Phatic, Patron-Client, and Convergent Interactions: Communication Structures Between Vegetable Farmers and Middlemen in Baturiti District Bali Indonesia

Renata Lusilaora Siringo Ringo I Nyoman Darma Putra Nanang Sutrisno Maria Matildis Banda

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18535/sshj.v8i06.1161

##plugins.themes.novelty.article.sidebar##

Issue
Vol. 8 No. 06 (2024)
Published
2024-06-26
Keywords:
    Communication Structures, Convergen Interaction, Vegetable farmer, middleman
PDF

Abstract

In rural regions, agricultural operations rely significantly on middlemen, who not only buy crops from farmers but also offer vital financial assistance. This multifaceted engagement fosters a sense of dependence among farmers, given the symbiotic social connection that proves difficult to dissolve. This study delves into the communication structuration between vegetable farmers and tengkulak (middlemen) within the Baturiti District, Bali, Indonesia, utilizing a critical communication methodology and collecting data via interviews, observations, and document analyses. The uncertainty of livelihood constantly shadows the lives of vegetable farmers in the Baturiti District. The income uncertainty of these farmers is explained as a product of the dynamic relationship between agents and structures that institutionalize social practices within the farming community. Based on this understanding, the forms of communication structuration between vegetable farmers and middlemen include phatic communication, patron-client relations, and convergent communication between farmers and middlemen. The findings from this study highlight the intricate social and economic dynamics between vegetable farmers and middlemen in a rural context. The relationship, while beneficial for both parties, inherently favors the middlemen who possess greater access to resources and knowledge

References

1. Bordieu, P. (2002). Pertanyaan-pertanyaan sosiologi. Yogyakarta: IRCiSoD.
2. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be Defended. Penguin Books. UK.
3. Giddens, A. (1976). The new rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. London: Hutchinson of London.
4. Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism. Vol. 1. Power, property, and the state. London: Macmillan.
5. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6. Giddens, A. (1995). Politics, sociology and social theory. California: Stanford University Press.
7. Haryanto, S. (2012). Spektrum teori sosial (Dari klasik hingga moderen. Jogjakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media.
8. Haughton, J. (2012). Pedoman tentang kemiskinan dan ketimpangan. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
9. Isnawati, R., Effendi, N. F., & Wardhana, B. (2017). Model bisnis inklusi sayuran Farm Veggieway studi di Kecamatan Ponggok Kabupaten Blitar. Sidoarjo: Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo.
10. Jonathan, H. (2012). Pedoman Tentang Kemiskinan dan Ketimpangan. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
11. Mahmudah, E., & Harianto, S. (2014). Bargaining position petani dalam menghadapi tengkulak. Jurnal Paradigma, 2(1).
12. McPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Structuration theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory & research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 127-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
13. Mulyana, Deddy. (2004). Ilmu Komunikasi: Suatu Pengantar. Cetakan keempat. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
14. Narwoko, Dwi dan Bagong Suyanto. (2004). Sosiologi, Teks Pengantar dan Terapan. Jakarta: Prenada Media.
15. Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. J. (2007). Teori sosiologi modern. Jakarta: Kencana Predana Media Group.
16. Sastraatmadja, E. (2006). Petani di tanah merdeka. Bogor: Petani Center.
17. Scott, J. (2000). Senjatanya Orang – Orang Kalah. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

18. Soetomo, G. (1997). Kekalahan manusia petani: Dimensi manusia dalam pembangunan pertanian. Yogyakarta: Kansius.
19. Sutisna. (2015). Tengkulak dan petani: Kajian historis terhadap perkembangan tengkulak sayur di Desa Nanggerang Kecamatan Cililin Kabupaten Bandung Barat tahun 1990-2013. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
20. Sutrisno, M., & Putranto, H. (2005). Teori-teori kebudayaan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
21. Suyanto, B. (2016). Kenapa generasi muda enggan bertani? Memahami subkultur dan gaya hidup anak muda dari perspektif cultural studies. In Upaya meningkatkan minat generasi muda terhadap pertanian (pp. 23-25). Bogor, Indonesia: Pusat Perpustakaan dan Penyebaran Informasi.
22. Syaifullah. (2016). Prespektif Giddens dalam pola relasi petani di Kecamatan Rejoso, Kabupaten Nganjuk. Jurnal Politik Muda, 5(2), 147-170.
23. Ubay, A. N. (2012). Kajian sistem kelembagaan tengkulak di Pelabuhan Perikanan Nusantara Palabuhanratu dan di Pangkalan Pendaratan Ikan Cisolok, Sukabumi Jawa Barat. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.
24. Warto. (2015). Kondisi kemiskinan petani dan upaya penanggulangannya. Jurnal PKS, 14(1), 20-29.
25. Yandi, A., et al. (2020). Motif petani dalam memilih pasar. SEPA, 17(1), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.20961/sepa.v17i1.39652

Authors

Renata Lusilaora Siringo Ringo
University of Udayana
I Nyoman Darma Putra
University of Udayana
Nanang Sutrisno
University of Udayana
Maria Matildis Banda
University of Udayana
[1]
“Phatic, Patron-Client, and Convergent Interactions: Communication Structures Between Vegetable Farmers and Middlemen in Baturiti District Bali Indonesia”, Soc. sci. humanities j., vol. 8, no. 06, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.18535/sshj.v8i06.1161.