Book Review: The Other Side of the Professional Critic

Arief Budiman (AB) is a professional critic. If my memory serves me right, that nickname was given by Goenawan Mohamad (GM) to his close friend in one of his Catatan Pinggir (Caping) essays. In that writing, GM wrote about AB's attitude, formerly known as Soe Hok Djin, in opposing the construction of Taman Mini Indonesia Indah (TMII). It seems that there is some truth to that nickname. In the course of this country's history, almost all presidents have never escaped harsh criticism from Soe Hok Gie's (Gie) older brother. In fact, Gus Dur, AB's close friend, was also a victim of his criticism.

Although known by many people, both as an intellectual, opposition, movement figure, and writer, the other side of AB's life is still rarely revealed. The book entitled “Arief Budiman (Soe Hok Djin): Fighting Without Hatred” tries to present AB's life, ideas, and intellectual journey to people, especially the generation who never got to know him. For those who don't know AB or only know AB from his works, a number of writings, photo memorabilia, and comics about AB in this book can help to get to know AB.

This article does not discuss all the reviews in this book. The reason is, the book written by 22 authors (consisting of AB's family, close friends, and critics) - not including Gus Mus's poems, AB's electronic correspondence, and comics about AB - portrays various stories of AB's life. Therefore, this article only raises a number of AB's stories, which at least I think are interesting, in this book. After that, this article provides some notes on the contents of this book in general.

From Childhood to College Student

AB is the son of Soe Lie Piet or Salam Sutrawan and Nio Hoei An or Maria Suguri. He is the third of five children, while Gie is the fourth. AB's relationship with his two younger siblings did not go well. Jeanne Sumual, the youngest child, said that AB and Gie did not greet each other for years, even until her younger sibling died, allegedly 'only' because of a fight over a drawer. Meanwhile, Jeanne Sumual did not like AB who often gave him 'lessons' when he broke family rules. A different attitude was shown by Gie who preferred a dialogical approach. It is not surprising that Jeanne Sumual was much closer to Gie. Until adulthood, the relationship between AB and Jeanne Sumual did not change much (pp. 189-190). In a gloomy sentence, Jeanne Sumual wrote this: "When we meet, we are still not close, just chatting, like we are not my older brother" (p. 190).

AB's sharp mind, as is known to the public, did not come from a vacuum. Since childhood, said Tuti Gunawan, AB has been fond of reading. AB often accompanied his father, who worked as a journalist and novelist, writing on a typewriter. When one page was finished being typed, and then came out of the typewriter, AB would immediately read it and wait for the next page (p. 36). When he was a student at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Indonesia (UI), wrote GM, AB continued to greedily devour books, especially the works of Albert Camus and Sartre. At that time, AB idolized Camus. AB's admiration for Camus was indeed extraordinary. At the age of 19, AB had translated a chapter of Camus's work entitled The Stranger (pp. 123-125).

During that time, AB’s reading material and mastery of philosophy were indeed much broader and deeper than GM and other students. GM – who often quoted Camus in Caping – even first got to know the 1957 Nobel Prize winner in literature from AB. Arief Budiman’s love and understanding of philosophy, as well as art, were indeed not found in many other students, who were closer to the slogan “books, parties, and love”. It is not surprising that AB most often discussed these two topics with GM (pp. 124-125). Therefore, AB, as well as GM, can be said to be the type of student who surpassed his generation.

In addition to being fond of reading books, AB is also described as a serious person. During his time in college, Wies Budiman wrote, AB only paid attention to his lectures (p. 172). Another proof is that when he was a new student, GM said, AB talked about a heavy topic at a hazing event: existentialism. Of course, his friends were not interested at all (p. 127). Meanwhile, outside of campus, AB socialized with famous artists and intellectuals, such as PK Ojong, Onghokham, Mochtar Lubis, and others. In addition to introducing him to Camus's work, AB also introduced GM to them (p. 124).

Love Story

AB's love story is also featured in this book. Most of it was written by his wife, Leila Ch. Budiman. Several other authors also mention it, although in small portions. In general, AB's love story is very winding. AB first showed his interest in Leila Chairani through a love letter when both were still studying at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Indonesia. However, Leila Chairani ignored him. The reason was, AB's physical appearance and appearance were not the criteria for her ideal guy. Moreover, Leila Chairani had already had a crush on another man (p. 147).

In the midst of that situation, AB did not give up. He actually became more active in sending love letters, poems, and books. He even exhibited his writings in the mass media while praising Leila Chairani. AB's series of efforts finally bore sweet fruit. He then dated Leila Chairani. Leila Ch. Budiman explained that she fell in love with AB not because of his physical appearance and appearance, but rather his knowledge and poetic attitude (pp. 148-149). According to Nono Anwar Makarim, Leila Chairani was a loyal type of girlfriend. After Gie's death, AB began to plunge into the world of activism. He was even detained by the New Order. At that time, Leila Chairani made fun of AB's friends with this sentence: "It's embarrassing, Hok Djin (read: Arief Budiman) is detained, you guys are free" (p. 74).

AB's relationship with Leila Chairani apparently did not receive the blessing of Leila Chairani's parents because of religious differences. Tuti Gunawan revealed that this problem made AB not want to eat. Gie even said this: "If this is what is called love, I don't want to fall in love" (pp. 36-37). Leila Chairani's parents only wanted to give the green light to AB and Leila Chairani if AB was willing to convert to Islam, and they both completed their studies. AB was willing to fulfill these requirements (p. 150).

However, AB and Laila Chairani's love affair did not stop there. When they were about to get married, no marriage registrar wanted to marry them. The reason was that AB's status as a good Muslim was questionable. At the same time, no one wanted to testify that AB was a good Muslim. The problem could only be resolved when Mochtar Lubis was willing to give a statement that AB was a good Muslim (pp. 36-37).

Another proof of Lila Chairani's loyalty is her willingness to live with AB in a situation far from the abundance of wealth. When AB was studying in the United States (US), his family's life was very mediocre. The reason was, the scholarship he received was not enough to meet the needs of four people, consisting of AB, Leila Chairani, and her two children who were still toddlers at that time. In the early days in the US, AB and Leila Chairani even deliberately left the house so that their neighbors would invite them to eat together. In the midst of these financial limitations, Leila Chairani finally chose to work (pp. 156-157).

Not only that, when AB was without income for three years because he was dishonorably discharged from Satya Wacana Christian University (UKSW), Leila Chairani was still faithfully accompanying him (p. 162). Until AB's body was frail due to Parkinson's disease, Leila Chairani remained faithfully by AB's side. Every weekend, Wes Budiman wrote, Leila Chairani always took AB around Melbourne by car or tram. It seemed that Leila Chairani did this to restore AB's consciousness, and to foster optimism in AB that he could recover (p. 173).

Very simple

AB is a very simple person. Perhaps, his very simple lifestyle is due to his indifference to appearance or ideological reasons. AB's indifference to appearance has been visible since he was young. GM noted that in the days when he met AB, AB wore shabby but clean clothes and trousers (p. 123). When he became a lecturer at UKSW, AB remained unchanged. Susanti Kusumasari, AB's daughter, explained that her father was not interested in looking neat. His appearance was always the same: sandals, a collared shirt, and dark brown trousers. AB's personal vehicle was also 'only' a Vespa (p. 185).

AB's simplicity is sometimes very unusual. Tuti Gunawan explains that AB does not have, or even intends to have, a tie or jacket (p. 40). When undergoing the selection for Head of Indonesian Studies at the University of Melbourne, writes Bela Kusumah Kasim, AB wore a short-sleeved shirt, trousers that still looked new, and scruffy shoes - without a tie or jacket. In fact, his presentation was watched by panel members, foreign researchers, and a number of Indonesian and Australian students (196-197). When giving his professorial inauguration speech, AB also only wore batik (p. 40).

When giving a presentation during the Head of Indonesian Studies selection, AB also did not bring a bag. All he brought were crumpled paper folds in his pocket. In fact, the topic of his presentation was very heavy: "Islam, Culture, and Politics in Indonesia" (196-197). In fact, when he was accepted into the University of Melbourne, AB still did not want to bring a bag, and preferred to use a plastic bag, once again a plastic bag, to carry his lecture materials. Even though Leila Chairani bought him a nice bag, AB still used a plastic bag (p. 173).

If not for AB's indifference to appearance, his unusually simple lifestyle could have been based on ideological reasons. As is known, Arief Budiman was a fighter for the Left movement. About this, Nono Nawar Makarim tells an interesting story. When Leila Chairani had just bought a used car in the US, AB sat on the side of the road and pondered as a form of protest (p. 78). Leila Chairani also agreed. AB did not want to see or touch the car for a certain period of time (p. 158). According to Nono Nawar Makarim, AB's attitude was inseparable from AB's rejection of ownership of assets that were identical to the bourgeoisie (p. 78). However, specifically in the case of the car, AB eventually changed his attitude (p. 158).

A Number of Notes

This book, as mentioned earlier, reviews various stories of AB's life. On the one hand, because it was written by many people, the story becomes colorful, and presents the figure of AB based on the personal experiences of each writer. On the other hand, unfortunately, the discussion put forward by one writer is sometimes the same or overlaps with that of another writer. The writings of Bonnie Setiawan (pp. 3-9) and Vedi R. Hadiz (pp. 19-25), for example, have similarities, although not entirely, in describing AB's central role for students of the 1980s generation. Another example is the love story of AB and Leila Chairani which was reviewed by a number of writers, although the discussion was most widely presented by Leila Ch. Budiman.

In general, AB's life from childhood to adulthood has been presented in this book. However, the discussion of AB's childhood is much less than his story when he was an adult. In addition, AB's teenage years are also missed in the discussion of this book. In fact, the description of the story would be very interesting. The reason is, as GM wrote, when he was a new student, AB had read Sartre's work in English (p. 125), even translated Camus' work (pp. 123-125) (I suspect AB translated Camus' work in French, because GM mentioned The Stranger, No The Stranger). It could be that during his teenage years, more precisely before entering college, AB had read these works. If that is true, then his teenage story is very worthy to be raised. At the same time, the review of how AB got to know and socialize with famous artists and intellectuals is also not highlighted much. In fact, for a freshman in college, such socializing is very rare.

What is commendable about this book is that it presents a number of writings, even old writings that are republished through this book, that criticize AB. That way, this book is not trapped in AB's heroism alone. Rizal Mallarangeng (Celli), for example, questions AB's attitude as a scientist, who questions the truth, and an activist on the path of socialism, who spreads the 'truth' (pp. 67-70). Atikah Hasyim's writing strongly criticizes AB regarding AB's title of "professor", because AB used that title in his writings in the Kompas Daily in the late 1990s (pp. 91-94). Meanwhile, A. Supardi Adiwidjaya criticized AB's arrogant attitude, which was also not substantive, in criticizing President Megawati. According to him, AB's series of criticisms, especially regarding blood autonomy and the federal state, were not free from interests. At this point, he continued, AB was fighting for a federal state in Indonesia. Besides that, for AB, said A. Supardi Adiwidjaya, Megawati was a political opponent who had to be cornered by any means (pp. 105-121).

However, only Vedi R. Hadiz was recorded as giving praise and criticism simultaneously to AB in his writings. For him, and his friends, AB was a “comrade in arms”, because AB was willing to support student political activities, and introduced the theory of dependency and the idea of socialism under the repressive atmosphere of the New Order (p. 21). However, over time, Vedi R. Hadiz turned out to be not in line with AB's thinking. Debates between them often occurred when they met face to face. One of them was Vedi R. Hadiz's rejection of the theory of dependency introduced by AB in Indonesia. According to him, the continuous suction of surplus from developing countries to developed countries which became the source of economic backwardness was inadequate in capturing the complexity of development problems. Vedi R. Hadiz was more interested in studying the structure of Indonesia's political economy and the power relations attached to it (p. 24).
Indeed, Celli did not merely provide criticism through his old writings, but also acknowledged AB's influence on his intellectual and personal journey (p. 66). However, he did not elaborate on the topic at all. In fact, he had known AB for a long time: since he was a student (Mallarangeng, 2008:657). Before continuing his studies in the US, he even asked AB first (Mallarangeng, 2008:627). Celli's writing in this book would certainly be more interesting if it were supplemented with a fairly in-depth discussion of his closeness to AB.

Despite its limitations, this book has presented another side of AB. Currently, AB has passed away. In my opinion, a book that discusses AB's thoughts or life story in its entirety is very worthy to be written. From the various writings that have been spread in the media since AB's death, I think Ignas Kleden is very qualified to discuss AB's thoughts. This is because he appreciates AB's breakthroughs in the field of literature. However, Ignas Kleden criticized AB's tendency to ignore empirical and historical aspects in explaining socialism (Kompas Daily, 12/5/2020). At this point, Ignas Kleden balanced AB's thoughts and actions. AB's life story could be written by GM or Ariel Heryanto. Because, the two people have a very close relationship with AB. With the biography, as well as AB's works, AB (will) be eternal.

Reference

2008. From the Sky: A Collection of Essays on Man, Society, and Power. Gramedia Popular Libraries: Jakarta.
2020. Arief Budiman, Activism and Public Discourse. Kompas Daily, May 12, 2020.