Hotman Siahaan (1996) Pembangkangan Terselubung Petani dalam Program Tebu Rakyat Intensifikasi sebagai Upaya Mempertahankan Subsistensi. Disertasi thesis, UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA.

	Text (ABSTRACT) KKB KK-2 Dis Hot p_ABSTRACT.pdf Download (607kB)
	Text (FULLTEXT) KKB KK-2 Dis Hot p.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (10MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

This study aims to find out peasants' response to the Intensified Smallholder Sugar Cane Program (TRI) set up through Presidential Instruction No. 9/1975, which has changed the relations of production in sugar cane cultivation from those in which peasants lease their land to sugar factories to structured in-depth interviews. The research sites have been purposively selected in four villages in Papar District, Kediri Regency, East Java Province. Research population consists of TRI peasants, while the sample is selected purposively. Data have been analyzed qualitatively. Data and phenomena gathered have been interpreted hermeneutically. Insofar as data are in the form of quantitatively discrete units, quantitative interpretation has been carried out to describe them through nominal, interval as well as ordinal scales. Research results show that disguised resistance carried out by peasants in the TRI program is a rational reaction to defend the margin of subsistance security. Disguised resistance is carried out in the context of strong state hegemony through the dominance of bureaucracy in the TRI program which gives priority to mobilization and coercion instead of participation. The disguised resistance takes place in different manners, namely non-involvement in the production process, departure from the production process avoidance (the obligation to give up land to be planted with sugar cane in turns), avoidance of the process offelling and transporting sugar cane, sugar cane milling at another factory; even cane burning. The theoretical implication of TRI peasants' disguised resistance is that it is counterproductive with regard to peasant movements that are open, organized, and political, because the penetration achieved through the resistance is only in the context of non-ideological hegemony. As a form of opposition, the disguised resistance of these peasants is categorized as an everyday form of peasant resistance, not as unorganized rural protest or organized rural rebellion, which are rational and individual reaction on the context of the waning of traditional rural social values in relations of production. As a theory, hegemony is a factor that binds together the disguised resistance theory, which is in turn a result of the eclectization of the theory of everyday forms of resistance and rational actors theory. those in which peasants are in control of their own land. The problem that this study attempts to answer is how far the appearance of disguised resistance is a relational response of peasants to the TRI program in the context of mobilization and coercion instead of participation. The other problem to be answered is whether the disguised resistance is a form of individual or communal awareness to defend the security of subsistence as a result of the failure of the bureaucracy to articulate the interests of peasants vis-a-vis those of the government in the TRI program. The study uses theoretical approaches concerning moral economy and everyday forms of peasant resistance as proposed by James C. Scott, combined with theoretical approaches concerning rational choice and political economy as put forward by Samuel Popkin. In addition, it uses theoretical approaches discussing social movements and protest from different experts, based on social class as well as individual factors. The method used is field research with data collection techniques of structured in-depth interviews. The research sites have been purposively selected in four villages in Papar District, Kediri Regency, East Java Province. Research population consists of TRI peasants, while the sample is selected purposively. Data have been analyzed qualitatively. Data and phenomena gathered have been interpreted hermeneutically. Insofar as data are in the form of quantitatively discrete units, quantitative interpretation has been carried out to describe them through nominal, interval as well as ordinal scales. Research results show that disguised resistance carried out by peasants in the TRI program is a rational reaction to defend the margin of subsistance security. Disguised resistance is carried out in the context of strong state hegemony through the dominance of bureaucracy in the TRI program which gives priority to mobilization and coercion instead of participation. The disguised resistance takes place in different manners, namely non-involvement in the production process, departure from the production process avoidance (the obligation to give up land to be planted with sugar cane in turns), avoidance of the process offelling and transporting sugar cane, sugar cane milling at another factory; even cane burning. The theoretical implication of TRI peasants' disguised resistance is that it is counterproductive with regard to peasant movements that are open, organized, and political, because the penetration achieved through the resistance is only in the context of non-ideological hegemony. As a form of opposition, the disguised resistance of these peasants is categorized as an everyday form of peasant resistance, not as unorganized rural protest or organized rural rebellion, which are rational and individual reaction on the context of the waning of traditional rural social values in relations of production. As a theory, hegemony is a factor that binds together the disguised resistance theory, which is in turn a result of the eclectization of the theory of everyday forms of resistance and rational actors theory.

Actions (login required)

View Item