Universities as tools for peaceful change

Universities as tools for peaceful change

By Meuthia Ganie Rochman

BOGOR (JP): What kinds of changes does Indonesian society
expect to happen, planned or responsive?

At present, the cultural themes about planned changes are
vanishing. Society is dominantly oriented to tackle social and
economic problems, heralded and carried out by government bodies.
It seems that this nation has lost its confidence and, later,
capability, to think how to create a better society, beyond
refurbishment approach.

This article will reevaluate the role universities, as
institutions, are supposed to play to formulate societal problems
beyond the trap of already-technical and fragmental approaches.
This goal is to be achieved through the comprehension on the role
of universities and specific position of intellectuals.

Modern society comprises three orders (meaning the logic of
function but must be distinguished with institutions and
agencies), namely state, market and society. The function of
state order is as the holder of highest authority (not
sovereignty).

It must be above specific groups and interests and must be
within a national framework. The function of the market order is
to manage productions and their allocation, supply and demand and
competition. The society order, through communities, produces and
maintains identities, solidarity and morality.

Theoretically, market order is executed by market
institutions, state orders by state institutions and society
order by societal incitations.

In practice, these orders could be performed by other
institutions. However, the present conventional wisdom has the
view that these orders should not be too much taken over by other
institutions because it could propagate inefficiency (too much
state intervention in economy), disorder (state is too weak in
enforcing contracts), authoritarianism (state defines social
norms and values) and injustice (society fails to counter
economic ambition).

Morality concerning common life must come from societal
institutions. This is because society contains many open
relations which need goodwill to work. Society, of course,
comprises various groups with their own interests, which are
sometimes pursued in unscrupulous ways.

Nevertheless, principles on justice endure because every group
realizes how anarchic and disorderly life would be if these
principles vanish. Within state institutions, relations must be
structured, and the structures themselves are sources of power
with the potential for abuse. On the market institutions, profit
and benefit are dominant orientations, therefore, not the right
place for collective values.

Society has dynamics that demand reorganization. Some norms
and values are not able to solve new problems in society. Or, new
norms and value which are inimical have developed to endanger
society. Ordinary people do not have methods to correct these
norms and values. People rely on certain groups who perform
correctional functions. In society, the function of criticism is
usually performed by the media, decisionmakers in government
agencies, social organizations and, above all, universities.

True that some universities have poor performances, as happens
in other institutions. The difference is basically a university
is established to see phenomenons clearly. Its orientation and
programs must be devoted to that aim.

A university must develop methods to analyze phenomenons,
either natural or social. In terms of attitude, university people
must be honest to admit wrong as wrong, even if it pertains to
their own former opinion as far these opinion cannot be justified
scientifically. Because the value of a university is truth and
its norm is honesty, university people must not only be honest to
their academic works but also to other fields of life. How
difficult to trust one's academic work if these people are not
trustworthy in daily life?

Because a university is established to seek truth -- and the
public gives its expectation and judgment -- and have methods to
explain, university people have the right to claim that their
institution can criticize values and norms in society.

But the works of a university are not only critical but also
constructive. A university shows how to achieve society goals.

In this case, a university does not use a principle of
utilitarianism but one based on moral responsibility. It is,
therefore, relevant to discuss the difference between an
information society and a knowledge society. The goal of an
information is to create members of society which are more
productive and competitive.

In a knowledge society, knowledge is exercised for a better
society. Not only for a more prosperous one but also healthier,
more just, more orderly and safer. The production of knowledge is
attained through certain methods and in a morally responsible
manner.

Knowledge can also be put into inquiry through moral reasons.
Therefore, people's rights are more assured in a knowledge
society. The university rights are, therefore, part of the
realization of people's rights. In the context of a nation,
universities are a form of mechanism for sustaining sovereignty
of people.

Back to the three orders, society order must "supply" norms to
state order, and the last order will develop them into
regulations, including those on a governance system. In the
context of three orders, the state institutions and its
regulations should not constrain the function of a society order.
In societal change it is impossible to create something good if
it is handled by formal regulations. Formal institutions have a
logic of the past, when they were established: from the
formulation of problems to the mechanism.

However, this fact is often forgotten by people who run these
formal regulations. They argue about the possibility of anarchy
if a change is proposed outside formal institutions.

Sometimes this argument contains some grains of truth. This is
because in society, there are groups always ready to violate
common norms to pursue their own interests. It is here the role
of universities in formulating required changes comes to the
fore.

These institutions are supposed to base their analyses on
various societal aspects and interests. They must be able to
denote what change is needed within the formal structures.
Basically, universities perform this work in an institutional way
because their people are attached to certain principles. By doing
so, universities are tools in society used to change formal
structures without inviting anarchy.

The writer is on the teaching staff of the University of
Indonesia's School of Sociology.