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.