Microsoft Word - Titis_E-journal


DECONSTRUCTION OF THE SYMBOLIC MEANING  
OF THE KERATON SURAKARTA ARCHITECTURE 

 
 

Titis S. Pitana1, I Gde Semadi Astra2, 
I Made Suastika2, I. B. Gde Yudha Triguna3 

 
1Postgraduate Program, Udayana University 

2Faculty of Letters, Udayana University 
3Hindu University of Indonesia 
Email: titis_pitana@yahoo.com 

 
 
 

ABSTRACT 
 

This dissertation is the result of a study entitled ”Deconstruction of 
the Symbolic Meaning of the Keraton Surakarta Architecture.” This study 
is intended not to understand the Keraton Surakarta architecture as a 
physical materialization of  architectural planning and design. Rather, in 
this study, the Keraton Surakarta is the material object of a study on the 
deconstruction of the symbolic meaning which focuses on three main 
problems: (1) the cause of the deconstruction of the symbolic meaning 
toward the Keraton Surakarta architecture; (2) the deconstruction process 
of the symbolic meaning; and (3) the implication of the deconstruction 
toward the social-cultural life of the keraton people and Surakarta society. 
 
Key words: deconstruction, symbol, architecture, Keraton Surakarta 

 
 
 

INTRODUCTION 

When Javanese people’s spirit is eroded deep in the cycle of history, the word 

’culture’ can not mean ”belief” as so far understood by most experts. For the symbolic 

meaning of the keraton as an effort to explore the newness and nowness meaning, it 

seems that ”belief” is not a compromise to understand culture at present. ”Belief” as the 

peak of thoughts has not so far been achieved by rational minds in scientific traditions, 

both positivistic and interpretive. It is because the word ”belief” in the study of Eastern 

mysticism has been understood better as a spiritual discourse than a rational idea which 

is apllicable for social-cultural practices. It is from this dimension that the deconstruction 

of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta architecture is directed to go beyond 



 2

the paradox of truths of rationalism-realism and criticism as well as intuitionism to come 

to what is called ’epistemology’ in science, particularly in cultural studies.      

Physically, the Keraton Surakarta architecture can be regarded as an 

indigeneous work of Javanese culture which has symbols implying messages and advice 

for the next generation. However, the messages and advice behind the symbols have no 

meanings if they are not understood. The symbols available in the Keraton Surakarta are 

expressions that can not be signed only by physical materialization. Because of this, the 

symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta should always be searched suitable with its 

interpreter’s space and time. In other words,  interpretation into the symbols of the 

Keraton Surakarta will never stop or will keep on deconstructing. Therefore, to interpret 

the symbols of the space design patterns and construction elements in the Keraton 

Surakarta, it is necessary to understand the background history and process of its 

establishment. 

The sustainable deconstruction of the symbolic meaning here should be taken 

as a never-stop process so that the new meaning should be always ”becoming” and 

fragmented by the interpreter’s space and time. Although history has tried to make a 

periodization of human activities since thousands of years ago, as a totality view of life, 

it is basic that in the history of mankind there has never been an absolute separation 

between thoughts, actions, spaces, and time as a moment. It is thus not simple to find out 

an absolute separation between thoughts and their results in life space which are not tied 

up to time contextually, just like humans who can not be separated from their culture and 

social life. 

This study is intended not to understand the Keraton Surakarta architecture as a 

physical materialization of architectural planning and design. Instead, in this study, the 

Keraton Surakarta architecture is regarded as the material object of a study on the 

deconstruction of the symbolic meaning focused on three issues: (1) the cause of the 

symbolic deconstruction  meaning of Keraton Surakarta architecture; (2), the process of 

deconstruction, and (3) implications of such deconstruction towards socio-cultural life 

and Keraton Surakarta’s society  

Generaly, this study is intended to describe the construction and deconstruction 

of Javanese culture rooted in the Keraton Surakarta with its local genius reflected in the 

Keraton Surakarta architecture. In turn the study is aimed to reveal and explain the 



 3

cultural reconstruction in purpose to enrich national culture as part of scientific works to 

develop knowledge and science. Specifically, this study has three purposes: (1) to know 

and understand the causes of the deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton 

Surakarta; (2) to know and understand the processes of the deconstruction of the 

symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta; and (3) to know and understand the 

implication of the deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta 

towards the social-cultural life of the keraton people and Surakarta society. 

This study has two significances. Firstly, theoretical significance, this study is 

expected to give significant contributions to the development of knowledge and science, 

particularly architecture and cultural studies.  Besides, it is hoped to add and complete 

the previous studies on Javanese architecture and National architecture. Moreover, for 

academics, this study can be used as a reference to find out possible areas for further 

studies which can not yet be covered by this study. Secondly, practical significance, this 

study is expected to broaden people’s mind and widen their views on the local genius 

contained in their local cultures in the face of the impacts of global culture. Besides, this 

study can be used by public decision makers in relation to social-cultural life.    

 

DISCUSSION 

This study is a Cultural Studies study which uses qualitative method, and 

qualitative-descriptive and hermeneutics-based interpretive data analysis. In general a 

study with qualitative analysis is defined as a study that produces descriptive data in the 

form of words, idioms, and/or expressions, including observable actions—by 

emphasizing on the concept and pattern development of the data; paying attention to both 

setting and subject holistically so that they are inseparable variables; being humanistic; 

understanding the meaning as the basis for participant’s actions; understanding the 

limited scope of situation; and being a crafting art that prioritizes mastery and feeling 

involvement (Bungin, 2003:147).   

In this study Derrida’s theory of deconstruction is positioned as the grand 

theory to answer three study problems which is in its application supported by three 

other theories used eclectively, namely (1) Foucault’s theory of power and knowledge, 

(2) Eco’s visual communication semiotics, and  (3) Jauss’ theory of reception. 



 4

The deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta 

architecture is not an event that happens naturally; instead, it originates from the 

resistance or objection to logocentrism created on the basis of the keraton metaphysics. 

This means that the deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta 

architecture is an event caused by the metaphysical death of the Keraton Surakarta. The 

“death” here can probably happen because of being made dead by those outside the 

logocentrism creators of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta architecture 

and/or because of its own death due to the keraton members’ metaphysical refusal 

against the logocentrism they have created.  

The metaphysical death of the Keraton Surakarta which is the accumulation of 

resistance and/or objection to the metaphysics itself is triggered by three aspects: (1) 

Status and role changes of the Keraton Surakarta, from being the Company’s power dolls 

in the colonialization era up to the swa-praja (autonomy) status and becoming the 

cultural heritage in the era of the Indonesian republic; (2) the Keraton Surakarta in the 

global constellation, in which there is the pressure of the modern rationality on the 

keraton morality that makes the keraton as a victim of capitalism and a means of tourism 

commodification so that the keraton no longer has a space to articulate its own existence; 

and (3) coup d’etat for power, in which there came two kings after the coup d’etat 

incident over the Keraton Surakarta that refuse the existential metaphysics of the keraton 

as the cosmos center and the model of Javanese culture. 

In Derridian logic, the interpretation of symbols in the keraton Surakarta 

architecture is a sustainable process. The architectural materialization is a means of 

visual communication in which, to Umberto Eco, in the interpretation of symbols there 

happen semiosis and canon process, that is a process of uniting or combining an entity 

(representamen) with another entity called ‘object’.  This process results in a never-

ending relation chain. This never-ending movement is then formulated by Eco and 

Derrida as the unlimited semiosis process (Broadbent, 1980:382-383).  

This process is then used to know and understand the deconstruction tracks of 

the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta where its clarity can be understood 

through the following processes. First, the deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of 

the “design and building patterns” that happen through three processes, namely (1) from 

the teaching on life to the cultural heritage; (2) from sacred to profane; and (3) from the 



 5

symbol of feudalistic bureaucracy to domestic family institution. Second, the 

deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the “materialization of the Keraton Surakarta 

architecture” that happen through four processes, namely (1) building form: from the 

symbol of greatness/glory to that of apprehension; (2) relating building: from the symbol 

of space consciousness to that of communication; (3) limiting building: from the symbol 

of the maintenance of sacredness to that of geographical limit; and (4) accessories: from 

moral message to construction accessories. Third, the deconstruction of the symbolic 

meaning of the “King and Keraton Surakarta” that happen through three processes, 

namely (1) Javanese King: from the symbol of god-kings to the duty-carrier of Javanese 

culture; (2) Keraton Surakarta: from the symbol of cosmic centers to that of tourism 

attraction; and (3) the symbol of Keraton Surakarta: from the symbol of the cosmic unity 

to that of commodified accessories. 

The metaphysical death of the Keraton Surakarta as the causing factor of the 

deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta architecture, and 

explained by the discussion on the deconstruction tracks eventually give some 

implications toward the social-cultural life of the keraton community and Surakarta 

society. First, toward the social structure of the keraton and Surakarta society which can 

be identified from two social facts, namely (1) the Keraton Surakarta is today part of the 

local (kelurahan) administration; and (2) the Keraton Surakarta community is now part 

of the Surakarta society.  Second, toward the social intitution which can be identified 

from two social facts, namely: (1) the Keraton Surakarta has become the society’s 

cultural affinity; and (2) the Keraton Surakarta has become a legitimating institution for 

modern aristocrats. Third, toward  the kinship system and value formation process which 

can be identified through two social facts, namely (1) the Keraton Surakarta community 

has become ”ajur-ajer” aristocrats (immersed with ordinary people); and (2) the Keraton 

Surakarta struggle for becoming the model of Javanese culture. Fourth, toward the space 

formation for new consciousness established by the Keraton Surakarta in response to 

various changes due to global modernism. 

 

 

 

 



 6

FINDINGS 

First, there are three sides acting as the subjects that perform the the 

deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta architecture: the 

authority, the Keraton Surakarta community, and people outside the Keraton Surakarta. 

(1) Authority, which can historically be distinguished into two, i.e. the colonial authority 

during the colonization era and the government authority during the Republic 

Indonesia era. In this case both the colonial authority and the government authority 

serve as the key holders of capitalistic logocentrism that have killed the metaphysics 

of the Keraton Surakarta and replaced it with that of modernist rationality. 

(2) The Keraton Surakarta community, i.e. the keraton internal members who 

intentionally or unintentionally have done a metaphysical (cosmological) isolation of 

the Keraton Surakarta by changing the keraton sacredness into a cultural parody. 

Even, the limited material dimension originating from economic problems has a 

more significant correlation to the cognitive dimension of the Keraton Surakarta 

community so as to let the keraton architectural spaces become uncared hollow 

spaces which eventually lead to the metaphysical refusal of the keraton itself. 

(3) People outside the Keraton Surakarta who have spontaneous body responses towards 

the hollow architectural spaces of the Keraton Surakarta. The spaces which used to 

be used as a forum of activities (representation of events) are considered worth to be 

“benefited” by ignoring the metaphysics of the Keraton Surakarta through cultural 

improvisation.    

Second, in carrying out its function as a cultural institution (the duty-carrier of 

Javanese culture), the Keraton Surakarta is faced with three main obstacles: 

economically, psychologically, and socially. 

(1) Economic obstacle, that is the limitedness of the keraton’s financial condition just to 

support its own existence.  

(2) Psychological obstacle, that is the psychological burden suffered by the Keraton 

Surakarta as the impact of having no political autonomy.  

(3) Social obstacle, that is the historical destiny that has stigmatized the Keraton 

Surakarta as the one accused of being the feudalistic followers which are opposed 

against the democratic principle practiced in the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).  

 



 7

V. CONCLUSSION 

The deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta 

architecture is an event caused by the metaphysical death of the Keraton Surakarta as an 

accumulation of resistance and/or objection to the metaphysics itself. Second, the 

deconstruction tracks of the symbolic meaning of the Keraton Surakarta are the 

deconstruction processes which happen to three deconstructions of the symbolic 

meaning: (1) deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the “design and building 

patterns”; (2) deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the “materialization of the 

Keraton Surakarta architecture”; (3) deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the 

“King and Keraton Surakarta”.  Third, the deconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the 

Keraton Surakarta has four implications toward the social-cultural life of the keraton and 

Surakarta people: (1) toward the social structure of the keraton and Surakarta people; (2) 

toward the social insitution of the keraton and Surakarta people; (3) toward the kinship 

system and value formation process; and (4) toward the space formation for new 

consciousness established by the Keraton Surakarta in response to various changes due 

to global modernism. 

 

REFERENCES 

Behrend, E.T. 1982. Kraton and Cosmos in Traditional Java. Madison: University of 
Wiscosin. 

Broadbent, G., Bunt, R., and Jencks, C. 1980. Sign, Symbols, and Architecture. New 
York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 

Bungin, Burhan. 2006. Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif: Pemahaman Filosofis dan 
Metodologis ke Arah Penguasaan Model Aplikasi. Jakarta: PT Rajagrafindo 
Persada. 

Faisal, Sanapiah 2005. Format-format Penelitian Sosial. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo 
Persada. 

Grenz. Stanley J. 2001. A Primer On Postmodernism Pengantar untuk Memahami 
Postmodernisme. Terj. Wilson Suwanto. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Andi. 

Ibrahim, Julianto 2008. Kraton Surakarta dan Gerakan Anti Swapraja. Jogjakarta: 
Malioboro Press. 

Larson, Goerge D. 1990. Masa Menjelang Revolusi: Keraton dan Kehidupan Politik di 
Surakarta, 1912 – 1942 (terjemahan oleh: Lapian, A.B.). Yogyakarta: Gajah 
Mada Press. 

Marsudi 2001. "Nilai Arsitektur Pada Simbolisme Keraton Kasunanan Surakarta" (tesis). 
Semarang: Progam Pascasarjana Universitas Diponegoro. 



 8

Santosa, Imam 2006. "Kajian Estetika dan Unsur Pembentuknya pada Keraton 
Surakarta" (disertasi). Bandung: Program Pascasarjana Institut Teknologi 
Bandung. 

Setiadi, B., dkk. 2000. Raja di Alam Republik: Karaton Surakarta dan Paku Buwono XII. 
Jakarta: Bina Rena Pariwara. 

Soeratman, Darsiti 1989. Kehidupan Dunia Keraton Surakarta, 1830 – 1939. 
Yogyakarta: Taman Siswa. 

Supariadi 1998. "Surakarta Masa Pemerintahan Sunan Paku Buwana IV 1788- 1820: 
Priyayi dan Kiai Pada Masa Transisi Kolonial" (tesis). Yogyakarta: Program 
Pascasarjana Universitas Gajah Mada. 

 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
Thanks are owed to (1) Prof. Dr. I Gde Semadi Astra, as the Promoter; (2) Prof. Dr. I 
Made Suastika, S.U., as the Co-promoter I; and (3) Prof. Dr. I.B. Gde Yudha Triguna, 
M.S., as the Co-promoter II for their patience and motivation started from the proposal 
composing up the finishing of the dissertation. Thanks are also owed to the Rector of 
Udayana University, Director of Postgraduate Program of Udayana University and her 
staffs, and the Head of Cultural Studies Doctorate Program of Udayana University and 
his staffs.