THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY IN INDONESIA: THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE, STATE FORMATION AND ECONOMIC CHANGE Hanneman Samuel A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Swinburne University of Technology October 1999 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible without the opportunity provided by the Asia Australia Research Centre at Swinburne University of Technology. Prof. Ken Young (the Director of the Centre and co-ordinating supervisor of my thesis) has encouraged me to develop my intellectual interests without losing the bigger picture of Indonesia. He also granted me research assistance. I am also indebted to Associate Prof. Tanya Castleman (the Department of Sociology, Swinburne University of Technology). I would like to thank Prof. T.O.Ihromi, Prof. Roy Ellen, Dr. Paulus Wirutomo, Dr. Robert Lawang, and other teachers who introduced me to the world of sociology in Indonesia. I owe my deepest gratitude to Australian tax payers for granting me a four year AusAid scholarship. I have enjoyed a wonderful and productive time in the ‘OZ life style a la Melbourne’ atmosphere. I wish I could satisfactorily answer their simple, sympathetic and yet realistic question of ‘why does life seem so cheap in Indonesia?’. In fact, I am still in search of the answer myself up to this very moment: ‘how could it be possible for people who have always regarded themselves as civilised to be involved in looting, the use of violence and mass rapes?’. I also wish to express my indebtedness to Dr. Ignas Kleden (SPES), Dr. Kamanto Sunarto (University of Indonesia), Prof. Victor T. King (Hull University), Prof. Herbert Feith (Monash University), Prof. Frans Magnis Suseno (Driyarkara), the late Prof. Willem Wertheim and drs. M.M. Billah, MA for their scholarly insight into Indonesia and Indonesian scholars. Each of them has helped me to clarify my research topic. I owe a special debt to Prof. Selo Soemardjan, Dr. Melly Tan, Prof. Soedjito Sosrodihardjo, Dr. Abi Koesno, Dr. Mochtar Naim, and other Indonesian sociologists. Without their willingness to share their experiences and dreams with me, this study would not have materialised. I wish to thank Dr. Suzanne Siskel (Ford Foundation) and her staff at the Jakarta office, Dr. J. Kristiadi (Centre of Strategic and International Studies), drs. iii Azis Suganda, MA (the Indonesian Institute of Sciences), Antonius Purwanto (Samratulangi University), Th. Sularto (Kompas), Arselan Harahap (LP3ES), Paul Somalinggi (PSH), Akor Tarigan (UGM Press), Dr. Legowo (UI Press) and G. Aris Buntarman (Gramedia), Dr. John Rundell (the University of Melbourne), and Vivi. They have spoilt me with invaluable data. I wish to thank all those friends who, in different ways, have constantly offered me their wonderful friendship, particularly to Dr. Iwan Gardono, Sr. Benedicte CB, Melina Wong, Effi Tomaras, Robbie Peters, drs. Freddy Kirana, MIB, Renni Suzanna, Damayani Tyastianti, and drs. A.H. Kurniawan. I am very much indebted to Anne Loveband for her editorial skill and advice, and Prof. Stephen Mennell (University College Dublin) and Prof. Arief Budiman (the University of Melbourne) for their willingness to spare their invaluable time and expertise to examine my thesis. Last but not least, I thank my parents and sisters for their financial and moral support. I should mention my deep feeling of gratitude to my wife, Siwi, and my daughter for their understanding. I’ve finished typing my thesis and I’m coming home, Chiara. I owe a debt of such magnitude to all of them that acknowledgement seems but a vain and meagre gesture. Needless to say, however, that any shortcomings in the content of this thesis are entirely my responsibility. iv ABSTRACT Although various studies of sociology have been conducted, there has always been an opportunity for ‘invention’, namely, to create a space for further research of the same subject matter. This is the hidden theme of my thesis. And I have treated those previous studies as yardsticks from which to measure aspects of this particular research project, as an opportunity for reflection, and as a rich resource of information. To be more specific, the main subject matter of the present study is the propagation of sociological knowledge by Indonesian scholars. This has necessitated an investigation which distinguishes sociology as a social institution from sociology as scientific knowledge. This has also encouraged me to focus on the relations between the sociology of Indonesia and Indonesian sociologists on the one hand, and the state-society relationship on the other hand. The relation between the state and society in Indonesia has been the ongoing context for sociology in Indonesia and for Indonesian sociologists. Furthermore, I have also paid significant attention to the temporal dimensions of my primary subject matter. The formulation of the aforementioned focus has been inseparable from the use of Elias’ theoretical framework. Elias’ ideas of process sociology, and the relations between conventional philosophical and sociological approaches of the acquisition of scientific knowledge have provided me with an alternative perspective. My research has demonstrated that not only has the birth of the sociology of Indonesia aided the emergence of Indonesian sociologists, but the latter has been conditioned by the former. Furthermore, the current state-society relationship has largely been a result of a long evolutionary process, which can be traced back to the creation of an overdeveloped state and underdeveloped-plural society during the colonial era. Therefore, the struggle of Indonesian sociologists for social recognition as intellectuals has been intertwined with those factors. Within this context, it is true that the development of Indonesian sociology and sociologists have been influenced by their social context, that is, by their political, economic and cultural context. The development of international sociology has also significantly influenced them rather than the other way around. None the less, both sociology and Indonesian sociologists have to a degree influenced their own context. For more than a quarter of a century, Indonesian sociologists have developed their own community within a context of imbalanced power relations between the state and society. And it has also been during this epoch they have taken part in balancing the relation between the state and society in Indonesia. The relation between the state and society in Indonesia has been far from achieving equilibrium up to now. Protection regarding social dynamics has yet to be distinguished from a strong state patronage of society. v The structure of Indonesian society has also undergone a crystallisation process — along with the formation of Indonesians. And Indonesian sociologists have had many tasks associated with actualising those matters. Indonesian sociologists have developed alongside the maturation of Indonesia up to now; and there is no other path for them but to make greater attempts to take part in providing a means of orientation for the future development of Indonesia. Indonesian sociologists cannot solve everything, but they can certainly do better. vi THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY IN INDONESIA: THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE, STATE FORMATION AND ECONOMIC CHANGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii Abstract iv Table of Contents vi CHAPTER I: NORBERT ELIAS’ THEORISING OF SOCIOLOGY PRODUCTION A Introductory remarks 1 B Sociology as a semi-autonomous body of knowledge 5 C The Figurational context of the production of sociology 16 D Positioning Elias’ thought 28 E Concluding remarks 41 CHAPTER II: THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY A Introductory remarks 44 B Research questions and the significance of the study 45 C Research assumptions 59 D The methods of the study 60 E The implications of the research 62 CHAPTER III: INDOLOGY AS COLONIAL SOCIAL SCIENCE A Introductory remarks 65 B Centres for indology under state patronage 68 C Orientalist discourse and colonial scholarship 75 D Indology in the hands of decision-makers 90 E From injustice to the independence of Indonesia 99 F Concluding remarks 108 CHAPTER IV: vii THE SHIFT TO AMERICAN CENTRED SOCIAL SCIENCES: THE FABRICATION OF SOCIOLOGY IN 1945-1965 A Introductory remarks 110 B Parsons: from classical to contemporary sociology 112 C Indonesia from an American point of view 117 D The establishment of the social sciences in Indonesia 146 E Intellectuals under the guided democracy format 152 F Concluding remarks 173 CHAPTER V: FROM POPULIST TO BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITARIAN REGIME A Introductory remarks 176 B The emergence of bureaucratic authoritarianism 177 C The value of the ‘bureaucratic authoritarian regime’ 188 D Concluding remarks 214 CHAPTER VI: THE MAKING OF A SOCIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND THE MAKING OF PANCASILA DEMOCRACY A Introductory remarks 218 B Indonesian sociologists: to serve the state 218 C Institutionalising academic sociology 223 D Political format and a fragile professional identity 232 E Concluding remarks 239 CHAPTER VII: SOCIOLOGICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND THE MAKING OF THE PANCASILA DEMOCRACY A Introductory remarks 241 B Sociology and the Pancasila Democracy format 241 C Indonesian sociologists and the modernisation approach 261 D Sociology and social development in Indonesia 279 E Concluding remarks 288 viii CHAPTER VIII: SOCIOLOGY AND PANCASILA DEMOCRACY-IN-CRISIS A Introductory remarks 291 B The Escalation of the democratisation movement 291 C The poverty of sociology in Indonesia 299 D Concluding remarks 305 CHAPTER IX: