Abstract
This article critically reviews Frank Fanselow’s explanation of Dayak–Madurese ethnic conflict in Kalimantan and situates it within broader debates on ethnic boundaries, resource competition, political transition, identity mobilization, and local institutional capacity. Using an integrative-critical literature review, it synthesizes Fanselow’s article and thirteen additional academic references selected for conceptual relevance, empirical focus on Indonesia or Kalimantan, publication quality, and verifiable bibliographic records. The review finds that Fanselow’s main contribution lies in treating Dayak knowledge as social theory rather than merely local data and in challenging economic reductionism. Nevertheless, the idea of a “clash of cultures” risks reifying Dayak and Madurese communities as homogeneous groups, naturalizing stereotypes, and obscuring the roles of regime transition, local elite competition, territorial control, rumors, and weakened security arrangements. The article proposes a multilevel explanatory model linking five layers: historical-structural legacies, political-institutional change, territorial-economic contestation, the production of ethnic boundaries and stereotypes, and triggering and mobilization mechanisms. This synthesis argues that culture matters as a language through which conflict is interpreted and organized, but it is not an autonomous or automatic cause. Reconciliation therefore requires recognition of local categories alongside institutional reform, rights protection, social relationship recovery, and safeguards against the political instrumentalization of identity.
References
Aspinall, E. (2011). Democratization and ethnic politics in Indonesia: Nine theses. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(2), 289–319. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800007190
Barth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Little, Brown and Company.
Bertrand, J. (2008). Ethnic conflicts in Indonesia: National models, critical junctures, and the timing of violence. Journal of East Asian Studies, 8(3), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800006494
Bouvier, H., & Smith, G. (2006). Of spontaneity and conspiracy theories: Explaining violence in Central Kalimantan. Asian Journal of Social Science, 34(3), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853106778048678
Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Harvard University Press.
Davidson, J. S. (2003). The politics of violence on an Indonesian periphery. South East Asia Research, 11(1), 59–89. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000003101297142
Fanselow, F. (2015). Indigenous and anthropological theories of ethnic conflict in Kalimantan. Zinbun, 45, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.14989/197513
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2000). Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity. International Organization, 54(4), 845–877. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551398
Haridison, A., Yuwanto, Alfirdaus, L. K., & Wijayanto. (2024). The shifting identity of the Dayak in Indonesia. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 51(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00927678.2023.2262356
Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. University of California Press.
Peluso, N. L. (2008). A political ecology of violence and territory in West Kalimantan. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00360.x
Schiller, A., & Garang, B. (2002). Religion and inter-ethnic violence in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 32(2), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330280000151
Tajima, Y. (2014). The institutional origins of communal violence: Indonesia’s transition from authoritarian rule. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139235716
van Klinken, G. (2007). Communal violence and democratization in Indonesia: Small town wars. Routledge.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Mahasiswa Antropologi
