25 - 29 September 1995
Leiden, The Netherlands
Third International Conference on Indonesian Women's Studies
Tenth KITLV International Workshop on Indonesian Studies
The aim of the conference Indonesian Women in the Household and Beyond: reconstructing the
boundaries was to examine critically the usefulness of the 'household' concept within the
culturally diverse context of Indonesia, an area which has been the focus of classical household and
kinship studies for many decades but which still needs to be the subject of more critical feminist
inquiry. By
By Ratna Saptari
Within classical social science literature various inherent assumptions have been associated with the
household. It has often been seen as consisting of individuals working for the 'common good', in
which relations between members are harmonious and in unity; it is often linked with only one type of
family form namely the nuclear family; and its function is designed to prepare the way for the smooth
entry of its members into society, either as economic, political, or social actors. The urgency of the
theme for the Indonesian context was also felt because of the universalizing tendencies of government
policies and projects which still consider 'the household' - as a nuclear family (with women as
housewives and mothers) take the only existing form. It was hoped that the participants in the
conference would explore and highlight our own biases as academics as well as those of policy makers
in dealing with the various forms of householding.
Part of the discussion concentrated on the dominant ideologies and policies regarding households and
women's roles. Elsbeth Locher Scholten looked at how male colonial authorities perceived Javanese
households through a bi-focal lens: peasant households were seen as units of production and
priyayi households as units of socialization. Mieke Schouten concentrated on the convergence
of the ideology of the Protestant missionaries, the Dutch colonial government, and the ideas current in
Victorian Europe.
The biases reflected in government policies in the New Order period were scrutinized by Mies Grijns,
Lia Sciortino, and Ines Smyth. Grijns argued that the biases underlying the planning of the coconut
nuclear estate system in West Java, in a community where households vary in size and composition,
were heady prescriptions for the failure of the programme. Sciortino and Smyth stated that gender bias
by the state, basing itself strongly on Javanese values imbued with the concept of harmony in society
and family precluded any discussion of domestic violence.
Government policies did not always prove detrimental to women as Anke Niehof states. Niehof
concentrated on income-generating policies and argued that women do benefit from income-generation
programmes since they can use their income according to their own priorities. In coming to this
conclusion she stresses that 'the domestic' and 'public' should not be separated when looking at the
meaning of women's income.
The views of women (and men) of the elite and the discourse on representations of women was
examined in both a historical and a contemporary light. Susan Blackburn and Barbara Hatley,
concentrating on journals and novels in different periods in history, concluded that despite restrictive
norms on the household and women's roles, women themselves showed their inventiveness and
explored alternative views and ways for giving vent to their expression.
The prevailing view of the nuclear family as the universal form in Indonesia is also suggested by the
middle-class intellectuals of the contemporary period and this affects how husband-wife relationships
are perceived (Sita van Bemmelen). Focus on elite women and their ability to manipulate social
networks for the enhancement of their positions was provided by Madelon Djajadiningrat (Javanese
court women); Gigi Weix (women cigarette entrepreneurs); Frieda Dharmaperwira and Marleen Nolten
(elite women of two generations, one living in Indonesia one abroad).
Domestic structures
Debates about the usefulness of the household as a methodological tool were brought out
unequivocally by the presentations concentrating on the domestic structures themselves. Most of the
papers argued that households were not useful for an analysis of domestic structures nor for analysing
women's position in them. In Ambon, Frans and Keebet Benda Beckmann stressed that different
networks were established for different needs, so that co-residential units beyond nuclear families were
more significant than household units. This was also the case for Bali where communal courtyards
provided the basis for core networks in undertaking daily reproduction (Ayami Nakatani) and where
polygynous relations determined the types of cooperation or conflict occurring between domestic units
(Megan Jennaway). This was equally applicable to the Bhuket of West Kalimantan (Shanthi
Thambiah). For Minangkabau, West Sumatra (Joke van Reenen, Carol Davis, Bill Watson, and Martini
Jufri), the importance of individual networks rather than households was stressed, in the execution of
the daily needs of individuals. Conversely, Juliette Koning argued that in her case study, the Javanese
community of Central Java, households were becoming more nuclearized and inward-looking as
members are exposed more to urban life styles. It was agreed by most of the authors that domestic
responsibility, although ideologically placed on women's shoulders, was always subject to negotiation
and the actual roles of women cannot be assumed beforehand.
Although it was clear that dichotomies between 'external' and 'internal' relations between and within
households were difficult to maintain, some papers could be grouped according to their emphasis on
the interplay between 'external' forces and gender relations 'within' households. Patrilineal kinship
systems and patriarchal family values were constraining for women but, as in the case of the Toba
Batak, Janet Rodenburg argues it was the women's ability to manage households and farms that made
it possible for men to migrate. In contrast, Tina Yusmadiana and Yusmaini stressed that kinship
systems more or less shaped the nature of women's autonomy. In between these two views, Becky
Elmhirst admitted that gender ascriptions were open to negotiation but that different ideas (those held
by the Lampungese community and the Javenese migrants) on the role of a daughter's contribution to
the household shaped their respective employment patterns.
Focusing on the linkages between labour demand and labour supply my own paper looked at how
households contract and expand following the needs of the cigarette industry in East Java and the
ambiguous position of women workers in the different age groups in the face of these changes. The
role of women becomes highly ambiguous when the workplace converges with the home and thus the
'external' and 'internal' become one, as in the case of the homeworkers in East Java (Brigitte Holzner)
and also in Flores (Willemijn de Jong). This ambiguity was also examined by Danilyn Rutherford in
Biak, Irian Jaya, where she concentrated more on changes in womenþs roles and rituals in the face of
rapid, and often dramatic social changes. In focusing on the rapid changes among the Dayak,
Kalimantan Nita Kariani plainly showed the detrimental effects these have on domestic structures and
women in particular.
At the end of the conference it was recognized that the process in breaking conceptual boundaries was
much more intricate than at first envisioned and many conceptual strands had to be left unexplored,
despite the fact that five days had been reserved for the conference including the open day and the
closed sessions (with keynote speech by Diane Wolf from the University of California, Davis).
Twenty-nine participants from seven countries came to present their papers. Twelve papers have been
selected for a future book publication. The conference, which took place in Leiden, was a joint
undertaking of the WIVS (Interdisiplinary Forum on Indonesian Womenþs Studies) and the KITLV.
For further information contact
Ratna Saptari/Juliette Koning
WIVS
Projects Division TCZOAO
University of Leiden
P.O. Box 9515
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands