Saturday, November 18, 2017

Interlacing Roles in Social Stratification



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 groupsgovernment 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.
Perwitosari, D. (2012, November 22). Review Film “Umbu Bintang is Our Star”, Sebuah Film oleh Jacqueline A. C. Vel. Retrieved from http://diyahperwitosari.blogspot.co.id/2012/11/review-film-umbu-bintang-is-our-star.html
Perwitosari, D. (2013, July 16). Stratifikasi Sosial di Sumba (Menurut Hoskins dan Twikromo). Retrieved from http://diyahperwitosari.blogspot.co.id/2013/07/stratifikasi-sosial-di-sumba-menurut.html
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.
Grusky, D. B. Social Stratification. Retrieved from http://www.unibielefeld.de/soz/we/we3/Diewald/Gruskysocialkstrat.pdf
Hoggart, K. and Kofman, E. K. 1986. Politics, Geography & Social Stratification. Great BritainCroom Helm.
NPTEL. (2013). Social Differentiation and Social Stratification in Introduction to Sociology (Web) (Modules / Lectures). Retrieved from http://nptel.ac.in/courses/109103023/14  
Perwitosari, D. (2013, July 16). Stratifikasi Sosial di Sumba (Menurut Hoskins dan Twikromo). Retrieved from http://diyahperwitosari.blogspot.co.id/2013/07/stratifikasi-sosial-di-sumba-menurut.html
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.
Vincent, J. (1978). Political Anthropology: Manipulative Strategies. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 7 (1978), pp. 175-194. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2155692.pdf
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

Figure 1 Hierarchy of Non-Traditional National Governance and Traditional Batak Governance



Figure 2. The Stages Model of the Policy Process









[1]
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)

[2]   “Nadel wrote that positions are allocated to personnel who are members of a social system, based on cultural roles of allocation”
[3]   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”
[4]   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”
[5]   “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.)”
[6]   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)
[7]   See Table 1.1 in Annex 1
[8]   See Table 1.2 in Annex 1
[9]   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)
[10]             Symbols are  always manipulated by inter-individuals and inter-groups to get power (Vincent, 1978: 181)
[11] “References to oligarchs and oligarchy abound, yet the theoretical perspectives employed across cases and historical periods have very little in common” (Winters, 2009: 1)
[12]             See Figure 2 in Annex 2

No comments:

Post a Comment