Power-ideology balance over 50 years

Ehito Kimura, Contributor, Jakarta

Social Science and Power in Indonesia
Vedi R. Hadiz, Daniel Dhakidae, eds
Equinoz Publishing
304 pp, Hardcover

Social Science and Power in Indonesia is a provocative and engaging collection of essays expertly edited by two seasoned scholars of Indonesian politics, Vedi Hadiz and Daniel Dhakidae.

According to the editors, the book's premise is that "the role and development of social sciences in Indonesia over the past 50 years are inextricably related to the shifting requirements of power". By power, the authors largely mean state power and they refer mostly to the power of Suharto's New Order regime.

Opening with a comprehensive introduction, the ensuing chapters address a range of issues -- dominant ideological paradigms, acceptable research topics, the design of higher education, the role of think tanks -- all with an eye toward understanding how these interacted with political objectives of the state.

In this context, a central contribution of this book is to show the novel ways by which the New Order achieved and maintained political dominance for so long. Much has been written about how the military attained order through coercion while the technocrats secured the state's legitimacy through economic growth. Social Science and Power adds a new dimension whereby knowledge-makers and their institutions were subsumed under the state and used to consolidate its basis of control.

To be sure, the authors are careful to point out the existence of major conflicts in ideology and discourse that influenced state policy in the New Order. For example, some chapters refer to neo-liberal economic thought and state-led developmentalist policies that coexisted uneasily under the New Order. This suggests that even strong authoritarian states can contain internal rifts and ideological contradictions.

But the authors do not turn a blind eye to the wider contribution of intellectuals and activists outside the mainstream that tried to challenge the dominant paradigms of social science at the time. Even in their marginality, non- governmental organizations and alternative media outlets emphasized social and community empowerment programs and participatory research methodologies, much of which can be seen to form the basis for Indonesian civil society organizations today.

Notably, almost all of the authors in this volume are Indonesian scholars. Most have also received academic training at universities abroad in Australia, the United States and Europe. This gives the book rare blend of theoretical currency combined with in-depth understanding of Indonesia's historical, social, political and cultural contexts.

Like many compiled volumes, this book suffers from some unevenness in quality. In addition, there are instances where consolidating terminology might have helped the reader along. For example, it is unclear whether there is a difference between the terms "discourse" in Chapter 2 and "ideology" in Chapter 3.

At a more abstract level, there also seems to be an underlying assumption to the book that social science and power knowledge -- and power more generally -- are separable and should exist as such. This may be problematic from several perspectives.

To cite a particular example, one author in the volume suggests that statistics is like a tool or instrument, neutral but for the intentions of its wielder. But it is useful to recall that even the etymology of the word statistic stems from the New Latin meaning "of state affairs".

Furthermore, statistical knowledge -- which forms the basis for much of social science today -- is powerful for at least two other reasons. First, it forces us to look at the world in a particular way. Treating units as equal (no matter how varying), fitting them in particular categories (no matter how gray), and assigning them particular values (no matter how uncertain) can often obscure the true complexity and context of social and political phenomena.

Second, knowledge in modern society is becoming more and more technical. Training in law or medicine, but also economics and statistics, is increasingly so complex that it requires years of intensive study, often making them inaccessible to the lay person. This sphere of autonomy is also a source of authority that produces an inherently unequal and power-laden relationship between "experts" and everyone else.

For example, one may argue that the "mafia" and their economic reform policies of the 1960s gained prominence under the New Order because Suharto saw their political usefulness. But to what extent did the knowledge of neo-liberal economics also infuse the technocrats with a form of power to which Suharto acceded?

These brief examples illustrate how critical studies of knowledge and power might go forward, giving attention not only to how power affects knowledge but also how knowledge itself helps constitute power.

Overall, the volume is outstanding and has already reaped much deserved praise from scholars of Indonesian politics and society. While there may be some rough patches, the book is well worth delving into for experts and generalists alike.

Ehito Kimura is a PhD candidate at the University of Wisconsin- Madison's Department of Political Science. He is presently in Jakarta conducting field research for his doctoral thesis on Indonesian politics.