Power-ideology balance over 50 years<\/p>\n
Ehito Kimura, Contributor, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Social Science and Power in Indonesia<\/p>\n
Vedi R. Hadiz, Daniel Dhakidae, eds<\/p>\n
Equinoz Publishing<\/p>\n
304 pp, Hardcover<\/p>\n
Social Science and Power in Indonesia is a provocative and
\nengaging collection of essays expertly edited by two seasoned
\nscholars of Indonesian politics, Vedi Hadiz and Daniel Dhakidae.<\/p>\n
According to the editors, the book's premise is that \"the role
\nand development of social sciences in Indonesia over the past 50
\nyears are inextricably related to the shifting requirements of
\npower\". By power, the authors largely mean state power and they
\nrefer mostly to the power of Suharto's New Order regime.<\/p>\n
Opening with a comprehensive introduction, the ensuing
\nchapters address a range of issues -- dominant ideological
\nparadigms, acceptable research topics, the design of higher
\neducation, the role of think tanks -- all with an eye toward
\nunderstanding how these interacted with political objectives of
\nthe state.<\/p>\n
In this context, a central contribution of this book is to
\nshow the novel ways by which the New Order achieved and
\nmaintained political dominance for so long. Much has been written
\nabout how the military attained order through coercion while the
\ntechnocrats secured the state's legitimacy through economic
\ngrowth. Social Science and Power adds a new dimension whereby
\nknowledge-makers and their institutions were subsumed under the
\nstate and used to consolidate its basis of control.<\/p>\n
To be sure, the authors are careful to point out the existence
\nof major conflicts in ideology and discourse that influenced
\nstate policy in the New Order. For example, some chapters refer
\nto neo-liberal economic thought and state-led developmentalist
\npolicies that coexisted uneasily under the New Order. This
\nsuggests that even strong authoritarian states can contain
\ninternal rifts and ideological contradictions.<\/p>\n
But the authors do not turn a blind eye to the wider
\ncontribution of intellectuals and activists outside the
\nmainstream that tried to challenge the dominant paradigms of
\nsocial science at the time. Even in their marginality, non-
\ngovernmental organizations and alternative media outlets
\nemphasized social and community empowerment programs and
\nparticipatory research methodologies, much of which can be seen
\nto form the basis for Indonesian civil society organizations
\ntoday.<\/p>\n
Notably, almost all of the authors in this volume are
\nIndonesian scholars. Most have also received academic training at
\nuniversities abroad in Australia, the United States and Europe.
\nThis gives the book rare blend of theoretical currency combined
\nwith in-depth understanding of Indonesia's historical, social,
\npolitical and cultural contexts.<\/p>\n
Like many compiled volumes, this book suffers from some
\nunevenness in quality. In addition, there are instances where
\nconsolidating terminology might have helped the reader along.
\nFor example, it is unclear whether there is a difference between
\nthe terms \"discourse\" in Chapter 2 and \"ideology\" in Chapter 3.<\/p>\n
At a more abstract level, there also seems to be an underlying
\nassumption to the book that social science and power knowledge --
\nand power more generally -- are separable and should exist as
\nsuch. This may be problematic from several perspectives.<\/p>\n
To cite a particular example, one author in the volume
\nsuggests that statistics is like a tool or instrument, neutral
\nbut for the intentions of its wielder. But it is useful to recall
\nthat even the etymology of the word statistic stems from the New
\nLatin meaning \"of state affairs\".<\/p>\n
Furthermore, statistical knowledge -- which forms the basis
\nfor much of social science today -- is powerful for at least two
\nother reasons. First, it forces us to look at the world in a
\nparticular way. Treating units as equal (no matter how varying),
\nfitting them in particular categories (no matter how gray), and
\nassigning them particular values (no matter how uncertain) can
\noften obscure the true complexity and context of social and
\npolitical phenomena.<\/p>\n
Second, knowledge in modern society is becoming more and more
\ntechnical. Training in law or medicine, but also economics and
\nstatistics, is increasingly so complex that it requires years of
\nintensive study, often making them inaccessible to the lay
\nperson. This sphere of autonomy is also a source of authority
\nthat produces an inherently unequal and power-laden relationship
\nbetween \"experts\" and everyone else.<\/p>\n
For example, one may argue that the \"mafia\" and their economic
\nreform policies of the 1960s gained prominence under the New
\nOrder because Suharto saw their political usefulness. But to what
\nextent did the knowledge of neo-liberal economics also infuse the
\ntechnocrats with a form of power to which Suharto acceded?<\/p>\n
These brief examples illustrate how critical studies of
\nknowledge and power might go forward, giving attention not only
\nto how power affects knowledge but also how knowledge itself
\nhelps constitute power.<\/p>\n
Overall, the volume is outstanding and has already reaped much
\ndeserved praise from scholars of Indonesian politics and society.
\nWhile there may be some rough patches, the book is well worth
\ndelving into for experts and generalists alike.<\/p>\n
Ehito Kimura is a PhD candidate at the University of Wisconsin-
\nMadison's Department of Political Science. He is presently in
\nJakarta conducting field research for his doctoral thesis on
\nIndonesian politics.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/power-ideology-balance-over-50-years-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}