Subject: Re: My right of reply, Indonesia, Postcolonial Theorizing, etc
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:38:25 +1000 (EST)


Azfar, can you please give the source of your epigraph? Who is 
Akhtaruzzaman Elias?


> 
>         "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 ---
> 



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