Foucault, Islamic Scholarship, and the Future of Pesantren

Pesantren have existed for centuries, even millennia, as spaces fostering moral exemplarity, instilling ethics, and nurturing the nation’s moral leadership. From these institutions emerge clerics, independence fighters, community leaders, and citizens who view knowledge as a path to service. In Indonesia’s history, pesantren are not merely religious educational institutions but a cornerstone of nationalism, contributing to unity and independence. Therefore, when abuses of power, violence, or harassment occur against santri within pesantren, the issue transcends mere legal or moral violations—it is a betrayal of the pesantren’s noble values and Pancasila itself. In recent years, cases of physical violence, bullying, and sexual abuse involving a minority of pesantren staff or leaders have shaken public trust. While these cases cannot be generalised to all pesantren, which remain largely safe and exemplary educational environments, each incident must be taken seriously as it reveals unhealthy power dynamics enabling misconduct under religious authority. French sociologist Michel Foucault explains that power does not always manifest as overt coercion; it operates through knowledge, symbols, and legitimacy, granting individuals the perceived right to govern others. In educational settings where teachers are highly revered, power relations are especially strong. When authority is used to guide and educate, it becomes a force for good, but when employed to control, silence, or exploit, it turns into an instrument of oppression. The core issue arises when perpetrators in religious educational institutions exploit their social standing and religious symbolism to enforce unquestioning obedience. Santri, often children or teenagers, frequently feel unable to refuse, report, or question actions by respected figures. In such contexts, the teacher-student relationship, meant to be pedagogical, becomes one of domination. This situation directly contradicts Pancasila. The first principle, ‘Belief in the One and Only God’, was never intended to justify degrading human dignity. Instead, it serves as the ethical foundation for subsequent principles. True divinity fosters respect for human dignity; thus, when religious symbols mask crimes, both religion and the national spirit built on civilised theological values are betrayed. The second principle, ‘Just and Civilised Humanity’, asserts that every individual possesses dignity that must be respected. No social status, religious title, or institutional position grants the right to demean others. When a pesantren leader abuses authority to commit violence, they violate not only religious and legal norms but also the humanistic principles underpinning the state.