Adat Babuhua Mati – Adat Babuhua Sentak(Cultural Impulses which transform Minangkabau

Culture)

By : Zainal Arifin and Maskota Delfi1

ABSTRACT

In Minangkabau society cultural norming delinate principlesof value and norms that control the space of endearvours inlife. The parameters of accomplishments and activities arealways tested with the legitimised traditional norms of theparticular area. Nevertheless time and space alwaysinfluences the forms of legitimised boundries of the humanendeavours and within a permissable margin can be cleverlyadjusted accoradingly to the need and desire of theindividual. In several cases of Minangkabau customaryapplication can be deducted that opertunistic behaviour canreconstruct and redefine the boundries of the individualconseptiual norm without cultural rejection. This paperattempts to explain how Minangkabau customary applicationsexperience redifinition and rekonstruction of value, thusforming a pendulum impulse pattern. This is not onlyreflected in adat babuhua sentak, (dynamic customs) but alsoin the adat babuhua mati (static customs)

Keywords: Minangkabau, redifining and reconstruction,dinamic and static customs

A. Prologue

Minangkabau is one of the ethnic in Indonesia, which

occupies an area in the province of West Sumatra.

Minangkabau society was largely a world that embraces

1 They are Lecture in Anthropology Departement of Andalas University, Padang-West Sumatra, Indonesia.

1

matrilineal system, but on one side of the also strong

adherents of Islam. Strong matrilineal tradition and Islam

is to invite confusion many researchers, not only

Indonesian researcher, but also outside of the fieldwork.

Even liberated from the usual paradigm used by

researchers, it seems that there is a true acrophobia in

Minangkabau born experts to commend on social occurrences

in Minangkabau society2. Some describe these occurrences as

ambiguity (Sairin, 2002), as political competition among

rivalling factions (Azwar, 2001; Maarif, 1996), principles

applied on frequent change as ill defined (Benda-Backmann,

2001; Biezeveld, 2001). Others describe Minangkabau culture

phenomena as "a guessing game" (Wahid, 1996) or as a

“dispute" (Tanner, 1969), and as a “dual organisational"

(de Jong, 1960). Some Minangkabau as well as outside

theorists have tried to rationalise this behaviour and made

the conclusion that the observed “disputed” phenomena have

to been seen in a pragmatic way and are in fact a balancing

act (Abdullah, 1966), complementarily (Davis, 1994), unity

in dualism (Saanin, 1989) or even as unison of diversity

(Nasroen, 1957).

Hitherto, bewildering Minangkabau phenomena remain to

fascinate all researchers and Among other Minangkabau

analysis, these non-linear behavioural characteristics are

noteworthy. Firstly, because of the uniqueness of a

2 existing seminar and discussion, still question cultural identity ofItself Minangkabau. Themes like "diging again identity of Minangkabau",or "cultural revitalisasi of Minangkabau", even theme like "reconstructing culture of Minangkabau".

2

matrilineal society, this is usually very differing from

the background of a lot of researchers who tend to have

been raised in a patrilineal society. Secondly, strength of

consistent orthodox Islamic teachings in the Minangkabau

area, which comes to a surprise as Islam has a tendency to

be patrilineal focused, which is the opposite of the

matrilineal Minangkabau culture. Thirdly, apart from the

cultural and religious juxtapose, empirical patterns emerge

which pleas to investigate and consider aspects of society

for which Tanner bewilder coins the phrase “dispute”.

Although having tried to clarify that "disputed"

phenomena, which were based on empirical observations,

after the 1980’s there has been a tendency by most

researchers to return back to the “dispute”, which openly

manifests itself in the Minangkabau social order. According

to me, this return to this perplexity is caused more or

less by the newest study about Minangkabau from observing

cultural perspectives from a more individualistic angle

(manly a North American style of interpretation), so that

cultural phenomena in Minangkabau tend to more placed in a

change of social values theoretical framework. In fact, all

researchers realise that it is common to sense changes in

Minangkabau cultural values or by using a custom proverb

“sakali air gadang, sakali tapiah barubah” which translates as

“once the floods arrive, next the bathing place (along the

river)will also be altered’. Researchers are even more

bewildered, when seeing various phenomenal expansions which

are “difficult to read” when reading through the exists

3

ting “theoretical” spectacles, be it phenomenon related to

“social change” theory or the “continuation” theory.

Ethnocentric interpretations from this angle have been

discussed by Mestika Zed (1992; 2004). According to Zed,

the technique of interpreting phenomena in Minangkabau

culture might require a structural approach in analysing

the described phenomena. This thought is based on the fact

that Minangkabau in fact has been analysed as having

cultural structures, although it has to be said, being of

irregular nature. In the Minangkabau language is a dictum

"batuka baruak jo cigak" which can be loosely translated as

“varying the strain of the monkey, but still a monkey”. In

this context it implies that only at superficial level a

change takes place but no changes take place at the nucleus

level or at the philosophical level - or borrowing the term

used by Levi-Strauss “savage though - which in fact means

“remaining the same”.

Departing from this line of thought which discusses

various phenomena and which raises disputes owing to the

structural nature in Minangkabau culture, according to me,

the structure of society Minangkabau is in fact dualistic

or structural ambiguous3. The matter of dualism in

Minangkabau society has not only been raised by de Jong

1960; Tanner, 1969; and Dobbin, 1977, but also by

Minangkabau writers like Abdullah, 1966; Saanin, 1989; and3 Concept of Minangkabau's ambiguous also have been told by Sjafri Sairin (2000) which see society of Minangkabau now enter step of ambiguitas or of transition. But differing from Sjafri Sairin, my view about ambiguous more as a structure, non as empirical phenomenon.

4

Maarif, 1996. The nature of structural dualism in

Minangkabau culture is based on structuralism by all of the

above mentioned writers. For instance Needham (1980),

mentions that a society which uses matrilineal as basis for

its social life such as in matrimonials, dualism will

always occur. Structuralists, including Needham, see this

social appearance as a very important matter for the

positioning of women in society. Not only Needham

highlights this social occurrence but also Ekeh (1974)

depict several occasions of social exchange in details.

I do not assume that the structural approach as the

only approach to interpretate cultural phenomena, but that

it can be used a basis of approach such as: "binary

opposition" in structuralism, which are according to me

apparent in Minangkabau cultural phenomena, being it of

diametric, concentric or triadic nature. This previously

mentioned concepts have been borrowed from Lévi-Strauss,

(1963). Secondly, a “social change” approach has been

developed to interpret Minangkabau societies, which do not

necessarily change the basis of customary values (adat).

Minangkabau society distinguishes two types of custom, that

is, “adat babuhua mati and adat yang babuhua sentak” or in other

words, customs which are rock solid entwined in society and

difficult to change and customs or customary law which are

not deep rooted and relatively easily subject to change.

From the above it is possible to draw the conclusion that

adat or more specifically basic traditional values, remain

effectively stable in place. Thirdly, as more personal and

5

subjective approach which has not been applied before

except by De Jong who is of the Dutch school of

structuralism, is to understand and explain Minangkabau

culture thoroughly.

This article is trying to reinterpret some opinions

which have been floated by various researcher of

Minangkabau culture, but who word have not been considered

as being the decisive closing word on the interpretation of

Minangkabau culture. Therefore I wish to try to examine and

explain various phenomena in Minangkabau culture which are

considered to be "ill defined". I do not assume this

article to reveal any new findings or provide a new

opinion, but an attempt to make a correlate between the

various phenomena, which till today still have remained

clarified in a tentative manner. In addition I will attempt

to raise new unspoken dimensions in the interpretation of

Minangkabau structure and culture.

B. Concentric and Triadic Structures inMinangkabau Culture.

Lévi-Strauss (1963) when trying to comprehend the

social organisation in Indonesia distinguishes in part a

mirroring twinning organisations (dual organisation), and

was trying to formulate models which he called diametric

and concentric structures, as well as triadic to explain

this cultural phenomena. Lévi-Strauss distinguish the

existence of diametric structure in the formation of

certain social organization which is shaped as result from

6

symmetrical and a well-balanced dichotomy among existing

social group. On the other hand, concentric structures,

when existing in social organisation, are developed by its

environment itself or are the result of a well-balanced

dichotomy. Both own the same reference and refer to the

same source which radiates from existing elements or hub.

If conditions are favourable in a particular culture, a

third structure will emerge as the result from the well-

balanced solidarity and relationship between the concentric

and the diametric structure, which is known as the triadic

structure.

Mutually tied together with the social structure in

Minangkabau culture, a lot of researchers (see the De Jong,

1960; Nasroen, 1957; Abdullah, 1966; Maarif, 1996; Sairin,

1996; Saanin, 1989 Mansoer, 1970 and others), depicting

Minangkabau culture and structure as a society that in fact

consisted of two moiety which are (lareh) Koto Piliang and

(lareh) Bodi Chaniago, with four phratri that is Koto, Piliang,

Bodi and Chaniago. From the fourth phratri were the clans of

Minangkabau formed which divided again and spread itself to

the luhak region as well as outside its traditional areas

abroad. Following Lévi-Strauss reasoning, a picture emerges

of the social structure of Minangkabau with the impression

that Minangkabau society has more in common with a

concentric structure than that is reflected in a diametric

structure. This matter is apparent with the pattern of

group division which is characterised in its boundary

division and a tendency to mix one and another. Nasroen

7

(1957) visualised the characteristics of this concentric

structure in an analogy better described in cookery

experience. He compared the concentric structure with the

preparation of a “stew” where various ingredients and

mixtures unionise in one flavoursome dish. It has to be

said that this unification does not eliminate the

characteristic and nature of the elements of the mixture.

Becoming a stew, it requires a range of ingredients of

different nature, like the hot tastes of spice

(unmistakably pepper), something which tastes savoury

(unmistakably salt), the tastes of meaty substance (maybe

beef) while the vegetables and potatoes are still visible

while minor ingredients, but just as important add their

own various other flavours to the whole; like laurel leaf,

nutmeg and cloves which still have their own identity but

mingled easily with one another to create the stew.

It has to be implicitly that the explanation above

also illustrates aspects of triadic structure in

Minangkabau society which posed an irregular division which

tends to have the appearance of three divisions. Like the

division and existence of the three luhak (luhak nan tigo), the

three elite figures (tigo tungku sajarangan), the three

ultimate leaders (Rajo Tigo Selo) being the kings of nature

(Rajo Alam), the kings of worship (Rajo Ibadat) and the kings

of culture (Raja Adat), the three colour flag (black, red

and yellow) and other designations. Although the existence

of dichotomy tends to oppose each other, according to De

Jong (1960), they interlock with each other in a well-

8

balanced way, because they cannot live without the

existence of the other. Thus a balanced variation in the

unity emerges. If correct, a true dualism in Minangkabau

society mirrors the nature of triadic. Hence follows the

opinion of Lévi-Strauss, that one of its elements (the

third element) is the conductive element which amalgamates

the two opposition element (other dichotomy). Something

which can be observed, when empirical observations are used

to provide us with evidence in new un-investigated

appearances in Minangkabau society.

The matter which remains unresolved is what exactly

matures into the third element. In many conclusions

investigating Minangkabau society, the three existing

groups (lareh) in Minangkabau society are in fact the

reflection of the two moieties which are in essence the

moiety of Koto Piliang and of Bodi Chaniago. Region of Agam

(luhak Agam) are represented in the lareh of Bodi Chaniago

which emBodies a democratic political pattern. Region of

Limapuluh Kota (luhak Limapuluh Kota) which emBodies the

lareh Koto Piliang emBodies an aristocratic political pattern,

whereas the region of Tanah Datar (luhak Tanah Datar)

emBodies both existing lareh (Bodi Chaniago and Koto Piliang).

What actual is implicated by the luhak Tahan Datar is that

it can be considered the third element from two existing

luhak. If this proposition is correct the question remains

which lareh is going to be used in this context. To be able

to reply to this question a major study is required, but if

is assumed that the second of the lareh is an equal

9

opposite, hence theoretically, there is a hidden lareh

possibility according to Lévi-Strauss. He suggests that

this lareh takes the role of neutralising, the antagonistic

characteristics, of the second lareh.

The appearance of the second lareh in Minangkabau

society cannot be dissociated with the personality and

leadership patterns of the two ancestors which proceeded in

the current Minangkabau culture which are responsible in

creating the (adat) customary (lareh) order in society. To

be more precise Perpatih nan Sabatang who created the lareh

Bodi Chaniago and Datuk Katamenggungan who created the lareh

Koto Piliang. If these two ancestors are assumed to have

instigated the separations of the two existing lareh, then

which moiety is considered to be the instigator of the

third element? In this instance we have to scrutinise

several previously issued research papers. In a few

publications (see de Jong, 1960; Abdullah, 1966; Maarif,

1996 and Sairin, 1996) a picture surfaces that Datuk always

opposed and even conducted a “perang batu” or stone throwing

battles and fought a battle with deadly weaponry (keris or

rifle). Finally they were able to unite themselves as two

even united harmonious oppositions4.

In the process of forming a Minangkabau community

(nagari or kampong), there has been the tendency to have

both moiety (lareh) deputised in the structure. It has to be

4 Differ from Nasroen (1957) which see harmoniously of Minangkabau is illusion, because oposition cannot be united (co-excistiente). What it can conduct only minimized oposition, so that do not become conflict which is breaking each other one another.

10

said that the subdivision of society (nagari) do not always

mirror just one lareh. Here is being depicted a nagari which

are usually but not always formed by minimal of four clans,

but the existing clans normally are being deputize by two

existing moiety (lareh) in Minangkabau. That means that it

is not always possible that a nagari is inhabited by 4 clans

from one, just one, lareh. In the light of the above

discussion on dualism (triadic structure) it is an

anomalous matter if a nagari consisted by an even

subdividing 4 clan population, but a reasonable change

exist that a " sham group" is being created to neutralise

the uneven division.

de Jong (1960) is of the opinion that a clan has the

tendency not to be formed or represented by just one

phratry. That denote that the process of forming a new clan

is commenced by separating an earlier shaped clan and

entering new cultural elements to this clan which

eliminates originates from a challenging clan with phratry

in its clan. For example, when a clan is newly formed by

phratry Chaniago, hence this new clan has the tendency not

to represent the full likeness of the Chaniago phratry, but

only some elements of the element from phratry (either from

Bodi, from Koto, or from Piliang). Even De Jong acknowledges

that the newly shaped clan does not take all the elements

from its moiety. Becoming a new clan derived from Chanaigo

does not necessarily include the values from phratry Bodi,

but only values which are included in the phratry of Koto

or Piliang. For example one of the patterns which are

11

observed are the naming patterns of the village which

originates from where they came from or where they settle.

To give an example of the previous, the Kampai clan has

split itself from the Piliang clan which initially named

itself Piliang Kampai. After a while they were referred to as

Kampai and eliminated the Piliang part of their designated

name which might indicate that they received the

recognition of their independency and a new identity, away

from the former group they split off from. Achieving the

sign of “elimination", is also accomplished by affiliation

of the splinter group to another existing clan.

New clan construction patterns like this, according to

De Jong, are commonplace in Minangkabau society. Efforts of

earlier identity elimination is a strategy to get the

acceptance from others (clans) that they truly differ from

others, including affirmation from the clan they earlier

split off from, so that full existence can be claimed which

is matching to the rank as the old clan from which they

used to be part of. Arriving at this stage is not different

from earlier or later splits of clan separations,

difference will only appear by itself as a self admittance

of a predecessor clan (panruko) in a given area. Seldom

will a clan be found which adapts the same name as the clan

it previously used to be a part off. Dissecting a clan

which originates from 4 phratri (previous clans) such as

Koto, Piliang, Bodi and Chaniago, and then later having created

a name for the clan itself tends to make it infinite

12

difficult to identify from which existing phratri lineage

they originate.

This, according to de Jong, stands to reason because

of the collectively nature and similarities among the

earlier clans. For instance, Bodi and Chaniago, and also Koto

and Piliang were previously very congenial and the step by

step development of the extension of the number of

communities (kampuang), took care of that circumstantial

change often took place. This four clan unity awareness

does not infringe on a potential looming separation. In

fact the four automatically assume cooperative ownership

although if split, become two different groups (phratri).

This is maybe also the possible reason, why (kampuang)

villages are using strong foreign sounding names. Even

Melayu clan and Mandahiling clan expressions are used in

providing names for their groups. This deviation presents a

fact, which is a manifestation of opposition in

faithfulness or even hostility in friendship. That

indicates that the early clans (Koto, Piliang Bodi and

Chaniago) are considered to be of a cooperative ownership,

so that federating ushered the existing phratri

progressively extending the society in subdivision. This

also shows its needs of "being dynamic" as one effort to

overcome the dichotomy or opposition of expanding in

society, so that differences do not create disharmony.

C. Adat Babuhua Mati - Adat Babuhua Sentak” :

13

Cultural Impulses which transform Minangkabauculture

In Minangkabau culture, values, norms and habits

expand and have developed over many years. These cultural

patterns of behaviour are known in Indonesia as adat. In

Minangkabau culture there are four adat levels which can be

distinguished. Adat Sabana adat or the customary law which

standardise conventions and controls life philosophy which

are hereditary in character, coherent and authentic. This

adat originate from within and derive their basis from

religious teachings, in this case mainly Islamic teachings

and perceived truthfulness (bana). Secondly, Adat nan

Teradatkan or intentionally customs, which controls local

regulation which originates from deliberations (musyawarah)

and public lifestyle practises at community level (nagari).

Thirdly Adat nan Diadatkan or coincidental customs which are

not purposely acted but are part of someone’s habitual

behaviour and may be added or lessened and even may be left

if appropriate. The base thought of general Minangkabau

society consists of: alua jo patuik, raso jo pareso, anggo-tanggo and

deliberation. Fourthly, Adat Istiadat or customary law based

on miscellaneous habits in a community (nagari) which, are

being illustrated as “the following of the high tide and

ebb” of condition which are combined with the development

of society (Amir MS, 2001; Djamaris, 2001).

From these four types of local customs another

classifications can be applied. Parts of the custom system

14

can according to some interpretations, not be subject to

change (adat babuhua mati) while some social customs are

free to liberal changes, also known as adat babuhua sentak,

and which allow habitual change. The first type of adat is

babuhua mati, this could be the opposite called adat nan

sabana adat. Because this custom type is sourced from

coherent bona fide values originating in the person itself

and Minangkabau community which include the concepts of

perceived reality (nan bana), and instructions which may or

may not originate from interpretation from religion

teaching (generally based on Islamic values), as well as

from instructions which originate from Datuk (grandfather)

Katamanggungan and Datuk Perpatih nan Sabatang which mainly

absorb basic social order in society. Types of customary

law are usually from these two Datuak which originate from

Tambo. Examples of this customary law are community and

tribal law, regulations based on clan (matrilineal), lareh

and other institutions, which have been handed down as

teachings originating from nan bana. The customary law of

the type mentioned in pepatah adat are teachings which are as

one author beautifully describes as behaviour which “do not

mould by rain, nor burst by heat” (dak lapuak dek ujan, dak

lakang dek paneh) (Hakimy, 1991).

Secondly, customary law which is compiled in “adat

babuhua sentak” or are grouped in three customary law types,

being intentional and non intentional customs as well adat

or traditions law. (adat nan diadatkan, adat nan teradatkan serta

adat istiada). Those three customary laws mentioned may be

15

subject to modification, subject to the level of implied

importance, because they are sourced and are resulted from

an accord which has been debated in a deliberation

(musyawarah). The liberations involved have to refer to the

need and significance in the community, but the change

implied does not need to have a arbitrary character, but

can depended on its appropriateness (alua jo or according

to the path to follow and according to its suitability) or

as can be described in Minangkabau raso jo pareso or “feel the

liver and see the result of the examination”, or in other

words, change can happen if it is true and does not

interfere with the social order. This normally implies that

the change can not be of revolutionarily nature and would

not inflict damage the moral and religious values. This is

in reference to the unyielding customs, known as babuhua.

On that account that customary law, babuhua, is not subject

to decline or divert from its ideals. Hence a synthesis is

needed between ideal norms and values with the incoming new

norms and values in the community. It has becoming

important that customs which apply to everyday life

normally remain intact.

Departing from the views above, phenomena are mounting

in Minangkabau society which by all expert observations

look more like only "social change" but are in fact changes

of customary law, babuhua. Till so far not digress has been

observed in babuhua to the level which might be

interpretated as upfront degradation according to orthodox

teachings, thus changes remain in the realm of the ridged

16

implied customs or babuhu custom. (Esten, 1993). Equally,

seen from the structural periphery, any form of change that

happened in Minangkabau society remain only to be shallow

changes, move from one position to another position which

is relatively superficial and no far reaching changes

occur. When movement of marked customary law (babuhua sentak)

hold-up parallel with the ridged customary law (babuhua

mati), the assumption remains that the equilibrium has not

been damaged and it give the impression that nothing has

changed. When the position of customary law (babuhua sentak)

alters and moves to the furthermost point corresponding

parallel to the ridged customary law (babuhua mati), the

change might be significant according to the babuhua

customary law. This can be visualised by a picture of

movement of customary law, babuhua, like the movement of a

“impulse pendulum", as shown in picture below.

Visualisation of cultural trends and changes in Minangkabausociety.

(Transformation Format of Ridged Customary law (BabuhuaMati) – to Change Customary Law (Babuhua Sentak)

17

Adat Babubua Mati

Adat Babubua Sentak

‘D’

‘C’ ‘B’ A BC

D

O

movement been assumed as

being negative

movement been assumed as

being positive

The drawing indicates that the “O” point refers to a

specific stage which arranges life in Minangkabau society

(ridged customary law - adat babuhua mati), While “A”

indicates the position of the part of adat which can

experience change ((adat babuhua sentak), but which still

significantly adheres to the ridged customary law (adat

babuhua) thus change is being considered as being near

stagnant or unaltered. B-C-D point are reference points of

adat babuhua sentak which have experienced change but are

considered as having changed positively. The rate of change

varies from being far reaching or close to the reference

point which looks like being inert change ‘A’. Whereas the

points indicated at 'B'-'C'-'D' are adat babuhua sentak

positions, which have experienced change of various levels

but have also been assumed as being negative changes.

From the drawing can be derived that “O” as a

reference point holds adat babuhua mati or ridged customary

law which has a significance which holds a parity point

with adat babuhua sentak or flexible customary law, whenever it

reference point is parallel with “A” (no movement takes

place). Yet on the other hand it will be assumed that

change has taken place when the reference point “O” starts

18

to swing, or makes attempts to shift to the positive or

negative domain. The reference point B and ' B' are being

considered to be reference points of changes which are very

minimal or close by, denoting a position not to far from

reference point “A”. While reference point D and ' D' are

being considered reference points indicating the

furthermost rate of change and considered to be seen as an

ultimate digression from that reference point so far away

from “A”. This drawing also indicates that movement that

take place remain to be in a band which is relative

similar, because reference points A-B-C-D-'B'-'C'-'D'

continue to be tied to the fixed reference point “O”. Thus,

the movement from A to D or the movement from A to ' D' are

in a matter of fact a change which amounts to be merely a

stationary change, but appear to have fluctuated or

undergoes a change. The phenomenon of change from one

position to the other are viewed as a “disputable”

phenomena by observers of Minangkabau culture.

In everyday life, one of ridged traditional adat

babuhua mati law elements, are regulations in reference to

the traditional Minangkabau matrilineal system which is

undergoing changes but holds a persuasive position in

society. As a part of matrilineal culture, the term of

sumando is used to indicate and give a title or name to the

brother in law who has married one of the females in the

family In customary law, the sumando is only regarded as

the guest at the home of his wife, and does not permit him

to remain on a permanent basis as he, as is skilfully

19

described by Hamka (1951), like the “ash on the fireplace”

(abu diateh tungku) which can be blown away anytime. This

indicates the non permanency of the position of the male

in-law. In everyday ordinances of life (adat babuhua sentak)

this matter has undergone significant change. While the

sumando initially is not recognised and is merely being

compared with “ash”, currently the role of the male in-law

has become very central in his wife’s family life, but at

formal traditional occasions such as the marriage ceremony

(baralek), he is being returned to the original sumando

position who does not require him to be invited to

negotiate these matters with the male siblings, mamak, of

the mother of his proposed wife.

Currently especially in an urban environment it has

become commonplace that husband remains at the home with or

without his wife, although the ownership papers of the

house remain in his wife’s name. In another instance, this

is interrelated to the adat babuhua customary law and

involves land ownership, which is considered family or clan

property. In this issue, babuhua law does not recognise

personal property or individual pursuits. This indicates

that landholdings which are in the realm of Alam Minangkabau

belong automatically to the clan, no ownership can be

dedicated to individual or public ownership. But in 1998 a

Datuak (honouring title which means grandfather) in Pariaman

in the district of Kampung Dalam, divided traditional land,

tanah ulayat kaum, whose individual members have been going

through a revolutionary modernisation process, enabling

20

through deliberations, musyawarah, to deconstruct

landownership so that division of land was agreeable to

all. The opinion of Datuak was based on the assumption that

dispute would be avoided among the existing paruik in the

clan. Progressively intensifying of farming became

unsustainable to some members of the progressive paruik

which had already become tanah pusaka tinggi. It was hoped for

that the paruik lama or conservative paruik members would take

up the challenge and would prosper from the more intensive

usage of land as was already done by the progressive paruik

members. After the subdivision of the land took place a

clause was inserted which would allow the paruik members who

might not have any offspring to return the land to the

clan, which indicates that residual customary law would

denote that the matter of terra firma has a communal role.

From the above readings we can conclude that adat babuhua

sentak allows community land to become ownership of the

individual paruik, although that adat babuhua mati does not

changes the ownership system from communal to individual or

private. (Arifin, Rani Emilia & Afrizal, 2001).

The above mentioned proceedings indicate that social

cultural life intertwines with customary law at a very

dynamic level. The customary dictum which was earlier

quoted in this paper which goes as follows “sakali aia gadang,

sakali tapian barubah or freely translated, when a flood comes

the bathing place along the river will change as well, can

be easily applied to the ridged based customary “babuhua”

law, which is not subject to watershed changes. In this

21

context social changes take place but they seem to be only

skin deep. In Minangkabau culture matters often are

described in two way but in essence only have one meaning,

like: “berubah cigak jo baruak” which means: in a matter of

fact there is no change whatsoever. Another wordplay in

another aphorism underlines the same principle: “bajanjang

naik, batanggo turun” which means: move up and come down and

you are in the same position.

Difference between cingak and baruak (cingak and baruak

are both members of the ape family of monkey) are only

different in the description, just as in janjang and tanggo

which are merely different types of ladders. Differences

only lay in its function as in relation to place, time and

its actor, but do not change the essential value.

Differences are only created by positioning it a different

place or to make it a paired opposite or in other words

binary. In the eyes of cultural structuralists opposition

binaries does not require to be contested or disputed

D. Epilogue

Distinctiveness in Minangkabau culture has been

exhibited by many researchers. Illustrations in this

article are only a way to feature a new approach in looking

at the particulars of Minangkabau social interaction. This

matter is based on dualism in this society which is often

avoided to evade any negativity which might have some

unpleasant connotations in society and to avoid any further

discussion. Any empirical scrutinising will indicate that

22

the concept of dualism in cultural structure is alive and

appropriate in Minangkabau civilisation. A Minangkabau

dictum speaks of duduak samo randah, tagak samo tinggi or when we

sit we or when we stand we are equally tall, which indicate

the democratic attitude of the Minangkabau people over

time. This is similar with the aphorism bajanjang naik,

batanggo turun, or up and down the ladder which has a slight

connotation of aristocratic behaviour.

Example of other or dissimilar opposition binary can

be found in every day life of Minangkabau society, even

though, in existing opposition harmony it is also being

created, and the dynamics of this is clearly liberally

poured onto the cultural values sakali aia gadang, sakali tapian

barubah. Opposition to this harmony is also acknowledged by

many writers which bases of binary culture has been created

since early days by two ancestors of Minangkabau society,

Datuk Perpatih nan Sabatang and Datuk Katemenggungan. According

to me, on that account, it is not true that a lot of

phenomena which are increasing observable in Minangkabau

society, are seen as a mere social change process, because

social change (inclusive of culture) are more location

bound as identities stay the same, though in most cases,

exactly same change might tend to reoccur in another place.

At this point the Lévi-Strauss’s concept of

“transformation" becomes useful.

For this it is required to make an in-depth analysis

why and how this takes place in life and how this

influences the life of the possessor of such a culture.

23

Mestika Zed (1992) has for instance mentioned that the

study of Minangkabau culture can not only be executed via a

cultural approach only, which merely pictures the empirical

phenomena in society. It is require to be accomplished with

a structural approach, where many elements have to be

dissect in a thorough analyses. I am of the opinion that

the structural investigations being carried out, not just

explains elements in the structure of society only, but

most important patterns of interaction. Lévi-Strauss

prefers to use the term “relationship” to describe

phenomena in the Minangkabau society.

E. Bibliography

Abdullah, Taufik. 1966, “Adat and Islam: An Examination of Conflict in Minangkabau” in Indonesia No.2 (Okotober) p.1-24.

Abdullah, Taufik. 1972, “Modernization in Minangkabau Word:West Sumatera in the Early Decades of the Twentieth Century” in Cultural and Politics in Indonesia (edited by Claire Holt & Benedict R.O.G. Anderson & James Siegel). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Ahimsa-Putra, Heddy Shri. 2001. Strukturalisme Levi-Strauss, Mitos dan Karya Sastra. Yogyakarta: Galang Press.

Amir M.S. 2001. Adat Minangkabau. Pola dan Tujuan Hidup Orang Minangkabau. Jakarta: PT. Mutiara Sumber Widya.

Arifin, Zainal. 2004. Kompromi Sebagai Dasar Kehidupan Orang Minangkabau. Article in “International Seminar of Minangkabau Culture and Potencial Ethnic in Multicultural Paradigm”. Fakultas Sastra, Andalas University.

Arifin, Zainal. & Rani Emilia & Afrizal. 2001. Public Service diIndonesia: Kasus di Sumatera Barat. Yogyakarta: Pusat

24

Penelitian Kependudukan dan Kebijakan (PPKK) Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Azwar, Welhendri. 2001. Matrilokal dan Status Perempuan dalam Tradisi Bajapuik. Yogyakarta: Galang Press.

Bachtiar, Harsja. 1967, “Negeri Taram: A Minangkabau Village Community” in Village in Indonesia (edited Koentjaraningrat). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Benda-Backmann, Keebet von. 2000, Goyahnya Tangga Menuju Mufakat. Peradilan Nagari dan Pengadilan Negeri di Minangkabau. Jakarta: Grasindo. (original published 1984, “The Broken Stairway to Concensus: Vilage Justice and State Courts in Minangkabau”).

Biezeveld, Renske. 2001. “Nagari, Negara dan Tanah Komunal di Sumatera Barat” dalam Franz von Benda-Backman & Keebet von Benda-Backmann & Juliette Koning (eds). Sumberdaya Alam dan Jaminan Sosial. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Chadwick, R.J. 1991, “Matrilineal and Inheritance & Migration in a Minangkabau Community” in Indonesia No.51(April) p.47-81.

Davis, Carol. 1995. “Hierarchy or Complementarity? GenderedExpressions of Minangkabau Adat” in Indonesia Circle No.67.p.273-292.

Datuk Batuah, Ahmad. & A. Datuk Majoindo. 1956. Tambo Minangkabau dan Adatnya. Djakarta: Balai Pustaka.

de Jong P.E., Josselin. 1960. Mnangkabau and Negeri Sembilan. Socio-Political Structure in Indonesia. Jakarta: Bhratara.

Djamaris, Edward. 2002. Pengantar Sastra Rakyat Minangkabau. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Dobbin, Christine. 1974, “Economic Change in Minangkabau asFactor in the Rise of the Padri Movement (1784-1830)”in Indonesia No.23 (April). p.1-37.

Ekeh, Peter P. 1974. Social Exchange Theory. London: Heinemann.Esten, Mursal. 1993. Minangkabau, Tradisi dan Perubahannya.

Padang: Angkasa Raya

25

Hakimy, Idrus Dt. Rajo Penghulu. 1991. Rangkaian Mustika Adat Basandi Syarak di Minangkabau. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Hamka. 1951. Kenang-Kenangan Hidup. Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara.

Kahin, Audrey. 2005. Dari Pemberontakan Menuju Integrasi. Sejarah Perjuangan Masyarakat Minangkabau 1930-1998. Jakarta. Yayasan Obor.

Kato, Tsuyoshi. 1982, Matriliny and Migration. Evolving Minangkabau in Indonesia. Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press.

Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Structural Anthropology I. New York: Basic Books.

Maarif, Ahmad Syafei. 1996. “Gagasan Demokrasi dalam Perspektif Budaya Minangkabau” in Mohammad Najib, dkk(eds), Demokrasi dalam Perspektif Budaya Nusantara. Yogyakarta. LKPSM-NU DIY.

Naim, Mochtar (ed). 1968. Menggali Hukum Tanah dan Hukum Waris Minangkabau. Padang: Center for Minangkabau Studies.

Naim, Mochtar. 1973, Merantau, Minangkabau Voluntary Migration. Ph.D dissertation, University of Singapore.

Nasroen. 1957. Dasar Falsafah Adat Minangkabau. Jakarta: Penerbit CV Pasaman.

Needham, Rodney. 1980. “Principles and Variations in the Structure of Sumbanese Society” in James J. Fox “The Flow of Life: Essays on Eastern Indonesia” Cambridge : Harvard University Press.

Oki, Akira. 1977, Social Change in the West Sumatran Village (1908-1945). Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.

Radjab, Muhammad. 1969. Sistem Kekerabatan Minangkabau. Padang:Centre for Minangkabau Studies Press.

Saanin, H.H.B. Datuk Tan Pariaman. 1989. “Kepribadian OrangMinangkabau dan Psikopatologinya” in M.A.W.Brouwer (eds). Kepribadian dan Perubahannya. Jakarta: Penerbit Gramedia.

Sairin, Sjafri. 2002. Perubahan Sosial Masyarakat Indonesia. Perspektif Antropologi. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

26

Sairin, Sjafri. 1996. “Demokrasi dalam Perspektif Kebudayaan Minangkabau” in Mohammad Najib, dkk (eds),Demokrasi dalam Perspektif Budaya Nusantara. Yogyakarta. LKPSM-NU DIY.

Tanner, Nancy. 1969 “Disputing and Dispute Settlement Amongminangkabau of Indonesia” in Indonesia No.8 (April). p.21-68.

Wahid, KH. Abdurrahman. 1996. “Demokrasi Perspektif Agama dan Negara” dalam Demokrasi dalam Perspektif Budaya Nusantara(Editor, Mohammad Najib, dkk). Yogyakatya: LKPSM-NU DIY.

Zed, Mestika et.al. (eds). 1992. Perubahan Sosial di Minangkabau. Padang : Pusat Studi Perubahan Sosial-Budaya.

27