By: Paulus Wirutomo
Social problems in Urban Slums remained, always un-effectively solved, because: always defined one-sidedly by the government (even by the University and non Governmental Organizations) false definition of the situation. Social problem solutions are always dominated by government plan (technocratically engineered) using bureaucratic perspectives Thus, problem solutions tend to be artificial and superficial rootless and unsustainable, not geared to the essential problems (miss-targeted). The concept of Participation (taking part, conforming/following, joining the predetermined plan) lack of initiative of the people, lack of agreement on the problem solution and no full commitment to involve in the actions (un-engagement?) We need to shift “developmentalism”, even “empowerment” approach to Social Engagement!
Generically Social Engagement is describing the broad range of interactions between people. “..It can include a variety of approaches, such as one-way communication or information delivery, consultation, involvement and collaboration in decision-making, and empowered action in informal groups or formal partnerships “(Paulina O Tindana et al. 2007). The essential goal of Social Engagement is the betterment of the “Quality of Socio Cultural Life (QSL)” where inclusion is the basic value. It is more than just intensive interactions or empowerment (giving/transferring power) but as equal partnership (honest , synergic and committed relationship building for the sake of community), to find shared problem definition (definition of the situation) toward a genuine solution Engagement recommends a participatory action research, in which community members are active participants at every stages of the research process research is included in the process of healing rather than just an instrumental element. We must integrate the dichotomous character between Bureaucratization vs Engagement (formal vs informal structural vs processual, macro vs/micro, rational vs affectual, impersonal vs inter-personal, institutionalization vs internalization
After more than six decades, the growth-oriented development strategy has failed to develop people’s essential well-being, social equality and better quality of socio-cultural life. Recently, several new development approaches has been introduced, such as People-Centered Development, MDGs,, but those approaches are simply enhancement of “social sectors”, rather than being oriented into developing a “good society”. Robert Bellah said: ” It is difficult to be a good person in the absence of good society. The difficulty actually comes from failures of the larger institutions on which our common life depends.(p.4)”. We need a more sociological conceptualization of social development by emphasizing the development of basic elements of social life, namely structure, culture and process of the society. (Wirutomo, 2014)
GROWTH ORIENTED
PEOPLE CENTERED
QUALITY OF SOCIOCULTURAL LIFE
In order to produce “a genuine social well-being”, all development “sector”(economic, physical and others) must be geared to improve the quality of basic elements of social life i.e. the structural, cultural and processual aspects. Socio-cultural life must be considered as the central goal of Development. Culture here is defined specifically in its purely subjective terms as internalized system of values, norms, beliefs, customs as well as traditions, thereby it forms the pattern of behavior and attitudes from “inside”. the cultural power is based on internalization of values and norms in the system of personality of an individual or in the social system. It includes what Durkheim (1961) has categorized as “the sacred”, Bourdieu (1992) has named it “habitus” Social structure is basically a pattern of relation (particularly power relation) among individuals or social groups that coercively and imperatively constrain and regulate the interactions and interrelations in society (i.e . policy, regulations, program, including budget). The Government has legal power, but giant corporations have “extra legal” power which most often is more effective. Thus, the structural development means improving the balance of power relation between the government and the common people or between the rich and the poor, through the development policy, legislation, development budget and other structural powers that benefits the majority or modify the exclusive (unjust, discriminative) structure into inclusive one (Wirutomo. 2014).
Processual aspect is the dynamics of the informal and day today interactions which is not formally structured or cultured. Through “fluid” social processes, individuals or groups more freely express, discuss, negotiate their aspirations .This “open arena” is the source of changes of the existing structure and culture. Basically “social order is a negotiated order”. In sociological theory, this “processual” element is the central analytical subjects of “symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, constructivism, post structuralism, relational sociology and post modernism. Developing “social process” means developing a larger “opportunities” for the people to express their aspirations and opinion through developing public sphere (see also Habermas, 1984).
The cross-cutting of Structure-Culture-Process could create some complexities: Structure and Culture = Structured Culture (SC) or Cultured Structure (CS) Structure and Process= Structured Process (SP) or Processed Structure (PS) Culture and Process = Cultured Process (CP) or Processed Culture (PC) The center of the cross-cuts is individual or socsial units (organization/community)
8
Collective fight (tawuran) is caused by complex-accumulated multiple causes, not simply “economic poverty” but “social exclusion” “the essential problem of Joharbaru slum areas is weak communities, structurally, culturally and processually!” Structurally: Population density produced the deep scarcity of various resources for slum dwellers, Government burreaucracy is too rigid and legalized (with tight schedule and financial reports) less flexible to community, cannot accommodate innovation. This approach is lack of engagement (building consciousness, communication, companionship, partnership, networking, consultation, sense of organizing etc). As stakeholders, other local organizations are basically government induced. They weakly perform as civil society organization, because they dependent financially to the Government. Tawuran are basically treated as criminal action. The police are only trained to use power to stop the fighting but not permanently, because they do not eradicate the core problem. Alternatively, the local Government organize Seminar for young people to stop Tawuran (blaming the victim). The corporates also impose power that impede people business through their economic facilities such as mini markets.
Culturally social life of Joharbaru is characterized by “poverty culture” created by process of adaptation to structural poverty which persist for long (…….., permissiveness). This community have weak Social Capital (high distrust and low sense of organizing). Nevertheless they have some potentials: creativeness, practicality, thoughness etc. The Bureaucratic Government programs fails to produce a sustainable improvement of attitudes and behavior which make them ready to independently promote themselves in public lives as urban dwellers. The Government tend to perceived Tawuran as a cultural problem rather than structural. Tawuran is a matter of fact a byproduct of structural pressures. It is not a genuine culture of the slum community. This community needs structural improvement to change their culture. Cultural change infact is not easy, there are still some cultural gap between the volunteers and the local people. This different ways of thinking and seeing to the problems has created some misunderstanding and distrust which disturbed their relations . Physical poverty also create “poverty culture” bad housing condition has disturbed the socialization process in the family, it create all seeds of aggresiveness, permissiveness, lack of good conscience, low morality . Aggressive advertisement, economic facilities like malls, mini markets, internets etc. has created false consciousness such as consumptivism and other “modern” lifestyle.
In general the Development Program in Joharbaru tend to be dominated by Structural aspect of the Government “rigid” Bureaucracy. It lack of Processual approach such as room for active and dynamic interaction, negotiation, openess to aspirations, creativity etc. The Research team of the UI (volunteer) have practiced some engagement approach such as collaborative social mapping through which people could define their problem properly. Example of Structural vs Processual approach: Bureaucratic project always rely on formal financial report, but Engagement approach will rely on individual narrative expressions (written/oral) of each clients. Clients are given the opportunity to describe their experience and express their feelings, aspirations etc. The UI volunteers are using the art activities approach. It evidently become an effective engagement approach that produced expressivecreative products with high commitments. While the “project” is going on, we have to give way to the processual dynamic processed structure and even processed culture
Institution= a set of values and norms which regulate the fulfillment of a certain basic human needs. Institutionalization is a process of embedding and translating certain organization’s fundamental values, norms, policies and plans to regulate the daily practices of that organization as social units or society as a whole. values are translated into norms to legalization (structured). Institutionalization relates to structural dimension when it translating the basic values (of a concept or activities) into policy and regulations. Institutionalization also comprises cultural aspect when it embedding and internalizing those basic values of the activities to the member of the social unit (social system). Beside the Structural and Cultural dimensions, Institutionalization also having its Processual dimension when it gives room for the dynamic of interactions among different parties in the social units. So internalization in its ideal position is a process of integrating fundamental values, norms and the dynamic of interactions within a social units. Sociologically it comprises Structural, Cultural and Processual dimensions .
In Government’s terms: the essence of Institutionalization is regulation, but sociologically every institution has to internalize the basic value. In reality the basic values are always “lost in translation” during the process of Institutionalization. This is why the value of Engagement is lag behind in the development practices. Thus, institutionalism should give more space to internalization of values. Both may not be considered as “mutually exclusive”. Institutionalization should produce a “processed structure” (where existing regulations could be negotiated fairly by the stake holders) through this, the structural elements could be internalized by the people and become their culture (cultured Structure). Rules has to be based on values. Values and structure must be coherent. Institutionalization must also produce internalization (cultured structure) dan cultured process). values inspire regulations, regulations internalized into cultured values. We need a loyal, consistent, persistent voluntarism (how institutionalization could produce situation conducive to this? (structural conduciveness of voluntarism)
In general engagement approach is weak in our sistem of Development. Institutionalization tend to be Structurally dominated, less processual. The values of engagement are always lag behind How do we institutionalize value of Engagement? there must be a synergy between the logic of a project (rational, structural) with the logic of Engagement (affectual, processual). In the process of institutionalization we should emphasize the process of internalization of the values (culturalization ). The great challenge of our Development is social exclusion , so we have to reorient our Development to the Quality of Socio-cultural Life with inclusiveness as the basic value. Engagement must be mainstreamed in the approach of Development. The University (especially Sociology Dept.) must reorient its curriculum to Public Sociology, at micro level through engagement program (academic credits for community works, awards for voluntarism, internship, partnership programs with NGOs etc.), at macro level : we must encourage critical Policy studies especially the construction of Community Based Development (CBD) concept. Under CBD community is considered as “social infrastructure” which practice social engagement program and provide basic institutions (Community Council, Community Center where people could empower their community to improve organization skills, talents, practical skills and social activism)