archaeology

Between Globalization and Localization
 
By Peter J.M. Nas
Published in Bijdragen voor de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, vol 154, no 2, pp. 335-360, 1998.

Introduction

The main postulate of the theory of globalization is that during the past few decades a ‘third’ culture has emerged which transcends national cultures and cannot be explained simply by looking at national states and their interrelationships. In this article I will explore the oppositeness of this postulate in the field of dwelling architecture. The question at issue is whether the house in Indonesia should be considered part of world-wide culture or not, and, should this be the case, whether this is just recently so. I will deal with this question in three parts, developing the argument from the local to the global. I will begin by describing a number of present-day vernacular habitation styles to show their great variety, based on the diversity of local cultures in Indonesia. Some of these forms of dwelling architecture are still wide-spread, but many of them have already disappeared or can be classified as endangered. In this section the local roots of dwelling architecture will take centre stage. Moving on, I will present the Hindu, Islamic, and colonial influences on the house to show that world-wide cultural elements, not just those founded on the dual relations between states but also of a more general character, were not only present, but were characteristic, exerting very powerful influences. Globalization is not just a recent phenomenon and often has strong regional connotations. Moreover, the so called third culture should not be seen through Western eyes only, because Asian variants abound. In my final phase, I will analyse the post-Independence foreign influences. In this period the diffusion of habitation styles has certainly been speeded up by new means of communication and the intensification of their use. In some cases this diffusion has been based on particular concepts discussed on a world-wide scale and propagated by influential international institutions. In this section the localization effects of this intensification of globalization as well as the phenomenon of hybridization are also taken into account. (more…)

From Steve Weissman, ed., with members of the Pacific Studies Center and the North American Congress on Latin America, The Trojan Horse: A Radical Look at Foreign Aid (Palo Alto CA: Ramparts Press, 1975 revised edition), pp. 93-116.

by David Ransom

    Author’s note: Much of the material appearing in this article was gathered in numerous personal interviews conducted between May 1968 and June 1970. The interviews were with a broad range of past and present members of the State Department and the Ford Foundation, faculty members at Harvard, Berkeley, Cornell, Syracuse, and the University of Kentucky, and Indonesians both supporting and opposing the Suharto government. Where possible, their names appear in the text. Other information in the article is derived from a wide reading of the available literature on the history and politics of Indonesia. Consequently, only those items are footnoted which directly quote or paraphrase a printed source.

    In the early sixties, Indonesia was a dirty word in the world of capitalist development. Expropriations, confiscations and rampant nationalism led economists and businessmen alike to fear that the fabled riches in the Indies — oil, rubber and tin — were all but lost to the fiery Sukarno and the twenty million followers of the Peking-oriented Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).