Reading not a 'serious business'<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The Indonesian Publishers Association's (IKAPI)
\nJakarta branch recently held a book fair. As is always the case,
\nif there is an event which is related to books, one is tempted to
\nraise the issue of book publishing and the low reading habit in
\nthe country.<\/p>\n
To try to solve the problem, IKAPI proposed reducing or
\neliminating the import tax on paper. The Ministry of Culture and
\nEducation, on the other hand, believes publishers should use more
\ncreative marketing strategies to emulate what has been done so
\nsuccessfully in the production of music cassettes.<\/p>\n
In a sense, publishers can rightly wish for more legal and
\npolitical protection. The hijacking of best-selling titles are
\nstill common and it seems that those who undertake such an
\nillegal action are not frightened by the fact they might be
\npunished if their action is disclosed. Why does the police
\nimmediately react to the theft of a car, while the hijacking of
\nbooks takes tremendous effort to attract the attention of
\nIndonesian law custodians?<\/p>\n
Many people in this country do not consider books valuable
\nproperty. If you lend a friend your radio, you are entitled to
\nask for it back, and the borrower feels obliged to return it. But
\nif you lend a friend two or three books, you feel awkward asking
\nfor them back, and the borrower is equally embarrassed. Books do
\nnot belong to the realm of private ownership because they are not
\nyet considered real property. Car or video rental is a booming
\nbusiness in big cities in the country, but libraries deteriorate
\nquickly because cars and cassettes are considered valuable
\nproperty while books are not. The struggle for intellectual
\nproperty rights has a long way to go.<\/p>\n
The situation is aggravated further by the fact that listening
\nto the radio or watching TV is not subject to cultural
\nconstraints which hamper the reading habit. Book reading
\npresupposes a condition of privacy, which is not very familiar in
\nmany Indonesian cultures. One can watch TV and listen to the
\nradio in the presence of many people while being involved in a
\nconversation, but one cannot concentrate on reading a book unless
\nthere is privacy. In other words, reading presupposes a certain
\nlevel of ability and opportunity to be alone. Do Indonesian
\npeople feel the need to be alone? Among Americans and Europeans,
\nthe request (or even the requirement) "please leave me alone" is
\nquite common. This is because being alone is considered equally
\nimportant as being together.<\/p>\n
The need to be alone is the need to be with oneself and to
\nlook deeply within oneself. Only those who are at one with
\nthemselves are able to deal satisfactorily with other people.
\nThis is the basic outlook of societies which are usually
\ncharacterized as individualistic. But the label "individualism"
\noften gives an overly generalized impression of the self-centered
\nattitudes which supposedly ignore or do not care about other
\npeople's interests. Of course this is only half the truth.<\/p>\n
Togetherness is important, but it also has its negative side.
\nGotong royong (mutual help) is a habit and a fondness of doing
\nthings together, but in many cases it does not imply a well
\ncoordinated division of labor. People are inclined to participate
\nin doing the same thing, whereby everybody is supposedly
\nresponsible for everything, without the organization of who
\nshould do what. The Indonesian words kerja bersama-sama (working
\ntogether) do not necessarily imply kerja sama (cooperation),
\nwhereby people are assigned different duties.<\/p>\n
There is a legitimate need to review the collective mentality
\nto eliminate its weak elements just as one has to review one's
\nperception of individualistic mentality to adopt its strong
\nfeatures. In Indonesia, personal responsibility at work, autonomy
\nin personal consideration, the independence of thought, the
\ncourage to take risks, as well as the ability to be alone, are
\nsome of the individualistic patterns which should be adopted.<\/p>\n
Not all collective attitude patterns should be retained or are
\nworth preserving. A collective attitude can become a place where
\nthe individual capacity is devoted and dedicated, or a place
\nwhere individual incapacity is concealed. This ambivalence cannot
\nbe done away with since it is rooted in the basic symbolic
\ncharacter of every cultural pattern. In the individualistic
\nattitude, it can become a place to show individual autonomy and
\npersonal responsibility, but it can also become a place to cover
\nup the indifference toward other people, or even a refuge to hide
\nthe inability to deal with other members of the community
\nsatisfactorily.<\/p>\n
It is impossible to push for the improvement of reading habit
\nif the opportunity and the ability to be alone is not deemed
\nimportant in a culture. This cannot be promoted if reading a book
\nis considered an exaggerated action which should not be done in
\nfront or in the middle of other people who are engaged in
\nconversation.<\/p>\n
Reading is not considered such a serious and legitimate
\nbusiness as talking or playing cards. The Japanese are known for
\ntheir collective attitude, but this does not prevent them from
\nreading privately. After office hours, when the train is crowded
\nwith exhausted passengers, the Japanese still manage to find a
\nsmall space to read a book or newspaper even if they are
\nstanding.<\/p>\n
Reading is rooted in the cultural ethos. Students at high
\nschools or universities in Jakarta often do not emulate their
\nfriends who spend leisure time going to the library, but instead
\nridicule or even treat them scornfully as pretending to work
\nhard. Some of my son's friends have just graduated from junior
\nhigh school (SMP) with very good grades. I know from their
\nparents that they worked extra hard to achieve the best possible
\nresult of ebtanas (final examination). But if my son asked them
\nwhether they studied hard, not one of them would admit it and
\nthey would try to give the impression they were less industrious
\nthan what people believed.<\/p>\n
This is of course negative, because working hard is regarded
\nas something to be concealed. A social-psychological study is
\npossibly required to find out why that is the case. Is it because
\neveryday competition among students makes them feel it is
\nnecessary to pretend they can pass the examination without
\nnecessarily having to work hard? This is relatively easy to
\nunderstand because it is linked to the need to boost one's
\nidentity.<\/p>\n
Or is it because the general worldview of their society
\nrelates hard work with competition which could harm their
\nharmonious friendship? This is a serious matter because it not
\nonly concerns self-identity, but is also related to the cultural
\nbelief which is rooted in the worldview that hard work is
\nsupposed to make one tower over one's peers, to make oneself
\ndifferent, and thereby disturb the social harmony in which
\neverybody is just like everybody else.<\/p>\n
Or perhaps hard work is considered a requirement for people
\nfrom the lower-class, because those in the middle or
\nupper-middle-class look like white-collar workers who can enjoy a
\ncomfortable life without necessarily engaging in dirty work (this
\nis evidently a remnant of class bias which is rooted in the
\nfeudalistic mentality, and has not yet attained the bourgeois
\nidea of work and progress).<\/p>\n
The reading habit cannot be separated from one's idea of
\nlearning. But this is also closely related to a general work
\nethos, or a specific class bias with a social mooring to
\nfeudalistic mentality.<\/p>\n
In cultural matters, a particular behavior such as reading
\nmight have many links with other cultural patterns, so it cannot
\nbe treated separately for the purpose or target you have in mind,
\nwithout taking other patterns into account. If it is true that
\nreading presupposes a certain level of the ability to be alone,
\nthis can only be promoted if individualistic patterns are
\nadopted.<\/p>\n
The concern about the excessive development of individualistic
\nattitudes are somewhat exaggerated, because it ignores the
\ncapability of cultural participants to be selective in their
\ncultural learning. To be excessive is not only something specific
\nof individualistic mentality, but it also applies to collective
\nmentality.<\/p>\n
A community or even a society cannot be culturally sound and
\nproductive simply by adopting one pattern while condemning
\nanother. One has to learn what is worth taking over and what
\nshould be left off regardless of where a cultural pattern
\noriginates. This presupposes a mental maturity and intellectual
\nautonomy, things which are akin to the ability to be alone, which
\nis the basic requirement for reading books.<\/p>\n
Window: The reading habit cannot be separated from one's idea of
\nlearning. But this is also closely related to a general work
\nethos, or a specific class bias with a social mooring to
\nfeudalistic mentality.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reading-not-a-serious-business-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}