 |
| To understand the dynamics of ethnic conflict in Borneo, sociological theories provide valuable analytical frameworks. Ill. by AI. |
PONTIANAK - The Dayak Research Center (DRC) : Borneo, the third-largest island in the world and home to a rich tapestry of ethnic groups, has long been a crossroads of civilizations, migrations, and natural resource wealth. In recent decades, the island has also witnessed ethnic conflicts that have left deep social wounds and a long history of struggles over land, identity, and resources.
To understand the dynamics of ethnic conflict in Borneo, sociological theories provide valuable analytical frameworks. One key figure offering critical and insightful perspectives on ethnic conflict is Irving Louis Horowitz.
The Thinker: Irving Louis Horowitz and Conflict Theory
Irving Louis Horowitz (1929–2012) was an American sociologist known for his analysis of political, ideological, and ethnic conflict, particularly in developing nations. He made significant contributions to conflict theory in sociology through a neo-Marxist and structuralist approach.
Horowitz did not view conflict as a social aberration but rather as an inherent feature of unequal social structures. Within this framework, ethnic conflict is a manifestation of systemic injustice rooted in power relations and economic disparities.
Read Revitalization and Transformation of the Dayak Indigenous Religion in the Modern Era
Horowitz rejected essentialist views that perceive ethnic conflict as a natural clash of cultures. Instead, he argued that ethnic conflict is often triggered by unequal access to power, the unfair distribution of economic resources, and socio-political injustice.
In Borneo, many Dayak communities feel marginalized in development processes, while migrant groups—whether through state-sponsored transmigration or economic migration—often enjoy greater access to land, jobs, and economic opportunities.
For example, the Sambas (1999) and Sampit (2001) conflicts between Dayaks and Madurese were not solely about cultural or religious differences. Rather, they stemmed from a deep sense of local displacement and perceived disrespect by newcomers toward local norms and identity.
From Horowitz’s perspective, such conditions reflect unjust socio-political structures, where the state and market forces exacerbate inter-group inequalities.
Ethnicity as a Social Construct
Horowitz argued that ethnicity is not a fixed or inherent trait, but rather a social and political construction. Ethnic identity can serve as a powerful tool for mobilization, especially when a group feels marginalized. In this context, ethnicity becomes a symbol of solidarity and a medium for struggle.
In Borneo, the Dayak peoples, who traditionally live within customary structures and depend on forests for their livelihoods, face severe pressure from palm oil expansion, mining activities, and national development policies that are often insensitive to local socio-cultural ecosystems.
Under such conditions, Dayak ethnicity becomes a unifying identity used to defend land rights, traditions, and collective dignity. Conflict arises not because the Dayaks “hate” other ethnic groups, but because they feel their identity and rights are being ignored or even violated.
The State as a Dual Actor in Ethnic Conflict
One of Horowitz’s key theses is the dual role of the state in ethnic conflict. The state can act as a peacemaker through inclusive policies and social justice. Conversely, it can also become a conflict trigger by implementing discriminatory or dominant policies that favor certain groups over others.
In Borneo, the New Order regime’s transmigration policy is often cited as a root cause of ethnic tension. Without proper mechanisms for social integration, newcomers were often seen as competitors harming local interests. Moreover, the state frequently aligned itself with corporate interests rather than indigenous communities. Permits for large-scale plantations and mining were issued without adequate consultation with local populations, fueling a sense of injustice.
When the state fails to provide space for dialogue and equitable distribution, ethnicity becomes a channel for resistance. In many cases, the state has exacerbated conflict through repressive security measures rather than participatory mediation.
Modernization That Deepens Inequality
Horowitz also critiqued modernization as a project that frequently intensifies ethnic conflict. While development is often seen as a pathway to progress, in practice modernization tends to be exclusive. Certain groups reap greater benefits, while others are displaced from their ancestral lands and identities.
In Borneo, development projects such as highway construction, large-scale plantations, and natural resource exploitation have brought massive social changes. For some, modernization offers economic opportunities. But for many indigenous communities, it represents the loss of ancestral lands, environmental degradation, and the erosion of local cultural values.
Modernization that lacks inclusivity exacerbates social inequality and breeds resentment. In Horowitz’s logic, such conditions are fertile ground for ethnic conflict, as they create groups who feel “left behind” and others who are “unfairly advantaged.”
Horowitz's Relevance to Borneo and Indonesia
Irving Louis Horowitz’s ideas are highly relevant for understanding ethnic conflicts in Borneo and other multi-ethnic regions of Indonesia. He helps us see conflict not as an irrational phenomenon or merely a matter of primordial identity, but as a consequence of skewed structural dynamics. Therefore, resolving conflict requires more than cultural or security approaches—it must address the root causes of social injustice.
Horowitz’s approach also calls for a reassessment of the state’s role. Is the state truly acting as a fair mediator? Or is it reinforcing the dominance of certain groups over others? In the context of regional autonomy and decentralization, these questions are even more pressing, as local decisions can either mitigate or inflame ethnic tensions.
Toward Inclusive Policy and Social Justice
Ethnic conflict in Borneo is not an unavoidable fate. Through the lens of Irving Louis Horowitz, we are invited to understand that such conflict reflects unjust socio-political structures. Consequently, its resolution must also be structural: power redistribution, agrarian reform, recognition of indigenous rights, and development based on justice and sustainability.
Borneo, with its rich diversity of ethnicities, cultures, and resources, has the potential to become a model of harmony and social justice—if policies are rooted in inclusivity and respect for the dignity of all communities. In this effort, Horowitz’s insights can serve as a reflective foundation for shaping a more peaceful and equitable future for all.
-- Masri Sareb Putra, M.A.
Posting Komentar