American scholars lead Indonesian studies
Mengkaji Indonesia: Pengaruh Amerika dalam Dunia Intelektual Indonesia (Indonesian Studies: American influence among Indonesian intellectuals)
By Nasir Tamara
Bentang Budaya, Yogyakarta, 1997
99 pages
YOGYAKARTA (JP): The ranks of prominent scholars in Indonesian studies are top heavy with Americans, and have been for the last 30 years.
Foremost among them are George McTurnan Kahin and his wife Audrey, Clifford Geertz and his wife Hildred, Ben Anderson, Ruth McVey, William Liddle and James Scott.
The importance of the American specialists is reflected in the countless references used by analysts here, inclusive of both government friendly and critical individuals.
Indonesian studies by American scholars began in the 1940s and intensified a decade later. Their impact in the 1950s was heightened because Indonesian scholars were caught up in the euphoria of nationalism, marked by intense anti-Dutch sentiment.
Research by Kahin, McVey, Pelzer and Geertz were digested enthusiastically by Indonesian scholars because the works were starkly different from those of Dutch experts, such as Boeke and Van Vollenhoven, perceived as holding a bias against the young republic.
Consequently, after a century of Dutch monopoly of Indonesian studies, the mecca of activities shifted to the United States. This change should not be dismissed as a lucky break -- the U.S. government gave full support to Southeast Asian and Indonesian studies.
The federal government supports 10 American universities with Southeast Asian studies programs. In 1982, seven out of the 10 sponsored the establishment of the Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute (SEASSI), which was inspired by the same body on Indonesia. Nasir Tamara's work is culled from his participation in one of these programs.
The U.S. government's support was due to business and political orientations. Until the American people knew very little, and probably cared little, about Indonesia.
The need for raw materials from Southeast Asia by American industrialists changed all that. The U.S. adopted a critical attitude on Dutch colonialism and started to support the Indonesian struggle for independence.
The attitude was also based on the belief that an independent Indonesia would remain in the fold of capitalism, inclusive of American business interests.
Later, to smoothen its business deals, the United States sponsored further studies for members of the Indonesian elite, and Jakarta warmly welcomed the offer. From this time on, Indonesian studies in the United States developed considerably.
The validity of the American school on Southeast Asian studies has been called into question, particularly due to its failure to predict many serious developments, including the rebellions in Sumatra and North Sulawesi in the late of 1950s, the abortive communist coup in Jakarta in 1965, the coup d'etat in Thailand and the Vietnam War.
These failures fueled cries for the necessity of local opinions in the Indonesian studies. Although it sounded confrontational, this trend was well accepted in the United States.
It was a view shared by Anderson, one of the most influential scholars and the most liberal. His only regret was the weakness of the scholars in their methodology, unlike Latin American scholars who introduced their own concept of dependency.
Although this book approaches the problem through chronology and tries to connect it with the shift of American policy, readers are not guaranteed a deep comprehension of it.
They will have to be satisfied by the author's clarifications about on-the-surface matters like the parallel curriculum between Indonesian and American education, study centers or the number of Indonesians who have received scholarships from the U.S. government. While the impact on American interests, viewed from the political theory, as promised by the title of the book, is not clearly elaborated because the author says it needs another book to discuss the matters.
With all these shortcomings and the fact it was written 10 years ago, this book clearly explains the American school of thought in Indonesian studies.
The sad story of the intellectual relationship is that Americans tend to learn from this country and give lessons to Indonesians, not the other way round. This imbalance has only been caused by American superiority, but also lack of respect among Indonesians for the work of their scholars.
Sadder still, it would be too much to expect this book to inspire the birth of an Indonesian school of thought in American studies.
-- Sopril Amir H.
The reviewer is a student in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta.