Indonesia's formal culture is trapped in cul de sac<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Kompas daily carried a rather theatrical
\nstatement of Abdurrachman Wahid, known as Gus Dur, in its May 31
\nedition.<\/p>\n
It quoted him as saying that our culture is already dead,
\nburied in its fervent desire to serve the interest of the
\nexisting institutions of power. As a result, we have developed a
\nculture of violence.<\/p>\n
This is, in the opinion of Gus Dur, terribly wrong. Culture
\nshould rest upon and derive its strength from morality, and not
\nfrom violence. Gus Dur reminded his audience that violence is
\nimmoral.<\/p>\n
This particular pursuit of culture has made our state a
\nvehicle or instrument for those with power to subjugate those
\nwithout power. Thus our state exists to serve power. Within our
\nculture this power system has developed its own absolute autonomy
\nwhich cannot be questioned by anyone. This, in the end, is the
\nmost burdensome form of colonization.<\/p>\n
How should we react? Gus Dur's formula is the following: \"I do
\nnot see the need to oppose this situation. I have reserved a room
\nin my heart in which I exercise the freedom to question the
\nmorality of others' behavior.\"<\/p>\n
How true is Gus Dur's portrait of the present condition of our
\nculture?<\/p>\n
I do not believe our culture is really dead. What Gus Dur
\ndescribed is true only as far as it concerns the \"formal
\nculture\", the culture of those with power. If we look, however,
\nat the situation among those without power, then we will see a
\ndifferent picture.<\/p>\n
In this world morality is still very much alive. The fact that
\nGus Dur still draws a very big crowd wherever he speaks is
\nindisputable evidence to me that behind or beside the formal
\nculture is the \"popular culture\", the real culture of the people.<\/p>\n
The existence of this culture has been obscured by lack of
\npublicity. No mass media makes a serious attempt to report about
\nlife within this popular culture. Such coverage does not sell.
\nWho would buy it? The poor?<\/p>\n
It is generally believed that popular culture is shallow,
\nabrasive and trivial. This prejudice used to be considered
\nabsolutely true within Javanese culture. Among the Javanese,
\npopular culture was considered inferior in every respect to
\n\"palace culture\".<\/p>\n
Popular culture was looked upon as a culture belonging to
\nthose \"who live close to stones, and far from kings\" (cedak
\nwatu, adoh ratu in Javanese dialect).<\/p>\n
After independence, however, these popular cultures have
\ndeveloped into autonomous cultures, independent from any trend
\nset by palace cultures. The East Java variation of the Javanese
\nclassical dance, for instance, is no less fascinating than the
\ntraditional classical dance of the Yogyakarta and Surakarta
\npalace varieties.<\/p>\n
Popular culture is now heavily overshadowed by formal culture.
\nThe current popular culture has no patrons, has no sponsors. It
\nis not even on the map of the Ministry of Education and Culture,
\nI am afraid. In time, however, it will grow into a mature
\nculture, independent from and equally visible as the formal
\nculture.<\/p>\n
As Prof. Philip H. Phenix stated in one of his books: \"Popular
\nculture need not be mediocre and trivial. Meaning is lost both
\nwhen knowledge is abstruse and inaccessible and when it is
\ncommonplace and superficial.\" The present popular culture looks
\ntrivial because it has no access to the best insights of our
\ncivilization.<\/p>\n
How to safeguard this popular culture and how to protect it
\nfrom being corrupted and co-opted by the formal culture are two
\nproblems that must be solved. If Gus Dur has a special room in
\nhis heart, so do people without power.<\/p>\n
And I think there is a great correspondence between the
\ncriteria of right and wrong that have been operating in Gus Dur's
\nheart and similar criteria that have been working in the hearts
\nof people without power. Again, the fact that Gus Dur still has a
\nbig audience means that his feelings regarding the present
\nsituation are silently shared by millions of people who, like
\nhim, abhorred violence and long for justice.<\/p>\n
Our current popular culture will be able to fight against the
\ncorrupting influence of the formal culture, I think, if it is
\ngiven the opportunity to communicate freely. In my view, popular
\nculture is by necessity local in nature. There are thus many
\nlocal popular cultures which lack the opportunity to communicate
\namong themselves. In contrast, the formal culture is national and
\nhas all the means to communicate with any party it wishes to
\nreach.<\/p>\n
Reaching a target does not necessarily mean being accepted.
\nPeople cannot be forced to listen. They can be forced to hear,
\nbut not to listen. As far as I know, there are many views of the
\nformal culture which have been rejected by the ordinary people.
\nThey simply refuse to accept certain things which are forced on
\nthem.<\/p>\n
Herein lies the strength and resilience of our current popular
\nculture, I believe. It has its own belief, its own conviction,
\nits own vision. No amount of violence, physical or otherwise, can
\nforce common people to believe what they refuse to believe or
\nwhat they cannot possibly believe.<\/p>\n
An important variable in this case is that the language of the
\nformal culture is different from the language of the popular
\nculture. The language of the formal culture is the product of
\nmanipulative thinking, whereas the language of the popular
\nculture is the product of straight feeling. The language of the
\nformal culture is exploitative, whereas the language of the
\npopular culture is emotive.<\/p>\n
This difference of language constitutes the main reason for
\nthe absence of genuine communication between the formal culture
\nand the popular culture, between those with power and those
\nwithout power. The current popular culture manages to survive
\nprecisely for this reason. The same reason allows realistic hope
\nconcerning the future of the popular culture.<\/p>\n
I would say our culture is not dead. What has happened is that
\nthe formal culture has come to the end of a cul de sac, and is
\ntherefore practically dead. The popular culture, on the other
\nhand, is alive and kicking and in dire need of fresh air. It is
\nour collective duty to breathe fresh air into the lungs of
\npopular culture.<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of a social and cultural affairs.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesias-formal-culture-is-trapped-in-cul-de-sac-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }