The search for national culture 53 years after independence

The search for national culture 53 years after independence

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): It was in 1938 that the issue of national
culture was discussed for the first time. In a conference, called
Symposium Kebudayaan, prominent Indonesian intellectuals, all of
whom were quite politically active, discussed intensively what a
"national culture" should be.

A very heated debate occurred between two prominent figures,
Ki Hadjar Dewantara, founder of the Taman Siswa educational
system on the one hand, and Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana, founder of
the Pudjangga Baru literary movement on the other.

The question of national culture came to the forefront because
what existed at that time was merely a variety of ethnic
cultures, every one of which had meaning and significance only to
a limited group of people.

For instance, the meaning of symbols within Balinese culture
could be understood only by the Balinese, and people outside this
ethnic group understood only the surface of this culture.

It was this kind of situation that made intellectuals of the
time yearn for something new and bigger, a thing they could call
national culture which was really meaningful to Indonesians of
any ethnic origin.

After the notions of Bangsa Indonesia (Indonesian Nation),
Tanah Air Indonesia (Motherland) and Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian
language) were defined on Oct. 28, 1928, a day commemorated later
as Youth Pledge Day (Hari Sumpah Pemuda), the need was acutely
felt to have another symbol of Indonesian nationalism, i.e. a
symbol that could effectively express the collective ideas and
feelings of the nation.

The question that lingered in the minds of the intellectuals
seemed to be, "Can a nation meaningfully exist without having its
own culture, a national culture? And if we must have a national
culture, what would it be?"

Ki Hadjar Dewantara proposed that "national culture" be
defined as the sum of all the peaks or summits of regional or
ethnic cultures. Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana, on the other hand,
stressed the need for Indonesia to modernize itself, to catch up
with the modern world, and to acquire a respectable place in the
community of modern (meaning Western) nations.

For this purpose the nation needed a culture that could
support its quest for modernity. National culture for Indonesia
was thus a modern culture, and a variant of Western culture. Such
a culture had never existed before in Indonesia and should thus
be generated.

The essential difference between Ki Hadjar Dewantara's view
and that of Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana was thus that while Ki
Hadjar Dewantara looked at the regional or ethnic cultures as the
foundations of national culture, Alisyahbana looked at Western
culture as the source of Indonesian national culture.

While Ki Hadjar Dewantara was nationalistic in his view,
Alisyahbana was universalistic in his orientation. These two
positions were never reconciled.

Ki Hadjar Dewantara's view gained more acceptance among the
leaders of following generations. His view was later transformed
into our national motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in
Diversity). The motto can be interpreted in two ways.

The first interpretation is that this motto means that amid
and on the basis of the variety of existing regional or ethnic
cultures, a new culture must be generated, one that can
accommodate modern aspirations that prevail in the various
regional cultures. This interpretation can be called the
"generative" approach.

The second interpretation is that the motto essentially means
that each of these regional cultures should not exist in
isolation, but that they should interact with each other. This
interaction should also create a new cultural identity and
idioms. National culture is thus something that will emerge as a
result of interactions among these various regional cultures.
This second interpretation can be called the "integrative"
approach.

How do these two approaches differ in practice? Followers of
the generative approach have attempted to generate a new national
culture by updating traditional expressions. In dance, for
instance, experiments have been made to modernize traditional
styles of Javanese dance.

While results of these experiments have been warmly received
by artists and members of the younger generation alike, they have
been harshly been criticized and vehemently resisted by
traditional artists of the old generation. They claim that these
new experiments have debased traditional culture and made it
meaningless.

The interactive approach has emphasized cultural and artistic
exchange among the various regional cultures. Acehnese
traditional dance, for example, has become popular throughout
Indonesia primarily through this exchange program. But does this
widespread popularity and appreciation of regional cultures
really encourage or prompt the emergence of a new culture, the
national culture, to which we all aspire?

Not really, and as I see it a new national culture will come
about only after national consciousness has become so
sufficiently spread that it supersedes and subsumes all regional
or ethnic consciousness that resides within each of us.

Does it mean that the generative approach is more promising
than the interactive approach?

Thus far this seems to be the case. But to be fair, genuine
interaction among regional cultures based on equal partnership
has not yet taken place. In our attempt to implement Bhinneka
Tunggal Ika, our overriding concern has been how to preserve
unity. We have not given sufficient attention to the question of
how to give diversity the opportunity to express itself in an
uninhibited manner.

This may be the result of a national policy that consistently
emphasizes centralization. The integrative approach in cultural
policy requires in the first place that each regional culture has
ample opportunity to develop itself first, to achieve the optimum
of the real powers that reside within each of them.

It is only the interaction of mature regional cultures, that
in the end stimulates and supports the birth of a new national
culture. Where are we now in our search for national culture, and
how do we proceed from here?

I think we will realize that we have achieved partial results
in this respect. In architecture, for instance, there are works
that can be rightly called expressions of "national culture".

The Istiqlal Mosque in Central Jakarta is one such monument.
But in dance and music, I think we cannot yet boast of
significant achievements that can be called "national".

It is important to note here that there are in essence three
kinds of cultural expressions, i.e. ideas, performance and
objects. It is in the realm of ideas that it is relatively easy
to express ourselves in national format.

As long as we think and feel as Indonesians, and not as
Javanese or Balinese, it will always be possible for us to
produce ideas that can be called nationalistic. The question is
whether the ideas we produce are significant or trivial.

In the realm of performance, however, it is more difficult to
express ourselves in national modes. This is because our first
training in performance or behavior is always anchored in ethnic
or subethnic modes or norms.

Those who are trained in childhood to behave toward others
according to Javanese norms will have to retrain themselves and
modify their patterns of performance to be able to behave on the
basis of national norms. It is hard for a true Javanese to be
polite in a non-Javanese way.

Eventually, whether we can perform in a national manner,
whether in music, dance or in any other kind of performing arts,
will depend on whether we can transcend our ethnic or subethnic
consciousness.

In the realm of objects, the problem of generating national
culture is a problem of creating physical symbols that express
national feelings and aspirations. How do we express our national
resentment against repression in physical symbols?

If we can answer this question we may hit upon ideas of how to
enrich our national culture in the realm of objects.

So it is important to reemphasize that national culture is in
the end an expression of national consciousness and national
aspirations. If we want to enhance our national culture, the task
that lies ahead is to strengthen our sense of nationalism and to
spell out more clearly what we want to make of our nation.

If we are fully aware of what we are as a nation, and if we
have clear ideas of what we want to make of ourselves as a
nation, then we will find ways to give our national culture a
more pronounced meaning. But if we are only vaguely aware of our
nationhood, and if we do not know what we want as a nation, then
the words "national culture" will remain an empty slogan, void of
any core substance. If this happens, culturally speaking we will
be an amorphous nation.