Communication is vital in inter-ethnic relations

Communication is vital in inter-ethnic relations

By A.G. Wenats and S.M. Niken Restaty

JAKARTA (JP): While claiming large numbers of victims, huge
losses and the deep trauma of racism, the May riots still left
many questions unanswered. They are:

* What actual condition was the main cause of the riots?

* Was it a mere economic gap or an accumulation of high-level
political problems?

* Who were the perpetrators and the instigators of the riots? A
group of Chinese Indonesians or a group of Indonesians frustrated
due to the economic downturn?

* Is it true that the riots edged on racism? Or were they
politically motivated by exploiting the sensitive issue of
ethnicity, religion, racism and intergroup relations?

Masli Arman tried to provide the answers in an article in The
Jakarta Post of July 30, 1998. This article attempts to put
Arman's ideas in a critical light.

In his first assumption in his article "Ethnic Chinese at
fault for riots", Arman says that the riots were not the result
of economic disparity. He thinks that economic inequity played
only a small role in the outbreak of the riots.

Arman's second assumption is that the arrogance of ethnic
Chinese in daily life is the root of the problem, an attitude
which is even imbued within the community system.

His third assumption, is that the arrogance of ethnic Chinese
damages and obstructs the process of acculturation and
assimilation between the indigenous and non-indigenous. This, he
says, is strikingly apparent in the economic, social and cultural
fields and is shattering the communication system in the
community.

"Exclusivism" on the part of the ethnic Chinese, Arman says,
impedes the process of social, economic and cultural assimilation
with the indigenous population. The combination of arrogance and
a discriminative attitude on behalf of the ethnic Chinese in the
social and economic sectors irritates and angers the indigenous
people. These anger and frustrations are easily vented on the
ethnic Chinese during riots.

The people's assumption has been formed irreversibly on the
arrogance and greed of the ethnic Chinese in the economy and as
the primary cause of the decline of the Indonesian economy. Thus,
the ethnic Chinese are seen as an exclusive, greedy and self-
righteous group, Arman says. It is therefore not surprising that
they have to bear the biggest responsibility in the deterioration
of Indonesia's economy.

In his fourth assumption Arman says that the May riots would
not have happened if the assimilation process had succeeded. The
ones who should have started the assimilation process are the
ethnic Chinese. The ethnic Chinese, he says, must work hard in
the assimilation process although the government also needs to
improve its policies of assimilation.

Arman's four assumptions are interrelated. They constitute a
series of a causality of two cultures that have failed to
assimilate. In short, Arman wishes to show that the May riots
were caused by the total failure of the process of cultural
assimilation.

One could perhaps agree with Arman's view on the failure of
cultural assimilation in Indonesia. However, why does Arman only
point to the ethnic Chinese as the cause of the failure of
assimilation by their excessive arrogance? He does not refer to
the government's assimilation policy or that of the indigenous
community.

Cultural assimilation cannot be demanded from one ethnic group
only. Arman wants to show the importance of a communication
culture in the assimilation process, but in his assumptions he is
less than communicative.

The policies on assimilation so far have formed patterns of
usage and participation in the mass communication of the
indigenous population. Such usage and participation indicates
unbalanced cultural characteristics and patterns.

Unbalanced in the sense that the indigenous communication
pattern heavily emphasizes the bad aspects of the ethnic Chinese.
This activity contributes to bad communication. The accumulation
of unbalanced and disproportionate images has played a part in
shaping the resistance of the indigenous community. It is hard
for the indigenous population to communicate openly with ethnic
Chinese. In its final instance it slows down the ideal
assimilation process of the ethnic Chinese in Indonesia.

Arman does not take into account the New Order's artificial
policy on assimilation. He sees the communication culture process
among ethnic groups as too conflicting. In his examples, Arman
takes many factual controversies without going deeper into the
facts. How can inter-ethnic communication be built based on
controversies and conflicts?

He wishes to communicate but he shows a conflicting attitude
himself. It is clear that communication is not feasible. The
shaping of Arman's conflicting assumptions will form and
consolidate in-groups and out-groups and cause a polarization of
confronting ideologies. If this happens a process of barriers of
communication will occur and impede the communication process
among cultures. It will lead to difficulties in the process of
acculturation and assimilation.

Since Arman takes a conflicting attitude in his approach to
the mid-May riots, the solution he is offering is not clear-cut.
It means that the mentality of the integration is not clear. It
can be said that Arman's offer is naive politically. His approach
is far from strategic. Political solutions and social generosity
do not solve the problems. The biggest problem to solve is the
continuum of acculturation and assimilation.

The continuum of acculturation and assimilation has to comply
with a number of conditions. The first one is the abolishment of
a conflicting approach in inter-ethnic communication. The right
approach is by participation, that is in the sense that inter-
ethnic communication involves two or more groups on the same
level who respect each other. Thus, an inter-ethnic capacity for
acculturation and assimilation is opened (in this case the
indigenous and the ethnic Chinese).

The second condition is that open communication is an
important mechanism to reach the capacity for acculturation and
assimilation. The development of the capacity for cultural
communication will enhance cognitive, affective and behavioral
capacities. A tolerant attitude is an important basis in the
acculturation and assimilation process. It will also give rise to
openness in situations of differences and uncertainties among
cultures.

The third condition is the process of interaction among ethnic
groups. The process of acculturation and assimilation is one of
interaction. The indigenous people create and accept the
conditioning of ethnic Chinese culture and inversely. The
indigenous community should push the cultural conditioning. Arman
does not take this point into account.

The above three conditions are the starting point of the
acculturation and assimilation process. The ethnic Chinese should
indeed develop their sensitivity toward the process of inter-
ethnic communication. The indigenous community encourages the
conditioning and develops a tolerant attitude. The inter-ethnic
community, in this case the government can assist the newcomers
(meaning the ethnic Chinese) to overcome tensions and
uncertainties in their life. If the three initial conditions of
communication had been accepted by the ethnic Chinese and the
indigenous community, the mid-May riots would not have erupted,
or at least the ethnic Chinese would not have been made
scapegoats.

In his article Arman has not taken many things into account.
His conflicting approach incorporates strong implications which
are not favorable to the clarification of the mid-May riots.
There is another aspect that emerges from his opinion. The inter-
cultural communication offered is very simplistic.

The failure in inter-cultural communication in Indonesia had
indeed contributed to the mid-May 1998 riots. It had a complexity
of problems. A quiet and clear solution to the problems can be
found by the indigenous community, the ethnic Chinese and the
inter-ethnic community (the state) if there is good will to
communicate continuously.

A.G. Eka Wenats is on the teaching staff of the Center for
Ethics Development at Atma Jaya Catholic University in Jakarta.
S.M. Niken Restaty lectures business administration at the same
university and is a postgraduate communications student at the
University of Indonesia.