Pilihan Bahasa
ENG | IND
Kampong as The Deployment of Arek Subculture

Kampong as The Deployment of Arek Subculture

by | Jun 21, 2022 | Kampung

Anugrah Yulianto Rachman. Peneliti Arek Institute.

The kampong holds cultural wealth. Its presence is not just as a matter of urban settlement, but this environment also serves as the central locus for the dissemination and development of the Arek subculture during colonialism. They, as the peripheral society of colonial development, designed their cultural life within the kampong.

Unfortunately, the cultural wealth in the kampong is never seen by many people. This phenomenon is always positioned as a development issue. Eventually, it causes life in the kampong to be placed only as a matter of settlement and poverty. This logic, of course, folds the cultural reality occurring in the life of the kampong Arek.

This developmentalist logic is actually also a legacy from the colonial era. In the early days of the emergence of the Gemeente Surabaya, the colonial government also saw that the presence of the kampong was a settlement issue. The kampong Arek were considered to have crowded the settlements located between the elite residential complexes of the European group. This caused the colonial government to have to immediately take action to resolve the issue.

Kampong in Developmentalism Logic

The administrative change of the city of Surabaya in 1906 caused massive development for this city. The colonial government began to build a clean water irrigation system, electric tram transportation, modern ports, and so on. Surabaya turned into a modern city in the style of the Dutch colony (Frederick, 1989). This progress created a settlement issue for Arek Surabaya because their living space was replaced by colonial urban areas.

This indigenous community eventually chose to occupy the narrow space between the spaces of Geemente Surabaya. They occupied kampongs located in narrow alleys and streets not yet paved by the Gemeente government. Due to this housing issue, the colonial government built a residential complex in the Keputran area in 1929 because Arek Surabaya began to crowd the settlements in those kampongs.

The case of moving kampong communities to the residential area in Keputran, Gemeente Surabaya, shows that their settlement was seen by the colonial government as a development issue. Eventually, it led to the resolution of the issue through the relocation of kampong community settlements. It shows the colonial government’s viewpoint towards the indigenous people.

In the period after colonialism, the same approach was still used. Kampongs are always seen as a development issue. The area is always assumed to be a backward living environment and far from development because it harbors issues: slums; poverty, and backwardness. This was the government’s viewpoint afterward in viewing the kampong.

The New Order, known as the development regime, also colored the advancement of kampong life. Because the development program in the kampong was first carried out in 1969, and it was only in 1976 that it received assistance from the World Bank (Silas, 1992). The program had three types of assistance: People Self-help projects, W.R. Soepratman projects, and Urban Kampong Improvement Programme.

Furthermore, these programs encompassed the development of the kampong such as the construction of access roads, drains, health facilities, elementary schools, and garbage bins for cleanliness management. These activities, of course, refer back to the approach used by the colonial government in addressing the housing issues of the indigenous people, that is, through a developmental approach.

The development pattern, in the kampong, will, of course, have implications for how the government and researchers view this living environment. It leads them to see this phenomenon as one of the objects of development. Kampongs are always positioned as an entity that is left behind from the progress of modern life. Its presence must be saved and given certain advancements regarding modern life.

Further, this area is always seen as the settlement of marginal or peripheral groups. The inhabitants within the kampong are always positioned as lower-class society and marginal settlements. The categorization of marginal settlement differences is always based on aspects such as: security, permanent and temporal houses, cheap/expensive sale prices, and accessibility being easy or difficult (Silas, 1989).

On one side, the presence of the kampong is always attached to the logic of development, while on the other hand, its presence actually has a cultural dimension folded within that logic. This cultural dimension is never brought to the surface. However, if traced further, the presence of the Arek subculture is also a phenomenon of the kampong’s presence during colonialism.

Although the presence of this subculture is still debated regarding its tracing and origins, the definite period that can be marked to trace its existence is the colonial period (1900-1942), that is, the transition to becoming the Gemeente Surabaya. Because that period brought about the phenomenon of settlement and identity of the indigenous community, in this context, is the emergence of the Arek subculture.

Kampong as The Locus of Arek Subculture Deployment

The emergence of the Arek subculture is still debated among academics. Some researchers state that this subculture appeared during the 4th to 9th centuries AD. The eruption of Mount Kelud, which erupted 22 times, covered the river surrounding the delta in the Arek subculture area, turning it into a single island (Abdillah, 2007). This phenomenon later shaped the character of the Arek Surabaya.

Because the area of Surabaya, before the eruption of Kelud, was delta-shaped, it caused the Arek community to speak loudly. This habit underlies the tough character of the Arek community. Thus, the natural phenomenon of Mount Kelud led to the formation of the character of the Arek community. The term Arek itself is taken from the Old Javanese term meaning a call for a brother or sister.

Unfortunately, there is no strong historical evidence to prove this thesis. However, the presence of this subculture can be traced to the colonial period because, during that time, a phenomenon of identity for the indigenous people, especially the Arek subculture community, was created. As previously explained, the transition to Gemeente caused settlement issues for the indigenous people.

This phenomenon led to the creation of settlement boundaries between the European elite group and the Arek community. The boundary was between the kampong and the elite settlements. At that time, the Arek Surabaya, as the peripheral society from colonial development, seized urban space by occupying areas between urban areas, that is, the kampong.

Eventually, this led to the Arek community, who were essentially immigrants, forming their cultural identity within the kampong. Thus, the presence of the colonial city is the presence of the kampong that creates this subculture identity. The Arek community is not limited to any specific ethnic or social group. They are immigrants and settlers who share common values, namely Arek Surabaya.

This influences the values associated with Arek Surabaya, characterized by courage, realism, and material progress (Frederick, 1989). Because they are not a specific group or ethnicity but immigrants sharing the same life values, the Arek community further strengthens its cultural and social identity within the kampong. They build these cultural values within that environment.

Therefore, the kampong, in fact, preserves both the social and cultural cohesion of the Arek community. This environment forms the identity of being Arek because, as a community of immigrants and those displaced from their living spaces by colonialism, they build a form of social-cultural identity together. This also marks the emergence of the Arek subculture as a fragment of the parent Javanese culture.

In summary, the kampong is the central locus for the dissemination of Arek culture because the emergence of this subculture stems from the settlement phenomenon during colonialism. It is not just a matter of settlement but also this environment harbors the cultural life of this subculture.

A Map of Arek Studies

A Map of Arek Studies

by | Feb 19, 2022 | Kampung

Anugrah Yulianto Rachman–Nugi. Peneliti Arek Institute.

Arek Studies, akin to an uncharted map, lacks a clear scholarly framework compared to other thematic studies. This is because there hasn’t been a study that specifically addresses this topic. It is merely seen as intersecting with other academic disciplines without being studied based on a fundamental and rooted scholarly structure.

Scientifically, Arek Studies has yet to establish a foundation like other study topics. Unlike this study, Java Studies, for example, has been around since the imperialist era (Kuitenbrouwer, 2014:89-90). Its presence also followed the wave of academic groups during the Dutch imperialism in the Dutch East Indies. At that time, the Dutch were trying to expand into that territory.

Java Studies actually has a scientific foundation because it has been rooted since a certain period. Moreover, pioneers in its domain have already been mapped out. Unlike Arek Studies, researchers on Java have been investigating this topic since the 19th century, although those studies were conducted for colonial interests. The colonizers needed to understand the landscape and conditions of the society they intended to subdue.

On the other hand, Arek Studies is building its scientific foundation. This step is taken by mapping researchers who have conducted research on this topic. Some authoritative researchers have filled this study area. Among these researchers are Purnawan Basundoro (City Historian), Frederick H. William (City Historian), Freek Colombijn (Urban Anthropologist), Autar Abdillah (Social Researcher), and others.

Implicitly, the researchers mentioned have contributed to providing a research map for this study. They have intersected with this topic in their research results, but it is still very limited to intersecting with their respective academic disciplines. It has not been unified under a specific thematic study domain. However, these researchers have provided a considerable mapping of Arek Studies.

Broadly, their research results can be mapped into two main periodic lines of study. On one side, researchers like Frederick H. William, Purnawan Basundoro, and Freek Colombijn have a research range in the colonial period. Their research looks at the life of the Arek community and colonial society phenomena in Surabaya, the central distribution of the Arek subculture. This means that the emergence of this community is marked by phenomena that appeared during that period.

On the other hand, researchers like Autar Abdillah and Akhudiat place the formation of Arek culture as having occurred since the pre-colonial era. They see the presence of Arek culture as having been formed since this period. This is marked by various phenomena that shaped this culture, such as natural, social, and linguistic phenomena occurring within the Arek subculture environment (Abdillah, 2007) (Akhudiat, 2007).

Based on these studies, Arek Studies actually has a position as a scholarly construct. It shows that this study has intersected with many researchers. However, in terms of scientific basis, Arek Studies has not yet been fully and adequately mapped because the study is still limited to sporadic studies. This situation has led to an initiative to construct a framework for this study.

Through this initiative, Arek Studies can be mapped and developed, contributing to scholarly constructs and addressing issues within the Arek subculture’s life. There are many unresolved issues to this day, such as the cases of Ludruk art born from the Arek community, which also faces problems due to the passage of time.

Therefore, research and studies in this domain are crucial. It can help the Arek community and the academic public to reflect and advance life within this community. To support this work, Arek Studies requires a multi-perspective approach. This effort can be undertaken by building collective studies because it can open up this study map to have a broader horizon.

The spirit of collective study work can be achieved by building studies based on interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary work. This means that individuals from various backgrounds can collaborate to study phenomena within this subculture. This causes the study not only to be limited to a specific academic domain but also to develop itself to engage in dialogue, both academically and non-academically, from various perspectives.

In summary, Arek Studies, as a scholarly construct, has not yet established a deeply rooted and robust foundation. The study is still very sporadic. A significant effort is needed to tie the Arek phenomena into a scholarly domain because such an effort can provide a clear overview of the mapping of this study.

The Existence of Arek Surabaya during the Colonial Period

The Existence of Arek Surabaya during the Colonial Period

by | Jan 8, 2022 | Kampung

Anugrah Yulianto Rachman–Nugi. Peneliti Arek Institute.

Colonialism has shaped the structure of the city of Surabaya, including the aspect of living space. The creation of this city structure has led to the emergence of a boundary between the urban area and the village. This spatial limitation significantly influenced the emergence of Arek Surabaya. For instance, this phenomenon is explored in William H. Frederick’s work titled “City Views and Turmoil: The Birth of the Indonesian Revolution (Surabaya 1926-1946)” (1989).

Frederick traces the history of Surabaya, starting from 1906, a period marked by decentralization due to ethical political policies. This led to the colonial government transforming the city into a Gemeente (Municipality).

Unfortunately, the transformation of Surabaya into a Gemeente further exacerbated inequalities for Arek Surabaya at the time. These inequalities stemmed from the division between Europeans and natives (inlanders), granting special rights to European residents. Although Arek Surabaya and Europeans lived within the same city boundaries, the native residents did not enjoy equal rights as city dwellers.

Moreover, the shift in governance led to rapid modernization in city development, such as the construction of modern ports, clean water purification systems, electric tram transportation, and paved roads. On one hand, Arek Surabaya, as city residents, became “outsiders.” For example, they lived in different land categories from the Europeans.

This difference in land categories is evident in the living spaces of Europeans. It emerged from the distinction between European elite residences and those of the natives. The Darmo area, for instance, was an elite residential complex for Europeans, developed with amenities like zoos, wide asphalt roads, and luxurious houses. In contrast, Arek Surabaya had to settle in spaces within the city that were untouched by municipal development, termed as villages. The natives had to build their civilization and culture within these environments.

Although the concept of a village may seem similar to that of a rural area, they differ in social cohesion and population density. Frederick highlights the social bonds within these village communities, rooted in the background of Arek Surabaya.

Frederick views Arek Surabaya not as a unified ethnic or social group but as migrants and settlers who share a common outlook and tradition, characterized by courage, realism, and material progress. This distinction is not only related to social cohesion in the villages but also marked by differences in living spaces between the village and the city.

Villages within Surabaya are directly bordered by the urban areas of the city. These boundaries are visible and clear, such as large walls, paved roads, or large buildings in European residential areas. All these physical objects have created a separation between village and urban spaces.

In specific cases, such as in 1929, Arek Surabaya was given living space in the Keputran area. The colonial government observed that village life had become increasingly crowded, so the native population needed to be provided with more suitable living spaces. However, the population density could not compete with the concrete jungle in Surabaya, such as restaurants, shops, hotels, and large houses owned by the Dutch.

The Keputran settlement case proves that the relationship between villages and urban areas has created visible boundaries (tangible-border). This marks the peripheral living space of Arek Surabaya. Even in 1921, the Dutch government was already aware of the need to relocate villagers from business centers and Dutch residential areas to more peripheral locations.

The creation of living space boundaries between the village and the city in the Keputran case is a manifestation of the emergence of Arek Surabaya based on the binary relation of city/village. The presence of these boundaries, such as concrete jungles in between, has created stereotypes about the Arek community living in villages.

Thus, according to Frederick’s research, Arek Surabaya emerged from the creation of living space boundaries in the colonial city. They are considered the Other in the context of Surabaya’s development, then dominated by Dutch colonialists. Villages were “left behind” or “marginalized” amidst the city’s progress, marking the term Arek Surabaya with a stigma of village life.

In short, the emergence of Arek Surabaya is actually a social pathology resulting from the city structure built by colonialism, causing Arek Surabaya to occupy a narrow space between urban areas, namely the village.