1 Chapter I Introduction 1.1 Background of the study Literature is often perceived by the critics as the most perfect embodiment of man’s thought over their humanities. Wellek and Warren (1956) show that the representation of life by the author consists of the “natural world and inner or subjective world of the individual (p.94). Through Wellek and Warren’s opinion, we can see the vast region of a man’s life that a literary work could compile. The “natural world”, the surrounding world of the author, would intertwine with the author’s “inner world”, the author’s own world in which the author perceived the world in front of it and construct it in their mind. However, the debate over the relation between the two worlds of the author still persists until today. Below, the opinion of Wellek and Warren (1956) represent the idea that it is the inner world that plays the major part in determining the author’s creativity. On the contrary, Pierre Bourdieu (1995) represents the idea that it is the natural world who determines the author’s creativity. Pierre Bourdieu (qtd. From Dhakidae) interestingly explains his idea on the relation between the author and the reality through the concept of “the genesis of the producer’s habitus”, in which a writer takes his stand, determines his character and in turn, chooses a literary genre, who is considered as the best medium in conveying his thoughts. This habitus, derived from the actual reality, will sustain the author’s creativity, since this habitus is the manifestation of the “conjunction between the author’s experiences and the author’s creativity” (Dhakidae, 1995, p.90). Consecutively, the work of the author would function as a reflection of the society (p.77). Such function cannot be derived perfectly from the kind of literature that merely based on imagination, on the “inner world” of the author as Wellek and Warren (1956) has mentioned before. However, some cases show how the literary work of an author does not automatically correspond to the author’s attitude toward the society. Jean Paul Sartre for instance, his critical attitude toward the society does not determine his literary works to be the medium 2 of his critical attitude. In fact, many of Sartre’s thoughts tampak individualistik [seem to be individualistic] (Kurnia, 2004, p.108). Contrary to Bourdieu, Wellek and Warren (1956), consider a literary work cannot easily be perceived as a reflection of the society, since, first, it will be untrue to acknowledge that an author “expresses the whole of life – or even the whole life at a given time” (p. 95). Such acknowledgement will burden the author. Secondly, Wellek and Warren (1956) believe that the representation of the author’s surroundings in their work is a “result and a cause of artistic value” (p.95) However, the most comprehensive understanding upon the relation between literature and reality comes from Karl Marx (1976), who considers that literature is not a separate and self-enclosed region. Yet, Marx later on never continues his opinion toward literature. It is George Lukacs who makes a prolongation of Marx’s ideas in the field of literature. Lukacs (1997) explains more specifically, that the author’s understanding on reality can only be achieved if the author “recognizes the dialectics of the reality” (p.12). What Lukacs actually means is that the author should the reality around him/her in detail. In biographical story such as Max Havelaar or the Coffee Auctions of a Dutch Trading Company, Multatuli clearly, according to Van Niel (1989), “embellished and interlaced” his story with “good accounts of the sanctimonious Dutch bourgeois merchant class” (p.1) who make a comfortable living upon the misery of the indigenous. According to Wellek and Warren (1956), biography is a study of the man of genius, of his moral, intellectual, and emotional development. Moreover, Williams (1999) points out that while reading the biography of a selected individual, one does not only “see the author’s individual and development but also a more general development” of the author. Thus, through biographical novel, the author directly share the reader his/her subjective thoughts on his/herself and surroundings. Consequently, every literary work cannot be merely seen as a literary work alone, which excludes the sociological and historical background of the author and the author’s surroundings. The elements which gave birth to the Max Havelaar or the Coffee Auctions of a Dutch Trading Company for instance, are 3 not only Multatuli’s confiscation and his contemplation concerning the condition of the indigenous, or his relation with his surroundings, but also the historical circumstances where he lived in. The clear check point which explains the attachment of literary works with reality can be derived from the opinion of Pramoedya Ananta Toer (1995, ¶ 10), a famous Indonesian novelist: That each work of literature is the autobiography of its author at a certain stage and in a certain context. Hence it is also the product of an individual and is individual in character. Presenting it to society is no different from contributing to the collectivity. Also in regard to the relations of power, and to the prevailing standard of culture, the writer's attitude as an individual is disseminated, aware of it or not. It is clearly shown then, that Multatuli has somewhat fulfilled what Pramoedya Ananta Toer (1995) mentioned about the author’s duty, which is “to make an evaluation and reevaluation of the establishment in every walk of life” (1995, ¶ 11). That duty is taken because the author’s concerns are dissatisfied, cornered, and even oppressed by the establishment in effect. As what Multatuli experienced during his stay in Dutch East Indies. He was unable to fight against the injustice toward the indigenous, even in his office as an assistant resident of Lebak. His last efforts of carrying renewal in Dutch East Indies finally find its manifestation in his biographical novel, which contains his ideas and experiences. Such attitude draws my amazement toward Multatuli, which, compared to other authors, not only does he have the quality as an author but he also possesses a great deal of the sense of humanity, which he shares through his work. Also, my amazement is due to his ability in blending his sense of humanity with literary. Had Multatuli not written Max Havelaar or the Coffee Auctions of a Dutch Trading Company, the exploitation toward the indigenous through Cultivation System will be commemorated today only through the work of L. Vitalis in 1851. Vitalis once published a critique toward the forced labor in Dutch East Indies, complete with evidences and statistics. However, the effect of Vitalis’ work was “practically zero” since Vitalis did not have ability to evoke the imagination and 4 consciousness of the reader by utilizing “a brilliant style of language” (lewat gaya bahasa yang menggemparkan) (Hartoko, 1985, p.107). Max Havelaar or the Coffee Auctions of a Dutch Trading Company records Multatuli’s experiences as a young civil servant in the Dutch East Indies. Max Havelaar or the Coffee Auctions of a Dutch Trading Company, also presents the condition of the indigenous’ life under the Cultivation System, which obviously bears a consequence of its recognition in public as a political novel. Since his first post in Natal, in the west coast of Sumatra, he already applied his strong feeling of humanism in his duty. As a result, he was shocked when he encountered extensive barriers which obstructed all his efforts to recover the condition of the indigenous’ life. This barriers came from both his fellow colonial official and, ironically the indigenous’ itself, especially the regents. Multatuli finally came to the conclusion that the only way to help the indigenous and to restore his position in the Dutch colonial official was by publishing the book containing his life and experiences. History shows how Multatuli was quite succeeded in conveying the facts happened in Dutch East Indies to the public of the Netherlands (Van Niel, 1989, p. 28). Multatuli is the pseudonym of Eduard Douwes Dekker. It is taken from Latin, which means: “I have endured much” (Multatuli, 1987, p.1). He was born in Amsterdam, as the son of a Dutch sea captain. Later on, Multatuli studied at the Latin School in Amsterdam, since he was predetermined to become a chaplain, just like his brother Piet, who had served as a chaplain for his whole life (Van den Bergh, 1981, p.1) However, he left his studies after three years and worked in an office and a textile business. By the age of eighteen he went to Dutch East Indies on his father's ship. Multatuli lived nearly 20 years in Dutch Indies, where he held a number of governmental posts at the East Indian Civil Service from 1838 to 1856. Multatuli, reared in the bourgeoisie family, reacted against the oppression of the indigenous of the Dutch East Indies as the bourgeoisie did. Under such circumstance, the bourgeoisie showed their ambiguity; in one hand, they expected their social status remain in its place, yet, in another hand, they also “aspire to be 5 the supreme mediators and mediators of class conflict” (Novack, 1997, p.21) which occurred in the society. This complex situation faced by Multatuli later on developed himself as a distinct individual. Engels argued that human derive their moral ideas “in the last resort from the political relations on which their class position is based” (Novack, 1997, p.4). Therefore, two different individuals from different class positions will develop their own distinct ideas on society, or even contradictory ideas and action.