GenderandtheDivinePleasures oftheCinema
Sincetheearlyyearsofitsinception,cinemahasbeenusedasareligious medium.Theglowofthemovingimagemimicstheauraoftheholyaltar. Figuresonthescreenevokequalitiesofthedivine:immortal(ised),beautiful,andawe-inspiring.Morethanahundredyearslater,cinemahascontinuedtoplaythisrolewhileatthesamemobilisingothergrandthemessuchas motherhood,war,andnation-building.InthebiggestMuslimnationinthe world,Indonesia,cinemahas,fordecades,beenadiscursivearenafor explicatingtheroleofIslamanditsfemaleandmaleadherentsinthenation. Thus, filmswithanIslamicmessageor filmIslami areboundarymakersthat establishthegenderedprincipleofinclusionandexclusion. FilmIslami in Indonesiagoesbyseveralothernamesanddescriptions: filmreligi or religious films, filmbernafaskanIslam (filmsthatbreatheIslam), film bernuansaIslam (filmswithIslamic ‘nuance’)and film dakwah (filmswith Islamicteachings).Despiteitscontestedallusionstobeing ‘Islamic’ , film Islami isahelpfulgenerictermtocategoriseahostof filmsaboutMuslims whotrytobebetterMuslims.FilmsofthisgenreincorporateQuranicverses inthedialogueandahostofIslamicsymbols,suchasthemosque,theveil, andtheIslamicboardingschoolassignificantfeaturesofthenarrative.Its Muslimmaleandfemalecharactersovercomeaspiritualcrisisandconveyan ‘Islamicmessage’ abouttheMuslimpublicandprivatespherewithintheir respectiverigidgenderroles.Theirnarrativesaresometimestoldfollowinga carefullyconsideredethicofproductionwheretheIslamicintegrityofits filmmaker,actors,funders,exhibition,and filmingpracticesarethoughtto legitimisethegenre’spurposeasamediumfor dakwah. 1
© TheAuthor(s)2017
A.Izharuddin, GenderandIslaminIndonesianCinema, DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2173-2_1
Thisbookconsiderstheportrayalofgenderinthe filmIslami genre releasedbetween1977and2011,spanningacrosstheNewOrderperiod (1966–1998)tothepost-NewOrderperiod(1998–present),tobekey elementsinthesystemofculturalrepresentationcirculatingintheIndonesianpublicsphere.Itproposesthatdiverseimagesofmasculinitiesand femininitiesemergeatthemeetingpointbetweencontrastinginterpretationsofIslamandotherpublicdiscoursesof(trans)-nationalismandmodernity.Suchimagesareshotthroughnationalquestionsofdevelopmentand modernisationduringtheNewOrderandtransnationalgeopoliticalconflict intheaftermathof9/11.ItbringstogethernewquestionsaboutrepresentationsofgenderandIslaminIndonesiancinema,andwiththem,new methodologies.Thenewmethodologiesemergefromnascentscholarship thatfocusseparatelyoncinema,Islam,andgenderbutseldomintersect witheachother.Thesemethodologies,whichinvolvefeministapproaches totextualanalysis, fieldresearch,andtheexplicatingofcontext,willbringto lightpowerandideologyintheconstructionofcinematicMuslimfemininityandmasculinity.AsIwilllatershow,theshiftsintheimageofMuslim femininityandmasculinityinthe filmIslami genreunderlinethepolitical andsocialchangeswhichalignthetransitionfromSukarno’s ‘OldOrder ’ (1945–1965)toSuharto’sNewOrderandtheendofthelatter.Itwillalso demonstratethe(mediated)diversityofIslamicpracticesandbeliefsthat maketheIslamic filmgenreapopularforumforMuslimstocontemplate therealityofIslaminIndonesia.
AnimportantformofIslamicpopularcultureforseveralreasons,the Islamic filmgenrehasatendencytobebig-budgetedandtargetedata mainstream,mostlyMuslimaudience.OnceastapleduringtheRamadan monththroughouttheNewOrder, filmswithIslamicthemesinIndonesia havebecomeanall-year-roundaffairduetotheircommercialviabilityandthe Islamicrevivalismofthepublicsphere.Thebox-officesuccessofafewIslamic filmsduringtheNewOrdereraandtheperiodaftercanbeattributedto MuslimaudiencesattractedtotheIslamicmessageofthe films,audiences whoarenewtothecinema-goingexperienceandpreviouslywaryofthe immoralconnotationsofsuchanexperience(Sasono 2013a:49).Thus Islamic filmstransformedthepracticeofcinema-watchingandcontinueto doso.Successwithabroadaudiencedemonstratesinnouncertaintermsthat theIslamic filmgenre,asamediumforbothIslamicteachingandentertainment,iscompatiblewithIslamicconsumptionandconsumertrends.
ThegrowthofIslamicmediahasbeenwelcomedbythepiousMuslim middleclassesinIndonesiawhohavedevelopedamorespiritually
conscientiousapproachtoconsumerism.TheincreasedvarietyofIslamic mediaandpopularculturefromthe1990stothepresentdayreflectsthe changingtastesandneedsofthisincreasinglydiscerningmarket(Hasan 2009:242–243;Heryanto 2011:62).HallmarksofIslamicpopularculture includeIslamicpopandrockmusic,Muslimwomen’smagazines,Islamic comicbooks,religioustelevisiondramas,andtheIslamic filmgenre.Made toappealtoapiousMuslimaudienceandyouthwhowouldotherwisebe enticedbyWesternpopularmedia,thesedifferentformsofIslamicmedia arealsorepletewithimagesofidealisedMuslimwomenandmen(Brenner 1999;Ida 2008, 2009;Barendregt 2011).
DiscussionsofgenderinIndonesianIslamiccinemahavetendedto emphasisetheappearanceofveiledfemalecharactersasanindexofa film’sreligiousqualities.On-screenveilingcanbeconnectedtothe increasedvisibilityofIslamintheIndonesianpublicsphere,aneffectof Islamicrevivalismsincethe1990s(Heryanto 2011:70–71).The ‘new visibilities’ (Gole 2000:173)ofIslaminthepublicsphererefertotheway ‘citizensincreasinglyappealtoIslamicvirtues,Muslimsymbols,andMuslim (life)styles’ (vanWichelen 2010:1)whichindicatetheheightenedpietyof nominalMuslims(Mahmudi 2005:76).Itisduringtheperiodsincethe 1990swhentheprocessofIslamisationbecamemore ‘gendered’ initsfocus ontheprofoundimpactofIslamonwomen.Thegenderedcharacterofthe IslamicpublicsphereisshapedthroughdebatesbyIslamicandsecular actorsalikeonthepracticeofveiling,femalecircumcision,polygamy,and femaleleadership(vanWichelen 2010:93).
Genderisapowerfulsymbolinnationalistrhetoric,Islamicrevivalismin Indonesia,andisthefaultlineofdebatesaboutIslaminthepost-9/11age. Itistranslatedintorepresentationsinscribedintheculturalpracticeof cinema,amediumthatisessentially ‘allegorical’ inthatwomenandmen onscreendonotrepresentrealindividualsbuttypologiesandideasabout gender.Genderalsohasasocio-culturaloriginwithanideologicalpurpose to ‘dissimulatethedifferencebetweengenderandbiologicalsex’ (Hayward 2006:179).Toillustrateanexample:inthegenderideologyoftheNew Order,socio-culturalfemininityisconflatedwithawoman’s ‘natural’ destiny(kodrat)aswifeandmother.Inherworkontheconceptualvariations ofthefeminineinIndonesiandiscourse, FantasizingtheFeminine (1996), LaurieSearsoffersimportantcluesforlocatingconstructionsoffemininity andmasculinityinthecontinual ‘play’ ofhistory,culture,andpower. Ratherthanattempttodiscoveranauthenticnotionofgender,onemust acceptthefragilityandmultiplicityofgenderconstructionsthatare
contingentonwhere,when,andhowtheyareenunciated(Sears 1996:24).
Sears’ assertionoftheinstabilityofgenderatthemomentofenunciationis relevantinthedescriptionofrepresentationsofshiftingnotionsofMuslim femininityandmasculinityinIslamiccinema.BuildingonSears’ poststructuralistconceptofgender,afurtherdiscussiononthecharacteristicsof genderasaseriesofiterationsandas ‘performance’ deservesmentionhere.
Usingtheconceptofperformativity,JudithButlerchallengesthebasis foridentityasapre-socialcentrearoundwhichgenderisattached.Rather thanastable,inertconcept,genderisaperformance,an ‘identitytenuously constitutedintime,[...]institutedinastylisedrepetitionofacts’ (Butler 1988:519).Therefore,throughthisframeworkofanalysis,genderisnot whatoneis,butratherwhatonedoes.IfButlerisrightabouttheideaof genderasperformance,thereisthereforeroomandpossibilitiesforchange andsubversioninthe ‘arbitraryrelationbetweensuchacts’ producing ‘the possibilityofadifferentsortofrepeating,inthebreakingorsubversive repetitionofthatstyle’ (Butler 1988:520).ButlerdrawsfromMichel Foucault’s ‘modelofinscription ’ aroundwhich ‘thelaw’ ofgenderdiscipline,asitwere,isincorporatedonbodies,andwheregenderedactsare effects ofdiscourseratherthanthecause(1990:135–136).Genderis thereforea ‘corporealstyle’,anact,orsequenceofacts,a ‘strategy’ with survivalasitsmotivation,asthosewhodonot ‘do’ gendercorrectlywillbe punishedbythenormsofsociety(Butler 1990:139–140).Butler ’sconcept ofperformativity,however,hasbeenchallengedforitsfocusongenderas ‘surface’ ordiscourse,renderingboththeagencybehindperformanceand theperforming ‘I’ obscure(Salih 2002:59).Butleraddressestheseissuesin BodiesthatMatter (1993)bysuggestingthatgenderperformativitydoes notentailthefree- floatingsequencesofactsbutinsteadisinvariablybound tosexedbodies.ThusButler'ssuspicionabouttheconsistentcoreofgender identityappliesinthecinematicrepresentationsofMuslimfemininityand masculinitywhicharestylisedactsthataresubjecttochangeandsubversion.
Genderperformativity,accordingtoButler,isalsoa ‘citationalpractice’ inwhichgenderisnotonlyreiteratedbutcitesthenormsofwomanhood andmanhoodthatgivethepresentationofgenderitsauthorityandmeaning(Butler 1993:13,225).Ratherthanbeingtheoriginatorofideasabout gender,awomanormanthatperformsgenderengagesinacitational practiceandinvokesaconventionthatreferstoa ‘law’ orregimeof heterosexuality(Butler 1993:225).Theconceptofcitationalpracticeis usefulforanalysispertainingtotheconstructionofgenderinIndonesian Islamiccinema.GenderinIslamic filmscitesfromanormativereligious
projectthatconteststhecompatibilityofnationalidealsandmodernitywith IslaminIndonesia.Thereligiousprojectthatorganisestheconstructionof Muslimfemininityandmasculinityismanifestedmostprofoundly,inrecent decades,inthe ‘upgrading’ ofpiety(Heryanto 2011)andIslamicrevivalism ineverydaylifeandpopularculture.SuchaprojectisafeatureofIslamic modernityinIndonesiawhichIwillreturntoinmoredetailbelow.Itis worthnotingthatgenderisalsoinscribedwithinunequalpowerrelations betweenwomenandmenwherebymenandmasculinityhavethepowerto betheunmarkedgender(Flood 2002:203).Asanunmarkedgender, masculinityhasthepowertoberegardedasauniversalidentitywhile femininityisitsOther,a ‘problem’ thatrequiressolving.Yet,atthesame time,sexualdifferentiationbetweenfemininityandmasculinityneedsto beestablishedasvisiblyaspossibleinsociety(Cohan 1997:xvi).Therefore, whenrenderedvisibleasgender,masculinityis ‘unmasked’ throughscrutiny(ChapmanandRutherford 1988).TobrieflyreturntoSears,theactof examiningtheinscriptionofgenderintoculturalpracticeentailsthe unpackingofgenderideology,revealingthefactthatgenderdoesnot alwaysarrivefullyformedorcoherent.Instead,genderrelationsrunup againstlocalandglobalisednotionsofwomanhoodandmanhood,biologicalsex,andsexuality,eachofwhicharerefractedthroughaclass,ethnic, andreligiouslens.RecallingButler,thereisnoonetrueMuslimmanor womaninaparticularcinematicframe,butratheraseriesofrepresentations orrepresentation-as(Goodman 1976:27–28)embeddedindiscourses concerninggender,Islamicpractice,andclassstatus.
Aclearerdefinitionofwhatis ‘Muslim’ isnecessaryhere. ‘Muslim’ inthe normativesensereferstoanadherentofIslamborntoMuslimparentsora personwhohaspubliclypronouncedthe shahada orthedeclarationoffaith withtheintentionofembracingIslam.However,here, ‘Muslim’ willbe referredtoasasetofculturallyandhistoricallyspecificsymbolsthatare widelyrecognisedasbeingassociatedwithIslamicbehaviourandIslam itself.Thequali fier ‘widelyrecognisedasbeingassociatedwithIslam’ is important.CertainfeaturesofMuslimculturesarearguedtohavenothing todowithIslamorwithorthodoxIslamicpractices.Forinstance,the practiceofwearingtheburqaanddyeingone’sbeardorangeareculturally speci ficpracticesconflatedwithIslamictraditionincertainMuslimsocieties butnotuniversallyacceptedasIslamic.Itwouldalsobeimportanttopoint outthatMuslimidentitiesdonotemergeasaproductofreligiousmotivationsalonebutoutofclassinterests,nationalloyalties,andotherdiverse motivationsreflectiveofhumancomplexity.However,likerepresentations
ofgender,Muslimidentitiesin filmarenarrower.Thisisduetothe commercialimperativesofcinemaandthecreativeandsocio-politicalprojectionsof filmmakerswhobelongtoanarrowsliceofIndonesiansociety. Followinganelaborationofthistext’smainaimsbelow,thesubsequent sectionsofthischapterwillmapoutitstheoreticalandmethodological framework.Startingwiththecriticalappraisaloftherelevanttheoretical literatureonanalysinggenderincinema,Iwillteaseoutsomeimportant argumentsgermanetoaninquiryintorepresentationsofgenderandIslam inthecontextofIndonesiancinema.Amuch-neededexplicationofthe processesofcommodificationofIslamicsymbolsfollows,especiallythose relatedtopopularcinematicrepresentationsofMuslimidentities.Thisis followedbyadiscussionabouthowthe fieldresearchnecessaryforthe illuminationoftheobjectofstudywasconducted.Finally,thisintroductory chapterconcludeswithanoutlineoftheremainingchapterscontainedin thisbook.WhenIbeganresearchingthesubjectofgenderandIslamin Indonesiancinema,theIndonesian filmindustrywasexperiencingthe boomyearsofIslamiccinemabetween2008and2012.Thescholarly literatureonthecinematicphenomenonquicklyfollowedsuit.WhatI foundwasalackofattentionintheliteraturetoimagesofgenderinIslamic cinemaandmuchlessfromafeministperspective.ThereforeIsoughtto firstre finethedefinitionofIslamic film( filmIslami)asagenrewhile buildingonexistingscholarshiponthegenre(Sasono 2010;Imanda 2012;vanHeeren 2012;HoestereyandClark 2012).Currentscholars haveexploredthehistoryoftheIslamic filminIndonesiaandhaveproposed theformationofthegenrethatprecedestheefflorescenceofIslamic films thatbeganin2008(Imanda 2012;vanHeeren(2012);Hoestereyand Clark(2012).Basedonthisbodyofscholarship,IdevelopamoresystematicanalysisoftheIslamic filmgenreinaccordancewiththeoriesrelatingto filmgenre.Second,toaddresssomeofthegapsinthepresentliteratureon representationsofgenderinthegenre.Tofulfilthissecondobjective,this studyhassetouttobringtogetherpreviouslyseparateapproachestogender andreligionin film.Whentheseapproachesarebroughttogether,they contributetotheemergingliteratureonmethodsandmethodologiesfor thestudyofgenderandreligioninmediatexts(L€ ovheim 2013).
Womenin filmsmadeinpredominantlyMuslimcountriesareregardedas ‘absent’ subjects:vehiclessimplyforMuslimmen’sconcernsandanxieties aboutfemalesexualityandmodernity.InhersurveyofMuslimwomenin films,GonülDonmez-Colin findsthatwomen’splace(andlackofit)in
cinemasofcountriesaswide-rangingasBangladesh,Indonesia,Malaysia, Iran,andEgyptaredirectlyconnectedtothepoliticalandculturalvicissitudesinwhichreligionplaysanimportantrole(2004:7).Previousstudies onrepresentationsofgenderinIslamiccontextshaveshownthatclothesare immediatemarkersofIslamicidentity(Barlas 2009;Tarlo 2010).This book,however,seekstotranscendclothingasanobviousvisualmarkerof Islamicidentityandthe fixationontheIslamicveil,andfocusalsoonvisual markersofclass,modernity,and(trans)-nationalismintheconstructionof MuslimfemininityandmasculinityinIndonesiancinema.Thewritingof thistextjoinsstudiesthatare ‘[concerned]withconfrontingstereotypes andhighlightingvarietyandcomplexity’ inrepresentationsofreligionand genderinmediatexts(L€ ovheim 2013:20).
TheIslamic filmgenreproducesvariousmechanismstoisolateMuslim charactersfromtheirnon-Muslimcounterpartswhileatthesametime markingdistinctionsbetweenthe ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslim.Iwishto demonstratethatsuchmechanismsbehindthebinariesoftheMuslim/ non-Muslimand ‘good’ Muslim/’bad’ Muslimareshiftingconceptsrather than fixedandself-evident.Aswillbediscussedinfurtherdetail,these shiftingdistinctionsareachievedthroughnarrativedevice,audiovisual tropes,andpoliticaldiscourseandgovernedbyeconomicandcultural imperatives.Insummary,thisbookfocuseson filmrepresentationsof femininityandmasculinityinIndonesiancinemaputativelyassignedas ‘Muslim’,andasks:
1.How,when,andwheredoIndonesianfemininityandmasculinityin Indonesian filmbecome ‘Muslim’?
2.Why,andtowhateffect,aredistinctionsbetweenrepresentationsof ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslimsmade?Whatotherdiscoursesaremobilised alongsidesuchdistinctions?
3.HowCanRepresentationsofGenderandIslamBeBetterUnderstood ThroughFeministApproachestoTextualandContextualAnalysis?
Finally,thetwomainobjectivesoutlinedabove,alongwiththethree researchquestions,contributetothestudyofgenderinIndonesiancinema byhighlightingthereligiousdimensionincinematicrepresentationsof womenandmen.Theobjectivesaimtosituatethisbookwithinthewider dialogueaboutgenderandreligionin film,media,andvisualculture.They alsoavoidanadditiveapproachtocinematicrepresentationsofgenderby
proposingsubstantiveexplanationsfortheimportanceofstudyinggender in film.
W HY R EPRESENTATIONSOF G ENDERIN F ILM ?
Theunder-representationoffemale filmmakersandthepreponderant sexualuseofwomen'sbodiestosensationaliseand ‘sell’ filmsarekeysigns ofinequalitiesincinemaasacultureindustry.Suchinequalitieshabitually trickledowntothekindsofrepresentationsfoundin films.Butthisdoesnot meanthatcinemaholdsupamirrorimageofsociety.Inthecontextof filmmakinginIndonesia,ArielHeryantooffersacogentargumentdescribingtheintimateyetambiguouslinkbetweencinemaandsocio-political contexts,inwhichhestates:
Commerciallyproduced filmsforentertainmentareofcoursenevermeantto beatruerepresentationofanysocialreality.Yet,no filmscanbeentirely disassociatedfromthesocialdynamicsthatbringthemintoexistenceinthe firstplace,andwithinwhichthe filmsarecirculatedandconsumed.Precisely becauseoftheirnatureasstatementsaboutparticularaspectsofsociallife, films(likeothernarratives)canbeinstructiveforpoliticalandculturalanalysis. Inparticular,theyraisequestionsaboutwhichaspectsofagivensocietyare foregrounded,whichareexaggerated,distorted,overlookedorexcluded,or presentedundererasure(andalsohowandwhy)(Heryanto 2011:64).
Inasimilarspirit,SuzanneBrenner ’sstudyofrepresentationsofwomenin NewOrderprintmediasuggeststhatvisualandtextualevocationsof femininityinadvertentlyfunctionasindexesofthetimesforprintmedia producersandtheiraudiences:
Photographicandtextualimagesofwomen,morethanthoseofmen,serveas symbolicrepresentationsofaburgeoningconsumerculture;ofthegrowing Islamicmovement;ofthemoraldeficitsofmodernsociety.Womennotonly participatefullyintheprocessesofsocialchangethatIndonesiaisundergoing, theyalsosignifythoseprocesses(Brenner 1999:17).
Women-as-symbol,whetherofthenation,culture,orcollectivemoralityof acommunity,isacommontropeinnationalistdiscourse(forafurther explicationonthissubject,pleaserefertoChapter 4).However,Iwill disagreewithBrennerhereabouttheprimacyofwomenasimage,symbol,
andcoginthemachineofsocialprocesses,forimagesofmenmustalsobe examinedtounderstandhowtheytoo ‘transcode’ dominantsocio-political discourses.MichaelRyanandDouglasKellnerdescribethetranscoding processincinemaasfollows:
Filmstranscodethediscoursesofsociallifeintocinematicnarratives.Rather thanreflectarealityexternaltothe filmmedium, filmsexecuteatransferfrom onediscursive fieldtoanother.Asaresult, filmsthemselvesbecomepartof thatbroaderculturalsystemofrepresentationsthatconstructsocialreality (RyanandKellner 1990:12).
Asaproductofmultiplecompromises,especiallycreativeand financialones, fiction filmisarelativelyconservativemedium.Duetotheeconomicand socio-politicalconstraintswithinsocietyandthe filmindustry,itmaycome aslittlesurprisethatcomparedtotheirmalecounterparts,femalecharacters inIndonesian filmareoftenrestrictedtotheeasycategoriesthatpopular narrativesandfamiliargenresdemandofthem.Therepresentationof genderinIndonesian filmhingesasmuchonissuesofproduction,institutions,andgenreasonsocial,political,andhistoricalcontexts.Thusthe restrictedtypologiesoffemalecharactersandtheirnarrativesexpress,ata broaderlevel,thecomplexsetoflimitationsandopportunitiesavailable tothem.
Thecontemporarystudyofgenderin filmisadescendentoffeminist critiquesofentrenchedobjectificationandsilencingofwomeninEuroAmerican filmandvisualculture.Itisthereforenecessarytoreflectonthe purposeofstudyingrepresentationsofgenderthroughthelensoffeminist filmtheory.Feministtheoryof filmbeganasaprojecttoexposethephallo (go)centrismofWesterncultureandtherecuperationofwomen’svoices throughthedeploymentofFreudianandLacanianpsychoanalytic approaches.Reflectingthediversefeministapproachesto film,media,and culture,feministtheoryof filmlaterdevelopedaninterestinThirdWorld andpostcolonialcinema,thecritiqueofheteronormativityandwhiteprivilege,andaudienceresponses.Theemergenceofmanytheoreticaladvances infeminismsandfeministmediastudieshavedestabilisedthemonolithic edificeoffeminist filmtheoryandproblematiseditsrelianceonpsychoanalysis(Kaplan 2004:1238).
Duetotheirspeci ficculturaltrajectoriesandconcernsthatemergeoutof amasculinistpostcolonialandnation-centriccast,feministapproachesto ThirdWorldandpostcolonialcinemacontinuetobesidelinedbyfeminist
filmtheory(Shohat 1991:45).Asaresult,ThirdWorldandpostcolonial feminist filmtheoriesoftenoperateinisolationfrom ‘general’ discussionsof feminist filmtheory.ThequestionofthenationisalmostalwaysindispensabletoThirdWorldandpostcolonialcinemaasmost filmsareproduced withinthelegalcodesofthenation-state,usuallyinhegemonicnational languagesthroughwhichnationalimaginariesareprojected(Shohat 1991: 45).Incontrast,thenationislessofaconcerninfeminist filmtheory.That feminist filmtheoryrarelytakesintoaccountthenationintheoreticalconsiderationsisareflectionofEuro-Americanpowertomakeanddisseminate filmstheworldover,maskingfeminist filmtheory’sgeopoliticalspecificities.
Acritiqueoffeminist filmtheory’slimitationsaddresseshowfeminist film theoryoftenneglectsthechangingmodesofcinematicproduction,distribution,andexhibitionandthewaythesechangesmaybegendered.The riseofThirdWorldcinemasandnewtechnologicalmeansfor filmmaking renderstheuni fiedEurocentricanddeterministictheoryof filmuntenable inaglobalisedworldofculturalproduction.Butthisisnottosuggestthat feminist filmtheoryistobewhollyrejectedbecausetherearenumerous continuitiesbetweenfeminist filmtheoryandsocialtheoriesthatareimportanttopreserve.Forinstance,socialtheoriessharecriticallineageswiththe foundationalframeworksoffeminist filmtheorysuchasthecritiqueof ideologyandtheacceptanceofculturalconstructivismofsocialcategories.
Studiesofmenin filmemphasisethediversityofmasculinitiesbutalso moresignificantly,theantidotestotraditionalmodelsofmasculinity,especiallythosethatsignifymasculinepassivityandfragility(Cook 1982;Neale 1983).Narrativesofmendefeatedandseeminglyemasculatedbywar, violence,andeconomicandsocialdeprivationsignalledarecognitionof representationsofmasculinityincrisis.Mencanalsobetheobjectofthe gazebutunlikewomen,mendeflectthegazethroughaggressivefacial expressionsandintenseactsofphysicalviolence.Thedeflectionofthe feminisinggazesuggeststheeroticrepressionanddisavowalbythe (straight)malespectatorofassociationswithmalehomosexuality(Neale 1983).Otherstudiesonmasculinityasspectaclesuggestthatmencanbe lookedatinafetishisticway,especiallywhendressedinhighlystylised clothing(Bruzzi 1997:67–68).
DemetrakisDemetriou(2001:346)arguesthatwithintheframeworkof multiplemasculinitiesdevelopedbyRaewynConnell(1995),discreteconfigurationsofmasculinityarestilltoohomogeneousandinertintheir relationtoothermasculinities.Connell’snotionofmultiplemasculinities isnonethelessusefulsolongas fluidityofidentitiesandrelationalityare
takenintoaccount.Butperhapsimportantlyofall,Connell'smasculinities aremosthelpfulinmappingoutthe ‘bigpicture’ ofgenderrelations comparedtotheoftencontradictoryindividualmasculinesubjectivities (Pringle 2005:267).Thebigpictureofgenderrelationssituatesimagesof meninrelationtoothermenandwomenasabroadcanvasfromwhichto drawotherrelationalcategoriessuchasreligion,nationality,class,and sexuality.
C OMMODIFICATIONOF I SLAMAND G ENDERIN I SLAMIC
M ODERNITY
Thissection’stheoreticalconsiderationswilladdtothecurrentliteratureon Islamic filmsseenaspartoftheriseof ‘popIslam’ andreligiouscommodificationinIndonesia(Widodo 2008;Imanjaya 2009a;Sasono 2010;Heryanto 2011;HoestereyandClark 2012).ItwillalsoconsiderconceptsofMuslim publicsandIslamicmodernityasthesocial,political,andculturalcondition conducivetoreligiouscommodificationandtheriseofIslamicpopular culture.And finally,itwilldiscussthesignificanceofgenderinrelationto theseconcepts.ItsuggeststhattheproductionofgenderinIslamiccinema shouldbeunderstoodwithinthecontextofIslamicmodernity,theriseof Muslimpublics,andreligiouscommodificationinIndonesia.Noonestrand alonecanmeaningfullyportraythecontextofgenderinIslamiccinema itis thelinkagesbetweenthemwhichprovidethetheoreticalbasis.
Illuminatedhere,inconceptualterms,aretrendsthatbecamemore entrenchedsincethelateSuhartoyearsofthe1990s.Thismightsuggest thatIslamic filmsmadeinthe1970sand1980sareoutsidetheremitofthe conceptsconsideredinthissection.Iwouldhastentosaythatthisisnot entirelyuntrue.Religiouscommodificationwasalreadyevidentduringthe NewOrderandasdiscussedbelow,becameapointofcontentionduring thisperiod.However,thedevelopmentofMuslimpublicsandIslamic modernityinrecentdecadesmarkanewphaseinreligiouscommodification intermsofscaleandimportancetothepublicsphere.Asimilarpointcanbe madeaboutgender.ScholarshiponthedevelopmentofMuslimpublicsand Islamicmodernitycitethesignificanceofgenderinmorerecentdecadesof religiouscommodificationthaninthe1970sand1980s(Gole 2000, 2002). Theconstructionofgenderisan effect ofIslamicmodernityconceived throughpoliticalideologiesandculturaldebatesaboutthe ‘womanquestion’ inMuslimsocieties.Debatesaboutwomen’srightsandeducation,
veiling,andpolygamycoincidedwithcontestationsbetween ‘progress’ throughmodernityandpreservationoftraditionandreligiousorthodoxy (Kandiyoti2009:91).Theseconcernsaretranscodedincinemaandin othercommodifiedways,througharangeofpopularvisualandaudio mediaforthecontemplationofanation.
Commodificationrefersto ‘theactionofturningsomethinginto,or treatingsomethingas,a(mere)commodity;andthecommercialisationof anactivity,andsoon,thatisnotbynaturecommercial’ (OED1989:563). Inthecaseofreligiouscommodification,aspectsofreligiouspracticesand symbolsarerenderedexchangeableincommercialterms.Historically,the commodificationofIslamanditsroleintheproductionofIslamiccinema canbetracedtotransformationsinIslamicbehaviourinIndonesiaoverthe last40yearsthathaveculminatedinapublicsphereinwhichIslam ‘is everywhere’ (Fealy 2008:15).Apublicsphereinwhich ‘Islamiseverywhere’ isillustrativeofaphenomenonwherebyIslamcanbeseentohave enteredmoredeeplyintothelivesofIndonesianMuslimsinmore commodifiedwaysthaneverbefore.InvestigationsintoreligiouscommodificationhavechallengedtheoriesofsecularisationinmodernsocietydemonstratingthatfarfromawholesaledeclineinpublicbeliefinGodand religiousmembership,certainmodernandrationalsocieties,inparticular thoseinAsiaandtheUnitedStates,continuetoembracereligionandimbue publiclifewithnotionsofreligioussymbolism.However,asArielHeryanto rightlynotes,religion’srelevanceinanincreasinglysecularisedworldis maintainedthroughitswillingnesstoenterinto ‘dangerousliaisonswith thelogicofthecapitalistmarket’ (2011:77).
FollowingHeryanto’scautionaryview,questionsaboutreligiouscommodificationanditsrelationtoIslamiccinemaneedtoberaised.What happenstoreligioussymbolswhentheyenterthediscursivecircuitof cinema?Dotheyceasetobesacredandbecomeobjectsofentertainment? Oraretheysimplyacommoditybereftofanyspiritualmeaning?Canthey bebothsacredandasourceofentertainment?Thereisconsiderabledebate amongpractitionersandscholarsabouttheeffectsofcommodifiedformsof Islam.SomehavepraisedtheincreasedpresenceofIslaminthespiritual marketplaceasitencouragestheincorporationofIslamicvaluesintothe everydaypracticesofMuslims.OthershavebeenlesscelebratoryofIslamic commodification,arguingthatthecommercialisationofIslamappealsto superficialexpressionsofpiety(Fealy 2008:16).
ThecirculationofIslamicsymbolsoutsidetheformalistdomainsand authorityofthestateandreligiousinstitutionsandintothemarketandthe
mediacohereswithEickelmanandAnderson’s(1999)conceptoftheriseof Muslimpublics.Facilitatedbyincreasingaccesstonewmodesofcommunicationandpopularmedia,thecreationoftheMuslimpublicsphere challengestheauthorityofconventionalreligiousinstitutionsandfosters thebuildingofacivilsocietyandthe ‘global ummah (community)’ (EickelmanandAnderson 1999:2).TheMuslimpublicsphereiscultivated byMuslimactorswhoutilisesecularandreligiousidiominpublicdebates transformedbyaneruptionofreligiousissueswhere,amongotherthings, Islamic filmshavebecomeapopularsubjectofculturalcriticism(G€ ole 2002:173).ThedevelopmentofMuslimpublicsconducivetotheriseof Islamiccommodificationisafeatureof ‘Islamicmodernity’.Islamicmodernityisapoliticalandculturalsensibilitywherebymodernityisembraced alongsideacommitmenttoIslamasaprojectofmodernityinitself.The conceptofIslamicmodernitydepartsfromtheviewthatpositionsmodernityandIslamasmutuallyexclusiveandinoppositiontoeachother.Rather, IslamicmodernitydevelopsitsownapproximationstoWesternnotionsof modernity(G€ ole 2000:92).Inshort,notonlyareMuslimpublicsaproduct ofIslamicmodernity,buttheformerrelyonthesensibilityofIslamic modernitytodevelopasasiteforcontinuingcontestations,notleastthe contestofIslamicgenderrelationsinthepublicandprivatespheres.Nilüfer G€ ole’snotionofIslamicmodernitiesadoptsapostmodernsuspicionagainst thegrandnarrativeofWesternmodernityinfavourofamorehybridand reflexivemodernity.AnIslamicmodernityengagescriticallyandcreatively withWesternideasofmodernity,destabilising fixedideasaboutIslamversus themodern ‘West’,thesecularandreligiousspheres,andthe(gendered) privateandpublicdomains.IslamicmodernityhaselementsofanIslamist utopiawhereIslamicvaluesinformaspectsofpubliccultureandeveryday life.ButasanIslamistutopia,itdepartsfromthekeypremisesofWestern modernityindistinctways:ratherthanforward-lookingitispast-oriented towardsalostgoldenIslamicage,anditiscommittedtocollectivismrather thanautonomousindividualism(G€ ole 2002:175).
Indonesia,however,isnotanIslamistutopia.Instead,ithasfeaturesthat G€ oleanticipatesinIslamicmodernity;ofbeinginasituationwhereIslamismis losingitsrevolutionaryedge,otherwiseknownaspost-Islamism.G€ olealso speaksofpost-IslamismwherebytheactorsofIslamismhavediversified beyondpoliticalandreligiousranksandarerepresentedinintellectualand artisticarenaswhocontributetotheproductionanddisseminationofIslamic visionsandideals.Theproductionanddisseminationofsuchvisionsandideals relatetotheconsumptionofIslamicmediaandIslamicformsofconsumerism
thatexist,notwithoutfriction,alongsidepuristIslamicbeliefsandpractices. Gole’sargumentthatin ‘Muslimcontexts,women’sparticipationinpublic life,corporealvisibility,andsocialmixingallcountasmodern’ (2000:177)is echoedinobservationsontheconvergence(orclashes)betweenmodernity, Islam,andgenderrelationsinIndonesia(Brenner 1996;Bennett 2005; Rinaldo 2008;Robinson 2010).Gender,whichunderpinsIslamicmodernity (G€ ole 2000, 2002),ismademorevisiblebyMuslimwomen’sparticipationof thepublicsphere.Iwouldarguefurtherthatthegenderedcharacteristicof Islamicmodernityisfosteredbytheembraceofconsumerismbythepious MuslimmiddleclassesandgenderedIslamicconsumption.
Ifoneshouldconsidertherelationshipbetweenthecommodificationof Islamandgenderin film,thequestionislessabouthowgenderbecamea commodityinthemarketisationofIslamthanwhatkindsofgendered representationsareusedascommoditiesintheIslamicmarketplace.The questionofwhyonlycertainkindsofrepresentationsofMuslimwomenin Indonesian filmandotherformsofmassmediaareemphasisedbegsthe suggestionthatsuchrepresentationssell.Studiesontheriseof ‘popular ’ IslaminIndonesiafrequentlycitethecapitalisationoftheheadscarf,whether throughadvertising,fashion,music,orindeed film(Heryanto 2008, 2011; Hasan 2009;Sasono 2010).Thepreponderanceoftheheadscarf'sassociationswithconsumerismsignalstherecognitionofpiousMuslimwomenasan attractiveconsumergroupandtheheadscarf ’spowerfulvisualquality.Asthe mostvisibleofIslamicsymbols,theheadscarforIslamicveilisamarkerof Islamicdifferenceandasymbolwithmultiplemeaningsthatcutacross religious,political,andclasslines.Here,theheadscarfisunderstoodasa commodifiedsymbolthatisverycloselyassociatedwithIslamicfemininity. CommodifiedaspectsofIslamicmasculinityarelessobviousanddeserve moreattention.ThisbookwilldemonstrateaspectsofcommodifiedIslamic masculinityasfeaturedinIslamiccinemaandcontributetothenascent discussionongenderattheintersectionofIslam,popularculture,commodification,modernity,andthepublicsphere.TheidentificationofcommodifiedIslamicfemininityandmasculinitymaypointtonarrowrepresentations ofgenderinIndonesianIslamiccinema,underliningtheregularuseof stereotypesinthegenre.However,post-structuraliststrategiesin ‘reading’ audiovisualtextscanilluminatethemultiplelayersofrepresentationofgender.ApproachestostudyingrepresentationsofgenderinIslamiccinema requireananti-essentialistviewofgenderedIslamicidentityandgenderin cinematictextsmoregenerallyifahistoricalandculturalunderstandingof suchrepresentationsistobegained.
W AYSOF M AKING M EANING
Theapproachesofthemethodologies/theoriesmentionedherearebuilton particularepistemologicalfoundationssuchastheinterrogationbetween ‘representations’ and ‘reality’ andhowmeaningisgenerated.Thissection beginswithanintroductiontoideologicalcritiqueasawayofexaminingthe linkbetweenculturalrepresentationsandsocietyinthemaintenanceof unequalsocialrelations.Asalientexampleistheuseofideologicalcritique toilluminatethelinkbetweenculturalrepresentationsofgenderandsociopoliticalidealsofgenderedbehaviourinordertoascertainthemechanisms ofideology(Gill 2007:54).Idealsandexpectationsrelatingtogenderare reproducedthroughideologiesofnationalism,developmentalism,and politicalIslamthatdissimulateheteronormativityassomethingnatural andtobedesired.However,ideologicalcritique,basedonGramscian analysisofdomination,emphasisesaone-way ‘hypodermicneedle’ model ofmeaningproductionandreception.Suchamodelforunderstandinghow meaning-makingworksneglectscreativeanddissentingreadingsbythe ‘ordinary’ recipientofrepresentations.Asdiscussedbelow,semioticand post-structuralistfeministanalysisapproachesaddressthisreductiveunderstandingofhowrepresentationsworkthroughafocuson filmastextand theunlockingofmultiplemeaningsembeddedinthetext.Furthermore, post-structuralistfeministapproachesdepartfromthenotionofideology thatappealstotheuni fiedsubjectandengageinsteadwithdifferences withinandbetweensubjectsthatbecomethetargetofideologyin film texts.Thatsaid,however,ideologyisstillakeyconceptwhenexaminingthe functionofrepresentationsanditsrelationtopoweranddiscourse.
Genderisunderstoodasanideologicalfunctionthatisreplicated throughculturalpractices,institutions,andtexts.Ideologyisunderstood asthedominantsetofideasandvalueswhichimbuesasocietywith ‘social behaviourandrepresentativetextsatalevelthatisnotnecessarilyobviousor conscious’ (Nelmes 2007:233).Ideology,however,requiresconstant re-establishingthroughhegemony,themeansthroughwhichdominant groupsmaintaincontroloversubordinategroupsbymakingideasand practicesculturallyentrenchedand ‘commonsense’.However,rather thanbeing fixedandunchanging,hegemonyhasthepropensitytotransformandbeopentonegotiationandchallenge(Gill 2007:55).Withthe notionofgenderasideologicalfunctionreproducedincinematicpractice, oneneedsaframeworktopeelawaythelayersofsignificationcontainedin theimagesandsometimes, filmsound,tounpacktherepresentationsof
womenandmen.Theframeworkinquestionisasemiotic-basedapproach thattreats filmsastextandashavinglanguage-likequalities,allowingthe scholartoidentifystructuralprinciplesofthecinematicexperience.
Thesemiotic-basedapproachesto filmtextsisalsoinfluencedbypoststructuralistapproachestorepresentation.Post-structuralistapproachesto representationsofgenderareconcernedwiththewaygenderisconstituted throughmediarepresentations asimagesandothertexts ratherthan mirroringpre-existingcategoriesoffemininityandmasculinity(Gill 2007: 12).Suchanapproachisbasedonthepost-structuralistsuspicionofuniversalismsandemphasisonculturalanddiscursiveconstructionsofgender. Theadoptionofpost-structuralistfeministapproachesalsomeansashift awayfromfocusingongenderstereotypestowardsdiversityinrepresentationsofgender(Gill 2007:12).Acombinationofsemiotictextanalysiswith anemphasisonfeministpost-structuralismresultsintheacceptanceofthe ‘polysemic’ qualityofgenderedsubjectivities(Lovheim 2013:17)andthe possibilityofidentifyingbeyondoppressiveandempoweringcinematic representations.Theadoptionofacombinationofapproachesabovemay augurwellasamethodforstudyingIndonesiancinemaandacritiqueof feminist filmtheory.Suchacombinationcohereswiththeideaof ‘middle levelresearch’ (Bordwell 1996:26–30)andapiecemealapproach(Carroll 1996:38–39)tostudyingcinema.Thetwostrategiesprivilegeamore historicalandculturallycontextualisedlookatcinemawhiledeveloping microtheoriesintheprocess.Butmoreimportantly,middle-levelresearch andthepiecemealapproachdemonstratethat filmresearchcanproceed withoutemployingthepsychoanalyticframeworkroutinelymandatedby the filmstudiesestablishment(BordwellandCarroll 1996:xiii).
Middle-levelresearchandthepiecemealapproachpromotedbyBordwell andCarrolladdressthevalueofempiricalresearchofcinematictextfoundin tradejournals,newspapers,courtcases,andotherprintmaterialsgenerated aroundthe filmtrade(discussedinthenextsection).Otheraspectsofempiricalresearchof filmfallundertherubricofmiddle-levelresearchandpiecemeal approach,suchasthepoliticaleconomyof film.Thepoliticaleconomyof film islessaboutindividual filmsthanaboutthecommercialimperativesand principlesofmanagementbehind filmproduction,distribution,andexhibition.And finally,Bordwellarguesfordueattentionbymiddle-levelresearchers to ‘filmsyntax’ (1996:28)whichreferto filmmakingtechniques theuseof sound,cameramovement,editingstyles asdevicesuniqueincinematic storytelling.Thestrengthofmiddle-levelresearchandpiecemealapproaches isfoundinitsabilitytocombinetraditionallydistinctspheresofinquiryandto
cutacrosstraditionalboundariesbetween filmaesthetics,institutions,and audienceresponsewhilemaintainingcoherenceandrigourinanalysis (Bordwell 1996:28).
N OTESONTHE F IELD S ITE
Workinginthe fieldsitesofJakartaandYogyakartaforsevenmonths betweenDecember2011andJuly2012enabledanimmersionintothe debatesabout filmIslami withIndonesian filmcritics, filmscholars, filmmakers,and filmproducers.IntervieweesorinformantsintheIndonesian filmindustryareregardedasprimarysources.Contactwiththemwas establishedthroughasnowballingtechniqueinitiatedbyfriendsinthe IndonesianandMalaysian filmindustry.Meetingswithinformantsfor recordedinterviewswerenegotiatedmainlyonthephone,bytextmessaging,andface-to-facemeetings.Alightweightsoundrecordingdevicewas usedtointerview filmcritics,scholars,and filmmakersinJakartaandYogyakartawiththeirexplicitpermission.Allrecordingsoftheinterviewswere takenandsavedinaSonyICvoicerecorderandanotebookforpersonal note-taking.Thetimingofthe fieldresearchinfluencedtheemphasisof discussionsurroundingthestateofIslamiccinemainIndonesia.Whenthe interviewswithcritics,scholars,and filmmakerswereconducted,theIndonesian filmindustrywasexperiencingsignificant fluctuationsinthenumber ofcinemagoers.Fromarespectfulonemillionviewersenjoyedbysuccessful filmsin2010, filmmakersinlate2011couldonlyexpectamodesthalfa millionviewers.Productionvaluesofcurrentandfuture films,andthe subsequentdistributionandqualityofDVDsreflecttheslumpaswell.For instance,DVDbuyerscanpurchasemorecheaplymadeoriginalDVDswith thinnerplasticcasesorwithoutthecasingatallatalower ‘economic’ price. Audiovisualmaterialusedinthewritingofthistextinclude filmsinDVD, VCD,andVHSformatobtainedandviewedatSOASUniversityofLondon andattheIndonesian filmarchive,Sinematek,inJakarta.16 filmsreleased between1977and2012werechosenforanalysisbasedontheir financial success,criticalacclaim,andsignificantmediaattention.The filmswerealso selectedinordertodisplaythediversityofIslamicthemesfoundinthe genre,rangingfromthemythandlegendsofthearrivalofIslaminJava,the mergingofpopmusicandIslam,biopicsofIslamicrevolutionaries,polygamy,women’srights,poverty,andreligiousminoritiesinIndonesia.Printed sourcesconsistingofnewspaperandmagazine filmreviewsandfeatureson manyoftheselected filmsfromtheNewOrderperiodandthereafter
(between1977and2012)weredrawnfromthearchivesofSinematek. Derivedfromavarietyofnationalandregionalnewspapersandmagazines, thesesourcesoffersomeinformationonthecriticalpressreceptioncontemporarytothe films’ releasemainlyfrom filmcriticsandinthecaseofa few films,fromtheNationalCouncilofUlamas,MUI.However,notallof thenewspaperandmagazinereviewsandfeaturescollectedfromSinematek wereconcernedwithallthe filmsanalysedinthistext.Themagazineand newspaperclippingsobtainedfromSinematekalsoincludepromotional reportsabout filmsintheproductionstageandinterviewswith filmmakers andwell-knownactorswhostarinthem.Thesereportsilluminatethe apparentmotivationofthe filmmakerbehindthemakingoftheir filmsas ameansofpromotingthemtodiscerningMuslimaudiences.
JakartaisthecapitaloftheIndonesian filmandmediaindustryand functionsasthemainsitefromwhichthediscourseongenderandIslam inaudiovisualmedia flows.Duringthe fieldresearchinJakarta,Ihadthe opportunitytospeakwithinfluential filmcriticsandscholarsofIndonesian cinemabecauseoftheirdirectinvolvementinthe filmindustryasconsultantsinthewritingofafew filmIslami.Theirviewsabout filmIslami reveal competingdefinitionsandfunctionsofthegenreuponwhichtheobjectives ofthisstudybuilds.Filmcriticshaveimportantrolesinthesuccess,and oftenpriortothat,theproductionofa film.Asinfluentialactorsinthe film industry,criticsactivelyaffecttheviewingdecisionsof filmaudiencesinthe earlyrunofa filmandaspredictors,theycanpredictthebox-officesuccess ofa film(Basuroyetal. 2003:103).However,theusuallysophisticated viewsofcriticsdonotalwaystranslatetowidespreadpopularityand box-of ficesuccess.Theclassandinstitutionalprivilegeofthecriticissymptomaticofthisdisconnectbetween filmcriticismandmassaudiences.Butit isthesameprivilegethathastractioninthediscursivearenaofscholarshipin filmandpopularrepresentationsofIslam.InIndonesia, filmcriticslament thecircularlogicofinsubstantialhorrorandsexin filmsthatiscontinually reproducedbecauseofthefavourablemarketforsuchthemes.However, theiroftendisdainfulviewsofsuch filmshavecomparativelylittleimpacton thehighaudiencenumbersthese filmsreceive.
Indonesian filmmakersandproducersof filmswithIslamicthemesdonot alwaysmakethemwiththeintentionofconveyingexplicitstatementson genderrelations.However,aswillbediscussedinfurtherdetailbelow, interviewswiththe filmmakerAdityaGumayand filmproducerPutut Widjanarkocanpromptconversationsthatcanleadtotheproductionof newknowledgeaboutgenderinIslamic films.Otherinformantswhowere
interviewed,however,suchasthe filmmakerNiaDinataandfeministactivistsDebraYatimandBJDGayatriweremoreexplicitabouttheirviewson genderandIslaminIndonesiancinemaandtheroleofwomeninthe industry.Thevalueofobtainingadiversityofviewsaboutgenderin Indonesiancinemacannotbeoverstated,asitprovidesasnapshotofhow ideasaboutnotonlygender,butalsomodernityandIslamarecontested amongIndonesia’stastemakersandintelligentsia.Aninterviewwiththe IslamicscholarNoorhaidiHasaninYogyakartaontheriseofIslamic popularcultureofferedfurtherinsightsintotheemergenceofIslamic cinemaanditsrepresentationsofgender.InfluencedbytheworkofNilüfer G€ ole,HasanarguedthatIslamicpopularcultureislessaproductofthe IslamisationofculturethanoftheprevailingrealityofIslamicmodernity.
Duringthe fieldresearch,IfoundthatmostoftheinformantsI interviewedwerenotjustsignificantactorsinthedevelopmentofdiscourse on film,Islam,andgenderinIndonesia.Theywerealsomembersofthe culturalelitewhowerecommittedincampaignsthatchampioncivilliberties andanti-extremism.Eachinformantmayhavespeci ficdemandstowards theseends,buttheycoalescetoformmembersofIndonesiancivilsociety.A termutilisedbyAlexisdeTocquevilleinhiswritingsabouttheprocessof democracyinnineteenth-centuryUnitedStates,civilsocietyreferstointermediarygroupsoutsidethegovernmentcomprisingofnon-profit,human rightsorreligiousorganisations,women'sgroups,culturalinitiatives,and otherassociationsthatmanifesttheinterestsandwillofcitizens(Hefner 2011:23).Iarguethatmyinformantsarepartof ‘networksofcivic engagement’ (Putnametal.1994)inpost-SuhartoIndonesia.Since Suharto'sresignationin1998andtheriseofthe Reformasi movement thatendeavouredtoreinstatedemocracyinthenation,asurgeofnew politicalparties,women’snon-governmentalorganisations,religious groups(politicalorotherwise),andmediaandculturalindustriesbeganto participateinthenewlyunfetteredpublicsphere.Thedecentralisationof politicalauthorityfollowingtheendofSuharto'sregimewitnessedaggregatesofgroupsandindividualswhoformnetworksofcivicengagement independentofthestatetakingongreatlycontestedpublicmatters(Hefner 2011).Networksofcivicengagementareproducedintheseeminglyselfgoverninghorizontalcollaborationbetweentheaforementionedgroups whoaimtomake ‘democracywork’.However,notallhorizontalcollaborationsaremeanttoinstildemocracyinsocietyasright-wingandextremist groupsalsoemploysimilarmodesofengagementtorallyfortheircausein society(Hefner 2011:24).
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
“(5) The British Government will communicate without delay to the Amir of Afghanistan the arrangements herein agreed upon, and the Imperial Government of Russia will enter into possession of the territory adjudged to them, by the present Protocol, from the 1st (13th) October of the present year.
“(6) The frontier agreed upon shall be locally demarcated by a mixed Commission according to the signed maps. In case the work of demarcation should be delayed, the line traced on the maps shall nevertheless be considered binding by the two Governments.”
[45] This letter, which is generally referred to as the letter from the Foreign Secretary, dated July 20, 1880, is known to have been sealed by Mr. Griffin and delivered by him on July 31, 1880.
[46] “Forty-One Years in India ” R
APPENDIX VI
Destination of Imports
Khorassan only, though many of the camels go to Azerbaijan Specification of various animals was only kept at Meshed Those here entered as “Unspecified” are animals that entered at Kuchan, and of which no detail was kept
Khorassan. Chiefly intestines and some silkworm eggs from France
vinegar, and other fermented beverages
Khorassan, Seistan, Birjand, Yezd, Kerman, and Afghanistan Carpets
Khorassan. Chiefly Turkoman carpets
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, and Seistan
Khorassan and Birjand Copper and nickel, in sheets, bars, &c
Khorassan, Birjand, and Afghanistan
Chiefly brasswork Goes to Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, Yezd, Kerman, Seistan, and samovars (teaurns) even to India Cotton, raw
Khorassan
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, and Seistan
Khorassan and Birjand
Earthenware and crockery
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Seistan, Birjand, Yezd, and Kerman
Khorassan. Lemons, oranges, &c , brought from Resht via Russia Furniture
Khorassan, Birjand, Seistan, and Afghanistan
Khorassan, Birjand, Seistan, and Yezd
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, Seistan, Yezd, and Kerman Mercery and hardware 1,276
Khorassan and Birjand
Khorassan, Birjand, Seistan, and Yezd
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, and Seistan
Comes from Resht in Persia via Enzeli and Krasnovodsk to Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, and Seistan
Rope, &c
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, Seistan, Yezd, and
Kerman
and Yezd
Birjand, and Seistan
Birjand, and Seistan
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, Seistan, Yezd, and Kerman
Khorassan, Afghanistan, Birjand, Seistan, Yezd, and Kerman Vehicles
Khorassan and Birjand Watches
Khorassan, Birjand, and Seistan Wines
Khorassan and Seistan
