RESISTANCE OF KATOBENGKE ETHNIC PEOPLE TO HEGEMONY OF TRADITIONAL ELITES IN BAUBAU CITY SOUTH EAST SULAWESI La Ode Dirman Anak Agung Ngurah Anom Kumbara Aron Meko Mbete I Gede Mudana Universitas Haluoleo, Kendari, Sulawesi Tenggara email: laode_dirman@yahoo.co.id igedemudana@yahoo.com ABSTRACT The Katobengke ethnic group is one of the sub Buton ethnic groups which has been marginalized since the new order. When the reformation era started, they resisted the system of the knowledge which the traditional elites had. This present study was intended to understand the practice of resistance shown by the Katobengke people to the hegemony of the traditional elites based on the historical history and its implication on themselves and the traditional elites. It can be theoretically used as a model and a new concept and method of the development of the cultural studies. It can practically give input to the government as to the empowerment of the marginalized people using their local genius and maintenance of their cultural identity. The result of the present study shows that the resistance shown by the Katobengke people to the traditional elites through the mythological discourse of identity; symbolic resistance and physical violence; the factors contributing to the resistance were discrimination of identity, stigmatization of the Indonesian Communist Party ‘Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI), the slave stereotype, the traditional taboo; the implication of the resistance is that the sultanate ideology was ineffective any longer to the Katobengke people’s interest, the appearance of new stratification, resistance to the traditional stereotype and taboo, the change in traditional costume, La Ode was used as the title, change in profession from becoming farmers into working as providers of services, and spirituality were used for political communication. Keywords: hegemony, counter hegemony, stereotype, and traditional taboo. INTRODUCTION The Katobengke ethnic group is one of the subetchnic groups of Buton who live at the center of Baubau City, South East Sulawesi. From the sultanate era to the new order era, their identity was unique culturally and physically. They lengthened the auricles of their ears, chewed betel, wore patched costume (kabhaleko and bidha) and were very good at making earthenware vessel. When the new order was over and the reformation era started, such an identity disappeared. The Katobengke people were socially and traditionally classified into the common people (papara), the ruling people who could further be sub classified into the noble people (kaoma) and the middle people (walaka) (Rudyansyah, 1997: 44—53). According to Susanto Zuhdi (2010: 76), where the origin of those who belonged to the papara people came from was not identified; they were the lowest traditional social stratification; they were the slaves who came from papara as they did not pay for any taxes (Schoorl, 2003: 3). In the end of the sultanate era to the new order era, the traditional elites started identifying the Katobengke people as slaves. The women were supposed to take care of the noble babies in the sultanate era; therefore, they were commonly referred to as Naa Laode and Maa Laode (Ruslan,, 2005: 71). Furthermore, in fact, they were often used as the second sex by the non Katobengke people in Baubau City; the men had physical strength and worked as farmers. According to Ruslan (2005) and Tasrifin (2010), the Katobengke people were stereotyped as slaves and stupid. Therefore, in the new order era they suffered from physical violence and were referred to as those who belonged to the Indonesian Communist Party. In the reformation era they started showing resistance to the traditional taboo and what had been stereotyped by the traditional elites in the form of identity discourse, symbolic resistance and physical violence. RESEARCH METHOD This present study is a cultural study which was designed to use the qualitative method in accordance with the spirit of cultural studies. The qualitative procedure is in the form of a cycle; the problem identification, data collection, data analysis and conclusion drawing are not necessarily ordered. The study was conducted in Betoambiri district, which is located at Lipu Sub district and Katobengke Sub district. The key informants were the Katobengke traditional leaders, the traditional elite leaders, the bureaucrat leaders, the religious elites, the youth leaders, and the Katobengke and traditional elite teachers. The data were collected through in-depth interview, observation, and documentation. DISCUSSION As far as the traditional elites are concerned, those who were traditionally socially stratified as kaoma and walaka were the ruling groups of people, whereas those who were traditionally socially stratified as papara were the ruled group of people (the people). The Buton Sultanate manuscript (Anonym) affirms that the three traditional social groups of people were created in the sultanate era with a popular philosophy poromu ndaa saangu pogaa ndaa koolota, meaning being united not in one, being separated not in between. Such a philosophy was the strategy used by the elites to attach themselves to the subordinate class, the papara. When the Dutch government started to interfere with the domestic affairs of the sultanate, such a philosophy was stained by various forms of colonial discriminations in order to be able to resort physical violence to the people for the sake of taxes. During the New Order era such a stigma was inherited; however, in the Reformation era the papara people showed that they disagreed with that. One of the papara group was the Katobengke people; they showed resistance for being labeled as the slaves and traditional taboo attached to them, as described as follows. First, the Katobengke people showed their resistance through the mythological discourse on their origin and identity, symbolic resistance and physical violence. Such a resistance showed their reaction against what had been stated by the elites that the Katobengke people came from Labhora. However, based on the mythology of their identity, they came from Johor, Malaysia. According to Barthes (1999); Foucault (1991); Jones (2009: 114), a myth forms image as an attempt to achieve something which is desired and to neutralize the stigma which has been introduced by the traditional elites. The symbolic resistance was shown through rituals and marriages, and spirituality. In the posuo ritual and tuturangi ritual, the magic formulas charmed and the songs sung contain advices and educational elements. Such rituals are performed completed with various types of offerings. The Tuturangi liwu ritual is one of the rituals which is performed with offerings and to propose for the land fertility to Almighty God and the souls of their ancestors. Robertson (1993: 24) stated that the rituals which are performed with offerings are the strategies used to intensify the people’s solidarity; therefore, rituals were also used to show disagreement with the elites’ domination. Resistance was also showed through unorganized individual physical violence such as demonstration and murder. Scott (1990: 200) stated that there was no space except anonymous physical individual resistance due to injustice (Tomagolo, 1999) and individual hatred (Fox, 2009: 7). Second, the factors which contributed to such resistance were the reproduction of the elite’s stigma toward their identity as the marginalized, stupid and poor people. Being referred to as slaves, being not allowed to marry the elite and to go to Mecca for pilgrimage (naik haji), and being not allowed to be physically similar to the elites, and being not allowed to use the building materials which were similar to those used by the elites were also responsible for such resistance. It is such factors which had caused the Katobengke people to show their resistance as a form of counter hegemony to the elites through the mythological discourse on their traditional knowledge, supported by the Katobengke people who had been economically, educationally and politically established (achieved status). Dafidson (2010: 13) stated that the New Order applied the hard approach to people. The traditional elites ‘kaomu walaka’ used the traditional taboo to sharpen the social distance between them and Katobengke people; the objective was that they avoided the possibility of marrying the Katobengke people. Third, the implication that the sultanate ideology was ineffective any longer on the Katobengke people did not seem to reflect the reality. The ideology of traditional taboo was the hidden and invisible form of the symbolic violence of the elites (Bourdieu, in Eagleton, 1991).The traditional costume worn by the Katobengke people change in its motives and color; the Katobengke elites got involved in the political space of the traditional elites. The weaker prohibition of the marriages between the Katobengke people and the elites, the change in livelihood from working as farmers into working as providers of services, the struggle for the ownership of traditional land, the rituals which were performed to strengthen the Katobengke solidarity, the traditional astronomic knowledge were all used as political communication between the Katobengke people and the traditional elites. The new order employed the philosophy pomaamaasiaka which contains the religious values to persuade the Katobengke people to be faithful to the Buton customs which had been created by the elites. According to Smith (1980: 67), religion functions to intensify solidarity. However, through the counter hegemony shown by the Katobengke people, it was stated that the Islamic values taught that there were no differences among the kaoma, walaka and papara, that everybody had the same right and obligation to perform what is referred to “syariat Islam”, and that they had the same position before Almighty God “Allah SWT”. Scott (2000: 441) stated that the ideology of the dominating class was not useful to the Katobengke society any longer. According to Weber (2011: 529), the religious practice performed in one social stratum is different from that performed in another social stratum. The Katobengke people disagreed that the only those who belonged to the kaomu class who could lead the communal prayer (who could become the Muslim leaders). Furthermore, according to them, through the counter hegemony they showed, they would like to state that having the predicate of becoming “haji” (the predicate provided to those who have gone to Mecca for pilgrimage) they could lead the communal prayer in their own Mosques. The traditional elites who were politicians in Babubau City seemed to be getting more persuasive to the Katobengke people, resulting from the direct election for the people’s representatives. The Katobengke people changed their status (kamiya) by using the noble title maa Laode (the noble father) before their names. Many Katobengke people had become politicians, bureaucrat elites, executives, legislative members, and other stratifications. The Katobengke spiritualists were used as the mediators in political negotiations, meaning that a new stratification appeared (achieved status). The Katobengke people used the title La Ode; seven of them had gone to Mecca for pilgrimage; 300 had become soldiers, 5 had become executives, 2 had become legislative members, two had become philosophical doctors, and 7 had graduated from the undergraduate program. During the New Order era there were marriages between the Katobengke people and their traditional elites; however, such marriages were not exposed. That was another form of counter hegemony shown by the Katobengke people. However, in the reformation era, such marriages were more exposed; many went to Mecca for pilgrimage and the architecture of their houses looked similar to that of their elites. In relation to the stigma that the Katobengke people were slaves, they created a new myth as a counter discourse (Foucault, 1977). Laboora might be slaves; however, those who were referred to as Katobengke Wulala were not slaves. The charisma of Parabela became degraded, resulting from the problems taking place in the Katobengke environment. They had many social problems and many people were starving. The prohibition of the marriage between someone coming from one stratum and another coming from another stratum was a form of the symbolic violence performed by the elites which were hidden and gentle in nature, as, according to the elites, it was a system of work divisions. The current stratification appeared, indicated by the progress they made in economy and education. The elopement between a female elite and a Katobengke man was another form of resistance to the traditional taboo. The endogamy marriage was maintained and the exogamic marriages developed between the Katobengke people and those who belonged to non Buton ethnic group was a strategy to expand the network of kinship relation among the Katobengke people themselves. Currently, the Katobengke people developed a new myth that gave negative image to the Labhora people as the slaves whose population was getting extinct. Their ethnic identity as the Katobengke Wulala had kinship relation to the royal traditional elites. The novelty of the present study was that the Katobengke people reflected their struggle for affirming their identity and searching for a new identity. The harmonious ideology implemented by the sultanate elites was stained by the Dutch direct government in which the people were forced to pay for taxes. This was inherited in the new order era, causing the Katobengke people to have negative image. When the reformation era started, the Katobengke people did not trust the ideology of the traditional elites; then three Katobengke elite strengths appeared; they are the Traditional Katobengke Islam, the Katobengke Pure Islam and the Modern Katobengke Elites; they all disagreed that they were labeled as slaves. The symbolic violence to the status of kadie and traditional taboo was getting weaker. The Katobengke modern Muslims stated that the rituals performed by the Katobengke traditional Muslims were not in accordance with the Islamic teaching; the charisma of “parabola” was getting weaker. Not exposing their identity outside their community was a strategy used to free themselves from the stigma of the traditional elites. The predicates Inaa laode and maa laode were the weapons used by the Katobengke elites to show their counter hegemony to the traditional elites. The Katobengke elites traditionally tabooed the traditional elites who broke the religious and traditional elites. The discrimination of the land ownership (kadie) for the Katobengke people was made to be getting weaker by the Act No. 5 of 1960 (UUPA No. 5 Tahun 1960) concerning the deletion of the sultanate status of land ownership. That had caused the Katobengke people’s status of ownership of land to be stronger, and the symbolic violence applied by the traditional elites to treat the Katobengke people as their slaves and tenant farmers to be weaker. They also struggled for their self identity when the Katobengke modern Muslims stated that the rituals performed by the Katobengke people were not in accordance with the Islamic teaching; the charisma of “Parabela” was getting weaker. The strategy used by the young elites and the Katobengke modern Muslims when they were outside the territory of Baubau City was that they hid their identity in order to free themselves from the pressure of the stigma of the traditional elites. When the Katobengke people became the providers of services instead of working as farmers, then in the status quo condition, the elites who had become politicians started raised the Katobengke culture through seminars, assistance in the form of mangaru art equipment, and by participating in the rituals performed by the Katobengke people. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION It can be concluded from the present study that the form of the resistance shown by the Katobengke people resulted from the injustice applied by the elites from the sultanate era to the new order era. The fact that the harmonious ideology applied by the elites did not function expressed their refusal to the predicate of becoming slaves and traditional taboo. That was a physical resistance representing their historical misunderstanding which had been internalized within themselves. Paying no attention to the traditional marriages, going to Mecca for pilgrimage, the title maa Laode, and land ownership were passively responded by the traditional elites. The spiritualists’ ability was used as the cultural and political capitals to show their counter hegemony to the traditional elites that they were noble elders, and that the rituals they performed showed that they were the native Buton ethnic group. It is suggested to the government that it should use their solidarity wisdom to mediate, unify variations, and construct the new identity of the Katobengke people. It is also suggested to the government that it should revitalize the value of the elite unity in diversity “kebhinekaan” to make it relevant to the philosophy of the Katobengke people. It is also suggested that the stereotype and traditional taboo should be localized and that a traditional forum should be opened in order to adapt to the current global development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In this opportunity, the writer would like to highly appreciate Prof. Dr. Anak Agung Ngurah Anom Kumbara, M.A., Prof. Dr. Aron Meko Mbete, Dr. I Gede Mudana, M.Si. for their critical scientific supervision, full attention, perseverance and carefulness for the completion of this article. The writer would also like to thank BPPS Dikti for the scholarship provided to the writer for three years. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Simbolik Power. Cambrigde: Harvard University Press. Davidson, Jamie S. et all, 2010. Adat Dalam Politik Indonesia. Jakarta: Pustaka Yayasan Obor Indonesia Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Thetford Press, Ltd. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings, 1972-1977. Editor By Colin Gordon. New York : Pantheon Books Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selection From Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publisher. ------------- 2001. Catatan-Catatan Politik. Surabaya : Pustaka Promethea Jones, Pip. 2009. Pengantar Teori- teori Sosial. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia Rudyansyah, Tony. 2009. Kekuasaan, Sejarah dan Tindakan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers. Ruslan, Rahman. 2005. “Parabela di Buton: Suatu Analisis Antropologi Politik. Disertasi. Universitas Hasanudin Makassar. Program Pascasarjana Scott, James C. 19762000. Senjatanya Orang-orang Yang Kalah, Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia Schoorl, Pim. 2003. Masyarakat, Sejarah dan Budaya Buton. Terjemahan G. Winaya. Jakarta: Jambatan. Tomagola. Dkk. 2002. Mengelola Konflik: Buku Saku Staf BP Proyek LNG Tangguh Bintuni Papua,Indonesia Cerik dan UI Zuhdi, Susanto. 2010. Sejarah Buton yang Terabaikan: Labu Rope Labu Wana. Jakarta: PT Raja Grakindo.