Reading Indonesian Society

Book Indonesian Social System Dr. J. Nasikun's work is familiar to students of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (Fisipol) regardless of university. This book was first published in 1984, but with its advantages in explaining social system issues, this book is still a reference for first semester students at Fisipol. This book is very thin, consisting of only 108 pages (2016 version), and only consisting of 5 chapters. The main question is, why is this thin book still a reference, even though contemporary political issues have been widely discussed from various paradigms, ranging from Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Feminism, Institutionalism, New-Institutionalism, and many more. My guess is very simple, there is no other work that explains concisely the topic of the Indonesian social system. My second guess is that the discussion related to the Indonesian social system is outdated, especially since the structural functional approach which is the main approach in this book has long been abandoned or has undergone development.

Nevertheless, this book has many contributions, especially for readers who want to look back at our national issues, including being a gateway to understanding advanced theorization of structural functionalism, for example the theory of social capital which is a development of the structural functional approach. How do we place the study in this book (regarding the Indonesian social system) in a contemporary context? What can we benefit from this work whose initial draft is almost three decades old?

Discussion Starting Point

This book begins with chapter 1 which discusses the purpose of compiling the book. In short, the study in this book aims to see what latent factors cause conflict in Indonesia? Another follow-up question, what will always be a latent conflict for conflicts that occur in Indonesia in the future? The writing in the first chapter is not long, in fact the discussion is mostly in the realm of theoretical approaches. In chapter 2, Nasikun tries to provide an explanation related to the structural functional approach/structural functionalism inherent in the American sociologist, Talcott Parsons.

The structural functional approach places society as a system that is interrelated with each other. As a system, the relationship between one and another can only be formed if there is one value (the same value) that is held. These values are known as social norms. Norms (unwritten rules/informal institution) in some cases can be a rule that originates from one dominant group, but in some cases it can also be a rule that originates from interactions between different groups. In the view of this approach, the interaction between groups with different identities is called cross-group affiliation (cross-cutting affiliation). This interaction between groups is what then encourages the formation of cross-group loyalty/rules (cross-cutting loyalties).

This view is not surprising. In the early development of social science, it adopted the positivist perspective, a branch of the philosophy of science whose basic premise provides a distance between the object and subject of research, adopting the principles of natural science into social science. With this perspective, the systems approach is inevitable. Individuals are also seen as subsystems or organisms that in a structural functional view are connected to each other.

A simple illustration of this view is in the picture of our society. In our society, there are individuals who work as security guards, ministers, cleaners, vegetable sellers, electronics entrepreneurs, food traders, and various other professions. Imagine each individual as an organism. Then new life can be formed if there is interaction between these organisms. The system can run if each type of profession plays its role. It should be understood that in power, the distribution of authority is always limited. Therefore, the struggle for the limited distribution of power often causes clashes (conflicts) within it.

This structural functional approach is sharply criticized by the conflict approach which assumes that power is not evenly distributed. Nasikun seems to be aware of this. This is responded to by trying to provide an alternative approach to the existing approach, one of which is by combining the structural functional approach and theories related to conflict to read the social system in Indonesia. This approach is not wrong, however, theorization in the early development of political science was indeed emphasized by the systems approach. Perhaps this is a consequence of the strong influence of the legal discipline in several phases of the early development of this discipline.

From chapter 3 to chapter 5, readers are invited to read the main part of the book. This article discusses several historical aspects in the beginning, especially how shipping to trade during colonialism indirectly had an impact on the diversity of society in Indonesia. In his presentation, the diversity of society is not followed by a common will that is formed. Therefore, Pancasila has a role as a driver of cross-identity interaction, as well as an effort to form this common will.
In chapter 4, readers are brought to an equally interesting discussion, related to how the influence of a pluralistic society on political parties in Indonesia. In this section, Nasikun explains how the formation of several parties is based on various pluralistic issues, there are parties formed on the influence of socialism, to parties with religious nuances such as the Christian party or the Catholic party. This leads to an interesting discussion, that there are two divisions of society that are formed, namely vertically (based on social class) and horizontally (based on social identity).

This description brings Nasikun to a discussion related to how to build a shared national identity and commitment.
In chapter 5, Nasikun provides an interesting discussion related to the model. cross cutting affiliation, as a tool to create shared commitment. In this section, Nasikun explains the importance of Pancasila as a vehicle and main principle to encourage shared commitment at a practical level. Perhaps it can be said that chapter 5 is the main key to Nasikun's writing. He offers a model for building shared values, a new approach to approaching the study of Pancasila, considering that studies related to Pancasila are largely dominated by philosophical studies.