Between conformity and critique Doing so

Between conformity and critique: Doing social science under
Orde Baru

Upon their return from overseas training, most Indonesian social scientists under the New
Order (1965-1998) were preoccupied with helping to create the infrastructure for doing their
work. This is evident in the number of Faculties in Social and Political sciences established in
the 1960s as depicted in the table below. The late arrival of social science and humanities in
Indonesia comes as no surprise as most universities were only established in the 1920s,
comprised of faculties of engineering, medical science and law (LP3ES, 1983:58). As shown
in the table below, Universitas Gadjah Mada was the first university to establish a faculty for
social and political science, in 1955. This was then followed by Universitas Indonesia and
other universities who gradually established their faculties respectively until the 1990.
University

Location

Founded

Origins

Initial

Departments
Sociology
Social Welfare
Political Science

Universitas Gadjah
Mada

Yogyakarta

1955

Faculty of Law and
Faculty of Economics

Universitas
Indonesia

Depok (Jakarta)

1959

Faculty of Law and
Societal Science

Universitas
Hasanuddin

Makassar

1961

Faculty of Public
Administration

Universitas
Mulawarman

Samarinda

1966

Faculty of Public
Administration

Universitas
Diponegoro

Semarang

1969

Faculty of Law

Universitas
Airlangga

Surabaya

1977

Faculty of Social
Science

Sociology

Universitas
Sumatera Utara

Medan

1980

Faculty of Law

State
Administration
Communication

Universitas

Andalas

Padang

1993

Faculty of Letters

Sociology
Anthropology

Communication
Political Science
Public
Administration
Sociology
Public
Administration
Publicistics
Sosiatry

(Sociology +
social welfare)
State
Administration
Government
Communication

Table 1. Initial Faculty of social and political science in Indonesian public universities

The task of setting up the necessary infrastructure for teaching comes with the inevitable
question of constructing an adequate content. With many scholars having only returned from
the US, it is no coincidence that prevailing ideas in American social science were borrowed
by their Indonesian counterparts. An indicative list of Indonesian scholars obtaining their
academic credentials can be seen in the table below.
Name

Depart
ure

University

Major

Degree

Ret
urn

Selo
Soemardjan

1956

Cornell

Sociolog
y

PhD

1959

Koentjaraningrat

1954

Yale

Anthrop
ology

PhD

1956

Soedjatmoko

1960

Cornell

Guest
Lecturer

1962

Harsja Bachtiar

xxx

Mely G Tan

xxx

Soelaeman
Soemardi
Mohammad
Sadli

Cornell,

Harvard
Cornell, UC
Berkeley

xxx

Cornell

1954

MIT

Arief Budiman

xxx

Harvard

Daniel Dhakidae

xxx

Mansour Fakih

1990

Taufik Abdullah
George Junus
Aditjondro
Ignas Kleden

xxx

Cornell
University of
Massachusse
tts
Cornell

xxx

Cornell

Notes

1957 Established
Department of
Anthropology at UI

PhD
PhD
MA
Economi
cs
Sociolog
y

MSc

1956

Phd

1980

PhD

1991

1957 became
director of LPEM

1997 established
Insist
History

Phd

1970

PhD

1992

Table 2. Almamater of early Indonesian social scientists

It is in this formative years where Samuel argues of the major influence of American social
science. This is supposedly especially evident in the hegemony of functionalism, a theory
introduced by Talcott Parsons, who himself only came to prominence in the US by way of
introducing European thoughts (Ritzer, 2011: 210). Parson’s functionalism, Samuel claims,
was well received and adopted by many indonesian scholars trained in the US during the
1960-1970s period.

However, few individuals with a different theoretical leaning have tried to use and provide
different perspectives in understanding Indonesia. This is most evident in the use of critical

theories drawing on the Frankfurt School and in development studies, Dependency Theories.
Early proponents of a more critical approach in social science have found their home in the
works and publications of LP3ES, as well as its their well-respected Prisma journal.
To this point, in a wider public discourse, the intellectual circle had already witnessed other
important debates that impacted the cultural and social realm. The key battles will be
discussed in the sections below.
1. The cultural question: Nationalism vs Westernisation
Prior to the prevalence of ‘modernisation’ and functionalism in social science, the cultural
sphere went through existential questions of what it meant to be Indonesian. The Cultural
Polemic (Polemik Kebudayaan) as it was called (1954), saw an extensive exchange between
Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana (STA) and Sanusi Pane, who alleged the former for being an agent
of westernisation and abandoning Indonesian roots and values in his writings.
Like other common intellectual debates, the dispute remain unsettled but provided a taste of
how narratives were easily framed in a dichotomous, binary manner and had an underlying
message that serving the interests of the nation was supposed to be the true calling of all
intellectuals and theirlike. Polemik Kebudayaan simultaneously portrayed an important selfawareness among intellectuals that would continue to grow as questions regarding their roles
would be brought up in the course of time, only to be halted by a much troubling theme:
ideology.

2. The ideological turn
Preceded by political upheaval and an attempted coup d’etat in 1965, social science found
itself in the midst of an ideological battle. Soeharto’s rise to power in 1966 came with
consequences to the teachings of Marxism. With Marxist thought closely associated with
communism, all literature and Marxism-related material were banned and confiscated. The
repression on Marxist literature deprived students of important subjects in the field of
sociology and also students in Economics, who missed out on critical perspectives regarding
economic development and global capitalism.
In the midst of the anti communist discourse, writers and artists were at the centre of an
ideological debate. As tensions rose, artists had to associate themselves with groups of
opposing spectres. The marxist leaning ones became part of Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat
(LEKRA), whilst supporters of government and modernisation took sides with Manifesto

Kebudayaan (MANIKEBU). The battle highlighted a highly polarised society with
ideological questions spilling over into the realms of social science.
One of the most significant consequence to the field of social sciences is the absence of class
analysis, leaving social research with a static framework that neglects to discuss social
tensions engendered by unequal power relations (Hadiz and Dhakidae, 2005: 168).
Indonesian scholars influenced by Marxism were nonetheless present. If anything, the ban on
Marxism created a myth of the subject that helped to grow the curiosity of students. Scholars
such as George Junus Aditjondro and Arief Sritua would have loyal circle of Marxistenthused students, but are in the eyes of the modernists and government-loyal technocrats
remained as outlaws. Given the death of studies using a Marxian framework, it is no surprise
that one of the first work using a class analysis in the Marxian discourse would only appear in
the late 1980s, namely Richard Robison’s the Rise of Capital (1986) (Hadiz and Dhakidae,
2005: 169).

To find their way around the ban, scholars keen to adapt critical perspectives against
capitalism would strategise by adopting variations of Marxist thoughts without having to
highlight the presence of Marx himself in the readings. This would include adopting a critical
stance towards developmentalism and finding refuge in the concepts of ‘empowerment’ and
‘participation’.
This was an effective strategy used in the works of Daniel Dhakidae (who was Prisma’s Head
of Editorial Board between 1979-1984), Adi Sasono and Sritua Arief (who published
Dependency and Underdevelopment in 1981) and also in the works of other scholars leaning
towards alternative stream of thoughts, such as Mansour Fakih or ‘populist economists’ such
as Mubyarto and Dawam Rahardjo.

3. Between Modernisation, Developmentalism and Critical Social Science
Against the backdrop of the 1965 events and the removal of Marxist literature from the public
domain, modernisation theories gain the upper hand. According to Samuel, the trend in
adopting modernisation perspectives should be seen as a continuation of using dominant
functionalist theories introduced by the returning Indonesian scholars from the late 1950s (see
table). It is a general perception that centrist scholars would employ the modernisation
theories proposed by Parsons and later on Neil Smelser, whilst more critical ones would be in
favour of Marxist theories, with the latter being short in numbers and dominance.

The main period of Orde Baru saw social scientists shaping disciplines that help Indonesian
society to become part of modernizing world. They did so by promoting and applying ideas
of objective science, becoming ‘value-free’ scholars and aiding development agendas with
the use of their scientific methods.
According to Samuel, this prevalence of modernization theories promoted a mutual trust
shared between the modernist social scientist with the state bureaucracy. In his words, this
accorded with their tendency to hold reformist and non-radical attitudes (Samuel, 2007:5). He
continues by stating that scholars provided ‘scientific apology’ for attempts to maintain the
predominance of the state over civil society, providing knowledge for decision makers to
strengthen the state bureaucracy (Samuel, 2007: 2006).
Despite the hegemony of modernists scholars, Orde Baru also witnessed the emergence of
new universities and study groups. A small circle of social scientists at Universitas Kristen
Satya Wacana (UKSW) in Salatiga, Central Java, would play a significant role in adding
variety to the discourse. This small group of intellectuals, most prominently represented by
Arief Budiman, Ariel Heryanto, George Junus Aditjondro, are known for their fondness in
using critical perspectives to contest on going debates on development and democracy.
The discourse on community development builds heavily on critical agrarian studies and
studies on rural sociology or rural development. Here is where the teachings of Prof. Ben
White and the late Prof. Sajogyo are of importance and relevance. The thoughts of Sajogyo in
particular has a lasting impact on theory and method, as he designed an ingenious tool to
measure poverty level in rural areas. Over his career, Sajogyo would prove to be an
exemplary scientist who not only managed to achieve academic reputation but also become
an expert and consultant for various government-led projects, being involved in the large
scale intensification programme of the green revolution (Revolusi Hijau). He embodies the
role of a wise technocrat whilst earning the respect of his fellow scientific peers.
The discourse on rural development itself is one of the key battlefields in indonesia’s
development trajectory. It is in this context where critical epistemology would incrementally
find its way into the practical side of advocacy and community engagement by civil society
organisations. Community development on the other hand, is the counter narrative provided
by mostly international development agencies who still see the state as the sole development
actor by way of increasing (rural) citizen participation in order to counter the perception of
top-down developmentalism.

This is partly what George Junus Aditjondro had in mind when stating the shift of social
sciences from state-oriented to society-oriented (pro-Negara to pro-masyarakat) (1997:41).
He took note of the move away from state-centrism towards a clearer emphasis on the
community and publicness of sociology in particular. This move is not geared by social
scientists only, but is a consequence of the widening influence of non-governmental
organisations and the growing civil society itself.

4. The role of the intellectual and democratisation
When discussing the role of social science in development, Selo Soemardjan emphasised the
importance of objectivity as social scientists are above all, scientists (1983: 50). Yet the role
of scientists as opposed to intellectuals has often been subject of heavy debates among the
Indonesian intellectual circle. One book that was often cited at that particular time is Julien
Benda’s Treason of the Intellectual (1927). The main premises of the book are often referred
to as a reminder to Indonesian intellectuals to stay true and loyal to their calling, that is the
pursuit of truth and to contribute to the fullest to the development of Indonesia. The role of
the scientist in the particular context of New Order creates an inherent tension in juggling
between commitments. Especially during the New Order, social scientists seemingly had to
choose between being within the circle of power or outside of it (LP3ES, 1983).

This goes in line with Samuel’s argument on how institutionalisation of social science was
only made possible by the obedience of its scholars towards the state. The emphasis of then
social scientists was directed towards fostering a ‘harmonious society’, conditions to be
created through planned intervention (Samuel, 2007: 10).

Scholars had to adopt a co-

operative attitude and go along with prescriptive orders, most visible in avoiding theories
with ideological baggage, best exemplified by Marxism. According to Samuel, Soeharto was
always happy having to work with scientists who were ‘optimistic, pragmatic and supportive
of the state bureaucracy’ (Samuel, 2007:9).

Ariel Heryanto reiterated this technocratic duty by citing Ruth mcVey in the wider context of
Southeast Asia: “The main task of scholarship is to fill in the blanks rather than to test the
framework.” (Hadiz and Dhakidae, 2005:68). This was the reason why “many of the best
Southeast Asian scholarly minds have found a purely academic life stultifying and/or
repressive, and have turned their energies instead to politics, administration, or other non-

research activities” she added (Hadiz and Dhakidae, 2005:68). A similar observation was
made by Michael Morfit who was also cited by Ariel Heryanto (1981): “Until 1971, almost
every ministry established a research and development section to carry out what was referred
to as policy oriented research”.

For all of the ‘conformity and compliance’ of social scientists during the Orde Baru, there
have also been the awareness of the need to ‘democratise’. This is the biggest concern of
Soeharto’s administration and one of the main reasons to monitor academic associations more
closely. Whilst not always being at the centre of events, intellectuals would find themselves
right in the middle of student protests and uprisings against Soeharto’s regime. This is also
related with persistent student movements that led to several unrests during Orde Baru and
made the university a battlefield between academic freedom and government control 1. The
need to discipline students eventually led to the monitoring of universities and left little room
for teachers to give critical lectures and question political agendas.

Even though the majority of scholars made democratisation their business, none could have
predicted the outcome of the Asian monetary crisis as Soeharto left his throne in 1998. The
reform movement was credited to the students and their resolute movement, with little credit
given to the intellectual circle as they were commenting the proceedings whilst observing the
change they also have been anticipating. Eventually, 1998 became a watershed moment that
changed the preconditions of doing social science.

Epilogue
The state of social science in Indonesia under Orde Baru has always been influenced by
political agendas and cultural sentiments. The role of ideology became even more apparent
against the backdrop of the events surrounding the 1965 attempted coup d'état and the
ensuing ban on Marxist literature.
Under a strong state hegemony, social science seemingly followed a singular path of
modernisation, evidently manifested in both thought (e.g. dominant teachings on
functionalism) and practice (the use of science for developmental application). This leaves
1

This is best exemplified by the normalisation of university activities under the Normalisasi
Kehidupan Kampus/Badan Koordinasi Kemahasiswaan (NKK-BKK) policy in 1978, a move
that was ordered by then Minister of Education, Daoed Joesoef.

sparse room for doing critical social science: adopting variations of Marxist theory to counter
state-driven development agendas under the framework of empowerment and bottom-up
participation.
For the majority of social researchers, the common way of doing science is by playing it safe,
as the increasing control of government meant greater scrutiny of curriculum, research
projects and even non-academic activities inside or outside the university. As scientists had
little choice but to conform, students would take a greater role in rattling Soeharto’s
establishment. When democratisation eventually gathered pace, the role of intellectuals
would again be put into question as it always has been from the early days of the republic.

Bibliography
1. Hadiz, Vedi.R. and Dhakidae, Daniel. 2005. Social science and power in Indonesia.
Singapore: Equinox Publishing.
2. Kleden, Ignas. 1987. Sikap Ilmiah dan Kritik Kebudayaan. Jakarta: LP3ES
3. LP3ES.1983. Cendekiawan dan Politik (Intellectuals and Politics). Jakarta: LP3ES
4. Nordholt, Nico.G.Schulte and Visser, Leontine. E. 1997. Ilmu Sosial di Asia Tenggara
(Social Science in Southeast Asia). Jakarta: LP3ES.
5. Ritzer, George. 2011. Sociological Theory, Eight Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
6. Samuel, Hanneman. 2007. Indonesian Social Sciences: Looking Back, Creating the
Future. Depok: Labsosio Universitas Indonesia
7. Samuel, Hanneman. 2010. Genealogi Kekuasaan Ilmu Sosial Indonesia. Depok: Penerbit
Kepik Ungu