Introduction: the universal and the local

We have seen how profound ideological differences are both expressed and muted in the slametan. What is not said is at least as significant as what is said. And what is said, though it varies little among speakers, varies greatly in meaning. The formulaic explication of the slametan address, in its generalities, ambiguities, and wordplay, encompasses diversity and seems, superficially, to deny it. Like a carefully worded diplomatic statement, there is little anyone can quibble with and every appearance of agreement; yet, unlike a diplomatic statement perhaps, there is still a sense that something important has been said and shared. If this is ritual as consensus, it is a peculiar form of consensus which under the surface preserves contradictions and divisions.

The slametan in Bayu deals in universals, avoiding controversial names and excluding any reference to place. Rarely is there mention of the village or even neighbourhood; and, except in agricultural slametans, which are usually held in the rice fields, there is no reference to place spirits. Clearly, it would be a mistake to see the slametan as part of a ‘local’ religion or tradition in contrast to a dominant civilization, still less as an ‘animistic’ or tribal relic sheltering under the cloak of Islam.

The strain towards universality in aid of unity is achieved by burying differences in common ground and by recourse to what appear to be common denominators.