Maybe a simple question with which I am currently dealing but for which I find contradictory answers in the literature…
To set the scene: 19 century Bali, the highly sophisticated irrigated rice terraces have long been established.
But were it the kings who invested into large dam structures to enable such systems and benefit from the usufruct or were it the farmers all by themselves, everynow and then paying some tribute to the(ir) lords?
And what about the trade in those days: Were it only the elites who engaged in such activities (after 200 years of successful slave trade), selling the little surplus that pawns made on royal land, or were it farming communities who actively participated not only in the local but regional and even inter-island trade to sell their produce from their own fertile lands?
Those who argue for the former it seems then are kind of saying that these communities serving the lord have no thinking of their own, they are mere pawns on a chessboard awaiting the orders from somewhere above to move. ‘Inward’ people as Geertz called it focusing on subsistence only. On the other hand, the latter argument of an almost acephalous organisations of farmers that manage it all by themselves purposfully cultivating goods for the market is somewhat unimaginable too.
So finally, it probably comes back(at least partially) to the question of equality or hierarchy? Both Geertz and Lansing have attempted to answer this (among many other issues) in their respective books Negara (Geertz 1980) and Perfect Order (Lansing 2006). I can’t make up my mind yet…
Recent Comments