Foucauldian Perspective as an Instrument of Analysis

continuation of the past culture development. It means that the characteristic of today’s culture reflects the formerly developed cultural inheritance. In doing this approach there should be an observation towards the the society which has direct history in the same area between the archeological data object of study and the ethnographical data object of comparison 2. General comparative approach or also called new analogy Actually, this approach is based on the perspective that the relation between archeological culture which has lost its supporters and the existing culture today is the relation of form. Therefore, this approach does not oblige the existence of historical continuation in the same area. Nevertheless, it demands the sameness of cultural form and the environmental background. The result of the ethnoarcheological study does not show whether the hypothesis is true or false since it is not a test of inductive conclusion drawing. This study is just an extension of the induction process itself. As a result, the study of ethnography does not explain the current observed symptoms ethnographical data, but it gives a picture of a possible similarity between the past and today’s culture symptoms, or as a connector argumentation. The ethnoarcheological study tries to understand two aspects which are: 1. What aspect to do. It is understood by an observation. The purpose of the observation of what aspect to do is to obtain knowledge about location, situation, transaction, etc. 2. The known aspect. This is done by interview to find out the social behaviour which formed the accounting in the Singosari era. Hopefully, the study of ethnography may give a picture of the existence and the form of accounting in the social structure of Singosari kingdom. In addition, it may give a shape of the social life practices to obtain the description of a more complex and richer nuances accounting.

b. Foucauldian Perspective as an Instrument of Analysis

This research uses Foucault’s thoughts as a model to analyze data. The thought is divided into two chronological stages. The first stage is the historical studies or is called archeology. This study analyzes the condition which may cause the emergence of modern humanities fields with historico-power-knowledge relation as its archelogical project. The next stage is geneology which develops more accounting history towards the emergence of human knowledge and directly headed to a certain way to solve the historical analysis about the system of thoughts. In the study, these two stages are similar and completing each other. Archeology focuses on the existing historical condition while geneology questions the process of the history itself. In a more precise way, geneology offers a process relation concerning the discourse network. On the other hand, archeological approach gives a slice through the link of discourse. In his viewpoint, Foucault is having a problem to differentiate archeology of science from the excessively stable domain known as the history of ideas. The big theme of the history of idea is the birth of ideas, its continuity of time, and its totality such as the spirit of the era. By refusing the investigation of the origin or the birth of an idea, Foucault is interested in the difference and the contradiction of an idea as well as the continuity issue, and in analyzing the detail statement compared to global generalization of totality. Faucault perspective concerning the relation between knowledge and power brings a revolutionary effect to the social discipline and gives a unique contribution of reciprocal relationship between knowledge and power. It is about the power articulated into knowledge, and vice versa. Faucault concept brings a consequence in which if we want to know the power production, we must also investigate the knowledge production of it or to be exact, we must investigate the power itself.

c. Data Collection Method