10 Anthropology and the nation state Applied anthropology in Indonesia Martin Ramstedt Between localised, indigenous and intercultural anthropology Why do I, a German anthropologist working in the Netherlands, want to write about the history, the socio-political context and the perspectives of Indonesian anthropology? Am I just another contributor to ‘hegemonic Northern anthropol- ogy’ who is going to silence the voices of ‘Southern’ colleagues by attempting to assess ‘them’ or, even worse, to speak ‘for them’?1 With regard to the critique of Western ‘orientalism’2 and the concurrent deconstruction of Western strategies of ‘othering’,3 my attempt to describe the function of anthropology in modern Indonesia demands a clarification or even justification, since indigenous anthro- pologists are likely to be much more conversant with the national history of their discipline. I have derived my motivation4 for discussing dominant aspects of the Indonesian anthropological discourse5 in its socio-political context from co-operating with different Indonesian scientific institutions and colleagues over the course of many years.6 In the context of this co-operation, it has been imperative to deter- mine the ‘localised’ and the ‘indigenous’ elements of the Indonesian anthropo- logical discourse in order to establish a communication with the ‘Other’ which is ‘meaningful’ to both ‘sides’. Investigating the socio-political parameters of anthropology in Indonesia, especially at a time when ex-President Soeharto was still in power, has for me been tied up with the quest for a truly ‘intercultural’ anthropology. However, the process of establishing an intercultural dialogue between anthropologists of different national or ethnic background, which is based on mutual respect, also requires an appreciation of those différances (Jacques Derrida) which are not mere differences, but incompatibilities. For me as a German anthropologist who was brought up to condemn the instru- mentalisation of science by the Nazi- and the Stasi-regime, it was hard, for instance, not to demur at the duty assigned to Indonesian anthropology and anthropologists by the government of ex-President Soeharto ([1965] 1968–98), to foster the ‘build- ing of the Indonesian nation’. I was often tempted to speak of the gleichschaltung of anthropology – or of science in general for that matter – in Indonesia, whereas the development of Indonesian anthropology could just as well – and justifiedly 202 Martin Ramstedt so – be described as a kind of indigenisation of Western anthropology, since Indonesian anthropologists have amalgamated Western anthropological theory and method with the tenets of the Indonesian state-philosophy.7 Moreover, it does not suffice to reduce the intrinsic complexity of the discourse of Indonesian anthropologists during the reign of Soeharto by suggesting its total dependence on governmental directives. The influence of emancipatory strands of Western – especially American – anthropology or ‘cultural studies’, apparent in Indonesian anthropological textbooks and other publications of that period, reflects the growing orientation of an increasing part of the modern Indonesian intellectual elite towards Human Rights (Hak Asasi Manusia); that is, the values of a ‘civil society’ (masyarakat madani), an orientation which finally resulted in the recent downfall of the Soeharto-regime and the subsequent reformation of Indonesian politics. Those intellectuals and anthropologists who were the strongest supporters of an emancipatory anthropology in ‘new order’ Indonesia,8 such as for instance George Aditjondro, and who were consequently prevented from getting an academic position by the Soeharto-regime, or who – even worse – had to go into exile, are now having an impact on the development of anthro- pological discourse in post-Soeharto Indonesia. Moreover, the indigenisation of anthropology in Indonesia will surely get a boost from the intent of the present Indonesian government, to focus more on exchange with other Asian countries. At this point, it might be important to state that in contrast to Michael Prager I hesitate to consider Indonesian anthropology as not yet being ‘de-colonised’. It is true that a dependence on ‘Western’ theoretical frameworks as well as method- ologies is apparent in every Indonesian project and publication. It is also true that an emancipated ‘Southern’, that is, Indonesian corrective of ‘Northern’ anthro- pology or even ‘Northern’ culture,9 which would help to achieve a truly intercul- tural discipline has not yet been put forward.10 But I would suggest that it was the educational and cultural policy of Soeharto’s ‘new order’ government that stifled the intellectual climate in Indonesia and prevented Indonesian anthropologists from developing a truly indigenised theoretical discourse. However, as I have already alluded to, even during the Soeharto-period a growing number of indige- nous anthropologists took sides with ‘local voices’ against issues of government policy by using the official rhetoric to a local end. At present, discussions among Indonesian anthropologists as well as some of their latest publications show a growing self-reflexivity and a greater willingness to re-examine Western anthro- pological concepts.11 This process is boosted by the fact that since a few years ago, the shelves of the academic bookshops in Indonesia, such as Gramedia and others, display many copies of books by representatives of those Western intel- lectual strands that were suppressed by the Soeharto-regime, including books by Marx and other classics of leftist social and political science. Since the recent reformation, democratisation and decentralisation of the Indonesian bureaucracy and political system, the intellectual and the academic life in Indonesia has definitely changed for the better. That means the stifling intellectual climate that did not encourage emancipatory – indigenous or other- wise – theoretical approaches in Indonesian anthropology has vanished. As Applied anthropology in Indonesia 203 Indonesian universities are entitled to independently develop, formulate and implement their academic programmes and curricula, co-operation with Western scientific institutions have become more frequent. Due to the fact that such a co-operation often entails financial benefits as well as a rise in intellectual prestige, there is – alas – the danger that Indonesian anthropologists will be more inclined to submit to hegemonic Western meta-theoretical discourses than to really develop independent concepts and approaches, which would provide deeper insights into local affairs. Moreover, Indonesian anthropology is still very much ‘applied anthropology’ which is called to contribute towards solving the over- whelming social, political, economic and ecological problems of the country. Yet, applied Indonesian anthropology less and less reflects Sukarno’s and Soeharto’s rhetoric of nationalisation. In order to fully emancipate Indonesian anthropology from government interests, though, Indonesian anthropologists have to be wary of getting entangled in local politics, sacrificing scientific interests for individual gain, as the recent implementation of the legislation on decentralisation and regional autonomy has empowered the local governments, resulting in the estab- lishment of new and powerful local bureaucracies and elites ready to pursue their own agenda. Coming from a country with an unfortunate history of totalitarian regimes, in which science was blatantly instrumentalised for political ends, I have academic- ally positioned myself in a paradigm geared to deconstruct entangled ‘logics’ of politics and hermeneutics, knowing, however, that power and knowledge are inherently related categories of social action. Being interested in the chances for emancipatory thinking in the social sciences in general as well as in future co-operation with Indonesian colleagues, I am of course interested in the chances for emancipatory thinking in Indonesian anthropology. This interest necessitates – for me at least – reflecting on the historical development of Indonesian anthropology since Independence. Since Indonesian anthropology has indeed mostly been ‘applied anthropology’, which has had a considerable impact on the socio-cultural development of vari- ous segments of Indonesian society, reflecting upon the development of anthro- pology in Indonesia can effect a better understanding of the development of Indonesian society, in general, and the nationalisation process, in particular. While elaborating some of the points, Michael Prager has already briefly addressed in his contribution, I will particularly focus on the development of Indonesian anthropology from the beginning of Soeharto’s ‘new order’ government until now. Imagining a nation12 It is a well-known strategy of the political elite of a multi-ethnic country like Indonesia to ‘imagine’ a common culture by rediscovering a common past of the various local traditions with the help of history, anthropology, ethnography and folklore studies, respectively.13 The history of these interrelated disciplines has often intersected with the nationalisation process in various geographic areas 204 Martin Ramstedt of the globe. In Indonesia, however, the contribution of the humanities to the development of a national culture has been very explicit due to the fact that ‘building the Indonesian nation’ on the fundament of 931 different local tradi- tions14 has been a somewhat Sisyphean task in the face of continuous