American scholars lead Indonesian studies

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.