Here is an interesting piece of writing on Balinese Giant Demon Puppet (ogoh-ogoh) taken from Scott A Johnsen’s thesis which is entitled From Royal House to Nation: The Construction of Hinduism and Balinese Ethnicity In Indonesia.

Another aspect of the ogoh-ogoh debate having implications for the use of custom / culture / religion categories concerns the fact that some makers of these figures include realistic genitalia in their depictions of demons. A massive government campaign was underway during my fieldwork to stamp out pornographic video CDs and other examples of porno. Hindu Council officials were instructing gathered local officials that ogoh-ogoh should not be made with genitals, and furthermore that this was the responsibility of the entire village (desa), not simply the ward (banjar) making the ogoh-ogoh. I only saw one example of a “porno” ogoh-ogoh, in a village in Gianyar; however, this was well into the campaign to educate the public.

The idea that representations of genitalia are obscene, and therefore not religious and not cultural, would seem unlikely to take root in Bali, where somewhat abstract representations of genitalia are common in offerings, shadow-puppet characters were sometimes depicted with huge phalluses (McPhee 2000 [1947]:36), and very concrete animal genitalia are often included in the animal-shaped sarcophagi used in many Balinese mortuary rituals. I asked a local teacher of religion, who often suffered my odd questions, about this (T=teacher, J=myself):
J: Is it all right to have genitals on ogoh-ogoh?
T: It is not moral, not ethical. The provincial government has asked that it not be done.
J: I have seen genitals on animal coffins. Is this OK?
T: Those are animals, so it is all right to show genitals. It is intended to be amusing (lucu). With demons, you can’t know if they are male or female. It is like Ardanareswari [a divine representation of male-female unity], it is not possible to say if it is male or female. So it is not appropriate to have genitals on a demon. After all, demons are from god. (…) Also, ogoh-ogoh wear clothes, so they are like people. For animals, it is OK to show genitals.

An official from a local ward also answered my questions:
J: Why no “porno” ogoh-ogoh?
O: We don’t want our kids to incline towards porno…
J: Why do you think people used to put genitals on ogoh-ogoh?
O: According to me, it has long been acceptable to depict how people really look (keadaan sebenarnya), but now, for the sake of moral politics (politik budi pekerti), for the next generation, this practice is not so common. Some people object.
J: Is it all right to have genitals on animal coffins?
O: Maybe if genitals weren’t included on coffins, when the dead person is reincarnated they might become a banci (androgynous person).

The schoolteacher’s responses are interesting for how they apply various local logics to come up with a religious justification for the porno ban. Gods in Bali are routinely referred to in the plural with both male and female forms (dewa-dewi), as are demonic followers of the gods. While gods are understood to have male and female aspects, there has never been a prohibition on representing particular deities as male or female. The sun god Atintya is commonly represented on the back of padmasana shrines with enormously enlarged, if somewhat stylized, male genitalia. Balinese sorcery drawings clearly depict both male and female genitalia on demons (though male far outnumber female) (Jaman, 1999).

The goddess Durga, associated with death and demonic forces, was sometimes represented with genitalia (Grader 1969 [1940]:155). Very phallic, linga-shaped stones are sometimes kept as temple heirlooms wherein divinities can reside. Ottino reports both male and female genitalia on some effigies of the rice spirit (Ottino 2000:83). The very phallic seat of a god (pratima) at one local house (dadia) temple was described to me as being shaped like a “pillbox” – perhaps reflecting the influence of the rhetoric of porno. The teacher mentions Ardanareswari, an androgynous divine figure invoked at particular times during rituals as the union of male and female principles bringing fertility and prosperity to land and people.

This one moment in a process of unification of gendered divinities serves to justify a ban on demons having genitalia. He then invokes the quite different reasoning that ogoh-ogoh are dressed in clothes, and humans wear clothes, so just as people do not expose their genitals in public, neither should demons. This reasoning draws upon common ideas of a hierarchy from demons and animals through persons and gods, and links ogoh-ogoh and persons through the use of clothing. This logic “works” on its own terms, though again it is rather selectively applied: demons and animals are commonly closely associated (Geertz 1973e, Howe 1984, Bellows 2003), and demons often have clothing without this justifying their elevation to human status.

The ward official offers a somewhat less government-approved statement. He always thought it was fine for ogoh-ogoh to be depicted “realistically,” but now some people object so it is best not to do it. He adds the interesting idea that genitals on coffins serve to differentiate the dead in the afterworld, so therefore they cannot be considered porno. This same man, earlier in the same interview, told me that genitals on animal coffins serve to fill the boys carrying the coffin with energy. Whether priests could come to a consensus on the meaning of coffin genitalia is debatable, though such formalized reasoning may become necessary if the march against “porno” continues – now demons, tomorrow sarcophagi?

The lines of reasoning invoked do not entirely convince, because the anti-“porno” movement clearly originates from government efforts to eradicate pornographic films, which are extremely popular. Be-genitaled Ogoh-ogoh are just a little too much like the images the government has condemned, and furthermore they are thought to be inappropriate because the regional government is concerned that the increasing numbers of tourists coming to see them will get the wrong idea about Bali. The HC has backed up these government efforts, with High Priest Gunung educating the public.

Along the same lines, a particular very racy dance called joged, in which a female dancer invites men on stage and teases them with such enticements as gyrating hips (the move that received the loudest applause at a performance in Bangli), has also come under fire as porno. This dance has a somewhat sordid history, associated with prostitution in some past courts; nonetheless, it also has been performed as a part of temple festivities and been considered as a divine dance (Bellows 2003). Its popularity with tourists has made it a prime target of reformist rhetoric which does not allow space for any “sacred” forms of the dance.

Thus, a dance that, in at least some contexts, was very much a part of “religious” rituals, has now become the antithesis of religion. These condemnations of sexuality in performances have occurred in many other parts of Indonesia, a combination of an emerging pan-religious concept of morality, state efforts to craft performances suitable to represent national and regional cultures, and the increasing influence of Islamic orthodoxy (Acciaioli 1985, Yampolski 1995, Aragon 2000:268, Vickers 2000).

Search more story | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Popularity: 6% [?]