Reduction of Farmer’s Attitudes and Value in the Implementation of Organic Agricultural Programs in Indonesia

Abstract

Starting from the initiation of the “2010 Go organic” program which is full of various interests, placing the implementation of organic farming development at the crossroads between the project and the community movement. As a project, the values of organic agriculture are reduced in a sense that strays far from the true nature and philosophy of organic farming. Organic farming is nothing more than an approach to developmentalism that traps farmers in various dependence, powerlessness, and exploitation in other forms. However, the event of reducing the attitudes and values of organic farming on the one hand has also created anxiety for several actors who are concerned about the decline in the morality of farmers in treating land, water, and other resources. These concerns and concerns are then actualized in the resistance movement which seeks to reject the establishment, maintain ecosystem sustainability, and reorient local values and identities.

1. Introduction

As the world’s response to agricultural modernization was carried out on a large scale in various parts of the world in the 1970s, organic farming in Indonesia was also a response to the green revolution policies of the same period. The first idea of organic farming (not organic, because organic is more technical) in Indonesia was initiated by Agatho Elsener, a Swiss organic practitioner who later became an Indonesian citizen in the 1980s, who dedicated almost his entire life (organic attitude) to running a farming system. Organic farming. This idea was followed by the emergence of the organic farming movement in Yogyakarta and its surroundings which was developed by G. Utomo, PR, and other civil society. At that time, organic farming had not yet become a concern of the government and developed as a response to an “alternative way of life” among farming communities. It is not easy to develop organic farming as an alternative because it was developed together with the green revolution policy which overhauled indigenous agriculture into an agricultural political-economic system that is integrated with the state and market, which dominates all instruments from the local to the national level and even links it to the global agricultural system [1].

This paper tries to describe the implementation of organic farming development based on the case of the Batu Go Organic program in Batu City, East Java, Indonesia. As a program, Batu Go Organic involves various actors or actors who have different interests which in the end result in a variety of actions taken. Differences in the interests of each actor lead to conflicts of interest. Apart from conflicts of interest, another thing that is also described in this paper is the reduction of farmers’ values and attitudes in developing organic farming. The conflict between the spirit of morality, the spirit of spirituality, the spirit of globality, and the spirit of capital is the attraction presented in this paper. Hopefully, this article can provide benefits, especially in understanding other perspectives in the context of implementing organic farming when viewed from the perspective of marginal farmers.

2. Typology of actors and their importance in the implementation of organic farming development

Based on the results of interviews with key informants and informants as presented above, it is obtained an illustration that the parties involved as actors in the development of organic agriculture in the Research Location consist of the Government (regional and central), corporations, or agricultural entrepreneurs, environmental activists, Organic Certification Institutions (LSO), Academics and Practitioners of organic agriculture, farmers, and village community leaders. Each actor has different interests in the development of organic agriculture, socially, economically, and ecologically; so does the power it has. Differences in interests and power between actors are actualized in a variety of actors’ behaviors and actions in running organic farming [2]. Therefore, to describe the typology of actors and their interests in the development of organic agriculture is framed using a genealogy analysis of actor actions.

The actions of actors in the context of this study do not place elements of agency and structure as an inseparable unit (duality). However, it does not mean that agency and structure cannot be identified for their dominance in the actions of actors. In certain conditions, the agency element may be very dominant and vice versa.

Gidens’ view, is slightly different from Kinseng’s which states that “I do not agree with Giddens that agency and structure elements cannot be separated (dualistic). In my opinion, even though these two elements are always present in every actor’s action, and influence each other, the two can and must be separated analytically (dualistic in nature)” [3]. Apart from Kinseng, Layder et al. states that action (what is meant by agency) and structure are two aspects that can be separated and each has a degree of autonomy [4]. They said, “Thus we conclude that empirically structure and action are independent (and thus, deeply implicated in each other), but partly autonomous and separable domains.”

The diversity of actors in interpreting the various experiences and knowledge they have is ultimately implemented in various patterns of behavior as the response they give. In the context of implementing organic farming, the results of observations and in-depth interviews with key informants and informants, identified at least four actor typologies in Bumiaji District, Batu City. To elaborate in depth on the involvement of various typologies of actors and their various interests identified in this study are presented in Table 1.

Typology actor	Orientation of the value	The importance of actor	The action of actor
Type A	Oriented to spiritual value	Worship in carrying out human nature as a caliph (leader)	Carrying out organic farming as a form of worship to carry out human nature as a leader, guardian of the continuity of life
Type B	Oriented to moral and cultural values	Maintain the sustainability and sustainability of social resources and natural resources	Carrying out organic farming as a strategy to improve soil fertility, biological balance and sustainability of local wisdom
Type C	Oriented to rational and market value	Complied market standardization, profit maximization	Carry out organic farming to meet market needs and increase income
Type D	Oriented to the value of power	Maintain power or consensus	Running organic farming as a media campaign and imaging

Table 1.

Typology of actors and their importance in the implementation of organic farming.

Source: Primer data, 2021.

Based on Table 1, it shows that the four typologies of actors and their interests have different value orientations and variations of interests. First, farmers who are classified as type A actors. The orientation of the values and interests of type A actors in carrying out organic farming is to worship Allah SWT. Type A actors carry out organic farming on the basis of their religious values and norms. Islam is the majority religion adhered to by the informants in this study. Adherents of Islam are obliged to maintain and safeguard the universe from actions that cause damage and destruction. The proportion of farmers who are classified as type A actors is very small in number, namely only four people.

The results of this study complement the results of research [5, 6, 7] that there is a relationship between spiritual values and biodiversity implemented in organic agriculture. Grim gives the example of the Ifugao Igorots as one of the indigenous tribes in the Philippines who perform rituals led by an indigenous priest to control rice pests, thereby preserving the plant species that the Igorots depend on for food. In addition, the Ifugao believe that “nature spirits” inhabit the trees and rocks of forests and watersheds, which are “centers of biodiversity,” including more than 200 plant varieties. Other research results that support the findings in this study are Wilson, [8] who states that activities such as hunting and harvesting not only provide nutritional benefits, which support physical health, but also enable individuals to connect spiritually with Mother Earth, the Creator, and spirits, while on land. This is important because it allows individuals to simultaneously pursue a physical and spiritual connection to the ground that is essential for emotional and mental health.

Second, type B actors are oriented to moral and cultural values in implementing organic farming systems. Type B actors are more dominated by farmers who relatively act as traditional leaders or village or hamlet elders in the research location. The moral values passed down from generation to generation from the actors’ ancestors are very strong in coloring their actions in implementing the development of organic agriculture. So for them, organic farming is more aimed at efforts to maintain local customs, habits, and wisdom passed down from their ancestors.

The results of this study confirm the research of Alhamidi et al. [9] which stated that the ability of farmers to integrate ethical values into their agricultural decisions and actions, has implications for managing natural resources in an analytical manner and not only for economic purposes. Moreover, making agriculture meaningful and sustainable. Loving farming is seen as a good job and a way of life, not just food production. This love is deeply rooted in the minds and hearts of the small scale farmers operating as custodians of the system. This makes farming a productive activity rather than an extractive one [9]. That is why the love of farming as a way of life is a constant theme in the alternative agriculture literature [9]. The cultural and spiritual dimension of farmer experience and knowledge underpins the relationship between farmer and farm. Likewise, research by Yazdanpanah et al. [10] states that the factors of morality and fear of disease are the dominant factors that affect the willingness of farmers to cultivate organic products in Iran.

Third, type C actors are oriented to the economic aspects of running organic farming cultivation systems. The economic aspect in question is more on the consideration of financial profit and loss. Referring to rational choice theory [11], there is the basic idea that people act deliberately toward a goal and that goal is shaped by values or choices. The actors will take action in order to maximize the benefits and satisfaction of their needs. The rational theory assumes that every human being is basically rational by always taking into account the principles of efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out every action. While still acknowledging the existence of determinant factors in the form of strong farming community solidarity, (material) economic subsistence, and pre-capitalist society’s production relations, however, the influence of rationality always occurs in the context of the operation of the mechanism of the rational interests of individual members of the community. Humans do tend to maximize their rationality and always tend to calculate the value of something (utility) that they want to exchange, namely economic and moral utility. The theoretical facts are in accordance with the facts on the ground where most farmers prioritize the aspect of financial gain in choosing or not choosing an organic farming system.

Type C actors are the most vulnerable to return to conventional (non-organic) agricultural systems. The results of observations and interviews show that all actors belonging to type C have confirmed that they are no longer practicing organic farming. The reasons given varied. One of the informants said that the constraints faced by organic farming were product standards that were too high, so that farmers had difficulty fulfilling them. Apart from this, another reason is that although the price of organic products is high, the market segment is small, the demand is unstable, and the cost to produce organic vegetables is more expensive than conventional products.

The results of this study are in accordance with the results of research by Pham and Shively [12] which states that the adoption of organic production is significantly influenced by farm size, age of the head of household, yield differences, price differences, and input cost differences. Thus, in the context of type C actors, running organic farming is a rational choice if it can provide economic benefits financially, then they will implement this program. On the other hand, if in its development it turns out that this program is not profitable for them, then they will naturally stop.

The implementation of the Batu Go Organic policy as an intervention or stimulus for farmers to switch from conventional farming to organic farming, in fact, has not been fully successful. This was confirmed based on the statement of informant number 6 (identity withheld) that “The Batu Go Organic program is almost the same as government programs in general. It is very thick with the project approach where sometimes the involvement of local communities is very small. As a PPL, I’m also in the wrong position to stand on two sides. On the one hand, I am a government official, but I also have to be able to embrace farmers to be able to accept this program well. Finally, yes, I do what I can do.”

The “Batu Go Organik” program is a project that is centralized, the implication is the lack of awareness of the farming community to be involved in a sustainable manner in the proposed program. A recurring event in almost all programs is the level of participation from program targets which is decreasing day by day. In the end, field officers are increasingly not considered by farmers. This is a bad sign for the government’s existence as a partner of farmers.

Fourth, type D actors are farmers or community leaders who tend to be positioned as holders of power or farmers who are affiliated with political networks. So that the implementation of organic farming development is oriented toward efforts to perpetuate the power it has. The principles and standards referred to in organic farming are not considered as important, in fact, the main concern is how big the image is obtained from every action it takes, including the implementation of organic farming. On one hand, the rhetoric created by type D actors has given color to the development of organic farming. But on the other hand, environmental and sustainability issues that are juxtaposed in organic farming patterns are only mere rhetoric and jargon.

Agents and structures are seen as a dual entity and the determination of the agent or structure will determine the actions they take [3]. For example, the verses of the Koran and customary norms, in the terminology of structural theory are seen as structures that force individuals to act in accordance with these norms. Actors of type A and type B carry out organic farming systems because they are subject to religious norms and customary norms that they adhere to. Religious norms and customary norms are very strong, stable, and given structures in a society which will continue to be maintained and maintained along with individuals who maintain or practice them [3]. Likewise, the act of organic farming as an act of worship or a moral movement to maintain the preservation of the universe, will continue to survive and be implemented as long as there are actors who reproduce it. For this reason, internalization and crystallization of values that exist in religious norms and customary norms are needed in every organic farming activity. Although initially seen as something that is forced, over time the act of organic farming is interpreted as an activity of worship or a moral movement embedded in the actor’s actions as a social practice.

Agree with Gidens that agent and structure are duality. However, that does not mean that agency and structure elements cannot be distinguished. Individual actions can still be identified which are more likely to be dominated by agency elements, and which tend to be dominated by structural elements. This slightly corrects what Kinseng said that agency and structure are dualistic, meaning that agency and structure are separated.

The agent’s actions at one time are dominated by agency elements, but at other times they can be dominated by structural elements. This really depends on the actor himself and his environment. Therefore, the results of this study also yielded findings that agency and structure are not only dual in nature, but also dynamic Therefore, the results of this study also yielded findings that agency and structure are not only dual in nature, but also dynamic. Facts show that farmer behavior is not monotonous, static, but dynamic. They always modify their behavior in accordance with their own knowledge, experience, and environment. In other words, the dynamics of farmers’ actions in carrying out organic farming are very high and tend to change quickly [13]. For example, type B actors, who tend to be dominated by structural elements, do not rule out switching to type C or D types, this really depends on the situation and determinant conditions that affect the type B actor.

Table 2 presents the determination of structure and agency in the actions of the following actors.

Typology	Actor	Determination agency	Determination structure
A	Religious leaders, senior farmers	Individual ways to strengthen confidence and gratitude for the grace of Allah SWT	Provisions in the Al-Quran oblige humans not to destroy nature
B	Village elders, traditional figures	Alternatif strategi dalam mengatasi kelangkaan dan mahalnya pupuk dan pestisida kimia	Moral values passed down from our ancestors to preserve the universe
C	Farmer, entrepreneur	Initiatives in taking advantage of market opportunities and healthy lifestyle trends	Process and product quality standardization
D	Local political elite, state apparatus	The drive for self-actualization, imagery and consensus tools	Legislative regulations and political ethics

Table 2.

Determination of agency and structure in actions of actors.

Source: Data primer, 2021.

The structural determination that occurs in the typologies of actors A and B is inversely proportional to what occurs in the typologies of actors C and D. Actions carried out by actors of type C and type D are based on initiatives that arise from within themselves. The initiative to run an organic farming system as a strategy to increase income is purely an actor’s decision free from the pressures of the structure that forces it. In this context, the actor or agency is autonomous, meaning that the actor’s actions are not “dictated” by the structure, but are determined by the actor himself, who has the ability to think, judge, weigh, and choose what action is considered most appropriate at the time and place. Agencies are not only the ability to make changes, but also the ability to maintain existing conditions. Indeed, intrinsically every individual human is unique, no one is exactly the same as one another [14]. Therefore, it is not surprising that agencies also vary from one person to another; moreover, agency is also influenced by various other external factors.

3. Batu Go Organic Program: the intersection between the project and the community awareness movement for civilized and sustainable agriculture

Referring to the findings regarding the typology of actors and power relations as explained in the previous section, this research seeks to dig deeper into the question of whether organic farming is a project that is a transformation of modernity that hides behind the mask of wisdom, or an alternative route that seeks to get out of the shadow of modernity which has proven to have caused exploitation and erosion of environmental resources, dehumanization and injustice, as well as the marginalization of local wisdom and identity.

To understand the phenomenon of reducing farmers’ attitudes and values in the implementation of organic farming development, the Batu Go Organic program was chosen as one of the observed contexts. The Batu Go Organic program is an intervention carried out by the Batu city government, East Java–Indonesia in response to the problem of decreasing soil carrying capacity or fertility on agricultural land and the level of continuous use of chemical pesticides by farmers. The results of observations at the research location showed that the behavior of farmers who always use chemical pesticides in every action to control pests and plant diseases is very dangerous for the safety of the food they produce. Even though in the last 3 years the results of pesticide residue tests for vegetable commodities in Batu City have shown values below the minimum residue limit set, but to move toward organic farming, the behavior of using pesticides and chemical fertilizers will be contrary to the established organic farming standards. The strategy used in the organic farming development plan by the Agriculture and Forestry Service of Batu City is essentially promoting the application of farming methods that lead to the application of organic farming and initiating the establishment of organic areas as pilot projects. The selection of this strategy refers to the goal to be achieved, namely changing the way of thinking of the farming community in Batu City from conventional (inorganic) agriculture to organic farming. However, in reality, the four identified typologies of actors at least provide an illustration that the development of organic farming through the Batu Go Organic program is at a crossroads between the project and the movement of community awareness. This is in stark contrast as seen from the interests of the actors who in general can be categorized into two dimensions, namely the moral-spiritual dimension (actor types A and B) and the rational dimension (actor types C and D). It is these two dimensions that have conflicting interest dimensions that place the implementation of organic farming development at the crossroads between projects and community awareness movements.

3.1 The “Batu Organic” program in project perspective

In order to describe the Batu Go Organic program as a project, this study explored primary data and secondary data related to the planning and implementation process of the program from 2012 to 2021. Based on the results of in-depth interviews with key informants, the Batu Go Organik program has not been fully implemented as a program. Pro farmer. This is supported by facts in the field which show that since program planning, farmers as the program’s main target have not been involved intensely. The activities were arranged by elite bureaucrats consisting of government, practitioners, and academics. There are several important things that were not carried out in planning the Batu Go organic program such as the elaboration of macro policies into a more detailed program of activities, because a detailed and sustainable strategic planning document has not yet been prepared for the development of organic farming in Batu City within a certain period of time. Conceptually, the development of organic farming in Batu City, it can be identified that the planning process is carried out through a political, technocratic, quasi-participatory approach, top-down and bottom-up. Meanwhile, if viewed from the aspect of program implementation, the results of in-depth interviews and observations as well as document studies show that there are often various differences in the organic cultivation process. These differences are caused by the following factors:

1. The standardization has not been fully implemented by the farmers in Sumberbrantas village, so that each organic farming group or actor can set their own standard.

2. Market orientation, with standards that have been set by the group and if you can convince the market that the product is of high quality and deserves more respect, then it will suffice to use those standards.

3. The farmers in Sumber brantas village, with the green revolution, are accustomed to seeing their plants always in green condition. To carry out organic farming as it should, it often does not have a 100% determination so that in practice it still uses chemical fertilizers as basic fertilizers and has not completely abandoned the use of chemical pesticides

3.2 The “Batu Go Organic” program in the perspective of the awareness movement for organic farming communities

The Batu Go Organic program, which was launched in 2011 by the Mayor of Batu through the Agriculture and Forestry Service, is an effort to support a program of resilience and independence in agriculture. Batu City has very good potential for the implementation of organic farming such as its geographical conditions which are in the highlands, productive human resources, and policy support from the local government which is very supportive for the agricultural sector. As an area located in the highlands, it is possible to develop highland vegetable plants that have economic value; the many sources of springs support the availability and purification of water as one of the main factors in organic cultivation of plants. One of the local wisdoms of the people in Batu City is familiar with the world of agriculture. This provides convenience in terms of conveying information on organic farming cultivation technology. Technical matters conveyed through extension are easier for farmers to understand, and farmers can even innovate with the information provided.

Mr. Ma, Chairperson of the Anjasmoro II Poktan of Sumberbrantas Village, Bumiaji explained that the declaration of organic farming in Sumberbrantas Village, stems from the condition of the production pattern, especially for horticultural commodities, which have greatly exceeded the threshold for the use of chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizers. This causes degradation of soil fertility and biota on farmers’ fields. Efforts to remind farmers of the dangers of what they have been doing have been carried out through outreach activities. However, it still does not show a significant change. For this reason, in 2011 the city of Batu launched a movement called the Batu Go Organic Program.

The next informant who was asked for information about the beginnings of organic farming in Sumberbrantas Village was Pak Jo. A farmer as well as a community leader who has been involved in agriculture for quite a long time in Sumberbrantas. Based on information from Mr. Joni, organic farming has actually been around since this idea was voiced, the problem has not been answered until now. Starting from planning, implementation, and even evaluation, they have not found an ideal and inconsistent form. Organic farming as a program or a project has many indicators which are very relative to determine its success. But organic farming as an awareness movement to liberate farmers from shackled modern narratives, only started after fertilizer scarcity occurred, pesticide prices were high, and agricultural product prices fell.

Furthermore, Mr. Jo said that organic farming must start from the movement to improve the soil as a place for plant life. Without real action to improve the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil where plants live, then the concept of organic farming will only be discourse and rhetoric. Pak Jo’s statement regarding where organic farming should start, is also in accordance with some literature which states that organic farming is a pattern of agricultural production that aims for long-term ecological health, such as biodiversity and soil quality [15, 16]. The results of research by [17] also show that organic farming systems in Europe and Russia have been proven to be able to significantly increase soil organic matter in the last 10 years. Improvements in soil organic matter content will be followed by improved ecosystems in the soil.

The next informant who was asked for his opinion on the origins of organic farming in Sumberbrantas Village was Mr. Pu. Based on Mr. Pu’s statement, the decline in fertility and the explosion of pest attacks in the last 15 years have made him move to find solutions to solve the problem. Discussions with fellow farmers, agricultural extension workers, students, lecturers, and other practitioners have made Mr. Pu believe that a cultivation pattern that only prioritizes production and planting acceleration is a mistake. He finally realized that the satisfaction of farming is not only a matter of abundant production, but besides that there is the issue of responsibility to pass down positive things and goodness for the future of children and grandchildren.

Mr. Pu is of the view that modern agriculture which is actualized in a high production pattern in the use of hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers, and chemical pesticides has slowly but surely eroded the local wisdom left by their ancestors. One clear example is that traditionalism, which is synonymous with life in the countryside, has disappeared, and now it has merged with globalism, which has implications for the difficulty of distinguishing between localism and globalism, local knowledge and foreign knowledge, traditional technology, and modern technology. Misinterpretation of local potato seeds, for example, that they are considered hybrid potato seeds that are planted repeatedly. Even ironically, some farmers do not know the names of the local commodities in Sumberbrantas village. This confirms that the modernization of agriculture that has taken place in recent years has not only reduced locality-specific commodities, but has also taken away all elements of the soul and institutional farmers in Sumberbrantas.

In line with what was conveyed by Pak Pu, Pak Jo also said that recently the values adopted by farmers, especially young farmers in Sumberbrantas, have been very fast. The feeling of love for water, affection for the land and plants, slowly but surely begins to erode from the mentality, initiative, and soul of the farmers. The view that land and plants as living things are no longer instilled in the souls of most farmers today, so that exploiting land is something that is natural and common. The use of chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides continues to be doubled in order to pursue productivity targets. In the name of efficiency, we accelerate production by growing plants without a time lag. The production process that is safe, correct, and wise is no longer the main thing because the most important thing is the satisfaction and interests of the market. Generational sustainability is not the main thing that becomes an orientation, but maximizing profits is the main goal. Reducing the value of gotong royong, community participation and kinship becomes an instant project that increasingly separates farmers from reality.

Pak Jo’s statement stated that the struggle of the farmers was not only dealing with external parties such as bureaucrats, capital owners, and the market, but they were also dealing with their own instincts and conscience. On the one hand, they are faced with economic pressures and power pressures that demand the accumulation of rupiah and the actualization of power, but behind their deepest hearts are hidden rebellious consciences because they contradict the values inherited from their ancestors. Although the impact of modern technology has encouraged increased production, business efficiency, and increased farmers’ income, lately it has become increasingly clear that the symptoms of the loss of humanity are implemented in farming activities.

Various efforts that have been made to resolve the uncontrollable impact of implementing the green revolution through modern agriculture 2.0 and then being refined into modern agriculture 3.0 are unable to heal the wounds caused by modernization and capitalization of agriculture. Ironically, instead of treating modern agriculture 3.0, it is actually contaminated by new creations and modernization formulations such as reform and transformation [18]. One form of this effort is the Batu Go Organic program which gives birth to a more environmentally friendly and sustainable farming system which is then packaged in organic farming terms. On the one hand, this program aims to atone for the sins of exploitation of land and other environmental resources, but on the other hand, its meaning has been reduced and trapped in the grip of the market.

4. Organic Agriculture: is a metamorphosis of modern agricultural imperialism or a post-modern agricultural model?

Referring to the previous sub-chapter, that the development of organic agriculture is at the junction between the project and the community awareness movement, leads us to the next question that I want to analyze in this paper. It is still being debated that organic farming is a step against modernization, or just a camouflage of modernism hiding behind the issues of sustainability and health. In order to dig up this information, the data search began by asking for information from the key informant, namely Mr. Jo.

Organic farming, whose concept is adopted from sustainable development, substantively prioritizes social, economic, and ecological sustainability. A creation of capitalism that at first glance offers friendliness and sustainability, while true ism is still development. The characteristics of developmentalism are very clearly reflected in its implementation which is dominated by the use of external inputs produced by outside industries, processes, practices, and results are more expensive, so that they are not affordable by the weak (marginal farmers). According to the informant of this study, Mr. Bb, said that internal inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides which should be fulfilled independently from the implementation of integrated agriculture, in practice are still predominantly imported from outside. The high cost of internal inputs is not supported by local culture, for example, the culture of animal husbandry, growing plants for raw materials for vegetable pesticides, and local technology. So that the tendency is partial implementation, biased toward ecological sustainability and neglect of economic, social, and political sustainability. The implication is that land conversion is not controlled, regeneration does not occur, urbanization remains high and economic inequality is getting worse.

Mistakes in the implementation of sustainable agriculture lead to unsustainability in ecological, economic, social, and political aspects. Propaganda of sustainable agriculture that is seen to be more humanist and ecological is inversely proportional to the reality. Several critical thinkers actually labeled this sustainable agriculture as the green revolution volume 2. It is said that because although it is environmentally friendly it still depends on various external inputs. The biological fertilizers and pesticides used are factory-produced (such as liquid fertilizers and pesticides, granules) as well as home-made products from outside. This causes production costs to become more expensive, another implication of this high production cost is the reluctance of farmers to continue participating in sustainable agriculture like this. Its implementation is only limited when there is a project, after the project is completed the agricultural activities are also completed and switch to the conventional system.

At the global level, modern imperialism, which began with the industrial revolution, has not gone away. Since then, imperialism’s camouflages have always transformed from one form to another featuring varied creations, from the visible to the virtual, from the materialist to the ideological. The transformation of physical imperialism into economic imperialism, innovation, information, technology, culture, and ideology carried out by developed countries for developing countries is evidence that imperialism entities already have long-term plans. According to Setiawan [18] there are 10 camouflage modes that are operated sequentially by developed countries against developing countries including Indonesia, namely, spatial imperialism, commodity imperialism, ideological imperialism, industrial imperialism, innovation imperialism, technological and information imperialism, market imperialism, standard imperialism, investment imperialism, and education imperialism.

The threat of imperialism from developed countries, such as China, the United States of America, and European countries, is real in the context of state life in general. As a concrete example that has gone viral in the last 10 years in Indonesia is the threat of modern Chinese imperialism. China’s movement in building neocolonization with the mode of placing Chinese residents throughout the world, including Indonesia. The concentration of the placement of the Chinese population or their descendants in strategic business cities in Indonesian territory cannot be seen as a mere coincidence or business motive, but there could be geopolitical motives that Indonesia as a sovereign country must be aware of. Even if paying attention to the development of the trade war between China and the United States in the last 5 years, it has implications for changes in China’s geopolitical strategy which seeks to relocate citizens of Chinese descent from the United States to Asian and African countries including Indonesia with the aim of sticking ideological and its impact on the country.

In the context of the agricultural sector, the control of strategic sectors such as rice, meat, strategic vegetables such as chili, is starting to be controlled by Chinese, Indian, and US investors. The various potential resources began to be mapped, in terms of their number, type, location and capacity, and then they invested to further control and exploit them. The Chinese investment tendency is not only to cram technology and capital, but also to include manpower in their every investment. This is what distinguishes the investment patterns made by Europe and the United States. Observing the aggressiveness of Chinese investment in Indonesia cannot only be seen from the aspect of spurious economic growth alone, but one must also look at the motives behind the propaganda and the agenda of the hidden geospatial political setting behind it.

Investments in the agricultural, fishery, plantation, forestry, and other vital sectors carried out massively by Chinese investors in collaboration with local residents of Chinese descent can be called a form of modern imperialism in this century. Indications of China’s control movement are not only targeting the market sector, but also the production sector. This is very dangerous for the sovereignty of Indonesia as a sovereign country. Of course, it still remains in our memories regarding the case of plastic rice which shocked this country in 2017 and artificial eggs or synthetic eggs which also came from China which made people in this country worry about buying eggs.

The case of Chinese farmers who were caught in the Cianjur area several years ago is proof that the invasion by China was real and is happening in this country. Awareness to counter various acts of global imperialism, including Chinese imperialism, must be built and grown within the social strata, including the farming community. The hope is that in the future, farmers as part of the community in this country will also have good awareness and vigilance to ward off various intimidations and colonialism from outside themselves.

Specifically, the implementation of global imperialism in a real context is rooted in the implementation of modernization and industrialization of agriculture. Forms of imperialism in each era, for example, forced cultivation imperialism in the colonial era, agricultural innovation imperialism in the green revolution era, market imperialism in the globalization era. All forms of imperialism always start from the agricultural sector as the main foundation and then continue to imperialism in other fields [18].

One of the efforts to ward off these forms of imperialism can be done through the growth of self-reliance. Thus, if we want to replace imperialism in the field of agriculture, we must replace modernization and industrialization of agriculture with a new, civilized, independent, sovereign, beneficial, locally specific agricultural model, all of which are based on maximizing local civilization. To get to the agricultural model, various attempts have been made with various approaches and empirical studies. Organic farming can be seen as a hope that will create local self-reliance that is able to maximize local potential and reduce dependence on agricultural inputs from external parties.

Referring to Rigby and Cáceres [19], the goal of organic farming is to prioritize long-term ecological health, such as biodiversity and soil quality, rather than short-term productivity gains. Thus, the implementation of organic farming should be measured by how much it achieves in realizing the above goals. Organic farming is a technology or premodern technology for today’s world [20]. Proponents of organic farming argue that the organic farming model is an innovation that defies some forms of modernity, with the vision of returning agriculture to a certain premodern structure, as well as an innovation that provides solutions to current agricultural problems [21].

In fact, we should question whether it is true that the implementation of organic farming is a way to fight modernity or that organic farming is a new incarnation of modernity hiding behind a mask of sustainability. When who want trace some common facts that occur, there are indeed indications in that direction that could have occurred. When organic farming is approached economically, it can almost be said that its implementation will tend to exploitation with other packaging. Market standard-oriented organic farming is one proof that this is actually an act of colonization through homogenization [22]. For the implementation of organic farming like this, it is certainly not the option referred to in postmodern agriculture in this study. The response of farmers to organic farming programs varies greatly. This is very dependent on the attitude and value orientation of farmers in running organic farming. As has been discussed in Chapter V of this dissertation about the typology of actors in the implementation of organic farming, each type of actor has different orientations of interests and values between one type and another. In addition to the typology of farmers who only place organic farming as a means of gaining projects, there are also farmers who base their orientation on cultural values or moral values.

The activities of organic farmers in Sumberbrantas Village reflect an awareness movement that was built on the motivation to fight against imperialism and the structured marginalization of the rulers and capitalists against the reality of farmers. The results of investigations at the research locations found that they were well aware that there was no power to fight imperialism from the grip of outsiders. However, the spirit to fight and consolidate the movements of the grassroots community never stops. The implementation of organic farming, is not only a matter of price and market interest which is quite high for organic products, but also for organic farmers in the village of Sumberbrantas, planting crops with reference to the principles of environmental and generational sustainability and sustainability is a calling. Planting crops, especially horticultural commodities such as potatoes, cabbage, and carrots, is almost impossible if you apply organic farming standards as standardized. However, the spirit to be free from the grip of fertilizer, pesticide and seed monopolies is the main thing.

Interpreting the statements of some of the informants above, there is an essential meaning that can be obtained that the choice to implement organic farming is motivated by the spirit of improving the quality of sustainable generations and environmental health rather than just economic issues. This does not mean that economic value is not important, but the correct term is probably that economic value is not everything. This can be interpreted that the capitalist approach which always emphasizes economic value which ultimately encourages exploitative actions must be stopped with movements to internalize the spirit of togetherness, the spirit of sustainability, the spirit of independence, and the spirit of spirituality. This condition is expressed by Pak Jo and Pak Pur as key informants in this study. In the point of view Pak Jo and Pak Pur, that organic farming is not merely a matter of a better price than non-organic, or a problem of residues and degradation of land fertility, but that organic farming is a form of human responsibility to God, responsibility to the environment, and responsibility to fellow humans. The implementation of the spirit of independence that is applied in the farming community in Sumberbrantas is reflected in the activities of farmers to independently prepare potato seeds. Pak Jo and other farmers at Sumberbrantas have been breeding potato seeds independently since the 1990s. Potato seeds produced by the farming community in Sumberbrantas are not only able to meet the needs of local farmers, but in recent developments, they have been able to sell potatoes to farmers outside Sumberbrantas Village, such as Ngantang sub-district, Ngadiwono sub-district, and have even reached Lembang, West Java. This condition shows that the desire to be independent in terms of seeds is a value that must be transmitted to other farmers. Farmers do not always have to be carried away by the mainstream, which sometimes the farmers themselves do not understand the agenda setting behind it. Pak Joni and several other farmer leaders always struggle to convince farmers that organic farming is not just a matter of organic certification for the products they produce. But what is most important is the will and awareness of the farmers not to submit to modernist narratives that seem to be a single truth.

5. Organic farming: between market traps, reduction of meaning, and moral identity

Since it was initiated in early 2000 which then strengthened into a policy “Go Organic 2010”, the direction and orientation of organic farming policies seem to increasingly indicate a development design toward industrialization of agriculture and world trade [1]. This condition has provided great opportunities and opportunities for organic business actors with legal entities to take a role in a larger organic farming system. The Indonesian government’s policies in implementing organic farming are outlined in various regulations issued. Until 2020, regulations issued by the government regarding organic farming include: Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture (Permentan) 20/2010 concerning the Quality Assurance System for Agricultural Products; Minister of Agriculture no. 70 of 2011 concerning Organic Fertilizers, Artificial Fertilizers, Soil Improvers; and Minister of Agriculture no. 64 of 2013 concerning Organic Farming Systems. These three regulations have a very important role in strengthening the implementation of organic agriculture in Indonesia.

The transition of the ruling regime from the government of Susilo Bambang Yudoyono (SBY) to the government of Joko Widodo (Jokowi) in 2014 has also had an impact on the orientation of policies in the development of organic agriculture. The “Go Organic 2010” program was changed to the “Thousand Organic Farming Villages” program. This program at least marked a change in policy direction from the previous one increasing production, quality competitiveness, and competition at the global level to achieve industrialization and world trade toward the development of organic agriculture based on food sovereignty at the village level. In addition to being colored by a development strategy that has the nuances of “building from the periphery”, the new direction of “A Thousand Organic Farming Villages” also seems to emphasize the importance of village development as mandated by the Village Law [1].

To implement the “Thousand Organic Farming Villages” program, based on the Decree of the Minister of Agriculture No. 58 of 2015, the Minister of Agriculture formed a Working Group for the Development of a Thousand Organic Agriculture Villages. The decision stated, among other things, that this working group was tasked with coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating the implementation of the program at the village level. Even though this program is based on the spirit of food sovereignty, the various regulatory instruments used to implement this program are products of policies during the previous government which of course have different directions and orientations. In other words, the program which is based on the spirit of food sovereignty and the strategy of “building from the periphery” is trapped into various policy instruments that have been made during the previous administration which have directions and orientations toward increasing production, quality competitiveness and market competition at the global level to achieve industrialization and world trade development. Policy instruments that are biased toward one side and tend to be trapped in the clutches of the market have had implications for the reduction of the meaning internalized within farmers. This raises the question whether organic farming is a metamorphosis of modern agriculture that hides behind the issue of ecological sustainability? Or is organic farming really anti-modernism? The fact is that organic farming is more of a creation of capitalism which at first glance seems to offer friendliness and sustainability, whereas the realism is still development. Agricultural driving actors who have stronger discourse power, dominate other actors in imposing ideas, images, even beliefs that are not necessarily correct in terms of cultivation methods, even marketing.

Organic agriculture is used as a rhetorical agenda that is full of political interests, capitalist interests and lacks meaning and moral movements. The results of this study confirm research [1] that there has been a reduction in the meaning of organic to a partial and pragmatic tendency in the implementation of policies for developing organic agriculture in Indonesia. Organic farming development programs only give meaning to the meaning of organic limited to the acquisition of a label, logo, or stamp, not to give the meaning of a completely organic farming cultivation system. In fact, according to [23], organic agriculture has a role that is considered safe for the environment and the formation of high-quality food ingredients. Therefore, organic farming policies must consider environmental practices, the willingness of consumers to pay for products, and the social aspects of organic farming.

As a result of research [24], if organic practice conforms to the rhetoric associated with it from its inception as a social movement, then it will have much to offer in the present and the future in terms of its contribution to the possible adaptation pathways and flexibility that he offered. Thus, as a form of adaptation, the development of organic farming must be carried out within the framework of a social movement or moral movement. However, what was stated by [23, 24] has not been fully implemented in the development of organic farming in Indonesia. The color of the construction is obvious in practice. Apart from still being dominated by the use of external inputs (external inputs) produced by the industry, processes, practices, and results are also becoming more expensive, so they are not affordable for the weak (peasant). Internal inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) which should be met independently from the implementation of integrated farming, in practice are still predominantly imported from outside. The high cost of internal inputs occurs because they are not supported by local culture, both the culture of raising livestock, planting crops, and even biological pesticides and local technologies. The tendency is that organic farming is applied partially, biased ecologically sustainable and ignores economic, social, and political sustainability. The implication is that land conversion is not controlled, regeneration does not occur, urbanization is still high and economic inequality is getting higher. Organic farming is operational, but the needs of the present generation are still not being met, imports are increasing, the needs of future generations are being forgotten and employment opportunities or rural entrepreneurs are still not created. Even though it is seen as environmentally friendly, because it is still strong with the development perspective, organic farming deserves to be labeled as modern agriculture which hides under the mask of ecological sustainability.

Winnett, stated that from an environmental awareness approach the organic farming community in Kaliandra–East Java, has a bigger mission than the organic farming community in Milas–Central Java. However, this has an impact on the loss of public awareness of the importance of community independence as farmers because what is implemented is only limited to diverting the issue from looting forests by the community to organic farming. It is in stark contrast to what Milas has done by focusing on self-reliance and awareness of the community as organic farmers [25].

It is limited to diverting the issue from forest plunder by the community to organic farming. It is very contrary to what Milas has done by focusing on the independence and awareness of the community as organic farmers.

The debate in the context of the implementation of organic farming as camouflage for modern agriculture is not entirely true. At least, there are some farmers who consistently implement organic farming as a resistance movement against the various structural pressures that have been holding their daily lives as farmers. This research at least found some farmers who still apply organic farming as a moral identity that differentiates conventional farmers from organic farmers in morality. Even though the number of farmers who apply the principles of organic farming is limited to a few individuals, in this dissertation it is very important to describe how the struggle is being carried out to maintain their existence in the midst of the onslaught of modern tools, especially on the cultural aspect.

As a moral struggle, organic farming is used as a cultural identity that distinguishes it from others. In analyzing the phenomenon of moral struggle of organic farmers, it is analyzed from the perspective of postmodern theory. Postmodernism is a term that refers to various meanings, various terms, various versions, various disciplines, and various objects. As a term, postmodern has been used in various fields, from literature, art, film, sociology, philosophy, economics, communication, and culture. The first figure who pioneered the birth of the term postmodern was Federico de Onis, then developed and popularized by several theorists such as Lyotard, Nietzsche, Foucoult, Vatimo, Giddens, Derrida, Baudrillard, Capra, and others. Although explicitly not found in the field of communication, postmodern concepts can be traced in the works or thoughts of Habermas, Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoer, Marry Hese, and McCarty both as the antithesis of modernism, criticism, and mainstream (heurmeneutics) [26].

The term postmodern in this research uses a philosophical perspective that views postmodernism as a distrust of grand narratives that are nothing more than mainstream metaphors. Postmodern is defined as a period in which everything is delegitimized. Borrowing from Liyotard’s term, postmodern is an intensification of dynamism, an effort to seek sustainable novelty from modernity, experimentation, and revolution of sustainable life. Postmodern rejects liberalism, Marxism, and even subverts foundationalist epistemology (dominantly positive). Postmodern is also understood as any criticism of universal knowledge, criticism of metaphysical traditions. The conclusion in postmodern philosophy is all forms of critical reflection on modern epistemology and paradigms on metaphysics in general.

Departing from the postmodern concept in a philosophical perspective, the term postmodern agriculture was adapted from this concept of thought as a response, criticism and even an antithesis to the stagnation or, more precisely, the failure of modernization of agriculture with a positivistic paradigm. Postmodern agriculture in this study is positioned as a movement of radical thought and behavior, not a theory of social change that is contaminated with modernization. Postmodern agriculture is offered not only to replace modern agricultural terminology, but to radically dismantle modernity, radically dismantle the contradictory meaning hidden behind the reality of modern agriculture to find new meanings, new attitudes, and values that prioritize the spirit of spirituality, morality, and community spirit.

The spirit of spirituality is built on spiritual values internalized in each individual farmer. The internalization of one’s spiritual values is inseparable from the process of individual interaction as an agent with a structure that becomes an inseparable part of their life. In the context of postmodern society, the value of spirituality becomes a contradictory phenomenon on one hand and becomes very sacred on the other. The sacredness that begins to fade due to the eroding of the depth of meaning on the one hand and the crystallization of meaning on the other hand caused by the values of hedonism that become the narrative of modernism is clearly a big disaster for human life in the future. The loss of sacredness in rituals, as actualized in prayers, prayers, clean village rituals, rituals at harvest or rituals just before harvest is a sign that there is a shift that is very far from the standard that should be. Even though the postmodern tendency always rejects all forms of grand narratives with all their foundations (spirit, logos, being, system, state, authority) and prefers to explore emotional, irrational, mystical, and magical dimensions excavated from the spirits of the past, it cannot be denied that the depth of meaning of spirituality needs to be re-articulated, reoriented and even reconstructed.

As one of the oldest activities in the world, farming requires an orderly and balanced mindset so that the abundance of natural resources does not drown and narrowness or crisis does not imprison. Human exploitation and greed cannot be fulfilled from the layers of the earth and layers of the sky. Because the desire is unlimited, while the resources are available in limited quantities. Lust for exploitation, hedonic nature, consumptive behavior, kufr pleasures is a spiritual disease that leads humans to the brink of destruction.

Referring to Mr. Jo’s statement above, that the low level of awareness of farmers in general to preserve the abundance of resources as a gift, as a blessing from God, as a mandate that must be accounted for in the future. That farming is not only a question of how to harvest or how to take, but also how to plant or how to give to generations. Pak Joni, as an elderly figure and the oldest farmer in Sumberbrantas, also said that the tendency of farmers to only take it and forget or not know how to return it was a behavior that led to the deteriorating condition of Sumberbrantas agriculture in the last 10 years. How can it not fall, in the mid of a sluggish market, coupled with declining land productivity, an explosion of pests, and increasingly expensive production costs, is the brink of collapse that farmers must accept at this time. These consequences must be borne as a payment for cultivation behavior that does not pay attention to the benefit of others. Exploitative cultivation patterns that completely ignore ecosystem sustainability. What is being accelerated is only production, production and production to fulfill that unlimited wish.

Implicitly from Mr. Joni’s statement, it can be interpreted that farming is not just a culture and activity that fulfills the stomach (worldly—secularistic) but has spiritual meaning and values that are transcendental. There are meanings of worship, blessing, benefit, civility, and piety. That agriculture is a word or order of the creator, Allah SWT, which must be lived on the basis of order, balance, and justice, which is not exploitative, sustainable, regenerative, and rights (there are other rights in the results and there are rights of future generations). Another spiritual value that can be interpreted from Mr. Joni’s statement is that agriculture in the future must be able to minimize and even avoid actions that violate soil, water, plants, and other physical and non-physical environments. A good relationship must be built between humans and the creator, human-human relations, and human-nature relations. This human relationship with the creator is the foundation or foundation of spiritual values. The creator, Allah SWT. Firmly instructs mankind without exception to build relationships in the divine dimension, the dimensions of fellow human beings and fellow creatures—His creation. Humans are ordered to maintain, protect and use it and learn from the applicable natural laws.

In line with what was conveyed by Mr. Jo, Mr. Pur also said that the tendency of farmers in general to carry out farming or cultivation tends to be exploitative. The actualization of spiritual values as outlined in the form of responsible cultivation behavior is still a problem in the agricultural pattern at Sumberbrantas. Very few farmers really actualize agriculture as a vehicle to worship Allah SWT.

The statement above can be interpreted that economic orientation is the first thing in the life of farmers in general. In fact, the essence of farming is not merely an economic matter. In Islamic teachings, it has been explained that agriculture is not singular, but is involved with all aspects of life and all systems, be it ecosystems, geosystems, or sociosystems. Pak Purnomo’s statement confirms to us that so far farming activities have been implemented only partially, whether the orientation is toward the economy, or other aspects. Agriculture is supposed to be an integrated activity. Geographically or geosystems, agricultural implementation is related to climate conditions, soil, water, environment, biodiversity, etc. Demographically, agriculture is related to the diversity of population, markets, policies, institutions, preferences, etc. The estuary of all the synergies that are built in agriculture is happiness, prosperity, justice, equality, social responsibility, sustainability and benefit for all.

The term used by Pak Pur in describing the condition of contemporary society which is currently in a crisis of guidance has a very deep meaning. The term guidance when referring to the terminology and definition refers to the guidelines and instructions that are believed by an individual in behaving and acting. In the context of the life of the Islamic community, guidance should originate from the Bible (Al-Qur’an) as a revelation sent down by Allah SWT. God of the universe. This means that agriculture must also be guided by the Koran as the absolute source of truth. The Islamic teachings contained in the Qur’an are comprehensive, including integrated, sustainable agriculture, both what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen in the future.

Another term that must be underlined from the interview excerpt with Mr. Pur is related to fading faith, bland worship, and rituals that have lost their sacredness. This term refers to various factual conditions that occur in the life of rural communities, especially farming communities at this time. What is meant by the waning of faith in Pak Purnomo’s terms refers to the phenomenon of society that seems to have begun to doubt the fortune and destiny line that has been determined by the creator. People are competing to collect as much wealth as possible, competing in planting area, competing in crop yields, but they forget that there is God’s hand, there is God’s decree, there is destiny and Allah SWT’s Irodhat. behind it all. It is as if all achievements, all successes and even failures are derived from the process they do, derived from their strengths and knowledge. In other words, in this condition, Allah SWT. The lord of the universe has been exiled, killed, even in the absence of existence. As a replacement, the gods of modernity such as markets, technology, the internet, and others were presented. Worship has shifted, dislocation and disorientation of rituals and worship are clear evidence that what Mr. Purnomo said about fading faith, bland worship and loss of the sacredness of spiritual values is undermining the life of contemporary society these days. The farming community worships Regent, Lipor, Ciyodane, and so on pesticides rather than introspection on farming activities that trigger pest explosions. Awareness, which is another form of faith in the supreme controller of life, has been eroded by synthetic gods that manifest in the technology of chemical pesticides, hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers. What must be contemplated is why now, it seems as if nature is no longer friendly to humans? Why in the past was the balance of nature able to control problems that occurred, for example, pests, soil fertility, and other climates, but now it is not? The answer to all of these questions is that it could be because we are not introspective. It is not nature that causes our lives to be less harmonious, but we are the ones who make nature angry, angry and even reluctant to be friends with humans anymore.

Pak Jo and Pak Pur implicitly conveyed the value and meaning of spirituality built within each farmer that needed to be reoriented so that farming activities would be more stable in the future. If we look closely and study it, it is very clear that the meaning and value of postmodern agriculture are reflected in the verses of the Koran, both explicitly and implicitly. Postmodern agriculture which bases its activities on spiritual values will free it from desire, exploitation, domination, greed, and lust or desires. Farming must be emphasized that producing is not for exploiting humans, plants, land, water, and other resources. Producing (agriculture) is not to maximize production, not to sell as much as possible or satisfy the market, but to meet consumption needs. Farming must be adaptive and anticipatory in order to maintain sustainability in the future.

Farming must be emphasized that it produces not for exploiting humans, plants, land, water, and other resources. Producing (agriculture) is not maximizing production, not selling as much as possible or satisfying the market, but meeting consumption needs. Farming must be adaptive and anticipatory to maintain sustainability in the future. Agriculture that is patterned on nature’s way of producing, which is orderly, fair, balanced, ethical, location-specific, unique, based on local self-sufficiency, which prioritizes local knowledge and technology, which is civilized and beneficial. Postmodern agriculture is agriculture based on diversity of localities, based on diversity of commodities, and based on diversity of communities that do not create competition but side by side, thus building exchanges, mutually reinforcing and complementing each other.

In addition to the value of spirituality, postmodern agriculture is supported by the value of morality as a spirit that fills every agricultural activity. According to Pak Joni, since he has been in the farming profession for more or less 65 years, indeed various phases of change in farmer culture have shifted from generation to generation. The thing that grieves Pak Joni the most as a farmer figure in Sumberbrantas Village is related to the moral degradation of farmers. As an example, he pointed out how love for the land, love for the land and plants, is slowly but surely being reduced from the soul of the current generation. It is as if land and plants are no longer considered as creatures, or at least the sense of moral responsibility for the quality and quantity that must be maintained for the next generation has almost completely disappeared in today’s farmers. Individual moral sensitivity or sensitivity is eroded and replaced by being (becoming) from the various choices available.

The aspect of morality has a very important role in the midst of globalization that is currently sweeping the world, including rural areas in Indonesia. Borrowing Bauman’s term which says that “The world is full” when looking at the world that is increasingly global. The world is full not in the physical or geographical sense, but in the perception of a sense of closeness. Furthermore, Bauman [27] uses the metaphor of liquid modernity in illustrating the fragility of relations between individuals and their culture. The term “liquid modernity” is used by Bauman to refer to the phenomenon of change from a solid, controllable, predictable, rational form into a liquid state, that is, an inevitable condition of mortality, a condition in which its members act into change more quickly than is necessary and integrate it into the habits of every individual. Individuals, due to the weakness of the state system in the era of fluid modernization. Individuals become free with their choices because they follow the speed of changes that occur in this era (Elliot 2007). The conditions as described by Bauman, in almost the same textuality also occur in Sumberbrantas Village. The exposure to globalization in a slightly different context is also happening in the lives of farmers. Even though the levels are not as high as in urban areas, the term liquid modernity is also found by the authors in the results of in-depth interviews with informants.

The exposure to globalization has made it increasingly difficult to have space for a sense of closeness, empathy, ethics, and courtesy, and ironically, a feeling of getun (an action that makes a person feel regretful, disappointed) appears when doing good for others. As stated by Pak Joni in the excerpt of the interview above, that too much anxiety is experienced or rather felt by most farmers when they do good things for others. The feeling of being part of the land so that you treat the land as wisely as possible is no longer visible in the behavior of farmers in general. Exploitative behavior in the form of boosting production without regard to soil and environmental conditions is a dry form of farmer morality in carrying out their farming business. Then the spirit of morality, such as the philosophy that farming is a way of life, farming is a calling, and so on, has been extinguished which has been the torch of farmers in navigating the agricultural world? If this is the case then there is a very deep meaning related to the fading of these moral values. As the value of morality fades, it can be a sign of the end of agricultural existence. Subsistence farmers, or more precisely, small farmers, have survived until this moment, none other than because of the moral spirit that farming is a calling, a way of life, and a moral responsibility. For subsistence farmers or small farmers, subsistence ethics really is an ideology that they like or dislike, they have to hold on firmly because that is the only reason they remain in the farmer’s path. The subsistence ethic is like a faith that will guide small farmers back to the path of agriculture or to keep on walking the path of the world of agriculture.

It becomes a serious problem when the spirit of peasant morality is allowed to drift in narratives of modernism driven by the energy of desire, which are full of pseudo-images and objects, shrouded in shallow meanings and decorated by simulacrum. As Pak Joni said, the activities of farmers driven by the desire to get as much produce from agriculture as possible is nothing but the implementation of hedonic traits that are deliberately narrated by the world of modernity, namely a world that is considered to be able to give humans pleasure, fascination, ecstasy, despite everything instantaneous, temporary, and not lasting. The imagination of stability, success, and satisfaction which is created through the symbols of modernity is a very evil virus that will undermine the morality and spirituality of the peasants. This virus will slowly but surely remove from farmers the traits of obedience, submission, and discipline that have been the true soul and breath of farmers.

Returning the moral spirit of farmers is a necessity if one expects that the world of agriculture must exist. Pak Joni and Pak Purnomo and Pak Sardjito as role models in Sumberbrantas Village have the same opinion in responding to the recent decline in farmer morality. A moral movement is needed so that farmers can return to their moral character as farmers. That farming is not just about planting and harvesting as much as you can. Behind it all there is a responsibility to protect fellow human beings, to maintain the survival of fellow creatures of God, to maintain the balance, and sustainability of the ecosystem. The following are excerpts of an interview with Pak Joni regarding his opinion on carrying out a moral movement to return farmers to their natural path.

6. Conclusions

Actors or agents in the implementation of organic farming consist of four types, namely, type A actor, type B actor, type C actor, and type D actor. Type A actor is an actor who is oriented toward spiritual values so that organic farming praxis is implemented as form of worship and manifestation of gratitude for the gift of Allah SWT. Type B actors are actors who are oriented toward moral values, so that the praxis of organic farming is actualized as a form of wisdom, and moral responsibility for preserving noble values in managing land and other resources. Type C actors are actors who are oriented toward economic values, so that organic farming practices are implemented as an effort to accumulate rupiah profits based on the profit-loss calculation of the choices they have. Type D actors are actors who are oriented toward political values, so that the organic farming practice is carried out in order to maintain and gain power or legitimacy.

The initiation of the “Batu Go Organic” program which is loaded with various interests, places the implementation of organic farming development in Batu City at the intersection of projects and community movements. As a project, the values of organic farming are reduced to a meaning that deviates far from the true organic nature and philosophy. Organic farming is nothing more than a developmentalism approach that traps farmers in various forms of dependency, powerlessness and exploitation in other forms. However, the incident of reducing the attitudes and values of organic farming on the one hand has also created anxiety for some actors who are concerned about the decline in the morality of farmers in treating land, water and other resources.

The traces of the implementation of organic farming which are packaged in the “Batu Go Organic” program are not only reduced in meaning as a means for project accumulation and rhetoric, but also shackled in the grip of the market. The approaches and policy instruments issued by the government are in contrast to the spirit of independence which has become the spirit of the national program “Thousand Organic Villages” Laws and regulations such as regional regulations, regulations from the Minister of Agriculture, implementation guidelines or implementation guidelines do not reflect the spirit of building village independence at all, but rather the standards and qualifications of organic agricultural products. This is of course only market oriented which actually cannot be intervened directly by the government.