An Introduction.
“Cultural
diversity”, that is the most prominent feature of the Indonesian nation. “A nation
of unity in diversity (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika)”, that is the national
slogan established at the time Indonesia proclaimed her independence in 1945.
Long before the independence, in 1928, a group of young Indonesians declared
the unity of their future nation: “One country, one nation, one language,
Indonesia” (Satu nusa, satu bangsa, satu bahasa, Indonesia)”. It
is interesting to note here that bahasa Indonesia was cited as the ‘national
language’ at the time Indonesia was still colonized by the Dutch. It is more interesting
to know that those young Indonesians consciously chose bahasa Indonesia as
the lingua franca among the existing hundreds local languages spread over the archipelago.
In his article: Notes on Cultural Diversity in Southeast Asia (2004),
Fox argues for the use of language as a means of indicating diversity in Southeast
Asia instead of the concept of ‘culture’ as used by the earlier
anthropologists. I agree that using language as an indicator of diversity is
straightforward, though—as also argued by Fox (2004:18)—various dialects can
make up one single language as he found among Rotenese in Eastern Indonesia. As
Fox (2004:18) says: “Where exactly to divide up the dialects of Rotenese and
decide on what constitute separate languages would be both difficult and
arbitrary.” It is not at all easy to define the demarcation of each language, and
so also is the reality with hundreds of cultures in Indonesia. This is only one
issue to deal with such a complexity. Various other aspects of people’s life,
for examples religion, kinship, and economic-social-political system also vary
from one group to another.
By considering
the total number of languages in larger islands and regions only, excluding the
small islands, as many as 701 languages are spread throughout Indonesia (see
Fox of his quotation on the number of languages in Sumatra, Kalimantan,
Sulawesi, Java and Bali, Nusa Tenggara, Maluku and Papua as quoted from Ethnologue:
Languages of the World [Grimes 1992 in Fox 2004:15]). If language is
used as an indicator of cultural diversity, it means that only from the larger
islands and regions, there are seven hundreds cultures in Indonesia. We could
thus imagine how enormous the diversity in Indonesia is. In such a situation,
if bahasa Indonesia can function as the lingua franca, to what extent
could the national identity and sense of belongingness function as the ‘tie’ of
more than 200 millions people with their heterogeneous cultural identities and
backgrounds? It is not at all a simple and easy thing to realize.
Referring to
Furnivall (1948a, 1948b), Suparlan (2000a, 2000b) argues for Furnivall’s hypothesis
that Indonesia is, in reality, a ‘plural society’ consisting of a large number
of social groups who do not have any intricate relationships one another, nor
do they have the same interests as members of a nation. The colonial regime of
the Netherlands-Indie forced them to be together under their rule on the basis
of economic interests. Economic interests became the means to build up network
and relation in and through the market. Again, economic and political interests
underlined the rule of the previous old regime of Soeharto where the ‘unity’ of
Indonesian nation was forced strongly above its ‘diversity’ for the sake of
their interests. In 1984 the Soeharto regime issued censorship on some sensitive
areas, i.e. ethnicity, race, religion and inter-group issues, locally known as SARA
that stands for Suku (ethnic group), Agama (religion), and Ras
(race). As Budianta says (2004:21), “The SARA censorship betrayed the
underlying tension beneath the State pluralistic motto of “Bhinneka Tunggal
Ika” (Unity in Diversity).” The reality that we live in diversity with all
its consequences should not be raised in public domain for the sake of ‘stability’
and ‘security’ issues as one nation. The ‘unity’ dimension was thus being
forced to overcome the real ‘diversity’. Moreover, the rights of local
communities to live in their own ways and own their properties in peace were
neglected for the sake of the central regime’s maximum exploitation of natural
resources (see Suparlan 2003). In the wake of Reform (from 1998 onwards), as
Budianta (2004:21) argues, the pendulum swang from centralistic unity towards
the needs to recognize diversity which further accelerated the resurgence of ‘multiculturalism’
issue. The euphoria was to turn down the centralistic control and heavy
emphasis on unity to give rise towards a greater freedom of the regional and
local people to control their own rights and resources in its diversity.
Despite such euphoria, the question is, are we, Indonesians, really moving from
a pluralistic society—in Furnivall’s meaning—towards a ‘multicultural’ society?
Suparlan
(2003:31) argues for the meaning of multiculturalism as an ideology that
praises cultural differences, or a belief that recognizes and enforces the
formation of cultural pluralism as a form of societal life. How to
operationally implement such an ideology in everyday life? How to put into
action the praise of differences and the belief to enforce cultural pluralism?
Fay (1996:241) argues against a too restrictive and too static a slogan of
multiculturalism as only ‘recognizing, appreciating, and celebrating difference’.
‘Engaging, questioning, and learning’ are better captures the synergistic character
of genuine multicultural interaction, as well as the dynamic character of
social science (Fay 1996:241). Looking at the long history of the development
of Indonesia as a nation, I argue that it would be a long way for the
Indonesian people to form and reach the genuine multicultural interaction among
the very heterogeneous people. This is the great challenge for both the people
and the academia. Yet, this is the reality the people face in their everyday
life. Like a pendulum, the swing is moving back and forth between the ‘forced
plural society without any genuine multicultural interaction’ to the great
interests to form a multicultural society, yet still in the midst of facing
various problems, hardships and challenges to reach the other end of the pendulum:
the multicultural Indonesia. Such is also a portray of how dynamic the nation
is from the period of pre-independence up to this recent modern time through
the struggle of sustaining independence, and the unity of the nation amid the
very diverse conditions, people, and interests. On the other hand, the Indonesian
nation has to struggle of reaching prosperity in the midst of prolonged
poverty, while facing vast changes through modernization and globalization.
Indonesia is also an archipelago with diverse degrees of contact between and
among the people, within and between neighboring islands and foreign countries.
The mobility of people within and inter-islands has also been going on since
the colonization period up to recent times. In such a complex society, how do
the families sustain their existence? To what extent do the family members
exercise their decisions and strategies in transmitting ‘cultures’ which are so
diverse, and by doing that, also sustaining and at the same time, changing ‘cultures’?
Yet, within one nation having one language as the lingua franca, to what extent
do the national language and ‘culture’ play important role in the ways the
family transmit the ‘cultures’? In a heterogeneous society like Indonesia,
could the genuine multicultural interaction take place where the family members
do engage, learn, and question one another and with those belonging to the ‘others’?
Referring to the main theme of the conference, is this the kind of ‘education’
the members of a ‘family’ perform and hence would support, or otherwise,
jeopardize the efforts to create a multicultural Indonesia? Yet, what kind of ‘cultures’
do they, through what is called as ‘education’, transmit, sustain, and change
in the midst of such a complex and dynamic Indonesia? These are not easy
questions to answer. I will not be able to provide the answers of all those
questions in this brief paper. Yet, a brief examination of the ongoing features
of those phenomena will be discussed. Though the family as a social entity
becomes the main focus of this conference, I would pursue my perspective in
examining the ‘family education’ in Indonesia from theagency perspective and
the situational and processual approaches instead of the emphasis on the system
with the underlying essentialism point of view (see Bourdieu 1977;Giddens 1979;
Ortner 1984; Vayda 1986; Ahearn 2001; also see Moore 1987, 1994;Vayda et al.
1991). Before examining these issues further, it is urgent to have an understanding
of what constitutes a ‘family’ in a nation like Indonesia and what are the features
of ‘families’ in a heterogeneous Indonesia.
Resources :
Ahearn, L.M.
2001 ‘Language and Agency,’ Annual Review of Anthropology 30:109—37.
Borofsky, R.
1987 Making History: Pukapukan and Anthropological Constructions of Knowledge.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1994 ‘The Cultural in Motion,’ in R. Borofsky (ed.) Asssessing Cultural Anthropology.
New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp.313—19.
Bourdieu, P.
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Budianta, M.
2004 ‘Multiculturalism: In Search of a Critical Framework for Assessing Diversity in
Indonesia,’ in K. Sunarto, R. Hiang-Khng Heng, and A.F. Saifuddin (eds)
Multicultural Education in Indonesia and Southeast Asia: Stepping into the
Unfamiliar. Depok: Jurnal Antropologi Indonesia. Pp.21—35.
Coppel, C.A.
2002 Studying Ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian
Studies.
2004 ‘Historical Impediments to the Acceptance of Ethnic Chinese in a Multicultural
Indonesia,’ in L. Suryadinata (ed.) Chinese Indonesians: State Policy, Monoculture
and Multiculture. Singapore: Eastern University Press by Marshall Cavendish.
Pp.17—28.
2005 ‘Introduction: Researching the Margins,’ in T. Lindsey and H. Pausacker (eds)
Chinese Indonesian: Remembering, Distorting, Forgetting. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies and Clayton: Monash of Southeast Asian Studies. Pp.1—9.
Dilts, D. and S. Hate
1996 ‘IPM Farmer Field Schools: Changing Paradigms and Scaling-up’, Agricultural
Research & Extension Network 59b:1-4.
Fay, B.
1996 Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Fox, J.J.
2004 ‘Notes on Cultural Diversity in Southeast Asia,’ in K. Sunarto, R. Hiang-Khng
Heng, and A.F. Saifuddin (eds) Multicultural Education in Indonesia and Southeast
Asia: Stepping into the Unfamiliar. Depok: Jurnal Antropologi Indonesia. Pp.11—
20.
Furnivall,
1948a Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and the Netherlands
India. New York: New York University Press.
