14Oct 2017

THE PEASANTS DEPENDENCE IN RELATION TO \

Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

There were two reasons for this research: First, practical reason, where there were many patterns of production in relation to the agricultural and plantation sectors that placed the farmers in dependent and exploited positions by plantations, e.g. NES-System production model, PIR-BUN, and pattern of UPP. Both were proved through theoretical and structural reasons, i.e. there was an arguement between the followers of modernization theory and structural theory in Latin America in the 1970s. The theoretical modernization argued that the determinants of underdevelopment, poverty and community dependence by the internal conditions of the peasants themselves, that is, social-culture farmer system. To get rid of the problem the theorists of modernization recommended the need for cooperation with more \"modern\" communities and the intervention of the authorities as regulators. In the other side, followers of structural theory said that the determinants of underdevelopment, poverty and peasants? dependence were external factor that is the establishment of cooperative relationships with other communities and the intervention of authorities through policies that harmed the farming community. To come out of the problem, the structural theorists recommended that the peasant community avoid cooperation with others who get protection from authorities. The aims of the research were: (1). Describing the process of phenomenon farmer dependence in the pattern of relationship of glebagan system production at PTPN. X Jember. (2). Identifying the determinants (main cause) peasants? dependence in the pattern of relationship of glebagan system production at PTPN.X Jember, and (3). Describing the consequences of relationship pattern of glebagan system production to social change, and the mechanisms of inter-actor working relationship involved. This research used descriptive-qualitative design, with research setting on HGU land PTPN X in Jember. Research sample was taken by snowball sampling technique which was done by data collection and data analysis. In this study the researcher was as a human instrument using a non-structured interview technique conducted in-depth (indepth interview), and continuous observation by focusing on the interpretative understanding of individuals in the context of their social units. The procedure of data analysis was done by creating categories, formulating concepts, and finally formulating propositions based on concepts. To examine the results of the study, the measures of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were used. The research results were : (1). The emergence process of the phenomenon farmers? dependence in the relationship of glebagan system production at PTPN X HGU land began with the maintenance of the socio-cultural system tanean lanjang in the inheritance system of farming community, then there were a polarization of the nuclear family into the extended family which had implications for the fragmentation of arable land originally functioning for tobacco, paddy and polowijo (other than paddy) commodity crops turned into settlement land. The diminishing size of the farmers\' land area, as a result in a decline to farmer\'s income economic family, and eventually the socio-economic farmers depended on the relationship pattern of glebagan system production. (2). The determination that caused dependence of farmers in relationship pattern production glebagan system was caused by: ( a ) Maintaining cultural tanean lanjang as hereditary system on a farmer community in HGU PTPN X land; (a). The polarization from the nuclear family into the extended family was not followed by adding or agricultural land expansion, and ( c ). The pragmentation plots caused by function changed of farmland / plantation / land into the settlement. (3). A consequence enactment of relationship pattern production glebagan system in HGU PTPN X land had the implications for changes in the socio-ecosystem structure and socio-ideology of farmers. The Changes in the socio-economic dimension can be seen in the following changes: (a). The occurrence of disparity (gap) per-capita income among farmers/peasants in the HGU land; (b). The emergence of a new type of \"gutter system?, that was the pattern of inter-peasant (rich peasants and peasants employment) relationships when HGU land was used for rice crops and polowijo; and (c). The difference of occupation outside the agricultural sector, such as construction laborers, agricultural equipment repair workshops, and home industries with raw materials from agricultural products, such as corn, soybeans and rice. (4). The findings of propositions built on concepts, functions, dysfunctions, manifest functions and latency functions according to structural functionalism theory, as follows: (a). the relationship pattern of glebagan production system to functional farmers was still the same, because glebagan system as the main employment for farmers to meet the economic needs of their families. (b). The relationship pattern of glebagan system production in the long term dysfunctional for PTPN X, due to changes in the proper functioning of land for tobacco farming, rice and polowijo transformed into residential areas, which ultimately affected the decrease in income of farmers/peasants and PTPN X in Jember; (c). The pattern of relationship between glebagan system production and the system of tanean inheritance has the manifest function to maintain the solidarity of relationship between farmers and PTPN X through the pattern of glebagan system production. (d). The process of changing the function of agricultural land into land for the settlement of the farmer\'s family was a form of latency function, because in the long run it had negative impact for farmers and for PTPN. X. But it did not affect the existence of relationship pattern of glebagan system production at PTPN X Jember HGU field.


  1. Arief, Sritua dan Sasono, Adi, 1990. Indonesai: Ketergantungan dan Keterbelakangan. Lembaga Studi Pembangunan, Jakarta. P.150, 1771
  2. Bogdan, Robert C and S K Biklen, 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction o Theory and
  3. Boston, Allyn and Bacon Inc. p.32.
  4. Boeke, JH, 1980. Dualism in Colonial Societies, In Evers HD eds. Sociology of South East Asia, Ohio University Press.
  5. Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP.
  6. Baran, Paul, and E.J. Hobsbawn, 1973.The stage of economic growth: A review ?In
  7. Charles K Wilber (ed), The polotical economy of development and underdevelopment. New York:Random house. Pp. 50-51
  8. Bachiadi, Dianto, 1995. Ketergantungan petani dan Penetrasi Kapital. Penerbit Aka Tiga, Bandung
  9. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, 1982. Dependency and Development in Latin America, Berkely: University of California, p.150.
  10. Chris Barker, Cultural Studies: Teori & Praktik, terjemahan Nurhadi, (Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana, 2004), hal. 241
  11. Dos Santos, Theotonio, 1981. The Structure of Dependence. American Economic Review Vol. 60 (2) May, p. 232
  12. A. H (1978). Sistem Penghidupan dan Nafkah Pedesaan: Pandangan Sosio?????? logi Nafkah (Livelihood Sociology) Mazhab Barat dan Mazhab Bogor Sodality: ?????? Jurnal Transdisiplin Sosiologi, Komunikasi, dan Ekologi Manusia | Agustus 2007, ??????? p 169-192 Durkheim, Emile 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press
  13. Davis, K. 1959. \"The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology\", American Sociological Review, 24 (6), 757-772.
  14. Elster, J., 1990, ?Merton\'s Functionalism and the Unitended Consequences of Action?, in Clark, J., Modgil, C. & Modgil, S., (eds) Robert Merton: Consensus and Controversy, Falmer Press, London, pp.?129?35
  15. B. Peter, 1987. Forign Capital and Third World State. Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Hutington (eds) Understanding Political Development. Boston Ma: Little Borwn an Company. P. 11, 14, 17 and 38 1987.? ?Class, state, and Dependence in Asia: Lessons for Latin
  16. Americnists?. In Frederic C. Deyo (ed). The Political Economy of the New Asian Ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press.
  17. Feder, Eamest, 1977. Program Baru Bank Dunia dan Kaum Tani Dunia Ketiga, Presma no.3/1977, pp. 60-70.
  18. C Robin, 1994, Reataining State Hegemony in Canada in the 1990?s : Government Response to a Agricultural Disaster. Canadian Journal of Political Science Vol. 10. No. 4, pp 64-65; 695-724.
  19. Gans, Herbert J. 1972. ?The Positive Functions of Poverty.? American Journal of Sociology 78:275-289
  20. Gingrich , P., (1999) ?Functionalism and Parsons? in Sociology 250 Subject Notes, University of Regina, accessed, 24/5/06, ca
  21. Giddens, Anthony, 1975. The Class Structure of Advanced. New York: Harper and
  22. ____________ 1979. Central Problem in Social Theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkely: University of California Press.
  23. ____________ 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkely: University of California Press
  24. Hoselitz, Bert. F, 1971. Agraian Structure and the State in Java and Bangladesh. The Journal of Asian Studies.
  25. Holmwood, J., (2005) ?Functionalism and its Critics? in Harrington, A., (ed) Modern Social Theory: an introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.?87?109
  26. Inkeles, Alex and David H. Smith, 1974. Becoming Modern, Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge: Harvaard University Press. pp. 303-306
  1. Lappe, Francis and J. Collins, 1977. Food First: Beyond The Myth of Scarcity. Boston: Houghton and Mifflin.
  2. Lincoln, Y and Egon G. Guba, 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park California: Sage London, pp. 289-331.
  3. McClelland, David. C, 1971. The Achievement Motive in Economic Growth. Finkle & Gable (eds), p. 98.
  4. Milles and Haberman, 1984. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
  6. __________ 1968. ?Manifes and Latent Function? RK Merton, Social Theory ?? and Social Structure, New York: Free Press : 73-138
  7. __________ 1975. Structural Analysis in Sociology. ?In P. Blau (ed), Approaches to the Study of Social Structure, New York: Free Press: 21-25.
  8. ?Opportunity Structure: The Emergence, Diffusion, and Different tiation of a Sociology Concept?. New Brunswick, New York: Transaction Pu?? blisher.
  9. Parsons, T., & Shils, A., (eds) (1976) Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
  10. __________ 1966, The Social System. Glencoe, III: Free Press.
  11. __________ 1970. Social Structure and Personality, New York: Free Press.
  12. __________ 1975. ?Social Structure and the Symbolic Media of Interchange? In P. Blau (ed), Appproaches to the Study of Social Structure. New York: Free ???????????? Press:94-100
  13. __________ 1971. System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J : Ptentice Hall.
  14. __________ 1961) Theories of Society: foundations of modern sociological theory, Free Press, New York
  15. ___________ ?The structure of Social Action? dan Robert , Englewood Cliffs, N.J : Ptentice Hall.
  16. Rosenberg, M. 1989. ? Self Concept Research: A Historical Review? Social Forces ? 68: 34-44
  17. G dan Douglas J. Goodman, Teori Sosiologi Modern Edisi Ke-6, terjemahan Alimandan, (Jakarta: Prenada Media, 2005), hal. 118.
  18. Ritzer, George, 1975a. Sociology : A Multiple Paradigm Science. Boston : Allyn and
  19. ___________, 1981. ?Paradigm Analysis in Sociology: Clarifying The Issues? American Sociological Review 46: 245-248
  20. 1997. Postmodern Social Theory. New York Mc.Graw Hill
  21. Sanderson, Stephen K. (1999). \"Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development.\" Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  22. Soepeno, bambang, 2010. Identifikasi Disfungsional Peran Komite Sekolah dalam Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan di kabupaten Gowa Sulawesi Selatan. Buletin ????????? Fajar Pendidikan Ditjen Pendidikan
  23. ________________, 1999. Kajian Fungsionalisme Struktural: Ketergantungan Petani Dalam Hubungan Produksi Sistem Glebagan, Diserta Doktor (Tidak dipublika sikan).
  24. Saragih, Bungaran, 1997. Tantangan dan Strategi Pengembangan Agribisnis di Indonesia, Jurnal Agribisnis Vol. 1 & 2 Januari-Juni & Juli- Desember, Pusat Bisnis Univer sitas Jember, pp.62-64.
  25. Sembiring, S, 1994. Pengembangan Agribisnis: Kebijakan dan Strategi Sub-sektor Perkebunan, Badan Agribisnis dan Biro Tata Usaha BUMN Deptan. RI Jakarta.
  26. Shanin, T, 1971. Peasant and Peasant Scieteis. Harmonds Worth: Penguin.
  27. Santoso, Kabul dan Sayojo 1991. Tembakau: Dalam Analisis Ekonomi, Univeritas Jember Press.
  28. Sharples dan Nilham, 1990, Long-run Competitiveness of Australian Agricultal, Foreig Agricultural Economic Report No. 43. Economic Research Sevive. US Development of Agricultural, Washington DC, p.23
  29. Turner, Jonathan (1995). \"Macrodynamics: Toward a Theory on the Organization of Human Populations.\" New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press
  30. Wolf and Waren, Bill, 1985. Imperalism and Capitalist Industrialization. The New York Elsevier.
  31. White, Benyamin, 1990. Ekonomi Politik Pembangunan Pedesaan dan Struktur Agraria Jawa. LP3ES Prisma No. 4 Th. XVIII, Jakarta. Pp. 235-237.

[Bambang Soepeno and Wiwiek Eko Bindarti. (2017); THE PEASANTS DEPENDENCE IN RELATION TO \ Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Oct). 729-738] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com


Bambang Soepeno
University of Jember

DOI:


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/5581      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/5581