skip to main content

Komodifikasi Tradisi Bedah Blumbang sebagai Objek Wisata Budaya di Kabupaten Semarang

*Af’idatul Lathifah  -  Program Studi Antropologi Sosial, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Reny Wiyatasari  -  Program Studi Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Jepang, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright 2019 Endogami: Jurnal Ilmiah Kajian Antropologi under

Citation Format:

Tourism is one of the most important sectors in the development process in the country of Indonesia. Cultural tourism development in various regions has led to cultural commercialization practices. Cultural commercialization includes the reconstruction of art and traditions and the practice of everyday life into stage performances that can be enjoyed by tourists. Gintungan Hamlet is one of the hamlets located at the of Mount Ungaran. In this hamlet there is a spring (pennant). The spring has until now become the center of the bedah blumbang  ritual. Bedah blumbang that has been going on for decades has inevitably experienced various changes. These changes include changes in the procedures for implementing, completing ceremonies, and involving the community. At the stage of the procession, the tradition of blumbang surgery has become a place for cash exchange market activities with bazaar performances. The commodification of tourism in this blunt surgical tradition has a negative and positive impact. The negative impact is that there are various fundamental changes in its implementation, especially in determining the timing of implementation. The positive impact is that tourism development is also accompanied by infrastructure development that can be used widely by the people of Gintungan Hamlet, the opening of information from inside and outside the hamlet, and revitalizing the tradition of blunt surgery. this research uses ethnographic methods

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: culture tourism; tradition; comodification; bedah blumbang

Article Metrics:

  1. Besculides, A., Lee, M. and McCormick, P. 2002. Residents’ Perceptions of the Cultural Benefits of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 29, 303–319
  2. Butler, R. 1992. Alternative Tourism: the Thin edge of the Wedge. In: Smith, V. and Eadington, W. (eds) Tourism Alternatives. Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 31–46
  3. Cohen, J. .2001. Textile, Tourism and Community Development. Annals of Tourism Research 28,378–398
  4. Desmond, Jane. C. 1999. Staging Tourism: Bodies Display from Waikiki to Sea World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
  5. Dewar, K. 2004. Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management. Tourism Management 25, 288–289
  6. FNNPE, Grafenau, Germany. Font, X. and Harris, C. 2004. Rethinking Standards from Green to Sustainable. Annals of Tourism Research 31, 986–1007
  7. Grahn, P. 1991. Using Tourism to Protect Existing Culture: a Project in Swedish Lapland. Leisure Studies 10,33–47
  8. Kelly, I. and Dixon, W. 1991. Sideline Tourism. The Journal of Tourism Studies 2, 21–28
  9. Lindberg, K., Anderson, T. and Dellaert, B. 2001. Tourism Development: Assessing Social Gains and Losses. Annals of Tourism Research 28, 1010–1030
  10. Richards, G. 2005. Textile Tourists in the European Periphery: New Markets for Disadvantaged Areas? Tourism Review International 8, 323–338
  11. Spradley, James. 2007. Metode Penelitian Etnografi. Jakarta: Tiara Wacana
  12. Swarbrooke, J. 1996. Towards the Development of Sustainable Rural Tourism in Eastern Europe. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4, 58–65
  13. Unwin, T. 1996. Tourist Development in Estonia. Images, Sustainability and Integrated Rural Development. Tourism Management 17, 265–276

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-04-22 09:16:42

No citation recorded.