Theorizing is no less important than implementing
Theorizing is no less important than implementing
By Ignas Kleden
This is the first of two articles discussing the relationship
between scientific theories and their implementation.
JAKARTA (JP): The term "theory" has suffered undue calumny for
too long. Generally, theory is misunderstood as the opposite of
practice, not its complement.
Theory is considered inferior to practice. This impression is
reinforced by the provocative statement of an influential
Indonesian intellectual, Sayidiman Suryohadiprodjo, at a recent
seminar organized by the Ministry of Education.
Sayidiman criticized the mentality of Indonesians, which he
says have not grasped the importance of self-reliance.
He pointed out another "modern" shortcoming: "many Indonesians
are very good at making concepts and theories, but fall short
when it comes to their implementation" (The Jakarta Post, May 15,
1996).
Unfortunately, the statement puts together two things which
should be separated: the ability to create theories, and the
ability to implement them.
Firstly, theoretical work is real work, no less hard and no
less tedious than practical work. Theorizing is not bubble
blowing. It is the organization of ideas and the testing of
propositions.
Serious theoretical work needs to be tested empirically, and
abhors idle verbosity, or social or political snobbery.
Secondly, we have to be humble enough to admit that theorizing
is still very much neglected here. I am talking now about the
social sciences in Indonesia.
In comparison to foreign Indonesianists, Indonesian social
scientists are small beer.
Pick a foreigner studying Indonesia and you can easily say
what kind of theoretical work he or she has contributed to
Indonesian studies. Of course not all foreign Indonesianists are
great masters, but they definitely work more seriously than many
of our own social scientists.
Dutch Indonesianists are particularly accomplished: from
Snouck Hurgronje to Th.G.T. Pigeaud, from B.J.O. Schriecke to
Wertheim.
The same can be said of the Americans. Having started as late
as the 1950s, they have produced a glut of theories on Indonesian
culture and society.
Ben Anderson wrote about the Javanese concept of power, C.
Geertz about politics based on ideology, and B. Higgins about the
aborted take-off of the Indonesian economy.
Certainly one cannot simply conclude that foreign scholars are
more capable than our own. But put simply, the view that theory
is the highest achievement of science is not common here.