Law Text Culture Volume 18The Rule of Law and the Cultural Article 7 Imaginary in (Post-)colonial East Asia 2014 Cultural Imaginary, the Rule of Law, and (Post-) Colonialism in Indonesia: Perspectives from Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s This Earth of Mankind Jeffrey E. Thomas University of Missouri Kansas City Follow this and additional works at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc Recommended Citation Thomas, Jeffrey E., Cultural Imaginary, the Rule of Law, and (Post-) Colonialism in Indonesia: Perspectives from Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s This Earth of Mankind,Law Text Culture, 18, 2014, 101-126. Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol18/iss1/7 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Cultural Imaginary, the Rule of Law, and (Post-) Colonialism in Indonesia: Perspectives from Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s This Earth of Mankind Abstract This article focuses on culture and rule of law in Indonesia, which provides an excellent case study in colonialism and post-colonialism. The colonial heritage of the Indonesian islands goes back to the early 1500s and lasted for approximately four centuries (Schultz 2002:144- 145) until independence was declared in August 1945 (GoGwilt 1996: 158). This Earth of Mankind by Pramoedya Ananta Toer is an appropriate text through which to view the issues surrounding colonialism and post-colonialism because it represents the struggle of a Native Indonesian with various colonial institutions at the turn of the 19th Century; these struggles have been chronicled by an author who lived through colonial rule, Japanese occupation, and liberation. In addition, the narrative is interesting because Parmoedya1 had been imprisoned by the Colonial Dutch, and then again by Indonesian authorities, for his literary activities (Samuels 1999). This Earth of Mankind, perhaps Pramoedya’s most popular novel, was written (more accurately ‘recited’) during his fourteen-year imprisonment on Buru Island (Lane 1991). Pramoedya has won several writing awards (GoGwilt 1996: 149), and has been nominated several times for the Nobel Prise in literature (BBC News 2006). He ‘has long been recognised as Indonesia’s most significant literary voice’ (GoGwilt 2003: 217). This journal article is available in Law Text Culture:http://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol18/iss1/7 Cultural Imaginary, the Rule of Law, and (Post-) Colonialism in Indonesia: Perspectives from Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s This Earth of Mankind Jeffrey E Thomas Introduction This article focuses on culture and rule of law in Indonesia, which provides an excellent case study in colonialism and post-colonialism. The colonial heritage of the Indonesian islands goes back to the early 1500s and lasted for approximately four centuries (Schultz 2002:144- 145) until independence was declared in August 1945 (GoGwilt 1996: 158). This Earth of Mankind by Pramoedya Ananta Toer is an appropriate text through which to view the issues surrounding colonialism and post-colonialism because it represents the struggle of a Native Indonesian with various colonial institutions at the turn of the 19th Century; these struggles have been chronicled by an author who lived through colonial rule, Japanese occupation, and liberation. In addition, the narrative is interesting because Parmoedya1 had been imprisoned by the Colonial Dutch, and then again by Indonesian authorities, for his literary activities (Samuels 1999). This Earth of Mankind, perhaps Pramoedya’s most popular novel, was written (more accurately ‘recited’) during his fourteen-year imprisonment on Buru Island (Lane 1991). Pramoedya has won several writing awards (GoGwilt 1996: 149), and has been nominated several times for Law Text Culture Vol 18 2014 00 101 Thomas the Nobel Prise in literature (BBC News 2006). He ‘has long been recognised as Indonesia’s most significant literary voice’ (GoGwilt 2003: 217). This article begins with a framework for analysis of the cultural imaginary based on recent work of Desmond Manderson. He identified three methods for law and literary analysis: the mimetic, the romantic and modernism (2012). Although Manderson criticises the mimetic and romantic approaches, and offers modernism as the superior method, all three will be used in this paper. The mimetic and romantic approaches are well-established techniques for law and literature, and while modernism makes more complete use of the literary form, the mimetic and romantic generate worthwhile insights. After summarising the method of analysis, the article will outline two main tenets for assessing the rule of law before applying the methods and the rule of law standards to the narrative in This Earth of Mankind. In doing so, it will show that the colonialism’s use of law, at least from the perspective of the colonised, was inconsistent with core tenets of rule of law. It also shows that the narrative includes persuasive arguments critical of colonial rule of law. More importantly, it will show that the narrative provides a more nuanced depiction of law and colonialism, including a showing that non-colonial practices were even less consistent with rule of law and that colonialism empowered the colonised so as to promote the rule of law, although without success in the narrative. 1 Cultural Imaginary Literature is just one example of the cultural imaginary, but is one that has come to be recognised as an ‘intellectual discipline’ (Manderson, 2012: 10). Significant contributors to this field include James Boyd White (1985, 1990), Desmond Manderson (2012), Martha Nussbaum (1997), Ian Ward (1995, 1999), Robin West (1985), and Melanie Williams (2002). It is within that tradition that this article explores This Earth of Mankind. 102 Cultural Imaginary, the Rule of Law, and (Post-) Colonialism in Indonesia Notwithstanding a robust scholarly literature, no consensus has developed regarding the methodology of law and literature. However, Desmond Manderson has suggested that most law and literature works use either a ‘mimetic’ or ‘romantic’ approach (Manderson, 2012). The mimetic approach generally treats literature as an accurate depiction of the world and then undertakes an analysis of that depiction as ‘evidence in support of some specific truth-claim’ (2012:10;11). Manderson criticises this approach as a ‘fallacy’ because a particular piece of literature has no special claim on ‘truth’, especially to the exclusion of other literary and non-literary works. Moreover, treating literature as ‘true’ reduces it to being treated according to the ‘terms with which law is familiar: the language of facts, or proof and of generalisation and reduction’ (2012:11). This treatment misses ‘the real strength of literature ... its openness to multiple interpretations and to the dialog with different readers that it inaugurates’ (2012:12). It also ignores much of what makes literature distinctive, ‘form, language, style [and] characters’ (2012:12). The romantic approach adds more to legal analysis than the mimetic approach does. However, like the mimetic approach, it also fails to take full account of literary forms. The romantic approach uses literature to bring additional perspective to law, ‘to enrich our thinking about law and justice’ (2012:10). Manderson uses the example of Martha Nussbaum’s Poetic Justice, which he notes has been ‘enormously influential’ and of which he is ‘a great admirer’ (2012:12). While he concedes Nussbaum’s point that literature has the power to allow readers ‘imagine what it is like to live the life of another person’ (2012:12; Nussbaum 1995:5), he rejects this instrumental use of literature as incomplete and ideological. The use is incomplete because it collapses the literary narrative to a single, predominant perspective with a political end (2012:14). It is ideological because the literary work will be chosen in part based on the ideological message it conveys (2012:14). The romantic approach misses the diversity of perspectives and meanings, and fails to fully embrace the experience of reading literature, which is affected by form and style (2012:15). 103 Thomas In the place of the mimetic and romantic approaches, Manderson suggests ‘modernism’: Modernism asks us to understand art of literature as an exercise in style, form and language, and in the diversity of voices and perspectives it opens to us. In both ways we might say that modernism rejected the upright aesthetic ideologies of previous eras and opened up the claims of truth and perfection to the destabilizing force of irony (2012:9-10). This ‘diversity of voices’ is what Mikhail Bakhtin called the ‘polyglossia’ or ‘polyphony’ of literature (1981:308), which, as Manderson describes, ‘brings to life the multiple voices and multiple points of view’ (2012:16). This diversity creates the setting for irony, an important literary device for the novel and for the approach of modernism. As defined by Manderson, irony is; the juxtaposition of intentional meaning against context and causality that remains external to the speaking voice – even, sometimes, to the voice of the author – and thereby destabilises the meaning of a text (2012:17). This destabilisation – along with style, form and language – engages the reader’s imagination and creates a distinctive literary experience. The approach of modernism seeks to use this experiential dimension of literature as part of the analysis of law and literature. Manderson puts it this way: To reduce literature to some moral lesson is to fail to see what it is really about. We remember how we were and how we felt when we read a particular novel much more than we remember what it was about. It transforms us by becoming an agent in our lives rather than a principle we memorise or an end-point we reach. The field of law and literature typically has responded by transforming literature itself into an endpoint. … As we have seen this approach is ultimately self- defeating because it misses the experiences and ambiguities that bring us to literature in the first place. (2012: 20). The experience of literature is the point of reading it. This experience has ‘the capacity to produce and extend a desire to act, not by the facts it imparts, but by the energy, vitality and expressiveness it conveys’ (2012: 16). 104 Cultural Imaginary, the Rule of Law, and (Post-) Colonialism in Indonesia This article will use Manderson’s framework for exploring the law and literature implications of This Earth of Mankind. In addition to modernism, Manderson’s recommended approach, this article will also apply the more traditional mimetic and romantic approaches. 2 The Rule of Law Because the ‘rule of law’ is the point of reference for analysis, we must begin with a brief discussion of what is meant by that phrase before we turn to the application of the law and literature methods. The meaning of ‘rule of law’ is uncertain and highly contested; although no consensus appears to be developing (see Carlin & Sarsfield 2012; Belton 2005; Peerenboom 2004; Fallon 1997), scholars tend nevertheless to agree on certain key tenants. Chiefly, the rule of law is meant to restrict governmental power and provide a certain amount of equality before the law as core characteristics, at least as the term is used Western rule of law discourse. The limitation on governmental power may be the core characteristic of rule of law. This characteristic has a strong historical foundation (Costa 2007: 74; Plucknett 1956: 50-51), and it is nearly universally included within the concept of rule of law (Tamanaha 2012: 236-237; Belton 2005: 4-5). This dimension of the rule of law may be traced back to Plato and Aristotle (Costa 2007: 75-76), and through the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights (Belton 2005: 8). The specific phrase ‘rule of law’ is often associated with the work A.V. Dicey, a Ninetieth Century lawyer and professor at Oxford (Fallon 1997: 1). The limitation on governmental power is illustrated by contrasting the ‘rule of law’ with the ‘rule of man’ (Fallon 1997: 2-3; Tamanaha 2012: 243-245) or with an absolute or police state (Zolo 2007: 10-11). The purpose for such a limitation is to protect against arbitrary or capricious exercise of governmental authority. Consequently, a second core concept typically associated with rule of law, namely, a certain amount equality before the law (Belton 2009: 8-9; Dicey 1959:194- 194). However, such protection of the individual does not necessarily go so far as to protect human rights more generally (Tamanaha 2012: 105 Thomas 233-235; Belton 2005: 7-8; Zolo 2007: 37-38). The extent to which individual or human rights are protected, and the extent to which the legal system promotes liberal democratic values, are used to distinguish between ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ theories of rule of law (Peerenboom 2004). These two core concepts of limitation on governmental power and equality before the law are the aspects of rule of law used for the analysis in this article. They provide the rule of law aspirations against which the narrative from This Earth of Mankind will be measured using the analysis outlined above (mimetic, romantic & modernism). 3 This Earth of Mankind – Plot Summary This Earth of Mankind is the first book in a tetralogy produced2 by Pramoedya Ananta Toer while a prisoner on Buru Island3 and was chosen as a highly regarded novel written by one of the most respected of Indonesian writers.4 The novel directly provides a Colonial perspective on the operation of law because one of its major conflicts concerns a legal dispute set during Colonial times. The narrative also indirectly provides a Post-Colonial perspective because of the author’s own experiences. This Earth of Mankind relates the story of Minke, a native Javanese who was enrolled in a prestigious Dutch High School in the city of Surabaya in Central Java in 1898. Minke, who is the son of a local leader appointed by the Dutch colonial authorities, is an outstanding student and an exceptionally good writer. His stories, published under a pseudonym, are published in the local newspaper and become the subject of discussion at school. The narrative follows Minke through his last year of high school as he becomes involved with the Mellema family. The father, Herman Mellema, is Dutch (a ‘Pure’). Having taken a Native concubine, who is addressed as Nyai,5 the couple have two Indo (mixed-race) children: Robert, who attends the same high school as Minke, and Annelies (known as Ann), who is exceptionally beautiful. Minke first visits the family in the company of a school friend who intends to meet and pursue Ann, but Ann takes an interest in Minke rather than his friend. 106 Cultural Imaginary, the Rule of Law, and (Post-) Colonialism in Indonesia Minke spends considerable time in the Mellema home, ultimately living there part-time. He and Ann become lovers, with Nyai’s approval, and are ultimately married according to local Islamic law. Herman Mellema is largely absent from the family. Having learned Dutch and business practices from Herman, Nyai runs the household and the family’s successful dairy business and farm. Minke is astonished by Nyai’s flawless Dutch, her directness, and the breadth of her knowledge. Herman makes a brief and embarrassing entrance during one of Minke’s visits, leading Minke to learn that Herman spends his time smoking opium and visiting a nearby Chinese-owned brothel. Robert becomes increasingly estranged from his mother and self- identifies as a Pure with his father. He is hostile towards Minke, in part because Minke is a Native. Robert eventually drops out of school and, like his father, spends most of his time at the nearby brothel where he is infected with syphilis by a Japanese prostitute. Ann is very close to her mother, and while she is of mixed blood, she self-identifies as Native. Nyai is Ann’s mother, teacher, and boss, sheltering Ann from the outside by keeping her close and not allowing her to attend school or develop outside social relationships. Under her mother’s tutelage, Ann learns to be an efficient and beloved manager to their many employees, but is emotionally delicate and somewhat spoiled. One of the primary conflicts of the book is between (on the one hand) Nyai, Ann and Minke, and (on the other hand) Marits Mellema – the son from Herman Mellema’s abandoned wife in the Netherlands. Marits, who has become a successful engineer, resents his father for abandoning him and his mother. Marits confronts his father and accuses him of immorality by taking a Native concubine while still being married. This confrontation triggers Herman’s leaving Nyai and his children for the escape of opium and the brothel. After learning of Herman’s subsequent death, Marits initiates legal proceedings to take control of the Mellema business and guardianship of Ann (who was still a minor under Dutch law). Nyai’s and Minke’s resistance to these proceedings is the legal conflict upon which this paper focuses. Ultimately, with the Colonial power behind him, Marits prevails over Nyai, Minke and Ann. 107 Thomas 4 Mimetic Perspective: The Operation of Colonial Law in Indonesia The conflict over the business and guardianship of Ann is an archetypal illustration of the operation of Colonial law, a law which protected ‘rights’ of those with Dutch citisenship at the expense of the Natives. In the novel, the decision about the business and family in Indonesia is issued by a court in Amsterdam based on documents provided by the court in Surabaya. Because there are no ‘legal ties’ between Herman Mellema and Nyai (they were not married), the court awarded all of the estate to Herman’s children. However, the estate is not divided evenly: Marits Mellema is granted a 4/6th share, whereas Robert and Anne are allotted 1/6th of the estate each. When Robert’s whereabouts remain unknown, Martis is appointed the manager of his interest. Because Ann was still a minor, Martis is appointed her guardian and the manager of her share of the estate. As her guardian, the court orders that she be moved to the Netherlands for the remainder of her upbringing (326-327).6 Nyai and Minke vow to do everything in their power to fight against the enforcement of the court’s order, but to no avail. They attempt to work within the system by hiring a European lawyer who has helped Nyai in business dealings. Although he is willing to fight, he concedes that the ‘other side is in the stronger position’ (331). Minke realises that means they are going to lose, but feels a ‘duty to fight back’ (331). After hours of study, Nyai confronts the lawyer who does not deny that they will likely lose. She dismisses the lawyer and vows: ‘Even if we don’t have a lawyer, we will be the first Natives to oppose the European court, child, Nyo. Isn’t that also an honor?’ (332). The failed effort to resist within the system shows the complete failure of the rule of law from the perspective of the colonised people. The limitation on government and equality before the law do not apply to Nyai and Minke as Natives. Nyai doesn’t even have standing to resist. She reports on her exchange with the court: ‘Actually, our business is only with Annelies, the judge said. You are a nyai, a Native, you have no business with this court’ (329). Minke agrees with Nyai’s assessment 108