Dayak Mardaheka: Sejarah Masyarakat Tanpa Negara di Pedalaman Kalimantan

by Bima Satria Putra

Tesis utama penulis pada dasarnya sederhana: yang diimpor dan asing itu bukanlah anarkisme, melainkan negara. Asumsi sejarah kita menjadi buram akibat historiografi nusantara yang melulu berpusat pada sejarah para penguasa dan penakluk. Karena itu penulis menggunakan pendekatan berbeda untuk melihat dunia dari sudut pandang mereka yang dikuasai dan ditaklukan.

Buku ini adalah kajian interdisipliner yang mengolah bahan etnografi yang melimpah untuk menunjukkan bahwa pedala-man Kalimantan telah menjadi tempat pelarian suku-suku anarkis yang selama ribuan tahun telah menangkis pencaplokan negara dan bahkan menciptakan mekanisme sosial yang mencegah negara dapat muncul dari dalam masyarakat mereka sendiri.

Penulis menunjukkan bagaimana identitas etnis Dayak sepanjang sejarah telah ditandai dengan ketidakpatuhan terhadap otoritas. Mereka adalah masyarakat yang relatif egalitarian dan mampu mempertahankan otonomi dari berbagai negara; mampu menjaga masyarakat meski tanpa hukum, polisi dan penjara; berkerjasama tanpa uang dan pasar; membunuh kepala suku dan raja tiranik; kabur dan bermigrasi ke wilayah tak berpenghuni; menjadi bajak laut, pemburu kepala dan pemberontak yang menolak pajak, upeti dan perbudakan.

Genres: History, Anthropology, Politics

482 pages, Paperback

Published June 1, 2021

Reviews

[melancholinary · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really great effort to remind us of the possibility to live without the presence of nation-states. A Scottian approach to Dayak is much needed considering the similarity between the topology of Zomia and Kalimantan. However, most of the time this book deals more with historical accounts rather than rigorous anthropological theory which sometimes for me more relevant to see how myths and divine intervention actually shape the construction of social order (cf. Terrence Turner). On the other hand, this is perhaps my struggle, but somehow it is very hard to separate the notion of ethnocentrism from indigenous anarchism—i.e. when discussing ethnogenesis, the question of "purity" always comes to the surface, which for me it is problematic (how to draw the line when some ethnicity, or in this case tribe, considered pure and of the soil?).

Moreover, something that also bugged me while reading this is the usage of the word 'modern' which is understood as a synonym with the idea of development and progress—a very global monotype of understanding modern. I understand it is more practical and understandable for the reader (as the writer also claims that this is not an 'academic' book), but I think in an anthropological study we have to see the word modern with a critical eye. Do the Dayaks see the duality between nature and society? Are they consider nature as an extension of their presence? The development of technological tools and apparatus could be developed without the presence of a state, together with nature, and on the frontier, thus perhaps the notion of modernity has already been with them since the beginning (cf. thinking about Graeber (rip) & Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything).

Nevertheless, I think this is an important work. And regardless of its criticism, this is a must-read!

[Reyhan Izzaldi · Rating 5 out of 5]

buku ini sangat membuka pikiran dan mengartikan "keberagaman" dengan cara lain yang lebih bermakna