33.7 C
Kuala Lumpur
29 March 2024 (Friday)
spot_img

Developing a School of Autonomous Knowledge: Thoughts of the Late Syed Hussein Alatas

by Imad Alatas, National University Singapore.

The 23rd of January, 2007, is the day my grandfather passed on. Fourteen years have passed since then. Four years ago, I wrote a piece on the occasion of his tenth death anniversary. The piece was more personal than academic, focusing on the impact he had on me. This time, I would like to share his thoughts on intellectual development in the Third World and what was needed to create a more progressive society. In particular, I will focus on his ideas for what we may call the School of Autonomous Knowledge. The School of Autonomous Knowledge can be defined as a school of thought where theory building, concept formation, the application of methods and the recognition of definite phenomena are undertaken in a way that is relevant to a specific society and in contradiction to Eurocentric, androcentric, nationalist or sectarian interests. Embedded in this school is an autonomous social science tradition, which I will discuss towards the end of this piece. Alatas’ ideas for such a social science tradition can be located in his thought as he was observing the backwardness of developing societies at both the political-economic and knowledge production levels. The latter led him to think of the problem of the captive mind in developing societies.

By the captive mind, Alatas was referring to the mindset of scholars in developing societies who uncritically accept Western scholarly literature without being discerning or selective in their reading. When discussing social problems unique to their society, captive minds lack the ability to think critically or on their own and are instead held ‘captive’ by Eurocentric ways of thinking. The problem of the captive mind is unique to the non-Western world. While captive minds exist in the West as well, social scientists there are hardly trained in non-Western sciences or trained by non-Western scholars in non-Western languages. Hence, a captive mind in the West does not exist in the context of domination by the non-Western world.

Alatas divided the problems of any community into two categories: the subjective and the objective. While subjective problems concerned the individual, the objective referred to problems that were found beyond the individual. The captive mind was the most pressing subjective problem in Asian societies. On the other hand, corruption was the most pressing objective problem in its many manifestations. For Alatas, solving the subjective problem of the captive mind was a pre-requisite to dealing with objective problems such as economic underdevelopment and the attitude of political leaders towards corruption. Alatas noted that the backwardness of Asian and African societies was caused more by subjective factors than objective problems. Objective problems, even if seemingly insurmountable, could be overcome if society could restrict the influence of the captive mind.

Although the captive mind was originally used to talk about academic dependency on Western scholarly literature, it has also manifested itself in more practical areas of life such as development planning, local politics and religious affairs. A captive mind in the area of development planning adopts the language of ‘change’ and ‘efficiency’ when thinking about economic development, while dehumanizing students and workers as ‘human capital’ useful only as input in accelerating economic growth. Lessons on how to be a good, ethical human being are foregone as countries in the developing world simply ape development models in the First World in the narrow pursuit of economic growth.

Syed Farid Alatas (personal communication, Jan 2021) also expanded the concept of the captive mind by noting its manifestations within political and religious institutions in Malaysia. In the political realm, racial exclusivist mindsets within some segments of the Malay scholarly community constitute a blind imitation of the discourse of ultranationalist Malay parties and politicians. Whatever hatred ultranationalist parties may spout is simply repeated by scholars and others without questioning the origins of such hate speech. In the religious sphere, anti-Shia discrimination and stereotypes prevalent among some Sunni Muslim scholars is the result of an uncritical acceptance of anti-Shia hate speech disseminated by religious authorities. In these examples of local domination, there is no attempt or wherewithal to think critically about race or religion. Instead, the opinions of a few are adopted wholesale. Regardless of where and how the captive mind manifests itself, what is needed to counter it is the creative mind. Only the creative mind can overcome local and international forms of domination and facilitate the emergence of intellectuals and progressive leadership to create a more progressive society.

Islam & Socialism

Alatas felt that a progressive society was one guided by socialist ideals due to the latter’s emphasis on social justice. Alatas’ interactions with Indonesian intellectuals during his studies in the Netherlands sparked his interest and curiosity in socialist ideas. His book Islam dan Sosialisme (Islam and Socialism) was written during a time when socialism was dismissed as atheistic and un-Islamic by segments of the Islamic resurgence movement during the 1970s. Yet, an equal outrage against the excesses of capitalism did not exist. This section of the Islamic resurgence movement was held ‘captive’ by the capitalist model while disregarding any alternative framework for nation-building. Moreover, Alatas noted that the group of Muslims who were anti-socialist due to the presence of strands of socialism that were atheistic ignored the fact that capitalism too was atheistic. While he stressed that various strands of socialism were contrary to Islamic beliefs, he viewed Islam and socialism in general as compatible belief systems.[1] Alatas showed that Islam and socialism were not very dissimilar; Islam contained many socialist elements such as treating people equally regardless of gender, religion, or socio-economic background. In his book, he listed ten traits of socialism:[2]

  1. Socialism places heavy emphases on the needs of human life and the means of production. These means of production, and efforts to organize them for areas which are important for livelihood, should be controlled and owned by the state or cooperatives, and not by individual capitalists.
  2. This ownership and control by the state or cooperatives is to prevent any exploitation of workers and consumers so that the prices of goods are not deliberately raised and the quality of goods are not deliberately reduced.
  3. The state has to actively formulate and implement laws so that the production and distribution of goods is done fairly and equitably.
  4. Socialism posits that one’s surrounding conditions determine the nature of an individual and the emergence of social problems. If humanity lives in a state of deprivation, it will not progress.
  5. Socialism posits that society is influenced by classes with specific interests. The dominant class forces its agenda on the people. The dominant class decides the law and brings to life a belief system which protects their own and not the public interest.
  6. Socialism aims to eradicate the injustices that arise from the capitalist system which is the opposite of socialism. In capitalist countries, logging companies, mining, rice milling, housing and others, are all privately owned. In socialism, companies that can be maintained by the state and which are much-needed by the public are managed by the state or cooperatives.
  7. Socialism posits that every member of society who is healthy and of age should work. In society nobody should be unemployed and rely on funds from the state or other members of society.
  8. Socialism posits that all the spheres of society such as the cultural, the social, the religious, the educational and so on should be such that they do not prevent but promote economic growth, scientific knowledge, justice, health, and life satisfaction in general.
  9. In considering an issue, socialism advocates for the majority and the disadvantaged based on the principles of justice. If a government is driven by the spirit of socialism, it will place emphasis on raising the salaries of the low-income rather than higher-income workers.
  10. Socialism employs science as far as possible in the formulation of problems, in the understanding of history and in the construction of a belief system.

Alatas listed these ten traits of socialism as conditions that had to be fulfilled in order to bring about a society based on justice and fairness. However, such a society had to be led by capable leaders who possessed a critical mind. Alatas had just finished writing Islam dan Sosialisme before he read Dr Mahathir’s Menghadapi Cabaran (Facing the Challenge). He was aware that Mahathir viewed Islam and socialism in oppositional terms. Alatas’ criticism of Mahathir is noteworthy as the latter was prime minister of Malaysia at that time. He felt that Mahathir too was not aware that there were different types of socialism. As the chief leader of Malaysia, he could be said to have promoted views which were contrary to ideals of progress.

Intellectuals and Capable Leaders 

Alatas had emphasized the importance of intellectuals and effective leaders during his lifetime. In his book Intellectuals in Developing Societies, he noted that the role of an intellectual was to pose problems and suggest solutions to them. He compared functioning intellectuals with members of the intelligentsia who were not intellectuals. Functioning intellectuals were actively involved in: “(1) the posing of problems; (2) the definition of problems; (3) the analysis of problems; and (4) the solution of problems”.[3] A functioning intellectual did not necessarily have to possess academic qualifications as long as the person had adequate knowledge on the subject matter. By contrast, a member of the intelligentsia may be highly educated in terms of qualifications but accepts what is taught to him uncritically. Such an individual lacks an emotional commitment to the intellectual pursuit and does not strive to think of pressing problems. Lastly, this individual is not capable of articulating an opinion beyond what most people already know.

Alatas also compared the intellectual with the fool. He invented the term bebalisma (derived from the Malay word bebal) to describe an attitude of mind of someone who was bebal, or a fool. He attributed the attitude of a fool to several traits whose end manifestation included “ignorance, persistent stubbornness instead of persistent effort, indolence and indifference”.[4] Although found throughout the world, bebalisma is most visible in developing countries. The fool does not use logic, empirical evidence or rational thought when faced with intellectual and practical challenges. According to Alatas, the fool is usually exposed in times of crisis. A person who is a fool can neither inspire nor be inspired and cannot be guided by ideals of excellence.

Ideals of Excellence & Ideals of Destruction

Functioning intellectuals and leaders possess several traits which Alatas described as the ideals of excellence (cita sempurna). He elaborated on this term during a workshop entitled “Asian Youth Council 4th Advanced Youth Leadership Training Workshop.”[5] According to him, an ideal of excellence is “an all-encompassing view geared towards achieving a society of excellence. These ideals of excellence also inspire great efforts towards achieving such a society”.[6] Alatas went on to explain the concept of the ideals of excellence in greater detail. The ideals of excellence may be defined as a view of life that is virtuous, contented, just and ennobling for a society. These ideals of excellence, if all-encompassing, create an antipathy towards various kinds of social ills such as corruption, hunger, lack of dignity and so forth. Leaders who  possess ideals of excellence are also attentive to the welfare of their people rather than their own needs. Alatas included Sayyidina Ali (karramallah wajhhu), Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul al-Aziz and Sultan Salahuddin Al-Ayubi as examples of individuals who possessed ideals of excellence.

These ideals of excellence are hindered by what Alatas called the ideals of destruction (cita bencana). The ideals of destruction encompass an understanding of life that is immoral, unsatisfactory, unfair and not ennobling for society. Such ideals, if widespread, will give rise to an attitude of indifference towards corruption, social injustice, hunger, ignorance and so on.

Related to the discussion of the difference between the ideals of excellence and the ideals of destruction, Alatas proposed five types of new individuals in our society.[7] We may assess five types of leaders based on the following typology of traits. The first type of leaders represents backwardness in terms of thinking although they strive to portray themselves as progressive. Examples include Maulana Maudoodi and Muhammad Qutb. The four other types of leaders are derived from the influence of modern education. Alatas adopted these four examples from Indonesian history. He listed former president Ahmad Sukarno as an example of an individual influenced by modern education. This kind of individual adhered to Islamic beliefs but was not involved in Islamic movements. Individuals such as Sukarno did not trust those who were in charge of Islamic affairs.

The first prime minister of Indonesia and non-Marxist socialist leader, Sutan Syahrir, was the second example of the new individual. Like Sukarno, although Muslim, he was more influenced by the humanism of the West and did not show any interest in Islamic affairs. The spirit of Islam is nowhere to be found in his writing. The third kind of new individual was Ibrahim Datuk Tan Malaka, the communist thinker. Alatas read his work ‘Islam in the Perspective of Madilog’ (Islam dalam Tinjauan Madilog) several times and did not come across any statement that showed he was a Muslim. According to him, Tan Malaka actually left Islam, although he was not antagonistic towards the religion. At the 4th Comintern congress in Moscow, he stressed that Pan-Islamism and communism could collaborate due to their common revolutionary zeal. He valued the potential that Islam could offer to communist followers. Although he adhered to the philosophy of dialectical materialism which was atheistic, Tan Malaka was not a radical critic of Islam.

The final kind of new individual influenced by modern education is illustrated by individuals such as Syafruddin Prawiranegara, who briefly served as president of the Republic of Indonesia from 1948 to 1949 due to the capture of fellow revolutionaries Sukarno and Hatta. He also held other posts such as the governor of Bank Indonesia and minister of finance. Among the four kinds of new individuals, Syafruddin was the most devout Muslim. He valued modern education while being rooted in Islamic values. He considered Islam as an important tool that could solve social problems such as corruption, greed and waste. He also felt that economic planning should be guided by Islamic values.

We are able to choose the type of individuals that we want to groom as our future leaders. In Alatas’ view, the fourth type, that of individuals like Syafruddin, is one that most adheres to Islamic values. Throughout his life, Alatas regretted that the intellectual awakening among the political leadership and the Malay elite, which would have trickled down to the rest of society, never happened in Malaysia. Unfortunately, bebalism as a style of thinking still persists in society.

A tradition of nurturing the mind

Intellectuals in developing societies have a role to play in fostering and encouraging a tradition of cultivating the mind. Harnessing the creative mind, and restricting the influence of the captive mind, should lead to the development of an autonomous social science tradition. Writing in the context of Asian societies, Alatas defined an autonomous Asian social science tradition as the “linking of social science research and thinking to specifically Asian societies”.[8] This means raising problems, creating concepts, and applying methods in a creative manner where one may be influenced by but is not intellectually dominated by another tradition. Such an endeavor has to take into account the specificities of Asian societies. However, having a creative mind does not mean being antagonistic towards the West. Quite the contrary, a creative mind engages in a process of selective and independent assimilation of knowledge from the West. A creative mind also aspires to higher intellectual standards within the local and regional social sciences by engaging with those in the West. Alatas himself rightfully acknowledged the contributions of the West insofar as Western socialism fought for the rights of vulnerable workers, opposed imperialism, and advocated for a more equal distribution of wealth.

Universities in the Malay world, including Malaysia, should encourage and foster the critical tradition in order to produce useful leaders and intellectuals. Building upon his clarion call for an autonomous social science tradition, Alatas’ intellectual endeavor included the founding of the Department of Malay Studies at the then University of Singapore in 1967.  On one level, the department was meant to be an important platform for scholars to discuss the developments and problems of the Malay world, a region of historical and sociological significance. However, more importantly, Alatas sought to encourage the development of alternative and multi-disciplinary approaches to the Malay world in terms of its history, economy, politics, and society. This meant a critical application of concepts, theories and methods suitable to the region rather than a blind imitation of ideas adopted from Western scholarly literature. We can say that the Malay Studies department was a kickstart to the development of a school of thought that we may today call the School of Autonomous Knowledge.

Although Alatas did not speak of a school of thought, his ideas for an autonomous social science tradition have influenced scholars for two generations. Scholars and activists of the Malay world such as Chandra Muzaffar, Shaharuddin Maaruf, Wan Zawawi Ibrahim, Syed Farid Alatas, Noor Aisha Abdul Rahman, Norshahril Saat, Azhar Ibrahim, Farish Noor, Okky Puspa Madasari, Teo Lee Ken, Mohamed Imran Taib, and Pradana Boy Zulian are all part of this autonomous social science tradition in their various fields and can be said to represent the School of Autonomous Knowledge. Subsequently, young scholars of my generation in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and beyond are incorporating this critical tradition in their scholarship as they embark on dissertations and other projects. The influence of Alatas’ thought is not limited to this region. Just as the Frankfurt School and Chicago School have influenced scholars beyond Europe and North America, so too has the School of Autonomous Knowledge influenced scholars beyond the Malay world in regions such as Africa and South Asia. Finally, we can also say that the School of Autonomous Knowledge is likely the only school of thought in the human sciences to have emerged in the Malay world.

Notes

[1] Syed Hussein Alatas, Islam dan Sosialisme, Petaling Jaya: Gerakbudaya Enterprise, 2020, p. 4. An English translation will be published soon. See Islam and Socialism (trans. Sharifah Afra Alatas), Petaling Jaya: Gerak Budaya (forthcoming).

[2] Alatas, Islam and Socialism.

[3] Syed Hussein Alatas, Intellectuals in Developing Societies, London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1977, p. 15.

[4] Alatas, Intellectuals in Developing Societies, p. 26.

[5] Asian Youth Council 4th Advanced Youth Leadership Training Workshop, 28 May – 9 June, 1978.

[6] Syed Hussein Alatas, Cita Sempurna Warisan Sejarah, Selangor: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2000, p. 7.

[7] Syed Hussein Alatas, Kita dengan Islam: Tumbuh tiada Berbuah, Singapura: Pustaka Nasional Pte Ltd, 1979, p. 107.

[8] Syed Hussein Alatas, “The Development of an Autonomous Social Science Tradition in Asia: Problems and Prospects”, Asian Journal of Social Science, 30, 1 (2002), p. 151.

Bibliography

Alatas, Syed Hussein. Intellectuals in Developing Societies, London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1977.

Alatas, Syed Hussein. Kita dengan Islam: Tumbuh tiada Berbuah, Singapura: Pustaka Nasional Pte Ltd, 1979.

Alatas, Syed Hussein. Cita Sempurna Warisan Sejarah, Selangor: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2000.

Alatas, Syed Hussein. “The Development of an Autonomous Social Science Tradition in Asia: Problems and Prospects”, Asian Journal of Social Science, 30, 1 (2002): 150-157.

Alatas, Syed Hussein. Islam dan Sosialisme, Petaling Jaya: Gerakbudaya Enterprise, 2020.

Artikel Berkaitan

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

204FansLike
1,308FollowersFollow
705SubscribersSubscribe
spot_img

Artikel Terkini