You are on page 1of 15

THE "LITERARY" STUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE: SOME OBSERVATIONS

Author(s): AMIN SWEENEY


Source: Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 56, No. 1 (244)
(1983), pp. 33-46
Published by: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41492945
Accessed: 18-10-2017 12:51 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEXITERARVSTUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE:
SOME OBSERVATIONS

by

AMIN SWEENEY

In an attempt to expand and develop some of the points raised in my Authors an


Audiences in Traditional Malay Literature (1980), I have for some time been engaged i
study of the relationships between the Malay oral and written traditions, with particu
emphasis upon the means of persuasion available in all forms of Malay discourse. This
concern with rhetorical intent in the Malay tradition led me to consider my own purp
and assumptions in studying it, and brought home to me thè problematic position of t
observer in scholarship.
It became clear to me that a necessary preliminary to this study of the interfac
between Malay orality and literacy was a revaluation of the perceptions and presuppo
tions of our predecessors in the field, which are often still unquestioningly taken fo
granted, even though the writings of those predecessors are regularly subjected to atta
The apparent contradiction in this remark may be resolved by taking an example fro
American culture: the Blacks, long subjected to racial discrimination, began to respon
by insisting that "Black is beautiful," without realizing that they were thus unwitting
accepting the basic premise of the racist that skin colour was indeed an important fact
In my own work on Malay oral tradition, I have become aware in recent years tha
my failure to battle down the assumptions of one educated in a mass-literate print cul
led me to perceive oral composition as some kind of unwritten writing, so that I was a
to advance the outrageous notion that each rendering of the professional storyteller'
tale might be likened to "a paraphrase of an imaginary 'master -copy' " (Sweeney, 19
20), without realizing that such a concept is totally alien to the non-literate.
A popular activity over the past two decades has been "attacking Winstedt." All to
often, these criticisms have been piecemeal, concerning questions of "fact," and iron
cally, some of his harshest critics nevertheless unknowingly share his basic premises a
assumptions, which were those of the nineteenth century. For example, those who reje
Winstedt's negative evaluation of the large amount of foreign influence in Malay literat
by attempting to show that such influences are not that numerous, clearly subscribe
his basic premise that the presence of foreign influences constitutes some kind of w
ness. Yet such a view does not represent an absolute truth; it merely reflects Winste
Romanticist background. The pre-Romanticist, eighteenth century scholar Wern
(1736) took it for granted that Malay, as the learned language of scholarship over a v
area, should rightly contain all manner of foreign influences.
Winstedt was a man of enormous talents; to attack him for reflecting the attitud
of his time is self-defeating. We should be aware, however, that uncritical acceptanc
the assumptions of an age now past is likely to hinder us from asking the questions of
late twentieth century, and achieving a clearer understanding of Malay tradition on
own terms.

33

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMIN SWEENEY JMBRAS VOL. 56

One of the most widely held of


century pre-eminence of history
acceptance of the diachronic as th
the major intellectual developmen
twentieth century was the shift
field of linguistics, and was conc
study.
In the course of writing the introduction to the study mentioned above, I was
intrigued to read the comments of the late Dr. Brakel (1980:42-44) concerning Professor
Teeuw's paper on the study of so-called historical texts in Indonesian languages (1974:
1 -28). These comments seemed to offer a striking illustration of the strong influence still
exerted by the nineteenth century preoccupation with the diachronic in the field of
Malay/Indonesian literary studies. On the other hand, Professor Teeuw's paper clearly
signalled an attempt to break free from the old model and bring the study of Malay/
Indonesian literature more into the mainstream of modern "literary theory."
In particular, Brakel's criticism of Worsley (and thus of Teeuw, who agrees with
him) for a "one-sided approach" reveals Brakel's inability to see beyond his own histori-
cal model: Worseley's perceptive observations (1972:82) and Teeuw's comments on them
(1974:16) are concerned with the way "history" may affect a literary model.* This is in
no way a rejection of the validity of the study of history as Brakel seems to think, and his
insistence on an "integrative approach" would seem to demand an approach which is
simultaneously synchronic and diachronic.
However, after rereading Professor Teeuw's paper of 1974, 1 found myself in dis-
agreement with several of his arguments, for they, too, seemed to be based to a large
extent on unexamined presuppositions. As his paper is one of the first attempts to apply
"literary criticism" to the study of Indonesian "historical" writings, and appears to con-
cern itself in at least some respects with structuralism, I feel it may be worthwhile to.
provide some comments on his paper. As Professor Teeuw presented this paper eight
years ago, and it is always irritating to be criticized for views which one has subsequently
changed, it seems only fair also to examine a more recent paper dealing with similar
problems in order to ascertain whether the same presuppositions are revealed. Such a
piece is Professor Teeuw's "Tentang Membaca dan Menilai Karya Sastra" (1978). I wish
to emphasize that I have considerable sympathy for what Professor Teeuw is attempting.
Instead of resting on his well-earned laurels, he has shown himself aware of the need for
change, even though his willingness to explore new territory might make him more vul-
nerable to criticism. I myself have become increasingly aware that to limit oneself to the
methodology in which one was trained - although infinitely appreciative of the rigour
of the European tradition - would be to deny oneself the opportunity of gaining some
insight into the Malay literary system.

1 . "Some Remarks on the Study of So-called Historical Texts in Indonesian Languages"


Professor Teeuw commences by stating that he will talk about historical literature
in Indonesian languages, explaining that by "literature" he is referring to "texts which

♦In this their views are very similar to those of Scholes and Kellogg (1966:40).

34

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PART 1, 1983 LITERARY STUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE

are written' in various languages," and that "historical" pertains to "history, refe
real or presumed facts, events, persons in the past" (p.3). It is this definition of
which should surely determine the actual use to which they are put. Then, inste
"literature" or "historical" we could equally well use "x" or "y" as signifiers
wished. Yet it is here that the posit ivistic presuppositions appear to assert them
Instead of using the terms as he has defined them, Professor Teeuw feels the n
"dwell briefly on each of these two words," and considers what literature really
This seems to reflect a pre-Saussurean, substantive way of thinking. "Literature
as a Platonic form; behind the word there is some pristine meaning to be sought
even if Professor Teeuw were only attempting to achieve a consensus of Western
through the ages as to what constitutes "literature," the results would be mislead
to the tendency of societies to naturalize the ideas of the past in accordance wit
own perceptions. For example, modern scholars showed great ingenuity in t
rationalize Plato's views on "poetry" and his hostility towards it, until Havelock
demonstrated that Plato's conception of "poetry" was entirely different from tha
modern age. Thus, even if Professor Teeuw were merely seeking a consensus of
the approach he uses would provide him only with twentieth century Western pe
of what constitutes literature. More specifically, he would be dealing with the per
of a highly-literate, visually-consuming, print culture.

However, Professor Teeuw does not attempt to reconcile the various tw


century Western views of "literature." Rather, he settles for a somewhat narro
pretation of the (once) New Critics' view of the work of literature as a clos
Nowadays, the New Critics are often criticized for their resolute insistence on "
tering the poem as a unit from life and from all else" (Ong, 1977:48). Seen in co
the apparently rather extreme doctrines of the New Critics are more easily und
as a reaction against the impressionistic criticism of the nineteenth century, th
many-children-had-Lady-Macbeth kind of approach, and the more "vulgar M
criticism. Placed in a wider context, the New Criticism represented, according t
(1977:217-22), a final break with the old residually oral rhetorical tradition, in w
literature "as a purely aesthetic activity had little, if any, place." The feeling for
of literature as a closed field "signals the end of the old rhetorical world by recas
readers or 'audience' in a spectator's rather than an interlocutor's role. So long a
was assimilated to rhetoric, it operated within the agonistic framework of real
decision and action" (Ong, 1977:222).
Professor Teeuw does not appear to see the New Critics in such a context. R
he accepts their views at face value as some universal principle. Indeed, he c
rather narrow version of their doctrine which holds that a work of literature "should
mean but be," in the sense that "To say that something has meaning or signific
to refer it outside itself. . ." and meaning would thus break open any closed fie
1977:219). In Professor Teeuw's own words, "Specifically [the reader] is not requ
supposed to check the narrative or poem against any form of reality as he knows
his experience or from other non-literary sources" (p. 4). Citing War and Pe
example, Professor Teeuw states that "from the literary point of view it is irre
whether Tolstoy has handled the historical facts adequately as history." Yet wer
leon to be depicted as conquering Russia and then proceeding on to India as a lat

35

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMIN SWEENEY JMBRAS VOL. 56

Alexander, the reader might have


reader for such possibilities in hi
the text as a closed field or an obj
an author and an audience. What
to which the author implied in th
audience. If he does not, we shall
example is James ClavelTs Shogun
be shown a picture of seventeenth
torical facts" causes the reader fa
has not been entirely fulfilled. Sim
to the contrary, very germane to
between the norms of the postu
bridged, the latter will, quite just
text. (For an enlightening discuss
1961 :1 19 ff.).
Professor Teeuw interrupts his expounding of the New Critic's doctrine with the
following apostrophe: much of modern theoretical research is concerned with the
reader - " (p.4). In its context, this remark strikes a strange note, for the various "reader
criticisms" arose precisely as a reaction against the heavy and uncritical emphasis on the
autonomous text divorced from life placed by approaches such as the narrower versions
of New Criticism.

This is not to imply a rejection of the idea of the text as an autonomous whole, to
which, moreover, the New Critics by no means had sole rights. Even Trotsky, whose
Marxism was anathema to the New Critics, ascribes a high degree of autonomy to an
artistic form, while recognizing that it is the product of social "content" (Eagleton,
1976:43). But to insist on a divorce between literature and "life," "reality," or "society,"
is to deny its social function and normative effects, for literature is an instrument of
socialization, it reinforces a society's norms and values and, paradoxically, may also
question them, thus helping to bring about social change.
The New Critics' insistence on a close study of the text itself, moreover, is wholly
laudable, and again this was already a widely accepted idea, deriving from explication de
texte. But of course a work of art could not really be studied in a vacuum, and the New
Critics naturally took for granted the wealth of knowledge, not merely of the literary
context but also of the social background which they had to bring to bear on a text even
to understand it. But the problem for those who see literature as discourse is that the
New Critics tended to view a text as an object somehow independent of both author and
audience. Their concept of the reader was an "ideal" reader, and though perhaps not as
anti-intentionalistic as often stated, they concentrated on the text's intentions, in which
an author had no part, and "tended to reduce the variety of actual intentions to a few
basic qualities - unity, coherence, complexity, irony - and thus seemed to a later gene-
ration to impose a straitjacket on the reader" (Booth, 1979:370). The separation of
author and audience is rejected alike by the "New Rhetoric" and structuralism, (though
in other respects their approaches differ markedly). Barthes (1974:4), for example,
observes that "Our literature is characterized by the pitiless divorce which the literary
institution maintains between the producer of the text and its user, between its owner

36

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PART 1 , 1983 LITERARY STUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE

and its customer, between its author and its reader. This reader is thereby plunged into
a kind of idleness - he is intransitive; . .
In considering the term "historical," Professor Teeuw states that "By definition,
historical, used as a qualification for a text, indicates the fact that this text refers to the
extralinguistic reality of the past" (p.5). I feel it would have been helpful if Professor
Teeuw had distinguished between "history" as the past, and "history" as the report on
the past, or perception of the past, for his use of "extralinguistic reality" seems to imply
that there is some such existing entity. History is not out there waiting to be recorded;
it is created by man, and is the product of interpretation in language. It is his perception
of the past.
Professor Teeuw has thus dispensed with his original, adequate definition of the
terms "literature" and "historical"; in their stead he has presented as the intrinsic mean-
ings of the words what are, in fact, the opinions of a certain element of a particular
society at a given point in time. Of course, the problem of referentiality causes Professor
Teeuw to see an apparent contradiction of terms, which has to be reconciled in anticipa-
tion of what he knows he will find in his "Indonesian textual materials." This causes him
to examine his terms for the third time, "somewhat more closely," which involves the
inclusion of various qualifications and reservations to what has been said before. The
liberal use of phrases such as "even if it is true, generally speaking," "it is true that in
general," "however, this does not mean ... no relation whatsoever," etc., gives the
impression of backtracking, and leads by way of a loose argument to the view that "the
distinction between literary and referential use of language is neither absolute nor water-
tight." The final distinction made this time is slightly different from before: again the
reader need not think about the relation of literature to "outside reality;" the question
for the reader is whether the story is 44rue. . .as a story." However, "a real event" may
produce "a true story," but the author transforms "reality into literature in his own
way," and this will differ (a difference of kind, not of degree) from "the report. . .by the
journalist or the historian" (pp.6-7).
One wonders why, if this is the distinction Professor Teeuw wishes to make, he did
not do so at the outset, for the distinction is only what he chooses to make it, and the
problem of apparent contradiction is self-created, resulting from his choice of model. I
believe that a rhetorical or structuralist approach (for Professor Teeuw's methodology
is not, apparently, structuralist, despite the random mention of tel quel) would have
avoided the problems of his distinction. Thus, the structuralists' concept of the sign
unites not a "thing" and its name, but a concept or signifie and its signifiant Professor
Teeuw, however, still appears to see matters in terms of words relating to "referents" in
the "real" world, and it is clear from his frequent references to "reality" that he believes
in some ordered "reality" out there, independent of human perception.
Professor Teeuw now brings his model to bear on Indonesian materials. This is a
strangely circular argument: having dubbed "historical literature" those Indonesian texts
possessing some perceived similarity to what for him is "literature" and "history," he
creates a model in which the two terminological slots have been semantically refilled with
the presuppositions of one element of a highly literate print culture, and applies it to the
writings of a radically oral society in order to see whether the Indonesian materials really
are literature and/or history. The problem is that he is unaware that they are only pre-

37

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMIN SWEENEY JMBRAS VOL. 56

suppositions. A more self-consciou


ed to him that his ideas on "litera
society than are the Indonesian sc
Thus, while Professor Teeuw's
"history" is not like Western hist
materials in terms of his preconce
schemata. "You can see only a
methodological starting point d
object of study" (Jameson, 1972:1
The first example Professor Tee
of the Pararaton , tailored to mes
report. He compares this text wit
equate with the report of the jou
cludes a report, which is meant t
As such it is completely function
"functional in its own right" and
past events, is described by Profes
intended to tell the reader what h
"fiction?" Is not the "report" also
does Professor Teeuw determine w
the same error that he perceives i
not based upon an assessment of in
- for where is the evidence? - but
literature. His criterion for what
is what seems humanly possible, a
sense" standard, as against what se
in the society concerned.
Professor Teeuw sees the same d
a draft to be transposed into tem
"fiction." His model thus causes h
inscription, and an incomplete dr
Teeuw clearly does not take cogni
may distinguish between casual/no
a distinction is not to be equated
as a craft. And, referring to the t
"how such a text aims at being lit
irresistible pull of his given schem
valent in Western culture, one m
completed essay.
Yet, remarkably, on page 9, Pro
tinction noted in the Indonesian t
in question is "not without its pr
length what is, in fact, a common
occupies himself with Indonesian
the reader for whom the text wa

38

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PART 1,1983 LITERARY STUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE

the ethos-maintaining and oft-repeated "modern research" is again invoked, and


rence made to reader response criticism, which for Professor Teeuw "assumes ta
that the reader ... is close enough to the writer ... to read the book from t
general background as the latter wrote it." In fact, a major focus of the reader
criticism advocated by scholars such as Stanley Fish (1972) is the reconstruction
"informed reader" of times past. Be that as it may, Professor Teeuw reaches the
clusion that the boundary drawn by the modern reader in Indonesian texts
"fictional and referential may be quite different from what the writer intended"
audience understood (p. 10), and that the "problem of the boundary. . .is fundam
different from what we find in Western literature" (p. 11). This cannot but neg
validity of Professor Teeuw's views concerning what is "meant" and "intended,"
the "aims" in the texts referred to above.

Even so, Professor Teeuw continues to perceive Indonesian literature in term


his distinction, for the reference to Sejarah Bauten comes only on page 20.
viously, but more importantly for the understanding of Professor Teeuw's
thought, the distinction is clearly seen in his remark: "A text such as the Baron S
is both fictional and referential but the opposition is irrelevant from the point
of the writer and the reader for whom the text was written" (p.l 1). What was a d
boundary is now an "irrelevant opposition." Professor Teeuw cannot mean
society which produced the texts was aware of the opposition but chose to ignore
where is the evidence? After all, the boundary is said to be fundamentally diffe
seems that by "irrelevant" he means that the society in question did not see any
tion. The inevitable conclusion is that the opposition exists only in Professor Te
mind. Fictionality and referentiality for him are clearly objective categories, not
constructs produced by his own perceptions. The opposition, moreover, is a false
for a different set of standards is used to produce each of the two categories co
therein: on the one hand, "the Javanese ascribe to the texts ... a referential char
on the other hand, "we tend to recognize in these texts a world in words which in
respects . . . complies with all the requirements of fictionality" (p.l 1, my italics
we see the imagined parallel resulting from the pull of the schemata.
Having come this far, however, Professor Teeuw sees that the "problem" he
created is not unique for Indonesian literature. He perceives, in fact, that his pr
ceived distinction does not hold good even for Western literature, e.g. ancient Gre
medieval Western texts, and that he must "take into account the problem of the a
purpose and the social function of the text" (p. 12). Yet his distinction was b
Western literature. Surely these factors should have been taken into account at th
All Professor Teeuw accomplishes in this circular, self-consuming argument is to
strate that his distinction was based on an unsatisfactory conception of "literatur
I feel that Professor Teeuw could well have dispensed with his theoretical pr
menon, for the model he produces does not enhance our understanding of Indon
historical writings, rather causing them to be transformed into the terms of P
Teeuw's perceptions of Western literature. I have focussed my attention upon th
of his paper because my aim is, I believe, a positive one: to demonstrate how we
see the unfamiliar in terms of familiar schemata, and how necessary is a self-co
effort to rectify this tendency. This is not, therefore, a negative attempt to dem

39

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMIN SWEENEY JMBRAS VOL. 56

paper in toto. On the contrary, I fin


Teeuw's observations, but these, I w
would seem to be inspired rather by
tive for their time, to the effect tha
interpretation of actual events is str
(p.ll). This leads Professor Teeuw to t
lakon forms the basic pattern of hist
self-conscious approach would have ta
patterns is universal; to imagine that
"God's-truth," objectively real "histor
in the lakon structure a model or sche
so does the modern historian come to
models which allow him to bring som
chaos. Without such themes, it would
vain task to attempt to relate everyt
five minutes in but one location. In a
vastly more numerous than in an ora
ceived need to adjust the schemata in
The use of such schemata or themes e
considers significant and likely to be
work of history may possess inner co
is in this way, too, that history appe
have any monopoly on "reality." For
scribe, "history" is a perception of re

The literary (and indeed oral) compo


in kind from that of a print culture
much bigger than those to which we a
by nature formulaic, the fact that the
ed culture leads us to see its literatur
mulaically composed. In such a society
order to accomplish a particular purpo
need may well arise for a composer t
will entail using smaller çhunks; the
fic at one or more levels, from that
1980). Viewing the matter from a som
40) observe that "If we should begin
account of an event, the epic treatmen
distortion and contamination with ob
other hand, we begin by reconstru
tradition, we evecan see the historical
and topoi , . . ." This is very similar t
"It is possible that certain problemati
rical events." It is perhaps rather rev
statement, replacing "events" with "f
expanding on Worsley's conclusion

40

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PART 1, 1983 LITERARY STUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE

"reality," thus harking back to ideas of objectively real, "extra-linguistic reality." T


certainly no reason to assume that author and audience felt that what we see as f
material was any more "real" than the schematic core, or were even aware of any
tinction to be made. Both were perceptions of what happened, of "reality."
Professor Teeuw's substantive, non-rhetorical way of thinking is again seen
choice of "story." It is not the "story" which is being "disturbed" or "distorted,"
the schema or model. The story is what results from the process. Problems only
when we insist on looking at a text not as a medium, but as an object, torn from n
of intentionality, for it is the author's intentions vis-a-vis his audience which dete
how far he must adjust his schemata in order to achieve his purpose.
This tendency to confuse "story" and schema is clearly seen in Professor Tee
listing of literary models (pp.23-25). It appears that Brakel (1980:43) is referring
problem when he notes that models and motifs "may well overlap or be found co
in the texts under discussion," although I do not see how a motif can overlap
model. The problem for me is that Professor Teeuw does not distinguish between
Propp (1968) would call "functions" on the one hand, and motifs or dynamic mat
such as characters, objects and events on the other. This distinction may also
pressed in terms of the motifemic as against the motifetic, the slot as against the f
the ensemble of possibilities as against the actual choices made to realize a tale.
My final comment on this paper refers again to the boundary assumed betw
fictionality and referentiality. Instead of attempting to apply a narrow distinction
by Western standards) and then being forced to conclude that the boundary was d
in Indonesian societies, it would be worthwhile to investigate whether such a bou
exists/existed and if so, where it lies. A fruitful area for such an investigation mig
be oral composition, such as the wayang, which of course is not literature per se
being oral and thus of the present, can it be seen as a product of the period whi
rise to the writings under discussion. Nevertheless, I would submit that a study
composition offers us many insights into the workings of traditional literature (S
1980). To the Malay dalang, for example, the tales of Rama and Sita are as
"history" ( sejarah ) as, say, an account of the reign of Long Yunus of Kelantan, wh
at the end of the eighteenth century, and he can muster an impressive array of "ev
in the local terrain to prove that the events related actually occurred. Other tales,
ing the same structure and very similar dynamic content are considered to be just
And while in the case of many tales, teller and audience do not even consider the
tion of whether the tale is "true" until they are asked, there are other stories w
clear distinction is made between what really happened, what could or may have
pened, and what is just a tale. And often there is no consensus. There is thus no
distinction assumed between fact ^and fiction. My point is, however, that the ar
garded as history, i.e., what is believed to have happened, might well surprise the
historian. And while the existence of genres such as silsilah seems to offer him c
guidelines, the truth of the matter is that what he delineates as "historical" writin
not coincide with traditional Malay perceptions, and merely reflects his own vie
the past and what could really have happened.
2. "Tentang Membaca dan Menilai Karya Sastra"
In this paper, the ethos projected is that of a structuralist, as seen from the u

41

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMIN SWEENEY JMBRAS VOL. 56

"code," "écriture," and several refere


voice is didactic. The intended audienc
ly chequered knowledge of literature
Shelley, does not know who Barthes
"code;" and yet needs to be told what
literary theory" such as Wellek and W
Yet even the reader familiar with
informed how a writer intends to em
on the most basic level to be a system
merely refers to already existing on
in literary theory make it imperative
Barthes, who is not always averse to m
to define carefully his use of "cod
does not define his "code," and indee
places it seems that a code is a "sy
places "a convention" is a code (e.g
(e.g., p.333, 344); elsewhere "conven
difficult to understand how "code"
"principle" until we realize that Prof
sense at all, and that his approach stil
the relational one insisted on by Saus
a list of universalistic principles in th
criticized by Booth (1979:12-25) for t
Professor Teeuw's pronouncemen
romanticist roots. Here we are not
universal thought patterns of the Pe
gentium, "the notion that there are s
as right, readjust, or attractive and th
or attractive" (Geertz, 1973:38-39).
from an ethnocentric, non-sociologic
assumption that all audiences have th
valid at all times" (Rockwell, 1974:161
setting the normative trends in Wes
given rise to the absurd assumption t
criteria. That we agree with Aristotle
heirs of the classical tradition. But t
idea of unviersal truth would coincid
actions, attitudes, norms and values
impossible for us to identify with the
Laura Bohannan (1966) for their re
norms of that drama.

However, Professor Teeuw does not


with universal truth. Aware that he
with: "at least, that is the assumption
as a reader of literature" (p.341). I pr

42

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PART 1, 1983 LITERARY STUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE

Teeuw, but to the reader of literature in general, for he is speaking of conve


his literary code is supposedly of universal validity. Yet to suggest that a ma
place or age approaches a literary work of any place or age with the expectat
ing universal truth is absurd. To assert that the expectation of universal truth
sal convention is to attribute what is merely a viewpoint of certain circles of
middle class to "mankind" in general.
Another example of a non-universal "universal" is Professor Teeuw's pr
ment that in literary language redundancy is "not permitted" (p.337). It is
understanding of "redundancy" is that of a highly literate print culture, wh
ces its literature visually. It is only our print -centric, visualistic norm that
speak of "redundancy" in everyday speech. What is seen as redundant in te
or writing is not redundant in terms of orality/aurality, for what, in Profe
own words, "limits the possibility of a failure of communication" is no
Furthermore, assertions on redundancy all too often ignore the fact that d
rhetorical, and one is reminded of the teacher who admonished his pupil w
junction: "Do not repeat yourself. It is sufficient to state an idea once. Ther
to repeat it."
While redundancy may be "not permitted" in print literature intended
consumption, this does not hold good for "literature" in general: in a radicall
script culture where literature is largely consumed aurally, copiousness - i.e.
by print culture norms - is an essential for effective communication. T
traditional Malay prose and poetry, who used endless repetition and a
"meaningless" fillers was verbose only when judged by those print culture st
As in his earlier paper, Professor Teeuw comes back to his view that
"creates a world of fantasy that has absolutely no necessity to have a conne
any kind of reality" (p. 336). This simplistic view of "art for art's sake" is e
strongly put than before. But literature is not the crystallized result of priv
for otherwise there could be no history of literature. Literature is the
society, and is indeed an institution of society. A writer is bound both by hi
ing and the expectations of his audience to the norms and values of society. L
not only a representation of social reality; it is an instrument of both social
social change (cf. e.g., Rockwell, 1974). It would seem that the censor, w
Teeuw considers to misunderstand the nature of a work of art (p.341), is m
touch with the social function of literature than is Professor Teeuw.

Professor Teeuw also speaks of "divergence" or "negation" of litera


or "conventions." This, he contends, causes many problems for the reader:
that I, as a reader, can never consider myself to have succeeded in masterin
ventions of literature" (p.344). Yet it would seem that Professor Teeuw is se
proposition merely in order to strike it down, for after discussing the work
he observes that the writer cannot but operate within a system of conventio
a quotation concerning creative innovation which "works essentially in rela
principles of structural organization which exist in the writer, the reader
munity before the change is initiated" (p.348). It does seem that Profes
rather belabouring the point in his endeavour to explain something which is
accepted: the level of expectation of the audience. If the audience has n

43

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMIN SWEENEY JMBRAS VOL. 56

in mastering the conventions of litera


to violate. "Authors may surprise us
ventional expectations are available in
127). Thus, for example, an "antiplot"
of "plot."
Professor Teeuw examines violation of convention in terms of Lotman's (1973:
400 ff.) "aesthetic of opposition"' (p.345-46). This latter concept is applied to works in
which the "structures" are not supplied in advance. While I agree with Professor Teeuw's
rejection of the idea that the "aesthetic of opposition" is peculiar to "modern" as
opposed to "traditional" literature, I feel that citing the considerable freedom to impro-
vize in the Javanese wayang is rather begging the question, for freedom to improvize
does not in itself imply any violation of convention or possibility of structural change.
Here, again, we must recognize the distinction between slot and filler, motifemic change
and motifetic variety. A genre may thus be structurally stable, yet permit a wide assort-
ment of dynamic material.

One wonders, furthermore, why Professor Teeuw finds it necessary to invoke


Barthes and Lotman in his discussion of surprise and recognition in literature. This is not
an element introduced by the structuralists, and such views have long held wide currency
in Western literary criticism, as evidenced, for example, by Kenneth Burke's Counter-
Statement, published in 1931. Similarly, it seems unnecessary to have to appeal to
" écriture " and West African literature in order to present what is a sociological common-
place concerning the social function of literature, which, moreover, hardly accords with
what he has said before.

The fact that the African artist who would attack the social system must make use
of traditional forms (p.349) does not reflect any special feature of "traditional society,"
or the fact that his art is performing art, or that the society is not open to surprises.
Rather, it is an example of what has been emphasized above concerning audience ex-
pectation: whether or not a composer intends to introduce change, he must first establish
common ground with his audience.

Of course, structural or schematic change may occur in a primarily or radically oral


society. In such a society, however, - i.e. compared to a print society - the very task of
preserving knowledge demands conformity. Art tends to make use of the basic schemata,
in what Gombrich (1969) calls "conceptual art." A composer may be motivated to adjust
his schemata to achieve a specific purpose and elicit a particular reaction from his
audience. When the adjustment is found to achieve its purpose, the modified schema of
one composer becomes the starting point for his emulators; when the latter are also
motivated to make further adjustments, the process of schema and correction gathers
momentum and eventually, writers consciously struggle to abandon the methods of
schematic composition and be "original," which only really occurs when a reading public
appears. (See further Sweeney, 1980:72). The need to ensure effective communication
militates against constant schematic change in an orally oriented society where literature
is aurally consumed. This is even true of our electronic, secondarily oral society (to use
Ong's terminology), where T.V. soap operas are almost as schematically stable as a
wayang performance.

44

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PART 1, 1983 LITERARY STUDY OF MALAY-INDONESIAN LITERATURE

I feel, therefore, that Professor Teeuw's belief that the "aesthetic of opposition
is very probably found in the presentation of traditional literature again begs the q
tion. This would have become even clearer if he had distinguished between literature
oral composition, for he appears to be referring to the latter. As it is not clear how
chanting of a manuscript - as was the custom inter alia in traditional Malay society
could introduce the aesthetic of opposition, he would be forced to make a basic dist
tion between literature, which does not have such an "aesthetic," and oral compositi
which he suspects does, although evidence is not given.
I believe that this whole question of a distinction between "traditional" a
"modern" becomes a lot less problematic if we view it in the following terms: the exp
tation that convention will be violated is itself a convent^pn, which only tends to ari
a highly literate print culture, where the consumption of literature is visual.
My aim in this paper has not been to score points off Professor Teeuw, for wh
work I have the greatest respect. Rather, I have been concerned with attemptin
demonstrate how prone we all are to naturalize what is culturally alien and to perce
our own standards as universais. I am aware how easy it is to see through the presu
sitions of others, and how difficult to identify one's own assumptions. It is, howev
positive step to become aware of one's own very problematic position as observer.
' Without doubt, many of Professor Teeuw's views on literature will be found acc
able by some modern literati in Indonesia and Malaysia, and I am not by any m
suggesting that this should be a cause for concern, My point is, however, that it is
evidence of the universality of such views, but merely reflects historical developm
in particular the heritage of colonial education and the transition from being a rad
oral manuscript culture to a print culutre, The Dtuch have had no small part in the d
lopment of modern Indonesian literature and criticism. Thus, when a scholar oi Profe
Teeuw's stature and influence finds welcome confirmation of his views in the writi
of Indonesians, it is quite likely that those writings owe much, in fact, to the work
Professor Teeuw himself.
While not wishing to belittle the very significant contribution that Professor Tee
has made to this field, I do feel that it is time to exercise more caution in prescrib
rules for the writing of literature in a culture very different from one's own. The
that, for example, Indonesian literature has adopted the genre "novel" from the West
middle class should not be a reason for expecting that the Indonesian novel should m
the requirements of its Western "counterpart" any more than we expect a Malay se
to resemble a Sanskrit sloka , or a hikayat to suit the taste of the intended reader
Arabic hikayat. The norms and values of the Indonesian author and his audience are
those of the West. The questions he wishes to answer, the effects he seeks to create
reactions he requires from his audience and the methods he uses to achieve these ai
are likely to be very different from what obtains in an industralized, urbanized Wes
society.
A word of approval or disapproval for a writer in many third world countries from
a Western professor of literature often has dramatic effects on that writer's fortunes in
his own country. It would be unfortunate, therefore, if Indonesian and Malaysian authors
were to write for a postulated audience of Western professors rather than for their own
societies.

45

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMIN SWEENEY JMBRAS VOL. 56

WORKS CUED

Barthes, Roland, 1970, S/Z. New York: Hill and Wang, 1974. (French original 1970
Bohannan, L., 1966, "Shakespeare in the Bush." Natural History, 75, 7.
Booth, Wayne, С., 1961, The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Brakel, L.F., 1980, "Dichtung und Wahrheit, Som


Study of Indonesian Historiography," Archipel, 2
Burke, Kenneth, 1968, Counter-Statement. Berke
printed 1931).
Clavell, James, 1975 Shogun. New York: Dell.
Eagleton, Terry, 1 976, Marxism and Literary Criticis
Fish, Stanley E., 1972, Self-Consuming Artifacts. Ber
Geertz, Clifford, 1973, The Interpretation of Cultu
Gombrich, E.H., 1969, Art and Illusion. Princeton: Pr
Havelock, Eric A., 1967 .Preface to Plato. New York:
Jameson, Frederic, 1972, The Prison-House of Langua
Lotman, J., 1973, La structure du texte artistiqu
Struktura Khudozestvenogo Texta).
Ong, Walter J., 1977 , Interfaces of the Word. Ithaca
Pigeaud, Theodore G. Th., 1927, "Alexander, Sakèn
Propp, V., 1968, Morphology of the Folktale. Austin
lished in 1928 in Russian).
Rockwell, Joan, 1974, Fact in Fiction. London: Rout
Scholes, Robert and Robert Kellogg, 1966, The Na
University Press.
Sweeney, Amin, 1980, Authors and Audiences in
graph 20, Berkeley: Center for South and Southe

Teeuw, A., 1974, "Some Remarks on the Study


sian Languages," Sixth International Conf
Yogyakarta.

121.

Werndly,G.H., 1736 , Maleis


Worsley, P.J., 1972, Baba
Nijhoff.

46

This content downloaded from 219.92.180.118 on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:51:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like