Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:35:21 +0800 (SST)
Subject: My right of reply; was: Indonesia, postcolonial theorizing



Dear fellow list members,

I patiently tried to keep quiet over this matter over a period of more
than two weeks now, hoping that it will naturally fizzle out.  But it
simply refuses to go away.  I finally decided that I have to exercise,
just like other members of this list, my right of reply.

On Friday the thirteenth Sept 1996, there was a simple query from a member
of this list:

> Hi folks,
>
> I am currently working with a senior secondary school teacher who is
> interested in developing a unit of study on leisure, recreation and
> holidaying in Indoensia from a postcolonial perspective.
>
> I am interested in finding postcolonial theorising, analyses etc. dealing
> with Indonesia, including such work as produced by Indonesian scholars, and
> if possible such work as it relates to travel, recreation and tourism.
>

To this, I responded, as I believed no one had mentioned Anderson's
_Imagined Communities_ yet, with a simple response.  It was a genuine
attempt on my part to help another list member, and also, to tell other
list members a little of what I have been doing:

> I suppose all postcolonial theorizing on Indonesia should begin with
> Benedict Anderson's _Imagined Communities_ (perhaps you have this work
> already in mind) and other works written by him.  It is quite often
> forgotten that Anderson is an Indonesianist, and began his academic career
> with his studies of Indonesia.
>
> I myself made use of Anderson's book in my discussion of the Singaporean
> novel _The Shrimp People_ by Rex Shelley, which is forthcoming in the
> collection _Ideas of Home: Literature of Asian Migration_ ed. by Geoffrey
> Kain.  It is indeed an accident of history that Singapore is now not part
> of Indonesia (or part of the 'imagined community' now known as
> 'Indonesia'), and this is mentioned in one of the Anderson's footnotes.
> However, the wide socio-economic gulf which now separates the two
> countries does not make this accident of history readily evident today.
>
>
 
To my surprise, there was a virulent and obfuscating response to my post
on Sunday, 15 Sep 1996, from Azfar Hussain of Washington State University
who completely wrenched my post out of its context.  Considering that my
message was a simple reply to a simple request, the kind of language used
in his post is both inappropriate and totally uncalled for.  I would
normally leave such inconsequential postings aside, but as the writer does
not consider it beneath his dignity to resort to specious argumentation
based on a false premise in order to launch his totally unjustified attack
on me, I have to respond.  One also notes that after revelling in the
further distorting possibilities of his false premise, he went on to
parade his own clearly inadequate knowledge and blinkered understanding of
Indonesia at my expense.  How more insulting can one get on a list like
this?  To me, Azfar Hussain's post represents only the latest from a long
line of academics and students from the West (including those without
Western names) to denigrate academics from the East, without provocation
or justification, by telling them what they should do with their own
language, literature and culture.  As such, it is too close to the quick
for me to ignore, and I cannot remain quiet any longer.

Here is his post.  Please watch closely how he changes my word 'suppose'
to 'propose', thus conveniently changing the meaning of what I said, and
the ease by which he introduces, for his own dubious ends, the word
'Indonesianism' (a word which was not used by me and which I do not even
understand: I used Indonesian_ist_).

> 
> I'm not sure if "ALL (emphasis mine) postcolonial theorising about
> Indonesia", as Dr Talib has so emphatically supposed (rather proposed),
> "SHOULD BEGIN (emphasis mine) with Benedict Anderson" and his
> "Indonesianism." My scepticism is not certainly intended to undermine the
> prospects of Andersonian perspectives, nor is it meant to preclude the
> possibilty of examining the "Indonesianism" of Anderson, who, in Mr Talib's
> words, is "an Indonesianist" (and therefore, we should begin with him?).
> What, however, really troubles me is the way in which a formula-like
> recommendation tends to amount to an unqualified privileging and
> monolithicizing of a particular kind of discourse in a field where other
> useful discourses are also in a dynamic process of negotiating their
> theoretical spaces. I'm also reminded of someone telling me once that all
> postcolonial theorising about the "Orient" should begin with Said. Well,
> again, I don't mean to pooh-pooh Said's discourse, but what I resist is
> that very programmatic mode of freezing-and-fixing discourses--a mode which
> sometimes certainly well serves elitist academic politics in the metropolis
> and elsewhere.
> 
> As for postcolonial theorising about Indonesia, I think one way (among many
> others) of doing it is to take into account creative writings and other
> discourses emanating from Indonesia itself. I feel tempted to refer to
> Chairil Anwar, a poet associated with the famous "Angkatan 45"--a poet,
> some of whose prose-works powerfully engage the postcoloniality of
> Indonesian experiences (see, for example, _Complete Poetry and Prose of
> Chairil Anwar_, ed. and tr. B. Raffel, 1970). Anwar's committed,
> anti-romantic engagement with language itself--"bahasa
> indonesia"--initiates its own anti-Dutch, anti-imperial, anti-colonial, and
> postcolonial moment(s) which can certainly have its/their place(s) in one's
> postcolonial theorising about Indonesia (probably the works of Asrul Sani
> and Rivai Apin are also somewhat useful). Understandably, these writers are
> not "theorists" in the way that Anderson is one; but their (Anwar et al)
> writings, I feel, can considerably facilitate one's postcolonial theorising
> about Indonesia. Regards.

Here are my responses:

Firstly, let me say again that 'Indonesianism' was not a term used by me. 
After Azfar Hussain created this strawman, he went on to use it as a false
premise to launch further attacks on what I did not say at all.  Moreover,
my suppositive hedge 'I suppose' is twisted out of all proportions by him
to something which I 'so emphatically supposed (rather proposed)'!  What
kind of baseless convoluted argumentation is this? 

Secondly, let me say again that I used the term 'Indonesianist' not
'Indonesianism'.  An '-ist' does not presume an '-ism' -- a projectionist
is not a person who deals with projectionism (whatever that is), neither
should an Americanist deal with Americanism.  In the same vein, the word
'Indonesianist' does not mean that there is a related thing called
'Indonesianism' lurking somewhere; one should not therefore assume, unless
one resorts to the linguistic sleight of hand of Azfar Hussain, that one
has magically said 'Indonesianism' when one uses the word 'Indonesianist'.
Worse than this, he actually asserted, blatantly throwing the scholarly
moral obligation to cite accurately to the winds, that I made use of the
word after introducing it himself for his own devious purpose! 

Thirdly, an 'Indonesianist' (a term which Azfar Hussain professedly does
not know) is the term used for someone who has Indonesia as one of the
main areas of interest.  In my post, I did not in any way presume that one
should begin with an 'Indonesianist' when one studies Indonesia: I said
that I supposed (and it was only a supposition on my part) that in one's
postcolonial theorising of Indonesia, one should begin with Benedict
Anderson's _Imagined Communities_, and not that one should begin with an
'Indonesianist'; I certainly did not say that one should THEREFORE (Azfar
Hussain's word) begin with Benedict Anderson because he is an
Indonesianist: he just happens to be one, and not that one should begin
with him because he is one.  Azfar Hussain, with his convoluted logic, has
again twisted my words.

Fourthly, I agree to a certain extent that the creative writers provide an
important source for understanding Indonesia: but this must be viewed in
context.  With regard to context, it would indeed be odd to recommend a
list of prose pieces and poetry by the first three editors of the long
defunct literary magazine _Angkatan 45_ to someone who wants to develop 'a
unit of study on leisure, recreation and holidaying in Indoensia from a
postcolonial perspective'!!  Incidentally, talking of one of the
_Angkatan_ editors, I have myself written a short linguistic study, in
Malay, of a poem by Khairil Anwar (the Indonesian language, I am afraid,
my dear Azfar Hussain, has undergone a spelling reform, and that's how his
name is now sometimes spelt).  We can grant that Azfar Hussain's
recommendation may be for other people on this list as well, and not only
for the original requester.  But how many people, pray tell, can read
Indonesian? Is Azfar Hussain recommending that people read the language in
translation (for instance, he recommended, without qualification, the
_Complete Poetry and Prose of Chairil Anwar_, ed. and tr. B. Raffel,
1970)?  Whatever Benedict Anderson's faults are, he at least has the good
sense to make the strong suggestion in his book that one should read
Indonesian literature in the original:  that's one very good reason why
one should begin with _Imagined Communities_ -- it leads you to other
things.  BTW, when one wants to refer to Khairil Anwar with a single name
one uses the name 'Khairil', not 'Anwar', as Azfar Hussain does in his
post.  Talking of literature, why mention only the first three editors of
_Angkatan 45_? How about, among others, the letters of Kartini; the poetry
of Rustam Effendi, Tatengkeng, 'S. T. A.', Amir Hamzah and Ayip; and
novels such as _Siti Nurbaya_, _Salah Asuhan_, and those of Pramudya, or,
for that matter, _Max Havelaar_ (not a relevant work because the author
was a white man? -- perhaps Azfar Hussain's problem with Benedict Anderson
also lies on similar grounds?  -- in the same vein, how about Kartini's
letters in Dutch? -- dismiss them like Multatuli's work for being written
in the 'wrong' language)?  But to go on to give a list of literary works
which might be of relevance is to miss the point as completely as Azfar
Hussain has done. My original post was, may I repeat, a simple response to
a simple request; it should also be viewed in the context of other
suggestions the requester had received and the preliminary reading list
which he presumably had; the requester did not ask for (and in my view,
did not, for his purpose, require) a reading list of Indonesian
literature. 

Fifthly, in spite of my love of Indonesian literature and its undoubted
value in the study of Indonesia, there are limits and even dangers in
recommending high literature and belles lettres too strongly in the study
of any culture:  wasn't this repeatedly pointed out in Said's
_Orientalism_?  Said's work has deficiencies, and there are precedents to
his work not only in the West but in the East as well.  Nevertheless, may
I be allowed to humbly reassert what I thought was a platitude until I
read Azfar Hussain's vociferous post: that it is undoubtedly one of the
classic texts in the study of postcolonialism?  But as Azfar Hussain, from
his high seat in Washington State University, has already expressed his
irritation at someone who told him 'that all postcolonial theorising about
the "Orient" should begin with Said', one should tread very carefully
here, lest one steps on his precious toes. In short, according to the
infinite wisdom of Azfar Hussain -- as his post is obviously also intended
as a response to me -- natives should refer to fellow natives by reading
their works in English translation, and not cite Western-based scholars
such as Said and Anderson, unless one cites, one is tempted to conclude,
-- in the true spirit of reductio ad adsurdum -- the thoughts of Azfar
Hussain himself!  One has to arrive at this conclusion unless he now
regards his post, with all its arrogantly inappropriate and insulting
insinuations, as a whole bagload of rubbish.  One is also tempted to ask,
isn't his post written in a fit of pique that someone called 'Azfar
Hussain' is not as widely known in postcolonial studies as Said and
Anderson?  Unfortunately for him, reading his post does nothing at all to
elevate that status, especially to anyone from the East who has any
interest in Indonesia.  I hope he realises that from the eyes of
Malay-speaking Southeast Asians like me, he has pushed himself to a very
tight inescapable corner by suggesting to them, without knowledgeable
justification, what they should do with their language and literature.

Sixthly, let me mention some of the limits and dangers of recommending
high literature and belles lettres too highly in the study of Indonesian
culture.  Much of what passes off for Indonesian high literature today is
actually written in a variant of Malay, a language which was originally
spoken as a native tongue by only a minority of Indonesians.  It was a
language imposed on the populace in order to unify the various islanders
together.  What Indonesian high literature does is to obscure these other
languages, hence downgrading the literature's linguistic
representativeness vis-a-vis the vast geo-cultural expanse of what is now
known as 'Indonesia', including its diverse but dying oral literary
traditions in other indigenous languages. Incidentally -- if Azfar Hussain
doesn't know -- Malay has been spoken since pre-colonial times as a native
language in Singapore, where I was born and bred, and which is centrally
located in the Johor-Riau region where the language was believed to have
originated.  At another level, doesn't Azfar Hussain realise that much of
Indonesian high literature is written by Javanese and Sumatrans, and the
other islanders are under-represented (the exceptions such as Dayoh and
Panji Tisna are few and far between, and are not as influential)?  Azfar
Hussain mentions many other ways of understanding Indonesia.  Good!  But
what are these? To put only the first three editors of _Angkatan 45_ in
one's list is to deal with only one aspect of Indonesia: not too far away,
I am afraid, from the 'official' version of Indonesian culture which the
present Indonesian government is comfortable with.  These writers provide
one with an understanding of how nationalism and the idea of nationness
could have arisen in an imagined community, but little or no understanding
of the struggles of the East Timorese and the West Irians: of peoples who
do not share the dreams of and feelings for nationhood provided by the
editors of _Angkatan 45_ and the dominant Javanese.  This is where a book
like Anderson's and his other writings on Indonesia, including his study
of imagining East Timor, are so useful. One can therefore easily ask:
isn't Azfar Hussain himself guilty, to use his own words, of 'a
formula-like recommendation' which tends to amount to a 'privileging and
monolithicizing of a particular kind of discourse' by claiming that the
three original editors of the _Angkatan 45_ (especially Khairil Anwar)
'can CONSIDERABLY [my emphasis] facilitate one's postcolonial theorising
about Indonesia'? 

Seventhly, I especially like Azfar Hussain's point about the 'very
programmatic mode of freezing-and-fixing discourses--a mode which
sometimes certainly well serves elitist academic politics in the
metropolis and elsewhere'. Yes, wow!  What irony!  What unsubtle use of a
westernised language to shame people from the East by claiming that you're
more 'them' than them!  How twisted can one's logic be!  What hypocrisy! 
I have never visited the United States and most other Western countries,
but can someone tell me where 'Washington State University' is?  I have
great respect for this university (restricting myself to the internet,
Paul Brians, for example, is one of my great heroes on the WWW [and there
are many other excellent pages by other academics from the university]),
but still, it does not mean that anyone without adequate knowledge there
is in a position to tell Easterners what we should be doing with what we
hold dear to our hearts.  In this connection, I am not talking so much of
the physical location, but the intellectual location which the physical
location often legitimates. This legitimatising physical location
sometimes results in the pontification of what comes from the West, and
pits a post like Azfar Hussain's -- throwing sophistry, falsity and
ignorance out the window -- on a pedestal way above anything from
'semi-fascist' Singapore (Arif Dirlik's pronouncement on Singapore from
the pedestal of Duke University).  So much for 'elitist academic politics
in the metropolis and elsewhere'! 

Sincerely

Ismail

Dia di sana, kami di sini.  Kerana dia di Amerika, dia selalu benar, kami
di sini selalu salah.  Apa bisa dibuat?

------
	Segala-gala yang dasarnya palsu,
	Ditendang diterjang dengan berani
	Ta' peduli 'kan ancaman 'tau fitnah.

			-- Intoyo.

------



















     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---