The world lives because of the movement of everything within it—not merely any movement, but movement that involves sweat and strenuous effort. Ali Shari’ati—a scholar with a doctorate in sociology and philosophy from France, who was active in the Iranian revolutionary movement of the 1970s—explored why hijrah (migration) is so significant. Why does the Islamic calendar begin with the Prophet’s hijrah rather than his birth? As it turns out, hijrah—relocation or migration—is not merely a geographical or political phenomenon; sociologically, it is a fundamental driver of civilizational progress. Every advancement in civilization, from Sumeria to America, has been initiated by an act of hijrah. Conversely, no society that remained sedentary—never migrating—has ever achieved significant civilizational progress. Furthermore, those who frequently migrate, travel, or venture into the unknown are often recognized and valued; consider, for instance, how the English language came to be a global language.
Many
observers have noted that we—and Eastern societies in general—may have a
cultural aversion to hard work. This is reflected in our language. In one of
his writings, linguist Samsudin Berlian points out that while English speakers
use the word "runs" to describe something in operation, we tend to
use the word "walking" . For example, the phrase "she runs for
election" describes a candidate who must work incredibly hard to win.
"Run" implies something active, functional, impactful, and
effective—as in "the system is running," which suggests that the
system is yielding results. All of this demands hard work, as
"running" is clearly a more intense, strenuous activity—one that
leaves a person sweating and out of breath.
In
a similar vein, we often observe the word "work" being used quite
broadly to cover a variety of situations; a university student, for instance,
might say, "I must go to work," when heading to campus.
Our
fascination with Western culture—which is indeed more profound in many
respects—has been discussed extensively. Consider a letter written by Sutan
Sjahrir to his wife from Banda Neira on December 31, 1936: "To me,
the 'West' signifies a vibrant life—a life that presses forward, a dynamic
existence. That is the Faustian spirit—a quality I admire—and I am convinced
that only the West—in this sense—can liberate the East from its state of
bondage."
In
this sense, "the West" is, more or less, capitalism in its essential
spirit. Max Weber identified this spirit as consisting of hard work,
thriftiness, and the deferment of gratification. Time is money; one should work
diligently, practice frugality, be punctual, act fairly, and view the pursuit
of money as a legitimate goal in itself. It is also considered valid to
accumulate profit in a rational and systematic manner. This spirit originated
from Calvinism. It is important to distinguish, however, that while the spirit
of capitalism is acknowledged to have stemmed from Calvinism, the structure of
capitalism itself did not.
Calvinism
was responsible only for the early stages of capitalism; thereafter, capitalism
followed its own path. Some argue that capitalism is, in fact, an unintended
consequence of the Protestant Ethic. According to Weber, the Protestant system
of ideas gave rise to a unique outcome in the West: the rationalization of the
economic sector and other institutions. Conversely, religious systems outside
the West created structural obstacles to such rationalization.
The
"worldly asceticism" of Calvinism does not reject the world.
This doctrine mandates hard work as a means to discover salvation—or, at the
very least, the signs thereof. Adherents "renounce the world" by
mastering it. Work is not an end in itself, but an ethical duty. Unceasing,
continuous, and systematic labor within one’s worldly vocation serves as the
ultimate instrument for achieving asceticism. This stands in contrast to
"otherworldly asceticism," which entails abandoning the secular world
by suppressing one’s desires.
What,
then, of our own situation? In the mid-1970s, Koentjaraningrat wrote a
popular account regarding certain mental attitudes prevalent among the
Indonesian people. One such trait is the tendency to take shortcuts—an
inclination to reach a goal as quickly as possible rather than progressing step
by step. Other characteristics include a lack of discipline, a lack of a sense
of responsibility, and a tendency to break promises. A decade later, in a
lecture at Taman Ismail Marzuki, Mochtar Lubis observed that the Indonesian
character often lacks discipline and a sense of responsibility, and is devoid
of any feeling of remorse or shame when committing a wrongdoing. Lubis further
characterized this disposition as hypocritical, authoritarian, egoistic,
materialistic, and opportunistic—noting a tendency to prioritize prestige over
genuine achievement.
This
appears to stem from a culturally ingrained vertical orientation; people work
primarily to satisfy those "above" them. There is a low level of
trust and mutual oversight among citizens. This reflects a "loose"
cultural structure—one that lacks the norms and mechanisms necessary to govern
horizontal social relations and facilitate mutual accountability.
However,
other experts are not as gloomy. Alatas, professor of sociology at the
National University of Singapore, in the book "The Myth of the Lazy
Native" which examines Javanese, Malays and Filipinos in the era of
colonial capitalism from the 16th to 20th centuries; called this just a myth
that was deliberately brought to life by the colonialists. The myth that we are
lazy was spread by colonialists throughout Europe. The native people of these
three colonies were described as slow, stupid, backward, fraudulent, with no
more intelligence than children aged 12-14 in Europe. This image was presented
in the writings of authors, administrators, and visitors among the colonialists
continuously, so that it became a myth in Europe. This behavior is actually a
reflection of the arrogant attitude and self-perception of the colonialists as
a superior race over the natives. Furthermore, this myth is needed to legitimize
the politics of forced labor, forced selling and forced cultivation that they
apply to the natives in their respective lands.
The
colonialists did not try to see the fact that the natives naturally worked hard
when they were in a situation that they felt was just and full of humanity.
This indifferent attitude towards their coercive system was a way of protesting
on the part of the native people. Unfortunately, this negative image of
indigenous people is also reinforced by the local elite. Finally, foreign
colonial rulers and native rulers acted arbitrarily against the people based on
the assumption that native people were lazy and did not like to work. This myth
also persisted in the post-independence era.
In
1971, UMNO published the brochure "Mental Revolution"
to distribute to its members. The brochure’s content urged its readers to alter
their ways of thinking and their attitudes to better align with the changing
times. According to this UMNO party brochure, the Malay community lacked the
courage to fight for the truth; they were characterized as fatalistic,
irrational, prone to acting on emotion, undisciplined, unreliable regarding
promises or time, and driven by a desire for quick wealth without putting in
the necessary effort—among other traits. This "myth of the lazy
native," as Alatas noted, appears to persist even today—both in Europe and
within our own society.
Such
behavior by European scholars has been sharply criticized by postcolonial
thinkers. One prominent figure among them is Edward Said, a Palestinian-born
philosopher (1935–2003) and a pioneer in the field of postcolonial studies. In
his work Orientalism, Said—drawing upon the approach of Michel
Foucault—deconstructs the Western worldview regarding the East, revealing it to
be rooted in a persistent drive for domination and oppression. The West has
consistently viewed the East as inferior, positing that it must be transformed
to resemble the "more advanced" West. This same logic underpins the
spirit of developmentalism.
According
to postcolonial theorists, the "East" as known to the world is merely
a representation—a construct—presented by the West. Through writings, novels,
literary works, academic research, and travelogues, the East has been turned
into an object of interpretation, study, exploration, and description by
Western authors. Because the East is a product of representation, this
constructed "Orient" is not the "real Orient." Instead, it
is an entity shaped by the viewpoints, perspectives, consciousness, and ideological
biases of Western observers or readers. This particular form of knowledge is
produced, disseminated, and sustained through institutions such as schools,
books, libraries, cultural products, and government apparatuses.
Once
knowledge about the East was produced by Orientalists, it was promptly affirmed
and reinforced by the colonial administration, effectively becoming accepted as
"fact." According to Said, Orientalism is a political doctrine
directed toward the Orient. The Orient is presented—or represented—as
possessing traits such as being despotic, sensual, passive, backward, and
characterized by a deviant mentality, among others. This perspective has been
institutionalized since the 18th century as an established truth. Consequently,
European observers have tended to be racist, imperialist, and ethnocentric in
their approach to the Orient.
*****