In search of a cure for the current moral crisis

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): In a recent discussion organized by Indonesian alumni of foreign universities, a lively session took place on the topic of the nation's current moral crisis.

The discussion touched upon the problems of changing values and value systems, and difficulties in conducting effective moral education.

The German words das Sein and das Sollen -- the reality and the ideal -- came up quite frequently during the discussion, and the key question asked was how the present das Sein, which is felt to be quite disheartening, can be converted into a das Sollen which will give us peace of mind. What can be achieved within a period of say three to five years?

One participant phrased this question in a beautifully, if rather dramatic, manner: "Are we really what we think we are? My feeling is that either we are not what we are, or that we are what we are not. Who are we really?"

I could not resist commenting on this observation and said that perhaps what he meant was that we do not like the way we are now, and that we do not know yet what we would like to become, and thus we also do not know yet how to become a better nation.

This particular episode suggests to me that there was a feeling of crisis of national morality among the participants of this meeting, and that there was an intense desire to immediately start redressing this crisis.

I sensed that the majority of the participants were genuinely depressed with our present moral anarchy, and that their sense of national pride had caused them to search for measures that could radically remedy our present decadence.

I was briefed in advance about this perception, and was asked to analyze this question. The organizers also asked me to give suggestions concerning strategies of restoring our national moral condition.

In my view, basically we are facing two fundamental questions. First, how to control or steer the process of our value transformation, and second, how to conduct education toward value consciousness and value observance while still undergoing transformation.

Value education during a period of value transformation is quite different from value education during a stable period. This is because value education requires certainty concerning the meaning and validity of values or norms, while during any period of transformation norms can easily lose their finality.

This happens in any society, and this has created a phenomenon which the Germans call relativisierung der Werten (relativization of values).

With regard to the first question, I stated that we have not been in control of the transformation of our values and value systems. The changing social and economic realities in our society have rendered certain values nonfunctional or obsolete, and these values have to be replaced by new, more meaningful ones.

But we have never been able to timely replace outdated values, and instead we have been continuously adjusting our conscience to every distortion of values that has been perpetrated by those with power.

We have knowingly blunted our consciences, and with this act we have compromised our values. What this means is that as a nation we have failed to guard our national value systems.

Why did this happen?

I think primarily because we have been powerless in facing every manipulation of norms that took place in our society.

It should be noted in this regard that practices of twisting and bending rules of public morality have been done by people with power.

And during the period of repressive government in our recent past the ruling class was really untouchable. It was thus that we never stood up whenever a benchmark of public morality was willfully trespassed.

It was thus that we did our best to hide our personal anger and frustration whenever we saw someone tinkering with standards of public morality. Gradually we have come to believe that as long as we are not personally involved in manipulations of moral norms we are not responsible for the decline in our public morality.

How do we come out of this crisis? What is the surest path to better national morality?

This question was clearly expressed by some participants. I said I did not know the answer. But the most important question in this regard is: Do we have a clear idea of what kind of nation we would like to be?

I stressed that this was not a matter of individual preference, but a matter of national choice. We must discuss this as a national agenda.

One thing is sure in this regard: that in spite of our common desire to become a modern nation, we are not yet quite sure what kind of modernity we want.

This is not an easy question, because, as American essayist Marya Mannes once said, true modernity is the product of time, and not of the moment.

Do we understand the times we are living in and the times that are still to come? Do we understand the current zeitgeist (the intellectual, moral and cultural climate of a time) and that of the next decade?

We must also realize in this regard that as a nation we cannot afford to be torn by two different models of modernity: an Islamic model for Moslem Indonesians, and another model for Indonesians professing religions other than Islam and Indonesians with secular inclinations.

I closed my observation by saying that as long as we have no clear idea about the contour of the civility we would like to live in, we would never be able to chart a clear and straight path along which we would meet our national future.

This is a question that must be answered by the generations that are currently carrying out our existence as a nation.

We cannot use past formula to answer questions about the future.

I stressed once again that I did not have the answer; I only knew the question. But knowing the question is still better than being incognizant about the problem that exists.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.