Ritual as action in a Javanese community: a network perspective on ritual and social structure ∗

Social Networks North-Holland

19

15 (1993) 19-48

Ritual as action in a Javanese community: a network perspective on ritual and social structure * Thomas Schweizer a, Elmar Klemm b and Margarete Schweizer a aInstitute of Ethnology, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platr, W-5000 K&I 41, Germany ’ Institute of Sociology, Technical University of Berlin, Dovestrasse I, W-1000 Berlin IO, Germany

This social network study of ritual celebrations in a Javanese village analyzes the organizational pattern inherent in the ritual activities. In the network perspective repeated participation in rituals creates order among actors fusing them into subsets by way of joint involvement in the same events. Quantitative analysis revealed that basically neighborhood units are established. Religious factions are mapped onto these fundamental structures. Social class does not influence participation in rituals, although it is at work in the size and performance of celebrations. Participation in rituals can be interpreted as the establishment of implicit contracts for support in a social security network.

1. Introduction

Rituals play a prominent part in social life, dramatizing and thereby bringing relief to human problems. In the anthropological literature there is some debate on how to conceptualize the term (Lewis 1980: Ch. 2; Kertzer 1988: S-9). For our purposes “ritual” is defined as a standardized form of behavior attached to “conceptions of a general order of existence”. The definition takes up the common idea that ritual is a Rind of custom (Lewis 1980: 10-16; Paige and Paige 1981: 46-481, and it refers to the religious domain as the special arena for this kind of custom (the part in quotation marks uses a component of Correspondence tot T. Schweizer, Institute of Ethnology, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, W-5000 Koeln 41, Germany. * Revised version of a paper presented at the Eighth Annual Sunbelt Conference for Social Network Analysis, San Diego, CA, 1990. We appreciate the comments of Douglas White and Joachim Gorlich on an earlier version of this paper, and Sabine Schmidt’s editorial comments.

037%8733/93/$06.00

0 1993 - El sevier Science

Publishers

B.V. All rights

reserved

20

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Jacanese community

Geertz’ definition of religion, 1975: 98-108). ’ In the following we will briefly review anthropological approaches to the analysis of ritual. So far in current anthropology rituals have been analyzed as systems of meaning or performances. The organizational dimension of “ritual as action” has been neglected. In this paper our purpose it twofold. On the one hand we want to demonstrate that social network analysis is a useful tool for studying the organizational dimension of rituals. On the other hand we are analyzing a substantive ethnographic case, ritual activities in a Javanese village. The complexity of these ethnographic data poses serious difficulties for qualitative assessment. Application of quantitative network models should aid in decomposing the information and arriving at validated insight on the social consequences of ritual celebrations in this system.

2. Anthropological

approaches

to the analysis of ritual

The first approach, symbolic analysis, views ritual as a system of meaning and handles it as a special kind of text. Symbolic analysis centres on the overt and hidden meaning of key terms. It investigates how social relations are represented in “ritual as text,” and how the transformation of meaning in ritual discourse achieves a solution for human existential problems. This symbolic view of ritual has been the dominant approach within cultural anthropology (Barraud and Platenkamp 1989/90 as exemplification, Ortner 1984, Shweder and Levine 1984 in general). Recently the paradigm has been challenged by turning towards performance studies of ritual (Schieffelin 1985; Bloch 1989; Turner 1982, 1985: pt. 2, 3 in general), this being the second main approach in the field. Performance studies address some of the problems associated with the meaning-centred view on ritual. Typically (Lewis 1980: 19) ’ The debate on how to define ritual is often informed by essential&t thinking which attempts to arrive at the one true meaning of a term, whereas we would like to stress the operational and pragmatic value of definitions. For the purposes of our study we found it convenient to focus the meaning of the term on religious custom, which does not rule out that in other investigations a broader concept of “ritual” would be appropriate, including secular custom, e.g. “. defining ritual as symbolic behavior that is socially standardized and repetitive” (Kertzer 1988: 9). The analytical procedures we use in this article, however, are not restricted to our specific concept of ritual.

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

21

. . . people know clearly how to perform their rituals, assert that they know right from wrong performance, yet they do not necessarily provide an explanation in words of what they express, what they communicate or what they symbolise by their rituals. The ruling is explicit but its meaning may be implicit.

Hence in the performance studies’ view on ritual it is not the discursive, propositional quality of “ritual as text” but the enactment aspect of “ritual as theatre” that renders ritual an effective way of coping with human existential problems. Seeing ritual as an event dramatized on a public stage this approach focuses on “the nonsemantic, nonpropositional aspects of performance and linguistic form that shape the content of ritual events and the relations among the participants” (Schieffelin 1985: 709). The arrangement of space, the organization of audience and participants, the media used in the ritual setting are singled out as key elements in performance studies (Schieffelin 1985). In this paper we do not want to dismiss the value of the symbolic as well as the performance approaches for understanding ritual. Both modes of investigation tap important dimensions of ritual and supplement each other (Keesing 1982: Ch. 12). Whereas symbolic studies establish the general sense of meaning underlying ritual - how the scene is set and what it is all about - performance studies shift attention to the “ruling” - how the general understandings are translated into concrete procedures constituting a proper ritual event. However, we would like to (re)introduce a third and different approach suitable to the study of ritual: social network analysis. The network perspective views ritual as a kind of social action and highlights the organizational dimension inherent in ritual. It centres on the way people and resources are mobilized to create a ritual event and it directs attention to the outcome of ritual activities: how repeated participation of actors in events creates order in social arrangements. The network interpretation of ritual partly goes back to the Manchester tradition in social anthropology (Gluckman, Mitchell, Turner, cf. Kuper 1983: Ch. 6; Werbner 1984). In Mitchell’s classic essay on the Kalela Dance, for examples this ritual is used as a window into society as a whole (1956: 1): I start with a description of the kalela dance and then relate the dominant features of the dance to the system of relationships

22

i? Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

among Africans on the Copperbelt. In order to do this I must take into account, to some extent, the general system of Black-White relationships in Northern Rhodesia, By working outwards from a specific situation on the Copperbelt the whole social fabric of the Territory is therefore taken in. It is only when this process has been followed to a conclusion that we can return to the dance and fully appreciate its significance. Reading off structural pattern from individual action and actors’ involvement in events informs modern network analysis in the social sciences (Wellman and Berkowitz 1988; Laumann and Knoke 1987: 18-35). In contrast to the older anthropological network tradition which analyzed events by qualitative procedures only, powerful formal methods have been developed recently within the broader social network paradigm (Freeman et al. 1989). By now qualitative case studies of ritual in the Manchester School spirit have diminished, and the more formal studies of events have not yet cross-fertilized anthropological research. Thus the organizational underpinnings of rituals and their outcome received less attention within the anthropological community than they deserved given the importance of social organization for the staging of ritual events and the contribution of ritual activities to the working of society as a whole (see, however, Kertzer 1988 who fuses symbolic and organizational features into a comprehensive qualitative framework on ritual and power). In the remainder we apply the social network approach to ethnographic data on ritual. Our paper is based on observations in a wet-rice producing village (“Sawahan”) of about 1600 inhabitants and 330 households in Central Java in 1978/79. The data have been gathered during field research covering the rural economy and social organization by Thomas Schweizer (1987,1988, 1989a,b) and Margarete Schweizer (1983, 1988). 3. Ethnographic

context: ritual in a rural Javanese setting

Households which are composed of nuclear families are the building blocks of Javanese society. 2 Functioning as the social glue and main ’ This description of Javanese society is based particular C. Geertz 1960; H. Geertz 1961; Jay informed by our village study.

on the standard ethnographic sources, in 1969; Keeler 1987; Koentjaraningrat 1985;

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

23

units of economic cooperation they are connected nevertheless by bilateral kinship, neighborhood ties and religious commitments with the wider circuits of society. However, kinship and marriage bonds are weak. In addition affiliation to different factions of Islam and class differentiation dissect communities. Dominant religious and political orientations of hamlets lead to competition between neighborhoods (Schweizer 1983). Thus adherents of Islam are split into strict Muslims (santri) practicing the rules of Islam and Javanist Muslims (kejawen) taking recourse to the syncretist Hindu-Javanese tradition. Santri are further subdivided into a conservative and a modernist faction according to positive or negative evaluation of Javanese custom. In rural areas wet-rice cultivation is the main source of income. Class stratification is dependent on land holding creating an upper class of large-scale farmers and wealthy traders, a middle class of small-scale farmers and a lower class of landless laboring households. In former times reciprocal patterns of labor exchange and sharing of produce were present to a certain extent in rice cultivation. Since the 19th century market forces gained pace and commercial relations are part and parcel of modern commodity production of rice. As a whole Javanese society consists of a criss-cross of different committments, forcing actors -to cooperate as well as being competitive to each other (T. Schweizer 1988). Javanese norms and values prescribe calmness of mood, politeness of conduct, peacefulness of mind (slamet) and harmony among neighbors (rukun) as the proper way of orchestrating social relationships. Ritual celebrations (slametan) are the main and - given the commoditization of the economy - only institutionalized means of expressing these community-related norms and values in practice. These communal feasts are performed among neighbors and relatives to commemorate important events in the life-cycle, preceding vital decisions or celebrating Islamic-Javanese holy days. The meaning of the ritual celebrations is rooted in the Hindu-Javanese religious background (Schweizer 1989a: 297-298): At such times [in the life-cycle] the Javanese world-view regards individuals as particularly vulnerable, as they are in danger of losing their inner balance and with it the desired condition of peace (slamet), quietude (tentrem), and harmony with their fellows (rukun). The consequence is not only personal harm, but the effects

24

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

may escalate and induce social and cosmic tension ( . . . >. The harmonious implementation of a slametan in the community protects the affected person from these crises and is a plea for heavenly blessings on his life’s path. Villagers themselves will not be able to decode this implicit meaning embedded in the courtly and urban Javanese “great tradition”. There it is stored in texts and transmitted by knowledgable men in religious discourse (Errington 3984). In the rural “folk tradition”, however, people “ . . . generally fell back on the conventional explanation that the slametan, ‘continue the tradition of the elders”’ (Schweizer 1989a: 298). Thus among actors these rituals mainly evoke the feeling of respect towards ancestors by continuing the Javanese tradition which is a very positive evaluation, since the Javanese ethic lays prime importance on proper conduct, not on the inner belief associated with an action (Magnis-Suseno 1981: 61-62). Although villagers are unconscious of the deep meaning attached to the ritual in different segments of their society they are quite outspoken on the ruling regulating the performance of the celebrations. The ruling is shared and explicit. In the following we summarize the main rules: (1) Every household facing an occasion should celebrate a communal feast. There is no reason for exempt. (2) The scale of the ritual depends on the host’s income. On the one hand feasts should not push a household to ruin. Thus poor people celebrate small feasts with few guests and less expensive food. On the other hand rich people are obliged to be generous: They have to stage lavish feasts with many guests, excellent food and, occasionally, special entertainment like a shadow-play performance (Keeler 1987). (3) The scale of the ritual also varies with the occasion to be celebrated. A person’s “last birthday”, that is 1000 days after his/her death, and weddings demand grand feasts. Circumcision rituals and celebrations preceding personal decisions are on a medium scale. Rituals held for a birth or the Islamic-Javanese holy days are smaller. (4) Immediate neighbors and fellows within hamlet reach have to be invited with first priority. “They are the ones whom we ask for help first”, people explain this rule. No selection according to friendship, class, prestige or religious affiliation is being allowed in this narrow circle of lo-15 households. As a rule this set includes some relatives as well, because houselots are subdivided as residential space among

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Jauanese community

25

heirs. In a large-scale celebration relatives living at a distance and influential or related villagers.from other hamlets are invited next. (5) Except for contingent events (birth, death) which demand spontaneous gathering by neighbors guests receive a formal request to participate. An invitation cannot be turned down, attendance is obligatory, and gossip will punish the few outsiders who dare to stay absent. (6) The family “having work to do” (the expression for planning a ritual celebration) will ask a few close female relatives and neighbors to help in the preparations a day or two before the event. Acceptance of this request for help is obligatory. Prior to the feast all neighbors and relatives will support the host household with contributions of rice, tea, sugar, fruits and other raw food as well as money. The scale of the offerings varies according to the income and kinship ties of the sender. Supporters will receive a counter-gift of cooked food later and an invitation to participate in the feast. (7) Except for weddings which take place by daylight or spontaneous gatherings generally ritual celebrations are conducted in the evening and only males participate. Father or in case of a widow eldest son or brother represent their family in the public part of the ritual. During a fixed ritual sequence prayers are spoken, village and family representatives will orate and finally a ritual meal is served. Usually this meal involves meat eating which is a rare and merrymaking feature (on the historical background cf. Reid 1988: 32-36). In performances the ruling outlined above is followed very strictly. Thus the following features hold true of the ritual practice in Sawahan (Schweizer 1989a: 297-304): the number of guests varied from 10 to more than 200. Celebrations with about 100 guests were not uncommon. A usual offering in 1979 was about 4-5 kg white rice. Large celebrations of 150 guests cost the host almost the value of one rice harvest on a a ha field, the average plot size. Gifts were worth two rice harvests of the same size (see the calculation in Schweizer 1989a: 300-302). Thus expense for ritual celebrations is considerable. There are many opportunities for a communal feast and seasonality is visible: after harvest time or when the economy prospers many feasts are held. Thus during July and August 1979 - a favourable period one could count 79 ritual celebrations in the village. Viewed in the social network perspective the mobilization of people and resources in ritual celebrations does not pose a serious problem

26

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

of understanding in the Javanese case. This aspect can be assessed by qualitative analysis of particular slametan events since ritual action conforms closely to the explicit ruling (see the case study in Schweizer 1989a: 300-302). Clearly the rules put prime importance on cooperation among neighbors. By adhering to the rules neighborhoods are fused into action sets which organize the ritual celebrations. In Javanese society the problematic aspect of communal feasts concerns the outcome of ritual celebrations. Clearly neighborhood solidarity is strengthened by repeated joint involvement in rituals: preparing a feast, sharing resources, celebrating an event, consuming food and entertainment in a similar circle of neighbors. The effect of repeated participation in rituals, however, beyond the narrow confines of the hamlet, is less clear-cut and very difficult to discern without recourse to formal models. The complexity of the problem becomes visible when we take into account class and religious differences. Such differences are articulated in ritual practice. For instance, in strict Muslim slametan the audience participates in Quranic prayers, while Javanist Muslims (usually without knowledge of Arab ritual language) remain silent. For their own celebrations the latter ask strict Muslim representatives from other hamlets to take over the Quranic recitation. Sometimes rich conservative Muslims invite Islamic leaders (kyai) from outside the village to perform the prayer part of the sequence. As special entertainment rich Javanist Muslims and wealthy conservative Muslim families prefer shadow-play performances rooted in the Hindu-Javanese past, wheras modernist Muslims invite an orchestra playing “Islamic”, Arab-type pop music. Class is expressed in the grandezza of the feast and the number of people from different hamlets drawn into the event. The articulation of class and religious factionalism in communal feasts poses the analytic problem whether social and religious cleavages in the community as a whole are widened or narrowed by the repeated participation of actors in ritual celebrations. Does joint involvement of actors in rituals create clear-cut subgroups of actors segregated according to class, religious commitments and hamlet affiliation in the village or do the ritual activities lead to better social integration within the whole community? These questions on the outcome of ritual celebrations have hardly been asked in the ethnographic literature. We want to answer them by help of quantitative data and formal network analysis.

27

4. The data

The data on involvement of village households in ritual were gathered as part of a (second) survey of the village population. After one year of residence in Sawahan and a prolonged series of qualitative as well as quantitative data collection the ethnographers were well-known to the actors and familiar with the setting. We embarked on the second survey covering in-depth data and rechecking earlier information in a probability sample of households (n = 88). In addition we included data from ten influential households of village officials or wealthy traders who were not drawn into the probability sample. Since these families belong to the “big spenders” in the slametan context their data are of intrinsic value. 3 By help of a listing of all ritual celebrations which had occurred in the village during July and August 1979 data on the participation of households in each event were collected. In many ritual celebrations the ethnographers were involved as guests, by help in the preparation and gift exchange. Thus cross-checking of the interview data with on-the-spot observation was possible and did not reveal any systematic distortion or considerable error. Though the data are memorized reports of who attended which feast, not observational records, we are convinced that they represent a good account of respondents’ actual attendance at these ritual celebrations (on the data quality problems in network studies see Freeman et al. 1987). So far this is the most comprehensive and systematic dataset on involvement of Javanese villagers in ritual celebrations known to us. 4 In this paper we confine the analysis to the basic pattern of joint attendances of households at the public part of ritual celebrations, More specific data on actors’ help in the preparation of feasts etc. have to be analyzed elsewhere. We begin the analysis with an initial matrix of 98 actors and 79 events (see Table 1). This actor-by-event matrix depicts for each 3 In an earlier paper T. Schweizer 1988 analyzed a different set of households from the village: a kin group of well-to-do santri families. In spite of the inclusion of the few elite households in the present sample, in its core this sample is a cross-sectional probability sample which should be representative of all households in the village. 4 Jay (1969 Ch. 8) presents systematic data on ceremonial exchange at the hamlet level only; Keeler (1987: Ch. 5) is a revealing qualitative study of the meaning and social organization of slametan; Hefner (1985) discusses similar rituals in a different ethnic group on Java, but like Keeler he does not report his rich data in a form assessable by formal network procedures.

28

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritrtal as action in a farunese comrnuni~

household ( = actor, in the rows of the matrix) and each ritual celebration (= event, in the columns) which occurred during the 2-month period whether the actor was present (code 1) or absent (code 0). In the social network tradition Breiger (1974/1988) was first pointing to the duality of actors as well as events inherent in actor-by-event matrices (Schweizer 1991 as an appIication; Laumann and Knoke 1987: Ch. 1, 9 as an extension of this line of thinking). In this paper, however, we stick to the structuration of events, leaving the relationships among actors and the linkage between actors and events out of consideration. Thus we analyze the 79 x 79 event-by-event matrix. In principle this matrix is created by counting the number of actors each two events have in common. Thus the event-by-event matrix of co-occurrence coefficients reveals the similari~ of events in terms of jointly participating actors. It is nearly impossible to grasp the pattern of similarity in this huge matrix by “eye-balling” only. This is the reason we apply formal models for data exploration. How to prepare the observations for input into formal models is an important decision. In the context of social choice data and structural equivalence analysis Burt’s recent experiments suggest that (1988: 27) “attention should shift from how we measure pattern similari~ to how we measure relationships”. From trials with our data we reach the same conclusion. Depending on the measurement of event similarity different models detected similar patterns for the same kind of coefficients but established different patterns for different measurements. For instance, raw co-attendance measures computed from Table 1 suffer from a size effect among events: big events swamp smaller ones. Pearson correlations of event similarity count common absences of actors as an indicator of similarity which distorts the pattern of positive co-attendances. We decided to measure the similarity among events from Table 1 by help of the Ochiai coefficient (familiar to quantitative anthropologists as Kroeber-Driver’s G, see Driver 1973: 623-624). Counting the joint co-attendances only and weighting them by the number of actors present at one or both events this coefficient overcomes the problems of size and common absences. 5 The matrix of Ochiai coefficients is the input for our formal analysis.

5 Using the conventional + c).

notation

for a four-fold

table the Ochiai

formula

is: a/sqrt(a

+ b)*(a

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

5. Data analysis:

29

detecting pattern among ritual events

We applied non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) to the similarity data computed from Table 1 (Borg and Lingoes 1987) using the SPSS program on a mainframe computer. A two-dimensional solution achieved a good representation of the data (Stressl=0.130). Closeness of points in this space indicates similarity of events measured by the joint involvement of actors (see the plot in Fig. 1). The size of this dataset poses problems of interpretation. Usually having observed smaller systems of actors and events at close distance ethnographers draw on their deep knowledge and rich first-hand experience to interpret chunks of observation. This even holds true of formal analysis since the formal solution provides a spur to ethnographic recall and challenges ethnographic interpretation (Mitchell 1989). However, the social system of 1600 people and 330 households studied in our field research is too large for this kind of qualitative data interpretation. Thus the configuration in Fig. 1 poses difficulties for ethnographic decomposition. We possess rich and systematic data on 3 of the households and people which achieves an ethnographic understanding of the whole system, but beyond this subset information is selective and less detailed. This is the reason we cannot describe each event and each actor in the ritual data-set in-depth and have to choose a different strategy. First we generate interpretive hypotheses from ethnographic reconstruction of specific cases, the ruling elicited from actors (see above) and our general ethnographic understanding. Then we test the interpretive hypotheses on all cases quantitatively. Here we submit the dimension values from the MDS representation and the interpretative variables to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, see Koopmans 1987: Ch. 11). 6 This lends formal support to our interpretations. We examine in turn the effects of size, type of celebration, neighborhood, religious orientation and class on the configuration of ritual celebrations. Our interpretations are visualized by embedding information on each variable onto the MDS configuration of Fig. 1.

6 We used the F-test to compute for detecting group differences.

statistical

significance

coefficients

and the ScheffL procedure

30

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

........

.......... ..........

.r(

..........

. . . . . .

.......... ..........

.......... .rtd ..........

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .,.j ......

4

.rl

.,+

........

.4

. .

.rl

.rl

rl

..

.

..........

.rlr( .rl

......

.

.

.

.

.

.

-rlrl .

.

.rlrl r( .

.

. .rl

.rl

.

.rlr(rldrlrl . .

.

.r(r(

.drlrl .rl

.

.

.

. .rl .

.

. .

. .,.+

..+

..

.d

.rl

......

.

F. . .......... .......... .......... ...

. .

..... .r(

.rl ....

.rl

.rlrlrlrlr(

.rl

rl

.rlrlrlrld

.. rlr(

r(

.rl

.

.rl

.

.,+

..

rl

.

..........

.rl

.......... ..........

.

.rlrl

.,.i

,..I

-r(r(rl _+

.......... .d

_.

.....

.......... . .

......

.3

.......... .r(

....

..

.r(

.......... -4

......

.r(

.,+

..

..

..

.rl

...

.r(

.......... ....

.rl

..........

.rl

.......... ..........

.r.

.......... ..........

.......... .d

d .......

.

..........

.ddd .rlddd ..........

.-lrlr+P-ld.+,-irl~ri .......... ..... .

.r(

.,.+.

.

.rl ........

.rl

.,+

.rl

.rlrl

d .rl

..........

.

.....

.....

......

dddrlrl .......... .......... ..........

.

.....

.

-e-iv-i

.rl

......

....

. .

.r(

..........

..........

.rl

.r(

........

....

..........

.rl.irl

.,-Is.4

_A

......

.......... ...

..........

.......... _r(

.r(rl .,+

.rld .r(

.rl

.A

..

.....

_I

.rl .r(

.rl

.rl

.dd

......... .

.rl

.rl_ld

...

.. ..

.rl .rl

..

..........

..........

rl

.

.r(

.rlr(dr(r(

.r(

r(r(rlrld

..-I,+ .

.dr(

.r(

.r(rlrlrld . .

.

... .

rldr(r(rld

..........

.rlrl

...

.r(

..........

.r(

...

.dd3 .rl

.rl

.........

.d

rl

.,-I

........

.rlrl

...

..... ..........

.d

..........

.......... ..........

.......

-4

.

rl

..........

.r(

.r(

......

.....

. ..

r(~r(rldrlrlrl

.r(

.......... .

...

..........

.d.i..

......

.rl

..........

........

.drl

......

.,4

.......... .

.

..........

.. rl

..........

..........

...

..........

.rlrl .d

.rl

.rl

. .

.rl

...

.

..........

....

.rl

.

.rlrlrl

..........

.

.......... .......... .......... .....

..........

..........

.rl .rl

.

..........

.

..........

drl

.

.

.rl

.

.

.

?i

..+

......

..........

..........

.r(

.r(

rl

.

.....

.A

.d

......

..........

rl

. .

.rl.-.

.,.i .

. .

....... .rl

F4r(drlrldrlrlrl .. .rl

..........

.rl .rlrld

.

..

rl

.. .,+

.,+

.rl

.dr(rl

.rl

.rlrlddr( .

rl

.drld

.

..........

.......... .......... .......... ..........

..........

.rl

rlrlrlrl

..........

..........

........

..........

.

.dr(dr+r(ddrl ..........

.dd

.r(

.

.......

.

._I

. .

..........

..........

.rl

.

..........

.A

..........

.

. .,+.-I . .

.........

..........

.r(d ...

.

..........

.

. .

rl

.rl

..........

..........

.rl

.rl

.rl .

.

.rldrl

.

.r(

31

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... t+ .

.......... ...

..... . . . . . . . . . . ....... .r(

.rl

.....

. .

......

.,+

..

.......... .......... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...

........

........

.......... .......... .......... .......... ....... ..........

..........

..........

.

.

.

.

.

..........

..........

.

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

.

..........

..........

.

.

..........

..........

.

.

.

..........

..........

.

.

..........

..........

.

.

,.4

.d

d

.

.,+ .

.4,-l

.r(

.

..........

....

.rl

.rl

..-lrlrl

s-l

..-4

..........

......

.rl

..

.

..........

......

.rl

..

..........

..........

..........

.r(d.-lrl.-ldd

.,-4

.

.

.

.drlrlrl . .

.

.

.

. .

.rlr(r(rl.-lrlvi

.r(

.......

. .

.

.

.rld.-lr(r(

.d

.

rlrlrl

.

.rl

.

.rl

.......

.

.,+

..

.r(

r(,-lrl.-lr(

. . . . . .

.......

.r(

.r(

......

.-

.,+

..

..

.......... .......... .......... ........... ...... . . .rl

..

...

.,+

.

.rldr(

.,-I

..........

.

.

.r(

. . . .

._I

.

.

.r(

.

.

....

.r(

.......

.,+

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.rlrl

.

.,-I

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A

.rl

......

.rl

.rl

. . . . . . . . . .

....... ....

.rl

rl

..

.

.......... ........

. .

.A .,+

. .

..-z .

.

.rlrl . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.rl .

.

.,.+

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.......... d-4 .

.

.

.r( ....

.rl

..

.r(d

.

..

.r(r(

...

.rl .,+

..........

.rl

.

.,.i

.rlrlrld.+

..........

.......

........

.......... .,4

d

.rld

.

.

....... ....

.+

.d

.,i

..

.A,4

.4

.

..

.rl

.......

.. ...

.

.

.

..-J

.

.

.

.

.

.r(

..........

.

.

.

..........

.

.

..........

.

.

.rl

.,-I .,+

.

.rl

.

.......... ..

.rlrl

..

.rl

.

..44

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-4r(,-r4rl . . . . ..I*

.,+

.,-I

.rl

.,-I

.

,++ .......

......

..........

.rl

..........

.....

...

..-I.

....

..........

..........

._I

.,+

..........

.rl

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.rl

.

..-a.+

.

.

.r(

.

.

. .

.rl

.,-4rlrlrl

. . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.,..I

.

.

..+

.

.

.+ .

.rl

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..+

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-d .

..-I . .

rlrl

.,+

.

.,4

4

.

.

.d

.

.,+ .

rl

.

.rl

.rl

.d.irlrl

.r(

.

.d . .

.d

.

.

.*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.r(

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.rl

........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.rl . .

.r(

.

.d

.

._I

.

.

.d . .

..-lr(r(r(r(~.+

.-I . .

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . .A

.rl

..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.rlrlF4.4

rl

........

.

.

.

.

..-I

..........

.,+

,..I,+

.

. . . . .

..........

....

.

.rlrlFlr+

.

.

..

........

..........

.rl

..........

.,+

.

.

.

.

........

.,-I

.rl

...

.

.

.

.....

.

.

.

.

.........

.

.

..

.

.

.

rl

.

.

.

.rl

.

.

.

.r(

.

.

,

....

.rl

.

.......... .......... .......... ....

.r(

.

.

.

.....

.

.

.

.....

.

.

.d

.

.

._I

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.,+

.d

.,.+A

.

.

.

.......... .......... ..........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.rl

..........

.

.

.r(.-4,-lrl .

,+r(

.......... .

.rl

..........

.rl

.

.-rlrl

....

.

.

. . . . . .

..........

.

.

. . . . . .

..........

.

.r(r(r(.4.+rlrld

. . . . . .

..........

.

r(

s.4

. . . . . .

.

.

r(

.

. . . . . .

.

. .

.

.rlrlrlr(

.

.

.

.

. . . . . .

.

.

.+

.

.

.

.r(

.

.rl

..........

..idd

.

. . . . . .

.

.

..........

.,+

..........

rlr(

.rl

. . . . . .

. .

. ..-I

..........

..........

.........

.,+

.

..-I

. . .,+ . . . . . . . . .

.

.A

......

..........

.

.

..........

.r(

..........

.r(

.

.

.rlr(

....

........

.rl

.

.

.

. .

.,+

.......... .r(

.r( .......

..........

..

.44

.rl

.

..........

rlrl

.

.

.

rl

....

.rl

.

.

.

.

.......... ...

.

.

.

._I,-+

.rl

..........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . ...

.

.

.

r(

..

........ ..........

rl

.

.

.

. .,-I

..........

.rlrlrl.-l

.,-Id

.._I

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

........

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

._I .-,A

..........

.

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

.

..........

.

..A

.

.

..........

.

,

.

.

..........

.

.

.

.

..........

.

.

rldr(

..........

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

..........

.rlrl,+r(

.

.

..........

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

..........

,444

.

.

..........

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

..........

.

.

.

..........

.,+

.

.

..........

.drl.-d.-lrlrl . . . .

.

.

..........

. .

.

.

..........

.rl

.

.

..........

. . .

.

.

..........

d

.

.

..

.rl

.

.

........

.....

.

.

.rl

........

.

.

..........

,-I,.4

.

.

.......... r(..i

.

.

..........

.

.

.

.r.l . .

rlr(d.-l,-lr( . .A,+

.

.

........

Flrlrl . .

.

.

.d

..........

.....

. . . . . .

.

.

.

..... ........

.r(

.rl

....

.

..-I,-4

.

..........

.......... ....

..

.4

rl

..-rlr(

..........

,arl

..........

..........

.rlrlr(r(rl

.,-I

rlrl.-lr(r(rlrlrl.-irl ..........

..........

..........

.d .......... .......... .......... . .r(

.d

....

.......... .

....

. .r(

..........

rlrl4

rlrl

.rl

..........

..........

.

.rldr(

.......

..........

.

. . . . . . . . . . .......... .......... .......... ....

.rlr(rld.+

.,-I.-l

.r(

.

..........

.

...

....

rlr( ....

rl

.......... ..........

.

.r(

.rl

...

..

rl

.4

....

.r(

..........

T-4

rl

.d

..........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

rl

.,-I

.....

.rl

.,..I

._I,+

.rl

.. .......

..-lrl,-l

.

.rl

.

..

..........

.d

.d

7lrls-l

.

.r(

..........

. . .,+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

r+ .4 ,q .

.d

. . .

.ri

.rl

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.,-Id . .

.

.-I .

.

. .

.rlFl . .

.

.

. .

.A..+

. .

.,-I

.d .,-lrlr(r(

.,-I . .

.rl

.rl .

.

32

i I t

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

T. Schweizer et al. / R~t~aias action in a Ja~a~~e corn~~i~

33

5.1. Size of celebration The rituals are clearly separated according to the number of common guests. To the left of Fig. 2 (on Dimension 1) the smaller rituals are depicted (A, B) wheras to the right the larger ones (C, D, E) are shown. ANOVA demonstrates a highly significant (0.0~) difference between the very small celebrations (one common guest in the dataset) and the larger rituals. Though this split point could be a measurement artefact, the size effect in general concords with our ethnographic understanding and actors’ sayings who contrast small and large events according to the number of guests. 5.2. Type of celebration In the Javanese belief system different types of ritual celebrations are distinguished. However, this classification is only weakly connected (significance 0.042) to the similarity among events measured by the joint participation of actors. The effect is related with the left-right Dimension 1 of Fig. 3: A weak clustering of final death rituals is visible in the right part of the plot. However, ANOVA does not validate a particular category of feasts being responsible for this weak effect. Thus the type and meaning of celebrations only weakly influences the pattern of participation among actors. 5.3. Neighborhood Neighborhood is a factor of prime importance in the structuration of events. We classified the events according to hamlet location (slightly simplified). The location of hamlets is shown in the map of Sawahan (Fig. 4). The ANOVA reveals that both dimensions are statistically significant with the neighborhood variable. Whereas dimension 1 is not tied to specific hamlets (s = 0.028) the second dimension exhibits a clear group difference which is significant at 0.000. This effect is first due to the difference between hamlet A (lower part of the plot) versus E, C, and D (upper part). The duality between A and E can be given a religious interpretation: it contrasts the syncretist/ Javanist Muslim neighborhood A from the pious santri hamlet E. The difference between A and C, D is due to geographical distance and thereby effected lower frequency of joint involvement. The neighborhood

34

?

?

i

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Jauanese community

+HHHu+uuuu+uuuu+uuuu+uuuc

w

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Jauanese community

35

effect on the similarity among events in dimension 2 depends as well on the difference between neighborhoods B and D. This could indicate geographical distance, but also a different social role: whereas the ritual celebrations in hamlet D are highly clustered in the upper right part of the plot due to a high overlap among participants, the events from hamlet B are spread among different neighborhoods indicating a high degree of mixing. D is a larger and closed ritual community of conservative or Javanist Muslims. In contrast hamlet B is smaller and its practicing Muslim inhabitants mediate socially (and also ideologically) between the strict Muslims of neighborhood E and the Javanist Muslims of hamlet A. 5.4. Prayer meetings This variable classifies the religious orientation of the households performing the events. The categories indicate participation in eight weekly prayer meetings in the village. These are built on neighborhood ties but in addition they fuse people who are close in religious orientation into cohesive subgroups. We conceive the prayer meeting classification as a narrow categorization of events which is related to the broad categorization achieved by the neighborhood variable. This becomes visible when we superimpose the prayer groups on the neighborhood plot (Fig. 5). In Fig. 5 membership in prayer groups is indicated by encircling or connecting points (this also allows for overlapping memberships). In the lower part of the plot the Javanist Muslims from hamlet A comprise one large meeting. In this familiar setting the men of A chat and discuss issues of common concern (if they pray at all). The meeting of the practicing Muslims from the mediating hamlet B is depicted in the centre of the MDS configuration. Some households from the Modernist Muslim neighborhood E residing closely together join this subgroup as well. Other members of E constitute a separate meeting (upper part of the plot). The large neighborhood D is split into several prayer groups. This fission is due to religious differences between conservative and Javanist Muslims in this hamlet. The practicing Muslims from the outlying hamlets C form a separate prayer meeting. In the upper left part of the plot which clusters some “deviant” events from hamlet E a distinct religious clique is formed. These people are a special case, because they are practicing Muslims, live in the Muslim hamlet E, but do not mix with

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

36

m 4

<

m

4

m

E

E

c C

,

D

A

D

B

DE

$D i

D

D

D

DD

D

E

E

:

: t

:

A

B E

A

-2

-1.5

DIM1

-1

-.5

___+____+____+____+____+____c____+----+____+__~

A

A

: A

i --+0

:

I

: BI

A

f

f I

A

A

A

: AC : *+_____________________A____________________________B__________________.__________~__EEE_B___~____________~ B :B:B AA : i B : E B $ : :A.B AA i AA 111 C

:

E

c

B

Fig. 4. Two-dimensional multidimensional scaling configuration of the celebrations with neighborhood identification. Key: LARGE/small hamlet (hamlet location in the village shown in the inlet map); A: JAVANESE MUSLIMS, B: practicing Muslims, C: outlying hamlets, D: CONSERVATIVE & JAVANIST MUSLIMS, E: MODERNIST MUSLIMS, $: multiple points.

ii 2

D

.5+

:

:

1+

‘: : 1.5: : :

: :

2

38

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

i :

”

+ w w

w

/

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Jauanese community

i P

I

3

0

;u,

I *-

0

I

D 0

i

0

40

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

their fellows. The ANOVA establishes strong statistical significance (0.000) of prayer meetings to both dimensions of the MDS representation. Basically both dimensions contrast this deviant group to the others. Depending on geographical closeness or religious commitments the prayer meetings indicate fission within hamlets (E, D), or fusion among neighborhoods (B/E), or they strengthen hamlet unity (A, 0 5.5. Class Social class is measured by actors’ judgements. The names of all household heads in our Sawahan sample were sorted by key informants according to respect/ prestige/ influence. For the upper strata we elicited the names of additional persons in the village. There was very high agreement in the composition of the upper and upper middle class among respondents, also supported by our observers’ measures of socioeconomic status (M. Schweizer 1988). The elite contains the village officials, large-scale farmers, wealthy traders and intellectuals in the village. Figure 6 identifies the rituals celebrated by elite members in the MDS plot. They are widely scattered in space indicating a lack of clustering. The ANOVA analysis demonstrates as well that class is not significantly related to the structuration of events. 7 The intercorrelation of all interpretive variables (size, type of celebration, neighborhood, prayer meetings, and class) revealed that the size of rituals is positively correlated with class (r = 0.361; s = 0.000). This means that elite people perform larger ritual celebrations. Thus class is indirectly involved in the size effect. The other variables did not correlate or were only weakly connected apart from a higher correlation between the neighborhood and prayer meeting variables (A = 0.611; s = 0.000). However, this is a trivial correlation because prayer meetings were composed on the basis of neighborhoods.

’ Use of different indicators of class (land ownership, occupation, material wealth) would not have affected this result, because all measures agree in the identification of the upper and upper middle class (village elite). Different measures disagree in the categorization of the lower strata (cf. M. Schweizer 1988).

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

41

6. Discussion In the social network view in general, society is conceptualized as the collective outcome of many individual decisions and actions (cf. Coleman 1990, the new ‘mastertext’ in rational choice theory). Actors’ joint involvement in rituals plays an important part in this process of societal integration (Hage and Harary 1983: 26-30; Johnson and Earle 1987: 137, 147-149, 168-170, 296; Gorlich 1989; Axelrod 1984 for a general view on the social consequences of cooperation). In the framework of our ethnographic case study the main question is: what outcome do the ritual transactions achieve for the village social structure? Figure 7 combines some of the crucial evidence. It shows the neighborhoods as primary pattern, then the prayer meeting affiliations as second-order categories. Lastly the class position of the people celebrating a ritual is indicated which is related neither to hamlets nor to prayer groups. Our analysis detects the following outcomes of ritual transactions on the village social structure: First, neighborhood units are established and strengthened by repeated participation in rituals. Thus larger neighborhoods (like A, D, E) emerge as segregated and cohesive ritual communities. Furthermore participation in ritual celebrations generates and reinforces dualities between hamlets which are spatially distant (A vs C, D) or, more important, opposed by religious differences (A vs E). Special roles are enacted as well by ritual transactions: open neighborhoods (like B) join ritual celebrations in other hamlets, wheras closed neighborhoods (like C, D) remain in-feasting ritual circles. Second, religious subgroups which centre on weekly prayer meetings are mapped as more narrow structures on this broad neighborhood canvas. They strengthen some neighborhood units (A, C), subdivide others (D, E for different reasons) and fuse events from different hamlets which are connected by bridging ties into a common clique (B and E). Third, a size difference between rituals contrasts miniscule ritual events from larger ones integrating whole neighborhoods or even larger parts of the village. Indirectly class is involved in the size effect, since wealthy villagers finance larger rituals. Fourth, however, class does not influence actors’ joint involvement in ritual celebrations. The rich do not separate themselves from their

AA

-2.5

C~---C”---+----+--_-+--_-_-_t-_-_t--_-+-___~_-__+__.-*---_*____~____+~___~~___+____~ -2 -1.5 -1 -. 5

0

.s

1

1.5

Fig. 7. Two-dimensional multidimensional scaling configuration of the celebrations, a composite view on neighborhoods, prayer meetings, and class. Key: neighborhood identification see Fig. 4, upper class events encircled, Lines indicate prayer meeting membership, $: multiple points.

+t----$-“--+_--_f_-_-C__-.~ -3.5 -3

-2.5:

e_---_

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

43

fellows in ritual transactions. This accords with the ruling, because there should be no selection of participants by class. Let us now have a closer look at the role of class in ritual celebrations. Figure 7 demonstrates that elite members are present in each neighborhood, inside and outside the religious subgroups formed by the prayer meetings. Thus in each part of the network there is a mix of rich and poor, and some wealthy families are always at the apex of their respective neighborhood or religious faction. These people are respected leaders among their following who entertain links to the outside world, who screen information on agriculture, markets, politics and religion. They are trusted advisors, sources of support in times of personal crisis, and occasionally they grant tenancies, wage labor or other economic opportunities to their fellows. What emerges, then, from repeated joint involvement in ritual celebrations is the enactment and stabilization of these patron-client networks: each neighborhood comprises a cohesive set of neighbors and relatives centred on a few leading households. These patrons and their following are committed to the same religious orientation and by their ritual transactions they are repeatedly fused into religious as well as social action-sets. These patron-client networks are further reinforced by their opposition to and competition with the same kind of structures in the other hamlets or religious subsets. Thus each social circle strives to outdo its opponents and to re-establish its name of renown by celebrating lavish feasts (among other measures of communal or individual success like buildings, valued consumer goods or higher education). In some respects our results validate earlier observations in the ethnographic literature which stressed the importance of religious factions and neighborhood alignments in rural Javanese society (cf. note 2). Tackling complex data our quantitative study achieves an in-depth and systematic view of the role played by neighborhood, religious orientation and size in the performance of ritual celebrations and the outcome effected by ritual transactions. Sometimes ritual celebrations in peasant societies are interpreted as a levelling mechanism redistributing wealth from rich to poor in a ceremonial setting (cf. Johnson and Earle 1987: 296 in their reinterpretation of Javanese village society; Scott 1985: 172-173 in the moral economy view). However, considering the balance of flows and counterflows from feast-giving to supporting households and the fact that all neighbors

receive an equal share irrespective of class the levelling effect is negligible. In our view the enactment and enforcement of patronclient ties among neighbors and religious companions is the most salient outcome of the ritual cycle in Javanese villages: Food sharing and entertainment among fellows is less a matter of redistribution of wealth but of effective s~bolization. “Rituals are conventions that set up visible public definitions.. . More effective rituals use material things, and the more costly the ritual trappings, the stronger we can assume the intention to fix the meanings to be” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979: 65; Appadurai 1986, Kertzer 1988 as extensions). Viewed in this perspective Javanese ritual celebrations establish implicit contracts for support. Embedded in religious meanings and performance rules the strenghthening of social ties within a security network lies at the heart of ritual celebrations in rural Java. Our research on “ritual as action” in one Javanese village was informed by the proposition that the social network approach could illuminate the organizational dimension of ritual. In a sense this brings back structure into the analysis of ritual, but ours is a plea to shift attention from the structuration of mental concepts and performances to the social structuring generated by actors joint involvement in ritual performances.

7. Conclusion Three conclusions are drawn from our research: empirical, theoretical and methodologicai. (1) We should like to add a cautious ethnographic remark on the role of class in Javanese society: In the ritual sphere neighborhood bonds and religious commitments predominate the pattern of events. In the economic sphere, however, class differentiation is part and parcel of making a living. Market forces regulate economic conduct and are an important aspect of village society (Schweizer 1989a,b). Patron-client relations build on these economic inequalities. Given the impact of the market, however, patron-client networks are less important in the economic sphere (securing income and jobs) than in social relations, politics and ritual. Furthermore, in present-day Java patron-client ties give way to more impersonal, business-like relation-

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a JaLla~se community

45

ships (Keeler 1987: Ch. 3) which are connected to the rising role of the state and external forced compared to the former localized networks of power. A decade ago, in the “ethnographic present”, this shift had not yet transformed the social and ritual sphere in Sawahan. (2) Our research strongly supports Kertzer’s ~urkheimian view that ritual activity generates social solidarity (1988: 76): “. . . ritual builds solidarity without requiring the sharing of beliefs. Solidarity is produced by people acting together, not by people thinking together”. Given the different size and composition of ritual celebrations the ritual process achieves village-wide cooperation as well as competition among the social units involved in the staging of ritual events. (3) Social network analysis has developed powerful procedures which can be applied to investigate the organizational dimension of ritual. It tackles complex data and detects structural pattern in a controlled and systematic way, thus enhancing the understanding achieved by qualitative ethnographic techniques. In future work we want to reanalyze the data presented in this paper by correspondence analysis and the quadratic assignment procedure thus reconsidering the structural pattern inherent in the data set. Finally we propose that social and cultural anthropological studies of ritual should pay due regard to the organizational dimension of ritual. Besides focusing on the meaning and performance dimension of ritual events we conclude that more comprehensive studies of ritual should incorporate observations on the mobilization of people and resources and the outcome of ritual activities on the social system. Being capable of decomposing the organizational structure inherent in complex ritual networks quantitative network methods should be especially useful to the study of ritual in large-scale, complex societies.

References Appadurai, Arjun ted.1 1986 The Social Life of Thongs: Charities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Axelrod, Robert 1984 The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Barraud, C. and J.D.M. Platenkamp (eds.) 1989/90 “Rituals and socio-cosmic order in eastern indonesian societies.” S$fragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde l&(4), 146(l).

46

T Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Jauanese community

Bloch, Maurice 1989 Ritual, History and Power: Selected Papers in Anthropology. London: Athlone Press. Borg, Ingwer and James Lingoes 1987 Multidimensional Similarity Structure Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Breiger, Ronald L. 1988 (1974) “The duality of persons and groups”, in: Barry Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz (eds.1 Social Structures. A Network Approach, pp. 83-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burt, Ronald S. 1988 “Some properties of structural equivalence measures derived from sociometric choice data.” Social Networks 10: l-28. Coleman, James S. 1990 Foundations of Social Theory. Carbridge, MA: Havard University Press. Douglas, Mary, and Baron Isherwood 1979 The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption. London: Allen Lane. Driver, Harold E. 1973 “Statistical studies of continuous geographical distributions”, in: Raoul Naroll and Ronald Cohen feds.) A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology, pp. 620-639. New York: Columbia University Press. Errington, J. Joseph 1984 “Self and self-conduct among the Javanese priyayi elite.” American Ethnologist 11: 275-290. Freeman, Linton C., A. Kimball Romney and Sue C. Freeman 1987 “Cognitive structure and informant accuracy.” American Anthropologist 89: 310-325. Freeman, Linton C., Douglas R. White and A. Kimball Romney (eds.) 1989 Research Methods in Social Network Analysis. Fairfax: George Mason University Press. Geertz, Clifford 1960 The Religion of Java. New York: Free Press. 1975 The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Hutchinson. Geertz, Hildred 1961 The Jauanese Family. New York: Free Press. Giirlich, Joachim 1989 “Austauschorientierte Netzwerkanalyse als Alternative zum strukturfunktionalen Deszendenzgruppen-Model1 im Hochland von Papua-Neuguinea,” in: Thomas Schweizer fed.) Netzwerkanalyse: Ethnologische Perspektiuen, pp. 133-164. Berlin: Reimer Verlag. Hage, Per and Frank Harary 1983 Structural Models in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hefner, Robert W. 1985 Hindu Jaoanese: Tengger Tradition and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jay, Robert R. 1969 Jacanese Villagers: Social Relations in Rural Modjokuto. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Johnson, Allen W. and Timothy Earle 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Keeler, Ward 1987 Jauanese Shadow Plays, Javanese Selces. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Keesing, Roger M. 1982 Kwaio Religion: The Living and the Dead in a Solomon Island Society. New York: Columbia University Press.

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

47

Kertzer, David I. 1988 Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press. Koentjaraningrat. 1985 Jauanese Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koopmans, Lambert H. 1987 Introduction to Contemporary Statistical Methods, 2nd ed. Boston: Duxbury Press. Kuper, Adam 1983 Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern British School. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Laumann, Edward and David Knoke 1987 The Organizational State. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Lewis, Gilbert 1980 Day of Shining Red: An Essay on Understanding Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magnis-Suseno, Franz 1981 Iauanische Weisheit und Ethik: Studien zu einer &lichen Moral. Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag. Mitchell, J. Clyde 1956 The Kalela Dance: Aspects of Social Relationships among Urban Africans in Northern Rhodesia. Rhodes-Livingstone Papers 27. Manchester: Manchester University Press. and network analysis, ” in: Thomas Schweizer (ed.) Netzwerkanalyse: 1989 “Ethnography Ethnologische Perspektiuen, pp. 77-92. Berlin: Reimer Verlag. Ortner, Sherry B. since the sixties.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 1984 “Theory in anthropology 26: 126-166. Paige, Karen Ericksen and Jeffery M. Paige 1981 The Politics of Reproductiue Ritual. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reid, Anthony 1988 Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450 - 1680. Volume One: The Lands Below the Winds. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schieffelin, Edward L. and the cultural construction of reality.” American Ethnologist 12: 1985 “Performance 707-724. Schweizer, Margarete 1983 “Religion and social stratification in a santri village in Klaten, Central Java.” Indonesia Circle 32: 25-34. 1988 “Soziale Schichten im diirflichen Java, ” in: Karl-Heinz Pampus and Bernd Nothofer (eds.1 Die deutsche Malaiologie: Festschrift I. Hilgers-Hesse, pp. 213-229. Heidelberg: Groos Verlag. Schweizer, Thomas 1987 “Agrarian transformation? Rice production in a Javanese village.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 23(2): 38-70. 1988 “Detecting positions in networks: A formal analysis of loose social structure in rural Java.” American Anthropologist 90: 944-951. 1989a “Economic individualism and the community spirit: Divergent orientation patterns of Javanese villagers in rice production and the ritual sphere.” Modern Asian Studies 23: 277-312. 1989b Reisanbau in einem javanischen Dorf Eine Fallstudie zu Theorie und Methodik der Wirtschaftsethnologie. Cologne: Bohlau Verlag. 1991 “The power struggle in a Chinese community, 1950-1980: A social network analysis of the duality of actors and events.” Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 3: 19-44.

48

T. Schweizer et al. / Ritual as action in a Javanese community

Scott, James C. 1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Shweder, Richard A. and Robert A. Levine (eds.) 1984 Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Theory, and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, Victor 1982 From Ritual to Theater: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: Performing Art Journal Publications. 1985 On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Wellman, Barry and SD. Berkowitz (eds.) 1988 Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Werbner, Richard P. 1984 “The Manchester School in South-Central Africa.” Annual Reuiews in Anthropology 13: 157-185.