The monkey mask performance represents one of the forms of folk performing arts that has grown and developed within the social spaces of Javanese society, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas of Greater Jakarta and its surroundings. According to Koentjaraningrat (2009, p. 186), folk arts are cultural expressions that emerge from the collective needs of their supporting communities and cannot be separated from the social structures in which they exist. In this context, the monkey mask performance functions as a cultural practice embedded in the economic survival strategies of lower-class communities, while simultaneously serving as an accessible and immediate form of public entertainment. Its presence in streets, markets, and residential areas demonstrates how folk performance operates outside formal cultural institutions.
Historically, the practice of exhibiting trained animals as entertainment has been known in various Asian societies. As stated by Geertz (1973, pp. 412–413), culture does not consist solely of refined symbols, but also includes everyday practices that are often underestimated yet socially meaningful. The monkey mask performance can be understood within this framework, as a symbolic practice reflecting human relationships with nature and other living beings. The use of masks on monkeys signifies an attempt to transform animals into performative subjects resembling humans, a process of symbolization that carries deep cultural significance.
In the monkey mask performance, monkeys are trained to imitate human movements and behaviors, such as walking upright, dancing, or interacting with simple props. According to Schechner (2013, p. 28), performance is essentially “restored behavior,” namely actions that are rehearsed, repeated, and displayed within specific social contexts. Thus, the monkey’s performance is not merely spontaneous animal behavior, but a constructed performative act shaped through intensive interaction between handler and animal. This situates the monkey mask performance as a form of vernacular performance with its own internal logic and structure.
The relationship between the handler and the monkey often becomes the focal point of ethical debate. As argued by Bourdieu (1984, pp. 170–172), cultural practices are inseparable from the power relations that surround them. In the monkey mask performance, humans exercise full authority over the animal’s body and behavior, creating an asymmetrical relationship. However, from the perspective of the performers themselves, the monkey is frequently perceived as a working partner essential to household economic survival. This divergence reveals the gap between modern ethical discourse and the lived experiences of folk cultural practitioners.
Symbolically, the monkey mask performance also reflects implicit social criticism. According to Eco (1976, p. 69), cultural signs often operate through irony and inversion of meaning. A monkey wearing a mask and imitating human behavior may be interpreted as a satirical mirror reflecting the absurdities of human life. In the context of urban societies marked by economic pressure, the humor embedded in this performance serves as a form of collective catharsis for marginalized communities.
From the perspective of cultural economics, the monkey mask performance belongs to the informal economic sector characterized by high mobility and flexibility. Throsby (2001, pp. 23–25) states that cultural activities simultaneously possess economic and cultural value, though these values are rarely recognized equally. While the monkey mask performance provides immediate income for its practitioners, it remains marginalized within national cultural policy frameworks. The uncertainty of income and lack of social protection place performers in a structurally vulnerable position.
Urban regulations and increasing public awareness of animal welfare have significantly affected the sustainability of the monkey mask performance. As noted by Barker (2012, p. 98), cultural policies reflect dominant social values. Local bans on monkey mask performances indicate the growing influence of animal welfare discourse, yet they also risk eliminating the livelihoods of folk performers. This tension illustrates how cultural regulation is deeply ideological rather than neutral.
Within the framework of cultural change, the monkey mask performance can be understood as a practice whose meaning is continuously renegotiated. Williams (1977, p. 132) emphasizes that culture exists in constant tension between residual, dominant, and emergent forms. The monkey mask performance represents a residual practice that persists under pressure from dominant urban norms and emerging ethical discourses surrounding animal rights.
An ethnographic perspective provides crucial insight into this phenomenon. According to Spradley (1980, p. 5), ethnography seeks to understand social worlds from the perspectives of cultural actors themselves. Through this lens, the monkey mask performance appears not merely as an ethical problem, but as a rational survival strategy within conditions of structural inequality. This approach calls for empathetic and reflexive scholarship.
In terms of heritage discourse, the monkey mask performance challenges conventional definitions of intangible cultural heritage, which tend to prioritize officially recognized and aesthetically elevated traditions. As argued by Storey (2018, pp. 8–10), hierarchical distinctions between “high” and “popular” culture marginalize the cultural expressions of lower social classes. Although not classified as elite culture, the monkey mask performance embodies the lived experiences and creativity of marginalized communities.
The practice also reveals complex human–animal relations within cultural production. According to Ingold (2000, pp. 61–63), human–animal relationships should not be understood solely through binaries of exploitation and protection, but as networks of learning, adaptation, and interdependence. In the monkey mask performance, animals are incorporated into a system of embodied knowledge developed through repeated interaction and training.
From an urban anthropology perspective, the monkey mask performance demonstrates how public space is socially produced. Lefebvre (1991, pp. 38–39) argues that space is not neutral, but shaped by power relations. Performances staged on sidewalks and intersections constitute temporary cultural claims over urban space by marginalized groups, transforming functional spaces into cultural ones, albeit briefly.
Media representations further influence public perceptions of the monkey mask performance. According to Hall (1997, pp. 44–45), media does not merely reflect reality but actively constructs meaning. Media narratives emphasizing animal abuse and public disorder frame the practice as a social problem, while narratives highlighting poverty and survival remain marginal. This imbalance affects the cultural legitimacy of the performance.
At the level of cultural policy, the monkey mask performance exposes the absence of holistic and participatory approaches. As suggested by Throsby (2001, p. 57), effective cultural policy should integrate economic, social, and symbolic values. Unilateral bans without livelihood alternatives risk deepening marginalization rather than resolving ethical concerns.
Ethically, research on the monkey mask performance requires careful positionality. According to Spradley (1980, p. 16), researchers must be aware of their position within power relations between observer and subject. Excessive moralism risks oversimplification, while extreme relativism may ignore animal welfare issues. Balanced analysis is therefore essential.
In a broader global context, the monkey mask performance illustrates the intersection between local cultural practices and global ethical discourses. Singer (1995, pp. 7–9) notes that global animal welfare standards often clash with local socio-economic realities. This tension forms a key site of contestation within the monkey mask phenomenon.
Overall, the monkey mask performance constitutes a complex cultural phenomenon that cannot be reduced to mere street entertainment or animal exploitation. As emphasized by Koentjaraningrat (2009, p. 214), culture must be understood as an integrated system of meaning. The monkey mask performance operates within such a system, intertwining economic survival, symbolic expression, ethical debate, and social identity.
Through thick description, as advocated by Geertz (1973, p. 14), the monkey mask performance emerges as a social text documenting the lived realities of marginalized communities amidst rapid cultural change. It thus remains a critical subject for anthropological and cultural studies in contemporary Indonesia.
Image: https://kukangku.id/topeng-monyet-penyiksaan-satwa-liar-berkedok-hiburan/
References
Barker, C. 2012. Cultural studies: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Koentjaraningrat. 2009. Pengantar ilmu antropologi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Schechner, R. 2013. Performance studies: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Storey, J. 2018. Cultural theory and popular culture. London: Routledge.
Throsby, D. 2001. Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Historically, the practice of exhibiting trained animals as entertainment has been known in various Asian societies. As stated by Geertz (1973, pp. 412–413), culture does not consist solely of refined symbols, but also includes everyday practices that are often underestimated yet socially meaningful. The monkey mask performance can be understood within this framework, as a symbolic practice reflecting human relationships with nature and other living beings. The use of masks on monkeys signifies an attempt to transform animals into performative subjects resembling humans, a process of symbolization that carries deep cultural significance.
In the monkey mask performance, monkeys are trained to imitate human movements and behaviors, such as walking upright, dancing, or interacting with simple props. According to Schechner (2013, p. 28), performance is essentially “restored behavior,” namely actions that are rehearsed, repeated, and displayed within specific social contexts. Thus, the monkey’s performance is not merely spontaneous animal behavior, but a constructed performative act shaped through intensive interaction between handler and animal. This situates the monkey mask performance as a form of vernacular performance with its own internal logic and structure.
The relationship between the handler and the monkey often becomes the focal point of ethical debate. As argued by Bourdieu (1984, pp. 170–172), cultural practices are inseparable from the power relations that surround them. In the monkey mask performance, humans exercise full authority over the animal’s body and behavior, creating an asymmetrical relationship. However, from the perspective of the performers themselves, the monkey is frequently perceived as a working partner essential to household economic survival. This divergence reveals the gap between modern ethical discourse and the lived experiences of folk cultural practitioners.
Symbolically, the monkey mask performance also reflects implicit social criticism. According to Eco (1976, p. 69), cultural signs often operate through irony and inversion of meaning. A monkey wearing a mask and imitating human behavior may be interpreted as a satirical mirror reflecting the absurdities of human life. In the context of urban societies marked by economic pressure, the humor embedded in this performance serves as a form of collective catharsis for marginalized communities.
From the perspective of cultural economics, the monkey mask performance belongs to the informal economic sector characterized by high mobility and flexibility. Throsby (2001, pp. 23–25) states that cultural activities simultaneously possess economic and cultural value, though these values are rarely recognized equally. While the monkey mask performance provides immediate income for its practitioners, it remains marginalized within national cultural policy frameworks. The uncertainty of income and lack of social protection place performers in a structurally vulnerable position.
Urban regulations and increasing public awareness of animal welfare have significantly affected the sustainability of the monkey mask performance. As noted by Barker (2012, p. 98), cultural policies reflect dominant social values. Local bans on monkey mask performances indicate the growing influence of animal welfare discourse, yet they also risk eliminating the livelihoods of folk performers. This tension illustrates how cultural regulation is deeply ideological rather than neutral.
Within the framework of cultural change, the monkey mask performance can be understood as a practice whose meaning is continuously renegotiated. Williams (1977, p. 132) emphasizes that culture exists in constant tension between residual, dominant, and emergent forms. The monkey mask performance represents a residual practice that persists under pressure from dominant urban norms and emerging ethical discourses surrounding animal rights.
An ethnographic perspective provides crucial insight into this phenomenon. According to Spradley (1980, p. 5), ethnography seeks to understand social worlds from the perspectives of cultural actors themselves. Through this lens, the monkey mask performance appears not merely as an ethical problem, but as a rational survival strategy within conditions of structural inequality. This approach calls for empathetic and reflexive scholarship.
In terms of heritage discourse, the monkey mask performance challenges conventional definitions of intangible cultural heritage, which tend to prioritize officially recognized and aesthetically elevated traditions. As argued by Storey (2018, pp. 8–10), hierarchical distinctions between “high” and “popular” culture marginalize the cultural expressions of lower social classes. Although not classified as elite culture, the monkey mask performance embodies the lived experiences and creativity of marginalized communities.
The practice also reveals complex human–animal relations within cultural production. According to Ingold (2000, pp. 61–63), human–animal relationships should not be understood solely through binaries of exploitation and protection, but as networks of learning, adaptation, and interdependence. In the monkey mask performance, animals are incorporated into a system of embodied knowledge developed through repeated interaction and training.
From an urban anthropology perspective, the monkey mask performance demonstrates how public space is socially produced. Lefebvre (1991, pp. 38–39) argues that space is not neutral, but shaped by power relations. Performances staged on sidewalks and intersections constitute temporary cultural claims over urban space by marginalized groups, transforming functional spaces into cultural ones, albeit briefly.
Media representations further influence public perceptions of the monkey mask performance. According to Hall (1997, pp. 44–45), media does not merely reflect reality but actively constructs meaning. Media narratives emphasizing animal abuse and public disorder frame the practice as a social problem, while narratives highlighting poverty and survival remain marginal. This imbalance affects the cultural legitimacy of the performance.
At the level of cultural policy, the monkey mask performance exposes the absence of holistic and participatory approaches. As suggested by Throsby (2001, p. 57), effective cultural policy should integrate economic, social, and symbolic values. Unilateral bans without livelihood alternatives risk deepening marginalization rather than resolving ethical concerns.
Ethically, research on the monkey mask performance requires careful positionality. According to Spradley (1980, p. 16), researchers must be aware of their position within power relations between observer and subject. Excessive moralism risks oversimplification, while extreme relativism may ignore animal welfare issues. Balanced analysis is therefore essential.
In a broader global context, the monkey mask performance illustrates the intersection between local cultural practices and global ethical discourses. Singer (1995, pp. 7–9) notes that global animal welfare standards often clash with local socio-economic realities. This tension forms a key site of contestation within the monkey mask phenomenon.
Overall, the monkey mask performance constitutes a complex cultural phenomenon that cannot be reduced to mere street entertainment or animal exploitation. As emphasized by Koentjaraningrat (2009, p. 214), culture must be understood as an integrated system of meaning. The monkey mask performance operates within such a system, intertwining economic survival, symbolic expression, ethical debate, and social identity.
Through thick description, as advocated by Geertz (1973, p. 14), the monkey mask performance emerges as a social text documenting the lived realities of marginalized communities amidst rapid cultural change. It thus remains a critical subject for anthropological and cultural studies in contemporary Indonesia.
Image: https://kukangku.id/topeng-monyet-penyiksaan-satwa-liar-berkedok-hiburan/
References
Barker, C. 2012. Cultural studies: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Koentjaraningrat. 2009. Pengantar ilmu antropologi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Schechner, R. 2013. Performance studies: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Storey, J. 2018. Cultural theory and popular culture. London: Routledge.
Throsby, D. 2001. Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.






