Case Report

 

The Interplay of Traditional Cultural Events and Cattle Farm: Humans and Animals as Victims of Madurese Ancient Tradition

 

Moh. Zali

University of Madura, Indonesia.

 

Editor | Kuldeep Dhama, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Received | June 23, 2018; Accepted | July 18, 2018; Published | August 12, 2018

*Correspondence | Moh. Zali, University of Madura, Indonesia; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Zali M (2018). The interplay of traditional cultural events and cattle farm: humans and animals as victims of madurese ancient tradition. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 6(9): 347-354.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2018/6.9.347.354

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

 

Copyright © 2018 Zali. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

Introduction

 

Pecuniary practices are organised by political–economic triggers, such as governmental development policies and market fluctuations, which penetrate unequally at different levels and among groups (Bryceson, 1999). Political ecology shapes on political economy to study the role of power relations in human–environment interactions, as well as the influence of capitalism on local systems and decisions (Murray, 2002). The much-needed foreign direct investment in the real economy, rather than in speculative equityand capital markets, has remained elusive. The absence of such investment has resulted in the tightening of the urban economy over the past decade. This has led to large-scale retrenchments, which drive further unemployment and deepening poverty in the townships and rural hinter land areas of the country. In the process, considerable numbers of unemployed individuals have been pushed back onto the economically arid rural segment, predominantly in the areas under communal tenure. It is in these zones where the economy is now based principally on disbursements from the state’s welfare programme, on shrinking urban remittances and on the survivalist exploitation of natural (including agrarian) resources.

 

The emphasis on household farming as the main to both poverty alleviation and improvement is, of course, nothing innovative in Madura. This reality is congruent with several research. For examples, Gray (1974); Barlett, (1986); Gentner and Tanaka (2000) saying that to meet the numerous intentions of poverty reduction, food security, competitiveness and sustainability, a farming systems approach is recommended solution. A farming scheme is the consequence of multifaceted connections among a number of inter-dependent mechanisms, where an individual farmer distributes certain quantities and qualities of four factors of production, namely land, labour, capital and management to which they have access (Seidl et al., 2001). In light of these trends, efforts are emerging to conserve biodiversity in agriculture landscapes by supporting and promoting farming systems and landscapes structures that are compatible with conservation goals. Another major family livelihood in Madura is cattle-raiser.

Cattles are indeed herbivores, but they are also gregarious and social animals. Cattle in Madura is assessed as essential elements in a complex system of environmental and cultural relationships that figured into adaptations unique to each locale. It is clear from the foregoing that the bul1 (cow) occupies an important residence in Madurese life. Agriculture and animal—particularly cattle—husbandry go hand in hand in Madura, each facilitating the other. Cattle husbandry is still experienced by all but a few households in the north for agriculture and household savings, but its productivity is less due to the relative shortage of fodder compared to the south. The paucity of fodder explains the greater presence of cows, led by women and children to clumps of scrub where they will be left tethered to graze for themselves. Although the availability of limestone quarries enables the locals to build solid homes, considered better than those made of pleated bamboo, this cannot mask the greater poverty that exists in the north compared to the south. In relation to this notion, it is still reasonable to say that the development of livestock-raising is a reliable source of food and income (cattle-raising could evolve as an economic activity).

It is remarkable that some Madura cattle used for cultural events – participating in village distractions such as cattle tournaments (Kerapansapi) and alternated song and dance. The enthusiasm of people and farmers for maintaining the traditional values attached to Madura cattle, and consequently the high prices for cultural cattle are keys to conserve the Madura cattle within the areas where the cultural events are maintained. Kerapansapi is probably right in saying that the bullfight originally formed part of a complex of rituals aimed at ensuring good harvests and thus continued existence.

The best recognised of the animal-versus-animal competitions are cock fights, widespread in several parts of the world (Bryant, 1991; Geertz, 1972; Marvin, 1984); more localized instances are fights between camels (Calişkan, 2009, 2010), water buffalos, horses (The Horse Fund, 2014), rams (Spooky, 2010), dogs (Forsyth and Evans, 1998; Kalof and Taylor, 2007), and even beetles (Wannamontha, 2011). In the past there were even elephant fights in Mughal, India (Pearson, 1984) and in Aceh, today’s Indonesia (Reid, 1989). Even though bullfighting takes many specific forms in both subclasses of contests, structured combat between animals presents great amusement for Madurese societies, especially two pairs of bullsrace each other pulling a sled with a jockey. This is much less well-known as Kerapansapi and hardly attracts outsiders. Madura in Indonesia is famed for its bull races. Each year a foremost competition is held in which all the island’s regions are represented. However, Kerapansapi for most of the Madurese societiesis not just a folk party or event held every year. They claim as a completion of respectability that can lift the dignity and prestige for those districts getting involved in. Additionally, in carnival of karapansapi, the bull owner’s self-esteem is at stake. The large fighting animals are commonly owned by well-to-do Madurese tobacco traders or Chinese-Madurese tradesmen, shopkeepers and entrepreneurs.

This article presents the topic of bullfighting into tourism studies, as the iconic, most popular, but controversial, instance of a highly diversified class of human–animal relations, to be called, for lack of a better term, “human-initiated agonistic animal contests,” namely fights or deadly confrontations with, or between, animals, initiated by humans.

Perceptions of Managing Cattle or Livestock Farms in Madura

A growing and rich human population also signifiesan increase in demand for their needs, such as housing, infrastructure, energy and food, especially animal-source food. Human–wildlife rivalry is a universal problem, especially when wild mammalian carnivores and humans compete over food resources and space (Treves and Karanth, 2003). In many parts of the world, habitat loss and fragmentation and expansion of human populations have forced wild carnivores into close contact with domestic ungulates, exacerbating the competition between humans and large carnivores (Woodroffe, 2000; Conover, 2002). In Madura, the livestock sector is one of the key drivers of land-use change. The ranching practise in Madura is long standing, enduring across many generations. Livestock ownership and farm family are powerful forces that bind families and communities, continuing inheritance that begins with colonization. Rules and regulations governing use of these lands have the potential to considerably influence the viability and survival of local livestock systems.

The livestock types in Madura play very significantin economic, social and cultural roles or functions for rural households through enlightening revenue and wellbeing of the ranch household. Livestock in Madura also aids on nutrition source, household nutrition, family revenue, asset savings, and community occupation, ritual purposes and social status. Livestock feature as life savings can be changed into money whenever the household wants it, is a safety asset influencing access to informal loans and credits being also a basis of collateral for loans. In many rural regions in Madura, in special where financial markets are absent or non-existent, livestock stocks or herds are a source of asset accumulation and a degree of prosperity. Livestock stocks or assets can be organised at any time, satisfying scheduled disbursements such as children school charges and bride wealth or unplanned expenditures such as the illness and death of household associates. This livestock asset could be viewed as “bank account” and it is also an imperative source of household investments that might be employed in years of little crop production, reducing revenue insecurity and household vulnerability, being an important source of risk decrease and security growth.

Agriculture is integrated into the social system through the household and its members acting both as producers and consumers of farming commodities. Madurese societies have developed a simple productive system suited to their needs within their restricted upland environment (They are good at cultivation in upland area). The advance of the far-

mers’ herds make calves more available and affordable to small holders, and also augment local discernments that cattle is the route to a better life. Keeping land for Madurese civilisations in the household and upholding traditional beliefs are regarded more exceedingly than financial properties or pecuniary income. Ranches and land possession are integral components of household and communal lives that feature prominently in the present and future strategies of their owners. Many of the ranchers have structured their careers or taken special jobs so that they could remain in the area to be near their land and cattle, some even passing up promotions to remain near the ranch or of returning home when their families needed help running the livestock operation. The large majority plan to run their ranches as their primary doings after retiring from other occupations and would like to be entirely supported by the cattle venture.

It is generally acknowledged that increasing yields on existing land is key to improve land use efficiency in livestock farms or agriculture. One of the principal reasons for the poor quality of the cattle in Madura is its large number in relation to the available fodder and feed resources and it is evident that in order to advance the superiority of the stock, something will have to be done to lessen and to legalise the numbers. Ideally, the ranch should be run with a management scheme that emphasise on sustainable resource usage, biodiversity, productivity and the well-being of individuals. This “holistic management” method comprises a meticulous time plan to interchange the herds between the various plots of the farm, depending on the nutrient wants of the creatures, the size and livestock feed superiority of these plots, and other influences namely soil circumstances. Beside this, the communal purposes of livestock in Madura is to correspond to the emblematic beliefs related to every species and the usage of animals for the fulfilment of a set of rites (cultural events and heritage) and communal obligations of families and societies. Livestock stretches social status to its owners once it is considered a common mean of demonstrating wealth and offers pecuniary status as it facilitates the access to informal credits and loans to the households. Livestock is also employed in culturalrites, rituals and revelries and is specified as a gift in adorations. Prominently, livestock producers in Madura are fortified to get involved in the local planning operations to aidindigenous governments construct plans that safeguardprevailing livestock processes and deliver upcoming food production and unindustrialized broadening chances.

Anthropological Understandings of the Madura’s Cattle Culture

The cattle are obviously common used for milk and ⁄ or meat manufacture. In addition, particular animals are employed in scenery organisation – some farmers commonly assess that their animals are exceptionally good for that purpose – and also as social companions, therapeutic animals or attractions for farm visitors. Some of the farmers seemed to consider their cows primarily as pets, or members of their family, although they milked them or used them for landscape management. However, Madurese societies considered cows (bulls) as a tourist attraction through the cultural communal occasion of bull racing.

Ever since Herskovits’ (1926) protracted academicals works on the cattle multifaceted, arguments have raged about the nature of the association that exits between rural Africans and their cattle. To the extent that anthropologists working in colonial Africa unequivocally displayed cattle to be embedded in the web of social and economic relations that characterised pastoralist clusters see (Gulliver, 1955; Evans, 1940), it became pure that cattle cannot be regarded as commodities to be exchanged at will. Nor were the cattle owned by agro-pastoralists in Africa simply or necessarily the folk, indigenous or precolonial equivalent of cash (Ferguson, 1990; Murray, 2000; Fielder, 1973; Bohannan, 1959). To against this backdrop, more recent ethnographies have taken note of other, more contested aspects of the association of cattle-cultural occasions.

The Madurese are well-known cattle-raisers. In these areas, cattle farming produces a substantial fragment of the peasant family revenue. The ranching technique of life importance to preserving their folk inheritance and traditional values, as well as to passing those beliefs on to upcoming groups. There is a solid sense of duty to land, livestock, family, and community, with land common seen as fragment of the household, not as something to trade. Possessing land in the household and keeping cultural inheritance are regarded more highly than material properties or pecuniary gain. Peasant farms are seldom larger than half a hectare, and the landconsists mainly of dry fields, or tegal. Agriculture and cattle-raising are complementary activities on these small farms. The animals, normally one or two adult pairs per extended family, are used as draught animals in ploughing, harrowing, weeding and ritual. They are fed with hand-cut grass and agricultural waste. Their faeces are burnt along with straw to make fertilizer for the fields. Young animals are sold for breeding or are raised for slaughter, depending on the need for cash. The peasants themselves seldom eat the meat.

The eminent exercise of racing bulls in pairs, and competing pairs of cows in attractiveness and agility tournaments are always seen as a prestigious completion for the Madurese societies (beyond mere amusement). The ownership of cows bred specifically for running or cows for quickness competitions is status symbols for measure of wealth. The hope of riches through breeding or at least the recouping of expenses through forthcoming auction is never absent from the choice to obtain any and all of these cyphers of prosperity.The possessor of cow races and cow contests, as their raising comes from high costs, is rewarded by the respect they could receive in competing. If the pair excels, it can even attain values commensurate with or exceeding all the work that must be put into their care. The value of social interface occasioned by the sports is, at the very least, a nice icing on the cake. As consequence of these phenomenon, the Madurese extremely care for their cattle, especially cows for beauty and agility contests and bulls race. This is evidenced by how they are treated, astonishingly they are recognised as parts of their household. They usually are penned beside the kitchen and tethered in view-of the front veranda of the house. They inclines to regard creatures as ‘nature’ things to be treated without isolation from their human neighbours. It was therefore showing how the endeavours involve to make contribution in many ways in which animals are placed by human societies in their local material places, and it is only one element of a large picture in forming the lives of cattle through diverse actions and interactions.

Most writers about Madurese society emphasize the attention that is given to the animals that potentially makes Madura became an attractive destination for cattle displaced from centralized production regions. Madura cattle are extremely well adapted to the local conditions and traditional management. They are informed to be one of the best draught creatures in the world relative to their size (Marvin, 1984). The common slogan in Madura is that‘men are valued to be more devoted to their animals than to their wives’. Such issues are critical to forging pathways towards human – animal coexistence and strategies for sharing space in an era of escalating conflicts along the human – animal borderlands of the metropolis. Long-entrenched dualisms between nature and culture, on the concrete level of everyday management of human – animal relations and city space, demonstrated the ways in which attitudes towards animals in the city are formed and places characterised by particular constellations of animals.

In the exploration of the cultural practices, the cultural phenomenon of bull racing can also be seen, that the masculinity of Madurese society is identical robust. The symbols of masculinity will generally be exhibited and deployed on the day when the bulls racing takes place, when the pride and arrogance of the owner is openly exposed to the general crowd who all shout excitedly. The acknowledgment of Madurese is also much appreciated. Brave and highly esteemed Madurese people have a saying that preferably white bones, rather than white eyes which means better to die than to bear shame. The spectators see in the arena a reconstruction of their society, which is sometimes just as exciting, sometimes just as disappointing, and always just as gripping. It is the struggle of life, the battle for higher status and the defence of personal honour that are acted out and experienced here. It is not problematic to envisage the bulls as a demonstration of people or as people. Not just the fight, but also the phenomena surrounding it point in this direction. The work ethic is a necessity that is implemented by working hard for the achievement of welfare and happiness. Madurese are unyielding and do not want to despair at work, so all must be faced with male but truthful, and also mutual help, which is also a part mirror feminitas Madurese civilisation.

While ranchers and various researchers have dedicated a great deal of effort in analysing breed suitability to Madura’s environment, husbandry techniques and optimal agricultural practices, both past and present, the lens of cultural, historic, and ecological anthropology is of particular benefit in examining the appeal and viability of Madura’s cattle culture. Cattle-raising in Madura evolved at the same timewith the economic and social interactions and societies that indorsed it, on a landscape with both environmental and political boundaries. Human – animal relations in Madura have hence been filled with power, usually the wielding of an oppressive, dominating control by individuals over creatures, and only in relatively minor measure have creatures been able to evade this domination or to become themselves dominant over indigenous individuals. The emphasis here is on the encouragement of individual’s behaviours touching all manner of animal.

To assess the intricate connections between the social spaces that humans create as a product of their cultural, ecological and monetary landscape, one have to first determine how that landscape has evolved metaphorically and physically over time. An essential aspect of the ethos of Madura’s cattle culture is the long and productive connection between ranchers, their livestock and their environment. Butthe overarching principal was that cattle in Madura were much more vital in terms of labour for pulling plows and carts, and providing dung to fertilized fields, as well as producing milk (in some areas), than they would be if simply killed and used for food, which ultimately led to the religious taboo on eating beef. Handelman (1997) explained this through his theory of cultural materialism, a more strictly qualitative view of cultural adaptation as a means of transforming resources into energy, through agriculture, animal husbandry and manipulation of the environmental niche. This view, which Harris modified over time, divided culture into three interrelated levels: infrastructure, structure and superstructure, which are determined by, and in turn influence, resources, technology and ideology.

The Breeding, Training and Care of Fighting Bulls

Fighting bulls are nominated for their inherent qualities. They are nominated from available varieties in Java and neighbouring islands, especially Madura, Bali, and sometime Lombok. In addition, bulls may also be bred especially for the aduan (fighting). By crossing various breeds, one tries to improve the fighting qualities of the animals. Every variety of bull has unambiguous qualities that make the animals intrinsically suited for fighting. Madurese bulls, for example, are smal1 but solidly built. Their chests are better developed than their hind quarters. They have a short, wedge-shaped head and a very muscular, broad neck with a hump on top. The horns are short and wide. Their position varies, because they are forced to grow in specific directions when the bull is young. These bulls are decent at striking their adversary head-on or butting. Generally, the bulls’ psychological and physical well-being is fragment of what determines whether they do to their potential. This boosts breeders to raise them as “naturally” as possible: in herds, with varied grazing, space, shade, dust baths, water and concealed spots to which they can retreat. These formidable creatures are incredibly subtle to change.

The world of the bulls in Madura is often labelled “traditional”, but breeders do not oppose modernism. Because fighting bulls are designated predominantly for a convinced mixture of aggression, vigour, strength, and energies, the maintenance of fighting bulls is a time-consuming action and the raisers or owners of bulls are conscious that raising bulls was a commercial endeavour, caring and good animal husbandry were central aspects of his job. The aggression of the bull has been maintained by selective breeding and has come to be popular among the people of Madura. Exercise is a serious trigger during the period of breeding. Bulls need to have lots of energies, be very athletic during the breeding period. In addition, they reach maturity slower than meat breeds as they were not selected to be heavy, having instead a well-muscled “athletic” look, with a prominent vigour, a complex of muscles over the shoulder and neck which gives the bull its distinctive profile and strength.

Perceptions of Bull Race (Bullfight) Tradition in Madura

Bull race occasion is an interest that overflows the traditional generic categories of folklore that well-known shows characteristics of a folk craft, a folks ritual, a sport and a festival and, additionally, it can be introduced, of a sport. A foreigner with a deep appreciation of bullfighting as an aesthetic experience, also saw it as ecstasy. The public of any particular Madurese contains largely of individuals felling in the intensity of their involvement in and appreciation of the event; but foreigners, here, might be believed not to be able to attain the level of knowledge of existential emotional dimensions among Madurese societies flocking in the race. Of course, this traditional occasion can foster global understanding and appreciation of the bullfight, and it is as a source of exotic entertainment as well as a vital a part of the vacationer industry in Madura.

The practice of the traditional social occasion of bull race in Madura is controversial because of a range of concerns including animal welfare, and funding. Even though bull race id still popular with many hundreds of thousands of followers, it has lost its grip and relevance in a modern society and is even under strong claim by animal rights organizations and some segments of the society. The critics here is that creatures are wounded during bullfight, or, more fundamentally, that bullfighting violates what some see as a fundamental animal right: freedom from pain, fear and distress. With the rise of animal welfare and animal rights movements, bull races became increasingly controversial practices and is a highly stylized performance, which would be virtually meaningless without a public. The author hope modern bullfighting should best be understood as an unusually dynamic variety of folk craft rather than a profane survival of folk ritual. It constitutes a traditional body of knowledge and practices transmitted orally through something like an apprentice system. It necessitates an exceedingly sophisticated apprehending of animal behaviour, adherence to very specific standards and procedures, and a fair degree of nerve in carrying them out. The fact that this traditional temporal craft is executed in public, with the performers dressed in a specified way and following the same specific routines, makes the bullfight seem like ritual with any sort of symbolic meaning to their actions.

But the public is usually conscious that it faces skilled creatures once viewing such apparently dangerous acts as a jockey riding his bulls racing in pairs. This traditional craft produces no artifact, which might seem to exclude it from the sphere of material culture altogether. This is a succinct formulation, as pictured by Madurese societies, of symbolic activity that it would be-and is-ludicrous to place the bullfight-event as simple monolithic sign. They can also generalize a belief or a fantasy that may only belong to a few members of group or to a single level of culture as closely into the intricate web of rites and superstitions that many bullfight incline to get involved in human-induced agonistic contests in tourism. Fascinated by its image in public culture and literature, foreign tourists streamed to see bullfights, even though bullfights never became a foremost reason for the great majority of tourists for visiting Madura.

Because a well-trained bull regularly characterise the single largest sphere of disposable family prosperity, they can be a highly contested source at family stage. Meaningfully though, there is a connection between the two as cash is necessary to gain and to keep cattle, while cattle can serve as a guarantee in securing a cash loan. The obvious ways to show owner’s ongoing commitment to their cows keeper are to make unvarying investments and by frequent visits. In this point, ranchers who raise indigenous breeds on their ranches can be considered as the foremost conservation actors. Even though, there were also ranchers who lacked information about contemporary cattle farming and the bureaucracy associated with it, and they relied on understanding in cattle husbandry. In terms of constructing the associations between the possessor and cows keeper is concerned about the definite transfer of wealth for caring cows and it can be viewed as a co-evolving mutualism between humans and animals hat evolve in the perspective of dynamic niche constructional.

We should also consider the bullfight in Madura as profitable initiative. It is not certainly an annual event that the indigenous council promotes as Madurese’s custom; it is not always a magnetism subsidised by indigenous management and endorsed to draw in tourists and liven up the nearby economy. But it is far big commercial enterprise and participates as such in a market financial system. At Pusaka dunia.com (https://pusakadunia.com/), an hand industrial net website online serving 20 hours, customers can order accessories picturing bulls in pairs. This web site is only one in every of rankings of net resources advertising bull merchandise, together with quite a number that offer framed or unframed quality artwork photos of this popular Madurese’ conventional symbol.

The way of life of a particular group of peopleis ancomplicatednotion that comprises theknowledge, beliefs, art, law,morality,customs and any customs and abilities attained by individuals as parts of civilisation (society will be a multifaceted thought). Therefore when we talk about cultural inheritance, we talk about art and literature or about celebration of religious traditions, but not about more trivial and popular habits. In Madura, festivals are viewed important markers and festivities of ethnic/cultural distinctiveness. But the torture of any type of living being should not be a cultural amusement. We, in great of animal welfare/rights, mustcircumventtorment in any given cultural setting. This article acknowledges that humans and animals symbolically are similar as victims of ancient tradition. Ideally, the art of bullfighting should not be surrendered for the sake of apprehending human relations for nature.

Bullfighting as an Art Form

Bullfighting has been an amazing proportion of the Madurese way of life for masses of years and continues to play a role in the tradition these days. Bullfighting, for Madurese societies and neighbourhood governments, is claimed as an included piece of the vicinity’s cultural history.Historical culture as confirmed in Bullfighting is series of symbolic manifestations of structural, historical, and psychological subthemes that define Madura on the given moment. That is very affordable if the conservative local governments in Madura introduced that the bullfight turned into to be covered on the listing of gadgets of special cultural fee that have been protected through law. It could nicely be that some insist that the only manner bullfighting in Madura nevertheless live alive is thru authorities subsidies.This paper believes that the bullfight does have an artistic quality, in fact, that can be an art in its own right – of course, with an animal with no wish to fight, such work is not possible. At the same time, however, there are productive points of intersection and/or tension that suggest that the bullfight as practised for the past three hundred years is a performance spectacle which has all the scripted inevitability of ritual or incantatory purpose being served by or through the legal framework. One might argue that the concept of culture that informs cultural studies is always already inhabited by the human, particularly in those articulations that pit culture in binary opposition to nature.

Bullfighting is not just a crowd of persons showing up to lookout the performance of bulls racing in pairs, but it also symbolises the artistic performance. Public festivities and celebrations commonly include bullfighting performances as a major magnetism. Bullfighting is part of the embodiment of Madurese prevalent values and is a depiction of an elaborate and ceremonious theatre in which the vulnerability of human being is sometimes confronted with death and transcendence. Aside from the historical roots and the cultural face of bullfighting, the bullfighting industry have solid pecuniary importance, with insinuations in numerous marketplaces. Being a remarkable form of amusement, bullfighting is deeply rooted in the tradition and in the societies in those places where it is practiced. Despite every once in a while there is an alert about the weakening of bullfighting audience, it still keep attracting the same social and mass media attention of other forms of amusement in Madura. Of course, not withstanding being a very widespread form of amusement it have also affected by the present pecuniary condition. To guarantee public order in these spectacles and to preserve the essence and culture of the show, it is strictly regulated in every minor detail, legal technicalities abounding and governing how it takes place.

For countless explanations, bullfighting is a unique arrangement of amusement, which expanded considerably due to tourist demand. Bullfights are important, though controversial, tourist attractions. In its origins and historical evolution it has been the main form of spectacle organized and promoted by the public powers in Madura, with strong pecuniary motivations. Due to the deeply rooted traditions of these events in the Madurese population, many Madurese societies exalted the aesthetics of bullfighting, and acknowledged it an art form, of equivalent stature with other arts, such as music as a source of exotic amusement. Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist (joekey) is in danger of death, implicitly elevates bullfighting over other arts, as it demands of the readiness for the ultimate sacrifice, which the other arts do not.

Government Regulation and Supervision

The symbol of the bull, in fact, has spawned an entire sequence of complementary local mascots, intended precisely as cyphers of folk inheritance. As a consequence, bullfighting spectacles have conventionally (and are still) seriouslygoverned. In addition local governments in Madura ruled bullfighting to be part of the cultural heritage. Allegedly, the legislative instructions and rule on bull racing are stirred on assuring the community order and security during the performance and on maintaining the spotlessness of bull racing. While, the former inspiration concerns the external dimension of bullfighting – keeping safety of people and goods and the public order in these spectacles –, the later deals with the internal dimension of bullfighting – the mechanical and imaginative intricacies and growth of the bull racing show. In a sense, one might contend that the official rules of bullfighting could be associated with the sport/game rules that recommend how rivalry takes place in games (generally inspired in maintaining fairness among players and teams but also in the curiosity of the spectacle and match’s attendants), however there is not usually such kind of rules in other traditional shows (because creativity rules everything) and, for that very reason, bullfight guidelines seem to be unique from that standpoint.

Otherwise from other categories of game or amusement, here the community powers have set the rules and also are in charge of directing and imposing them. That of course, deviations somehow the legal nature of the rules, but also transforms the nature of their enforcement, as administrative sanctions are prescribed in case defilements of the directions happen. This is the merely pre-set or mechanical portion of the display to consciously steer clear of the cultural basis. Bearing in mind that the local authorities call for public action to promote, guarantee and preserve cultural heritage, which are characteristics that classify bullfighting as a value to be protected. Moreover, they believe that bullfighting is also a market for the production of goods and services in which several interests and subjects of economic activity converge, and it is an economic sector of the highest order. Indeed, for this reason a region has gone as far as promoting bull-racing spectacles.

The rhetoric which insisted on the need to speak interchangeably about human and animal flesh, pain and the mutual right to be free of torture should be public domain. It is because the aggressive energies of Madurese festivals have increased the clandestine existence of violent, immoral torturers. However, they praised bullfighting as an art of ‘miracles’. Thus, there is no doubt that an underlying motive of the criticism and public ridicule is to put things right and to hasten a return to traditional, righteous ways. In this sense, there is the possibility of an animal-inflected cultural studies project – taking animals on board as objects of cultural study (or, laudable as it may be, as subjects of some form of future political enfranchisement). This notion has become a centre of attention in local authorities in Madura. In other expressions, it has been considerably watered down under government supervision.

Conclusion

 

The ranching tradition in Madura is long standing, enduring across many generations. Livestock ownership and ranch life are powerful forces that bind families and communities, continuing a heritage that began with Dutch colonization. In addition smallscale ranching is part of a long-standing tradition that maintains communities and cultural heritage. This means the ranching tradition in Madura is deeply rooted in history, with responsibility toward land and livestock enmeshed in family values. Livestock ownership and ranch life are powerful forces that bind communities and families. Continuing this way of life on ancestral lands serves to preserve the culture and heritage of the past for future generations. Due to the history of land ownership in the region, ranching operations rely on heritage lands as a necessary source for livestock grazing. A substantial amount of these lands were formerly granted to or used by local communities and the ancestors of current permittees.

In Madura, the greatest influence in the role of ranch life in the family is fathers and grandfathers. Commitment to remaining in their local communities is strong among these ranchers. They view ranching as a serious endeavour. They acknowledge that the land and livestock play a major part in his family’s life and they are using income from his other job to maintain the ranch and pay off his debts, and spending money earned from the livestock operation on special expenses such as college tuition for the children. The importance of passing on land as a means of providing for their children’s future is common slogan in Madura. Furthermore, Both animal and plant production in Madura formed parts of a mixed farming system, with sheep, goats and cows most frequently used as food. Livestock were used for plowing, threshing, transporting produce, and manuring fields. The community stock were individually owned but cooperatively grazed. They were moved into the higher elevation pastures before the harvest to graze and manure the stubble fields.Although concentrations of sheep and cattle near villages produced some scattered areas of overuse, herds were generally small in proportion to the land base.

There is notable variation in human attitudes towards animals – humans as a factor influencing human attitude towards cattle in Madura. It is predominantly to preserve their cultural inheritance and traditional beliefs, as well as to pass those values on to forthcoming generations. The broad-acknowledged cultural inheritance in Madura is the practice of racing bulls in pairs (Bullfighting). Bullfighting spectacles is more closely associated with Madura identity than other ancient traditions. Even though those events can attract domestics or event foreign tourists, however, animals are wounded during bullfight, or, more fundamentally, that bullfighting violates what some see as an important animal right: freedom from pain, fear and distress. Bullfighting has created continuing controversies, polarizing people in specific geographic locations to wound bulls as cultural heritage.Of course, having bullfight is considered as bourgeoisie because only certain individuals can afford to invest a lot of pecuniary assets on it. Status values is at stake when participating in bullfighting spectacles. Bullfight before going to arena will have a special treatment. In other words, there is the possibility of taking animals on board as objects of study.

Acknowledgements

 

The paper has benefited from the comments and suggestions of Ach Maulidi from The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

 

Conlflict of Interest

 

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 

Authors Contribution

 

Moh Zali, performed all the project which started from devising the project, the main conceptual ideas and proof outline, until revising the manuscript.

 

References

 

• • Barlett PF (1986). Part-time farming: saving the farm or saving the life-style? Rural Sociol. 5: 289–313.
• • Bohannan P (1959). The Impactof Moneyon an African Subsistence Economy. J. Econ. History. 19: 491-503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700085946
• • Bryant CD (1991). Deviant leisure and clandestine lifestyle: Cockfighting as a socially disvalued sport. World Leisure Recreat. 33: 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10261133.1991.9673759
• • Bryceson D (1999). African rural labour, income diversification and livelihood approaches: a long term development perspective. Rev. African Politic. Econ. 80: 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056249908704377
• • Calişkan V (2009). Geography of a hidden cultural heritage: camel wrestles in Western Anatolia. J. Int. Soc. Res. 2: 123–137.
• • Calişkan V (2010). Examining cultural attractions for foreign visitors: The case of camel wrestling in Selçuk Ephesus. Turizam. 14: 22–40. https://doi.org/10.5937/Turizam1001022C
• • Conover M (2002). ‘Resolving Human–wildlife Conflicts: the Science of Wildlife Damage.’(CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.).
• • Evans-Pritchard EE (1940). The Nuer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• • Fielder R (1973). The role of cattle in the Ila economy. African Soc. Res. 15: 327-361.
• • Ferguson J (1990). TheAmi-Politics Machine. Cape Town: David Philip.
• • Forsyth CJ, Evans RD (1998). Dogmen: The rationalization of deviance. Soci. Anim. 6: 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853098X00159
• • Geertz C (1972). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Deadalus. 101(1): 1–37.
• • Gentner, Tanaka (2000). Classifying federal public land grazing permittees, J. Range Manag. 55 (1): 2-11.
• • Gulliver P (1955). The Family Herds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• • Gray James R (1974). Economic benefits from small livestock ranches in north-central New Mexico. AES Bull. 280. Las Cruces. NM: New Mexico State University
• • Handelman D (1997). Rituals/spectacles. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 49: 388–398.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.1997.tb00031.x
• • Herskovits M (1926). The Cattle Complexin East Africa. American Anthrop. 28: 230-272. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1926.28.4.02a00040
• • Kalof L, Taylor C (2007). The discourse of dog fighting. Human. Soci. 3: 319–333.
• • Marvin G (1984). The cockfight in Andalusia, Spain: images of the true male. Anthropol. Quart. 57(2): 60–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3317580
• • Murray C (2000). Changing Livelihoods: The Free State, 1990s’. African Studies. 59: 115-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/713650975
• • Murray C (2002). Livelihoods Research: Transcending Boundaries of Time and Space. J. South African Stud. 28(3): 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305707022000006486
• • Pearson MN (1984). Recreation in Mughal India. Int. J. Hist. Sports. 1: 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/02649378408713556
• • Reid A (1989). Elephants and water in the feasting of seventeenth century Aceh. J. Malay. Branch Royal Asiatic Societ. 62: 25–44.
• • Seidl AF, Silva JSV, Moraes AS (2001). Cattle ranching and deforestation in the Brazilian Pantanal. Ecolog. Econ. 36: 413–425 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00238-X
• • Spooky (2010). Nigeria’s fighting rams.The Horse Fund (2014). Horse fighting fact sheet.
• • The Horse Fund (2014). Horse fighting fact sheet. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from http://horsefund.org/
• • Treves A, Karanth KU (2003). Human carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1491–1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x
• • Wannamontha TH (2011). Brawling beetles crawl for all. Bangkok Post, Brunch. Pp.5–7.
• • Woodroffe R (2000). Predators and people: using human density to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim. Conserv. 3: 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00241.x