Asian Transformations in Action - Api-fellowships.org

122 REFIGURATION OF IDENTITIES AND FUTURES IN TIMES OF TRANSFORMATIONmonkeys or other animals) was not necessarily linked toperceptions of similarity (with humans). Sangeh folksgave high ratings for monkeys as being ‘sacred’ but gavelow ratings for the ideas that ‘they are kin,’ ‘protectorsof humans,’ and that their ‘lives are similar to humans;’(c) a mixed attitude exists among local people (rangingfrom hesitancy to some degree of agreement) withregard to the ‘destructive’ practices of monkeys. Beingheld as sacred does not make the monkeys socially‘innocent’ in local people’s eyes; and (d) animals werenot given equal cultural and religious high-marks.Monkeys, for example, are given higher ratings forreligious importance than dogs or birds.Human-animal relations and the weaving ofidentitiesAs mentioned earlier, the “animal” figures as thedemarcation boundary for identifying the “human.”This seems to be a basic denominator in the formationof ‘human’ identity, with the ‘animal’ as the contrastiveother. There are, however, other aspects that linkanimals with identity-making practices in SoutheastAsia as shown in at least three cases below: (1) the roleof monkeys in shaping the identity of places; (2) theimportant and traditional role of the ‘animal-tamer’ inmany areas of Southeast Asia: the pawang bojog of Bali,or the magic-imputed Indonesian pawang in general,the fuek ling (monkey tamer/trainer) of Surat Thani,and the elephant mahout of northern and northeastThailand; and, (3) (as an exploratory point, resultingfrom the survey) the role of gender, caste and othersociocultural dimensions in shaping the dynamics ofthe human/animal divide in language use and cognitivecategories.(1) Animals and the identity of placesSome places in Southeast Asia are associated withDisplaying the winning bird (Bird-singing contest insouthernThailand)animals. Quite prominent are areas within Hindu-Buddhist spheres 23 where some places are associatedwith the animal characters of the Ramayana or otherfolk narratives. For example: (a) Lopburi, in itsfounding mythology, is the land given to the loyalfighting monkeys of the Ramayana, thus ‘embeddingthe story in its landscape;’ 24 (b) Surat Thani’s iconicimage in most state-funded tourist flyers, maps andleaflets, promoting it as the place where coconut-pickinglin kang monkeys (nemestrina macaques) are found; (c)Sangeh’s changing image and function as reflected in itspopular name-in-use, from temple-centered Bukit Sarito tourist-object, monkey-centered “Monkey Forest.”These symbolic animal associations are sometimesgiven actualization by protecting real animals found inthe areas (fascicularis monkeys of Lopburi and Sangeh;nemestrina monkeys of Surat Thani; snakes, bats, andbirds in different areas of Bali). In due time, tourismhas further strengthened these animal links as thecenterpieces of local attractions. No one would thinkof Sangeh of Bali, for example, without mentioning itssacred forest and its monkeys.(2) The ‘animal tamer’ person has a traditional and stillcontinuingrole in many Southeast Asian societiesAn enduring and important village figure in SoutheastAsia is the “animal tamer or trainer.” 25 Whether as birdsingingtrainer, monkey tamer, or as a specialist of otheranimals, the social role of the “animal tamer” is stillbeing asserted in these times of advancing modernityin so-called “traditional societies.” The pawang bojogof Sangeh is illustrative of this case. His recognizedexpertise in ‘taming’ and ‘disciplining’ monkeys whoare ‘fierce’ or ‘naughty’ has been taken advantage of byprimatologists doing research there and by veterinariansperiodically checking the monkeys of Sangeh. Thepawang is the one called for by the veterinarian to get asick or dead monkey from the protective troop. He hasalso guided researchers in identifying troop location andhas shared information on various aspects of monkeybehavior. Scientists working on elephant conservationin northern Thailand, on the other hand, have beengreatly dependent on mahouts and their indigenousknowledge of animal behavior and techniques in tamingelephants.(3) Sociocultural factors affecting the linguistic andcognitive structure of the human/animal divideExploratory sociocultural patterns include the following:(a) Balinese, compared to Indonesian and Filipino (orEnglish), strongly encodes the human-animal divide inits use of language; lexical dissimilarity when talkingabout humans and talking about animals might indicatea higher tendency in Balinese culture to emphasize theAsian Transformations in ActionThe Work of the 2006/2007 API Fellows