CON~P.
I J" i'E IDEOLOGY I N PU B LI C SPACE 167
9 be buried beneau.'1., 4 but it woc1ld probably please his taste for the grand
Concrete Ideology: Taste,
Tradition, and the Javanese Past in
New Order Public Space*
Tin1othy C. Lindsey
Introduction
THIS chapter consists of <:>_l:>servati()_l!S_.Q_!lJ>OIB~ --ofth(! __!iif(erent ways in
whicb_illvanese_Qublic space is used by both ind1yjd11aJ<; and the New
Order state to express, in v_!~t!~Lf2!:...Il1> understandings of Indonesia's _
--~ It also discusses the implications of those expres~jons for an under-
standing of New Order aestJ:!~cs and, l!!_~matelv, ideology:J_!_attempts
to recognize that beneath the apparently still waters of schofariy 'objec-
tivity', there lurk difficult problems created by the cultural-specific ideas
of 'good' and 'bad' taste that one cannot help but bring to any compar-
ative cross-cultural analysis of aesthetics. It is not enough to simply
acknowledge that these often personal judgements of taste are continu-
ally made (whether consciousiy or not) and then treat them as beyond
analysis, proceeding as if recognition has rendered one's judgements
irrelevant to one's analysis. It is also necessary, to confront these judge-
ments and consider their role in the understanding of aspects of the
visual aesthetics of the New Order.
Sukarno's Tomb ~nd
the Aesthetics ofNeo-traditionalism
Construction of Sukarno's m~usoleum (Plate 43) in Blitar, East Java
began with the laying of the first stone on 21 June 1978, the eighth
anniversary of his death. The deci~i()RJQ_Q_i!Q_IJJ.e tonib w<is one of tht;_
_!!~_!___steps_.!_~--~--!!!!J.i~9--~~'Y' _Qrder 'r~!:i_a_l;>i!i!_~!_i_o_Q~_?Lth~- fti;st _P.r:t!.~ic!~11t.:.
1 inside a glass-walled and peak-roofed pavilion approached by stairs. The
The mausoleum now attracts a srream of visitors who arrive, meditate-
sometimes staying overnight in the vicinity-and depart, leaving offer-
*The author is indebted to john Paterson of Monash University and Angus Mcintyre of
La Trobe University for comments and suggestions made in the course of drafting this
chapter, and to Hugh O'Neill and Charles Coppel of Melbourne University for the discus-
sions from which it grew.
ings of fl owers and mont:y in piles that rapidly accumulate in front of
the gla~s wall :;irnund Sukarno's grave. On significant days, such as the
celebration in 1986 of tl;e second windu 2 (eight-year period) since the
first President's death, the site is .turned into a pilgrimage centre. 3 All
this is a far cry frum the 'plain little stone' Sukarno claimed he wished to
and spectacular. Clearly, the site is more than the obscure burial place
anticipated by the New Order when it insisted on interring the one-time
'Great Leader 0 " the Revolution' far from Jakarta. 5
4
It is immedi,._tely apparept to the visitor that the design of Sukarno's
tomb is strongly based on the architectural styles associated with the
Indic-infiu cr1~ed empires of pre-colonial Java. It is equally apparent that
these sources are intended to be immediately obvious to most visitors.
These a1e the two typical char2cteristics of the examples of New Order
.Public space that will he considered in this chapter. All-wh1::ther archi-
1tectural, decorative, or_sculptural, and whether created by the govern-
ment or__Qrivate ;.;itizens-slfare two common characteriStiCS:they-are
designed for public display, and they make use of motifs derived from
,,Java's past that are-intended to berecOgllfZe<lassucl:i.
The gateway (Plate 44) of Sukarno's mausoleum is a smaller version
of the candi bentai' (split-gate) (Plate 45) familiar in Bali but ultimately
derived from Java-a pedigree that is recognized by some visitors as
reflecting Sukarno's own mixed Javanese-Balinese parentage. The
Javanese form of this motif can bi:: seen in the Sitinggi/ 7 gate of the
Kasepuhan 8 kraton 9 in Cirebon (Piate 46), which shares the more trun-
cated and massed qualities of the candi bentar through which Sukarno's
tomb is entered.
The Blitar gateway, alti'l.ough massive, particularly when compared
with the low wall that adjoins it, lacks the fine sculptured elegance and
tht: ~oaring qualities of u'l.e Balinese gateway. It also lacks the balanced
relationship with its surroundings that is created at Cirebon by the con-
tinuity of horizontal brickwork coursing which is shared by both gate
and wall. So, the tomb gateway iiself is not a copy of structures such as
those at Besakih or Cirebon. It is a shorthand summary, its form gener-
alized and its detail suborned to the abstracting tendencies of interna-
tionai Modtrnism. -Its exterior of polished stone slabs is a simplified and
stylized re-creation of the traditional gateway-almost a cipher for the
split-gates of traditional Bali and Java and, therefore, for many, a cipher
simply for Java, which is often seen as the source of Balinese culture.
Once t.~rough the split-gate and outer wall, the visitor enters a central
compound, where Sukarno's grave is located beside those of his parents
basic dc~ign of this central pavilion derives from that quintessentially
Javanese architectural motif, the seemingly endlessly mutating pendopo
(pillared pavillion). In its simplest form, the pendopo is a four-sided
pyramidical roof supported by central i.:olumns and with additional sup-
port provided by further, smaller columns around the perimeter. 1 From
this model, endless variants have been developed, as examples from the
Surakarta kraton and the Cirebon Kasepuhan (Plate 47) demonstrate.
 CULTURE AND SOCIETY IN NEW ORD E R INDON ES IA
168
Again, although the tomb recalls these precedents, it by no means
replicates them. For example, although the srruclural essence ot t~e
Javanese p~ndopo is that the bulk of its weight is borne ?Y the central i:nl
lars (saka guru), 11 the Blitar pendopo has no central pillars, pre~un.rn~ly
be~ause this would interfere with visitors' view of the tombs w1thm.
Instcau, the viewer is presented with architectural shorthand. l\11 pillars
are repl:ir.ed by larger columns, located approximately. halfway ?etween
the usual positions of the saka guru and perimeter pillars. Thi~ sl1ort-.
hand strUcture is still read as a pendopo, the central structure of tra-
ditional Javanese palaces (such as the kraton of Yogyakart~ and
Surakart2) and royal tombs (such as those of S11\t:in Agung and his des-
cendants at Imogiri, or those of Surran Gunung Jati and i-:;s descendants
at Cirebon (Plate 48)).
References to traditional Javanese architecmre colitiaue throughout
the srructure. Even the mrret-like apex of the pavilion's roof has it:s
an,ecedents in the distinctive architecture of East Javanese temples .
Compare it, for example, with the multilayered and peaked tm.vc~ of the
typically East Javanese Candi 12 Jawi (Plate 49), of the late thirteenth
century, located near Prigen, or the mon.: or less contemporaneous
Candi Singosari (Plate 50), partially destroyed in 1292; bot.'1 temples
share with the Blitar tomb the peaked finials to the cornices that mark
13
the horizontal layering of the central tower.
In fact, the whole complex is more or less a stylized form of a tradi-
tional kraton, the pendopo within its walls forming a compound ente~P.~
through split-gates, the whole compound raised and approached by h1gn
steps. This is the model also for royal Javanese tom?s, at least ~f the
Islamic era, such as those at Imogiri (Plate 51 ) and Cirebon, mentioned_
?.bove. So it is hardly important whether the imagery of kraton and candi
comes to Sukarno's tomb directly, or by way of the precedent of royal
to,nbs. The point is that most Javanese visiting me tomb would be im-
mediately appraised of all these sources and references and tJ1e historico-
roma11tic imagery they conjure up: Java, Bali, candi, kraton, and
makam; 14 the Indic-influenced kingdoms of Singosari., Kediri, an~
Majapahit, the Islamic kingdom of Cirebon, and the magical _and sacred
wali sanga; 15 the anti-colonial Sultan Agung of Mataram-ali images of
great import in nationalist historical thinking.
It is worthwhile elaborating on the detail of what may seem obvious
. I
St'Jlistic influences because, through a detailed comparison, it b ecomes
apparent that although Sukarno's tomb has obvious i~uences from
Javanese and Balinese antiquity, it is not an accurate replica of any one
antique style, nor is it even a pastiche of carefully imitative parts. Rather,
it is a compilation of stylized references, a generalized set of shortha.nd
motifs that, read together, points to a royal-even imperial-Indonesian
past. . .
Semiotic analysis, to use Barthes's convenient system, is simply a wa_Y
of describing and analysing the perception of images . Barthes's .analys.1s
does this by distinguishing the medium or signifier (the ima_ge itself;. m
this case, Sukarno's tomb) from that of which it is a sign (its meamng
CO NCRET E IDEOLO GY I N 1' JBLIC SPA CE 169
to the viewer), in this case, '<J!d Javanese architecture'. (It is also, to a
lesser extent, a sign of 'old Balinese architecture'. The author intends
reference to both when the term 'old Javam:~e' is used in this context.)
The final stage of Barthesian scmimic anaiysis is to identify the more
complex web of significances and rn<:::anings ' encoded' in the signified
meaning-what the sign sign~fies to th.o viewer; 16 that is, what signific-
ances ' old Javanese architec1lure' has for viewers. This leaves non-
Indonesians (such as the author), an<l perhaps even non-Javanese
Indonesians, with the knotty, pr0blem of considering what an 'old
Javanese candi' might signify to a Javanese viewer.
Java-centdsm, Nationalism, and Historical Imagery
In the stuciies by Reid and Supomo 17 of the im:ige of Majapahit and
othe~ Indo::.esian kiugd9ms in nationalist history writing and ideology-
l making, there is some indicauy_n of _what th~ cultures that produced 'old
Javanese architecture' may mean to some modern Indonesians. The
imagery developed - ;~~--n~onalist _!:1_.istory writing w~s, Reid argues~
i absorbed by the Western..::.educated indigenous elite from the work of
Dutch scholaru uch as Kern and Krom: In Ind~-;;_~sia~ hands the
j Dutch picture ofth-;-p~~;~-~~inrer'Pretecr to become the sru'ff of
nationalist orthodoxy, fulfilling Sukarno's s-trategy:- - - - -
I First: we show the people they have a past, a glorious p?st.
Second: we increase th~e.QP_k_'.s~~gpusness that they h ~e a present, a dark
present. -
Third: we show the people th(! rays_~__t!le fu_l:!,!fe, shining and clear, and the
means to bring that future full of promise ... .
I We have a glorious past, we hav~-;glitt~ring future! Ah, Your Honours, what
I Indonesian's national spirit will not live when hearing of the greatness of the
kingdoms of Melayu and Sriwijaya, the greatness of the first Mataram, the great-
i ness of.the time of Sindok and Erlangga and Ked;ri and Singasari and Majapahit
and PaJaJaran-the greatness too of Bimara, Banten, and Mataram under Sultan
I Agung! What Indonesian's heart will not sigh wht=n he thinks of his flag which
I was once encountered and honoured as far as Madagascar, Persia, and China! 18
I
A product of_this gepre of l~dige.!:!_9~ s history writing is the highly de-
veloped and, P.!:~~1.:!.!lla.!:>1>.'.z..._re_>1.so 1iably widespread imag~ of Majapahit .
and o.t;h.~r J~Y.::!J:l_~~Jtjgg_qgms _ as_;!_r.ffifil~lagic em12ires and n:i_t;i.onalist
Il revolutionary~figura_i:.[QQ.~ Ihus, motits r~~nizable as referring,
even if genera.~1xL!s>_ !h_a!_.E~~~~~~1ggests an imperial past where states
exerci~c:l-~Qmc;: fQIIILQf_)1\:J;.~!}1.Q!JY __o_y~T . _the archipelago, and which
I imper~LP_l:l~~..is yi~w~d as PI~fig:y_ri!lg__ tf!.~J1~1!1Q..n_y_ gf _!fie modern
Indonesian state. .. . . ------ -- -
I - - --------
~~~ignifiC.f!_f!t that in creating a tomb for a Javanese President of
Indonesia, the pas~~~! I;-_~goseilTs-iargelYTaVanese. As Reid ;~d
I
Supomo also show, the Sumatran response to the Java-centric bias of
nationalist history was to emphasize Coedes's Sumatran empire of
Sriwijaya as an alternative precedent for indigenous archipelagic hege-
I mony. Accordingly, much later history writing tried to balance the
170 CU L'l lT RE AND SOCIETY IN NEW ORDER INDONESIA
19
emphasis p!aced on these 'alternative' precursors -a concern not
evident in the Blitar monument, which, therefore, may be read by
Indonesians ~s signifying an imperial past that is markedly Javanese. In
this sense, tlwn, Sukarno's tomb is an architectural equivalent of
20
nationalist history writing, such as that of Yamin and Pane, that was so
instrumental iu creating the central place of Majapahit and the Javanese
kingdoms in the n~tionalist Indonesian perception of the past.
In the neo-tr~ditionalist critique, motifs and themes in both political
and social cultures that reflect aspects of traditional Javanese society arc
seen as evidence that traditional culture is still enormously influential,
and tha L to understand modern Indonesian politic~ and society, one
needs to view them as being essentially contiguous with the past, but
with a thir. veneer of modernization tacked on top. To apply this cri-
tique to Sukarno's tomb, for example, it must be assumed that elements
of trnditional art are used in modern' art and, here, more specifically,
in modern architecture, because Indonesian-particularly Javanese--
society and its art has remained essentially unchanged. In other words,
the moufa of traditional art and architecture have meanings and signi-
fic:mces today similar to those they originally had, just as, a neo-
tradition~1!is ' might argue, the forms and ideas of modern politics are
essentially those of the tradition:::! past,
The author thinks this analysis is misleading. To rehash Hartlev's!1
21
words2 _'.flle past is a foreign country, they do things differently there'. 1
The images of that foreign country-traditional Java-are !1.J:Q._QY.IDQQ-!
em Javl!nese precise.!Y__Q_e_~use so9~~~--~llli.!1ed. 'I!:!.~L~re . use~I
bec::ause_ili~ represent anQ evoke, or signify, t!:e P.l15-t: _The motifs o~
Javanese architectural antiquity signify Javanese antiquiry~ whole and
are select~-d not because most Javanese are, deep do~_ll, liv!Qg_in a world ,
essentially sirrtilar to that ofJavanese antiquity but pre_cj~~!y_l)ecause they i
are n_g_t;_thertlore, i~~_!Y of the~~' rather ~~.!!__beil!_g__f~!P-Piar an_d ,[
rnu11~lin_e_,~articubduotent because itjs unusual an_d evoc~tive a~I
saturated - ~~~~:he_ :;_~g_I_!~E::i~!Q~ abs<:_1!.!_p~:~u2_ eas1ly coQQLures up,
especially in t.1-ie hands of skilled conjurers.
- The images of Java's architectural past are appropriated rather than
adnpted, They are signs of the past but they do not now sigr1ify what
they signified in the past-the effluxion of time, of course, ensures just
that by imbuing the images with the significances that the ' past' confers
upun its images. Modern images of classical Javanes~_E!_1gdums _5=_0!1:'.~Y
the many subtle but potent m~ssages_~at the J.:i.va11_ese~_p:i.st_ r_e_12resents iu
New Orde~~etic"' ideology. For example, the motifs of 'old
Java' identified at Sukarno's tomb above might signify to an Indonesian
viewer, inter alia, any or all of the following:
1. rhe past glory and might of the Javanese Indic- or Islamic-influenced
pre-colonial empires and, specifically:
(i) Majapahit, the enduring and chauvinist nationalist image of
Indonesia Raya and still a precedent for Indonesia's image of
herself as a de facto modern archipelagic empire;
CO N C R E TE IDEOI 0GY IN PUBLI C SPACE 17 1
(ii) Majapahit as the Javanese empire that dominated Indonesia;
and
(iii) East Java and Bali, and, by extension, their far11ous son
Sukarno, a modern Erlangga, 22 bridging me t"WG islands;
2. the richness and prestige of Javanese culture, of which Balinese cul-
ture can be seen as a branch;
3. the sanctity and magical-spiritual power (sakti) of leader~ including
Hindu-Buddhist rulers such as Ken Angrok, Jay::ibaya, or Wijaya;
the wali sanga; and Sultan ,A gung;
4. the prestige of Sukarno and his independent Indonesia and even
of the New Order iliat built the monument, enhancing its sometimes
uneasy role as Sukarno's 'euccessor';
5. the 'Javaneseness' of Sukarno and, therefore, the state he created;
and
6. the sacredness and sakti of Suka;no and the place where he is
buried.
Essentially, all these interpretations, irreconcilable though some of
them are with each other, share the common chara.:teristic that they all,
by demonstrating historical antecedents, testifv to some sort of continu-
ity with the past. This is the sense of 'inheritance' th"t Weber 23 saw as
so important a source of political legiti~acy, w~~l!_~co.hrieke 1.i~_em
phasized as traditionally central _to Ja_y~~~~,__tatecraft, 24 and wh!.\:h was ..
the engine driving much of early Indonesian history writi11g.
All these possible significances are a far cry indeed from the original
meanings of the candi bentar and the pendopo to those who originally
built, used, or simply saw iliem. Whatever their significances in pre-
colonial Java, one can safely assume that they did not include notions of
today's Indonesian Republic or of Sukarno and nationalism. In this
sense, then, the combination of architectural motifs of the Javanese in
Sukarno's tomb makes it, in part, a cipher for a perceivcci Javanese past.
1
National Pusaka
There is no question that Sukarno's tomb at Blitar is revered by visitors
as a sacred pll)ce, and one well endowed with gn::at power. As have
already been described, floral and monetary offerings of tlle sort usually
found at the makam (grave) of a wali (religious leader, saim ) or tradi-
tional ruler are left in front of tile glass wall behind which Sukarno's
remains lie; and pilgrims spend days and even nights in meditation
there, as is the custom at ot.her sa2red places. The complex was
described to the author in 1988 by a pilgrin1 as a pusaka (talismanic
heirloom of sacred power).
Clearly, the tombs of Sultan Agung at Imogi1i and Sunan Gunung Jati
at Cirebon are models (and precedents) for Sukarno's tomb. But the
idea of ~ressing_ in monumental f.Qrll} __ the sacredness and magical
power of nationalism is not simply an innovative borrowing from that
past. One need not venture so far back for antecedents. This link,
 172 CULTURE AND SOCIETY IN NEW ORDER fN DOl{ES !A
between _?__I!l~derni~~Q _ llii:!d_u.::.@.Y_a_!._le~e__mo!!.1:11~-._e_Q_tal .. p_astiche_ :.!!!Q_ ?
sense ..Qf2_~_!"~Q_ness of_ ga~<:>_nal :;iz_nificance, is demonstrated in one of
Sukarno's own pet projects, the National Monument (Monvmen
Nasional, Monas) in Jakarta's central Independence Square (Medan
Merdeka) (Plate 52).
Here again, one finds the obvious reference to a monument:::! motif
from Java's Hindu past; in this case, the yoni-linggam phallic im_a.~pf
Shivism, the conscious mod~LQ.L_ukarno)_!giage of_the_J2()tency of hi_~
independent nation, and, indeed, to continue the Shivite analogy fur-
ther, of Sukarno's own potency, a connotation of which Sukarno himself
was quite aware. 25
The role of Monas as national pmaka is emphasized by a journey into_
its interior.t. where t:l}e visitor fin_q. laid out iI! ..Ylgrama form a fatechisn1_
of nationalist history, linlring, inter q}za, . Ivlajapahit_~!1d its_.!!_~<:_!~,
Diponego!S>.J Sukarns>__E..1~ t:Q.e .~~~a~sion_ ()f_ _the nati~~l'? W~st Irian1
and, now, Soeharto.26_..Ifil: _fil!f!.<::_<;t!)J:.~.9.L!hc:;_natiQ_I].al state rJ[ Indonesia
is, to a great extent, dependent on its con!Jriui!Y,___Th~__ Nc:;w _Q_r._g er's
political legitimacy requires demon.sg_a._~_()i:i__oLJ.t.~_Jiri_k,~ _n()J o.9JY. W,_J:he
~ythologized past but also to the 19'!_5 Revolution.,Jgcicm.esia's most
iplJ2~.~-_J~_g_i!!_l!!i,.zjmL~v\;m,_ _:g_n.c;l_JQ_1h.~_Qld Orgs_[ . !hat led the
Revolution. So Sukarno's tomb, like the Monas and its conte!lts, links
New Orgg_Indonesia 'iii1--~;:ffi9~;.:~~=i~~s -@th~~-~i~;;i~~~the
Old Orci_~!~.~Q~_9-~-~~s~ith_t!:!~..P..ill.9f national~!iq1::Ql_2gy.
The Monas is an irg~K<:. s>i.&r.ea!_ic;!~2!o_gi_aj _.jg!!iftilfl.~~-.<!.l19-P_QW.er in
New Orc:!_<:!Java. It is not suprisin.g- to see it reprod11ced in public loca-
tions, the most. n9J:i1J:>Je.C>f whifhj~_Jhe.__gyliz~d mi!!ian1re Monas-_r~ca,
recently erected at the entrance.__!o that_J)~_!. -~oeharto pr_oject, Beautiful
Indonesia-ig=Mi_Q.iatu_re._f.~r:!<; __CI11wan__lviin.i_ Indonesili _Irn:!i1l:l.) . This is
Jak::irta's extremely expensive '!!iemt:_park' representati~n of the ar_chi-
tecture and cultural artifacts of Indonesia's rnany suku b(1ngsa (ethnic
groups). 27 --
Taman Mini was very much a personal project of Soeharto and his
wife and was pushed through in spite of considerable public opposition.
Soeharto himself deliberately associated the success of the project with
the legitimacy of the military's dwi-fungsi (dua!-fonction) political roie, a
pillar of the New Order. In a public speech; he attacked the critics of
Taman Mini: 'What was their real goal? \X'e know what it is, and it is
not the Miniature project. Their real goal, in the short term, is to dis-
credit the government and President. ,ll.nd in the long run, they want to
kick the armed forces out of executive activities and eliminate the dual
function of the armed forces.' 28
Taman Mini, therefore, off~rs a ~ig_ajftf:l.!!!lnsigg!_i!!!Q _tj"l_(':_Ne._' Qrder
national m)'.!Qology and how it is dealt with by the New Order elite. In
this ligin,- ili~--~cyli~ect--~~<l--s~i)lifiea- arcfiiieci:U~e- -0r-tlie-'traa1troila1
houses' of eacll-suku -bangsa,-locatecrarounrtli.e- centre-piece of a lake
contaillin~isfands _representing--the-archipelago-1n- illimature,Decomes
-;~~ther -~ipher _fqr.i:i':91!~~a}ly~styiized' and simpilfied ideology- of 'unity
~jive_i:si!Y' a,Il_d _ pan-Indonesi~n ictefitiry, of whic~--thej~"(?~~y
C ONCRE T E ID F. QTO G Y IN PUBLIC SPACE 173
_rOU!J.ded forms and sf1'.lized detaifo of Su~a!:_ll()~_s_!()pib __~!:_~_~lso ~
Thus, the Monas-replica at Tarnan Mini is part of this reductionist
'concrete ideolog~', in w~ch the _~ymbol of 'lndonesianess' at the gates
to the model archipelago 1s a pasu.::ne reproduction of a Hindu-Javanese
past. Each stylizing st~p creates a simpler image of political legitimacy
and an encoded mythic past-a simpler 'sign for continuity with tradi-
tion'.29
An Archh:e~tural Vocabulary ofjavanism?
'
The Monas is evidence that the uses cf historical imagery in Sukarno's
mausoleum are not c-xclu:;ive to it. Indeed, the same use of architectural
~9 -s.~ul_ptu__r_a_l g.:_menJ..fro!!llava's traditional past in the design of pub-
lic monuments of natiur:al significance can be found in public space
t~ougho::.t the island. In 1973, Benedict Anderson noted the prolifera-
tJon, under the Ne'.v Ord;;r, of public monuments in East Java which
like Sukarno's tomb, directly draw inspiration from Javanese architectur~
of the ninth to fifteenth centuries.30 His examples included a concrete
replica of Candi Panataran at Hlilar; an entrance to the mountain resort
of S~lekta comprised of two East Javanese-sl:';le temples (stylized repro-
ductJons o~ the Candi Jawi/Sirrgosari style discussed above) linked by a
metal_ trelhs; a_n~ the proliferating village gateways, which might be
descnbed as mmi-pendopo, having much in common with pavilions such
as those located in the Sitin!fgil of the Kasepuhan at Cirebon. In
~nderson's wo_rds, these replicas are more like signposts than reproduc-
tlons, thac 1s, ciphers, not copies.
T?e proliferation of stylized images of Javanese antiquity has not
declmed smce 1973; on the contrary, it has burgeoned. A few examples
will suffice to show the diversity and profusion of the style. The first set
are images from the ancient Indian epic, the JW.ahabharata: one from a
private garden near the tenth-century temple complex of Prambanan
~nd the other _the Arjuna an_d _Kr~sn_a '. B~~a_gavad Gita' group (Plate 53)
m Jakarta, dedicated on 17 August 1987. --
As befit~~!TIOJ!~rgent_4t:~icatec!"on the anniversary of Independence
and~ t:h<:!.<:!:.~r~1.- ~b'::'_io~!x:__iil~nded to he of national significance, the
subject __<?.!___f!-ese moi:i1!!!1!Q~S 1_ the Mahabharata, is of course found
throughout Indonesia. There__i_s-;o-cto;:ibi;-h~we;~;:--~titis mo~~
mon in visual, iiter8ry, and dramarl~- f-orm-ill Java and than
Bali in-most
other places . ~"-for can there be much doubt that the Mahabharata is
closely associated with java's wayang tradition and that the artistic forms
associated with it are .oflen r~a<l as images of pre-colonial Javanese king-
doms. Agam, apart from bemg a sign of 'Indonesianess', references to
the Mahabharata must also be recognized as signifying 'Javaneseness'
and even 'Indic culture', as readily understood by many Indonesian~
themselves as such.
Tur~ng now to architectural examples, one can see the continuing
populanty of the pendopo not only in the ever-increasing numbers of
pendopo village gates in Java (Plate 54) but also in more recent and
----.I j
174 CULTURE AND SOCIETY TN NEW 01<.Dt:R INDONESIA
ambitious governmental projects, such as the Su1<::rno-Hatta airport
(built between 1980 and 1985). This project resembles pillaged frag-
ments of a Central Javanese kraton decorating an international airport,
except that again, as one might expect, the pJlars and beams in such a
kraton are stylized and generalized. Instead of t.'1e usual four-sided pil-
lars, slender in relation to the structure they support, there are massive
31
rounded pillars, the decoration of which is standardized and simplified.
The New Order pendopo makes a reappeararn:i_:_ in its modernized
form in that fecund source of New Order public monuments and ideo-
logy, the Taman Mini, in ~- areg_f!__~l)_jt~J'.:hildren's Palace (Plate 55) .
Here, the pendopo takes on characteristic~ of nineteenth-century
European design, most notably, dec0.:ative lace-work. It resembles a
pastiche of various late colonial additions to the Central Javanese kraton
(most notably, the bandstand in tl1c Yogyakarta kratoa, of which it
appears to be a 'grandchild') and elements of fin de siecle European
architecture in Jakarta of the same period (such as the spire of Jakarta's
neo-Gothic Catholic Cathedral, which appears in twee miniature atop
the Children's Palace itself).
In the light of Anderson's observations in 1973 and these further
examples, it seems clear that _ukarno's tomb um be viewed as part of~
developing and apparently popular New Order monumental style, wide-
spread in Java; and that the features identified as deriving from traditional
Javanese archit~s:gire for!}!~rt of an architecturai and monumental
vocabulary of New Order nationalism. What i~ the message or, in
Barthes's terms, the significance of this vocabulary? The author would
argue that Hindu-Javanese monumental pastiche has become, in Java,
32
architectural vocabulary, that is, Anderson's 'symbolic speech'. It
speaks of the state, its power, and often its sacredness, in much the same
way that neo-classicism Greece and Rome has become the West's archi-
tecture of state (usually a generalized pastiche of the architecture of the
West's own mythologized precedents of statehood). This process has
mirrored in visual form the process by whii>h, as Clifford Geertz argues,
Pancasila-ism-'a state-orchestrated civil religion of vast proportions'
has, notwithstanding its ostensible intent of 'muffling particularistic cul-
tural expressions, to thin them out in favour of a generaiized moralism
of a developmentalist, pan-Indonesian sort'-developed its innate
Javanist cast to the point that its 'symbolism is Javarijst, and so is its
tone'. 33 Its muffling of particuhrist cultural expressions is the equivalent
of the muffling of architectural particularism and identity beneath the
enveloping weight of tl1e New Order's neo-Javanese monumental style.
Pondok Indah: Neo-ciassicism and Neo-colonialism
The comparison between the use of Javanese and Greco-Roman revival-
ist architecture as neo-'classical' styles in Indonesia and the West raises
the interesting question of the role neo-classicism (the architecture of
Western statehood) ~s in ]'Jew Order public space, for it too is an
important p_art of _C:..~!!te1!!ora!}'_ I!lonument-maki!!g in Java. In the
CO N CRET E IDEOLOGY IN PUBLIC SPACE 175
course of the appropriatior: of imagery of the past in New Order Java, it
is not only t.'ic imagery and motifs of the distant, pre-colonial past that
arc re-created; the more recent colonial past also plays a central role,
although for reas01;s. very different to those that make it popular in the
West.
This is immediately ohvi0us, even to the casual passer-by, in the
avenues of Pondok Indah, a wealthy outer suburb of Jakarta. Here,
white-painted pseudo-classical fa;:ades, columns of every classical order,
pediments, and cornices can br found together with in1maculate gardens
and high fences (Plate 56). ,
\X' hat is so extraordinary about the spectacular houses of the rich elite
in Pondok Indah is not so much that they occasionally use antique
motifs (which, if one :iccepts the analysis so far, one might expect) but
that they cumist, to a large exttnt, of elaborate and highly extensive pas-
tiches 0f colonial architecture, and particularly late 'imperial' colonial
architecture-the architecture one might expect to be associated with
unpleasant memories of 'colonial oppression'. Indeed, the prevalence of
these opulent neo-cl:::~sical facades is so great that they are clearly more
than a fad; they are the fashion, at least in Pondok Indah and other
recently developec;i, w<_oa!thy suburbs. The extent of the popularity of this
style could be seen in 1990 on the road from Jakarta to Bogor, which
was intermittently lined with roadside factories manufacturing and
selling the neo-classical pillars and balustrades that are central to this
style.
Sukarno, one might think, must be turning in his grave to see these
nekolim 34 pastiches of the wealthy, except that, were he alive, he would
probably have been living in one. After all, the most immediate ex-
amples of neo-classical architecture around Jakarta are the very res-
idences he so enjoyed while President: the Istana Merdeka (1879) and
the Bogor palace (1856). Indeed, upon comparison it becomes clear that
these palaces, and similar structures of nineteenth-century Jakarta (such
as the National Museum (1862) atJalan Merdeka Barat), have provided
much of the inspiration for the architecture of Pondok Indah. 35
Consider; for example, the replication of the fa;:ade of the Bogor palace
(Piate 57) in t.'1e fai;:~ de of a Pondok Indah house (Plate 58), chosen
more or lcs> at random. The pattern of central-columned entrance-way,
flanked with mirrored wings, is reproduced in portico and garages, and
on an only slightly :reduced scale.
Of course., neo-classical pastiche is not exclusive to Java. Neo-
classicism as an architectural shorthand for 'state' or power or wealth, or
a combination of these qualities, is widespread. Such neo-classical pas-
tiche can be found, for example, in most Australian suburbs. To many it
is an image of America or, more specifically, Hollywood. The point is
not so much that this style is found also in Indonesia but why it is found
there, and what it might signify to indigenous viewers, given the cent-
rality of the colonial experience to Indonesian ideas of nationhood and
political legitimacy. Therefore, the question remains: Why are the styles
QL~lgniali~Ip, ~nd p~~cul~r!YJ_ag: ~gJQaj?Ji~_gi_ (Ul'0!".!9-d _wh~l]_!!:!_e
176 CU L TURE AND SOC IETY JN NEW ORDER INDON E SI A
nationalist mm'ement was :5rmly under the colonial thumb and the
prospt:cts <?_f an indig_e!l~~s archipelagic stateappeared giimi~o popaj~r
among the _:vealthund powerfuljn Jakarta(
A Third Empire?
The author does not believe neo-classicism is popular in Pondok lndah
and elsewhere because of any longing for a return to the colonial era, but
he does believe th'.lt culo1ilal architecture is seen in Indonesia, at least
amongst the wealthy urban ehte, as the style of world powers-modern
America and t.'1e colonial empires. The author also believes that the
expanse and physical control exercised by the Netherlands Easr1Ildies
empire is o;te1:, like the perceived authority, power, ang alleged J2!!y-
ical expanse of Majapahit, as preced.t:~for :i: New Order geographical
eguivale_nt,_ _g__ nation (ancl de facto empire) which is monl!mentally
depicted as me equal of tl1e Dutch and Majapahit empires that are its
precursors.
It is certainly true that much of this empire was already Indonesian
under the Old Order, but the freshness of the revolution and the power
of Sukarnoism's ideological opposition to things nekolim was such that
colonial motifs were nm easilv accepted, particularly amongst the na-
tionalist elite of the OlJ Order. Instead, the architectural style of Sukar-
noism was dominated by im2gcs seen as 'progressive' and 'modern',
either adaptions of the British Fry-influenced School of Tropical Archi-
tecture style with its concrete grilles and trellises, or adaptations cf the
Communist-bloc 'social realist' monumental style, both with elements of
indigenous architecture occasionally thrown in, as in the Monas. 36
Now, however, the aestl1ctic vocabulary of politics is less strident and,
seemingly, more flexible. The elite can see the architectural forms of
imperialism and international power as appropriate architectural images
of power in a new, relatively secure Indonesian empire that sees itself in
its own history writing ::s inheritor of the archetypal Javanese empire in
Indonesia, following Majapahit (the 'first empire'), and as conqueror of
the Dutch empire in bdonesia (the 'second empire').
In this sense,, the use of motifs from both the colonial and pre-colonial
past reflects ~iifferent forms of legitimacy for the socially and politically
-12.9-werf~ 1- whose tastes domjg~te in the government y_~ of PJ,!.bJic...sp.ac.e,
for example, Taman !viini, or can afford to create their own public
space, for example, Pondok Indah. Of course, inevitably, this imagery of
power and status in time filters down through the social structure to find
its manifestation on a more modest but equally striking level, as in the
Mahabharata garden sculpture.
Kitsch and Culture
What about that word 'pastiche' ? The pejorative connotations of the
word are not without significance to this analysis. A work of pastiche is
ex definisio eclectic but the objectivity of the Shorter Oxford English
CONCRET E ID E O LO G Y I N P UBLI C SPACE 177
Dictionary's first definition of it as a 'picture or design made up of fro g-
mcnts pieced together, or in professed imitation of the style of another
~.irtist' is countered by the somewhat disdainful alternative of 'a medlP.y;
hotch-potch, farrago, jumble'.
Indeed, much of the architectural and monumental work dPscribed m
this chapter would-as pastiche-be equated by many (p::irticularly
\Vesterners) with kitsch-litei;ally, 'trash'-that is, a work in any of t11e
arts that is pretentious and inferior or in bad taste, often an eclectic or
der;vative product of popular culture. In other words, the eclectic aual-
ities inherent in any work of pastiche are the source of t..11at w~rk's
perceived inadequacy; hence, its status as 'trash'.
Obviously, whether something is kitsch or not is a m atter cf subjective
judgement. The issue here is not whether somethinr, is or is not kitsch,
but rather why it is labelled kitsch. Subjective aesthetic perce;:itions can-
not be objectively assessed but the fact tha! they are made can be of
great value to cross-cultural analysis. The monument~ 311J ublic space
discussed in this chapter lie at the interface between public and private
interactio~. They are a communication between the individual and pub-
clic viewer, on the one hand, and the state or private creator, on the
other. They are intended to be vi~~ontent and its
significances-is selected with this end in mind. The reasons Lh the
selection by Indonesian~_9.f__!!i~~e_j_!!l~~~f Java'..u2ast and, equally, the
frequent \Y.'estern reaction to them ~s kitsch, raise imQS>rta~~J2!:2blems of
how one lll}.Q.c::_rg:i_n,g~...a!!La.i:i~ _th_(!_~~~l!l:IF~!.. ~J?.e~i_f_i,si~ OE_~!h,~~i-~e <!~ _that
@dersq1_n_din_g,_ Geertz considers these problems of central importance
to that essentially cross-cultural endeavour, anthropology, and describes
as a long-established Western tradition the process of
taking concepts put together in the West . . . [for example, 'art'], trying to apply
them in non-Western contexts, finding that they fit there rather badly at best,
lahoring to rework them so that they fit better, and then discovering in the end
that, however reworked, many of the problems they pose . . . remain clearly
recognizable, quite alive. The puzzle, especially severe in connection with artistic
expr.:ssion, which would seem less bound to practical constraints and more
widely various even than belief, is why this ~hould be so. Why having hanished
ethnocentric formulations from our heads as heroically as we can, do we find
ourselves confronting perplexities that are so dismayingly familiar) 37
Geertz's solution to this problem is to look towards the 'differentiai
involvement of art forms with social factors'. 38 Tn this case, the argu-
ment would be that although art and political ideoiogy interact with
equal complexity in both the West and in Indonesia, the forms in which
such interactions manifest themselves-the way those forms are per-
ceived and the social roles they play-are often quite different.
Much of modern art theory sees art as requiring some stylistic integ-
rity to be considered 'good'. This is an idea which has dominated
Western thought on art for most of the twentieth century and which has
been a key tenet of Modernist art theory. This idea is linked to, but is
not identical with, the idea of function as the determinant of aesthetic
[ .
 178 CULT UR E 1\ Nfl SOCIETY IN NEW ORDER INDONESIA
worth, that is, the form C?f an object should be determined largely by its
function . Therefore, decoration or imagery for its own sake detracts
from the purity and integrity of a work and is 'bad', as is any overt
appeal to emofr.Jn~.
Another key value of much Modernist 39 Western art theory-at least
until lhe rise of post-Mode!"nism-is that of theoretical purity, that is,
art should reflect a single universal and coherent theory as purely and
simply as possible. fhus, :m art form which mixes styles and, thus, their
theoretical ur.derpinnings, such as is done in the Taman Mini or
Pondok Indah, would be seen as 'bad' art.
By contrast, 'traditional ideas of art place far less emphasis upon the
integrity 0f style, form, and physical function, or upon purity of theory.
ln traditi0nal societi~~ art's function is to d~fine and mainta_i!l__S_9._<:j~!
order. In other words, arh_like religion, is in~eparabl~J!.Q.!!l ~9f~L~.tiY
ity and of no worth urJess it support~. sgc;i_(!ty; so)t_j_s__Ql.at inuch ot pre-
colonial 1avanese and Balinese art was exclusively 'religious'. It exists ~s
part of wider n:iigfrms activi~~~ wl:_i_~ch, ~~.!h-~--~7.!&_hav~_!he effect
()! at_~m~c!_efining the ideal__@\'j_ne) order and of prescribing the beha-
viour required to achieve that order. 40 Of course, kitsch is popular in
Western and Easterr: societies. It is not something inherently 'Eastern'.
But wherever it is popular, the reasons for its popularity reflect values
closer to traditional than modem ideas about the role of art.
With this analysis in mind, it is apparent that works of kitsch seen
in New Order public space have roles similar to those described
in this chapter as typical of traditional culture. They are a concrete
visual expression of ideology, something that sits well with the neo-
traditionalist emphasis upon the importance of wielding cultural and his-
torical symbols in Javant'se political culture.41 Of course, this need not
be conscious; the monuments need not be constructed as deliberate exer-
cises in politically descriptive and prescriptive didacticism for t..'iem ro
have just sud1 an effect. Underlying ideological and aesthetic concerns
of the creators of the monuments may still be apparent in their work
regardless of whet11er the creators were consciously aware of, or had
articulated, those concerns as relevant when conceiving the works: in
D. H. T,awrence's words, 'Never trust the artist. Trust the tale.' 42 As such,
Taman .~.1.i_i:ll, }~ke Sukar!!<:J'. S tomb, stands as a stylized ideograph-:-a
semiotic model in shorthand-~[ ~t:. New Ord~..:!:5'.~J?.~i~~-()f it~~L~.s a
nev: empire. In Sukarno's tomb, as in the Prambanan garden sculpture
-;x- tpe ~!!.a sS!_l!1:1.!.!!L8.~9~ - 1n-Ya!Caii:a~-t.hat-state-<>f w_!!ic:h g.2_~~~~~
ments and individuals constructing the monuments feel themselves a
_ i)_fil-L_=G_f!e,Rict.~d _witli~-~~ifiic Qrctei i_rtisucv~_~_lii.iii!i.i.i:Ji~t gives new
meanir~ to old images and speaks of Indic-Javanese empires and of
~ode-;n Indone;ia assuccessortoMa)apah"lr; while-ad>ondokindah, the
i~h;;it~r -o-f M~jap~hiti~-{i~pi~ted ;-gthe con~eror ofifie-DutC:h.-- - -
-----;\s--Ken)i -and -si~gcl -ha~e-ari~~a,-n;~~h ilia! -i; -f;;ci~~e~i;n that is
described as kitsch by Westerners seems senseless to the latter.
Westerners do not grasp the iconographical significances of the signs
CONCRETE IDEOLOGY IN PUBLI C SPACE 179
that confront them (significances far m ore apparent to Indonesiar5) be-
. cause they are unable to use an indigenous cultural 'c0de' to unlock the
meanings of the signs intended by their creators. :'V"esterI1ers, therefore,
see only the form and the significances those forms conbir. in their own
culture=-pasnche, styiistic impurity, lack o( emphasis upo:{ fonction--.,.in
other words, 'bad' art. 43 To inany Westerners, the conflicr between !he
modern and non-modern formal elements-contained in the cultunilly
specific monumental referenf es to the Javanese past, to a Westem-
influenced Javanese present, and to the ideological concerns of i:he mod-
ern Indonesian polity-may produce an incomprehensibk (unreadable)
mixture that, therefore, appears tc them inane, a meanin~less hotch-
potch, which, if 'art', is 'bad' art or kitsch.
With their 'codes' deciphered, at least in part, a different reading
appears; with some meaning perceived, the pejorative 'pastiche' m2y
become the more neutral 'eclectic'; and the significance of t,l1::t eclect-
icism may be considered. The author, therefore, argues that the imagery
of the monuments and buildings discussed above sugges1s that the pub-
lic space of New Order Java is pervaded__l?_y__the image!)'_Of ~va-centric
'third empire' . Similarly, the very fact of the presentation of these
images. of the past as symbols of the essence of New Order society is
prescriptive, suggesting that in the New Order political and monum ~ntal
style that might be labelled Pancasila-Javanism lies the correct method of
maintaining the stability and order so central to Javanese thought and
New Order political rhetoric.
I. See Erka (comp.), Bung Kama ... ! Perginya Seorang Kekasih, Suarni & Kebang-
gaanku, Semarang: Aneka, 1978, pp. 37-5, cited in Angus Mcintyre, 'Sukarno's B~linese
Mother: /'. Collage', Unpublished paper, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 1985, p. 59.
2. Windu (Javanese; Kromo/Ngoko; High!Low) is strictly a period recurring ;,., cycles
of four pcdods, each consisting of eight 210-day years, often pproximated with eight
Gregorian years.
}. Clifford Geertz, ' " Popular Art" and the Javanese Tradition', Indonesia, 25th
anniversary edn., 50 (October 1990) : 91.
4. Cindy Adams, Sukarno: An Autobiography as Told to Cindy Adams, Hong Kong:
Gunung Agung, 1966, p. 3 12.
5. Even far from the Bogor Botanical Gardens, where Suk;,mo indicated, in his 1965
will, he wished to be buried with his wife Hartini. See Majalah Info, 75 (15 June 1978): 9,
cited in Mcintyre, 'Sukarno's Balinese Mother', p. 60.
6. Candi bentar Gavanese; Kromo/Ngoko) are temp!: ;;ates having the appearance of a
single slab which has been split vertically to create the opening. Se.c n. 12 for the mean-
ing of candi.
7. Sicinggil (Javanese; Kromo/Ngoko) is a raised audience hall 01 court at the front of
the kracon, between the kraton and the alun-alun (Javanese: Kromo/Ngoko) . The alun-alun
are the grass fields at the front and, often, the rear of L'1e k raicn.
8. The name 'Kasepuhan' probably derives from sepuh (Javanese: Kromo) which
means 'old, mature, ripe', that is, indicating the Kasepuhan's status as the senior of the
two kraton in Cirebon. Regarding Cirebon and its kraton and makam (graves), see
P. A. Abdurachman (ed.), Cerbon, Jakarta: Yayasan Mitra Budaya Indonesia and Penerbit
Sinar Harapan, 1982, passim, but especially pp . 26-92.
 180 CULTUR E AND SOCIETY IN NEW ORDER INDON E SIA
C ON C RET E ID E OL U G ,- !N PUBLIC SPAC E 181
9. Kraton (Javanese: Kromo/Ngoko) is a palace or court; the word means 'the pl.ce of
35. See A. Heuken, Historical Sigh!s of Jakarta, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur: Times
the ratu' . Ratu means king, queen, or monarch.
Books International, 1982, Chap. IX; and Susan Abeyasekere, _1akarta: A History, Revised
10. See J. Prijotomo, Ideas and Forms of Javanese Architecture, Yo.zyabrta: Gadjah
edn., 1989, Singapore: Oxford University Pr~SS ; l 9R7, Chap. 2.
Mada University Press, 1984, pp. 40-2, passim.
36. For a discussion of these styles, see D. Sumir.tardja, Kompendium Sejarah Arsitektur,
11. Ibid., p. 42, Fig. 4.23.
Bandung: Yayasan Lembaga Penyelidikan ivl.asalah Bangunan, 1978, Vol. V; and M. Fry
12. The term candi (Javanese: Kromo/Ngoko) is used in Java ro refrr t0 a Javanese
and J. Drew, Tropical Architecture, Malal;ac !'.reieer, 1982, pp. 141-2.
temple or other ancient stone structures, usually of the Hindu-Buddhist era. . 37. Geertz, "'Popular Art" and the J2vauese Tradition', p. 17.
13. See Jacques Dumar~ay, The Temples of Java, Singapore: Oxford UnivPrsity Press,
38. Ibid., p. 78.
1987, Dassim, but especially pp. 63- 73.
39. The word 'Modernist' is usea here in the sense vf Berger's reference to the phe-
!4. Makam (Javanese: Kromo/Ngoko, Indonesian) is a tomb or grave associated wi!h
nomena accompanying the socially institutionaiiLeJ .-esults of technologically induced eco-
people o r status and often with a connotation of holiness .
nomic growth; see P. Berger, B. Berger, nnd H. Keller (eds.), The Homeless Mind,
iS. Wali sanga (Javanese: Kromo/Ngoko) are the 'nine saints' who are G~dited wii:h
Middlesex: Penguin, 1973, p. 15 ff.
disserninating Islam in Java. Sunan Gunung Jati of Cirebon is regarded as one of the
40. See, for example, B. R. O'C. Anderson, Mythology and the Tolerance of the Javanese,
prominent wali. See, for example, S. Salam, Sekitar il7aii Sanga, Kudus: Pen~rt;t Menara,
Monograph Series, Ithaca: Southeast A,iau Program, Cornell University, 1965, passim.
1960.
41. See, for example, .'\nderson, Mythology and the Tolerance of the Javanese, and
16. See R. Barthes, 'Myth Today', in R. Barthes (ed.), Myi iwiu15ies, London: Paladin,
Clifford Geertz, Islam Observed: Re!igi2us Dovelopment in Morocco and Indonesia, New
1972 !1989 edn.), pp . 121-4.
Haven: Ya!e University Press, 1%8, pp. 9-13, 25-9, 35-43, 82-7.
17 . .Anthony Reid, 'The Nationalist Qt1Pst for ao !ndone,ian Past' and S. Supomo,
42. D. H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic Am";frun Literature, Middlesex: Penguin, 1971,
'The Image of Majapahit in Later Javanese and Indonesian Writing', beth in Anthony
Chap. I.
Reid ~nd David Marr (eds.), Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, Singapore:
43. T. Kenji and J. Siegel, 'Invincible Kitsch or as Tourists in the Age of Des Alwi',
Heinemann, 1979, pp. 281and171 respectively.
Indonesia, 25th anniversary edn., SO (October 1990): 67.
18. Sukarno's defence speech from his 1930 trial, Indonesia Menggugat, translated in
Reid, 'The Nationalist Quest', p. 290.
19. See, for example, Supomo, 'The Image of Majapahit', p. 182 ff.
20. Muhammad Yamin, Gadjah Mada, Pahlawan Persatuan Nusantara, .; t:_; edn.,
Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1953; Sanusi Pane, Sedjarah Indonesia, 6th edn., 2 vols., Jakarta:
Perpustakaan Perguruan Kementerian P. P. dan K., Balai Pustaka, 1955 (Vol. 1) and REFERENCES
1956 (Vol. 2). See Reid, 'The Nationalist Quest', pp. 281-2; and Supomo, 'The Image of
Majapahit', pp. 182-3, fnn. 42-4. Abdurachman, P. A . (ed.), Cerbon, Jakarta: Yayasaa Mitra Budaya Indonesia
21. J. B. Hartley, The Go-Between, Middlesex: Penguin and Harnish Hamilton, and Penerhit Sinar Harapan, 1982.
1953, p . 7. Abeyasekere, Sasan, Jakarta: A History, Singapore: Oxford University Press,
22. Erlangga or Airlangga, the ruler who is supposed to have unified Bali and parts of 1987, reprinted 1989.
Java in the early eleventh century. See, for example, Drs Soeroto, Scdjarah Nasional untuk Adams, Cindy, Sukarno: An Autobiography as Told to Cindy Adams, Hong Kong:
SD, Jakarta: Penerbit Tiara, 1964, Vol. I, pp. 34-5; and D . G. E. Hall, A Hiswry of Gunung Agung, 1966.
So ..theast A sia, London: Macmillan, p. 59.
Al<ihari, H., Architectuur & Stedebouw in Indonesie, n.p., De Walburg Pers, 1988.
:J 23 . See M . Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology, trans. P. Secker, London: Peter Owen,
Anderson, Bem::uict R. O'G ., Mythology and the Tolaance of the Javanese, Mono-
1?79.
:/ 24. B. Schrieke, Indonesian Sociological Studies: Selected Writings, Part Two: Ruler and graph Series, Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 1965.
Realm in Early _7ava, The Hague: W . van Hoeve, 1957, pp. 7-10. _ _ , 'Notes on Contemporary Indonesian Political Communication', Indonesia,
25. Benedict R. O 'G. Anderson, 'Notes on Contemporary Indonesian Political 16 (October 197 3) : 63.
Communication', Indonesia, 16 (October 1973): p. 63 . Badan Pengclo la Monumen Nasio nal Jakarta, The National Monument and Its
26. See, for example, Badan Pengelola Monumen Nasional Jakarta, 1he National National Historical Museum, Jakarta, 1982.
.Monument and Its National Historical Museum, Jakarta, 1982, pllssim. Barthes, R., 'Myth T o d ay', in R. Rarthes (ed .), Mythologies, London: Paladin,
27 . Literallv. Miniature Park of Beautiful Indonesia. It was initially \J1.1dgeted in 1971 at 1972, reprinted in 1989.
$24 million (H;mish McDonald, Suharto's Indonesia, Blackburn, Australia: Fontana, 1980, Berger, P.; Berger, B.; and Keller, H . (eds.) , The H omeless Mind, Middlesex:
pp. 122, 126-7) .
Penguin, 1973.
28. McDonald, Suharto 's Indonesia, p. 127; and see aiso Anderson, 'Notes on
Fry, M. and Drew, J., Tropical Archicecture, Malabar: Kreiger, 1982.
Contemporary Indonesian Political Communication', p . 65; and Har:ild Crouch, The
Am1y and Politics in Indonesia (revised edn., 1988), Itharn: C ornell University Press, 1978, Crouch, Harold, The Army and Politics in Indonesia, Ithaca: Cornell University
p. 311. Press, 1978, reprinted 1988.
29. Anderson, 'Notes on Contemporary Indonesian Political Ccmmunication', p. 77. Duman;:ay, Jacques., The Temples of Java, Singapore: Oxford University Press,
30. Ibid., pp. 61-72. 1987.
3 1. See H . Akihari, Architectuur & Stedebouw in Indonesie, n.p., D e Walburg Pers, 1988, Geertz, Clifford, Islam Obserued: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia,
p. 76. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
32. Anderson, 'Notes on Contemporary Indonesian Political Communication', p. 40. _ _ , '"Popular Art" and the Javanese Tradition', Indonesia, 25th anniversary
33. Geertz, "'Popular Art" and the Javanese Tradition', p. 80. edn., 50 (October 1990): 77-94.
34. A ' Sukarnoist' acronym for 'neo-colonial imperialist'.
Hall, D. G. E., A History of S outheast A sia, London: Macmillan, 1964.
182 Cli L TU KE AND SOCIETY IN NEW ORDER INDON E SIA ,
Heuken, A., Historical Sights of Jakarta, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur: Times
Books International, 1982.
Hartley, J. B., The Go-Between, Middlesex: Penguin and Hamish Hamilton,
1953.
Kenji, T . and Siegel, J., 'Invincible Kitsch or as Tourists in the Age of Des
Alwi', Indonesia, 25th anniversary edn., 50 (October, 1990): 67.
Lawrence, D. II., Studies in Classic American Literature, Middlesex: Penguin,
1971.
McDonald, Hamish, Suharto's Indonesia, Blackburn: Fontana, 1980.
Mcintyre, Angus, 'Sukarno's Balinese Mother: A Collage', Unpublished paper,
La Trove Univerr.ity, Melbourne, 1985.
Pane, Sanusi, Sedjarah Indonesia, 6th edn., 2 vols., Jakarta: Perpustakaan
Pergu..ru:m Kementerian P . P. dan K., Balai Pustaka, 1955 (Vol. 1) and 1956
(Vol. 2).
Pdjowmo, )., Ideas and Forms ofJavanese Architecture, Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mad:i
University Press, 1984.
Reid, Anthuuy, 'The Nationalist Quest for an Indonesian Past', in Anthony Reid
and David Marr (eds.), Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, Singapore:
Heinemann, 1979.
Salam, S., Sekitar Wali Sanga, Kudus: Penerbit Menara, 1960.
Schrieke, B., Indonesian Sociological Studies.: Selected Writings, Part lwo: Ruler
and Realm in F:rzrl.y Java, The Hague: W. van Hoeve, 1957. '' :
t
Soeroto, Sedjarah Nasionc;l untuk SD, Jakarta: Penerbit Tiara, 1964, Vol. 1. I=

Sumintardja, D., Kompendium Sejarah Arsitektur, Bandung: Yayasan Lembaga ...

Penyelidikan Masalah Ilangunan, 1978, Vol. V.
Supomo, S., 'The Image of .Majapahit in Later Javanese and Indonesian
Writing', in Anthony Reid and David Marr (eds.), Perceptions of the Past in
Southeast Asia, Singapore: Heinemann, 1979.
Weber, M., Basic Concepts in Sociology, trans. P. Secker, London: Peter Owen,
1979.
Yamin, Muhammad, Gadjah Mada, Pahlawan Persatuan Nusanr.ara, 4th edn.,
Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1953.

.,,

..