Abstract
This paper proposes to see
stratification, which births elite and oligarchical theories, in a loving
manner especially should stratification be considered in public policy-making.
Stratification can be seen as discriminatory or a product of shared value and
interest. Having said that, both views admit the existence of social structure
wherein roles distribution exists. This paper may not directly refer to elite
theories, yet study cases reflect how people are differentiated based on their
capacities. The study cases examined in this paper are marriage system in
Sumba, the mutual obligation relationship between Maramba and Ata in
East Sumba, the short film by Jacqueline A. C. Vel of political campaign by
a Maramba in West Sumba, and the hierarchy of Batak Toba people.
This paper starts with getting a clear understanding on stratification that
births elite and oligarchical theories, which leads to the discussion of
analyzes of social structure, the point where study cases start to be analyzed
in the plane of orientation of social action, both collective and individual as
units of analysis. This paper finds that both individual and group orientation
of social action analysis is needed in public policy-making process
specifically in the problem identification stage and policy evaluation stage.
Keywords: stratification, social stratification, social structure, orientation of
social action, oligarchy, public policy-making.
Understanding Stratification
It was presented that stratification birthed elite and oligarchical
theories (J. A. Winters, personal communication, 6th November
2017). The stratification[1] reflects
hierarchal structure wherein people are differentiated, or in other word, there
is differentiation[2] in stratification. It is for the purpose of
helping me understand more of elite and oligarchical theories that I decided to
discuss briefly about stratification in this paper as a start. As there is
existence of people in the stratification, thus stratification in this context
should be understood as social stratification wherein social differentiation[3] happens.
In one of NPTEL’s modules/lectures, it is written that “the unequal
distribution of scarce resources leads to social stratification, meaning that
the society is divided into a number of strata or layers” (2013). It is also
written that there is “a system of ranking” according to wealth, prestige, and
power in stratified societies. Similarly, Livesey and Lawson wrote that social
stratification “represents a process whereby different social groups are ranked
higher or lower on some form of scale, usually, but not exclusive, in terms of
categories such as class, age, gender and ethnicity”
(2006: 425). By adding the word ‘system’ behind ‘stratification’, Grusky gives
the basic concept of the stratification system where it “rests on ascriptive
processes to the extent that traits present at birth (e.g., sex,
ethnicity, parental wealth) influence the subsequent social standing of
individuals In modern societies,
ascription of all kinds is usually seen as undesirable or discriminatory, and
much governmental policy is therefore directed toward fashioning stratification
system in which individuals acquire resources solely by virtue of their
achievements” (: 2). Learning from those literatures, it can be
said that social stratification is a system where people are ranked based on
their wealth, prestige, power and marked by distinguishing qualities at birth.
An example in Indonesia would be the concept of bibit, bebet,
bobot in Javanese marriage system. Bibit (ancestry), bebet (social
status), and bobot (wealth) are three fundamental things for
Javanese parents would look at in choosing wives or husbands for their
children.
[1]
‘Stratification’ in Bahasa is translated into ‘stratifikasi’, which is
understood as the distinction of the population of society into classes on the
basis of power, privilege, and prestige (https://kbbi.web.id/stratifikasi)
[2] ‘Differentiation’ in Bahasa is translated into
‘diferensiasi’, which is understood as (1) process, way, distinguishing,
distinction; (2) single development, mostly from simple to complex, from
homogeneous to heterogeneous; (3) process of differentiating rights and
obligations of citizens based on the differences of age, sex, and occupation (https://kbbi.web.id/diferensiasi)
[3] NPTEL differentiates between social stratification and social
differentiation. It says that “Social differentiation involves the formation of
horizontal social divisions whereas social stratification involves vertical
(hierarchical) ranking of social strata”(2013). Similarly, Livesey and Lawson
wrote that social differentiation occurs when people are differentiated “in the
nature of their relationship” (2006: 425 – 426).
When Stratification Leads to Inequality and
Conflict
Nanda and Warms (2010: 240)
analyzed that there are 2 (two) basic perspectives related to social
stratification. First is in the Functionalism perspective in which social
stratification is generally giving benefits to all should there be rewards for
people socially and economically especially if they work harder, bravely take
risks, do challenging works, etc. However, the rewards are sometimes imbalance
with what’s done. This theory leads to theory of inequality. The second
perspective is Conflict Theory that says social stratification is a product of
continuous struggle to get limited goods and services. Inequality emerges as
individuals and groups with power, wealth and prestige use their assets and
power to defend their power over production systems and nation apparatuses.
Classes in a society emerge as a most logical result of the inequality itself –
when some start to take the production results more than others. This will
divide people in classes (Kusumandaru, 2003). This is the main point of Karl
Marx theory. Meanwhile, Svalastoga (1989) thinks that Marx’s main idea is the
idea of a group agreed to be opposing with other social class. Thus, it can be
concluded that both perspectives lead to inequality[1] and/or in the end causes conflict(s).
[1] “The
language of stratification theory thus makes a sharp distinction between the
distribution of social rewards and the distribution of opportunities for
securing these rewards. The latter distribution has come to determine popular
judgements about the legitimacy of stratification; that is, substantial
inequalities in power, wealth, or honor are typically seen as tolerable (and
even desirable) provided that the opportunities for securing these social goods
are distributed equally. Whatever the wisdom of this popular logic might be,
stratification researchers have long sought to explore its factual
underpinnings by monitoring and describing the structure of mobility chances”
(Grusky, p: 12).
When Stratification is for Shared Values and
Interests
Grusky presented New
Multidimensionalists’ argument that there are “shared interests and cultures[1] generated within commonly encountered status sets” (:16), as
results of social stratification. Perwitosari (2013) came up with her
understanding on social stratification based on a number of definitions[2]. She concludes that Social Stratification is a way human beings
organize themselves in cultural and social groups wherein systematic
differences are based on public agreement where each differentiated group is
different in level and has different power, specialties and prestige. The
agreement in this sense refers to what New Multidimensionalists argue that
social stratification is shared interest and value. Ambrasat et al uses the
word ‘consensus’ instead of agreement. They find that “there is broad consensus
within German society regarding the affective meaning of authority and
community as foundational social relational dimensions of sociality” (2014: 4).
Hoskins (2004) and Twikromo (2009) both study stratification in Sumba, in which
the people are divided into 2 (two) groups, namely Maramba (noble)
and Ata (slave). Perwitosari (2013) concludes that both
authors believe that Maramba and Ata are 2
(two) opposing-yet-completing-each-other groups. This completing-each-other is
in the form of obligations to be fulfilled by each. These obligations carry the
values and interests shared. The underlining concepts in this understanding are
the existence of “role differentiation” and “social solidarity” as presented by
Feinberg and Soltis (2009). They wrote “functionalists tend to look at social
institutions and practices in terms of their contribution to the adaptation and
adjustment to the total social system” and that “for the functionalists, role
differentiation and social solidarity” are the two primary requirements of
social life”.
[1] Culture is understood as the whole system of ideas, actions and men's work and as results of learning processes to survive (H. S. Putra, personal communication, September 2009)
a. According to Plotnicov and Tuden (1970), social stratification is different
structure of evaluation and “rewards” attached to a role in roles distribution.
b. Labov (1972) thinks
that social stratification is a product of social differentiation and
evaluation and does not imply certain class or caste, but simply that
societies’ ways or works create systematic difference among certain
institutions or people and the forms are different in status or prestige and
ranked based on public agreement (kesepakatan umum).
c. Social Stratification
is a system wherein access to resources, autonomy, power and status are
different (Hoggart and Kofman, 1986)
d. Social Stratification
is the way human beings organize themselves in cultural and social groups based
on the characteristics of each group or based on the inherited. The
characteristics are realized in daily lives in certain social and cultural
contexts (Ember and Ember, 2003)
e. Social Stratification is about community with two or more groups
different in level where each group has different power, specialties and
prestige (Srivasta, 2005). The difference in power, specialties and prestige is
not similar to social inequality as according to Srivasta, social inequality is
more on inequality between individuals and not as members and/or groups. In
other words, Social Stratification is in the group level while Social
Inequality is in individual level.
f. Social Hierarchy
formed out of goods and services distribution, which are relatively and
permanently different in a society (Nanda and Warms, 2010)
The Need for Orientation of Social Action Analysis
Social stratification has
been viewed differently. However, both imply the existence of a social
structure. Freilich (1964: 188) summarizes that “social structure represents an
interlacing of roles in terms of relative power to command action and to
command resources and benefits”. In addition to that, he also presented the
importance of presenting how actors get certain ‘parts to play’ in a social
system as the placement is based on “cultural rules of allocation”[1]. Interpretations of social structure are varied, which have motivated
Gurvitch (1955) to analyze some deviations in the interpretation of the concept
of social structure. He then concludes that social structure “never requires a
special “functional analysis”, but often implies functions as do all
manifestations of social reality” (: 517). Levada (1973: 4) wrote that “the
social structure of a society can be considered on three planes”, namely (1)
functional plane[2], (2) organizational plane[3], and (3) orientation of social action[4]. The study
cases presented in this paper would examine specifically on the orientation of
social action as the plane considered in the social structure analysis. Levada
explains that “as a certain system of orientation of social action (collective and
individual); the units of analysis in such an approach to social structure are
the elements of social action (goals and means, motives and stimuli, norms and
standards, programs and their elements, etc.)”. However, by analysing the
orientation of social action, the study cases at the same time show glimpse of
the functional plane and organizational plane.
[1] “Nadel wrote
that positions are allocated to personnel who are members of a social system,
based on cultural roles of allocation”
[2] “as an ordered system of forms of social activity assuring the
functioning and development of a particular whole; in this case the units of
analysis are separate spheres of the social division of labor and social
institutions”
[3] “as a system of relations forming various types of social groups
characteristic of a given social system; the units of analysis here are
collectives, organizations, and their structural element”
[4] “as a
certain system of orientation of social action (collective and individual); the
units of analysis in such an approach to social structure are the elements of
social action (goals and means, motives and stimuli, norms and standards,
programs and their elements, etc.)”
Orientation of
Social Action of Social Stratification in Sumba
It was presented earlier
that social action can be individual or collective. The presentation of social
stratification in Sumba would be divided into 2, collective and individual
orientation of social action.
Collective Orientation of Social Action
Hoskins (2004) states that
to study the stratification system in Sumba we should look at the marriage
system where marriage system is the main arena where social status plays. In
her study, Hoskins finds the difference of “value” of Maramba (noble)
brides and Ata (slave) brides, in which the difference[1] shows the “game” of social status. Hoskins
analyzes that slavery is a cultural institution deeply rooted in the character
of the people of Sumba thus it would be difficult to stop it abruptly. The
power of a leader depends on his/her control over slaves. Having said that,
Hoskins presents that Marambas are obliged to support Atas,
including financing their marriages and their funerals. A wealthy man is
considered at the bottom of the social rank should they avoid their social
responsibility and nobles without slaves do not have social impacts. Similarly
to Hoskins, Twikromo (2009) highlights 4 (four) major interconnecting points in
understanding the social stratification in East Sumba. First, people of Sumba
are divided into groups in a unit called Uma (house). Second,
through its line of descent, people are divided into 2 (two) social ranks,
namely nobles (Maramba) and slaves (Ata). Third, these social
ranks become the “social guidance”. Lastly, social positions determine
obligations implied. Twikromo also presents the differences between Maramba and Ata in
a number of contexts[2]. Instead of taking about the inequality
between Maramba and Ata, Twikromo finds that the
relationship between Maramba and Ata is
mutual obligation relationship (hubungan kewajiban timbal balik[3]). Furthermore, if Maramba forgets
to fulfill their obligations, Ata would implement a counter
strategy, in the form of jokes or minor damaging actions. These actions are
then noted by Twikromo as the shared knowledge amongst Atas.
Individual
Orientation of Social Action
Individual social action of
Sumba people was presented by Perwitosari (2012) in her review of a film titled
“Umbu Bintang is Our Star”, a film by Jacqueline A. C. Vel. This film presents
a political campaign conducted by Umbu Sappi Pateduk (Umbu Bintang) to
become Bupati (regional leader) for 2005 – 2010. Umbu Bintang
is the son of Umbu Remu, who was Bupati of West Sumba in 1962.
Brother in law of Umbu Remu, Umbu Sulung, was a Raja[4]. The son of Umbu Sulung,
Umbu Djima, was Bupati of West Sumba in 1985 – 1995.
Perwitosari wrote that becoming a leader (bupati, raja, ratu) is a
“reward” attached to Marambas. Umbu Bintang was analyzed to be
manipulating symbols, specifically symbols related to social and cultural
capitals to be the local leader or local politician. The symbols[5] meant are rules, culture, norms, values, myths, and rituals. In
addition to confirming their position, they also rationalize the position of
slave (Ata), in which they (1) hardly own control over power and will
always (2) vertically dependent to their reach and respectable masters.
Orientation of Social Action of Hierarchy
amongst Batak Toba People
After presenting the orientation of social action in eastern part of
Indonesia, Sumba, now I would like to present the orientation of social action
in western part of Indonesia, Sumatera, specifically the hierarchy
amongst Batak Toba people. Meijil and Benda-Beckman (2010)
wrote that there are 5 (five) groups of Batak people living in
Danau Toba, namely Toba Karo, Pakpak, Simalungun, Angkola, and Mandailing. All
are the descents of Si Raja Batak (The King of Batak).
Lee (1999) analyzed that wealth and power do not determine a status of a family
in the society. Batak people are familiar to what’s
called Dalihan Natau or Democracy Triangle, which shows the
interdependence of relation of each element in the hierarchy of Batak people.
This triangle restricts the dominance of one group over other groups. Lee
presented what’s called superior groups, those in the family hierarchy
considered as seniors, and inferior groups, those who are women receiver.
Meijil and Benda-Beckman explain that superior group is called bius,
in which consists of a number of margas (clan). Members of superior
groups are mostly sitting in the governing roles. The inferior group is
called portalian, followed by golat and huta. These
latter groups rule and give rights to each member of the clans in terms of the
use and control over land. Golat is now understood as right to
land ownership. In other words, although members of superior groups sit in the
ruling position, their right to land ownership is determined by the inferior
groups. There is no dominance from one to another.
Collective Orientation of Social Action
This understanding then will help in explaining the demonstration
happened in 5th September 2012 in Medan. This demonstration is
basically people of Batak Toba expressing their concern over
Danau Toba and its surroundings to spread the issue of land ownership emerging
from imbalance relation and mostly un-reconciled between central government and
local community, between national regulations and adat law or
traditional law, and between national and local economic interests. In other
words, the national ruling people (superior group) should not determine the
land ownership for Batak Toba people (inferior group). The
hierarchy between the government of Indonesia and Batak Toba then
shows dominance of superior group over inferior group (See Figure 1 in Annex
2). This is where non-traditional governance (managers and the managed ones)
and traditional governance (no group is dominant over another group) do not
meet specifically in the case of Batak Toba social structure
as presented.
[1] Maramba brides are respectable women who are not “given
naked” as they have fathers and relatives who will keep the cycles of
sufficient “payment” while Ata brides are “given naked” as the initial “price”
cannot be settled with counter payment which later will dialectically impacts
the perceptions and transformations of the exchange far from commodity and
gift. (Perwitosari, 2013)
[2] See Table 1.1 in Annex 1
[3] See Table 1.2 in Annex 1
[4] Raja is made by colonial government. Raja is a leader of a
clan in a domain. Raja was selected based on their (1) wealth, (2)
persuasiveness, (3) knowledge, and (4) individual characters. (Vel, 2008)
[5] Symbols are always manipulated by inter-individuals
and inter-groups to get power (Vincent, 1978: 181)
Individual
Orientation of Social Action Analysis in Winters’ Oligarchy
Elite and oligarchical
theories are basically studies about minorities’ power and influence (J. A.
Winters, personal communication, 6th November 2017). Thus,
prematurely, what we expect from elite and oligarchical theories are merely and
mostly discussions or analyzes about the elite and oligarchs amongst other
roles in a social structure. Literatures discussing oligarchs and oligarchy are
abundance but the theories framing the cases presented are varied over times[1]. Winters’ study concludes that “Oligarchy …
describes the political processes and arrangements associated with a small
number of wealthy individuals who are not only uniquely empowered by their
material resources, but set apart in a manner that necessarily places them in
conflict with large segments of the community” (2013: 14). In other words, the
orientation of social action analysis in Winters’ oligarchy is the orientation
of social action of the wealthy individuals in defending their wealth. The main
difference between the analyzed study cases and Winter’s oligarchy is on the
unit of analysis. The study cases presented are analyzed cover collective and
individual orientation of social action in a social structure, while Winters’
oligarchy’s unit of analysis is the individual separate from the social
structure they’re in.
[1] “References to
oligarchs and oligarchy abound, yet the theoretical perspectives employed
across cases and historical periods have very little in common” (Winters, 2009:
1)
Individual vs.
Group Orientation of Social Action Analysis in Policy Making
The next question is
whether it is (1) individual, (2) group, or (3) individual and group
orientation of social action analysis that would contribute to public policy
making. To answer this question, we should look at the policy-making process.
The policy-making process comes in a cycle[1] called the Stages Model of the Policy Process
(E. Wijaya, personal communication, 3rd October 2017). The
explanation of each stage is presented in the below table and the table shows
how in the very first stage, individuals and groups are met and as well in the
evaluation stage, which may take the process to go back to the very first
stage. In other words, individual and group orientation of social action
analysis towards a phenomenon is necessary for public policy makers
Table 1
Explanation of the Stages Model of the Policy Process
|
Process Stage
|
Explanation
|
|
Problem Identification
|
The identification of
policy problems through demand from individuals and groups for
government action
|
|
Agenda Setting
|
Focusing the attention of
the mass media and public officials on
specific public problems to decide what will be decided
|
|
Policy Formulation
|
The development of policy
proposals by interest groups, government staff,
legislative committee, and think tanks
|
|
Policy Legitimation
|
The selection and
enactment of policies through actions by legislative, the president, and the
courts
|
|
Policy Implementation
|
The implementation of
policies through government bureaucracies, public expenditures, regulations,
and other activities of executive agencies.
|
|
Policy Evaluation
|
The evaluation of
policies by government agencies themselves, outside
consultants, the media, and the general public.
|
[1] See Figure 2 in Annex 2
Summaries
This paper starts by
presenting concepts of social stratification, which is believed to birth elite
and oligarchical theories. The analysis of the concepts of social
stratification comes to the understanding that social stratification is either
resulting in conflicts or a public agreement. Nevertheless, both perspectives
basically talk about social structure in which interlacing roles are
recognized. In social structure analyzes; functional, organizational and
orientation of social action were considered. This is the opening of the study
cases presented. The study cases showed that orientation of social actions fall
under individual and collective actions and that traditional value of social
structure is different to non-traditional value of social structure. However,
this paper does not mean to address the traditional and non-traditional values
of social structure, but more on suggesting to see there’s always another side
of story than what elite and oligarchical theories offer in the view of
public-policy making process. This paper concludes that in public
policy-making, investigation on both individual and group orientation of social
action is needed specifically in the problem identification and policy
evaluation stage.
Conclusion and
Further Study
It is concluded that
Winters’ oligarchy offer a thorough analyzes of individual orientation of
social action, specifically the wealthy individuals. This means that Winters’
oligarchy need to be developed more for its impacts in public policy-making
processes thus both individual and group orientation of social action analyzes
can be delivered. This paper is far from perfect in reacting to Winters’
oligarchy, however, it is hoped that it would give different perspective of how
to see orientation of social action especially to contribute in public
policy-making. A further study is needed specifically on presentation of
policies out of individual and group orientation of social action.
References
Ambrasat, J., von Scheve, C., Conrad, M.,
Schauenburg, G., and Schroder, T. 2014. Consensus and Stratification in the
Affective Meaning of Human Sociality. PNAS. Retrieved from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10/1073/pnas.1313321111
Feinberg, W. and Soltis, J. F. (2009). School
and Society (5th ed.). NY: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Freilich, M. (1964). Toward a Model of Social
Structure. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland, Vol. 94, No. 2 (Jul. – Dec., 1964), pp. 183-200.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2844381.pdf
Gurvitch, G. (1955, November). On Some Deviations
in the Interpretation of the Concept of Social Structure. Sociometry, Vol.
18, No. 4, Sociometry and the Science of Man (Nov., 2955), pp. 245 – 262.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2785859.pdf
Hoskins, J. (2004, August). Slaves, Brides and
Other ‘Gifts’: Resistance, Marriage and Rank in Eastern Indonesia. Slavery
and Abolition 25 (2), pp. 90 – 107.
Kusumandaru, K. B. 2003. Karl Marx,
Revolusi dan Sosialisme: Sanggahan terhadap Frans Magnis-Suseno. Yogyakarta:
Insist Press.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic
Patterns. USA: University of Pennsylvania Press Inc.
Lee, K. C. 1999. A Fragile Nation: The
Indonesian Crisis. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co, Pte.
Ltd.
Levada, I. A. (1973). Social Structure. International
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 1/2, Social Stratification and
Mobility in the USSR (Spring – Summer, 1973), pp. 3-9. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20629637.pdf
Meijil, T. V. and Benda-Beckman, F. V. 2010. Property
Rights and Economic Development: Land and Natural Resources in Southeast Asia
and Oceania. Oxon: Routledge.
Nanda, S. and Warms, R. L. 2010. Cultural
Anthropology (10th ed.). USA: Cengage Learning.
Plotnicov, L. and Tuden, A.1970. Essays in
Comparative Social Stratification. USA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Svalastoga, K. 1989. Diferensiasi
Sosial. Jakarta: Bina Aksara.
Winters, J. A. (2013, October). Oligarchy and
Democracy in Indonesia. Indonesia 96, pp. 11-33.
Footnotes
Ember, C. L. and Ember, M. 2003. Encyclopedia
of Medical Anthropology: Health and Illness in the World’s Culture Topics (1st Volume).
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher.
Hoggart, K. and Kofman, E. K. 1986. Politics,
Geography & Social Stratification. Great Britain: Croom
Helm.
Srivasta, A. R. N. 2005. Essentials of
Cultural Anthropology. New Delhi: Prentice-Hal of India Private
Limited.
Twikromo, Y. A. (2009). Dalam Bayang-Bayang
Rasionalisasi Perbudakan Kaum Ningrat: Sisa Ruang Bagi Perjuangan Kaum Budak di
Wilayah Ujung Timur Sumba. Renai (Local Politics and Social Humanities
Studies). Year IX, No. 2, pp. 135 – 167.
Vel, J. A. C. (2008). Tradition, Leadership and
Power. In Vel, J. A. C., Uma Politics: An ethnography of
democratization in West Sumba, Indonesia, 1986-2006 (pp. 55 – 73),
Netherlands: KITLV.
Winters, J. A. 2009. Oligarchy. USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Annex. 1
|
Table 1.1 Differences between Maramba and Ata in
East Sumba according to Twikromo
|
|
Contexts
|
Maramba
|
Ata
|
|
Control over economy, social and culture
|
Owns control by using external and internal power and external
institutions
|
Does not own control over capitals of economy, social and culture
|
|
Dependency
|
Owns slaves to help their kabihu and to show their
wealth, status, prestige and big influence
|
Vertically dependent to their masters
|
|
Nation political interests
|
Owns strong bargaining position
|
Owns minor bargaining position
|
|
Reformation
|
Gives wider space for local elites to strengthen their political
positions by taking side to traditions or local culture
|
|
|
Impact of modern economic values
|
\Maximizes exploitations towards slaves as bounded workers and at the
same time minimizes obligations in supporting the daily needs of their slaves
|
|
|
Expressing opinions
|
|
Does not have opportunity to express their different opinions in front
of their masters or in public forum
|
|
Decision making
|
|
(Considered) Does not own enough knowledge in decision making
|
|
Important social position in the village
|
|
Hardly gets opportunity to be in the significant social position in
the village
|
|
Life condition
|
|
Judged by characters instead of their masters’ wealth
|
|
Table 1.2 Mutual Obligation Relationship between Maramba and Ata according
to Twikromo
|
|
Maramba
|
Ata
|
|
Supports in finding wife and place to stay
|
Works without being paid
|
|
Pays bride’s dowry
|
Respects their masters (always supports their masters’ ideas, etc.)
|
|
Provides basic needs for funerals, clothes, foods
|
|
Annex 2
