Power-ideology balance over 50 years

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.