Roy Voragen
Questions Made Possible by the Porn Law
T
hese are exciting times for philosophers teaching at Indonesian universities, thanks to the controversial antipornography law. I have discussed this law at three universities in five classes with approximately 150 students in lectures on religion, culture, tradition, law and, of course, pornography. Serious, hilarious and confused debates followed.
I started these talks on this new law by asking five questions. First, what is pornography? Second, what is wrong with it? Third, what is Indonesian morality? Fourth, who has the right to declare what is morally right and wrong (and thus pornographic)? And last, who in this society has the right to act against immorality and pornography?
I did not ask my students to give a definition of pornography. I asked them to give examples of what they considered pornographic. I did not ask to see whether they consider this law legitimate; some do (and not only my Muslim students). However, some see a contradiction with the Constitution and Pancasila, the state ideology. They were asked to give examples to show that a clear definition is impossible. This can lead to legal uncertainty, and without a clear definition it becomes hard to predict the actions of the government, which is necessary to safeguard freedom in civil society.
Some examples my students gave: Playboy magazine (which is so puritan here that more skin can be seen in the Indonesian version of Cosmopolitan), prostitution and striptease (there are already laws concerning these), pornographic movies, photos and literature, adultery (in the sense of pre and extramarital sex), kissing in public, Inul’s form of
dangdut
and miniskirts. From these, we cannot deduce a clear definition. Many students gave examples concerning male desire for the opposite sex and the consequences of this desire, like rape, for example.
However, what is really wrong with pornography? If I buy DVDs containing pornographic movies and watch them privately in my bedroom, then who do I harm? It is very easy to obtain these DVDs. The sale is done openly, meaning it is tolerated. And all these DVDs are illegal copies. A law against the violation of copyright is enough.
The antipornography law also mentions that what is in contradiction with Indonesian morality can be considered pornographic. But then we have to ask what Indonesian morality is. Not only are there huge differences between Aceh and Papua, there is also an enormous diversity within urban Indonesia.
Only statistics see Muslims and Catholics, Sundanese and Chinese separated. In reality, urban life is lived among strangers. And ethnic or religious groups are not static or homogenous. Not all Sundanese practice Islam in the same way. And Chinese-Indonesians can be Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist or Confucianist. They can have Indonesian, Mandarin, Cantonese or Hokkien as their first language, and they can be rich or poor, in cities or villages.
Most Indonesians realize that their country is characterized by diversity, nonetheless, they often stress unity. Of course, Indonesians do have values in common. Marriage, for example, is the norm.
However, the danger of stressing unity is that it only concerns a superficial unity. But multiculturalism also has major flaws. First, a society cannot be divided into homogenous blocks of separate and static cultures. Modern Indonesian society is one of overlapping territories and interdependent histories. For example, Indonesia cannot easily be divided into Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist and Confucian cultures.
And second, multiculturalism locks individuals up in separate cultures by reducing their identity to a single factor. For example, an Indonesian is not only a Muslim, but can also be poor, Sundanese, an
angkot
driver, fan of Persib and dangdut, a father, a husband, etc.
The Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen said in his latest book “Identity and Violence” that nations are not diverse because they are federations of peoples, each nation is a collection of individual citizens and each individual inhibits a wide range of identities.
Indonesia is not only characterized by a diversity of cultures, every culture is characterized by diversity. There is simply no one, pure form of practicing a religion. Even if a pure religion did exist, we could have no way of knowing it. Even when an Indonesian morality does exist we have to ask the question: Who has the right to declare what is morally right and wrong? President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono? The police? Judges? Religious organizations? My students themselves? Or their parents and teachers?
Contemporary Indonesian society is characterized by complexity and this complexity cannot be ordered by decree.
The antipornography law also gives society the right to act upon pornography. The danger is that individuals and groups take the law into their own hands. An example is the Islam Defenders Front, which fights what it considers a vice.
Many see in this law as a step in the Islamization of society. However, both Islamic and secular-nationalistic parties voted in favor of the law (in the hope of wooing voters, some say). And many of my Catholic students also consider it legitimate.
Perhaps it is better to see the law as an expression of patriarchy. Now, it seems, women are first the subject of the male gaze, and then of this law.
A student mentioned that wearing a miniskirt could lead to rape (especially in combination with watching a porn movie). Even if this is a plausible explanation, it is still no justification to blame the victim.
This highly symbolic law makes my job as a philosopher very exciting and challenging these days.
The writer teaches at Parahyangan University. He can be contacted at fatumbrutum.blogspot.com.
