Rereading Humanity and Culture: An Interpretation of Pengantar Ilmu Antropologi by Koentjaraningrat

Through Pengantar Ilmu Antropologi, Koentjaraningrat does not merely introduce an academic discipline; he opens up a way of seeing humanity as a fundamentally cultural being. For decades, this book has served as a foundational reference for the study of anthropology in Indonesia, not only because of its systematic scope, but also because of its ability to position anthropology as a discipline closely connected to everyday life. Anthropology here does not appear as an alien body of Western knowledge, but as an intellectual tool for understanding Indonesian social and cultural realities themselves. Koentjaraningrat writes in a calm pedagogical tone, gently guiding readers into a human world rich in meaning, variation, and symbolic order.

From the outset, the book emphasizes that anthropology deals with human beings in their entirety, both as biological and cultural creatures. Koentjaraningrat refuses to separate humans from the contexts in which they live; instead, humans are always understood in relation to their natural environment, social structures, belief systems, and inherited values. This holistic approach constitutes a central foundation of anthropology and distinguishes it from other disciplines. This resensi observes that herein lies the book’s primary strength: it instills from the very beginning an awareness that to understand humans is to grasp the complex interweaving of body, mind, and culture.

The discussion of anthropology’s scope reflects Koentjaraningrat’s effort to organize a vast and often overlapping intellectual field. Physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology are introduced not as rigidly separated branches, but as parts of a collective endeavor to understand humanity. With a systematic style, Koentjaraningrat demonstrates that this diversity of approaches enriches rather than fragments anthropological knowledge. This resensi notes that such a framework helps readers see anthropology as a dynamic and open discipline, rather than as a static collection of definitions.

One of the book’s most significant contributions lies in its treatment of culture. Koentjaraningrat defines culture not merely as the products of human creativity, but as an integrated system of ideas, actions, and material works learned and transmitted across generations. Culture does not reside solely in objects or rituals, but lives in ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. This resensi highlights Koentjaraningrat’s insistence that culture is learned rather than innate, and therefore always open to transformation.

The explanation of universal cultural elements—such as systems of religion, social organization, subsistence, technology, language, and the arts—stands as one of the book’s most distinctive features. Koentjaraningrat presents these elements in clear language, supported by examples drawn from the Indonesian context. These elements are not intended as rigid categories, but as analytical tools for understanding cultural variation. This resensi observes that this framework has enabled many readers to comprehend the diversity of Indonesian cultures without falling into normative judgment.

In discussing kinship systems and social organization, Koentjaraningrat demonstrates how blood relations, marriage, and customary rules shape the structure of social life. Kinship is not treated merely as a matter of family, but as a foundational principle influencing economic relations, political authority, and ritual life. In this resensial reading, this section appears especially significant for understanding Indonesian societies, where social relations often carry greater weight than formal institutional rules.

The discussion of religion and belief systems situates anthropology within the deepest realm of meaning. Koentjaraningrat does not evaluate beliefs in terms of truth or falsity, but seeks to understand their functions within social life. Religion is approached as a symbolic system that provides meaning to human experience, particularly in confronting uncertainty and suffering. This resensi finds that such an approach resonates with interpretive anthropology, even though Koentjaraningrat presents it in a more accessible and didactic manner.

In addressing language and communication, Koentjaraningrat emphasizes language as the primary medium for the transmission of culture. Language is not merely a tool of communication, but a means by which humans classify the world and construct social reality. Through language, values, norms, and knowledge are passed from one generation to the next. This resensi notes that this section reinforces the conception of culture as a living process continually reproduced in everyday practice.

The book also pays careful attention to cultural change, whether gradual or rapid. Koentjaraningrat discusses diffusion, acculturation, and modernization as processes that are inevitable in human history. Yet change is not understood as the disappearance of older cultural forms, but as a complex process of negotiation. This resensi reads this discussion as an invitation to approach social change with wisdom, avoiding both excessive romanticism toward tradition and uncritical enthusiasm for modernity.

As an introductory text, Pengantar Ilmu Antropologi carries a strong pedagogical mission. Koentjaraningrat writes with full awareness that his readers are students and beginners. Yet it is precisely in this clarity and simplicity that the book’s enduring strength lies. He does not lecture, but guides; he does not impose theory, but leads readers toward understanding lived realities. This resensi suggests that such a writing style is what allows the book to remain relevant across generations.

Within the Indonesian context, this book holds significance beyond that of an academic text. It has played an important role in shaping perspectives on national culture and ethnic diversity. Koentjaraningrat helps readers understand that cultural differences are not threats, but social facts that demand comprehension and respect. This resensi regards the book as one of the intellectual foundations of cultural studies in Indonesia.

Nevertheless, as a work produced within a particular historical context, the book also has its limitations. Some of its theoretical orientations reflect classical anthropological paradigms that have since been critically reexamined. This resensi does not treat these limitations as fatal weaknesses, but rather as markers of intellectual history. Indeed, they remind readers that knowledge is always evolving and must be read critically.

To read Pengantar Ilmu Antropologi today is to reread the foundations of our understanding of humanity and culture. The book reminds us that anthropology is not merely the study of “others,” but also the study of ourselves. Through anthropology, humans are invited to see themselves as part of broader networks of meaning.

Ultimately, Pengantar Ilmu Antropologi by Koentjaraningrat is more than a textbook. It is an invitation to think, to observe, and to interpret human life with patience and empathy. This resensi positions the book as a crucial milestone in the tradition of Indonesian anthropology—a work that remains alive through its capacity to open dialogue between scholarship, culture, and everyday human experience.

Read More

Tracing the Meaning of Religion: An Interpretation of Seven Theories of Religion by Daniel L. Pals

Through Seven Theories of Religion, Daniel L. Pals presents an intellectual map that does not merely introduce major theories of religion but invites readers to enter the ways of thinking that produced them. This book is not a dogmatic treatise on what religion “is,” but a hermeneutic journey through the various perspectives by which religion has been understood, interpreted, and debated within modern social sciences and the humanities. In this sense, Pals’s work bears a certain affinity to Clifford Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures: both refuse a single, definitive definition and instead explore religion through networks of meaning, symbols, and interpretive frameworks. Pals reminds us that to speak about religion is always to speak from a particular intellectual position, shaped by assumptions that are often left unexamined.

The first theory discussed by Pals, represented by E. B. Tylor and James Frazer, reflects an early anthropological phase that viewed religion as the product of intellectual error in humanity’s attempt to understand the natural world. Religion, from this perspective, appears as an immature form of rationality—an early and mistaken kind of science. Pals does more than summarize animism or evolutionary schemes of belief; he exposes their limitations, particularly the tendency to reduce religion to faulty reasoning while detaching religious experience from its social and symbolic contexts. The reader is thus reminded that theories of religion are always products of their time, embedded in assumptions about progress, rationality, and Western superiority.

With Sigmund Freud, Pals moves into the darker terrain of psychology. Religion is no longer understood as an intellectual mistake but as an emotional illusion—a projection of human desires, fears, and inner conflicts. God emerges as a cosmic father figure, and religious rituals as symbolic repetitions of childhood trauma. Importantly, Pals does not present Freud as a simple enemy of religion. Rather, Freud appears as a serious interpreter of religion’s psychological function. Even as illusion, religion endures because it operates at the deepest levels of human experience. Much like Geertz’s reading of ritual as both a “model of” and a “model for” reality, Freud reads religion as a mirror of human vulnerability.

Karl Marx, as interpreted by Pals, offers a thoroughly political and materialist understanding of religion. Religion is the “opium of the people,” not merely because it dulls suffering, but because it functions as consolation within a world structured by inequality. Pals carefully situates Marx’s critique of religion within his broader critique of capitalism and alienation. Religion is not the primary cause of suffering but a symptom of unjust social arrangements. In this view, religion becomes both the language of suffering and a mechanism of legitimation. This section reveals Marx not as a destroyer of faith, but as a sharp reader of power relations concealed behind sacred symbols.

In contrast to Marx, Émile Durkheim returns religion to the center of social life as a source of collective meaning and solidarity. In Pals’s reading, Durkheim understands religion as society worshiping itself; what is held sacred is ultimately the moral force of the collective. The distinction between the sacred and the profane is not metaphysical but social. At this point, Seven Theories of Religion begins to resonate strongly with Geertz’s symbolic anthropology, particularly in its emphasis on ritual and symbol as the glue of community. Religion is less about theological truth than about how societies understand and affirm themselves.

Max Weber, as presented by Pals, introduces a more nuanced and historical approach. Religion is neither illusion nor mere social function but a system of meaning capable of shaping human action. Weber’s analysis of the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism illustrates how religious ideas can orient life conduct and economic behavior. In this resensi, Weber appears as a thinker who bridges subjective meaning and objective structure—an approach that would later exert a profound influence on interpretive anthropology in the tradition of Geertz.

The sixth figure, Mircea Eliade, moves the discussion beyond reductionist social science toward religion as a sui generis experience. For Eliade, religion is fundamentally an encounter with the sacred—an existential experience that cannot be fully explained by psychological or social factors alone. Pals honestly presents both the strengths and weaknesses of this perspective. On the one hand, it respects the depth of religious experience; on the other, it risks neglecting historical context and relations of power. Here, Eliade serves as a reminder that religion is not always reducible to social analysis, but also involves awe, fascination, and the human confrontation with transcendence.

Clifford Geertz, as the seventh theory, appears not merely as a conclusion but as an open synthesis. Pals presents Geertz as a thinker who understands religion as a system of symbols that shapes human moods and motivations by providing conceptions of an ordered reality. This resensi emphasizes that Geertz does not seek to determine whether religion is true or false, but how it is meaningful. Through an interpretive approach, religion is read as a cultural text that demands patient ethnographic understanding.

Overall, the greatest strength of Seven Theories of Religion lies in the clarity of its narrative and its intellectual fairness. Pals does not dogmatically privilege one theory over others; instead, he opens a dialogue among perspectives. Each theory is treated as a lens rather than a final truth. This resensi highlights a central lesson of the book: to understand religion is to live with interpretive tension, not to seek definitive closure.

For Indonesian readers, Pals’s book holds particular relevance. Amid ongoing debates about religion, modernity, and identity, Seven Theories of Religion offers a more reflective and humble way of thinking. Religion is not positioned as an object of attack or defense, but as a complex and multilayered human phenomenon. This resensi reads Pals’s work as an invitation to think rather than to judge.

Like Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures, Pals’s book demands patience and a willingness to suspend premature conclusions. It is not a fast read, but a dialogical one. Each theory opens new questions, and each question challenges readers to reflect on their own assumptions about religion.

Ultimately, Seven Theories of Religion is not only a book about theories of religion, but about how humans understand themselves. Through religion, humans articulate fear, hope, suffering, and the search for meaning. This resensi suggests that the book’s greatest achievement lies in its ability to preserve this complexity rather than reduce it to simple answers.

In closing, Daniel L. Pals has produced a work that deserves repeated reading, especially for those who seek to understand religion not as a fixed doctrine but as a cultural phenomenon continually open to interpretation. Like Geertz, Pals reminds us that the task of the scholar is not to simplify the world, but to render it intelligible in all its complexity.

Read More

Reading Culture Slowly with Clifford Geertz

Reading The Interpretation of Cultures by Clifford Geertz is not merely an academic exercise; it is an intellectual experience that reshapes the way one understands culture itself. This book does not present culture as a set of formulas or rigid definitions. Instead, Geertz invites readers into a particular way of thinking—a way of reading meaning in everyday practices. From the very beginning, he insists that culture is not something external to humans, but a web of meanings continuously produced, shared, and negotiated in social life.

Geertz begins by criticizing approaches to culture that are overly structural, functionalist, or positivistic. He rejects the idea that culture can be understood solely through general laws or statistical variables. Such approaches, in his view, strip culture of its most essential element: meaning. Culture, Geertz argues, is better understood as a text to be interpreted rather than a machine whose workings can be mechanically explained.

One of the book’s most influential concepts is thick description. Through this idea, Geertz demonstrates that human actions never stand alone. A simple blink of an eye, for instance, can carry very different meanings depending on social context, relationships, and symbolic frameworks. The task of the anthropologist, therefore, is not merely to record what people do, but to interpret what those actions mean to the people who perform them.

A major strength of the book lies in its concrete ethnographic examples. Geertz does not write in abstraction. He brings readers into the Balinese cockfight arena, into religious rituals, and into everyday social practices that may appear ordinary but are deeply meaningful. Through these examples, we see how symbols operate, how emotions, status, and power intertwine in cultural practices often dismissed as trivial.

In this framework, culture is understood as a system of symbols. These symbols enable humans to make sense of their world. Rituals, food, clothing, and even village spatial arrangements are not merely habits; they are forms of cultural communication. Through symbols, communities articulate who they are, what they value, and how they interpret reality.

This book is especially important because it shifts the role of the researcher from an “explainer” to an “interpreter.” Geertz rejects claims of absolute objectivity in the social sciences. He acknowledges that researchers inevitably bring their own perspectives into their work. What matters, then, is not the illusion of neutrality, but intellectual honesty and interpretive depth. Anthropological writing, for Geertz, is always an interpretation of other people’s interpretations.

For readers in Indonesia and similar cultural contexts, The Interpretation of Cultures feels particularly relevant. Many local cultural practices—rituals, food traditions, taboos—are often reduced to superstition or seen as remnants of the past. Geertz’s approach reminds us that such practices should be read as rational systems of meaning within their own contexts, rather than judged by the standards of modernity alone.

In the context of food culture, for example, ways of cooking, selecting ingredients, or serving meals can be understood as expressions of values, social relations, and local knowledge. Through Geertz’s lens, the kitchen is not merely a domestic space but a symbolic arena where culture is produced and transmitted. Food does not only nourish the body; it also speaks of identity and collective memory.

One of the book’s greatest strengths is its reflective depth. Geertz does not rush to grand conclusions. He patiently unpacks details, layering meanings one upon another. For readers accustomed to dry, technical academic writing, Geertz’s prose feels alive and thoughtful, though it demands careful and attentive reading.

That said, the book is not without limitations. Its highly contextual and interpretive approach makes generalization difficult. Some critics argue that Geertz’s method is too subjective and offers limited practical solutions. Readers without a background in anthropology may also find the reflective style challenging and at times demanding.

Yet it is precisely here that the book’s value lies. The Interpretation of Cultures is not meant to be a technical manual, but an exercise in thinking. It teaches readers how to look at the world more slowly, more carefully, and with greater sensitivity to meaning. It encourages restraint in judgment and attentiveness to complexity.

In a world that increasingly values speed, simplification, and instant conclusions, Geertz’s approach feels like an invitation to pause and reread everyday life. Culture, from this perspective, is not distant or exotic; it is present all around us—in how we speak, eat, celebrate, and remember.

Ultimately, The Interpretation of Cultures is a book that teaches us that understanding humanity requires understanding the meanings people construct. It is worth reading not only for students of anthropology, but for anyone interested in seeing culture as something living, dynamic, and open to interpretation. To read Geertz is to learn how to look at the world with greater patience and openness.

Read More

Taming the Bones, Preserving the Taste: Sate Bandeng in Banten’s Food Culture

Sate bandeng is one of Banten’s distinctive food practices that cannot be separated from the social and ecological history of its coastal communities. In the perspective of food anthropology, such dishes are not merely objects of consumption but outcomes of long-standing relationships between environment, local knowledge, and cultural systems that shape how people manage natural resources. Geertz (1973: 89–91) describes food as a “cultural text” through which values, social structures, and ways of life can be interpreted.

The emergence of sate bandeng is closely connected to Banten’s historical position as a coastal region and a trading hub since the era of the Banten Sultanate. Milkfish (Chanos chanos) was abundant in brackish waters and fishponds, yet its many fine bones posed challenges for consumption. According to Lubis (2004: 112–114), culinary innovation often arises from practical needs to overcome the limitations of available food resources, a condition that clearly shaped the development of sate bandeng.

The main ingredient of sate bandeng is fresh milkfish, selected based on size, freshness, and flesh texture. Other ingredients include coconut milk and spices such as shallots, garlic, coriander, pepper, palm sugar, and salt. This combination reflects the characteristic flavor of Banten cuisine—rich, savory, and spice-oriented—developed through the encounter of agrarian and coastal food traditions, as noted by Reid (2011: 203–205).

The preparation process begins by separating the fish flesh from its skin through careful massaging and extraction. The flesh is then finely ground and mixed with coconut milk and spices to form a smooth paste. This process demonstrates a form of tacit knowledge—skills acquired through repeated practice and transmitted across generations—rather than formal instruction, as described by Mintz (1985: 29–31).

The seasoned fish paste is then reinserted into the emptied fish skin, preserving the original shape of the fish. This stage requires precision and experience, as the skin functions both as a container and as a visual marker of authenticity. In Levi-Strauss’s culinary theory (1966: 44–46), as discussed by Douglas, cooking represents a cultural transformation of raw nature into socially acceptable order.

Grilling follows, with the fish cooked over charcoal until fully done and infused with a smoky aroma. Fire, in this context, is not merely a technical element but a symbolic medium of transformation. Douglas (1966: 48) emphasizes that cooked food represents cultural order, standing in contrast to raw food, which is associated with nature and disorder.

In Bantenese social life, sate bandeng is not simply an everyday dish but is often served during religious celebrations, communal feasts, and as a gift for honored guests. Goody (1982: 97–99) argues that food in ceremonial contexts functions as a social symbol, reinforcing relationships and communal solidarity.

The production of sate bandeng also carries significant economic meaning at the household level. Much of the processing is carried out by women, either within family settings or small-scale enterprises. Scott (1976: 15–17) views such activities as subsistence-based economic strategies that enable households to cope with uncertainty and vulnerability.

From a food security perspective, sate bandeng represents a form of local food diversification. Processing milkfish into sate extends its shelf life and increases its value compared to fresh consumption. FAO (2013: 67–69) highlights that diversification and local food processing are crucial strategies for maintaining food security in uncertain conditions.

Knowledge of milkfish harvesting seasons, fish quality, and appropriate processing techniques constitutes an essential part of local ecological knowledge. Berkes (2008: 52–54) explains that such knowledge develops through prolonged interaction between communities and their environments and is typically transmitted orally, making it vulnerable to erosion if not documented.

In the context of modernization, the practice of making sate bandeng has undergone changes in terms of production tools and market orientation. Appadurai (1988: 15–17) notes that when local foods enter market and tourism circuits, they undergo negotiation between traditional values and modern economic demands.

Sate bandeng has increasingly been represented as an icon of Banten’s regional cuisine in cultural promotion and tourism narratives. Hall (1997: 224–226) warns that such representations may simplify the complex cultural practices behind food traditions if they are understood solely as commodities.

Thus, sate bandeng should not be seen merely as a regional specialty, but as a cultural practice that embodies local knowledge, economic strategies, and Bantenese identity. As Mintz (1985: 211–213) argues, food always speaks of more than taste—it tells stories of history, power, and the ways people make sense of their lives.

 
References
Adger, W. N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography.
Appadurai, A. 1988. How to make a national cuisine: Cookbooks in contemporary India. Comparative Studies in Society and History.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred ecology (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Danandjaja, J. 2002. Folklor Indonesia: Ilmu gosip, dongeng, dan lain-lain. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti.
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.
FAO. 2013. The state of food and agriculture: Food systems for better nutrition. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, cuisine and class: A study in comparative sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, S. 1997. Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage Publications.
Koentjaraningrat. 2009. Pengantar ilmu antropologi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The culinary triangle. In Structural anthropology (pp. 27–35). New York: Basic Books.
Lubis, N. H. 2004. Banten dalam pergumulan sejarah. Jakarta: LP3ES.
Mintz, S. W. 1985. Sweetness and power: The place of sugar in modern history. New York: Penguin Books.
Reid, A. 2011. Asia Tenggara dalam kurun niaga 1450–1680: Tanah di bawah angin. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
Scott, J. C. 1976. The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Turner, V. 1969. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

Read More

The Monkey Mask Performance: Folk Culture, Human–Animal Relations, and Ethical Contestation in Urban Indonesia

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.

Read More

Between Blessing and Curse: Reading Iron Maiden’s Seventh Son of a Seventh Son

Seventh Son of a Seventh Son is often remembered as one of the most mature and daring works in Iron Maiden’s long career. Released in 1988, the album did not merely appear as a continuation of the band’s previous successes, but as a clear artistic statement that Iron Maiden could go beyond being a heavy metal band known only for loud, fast songs. In this album, they tell a story, build a world, and invite listeners into a complete narrative about prophecy, destiny, and the inner struggles of a human being.

The title of the album is rooted in an old European folk belief, particularly from Ireland and Scotland, about the “seventh son of a seventh son.” Such a figure is believed to possess supernatural abilities, including the power to see the future and to heal the sick. Iron Maiden, through the vision of Steve Harris, did not adopt this myth literally, but reshaped it into a more complex and deeply human narrative. The main character is portrayed as someone trapped between gift and curse, between knowledge and isolation.

The decision to make Seventh Son of a Seventh Son a fully conceptual album was a bold move. At that point, Iron Maiden’s name was already firmly established, and commercially they had little reason to take risks. Yet this risk is precisely where the album’s strength lies. Iron Maiden seemed determined to prove that heavy metal could be a serious, imaginative storytelling medium, rich in layers of meaning. This album does not rely on one or two standout tracks; it demands to be experienced as a whole.

Musically, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son still sounds unmistakably like Iron Maiden, but with a broader and richer palette. The twin guitars of Dave Murray and Adrian Smith remain at the core, delivering long, emotional melodies that are instantly recognizable. However, the more prominent use of synthesizers introduces a new atmosphere—cold, futuristic, and mystical at once. These elements strengthen the narrative mood, making the album feel like a journey through an unfamiliar yet captivating world.

Nicko McBrain’s drumming provides a dynamic rhythmic foundation without ever feeling excessive, while Steve Harris’s bass lines continue to drive the music forward with authority. All these elements are wrapped in a cleaner and more expansive production than on previous albums, reinforcing the epic quality that defines the listening experience from beginning to end.

Above all, Bruce Dickinson’s vocals play a crucial role. In this album, he is not merely a singer but a storyteller. His wide vocal range allows him to convey calm reflection, doubt, and explosive drama with equal conviction. At times, his voice feels like the inner monologue of the protagonist, articulating the anxiety and inner conflict that haunt him throughout the story.

The theme of destiny runs strongly through the album. The protagonist is born with extraordinary abilities without ever having a choice in the matter. His knowledge of the future becomes a source of alienation rather than comfort. The album seems to pose a simple yet profound question: does knowing everything truly make life better?

Beyond destiny, the album also speaks about choice and moral responsibility. Great power inevitably comes with great consequences. The seventh son must constantly wrestle with the temptation to use his abilities for certain ends, while fearing the impact of every decision he makes. This tension makes the album’s narrative feel close to universal human experience, despite its supernatural framework.

The lyrics throughout the album are rich in symbolism. The number seven repeatedly appears as a symbol of perfection, spiritual power, and life cycles. Images of ice, light, and shadow are used to represent the struggle between good and evil, hope and destruction. These symbols are never explained explicitly, allowing listeners the freedom to interpret them according to their own perspectives.

When listened to as a complete work, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son feels like a musical novel. Each song functions as a chapter within a larger story. There is an introduction of the protagonist, a gradual development of conflict, and moments of reflection that invite the listener to pause and contemplate. The album does not demand a precise understanding of the storyline; instead, it encourages listeners to feel the emotional flow.

The album’s visual presentation plays an important role in strengthening the world it creates. The cover artwork depicts Eddie in a frozen, cosmic landscape dominated by shades of blue. This imagery evokes a sense of mystery and the supernatural, perfectly aligned with the album’s themes. Eddie appears as a figure controlling unseen forces, almost as if he embodies the seventh son himself.

Upon its release, the album received widespread acclaim from both critics and fans. Many praised Iron Maiden’s courage to experiment without losing their musical identity. To this day, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son is frequently cited as one of the band’s finest achievements and a favorite among listeners who appreciate their more progressive side.

The influence of Seventh Son of a Seventh Son on heavy metal cannot be overlooked. It inspired many bands to embrace conceptual albums and to explore more philosophical themes. Iron Maiden demonstrated that metal music could be a vast narrative space, capable of depth and reflection.

Even decades after its release, the album remains remarkably relevant. Questions about destiny, knowledge, and moral responsibility continue to resonate in modern life. Perhaps this enduring relevance is why Seventh Son of a Seventh Son continues to be listened to, discussed, and rediscovered by new generations.

Ultimately, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son is more than a heavy metal album; it is a complete narrative artwork. Iron Maiden successfully fused myth, imagination, and music into a deeply immersive listening experience. It is an album not only to be heard, but to be reflected upon—slowly, like reading a long story that lingers in the listener’s mind.

Read More

Gebar Sasmita: A Long Journey of Memory, Humanity, and Art

Gebar Sasmita was born in 1949 in a village in the Pandeglang region of Banten, within an agrarian community that strongly upheld values of togetherness and collective labor. He grew up surrounded by a simple rural landscape, where rice fields, rivers, and the daily activities of villagers formed the visual background of his childhood. These early experiences shaped his aesthetic sensitivity, even though they were not consciously recognized as an artistic process at the time. His childhood unfolded in the unstable social conditions of post-independence Indonesia, where poverty and hard work were inseparable from everyday life.

From an early age, Gebar showed a strong interest in drawing and form. He often made spontaneous marks on the ground, walls, or scraps of paper using whatever materials were available. This interest developed naturally, without formal art education or structured guidance. In his family environment, art was not seen as a profession but merely as a pastime. Yet it was precisely through these limitations that his visual sensitivity grew stronger, as he learned directly from lived reality, from the weary faces of farmers to the silent endurance of working bodies.

As he entered adolescence, Gebar’s life changed dramatically due to the national political turmoil of the mid-1960s. At around the age of fourteen, he was arrested and detained as a political prisoner without a clear legal process. His teenage years were abruptly cut short and replaced by life behind bars. This event became the most decisive turning point in his life, shaping not only his personal trajectory but also his artistic consciousness and ideological stance toward humanity and power.

During his years of imprisonment, including time spent in high-security facilities such as Nusa Kambangan, Gebar lived under harsh conditions marked by physical and psychological pressure. He witnessed the suffering of fellow detainees, systemic violence, and the denial of basic human rights. In this environment, art became a means of survival. Drawing and shaping forms allowed him to maintain his sanity, preserve memory, and express emotions that could not be spoken aloud.

The long experience of political imprisonment shaped the distinctive character of Gebar Sasmita’s art, which is honest, direct, and emotionally charged. He was not interested in decorative beauty, but in conveying the inner experience of human suffering and resilience. During this period, he became familiar with the works of Indonesian painters such as Hendra Gunawan, whose emphasis on social realism and expressive human figures influenced his artistic approach. Nevertheless, Gebar did not imitate these influences, instead transforming them through his own lived experience.

After his release in the late 1970s, Gebar returned to society carrying both trauma and a strong sense of personal conviction. He faced social stigma as a former political prisoner and had to rebuild his life from the beginning. Under difficult circumstances, he chose art as his path. Painting and sculpting became daily practices, serving not only as creative activities but also as a form of healing and reconciliation with the past.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Gebar worked more intensively and consistently. Themes of humanity, suffering, and historical memory became central to his artistic output. Human figures dominated his works, often depicted with distorted proportions, tense facial expressions, and gestures that suggested heavy emotional burdens. Strong colors and expressive brushstrokes were used not to beautify, but to intensify emotional meaning.

In addition to painting, Gebar also developed sculptural works and carvings. Three-dimensional media provided another space for exploring bodily experience and spatial presence. His sculptures are rough and minimally polished, deliberately rejecting refined aesthetics. These forms represent the human body as a site of wounds and memory, while also symbolizing endurance and survival.

Although he did not live in major Indonesian art centers such as Jakarta or Yogyakarta, Gebar remained committed to working from the regions. This geographical distance gave him freedom from market pressures and rapidly changing artistic trends. He worked at his own pace, remaining faithful to his life experiences and ethical values. In this sense, art for him was not a commodity, but a form of testimony.

With the advent of the Reformasi era, Gebar’s works began to receive wider recognition. Exhibitions were held at both local and regional levels. Curators, researchers, and art observers started to reframe his work as an important part of the narrative of Indonesian post-1965 art. Gebar came to be seen not only as an artist, but also as a survivor who carried voices from the margins of history.

One of the most significant milestones in his artistic journey was the solo exhibition titled Perjalanan Panjang or The Long Journey. This exhibition presented works that traced his life path from childhood through imprisonment and into old age. It functioned as a space of collective memory, inviting the public to revisit history through a personal and human-centered perspective.

In his later years, Gebar Sasmita has remained active in artistic practice. Physical limitations have not diminished his creative drive. He continues to paint and sculpt as a form of moral responsibility to the experiences he has lived through. For Gebar, art is a way of safeguarding memory from being erased, and a quiet yet persistent form of resistance.

In his more recent works, reflections on aging, mortality, and the meaning of life have become increasingly visible. Human figures no longer express suffering alone, but also silence and acceptance. A sense of calm gradually emerges, even as traces of past wounds remain present. This shift reflects an artistic maturity shaped by a long and difficult life journey.

To this day, Gebar Sasmita is remembered as an artist who remains faithful to his own lived experience. His biography is a story of endurance, remembrance, and expression through art. His works stand not only as personal expressions, but also as visual archives of history, suffering, and human dignity that continue to speak across generations.

Read More