The search for national culture 53 years after independence<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): It was in 1938 that the issue of national
\nculture was discussed for the first time. In a conference, called
\nSymposium Kebudayaan, prominent Indonesian intellectuals, all of
\nwhom were quite politically active, discussed intensively what a
\n\"national culture\" should be.<\/p>\n
A very heated debate occurred between two prominent figures,
\nKi Hadjar Dewantara, founder of the Taman Siswa educational
\nsystem on the one hand, and Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana, founder of
\nthe Pudjangga Baru literary movement on the other.<\/p>\n
The question of national culture came to the forefront because
\nwhat existed at that time was merely a variety of ethnic
\ncultures, every one of which had meaning and significance only to
\na limited group of people.<\/p>\n
For instance, the meaning of symbols within Balinese culture
\ncould be understood only by the Balinese, and people outside this
\nethnic group understood only the surface of this culture.<\/p>\n
It was this kind of situation that made intellectuals of the
\ntime yearn for something new and bigger, a thing they could call
\nnational culture which was really meaningful to Indonesians of
\nany ethnic origin.<\/p>\n
After the notions of Bangsa Indonesia (Indonesian Nation),
\nTanah Air Indonesia (Motherland) and Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian
\nlanguage) were defined on Oct. 28, 1928, a day commemorated later
\nas Youth Pledge Day (Hari Sumpah Pemuda), the need was acutely
\nfelt to have another symbol of Indonesian nationalism, i.e. a
\nsymbol that could effectively express the collective ideas and
\nfeelings of the nation.<\/p>\n
The question that lingered in the minds of the intellectuals
\nseemed to be, \"Can a nation meaningfully exist without having its
\nown culture, a national culture? And if we must have a national
\nculture, what would it be?\"<\/p>\n
Ki Hadjar Dewantara proposed that \"national culture\" be
\ndefined as the sum of all the peaks or summits of regional or
\nethnic cultures. Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana, on the other hand,
\nstressed the need for Indonesia to modernize itself, to catch up
\nwith the modern world, and to acquire a respectable place in the
\ncommunity of modern (meaning Western) nations.<\/p>\n
For this purpose the nation needed a culture that could
\nsupport its quest for modernity. National culture for Indonesia
\nwas thus a modern culture, and a variant of Western culture. Such
\na culture had never existed before in Indonesia and should thus
\nbe generated.<\/p>\n
The essential difference between Ki Hadjar Dewantara's view
\nand that of Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana was thus that while Ki
\nHadjar Dewantara looked at the regional or ethnic cultures as the
\nfoundations of national culture, Alisyahbana looked at Western
\nculture as the source of Indonesian national culture.<\/p>\n
While Ki Hadjar Dewantara was nationalistic in his view,
\nAlisyahbana was universalistic in his orientation. These two
\npositions were never reconciled.<\/p>\n
Ki Hadjar Dewantara's view gained more acceptance among the
\nleaders of following generations. His view was later transformed
\ninto our national motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in
\nDiversity). The motto can be interpreted in two ways.<\/p>\n
The first interpretation is that this motto means that amid
\nand on the basis of the variety of existing regional or ethnic
\ncultures, a new culture must be generated, one that can
\naccommodate modern aspirations that prevail in the various
\nregional cultures. This interpretation can be called the
\n\"generative\" approach.<\/p>\n
The second interpretation is that the motto essentially means
\nthat each of these regional cultures should not exist in
\nisolation, but that they should interact with each other. This
\ninteraction should also create a new cultural identity and
\nidioms. National culture is thus something that will emerge as a
\nresult of interactions among these various regional cultures.
\nThis second interpretation can be called the \"integrative\"
\napproach.<\/p>\n
How do these two approaches differ in practice? Followers of
\nthe generative approach have attempted to generate a new national
\nculture by updating traditional expressions. In dance, for
\ninstance, experiments have been made to modernize traditional
\nstyles of Javanese dance.<\/p>\n
While results of these experiments have been warmly received
\nby artists and members of the younger generation alike, they have
\nbeen harshly been criticized and vehemently resisted by
\ntraditional artists of the old generation. They claim that these
\nnew experiments have debased traditional culture and made it
\nmeaningless.<\/p>\n
The interactive approach has emphasized cultural and artistic
\nexchange among the various regional cultures. Acehnese
\ntraditional dance, for example, has become popular throughout
\nIndonesia primarily through this exchange program. But does this
\nwidespread popularity and appreciation of regional cultures
\nreally encourage or prompt the emergence of a new culture, the
\nnational culture, to which we all aspire?<\/p>\n
Not really, and as I see it a new national culture will come
\nabout only after national consciousness has become so
\nsufficiently spread that it supersedes and subsumes all regional
\nor ethnic consciousness that resides within each of us.<\/p>\n
Does it mean that the generative approach is more promising
\nthan the interactive approach?<\/p>\n
Thus far this seems to be the case. But to be fair, genuine
\ninteraction among regional cultures based on equal partnership
\nhas not yet taken place. In our attempt to implement Bhinneka
\nTunggal Ika, our overriding concern has been how to preserve
\nunity. We have not given sufficient attention to the question of
\nhow to give diversity the opportunity to express itself in an
\nuninhibited manner.<\/p>\n
This may be the result of a national policy that consistently
\nemphasizes centralization. The integrative approach in cultural
\npolicy requires in the first place that each regional culture has
\nample opportunity to develop itself first, to achieve the optimum
\nof the real powers that reside within each of them.<\/p>\n
It is only the interaction of mature regional cultures, that
\nin the end stimulates and supports the birth of a new national
\nculture. Where are we now in our search for national culture, and
\nhow do we proceed from here?<\/p>\n
I think we will realize that we have achieved partial results
\nin this respect. In architecture, for instance, there are works
\nthat can be rightly called expressions of \"national culture\".<\/p>\n
The Istiqlal Mosque in Central Jakarta is one such monument.
\nBut in dance and music, I think we cannot yet boast of
\nsignificant achievements that can be called \"national\".<\/p>\n
It is important to note here that there are in essence three
\nkinds of cultural expressions, i.e. ideas, performance and
\nobjects. It is in the realm of ideas that it is relatively easy
\nto express ourselves in national format.<\/p>\n
As long as we think and feel as Indonesians, and not as
\nJavanese or Balinese, it will always be possible for us to
\nproduce ideas that can be called nationalistic. The question is
\nwhether the ideas we produce are significant or trivial.<\/p>\n
In the realm of performance, however, it is more difficult to
\nexpress ourselves in national modes. This is because our first
\ntraining in performance or behavior is always anchored in ethnic
\nor subethnic modes or norms.<\/p>\n
Those who are trained in childhood to behave toward others
\naccording to Javanese norms will have to retrain themselves and
\nmodify their patterns of performance to be able to behave on the
\nbasis of national norms. It is hard for a true Javanese to be
\npolite in a non-Javanese way.<\/p>\n
Eventually, whether we can perform in a national manner,
\nwhether in music, dance or in any other kind of performing arts,
\nwill depend on whether we can transcend our ethnic or subethnic
\nconsciousness.<\/p>\n
In the realm of objects, the problem of generating national
\nculture is a problem of creating physical symbols that express
\nnational feelings and aspirations. How do we express our national
\nresentment against repression in physical symbols?<\/p>\n
If we can answer this question we may hit upon ideas of how to
\nenrich our national culture in the realm of objects.<\/p>\n
So it is important to reemphasize that national culture is in
\nthe end an expression of national consciousness and national
\naspirations. If we want to enhance our national culture, the task
\nthat lies ahead is to strengthen our sense of nationalism and to
\nspell out more clearly what we want to make of our nation.<\/p>\n
If we are fully aware of what we are as a nation, and if we
\nhave clear ideas of what we want to make of ourselves as a
\nnation, then we will find ways to give our national culture a
\nmore pronounced meaning. But if we are only vaguely aware of our
\nnationhood, and if we do not know what we want as a nation, then
\nthe words \"national culture\" will remain an empty slogan, void of
\nany core substance. If this happens, culturally speaking we will
\nbe an amorphous nation.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-search-for-national-culture-53-years-after-independence-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}