Pluralities of Power in Indonesia’s Intellectual Property Law, Regional Arts and Religious Freedom Debates

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY Anthropological Forum Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/00664677.2022.2042793
Lorraine V. Aragon
{"title":"Pluralities of Power in Indonesia’s Intellectual Property Law, Regional Arts and Religious Freedom Debates","authors":"Lorraine V. Aragon","doi":"10.1080/00664677.2022.2042793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article re-analyses historical Southeast Asian power concepts and practices to interpret contrasting positions on two contemporary Indonesian legal debates. The first debate concerns the use of intellectual property models to regulate regional arts or ‘traditional cultural expressions’. The second debate concerns a 2017 constitutional court ruling that advocates citizenship parity for ‘belief practitioners’, meaning those who maintain ancestral or non-orthodox practices and do not list one of Indonesia’s six official religions on their identity cards. I argue that contrasting positions on the laws held by state and clerical authorities versus regional practitioners are better explained by reference to distinctively Southeast Asian ideas about unilateral versus decentralised ‘power’ than by standard globalisation, human rights, or modern state versus indigenous resistance explanations. Disentangling two features of Benedict Anderson’s classic model of Javanese power, fluid cosmic force and the concentration of ‘oneness’ by rulers, illuminates how the Indonesian minority and majoritarian legal perspectives fit within a common repertoire of regional power concepts. Framing religion, tradition, arts and law as prescriptive and normative rather than analytic categories, the article draws on historical and comparative Southeast Asian evidence to delineate tensions among differently positioned groups grounded in diverse modalities of power, ancestral authority and customary institutions, even as some now selectively adopt imported legal rights-based and heritage preservation discourses.","PeriodicalId":45505,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Forum","volume":"22 1","pages":"20 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Forum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00664677.2022.2042793","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article re-analyses historical Southeast Asian power concepts and practices to interpret contrasting positions on two contemporary Indonesian legal debates. The first debate concerns the use of intellectual property models to regulate regional arts or ‘traditional cultural expressions’. The second debate concerns a 2017 constitutional court ruling that advocates citizenship parity for ‘belief practitioners’, meaning those who maintain ancestral or non-orthodox practices and do not list one of Indonesia’s six official religions on their identity cards. I argue that contrasting positions on the laws held by state and clerical authorities versus regional practitioners are better explained by reference to distinctively Southeast Asian ideas about unilateral versus decentralised ‘power’ than by standard globalisation, human rights, or modern state versus indigenous resistance explanations. Disentangling two features of Benedict Anderson’s classic model of Javanese power, fluid cosmic force and the concentration of ‘oneness’ by rulers, illuminates how the Indonesian minority and majoritarian legal perspectives fit within a common repertoire of regional power concepts. Framing religion, tradition, arts and law as prescriptive and normative rather than analytic categories, the article draws on historical and comparative Southeast Asian evidence to delineate tensions among differently positioned groups grounded in diverse modalities of power, ancestral authority and customary institutions, even as some now selectively adopt imported legal rights-based and heritage preservation discourses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度尼西亚知识产权法、区域艺术和宗教自由辩论中的权力多元性
本文重新分析了东南亚历史上的权力概念和实践,以解释当代印度尼西亚两场法律辩论中截然不同的立场。第一个争论涉及使用知识产权模式来规范区域艺术或“传统文化表现形式”。第二场辩论涉及2017年宪法法院的一项裁决,该裁决主张“信仰实践者”的公民权平等,这意味着那些保持祖传或非正统习俗的人,他们的身份证上没有列出印尼六种官方宗教之一。我认为,国家和宗教当局与地区从业者在法律上的不同立场,最好是参照东南亚关于单边与分散“权力”的独特理念,而不是用标准的全球化、人权或现代国家与本土抵抗的解释来解释。本尼迪克特·安德森(Benedict Anderson)经典爪哇权力模型的两个特征——流动的宇宙力量和统治者对“统一性”的集中,阐明了印度尼西亚少数民族和多数民族的法律观点是如何适应共同的区域权力概念的。本文将宗教、传统、艺术和法律作为规范性和规范性的范畴,而不是分析性的范畴,利用东南亚的历史和比较证据,描绘了基于不同权力模式、祖先权威和习俗制度的不同定位群体之间的紧张关系,即使有些人现在有选择性地采用进口的基于法律权利和遗产保护的话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Anthropological Forum
Anthropological Forum ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Anthropological Forum is a journal of social anthropology and comparative sociology that was founded in 1963 and has a distinguished publication history. The journal provides a forum for both established and innovative approaches to anthropological research. A special section devoted to contributions on applied anthropology appears periodically. The editors are especially keen to publish new approaches based on ethnographic and theoretical work in the journal"s established areas of strength: Australian culture and society, Aboriginal Australia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
期刊最新文献
Politics of Shared Humanity: On Hospitality, Equality and the Spiritual in Rural Gambia. Article 1F and Anthropological Evidence: A Fine Line Between Justice and Injustice? The Multiple Roles of Socio-Anthropological Expert Evidence in Indigenous Land Claims: The Xukuru People Case Pastors, Preaching and Parking Lot Conversations: Clergy’s Tactics of LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Mainline Protestant Churches Environments and Socialities in Oceania – Changing Ideas and Practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1