Matrilineal Paradox in Semende and Minangkabau Culture

Zainal Arifin(1),


(1) Universitas Andalas

Abstract

Minangkabau and Semende are a community with a very strong matrilineal kinship system, where one of its characteristics is that power and control of resources are in the hands of women. Following their matrilineal system, decision making on property division (inheritance) is given to the eldest child, who in the case of Semende is called tunggu tubang. In the Minangkabau and Semende communities, the customary provision that places women as central power and control of resources ultimately generates a paradox. Traditionally, the power and control of resources are in the hands of women, but in empirical reality (social practice), these are controlled and supervised by the men in the community. Through ethnographic research methods, this paradox is understood by deeply investigating the knowledge structure of actors in these two societies about what and how these customs (adat) are understood and applied in their lives. The research findings show that the paradox is a result of the existence of ambiguous customary provisions, in which power and control of resources are handed over to women, but these provisions also open opportunities for men to take authority over matters. These customary provisions then spark male political movement to redefine these provisions in order to have power over matters as well. This suggests that in matrilineal societies or societies where women empowerment and influences are dominant, the potential of men to strengthen their authority and control over matters tend to occur frequently, which ultimately lead to matrilineal paradox.

Keywords

power, control of resources, matrilineal paradox, Semende, Minangkabau

References

Abdullah, Taufik. (1972), “Modernization in Minangkabau Word: West Sumatera in the Early Decades of the Twentieth Century†dalam Claire Holt (ed) Cultural and Politics in Indonesia. Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press.

Amran, Rusli. (1985). Sumatera Barat Plakat Panjang. Jakarta: Sinar Harapan.

Apter, Andrew. (2012). “Matrilineal Motives : Kinship, Witchcraft, and Repatriation Among Congolese Refugeesâ€, in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18. pp.22-44.

Arifin, Zainal. (2018). Politik perkawinan: dualitas praktik sosial masyarakat Minangkabau. Yogyakarta, Histokultural Garaha Ilmu

Arifin, Zainal. (2017). “Nagari Ba Ampek Suku : Politicisation of Mythical Origins of Minangkabau†in The Easthern Anthropologist 70 (1-2). pp.177-190.

Arifin, Zainal. (2013). “Bundo kanduang: (hanya) Pemimpin Di Rumah (gadang)†in Jurnal Antropologi Indonesia 34 (2). pp.124-133.

Arifin, Zainal. (2012). “Buru Babi: Politik Identitas Laki-Laki Minangkabau†in Jurnal Humaniora 24 (1). pp.29-36.

Arifin, Zainal. (2009). “Dualitas Praktik Perkawinan Minangkabau†in Jurnal Humaniora 21 (2). pp.150-161.

Arifin, Zainal & Maulid Hariri Gani. (2007). “Relasi Dua Kepentingan (Budaya Politik Masyarakat Minangkabau)†in Jurnal Harmonia Edisi Khusus Dies Natalis Universitas Negeri Semarang XLII (Maret 2007). pp.15-25.

Arifin, Zainal. (1998). Talang : Sistem Klasifikasi dan Pola Adaptasi Suku Bangsa Ogan dalam Proses Pembentukan dan Penataan Pemukiman Baru, (Tesis) Magister Antropologi Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogakarta.

Banerjee, Paula. (2009). “Negotiations with a Difference: Minority Women in the Borderlands of Sri Langka and India†in Lipi Ghosh (ed) Political Governance and Minority Rights. The South and South-East Asian Scenario. London: Routledge.

Boster, James S. (2012). “Cognitive Anthropology Is a Cognitive Scienceâ€, in Topics in Cognitive Science 4. pp.372–378.

Chen, Limin; Ming-Yeh Lee; Jianli Wu. (2018). “Analysis of Higher Education and Management Model Based on Cognitive Anthropology†in Cognitive Systems Research 52. pp.909-916.

Dobbin, Christine. (1983). Islamic Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy: Central Sumatra (1784-1847). London: Curzon Press.

Ellen, Roy. (2004). “From Ethno-Science to Science, or ‘What the Indigenous Knowledge Debate Tells Us about How Scientists Define Their Project†in Journal of Cognition and Culture 4 (3). pp.409-450.

Fredrickson, Barbara L & Roberts, Tomi-Ann. (1997). “Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women’s Live Experiences and Mental Health Risks†in Journal of Psychology of Women Quarterly. 21 (2). pp.173-206.

Good, Anthony. (2004). “Prescription, Preference and Practice : Marriage Patterns among the Kondaiyankottai Maravar of South India†in R. Parkin. dan L. Stone (ed). Kinship and Family. Malden: Blackwell.

Goswami, Nirmali. (2006). “Being and Becoming: Men in a Matrilineal Society†presented in A South Asian Travelling Seminar on Exploring Masculinities. Department of Gender dan Women’s Studies, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh 20-22 Desember 2006.

Graves, Elizabeth E. (1981). The Minangkabau Response to Dutch Colonial Rule in the Nineteenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publication.

Guspitawaty, Elita. (2002). Penyimpangan Sistem Pewarisan yang Terjadi pada Masyarakat Hukum Adat Semendo Pulau Beringin Kabupaten OKU, Provinsi Sumatera Selatan. (Tesis) Magister Kenoktariatan, Universitas Diponegoro Semarang.

Hakimy, Idrus. (1991). Rangkaian Mustika Adat Basandi Syarak di Minangkabau. Bandung: Penerbit PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Iskandar. (2003). Kedudukan Anak Tunggu tubang dalam Pewarisan Masyarakat Adat Suku Semendo di Kota Palembang. (Tesis) Magister Kenoktariatan, Universitas Diponegoro Semarang.

Junus, Umar. (1964). “Some Remarks on Minangkabau Social Structure†in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkonde 120. pp.293-326.

Kahin, Audry. (1999). Rebellion to Integration. West Sumatra and the Indonesia Polity 1926-1998. Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press.

Kahn, Joel S. (1980). Minangkabau Social Formations: Indonesia Peasants and the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kato, T. (1982). Matriliny and Migration: Evolving Minangkabau Traditions in Indonesia. Ithaca and London : Cornell University Press.

Keane W. (2015). Why Cognitive Anthropology Needs to Understand Social Interaction and Its Mediation, in Social Anthropology 23 (2). pp.192-193.

Krier, Jennifer. (1994). Displacing Distinction: Political Processes in the Minangkabau Backcountry. Ann Arbor: Harvard University Press.

Mansoer, M.D. (1970). Sedjarah Minangkabau. Jakarta: Bhratara.

Maretin, J.V. (1961). “Disappearance of Matriclan Survivals in Minangkabau Family and Marriage Relations†in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkonde 117. pp.168-195.

Mattison, Siobhán M. (2011). “Evolutionary Contributions to Solving the Matrilineal Puzzle" in Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 22 (1-2). pp.64-88.

Mitchell, I.G. (1969). “The Socio-Cultural Environment and Mental Disturbance: Three Minangkabau Case Histories†dalam Indonesia 7. pp.123-137.

Modh, Sandra. (2013). “Ivory, Women and Rajas. Initial Comments on Social Change in An East Indonesian Boundary Community†in Journal of the Anthropological Society 5 (1). pp.27-35.

Moyer, David S. (1984). “South Sumatra in the Indonesia Field of Anthropological Study†in J.P.B. de Josselin de Jong (ed). Unity in Diversity. Dordrecht-Holland. Foris Publication. (pp.88-99).

Nasroen. (1954). Dasar-Dasar Falsafah Adat Minangkabau. Djakarta: Bulan Bintang.

Navis, A.A. (1984). Alam Terkembang Jadi Guru. Jakarta: Grafiti Press.

Naim, M. (1984). Merantau: Pola Migrasi Suku Minangkabau. Yogyakarta : Gadjah Mada University Press.

Peacock, James L. dan A. Thomas Kirsch. (1970). The Human Directian. An Evolutionary Appraach to Social and Cultural Anthropology. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.

Radjab, Muhammad. (1969). Sistem Kekerabatan Minangkabau. Padang: Centre for Minangkabau Studies Press.

Richards, A I. (1950). “Some types of family structure among the Central Bantu†in A R Radcliffe-Brown (ed). African Systems of Kinship and Marriage Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Setiawan, Robbi. (2013). Status Dan Peranan Tunggu tubang Serta Perubahannya Pada Masyarakat Semende Desa Muara Tenang Kecamatan Semende Darat Tengah Kabupaten Muara Enim. (Skripsi) Jurusan Sosiologi, FISIP Universitas Sriwijaya. Palembang.

Tyler, Stephen A. (1969). “Introduction†in Stephen A. Tyler (ed). Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. (pp.1-23).

Wassmann, JÏ‹rg & Andrea Bender (2015). “Cognitive Anthropologyâ€, in James D.Wright (ed) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Orlando: University of Central Florida. (pp.16-22).

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.