peasant resistance: a covert movement or hidden patterns of resistance and an open resistance pattern.
The two patterns have different characteristics. The emergence and the development of both lies in the relationship of the peasants to the field of power that surrounds them (Wolf, 1969; Scott, 1976; 1985; Mustain, 2007). They can also be influenced by structural conduciveness (Smelser, 1963) as well as social and political changes, which gives them the opportunity to be present in these forms (McAdam et al., 2001; Martin & Halpin, 1998).
According to Della Porta (2006: 21), in conflictual collective action, social movement actors are engaged in political and/or cultural conflicts meant to promote or oppose social change. Based on this understanding, peasant social movements can be understood as a form of protest because they appear as opposition to changes that do not benefit the peasants.
Therefore, the peasants build strength collectively to fight those who have harmed them.
They have consolidated their power through the mobilization of resources and support, both from among the peasants themselves and from outside parties who share the same vision, goals and concerns as the peasants.
Consolidation of power in this context can also be understood as a process of identity construction. Identity construction is “the process by which social actors recognize themselves–and are recognized by other actors–as part of broader groupings, and develop emotional attachments to them” (Della Porta, 2006:91). Collective identity in this sense allows actors in a movement to clearly identify or distinguish their friends and their opponents. According to Della Porta (2006):
“The construction of identity therefore implies both a positive definition of those participating in a certain group, and a negative identification of those who are not only excluded but actively opposed. It also includes a relationship with those who find themselves in a neutral position. It is with reference to “protagonists, antagonists, and audiences” that movement identities are formed and come to life.” (Della Porta, 2006:
94).
In the New Social Movements (NSMs) theory, “identity production is an essential component of collective action” as it provides actors with the motivation (Woods, 2003: 316) so that movements can be further strengthened. The movement is strengthened when the peasants interpret and take advantage of the opportunities for change. This allows local resources and external support to be mobilized for the benefit of empowering the movement.
occur in repressive conditions into an open movement on a large scale. Thus, historical and cultural factors as well as social and political changes are considered to have direct implications for the emergence and development of peasant social movements. In this study, the resistance and/or protests of the peasants are shown to be a social movement that is not only present openly in the form of collective actions, but also appears in various forms of hidden actions or hidden patterns of disobedience behaviour.
In covert movements, as described by Scott (1976; 1985), the actors share the same values that are reflected in their collective identity, either as subsistence farmers, whose lifestyle and economy is based on local culture and beliefs or as people who are exploited or oppressed due to intervention from outside powers, which have led to the deprivation of their political, economic and cultural rights.
Covert movements or hidden resistance patterns are survival strategies in repressive situations. For the purposes of this study, these patterns are also the reaction of the peasant protest against the dominant political and economic policies, which have coercively marginalized them. When political structures do not provide space for the weak peasants to be able to express protest openly, solemnly and formally (as described by Lofland, 2017), hidden actions (as described by Scott, 1976: 1985) are a rational choice that must be taken by the peasants.
The covert movement of the peasants, with a collective identity as described above, generally occurs in rural areas where social life is communal and strongly tied to local culture and beliefs (Scott, 1976; 1985, Kartodirdjo, 1984 and Siahaan, 1996). The solidarity that is formed among the peasants is based on ancestral ties and traditional ideology. In rural communities with such social characteristics, peasant movements are more traditional (Kartodirdjo, 1984, Mustain, 2007; and Siahaan, 1996; 2002) and have more local dimensions (Vilaça, 1993). Meanwhile, open resistance is more massive (Mustain, 2007) in the form of collective actions or open, mass social protests (Tilly, 1978; 1981; Lofland, 2017). An organized social movement widely utilizes social networks, those built both informally and formally in the form of a movement organization (Locher, 2002; Lofland, 2017; Wahyudi, 2005).
The peasant movement in its open and massive form has a special relationship with other social movement organizations that have the same or similar mission and goals (Rosenthal, Fingrutd et al. (1985). Therefore, the movements are usually strengthened by the existence of support networks (Wahyudi, 2005), where the solidarity that is built is inspired
by political ideologies. Political ideology is considered one of the important instruments in influencing and/or mobilizing people's broad participation and support, because social movements aim to fight for the interests of the people in general, both at the local and global levels. Thus, collective actors emerge who define themselves and their opponents based on certain values and/or interests and they (the movement actors) are bound by a strong solidarity to support each other through complex networks of social movements.
Collective action cannot occur in the absence of a “we” characterized by common traits and a specific solidarity. Equally indispensable is the identification of the “other”
defined as responsible for the actor’s condition and against which the mobilization is called. The production of identities corresponds to the emergence of new networks of relationships of trust among movement actors, operating within complex social movements. Those relationships guarantee movements a range of opportunities.
They are the basis for the development informal communication networks, interaction, and, when necessary, mutual support. (Della Porta, 2006: 93-94).
This kind of process allows peasant movements, which were initially local movements with a collective identity based on ancestral ties to develop into social movements that occur widely with the construction of a growing collective identity.
Identity construction should not be regarded simply as a precondition for collective action. It is certainly true that social actors' identities in a given period guide their subsequent conduct. At the same time, however, identity is not immutable characteristic, pre-existing action. … It is through action that certain feelings of belonging come to be either reinforced or weakened. In other words, the evolution of collective action produces and encourages continuous redefinitions of identity (Della Porta, ibid: 93).
Such dynamics allow the establishment of social movement relationships which result in the collective identity of a movement being widely formed. Under these conditions, actors can develop strategies for institutionalizing protest in the form of social movement organizations.
Collective identity is strongly associated with recognition and the creation of connectedness. It brings with it a sense of common purpose and shared commitment to a cause, which enables single activists and/or organizations to regard themselves as inextricably linked to other actors, not necessarily identical but surely compatible, in a broader collective mobilization (Della Porta, 2006: 21).
The peasant social movements are rooted in history and exploitation that cause tension or contradiction in society. The peasant movements stem from the domination and exploitation of the state and the capitalists who have political and economic power over the
weak peasants. As a result, the peasants were marginalized both economically and politically as well as socio-culturally. Therefore, peasant movements, whether present covertly or openly, can be understood as forms of social protest against parties, which are considered to have been and (or feared) will continue to oppress and exploit them. According to Alberti (1972):
“The study of peasant movements requires two basic methodological rules for its proper understanding: first, the focus of the study must be both on the interaction process which binds the peasantry to its overlord and the social forces that impinge upon both poles of interaction; second, such study must necessarily deal with the historical contexts within which the interaction process between lord and peasant develops.”
Albertini's view above shows that the study of peasant movements cannot be separated from the unequal position in the relationship between the state and the capitalists with the peasants. As a result, the peasants were weakened and treated as objects of exploitation by the state and commercial farmers. When the exploitation experienced by the peasants can no longer be tolerated, they will protest through various forms of action, both hidden and open.
Scott's studies (1976; 1985) show that poor peasants, whose livelihoods depend on support from nature and their patron-client relationships with commercial farmers, do not express their protests openly. In a situation where the lives of the peasants depend heavily on the support of their patrons, their discontent is expressed in the form of veiled disobedience through hidden actions, which are carried out individually and uncoordinated.
Lipsky (1968:1145-46) views protest as a political action "characterized by showmanship or display on an unusual nature" that is undertaken by "relatively powerless groups." Operationally, in this use, protest refers mostly to histrionic press conferences, hearing room posturing, and abrasive press releases.
Meanwhile, according to Turner (1969:817) protest is an objective phenomenon and as a label imputed to the actions of others. As an imputed definition of action, the notion of protest competes with such alternative labels as "crime" and "riot" as a way to define and explain certain collective acts, namely mass violence, looting, and disruption.
According to Scott (1985:32), the resistance of the peasants who are weak “is marked less by massive and defiant confrontations than by a quiet evasion that is equally massive and often far more effective”. Several studies conducted by Scott (1976; 1985), which are also
reinforced by other researchers (Siahaan, 1996; Mustain, 2007), show that weak peasants who live in repressive situations manifest their dissatisfaction in the form of hidden insubordination. According to Scott (1985), actions such as stealing, slowing down work, pretending to be sick and stupid, saying "yes" face-to-face but swearing behind, are characteristics and forms of resistance from weak and helpless peasants against state policies and their patrons. These actions were carried out in secret, hidden and uncoordinated with the principle of "prioritizing safety and avoiding risk". These forms of protest do not exist openly and massively but tend to be secret in the efforts of the peasants, who are weak and oppressed, so that they can survive in their repressive situation.
The peasant social movement as a form of open protest only emerged after social changes occurred which resulted in weakening state control and repression. In this context, peasant social movements can also be understood as a means to fight for social change manifested in the form of organized collective action, which in Lofland's view (2017) can be considered as an organization as well as an action. According to Lofland, protest organizations are called social movement organizations or movement organizations. Its characteristics are fundamental criticisms of some or all aspects of the existing social order, usually manifested in the form of protest.
As a form of action, “protest” is also a collective action that develops widely and can be institutionalized to respond to the changes that occur. Protests can also take the form of violence. Thus, the concept of protest in relation to a social movement, according to Lofland (2017) consists of:
“(1) a surge of newly and independently founded or rejuvenated protest or violent organizations; (2) a rapid rise in the numbers of (and participants in); (3) an arousal of mass opinion; (4) all of which are directed to agents of contra! institutions; (5) in response to emerging changes in the macrostructure and/or actions of central institutions. A social movement involves changes in all the elements of the public arena and, most saliently, exhibit a "surge" or "wave" quality. Operationally, one knows when one is looking at a new (or revived) movement by, most obviously, such simple, quantitative measures as the number of relevant new organizations being formed, the degree of membership increase in existing movement organisations that are relevant, and the increase in numbers of planned and unplanned protest or violent actions.” (Lofland, 2017: 22-23).
Referring to Lofland's perspective, it can be said that the peasant social movement is a form of protest that can exist covertly and openly, where its development depends more
protests come in the form of hidden actions and disguised defiant behaviour. However, if social changes have a strong influence on structural changes that imply a weakening of control and repression, peasant protests will take the form of open and organized actions.