Searching for a balance between oral and written cultures

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): In his article in The Jakarta Post, July 26, 1995, Harvey Stockwin refuted the charge that ASEAN is "nothing more than a talking shop wherein words are plentiful but substantive achievements are much less commonplace." He argued that it has been this "talking shop"-method that, over the years, has kept emotional issues in the region within bounds. It has been through this talking activity that many regional discords have been tamed.

When I read this statement, it suddenly dawned on me how important and dominant oral culture has been within Indonesian culture. Wayang (shadow puppet show) is an art in which talking has assumed a very important role. The dalang (master) of this puppet show is a person who has spent about ten to fifteen years cultivating his talking skill and master the art of oral discourse. An accomplished dalang is able, through his skill in oral discourse, to "manipulate" the emotion and the thinking of his audience.

Another phenomenon illustrating the prominence of this talking culture was the late President Sukarno. He mobilized the entire national political movement primarily through his speeches. His writings were not as strong as his speeches. In fact, if you read his writings, you have the feeling as if you were listening to his speeches through the written documents.

What makes some oral discourse so powerful?

I do not know whether ASEAN diplomats have developed a special type of oral discourse, which has enabled them to control their temper whenever they encounter emotional disagreements, and put their calm and incisive reasoning above their emotional turbulence.

Within the context of Indonesian culture, however, I know a little bit about the way the dalang talk, and what makes their discourse a very effective communication instrument. First, they use a language which is really understood by their audience. Even whenever they have to present official views of the government, they still use their own language, and not the bureaucratic language. And if, now and then, they borrow worn out cliches, they do it in such a way that everybody in the audience know that it is meant as a joke, and not something to be taken seriously.

Second, they bring each classical story into a present day context by using topics that are really alive in the public mind. In this way all the classical wisdom that have been developed in the wayang literature are presented to the audience as landmarks for moral conduct within today's society.

Third, they create a unique language, which links the aristocratic classical Javanese to the modern Javanese, which is really spoken by the people. In this way the dalang give to the public a sense of "people's aristocracy", which is an important instrument for generating and maintaining public morale.

Fourth, by moving back and forth between the mythical world of the wayang and the real world of the audience, the dalang offer their audiences a kind of psychological outlet for their suppressed frustrations. By using their puppets and the mythical world of the wayang, as a reflection of real life in real society, they are able to channel all the anxieties, frustrations and hopes they find in the society into the wayang world, thereby helping the audience experience a mental catharsis.

In a sense, the late President Sukarno used the same oratory techniques as the dalang in his speeches. He was consistent in using his personal idiolect, that really "connects" to the people. He was also able to use material from history and wayang mythology as guides to identify the perils of colonial societies, and to chart new paths towards a more humane society. He also created a new type of Indonesian language, in which foreign expressions were used to lend dignity to the Indonesian language. It was the combination of all these traits that made his speeches, his discourses, so powerful.

This traditional emphasis on oral culture has caused us to neglect the development of written culture. Compared to Malaysia and Thailand, for example, Indonesia has performed very poorly in writing activities.

This preference for oral over written culture has in some ways victimized Indonesia. For example, Indonesian cannot be accepted as an Islamic language in any respectable university which offers Islamic studies. This is not because there has been no significant intellectual activity about Islam in Indonesia, but primarily because the ideas and discourses developed and conducted in many Indonesian Islamic centers have very seldom been put down in writing. Thus, over the years, the amount of material about Islam written in Indonesian is very small, compared, for instance, to what has been written in Urdu. This is the reason why Urdu has been accepted as an Islamic language in addition to Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, while Indonesian is still "a dead card" in this regard.

Why does writing seem so difficult for many Indonesians?

Two main reasons can be mentioned here. First is the lack of exercises and guidance, throughout the school years, in the art of writing. And second, is the lack, in every school, of teachers who can effectively act as models in the art of writing. In addition it should also be mentioned that it is practically impossible for any teacher to teach writing seriously in classes of forty to fifty students.

The question that has to be answered in this regard is whether we can afford to neglect the development of national writing capabilities. Will it be possible for us to thrive in this modern time armed solely with a skill in oral communication?

The situation today, in this regard, is rather discouraging. While there are indications that the writing power of the young generation is better than that of the old generation, our national accomplishment in this regard is still low compared to the achievements of Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines.

At the same time there are also clear signs that our skill in oral communication has been declining. We are, at present, caught in a cultural situation which is typical of countries in cultural transition: The old is dying, while the new is not quite born yet. Our national prowess in oral discourse has declined, while we have not yet developed a respectable competence in writing.

So, where do we go from here?

In my opinion, the ideal situation will be if we can restore the old art of oral communication, while increasing our national competence in the art of writing. Admittedly this is an ambitious goal, but one that is, in my opinion, fairly realistic. To recapture a vanishing national feat is not a dream, and to acquire a respectable skill in writing is a national imperative in this modern time.

Dr. Mochtar Buchori is an observer of social affairs.