(not for publication!)
This summer I spent a week with the people of
Mamasa, together with one of the students from our campus. I was there as a
tourist, a teacher and an anthropologist. It is not difficult to explain why I
was there as a tourist. The culture and nature of Mamasa is just beautiful and
the hospitality is beyond Dutch imagination. To explain why I was there as a
teacher is not difficult either. It is nice to know whom you teach. For me it
was revealing to see where at least part of the STT-intim students come from
and hopefully return to as pastors or teachers.
But to explain what I did there as an
anthropologist (in a very modest way though - seven days is really nothing for
a true anthropologist) is a bit more difficult. I didn’t make use of
questionnaires and I left my tape-recorder home. I only walked and I talked.
And I tested some of the theoretical thinking on its usefullness. How does this
work? What is cultural anthropology all about? Good questions! Here I will try
to illuminate a small part of this mysterious discipline. And I also try to
include examples from Mamasa.
But let us first start with… the basics.
Keywords in this discipline are ‘participant
observation’ and ‘culture’. Participant observation is the typical research
method of the anthropologist. Among others this is based on the idea that we,
when asked straightforwardly about our own behaviour, rarely give the right
answers. Because we are not always conscious of what we are doing (and why),
which means that we are not able to tell the truth. And because we might
feel ashamed about what we are doing, which means that we are reluctant to
tell the truth. However, if you as a researcher live with the people (not for
seven days, but for seven months or -even better- for seven years), you will
get information about human behaviour that comes closer to the truth. An
example. In Mamasa I asked, straightforwardly, how mentally or physically
disabled children are regarded by the Mamasa people. I got the answer that they
are regarded as every other child and that parents don’t feel ashamed when they
have a disabled child. But the moment I coincidently met a mentally
disabled child, I was told as a matter of fact that the parents were not
married yet when the mother was expecting this child. It was suggested that the
child got disabled because the parents did something wrong. This ‘matter of
fact’ is as relevant as what they told me ‘officially’. A lot of relevant
information comes unplanned.
Participant observation is the example of qualitive methodology. It doesn’t mean that anthropologists are against quantative methods. On the contrary, it can even be useful to combine both approaches. Information required by quantitive research methods can be double-checked by qualitative research methods and vice versa. But it is qualitative methodology that belongs to the heart of cultural anthopology.
I didn’t know the Mamasa culture and I still
know very little about the Mamasa culture.
But… STT-intim students who plan to do
fieldwork within their own region do know about the culture, because
they have been participating in it for years and years. This means that they
already have an insider’s view (in anthropological terms an ‘emic’ view), which
gives them a tremendous advantage. However, participating is not the same as
observing. Knowing our own culture is only possible if we look at it from a
distance too, from an outsider’s perspective (an ‘etic’ view).
Again, STT-intim have an advantage here.
Because they didn’t stay in their kampong but moved to Makassar. And in
Makassar they get the opportunity to look critically, from a distance at their
respective cultures. Which means that the moment they do fieldwork, they are
also well qualified to observe their culture.
You will understand by now that I terribly envy
the STT-intim students. As a foreigner I will never be able to get a better
‘emic’ view than them. In this respect I can’t compete with them.
But there is also this other keyword,
‘culture’. This concept might help the fieldworker to get a better ‘etic’ view,
to observe from a distance. I will try to explain the way some anthropologists
use the concept ‘culture’ and how we can make use of it. Thank goodness, there
is still a task for me.
What do we think of when hearing the word
‘culture’? Perhaps we think specifically of ‘the culture of the Bataks’ or ‘the
culture of Tana Toraja’. Or we give a definition, which often starts with
‘culture is the whole complex of…’ and ends with a list of elements and
aspects. We also might think of culture in a romantic way: first there was this
harmonious and homogeneous culture and now it is disturbed or destroyed by
modernisation and globalisation. Or in an evolutionist way: there are still
cultures where life is primitive and there are modern cultures, and the
primitive culture will sooner or later be changed into an advanced culture.
Cultural anthropologists have been struggling
with the concept ‘culture’ like this for a hundred years. I am not going to
elaborate on the history of the concept of culture. Far more interesting for me
is to focus on some of the recent thoughts in this field[1].
These recent thoughts are an effort to do justice to the dynamics of reality.
Dichotomies as continuity-change, structure-process, individual-society are
used.
How is reality constructed? This can be
summarized by the following triplet[2]:
(1) culture is made by men,
(2) men are made by culture,
(3) culture leads its own life.
These three aspects, which might look
contradictory, cause the dynamics of reality.
We are not dictated by our culture, but are
able to change it, to ‘externalize’ it (1). For instance the protestant
missionaries who arrived in Mamasa in the 1920’s changed the ‘pagan’ culture.
We are also made by culture, we ‘internalize’
culture, we make it our own (2). For instance eating nasi putih every day,
playing volleyball at the campus or going to the church on Sunday. If you start
eating roti instead or go to the church in a shabby jeans, you are again
‘externalizing’ culture: you change culture, slight though it be.
But to change a culture in the way we want is
not always easy, because culture also leads its own life, is ‘objectified’ and
can be persistent (3). For instance it seems that in spite of Reformasi
ambitions (or our christian values…) Indonesia’s inclination to KKN is going to
last for a long time.
Internalizing and externalizing people are
active in processes in culture, whereas the objectified culture represents
order and system. Culture is both static and dynamic.
If we get an understanding of these static and dynamic processes (how do we make culture, how are we made by culture, how persistent is culture), we might be able to change certain schemes in our life (or society) in a more effective way. We also might be able to understand why certain schemes are difficult to change.
The static and dynamic dimension of culture
could be elaborated by the metaphor of ‘repertoire’. Culture as a repertoire of possibilities and limitations to give
meaning to life. Let’s have a look at the characteristics of a repertoire.
First of all: a repertoire is not all the time
activated. A musician might know many pieces of music but when s/he gives a
concert, s/he only chooses some of these pieces, depending on the
circumstances.
Secondly: a repertoire changes. A musician is
always searching for new pieces of music.
Thirdly: a repertoire might contain
contradictions. A musician might use different styles, stemming from different
times.
The repertoire of a musician is seldom the same and sometimes reflects strange, inconsistent combinations.
The same with our repertoire of possibilities and limitations of meaning-giving. We are not making use of one solid, never changing culture to give meaning to our life, but we make use of various ‘schemes’, various patterns of behaviour, feeling and thinking, sometimes in an inconsistent way. For example: we pray to God to protect our children but at the same time we put strings on their arms or feet to guarantee health and growth. Perhaps we take those strings off for a while (we in-activate this scheme of thinking), for instance after a firm sermon of our pastor, but if our child gets ill all of a sudden, we are inclined to re-activate the scheme and put the strings on again.
How do we activate, in-activate, re-activate
our repertoire? How do we use cultures?
These questions show us the shift in thinking
about culture. Instead of defining culture as a relatively coherent and
consistent system to which all its members are submitted, we focus now more on 1) the capacity of those members to make use
of cultures and 2) the forces that
hinder them from doing so. We are less interested in culture as such
and more interested in its dynamic application by its members. It is useful to
read the books about Budaya Daerah Mamasa, but what is more fascinating is to
see how STT-intim students from Mamasa give meaning to their life, combining
and recombining aspects from various (sub)cultures (GTM, the Adat, modern
Makassar, STT-intim, circle of friends, GMK-I, etc.).
We shouldn’t underestimate this shift in
thinking about culture. I have the impression that it is a better tool to
understand and contribute to the current debates in Indonesia about
globalization, local cultures and civil democratic society. Still the general
opinion is that anthropologists prioritize local culture in their analyses.
That anthropologists look at homogenous, clearly demarcated ethnicities,
undisturbed by migration or other kinds of interchange. I don’t know to what
extent anthropologists really do so, but let us focus on that part of cultural anthropology
that takes as a starting point the capacity of human beings to survive amidst
the dynamics between continuity and change, the local and the global, the
social and the cultural, etc.
In order to understand the way we use culture
or the way we activate, in-activate, re-activate our repertoire, we might
consult the so-called cognitive anthropology, the study on how people organize
their cultural knowledge. I already used the word ‘scheme’ several times, which
in fact comes from the cognitive anthropology[3].
A scheme is described as a minimal script
(or scenario or prototype or model) for
a certain thought, emotion or act of behaviour. This can be anything:
driving a car, a proposal of marriage, an ibadah, shame, honour, a research
proposal, taking an aeroplane, listening to music, using fertilizers, etc. The
script is minimal, which contributes to its flexibility. Some schemes are more
flexible than others. The Mamasa people like to stay in Mamasa and marry
somebody from their own suku bangsa. The Batak people have the same scheme.
Therefore, if a boy from Batak falls in love with a girl from Mamasa and he
wants to marry her, there is a problem. However, I was told in Mamasa that the
scenario of the Bataks is less rigid (I will check that with the Bataks…), so
in the end the boy moves to the suku bangsa of Mamasa.
Our life is full of schemes, which we use in a
more or less conscious way. They help us in the process of meaning making. Because
I know the script of the conversation between a taxidriver and me (‘when did
you arrive in Makassar, where are you coming from, what are you doing here and
how long will you stay’), I understand even a taxidriver who speaks for a great
deal in bahasa Makassar. When I don’t know all the words in a sentence, the
script fills it in. This makes life in a taxi easy. But… hati-hati! It might happen
that a taxidriver is saying something that deviates from the script (for
instance whether I think he is a handsome boy), which I don’t hear because I am
too much relying on the script. In this particular case it means that I am not
going to answer his question, which is perfectly allright. But in case he had
said something interesting I would have missed this too. And that is a pity.
It is the same in other situations. Scripts can
be useful and comforting, but the tricky thing is that we are sometimes so
focussed on our good old schemes that we become blind or deaf to new impulses.
This means for example that a pastor can be too preoccupied with his version of
christianity to hear the controversial voice of his people, or the
controversial voice in the bible, or the controversial voice of his own heart.
Schemes can and sometimes should be changed or replaced. We add to our schemes by being open to the world and to God. Our networks of neurones are therefore changing all the time.
And now comes for me the exciting part: we are
able to consult several schemes at the same time. This means that our thinking
is not like our talking. If we are talking, we express only one thought. If we
express more thoughts, we do this one after the other. But our mind works in a
more complicated way. Every impulse, such as an observation or a thought,
simultaneously activates various meanings and emotions in our mind which in
turn activate other meanings and emotions. We have extensive networks of
association in our mind. These networks are also physically connected in our
brains (sometimes called connections of ‘neurones’ or ‘processors’). To
interpret or clarify a certain situation we consult several schemes. The final
selection of the schemes is determined –in a fraction of a second- by the
context and our inner negotiations (what is the best or most comfortable
combination?). The selection of schemes vary according to the respective
contexts. And this means that our identity may vary in various contexts.
The fact that we are able to activate meanings and emotions in a parallel way, that we are able to have various identities, opens the way to contradictory feelings, inconsistent thoughts and actions. We already saw the example of the strings around the feet of a little child in Mamasa. Another example is also inspired by the Mamasa context: when I am in the church on Sunday morning I think and belief that we are all the same before and in God. But when I am talking with the leading figures of the adat system on the following day, I may well distinguish between people from lower ‘kasta’ and higher ‘kasta’. The respective contexts trigger off different kinds of negotiations which leads to different choices of schemes.
This theory, which is called ‘connectionism’,
suggests a close relationship between the different schemes of thoughts,
emotions and acts of behaviour. Schemes are not to be isolated from each other.
And this excites me also, because it means (if the theory hits the nail on the
head) that we can’t change reality by changing one scheme without considering
the schemes that are connected to it. Processes of change aren’t just rational
processes.
For instance if we want to realize reconciliation, we have to face the acts that took place in the past and the wounds that were caused by those acts, we have to know what thinking and emotions are related to the concept of reconciliation (biblical notions, adat, national culture), we have to think of acts or rituals of reconciliation, etc. We cannot change reality by reflection only. Sometimes schemes are based on such strong emotional experiences that only experiences which are equally strong and dramatic can break the old schemes.
Also social
schemes have to be taken into consideration when talking about processes of
change. Social schemes are more related to relations of power in our society,
cultural schemes have more to do with meaning making.
Whether cultural schemes are easily activitated
or not depends a great deal on social schemes. When the Orde Baru regime
effectively silenced the communists (read: everybody who criticized the Orde
Baru), the cultural schemes to analyse and criticize were not easily activated.
At the moment the Orde Baru officially ends and social schemes change, there is
more room for reflection on political issues and the expression of criticism.
Another example: when the leaders of the Church
effectively marginalized the women, the schemes to theologize in a less biased
way were not easily activated. At the moment the dominance of men was
challenged by the women’s liberation movement, there was more room for critical
reflection. But it is always a matter of weighing the pros and cons: is the
women’s movement strong enough and am I strong enough to counter the dominant
way of theological thinking? If not, I will most probably stick to the old
schemes.
We have seen that in our search for understanding cultures, we might start with the capacity of its ‘agents’ to produce and reproduce cultures. Here we use cultures in plural. Some scholars say that if we like to use the word ‘culture’ in singular, we ‘d better refer to this universal human capacity to produce and reproduce cultures, to make and break schemes. If we start with this capacity and at the same time look at the local, national, international forces (relations of power) that hinder the full use of this capacity, we are better equipped to understand the dynamics of cultures.
Secondly we have seen with the help of the
concept of ‘connectionism’ why our behaviour is not always consistent and
predictable. We combine aspects of the adat, christianity, modernity, depending
on the situation in which we are. Which means that we might have various
identities.
Quantitive research methods like structured
questionnaires might reveal only part of those identities. When I interview
people, they will be inclined to give answers that fit modern, western,
christian (whatever that may be) thinking. Other identities will not be
revealed to me. Therefore the concept of connectionism is also a big plea for
the method of participant observation.
Connectionism explains also why it is difficult
to change reality: everything seems to be interconnected. Transformation
(including education in general) is not just a rational process. Transformation
has also to do with feelings and emotions. We need an integrated approach in
our search for ways to transform. And yes, this also includes prayers.
Transformation in what direction? Which schemes
should be made, which shemes should be maintained, which ones be broken? What
is good, what is wrong? Is it good to combine christian values and KKN? (Don’t say too easily ‘no’!) Is it wrong to
combine schemes of the traditional religion and schemes of the Church? Who
decides what is good or not?
All these questions can not be answered by
social scientists only nor by theologians only. They hit the boundery between
social sciences and theology.
What to do with all this in Mamasa? When
walking and talking in Mamasa I had three questions in mind which are related
to the contextualization of the gospel. 1) Are there examples of a relationship
between the gospel and the Mamasa culture? 2) Are there possibilities to
strengthen this relationship within the Church? 3) Are there possibilities to
improve life in general and if so, what role could the Church play?
Again, it is somewhat ridiculous to answer
these questions after a week’s stay in Mamasa. The only thing I ‘ll do is
trying to give some food for thought.
1) Are
there examples of a relationship between the gospel and the Mamasa culture?
Everywhere in Mamasa and its surroundings the ‘hukum adat’ seems still strong. If I understood correctly, the hukum adat is at certain places combined with christian values. This means that a problem between two people is not only solved by strictly following the rules of the hukum adat (e.g. the offender has to give a pig to the offended), but that attention is paid to a process of reconcilation or mediation between the two parties. When this process of reconciliation is successful, the pig might even be returned. The adat sanctions are still valid, but get a symbolic meaning. Due to this mediation the chance that the same problem will happen again is not as big as when people focus on sanctions only. When people focus on sanctions only (or on sermons only!) old schemes of offences are difficult to break. An integrated approach, i.e. a ritual of reconciliation based on the adat, is perhaps more effective.
My informant told me that combining the hukum
adat and the Ten Commandments is not a problem at all, since they are similar.
To what extent is this true? Is it true that the old and new schemes of
thoughts, acts, emotions are so similar that the new ones can be easily added
to the old ones? Could we find out what specific schemes are involved here?
The informant might be right. But perhaps some
old schemes are taken for granted, leading its own life. It would be
interesting to get this clear.
It would also be interesting to compare the
Mamasa adat schemes with schemes from other areas where tradition meanings are
less similar to christian meanings.
2) Are there possibilities to strengthen the relationship between the gospel and the adat within the Church?
With this question in mind I was looking for
examples of contextualized liturgy. In Mamasa there are many traditional
dances, full of meanings which for sure are linked to the traditional belief. I
wondered to what extent these dances could be performed in the Church, perhaps
with a different meaning. I asked two people. The first one, an old farmer, was
happy to see such a thing happening in the Church. His nephew told me however
that that would not be possible, because dances are ‘kafir’, pagan.
If we like to explore the possibility of
introducing dances in the Church (it is just an example!), we have to take into
account the cultural schemes involved. How are the dances performed, when and
with what meaning? Are some of the meanings related to christian thinking,
celebrating or commemorating? Is it possible to change the dancing schemes into
christian schemes?
Next to the cultural schemes are the social
schemes. Who decides on these issues? The top of the Church? The people? Do the
people of Mamasa get the opportunity to express their thoughts and
emotions?
Of course I don’t have answers to these questions. What seems important to me is that ordinary people in Mamasa should be involved in processes of contextualization as much as possible. For theological reasons (their opinions and emotions are important), but also because we cannot change reality with a top-down approach. Old schemes of thoughts, emotions and acts can be persistent and if not being paid attention, they will lead their own life (outside the Church).
(An issue that is related to this is the concept of syncretism. Who decides what exactly is syncretism? This question has not only to do with cultural schemes, but also with social schemes, i.e. with the issue of power.)
3) Are
there possibilities to improve life in general and if so, what role could the
Church play?
There was one social issue that in particular struck me. It is the issue on handicapped children, which I already mentioned above. I think the Church might play a role here.
As I wrote above, I asked about the way handicapped children in the Mamasa society are received. I asked whether the handicap is somehow related to the will of God (or gods, spirits). I got the answer that they are received as normal children and that there is no direct relationship between the handicap and God, gods or spirits. However, the same person pointed out a couple of days later, when we actually met a little handicapped girl, that the parents were not married yet when the mother got pregnant. It was suggested that this fact caused the handicap of the child.
In order to understand what is going on here we
can make use of the concept of connectionism. When my informant and I were
talking about handicapped people as a theoretical problem, handicaps were
regarded as a medical problem. In another context, when we actually met a
handicapped girl, the handicap was regarded as a moral problem: God (gods or
spirits) regarded the parents as sinful and punished them by making the child
handicapped. Contradictory schemes, used by one person in two different
contexts.
Let us have a closer look at those schemes that
make the parents responsible for the handicap of their child. There is the
scheme of a God (gods, spirits) that punishes humanity by making a child
disabled. And there is the scheme that claims that sex before marriage is
sinful. These schemes seem to be part of an ‘objectified’ (taken-for-granted)
culture. This of course doesn’t mean that we are not responsible for its
persistence. There is always the question: am I going to keep the objectified
culture as it is or am I going to alter, ‘externalize’ it?
The parents of this handicapped child are made responsible for the suffering of their child. In other words, they have to bear the shame of sinners, the guilt of a handicap and the pain of the suffering of their child. This is the effect of objectifying and actively upholding both the scheme of sexual ethics and the scheme of godly punishment. Since these schemes seem to me rude to the parents, I am looking for good reasons to uphold these schemes (apart form a better pastoral approach to those parents). These schemes are by the way also rude to the child. If her handicap is the will of God, gods or spirits, the impetus to seak for help in order to improve her physical and mental conditions might be not too big.
Within the Church we perhaps need to reflect on
the issue of (physical, mental, psychiatric) disabled people, together with
people who have modern medical knowledge about it. Disability is not the result
of God’s punishment. But although most of the people would perhaps agree with
the new scheme that relies on medical sciences, the old schemes are still
leading its own life and damage the life of many families. How to break
effectively this old scheme? Which schemes are connected to it? (We can’t
isolate just one scheme!)
The scheme in the field of sexual ethics is
also leading its own life. It is ‘internalized’ by the members of the Church
and as far as I know never challenged or ‘externalized’. How comes that sex
before marriage is such a big issue in the Church? How comes that this issue
gets more attention than other ‘sins’ (as injustice, collusion or whatever)? Who
decides on the ranking of sins? Do critical people get the opportunity
to raise questions? What are the social schemes related to these cultural
schemes?
I hope that these questions, based on
antropological thinking, show us that in reality we have not only to deal with
the power of the Holy Spirit, but also the power of human beings. That praying
for changes in our lifes should be considered, but also the connections of
neurones in our brains. That ‘christian’ values should never be taken for
granted, because it is by no means clear what exactly is ‘christian’ and
‘non-christian’.
[1] This
elaboration is mainly based on an article by A.F. Droogers, “Cultuur als
repertoire: schema’s maken en breken.”, still to be published.
[2] P.
Berger and Th. Luckmann (1972), “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge.”
[3] For
example N. Quinn dan C. Strauss (1994, 1997)