The Discursive Identity of Young Indonesian Muslims Wardana)
Th e D iscu r sive I de n t it y of You n g I n don e sia n M u slim s:
I slam and I ndonesian Nat ionalism
Amika Wardana (a.wardana@uny.ac.id)
Abst ract
The art icle is a research proposal which is designed t o exam ine t he
const ruct ion of discursive ident it y of young I ndonesian Muslim s. I t m ust be
em phasised t hat t he ident it y is form at t ed by t he int erplayed discourse of
I slam as dom inat ed by t he st at e- backed inst it ut ions’ perspect ives as well as
t he diverse Muslim organisat ions’ and sect s’ opinions. I n addit ion, t he ident it y
is also cont est ed vis- a- vis t he const ruct ion of I ndonesian nat ionalism . To
becom e Muslim as well as I ndonesian, in som e, is a very com plicat ed
definit ion. The form at ion of t he Republic of I ndonesia as a secular st at e
challenges t he est ablishm ent of t he Muslim ident it y.
Furt herm ore, t he art icle is st ressed on t he diverse Muslim s cat egories
on t he basis of t heir social, cult ural and polit ical posit ions, experience and
capabilit y t o exercise t he st at e and religious aut horit ies. These differences are
shaped by in- equal degree of I slam ic knowledge and t he affiliat ion and t he
non- affiliat ion t o part icular Muslim organisat ions, sect s or I slam ic polit ical
part ies. Am ong t he I ndonesian Muslim yout hs, t he differences are
experienced by t he diverse educat ion background part icularly on t he basis of
I slam ic t eachings and pract ices t hey received.
Last ly, I propose t o adopt t he Gram m ar of I dent it y from Gerd
Baum ann as a st ruct ural approach in analysing t he ident it y const ruct ion. Two
t ypes of gram m ar, religious and public/ polit ical segm ent ary/ encom passm ent
gram m ars are designed t o exam ine t his discursive form at ion. To build t he
gram m ars, I use a m odified Muslim classificat ion from Geert z ( Sant ri,
Abangan dan Priyayi) and Kurzm an ( Revivalist , Liberalist and Cust om ary) .
Alt ernat ively, I suppose t o adopt t he inclusivist - exclusivist cat egory from
Fat im ah Husein in delineat e t he recent configurat ion of I ndonesian Muslim s.
Keywords: I ndonesian Muslim s, Muslim I dent it ies, I ndonesian Nat ionalism
I ndon e sia n M u slim s: A H ist or ica l I n t r oduct ion
I ndonesia is t he world's m ost populous Muslim - m aj orit y nat ion. The Cent ral
Bureau of St at ist ics ( BPS- St at ist ics I ndonesia) st at ed t hat 86% of t he I ndonesian
populat ion of 206,264,595 was declared as Muslim according t o t he 2000 Census.
However, Muslim diversit y in I ndonesia is qualit at ively unique. Alt hough regarded
as I ndonesia’s m ain religion and em braced by t he m aj orit y across t he count ry,
I slam is not t he principle of t he st at e. I n ot her words, I ndonesia is not an I slam ic
st at e. The st at e was founded and is governed based on secular principles. I slam
plays a m ore effect ive role wit hin com m unit ies as a way of life t hat is apparent ly
separat ed from t he st at e. Mehm et ( 1990: 20- 21) uses t he t erm ‘I slam ic periphery’
in a geographic sense as well as an et hnographic sense t o describe t he nat ure of
I ndonesian Muslim s. As I ndonesia is geographically sit uat ed far away from t he
*The author is a Lecturer in Sociology at Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia.
He can be reached via a.wardana@uny.ac.id.
1 | P a g e
I slam ic heart land of t he Arabs, I ndonesian Muslim s have, for cent uries, undergone
assim ilat ion and accult urat ion wit h various cult ures, beliefs, and ideologies. I t is
t his sit uat ion which m akes I ndonesia so different and dist inct from all ot her
Muslim count ries in t he world ( Bowen, 2003; Hefner, 2000) .
The relat ionship bet ween I ndonesia and I slam has fluct uat ed over t he
years. Boland ( 1982) describes t he rise and fall as a process of st ruggling for
exist ence and influence in m odern I ndonesia. The form ulat ion of t he I ndonesian
st at e, including t he nat ional principles and t he st at e m odel, could be seen as t he
result of negot iat ion bet ween Muslim s and non- I slam ic com m unit ies or bet ween
Muslim leaders and Nat ionalist s; t he lat t er being secular in t his count ry. The
com prom ise t hat was reached indicat es t hat I ndonesia holds various ideologies
and religious beliefs t hat are basically ant agonist ic ( Ram age, 1995) . The count ry’s
first president , Soekarno, had t ried t o creat e a harm onious ‘big t ent ’ for various
Muslim com m unit ies, secular nat ionalist groups including non- Muslim adherent s,
t he com m unist part y and soldiers ( Schwarz, 1994) . His experim ent failed aft er
several polit ical upheavals including t he rise of t he I ndonesian I slam ic st at e
m ovem ent , Daarul I slam . Throughout t he islands t hese upheavals occurred as a
react ion t o t he ineffect iveness of Soekarno’s governm ent ( Boland, 1982) and t he
exclusion from t he I ndonesian polit ical syst em of Masyum i, which was t he biggest
Muslim part y in 1950s- 1960s ( Hefner, 2000) . During t he ‘New Order’ under
Soehart o’s regim e, I slam did not play a cent ral role in t he I ndonesian polit ical
syst em despit e rem aining t he nat ion’s leading religion ( Schwarz, 1994) . Aft er
Soehart o’s regim e collapsed in 1998 t he sit uat ion changed dram at ically. Muslim s
had m ore opport unit ies t o ent er polit ics, including t he est ablishm ent of I slam ic
part ies and t he prom ot ion of I slam ic values in t he rules of t he st at e.
Nevert heless, t he t erm ‘secular st at e’ m ight be wrong and m isunderst ood
as a descript ion of I ndonesia. Ant hony John point ed out t hat t he t erm was a
‘religious st at e philosophy’ ( see Schwarz, 1994) . This m eans t hat alt hough
I ndonesia was declared as a non- I slam ic st at e, I slam , being adhered t o by t he
m aj orit y, influences not only all aspect s of everyday life but also t he
adm inist rat ion of t he St at e. To t his ext ent , int erpenet rat ed relat ionships bet ween
I slam and t he st at e ( Ram age, 1995) m ust be highlight ed. I n ot her words, not only
do I slam ic values cont ribut e highly t o t he Governm ent ’s policies but t he st at e also
plays a significant role in shaping Muslim s’ beliefs and pract ices.
Furt herm ore, t he I ndonesian polit ical landscapes are crowded by diverse
I slam ic part ies as well as diverse I slam ic organisat ions. Bot h part ies and
organisat ions have played a prom inent role in prom ot ing I slam ic values and
pract ices over t he societ y as well as t he running of t he st at e. Yet t he foundat ion of
t wo Muslim - like governm ent or governm ent - backed bodies indicat es how t he
St at e also shapes Muslim s’ pract ices. One such body is The Minist ry of Religious
Affairs, which is dom inat ed by Muslim officials and part icularly serves Muslim s’
religious affairs such as haj j pilgrim ages and m arriages; t he ot her is Maj elis Ulam a
I ndonesia ( MUI ) , t he Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics. Founded in 1975 ( see
2 | P a g e
MUI , 2007) MUI is backed and financed by t he Governm ent and has t he religious
aut horit y t o issue fat wa or I slam ic legal opinions.
I n societ y, however, I slam ic values are not alone in influencing and shaping
t he cult ural and social norm s. I slam ic syncret ism , which blends I slam wit h ot her
religions and local beliefs, is found across t he count ry. Since before t he beginning
of t he m odern era, I ndonesia was t he place in which a variet y of beliefs and ideas
lived, com pet ed and coexist ed ( Hefner,2000) . Buddhism , Hinduism , Anim ism and
t he Chinese way of life t oget her wit h I slam ic m yst icism were assim ilat ed t o creat e
a new variet y of Muslim com m unit y t hat qualit at ively differs from sim ilar
com m unit ies in t he Middle East . Geert z ( 1964) concluded t hat I slam ent ered
I ndonesia as an already overcrowded religious landscape; it m erely changed t he
Hindu and Buddhist t erm s by subst it ut ing Arabic nam es. However, t here are som e
purit an Muslim s or Sant ri who t ry t o pract ice I slam in it s original form from t he
Arabic cult ures and t hrow out all non- I slam ic influences. The exist ence of t hese
various Muslim cat egories is shaped by differences in t he underst anding and t he
pract ice of I slam in everyday life.
To sum up, t he exist ence and influence of I slam wit hin I ndonesian Muslim s,
part icularly in t he const it ut ion of t heir Muslim ident it y, cannot be analysed solely
on t he basis of t he collect ive or individual int erpret at ions of I slam wit hin
I ndonesians or upon how t hey pract ice it in everyday life. I t m ust also t ake int o
account t he int erplay and int erpenet rat ing power relat ionship bet ween t he st at e
and t he elit es of Muslim clerics t o shape t he m ainst ream of I ndonesian Muslim
discourse. The t wo aut horit ies, t he religious aut horit y as played by individually
Muslim clerics as well as inst it ut ionally by Muslim organisat ions or I slam ic polit ical
part ies and st at e- backed aut horit y by Minist ry of religious affairs and MUI
regularly and accident ally conduct t o m aint ain t he m ainst ream discourse of I slam
in t he count ry.
D e ve lopin g I n don e sia n M u slim I de nt it ie s
Prim arily, t he const ruct ion of ident it y is not only shaped by subj ect s’
int erpret at ions but is also det erm ined by social const raint s and t he act s of power
inequalit ies wit hin t he social w orld. Wit h reference t o Jenkins’ ( 2004: 3- 6)
explanat ion of ident it y as t he finding and elaborat ion of sim ilarit y and difference
or sam eness and differing ( Gingrich 2004: 6) , t here are t wo im port ant st eps in t he
ident ificat ion and ident it y building, ext ernal and int ernal processes labelled as
social cat egorisat ion and group ident ificat ion ( Jenkins, 1997: 80) . Social
cat egorisat ion is relat ed t o act s of ext ernal definit ion, labelling, social
classificat ion, and exclusion by ot hers t hrough t he act of power relat ions w it hin
t he whole of societ y. The int ernal st ep or group ident ificat ion involves t wo
diverged direct ions bet ween defining and const ruct ing t he self or ‘subj ect ificat ion’
and im agining or belonging t o a part icular group. Thus, ident ificat ion is a process
of self- reflect ion by an individual t hrough t he ident ificat ion and elaborat ion of t he
charact erist ics s/ he has; it is also a process of nam ing a part icular and est ablished
3 | P a g e
social ident it y by t he m irroring and adopt ion of t he sam e collect ive awareness
( Mead, 1968 cit ed in Scot t and Marshal, 2005) . I dent it y is enact ed as ways of
seeing and st ruct ures of act ions of individuals and people in t he world ( Karner,
2007: 70) .
As em phasized by St uart Hall ( 1996) , t he const ruct ion of ident it y, t hen, is
highly det erm ined by t he power relat ions and social st ruct ures m anifest ed in
discourses and inst it ut ions. Discourse it self as int roduced by Michel Foucault is
considered as t he flow of knowledge ( Jäger, 2002: 34) which shapes ways of
t hinking and act ing in real life ( Cheek, 2004) . On t he one hand, discourses and
inst it ut ions influence people’s t hought s of t heir ident it y as well as how t o behave
and define t heir posit ion in t he societ y. On t he ot her hand, linguist ic/ discursive
pract ices of ident it y as conduct ed by people are t he basic requirem ent by which
ident it y is t o be const it ut ed in real life.
Thus, t he process of ident ificat ion int errupt s t wo dim ensions - t he individual
m ind in how t o be and how t o act , and t he power relat ion in which s/ he exercises
or is being exercised ( Karner, 2007) . Alt hough ident it y discourse shapes
individuals’ t hought s and behaviours, ident it y requires t he individual’s
linguist ic/ discursive pract ices t o exist . This process indicat es t he dialect ic process
of ident ificat ion bet ween st ruct ures and agency.
To a cert ain degree, ident it y is not a st able ent it y t hat all can sim ply define
and use in everyday life. Jenkins ( 2004: 74- 76) point s out t hat ident it y is
‘becom ing’ and const ruct ed in our upbringings. Sim ilarly, Hall ( 1996) st at es t hat
ident it y is never com plet ed; it is always a process. I dent it y is fluid and
cont inuously reinvent ed, recreat ed and m odified rat her t han j ust discovered and
t hen m aint ained across a period of t im e ( Baum an, 2004) . The next generat ions
are unable t o sust ain t heir ident it y wit hout adopt ing and absorbing bot h values
and m at erials from wider societ y. The discourse of ident it y is not only accept ed
and pract iced as given but also pract iced t hrough adapt at ion and resist ance. The
process of power relat ions which shape discourses develops in t wo ways. I t
influences all part icipant s from t he t op down as w ell as bot t om - up, giving t hem
opport unit y t o resist and finally exercise power, as well as challenging t he
discourse t oo. The linguist ic/ discursive pract ices of ident it y are t he product s of a
syncret ic and hybrid cult ure ( Karner, 2007) where m em bers of a com m unit y live
and int eract wit h each ot her.
The em ergence of Muslim ident it y wit hin I ndonesians could be t raced in t he
colonial period as an opposit ion t oward t he Dut ch colonisers ( Federspiel, 2001) . I n
spit e of represent ing t he m aj orit y populat ion of t he count ry, I ndonesian Muslim s
were const rued by t he foreign rulers as second class cit izens. I n ot her ways, t hey
also const it ut e t heir ident it y by elaborat ing t he sim ilarit ies in religion and origin
including et hnicit y, language and dest iny. I n addit ion, t hey cat egorise and exclude
t he Dut ch as ext ernal part ies. Aft er I ndonesia achieved independence in 1945, t he
Muslim ident it y was t ransform ed int o a new m ilieu in which Muslim s found
t hem selves in t he m aj orit y and felt deserving of t he posit ion of dom inance and
privilege. Muslim ident it y t hen developed in m ore sophist icat ed ways by exercising
4 | P a g e
t he St at e power. How ever, t he process overlapped and int eract ed wit h t he wider
const ruct ion of I ndonesian ident it y which is const it ut ed wit h pluralit y in et hnicit y,
religion and cult ure.
Following t his process, t he est ablishm ent of t he Minist ry of Religious affairs
and Mej elis Ulam a I ndonesia ( MUI or The council of I ndonesian Muslim clerics)
support ed by diverse I slam ic part ies and Muslim organizat ions, dem onst rat es t he
int erpenet rat ion bet w een I slam and t he St at e. I n a nut shell, Sant ris ( Geert z’s
t erm for m ore devout Muslim s) exercise t he st at e power t o est ablish a legalreligious aut horit y over all I ndonesian Muslim s. Moreover, various Muslim
organisat ions dom inat e t he const ruct ion of I ndonesian Muslim s by issuing religious
opinions eit her support ing or challenging t he St at e’s regulat ions. Yet t his
est ablishm ent also m eans t hat t he St at e at t em pt s t o exercise religious aut horit y
in order t o st rengt hen it s dom inat ion and t o cont rol I slam ic beliefs and pract ices.
The collaborat ion bet ween Sant ri and t he St at e plays a prom inent role in
const ruct ing t he discourses of I ndonesian Muslim s.
The rest , being t he m aj orit y of Cust om ary or com m on Muslim s ( Abangan)
exclude t hem , becom ing powerless t o define t heir Muslim ident it y am ong Sant ris
and t he St at e. Their lack of knowledge about I slam put s t hem in t he posit ion of
having t o accept t he discourses of I ndonesian Muslim s. However, following
Jenkins’ and Hall’s concept s of ident it y as a developing yet never- ending process,
I ndonesian Muslim ident it y is not only accept ed and pract ised as it is in
linguist ic/ discursive pract ice; but can also be m odified, added t o, ignored and
resist ed part icularly by Cust om ary Muslim s.
I n analysing t he discursive ident it y am ong t he I ndonesian yout hs, I
propose t o consider t he educat ional backgrounds which are experienced by t he
lat est generat ion. The diverse educat ional experience delineat es t he I slam ic
t eachings t hey receiv e on general weekly basis. These educat ional backgrounds
are ident ified by four different cat egories. First , young Muslim s who st udy at an
I slam ic religious schools or Pesant ren ( I slam ic Boarding Schools) whet her t hey
st at e- adm inist rat ed or privat e, m anaged by a t radit ional adm inist rat ion or a
m odern adm inist rat ion. The next cat egory consist s of yout hs who enrol in st at epublic school. I n t his cont ext , t hey are only given I slam ic religious t eaching for
t wo hours a week by I slam ic t eachers. The t hird cat egory is adolescent s who
spend t heir t im e in a privat e- public school t hat is adm inist rat ed by Muslim
inst it ut ions. I n t hese schools, st udent s are given m ore I slam ic religious t eaching,
but not as m uch as t hose who st udy at I slam ic religious school. The final cat egory
consist s of young Muslim s who st udy at privat e- public school t hat are
adm inist rat ed by non- Muslim organizat ions. Som e schools in t his cat egory provide
I slam ic t eaching for Muslim st udent s but m ost of t hem do not .
Anot her fact or t hat m ust be considered is t heir affiliat ion wit h I slam ic
part ies and organisat ions part icularly which have yout h- wing organisat ions. The
affiliat ion provides prom inent experience for t he yout h bot h t o learn I slam ic
t eachings and pract ices m ore and t o involve in Muslim act ivit ies and com m unit ies.
I n a cert ain degree, t he involvem ent produces self- and collect ive confidence
5 | P a g e
am ong yout h Muslim s t o const it ut e t heir religious ident it y and show it in public
space.
The last , bot h different educat ional experience and t he affiliat ion and nonaffiliat ion t o I slam ic part ies or organisat ions cult urally and pract ically define t heir
Muslim ident it y in everyday life. The sense as a part of I slam ic com m unit y
( um m ah) by and large is influenced by t his definit ion. To som e ext ent , t he
definit ion is eit her fully- or part ly- det erm ined or st and against t he m ainst ream
discourse of I ndonesian I slam as const ruct ed by t he st at e- backed inst it ut ions and
Muslim privat e organisat ions and sect s.
Gr a m m a r of I n don e sia n M uslim s’ I de n t it y
Here, I propose t o use t he st ruct ural approach of t he ‘gram m ars of ident it y’
from Gerd Baum ann ( 2004) t o explore t he configurat ion of t he I ndonesian
Muslim s’ ident it ies. These gram m ars are used t o build a st ruct ural fram ework t o
exam ine t he discursive form at ion of I ndonesian Muslim ident it y before finally
analysing it s pract ice at t he agency level.
Baum ann ( 2004: 19- 26) st at es t hree st ruct ures t hat are elaborat ed from
t hree pieces of work: from Said on Orient alism ; from Evans- Prit chard on t he Nuer
t ribes and from Dum ont on Hom o Hierachicus. On Orient alism , Said explains t he
binary classificat ion bet ween “ we” and “ t hey” as different and cont radict ory; each
elem ent lying in opposit ion and wit h m axim um cont rast . The Nuer t ribal ident it y
was build under t he segm ent ary lineage m odel as a pyram id of ident ificat ion.
Alt hough t he various elem ent s of t he Nuer were const ant ly at war, t hey shared
t he sam e ident it y and st ayed t oget her, part icularly when resist ing t he Brit ish
conqueror. On Hom o Hierarchicus, Dum ont describes t he encom passm ent m odel
which is built by adopt ing or co- opt ing select ed kinds of ot herness. The m odel
underlines t he fact t hat alt hough all elem ent s are different , som e have a bet t er
posit ion and consequent ly have power over t he ot hers. Thus t he ‘superior’
acknowledge t hat t he ot hers are part of t he whole despit e t heir differences; t he
‘inferior’ accept and absorb t he socio- cult ural values of t he superior.
Alt hough Baum ann did not m ent ion any variat ions in his concept s, I
propose t wo com bined st ruct ures, segm ent ary and encom passm ent , wit h which t o
build a st ruct ural fram ework of t he gram m ars of I ndonesian Muslim s’ ident it ies.
Two gram m ars are built , one under religious life and one under public/ polit ical life
where t he ident it ies are different ly cont est ed. The religious gram m ar indicat es t he
dom inat ion of I slam in t he ident it y const ruct ion whereas t he polit ical gram m ar
signifies t he nat ionalist ic world view am ong I ndonesian Muslim s. The t wo
gram m ars cont est I slam and I ndonesian nat ionalism in t he const ruct ion of
I ndonesian Muslim yout hs.
To build t his gram m ar of ident it y, I use t he m odified com binat ion of
Geert z’s ( 1962) and Kurzm an’s ( 1998) classificat ion of Muslim s. Alt hough Geert z’s
classificat ion of Javanese Muslim s has been widely crit icised, he explicat ed t he
genuine et hnographic analysis of Muslim com m unit y in t he count ry. While
6 | P a g e
Kurzm an’s perspect ive which em phasised t he cust om ary Muslim s ( cult urally
Muslim s) illum inat es t he m aj orit y of Muslim s as t he whole. The com binat ion it self
provides t he com parat ive analysis of t he gram m ar.
The first gram m ar is const it ut ed at t he level of religious life by cent ering on
Muslim s com pared wit h ot hers and in a variance relat ionship. I com bine t wo t ypes
of Baum ann’s ‘gram m ars of ident it y’, segm ent at ion and encom passm ent .
Segm ent at ion m eans t hat all part ies are form ally equal, allowing ‘fusion and
fission’ ( Baum ann, 2004: 23) where all part ies share t he sam eness in a higher
level alt hough t hey com pet e wit h each ot her t o reach t he t op. Encom passm ent
works by ‘a hierarchical sub- inclusion of ot hers who are t hought by a higher level
of abst ract ion t o be really ‘part of us’’ ( Baum ann and Gingrich, 2004: x) .
The I ndonesian ident it y is built segm ent arily by bot h I ndonesian Muslim s
and non I ndonesian- Muslim s. They fight each ot her t o dom inat e I ndonesian
cult ure and ident it y. The I ndonesian Muslim s’ ident it y it self is const it ut ed
segm ent arily by Liberalist s, Moderat es and Revivalist s, t hus t hey encom pass
Cust om ary Muslim s or Abangan. These t hree also st ruggle t o represent bot h as
I ndonesian Muslim s, influencing t he charact er of I slam wit hin t his count ry while
also sharing t he ident it y of Sant ris, t he m ore devout Muslim s. Alt hough Cust om ary
Muslim s are inferior, t hey are regarded as part of t he whole I ndonesian Muslim
societ y. This posit ion renders t hem powerless in t he form ulat ion of I ndonesian
Muslim discourse except t o accept and pract ice it in everyday life.
I ndonesian
I ndonesian
Muslim s
Liberalist s
Moderat e
Non I ndonesian
Muslim s
Revivalist s
Cust om ary / Abangan
Figu r e 1 : Th e Re ligiou s Se gm e n t a r y/ En com pa ssm e n t Gr a m m a r in I ndon e sia
The second gram m ar is derived from public/ polit ical life. As in t he case of
t he first gram m ar, I ndonesia is also built segm ent arily by I slam ic and non- I slam ic
orient at ions. While I slam ic orient at ion encom passes bot h I slam ic- Religious and
Nat ionalist - Religious, non- I slam ic encom passes Cust om ary/ Abangan and nonMuslim s/ Cat holics- Christ ians. Bot h I slam ic- Religious and Nat ionalist - Religious
orient at ions are inspired by I slam ic values but differ in t heir im plem ent at ion in
t his count ry. The I slam ic- Religious fact ion int ends t o I slam ise I ndonesia
part icularly by prom ot ing Sharia as t he legal fram ework. The Nat ionalist - Religious
fact ion also int ends t o I slam ise I ndonesia, but rat her t han support ing t he
7 | P a g e
Shariat izat ion program m e t hey want t o prom ot e I slam ic values in playing a m ore
significant role in I ndonesia t han t he m ere presence of I slam ic sym bols and signs.
I n relat ion t o t he first gram m ar, Revivalist s affiliat e t o t he I slam ic- Religious while
Liberalist s and Moderat es prefer t he Nat ionalist - Religious. I n cont rast , non- I slam ic
orient at ions deny all I slam ic orient at ions by arguing t hat I ndonesia is not an
I slam ic st at e. I n Gert z’s t erm s, Cust om ary Muslim s or Abangan bot h Nat ionalist
and Socialist st and t oget her wit h Cat holics, Christ ians, Hindus, Buddhist s and
Anim ist s.
I ndonesian
I slam ic
Non- I slam ic
I slam ic- Religious
Nat ionalist s- Abangan
Nat ionalist - Religious
Socialist s- Abangan
Cat holics/ Christ ians
Figu r e 2 : Th e Pu blic/ Polit ica l Se gm e nt a r y/ En com pa a sm e nt Gr a m m a r in
I n don e sia
As a st ruct ural fram ework, t wo t ypes of ‘gram m ar of ident it y’ are used t o
exam ine t he form at ion of young I ndonesian Muslim s’ ident it ies. The linguist ic/
discursive pract ices of t his ident it y are st im ulat ed in response t o m ainst ream
I ndonesian Muslim discourses. Sim ply speaking, t heir relat ionship t o ot hers, t heir
posit ion in t he configurat ion of I ndonesian Muslim societ y and t heir preferences
for polit ical affiliat ion will be elaborat ed in cont ext as a cont est at ion of t he
discursive form at ion of ident it y.
To conclude, in t alking about t he I ndonesian Muslim s’ at t it udes t oward t he
ot hers, Fat im ah Husein ( 2005) used t wo dichot om ous cat egories: I nclusivist and
Exclusivist as t he basis classificat ion during t he ‘new order’ era. I nclusivist s are
charact erised by t he idea of st at e- religion separat ion while t he Exclusivist s desire
t he unified st at e- religious aut horit y of I ndonesia. I n addit ion, alt hough it was not
quit e explicit , Husein also supposed t he t hird cat egory, non- affiliat ed t ype of
I ndonesian Muslim s. The non- affiliat ed Muslim s represent a large m em ber of t he
com m unit y which do not belong t o part icular Muslim organisat ions, sect s as well
as polit ical part ies. This t ype is not easily com pared t o Cust om ary Muslim s as
underst anding and pract icing hybrid- I slam w it h local cult ure and cust om . The nonaffiliat ed Muslim s are who prefer t o be Muslim independent ly from diverse
religious- polit ical and ideological agenda. I int end t o adopt Husein’s neut ral
classificat ion as t he alt ernat ive t o build t he I ndonesian Muslim s’ gram m ar of
ident it y in t his research. To som e ext ent , t he classificat ion can be expanded by
8 | P a g e
adding power relat ion analysis in how each cat egory exercise bot h religious and
st at e aut horit y t o prom ot e it s dist inct ive definit ion of I slam and I ndonesian
nat ionalism .
Re fe r e n ce s
Anderson, Benedict R. O'G., 1991. I m agined Com m unit ies: Reflect ions on t he Origin
and Spread of Nat ionalism . Rev ed. London: Verso
Bart h, Fredrik., 1969. I nt roduct ion in Bart h, Fredrik., Ed. Et hnic groups and
boundaries. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Baswedan, Anies Rasyid., 2004. Polit ical I slam in I ndonesia: Present and Fut ure
Traj ect ory. Asian Survey ( 44) 5, pp. 669- 690
Baum ann, Gerd., 2004. Gram m ars of I dent it y/ Alt erit y: A St ruct ural Approach. I n
Baum ann, Gerd and Gingrich, Andre. Eds. Gram m ars of I dent it y/ Alt erit y A
st ruct ural Approach. The EASA series. New York ; Oxford : Berghahn Book. p.
18- 50
Baum ann, Gerd and Gingrich, Andre., 2004. Debat ing Gram m ars: Argum ent s and
Prospect . I n Baum ann, Gerd and Gingrich, Andre. Eds. Gram m ars of
I dent it y/ Alt erit y A st ruct ural Approach. The EASA series. New York; Oxford
: Berghahn Book. p. 192- 204.
Boland, B. J., 1982. The st ruggle of I slam in m odern I ndonesia. The Hague: Nij hoff.
Bosm a, Ulbe., 2004. Cit izens of Em pire: Som e Com parat ive Observat ions on t he
Evolut ion of Creole Nat ionalism in Colonial I ndonesia. Com parat ive St udies in
Societ y and Hist ory, 46, p. 656- 681 Cam bridge Universit y Press.
Bowen, John Richard., 2003. I slam , law, and equalit y in I ndonesia: an ant hropology of
public reasoning. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Universit y Press
BPS- I ndonesia ( The Cent ral Bureau of St at ist ics) . BRI EF ANALYSI S of I ndonesian
Populat ion.
[ online]
Available
at :
< URL:
[ Accessed 3rd June
ht t p: / / www.bps.go.id/ sect or/ populat ion/ pop2000.ht m >
2007]
Dhofier, Zam ahsyari. 1980., I slam ic Educat ion and Tradit ional I deology in Java. I n
Fox, Jam es J., Ed. 1980. I ndonesia: t he m aking of a cult ure. Canberra: The
Aust ralian Nat ional Universit y, Research on School of Pacific St udies. P. 263- 272
Effendy, Baht iar. 2003. I slam and t he St at e in I ndonesia. Singapore: I nst it ut e of
Federspiel, Howard M., 2001. I slam and I deology in t he Em erging I ndonesian St at e :
The Persat uan I slam ( Persis) , 1923 t o 1957. Revised ed. Leiden: Brill
Geert z, Clifford., 1964. The religion of Java. Free Press of Glencoe; Collier- Macm illan,
Hall, St uart ., 1996. Who needs ‘I dent it y’? I n Hall, St uart and du Gay, Paul. Eds.
Quest ion of Cult ural I dent it y. London: Sage. P. 1- 17
Hefner, Robert W., 2000. Civil I slam : Muslim s and dem ocrat izat ion in I ndonesia.
Oxford : Pr incet on Universit y Press.
Jacobson, Jessica., 1998. I slam in Transit ion: Religion and I dent it y am ong Brit ish
Pakist ani Yout h. Florence, USA: Raut ledge
Jenkins, Richard., 1997. Ret hinking Et hnicit y: Argum ent s and Explorat ion. London:
Sage.
Jenkins, Richard., 2004. Social I dent it y. 2 nd ed. New York: Rout hledge
9 | P a g e
Karner, Christ ian., 2007. Et hnicit y in Everyday Life. Oxon; New York: Rout ledge.
Kurzm an, Charles., Ed. 1998. Liberal I slam : a source book. New York: Oxford
Universit y Press
Liberal I slam Net work. 2003. About Liberal I slam Net work. [ online] Available at : <
ht t p: / / islam lib.com / en/ about us.php> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
Luckens- Bulls, Ronald., 2005. A Peaceful Jihad: Negot iat ing I dent it y and Modernit y in
Muslim Java. New York: Palgrave
Mehm et , Ozay., 1990. I slam ic ident it y and developm ent : st udies of t he I slam ic
periphery. London: Rout ledge
MUI ( Maj elis Ulam a I ndonesia or The Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics) ., 1981.
Perayaan Nat al bersam a. ( Celebrat ing Christ m as t oget her) . [ online] Available at :
< URL: ht t p: / / www.m ui.or.id/ m ui_in/ fat wa.php?id= 71> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
MUI ( Maj elis Ulam a I ndonesia or The Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics) ., 2005.
Perkawinan Beda Agam a ( I nt er- r eligious Marriage) . [ online] Available at : < URL:
ht t p: / / www.m ui.or.id/ m ui_in/ fat wa.php?id= 135> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
MUI ( Maj elis Ulam a I ndonesia or The Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics) ., 2007.
Sekilas Tent ang Kam i ( At Glance about Us) . [ online] Available at : < URL:
ht t p: / / www.m ui.or.id/ m ui_in/ about .php> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
Muj ani, Saiful and Liddle, William ., 2004. Polit ics, I slam and Public Opinions. Journal of
Dem ocracy,
15
( 1)
[ online] .
Available
at :
< URL:
ht t p: / / m use.j hu.edu/ j ournals/ j our nal_of_dem ocracy/ v015/ 15.1m uj ani.pdf>
[ Accessed 5 t h August 2007]
Noer, Deliar., 1973. The Modernist Muslim Movem ent in I ndonesia, 1900- 1942.
Oxford: Oxford Universit y Press.
Peacock, Jam es L., 1978. Muslim purit ans: Reform ist psychology in Sout heast Asian
I slam . Universit y of California Press.
Pohl, Florian., 2006. I slam ic Educat ion and Civil Societ y: Reflect ions on t he Pesant ren
Tradit ion in Cont em porary I ndonesia. Com parat ive Educat ion Review, 50 ( 3) , p.
389- 409
Ram age, Douglas E., 1995. Polit ics in I ndonesia: dem ocracy, I slam and t he ideology
of t olerance. London: Rout ledge,
Ram bergs, B. and Gj esdal, K., 2005. Herm eneut ics. St anford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
[ online]
Available
at :
< ht t p: / / plat o.st anford.edu/ ent ries/ herm eneut ics/ > [ Accessed 1st Jan 2007]
Ricklefs, M.C. 2001., A Hist ory of Modern I ndonesia since c. 1200. 3 r d ed. Plagrave
MacMillan.
Schwarz, Adam ., 1994. A nat ion in wait ing: I ndonesia in t he 1990s. St . Leonards,
NSW: Allen & Unwin,
Wieringa, Saskia Eleonora. 2005. Com parat ive Perspect ives Sym posium : I slam izat ion
in I ndonesia: Wom en Act ivist s’ Discourses. Signs: Jour nal of Wom en in Cult ure
and Societ y, 32 ( 1) . p. 1- 47.
10 | P a g e
I slam and I ndonesian Nat ionalism
Amika Wardana (a.wardana@uny.ac.id)
Abst ract
The art icle is a research proposal which is designed t o exam ine t he
const ruct ion of discursive ident it y of young I ndonesian Muslim s. I t m ust be
em phasised t hat t he ident it y is form at t ed by t he int erplayed discourse of
I slam as dom inat ed by t he st at e- backed inst it ut ions’ perspect ives as well as
t he diverse Muslim organisat ions’ and sect s’ opinions. I n addit ion, t he ident it y
is also cont est ed vis- a- vis t he const ruct ion of I ndonesian nat ionalism . To
becom e Muslim as well as I ndonesian, in som e, is a very com plicat ed
definit ion. The form at ion of t he Republic of I ndonesia as a secular st at e
challenges t he est ablishm ent of t he Muslim ident it y.
Furt herm ore, t he art icle is st ressed on t he diverse Muslim s cat egories
on t he basis of t heir social, cult ural and polit ical posit ions, experience and
capabilit y t o exercise t he st at e and religious aut horit ies. These differences are
shaped by in- equal degree of I slam ic knowledge and t he affiliat ion and t he
non- affiliat ion t o part icular Muslim organisat ions, sect s or I slam ic polit ical
part ies. Am ong t he I ndonesian Muslim yout hs, t he differences are
experienced by t he diverse educat ion background part icularly on t he basis of
I slam ic t eachings and pract ices t hey received.
Last ly, I propose t o adopt t he Gram m ar of I dent it y from Gerd
Baum ann as a st ruct ural approach in analysing t he ident it y const ruct ion. Two
t ypes of gram m ar, religious and public/ polit ical segm ent ary/ encom passm ent
gram m ars are designed t o exam ine t his discursive form at ion. To build t he
gram m ars, I use a m odified Muslim classificat ion from Geert z ( Sant ri,
Abangan dan Priyayi) and Kurzm an ( Revivalist , Liberalist and Cust om ary) .
Alt ernat ively, I suppose t o adopt t he inclusivist - exclusivist cat egory from
Fat im ah Husein in delineat e t he recent configurat ion of I ndonesian Muslim s.
Keywords: I ndonesian Muslim s, Muslim I dent it ies, I ndonesian Nat ionalism
I ndon e sia n M u slim s: A H ist or ica l I n t r oduct ion
I ndonesia is t he world's m ost populous Muslim - m aj orit y nat ion. The Cent ral
Bureau of St at ist ics ( BPS- St at ist ics I ndonesia) st at ed t hat 86% of t he I ndonesian
populat ion of 206,264,595 was declared as Muslim according t o t he 2000 Census.
However, Muslim diversit y in I ndonesia is qualit at ively unique. Alt hough regarded
as I ndonesia’s m ain religion and em braced by t he m aj orit y across t he count ry,
I slam is not t he principle of t he st at e. I n ot her words, I ndonesia is not an I slam ic
st at e. The st at e was founded and is governed based on secular principles. I slam
plays a m ore effect ive role wit hin com m unit ies as a way of life t hat is apparent ly
separat ed from t he st at e. Mehm et ( 1990: 20- 21) uses t he t erm ‘I slam ic periphery’
in a geographic sense as well as an et hnographic sense t o describe t he nat ure of
I ndonesian Muslim s. As I ndonesia is geographically sit uat ed far away from t he
*The author is a Lecturer in Sociology at Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia.
He can be reached via a.wardana@uny.ac.id.
1 | P a g e
I slam ic heart land of t he Arabs, I ndonesian Muslim s have, for cent uries, undergone
assim ilat ion and accult urat ion wit h various cult ures, beliefs, and ideologies. I t is
t his sit uat ion which m akes I ndonesia so different and dist inct from all ot her
Muslim count ries in t he world ( Bowen, 2003; Hefner, 2000) .
The relat ionship bet ween I ndonesia and I slam has fluct uat ed over t he
years. Boland ( 1982) describes t he rise and fall as a process of st ruggling for
exist ence and influence in m odern I ndonesia. The form ulat ion of t he I ndonesian
st at e, including t he nat ional principles and t he st at e m odel, could be seen as t he
result of negot iat ion bet ween Muslim s and non- I slam ic com m unit ies or bet ween
Muslim leaders and Nat ionalist s; t he lat t er being secular in t his count ry. The
com prom ise t hat was reached indicat es t hat I ndonesia holds various ideologies
and religious beliefs t hat are basically ant agonist ic ( Ram age, 1995) . The count ry’s
first president , Soekarno, had t ried t o creat e a harm onious ‘big t ent ’ for various
Muslim com m unit ies, secular nat ionalist groups including non- Muslim adherent s,
t he com m unist part y and soldiers ( Schwarz, 1994) . His experim ent failed aft er
several polit ical upheavals including t he rise of t he I ndonesian I slam ic st at e
m ovem ent , Daarul I slam . Throughout t he islands t hese upheavals occurred as a
react ion t o t he ineffect iveness of Soekarno’s governm ent ( Boland, 1982) and t he
exclusion from t he I ndonesian polit ical syst em of Masyum i, which was t he biggest
Muslim part y in 1950s- 1960s ( Hefner, 2000) . During t he ‘New Order’ under
Soehart o’s regim e, I slam did not play a cent ral role in t he I ndonesian polit ical
syst em despit e rem aining t he nat ion’s leading religion ( Schwarz, 1994) . Aft er
Soehart o’s regim e collapsed in 1998 t he sit uat ion changed dram at ically. Muslim s
had m ore opport unit ies t o ent er polit ics, including t he est ablishm ent of I slam ic
part ies and t he prom ot ion of I slam ic values in t he rules of t he st at e.
Nevert heless, t he t erm ‘secular st at e’ m ight be wrong and m isunderst ood
as a descript ion of I ndonesia. Ant hony John point ed out t hat t he t erm was a
‘religious st at e philosophy’ ( see Schwarz, 1994) . This m eans t hat alt hough
I ndonesia was declared as a non- I slam ic st at e, I slam , being adhered t o by t he
m aj orit y, influences not only all aspect s of everyday life but also t he
adm inist rat ion of t he St at e. To t his ext ent , int erpenet rat ed relat ionships bet ween
I slam and t he st at e ( Ram age, 1995) m ust be highlight ed. I n ot her words, not only
do I slam ic values cont ribut e highly t o t he Governm ent ’s policies but t he st at e also
plays a significant role in shaping Muslim s’ beliefs and pract ices.
Furt herm ore, t he I ndonesian polit ical landscapes are crowded by diverse
I slam ic part ies as well as diverse I slam ic organisat ions. Bot h part ies and
organisat ions have played a prom inent role in prom ot ing I slam ic values and
pract ices over t he societ y as well as t he running of t he st at e. Yet t he foundat ion of
t wo Muslim - like governm ent or governm ent - backed bodies indicat es how t he
St at e also shapes Muslim s’ pract ices. One such body is The Minist ry of Religious
Affairs, which is dom inat ed by Muslim officials and part icularly serves Muslim s’
religious affairs such as haj j pilgrim ages and m arriages; t he ot her is Maj elis Ulam a
I ndonesia ( MUI ) , t he Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics. Founded in 1975 ( see
2 | P a g e
MUI , 2007) MUI is backed and financed by t he Governm ent and has t he religious
aut horit y t o issue fat wa or I slam ic legal opinions.
I n societ y, however, I slam ic values are not alone in influencing and shaping
t he cult ural and social norm s. I slam ic syncret ism , which blends I slam wit h ot her
religions and local beliefs, is found across t he count ry. Since before t he beginning
of t he m odern era, I ndonesia was t he place in which a variet y of beliefs and ideas
lived, com pet ed and coexist ed ( Hefner,2000) . Buddhism , Hinduism , Anim ism and
t he Chinese way of life t oget her wit h I slam ic m yst icism were assim ilat ed t o creat e
a new variet y of Muslim com m unit y t hat qualit at ively differs from sim ilar
com m unit ies in t he Middle East . Geert z ( 1964) concluded t hat I slam ent ered
I ndonesia as an already overcrowded religious landscape; it m erely changed t he
Hindu and Buddhist t erm s by subst it ut ing Arabic nam es. However, t here are som e
purit an Muslim s or Sant ri who t ry t o pract ice I slam in it s original form from t he
Arabic cult ures and t hrow out all non- I slam ic influences. The exist ence of t hese
various Muslim cat egories is shaped by differences in t he underst anding and t he
pract ice of I slam in everyday life.
To sum up, t he exist ence and influence of I slam wit hin I ndonesian Muslim s,
part icularly in t he const it ut ion of t heir Muslim ident it y, cannot be analysed solely
on t he basis of t he collect ive or individual int erpret at ions of I slam wit hin
I ndonesians or upon how t hey pract ice it in everyday life. I t m ust also t ake int o
account t he int erplay and int erpenet rat ing power relat ionship bet ween t he st at e
and t he elit es of Muslim clerics t o shape t he m ainst ream of I ndonesian Muslim
discourse. The t wo aut horit ies, t he religious aut horit y as played by individually
Muslim clerics as well as inst it ut ionally by Muslim organisat ions or I slam ic polit ical
part ies and st at e- backed aut horit y by Minist ry of religious affairs and MUI
regularly and accident ally conduct t o m aint ain t he m ainst ream discourse of I slam
in t he count ry.
D e ve lopin g I n don e sia n M u slim I de nt it ie s
Prim arily, t he const ruct ion of ident it y is not only shaped by subj ect s’
int erpret at ions but is also det erm ined by social const raint s and t he act s of power
inequalit ies wit hin t he social w orld. Wit h reference t o Jenkins’ ( 2004: 3- 6)
explanat ion of ident it y as t he finding and elaborat ion of sim ilarit y and difference
or sam eness and differing ( Gingrich 2004: 6) , t here are t wo im port ant st eps in t he
ident ificat ion and ident it y building, ext ernal and int ernal processes labelled as
social cat egorisat ion and group ident ificat ion ( Jenkins, 1997: 80) . Social
cat egorisat ion is relat ed t o act s of ext ernal definit ion, labelling, social
classificat ion, and exclusion by ot hers t hrough t he act of power relat ions w it hin
t he whole of societ y. The int ernal st ep or group ident ificat ion involves t wo
diverged direct ions bet ween defining and const ruct ing t he self or ‘subj ect ificat ion’
and im agining or belonging t o a part icular group. Thus, ident ificat ion is a process
of self- reflect ion by an individual t hrough t he ident ificat ion and elaborat ion of t he
charact erist ics s/ he has; it is also a process of nam ing a part icular and est ablished
3 | P a g e
social ident it y by t he m irroring and adopt ion of t he sam e collect ive awareness
( Mead, 1968 cit ed in Scot t and Marshal, 2005) . I dent it y is enact ed as ways of
seeing and st ruct ures of act ions of individuals and people in t he world ( Karner,
2007: 70) .
As em phasized by St uart Hall ( 1996) , t he const ruct ion of ident it y, t hen, is
highly det erm ined by t he power relat ions and social st ruct ures m anifest ed in
discourses and inst it ut ions. Discourse it self as int roduced by Michel Foucault is
considered as t he flow of knowledge ( Jäger, 2002: 34) which shapes ways of
t hinking and act ing in real life ( Cheek, 2004) . On t he one hand, discourses and
inst it ut ions influence people’s t hought s of t heir ident it y as well as how t o behave
and define t heir posit ion in t he societ y. On t he ot her hand, linguist ic/ discursive
pract ices of ident it y as conduct ed by people are t he basic requirem ent by which
ident it y is t o be const it ut ed in real life.
Thus, t he process of ident ificat ion int errupt s t wo dim ensions - t he individual
m ind in how t o be and how t o act , and t he power relat ion in which s/ he exercises
or is being exercised ( Karner, 2007) . Alt hough ident it y discourse shapes
individuals’ t hought s and behaviours, ident it y requires t he individual’s
linguist ic/ discursive pract ices t o exist . This process indicat es t he dialect ic process
of ident ificat ion bet ween st ruct ures and agency.
To a cert ain degree, ident it y is not a st able ent it y t hat all can sim ply define
and use in everyday life. Jenkins ( 2004: 74- 76) point s out t hat ident it y is
‘becom ing’ and const ruct ed in our upbringings. Sim ilarly, Hall ( 1996) st at es t hat
ident it y is never com plet ed; it is always a process. I dent it y is fluid and
cont inuously reinvent ed, recreat ed and m odified rat her t han j ust discovered and
t hen m aint ained across a period of t im e ( Baum an, 2004) . The next generat ions
are unable t o sust ain t heir ident it y wit hout adopt ing and absorbing bot h values
and m at erials from wider societ y. The discourse of ident it y is not only accept ed
and pract iced as given but also pract iced t hrough adapt at ion and resist ance. The
process of power relat ions which shape discourses develops in t wo ways. I t
influences all part icipant s from t he t op down as w ell as bot t om - up, giving t hem
opport unit y t o resist and finally exercise power, as well as challenging t he
discourse t oo. The linguist ic/ discursive pract ices of ident it y are t he product s of a
syncret ic and hybrid cult ure ( Karner, 2007) where m em bers of a com m unit y live
and int eract wit h each ot her.
The em ergence of Muslim ident it y wit hin I ndonesians could be t raced in t he
colonial period as an opposit ion t oward t he Dut ch colonisers ( Federspiel, 2001) . I n
spit e of represent ing t he m aj orit y populat ion of t he count ry, I ndonesian Muslim s
were const rued by t he foreign rulers as second class cit izens. I n ot her ways, t hey
also const it ut e t heir ident it y by elaborat ing t he sim ilarit ies in religion and origin
including et hnicit y, language and dest iny. I n addit ion, t hey cat egorise and exclude
t he Dut ch as ext ernal part ies. Aft er I ndonesia achieved independence in 1945, t he
Muslim ident it y was t ransform ed int o a new m ilieu in which Muslim s found
t hem selves in t he m aj orit y and felt deserving of t he posit ion of dom inance and
privilege. Muslim ident it y t hen developed in m ore sophist icat ed ways by exercising
4 | P a g e
t he St at e power. How ever, t he process overlapped and int eract ed wit h t he wider
const ruct ion of I ndonesian ident it y which is const it ut ed wit h pluralit y in et hnicit y,
religion and cult ure.
Following t his process, t he est ablishm ent of t he Minist ry of Religious affairs
and Mej elis Ulam a I ndonesia ( MUI or The council of I ndonesian Muslim clerics)
support ed by diverse I slam ic part ies and Muslim organizat ions, dem onst rat es t he
int erpenet rat ion bet w een I slam and t he St at e. I n a nut shell, Sant ris ( Geert z’s
t erm for m ore devout Muslim s) exercise t he st at e power t o est ablish a legalreligious aut horit y over all I ndonesian Muslim s. Moreover, various Muslim
organisat ions dom inat e t he const ruct ion of I ndonesian Muslim s by issuing religious
opinions eit her support ing or challenging t he St at e’s regulat ions. Yet t his
est ablishm ent also m eans t hat t he St at e at t em pt s t o exercise religious aut horit y
in order t o st rengt hen it s dom inat ion and t o cont rol I slam ic beliefs and pract ices.
The collaborat ion bet ween Sant ri and t he St at e plays a prom inent role in
const ruct ing t he discourses of I ndonesian Muslim s.
The rest , being t he m aj orit y of Cust om ary or com m on Muslim s ( Abangan)
exclude t hem , becom ing powerless t o define t heir Muslim ident it y am ong Sant ris
and t he St at e. Their lack of knowledge about I slam put s t hem in t he posit ion of
having t o accept t he discourses of I ndonesian Muslim s. However, following
Jenkins’ and Hall’s concept s of ident it y as a developing yet never- ending process,
I ndonesian Muslim ident it y is not only accept ed and pract ised as it is in
linguist ic/ discursive pract ice; but can also be m odified, added t o, ignored and
resist ed part icularly by Cust om ary Muslim s.
I n analysing t he discursive ident it y am ong t he I ndonesian yout hs, I
propose t o consider t he educat ional backgrounds which are experienced by t he
lat est generat ion. The diverse educat ional experience delineat es t he I slam ic
t eachings t hey receiv e on general weekly basis. These educat ional backgrounds
are ident ified by four different cat egories. First , young Muslim s who st udy at an
I slam ic religious schools or Pesant ren ( I slam ic Boarding Schools) whet her t hey
st at e- adm inist rat ed or privat e, m anaged by a t radit ional adm inist rat ion or a
m odern adm inist rat ion. The next cat egory consist s of yout hs who enrol in st at epublic school. I n t his cont ext , t hey are only given I slam ic religious t eaching for
t wo hours a week by I slam ic t eachers. The t hird cat egory is adolescent s who
spend t heir t im e in a privat e- public school t hat is adm inist rat ed by Muslim
inst it ut ions. I n t hese schools, st udent s are given m ore I slam ic religious t eaching,
but not as m uch as t hose who st udy at I slam ic religious school. The final cat egory
consist s of young Muslim s who st udy at privat e- public school t hat are
adm inist rat ed by non- Muslim organizat ions. Som e schools in t his cat egory provide
I slam ic t eaching for Muslim st udent s but m ost of t hem do not .
Anot her fact or t hat m ust be considered is t heir affiliat ion wit h I slam ic
part ies and organisat ions part icularly which have yout h- wing organisat ions. The
affiliat ion provides prom inent experience for t he yout h bot h t o learn I slam ic
t eachings and pract ices m ore and t o involve in Muslim act ivit ies and com m unit ies.
I n a cert ain degree, t he involvem ent produces self- and collect ive confidence
5 | P a g e
am ong yout h Muslim s t o const it ut e t heir religious ident it y and show it in public
space.
The last , bot h different educat ional experience and t he affiliat ion and nonaffiliat ion t o I slam ic part ies or organisat ions cult urally and pract ically define t heir
Muslim ident it y in everyday life. The sense as a part of I slam ic com m unit y
( um m ah) by and large is influenced by t his definit ion. To som e ext ent , t he
definit ion is eit her fully- or part ly- det erm ined or st and against t he m ainst ream
discourse of I ndonesian I slam as const ruct ed by t he st at e- backed inst it ut ions and
Muslim privat e organisat ions and sect s.
Gr a m m a r of I n don e sia n M uslim s’ I de n t it y
Here, I propose t o use t he st ruct ural approach of t he ‘gram m ars of ident it y’
from Gerd Baum ann ( 2004) t o explore t he configurat ion of t he I ndonesian
Muslim s’ ident it ies. These gram m ars are used t o build a st ruct ural fram ework t o
exam ine t he discursive form at ion of I ndonesian Muslim ident it y before finally
analysing it s pract ice at t he agency level.
Baum ann ( 2004: 19- 26) st at es t hree st ruct ures t hat are elaborat ed from
t hree pieces of work: from Said on Orient alism ; from Evans- Prit chard on t he Nuer
t ribes and from Dum ont on Hom o Hierachicus. On Orient alism , Said explains t he
binary classificat ion bet ween “ we” and “ t hey” as different and cont radict ory; each
elem ent lying in opposit ion and wit h m axim um cont rast . The Nuer t ribal ident it y
was build under t he segm ent ary lineage m odel as a pyram id of ident ificat ion.
Alt hough t he various elem ent s of t he Nuer were const ant ly at war, t hey shared
t he sam e ident it y and st ayed t oget her, part icularly when resist ing t he Brit ish
conqueror. On Hom o Hierarchicus, Dum ont describes t he encom passm ent m odel
which is built by adopt ing or co- opt ing select ed kinds of ot herness. The m odel
underlines t he fact t hat alt hough all elem ent s are different , som e have a bet t er
posit ion and consequent ly have power over t he ot hers. Thus t he ‘superior’
acknowledge t hat t he ot hers are part of t he whole despit e t heir differences; t he
‘inferior’ accept and absorb t he socio- cult ural values of t he superior.
Alt hough Baum ann did not m ent ion any variat ions in his concept s, I
propose t wo com bined st ruct ures, segm ent ary and encom passm ent , wit h which t o
build a st ruct ural fram ework of t he gram m ars of I ndonesian Muslim s’ ident it ies.
Two gram m ars are built , one under religious life and one under public/ polit ical life
where t he ident it ies are different ly cont est ed. The religious gram m ar indicat es t he
dom inat ion of I slam in t he ident it y const ruct ion whereas t he polit ical gram m ar
signifies t he nat ionalist ic world view am ong I ndonesian Muslim s. The t wo
gram m ars cont est I slam and I ndonesian nat ionalism in t he const ruct ion of
I ndonesian Muslim yout hs.
To build t his gram m ar of ident it y, I use t he m odified com binat ion of
Geert z’s ( 1962) and Kurzm an’s ( 1998) classificat ion of Muslim s. Alt hough Geert z’s
classificat ion of Javanese Muslim s has been widely crit icised, he explicat ed t he
genuine et hnographic analysis of Muslim com m unit y in t he count ry. While
6 | P a g e
Kurzm an’s perspect ive which em phasised t he cust om ary Muslim s ( cult urally
Muslim s) illum inat es t he m aj orit y of Muslim s as t he whole. The com binat ion it self
provides t he com parat ive analysis of t he gram m ar.
The first gram m ar is const it ut ed at t he level of religious life by cent ering on
Muslim s com pared wit h ot hers and in a variance relat ionship. I com bine t wo t ypes
of Baum ann’s ‘gram m ars of ident it y’, segm ent at ion and encom passm ent .
Segm ent at ion m eans t hat all part ies are form ally equal, allowing ‘fusion and
fission’ ( Baum ann, 2004: 23) where all part ies share t he sam eness in a higher
level alt hough t hey com pet e wit h each ot her t o reach t he t op. Encom passm ent
works by ‘a hierarchical sub- inclusion of ot hers who are t hought by a higher level
of abst ract ion t o be really ‘part of us’’ ( Baum ann and Gingrich, 2004: x) .
The I ndonesian ident it y is built segm ent arily by bot h I ndonesian Muslim s
and non I ndonesian- Muslim s. They fight each ot her t o dom inat e I ndonesian
cult ure and ident it y. The I ndonesian Muslim s’ ident it y it self is const it ut ed
segm ent arily by Liberalist s, Moderat es and Revivalist s, t hus t hey encom pass
Cust om ary Muslim s or Abangan. These t hree also st ruggle t o represent bot h as
I ndonesian Muslim s, influencing t he charact er of I slam wit hin t his count ry while
also sharing t he ident it y of Sant ris, t he m ore devout Muslim s. Alt hough Cust om ary
Muslim s are inferior, t hey are regarded as part of t he whole I ndonesian Muslim
societ y. This posit ion renders t hem powerless in t he form ulat ion of I ndonesian
Muslim discourse except t o accept and pract ice it in everyday life.
I ndonesian
I ndonesian
Muslim s
Liberalist s
Moderat e
Non I ndonesian
Muslim s
Revivalist s
Cust om ary / Abangan
Figu r e 1 : Th e Re ligiou s Se gm e n t a r y/ En com pa ssm e n t Gr a m m a r in I ndon e sia
The second gram m ar is derived from public/ polit ical life. As in t he case of
t he first gram m ar, I ndonesia is also built segm ent arily by I slam ic and non- I slam ic
orient at ions. While I slam ic orient at ion encom passes bot h I slam ic- Religious and
Nat ionalist - Religious, non- I slam ic encom passes Cust om ary/ Abangan and nonMuslim s/ Cat holics- Christ ians. Bot h I slam ic- Religious and Nat ionalist - Religious
orient at ions are inspired by I slam ic values but differ in t heir im plem ent at ion in
t his count ry. The I slam ic- Religious fact ion int ends t o I slam ise I ndonesia
part icularly by prom ot ing Sharia as t he legal fram ework. The Nat ionalist - Religious
fact ion also int ends t o I slam ise I ndonesia, but rat her t han support ing t he
7 | P a g e
Shariat izat ion program m e t hey want t o prom ot e I slam ic values in playing a m ore
significant role in I ndonesia t han t he m ere presence of I slam ic sym bols and signs.
I n relat ion t o t he first gram m ar, Revivalist s affiliat e t o t he I slam ic- Religious while
Liberalist s and Moderat es prefer t he Nat ionalist - Religious. I n cont rast , non- I slam ic
orient at ions deny all I slam ic orient at ions by arguing t hat I ndonesia is not an
I slam ic st at e. I n Gert z’s t erm s, Cust om ary Muslim s or Abangan bot h Nat ionalist
and Socialist st and t oget her wit h Cat holics, Christ ians, Hindus, Buddhist s and
Anim ist s.
I ndonesian
I slam ic
Non- I slam ic
I slam ic- Religious
Nat ionalist s- Abangan
Nat ionalist - Religious
Socialist s- Abangan
Cat holics/ Christ ians
Figu r e 2 : Th e Pu blic/ Polit ica l Se gm e nt a r y/ En com pa a sm e nt Gr a m m a r in
I n don e sia
As a st ruct ural fram ework, t wo t ypes of ‘gram m ar of ident it y’ are used t o
exam ine t he form at ion of young I ndonesian Muslim s’ ident it ies. The linguist ic/
discursive pract ices of t his ident it y are st im ulat ed in response t o m ainst ream
I ndonesian Muslim discourses. Sim ply speaking, t heir relat ionship t o ot hers, t heir
posit ion in t he configurat ion of I ndonesian Muslim societ y and t heir preferences
for polit ical affiliat ion will be elaborat ed in cont ext as a cont est at ion of t he
discursive form at ion of ident it y.
To conclude, in t alking about t he I ndonesian Muslim s’ at t it udes t oward t he
ot hers, Fat im ah Husein ( 2005) used t wo dichot om ous cat egories: I nclusivist and
Exclusivist as t he basis classificat ion during t he ‘new order’ era. I nclusivist s are
charact erised by t he idea of st at e- religion separat ion while t he Exclusivist s desire
t he unified st at e- religious aut horit y of I ndonesia. I n addit ion, alt hough it was not
quit e explicit , Husein also supposed t he t hird cat egory, non- affiliat ed t ype of
I ndonesian Muslim s. The non- affiliat ed Muslim s represent a large m em ber of t he
com m unit y which do not belong t o part icular Muslim organisat ions, sect s as well
as polit ical part ies. This t ype is not easily com pared t o Cust om ary Muslim s as
underst anding and pract icing hybrid- I slam w it h local cult ure and cust om . The nonaffiliat ed Muslim s are who prefer t o be Muslim independent ly from diverse
religious- polit ical and ideological agenda. I int end t o adopt Husein’s neut ral
classificat ion as t he alt ernat ive t o build t he I ndonesian Muslim s’ gram m ar of
ident it y in t his research. To som e ext ent , t he classificat ion can be expanded by
8 | P a g e
adding power relat ion analysis in how each cat egory exercise bot h religious and
st at e aut horit y t o prom ot e it s dist inct ive definit ion of I slam and I ndonesian
nat ionalism .
Re fe r e n ce s
Anderson, Benedict R. O'G., 1991. I m agined Com m unit ies: Reflect ions on t he Origin
and Spread of Nat ionalism . Rev ed. London: Verso
Bart h, Fredrik., 1969. I nt roduct ion in Bart h, Fredrik., Ed. Et hnic groups and
boundaries. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Baswedan, Anies Rasyid., 2004. Polit ical I slam in I ndonesia: Present and Fut ure
Traj ect ory. Asian Survey ( 44) 5, pp. 669- 690
Baum ann, Gerd., 2004. Gram m ars of I dent it y/ Alt erit y: A St ruct ural Approach. I n
Baum ann, Gerd and Gingrich, Andre. Eds. Gram m ars of I dent it y/ Alt erit y A
st ruct ural Approach. The EASA series. New York ; Oxford : Berghahn Book. p.
18- 50
Baum ann, Gerd and Gingrich, Andre., 2004. Debat ing Gram m ars: Argum ent s and
Prospect . I n Baum ann, Gerd and Gingrich, Andre. Eds. Gram m ars of
I dent it y/ Alt erit y A st ruct ural Approach. The EASA series. New York; Oxford
: Berghahn Book. p. 192- 204.
Boland, B. J., 1982. The st ruggle of I slam in m odern I ndonesia. The Hague: Nij hoff.
Bosm a, Ulbe., 2004. Cit izens of Em pire: Som e Com parat ive Observat ions on t he
Evolut ion of Creole Nat ionalism in Colonial I ndonesia. Com parat ive St udies in
Societ y and Hist ory, 46, p. 656- 681 Cam bridge Universit y Press.
Bowen, John Richard., 2003. I slam , law, and equalit y in I ndonesia: an ant hropology of
public reasoning. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Universit y Press
BPS- I ndonesia ( The Cent ral Bureau of St at ist ics) . BRI EF ANALYSI S of I ndonesian
Populat ion.
[ online]
Available
at :
< URL:
[ Accessed 3rd June
ht t p: / / www.bps.go.id/ sect or/ populat ion/ pop2000.ht m >
2007]
Dhofier, Zam ahsyari. 1980., I slam ic Educat ion and Tradit ional I deology in Java. I n
Fox, Jam es J., Ed. 1980. I ndonesia: t he m aking of a cult ure. Canberra: The
Aust ralian Nat ional Universit y, Research on School of Pacific St udies. P. 263- 272
Effendy, Baht iar. 2003. I slam and t he St at e in I ndonesia. Singapore: I nst it ut e of
Federspiel, Howard M., 2001. I slam and I deology in t he Em erging I ndonesian St at e :
The Persat uan I slam ( Persis) , 1923 t o 1957. Revised ed. Leiden: Brill
Geert z, Clifford., 1964. The religion of Java. Free Press of Glencoe; Collier- Macm illan,
Hall, St uart ., 1996. Who needs ‘I dent it y’? I n Hall, St uart and du Gay, Paul. Eds.
Quest ion of Cult ural I dent it y. London: Sage. P. 1- 17
Hefner, Robert W., 2000. Civil I slam : Muslim s and dem ocrat izat ion in I ndonesia.
Oxford : Pr incet on Universit y Press.
Jacobson, Jessica., 1998. I slam in Transit ion: Religion and I dent it y am ong Brit ish
Pakist ani Yout h. Florence, USA: Raut ledge
Jenkins, Richard., 1997. Ret hinking Et hnicit y: Argum ent s and Explorat ion. London:
Sage.
Jenkins, Richard., 2004. Social I dent it y. 2 nd ed. New York: Rout hledge
9 | P a g e
Karner, Christ ian., 2007. Et hnicit y in Everyday Life. Oxon; New York: Rout ledge.
Kurzm an, Charles., Ed. 1998. Liberal I slam : a source book. New York: Oxford
Universit y Press
Liberal I slam Net work. 2003. About Liberal I slam Net work. [ online] Available at : <
ht t p: / / islam lib.com / en/ about us.php> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
Luckens- Bulls, Ronald., 2005. A Peaceful Jihad: Negot iat ing I dent it y and Modernit y in
Muslim Java. New York: Palgrave
Mehm et , Ozay., 1990. I slam ic ident it y and developm ent : st udies of t he I slam ic
periphery. London: Rout ledge
MUI ( Maj elis Ulam a I ndonesia or The Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics) ., 1981.
Perayaan Nat al bersam a. ( Celebrat ing Christ m as t oget her) . [ online] Available at :
< URL: ht t p: / / www.m ui.or.id/ m ui_in/ fat wa.php?id= 71> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
MUI ( Maj elis Ulam a I ndonesia or The Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics) ., 2005.
Perkawinan Beda Agam a ( I nt er- r eligious Marriage) . [ online] Available at : < URL:
ht t p: / / www.m ui.or.id/ m ui_in/ fat wa.php?id= 135> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
MUI ( Maj elis Ulam a I ndonesia or The Council of I ndonesian Muslim Clerics) ., 2007.
Sekilas Tent ang Kam i ( At Glance about Us) . [ online] Available at : < URL:
ht t p: / / www.m ui.or.id/ m ui_in/ about .php> [ Accessed 5 t h June 2007]
Muj ani, Saiful and Liddle, William ., 2004. Polit ics, I slam and Public Opinions. Journal of
Dem ocracy,
15
( 1)
[ online] .
Available
at :
< URL:
ht t p: / / m use.j hu.edu/ j ournals/ j our nal_of_dem ocracy/ v015/ 15.1m uj ani.pdf>
[ Accessed 5 t h August 2007]
Noer, Deliar., 1973. The Modernist Muslim Movem ent in I ndonesia, 1900- 1942.
Oxford: Oxford Universit y Press.
Peacock, Jam es L., 1978. Muslim purit ans: Reform ist psychology in Sout heast Asian
I slam . Universit y of California Press.
Pohl, Florian., 2006. I slam ic Educat ion and Civil Societ y: Reflect ions on t he Pesant ren
Tradit ion in Cont em porary I ndonesia. Com parat ive Educat ion Review, 50 ( 3) , p.
389- 409
Ram age, Douglas E., 1995. Polit ics in I ndonesia: dem ocracy, I slam and t he ideology
of t olerance. London: Rout ledge,
Ram bergs, B. and Gj esdal, K., 2005. Herm eneut ics. St anford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
[ online]
Available
at :
< ht t p: / / plat o.st anford.edu/ ent ries/ herm eneut ics/ > [ Accessed 1st Jan 2007]
Ricklefs, M.C. 2001., A Hist ory of Modern I ndonesia since c. 1200. 3 r d ed. Plagrave
MacMillan.
Schwarz, Adam ., 1994. A nat ion in wait ing: I ndonesia in t he 1990s. St . Leonards,
NSW: Allen & Unwin,
Wieringa, Saskia Eleonora. 2005. Com parat ive Perspect ives Sym posium : I slam izat ion
in I ndonesia: Wom en Act ivist s’ Discourses. Signs: Jour nal of Wom en in Cult ure
and Societ y, 32 ( 1) . p. 1- 47.
10 | P a g e