A critical review of psychoanalysis in Indonesian literature, and the events of 1965

[T]he past, or historical memory, is not just a matter of active, intentional remembering or forgetting. The
past soaks into the ground of the present, saturating it with meaning and shifting the landscape with its
cultural and emotional weight. It can be buried or even burned, but its ashes change the composition of the
soil.
(Santikarma cited in Zurbuchen 2002: 578)

Introduction
For many Indonesians, events surrounding the 30th September Movement of 1965 remain
mysterious and contested. This was an attempted military coup on the Sukarno government, the blame
for which was placed on the Indonesian Communist Party. The subsequent counter-coup resulted in
General Suhartos inauguration and it was under Suharto that Indonesians were force-fed an official
government narrative which condemned the communist left (Zurbuchen 2002). Public antipathy was
harnessed, leading to the mass extermination of communist sympathisers across the country.
Questions thereafter were discouraged by the Suharto regime, denying for many, closure on the most
tragic moment in Indonesias history (ibid).
Suhartos resignation in 1998 created space to re-examine this traumatic (and highly dubious) chapter,
and Indonesia has witnessed a flurry of nostalgia for 1965, and the experiences of its victims (ibid).
But what does 1965 mean to a country almost 50 years on, and how do these diabolical events still
affect, and effect, Indonesian memory, as Santikarma suggests? As a geographer, my research focuses
on communist literature buku kiri which until Suhartos resignation was banned in Indonesia but
since 1998 has been hit by overwhelming demand. In particular, my interest surrounds Pramoedya
Ananta Toer, a communist prisoner under Suharto, yet widely held as Indonesias most prized author.
For Caruth (1995), literature offers an important insight into traumatic experience, and the emergence
of Pramoedyas texts signifies the resurrection of Indonesian memory. Pramoedya is part of
Indonesias genealogy, and examining his work through a psychoanalytical lens may help seal the
rupture between past and present. His published memoirs, A Mutes Soliloquy, offer an appropriate
means of analysis; such personal accounts resemble a testimony to his experience as a political
prisoner under the Suharto regime. This essay is structured as follows: first, it examines the usefulness
of memory work as a means of reconciling Indonesias past; it then assesses the complementarities
between psychoanalysis and social science; finally, it explores tensions between psychoanalysis and
individual and collective memory.
Why study memory?
Suhartos intervention in Indonesias memory verifies Noras (1996) claim that memory is vulnerable
to manipulation. Shaped from above, it is a space of control and propaganda. Suharto isolated
Indonesia from its past, blighting its history; the countrys past represents a forbidden world which
Indonesians enter at their own peril. Indeed 1965 is more than a year for Indonesians. As Heryanto
(1999: 151) explains, to mention 1965 is to recognise the discursive phantom of the Communist
threat. It was a trope appropriated by Suharto as a means of eliciting obedience from the Indonesian
public (Zurbuchen 2002). The negative symbolism that 1965 embodies discourages Indonesians from
enquiring into the treacherous events of that year and thereafter. 1965 has therefore accumulated a
certain weight of historical images and representations (Nora 1997: ix) which, through incessant
reiteration of anti-communist narrative, Suharto has engrained onto Indonesias collective memory.
Writing about trauma, Caruth (1995) notes that distressing memories continue to invade the present,
denying they who suffer the ability to move on. Yet the trauma of 1965, albeit representing unfinished
business for Indonesia, is not accessible as a social historical reality. Due to Suhartos purification of
history, 1965 as a factual reality never really existed. In this light Indonesian memory, or lack thereof,
should be subject to severe scrutiny. Enduring ambivalence toward those on the political left has left
Indonesia in a fragile state, with many still affected by events almost 50 years previously despite the
absence of a coherent truth as to what happened (Zurbuchen 2002). This is why we must turn to
literature, for, as Nora (1996) explains, when memory is compromised in the public realm, it is the
burden of one individual to assume private responsibility for it. Suhartos resignation in 1998, and
with it the re-emergence of Pramoedyas memoirs, has provided citizens with the ability to
collectively rediscover Indonesias past. It is important to determine the truth behind events a half-
century ago, a truth which can be unpacked from Pramoedyas work, a product of these events.
Considering that knowledge has been shaped by Suhartos power, it is important for Indonesians to
foster a new relationship with knowledge, and indeed truth. This approach demands caution, for
what Indonesia needs to discover may not be what it wants to uncover. Regardless, in part due to
influence from the global media, Indonesia is becoming more self-reflexive and anxious about
uncloaking its treacherous past. As Zurbuchen (2002: 579) reminds us, repairing Indonesias memory
is crucial to fostering a social healing or national reconciliation process. She does acknowledge that
positive steps have been made: in 1999 President Abdurrahman Wahid exhorted the Indonesian public
to speak openly about 1965 and how it has affected them (ibid). It is through a psychoanalytic
framework that Indonesias traumas can be resolved, alleviating suffering (Caruth 1995) and granting
Indonesia the ability to move on. But how can psychoanalysis, a concept developed by Sigmund
Freud vis--vis a doctor-patient relationship, be put to effective use in the analysis of Pramoedyas
published memoirs, and how will this aid Indonesia? The next section examines this key contention,
considering the roots of psychoanalysis and its transferability to the social sciences.
Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud and social science
Though far from being a closed system of doctrines (Hartmann 1990: 4), at its simplest level
psychoanalysis refers to the ways through which human behaviour has been determined by
unconscious psychological processes. As Hartmann (1990) observes, though renowned as a
therapeutic procedure developed by Sigmund Freud, psychoanalysis can include the application of
psychoanalytic theory to empirical data. We can thus establish its influence on philosophy in general,
and the social sciences in particular. The turn to postmodernism in geography was linked to the
privileging of the subject, with renewed emphasis on interpretation and subjectivity. Postmodern
theorists recognised that the formation of knowledge was bound to the subject, thus rendering it
impossible to claim a universal truth; instead, energy was directed toward contingent and context-
bound readings of geographical processes (Nayak and Jeffrey 2011: 223). Considering its inherent
link between cognitive processes and theory formation, it is therefore unsurprising that psychoanalytic
theory has been appropriated as an epistemological framework for postmodern geographers
(particularly of the social and cultural leaning), providing deeper understandings of socio-spatial
subjectivity, thus fertile material for addressing pressing geographical questions (Callard 2003: 300).
It is through this marriage to postmodern theory that psychoanalysis offers the most promise in the
social sciences.
Ricoeur (1979: 322) asserts that psychoanalysis can be severed from its medicinal roots and translated
to a hermeneutics of culture. Psychoanalytic insights may then be employed to interpret mans
influence on culture, giving psychoanalysis an important role in the ever-evolving cultural turn (ibid).
Psychoanalysis has infiltrated the social sciences by way of theories of power and political resistance.
As part of a new critical geography, it has engendered a liberatory cultural politics (Callard 2003:
300). Notably, the unconscious, in Freudian terms, has faced difficulty in its translation to a broader
geographical context. The following represents one way this transferability may be realised: in effect,
the patients disease becomes the societys plight. This is a useful metaphor which can be extended in
many ways. By comparing Indonesias plight to a disease, logic would suggest that it can be cured.
The liberation of the patient from unconscious evils is likeable to the liberation of Indonesia from its
political repression to extend into Marxian territory, from its false consciousness. To be sure, only
when the carrier of meaning consciously becomes this meaning, can the patient be at one with their
past (Ricoeur 1979: 330, emphasis in original). 1965, albeit forced to the deepest and darkest crevices
of Indonesias memory, must be excavated and subject to critical examination so that Indonesia can
move forward.
Purists may criticise geographers for downplaying the more unpalatable aspects of psychoanalysis
(Callard 2003). To be sure, the place of psychoanalysis in the social sciences is contested. Ricoeur
(1979) acknowledges that, as Freud never elucidated how psychoanalysis may apply to other sciences,
we are the bearers of this responsibility, rendering psychoanalytic theory extremely subjective, and its
validity questionable. But as previously stated postmodern geographers actively embrace the
pluralisation of knowledge, according to the central tenet that all knowledge is socially constructed.
The intense subjectivity of psychoanalytic theory effectively renders it a more concentrated version of
social constructionism, which complements the postmodern movement in geography (Callard 2003).
It is perhaps the ethics of psychoanalysis which remain a larger concern. Ricoeur (1979) notes the
impossibility of drawing an ethics from psychoanalysis, for no one knows how to handle this
demystification of knowledge. This issue becomes more prevalent when the subject under study is an
author whose country has been ravaged by political violence: psychoanalysis risks exposing the dark
side of modern Indonesia. The question of ethics personal, political and practical forms the next
section of this essay.
Indonesia, memory and remembrance: the (im)possibility of ethics
How Pramoedyas life is understood and thus determined by the representations I attach to it
raises questions about the role of the outsider and the etic analysis of an indigenous subject.
Drawing from a feminist perspective, I must take into account my own positionality, which will
significantly influence my outlook towards Pramoedyas memoirs. Especially as a western reader,
undeniably the personal is political (Brown 1995: 109). In fact, international scholars have faced
difficulty in writing openly about Indonesian politics, discouraged to do so by Indonesian authorities
(Zurbuchen 2002). Considering that Pramoedya is effectively a national folk hero in Indonesia, is it
possible for an English reader to do his novels justice? As an outsider I may overlook, or pay token
attention to, subject matter that holds deep traumatic meaning for the author in question. However,
this is where psychoanalysis has value. The Freudian concept of transference, concerning the
unconscious transferral of feelings from the analysand toward the analyst (Snowdon 2008), offers a
useful lens through which to view the power relationship between researcher and researched (Pile
1991). By reframing transference within the context of social power, geographers must recognise that
Pramoedyas insights are not to be captured rather, his voice is to be recovered (Callard 2003). The
former perpetuates a rather neocolonial vision, effectively commodifying Pramoedya.
Though the research focus is on Pramoedya (and at risk of overstating the impact of said research), it
demands a sensitivity of the divisions between the political right and left. Playing with the past brings
real dangers (Caruth 1995), for we must remember that Indonesias greatest writer was a communist
sympathiser. Left-right violence represents an enduring threat to Indonesian democracy. It was only in
1995 that the country was torn down the middle, after Pramoedya was controversially awarded the
Ramon Magsaysay award for literature, traditionally reserved for conservative writers (Lane 1995).
Inevitably, the history depicted in my analysis will not be universally applicable across Indonesia, but
contested in different places and by different political groups. Considering Zurbuchens (2002)
warning that there are serious political implications to be drawn from evoking memories of 1965, is it
right for a western researcher to interfere with these emotions in the first place? Has 1965 remained
dormant for a reason? After all, this is a past that many still see fit to keep underground, unseen, and
unspoken (Zurbuchen 2002: 580). Likewise, Gauchet (1996: 241) admits that the permanence of
such a partition discourages us from looking into its origins. Telling Pramoedyas story is fraught
with complications, and to think otherwise reflects an ignorance of the complexity of Indonesian
history and its effect on the political climate.
To be sure, analysing The Mutes Soliloquy demands caution, for what is uncovered may not be
complimentary to Indonesias wellbeing. Psychoanalysis will expose the roots behind Pramoedyas
trauma, and in doing so reopen wounds that had been sealed shut. Notwithstanding practical
difficulties, it is the responsibility of the scholar to ensure that such high stakes research results in a
positive lesson for Indonesia, contributing to a process of enrichment (Felman 1995). Indeed
conducting this research with no positive outcome but for the extension of knowledge itself, would
represent an irresponsible approach. Callard (2003: 307) accepts this ideal, but warns against taking
political transformation for granted. This point is especially prevalent, for psychoanalysis is liable for
unpacking the trauma without resolving the problem (Ricoeur 1979). Some may criticise this rather
gloomy nigh on dystopic outlook. After all, the very act of reading testimonies, according to
Felman (1995), has remedial qualities which are crucial to the nations healing. But the point being
made is that, in light of Indonesias political fragility, applying this research in an educational context
is not an easy task.
For memory work, Brown exhorts us to abide by an ethic of compassion ... [becoming] heightened in
our sensitivity (Brown 1995: 110). This ethic would work twofold: determining the impacts of
political violence throughout Pramoedyas life; yet, ensuring that 1965 and political violence
thereafter, are not trivialised or justified in any way. But this seems rather idealistic, and difficult to
implement. Caruth (1995) concedes the difficulty of harmonising with ones past, which in the case of
Indonesia would risk glossing over the horror of 1965, eliminating its force. Ultimately, part of
psychoanalysis is about recognising that conflict is inescapable in human interaction (Ricoeur 1979:
336). With sensitive research, what is often overlooked is that it is not possible to rationalise
suffering. It is a raw emotion that cannot be qualified or quantified; yet the aim of psychoanalysis is to
translate relations of force into relations of meaning (ibid), thus risking trivialising the matters at
hand. As an outsider, research is vulnerable to appearing highly methodological and clinical,
oblivious to the emotions of those affected.
In this vein, we should clarify the role of the researcher. For memory work, are we bound by a
requirement to make memory more useful (Nora 1996)? After all, Pramoedya is effectively part of
Indonesias genealogy, and studying his memories through a psychoanalytical lens will shed light on a
political era that has evaded scholarly attention. The Mutes Soliloquy represents a segment of
Indonesias repressed memory that can be excavated and put to use in theories of political resistance.
An overly cautious approach risks obscuring the finer details in Pramoedyas memoirs and thus
compromises the integrity of the research. As scholars we are morally obligated to excavate the full
truth behind events a half-century ago; a truth which can be unpacked from Pramoedyas work, a
product of these events. In a medicinal context, regardless of any pain it administers,
the trauma must eventually be brought into awareness and put into perspective, lest the repressed material
return in the form of intrusive thoughts, re-enactments or disruptions in the emotional functioning.
(Van der Kolk 1987: 7)
Objectivity, though problematic in such research, may therefore represent the more ethical path.
Following Van der Kolk, an objective outlook offers the most promise in dealing with the fallout of
1965. Only then may Indonesia begin to overcome this recurring nightmare and function as a
collective nation.
Perhaps the most difficult and counter-intuitive concept to grasp regarding psychoanalysis, is the
impossibility of knowing (Gerrard 2011). Following Caruths (1995) concession that trauma is the
by-product of a negative experience, and not representative of the experience itself, 1965 will never
be fully owned, or controlled. It represents an essence that is simultaneously everywhere and
nowhere impossible to place in a past that cannot be experienced and in a present that we cannot
understand. How then, is it possible to generate a theoretical perspective from something so partial, so
incomplete? Gerrard (2011: xi) takes this as a positive aspect of her work: writing ardently about her
role as a psychoanalyst, she asserts that I do not know, cannot know, and, indeed, should not
know, explaining that by following this central tenet she remains in a state of uncertainty about her
subject, avoiding a patronising, know-it-all outlook. We could also take this impossibility to mean
that the trauma of 1965 is unassimilable to a western subject with no connection to Indonesias
genealogy. With this in mind, there are no grounds on which to question the authenticity of
Pramoedyas memories. As Caruth (1995: 156) reminds us, history may speak through the individual
or through the community...the locus of a wisdom all its own. It is this raw humanity which, for
Gerrard (2011), gives psychoanalysis such power.
Conclusion
As this essay has demonstrated, there is an incredibly complex set of paradoxes to be acknowledged
when conducting research of such a delicate variety. To date, 1965 still represents a forbidden world
which Indonesians enter at their own peril. Yet clearly, it is unshakeable in the Indonesian psyche.
The psychoanalysis of Pramoedyas memoirs ideally offers a useful platform from which to re-
examine such an enigmatic history. It is, however, important to realise the limits of psychoanalysis as
a research method. The turn to postmodern theory in geography was marked by a period of self-
reflexivity, with geographers keen to tackle debates such as positionality, objectivity vs. subjectivity,
and the nature of truth. Evidently these debates, albeit complicated enough, become ever more so
when engaging with the unconscious.
Psychoanalysis in Pramoedyas case is an ethical minefield, in danger of creating more problems than
it solves. At risk of naturalising conflict, psychoanalysis may reinforce the very conditions that
engendered the subjects oppression. Notwithstanding practical difficulties, it is essential to try to
ensure that research has an impact on the ground. This is important in a discipline which too often has
been accused of hiding in the ivory tower. In spite of these issues, I believe that psychoanalysis is
worthy of geographys attention. Within the growth of a radical cultural politics, the partnership
between psychoanalysis and social and cultural geography can be harnessed to provide a fascinating
lens through which to recapture the voice of the marginalised.
References
Brown, L.S. (1995), Not Outside the Range: One Feminist Perspective on Psychic Trauma in Caruth, C. (Ed.)
Trauma: Explorations in Memory (Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University Press)
Callard, F. (2003), The taming of psychoanalysis in geography, Social & Cultural Geography, 4, 3, pp.295-
312
Caruth, C. (1995), Recapturing the Past: Introduction in Caruth, C. (Ed.) Trauma: Explorations in Memory
(Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University Press)
Compagnon, A. (1997), Marcel Prousts Remembrance of Things Past in Nora, P. (Ed.), Realms of Memory:
The Construction of the French Past, Volume II: Traditions, Translation by A. Goldhammer (New York,
Columbia University Press)
Felman, S. (1995), Education and Crisis, or the Vicissitudes of Teaching in Caruth, C. (Ed.) Trauma:
Explorations in Memory (Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University Press)
Gauchet, M. (1996), Right and Left in Nora, P. (Ed.), Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past,
Volume I: Conflicts and Divisions, Translation by A. Goldhammer (New York, Columbia University Press)
Gerrard, J. (2011), The Impossibility of Knowing: Dilemmas of a Psychotherapist (London, Karnac Books
Limited)
Hartmann, H. (1990), Psychoanalysis As a Scientific Theory in Hook, S. (Ed.), Psychoanalysis, Scientific
Method, and Philosophy (New Jersey, Transaction Publishers)
Heryanto, A. (1999), Where Communism Never Dies, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 2, pp.147-
177
Lane, M. (1995), Bloody history behind Indonesian literary debate, Available at:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/10668 (Accessed: 23 April 2012)
Nayak, A. and Jeffrey, A. (2011), Geographical Thought: An Introduction to Ideas in Human Geography
(Essex, Pearson Education Limited)
Nora, P. (1996), Introduction to Volume I: Conflicts and Divisions in Nora, P. (Ed.), Realms of Memory:
Rethinking the French Past, Volume I: Conflicts and Divisions, Translation by A. Goldhammer, New York:
Columbia University Press
Nora, P. (1997), Introduction in Nora, P. (Ed.), Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past,
Volume II: Traditions, Translation by A. Goldhammer (New York, Columbia University Press)
Pile, S. (1991), Practising interpretative geography, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16,
pp.458-469
Ricoeur, P. (1979), Psychoanalysis and the Movement of Contemporary in Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, W.M.
(Eds.), Interpretive Social Science: A Reader (London, University of California Press)
Snowdon, R. (2008), Freud on Transference, Available at: http://www.rscpp.co.uk/article/19/freud-
transference.html (Accessed: 14 April 2012)
Van der Kolk, B.A. (1987), Psychological Trauma (Arlington, American Psychiatric Publishing)
Zurbuchen, M.S. (2002), History, Memory, and the 1965 Incident in Indonesia, Asian Survey, 42, 4,
pp.564-581