Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
International Area Studies Review
[ Article ]
International Area Studies Review - Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.93-112
ISSN: 2233-8659 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.69473/iasr.2026.29.2.93

Rhizomatic Elites: Rethinking Power, Multiplicity, and Spatial Networks in Urban Indonesia

Andi Ali Armunanto* ; Nanang Indra Kurniawan ; Joash Tapiheru ; Kuskridho Ambardi
Department of Political Science, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia
Department of Government and Politics, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia
Department of Government and Politics, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia
Department of Sociology, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia

Correspondence to: *Email: armunanto@unhas.ac.id

Abstract

This study reconceptualizes elite formation and power in urban Indonesia through a poststructuralist lens, critiquing hierarchical models from Western contexts. We develop Rhizomatic Network Analysis (RNA)---a methodology grounded in Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy---to examine elite dynamics in Makassar. Moving beyond conventional approaches, we theorize elites as molecular assemblages--contingent formations shaped by affective, discursive, and material relationships. Our data reveals that power operates through horizontal networks rather than centralized structures. Through empirical cases, we demonstrate how elites territorialize and reterritorialize space according to shifting alliances and contexts. These findings challenge conventional elite theory by revealing three characteristics of rhizomatic power: fluidity of elite status as contingent formations, multiplicity of overlapping relational dimensions, and spatiality of power across formal and informal domains. This approach offers insights into elite formation in the Global South and contributes to debates in political sociology, urban studies, and critical geography by showing how Southern urban contexts can reinterpret global social theory.

Keywords:

Elite, Rhizomatic network, Fluidity, Multiplicity, Spatiality, Global South, Urban Indonesia

Authorship Contributions

All authors have contributed sufficiently to the manuscript to take public responsibility for its content. Their contributions include conception, design, data collection, analysis, and writing.

AI Use Declaration

The authors declare that no generative AI was used for data collection, analysis, theoretical interpretation, or generating original content. AI (Paperpal) was used only for minor grammar and proofreading assistance without altering meaning or findings. The authors take full responsibility for the integrity and originality of the manuscript.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Author’s Institution Research Ethics Committee. All 25 participants provided written informed consent, with guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality, particularly for politically sensitive information. No vulnerable populations were involved, and data were stored securely.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests, financial or non-financial, that could have influenced the work reported in this manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  • Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of Power: Beyond territory and networks. Oxford & New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203101926]
  • Andaya, L. Y. (1981). The heritage of arung palakka (p. 364). Brill. [https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_613368]
  • Aspinall, E. (2013). A nation in fragments: Patronage and neoliberalism in contemporary Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 45(1), 27–54. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2013.758820]
  • Aspinall, E., & Hicken, A. (2019). Rental weapons and perpetual machines: Clientelism outside the party in Indonesia and the Philippines. Taylor & Francis, 27(1), 137–156. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1590816]
  • Atkinson, W. (2024). Field theory and assemblage theory: Toward a constructive dialogue. Theory, Culture & Society, 41(1), 79-94. [https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764231167774]
  • Bevir, M. (1999). Foucault, power, and institutions. Political Studies, 47(2), 345–359. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00204]
  • Beyes, T., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: Non-representational theory and performing organizational space. Organization, 19(1), 45–61. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411401946]
  • Bian, Y. (2002). Chinese social stratification and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 91–116. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140823]
  • Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503615427]
  • BPS, & Kota Makassar. (2023). Kota Makassar Dalam Angka. Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Makassar.
  • Buchanan, I. (2015). Assemblage theory and its discontent. Deleuze Studies, 9(3), 382–392. [https://doi.org/10.3366/dls.2015.0193]
  • Buchanan, I. (2021). Assemblage theory and method: An introduction and guide. Bloomsbury Academic. [https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350015579]
  • Carroll, W. K. (2010). The making of a transnational capitalist class. Bloomsbury Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350223257]
  • Charret, A., & Chankseliani, M. (2022). The process of building a European university alliance: A rhizomatic analysis of the European University Initiative. Higher Education, 86(1), 21–44. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00898-6]
  • Chattopadhyay, S. (2012). Unlearning the city: Infrastructure in a new optical field. University of Minnesota Press. [https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816679317.001.0001]
  • Chia, R. (1999). A rhizomic model of organizational change and transformation: Perspective from a metaphysics of change. British Journal of Management, 10(3), 209–227. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00128]
  • DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474413640]
  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Dijk, T. (2013). Discourse, power, and access (pp. 93–113). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431382-11]
  • Dikeç, M. (2012). Space as a mode of political thinking. Geoforum, 43(4), 669–676. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.008]
  • Domhoff, G. W. (2018). Who rules America? The triumph of the corporate rich (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • Dovey, K. (2012). Informal urbanism and complex adaptive assemblages. International Development Planning Review, 34(4), 349-368. [https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2012.23]
  • Elden, S., & Crampton, J. W. (Eds.). (2012). Space, knowledge, and power: Foucault and geography. Ashgate Publishing.
  • Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411–1454. [https://doi.org/10.1086/230450]
  • Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1993). The elite connection. Polity Press.
  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: A critical study of language. Longman.
  • Farías, I. (2011). The politics of urban assemblages. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 15(3-4), 365–374. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.595110]
  • Farías, I., & Bender, T. (Eds.). (2012). Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban studies. Routledge.
  • Foucault, M. (1984). The foucault reader. Vintage.
  • Foucault, M. (1986). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader.
  • Gehman, J., Sharma, G., & Beveridge, ‘A. (2021). Theorizing institutional entrepreneurship: Arborescent and rhizomatic assembling. Organization Studies, 43(2), 289–310. [https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211044893]
  • Hadiz, V. R. (2010). Localising power in post-authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia perspective. Stanford University Press.
  • Higley, J. (2009). Elite and elite theory. Nature Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68930-2_9]
  • Higley, J., & Moore, G. (2001). Political elite studies at the year 2000: Introduction. International Review of Sociology, 11(2), 175–180. [https://doi.org/10.1080/713674036]
  • Khan, S. R. (2012). Sociological elites. Annual Review, 38(1), 361–377. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145542]
  • Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985864]
  • Kølvraa, C. (2017). The discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau. In The Routledge handbook of language and politics (pp. 96–108). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315183718-8]
  • Kompas. (2015, October 19). Kasus PDAM Makassar, Eks Wali Kota Didakwa Rugikan Negara Rp 45,8 Miliar. Kompas.com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2015/10/19/20103271/Kasus.PDAM.Makassar.Eks.Wali.Kota.Didakwa.Rugikan.Negara.Rp.45.8.Miliar
  • Laclau, E. (2006a). On populist reason. Verso.
  • Laclau, E. (2006b). Why constructing a people is the main task of radical politics. Critical Inquiry, 32(4), 646–680. [https://doi.org/10.1086/508086]
  • Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (Vol. 8). Verso Books.
  • Lawhon, M., & Truelove, Y. (2020). Provincializing urban political ecology: Towards a situated UPE through African urbanism. Antipode, 52(1), 5–25.
  • Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., & Sziarto, K. (2008). The spatialities of contentious politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(2), 157–172. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00293.x]
  • Linstead, S., & Thanem, T. (2007). Multiplicity, virtuality and organization: The contribution of Gilles Deleuze. Organization Studies, 28(10), 1483–1501. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607075675]
  • Massey, D. B. (2005). For space. [https://doi.org/10.12968/sece.2005.1.361]
  • McFarlane, C. (2011). The city as assemblage: Dwelling and urban space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(4), 649–671. [https://doi.org/10.1068/d4710]
  • Mckinlay, A., Carter, C., & Pezet, E. (2012). Governmentality, power and organization. Management & Organizational History, 7(1), 3–15. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935911429414]
  • Mietzner, M. (2009). Indonesia’s 2009 elections: Populism, dynasties and the consolidation of the party system. Lowy Institute for International Policy, 19, 1–22. [https://doi.org/10.1355/SEAA09G]
  • Moatasim, F. (2018). Informality and power in the Global South. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(2), 245–261.
  • Mutch, A., Delbridge, R., & Ventresca, M. (2006). Situating organizational action: The relational sociology of organizations. Organization, 13(5), 607–625. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406067006]
  • Nail, T. (2017). What is an assemblage? SubStance, 46(1), 21–37. [https://doi.org/10.1353/sub.2017.0001]
  • Nordholt, H. S. (2011). The political economy of Southeast Asia. In R. Robison (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Southeast Asian politics (pp. 45–62). Routledge.
  • Ozanne, J. L., Ekpo, A. E., Seregina, A., Grier, S., Thomas, K. D., Downey, H., Veer, E., Davis, B., Garnier, M., Benmecheddal, A., Hietanen, J., Murray, J. B., & Gall-Ely, M. L. (2017). Assessing the societal impact of research: The relational engagement approach. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(1), 1–14. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.14.121]
  • Patton, P. (2006). Order, exteriority and flat multiplicities in the social. Deleuze and the social (pp. 21–38). [https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748620920.003.0001]
  • Pelras, C. (1996) The Bugis. Oxford, Blackwell.
  • Power, M. (2011). Foucault and sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 35–56. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150133]
  • Putnam, R. D. (1976). The comparative study of political elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Redhead, D., & Power, E. A. (2022). Social hierarchies and social networks in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 377(1845), 20200440. [https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0440]
  • Robinson, J. (2006). Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development. London: Routledge.
  • Roy, A. (2011). Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 223–238. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01051.x]
  • Savage, G. C. (2019). What is policy assemblage? Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(3), 319–335. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.1559760]
  • Sheppard, E., Leitner, H., & Maringanti, A. (2013). Provincializing global urbanism: A manifesto. Urban Geography, 34(7), 893–900. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.807977]
  • Sklair, L. (2001). The transnational capitalist class. Blackwell.
  • Smith, M. E. (1985). The elite: A necessary evil? Reviews in Anthropology, 12(1), 21–33. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00988157.1985.9977709]
  • Song, Andrew M., Temby, Owen., Kim, Dongkyu., Cisneros, Angel S., Hickey, Gordon M. (2019) Measuring, mapping and quantifying the effects of trust and informal communication on transboundary collaboration in the Great Lakes fisheries policy network. Global Environmental Change,Volume 54, 6–18. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.001]
  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). Network governance and post-liberal democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2), 197-237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25610725 [https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2005.11029489]
  • Tempo. (2016, February 29). Mantan Wali Kota Makassar Divonis 4 Tahun Penjara. Tempo.co. https://www.tempo.co/hukum/mantan-wali-kota-makassar-divonis-4-tahun-penjara-1379829
  • Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2017). Introducing elite discourse: The rhetorics of status, privilege, and power. Social Semiotics, 27(3), 243–254. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1301789]
  • Törnquist, O. (2013a). Dynamics of peace and democratization in Southeast Asia. NIAS Press.
  • Törnquist, O. (2013b). Assessing dynamics of democratisation: Transformative politics, new institutions, and the case of Indonesia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • van Klinken, G. A., & Berenschot, W. (2014). In search of middle Indonesia. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004263437]
  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478]
  • Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the south: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259–2275. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598]
  • Wedel, J. R. (2017). From the power elite to the influential elite: Reorganizing elite studies for the 21st century. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(5-6), 153–178. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276417715311]
  • White, H. C. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Woods, M. (1998). Rethinking elites: Networks, space, and local politics. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(12), 2101–2119. [https://doi.org/10.1068/a302101]
  • Yakub, A., Armunanto, A. A., & Haryanto. (2022). Under family control: The trend of sole candidate elections in Indonesia. International Area Studies Review, 25(4), 303–321. [https://doi.org/10.1177/22338659221120972]