Ayu Utami on literature, sex and politics

Ayu Utami on literature, sex and politics

A. Junaidi, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Sexuality -- from a woman's perspective-- is one powerful
theme besides politics in Ayu Utami's novel Saman and its sequel
Larung.

Born in Bogor, West Java, on Nov. 21, 1968, Ayu became a well-
known figure throughout the country after her first work Saman
won a novel writing contest organized by the Jakarta Art
Institute eight years ago.

Some literary critics praised the rich language in the novel
while others criticized her for openly exploring sex.

Saman was translated into Dutch three years ago and into
English recently. The novel was awarded the Prince Claus Prize in
2000.

Ayu is among the first female writers in the country who has
dared to openly discuss sex and sexuality, which is still
considered taboo for women, but not for men. In her novels, she
often uses such words as penis, vagina, orgasm and condoms, which
are considered by certain critics as a little "too much".

Saman's comments on politics is still considered relevant. The
repression of human right activists under president Soeharto as
depicted in the novel still happens today. Reading Ayu's work is
thus like viewing a real portrait of Indonesia. Ayu has
apparently gained a good understanding of her country thanks to
her journalistic experience. She was a journalist for the now-
defunct Forum Keadilan magazine and a founding member of the
Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI).

The graduate of the Literature Studies of the University of
Indonesia (UI) was also an editor at Kalam cultural journals and
a columnist with several publications. Her essays have been
published in a book titled Parasit Lajang (Single Parasite).

While working on her third novel, Ayu is now joining the
International Writing Program at Iowa University in the United
States. Several noted Indonesian writers have joined the program
in the past.

The Jakarta Post interviewed Ayu through e-mail on her views
on literature, sex and politics. The following is an excerpt:

question: In schools, we were taught about literature based on
age groups, periodical times (of authors). How do you see our
literary world nowadays?
Answer: Here (in Iowa, United States--Ed,), I just met a
Colombian author who hated literature and language instruction in
school. It was because the way it was taught did not make
children interested and involved. I felt that way too at school.
Teaching literature based on age groups only provides children
with materials to be memorized without giving them the chance to
appreciate literature and language.

The Indonesian literary world is now glowing. It's good. Like
our film world, there is a hope. There is an awakening. But we
should keep the flame alight so that it will not become a
fleeting enthusiasm. Moreover, we should not be quickly satisfied
with the rise in the literary and film market. It should be
viewed as a chance to improve the quality of our work.

Generally, our standard of writing is still low. Our standard
in all fields is still low. While, we now have many writers and
the market is growing, let them compete against one another. This
will improve the quality in general.

Nowadays, in several elite schools, students are made to read
and review literary works. Of course, not all schools have done
it. It's OK, it's good that the elite schools have started it.

In the mass media, you and some other women writers are
categorized as Sastra Wangi writers. What is your comment?(Sastra
Wangi or fragrant literature is a term coined by the press to
refer to the literary works by young urban women writers).

No problem. The mass media has never been a good literary
critic. It is more interested in gossip than quality, more in
people than (their) works. Probably, the media reflects the level
of (maturity) society in general... Our leaders also reflect the
level of our society.

So, I just view it positively... If we were labeled as Sastra
Wangi, what can we do with the label? What we can do is make more
people look at our works. Hence, serious people will see that the
women writers labeled as Sastra Wangi are different from one
another. Totally different.

The only thing we have in common is that we are young middle-
class urban women. We are not like (poet) Chairil Anwar whose
life was messy, who fell sick and died young. We did not come
from villages or small towns and suffer an urban shock upon
seeing Jakarta. The city is nothing for us. We are city children.
Before that, our literary world was dominated by male writers who
had agrarian backgrounds. That's why people are astonished at
seeing the current middle-class urban women writers. Probably,
sastra wangi is a social symptom rather than "literary
criticism".

Some traditional literary critics view your works as
"excessive" in discussing sex. What's your response to this?

Probably, it's true that I have discussed sex excessively.
But, what is excessive? For me, excessiveness is necessary when
we need to break through constraints that prevent discourse. In
the mass media, men have been discussing sex excessively for
decades since the establishment of the media. Sexual discourses
from women (perspective) are needed. Of course, every fight or
breakthrough will be viewed as "excessive" by those who seek to
maintain the status-quo. Soeharto also did it. It happens
everywhere...

I once criticized Gaya Nusantara magazine for always talking
about sex, that it's like a porn magazine for gay people. Isn't
there anything else for gay people except sex? I then thought
back and realized that sex is still a struggle for gay people. So
it is for me. Sex is still a problem for women, more than for
men. So, we need to write about it, to struggle for it.

In a patriarchal society, discussing sex is still a taboo.
According to you, what is sex and sexuality?

Is sex taboo in Indonesia? Are you kidding? Look at those
tabloids sold on the sidewalk. Watch television programs late at
night, see news on rape, all of them are full of sex and lust. In
a patriarchal society, probably, the taboo is discussing sex for
the interest of women. For a patriarchal society, the taboo is
making women the subjects in sexual matters. So far, people
exploit sex, but, by objectifying women. What I write is no more
crude than those pictures or rape stories that they write. But I
want to make women become the subjects. That's considered taboo.

The safe sex campaign (with the use of condoms) -- although it
was related to HIV/AIDS prevention -- was rejected. People seem
allergic to the word "condom". What is your comment?

We should not always talk about moral concerns at all levels.
People may be concerned about sexual promiscuity. But don't be
always narrow minded. Sex will always happen even without
condoms. Have affairs and sexual promiscuity happened only after
the discovery of condoms?

Second, we are facing the bigger problem of sexual diseases
that infect people: mothers, wives whose husbands are infected
from sex with other women. Should the moral concern be upheld
higher than the concern we have for the victims? Let those who
want to become womanizers be as they are. But, our duty is to
protect the weak. Condoms, if we view it from a broader
perspective, protect the weak.

In the public morality bill, kissing on the lips in public is
prohibited. What's your concept of pornography?

First, pornography is an exploitation of the weak. Secondly,
pornography must be something which is done in the wrong place.
So, does kissing exploit the weak? No way. But, does it happen in
the wrong place? It could. But, probably it's a matter of
appropriateness. It's like blowing our nose during a dinner. It's
not polite. Moreover, kissing is not in print, so it's not
pornography.

So that's why they (the fundamentalist groups who formulated
the public morality bill which has been tabled by the government
-- ed) proposed (the terms) pornography and pornoaksi (erotic
actions) to snare people kissing and the hip gyrating dance of
Inul (popular dangdut singer Inul Daratista -- ed). I agree that
pornography needs to be regulated. But, it should not be banned
in a stupid way.

A ban has a goal. The goal is, first, to protect the weak, and
second, to maintain common decency. Rather than protecting women
who are often exploited, the bill even punishes them. Second,
erotic books and pictures are not a problem as long as they are
read by adults. The bill also says that (pornography) is
acceptable for "medical" and "health" reasons... It is (thus)
confirmed that those porn films have a positive function too, for
example, to arouse sexual desire between a bored husband and wife
in order to improve their sexual relations. It should not be
viewed as a sickness.

You once said that you would never marry. Can you explain?

Ha ha ha. Yes, off course, I said I would never marry. Then,
people accused me of hating men or having had a traumatic
experience with men. It's very funny. I will not marry is a
statement that takes a stance against the hypocrisy of Indonesian
society. This society glorifies marriage too much. And, many
victims have fallen because of that. First, women who -- because
one or another reason -- are not married. They are mocked as old
spinsters who "are not saleable". So they become wounded
aggressive people who are stereotyped as "ugly old spinsters". It
is a vicious cycle for women. The obligation to marry is a
vicious circle for women.

Second, society always condemns pre-marital sex. What does it
mean? (It means that) if you are married, you are allowed to have
sex with anybody, not only your husband or wife. That happens.
Hotels and motels everywhere are full of people committing
fornication. That's it. We are sinners. But do not be hypocrites.
You sin and also condemn it. Use your own standard to measure
yourself.

I want to free myself and my people from the obligation to
marry. So that, marriage is a free choice. It's not an obligation
or coercion. So that, marriage will find a noble meaning. I
support monogamous marriage and, if it possible, do not divorce.
So, Jangan beli kucing dalam karung (Do not buy a cat in a sack,
i.e. an unknown quantity). How do I behave toward men, ask the
man who is my lover or those who are my ex-lovers.

You dislike militarism, but you like (sexually) a man with a
military look. Can you explain?

That's it. Taste is not related with thought and political
stance. But, I'm happy with the man who is now with me. Because
he has discipline and style like a military man, but a heart and
(love of) freedom like an artist.

Besides sex, your writing also tells about the political
situation under Soeharto. Do you think it is still relevant now?

It is still relevant. Because Soeharto left many things. He
has many legacies. So many dishes should be washed. Soeharto has
developed the country. The nine-year compulsory education and
family planning are his big contributions. But his "nuclear
waste" pile up may take generations to clean. We need to look
back at how it has happened.

In our agriculture we have been left behind by Thailand -- for
example, our local durian is less popular than Thailand's
monthong durian --, we should question our agricultural policy
which does it not support the farmers. Why are we now importing
rice, beans, oil, etc.? Indonesia was once self-sufficient in
rice. We were once an oil exporter.

If now, we have become corrupt, lazy, love instant things,
bureaucratic, have no sportsmanship, have no outstanding
achievement in sports, should we blame President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla?

What is your comment on the current regime which was
democratically elected?

Yeah, the current administration has been left with the
"nuclear waste" as I have said. Whoever has been elected through
any means, even democratic, has a very heavy duty. Because they
were left with a damaged ship. According to me, SBY is always
slow in responding to anything. He is probably good when facing a
calm sea. More agile people are needed for the ship in a storm.

In Saman, there are good values, for example, how the Catholic
Saman develops his relationship with Islamic villagers and a
Chinese-Indonesian trader. Can you explain the message?

Actually I, as you said, did not develop the theme. I only
touched on the issue slightly. How human beings develop
relationships is not a single-layer (matter). In daily life, if
there are no big gaps, people overlook racial and religious
differences. When the same people talk about it, we know that
there is a difference. For example, an anti-Chinese sentiment
could occur among people who have close Chinese friends. But for
them, their Chinese friends are not "the Chinese in general",
instead they are "Chinese in particular". It also applies in
terms of religion. In a time of crisis, suddenly a concept of
identity is of greater importance. And then hatred emerges.
Attacks against certain groups. It's very complex, of course.

By the way, what are you doing in the United States? How is
your new novel progressing?

I got a grant to join the International Writing Program in
Iowa City. Actually, it's for three months. But I could only join
for a month because I have so many things to do in Jakarta. I met
several writers. I'm finishing my third novel titled, -- so far,
after several changes -- Jalan Hanna (Hanna's Way). It tells
about four people who are romantically entwined against the
backdrop of the Soeharto era to the reform era. I'm hoping, it
can be published early next year.