic disasters, and multiple forms of injustices across the archipelago. The discussion will question the underlying assumptions behind existing environmental narratives in Indonesia, including how the abundance or potentiality of natural resources, as well as fires, floods, and other catastrophic events, are framed by state actors and their associates in the pursuit of their interests. Accordingly, this panel invites papers that can contribute to anthropological understandings on the production, institutionalization, or reconstruction of environmental narratives in Indonesia. The submission might be related, but not limited, to the following topics:
- (Re)production and impacts of environmental narratives
- Climate change, conservation, and enviro/developmental interventions
- Politics of natural resources
- Colonial legacies and state power over environmental conducts
- Western epistemologies and Traditional/Indigenous Ecological Knowledge
- Efforts on Indigenizing/decolonizing environmental narratives
- Methods and sources of environmental narratives
- Roles of anthropolog(y/ists) and other scien(ces/tists)
Panel 8. Experiencing Crises and Life Itself: Knowledge, Metaphors, and Actions in the Multiplicity of Crises
We are accustomed to accepting the finality of Covid-19 and climate change as crises. Those finalities affect the changes in our socio-cultural institutions, artifacts, and economic to judicial system. Yet in our lived realities, crises are not experienced in such authoritative definition, but in its multiplicity. A crisis for some can be a blessing to others—as seen in the growth of digital economy during pandemic or extractive economy in the age of anthropocene. These multiplicities manifest into metaphors we encounter daily; from “global conspiracy behind vaccines” and “preparing the new normal” to “optimizing living space for urban farming”. Such diverse metaphors illustrate the way we construct crises in multiplicity of forms and structure our actions—and, in turn, shapes how crises are enacted. How, then, does crisis come to be meaningful in widely different ways? How does our understanding of crises mold our actions? What shapes does our attempt to define and historicize our life itself take form? This panel attempts to collect the metaphors and actions in a temporary moment of perceived crises to enrich our understanding of crises as lived experiences—a perceptible reality during which friction occurs between symbols in a span of time and space. History and historicity factor in structuring our experience of such friction, knitting it to cultural transformation and continuity (Sahlins, 1981; Chao, 2018). While acknowledging the notion of planetary crisis (Haraway, 2016; Tsing et al, 2017), this panel attempts to emphasize the localities of crises. We see crises not as a flat broad surface, generalized as ‘global scale’ in many of its metaphors, but as a network with wide gaps and ruptures where actors and cultures may gain authorship in their attempt to experience and define crises—resulting in ambiguity, distortion, and even a paradox (Bakhtin, 1981; Latour & Chakrabarty, 2020). Through this panel, we hope to gain stories, insight, or studies from participants in examining how we define crises to reflect the way we conduct ourselves in such perceptible realities of crises, and see the process of cultural continuity and transformation as a response to the crises itself.
Albertus Bambang Suprijanto
Pradipa P. Rasidi
Ode Zulkarnain Sahji Tihurua
Panel 9. Plastics production, Use and Waste: Burning Issues for Anthropology
Plastics are ubiquitous materials that mark contemporary modern convenience and hygiene, and they are “incorporated into the commonsense way we interpret, live in, and understand the world” (Harvey 2007). Despite the pervasive presence of plastics in everyday life, anthropologists have only recently become engaged in research on plastic production, use, and waste (Pathak and Nichter 2019). People use many forms of plastics, give different meanings, and handle them differently. After being consumed, plastic waste goes to landfills or is dumped into rivers, the side of the roads, vacant lands, or house yards. Plastic waste can be piled up, buried, or burned in those places. Plastics are entangled in multiple global crises. Plastic production and burning contribute to climate change. Plastic products contain thousands of different synthetic chemicals, which can adversely affect human health and the viability of ecosystems. The Covid pandemic exacerbates pollution. National governments mandated wearing (plastic) masks and self-testing, which led to dramatic increases in plastic waste. Indonesia and its neighboring country, the Philippines, contribute the most significant amount of global plastic waste to the world’s oceans (Jambeck et al. 2015) We invite contributions from Indonesia and the Philippines on how and why people use plastics and how they sense, know, and act to reduce their adverse effects. We also seek contributions that analyze how policymakers, researchers, artists, and activists confront the challenges of plastic pollution, including making their entangled toxicities visible. How, when, and why do citizens and planners mobilize to curtail plastic use (such as prohibiting plastic bags and straws or banning the use of particularly toxic forms of plastic). Who is involved in cleaning-up plastic waste, and why? How is the clean-up done? Which policies enable efforts to reduce pollution? How successful are these interventions, and what are the unintended consequences?
Nurul Ilmi Idrus
Diana T. Pakasi
Panel 10. Pursuit of Leisure: Reflections, Activities and Meaning of Leisure during Pandemic Covid-19
Before the pandemic, “out-of-home” orientation was the basis for leisure activities: we traveled around the world, we watched football outside, gathered with families, or even played games at home but were digitally connected with other players, reflecting our behavior and assumptions about what leisure is. Leisure consists of freedom, choice, and self determination, but also personal struggles over resources and daily life burdens. We always sacrifice some of our resources: time, resources, and routines to live leisurely. Today, as we live under constraints brought by Covid-19 pandemic, the situations offer fundamental inquiries about the relationship between leisure and routine. Under the lockdown, we recognized an adaptation, modification or new strategies in doing leisure: remote or virtual, personal or social, hobbies or working with pleasure, and others. Furthermore, the constraint force us to grapple with “new” reality of living life within our societies and social-economy classes can embrace the diversity of leisure living that in decades untenable generated by market consumptions, globalization, and flexibility (Rojek, 2005; Scott, 1993, Watkins, 2000, Zuzanek & Hilbrecht, 2016). Through this panel, we attempt to collect experiences, descriptions, activities, and reflections of leisure (in the area of tourism, sports, gaming, hobbies, and others) during the crisis: How do people define leisure during a pandemic? How does a crisis influence the shifting of leisure activities? How does a crisis reconstruct the economy and political structure of leisure?
Panel 11. Religion and Global Issues
The subject of anthropology of religions plays significant role over the decades, both local and global perspectives. Religion in our age has become both a mirror and driver of global change, and the two roles often interfere with or strengthen each other. According to Juergensmeyer, it was an “illusion,” stated Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead.” Yet in the twenty-first century, in the era of globalization, God seems quite alive, and religion is thriving (Juergensmeyer, 2022). This argument is supported by a number of phenomena as well as facts concerning the emergence of new religious and spiritual movements. On the other hand, the role of religions in the public sphere is increasingly demonstrating signs of religious populism as a political tactic. However, researchers commonly experience in the field that religions in the public sphere frequently create religious polarization and conflicts. Religious movements are rapidly becoming an arena of contestation and trajectory for minority groups’ quest for identity, as scientifically shown by the study of anthropology of religions. As today’s current complications, globalization is no longer perceived as an ideal cultural realm, it has a range of complex consequences (terrorism, environmental crisis, climate change, human rights issues, food crisis, politics of borders, religious conflicts, including the challenges of facing cyber era, and so on). We aim to reflect on the role of anthropological studies of religions in the face of global issues in the midst of multiple crises in this panel of the 8th International Symposium of Journal of Anthropology Indonesia (ISJAI). Academics, researchers, practitioners, religious leaders, policymakers, government agencies, postgraduate students, and activists interested in religious problems are welcome to participate in this panel. The following are the panel themes:
- Minority Religions
- Indigenous Religions
- Religion and Media in the Digital Age
- Religion, Environment, and Disaster
- Religious Populism, Radicalism, and Extremism
- Religious Revivalism and Spiritual Movements
- Religious Communities and Political Commodity
- Religion and Economy
- Religion, Gender, and Identity
- And related topics.
Panel 12. Contested Values, Socio-Natural Rearrangement, and Infrastructural Development in The Time of Crisis
Infrastructural forms and public services entailing them have long been equated with the materialization of progress in modern Indonesia. As such, a political platform that focuses on the issue of infrastructural development helped Joko Widodo win the presidential election in 2014 and 2019. Indeed, under Widodo’s administration, a New Order-esque glorification of infrastructural development returns, where national resources are spent to accelerate the construction of structures such as roads, dams, ports, and airports. Thus, in contemporary Indonesia, infrastructure is once again spearheading the imagination of unlocking the long-overdue national progress and development.
The above political-economic development preconditions the pouring of foreign investments and loans into the country to help the regime’s financial capacity in fulfilling its ambitious projects across the archipelago. Over the past years, this injection of foreign capital has been distributed to infrastructural development projects targeted at Indonesian “frontiers,” mainly consisting of undergoverned and underutilized remote regions rich with exploitative and productive potential. Globally hegemonic countries, international creditor institutions, and supranational unions all scramble to compete for their involvement in developing the necessary infrastructure for market, resources, and labor connectivity in Indonesia. These global forces are in-line with the Jokowi regime policy of prioritizing roads, dams, and ports construction. It is also juxtaposed with the national policy that facilitates the land certification and market integration of farmers either through social forestry schemes or many states intervention programs to smallholders in many sectors of agriculture.
This ongoing development is not without a cost. Several studies reveals that it closely related to the existing socio-natural crisis which already took place in many parts of Indonesia. Indigenous and marginalized communities which already dispossessed from their access to resources and political power are considered were left behind from such development. The study on roads development in Indonesia also reveals the implication of such a process to deforestation and biodiversity lost in many places (Mohammad Alamgir, 2021). Social safeguard necessitated by lending institutions (e.g., Asian Development Bank, World Bank) cannot completely tackle decades of socio-economic and political marginalization of indigenous groups. Certain infrastructural forms championed by the current regime, such as roads, are also inherently degrading to the environment as it often necessitates deforestation—even to the previously protected area. This development also goes hand in hand with local and regional political reorganization such as the emergence of local predatory elite or rent-seeking political actors and groups which benefit from such development.
This panel aims to discuss the problem above by exploring the questions of values contestation came from the articulation, contradiction, and negotiation between actors and groups in navigating the infrastructural development in Indonesia. In doing so, this panel intends to invite scholars, students, activists, and practitioners to discuss critically the infrastructural development project and its mutually shaping factors such as the politics of values created by the project, socio-natural rearrangement, political-economic reordering in the local context, and the critical reflection of each participant on their involvement in studying or implementing infrastructural development project.
Panel 13. Socio-cultural Foundations and Challenges of Peaceful Dialogue in Papua
The multidimensional crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic goes hand in hand with a series of violent tragedies in Papua. The armed conflict between the TPN-OPM and the TNI, the refugee crisis due to armed conflict, tensions for and against the division of Papua added to the nuances of conflict and prolonged and endless violence in the Land of Papua (Papua and West Papua Provinces). The challenge of realizing “Papua Land of Peace” seems to be getting further and further away. The idea of a peaceful Papua dialogue and fostering mutual trust between Jakarta and Papua is hindered by prejudice and the desire for power. Indeed, dialogue is rooted in the culture of the Papuan people in various communities spread from mountains to beaches, from valleys to swamps. The culture of dialogue in solving various problems is inherent in the lives of the Papuan people. In coastal communities, we know the culture of the traditional para-paras and the title of customary mats. In mountainous areas, we are familiar with the ritual of burning stones or, more specifically, the philosophy of Nenggi Kenggi in mountain communities in the Baliem Valley to show togetherness and help each other in solving problems. The Mawe party also in mountainous areas also aims to restore balance and togetherness in social relations.
The late Neles Tebay stated on one occasion that dialogue is like opening a garden. Before opening a garden, the land must be cleared first. What is then planted in the garden, becomes the choice of land clearing. For him, other people will not come to resolve the conflict in Papua. Therefore, we (Papuans) ourselves must take the initiative to solve it. The way out of overcoming the cycle of violence in Papua is to clean the garden first while exploring the cultural values that live in the community. This cultural foundation that intersects with theology needs to be contextualized in the midst of changing times. The dialogue was an attempt to open a garden that had previously been cleared. This panel focuses on deepening the cultural foundations of dialogue and negotiation in communities spread across the Land of Papua. Not only exploring the cultural foundations, this panel invited Papuan academics, activists, and socio-cultural researchers to see the link between the cultural foundations of the dialogue and the socio-political dimension of Papua. The cultural foundation of dialogue is not seen as romantic but contextual and emancipatory to ignite inspiration and initiatives for peace dialogue for contemporary Papua.
I Ngurah Suryawan
Panel 14. Oral Tradition Responding to Multicrisis
The current global multi-crisis has been responded to in various ways. One of them is through oral traditions such as mantras, prayers, tembang (song), and various rituals. In Indonesia, tolak bala is a common and popular ritual to dispel all calamities (diseases, natural disasters, conflicts) in certain times. The ritual had been passed down from generation to generation. The pandemic and memories of crisis have brought back various forms of tolak bala, including songs, folk theater performances, dances, incantations, treatment methods, and so on. Each collective, community or tribe has its own knowledge and rituals to deal with the various disasters, as shown by Riboli et al. in his book “Dealing with Disasters Perspectives from Eco-Cosmologies” (2021). Current health protocols in the form of wearing masks, washing hands with soap, maintaining distance, reducing mobility, have oral, lingual aspects that reflect a certain world view or a philosophy of life, which is different from various rituals, beliefs and local knowledge passed down from generation to generation orally. Thus, various forms of response to the crisis and their oral traditions need to be studied and analyzed, so that various knowledge and wisdom can be uncovered and be used to solve human problems in today’s multi-crisis. The results of research as well as research being carried out are expected to be presented in cross-disciplinary discussions in the panel of “Oral Traditions Responding to Multi-crisis”.
Heddy Shri Ahimsa Putra
Ninuk Kleden P.
Panel 15. Coastal and Marine Grabbing in Indonesia and Beyond
Coastal and marine grabbing is a global phenomenon and can be framed as the appropriations of coastal and marine space and resources by outside interest-groups from existing resource users, rights holders or inhabitants. Coastal and ocean grabbing has been noted to undermine human security and livelihoods, and impair social-ecological well-being. It is in part enabled through inappropriate governance processes, and can be perpetrated by public institutions or private interests. The growing intensity of grabbing and the impacts it is having on people and the environment has triggered attention from academia, community, and environmental activists. This panel will discuss these issues with reference to, but not exclusively, Indonesia. The panel invites speakers to present theoretical perspectives and case studies highlighting dynamics of coastal and marine grabbing in Indonesia. This can cover policy and practices associated to coastal, small island, and marine area appropriations (by government-, private-, or civil society actors) that marginalize the livelihoods of local people and/or cause negative environmental effects. We encourage exploration around cases of mangrove conversion, land reclamation, coastal and marine mining, IUU-fishing, coastal and marine tourism, and biodiversity conservation.
Dedi S. Adhuri
Panel 16. Addressing gender inequalities and social exclusions problems through approaches of GEDSI (gender equality, disability and social inclusion): How could anthropology and anthropologists contribute?
Gender inequalities and social exclusions are still deep-rooted in every society. Many women of different social backgrounds still suffer from lack of access to decent work, face occupational segregation, as well as gender wage gaps. In different conditions at urban and rural areas, they are denied to access to basic education and health care; or are victims of violence and discrimination. When their communities experience natural disasters, environmental problems, agrarian conflicts, as well as socio-ecological crises, they face more complex situations as those problems might deepen gender inequalities and social exclusions. Women with disability, elder women, women of customary communities, women casual workers, women domestic workers, as well as women of other vulnerable and marginalized groups have more complicated problems in accessing basic human rights, citizenship rights, and women’s rights. In political and economic decision-making processes, they are not only under-represented but their strategic needs are not appropriately considered. Besides women, problems of gender inequalities and social exclusions have also been faced by other gender identities of vulnerable groups, marginalized ones, the disabled and the different ones. GEDSI crises have been exacerbated since the Covid-19 pandemic. Domestic violence against women of various social backgrounds driven by household financial loss due to social mobility restriction and intense interaction within the small space at home are general facts in Indonesia. While the elders of vulnerable and marginalized groups continued to suffer with little solutions, the new vulnerable and marginalized groups have emerged since the pandemic.
While there are national and international agenda on achieving GEDSI; how could anthropology and anthropologist contribute to end this longtime crisis? What we have been done, what can we do, what are we going to do to address those problems? We invite academia and practitioners working on GEDSI approaches, projects or activities to share their work, stories, and experiences in this panel.
Panel 17. Anthropology dealing with multiple health crisis: The use of (traditional) alcohol beverages
The traditional alcohol beverages have been existing since time immemorial. They have spread in different areas and places in concern and people put some values to it, not only on their ritual, adaptation and ceremonial functions, but also on their role in medication and as the stuff to obtain wellness and healthy livelihood. In the time of multiple crisis such as pandemic, endemic or plague, where the cures from modern medication are scarce or difficult to be reached in certain areas, people tried to look back at their traditional medication practices and values. One of them is by using traditional alcohol beverages. Patricia T. Alpert (2012) had noted that alcohol beverages were prescribed in modern medicine until 1916. Thereafter, medication using alcohol beverages remain as a traditional practice in the society. However, information of those good practices were still lacking in journals, articles or books (especially in Indonesia). Hence, this panel will present some anthropological fieldworks dealing with medical anthropology and people’s (folk) belief concerning the knowledge of alcohol beverages as medicine or medication treatment. As an example, recently during the Covid-19 Pandemic (2020-2021), we have found studies on two ethnic groups in Indonesia using traditional alcohol beverage to cure or to prevent themselves from corona virus, the Balinese people (using Arak Bali) and the people of Minahasa (using Cap Tikus). Scientific research on their efficacy has not been done, nevertheless the two ethnic groups admitted their experiences that the two traditional alcohol beverages have proven their efficacy to cure or prevent from Covid-19.
Raymond Michael Menot
Meutia Farida Hatta-Swasono
Panel 18. Agrarian aspects of the peatland, a challenge to the agrarian system in Indonesia: A Political-economy and Socio-anthropological perspectives
Peat restoration which has been carried out more systematically in Indonesia since the last decade, as part of the climate mitigation program and especially as a result of the recurrent land fires, raises many questions particularly those related to the analysis of agrarian aspects and considerations of the ability of local communities to manage environment, forest and peatland areas. On the one hand, studies on the aspect of land tenure are left behind even though they are realized to be very important. On the other hand, aspects of land tenure in various peat restoration programs are mostly arranged in the form of criteria and indicators for managing peat areas made by experts with a “perspective from above”: Lacking in exploring aspects of local knowledge, actual land tenure, the ability of local communities to manage the forests and the peatlands, the formation of social classes within the community related to land tenure/peat areas, as well as potential conflict claims over the land and a new tendency of ‘green grabbing’. From an ecological perspective, peatland is an area that has a high value for maintaining environmental balance, and at the same time has the potential for economic development of the local community. Agrarian studies and the analysis of land tenure system in Indonesia have not yet explored deeply the agrarian aspects and control of peat areas, except placing them as part of forestry land, especially in several locations of peatlands as the protected and conservation areas. This is a challenge to enrich agrarian studies, both in Indonesia and in other places. This panel will discuss these issues based on a number of research-based papers.
Panel 19. Social Forestry Crisis in the Realm of KHDPK (Forest Area with Special Management) in Java
Indonesia’s forest area, from an area of around 100 million hectares (ha) (Damarraya et al., 2021:1) has been hit by crisis for decades. By the Indonesian government, until 2024, it is targeted that a total of 14.06 million hectares will be opened for access to people living in and around forests through the Social Forestry (PS) policy (PIAPS REVISI_6 Year 2021: 5). These forest areas are generally in critical condition, with tenure conflicts, etc. In Java, post-colonial management of forest areas was mandated to Perum Perhutani through the latest Government Regulation (PP) PP 72/2010. After the issuance of UUCK/2020 and PP 23/2021 regarding Forestry Implementation, the technical regulations were also issued in Permen LHK 9/2021 concerning Social Forestry Management which in article 1 stated about Forest Areas under Special Management (KHDPK) covering protection and production forests in four areas. Provinces, namely Central Java, East Java, West Java, and Banten, whose management is not delegated to state-owned enterprises in the forestry sector (read: Perhutani). The implementation and technical instructions for the area of 2.4 million hectares in Perhutani have not been published. Rumors circulating that half of the area in Perhutani is set out in PS. The driving factors for the forest and forestry crisis are covered in at least five main issues, , namely (i) Deforested and deforested forest areas; (ii) efficiency of forestry business; (iii) Forest and land rehabilitation process; (iv) organizational disparities with the concentration of resources in the central and provincial governments; (v) synchronization of the 1999 Forestry Law after the issuance of UUCK (the Job Creation Law in particular articles 29A and 29B) in 2020 with other laws. The two main issues raised in this topic are first about the management of land access and improving the welfare of the community and the second management of forest utilization and preservation. The first issue focuses on (i) the area of forest area that is consulted for PS in the four provinces, at which parts and points of the legal accession of land in the PS; (ii) management of PS organizing organizations from parties who are not SOEs in the field of forestry at the central and regional levels (provinces/districts / cities) to the site level; (iii) management of forest preservation with a set of adequate companion personnel provision. The second issue focuses on (i) the management of tenure conflicts (ii) managing business management in PS with an increase in the quantity and quality of PS business groups (KUPS); and (iii) management of capital and market access. Studies in the perspective of anthropology include critical discourse, environmentalism, critical agrarian, critical emancipatory, critical ethnography, and or others. The direction of this perspective is to overcome the impact of the KHDPK policy so as not to repeat the classic trap of marginalizing the role of community members around the forest who continue to be impoverished (Peluso, 1993). Even though this discussion is located in Java, there are still studies on other islands in Indonesia that are equivalent within the KHDPK framework.
Ratna Aziz Prasetyo
Panel 20. Collaboration to bridge gaps between academic and applied anthropology: Where are we now? And, where are we heading to?
Only small numbers of alumni of anthropology joined academic research institutions. Most of them pursue careers outside academia and work as practitioners of business ethnographers, market researchers, sociocultural analysts, community engagement specialists, program evaluators, and many more. They are the avant-garde in applying anthropology in addressing multiple crises in society. However, we observe a gap between practitioners and academic anthropologists. The gap is not only widening but also becoming more institutionalized. On the one hand, many practitioners view the need of an academic framework in addressing those crises in a more strategic fashion rather than tactical. On the other hand, academia is struggling with the ongoing changes within higher education institutions in fulfilling administrative, bureaucratic demands. Even so, new policies open up opportunities to bridge the gap for there is a demand for academia to co-develop curriculum with their users. The bridge is to accommodate students and alumni of anthropology for more opportunities to engage with the real world. “Collaboration” is another buzzword for any efforts to bridge the gap. The panel will discuss challenges in solving multiple crises practically as well as contributing to the development of anthropology conceptually by identifying our current positions and future trajectories of those collaborative efforts. It seeks papers to exchange and discuss various experiences of collaborations in anthropology. It will seek chances to do future collaborations to bridge the gap between academic and applied anthropology.
Irawan Anggi Septia
Panel 21. Cultural Resilience and Keindonesiaan in the Border Communities
The cultural resilience and keindonesiaan of Indonesia’s border communities is an important concern in the development of Indonesian society in the frontline areas of the archipelago. Cultural resilience in this case the cultural value of the local community with its dynamics, there are various phenomena that occur, including the problem of border crossing, terrorism, smuggling, mutual influence between citizens because of different infrastructure between countries etc. All of them have impact on the culture in the region, which will be related to national identity or nationalism. There is a cultural value of the community that still survives and upheld by the border communities in order to strengthen cultural and Indonesian resilience. The border of Indonesia-the Philippines is Talaud regency whose outer islands have cultural forms such as garis dobol dances and Eha-Manee customs. The role of the Ratumbanua customary institution that maintains the tradition of border communities, also determines the island of Miangas remains part of the Talaud ethnic group. Indonesia-Malaysia border communities in Kalimantan or Indonesia-Timor Leste border communities in Timor island also have their own dynamics in terms of cross-border relations. Meanwhile, the cultural influence of neighboring countries can be stronger, such as the loss of the londe boat as a characteristic of fishermen in the Sangihe islands, replaced with the pumboat tradition of the Philippines fishermen. Exploring cultural forms and its dynamics among the border communities, on one side, must be seen as beyond state boundaries. On other side, each country has its sovereign interests and is considered to severely limit cross-border mobility. Hence, this panel will discuss studies that analyze relationships between the state and the local communities.
Maria H. Pratiknjo