RI has bred political illiteracy

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.