Universities as tools for peaceful change<\/p>\n
By Meuthia Ganie Rochman<\/p>\n
BOGOR (JP): What kinds of changes does Indonesian society
\nexpect to happen, planned or responsive?<\/p>\n
At present, the cultural themes about planned changes are
\nvanishing. Society is dominantly oriented to tackle social and
\neconomic problems, heralded and carried out by government bodies.
\nIt seems that this nation has lost its confidence and, later,
\ncapability, to think how to create a better society, beyond
\nrefurbishment approach.<\/p>\n
This article will reevaluate the role universities, as
\ninstitutions, are supposed to play to formulate societal problems
\nbeyond the trap of already-technical and fragmental approaches.
\nThis goal is to be achieved through the comprehension on the role
\nof universities and specific position of intellectuals.<\/p>\n
Modern society comprises three orders (meaning the logic of
\nfunction but must be distinguished with institutions and
\nagencies), namely state, market and society. The function of
\nstate order is as the holder of highest authority (not
\nsovereignty).<\/p>\n
It must be above specific groups and interests and must be
\nwithin a national framework. The function of the market order is
\nto manage productions and their allocation, supply and demand and
\ncompetition. The society order, through communities, produces and
\nmaintains identities, solidarity and morality.<\/p>\n
Theoretically, market order is executed by market
\ninstitutions, state orders by state institutions and society
\norder by societal incitations.<\/p>\n
In practice, these orders could be performed by other
\ninstitutions. However, the present conventional wisdom has the
\nview that these orders should not be too much taken over by other
\ninstitutions because it could propagate inefficiency (too much
\nstate intervention in economy), disorder (state is too weak in
\nenforcing contracts), authoritarianism (state defines social
\nnorms and values) and injustice (society fails to counter
\neconomic ambition).<\/p>\n
Morality concerning common life must come from societal
\ninstitutions. This is because society contains many open
\nrelations which need goodwill to work. Society, of course,
\ncomprises various groups with their own interests, which are
\nsometimes pursued in unscrupulous ways.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, principles on justice endure because every group
\nrealizes how anarchic and disorderly life would be if these
\nprinciples vanish. Within state institutions, relations must be
\nstructured, and the structures themselves are sources of power
\nwith the potential for abuse. On the market institutions, profit
\nand benefit are dominant orientations, therefore, not the right
\nplace for collective values.<\/p>\n
Society has dynamics that demand reorganization. Some norms
\nand values are not able to solve new problems in society. Or, new
\nnorms and value which are inimical have developed to endanger
\nsociety. Ordinary people do not have methods to correct these
\nnorms and values. People rely on certain groups who perform
\ncorrectional functions. In society, the function of criticism is
\nusually performed by the media, decisionmakers in government
\nagencies, social organizations and, above all, universities.<\/p>\n
True that some universities have poor performances, as happens
\nin other institutions. The difference is basically a university
\nis established to see phenomenons clearly. Its orientation and
\nprograms must be devoted to that aim.<\/p>\n
A university must develop methods to analyze phenomenons,
\neither natural or social. In terms of attitude, university people
\nmust be honest to admit wrong as wrong, even if it pertains to
\ntheir own former opinion as far these opinion cannot be justified
\nscientifically. Because the value of a university is truth and
\nits norm is honesty, university people must not only be honest to
\ntheir academic works but also to other fields of life. How
\ndifficult to trust one's academic work if these people are not
\ntrustworthy in daily life?<\/p>\n
Because a university is established to seek truth -- and the
\npublic gives its expectation and judgment -- and have methods to
\nexplain, university people have the right to claim that their
\ninstitution can criticize values and norms in society.<\/p>\n
But the works of a university are not only critical but also
\nconstructive. A university shows how to achieve society goals.<\/p>\n
In this case, a university does not use a principle of
\nutilitarianism but one based on moral responsibility. It is,
\ntherefore, relevant to discuss the difference between an
\ninformation society and a knowledge society. The goal of an
\ninformation is to create members of society which are more
\nproductive and competitive.<\/p>\n
In a knowledge society, knowledge is exercised for a better
\nsociety. Not only for a more prosperous one but also healthier,
\nmore just, more orderly and safer. The production of knowledge is
\nattained through certain methods and in a morally responsible
\nmanner.<\/p>\n
Knowledge can also be put into inquiry through moral reasons.
\nTherefore, people's rights are more assured in a knowledge
\nsociety. The university rights are, therefore, part of the
\nrealization of people's rights. In the context of a nation,
\nuniversities are a form of mechanism for sustaining sovereignty
\nof people.<\/p>\n
Back to the three orders, society order must \"supply\" norms to
\nstate order, and the last order will develop them into
\nregulations, including those on a governance system. In the
\ncontext of three orders, the state institutions and its
\nregulations should not constrain the function of a society order.
\nIn societal change it is impossible to create something good if
\nit is handled by formal regulations. Formal institutions have a
\nlogic of the past, when they were established: from the
\nformulation of problems to the mechanism.<\/p>\n
However, this fact is often forgotten by people who run these
\nformal regulations. They argue about the possibility of anarchy
\nif a change is proposed outside formal institutions.<\/p>\n
Sometimes this argument contains some grains of truth. This is
\nbecause in society, there are groups always ready to violate
\ncommon norms to pursue their own interests. It is here the role
\nof universities in formulating required changes comes to the
\nfore.<\/p>\n
These institutions are supposed to base their analyses on
\nvarious societal aspects and interests. They must be able to
\ndenote what change is needed within the formal structures.
\nBasically, universities perform this work in an institutional way
\nbecause their people are attached to certain principles. By doing
\nso, universities are tools in society used to change formal
\nstructures without inviting anarchy.<\/p>\n
The writer is on the teaching staff of the University of
\nIndonesia's School of Sociology.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/universities-as-tools-for-peaceful-change-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}