Searching for a balance between oral and written cultures

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.