a socio-cultural dimension of local batik industry development in indoneisa

7/29/2019 A socio-cultural dimension of local batik industry development in Indoneisa

1/28

THE 23RD PACIFIC CONFERENCE OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE

ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL (RSAI) AND THE 4TH INDONESIAN

REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION (IRSA) INSTITUTE

A Socio-Cultural Dimension ofLocal Batik Industry

Development in Indonesia2-4 July 2013, Bandung, INDONESIA

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University, INDONESIAFaculty of Spatial Planning, Technische Universitt Dortmund, GERMANY

Prihadi Nugroho (PhD Candidate)


2/28

PRSCO 2013 Contribution ID No. 367 1

A SOCIO-CULTURAL DIMENSION OF LOCAL BATIK INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT

IN INDONESIA

Prihadi Nugroho (PhD Candidate)

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University1

Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technische Universitt Dortmund2

Abstract

Over centuries batik industry in Indonesia has been transforming from a spare-time non-

tradable activity of peasant community into an interregional mass production industry. Initially,

batik making was used to be a kind ofwomens leisure activity to produce handmade clothing

for domestic purpose while waiting for harvesting period of agriculture land cultivation. Then it

turned into a small household traditional industry around 16th century to supply the increasing

demand of batik clothing for both Keraton (traditional monarchy) family and ordinary people.

Later, Keraton-oriented batik product was recognised batik Keraton (court batik) and people-

oriented one was batik saudagaran (merchant batik). Following the inception of printing

technology broadly used in textile industry in the early 20th century, the process of batik

industrialisation led by a small number of large batik firms grew rapidly to compete with

traditional batik makers who kept using canting (a pen stylus tool) and cap (a stamping tool).

The co-existence of traditional and modern batik industry is advantageous for fulfilling such a

nationwide growing market demand since the use of printing technology could overcome batik

supply shortcoming by traditional batik makers. On the other hand, this industrialisation process

has endangered the socio-cultural preservation of traditional batik making due to the decreasingnumber of qualified traditional batik makers. In 1970s onwards, the domination of printing batik

products devastated traditional batik firms, creating extensive job losses and thereafter a lost

generation of traditional batik makers.

This research hence is to question how the local batik community responds for balancing

economic opportunity pursuit and socio-cultural preservation. It aims to look carefully at the

configuration of local institutions on managing batik industry growth which demonstrates

endogenous development in particular. I use case study methodology to explore a localised

nature of socio-cultural norms and traditions which is likely to steering up the building of

institutional configuration. A serial of expert interviews with selected key informants and direct

field observations were undertaken in Solo City and Lasem Area, both in Indonesia. The result

1 The author is a lecturer and researcher at Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering,Diponegoro University. Mailing address: c/o Laboratory of Regional Development and Environmental Management,Section B Building PWK 3rd Floor, Jl. Prof. Soedarto, SH Tembalang, Semarang 50275, INDONESIA. Tel. (+62-24)7059 1191 Fax. (+62-24) 746 0054. Email: [email protected] URL: http://pwk.undip.ac.id2 Currently, the author is a PhD Candidate at Department of Spatial Planning in Developing Countries (SPRING),Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technische Universitt Dortmund. Mailing address: August-Schmidt-Strae 6, 44227Dortmund, GERMANY. Tel. (+49-231) 755 2543 Fax. (+49-231) 755 6468. Email: [email protected]: http://www.raumplanung.tu-dortmund.de/rel/cms/en/HOME/
mailto:[email protected]://pwk.undip.ac.id/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://pwk.undip.ac.id/mailto:[email protected]


3/28


shows that batik industry growth in both locations is shaped by local traditions Javanese in

Solo and Chinese in Lasem and a high-level competition between batik firms. Unfortunately,

each local batik community seems being trapped on opportunistic behaviour for short-term profit

maximisation. The differences are of that the general character of batik community in Solo is

more opened for promoting collective actions because of strong communal and primordial ties,

and the adaptability to deal with changing environment of batik community in Solo is better thanthose in Lasem. To conclude, the contributions of socio-cultural milieu are pivotal to determining

batik industry growth so that it should be accommodated into policy making process.

Keywords: socio-cultural dimension, local institutions, batik industry, case study, Solo, Lasem

I. INTRODUCTION

Emerging public awareness on recent developments of batik industry in Indonesia have markeddualistic trend of respective industry. After the disputes against Malaysian claim on batik culturalheritage in 2009 (Malaysia klaim, 2012) and the increasing inflows of Chinese batik textiles todomestic market since 2008 (Indonesia impor batik, 2012; Budiartie, 2013), the IndonesianGovernment and batik community responded actively to cope with such a surprising trend.Compared to general industrialisation trajectories, batik industry development permeates the co-existence of both traditional handmade and machinery process of production. Since Indonesianbatik was internationally recognised as an intangible cultural heritage by UNESCO sIntergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in AbuDhabi on 2 October 2009, traditional batik making was encouraged to preserve its culturalvalues (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2009). Thisimplies on dilemmatic actions in redirecting national batik industry development as the

UNESCOs Convention pointed out that Indonesian batik classified into three categories: 1)batik tulis (handwritten batik), 2) batik cap (stamping batik), and 3) batik kombinasi(handwrittenand stamping batik), all refers to the types of traditional batik making process. Subsequently, itchallenges the necessity of promoting modernised process which replaces human labour forcewith machinery equipment, a process which results in so-called printing batik.

The fear of external threats to national batik industry is unnecessary since the main problemactually rests on the responsive adaptability of batik firms to deal with changing environment.Over centuries batik industry in Indonesia has been transforming from a spare-time non-tradable activity of peasant community into an interregional mass production industry. Initially,batik making was used to be a kind of womens leisure activity to produce handmade clothingfor domestic purpose while waiting for harvesting period of agriculture land cultivation. Byhistory batik industrialisation and commercialisation have got accumulated from the blend ofinternal initiatives and external influences. Actually, the external influences particularly fromIndia and China have occurred for centuries through various ways of migration, religion spread,and trade links (Doellah, 2002; Maxwell, 2003; Veldhuisen, 2007; Ishwara, Yahya, & Moeis,2011). Even though batik technique and motifs rooted from Indonesian tradition and developedintensively in Java, the batik industry have welcomed to foreign influences. The transitional


4/28


periods of batik industrialisation from traditional to machinery based batik making demonstratethe degree of socio-cultural openness of Indonesian batik community towards foreign cultures.In this sense, the ambivalent response over imported batik products reflects the fear of freemarket competition which is likely to threaten the domination of batik firms on domestic market.Certainly, it sounds more a kind of economic viability matters than the cultural preservation

necessity of traditional batik making.

The long-lasting tension between economic purpose and socio-cultural preservation of batikindustrialisation is inseparable from policy-making realm and institutional setting of society. Boththe government and society lack of capability in balancing these two interests and have

jeopardised the importance of social development aspects of batik industry into a quick-yieldingeconomic welfare improvement. No matter what policies imposed, the interests of batik firmowners, particularlyjuragan batik(large batik merchant/master), are weighted more than thoseburuh batik(batik maker). More importantly, since traditional batik making is perceived at most ameans of (physical) accumulation along with the modernised production the excellence ofquality batik tradition is somehow ignored. This devastates natural batik skills embedded intraditional batik makers and the stock of social capital of batik industry which is originated fromfamily business and primordial ties. As a result, traditional batik makers are marginalised andremain poor, batik quality downgraded, and the social cohesion broken up because ofopportunistic behaviour shown by both the government and society in general. Referring tohistorical events of national batik industry growth from the golden era of the early 20 th century,the downturn during the Great Depression of 1930s, the resurrection period in SoekarnosProgram Benteng (Fortress Program) of 1950s, the severe decrease in printing technologymass production era of 1970s, up to the recovery period of the early 2000s onwards thedowngrading process in traditional batik making continues, leaving unstable jigsaw of batikindustry development on the air.

This research hence is to question how the local batik community responds for balancingeconomic opportunity pursuit and socio-cultural preservation. It aims to look carefully at theconfiguration of local institutions on managing batik industry growth which demonstratesendogenous development in particular. I use case study methodology to explore a localisednature of socio-cultural norms and traditions which is likely to steering up the building ofinstitutional configuration. A serial of expert interviews with selected key informants and directfield observations were undertaken in Solo City and Lasem Area, both in Indonesia. The 41interviewees come from a variety of leading government officials at local level, batik communityorganisations, prominent batik entrepreneurs, local historians, business associations,academics, and non-governmental organisations. Many of them play multiple roles in local batikindustry development, creating a robust lifetime knowledge accumulation.

II. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Theory of institutions basically suggests the importance of rules of the game and the role oforganisations to deal with human interactions. Both are required for achieving (mostly) human


5/28


self-interests by limiting human behaviour in society. As human self-interests are so diverse andindividuals tend to rationally maximise their own wealth pursuits that humanly made constraintsare critical to avoiding harmful impacts of undesired actions to the rest of society. Rules of thegame are present to overcome potential social dispute and to ascertain social relations whenuncertain conditions are not well-anticipated before in particular. According to North (1990),

rules of the game provide a structure of incentives that shapes human interactions, given by therulers to the ruled parties. It consists of both formal and informal rules, stipulating the forms ofreward and sanction for society members. The formal rules are of written regulations likeconstitution, judicial laws and contracts while the informal ones are of unwritten regulations likeconventions, customs and social norms. They both are complementary to each other bringingtogether the rigid arrangements of formal rules to specified issues and the flexible resolution ofinformal rules to broad context of social setting. In idealistic form, informal rules serve to captureoverall social relations in society which is useful to direct the appropriateness of conducts. Onthe other hand, formal rules illuminate informal rules into measurable conducts regardingspecific issues. The success and failure on implementing formal rules will feedback to theprevailing informal rules, creating continuous loop of interrelationships between these two.However, there are no formal rules which are congruent with informal rules. The main reason isthat informal rules which appear in oral expressions, body gestures, and sometimes irrational orunconscious forms (for example, hypnosis, mantra, magical spelling, etc.) are so broad anddynamic to be identified by formal rules. As a result, in most cases informal rules often exceedformal rules and more effective in compelling desired conducts of the rulers (Figure 1).

Organisations are built as a vessel for achieving particular objectives of formal and informalrules. Without organisations formal and informal rules are not applicable, remain on the air as aset of ideas or concepts with no consequences to human interactions. Either allowed or

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1. Relationship between Formal and Informal Rules

InformalRules

FormalRules

FormalRules

FormalRules


6/28


prohibited conducts are not manifested if organisations are absent. Thus, organisations supportthe sustainability of these rules in order to minimise the risks of uncertainties in human life(North, 1990). In reality, organisations work for limited interests of human welfare. It carries outcontesting self-interests of individuals and/or groups in society. Actors engaged in organisationsare negotiating to specify detailed rules to run organisations well. The design of rules agreed

upon the negotiation process in the establishment of organisations actually accommodatespower and resources distribution embedded in participating actors. Those who possess greaterpower and position are inevitably having better opportunity to dominate the process. Sometimesthey can override the group dynamics in order to direct organisations objectives and actions.Such circumstance to some extent is parallel with the power and resources distribution ofparticipating actors in the given society. In other words, social structure is translated into theorganisations (Figure 2).

Power and resourcesdistribution

Rules of the game

Informalrules

Formalrules

Participatingactors

Organisations

Objectivesand actions

Wealthmaximisation

Constraintsand incentives

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Figure 2. Scope of Institutions


7/28


With regard to the creation of social structure, organisations holding key positions to representthe distribution of power and resources in society fall into three basic categories: publicagencies, private enterprises, and community-based organisations. Extended organisationscould be derived from the mixture of these types to serve broader functions and responsibilitiessuch as state-owned enterprises, quasi-government organisations, donor agencies, and

philanthropic institutions. The other types of organisations working on specific fields such asacademics, research and development institutions, associations, political parties, civil societyorganisations, and non-governmental organisations are also influential to reinforce the workingof certain rules appropriately. These latter types do not fit into the basic ones since they areclassified into functional role rather than distributive role of wealth maximisation. Simply thebasic organisations aforementioned are responsible for the accumulation and distribution ofcapital resources in society where the other types of organisations could also take a part in.Now we have three groupings of different types of organisations: the first class consists of thebasic organisations, the second class is the group of extended organisations, and the third classis the functional group of organisations. Even though they look similar and share overlappinginterests, they encourage different nature and capabilities in responding certain issues. Theirengagement is inseparable from organisational objectives, missions, and the rules associatedwith their establishment. As for the purpose of this paper, I shall confine the discussion to thefirst class organisations, particularly the community-based organisation.

In batik industry community-based organisation plays a leading role in directing its growth. It isnot surprising since the origins and characteristics of batik industry are folk handicraft industry.Batik industry promotes neighbourhood spatial closure to maintain business environment.Therefore, the institutional configuration of batik industry is mostly shaped by local social norms,encouraging family kinship and primordial ties in social structure. Originated from leisure activityevolving to family home business and mass production firm, batik industry carries out family

networks which are translated into certain social order. In Javanese culture society representsthe agglomeration of extended family kinship that bounds social interactions. Social structureand groupings reflect the distribution of power and resources shared among families. Familieswith greater capital belongings and stronger charismatic leadership are likely to take leadingpositions in society. Conversely, social structure affects to the types of social relationsembodied in their symbolic status. Those who are holding higher position and status can controlthe lower classes. Therefore, asymmetrical power relationship in Javanese social structure ismaintained in order to ascertain collective harmony in both individual and social life, where therole of family units is essential to mediating individuals and society. On the other hand, familynetworks direct the individual behaviour to participate in society. In this case how batik playersdetermine business and welfare improvements is bonded to the predetermined social orderwhere they are living with. Batik players are not solely free in decision making process eventhough they seek for profit maximisation of self-interests. Thus, individual freedom does almostnever exist within batik industry because of that collectivism of family kinship identifies localinstitutional configuration.

Owing to Javanese tradition, the informality of batik industry development exceeds the formalregulations. Skills upgrading and marketing expansion are shared through neighbourhood


8/28


system and family networks. Verbal teachings and direct practices are the common ways oftransferring knowledge and innovation. At early stage, the senior batik makers in family unit usually the mothers or senior female family members teach batik production and marketing toselected daughter(s) to continue family business. They host naturally intuitive apprenticeship athome workshop to the first-time learners in order to maintain family tradition and confidentiality.

Batik techniques and colouring formula are strongly concealed to family members only becausethey determine distinguished batik product identity and quality. There are no manual proceduresand written documents delivered during the apprenticeship period. All the process of knowledgeand skills transfers depends on oral expressions, body gestures, and memorising capabilities ofboth parties. While taking care of the children, the mothers are used to do batik works at homeand show the young daughter(s) batik techniques. The mothers also teach batik production andmarketing management by engaging them to the process of raw materials procurement, book-keeping, customer service, and marketing network maintenance. At the following stage, thisnewly generation gets more actively engaged in batik production routines, particularly after theyreach maturity age. During this stage they are assigned for running certain business lines bytheir parents. Such a parent-children partnership of batik production is an advanced trainingprogram, providing a transitional period for the upcoming family business successors. Eventhough they are responsible for running certain business lines, the authoritative supervision andcontrol remain on the hands of their parents. Lastly, after the business handover completed, thenewly batik successors take control over the family batik firm. The role of parents decreases toadvisory consultation instead of providing direct influences to business operation.

However, such closed inter-generational transfer of knowledge and skills in batik making cannotguarantee the continuation of family batik identity and quality completely. The main reason isrelated to the different capabilities of batik making between the parents and their successors.The inherited technical and entrepreneurial skills are not transferrable smoothly because of non-

standardised modes of teaching delivery and corrupted mastery of batik knowledge. In addition,the external knowledge exposures from the local neighbourhood and extended batik communityareas are also influential to self-capability upgrading. New designs, technology, and marketingnetwork are also obtained from family network, friendship circle, and (coercive) inward programsfrom the government in particular. As a result, family batik identity and quality get enriched bytwo-ways of internally mastery apprenticeship and externally induced improvement programs.

The role of community-based organisation at neighbourhood level is important to promotinglocal institutional setting. It may lead to the bridging of batik production and marketing networkbetween family batik firms and broader batik community links. It facilitates batik production andmarketing development through information sharing, collective marketing, and trainings. Smallerbatik firms or firms with less business linkages depend at most on this organisation assistance.In contrast, the larger batik firms usually might have managed their business linkages so thattheir dependency onto such organisational role (and perhaps external agencies support too) arerelatively low. This organisation does not intervene in each batik firms production routines andbusiness strategies. Nevertheless, it is also useful to maintaining social cohesion between batikfirms or overall neighbourhood society through the mediation of social disputes and unhealthybusiness competition. On the other hand, the government and external agencies need this


9/28


organisation on mediating particular assistance to batik firms. In most cases the governmentcooperate with this organisation to distribute government programs more quickly. The externalagencies also do similar approach, even sometimes more actively than the government, in orderto get closer engagement with overall batik community for delivering development initiatives.Looking back to the theory of institutions discussed earlier in this section, the middle position of

community-based organisation to connect the interests of batik firms and batik community atneighbourhood level with the government and external agencies is critical to reconciling bothinformal and informal rules to support batik industry development (Figure 3).

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this paper I raise a research question of how the local batik community responds to balancingthe issue of economic opportunity pursuit and socio-cultural preservation in batik industry. Theresearch objective is to examine the contribution of local institutional setting in directing batikindustry growth. I conduct case study methodology in this research because it is suitable to theresearch context which emphasises on how question, contemporary situation, and boundedlocal phenomena. The selection of this methodology is also appropriate since the researcher isacting as external observer to local phenomena and do not have control over its dynamics. Thismethodology is intended to test neither a hypothesis nor replicable events that may fit togeneralised theory. As a form of qualitative inquiries, the case study methodology is not used tocheck the truth or false of facts, rather it suggests the exploration over local phenomena as wellas peoples understandings and perceptions about it (Yin, 2003; Creswell, 2007).

INFORMAL RULES FORMAL RULES

Community-based

organisation

(Family)batik firms

Socialfunctions

Economicfunctions

NEIGHBOURHOOD

SYSTEM

Governmentagencies

Externalagencies

Marketinstitution

Figure 3. Institutions in Batik Industry


10/28


The case involves three different batik industry clusters, i.e. Kampung Batik Laweyan, KampungBatik Kauman (both in Surakarta Municipality), and Lasem Area (Rembang Regency). Theselocations embrace two different contextual setting of batik industry growth, where the first twoclusters locate in the mainland and the third cluster in coastal region. Even though they all are in

Central Java Province, the local batik industry growth trajectory is different. In the case of batikindustry in Surakarta, its growth strongly depends on endogenous forces. Kampung BatikLaweyan reflects the freedom expression of local batik makers, resulting in a form of batikproducts called batik saudagaran (merchant batik). In contrast, Kampung Batik Kauman reflectsthe orthodoxy of batik making which produces batik Keraton (court batik). On the other hand,the case of Lasem Area reflects the acculturation of Javanese batik tradition and Chineseinfluences due to its strategic position as the important port city in the past. The local batikindustry produces a form ofbatik pesisiran (coastal batik) products called batik Laseman.

The unit of analysis is local batik community which consists of community-based organisation atneighbourhood and municipal/district levels, government agencies, and prominent societymembers. They are selected carefully regarding their influential positions and/or comprehensiveknowledge on local batik industry development. A serial of expert interviews which involves 41respondents is undertaken to collect data and information. Field observations, governmentofficial documents, archival data, and previous studies are also collected to enrich researchanalysis. By taking up combined data collection methods, I will obtain thorough exploration onlocal institutional setting of batik industry development in these three locations.

IV. THE SOCIO-CULTURAL DIMENSION IN BATIK INDUSTRY

The transformation of batik industry in Indonesia have been long lasting for centuries from non-commercial to prospective commodities, from home-based traditional handmade to modernmass production industry, and from purposeful clothing to various derivative products. All theprocess of transformation is somehow intertwined with socio-cultural change beyond.Regardless of different views used to value batik products, the socio-cultural developmentswithin batik communities always take part in the advancement of batik industry, creating moresocial networks than replacing the old traditions with the new trends. The adaptability of localtraditions to welcome external influences is the key factor of batik industry sustainability. Alongwith the rise and fall of batik industry in various regions the role of local batik communitydetermines how the adaptive behaviours may steer up the flexible responsiveness vis--vischanging environment. In the following section I will discuss the lessons learned from threecases of batik industry cluster in Kampung Laweyan, Kampung Kauman (both in SurakartaMunicipality), and Lasem Area (Rembang Regency).


11/28


Kampung Laweyan: The Inheri ted Mbok Mase System o f Pecul iar Social Inclusiveness

The establishment of batik industry in Kampung Laweyan is associated with the old weavingindustry that has already existed during Pajang Monarchy era (1568 1586). Previously, thismonarchy was a vassal of the older Majapahit Monarchy (1293 1478), which controlled many

occupied lands throughout Southeast Asian territory including Lasem Area in the north coast ofJava. The area stretched from Pengging (Boyolali Regency) on the west to Pajang (KlatenRegency) and Laweyan (Surakarta Municipality) on the east, linked with Jenes River heading toBengawan Solo on the east. Along this area there were abundant cotton fields which supply theraw materials for a plenty of home-based weaving industries in traditional villages (Lombard,2008c). Based on local folklore, after the demise of the last Majapahit emperor King BrawijayaV, his great grandson namely Ki Ageng Henis moved to Kampung Laweyan to teach Islamiclessons and batik making to local residents. According to local historian Soedarmono (expertinterview, February 8 and March 6, 2012), the role of Ki Ageng Henis in spreading out batikmaking technique is doubtful since the principal role of Islamic missionaries is to teach religiousbeliefs to the locals. Logically, I argue that as the formerly vassal of Majapahit Monarchy batikmaking skills had been mastered by the locals before the stopover of Ki Ageng Henis. Duringthe periods of ancient monarchies batik clothing with specific design and motifs was the royalfamily uniform on many formal occasions. The Emperors appointed batik makers were used tosupply batik clothing for the royal family. They produced classical batik motifs like kawung,gringsing, andparang the types of classical batik motifs which later identified as batik Keraton(court batik) only for the royal family members and prohibited to ordinary people. Theendogenous batik making skills were supported by the existence of older textile productiontechnology, i.e. traditional manually operated weaving technology. This old technology (and sodid the batik making techniques) equipped the local villagers, mostly the women, to producetraditional fabrics and clothing. Therefore, batik making mastery evolved as the combination of

local tradition with the influences from the ruling monarchies (and any forms of externalinfluences too).

In Kampung Laweyan batik production has been the primary employment for the most localresidents, showing their strong entrepreneurship independence. Even though its location wasclosed to the former Pajang Monarchy capital in Pajang Village, their batik making tradition wasnot exclusively associated with court batik. Their traditional weaving industry and the late-comerbatik industry were used to supply fabrics and clothing for entire society. Those woven and batikfabrics were also used to be exported to the other Indonesian regions and overseas (Lombard,2008c). Even though the Laweyan batik makers got inspired with classical court batik motifs,they kept the freedom of art expressions continuing up to present days, from which their batikproducts known as batik saudagaran (merchant batik). The unlimited market orientation and theflexibility of local batik makers to adapt new designs, motifs, and technology have shaped thestrong image of Laweyan batik products identical to merchant batik. In this sense, Laweyanbatik products were not competing against court batik products. Rather it came out to fulfil theincreasing demand of ordinary people towards batik fabrics and clothing to accompany thewoven ones. Before the batik products of Laweyan were getting popular, the local residents aswell as those living elsewhere in Java wore woven fabrics. One of the most famous types of


12/28


traditional woven fabrics was kain lurik, which was produced intensively in Klaten Regency.According to Siswandi (1999), the transitional textile making from woven to batik fabrics can befound in batik lurik fabrics, representing the mixture of both weaving and batik handmadetechnology (Figure 4). Hence, the originality of Laweyan batik products is rooted from localinnovations in dealing with external influences and market change.

The earliest form of batik industry in Kampung Laweyan was a core family business with home-based workshop at the back of the main residence. The women mastered and managed batikproduction and marketing while their husband was responsible for production controlling. Therole of women called Mbok Mase was dominant in directing home business and overall batikindustry. They engaged actively on batik trading and marketing by taking up batik products tolocal marketplaces, and sometimes they also sold to distant cities and regions. Some of themhad own kiosks at the local marketplaces while others sold batik products door-to-door. As forthejuragan batik(large batik masters), they sometimes welcomed customers at home beyond

the regular business hours between 9.00 17.00 hours weekdays. They provided batik displayshelves usually in the living room to allow the customers in selecting desired batik products.Mbok Mase managed family networks to maintain business relationships with fellow batikentrepreneurs and batik traders who work as their middlemen to connect with broader marketsand distant customers. They built business linkages independently instead of creating collectivebusiness marketing. The horizontal linkages between batik entrepreneurs in Kampung Laweyanalmost never existed with exception to those the members of family networks. In contrast, thevertical linkages between batik entrepreneurs and batik traders (forward linkages) orsubcontractors of particular production lines such as tukang mbatik (batik handwriter or batikstamper), tukang mbabar/nglorod (wax removal specialist), and tukang jahit (tailor) to supportthe core industry (backward linkages) were very common in this neighbourhood. This led tostratified division of labour in Kampung Laweyan society, which placed Mbok Mase or the largebatik masters on the top rank of social system. This group was so influential to determining batikindustry growth through aggressive market expansion that creating hierarchical pattern of bothsocial and economic life in Kampung Laweyan. In short, the independently superior role ofMbokMase and the large batik masters in Kampung Laweyan was the key driver of local batikindustry development.

Figure 4. An example ofbatik

lur ikmotif produced in Kerek,

Tuban Regency (East Java

Province). The basic horisontallines oflurikfabrics are added bygeometric pattern of batikked dotsand batik dyeing process.

Source: Siswandi (1999, p. 34)


13/28


At household level, a gendered division of labour occurred between Mbok Mase, her husbandcalled Mas Nganten, and daughters called Mas Roro. Mbok Mase was a central figure for socialand economic welfare improvements because they led and supervised the management of batikproduction and marketing. She also controlled economic management of domestic well-being.During working days around 5.00 a.m. she started preparing the availability of all batik

production raw materials and equipment, including the meals of in-house batik workers as wellas entire family members. As for the most Mbok Mase, both in-house and outside batik workerswere considered the extended family members. She built strong family kinship with the batikworkers instead of a rigid professional contract. Such approach was useful to building loyaltycommitments from the batik workers to their master, especially the senior high qualified batikworkers. The special attention from the batik masters was usually given to the finest batik hand-writers and batik stampers. At 9.00 a.m. Mbok Mase walked out from the house to collect debtreturns from and distribute kain mori (plain cotton fabrics) to be batikked by the outside batikmakers in certain villages. Afterwards, they went to the local marketplace to open the kiosk orsell batik products around between 2.00 5.00 p.m. At the end of the day they returned home toaccomplish domestic jobs.

While Mbok Mase was out of home, Mas Nganten did production control at the workshopaccording to prior supervision from Mbok Mase. He managed entire production process andsometimes took over certain production works such as dyeing process, for example. Dyeingprocess has been the most critical stage of production since it determines the durability of batikproducts. Another influential role of Mbok Mase was on deciding selected Mas Roro to beprepared for continuing batik business. She would teach Mas Roro entire batik knowledge sincethe childhood until they were ready to run the family business independently. The gendereddivision of labour in batik making could be found between the batik workers. The female workerswere associated with the handwritten batik making while the male co-workers could have

various positions. The male workers were responsible at most for batik stamping process, and itwas very often that they worked for batik design, wax removal, and dyeing processes.

On the contemporary setting, the Mbok Mase system is preserved by Kampung Laweyan batikcommunity to some extent. A strong and independent entrepreneurial skill is the first andforemost feature of batik community in Kampung Laweyan inherited from their ancestors. Theresurgence of Laweyan batik industry in the early 2000s has carried out the old batik industrymanagement tradition, indicated by the restoration of the old family business networks withfewer contacts to fellow batik entrepreneurs in the neighbourhood. Both the family businesssuccessors and the newcomers are maintaining individual business links to suppliers, traders,and customers. Their flexible adaptive behaviours to anticipate market change and to augmentmarket penetration have marked the second characteristics of preserved Mbok Mase system.The current Laweyan batik products are so diverse with enriched motifs and designs, showingthe freedom of artistic expressions on batik making. All variants of batik products ranging fromtraditional to modern style batik motifs can be found in Kampung Laweyan, thanks to theintroduction of printing technology in accelerating batik industry growth. Regardless of pros andcons related to the fourth wave of batik industrialisation that results in batik sablon/printing(printing batik), the adoption of printing technology in Kampung Laweyan demonstrates the


14/28


flexibility of local batik firms to welcome incoming new technology and adjust it with the old-fashioned ways of batik production. Such flexibility is useful to maintaining the characteristics ofKampung Laweyan as batik production centre. Currently, many batik entrepreneurs are stillundertaking batik production at home workshops even though some of them have moved it todifferent locations or subcontracted to batik makers in the villages of neighbouring regions such

as Bekonang (Sukoharjo Regency) and Masaran (Sragen Regency). Lastly, the stratified classof Mbok Mase system remains preserved as shown by the highly segmented batik productssupplied in Kampung Laweyan. Each batik firm produces distinguished batik products withdiversified range of price levels. Hence, the price competition of similar batik products is rare tooccur in Kampung Laweyan. In fact, they are mostly targeting for the middle-upper class of batikconsumers so that batik exclusiveness is maintained carefully.

Despite such inter-generational socio-cultural preservation, some changes have occurred inrespective batik community. Currently, they have transformed from closed to more openedsociety compared to prior condition of the early 2000s backwards. Previously, KampungLaweyan was noticed a closed neighbourhood to visitors and outsiders. With a high-mountedfortress-like wall surrounding the houses of batik masters, the society looked distant andsuspicious to foreigners. It is not surprising that the current generation carries out a stubbornand sceptical attitude towards different perspectives. Nevertheless, the recent social change ofbatik community in Kampung Laweyan has marked a slight openness to visitors, outsiders, andinvestors. The opening of in-house batik galleries and the newcomers from out of societymembers indicates its social transformation. This situation leads to the broadening of batiktrading ways which allow the customers and prospective buyers to come to batik producersmore intensively. Such business marketing strategy is rather to strengthen the revitalisation ofthe old family business links than replacing with the modernised ways, including the use ofonline marketing strategy. The third transformative indicator perhaps this could be the most

radical change in the earlierMbok Mase system is the increasing role ofMas Nganten to takeover batik trading and marketing responsibility from the hands of Mbok Mase. This domesticchanging role has been occurring at least since the era of Soekarnos Program Benteng(Fortress Program) of 1950s. The Program which encouraged the rise of national industry hascontributed to batik commercialisation intensively through the central government campaign ofbatik utilisation as the national symbolic identity. Mas Nganten was more responsive to take thisopportunity by taking up long-distance batik marketing nationally, the situation where MbokMase was unable to achieve. In response to increased batik demand, Mas Nganten hasadopted the early form of printing technology which based on manual handling called tekniksablon (screen printing technology) due to the limited capacity of traditional batik making. As aresult, the fourth generation of batik products called batik sablon (printing batik) overwhelmedthe domestic market, narrowing the gaps between demand and supply of batik products. Sincethen the role of Mbok Mase has been subordinated by Mas Nganten and (coincidentally)government politics.

A community-based organisation was built in Kampung Laweyan on 25 September 2004 torespond further batik industry developments, namely Forum Pengembangan Kampoeng BatikLaweyan (FPKBL) or Kampung Batik Laweyan Development Forum. Its establishment was


15/28


closely linked to prior bottom-up initiatives of kampung revitalisation program to promoteKampung Laweyan as a cultural heritage site and batik production centre. The Forum structureconsists of two bodies: the advisory board comprising a group of elders or senior citizens, andthe acting board comprising selected batik entrepreneurs or activists. All board members andtargeted groups of Forums programs are entire batik community in Kampung Laweyan. The

main task of Forum is to promote kampung revitalisation programs focusing on both socio-cultural preservation of heritage buildings and properties and economic development of localbatik industry. In doing so, FPKBL plays an intermediary function to bridge communicationbetween a group of individual firms in Kampung Laweyan and related stakeholders from variousgroups of government agencies, market institutions (for example, suppliers, traders, brokers,customers, and buyers), and external agencies (for example, universities, non-governmentalorganisations/NGOs, and donors). FPKBL accommodates inputs from batik community inKampung Laweyan and proposes development programs to city government agencies at mostand various development agents. On the other hand, it also accommodates any developmentprograms from outside neighbourhood society (Efendi, expert interview, December 22, 2011;Priyatmono, expert interview, December 22, 2011). With such institutional arrangement the roleof FPKBL is more representing a meeting forum for discussing any issues and needsconcerning with cultural heritage site preservation and batik industry development than adevelopment project funder or executor (Figure 5).

In fact, FPKBL cannot reconcile conflicting interests from within batik community easily. Due tothe strong individualistic behaviour of batik entrepreneurs in Kampung Laweyan, a difficultnegotiation process for attaining public consensus has challenged FPKBL to accomplish itsmain task and responsibility. Their independence sometimes inhibits FPKBL to build collectiveactions for improving socioeconomic welfare of entire society. Even though it deals with cultural

Community-basedorganisation

A group ofelders

FPKBL

External agencies(e.g. universities,NGOs, donors)

(Municipal)government agencies

Market institutions(e.g. traders, brokers,customers, buyers)

Individualbatik firms

Kampungsociety

Kampung LaweyanNeighbourhood

System

Figure 5. Local Institutions in Kampung Laweyan Batik Industry


16/28


preservation and economic development of respective batik industry, it must pay attention toimmediate impacts of any development initiatives to entire society as well. To deal with socialdisputes that come from batik community or the affected groups of society FPKBL often relieson the powerful role of elderly group inherently in its structure of organisation to find the bestsolutions, and even to overcome the problems directly. Seniority does matter in Kampung

Laweyan in a sense of respecting older citizens but it does not automatically correspond toimmediate obedience. Within such circumstance social disputes could be relieved somehoweven though the problems remain unsolved. Coercive actions are not applicable to Laweyansociety since it may irritate individual dignity and therefore worsen social disputes. A rigidreward and punishment with written rules is almost impossible for the society to practice. Theonly form of social sanctions may be gossiping the confronting opponents or the outlaws,through which social exclusion appears directly. Some key ingredients of Javanese culture like

pekewuh (bashfulness) and tepa selira (social tolerance) thus activate the mechanisms of socialrelations to control individual behaviours in the society. However, it seems only work for themiddle-lower class or the subordinated groups of society, not for the large batik masters. Self-correction and social sanctions somehow cannot touch the latter group (and the superior grouptoo). As long as they can maintain family networks and individual business linkages, socialexclusion does not affect to them.

For the same reason many outsiders are complaining about the less cooperative character ofKampung Laweyan society, particularly from government agencies. They consider the batikcommunity of Kampung Laweyan is resistant to government programs because of theiropposing tendency to challenge or even to refuse government programs. It is understandable ifwe look at the history of Kampung Laweyan which has shaped strong independence and highlyentrepreneurial skills of entire society to achieve the high levels of self-esteem. They seem donot require any assistance from outside as they are used to keep a distance with bureaucrats

and external influences. Bureaucrats are sceptically seen identical to uang beselan (bribery)and spendthrift custom advantageous for their group rather than for the governed societywelfare. Such bureaucratic atmosphere is very contrast to the typical character of KampungLaweyan society in general which emphasises hard-working and high achievement attitude.Dealing with this situation FPKBL is often facing some difficulties to reduce tensions betweenthe government and batik community in Kampung Laweyan. As a result, the role of FPKBL tobridge communication between these two parties is less effective, so that program matching forpromoting batik industry development is hardly achieved. Therefore, strong individualisms ofbatik community in Kampung Laweyan cannot build a harmonised social order indeed, but tosome extent the bonding of social inclusiveness resulted can prevent the entire society fromundesired intrusions that may break up the predetermined social protection.

Kampung Kaum an: The Central ised Leadership of Batik Community Empowerment

Compared to the background of Kampung Laweyan, the origins of batik industry in KampungKauman occurred more orderly. It was associated with the establishment of Keraton Solo (SoloPalace) by the King Sunan Pakubuwono II in 1745, following the movement of prior palace from


17/28


Kartasura ruined by Chinese ethnic group rebellion of Geger Pecinan in 1742. His successorKing Sunan Pakubuwono III built the first Great Mosque (Masjid Agung) in Surakarta territory in1757 formerly the territory of Keraton Solo jurisdiction including the next-to-be KampungKauman was a vacant swamp land and assignedpenghulu abdi dalem ulama, the Emperorsroyal servants who were responsible for the Mosque management organisation and Islamic

teachings, namely Kanjeng Raden Pangeran Tafsir Anom. This religious royal servant lived in akampung neighbourhood on the north of the Mosque. The position of this religious royal servantwas similar to the Minister of Religious Affairs nowadays. To support his duty, some other royalservants called khotib, merbot, and modin were appointed officially and lived in the sameneighbourhood. In addition, these religious leaders were also teaching Islamic lessons tostudents called santri, who were also living in the boarding school of pesantren in thisneighbourhood. Soon this neighbourhood complex of abdi dalem kaum transformed intokampung santricalled Kampung Kauman (Atmojo, 2009; Musyawaroh, expert interview, March14, 2012).

Started from religious neighbourhood consisting of the families of the royal servants of KeratonSolo, Kampung Kauman turned into batik industry centre later. It took about 50 years oftransformation from religious to rather hedonistic home-based batik industry neighbourhood.

Around the early 1800s batik trading in Surakarta was getting intensified and the surroundingarea of Kampung Kauman covering Jl. DR. Radjiman, Singosaren, and Nonongan was used tobe the famous batik trading centre in Surakarta. A lot of batik shops were built to accompany thefirst traditional textile and batik marketplace Pasar Klewer, which was built in 1785 by the rulingauthority ofKeraton Solo, King Sunan Pakubuwono III. Initially, Pasar Klewer was an outdoormarket located on Lapangan Slompretan (Slompretan Square) to accommodate textile andclothing traders from the previous fire-burn market close to Pasar Legi. After being renovated in1970 it turned into an indoor market with typical ways of product display by hanging batik

clothing around the shops. The market located across Kampung Kauman site until the presentdays. Because of growing batik market in Surakarta a.k.a. Solo, nyai abdi dalem (the wives ofroyal servants) were attracted to take such economic opportunity for improving householdwelfare. However, these wives could not start up batik business directly without their husbandapproval. This was related to distinguished position of the Emperors royal servants who wereexclusively appointed to serve the royal family only. As a consequence, these royal servantsand their family abided by Keraton Solos codes of conduct, by which their lifetime behavioursand activities were ought to comply with Emperor Rules. Therefore, the role of Mbok MaseKauman was subordinated by their husband who was the Emperors royal servants (Atmojo,2009; Musyawaroh, expert interview, March 14, 2012; Soedarmono, expert interview, February8 and March 6, 2012).

Batik trading thus was the key driver of the establishment of batik industry in Kampung Kaumaninstead of batik production. As for Mbok Mase Kauman, batik trading was a side-job familybusiness in order to improve their living standard. The main reason was that their husband low-rated salary obtained from the Keraton Solo was no longer sufficient to cover the increase ofdomestic spending. Mbok Mase then asked their husband for getting official trading license fromthe Emperor. In addition to such Javanese-Islamic orthodoxy of hierarchical social structure, the


18/28


active engagement ofMbok Mase on batik industry in Kampung Kauman was also shaped frommultiple external influences. In this sense, the batik knowledge and tradition mastered by MbokMase Kauman did not genuinely come from within, rather it was influenced by at least twosources, i.e. the Keraton Solo family and the extended family and business networks with MbokMase Laweyan. According to Musyawaroh (expert interview, March 14, 2012), the royal family

taught female royal servants and nyai abdi dalem of Kampung Kauman batik techniques inorder to fulfil internal Keratons demand of batik clothing. During the training they learnedhandwritten batik making and certain classical batik motifs prohibited to ordinary people, fromwhich these typical batik motifs identified as court batik. In contrast to merchant batik, the courtbatik making must comply with the Emperor Rules ofpakem (strict order) which specifies thepattern, name, meaning and use of certain batik fabrics and clothing. After training completion afewer traditional batik producers in Kampung Kauman were appointed by the royal family tosupply court batik products exclusively. Another source of knowledge transfer in batik makingwas the extension of family and business networks between Kampung Laweyan and KampungKauman residents. The most favoured way of network expansion was through marriage.

According to Soedarmono (expert interview, February 8 and March 6, 2012), the mutualadvantages of marriage between these two different groups of society are realised in the formsof increasing social status and economic welfare at once. As for the (large) batik masters ofKampung Laweyan, such marriage would like to strengthen their higher social status obtainedfrom symbolic aristocracy attached to Kampung Kauman residents due to their closeness toKeraton Solo family circle. By doing so, they could get inspired intimately to the prohibited courtbatik motifs useful to enriching merchant batik products. On the other hand, the (large) batikmasters of Kampung Kauman were likely to obtain greater economic welfare since KampungLaweyan society was profoundly wealthier than the Emperor. As for comparison, in 1920s theEmperor owned an Italian Fiat fancy car whereas the most large batik masters in KampungLaweyan had some. Such marriage relationships have demonstrated that both Kampung

Laweyan and Kampung Kauman societies shared similar Javanese stereotyped culture ofhigher social status achievements, marking an orderly hierarchical social system.

However, the practice of Javanese patriarchal system was more obvious and rigid in KampungKauman. Combined with strong Islamic beliefs, the social system has classified and clusteredbatik community and entire society in Kampung Kauman into certain functions, employments,and spatial arrangements. In batik industry context, there were groups of functional batikmasters, suppliers, traders and makers who were living clustered in certain areas. For example,the large batik masters were living around Jl. Wijaya Kusuma axis connecting Jl. DR. Radjimanon the west to Jl. Slamet Riyadi on the east. The similar order occurred in religious organisationwhere the functional abdi dalem ulama living in certain areas as well. For example, KampungModinan was the residence of modin and Kampung Trayeman was the residence of khotibTrayem (Musyawaroh, 2001). The role ofMbok Mase in Kampung Kauman was subject to thesocial system even though their daily routines were similar to their counterparts in KampungLaweyan. The main difference was that Mbok Mase in Kampung Kauman did not fully authorisebatik business development because they had to consult and get approval from their husbandbefore. The men engagement in batik industry particularly in production controlling was not quiteintensive, and they preferred more to enjoy their primary job as the Emperors royal servants or


19/28


the other types of employment workers. The superior role of men in domestic and social life infact was useful to maintaining living harmony in the neighbourhood, particularly in balancingbetween hedonistic and religious activities. Referred to both Javanese and Islamic tradition, theposition of men must be the leader and guardian of the women. Such circumstance affected thegrowth of batik industry in Kampung Kauman that was somewhat left behind Kampung

Laweyan. Due to such orderly social system, both batik community and entire society ofKampung Kauman could build and maintain a strong social cohesion of neighbourhood lifeinstead. Actually a rigid arrangement in many aspects of life has been beneficial to creatingsocial inclusiveness, leading to dynamic social and economic cooperation within the society.

Nowadays, batik industry in Kampung Kauman remains characterised a batik trading centre. Afewer batik producers keep producing court batik products in traditional ways (handwritten andstamping batik making) but there are much more batik traders who are supplying merchant batikproducts using printing technology. The rest batik producers have introduced combined batikmaking of both traditional and machinery printing technology. Many of them are also marketingimported printing batik products from different regions such as Pekalongan in particular ratherthan depending on their own products. Both male and female batik producers/traders enjoybatik industry growth equally. The evolutionary engagement of male batik producers/traders toaccompany their female counterparts may take place easily due to preserved leading role ofmen in the society. In addition, cross-selling practices are very common in Kampung Kauman,creating a homogenous market segmentation of cheaper batik products. On one hand, jointmarketing is flourished well and beneficial to customers and buyers in selecting diversified batiksupplies at affordable prices. Batik producers/traders are able to put forward their products ontheir business allies shops/galleries and vice versa. They could also act as voluntary marketingagents of their allies if the customers and buyers are looking for different batik productsunavailable on their shops/galleries. At least there are two ways of cross-selling and marketing

practices in Kampung Kauman: 1) product consignment agreement through regular delivery orimmediate on-site direct selling, and 2) directing the customers and buyers to favoured batikshops/galleries. On the other hand, batik marketing and trading cooperation may causenegative impacts to batik community and the rest of society in Kampung Kauman. As the similarbatik products found on many spots in the neighbourhood discounted prices competition isunavoidable to present. Such unhealthy competition is advantageous for the customers andbuyers but disadvantageous for local batik producers/traders due to continuous downgradedbatik products prices. Subsequently, this situation may force down the prices of high qualitybatik products. The traditional batik producers who rely on handwritten and stamping batikmaking become less competitive against lower segmented batik suppliers. At last this situationhas endangered the existence of local batik identity which is used to be identical to classicalcourt batik products.

Nevertheless, social cohesion is maintained well in Kampung Kauman in spite of social disputesthat may arise because of such unhealthy competition. Again, the prevailing social system iscontributing to resolve social disputes effectively. Even though there are no written rules anddecisive reward-and-punishment mechanisms, collective actions for promoting batik industry inKampung Kauman are rather accumulated easily. Voluntary pioneering and exemplary of


20/28


prominent local leaders is the key factor for building more conducive business competition andsocial inclusion. As exemplified in the building of community-based organisation in KampungKauman called Paguyuban Kampung Wisata Batik Kauman (PKWBK) or Batik TourismKampung Community of Kauman in 2006, the organisation defines itself as a social voluntaryorganisation rather than (professional) business organisation. PKWBK aims at promoting

Kampung Kauman as a prospective batik tourism destination. It facilitates local tourism andbatik industry development needs by accommodating the interests of both batik community andentire society of Kampung Kauman and government policies/programs (and external agenciestoo) (Setiawan, expert interview, April 9, 2012). Sometimes PKWBK plays an intermediating roleto reconcile social disputes within batik community. Even though the area of responsibilitycovers entire Kampung Kauman boundaries, its memberships are based on voluntarysubmission. As a result, a bonding social contract is elusive, creating inconsistent support fromeither members or non-members (Figure 6).

Regarding such institutional framework, the working of PKWBK is heavily depending on thecapacity of prominent leaders in directing organisation activities. Without a strong leadershipPKWBK is unlikely to respond the changing environment in batik industry appropriately, andcollective engagement of batik community is difficult to exist. Voluntary initiatives from the Headof PKWBK to approach batik community and the rest of society in Kampung Kauman andvarious external agencies either in person or accompanied by fellow PKWBK board membershave shown his leading role in the organisation. His pioneering and philanthropic actions for theadvancement of organisation and batik community development provide a good example ofembracing and bridging communication with all interest groups. Supported by his powerfulbackground as the successor of a large batik master family in Kampung Kauman and Surakarta,he enjoys the heightened status and power at the upper class of society, from which powerful


A group ofelders

PKWBK


(Municipal)government agencies

Market institution(e.g. traders, brokers,customers, buyers)


Kampungsociety

Kampung KaumanNeighbourhood

System

Figure 6. Local Institutions in Kampung Kauman Batik Industry


21/28


influences may be applied to organise local batik industry development. Nevertheless, suchconcentrated power on the hands of single or fewer leaders may jeopardise the building ofindependent organisation and sustainable batik industry development. At the beginning, theconcentrated power on a fewer prominent social groups is useful to effectuate the direction ofbatik industry growth and to encourage bonding solidarity within batik community. Social

disputes may also be resolved quickly even though with less or absent intervention from thegroup of elders. As exemplified in Kampung Kauman, the role of elderly group is somewhat lessimportant in influencing local batik industry growth as the group members prefer to pay muchattention on social and religious activities. However, this group can support PKWBK indirectly bygiving certain advices or where if they are invited to find proper solutions regarding batikindustry and tourism development in Kampung Kauman. As a result, the Head of PKWBKcurrently holds a great power and responsibility to direct the organisation and batik communitydevelopment. Regardless of the virtues of hierarchical social system, the highly dependency ofbatik community in Kampung Kauman on a central figure of prominent leaders may foster theirreluctance to empower themselves and to participate more actively in various forms of batikindustry development.

Lasem Ar ea: The Unsolved Comp eting Values of Family B usiness Cliques

Batik industry in Lasem Area is one of the oldest batik production centres in Java and certainlyolder than those in Kampung Laweyan and Kampung Kauman. Its establishment is associatedwith Majapahit Monarchy era (1293 1478) similar to Kampung Laweyan, but Lasem becamethe vassal of the Monarch earlier following the commissioning of Bhre Lasem a.k.a Putri InduDewi Purnamawulan by the ruling Emperor and also her older cousin King Hayam Wuruk (1351

1389) to become Adipati Lasem in 1351. Bhre Lasem was the older sister of Bhre Pajang, the

ancestor of Pajang Monarchy, thereby Kadipaten Lasem and Kadipaten Pajang was connectedeach other. During this old time batik industry in Lasem was believed a folk handmade industryto serve for the royal family clothing in particular. It was recognised from the archaeologicaldiscovery that found the use of court batik motifs in the sculptures of ancient temples. The olderhandwritten batik technique other than using a canting tool (a waxing pen stylus) was used toproduce batik clothing. The batik products were to fulfil domestic clothing demand rather thanbeing tradable commodities. The earliest form of Lasem batik products were court batik anddominated by soga brown colour before enriched by the foreign influences of Chinese andIslamic tradition (Widi, 2009; Ishwara et al., 2011; Winarno, expert interview, April 27, 2012).

It achieved its finest form of batik motifs and dyeing technique since the adaptation of nativebatik makers to Chinese textile production skills. The (first) evolutionary Lasem batik makingstarted shortly after the movement of a naval crew of the famous Chinese admiral Cheng Honamely Bi Nang Un to reside in Lasem. During the stopover of Admiral Cheng Ho expedition toLasem in 1413, Bi Nang Un asked permission to the Admiral to stay in Lasem with his wife NaLi Ni instead of returning to China. Later, their friendly interactions with local residents promotedthe improvement of native batik making skills by introducing Chinese textile designs and motifsas well as colouring methods. The typical Chinese tradition motifs such as floral bouquet,


22/28


phoenix, dragon, and kilin were applied to traditional court batik motifs. The red colouringtechnique was also adopted, creating a well-known getih pithik(chicken blood) colour of Lasembatik products. Later, the red colour of Lasem batik making contributed to the creation of famousbatik tiga negeri (three-state batik products) to accompany soga brown colouring technique ofSolo and blue colouring technique of Pekalongan batik industries. Another essential contribution

of Chinese tradition was transformed into the multiple colouring processes which created adurable batik colour, where the frequent use of Lasem batik products would brighten the originalcolour (wantek). The combination of local and foreign traditions thus encouraged the excellenceof Lasem batik industry a Chinese-styled handwritten batik production centre (Lombard, 2008b;Winarno, expert interview, April 27, 2012; Witjaksana, 2012).

Lasem batik industrialisation started to grow intensively since the era of Dutch Indie colonisationon Java land in 1860s. During the colonisation era the northern coast of Java were the mostdeveloped region occupied for multiple functions of governments, trade and industry centres,military forces, and transportation hubs, including Lasem as the port and military city. Themainland was somewhat less developed and used for plantation fields and the extended areasof colonisation influences. Due to the Dutch Indie Government regulations, the Chinese ethnicgroup along with the non-European foreigners were privileged to the second class of societyhigher than the native citizens, making them to have important positions on government, trade,and industry. The Chinese group was appointed for several special duties on tax collection andmilitary forces, which used by the ruling government to oppress the natives (Lombard, 2008a,2008b, 2008c; Winarno, expert interview, April 27, 2012). Immediately, the large Chineseinvestors entered to and took over traditional batik industry from the hands of native batikmakers. They introduced advanced colouring technology by using chemicals like naphtol toimprove batik quality, replacing the old traditional technology which based on natural colouringmaterials. They also adopted Dutch textile motifs to traditional batik making along with a few

Dutch batik makers to produce newly batik genre called batik Belanda (Dutch batik motifs). Thisnew batik style displayed floral bouquet, bird, butterfly, life events, and fairy tales story. Sincethen batik industry in Lasem shifted into mass production industry and batik commodities weretraded outwards (Doellah, 2002; Veldhuisen, 2007; Ishwara et al., 2011; Winarno, expertinterview, April 27, 2012). Another external influence that shaped the finest colour quality ofLasem batik, but not known extensively, came from Islamic tradition. It was believed that thegreen colouring technique was influenced by Islamic tradition, the similar technology that couldbe found in other Islamic-affected batik production centres such as Pekalongan (Winarno,expert interview, April 27, 2012).

Since the beginning batik industry in Lasem was a core family business for Indo-Chinese batikmasters and heavily relied on closed family networks. They built in-house batik productionworkshop at the back of main house. Similar to traditional batik making process elsewhere,traditional native batik makers came to the workshop regularly on the weekdays. It was alsopossible that the batik makers did batik works at their homes in the villages and returned to theirbatik master for final processing. The batik making relied on handwritten batik techniqueentirely, through which Lasem batik products were identical to batik tulis halus (the finesthandwritten batik products). The loyal bonding between the batik masters and makers was


23/28


maintained well through family inclusion approach, not by written contracts, where the batikmakers being treated as the extended family of their master. Such friendly relationships wereassociated with the flourished assimilation of the Chinese ethnic group with local residents inLasem since the past times. As for the batik makers, batik making was considered a side-jobwhile waiting for harvesting period of agriculture land cultivation. As they were living in the

villages, their main employment was farm worker, cash crop plantation collector, and any otherforms of agriculture-based employment. Initially, batik making was only a spare-time leisureactivity for the female villagers before they turned into professional batik makers following therise of batik industrialisation in Lasem. The closed family networks were also applied for furtherbatik industry development. The batik masters developed individual family business linkagesinstead of inter-firm collective business development, creating a highly competition of batikindustry among fellow Indo-Chinese batik masters.

A gendered division of labour in batik making was present in Lasem. Compared to the case ofSurakarta batik industry, both male and female batik masters in Lasem could take a leading rolefrom batik production to marketing and trading equally. There were no socio-cultural restrictionsthat inhibit certain party to participate in batik industry. As a core family business, the inter-generational transfers of batik skills and knowledge were sustained from senior batik masters toselected family successors regardless of their sex types. The internally confidential trainingprograms were conducted by the senior batik masters mostly during the childhood regardingtraditional batik making and dyeing techniques in particular. Interestingly, the dyeing formulawas not shown entirely to the upcoming successors, causing unsustainable batik colour quality.On this stage, it was the challenge for the upcoming successors to find out proper dyeingtechnique innovations in order to preserve family batik tradition. As for batik makers, there wereclear labour division between male and female workers. The handwritten batik making was onthe hands of female batik makers while the stamping batik making, wax removal and dyeing

processes were for male workers.

Recently, the continuation of traditional handwritten batik industry in Lasem has been at thecrossroads. At least there are four driving forces that caused such inconvenience situation.Firstly, the preservation of traditional handwritten batik making has been threatened by thegrowing batik market supply with incredible variants of batik products at more affordable prices,including low-priced imported and printing batik products. This leads to the downgraded qualityof traditional batik products for reducing the selling prices. Previously, Lasem batik products arebroadly known the finest expensive batik products due to the lengthy process of traditionalhandwritten batik making and multiple colouring enrichments. Many batik producers includingsome old batik firms are now shifting down the targeted markets to the middle-lower marketsegments to complement their exclusive batik products. Secondly, the prolonged inter-firmconflicts between fellow Indo-Chinese batik masters remains unsolved satisfactorily. The highlytensions and competition resulted from their strong individualistic behaviours have createddifficulties to social conflicts reconciliation as well as inter-firm business cooperation. Thirdly, therise of newly native batik entrepreneurs specialised in the middle-lower market segments hasintroduced new batik designs and techniques. The group of newcomers is used to be the batikmakers of the existing batik masters. As they started up their own batik business, they have


24/28


brought some external influences that may potentially erode the local identity of Lasem batikproducts, i.e. the application free-styled batik motifs and teknik coletan (paintbrush colouringtechnique). Fourthly, the decreased number of loyal batik makers to their masters has disruptedtraditional batik making sustainability. The emerging opportunistic behaviours of current batikmakers along with the practice of quality batik makers hijacking from certain batik masters have

broken up the prior family bonding between batik masters and makers. Getting more incomesand incentives are the main reason of such changing behaviour and mentality.

Dealing with such circumstance, the response of batik community in Lasem is split into severalfactions. Currently, there are two batik organisations, i.e. a community-based organisationcalled Forum Rembug Klaster (FRK) or Cluster Consultative Forum and Koperasi Batik TulisLasem (KBTL) or Lasem Handwritten Batik Cooperative. FRK is sponsored by BadanPerencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Kabupaten Rembang (Local Planning Authority ofRembang Regency) through its arm-length quasi-government organisation called Forum ofEconomic Development and Employment Promotion (FEDEP). The early establishment ofFEDEP and FRK was sponsored by GTZ Germany in the mid-2000s as the provincial top-downinitiative from the Central Java Province Regional Planning Authority. KBTL is sponsored byDinas Perindustrian, Perdagangan dan Koperasi Kabupaten Rembang (Local Office forIndustry, Trade, and Cooperatives of Rembang Regency) as part of the Offices main tasks andresponsibilites (Drupodo, expert interview, May 7, 2012; Rifai, expert interview, May 8, 2012) .Even though both organisations are designed to serve batik community needs in Lasem, theyrepresent top-down government-led organisations instead of purely community-basedorganisations. The individual batik firms are split to become the members of these organisationsor remain non-affiliated (Figure 6).

Until the first decade of 2000s such batik community grouping has not appeared obviously. A

few (large) Indo-Chinese batik masters could have enjoyed the highly competition environment,particularly when the local batik community was led by a prominent charismatic batik master.She could maintain the balance between socio-cultural preservation of traditional batik makingand economic opportunity pursuit towards entire batik community. She also encouraged theupgrading skills of fellow batik entrepreneurs and the rise of new batik generation from thenatives. Her consistent principles and assertive actions applied when authorising FRK andKBTL together have contributed to better promotion of Lasem batik industry nationwide andabroad. Just a few years before her death, this socio-economic harmony started to break up. Asthe leading positions of FRK and KBTL separated to two different leaders to some extent thissituation was rather backed up by two different local government agencies, i.e. BAPPEDA andDISPERINDAGKOP the socio-economic disharmony within local batik community has arisen.Dualistic authority in batik community organisation sparked the worsening social disputesbetween different batik family business factions. Some are consistent to protect the authenticityof traditional handwritten batik making in Lasem. The opponents are demanding for immediatebatik industry direction change by introducing new technology, contemporary batik designs andmotifs, and emphasising more on economic welfare pursuits. The rest are keeping the distanceor being sceptical towards such uncertain conditions. As a result, the current batik industrydevelopment in Lasem seems to have no clear direction and better integrating management.


25/28


The ineffective role of both FRK and KBTL to create socio-economic integration of batik industryin Lasem is associated with their establishment as the government top-down projects. Actuallysuch approach is inappropriate to the building of inter-firm cooperation and more conducivebusiness climate. Unfortunately, the government agencies are being trapped into opportunisticbehaviour which is stressing more on the successful implementation of government programs.This means that the government agencies seem to look after their own institutional performanceby supporting particular parties in batik community rather than to encourage better batik industrydevelopment. In other words, there is some internal competition within the local governmentstructure which is to some extent transmitted to the worsening competition between batik firms.Moreover, the historical background of batik community in Lasem has shaped their strongindividual entrepreneurship mentality and independence towards external assistance, thesituation which is similar to batik community in Kampung Laweyan. They are accustomed tokeep the distance with government intervention to promote batik industry. The general society ofLasem is characterised by a centre of business and agriculture industry with a strong working


Market institution(e.g. traders, brokers,customers, buyers)

Figure 6. Local Institutions in Lasem Area Batik Industry

Koperasi Batik

Tulis Lasem

(Lasem HandwrittenBatik Cooperative)

(District)government

agencies

DISPERIN-

DAGKOP

BAPPEDA

Otheragencies

Quasi-governmentorganisation

FEDEP




Lasem AreaSubregional System



FRK


26/28


class, compared to the most Rembang society which is shaped by public servants and serviceindustry. Since the past Lasem area previously called as Kadipaten Lasem has been thecentre of trade and industry as well as the prominent port city in the north coast of Java.However, after the Dutch Indie Government built a new centre of government services inRembang area located 12 km heading to the west from Lasem area, it has raised social

segregation and spatial disintegration between these two areas until present days (Lombard,2008a, 2008b). Therefore, the careless government intervention has led to the heightenedsocial disputes within batik community in Lasem, mainly since the government programs aredesigned without proper engagement from below.

V. CONCLUSION

The three cases of batik industry development above show that local socio-cultural settingdetermines respective batik community responses in dealing with certain issues. The choices ofbuilding a rigid or flexible institutional milieu are depending on the predetermined social systemprevailing on the local context. Even though there are substantial changes in the local socialsystem evolving for centuries, some core social values remains preserved. Such preservedvalues transferred over generations and have been recurring in modified forms to direct theemerging responses. Some key social values are related to the structure of power relations insociety, gendered division of labour and the adaptive behaviours of participating actors. TheJavanese culture which provides the foundations of batik industry development in those caseshas created a rather consistent hierarchical social structure, putting the high level prominentleaders on the critical positions to reconcile the conflicts of interests. Interestingly, it cannotassure thorough practicalities of similar social values where some modifications have beenapplied in different local contexts. For example, the original Javanese tradition points out the

male domination over the female in both private and public life. However, the cases of KampungLaweyan and Lasem Area demonstrate modified responses of local batik community. Incontrast, the case of Kampung Kauman shows the strengthening of Javanese culture due to theinfluences of Islamic beliefs which suggest the leading role of men over the women.

Regarding a gendered division of labour, there are constant values preserved by batik makers.Handwritten batik works belong to the women while stamping and printing batik works belong tothe men. The male workers are also mostly responsible for wax removal and dyeing processes.Such orderly division of labour is not applicable for batik masters where each local batikcommunity may respond differently. The adaptability of local batik community in dealing withchanging environment has indicated the basic character of local society. A strong individualisticbehaviour has been shown in Kampung Laweyan and Lasem Area. The driving force inKampung Laweyan is the struggling spirit of the natives against the practices of colonisationeither from the foreigners or the governments. In Lasem Area it comes from the Chinesetradition which suggests for individual high achievements of life. However, the case of KampungLaweyan shows that such individualisms encourage flexible responses towards incoming newbatik motifs and technology while the batik community in Lasem Area responds conversely. Inthe meantime, the batik community in Kampung Kauman to some extent remains maintaining


27/28


the closeness to the government. Due to the more rigid social system, the attempts towardsbatik community independence must be negotiated with the entire society (and the rulinggovernment as well). This aims to assure the proper conducts of batik community in compliancewith the predetermined social system. As a consequence, the structural dependence of smallersocial units towards the larger ones is maintained carefully in Kampung Kauman.

Even though the local background and the driving forces are different, the three cases arefacing similar high-level competition between batik firms. The local batik communities are beingtrapped on opportunistic behaviour for short-term profit maximisation. The differences are thateach local batik community in Kampung Laweyan and Kampung Kauman can manage somecollective actions to promote entire batik industry development whereas the batik community inLasem Area is reluctant to do the same. Reflecting to these cases, the strong communal andprimordial ties in Surakarta is beneficial to facilitate collective actions. In other words, familynetworks of individual batik firms are intertwined with social networks of local batik community.Unfortunately, the case of Lasem Area demonstrates that these two networks are not blendedcompletely. Therefore, socio-cultural setting does matter in directing the response of local batikcommunity towards changing environment.

REFERENCES

Atmojo, H. (2009). Traditional batik of Kauman, Solo: An exotic, timeless cultural heritage.Surakarta: Penerbit Tiga Serangkai.

Budiartie, G. (2013, April 27). Pasar Tanah Abang dibanjiri batik asal Cina. Tempo. Retrievedfrom http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/04/27/090476312/Pasar-Tanah-Abang-Dibanjiri-

Batik-Asal-Cina

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fiveapproaches. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Doellah, S. (2002). Batik: Pengaruh zaman dan lingkungan. Surakarta: Danar Hadi.

Ishwara, H., Yahya, L.R.S., and Moeis, X. (2011). Batik pesisir pusaka Indonesia: KoleksiHartono Sumarsono. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia.

Lombard, D. (2008a). Nusa Jawa: Silang Budaya kajian sejarah terpadu, Buku I: Batas-bataspembaratan. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama in collaboration with Forum Jakarta Parisand cole franaise dExtrme-Orient.

Lombard, D. (2008b). Nusa Jawa: Silang Budaya kajian sejarah terpadu, Buku II: Jaringan Asia.Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama in collaboration with Forum Jakarta Paris and colefranaise dExtrme-Orient.
http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/04/27/090476312/Pasar-Tanah-Abang-Dibanjiri-Batik-Asal-Cinahttp://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/04/27/090476312/Pasar-Tanah-Abang-Dibanjiri-Batik-Asal-Cinahttp://www.tempo.co/re

a socio-cultural dimension of local batik industry development in indoneisa

Documents