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.