Theorizing is no less important than implementing

By Ignas Kleden

This is the second of two articles discussing the relationship between theory and practice.

JAKARTA (JP): Theories are often treated as a secondary thing, an adjunct to empirical research which contributes very little or nothing to the research process. They can be brushed away without damaging the whole research procedure.

This is a shortcoming which many teachers or lecturers of social sciences will have to cope with for many years to come. If we look through many research projects completed by our students, one of the most striking failures is that the theory -- which is mentioned in the outline for the research or in the first chapter -- does not permeate and guide the whole research undertaking, or does so in a limited manner. Theory is displayed as an "official" billboard, which does not stand for what is offered or sold in a "scientific shop".

Theory is a long story made short, a protracted analysis put in a nutshell -- or to paraphrase Geertz -- a grain of sand which reflects the whole firmament.

Conversely, theory is a short proposition which can be extended as far as possible, a nutshell of basic knowledge on which to build a scientific building, or a grain of sand which uncovers the heavenly mysteries of the unlimited firmament.

As far as empirical research is concerned, it is theory which becomes the point of departure, the trajectory one is to traverse, as well as the direction one is expected to head for. In other words, it is the complexity cast in a small framework, which is nevertheless relatively complete.

I don't think that it is Indonesian social scientists alone who are to blame or should be made responsible for the above situation. Theory as such seems to be something still alien to the greatest part of the society, not only because scientific education started very late in this country, but also because philosophical theorizing does not belong to most of the philosophical traditions of Indonesia.

Most of the philosophy is doctrinal in nature: it consists of a bunch of doctrines, without a systematic, logical, theoretical underpinning. This is a very valuable finding of cultural- philosophical investigation completed by the late S.T. Alisyahbana.

No wonder it is very difficult to find people who are appreciative enough of theoretical work. This is still the case, even among those who are supposed to be responsible for the advancement of learning and the progression of knowledge in the enterprise of scientific development.

Most social research under Indonesia's New Order is completed not as a part of and a prerequisite for the enlargement of the body of knowledge and the improvement of analytical tools to better understand the society, but mainly as a service to help implement a development program.

There is nothing wrong with the social or political service rendered by social sciences. This has always been the case all over the globe. However, one has to clearly differentiate the practical purpose of conducting research from its theoretical goal.

Besides that, unless social sciences are equipped with sufficient theoretical and methodological apparatuses, they are never able to meet practical needs.

By way of analogy, if science is seen as a business enterprise, the research works completed by scientists are an investment whereby one can only win after painstaking effort if one can produce a contribution to theory building.

Theory, so to speak, is a form of "scientific" profit. In that sense, doing research without aiming at producing a theoretical contribution would look like putting so much money in investments without aiming at making profit.

Likewise, just as an enterprise without profit accruing from it cannot endure for long, the sciences can hardly develop or even continue to exist if there are no theories produced.

The usefulness of a theory is epitomized in a philosophical saying that `theory and practice complement each other, just like eyes and legs'. Without theory, one cannot see and can only creep through the darkness. Without practice, one cannot get anywhere.

Theory can determine and establish the direction of the movement, while practice enables the movement which brings one to the direction established.

In that sense, we can better appreciate the common sense of Sayidiman's statement, which implies that most Indonesians know fairly well where to go, but they are too indolent to move to the direction envisaged.

The provocative lecture of Sayidiman contains another aspect which deserves some comments. According to him, most Indonesians tend to rely not on their own decisions and actions but on that of others.

To demonstrate the truth of his statement, Sayidiman points to Indonesia's huge foreign debts, which might be supported by economic arguments, but evidently show a reliance upon foreign resources. The psychological dependence resulting from it is something which, according to him, is more detrimental than beneficial to the growth of Indonesian people's self-confidence (Kompas, May 15 1996).

Foreign debt and foreign capital are by coincidence a trenchant metaphor for talking about theories in general and social science theories in particular.

As mentioned above, the production of theories regarding Indonesian society and culture is unduly dominated, at least for the time being, by foreign experts and scholars, with very little theoretical production from inside the country to counterbalance them.

In a sense, there is a theoretical dependence which might bring about not only a psychological but epistemological disadvantage as well.

The problem is not that of foreign versus indigenous analysis or interpretation, but rather that our definition of ourselves as a society, people and nation is actually formulated by other people who might be interested in this country for reasons which are possibly totally different from our own.

I am not so sure whether this question can be treated as an academic one. However, if the experience of other countries can become lessons to learn from, we can refer to what happened in the intellectual domain of the United States during the first half of the 19th century.

In 1837, the American transcendentalist philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, delivered a passionate Phi Beta Kappa address at Harvard University. The address, entitled "The American Scholar", is seen as "the most memorable and influential demand for American independence of European domination in thought and creative art".

He said: "We have listened too long to the courtly muses of Europe". It might well apply to Indonesia as far as theory- building is concerned.

The writer is a sociologist now working at the SPES foundation research center, Jakarta.