page 1
The Evolutionist Anthropology of Ali Moertopo:
Agency and Coercion in Developing a Pancasila Society in Indonesia[1]
Greg Acciaioli
Nations, however, have no clearly identifiable births, and their deaths, if they ever happen, are never natural. Because there is no Originator, the nation's biography can not be written evangelically, ‘down time,’ through a long procreative chain of begettings. The only alternative is to fashion it ‘up time’" – towards Peking Man, Java Man, King Arthur, wherever the lamp of archaeology casts its fitful gleam (Anderson 1991: 205)
Introduction: Anthropological Implications of the `Antiquity' of the Nation
In his classic treatment of the origins of nationalism, Benedict Anderson (1991) focuses on the change of consciousness expressed by adherence to this notion. Nationalism is a radical reconceptualisation of modes of togetherness, the postulation of an `imagined political community--...imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign' (Anderson 1991: 6). Part of the concept's radicalness is the very paradoxes that it encompasses, including contradictions between: firstly, the objective modernity of the newly emerging nations whose members espouse it and their subjective antiquity; secondly, the universality of its occurrence as a concept and the unique content of its formulation in each case; and, thirdly, its political power as an ideology and its philosophical poverty (Anderson 1991: 5). This new consciousness, in his view, requires the creation of an altered sense of memory and a new framework of time within which to remember. Borrowing from Walter Benjamin, Anderson contrasts Messianic time--`a simultaneity of past and future in an instantaneous present'--with its replacement by `homogenous, empty time', in which simultaneity is transverse, cross-time. In this new temporal framework simultaneity is not given by the religious framing of prefiguration and fulfilment, but rather by temporal conincdence, as measured by clock and calendar (Anderson 1991: 24). The nation can then be seen as an entity moving calendrically through this time, `moving steadily down (or up) history' (Anderson 1991:26).
In the revised edition of Imagined Communities Anderson's framework emphasises the role of several institutions of power in the colonial state that could be harnessed by newly emerging national movements to effect this shift of consciousness, especially the circumscribing and `logoising' potency of the census's abstract quantification/serialisation of persons, the map's inscription of political space, and the museum's genealogising of cultural history (Anderson 1991: xiv, 163-186). He still maintains the centrality of the technology of print capitalism in enabling this shift of consciousness, especially the power of the newspaper and the novel to unite a readership into a nationality, but the new final chapter also emphasises the importance of the writing of history to encode this vision of a shared nation. For it is in its history that the members of a nation come to forge their identity. The French nation brought into birth by the revolution is, quite literally, inconceivable without the history that Michelet wrote for it.
But in this regard perhaps Anderson has not gone far enough. Although himself emphasising the `antiquity' new nations have accorded themselves (Anderson 1991: xiv) and indeed characterising his definition of the nation as posed in an `anthropological spirit' (Anderson 1991: 6), Anderson has downplayed the extent to which nationalism must also be rooted in, to use a much misunderstood term, a sense of the primordial character of a nation's heritage (however much the rise of that nationalism may be historically situated, as Anderson's first paradox implies). That is, the sense of a nation often demands a prehistory as well as a history, a sense of the continuity of cultural content from the earliest (imagined) origins. In short, the nationalist project tends to foster not only a history of recent foundational events, but an anthropological account of cultural evolution from an ancestral time when the basic values of national character were already nascent, even if awaiting codification by recent liberation movements and postcolonial regimes. Pace Anderson's assertion, in the quotation opening this paper, of the impossibility of a nation writing `down time', nationalist writers have been able to fashion `genealogical' accounts that assert the continuity of a nation's identity from the earliest times revealed by archaeology and palaeontology.
Public Anthropology in Indonesia: Koentjaraningrat and Ali Moertopo
The case of Indonesian nationalism provides an interesting exemplification of this ability. In many ways Indonesia has formulated its own social sciences based on the national civic philosophy of Pancasila, the five principles first articulated by Sukarno as part of the nationalist platform and later re-energised by Suharto's New Order as the basis of its developmentalist ideology: `monotheism, humanitarianism, the unity of Indonesia, leadership through consensus and representation, and social justice'[2]. Although Mubyarto's Pancasila economics is perhaps the most famous example, the anthropological perspectives put forward by the recently deceased doyen of Indonesian anthropology, Professor Dr. Raden Mas Koentjaraningrat, have in many ways constituted a Pancasila anthropology. Besides his work on ethnicity, rejecting a conflict model and emphasising how ethnic identity may conduce to national unity rather than seeking to topple it, Koentjaraningrat has in various ways sought to reconcile cultural diversity and local values with development as well, thus underscoring the fundamental process which the New Order has sought as its rationale (e.g. Koentjaraningrat 1974, 1977, 1993). Indeed, he even ends his monumental history of anthropological theory with a section entitled the `The position of Anthropology in Indonesia's Development' [Kedudukan Antropologi dalam Pembangunan Indonesia] (Koentjaraningrat 1990: 281-285). He has paid particular attention to the position of the so-called `most isolated tribes' (suku terasing), which have been subjected to considerable pressure to raise themselves, or at least to be raised, to general societal standards of health, education and economic development set by the government. As Koentjaraningrat (1993: 10) puts it, the official policy of the government is to `raise' them from their isolated status and develop their society so that they can be the same as the societies of other ethnic groups, orienting to the national culture of Indonesia. He has suggested that because of the very heterogeneity of conditions of the peoples in question, the term suku terasing is inappropriate and should be replaced by `suku-suku bangsa yang diupayakan berkembang', `the ethnic groups for whom efforts are being made to develop' or simply `suku bangsa berkembang', `the developing ethnic groups' in analogy with `the developing nations' (Koentjaraningrat 1993: 1).
Koentjaraningrat's vision of anthropology, including its contribution to the developmentalist project, has been largely articulated in regard to the current (i.e. synchronic) diversity of Indonesia's peoples. Although he has treated the theories of cultural evolution propounded by others (Koentjaraningrat 1987), he himself has been more comfortable as an ethnographer (Koentjaraningrat 1984, 1985) and theorist of the dynamics of culture in contemporary situations. The task of proposing a cultural evolutionary model for the nation of Indonesia was, however, taken up by another public intellectual, Lieutenant General Ali Moertopo (Krissantono 1991), one of the most prominent ideologists and spokespersons of the New Order from its founding.
The facts of Ali Moertopo's career in the New Order are of secondary concern here, as what is relevant in this consideration of the nationalist project is the vision of Indonesia's cultural evolution articulated in his book Strategi Kebudayaan (1978). Earning his credentials as a revolutionary soldier and then in the Madiun affair and in operations against the Dutch in the late 40s, Ali Moertopo went on to oversee the much-debated Pepera (Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat) `referendum' on the integration of Irian Jaya in the early 60s, particpate in the `Confrontation' (Konfrontasi) with Malaysia, and engage in the Seroja Operation in East Timor. Throughout these later campaigns, he was actively involved in the intelligence section of the armed forces (in Moertopo's case the term `military intelligence' does not seem an oxymoron), and came to serve as Suharto's private assistant. In 1971 he ignited the GOLKAR campaign with his concept of `The Acceleration and Modernisation of 25 Years' Development' [Akselerasi Modernisasi Pembangunan 25 Tahun] (Moertopo 1973b). While rising in the intelligence [BAKIN] services, he became a member of the organising committee of GOLKAR, the Government party, and rose to become the Information Minister in the third development cabinet (1978-1983), while retaining the position of deputy headin BAKIN. During his tenure in this position, he liberalised film imports, oversaw a program (`Koran Masuk Desa'--Benedict Anderson would be delighted at this confirmation of his conceptualisation of nationalism) of distributing newspapers in villages, especially military publications. Leaving this position in 1983, he became the deputy head of the Supreme Advisory Council (Dewan Pertimbangan Agung).
However, besides his accomplishments as a military and administrative `operator', as well as a political visionary for GOLKAR (the `floating mass' concept was articulated and implemented while he was one of the party leaders) and the New Order (he saw one of his main tasks as presenting President Suharto's policies in intelligible terms to the common people), Ali Moertopo was also well-known as a public intellectual. In line with his vision for the need for a `think-tank' or `ideas factory' for the Indonesian nation (Krissantono 1991: 140) he founded (memprakarsai) the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in the early 70s. His publications, most of them appearing under CSIS auspices, largely dealt with issues of national security and strategy (e.g. Moertopo 1973a). Indeed, if one word epitomises the career and thought of Ali Moertopo, it is the term `strategic'. Not surprisingly, this term recurs in his (1978) book Strategi Kebudayaan (translatable as Strategies of Culture). While the latter part of this book focuses on development strategies for realising the potential of Indonesian culture, it is the early chapters of this book that are of the most relevance for exemplifying the anthropological aspects of the nationalist project. For Strategi Kebudayaan (hereafter referred to as SK) articulates a full-blown theory of cultural evolution, which situates the developmentalism of the New Order Indonesian state based upon the ideology of Pancasila as the teleological realisation of a process of cultural evolution that has characterised Indonesian society from its archaic or `antique' beginnings.
Ali Moertopo's Basic Anthropological Concepts
Moertopo begins his account by defining his basic terms. Culture (kebudayaan) he views as the process of humanity `developing a continual struggle in order to secure the victory of the process of humanisation and avoid the process of dehumanisation' (`manusia mengembang perjuangan yang terus-menerus untuk memenangkan proses humanisasi dan menghindarkan diri dari proses dehumanisasi') (SK: vi). Culture is thus an important force or power (kekuatan) in human history, but one that is not transcendental, but rather summarising human efforts or struggle. The power of culture is the power of human resource potentials. Culture cannot be seen in terms of any determinism exercised from outside, but as the expression of human power or agency. This force of human potential from `within' encompasses mental attitudes, values for life, ways of thought, ways of working, logic, aesthetics and ethics (sikap mental, nilai hidup, cara berpikir, cara kerja, logika, estetika, dan etika) (SK: 12). These provide the capacities for human beings to make the choices that constitute their process of humanisation. Strategies, which he derives directly from the Greek stratos (troops) plus agein (lead), brings the idiom of war into is account of culture[3], leading to a definition that stresses the element of human agency in effecting change: `matters that have do do with the means and efforts to control and use all the resources of a society, a nation, to achieve its objectives' (hal-hal yang berkenaan dengan cara dan usaha menguasai dan mendayagunakan segala sumber daya suatu masyarakat, suatu bangsa, untuk mencapai tujuannya).[4]
From the very beginning Moertopo's foundational definitions resonate with New Order priorities and conceptualisations. The very definition of culture identifies it with a process of development (perkembangan), seen as the result of human `struggle' (perjuangan), one of the key idioms of Indonesian nationalist imagery, which has been channeled during the New Order not into anti-colonial struggle but into economic development and modernisation. As we shall see, the developmental process of cultural evolution finds its fruition in the explicit process of Development (pembangunan)[5], seen as guided by human agency, of the New Order. Indeed, Ali Moertopo himself notes that his definition of culture hearkens back to the Indonesian Constitution (UUD) itself, specifically to paragraph 32, where `national culture' (kebudayaan nasional) is defined as a process of `heightening the degree of humanity of the Indonesian people' (mempertinggi derajat kemanusiaan bangsa Indonesia) (SK: 10).
The very emphasis upon human agency in effecting cultural development as a process of humanisation in Ali Moertopo's framework is further reinforced by the continual resort to the verbal form membudaya[kan], `to civilise', or to `to culturalise, to make part of one's culture'. The use of an active, transitive verbal form foregrounds the exercise of human powers in effecting development, as acknowledged by Ali Moertopo himself (SK: 10) in justifying it over the related intransitive term berkebudayaan, `to have or exhibit culture'). It also echoes the analogous use of such active verbal forms (e.g. `sciencing', `minding', `symboling') in the cultural evolutionary schemes of the anthropologist Leslie White (1949) and the archaeologist V. Gordon Childe (1951).[6] It also echoes the continual use of this same term in Indonesian development programs and governmental regulations, where citizens are exhorted to `culturalise' or `make part of their own culture' (membudaya[kan]) such conditions of orderliness as observing traffic regulations or following the proper rotation of rice crops.
Before proceeding to his evolutionary framework, Ali Moertopo presents various schemas for analysing the components of culture. Culture is divided into three basic relational dimensions which can be developed:
1) relations with one's fellow human beings
2) relations with the surrounding natural world (alam)
3) relations with God (Tuhan Yang Maha Esa) (SK: 11-12)
As we will see, Moertopo believes that Indonesian culture, in its emphasis upon spiritual elements of culture, has tended to highlight the first and third relational dimensions throughout most of its evolution, while relatively ignoring the second until the advent of the modern age in its `National Resurgence'.
In addition to these three dimensions, Ali Moertopo asserts that culture has seven basic elements (unsur) or systems. Moertopo's analysis of culture as consisting of seven universal elements of culture probably derives in part from Koentjaraningrat's own popularisation of the universal culture concept for Indonesian audiences. In the first three months of 1974 Koentjaraningrat ran a series of articles in the Jakartan daily newspaper Kompas, in which he addressed in a relatively nontechnical language `problems of mentality and development' (masalah mentalitet dan kebudayaan) from an anthropological perspective. In the first of these articles, assembled later that year into a semi-popular collection (Koentjaraningrat 1974), he listed the seven elements of culture as follows:
The universal elements of culture, which at the same time constitute the contents of all the cultures that there are in the world, are:
1) The religious system and religious cerermonies
2) The social system and organisation
3) The system of knowledge
4) Language
5) Art
6) The system of livelihood
7) The system of technology and equipment
[Unsur-unsur universel itu, yang sekalian merupakan isi dari semua kebudayaan yang ada did dunia ini adalah:
1) Sistem religi dan upacara keagamaan
2) Sistem dan organisasi kemasyarakatan
3) Sistem pengetahuan
4) Bahasa
5) Kesenian
6) Sistem mata pencaharian hidup
7) Sistem teknologi dan peralatan]
(Koentjaraningrat 1974: 12)
As revealed in his somewhat earlier (lst edition, 1967) introductory textbook in Social Anthropology, Koentjaraningrat (1977) himself adopted these seven elements from Kluckhohn's (1953) universal categories of culture. However, Moertopo's list is as follows:
1) the knowledge system (sistem pengetahuan
2) the technological system (sistem teknologi)
3) the economic system (sistem ekonomi)
4) the social system (sistem kemasyarakatan)
5) the linguistic system (sistem bahasa)
6) the religious system (sistem religi) (SK: 12)
Interestingly, despite his assertion of seven basic elements, he only includes 6 in his list. The oversight is not insignificant, for later in his text (see below) his proclaimed list of the seven elements of culture once more only includes six, but not exactly the same six as here. In this context, the following discussion in the text tends to differentiate language (bahasa) from literature (sastra), thus implicitly completing the list of seven, with literature (sastra) substituting for art (kesenian) from Koentjaraningrat's complete list. However, accounting for the somewhat variant listing of six elements later in Ali Moertopo's text requires examining his evolutionary progression.
However, before proceeding to this framework Ali Moertopo feels compelled to specify the `subject' of this cultural apparatus. That is, he feels the need to characterise the `Indonesian nation' (bangsa Indonesia) whose cultural evolution he is to trace. Although declared a cultural subject in the proclamation of independence and constitution (SK: 13), Ali Moertopo conceptualises this nation as having had an enduring identity from well before this political assertion, indeed from antiquity. The Indonesian nation has been shaped by its basic environmental characteristics as an archipelagic society (masyarakat nusantara) (SK: 14), one justly labelled as `our land and sea' (tanah air kita).[7] In terms that border on environmental determinism, thus setting up a theoretical tension with his earlier emphasis upon human agency, Moertopo describes how this archipelagic positioning has caused certain directions to be taken in cultural evolution:
This environment of a "completely archipelagic" character has caused the culture which has developed here also to have an "archipelagic" design. That which is named "archipelagic culture" certainly has differences from "continental culture". In addition, the earth, sky, water and climate found in this region constitute conditions that contribute to giving form to the development of culture in Indonesia. The fertility of the archipelagic land has resulted in the archipelagic society developing to become a farming society. The relationship of humanity with the land constitutes quite an important factor.