Takeshi Ito, Anthony Reid

From Harbour Autocracies to 'Feudal' Diffusion in Seventeenth-Century Indonesia: the case of Aceh

Introduction

From harbour autocracies to 'feudal' diffusion in seventeenth-century indonesia: the case of aceh. Explore 17th-century Aceh, Indonesia, analyzing how the concept of 'feudalism' was used by nationalists to challenge traditional hierarchies and colonial rule.

Abstract

In Indonesia, as in most Asian countries, the term 'feudalism' became very popular in the 1930s and '40s. It was part of the jargon which nationalists accepted eagerly from Marxism, because it seemed to locate their own societies on a linear path of inevitable progress. By making an explicit analogy with European history, it emphasized that the royal courts and aristocratic officials protected by the colonial order were in fact anachronistic doomed relics of an earlier age. It helped legitimate the aspiration of nationalists to replace not only colonialism but also the internal hierachy based on birth by a more democratic order in which education and the skills of mass mobilization would be adequately rewarded. At a popular level 'feudal' became simply the pejorative equivalent for 'aristocratic' or 'traditional'.

Review

This paper promises a critical and insightful re-evaluation of the term 'feudalism' within the context of Indonesian historiography, a term whose popularity and political utility in the 1930s and '40s are astutely highlighted. The abstract effectively lays out how 'feudalism' became a powerful, albeit ideologically charged, tool for nationalists. It drew an explicit analogy with European history to position colonial-backed aristocracies as anachronistic obstacles to inevitable progress, thereby legitimizing the aspirations for a more democratic order. The title further suggests a deep dive into the specific historical processes within 17th-century Aceh, charting a conceptual shift from "Harbour Autocracies" to a "Feudal' Diffusion," implying a nuanced historical argument beneath the conceptual critique. The strength of this work, as previewed by the abstract, lies in its acute historiographical awareness and its capacity to deconstruct the political and ideological underpinnings of historical terminology. The abstract clearly articulates how the adoption of 'feudalism' by Indonesian nationalists, drawing from Marxist thought, was not merely an academic exercise but a strategic move to position their societies on a "linear path of inevitable progress." This analysis of how a term can be simultaneously a pejorative for 'aristocratic' and a potent political weapon to legitimate social transformation is particularly compelling. It demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how historical concepts are shaped and deployed in specific political and social contexts, moving beyond simplistic applications to reveal the complex interplay between scholarly discourse and nationalist ambitions. Overall, this paper appears to make a valuable contribution to both Indonesian history and broader debates on comparative history and the political uses of historical concepts. Its critical engagement with 'feudalism' offers a necessary corrective to potentially unexamined assumptions within Asian historiography. We anticipate that the full manuscript will successfully integrate its robust conceptual critique with detailed empirical evidence from 17th-century Aceh, thereby fully substantiating the proposed historical trajectory from "Harbour Autocracies to 'Feudal' Diffusion." This promised combination of historiographical sophistication and specific historical analysis makes the paper a highly relevant and timely addition to the field.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.