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.