Abidin Kusno

Thank you for inviting me to this distinguished festival. I am honored, as well as humbled by the opportunity to address the thought-provoking topic of this festival. I was obviously intrigued by the title: “Our City in their World?” Let me start with the keywords listed on the title of the conference. What can we make out of the title?

The title invites us to consider or assume a position, and to define what we mean by “our city” and “their world.” But our city is not singular. “Our city” is diverse, so is “their world,” which is filled with plurality / multiplicity. Our city and their world are not always mutually exclusive or oppositional. Instead, they are often mutually constitutive, blurring therefore the line that separates “our city” from “their world.” In any case, the notion of “our city in their world” is a construct, based on certain theoretical assumption or political position.

In this talk, I will consider the question of “our city in their world” by reflecting on

I). some theoretical positions in the study of space and the city

II). a literary response to urban change in colonial Indonesia, and

III). a spatializing practice in our contemporary Jakarta.

1. The Study of Space and the City

I.1. The City as a Form of Dominance

The title: “Our city in their world” seems to suggest that there is a universalizing force called “globalization” which is driven by a single system of capitalist world-economy. The domination of this system has resulted in a set of nearly identical problems and a range of responses in different parts of the world. Such an assumption can be seen in the works of critical sociologists and geographers.

For instance: Anthony D. King’s classic Urbanism, Colonialism and the World-Economy: Cultural and Spatial Foundations of the World Urban System is an important historical work on the production of global urban form as a result of colonialism and the expansion of world-economy. Earlier, Henri Lefebvre wrote Production of Space to indicate the domination of “planetary urbanization” that is taking over the world. Meanwhile Mike Davis’ Planet of Slums tells a story of capitalist urbanization and its concomitant production of a “planet of slums” with according to him would eventually lead to global urban revolts.

These studies encourage us to take the position of externalizing the world capitalist economy as representing “their” world – not ours. Our city is a product/victim of the world capitalist economy. The capitalist system is thus to be rejected. It offers no promises, only misery and catastrophic outcomes. The only way is to resist it, possibly by delinking “our city” from the system. There is an assumption of “we” and “them” in such an approach. The binary framework is powerful and can be politically useful, but it carries problems as well because it tends to reduce the messiness and absurdity of urban life into a singular logic of a system. It also tends to ignore unintended consequences of history.

Let me end this section with yet another binary approach, from the work of Manuel Castells. In The Rise of the Network Society (1996), Castells uses binary opposition between “the net and the self” as the framework to describe the world at the end of the 20^th century and millennium. It follows that our whole social world, from work, family and selfhood is being restructured by the informational economy. In Power of Identity (1997), Castells explores the fate of the “self” and the politicization of identity as a result of capitalist restructuring via informational economy. In the Information City (1989), he again sets up a “dual city thesis” that is a division in social structure between the professionals in the advanced corporate services and the disorganized periphery fragmented by those who are marginalized due to race, ethnicity, gender, occupation. The basic premise of Castell’s works is binary opposition: the distinction and separation of the powerful & the powerless.

The “we” and “they” binarism is clearly a productive framework. The binarism can take many forms: local place-making vs global capitalism; people vs power; heterogeneity vs homogeneity. On one side, there is power, and on the other side, resistance. So, there could be literary responses to power; filmic interventions to social change; artistic reactions to urban transformation – all could take the form of us against them – a (productive) binary opposition.

But I want to discuss another framework, one that has been developed by scholars working on cities in the Global South under the influence of “postcolonial studies.” For these scholars, the world is messier than the binary framework: There are cross-cutting agendas in the social life under capitalism.

I.2. Postcolonial Turn in Urban Studies

For scholars influenced by postcolonial studies, the city is not only a victim of colonialism and capitalism, but it is also a promising space for political struggles: for “the rights to the city” or for the rights to claim citizenship. Such an approach is highlighted in the collective works by scholars from both Social Sciences and Humanities, such as James Holston (ed): Cities and Citizenship; Gyan Prakash & Kevin Kruse (eds), The Spaces of the Modern City: Imaginaries, Politics & Everyday Life; Andreas Huyssen (ed), Other Cities, Other Worlds: Urban Imaginaries in a Globalizing Age; Ananya Roy & Aihwa Ong (eds), Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global.

These works recognize the city as the site of dispute, the arena for negotiations with the global effects of capitalist world-economy. For them, capitalism is not a totalizing system even though its effects cannot be ignored. Every city is linked to it. For them, the world capitalist system is leading us to disasters, but it is naïve to think that one can just simply disconnect from it. For postcolonial cities, capitalism is a “cursed inheritance” from colonial time, a “colonial gift,” according to Dipesh Chakrabarty, which we inherited but must keep critically interrogating it. Postcolonial cities are the ground for such a critical struggle to rework/transform historical capitalism.

“Postcolonial urban studies” focuses on the agency of the people who live in and through “colonial cities.” In their view, the city serves as the site for both domination and resistance, as well as for all kinds of other things. It recognizes “the unexpected eruptions of history” (the term used by Alexis de Tocquiville).

Let me now turn my theoretical exploration to some illustrative examples from both colonial and postcolonial time/space of Indonesia.

1. Colonial Urban Modernity

When I learned about the title of this conference, I recalled almost instantly, a study by Prof. Tsuyoshi Kato, an Indonesianist from Japan, about the meaning / the importance of kota for young Indonesians in the early twentieth century.

In his “Images of Colonial Cities in Early Indonesian Novels,” Tsuyoshi looks at the relation between social change and urban modernity under colonial condition. He wanted to show how such a change is not something that is fully controllable by the colonial state. In my own reading of his article, Tsuyoshi wants to know how kota, by virtue of its coloniality, might have given rise to a politically active era called “zaman pergerakan.” (the age in motion – in Takashi Shiraishi’s translation).

But first Tsuyoshi reminds us that originally (from 1812 to 1900), the notion of kota (the Indonesian word for the city – a Sanskrit-derived word) referred to “fortress, castle, fortified place; a place encircled by walls or other fortification.” In other words, kota refers to the fortified Batavia – which we know today as the old part of Jakarta at the North. Only when Batavia expanded to the South in the nineteenth century, we got another kind of kota, which was “a city without walls” and, by the early twentieth century, the kota without walls is a place for youngsters to drift around and to freely develop their sense of individuality and, collective “rasa merdika” (freedom).

Tsuyoshi’s argument is that, for the Indonesian youth, the late colonial city of Indonesia was a crossroad of new worlding practices (generated by commodity and modernity) many of which were considered (excitingly) foreign, supralocal, and new. Furthermore, the city’s anonymity, according to Tsuyoshi, constituted an opportunity for individual self-refashioning, that is, to become a different person. The new space constituted a new time, which in turn generated a sense of mobility, and moving forward or upward (bergerak) leaving behind those associated with the old, the local, and the familiar. Such a process recalls modernization theory, but what is interesting for us to consider is the extent to which terms such as “zaman baharu,” “zaman kota” dan “generasi kota” as well as “politik kota” were all connected and mutually constituted, giving thus a context for the formation of “zaman pergerakan.”

Tsuyoshi analyzed six novels: Abdul Moeis, Salah Asoehan (Balai Pustaka, 1928); Mh. Rusli, Sitti Noerbaja (BP, 1922); Selasih, Kalau Ta’ Oentoeng (BP, 1933); S. Harjosoemarto and A. Dt. Madjoindo, Roesmala Dewi (BP, 1932); Marco Kartodikromo, Student Hidjo (Semarang: Masman & Stroink, 1919); Soemantri, Rasa Merdika – Hikajat Soedjanmo (Semarang: Drukkerij VSTP, 1924).

And he picks up four themes that argue that all the six novels are dominated by the following themes:

1.love and freedom;

2. the question of ‘I’ or ‘saja,’;
3. modern education/administration; and
4. Western calendrical dates and clock time. (p. 95)

He then adds “…money” into the mix (p. 111) Apparently these five elements fascinated all the Indonesian authors. Tsuyoshi attributes this set of new identification with (what we in the Humanities would call) “urban modernity.”

For instance, for #1: “In the novels, cities make up an environment which provides freedom from the parental love and social constraints found in villages or places of origin… cities also provide time away from procreation and production…” (99): … “Cities also make it possible for young couples to show their affection in public, for instance as by walking hand-in-hand or riding a motocycle together.” (97): “pesiar (go for a ride), melantjong (sightseeing), makan angin.” (-jadi bisa masuk angin?)

For #2: The question of “saja”: The transformation from “hamba to akoe or saja.” According Tsuyoshi, saja is a new invention related to urbanization and to the “socially amorphous city” (105): Becoming urban is becoming saja. Saja is drifting and wild. It is associated with an individual sense of agency, saja is free, saja is merdika  –  In the hierarchical colonial world of Java, there is no map yet in the social world to contain saja. Saja, therefore, is a threat to colonial order.

For Rudolf Mrazek, in his Engineers of Happy Land, this “saja” takes the figure of dandies (such as Marco Kartodikromo), who is claiming his rights to the city by seeking a place in “their world” (i.e. the colonial world). Marco embraced urban modernity in order to develop his anti-colonial consciousness. He was thus a threat to colonial order. For Mrazek, dandies like Marco, saw urban space as a promenade – “the observer’s pathway through the built space.” The promenade is not only an imaginary construct, it is a political imagining of urban space.

So, what we have learned from Tsuyoshi Kato, Rudolf Mrazek, Takashi Shiraishi (i.e. the Cornell’s school of thought), is how to think about the colonial city differently. They invite us to think about the relation between social change and social justice by way of considering urbanism, so that the relation between “saja,” dan “kota,” is tied to the relation between the imagined community of “generasi kota” and “zaman pergerakan.” This connection between “kata-kota-kuasa,” therefore, is central for understanding the modern history of Indonesia.

We know that colonial city is a site of domination filled with colonial hierarchy and infrastructure. It is a city constructed to guarantee the smooth functioning of the colonial state. But the colonial city is also a site for (critical) identity formation/transformation against colonialism. The context for the emergence of popular anti-colonialism and urban cosmopolitanism had all to do with colonial ordering of space, but despite the oppressive structure that sustained the colonial city, the use and the meaning of urban space could not be fully controlled by the colonial state.

To reflect on the title of our conference, “our city, their world” historically, we would then need to acknowledge the profound ambiguity in the identification of “ours” and “theirs.” This ambiguity is what makes urbanism worth studying theoretically, socially and politically.

Let me now move forward to our own time and end with a little reflection on our contemporary urban era. I am skipping here over half a century of zaman kemerdekaan, including the extraordinary attempts by Sukarno and other subsequent leaders to “decolonize” the city (often by working with business sectors) by reworking or transforming colonial space. In effect (via all kinds of funding and capital investments) they build rather obsessively promenades and stage-like buildings.

III. The Return of Promenade & the Citayam Fashion Week

What I want to share with you in the remaining time of my talk is a recent phenomenon that my Indonesian friends here are familiar with and (certainly) more knowledgeable about: The event known or branded today as the “Citayam Fashion Week.” I am not suggesting that we are witnessing the re-emergence of “dandies” or flaneurs” (male or female) of the zaman pergerakan, but in the context of contemporary uneven urban development, the claiming of rights to the city can take many different forms. How might the expression of “saja,” and the promenade be linked to social change and struggle for social justice?

I believe there are already many thoughtful analyses of Citayam Fashion Week, but I will discuss only two different analytical perspectives. In an article published in Tempo, Robertus Robet uses the concept of “theatre Mundi” (from Richard Sennett) to illustrate the function of a city as a stage on which every citizen is invited to perform (as actor). The young Citayam performers thus enact such a concept which turns the city into a “democratic” theatre Mundi. Robertus’ argument is at least two folds. One is to support the expressions of young people from the peri-urban, as their acts brought “civilization” to the city. The other is to indicate the potential of Citayam Fashion Week to heal the profound sickness of the city due to social divide and injustices. [“menghapus batas-batas kaku antara jalan dan panggung, antara seniman dan orang biasa, antara anak Jakarta dan anak daerah, serta antara yang kaya dan yang kere”].[1]

Robertus doesn’t go very deep into the question of why the majority of the actors in the “theatre mundi” are young people, and the original group members are marginalized population. But we know that from the periphery, their ties to Jakarta are both “at a distance” and “up close.” The improved mass transport has compressed time and space making it possible to link Citayam and Sudirman in a series of integrated network. The question is to what extent they enjoy their citizenship, and their rights to the city?

This is the question that Asri Saraswati has raised in her thoughtful article on Citayam Fashion Week.[2] Asri teases out a dimension of class conflict in the popularity of Citayam Fashion Week. If Robertus emphasizes the potential of Citayam fashion week to bridge the gap of the divided city, Asri indicates that the gap will continue to exist. The performances of being urban citizen only takes place in the promenade/theatre mundi, but not outside it. From Asri, we learn that the event is not only a manifestation of self-expression from a creative class, nor does it constitute a unifying force for the city to collectively heal the wounded city (as aspired by Robertus). Instead, it can be read as an expression of a larger power relation and its limit.

I would only add that today our city is not only material, but also virtual. Let’s consider the choice of Dukuh Atas as the promenade. There is something specific about the geographical location of Dukuh Atas that may not be replicated elsewhere, so space matters. 1). the “transit” station, and its adjacent “portal” manifests a “transitional” space for the marginalized to imagine a journey to and from the city; 2). The skyline of corporate tower around the area sets a background for “participating” in global urban modernity – one that is suitable for camera [“karena banyak gedung-gedung, jadi bikin potongan lebih menarik.”][3] Yet, the reliance on camera indicates the transient appearance or engagement with the city, for after the show, after everyone is recorded and his/her images saved, he/she returns to his/her own place, to the social structure within which he/she are embedded. Their participations continue, but in the no-place of virtual world, through the Instagram? They are “permanent” only in the memory of the camera. But nothing is permanent as most images disappeared into the multitude of images that change every day. What has not changed is the social structure and the injustices embedded in the city. Everyone meets and performs in the teater mundi and with more and more politician cat-walking on such a platform (consider Governors Anies Baswedan & Ridwan Kamil), Citayam Fashion Week has been turned into a promenade that serves to neutralize class conflicts and a larger social and environmental crisis of the city. It has become a promenade for politicians to bring together popular culture and populist politics.

We also know that the Citayam event generates signs of conflict. The established class questioned the unruly use of public space. The city government sought to regulate the show for causing more traffic jam or to move the event to other place as if it can be replicated anywhere, ignoring thus the specificity of Dukuh Atas. The conservative groups, against dress-crossing, sought to curb the show. But all these have missed the question Citayam Fashion Week has raised for us. It invites us to think about the way power relation works today, in and through popular cultures at once blurring the line between “our city” and “their world.” So, we are facing a task to untangle the mutually constitutive relations between urban space, populist politics and popular cultures.

TO END      

The spatial arrangement of both colonial and postcolonial cities of Indonesia reveals something of its social ones. A city is a social product, but colonial and colonial cities are most predominantly a product of political and business interests which have left the city with a long history of uneven development and inadequate or fragmented infrastructure. Such cities have never been “our city” as its political sphere is largely shared between the elites who seek to benefit from ineffective political institutions. Such cities too are quick in absorbing the effects of globalization with uncertain results. But, as in the two cases, such condition does not diminish aspirations, imaginations and creativities of those who live (critically) in and through unequal power relations.

[1] Robertus Robet, “Kota Estetis Citayam Fashion Week” Tempo, 31 Juli, 2022: 67.

[2] Ayu Saraswati, “Citayam Fashion Week: The Class Divide and the City,” Indonesia at Melbourne, 2 August 2022.

[3] CNN Indonesia “Taman Dukuh Atas, Magnet Remaja Citayam hingga Bojong Gede Adu Gaya.” https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20220706150804-20-818055/taman-dukuh-atas-magnet-remaja-citayam-hingga-bojong-gede-adu-gaya