RI has bred political illiteracy

By Riyadi Santosa

SURAKARTA (JP): Chaedar Alwasilah's article "Language Education builds critical thinking" (The Jakarta Post, Monday, Aug. 3, 1988), prompts me to write on the need for political literacy for bureaucrats, politicians and the general pubic.

Alwasilah and I are in agreement on the need for language education reform in Indonesia due to the lack of democracy in our national politics which in turn makes people politico- linguistically victimized by politicians.

But it seems that he does not see the need to involve aspects of micro-sociolinguistics such as phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar, cohesion and coherence, and types of genres in a language education program, since they are considered too linguistically technical and irrelevant to a discussion on politics.

On the other hand, he seems to agree that to be critical one must be able to understand hidden truths and to uncover the essence of a message presented in aspects of language such as euphemism and jargon/slogans.

To me, political literacy means the ability to understand and make use of the micro and macro-sociolinguistic facets of language simultaneously, intelligently, effectively, and democratically. Or, in other words, understand appropriately in the contexts of situation and culture.

By this I mean that in conducting verbal social processes, people need to consider the aspects of what happens, how, where, and when; to whom and their social relationships and roles; and how these are realized semiotically in a language and in what types of media in a particular culture.

At present many bureaucrats and politicians are socio- linguistically illiterate to this contextual configuration so that they often fail to communicate their mission with appropriate semiotic symbols of language. Just to mention an example on the level of phonology, they often talk in a high pitch, harsh voice, and rising intonation to people or journalists without considering that many Indonesians from different social and education background watch and listen to them, because they are on television.

This way of talking, of course, puts the journalists and people, including the audience at home, in a subordinate position, or even fools them. This choice of phonology undoubtedly results in irritation or even hatred among the audience.

Besides the use of euphemisms, jargon, and metaphors, we should be aware of the use of the passive voice and ergative types of sentences. It seems that politicians and bureaucrats often use such grammar in their political discourses. In the New Order era we often heard expressions such as: "sejumlah orang terbunuh di kecelakaan itu" (a number of people were killed in the accident) or "dua orang tertembak dalam kejadian itu" (two people were shot in the incident). Besides the use of the euphemisms "the accident" and "the incident", these two passive sentences clearly hide the agents, although we are still able to question who the killer or the shooter was.

We were also often puzzled when we heard ergative expressions such as: "PDI Suryadi mengambil alih kantor DPP PDI di Jalan Diponegoro" (Suryadi's PDI took over the PDI office on Jl. Diponegoro) or "Masa mengamuk, membakar supermarket dan mobil" (The masses ran amok and burned supermarkets and cars). These two ergative sentences seem to have the actors "Suryadi's PDI" and "the masses", but critical readers or listeners will question who perpetrated these events, the "intellectual actor" behind the scenes. These two sentences clearly sidestep the real agents to mislead people and to manipulate the hidden truth.

At the level of cohesion and coherence, for example, cause and effect relationships are often reduced to time relationships. In the sentence "Korban banyak berjatuhan ketika polisi menembakkan peluru karet dan gas air mata" (Many victims fell when police shot rubber bullets and tear gas). The use of the time conjunction "ketika" (when) clearly covers the reality of cause and effect "karena/sebab" (because) in the happening and render it into two consecutive events which might hide the cause or the agent.

At the level of genre or type of text, in my research, there are a number of political discourses written in different genres, such as: anecdote, exemplum, recount, description, exposition, and discussion. Different genres have different social functions or purposes since they realize the immanent change of cultural norms and values.

In Indonesia they are written in response to the cultural involution of the on-going sociopolitical atmosphere. That's why, they need different critical responses from the audience. People should know how to interact appropriately with the different types of genres. If not they will fail to communicate democratically.

It is quite clear, then, that the micro-sociolinguistic facets are closely bound to the macro ones. All the aspects of language, from phonology to genre, are the overall representation of verbal social processes. None is too technical and irrelevant to a discussion of political language education or literacy.

Due to the above socio-semiotic phenomenon, literacy on political discourse means that the people of Indonesia, including bureaucrats and politicians, must have access to the different types of genres on political discourses with their different characteristics of phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar, cohesion/coherence, and text structure or genre.

It is quite clear that different genres with their different aspects of language realize different social functions or purposes in different situational and cultural contexts. No particular texts have the same prototipicalities. Therefore, one cannot transform one text to another to achieve different goals or purposes.

Then, the idea that "language education builds critical thinking" will not only lead people to be able to communicate intelligently, effectively, and democratically, but it will also provide the knowledge to make use of all aspects of language appropriately according to different contexts of situation and culture.

If this is the case, then, most Indonesian are socio- linguistically, politically, and culturally illiterate, since most school and university language education curricula do not touch the holistic understanding of language as a social, cultural, political, and semiotic phenomenon. They are more sentence building or grammar-oriented, give little access to different types of discourses (spoken or written), and build up more memorization than discussion on environmental problems.

Therefore, reform is needed. Students need a variety of texts or discourses and not only school textbooks which have often been engineered for the sake of the ruling regime. They must also be allowed to explore their social environment and formulate their findings into their own discourses. The role of the teacher is, then, guiding and facilitating them with critical arguments and insights.

The mass media, printed or electronic, should play a greater role by providing different types of verbal social processes and by unfolding the hidden truth through natural and honest statements, so that people can think more critically, intelligently, and democratically.

This altruistic model of political language education or literacy will trigger a more conducive sociopolitical atmosphere in Indonesia which should ultimately result in true democracy.

The writer is a lecturer in the English Department, Faculty of Letters, Sebelas Maret State University, Surakarta.

Window: Students need a variety of texts or discourses and not only school textbooks which have often been engineered for the sake of the ruling regime. They must also be allowed to explore their social environment and formulate their findings into their own discourses.