Can Indonesians Think?

The universalism paradigm that is often used by the West makes Indonesian society inferior.

Some time ago the digital space was shocked by an English language podcast hosted by two talented young women. The excitement was caused by the presenter saying that Indonesian was a language with poor vocabulary.

The controversial statement certainly triggered various responses. Many members of the community then showed various Indonesian vocabulary words that are rarely known by many people to prove that this language is not lacking in vocabulary.

Even though language is one of the issues discussed in the podcast, actually the important thing that is highlighted is the discourse of knowledge. The podcast mentioned the existence of a "lazy culture" that is inherent in Indonesian people, as if this laziness has become a culture.

Also read: The Myth of Literacy and Laziness

According to the seminar, this then produces laziness in thinking, making it difficult to think critically. Moreover, there is discussion about religion that makes discourse about laziness and critical thinking even more complex, but interesting. This discourse is certainly interesting to reconsider given the difficulty in finding momentum to discuss cultural issues.

Of course, in this article I will not discuss the specifics of the podcast program, let alone discuss personal background because it would lead to falling into an embarrassing ad hominem attitude.

More broadly than that, I see that the podcast program actually shows how a discourse about knowledge is formed. The doubts from this podcast regarding the thinking ability of Indonesians then raised a further question for me, namely, are Indonesians capable of thinking?

Illustration

Localizing Indonesia

The question "Can Indonesians think?" actually inspired by two previously published books. The first book is entitled Can Asians Think? written by Kishore Mahbubani and the second book written by Hamid Dabashi is entitledCan Non-Europeans Think?

I think social science and cultural scholars are familiar with these two books. Both books are a response to the latest developments in the world of knowledge when the Western world—which was previously dominant in controlling knowledge production—began to be challenged by efforts from non-Western scholars to rethink theories, even paradigms, that have been produced in the West since the end of the 18th century.

Even more, the challenge does not only come from the epistemological realm, but also from the knowledge infrastructure itself. Asian campuses, for example, have been crawling up to become top world campuses, such as the National University of Singapore and Tsinghua University. Both campuses hail from Singapore and China.

Of course yes, Indonesians are capable of thinking! So why are there still people who doubt the thinking ability of Indonesians?

If Singapore and China are capable of challenging the previously held Western dominance of knowledge and proving that they are capable of thinking, what about Indonesia? Are Indonesians capable of thinking?

Let me answer straight away in this paragraph: of course, Indonesians are capable of thinking! Then why are there still people who doubt the thinking ability of Indonesians? Did they miss the moment when BJ Habibie successfully introduced the N250 aircraft at Husein Sastranegara Airport in 1995 - the very same people who doubt the thinking ability of Indonesians?

Or, did they never know how Pramoedya Ananta Toer exposed colonialism through the novel Earth of Mankind? Or, perhaps, they never knew the genius of Haji Agus Salim, even though he never attended college, in fighting Eurocentrism long before the popularity of postcolonialism studies?

Maybe yes. However, in my opinion, doubts about this are mostly caused by the paradigm of universalism which has long been popularized among Indonesian society itself so that inferior traits continue to linger in the minds of Indonesian people.

Illustration

The universalism paradigm was born from the womb of the 18th century European Enlightenment which saw Europe as the center of the world. For this reason, the standards of progress that have developed there are considered to represent the "universe".

As for the nations deemed not to meet the standards of Western-style progress, they are considered uncivilized or barbaric. Therefore, those deemed barbaric must adhere to these standards of progress through "guidance" from Western intellectuals - even the system itself.

This was the forerunner of the "civilizing mission", a pseudonym for colonialism. For this reason, for the universalism paradigm, Malay History is at a lower level than The History of The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire written by Edward Gibbon. The work Sejarah Melayu is considered "local wisdom", while Gibbon's work is considered "world history".

In other words, intelligence originating from outside Europe, including Indonesia, must be localized or provincialized, while Europe undergoes universalization. This is the origin of why the traditional Minangkabau house, for example, is often categorized as "local", while European culture, such as the pillars of ancient Greek ruins, is considered "worldly".

Also read: Indonesian Studies

Even book covers on world history - which in reality only covers Western history - often use images of statues and architecture from ancient Greece. As a result, we become a "province" and Europe becomes "universal".

This universalism is continuously normalized, classifying Indonesia as "local". Therefore, Indonesia is depicted as unequal to the West which is considered "universal". This creates a curiosity towards things that are considered "local" such as the orangutan, keris, or exotic things with mystical and irrational elements.

This creates the opinion that "the Eastern world" is irrational and only has "culture", while philosophy, science and technology are only owned by the West. Indonesia then experienced extraordinary exoticization, resulting in the assumption that Indonesia's wealth was only material culture that was unique and had a "local" smell. However, we fail to reveal another wealth that is no less important, namely knowledge.

History waiting room

The impact of efforts to localize Indonesia is truly significant and cannot be underestimated. In various fields, Indonesia is forced to occupy a "waiting room of history" - a term coined by Dipesh Chakrabarty - because universalism assumes that history progresses like a staircase.

In other words, according to universalism, there are historical phases that must be passed through first to become a "developed country," for example, artificial stages are created, such as the First Industrial Revolution, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and so on.

If we are at point 1.0, we cannot jump to phase 6.0, which means we have to wait in a waiting room called "History Waiting Room". All indicators to measure progress are made in each "Waiting Room" version, while the West always positions itself in an advanced position.

Several Indonesian scholars have actually been resisting the "waiting room" perspective for a long time. BJ Habibie, for example, once strongly opposed efforts that required Indonesia to wait first.

This argument under the guise of culture is often put forward to perpetuate Western power.

According to Habibie, Indonesia must quickly become a country based on industry. He opposes efforts to make Indonesia pass through artificial phases because it is considered "unprepared" for industrialization. Moreover, the teachings - if not called dogma - from the past indologists who continue to echo that Indonesian society is not suitable for industrial work culture because they have lazy, relaxed culture, even linking it to the geographical conditions of the warm tropical region.

Arguments under the guise of culture are often raised to perpetuate Western domination. Past indologists - whose unfortunate legacy is often repeated by people in Indonesia today - constantly used "culture" as a justification to legitimize their opinions, forcing Indonesia to wait and not rush to catch up. This argument always emphasizes that Indonesia is not ready to progress because it has a different culture from the West, such as a relaxed culture, laziness, irrational thinking, mystical beliefs, and superstitions.

Illustration

Global literacy

In this article, I would like to say that Indonesian people are capable of thinking. However, the universalism, exoticism, and localization paradigms applied by the West on Indonesia have made this society feel inferior as they adopt the standards and stages of progress provided by the West as if they were universal without considering the context of space and time.

However, in this article, I do not want to encourage readers to be influenced by nativism, ethnocentrism, or narrow nationalism. Instead, I would like to propose a perspective that sees knowledge in a more plural and global way, by appreciating the diversity of cultures within their spatial and temporal contexts. This can actually enrich our understanding of knowledge, wisdom, and the thinking ability of a society.

One effort to expand intercultural dialogue is through a global literacy approach. This literacy ability emphasizes a person being able to see the world equally and plurally, not with a top-down approach that sees the Global North as a standard of progress to then be applied to Global South countries.

Also read: Literacy Based on Internationalism

Global literacy ability is an effort to appreciate the diversity of traditions and cultures, and emphasizes on ongoing intercultural interactions. By looking at diverse traditions, we can learn about rich perspectives. For instance, the ways in which communities obtain knowledge and truths are actually very diverse.

Until now, modern European philosophy acknowledges that knowledge is only acquired through empirical testing of material. However, there are different ways in other traditions. In the Islamic philosophical tradition, for example, knowledge can be obtained through revelation, intuition, and reason. Therefore, the ability of literacy to see the world differently is absolutely necessary so that we can appreciate the diversity and thinking capabilities of people in the world.

Frial Ramadhan Supratman, Librarian at the National Library

DOK. PRIBADI

Frial Ramadhan Supratman