Revitalizing Aluk Pare to Strengthen Farmers’ Character Through North Toraja Local Culture

Aluk Pare represents a traditional Torajan agrarian belief system governing all stages of rice cultivation, from land preparation to post-harvest rituals. It embeds moral and ethical values such as hard work, cooperation, responsibility, and respect for nature. However, modernization and lifestyle changes have eroded these values, weakening farmers’ work ethic and character. This study aims to (1) identify character values embedded in Aluk Pare relevant to farmers’ character formation; (2) design and implement a revitalization model of these values in modern agricultural practices; and (3) evaluate the model’s impact on farmers’ behavioral transformation in North Toraja. Using a Participatory Action Research approach, data were collected through in-depth interviews, participatory observation, and focus group discussions with farmers and cultural leaders. Qualitative analysis followed Miles & Huberman’s model. Results reveal that revitalizing Aluk Pare strengthens farmers’ responsibility, discipline, cooperation, and ecological obedience. The culture-based training enhanced farmers’ ecological awareness and social solidarity. Hence, revitalization of local wisdom functions not only as cultural preservation but also as an effective character education strategy supporting sustainable agriculture in North Toraja.

Aluk Pare, farmers’ character, local wisdom, character education, North Toraja.

1. Tammu, Y. A., & Veen, H. (1972). Aluk Todolo: Tata Kehidupan Orang Toraja. BPSG. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bigalke, T. (2005). Tana Toraja: A Social History of an Indonesian People. NUS Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Manggarai, L. (2018). Krisis etos kerja petani dan kearifan lokal. Jurnal Sosial Budaya, 9(2), 123–136. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Rambu, M. (2020). Aluk dan modernitas: ketegangan nilai dalam masyarakat Toraja. Jurnal Antropologi Indonesia, 41(1), 77–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Lickona, T. (1992). Educating for Character: How Our Schools Can Teach Respect and Responsibility. Bantam Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Tilaar, H. A. R. (2004). Multikulturalisme: Tantangan-Tantangan Global Masa Depan dalam Transformasi Pendidikan Nasional. Grasindo. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Koentjaraningrat. (2009). Kebudayaan, Mentalitas dan Pembangunan. Gramedia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Sutaryo, D. (2020). Strategi revitalisasi budaya lokal dalam membangun karakter. Jurnal Pendidikan Karakter, 10(1), 11–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Darmaningtyas. (2004). Pendidikan yang Memiskinkan. Galang Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). The Action Research Planner. Deakin University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]