skip to main content

Embodied Technology: The Hybrid Cultural Materiality of the Tempayan in Hulu Sembakung

*Afdil Hafidh orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Social and Political Science, Mulawarman University, Indonesia, Indonesia
Puji Hastuti orcid scopus  -  Research Centre for Population, BRIN, Indonesia, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright 2026 Endogami: Jurnal Ilmiah Kajian Antropologi under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract
Technology in anthropological inquiry is not understood merely as an instrumental device, but rather as embodied materiality relations, movements, and meanings sedimented within an object. Drawing on Martin Heidegger’s notion of technology as enframing, this article explores the tempayan in the culture of the Hulu Sembakung community as a form of embodied technology enacted through ritual practices and social life. The tempayan emerges as a hybrid cultural materiality, the product of a historical synthesis between Chinese porcelain ceramics and local systems of meaning reproduced through ritual. Through the process of enframing, the tempayan is positioned as a ritual technology detached from the logic of its material origins, in contrast to the way porcelain is understood within Chinese culture. The Hulu Sembakung community engages in a process of revealing the tempayan through cultural rites that reinforce social cohesion, including within the context of cross-border relations. By employing a materiality-based approach across space and time, this article demonstrates how the mobility of the tempayan records historical networks and human movements that often diverge from the state’s territorial logic. Such mobility of cultural materiality generates friction with state materiality—that is, the state’s attempt to produce sovereignty through static territorial regulation. The findings of this article affirm that embodied cultural materiality, as exemplified by the tempayan in Hulu Sembakung, is capable of penetrating and unsettling the mythologised boundaries of sovereignty imposed by the state.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext View|Download |  Instrumen Riset
Tidak berjudul
Subject
Type Instrumen Riset
  Download (4MB)    Indexing metadata
Email colleagues
Keywords: Technology, Enframing, Materiality, Hybrid Culture, Borderlands

Article Metrics:

  1. Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries the social organization of culture difference. Little, Brown and Company
  2. Cassell, J. (1980). Ethical Principles for Conducting Fieldwork. American Anthropologist, 82(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1980.82.1.02a00020
  3. Chalfin, B. (2010). Anthropologies of States: Marrying Ethnography and Political Economy. In Neoliberal Frotiers: An Ethnography of Soverignity in West Africa. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
  4. de Abreu, M. J. A. (2013). Technological indeterminacy: Medium, threat, temporality. Anthropological Theory, 13(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499613492093
  5. Finlay, R. (1998). The Pilgrim Art : The Culture of Porcelain in World History The Pilgrim Art : The Culture of Porcelain in World History * In i619 Philip III of Spain made a ceremonial entrance into Lisbon ,. 9(2), 141–187
  6. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315822174-11
  7. Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of Culture. In Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203790571-27
  8. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians , Cyborgs , and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge/New Yor
  9. Hastuti, P. (2014). Ritus Pertukaran Tempayan di Hulu Sembakung: Kajian Mengenai Negosiasi Batas Sosial Orang-Orang di Perbatasan Negara. Universitas Indonesia (Tidak diterbitkan)
  10. Ishikawa, N. (2010). Between Fronties. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53, Issue 9). Ohio University Press
  11. Keane, W. (2003). Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00010-7
  12. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social an introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. http://mendeley.csuc.cat/fitxers/f49f7d88b670e5d7999b2a619dfb838b
  13. Latour, B. (2017). On actor-network theory. A few clarifications, plus more than a few complications. Logos (Russian Federation), 27(1), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-173-197
  14. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. In Princeton University Press. Princeton University Press. http://marefateadyan.nashriyat.ir/node/150
  15. Li, T. M. (2007). Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and Society, 36(2), 263–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701254308
  16. Li, T. M. (2012). The Will to Improve: Perencanaan, Kekuasaan, dan Pembangunan di Indonesia. Marjin Kiri
  17. Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in / of the World System : The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography Author. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1995), 95–117. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155931
  18. Mauss, M. (2002). The Gift (First Publ). Routledge Classics
  19. Migdal, J. S. (2004a). Mental Maps and Virtual Checkpoints: Struggles to Construct and Maintain State and Social Boundaries. In J. S. Migdal (Ed.), Boundaries and Belonging: States and Societies in the Struggle to Shape Identities and Local Practices. Cambridge University Press
  20. Migdal, J. S. (2004b). State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another. Cambridge University Press
  21. Orlina, R., & Stroeber, E. (2016). New perspectives on late Tang maritime trade ? The Network: The Newsletter, 73, 2016
  22. Risse, M. (2019). Human Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Heideggerian Technoskepticism: The Long (Worrisome?) View. Harvard Kennedy School CARR Center for Human Rights Policy
  23. Schendel, W. van, & Abraham, I. (2005). Illicit Flows and Criminal Things: States, Borders, and the Other Side of Globalization (W. van Schendel & I. Abraham, Eds.). Indiana University Press
  24. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State. In Seeing Like a State. Yale University. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxkn7ds
  25. Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. In The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770.2013.791444
  26. Thelen, T., Vetters, L., & von Benda-Beckmann, K. (2014). Introduction to stategraphy: Toward a relational anthropology of the state. Social Analysis, 58(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2014.580302
  27. Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection, 1–321. https://doi.org/10.1525/pol.2006.29.2.291
  28. Turner, V. (2009). The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure. Cornell University Press
  29. Verdery, K. (1996). Whither “Nation” and “Nationalism”? In G. Balakrishnan (Ed.), Mapping the Nation. New Left Review
  30. Warner, M. (2005). Public and counterpublic. Zone Books

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-06-17 20:36:21

No citation recorded.