I think the patron client relationship is largely a function of a rural society with a decentralized government. The more urbanized the populace and centralized the government, the more the traditional client patron relationship diminishes in relevance.
I have lived in extreme rural areas and large cities. My personal experience is that rural people are more self-sufficient, independent, and suspicious of government interference. While this is a generalization, they also help each other in times of need because they have no one else to turn to. One week a neighbor may help till a field and the next the next week the neighbor who received help the previous week may help roof his neighbor's house. This is the equivalent of the Javanese tradition of gotong rojong ("mutual aid") (Neher, 62). This is a sort of voluntary communism. You are not forced to help anyone, but if you do not you are less likely to receive help when you need it and you will almost certainly need it. When neighbors need help, they turn to their neighbor.
To contrast this with urban culture, people help each other in urban areas, but they usually don't need help from their neighbor for survival. If they need someone to fix their roof, they call a roofing company. If they need food, they go to the grocery. If they can't feed themselves or become homeless, they will almost certainly turn to the government for assistance rather than a neighbor. The central government takes the place of the patron in urban culture. This goes beyond government in that we still use terms like "patron of the arts" when a wealthy person builds a new museum or donates to the symphony, but these are primarily urban activities.
As SE Asia transitions from a rural agrarian society to an urban society, personalism will diminish and the central government will become the predominant patron.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You bring up some great arguments here. As I was reading your commnets, you got me thinking about this type of relationship. I guess that that is how rural societies survived, the strong taking care of the weak. Rural villages probably did not survive without this kind of help. It was reciprocal in that both parties got what they needed and then when the situation was reversed, the one that was on the bottom but now the top noe helps the one on the bottom. This is common throughout SE Asian history, but I am sure that it was common throuought all of history, that is how bands ands tribes survived into the next generation.
ReplyDeleteAs people moved out of the villages into the cities, this type of relationship diminhsed.
The only difference I think is with women who traded sex for needed goods. Yes, once away from the villages, central government took over for the people's needs. Personalism and patron-client relationships are important in rural areas, but lose their hold once urban cetners are taken into account.