The Revival of the Past: Privatizing Cultural Practices in the Festival Era

The Suharto Era and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis

In the last few years of the twentieth century, Indonesia began experiencing a new form of globalization which came under the name of economic modernization and development programmes (Klinken and Berenschot 15). National “development” became an instrument to legitimize the government’s agenda of nationalism, population control, and cultural assimilation. Government’s emphasis on promoting a single national identity and culture came at the expense of erasing local and indigenous cultures (Jones).

National identity in Indonesia also meant state domination. If a culture can be understood as the ideological representation of how political economy works in a society, then the national culture in Indonesia became the embodiment of the national economic ideology itself (Alavi 289; Jessop 579; Miliband; Poulantzas, “The Problem of the Capitalist State”; Poulantzas, “Research Note on the State and Society”). As an ideological tool, the national culture played two roles: as a repressive instrument and as a hegemonic agenda. Hence, the state-sponsored national culture became dominant above all variations of local culture.

At the end of the 1990s, Indonesian indigenous communities faced new challenges arising from a major financial crisis which affected the Southeast Asian region. Researchers pointed to the dependency on export-led growth as the political economic aspect contributing to the destabilization of Asian economies (Adams, “Ethnic Tourism and the Renegotiation of Tradition in Tana Toraja”; Adams, “Touting Touristic Primadonas” 156; Bräuchler and Erb; Erb and Adams; Erb et al. 154; Erb, “Kebangkitan Adat di Flores Barat” 298; Jurriëns; Li, “Articulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia” 151; Li, “Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession”; Prasetyo, “Absorpsi Kultural”; Prasetyo, “Image Hegemonik”; Prasetyo and Rosa). This crisis did not only affect Indonesia’s economy but also its political system. Thus, the Indonesian state had to rearrange its relationship with local and indigenous communities.

The Asian financial crisis marked a major turning point about the national government devolving power to local communities. As a result, some new questions were addressed in the development and political agenda:

1. Has the economic recession weakened state capacity?

2. If so, is citizen involvement in democracy and public life gaining importance?

3. Is there any political space that allows citizens to expose their grievances and openly deliberate with the state?

The aftermath of the financial crisis and President Suharto’s resignation mark the beginning of the post-reformation period in which there are new political possibilities for the articulation of indigenous rights and culture. For indigenous communities, this new era differs substantially from the post-independence (reformation) period when the state imposed a single national culture and history to local communities and from the colonial period when indigenous groups were seen as a category.

Post-Suharto Era: Development Programmes and Indigenous Identity

In the post-Suharto era, indigenous communities had the opportunity to redefine and reclaim their collective identities, culture, and history. There was also a new contextualization of the cultural sacredness connected to traditional rites. These changes happened for two reasons: (1) modernization and development, and (2) Islamic values that clashed with local cultural values. The process of defining an indigenous group’s identity is complex as the group has to articulate their identity both against the state and against other indigenous groups. The identification process is part of the politics of difference through which a group seeks to retrieve their cultural memory as well as to achieve recognition from the general population (Li, “Beyond ‘the State’ and Failed Schemes”; Li, The Will to Improve).

Furthermore, during this period of indigenous identity-forming, communities faced new challenges such as the rise in global connections and the influence from different “ideologies” such as popular culture and neoconservatism. Indeed, Suhalik explained,

The people of Banyuwangi, particularly Kemiren, have a long history that cannot be separated from the case of 1965, the September 30th Movement, and Coup d’Etat in Indonesia. Those who are now community leaders are descendants of the Indonesian National Party, which is close to the nationalist group. Meanwhile, artists are close to the Lekra (folk culture institute) which is often associated with communists. But they protect and care for each other. (personal communication, August 12, 2018)

The togetherness and spirit of Banyuwangi people faced numerous cultural articulations, either in regions or at the national project level and also by global market. In this contestation, the indigenous community struggled to maintain its legacy and cultural authenticities.

Reinventing Power to Legitimate the Indigenous Culture

In 2018, the Indigenous Community Plan Act was discussed in the Indonesian House of Representatives to reformulate the constitutional legality position of indigenous peoples and its implications for regional development. The Bill on Indigenous Peoples is one of the results of the enactment of the Village Law No. 6 of 2014 that created a foundation for indigenous peoples to have equal rights against the law. Consequently, these policies legitimized the recognition of indigenous peoples.

Through the Village Law No. 6 of 2014, the state provides an opportunity for traditional villages to build their territory according to their respective provisions. This law describes the status and authority of traditional villages as well as its governance and regulations. Accordingly, traditional villages have the right to apply their laws and manage their finances as long as these plans do not conflict the state’s regulations. On the other hand, the Draft Bill on Indigenous Peoples has a vision for future indigenous communities to access government programmes and policies. This vision can help to (economically) develop indigenous villages which are currently stagnated.

The implementation of the Village Law No. 6 of 2014 has brought about changes in the governance structure of villages. Village autonomy is a development concept rooted in the idea of advancing the potential of villages’ resources to strengthen local economies. However, in villages where indigenous people co-exist with non-indigenous people, authorities often struggle to manage mutual welfare. In these cases, discrepancies arise between the indigenous and village institutions over the vision of village development. While the Bill on Indigenous Peoples was expected to address this problem, this was not the case as the later has not been much considered.

Since 1998, the Osing Banyuwangi indigenous people have been part of the Nusantara Indigenous Peoples Alliance (AMAN). In December 2011, the AMAN alliance organized the Congress: “Increasing the Role and Autonomy of Indigenous Peoples in Forming a National Character and Strengthening the Republic of Indonesia.” This Congress brought about improvements for the condition of the Osing indigenous community, emphasizing their active participation in sub-development. Thus, the Osing indigenous people realized that to achieve recognition of their rights it was essential to show how their spirit and dedication are being an integral part of the development of the Banyuwangi region. This vision was not only seen as a bargaining position of a participatory subject but rather as an affirmation of the socio-political space to be achieved.

The pursuit of autonomy and of influencing the nation’s character becomes two objectives aligned with the recognition goals. Yet, in practice, the Osing indigenous people are also faced with cultural value changes and with the need to integrate into the global system. Local village’s governments are the closest form of authority to indigenous peoples. Hence, local governments have an essential social function in creating common spaces. Their goal is both to enable indigenous peoples to develop economically (welfare) and to encourage villages and indigenous peoples to expand their networks globally and towards sustainable communities.

In the aftermath of Banyuwangi’s First Indigenous Congress, local governments promoted the community participation of indigenous peoples by involving them in the development of the tourism sector. In this sense, Kemiren village – the village with the largest population of Osing in Banyuwangi – was seen as having great tourism potential. While people of Osing ethnicity also inhabit in other villages and there are other ethnic groups in Banyuwangi (Java, Madurese, Arabic, Tionghoa), Kemiren became the centre of Osing’s customs and development of the Osing community. Soon, Kemiren became a model of improving the welfare of indigenous peoples.

After the Village Law No. 6 of 2014 was passed, the Banyuwangi regional government aggressively pushed for structural changes in villages to exploit the tourism potential of the region. In particular, the Minister of Tourism Arief Yahya – who served in the cabinet of Joko Widodo – contributed significantly to the development of tourism projects. Thus, local governments saw an excellent opportunity to welcome the commitment of indigenous peoples to achieve their autonomy. This is the case of the touristic Kemiren village which is now seen as the centre of the Osing culture and as a promising partnership between local authorities and the indigenous community.

As a result of these development measures, Kemiren has become an indigenous-based region and a prototype for tourism development studies. Elite village indigenous institutions, entrepreneurs, and village governments claim to be behind the successful implementation of the 2013 Osing traditional village acceleration programme – which emerged as a reaction of the 2011 First Indigenous Community Congress. Yet, as Indiarti’s study (154) shows, this programme resulted in the Osing Kemiren community beginning to understand their culture as a tourism commodity since it was packaged in such a way to attract tourists.

The Kemirem development project demonstrates that the vision for indigenous people to claim self-determination, develop their territory, and participate in public life can have negative outcomes for indigenous communities. However, because this project is presented as an effort to encourage indigenous autonomy, less attention is paid to the emergent forms of elite domination. In 2013, the Kemiren indigenous culture was celebrated as a spectacle for the first time. The emergence of the Festival Ngopi Sewu Cangkir (A Thousand Coffee Cups Festival) was initiated by an elite which later turned it into the Festival Ngopi Sepuluh Ewu Cangkir (Ten Thousand Coffee Cups Festival). In the following years, this event managed to survive and develop (Prasetyo, “Absorpsi Kultural”).

The first year that the Festival Ngopi Sewu Cangkir was celebrated, it was carried out without long preparations and it was completely new to the Kemiren people. Indeed, some indigenous people who enlivened the event said that they did not know the origin of the festival. The next narrative develops around local government elites who constructed this festival by using their networks as well as coffee products which they gave to the citizens in small cups. Besides coffee, the community of the village did some performances with their typical hospitality, best treats, and clothes. Yet, after this tiring day, the indigenous community was still not aware that the Festival Ngopi Sewu Cangkir was linked to regional tourism agenda and the village image branding. This festival would have profound consequences in their economic relations.

In 2014, seeing the “success” of the Festival Ngopi Sewu Cangkir at Kemiren, the elite took again the initiative to make this festival a permanent event in the tourism agenda. This process was aided with the implementation of the new formation of Village Law No. 6 of 2014. The assumption that the first festival was a success and that it would increase tourism in the traditional Osing centre area was used to legitimize the expansion of “custom-based” culinary touristic events.

The second year of the coffee festival – this time renamed as Festival Ngopi Sepuluh Ewu Cangkir – was better planned, it included more events, and it relied on extensive elite involvement. Large-scale promotional work managed to attract more visitors. At the same time, new partnerships were created with the telecommunications and instant coffee industry. However, some indigenous people were still hesitant about the purpose of the festival and how it contributed to the development of the Osing community.

The elite reaffirmed its dominance through constructing narratives about the generosity of the Kemiren indigenous people. Some of these narratives were further legitimized through the alliance of indigenous elites, businessmen, local governments, and scientific studies. When discussing bottom-up approaches to development, indigenous claims of autonomy need to be examined as a narrative of the domination rift between cultural elites and local governments. Through tourism, the community’s economy was expected to thrive which would result in a proportional increase in public welfare.

The next question is how to position the indigenous community so (1) their goals are compatible with the tourism agenda and (2) the community is eager to maintain and support tourism in such a way that it becomes a structure to sustain their lives. Setiawan et al. (237) in their study of sustainable tourism development in Karimunjawa found that through increased social resilience and access to flexible social networks, indigenous communities can adapt to sustainable tourism transformations, whereas in Kemiren, the elite’s narration becomes a paradox of the sustainable cultural and economic development of indigenous peoples.

Unheard Voices of the Village

Participation in touristic activities will ideally help to preserve local culture and empower local communities. Moreover, tourism-derived profit will support the financial possibilities of communities (Sesotyaningtyas and Manaf). However, the later point on economic profit does not align with the constructed narratives of indigenous peoples as generous and selfless. Indigenous people were asked to perform their stereotypical “indigenous hospitality and generosity” by giving free cups of coffee to the guests at the coffee festival. However, there was no welfare improvement resulting from the increase in the number of tourists who purchased services and goods at Kemiren. Prasetyo (“Absorpsi Kultural”) noted that this commodification process goes hand in hand with changes in societal values. Indeed, as stated by traditional elders, today’s guidance has become a spectacle. Through increasing the focus on profit-making, “traditional performances” become competitions for how much profit or equity of financial flow reaches the people. Suhaimi, the indigeneous community leader informed, “if the Festival that we make is not attractive to the tourism office, we have difficulty promoting it.” (personal communication, September 9, 2018)

Future challenges are often associated with transformations to adapt to globalization. Cultural transformations become an interlocking system impossible to avoid. Thus, the indigenous village communities have to compete in the global cultural tourism system. Openness to new cultural value systems enables ways of adapting – which are categorized as modern – and enhances people’s opportunities to modify their way of life and absorb economic values competing in the global cultural tourism market (Raharjo). Through this perspective, cultural commodification finds a different direction from natural-based commodities.

Cultural commodification is based on the uniqueness offered and is different in every context. At the same time, supporting facilities such as accommodation and transportation need to be adjusted to the needs of visitors and global standards. In this context, the transformation of the local lifestyle and values emerges. For instance, according to former traditional indigenous elders who was co-opted from his position as indigeneous community leader, Kang Pur, the culturally treasured traditional houses are becoming obsolete. He declared,

It’s better not to have aids, if we have to follow the government’s wishes. We were told to build houses according to our ancestors, then we were promised aid funds. But the government knows whether or not the prices of wood and building materials have all gone up, it’s clearly not enough and burdens us. (personal communication, November 23, 2018)

On the one hand, Indigenous communities struggle to abide by modern lifestyle standards – such as building permanent houses with toilets – to adjust to the “comfortable” lifestyle of tourists. On the other hand, the uniqueness of traditional houses is a highly valued cultural attraction and commodity that they want to preserve.

Furthermore, the contestation of traditional narratives leads to additional problems. There is a contestation between those who desire to preserve traditions and those who change their traditional appearances to comply with the commodification charm. An indigenous artist narrates the story of two other Kemiren’s artists who were siblings and collaborated to display Barong art together. However, due to the development projects, the siblings decided to separate as they held different views and principles. One of the siblings was determined to display his art according to traditional standards, whereas his brother chose to perform his art in a more modern way to attract more clients.

Over time, capital owners started purchasing and “privatizing” several aspects of the village life. They were able to do so through their multiple networks and competitive advantage over villagers. In an interview, the storytelling artist narrates about the traditional lifestyle of indigenous people such as planting rice – with beautiful village scenery in the background – and the distinctive shaded huts (called “paglak” and “kiling Osing”) in the village. However, after Kemiren was turned into a rural tourist destination, these customs became part of a paid touristic attraction. Meanwhile, Kemiren’s inhabitants are not economically profiting from the commodification of their culture, as there is no fair distribution of the revenue obtained in the paid attractions.

The affirmation of indigenous peoples to achieve claims of autonomy and participation in regional development has been supported by several laws. These laws were expected to contribute to the recognition and acknowledgement of indigenous peoples. Village Law No. 6 of 2014 and Law No. 5 of 2017 concern the Advancement of Culture and are followed by the Indigenous Peoples Bill, which enabled indigenous peoples to have equal opportunities in gaining access to economic networks and socio-political spaces. Act No. 5 – which concerns the Advancement of Culture – asserts that national culture is an integrated investment and strategy to conserve the indigenous cultural system that is aligned with the national development plans. The regulation is made as an instrument to legalize State cultural policy. And it is a bureaucratic system to intervene in the indigenous entity. The financing from such plans comes from the Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (state finances) and Anggaran Pendapatan Daerah (regional finances) under the condition that projects meet the principle of equality and tolerance. As a consequence, the equitable access to resources and economic networks is increasingly seen as the basis of state development. In turn, this favorizes the implementation of welfare access to indigenous peoples.

Different interpretations and commitment from government, economic, and indigenous elites to these laws resulted in the emergence of new problems. On the one hand, the implementation of laws can be seen as the state’s commitment to protect and preserve the cultural diversity of the archipelago. On the other hand, there is heritage governance, a term coined to describe how the liberalization of indigenous life has been facilitated by the government (Prasetyo et al.). In turn, this has resulted in the commodification of indigenous lifestyles to meet tourism demands. Elites are still struggling to optimize the cultural potential of indigenous peoples by involving them as subjects. For example, the dramatic increase in tourism from 2014 to 2018 in the Banyuwangi Regency allegedly resulted from regional policies which managed to increase regional income and economic equity in villages. In 2012, the Banyuwangi Festival only had ten events. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively, it became 15, 23, and 36. Then in 2016, the festival events amounted to 53 and in 2017 it jumped to 72 events. While in 2018 there are only 77 events scheduled for the 2018 Banyuwangi Festival. The acceleration of Banyuwangi tourism can be seen as a revival of cultural tourism, followed by an improvement in the infrastructure of Banyuwangi Regency.

Meanwhile, the tourism-based development of indigenous peoples faces complex global–local situations. The entry of investors in the traditional tourism village of Kemiren – for instance, through the construction of a hotel with traditional cottage nuances – is assumed to absorb the local workforce. Yet, this entry of new investors also threatens the business of traditional local homestays. Opposite, tourism management has led to the creation of creative social classes which emerged as cultural commodification agents. It also affected local tourism competition by attracting new business competitors. As a consequence, new monopolies were formed by around social classes and particular tourism events. Hence, when visiting Kemiren, tourists with elite networks will be directed to creative commodities offered by the dominant creative classes. For example, they will enjoy Osing coffee at a traditional indigenous house, where its inhabitants perform continuously their daily indigenous traditions to tourists. Thus the question arises, will sustainable tourism build sustainable livelihoods for indigenous people?

Heritage Governance and the Shadow of the Past

Researchers have explored various issues connected with indigenous discourse. Some of these issues can be mapped, which include revivalism of the authenticity claims, the cultural turn, economic access, participation, subjectivity, and inclusivity systems. This study is composed of a subjective narrative of indigenous voices, namely, the subjectivity of dealing with the state’s development discourse represented by the local government. The political-economic formations indicate movements of capital acceleration in articulating indigenous voices in the context of participatory and inclusive systems.

Indigenous revival in the context of Javanese Village is based on the repositioning of tradition, art, and ritual within the festival era. The village is seen both as the space of cultural reproductions and as part of the rise of a new culture (Geertz; Wessing, “A Dance of Life”; Wessing, “When the Tutelary Spirit Objected”). Thus, the village becomes a cultural space that is bound through agricultural rites. Agriculture in the Javanese village has experienced many cultural changes, from traditional to modern systems. The story of a peasant who had land cannot be separated from the story of how they got wealth from the land. This story became a myth and it can be interpreted as the peasant’s spirituality which came to be after paying tribute to the spiritual beings that had power over the land, village, and the cultural sustainability. To achieve a green revolution, increase state wealth, and ensure food security, all the rituals have to change into new religious formations and narrations of the peasant society. Otherwise, the rituals and spiritual beings with whom peasants are connected will disappear.

However, the situation has changed. The concept of the authoritarian state has been reinvented into new rules of power. The dominant class has changed from being repressive to dialogic and negotiable. In terms of the Banyuwangi bureaucratic subject, they conceptualize their economic and political system as the entrepreneurial government. Their strategy is adjusted to new situations as a joint alternative and creative concept (Aktouf; Setyawan). However, as a theoretical project, the two different worlds are incompatible since bureaucrats still need to be served. On the one hand, bureaucrats need to innovate to preserve their positions. On the other hand, they operate with a sense of regularity and have to move towards creativity.

The bureaucrats abide by the rules and jurisdictions. When the entrepreneurial government is represented by the regent, they necessarily need a strategy to show how important they are. Complexity increased when the entrepreneurial ideology arrived in the market of refined products. The local elites were accused of absorbing and modifying local cultures. Indeed, they used their authority to make profound changes in society without having a previous understanding of the functioning of indigenous communities and their needs. Meanwhile, indigenous communities were still struggling to achieve recognition.

The Banyuwangi government attempted to make a new image of its regency based on the Osing indigenous culture. However, while the government claims that their public policy represents the Osing, the indigenous community never was fully recognized as part of the social structure neither was included in participatory decision-making processes. As a consequence, the Banyuwangi government did not effectively represent the will of the indigenous community. Bisri Effendi, the late former member of Indonesian Institute of Sciences, addressed, “The villagers are afraid if they don’t carry out the government’s orders, therefore they are silent and follow what the head of village wants.” (personal communication, 25 September 2018). Moreover, an elite village named Anwar told, “The function of indigeneous community leader, politically, he was chosen based on the needs of the village government and the tourism office because the basic need to tame the cultural articulation of indigenous peoples was adjusted to the agenda and promotion of the creative economy.”

Uneven development in the Banyuwangi Regency led to the emergence of new issues. Some of these problems relate the authenticity of the narratives constructed about Osing. And some arise from the fact that there is no ideal image of Osing that can represent every person in the Osing community. The Post-Soeharto era has become a unique event and until now it has provided a space for theoretical debates. Yet, this era is not a transitional phase in the context of reorganizing state power and civil society neither in legitimizing the global discourse to encourage locality. The shadow of the state has the power to legitimate local culture. However, local communities need to change their strategy to get access to their own culture.

In Indonesian agrarian societies, cultural change started as a result of the green revolution’s agenda. Their transformation into modern societies meant that they had to erase everything they had learned from their ancestors such as their cultural and historical memory, their relationship with traditions, and their obligations to preserve nature. This is a common situation today which Osing communities are facing.

Eventually, this situation is expected to change, hence, the state will no longer be able to objectify local culture. There is a need for local indigenous communities to economically benefit from tourism. Yet, these communities often assume that their traditions are a space open to reinterpretation and that performing their traditions for tourists is a revival of past narratives. While this may be seen as an inclusive reinterpretation of traditions, indigenous communities need to be aware of the intervention of market forces in the practice of their heritage. With the rise of these new problems, local communities often do not know anymore what is sacred and what is the profane when it comes to representations of their culture. Yet, there still are some elderly in their communities that can share indigenous knowledge and contribute to the survival of their culture.

New Challenges: Portraying Osing Heritage and Cultural Commodification

During the Soeharto era, reinventing the images of the local culture had to be connected with the national development strategy. The image of the Indonesian culture represented in the Taman Mini Indonesia Indah is an example that was used by the state to simplify plurality. The logic of representing the culture in the context of politics is the main strategy of the new order era (Dicks 2; Dolezal and Trupp; Erb, “Sailing to Komodo”; Gouda; Heryanto 14; King). Regarding state ideology, it is assumed that unity is the key to push the limit of repressiveness.

From an ideological perspective, idioms made by the state have proven to be subjects of development strategy. Same applies to the consciousness of being watched by the state powers. Alternatively, from a theoretical perspective, the concept of the eye of power emerged, which relates to how state power impacts citizens to the smallest level of their lives. Foucault stated that power moves organically in which the state apparatus represents a system of power both through regulation and in its enforcement efforts as surveillance of citizens (Foucault, Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, 78). Building on these assumptions, citizens who live in pluralistic areas and many other social spaces have to face and recognize state power. Yet, they need to understand that they also have power themselves and that by using multiple strategies they can challenge state control and surveillance (Foucault, Security, Territory, Population).

These multiple strategies will be key in the post-Soeharto era when citizens will need symbolism to define their identity. This identity must be seen as a strategy to represent locality and to undermine state power. The cultural strategy developed by the elite systematically changed the Osing cultural representations. Perhaps and more accurately, this strategy was able to show social representations and Osing identity to the public. Within the cultural strategy, popular conceptions build a space that is systematically and periodically revised based on the Osing arts, traditions, and rituals. This cultural agenda had consequences on Osing performativity regarding the complexity of the culture articulation into public spaces.

As a strategic effort to change cultural representations of Osing, the political elite brought Osing elites to take part in a comparative study with established tourist spots located especially in the province of Bali. Rosa (i–iii) noted that the elite is always imagined to form an economic and political system that presents a form of cultural formation, which is a belief that thinkers maintain in the Marxian tradition. This strategy later had consequences on Osing art, tradition, and ritual performers who had to deal with the tourism services market. Moreover, the festival is assumed to be the model that attracted the largest number of visitors.

Through the department of culture and tourism, the local government, in particular, accelerated the cultural strategy’s operation scenarios and encouraged the formation of a community to support and facilitate capital circulation for the tourism sector. This is emphasized in conversions of villages’ social relations by encouraging the movement of the cultural and economic sectors – which is then referred to as the creative-economic system.

In conveying a cultural strategy, local and national political elites allow the private sector to access the cultural markets to accelerate and intensify capital flows. This engagement is what enables the village to become an open space that attracts consumers as well as investors. To facilitate and ensure investments in a stable environment, political elites work together with local governments and villages. On the other, villages’ income relies on and is managed by village own-enterprises (Badan Usaha Milik Desa), which enables the commodification of the village’s assets, such as artistic performances, traditions, and rituals of the Osing culture.

The Village Act/Law gave legal powers to political elites to administer villages on behalf of villages’ institutions. It was implemented through the establishment of the village’s apparatus system. In practice, the village-based Osing ethnic group got control over (a) organizing the indigenous community’s structure (which became part of its legitimacy claims), (b) arranging the village’s regulation, (c) designing the village’s strategic plan, (d) managing the village-owned enterprises (Badan Usaha Milik Desa), (e) establishing the organizational management of the village’s councils, (f) resolving the village’s apparatus, (g) and finally, organizing the village’s social groups such as youth groups.

The village is expected to gain autonomy through the legitimacy of indigenous peoples who run it through a direct democracy government. In Kemiren, not all villagers cast their votes for the elected village head. However, based on the legitimacy of the majority of villagers’ votes, the chief of the village runs the tourism programme through authenticity claims. Meanwhile, indigeneity-related matters become political issues within the central government’s cultural promotion and preservation agenda. Central government cultural policy is built on the principles of constructive and emancipatory initiatives. Yet, at the local level, these policies are not implemented accordingly. Since practices and quick delivery of policies results are prioritized over accuracy. As a result, the systemic strategies for enhancing and developing villages are adjusted to be in line with the local government’s agenda.

This narrative – which is bureaucratically crafted – did not intend to marginalize indigenous elites’ functions outside of the social groups, which were aligned with the needs of the villagers. As a consequence, the civil society’s rise in the post-reformation era, social community organizations emerged intending to approach villagers. These organizations committed themselves to raise awareness, assisting villagers, and conducting advocacy work. In that context, Osing indigenous communities living in the villages could improve their position in society. Namely, the village elite – which was assumed to follow the local government’s agenda – had to deal with Osing elites who had benefited from the programmes to strengthen civil society. Hence, the cultural-economic space will encounter for the first time indigenous social group’s networks – which have acquired power through political identity contestation and inter-group social networks.

On the other hand, the rite of culture in villages where Osing communities are based is established through affinity networks. This becomes part of a strategy to resist the framework of the regional government’s policy. In other words, indigenous politics – which is both part of indigenous heritage and indigenous social and kinship (affinity) networks – also becomes part of the practice of identity politics affirmation. In contrast, these practices will be opposed by the local government of the village and the private sector. The latter has economic interests in altering the cultural representation of the art, tradition, and ritual articulation to meet the local government’s tourism plan and cultural strategy. Like Buana (Buana 1) argued, “The indigenous spirituality is a key to battle state-corporatism’s influences.”