Tradition vs traditionalism (2)

Tradition vs traditionalism (2)

By Ignas Kleden

This is the second part of an article examining the
relationship between the concept of tradition and political
thinking.

JAKARTA (JP): With the culture debate essentially behind us,
it is still timely for us to look into some of the arguments put
forth by both sides to find out whether and to what extent their
predictions have come to past in real cultural life.

It is quite obvious that some of the arguments of those who
stood for traditional culture hold true in the present
development era. To discard everything traditional is all but
impossible.

The pesantren, for example, have undergone substantial reform
to the extent that many of the larger Islamic boarding schools
have become centers of modernization. They have established the
idea that one need not always take over the western school system
in order to produce modern graduates, but rather that one can
rely on the traditional school system and provide it with a new
content and method and thereby make it serve modern goals.

Besides that, it is definitely clear that in his long struggle
for the development of the Indonesian language Sutan Takdir
Alisyahbana did practically the same thing: to provide the old
lingua franca with modern norms and content in order that
language could meet the requirements of science, technology,
higher learning and modern administration.

In fact, one can rely on tradition without becoming a diehard
traditionalist. However, Takdir Alisyahbana's proposal to look
for norms for the new culture in the western hemisphere, has
taken place to a large extent, without our being aware of it. And
even given that there is some awareness among us about that
truth, we may lack willingness to recognize it explicitly.

In the first place, we cannot ignore the emergence of a new
attitude towards material things due to economic growth and the
concomitant rising standard of living, as well as the
corresponding changes in lifestyles. There is an ever growing
tendency to take over the lifestyle of western countries, with or
without the underlying ethos.

Material things are physical realizations of cultural needs.
However, the material culture has in itself a very ambivalent
role: being a material expression, it can both express and
conceal a social or cultural fact. One good lesson we can learn
from the modern architecture is that tall buildings in the large
cities become the expression of the economic power of a
particular social stratum, while at the same time becoming a
facade to cover up the poverty or economic powerlessness of other
social strata which might represent the majority.

On another level we can come across cases, in which technology
with its technical sophistication, does not help very much simply
because it does not function socially or culturally. The
telephone, for example, is a substitute for personal encounter in
order to save time. On many business occasions, however, the
telephone cannot replace the personal presence of somebody,
because after talking on the line, one still has to pay a
courtesy call in order to get things done.

Looking at such behavior, it is of course very difficult to
argue, whether or not some of our cultural features should be
remodified in order to make the use of technology helpful. It is
quite apparent that the use of some aspects of technology does
not work as expected because the social base and the cultural
framework in which they operate are not changed correspondingly.

It is, therefore, pertinent to raise the critical question: Do
we have to retain everything from our culture on the grounds that
those cultural features are ours? In negative terms: Can we
contend that everything which is derived from our culture is good
and should be maintained, or should we humbly try to ask whether
there some features of our culture which should be modified, or
recast, in order that they can meet the needs of
modern economy and technology adequately?

This is just one step before we have to raise some questions
which have to do with the nature of political culture. One of the
very common political habits which tends to become increasingly
widespread is that many people are very inclined to take recourse
to national cultural patterns in order to judge whether and to
what extent particular political behavior is acceptable or not.

Political criticism for example is not judged according to its
content in the first place, but rather according to the way it is
conveyed. However, no mention is made about what the patterns of
national culture are supposed to be, and who is in the position
to decide whether such and such patterns are national or not?

The discussion concerning the nature of national culture is
still far from complete. What is national culture by definition?
Is it a political question which should be answered by a
political regulation, or is it an academic question which
deserves an adequate answer from our social and cultural
scientists?

This definition aside, there is, however, still another more
fundamental question which we cannot do away with, namely the
question of the proper relationship between culture and politics.

There are at least two ideal factors in terms of which we can
manage to delineate such a relationship. First, in order for
politics to be effective, it needs the symbolic means which are
well known in a particular culture, whereby to articulate and to
mediate political message. Talking to people in a parlance they
do not understand will not bring about any political effects
whatsoever.

In that regard culture is very instrumental for politics.
Consequently, we have to deal with the necessity to adjust as
many as possible political idioms, political expressions and the
patterns of political interaction to the existing cultural
patterns. Viable politics is always culture-bound.

Second, politics is exercised on the basic of political
decision, which is made in order to pursue certain political
goals, which become the relative realization of the envisaged
political ideals.

Theoretically speaking, political measures are not only based
on the existing cultural pattern, but also are expected to mold
new cultural patterns which are in line with political ideals. To
take an example, once democracy is established as a political
ideal, we thereby declare ourselves willing and prepared to
recast our cultural behavior in order that it can be on good
terms with the democratic ideals.

To argue that democratic ideals should be made compatible with
the existing cultural patterns is as valid as to contend that the
existing cultural patterns should be made compatible with
democratic ideals. This is just a simple matter of anthropology:
Culture is not merely a product, but the very process of
production, in this case the very process of political and
economic production.

In that regard what is questionable is not only political
behavior but cultural behavior as well. In analogy, to stick to
sharp time is not part of our traditional cultural patterns, but
this seems to be untenable if we want to embark upon new
industrial ventures. Time has long been turned into money by the
industry and we have to save time in order to save money.

In that regard, we are seriously faced with the question:
Which cultural patterns derived from our cultural legacy should
be maintained, and which ones should be remolded in order that
modern economy and modern politics can work the way they are
expected to? Can we talk about public affairs in a critical way?
How to be critical properly? Are the patterns of our national
culture infallible and untouchable?

All these things seem to have been taken for granted for quite
a long time, but now have to be taken seriously into critical
reconsideration, in order that our professional and political
discourse is not trapped into unexamined metaphors, which have to
say something without nevertheless having much to say.

Besides that, we apparently need much more effort to work
linguistically in order to prevent many situations where semantic
vagueness becomes a potential of political conflict. Too little
has been done to date to define (that is to give substance to)
the political notions we use every day, such as participation,
national stability, responsibility, or openness. What do we
really mean by such expressions and can we conduct a discussion
to circumvent all the ambiguities which eventually result in
necessary difficulties?

Some thoughts are put forth here both as proposals and as
reconsideration pertaining to the nature of the so-called
national culture. First, it is timely to clarify both politically
and academically what the national culture is supposed to mean
and expected to be. Does national culture contain only what has
been handed down by our forerunners, or does it also imply what
is in the process right now and still in the making? Second, who
is in the position to judge whether or not a political behavior
corresponds to the patterns of national culture?

It seems too one-sided if the whole consideration depends
merely on the rationalization of the executives. It should be
based on a larger discussion, which comprises as many as possible
circles to the extent that it can reflect the largest possible
spectrum of political thinking and academic discourse.

Third, national culture is a mixture of political and
intellectual conception. Culture is a notion which concerns the
conception of social scientists and intellectuals. But the
attribute "national" is obviously a part of political parlance.
In that sense, we have to establish to what extent this
conception can be clarified academically and intellectually, and
to what extent it depends on political formulation and political
decision making. An anthropologist can only talk about culture in
terms of its participants which are already there. An
intellectual or a culture philosopher can talk about culture as
the power that exists. The politicians, however, should find out
in what terms and in which framework they can talk about national
culture.

In all the attempts to figure out the nature of national
culture, one should keep in mind that culture is a product, but
also a process of production. To belong to a particular culture
does not necessarily imply that one cannot do anything to remold
the pattern of that culture in accordance with new needs and
requirements. This is also true for political culture. At one
time we should ask whether a certain political behavior is
congruent with the patterns of national culture. At another time,
the equally legitimate question is to be raised as to whether or
not some patterns of national culture are supportive of political
ideals or economic goals which have been established by political
decision making.

This double-faceted relationship between culture as symbolic
world and politics as the social embodiment of interaction, as
well as economy as its material and physical base, can only be
dialectical. If the relationship is treated as unilinear, whereby
the one is believed to be derived only from the other, we shall
slowly but surely get trapped either into a platonic way of
conducting politics, which obviously lacks the substance of
Realpolitik, or we shall be getting lost into a sort of political
traditionalism which discourages any political reform.

It is to the disadvantage of national interests if the
situation becomes increasingly predominant where the initiatives
to do good things are overcome by the fear of committing
mistakes. Political culture, admittedly can only rest on certain
traditional values, without which it will lose any ground.
However, it can be reshaped from time to time in order that it
does not peter out into political traditionalism, which
contradicts point blank the ideal of progress in economy and
modernization in politics, which all the nation's efforts are
believed to be driving at.

The writer holds a masters of arts degree in philosophy from
Hochschule for Philosophie, Munich (1982) and a doctorate in
sociology from Bielefeld University, Germany (1995). He is now
working with the Jakarta-based SPES Foundation research center.