Tradition vs traditionalism (2)<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
This is the second part of an article examining the
\nrelationship between the concept of tradition and political
\nthinking.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): With the culture debate essentially behind us,
\nit is still timely for us to look into some of the arguments put
\nforth by both sides to find out whether and to what extent their
\npredictions have come to past in real cultural life.<\/p>\n
It is quite obvious that some of the arguments of those who
\nstood for traditional culture hold true in the present
\ndevelopment era. To discard everything traditional is all but
\nimpossible.<\/p>\n
The pesantren, for example, have undergone substantial reform
\nto the extent that many of the larger Islamic boarding schools
\nhave become centers of modernization. They have established the
\nidea that one need not always take over the western school system
\nin order to produce modern graduates, but rather that one can
\nrely on the traditional school system and provide it with a new
\ncontent and method and thereby make it serve modern goals.<\/p>\n
Besides that, it is definitely clear that in his long struggle
\nfor the development of the Indonesian language Sutan Takdir
\nAlisyahbana did practically the same thing: to provide the old
\nlingua franca with modern norms and content in order that
\nlanguage could meet the requirements of science, technology,
\nhigher learning and modern administration.<\/p>\n
In fact, one can rely on tradition without becoming a diehard
\ntraditionalist. However, Takdir Alisyahbana's proposal to look
\nfor norms for the new culture in the western hemisphere, has
\ntaken place to a large extent, without our being aware of it. And
\neven given that there is some awareness among us about that
\ntruth, we may lack willingness to recognize it explicitly.<\/p>\n
In the first place, we cannot ignore the emergence of a new
\nattitude towards material things due to economic growth and the
\nconcomitant rising standard of living, as well as the
\ncorresponding changes in lifestyles. There is an ever growing
\ntendency to take over the lifestyle of western countries, with or
\nwithout the underlying ethos.<\/p>\n
Material things are physical realizations of cultural needs.
\nHowever, the material culture has in itself a very ambivalent
\nrole: being a material expression, it can both express and
\nconceal a social or cultural fact. One good lesson we can learn
\nfrom the modern architecture is that tall buildings in the large
\ncities become the expression of the economic power of a
\nparticular social stratum, while at the same time becoming a
\nfacade to cover up the poverty or economic powerlessness of other
\nsocial strata which might represent the majority.<\/p>\n
On another level we can come across cases, in which technology
\nwith its technical sophistication, does not help very much simply
\nbecause it does not function socially or culturally. The
\ntelephone, for example, is a substitute for personal encounter in
\norder to save time. On many business occasions, however, the
\ntelephone cannot replace the personal presence of somebody,
\nbecause after talking on the line, one still has to pay a
\ncourtesy call in order to get things done.<\/p>\n
Looking at such behavior, it is of course very difficult to
\nargue, whether or not some of our cultural features should be
\nremodified in order to make the use of technology helpful. It is
\nquite apparent that the use of some aspects of technology does
\nnot work as expected because the social base and the cultural
\nframework in which they operate are not changed correspondingly.<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, pertinent to raise the critical question: Do
\nwe have to retain everything from our culture on the grounds that
\nthose cultural features are ours? In negative terms: Can we
\ncontend that everything which is derived from our culture is good
\nand should be maintained, or should we humbly try to ask whether
\nthere some features of our culture which should be modified, or
\nrecast, in order that they can meet the needs of
\nmodern economy and technology adequately?<\/p>\n
This is just one step before we have to raise some questions
\nwhich have to do with the nature of political culture. One of the
\nvery common political habits which tends to become increasingly
\nwidespread is that many people are very inclined to take recourse
\nto national cultural patterns in order to judge whether and to
\nwhat extent particular political behavior is acceptable or not.<\/p>\n
Political criticism for example is not judged according to its
\ncontent in the first place, but rather according to the way it is
\nconveyed. However, no mention is made about what the patterns of
\nnational culture are supposed to be, and who is in the position
\nto decide whether such and such patterns are national or not?<\/p>\n
The discussion concerning the nature of national culture is
\nstill far from complete. What is national culture by definition?
\nIs it a political question which should be answered by a
\npolitical regulation, or is it an academic question which
\ndeserves an adequate answer from our social and cultural
\nscientists?<\/p>\n
This definition aside, there is, however, still another more
\nfundamental question which we cannot do away with, namely the
\nquestion of the proper relationship between culture and politics.<\/p>\n
There are at least two ideal factors in terms of which we can
\nmanage to delineate such a relationship. First, in order for
\npolitics to be effective, it needs the symbolic means which are
\nwell known in a particular culture, whereby to articulate and to
\nmediate political message. Talking to people in a parlance they
\ndo not understand will not bring about any political effects
\nwhatsoever.<\/p>\n
In that regard culture is very instrumental for politics.
\nConsequently, we have to deal with the necessity to adjust as
\nmany as possible political idioms, political expressions and the
\npatterns of political interaction to the existing cultural
\npatterns. Viable politics is always culture-bound.<\/p>\n
Second, politics is exercised on the basic of political
\ndecision, which is made in order to pursue certain political
\ngoals, which become the relative realization of the envisaged
\npolitical ideals.<\/p>\n
Theoretically speaking, political measures are not only based
\non the existing cultural pattern, but also are expected to mold
\nnew cultural patterns which are in line with political ideals. To
\ntake an example, once democracy is established as a political
\nideal, we thereby declare ourselves willing and prepared to
\nrecast our cultural behavior in order that it can be on good
\nterms with the democratic ideals.<\/p>\n
To argue that democratic ideals should be made compatible with
\nthe existing cultural patterns is as valid as to contend that the
\nexisting cultural patterns should be made compatible with
\ndemocratic ideals. This is just a simple matter of anthropology:
\nCulture is not merely a product, but the very process of
\nproduction, in this case the very process of political and
\neconomic production.<\/p>\n
In that regard what is questionable is not only political
\nbehavior but cultural behavior as well. In analogy, to stick to
\nsharp time is not part of our traditional cultural patterns, but
\nthis seems to be untenable if we want to embark upon new
\nindustrial ventures. Time has long been turned into money by the
\nindustry and we have to save time in order to save money.<\/p>\n
In that regard, we are seriously faced with the question:
\nWhich cultural patterns derived from our cultural legacy should
\nbe maintained, and which ones should be remolded in order that
\nmodern economy and modern politics can work the way they are
\nexpected to? Can we talk about public affairs in a critical way?
\nHow to be critical properly? Are the patterns of our national
\nculture infallible and untouchable?<\/p>\n
All these things seem to have been taken for granted for quite
\na long time, but now have to be taken seriously into critical
\nreconsideration, in order that our professional and political
\ndiscourse is not trapped into unexamined metaphors, which have to
\nsay something without nevertheless having much to say.<\/p>\n
Besides that, we apparently need much more effort to work
\nlinguistically in order to prevent many situations where semantic
\nvagueness becomes a potential of political conflict. Too little
\nhas been done to date to define (that is to give substance to)
\nthe political notions we use every day, such as participation,
\nnational stability, responsibility, or openness. What do we
\nreally mean by such expressions and can we conduct a discussion
\nto circumvent all the ambiguities which eventually result in
\nnecessary difficulties?<\/p>\n
Some thoughts are put forth here both as proposals and as
\nreconsideration pertaining to the nature of the so-called
\nnational culture. First, it is timely to clarify both politically
\nand academically what the national culture is supposed to mean
\nand expected to be. Does national culture contain only what has
\nbeen handed down by our forerunners, or does it also imply what
\nis in the process right now and still in the making? Second, who
\nis in the position to judge whether or not a political behavior
\ncorresponds to the patterns of national culture?<\/p>\n
It seems too one-sided if the whole consideration depends
\nmerely on the rationalization of the executives. It should be
\nbased on a larger discussion, which comprises as many as possible
\ncircles to the extent that it can reflect the largest possible
\nspectrum of political thinking and academic discourse.<\/p>\n
Third, national culture is a mixture of political and
\nintellectual conception. Culture is a notion which concerns the
\nconception of social scientists and intellectuals. But the
\nattribute "national" is obviously a part of political parlance.
\nIn that sense, we have to establish to what extent this
\nconception can be clarified academically and intellectually, and
\nto what extent it depends on political formulation and political
\ndecision making. An anthropologist can only talk about culture in
\nterms of its participants which are already there. An
\nintellectual or a culture philosopher can talk about culture as
\nthe power that exists. The politicians, however, should find out
\nin what terms and in which framework they can talk about national
\nculture.<\/p>\n
In all the attempts to figure out the nature of national
\nculture, one should keep in mind that culture is a product, but
\nalso a process of production. To belong to a particular culture
\ndoes not necessarily imply that one cannot do anything to remold
\nthe pattern of that culture in accordance with new needs and
\nrequirements. This is also true for political culture. At one
\ntime we should ask whether a certain political behavior is
\ncongruent with the patterns of national culture. At another time,
\nthe equally legitimate question is to be raised as to whether or
\nnot some patterns of national culture are supportive of political
\nideals or economic goals which have been established by political
\ndecision making.<\/p>\n
This double-faceted relationship between culture as symbolic
\nworld and politics as the social embodiment of interaction, as
\nwell as economy as its material and physical base, can only be
\ndialectical. If the relationship is treated as unilinear, whereby
\nthe one is believed to be derived only from the other, we shall
\nslowly but surely get trapped either into a platonic way of
\nconducting politics, which obviously lacks the substance of
\nRealpolitik, or we shall be getting lost into a sort of political
\ntraditionalism which discourages any political reform.<\/p>\n
It is to the disadvantage of national interests if the
\nsituation becomes increasingly predominant where the initiatives
\nto do good things are overcome by the fear of committing
\nmistakes. Political culture, admittedly can only rest on certain
\ntraditional values, without which it will lose any ground.
\nHowever, it can be reshaped from time to time in order that it
\ndoes not peter out into political traditionalism, which
\ncontradicts point blank the ideal of progress in economy and
\nmodernization in politics, which all the nation's efforts are
\nbelieved to be driving at.<\/p>\n
The writer holds a masters of arts degree in philosophy from
\nHochschule for Philosophie, Munich (1982) and a doctorate in
\nsociology from Bielefeld University, Germany (1995). He is now
\nworking with the Jakarta-based SPES Foundation research center.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/tradition-vs-traditionalism-2-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}