KAMPONG AS A REALITY IN CITY MODERNIZATION
and Manifestation, Medan, 13
th
- 14
th
November 2007
358
[2] Conflict paradigm
From this paradigm, city modernization eliminates kampong or at least let kampong always be exiled from and “not
been touched” by the modernization process. Kampong demolis
hment which is often happened for the sake of “modern” commercial buildings is the real example of the elimination of
local element in city urbanity. [3]
Acculturation paradigm
From acculturation paradigm, localtraditional element is not identified as a frozen thing and without dynamic changes.
Local values develop because of assimilation with foreign modern elements. The assimilation is assured to produce a
dynamic and blended social change.
From the three social changes stated above, acculturation paradigm is the most effective approach to describe
kampong reality in city modernization in Indonesia. City modernization is an assimilation of existing local element
kampong and foreignnew element. The approach goes along with the one which sees the city as architecture. City is identified
as a physical form artifact. Some are monumental and some are common, some are planned and some are amorphous, some are
traditional and some are modern.
Kampong settlement function in the city
The function of kampong as a settlement for most of city dwellers is kampong’s important role in the city. The sustainability
of kampong function as a settlement type in city modernization is an indubitable historical fact. The informal settlement reality since
1970s attracted experts’ attentions in theoretical discourses about
urban settlement development in developing countries. According to Tjondrosugianto 1981:34-47 at least there are four paradigms
which can be used for explaining the position of kampong in kampong settlements production mode, i.e.: [1] Welfare
paradigm, [2] Economic paradigm, [3] Housing Resource paradigm, and [4] Rejection paradigm.
Housing resource paradigm can be used to understand why kampong as an urban settlement can exist in urban
modernization. The paradigm can be said as a realistic approach to housing development in developing countries because most of
housing providing is done informally by the society. Therefore, kampong is actually given the right to have an existence
guarantee in the city.
As a social reality, kampong also takes role in forming urbanism in Indonesia. Kampong as a settlement in the city
cannot be understood wholly without knowing the position of kampong community in the city area. In the effort to understand it,
it should be obvious firstly two important concepts which can be
and Manifestation, Medan, 13
th
- 14
th
November 2007
359 used for the sake of understanding kampong position in the city,
i.e. community and society concept. Studies which were done by Jane Jacob 1961, Herbert
Gans 1962, Liebow 1967, and Suttles 1968 showed that a city inherently needed an environment that was more human, had
a close and tight bond of social life. It is a logical consequence of social organization in neighborhood level. Herbert Gans in his
book “The Urban Villagers” showed that the community with social bonds which were based on lineages, ethnics, economic
status would not be faded in city lives. It was an older community that dwelled in the city centre that gave chances for a
gemeinschaft social life type to be born. This paradigm stated that city modernization also triggered the developments of various
sub-
cultures in the city or which was known as “community saved” Knox, Paul L., 1994:275.
In mid-1970s, there was a change in the paradigm of understanding the city after David Harvey 1973, Manuel Castell
1977 and other academicians who were influenced by Marxism which perceived the city as a terminus of the occurrence of urban
cultural process and as an arena of conflicts social and spatial because of heterogeneous city dwellers. This paradigm mostly
emphasized that urbanization is a process of liberating rather than a process of constraining. With this theoretical approach
kampong could be seen not as autonomous enclave which was alienated from the city life, but on the contrary, it was a part of the
city life which formed and was formed by the city life. Therefore, urbanism should not have been perceived to be a homogeneous
city’s way of life, but as strength for various societies’ way of lives Knox, P.L., 1994:272.