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.