Normative aspect: Social norm of pakewuh

One of the most remarkable norms influencing the whole system is the social norm of ‘ewuh pakewuh’ or ‘pakewuh’ in Javanese or ‘sungkan’ in Indonesian (LS1). There is no literal translation of this word in English, yet it can be conceptualised as a reluctance to take any

15 Cf. Suradisastra (11-15 September 2006)

16 The basic identity, values, and principles of cooperative can be found in International Co-operative Alliance (2007).

action or say something because it can insult the feeling of others or lead to conflict or hurt the relationship among individuals. This norm is built on the social value of ‘preserving har-monious relationships’ (‘rukun’)¹⁷ and associated with other norms like ‘politeness’ (‘san-tun’), ‘empathy’ (‘tenggang rasa’), ‘avoiding conflict’ or ‘compliant’ (‘ngalah’), as well as the Indonesian-typical cooperative principle of ‘familialness’ (see Sub-chapter10.2.1.2).

Hence, the meaning of this term can be described as the opposite meaning of the term ‘asser-tive’ that means ‘describes someone who behaves confidently and is not frightened to say what they want or believe’ (Walter 2008).

Pakewuh does not apply only to the interaction of individuals in the same social group / status, but also to those from higher to lower social group / status and vice versa. While such social value is prevalent throughout Indonesia, the intensity or degree of reluctance is differ-ent in every region or ethnic group. In the dairy production cdiffer-entre in West Java the dominant ethnic group is Sundanese, in Central Java Javanese, and in East Java both Javanese and Madurese. Among these ethnic groups the adherence to pakewuh is the strongest in Javanese culture in Central Java, as it is indicated by frequent referring during interviews and observa-tions.

However, a question may arise: why is the adherence to pakewuh among the Javanese ethnic group in Central Java is more intensive than among the Javanese in East Java or other ethnic groups? There are several possible explanations for this difference. First, the observed region in Central Java is more intensively influenced by the ‘court culture’ that set great store by the Javanese cultural values and norms than in any other region. This is on account of the geo-graphical proximity to Yogyakarta and to Surakarta¹⁸, i.e. the centres of Javanese court cul-ture and thus the “barometer” (“pakem”) of Javanese culcul-ture. In fact, the observed dairy value chain in Central Java was historically under the authority of the Sultanate of Surakarta during Dutch imperialism. It is generally said that the Javanese culture of the regions surrounding

17 Cf. Zeitlin (1995, pp. 95–141) for similar description of Javanese culture

18 Yogyakarta is the only province in Indonesia still governed by the pre-colonial monarchy, i.e. the Sultanate of Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat. Surakarta was governed by the Sultanate of Surakarta Hadiningrat. While at present the royal families and the court still exist, they no longer hold any political power. Both Sultanates were descen-dants from the Kingdom of Mataram.

Yogyakarta and Surakarta is ‘finer’ or ‘more delicate’, including the Javanese language as well as the social values and norms guiding the behaviour of individuals in the society.

Second, the development of the normative system – under which pakewuh is subsumed – in Central Java has a different historical background from that in East Java. The Javanese culture in Yogyakarta and Surakarta historically originated from the Kingdom of Mataram, while the Javanese culture in East Java from the Kingdom of Majapahit and its successors. Mataram was predominantly characterised by an agrarian economy with large cities in inland areas along the river, whereas Majapahit based its economy predominantly on commercial trades in its large ports on the northern coastal areas of Java. As a result, Majapahit was relatively more exposed to external influences, more open toward foreign cultures, and had higher tendency for culture mixing. The openness of Javanese culture in East Java is frequently associated with its character tendency toward being more straightforward in expressing opinions or more assertive (‘blak-blakan’). In contrast, the agrarian communities in Mataram were built upon a normative system of mutual help or cooperation (‘gotong royong’) and collectiveness (‘sam-batan’), for example, during the labour-intensive activities of trans-plantation and harvest in the irrigated rice farming system. Such system necessitates harmonious, conflict-free relations of individuals to function – situations where pakewuh play a significant role. Furthermore, in order to sustain the functioning social structure and thus livelihood, agrarian societies were dependent on the preservation of such social values over generations – it explains why the internalisation of pakewuh in individual behaviour is more intensive in Central Java.

Third, the normative system was historically a fundamental strategy for survival. There is an interesting fact that the Sultanate of Yogyakarta and Surakarta were the only ones in Indone-sia that had succeeded to co-exist along with Dutch imperialism. While other kingdoms or sultanates were destroyed or dismantled during Dutch imperialism, both sultanates were able to retain their monarch structure and rule. The strategy for the co-existence was to behave cooperatively and to pose no threats to the hegemony of Dutch rule. This was primarily done in two ways. First, instead of establishing a solid military power which could potentially pose a threat to the Dutch, the efforts had been concentrated on developing arts and culture – this also explains why the courts have achieved higher status of art and culture development. Sec-ond, to avoid conflict with Dutch colonist the leaders of both sultanates had to cultivate social values and norms that guide individuals to behave accordingly. Of course, such normative system should apply not only to the court families, but also to the larger communities. The

widespread and successful internalisation as well as the maintenance of the normative system, again, over generations was indeed the key to survive under the given circumstances.