Enabling Conditions for Structures of Domination: Java’s Colonial Era “Cultivation System” and Indonesia’s Palm Oil Plantation System in Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians of colonial-era Java have produced considerable debate about how the Dutch colonial era Cultivation System (1830-1870) brought prosperity to the Netherlands in contrast with the fortunes of Javanese societies under the imposition of mandatory production quotas. Separately, palm oil plantation agriculture in contemporary Indonesia, since the mid-1990s, has sparked a different debate on the state’s power to direct development over biodiversity and the rights and existence of Indigenous People. In comparative-historical analysis, the structures of domination in each era provide useful symmetries: the speed of implementation; the realization of extraordinary profits; the adverse incorporation of local communities; and environmental impacts. However, the enabling conditions that underpinned and sustained both the colonial era Cultivation System and the contemporary palm oil boom remain to be explored and applied to the paired agencies of investment capital and the developmental state. From historical accounts, four enabling conditions emerge: a catalyzing crisis; close control over information flows; maintaining an official monopoly over order and violence; and an official discourse intolerant of dissent or resistance. These symmetries in comparison permit an assessment of the state’s role as an agent for an antidevelopment double-action: what Harvey calls “Accumulation by Dispossession” and Santos (2007) calls “Epistemicide.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".