A Quest for ‘Javanese’ Human Rights
I too believe in the importance of culture, but I do not think it alone determines a society’s fate, nor is it immutable.[1]
Introduction
Twelve years have passed since democracy replaced authoritarianism yet the remnants of Suharto’s version of Javanese culture still have significant influence on the lives of the Indonesian people. Social hierarchy still exists. Questioning higher authorities and expressing one’s individual identity are still not openly encouraged. Community trumps individual. Therefore, we have witnessed human rights abuses arising out of the oppression of political dissidents during Suharto’s era to the persecution of religious minorities today. Only those at the top and the majority can exercise their ‘rights’, whilst minorities and individuals are oppressed and expected to conform to the majority or the community. With this in mind, can solid human rights culture grounded on Javanese traditions emerge and transform Indonesia’s political and social landscape in the near future?
This essay aims to answer this question by exploring the possibilities of engaging human rights from Javanese point of view. In doing so, it will start by giving a brief summary on Javanese culture and its significance for human rights in Indonesia. An important part of this is also the elaboration of three important elements of Javanese culture, namely harmony, hierarchy, and community. Subsequently, this essay will critically analyse Javanese culture to see its compatibilities and incompatibilities with the modern concept of human rights. It will be contended that grounding human rights on Javanese cultural basis can be done by undertaking re-conceptualisation of some of the cultural elements and, in doing so, it is important to involve progressive minds within the younger generations to make Javanese culture more relevant to the current situation and more supportive of human rights.
Javanese Culture: A Summary
The first question one entitled to ask when presented with the idea of juxtaposing human rights with Javanese culture is why bother to engage human rights using cultural traditions that are not compatible with human rights. There are two problems with this question. Firstly, the question ignores the complex diversity within Javanese culture and mistakes Javanese culture with its elements. Javanese culture is not monolithic, static, and impenetrable.[2] Koentajaraningrat noted that there are regional variations of Javanese culture.[3] Whilst Surakarta and Yogyakarta are often referred to as the core of Javanese culture, with their unique spiritual and religious syncretism (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam), there are other versions of Javanese culture in coastal areas that are more influenced by Islamic Puritanism.[4] Javanese culture is also not as simple as a matter of tradition that discourages people to question higher authority or not allowing open disagreements. English anthropologist Tylor defined culture as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society".[5] In this context, the maintenance of hierarchy or not having an open conflict out of disagreements is only a fragment of Javanese culture. Like other cultures, there are parts of Javanese culture that are not conducive to the realisation of human rights but this does not make the culture as a whole inherently incompatible with human rights. There are also other parts within it that are compatible with human rights, as will be explained in this essay further.
Secondly, we need to use Javanese culture to make human rights more locally recognised and accepted.[6] Javanese culture still exerts a lot of influence throughout Indonesia and beyond.[7] Java has assumed the role of hegemon and thus, able, to expand its influence to other parts of the country since early period of history.[8] Today, despite accounting only for 7 percent of the total land area, 60 percent of Indonesia’s 250 million people live in Java and Javanese comprises 47% of Indonesia’s ethnic composition.[9] This is not to mention that most senior leadership positions in the national politics are occupied by people from ethnic Javanese background, including Suharto who was able to control the country under his authoritarian regime for over 30 years. In other words, it is impossible to understand the prevailing social attitudes, moral values, and general norms without taking into account the massive influence of Javanese culture within the Indonesian polity. Therefore, indigenising human rights using Javanese cultural framework is not a matter of scholarly indulgence only but also a matter of practical necessity in Indonesia.
The second question worth asking is what is Javanese culture all about? In defining Javanese culture, one cannot miss the importance of Javanese kingdoms, such as Surakarta and Yogyakarta, in producing and perpetuating Javanese culture.[10] Since four centuries ago, these kingdoms have been using literatures, such as serat wulang reh written by Sri Pakubuwana IV and Serta Wedatama and Serta Tripama written by Mangkunegara IV, to offer general life principles and moral guidance which encompass the embodied ideals on how human beings should conduct their relationship with each other, with nature, and how power is conceptualised in relations to human beings.[11] Having been influenced by external elements such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, this version of Javanese culture – which is the dominant one since only the Sultanate of Surakarta and Yogyakarta still exist today– exhibits a unique outlook on mystical spiritualism.[12]
Men are seen only as one tiny part of the whole cosmos and they have to participate in maintaining the balance between macrocosm, jagad gedhe, and microcosm, jagad alit, through preserving harmony.[13] This harmony is projected in human relations and, in this process, social hierarchy and an emphasis on community become important.[14] In other words, within Javanese cultural framework, there are, at least, three important pillars namely harmony, hierarchy, and community.[15] In daily lives, harmony is manifested in the avoidance of open conflict.[16] People are expected to be rukun or harmonious, at least on the ‘outside’, even when, internally, they have differing interests.[17] This is translated into a social attitude which encourages compromise (at least in appearance) and suppression of unpleasant emotional feelings in situations where there are conflicting interests amongst different people.[18] All of these are done to avoid confrontation which is seen as immature, un-aesthetic, and disruptive.[19]
Hierarchy is also important because it is seen as a way to maintain order and, eventually, harmony. Everyone is required to know of their duties and responsibilities according to their places in society.[20] One is also expected to respect people in higher positions whilst remaining benevolent to people below them.[21] When people’s actions do not correspond to their social roles, they are seen as disrupting the hierarchy. For example, in Javanese culture, people are divided into two groups: priyayi (aristocrats) and wong cilik (peasants).[22] Priyayi are expected to produce culture and philosophy to guide wong cilik whilst wong cilik are supposed to provide agricultural products to fulfill the needs of priyayi.[23] This hierarchical form of social structure is also reflected in the history of Javanese kingdoms in which kings, which are seen as the exponent of microcosm, are thought to have unlimited power and wisdom and thus cannot be questioned.[24] This form of absolutism continued even till today in the form of seniority and people’s preference for ‘strong’ leaders, although to a much lesser degree.
Thirdly, harmony also necessitates people to prioritise the ‘greater good’ or the ‘community’ rather than individuals.[25] Individualism is often discouraged because it is seen as expression of egoism, of differentiating and abstracting oneself from his or her community. A Javanese should express his or her individuality through his or her community, through actions that foster cooperation, burden-sharing, and sense of belonging.[26] The political projection of these moral values and social attitudes has been clearly anti-human rights during and after Suharto’s presidency. Rukun or harmony is translated into the maintenance of order and national stability, often at all costs. Opposition and political criticisms against the government were banned. Freedom of thinking and expression as individuals were also severely limited. Even today, under the banner of democracy and freedom of expression, being critical of government or higher authorities is not necessarily celebrated. As Javanese proverb says, ‘mikul dhuwur, mendhem jero’, or lift up high, bury deep – meaning one should talk only about the good deeds of the people above him and keep their bad deeds amongst himself.[27] With this attitude, we have seen gross human rights abuses, be it the 1965 anti-communist massacre or East Timor issues, taking place with the involvements of senior military officers who enjoy legal and ‘social’ impunity. Being individuals who express their individuality in ways that can be deemed as ‘different’ by the mainstream community is also still frowned upon. It is solidarity that matters, not individualism. It is community’s interests, not individual’s. It is group’s identity not individual’s. The question remains can human rights find its place in Javanese culture?
Reinterpreting Javanese Culture for Human Rights
I believe that human rights can still find its place in Javanese culture although it will not be easy. The good news is that this is not a problem unique only to Javanese culture. As Donelly contended, there are elements even within Western culture that are not compatible with human rights, such as racism, sexism, and excessive individualism.[28] In embracing modern human rights, these sorts of elements need to be purged and by doing so it does not necessarily make it less Western or more Western. This is the same with reconceptualising Javanese culture. Acknowledging that Javanese culture is bigger and more complex than the sum of its parts is important because, indeed, reforming some parts of the culture does not necessarily make it more or less Javanese so long as the principles are maintained.
Firstly, we need to ascertain what is meant by harmony. The concept of harmony under the current discourse is too narrowly defined and it seems to be confused with uniformity.[29] Harmony does not necessitate uniformity.[30] In Javanese culture we have musyawarah / dialogue to achieve mufakat / consensus. This acknowledges that where differences arise, everyone’s voice should still be valued and everyone has a chance to provide their input in a peaceful manner. Politeness and maturity are indeed needed as a way to encourage respect for different views and interests but it does not have to stop people from genuinely engaging with each other. People need to learn to value honesty to create an environment where actual harmony, not just at the ‘superficial’ level, flourishes. Thus, harmony does not necessitate leaders to curtail opposing views to maintain ‘sameness’ at all times. Moreover, the use of force to ensure harmony seems to be self-defeating to the notion of harmony often championed in Javanese literatures. Real harmony cannot be based on fear or suffering in silence. If there is peace and harmony, these should be achieved through mutual understanding, maturity, self-restraint, and respect to others.[31] It is these elements that should be kept to encourage the development of human rights culture in Indonesia. Respect to each other, politeness, and maturity can create an environment where people are free to disagree, where criticisms are regarded positively, where differences are celebrated rather than used as a basis for discriminations, where tolerance is nurtured, where one’s worth as an individual human being is respected despite his different opinions, thoughts, religions, social status, and so on.
Secondly, the concept of hierarchy is definitely problematic although it is becoming increasingly irrelevant throughout time. Hierarchy creates inequality and inequality breeds oppression. When those above cannot be scrutinised simply because of their supposed superiority or when those at the bottom are oppressed simply because they are powerless, human rights abuses take place easily.[32] The positive side of the story is that, in reality, hierarchy in the Javanese society is not that rigid. Whilst it is true that people need to behave according to their places in society to achieve harmony, such as respecting older people and seniors, such a concept does not entail one to be given a fixed place with its corresponding privileges or obligations. Privileges and patronage can change depending on the deeds of the people and achievements of the people. It is not necessarily conferred through genealogical line as in the caste system within Hindu. In a way, it can be argued that the ‘old system’ of hierarchy in Javanese culture increasingly fades away and a new ‘hierarchy’ which resembles practices that exist almost anywhere in the world where one can move up and down depending on one’s endeavour and achievements has emerged. During this process, meritocracy has become increasingly important in challenging seniority, although seniority and the yearning for strong leaders, certainly, are still powerful today. Moreover, hierarchy is becoming less needed in a world where rule of law has assumed the ideal way of ensuring order. In the contemporary world where democracy has become the norm, order is not dependent on people’s blind allegiance to their kings or their leaders. Power resides within the hands of the people but this does not have to produce disorder as long as rule of law is observed and defended. In this case, the very purpose of maintaining hierarchy, which is to provide order, has become invalid and it is not clear as to why this concept of hierarchy still need to be maintained other than for benefiting those at the top.
Thirdly, the concept of prioritising community at the expense of individual can also be an issue. The first thing that can be easily noticed is that individuals do not seem to have a place in Javanese culture. It is rarely mentioned, if at all, and, most of the time, what becomes the concern is individual relations with group or community, with the nature, and with the whole cosmos. In this case, Javanese culture is not alone. Similar to Confucian philosophy, it is assumed that individual’s interests are subsumed to group’s interests as the dominant discourse is, arguably, utilitarian – that rights are needed not only to protect and promote interests but to maximise these interests.[33] In other words, rights exist to achieve our interests.[34] As Angle pointed out, ‘our’ here refers to a collective, the sum of its members.[35] This stands in contrast to liberal democratic traditions which tend to view rights in a deontological fashion.[36] This means human rights exist before interests because they are inherently good and morally desirable or to borrow Dworkin’s sentence, ‘A right is a claim that it would be wrong for the government to deny an individual even though it would be in the general interest to do so’.[37] Taking this into account, what one can hope to achieve from grounding human rights on the current discourse of Javanese culture are collective rights and individual rights, which are not going to compromise these collective rights. Indeed, the communitarian tendencies can facilitate the empowerment of vulnerable individuals who share similar interests and act as a bulwark against the encroachment of rights by powerful entities such as government or multinational corporations against these individuals (e.g: labour union). However, this is not enough for the full realisation of human rights. Advancing community’s interests need not sacrifice individual rights.[38] Firstly, extending human rights to every individual is not the same as letting everyone does whatever they want or encouraging social atomism.[39] There are limits to freedom which is the rights of people to be free from human rights violations by other people and law has a lot to do in guaranteeing these limits.[40] Secondly, a group should consist of those individuals who share genuine sense of attachment to each other or similar interests or visions. When individuals are forced to join or stay in a group, the notion of group or community becomes empty. In this context, giving human rights to every individual protects and encourages individual agency which, in turn, can foster an environment where people are free to form, join, and (or) maintain groups with their genuine passion and interests. In other words, human rights do not necessitate the elimination of community and community does not require the suppression of human rights, especially those of individuals.[41]
Lastly, given that Javanese culture has been, historically, one of the most dynamic and open culture in the world, I am optimistic that Javanese culture is evolving and can increasingly accommodate the development of human rights discourse in Indonesia. The year 1998 has given birth to democracy. Human rights were virtually inexistent before that. Today, more and more people are exposed to the idea of human rights and democracy and, indeed, at least in the public domain, it has become impossible for any important figure to denounce human rights. This represents a significant progress which denotes people’s increasing familiarity with human rights at the political level and the increasing power of human rights as a discourse. As such, we can say that the biggest problem is not the supposed inherent incompatibility of Javanese culture with human rights. It is more about the consciousness of Javanese people on their own cultural development and their relevance to human rights. Therefore, there is a need to encourage the younger generations to rediscover and redefine Javanese culture in a more ‘human-rights friendly’ context. In doing so, education should be fostered in a more egalitarian way and critical thinking should become the norm. Freedom of expression and information should be guaranteed by the state to enable people to make the best out of their education, within and beyond classrooms. Any arbitrary attempt to stop freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of information should be prevented by the state. Healthy debates must occur to enable the discourse to develop and mature.
Conclusion
This essay has argued that engaging human rights from Javanese cultural point of view is essential because Javanese culture still influences the way society and politics operate in Indonesia. Without endeavouring this process of ‘indigenisation’, human rights remain to be seen as a foreign conception and, precisely because of this, the oppressions of those who belong to minorities or individuals, who do not share much commonality with their groups, have gone unnoticed for a long time. This process of engagement should be done by critically reflecting and reforming the important elements within Javanese culture, namely harmony, hierarchy, and community.
The concept of harmony is often seen as the root of authoritarian government which reign free without oppositions. However, this seems to be the result of confusing harmony with uniformity. To realise human rights, one needs to maintain real harmony, above the superficial level, by maintaining respect, maturity, and politeness without sacrificing honesty and genuine diversity. Secondly, the concept of hierarchy is often accused as the cause of the seniority and impunity of the powerful. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the notion of hierarchy in Javanese tradition is not as rigid and it is becoming increasingly irrelevant due to the changing political environment which requires rule of law rather than hierarchy to maintain order and, in turn, harmony. Lastly, putting community above individual is thought as the ramification of utilitarian ethics which is already well-entrenched within Javanese culture. This communitarian nature can be used to bolster human rights through empowering a group of individuals against powerful entities that potentially can breach the human rights of these individuals. Nonetheless, upholding community values does not need to be done at the expense of individual rights. This is because the idea of individual rights does not necessarily lead to the creation of atomistic society where chaos and disorder ensue. In fact, individual rights can strengthen community because the agency of individuals in forming a community is what keeps community intact.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angle, S. C., Human Rights and Chinese Thought: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
Charney, E., ‘Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel E. Bell’, Political Theory, Vo. 27, No. 6, December 1999, pp. 840-848.
Donnelly, J., ‘Human Rights and Asian Values: A Defense of “Western” Universalism’, in O.R Bauer and D.A. Bell (eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Human rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 60-87.
Geertz., C., The Religion of Java, The University of Chicago Press, the US, 1960.
Herawati, A. V., ‘Javanese Culture: A Search for Human Rights Values’, Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University, 2005, pp. 1-50.
Jung, K. D., ‘Is Culture Destiny: the Myth of Asia’s Anti-Democratic Values’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73. No. 6, November / December 1994, pp. 189-194.
Kausikan, B., ‘Asia’s Different Standard’, Foreign Policy, 1993, pp. 24 – 41.
Koentjaraningrat,R. M., Javanese Culture, Oxford University Press, the USA, 1989.
Mauzy, D. K., ‘The Human Rights and “Asian Values” Debate in Southeast Asia: Trying to Clarify the Key Issues’, the Pacific Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 210-236
Sarsito, T., ‘Javanese Culture as the Source of Legitimacy for Soeharto’s Government’, Springer-Verlag, 2006, pp. 447-461.
Schmidt-Leukel, P., ‘Buddhism and the Idea of Human Rights: Resonances and Dissonances’, Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 33-49.
Tylor E. B., quoted in ‘What is Culture?’, article on the Web of Pallomar Community College, http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm, consulted 20 October 2010.
Anonymous, ‘The Javanese Family’, article on the Web of United Nations University, http://unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se09.htm, consulted 20 October 2010.
[1] K. D. Jung, ‘Is Culture Destiny: the Myth of Asia’s Anti-Democratic Values’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73. No. 6, November / December 1994, p. 190.
[2] R. M. Koentjaraningrat, Javanese Culture, Oxford University Press, the USA, 1989, p. 21.
[3] Ibid., pp. 21-22.
[4] Ibid., p. 21.
[5] E. B. Tylor quoted in ‘What is Culture?’, article on the Web of Pallomar Community College, http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm, consulted 20 October 2010.
[6] A. V. Herawati, ‘Javanese Culture: A Search for Human Rights Values’, Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University, 2005, p. 3.
[7] Ibid., p.3.
[8] Ibid., p.3.
[9] Koentjaraningrat, p.2 and T. Sarsito, ‘Javanese Culture as the Source of Legitimacy for Soeharto’s Government’, Springer-Verlag, 2006, p. 448.
[10] Ibid., pp. 448-449.
[11] Ibid., p. 449.
[12] Ibid., pp. 448-451.
[13] Ibid., p. 449.
[14] Ibid., p. 449.
[15]Anonymous, ‘The Javanese Family’, article on the Web of United Nations University, http://unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se09.htm, consulted 20 October 2010.
[16] Sarsito, p. 449.
[17] Herawati, pp. 25-27.
[18] Ibid, pp. 25-27.
[19] Ibid., pp. 25-27.
[20] Sarsito, p. 449.
[21] Anonymous, ‘The Javanese Family’, article on the Web of United Nations University, http://unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se09.htm, consulted 20 October 2010.
[22] Ibid., consulted 20 October 2010.
[23] Sarsito, p. 449.
[24] Ibid., p. 450.
[25] Anonymous, ‘The Javanese Family’, article on the Web of United Nations University, http://unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se09.htm, consulted 20 October 2010.
[26] Ibid., consulted 20 October 2010.
[27] Sarsito, p. 451.
[28] J. Donnelly, ‘Human Rights and Asian Values: A Defense of “Western” Universalism’, in O.R Bauer and D.A. Bell (eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Human rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, p. 64.
[29] S. C. Angle, Human Rights and Chinese Thought: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, p. 234.
[30] Ibid., p. 234.
[31] Herawati, pp. 23-30.
[32] Ibid., pp. 27-30.
[33] Angle, p. 208.
[34] Ibid., p. 208.
[35] Ibid., p. 209.
[36] Ibid., p. 208.
[37] R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, p. 269 quoted in S. C. Angle, Human Rights and Chinese Thought: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, p. 209.
[38] P. Schmidt-Leukel, ‘Buddhism and the Idea of Human Rights: Resonances and Dissonances’, Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 26, p. 42.
[39] Ibid., p. 42.
[40] Ibid., p. 42.
[41] Schmidt-Leukel, p. 42.
