Tradition vs traditionalism (1)<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
This is the first of a two-part article examining the
\nrelations between the concept of tradition and political
\nthinking.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Tradition and traditionalism are two closely
\nrelated concepts which, however, are quite different. Balinese,
\nfor example, are Balinese because they have grown up in their
\ntradition. They are trained to speak the Balinese language as
\ntheir mother tongue, are brought up to behave like Balinese, and
\nbecome familiar with some ideals which, according to the values
\nof their culture, are worth striving for.<\/p>\n
In other words, tradition is a terminus a quo, a point from
\nwhich one sets out on one's journey. However, tradition need not
\nbe a terminus ad quem, a point one is damned to head for or to
\narrive at. The fact that we cannot live without tradition need
\nnot imply that, willy nilly, we must be traditionalists.<\/p>\n
By \"traditionalist\" I mean a person who holds that tradition
\nis not only a starting point, but also the course one is expected
\nto run, and even the goal which one is expected to achieve.
\nTraditionalism is based, evidently, on the assumption that man is
\nculture-made. This is certainly true, but this truth becomes so
\neasily misleading if it is too forcefully emphasized or over-
\ngeneralized. To say that man is culture-made is as true as to
\ncontend that culture is man-made. This mutual interplay or
\ndialectical relationship between a human being and his or her
\nculture can never be exaggerated.<\/p>\n
In the modern cultural history of Indonesia the late Sutan
\nTakdir Alisyahbana is no doubt the most articulate and the most
\noutspoken -- in many cases even pertinacious -- proponent of the
\nproposition that the culture of modern Indonesia was yet to be
\nbuilt since, he said, we could not have recourse to the
\ntraditional culture which produced the temple of Borobudur.
\nAccording to him, that sort of culture belonged to the past, to
\ntradition, whereas the culture of a new Indonesia should be
\noriented towards the future; that is, towards the search for new
\nideals and visions, and could not be built upon those traditional
\nvalues and traditional knowledge.<\/p>\n
Looking back, he said, would only cause pride about past
\nachievements and would tend to have a mesmerizing effect. As it
\nturned out, while rejecting the Indonesian tradition, Takdir
\nlooked for another tradition and settled on one originating in
\nthe European renaissance. I would argue that what he had in mind
\nwas not the rejection of tradition as such but, rather, the
\nrejection of the traditional way of sticking to tradition, which
\nis traditionalism.<\/p>\n
The opponents of this stance used to argue that the culture of
\nmodern Indonesia could not be modeled on western patterns. Of
\ncourse, the negative sides of western culture should not be taken
\nover unnecessarily. Also, we have our own cultural values, on
\nwhich to base new education and to build a modern way of doing
\nthings. Instead of taking over the western schooling system, for
\nexample, we would be well advised to revitalize the traditional
\nschool systems, such as the pesantren (Moslem traditional
\nboarding schools) and to provide them with new content.<\/p>\n
The western education system can be a breeding ground for
\nmodern qualities, but it can also be a place in which young
\npeople become inculcated with the excesses of western modern
\nculture. Among those excesses, critics usually include the
\ntendencies towards materialism, egocentrism, individualism and
\nintellectualism, which they say could endanger the so-called
\neastern values, such as spiritualism, harmony, togetherness and
\nthe central role of refined manners and cultivated feeling.<\/p>\n
In his response to this argument, Takdir argued that such
\nreasoning was constructed on a mistaken premise. It was mistaken,
\nhe said, because it mistook the excesses of western values for
\nthose of Indonesia, whereas in reality those values which were
\noverdone in western countries were still lacking in this country.<\/p>\n
In effect he posed the question: why be afraid of
\nmaterialistic attitudes, while the people here are not yet able
\nto sufficiently appreciate material things?; why should we be so
\nconcerned about intellectualism given the fact that most of our
\npeople are not yet aware of the tremendous mental capacities
\nwhich they were for a long time deprived of, along with almost
\nall of their rights, during the long period of colonization?<\/p>\n
In consequence, Takdir argued, instead of getting scared about
\nexcessive individualism, we were obliged to encourage the
\nindividualistic attitude in order that the society as a whole
\ncould rest on strong individuals as its reliable members. On top
\nof all the substantial arguments Takdir also raised an argumentum
\nad hominem by hinting that all the leading proponents of the
\ntraditional culture were, in fact, graduates of the western
\neducation system.<\/p>\n
The debate concerning the nature of modern Indonesian culture
\nis now known as the polemik kebudayaan (the culture debate). It
\ncontains something fundamental, in the sense that it laid down a
\nparadigmatic tenet from which many other conceptions derive or,
\nat least, can be derived. From the point of view of social
\nscience this debate is comparable (both in terms of its
\nsignificance and the intensity of the debate) to some other
\ndebates which took place among German-speaking social scientists,
\nand which have now become a basic reference in social science
\ndiscussions.<\/p>\n
In a sense, the culture debate in Indonesia can be compared to
\nthe Methodenstreit among the members of the Vienna Circle in
\nAustria, at about the same time, namely in the early and mid-
\n1930s. Both disputes were concerned with the question of
\napplicability: the latter with the applicability of the methods
\nof the natural sciences to the social sciences; the former with
\nthe applicability of a western value-system to Asian countries.
\nIt can also be compared to the Positivesmusstreit in the late
\n1960s, concerning the question whether social science could be
\npurely empirical or had, of necessity, to be normative as well.<\/p>\n
Some parallels obtain between the cultural debate and the
\npositivism dispute. In each case we are faced with the question
\nwhether a culture can become an empirical determinant for those
\nliving within it. On one side the argument is, ultimately, that
\nwe can only be so and so and cannot be otherwise because we were
\nborn and grew up in particular culture.<\/p>\n
Alternatively, might not culture be a set of normative
\nguidelines for one's own behavior? Since norms are collectively
\nand socially established, it follows that they are subject to
\nchange if the collective or the society feels that such change is
\nnecessary.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/tradition-vs-traditionalism-1-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}