Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:10:38 -0800
Subject: Re: My right of reply, Indonesia, Postcolonial Theorizing, etc



        "When I speak I transgress and twist...when you speak you utter the
        Holy Word!"

                                                        --Akhtaruzzaman Elias


Dear Dr Talib,

Wow, what a loooong reply!--Perhaps ten times longer than my earlier
response! (Have I again started resorting to an "inappropriate,"
"unscholarly" way of beginning a post intended to address somebody who is
inordinately sensitive to "scholarly moral obligation?" Have I misspelt the
word "long," for example? O, Holy Grammar! Forgive me for my
transgressions!)

In any event, I sincerely thank you for the time you've devoted to reading
my post and writing yours. I'm glad that you haven't kept quiet and that
you have justly exercised what you've called your "right of reply," paying
so much attention to an otherwise "inconsequential" post--indeed, a post
that comes from one who, as you've absolutely correctly pointed out, "is
not as widely known in postcolonial studies as Said and Anderson." I can
see your overt concern with one's being well-known/not-well-known, and I
can also see one of the probable causes of your rage perhaps increasing its
proportions over more than a two-week period: Why is "someone called Azfar
Hussain" (to use your own words)--why is someone not as well-known as Said
or Anderson--questioning the "genuine", "adequate", "Eastern" wisdom of Dr
Talib?

Well, I'm afraid I, too, have to respond in some length now; for I can see
that I'm now being aggressively theorized, that my position, my "seat," my
location are all being characterized rashly sometimes in the name of the
East, sometimes in terms of my references to a few Indonesian writers.
Indeed, I strongly feel the need to re-examine a number of crucial points
in some detail--points which are likely to be buried beneath your
passionate rhetoric--beneath your desperate attempt to show how much you
know about Indonesian literature and the East, and how much I don't. If the
length of my post bothers you, I'm really sorry. But I'll greatly
appreciate your and other list-members' patience.

Now the first part of my response is an attempt to see some of the dominant
features I can't help noticing in your post. These features, for example,
include:

1) abusive terms free-wheeling with their sound and fury from "virulent"
and "obfuscating"  through "convoluted" and "inadequate" down to "rubbish,"
"sophistry," "falsity," "ignorance," etc, etc (out of curiosity I started
counting such items but stopped when the number exceeded 25);

2) lessons in the notions of correctness and appropriateness and "scholarly
moral obligation" (as I was reading your post I was constantly hearing such
commandments as "Oh Azfar Hussain the immoralist (in a scholarly sense)!
Behave, behave in a scholarly correct manner!" As if THE APPROPRIATE, THE
ADEQUATE, THE CORRECT are all readily available at Dr Talib's
discourse-asrama that preserves the sanctity of all holy scholarly
scriptures);

3) outright construction of an East-West binary in order to locate me in
the "West" side of the binary (because I'm studying for the time being at
an American university? Because I've questioned a specific supposition of
an academic who teaches in the East? Or because I've incurred his "hot
displeasure?") and to define your representative position in the "East";

4) reduction of the complexity of the interplay and relationship between an
"ist" and an "ism" into a single semantic possibility of your own choice;

5) hoisting the flags of "authenticity" by saying, "Well, I speak Malay;
well, I wrote in it; well, I'm from the East; well, my intellectual and
physical locations are in the East," etc. (Should I  also say, in the face
of your "us"-"them"-dividing fatwa that banishes me from the East in a
flash, that out of a total of 27 years of my life, I'd uninterruptedly
spent 26 years in an Eastern country in which I was born and bred, and in
which every moment since my birth  posed more or less various threats of
banishment, obliteration, etc?)

6) reading some of my "question-marks" as mere "full-stops" to the extent
that my scepticism and doubts are glibly interpreted as "virulent and
obfuscating response," while charges of "twisting out of proportions" are
levelled at me in an attempt to preclude the possibility of reading your
"words" with their accompanying, surrounding implications and suggestions.

Well, I'll return to most of the above points (but I must admit here that I
don't disagree with you on all the points you've raised, while many of your
points still evoke my strong resistance), but in order to do that I should
now go back to my earlier post which you've unfortunately seen as an
"attack" only, characterizing it as "virulent" and "obfuscating." It's
clear that my post begins with a note of scepticism (remember my "I'm not
sure if ALL postcolonial theorizing," etc?) about--not with just a
"virulent" attack on--what you've  supposed in your earlier post. But, Dr
Talib, I don't deny at all that I've found your supposition not only
emphatic but also taking the form of "proposition" simply because of the
kind of semantic force that inhabits the subsequent part of your sentence
wherein you go on to maintain that ALL postcolonial theorizing about
Indonesia SHOULD BEGIN with Benedict Anderson (i.e., _Imagined Communities_
and his other works; well, for the time being, I'm not keeping the word
"Indonesianism" right here, since you've mentioned it's not your word, but
I'll certainly come back to it in some detail later). And "supposition," I
believe, is not necessarily always a simple, innocent, neutral, modest act.
Your "I suppose," as I hear it, gathers a stronger and new force and
meaning in your normative "should" and homogenizing "all." In other words,
you're clearly supposing a proposition very emphatically. I must add here
that I've never treated the word "propose" as a word used by you (please
notice that the word, as I've used it parenthetically, does't have any
quote-marks as such); it's certainly my word for which none but I'm
responsible, because I still hear  you're proposing something through your
supposition.

Thus I don't think I'm "twisting" your words "out of proportions," but only
carefully hearing your words in terms of their emphasis and also at the
level of their ideological-political implications. And I've expressed my
scepticism about that particular kind of emphasis emerging in your
supposition. As for the word "Indonesianism," a word certainly you have not
used directly, I'll argue that it is nevertheless implied in the way that
you've used the very word
"Indonesianist," glibly attributing it to Anderson. In fact, I see yet
another emphasis in your earlier post, particularly when you say, "It is
quite often forgotten that Anderson is an Indonesianist." (I'll return to
this point in some detail later to see what possible relationships one can
find between an "ism" and an "ist," and to see also the limits of your
particular examples.)

And now just because you say that you've "mere"ly "supposed" something,
your supposition can't be questioned, eh? And just because you've supposed,
you can never propose at the same time? (I'm reminded of some right-wing
politicians in the place  I come from, who tend to evade many of the
crucial issues simply in the name of "supposition" and "simplicity."
Indeed, when their programs and pronouncements are questioned, they tend to
say, "Oh dear! The matter is very simple, very genuine. But I wonder why my
opponents are making it so damn complicated! Why are they twisting and
distorting my simple, well-meant words?"). And just because one expresses
one's doubt about your clearly essentialist "supposition" (that ALL
postcolonial theorizing on Indonesia SHOULD begin with Anderson), s/he
immediately becomes a representative of the "latest" from a particular
tradition of Western scholarship that you can easily scoff at??? That's
your "logic!"

But I must also say that  your construction of the "East" and "West" for
your own purpose seems to be more an empty rhetorical ploy than something
emerging out of a serious political-theoretical engagement with such a
complex and significant issue as the East-West dichotomy. Moreover, you've
assumed that I'm addressing all "Easterners" (while I'm not), and that I'm
telling them what they should (should?) do with their own culture!!!
Really?  Perhaps in your rage, you've totally missed my point here.
Clearly, here you've mistaken my willinglessness to explore NUMEROUS
POSSIBILITIES of postcolonial theorizing about Indonesia for my mere
dictation.  But, Dr Talib, I'm really totally surprised at the way in which
you've made me a representative of a certain dictatorial kind of Western
tradition of scholarship, while you yourself have conveniently assumed the
position of a genuine representative of the East, giving me the impression
that to question your specific "supposition" from my present place of study
at Washington State University is nothing but to question or dictate the
whole East from the West!!! (Once again I can see a totalizing,
essentializing, homogenizing, generalizing tendency characterizing so much
of what you're saying in the name of the East).

But then you also seem to be very sensitive to the question of context.
Good! In an attempt to contextualize your own statements, you've mentioned
that yours is a "genuine attempt to help another list-member" (I can see
your over-enthusiastic self-characterizing tendency once again in terms of
your claim for genuineness) and that yours is a "simple response to a
simple request." What do you really mean by a "simple response" and a
"simple request"? Is the repeated use of the word "simple" meant to pose as
innocent, and therefore, unquestionable? While responding to a request
(howsoever simple you might think it to be), are you not also
articulating--distinctly or dimly--your own position and politics? I'll say
that you're very much doing so, and one may question your position revealed
or concealed even in your apparently "simple" articulation--an articulation
that, in the name of genuineness and simplicity, may mask other
implications. And if somebody begins to read those implications, should one
keep shouting by saying, "Hey, words are being twisted"? (O Holy Words!)

You'll perhaps again say that you're referring to Anderson to help someone
interested in "developing a unit of study on leisure, recreation and
holidaying in Indonesia from a postcolonial perspective." But the
requester, O dear context-sensitive academic Dr Talib, is also interested
in "finding postcolonial theorizing, analyses, dealing with Indonesia,
including such works as produced by Indonesian scholars," meaning that the
requester's interest certainly includes, but then also ranges beyond,
"leisure, recreation and holidaying." And given this context, when you talk
of ALL postcolonial theorizing on Indonesia (without any reference to
"holidaying," etc), I have certainly reasons to read your statement
involving not just a specific area, but a broad and complex domain of
discourses. And when you suppose that all postcolonial theorizing about
Indonesia should begin with Anderson (both your words "should" and "begin"
are certainly noticeable in terms of their tellingly prescriptive-normative
and originary characters), I can't but raise the questions in the face of
your supposition: Why should we begin with Anderson? And why all poco
theorizing?

But, yes, one may want to use Anderson, and I admit Anderson is
considerably usable (btw, your question "perhaps Azfar Hussain's problem
with Benedict Anderson also lies on similar grounds?" [on the ground that
he is a white man] is utterly redundant, as I've already mentioned that my
purpose has not been to undermine Anderson at all); but then that 'use' is
not the same thing as a monolithic theory of the beginning (In the
Beginning is Anderson!) that you're suggesting through your supposition.
And it is precisely in this context that I've clearly underlined the need
for exploring other theoretical-discursive possibilities (in fact, I've
clearly said that there are many possibilities, not just one or two.) Thus,
Dr Talib, when you say that I've "completely wrenched your post out of its
context," your pronouncement simply becomes an example of a restless, rash
judgement unleashed on one who is not trying to dictate Easterners at all
(who am I to dictate?), but who is primarily resisting a specific
supposition of an academic like you, who, now I can see, is exploiting the
name of the "East" to attack me for my scepticism. Rabindranath Tagore's
question comes to mind: "Bhenge khabe ar koto kal?"

Now let me return to the issue of "ism"s and "ist"s. In your attempt to
correct my understanding of the term "Indonesianist", you've said that "an
"Indonesianist" is the term used for someone who has Indonesia as one of
the main areas of interest." Wow, what a definition! So someone becomes
just an "Africanist," simply because s/he has Africa "as one of the main
areas of interest"? For example, one of my main areas of interest is
Africa. But I don't think I should be called an "Africanist." Or to take a
somewhat different example, does someone become a Marxist simple because
s/he is mainly interested in Marx and his works and Marxism(s)? Not
necessarily! Someone interested in Marx and Marxism(s) may not necessarily
be a Marxist, but a Marxist has certainly his or her own version of
Marxism. Or for that matter someone interested in Africa may not
necessarily be an Africanist, but an Africanist may have his or her version
of Africanism. In other words, both the "ist" and the "ism" have their
ideological-theorectical resonances, and both can
semantically-ideologically complement, or enter into an easy understanding
with, each other under many circumstances.

That is to say, one is not an "Indonesianist" simply because one is
primarily interested--academically or not--in (or simply because one writes
on) Indonesia; but one becomes an "Indonesianist" when one theorizes or
constructs Indonesia, using or privileging certain sets of
ideologemes-epistemes-stylemes and consequently producing a version (or
versions) of Indonesianism (whatever that is/they are). Thus, when you
emphatically characterize Anderson as an "Indonesianist," one is likely to
think that he has his own version of "Indonesianism" that comes to
legitimize his being an "Indonesianist." By the way, may I point out here
that terms like "Africanist," "Indonesianist," etc., may not necessarily
bear positve connotations simply because such terms might be considered
essentialistic and are accommodative of the traces of what Manhar once
called "colonizing constructionism." But then, in your eyes, Anderson is an
"Indonesianist"!!! And I must say now that after so much of your complaint
against my "inadequate knowledge" and "ignorance," when you come to
foreground your own "adequate" definition of an "Indonesianist," I can't
but feel simply amused.

Now about Indonesian literature. To say that I'm "recommending high
literature and belles lettres TOO STRONGLY (emphasis mine) in the study of
Indonesian culture" is to reverse my whole position with regard to
postcolonial theorizing about Indonesia. Certainly, I've never indicated my
interest in that kind of shallow "culture studies" that you're now
envisaging.  But my reference to Khairil Anwar et al is just intended to
provide an example of one way, among numerous others, of doing poco
theorizing--a point that I think I've made more than explicit in my earlier
post (the main thrust of my earlier post, Dr Talib, is not just
understanding of Indonesia through its literature, but my scepticism about
your specific supposition which, in my view, clearly invites closures).
Please do tell me if  I've by any means supposed in the kind of
prescriptive language  that you've used (using "all" and "should") that ALL
postcolonial theorizing about Indonesia SHOULD BEGIN with those _Angkatan
45_ editors?  And have I ever indicated that we'll understand all aspects
of Indonesia through their works?  NO. And to say that their works can be
considerably used is not to dismiss the possibilities of using other
numerous useful Indonesian works. To say that "X" is writing is not to
assume that "Y" and "Z" are not writing at all.

Now that you've come up with a list of names in your attempt to prove your
"adequate knowledge" as opposed to my "inadequate knowledge", let me tell
you that one may find your list exclusionary as well. But frankly, I'm glad
that you've referred to the letters of Kartini, the poetry of Rustum
Effendi, Amir Hamzah, Ayip, among others, and the works of Pramudya, asking
us to take into account both pre-war and post-war literatures viewable in
terms of a dialectic of rupture and continuity, while also asking us not to
lose sight of the fact that "other indigenous languages," other
under-represented or downgraded islanders including the struggles of the
East Timorese and the West Irians--all come to characterize the complexity
of various kinds of cultural productions that cannot simply and singularly
be represented by the mere _Angkaton 45_ writers. Yes, you're right, but I
don't think I'm indifferent to that kind of complexity. Please tell me
where I've given that kind of representative status to Khairil (thanks for
correcting my spelling) Anwar--a status which deletes all possible spaces
for other discourses?  Tell me where I've dismissed Multatuli or Kartini
for having written in the "wrong language".

As you've raised the questions of dismissal and ignorance, in your own
spirit one may question your own list which virtually has no room for women
writers!!! What about the works of Walujati, her poetry in particular? What
about Siti Nuraini? Or Suwarish Djojopuspito who wrote in both Dutch and
Indonesian? What about S Rukiah Kertapati's _Kedajatuhan dan Hati_? (Please
don't misunderstand me by thinking that these questions are intended as
dictations to all Easterners and that my purpose here is to show how much I
know about Indonesian literature. Since you're so context-sensitive, I
expect you'll see these questions in their proper contexts)? Indeed, one
can go on and on by raising such questions for the sake of "genuine
representativeness or inclusiveness," linguistic and otherwise; but, no, my
concern hasn't been with just a "genuinely representative or inclusive"
list of Indonesian works, but certainly with that kind of postcolonial
theorizing about Indonesia which keeps various possibilities alive.

I must point out again that right before referring to the _Angkaton 45_
editors, I've indicated that there are numerous ways of theorizing about
Indonesia. And this statement of mine, I must argue, only speaks of the
possibilities of numerous additions to the writers that I've mentioned as
one mere example. And I can happily see that you're certainly adding to
that list, thereby only strengthening, not at all falsifying, my premise. I
can also see that while
adding, or while bringing Rustum Effendi and Amir Hamzah for that matter,
you're also talking about "high literature." But then you're justly aware
of the limits of studying such literature for understanding Indonesia.
That's good! But I'm still wondering if one's postcolonial engagement with
Khairil Anwar et at would invetibaly lead to underwriting the "official"
version of Indonesian culture. Certainly, coming from the Eastern part of
the world, I'm aware of that kind of middle-class, right-wing government
politics of appropriating poets and writers to serve certain purposes. For
instance, I can think of Nazrul Islam right away, a poet who is being
enthusiastically used by the right-wing government of Bangladesh, and I can
also see dangerous fissures in their uses. That's, indeed, another reason
why poets like Khairil and Nazrul may be re-read increasingly, and by
reading them, one may dismantle that very authorizing, dictating official
version of culture which privileges the dominant at the expense of the
many.

It seems that I've committed an unpardonable sin by having referred to
Burton Raffel's volume. It has been assumed on the basis of this reference
that I'm suggesting that all Easterners and Westerners read Indonesian
literature in translation!!! Again you're constructing for me a readership
that I'm not certainly addressing. I've referred to Raffel's volume because
it brings together almost all works of Khairil Anwar conveniently not only
in translation but also in the original "bhasa Indonesia," and it's a
volume that I think is readily available here. Therefore, to refer to
Raffel's volume is not to rule out the possibility of reading literature in
the original, nor is it to suggest all Westerners and Easterners including
Indonesians that they read Khairil Anwar in Raffel's translation, or in
translation, only. Again, I feel  amused when you go on to construct your
argument for your own purpose around my references to Khairil Anwar and
Raffel. But, yes, I share your observations on the limits and dangers of
translation, and may I take this opportunity to tell you that I myself
wrote in Bengali ("Anubad O Naishabder Rajniti") on the same problems
raised by you. You've drawn my attention to Anderson's "good sense" in this
connection. Thanks. But I see that good sense also in Rabindranath Tagore
and Ngugi wa Thiong'o, who, in their own ways, always make me see the
limits and dangers of reading literature in translation.

Now, O dear Dr Talib, please tell me what "high seat" I'm holding at
Washington State University, as you've so confidently declared. What do you
mean by "high seat", anyway? Are you trying to prove your adequate
knowledge not only about Indonesian literature but also about the position
and identity of "someone called Azfar Hussain" who "is not widely known in
postcolonial studies as Said or Anderson?" I certainly don't claim any
adequacy of knowledge about Indonesian literature (a literature which,
however, I too have so long held dear to my heart), and also about your
"seat" or position; but then I'm certainly interested in knowing what
particular seat you yourself are holding in the East. You've mentioned that
I've "unsubtly" used "Westernised language to shame people from the East."
Well, Dr Talib, now you seem to say that YOU (Dr Talib) ARE PEOPLE FROM THE
EAST (instead of being just one from the East). Wow!  And I'm also
interested in knowing what non-Westernised or Easternised or Eastern
language you've mostly used in your reply.

Lastly, let me remind you again of what I've done in my earlier post
certainly with no intent of insulting you personally: first, I've expressed
my scepticism about your supposition that I've found emphatic and also
taking the form of proposition; second, I've mentioned my general
resistance to a mode of theorizing that precludes other possibilities;
third, I've indicated that there are many ways of doing poco theorizing
about Indonesia, and last, I've referred to Khairil Anwar et al only to
indicate just one of the numerous possibilities. Now if this earlier post
of mine appears to be too "arrogant" (another adjective that you've used;
oh, Dr Talib, your unmistakable flair for such adjectives!) for all
Easterners or Eastern academics to bear, then I've to return your own
question regarding what you've called "proportions," "In what proportions
has then my post been read or viewed or answered?" By the way, "arrogance"
is perhaps too easy for one to detect from a position that is deemed
unquestionable and authoritative.

More later. Many thanks for your time.

With best regards,

Azfar

"Bastuta, jor dekhano jorer laksman noi, barancha tar ulta"








##############################
AZFAR HUSSAIN
Department of English
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99164-5020

Phones: 509-332-4405 (home)
        509-335-1803 (work)
E-mail: azfar-AT-wsu.edu
##############################

       




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