Kampoeng Cyber Jogja: Representation, Resistance, and Spatial Politics


The digital divide not only marks the complexity of the literary medium’s transition to the digital world but also involves wider structural issues, from critical, social, economic, and cultural practices aspects in the society. This study presents a bigger picture through a critical analysis of the space representation of Kampoeng Cyber Jogja (KCJ). The study uses the qualitative method with Henri Levebfre’s Spatial Triad theory. To find and define the relation of space with practice and society’s post-modern culture, the authors use Bourdieu and Baudrillard’s concepts on practice, distinction, and consumerism. KCJ is a complex space as well as a representation of society’s culture which must turn into a multidimensional direction. KCJ has become a production, negotiation, and resistance space. In economic practice, KCJ is a production space, uniting several aspects from the cultural products (i.e., batik), cyberspace technology usage, as well as market reading. On the other hand, it shows the space paradoxicality, capitalization, and industrial logic used by KCJ. In social practice, KCJ marks the resistance toward poverty and inequality discourse brought up by the digital divide. Culturally speaking, KCJ has become the representation and negotiation space between two cultures, traditional and modern, in resolving the digital divide which has thrived in the multidimensional society.

Keywords: representation of space, spatial politic, resistance, digital divide, Kampoeng Cyber Jogja 1.

[1] Lyotard JF. The postmodern condition. Manchester: University Of Minnesota Press, Manchester; 1994.

[2] Poster M. Jean Baudrillard selected writings. Standford University Press, Redwood City, California; 1988.

[3] Cavallaro D. Cyberpunck and cyberculture: Science fiction and the work of William Gibson. London, United Kingdom; The Athlone Press; 2000.

[4] Iinuma M. Learning and teaching with technology in the knowledge society new literacy, collaboration, and digital content. Singapore: Springer; 2016.

[5] Howard PN, Busch L, Sheets P. Comparing digital divides: Internet access and social inequality in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Communication. 2010;35(1):109–128. https://doi.org/ 10.22230/cjc.2010v35n1a2192

[6] Garfinkel H. Routledge revivals: Ethnomethodological studies of work. London – United Kingdom; Routledge; 1986.

[7] Lefebvre H, Nicholson-Smith D. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell; 1991.

[8] Sukanto S. Kelas menengah di Indonesia: Suatu tinjauan kepustakaan. Analisa. 1985;1-6.

[9] Jati WR. Cyberspace, internet, dan ruang publik baru: Aktivisme online politik kelas menengah Indonesia. Jurnal Pemikiran Sosiologi. 2016;3(1):25-35. https://doi.org/10.22146/jps.v3i1.23524

[10] J.A.G.M. van Dijk, “Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings.,” Poetics. vol. 34, no. 4–5, pp. 221–235, 2006

[11] Chen W, Wellman B. The Blackwell companion to social inequalities. Romero M, Margolis E, editors. New Jersey: Blackwell; 2005.

[12] Ono H, Zavodny M. Digital inequality: A five country comparison using microdata. Social Science Research. 2007;36(3):1135-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.09.001

[13] Flor AG. ICT and poverty: The indisputable link, presented at the third Asia Development Forum on regional economic cooperation in Asia and Pacific. Bangkok: Asian Development Bank; 2001.

[14] Bourdieu PF. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Nice R, translator. Cambridge – USA, Harvard University; 1984.

[15] Faruk. (2011). Sastra dalam Masyarakat (Ter-)Multimedia(-kan): Implikasi Teoretik, Metodologis, dan Edukasionalnya. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. DOI