Mutual hegemony and showing social capital in handling conflict problems: cases of border conflict between Batubulan and Lembeng Traditional Village, Sukawati, Gianyar
Keywords:
boundaries, conflict, culture, hegemony, social capitalAbstract
This paper aims to provide an overview of how the efforts for mutual hegemony and social capital performance are carried out by each conflicting party. This is done by highlighting the discourses raised by each conflicting party. For this reason, there are four theories referred to deconstruction theory, hegemony theory, power and knowledge theory, and communicative action theory. The research method applied is qualitative. Data was collected employing observation, in-depth interviews, and documentation techniques. Data analysis was carried out interpretively and deconstructively. The results of the research regarding the efforts of mutual hegemony and counter-hegemony as well as the performance of social capital above can be concluded as follows. 1) Efforts for mutual hegemony and counter-hegemony between parties involved in the border conflict are full of efforts to pressure each other and point out the mistakes of the opposing party. 2) The purpose of hegemony and counter-hegemony as well as the show of social capital is for the opposing party to follow the will behind the hegemony, counter-hegemony, and show social capital, namely accepting the claim. 3) Considering that each party remains adamant on its claims and mutually hegemony.
Downloads
References
Barker, C. (2014). Cultural Studies Dictionary (Translator: B. Hendar Putranto). Kanisius Publisher, Yogyakarta .
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in organizational behavior, 22, 345-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22009-1
Cooper, M. D. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety science, 36(2), 111-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00035-7
Ishihara, H., & Pascual, U. (2009). Social capital in community level environmental governance: A critique. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1549-1562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.003
Karriem, A. (2009). The rise and transformation of the Brazilian landless movement into a counter-hegemonic political actor: A Gramscian analysis. Geoforum, 40(3), 316-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.10.005
Lubis, AY (2014). Postmodernism: Theory and Method. Jakarta.
Mantra, IB, & Sukawati, S. (1993). Bali: socio-cultural issues and modernization . Upasada Literature.
Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational dynamics, 12(2), 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(83)90033-5
Muradian, R., Walter, M., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). Hegemonic transitions and global shifts in social metabolism: Implications for resource-rich countries. Introduction to the special section. Global environmental change, 22(3), 559-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.004
Musavengane, R., & Kloppers, R. (2020). Social capital: An investment towards community resilience in the collaborative natural resources management of community-based tourism schemes. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 100654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100654
Pawlak, Z. (2005). Some remarks on conflict analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 166(3), 649-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.09.038
Peter, V. F. (2015). Relationship among culture, education and sports. International research journal of management, IT and social sciences, 2(11), 38-42.
Pratiwi, I. Y., Ratnadi, N. M. D., Suprasto, H. B., & Sujana, I. K. (2019). The effect of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload in burnout government internal supervisors with tri hita karana culture as moderation. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 6(3), 61-69.
Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2013). The civility of social capital: Public relations in the public sphere, civil society, and democracy. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 280-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.12.004
Thompson, JB (2014). Analysis of World Ideologies: A Discourse Critique of World Ideologies. Yogyakarta: Divapress .
Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(7), 685-707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2003.10.009
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2021 International journal of humanities, literature & arts
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the International Journal of Humanities, Literature & arts (IJHLA) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant IJHLA right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.
Articles published in IJHLA can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
